Ruby Pipeline Project

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Volume I

Docket No. 

CP09-54-000

January 2010

FERC/EIS-0232F

Document Accession #: 

20100108-4001 

Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010

Ruby Pipeline Project

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Volume II

Docket No. 

CP09-54-000

January 2010

FERC/EIS-0232F

Document Accession #: 

20100108-4001 

Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010

Ruby Pipeline Project

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Volume III

Docket No. 

CP09-54-000

January 2010

FERC/EIS-0232F

Document Accession #: 

20100108-4001 

Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426

OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS In Reply Refer To: 

OEP/DG2E/Gas 1

Ruby Pipeline, LLC

Ruby Pipeline Project

Docket No. CP09-54-000 

FERC/EIS-0232F

TO THE PARTY ADDRESSED: 

The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) 

has prepared a final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

proposed by Ruby Pipeline, L.L.C. (Ruby) in the above-referenced docket. Ruby 

requests authorization to construct a new pipeline in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and 

Oregon to transport up to 1.5 million dekatherms per day of natural gas from 

southwestern Wyoming to customers in Nevada and on the West Coast (Washington, 

Oregon, and northern California). 

The final EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and 

operation of the Ruby Pipeline Project in accordance with the requirements of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that 

approval of the proposed project, with the mitigation measures recommended in the EIS 

and the additional measures and agreements being developed by Ruby with other 

agencies, would have some adverse environmental impacts; however, most impacts 

would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.

The following agencies participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation of 

this EIS:

 Bureau of Land Management (BLM);

 Bureau of Reclamation;

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;

 U.S. Forest Service (USFS);

 Natural Resources Conservation Service;

 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;

 State of Utah Public Lands Policy Coordination Office; and

 Board of County Commissioners in Lincoln County, Wyoming.

Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to 

resources potentially affect by the proposal and participate in the NEPA analysis. While 

the conclusions and recommendations presented in the EIS were developed with input 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Docket No. CP09-54-000 - 2 -

from the cooperating agencies, the agencies will present their own conclusions and 

recommendations in their respective Records of Decision for the project.

The final EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the construction and 

operation of the following project facilities:

 about 675.2 miles of 42-inch-diameter mainline pipeline; 

 about 2.6 miles of 42-inch-diameter lateral pipeline;

 an electric-powered compressor station and 3 natural gas-powered 

compressor stations (totaling 160,500 horsepower of new compression);

 5 meter stations containing interconnects to other pipeline systems;

 44 mainline valves;

 20 pig launchers or receivers; and

 4 new communication towers.

The final EIS has been placed in the public files of the FERC and is available for 

public viewing on the FERC’s website at www.ferc.gov. A limited number of copies are 

available for distribution and public inspection at:

Federal Regulatory Energy Commission

Public Reference Room

888 First St. NE; Room 2A

Washington, DC 20426

(202) 502-8371

Copies of the EIS have been mailed to federal, state, and local government 

agencies; elected officials; Native American tribes; local libraries and newspapers; parties 

to the Commission’s proceeding; individuals who provided scoping comments or 

commend on the draft EIS; and individuals who requested to remain on the 

environmental mailing list for this project. Hard copy versions of the EIS were mailed to 

those specifically requesting them; all others received a CD-ROM version.

Additional information about the project is available from the Commission’s 

Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC (3372) or on the FERC website 

(www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General 

Search” and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number 

field (i.e., CP09-54). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For

assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll 

free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also 

provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as 

orders, notices, and rulemakings. 

In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription which

allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Docket No. CP09-54-000 - 3 -

can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically 

providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to 

the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

The BLM and USFS will issue separate Records of Decision for this project. As 

part of the BLM and USFS decision-making processes, certain additional steps must be 

completed. Details on how to participate in those processes are provided below.

BLM Record of Decision

The BLM is soliciting comments on the final EIS specific to impacts on lands 

administered by the BLM. If you wish to submit written comments on the final EIS to 

the BLM for consideration in its Record of Decision, they must be submitted within 30 

calendar days from the date that the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the 

Notice of Availability of the Ruby Pipeline Project final EIS. You may use any of the 

following methods:

Website: www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/info/nepa/ruby_pipeline_project.html

E-mail: blmruby@blm.gov

Mail: Mark Mackiewicz, National Project Manager, Bureau of Land 

Management, Washington Office, c/o Price Field Office, 125 South

600 West, Price, Utah 84501

Phone: (435) 636-3616

USFS Draft Record of Decision

The Forest Supervisor of the Fremont-Winema National Forests has determined 

that the Forest Plan amendments discussed in section 1.5.1 of the final EIS are not 

significant and may be implemented if the BLM grants the right-of-way for the Ruby 

pipeline to cross the Fremont National Forest. This decision is being based on the final 

EIS for the Ruby Pipeline Project, the FERC consolidated public record for the Ruby 

Pipeline Project, and the Ruby Pipeline Evaluation Report for Forest Plan Amendments 

(see Appendix C of the final EIS). A copy of the draft Record of Decision can be 

obtained by any of the following methods:

Website: www.fs.fed.us/r6/frewin/projects/analyses/index.shtml

E-mail: gwestlund@fs.fed.us

Mail: Glen Westlund, Fremont-Winema Environmental Coordinator, 2819 

Dahlia Street, Klamath Falls, OR 97601

Phone: (541) 883-6743

This USFS decision is subject to objection pursuant to the provisions available during 

the planning rule transition period as described at Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 

Part 219, Section 219.35(b) (published in the Federal Register [FR] at 65 FR 67514 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Docket No. CP09-54-000 - 4 -

[November 9, 2000]; see also 36 CFR 219 Interpretive Rule published at 66 FR 1864 [January 

10, 2001]) and found at http://www.fs.fed.us/appeals/appeals_related.php#app_work. The 

objection procedures found at 36 CFR 219.32 (published in the Federal Register at 65 FR 

67578 [November 9, 2000]) apply. 

The objection to the USFS decision must be filed within 30 calendar days from the 

date that the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the Notice of Availability of the 

Ruby Pipeline Project final EIS. Within ten days after the close of the objection period, 

the Fremont-Winema National Forest shall publish notice of all objections in the Klamath 

Falls Herald and News, the paper of record. 

The objection to the USFS decision must be filed with the Reviewing Officer, 

Mary Wagner, Regional Forester, ATTN 1570 Objections, P.O. Box 3623 Portland, OR 

97208-3623 and must contain:

(1) the name, mailing address, and telephone number of the person filing the 

objection;

(2) a specific statement of the basis for each objection; and

(3) a description of the objector's participation in the planning process for the 

proposed amendment, including a copy of any relevant documents 

submitted during the planning process.

The street location for hand delivery of the objection to the USFS decision is: 333 

SW 1st Ave, Portland, OR (office hours: 8-4:30 M-F). Send faxes to 503-808-2255. The 

objection may be emailed to: appeals-pacificnorthwest-regional-office@fs.fed.us. For

electronically mailed appeals, the sender should normally receive an automated electronic 

acknowledgement from the agency as confirmation of receipt. If the sender does not 

receive an automated receipt acknowledgement of the comments, it is the sender’s 

responsibility to ensure timely receipt by other means. 

Should you file an objection with the USFS regarding its decision you may request 

meetings with the reviewing officer and the responsible official to discuss the objection, 

to narrow the issues, agree on facts, and explore opportunities for resolution. Other 

interested persons may participate in such meetings provided they file a request to 

participate in an objection within ten days after publication of the notice of objection 

described above.

Kimberly D. Bose

Secretary

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Ruby Pipeline Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................... I 

LIST OF APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................... VIII 

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................... IX 

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... X 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................ XIV

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... ES-1 

1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1-1 

1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED ........................................................................................... 1-2 

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS STATEMENT .................................................................. 1-5 

1.3 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT ...................................................................................... 1-7 

1.4 NON-JURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES ................................................................................. 1-12 

1.5 PERMITS, APPROVALS, AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ................................ 1-17 

1.5.1 Conformance with Resource Management Plans .................................................. 1-19 

1.5.2 BLM Lands ............................................................................................................ 1-19 

1.5.3 USFS Lands ........................................................................................................... 1-21 

1.5.4 FWS Lands ............................................................................................................. 1-23 

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ...................................................................... 2-1 

2.1 PROPOSED FACILITIES .......................................................................................................... 2-1 

2.1.1 Pipeline Facilities ..................................................................................................... 2-1 

2.1.2 Aboveground Facilities ............................................................................................ 2-3 

2.2 LAND REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................................................... 2-3 

2.2.1 Pipeline Facilities ..................................................................................................... 2-6 

2.2.2 Aboveground Facilities ............................................................................................ 2-8 

2.3 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES ........................................................................................ 2-10 

2.3.1 General Pipeline Construction Procedures ............................................................. 2-11 

2.3.1.1 Survey and Staking ................................................................................. 2-13 

2.3.1.2 Clearing and Grading ............................................................................. 2-13 

2.3.1.3 Trenching ............................................................................................... 2-14 

2.3.1.4 Pipe Stringing, Bending, and Welding ................................................... 2-14 

2.3.1.5 Lowering-In and Backfilling .................................................................. 2-15 

2.3.1.6 Hydrostatic Testing ................................................................................ 2-16 

2.3.1.7 Cleanup and Restoration ........................................................................ 2-17 

2.3.1.8 Commissioning ....................................................................................... 2-18 

2.3.1.9 Post-Construction Monitoring ................................................................ 2-18 

2.3.2 Special Pipeline Construction Procedures ............................................................. 2-18 

2.3.2.1 Wetland Crossings .................................................................................. 2-19 

2.3.2.2 Waterbody Crossings ............................................................................. 2-20 

2.3.2.3 Road and Railroad Crossings ................................................................. 2-24 

2.3.2.4 Utility Crossings ..................................................................................... 2-25 

2.3.2.5 Steep Terrain .......................................................................................... 2-25 

2.3.2.6 Geologic Faults....................................................................................... 2-26 

2.3.2.7 Blasting ................................................................................................... 2-26 

2.3.2.8 Winter Construction ............................................................................... 2-27 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
II 

2.3.3 Aboveground Facility Construction ....................................................................... 2-27 

2.4 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE ............................................................................................. 2-28 

2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTION, COMPLIANCE MONITORING, AND POSTAPPROVAL VARIANCES ..................................................................................................... 2-28 

2.5.1 Environmental Inspection ...................................................................................... 2-28 

2.5.2 Compliance Monitoring ......................................................................................... 2-30 

2.5.3 Post-Approval Variance Process ............................................................................ 2-31 

2.6 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ................................................................................... 2-31 

2.6.1 Right-of-Way Monitoring and Maintenance .......................................................... 2-32 

2.6.2 Pipeline and Compressor Station Integrity ............................................................ 2-32 

2.7 FUTURE PLANS AND ABANDONMENT .......................................................................... 2-33 

3.0 ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................................................... 3-1 

3.1 NO ACTION OR POSTPONED ACTION ALTERNATIVES ............................................... 3-1 

3.2 ENERGY ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................................................... 3-2 

3.2.1 Increased Efficiency and Conservation .................................................................... 3-2 

3.2.2 Renewable Energy ................................................................................................... 3-3 

3.2.3 Nuclear Energy ........................................................................................................ 3-6 

3.2.4 Fossil Fuels .............................................................................................................. 3-6 

3.3 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................................................... 3-7 

3.4 MAJOR ROUTE ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................................... 3-9 

3.4.1 Northern Route Alternative .................................................................................... 3-11 

3.4.2 Central Route Alternative ...................................................................................... 3-13 

3.4.3 I-80 Corridor Route Alternative ............................................................................. 3-14 

3.4.4 North Kemmerer Route Alternative ....................................................................... 3-17 

3.4.5 Route 30 Alternative .............................................................................................. 3-19 

3.4.6 Questar Route Alternative ...................................................................................... 3-19 

3.4.7 South Brigham City Route Alternative .................................................................. 3-20 

3.4.8 Terrace Basin Route Alternative ............................................................................ 3-23 

3.4.9 West-Wide Energy Corridor Route Alternative ..................................................... 3-25 

3.4.10 AT&T East Route Alternative ............................................................................... 3-28 

3.4.11 Willow Creek Route Alternative ............................................................................ 3-30 

3.4.12 Sheldon Route Alternative ..................................................................................... 3-32 

3.4.13 Black Rock Route Alternative ............................................................................... 3-42 

3.4.14 Jungo-Tuscarora Route Alternative ....................................................................... 3-48 

3.4.15 Southern Langell Valley Route Alternative ........................................................... 3-51 

3.5 ROUTE VARIATIONS ............................................................................................................ 3-54 

3.5.1 Ryckman Creek Route Variation ........................................................................... 3-56 

3.5.2 Sheep Mountain Road Route Variation ................................................................. 3-58 

3.5.3 Woodruff East Route Variation ............................................................................. 3-58 

3.5.4 Woodruff West Route Variation ............................................................................ 3-61 

3.5.5 Prasthofer Route Variation ..................................................................................... 3-62 

3.5.6 South End Brigham Bench Route Variation .......................................................... 3-62 

3.5.7 Brigham Bench Route Variation ............................................................................ 3-65 

3.5.8 North End Brigham Bench Route Variation .......................................................... 3-66 

3.5.9 Roper Route Variation ........................................................................................... 3-66 

3.5.10 Peterson Pond Route Variation .............................................................................. 3-68 

3.5.11 ATK Route Variation ............................................................................................. 3-70 

3.5.12 State Route 30 Variation ........................................................................................ 3-70 

3.5.13 Tabor Ranch Route Variation ................................................................................ 3-73 

3.5.14 VORTAC Route Variation ..................................................................................... 3-73 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
III 

3.5.15 Barrel Springs Western Route Variation ................................................................ 3-76 

3.5.16 Bud Garrett Marsh Rookery Route Variation ........................................................ 3-79 

3.6 ABOVEGROUND FACILITY SITE ALTERNATIVES ....................................................... 3-81 

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS................................................................................................ 4-1 

4.1 GEOLOGY .................................................................................................................................. 4-1 

4.1.1 Geologic Setting ....................................................................................................... 4-1 

4.1.1.1 General Impacts and Mitigation ............................................................... 4-7 

4.1.1.2 Blasting ..................................................................................................... 4-7 

4.1.2 Mineral Resources.................................................................................................... 4-9

4.1.2.1 Mining .................................................................................................... 4-10 

4.1.2.2 Oil and Gas Production .......................................................................... 4-14 

4.1.2.3 Geothermal Extraction and Carbon Sequestration ................................. 4-15 

4.1.3 Geologic Hazards ................................................................................................... 4-15

4.1.3.1 Seismicity ............................................................................................... 4-16 

4.1.3.2 Landslides ............................................................................................... 4-19 

4.1.3.3 Subsidence .............................................................................................. 4-20 

4.1.3.4 Volcanism ............................................................................................... 4-21 

4.1.4 Paleontological Resources ..................................................................................... 4-21 

4.1.5 Non-Jurisdictional Electric Power Lines ............................................................... 4-23 

4.2 SOILS ........................................................................................................................................ 4-23 

4.2.1 Standard Soil Limitations ....................................................................................... 4-24 

4.2.1.1 Erosion Potential .................................................................................... 4-24 

4.2.1.2 Prime Farmland ...................................................................................... 4-30 

4.2.1.3 Compaction Potential ............................................................................. 4-31 

4.2.1.4 Stony-Rocky or Droughty Soils ............................................................. 4-31 

4.2.1.5 Hydric Soils ............................................................................................ 4-32 

4.2.1.6 Shallow Bedrock .................................................................................... 4-32 

4.2.2 Other Soil Limitations ............................................................................................ 4-33 

4.2.2.1 Surface Horizon Alkalinity .................................................................... 4-33 

4.2.2.2 Cryptobiotic Crusts................................................................................. 4-33 

4.2.2.3 Playas ..................................................................................................... 4-34 

4.2.3 Spill/Contamination Prevention ............................................................................. 4-36 

4.2.4 Topsoil Segregation ............................................................................................... 4-37 

4.2.5 Non-Jurisdictional Electric Power Lines ............................................................... 4-38 

4.3 WATER RESOURCES ............................................................................................................ 4-39 

4.3.1 Groundwater .......................................................................................................... 4-39 

4.3.1.1 Sole-Source and Protected Aquifers ....................................................... 4-40 

4.3.1.2 General Impacts and Mitigation ............................................................. 4-41 

4.3.1.3 Water Supply Wells and Springs ............................................................ 4-42 

4.3.1.4 Accidental Spills of Hazardous Materials .............................................. 4-47 

4.3.1.5 Blasting Impacts on Groundwater .......................................................... 4-47 

4.3.1.6 Groundwater Appropriation ................................................................... 4-48 

4.3.2 Surface Waters ....................................................................................................... 4-52 

4.3.2.1 State Water Classifications ..................................................................... 4-55 

4.3.2.2 Sensitive Waterbodies ............................................................................ 4-59 

4.3.2.3 Potential Surface Water Impacts ............................................................ 4-60 

4.3.2.4 Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures ............................. 4-61 

4.3.2.5 Hydrostatic Testing and Dust Control .................................................... 4-64 

4.3.3 Wetlands ................................................................................................................ 4-68 

4.3.3.1 Potential Wetland Impacts ...................................................................... 4-68 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
IV 

4.3.3.2 Wetland Construction and Mitigation Procedures.................................. 4-71 

4.3.3.3 Wetland Restoration ............................................................................... 4-73 

4.3.4 Non-Jurisdictional Electric Power Lines ............................................................... 4-74 

4.4 VEGETATION ......................................................................................................................... 4-74 

4.4.1 Vegetation Resources ............................................................................................. 4-75 

4.4.1.1 General Vegetation Impacts ................................................................... 4-77 

4.4.1.2 Construction and Restoration Procedures .............................................. 4-79 

4.4.1.3 Aboveground Facilities .......................................................................... 4-81 

4.4.2 Vegetation Communities of Special Concern or Value ......................................... 4-82 

4.4.3 Riparian Habitats ................................................................................................... 4-82 

4.4.4 Conservation Reserve Program .............................................................................. 4-83 

4.4.5 Vegetation Habitat Categorization ......................................................................... 4-85 

4.4.6 Noxious Weeds and Other Invasive Plants ............................................................ 4-85 

4.4.7 Vegetation Pathogens ............................................................................................. 4-89 

4.4.8 Habitat Fragmentation and Edge Effect ................................................................. 4-90 

4.4.9 Wild Harvesting ..................................................................................................... 4-91 

4.4.10 Timber Removal .................................................................................................... 4-92

4.4.11 Fire Regimes .......................................................................................................... 4-94 

4.4.12 Non-Jurisdictional Electric Power Lines ............................................................... 4-96 

4.5 WILDLIFE ................................................................................................................................ 4-96 

4.5.1 Wildlife Resources ................................................................................................. 4-97

4.5.1.1 General Wildlife Impacts and Mitigation ............................................... 4-97 

4.5.1.2 Habitat Fragmentation and Edge Effect ................................................. 4-99 

4.5.1.3 Noise ..................................................................................................... 4-101 

4.5.1.4 Noxious and Invasive Species .............................................................. 4-102 

4.5.1.5 Aboveground Facilities ........................................................................ 4-102 

4.5.2 Big Game Species ................................................................................................ 4-102 

4.5.3 Small Game Species ............................................................................................. 4-106 

4.5.4 Game Harvesting.................................................................................................. 4-106 

4.5.5 Raptors and Other Migratory Birds...................................................................... 4-106 

4.5.6 Special Wildlife Areas ......................................................................................... 4-112 

4.5.7 Wild Horses and Burros ....................................................................................... 4-112 

4.5.8 Non-Jurisdictional Electric Power Lines ............................................................. 4-115 

4.6 FISHERIES AND AQUATIC RESOURCES ....................................................................... 4-115 

4.6.1 General Fisheries and Aquatic Resources ............................................................ 4-115 

4.6.1.1 Sediment and Turbidity ........................................................................ 4-116 

4.6.1.2 Timing of Construction ........................................................................ 4-117 

4.6.1.3 Vegetation Removal and Streambank Erosion ..................................... 4-117 

4.6.1.4 Contaminated Sediment Resuspension ................................................. 4-118 

4.6.1.5 Entrainment and Entrapment ................................................................ 4-118 

4.6.1.6 Water Temperature ............................................................................... 4-119 

4.6.1.7 Blasting Impacts on Fisheries and Aquatic Resources ......................... 4-119 

4.6.1.8 Hydrostatic Testing and Water Withdrawals ....................................... 4-120 

4.6.1.9 Fuel and Chemical Spills ...................................................................... 4-121 

4.6.1.10 Pipeline Rupture ................................................................................... 4-121 

4.6.2 Aquatic Pathogens and Nonnative Aquatic Species ............................................ 4-122 

4.6.3 Non-Jurisdictional Electric Power Lines ............................................................. 4-123 

4.7 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES ............................................................................................... 4-123 

4.7.1 General Measures to Minimize Impacts on Special Status Species ..................... 4-124 

4.7.2 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species ......................................... 4-132 

4.7.2.1 Black-Footed Ferret .............................................................................. 4-133 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
V 

4.7.2.2 Lahontan Cutthroat Trout ..................................................................... 4-134 

4.7.2.3 Endangered Colorado River Fish ......................................................... 4-135 

4.7.2.4 Lost River Sucker, Modoc Sucker, Shortnose Sucker, and Warner 

Sucker ................................................................................................... 4-136 

4.7.2.5 Slender Orcutt Grass and Greene’s Tuctoria ........................................ 4-139 

4.7.2.6 Ute Ladies’-Tresses .............................................................................. 4-139 

4.7.3 Federally Petitioned and Candidate Species ........................................................ 4-141 

4.7.3.1 Greater Sage-Grouse ............................................................................ 4-141 

4.7.3.2 Yellow-Billed Cuckoo .......................................................................... 4-146 

4.7.3.3 Pygmy Rabbit ....................................................................................... 4-147 

4.7.3.4 White-Tailed Prairie Dog ..................................................................... 4-149 

4.7.3.5 Northern Leatherside Chub .................................................................. 4-150 

4.7.3.6 Columbia Spotted Frog ........................................................................ 4-150 

4.7.3.7 Northern Leopard Frog ......................................................................... 4-151 

4.7.4 Sensitive and State-Listed Species ....................................................................... 4-152 

4.7.4.1 Sagebrush Steppe Habitat Association ................................................. 4-152 

4.7.4.2 Grassland Habitat Association ............................................................. 4-153 

4.7.4.3 Salt Desert Scrub Habitat Association ................................................. 4-153 

4.7.4.4 Mixed Conifer Forest Habitat Association ........................................... 4-154 

4.7.4.5 Wetland Habitat Association ................................................................ 4-154 

4.7.4.6 Juniper Woodland Habitat Association ................................................ 4-155 

4.7.4.7 Riparian Habitat Association ................................................................ 4-155 

4.7.4.8 Coldwater Fishery Habitat Association ................................................ 4-156 

4.7.4.9 Warmwater Fishery Habitat Association .............................................. 4-156 

4.7.4.10 Summary of Potential Impacts on Agency Sensitive and State-Listed 

Species .................................................................................................. 4-157 

4.7.4.11 Summary of Conservation Measures for Agency Sensitive and 

State-Listed Species ............................................................................. 4-158 

4.7.5 Non-Jurisdictional Electric Power Lines ............................................................. 4-158 

4.8 LAND USE AND VISUAL RESOURCES ........................................................................... 4-159 

4.8.1 General Impacts and Mitigation ........................................................................... 4-159 

4.8.1.1 Open Land ............................................................................................ 4-164 

4.8.1.2 Forested Land ....................................................................................... 4-165 

4.8.1.3 Agricultural Land ................................................................................. 4-165 

4.8.1.4 Developed Land ................................................................................... 4-167 

4.8.1.5 Open Water .......................................................................................... 4-168 

4.8.2 Land Ownership ................................................................................................... 4-168 

4.8.2.1 Federal Lands ....................................................................................... 4-169 

4.8.2.2 State Lands ........................................................................................... 4-172 

4.8.2.3 Private Lands ........................................................................................ 4-176 

4.8.3 Recreation and Special Interest Areas .................................................................. 4-176 

4.8.3.1 National Forest Campgrounds .............................................................. 4-177 

4.8.3.2 National Trails ...................................................................................... 4-177 

4.8.3.3 National WSRs ..................................................................................... 4-179 

4.8.3.4 Back Country Byways and National Scenic Byways ........................... 4-180 

4.8.3.5 Sheldon NWR....................................................................................... 4-181 

4.8.3.6 Other Recreational Areas ..................................................................... 4-184 

4.8.4 Visual Resources .................................................................................................. 4-185

4.8.4.1 Existing Visual Character ..................................................................... 4-186 

4.8.4.2 Existing Visual Condition .................................................................... 4-186 

4.8.4.3 BLM and USFS Visual Resource Management Objectives ................. 4-190 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
VI 

4.8.4.4 Other Managed Scenic Resource Programs ......................................... 4-190 

4.8.4.5 Visual Resource Impacts ...................................................................... 4-191 

4.8.4.6 Compliance with Management Objectives ........................................... 4-195 

4.8.4.7 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................. 4-206 

4.8.5 Wilderness Resources .......................................................................................... 4-206 

4.8.6 Non-Jurisdictional Electric Power Lines ............................................................. 4-209 

4.9 SOCIOECONOMICS ............................................................................................................. 4-209 

4.9.1 Population and Employment ................................................................................ 4-209 

4.9.2 Housing ................................................................................................................ 4-214 

4.9.3 Public Services ..................................................................................................... 4-217 

4.9.4 Transportation ...................................................................................................... 4-220 

4.9.5 Property Values .................................................................................................... 4-225 

4.9.6 Economy and Tax Revenues ................................................................................ 4-225 

4.9.7 Environmental Justice .......................................................................................... 4-229 

4.9.8 Non-Jurisdictional Electric Power Lines ............................................................. 4-232 

4.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................... 4-232 

4.10.1 Cultural Resource Surveys ................................................................................... 4-233 

4.10.1.1 Wyoming .............................................................................................. 4-234 

4.10.1.2 Utah ...................................................................................................... 4-235 

4.10.1.3 Nevada .................................................................................................. 4-235 

4.10.1.4 Oregon .................................................................................................. 4-239 

4.10.2 Unanticipated Discovery Plans ............................................................................ 4-241 

4.10.3 Native American Consultation and Ruby Tribal Coordination ............................ 4-242 

4.10.3.1 Native American Comments Received before Publication of the 

Draft EIS .............................................................................................. 4-250 

4.10.3.2 Native American Comments on the Draft EIS ..................................... 4-255 

4.10.4 Non-Jurisdictional Electric Power Lines ............................................................. 4-259 

4.10.5 Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act .................................... 4-260 

4.11 AIR QUALITY & NOISE ...................................................................................................... 4-261 

4.11.1 Air Quality ........................................................................................................... 4-261 

4.11.1.1 Existing Air Quality ............................................................................. 4-262 

4.11.1.2 Air Quality Regulatory Requirements .................................................. 4-266 

4.11.1.3 Construction Impacts on Air Quality ................................................... 4-274 

4.11.1.4 Operational Impacts on Air Quality ..................................................... 4-276 

4.11.2 Noise ................................................................................................................... 4-277 

4.11.2.1 Noise Regulatory Requirements ........................................................... 4-279 

4.11.2.2 Existing Noise Environment ................................................................ 4-279 

4.11.2.3 Construction Noise ............................................................................... 4-280 

4.11.2.4 Operational Noise ................................................................................. 4-282 

4.11.3 Non-Jurisdictional Electric Power Lines ............................................................. 4-283 

4.12 RELIABILITY AND SAFETY ............................................................................................. 4-284

4.12.1 Safety Standards ................................................................................................... 4-284 

4.12.2 Pipeline Accident Data ......................................................................................... 4-289 

4.12.3 Impact on Public Safety ....................................................................................... 4-292 

4.12.4 Terrorism and Security Issues .............................................................................. 4-293 

4.12.5 Non-Jurisdictional Electric Power Lines ............................................................. 4-293 

4.13 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS .................................................................................................... 4-294 

4.13.1 Geology ................................................................................................................ 4-299 

4.13.2 Soils ................................................................................................................... 4-301 

4.13.3 Water Resources .................................................................................................. 4-301

4.13.4 Vegetation ............................................................................................................ 4-302 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
VII 

4.13.5 Wildlife, Fisheries, and Special Status Species ................................................... 4-303 

4.13.6 Land Use and Visual Resources ........................................................................... 4-306 

4.13.7 Socioeconomics ................................................................................................... 4-308

4.13.8 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................... 4-309

4.13.9 Air Quality and Noise .......................................................................................... 4-309 

4.13.10 Reliability and Safety .......................................................................................... 4-311 

4.13.11 Climate Change .................................................................................................... 4-311 

4.13.12 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 4-312 

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................... 5-1 

5.1 CONCLUSIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS................................................ 5-1 

5.1.1 Geology .................................................................................................................... 5-1 

5.1.2 Soils ....................................................................................................................... 5-3 

5.1.3 Water Resources ...................................................................................................... 5-4 

5.1.4 Vegetation ................................................................................................................ 5-6 

5.1.5 Wildlife .................................................................................................................... 5-7 

5.1.6 Fisheries and Aquatic Resources ............................................................................. 5-8 

5.1.7 Special Status Species .............................................................................................. 5-8

5.1.8 Land Use and Visual Resources ............................................................................. 5-10 

5.1.9 Socioeconomics ..................................................................................................... 5-11

5.1.10 Cultural Resources and Native American Consultation ......................................... 5-12 

5.1.11 Air Quality and Noise ............................................................................................ 5-12 

5.1.12 Reliability and Safety ............................................................................................. 5-13 

5.1.13 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................. 5-13 

5.1.14 Alternatives Considered ......................................................................................... 5-14 

5.2 FERC STAFF’S RECOMMENDED MITIGATION ............................................................. 5-15 

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
VIII 

LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix A Final EIS Distribution List for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Appendix B Facility Location Maps for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Appendix C Evaluation Reports – NF LRMP Amendments 

-Evaluation Report for the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest LRMP Amendment 

-Evaluation Report for the Fremont National Forest LRMP Amendment 

Appendix D Right-of-Way Configurations for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Appendix E Temporary Extra Workspaces, Staging Areas, Water Appropriation Sites, Contractor and 

Pipe Yards, and Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Appendix F Ruby’s Plan and Procedures 

-Ruby’s Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan 

-Ruby’s Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures 

Appendix G Ruby’s Draft Groundwater Monitoring Plan 

Appendix H Ruby’s Draft Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan 

Appendix I Ruby’s Draft Paleontological Resources Monitoring Plan 

Appendix J Ruby’s Waste and Spill Management Specification 

Appendix K Ruby’s Draft Hydrostatic Test Plan 

Appendix L Ruby’s Draft Restoration and Revegetation Plans: Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon 

Appendix M Biological Agreements, Plans, and Analysis 

-Voluntary Conservation Measures in Furtherance of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and Executive Order No. 13186 - DRAFT 

-Memorandum of Agreement between Ruby Pipeline LLC and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Regarding Endangered Species Act Conservation Action Plan for the Ruby 

Pipeline Project - DRAFT 

-Ruby Project Cooperative Conservation Agreement for the Greater Sage-Grouse and 

Pygmy Rabbit - DRAFT 

-Ruby’s Greater Sage-grouse and Pygmy Rabbit Conservation Plan 

-Ruby’s Draft Biological Resources Conservation Measure Plan 

-Ruby’s Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment - Compressor Stations 

-Mile-by-Mile Habitat Assessment and Habitat Category Matrix 

Appendix N Ruby’s Draft Blasting Plan 

Appendix O Ruby’s Draft Fugitive Dust Control Plan 

Appendix P Temporary Housing 

-Ruby’s Environmental Analysis of the Vya Construction Camp 

-Ruby’s Response to Comments Filed by Ms. Wendi Lutz Regarding the Vya 

Construction Camp 

-Ruby’s Environmental Analysis of the Lakeview Temporary Housing Facility 

Appendix Q Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Appendix R Wetlands Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Appendix S Ruby’s Draft Preliminary Wetland Mitigation Plan 

Appendix T Ruby’s Draft Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan 

Appendix U Sensitive and State-Listed Species Considered for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Appendix V Collocated or Parallel Rights-of-Way for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Appendix W Wilderness Characteristics Assessment 

Appendix X Transportation Plans 

-Ruby’s Draft Traffic and Transportation Management Plan 

-Ruby’s Draft Transportation Plan for Use of Access Roads within Sheldon NWR 

Appendix Y References 

Appendix Z List of Preparers 

Appendix AA Comments on the Draft EIS and Responses 

Appendix BB Subject Index 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
IX 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1-1 Project Location Map ................................................................................................. 1-3 

Figure 1.4-1 Rocky Mountain Power Nonjurisdictional Powerline .............................................. 1-14 

Figure 1.4-2 Harney Electric Cooperative Nonjurisdictional Powerline ...................................... 1-15 

Figure 1.4-3 PG&E Nonjurisdictional Pipeline ............................................................................. 1-16

Figure 2.3.1-1 Pipeline Construction Sequence ............................................................................... 2-12 

Figure 3.3-1 System Alternatives .................................................................................................... 3-8 

Figure 3.4.1-1 Northern and Central Route Alternatives ................................................................. 3-12 

Figure 3.4.3-1 I-80 Corridor Route Alternative ............................................................................... 3-15 

Figure 3.4.4-1 North Kemmerer and Route 30 Route Alternatives .................................................. 3-18 

Figure 3.4.6-1 Questar Route Alternative ........................................................................................ 3-21 

Figure 3.4.7-1 South Brigham City Route Alternative ..................................................................... 3-22 

Figure 3.4.8-1 Adopted Terrace Basin Route Alternative ................................................................ 3-24 

Figure 3.4.9-1 West-Wide Energy Corridor Route Alternative ....................................................... 3-27 

Figure 3.4.10-1 AT&T East Route Alternative .................................................................................. 3-29 

Figure 3.4.11-1 Adopted Willow Creek Route Alternative................................................................ 3-31 

Figure 3.4.12-1 Sheldon Route Alternative ........................................................................................ 3-34 

Figure 3.4.13-1 Black Rock Route Alternative .................................................................................. 3-44 

Figure 3.4.14-1 Jungo-Tuscarora Route Alternative .......................................................................... 3-49 

Figure 3.4.15-1 Adopted Southern Langell Valley Route Alternative ............................................... 3-52 

Figure 3.5.1-1 Adopted Ryckman Creek Route Variation ............................................................... 3-57 

Figure 3.5.2-1 Adopted Sheep Mountain Road Route Variation ..................................................... 3-59 

Figure 3.5.3-1 Adopted Woodruff East and West Route Variations ................................................ 3-60 

Figure 3.5.5-1 Adopted Prasthofer Route Variation ........................................................................ 3-63

Figure 3.5.6-1 Adopted North End, South End and Brigham Bench Route Variations ................... 3-64 

Figure 3.5.9-1 Adopted Roper Route Variation ............................................................................... 3-67 

Figure 3.5.10-1 Adopted Peterson Pond Route Variation .................................................................. 3-69 

Figure 3.5.11-1 Adopted ATK Route Variation ................................................................................. 3-71 

Figure 3.5.12-1 Adopted State Route 30 Route Variation ................................................................. 3-72 

Figure 3.5.13-1 Adopted Tabor Ranch Route Variation .................................................................... 3-74 

Figure 3.5.14-1 Adopted VORTAC Route Variation ........................................................................ 3-75 

Figure 3.5.15-1 Barrel Springs Western Route Variation .................................................................. 3-77 

Figure 3.5.16-1 Adopted Bud Garrett Marsh Rookery Route Variation ............................................ 3-80 

Figure 4.3.2-1 Major Watershed Basins ........................................................................................... 4-53 

Figure 4.13-1 Present and Forseeable Projects .............................................................................. 4-296 

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
X 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1.1-1 Contracted Volumes for the Ruby Pipeline Project .................................................... 1-4 

Table 1.3-1 Open House, Public Scoping, and Draft EIS Comment Meetings for the Ruby 

Pipeline Project ........................................................................................................... 1-8 

Table 1.3-2 Environmental Issues and Concerns Raised During the Scoping Process for the 

Ruby Pipeline Project ............................................................................................... 1-10 

Table 1.5.2-1 BLM Land Use Plans Affected by the Ruby Pipeline Project .................................. 1-19 

Table 1.5.3-1 USFS LRMPs Affected by the Ruby Pipeline Project ............................................. 1-21 

Table 1.5-1 Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Ruby Pipeline Project .......... 1-25 

Table 2.1.1-1 Pipeline Facilities for the Ruby Pipeline Project ........................................................ 2-2 

Table 2.1.2-1 Location of Aboveground Facilities for the Ruby Pipeline Project ............................ 2-4 

Table 2.2.1-1 Pipeline Land Requirements for the Ruby Pipeline Project ....................................... 2-9 

Table 2.2.2-1 Aboveground Facility Site Dimensions for the Ruby Pipeline Project ...................... 2-9 

Table 2.2.2-2 Aboveground Facility Land Requirements for the Ruby Pipeline Project ............... 2-10 

Table 2.3.2-1 In-Stream Construction Timing Windows for the Ruby Pipeline Project ................ 2-22

Table 3.2.4-1 Comparison of Air Emissions from Burning Fossil Fuels .......................................... 3-7 

Table 3.4-1 Route Alternatives Summary for the Ruby Pipeline Project .................................... 3-10 

Table 3.4.1-1 Northern Route Alternative Comparison .................................................................. 3-13 

Table 3.4.2-1 Central Route Alternative Comparison .................................................................... 3-14 

Table 3.4.3-1 I-80 Corridor Alternative Comparison ..................................................................... 3-16 

Table 3.4.4-1 North Kemmerer Route Alternative Comparison ..................................................... 3-17 

Table 3.4.5-1 Route 30 Alternative Comparison ............................................................................ 3-19

Table 3.4.6-1 Questar Route Alternative Comparison .................................................................... 3-20 

Table 3.4.7-1 South Brigham City Route Alternative Comparison ................................................ 3-23 

Table 3.4.8-1 Terrace Basin Route Alternative Comparison .......................................................... 3-25 

Table 3.4.9-1 West-Wide Energy Corridor Route Alternative Comparison ................................... 3-26 

Table 3.4.10-1 AT&T East Route Alternative Comparison ............................................................. 3-28 

Table 3.4.11-1 Willow Creek Route Alternative Comparison .......................................................... 3-30 

Table 3.4.12-1 Sheldon Route Alternative Comparison ................................................................... 3-35 

Table 3.4.12-2 Habitat Quality Along the Sheldon Route Alternative and the Corresponding 

Segment of the Proposed Pipeline Route .................................................................. 3-37 

Table 3.4.13-1 Black Rock Route Alternative Comparison ............................................................. 3-43 

Table 3.4.13-2 Habitat Quality Along the Black Rock Route Alternative and the Corresponding 

Segment of the Proposed Pipeline Route .................................................................. 3-45 

Table 3.4.14-1 Jungo-Tuscarora Route Alternative Comparison ..................................................... 3-50 

Table 3.4.15-1 Southern Langell Valley Route Alternative Comparison ......................................... 3-53 

Table 3.5-1 Route Variation Summary for the Ruby Pipeline Project ......................................... 3-55 

Table 3.5.1-1 Ryckman Creek Route Variation Comparison ......................................................... 3-56 

Table 3.5.2-1 Sheep Mountain Road Route Variation Comparison ............................................... 3-58 

Table 3.5.3-1 Woodruff East Route Variation Comparison ........................................................... 3-61 

Table 3.5.4-1 Woodruff West Route Variation Comparison .......................................................... 3-61 

Table 3.5.5-1 Prasthofer Route Variation Comparison ................................................................... 3-62 

Table 3.5.6-1 South End Brigham Bench Route Variation Comparison ........................................ 3-65 

Table 3.5.7-1 Brigham Bench Route Variation Comparison .......................................................... 3-65 

Table 3.5.8-1 North End Brigham Bench Route Variation Comparison ........................................ 3-66 

Table 3.5.9-1 Roper Route Variation Comparison ......................................................................... 3-68 

Table 3.5.10-1 Peterson Pond Route Variation Comparison ............................................................ 3-68 

Table 3.5.11-1 ATK Route Variation Comparison ........................................................................... 3-70 

Table 3.5.12-1 State Route 30 Variation Comparison ...................................................................... 3-73 

Table 3.5.13-1 Tabor Ranch Route Variation Comparison .............................................................. 3-73 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
XI 

Table 3.5.14-1 VORTAC Route Variation Comparison ................................................................... 3-76 

Table 3.5.16-1 Bud Garrett Marsh Rookery Route Variation Comparison ...................................... 3-79 

Table 4.1.1-1 Geologic Conditions Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project ...................................... 4-7 

Table 4.1.2-1 Mineral Resources Within 1,500 Feet of the Construction Workspace for the 

Ruby Pipeline Project ............................................................................................... 4-11 

Table 4.1.3-1 Faults with Recurrence Intervals/Displacement Crossed by or Within 1,500 Feet 

of the Ruby Pipeline Project ..................................................................................... 4-16 

Table 4.1.3-2 Areas of Moderate to High Landslide Susceptibility Crossed by the Ruby 

Pipeline Project ......................................................................................................... 4-19

Table 4.1.3-3 Areas of Karst/Pseudokarst Terrain Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project ............. 4-21 

Table 4.2.1-1 Soil Limitations (Pipeline) for the Ruby Pipeline Project (in acres) ........................ 4-25 

Table 4.2.1-2 Soil Limitations (Aboveground Facilities) for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

(in acres) ................................................................................................................... 4-26 

Table 4.2.1-3 Soil Limitations (Access Roads) for the Ruby Pipeline Project (in acres) ............... 4-28 

Table 4.3.1-1 Water Supply Wells Within 200 Feet of the Ruby Pipeline Project ......................... 4-43 

Table 4.3.1-2 Springs Within 200 Feet of the Ruby Pipeline Project ............................................. 4-45 

Table 4.3.1-3 Proposed Hydrostatic Test Water and Dust Control Groundwater Sources for the 

Ruby Pipeline Project ............................................................................................... 4-49 

Table 4.3.2-1 Major Watershed Basins Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project .............................. 4-54 

Table 4.3.2-2 Summary of Surface Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project ............... 4-55 

Table 4.3.2-3 Potable Water Intakes Within 3 Miles Downstream of Waterbody Crossings 

Along the Ruby Pipeline Project .............................................................................. 4-56 

Table 4.3.2-4 303(d)-Listed Waterbodies in Nevada Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project ......... 4-58 

Table 4.3.2-5 303(d)-Listed Waterbodies in Oregon Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project ......... 4-59 

Table 4.3.2-6 Surface Water Sources for Hydrostatic Testing and Dust Control for the Ruby 

Pipeline Project ......................................................................................................... 4-65

Table 4.3.2-7 Historic Flow Data and Time Required to Appropriate Water for the Ruby 

Pipeline Project ......................................................................................................... 4-66

Table 4.3.3-1 Summary of Wetlands Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project .................................. 4-69 

Table 4.4.1-1 Upland Vegetation Communities Occurring Along the Ruby Pipeline Project ....... 4-76 

Table 4.4.1-2 Vegetation Communities Affected by Construction and Operation of the Ruby 

Pipeline Project (in acres) ......................................................................................... 4-78 

Table 4.4.3-1 Woody Riparian Habitat Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project .............................. 4-84 

Table 4.4.5-1 Habitat Quality Along the Ruby Pipeline Project ..................................................... 4-86 

Table 4.5.1-1 Wildlife Species Common to the Ruby Pipeline Project Area ................................. 4-98 

Table 4.5.2-1 Big Game Habitat Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project ...................................... 4-103 

Table 4.5.2-2 Permanent Loss of Big Game Habitat by Construction of Aboveground 

Facilities for the Ruby Pipeline Project .................................................................. 4-105 

Table 4.5.5-1 Raptor Nests Identified in 2008 Within 0.5 Mile of the Ruby Pipeline Project ..... 4-108 

Table 4.5.5-2 General Seasonal and Spatial Buffer Restrictions for Raptors Along the Ruby 

Pipeline Project ....................................................................................................... 4-109 

Table 4.5.5-3 Acres Required by States to Compensate for the Direct, Indirect, and Residual 

Impacts on Migratory Bird Habitat Associated with Construction of the Ruby 

Pipeline Projecta ..................................................................................................... 4-112 

Table 4.5.7-1 BLM Horse Management Areas Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project ................ 4-113 

Table 4.7.3-1 Acres Required by States to Compensate for the Direct, Indirect, and Residual 

Impacts on Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Associated with Construction of the 

Ruby Pipeline Project ............................................................................................. 4-145 

Table 4.7.4-1 Summary of Sensitive and State-Listed Species Associated with Sagebrush 

Steppe Habitat Along the Ruby Pipeline Project .................................................... 4-153 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
XII 

Table 4.7.4-3 Summary of Sensitive and State-Listed Species Associated with Salt Desert 

Scrub Habitat Along the Ruby Pipeline Project ..................................................... 4-154 

Table 4.7.4-4 Summary of Sensitive and State-Listed Species Associated with Mixed 

Conifer Forest Habitat Along the Ruby Pipeline Project ....................................... 4-154 

Table 4.8.1-1 Land Use Types Affected by Construction and Operation of the Ruby Pipeline 

Project (in acres) ..................................................................................................... 4-160 

Table 4.8.1-2 Collocated and Parallel Rights-of-Way for the Ruby Pipeline Project ................... 4-162 

Table 4.8.2-1 Federal and Private Lands Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project ......................... 4-169 

Table 4.8.4-1 Regional Landscape Character Units ...................................................................... 4-187 

Table 4.8.4-2 BLM’s VRM System Classes and Management Objectives .................................. 4-190 

Table 4.8.4-3 Magnitude of Change in Landscape Character Ratings .......................................... 4-192 

Table 4.8.4-4 Magnitude of Change in Visual Character in Regional Landscape Character 

Units ....................................................................................................................... 4-193 

Table 4.8.4-5 Location of KOPs Along the Ruby Pipeline Project .............................................. 4-197 

Table 4.8.4-6 VRM Class Compliance for the Ruby Pipeline Project .......................................... 4-198 

Table 4.8.4-7 Visual Resource Mitigation Measures for the Ruby Pipeline Project .................... 4-207 

Table 4.9.1-1 Existing Socioeconomic Conditions for States and Counties Crossed by the 

Ruby Pipeline Project ............................................................................................. 4-210 

Table 4.9.1-2 Estimated Construction Workforce for the Ruby Pipeline Project ......................... 4-211 

Table 4.9.1-3 Existing Socioeconomic Conditions in the Vicinity of the Vya Construction 

Camp ....................................................................................................................... 4-212 

Table 4.9.1-4 Existing Socioeconomic Conditions in the Vicinity of the Lakeview Temporary 

Housing Facility ..................................................................................................... 4-213 

Table 4.9.2-1 Vacant Accommodation Housing Units for the Ruby Pipeline Project .................. 4-214 

Table 4.9.2-2 Vacant Accommodation Units in Counties Within 50 Miles of Contractor Yards 

for the Ruby Pipeline Project .................................................................................. 4-215 

Table 4.9.6-1 Total Estimated Economic Output for the Ruby Pipeline Project (in millions) ..... 4-227 

Table 4.9.6-2 Estimated Annual Property (Ad Valorem) Tax for the Ruby Pipeline Project ....... 4-227 

Table 4.9.7-1 Racial/Ethnic Comparison for Counties Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

(in percent) .............................................................................................................. 4-229 

Table 4.9.7-2 Economic Statistics for Counties Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project ............... 4-230 

Table 4.9.7-3 Racial/Ethnic Comparison for Communities in Surprise Valley and the 

Vicinity of the Vya Construction Camp (in percent) .............................................. 4-231 

Table 4.10.3-1 Native American Consultations for the Ruby Pipeline Project .............................. 4-243 

Table 4.11.1-1 Proposed Compressor Stations for the Ruby Pipeline Project ................................ 4-261 

Table 4.11.1-2 Representative Annual Average Weather Conditions for the Ruby Pipeline 

Project Area ............................................................................................................ 4-263

Table 4.11.1-3 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards for the Ruby Pipeline Project .. 4-264 

Table 4.11.1-4 Ambient Air Quality Measurements for the Ruby Pipeline Project Area .............. 4-266 

Table 4.11.1-5 Ambient Air Quality Background Concentrations for Compressor Stations Sites 

for the Ruby Pipeline Project .................................................................................. 4-267 

Table 4.11.1-6 Estimated Operational Emission Rates for Compressor Stations for the Ruby 

Pipeline Project ....................................................................................................... 4-269 

Table 4.11.1-7 Applicable Fugitive Dust Regulations for the Ruby Pipeline Project .................... 4-274 

Table 4.11.1-8 Annual GHG Emissions Estimates from Pipeline and Compressor Station 

Operation for the Ruby Pipeline Project ................................................................. 4-276 

Table 4.11.1-9 Dispersion Modeling Results for the Ruby Pipeline Project .................................. 4-278 

Table 4.11.2-1 NSA Locations and Measured/Estimated Ambient Noise Levels in the Vicinity 

of the Compressor Stations for the Ruby Pipeline Project ..................................... 4-279 

Table 4.11.2-2 Construction Noise from Typical Pipeline Construction Equipment Activities ..... 4-281 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
XIII 

Table 4.11.2-3 Construction Noise from Typical Compressor Station Construction Equipment 

Activities ................................................................................................................. 4-282 

Table 4.11.2-4 Operational Noise Level Summaries at NSAs for the Ruby Pipeline Project ........ 4-282 

Table 4.11.2-5 Projected Sound Levels for a Blowdown Event at the Nearest NSA for the 

Ruby Pipeline Project ............................................................................................. 4-283 

Table 4.12.1-1 Class Locations for the Ruby Pipeline Project ....................................................... 4-286 

Table 4.12.2-1 Natural Gas Service Incidents by Cause ................................................................. 4-289 

Table 4.12.2-2 Outside Forces Incidents by Cause ......................................................................... 4-290 

Table 4.12.2-3 Corrosion-Related Incidents ................................................................................... 4-291 

Table 4.12.3-1 Nationwide Accidental Fatalities Per Year from Various Hazards ........................ 4-292 

Table 4.13-1 Projects with Potential Cumulative Impacts on Resources Within the General 

Area of the Ruby Pipeline Project .......................................................................... 4-295 

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
XIV 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards 

ACAD Antelope Creek Archaeological District 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

AML Appropriate Management Level 

AQCR Air Quality Control Regions 

AT&T American Telephone and Telegraph 

BA Biological Assessment 

BACT Best Available Control Technology 

bcf billion cubic feet 

BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

Black Rock NCA Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National 

Conservation Area 

BLM U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

Btu British thermal units 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plans 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CH4 methane 

Certificate Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs cubic feet per second 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

CO2e CO2 equivalent 

CO carbon monoxide 

COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

CR County Road 

CRP Conservation Reserve Program 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act 

dB decibels 

dBA decibels on the A-weighted scale 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DOI U.S. Department of the Interior 

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

Dth/d dekatherms per day 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EI Environmental Inspector 

EIA U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPAct 2005 Energy Policy Act of 2005 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

°F degrees Fahrenheit 

FEMA U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency 

FERC or Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Commission 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

FSA U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
XV 

FWS U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 

g gravity 

GHG greenhouse gas 

gpm gallons per minute 

GWP Global Warming Potential 

H2S hydrogen sulfide 

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant 

HCA High Consequence Area 

HDD horizontal directional drill 

HMA Herd Management Area 

hp horsepower 

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

ISO International Organization for Standardization 

I-80 Interstate 80 

ISD in-service date 

Kern River Kern River Gas Transmission Company 

KOP Key Observation Points 

kV kilovolt 

kW kilowatt 

lb/hr pounds per hour 

Ld daytime sound level 

Ldn day-night sound level 

Leq equivalent sound level 

Ln nighttime sound level 

LNG liquefied natural gas 

LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan 

M magnitude 

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

MAOP maximum allowable operating pressure 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

mg milligram 

MFP Management Framework Plan 

MLA Mineral Leasing Act 

MLV mainline valve 

MOA Memoranda of Agreement 

MP milepost 

MSFCMA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

MW megawatt 

N2O nitrous oxide 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAS nonnative aquatic species 

NCA National Conservation Area 

NDEP Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 

NDOT Nevada Department of Transportation 

NDOW Nevada Department of Wildlife 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NGA Natural Gas Act 

NGPSA Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
XVI 

NNSR Nonattainment New Source Review 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

NOx nitrous oxide 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System 

NRCS U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NSA Noise Sensitive Area 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

O3 ozone 

OCTA Oregon-California Trails Association 

ODE Oregon Department of Energy 

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation 

OEP Office of Energy Projects 

OHV off-highway vehicle 

OPS Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Office of Pipeline Safety 

OSHA U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

Pb lead 

PD Preliminary Determination 

pH potential hydrogen 

PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

PFYC Potential Fossil Yield Classification 

PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric Company 

Plan Ruby’s Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan 

PM2.5 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns 

PM10 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns 

POD Plan of Development 

ppm parts per million 

Procedures Ruby’s Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures 

PPV peak particle velocity 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

psig pounds per square inch gauge 

Reclamation U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation 

RHA Rivers and Harbors Act 

RMP Resource Management Plan 

ROD Record of Decision 

Ruby Ruby Pipeline, L.L.C. 

RV recreational vehicle 

SCADA supervisory control and data acquisition system 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SIO Scenic Integrity Objectives 

SITLA Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration 

SMS Scenery Management System 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

Spill Plan Ruby’s Waste and Spill Management Specification 

SR State Route 

SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic 

STATSGO State Soil Geographic 

TCP Traditional Cultural Properties 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
XVII 

tpy tons per year 

TSL toxic screening level 

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter 

μm micrometer 

UDAQ Utah Department of Environmental Quality–Division of Air Quality 

UDWQ Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality 

UDWR Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

UGEAO Utah Governor’s Energy Advisor Office 

USC United States Code 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USFS U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

USGCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program 

UTPL State of Utah Public Lands Policy Coordination Office 

VMS Visual Management System 

VOC volatile organic compound 

VORTAC VHF Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Aircraft Control 

VQO Visual Quality Objectives 

VRM Visual Resource Management 

WDEQ Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

WDOT Wyoming Department of Transportation 

West Coast Washington, Oregon, and Northern California 

WHBA Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

Williams Williams Northwest Pipeline 

Northwest 

WMA Wildlife or Waterfowl Management Area 

WRP Wetland Reserve Program 

WSA Wilderness Study Area 

WSR Wild and Scenic River 

WWEC West-wide Energy Corridor 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
ES-1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Ruby Pipeline Project, proposed by Ruby 

Pipeline, L.L.C. (Ruby), has been prepared by the staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC or Commission) to fulfill the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) and the Commission’s implementing regulations under Title 18 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 380 (18 CFR 380). Ruby is seeking a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 

for its Ruby Pipeline Project, which would include the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline 

facilities in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon. The purpose of this document is to inform the public 

and the permitting agencies about the potential adverse and beneficial environmental impacts of the 

proposed project and its alternatives, and to recommend mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce 

adverse impacts. 

The FERC is the federal agency responsible for authorizing interstate natural gas transmission 

facilities under the Natural Gas Act, and is the lead federal agency for the preparation of this EIS in 

compliance with the requirements of NEPA. The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), and U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service (USFS) and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS); the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(COE); the State of Utah Public Lands Policy Coordination Office; and the Board of County 

Commissioners in Lincoln County, Wyoming are cooperating agencies for the development of this EIS. 

A cooperating agency has jurisdiction by law or has special expertise with respect to environmental 

resource issues associated with the project. 

The BLM is the federal agency responsible for issuing right-of-way grants for natural gas 

pipelines across federal lands on this project. Right-of-way grants are issued under Section 28 of the 

Mineral Leasing Act and 43 CFR 2800 and 2880 to any qualified individual, business, or government 

entity. The BLM would decide whether or not to issue Ruby a right-of-way grant to cross all federal land, 

as well as any temporary use permits necessary for construction, based on the findings of this EIS; 

however, Section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act and 43 CFR 2884.26 also states that a right-of-way 

through a federal reservation shall not be granted if the Secretary of the Interior or agency head 

determines that it would be inconsistent with the purposes of the reservation. The BLM, therefore, would 

not issue a right-of-way grant or any temporary use permits until the heads of the BLM, Reclamation, 

FWS, and USFS had concurred with respect to use of lands under their respective jurisdictions. Where 

concurrence is not reached, the Secretary of the Interior, after consultation with the heads of the BLM, 

Reclamation, FWS, and USFS, would decide whether or not to issue a right-of-way grant. 

All actions on federal lands that are proposed in Ruby’s application and in subsequent filings 

must comply with the respective resource management plans of the affected federal land managing 

agencies, or the management plans must be amended to include the project. If the Ruby Pipeline Project 

is approved as proposed, the BLM and USFS may be required to amend certain resource management 

plans to ensure consistency. FWS would not need to amend its plans. This EIS examines the proposed 

action and alternatives that would require amendments or other administrative actions by the federal land 

managing agencies. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
ES-2 

PROPOSED ACTION 

The purpose of the Ruby Pipeline Project is to provide a reliable means of natural gas 

transportation from suppliers in the Rocky Mountain region of the United States to consumers in Nevada 

and on the West Coast (Washington, Oregon, and northern California). According to Ruby, the need for 

the project arises from a growing demand for natural gas in Nevada and on the West Coast coupled with a 

decrease in supply from foreign sources and an increase in supply in the Rocky Mountains. The project is 

designed to transport up to 1.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day. 

The natural gas pipeline facilities, as proposed, would total 675.2 miles and would include: 

• about 672.6 miles of 42-inch-diameter mainline pipeline; and 

• about 2.6 miles of 42-inch-diameter lateral pipeline. 

The proposed aboveground facilities associated with the pipeline would include: 

• 1 electric-powered compressor station and 3 natural gas-powered compressor stations 

(totaling 160,500 horsepower of new compression); 

• 4 meter stations containing interconnects to other pipeline systems; 

• 44 mainline valves; 

• 20 pig launchers or receivers; 

• 4 new communication towers; and 

• miscellaneous communications equipment installed at 8 existing communication towers. 

In addition to the natural gas pipeline and aboveground facilities, electric transmission lines in 

Wyoming and Nevada would be constructed by Rocky Mountain Power and Harney Electric Cooperative, 

respectively, and relatively minor intrastate natural gas pipeline facilities in California that would be 

constructed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. We considered extending the environmental review to 

cover the Pacific Gas and Electric Company intrastate pipeline and determined that the FERC’s control 

and responsibility is not sufficient to warrant “federalizing” these facilities. While Rocky Mountain 

Power’s and Harney Electric Cooperative’s electric power lines also would not fall under the FERC’s 

jurisdiction, we believe they are integral components of the proposed project. Therefore, we have 

included the power lines in our environmental review. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

On January 31, 2008, the FERC began its pre-filing review of the Ruby Pipeline Project. 

Subsequently, Ruby contacted federal and state agencies to inform them about the project and the FERC’s 

pre-filing process. Ruby hosted 10 public open house meetings in February and March 2008 to inform 

landowners, government officials, and the general public about the Ruby Pipeline Project and invite them 

to ask questions and express their concerns. Ruby mailed about 3,100 invitations to the open house 

meetings and placed 16 advertisements in local newspapers in the project vicinity. FERC and BLM staff 

participated in the open house meetings and provided information regarding the environmental review 

process. 

The FERC issued a Notice of Pre-Filing Environmental Review for the Ruby Pipeline Project, 

Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings on March 28, 

2008 that explained the FERC’s pre-filing process; generally described the planned project; announced 

the time and location of public scoping meetings; requested written comments from the public; and asked 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
ES-3 

other federal, state, and local agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise to cooperate with the 

FERC in the preparation of the EIS. The FERC, in close cooperation with the BLM, held six public 

scoping meetings in April 2008 at locations along the route to provide the public with an opportunity to 

learn more about the Ruby Pipeline Project and to comment on environmental issues that should be 

addressed in the draft EIS. 

Ruby continued to develop its project and to modify the pipeline route throughout the pre-filing 

period. On September 26, 2008, the FERC issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement and Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment for the Ruby Pipeline Project, Request 

for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings that opened a second 

scoping period, described the revised project route, announced the time and location of four additional 

public scoping meetings, and requested additional comments from the public. 

In total, 444 people attended the two sets of public scoping meetings and 76 individuals provided 

verbal comments. Additionally, the Commission received comment letters from 166 federal, state, and 

local agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; 

potentially affected landowners; and other interested parties. The draft EIS was filed with the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and a formal notice of availability was issued in the Federal 

Register on June 26, 2009. A copy of the draft EIS was mailed to those agencies, tribes, organizations, 

and individuals that attended meetings or submitted written comments on the project, as well as other 

interested parties. The Federal Register notice established a 45-day comment period on the draft EIS that 

ended on August 10, 2009. 

We1

 held a total of seven public comment meetings during the draft EIS comment period. The 

meetings provided interested parties with an opportunity to present oral comments on our analysis of the 

environmental impacts of the proposed project as described in the draft EIS. A total of 23 people 

commented at the meetings. In addition, we received 144 written comments on the draft EIS from 126 

federal, state, and local agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native 

American tribes; potentially affected landowners; and other interested parties. All timely environmental 

comments on the draft EIS have been addressed in this final EIS, and although the comment period 

formally ended on August 10, 2009, all timely environmental comments on the draft EIS have been 

addressed in this final EIS. 

This final EIS was mailed to the agencies, individuals, and organizations on the mailing list in 

Appendix A, and filed with the EPA for issuance of a formal public notice of availability in the Federal 

Register. 

The USFS also has engaged the public in its review of proposed amendments to the Fremont 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). On March 19, 2009, the USFS published 

a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (FERC Ruby Pipeline Project) and 

Request for Comments on the Proposed Forest Plan Amendments for the Fremont Land and Resource 

Management Plan to be included in the Ruby Project. The notice explained that the USFS is proposing to 

prepare an amendment to the Fremont National Forest LRMP for the project, and that the FERC, as the 

lead agency for the project, is preparing an EIS that will discuss the environmental impacts of the project. 

The notice initiated the scoping process for the LRMP amendment and clarified that the decision on 

whether or not to amend the LRMP would be tiered to the analysis contained in the EIS. The FremontWinema National Forest received three letters during the scoping period, which ended on May 9, 2009. 

 

1

 The pronouns “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the FERC’s Office of Energy Projects. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
ES-4 

PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 

Construction and operation of the Ruby Pipeline Project could result in numerous impacts on the 

environment. We evaluated the potential impacts of the proposed project, as reduced by Ruby’s proposed 

mitigation measures, on geology, soils, water resources, vegetation, wildlife, fisheries, special status 

species, land use, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air quality, noise, and safety. We 

also considered the cumulative impacts of this project with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions in the project area. 

Based on scoping comments, agency consultations, and our independent evaluation of resource 

impacts, the major issues identified in our analysis are in regard to: geologic hazards, paleontological 

resources, soils, waterbody crossings, water use, wetlands, federally threatened and endangered species, 

sagebrush steppe habitat, greater sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit, migratory birds, visual resources, non-local 

worker housing, and cultural resources. Our analysis of these issues is summarized below and is 

discussed in detail in the appropriate resource sections in section 4. Where necessary, we have 

recommended additional mitigation measures to minimize or avoid these impacts. Section 5.2 of the EIS 

contains our conclusions and a compilation of our recommended mitigation measures. 

Geology, Paleontology, and Soils 

Potential geologic hazards in the project area include seismicity, landslides, and subsidence. The 

proposed project would be constructed across 110 faults or fault zone crossings and across 32 areas where 

soils are susceptible to soil liquefaction. Ruby has prepared site-specific measures to reduce the risk 

associated with these geologic hazards, including the use of heavier-walled pipe, pipeline realignment to 

avoid specific faults, and post-seismic event field evaluation. Approximately 16 percent of the pipeline 

route crosses areas of moderate to high landslide risk. Ruby would construct the pipeline to control 

runoff and erosion thereby minimizing the potential for slope failures. 

We have identified several areas along the proposed route with a moderate to high potential for 

containing important paleontological resources. Ruby has prepared a Paleontological Resources 

Monitoring Plan to monitor for and address the discovery of significant fossil resources during 

construction. 

The soils in the project area are diverse and include sands and loamy and clayey soils derived 

from various bedrock materials. Long-term or permanent impacts on soils would occur within areas that 

contain cryptobiotic soil crusts. Cryptobiotic crusts can take several years to several centuries to be 

restored after alteration, depending on rainfall conditions. This could be considered an irreversible or 

irretrievable impact in some areas. Ruby would implement the mitigation measures contained in its 

Restoration and Revegetation Plans for soil management, seeding, restoration, and monitoring; and in its 

project-specific Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Plan), as well as our 

additional recommended measures. 

Waterbody Crossings, Water Use, and Wetlands 

The proposed project would cross 1,069 ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial waterbodies and 

channels (some multiple times) within 11 major watershed basins. The pipeline generally would cross 

waterbodies using the open-cut method, except at those waterbodies that contain sensitive species. Such 

waterbodies would be crossed using a dry-ditch or horizontal directional drill crossing method. 

Waterbody crossings would be conducted in accordance with all federal and state regulations and permit 

requirements, and Ruby would minimize impacts by following measures identified in its project-specific 

Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Procedures), waterbody crossing 

commitments with the FWS, and our additional recommended measures. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
ES-5 

Ruby would use about 402 million gallons of water from surface and groundwater sources for 

hydrostatic testing of the pipeline and dust control. Water withdrawal and discharges would be conducted 

in accordance with all federal and state regulations and permit requirements. To minimize impacts on 

surface and groundwater, Ruby has committed to certain water appropriation timing restrictions, 

withdrawal rate limitations, intake screening requirements, biocide treatments and neutralization, 

discharge restrictions, and other measures. Impacts on surface waters would be minimized by following 

these measures and by following our additional recommendations. Impacts on groundwater could be 

significant because of the volume of water proposed for use and the limited availability of groundwater in 

the region. 

Construction and operation of the pipeline would not result in the permanent filling of any 

wetlands, although forested wetlands within the maintained pipeline right-of-way would be converted to 

herbaceous or shrub-scrub wetlands. Ruby would reduce temporary impacts on wetlands by following its 

project-specific Procedures, and by following additional measures on federal lands as required by land 

managing agencies. Ruby also would be required to obtain authorization from the COE to discharge 

dredge or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. 

Federally Listed Species 

Based on consultations with the FWS, 11 federally listed species (black-footed ferret, Ute ladies’-

tresses, and 9 fish species) may be affected by the proposed project. We have determined that Ruby’s 

proposed water depletions in the Colorado River drainage basin are likely to adversely affect four of the 

fish species (Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, razorback sucker, and bonytail chub). Specifically, 

Ruby proposes to withdraw 16,132,371 gallons (about 49.5 acre-feet) of water from the Hams Fork River 

for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline and dust control. We have also determined that the project is likely 

to adversely affect the remaining five fish species, including the Lahontan cutthroat trout and the Warner, 

Modoc, shortnose, and Lost River suckers due to the crossing of waterbodies inhabited by these species. 

Thus, we will be entering formal consultation with the FWS for these five fishes as well as the four 

Colorado River drainage basin species and will request that the FWS prepare a Biological Opinion as to 

whether or not the Ruby Pipeline Project would likely jeopardize the continued existence of these species. 

Ruby is in the process of finalizing an Endangered Species Act (ESA) Conservation Action Plan 

with the FWS for ESA-listed species and designated critical habitats (see Appendix M). Ruby has agreed 

to implement and/or fund measures that are clearly beneficial to listed species and their habitats and that 

assist with recovery of these species. These measures should serve to offset the project’s impacts on 

listed species and critical habitats, but do not obviate our Section 7 consultation responsibilities under the 

ESA with the FWS. 

Sagebrush Steppe Habitat, Greater Sage-Grouse, and Pygmy Rabbit 

Construction of the Ruby Pipeline Project would affect about 8,775.9 acres of sagebrush steppe 

habitat, a critical habitat component for many wildlife and special status species such as pygmy rabbit, 

greater sage-grouse, and various migratory birds. Depending on site-specific conditions, construction 

impacts on sagebrush steppe habitat would be significant as the habitat can take 50 years or longer to be 

restored. 

The greater sage-grouse is considered the most sensitive small game species in the project area 

and is currently undergoing review by the FWS to determine if the species warrants ESA protection. The 

pygmy rabbit is also a sensitive species in the project area that has been petitioned for listing under the 

ESA. Ruby has committed to measures to minimize impacts on greater sage-grouse and pygmy rabbit, 

including realignment of the pipeline, preconstruction surveys (for greater sage-grouse), construction 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
ES-6 

buffers (for greater sage-grouse), timing restrictions, and specific revegetation activities. In addition, 

Ruby, the BLM, FWS, USFS, and state agencies have completed a mile-by-mile habitat analysis of the 

pipeline route, which includes an analysis of greater sage-grouse and pygmy rabbit habitat. Ruby, the 

BLM, FWS, NDOW, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, and Utah Department of Wildlife Resources 

have drafted a cooperative conservation agreement for greater sage-grouse and pygmy rabbit. The 

agreement proposes monetary funding for state conservation efforts and incorporates by reference 

conservation measures to minimize and mitigate adverse impacts associated with the project (see 

Appendix M). Ruby has voluntarily agreed to implement the agreement and has also committed to not 

remove sagebrush during routine vegetation maintenance activities after construction. 

Migratory Birds 

A variety of migratory bird species, including both songbirds and raptors, are associated with the 

habitats identified along the project. Construction could cause direct and indirect impacts on raptors and 

other migratory birds. Ruby has agreed to comply with seasonal timing restrictions and spatial buffer 

zones for nesting raptors established by resource agencies. Further, Ruby has prepared a draft 

conservation agreement with the FWS for the protection of migratory birds during construction (see 

Appendix M). We expect that the final agreement will outline the procedures to avoid or minimize direct 

impacts on certain migratory birds, including passerine species, as well as define Ruby’s commitments to 

fund mitigation actions for migratory bird habitats that are impacted. 

Visual Resources 

The main visual impacts from construction of the pipeline would be from the clearing of forest 

areas for the pipeline and construction of aboveground facilities. Generally, visual impacts along the 

pipeline would diminish over time as the affected areas age and blend in with the surrounding landscape 

and as vegetation becomes reestablished over the long term. The BLM and USFS are responsible for 

considering the potential effects to visual resources when project activities occur on federally managed 

land. Each agency implements a management program for evaluating the existing visual landscape and 

determining a project’s ability to meet the goals of that program. The BLM and USFS evaluated the 

project’s effects to the visual character of the landscape and determined that the project would not be in 

compliance with BLM or USFS objectives in a number of locations. The BLM and USFS identified 

several possible mitigation measures to reduce impacts to acceptable levels, and indicated that sitespecific measures would be developed based on the design and construction details provided by Ruby to 

the BLM in the Plan of Development. 

Non-Local Worker Housing 

In general, areas within a 50-mile radius of the project route were evaluated for socioeconomic 

impacts. We determined that the combined demand for temporary housing from tourists, recreationists, 

local workers, and project construction crews could at times exceed the supply in some communities, 

particularly in northwestern Nevada. If project demand for temporary housing were to exceed supply, 

project workers would be required to find accommodations in communities further from the project area. 

In order to address the potential lack of housing resources in northwestern Nevada, Ruby has proposed to 

build the Vya Construction Camp to provide temporary living quarters for up to 650 non-local pipeline 

workers. The Vya camp would be located on a 160-acre private property parcel in Washoe County, 

Nevada. Ruby also is coordinating with the Town of Lakeview, Oregon to establish a 12.1-acre 

temporary lodging facility to accommodate up to 425 construction employees. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
ES-7 

Cultural Resources 

Ruby has conducted cultural resource inventory surveys of the proposed pipeline route, as well as 

surveys of extra work spaces, staging areas, access roads, construction camps, and aboveground facility 

sites. Ruby has identified cultural resource sites within the construction area in all states that would be 

crossed by the project. Supplemental to the Section 106 survey reports, Ruby is sponsoring ethnographic 

studies of Native American tribes who claim traditional territory along the pipeline route. These studies 

are underway and will not be completed until 2010; however, Ruby has submitted preliminary summaries 

of findings for these studies. 

FERC has not received reports for all surveys, evaluations, and special studies, such as 

ethnographic studies and some visual assessments of historic properties. Ruby would be required to 

prepare treatment plans to address any historic properties that would be adversely affected by the project 

once all studies and the appropriate consultations are completed. These treatment plans would be subject 

to review and approval by the appropriate agencies. 

The FERC and BLM initiated consultation with Native American tribes early in the pre-filing 

process. The FERC and BLM have sent notices and consultation letters to tribes and have conducted 

meetings and field visits to elicit concerns and identify sensitive resources. Numerous tribes have 

expressed concerns regarding the project’s impacts on archaeological and historic sites, potential for 

damage to remote and pristine lands, and potential for destruction of sensitive and traditional resources. 

We continued to receive comment and input from Native American tribes and individuals during and after 

the draft EIS comment period. To ensure that our responsibilities under Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act are met, we have recommended that the appropriate studies, reports, and 

consultations be completed and/or addressed before treatment or construction is authorized. 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

Our discussion of alternatives considered for the Ruby Pipeline Project can be found in section 3 

of the EIS. Alternatives considered include no action or postponed action, system alternatives, route 

alternatives, route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. While denying project approval 

or taking no action (or postponing action) would avoid the environmental impacts identified in this EIS, 

the objective of providing a new source of natural gas from the Rocky Mountains to Nevada and the West 

Coast would not be met. 

We considered the recently authorized Pacific Connector Pipeline Project as a possible system 

alternative to the Ruby Pipeline Project. However, our review found that this project would not be a 

reasonable alternative to the Ruby Pipeline Project. We also considered using two existing pipeline 

systems (the Williams Northwest Pipeline and Kern River Gas Transmission Company) to move Rocky 

Mountain gas to the west. However, neither of these pipelines have the capacity (using existing facilities) 

to accommodate the volumes that would be transported by Ruby, and both systems would need to expand 

their facilities between the Rocky Mountains and Nevada and the West Coast in a manner similar to 

Ruby. 

We originally considered 14 route alternatives to the Ruby pipeline to determine whether the 

alternatives would avoid or reduce impacts on environmentally sensitive resources crossed by the 

pipeline. We concluded in the draft EIS that three of the route alternatives (Terrace Basin, Willow Creek, 

and South Langell Valley) would meet the project objectives, would be technically and economically 

feasible, and would confer an environmental advantage over the proposed route. Therefore, we 

recommended in the draft EIS that Ruby incorporate these three route alternatives into the project. Since 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
ES-8 

then, Ruby formally modified its proposal to adopt the recommended route alternatives. The data and 

analysis in this final EIS reflect the inclusion of these three alternatives in Ruby’s proposed route. Two 

additional two route alternatives, known as the Sheldon Route Alternative and Black Rock Route 

Alternative, were identified by resource agencies to reduce the project’s impacts on high quality greater 

sage-grouse habitat as well as Northern Paiute foods, medicines, sacred sites, and burials in northern 

Nevada. Based on our analysis of the two alternatives, we have not recommended that Ruby incorporate 

them into the project. Our discussion of these route alternatives is included in sections 3.4.12 and 3.4.13, 

respectively. 

We also originally considered 15 minor route variations to determine whether the variations 

would address land use concerns and/or avoid or reduce impacts on certain environmentally sensitive 

resources crossed by the proposed route. After our evaluation, we recommended in the draft EIS that 

Ruby incorporate all 15 route variations into the project. Since then, Ruby formally modified its proposal 

to adopt the recommended route variations. The data and analysis in this final EIS reflect the inclusion of 

these 15 variations in Ruby’s proposed route. 

We received comments on the draft EIS requesting an analysis of a route alternative that would 

follow existing highways along the entire route, particularly Interstate 80 (I-80) where possible. We 

developed the I-80 Corridor Route Alternative in response to these comments. Based on our analysis, we 

have not recommended that Ruby incorporate the I-80 Corridor Route Alternative into the project. 

We also evaluated a potential route variation between MPs 575 and 590 in an area recently 

identified as the Barrel Springs Traditional Cultural Property (TCP).2

 Based on our analysis of the Barrel 

Springs Western Route Variation, we concluded that there is no compelling reason to require Ruby to 

move its proposed alignment, which is adjacent to a power line corridor and associated access road. 

MAJOR CONCLUSIONS 

We conclude that construction and operation of the Ruby Pipeline Project would result in some 

adverse environmental impacts. However, most of these would be reduced to less-than-significant levels 

with the implementation of Ruby’s proposed mitigation measures; additional measures and agreements 

being discussed by Ruby and other agencies related to permitting or conservation agreements; and the 

additional measures we recommend in the EIS. The primary reasons for our decision are: 

• More than 44 percent of the project would be collocated with or closely parallel existing 

rights-of-way. 

• The project would be consistent with or in conformance with federal resource 

management plans, once amended. 

• Ruby would obtain all necessary federal, state, and local permits, approvals, and 

authorizations prior to commencement of construction. 

• Ruby would design, construct, test, and operate its pipeline in accordance with U.S. 

Department of Transportation regulations. 

• Ruby would implement resource- or activity-specific plans, procedures, and agreements 

(both those generated proactively by Ruby and those required specifically by federal, 

 

2

 FERC staff notes that the TCP in question is a proposed TCP and carries no designated status at this time. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
ES-9 

state, or local agencies) to protect natural resources, avoid or limit environmental 

impacts, and promote restoration of all disturbed areas during construction and operation 

of the project. 

• Ruby would complete necessary surveys for sensitive species and cultural resources; 

would prepare survey reports summarizing the findings, as necessary; and agencies 

would be given opportunity to comment and complete any required consultations before 

Ruby would be authorized to begin construction. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1-1 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

On January 27, 2009, Ruby Pipeline, L.L.C. (Ruby) filed an application with the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) in Docket Number CP09-54-000 under Section 7 of the 

Natural Gas Act (NGA), as amended, and parts 157 and 284 of the Commission’s regulations. Ruby is 

seeking a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (Certificate) for its Ruby Pipeline Project, 

which would include the construction and operation of pipeline, compression, and ancillary facilities in 

Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon. In Docket Number CP09-54-000 Ruby is also seeking a Blanket 

Certificate to perform routine activities in connection with the future construction and operation of certain 

eligible facilities and services. 

The environmental staff of the FERC prepared this final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

to assess the environmental impact associated with the construction and operation of the facilities 

proposed by Ruby, in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). NEPA and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the 

procedural provisions of NEPA in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1501.6 (40 CFR 

1501.6), call on federal, state, and local government agencies to cooperate1 in the preparation of 

environmental impact statements. Cooperating agencies are intended to have a significant role in shaping 

plans and environmental analyses according to their particular expertise and jurisdiction. The U.S. 

Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is participating as a cooperating 

agency in the preparation of the EIS because the project would cross federally administered lands in 

Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon. The DOI, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is participating 

as a cooperating agency because the project and one of the recommended alternatives would cross 

federally administered lands and a waterbody with a federal easement in Oregon. The DOI, Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS) is participating as a cooperating agency because of its special expertise with 

regard to fish, wildlife, wetland, and waterbody ecology, and because Ruby is proposing to use access 

roads on National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) system land in Nevada. The U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), Forest Service (USFS) is participating as a cooperating agency because the project would cross 

National Forest system land in the Cache National Forest in Utah and the Fremont National Forest in 

Oregon. The USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is participating as a cooperating 

agency because the project would cross land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) in 

Utah. Although the CRP is administered by the USDA, Farm Service Agency (FSA), the NRCS provides 

technical land eligibility determinations, conservation planning, and practice implementation. The U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (COE); State of Utah Public Lands Policy Coordination Office (UTPL); and 

Board of County Commissioners in Lincoln County, Wyoming are participating as cooperating agencies 

because of their responsibilities for protecting certain environmental resources and/or their special 

expertise relating to such environmental resources. 

The vertical line in the margin identifies text that has been modified in this final EIS and 

differs materially from the corresponding text in the draft EIS. 

 

1

 A cooperating agency is another agency that has jurisdiction over all or part of the project area that must make a decision on

the proposed project, and/or one that provides special expertise. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1-2 

The Ruby Pipeline Project, as proposed, would involve the construction and operation of about 

675.2 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline and about 160,500 horsepower (hp) of new compression.2

 The 

proposed facilities would be capable of transporting up to 1.5 million dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of 

natural gas, which is the equivalent of about 1.5 billion cubic feet (bcf) of natural gas per day.3

 Ruby 

proposes to begin construction in February 2010 and place the pipeline in service by March 2011; 

however, the actual schedule is dependent on the completeness of information submitted by Ruby, 

seasonal weather conditions, and receipt of required federal authorizations. Figure 1-1 provides an 

overview of Ruby’s proposed facilities. A detailed discussion of the proposed facilities is presented in 

section 2. 

1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED 

The purpose of the Ruby Pipeline Project is to provide a reliable means of natural gas 

transportation service from suppliers in the Rocky Mountain region of the United States to customers in 

Nevada and on the West Coast (Washington, Oregon, and northern California). According to Ruby, the 

need for the project arises from a growing demand for natural gas in Nevada and on the West Coast 

coupled with a decrease in supply from foreign sources and an increase in supply in the Rocky 

Mountains. 

Ruby stated in its application that demand for natural gas is expected to increase in the United 

States over the next decade, particularly along the West Coast. The increase in demand is expected to 

occur at a time when supply from foreign sources, particularly Canada, is expected to decrease. The 

Rocky Mountain region of the United States holds large volumes of natural gas. A lack of major pipeline 

infrastructure, however, has contributed to years of bottlenecking gas in the Rocky Mountain region and 

is a serious barrier facing natural gas production in the region. The Ruby Pipeline Project would provide 

infrastructure to connect existing domestic natural gas supply in the Rocky Mountain region with demand 

in Nevada and on the West Coast at a time when foreign imports, particularly those from Canada, are 

expected to decrease. 

Ruby conducted two open seasons to assess the interest of potential shippers for natural gas 

transportation service. The initial open season was from February 15, 2008 to April 18, 2008 and was 

later extended to September 1, 2008. The second open season was from September 8, 2008 to September 

24, 2008 and was later extended to October 10, 2008. Ruby entered into several precedent transportation 

agreements to ship natural gas as a result of the open seasons. 

The Ruby Pipeline Project would transport natural gas from four receipt interconnects at the 

existing Opal Hub4

 in Wyoming to four delivery interconnects with other pipeline systems in Nevada and 

the existing Malin Market Center5

 in Oregon. Table 1.1-1 identifies the contracted volumes established in 

the precedent transportation agreements. 

 

2

 The proposed system would be capable of operating at up to 160,500 hp of new compression, although it would utilize only 

about 147,617 hp under normal operating conditions. 3

 The proposed system would be capable of operating at up to 1.5 million Dth/d, although it would utilize only about 1.2 

Dth/d under existing contracts. 4

 The Opal Hub is a natural gas production hub administered by Williams Field Services Company that allows gas producers 

to dispatch their production volumes onto the interstate natural gas pipeline transmission grid. 5

 The Malin Market Center is a natural gas market center administered by Pacific Gas & Electric Company. The Malin 

Market Center provides access to other pipeline systems in the region and offers administrative services that facilitate the 

movement and/or transfer of gas ownership. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1-3 

Figure 1-1 Project Location Map 

1-2 1-2

1-3 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1-4 

TABLE 1.1-1 

Contracted Volumes for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Shipper Volume (Dth/d) Term (years) Start Datea

Anadarko Energy Services Company 200,000 10 In-service date (ISD) 

Antero Resources Piceance Corporation 25,000 10 ISD 

Berry Petroleum Company 25,000 10 ISD 

 12,857 8 24 months after ISD 

Bill Barrett Corporation 50,000 10 ISD 

BP Energy Company 95,000 10 ISD 

El Paso Marketing, L.P. 25,000 5 5 years after ISD 

Marathon Oil Company 40,000 10 ISD 

Nexen Marketing U.S.A. Inc. 25,000 5 ISD 

Occidental Energy Marketing, Inc. 50,000 10 ISD 

Pacific Gas & Electric Company 250,000 3 months July 1, 2011 

 375,000 15 November 1, 2011 

Shell Energy North America (US), L.P. 75,000 10 ISD 

 25,000 1 April 1, 2012 

 50,000 7 years + 11 months April 1, 2013 

─────────────────────────

a The ISD is defined as the first day of the month following the actual date the facilities are placed in service. 

A project’s need is established by the FERC when it determines whether a project is required by 

the public convenience and necessity. The FERC’s Certificate Policy Statement provides guidance as to 

how the Commission evaluates proposals for new construction, and establishes criteria for determining 

whether there is a need for a proposed project and whether it would serve the public interest. The 

Certificate Policy Statement explains that in deciding whether to authorize the construction of major new 

pipeline facilities, the Commission balances the anticipated public benefits against the potential adverse 

consequences. The Commission’s goal is to give appropriate consideration to the enhancement of 

competitive transportation alternatives, the possibility of overbuilding, subsidization by existing 

customers, the applicant’s responsibility for unsubscribed capacity, avoiding the unnecessary exercise of 

eminent domain and disruptions of the environment. 

A threshold requirement the Commission imposes on a pipeline company proposing a new 

project is that the company must be prepared to financially support the project without relying on 

subsidization from its existing customers. The next step is to determine whether the applicant has made 

efforts to eliminate or minimize any adverse effects the project might have on the applicant’s existing 

customers, existing pipelines in the market and their captive customers, and landowners and communities 

affected by the route of the new pipeline. If residual adverse effects to these interested groups are 

identified after efforts have been made to minimize them, the Commission evaluates the proposed project 

and compares anticipated public benefits to any residual adverse effects. This is essentially an economic 

test. Only when the public benefits outweigh the adverse effects to economic interest will the 

Commission proceed to complete the environmental analysis where other interests are considered. 

On September 4, 2009, the FERC issued a Preliminary Determination (PD) on NonEnvironmental Issues for the Ruby Pipeline Project supporting approval of the Ruby Pipeline Project, 

with conditions. The PD concluded that any adverse effects Ruby’s proposed project may have on 

existing pipelines or their customers would be outweighed by the public benefits the project would 

provide. Ruby has precedent agreements for long-term firm service utilizing a large percentage of the 

capacity of the proposed pipeline. In addition, the proposed project would provide direct access for 

producers in the Rocky Mountains to reach Nevada and the West Coast. The Commission determined 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1-5 

that the Ruby Pipeline Project would improve the reliability and flexibility of service available to gas 

customers in Nevada and West Coast markets by providing those customers with access to an abundant 

supply of competitively priced domestic gas from Rocky Mountain production areas. Further, the 

Commission found that Ruby has made adequate efforts to minimize impacts on landowners and 

communities. Therefore, based on its assessment of Ruby’s proposal, and consistent with the 

Commission’s Certificate Policy Statement and Section 7 of the NGA, the Commission preliminarily 

found – pending completion of its environmental review – that the Ruby Pipeline Project meets the 

FERC’s criteria of public convenience and necessity. The issuance of a PD prior to completion of the 

environmental review does not prejudice any further actions by the Commission. Final action on the 

FERC’s authorization and Certificate will not occur until after the environmental review is completed, all 

environmental issues have been appropriately addressed, and a final Order is issued by the Commission. 

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS STATEMENT 

The FERC is the federal agency responsible for evaluating applications to construct and operate 

interstate natural gas pipeline facilities. Certificates are issued under Section 7(c) of the NGA and Part 

157 of the Commission’s regulations if the Commission determines that the project is required by the 

public convenience and necessity. We6

 prepared this final EIS to assess the environmental impact 

associated with the proposed project in compliance with the requirements of NEPA, the CEQ regulations 

for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA in 40 CFR 1500-1508, and the FERC’s regulations 

implementing NEPA in 18 CFR 380. 

The BLM, Reclamation, FWS, USFS, NRCS, COE, UTPL, and the Lincoln County Board of 

County Commissioners are participating as cooperating agencies in the preparation of this EIS because of 

jurisdiction over part of the project area or because of their special expertise with respect to 

environmental resources in the project area. As cooperating agencies, the BLM, Reclamation, FWS, 

and/or USFS may adopt this EIS in accordance with 40 CFR 1506.3 to meet their responsibilities under 

NEPA, or they may elect to conduct their own supplemental environmental analysis to meet their 

responsibilities under NEPA. 

Our principal objectives in preparing this final EIS are to: 

• identify and assess the potential impacts on the natural and human environment that 

would result from the implementation of the proposed project; 

• describe and evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project that would avoid or 

minimize adverse effects to the environment; 

• identify and recommend specific mitigation measures, as necessary, to minimize on- and 

off-site environmental effects; and 

• encourage and facilitate involvement by the public and interested agencies in the 

environmental review process; and 

• identify amendments to various land managing agency management plans and summarize 

potential impacts on those lands. 

The environmental topics addressed in this final EIS include geology; soils; ground and surface 

water; vegetation; fisheries and wildlife; threatened, endangered, and other special status species; land 

use, including agricultural resources; visual resources; socioeconomics; cultural resources; air quality and 

noise; and reliability and safety. This final EIS describes the affected environment as it currently exists, 

 

6

 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the FERC's Office of Energy Projects. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1-6 

addresses the environmental consequences of the proposed project, evaluates the cumulative impacts of 

the project, and compares the project’s potential impact to that of alternatives. This final EIS also 

presents our recommended mitigation measures and conclusions. 

The Commission will consider the findings of this final EIS in its review of Ruby’s application in 

its determination of whether a Certificate should be issued for the Ruby Pipeline Project. A Certificate 

will be granted only if the FERC finds that the public benefits of the project outweigh the adverse effects. 

While FERC has already issued a PD for Ruby’s application, the environmental impact evaluation and 

mitigation development are important factors in the overall determination. 

The BLM is the federal agency responsible for issuing right-of-way grants for natural gas 

pipelines across federal lands under the jurisdiction of the BLM or under the jurisdiction of two or more 

federal agencies.7

 Right-of-way grants are issued under Section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) 

and 43 CFR 2800 and 2880 of the BLM’s regulations to any qualified individual, business, or government 

entity. The BLM would decide whether or not to issue a right-of-way grant as well as any necessary 

temporary use permits for construction to cross all federal land based on this EIS; however, Section 28 of 

the MLA and 43 CFR 2884.26 also state that a right-of-way through a federal reservation shall not be 

granted if the Secretary of the Interior or agency head determines that it would be inconsistent with the 

purposes of the reservation. The BLM would, therefore, not issue a right-of-way grant or temporary use 

permit until the heads of the BLM, Reclamation, and USFS have concurred with respect to use of lands 

under their respective jurisdictions. If concurrence is not reached, the Secretary of the Interior, after 

consultation with the heads of the BLM, Reclamation, and USFS, would decide whether or not to issue a 

right-of-way grant. Where Reclamation-administered facilities with an easement are crossed, Ruby 

would be required to execute a consent document with Reclamation to allow for pipeline facilities to 

encroach in the easement. 

Ruby filed a right-of-way grant application with the BLM in 2007. The BLM will consider the 

findings of this final EIS in its review of Ruby’s application to determine whether a right-of-way grant 

should be issued for the proposed project. The BLM will prepare a Record of Decision (ROD) to 

document its decision to either approve or deny a right-of-way grant. If approved, the ROD would 

specify environmental protection measures to be implemented on federal lands with concurrence from 

Reclamation and USFS. The BLM would not issue a ROD until it documents compliance with all 

requirements of NEPA, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The FWS has indicated that it would need to develop an 

appropriateness finding, and a compatibility determination in order to authorize use of access roads on 

NWR system land. The FWS would use the information in this EIS, including the new Sheldon NWR 

Transportation Plan in Appendix X, in preparation of a separate ROD for these regulatory decisions. If 

approved, the ROD would also specify environmental protection measures. Similarly, the USFS has 

indicated that it would issue its own ROD for required amendments to its Land and Resource 

Management Plan (LRMP) using the analysis from this final EIS, however we note that this is a separate 

action from the issuance of the ROD for the right-of-way grant, which would be issued by the BLM for 

project areas on the Fremont National Forest. 

 

7

 Federal lands means all lands owned by the United States except lands in the National Park System, lands held in trust for an 

Indian or Indian tribe, and lands on the Outer Continental Shelf. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1-7 

1.3 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT 

On January 28, 2008, Ruby filed a request with the FERC to implement the FERC’s pre-filing 

process for the Ruby Pipeline Project. FERC established the pre-filing process to encourage early 

involvement of interested stakeholders, facilitate interagency cooperation, and identify and resolve 

environmental issues before an application is filed with the FERC and facility locations are formally 

proposed. At that time, Ruby was in the preliminary project design stage and no formal application had 

been filed with the FERC. The FERC granted Ruby’s request to use the pre-filing process on January 31, 

2008, and established pre-filing Docket Number PF08-9-000 for the disposition of documents related to 

the project, including information filed by Ruby; issuances by the FERC or FERC staff; and comments 

filed by agencies, landowners, Native American tribes, and other interested stakeholders. 

Ruby contacted federal and state agencies to inform the agencies about the project and the 

FERC’s pre-filing process. Ruby also developed a Public Participation Plan to facilitate stakeholder 

communications and make information available to the public. Ruby’s Public Participation Plan 

established a single point of contact at Ruby for the public to call or e-mail with questions or concerns; a 

publicly accessible website with information about the project (including maps) and project status; 

quarterly newsletter mailings for affected landowners and other interested parties; and a schedule for 

public open house meetings in the project vicinity. 

Ruby hosted 10 public open house meetings in February and March 2008 to inform landowners, 

government officials, and the general public about the Ruby Pipeline Project and invite them to ask 

questions and express their concerns. Ruby mailed about 3,100 invitations to the open house meetings 

and placed 16 advertisements in local newspapers in the project vicinity. FERC and BLM staff 

participated in the open house meetings and provided information regarding the environmental review 

process. Table 1.3-1 includes the locations and dates of the Ruby open house meetings. 

On March 28, 2008, the FERC issued a Notice of Pre-Filing Environmental Review for the Ruby 

Pipeline Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings 

that explained the pre-filing process; generally described the planned project; announced the time and 

location of public scoping meetings; requested written comments from the public; and asked other 

federal, state, and local agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise to cooperate with the FERC in 

the preparation of the EIS. The notice was sent to 6,976 parties, including federal, state, and local 

agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially 

affected landowners; local libraries, newspapers, and television and radio stations; and other stakeholders 

who had indicated an interest in the project. The notice was also published in the Federal Register. 

Issuance of the notice opened an initial scoping period for filing written comments on the project and 

established a scoping period closing date of April 30, 2008. 

The FERC, in close cooperation with the BLM, held six public scoping meetings in April 2008 to 

provide the public with an opportunity to learn more about the Ruby Pipeline Project and to comment on 

environmental issues that should be addressed in the draft EIS. Table 1.3-1 includes the dates and 

locations of the scoping meetings. The FERC continued to accept and review comments after the close of 

this scoping period. 

Ruby continued to develop its project and continued to modify the pipeline route throughout the 

pre-filing period in an effort to resolve environmental issues with its initial route. The FERC, therefore, 

opened a second scoping period after Ruby had better defined its preferred pipeline route and had filed 

more detailed environmental information. On September 26, 2008, the FERC issued a Notice of Intent to 

Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment for 

the Ruby Pipeline Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1-8 

Meetings that described the revised project route; announced the time and location of four additional 

public scoping meetings; and requested additional comments from the public. The notice was sent to 

7,292 parties and was published in the Federal Register. Issuance of the notice opened the second 

scoping period for filing comments on the project and established a closing date for the second scoping 

period of October 29, 2008. Table 1.3-1 includes the dates and locations of the additional scoping 

meetings. We continued to review and accept comments after the close of the second scoping period. 

TABLE 1.3-1 

Open House, Public Scoping, and Draft EIS Comment Meetings for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Date Open House Meeting Locationa Public Scoping Meeting Locationb Draft EIS 

Comment Meeting Locationb

2008 

February 19 Kemmerer, Wyoming ─ ─

February 20 Montpelier, Idaho ─ ─

February 21 Tremonton, Utah ─ ─

February 25 Elko, Nevada ─ ─

February 26 Winnemucca, Nevada ─ ─

February 27 Lakeview, Oregon ─ ─

February 28 Malin, Oregon ─ ─

March 4 Reno, Nevada ─ ─

March 5 Brigham City, Utah ─ ─

March 18 Logan, Utah ─ ─

April 15 ─ Elko, Nevada ─

April 16 ─ Kemmerer, Wyoming ─

April 17 ─ Brigham City, Utah ─

April 22 ─ Malin, Oregon ─

April 23 ─ Lakeview, Oregon ─

April 24 ─ Winnemucca, Nevada ─

October 14 ─ Montpelier, Idaho ─

October 15 ─ Hyrum, Utah ─

October 16 ─ Brigham City, Utah ─

October 22 ─ Lakeview, Oregon ─

 

2009 

July 21 ─ ─ Malin, Oregon 

July 22 ─ ─ Lakeview, Oregon 

July 23 ─ ─ Winnemucca, Nevada 

July 27 ─ ─ Brigham City, Utah 

July 28 ─ ─ Elko, Nevada 

July 29 ─ ─ Kemmerer, Wyoming 

July 30 ─ ─ Hyrum, Utah 

───────────────────────── 

a All open house meetings were sponsored by Ruby. 

b All public scoping meetings and draft EIS comment meetings were sponsored by the FERC and the BLM.

In total, about 444 people attended the public scoping meetings, excluding representatives from 

Ruby, the FERC, and cooperating agencies. A total of 76 individuals provided oral comments on the 

project at the scoping meetings. A total of 166 federal, state, and local agencies; elected officials; 

environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners; and 

other interested stakeholders sent written scoping comments to the FERC regarding the project. 

Transcripts of each scoping meeting and all written comments filed with the FERC are part of the public 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1-9 

record for the Ruby Pipeline Project and are available for viewing on the FERC Internet website 

(www.ferc.gov).8

 

In addition to public scoping meetings, the FERC and BLM held six interagency meetings and 

several conference calls with key federal and state agencies and Native American tribes in April 2008 to 

discuss the project and the FERC’s environmental review process (including interagency consultations 

and cooperating agency coordination) and to identify issues that should be addressed in the EIS. 

Subsequent meetings and conference calls were held over the following 12 months to evaluate issues and 

concerns. Agencies and tribes that participated in one or more of those meetings included the BLM; 

FWS; USFS; COE; NRCS; Wyoming Department of Transportation (WDOT); Utah Department of 

Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality (UDWQ); Utah Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR); Utah Governor’s Energy Advisor Office (UGEAO); Utah 

School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA); Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW); 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW); Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT); 

Oregon-California Trails Association (OCTA); Fort McDermitt Paiute-Shoshone Tribe; Reno-Sparks 

Indian Colony; and the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe. This EIS addresses issues raised at public and agency 

scoping meetings and in tribal consultations. 

On February 9, 2009, the FERC issued a Notice of Application for the proposed project. The 

notice announced that Ruby’s application was filed with the Commission on January 27, 2009 and that 

the pre-filing process had ended. The notice also opened the period for intervention. Table 1.3-2 lists the 

substantive environmental issues and concerns identified by the commenters during the scoping process 

and identifies the EIS section where each issue or concern is addressed. 

On March 19, 2009, the USFS published a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement (FERC Ruby Pipeline Project) and Request for Comments on the Proposed Forest Plan 

Amendments for the Fremont Land and Resource Management Plan to be included in the Ruby Project. 

The notice explained that the USFS is proposing to prepare an amendment to the Fremont National Forest 

LRMP for the project, and that the FERC, as the lead agency for the project, is preparing an EIS that will 

discuss the environmental impacts of the project. The notice initiated the scoping process for the LRMP 

amendment and clarified that the decision on whether or not to amend the LRMP would be tiered to the 

analysis contained in the EIS. 

We issued a Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Notice of 

Public Comment Meetings for the Ruby Pipeline Project on June 19, 2009. The draft EIS was filed with 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and a formal notice of availability was issued in the 

Federal Register on June 26, 2009, indicating that the draft EIS was available and that it had been mailed 

to federal, state, and local agencies; elected officials; Native American tribes; newspapers; public 

libraries; television and radio stations; intervenors; and other interested parties (i.e., affected landowners, 

miscellaneous individuals, and environmental groups who provided scoping comments or asked to remain 

on the mailing list). The distribution list was included as Appendix A of the draft EIS. The Federal 

Register notice established a 45-day comment period on the draft EIS that ended on August 10, 2009. 

The notice described procedures for filing comments on the draft EIS and how information about the 

project could be found on the FERC’s website. 

 

8

 Using the “eLibrary” link, select “General Search” from the eLibrary menu, enter the desired date range and Docket Number 

(i.e., CP09-54 or PF08-9), and follow the instructions. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1-10 

TABLE 1.3-2 

Environmental Issues and Concerns Raised During the Scoping Process for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Issue/Concern EIS Section Addressing 

Issue/Concern 

CONSTRUCTION 

Design and location of the pipeline, project schedule, land requirements, construction 

techniques 

2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 

Easement rights and restrictions, compensation for land use and damage to property, private 

property versus government property, eminent domain 

4.8.2 

Future pipelines and other utilities 2.7, 4.13 

Required permits and approvals 1.5 

GEOLOGY 

Impacts on current and future mining operations, including impacts on mines near Elko and 

Winnemucca, Nevada 

4.1.2.1, 4.9.4 

Potential for seismic activity to affect the integrity of the pipeline after construction 4.1.3.1 

Potential for construction activities near geologic faults to trigger an earthquake 4.1.1.1 

SOILS 

Potential for severe erosion in areas of steep terrain 4.2.1.1 

Potential for reduced soil fertility due to topsoil and subsoil mixing 4.2.1.2, 4.2.4, 4.8.1.3 

Impacts on cryptobiotic soil crusts 4.2.2.2 

WATER RESOURCES 

Effects of construction on groundwater and springs 4.3.1 

Impacts on wetlands 4.3.3 

Waterbody crossing construction methods and effects of construction on waterbodies and 

canals 

4.3.2.4, 4.3.2.5 

Effects of water appropriation, transfer, and discharge for hydrostatic testing, including spread 

of aquatic invasive species and pathogens 

4.3.1.2, 4.3.2.6, 4.6.2 

Water rights 4.3.1.2, 4.3.2.5, 4.3.2.6 

FISH, WILDLIFE, AND VEGETATION 

Effects of the proposed project on fish and wildlife and their habitat, including greater sagegrouse, pygmy rabbit, migratory birds, big game, and predator species 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7 

Potential for invasion or spread of undesirable vegetation and noxious weeds during and after 

construction 

4.3.3.3, 4.4.1, 4.4.6, 

4.5.1.4, 4.7.1 

Potential for problematic reclamation due to poor soils and arid conditions 4.4.1.1, 4.5.1.1 

Potential for cleared vegetation or slash scattered within and along the construction right-ofway to increase the risk for wildfires, and for vehicles traveling along the right-of-way and 

along access roads to ignite wildfires that could spread into adjacent areas 

4.4.11 

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 

Potential for impacts on federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered species or their 

critical habitat, including, but not limited to, Lahontan cutthroat trout 

4.7, 4.7.2.2, 4.7.3 

Effects of water depletion from hydrostatic test water withdrawals from the Colorado River 

system, including effects to bonytail chub, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, and 

razorback sucker 

4.3.2.6, 4.7.2.3 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Effects to known and undiscovered cultural resources 4.10 

Potential impacts on known sacred sites, possible burials, and traditional foods, medicines, and 

other subsistence resources in the project area 

3.4.11, 3.4.12, 4.10 

Potential impacts on historic trails 4.8.3.2, 4.10.1.1 

LAND USE, RECREATION AND SPECIAL INTEREST AREAS, AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

Impacts on farming as a result of reduced soil fertility (top/subsoil mixing), disrupting irrigation, 

and damaging drainage, particularly where the project crosses extensively drained and 

laser-leveled agricultural fields 

4.2.4, 4.8.1.3 

Impacts on livestock, game, and wild horse grazing as a result of cutting fences and having an 

open trench in range land 

4.5.2, 4.5.7, 4.8.1.1 

Potential for problematic reclamation if grazing is allowed in disturbed areas immediately 

following construction 

4.8.1.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1-11 

TABLE 1.3-2 

Environmental Issues and Concerns Raised During the Scoping Process for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Issue/Concern EIS Section Addressing 

Issue/Concern 

Potential for impacts on State of Utah-designated Agricultural Protection Areas 4.8.1.3 

Impacts on existing conservation easements and potential for future preclusion from 

conservation easements 

4.3.3.4, 4.4.3, 4.4.4 

4.8.2.1 

Impacts on recreation (e.g., fishing, boating, camping, and hiking) 4.8.3 

Impacts on existing residences and future development 4.8.1.4, 4.8.2 

Impacts on existing or proposed roadless and wilderness areas 4.8.3 

SOCIOECONOMICS 

Potential effects of construction workforce demands on public services and temporary housing, 

particularly near Elko, Nevada where pipeline workers would compete with mining 

companies for services and housing 

4.9.2, 4.9.3 

Potential benefits to local communities, including potential for local gas delivery 4.9.3, 4.9.6 

AIR QUALITY AND NOISE 

Effects of the proposed project on air quality and noise during construction from operation of 

construction equipment and after construction from operation of the compressor stations 

4.11.1, 4.11.2 

Potential for nuisance fugitive dust from construction 4.11.1.3 

RELIABILITY AND SAFETY 

Hazards associated with living near a natural gas pipeline and the potential for natural gas 

leaks and explosions 

4.12.1 

Potential hazards to natural gas pipelines from wildfires, and potential for construction to start a 

wildfire 

4.12.1 

Potential for third-party damage or inadequate maintenance of the pipeline to cause a pipeline 

incident 

4.12.2 

Identification of safe setback distances for living or working near a pipeline 4.12.1, 4.12.2 

ALTERNATIVES 

Utilize alternative systems to transport natural gas, such as the liquefied natural gas terminals 

proposed in Oregon 

3.3 

Follow existing corridors (e.g., I-80, Questar pipelines, petroleum pipelines south of State 

Highway 30 in Utah) and/or the West Wide Energy Corridor 

3.4, 3.5 

Route the eastern portion of the proposed project north of the Cache Valley in Utah 3.4.1, 3.4.3, 3.4.4 

Route the proposed pipeline through the Sheldon NWR by following State Highway 140 3.4.11 

Route the proposed pipeline south from Paradise Hill to Winnemucca along US Highway 95, 

then follow Jungo Road west to Gerlach, then follow State Secondary Route 34 north to 

Vya and into Oregon 

3.4.12 

Route the proposed pipeline south of the Sheldon NWR and Black Rock Wilderness Area in 

Nevada 

3.4.11, 3.4.12 

Route the proposed pipeline to minimize impacts on the Antelope Creek Archaeological District 

in Oregon 

3.4.14 

Route the western portion of the pipeline through California 3.4.13 

Adopt minor variations to avoid specific features or resources 3.5 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Impacts of the proposed project when combined with other actions in the same region, 

particularly the multiple liquefied natural gas terminals and natural gas pipeline projects 

proposed in Oregon 

4.13 

Potential for cumulative impacts from siting numerous utilities within the same corridor 4.13.5, 4.13.6 

Potential for new corridors created by the proposed pipeline to encourage development of 

future utility lines in the same corridor and result in cumulative impacts 

4.13.6 

Potential for increased greenhouse gas emissions associated with construction from the natural 

gas transported in the pipeline to contribute toward global warming 

4.13.9 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1-12 

We held a total of seven public comment meetings during the draft EIS comment period (see 

table 1.3-1). The meetings provided interested parties with an opportunity to present oral comments on 

our analysis of the environmental impacts of Ruby’s proposed project as described in the draft EIS. A 

total of 23 people commented at the meetings. In addition, 126 parties submitted a total of 144 letters in 

response to the draft EIS. All timely environmental comments on the draft EIS have been addressed in 

this final EIS. A transcript of each meeting and copies of each written comment are part of the public 

record for the project. The FERC staff’s responses to relevant comments are provided in Appendix AA of 

this final EIS. A subject index is provided in Appendix BB. Substantiative changes in the final EIS are 

indicated by vertical bars that appear in the margins. The changes were made both in response to 

comments received on the draft EIS and as a result of updated information that became available after the 

issuance of the draft EIS. 

This final EIS is being mailed to the agencies, individuals, and organizations on the mailing list in 

Appendix A, and was filed with the EPA for issuance of a formal public notice of availability in the 

Federal Register. In accordance with CEQ’s regulations implementing NEPA, no agency decision on a 

proposed action may be made until 30 days after the EPA publishes a notice of availability for this final 

EIS. However, the CEQ regulations provide an exception to this rule when an agency decision is subject 

to a formal internal process that allows other agencies or the public to make their views known. In such 

cases, the agency decision may be made at the same time the notice of this final EIS is published, 

allowing both periods to run concurrently. Should the FERC issue Ruby a Certificate for the proposed 

action, it would be subject to a 30-day rehearing period. Therefore, the FERC could issue its decision 

concurrently with the EPA’s notice of availability. 

1.4 NON-JURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES 

Under Section 7 of the NGA, the FERC is required to consider, as part of its decision to 

certificate interstate natural gas facilities, all factors bearing on the public convenience and necessity. 

The facilities for the proposed project that would be under the FERC’s jurisdiction include about 675 

miles of new pipeline facilities, 4 new compressor stations, 5 new meter stations containing 8 

interconnects with other pipeline systems, 44 new mainline valves (MLVs), 20 new pig9 launchers or 

receivers, and 4 communication towers. Ruby is also proposing to install miscellaneous equipment on 

eight existing communication towers. 

Occasionally, proposed projects have associated facilities that do not come under the jurisdiction 

of the FERC. These “non-jurisdictional” facilities may be integral to the need for the proposed project 

(e.g., a new or expanded power plant at the end of a pipeline that is not under the jurisdiction of the 

FERC) or they may be merely associated as a minor, non-integral component of the jurisdictional 

facilities that would be constructed and operated as a result of the proposed facilities. We have identified 

the following three non-jurisdictional facilities that would be built in association with the Ruby Pipeline 

Project: 2.5 miles of electric power line for the Roberson Creek Compressor Station, 4.5 miles of electric 

power line for the Desert Valley Compressor Station, and a 1,000-foot-long intrastate pipeline to 

interconnect Ruby’s proposed pipeline with existing facilities at the Oregon-California border. These 

facilities are further described below. 

According to Ruby, Rocky Mountain Power intends to construct electric transmission and 

distribution facilities to supply the proposed Roberson Creek Compressor Station at MP 5.7 in Lincoln 

County, Wyoming. These facilities would include about 1.5 miles of 230-kilovolt (kV) electric 

 

9

 A pig is an internal tool that can be used to clean and dry a pipeline and/or to inspect it for corrosion or damage. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1-13 

transmission line, 1.0 mile of 25-kV electric distribution line, 16 associated pylons (14 wood “H” frame 

structures and 2 steel poles, each about 70-feet tall and about 645-feet apart with associated guy wires), a 

switching station (on a 400-by-550-foot site), a meter (on a 50-by-70-foot site), an access road (about 30 

feet wide and 1,300 feet long), and other related components. Rocky Mountain Power would require a 

150-foot-wide right-of-way for the line. About half the line would be located on BLM-administered land 

and the remainder would be located on private land. 

Harney Electric Cooperative plans to construct an approximate 4.5-mile-long, 25-kV electric 

distribution line that would extend from Harney Electric Cooperative’s existing electric transmission grid 

to the proposed Desert Valley Compressor Station at MP 476.4 in Humboldt County, Nevada. The 

distribution line would be sited along Harney Electric Cooperative’s existing power line right-of-way, 

which is located entirely on BLM-administered land. The line would be installed within the easterly 35 

feet of Harney Electric Cooperative’s existing 75-foot-wide right-of-way. The facilities would consist of 

about 60 single wood poles with appropriate guy anchors. 

Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) would construct minor pipeline facilities to connect to 

the proposed pipeline at the Oregon-California border at MP R672.6. These facilities would include up to 

1,000 feet of intrastate (i.e., non-FERC-jurisdictional) natural gas pipeline, valves, over-pressure 

protection, communication equipment, and other appurtenant facilities. The PG&E facilities would be 

within or adjacent to existing PG&E rights-of-way and aboveground facilities in Modoc County, 

California. 

Figures 1.4-1, 1.4-2, and 1.4-3 illustrate the general locations of these planned non-jurisdictional 

facilities. Ruby has not identified the need for electric transmission or distribution lines to serve the 

Wildcat Hills or Wieland Flat compressor stations. 

To ensure that the scope of our NEPA analyses is appropriate, it is often necessary to determine 

whether our review of the FERC jurisdictional facilities should include an evaluation of associated nonjurisdictional facilities and the related environmental impacts. The FERC has adopted a four-factor 

procedure to determine whether there is sufficient federal control and responsibility over a project as a 

whole to warrant environmental analysis of portions of the project outside the Commission’s direct sphere 

of responsibility. These factors are: 

1. whether the regulated activity comprises “merely a link” in a corridor type project (e.g., a 

transportation or utility transmission project); 

2. whether there are aspects of the non-jurisdictional facility in the immediate vicinity of the 

regulated activity which uniquely determine the location and configuration of the 

regulated activity; 

3. the extent to which the entire project will be within the FERC’s jurisdiction; and 

4. the extent of cumulative federal control and responsibility. 

We considered the four factors and determined that the FERC’s control and responsibility is not sufficient 

to extend our environmental review to include the non-jurisdictional facilities. 

Although the Ruby Pipeline Project is itself a corridor-type project to supply natural gas from the 

Rocky Mountain region of the United States to customers in Nevada and on the West Coast, there are no 

aspects of the non-jurisdictional facilities that uniquely determine the location and configuration of the 

Ruby Pipeline Project – the Ruby pipeline could be routed differently to reach the same interconnect point 

with PG&E. Further, the electric transmission lines and the intrastate pipeline fall under respective state 

jurisdiction and would not be within the FERC’s jurisdiction. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1-14 

Figure 1.4.1 Rocky Mountain Power Non-jurisdictional Powerline 

1-12 

1-11 

1-13 

1-14 1-14 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1-15 

Figure 1.4-2 Harney Electric Cooperative Non-jurisdictional Powerline 

1-15 

1-15 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1-16 

Figure 1.4-3 PG&E Non-jurisdictional Pipeline 

1-16 

1-16 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1-17 

In consideration of the fourth factor, the extent of cumulative federal control and responsibility 

over the non-jurisdictional facilities is used to determine whether the actions of other federal agencies are 

dependent on the FERC’s action. Typical related federal activities consist of stream and wetland crossing 

permits by the COE and right-of-way grants to cross public land by the federal land management 

agencies. On this project, these actions are independent of the FERC’s decision and do not warrant 

“federalizing” the non-jurisdictional facilities. 

While Rocky Mountain Power’s and Harney Electric Cooperative’s electric power lines would 

not fall under FERC’s jurisdiction, we believe they are integral components of the proposed project. In 

addition, both power lines would be located on BLM land and thus are subject to NEPA review by the 

BLM. Therefore, we have included them in our environmental review and they are discussed throughout 

section 4 of this EIS. We note that the power lines also may be required to undergo an environmental 

review by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) under the Wyoming Industrial 

Information and Siting Act and by the Nevada Public Utilities Commission under the Nevada Utility 

Environmental Protection Act, as applicable. The pipeline facilities proposed by PG&E would undergo 

an intensive environmental review by the California Public Utilities Commission under the California 

Environmental Quality Act. However, sufficient federal control and responsibility does not exist to 

warrant an environmental analysis of these facilities by the FERC staff. Therefore, the scope of this EIS 

does not include these intrastate pipeline facilities. All proponents of non-jurisdictional facilities would 

be required to obtain and adhere to other necessary federal, state, and local permits. 

1.5 PERMITS, APPROVALS, AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

The FERC, BLM, Reclamation, FWS, USFS, and other federal agencies that must make a 

decision on the proposed project are required to comply with the ESA, Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

(MBTA), Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), and NHPA. These statutes have been taken 

into account in this EIS. Federal agencies are also required to comply with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) and Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). 

The proposed project would not be within marine environments or designated coastal zones, nor would it 

affect anadromous fish species;10 therefore, review under the MSFCMA and CZMA do not apply to the 

Ruby Pipeline Project. 

Section 7 of the ESA, as amended, states that any project authorized, funded, or conducted by any 

federal agency (e.g., the FERC) should not “...jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered 

species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species 

which is determined...to be critical...” (16 United States Code [USC] § 1536(a) (2) (1988)). The FERC, 

or Ruby as a non-federal party, is required to consult with the FWS to determine whether any federally 

listed or proposed endangered or threatened species or their designated critical habitats would be affected 

by the proposed project. 

Ruby, as a non-federal party, began informal consultations with the FWS during the FERC prefiling phase of this project. Ruby included information regarding federally listed and proposed 

endangered and threatened species and their designated critical habitats in its application. Ruby continues 

to consult with the FWS regarding conservation and mitigation measures for endangered or threatened 

species that may be affected by the project. We reviewed the information in Ruby’s application and also 

conducted our own review of endangered and threatened species and critical habitat. We determined that 

federally listed species may occur in the project area, and that the project could potentially adversely 

 

10 Anadromous fish are fish that migrate up rivers from the ocean to spawn in fresh waters. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1-18 

affect these species. Therefore, we are initiating formal Section 7 consultation with the FWS. Concurrent 

with this EIS, we prepared a draft Biological Assessment (BA) that identified the nature and extent of 

adverse effects and measures that would avoid the species and/or habitats or would reduce impacts to 

acceptable levels. This final EIS includes the information contained in our draft BA (see section 4.7). 

The BA will be finalized and submitted to the FWS shortly after this final EIS is issued. 

The MBTA implements various treaties and conventions between the United States, Canada, 

Japan, Mexico, and the former Soviet Union for the protection of migratory birds. Birds protected under 

the MBTA include all common songbirds, waterfowl, shorebirds, hawks, owls, eagles, ravens, crows, 

native doves and pigeons, swifts, martins, swallows, and others, including their body parts (feathers, 

plumes, etc.), nests, and eggs. The act makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture, or kill; attempt to 

take, capture, or kill; possess, offer to or sell, barter, purchase, deliver, or cause to be shipped, exported, 

imported, transported, carried, or received any migratory bird, part, nest, egg or product, manufactured or 

not, without a permit. This final EIS discusses compliance with the MBTA in section 4.5.5. 

The BGEPA prohibits taking without a permit, or taking with wanton disregard for the 

consequences of an activity, any bald or golden eagle or their body parts, nests, chicks, or eggs, which 

includes collection, molestation, disturbance, or killing. The BGEPA protections include provisions not 

included in the MBTA, such as the protection of unoccupied nests and a prohibition on disturbing eagles. 

The BGEPA includes limited exceptions to its prohibitions through a permitting process, including 

exceptions to take golden eagle nests that interfere with resource development or recovery operations. 

This final EIS discusses compliance with the BGEPA in section 4.5.5. 

Section 106 of the NHPA requires the FERC to take into account the effects of its undertakings 

on properties listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), 

including prehistoric or historic sites, districts, buildings, structures, objects, or properties of traditional 

religious or cultural importance. The FERC must also afford the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (ACHP) an opportunity to comment on the effects of its undertakings. In accordance with 

the ACHP procedures, the FERC, as the lead agency, is required to consult with cooperating agencies and 

the appropriate State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding the NRHP eligibility of cultural 

resources and the potential effects of the proposed undertaking to those NRHP-listed or -eligible cultural 

resources. The FERC has requested that Ruby, as a non-federal party, assist in meeting the FERC’s 

obligations under Section 106 by preparing the necessary information and analyses as required by the 

ACHP regulations in 36 CFR 800. This final EIS discusses the status of this review in section 4.10. 

The FERC has exclusive authority for siting interstate natural gas pipeline projects. However, 

other agencies also have responsibilities for other federal authorizations. Ruby must satisfy all federal 

statutory requirements for the project to proceed, such as acquiring permits under the Clean Water Act 

(CWA), the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA), and the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Energy Policy Act of 

2005 (EPAct 2005) provides that the FERC shall act as the lead agency for coordinating all applicable 

federal authorizations related to jurisdictional natural gas facilities and for purposes of complying with 

NEPA. Further, EPAct 2005 authorizes the Commission to establish a schedule for all federal 

authorizations and to maintain a consolidated record of decisions for judicial review. Each of these 

statutes has been taken into account in the preparation of this EIS. 

The major permits, approvals, and consultations required for the proposed project are identified in 

table 1.5-1 at the end of this section. Ruby would be responsible for obtaining all permits and approvals 

required to construct and operate the Ruby Pipeline Project, regardless of whether or not they appear in 

this table. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1-19 

1.5.1 Conformance with Resource Management Plans 

Both the BLM and the USFS are subject to land use planning as required under the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act of 1976 [42 USC 1702(0)] (FLPMA). A land use plan describes broad 

multiple use direction for managing public lands. For the BLM, these plans may be referred to as 

Resource Management Plans (RMPs) or Management Framework Plans (MFPs). For the USFS these 

plans are referred to as LRMPs. The USFWS is subject to land use planning as required under the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. These land use plans are referred to as 

Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs) and are similar in nature to RMPs, MFPs, and LRMPs. 

1.5.2 BLM Lands 

According to the BLM, approval of the Ruby Pipeline Project would be in conformance with the 

management goals, objectives, and/or direction contained in the following BLM land use plans. This 

information is summarized in table 1.5.2-1. 

TABLE 1.5.2-1 

BLM Land Use Plans Affected by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State Office Plan Name Amendment 

Needed Rationale 

Wyoming Kemmerer Field Kemmerer RMP (1986) No Action is in conformance with RMP 

Utah Salt Lake Field Randolph MFP (1980) No Action is in conformance with MFP 

Box Elder RMP (1986) No Action is in conformance with RMP 

Nevada Elko District Wells RMP (1985) No Action is in conformance with RMP 

Elko RMP (1987) No Action is in conformance with RMP 

Nevada Winnemucca District Sonoma-Gerlach MFP (1982) No Action is in conformance with MFP 

Paradise-Denio MFP (1982) No Action is in conformance with MFP 

Nevada/Calif. Surprise Field Surprise RMP (2008) No Action is in conformance with RMP 

Oregon Lakeview District Klamath Falls RMP (1995) No Action is in conformance with RMP 

Lakeview RMP (2003) No Action is in conformance with RMP 

The Kemmerer Field Office is governed by the Kemmerer RMP (BLM, 1986a). This action is in 

conformance with the planning direction developed for this area. A waiver has been requested for T19N, 

R115W, Sections 6 and 12 for the proposed pipeline to follow the existing Kern River Pipeline route. 

The Kern River Pipeline route was approved in 2003, prior to Maintenance Action #10-4, dated June 13, 

2005. This Maintenance Action changed the text in the RMP to require that “no activity or surface 

disturbance will be allowed within a quarter mile of the perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks.” Routing 

the Ruby Pipeline Project outside of the perimeter of the lek in this particular area would degrade far 

more greater sage-grouse habitat than allowing a waiver for this location. The mitigation measures 

proposed by Ruby would ensure no further degradation occurs and would improve the habitat on the Kern 

River pipeline as well as the surrounding area. This form of action is in conformance with the land 

management plan. Therefore no amendment to the existing plan would be needed. 

The Salt Lake Field Office is governed by the Randolph MFP (BLM, 1980) and the Box Elder 

RMP (BLM, 1986b). This action is in conformance with the Randolph MFP, Lands section, Decision 1, 

by making public land available for proper public and private uses. Although this action is not 

specifically identified in the plan, it falls within the intent of the objectives of the plan. Therefore no land 

use plan amendment would be needed. This action is in conformance with the Box Elder RMP, Lands 

Program section, Decision 3 which states that the utilization of rights-of-way in common shall be 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1-20 

considered whenever possible. Rights-of-way would, to the maximum extent possible, avoid certain 

areas. This action falls within these guidelines. Therefore, no land use plan amendment is needed. 

The Elko District currently operates under the Wells RMP (BLM, 1985) and the Elko RMP 

(BLM, 1987). This action is in conformance with the Wells RMP, Corridor Designation section, 

Decision 2, as the pipeline substantially follows a prescribed corridor. No land use plan amendments 

would be needed. This action is in conformance with the Elko RMP, Management Decision Corridor 

Designation, as the pipeline partially follows a prescribed corridor and the RMP provides for the 

evaluation of projects that cross public lands on an individual basis (BLM, 1987 [page 11]). Therefore no 

land use plan amendment would be needed. Portions of the proposed project are not within corridors 

designated by BLM’s approved 1985 Wells and 1987 Elko RMPs, but the designation does not preclude 

BLM’s granting a right-of-way for the project outside of designated corridors. 

The Winnemucca District currently operates under the Sonoma-Gerlach MFP (BLM, 1982a) and 

the Paradise-Denio MFP (BLM, 1982b). This action is in conformance with the Sonoma-Gerlach MFP 

because even though natural gas pipelines are not specifically identified in the plan, it is the intent of the 

plan “to provide lands for rights-of-ways on or across public lands.” This action falls within this intent. 

Therefore, no land use plan amendments would be needed. This action is in conformance with the 

Paradise-Denio MFP because even though natural gas pipelines were not specifically identified in the 

plan, it is the intent of the plan to “allocate public lands for utility corridor purposes.” This action falls 

within this intent. Therefore, no land use plan amendments would be needed. 

The Surprise Field Office is governed by the Surprise RMP (BLM, 2008a). This action is in 

conformance with the Surprise RMP. Section 2.7.2.3 of the RMP sets forth the plan’s objectives. 

Amongst these is that the Surprise Field Office “meet the public needs for land use authorization such as 

right-of-ways, leases, and permits” and “[e]stablish right-of-way corridor routes to the extent possible 

with allowances for known and unknown avoidance areas and consistent with resource objectives.” 

Section 2.7.2.5 sets out the proposed management actions, including “primarily granting rights-of-way 

(ROW) [sic] within existing roads, and confined areas of existing disturbance” and consideration of 

“designation of new utility corridors.” This action meets both the objectives and proposed management 

action criteria. Therefore, no land use plan amendments would be needed. 

The Black Rock Desert–High Rock Canyon National Conservation Area (NCA) (Black Rock 

NCA) is managed by BLM’s Surprise Field Office and is governed by the NCA RMP (BLM, 2004a). 

This action is in conformance with the NCA RMP. The RMP’s “Lands” section 2.2.16 includes two 

decisions: 

• LAND-4: Two existing utility corridors will be retained. One corridor crosses the milewide “neck” in the northwest part of the NCA. This corridor is one mile wide and centers 

on existing Los Angeles Water and Power electrical transmission lines. The second 

corridor runs in an east-west direction and includes the Union Pacific Railroad line and a 

parallel power line. This corridor is 2.75 miles wide with the Union Pacific Railroad line 

located near its northern edge. 

• LAND-5: Utility rights-of-way may be granted outside of Wilderness where in 

conformance with visual quality objectives and the NCA act. 

The Lakeview District is divided into two resource areas, each of which has its own RMP. The 

Klamath Falls Resource Area is governed by the Klamath Falls RMP (BLM, 1995). This action is in 

conformance with the Klamath Falls RMP. The RMP “Rights-of-Way Objectives” states that the District 

should continue to make BLM-administered lands available for needed rights-of-way where consistent 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1-21 

with local comprehensive plans, Oregon statewide planning goals and rules, and the exclusion and 

avoidance areas identified in the RMP (BLM, 1995 [page 66]). The RMP’s “Land Use Allocation” 

section states that where consistent with local comprehensive plans and Oregon’s statewide planning 

goals and rules, BLM-administered lands will continue to be available for needed rights-of-way. Utility 

transportations routes (for electric transmission, as distinguished from electricity distribution or facilities; 

pipelines 10 inches in diameter or larger, significant canals, ditches and conduits, railroads, 

communication lines for interstate use, federal and state highways, and major county roads) will be 

confined to existing and other previously designated corridors. However, the RMP also allows BLM to 

“consider new locations for rights-of-way projects on a case-by-case basis. Applications may be 

approved where the applicant can demonstrate that use of an existing route or corridor will not be 

technically or economically feasible; and the proposed project will otherwise be consistent with this 

resource management plan and will minimize damage to the environment.” There is no existing east-west 

corridor or route that is technically or economically feasible on the Klamath Falls Resource Area, and the 

proposed action is designed to minimize damage to the environment. This action would thus conforms 

with the utility location management direction in the Klamath Falls RMP. Therefore, no land use plan 

amendments would be needed. 

The Lakeview District’s Lakeview Resource Area is governed by the Lakeview RMP (BLM, 

2003a). This action in is conformance with the Lakeview RMP. The RMP’s Lands and Realty 

Management Goal 2 is to “meet public needs for land use authorizations such as rights-of-way, leases, 

and permits (BLM, 2003a [pages 92-95]).” This action conforms with this goal. In addition, the 

Lakeview Resource Area has determined that the proposed route would not conflict with the Visual 

Resource Management, Rights-of-Way Avoidance Area, or Wild and Scenic River (WSR) program 

direction contained in the RMP. Therefore, no land use plan amendments would be needed. 

1.5.3 USFS Lands 

The USFS manages land under guidance similar to RMPs. According to the BLM, approval of 

the Ruby Pipeline Project would not conform with the management goals, objectives, and/or direction 

contained in the following agency LRMPs for the reasons stated. This information is summarized in table 

1.5.3-1. 

TABLE 1.5.3-1 

USFS LRMPs Affected by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State National Forest Plan Amendment 

Needed Rationale 

Wyoming/Utah Uinta-Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest 

Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest LRMP Yes Action is not in conformance with LRMP 

Oregon Fremont-Winema National 

Forests 

Fremont National 

Forest LRMP Yes 

Action is not in conformance 

with LRMP/amendment is 

being drafted 

Currently, the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest is governed under two separate LRMPs – 

the Uinta National Forest LRMP (USFS, 2003a) and the Wasatch-Cache National Forest LRMP (USFS, 

2003b). If a right-of-way grant is issued for USFS-managed land, the USFS would be required to amend 

the Wasatch-Cache National Forest LRMP. Within the Cache portion of the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest, the proposed project would be inconsistent in two areas of management direction in the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest LRMP. Specifically, the pipeline would not consistently follow a 

designated utility corridor as required by Subgoal 12d and would require road construction related to 

providing access, which is not allowed under Guideline 3.2D-1. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1-22 

Subgoal 12d states that pipelines should “utilize currently designated utility corridors fully for 

power transmission lines of 66 kV or greater and oil and gas pipelines 10” [sic] or greater.” Utility 

corridors are designated in guideline 85. The alignment of the proposed 42-inch Ruby pipeline is not 

within one of the ten designated corridors in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. For construction to 

occur, the Wasatch-Cache National Forest LRMP would have to be amended. If the project is approved, 

the USFS would be required to amend the Wasatch-Cache National Forest LRMP as follows: 

• LRMP page 4-25. Add a statement that would allow a onetime waiver from the subgoal 

12d direction to allow placement of the pipeline outside of a designated corridor for 

approximately 1.2 miles. The Ruby pipeline alignment would not become a designated 

LRMP corridor. Any future pipeline proposed in the right-of-way would necessitate 

further analysis prior to any decision being made. 

Furthermore, the proposed pipeline alignment is within the Cache-Box Elder Management Area. 

The broad management prescription assigned to the area where the pipeline and access roads are proposed 

is one of multiple resource uses where aquatic/watershed and terrestrial habitat integrity are emphasized. 

More specifically it is assigned a 3.2D prescription. These lands consist of terrestrial habitat areas where 

development is allowed for the purpose of maintaining, improving, or restoring key habitat elements. 

Guideline G3.2D-1 states that “timber harvest, road construction, vegetation/fuel treatment, prescribed 

fire and wildland fire use are allowed for the purposes of maintaining, improving, or restoring terrestrial 

habitat, for oil and gas exploration, for hazardous fuel reduction, and to protect property in the wildland 

urban interface.” Road construction related to providing access to a pipeline is not included as an activity 

that is allowed. However, this guideline would not require an LRMP amendment. In the Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest LRMP guidelines are defined as statements describing a preferred or advisable course of 

action that is generally expected to be carried out. Deviation from compliance does not require LRMP 

amendment, but that the rationale for such deviation be documented in the project decision document. 

Appendix C contains an Evaluation Report for the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest LRMP 

Amendment that was prepared by the staff at the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

Currently, the Fremont-Winema National Forests are governed by separate LRMPs. Within the 

Fremont National Forest the proposed project is inconsistent with a number of standards and guidelines in 

the Fremont National Forest LRMP (USFS, 1989) prior to any amendment. Specifically, the pipeline 

would pass through portions of Management Area 6 – Scenic Viewsheds; 14 – Old Growth Habitat; and 

15 – Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Water Quality. The pipeline also would pass through portions of Soil 

Capability Areas 1, 2, and 3 and scabland portions of Capability Area 13 covered by general forest 

standards and guidelines. For construction to occur, the Fremont National Forest LRMP would need to 

be amended to allow more time to attain Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs), relocate dedicated old 

growth, allow heavy equipment to operate through seeps and springs, and exempt the project from the 

detrimental soil and erosion standard and guidelines. The Fremont National Forest LRMP is currently 

undergoing the following amendments so that if a right-of-way grant is issued for USFS-managed land, 

the proposed action would be in conformance by virtue of such amendments. If the project is approved, 

the USFS would amend the Fremont National Forest LRMP as follows: 

• General Forest Plan Standard and Guideline for Soils Management. LRMP pages 80 to 

81, add item (5) under the Operational Considerations for Surface Soil Conditions which 

says: “During and immediately after construction of the Ruby Pipeline Project, the soil 

conditions within the activity area (construction right-of-way) will be permitted to exceed 

the 20 percent (20%) standard and guideline for detrimental soil condition. The 

implementation of Ruby’s Upland Erosion, Revegetation, and Mitigation Plan will reduce 

erosion impacts and minimize impacts on soil productivity.” 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1-23 

• General Forest Standard and Guideline for Soils Management. LRMP pages 83 and 84, 

add a statement under item 3, Operational Considerations: “During installation of the 

Ruby Pipeline Project, exposed mineral soil standards displayed in Table 21 will be 

exceeded; however, with the extra mitigation proposed in Ruby’s Upland Erosion, 

Revegetation, and Mitigation Plan, these standards will be achieved.” 

• Management Area 6 – Scenic Viewsheds. The Ruby Pipeline Project would cross through 

a portion of Management Area 6 when it crosses Forest Road 3915. The area has a VQO 

of foreground retention and middle ground partial retention. Item B will be added to 

Land Uses on LRMP page 154: “B. The cleared corridor needed to install the Ruby 

Pipeline Project will not immediately meet the VQO of retention and partial retention. 

Mitigation measures, including vegetation management and restoration actions, will 

occur to move the construction corridor toward current VQOs over an extended 

timeframe.” 

• Management Area 14 – Old Growth Habitat. The Ruby Pipeline Project would cross 

through a stand of dedicated old growth. The best stands either meeting or soon to meet 

old growth standards will be designated as replacement. 

• Management Area 13 – Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Water Quality. The crossing of 

seeps and springs would be uncommon. The Ruby Pipeline Project would cross one 

seasonal seep. The following statement will be added under Seeps and Springs, 

management treatments on LRMP, page 204: “(d) Construction equipment necessary to 

install the Ruby Pipeline Project will be permitted in the area of seeps and springs. 

Implementation of Ruby’s Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan 

and special construction measures will minimize impacts.” 

Appendix C also contains an Evaluation Report for the Fremont National Forest LRMP 

Amendment that was prepared by the staff at the Fremont-Winema National Forests. 

1.5.4 FWS Lands 

The FWS manages its land in accordance with CCPs. Unlike most other federal lands, the NWR 

system is not managed for a wide range of multiple uses. Rather, the NWR system is managed for 

wildlife conservation and wildlife-dependent recreational uses. Uses that do not contribute to the 

fulfillment of refuge goals or objectives are the lowest priorities. The FWS is in the process of 

developing a CCP for the Sheldon NWR that would describe the desired future conditions of the refuge 

and provide long-range guidance and management direction to achieve refuge purposes and help fulfill 

the NWR system mission and goals. Consistent with FWS policy, appropriateness findings are made 

after comparing a proposed use against a list of formal evaluation criteria (603 FW 1). A compatibility 

determination is made after a proposed use is found appropriate and after additional evaluations are 

undertaken to determine whether the effects of the use would materially interfere with or detract from 

achievement of the NWR system mission or the purposes of the NWR (603 FW 2). The Sheldon NWR is 

currently operating under a management plan approved in 1980; however, appropriateness findings and 

compatibility determinations are stand-alone documents that are prepared whether or not a NWR has a 

CCP or other management plan. 

Issuance of rights of way across state-owned Wildlife or Waterfowl Management Areas (WMAs) 

acquired with federal funding supplied through the Wildlife Restoration (Pittman Robertson) Act or the 

Sportfish Restoration (Dingell Johnson) Act (or its Wallop-Breaux Amendment) is controlled under legal 

contract with the FWS. States do not have authority to issue rights-of-way across such WMAs without 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1-24 

first securing a contract amendment from FWS. The decision by the FWS of whether to issue a contract 

amendment permitting a change in land use requires adequate NEPA documentation. The regulatory 

requirements pertaining to activities such as the issuance of easements on federal funding-acquired 

property for construction of the Ruby pipeline can be found in 50 CFR 80.14(b)(3). 

While distinct from NWR lands, these contract-encumbered WMAs require the FWS to judge, 

somewhat as they do for NWR system lands, whether a proposed use materially interferes with or detracts 

substantially from the approved purposes of the WMAs. Because the FWS must determine whether or 

not to issue a grant amendment to the affected state entity, which determines whether the state entity, in 

turn, can issue a right-of-way grant to Ruby, the EIS needs to support the FWS’s decision making on such 

affected state lands. Two such WMAs occur in Utah, requiring approval of the FWS’s Division of 

Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration in the Mountain-Prairie Region (Region 6). 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1-25 

TABLE 1.5-1 

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultation Agency Action 

FEDERAL 

ACHP Consultation under Section 106 of the 

NHPA 

Comment on the proposed project and its 

effects to historic properties. 

BLM Right-of-Way Grant and Temporary Use 

Permit under Section 28 of the MLA 

Consider issuing one or more right-of-way 

grants for the proposed facilities and 

consider authorizing temporary work areas 

during construction. 

 Cooperating Agency for EIS under 

Section 204 of NEPA 

Assist the FERC with preparation of the 

EIS and use the EIS in the right-of-way 

grant and temporary use permit decision 

process or conduct its own environmental 

analysis. 

 Permit for Archeological Investigations 

under Section 4 of the Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act 

Consider issuing a permit for the 

excavation or removal of archaeological 

resources from public lands. 

Reclamation Consideration of the Right-of-Way Grant 

and Temporary Use Permit under Section 

28 of the MLA 

Consider concurring with the right-of-way 

grant and temporary use permits that 

would be issued by the BLM. 

 Cooperating Agency for EIS under 

Section 204 of NEPA 

Assist the FERC with preparation of the 

EIS and use the EIS in the right-of-way 

grant and temporary use permit decision 

process or conduct its own environmental 

analysis. 

 Consent Document for Easement 

Encroachment under Section 10 of the 

Reclamation Project Act 

Consider authorizing encroachment on 

Reclamation-administered easements. 

CEQ Review EIS under Section 204 of NEPA 

and Section 3 of Executive Order 11514 

Review and mediate interagency 

disagreements about findings of the EIS, if 

requested. 

COE Cooperating Agency for EIS under 

Section 204 of NEPA 

Assist the FERC with EIS preparation. 

 Permit under Section 404 of the CWA Consider issuing an individual permit or 

authorization under the Nationwide Permit 

Program for the discharge of dredge or fill 

material into waters of the United States, 

including wetlands. 

Department of Justice, Bureau of 

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 

Explosives 

Permit under Section 843 of the 

Organized Crime Control Act 

Consider issuing an Explosive User Permit 

for trench blasting. 

EPA Review EIS under Section 309 of the 

CAA 

Comment on the EIS and consider 

appealing to the CEQ. 

 Review of applications to the COE under 

Section 404 of the CWA 

Consider exercising veto power over COE 

Section 404 permit to discharge dredged 

or fill material into waters of the United 

States. 

Federal Communications 

Commission 

License for Fixed Microwave Service 

under Section 301 of the 

Communications Act 

Consider issuance of license for operating 

fixed microwave communication facilities. 

FERC Certificate of Public Convenience and 

Necessity under Section 7 of the NGA 

Determine whether the construction and 

operation of the natural gas pipeline and 

associated facilities are in the public 

interest, and consider issuing a Certificate. 

 Prepare EIS under Section 102 of the 

NEPA and Section 2 of Executive Order 

11514 

Prepare an EIS to describe the effects, 

plans to mitigate the effects of the 

proposed project, and alternatives to the 

proposed project on the environment. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1-26 

TABLE 1.5-1 

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultation Agency Action 

USFS Consideration of the Right-of-Way Grant 

and Temporary Use Permit under Section 

28 of the MLA 

Consider concurring with the right-of-way 

grant and temporary use permits that 

would be issued by the BLM. 

 Cooperating Agency for EIS under 

Section 204 of the NEPA 

Assist the FERC with preparation of the 

EIS and use the EIS in the right-of-way 

grant and temporary use permit decision 

process or conduct its own environmental 

analysis. 

 LRMP Amendments under Section 6 of 

the National Forest Management Act 

Consider amending LRMPs for the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forests and the 

Fremont National Forest to allow the 

proposed project. 

FWS Consideration of the Right-of-Way Grant 

and Temporary Use Permit under Section 

28 of the MLA 

Consider concurring with the right-of-way 

grant and temporary use permits that 

would be issued by the BLM. Advise BLM 

of compatibility determination decision for 

a right-of-way grant and/or temporary use 

permit on the NWR system land. 

Consideration of a Right-of-Way Grant 

Amendment under the Wildlife 

Restoration Act and the Sportfish 

Restoration Act 

Consider issuing grant amendment to 

UDWR permitting UDWR to issue 

easements for Ruby Pipeline to cross two 

state-owned WMAs acquired with federal 

aid funding. 

 Cooperating Agency for EIS under 

Section 204 of NEPA 

Assist the FERC with preparation of the 

EIS and use the EIS in the right-of-way 

grant and temporary use permit decision 

process or conduct its own environmental 

analysis. 

 Endangered Species Consultation under 

Section 7 of the ESA 

Consider FERC’s finding of impact on 

federally listed and proposed species and 

their critical habitat, and provide Biological 

Opinion if the action is likely to adversely 

affect federally listed or proposed species 

or their critical habitat. 

 Migratory Bird Consultation under Section 

3 of Executive Order 13186 

Comment on the proposed project and its 

effects to listed migratory birds. 

 Fish and Wildlife Consultation under 

Section 2 of the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act 

Comment on the impoundment, diversion, 

channelization, control, or modification of 

waterbodies for the project and the effects 

to fish and wildlife. 

WYOMING 

University of Wyoming, Wyoming 

Natural Diversity Database 

Consultation under 18 CFR 380.12(e)(8) Comment on known occurrences of 

important plant communities, rare plants, 

and rare animals in the project area. 

WDEQ, Air Quality Division Construction Permit under Title I of the 

CAA 

Consider issuing a permit to construct a 

new source of air emissions associated 

with the compressor station. 

 Operating Permit under Title V of the 

CAA 

Consider issuing a permit to operate a 

major source of air emissions associated 

with the compressor station if required for 

emergency generator. 

WDEQ, Water Quality Division Water Quality Certification under Section 

401 of the CWA 

Consider issuing Water Quality 

Certification for permits authorized under 

Section 402 and 404 of the CWA. 

 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) Storm Water Permit 

under Section 402 of the CWA 

Consider authorizing storm water 

discharges associated with construction 

under the General Permit. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1-27 

TABLE 1.5-1 

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultation Agency Action 

 NPDES Waste Water Discharge Permit 

under Section 402 of the CWA 

Consider authorizing hydrostatic test 

waste water and trench water discharges 

under the General Permit. 

Wyoming Department of State Parks 

and Cultural Resources, SHPO 

Consultation under Section 106 of the 

NHPA 

Comment on the proposed project and its 

effects to historic properties listed or 

eligible for listing on the NRHP. 

WDOT Traffic Management Consultation under 

State Statutes 

Comment on the proposed project and the 

effects to state road and highway traffic. 

 Utility License under the Federal-Aid 

Highway Act and State Statutes 

Consider issuing a license to cross federal 

and state roads and highways. 

Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department 

Consultation under 18 CFR 380.12(e)(8) Comment on the proposed project and its 

effects to wildlife, fisheries, vegetation, and 

state-listed species. 

Wyoming Highway Patrol, 

Commercial Carrier Division 

Oversize and Overweight Permits under 

State Statutes 

Consider issuing permits for oversize and 

overweight vehicles on federal and state 

roads and highways. 

Wyoming Office of State Lands and 

Investments 

Roadway Easement under State Statues Consider issuing easements to cross 

state-owned roadways. 

 Temporary Use Permit under Chapter 14 

of the Rules and Regulations of the Board 

of Land Commissioners 

Consider issuing a permit to temporarily 

use state-owned land for extra workspace, 

access roads and other temporary uses. 

 Easement and/or Special Use Leasing 

under Chapter 3 and/or 5 of the Rules 

and Regulations of the Board of Land 

Commissioners 

Consider issuing easements to cross 

state-owned land or issuing a lease for 

placement of aboveground facilities. 

Wyoming State Engineer’s Office 

Surface Water Division 

New Appropriation for Domestic Use or 

Temporary Change Permit 

Considered issuing a permit for permanent 

potable water use at an aboveground 

facility and for a temporary water 

agreement between Ruby and the water 

rights holder. 

Lincoln County, Board of County 

Commissioners 

Cooperating Agency for EIS under 

Section 204 of NEPA 

Assist the FERC with preparation of the 

EIS. 

Lincoln County Planning Office Zoning and Development Permit under 

State Statutes and Local Ordinances 

Consider issuing a permit to develop rural 

and mixed zones in the county. 

 Oil and Gas Permit under State Statutes 

and Local Ordinances 

Consider issuing a permit to construct and 

operate a pipeline in the county. 

Uinta County Planning Office Zoning and Development Permit under 

State Statutes and Local Ordinances 

Consider issuing a permit to develop rural 

and mixed zones in the county. 

 Oil and Gas Permit under State Statutes 

and Local Ordinances 

Consider issuing a permit to construct and 

operate a pipeline in the county. 

UTAH 

Utah Department of Community and 

Culture, Division of State History, 

SHPO 

Consultation under Section 106 of the 

NHPA 

Comment on the proposed project and its 

effects to historic properties listed or 

eligible for listing on the NRHP. 

Utah Department of Environmental 

Quality, Division of Air Quality 

Construction Permit under Title I of the 

CAA 

Consider issuing a permit to construct a 

new source of air emissions associated 

with the Utah compressor station. 

 Operating Permit under Title V of the 

CAA 

Consider issuing a permit to operate a 

major source of air emissions associated 

with the Utah compressor station. 

UDWQ Water Quality Certification under Section 

401 of the CWA 

Consider issuing water quality certification 

for permits authorized under Section 402 

and 404 of the CWA. 

 NPDES Storm Water Permit under 

Section 402 of the CWA 

Consider authorizing storm water 

discharges associated with construction 

under the General Permit. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1-28 

TABLE 1.5-1 

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultation Agency Action 

 NPDES Waste Water Discharge Permit 

under Section 402 of the CWA 

Consider authorizing hydrostatic test 

waste water and trench water discharges 

under the General Permit. 

 Groundwater Quality Protection Permit 

under State Statutes 

Consider issuing a permit for hydrostatic 

test waste water and trench water 

discharges to the ground. 

Utah Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of State Lands 

Right-of-Way Grant under State Statutes Consider issuing a Right-of-Way Grant to 

cross state-owned land. 

Utah Department of Natural 

Resources, Division of Water Rights 

Stream Channel Alteration Permit under 

Section 404 of the CWA and State 

Statutes 

Consider issuing a permit for stream 

channel alteration and the discharge of 

dredge or fill material into waters of the 

United States. The State of Utah 

authorizes activities under Section 404 of 

the CWA through this program under an 

agreement with the COE. 

New Water Appropriation Permit and 

Temporary Change Permit under State 

Statutes 

Considered issuing a permit for permanent 

potable water use at an aboveground 

facility, for hydrostatic testing and dust 

suppression during construction, and for a 

temporary water agreement between Ruby 

and the water rights holder. 

UDWR Consultation under 18 CFR 380.12(e)(8) Comment on the proposed project and its 

effects to wildlife, fisheries, vegetation, and 

state-listed species. 

Consider issuing right-of-way easements 

under authority of Utah Administrative 

Code R657 28 (“Use of Division Lands”) 

Consider issuing right-of-way easements 

for the pipeline to cross two UDWR owned 

WMAs (Salt Creek WMA and East Fork of 

the Little Bear River WMA) 

Utah Department of Transportation Statewide Utility License Agreement 

under State Statutes 

Consider issuing a license for crossing or 

sharing state highway rights-of-way. 

Brigham City, Water Department Water Use Agreement under State 

Statutes and Local Ordinances 

Consider approving a water use 

agreement. 

Bear River Canal Company Water Use Agreement under State 

Statutes and Local Ordinances 

Consider approving a water use 

agreement. 

UTPL Cooperating Agency for EIS under 

Section 204 of NEPA 

Assist the FERC with preparation of the 

EIS. 

Box Elder County Planning 

Department 

Construction Permit under State Statutes 

and Local Ordinances 

Consider issuing a permit for construction 

activities. 

Cache County Fire District Clearance for Zoning under State 

Statutes and Local Ordinances 

Comment on the proposed project and 

consider providing clearance for zoning 

approval. 

Cache County Planning and Zoning 

Department 

Zoning Approval under State Statutes 

and Local Ordinances 

Consider issuing zoning approval for the 

proposed project. 

Rich County Planning and Zoning 

Department 

Zoning Approval under State Statutes 

and Local Ordinances 

Consider issuing zoning approval for the 

proposed project. 

NEVADA 

Nevada Department of Conservation 

and Natural Resources, Division of 

Forestry 

Consultation under 18 CFR 380.12(e)(8) Comment on the proposed project and its 

effects to wildlife, fisheries, and state-listed 

species. 

 Permit to Take Protected Plants under 

State Statutes 

Consider issuing a permit for taking plants 

on the state’s protected species list. 

Nevada Department of Conservation 

and Natural Resources, Division of 

Environmental Protection, Bureau of 

Air Pollution Control 

Construction Permit under Title I of the 

CAA 

Consider issuing a permit to construct a 

new source of air emissions associated 

with the Nevada compressor stations. 

 Operating Permit under Title V of the 

CAA 

Consider issuing a permit to operate a 

major source of air emissions associated 

with the Nevada compressor stations. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1-29 

TABLE 1.5-1 

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultation Agency Action 

 Surface Area Disturbance Permit under 

State Statutes 

Consider issuing a permit to disturb more 

than 5 acres of land. 

Nevada Department of Conservation 

and Natural Resources, Division of 

Environmental Protection, Bureau of 

Water Pollution Control 

Water Quality Certification under Section 

401 of the CWA 

Consider issuing water quality certification 

for permits authorized under Section 402 

and 404 of the CWA. 

 NPDES Storm Water Permit under 

Section 402 of the CWA 

Consider authorizing storm water 

discharges associated with construction 

under the General Permit. 

 NPDES Waste Water Discharge Permit 

under Section 402 of the CWA 

Consider authorizing hydrostatic test 

waste water and trench water discharges 

under the General Permit. 

 Permit for Working in Waterways under 

State Statutes 

Consider issuing a temporary permit for 

working in waterways. 

 Permit for Discharges to Groundwater 

under State Statutes 

Consider issuing a temporary permit for 

hydrostatic test waste water and trench 

water discharges to the ground. 

Nevada Department of Conservation 

and Natural Resources, Natural 

Heritage Program 

Consultation under 18 CFR 380.12(e)(8) Comment on the proposed project and its 

effects to wildlife, fisheries, vegetation, and 

state-listed species. 

Nevada Department of Conservation 

and Natural Resources, Division of 

Water Resources 

New Water Appropriation Permit and 

Temporary Change Permit under State 

Statutes 

Considered issuing a permit for permanent 

potable water use at an aboveground 

facility, for hydrostatic testing and dust 

suppression during construction, and for a 

temporary water agreement between Ruby 

and the water rights holder. 

NDOW Consultation under 18 CFR 380.12(e)(8) Comment on the proposed project and its 

effects to wildlife, fisheries, and state-listed 

species. 

 Permit to Take Protected Wildlife under 

State Statutes 

Consider issuing a permit for taking 

animals on the state’s protected species 

list. 

Nevada Department of Cultural 

Affairs, SHPO 

Consultation under Section 106 of the 

NHPA 

Comment on the proposed project and its 

effects to historic properties listed on or 

eligible for listing on the NRHP. 

Nevada Department of 

Transportation 

Permit for Occupancy under State 

Statutes 

Consider issuing a permit for crossing or 

sharing state highway rights-of-way. 

Elko County Department of 

Community Development, Division 

of Planning and Zoning 

Permit for Right-of-Way under State 

Statutes and Local Ordinances 

Consider issuing a permit to establish a 

utility right-of-way. 

Humboldt County Building and 

Safety Department 

Building Permit under State Statutes and 

Local Ordinances 

Consider issuing a permit to construct the 

pipeline and related facilities. 

Humboldt County Regional Planning 

Department 

Conditional Use Permit under State 

Statutes and Local Ordinances 

Consider issuing a permit to construct the 

pipeline and facilities in specified zones. 

Washoe County Building and Safety 

Department 

Building Permit under State Statutes and 

Local Ordinances 

Consider issuing a permit to construct the 

pipeline and related facilities. 

Washoe County Planning 

Department 

Conditional Use Permit under State 

Statutes and Local Ordinances 

Consider issuing a permit to construct the 

pipeline and facilities in specified zones. 

OREGON 

Oregon Department of Agriculture Consultation under 18 CFR 380.12(e)(8) Comment on the proposed project and its 

effects to vegetation and state-listed 

species. 

Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality 

Water Quality Certification under Section 

401 of the CWA 

Consider issuing water quality certification 

for permits authorized under Section 402 

and 404 of the CWA. 

 NPDES Storm Water Permit under 

Section 402 of the CWA 

Consider authorizing storm water 

discharges associated with construction 

under the General Permit. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1-30 

TABLE 1.5-1 

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultation Agency Action 

 NPDES Waste Water Discharge Permit 

under Section 402 of the CWA 

Consider issuing a permit for hydrostatic 

test waste water and trench water 

discharges. 

 Water Pollution Control Facility Permit 

under State Statutes 

Consider issuing a permit for hydrostatic 

test waste water and trench water 

discharges on the ground. 

ODFW Consultation under 18 CFR 380.12(e)(8) Comment on the project and its effects to 

wildlife, fisheries, and state-listed species. 

 In-water Blasting Permit under State 

Statutes 

Consider issuing a permit to use 

explosives in waters of the state. 

Oregon Department of Forestry Permit to Operate Power-Driven 

Machinery under State Statutes 

Consider issuing a permit to operate 

equipment on private forest land. 

Oregon Department of Parks and 

Recreation, SHPO 

Archaeological Excavation Permit under 

State Statutes 

Consider issuing a permit to excavate or 

alter an archaeological site on public land. 

 Consultation under Section 106 of the 

NHPA 

Comment on the proposed project and its 

effects to historic properties listed on or 

eligible for listing on the NRHP. 

Oregon Department of State Lands Removal-Fill Permit under State Statutes Consider issuing a permit to remove 

material from or fill waters of the state. 

 Submerged and Submersible Land 

Easement under State Statutes 

Consider issuing an easement across 

state-owned land, streams, and rivers. 

ODOT Utility Permit under State Statutes Consider issuing a permit to establish a 

utility right-of-way across state highways. 

Oregon Water Resources 

Department 

Limited Water Use License under State 

Statutes 

Consider issuing a license to appropriate 

water for hydrostatic testing and dust or 

fire suppression. 

Lake County Planning Commission Right-of-Way Permit under State Statutes 

and Local Ordinances 

Consider issuing a permit to construct 

across roads. 

Klamath County Community 

Development Commission 

Building Permit under State Statutes and 

Local Ordinances 

Consider issuing a permit to build a meter 

station. 

Klamath County Public Works Road Permit under State Statutes and 

Local Ordinances 

Consider issuing a permit to construct 

across roads. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
2-1 

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 

2.1 PROPOSED FACILITIES 

The Ruby Pipeline Project would involve the construction and operation of a buried natural gas 

pipeline and related aboveground facilities. An overview map showing Ruby’s project location is 

provided as figure 1-1 in section 1. Detailed maps showing the proposed pipeline route and aboveground 

facility locations are provided in Appendix B. Drawings in Appendix D illustrate typical right-of-way 

configurations. Appendix E lists proposed temporary extra workspaces, staging areas, water 

appropriation sites, contractor yards, pipe yards, construction camps, temporary housing facilities, and 

new and to-be-improved access roads. A number of construction and mitigation plans proposed by Ruby 

are also included as appendices and are referenced throughout this document. 

2.1.1 Pipeline Facilities 

Ruby proposes to construct and operate a total of about 675.2 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline. 

The mainline pipeline would begin near the Opal Hub in Lincoln County, Wyoming at milepost (MP) 0.0 

and proceed westerly through Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon, terminating near the OregonCalifornia state line in Klamath County, Oregon at MP R672.6.1

 Ruby also proposes to construct and 

operate about 2.6 miles of 42-inch-diameter lateral2 pipeline in Oregon. The lateral would begin near the 

Oregon-California state line at MP 0.0l

3

 and proceed northerly to a meter station at MP 2.6l. The 

mainline and lateral would have a uniform design pressure and maximum allowable operating pressure 

(MAOP) of 1,440 pounds per square inch gauge (psig). Table 2.1.1-1 lists the pipeline facilities by 

facility type, milepost range, county and length. 

As a result of more detailed engineering design work after the draft EIS was issued, Ruby made 

minor modifications to its route in five locations. Because Ruby formally incorporated these 

realignments into its project design, they are now a part of Ruby’s proposed project. Thus, the data and 

analysis presented in this final EIS also reflect the inclusion of these five realignments: 

• Ruby realigned its pipeline near the MLV at MP R102.9 to improve the constructability 

of the pig launcher/receiver and MLV assembly. This minor realignment involves 

diverging from the original route at MP 102.6 and reconnecting at MP 103.0. The 

realignment would be about the same length as the original route, would not affect any 

new landowners, and would improve the constructability of the MLV. 

• Ruby realigned its pipeline near the Wieland Flat Compressor Station to accommodate a 

smaller compressor station site as requested by the landowner. This minor realignment 

involves diverging from the original route at MP 330.0 and reconnecting at MP 330.5. 

The realignment would be about the same length as the original route, would parallel 

about 0.3 mile more of existing right-of-way, would not affect any new landowners, and 

would accommodate the landowner’s request. 

 

1

 Mileposts proceeded by an “R” identify locations where Ruby modified its pipeline route since the draft EIS (see section 

2.1.1). The physical distance between two consecutive mileposts may not be exactly 1 mile because of these route 

modifications. 2

 A lateral is a shorter pipeline that takes natural gas from the main pipeline system to a customer, such as a local distribution 

company or another natural gas pipeline system. 3

 Mileposts on the lateral pipeline are identified by a subscript “l” throughout this EIS. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
2-2 

• Ruby realigned its pipeline near the Sheldon NWR to avoid crossing an outlying parcel of 

Sheldon NWR land that was not initially known about on the originally proposed route. 

This realignment involves diverging from the original route at MP 537.8 and 

reconnecting at MP 539.6. The realignment would be about the same length as the 

original route and would place the new route on BLM-administered land. 

• Ruby realigned its pipeline near Deep Creek to facilitate construction across the creek. 

This redesign involves diverging from the original route at MP 601.8 and reconnecting at 

MP 602.2. The route realignment would be about the same length as the original route, 

would improve constructability of the crossing, would not affect any new landowners, 

and would reduce impacts on wetlands. One additional waterbody (Horse Creek, a 

tributary flowing into Deep Creek) would be crossed by the realignment. 

• Ruby realigned it pipeline route near the Sno Kap Ranch to avoid an archaeological site. 

This realignment involves diverging from the original route at MP 603.0 and 

reconnecting at MP 604.4. The realignment would be about the same length as the 

original route, would parallel more existing right-of-way, would avoid an important 

cultural resource site, would reduce impacts on wetlands, and would not affect any new 

landowners. 

TABLE 2.1.1-1 

Pipeline Facilities for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/Facility Type MP Range County Length (miles) 

WYOMING 

Mainline 0.0 – 21.1 Lincoln 21.1 

Mainline 21.1 – 48.1 Uinta 27.0 

 Subtotal 48.1 

UTAH 

Mainline 48.1 – 73.1 Rich 25.0 

Mainline 73.1 – 101.0 Cache 27.9 

Mainline 101.0 – 230.6 Box Elder 129.6 

 Subtotal 182.5 

NEVADA 

Mainline 230.6 – R396.7 Elko 166.1 

Mainline R396.7 – 536.0 Humboldt 139.3 

Mainline 536.0 – 588.2 Washoe 52.2 

 Subtotal 357.6 

OREGON 

Mainline 588.2 – R647.3 Lake 59.1 

Mainline R647.3 – R672.6 Klamath 25.3 

Lateral 0.0l – 2.6l Klamath 2.6 

 Subtotal 87.0 

Grand Total 675.2 

In addition, we recommended in our draft EIS that Ruby incorporate 3 route alternatives and 15 

route variations into the final pipeline route. Subsequently, Ruby formally incorporated all of these 

recommendations into the project (see section 3 for a discussion of each alternative and variation and our 

rationale for recommending each). As such, the data and analysis presented in this final EIS reflect the 

inclusion of these alternatives and variations into the pipeline route as proposed by Ruby. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
2-3 

2.1.2 Aboveground Facilities 

Ruby proposes to construct and operate four compressor stations as part of the Ruby Pipeline 

Project. The Roberson Creek Compressor Station would be located at MP 5.7, near the beginning of the 

pipeline in Lincoln County, Wyoming. This compressor station would utilize three 23,000-hp drive 

compressor units for a total of up to 69,000 hp. Under International Organization for Standardization 

(ISO) operating conditions, the compressor station would achieve up to its entire 69,000-hp output. 

The Wildcat Hills Compressor Station would be located at MP 172.5, near the quarter point of the 

pipeline in Box Elder County, Utah. This compressor station would utilize two 15,000-hp Solar Mars 100 

natural gas turbine units for a total of up to 30,000 hp. Under ISO operating conditions, the compressor 

station would achieve about 28,668 hp output. 

The Wieland Flat Compressor Station would be located at MP R330.2, near the halfway point of 

the pipeline in Elko County, Nevada. This compressor station would utilize two 20,500-hp Solar Titan 

130 natural gas turbine compressor units for a total of up to 41,000 hp. Under ISO operating conditions, 

the compressor station would achieve about 39,662 hp output. 

The Desert Valley Compressor Station would be located at MP 476.4, near the three-quarter point 

of the pipeline in Humboldt County, Nevada. This compressor station would utilize one 20,500-hp Solar 

Titan 130 natural gas turbine compressor unit. Under ISO operating conditions, the compressor station 

would achieve about 19,831 hp output. 

In addition to compressor stations, Ruby would construct and operate meter stations (to receive 

gas from interconnections with other pipeline systems in Wyoming and deliver gas to interconnections 

with other pipeline systems in Nevada and Oregon), MLVs (to control the flow of gas within the 

pipeline), pig launchers and receivers (to insert and remove pigging tools into and from the pipeline), and 

communication towers up to 50 feet tall (to facilitate communication and control of the pipeline system). 

Table 2.1.2-1 lists aboveground facilities by facility type, milepost, and county. All aboveground 

facilities are shown on the maps in Appendix B. As indicated in table 2.1.2-1, some of the aboveground 

facilities are collocated at the same sites. 

2.2 LAND REQUIREMENTS 

Construction of the Ruby Pipeline Project, as proposed, would disturb a total of about 17,520.5 

acres of land, including the pipeline construction right-of-way, temporary extra workspaces, staging areas, 

water appropriation sites, construction camps, temporary housing facilities, contractor yards, pipe yards, 

new access roads, access road improvements, and aboveground facilities. Operation of the pipeline 

would require about 4,249.9 acres, including pipeline permanent right-of-way and aboveground facility 

sites. A more detailed description of land use and requirements is presented in section 4.8.1. Should the 

Ruby Pipeline Project be approved, Ruby’s construction and operation work areas, including new access 

roads and access road improvements, would be limited to the areas described in this EIS.4

 

4

 Ruby could request route realignments or additional construction workspace needs indentified during construction under the 

post-approval variance process (see section 2.5.3). 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
2-4 

TABLE 2.1.2-1 

Location of Aboveground Facilities for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/Facility Type MP County 

WYOMING 

King Meter Station (with three Interconnects), MLV, Launcher 0.0a Lincoln 

Roberson Creek Compressor Station, Meter Station (with one Interconnect), MLV, 

Launcher, Receiver, Communication Tower 5.7 Lincoln 

MLV 21.1 Uinta 

MLV 39.5 Uinta 

Subtotal 4 Sites 

UTAH 

MLV 55.1 Rich 

MLV 73.3 Cache 

MLV 92.1 Cache 

MLV, Launcher, Receiver R102.9 Box Elder 

MLV R109.0 Box Elder 

MLV 127.4 Box Elder 

MLV 144.5 Box Elder 

MLV 161.1 Box Elder 

Wildcat Hills Compressor Station, MLV, Launcher, Receiver, Communication Tower 172.5 Box Elder 

MLV R190.6 Box Elder 

MLV R206.1 Box Elder 

MLV 222.3 Box Elder 

Subtotal 12 Sites 

NEVADA 

MLV 239.1 Elko 

MLV, Launcher, Receiver 257.4 Elko 

MLV 275.9 Elko 

MLV R292.7 Elko 

MLV 311.1 Elko 

Wieland Flat Compressor Station, MLV, Launcher, Receiver, Communication Tower R330.2 Elko 

MLV 345.7 Elko 

MLV R364.2 Elko 

MLV R382.8 Elko 

MLV, Launcher, Receiver R401.8 Humboldt 

MLV 421.1 Humboldt 

Opal Valley Meter Station (with one Interconnect), MLV 437.4 Humboldt 

MLV 456.9 Humboldt 

Desert Valley Compressor Station, MLV, Launcher, Receiver, Communication Tower 476.4 Humboldt 

MLV 493.2 Humboldt 

MLV 509.8 Humboldt 

MLV, Launcher, Receiver 528.8 Humboldt 

MLV 547.8 Washoe 

MLV 567.2 Washoe 

MLV, Launcher, Receiver 582.0 Washoe 

Subtotal 20 Sites 

OREGON 

MLV 601.1 Lake 

MLV 614.3 Lake 

MLV 627.8 Lake 

MLV 643.1 Lake 

MLV R659.2 Klamath 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
2-5 

TABLE 2.1.2-1 

Location of Aboveground Facilities for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/Facility Type MP County 

Tule Lake Valley Meter Station (with three Interconnects), two MLVs, Receiver R672.6, 2.6l Klamath 

Malin Meter Station, MLV 0.0l Klamath 

Subtotal 7 Sites 

 

Grand Total 43 Sites 

─────────────────────────

a These facilities would be installed at Colorado Interstate Gas Company’s existing King Compressor Station. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
2-6 

2.2.1 Pipeline Facilities 

Ruby would use a 115-foot-wide construction right-of-way for a majority of the pipeline route. 

Ruby would use a narrower right-of-way when crossing most wetlands (as described in section 4.3.3), 

forested riparian areas (as described in section 4.4.3), and playas (as described in section 4.2.2.3). 

However, in limited, non-wetland areas, the construction right-of-way width may be expanded by up to 

25 feet to accommodate full construction right-of-way topsoil segregation or to ensure safe construction 

where required by topographic conditions (such as steep side-slopes) or soil limitations.5 The extra width 

could also be used for temporary storage of timber, slash, stumps, surface rock, or snow; or in nonwetland, non-forested areas for truck turn-arounds where no reasonable alternative access exists. Ruby’s 

proposal, as written, would allow expanding the construction right-of-way width for temporary storage of 

timber, stumps, surface rock, and snow in wetlands, playas, and forested areas (including forested riparian 

areas) without the need for additional regulatory approval. This extra construction right-of-way width is 

discussed further in section 4.2.4. Following construction, Ruby would retain a 50-foot-wide permanent 

right-of-way to operate the pipeline. In total, the pipeline construction right-of-way would temporarily 

disturb about 10,040.3 acres of land. The permanent right-of-way would require about 4,109.1 acres of 

land. 

Ruby would use a number of temporary extra workspaces, staging areas, and water appropriation 

sites totaling about 3,135.6 acres during construction. Extra workspace typically would be located along 

the construction right-of-way on both sides of wetland, waterbody, road, and utility line crossings, and in 

areas of exceptionally rugged terrain. Most extra workspaces would add 80 feet onto the 115-foot-wide 

construction right-of-way, effectively creating a 195-foot-wide work area. Staging areas are similar to 

extra workspaces except that they may be located on or off the construction right-of-way. Staging areas 

would vary in size and, in many instances, would widen the construction right-of-way beyond temporary 

extra workspaces for short distances. Water appropriation sites, like staging areas, would be located on 

and off the construction right-of-way to facilitate well drilling and water appropriation for hydrostatic 

testing, dust abatement, and equipment cleaning. Appendix E lists each proposed temporary extra 

workspaces, staging area, and water appropriation site for the project. The use of workspaces and staging 

areas in or near waterbodies, wetlands, and woody riparian areas is discussed in sections 4.3.2.4, 4.3.3.2, 

and 4.4.3. 

Ruby would use 8 contractor construction yards, 17 pipe storage/staging/stringing yards, one 

construction camp, and one temporary housing facility totaling about 1,058.6 acres to support pipeline 

construction. Contractor and pipe yards typically would be located away from the construction right-ofway and would be used for stockpiling pipe, storing materials, staging work, fabricating accessories, 

repairing equipment, housing mobile offices, and parking vehicles. This Vya Construction Camp, as its 

name implies, would be a campground used to provide temporary housing and food service for non-local 

workers in northwestern Nevada where adequate facilities are not readily available. Camp components 

would include up to 425 temporary modular-type housing units, up to 200 camper and recreation vehicle 

(RV) parking pads, as well as access to support facilities such as potable water, a food service hall, waste 

treatment, fuel storage, and electrical power. 

The Lakeview Temporary Housing Facility would be similar to the construction camp except that 

it would not include a food service hall or fuel storage. The temporary housing facility would be located 

in the town of Lakeview, Oregon and would be comprised of seven temporary dormitory buildings 

capable of accommodating up to 350 workers. The buildings would include provisions for laundry, 

showers, and toilets and would be served by municipal sewer, water, and power. A more detailed 

 

5

 The BLM would require full topsoil segregation on all BLM-administered lands in Humboldt and Washoe counties, Nevada. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
2-7 

description of required infrastructure improvements for the Vya Construction Camp and the Lakeview 

facility is presented in section 4.9.2. The maps in Appendix B illustrate the location of the yards, the 

camp, and the temporary housing facilities. Locations are also presented in Appendix E. 

Ruby would use existing public and private roads to gain access to the project area. Many of the 

existing county and state roads are presently in a condition that can accommodate construction traffic 

without significant modification or improvement. Some roads, however, are small or impassable and are 

not currently suitable for construction traffic. Ruby is proposing to improve unsuitable access roads 

through grading, filling, and/or widening. About 585 roads totaling about 3,133.5 acres would need to be 

graded or widened up to a total road width of 30 feet, with extra width of up to 25 feet beyond the 

existing road edge at sharp turns. Additionally, Ruby would construct new roads where existing roads do 

not provide adequate access. A total of 3 new dirt and gravel roads totaling about 0.25 acre would be 

constructed up to 15 feet wide to accommodate timber clearing at various locations, to respond to a 

landowner request, and to gain access to an aboveground facility (a MLV at MP R109.0).6

Ruby has evaluated the need for access roads in California and determined that certain California 

roads would be required to access portions of its project in Oregon. Ruby identified 22.5 miles of access 

roads in Modoc County, California, of which about 5.9 miles are on federal lands administered by the 

BLM and USFS (Modoc National Forest). Ruby has stated it would not need to improve any of the roads 

in California and there would be no vegetative or soil disturbance associated with their use. Ruby would 

obtain the necessary authorizations to use the roads from the BLM, USFS, and Modoc County. 

Ruby does not know exactly how or where road improvements would be required along any 

given road identified as potentially needing improvements. This information would not be available until 

after Ruby’s construction contractor identifies which roads it prefers to use, how it prefers to use the 

roads, and the weather at the time of use. Therefore, for the purpose of this EIS, we have conservatively 

estimated that all roads needing improvement would need to be improved up to 30 feet wide over their 

entire length. A 30-foot-wide road is equivalent to a BLM or USFS collector road, which typically is 24 

feet wide plus 3 feet on each side for road ditches. The BLM has noted that it would require 

improvements on BLM-administered roads to be conducted in accordance with Gold Book and agency 

handbooks and manuals, such as the BLM 9113 manual. Other federal land managing agencies or states 

or local road agencies may have similar requirements. The BLM also noted that the determination of 

whether or not road improvements such as gravel surfacing are needed would be made by the agency with 

jurisdiction over the road. Appendix E identifies each new or to-be-improved access road for this project. 

Because Ruby does not know specifically where road improvements would be needed, the 

volumes and locations where gravel fill would be required also are not known. Ruby estimates that less 

than 5 percent of the access roads would require some gravel for maintenance or improvement. Ruby 

indicated that it would seek gravel locally from existing commercial sand and gravel pits or other 

retailers. Ruby would not establish its own borrow pits for this project. Gravel use is further discussed in 

section 4.8.1. 

Ruby originally proposed to leave roads in their new or improved condition after construction, 

unless otherwise requested by a landowner or land managing agency. Under this proposal, Ruby would 

have restored roads to their preconstruction condition only where requested by the landowner or landmanaging agency. We have reviewed Ruby’s list of existing access roads and have concluded that many 

of the roads are primitive two-tracks that would require significant improvement for project purposes over 

 

6

 Ruby continued evaluating its need for new access roads and access road improvements after the draft EIS was issued. This 

additional evaluation resulted in more accurate information about the locations and lengths of new and to-be-improved 

access roads, including a substantial reduction in impact acreages. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
2-8 

much of their length. Two-tracks are unimproved travel lanes that are not graded or graveled and are 

maintained solely through the occasional passage of authorized four-wheel-drive vehicles. Many of these 

two-tracks are also on public land where access is intentionally limited or restricted. Improving and 

retaining two-tracks would, for all practical purposes, open up these areas to increased public use. 

Therefore, we discussed in the draft EIS the need for a directive that would require Ruby to restore all 

roads to their preconstruction condition except where a landowner or land managing agency requests in 

writing that a road be left in its improved condition. Since the time the draft EIS was issued, Ruby has 

agreed to restore all roads to their preconstruction condition except upon request. Ruby states that some 

private landowners have indicated an interest in leaving roads in their improved condition, but are 

reserving the right to make that final decision when they see the road’s condition at or close to the end of 

construction. The BLM has stated that all BLM-administered roads in Humboldt and Washoe counties 

would be required to be restored to their preconstruction condition and that some roads may need to be 

closed. Where roads are closed, closure activities may include, but would not be limited to, scarifying the 

roadway and revegetating the entire length and width of the road used by Ruby. Road closures on BLMadministered land would be completed in accordance with the BLM’s resource management use plans and 

other standards. 

We received several comments on the draft EIS regarding the difficulty of restoring roads to their 

preconstruction condition and closing roads after they have become established. We acknowledge that 

restoring and closing roads can be very difficult in some cases. However, the FERC would hold Ruby to 

its commitments and would require Ruby to continue its efforts until restoration is successful. In the 

event that, after several attempts, road restoration is determined to be infeasible, Ruby would be required 

to compensate the landowner for damages caused by the project. Landowners and land managing 

agencies would be responsible for enforcing road closures after restoration is completed. The BLM has 

indicated that it may require Ruby to fund law enforcement for closures of BLM-administered roads. 

Table 2.2.1-1 summarizes pipeline facility land requirements by state. Maps in Appendix B 

identify the location of the proposed pipeline route, access roads, and contractor yards. Drawings in 

Appendix D illustrate typical right-of-way configurations. 

2.2.2 Aboveground Facilities 

Aboveground facilities associated with the Ruby Pipeline Project include compressor stations, 

meter stations, MLVs, pig launchers and receivers, and communication towers. Land requirements for 

aboveground facilities would involve about 155.6 acres7

 during construction and operation. Table 2.1.2-1 

lists aboveground facilities by facility type, milepost, and county. Tables 2.2.2-1 and 2.2.2-2 summarize 

aboveground facility site dimensions and land requirements. Maps in Appendix B identify the location of 

proposed aboveground facilities. 

 

7

 Includes land requirements within the construction work area and/or permanent right-of-way. Aboveground facility land use 

requirements outside of the construction work area and/or permanent right-of-way are presented in section 4.8. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
2-9 

TABLE 2.2.1-1 

Pipeline Land Requirements for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Facility Type Construction Area (acres) Permanent Area (acres) 

WYOMING 

Right-of-Way 666.7 292.5 

Workspaces & Staging Areas 143.4 - 

Access Roads 333.0 - 

Yards 140.3 - 

Subtotal 1,283.4 292.5 

UTAH 

Right-of-Way 2,544.6 1,120.0 

Workspaces & Staging Areas 1,076.1 - 

Access Roads 1,090.1 - 

Yards 115.9 - 

Subtotal 4,826.7 1,120.0 

NEVADA 

Right-of-Way 5,653.2 2,163.6 

Workspaces & Staging Areas 1,358.4 - 

Access Roads 1,407.2 - 

Yards & Camp 704.1 - 

Subtotal 9,176.4 2,163.6 

OREGON 

Right-of-Way 1,175.7 533.0 

Workspaces & Staging Areas 557.6 - 

Access Roads 303.3 - 

Yards & Camp 109.9 - 

Subtotal 2,146.5 533.0 

 

Grand Total 17,379.7 4,109.1 

TABLE 2.2.2-1 

Aboveground Facility Site Dimensions for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Facility Type 

Construction/ 

Permanent 

Dimensions (feet) 

Construction/ 

Permanent Site Footprint 

(acres) 

Roberson Creek Compressor Station/Meter Station and Associated Facilities 1,500 x 890 30.8 

Wildcat Hills Compressor Station and Associated Facilities Irregular 29.3 

Wieland Flat and Desert Valley Compressor Stations and Associated 

Facilities 

Irregular 25.3 

King Meter Station and Associated Facilities Irregular 13.6 

Opal Valley Meter Station and Associated Facilities 490 x 490 5.5 

Tule Lake Valley Meter Station and Associated Facilities Irregular 12.2 

Malin Meter Station and Associated Facilities Irregular 5.7 

MLV with Launcher and/or Receiver 125 x 320 0.92 

MLV Only 50 x 75 0.09 

MLV Only (Oregon) 75 x 100 0.17 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
2-10 

TABLE 2.2.2-2 

Aboveground Facility Land Requirements for the Ruby Pipeline Projecta

Facility Type Construction/Permanent 

Area (acres) 

WYOMING 

Roberson Creek Compressor/Meter Station and Associated Facilities 30.8 

King Meter Station and Associated Facilities 13.6 

MLVs Only (2) 0.2 

Subtotal 44.6 

UTAH 

Wildcat Hills Compressor Station and Associated Facilities 29.3 

MLVs with Launchers and/or Receivers (1) 0.9 

MLVs Only (10) 0.9 

Subtotal 31.1 

NEVADA 

Wieland Flat & Desert Valley Compressor Stations and Associated Facilities 50.6 

Opal Valley Meter Station and Associated Facilities 5.7 

MLVs with Launchers and/or Receivers (4) 3.7 

MLVs Only (13) 1.1 

Subtotal 61.1 

OREGON 

Malin and Tule Lake Valley Meter Stations and Associated Facilities 17.9 

MLVs Only (5) 0.9 

Subtotal 18.8 

Grand Total 155.6 

─────────────────────────

a Aboveground facilities may overlap the construction work area and/or permanent right-of-way. 

2.3 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES 

Ruby would design, construct, test, and operate its pipeline in accordance with U.S. Department 

of Transportation (DOT) regulations specified in 49 CFR 192, “Transportation of Natural and Other Gas 

by Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety Standards.” 49 CFR 192 specifies pipeline material and 

qualification, minimum design requirements, and protection from internal, external, and atmospheric 

corrosion, in addition to other design standards. Ruby also would be subject to other applicable federal 

and state regulations, including U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) requirements. These regulations are intended to ensure adequate protection for 

the public, pipeline workers, contractors, and employees and to prevent natural gas pipeline accidents and 

failures. 

Ruby has prepared an Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Plan) and 

Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Procedures) for this project. These 

documents are based on the Plan and Procedures developed by the FERC, with certain modifications that 

Ruby believes are appropriate to this specific project. We believe Ruby’s Plan and Procedures are 

generally adequate and would minimize impacts on the environment. However, we have identified 

several site-specific and resource-specific circumstances that we believe require additional environmental 

protection measures. These measures, along with any additional staff recommendations, are discussed in 

the appropriate resource section of this EIS (see section 4). Ruby has included its Plan and Procedures as 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
2-11 

an appendix to its Plan of Development (POD) with the BLM. The BLM and other cooperating agencies 

are still reviewing Ruby’s Plan and Procedures with respect to their areas of expertise and responsibility. 

The BLM and other cooperating agencies may incorporate additional measures into the right-of-way grant 

or other applicable agency permits to ensure that construction and restoration would be completed in 

compliance with BLM and other agency standards. We have included copies of Ruby’s Plan and 

Procedures in Appendix F. The FERC’s Plan and Procedures can be accessed at the FERC website 

(www.ferc.gov). 

The BLM requires that Ruby prepare a POD as part of the right-of-way granting process in 

accordance with the regulations found at 43 CFR 2884.11. Ruby’s various construction and restoration 

plans referenced in this final EIS (e.g., Plan, Procedures, Restoration and Revegetation Plans, Hydrostatic 

Test Plan, Blasting Plan, etc.) that are a part of Ruby’s POD are also included as appendices to this final 

EIS. 

2.3.1 General Pipeline Construction Procedures 

Ruby would construct the pipeline by following several sequential pipeline construction 

techniques, which include survey and staking; clearing and grading; trenching; pipe stringing, bending, 

and welding; lowering-in and backfilling; hydrostatic testing; commissioning; and cleanup and 

restoration. These construction techniques would proceed in an assembly line fashion and construction 

crews would move down the construction right-of-way as work progresses. Figure 2.3.1-1 illustrates the 

typical pipeline construction sequence. 

Many pipeline projects are divided into several distinct segments called spreads. Each spread is 

assigned a different construction team or contractor so that work may commence in several areas 

simultaneously. Ruby would utilize a total of 7 to 10 construction spreads on the Ruby Pipeline Project, 

with some spreads as short as 25 to 35 miles in length and some as long as 80 to 120 miles in length. In 

this manner, Ruby would be able to construct the project in multiple locations at the same time and could 

complete the project much quicker and more efficiently than if it were using just one spread. 

Many workers would drive personal vehicles to contractor yards each day before the start of work 

and would be bused from the contractor yards to the spread. Travel time to the spread typically would be 

between 30 minutes and 2 hours, depending on housing, yard, and spread location. In inclement weather, 

the travel time could double as road conditions deteriorate. Ruby contends that increased travel time due 

to inclement weather would not significantly challenge the project schedule, and that it expects to be able 

to complete construction within one season. We note that beyond travel time, inclement weather could 

markedly significantly reduce productivity of personnel and equipment on the construction right-of-way 

and believe that Ruby is being overly optimistic with regard to its construction schedule. 

Ruby states that it would thoroughly clean construction equipment prior to use to prevent the 

importation of invasive plant species to the project area from other areas where the equipment may 

previously have been used. Ruby also would establish equipment cleaning sites at known infestation 

locations and would clean equipment in infested areas before moving to other locations. Invasive and 

noxious plant species and Ruby’s mitigation to prevent the introduction and spread of these species are 

discussed in more detail in section 4.4.6. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
2-12

Figure 2.3.1-1 Pipeline Construction Sequence 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 2-13 

 

2.3.1.1 Survey and Staking 

The first step of construction involves survey crews staking the limits of the construction right-ofway, the centerline of the proposed trench, temporary extra workspaces, and other approved work areas. 

Ruby would clearly mark access roads using temporary signs or flagging. Ruby also would mark 

wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas where appropriate. Ruby would brace and cut fences 

and would install temporary gates and fences to contain livestock in active allotments and grazed areas. 

Ruby would be allowed to use only approved construction work areas and access roads; use of other areas 

or roads would not be allowed without prior authorization of the FERC and/or federal land manager. 

We received comments during scoping regarding the potential for geodetic survey monuments to 

be disturbed by construction. Ruby stated it would flag geodetic survey monuments during the 

preconstruction survey process. In the event geodetic survey monuments are accidentally disturbed by 

construction, Ruby would report the disturbance to the appropriate agency (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey 

[USGS], BLM). Ruby would secure the services of a registered land surveyor or cadastral surveyor to 

restore disturbed monuments using surveying procedures found in the Manual of Surveying Instructions 

for the Survey of the Public Lands in the United States. Ruby would record the survey results in the 

county in which they occurred. 

2.3.1.2 Clearing and Grading 

Clearing and grading would remove trees, shrubs, brush, roots, and large rocks from the 

construction work area and level the right-of-way surface to allow operation of construction equipment. 

Vegetation generally would be cut or scraped flush with the surface of the ground, leaving rootstock in 

place where possible. Cut and scraped vegetation would be stored at the edge of the right-of-way during 

construction. After construction, scraped vegetation would be spread back across the right-of-way with 

topsoil. Large shrubs and trees cut during clearing would be hauled away for disposal, burned in 

accordance with local burning permits, or spread back across the right-of-way with landowner or landmanaging agency approval. According to the BLM, non-merchantable timber in the Klamath Falls 

Resource Area primarily would be western juniper. The BLM would require Ruby to limb and deck, in 

log form, juniper trees near existing roads (within about 0.25 mile) for potential public or commercial 

firewood use. Uprooted junipers would have the stumps removed and hauled away for disposal or buried 

at suitable locations as identified by the BLM. 

Grading would be conducted where necessary to provide a reasonably level work surface. More 

extensive grading would be required in uneven terrain and where the right-of-way traverses steep slopes 

and side slopes. Ruby would separate topsoil from subsoil from the trench and subsoil storage areas over 

the entire length of the project with several exceptions, such as in saturated wetlands, in rocky soils, 

where the topsoil layer is less than 2 inches thick, etc. (see section 4.2.4). Ruby would segregate at least 

the top 12 inches of topsoil where more than 12 inches of topsoil is present. In soils with less than 12 

inches of topsoil, Ruby would segregate the entire topsoil layer. During backfilling, subsoil would be 

returned to the trench first. Topsoil would follow such that spoil would be returned to its original 

horizon. 

In accordance with its Plan, Ruby would install temporary erosion control devices (e.g., silt fence, 

weed-free straw bales, wood straw) during clearing and grading to minimize the potential for soil erosion 

and sediment runoff. Permanent erosion control devices, such as slope breakers and riprap, would be 

installed during cleanup and restoration. Ruby has committed to employing Environmental Inspectors 

(EIs) during construction to help determine the need for and ensure that erosion controls are properly 

installed. The EIs also would be responsible for advising the chief construction inspector when 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 2-14 

 

conditions (such as wet weather) make it advisable to restrict construction activities to avoid excessive 

rutting. The BLM has indicated that it would not allow construction equipment to create ruts deeper than 

4 inches on the right-of-way or on access roads on BLM-administered land; construction would be 

required to stop when ruts exceed 4 inches deep or until remediation can be implemented and the risk for 

rutting eliminated. 

We received comments during scoping regarding the potential for increased wildfire hazard from 

construction equipment operating on the right-of-way (e.g., welding torches, exhaust pipes, etc.) and from 

placing cut vegetation back on the right-of-way after construction (i.e., increased fuel loads). The 

potential for wildfires is discussed in more detail in section 4.12.1. Ruby has prepared a Fire Prevention 

and Suppression Plan (see Appendix H) to prevent and respond to wildfires during construction. 

Additionally, a site-specific, BLM-approved burn plan would be required for all burning on federal lands. 

2.3.1.3 Trenching 

Trenching involves the removal of soil and bedrock to create a trench into which the pipeline is 

placed. A trench would be excavated to a depth that would provide sufficient depth for the pipeline in 

accordance with DOT requirements. Typically, the trench would be about 6 feet wide and at least 6 feet 

deep. Less cover would be provided in rocky areas and additional cover would be provided at road and 

waterbody crossings. Additional cover (above DOT requirements) could be negotiated at a landowner’s 

request to accommodate land use practices such as deep tilling. 

The trenching crew would use a wheel trencher or backhoe to dig the pipeline trench. When rock 

or rocky formations are encountered, tractor-mounted mechanical rippers or rock trenchers would be used 

to fracture the rock prior to excavation. Blasting would be required in areas where mechanical equipment 

cannot break up or loosen the bedrock. Ruby would be required to use explosives in accordance with 

federal and state guidelines and permits to ensure a safe and controlled blast. Impacts of blasting on 

various resources and measures to mitigate the impacts of blasting on these resources are discussed in 

section 4.1.1.2. 

We received comments during scoping regarding the potential for the trench and spoil piles to 

impede wildlife and livestock movement across the construction right-of-way. Ruby would install crossovers at least every 0.5 mile in and across the pipeline trench and leave gaps in the spoil piles in big game 

migration corridors, within winter range areas, and in herd management areas to allow for wildlife and 

livestock movement across the construction right-of-way. Sections 4.5.2 and 4.5.7 provide a more 

detailed discussion of wildlife and livestock movement and Ruby’s actions to minimize such impacts. 

We also received comments regarding the potential for discovery of unanticipated cultural or 

paleontological resources during trenching. Ruby has prepared draft Unanticipated Discovery Plans that 

provide guidelines for the construction contractor to follow in each state in the event that cultural 

resources, including human remains, are discovered during the course of construction (see section 4.10.2). 

Ruby also has prepared a Paleontological Resources Monitoring Plan to be used when constructing in 

areas with a moderate to high likelihood to contain significant paleontological resources (see Appendix I). 

2.3.1.4 Pipe Stringing, Bending, and Welding 

After trenching, sections of pipe between 40 and 80 feet long (also referred to as “joints”) would 

be transported to the right-of-way by truck and strung beside the trench in a continuous line. The pipe 

would be delivered to the job site with a protective coating of epoxy or mastic that would inhibit 

corrosion by preventing moisture from coming into direct contact with the steel. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 2-15 

 

Individual sections of pipe would be bent to conform to the contours of the ground after the joints 

of pipe sections are strung along side the trench. Workers would use a track-mounted, hydraulic pipebending machine to bend the pipe. Where multiple or complex bends are required, bending would be 

conducted at the pipe fabrication factory, and the pipe would be shipped to the project area pre-bent. 

Welding is the process that joins the individual joints of pipe together into one continuous string. 

After the pipe joints are bent they would be aligned, welded together into a long segment, and placed on 

temporary supports at the edge of the trench. Ruby would only use experienced welders who are highly 

proficient in pipeline welding and are qualified according to applicable standards. Ruby has indicated it 

would use automated welding equipment to complete the welding process. Automated welding must be 

completed in accordance with strict specifications which require qualified welders to oversee the process. 

Welder qualification would take place before the project begins. Each welder would be required 

to pass a qualification test to work on the Ruby Pipeline Project as part of the quality assurance process. 

In addition, each weld procedure would be approved for use on the job in accordance with federally 

adopted welding standards. Each welder would complete several welds using the same type of pipe that 

would be used on the project. The welds would be evaluated by placing the welded material in a machine 

and measuring the force required to pull apart the weld. Because the weld has a greater tensile strength 

than the pipe, the pipe must break before the weld. 

One hundred percent of the welds on the pipeline would undergo radiographic (x-ray) or 

ultrasonic inspection. Qualified technicians would ensure that the welds meet federally prescribed quality 

standards. If a technician detects a flaw, the weld would be repaired or a new weld made. 

All pre-coated pipes have uncoated areas 3 to 6 inches from each end of the pipe to prevent the 

coating from interfering with the welding process. Once the welds are made a coating crew would coat 

the area around the weld before the pipeline is lowered into the trench. Pipeline companies use several 

different types of coating in the field, the most common being fusion-bonded epoxy. Prior to application, 

the coating crew would thoroughly clean the bare pipe with a power wire brush or sandblast machine to 

remove dirt, mill scale, and debris. The crew would then apply the coating and allow the coating to dry. 

The pipeline would be inspected electronically (also referred to as “jeeped”) for faults or voids in the 

coating and would be visually inspected for scratches, and other defects. Ruby would repair damage to 

the coating before the pipeline is lowered into the trench. Ruby would handle pipe coating material in 

accordance with its Waste and Spill Management Specification (Spill Plan) (see Appendix J). 

2.3.1.5 Lowering-In and Backfilling 

The trench would be inspected to be sure it is free of rocks and other debris that could damage the 

pipe or protective coating before the pipe would be lowered into the trench. Trench dewatering may be 

necessary to inspect the bottom of the trench in areas where water has accumulated. Trench water 

discharges would be directed to well-vegetated upland areas or to sediment filtration devices to minimize 

the potential for runoff and sedimentation. The pipeline would then be lowered into the trench by a series 

of side-boom tractors (tracked vehicles with hoists on one side and counterweights on the other) which 

would carefully lift the pipeline and place it on the bottom of the trench. 

Trench breakers (stacked sand bags or polyurethane foam) would then be installed in the trench 

on slopes at specified intervals to prevent subsurface water movement along the pipeline. The trench 

would then be backfilled using the excavated material. At locations where topsoil had been separated 

from subsoil during the clearing process, subsoil would be returned to the trench first, followed by 

topsoil. A mound of soil about the width of the trench and up to 1 foot high may be left over the trench in 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 2-16 

 

upland areas to compensate for settling. Appropriately spaced breaks would be left in the mounded soil to 

prevent interference with rainwater runoff and irrigation. 

In rocky areas, padding material such as sand, or fine-grained soil, or gravel would be placed in 

the bottom of the trench to protect the pipeline. If the excavated material is rocky, the pipeline would be 

covered with more suitable fill. About 1 cubic yard of suitable fill (also referred to as padding) would be 

needed per linear foot of pipeline. Ruby would obtain padding by screening excavated trench material to 

separate fine soil from rocky soil, crushing rock to an acceptable size, exchanging spoil from one location 

on the right-of-way to another, and/or importing new material from a commercial source (the most costly 

option). Ruby has not yet identified the specific volume of pipe padding that would be needed for the 

project. Such information is typically not known until after trenching is completed. Based on previous 

experience, Ruby estimates that less than 3 percent of the route would require imported padding from a 

commercial source (e.g., existing sand or gravel pit). Ruby also may elect to minimize the need for pipe 

padding by installing rock shield around the pipeline. Rock shield is a flexible pipeline wrap designed to 

protect the pipeline where suitable backfill is unavailable. Once the pipe is sufficiently covered with 

suitable material or wrapped in rock shield, the excavated rocky soil would be used for backfill within the 

original rocky soil horizon. 

We received comments during scoping regarding the potential for excessive settling to interfere 

with irrigation on agricultural land after construction. In irrigated land, Ruby would backfill the trench to 

the top of the pipe and would saturate the trench with water to compact the backfill material around and 

over the pipeline. Successive layers of soil would be compacted in this way, or by mechanical means, 

until the trench is completely backfilled. The backfilled trench then would be leveled to its original 

contours. Ruby would be responsible for ensuring restoration of irrigation systems to their original 

condition after construction. Sections 4.2.1.3, 4.2.4, and 4.8.1.3 provide a more detailed discussion of 

trench compaction and irrigation system restoration. 

2.3.1.6 Hydrostatic Testing 

Ruby would hydrostatically test the pipeline after backfilling to ensure the system is capable of 

withstanding the operating pressure for which it was designed (see Ruby’s Hydrostatic Test Plan in 

Appendix K). Hydrostatic testing involves filling the pipeline with water to a designated test pressure and 

maintaining that pressure for about 8 hours. Actual test pressures and durations would be consistent with 

the requirements of 49 CFR 192. Leaks would be repaired and the section of pipe retested until the 

required specifications were met. 

The pipeline would be partitioned into about 90 to 100 separate test segments. The location of a 

test segment is dependent on water availability and elevation changes. Water for hydrostatic testing 

would be obtained from a combination of groundwater and surface waters through specific agreements 

with landowners and in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations and permits. Anticipated 

sources for hydrostatic testing water are identified in sections 4.3.1.2 and 4.3.2.5 and in Appendix K. 

 All hydrostatic test water obtained from surface sources would be discharged within the same 

hydrologic unit code (HUC) watershed from which it was withdrawn. This would prevent the inadvertent 

transfer of pathogens or nonnative aquatic species between watersheds. No chemicals would be used 

during testing of the pipe; however, where source waters have been identified as containing or potentially 

containing pathogens or NAS, and the discharge of those source waters have the potential to reach other 

surface waters that do not contain pathogens or NAS, Ruby would use industry-accepted and agencyapproved biocides to appropriately treat the test water. Sections 4.3.1.2 and 4.3.2.5 provide a more 

detailed discussion of hydrostatic testing, including our additional recommendations to address 

shortcomings in Ruby’s Hydrostatic Test Plan. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 2-17 

 

We received inquiries asking if the pipeline could be tested with pressurized air instead of water. 

From a technical standpoint, pressure testing pipelines with air (pneumatic testing) is possible. Pneumatic 

testing, when used, is generally applied to short segments of station piping. From a practical standpoint, 

testing with air is not conducted on longer projects for safety reasons. Air is very compressible, which 

means that it stores very large amounts of energy when it is highly compressed, as it would be during a 

pneumatic pipeline test. If a weakness or flaw is encountered during a pneumatic test, the resulting 

energy release could be catastrophic. Water is much less compressible than air and, therefore, stores 

much less energy as it is pressurized. If a weakness or flaw is encountered during a test with water, the 

resulting energy release is typically inconsequential. For this reason, pipelines are normally tested with 

water to identify flaws before pressurizing with natural gas. Furthermore, Ruby is utilizing a 0.8 design 

factor pipe for their pipeline. Under applicable DOT safety rules, pneumatic pressure testing of a 

pipeline with this design factor is not acceptable. 

2.3.1.7 Cleanup and Restoration 

Ruby would complete final cleanup, including final grading and the installation of erosion control 

devices, within 20 days of backfilling, weather and soil conditions permitting. Construction debris would 

be cleaned up and taken to a disposal facility, and work areas would be restored to preconstruction 

contours to the extent practical except as otherwise directed by the landowner or land managing agency. 

Permanent erosion control devices, such as slope breakers and riprap, would be installed to reduce the risk 

of erosion, and straw bales would be broken down and spread over the right-of-way. 

Ruby would seed the right-of-way after final grading in accordance with the specifications 

outlined in its Restoration and Revegetation Plans (see Appendix L). Ruby developed separate 

Restoration and Revegetation Plans for Oregon, Nevada, and Wyoming/Utah based on recommendations 

from resource and land managing agencies. Ruby would make every effort to seed disturbed areas within 

6 working days of final grading, except where written concurrence from the local soil conservation 

authority, land owner, or land managing agency requires a different timeframe (such as on some BLMadministered land where seeding would be allowed only between October and December). After seeding, 

all slopes along the right-of-way would be stabilized, where necessary, by applying 2 tons per acre of 

weed-free straw or hay (or functional equivalent), except where written concurrence from the local soil 

conservation authority, landowner, or land managing agency has been obtained for a different standard 

(such as on BLM-administered land where the use of mulch is not desired). Ruby would install and 

maintain additional temporary erosion control devices, such as silt fence or straw bales, in the project area 

until permanent vegetation is established. Ruby has agreed to develop grazing deferment and cost 

reimbursement arrangements with willing landowners, grazing permittees, and land managing agencies to 

address grazing disruption from construction and to minimize disturbance to newly reseeded areas during 

restoration. 

 

Ruby would install gates or other barriers (e.g., rock berms, log barricades, roughened right-ofway) within the construction work area where requested by landowners or land managing agencies to 

minimize unauthorized entry by off-highway vehicles (OHVs). The BLM has indicated that it would 

require Ruby to gate and fence disturbed areas on BLM-administered land in western Box Elder County, 

Utah, to keep livestock and OHVs off restored areas until vegetation has become established. BLM 

gating and fencing requirements would be addressed in Ruby’s right-of-way grant and POD. Markers 

showing the location of the pipeline would be installed at fence and road crossings in order to identify the 

owner of the pipeline and convey emergency information in accordance with applicable governmental 

regulations, including DOT safety requirements. Special markers providing information and guidance for 

aerial patrol pilots also would be installed. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 2-18 

 

2.3.1.8 Commissioning 

Test manifolds would be removed and final pipeline tie-ins would be completed after hydrostatic 

testing. The pipeline then would be cleaned and dried using mechanical tools (pigs) that are moved 

through the pipeline with pressurized dry air. Pigs also would be used to internally inspect the pipeline to 

detect whether dents, ovalities, or other damage had occurred during construction. Any damaged pipe 

segments would be dug up, repaired, and retested. Pipeline commissioning would then commence. 

Commissioning involves verifying that equipment has been properly installed and is working, verifying 

that controls and communications systems are functioning, and confirming that the pipeline is ready for 

service. In the final step, the pipeline would be prepared for service by purging the pipeline of air and 

loading it with natural gas. Ruby would not be authorized to place its pipeline into service until it has 

received written permission from the Director of the FERC’s Office of Energy Projects (OEP). 

2.3.1.9 Post-Construction Monitoring 

Ruby would monitor areas disturbed by construction, including access roads, until revegetation 

thresholds are met and temporary erosion control devices are removed. Ruby would monitor upland areas 

affected by construction for at least two growing seasons after construction for issues such as vegetation 

cover, invasive species, crop productivity, soil settling, soil compaction, excessively rocky soils, and 

drainage problems. Ruby proposes to monitor wetland areas for 5 years after construction. Revegetation 

would be considered successful when the density and cover of non-nuisance vegetation in the disturbed 

work area are similar to adjacent undisturbed lands, as determined by the FERC and federal land 

managing agency. The FERC would continue its oversight of the project area after construction by 

reviewing Ruby’s periodic monitoring reports and conducting its own compliance inspections. We note 

that federal land managing agencies may require different monitoring criteria or periods on federal lands 

as conditions of the right-of-way grant. For example, the BLM would require vegetation on BLMadministered lands to reestablish to 70 percent of pre-disturbance native ground cover before restoration 

is considered successful. Ruby’s proposed time frames for monitoring wetlands and woody riparian areas 

are discussed further in sections 4.3.3.3 and 4.4.3. 

We recognize that during and after construction, issues or complaints may develop that were not 

addressed during the environmental proceedings at the Commission and it is important that landowners 

have an avenue to contact Ruby’s representatives. Should the project be approved, we are interested in 

ensuring that landowner issues and complaints received during and after construction are resolved in a 

timely and efficient manner. Resolution of landowner issues and complaints are discussed further in see 

sections 4.8.1.3 and 5.2.

2.3.2 Special Pipeline Construction Procedures 

Special construction techniques are typically required when constructing across wetlands, 

waterbodies, roads, railroads, foreign utilities, steep slopes, geologic faults, and when constructing in the 

winter. Temporary extra workspaces adjacent to the construction right-of-way would be utilized at most 

of these areas for staging construction, storing materials, maneuvering equipment, fabricating pipe, and 

stockpiling spoil. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 2-19 

 

2.3.2.1 Wetland Crossings 

Pipeline construction across wetlands would be similar to typical conventional upland crosscountry construction procedures, with several modifications and limitations as described in Ruby’s 

Procedures to reduce the potential impact on wetland hydrology and soil structure (see section 4.3.3 and 

Appendix F). 

Ruby would use a 75-foot-wide construction right-of-way in wetlands, except where wetlands are 

within actively cultivated or rotated cropland, in which case Ruby would use the typical 115-foot-wide 

construction right-of-way. Temporary extra workspaces and staging areas would be set back a minimum 

of 50 feet from wetland edges with the exception of water appropriation sites; no setback would be 

required in actively cultivated or rotated cropland or other disturbed land. Ruby’s proposed locations for 

temporary extra workspaces and staging areas are identified in Appendix B. 

The use of construction equipment in wetlands would be limited to that equipment needed for 

clearing the right-of-way, excavating the trench, fabricating and installing the pipeline, backfilling the 

trench, and restoring the right-of-way. In areas where there is no reasonable access to the right-of-way 

except through a wetland, non-essential equipment (that is, equipment not necessary to construct the 

crossing) would be allowed to travel through wetland only if the ground is firm enough or has been 

stabilized to avoid rutting. Otherwise, non-essential equipment would be allowed to travel through the 

wetland only once. 

In general, equipment refueling and lubricating would take place in upland areas more than 100 

feet from the edges of wetlands, although federal land managing agencies may require a greater setback 

on federal land. There may be certain instances where equipment refueling and lubrication may be 

necessary in or near wetlands. For example, stationary equipment (such as dewatering pumps) may need 

to be operated continuously within wetlands and may require refueling in-place. Ruby’s Spill Plan 

addresses the handling of fuel and other potentially hazardous materials (e.g., pipe coating epoxy or 

mastic) in or within 100 feet of wetlands (see Appendix J). 

Vegetation clearing in wetlands would be limited to trees and shrubs; such vegetation would be 

cut flush with the surface of the ground and removed from the wetland. Stump removal, grading, topsoil 

segregation (in unsaturated wetlands), and excavation would be limited to the area immediately over the 

trench line to avoid excessive disruption of wetland soils and the native seed bank and rootstock within 

the soils. 

During clearing, sediment barriers (e.g., silt fence, staked straw bales) would be installed adjacent 

to wetlands and within temporary extra workspaces as necessary to minimize the potential for sediment 

runoff. Sediment barriers would be installed across the full width of the construction right-of-way at the 

base of slopes adjacent to wetland boundaries. Sediment barriers also would be installed within wetlands 

along the edge of the right-of-way, where necessary, to minimize the potential for sediment to run off the 

construction right-of-way and into undisturbed wetland areas outside the work area. Silt fence or straw 

bales installed across the working side of the right-of-way would be removed during the day when vehicle 

traffic is present and would be replaced each night. Alternatively, drivable berms may be installed and 

maintained across the right-of-way if they are adequate to control sediment movement into the wetlands. 

Temporary trench plugs would be left in the trench at the edge of wetlands where necessary to 

prevent silt-laden water from flowing down the upland trench and into the wetland. Trench water 

discharges in wetlands would be directed into an energy dissipation/sediment filtration device (e.g.,

geotextile filter bag, straw bale structure) to minimize the potential for erosion and sedimentation in the 

wetland. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 2-20 

 

The method of pipeline construction used in wetlands would depend largely on the stability of the 

soils at the time of construction. If wetland soils are not saturated and can support construction 

equipment on equipment mats or timber riprap, construction would occur in a manner similar to 

conventional upland cross-country construction techniques. In unsaturated wetlands, topsoil from the 

trench line would be stripped and stored separately from subsoil. Topsoil segregation would not be 

possible in saturated soils. 

The pipeline may be installed using the “push-pull technique” in areas where wetland soils are 

saturated or inundated with water. The push-pull technique would involve stringing and welding the pipe 

outside of the wetland and excavating the trench using a backhoe supported by equipment mats or timber 

riprap. The pre-welded pipeline would be installed in the wetland by equipping it with buoys and pushing 

it or pulling it across the water-filled trench. After the pipeline is floated into position, the floats would 

be removed and the pipeline would sink into place. The trench then would be backfilled by a backhoe 

supported on equipment mats or timber riprap. Most pipe installed in saturated wetlands would be coated 

with concrete or equipped with set-on weights to provide negative buoyancy. 

Original topographic conditions and contours would be restored during backfilling to the extent 

practical. Trench breakers would be installed prior to backfilling at the base of slopes near the boundary 

between the wetland and adjacent upland areas and where necessary to prevent the subsurface drainage of 

water from wetlands. At locations where topsoil had been separated from subsoil, subsoil would be 

returned to the trench first, followed by topsoil. Topsoil would be replaced even with the surface of the 

ground level leaving no crown over the trench line. Where wetlands overlie rocky soils, the pipe would 

be padded with rock-free soil or sand before backfilling with native bedrock and soil. Equipment mats, 

timber riprap, gravel fill, geotextile fabric, and straw mats would be removed from wetlands following 

backfilling. 

Permanent slope breakers would be constructed across the right-of-way in upland areas adjacent 

to the wetland boundary where wetlands are at the base of slopes with greater than 5 percent grade and 

where the base of the slope is less than 50 feet from the wetland, or as needed to prevent sediment 

transport into the wetland. Temporary sediment barriers would be installed where necessary until 

revegetation of adjacent upland areas is successful. Once revegetation is successful, temporary sediment 

barriers would be removed from the right-of-way and disposed of properly. 

The construction right-of-way would be seeded in accordance with the recommendations of the 

land managing agencies and local soil conservation authorities in non-agricultural wetlands where no 

standing water is present (no seeding would be conducted in agricultural wetlands or wetlands with 

standing water). In the absence of recommendations from land managing agencies and local soil 

conservation authorities, the right-of-way would be seeded with annual ryegrass at a rate of 40 pounds per 

acre. Annual ryegrass would provide temporary cover while allowing native herbaceous and woody 

vegetation to become reestablished without excessive competition. Lime, mulch, fertilizer, or other 

additives or amendments would not be used in wetlands. We have made an additional recommendation in 

section 4.3.3.3 requiring active reseeding and planting in scrub-shrub and forested wetlands. 

2.3.2.2 Waterbody Crossings 

The Ruby Pipeline Project would cross numerous perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral 

waterbodies. Prior to construction, Ruby would install temporary bridges across flowing waterbodies to 

allow for equipment passage. Bridges would include clean rock fill over culverts, timber mats supported 

by flumes, railcar flatbeds, or other types of spans. Construction equipment would use bridges at all 

times, except for the equipment used by the initial clearing crew, which would be allowed one pass 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 2-21 

 

through the waterbody before the bridge is installed. Reclamation indicated that it would not allow the 

initial clearing crew to pass through waterbodies under Reclamation jurisdiction. Bridges and supports 

would be removed as soon as possible after permanent seeding. 

Temporary extra workspaces and staging areas would be set back a minimum of 50 feet from 

waterbody edges, except in actively cultivated or rotated cropland or other disturbed land where no 

setback would be required. We have reviewed Ruby’s proposed locations for temporary extra 

workspaces, staging areas, and water appropriation sites near waterbodies and in riparian areas and have 

made recommendations in sections 4.3.2.4 and 4.4.3 to reduce impacts on woody vegetation in these 

areas. 

In general, equipment refueling and lubricating would take place in upland areas at least 100 feet 

from the edges of waterbodies. The BLM, USFS, and Reclamation have indentified they may require 

setbacks greater than 100 feet on federal land. There may be certain instances where equipment refueling 

and lubrication may be necessary in or near waterbodies. For example, stationary equipment (such as 

water pumps for dry-ditch construction) may need to be operated continuously on the banks of 

waterbodies and may require refueling in-place. Ruby’s Spill Plan addresses the handling of fuel and 

other potentially hazardous materials (e.g., pipe coating epoxy or mastic) in or near waterbodies (see 

Appendix J). 

Vegetation clearing adjacent to waterbodies would involve the removal of trees and brush from 

the construction right-of-way and temporary extra workspaces as described in sections 4.3.2.4 and 4.4.3. 

During clearing, Ruby would install and maintain sediment barriers across the right-of-way adjacent to 

waterbodies and within temporary extra workspaces to minimize the potential for sediment to enter 

waterbodies. Silt fence or straw bales across the working side of the right-of-way may be removed during 

the day when vehicle traffic is present, but would be replaced each night. Alternatively, Ruby may install 

and maintain drivable berms across the right-of-way in lieu of silt fence or straw bales. 

Ruby has proposed to use the open-cut crossing method for all waterbodies, except where 

waterbodies contain special status fish species or where required by a permit (such as at Reclamationadministered waterbodies). Where waterbodies contain special status fish species or where required by a 

permit, Ruby would implement a dry-ditch or horizontal directional drill (HDD) method with additional 

conservation measures (such as fish salvage and intake screening). Ruby would prepare site-specific 

crossing plans for all waterbodies greater than 100 feet wide (see section 4.3.2.4). In-stream construction 

would be restricted to the timing windows in table 2.3.2-1 to minimize the possibility of interference with 

fish migration and spawning. These timing windows are based on the general timing requirements of the 

FERC’s Procedures (which Ruby has incorporated into its Procedures) and specific agency comments on 

Ruby’s proposed construction activities. 

Open-Cut Method 

An open-cut crossing involves trenching through the waterbody while water continues to flow 

through the trenched area. Prior to initiating an open cut crossing, Ruby would pre-fabricate pipe 

segments in adjacent temporary extra workspaces. Trackhoes or other excavating equipment staged on 

one or both sides of the waterbody would be used to dig a trench in the flowing waterbody. Where the 

waterbody is too wide to excavate the trench from the banks, equipment would operate from within the 

waterbody. Equipment operating in the waterbody would be limited to that needed to construct the 

crossing. Spoil excavated from the trench would be placed a minimum of 10 feet from the edge of the 

waterbody or further where required by federal land managing agencies on federal land. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 2-22 

 

Earthen trench plugs would be left in place on both banks of the waterbody until immediately 

before pipe installation. This would separate the waterbody trench from the upland trench and prevent 

stream flow from being diverted into the upland portions of the pipeline trench, and prevent any muddy 

water accumulated in the upland trench from flowing into the waterbody. 

TABLE 2.3.2-1 

In-Stream Construction Timing Windows for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Timing Window for Construction Fishery Type Source Agency 

WYOMING 

July 1 – August 31 Coldwater Fisheries WGFD 

July 1 – November 15 Coolwater and Warmwater Fisheries WGFD 

 

UTAH 

July 16 – February 28 Fisheries Containing Bonneville Cutthroat Trout UDWR 

June 1 – September 30 Coldwater Fisheries (including all salmonid species) FERC, UDWR 

June 1 – November 30 Coolwater and Warmwater Fisheries FERC 

 

NEVADA 

June 1 – August 31 Spring and Fall Spawning Fisheries NDOW 

June 1 – December 31 Spring Spawning Fisheries NDOW 

July 1 – December 31 Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Fisheries FWS 

March 1 – September 30 Fall Spawning Fisheries NDOW 

 

OREGON 

 July 15 – September 30 Fisheries in the Warner Valley & Goose Lake Basins ODFW 

July 1 – January 31 Fisheries in the Lost River Basin Above Bonanza a ODFW 

October 15 – March 31 Waters Under Reclamation Jurisdiction Reclamation 

───────────────────────── 

a

 The Ruby Pipeline Project would not cross fisheries in the Lost River Basin below Bonanza. 

Once the trench is excavated across the waterbody, a pre-fabricated segment of pipe would be 

placed in the trench. Most pipe installed under waterbodies would be coated with concrete or equipped 

with set-on weights to provide negative buoyancy. The trench would then be backfilled with native 

streambed spoil. Ruby would complete all in-stream work within 24 hours in minor waterbodies (10 feet 

wide or less) and 48 hours in intermediate waterbodies (10 to 100 feet wide). 

Dry-Ditch Methods 

A dry-ditch crossing involves isolating the pipeline trench from the waterbody by diverting 

stream flow over or around the trench through flume pipes (often referred to as the flume method) or 

hoses and pumps (often referred to as the dam-and-pump or pump-around method). There would be no 

surface water flow across the in-stream work area during trench excavation, pipe installation, backfilling, 

or stream bank recontouring. 

The first step in a dry-ditch crossing involves diverting water around the in-stream work area by 

placing a sufficient number of flume pipes in the waterbody or by using adequately sized hoses and highcapacity pumps to pump the stream flows around the work area. Ruby would install energy dissipation 

devices (e.g., plywood boards) at the discharge points of flumes or hoses to prevent streambed scour. 

Ruby would place sand or pea gravel bags, water bladders, or metal wing deflectors in the waterbody 

upstream and downstream of the proposed trench. These devices would serve to dam the stream and 

divert the stream flow through the flume pipes or through the hoses and pumps, thereby isolating the 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 2-23 

 

water flow from the construction area between the dams. Such devices also help to stabilize the flume 

pipes where flumes are used. 

A portable pump may be used to pump standing water from between the dams into well-vegetated 

upland areas or energy dissipation/sediment filtration devices, such as geotextile filter bags or straw bale 

structures after installing the dams, thereby creating a “dry” construction area. Leakage from the dams or 

subsurface flow from below the waterbody bed may cause water to accumulate in the isolated area 

between the upstream and downstream dams. Water that accumulates in this area would be periodically 

pumped out. 

Ruby would use trackhoes staged on both banks of the waterbody to excavate a trench under the 

flume pipe or hoses in the dewatered streambed. Spoil excavated from the waterbody trench would be 

placed or stored a minimum of 10 feet from the edge of the waterbody or further as required by federal 

land managing agencies on federal land. Once the trench is excavated, a prefabricated segment of pipe 

would be installed beneath the flume pipes. The trench would then be backfilled with native spoil 

previously excavated from the waterbody bed. 

Restoration would begin immediately after backfilling. Waterbody banks would be restored to 

preconstruction contours to the extent practical or to a stable angle of repose and recontoured before 

removing the dams, flume pipes, hoses, and pumps and returning flow to the waterbody channel. Rock 

riprap or gabion baskets (rock enclosed in wire bins) may be installed on steep waterbody banks to reduce 

stream bank erosion in accordance with permit requirements. More stable banks would be seeded with 

native grasses and mulched or covered with erosion control fabric. Waterbody banks would be 

temporarily stabilized within 24 hours of completing in-stream construction. Sediment barriers, such as 

silt fence and/or straw bales or drivable berms would be maintained across the right-of-way at all 

waterbody approaches until permanent vegetation is established. Temporary equipment bridges would be 

removed following the completion of pipeline construction. Ruby would conduct periodic aerial and 

ground inspections of the pipeline after construction to identify streambed scour that may expose the pipe 

or require maintenance or repairs. Ruby would be required to implement corrective actions to remediate 

scour as required by the FERC and DOT safety regulations. 

Horizontal Directional Drill Method 

The HDD method involves drilling a hole under the waterbody and installing a pre-fabricated 

pipe segment through the hole. The first step in an HDD is to drill a small diameter pilot hole from one 

side of the crossing to the other using a drill rig. As the pilot hole progresses, segments of drill pipe are 

inserted into the hole to extend the length of the drill. The drill bit would be steered and monitored 

throughout the process until the desired pilot hole had been completed. The pilot hole then would be 

enlarged using several passes of successively larger reaming tools. Once reamed to a sufficient size, a 

pre-fabricated segment of pipe would be attached to the drill string on the exit side of the hole and pulled 

back through the drill hole toward the drill rig. 

Ideally, there would be no disruption to the waterbody during the HDD process. However, the 

HDD method requires large volumes of water to manufacture drilling mud (a non-toxic mixture of water 

and bentonite clay that is pumped into the drill hole throughout the drilling process). Water for drilling 

typically is obtained from the waterbody being crossed and can contribute to water depletions. Ruby has 

committed that water withdrawals would be approved and permitted through negotiations with water 

rights holders and the appropriate water authorities (see section 4.6.1.8 regarding water depletion impacts 

on aquatic resources). Further, if a natural fracture or weak area in the ground is encountered during 

drilling, drilling mud may be released to the environment (sometimes referred to as a “frac-out”). It is 

common to encounter weak areas in the ground where pressurized drilling mud can escape into the 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 2-24 

 

surrounding matrix. If the mud moves laterally, the release may not be evident on the ground. For a 

release to be evident there must be a fault extending vertically from the drill hole to the surface of the 

ground. The volume of mud released is dependent on a number of factors, including the size of the fault, 

the permeability of the geologic material, the viscosity of the drilling mud, and the pressure of the drilling 

system. Pits or containment structures could be constructed to contain the drilling mud in the event that 

the mud is released to the surface of the ground. A pump may be required to transfer the drilling mud 

from the pit or the structure to a containment vessel. A release into the river or a release underground 

would be more difficult to contain and would be addressed by thickening the drilling mud or stopping 

drilling all together. 

When drilling mud is released into a waterbody it usually disperses quickly and is carried 

downstream by the current; however, the amount and timing of dispersal is affected by the nature of the 

waterbody (e.g., stream size and flow rate). The effects of releasing drilling mud to a waterbody could 

range from localized turbidity and sedimentation which would be quickly diluted by the river’s flow to 

significant turbidity and sedimentation which could be carried several miles downstream. Small or slow 

moving streams may exhibit minimal dispersal of drilling mud and thus increased sedimentation at the 

release point. Large scale drilling mud releases could be capable of killing fish, altering water chemistry, 

changing water temperature, and altering habitat. 

Ruby is proposing to cross the Hams Fork River (at one location, about MP 1.0) and the Bear 

River (at two locations, at MPs R52.9 and 113.7) using the HDD method. Ruby is required to submit a 

site-specific plan of each HDD crossing to the FERC for review and approval in accordance with Ruby’s 

Procedures. Because of the potential for adverse impacts from the HDD method, we expect the plans to 

include water appropriation specifications, frac-out containment procedures, and contingency crossing 

methods. We further expect the frac-out containment procedures to identify, based on field 

investigations, potential subsurface features that would be encountered during drilling and what Ruby 

would do to limit the amount of mud lost and successfully complete the drill if a void were encountered. 

Ruby stated it would consider using HDD in other locations if construction were required outside an instream work window and Ruby were unable to obtain a waiver of the timing extension from the 

jurisdictional resource agency and physical conditions were appropriate. UTPL has stated it does not 

prefer the use of the HDD construction method because of the potential for increased impacts such as the 

inadvertent release of drilling mud into waters containing native fishes. 

2.3.2.3 Road and Railroad Crossings 

Construction across roads and railroads would be conducted in accordance with the requirements 

of the road and railroad crossing permits obtained by Ruby and applicable laws and regulations (e.g.,

Oregon Administrative Rule 734 Division 55 through special provisions). Generally, paved roads and 

railroads would be crossed by boring beneath the road or railroad. Boring would allow the pipeline to be 

installed beneath the road or railroad without disturbing the road bed or disrupting traffic. Boring would 

involve excavating a pit on each side of the road or railroad, placing the boring equipment in the pit, and 

then boring a hole under the road or railroad at least equal to the diameter of the pipe. Once the hole is 

bored, a pre-fabricated section of pipe would be pushed through the borehole. At particularly long 

crossings, pipe sections may be welded onto the pipe string just before being pushed through. Borings 

would be conducted 24 hours per day, 7 days per week until the boring is completed. Each bore crossing 

typically would require between 2 and 10 days to complete from start to finish. 

Most gravel and dirt roads would be crossed by the open-cut method. The open-cut method 

would require temporary closure of the road and the establishment of detours. In instances where a 

reasonable detour is not feasible, at least one lane of traffic would be kept open using steel plates to 

bridge the trench except during brief periods when it would be essential to close the road to install the 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 2-25 

 

pipeline. Most open-cut road crossings require only 1 or 2 days to complete, although resurfacing could 

require several weeks to allow for soil settlement and compaction. The Humboldt County (Nevada) Road 

Department commented that many of the rural roads in the county provide service to agricultural areas, 

and some roads may be the only access to residences or ranches. Likewise, the BLM stated that many of 

the roads near the Oregon/California state line are the only access to ranches, timber management areas, 

and recreation sites in the vicinity. Ruby would construct across all roads in accordance with regulatory 

and landowner requirements, and roads would be closed only where allowed by permit or landowner 

consent. Humboldt County stated that it would consider access limitations when evaluating closure and 

use permits. 

The BLM also inquired if the pipeline could be crossed by heavy equipment hauling timber after 

construction, or if the right-of-way could be used for stacking and storing timber in the future. Ruby 

would construct all road crossings in accordance with DOT safety standards. Where heavy equipment 

would is known to use a road crossed by the pipeline, special safety measures, such as thicker-walled pipe 

or additional cover over the pipe, would be required. Stacking and storing timber on the right-of-way 

after construction generally would be prohibited because such activities could interfere with the safe 

operation of the pipeline and/or inhibit access along the right-of-way. 

2.3.2.4 Utility Crossings 

The pipeline would be constructed across or parallel to numerous utility lines. Prior to 

construction, Ruby’s construction contractor would call each state’s one-call system so that buried 

utilities could be identified and flagged before ground-disturbing activities. Where the pipeline is 

installed near a buried utility, Ruby would install the pipeline with at least 12 inches of clearance from 

any other underground structure not associated with the pipeline as required by 49 CFR 192.325. If this 

clearance could not be attained, Ruby would install additional precautions to protect the pipeline from 

damage that might result from the proximity of the other structure. 

Additional precautions may also be required where the pipeline would be constructed in the 

vicinity of aboveground utilities. For example, Ruby would be required to establish safe clearances for 

equipment and personnel working near electric transmission lines as well as precautionary actions to 

protect equipment and personnel from electric shock as required by 29 CFR 1910.269, 29 CFR 1926.416, 

29 CFR 1926.550, and 29 CFR 1926.950-960. Where the pipeline would be subject to stray currents, 

Ruby would be required to implement a program to minimize the detrimental effects of such currents in 

accordance with 49 CFR 192.473. 

2.3.2.5 Steep Terrain 

The proposed route crosses approximately 40.9 miles of terrain in excess of 15 percent slope, 

including 9 locations near Brigham City, Utah and elsewhere in excess of 40 percent slope (see section 

4.1.1). Steep terrain presents unique challenges to pipeline construction. Frequently, a significant 

amount of grading is required in rugged topography and slopes need to be reduced to a gentler grade to 

accommodate pipe bending limitations. In such areas, the slopes would be cut away and, after the 

pipeline is installed, reconstructed to their original contours to the greatest extent possible. Extra 

workspace, as discussed in section 2.2.1, is typically required in areas where extensive cutting and 

grading is required. The maps in Appendix B illustrate the location of the extra workspaces. 

In areas where the pipeline route crosses laterally along the side of a slope, cut-and-fill grading 

may be required to obtain a safe, flat work terrace. Cut-and-fill grading would involve excavating soil 

from the high side of the right-of-way and moving the soil to the low side of the right-of-way to create a 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 2-26 

 

safe and level work terrace. After the pipeline is installed, the soil from the low side of the right-of-way 

would be returned to the high side, and the slope’s original contours would be restored. 

Temporary sediment barriers such as silt fence and straw bales would be installed in steep terrain 

during clearing to prevent the movement of disturbed soil off the right-of-way. Temporary slope breakers 

consisting of mounded and compacted soil would be installed across the right-of-way during grading, and 

permanent slope breakers would be installed during cleanup. Following construction, seed would be 

applied to steep slopes and the right-of-way would be mulched in accordance with Ruby’s Plan 

(Appendix F). Sediment barriers would be maintained across the right-of-way until permanent vegetation 

is established. 

We received questions on the draft EIS asking about construction methods at rock walls and 

cliffs. The route crosses sheer terrain at two locations: on the south side of Twelvemile Creek near MP 

588 where the terrain drops 10 to 15 feet and at a lava flow near MP R653 where the terrain drops 30 to 

35 feet. Ruby would blast or rip a trench through the rock walls at these two locations to a depth 

sufficient to bury the pipeline. Padding material or rock shield would be placed around the pipeline prior 

to backfilling the trench with native material to a more stable angle of repose. 

2.3.2.6 Geologic Faults 

Generally, steel pipelines perform well during seismic events because steel is a linearly elastic 

material and seismic wave propagation typically does not damage or permanently deform steel pipe 

(consider the flexibility of a steel coil or spring). In some instances, however, special design 

considerations may be required where the pipeline crosses significant geologic faults. In general, faults 

with low levels of activity in remote areas receive no special design considerations, whereas faults with 

high levels of activity or in populated areas are evaluated for design that would allow the pipe to 

withstand expected fault displacement. Ruby contracted a geotechnical engineering and design company 

to identify geologic faults in the project area and prepare site-specific plans for faults requiring treatment. 

The engineering and design company recommended that design mitigation treatment occur at three 

locations in Nevada due to the presence of geologic faulting. One area of mitigation is at the East Cache 

Fault Zone as it crosses the East Fork Little Bear River (near MP 92.7), and two are at the Wasatch Fault 

Zone (MPs 108 to R109). Treatment prescribed for the faults included one or more of the following: 

utilizing heavier wall pipe, relocating shut-off valves, and compacting backfill around pipe bends to 

transfer stress. Ruby incorporated the treatment prescriptions into its project design. Section 4.1.3.1 

provides a more detailed discussion of geologic faults that occur along the project. 

2.3.2.7 Blasting 

Ruby anticipates that blasting would be required at certain locations to fracture bedrock and 

enable equipment to excavate the trench. Ruby would adhere to strict safety precautions during blasting 

and would exercise care to prevent damage to nearby structures, utilities, wells, springs, and other 

important resources. Ruby would conduct blasting only during daylight hours and would not begin 

blasting until landowners and tenants have been provided sufficient advanced notice to protect property or 

livestock. Blasting mats or padding would be used where necessary to prevent fly rock from scattering. 

Additional mitigation would be implemented to minimize impacts on raptors. All blasting activities 

would be performed in compliance with federal, state, and local codes, ordinances, and permits; 

manufacturers’ prescribed safety procedures; and industry practices. Sections 4.1.1.2 and 4.5.5 provide 

more detailed discussions of blasting activities. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 2-27 

 

2.3.2.8 Winter Construction 

Ruby anticipates that pipeline construction would be substantially completed by mid-November. 

According to Ruby, any activities beyond mid-November likely would be limited to hydrostatic testing, 

tie-ins, and commissioning. Ruby has stated that the greatest potential for encountering winter 

construction conditions could be at the following general locations: MPs 1 to 30; MPs 264 to R294; MPs 

519 to 549; and MPs R615 to R645. The BLM has indicated the following locations also are subject to 

early winter conditions: MPs R645 to R664 and MPs R666 to R672.6. Where winter conditions are 

encountered, Ruby would use construction equipment to remove snow from the work area and access 

roads. Ruby proposes to expand its construction right-of-way width by up to 25 feet in limited areas to 

accommodate snow storage. Construction work would continue; however, Ruby estimates that 

productivity could be reduced by up to 50 percent. Ruby stated that it would adjust the timing of 

construction or add additional resources as necessary to accommodate winter conditions. The EIs would 

ensure that weather-related impacts are minimized and project activities are conducted in compliance with 

Ruby’s permits and approvals (section 2.5.1). In accordance with its Plan, Ruby would file with the 

FERC for review and written approval, a winterization plan if construction would continue into the winter 

season. 

2.3.3 Aboveground Facility Construction 

Aboveground facilities for the Ruby Pipeline Project would include 4 compressor stations, 5 

meter stations, 44 MLVs, 4 communication towers, and 20 pig launchers/receivers. All aboveground 

facilities would be installed at one of 44 sites as described in table 2.1.2-1. Construction crews separate 

from those building the pipeline would be employed to construct each of the four compressor stations. 

The first step of compressor station construction would involve the removal of vegetation from 

the station site and leveling of the terrain for buildings and other structural foundations. Ruby would 

install silt fence and/or straw bales during clearing and grading to minimize the potential for sediment 

runoff. 

Structural foundations would be excavated where necessary. Forms would be set, rebar installed, 

and concrete poured and cured. Concrete would be randomly sampled to verify compliance with 

minimum strength requirements. Backfill would be compacted around foundations and excess soil would 

be distributed around the site. 

Building construction would commence after foundations are completed. Typically, the steel 

frames of buildings would be erected first, followed by the installation of the roof, exterior finish, 

insulation, and interior finish. Air inlet and exhaust accessories would be added, and cut-outs in the 

siding for inlet and exhaust accessories would be flashed to ensure that buildings would be weather-tight. 

Compressor buildings would be acoustically treated to absorb sound and conserve energy. Construction 

of structures outside of buildings, such as coolers and condensers, would begin after concrete footings and 

foundations had been prepared. 

Underground piping would be installed at aboveground facilities as necessary. Piping generally 

would consist of welded steel with flanged or screwed connections. Some piping would be fabricated at 

an offsite assembly shop while some would be fabricated onsite. Where offsite fabrication would be 

used, pre-fabricated pieces would be shipped to the site and installed in place. All underground piping 

would be coated and equipped with cathodic protection to prevent corrosion. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 2-28 

 

Local utility companies would be contracted to provide electric service to compressor stations. 

To facilitate electric line drops, Rocky Mountain Power plans to construct about 2.0 miles of new electric 

power line to the Roberson Creek Compressor Station in Lincoln County, Wyoming, and Harney Electric 

Cooperative plans to construct about 4.5 miles of new electric power line to the Desert Valley 

Compressor Station in Humboldt County, Nevada. These new power lines are discussed in more detail in 

section 1.4. 

 

Ruby would construct communication towers up to 40 feet in height at each of compressor 

stations, except the Roberson Creek Compressor Station where the tower would up to 50 feet in height. 

Before placing aboveground facilities in service, the pipeline system, including station piping, 

would be pressure tested. All critical and non-critical controls and safety devices such as emergency 

shutdown systems; relief valves; gas and fire detection systems; and overspeed, vibration, and other onand off-engine protection and safety devices would be rigorously checked and tested during the 

commissioning phase of construction. Compressors would be operated for a performance test after 

commissioning is completed. Following the test, the controls and safety devices would be verified and 

rechecked by the manufacturer and Ruby. 

Upon the completion of start-up and testing, or as soon as weather permits, disturbed areas within 

the facility sites would be graded and either paved, graveled, or seeded. A security fence would be 

erected around the perimeter of all new aboveground facilities. 

2.4 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 

Ruby has targeted its construction start for February 2010, with an in-service date in March 2011. 

However, issues such as easement acquisition, agency permits, federal consultations (e.g., endangered 

species and historic preservation consultations), and FERC staff’s approval of Ruby’s Implementation 

Plan and related environmental conditions are important factors in determining the eventual project 

construction schedule should the pipeline be approved. Ruby also would be required to obtain the BLM 

right-of-way grant, temporary use permits, and approval of its POD before beginning work on federal 

land, as well as all other permits necessary to satisfy other statutory requirements for the project. 

2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTION, COMPLIANCE MONITORING, AND 

POST-APPROVAL VARIANCES 

2.5.1 Environmental Inspection 

FERC may impose conditions on any Certificate granted for the Ruby Pipeline Project. These 

conditions could include requirements and mitigation measures identified in this EIS to minimize 

environmental impacts associated with the project (see section 5.2). We will recommend to the 

Commission that these requirements and mitigation measures (indicated with bold type in the text) be 

included as conditions to any approving Certificate issued for the Ruby Pipeline Project. Further, Ruby 

would be required to implement the construction procedures and mitigation measures it has proposed in 

its filings with the FERC, including those in appendices of this final EIS unless specifically modified by 

other Certificate conditions. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 2-29 

 

Other regulatory agencies also may include terms and conditions or stipulations as part of their 

permits or approvals. While there would be jurisdictional differences between the FERC’s and other 

agencies’ conditions, the environmental inspection program for the Ruby Pipeline Project would address 

all conditions environmental or construction-related placed on the project by all regulatory agencies. 

Ruby originally proposed to employ at least one EI on each construction spread to ensure that 

construction of the project would comply with the construction procedures and mitigation measures 

identified in Ruby’s application, the FERC Certificate, other environmental permits and approvals, and 

environmental requirements in landowner easement agreements. EIs would have peer status with all 

other activity inspectors. EIs would have the authority to stop activities that violate the environmental 

conditions of the FERC Certificate, other permits, or landowner requirements; and to order the 

appropriate corrective action. In its most recent version of its Plan, Ruby appears to have accidentally 

removed its commitment to employ at least one EI for each construction spread (see Appendix F, section 

II.B.1). We are nonetheless recommending that Ruby employ at least two EIs per spread because of the 

complex nature of this project (see condition 7 in section 5.2). The EIs would be responsible for: 

• ensuring and documenting compliance with the requirements of the Certificate, measures 

proposed by Ruby (as approved and/or modified by the Certificate), other environmental 

permits and approvals, and environmental requirements in landowner easement 

agreements; 

• identifying, documenting, and overseeing corrective actions, as necessary, to bring an 

activity back into compliance; 

• verifying that the limits of authorized construction work areas and locations of access 

roads are properly marked before clearing; 

• verifying the location of signs and highly visible flagging marking the boundaries of 

sensitive resource areas, waterbodies, wetlands, noxious weed infestations, and areas with 

special requirements along the construction work area and confirming that the 

appropriate resource monitoring is being conducted to protect these areas; 

• verifying that equipment and vehicles have been cleaned prior to arrival at the work site, 

and are cleaned after working in areas of known noxious weed infestations before 

moving on to other areas; 

• identifying erosion/sediment control and soil stabilization needs in all areas; 

• ensuring that the location of dewatering structures and slope breakers would not direct 

water into known cultural resources sites or locations of special status species or their 

habitats; 

• verifying that hydrostatic test dewatering structures are located at approved discharge 

sites; 

• verifying that trench and hydrostatic test dewatering activities do not result in the 

deposition of sand, silt, and/or sediment near the point of discharge into a wetland or 

waterbody. If such deposition is occurring, the dewatering activity would be stopped and 

the design of the discharge would be changed to prevent recurrence; 

• ensuring that subsoil and topsoil are tested in agricultural and residential areas to measure 

compaction and determine the need for corrective action; 

• documenting that trench spoil has been properly water-packed in irrigated land; 

• advising the Chief Inspector when conditions (such as wet weather) make it advisable to 

restrict construction activities to avoid excessive rutting; 

• documenting that materials and wastes are properly handled, stored, transported and 

disposed of in accordance with Ruby’s Spill Plan; 

• documenting that spills are controlled, contained, and cleaned up in accordance with 

Ruby’s Spill Plan; 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 2-30 

 

• ensuring restoration of contours and topsoil; 

• verifying that topsoils, and organic material, imported for use on the project or soils of 

any kind imported for agricultural or residential use have been certified as free of noxious 

weeds and soil pests, unless otherwise approved by the landowner; 

• determining the need for and ensuring that temporary erosion controls are properly 

installed as necessary to prevent sediment flow into wetlands, waterbodies, sensitive 

areas, and onto roads; 

• documenting that seeding, fertilizing, mulching, and tree and shrub planting are carried 

out in accordance with the Restoration and Revegetation Plans for each state (Appendix 

L); 

• inspecting and ensuring the maintenance of temporary erosion control measures at least: 

o on a daily basis in areas of active construction or equipment operation; 

o on a weekly basis in areas with no construction or equipment operation; and 

o within 24 hours of each 0.5 inch of rainfall. 

• ensuring the repair of all ineffective temporary erosion control measures within 24 hours 

of identification; 

• keeping records of compliance with the environmental conditions of the FERC 

Certificate, of the mitigation measures proposed by Ruby in its Filings with the FERC, 

and of other federal, state, or local environmental permits during active construction and 

restoration; 

• identifying areas that should be given special attention to ensure stabilization and 

restoration after the construction phase; 

• inspecting the project area for sensitive resources and initiating implementation of 

unanticipated discoveries plans as needed; and 

• other appropriate oversight. 

2.5.2 Compliance Monitoring 

In addition to the EIs, inspectors from the FERC, BLM, and other federal land managing agencies 

would conduct periodic field inspections during construction and restoration. Other federal, state, and 

local agencies also may monitor the project to the extent determined necessary by the agency. 

The BLM has indicated that it would require a third-party compliance monitoring program on 

federally managed lands as a condition of its right-of-way grant. The third-party compliance monitoring 

program would report on the effectiveness of Ruby’s environmental inspection program and help ensure 

compliance with the terms and conditions of the BLM right-of-way grant. Ruby has acknowledged that it 

would be required to implement a third-party compliance monitoring program, and has stated that it 

would extend the program to the full project area including non-federally managed lands. 

The overall objective of a third-party program is threefold: to assess environmental compliance 

during construction in order to achieve a higher level of environmental compliance throughout the 

project, to assist the agency staff in screening and processing variance requests during construction, and 

to create and maintain a database of daily reports documenting compliance and instances of 

noncompliance. Third-party monitors would report to the FERC and BLM, would have authority to 

approve simple variance requests (see section 2.5.3), and would have the authority to stop any activity 

that violates an environmental condition of the FERC Certificate or BLM right-of-way grant. FERC 

environmental staff would also visit the site periodically during construction and restoration. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 2-31 

 

2.5.3 Post-Approval Variance Process 

The pipeline alignment and work areas identified in this EIS should be sufficient for construction 

and operation (including maintenance) of the Ruby Pipeline Project and ancillary facilities. However, 

minor route realignments and other workspace refinements often continue past the project planning phase 

and into the construction phase. As a result, the project location and areas of disturbance described in this 

EIS may require refinement after project approval (assuming the project is approved). These changes 

frequently involve minor route realignments, shifting or adding new temporary extra workspaces or 

staging areas, or adding additional access roads. We have developed a procedure for assessing impacts on 

those areas that have not been evaluated in this EIS and for approving or denying their use. 

In general, biological and cultural resource surveys were conducted using a survey corridor larger 

than that necessary to construct the pipeline. For example, Ruby utilized a 300-foot-wide survey corridor 

for wetland, wildlife, and cultural resource surveys, and identified wells and springs within 300 feet of the 

proposed pipeline route. If Ruby shifts any temporary extra workspace or requires unanticipated 

workspace subsequent to any project approval, these areas would typically be within the previously 

surveyed area. Such requests would be reviewed using a post-approval variance process. 

The request for route realignments or additional workspace locations along with a copy of the 

survey results would be documented and forwarded to the FERC (and the BLM and other federal land 

managing agencies, as applicable) in the form of a “variance request.” The FERC and/or the BLM would 

take the lead on reviewing the request, depending on the ownership status of the subject land. Typically, 

no further resource agency consultation would be required if the requested change is within previously 

surveyed areas. The procedures used for assessing impacts on work areas outside the survey corridor and 

for approving their use are similar to those described above, except that additional surveys, analyses, and 

resource agency consultations would be performed to ensure that impacts on biological, cultural, and 

other sensitive resources would be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable. 

After Ruby completes any additional surveys, analyses, and/or resource agency consultations, the 

new work area and supporting documentation (including landowner approval) would be forwarded to the 

FERC, BLM, and other federal land managing agencies, as applicable, in the form of a variance request, 

which would be evaluated in the manner described above. At the conclusion of the project, as-built 

drawings would be provided to the FERC, BLM, Reclamation, FWS, and USFS, as appropriate, to 

document the final location of the constructed facilities. The BLM and other federal land managing 

agencies, as appropriate, would use the information in the as-built survey to determine if an amendment to 

the right-of-way grant on federal land would be necessary. 

2.6 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

Operational activities on the pipeline would be limited to maintenance of the right-of-way and 

inspection, repair, and cleaning of the pipeline. Periodic aerial and ground inspections by pipeline 

personnel would assist in identification of the following conditions: soil erosion that may expose the pipe, 

surface visual clues that may indicate a leak in the line, conditions of the vegetation cover and erosion 

control measures, unauthorized encroachment on the right-of-way, excavation activities in the vicinity of 

the right-of-way, and other conditions that could present a safety hazard or require preventative 

maintenance or repairs. The pipeline cathodic protection system also would be monitored and inspected 

by pipeline personnel periodically to ensure proper and adequate corrosion protection. Appropriate 

corrective action to conditions observed during inspection would be taken as necessary. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 2-32 

 

2.6.1 Right-of-Way Monitoring and Maintenance 

To maintain accessibility of the right-of-way and to accommodate pipeline integrity surveys, 

vegetation on the 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way would be maintained by mowing, cutting, and 

trimming as described in Ruby’s Plan, Procedures, and other documents in the appendices to this EIS. 

Vegetation maintenance generally would be limited to removal of large brush and trees within 25 feet of 

either side of the pipeline (or 15 feet on either side of the pipeline in wetlands or within 25 feet of 

waterbodies). Ruby indicated that it would not need to regularly maintain vegetation within the 50-footwide permanent right-of-way in most land uses types, including open land, agricultural land, developed 

land, and open water (about 93 percent of the project area). Ruby stated it would not need to maintain 

sagebrush steppe vegetation during operation of the pipeline. Visually sensitive areas would be 

maintained in accordance with federal land managing agency requirements. 

The pipeline would be marked at line-of-sight intervals and at crossings of roads, railroads, and 

other key points. Ruby would make efforts to minimize the number of markers located in actively 

cultivated fields, particularly those where pivot irrigation is used. Wherever possible, markers would be 

placed at fence lines or field margins. The markers would clearly indicate the presence of the pipeline 

and provide a telephone number and address where a company representative can be reached in the event 

of an emergency or prior to any third-party excavation in the area of the pipeline. Ruby would participate 

in all state one-call programs. 

2.6.2 Pipeline and Compressor Station Integrity 

Ruby’s pipeline facilities would be operated and maintained in accordance with the federal safety 

standards of 49 CFR 192. Operation and maintenance of the Ruby Pipeline Project facilities would be 

performed by or at the direction of Ruby. The pipeline would be inspected periodically from the air and 

on the ground as operating conditions permit, but no less frequently than as required by 49 CFR 192. 

These surveillance activities would provide information on possible encroachments and nearby 

construction activities, erosion, exposed pipe, and other potential concerns that may affect pipeline safety 

and operation. Evidence of population changes would be monitored and class locations changed as 

necessary. If the population increases in an area, additional safety precautions may be needed in 

accordance with DOT requirements, including the possibility of replacing the pipe with thicker walled 

pipe. Ruby also would inspect MLVs annually and document the inspection results. 

Compressor station crews would operate and maintain the station equipment. Station personnel 

would perform routine checks of the facilities, including calibration of equipment and instrumentation, 

inspection of critical components, and scheduled and routine maintenance of equipment. Safety 

equipment, such as pressure relief, fire detection, and gas detection systems would be tested periodically 

for proper operation. Ruby would take corrective action for any identified problem. 

The compressor stations would be equipped with combustible gas and fire detection alarm 

systems and with an emergency shutdown system. The compressor stations also would be equipped with 

relief valves or pressure protection devices to protect the station piping from overpressure if station or 

unit control systems fail. A telemetry system would notify operations personnel locally and at the gas 

control headquarters of the activation of safety systems and alarms that would in turn dispatch 

maintenance personnel to investigate and take proper corrective actions. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 2-33 

 

2.7 FUTURE PLANS AND ABANDONMENT 

Ruby stated in its application that it could later expand the capacity of its proposed pipeline up to 

approximately 2.0 million Dth/d through the installation of additional compression at various points along 

the pipeline. However, Ruby currently has no foreseeable expansion or abandonment plans for the 

proposed pipeline system. Market forces (e.g., natural gas supply and demand) are the main factors that 

would determine the need for expansion or abandonment of the proposed facilities. If future expansion or 

abandonment were necessary, Ruby would be required to seek appropriate regulatory approvals at that 

time, including any authorizations that might be required from the FERC, BLM, or other agency. If the 

pipeline is abandoned, the pipe may be left in place or may be removed and the area reclaimed in 

accordance with provisions and requirements of the FERC Certificate authorizing abandonment and any 

other land managing agency requirements. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-1 

3.0 ALTERNATIVES 

In accordance with NEPA and FERC policy, we identified and evaluated alternatives to the 

proposed project to determine whether the alternatives would be reasonable and environmentally 

preferable to the proposed action. These alternatives included the No Action and Postponed Action 

alternatives, the effects of energy conservation, alternative energy sources, system alternatives, major 

route alternatives, and route variations. The analysis of alternatives is based on information provided by 

Ruby and our review of aerial photographs, USGS topographic maps, other publicly available 

information, input from cooperating and other resource agencies, and site visits. We also have addressed 

alternatives identified during the project’s public scoping period and based on comments on the draft EIS. 

The evaluation criteria we use for considering alternatives are: 

• ability to meet the overall project objective of transporting Rocky Mountain natural gas 

to customers in Nevada and on the West Coast; 

• technical and economic feasibility and practicality; and 

• significant environmental advantage over the proposed project. 

It is important to recognize that not all conceivable alternatives are technically or economically 

feasible or practical. Some alternatives may be impractical because they are unavailable and/or incapable 

of being implemented after taking into consideration costs, existing technologies, and logistics in light of 

the overall project purpose. It is also important to consider the environmental advantages and 

disadvantages of the proposed action and to focus the analysis on those alternatives that may reduce 

impacts and/or offer a significant environmental advantage without merely transferring impacts from one 

area or group of landowners to another. 

Through the application of evaluation criteria and subsequent environmental comparisons, each 

alternative was considered to a point where it was clear if the alternative could or could not meet the 

evaluation criteria. Those alternatives that meet the project objective and appear to be the most 

reasonable with less than or similar levels of environmental impact are reviewed in the greatest detail. 

3.1 NO ACTION OR POSTPONED ACTION ALTERNATIVES 

The Commission has three possible courses of action in processing applications under Section 7 

of the NGA: (1) deny the requested authorization (i.e., the No Action Alternative); (2) postpone action 

pending further filings or study (i.e., the Postponed Action Alternative); or (3) grant the Certificate with 

or without conditions.

According to the Energy Information Administration [EIA] (2009a), annual consumption of 

natural gas is expected to increase in the United States by 2030, although it forecasts natural gas 

consumption to decline slightly over the short-term (the next decade). The EIA (2009a) expects about 

22.5 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) of natural gas to be consumed annually by 2010, 22.1 

quadrillion Btu to be consumed annually by 2020, and 24.2 quadrillion Btu to be consumed annually by 

2030. 

The Rocky Mountain region holds significant reserves of natural gas, but pipeline infrastructure 

constraints have contributed to years of bottlenecking in the Rocky Mountain region. Lack of access to 

markets is one of the most serious barriers facing natural gas production in the Rocky Mountain region 

(DOE, 2003). The Ruby Pipeline Project would connect existing domestic natural gas supply in the 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-2 

Rocky Mountain region with demand markets in Nevada and on the West Coast at a time when imports 

are expected to decrease and further strain energy markets. 

If the FERC denies the proposal, the short- and long-term environmental impacts identified in this 

final EIS would not occur. If the FERC postpones action on the application, the environmental impacts 

would be delayed; or, if the applicant decided not to pursue the project, the impacts would not occur at all. 

However, if the FERC were to select the No Action or Postponed Action alternative, the objectives of the 

proposed project, as described in Project Purpose and Need, section 1.1, would not be met and Ruby 

would not be able to provide a new source of natural gas to markets in Nevada and on the West Coast.

Although it would be purely speculative and beyond the scope of this analysis to attempt to 

predict what actions might be taken by policymakers or end users in response to the No Action or 

Postponed Action alternatives, it is likely that potential end users would make other arrangements to 

obtain natural gas service (e.g., natural gas from another pipeline project or liquefied natural gas [LNG]-

derived natural gas) or make use of some combination of alternative fossil-fuel energy sources (e.g., fuel 

oil or coal), other traditional long-term fuel source alternatives (e.g., nuclear power or hydropower), 

and/or renewable energy sources (e.g., geothermal or wind power) to compensate for the reduced 

availability of natural gas that would be supplied by the proposed project. It is also possible that energy 

conservation practices would be used to offset the demand for natural gas in the markets that would be 

supplied by the project. Considered both individually and in combination, specific energy alternatives or 

conservation measures could either: (1) not provide the projected energy needs of the regional markets; 

(2) satisfy the project objectives by providing the projected regional energy demands with equal or less 

environmental impact; or (3) provide the required amount of energy but result in greater environmental 

impacts than those associated with the project if implemented with our recommended mitigation 

measures. Section 3.2 discusses energy alternatives, including increased efficiency and conservation. 

3.2 ENERGY ALTERNATIVES 

3.2.1 Increased Efficiency and Conservation 

Denying or postponing a decision on Ruby’s application could limit access to new supplies of 

natural gas in the future, which could in turn contribute to higher natural gas prices. Higher prices could 

potentially result in customers conserving or reducing the use of natural gas. There is no doubt that both 

conservation and increased efficiency have an important role to play in the future energy needs of the 

western and northwestern United States. 

Energy demand in the United States has been increasing steadily, with total energy consumption 

growing from 78.2 quadrillion Btu per year in 1980 to an estimated 131.1 quadrillion Btu per year in 

2030. Natural gas usage presently represents about 22 percent of all energy consumption in the United 

States and is anticipated to remain at a fairly steady percentage in the foreseeable future. The continued 

demand for natural gas is being driven primarily by the use of natural gas for electricity generation (EIA, 

2009b). 

Energy conservation and increased efficiency in energy use have been a component of the 

national energy agenda since the Arab Oil Embargo in the mid-1970s. Conservation and efficiency 

programs have been implemented in virtually every state since that time. In Wyoming, the Wyoming 

Business Council administers the state’s Energy Program, which works to expand opportunities for 

efficiency and conservation. In Utah, the Department of Environmental Quality and Utah’s electric 

utilities have formed a public-private partnership to promote energy conservation and efficient use of 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-3 

electricity in Utah homes, businesses, and state-owned buildings. In Nevada, the Nevada Legislature 

created the Nevada Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Task Force to advise the Nevada State 

Office of Energy in the use of measures to conserve or reduce the demand for energy. In Oregon, the 

Oregon Department of Energy (ODE) has a Conservation Division whose mission is, in part, to help the 

public save energy. 

While energy conservation can play a critical role in the future of the U.S. energy sector, growth 

projections suggest that the demand for energy, including natural gas, will outstrip cost-effective 

programs designed to stimulate energy conservation. Although it is likely that continued high natural gas 

and electricity prices may result in some increase in the rate of conservation, the incremental increase will 

not have a material effect on the regional demand for new sources of natural gas supply, as evidenced by 

projections for future energy use (EIA, 2009a). According to Ruby, additional regional natural gas 

supplies are needed to compensate for declining Canadian imports as well as the increasing regional 

demand from economic growth. 

Energy conservation is not, in itself, an energy source and cannot ultimately replace the natural 

gas needed by end users, such as industrial and residential customers. Therefore, increased conservation 

does not provide an alternative to the proposed project, but rather is a complementary component of the 

overall energy demand and supply mix. We note that Ruby is considering utilizing internally coated pipe 

to improve the hydraulic efficiency of its pipeline. Improving hydraulic efficiency would conserve 

energy by reducing the fuel requirements of Ruby’s compressor stations and would decrease associated 

greenhouse gas1

 (GHG) emissions. 

3.2.2 Renewable Energy 

Renewable energy resources represent an alternative to the use of natural gas depending on the 

types of resources and their uses. For example, hydropower and wind power resources represent 

alternatives for electricity generation; whereas biomass, solar, and geothermal resources can be used to 

generate heat as well as electricity. Renewable energy is often considered environmentally preferable to 

fossil fuels because it contributes fewer GHGs to the environment. Solar, hydroelectricity, and wind 

power contribute negligible GHGs to the environment because no fuels are combusted. Biofuels, on the 

other hand, require combustion and do contribute GHGs, although at a reduced rate compared to fossil 

fuels because they contain less carbon per unit of energy than fossil fuels. The level of GHG emissions 

associated with a particular biofuel depends on the energy used in growing and harvesting the feedstock, 

as well as the energy used to produce the fuel (e.g., coal, natural gas, biomass). According the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE), on a full fuel-cycle basis, corn ethanol has the potential to reduce GHG 

emissions by as much as 52 percent over petroleum-based fuels. Ethanol made from cellulosic feedstocks 

(such as switchgrass or agricultural residues and corn stover) has the potential to reduce GHG emissions 

by as much as 86 percent. Biofuels have the added benefit of providing a carbon sink. As crops grow to 

produce the feedstocks for making the biofuel, they absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (DOE, 

2009). However, there are environmental impacts associated with most types of renewable energy, even 

non-combustible renewables. For example, solar cells contain toxic and carcinogenic chemicals, such as 

cadmium telluride, gallium arsenide, and copper indium diselenide (BNL, 2003), which become disposal 

issues when solar cells reach the end of their useful lives. Hydropower dams may affect fish, and wind 

turbines may affect birds and bats. 

 

1

 GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons 

(PFC), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and other fluorinated gases including nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) and hydrofluorinated ethers 

(HFE). 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-4 

Over the past decade, worldwide emphasis on global climate change and high gasoline and oil 

prices has shaped the role of renewable energy in the United States. At the federal level, Congress passed 

EPAct 2005, which was the first major energy law enacted in more than a decade. One goal of EPAct 

2005 was to increase the role of renewable energy in the U.S. energy portfolio by providing federal tax 

incentives for renewable energy projects, funding research and development of renewable energy 

technology, compelling state permitting requirements for renewable energy, and requiring renewable 

fuels for automobile fuel mixes. At the state level, a number of states also have adopted renewable 

portfolio standards or goals as means of reducing reliance on conventional fossil fuels. A renewable 

portfolio standard or goal is a state policy that requires or encourages electricity providers to obtain a 

minimum percentage of their power from renewable energy resources by a certain date. Currently, 33 

states plus the District of Columbia have renewable portfolio standards or goals in place. For example, 

Utah has a goal of 20 percent by 2025; Nevada has a standard of 20 percent by 2025; Oregon has a 

standard of 25 percent by 2025; Washington has a standard of 15 percent by 2020; and California has a 

standard of 20 percent by 2010 (DOE, 2008a). There is little doubt that renewable energy will play a 

larger role in the U.S. energy portfolio in the future, and the EIA estimates that renewable energy will 

jump nationally from about 6 percent of all energy consumed today to about 12 percent by 2030 (EIA, 

2009a). 

Hydropower, or generating electricity from water stored behind dams which is then run through 

turbines, plays a significant role in the current energy mix of the United States. Hydropower will remain 

the largest source of renewable energy generation through 2030 (EIA, 2008a). However, environmental 

concerns regarding the technology and the scarcity of available new sites limit hydropower’s growth. 

Hydropower’s share of the total electricity generated in the United States is expected to fall from 7.1 

percent in 2006 to 5.8 percent in 2030. Most feasible hydroelectric facilities have already been developed 

(NWPCC, 2007), and it is unlikely that new dams would be constructed in the future because of high 

development costs, environmental impacts, and scarcity of sites. In fact, efforts are currently underway to 

remove some existing dams to restore habitat. Further, environmental scrutiny during the relicensing 

process for existing dams has, in some instances, resulted in an increased release of water for fisheries, 

which has reduced electric generation capacity. Thus, the development of additional hydropower 

resources is not considered to be a reasonable or environmentally preferable alternative to the proposed 

project. 

A new potential source of future electric power is hydrokinetic energy, or electricity generated 

from ocean currents, swells, waves, or tidal action. These facilities could only be developed offshore or 

in tidally influenced rivers. The FERC recently initiated a licensing process for hydrokinetic test projects 

in the United States. The goal of the FERC pilot process is to allow developers to test new technologies, 

to determine the best location for hydrokinetic facilities, and to discover the environmental effects 

associated with the siting and operation of such facilities. It has been estimated that if hydrokinetic 

technologies could be successfully developed, the amount of available hydro-generated electricity (i.e., 

electricity generated from both hydropower and hydrokinetic facilities) in the United States could 

potentially double the amount of power currently coming from just hydropower facilities (FERC, 2008). 

There are currently no commercial-scale hydrokinetic facilities operating in the United States. 

Two small-scale hydrokinetic projects have been licensed by FERC, one of which has been installed. At 

Hastings, Minnesota, a 70 kilowatt (kW) in-river hydrokinetic project developed in connection with an 

existing lock and dam was approved by amendment of the existing license and is now operating. In 

Makah Bay, off of the coast of Washington state, a proposed 1 megawatt (MW) wave energy project was 

licensed, but the license was later surrendered. Although numerous preliminary permits have been issued 

and some projects have entered FERC’s pre-filing process, no other hydrokinetic projects have been 

licensed by FERC. The development of future hydrokinetic resources is speculative at this time because 

of technological challenges, financial barriers, and lack of information on potential environmental effects. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-5 

Therefore, we do not consider hydrokinetic facilities to be a reasonable, feasible, or foreseeable 

alternative to the proposed project. 

Geothermal resources are naturally occurring sources of heat, such as hot springs, geysers, or 

volcanoes that could be tapped to generate energy. Geothermal resources exist in the project area and 

include high temperature (above 100 degrees Celsius) sources for electric generation; intermediate 

temperature (50 to 100 degrees Celsius) sources for industrial, agricultural, and municipal uses, and low 

temperature sources for residential heat pump uses (CEC, 2009; GEA, 2006). The main barrier to the 

development of geothermal resources is the development cost associated with such projects. Given the 

physical limits of geothermal sites that have a potential for future exploitation, the lack of interest from 

investors in developing new potential resources and the minimal amounts of energy that geothermal 

resources produce, we do not see this type of renewable resource as a feasible, reasonable, or predictable 

alternative to the proposed project. 

Biomass resources can produce electricity and heat or steam from wood, wood waste, plant and 

animal waste, or other organic matter. Electricity generated from biomass is expected to grow from 39 

billion kW-hours in 2006 (1.0 percent of the total electricity generated in the United States) to 170 billion 

kW-hours in 2030 (3.2 percent) (EIA, 2008c). However, barriers to further development of biomass 

resources include uncertainty in biomass outputs, the high costs associated with the transportation of 

forest products to an energy conversion facility, and lack of private capital investment in the development 

of additional biomass facilities (CBEA, 2008). Future potential notwithstanding, because of the 

difficulties of developing biomass resources and the small amount of additional energy such resources 

could produce, we do not believe that this represents a feasible, reasonable, and foreseeable alternative to 

the proposed project. 

There are three primary ways to harvest solar energy: 1) direct sunlight into buildings for use in 

passive lighting and heating; 2) roof-mounted collectors that use sunlight to heat water; and 3) conversion 

of sunlight into electricity by using photovoltaic cells or solar panels. Solar power has not yet made a 

significant contribution to the U.S. energy mix, and solar technologies in general remain too costly for 

grid-connected application (EIA, 2008c). The Solar Energy Technologies Program at the DOE is 

conducting aggressive research, development, and deployment of solar energy technologies and systems, 

and is working to develop cost competitive, unsubsidized photovoltaics across the United States by 2015 

(DOE, 2008b). At this time, however, solar power does not appear to be capable of producing enough 

energy in a timely manner to be considered a reasonable or feasible alternative to the Ruby Pipeline 

Project. 

There is considerable uncertainty about the growth potential of wind power, which depends on a 

variety of factors, including fossil fuel costs, state renewable energy programs, technology improvements, 

access to transmission grids, and public concerns about environmental and other impacts. Generation 

from wind power is expected to increase from 0.6 percent of total electricity generated in the United 

States in 2006 to 2.4 percent in 2030 (EIA, 2008c). Due to the variable nature of wind, wind turbines 

only generate about one-third of their maximum output capacity, on average. Another barrier to 

development of wind farms is lack of transmission capacity. Clustering effects at wind farms result in 

spikes and troughs in production that have no relation to demand and contribute to transmission 

congestion. In 2008, the DOE published a report that examined the technical feasibility of using wind 

energy to generate 20 percent of the nation's electricity, or 300 gigawatts of wind generating capacity, by 

2030. The report concludes that there are significant costs, challenges, and impacts associated with wind 

energy. A substantial shift to wind power would require a major national commitment and would not 

likely be realized in a business-as-usual future (DOE, 2008c). Therefore, while the use of wind power 

may have promise in meeting future U.S. energy needs, we do not consider wind power to be a reasonable 

alternative to the Ruby Pipeline Project. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-6 

3.2.3 Nuclear Energy 

Nuclear power has the potential to generate enough energy to substitute for the energy that will be 

supplied by the proposed project. However, due to economic, environmental, and regulatory factors, the 

future of nuclear power as an energy alternative is uncertain. There are currently 103 operating nuclear 

reactors at 65 sites in 31 states; these resources generate about 19 percent of the nation’s electricity. 

Until recently, no new nuclear power plants have been planned since the mid-1980s due to 

concerns raised after the Three Mile Island incident in Pennsylvania in 1979. As a result of incentives 

offered in EPAct 2005, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission received 17 new applications for 

nuclear power plants between 2007 and 2008, and expects to receive 5 additional applications by the end 

of 2010. The Northwest Power and Conservation Council believes that the earliest a new nuclear power 

plant could come on line in the Pacific Northwest would be 2015. Electricity generated from nuclear 

power plants is expected to grow from 806 billion kW-hours in 2007 to 905 billion kW-hours in 2030, 

which would account for about 18 percent of total generation in 2030 (nearly the same share as in 2007) 

(EIA, 2008b). Barriers to the nuclear industry include problems related to the disposition of spent fuel, 

long regulatory review time, and cost. The Watts Bar nuclear power plant in Tennessee that began 

operation in 1996 took 23 years to complete, at a cost of $6.9 billion. The proposed nuclear power plant 

at Bruneau, Idaho is estimated to cost $4.5 billion to build (Day, 2008). Although there recently has been 

renewed interest in nuclear power production, we do not consider nuclear power to be a feasible 

foreseeable alternative to the proposed project. 

3.2.4 Fossil Fuels 

Petroleum and coal-based energy are commonly used and found throughout the United States. 

However, relative to natural gas, the increased use of petroleum or coal-based energy sources would 

result in greatly increased air emissions of pollutants. Natural gas, when compared to other fossil fuels 

such as coal or fuel oil, is a relatively clean and efficient fuel that can reduce the emission of regulated 

pollutants (e.g., nitrogen oxide [NOx], sulfur dioxide [SO2], and particulate matter) or unregulated 

greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide [CO2]) (EPA, 2007a). Estimates of air emissions can be 

developed based on reasonable assumptions regarding burning natural gas delivered by the project 

compared to burning fossil fuels that would likely be utilized if the gas from the project was not available. 

Table 3.2.4-1 lists the emissions that would result from the Ruby Pipeline Project assuming it provides 

the currently contracted volumes of about 1.2 bcf per day of natural gas out of the 1.5 bcf per day design 

capacity to the northwest U.S. market and the corresponding emissions that would result if an equivalent 

amount of energy were generated using coal or fuel oil in lieu of natural gas. It is clear from the table that 

the use of either fuel oil or coal would increase emissions significantly. Additionally, to comply with 

current air emission regulations, emission control technologies could be required that would limit the 

economic viability of any new fuel oil- or coal-fired facility. 

In addition to the increased emissions associated with the burning of coal or fuel oil, each of these 

fuels would have to be imported into the project area and stored, thus resulting in numerous secondary 

impacts associated with their mining, extraction, transportation, and refinement. The distribution of these 

fuels to market would require more truck, barge, and train trips than the distribution of an equivalent 

amount of energy derived from natural gas. Additionally, regulatory requirements, cost considerations, 

and public concerns make it questionable if new coal or fuel oil power plants could be sited and 

developed to serve the markets targeted by the proposed project within a timeframe that would meet the 

objectives of the Ruby Pipeline Project. Therefore, we believe that the use of other fossil fuel energy 

sources is not preferable to the proposed project. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-7 

TABLE 3.2.4-1 

Comparison of Air Emissions from Burning Fossil Fuels 

Emission Emission Rate (tons per year)a 

Natural Gas Fuel Oil Coal 

SO2 143 112,636 301,321 

NO2 21,522 43,047 150,661 

PM10 1,723 2,441 6,673 

CO 21,379 22,672 4,703 

CO2 23,833,333 34,558,333 45,283,333 

Carbon 6,500,000 9,425,000 12,350,000 

───────────────────────── 

a The emissions generated by coal, fuel oil, and natural gas were estimated (EPA, 2007a). 

3.3 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 

System alternatives are alternatives to a proposed action that would make use of existing, 

modified, or proposed natural gas transmission systems to meet the stated objectives of the proposed 

project. A system alternative would make it unnecessary to construct all or part of the proposed project, 

although some modifications or additions to another pipeline system may be required, or another entirely 

new system may need to be constructed. Such modifications or additions would result in environmental 

impacts that could be less than, similar to, or greater than the impacts associated with construction of the 

proposed project. The purpose of identifying and evaluating system alternatives is to determine whether 

or not the environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of a proposed project 

would be avoided or reduced by using existing, modified, or proposed pipeline systems. 

In order to be a viable system alternative to the Ruby Pipeline Project, potential system 

alternatives would have to meet two criteria related to the project objective: 1) they would need to provide 

transportation of up to 1.5 million Dth/d of Rocky Mountain natural gas to customers in Nevada and on 

the West Coast; and 2) they would need to be able to transport the required volumes within the same 

general timeframe as the proposed project. The system alternatives we identified and considered are 

shown on figure 3.3-1. 

Williams Northwest Pipeline (Williams Northwest) and Kern River Gas Transmission Company 

(Kern River) have existing pipeline systems that move Rocky Mountain gas to the west. Williams 

Northwest delivers gas to Oregon, and Kern River delivers gas to southern California. According to the 

posted Available Capacity Reports for Williams Northwest and Kern River, there is very little, if any, 

existing capacity available on these systems, and the pipelines do not have the capacity to accommodate 

the volumes that would be transported by the Ruby Pipeline Project. In light of the fact that the Ruby 

Pipeline Project is designed to serve specifically Nevada and the West Coast, Williams Northwest and 

Kern River would be required to construct facilities similar to those proposed by Ruby in order to expand 

their systems from the Rocky Mountain region to these demand regions. Thus, we are not recommending 

these system expansion alternatives. 

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-8 

Figure 3.3-1 System Alternatives 

3-7 

3-8 

3-8 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-9 

 As an alternative to expanding existing pipeline systems, we considered the possibility of 

proposed, but not yet constructed, natural gas transportation projects. Williams Gas Pipeline Company, 

L.L.C. and TransCanada PipeLine USA Ltd. have jointly initiated the FERC’s pre-filing process for a 

new pipeline project to be located along the existing Williams Northwest pipeline system between 

Wyoming and Oregon. The project, known as the Sunstone Pipeline Project, would be designed to 

transport about 575 million Dth/d of natural gas and would consist of a new 560-mile-long, 36-inchdiameter pipeline that originates in Opal, Wyoming and interconnects with TransCanada PipeLine USA 

Ltd.’s Gas Transmission Northwest system at the Stanfield Market Center in northern Oregon. According 

to Sunstone, the system could be expandable to 1 bcf per day. From the Stanfield Market Center, natural 

gas could be shipped about 350 miles to the southwest on the Gas Transmission Northwest system to the 

Malin Market Center where the Ruby Pipeline Project would terminate. 

On November 14, 2008, the FERC accepted Sunstone’s October 23, 2008 request to initiate our 

pre-filing review of the project under Docket Number PF08-2-000. On November 5, 2009, Sunstone 

terminated the pre-filing process; therefore, the Sunstone project is not a viable system alternative. 

Subsidiaries of Williams, PG&E, and Fort Chicago Energy Partners L.P. are jointly pursuing 

construction of the Jordan Cove LNG import terminal and the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project, an 

interstate natural gas transmission system (Docket Numbers CP07-441-000 and CP07-444-000). The 

Jordan Cove LNG terminal, if built, would be capable of receiving LNG supplies from oversea 

production areas. Pacific Connector would be a 230-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter pipeline designed to 

transport up to 1 bcf per day of natural gas from the Jordan Cove LNG terminal to markets in the Pacific 

Northwest, northern California, and northern Nevada. On May 1, 2009, FERC issued a final EIS 

evaluating the environmental impacts associated with the proposed Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector 

projects. On December 17, 2009, the Commission authorized the Jordan Cove LNG and Pacific 

Connector projects. The eventual in-service dates, if any, are unknown at this time but would likely be 

well after Ruby’s projected in-service date. Although the Jordan Cove LNG terminal and Pacific 

Connector pipeline would deliver natural gas to the Malin Market Center, it would not meet one of 

Ruby’s stated purposes, which is to supply the West Coast with natural gas from the Rocky Mountain 

region. Further, the Pacific Connector pipeline would not have the capacity, as proposed, to transport the 

natural gas for its customers in addition to the volumes needed for Ruby’s commitments. 

3.4 MAJOR ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

We considered other routes for the Ruby Pipeline Project to determine if the route alternatives 

would avoid or reduce impacts on environmentally sensitive resources. The origin and delivery points to 

each route alternative are generally the same as the corresponding portion of a proposed pipeline. 

However, each alternative would follow a different route. Route alternatives would not modify or make 

use of other existing or new pipeline systems, except that they may be collocated within the same rightsof-way. 

Route alternatives are frequently sought out to avoid specific environmental resources or 

minimize the creation of new rights-of-way (greenfield2

 routes) by routing pipelines within or adjacent to 

existing rights-of-way. Collocation of facilities is a generally accepted means to control the location of 

development and limit impacts on sensitive resources by keeping disturbance within established corridors. 

Installation of new pipeline along an existing, cleared right-of-way (such as other pipeline, electric 

 

2

 The term “greenfield” is used to describe a route that does not follow existing rights-of-way and is not constrained by prior

developments. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-10 

transmission line, road, or railroad) may be environmentally preferable to construction along a new rightof-way, and construction effects and cumulative impacts can normally be reduced by use of a previously 

cleared right-of-way. Likewise, long-term or permanent environmental impacts can normally be reduced 

by avoiding the creation of new right-of-way through previously undisturbed areas. Route alternatives 

are typically only recommended if there alternative confers a significant advantage over the proposal. 

Otherwise, such an alternative merely represents a shift in impacts from one area or resource to another. 

Based on information received from Ruby, federal and state resource agencies, Native American 

tribes, the general public, as well as our own review, we identified and evaluated 15 route alternatives to 

Ruby’s proposed route (see table 3.4-1). 

TABLE 3.4-1 

Route Alternatives Summary for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Name of Alternative MP Range Main Reason for Consideration of 

Alternative Status 

Northern Route 0.0 – 608.0a Major alternative corridor option Not Recommended 

Central Route 0.0 – 580.0a Major alternative corridor option Not Recommended 

I-80 Corridor 0.0 – 672.6a Major alternative corridor option Not Recommended 

North Kemmerer 0.0 – 173.1 Avoid Cache Valley Not Recommended 

Route 30 0.0 – 173.1 Avoid Cache Valley, follow State Route 30 Not Recommended 

Questar 84.0 – 104.3 Follow existing corridor through Cache 

National Forest Not Recommended 

South Brigham City 105.5 – 158.1 Move to the south side of Brigham City Not Recommended 

Terrace Basin 189.8 – 209.7 Follow existing roads, avoid salt-scrub 

habitat 

Recommended in draft EIS; 

subsequently adopted by Ruby 

West-Wide Energy Corridor 270.0 – 675.2 Follow designated energy corridor Not Recommended 

AT&T East 302.6 – 349.9 Follow existing AT&T corridor Not Recommended 

Willow Creek 349.2 – 410.6 Follow existing AT&T corridor, avoid 

wetland impacts 

Recommended in draft EIS; 

subsequently adopted by Ruby 

Sheldon 483.2 – 599.7 Follow more existing road corridor Not Recommended 

Black Rock 424.2 – 562.2 Follow more existing road and power line 

corridor Not Recommended 

Jungo-Tuscarora 424.2 – 675.2 Follow more existing road and power line 

corridor Not Recommended 

Southern Langell Valley 643.2 – 675.2 Avoid sensitive cultural resource area Recommended in draft EIS; 

subsequently adopted by Ruby 

───────────────────────── 

a The endpoints for the Northern, Central, and I-80 Corridor route alternatives correspond to where the route alternative 

rejoins the proposed route. However, the environmental analyses for these route alternatives are based on the entire 

length of the project. The comparison for all other alternatives is limited to the alternative and the corresponding 

segment of the proposed route. 

We recommended in the draft EIS that Ruby incorporate three of these route alternatives into the 

final pipeline route: Terrace Basin, Willow Creek, and Southern Langell Valley. Since then, Ruby has 

formally modified its proposed route to adopt all three of these route alternatives, and as such, they are 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-11 

now a part of Ruby’s proposed project.3

 The data and analyses presented in other parts of this final EIS 

reflect the inclusion of these route alternatives into the proposed route. However, we have retained much 

of our original language from the draft EIS in this section regarding the environmental comparison of 

these alternatives to the corresponding segment of the original route as a means to document our review 

process. 

We received comments on the draft EIS that requested analysis of a route alternative that would 

follow existing highway infrastructure along almost the entire route, and in particular following Interstate 

80 (I-80). Recently, we received a request from the BLM that we evaluate an alternative route that would 

avoid a proposed Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) referred to as Barrel Springs. A discussion of these 

route alternatives has been added to this section. 

3.4.1 Northern Route Alternative 

During preliminary project planning, Ruby identified the Northern Route Alternative as one 

possible route for transporting Rocky Mountain natural gas to Nevada and the West Coast. The Northern 

Route Alternative begins and ends at the same points as the proposed pipeline, but follows an entirely 

different route up to about MP 608. The Northern Route Alternative begins in Opal, Wyoming and 

traverses Idaho in a northwesterly direction, then turns west, enters Oregon, and follows a southwesterly 

direction to the end point in Malin, Oregon (see figure 3.4.1-1). The Northern Route Alternative crosses 

federal and private land, with the route fairly evenly split between the two. The BLM is the largest land 

managing agency along the route alternative. Table 3.4.1-1 provides a comparison of the prominent 

environmental features of this alternative and the proposed route. 

The total length of the Northern Route Alternative is 636.8 miles, which is 38.4 miles shorter (5.6 

percent) than the proposed route. The Northern Route Alternative reduces the total amount of land 

disturbance as compared to the proposed route and crosses less range capable of supporting greater sagegrouse (34.0 fewer miles) and pronghorn antelope (164.5 fewer miles). However, the route alternative 

creates substantially more greenfield right-of-way (140.5 more miles) and affects more and/or different 

environmental resources. The route alternative traverses several special management areas, including one 

NWR (Cokeville Meadows), one state park (Balanced Rock), four Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) 

(Bowden Hills, Alvord Desert, Rincon, and Basque Hills), one Outstanding Natural Area (Boulder 

Creek), one proposed Special Management Area (Rock Creek/Tunp Area), and three WSRs (the Owyhee 

River crossed once and the Donner and Blitzen River crossed twice). Ruby’s proposed route does not 

cross any of these areas. The route alternative also crosses more national trails (8 additional trail 

crossings), more crucial big game habitat (129.9 additional miles), more perennial waterbodies (15 

additional waterbodies), and more wetland habitat (9.2 additional miles). The route alternative also 

requires construction of a new lateral in excess of 100 miles to reach delivery locations in Nevada where 

TransCanada PipeLine USA Ltd. has availability on its Gas Transmission Northwest system to 

interconnect with the proposed project. Although the Northern Route Alternative could meet the 

objective of the project and would be technically and economically feasible, we have determined that the 

alternative would result in increased overall environmental impacts compared to the proposed project. 

Therefore, we do not recommend that this alternative be incorporated into the proposed project. 

 

3

 While we continue to find that the Southern Langell Valley Route Alternative is environmentally preferable to the 

corresponding segment of the originally proposed route, the BLM is currently reconsidering the comparative merits of both 

routes. See our discussion in section 3.4.15. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-12 

Figure 3.4.1-1 Northern and Central Route Alternatives 

3-12 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-13 

TABLE 3.4.1-1 

Northern Route Alternative Comparison 

Environmental Factor Northern 

Route Proposed Route 

Length (miles) 636.8 675.2 

Parallel to Existing Rights-of-Way (miles within 500’ of centerline) 55.0 233.9 

NWRs Crossed (number) 1 0 

WSR Crossings (number) 3 0 

National Historic Trail Crossings (number) 10 2 

State Parks Crossed (number) 1 0 

WSAs Crossed (number) 4 0 

Outstanding Natural Areas Crossed (number) 1 0 

Proposed Special Management Areas Crossed (number) 1 0 

Greater Sage-Grouse Range Crossed (miles) 570.6 604.6 

Pronghorn Antelope Range Crossed (miles) 343.5 508.0 

Crucial Big Game Habitat Crossed (miles) 256.6 126.7 

Perennial Waterbodies Crossed (number) 75 60 

Wetland Habitat Crossed (miles) 17.2 8.0 

3.4.2 Central Route Alternative 

Ruby identified the Central Route Alternative during preliminary project planning as the shortest 

technically practical route for transporting natural gas from the Rocky Mountains to Nevada and the West 

Coast. Like the Northern Route Alternative, the Central Route Alternative begins and ends at the same 

points as the proposed pipeline. The Central Route Alternative follows the same corridor as the Northern 

Route Alternative from Opal, Wyoming, until about MP 185.0 in Idaho where it takes a more 

southwesterly route to Oregon and converges with the proposed route at about MP 580 (see figure 3.4.1-

1). Two-thirds of the route alternative crosses public land and one-third crosses private land. Table 

3.4.2-1 provides a comparison of the prominent environmental features of this alternative and the 

proposed route. 

The total length of the Central Route Alternative is 607 miles, which is 68.2 miles (10.0 percent) 

shorter than the proposed route. The Central Route Alternative reduces the total amount of land 

disturbance as compared to the proposed route and crosses less range capable of supporting greater sagegrouse (50.4 fewer miles) and pronghorn antelope (186.5 fewer miles). However, the alternative parallels 

substantially less existing right-of-way (213.9 fewer miles) and affects more environmental resources. 

The Central Route Alternative traverses several special management areas, including 1 NWR (Cokeville 

Meadows), 1 state park (Balanced Rock), 17 WSAs (Bruneau River, Disaster Peak, Hawk Mountain, 

Hawksie-Walksie, Jarbidge River, Little Owyhee River, Lookout Butte, Lower Salmon Falls Creek, 

Mahogany Ridge, Pueblo Mountains, Red Mountain, Rincon, Sage Hen Hills, South Fork Owyhee River, 

Spaulding, Upper West Little Owyhee, and Yatahoney Creek), 1 Research Natural Area (RahillyGravelly), 1 proposed Special Management Area (Rock Creek/Tunp Area), 1 WSR (West Little Owyhee 

River), 2 bighorn sheep habitat areas (Bruneau-Jarbidge River and Owyhee River), and 7 Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern. The proposed route does not cross any of these areas. The alternative 

also crosses more national trails (8 additional trail crossings), more crucial big game habitat (110.5 

additional miles), more perennial waterbodies (15 additional waterbodies), and more wetland habitat (4.7 

additional miles). The alternative requires construction of new laterals in excess of 100 miles to reach 

locations in Nevada where TransCanada PipeLine USA Ltd. has availability on its Gas Transmission 

Northwest system to interconnect with the proposed project. Although the Central Route Alternative 

could meet the objective of the project and would be technically and economically feasible, we have 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-14 

determined that the alternative would result in increased environmental impacts as compared to the 

proposed pipeline. Therefore, we do not recommend that this alternative be incorporated into the 

proposed project. 

TABLE 3.4.2-1 

Central Route Alternative Comparison 

Environmental Factor Central Route Proposed Route 

Length (miles) 607.0 675.2 

Parallel to Existing Rights-of-Way (miles within 500’ of centerline) 20.0 233.9 

NWRs Crossed (number) 1 0 

WSR Crossings (number) 1 0 

National Historic Trail Crossings (number) 10 2 

State Parks Crossed (number) 1 0 

WSAs Crossed (number) 17 0 

Research Natural Areas Crossed (number) 1 0 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Crossed (number) 7 0 

Proposed Special Management Areas Crossed (number) 1 0 

Greater Sage-Grouse Range Crossed (miles) 538.3 588.7 

Pronghorn Antelope Range Crossed (miles) 321.5 508.0 

Bighorn Sheep Habitat Areas Crossed (number) 2 0 

Crucial Big Game Habitat Crossed (miles) 237.2 126.7 

Perennial Waterbodies Crossed (number) 75 60 

Wetland Habitat Crossed (miles) 12.7 8.0 

3.4.3 I-80 Corridor Route Alternative 

The I-80 Corridor Route Alternative was developed in response to public scoping comments and 

comments on the draft EIS. The commenters suggested that Ruby follow existing highway infrastructure 

along the pipeline route to the maximum extent possible. Like the Northern and Central route 

alternatives, the I-80 Corridor Route Alternative begins and ends at the same points as the proposed route. 

The I-80 Corridor Route Alternative departs from the proposed route at approximate MP 21 where it 

intersects U.S. Highway 189, and then proceeds south along the highway until the intersection with I-80. 

The alternative follows I-80 southeast through Salt Lake City and then proceeds west to Winnemucca 

where it turns north onto U.S. Highway 95 until it intersects with State Highway 140. The route then 

turns northwest and follows Highway 140 through the Sheldon NWR, into Oregon, and on to Malin (see 

figure 3.4.3-1). The I-80 Corridor Route Alternative crosses fairly even amounts of federal and private 

land. Table 3.4.3-1 provides a comparison of the prominent environmental features of this alternative and 

the proposed route. 

The total length of the I-80 Corridor Route Alternative is 795.0 miles, which is 122.4 miles (18.1 

percent) longer than the proposed route. The alternative crosses the Sheldon NWR, the High Lakes Area 

of Critical Environmental Concern, and the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation. The proposed route 

crosses none of these areas. The alternative crosses more national historic trail locations (177 more 

crossings), more perennial waterbodies (15 additional waterbodies), and more wetland habitat (4.7 

additional miles). Conversely, the alternative crosses less crucial big game habitat (56.4 fewer miles) and 

less greater sage-grouse habitat (176.7 fewer miles). 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-15 

Figure 3.4.3-1 I-80 Corridor Route Alternative 

3-15 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-16 

TABLE 3.4.3-1 

I-80 Corridor Alternative Comparison 

Environmental Factor I-80 Corridor Route Proposed Route 

Length (miles) 795.0 672.6 

Parallel to Existing Rights-of-Way (miles within 500’ of centerline) 795.0 386.2 

NWRs Crossed (number) 1 0 

National Historic Trail Crossings (number) 185 8 

Native American Lands (miles) 2.0 0.0 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Crossed (number) 1 0 

Greater Sage-Grouse Range Crossed (miles) 174.9 351.6 

Wyoming Core Sage-Grouse Breeding Areas Crossed (miles) 21.2 34.2 

Crucial Big Game Winter Habitat Crossed (miles) 25.4 81.8 

Perennial Waterbodies Crossed (number) 96 64 

Wetland Habitat Crossed (miles) 6.5 10.8 

Wells within 0.25 mile (number) 3,349 371 

 We received a comment suggesting that one of the advantages of the I-80 Corridor Route 

Alternative would be to avoid greater sage-grouse core breeding areas in Wyoming. The commenter 

suggested that by following Highway 189 south from Kemmerer to I-80, greater sage-grouse core 

breeding areas would be unaffected. Based on our review, we have determined that although the route 

alternative crosses less core breeding area, it does not avoid it altogether. The route alternative crosses 

21.1 miles of core breeding area, whereas the proposed route crosses 34.2 miles. Ruby is currently in the 

process of developing a greater sage-grouse habitat conservation agreement for the proposed route in 

cooperation with the BLM, UTPL, NDOW, and Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), with 

technical advice and input from the FWS. The conservation agreement would address effects of the 

project on core greater sage-grouse areas and identify mitigation to reduce effects to an acceptable level, 

such as micro-realigning the pipeline route, minimizing blading on the right-of-way, timing windows, and 

offsite mitigation. 

One distinct disadvantage of the route alternative is impacts on cities and towns along the route. 

The I-80 Corridor Route Alternative crosses through the Salt Lake City metropolitan area and the towns 

of Evanston, Wyoming, and Elko and Winnemucca, Nevada. Pipeline construction through these highly 

developed areas would involve significantly more landowners and more residential and commercial 

property. It would also impact more water wells (about 3,349 water wells, as opposed to 371). 

Ruby stated that the additional length of the I-80 Corridor Route Alternative would require 

installation of additional compression to achieve the required delivery volumes. The additional 

compression would increase long-term air emissions associated with operating the pipeline. Furthermore, 

the additional pipeline length and the need for additional compression would increase the total project 

cost. Ruby has committed to transportation rates in binding precedent agreements with its shippers. 

Ruby stated that increased construction costs associated with this alternative would result in increased 

transportation rates, and would essentially make the project infeasible (i.e., Ruby would not be able to 

build the project to meet the open season contracts; as such, the project objective would not be met). 

Although the I-80 Corridor Route Alternative would parallel existing road rights-of-way for its 

entire length and greatly reduce the amount of crucial big game and greater sage-grouse habitat affected 

by the project, it would impact a greater amount of land overall and would affect more special interest 

areas and trails, more perennial waterbodies, more wetlands, more water wells, more residential and 

commercial property, more landowners, and result in increased long-term air emissions. Because the 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-17 

route alternative would not confer a significant advantage over the proposed route and because of the 

drawbacks associated with increased costs, we do not recommend that this alternative be incorporated 

into the proposed project. 

3.4.4 North Kemmerer Route Alternative 

Ruby identified the North Kemmerer Route Alternative as a route that would avoid Cache Valley, 

Utah. Cache Valley is a traditionally rural area where residents are active in protecting their rural lifestyle 

and the environment. Ruby originally identified the North Kemmerer Route Alternative as its preferred 

route in its initial open house meetings in Utah, but revised its preferred route after further evaluation. 

The North Kemmerer Route Alternative follows the beginning portions of the Northern and Central Route 

Alternatives from MP 0.0 around the north side of the Bear Lake NWR. The route departs from the 

Northern and Central Route Alternatives at MP 64.0 and proceeds westerly across the Caribou-Targhee 

National Forest, then turns southwest to reconnect with the proposed route at MP 173.1 in Box Elder 

County, Utah (see figure 3.4.4-1). Table 3.4.4-1 presents a comparison of the pertinent environmental 

features of this alternative and the corresponding segment of the proposed route. 

TABLE 3.4.4-1 

North Kemmerer Route Alternative Comparison 

Environmental Factor North Kemmerer Route 

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Proposed Route 

Length (miles) 172.8 173.1 

Parallel to Existing Rights-of-Way (miles within 500’ of centerline) 37.0 70.6 

Privately Owned Land (miles) 125.7 105.5 

Inventoried Roadless Areas Crossed (number) 2 0 

Proposed Special Management Areas Crossed (number) 1 0 

NWRs Crossed (number) 1 0 

National Historic Trail Crossings (number) 8 1 

Greater Sage-Grouse Range Crossed (miles) 172.8 173.1 

Pronghorn Range Antelope Crossed (miles) 124.3 137.4 

Perennial Waterbodies Crossed (number) 24 19 

Wetland Habitat Crossed (miles) 18.9 10.4 

The total length of the North Kemmerer Route Alternative is 172.8 miles, which is nearly the 

same length as the corresponding segment of the proposed route (0.3 mile shorter). We received several 

comments during scoping from individuals in support of the North Kemmerer Route Alternative as a 

means of paralleling more existing right-of-way, minimizing impacts on private property, and preserving 

local conservation efforts in Cache Valley. Both routes are entirely within greater sage-grouse range; 

however, the North Kemmerer Route Alternative parallels substantially less existing right-of-way (33.6 

miles less) and crosses more private land (20.2 miles more) than the proposed route. The alternative also 

impacts more perennial waterbodies (five additional waterbodies), more wetland habitat (8.5 additional 

miles), and more National Historic Trails (seven additional crossings). Additionally, the alternative 

crosses one NWR (Cokeville Meadows), one proposed Special Management Area (Rock Creek/Tunp 

Area), and two Inventoried Roadless Areas within the Caribou-Targhee National Forest (11.2 miles). The 

corresponding segment of the proposed pipeline route crosses none of these features. Although the North 

Kemmerer Route Alternative would meet the project objective and would be technically and 

economically feasible, we have determined that the alternative would not convey an environmental 

advantage over the proposed pipeline route. Therefore, we do not recommend that this alternative be 

incorporated into the proposed project. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-18 

Figure 3.4.4-1 North Kemmerer and Route 30 Route Alternatives

3-18 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-19 

3.4.5 Route 30 Alternative 

Ruby developed the Route 30 Alternative as a variant of the North Kemmerer Route Alternative 

in an effort to identify a more environmentally advantageous route north of Cache Valley. The Route 30 

Alternative follows U.S. Highway 30 out of Opal, Wyoming in a northwesterly direction to the Cokeville 

Meadows NWR. It then follows a Williams Northwest pipeline through the NWR into northern Utah and 

southeastern Idaho to the east side of the Bear Lake NWR. The alternative then connects with the North 

Kemmerer Route Alternative at about MP 56.5 and follows the North Kemmerer Route Alternative to the 

point where it converges with the proposed pipeline route at about MP 173.1 (see figure 3.4.4-1). Table 

3.4.5-1 presents a comparison of the prominent environmental features of this alternative to the 

corresponding segment of the proposed route. 

TABLE 3.4.5-1 

Route 30 Alternative Comparison 

Environmental Factor Route 30 

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Proposed Route 

Length (miles) 182.8 173.1 

Parallel to Existing Rights-of-Way (miles within 500’ of centerline) 65.6 69.3 

Privately Owned Land (miles) 137.3 105.9 

Inventoried Roadless Areas Crossed (number) 2 0 

Proposed Special Management Areas Crossed (number) 1 0 

NWRs Crossed (number) 1 0 

National Historic Trail Crossings (number) 5 1 

Greater Sage-Grouse Range Crossed (miles) 182.8 173.1 

Pronghorn Antelope Range Crossed (miles) 119.3 137.4 

Perennial Waterbodies Crossed (number) 22 19 

Wetland Habitat Crossed (miles) 13.5 10.4 

The total length of the Route 30 Alternative is 182.8 miles, which is longer than the 

corresponding segment of the proposed route (9.7 miles longer). The Route 30 Alternative parallels less 

existing right-of-way (3.7 miles less), crosses more private land (31.4 miles more), impacts more greater 

sage-grouse range (9.7 additional miles), crosses more perennial waterbodies (three additional 

waterbodies), affects more wetlands (3.1 additional miles), and crosses more National Historic Trails 

(four additional crossings). Additionally, the alternative crosses one NWR (Cokeville Meadows), one 

proposed Special Management Area (Rock Creek/Tunp Area), and two Inventoried Roadless Areas 

within the Caribou-Targhee National Forest (11.2 miles). The corresponding segment of the proposed 

route does not cross any of these areas, but does cross more miles of pronghorn antelope range (18.1 

miles more). Although the Route 30 Alternative would meet the project objective and would be 

technically and economically feasible, we have determined that the alternative would not convey an 

environmental advantage over the proposed pipeline route. Therefore, we do not recommend that this 

alternative be incorporated into the proposed project. 

3.4.6 Questar Route Alternative 

The Questar Route Alternative was developed in response to comments received during public 

scoping suggesting that Ruby follow the existing Questar pipeline corridor through the Cache National 

Forest and the Paradise Valley area in eastern Utah. The Questar Route Alternative diverges from the 

proposed pipeline route at MP 84.0. It follows an existing Questar pipeline right-of-way northwesterly 

across the upper parts of Paradise Dry Canyon and then traverses down Hyrum Canyon. After exiting 

Hyrum Canyon, the Questar Route Alternative proceeds west across Cache Valley and turns 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-20 

southwesterly and reconnects with the proposed route just east of Brigham City at MP 104.3 (see figure 

3.4.6-1). The total length of the Questar Route Alternative is 26.0 miles. Table 3.4.6-1 provides a 

comparison of the pertinent environmental characteristics of the alternative and the corresponding 

segment of the proposed route. 

TABLE 3.4.6-1 

Questar Route Alternative Comparison 

Environmental Factors Questar Route 

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Proposed Route 

Length (miles) 26.0 20.9 

Parallel to Existing Rights-of-Way (miles within 500’ of centerline) 26.0 4.6 

State Wildlife Management Areas Crossed (miles) 0.0 0.8 

Perennial Streams Crossed (number) 1 2 

Wetland Habitat Crossed (miles) 0.4 0.0 

When compared to the proposed route, the Questar Route Alternative parallels 21.4 more miles of 

existing right-of-way, crosses one fewer perennial waterbody, and avoids crossing the East Fork of the 

Little Bear River WMA located southeast of Avon in Cache County, Utah. This WMA is owned by the 

UDWR, which has expressed concern about the impact of the proposed route on the recreational qualities 

for which the State of Utah acquired the property. Conversely, the alternative is 5.1 miles longer than the 

proposed route and affects 0.4 more mile of wetland habitat. 

The route alternative generally follows the existing Questar pipeline and forest roads along its 

entire length. At first glance it would appear that such collocation could confer an environmental 

advantage over the proposed route. However, Ruby stated that it could not collocate the pipeline within 

the existing right-of-way or within road easements because of particularly steep terrain in this area. The 

route alternative requires a greater offset from the existing right-of-way and roads to accommodate the 

additional necessary grading and workspace. Consequently, the alternative also results in additional 

erosion risk. We conducted an aerial photography review of this route alternative and concluded that, 

while construction could be accomplished, the constraints mentioned by Ruby appear to be valid. We 

have also evaluated recent mitigation information submitted by Ruby in response to concerns raised 

during review of the draft EIS regarding the impacts of the proposed route on the WMA (see section 

4.8.2.2). While the proposed project would have a short-term effect on the recreational users of the 

WMA, we believe that implementation of Ruby’s proposed mitigation measures would minimize the 

long-term affects to use of the area, vegetation, and habitats. Based on this information, we have 

determined that the Questar Route Alternative would not confer a significant environmental advantage 

over the proposed pipeline route. Therefore, we do not recommend that this alternative be incorporated 

into the proposed project. 

3.4.7 South Brigham City Route Alternative 

The South Brigham City Route Alternative was suggested by a stakeholder during the scoping 

meeting at Brigham City, Utah, to realign the pipeline to the south of the city instead of to the north. The 

South Brigham City Route Alternative diverges from the proposed route at MP 105.5. It turns south past 

Willard Bay State Park, then turns west across the Great Salt Lake mud flats and Promontory Mountains. 

The alternative then turns north and follows the edge of the mud flats and reconnects to the proposed 

pipeline route near MP 158.1 (see figure 3.4.7-1). Table 3.4.7-1 provides a comparison of the pertinent 

environmental characteristics of the alternative and the corresponding segment of the proposed route. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-21 

Figure 3.4.6-1 Questar Route Alternative 

3-21 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-22 

Figure 3.4.7-1 South Brigham City Route Alternative 

3-22 

3-22 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-23 

TABLE 3.4.7-1 

South Brigham City Route Alternative Comparison 

Environmental Factors South Brigham City Route 

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Proposed Route 

Length (miles) 75.3 52.6 

Parallel to Existing Rights-of-Way (miles within 500’ of centerline) 43.0 6.8 

Perennial Streams Crossed (number) 7 6 

Wetland Habitat Crossed (miles) 30.7 8.2 

The total length of the South Brigham City Route Alternative is 75.3 miles, which is 22.7 miles 

longer than the corresponding segment of the proposed route. As compared to the proposed route, the 

South Brigham City Route Alternative parallels about 36.2 more miles of right-of-way than the proposed 

route. The route alternative also crosses one additional perennial waterbody and affects 22.5 more miles 

of wetlands, and crosses the Bear River where it forms a delta as it flows into the northeast arm of the 

Great Salt Lake. The Bear River delta is the largest freshwater component of the Great Salt Lake 

ecosystem and creates significant wetland waterfowl habitat (Friends of the Great Salt Lake, 2009). The 

delta is known to support diverse plant and animal species in a mixture of mudflat, river delta, brackish 

and freshwater marshes, temporary ponds, and a series of upland knolls. It is especially important to 

birds, and is renowned for supporting large colonies of white-faced ibis, American avocets, white 

pelicans, cinnamon teal, Wilson’s phalaropes, red-necked phalaropes, snowy plovers, marbled godwits, 

and black-necked stilts. The alternative crosses the delta between the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge 

and Willard Bay State Park. While we generally believe pipeline construction across individual wetlands 

and smaller complexes can be accomplished with minimal environmental impact, the crossing of the Bear 

River delta (about 20 miles of high quality wetland/delta habitat) would likely be more challenging, given 

the limited amount of interposing upland area that could be used for extra workspaces, spoil storage, 

equipment staging, refueling, etc. Based on this information, we have determined that the South Brigham 

City Route Alternative would not confer an environmental advantage over the corresponding segment of 

the proposed pipeline route and are not recommending the alternative. 

3.4.8 Terrace Basin Route Alternative 

We recommended in the draft EIS that Ruby incorporate the Terrace Basin Route Alternative, as 

depicted in figure 3.4.8-1, into the final pipeline route. Ruby has subsequently adopted this alternative 

and, as such, it is now a part of Ruby’s proposed project. The data and analysis presented in the rest of 

this final EIS reflect the inclusion of this route in Ruby’s proposal. The Terrace Basin Route Alternative 

was suggested by the BLM to avoid impacts on sensitive salt desert shrub vegetation and to avoid an area 

of potential wilderness characteristics in the area northwest of the Great Salt Lake between the MatlinTerrace Mountains and the Grouse Creek Mountains. The route alternative diverges from Ruby’s original 

route at MP 189.8 and follows a county road southwest until it reaches State Highway 30, where the route 

turns south and follows the highway until it reconnects with the proposed route at MP 209.7 (see figure 

3.4.8-1). The total length of the Terrace Basin Route Alternative is 22.6 miles. Table 3.4.8-1 provides a 

comparison of the pertinent environmental characteristics of the alternative and the corresponding 

segment of the proposed route. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-24 

Figure 3.4.8-1 Adopted Terrace Basin Route Alternative 

3-20 3-20 3-25 3-24 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-25 

TABLE 3.4.8-1 

Terrace Basin Route Alternative Comparison 

Environmental Factors Terrace Basin Route 

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Original Route 

Length (miles) 22.6 20.0 

Parallel to Existing Rights-of-Way (miles within 500’ of centerline) 17.5 12.5 

Nonfederal Lands Crossed (miles) 14.7 10.4 

Nonfederal Landowners Crossed (number) 11 5 

Perennial Streams Crossed (number) 0 0 

Wetland Habitat Crossed (miles) 0.0 0.0 

Sagebrush Steppe Habitat Crossed (miles) 17.6 3.4 

Salt-Desert Shrub Habitat Crossed (miles) 0.0 10.9 

The primary purpose of the alternative is to avoid impacts on salt desert shrub vegetation and 

playas, which, according to the BLM, are more sensitive to rehabilitation than sagebrush steppe in this 

area. The Terrace Basin Route Alternative is 2.6 miles longer than the corresponding segment of the 

original route, but by following more miles of existing road right-of-way as opposed to creating a new 

corridor, the alternative crosses 10.9 fewer miles of salt desert shrub habitat. The alternative instead 

crosses 14.2 more miles of sagebrush steppe habitat. The Terrace Basin Route Alternative also avoids 

crossing an area that contains potential wilderness characteristics. This area of the original route, referred 

to as the Terrace Basin Wilderness Character Unit, is not currently designated as a wilderness area or a 

WSA, but has been inventoried and found to have wilderness characteristics, including naturalness, size, 

and opportunity for a primitive recreational experience. Neither the alternative nor the original route 

crosses perennial waterbodies or wetlands. 

We believe that the original route and the alternative are both environmentally acceptable. 

However, the Terrace Basin Route Alternative avoids the salt desert shrub habitat of concern to the BLM 

as well as the Terrace Basin Wilderness Character Unit. In addition, the BLM indicated that it favors this 

alternative over Ruby’s originally proposed route. Because of this, and the apparent benefits of the 

alternative regarding habitat restoration and avoiding an area the BLM has found to have wilderness 

characteristics, we find the alternative to be preferable over the corresponding segment of Ruby’s original 

route. 

3.4.9 West-Wide Energy Corridor Route Alternative 

We received several comments during scoping requesting that the pipeline be routed to follow the 

West-wide Energy Corridor (WWEC). The WWEC is a collection of non-contiguous energy corridors 

identified by the DOE, U.S. Department of Defense, BLM, and USFS in 11 western states (Arizona, 

California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming) 

(DOE, 2008d). 

EPAct 2005 requires federal agencies to identify corridors for oil, gas, and hydrogen pipelines 

and electrical transmission and distribution facilities on federal land. It also requires federal agencies to 

incorporate the corridors into their land use and resource management plans and expedite applications to 

construct or modify oil, gas, and hydrogen pipelines and electricity transmission and distribution facilities 

within such corridors. The DOE, U.S. Department of Defense, and BLM are in the process of amending 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-26 

their respective planning documents to incorporate the WWEC designation. The USFS has already 

amended its land use plans. As many as 165 land use plans could require amendments.4

The WWEC includes more than 6,000 miles of 3,500-foot-wide, non-contiguous corridor on 

federal lands. The corridor does not extend onto interposing private or non-federal parcels. A 3,500-footwide corridor was designated by federal agencies to provide sufficient room to support multiple energy 

transport systems within the corridor. However, not all areas of the WWEC are 3,500 feet wide or are 

designated for multiple energy transport systems. Some localized areas of the corridor are less or more 

than the preferred 3,500-foot width, and some are specified for only one type of energy transport (e.g.,

pipeline only or electricity transmission only). 

The WWEC does not authorize specific energy projects within the corridor, nor does it preclude 

energy projects from being constructed outside the corridor. Applications for energy projects within and 

outside of the WWEC continue to be subject to normal environmental review under applicable statutes. 

Energy projects within the WWEC, however, may benefit from coordinated interagency application 

procedures and land use plans that already have been amended to contain designated energy corridors. 

Despite the potential benefits, the non-contiguous nature of the WWEC can make utilizing the corridor 

for long projects across multiple federal parcels problematic and ineffective. Project proponents must still 

obtain rights-of-way on interposing private lands that do not have a corridor designation. 

The WWEC Route Alternative begins at about MP 270.0 in Elko County, Nevada and proceeds 

in a southwesterly direction, generally following I-80, to approximately Wadsworth, Nevada, then turns 

northwesterly, through Washoe County, Nevada, and Lassen and Modoc counties in California, before 

terminating at the project end point in Malin, Oregon (see figure 3.4.9-1).5

 The total length of the WWEC 

Route Alternative is 556.0 miles or approximately 150.8 miles (37 percent) longer than the corresponding 

segment of the proposed route. Table 3.4.9-1 provides a comparison of the pertinent environmental 

characteristics of the alternative and the corresponding segment of the proposed route. 

TABLE 3.4.9-1 

West-Wide Energy Corridor Route Alternative Comparison 

Environmental Factor WWEC Route 

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Proposed Route 

Length (miles) 556.0 405.2 

Parallel to Existing Rights-of-Way (miles within 500’ of centerline) 135.3 100.4 

Nonfederal Lands Crossed (miles) 198.7 126.1 

National Historic or Recreational Trail Crossings (number) 8 1 

Perennial Waterbodies Crossed (number ) 36 41 

Wetland Habitat Crossed (miles) 15.0 21.6 

 

4

 The WWEC final EIS and ROD are currently being challenged in federal court. A lawsuit challenging the WWEC was filed 

on July 7, 2009, by 14 conservation groups and a Colorado county, who seek to enjoin use of the WWEC for agency 

planning and decision-making. A final legal decision on this case is pending. 5

 Note that the Black Rock Route Alternative and Jungo-Tuscarora Route Alternative also follow portions of the WWEC. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-27 

Figure 3.4.9-1 West-Wide Energy Corridor Route Alternative 

3-28 

3-27 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-28 

When compared to the proposed route, the WWEC Route Alternative is collocated with 34.9 

additional miles of existing right-of-way, crosses five fewer perennial waterbodies, and affects 6.6 fewer 

miles of wetland habitat. However, the alternative is 150.8 miles longer than the proposed route, crosses 

72.6 more miles of non-federal land, and affects seven additional national or recreational trails. Also, the 

extra pipeline length would necessitate more compression, which would, in turn, increase long-term air 

emissions. Based on this information, it does not appear that the WWEC Route Alternative would confer 

a significant environmental advantage over the proposed route. 

Several non-environmental considerations also weigh against the WWEC Route Alternative. 

Ruby stated that the additional pipeline length and the need for additional compression would result in 

substantial increased costs that would make the project economically infeasible. Further, routing the 

pipeline in California would trigger additional environmental review by the California Public Utilities 

Commission under the California Environmental Quality Act. The time required for this additional 

review (up to 1 year or more) would prevent Ruby from meeting its desired in-service date. Finally, the 

legal status of the WWEC designation is currently being reviewed in federal court. Because the WWEC 

Route Alternative would not provide a significant environmental advantage over the proposed route and 

because of the drawbacks associated with the non-environmental considerations, we do not recommend 

that this alternative be incorporated into the proposed project. 

3.4.10 AT&T East Route Alternative 

During the scoping process, the BLM requested consideration of a route that would mainly follow 

an abandoned American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) cable right-of-way. The AT&T East Route 

Alternative begins at MP 302.6 and rejoins the proposed route at approximately MP 349.9. Ruby’s 

proposed route along this section follows several miles of an overhead electric transmission line (see 

figure 3.4.10-1). The total length of the AT&T East Route Alternative is 48.5 miles. Table 3.4.10-1 

provides a comparison of the pertinent environmental characteristics of the alternative and the 

corresponding segment of the proposed route. 

TABLE 3.4.10-1 

AT&T East Route Alternative Comparison 

Environmental Factors AT&T East Route 

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Proposed Route 

Length (miles) 48.5 47.3 

Parallel to Existing Rights-of-Way (miles within 500’ of centerline) 48.5 28.6 

Nonfederal Lands Crossed (miles) 23.2 12.7 

Perennial Streams Crossed (number) 8 10 

Wetland Habitat Crossed (miles) 0.1 0.4 

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-29 

Figure 3.4.10-1 AT&T East Route Alternative 

3-22 3-23 3-29 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-30 

 When compared to the proposed route, the AT&T East Route Alternative is collocated with 19.9 

additional miles of former AT&T cable right-of-way, crosses two fewer perennial waterbodies, and 

affects 0.3 fewer mile of wetland habitat. Conversely, the route alternative is 1.2 miles longer than the 

proposed route, crosses more private land, affects more wetlands at the Marys River crossing, and could 

have a greater impact on irrigation systems associated with the Tabor Creek Ranch. Additionally, the 

benefits of collocation with the AT&T cable right-of-way would not be fully realized because the rightof-way has been abandoned for several years, is currently not maintained, and is on its way to reverting to 

its natural condition. In this case, we believe that the potential benefits of collocating with 28.6 miles of 

actively maintained overhead electric transmission line right-of-way outweigh the potential benefits of 

collocating with 48.5 miles of former underground cable right-of-way that is in the process of returning to 

its intrinsic ecological state. Thus, we conclude that the AT&T East Route Alternative would not convey 

a significant environmental advantage over the proposed pipeline route and we are not recommending it. 

3.4.11 Willow Creek Route Alternative 

We recommended in the draft EIS that Ruby incorporate the Willow Creek Route Alternative, as 

depicted in figure 3.4.11-1, into the final pipeline route. Ruby has subsequently adopted this alternative 

and, as such, it is now a part of Ruby’s proposed project. The data and analysis presented in the rest of 

this final EIS reflect the inclusion of this route in Ruby’s proposal. During the scoping process, the BLM 

requested consideration of a route that mainly follows an abandoned AT&T cable right-of-way and the 

Jungo-Tuscarora Road, west of where the AT&T East Route Alternative ends. The Willow Creek Route 

Alternative begins at approximate MP 349.2 and rejoins the proposed route at MP 410.6 (see figure 

3.4.11-1). The total length of the Willow Creek Route Alternative is 61.4 miles. Table 3.4.11-1 provides 

a comparison of the pertinent environmental characteristics of the alternative and the corresponding 

segment of the original route. 

TABLE 3.4.11-1 

Willow Creek Route Alternative Comparison 

Environmental Factors Willow Creek Route 

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Original Route 

Length (miles) 61.4 61.4 

Parallel to Existing Rights-of-Way (miles within 500’ of centerline) 37.2 11.9 

Nonfederal Lands Crossed (miles) 31.6 19.3 

Nonfederal Landowners Crossed (number) 8 3 

Perennial Streams (number) 7 4 

Wetland Habitat Crossed (miles) 0.9 1.5 

Willow Creek Restoration Area Crossed (miles) 0.9 0.0 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-31 

Figure 3.4.11-1 Adopted Willow Creek Route Alternative 

3-31 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-32 

 The Willow Creek Route Alternative is about the same length as the corresponding segment of 

the originally proposed route, but about 25.3 miles of the alternative is collocated with the former (and 

currently unmaintained) AT&T cable right-of-way. The alternative crosses 0.6 fewer mile of wetlands 

and avoids a unique wetland habitat referred to as the “Hot Lakes” at about MP 381.7. Despite these 

benefits, the alternative crosses three more perennial streams, including two crossings of Willow Creek. 

The alternative also crosses about 0.9 mile of the Willow Creek Restoration Area, whereas the original 

pipeline route did not cross this area. The Willow Creek Restoration Area is the result of a cooperative 

project between the BLM, NDOW, Barrick Mines, and the Reno and Midas Bighorns Unlimited groups 

to restore degraded, overgrazed ranchland into a sustainable ranching and wildlife habitat and watershed 

area. The specific objectives of the restoration work are to improve greater sage-grouse habitat and water 

quality of Willow Creek for the Lahontan cutthroat trout. The BLM indicted that the alternative would 

not impact valuable resources within the restoration area since it would not be within or immediately 

adjacent to riparian habitat around Willow Creek. The BLM stated that it favors the alternative over 

Ruby’s originally proposed route. 

We believe that the original route and the route alternative have generally similar environmental 

impacts and are both environmentally acceptable. The main consideration is the BLM’s input regarding 

land management goals, resource impacts, and its support of the alternative. Therefore, we continue to 

find that the Willow Creek Route Alternative is preferable to the corresponding segment of Ruby’s 

original route. 

3.4.12 Sheldon Route Alternative 

During preliminary project planning, Ruby identified the Sheldon Route Alternative as one 

possible route across northwestern Nevada. Ruby dropped the Sheldon Route Alternative in favor of its 

proposed route prior to filing its application with the FERC. However, the BLM and NDOW requested 

that the Sheldon Route Alternative be evaluated in the EIS to, among other things, assess whether the 

project’s impacts on greater sage-grouse habitat would be smaller by following an existing road across the 

Sheldon NWR as opposed to creating a new corridor south of the NWR. According to the BLM and 

NDOW, the proposed pipeline route crosses greater sage-grouse habitat that is especially high quality and 

unfragmented south of the Sheldon NWR. The Sheldon Route Alternative attempts to avoid impact on 

this type of habitat by collocating with State Highway 140 along a major portion of the route. The 

Summit Lake Paiute Tribe also expressed concern about the potential for the proposed pipeline route 

south of the Sheldon NWR to impact traditional Northern Paiute foods, medicines, and other current or 

historic subsistence resources. Additionally, the tribe expressed concerns about known traditional sacred 

sites and possible burials along the proposed route. 

Collocation of facilities is a generally accepted practice to control the location of transportation 

and utility development and limit impacts on sensitive resources by keeping disturbance within or 

adjacent to established corridors. The FWS has indicated that the current highway easement within the 

Sheldon NWR is exclusive to the highway, meaning that the Nevada Department of Transportation 

(NDOT) has exclusive rights to construct, maintain, and develop the land within the easement for a 

highway, and other uses are prohibited. Our analysis of the Sheldon Route Alternative is based on the 

assumption that the pipeline could be collocated in the 200-foot-wide highway easement across most of 

the Sheldon NWR. Due to road switchbacks and rough terrain, the Sheldon Route Alternative also 

includes two locations, totaling 4.5 miles, where the pipeline would need to be constructed outside the 

State Highway 140 right-of-way. In order for this to occur, the FWS would need to amend the existing 

State Highway 140 easement to specifically allow for pipeline construction and operation, and would 

need to approve Ruby’s use of additional Sheldon NWR lands outside of the State Highway 140 right-ofway. Both of these actions would first require that FWS conduct technical analyses and make a legal 

determination that these uses are an Appropriate Use and Compatible Use of a NWR. According to the 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-33 

FWS, a natural gas pipeline is considered an economic use, and by regulation, this use could not be 

approved unless it was found to contribute to the purposes of the NWR or the mission of the NWR 

System. 

The Sheldon Route Alternative would depart from the proposed alignment near MP 483.2 in 

Nevada and would head northwest generally following the Highway 140 alignment across open sagebrush 

valleys and dispersed ranch/agricultural lands.6 Near Emigrant Pass, the alternative would head west, 

leave Highway 140, and pass through the northern low-elevation end of the Pine Forest Range, composed 

mostly of desertscrub and upland grasses. The Sheldon Route Alternative would continue west and 

realign again with Highway 140 through a salt playa and into sagebrush and pockets of juniper as it 

would transect the Sheldon NWR and transition into the volcanic plateaus of the Intermountain Desert 

ecoregion through the remainder of the route alternative. Within the volcanic plateau, the alternative 

route would descend an escarpment landform—Dougherty slide—and depart from the Highway 140 

right-of-way at approximately MP 563. The Sheldon Route Alternative would continue across a rolling, 

sagebrush-covered plateau, descend Coleman Rim in southern Oregon at approximately MP 579, and 

cross a playa and agricultural valley. On the west side of the valley the route alternative would ascend 

Coleman Rim and traverse a rolling plateau with substantial areas of juniper woodlands before connecting 

with the proposed route at MP 599.7 (see figure 3.4.12-1). 

Table 3.4.12-1 presents a comparison of the important environmental features of this alternative 

to the corresponding segment of the proposed route. When reviewing the information included in the 

table the reader should keep in mind that Ruby has not completed on-the-ground surveys of natural and 

cultural resources along the Sheldon Route Alternative in the Sheldon NWR. Some of the data in the 

table may not represent actual on-the-ground values, but rather reflects the best available information 

from sources such as maps, aerial photography, resources databases, government publications, and other 

publications and research papers. 

One impediment to constructing within the 200-foot-wide State Highway 140 easement is 

available workspace. That is, the highway road surface bisects the easement, thereby limiting 

construction to an area about 75-feet-wide on just one side of the highway. We acknowledge that the 

location of the highway relative to the construction work area would not be convenient for Ruby, but 

believe that construction within the limited right-of-way would be feasible. We also note that Ruby could 

use work areas on both sides of the highway and would not be limited to work areas on just one side. 

Ruby has indicated that at least one MLV would be required on the Sheldon NWR because crossing the 

Sheldon NWR would exceed the maximum valve spacing limits specified in DOT safety regulations. 

Maps recently filed by Ruby identified two MLV locations within the Sheldon NWR at MPs 532.2 and 

551.6. Ruby would be required to locate any valves within the Sheldon NWR entirely within the State 

Highway 140 easement. 

The Sheldon Route Alternative would impact many of the same resources as the proposed 

pipeline route. Regardless of the route chosen, Ruby would be required to implement its mitigation plans 

(e.g., Plan, Procedures, Blasting Plan, Hydrostatic Test Plan, Spill Plan, Noxious and Invasive Weed 

Control Plan, etc.) as well as our recommendations (see section 5.2). 

 

6

 The route description in this paragraph was developed by the BLM to satisfy its visual impact evaluation needs. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-34 

Figure 3.4.12-1 Sheldon Route Alternative 

3-35 

3-34 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-35 

 

TABLE 3.4.12-1 

Sheldon Route Alternative Comparison 

Environmental Factor Sheldon Route 

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Proposed Route 

Length of Route (miles) 118.3 116.5 

Amount of Extra Workspace, etc. (acres) 266.7 562.6 

Amount of Access Roads (miles) 56.9 155.9 

Parallel to Existing Rights-of-Way (miles within 500’ of centerline) 51.5 23.3 

Citizen-Proposed WSA Crossed (miles) 14.1 0.0 

Sheldon NWR Crossed (miles) 34.5 0.0 

Sheldon NWR WSAs Crossed (miles) 1.5 0.0 

Greater Sage-Grouse Winter Habitat Crossed (miles) 12.9 72.7 

Greater Sage-Grouse Leks (within 2 miles of the centerline) 9 22 

Pronghorn Crucial Winter Habitat Crossed (miles) 4.0 0.0 

Perennial Waterbodies Crossed (number) 8 5 

Wetland Habitat Crossed (miles) 4.4 0.4 

Cultural Resource Sites Crossed (number identified in Class I records review) 29 21 

Northern Paiute Traditional Foods, Medicines, Sacred Sites, Possible Burials Unknown Yes 

Mineral Resources within 1,500 feet (number) 24 2 

Springs/Seeps within 300 feet (number) 2 1 

Wells within 300 feet (number) 2 3 

Paleontological Resources (PFYC >=3) (miles) 70.0 19.0 

Moderate to High Landslides (number of areas) 6 2 

Geologic Faults within 1,500 feet (number) 44 14 

Areas of Shallow Groundwater Crossed (number) 0 2 

Earthquakes within 100 miles (number) 16 4 

Shallow Rock Potentially Requiring Blasting (miles) 50.0 70.9 

Karst/pseudokarst (miles) 0 4 

Note: Our evaluation of the Sheldon Route Alternative is based on collocation within the State Highway 140 easement to the 

greatest extent possible within the Sheldon NWR. 

The total length of the Sheldon Route Alternative is 118.3 miles, which is nearly the same length 

(1.8 miles longer) as the corresponding segment of the proposed route. Although the length of the 

Sheldon Route Alternative is nearly the same, the Sheldon Route Alternative parallels substantially more 

existing right-of-way (28.2 additional miles) than the proposed route. The Sheldon Route Alternative 

also requires less extra workspace (295.9 fewer acres) and fewer access roads (99.0 fewer miles).7

 Fewer 

access roads are required because a significant portion of the route is collocated with and accessible from 

State Highway 140. 

We evaluated various environmental resources along the Sheldon Route Alternative as compared 

to Ruby’s proposed route. The Sheldon Route Alternative, when compared to the proposed route, has 4 

more areas of moderate to high landslide incidence, 30 more geologic faults, and has experienced 12 more 

earthquake events than the corresponding section of the proposed route. The route alternative also has 22 

more mines/pits/quarries within 1,500 feet, 51 additional miles of potential significant paleontological 

resources (a Potential Fossil Yield Classification [PFYC] rating exceeding 3), 2 fewer miles of shallow 

 

7

 Larger-scale topographic maps depicting the Sheldon Route Alternative and the location of proposed extra workspaces and 

access roads are available on the FERC eLibrary (http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercadvsearch.asp) under document 

accession number 20090921-4005. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-36 

groundwater, 4 fewer miles of karst/pseudokarst terrain, and 20.9 fewer miles of shallow rock that may 

require blasting. 

Topographic relief along both the Sheldon Route Alternative and the proposed route ranges from 

nearly flat to rolling hills to a few areas of very steep relief. While terrain can affect the cost of 

construction, it is relatively minor compared to other factors (e.g., length of the route and pipeline class 

location). From a soils limitation perspective, the proposed route crosses fewer miles of highly water 

erodible, compaction prone and hydric soils, while the Sheldon Route Alternative crosses fewer miles of 

highly wind erodible, prime farmland, stony-rocky, and droughty soils, or areas with shallow bedrock. 

Two registered wells and two springs are known to occur within 300 feet of the route alternative, 

whereas three wells and one spring are within 300 feet of the proposed route. Ruby estimates that the 

route alternative would require an additional 665,100 gallons of water for hydrostatic testing and dust 

control, an approximate 1.5 percent increase in water use. 

According to the FWS, the Sheldon NWR is the largest and most pristine piece of land 

representative of the sagebrush steppe ecosystem in the nation that is not grazed by domestic livestock, 

and is benefiting from current efforts to remove feral horses and burros (FWS, 2008a). The fact that it is 

not grazed is important because grazing is both highly destructive to the habitat and increases the 

opportunity for noxious weed dispersal from livestock, horses, or burros inadvertently picking up seeds 

and moving them around and between their pastures. Grazing also contributes to the expansion of juniper 

trees into grasslands and other communities because juniper seeds germinate only after passing through 

the alimentary tract of an animal. 

Approximately 300 species of birds, mammals, amphibians, fish, and reptiles and 650 species of 

plants are present on the Sheldon NWR. Data suggest that wildlife diversity within the Sheldon NWR 

may be higher than areas outside its borders (Herbst, 1996; Williams and Storm, 1978). A literature 

review conducted by Ruby of the two routes suggests the number of mammals along the routes is about 

even, with 51 species known to occur on the Sheldon NWR (not including feral horses or burros) and 54 

species south of the NWR. A total of 111 species of breeding birds are known to occur on the Sheldon 

NWR, in comparison to 67 species to the south of the NWR. Waterfowl comprise the major difference 

between the two areas. A total of 19 species of reptiles and amphibians are known to occur on the 

Sheldon NWR, compared to 8 species to the south of the NWR. 

We note that the literature review covered the Sheldon NWR as a whole. We believe that it is 

very likely that species richness along the corresponding portions of the proposed pipeline route, which is 

in a more remote, undisturbed area (as evidenced by lack of adjacent highway and 22 fewer nearby 

mines/pits/quarries), may be higher than that of the route alternative within the State Highway 140 

easement. The FWS disagrees with this position stating that while it may seem intuitive that species 

richness and diversity are often greatly reduced within a highway right-of-way, the species richness and 

diversity along the State Highway 140 corridor within the Sheldon NWR is an atypical situation. The 

FWS bases its opinion on the fact that grazing and wildlife management on the Sheldon NWR are 

controlled, whereas the proposed pipeline route has been subjected to grazing pressures over many 

decades. Further, the FWS states that it coordinates closely with NDOT to limit the amount of the 

highway easement that is maintained (including blading and/or grading, mowing, etc.) so that optimal 

quantities of undisturbed habitat are allowed to flourish on the refuge. The FWS further notes that pygmy 

rabbits occupy sagebrush habitat within the unpaved portion of the existing road right-of-way. As a 

result, the portion of the State Highway 140 easement that is within the NWR boundary has relatively 

limited invasive species cover, much greater native vegetation cover, and far less cleared or bladed areas 

than is typically found outside of the refuge along the highway. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-37 

To determine the quality of habitat that exists along the Sheldon Route Alternative, the BLM, 

NDOW, and ODFW conducted a mile-by-mile habitat analysis for greater sage-grouse and mule deer (see 

table 3.4.12-2). This analysis quantified habitat quality along the Sheldon Route Alternative and the 

corresponding segments of the proposed route. A detailed description of the habitat categories is 

provided in Appendix M. Generally, category 1 is high-quality habitat while category 4 is low-quality 

habitat. This analysis was conducted using existing survey data, known sensitive habitat areas such as 

crucial winter ranges, and professional knowledge and judgment. Based on this analysis the proposed 

route crosses more high-quality greater sage-grouse habitat than the Sheldon Route Alternative. It should 

be noted that the FWS strongly opposes the validity of various data inputs and parameters and states that 

the data are not representative of actual habitat quality. For example, the FWS contends that data 

comparing pygmy rabbit habitat are lacking and that in actuality more high-quality habitat for the pygmy 

rabbit would be affected on the Sheldon Route Alternative as compared to the proposed route. We note, 

however, that of all the species that could have been considered, greater sage-grouse is the species that 

has received the most public and agency conservation attention on this project, and the main reason for 

the additional habitat evaluation was to specifically assess impacts on greater sage-grouse. 

TABLE 3.4.12-2 

Habitat Quality Along the Sheldon Route Alternative and the Corresponding Segment of the Proposed Pipeline Route 

Species Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 None 

Greater Sage-Grouse (miles crossed) 

Sheldon Route Alternative 13.4 28.9 4.8 11.2 60.1 

Proposed Route Segment 27.4 18.9 32.2 - 37.7 

Mule Deer (miles crossed) 

Sheldon Route Alternative 13.6 30.5 80.4 51.1 - 

Proposed Route Segment 

(includes Nevada data only) 28.5 31.7 50.1 7 - 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-38 

Two federally listed threatened species are known to occur on or near the Sheldon Route 

Alternative: the Foskett Springs speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus ssp.) and the Warner sucker 

(Catostomus warnerensi). The Foskett Springs speckled dace inhabits Foskett and Dace springs, small 

desert springs located approximately 1.1 and 1.8 miles south of the Sheldon Route Alternative at MP 

584.0 on the west side of Coleman Lake in Lake County, Oregon. Foskett Spring is a natural spring that 

rises from a springhead pool, flows through a narrow springbrook into a dense growth of cattails, flows 

into a shallow pool, and then disappears into the soil of the normally dry Coleman Lake. The entire 

habitat is approximately 100 meters long and averages less than 0.3 meter deep. Dace Spring is smaller 

than Foskett Spring and is choked with macrophytes. Dace Spring flows through an outflow pipe that 

terminates in a concrete trough. In 1987, the BLM acquired, through exchange, the 65 hectare parcel of 

land containing Foskett and Dace springs. Both springs were fenced to exclude livestock. Due to their 

distance from the route, impacts on these springs and the Foskett Springs speckled dace would not be 

expected by any construction of the Sheldon Route Alternative. 

The Warner sucker is known to occur in the Warner Valley and could occur near the Sheldon 

Route Alternative crossing of Twentymile Creek at MP 587.6. Section 4.7.2.4 provides further detail 

regarding the Warner sucker. Designated critical habitat for the Warner sucker is located approximately 

1.4 miles upstream of the Sheldon Route Alternative crossing of Twentymile Creek, but would not be 

crossed by the Sheldon Route Alternative. Under the Sheldon Route Alternative, Ruby would cross all 

streams containing sensitive species using a dry crossing method and would adhere to in-water 

construction timing windows recommended by the ODFW. Therefore, even if the Sheldon Route 

Alternative were recommended and approved, impacts on the Warner sucker on the Sheldon Refuge 

would not be significant. 

The ODFW has identified several habitats of concern along the Sheldon Route Alternative, which 

include greater sage-grouse high-viability core areas (i.e., intact shrub steppe habitat) from MPs 558 to 

580; California bighorn sheep range at MPs 565 and 580; 17 known pygmy rabbit colonies at various 

mileposts; an active greater sage-grouse lek from MPs 579 to 580; and Warner sucker habitat at 

Twentymile Creek. However, the BLM noted that all these resources − greater sage-grouse core areas, 

California bighorn sheep range (about 8 miles of occupied habitat on the Surprise Field Office), pygmy 

rabbit colonies, and at least four identified active greater sage-grouse leks within 2 miles − also occur 

within the habitat crossed by the proposed route in the Surprise Field Office District. 

Ruby submitted a Class I cultural resource records review of the Sheldon Route Alternative in 

May 2009. According to the information gathered during this review, the presence of recorded 

archaeological sites and the potential for discovering unrecorded archaeological sites along the Sheldon 

Route Alternative is comparable to that of the proposed route. Fourteen percent of the construction 

corridor that would be needed for the Sheldon Route Alternative has been surveyed for cultural resources, 

and 29 sites have been recorded, compared to 29 percent surveyed and 21 sites recorded for the proposed 

route (prior to the Class III survey). The records review of the broader 2-mile study area revealed that 

both the Sheldon Route Alternative and the proposed route contain a similar density of recorded 

archaeological sites, indicating that the discovery of sites along either route is to be expected. Lithic 

scatters are the most common site type found along both routes. A stone ring, three rock cairns, and three 

stone quarries are site types found along the Sheldon Route Alternative, which are not found along the 

proposed route. A ground stone site and two hearth sites were found along the proposed route, but not 

found along the Sheldon Route Alternative. There is a slightly greater concentration of rock shelters and 

petroglyphs previously recorded along the proposed route as compared to the Sheldon Route Alternative 

(two rock shelters, three petroglyphs on the Sheldon Route Alternative; eight rock shelters, six 

petroglyphs on the proposed route), but the amount of survey completed is not sufficient to render these 

numbers statistically significant. Survey records from the General Land Office (a predecessor agency to 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-39 

the BLM) indicate that several historic roads, such as the road to Fort Bidwell and the road to Pueblo 

Valley are crossed by both routes (Robinson and Dobschuetz, 2009). 

The Class III survey of the proposed route through Nevada discovered 570 archaeological sites 

within the survey corridor, with 253 of the sites recommended as eligible for listing on the NRHP (see 

section 4.10.1.3). The Class I records review suggested that a similar density of sites and site types would 

be discovered during a Class III survey of the Sheldon Route Alternative. 

The Sheldon Route Alternative would avoid known areas of concern to the Summit Lake Paiute 

Tribe along the proposed route. Both the Sheldon Alternative and the proposed route are located within 

the traditional territory of the Northern Paiute peoples. The Summit Lake Paiute Tribe Reservation is the 

closest reservation to the Sheldon Route Alternative, located 2 miles to the south of the Sheldon NWR. 

The next closest Native American reservation is the Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes 

Reservation, which is 130 miles to the east. The Summit Lake Paiute Tribe and other Northern Paiute 

tribal members have commented that the Sheldon Route Alternative would avoid known areas of concern 

and they prefer the Sheldon Route Alternative to the proposed route. However, field work along the route 

alternative has not been completed and it is possible that completion of on-the-ground cultural resources 

surveys along the route alternative would reveal additional resources of importance to the Summit Lake 

Paiute Tribe. 

Within the Sheldon NWR, the State Highway 140 easement abuts the Virgin Valley Mining 

District (an area that is actively mined for opal) and four WSAs (Big Springs Table, Gooch Table, 

Sagehen Hills, and Round Mountain). WSAs are areas of federal land that have been formally 

inventoried and found to have retained their primeval character and influence, without permanent 

improvements or human habitation, and are managed to preserve their natural conditions. The WSAs on 

the Sheldon NWR were established through a formal, multi-year process by the FWS and have been 

officially submitted through the Secretary of the Interior and the U.S. President to Congress for potential 

legal designation as wilderness. WSAs are not officially included in the National Wilderness 

Preservation System until Congress decides whether or not to designate them as wilderness. The FWS is 

required by federal law and policy to maintain the wilderness characteristics of each WSA until Congress 

decides whether it should either be designated as wilderness or should be released for other purposes (see 

section 4.8.5). 

The Sheldon Route Alternative would cross at least 1.5 miles of the Gooch Table WSA within the 

Sheldon NWR at one of the locations where the alternative would need to diverge from the highway 

right-of-way due to rough terrain. The FWS noted that the actual crossing length and associated impacts 

within the WSA may be as many as 5.3 miles depending on the degree of collocation within the highway 

easement. The FWS manages WSAs to protect their wilderness character (including size, naturalness, 

and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation) (FWS Manual, Part 610, Chapter 4). This is 

accomplished by conducting case-by-case reviews of proposed uses. Analyses include appropriateness 

findings, compatibility determinations, wilderness minimum requirement and minimum tool analyses, and 

NEPA review. The FWS stated that routing the pipeline through the WSA would adversely affect the 

WSA’s wilderness character and would conflict with the management direction of the area; therefore, it is 

highly unlikely to be authorized by the refuge manager. Further, the FWS stated that any improvements 

of access roads through the Sheldon NWR, whether on the Sheldon Route Alternative or the proposed 

route, would be conditioned on the prevention of inappropriate uses within a WSA. No access roads are 

located within WSAs, although State Highway 140, County Road 8a, Knott Creek Road, and Summit 

Lake Road all are adjacent to WSAs along portions of their routes. 

The Sheldon Route Alternative also would cross three citizen-proposed WSAs in Oregon totaling 

about 19 miles. Citizen-proposed WSAs are areas recommended by the Oregon Natural Desert 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-40 

Association for designation as WSAs for their wilderness resource values and characteristics. Citizenproposed WSAs along the Sheldon Route Alternative include the Sheldon Rim, Spaulding Addition, and 

Coleman Rim. The BLM is not prohibited from routing pipelines through citizen-proposed WSAs, but is 

required to review such projects within areas the BLM has identified as having wilderness characteristics 

under project-specific EISs such as this. Additionally, it should be noted that both Congress and citizen 

proponents of WSAs have shown a willingness to adjust boundaries to accommodate utility rights-of-way 

when such actions are shown to be environmentally prudent. 

According to the FWS, construction of the Sheldon Route Alternative would discourage wildlife 

observations and viewing, hunting, photography, and education in affected areas of the Sheldon NWR. 

When officially determined compatible on a refuge-specific basis, such wildlife-dependent uses are the 

priority public uses of the refuge.8 In contrast to management of multiple-use federal lands, few other 

public uses and almost no economic uses are authorized on NWRs, unless the refuge manager determines 

that such use is compatible or beneficial to the refuge. Because the route would be mainly collocated 

with State Highway 140 within the NWR, impacts on these types of recreation activities would be 

minimized, and similar types of recreation along the corresponding portion of the proposed route would 

be more substantially impacted, given its remote location. However, the FWS contends the impact on 

recreational activities within the NWR would still be too great. 

Biological research, especially research that focuses on addressing refuge resource management 

issues, is an essential component of the overall management program at the Sheldon NWR. Research is 

conducted by FWS personnel and professional cooperators, such as USGS and university scientists. 

Research by other qualified personnel can also be authorized when it is officially found appropriate and 

determined compatible. The FWS has expressed concern that construction of the Sheldon Route 

Alternative could impact some of the more than 14 research projects currently being conducted on the 

Sheldon NWR. The BLM has commented that it also conducts annual animal surveys along portions of 

the proposed route as well as along the Sheldon Route Alternative, emphasizing that impacts on research 

projects are not solely limited to the Sheldon NWR. Based on information provided by the FWS, we 

have determined that most research has already been completed or is sufficiently far from the Sheldon 

Route Alternative such that it would not be affected by pipeline construction or operation. Four studies, 

however, could be affected: annual greater sage-grouse lek counts, annual raptor nest occupancy surveys, 

annual pronghorn summer census, and long-term monitoring of reptiles at Railroad Point. Annual greater 

sage-grouse lek counts are conducted on the Sheldon NWR to monitor population trends. Construction 

activities could affect annual lek counts because they could discourage birds from using nearby leks 

during construction and could compel lekking outside of the Sheldon NWR. Upon implementation of 

either route, Ruby has committed to preconstruction surveys to identify active leks and to implementing 

seasonal and special restrictions to avoid impacting active leks (see section 4.7.3.1). 

Annual raptor nest occupancy surveys involve revisiting historic nest sites on the Sheldon NWR 

and documenting occupancy. Raptor nesting areas have been documented on Sheldon Refuge since at 

least 1912, and surveys continued on the Sheldon NWR annually until at least the late 1980s. As with 

greater sage-grouse counts, construction activities could affect raptor nest surveys because they could 

discourage birds from using nearby nests during construction and could force nesting outside of the 

Sheldon NWR. Ruby has committed to completing aerial surveys within 1 mile of the pipeline route for 

active raptor nests prior to commencement of project activities and to implementing seasonal and special 

restrictions to avoid impacting active nests (see section 4.5.5). 

 

8

 The FWS has indicated it is evaluating the possibility of a new refuge headquarters and visitor center along State Road 140 

in the Virgin Valley area. The headquarters and visitors center are being evaluated in the Sheldon NWR draft CCP. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-41 

An annual census of pronghorn is conducted in the summer on the Sheldon NWR. Suspected 

habitat is surveyed via helicopter. Construction activities likely would decrease their use of areas within 

0.5 mile of the route alternative (Ward et al., 1980; Ward, 1976), but the overall census probably would 

not be affected by the project. The BLM noted that the annual research projects similar to those 

conducted on the Sheldon NWRs are conducted on BLM-administered lands outside the NWR, including 

annual surveys for greater sage-grouse, raptors, and big game. The BLM indicated that the Ruby Pipeline 

Project would affect research projects along the proposed route the same way it would affect research 

projects on the NWR. Thus, we conclude that these types of research projects in and of themselves would 

not preclude approval of the Sheldon Route Alternative. 

In addition to research programs, the FWS indicated that the Sheldon Route Alternative could 

affect restoration projects currently in progress on the Sheldon NWR, including invasive weed control, 

feral horse and burro control, rehabilitation of dugout basins in playas, and especially the restoration of 

springs and streams. The Virgin Creek and Thousand Creek watershed is the restoration priority for the 

FWS. The FWS has also indicated that it expends large amounts of resources maintaining its fences and 

road crossings to keep livestock out and populations of feral horses and burros under control. Ruby 

would implement a variety of construction and restoration measures to avoid or minimize impacts on 

these resources regardless of the route chosen or eventually authorized (see sections 4.2.2.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 

4.4.6, and 4.5.7). 

If the Sheldon Route Alternative were to be certificated, Ruby would be required to obtain a 

right-of-way grant to cross the Sheldon NWR. The BLM would be responsible for issuing the right-ofway grant, but would not issue the grant until the FWS concurred with the route. If this were to occur, the 

FWS could include numerous mitigation measures in the right-of-way grant including that Ruby provide 

a bond to ensure the construction work is completed according to FWS requirements. The FWS has 

stated that NWRs are, by law, closed to all public access and use, including rights-of-way, unless the use 

is determined compatible. Also, according to the FWS, siting a natural gas pipeline represents an 

economic use of a NWR, and such use would need to contribute to the purposes of a refuge or the mission 

of the NWR system. The purpose of the Sheldon NWR is to conserve wildlife including greater sagegrouse, pronghorn antelope, and other native species dependent on the sagebrush steppe ecosystem. The 

mission of the NWR system is to “...administer a national network of lands and waters for the 

conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources 

and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” 

The Sheldon Route Alternative, as defined here, would require that the existing State Highway 

140 easement be amended to allow for the project, and would require that a new easement be granted for 

those areas where the pipeline would be routed outside of the existing highway easement. According to 

the FWS, such an action would further destroy or disturb substantial amounts of high-quality, native 

sagebrush steppe habitat (both along and outside the State Highway 140 easement). Such wildlife and 

habitat destruction and disturbance would conflict with the NWR’s statutory mandate to maintain 

biological integrity and diversity (NWR System Administration Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 

668ee-668dd). For these and other reasons, the FWS has made a preliminary determination that the 

Sheldon Route Alternative is not compatible (is inconsistent) with the purposes of the Sheldon NWR or 

the mission of the NWR System. As noted above, if not found compatible, the BLM is statutorily 

prohibited from granting a right-of-way across the Sheldon NWR. The FWS has also advised that, if the 

Sheldon Route Alternative were authorized by FERC, there would be delays associated with satisfying 

regulatory requirements. The FWS would need to initiate additional data gathering and analyses and 

would need to finalize the preliminary compatibility determination (which includes a public review and 

comment period), develop a minimum requirements/minimum tool analysis (for the affected WSA), and 

satisfy NEPA requirements for these federal decisions. The FWS has advised that due to other higherpriority commitments and funding/staffing limitations, this effort could take additional months or years 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-42 

and, as a result, it would be highly unlikely that Ruby could complete the pipeline project along this 

alternative route in a timely manner, if ever. 

Our goal is to evaluate the benefits and constraints of the Sheldon Route Alternative (a route 

collocated with and/or adjacent to a paved highway, but also within an area dedicated to wildlife 

preservation) with Ruby’s proposed route (a greenfield route across high-quality habitat). The proposed 

pipeline route near the Sheldon NWR runs through multiple-use public lands managed by the BLM to 

serve multiple public purposes, including some economic uses which can be ecologically damaging like 

livestock grazing, mining, and the development and transmission of energy. As these lands experience 

legally allowable economic and other development or alteration, native species and habitats could be 

further compromised. 

In contrast, the official purposes of Sheldon NWR include conservation and protection of 

migratory birds, endangered and threatened species, and other wildlife, including pronghorn antelope. 

Sheldon NWR management is specifically directed to achieving these purposes, so the quality, 

abundance, and diversity of fish, wildlife, plant, and their habitats on Sheldon NWR would likely increase 

in the future as native habitats and wild populations are further restored, the wilderness character of 

officially designated WSAs are protected, and as destructive economic and other uses are avoided or 

discontinued. 

Based on our analysis, it appears that the Sheldon Route Alternative would be technically and 

economically feasible and may result in less environmental impacts on some resources as compared to the 

proposed route. In particular, it appears that it would reduce impacts on greater sage-grouse and would 

avoid of many of the resource concerns of the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe. The FWS believes that 

additional fieldwork along the Sheldon Route Alternative would reveal that the route alternative’s 

biological and cultural resources are at least equal in value to those found on the proposed route. In the 

end, it is clear that the FWS could not concur with a right-of-way grant for the alternate route. For this 

reason, we do not recommend the Sheldon Route Alternative. 

3.4.13 Black Rock Route Alternative 

The Black Rock Route Alternative was originally identified by NDOW as an alternative that 

could reduce wildlife habitat impacts by following existing roads (U.S. Highway 95, Jungo Road, and 

State Secondary Route 34) south of the proposed route. According to NDOW, the proposed route crosses 

greater sage-grouse habitat that is especially high quality and unfragmented. Like the Sheldon Route 

Alternative, the Black Rock Route Alternative would avoid impacting this type of habitat by virtue of 

being collocated with roads along a large part of its route. 

Ruby went through several iterations of the Black Rock Route Alternative (i.e., Black Rock 1, 

Black Rock 2, etc.) while refining the route based on suggestions from the BLM, FWS, and NDOW. The 

purpose of refining the route was to generally follow roads, to take advantage of railroad and utility 

rights-of-way, and to reduce the route alternative’s overall length. The resulting route analyzed here 

(Black Rock 7) would head southwest just to the north of Winnemucca, Nevada and the Humboldt River 

from the proposed alignment at approximately MP 424.29. The alternative alignment would traverse 

broad sagebrush-dominated valleys, salty playas, rolling hills, and grasslands. The Black Rock Route 

Alternative would closely follow Route 49 and the Union Pacific/Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad 

as it heads west toward Gerlach, Nevada. The route alternative would turn northwest after 

circumnavigating the Black Rock NCA and follow an existing overhead transmission line through rolling, 

 

9

 The route description in the remainder of this paragraph was developed by the BLM to satisfy its visual impact evaluation 

needs. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-43 

mountainous terrain dominated by sagebrush desert mixed with grasslands and dispersed juniper 

woodlands. Within this rolling terrain, the Black Rock Route Alternative would cross several remote 

valleys and pass near the Boulder Mountain Wilderness Area. The route alternative would turn northwest 

into Long Valley in northwestern Nevada where it would reconnect with the proposed route at 

approximately MP 562.2 (see figure 3.4.13-1). Table 3.4.13-1 presents a comparison of the pertinent 

environmental features of this alternative to the corresponding segment of the proposed route. 

TABLE 3.4.13-1 

Black Rock Route Alternative Comparison 

Environmental Factor Black Rock Route 

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Proposed Route 

Length (miles) 180.0 138.1 

Amount of Extra Workspace, etc. Required (acres) 755.3 506.9 

Amount of Access Roads Required (acres) 293.5 220.0 

Parallel to Existing Rights-of-Way (miles within 500’ of centerline) 52.4 30.1 

Landowners Crossed (number) 55 34 

Private Lands Crossed (miles) 17.0 30.2 

BLM NCAs Crossed (miles) 3.7 0.0 

National Historic Trail Crossings (number) 3 0 

Greater Sage-Grouse Winter Habitat Crossed (miles) 62.3 55.7 

Greater Sage-Grouse Leks (within 2 miles of the centerline) 6 9 

Pronghorn Crucial Winter Habitat Crossed (miles) 18.8 0.0 

Category 1 and 2 Mule Deer Habitat Crossed (miles) 26.3 46.7 

Perennial Waterbodies Crossed (number) 2 3 

Wetland Habitat Crossed (miles crossed) 10.5 3.6 

Cultural Resource Sites Crossed (no. from Class I records review) 102 21 

Additional Compression Required Yes No 

Mineral Resources within 1,500 feet (number) 24 11 

Springs/Seeps within 300 feet (number) 0 4 

Wells within 300 feet (number) 0 2 

Moderate to High Landslides (number of areas) 2 2 

Geologic Faults within 1,500 feet(number) 20 9 

Areas of Shallow Groundwater Crossed (number) 0 2 

Earthquakes within 100 miles (number) 58 8 

Shallow Rock potentially requiring Blasting (miles) 38.0 87.0 

Karst/pseudokarst terrain (miles) 22.0 8.0 

The total length of the Black Rock Route Alternative is 180.0 miles, which is 41.9 miles longer 

(30 percent) than the corresponding segment of the proposed route. This would increase the overall 

project length by 6.1 percent. This alternative would parallel more existing right-of-way (22.3 additional 

miles) than the proposed route; however, due to its increased length, it also would create more greenfield 

right-of-way (19.6 additional miles) than the proposed route. The alternative also would require 284.4 

more acres of extra workspace and 73.5 more miles of access roads, and would cross 21 more nonfederal 

landowners (13.2 more miles of private land crossed by the alternative route). Ruby would be required to 

implement its mitigation plans (e.g., Plan, Procedures, Blasting Plan, Hydrostatic Testing Plan, Spill Plan, 

Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan, etc.) as well as our recommendations (see section 5.2) 

regardless of the route chosen. However, because the alternative is considerably longer than the 

corresponding segment of the proposed route, the impacts of construction and operation (e.g., amount of 

soil exposed to erosion, volume of water needed for hydrostatic testing, amount of routine vegetation 

clearing during operation) would be greater. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-44 

Figure 3.4.13-1 Black Rock Route Alternative 

3-43 

3-44 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-45 

We evaluated various environmental resources along the Black Rock Route Alternative as 

compared to Ruby’s proposed route. The Black Rock Route Alternative, when compared to the proposed 

route, has the same number of areas of moderate to high landslide incidence, 11 more geologic faults, has 

experienced 50 more earthquake events, and has 18 more miles of karst/pseudokarst terrain. The 

alternative has 13 more mines/pits/quarries within 1,500 of the right-of-way. Conversely, the route 

alternative has no areas of shallow groundwater and 49 fewer miles of shallow rock that may require 

blasting. From a soils limitation perspective, the proposed route crosses fewer miles of highly wind 

erodible, compaction prone, stony-rocky, droughty and hydric soils, while the Black Rock Route 

Alternative crosses fewer miles of prime farmland or areas with shallow bedrock. Neither route crosses 

any soils classified as highly water erodible. No registered wells or springs were identified within 300 

feet of the route alternative, whereas two wells and four springs were identified within 300 feet of the 

proposed route. Ruby estimates the route alternative would require an additional 15,482,050 gallons of 

water for hydrostatic testing and dust control, an approximate 35 percent increase in water use. 

A mile-by-mile habitat analysis also was conducted along the Black Rock Route Alternative to 

determine the quality of habitat that exists along the alternative and the corresponding segment of Ruby’s 

proposed pipeline route. Table 3.4.13-2 summarizes the results of the analysis. Generally, category 1 is 

high-quality habitat while category 4 is low-quality habitat. Based on this analysis, the Black Rock Route 

Alternative crosses more greater sage-grouse habitat, mule deer habitat, and pygmy rabbit sites than the 

proposed route, although the greater sage-grouse habitat and mule deer habitat is generally of lower 

quality. 

 

TABLE 3.4.13-2 

Habitat Quality Along the Black Rock Route Alternative and the Corresponding Segment of the Proposed Pipeline 

Route 

Species Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 None 

Greater Sage-Grouse (miles crossed) 

Black Rock Route Alternative 20.1 17.4 10.8 6.2 125 

Proposed Route Segment 27.4 16.5 9 0 84.7 

Pygmy Rabbit (number of sites) 

Black Rock Route Alternative 3 2 1 - - 

Proposed Route Segment 1 - - - - 

Mule Deer (miles crossed) 

Black Rock Route Alternative 8.7 17.6 27.2 126.2 - 

Proposed Route Segment 22.5 24.2 55.2 35 - 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-46 

Wall Canyon Creek is crossed by the Black Rock Route Alternative in two locations near MP 

579. Wall Canyon Creek provides habitat for the Wall Canyon Sucker, a native fish species classified as 

a state species of concern and a BLM sensitive species. NDOW has been working cooperatively with the 

BLM and the FWS for several years to determine and implement conservation measures that would 

protect the Wall Canyon sucker species from being listed under the ESA. As a result of this coordinated 

effort, approximately 7 miles of Wall Canyon Creek above the Wall Canyon Reservoir has been identified 

as important habitat for Wall Canyon Sucker. The FWS has recommended that a minor route adjustment 

less than a few hundred feet to the east would avoid crossing Wall Canyon Creek. Alternately, if a route 

realignment cannot be incorporated, the FWS recommends that Wall Canyon Creek and its tributaries be 

crossed using a dry crossing method. 

Ruby submitted a Class I records review of the proposed Black Rock Route Alternative in May 

2009. According to the information gathered during this review, the presence of recorded archaeological 

sites and the potential for discovering unrecorded sites along the Black Rock Route Alternative is 

comparable to that of the proposed route. Twenty-three percent of the 180-mile construction corridor that 

would be needed for the Black Rock Route Alternative has been surveyed for cultural resources; 102 sites 

were recorded, compared to 29 percent surveyed and 21 sites recorded for the 138-mile corresponding 

segment of the proposed route (prior to Class III survey). Two historic properties along the Black Rock 

Route Alternative, the Applegate Lassen Trail and the Gerlach Water Tower, are listed on the NRHP and 

the Nevada State Register of Historic Places. 

The records review of the broader 2-mile study area along the pipeline corridor revealed that both 

the proposed route and the Black Rock Route Alternative contain a similar density of recorded 

archaeological sites, indicating that the discovery of sites along either route is to be expected. The 

significant site types in the proposed route study area are prehistoric rock shelters, petroglyphs, quarries, 

lithic scatters, and historic roads. The predominant prehistoric site type in the Black Rock Route 

Alternative is the lithic scatter, with an occasional rock shelter or other rock feature. However, this 

alternative does contain more recorded historic sites and a higher potential for discovery of historic 

resources. The towns of Jungo and Gerlach, as well as segments of the Nobles Emigrant Trail and the 

Applegate Lassen Trail, are located in the Black Rock Route Alternative study area. The recorded 

historic archaeological sites represent themes of transportation, water resources, ranching, and mining 

(Ballard et al., 2009). 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-47 

The Class III survey of the proposed route through Nevada discovered 570 archaeological sites 

within the survey corridor, with 253 of the sites recommended as eligible for listing on the NRHP (see 

section 4.10.1.3). The Class I records review suggests that a similar density of prehistoric sites and a 

higher density of historic sites would be discovered during a Class III survey of the Black Rock Route 

Alternative. 

The Summit Lake Paiute Tribe expressed concern about the potential for the proposed pipeline to 

impact traditional Northern Paiute foods, medicines, and other current or historic subsistence resources. 

The tribe also expressed concerns about known traditional sacred sites and possible burials in this area. In 

comments on the draft EIS, Native Americans requested additional information, such as completed 

cultural resources pedestrian survey reports. Prior to issuance of the draft EIS, members of the Summit 

Lake Paiute Tribe and their supporters expressed a preference for either the Sheldon Route or the Black 

Rock Route alternatives over the proposed route. Based on Ruby’s 2009 fieldwork along the Black Rock 

Route Alternative, it is expected that cultural resources important to the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe are 

present along both routes. 

The Black Rock Route Alternative would cross the Black Rock NCA at two locations for a total 

distance of about 3.7 miles. According to the BLM, the focal point of the Black Rock NCA is the 

Applegate National Historic Trail and the Nobles Emigrant Trail (a branch of the California National 

Historic Trail). Other important resources within the NCA include pre-history, paleontology, wildlife, 

wild horses, and recreation. The Black Rock Route Alternative crosses the Applegate National Historic 

Trail at two locations within the NCA. The alternative also crosses the Nobles Emigrant Trail, but on 

BLM-administered land just outside of the NCA. At all three trail crossing locations, the alternative 

would follow existing designated utility corridors across the trails. The corresponding segment of the 

proposed route does not cross the Black Rock NCA or any of the trails. The BLM has confirmed that 

constructing and operating the pipeline along the Black Rock Route Alternative would be in conformance 

with the ROD and RMP for the Black Rock NCA and Associated Wilderness, and Other Contiguous 

Lands in Nevada (dated July 2004) and that no RMP amendment would be required. The lands section of 

the RMP (section 2.2.16) includes the following two decisions: 

• LAND-4: Two existing utility corridors (Map 2-9) will be retained. One corridor crosses 

the mile-wide “neck” in the northwest part of the NCA. This corridor is one mile wide 

and centers on the existing Los Angeles Water and Power electrical transmission line. 

The second corridor runs in an east-west direction and includes the Union Pacific 

Railroad line and a parallel power line. This corridor is 2.75 miles wide with the Union 

Pacific Railroad line located near its northern edge. 

• LAND-5: Utility rights-of-way may be granted outside of Wilderness where in 

conformance with visual quality objectives and the NCA Act. 

The Black Rock Route Alternative would utilize both of the designated utility corridors and 

would not be constructed outside of the two corridors. 

The Black Rock Route Alternative would parallel the southern border of the Black Rock NCA for 

about 27 miles, between MPs 497 and 520, passing within 1 mile of the most well-known resources in the 

NCA, the Black Rock Desert Playa. The playa is a flat, dry lakebed of ancient Lake Lahontan. The playa 

has grown in popularity during the past decade as a place for recreation events that need a lot of space, 

including the annual Burning Man Festival. This event is open to the public for 8 days in late August and 

early September. Nearly 48,000 people attended the festival in 2009. If pipeline construction were to 

occur in this area during the festival the influx of non-local workers would increase competition for 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-48 

limited resources, such as lodging and public services, and could disrupt transportation and traffic flow. 

The proposed route would be at least 40 miles from this playa. 

Ruby stated that the route and additional length of the Black Rock Route Alternative would 

require moving the Desert Valley Compressor Station to approximately MP 512 and installing one 

additional compressor unit at this station, which would about double air emissions at the station. Ruby 

would also need to construct a fifth compressor station to achieve the required delivery volumes. The 

compressor station modifications and additions would increase the total project cost, as would the 

additional length of pipeline required. According to Ruby, the station modifications and pipeline length 

would add approximately $154 million to the project cost. 

The Black Rock Route Alternative meets the project objective and is technically feasible; 

however, it may be economically infeasible. In our draft EIS we questioned whether Ruby’s cost 

assessment was complete because it did not account for certain cost savings that we believed could be 

achieved with the route alternative, such as less data recovery, fewer construction skips, and reduced 

mitigation. We also note that Ruby selected its proposed route over both the Northern Route Alternative 

(about 38 miles shorter) and the Central Route Alternative (about 68 miles shorter), suggesting that 

pipeline length, while an important factor, is not the sole determining factor in the eventual cost feasibility 

of the project. Ruby restated its position during the draft EIS comment period that the alternative would 

not result in a cost savings, but would, in fact, be substantially more costly to build than the proposed 

route. Ruby cited several reasons for this position, including an expected substantial increased cultural 

resource data recovery, an increase in construction skips and mitigation required for avoiding Category 1 

pygmy rabbit habitat and cultural resource sites, severe topographic conditions along portions of the 

alternative, and the addition of a fifth compressor station. 

The overall footprint of the alternative (41.9 extra miles, 19.6 miles of which is greenfield rightof-way; 284 acres of additional extra workspace; and 73.5 miles of extra access roads) would create a 

larger environmental footprint which we conclude would not significantly outweigh the benefits to be 

gained in certain individual resource area. We do not believe that the reduction in impacts on greater 

sage-grouse leks, Category 1 and 2 mule deer habitat, and perennial streams provided by the Black Rock 

Route Alternative would necessarily confer an environmental advantage over the proposed route because 

of the added impacts on pygmy rabbit habitat, pronghorn crucial winter habitat, wetlands, national 

historic trails, recreation, and air quality. The alternative route would also cross 21 more nonfederal 

landowners than the corresponding segment of the proposed route. For these reasons, we are not 

recommending the Black Rock Route Alternative. 

3.4.14 Jungo-Tuscarora Route Alternative 

Like the Black Rock Route Alternative, the Jungo-Tuscarora Route Alternative was identified by 

the BLM, FWS, and NDOW during scoping as an alternative that could reduce the project’s impacts on 

wildlife habitat in the region by following existing rights-of-way south of the proposed route. The first 

half of the Jungo-Tuscarora Route Alternative follows the same route as the Black Rock Route 

Alternative to Gerlach, Nevada (see discussion above). From Gerlach, however, the Jungo-Tuscarora 

Route Alternative turns northwesterly into California and terminates at the project end point in Malin, 

Oregon (see figure 3.4.14-1). The total length of the Jungo-Tuscarora Route Alternative is 312.8 miles. 

Table 3.4.14-1 presents a comparison of the pertinent environmental features of this alternative and the 

corresponding segment of the proposed route. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-49 

Figure 3.4.14-1 Jungo-Tuscarora Route Alternative 

3-48 

3-49 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-50 

TABLE 3.4.14-1 

Jungo-Tuscarora Route Alternative Comparison 

Environmental Factor Jungo-Tuscarora Route 

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Proposed Route 

Length (miles) 312.8 260.9 

Parallel to Existing Rights-of-Way (miles within 500’ of centerline) 166.6 53.2 

BLM NCAs Crossed (miles) 2.5 0.0 

BLM WSAs Crossed (miles) 0.7 0.0 

NWRs Crossed (miles) 1.2 0.0 

National Historic Trail Crossings (number) 2 0 

Greater Sage-Grouse Winter Habitat Crossed (miles) 40.7 74.7 

Greater Sage-Grouse Leks (within 2 miles of the centerline) 17 26 

Pronghorn Crucial Winter Habitat Crossed (miles) 18.7 0.0 

Mule Deer Crucial Winter Habitat Crossed (miles) 50.0 0.0 

Perennial Streams Crossed (number) 9 22 

Wetland Habitat Crossed (miles) 3.6 15.9 

Additional Compression Required Yes No 

Our review of the Jungo-Tuscarora Route Alternative indicates that it is about 51.9 miles longer 

than the corresponding segment of the proposed route, which represents an overall increase in project 

length of 7.7 percent. The Jungo-Tuscarora Route Alternative parallels more existing right-of-way (113.4 

additional miles) than the proposed route and results in less greenfield right-of-way (61.5 fewer miles). 

The alternative impacts less greater sage-grouse winter habitat (34.0 fewer miles), fewer greater sagegrouse leks (9 fewer leks),10 fewer perennial streams (13 fewer streams), and less wetland habitat (12.3 

fewer miles). Conversely, the alternative impacts more pronghorn crucial winter habitat (18.7 additional 

miles), more mule deer crucial winter habitat (50.0 additional miles), and would cross more national 

historic trails (2 additional trails). Additionally, the route alternative crosses about 2.5 miles of the Black 

Rock Desert NCA, about 0.7 mile of the Tule Mountain WSA, and about 1.2 miles of the Modoc NWR. 

The route alternative follows existing utility or transportation corridors across the Applegate National 

Historic Trail and the Nobles Emigrant Trail, but the BLM would be required to amend its RMP to allow 

for additional utility crossings at these locations. The Jungo-Tuscarora Route Alternative also passes 

within 1 mile of the Black Rock Desert Playa and could affect the Burning Man Festival if pipeline 

construction were to occur at the same time as the festival (see section 3.4.13 for a more detailed 

discussion of the festival). The corresponding segment of the proposed route crosses none of these areas. 

Ruby stated that the additional length of the Jungo-Tuscarora Route Alternative would require 

installation of additional compression to achieve the required delivery volumes. The additional 

compression would increase long-term air emissions associated with operating the pipeline. Ruby also 

stated that the additional compression and additional length of pipeline would increase the total project 

cost by $271 million. Ruby stated that it has committed to transportation rates in binding precedent 

agreements with its shippers and increased construction costs associated with this route alternative would 

increase transportation rates and the project would be infeasible (i.e., Ruby would not be able to build the 

project to meet the open season contracts; as such, the project objective would not be met). Also, routing 

the pipeline in California would trigger additional environmental review by the California Public Utilities 

Commission under the California Environmental Quality Act. The time required for this additional 

 

10 The comparison of greater sage-grouse leks may be misleading because Ruby field-verified many of the lek sites along the 

proposed route, whereas Ruby did not field-verify lek locations along the alternative and instead used existing lek 

information provided by the FWS, BLM, and NDOW. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-51 

review (up to 1 year or more) would prevent Ruby from meeting its in-service date and would render the 

project infeasible. 

The overall footprint of the alternative (51.9 extra miles; 18.7 extra miles of pronghorn crucial 

winter habitat; 50.0 extra miles of mule deer crucial winter habitat; and an additional compressor station 

facility) would create a larger environmental footprint which we conclude would not significantly 

outweigh the benefits to be gained in certain individual resource area. We do not believe that the 

reduction in impacts on greater sage-grouse winter habitat, greater sage-grouse leks, perennial streams, 

and wetlands would confer a significant environmental advantage over the added impacts on pronghorn 

crucial winter habitat, mule deer crucial winter habitat, national historic trails, WSAs, NWRs, recreation, 

or air quality. Further, it appears that the route alternative is not economically feasible. Therefore, we are 

not recommending the Jungo-Tuscarora Route Alternative. 

3.4.15 Southern Langell Valley Route Alternative 

We recommended in the draft EIS that Ruby incorporate the Southern Langell Valley Route 

Alternative, as depicted in figure 3.4.15-1, into the final pipeline route. Ruby subsequently adopted this 

alternative, and as such, it is now a part of Ruby’s proposed project. After the draft EIS was issued, Ruby 

also made one minor realignment to the South Langell Valley Route Alternative to address 

constructability issues at the Lost River. This too is now part of Ruby’s proposed project. The data and 

analysis presented in the rest of this final EIS reflect the inclusion of the Southern Langell Valley Route 

Alternative and the minor route realignment into Ruby’s proposal. 

Ruby developed the Southern Langell Valley Route Alternative to address the BLM’s desire to 

reduce the project’s impacts on a sensitive archaeological area in Oregon known as the proposed 

Antelope Creek Archaeological District (ACAD) as well as to address a number of non-cultural concerns 

such as crossing a NRCS Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) Easement and crossing three Reclamation 

ditches and/or streams. The proposed ACAD is located on BLM land within the Klamath Falls Resource 

Area. The Southern Langell Valley Route Alternative would avoid impacts on the proposed ACAD, as 

currently proposed, by placing the pipeline more than 2 miles to the south of the proposed ACAD (a new 

boundary for the ACAD has since been proposed). The route alternative departs from the original route 

in Lake County, Oregon at MP 643.2 and proceeds west, terminating at a new MLV location 2.5 miles 

south of the Malin Market Center (see figure 3.4.15-1). The route alternative connects with the PG&E 

pipeline system at the Oregon-California state line, but does not negate the need for a 2.6-mile-long 

lateral from the interconnect to the Malin Market Center where the Ruby Pipeline Project would intersect 

with other systems. Table 3.4.15-1 presents a comparison of the pertinent environmental features of this 

alternative to the corresponding segment of the original route. 

Ruby’s original route through Oregon was surveyed for cultural resources beginning in April of 

2008. A total of 32 archaeological sites were identified along the corresponding segment of original route 

from MPs 643.2 to 675.2. Of these, 1 site was determined eligible for listing on the NRHP, 27 were 

recommended as eligible for listing, 2 sites were recommended not eligible for listing, and 2 sites were 

unevaluated regarding eligibility. The FERC, BLM, Reclamation, and USFS are currently reviewing a 

revised version of this report and have not yet made any eligibility determinations. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-52 

Figure 3.4.15-1 Adopted Southern Langell Valley Route Alternative 

3-52 3-52 

3-52 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-53 

TABLE 3.4.15-1 

Southern Langell Valley Route Alternative Comparison 

Environmental Factor Southern Langell Valley 

Route 

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Original Route 

Length (miles) 29.4 31.9 

Parallel to Existing Rights-of-Way (miles within 500’ of centerline) 8.0 5.9 

Landowners Crossed (number) 10 18 

Mule Deer Crucial Winter Habitat Crossed (miles) 1.3 0.0 

Proposed ACAD Crossed (miles) 0.0 0.3 

Reclamation Canals Crossed (number) 0 3 

Perennial Waterbodies Crossed (number) 2 4 

Wetland Habitat Crossed (miles) 0.5 2.9 

WRP Easements Crossed (number) 0 1 

 BLM Camp Site Adjacent to Right-of-Way (number) 1 0 

In a letter dated March 4, 2009, the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the BLM informed FERC of 

its concerns regarding the archaeological values and sensitive cultural resources around the Antelope 

Creek area along the original route.11 This letter included a map of the original boundaries proposed for 

the ACAD, before further data warranted BLM to expand the proposed ACAD boundaries. On April 1, 

2009, Ruby and its consultants met with the BLM, Reclamation, and Klamath Tribes. The participants 

agreed at the meeting that the Southern Langell Valley Route Alternative was preferable to avoid the 

proposed ACAD and minimize impacts on sensitive cultural resources and the other aforementioned 

concerns, even though the exact route of the alternative was not finalized at that time. Parties agreed to 

pursue the southern route because it was believed the route would travel along an existing road. The 

participant also discussed the three other suggested routes in the area, two of which still crossed the 

proposed ACAD but, according to BLM, in areas of significantly lower site density. The other route 

avoided the ACAD completely. None of the three other routes were pursued because of the apparent 

advantages of the Southern Langell Valley Route Alternative. Ruby was generally agreeable to the 

Southern Langell Valley Route Alternative as presented in the draft EIS as it benefited numerous other 

non-cultural concerns, leading Ruby to adopt it. 

The reroute though the Southern Langell Valley was surveyed for cultural resources between 

April 27 and July 3, 2009. Forty-six archaeological sites were recorded within the Southern Langell 

Valley Route Alternative. Of these 46 sites, none have been determined eligible for listing on the NRHP, 

34 are recommended as eligible for listing, 9 are recommended as not eligible, and 3 are not fully 

evaluated regarding their eligibility by the consultant. However, the BLM, Reclamation, and USFS are 

still reviewing site forms and reports, and would make their own determinations of eligibility once their 

review is completed. Ruby has stated that it could realign its pipeline in the area to avoid direct impacts 

on all sites except one, although this has not been field verified. 

Despite the BLM’s involvement in the early discussions with Ruby and others regarding the 

desire to avoid the proposed ACAD, and its agreement with the apparent advantages of the Southern 

Langell Valley Route Alternative, the BLM has now reconsidered its support of the alternativeand has 

indicated that the overall routing in the area should be reassessed. BLM states that the number of 

religiously significant sites along the Southern Langell Alternative Route is higher than the number of 

sites crossed by the original route. Additionally, BLM states it will be adjusting the ACAD Boundary to 

 

11 The BLM also reports that it presented its concerns with the proposed route to Ruby on August 21, 2008 via an email and 

offered three alternative routes to be considered with an attached map. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-54 

continue south as a result of the new inventory and ethnographic data; which will now encompass the 

Southern Langell Valley Route Alternative. In a November 17, 2009 letter, the BLM urged Ruby to 

consider minor route realignment to avoid significant cultural sites completely; it did not continue to 

express possible objections to the Southern Langell Valley Route Alternative. 

We continue to believe the Southern Langell Valley Route Alternative is preferable to a route that 

crosses the proposed ACAD. Ruby continues to work with the BLM and Reclamation to develop a route 

that avoids the proposed ACAD without adding unacceptable impacts on other resources. In addition, 

Ruby states it has worked with and continues to work with the Klamath Tribes regarding tribal concerns. 

We acknowledge that the reroute may affect individual cultural resources sites such as rock stacks; 

however, given the density of sites in the area, any route in the general area would likely encounter 

cultural resources sites. Thus, whether the original route, the Southern Langell Valley Route Alternative, 

or any other route variation is eventually authorized, potential impacts on cultural resources sites would 

be present and further Section 106 consultation would be necessary. To ensure that Ruby appropriately 

avoids and/or implements mitigation for cultural resource sites potentially occurring along the Southern 

Langell Valley Route Alternative, we recommend a Certificate condition in section 4.10 of this final EIS. 

We have concluded that the Southern Langell Valley Route Alternative, including Ruby’s minor 

route realignment at the Lost River and micro-realignments to avoid cultural resources sites, would confer 

an overall environmental advantage over the corresponding segment of the original pipeline route. The 

Southern Langell Valley Route Alternative is 2.5 miles shorter than the original route, parallels about 3.9 

more miles of existing right-of-way, and affects 8 fewer landowners. In addition to avoiding the proposed 

ACAD, the route alternative avoids the three Reclamation canals crossed by the original route (the Lost 

River Improved Channel, the Main Drain, and the West Canal), and avoids an NRCS WRP easement. 

The route alternative also crosses two fewer perennial waterbodies and affects 2.1 fewer miles of 

wetlands. However, it would cross 3.5 miles of withdrawn land under Reclamation’s jurisdiction, the 

Lost River (a perennial waterbody with documented evidence of the presence of the endangered Lost 

River and shortnose suckers), 1.3 miles of mule deer crucial winter habitat, and would pass within 120 

feet of a BLM-administered recreation site at MP R651.8 (Rock Creek Camp). 

We acknowledge the BLM’s authority to either permit or deny a right-of-way grant on any 

particular stretch of federally managed land. Thus, while we conclude that the Southern Langell Valley 

Route Alternative is environmentally preferred, the BLM may ultimately disagree. Despite the 

advantages of the Southern Langell Valley Route Alternative, we also believe that the corresponding 

segment of the original route is acceptable, dependent upon the completion of the Section 106 process. 

3.5 ROUTE VARIATIONS 

Route variations differ from route alternatives in that they are typically shorter in length and do 

not deviate as far from the proposed route as route alternatives, and they are identified to resolve or 

reduce construction impacts on localized, specific resources such as cultural resource sites, wetlands, 

recreational lands, residences, landowner requests, and terrain conditions. Because route variations are 

identified in response to specific local concerns they are often the result of landowner comments, and may 

not always clearly display an environmental advantage other than reducing or avoiding impacts on 

specific features. We have considered a variety of factors in evaluating route variations, including length, 

land requirements, the number of landowners affected, and potential for reducing or minimizing resource 

impacts. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-55 

Ruby and the FERC staff evaluated several minor route variations during the pre-filing process 

and during the development of the pipeline route (see section 1.3). Additional route variations were also 

evaluated during our review after Ruby submitted its application and throughout the development of our 

draft EIS. Our evaluation of route variations was based on information provided by Ruby, information 

provided by cooperating agencies, comments provided during public scoping, review of available aerial 

photography and USGS topographic maps, and site visits. 

Table 3.5-1 presents a summary of the 16 route variations we considered during our 

environmental review of the project. 

TABLE 3.5-1 

Route Variation Summary for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Name of Variation MP Range Main Reason for Variation Status 

Ryckman Creek 27.3 – 27.7 Avoid wetland impacts Recommended in draft EIS; subsequently 

adopted by Ruby 

Sheep Mountain Road 41.4 – 42.2 Reduce impacts on drainage 

wash 

Recommended in draft EIS; subsequently 

adopted by Ruby 

Woodruff East 51.1 – 51.4 Improve canal crossing 

constructability 

Recommended in draft EIS; subsequently 

adopted by Ruby 

Woodruff West 51.8 – 54.9 Avoid crowding in electric 

transmission line right-of-way 

Recommended in draft EIS; subsequently 

adopted by Ruby 

Prasthofer 75.9 – 76.6 Landowner request and improve 

constructability 

Recommended in draft EIS; subsequently 

adopted by Ruby 

South End Brigham Bench 104.9 – 105.7 Improve constructability on slope Recommended in draft EIS; subsequently 

adopted by Ruby 

Brigham Bench 106.9 – 107.3 Avoid impacts on springs, avoid 

fault line 

Recommended in draft EIS; subsequently 

adopted by Ruby 

North End Brigham Bench 108.5 – 109.1 Avoid crowding in electric 

transmission line right-of-way 

Recommended in draft EIS; subsequently 

adopted by Ruby 

Roper 116.0 – 117.2 Landowner request Recommended in draft EIS; subsequently 

adopted by Ruby 

Peterson Pond 125.4 – 126.3 Landowner request Recommended in draft EIS; subsequently 

adopted by Ruby 

ATK 135.3 – 139.4 Avoid ATK facility Recommended in draft EIS; subsequently 

adopted by Ruby 

State Route 30 214.2 – 222.1 Landowner request Recommended in draft EIS; subsequently 

adopted by Ruby 

Tabor Ranch 287.9 – 299.3 Landowner request, avoid 

irrigation circles 

Recommended in draft EIS; subsequently 

adopted by Ruby 

VORTAC 462.3 – 465.5 Avoid interference with VORTAC 

facility 

Recommended in draft EIS; subsequently 

adopted by Ruby 

Barrel Springs Western 575.7 – 590.0 Avoid sensitive cultural resource 

area 

New since draft EIS; not recommended in 

final EIS 

Bud Garrett Marsh 

Rookery 614.4 – 621.0 Minimize colonial water bird 

nesting habitat impacts 

Recommended in draft EIS; subsequently 

adopted by Ruby 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-56 

We recommended in the draft EIS that all 15 of the route variations be incorporated into the final 

pipeline route because the route variations provided environmental or constructability advantages. In 

addition, many of the variations were at the request of the particular landowner being crossed. We 

consider landowner desires and needs, as well as land use practices, to be important factors when 

evaluating alternatives. Thus, in such cases where environmental resources impacts appear to be similar, 

a landowner’s wishes often “tips the scales” regarding which route is preferred, provided the alternative 

route is not merely transferring impacts onto another landowner. After the draft EIS was issued, Ruby 

formally modified its project plans and adopted all 15 of the route variations (noted as such in table 3.5-1) 

and as such, they are now a part of Ruby’s proposed project. 

After issuance of the draft EIS we also evaluated a potential route variation between MPs 575 and 

590 in an area recently identified as the Barrel Springs TCP. Based on our analysis of the Barrel Springs 

Western Route Variation, we concluded that there is no compelling reason to require Ruby to move its 

proposed alignment, which is adjacent to a power line corridor and associated access road. 

The data and analyses presented in the rest of this final EIS reflect the inclusion of the 15 route 

variations into the proposed route. We have, however, retained much of our language from the draft EIS 

in this section regarding the environmental comparison of these variations to the corresponding segment 

of the original route as a means to document our review process. 

3.5.1 Ryckman Creek Route Variation 

We recommended in the draft EIS that Ruby incorporate the Ryckman Creek Route Variation, as 

depicted in figure 3.5.1-1, into the final pipeline route. Ruby subsequently adopted the variation and, as 

such, it is now a part of Ruby’s proposed project. The data and analysis presented in the rest of this final 

EIS reflect the inclusion of this route in Ruby’s proposal. The Ryckman Creek Route Variation was 

developed to minimize impacts on riparian areas along Ryckman Creek. This variation involves a minor 

pipeline realignment while generally still following the original proposed route. The variation diverges 

from the original route at MP 27.3, and reconnects at MP 27.7 (see figure 3.5.1-1). The total length of the 

Ryckman Creek Route Variation is 0.4 mile. Table 3.5.1-1 provides a comparison of the pertinent 

environmental characteristics of the variation and the corresponding segment of the original route. 

TABLE 3.5.1-1 

Ryckman Creek Route Variation Comparison 

Environmental Factors Ryckman Creek 

Variation 

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Original Route 

Length (miles) 0.4 0.4 

Parallel to Existing Rights-of-Way (miles within 500’ of centerline) 0.4 0.4 

Landowners Crossed (number) 2 2 

Ephemeral Wash Crossed (number) 3 3 

Wetland Habitat Crossed (miles) <0.1 <0.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-57 

Figure 3.5.1-1 Adopted Ryckman Creek Route Variation 

3-57 3-40 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
 3-58 

The Ryckman Creek Route Variation is the same length as the original route and affects very similar 

types and quantities of resources. The variation places the pipeline further away from Ryckman Creek, 

reduces impacts on riparian areas, and does not affect any different landowners. Based on this 

information, we determined that the Ryckman Creek Route Variation is preferable to the corresponding 

segment of the original route. 

3.5.2 Sheep Mountain Road Route Variation 

We recommended in the draft EIS that Ruby incorporate the Sheep Mountain Road Route 

Variation, as depicted in figure 3.5.2-1, into the final pipeline route. Ruby subsequently adopted the 

variation and, as such, it is now a part of Ruby’s proposed project. The data and analysis presented in the 

rest of this final EIS reflect the inclusion of this route in Ruby’s proposal. The Sheep Mountain Road 

Route Variation was developed to minimize impacts on an unnamed ephemeral wash that is a tributary to 

Salt Creek. This variation involves a minor pipeline realignment while generally still following the 

original proposed route. The variation diverges from the original route at MP 41.4 and reconnects at MP 

42.2 (see figure 3.5.2-1). The total length of the Sheep Mountain Road Route Variation is 0.8 mile. 

Table 3.5.2-1 provides a comparison of the pertinent environmental characteristics of the variation and the 

corresponding segment of the original route. 

TABLE 3.5.2-1 

Sheep Mountain Road Route Variation Comparison 

Environmental Factors Sheep Mountain 

Road Variation 

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Original Route 

Length (miles) 0.8 0.8 

Parallel to Existing Rights-of-Way (miles within 500’ of centerline) 0.8 0.8 

Landowners Crossed (number) 2 2 

Ephemeral Wash Crossed (number) 1 1 

Wetland Habitat Crossed (miles) 0.0 0.0 

The Sheep Mountain Road Route Variation is the same length as the original route, and affects 

very similar types and quantities of resources. The variation places the pipeline further away from the 

ephemeral wash and does not affect any different landowners. Based on this information, we determined 

that the Sheep Mountain Road Route Variation is preferable to the corresponding segment of the original 

route. 

3.5.3 Woodruff East Route Variation 

We recommended in the draft EIS that Ruby incorporate the Woodruff East Route Variation, as 

depicted in figure 3.5.3-1, into the final pipeline route. Ruby subsequently adopted the variation and, as 

such, it is now a part of Ruby’s proposed project. The data and analysis presented in the rest of this final 

EIS reflect the inclusion of this route in Ruby’s proposal. The Woodruff East Route Variation was 

developed to improve the constructability of a canal crossing. This variation involves a minor pipeline 

realignment while generally still following the original proposed route. The variation diverges from the 

original proposed route at MP 51.1 and reconnects at MP 51.4 (see figure 3.5.3-1). The total length of the 

Woodruff East Route Variation is 0.3 mile. Table 3.5.3-1 provides a comparison of the pertinent 

environmental characteristics of the variation and the corresponding segment of the original route. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-59 

Figure 3.5.2-1 Adopted Sheep Mountain Road Route Variation 

3-42 3-46 3-55 

3-56 3-56 

3-57 3-59 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-60 

Figure 3.5.3-1 Adopted Woodruff East and West Route Variations 

3-58 3-53 

3-59 3-60 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-61 

TABLE 3.5.3-1 

Woodruff East Route Variation Comparison 

Environmental Factors Woodruff East 

Variation 

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Original Route 

Length (miles) 0.3 0.3 

Parallel to Existing Rights-of-Way (miles within 500’ of centerline) 0.0 0.1 

Landowners Crossed (number) 2 3 

Perennial Streams Crossed (number) 1 1 

Wetland Habitat Crossed (miles) 0.0 0.0 

The Woodruff East Route Variation is about the same length as the original route and affects very 

similar types and quantities of resources. The variation improves the pipeline alignment at a canal that 

flows into the Bear River and affects one fewer landowner. Based on this information, we determined 

that the Woodruff East Route Variation is preferable to the corresponding segment of the original route. 

3.5.4 Woodruff West Route Variation 

We recommended in the draft EIS that Ruby incorporate the Woodruff West Route Variation, as 

depicted in figure 3.5.3-1, into the final pipeline route. Ruby subsequently adopted the variation and, as 

such, it is now a part of Ruby’s proposed project. The data and analysis presented in the rest of this final 

EIS reflect the inclusion of this route in Ruby’s proposal. The Woodruff West Route Variation was 

developed to avoid crowding near two existing Rocky Mountain Power power lines, and to improve 

pipeline constructability at a highway crossing. This variation involves a minor pipeline realignment 

while generally still following the original proposed route. The variation diverges from the proposed 

route at MP 51.8 and reconnects at MP 54.9 (see figure 3.5.3-1). The total length of the Woodruff West 

Route Variation is 3.1 miles. Table 3.5.4-1 provides a comparison of the pertinent environmental 

characteristics of the variation and the corresponding segment of the original route. 

TABLE 3.5.4-1 

Woodruff West Route Variation Comparison 

Environmental Factors Woodruff West 

Variation 

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Original Route 

Length (miles) 3.1 3.1 

Parallel to Existing Rights-of-Way (miles within 500’ of centerline) 3.0 2.4 

Landowners Crossed (number) 2 7 

Perennial / Intermittent Streams Crossed (number) 11 11 

Wetland Habitat Crossed (miles) 0.9 1.0 

The Woodruff West Route Variation is about the same length as the original route and affects 

very similar types and quantities of resources. The variation, however, shifts the pipeline route south of a 

nearby Rocky Mountain Power transmission corridor and parallels about 0.6 more mile of the corridor. It 

also affects five fewer landowners. Based on this information, we determined that the Woodruff West 

Route Variation is preferable to the corresponding segment of the original route. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-62 

3.5.5 Prasthofer Route Variation 

We recommended in the draft EIS that Ruby incorporate the Prasthofer Route Variation, as 

depicted in figure 3.5.5-1, into the final pipeline route. Ruby subsequently adopted the variation and, as 

such, it is now a part of Ruby’s proposed project. The data and analysis presented in the rest of this final 

EIS reflect the inclusion of this route in Ruby’s proposal. The Prasthofer Route Variation was developed 

to accommodate a landowner’s request to shift the pipeline alignment on their property and to improve 

constructability in an area of steep terrain. The Prasthofer property is a private tract within the Cache 

National Forest. This variation involves a minor pipeline realignment while generally still following the 

original route. The variation diverges from the original route at MP 75.9 and reconnects at MP 76.6 (see 

figure 3.5.5-1). The total length of the Prasthofer Route Variation is 0.7 mile. Table 3.5.5-1 provides a 

comparison of the pertinent environmental characteristics of the variation and the corresponding segment 

of the original route. 

 

TABLE 3.5.5-1 

Prasthofer Route Variation Comparison 

Environmental Factors Prasthofer Variation 

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Original Route 

Length (miles) 0.7 0.7 

Parallel to Existing Rights-of-Way (miles within 500’ of centerline) 0.7 0.7 

Landowners Crossed (number) 2 2 

Perennial Streams Crossed (number) 0 0 

Wetland Habitat Crossed (miles) 0.0 0.0 

 The Prasthofer Route Variation is the same length as the original route and affects very similar 

types and quantities of resources. The route variation addresses a landowner’s concern, does not affect 

any different landowners, and potentially minimizes erosion and restoration concerns by improving 

constructability in steep terrain. Based on this information, we determined that the Prasthofer Route 

Variation is preferable to the corresponding segment of the original route. 

3.5.6 South End Brigham Bench Route Variation 

We recommended in the draft EIS that Ruby incorporate the South End Brigham Bench Route 

Variation, as depicted in figure 3.5.6-1, into the final pipeline route. Ruby subsequently adopted the 

variation and, as such, it is now a part of Ruby’s proposed project. The data and analysis presented in the 

rest of this final EIS reflect the inclusion of this route in Ruby’s proposal. The South End Brigham Bench 

Route Variation was developed to improve constructability in steep terrain. This variation moves the 

pipeline to the north and follows a more direct route on a steep hill (40 percent grade). The variation 

diverges from the originally proposed route at MP 104.9 and reconnects original routeat MP 105.7 (see 

figure 3.5.6-1). The total length of the South End Brigham Bench Route Variation is 0.8 mile. Table 

3.5.6-1 provides a comparison of the pertinent environmental characteristics of the variation and the 

corresponding segment of the original route. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-63 

Figure 3.5.5-1 Adopted Prasthofer Route Variation 3-46 3-47 

3-60 

3-61 

3-63 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-64 

Figure 3.5.6-1 Adopted North End, South End and Brigham Bench Route Variations

3-634 3-62 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-65 

TABLE 3.5.6-1 

South End Brigham Bench Route Variation Comparison 

Environmental Factors South End Brigham 

Bench Variation 

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Original Route 

Length (miles) 0.8 0.8 

Parallel to Existing Rights-of-Way (miles within 500’ of centerline) 0.0 0.0 

Landowners Crossed (number) 4 5 

Perennial Streams Crossed (number) 0 0 

Wetland Habitat Crossed (miles) 0.0 0.0 

The South End Brigham Bench Route Variation is about the same length as the original route, 

improves constructability in an area of steep terrain, and affects one fewer landowner. Based on this 

information, we determined that the South End Brigham Bench Route Variation is preferable to the 

corresponding segment of the original route. 

3.5.7 Brigham Bench Route Variation 

We recommended in the draft EIS that Ruby incorporate the Brigham Bench Route Variation, as 

depicted in figure 3.5.6-1, into the final pipeline route. Ruby subsequently adopted the variation and, as 

such, it is now a part of Ruby’s proposed project. The data and analysis presented in the rest of this final 

EIS reflect the inclusion of this route in Ruby’s proposal. The Brigham Bench Route Variation was 

developed by Ruby to minimize impacts on groundwater springs, improve the pipeline alignment at a 

geologic fault, and avoid crowding near an existing and future Rocky Mountain Power power line. This 

variation involves a minor pipeline realignment while generally still following the original proposed 

route. The variation diverges from the original route at MP 106.9 and reconnects at MP 107.3 (see figure 

3.5.6-1). The total length of the Brigham Bench Route Variation is 0.4 mile. Table 3.5.7-1 provides a 

comparison of the pertinent environmental characteristics of the variation and the corresponding segment 

of the original route. 

The Brigham Bench Route Variation is the same length as the original route and affects very 

similar types and quantities of resources. The route variation minimizes impacts on groundwater springs, 

improves the pipeline alignment at a geologic fault, minimizes crowding near existing and future electric 

transmission lines, and does not affect any different landowners. Based on this information, we 

determined that the Brigham Bench Route Variation is preferable to the corresponding segment of the 

original route. 

TABLE 3.5.7-1 

Brigham Bench Route Variation Comparison 

Environmental Factors Brigham Bench 

Variation 

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Original Route 

Length (miles) 0.4 0.4 

Parallel to Existing Rights-of-Way (miles within 500’ of centerline) 0.0 0.0 

Landowners Crossed (number) 4 4 

Perennial Streams Crossed (number) 0 0 

Wetland Habitat Crossed (miles) 0.0 0.0 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-66 

3.5.8 North End Brigham Bench Route Variation 

We recommended in the draft EIS that Ruby incorporate the North End Brigham Bench Route 

Variation, as depicted in figure 3.5.6-1, into the final pipeline route. Ruby subsequently adopted the 

variation and, as such, it is now a part of Ruby’s proposed project. The data and analysis presented in the 

rest of this final EIS reflect the inclusion of this route in Ruby’s proposal. The North End Brigham Bench 

Route Variation was developed to improve the pipeline alignment at a geologic fault and at a future 

Rocky Mountain Power power line. This variation involves a minor pipeline realignment while generally 

still following the originally proposed route. The variation diverges from the original route at MP 108.5 

and reconnects at MP 109.1 (see figure 3.5.6-1). The total length of the North End Brigham Bench Route 

Variation is 0.7 mile. Table 3.5.8-1 provides a comparison of the pertinent environmental characteristics 

of the variation and the corresponding segment of the original route. 

TABLE 3.5.8-1 

North End Brigham Bench Route Variation Comparison 

Environmental Factors North End Brigham 

Bench Variation 

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Original Route 

Length (miles) 0.7 0.6 

Parallel to Existing Rights-of-Way (miles within 500’ of centerline) 0.0 0.0 

Landowners Crossed (number) 3 4 

Perennial Streams Crossed (number) 0 0 

Wetland Habitat Crossed (miles) 0.0 0.0 

The North End Brigham Bench Route Variation is slightly longer than the original route, but 

affects very similar types and quantities of resources. The route variation affects one fewer landowner 

and improves constructability at a geologic fault and an electric transmission line corridor. Based on this 

information, we determined that the North End Brigham Bench Route Variation is preferable to the 

corresponding segment of the original route. 

3.5.9 Roper Route Variation 

We recommended in the draft EIS that Ruby incorporate the Roper Route Variation, as depicted 

in figure 3.5.9-1, into the final pipeline route. Ruby subsequently adopted the variation and, as such, it is 

now a part of Ruby’s proposed project. The data and analysis presented in the rest of this final EIS reflect 

the inclusion of this route in Ruby’s proposal. The Roper Route Variation was developed to 

accommodate a landowner request to realign the pipeline on their property. The variation involves a 

minor pipeline realignment while generally still following the originally proposed route. The variation 

diverges from the original route at MP 116.0 and reconnects at MP 117.2 (see figure 3.5.9-1). The total 

length of the Roper Route Variation is 1.2 miles. Table 3.5.9-1 provides a comparison of the pertinent 

environmental characteristics of the variation and the corresponding segment of the original route. 

The Roper Route Variation is the same length as the original route and affects very similar types 

and quantities of resources. The variation also affects two fewer landowners and addresses the 

landowner’s concern with the original pipeline alignment. Based on this information, we determined that 

the Roper Route Variation is preferable to the corresponding segment of the original route. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-67 

Figure 3.5.9-1 Adopted Roper Route Variation

3-65 3-66 3-67 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-68 

TABLE 3.5.9-1 

Roper Route Variation Comparison 

Environmental Factors Roper Variation 

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Original Route 

Length (miles) 1.2 1.2 

Parallel to Existing Rights-of-Way (miles within 500’ of centerline) 0.0 0.0 

Landowners Crossed (number) 2 4 

Intermittent Tributaries Crossed (number) 6 6 

Wetland Habitat Crossed (miles) 0.0 0.0 

3.5.10 Peterson Pond Route Variation 

We recommended in the draft EIS that Ruby incorporate the Peterson Pond Route Variation, as 

depicted in figure 3.5.10-1, into the final pipeline route. Ruby subsequently adopted the variation and, as 

such, it is now a part of Ruby’s proposed project. The data and analysis presented in the rest of this final 

EIS reflect the inclusion of this route in Ruby’s proposal. The Peterson Pond Route Variation was 

developed to accommodate a landowner request to realign the pipeline on their property. This variation 

involves a minor pipeline realignment while generally still following the original proposed route. The 

variation diverges from the original route at MP 125.4 and reconnects at MP 126.3 (see figure 3.5.10-1). 

The total length of the Peterson Pond Route Variation is 0.9 mile. Table 3.5.10-1 provides a comparison 

of the pertinent environmental characteristics of the variation and the corresponding segment of the 

original route. 

TABLE 3.5.10-1 

Peterson Pond Route Variation Comparison 

Environmental Factors Peterson Pond 

Variation 

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Original Route 

Length (miles) 0.9 0.9 

Parallel to Existing Rights-of-Way (miles within 500’ of centerline) 0.0 0.3 

Landowners Crossed (number) 3 3 

Perennial Streams Crossed (number) 2 2 

Wetland Habitat Crossed (miles) 0.5 0.5 

The Peterson Pond Route Variation is the same length as the original route and affects very 

similar types and quantities of resources. It also addresses the landowner’s concerns and does not affect 

any different landowners. Based on this information, we determined that the Peterson Pond Route 

Variation is preferable to the corresponding segment of the original route. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-69 

Figure 3.5.10-1 Adopted Peterson Pond Route Variation 

3-69 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-70 

 

3.5.11 ATK Route Variation 

We recommended in the draft EIS that Ruby incorporate the ATK Route Variation, as depicted in 

figure 3.5.11-1, into the final pipeline route. Ruby subsequently adopted the variation and, as such, it is 

now a part of Ruby’s proposed project. The data and analysis presented in the rest of this final EIS reflect 

the inclusion of this route in Ruby’s proposal. The ATK Route Variation was developed by Ruby to 

straighten its proposed route and avoid possible national security concerns associated with constructing 

near an ATK manufacturing facility. ATK is an aerospace and defense company whose products consist 

of military and commercial ammunitions, solid rocket propulsion systems, aircraft structures, and satellite 

components. The variation involves moving the route alignment about 0.25 mile to the north. The 

variation diverges from the original route at MP 135.3 and reconnects at MP 139.4 (see figure 3.5.11-1). 

The total length of the ATK Route Variation is 4.1 miles. Table 3.5.11-1 provides a comparison of the 

pertinent environmental characteristics of the variation and the corresponding segment of the original 

route. 

TABLE 3.5.11-1 

ATK Route Variation Comparison 

Environmental Factors ATK Variation 

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Original Route 

Length (miles) 4.1 4.1 

Parallel to Existing Rights-of-Way (miles within 500’ of centerline) 0.0 0.7 

Landowners Crossed (number) 4 5 

Perennial Streams Crossed (number) 5 5 

Wetland Habitat Crossed (miles) 0.2 0.0 

The ATK Route Variation is the same length as the original route and affects one fewer 

landowner (ATK). However, it parallels less existing right-of-way and affects slightly more wetland 

habitat. The primary advantage of the variation is its alignment to avoid concerns associated with the 

ATK facility. All things considered, we determined that the ATK Route Variation is preferable to the 

corresponding segment of the original route. 

 

3.5.12 State Route 30 Variation 

We recommended in the draft EIS that Ruby incorporate the State Route 30 Variation, as depicted 

in figure 3.5.12-1, into the final pipeline route. Ruby subsequently adopted the variation and, as such, it 

is now a part of Ruby’s proposed project. The data and analysis presented in the rest of this final EIS 

reflect the inclusion of this route in Ruby’s proposal. The State Route 30 Variation was developed to 

accommodate a landowner request to shift the pipeline from a route parallel to and approximately 0.2 

mile north of State Route 30, to the south side of the highway and closer to the highway easement. The 

same private landowner would be affected by either route. The variation diverges from the original route 

at MP 214.2 and reconnects at MP 222.1 (see figure 3.5.12-1). The total length of the State Route 30 

Variation is 8.0 miles. Table 3.5.12-1 provides a comparison of the pertinent environmental 

characteristics of the variation and the corresponding segment of the original route. 

The State Route 30 Variation affects similar types and quantities of resources as the original 

route, except the variation is closer to an existing road for its entire length. Based on this information, we 

determined that the State Route 30 Variation is preferable to the corresponding segment of the original 

route. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-71 

Figure 3.5.11-1 Adopted ATK Route Variation

3-71 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-72 

Figure 3.5.12-1 Adopted State Route 30 Route Variation

3-71 3-70 

3-72 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-73 

TABLE 3.5.12-1 

State Route 30 Variation Comparison 

Environmental Factors State Route 30 

Variation 

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Original Route 

Length (miles) 8.0 7.9 

Landowners Crossed (number) 1 1 

Parallel to Existing Rights-of-Way (miles within 500’ of centerline) 8.0 0.0 

Perennial and Intermittent Waterbodies and Canals Crossed (number) 29 29 

Wetland Habitat Crossed (miles) 0.0 0.0 

3.5.13 Tabor Ranch Route Variation 

We recommended in the draft EIS that Ruby incorporate the Tabor Ranch Route Variation, as 

depicted in figure 3.5.13-1, into the final pipeline route. Ruby subsequently adopted the variation and, as 

such, it is now a part of Ruby’s proposed project. The data and analysis presented in the rest of this final 

EIS reflect the inclusion of this route in Ruby’s proposal. The Tabor Ranch Route Variation was 

developed to accommodate a landowner request to avoid pivot irrigation systems. The variation diverges 

from the original route at MP 287.9 and reconnects at MP 299.3 (see figure 3.5.13-1). The total length of 

the Tabor Ranch Route Variation is 10.6 miles. Table 3.5.13-1 provides a comparison of the pertinent 

environmental characteristics of the variation and the corresponding segment of the original route. 

TABLE 3.5.13-1 

Tabor Ranch Route Variation Comparison 

Environmental Factors Tabor Ranch 

Variation 

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Original Route 

Length (miles) 10.6 11.4 

Parallel to Existing Rights-of-Way (miles within 500’ of centerline) 0.0 0.5 

Landowners Crossed (number) 4 4 

Intermittent Washes Crossed (number) 6 15 

Wetland Habitat Crossed (miles) 0.0 0.0 

The variation is 0.8 mile shorter, affects nine fewer intermittent washes, accommodates the 

landowner’s request to avoid pivot irrigation systems, and does not affect any different landowners. The 

variation, however, does not parallel any existing right-of-way, whereas the original route parallels 0.5 

mile of existing right-of-way. Overall, we determined that the Tabor Ranch Route Variation is preferable 

to the corresponding segment of the original route. 

3.5.14 VORTAC Route Variation 

We recommended in the draft EIS that Ruby incorporate the VORTAC Route Variation, as 

depicted in figure 3.5.14-1, into the final pipeline route. Ruby subsequently adopted the variation and, as 

such, it is now a part of Ruby’s proposed project. The data and analysis presented in the rest of this final 

EIS reflect the inclusion of this route in Ruby’s proposal. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-74 

Figure 3.5.13-1 Adopted Tabor Ranch Route Variation 

3-74 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-75 

Figure 3.5.14-1 Adopted VORTAC Route Variation

3-73 3-74 

3-75 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-76 

 Ruby’s original route passed close to a VHF Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Aircraft Control 

(VORTAC) facility at MP 463.6. The VORTAC Route Variation was developed to provide a wider 

separation between the VORTAC facility and the pipeline to avoid interference with the VORTAC site. 

This variation involves a minor pipeline realignment while generally still following the originally 

proposed route. The variation diverges from the original route at MP 462.3 and reconnects at MP 465.5 

(see figure 3.5.14-1). We note that Ruby’s route maps in Appendix B of this final EIS show this variation 

as beginning at MP 459.1, as opposed to MP 462.3. However, Ruby has not filed a request for another 

route variation at this location, and as such we consider the route as shown in figure 3.5.14-1 as Ruby’s 

subsequently adopted proposed route that we are analyzing in this final EIS. The total length of the 

VORTAC Route Variation is 3.5 miles. Table 3.5.14-1 provides a comparison of the pertinent 

environmental characteristics of the variation and the corresponding segment of the original route. 

 

TABLE 3.5.14-1 

VORTAC Route Variation Comparison 

Environmental Factors VORTAC Variation 

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Original Route 

Length (miles) 3.5 3.2 

Parallel to Existing Rights-of-Way (miles within 500’ of centerline) 0.0 0.0 

Landowners Crossed (number) 1 1 

Perennial Streams Crossed (number) 0 0 

Wetland Habitat Crossed (miles) 0.0 0.0 

 The variation, which is entirely on federal land administered by the BLM, affects very similar 

types and quantities of resources as the original route but ensures that interference with the VORTAC 

facility is avoided. Based on this information, we determined that the VORTAC Route Variation is 

preferable to the corresponding segment of the original route. 

3.5.15 Barrel Springs Western Route Variation 

In consultation with the BLM, Ruby is currently evaluating a potential route variation through the 

area identified as the proposed Barrel Springs TCP12 in Washoe County in northwestern Nevada and Lake 

County in southern Oregon, between MPs 575.7 and 590.0 (Figure 3.5.15-1). 

Although a civil survey has not been performed on the Barrel Springs Western Route Variation, 

the route variation totals about 14.3 linear miles. The route variation diverges from the proposed route at 

about MP 575.7 and is generally aligned approximately 1.5 miles west of Ruby’s proposed route before 

reconnecting to the proposed route at MP 590.0. Based on topography and resource concerns, the route 

variation may be sited up to 2.0 miles from the proposed route. The route variation and the corresponding 

segment of the proposed route are located almost entirely on BLM-administered land. No new or 

different landowners would be affected by the route variation. 

The corresponding segment of Ruby’s proposed route roughly follows the corridor of an existing 

transmission line with an associated access road. Because access to this route variation is limited by the 

number of pre-existing access roads in the area, the variation would require a limited number of 

perpendicular road crossings. Ruby would also rely more heavily on its construction right-of-way for 

access. Therefore, the right-of-way width along this variation would have to be widened and there would 

be little opportunity to restrict the right-of-way width below 115 feet along the variation. 

 

12 FERC staff notes that the cultural property in question is a proposed TCP and carries no designated status at this time. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-77 

Figure 3.5.15-1 Barrel Springs Western Route Variation

3-77 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-78 

 Archaeological sites and associated features recorded within the boundaries of the proposed TCP 

have been identified by Fort Bidwell tribal members as ritual areas associated with subsistence resource 

procurement and spiritual practice. These archaeological sites and features appear to be visited by some 

Fort Bidwell tribal members for the purposes of ritual, historical commemoration, and the teaching of 

tribal youth regarding traditional cultural sites and practices. The tribe has identified the following as 

primary species of concern within the proposed TCP: groundhog (marmot), deer, pronghorn (antelope), 

jackrabbit, greater sage-grouse, trout, yampah, wild plum, chokecherry, and willow. The route variation 

under consideration intersects the proposed Barrel Springs TCP in two places, but reduces the total area 

of pipeline disturbance through the area. An eastern route variation was considered by the BLM and 

Ruby but deemed non-viable because of topography and other resource issues. The eastern route 

variation also would impact a greater area of the proposed Barrel Springs TCP than does the western 

route variation. 

Ruby performed a preliminary Class I cultural resources records review of the route variation. 

Seven previous archaeological surveys have been conducted in proximity to the route, and 41 sites have 

been identified. The sites include lithic scatters, rockshelters and petroglyphs. At least four of the 

surveys were conducted twenty years previous, and thus will require further pedestrian survey to confirm 

their accuracy. Based on this limited review, it appears that impacts on cultural resources may be similar 

for both the proposed route and the route variation. However, the variation would present the least area of 

ground disturbance within the boundaries of the proposed Barrel Springs TCP, as currently defined. 

Ruby has not performed any biological surveys along the route variation. Because the variation is 

generally sited within the same north/south environmental biome as Ruby’s proposed route, it appears 

that the impacts on vegetation, wildlife, and water resource features would be similar. The route variation 

crossing of Twelvemile Creek (a proposed WSR) has not been evaluated for impacts on potential 

Outstandingly Remarkable Values; however, we note that the Lakeview RMP restricts crossing of 

recreational river segments to existing rights-of-way. For this reason, the route variation would not 

conform with the Lakeview RMP, whereas the corresponding segment of the proposed route would 

conform with the RMP. Ruby’s proposed route and associated access roads are known to be within 2 

miles of two active and four inactive greater sage-grouse leks in the Barrel Springs area; however we do 

not have lek information for the route variation at this time. 

We (FERC staff) have reviewed the Barrel Springs Western Route Variation and conclude that 

absent information to the contrary there is no compelling reason to require Ruby to move its proposed 

alignment. The proposed route is adjacent to a power line corridor and associated access road, while the 

variation follows a previously undisturbed greenfield route. The route variation would be similar in 

length to the proposed route and would affect very similar types and quantities of resources as the 

proposed route. 

While avoidance of historic properties is always clearly preferable, we note that the National Park 

Service’s National Register Bulletin 38 (Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural 

Properties [sic[) advises “...that a property is eligible for inclusion in the National Register does not 

necessarily mean that the property must be protected from disturbance or damage” but that the 

appropriate consideration and consultation take place. We believe that issues concerning the proposed 

TCP can be addressed by the Section 106 process, and in any event, Ruby has filed its intention to address 

tribal concerns in the Barrel Springs area. Thus, we conclude that the proposed route is environmentally 

preferable to the route variation. We are not recommending this alternative and it is not considered 

further in this final EIS. However, we acknowledge that both route alignments are located largely on 

BLM land and the BLM may ultimately approve the route variation through the right-of-way grant 

process.

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-79 

3.5.16 Bud Garrett Marsh Rookery Route Variation 

The Bud Garrett Marsh Rookery Route Variation was developed in response to a request from the 

ODFW to avoid impacts on colonial water bird nesting habitat in a marsh on the north side of Goose Lake 

and avoid an ongoing wetland restoration project being undertaken by Bud Garrett and Ducks Unlimited. 

The variation diverges from the original route at MP 614.3 and reconnects at MP 621.0 (see figure 3.5.16-

1). The total length of the Bud Garrett Marsh Rookery Route Variation is 7.1 miles. Table 3.5.16-1 

provides a comparison of the pertinent environmental characteristics of the variation and the 

corresponding segment of the original route. 

TABLE 3.5.16-1 

Bud Garrett Marsh Rookery Route Variation Comparison 

Environmental Factors Bud Garret Marsh 

Rookery Variation 

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Original Route 

Length (miles) 7.1 6.7 

Parallel to Existing Rights-of-Way (miles within 500’ of centerline) 0.3 0.0 

Landowners Crossed (number) 9 7 

Perennial Streams Crossed (number) 1 1 

Wetland Habitat Crossed (miles) 1.7 3.8 

The Bud Garrett marsh, rookery, and restoration project are part of a dynamic marsh system used 

by migratory birds within the desert and mountain region of the Intermountain West region. Migratory 

birds are dependent on each closed basin system since the nearest adjacent marsh basins may be as much 

as 100 miles away. Several agencies and organizations, including the Oregon Watershed Enhancement 

Board, Oregon Wildlife Heritage Foundation, FWS, BLM, ODFW, and NRCS, are working together to 

restore, enhance, and acquire easements to protect these vital wetland and riparian habitats (FWS, 2009a). 

The Bud Garrett Marsh Rookery Route Variation is 0.4 mile longer than the proposed route and 

affects two additional landowners. However, the variation crosses 2.1 fewer miles of wetlands and avoids 

known heron nesting habitat on the north side of Goose Lake as well as the ongoing wetland restoration 

project conducted by Ducks Unlimited. Both the ODFW and Ducks Unlimited support this variation. 

The ODFW has requested that no construction occur within 1,200 feet of the Bud Garrett marsh from 

May 1 to July 15. Ruby believes that the route variation is located a minimum 1,200 feet from the marsh; 

therefore, a construction timing restriction is not required. Based on this information, we determined that 

the Bud Garrett Marsh Rookery Route Variation confers an environmental advantage over the 

corresponding segment of the proposed route. We recommended in the draft EIS that Ruby incorporate 

the Bud Garrett Marsh Rookery Route Variation, as depicted in figure 3.5.16-1, into the final pipeline 

route. Ruby subsequently adopted the variation and, as such, it is now a part of Ruby’s proposed project. 

The data and analysis presented in the rest of this final EIS reflect the inclusion of this route in Ruby’s 

proposal. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-80 

Figure 3.5.16-1 Adopted Bud Garrett Marsh Rookery Route Variation

3-75 3-76 

3-76 

3-80 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3-81 

 

3.6 ABOVEGROUND FACILITY SITE ALTERNATIVES 

Ruby constrained its search for compressor station sites to those areas along the proposed route 

that best provided suitable access and ancillary facilities, such as electric distribution lines. Ruby 

proposed to site its compressor stations near existing roads; therefore, no new access roads to compressor 

stations would be required. Compressor stations also would be sited far from noise-sensitive locations 

and residential developments, and would not adversely affect sensitive environmental resources as 

discussed in section 4. 

Ruby also constrained its search for meter stations to sites near the intersections of the proposed 

route and the planned and existing pipelines because the locations of meter stations would be linked to the 

locations of the interconnects. Similarly, the locations of pig launchers/receivers and MLVs were linked 

to the locations of planned and existing facilities; all pig launchers/receivers would be constructed within 

Ruby’s proposed compressor stations facilities or adjacent to proposed meter stations or MLVs. The 

locations of MLVs along the project route are based on DOT safety regulations that specify the maximum 

distance between sectionalizing MLVs. These regulations also require that MLVs be located in readily 

accessible areas. Although the specific location of any one MLV may be adjusted slightly, it cannot be 

substantially moved or eliminated. 

We conclude that Ruby’s proposed aboveground facility sites are environmentally acceptable 

based, in part, on the commitments in Ruby’s application and supplemental filings (e.g., Ruby’s Plan, 

Restoration and Revegetation Plans, Unanticipated Discoveries Plan, etc.) and our independent evaluation 

of the best available data (including information and analysis provided by cooperating and other resource 

agencies). Further, we did not receive comments regarding the siting of aboveground facilities during 

scoping and we did not identify any specific environmental problems associated with the proposed sites 

that would warrant an alternative analysis. We are not considering alternative locations for the 

aboveground facility sites at this time. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-1 

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 

The environmental consequences of constructing and operating the Ruby Pipeline Project would 

vary in duration and significance. Three levels of impact duration were considered: short-term, longterm, and permanent. Short-term impacts generally occur during construction with the resource returning 

to preconstruction condition within 3 years following construction. Long-term impacts require anywhere 

from an estimated 3 to 50 years to return to preconstruction conditions. Both short- and long-term 

impacts are considered temporary impacts. Permanent impacts would occur as a result of activities that 

modify resources to the extent that they would not return to preconstruction conditions within 50 years, 

such as clearing of old growth forest or conversion of land to an aboveground facility site. We considered 

an impact to be significant if it would result in a substantial adverse change in the physical environment 

or natural condition. 

In this section, we discuss the affected environment, general construction and operational 

impacts, and proposed mitigation for each resource. Generally, we begin our discussion of potential 

impacts for a given resource with what could happen in the absence of appropriate construction 

techniques or conservation measures to address environmental impacts or effects to resources. Our 

discussion then focuses on what we anticipate the impacts to be, given the project-specific factors and 

measures that would address environmental concerns, including measures proposed by Ruby, those 

required by other agency permitting or regulation, and our additional recommendations. For example, 

Ruby, as part of its proposal, agreed to implement certain measures to reduce impacts, and we evaluated 

the proposed mitigation measures and in some cases identified additional mitigation measures which we 

believe would further reduce impacts. The additional mitigation measures that we have identified appear 

as boldface type in the text. We are recommending that these measures be included as specific 

conditions to any Certificate that the Commission may issue to Ruby for the proposed project. 

Conclusions in this EIS are based on our analysis of the environmental impact and the following 

assumptions: 

• Ruby would comply with all applicable laws and regulations; 

• the construction and operation work areas would be limited to the areas described in this 

EIS and the facilities would be constructed using the techniques described in this EIS; 

and 

• Ruby would implement the mitigation measures identified in its application and 

supplemental filings to the FERC. 

4.1 GEOLOGY 

4.1.1 Geologic Setting 

The Ruby Pipeline Project would be located within three main geologic regions: 

• the Wyoming Basin (Rocky Mountain Division) of southwestern Wyoming (about 8 

miles of the pipeline route and one compressor station); 

• the Middle Rocky Mountains (Rocky Mountain Division) of southwestern Wyoming and 

north-central Utah (about 95 miles of the pipeline route); and 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-2 

• the Basin and Range (Intermontane Plateaus) of north-central Utah, northern Nevada, and 

south-central Oregon (about 575 miles of the pipeline route and three compressor 

stations). 

Topographic relief along the project ranges from nearly level across large basins to rolling hills 

with localized sections of very steep relief across several mountain ranges. Elevations along the proposed 

pipeline route range from a maximum of about 8,950 feet above mean sea level near the Cache and Rich 

county line in Utah to a minimum of about 4,039 feet in Humboldt County, Nevada. The elevation at the 

start of the project near Opal, Wyoming is 6,864 feet and the elevation at the terminus of the project near 

Malin, Oregon is 4,163 feet. 

In Wyoming, elevations along the project route vary from 6,463 feet to 7,982 feet, and 

topography is generally moderate with localized areas of steep relief. In Utah, elevations along the 

project route vary from 4,222 feet to 8,950 feet, with the topography in the eastern portion of the state 

being generally moderate with localized areas of steep relief. In the central and western portions of Utah, 

topography is generally flat with localized areas of moderate relief. In Nevada, elevations along the route 

vary from 4,039 feet to 7,690 feet, exhibiting generally moderate topography with localized areas of both 

flat and steep relief. In Oregon, elevations along the project route vary from 4,121 feet to 6,709 feet, with 

generally moderate topography. Table 4.1.1-1 identifies locations along the proposed route where the 

pipeline would ascend or descend steep topography (i.e., slopes greater than or equal to 15 percent). 

Frequently, temporary extra workspaces are needed in areas of steep slopes and side slopes. 

Extra workspaces also are generally needed at wetlands, waterbodies, roads, railroads, and foreign 

pipelines/utilities. Prior to the issuance of the draft EIS Ruby filed information with the FERC that 

identified proposed temporary extra workspaces and staging areas. Ruby’s filing attempted to provide 

justification for the use of these areas. Ruby has since updated its proposed extra workspaces and staging 

areas and also identified the need for water appropriation sites. Included with this update were many 

changes to the temporary extra workspace sizes and locations without specific justification for most of 

them. Because Ruby has not provided adequate (or any) justification for many of those workspaces, we 

recommend that Ruby restrict the use of temporary extra workspaces to those locations identified 

as “Conditionally Approved for Use” in table E-1, Appendix E of this EIS. 

We note that Ruby has committed to setting extra workspaces back from wetlands, waterbodies, 

playas, forested riparian areas, areas identified as complex cryptobiotic soil crusts, and other sensitive 

locations. These commitments apply to the above workspaces and staging areas conditionally approved 

for use on this project. We also note that Ruby’s plan (section IV.A.2) already allows expanding the 

right-of-way width by up to an additional 25 feet to ensure safe construction where required by 

topographic conditions (such as side slopes) or soil limitations; to accommodate full construction right-ofway topsoil segregation; and for truck turn-arounds. Any temporary extra workspace (not including 

staging areas or water appropriation sites) approved for use on this project is predicated on the workspace 

overlapping (not abutting) any expanded right-of-way width. If Ruby identifies a need for additional 

work areas, Ruby could request Commission approval of such work areas in writing, consistent with its 

Plan (section IV.A.1). The acreages in this EIS are based on Ruby’s proposals to use all workspaces, 

staging areas and water appropriation sites in Appendix E. Our recommendation above, however, would 

require Ruby to file additional justification before use of the workspaces identified in Appendix E. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-3 

TABLE 4.1.1-1 

Locations Where the Pipeline Would Ascend or Descend Steep Slopes 

State/MPs Approx. Length (ft) Elevation Change (feet) Percent Slope 

WYOMING 

26.0 - 26.1 500 160 32% 

29.0 - 29.2 1,000 280 28% 

37.0 - 37.3 1,500 280 19% 

40.0 - 41.0 5,300 920 17% 

R42.5 - 42.7 1,000 160 16% 

45.0 - 45.2 1,000 160 16% 

46.8 - 46.9 1,000 160 16% 

Subtotal 2.1 miles 

UTAH 

59.5 - 59.6 500 200 40% 

60.0 - 60.2 1,000 240 24% 

60.5 - 60.8 1,500 280 19% 

60.8 - 60.8 500 160 32% 

61.8 - 62.0 1,500 320 21% 

62.0 - 62.2 1,000 280 28% 

62.5 - 62.9 2,000 400 20% 

63.5 - 63.9 2,000 400 20% 

64.3 - 64.3 500 160 32% 

65.0 - 65.2 1,000 160 16% 

66.0 - 66.2 1,000 280 28% 

67.3 - 67.4 1,000 160 16% 

72.5 - 73.0 2,500 520 21% 

74.5 - 75.1 3,000 800 27% 

75.5 - 75.8 1,500 240 16% 

R76.5 - 76.9 2,000 360 18% 

77.0 - 77.2 1,000 240 24% 

77.5 - 77.7 1,000 200 20% 

77.8 - 77.9 1,000 200 20% 

82.0 - 82.2 1,000 200 20% 

84.0 - 84.2 1,000 160 16% 

85.3 - 85.4 1,000 240 24% 

87.0 - 88.0 5,300 1,080 20% 

88.0 - 89.0 5,300 960 18% 

89.8 - 89.9 1,000 200 20% 

91.0 - 92.0 5,280 1,040 20% 

93.0 - 93.2 1,000 400 40% 

93.5 - 93.6 500 200 40% 

93.5 - 93.6 500 200 40% 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-4 

TABLE 4.1.1-1 

Locations Where the Pipeline Would Ascend or Descend Steep Slopes 

State/MPs Approx. Length (ft) Elevation Change (feet) Percent Slope 

93.8 - 93.8 500 160 32% 

94.5 - 94.9 2,000 400 20% 

95.0 - 95.4 2,000 520 26% 

95.5 - 95.7 1,000 200 20% 

97.0 - 97.7 3,500 560 16% 

97.5 - 97.7 1,000 160 16% 

98.8 - 98.9 1,000 240 24% 

100.8 - 101.1 2,000 360 18% 

101.0 - 101.6 3,000 1,080 36% 

102.0 - 102.4 2,000 360 18% 

102.3 - 102.4 1,000 240 24% 

103.8 - 103.9 1,000 240 24% 

104.8 - R105.1 2,000 440 22% 

143.5 - 143.8 1,500 400 27% 

145.3 - 145.4 1,000 240 24% 

158.0 - 158.7 3,500 800 23% 

229.0 - 230.0 5,300 800 15% 

230.3 - 230.4 1,000 160 16% 

Subtotal 15.5 miles 

NEVADA 

231.0 - 231.8 4,000 600 15% 

233.8 - 233.9 1,000 240 24% 

234.8 - 234.9 1,000 160 16% 

236.0 - 236.2 1,000 240 24% 

245.5 - 245.8 1,500 280 19% 

254.5 - 254.8 1,500 240 16% 

273.3 - 273.6 2,000 320 16% 

273.8 - 273.9 1,000 160 16% 

274.5 - 275.0 2,500 440 18% 

281.0 - 281.3 1,500 240 16% 

281.5 - 281.7 1,000 200 20% 

284.0 - 284.9 5,000 760 15% 

285.0 - 285.1 500 200 40% 

286.0 - 286.1 500 160 32% 

307.3 - 307.4 1,000 200 20% 

316.0 - 316.4 2,000 320 16% 

316.5 - 316.9 2,000 400 20% 

317.3 - 317.4 1,000 160 16% 

318.3 - 318.4 1,000 240 24% 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-5 

TABLE 4.1.1-1 

Locations Where the Pipeline Would Ascend or Descend Steep Slopes 

State/MPs Approx. Length (ft) Elevation Change (feet) Percent Slope 

318.5 - 318.7 1,000 160 16% 

322.5 - 322.7 1,000 200 20% 

322.5 - 322.7 1,000 160 16% 

343.0 - 343.1 500 160 32% 

345.8 - 345.9 1,000 280 28% 

346.3 - 346.4 1,000 320 32% 

346.5 - 346.8 1,500 320 21% 

347.0 - 347.5 2,500 680 27% 

348.0 - 348.3 1,500 320 21% 

348.8 - 349.1 2,000 400 20% 

349.0 - R349.8 4,000 920 23% 

R350.0 - R350.3 1,500 440 29% 

R351.0 - R351.6 3,000 680 23% 

R355.0 - R355.2 1,000 280 28% 

R355.0 - R355.2 1,000 160 16% 

R358.0 - R358.2 1,000 240 24% 

R358.8 - R358.9 1,000 160 16% 

R363.0 - R363.2 1,000 200 20% 

R364.0 - R364.2 1,000 160 16% 

R371.8 - R371.9 1,000 200 20% 

R384.5 - R384.7 1,000 160 16% 

416.5 - 416.7 1,000 160 16% 

419.0 - 419.4 2,000 440 22% 

444.0 - 444.5 2,500 480 19% 

444.5 - 444.9 2,000 400 20% 

484.3 - 484.4 1,000 160 16% 

485.3 - 485.4 1,000 160 16% 

501.3 - 501.3 500 160 32% 

506.0 - 506.7 3,500 560 16% 

510.5 - 510.7 1,000 200 20% 

511.5 - 511.6 750 240 32% 

513.5 - 513.6 500 200 40% 

514.0 - 514.7 3,500 1,080 31% 

517.8 - 518.0 1,500 560 37% 

518.8 - 518.9 1,000 240 24% 

520.5 - 521.0 2,500 480 19% 

521.5 - 521.7 1,000 280 28% 

526.8 - 526.9 1,000 240 24% 

528.5 - 528.8 1,500 280 19% 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-6 

TABLE 4.1.1-1 

Locations Where the Pipeline Would Ascend or Descend Steep Slopes 

State/MPs Approx. Length (ft) Elevation Change (feet) Percent Slope 

529.5 - 529.9 2,000 320 16% 

532.3 - 532.5 1,500 320 21% 

R538.8 - R538.9 1,000 160 16% 

540.5 - 540.9 2,000 440 22% 

543.8 - 544.0 1,500 240 16% 

572.5 - 573.0 2,500 560 22% 

574.3 - 574.4 1,000 200 20% 

Subtotal 18.9 miles 

OREGON 

588.3 - 588.4 750 320 43% 

588.5 - 588.6 500 280 56% 

609.8 - 609.9 1,000 160 16% 

610.5 - 611.1 3,000 600 20% 

611.5 - 611.9 2,000 400 20% 

613.0 - 614.0 5,300 1,000 19% 

614.3 - 614.4 1,000 200 20% 

634.8 - 634.9 1,000 160 16% 

635.8 - 635.9 750 240 32% 

637.3 - 637.4 1,000 240 24% 

639.8 - 639.9 1,000 280 28% 

R666.5 - R667.0 2,500 840 34% 

R668.5 - R668.7 1,000 160 16% 

R670.5 - R670.8 1,500 600 40% 

R671.5 - R671.7 1,000 360 36% 

Subtotal 4.4 miles 

Grand Total 40.9 miles 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-7 

Subsurface materials vary along the project route. The project would cross a large number of 

geologic formations and features ranging in age from Paleozoic (542 to 251 million years ago) to 

Quaternary (1.8 to 1.6 million years ago). Unconsolidated Quaternary-age sedimentary deposits such as 

alluvial, glacial, fluvial, lacustrine, and eolian deposits cover approximately 30 percent of the project area. 

Tertiary-age (56 to 1.8 million years ago) volcanic rocks such as tuff, basalt flows, and rhyolite cover 

approximately 27 percent of the project area. Paleozoic to Tertiary-age sedimentary rock such as 

sandstone, limestone, dolomite, and shale cover approximately 43 percent of the project area. A summary 

of general geologic conditions along the proposed project route is presented in table 4.1.1-2. 

TABLE 4.1.1-2 

Geologic Conditions Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Approximate MP Range State Description of Bedrock Formations Crossed 

0 to 48 Wyoming Mesozoic- and Cenozoic-age sedimentary rock with unconsolidated 

Quaternary-age alluvial sediments. 

48 to 230 Utah 

Paleozoic- to Cenozoic-age sedimentary and volcanic rock with 

unconsolidated Quaternary-age alluvial, glacial, eolian, and lacustrine 

sediments. 

231 to 588 Nevada Paleozoic- to Cenozoic-age sedimentary and Cenozoic-age volcanic rock with 

unconsolidated Quaternary-age alluvial and colluvial sediments. 

588 to R672.6 Oregon Cenozoic-age sedimentary and volcanic rock with Quaternary-age 

unconsolidated alluvial, glacial, eolian, and lacustrine sediments. 

4.1.1.1 General Impacts and Mitigation 

Over the majority of the project route, construction would result in the temporary disturbance of 

the natural topography due to grading and trenching activities. Ruby would restore surface contours and 

drainage patterns as closely as possible to preconstruction conditions following completion of 

construction. Ruby anticipates that blasting may be necessary where hard, non-rippable bedrock occurs 

and where it would be necessary to fracture surface rock during grading activities. Ruby has 

preliminarily indicated that blasting may be required in various places in Utah, Nevada, and Oregon from 

MP 57.5 to the end of the project. Blasting may be necessary where rock outcrop is present or where 

shallow soils are underlain by bedrock. Ruby would blast only where the rock could not be economically 

excavated by conventional means. 

We received comments regarding the potential for the Vya Construction Camp and Lakeview 

Temporary Housing Facility to impact topography. The Vya camp is located approximately 6 miles west 

of MP 558 in Washoe County, Nevada. The Lakeview facility is located just west of the city limits of the 

Town of Lakeview, in Lake County, Oregon. Construction, operation, and decommissioning of the Vya 

camp and Lakeview facility would result in the temporary disturbance of natural topography due to minor 

grading activities. Ruby would restore surface contours and drainage patterns as closely as possible to 

preconstruction conditions following completion of construction. No specific sensitive or problematic 

geologic conditions or settings were identified at these locations. Based on the geologic setting and the 

proposed construction, the Vya camp and Lakeview facility are expected to have only temporary, shortterm impacts on geologic resources. 

4.1.1.2 Blasting 

Blasting could potentially damage water wells, springs and seeps, undiscovered paleontological 

resources, unstable slopes, adjacent pipelines, buried utilities, and nearby structures. Potential damage to 

wells and springs/seeps is discussed in section 4.3.1.5. Potential damage to undiscovered paleontological 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-8 

resources is discussed in section 4.1.4. Potential damage to unstable slopes, adjacent pipelines, buried 

utilities, and nearby structures is discussed below. 

Ruby would comply with all state and federal regulations governing the use of explosives. Ruby 

developed a Blasting Plan (Appendix N) that would be implemented during construction. The plan 

includes the following information: 

• identification and compliance with applicable blasting regulations; 

• provisions for pre-blast geotechnical investigations; 

• determination of appropriate charge type, weight, and configuration; 

• depth and spacing of charges; 

• detonation delays; 

• procedures for notifying and evacuating nearby residents; 

• procedures for pre- and post-blasting monitoring; and 

• blast mat placement. 

 

To address concerns associated with blasting on unstable slopes, Ruby’s Blasting Plan requires 

that blasting be conducted and monitored by a licensed blaster. The blaster would be responsible for 

planning the shot pattern and load to account for site-specific geologic conditions and to minimize or 

eliminate any ground cracking (overbreak). During blasting, the blaster would monitor the area to 

determine if the blast caused any kind of ground displacement or overbreak. These measures would 

reduce the risk of slope failure in areas of elevated landslide incidence. 

To minimize damage to adjacent pipelines and buried utilities, Ruby would not blast within 10 

feet of an adjacent pipeline or buried utility. Where pipelines or utilities are within the work area and 

more than 10 feet away, Ruby would contact the pipeline or utility owner prior to blasting and would take 

measures to complete blasting so that the activity would not cause damage. Where aboveground 

structures are within 200 feet of the right-of-way, Ruby would request authorization from landowners to 

inspect the structures before and after blasting, monitor blasting effects (peak particle velocity [PPV] and 

decibel readings) at nearby structures, and protect structures from potential fly rock by using blasting 

mats or soil padding on the right-of-way. Ruby would evaluate and monitor areas adjacent to blasting to 

assess potential hazards to people or property. Ruby would be responsible for repairing any damages 

sustained through blasting and/or compensating the landowner. 

Blasting is conducted with two goals in mind: 1) fragmentation of rock to sizes suitable for 

removal from the trench, while 2) minimizing effects to nearby features and people. Fragmentation 

estimates are based on the strength of the rock. Effects on nearby features and people are governed by a 

“design” PPV. PPV is a measurement of vibration at a given location. Vibration can cause varying 

degrees of damage to structures and affect personal comfort and safety. PPV is controlled by the amount 

of explosive agent used in a blast. A typical blast design calculation is iterative. The first step is to 

calculate the amount of explosive agent that can be placed into a conventional blast hole drilled to the 

appropriate depth for the requirements of the excavation. The second step is to calculate the spacing 

between blast holes needed to fragment the rock in the shape of the trench. The third step is to calculate 

the PPV generated by detonation of the explosive agent at a relevant distance to important features, such 

as a nearby well, spring, or underlying cavern. If the PPV exceeds a specified level, then the diameter of 

the blast holes or the time between detonating successive blast holes is modified and the PPV is 

calculated again. In this way blasting is “designed” so that a specified PPV at a particular distance is not 

exceeded during the process of achieving suitable fragmentation of the rock. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-9 

We received several comments during the draft EIS comment period concerning damage to rock 

cliffs, rock outcrops, and “rim-rock” from blasting and grading activities during pipeline construction. 

Exposed rock would be removed by a variety of methods to achieve a depth sufficient for pipeline burial. 

To the extent possible, Ruby has sited its pipeline alignment to avoid rock cliffs and rock ledges. 

However, Ruby has identified two areas where construction through exposed rock is inevitable; one 10- to 

15-foot nearly vertical rock face on the south side of Twelvemile Creek (near MP 588) and one 30- to 35-

foot nearly vertical face of lava flow located 2.5 miles southwest of Will Valley Reservoir on the South 

Langell Valley Route Alternative (near MP R653). Ruby would blast or rip a trench through the rock 

walls at these two locations to a depth sufficient to bury the pipeline. Padding material or rock shield 

would be placed around the pipeline prior to backfilling the trench with native material to create a more 

stable angle of repose. In areas where rock would be removed for construction the loss of the resource 

would be considered permanent. 

The BLM has noted that the terrain from about MP 509 to 547 is particularly severe. The 

landscape is dissected by drainages that are often very steep and with bedrock very near the surface. The 

BLM believes that pipeline construction in this environment likely would be difficult and would produce 

greater than normal disturbance, and that the terrain would be difficult to restore and reclaim. The BLM 

further asserts that some of the existing access roads proposed for use in this area are narrow and would 

not be able to accommodate construction traffic without improvement, and that improvements would be 

impossible without substantial blasting to remove large constraining rock outcrops to achieve the 30-footwide roadbed required by construction equipment and vehicles. 

As discussed in section 2.2.1, Ruby does not know exactly how or where road improvements 

would be required along any given road. This information would not be available until after Ruby’s 

construction contractor identifies which roads it prefers to use and how it prefers to use the roads. We 

note that Ruby would not need to widen all roads to 30 feet; rather, a 30-foot width would be needed only 

in certain areas to accommodate sharp turns or where a passing lane is desired. Ruby has agreed to 

restore all roads to their preconstruction condition, except where the landowner has requested that the 

improvements be left in place. Blasting would result in permanent, irreversible improvements to roads in 

many cases. Therefore, Ruby would be required to obtain landowner approval prior to blasting for these 

road improvements. The BLM has indicated that all BLM-administered roads in Humboldt and Washoe 

counties (MPs R396.7 to 588.2) would be required to be restored to their preconstruction condition. This 

requirement could eliminate certain proposed access roads from being used on the project. 

We received comments during scoping about the potential for blasting to cause a collapse of 

earthen dams and trigger seismic events. Geotechnical assessments by Ruby’s geologic consultant, 

MACTEC, have indicated that structural impacts could range from 5 to 20 feet from the blast. No dams 

have been identified within the construction workspace and none would be located within the 20-foot 

maximum blast impact area for structures; therefore, dams are unlikely to be affected by blasting. 

Furthermore, the level of blasting anticipated for the project would be smaller in scale than the blasting 

that takes place for regional mining operations. Blasting associated with mining operations in the region 

has not triggered seismic events; therefore, project blasting should not affect the area’s seismic setting. 

4.1.2 Mineral Resources 

Generally, exploitable mineral resources identified in the project area include oil and gas, coal, 

precious and semiprecious stones, ores, salts, stone, sand and gravel, and clay. The locations of these 

resources were determined by aerial photo review, database searches, literature review, topographic map 

review, and a limited field survey. Table 4.1.2-1 identifies areas of both active and inactive mineral 

resource production and locations of known mineral prospects in the project area. Additional resources 

may be identified during Ruby’s preconstruction surveys and through interviews with property owners. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-10 

4.1.2.1 Mining 

Table 4.1.2-1 identifies 58 sand and gravel pits; rock, mineral, and ore quarries; and coal fields 

within 1,500 feet of the area. Additionally, mining prospects have been identified in Nevada (MP 275.9 

and MPs 506.7 to 518.3) within 1,500 feet of the project. Three coal fields and one potential rock quarry 

in Wyoming, one gravel pit in Utah, a gravel pit and borrow pit in Nevada, and a former gravel pit in 

Oregon have been identified within the construction work area. 

The construction and operation of Ruby facilities near or over mines and exploitable mineral 

resources could impact the present and future extraction of those resources by impeding traffic access to 

mines during project construction and by restricting future mining within the right-of-way following 

construction. Access to mining areas during pipeline construction would create a short-term impact. 

Ruby has committed to coordinating construction with mine owners in the project area to determine 

whether alternative access routes to the mines are available or to determine if construction could be timed 

to minimize interference with mine traffic in the vicinity. Where necessary, Ruby would provide mine 

operators access across the project area during construction. The construction of the pipeline over 

mineral resources would create a permanent impact, as these mineral resources directly under the 

permanent right-of-way would become irretrievable for future mining operations. Ruby is presently 

working closely with the two active and permitted mining interests in Elko and Humboldt counties 

(Barrick and Newmont) on the location of the pipeline alignment through these mining areas. Where 

access to existing, permitted mineral resources is restricted, Ruby would negotiate compensation for 

damage, access rights, and easements with mine owners and claim holders. 

We received comments that the project route would cross areas where future mining rights have 

been staked. Ruby identified 200 open mining claims filed on public land for the proposed route as of 

August 2009. Of these claims, the project centerline would cross 114 claims and would be within 1,500 

feet of 86 additional claims. Ruby would negotiate, where appropriate, damages, access rights, and 

easements with existing, permitted claim owners to compensate for or minimize any restrictions to future 

mining of mineral resources. 

We received comments that sand and gravel resources are limited along various portions of the 

project and that project requirements for sand and gravel (for aboveground facility sites, access road 

improvements, etc.) may affect the availability of these resources. Ruby estimates that 6,300 cubic yards 

of gravel would be needed for aboveground facility pads, including compressor stations, meter stations, 

and MLVs. Ruby has not determined the volumes or locations where gravel fill would be needed for road 

improvements or maintenance because the volumes and locations would not be known until the roads are 

used during construction (as traffic and weather conditions would affect the condition of the roads). Ruby 

estimates that less than 5 percent of the access road mileage would require some gravel for maintenance 

or improvement (see section 2.2.1). Some access roads would only require placement of gravel at 

specific locations (e.g., where potholes or ruts currently exist). Ruby has indicated that it would seek 

gravel locally from existing commercial sand and gravel pits or other retailers. It would not establish its 

own borrow pits for this project. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-11 

TABLE 4.1.2-1 

Mineral Resources Within 1,500 Feet of the Construction Workspace for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/Facility MP Mineral Resource Distance (feet) and 

Direction From Centerline 

WYOMING 

Hams Fork Region 11.8 to 18.4 Coalfield Intersects Project 

Owner Unknown 13.2 Oil/Gas Well 549-North 

Owner Unknown 13.8 Oil/Gas Well 168-North 

Owner Unknown 16.5 Oil/Gas Well 111-South 

Owner Unknown 18.4 Oil/Gas Well 1,100-North 

Kampman Mine 18.9 Abandoned Coal Mine 1,300-North 

Owner Unknown 18.9 Oil/Gas Well 817-North 

Owner Unknown 19.0 Oil/Gas Well 362-South 

Owner Unknown 19.3 Oil/Gas Well 237-North 

Owner Unknown 19.4 Oil/Gas Well 814-South 

Cumberland Gap Hearthstone, 

Inc. 19.6 Rock Quarry 21-North 

Hams Fork Region 21.4 to 23.5 Coalfield Intersects Project 

Kemmerer Adit 24.8 Abandoned Coal Mine 1,035-North 

Owner Unknown 27.9 Oil/Gas Well 464-North 

Owner Unknown 28.0 Oil/Gas Well 1,290-South 

Owner Unknown 29.8 Oil/Gas Well 384-South 

Owner Unknown 30.5 Oil/Gas Well 1,217-North 

Owner Unknown 33.2 Oil/Gas Well 898-South 

Owner Unknown 34.9 Oil/Gas Well 912-North 

Hams Fork Region 31.2 to 37.0 Coalfield Intersects Project 

Owner Unknown 41.2 Oil/Gas Well 728-North 

Owner Unknown R42.0 Oil/Gas Well 280-South 

 

UTAH 

Owner Unknown R54.0 Gravel Pits 108-North 

Dairy Ridge Gravel Pit 73.1 Sand and Gravel Pit 357-South 

Lead King 94.5 Lead and Silver 1,330-North 

McKenzie Flat Pit 94.5 Sand and Gravel Pit 321-North 

Fife’s Brigham City Pit 106.4 Sand and Gravel Pit 181-South 

Wright Pit 106.8 Sand and Gravel Pit 313-North 

F.O. Reeder Pit 107.8 Sand and Gravel Pit 1,248-South 

Owner Unknown 108.5 Gravel Pit 525-South 

Owner Unknown 120.1 Gravel Pit 1,143-South 

Nicholas Pit No. 02058 120.2 Sand and Gravel Pit 766-South 

Owner Unknown 124.0 Gravel Pit 1,184-South 

Christensen Pit 128.6 Sand and Gravel Pit 342-North 

Owner Unknown 133.1 Sand and Gravel Pit 292-South 

Dove Creek Well Gravel 185.9 Sand and Gravel Pit 326-North 

Rosebud Creek Stone R198.0 Quarry (Estimated Position) 630-South 

Owner Unknown R200.3 Gravel Pit 73-North 

Owner Unknown R202.4 Gravel Pit 222-North 

Owner Unknown R207.6 Gravel Pit 1,354-North 

Watercress Road Gravel 205.9 Sand and Gravel Pit 222-South 

Transmitter Road Gravel 206.8 Sand and Gravel Pit 507-North 

American Montmorillonite 213.8 Volcanic Materials 849-North 

South Grouse Creek Mountain R219.0 Sand and Gravel Pit Intersects Project 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-12 

TABLE 4.1.2-1 

Mineral Resources Within 1,500 Feet of the Construction Workspace for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/Facility MP Mineral Resource Distance (feet) and 

Direction From Centerline 

 

NEVADA 

Owner Unknown 230.8 Lead, Silver, Copper 1,386-North 

Owner Unknown 275.9 Prospect 118-North 

Hacky Sack 283.7 Barium-Barite 147-South 

Owner Unknown R292.4 Gravel Pit 981-North 

The Canyon Property 327.9 Lead, Copper, Zinc 1,381-North 

Owner Unknown R330.1 Gravel Pit 1,255-North 

Owner Unknown R379.2 Gravel Pit 273-North 

Owner Unknown R381.8 Gravel Pit 427-South 

Owner Unknown R383.4 Gravel Pit 247-North 

Owner Unknown R386.1 Quarry 1,170-South 

Owner Unknown R397.9 Gravel Pit Intersects Project 

Owner Unknown R398.3 Gravel Pit 778-North 

Owner Unknown R399.6 Borrow Pit Intersects Project 

Owner Unknown R401.7 Gravel Pit 237-South 

Silver Hill Mine 423.2 Silver, Lead, Zinc 598-North 

Dutch Flat Placer 428.1 Gold, Mercury, Tungsten 1,250-North 

Community Pit 438.3 Sand and Gravel Pit 213-South (potential 

related activity 840-North) 

Sand Dunes 444.7 Sand and Gravel Pit 1,097-North 

Owner Unknown 451.9 Sand and Gravel Pit 341-South 

Amos Mill 452.0 Gold Ore 1,449-South 

Owner Unknown 452.2 Sand and Gravel Pit 1,398-South 

Owner Unknown 452.7 Sand and Gravel Pit 1,384-South 

US Highway Administration R462.5 Sand and Gravel Pit 1,490-North 

US Highway Administration R463.4 Sand and Gravel Pit 200-North 

Owners Unknown 506.7 to518.3 Multiple Prospects Vary 

Owner Unknown 551.8 Sand and Gravel Pits 923-South 

Owner Unknown 558.0 Sand and Gravel Pit Group 1,030-West of Vya 

Construction Camp 

 

OREGON 

Chevron Resources Company 589.4 Geothermal Prospect Well 700-North 

Hunt Energy Corporation 597.1 Geothermal Prospect Well 720-South 

Hunt Energy Corporation 601.1 Geothermal Prospect Well 360-South 

Lakeview 613.4 to 614.6 Direct Use Geothermal Area Intersects Project 

Owner Unknown 630.1 Sand and Gravel Pit 986-South 

Owner Unknown 632.9 Possible Former Gravel Pit 364-South 

Owner Unknown R652.4 Possible Former Gravel Pit 127-North 

Owner Unknown R658.0 Possible Former Gravel Pit Intersects Project 

Owner Unknown R671.6 Gravel Pit 149-North 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-13 

The BLM noted that the sand and gravel pit at MP 438.3 is designated as a community pit. The 

community pit designation establishes the right to remove the materials superior to any subsequent claim 

or entry of the land (43 CFR 3603.11). The Ruby pipeline would cross a portion of the communitydesignated area that is not currently mined. However, construction activities could affect access to 

actively mined areas and would prevent future production in the area of the proposed pipeline. The BLM 

estimates that at least 3.5 acres, containing about 30,000 to 50,000 cubic yards of sand and gravel, would 

be lost. Furthermore, the BLM notes that a pit has been developed about 840 feet to the north of the 

pipeline. This pit is authorized for free-use of sand and gravel to the Humboldt County Road Department. 

The BLM could require Ruby to adopt a minor route realignment to avoid this area or could require Ruby 

to purchase the gravel to mitigate for the loss. 

There is the possibility that the project could cross unknown abandoned mines. Potential hazards 

associated with abandoned mines could include, but are not limited to, ground subsidence, contaminated 

water or soils, toxic gas, and the presence of shock-sensitive materials and explosives. Ruby stated that it 

would complete a preconstruction investigation of the right-of-way to evaluate if abandoned mines are 

present in the project area. If abandoned mines are present, Ruby would develop site-specific mitigation 

plans to address identified hazards. Although Ruby has not developed specific plans to date, plans may 

include measures for avoiding or filling existing or potential voids and sinkholes, cleaning up hazardous 

materials, etc. We recommend that, prior to construction, Ruby file the results of its 

preconstruction geological investigation to evaluate if abandoned mines are present in the project 

area. If abandoned mines are present, Ruby should file a plan to address abandoned mine hazards 

and file documentation of consultation with the BLM and appropriate state geologists in the 

development of these plans for the review and written approval by the Director of OEP. 

We also received comments on the draft EIS regarding the potential for hazardous metals, 

specifically mercury, to be present in naturally occurring rock near the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe 

Reservation and other areas. Commenters raised concerns over mercury being released to the 

environment through blasting, fugitive dust, and erosion of geologic materials. 

Mercury is a naturally occurring constituent element of the earth. In pure form, it is known as 

elemental or metallic mercury. Mercury is rarely found in nature in its elemental form; rather it is usually 

found in nature as inorganic mercury compounds or organic mercury compounds. Inorganic mercury 

compounds take the form of mercury salts and are generally white powder or crystals, with the exception 

of mercuric sulfide (cinnabar ore) which is red and turns black after exposure to light. Mercury is 

commercially mined as mercuric sulfide. The metallic form is refined from mercuric sulfide ore by 

crushing and heating the ore to vaporize the mercury, then capturing and condensing the vapor into 

metallic mercury (UNEP, 2002). Soils may also have been contaminated with mercury from human 

activity (e.g., from certain mining practices). 

Natural events (e.g., volcanic activity, weathering of rocks) and human activities (e.g., mining, 

fuel use) can cause mercury releases into the environment. Human activities, such as manufacturing and 

energy production (e.g., coal fired electric generation), have increased the amount of mercury that is 

currently cycling in the atmosphere, soils, and waterbodies (EPA, 2009f). Mercury can also be released 

to the environment from the improper disposal of mercury-containing products, such as fluorescent bulbs, 

batteries, switches, and thermometers (EPA, 1997). Once mercury has been liberated from deposits 

hidden in the earth’s crust, it can be highly mobile, cycling between the earth’s surface and the 

atmosphere. When mercury falls in rain or snow, it may flow into bodies of water like lakes and streams. 

When it falls out of the air as dry deposition, it may eventually be washed into those bodies by rain (EPA, 

1997, 2009f; UNEP, 2002). 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-14 

Organic mercury compounds are formed when inorganic mercury combines with carbon. 

Methylmercury is the most common organic mercury compound found in the environment. Bacteria in 

soils and sediments convert inorganic mercury to methylmercury. It is commonly taken up by tiny 

aquatic plants and animals in this form. As ever-bigger fish eat smaller ones, the methylmercury is 

concentrated further up the food chain. This process is called “bioaccumulation” (EPA, 1997, 2009f; 

UNEP, 2002). 

Mercury is known to be toxic to humans. Generally, the most subtle indicators of methylmercury 

toxicity are neurological changes. The neurotoxic effects include subtle decrements in motor skills and 

sensory ability at comparatively low doses to tremors, inability to walk, convulsions, and death at 

extremely high exposures. For fetuses, infants, and children, the primary health effect of methylmercury 

exposure is impaired neurological development (EPA, 1997, 2009f). 

Adverse effects of mercury on fish and wildlife include death, reduced reproductive success, 

impaired growth, and development and behavioral abnormalities. Reproductive effects are the primary 

concern for mercury poisoning and can occur at dietary concentrations well below those which cause 

overt toxicity. Sublethal effects of mercury on birds and mammals include liver damage, kidney damage, 

and neurobehavioral effects. Effects of mercury on plants include death and plant senescence, growth 

inhibition, decreased chlorophyll content growth, leaf injury, root damage, and inhibited root growth and 

function (EPA, 1997, 2009f). 

Ruby consulted professional geologists who determined that the highest potential along the route 

for encountering naturally occurring mercury-containing rock is in Oregon between MP 631.5 and MP 

633.0. Disturbing mercury-containing rock could expose the rock to weathering and ultimately increase 

mercury in the environment. The leaching of mercury from these rocks could, overtime, contaminate soil 

and groundwater, be taken up by plants and animals, and bioaccumulate in the ecosystem. To address 

potential concerns for mercury exposure, Ruby committed to resurveying this area as well as the area near 

the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe reservation for any altered rock and for mineralization along faults which 

may contain mercury. Soil samples from high-probability areas would be collected and analyzed just 

prior to construction. If elevated metal concentrations are identified from the soil samples, Ruby would 

develop health and safety protocols (e.g., requirements for capture, handling, storage, and disposal) to 

mitigate potential impacts. If it is determined that hazardous levels of these metals could become 

airborne, Ruby would develop additional health and safety protocols and would monitor airborne 

particulate concentrations in order to maintain a healthy work environment. Ruby also committed to 

sampling wells and springs in these areas for heavy metals prior to and after construction. To ensure that 

construction through areas with the potential to have high mercury levels does not spread mercury 

contamination or cause the release of mercury, we recommend that, prior to construction from MPs 

519.0 to 524.0 and MPs 631.5 to 633.0, Ruby file the results of its preconstruction surveys for 

mercury-containing rock along these segments, including results of any soil samples collected and 

analyzed as part of the preconstruction surveys. 

4.1.2.2 Oil and Gas Production 

Oil and natural gas are produced in a number of counties crossed by the project. As a result, 

significant petroleum exploration, recovery, and transportation infrastructure exists in the region, 

particularly in Wyoming. Table 4.1.2-1 identifies 16 oil and gas wells in Lincoln and Uinta counties 

within 1,500 feet of the project. Prior to construction, Ruby would call each state’s one-call system so 

that buried utilities, including gathering lines for oil and gas wells, could be identified and flagged before 

ground-disturbing activities. Where the pipeline would be constructed near a buried gathering line, Ruby 

would install its pipeline with appropriate clearance. By avoiding existing oil and gas production 

facilities we believe the project would not interfere with current oil and gas production in the project area. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-15 

Additionally, because oil and gas are generally produced from depths of more than 1,000 feet, and 

because the proposed pipeline generally would be at a maximum depth of 8 feet from the ground surface, 

construction of the pipeline would not be expected to affect future oil or gas production. 

4.1.2.3 Geothermal Extraction and Carbon Sequestration 

 Areas suited for geothermal extraction are located from the Great Salt Lake Basin in Utah to 

Klamath County, Oregon. These geothermal resources are used in various places for heating bath houses 

and swimming pools, for livestock watering and agriculture, and for healing and spiritual purposes. Table 

4.1.2-1 identifies three geothermal prospect wells and one “direct use” geothermal area within 1,500 feet 

of the project in Oregon. The State of Oregon defines a geothermal prospect well as any well drilled as a 

temperature gradient test well less than 2,000 feet in depth which is used in prospecting for geothermal 

resources. A direct use area is defined, according to the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral 

Industries, by the presence of thermal springs, wells, and geohydrologic settings generally favorable for 

recovery of thermal water. Geothermal wells and geothermal springs have not been reported in this direct 

use area; however, Ruby has committed to completing a preconstruction survey in this area to verify that 

wells and springs are not present. Ruby has not provided a specific plan for constructing near these 

geothermal resources other than to state that “appropriate measures” would be taken to mitigate impacts 

on these resources. Regardless, it is unlikely that the relatively shallow excavations for pipeline 

construction would impact these resources because geothermal resources have their source deep 

underground. To ensure that geothermal resources would not be affected by the project, we recommend 

that, prior to construction from MP 613.4 to 614.6, Ruby file the results of its preconstruction 

survey of this direct use geothermal area. If Ruby identifies geothermal wells or springs in the 

geothermal area, Ruby should consult with the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral 

Industries to develop appropriate measures to mitigate impacts on these resources and file 

documentation of consultation and any mitigation plans for review and written approval by the 

Director of OEP. 

Areas suited for potential carbon sequestration (or carbon capture and storage) were identified in 

Washoe County, Nevada. Carbon sequestration is an approach to mitigating the contribution of fossil fuel 

emissions to global warming, based on capturing CO2 from large point sources, such as fossil fuel power 

plants, and permanently storing it in deep geological formations underground. Although CO2 has been 

injected into geological formations for various purposes, the long-term storage of CO2 is a relatively 

untested concept. We are not aware of any immediate plans for carbon injection in the project vicinity; 

however, we note the potential does exist for future carbon injection in the region. 

4.1.3 Geologic Hazards 

Potential geologic hazards in the project area include seismicity (earthquakes and faults), 

landslides, subsidence, flooding/scour, and volcanism. Ruby determined the locations of these potential 

hazards through various methods including aerial photo review, database searches, literature review, 

topographic map review, field surveys, and detailed site-specific investigations completed by statelicensed geologists or engineers. Such licensed professionals are responsible to each state for 

preconstruction surveys and assessments as required under each state’s laws. Specific documents were 

developed for Ruby that assessed specific geologic hazards and were reviewed by state-licensed 

professionals; these documents were filed with the FERC on September 21, 2009 and are available on the 

FERC’s eLibrary (MACTEC, 2008, 2009a, 2009b). Each of the hazards noted in these reports is 

discussed in the following sections. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-16 

4.1.3.1 Seismicity 

Seismic hazards include earthquakes, ground faulting, and secondary effects such as liquefaction 

and related slope failures. Ruby identified 110 faults or fault zone crossings within 1,500 feet of the 

proposed pipeline. Seven faults have identifiable recurrence intervals and/or evidence of displacement of 

earth materials. Information regarding these faults is presented in table 4.1.3-1. 

TABLE 4.1.3-1 

Faults with Recurrence Intervals/Displacement Crossed by or Within 1,500 Feet of the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County Fault Zone 

Number 

of Fault 

Traces 

Recurrence 

Interval 

(years) 

Vertical 

Displacement 

(feet/event) 

MP Range 

Nearest 

Aboveground 

Facility (MP) 

Distance to 

Nearest 

Compressor 

Station (miles) 

UTAH 

Cache Bear River 

Range 

2 N/A N/A 74.4 to 77.5 MLV at 73.4 61.5 

(Roberson 

Creek) 

Cache East Cache 8 15,000 to 

30,000 

1.5 to 3.0 92.1 to 95.1 MLV at 92.3 68.9 

(Wildcat Hills) 

Box Elder Wasatch 4 1,000 to 

2,000 

3 to 8 104.9 to 

R109.0 

MLV at R108.9 57.9 

(Wildcat Hills) 

Box Elder North 

Promontory 

1 3,700 to 

5,000 

6.5 to 8 144.3 MLV at 144.9 27.5 

(Wildcat Hills) 

Box Elder Hansel 

Valley 

1 10,000 to 

16,000 

7.2 to 8.5 152.7 MLV at 144.9 19.3 

(Wildcat Hills) 

 

NEVADA 

Elko Thousand 

Springs 

Valley 

1 N/A 8 264.5 MLV/Launcher/

Receiver at 

254.9 

60.6 

(Wieland Flat) 

Humboldt Santa Rosa 

Range 

3 N/A 3 to 6 451.5 to 452.2 MLV at 454.8 23.7 

(Desert Valley) 

N/A = Not Applicable 

During scoping we received several comments regarding the potential for seismic activity to 

affect the integrity of the pipeline after construction. Forty-seven earthquakes have been recorded 

between 1872 and 2008 within 100 miles of the proposed project facilities. The earthquake epicenters 

were primarily located in Nevada and Utah. These events had Richter Magnitude Values that ranged 

from 5.0 to 7.15 in magnitude (M), with seven of the earthquakes equaling or exceeding 6.0 M. These 

seven earthquakes are described below. Based on the Richter Magnitude Value scale, an earthquake of 

5.0 to 5.9 M is felt by people and would cause major damage to poorly-constructed buildings over a small 

region or slight damage to well-built structures. A 6.0 to 6.9 M earthquake can be destructive in 

populated areas up to approximately 100 miles across, and an earthquake of greater than 7.0 M can cause 

serious damage over larger areas. 

Earthquake shaking can also be expressed in terms of the acceleration due to gravity (g). An 

earthquake with a 2 percent probability of occurrence within any 50-year interval would result in peak 

ground acceleration between 12 and 80 percent g along the project route, based on the USGS’s published 

seismic hazard mapping for the United States. The entire project would be constructed in an area mapped 

as having greater than 12 percent g, with approximately 50 percent of the project route in areas with peak 

acceleration higher than 18 to 20 percent g. The relationship between peak ground acceleration and 

structural damage is not simple. The USGS states that 10 percent g is a general threshold where structural 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-17 

damage to dwellings may occur, dependent, in part, on precautions taken in the design and construction of 

the structure. The damage would also be dependent on the proximity to the earthquake epicenter and the 

duration and magnitude of the event. The following comparison can be used to equate the Richter 

Magnitude Value scale and acceleration due to gravity: a seismic event of 5.0 to 5.9 M equates to a peak 

acceleration of 9.2 to 34 percent g; a 6.0 to 6.9 M earthquake equates to 34 to greater than 124 percent g; 

and higher M values equate to the upper limit of greater than 124 percent g. 

In Wyoming, peak acceleration is mapped between 16 and 30 percent g, and potential damage 

from a seismic event is considered low to moderate. There have been no reported earthquakes in 

Wyoming with a magnitude greater than 6.0 M. 

In Utah, peak acceleration is between 20 and 80 percent g, with the highest values found in the 

area of the Wasatch Fault Zone. Utah’s strongest earthquake (6.5 M in 1934) occurred approximately 4 

miles from MP 156.0 in poorly consolidated rocks along the Hansel Valley fault. The earthquake 

occurred in a sparsely populated area and resulted in limited property damage. However, vertical 

displacement along ground cracks of 3 to 10 inches were noted, and collapse structures of 8 to 10 feet in 

diameter and 36 feet deep were reported within soft material in the surrounding salt flats. An additional 

earthquake of 6.1 M emanated from the same area in 1975 and caused widespread but light damage to 

homes in Malad City, Idaho, approximately 22 miles from the project area. 

In Nevada, peak acceleration varies from 14 to 30 percent g. Three earthquakes have exceeded 

6.0 M in Nevada. The largest earthquake recorded within 100 miles of the project (7.1 M) was in 

Pleasant Valley in 1915, approximately 40 miles south of MP R400.0. It occurred in a sparsely populated 

area and caused little reported damage. This earthquake did cause an average 6.5-foot vertical 

displacement of earth for 37 miles in one area. A 6.9 M earthquake occurred in the Dixie Valley/Fairview 

Peak area in 1954. The earthquake was centered approximately 96 miles south of MP 422.0. It caused 

little damage due to the sparse population in the area although vertical and horizontal displacements of 12 

feet were reported. A 6.0 M earthquake occurred in Wells in 2008, approximately 16 miles from the 

project route. It caused heavy damage to 20 buildings and slight damage to 700 buildings. 

In Oregon, peak acceleration is between 16 and 30 percent g, and damage from a seismic event is 

considered low to moderate. Two earthquakes, both of 6.0 M, occurred in the Klamath Falls area in 1993. 

The epicenter was approximately 40 miles from MP R672.6. More than 1,000 homes and commercial 

properties experienced approximately $7.5 million in damages. 

Based on the seismic hazard mapping of the project route, the project infrastructure would be 

constructed over active faults, and a significant portion of the project would be in areas mapped with 

moderate to high peak accelerations. Although the intensity, frequency, and duration of impacts resulting 

from the potential hazard of earthquakes is difficult to quantify, all of the pipeline facilities would be 

designed by state-licensed engineers and constructed in accordance with DOT regulations codified in 49 

CFR 192 and in accordance with all state and local codes. These specifications ensure that pipeline 

facilities are designed and constructed in a manner to provide adequate protection from hazards that may 

cause the pipeline facilities to move or sustain abnormal loads. They also specify placement of MLVs 

along the pipeline to shut off the flow of gas should an unexpected drop in pressure occur. 

The pipeline would be constructed using arc-welding techniques. O’Rourke and Palmer (1994) 

evaluated the seismic performance of gas transmission pipelines in southern California using arc-welding 

as a construction method. Based on their findings, electric arc-welded pipelines constructed after World 

War II, and properly maintained, have never experienced a break or leak as a result of a southern 

California earthquake. O’Rourke and Palmer also concluded that electric arc-welded pipelines in good 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-18 

repair are the most resistant type of piping and are generally highly resistant to traveling groundwave 

effects and moderate amounts of permanent deformation. 

Ruby’s geotechnical consultant, MACTEC, provided a fault hazard analysis for each of the 31 

faults that cross or are within 300 feet of the proposed right-of-way. MACTEC’s evaluation included a 

review of historical seismicity and seismic wave propagation. MACTEC also performed finite element 

stress analyses at four major fault crossings to evaluate the performance of the pipeline under the 

abnormal loads that would result from a fault displacement event. Other faults crossed by the pipeline 

were evaluated by comparing the size of the fault and the orientation to the crossing to those that had been 

analyzed in detail. MACTEC concluded that the pipeline alignment is reasonably well-positioned at 17 of 

the fault locations to accommodate anticipated future fault displacements, and that the pipeline steel grade 

and wall thickness appear to be suitable for expected seismic loading. Eleven of the 14 remaining 

crossings would require pipeline surveillance, and 3 locations would require design mitigation treatment. 

Mitigation treatment would include use of heavy wall pipe along a portion of the East Cache Fault Zone 

where it would cross the East Fork Little Bear River (MP 92.7), adjustment of the pipeline alignment 

between MPs 108 to 109 to reduce the number of crossings of the Wasatch Fault Zone to one crossing at 

MP R108.9, and relocation of one MLV in this same area. MACTEC also recommended that the 

operating plan for the pipeline should include monitoring for all earthquakes greater than 5.5 M that occur 

within 20 miles of the pipeline alignment to determine their epicenter, followed by field inspection to 

evaluate any ground cracks in the vicinity of the pipeline. Ruby stated it would implement MACTEC’s 

recommendations and has incorporated the alignment adjustment and the relocated MLV between MPs 

108 and R109. 

Soil liquefaction can be a secondary effect of seismic activity. Liquefaction is a phenomenon 

where saturated, non-cohesive soils temporarily lose their strength when subjected to intense seismic 

shaking. The most susceptible soils are generally sandy or silty and lack cohesion. Susceptible areas are 

found along rivers, streams, lake shorelines, and in areas with relatively shallow groundwater (less than 

30 feet from the ground surface). The BLM has noted that, based on its experience in Nevada, 

liquefaction is a potential concern between MPs R397 to 415, MPs 426 to 429 and MPs 450 to 484, and 

asked that this area be evaluated. MACTEC studied the project route for areas susceptible to liquefaction, 

including the segments of concern identified by the BLM. MACTEC found that only a portion of one of 

the areas noted by the BLM is susceptible to liquefaction. MACTEC also identified 31 additional areas 

where soils are susceptible to liquefaction along the pipeline route and completed geotechnical and 

geophysical studies at all locations. The areas identified by MACTEC are generally between MPs R109 

to 126 and near MP 173 in Utah, between MPs 476 to 493 and MPs 553 to 572 in Nevada, and between 

MPs R616 to 622 and near MP R672 in Oregon. Based on its investigations, MACTEC concluded that 

liquefaction-induced ground deformation along the pipeline is likely to be expressed as seismic 

settlement. Though lateral-spread landslide deposits are found in the region, they were not found along 

the pipeline alignment. MACTEC recommended that in these areas mitigation measures should consist of 

providing negative buoyancy for the pipe using concrete coating, set-on weights, or screw anchors, and 

that Ruby should monitor the alignment following the occurrence of significant earthquakes. Ruby has 

agreed to implement these measures. 

Based on the implementation of the fault hazard analysis, stress modeling, the use of mitigation 

measures, specialized construction methods, and post-seismic event monitoring and inspection, we do not 

expect seismic hazards or their secondary effects to pose a significant risk to the proposed pipeline 

facilities. 

We also reviewed the Vya Construction Camp and Lakeview Temporary Housing Facility sites 

for geologic hazards. The only geologic hazard within 1,500 feet of these two sites is a fault near the Vya 

site. The fault is considered a quaternary active fault, which is defined as a fault that has moved within 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-19 

the last 1.6 million years. From 1875 to 1968 there have been eight earthquakes with magnitudes ranging 

from 5.0 to 5.9 M recorded within 100 miles of the camp site. According to the Richter Magnitude Value 

scale, an earthquake of 5.0 to 5.9 M is felt by people and would cause major damage to poorly 

constructed buildings over a small region or slight damage to well-built structures. Based on this 

information, we do not expect seismic hazards to pose a significant risk to the camp or temporary housing 

facilities. 

4.1.3.2 Landslides 

A landslide is defined as the movement of a mass of rock, debris, or earth down a slope. 

Landslides can be initiated by heavy rainfall, earthquakes, changes in groundwater conditions, and/or 

slope disturbance resulting from construction activity. Generally, Ruby selected flat areas for the siting of 

compressor stations and other aboveground facilities; therefore, slope failure is not expected at 

aboveground facility locations. However, slope failures and subsequent landslides represent a potential 

hazard to the buried pipeline along portions of the project route that would traverse areas of side slopes 

and rolling terrain. Factors that would increase the potential for slope failure along slopes and rolling 

terrain include cutting along slopes, the weight of construction equipment, and unusually high 

precipitation or snowmelt saturating near-surface earth materials. 

The majority of the pipeline route would be in areas of low landslide incidence. As defined, a 

low landslide incidence corresponds to an area where less than 1.5 percent of the terrain has been 

involved in landslides. A moderate landslide incidence corresponds to a range of 1.5 to 15 percent of the 

area being involved in landslides, and a high incidence is greater than 15 percent of the area. 

Approximately 12 percent of the pipeline route (based on length) crosses areas of moderate landslide risk, 

and approximately 4 percent crosses areas of high landslide incidence. Table 4.1.3-2 summarizes 

locations of moderate and high landslide susceptibility along the proposed route. 

TABLE 4.1.3-2 

Areas of Moderate to High Landslide Susceptibility Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State MP Range Landslide Susceptibility 

Wyoming 19.9 to 22.6 

22.6 to 31.0 

31.0 to 37.1 

37.1 to 44.2 

44.2 to 47.9 

High 

Moderate 

High 

Moderate 

High 

Utah 85.3 to 91.8 

101.5 to 112.4 

Moderate 

High 

Nevada 513.0 to 515.3 

515.3 to 552.4 

High 

Moderate 

Oregon 607.3 to R615.3 

625.6 to 638.0 

Moderate 

Moderate 

The pipeline would be constructed in accordance with Ruby’s Plan and Procedures, which 

include measures to control runoff and erosion that would minimize the potential for slope failures. Such 

measures include installation of slope breakers, trench breakers, vegetation, and mulch. Pipeline 

construction on steep slopes could initiate localized slope movement, and should a landslide occur, 

sections of the pipe could become exposed and thus would require subsequent reburial. However, we 

believe that modern construction techniques along with the implementation of Ruby’s Plan and 

Procedures would reduce the potential for construction-related activities to trigger landslides or other 

slope instability. Furthermore, should a landslide occur, the orientation of the pipeline along the long axis 

of a slope face would minimize the overall energy to which a segment of pipe would be exposed during a 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-20 

landslide event. None of the aboveground facilities would be located in an area with recorded landslides 

or on steep slopes. 

4.1.3.3 Subsidence 

Subsidence can range from small, localized areas of collapse to broad, regional lowering of the 

ground surface. It can be associated with areas of karst and pseudokarst terrain, past underground mining, 

earthquake-induced liquefaction, and withdrawal of fluids such as groundwater and petroleum. It can also 

be triggered by changing the hydrology of a region, by adding weight over unstable areas, and from manmade vibrations from activities such as blasting and heavy traffic. Ruby has not identified active 

underground mines within 1,500 feet of the project. 

Large area subsidence related to withdrawal of groundwater or petroleum is generally not a 

concern in the project area, with the possible exception of the Kelly Creek Area Groundwater Basin in 

Elko and Humboldt counties in Nevada. The BLM has raised a concern that large-scale withdrawal of 

groundwater for mining and industry in the general area between MPs 399 to 415 has caused subsidence 

of the land surface with associated fissuring. We spoke with the State of Nevada to discuss subsidence in 

this area and the State indicated that the subsidence had occurred due to pumping of water by the 

Newmont Mining Company. The State also noted that pumping and subsidence had ceased in 2006. We 

then spoke with a Senior Hydrogeologist with Newmont Mining Company to further discuss the incident. 

The hydrogeologist indicated that the subsidence and fissuring had occurred near the Lone Tree Mine. 

The Lone Tree Mine is not within 1,500 feet of the project. The maximum subsidence (28 centimeters) 

had occurred directly at the mine, as had the fissuring. Newmont Mining Company confirmed that 

pumping at the mine had stopped approximately 3 years ago. The area is currently being studied by the 

University of Nevada, and no additional settlement has been observed over the last 8 months. 

As the subsidence is not expected to continue, the project should not be affected by this hazard. 

Regardless, all of the pipeline facilities would be designed by state-licensed engineers and constructed in 

accordance with DOT regulations codified in 49 CFR 192 and in accordance with all state and local 

codes. These specifications ensure that pipeline facilities are designed and constructed in a manner to 

provide adequate protection from hazards (e.g., subsidence) that could cause pipeline facilities to move or 

sustain abnormal loads. DOT regulations also require periodic monitoring of the right-of-way during 

operation to detect abnormal conditions, such as subsidence or fissuring. We do not expect any 

unanticipated subsidence and its secondary effects to pose a significant risk to the proposed pipeline 

facilities at this location. 

Karst terrain refers to areas characterized by dissolution of rocks such as limestone, dolomite, 

gypsum, and salt. Pseudokarst refers to karst-like terrain formed by processes other than solution, or 

corrosion-induced subsidence and collapse in rocks such as lava. Both refer to areas characterized by 

sinkholes (closed depressions), pinnacled bedrock, caves/caverns, and underground drainage systems. 

The tendency for and rate of solubility of rock formations is variable and is believed to be affected by 

rock mineralogy as well as local structural features, such as jointing, bedding characteristics, and 

differences in groundwater chemistry. 

Approximately 5 percent of the proposed pipeline route has the potential for encountering 

karst/pseudokarst features. Table 4.1.3-3 identifies areas of the route that would cross potential 

karst/pseudokarst terrain. Ruby would conduct inspections during the trenching phase of pipeline 

construction in these karst/pseudokarst areas. If solution features are found, Ruby states that it would 

develop appropriate mitigation measures based on the specific features identified and their relation to the 

pipeline trench. Such measures could include, but would not be limited to, the installation of erosion 

controls to prevent storm water from flowing into the ditch and to areas susceptible to sinkhole 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-21 

development. Ruby also would avoid discharging hydrostatic test water near potential karst/pseudokarst 

features. 

TABLE 4.1.3-3 

Areas of Karst/Pseudokarst Terrain Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State MP Range Type 

Utah 96.0 to 112.0 Karst/carbonate rock 

Nevada 444.0 to 448.0 Karst/carbonate rock 

 521.0 to 525.0 Pseudokarst/lava 

Oregon R655.0 to R663.0 Pseudokarst/lava 

Although highly unlikely, an HDD could potentially intercept a solution void in a 

karst/pseudokarst area or an underground abandoned mine with no surface expression. Depending on the 

size of the void, this could result in the loss of drilling mud into the void and/or the failure of the drill. 

Ruby has not indicated what it would do if a solution void were intercepted during an HDD. In 

accordance with Ruby’s Procedures, Ruby would submit to the FERC for review and approval a sitespecific plan of the HDD. Because of the potential for adverse impacts from the HDD method, we would 

expect the plan to include frac-out containment procedures to identify, based on field investigations, 

potential subsurface features that would be encountered during drilling and what Ruby would do if a void 

were encountered to limit the amount of mud lost and successfully complete the drill. 

UTPL indicated that areas within Utah that have karst features often contain unique and rare 

habitats, wildlife, and geological features. The office also suggested that these areas are often susceptible 

to groundwater contamination, resulting in negative impacts on the animals that use these resources. The 

office requested that Ruby take the necessary precautions to reduce accidental spills in these areas by 

creating a 100 foot no refueling zone around these areas during construction. If a cave is opened during 

construction, the State of Utah requested that Ruby inform the UDWR Native Species Specialist. We 

agree with these measures; therefore, we recommend that, if Ruby identifies karst/pseudokarst 

features during construction, it clearly mark the area of the feature and handle and store all fuels, 

solvents, and lubricants; perform all concrete coating activities; and stage and store all equipment 

at least 100 feet from the feature. Ruby should inform the appropriate state natural heritage 

agency if a feature is opened during construction. In addition, Ruby should include the 

identification of these features in its weekly construction status report.

4.1.3.4 Volcanism 

Volcanic hazards include lahars (debris flows), landslides, lava flows, pyroclastic flows (highdensity mixtures of hot, dry rock fragments and hot gases that move away from the vent that erupted them 

at high speeds), and tephra (typically ash fall). The most likely volcanic hazard within the project area is 

tephra. Tephra is not likely to affect the pipeline itself but may affect the operation of aboveground 

facilities and equipment. Mount Shasta is the closest active volcano to the project area, located 60 miles 

away. Mount Shasta is not likely to erupt large volumes of ash in the future, based on its past behavior. 

Areas subject to the greatest risk from air-fall tephra are located mainly east and within about 30 miles of 

the summit of the volcano. Lahars, landslides, lava flows, and pyroclastic flows are not a hazard due to 

the distance between the pipeline and the nearest volcanoes. 

4.1.4 Paleontological Resources 

Many geologic formations have the potential to contain paleontological resources; however, those 

containing vertebrate fossils are generally considered to be the most scientifically significant. The 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-22 

FLPMA and NEPA mandate the protection of significant paleontological resources on federally owned or 

managed lands. Potential impacts in fossil localities during construction could include direct impacts 

such as damage to, or destruction of, fossils resulting from excavation activities; indirect impacts such as 

erosion of fossil beds resulting from slope regrading and clearing of vegetation; and unauthorized 

collection of significant fossils by construction personnel or the public. 

According to the BLM, a Class 3 paleo-resource area is defined as a moderate or unknown 

potential and may require a preconstruction survey as determined by the BLM. A Class 4 paleo-resource 

area has high potential but has a lower potential for human or environmental degradation. A Class 5 

paleo-resource is the same as a Class 4 but has a higher potential for degradation. Both Class 4 and 5 

areas require preconstruction field surveys. 

Ruby completed a literature search and a field survey of right-of-way segments ranked as PFYC 3 

and higher so as to classify all geologic deposits along the entire pipeline route (both federal and nonfederal land) in accordance with the BLM’s PFYC system. Ruby surveyed from the starting point near 

Opal, Wyoming to MP 335. Ruby’s professional consulting paleontologist determined that surveys west 

of MP 335 were not warranted because geologic maps indicate that similar strata would be encountered 

and that the percentage of volcanic rock exposures would increase. The survey identified by milepost 

those areas with the potential to contain significant fossil resources. The following segments (milepost 

ranges) of the proposed project would cross areas suspected of having a moderate (3) to high (5) potential 

for containing significant fossils on both public and private land. An estimated 187.8 miles of the 

project’s route would cross areas with a moderate to high potential for fossil resources. 

0.0 to 0.6 141.2 to 141.9 250.2 to 250.4 324.7 to 327.7 510.4 to 511.0 

1.4 to 6.6 143.2 to 143.5 251.4 to 255.4 328.2 to 328.3 511.6 to 516.2 

7.3 to 7.6 187.8 to 188.1 257.2 to 259.8 329.0 to 333.5 517.5 to 517.8 

9.2 to 48.1 189.4 to 189.8 262.1 to 262.5 333.8 to 336.7 532.0 to 533.4 

55.3 to 60.7 R192.6 to R192.9 263.1 to 264.7 363.5 to 368.0 533.7 to 533.9 

61.1 to 71.1 R197.2 to R197.4 265.2 to 266.4 368.7 to 371.5 538.6 to 540.2 

71.5 to 72.1 213.5 to 214.0 272.4 to 272.9 374.4 to 374.6 551.7 to 552.0 

72.3 to 72.9 228.7 to 228.8 275.9 to 280.2 375.1 to 376.9 554.4 to 555.3 

73.6 to 74.0 229.7 to 233.5 283.7 to R292.9 382.1 to 382.5 555.7 to 556.0 

74. to 75.1 231.1 to 231.2 R295.2 to 299.3 384.3 to 385.4 570.8 to 571.4 

75.4 to 76.6 244.4 to 245.2 300.3 to 301.6 443.8 to 444.7 597.5 to 600.2 

76.7 to 82.7 246.7 to 247.0 302.0 to 304.5 456.9 to 460.3 602.2 to 602.4 

92.9 to 94.5 247.3 to 257.6 306.8 to 307.4 R464.1 to 483.3 

95.2 to 98.8 248.1 to 248.3 309.2 to 310.3 488.3 to 496.0 

134.8 to R135.5 248.8 to 249.8 311.2 to 315.4 506.1 to 506.2 

Ruby also reviewed the Vya Construction Camp and Lakeview Temporary Housing Facility sites 

for paleontological resources and concluded the sites do not contain areas of moderate (3) to high (5) 

potential for containing significant fossils. In response to comments from the BLM regarding upgrading 

the PFYC in specific areas, Ruby has agreed to conduct preconstruction surveys in areas classified as 

PFYC 3 for significant fossils between MPs 466 to 485, MPs 490 to 498, at MP 508, between MPs 512 to 

518, and between MPs 519 and 520. 

The potential for Ruby’s construction activities to disturb fossil-bearing rock would be dependent 

on project location and the depth of the existing soil overburden compared to depth of the proposed 

excavation(s). Ruby revised its Paleontological Resources Monitoring Plan (Appendix I) in August 2009 

and updated the plan in October 2009 to: 1) provide procedures to monitor those areas of the project (both 

federal and non-federal land) where there are potentially significant fossil resources; and 2) address the 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-23 

unanticipated discovery of significant fossil resources that may be encountered during construction. 

Primary elements of the Paleontological Resources Monitoring Plan include: 

• mitigation procedures (e.g., avoidance, excavation) for fossil localities identified during 

construction; 

• procedures for in-trench inspections and spot checking; and 

• provisions for the preparation and curation of fossil collections. 

All work conducted under the Paleontological Resources Monitoring Plan would be performed by 

a qualified consulting paleontologist and, when on federal land, in consultation with BLM paleontologists 

in each state. The BLM indicated that it also may utilize third-party paleontological monitors on federal 

land during construction and that it would require Ruby to report paleontological finds as part of its rightof-way grant. The BLM also requests that Ruby report paleontological finds on non-federal lands to the 

BLM. 

Normal operation of the pipeline and aboveground facilities would not disturb paleontological 

resources. Although maintenance activities would result in surface disturbance, this disturbance would 

typically occur in areas previously disturbed by construction. Therefore, operational impacts on 

paleontological resources would be negligible. 

4.1.5 Non-Jurisdictional Electric Power Lines 

The Rocky Mountain Power and Harney Electric Cooperative electric transmission and 

distribution lines would be constructed in the same general geologic setting as the Ruby pipeline. 

Switching station and meter station impacts would be similar to those described above for pipeline 

aboveground facilities. Power line impacts would be similar to those for pipelines, except that direct 

impacts would be limited to borehole locations for the placement of poles. If borings are completed, and 

for geotechnical reasons cannot be used, the bore holes would be backfilled with tailings or grout to 

eliminate the hazard associated with an open borehole. It is unlikely that fossil resources would be 

affected during boring activities. If fossils are observed, a boring could be stopped and the poles moved 

to a nearby location without significant fossils. According to Ruby, Harney Electric Cooperative would 

implement Ruby’s Unanticipated Discoveries Plan for Paleontological Resources (Appendix I) during 

construction of its line. 

4.2 SOILS 

Information regarding the soil types and characteristics occurring in the project area was obtained 

from the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database (NRCS, 2004) for 598.3 miles of the overall 

project length. Information regarding the remaining 76.9 miles was obtained from the State Soil 

Geographic (STATSGO) database (NRCS, 2006). The STATSGO database describes larger, more 

generalized soil map units than the SSURGO database. Additionally, not all soil characteristics are 

described in the STATSGO database. We evaluated the following soil characteristics and limitations: 

erosion potential (wind and water), designation as prime farmland, compaction potential, percentage of 

stones/rocks, droughty soil, hydric soil, and potential for shallow bedrock.

Pipeline construction activities such as clearing, grading, trench excavation, backfilling, heavy 

equipment traffic, and restoration could result in adverse impacts on soil resources along the construction 

right-of-way, in temporary work areas (including camps and temporary housing facilities), and on new 

and improved access roads. Clearing would remove protective vegetation cover and would expose soil to 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-24 

the effects of wind, sun, and precipitation, which could potentially increase soil erosion and the transport 

of sediment to sensitive areas such as wetlands or waterbodies. Grading and equipment traffic could 

compact soil, reducing porosity and percolation rates, which could result in increased runoff potential. In 

addition, grading could result in the mixing of topsoil with subsoil, which could result in long-term 

reduction of agricultural productivity and could introduce subsurface rocks to the soil surface. Trench 

excavation and backfilling on the construction right-of-way could also lead to the mixing of topsoil and 

subsoil; the introduction of excavated rocks from the fracturing of bedrock; and excavation of rock and/or 

gravel into the soil surface, which could result in a future increase in operation labor, decrease in 

agricultural productivity, and potential damage to agricultural field equipment. Soil contamination from 

equipment spills and/or leakage of fuels, lubricants, and coolants could also impact soils. Certain 

practices, such as the use of Ruby’s Plan (Appendix F), Spill Plan (Appendix J), and Restoration and 

Revegetation Plans (Appendix L), would help minimize impacts on soils. 

Impacts associated with construction and operation of the aboveground facilities would be similar 

to those described above for the pipeline; however, impacts at aboveground facilities would be 

permanent. Mitigation measures implemented at the aboveground facilities are limited to erosion and 

sediment control measures due to the fact that land used for construction of the aboveground facilities 

would be permanently converted to industrial use. 

4.2.1 Standard Soil Limitations 

Table 4.2.1-1 provides a summary of the soil limitations present along the proposed pipeline. 

Table 4.2.1-2 provides a summary of the soil limitations present at the proposed aboveground facility 

sites. Table 4.2.1-3 provides a summary of the soil limitations that would be encountered on new and 

improved access roads. An area may have more than one soil limitation. 

4.2.1.1 Erosion Potential 

Erosion is a natural process where surface soils are worn away, typically by wind or water. 

Factors that influence the erosion potential of soil include gradation (distribution of soil particles), 

vegetation cover, length and percent of slope, rainfall, and wind intensity. Soils on steep, long slopes are 

much more susceptible to water erosion than those on short slopes because the steeper slopes accelerate 

the flow of surface runoff. 

Approximately 16.4 percent (110.7 miles) of the soils crossed by the proposed pipeline route are 

highly susceptible to wind erosion, and 4.0 percent (27.0 miles) are highly susceptible to water erosion 

(see table 4.2.1-1). Clearing, grading, and equipment movement could accelerate the erosion process. 

Without adequate protection, this could result in topsoil loss, reduced soil fertility, and erosion of 

sediment into sensitive areas. The sloping banks of ravines, waterbodies, and soil storage piles would be 

most susceptible to water erosion. Erosion in highly susceptible areas can be compounded by poor 

revegetation of the soil. All 160 acres of soil at the Vya Construction Camp and about 10.2 acres of soil 

at the Lakeview Temporary Housing Facility are highly wind erodible. None of the soils at the Vya camp 

or the Lakeview facility are highly water erodible. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-25

TABLE 4.2.1-1 

Soil Limitations (Pipeline) for the Ruby Pipeline Project (in acres)a

State/County Highly Wind Erodibleb Highly Water Erodiblec Prime Farmlandd Compaction- Pronee Stony-Rockyf Droughtyg S

B

WYOMING 

Lincoln 12.0 / 167.3 * / * * / * 0.0 / 0.0 0.0 / 0.0 12.0 / 167.3 6Uinta 0.0 / 0.0 * / * * / * 0.0 / 0.0 0.0 / 0.0 0.0 / 0.0 19

UTAH 

Rich 0.0 / 0.0 * / * 4.5 / 62.7 0.3 / 4.2 0.4 / 5.6 0.3 / 4.2 2Cache 0.0 / 0.0 * / * 0.1 / 1.4 0.0 / 0.0 12.4 / 172.8 0.3 / 4.2 4Box Elder 10.4 / 145.0 * / * 15.4 / 214.7 11.9 / 165.9 10.2 / 142.2 22.0 / 306.7 5

NEVADA 

Elko 11.6 / 161.7 * / * 10.2 / 142.2 0.0 / 0.0 16.0 / 223.0 10.2 / 142.2 34Humboldt 56.5 / 958.8 * / * 24.4 / 414.0 0.0 / 0.0 25.4 / 431.1 43.5 / 738.2 28Washoe 11.2 / 190.0 * / * 0.0 / 0.0 0.0 / 0.0 17.8 / 302.0 9.4 / 159.5 15

OREGON 

Lake 4.6 / 64.1 19.6 / 273.2 2.3 / 32.1 0.0 / 0.0 30.0 / 418.2 3.4 / 47.4 15Klamath 1.9 / 26.5 7.4 / 103.2 1.2 / 16.7 0.0 / 0.0 22.7 / 316.4 2.5 / 34.8 21PG&E Lateral 2.5 / 34.8 0.0 / 0.0 2.5 / 34.8 0.0 / 0.0 0.0 / 0.0 0.1 / 1.4 

 Total Miles/Acresa 110.7 / 1,748.3 27.0 / 376.4 60.6 / 918.6 12.2 / 170.1 134.9 / 2,011.3 103.7 / 1,605.8 153

Total Percentagej 16.4 4.0 9.0 1.8 20.0 15.4 

a Acreage calculated assuming a 115-foot wide right-of-way unless otherwise noted. Acreage calculated for BLM lands in Humboldt and Washoe 

assuming a 140-foot wide right-of-way. 

b Includes soils in wind erodibility groups 1, 2, and 3 (potential erosion rates of 86 to 310 tons per acre per year) (SSURGO reference column “wec Includes soils with water classified as highly erodible land.d Includes soils designated as prime farmland by the NRCS if drained and/or irrigated and/or reclaimed of excess salts and sodium (SSURGO ree Includes soils that meet compaction-prone criteria (i.e., soils with clay loam or finer texture, and somewhat poor, poor, and very poor drainage c

column “texcl” and “drainagecl”).

f Includes soils that contain greater than 5 percent by weight and stones larger than 3 inches in diameter (SSURGO reference column “frag3to10g Includes soils that meet droughty soils criteria (i.e., soils with sandy loam or coarser texture and are moderately to excessively well drained) (SS

and “drainagecl”).

h Includes soils that have lithic or paralithic bedrock within 60 inches of the soil surface (SSURGO and STATSGO reference column “rescind” ani Includes soils that are classified as hydric (SSURGO and STATSGO reference column “hydricrati”).j Percent of total pipeline length including lateral (675.2 miles). * Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada contain data gaps in some categories, resulting in a missing or incomplete value. Note: An area may have more than one soil limitation. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-26

TABLE 4.2.1-2 

Soil Limitations (Aboveground Facilities) for the Ruby Pipeline Project (in acres) 

Station Name MP 

Permanent 

Facility 

Area 

Highly 

Wind 

Erodiblea

Highly 

Water 

Erodibleb

Prime 

Farmlandc

Compaction 

Proned Stony- Rockye Drough

King Meter Station (with three Interconnects), MLV 1, Launcher 0.1 13.6 13.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.6 Roberson Creek Compressor Station, Meter Station (with one Interconnect), MLV 2, Launcher, Receiver, Communication Tower 

5.7 30.8 30.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.8 

MLV 3 21.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MLV 4 39.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MLV 5 55.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 MLV 6 73.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MLV 7 92.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MLV 8 Launcher/ Receiver R102.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MLV 9 R109.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 MLV 10 127.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MLV 11 144.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 MLV 12 161.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wildcat Hills Compressor Station, MLV 13 Launcher, Receiver, Communication Tower 

172.5 29.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

MLV 14 R190.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MLV 15 R206.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 MLV 16 222.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 MLV 17 239.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MLV 18 Launcher/ Receiver 257.4 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MLV 19 275.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 MLV 20 R292.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MLV 21 311.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wieland Flat Compressor Station, MLV 22, Launcher, Receiver, Communication Tower 

R330.2 25.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

MLV 23 345.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MLV 24 R364.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MLV 25 R382.8 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 MLV 26 Launcher/ Receiver R401.8 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 MLV 27 421.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 MLV 28 437.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 MLV 29 456.9 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Desert Valley Compressor Station, MLV 30, Launcher, Receiver , Communication Tower 

476.4 25.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

MLV 31 493.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-27

TABLE 4.2.1-2 

Soil Limitations (Aboveground Facilities) for the Ruby Pipeline Project (in acres) 

Station Name MP 

Permanent 

Facility 

Area 

Highly 

Wind 

Erodiblea

Highly 

Water 

Erodibleb

Prime 

Farmlandc

Compaction 

Proned Stony- Rockye Drough

MLV 32 509.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 MLV 33 Launcher/ Receiver 528.8 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MLV 34 547.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 MLV 35 567.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MLV 36 Launcher/ Receiver 582.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 MLV 37 601.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 MLV 38 614.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 MLV 39 627.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 MLV 40 643.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MLV 41 R659.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 MLV 42, Receiver Separation Facilities , Tule Lake Valley Meter Station R672.6 12.2 12.2 0.0 12.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 MLV 301-2 -- 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- MLV 301-1, Malin Meter Station -- 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 

 Total Acres -- 138.6 52.5 0.1 7.3 0.0 1.4 45.8 

Total Percentagei -- -- 37.9 0.7 5.3 0.0 1.0 33.0 

a Includes soils in wind erodibility groups 1, 2, and 3 (potential erosion rates of 86 to 310 tons per acre per year) (SSURGO reference column “

b Includes soils with water classified as highly erodible land.

c Includes soils designated as prime farmland by the NRCS if drained and/or irrigated and/or reclaimed of excess salts and sodium (SSURGO 

“farmlndcl”).

d Includes soils that meet compaction-prone criteria (i.e., soils with clay loam or finer texture, and somewhat poor, poor, and very poor drainage 

column “texcl” and “drainagecl”).

e Includes soils that contain greater than 5 percent by weight and stones larger than 3 inches in diameter (SSURGO reference column “frag3tof Includes soils that meet droughty soils criteria (i.e., soils with sandy loam or coarser texture, and are moderately to excessively well drained) 

“texcl” and “drainagecl”).

g Includes soils which have lithic or paralithic bedrock within 60 inches of the soil surface (SSURGO and STATSGO reference column “rescindh Includes soils that are classified as hydric (SSURGO and STATSGO reference column “hydricrati”).i Percent of total permanent facility area. * Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada contain data gaps in some categories, resulting in a missing or incomplete value. Note: An area may have more than one soil limitation.

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-28

TABLE 4.2.1-3 

Soil Limitations (Access Roads) for the Ruby Pipeline Project (in acres)a

State/County Highly Wind Erodibleb Highly Water Erodiblec Prime Farmlandd Compaction- Pronee Stony-Rockyf Droughtyg S

B

WYOMING 

Lincoln 0.1 / 0.4 * / * * / * 0.0 / 0.0 0.0 / 0.0 0.0 / 0.0 33Uinta 0.0 / 0.0 * / * * / * 0.0 / 0.0 0.0 / 0.0 0.0 / 0.0 0

UTAH 

Rich 0.0 / 0.0 * / * 2.9 / 10.5 0.2 / 0.7 15.6 / 56.7 0.2 / 0.7 6Cache 0.0 / 0.0 * / * 1.5 / 5.5 0.0 / 0.0 20.7 / 75.3 0.0 / 0.0 7Box Elder 24.1 / 87.6 * / * 37.5 / 136.4 12.2 / 44.4 40.9 / 148.7 5.1 / 18.5 7

NEVADA 

Elko 18.3 / 66.5 * / * 21.3 / 77.5 0.0 / 0.0 103.8 / 377.5 2.7 / 9.8 74Humboldt 22.8 / 82.9 * / * 10.9 / 39.6 0.0 / 0.0 28.5 / 103.6 15.9 / 57.8 23Washoe 7.9 / 28.7 * / * 0.9 / 3.3 0.0 / 0.0 26.4 / 96.0 7.7 / 28.0 25

OREGON 

Lake 1.2 / 4.4 21.6 / 78.5 1.0 / 3.6 0.0 / 0.0 44.8 / 162.9 2.3 / 8.4 7Klamath 0.0 / 0.0 6.6 / 24.0 0.9 / 3.3 0.0 / 0.0 9.4 / 34.2 0.6 / 2.2 7

Total Miles/Acresa 74.4 / 270.5 28.2 / 102.5 76.9 / 279.6 12.4 / 45.1 290.1 / 1054.9 34.5 / 125.5 191

Total Percentagej 6.8 2.6 7.0 1.1 26.3 3.1 

a Acreage calculated assuming a 30-foot wide disturbance area. b Includes soils in wind erodibility groups 1, 2, and 3 (potential erosion rates of 86 to 310 tons per acre per year) (SSURGO reference column “wec Includes soils with water classified as highly erodible land (SSURGO reference column “muwathelcl”).d Includes soils designated as prime farmland by the NRCS if drained and/or irrigated and/or reclaimed of excess salts and sodium (SSURGO ree Includes soils that meet compaction-prone criteria (i.e., soils with clay loam or finer texture, and somewhat poor, poor, and very poor drainage c

column “texcl” and “drainagecl”).

f Includes soils that contain greater than 5 percent by weight and stones larger than 3 inches in diameter (SSURGO reference column “frag3to10g Includes soils that meet droughty soils criteria (i.e., soils with sandy loam or coarser texture and are moderately to excessively well drained) (SS

and “drainagecl”).

h Includes soils that have lithic or paralithic bedrock within 60 inches of the soil surface (SSURGO and STATSGO reference column “rescind” ani Includes soils that are classified as hydric (SSURGO and STATSGO reference column “hydricrati”).j Percent of total access road length (1101.3 miles).

* Wyoming, Oregon, and Utah still contain data gaps in some categories, resulting in a missing or incomplete value. Note: An area may have more than one soil limitation. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-29 

Certain measures in Ruby’s Plan are designed to control erosion and sedimentation during 

construction. For example, Ruby would install and maintain various erosion control devices including 

temporary slope breakers on slopes and temporary sediment barriers such as straw bales or silt fence at 

the base of slopes adjacent to waterbodies, wetlands, and roadways, and along the edge of the right-ofway. Installation of such measures would help prevent sediment from flowing across or off the right-ofway during construction. 

Ruby also would implement the waterbody crossing methods outlined in its Procedures 

(Appendix F) to minimize potential impacts from water erosion and sedimentation near waterbodies. 

Ruby would install and maintain sediment barriers across the entire construction right-of-way at all 

waterbody crossings to prevent flow of sediment into the waterbody and to contain spoil and sediment 

within the construction right-of-way. In addition, trench plugs would be used as necessary to prevent 

diversion of water into upland portions of the pipeline trench and to keep any accumulated trench water 

out of the waterbody. All waterbody banks would be returned to a stable condition after construction. 

Where trench dewatering is required, Ruby would pump water from the trench to a wellvegetated upland area away from the wetland or waterbody banks or into a sediment filtration/energy 

dissipation device in a manner that would not cause erosion and would not result in heavily silt-laden 

water flowing into any waterbody. 

Post-construction, Ruby would implement revegetation measures as outlined in its Plan, 

Procedures, and Restoration and Revegetation Plans to reduce the potential for long-term erosion due to 

lack of vegetation cover. Ruby would also comply with National Pollution Discharge and Elimination 

System (NPDES) storm water requirements and any local conditions regarding site stabilization. 

Permanent impacts on highly wind erodible soils at aboveground facilities would total 52.5 acres, 

or about 37.9 percent of the total area for all aboveground facilities. Permanent impacts on highly water 

erodible soils at the aboveground facilities would be 0.1 acre, or 0.7 percent of the total area for all 

aboveground facilities. While these soils would be permanently affected, they are likely to have fewer 

erosion issues post-construction due to permanent erosion control measures that Ruby would install at the 

aboveground facility locations. The BLM has noted that Ruby’s proposed contractor yard located 9.5 

miles south of MP 439.0 in Humboldt County, Nevada is located in a highly unstable, windswept dune 

area that is used recreationally and that any improvements would be subject to burial by continuously 

migrating sands, especially during moderate to high wind events. In areas where this does occur, the 

contractor would be responsible for maintaining the yard through the duration of the project after which 

the yard would be decommissioned and the area restored. 

The USFS identified a concern about construction impacts on soils in the Fremont National 

Forest, including shallow soils. Construction activities such as clearing, grading, trench excavation, 

backfilling, heavy equipment traffic, and restoration along the construction corridor could have the 

potential to adversely affect natural soil characteristics and reduce soil productivity. It would not be 

possible to avoid soils that are highly susceptible to erosion as outlined in the Fremont LRMP (USFS, 

1989), as the pipeline route traverses east-west across the Fremont National Forest. A longer route also 

would impact other resources and would cause a shift in effects to riparian areas and other resources of 

value. Soil disturbance along the proposed route would exceed 20 percent detrimental soil conditions 

from displacement and compaction. This impact would be unavoidable due to the pipeline construction 

process. Soil impacts associated with compaction are expected to be small because soils in the Fremont 

National Forest are not overly compaction-prone (based on soil texture information from the NRCS). The 

USFS concluded that successful mitigation for erosion and compaction would be possible and such 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-30 

mitigation would offset the environmental impact of a longer pipeline route and the associated resource 

impacts. 

We received several comments expressing concern about soil erosion and mud slides in areas of 

steep terrain. Areas of steep slopes (such as those found in South Canyon and Scarce Canyon, Utah) 

would require the use of specific measures to prevent soil erosion and mud slides during and after 

construction. Ruby would avoid stockpiling grading and trench materials in areas of steep slopes and 

would shuttle spoil to extra workspaces and staging areas further back along the pipeline route. Slope 

breakers would be used to divert runoff from disturbed areas on slopes to more stable areas. Erosion 

control measures would include trench breakers at proper spacing, sediment barriers, slope breakers, 

wattles, erosion control blankets, and mulching as detailed in Ruby's Plan. Trench breakers would 

prevent the flow of water along the pipeline, divert excess water off the right-of-way, and would help 

anchor the trench. The extent of utilization of mulch on federally managed land is being established 

during the development of Ruby’s POD. Section 2.3.2.5 describes construction through areas of steep 

terrain. 

 

We also received several comments expressing concerns about erosion control in areas prone to 

washouts, including washouts in the water basin in the Oak Valley, Oregon area. As with other areas, 

Ruby would stabilize soils in these areas in accordance with its Plan and Procedures. We believe the 

techniques proposed by Ruby adequately address erosion control. The BLM, USFS, state, or other 

jurisdictional agency might require additional measures as stipulations to any authorizations they issue. 

4.2.1.2 Prime Farmland 

According to the USDA, prime farmland soils consist of soils classified as those best suited for 

production of food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. These soils generate the highest yields with the 

least amount of expenditure. Soils currently occupying pastures and fields or otherwise undeveloped 

forest and open land can be classified as prime farmland soils; lands occupied by surface water or 

residential, commercial, or industrial uses cannot receive this designation. Prime farmland soils generally 

meet the following criteria: have an adequate water supply, either from precipitation or irrigation; contain 

few or no rocks; are permeable to water and air; are not excessively erodible or saturated for long time 

periods; and either do not flood frequently or are protected from flooding. 

Approximately 9.0 percent (60.6 miles) of the proposed pipeline route crosses soils designated as 

prime farmland (this includes soils classified as prime farmland if drained and/or irrigated and/or 

reclaimed of excess salts and sodium). Approximately 49.2 acres of the soils at the Vya Construction 

Camp and 0.2 acre of soil at the Lakeview Temporary Housing Facility are classified as prime farmland, 

if irrigated. 

Potential impacts on agricultural uses and prime farmland soils from pipeline construction include 

soil erosion, interference with and damage to agricultural surface and sub-surface drainage systems and 

irrigation systems, the mixing of topsoil and subsoil, the potential loss of fertile topsoil, and topsoil 

compaction. Additional analysis of agricultural-related issues is presented in section 4.8.1.3 of this EIS. 

Construction of aboveground facilities would affect about 7.3 acres of prime farmland soils (see 

table 4.2.1-2). The 12.2-acre footprint at the Tule Lake Valley Meter Station accounts for most of this 

prime farmland soils acreage. The Tule Lake Valley Meter Station is near the end of the Ruby pipeline in 

actively cultivated agricultural land and is surrounded by actively cultivated prime farmland for several 

thousand feet in all directions. There are no nearby non-prime farmland areas that would offer alternative 

sites for the MLV. While these soil resources would be permanently lost, the acreage affected is a small 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-31 

fraction of the available prime farmland soils and would not significantly reduce the overall agricultural 

production in the area. 

4.2.1.3 Compaction Potential 

Soil compaction occurs when soil particles are compressed. Soil compaction modifies soil 

structure and can result in a reduction in the porosity and moisture-holding capability of the soil, thus 

restricting rooting depth. Compaction also decreases infiltration and thus increases runoff and the 

potential for water erosion. The risk for compaction is greatest when soils are wet. Therefore, finegrained soils having poor drainage characteristics have the greatest propensity for compaction. 

Construction equipment traveling over wet or saturated soils could disrupt soil structure, reduce pore 

space, increase runoff potential, and cause rutting and topsoil-subsoil mixing. Approximately 1.8 percent 

(12.2 miles) of the soils crossed by the proposed pipeline route are highly susceptible to compaction. 

None of the soils at the Vya Construction Camp site and all 15.2 acres of soil at the Lakeview Temporary 

Housing Facility are compaction prone.

Ruby would test for and alleviate compaction in all agricultural and residential areas in 

accordance with its Plan. Testing would be conducted using a penetrometer or other appropriate device 

and would be performed on the same soil type under similar moisture conditions in undisturbed areas. 

Decompaction efforts would be commensurate with the level of preconstruction compaction identified 

during testing. Compaction impacts would be mitigated through use of a paraplow or other deep tillage 

implement. As an alternative, Ruby could make arrangements with the landowner to plant and plow 

under a “green manure” crop, such as alfalfa, to decrease soil bulk density and improve soil structure. 

There are no compaction-prone soils at aboveground facilities. 

4.2.1.4 Stony-Rocky or Droughty Soils 

Stony soils are identified as soils having more than 5 percent by weight of particles larger than 3 

inches. The presence of stony-rocky soils could interfere with agricultural practices and inhibit 

revegetation efforts. Droughty soils have a surface texture of sandy loam or coarser material and are 

moderately well drained to excessively drained. As a result, droughty soils may not be able to sustain 

adequate moisture levels in the root zone, and revegetation is often difficult. 

About 20.0 percent (134.9 miles) of the soils crossed by the proposed pipeline route are defined 

as stony-rocky. About 15.4 percent (103.7 miles) of the soils crossed are classified as droughty. None of 

the soils at the Vya Construction Camp or the Lakeview Temporary Housing Facility are stony-rocky or 

droughty. Construction through stony-rocky soil could bring rock to the surface, which could interfere 

with agricultural practices and hinder revegetation of the right-of-way. 

Ruby would use padding material such as sand or fine grain soil or gravel in the bottom of the 

trench in rocky areas to protect the pipeline. Where the excavated material is rocky, the pipeline would 

be covered with more suitable fill. About 1 cubic yard of suitable fill (also referred to as padding) would 

be needed per linear foot of pipeline. Ruby would obtain padding by screening excavated trench material 

to separate fine soil from rocky soil, crushing rock to an acceptable size, exchanging spoil from one 

location on the right-of-way to another, and/or importing new material from a commercial source (the 

most costly option). Toposoil would not be used for pipe padding. Ruby has not yet identified the 

specific volume of pipe padding that would be needed for the project. Such information is typically not 

known until after trenching is completed. Based on previous experience, Ruby estimates that less than 3 

percent of the route would require imported padding from a commercial source (e.g., existing sand or 

gravel pit). Ruby also may elect to minimize the need for pipe padding by installing rock shield around 

the pipeline. Rock shield is a flexible pipeline wrap designed to protect the pipeline where rocky backfill 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-32 

is unavailable. Once the pipe is sufficiently covered with suitable material or wrapped in rock shield, the 

excavated rocky soil would be used for backfill within the original rocky soil horizon. 

Ruby would remove and dispose of excess blast/excavated rock (which is considered construction 

debris) according to its Plan. Ruby also would remove excess stones and rock greater than 4 inches in 

diameter from at least the top 12 inches of soil in all actively cultivated or rotated cropland and pastures, 

hayfields, and residential areas, as well as at the landowner’s request, provided the surrounding area has 

minimal rock in the top 12 inches. Ruby has committed to ensuring that the size, density, and distribution 

of rock on the construction work area at the completion of construction would be similar to adjacent areas 

not disturbed by construction. In droughty soils, mulch application would be used to conserve soil 

moisture, which would also provide stability of the soil surface and reduce erosion. We conclude that 

Ruby’s use of its Plan would minimize impacts from construction through these types of soils. 

Permanent impacts on stony-rocky soils at aboveground facilities would total 1.4 acres, or about 

1.0 percent of the total area for all aboveground facilities. Impacts on droughty soils would total 45.8 

acres, or about 33.0 percent of the total area for all aboveground facilities. 

4.2.1.5 Hydric Soils 

Hydric soils are defined as soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding 

long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper horizon. This 

definition includes soils developed under sufficiently wet conditions to support the growth and 

regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation, and soils that are sufficiently wet because of artificial measures. 

Locations where hydric soils are encountered may also contain artificial drainage systems. 

Approximately 13.0 percent (88.0 miles) of the soils crossed by the proposed pipeline route are 

designated as hydric soils. None of the soils at the Vya Construction Camp and all 15.2 acres of soil at 

the Lakeview Temporary Housing Facility are considered hydric. Construction through hydric soils and 

wetlands is discussed in section 4.3.3 of this EIS. Implementation of the measures contained in Ruby’s 

Plan and Procedures would also minimize impacts on hydric soils. 

Permanent impacts on hydric soils at aboveground facilities would total 30.0 acres, or about 21.6 

percent of the total area for all aboveground facilities. Examples of permanent impacts on hydric soils 

could include (but are not limited to) decreased water storage capacity of the soil, decreased porosity, or 

decreased ability to sustain hydrophytic vegetation. It should be noted that no wetlands exist at potential 

aboveground facility sites. 

4.2.1.6 Shallow Bedrock 

Soils indicated as having shallow bedrock have the potential for bedrock to occur within 60 

inches of the soil surface. Approximately 22.7 percent (153.2 miles) of the proposed pipeline route has 

the potential for shallow bedrock. None of the soils within the Vya Construction Camp or Lakeview 

Temporary Housing Facility are classified as having shallow bedrock. Permanent impacts on soils with 

shallow bedrock at aboveground facilities would total 0.1 acre, or about 0.7 percent of the total area for 

all aboveground facilities. 

Specialized mechanical equipment or blasting may be required in order to trench through areas of 

shallow bedrock. Ruby’s Plan would allow blast rock to be used to backfill the trench up to the level of 

the preexisting bedrock profile and would require the removal of excess blast/excavated rock (which is 

considered construction debris). Blasting is discussed in more detail in sections 2.3.2.7 and 4.1.1.2. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-33 

4.2.2 Other Soil Limitations 

In addition to the standard soil limitations discussed in section 4.2.1, we received comments 

about the project’s impacts on several other soil features that are found in the proposed project area. 

4.2.2.1 Surface Horizon Alkalinity 

The project would cross moderately acidic soils (potential hydrogen [pH] 5.6 to 6.0), slightly 

acidic soils (pH 6.1 to 6.5), neutral soils (pH 6.6 to 7.3), slightly alkaline soils (pH 7.4 to 7.8), moderately 

alkaline soils (pH 7.9 to 8.4), strongly alkaline soils (pH 8.5 to 9.0), and very strongly alkaline soils (pH 

9.1 to 9.6) (NRCS, 1998). Soils with higher pH values have fewer nutrients and can present challenges to 

revegetation efforts. Soils with pH ranges from 6.0 to 7.2 are ideal for most plants. Soils with pH ranges 

from 7.0 to 8.0 are adequate for plants adapted to arid environments like the western United States. Soils 

above a pH of 8.0 may need to be mixed with a pH-reducing agent, and soils with pH below 6.0 may 

require the addition of alkaline materials in order to sustain vegetation (Cox and Koenig, 2003). Ruby’s 

Plan specifies that it would add soil pH modifiers in accordance with the written recommendations of the 

local soil conservation authority, land managing agency, or landowner. Ruby has not received any 

written recommendations to date. 

4.2.2.2 Cryptobiotic Crusts 

Cryptobiotic crusts or biological soil crusts are thin veneers of microbial-rich plant material that 

live on the surface of many soils in desert areas (USGS, 2001). Other names for these communities 

include cryptogamic or microbiotic soil crusts. They are commonly found in semiarid and arid 

environments. Cryptobiotic soil crusts are formed by living organisms predominantly composed of 

cyanobacteria, green and brown algae, lichens, and mosses that become interwoven communities that 

bind the soil together and increase surface roughness. Cryptobiotic soil crusts have the effect of 

protecting the soil from erosion and act as a living mulch that retains moisture. Erosion reduction and 

water retention are essential for plant growth in the arid environment of the proposed project area. 

Additionally, the increased surface relief has been shown to provide safe sites for seeds to germinate, 

particularly native seeds that have self-drilling mechanisms. 

While crust thickness can reach up to 4 inches, crusts are typically concentrated in the top 0.5-

inch of soil. Some crusts can be identified by the dark color of dense cyanobacteria, lichens, or mosses. 

Other crusts, without lichens or mosses, can appear similar to soil but still may contain cyanobacteria and 

other components that are microscopic and therefore not visible during visual identification. 

Cyanobacteria are the low-successional stage of soil crust formation, whereas the lichens and mosses are 

present in more developed and complex soil crusts. Cyanobacteria are the most resistant component of 

soil crusts to disturbance, and are highly mobile when moist and can recolonize disturbed surfaces rapidly 

(Belnap, et al., 2001). The more complex organisms exhibit less resistance to disturbance. 

Cryptobiotic soil crust communities are poorly adapted to any sort of disturbance. The large 

pieces of construction equipment necessary to clear the construction right-of-way of vegetation and dig 

the trenches for the pipeline would break the biological community of interwoven sheaths and filaments, 

drastically reducing the ability of the soil organisms to function, particularly in reducing erosion or 

providing necessary nutrients to plants. 

Impacted biological soil crust communities recover at different rates based on many factors 

including disturbance severity, species composition, site conditions, and the availability of crust 

communities from adjacent sites. Some soil resource specialists have estimated that cryptobiotic crusts 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-34 

can take 5 to 250 years for full recovery after alteration, if at all. Development of early successional stage 

crusts can form in as little as 1 to 5 years and be composed mostly of cyanobacteria and green algae 

(USGS, 2006). Rainfall and other environmental conditions can influence the rate at which soil crusts are 

able to redevelop. Loss of biological crusts can reduce infiltration by precipitation, leave the soil 

susceptible to erosion by wind and water, and alter the vegetation cover and habitat of the disturbed area 

for many years. Loss of cryptobiotic crusts due to pipeline construction would be considered an 

irreversible or irretrievable impact. 

Ruby has attempted to identify areas of cryptobiotic soils along the project via literature review 

and agency contact; however, limited data were available. Areas of cryptobiotic soil crusts were 

identified during field surveys in the areas of MPs 170.0, 487.9, and 594.0, which are likely the more 

complex and older crusts. Another area near MP 625.5 (approximately 1,300 feet from the project) was 

noted to have a cryptobiotic soil crust. Cryptobiotic soil crusts were not identified at the Vya 

Construction Camp or the Lakeview Temporary Housing Facility. Aboveground facilities are not 

proposed in areas with known or visually identifiable high concentrations of cryptobiotic crusts. 

To reduce impact on cryptobiotic crusts, Ruby proposes to limit the construction right-of-way 

width in the identified areas of cryptobiotic crusts to 75 feet and would not locate extra workspaces within 

these areas. Ruby would take steps to restore the crusts to the disturbed areas in the event that damaging 

or destroying the crusts could not be avoided. The top 2 to 5 inches of topsoil, inclusive of the 

cryptobiotic soils, would be carefully stripped and stockpiled separately from all other soil materials in 

areas of identified cryptobiotic soils and at the request of the land managing agency. 

The USGS has recommended on similar projects a more intensive, three-step soil segregation and 

restoration process, which we believe would increase the probability of successful restoration of the 

cryptobiotic crusts. Specifically, the USGS technique would involve segregating soils into three piles 

consisting of (1) the top 2 inches of topsoil in a long, broad, and shallow windrow; (2) the remaining 

topsoil; and (3) the subsoil. Organic matter and debris would be retained in the piles to help sustain 

biological activity and increase the effectiveness of respreading the crust material after construction. 

Additionally, in order to give biological soil crust communities the best possible chance of reestablishing 

themselves along the disturbed right-of-way, we believe that the USGS crust restoration techniques 

should be employed. The USGS’s crust restoration techniques include reapplication of the top 2 inches of 

topsoil after all other activities in the area are completed, including seeding, followed by immediate 

watering in areas of cryptobiotic crusts following replacement of the top 2 inches of topsoil. Therefore, 

we recommend that Ruby implement the USGS’s specified soil segregation technique for 

cryptobiotic soil crusts in the areas of MPs 170.0, 487.9, and 594.0. Ruby stated that it would monitor 

the success of cryptobiotic crust restoration for 5 years following construction. At the end of the 5-year 

period, Ruby would file a report identifying the status of the crust restoration and the need for any 

additional restoration efforts. 

4.2.2.3 Playas 

Playas are horizontal surfaces that occupy the bottoms of topographic depressions. They function 

as shallow ephemeral ponds with highly variable hydro-periods that are directly or indirectly related to 

the amount and distribution of seasonal precipitation. Ephemeral ponds produced by winter and spring 

precipitation can persist from late winter until early summer, whereas ephemeral ponds produced by 

summer storms might persist no longer than 1 to 2 weeks. Playas are generally found in the lowest 

portions of arid basins that have internal drainage and periodically flood. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-35 

How playas form and evolve has been a subject of geologic research and debate. Generally, 

playas form in natural topographic depressions from either the accumulation of surface water (surface 

water discharge playas), or as a result of groundwater discharge (groundwater discharge playa). 

To maintain a surface water discharge playa habitat requires the presence of an underlying, 

generally shallow, low to impermeable layer of caliche, hardpan, or rock that inhibits percolation of the 

ponded water. The ponded water is derived from overland water flow from precipitation events within 

the watershed or as direct precipitation. Water is lost from these ponds through evaporation or slow 

percolation. Disruption or breaching the underlying impermeable layer would allow ponded water to 

percolate more rapidly than it would have without the disruption and the habitat setting would be 

damaged or lost. Soils beneath the impermeable layer are generally unsaturated as the groundwater 

beneath this type of playa would be tens to hundreds of feet below the playa surface elevation, deeper 

than the height of potential capillary rise (Kendall, 1980). 

Groundwater discharge playas are created when a topographic depression intersects the 

groundwater table creating seeps or springs, and/or when capillary movement of groundwater or 

phreatophytes (i.e., deep-rooted plants that obtain water from a permanent ground supply or from the 

water table) bring water to the ground surface. Overland flow and direct precipitation contribute to the 

surface water in the playa; however, these playas do not have an underlying impermeable layer. When 

precipitation to the watershed ceases and the groundwater level drops to a point either below the 

depression’s base or to a level where capillary flow will not reach the land surface, the surficial water 

body will eventually evaporate leaving a characteristic evaporite crust (salts or gypsum) on the playa 

surface (Eugster, 1978). Groundwater discharge is thought to be dominant in the formation of playas in 

the Great Basin of the United States, notably in Nevada and western Utah, where pluvial lakes occupied 

large topographically closed (internally drained) basins thousands of years ago. 

Ruby has identified six playas along the proposed route (at MPs 150.5, 167.0, 168.6, 171.0, 

487.9, and 565.3). No playas were identified within the Vya Construction Camp site. All identified playa 

areas appear to have formed in pluvial settings. Geotechnical and geophysical data were collected at 17 

locations within these potential playa habitats and evaluated by Ruby’s consultants. Ruby determined 

that shallow impermeable layers were not present at any location evaluated; that generally lake bottom 

sediments were prevalent; and shallow groundwater conditions predominated. In summary, conditions to 

support surface water discharge playas were not present and these playas were likely derived from 

groundwater discharge. 

 

Numerous stakeholders have expressed concern that digging a trench through the impermeable 

layer of soil in a playa could alter the surface hydrology in the area. The initial data collected by Ruby 

indicate that impermeable layers are not present in these playa habitats. To assure their initial assessment 

of the playas is accurate, Ruby has committed to completing additional geological studies along the 

trenchline during pipeline construction, but prior to excavating the trench, within the referenced playa 

areas to verify that soil conditions do not include caliche or other impermeable layers. In the event that 

impermeable soils are found at a depth shallower than 8 feet, Ruby would segregate and store the 

impermeable soil layer from the overlying soils. Ruby would restore the impermeable soil layers with the 

corresponding original excavated trench material during backfilling operations. 

To further mitigate impacts and ensure playa habitat is maintained, Ruby would limit the 

construction right-of-way width to 75 feet in playas. Ruby stated that it would attempt to construct the 

pipeline across playas during drier periods of the year (generally July through October) although Ruby 

did not definitively commit to a schedule. Ruby indicated that if ponded water is encountered during the 

construction period, it would install trench breakers at the boundaries of these features to limit the 

horizontal movement of water along the trenchline and prevent drainage. Most pipe installed in playas 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-36 

with saturated soils would be coated with concrete or equipped with set-on weights to provide negative 

buoyancy. 

Although Ruby has stated that it would not locate temporary extra workspaces within playas, 

except where a playa contains an impermeable soil layer, we believe that Ruby should not locate extra 

workspaces, staging areas, or water appropriation sites within playas under any circumstance. Ruby has 

proposed to use temporary extra workspaces and a pipe storage yard at MP 487.9 that would overlap a 

playa (see maps in Appendix B). Therefore, we recommend that Ruby relocate the temporary extra 

workspaces and a pipe storage yard at MP 487.9 to avoid the underlying playa and file the revised 

workspace and yard locations for review and written approval of the Director of OEP. Where 

temporary work areas abut a playa, Ruby should install exclusion fencing and warning signs 

around the playa to prevent project disturbance. Ruby would include these measures in its final 

construction alignment sheets filed for review and written approval by the Director of OEP prior to 

construction activities. 

Ruby has committed to monitoring the success of restoration at all playa locations for 5 years 

following construction and has specifically committed to documenting playa hydrologic conditions when 

water is most likely to be present. At the end of the 5-year period, Ruby has stated that it would file a 

report identifying the status of the playa restoration and the need for and status of any additional 

restoration efforts. Based on this information and our recommendation we believe impacts on playas 

would be minimized. 

4.2.3 Spill/Contamination Prevention 

Soil contamination along the pipeline route could result from spills during construction and could 

be encountered by trench excavation through existing contaminated areas. Ruby completed a preliminary 

evaluation of state and federal databases for sites along the right-of-way that potentially contain 

contaminated soils, contaminated groundwater, hazardous wastes, or other hazardous materials. Based on 

this preliminary evaluation, no contaminated soils or groundwater or hazardous wastes or material sites 

are present within 0.25 mile of the project. Ruby stated that it would seek additional information on 

potential contamination hazards by questioning landowners during land negotiations. If contaminated 

locations are identified, Ruby would complete a detailed evaluation of the hazard and develop mitigation 

measures to properly address each specific situation. Mitigative measures could include, but would not 

be limited to, modification of the construction zone to avoid contamination and proper removal of wastes 

prior to construction. 

Contamination from spills or leaks of fuels, lubricants, coolants, and solvents from construction 

equipment could impact soils. Ruby’s Spill Plan (Appendix J) includes clean-up procedures designed to 

minimize soil contamination that could result from accidental spills or leaks of fluids from constructionrelated equipment or materials. Ruby would implement the procedures set forth in the Spill Plan to 

minimize the spread of contamination and to ensure the health and safety of construction workers and the 

general public in the event that an unanticipated area of suspected contamination is encountered during 

construction. Ruby’s Spill Plan includes, but is not limited to, measures for: 

• identifying preventative measures to avoid hazardous material spills or leaks; 

• regulating locations for refueling, lubricating, and equipment washing activities; 

• providing for vehicle and equipment inspection and maintenance; 

• defining proper storage and handling of fuels, lubricants, and hazardous materials; 

• identifying immediate spill response procedures; and 

• establishing reporting and notification protocols. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-37 

4.2.4 Topsoil Segregation 

Construction activities such as grading, trenching, and backfilling could cause mixing of soil 

horizons. Mixing of topsoil with subsoil, particularly in agricultural lands, could leave less-productive 

soil in the root zone, which could lower soil fertility and decrease the ability of disturbed areas to 

revegetate successfully. Operating heavy equipment under wet soil conditions could cause deep soil 

compaction and topsoil/subsoil mixing in agricultural areas, especially where the ditch-plus-spoil-side 

topsoil segregation method is used. Ruby’s Plan includes directives for topsoil segregation to prevent or 

minimize the mixing of topsoil with subsoil. Ruby’s Plan identifies the locations where topsoil 

segregation is appropriate and the methods for segregating topsoil. In accordance with its Plan, Ruby 

would segregate topsoil from subsoil over the trenchline and subsoil storage area across the entire length 

of the project with the following exceptions and modifications: 

• Ruby would utilize the full right-of-way topsoil method (1) where requested by the 

landowner or land managing agency; (2) to prevent the mixing of topsoil and subsoil and 

to prevent the temporary cessation of construction activities in areas where rutting 

exceeds 6 inches and topsoil and subsoil are expected to mix; (3) in areas of steep slopes, 

side hills, or cut and fill. 

• No topsoil segregation would occur in saturated wetlands. 

• No topsoiling would occur in areas where significant surface rock and/or bedrock are 

present at the surface such that it is not practical or possible to topsoil. Following 

backfilling activities, if sufficient topsoil cannot be separated from the surface 

rock/topsoil windrow created during grading, additional topsoil (or possibly clean, 

organic material, such as wood chips) would be hauled from a local source and evenly 

distributed across the right-of-way at a depth similar to topsoil conditions adjacent to the 

right-of-way. Any topsoil or organic material obtained from offsite would need to be 

certified as weed-free by the EI. 

• In locations where topsoil is thin (i.e., 2 inches or less) no topsoil segregation would 

occur, except in areas where cryptobiotic soils are located. Following backfilling 

activities, topsoil would be hauled from a local source and evenly distributed across the 

disturbed portion of the right-of-way at a depth similar to topsoil conditions adjacent to 

the right-of-way. As an alternative, Ruby may elect to utilize hydro-mulching. 

• Ruby would not utilize the ditch-plus-spoil-side method in areas where alternative 

methods have been agreed upon by appropriate agencies to protect sensitive species as 

outlined in the Cooperative Conservation Agreement, MBTA Memorandum of 

Understanding, or the ESA Conservation Action Plan, or in accordance with other agency 

stipulations or requirements for the project. 

• In irrigated and cultivated fields Ruby would, at a minimum, segregate the ditch line and 

spoil-side topsoil or, as noted above, would segregate the entire construction right-of-way 

topsoil at the landowner’s request. 

• If rutting occurs but topsoil and subsoil do not mix, Ruby would rip the compacted 

topsoil up to 12 inches in depth to decompact the topsoil after the completion of 

construction activities and prior to the reseeding of the right-of-way. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-38 

• Prior to the replacement of segregated topsoil, Ruby would rip or disc the compacted 

subsoil to a depth not to exceed 12 inches. Topsoil would then be replaced, final cleanup 

would be completed, and disturbed areas would be seeded per Ruby’s Restoration and 

Revegetation Plans (Appendix L). 

• Where topsoil is lost due to construction activities, Ruby would be responsible for 

replacing topsoil with topsoil from a local source. 

Where topsoil exists and segregation is required, no more than 12 inches of topsoil would be 

segregated. Most soils along the project have between 6 and 12 inches of topsoil. The native seed base is 

contained in the top 12 inches of topsoil, and removal of deeper topsoil would dilute this seed base and 

slow the return of native vegetation. Separation of salvaged topsoil and subsoil would be maintained 

throughout all construction activities. Ruby would protect the topsoil piles from loss or mixing with 

subsoil, being utilized as trench backfill or pipe padding, and from wind and water erosion as indicated its 

Plan. In any areas where replacement of topsoil is required as a result of rutting, Ruby would replace 

such topsoil with topsoil from a local source acceptable to the landowner or land managing agency. 

Ruby is proposing to expand the construction right-of-way width by up to 25 feet in limited, nonwetland areas to accommodate full right-of-way topsoil segregation or to ensure safe construction where 

required by topographic conditions (such as steep side-slopes) or soil limitations. According to Ruby, the 

extra width could also be used for temporary storage of timber, slash, stumps, surface rock, or snow; or in 

non-wetland, non-forested areas for truck turn-arounds where no reasonable alternative access exists. The 

BLM stated that it would not authorize the extra width in all requested areas on federal lands. Ruby’s 

proposal, as written, would allow expanding the construction right-of-way width in wetlands, playas, and 

forested areas without the need for additional regulatory approval. We do not concur with this proposal, 

therefore, we recommend that Ruby revise its Plan to prohibit expanding the construction right-ofway width for temporary storage of timber, slash, stumps, surface rock, or snow in wetlands, 

playas, and forested areas. Ruby should file its revised Plan prior to construction. 

4.2.5 Non-Jurisdictional Electric Power Lines 

According to soil survey obtained from the NRCS, the Rocky Mountain Power electric 

transmission and distribution lines would be constructed in the Youjay-Westvaco-Monte-KandalyHaterton soil series, which consists of deep, well-drained soils of fine sand formed from weathered 

sedimentary rock. The Harney Electric Cooperative distribution lines would be constructed in Boton 

complex, Cresal silt loam consociation, and Pumper-Weso soil associations. Power line impacts on soils 

would be similar to those for pipelines, except that direct impacts would be limited to switching station 

and meter station sites, pole locations, and other areas on the right-of-way where and the ground would be 

graded to provide safe and efficient operation of construction equipment. Soils in these areas would be 

exposed to water and wind erosion and compaction and rutting. Impacts would be minimized by the 

implementation of erosion control best management practices. At the completion of project work, 

reclamation and re-vegetation of drilling locations, access roads and equipment staging areas would 

reduce the effects of continued potential erosion. Soil impacts due to the proposed work would be 

temporary and minor. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-39 

4.3 WATER RESOURCES 

4.3.1 Groundwater 

Aquifers within the project area include large-scale systems formed in bedrock and 

unconsolidated sedimentary deposits (referred to as “basin-fill aquifers”) and waterbearing zones of 

relatively small extent in glacial deposits and alluvial deposits along streams and rivers. The project 

would cross portions of three major aquifer systems: the Upper Colorado River Basin aquifer system 

(primarily sandstone aquifers) in Wyoming; the Basin and Range aquifer system (primarily carbonate 

rock and basin-fill aquifers) in Utah and Nevada; and the Pacific Northwest aquifer system (primarily 

basaltic rock and basin-fill aquifers) in Oregon. The project would cross numerous north-south-trending 

mountain ranges that consist of consolidated carbonate rocks or relatively impermeable metamorphic, 

igneous, and clastic rocks. These mountain ranges provide recharge water for the basin-fill and carbonate 

aquifers that lie within the mountain valleys. 

The Upper Colorado River Basin aquifer system underlies portions of eastern Utah, western 

Colorado, northeastern Arizona, northwestern New Mexico, and over 20,000 square miles of 

southwestern Wyoming. In Wyoming, the Upper Colorado River Basin aquifer system consists of five 

aquifers. The Wasatch-Fort Union aquifer is the most widely exposed at the land surface in Lincoln and 

Uinta counties where the project would be located. Portions of the Laney aquifer and the Dakota through 

the Nugget aquifers may also be present in these counties. The principal water-yielding bodies in all three 

aquifers are sandstones, though other sedimentary rock is present. Most of the fresh water in the aquifer 

system is in the Wasatch-Fort Union aquifer. Groundwater is generally less than 200 feet below the land 

surface in the majority of the aquifer, with shallower groundwater found near major springs and surface 

water bodies that serve as discharge areas. Water in the western part of the aquifer moves from recharge 

areas in the mountains towards the Green River and its tributaries and towards the Flaming Gorge 

Reservoir. Water yields in most wells range from 1 to 50 gallons per minute (gpm). Wells completed in 

the Upper Colorado River Basin aquifer system commonly are 300 to 900 feet deep and locally are 1,000 

to 3,000 feet deep. These aquifers are deeply buried or overlain by fine-grained rocks in many places. 

The aquifers generally contain freshwater only where they are exposed at the land surface; water is 

generally saline or briny in the deeply buried parts of the aquifers. 

The Basin and Range aquifer system extends over approximately 200,000 square miles of the 

southwestern United States and underlies most of Nevada and parts of eastern California, southern 

Oregon and Idaho, western Utah, southern Arizona, and southwestern New Mexico. This aquifer system 

includes basin-fill aquifers and aquifers where the groundwater moves primarily within carbonate rock. 

The Basin and Range basin-fill aquifers consist of moderately consolidated, well- to poorly-sorted beds of 

gravel, sand, silt, and clay deposited on alluvial fans, pediments, flood plains, and playas. Water 

generally moves under unconfined conditions from recharge areas along the margins of mountainous 

basins toward discharge areas at the center of structural basins near the centers of valleys. Aquifer 

discharge occurs through upward leakage to shallower aquifers and then the major streams. The thickness 

of the basin-fill aquifers is not well-known in some basins but ranges from about 1,000 to 5,000 feet in 

many basins and may exceed 10,000 feet in a few deep basins in Utah and south-central Arizona. These 

aquifers generally have high hydraulic conductivities and, in places, allow rapid infiltration from the 

surface. Because of their high conductivity, rapid recharge, and good yield these aquifers can be a 

significant water supply source; however, they are also susceptible to contamination. The Basin and 

Range carbonate rock aquifers generally underlie the basin-fill aquifers. These aquifers consist primarily 

of limestone, dolomite, and marble with some quartzite, shale, siltstone, and sandstone in formations that 

are thousands of feet thick. Groundwater yield varies within the aquifers depending on the degree of 

secondary dissolution (primarily karst formation) within the bedrock. Groundwater generally flows 

through soluble rock to fractures and solution openings that can vary in size from small tubes to caverns. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-40 

Groundwater also may flow through the bedrock from basin to basin, or beneath basins from mountainous 

recharge areas to discharge areas. Well yields and spring flows can be very high in areas where fractures 

and solution openings comprise well-connected networks and the rock is thickly saturated. 

The Basin and Range aquifer system is a principal source of groundwater in Arizona, Nevada, 

and Utah. Historically, over three-quarters of the groundwater from this aquifer system has been used for 

irrigation purposes. Metropolitan areas and outlying communities are increasingly dependent on this 

aquifer system to meet potable water supply demands. 

The Pacific Northwest aquifer system is comprised of basaltic rock and unconsolidated basin-fill 

aquifers in the project area. Groundwater movement in basaltic rock aquifers is limited by the finegrained nature of basalt. Groundwater is generally present within structural features that have formed in 

the rock such as cooling joints, secondary fractures, and faults, and in rubble zones and semi-consolidated 

sand and gravel deposits eroded from these formations. Groundwater also can be found in ash and cinder 

deposits. Groundwater flow through basalt is primarily through the secondary fracture features; flow to 

wells can be limited. However, aquifers can be productive in areas where the rock extends over large 

areas, is sufficiently thick, and contains interconnected fractures. In such areas reliable water supplies 

have been developed that can at times yield several thousand gpm. Generally, wells developed in basaltic 

rock aquifers yield less than 100 gpm. Most of the withdrawals from these aquifers are used for 

agricultural purposes, primarily irrigation. 

The Pacific Northwest basin-fill aquifers are prevalent along present and ancestral stream valleys 

and in lowlands that are associated with structural or erosional basins. They are primarily made up of 

alluvial-deposited sand and gravel with varying amounts of finer-grained sediments. Groundwater in the 

basin-fill aquifers is generally present under unconfined conditions. These aquifers generally have high 

hydraulic conductivities and are therefore susceptible to contamination. The basin-fill aquifers are the 

most productive and widespread aquifers in Oregon and are utilized as public, domestic, industrial, and 

commercial water supplies. Well yields in these aquifers are highly variable; yield generally increases 

with the coarseness and uniformity of the sediments that comprise the aquifer. Fresh water well yields are 

reported to range generally from 20 to 2,000 gpm. Salinity does increase near coastal areas and in the 

central portion of Oregon where groundwater is found in closed basins. 

4.3.1.1 Sole-Source and Protected Aquifers 

None of the aquifers that would be crossed by the project have been identified as EPA-designated 

sole- or principal-source aquifers.1

 The project would cross a Class I pristine aquifer2 in Cache County, 

Utah from MPs 92.0 to 92.8 and MPs 94.6 to 95.0. Construction and operation of a project in a Class I 

aquifer requires operators to comply with state groundwater quality standards as described in Utah 

Administrative Code R317-6 (e.g., sampling and monitoring discharges for physical characteristics, 

inorganic chemicals, metals, organic chemicals, etc.). By following these standards, construction and 

operation of the proposed project would not result in a discharge that would jeopardize groundwater 

quality within this aquifer; therefore, the project should not impact this aquifer. 

 

1

 The EPA defines a sole- or principal-source aquifer as one that supplies at least 50 percent of the drinking water consumed in 

the area overlying the aquifer. The EPA guidelines also stipulate that these areas have no alternative drinking water 

source(s) that could physically, legally, and economically supply all those who depend upon the aquifer for drinking water. 2 A Class I Pristine Aquifer is defined as an aquifer exhibiting both a total dissolved solid concentration of less than 500 mg/l 

and no contaminant concentration that exceeds groundwater quality standards as defined in Utah Administrative Code 

R317-6-2.1.

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-41 

4.3.1.2 General Impacts and Mitigation 

The project would cross several areas known to contain groundwater within 6 feet of the ground 

surface. These areas are located in Box Elder County, Utah (MPs 109.0 to 119.7 and 124.0 to 127.0); 

Humboldt County, Nevada (MPs 404.0 to 410.0, 454.0 to 464.0, 466.0 to 483.0, and 488.0 to 497.0); and 

Lake County, Oregon (MPs 614.3 to 627.6). Construction activities including clearing, trench 

excavation, dewatering, fuel handling, and blasting could affect groundwater in several ways. Clearing 

and grading would remove vegetation that provides filtration and slows surface runoff. Trenching and 

soil stockpiling activities would temporarily alter overland flow and groundwater recharge and could alter 

near-surface groundwater flows where shallow groundwater is encountered. Heavy equipment used for 

construction could compact the soil along the right-of-way and slow groundwater recharge rates, and the 

trench could fill up with water during construction. We also note that known locations of deeper 

groundwater may contain localized areas of shallow groundwater that could be intersected by the trench. 

For example, the Desert Valley Groundwater Basin has a seasonal groundwater depth of about 10 to 15 

feet. A seasonal depth means that the groundwater depth may fluctuate from the surface (historical 

flooding on the playa) to about 15 feet below the surface. A trench constructed to 6 feet below the ground 

surface could potentially intercept surface water or impact the aquifer at any depth below the surface, 

depending on the season. If the trench were to intercept or be very close to intercepting groundwater, a 

potential exists for impacts on the aquifer. 

Construction of the pipeline would require trenching and backfilling to a depth of at least 6 feet 

below the ground surface. Trenching and backfilling generally would occur 50 to 100 feet above most of 

the water-bearing zones that would be encountered along the project. For this reason, construction effects 

to shallow aquifers are not likely. 

Total suspended solid levels in some surficial aquifers could increase if shallow groundwater 

were encountered during construction activities. Trench dewatering may also result in localized, minor 

changes in the water table. Effects from construction of the pipeline would likely be temporary, and the 

shallow groundwater system would recover to equilibrium within a period of days to a few months. 

Dewatering of the trench would occur in a well-vegetated adjacent upland area or through a sediment 

filter and energy displacement device, which would likely recharge the impacted aquifer. Groundwater 

impacts during construction also would be minimized or avoided by implementing construction practices 

outlined in Ruby’s Plan and Procedures (Appendix F), such as installing trench plugs to prevent the 

movement of water along the buried pipeline; restricting or modifying construction practices during 

heavy rains and potential rutting circumstances; and limiting herbicide application to comply with state or 

federal requirements. 

The backfilled trench could have different soil permeability after construction as compared to the 

surrounding undisturbed soils. The disturbed soil could potentially act as a conduit to transport 

groundwater and increase infiltration of surface water. This could cause subsurface erosion and ground 

subsidence along the pipeline. Ruby would install trench breakers where necessary to minimize the 

potential of subsurface water flow along the trench. Additionally, Ruby would work with landowners to 

ensure that subsidence along the trench is corrected. 

Shallow groundwater could affect the buoyancy of the pipe (i.e., the pipeline would be more 

likely to rise to the ground surface) and could increase the potential for pipe corrosion. Saturated soil 

conditions could also increase the difficulty of trench excavation and reduce the stability of the trench 

wall during pipeline placement and subsequent inspection of the pipeline before backfilling. Ruby would 

install weights, use concrete-coated pipe, or anchor the pipeline in areas where the positive buoyancy of 

the pipeline may exceed the combined uplift resistance of backfilled soil and soil adjacent to the ditch. 

Ruby would use externally coated pipe and install cathodic protection where necessary to guard against 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-42 

corrosion. Ruby’s implementation of these measures would reduce impacts associated with shallow 

groundwater to less than significant levels. 

One landowner present at the draft EIS public comment meeting in Brigham City, Utah, noted 

that he had completed drainage work to feed a pond at MP 107.5 and was concerned that construction 

would impact his project. Ruby is currently working with the landowner on the precise alignment of the 

pipeline on his property. Ruby has committed to testing the flow and quality of the water on the property 

prior to and after construction. 

Ruby stated that it would restore overland flow and recharge patterns to preconstruction 

conditions by recontouring the surface of the ground as close as practicable to preconstruction contours, 

alleviating soil compaction, and replanting vegetation using seed mixes that are compatible with the 

dominant vegetation communities in the area. Impacts from construction are expected to be localized and 

temporary. Impacts from operation are expected to be minimal, as hydrostatic testing and use of 

groundwater along the pipeline across the entire system are not routine operations. In the unlikely event 

of a pipeline rupture, groundwater impacts would be minimal due to the marginal solubility of natural gas 

and its rapid dispersal once exposed to air. 

4.3.1.3 Water Supply Wells and Springs 

Ruby researched state databases to identify water supply wells and springs in the project area. In 

addition, Ruby field-verified the location of 21 wells and 60 springs within 200 feet of the proposed 

pipeline route (see tables 4.3.1-1 and 4.3.1-2). 

Potential construction-related impacts on public and private wells and springs could include 

localized decreases in groundwater recharge rates, changes to overland water flow, contamination, 

decreased well yields, decreased water quality (such as increased turbidity or odor in the water), 

interference with well mechanics, or complete disruption of the well or spring. These impacts could 

result from trenching, equipment traffic, hazardous materials spills, or blasting. 

Wells along or near the proposed right-of-way would not be susceptible to observable decreases 

in groundwater recharge. Many of these wells are completed in bedrock aquifers or other groundwaterbearing zones at depths of over 100 feet below the ground surface. Other wells in alluvial settings are 

recharged within the setting of river and stream deposits. Recharge to these aquifers occurs over a much 

wider source area than would be affected by pipeline clearing and trenching. Trench backfill and 

compaction mitigation, along with implementation of site restoration; storm water pollution prevention 

activities; and spill prevention, control, and cleanup activities would avoid or minimize potential impacts 

on groundwater recharge and water quality. 

Ruby has stated that it would maintain the safe operation of each water well and its associated 

underground piping (water supply) or provide an alternative water source to ensure that water supply to 

agricultural crops or livestock is not affected by construction activities. Ruby also would provide a 

temporary source of water should damage occur to a water supply during construction, and would work to 

quickly repair any damaged system. Alternatively, Ruby would adhere to mutually agreed-upon damage 

remedies that would be specified in an individual easement agreement with the landowner. 

Ruby identified two stock watering wells and two irrigation wells that are less than 50 feet from 

the proposed pipeline centerline. Ruby stated it would realign the pipeline centerline at least 50 feet away 

from potable wells within the permitted construction right-of-way. Each well would be marked with 

temporary construction fencing to distinguish its location. In addition, Ruby has committed to 

documenting the condition of potable water wells within 200 feet of the construction right-of-way prior to 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-43 

the start of construction and after construction is completed. As detailed in its Groundwater Monitoring 

Plan (Appendix G), Ruby would have each well within 200 feet of the construction right-of-way tested 

prior to construction by a certified water testing laboratory for depth; contaminants associated with fuels, 

lubricants, oils, etc.; and standard drinking water parameters. These same wells would be tested again for 

the above parameters within 1 year of completed construction. If significant differences are found at a 

well, Ruby would test again within 1 year, prior to making any corrections or repairs. Ruby would 

provide a temporary source of water or provide other remedies as agreed to by the landowner in the event 

that a well is damaged by construction activities. We feel that 1 year is too long before testing and 

repairing wells. Therefore, we recommend that Ruby conduct its proposed post-construction well 

testing within 30 days of the completion of construction in the area of each water well presented in 

table 4.3.1-1 of this EIS. If testing indicates diminished yield, water quality, and/or usability, Ruby 

should provide a temporary source of water or provide other remedies as agreed to by the 

landowner. 

TABLE 4.3.1-1 

Water Supply Wells Within 200 Feet of the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County Approximate MP Well Use Distance (feet)/Direction From Construction 

Workspace 

WYOMING 

Uinta 33.2 Miscellaneous 85.8-South 

UTAH 

Rich 57.4 Irrigation 184.5-North 

Cache R76.2 Domestic, Stockwatering 295.0-North 

Cache 76.6 Domestic, Stockwatering 52.6-North 

Box Elder 107.6 Domestic, Irrigation, Stockwatering 122.7-South 

Box Elder 109.1 Irrigation, Stockwatering 83.0-South 

Box Elder 130.6 Stockwatering 166.9-North 

Box Elder 185.0 Stockwatering 203.0-South 

NEVADA 

Elko 241.2 Irrigation 15.1-South 

Elko R293.1 Irrigation 39.1-North 

Humboldt R404.4 Irrigation 81.6-North 

Humboldt 410.8 Mining and Milling 167.8-South 

Humboldt 410.8 Irrigation 167.8-South 

Humboldt 410.8 Mining and Milling 167.8-South 

Humboldt 410.8 Mining and Milling 167.8-South 

Humboldt 410.8 Mining and Milling 167.8-South 

Humboldt 410.8 Mining and Milling 167.8-South 

Humboldt 410.8 Mining and Milling 167.8-South 

Humboldt 415.9 Irrigation 131.2-South 

Humboldt 497.4 Unknown 162.9-South 

Humboldt 503.3 Irrigation - Carey Act 175.0-North 

────────────────────

Note: Duplicate mileposts and distance identify wells with multiple water rights. 

Ruby has identified 33 springs that are less than 50 feet from the proposed pipeline centerline. 

These springs are utilized as a water source for domestic use, irrigation, stock watering, and by wildlife. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-44 

Ruby has indicated that it would attempt to avoid these features during construction, and that the spring 

heads would be restored to reestablish normal flow where impacts are unavoidable. Ruby stated in its 

October 2009 Groundwater Monitoring Plan that, prior to construction and with landowner permission, it 

would test each spring with a state-permitted water use within 200 feet of pipeline construction, and each 

spring where a landowner has expressed concern over impacts on the spring, for baseline condition, yield, 

and water quality. Ruby, however, has not provided specific details on follow-up testing or how it would 

address damage to springs from construction. To ensure adequate testing and restoration of springs, we 

recommend that, prior to construction, Ruby test all springs presented in table 4.3.1-2 of this EIS. 

Testing should be conducted using a certified water testing laboratory and should include analysis 

of yield; contaminants associated with fuels, lubricants, oils, etc.; and standard drinking water 

parameters. These same springs should be tested again within 30 days of the completion of 

construction in the area of the spring. If testing indicates diminished yield, water quality, and/or 

usability of the spring for its permitted or intended purposes, Ruby should provide a temporary 

source of water or provide other remedies as agreed to by the landowner. 

A transient public water system well3

 is located about 2,000 feet from the proposed pipeline route 

near MP 444.0. Project activities would occur outside the 1,000-foot Drinking Water Protection Area 

defined for this transient public water system; therefore, no impacts are anticipated. 

Ruby has determined that the project crosses or is near seven wellhead protection areas in Utah 

and Oregon. Wellhead protection areas are generally established by states to manage land use in areas 

where groundwater is used to supply public drinking water. The project right-of-way crosses wellhead 

protection areas in Utah between MPs 100 and 107 and in Oregon between MPs 610 and 611. Ruby’s 

alignment maps also show that the pipeline route abuts a wellhead protection area in Utah near MP 130 

and that the Lakeview Temporary Housing Facility would be in a wellhead protection area in Oregon 

approximately 4 miles northwest of MP 611. Points of groundwater acquisition for hydrostatic testing 

and dust control, as described in section 4.3.1.6, have been identified, and Ruby has also mapped points 

of potential project water discharge. Points of water appropriation do not fall within the wellhead 

protection areas; however, the potential discharge points do. Therefore, we recommend that, prior to 

construction, Ruby should file plans developed in consultation with the appropriate state agencies 

to protect wellhead protection areas. 

We received a comment regarding concern that construction trenching could impact water 

discharge at One Mile Spring in Nevada, which is located approximately 4,350 feet south of the right-ofway at MP 521.5. Ruby’s geotechnical consultant MACTEC delineated the drainage basin that 

potentially conducts surface water flow to One Mile Spring and evaluated the potential effect of 

interception and diversion of water flow by construction of the pipeline on this spring. MACTEC 

determined that the pipeline alignment does not cross the One Mile Spring drainage basin and, therefore, 

would not intercept surface water that might feed the spring directly. MACTEC, however, did identify 

lineaments in the project area and concluded that these lineaments could influence groundwater discharge 

at One Mile Spring. MACTEC noted that groundwater likely would be below the depth of the trench in 

this area, with the exception of two locations: one at an unnamed stream at MP 521.7 and the other at a 

lineament at MP 522.3. 

 

3

 Per Nevada Revised Statutes 445A.848, a transient water system means a non-community water system that does not 

regularly serve at least 25 of the same persons for more than 6 months per year. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-45 

TABLE 4.3.1-2 

Springs Within 200 Feet of the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County Approximate MP Water Use Distance (feet) and Direction From Construction 

Workspace 

UTAH 

Cache 80.3 Domestic, Stockwatering 63.3-South 

Cache 80.3 Domestic, Stockwatering 63.3-South 

Cache 80.3 Stockwatering 63.3-South 

Cache 80.7 Stockwatering 190.7-South 

Cache 85.4 Stockwatering 18.2-North 

Cache 85.4 Stockwatering 18.2-North 

Cache 87.2 Domestic, Stockwatering 46.6-North 

Cache 92.3 Unknown 19.2-North 

Box Elder 102.6 Stockwatering 190.0-North 

Box Elder R104.9 Stockwatering 128.3-North 

Box Elder R104.9 Irrigation, Other 128.3-North 

Box Elder R104.9 Stockwatering 56.6-North 

Box Elder R104.9 Irrigation, Other 56.6-North 

Box Elder R104.9 Stockwatering 7.2-North 

Box Elder R104.9 Stockwatering 42.4-North 

Box Elder R104.9 Irrigation, Other 42.4-North 

Box Elder R104.9 Irrigation, Other 195.9-South 

Box Elder R104.9 Irrigation 195.9-South 

Box Elder R104.9 Irrigation, Stockwatering 195.9-South 

Box Elder R105.1 Stockwatering 15.1-North 

Box Elder R105.1 Irrigation, Other 15.1-North 

Box Elder R105.1 Stockwatering 99.9-South 

Box Elder R105.8 Other 182.4-South 

Box Elder 106.7 Unknown 78.8-North 

Box Elder 107.8 Domestic, Irrigation, Stockwatering 101.8-North 

Box Elder 107.8 Domestic, Irrigation, Stockwatering 101.8-North 

Box Elder 109.1 Irrigation, Stockwatering 83.0-South 

Box Elder 225.9 Stockwatering 105.2-North 

NEVADA 

Elko 300.1 Unknown 30.3-South 

Elko 311.0 Irrigation 179.8-South 

Elko 324.8 Stockwatering 54.5-South 

Elko 329.2 Unknown 26.4-North 

Elko 346.8 Stockwatering 0.9-South 

Humboldt 415.9 Quasi-municipal 131.2-South 

Humboldt 415.9 Stockwatering 131.2-South 

Humboldt 415.9 Stockwatering 131.2-South 

Humboldt 415.9 Stockwatering 131.2-South 

Washoe 574.3 Stockwatering 15.8-North 

OREGON 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-46 

TABLE 4.3.1-2 

Springs Within 200 Feet of the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County Approximate MP Water Use Distance (feet) and Direction From Construction 

Workspace 

Lake 589.8 Unknown 49.9-South 

Lake 600.4 Unknown 77.6-South 

Lake 600.7 Unknown 144.8-South 

Lake 603.1 Unknown 32.2-South 

Lake 610.7 Unknown 22.9-North 

Lake 611.5 Unknown 62.4-North 

Lake R614.9 Unknown 18.8-South 

Lake R614.9 Unknown 22.6-South 

Lake R614.9 Unknown 32.3-North 

Lake R615.0 Unknown 9.8-North 

Lake R615.0 Unknown 23.7-South 

Lake R615.0 Unknown 49.4-South 

Lake R615.0 Unknown 2.5-South 

Lake R615.0 Unknown 43.4-South 

Lake R615.0 Unknown 46.9-North 

Lake R615.0 Unknown 17.4-North 

Lake R615.0 Unknown 25.0-South 

Lake R615.1 Unknown 137.0-South 

Lake R629.2 Unknown 76.8-South 

Lake R638.8 Unknown 0.9-North 

Lake R638.8 Unknown 9.9-North 

Klamath R647.0 Unknown 36.2-South 

Klamath R651.9 Unknown 37.9-North 

────────────────────

Note: Duplicate mileposts and distance s identify springs with multiple water rights. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-47 

MACTEC recommended that a geologic inspection occur during trench excavation and that 

trench plugs be installed in the vicinity of these two locations to control the amount and velocity of water 

that might move through the trench backfill. Trench plugs would allow water to infiltrate through the 

native materials to the groundwater and would maintain natural groundwater gradients, elevation, and 

flow direction. Ruby stated it would implement MACTEC’s recommendations and would not appropriate 

any groundwater from the watershed area of One Mile Spring for hydrostatic testing or dust control. 

Ruby additionally has committed to monitoring both water quality and quantity at One Mile Spring prior 

to, during, and after construction. Based on MACTEC’s One Mile Spring analysis and Ruby’s 

implementation of MACTEC’s recommendations as well as our recommendations above, we conclude that 

there would not likely be impacts on One Mile Spring. 

4.3.1.4 Accidental Spills of Hazardous Materials 

Pipeline construction necessitates the use of heavy equipment and associated fuels, lubricants, 

and other potentially hazardous substances that, if spilled, could affect shallow groundwater and/or 

unconsolidated aquifers. Accidental spills or leaks of hazardous materials associated with vehicle fueling, 

vehicle maintenance, and material storage would present the greatest potential contamination threat to 

groundwater resources. Soil contamination resulting from these spills or leaks could continue to add 

pollutants to the groundwater long after a spill had occurred. 

Implementation of proper storage, containment, and handling procedures would minimize the 

chance of such releases. Ruby’s Spill Plan addresses preventative and mitigative measures that would be 

used to avoid or minimize the potential impacts of hazardous material spills during construction. 

Measures outlined in the Spill Plan and in Ruby’s Plan and Procedures include, but are not limited to: 

• spill prevention and response training for construction personnel; 

• regular inspection of construction equipment for leaks; 

• prohibition of fueling and lubricating activities and hazardous material storage in or 

adjacent to sensitive areas; 

• secondary containment for storage of fuels, oils, hazardous materials, and equipment; 

• collection and disposal procedures for wastes generated during equipment maintenance; 

• emergency response procedures; and 

• standard procedures for excavation and off-site disposal of any soils contaminated by 

spillage. 

We have reviewed Ruby’s Procedures and Spill Plan and find that these protocols adequately 

address the storage and transfer of fuels and hazardous materials and the response to be taken in the event 

of a spill, except that neither Ruby’s Procedures nor Spill Plan establishes a spill prevention setback from 

water supply wells or springs. Therefore, we recommend that Ruby revise section IV.A.1 of its 

Procedures, and its Spill Plan, to prohibit handling or storage of fuels, solvents, or lubricants; 

performing concrete coating activities; or staging or storing equipment within 200 feet of any water 

supply well or spring. 

A release of natural gas from the pipeline would be a release of a gas to the atmosphere and 

would therefore not constitute a “spill” of contaminants or hazardous materials. 

4.3.1.5 Blasting Impacts on Groundwater 

Blasting may be required at various locations of shallow bedrock from MP 57.5 to the end of the 

project, depending on the presence of shallow bedrock. Blasting could affect groundwater quality by 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-48 

temporarily changing groundwater levels and increasing groundwater turbidity near the construction 

right-of-way. 

Ruby would attempt to utilize specialized excavation methods to reach the required pipeline 

design burial depth in areas where shallow bedrock is encountered. These excavation methods could 

include ripping or the use of hydraulic hammers or rock saws. However, blasting may be necessary to 

achieve the required trench depth if excavation methods prove to be ineffective or inefficient. Ruby 

developed a Blasting Plan (see Appendix N) to minimize potential adverse impacts on the environment, 

nearby water sources, structures, or utilities. As stated in the Blasting Plan, all applicable federal, state, 

and local regulations would be observed and all necessary permits would be obtained. All blasting 

activities would be conducted by licensed blasting contractors in accordance with all applicable 

regulatory requirements. 

Tables 4.3.1-1 and 4.3.1-2 identify a number of wells and springs within 200 feet of potential 

blasting areas. Ruby’s Blasting Plan has set PPV to a level that should protect water wells, springs, and 

other nearby structures from any structural damage. For instance, the industry standard for many years 

has been 12 inches per second maximum PPV on any underground structures. Generally, Ruby expects 

PPVs to be 6 inches per second or lower on any underground structures and 1.5 inches per second or 

lower on wells and aboveground structures. We anticipate that any effect to nearby wells and springs 

from blasting would be temporary and would likely dissipate shortly after blasting or after the well had 

been flushed several times. As stated in section 4.3.1.3, Ruby has agreed to test wells and we are 

recommending that Ruby test springs within 30 days after construction in that area. 

One comment was received regarding concern that blasting could impact groundwater discharge 

at One Mile Spring in Nevada (MP 521.5) located approximately 4,350 feet south of the right-of-way. 

Ruby’s geotechnical consultant MACTEC evaluated the effect of blasting specifically on this spring. 

MACTEC determined that the underlying rock is volcanic in nature and that lava tubes (pseudokarst) 

theoretically could be present. Based on rock type and anticipated charge, the theoretical “worst case” 

blasting evaluated by MACTEC could cause structural damage ranging from 5 to 20 feet from the blast, 

and vibrations from the blast would be perceptible to humans inside of 3,200 feet. However, based on 

COE studies cited by MACTEC in their report, a minimum PPV of 36 inches per second is required to 

cause collapse of a cavern roof formed in rock. At a distance of 5 feet or less from the anticipated blast 

on the project, MACTEC reports that the PPV is expected to be 18 inches per second. Based on this 

analysis and the distance of the point of blasting from One Mile Spring, potential impacts on the spring 

from direct vibrations is considered negligible. Collapse of underlying caverns that could be conduits for 

groundwater flow to the spring is considered unlikely. 

4.3.1.6 Groundwater Appropriation 

Ruby would use both groundwater and surface water sources for hydrostatic testing and dust 

control. That is, Ruby would verify the integrity of its pipeline before placing it into service by 

conducting a series of hydrostatic tests. Ruby also would implement dust control procedures when a 

visible plume of dust extends more than 300 feet from the source with an estimated opacity exceeding 20 

percent. Ruby has identified 65 groundwater wells that it proposes to use for dust control and hydrostatic 

testing. The surface water sources Ruby proposes to use for hydrostatic test water and dust abatement are 

discussed in section 4.3.2.5. Table 4.3.1-3 presents each water source and the estimated volume of water 

that Ruby plans to appropriate from each well. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-49 

TABLE 4.3.1-3 

Proposed Hydrostatic Test Water and Dust Control Groundwater Sources for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State MP Water Source 

Hydrostatic Test 

Water Volume 

(gallons) 

Dust Control and 

Alternate 

Hydrostatic Test 

Water Volume 

(gallons) 

Total Volume to be 

Appropriated 

(gallons) 

Utah 50.5 Hopkins Well 1,680,000 1,680,000 

54.9 Schulthess Well 1,680,000 1,680,000 

70.1 Monte Cristo Well 3,360,000 3,360,000 

78.4 Well (Proposed)b 1,680,000 1,680,000 

105.5 Brigham City Hydrant 1 1,680,000 1,680,000 

106.9 Brigham City Hydrant 2 1,680,000 1,680,000 

107.4 Brigham City Hydrant 3a,d 4,247,438 1,680,000 5,927,438 

142.3 Wellb 1,680,000 1,680,000 

161.3 Locomotive Spring Well 2 1,680,000 1,680,000 

172.7 Wild Cat Hills Wella,d 34,774,981 1,680,000 36,454,981 

182.3 BLM Well 1,680,000 1,680,000 

200.3 Arimo Ranch Well 1 3,360,000 3,360,000 

207.2 Arimo Ranch Well 2 1,680,000 1,680,000 

206.1 Arimo Ranch Well 3 1,680,000 1,680,000 

210.2 Arimo Ranch Well 4 1,680,000 1,680,000 

219.6 Grouse Creek Ranch Well 3,360,000 3,360,000 

Nevada 239.2 Walker Wine Cup Well 1a,d 19,294,450 1,680,000 20,974,450 

238.7 Walker Wine Cup Well 2 3,360,000 3,360,000 

247.9 Walker Wine Cup Well 3 3,360,000 3,360,000 

257.1 Walker Wine Cup Well 3 1,680,000 1,680,000 

268.1 Walker Wine Cup Well 3 1,680,000 1,680,000 

278.2 Walker Wine Cup Well 3 1,680,000 1,680,000 

293.2 Tabor Ranch Well 1d 38,869,645 1,680,000 40,549,645 

297.8 Wellb 1,680,000 1,680,000 

312.5 Wellb 1,680,000 1,680,000 

330.2 Wieland Flat Compressor Stationc 500,000 1,680,000 2,180,000 

337.3 Wellb 1,680,000 1,680,000 

350.1 Wellb 1,680,000 1,680,000 

357.8 Wellb 1,680,000 1,680,000 

366.4 Wellb 1,680,000 1,680,000 

377.9 Barrick Wella,d 18,574,438 1,680,000 20,254,438 

389.2 BLM Wellc 1,680,000 1,680,000 

390.0 Wellb 1,680,000 1,680,000 

406.2 Crawford Well 1,680,000 1,680,000 

416.0 Christinson Well 26,958,307 1,680,000 28,638,307 

422.1 Crawford Well 1,680,000 1,680,000 

435.3 Winnemucca Farms Wella 1,680,000 1,680,000 

439.4 Walter Vetter Well 1,680,000 1,680,000 

450.8 Leon Frey Well 2,520,000 2,520,000 

463.1 Donna Harber Well 1,680,000 1,680,000 

476.3 Desert Valley Compressor Station 500,000 500,000 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-50 

TABLE 4.3.1-3 

Proposed Hydrostatic Test Water and Dust Control Groundwater Sources for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State MP Water Source 

Hydrostatic Test 

Water Volume 

(gallons) 

Dust Control and 

Alternate 

Hydrostatic Test 

Water Volume 

(gallons) 

Total Volume to be 

Appropriated 

(gallons) 

479.3 Happy Creek Ranch Well 2,520,000 2,520,000 

486.6 Quinn River Ranch Well 1,680,000 1,680,000 

502.6 Pine Forest Ranch Wella,d 15,106,107 2,520,000 17,626,107 

507.6 BLM Well 3 1,680,000 1,680,000 

522.8 Kudrna Ranch Well 1,680,000 1,680,000 

532.8 Kudrna Ranch Wellc 1,680,000 1,680,000 

545.8 Double Horseshoe Drill Wella,c 7,903,929 1,680,000 9,583,929 

558.3 Top Dog Ranch Well 1,680,000 1,680,000 

558.5 Top Dog Ranch Well 1,680,000 1,680,000 

561.3 Smith Ranch Well 1,680,000 1,680,000 

568.0 Fitzgerald Well 1,680,000 1,680,000 

572.5 Alice Gladwill Drill Wella 14,278,780 1,680,000 15,958,780 

579.6 BLM Wellc 1,680,000 1,680,000 

Oregon 588.7 Don Robinson Well 1,680,000 1,680,000 

601.9 Don Robinson Proposed Drill Wella,c 9,167,080 1,680,000 10,847,080 

607.8 Lakeview Fairground Well 1,680,000 1,680,000 

613.8 Adair Brown Well 1,680,000 1,680,000 

617.2 Bud Garrett Wella,d 7,830,060 1,680,000 9,510,060 

639.2 Goose Lake Timber Company Drill 

Wella

5,510,590 1,680,000 7,190,590 

653.5 Philip Grohs Wella,c 1,680,000 1,680,000 

662.4 Frank Hammerich Well 1,680,000 1,680,000 

669.2 Mike Burns Well 1,680,000 1,680,000 

0.1l Eric Sturm Wella,d 17,602,860 1,680,000 19,282,860 

Total 221,118,665 116,760,000 337,878,665 

a This water source would be used for dust abatement and hydrostatic testing. 

b Ruby anticipates that a new well would be drilled at this location, but the property owner has not yet been identified. 

c Ruby is proposing to drill a new well at this location. 

d Water source would require construction of temporary hard piping from well to project site.

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-51 

Ruby has proposed to procure about 221.1 million gallons of water for hydrostatic testing and 

about 116.7 million gallons of water for dust control from these wells. An additional small amount of 

water would also be used for cleaning and disinfecting construction equipment. Equipment 

cleaning/disinfection is necessary as equipment moves between the 25 8-digit HUC watersheds (see 

section 4.6.2), when equipment leaves the Little Bear River watershed (see section 4.6.2), as equipment 

enters the Sheldon NWR (see section 4.4.6), and as equipment leaves contractor yards. Ruby has 

estimated that about 2,000 gallons of water would be required to clean 10 equipment vehicles at required 

cleaning and disinfection locations. In total, it is estimated that Ruby would use less than 100,000 gallons 

of water to clean and disinfect equipment. Ruby would obtain water for dust control from sources 

identified in table 4.3.1-3. Ruby would not use water from springs for construction purposes. 

We received numerous comments expressing concern that appropriation of groundwater for 

hydrostatic testing and dust control could cause detrimental effects to the area’s limited water resources. 

Our review of data published by the National Drought Mitigation Center has revealed that portions of 

Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and southern Oregon are currently experiencing drought conditions. Therefore, 

the use of groundwater for construction purposes has the potential to impact the already limited water 

supply in these areas. Ruby has applied for the temporary use of water rights for water sources in all four 

states crossed by the project (see table 1.5-1). Each state’s water right permitting process for the project 

involves a review of Ruby’s proposed water sources, points of withdrawal, places of use, and water 

volumes to determine whether the use would adversely impact existing water users and the state’s water 

resources. Each state would determine whether water is available in the quantity that Ruby is seeking. 

Any appropriation of groundwater would be subject to conditions imposed by the state engineer to 

minimize impacts on the aquifer from which water is appropriated. Ruby would only utilize water 

sources identified in table 4.3.1-3 that are authorized and approved by the respective state water right 

permitting agencies, and Ruby must comply with any limitations or conditions on withdrawal imposed by 

these agencies. If groundwater appropriation sites change, Ruby would be required to find an alternate 

groundwater source that is acceptable/permittable by each state’s engineering office. In addition, if water 

resources are fully appropriated, Ruby would negotiate with water right holders to allow Ruby to file for a 

temporary change of use from the landowner to Ruby; otherwise, the source could not be used. If 

groundwater is not available at a given location, Ruby would need to make other arrangements (i.e.,

trucking in water from approved sources) to obtain water needed for construction activities. 

Ruby modified its Hydrostatic Test Plan in November 2009 to describe how it proposes to convey 

water from wells to the project for hydrostatic testing and dust control. All water used for dust control 

would be conveyed from the source well to the project site in trucks. Ruby is requesting an approximate 

200-foot by 200-foot site from the landowner at each point of appropriation to allow the water trucks to 

be filled and to turn around. Table 4.3.1-3 lists eight well locations identified by Ruby that would require 

temporary hard piping to move water to the project site for hydrostatic testing. Ruby has stated that the 

majority of the temporary hard piping would be laid on the surface of the ground on private property. The 

exceptions are the piping from the Brigham City Hydrant #3 (MP 107.4), which would be on both city 

and private property, and Wildcat Hill (MP 172.7), which would be laid within a Box Elder County Road 

(CR) right-of-way. Little or no surface disturbance would be required to lay water pipe on the ground, 

and associated impacts are expected to be negligible.

Ruby completed a review of each proposed groundwater source to determine if the water is free 

of contaminants. Ruby completed its assessment by querying each permitting agency’s available well 

data and maps for known points of contamination. Based on this review, Ruby has confirmed that the 

proposed hydrostatic test and dust abatement groundwater sources are not known to be contaminated. 

After hydrostatic testing, water would be discharged to the ground through an energy 

dissipation/filtration device. The energy dissipation/filtration device serves as a temporary sediment pond 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-52 

allowing discharged water to infiltrate into the groundwater near the location of discharge, helping to 

restore groundwater conditions and to eliminate flow into existing surface waterbodies. 

The volumes of groundwater to be appropriated for hydrostatic testing and dust abatement are 

estimated at 338 million gallons, which is substantially more than the 66 million gallons originally 

identified by Ruby and evaluated by us in the draft EIS. Because the volume of water is considerable and 

the project is located in a region of the country where water resources are limited, we believe that 

appropriating water of this volume could result in a significant impact. We assert, however, that water 

rights are a complex issue and that permission to appropriate water in reasonable quantities would be 

handled by each state’s engineering office. Water use during operation, however, would not be 

substantial and no significant impacts on groundwater are anticipated during the operational phase of the 

pipeline. 

A comment was received that the Vya Construction Camp could have an impact on area 

groundwater resources. Ruby assessed the Vya camp location and determined that the camp is not 

located in a designated groundwater basin of Nevada and that there are no wellhead protection areas at or 

near the location of the Vya camp. As such, the underlying groundwater resources are not considered 

depleted nor require additional administrative action. One 400-foot-deep well currently exists on the 

camp site. This well is located in a basin-fill aquifer comprised of unconsolidated sands and gravel. The 

well would be used as the camp’s potable water supply. Ruby’s permit for this well has been reviewed 

and approved by the State of Nevada Division of Water Rights, and “Ready for Action” status has been 

conveyed for the well’s use. The estimated volume of water to be appropriated on a daily basis is 18,000 

gallons for the duration of the camp’s use (8 to 10 months). The source aquifer for this water supply is 

expected to provide a good yield and impacts on other area wells is not anticipated. Based on the 

hydrogeologic setting and planned activities for the camp, impacts on hydrogeologic resources would be 

considered short-term and insignificant. 

Ruby’s Lakeview Temporary Housing Facility would utilize existing municipal sewer and water 

services. Ruby has found no recorded wells within 1,500 feet of the proposed site. Logs from test pits 

completed on site did not report groundwater within 4 feet of the ground surface, although groundwater is 

believed to be within at least 15 feet of the surface. Based on the proposed site use and hydrogeologic 

setting, impacts on groundwater resources would be considered negligible. 

4.3.2 Surface Waters 

The Ruby Pipeline Project would cross 11 major watershed basins (see figure 4.3.2-1). Basin 

descriptions and approximate locations are provided in table 4.3.2-1. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-53 

Figure 4.3.2-1 Major Watershed Basins 

 

4-33 

4-33 

4-53 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-54 

TABLE 4.3.2-1 

Major Watershed Basins Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Watershed 

Basin 

Approximate 

MP Range Description 

Upper Green 0 – 40 The Upper Green Watershed has a drainage area of about 17,600 square miles and is located in 

southwest Wyoming, northwest Colorado, and northeast Utah. The Green River originates in the 

Wind River Mountains of west-central Wyoming and flows about 190 miles south where it drains 

into the Flaming Gorge Reservoir. The Green River is a main tributary to the Colorado River. 

Upper Bear 40 – 73 The Upper Bear Watershed has a drainage area of about 2,826 square miles and is located in 

southwest Wyoming, southeast Idaho, and northeast Utah. The Bear River originates in the Uinta 

Mountains and flows about 193 miles north through this watershed before entering the Lower Bear 

Watershed. The Cokeville Meadows NWR and Bear River State Park are located along the Bear 

River in Wyoming. 

Lower Bear 73 – 131 The Lower Bear Watershed has a drainage area of about 7,463 square miles and is located in 

southeast Idaho and northeast Utah. The Bear River flows about 157 miles through this watershed 

before draining into the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge and the Great Salt Lake. The Malad 

River is a major tributary to the Bear River. 

Great Salt 

Lake 

131 – 282 The Great Salt Lake Watershed has a drainage area of about 18,000 square miles and is located in 

northern Utah. It is located in the most arid region of Utah. Three major rivers originate in the 

western end of the Uinta Mountains and drain into the Great Salt Lake: the Bear, the Weber, and 

the Provo/Jordan. The Bonneville Salt Flats are located in the western portion of this watershed. 

Humboldt 282 – 348; 

R356 – 444 

The Humboldt Watershed has a drainage area of about 18,670 square miles and is located in 

north-central Nevada. The 300-mile Humboldt River drains in to the intermittent dry lake bed of 

Humboldt Lake. The source of the river is Humboldt Wells spring at the northern tip of the East 

Humboldt Range, just outside the city of Wells. 

Middle 

Snake – 

Boise 

348 – R356 The Middle Snake – Boise Watershed has a drainage area of about 35,900 square miles and is 

located in north-central Nevada, southeast Oregon, and southwest Idaho. The 1,040-mile-long 

Snake River originates in Yellowstone Park and meanders through mountain ranges, canyons, and 

plains to its confluence with the Colombia River. The Boise River is a 75-mile-long tributary of the 

Snake River that drains a rugged portion of the Sawtooth Range northeast of Boise, as well as part 

of the western Snake River Plain. 

Black Rock 

Desert 

444 – 542.6 

542.7 – 575.0 

The Black Rock Desert Watershed has a drainage area of about 13,130 square miles and is 

located in northwest Nevada. The Black Rock Desert is the dry lake bed of prehistoric Lake 

Lahontan, which existed between 18,000 and 7,000 BC during the last ice age. This watershed is a 

closed basin where waterbodies water generally end at a sink and evaporate. 

North 

Lahontan 

575 – 575.3 The North Lahontan Watershed has a drainage area of about 5,187 square miles and is located in 

northeast California and northwest Nevada. Water drains to Upper Lake in the Surprise Valley in 

the project area. 

Oregon 

Closed 

Basins 

542.6 – 542.7 

575.3 – 610.0 

The Oregon Closed Basins Watershed has an area of about 19,500 square miles and is located in 

south-central Oregon. Surface waters in this watershed drain to inland terminal locations such as 

lakes and sinks where water evaporates or seeps into the ground. Where the water evaporates, 

high concentrations of minerals such a salts remain, resulting in an alkaline environment. 

Upper 

Sacramento 

610 – 639 The Upper Sacramento Watershed has an area of about 8,800 square miles and is located in 

northeastern California and south-central Oregon. The Sacramento River flows south for 447 miles 

through the northern Central Valley of California, between the Pacific Coast Range and the Sierra 

Nevada and finally drains into the northern arm of San Francisco Bay. The Pit River is the principal 

northern tributary to the Sacramento River. Goose Lake was the regular source of water for the Pit 

River but water diversion has caused the lake level to drop below its outlet. 

Klamath 639 – R672.6 The Klamath Basin Watershed is located on the Oregon and California border, and covers slightly 

more than 10 million acres, including approximately 6.1 million acres of public land and 3.8 million 

acres of private land. These private lands include more than 2,400 farms and ranches on 581,000 

acres. The proposed project would pass through the Lost River Sub Basin are which is comprised 

of approximately 1,926,303 acres covering a portion of Klamath, Modoc, and Siskiyou counties. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-55 

The project would cross 1,069 waterbodies. Appendix Q lists the location, name, type, fishery 

classification, state water quality/use classification, and impaired water quality designation for all 

waterbodies that would be crossed by the project. A summary is provided in table 4.3.2-2. There are no 

waterbodies within or immediately adjacent to the boundaries of the proposed aboveground facility sites. 

TABLE 4.3.2-2 

Summary of Surface Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County Perennial Waterbody Intermittent Waterbody Ephemeral Waterbody Total 

WYOMING 

Lincoln 4 14 19 37 

Uinta 2 7 19 28 

UTAH 

Rich 3 16 2 21 

Cache 12 5 3 20 

Box Elder 20 69 172 261 

NEVADA 

Elko 36 39 150 225 

Humboldt 7 11 87 105 

Washoe - 4 21 25 

OREGON 

Lake 27 39 42 108 

Klamath 6 8 4 18 

Total 117 212 519 848 

a 1,069 waterbodies (including streams, washes, swales, drainages, seeps, springs, lakes, ponds, canals, and ditches) 

would be crossed by the project. Of these, 221 waterbodies have unknown flow characteristics and are not presented 

in this table (but are included in Appendix Q). 

4.3.2.1 State Water Classifications 

CWA Section 303(d) requires that each state review, establish, and revise water quality standards 

for all surface waters within each state. Each state has developed its own beneficial use classification 

system to describe state-designated uses to comply with this requirement. These classification systems 

assist each state in developing monitoring and mitigation programs to ensure that waters attain the 

standards they are designated. Waters that fail to meet their designated beneficial uses are considered 

impaired and are listed under a state’s 303(d) list of impaired waters. Water use classifications for each 

state crossed by the project are summarized in the following sections. Potable water intakes within 3 

miles downstream of waterbody crossings are presented in table 4.3.2-3. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-56 

TABLE 4.3.2-3 

Potable Water Intakes Within 3 Miles Downstream of Waterbody Crossings Along the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County Approximate 

MP Waterbody Name Water Use 

Approximate 

Distance 

Downstream of 

Pipeline Crossing 

(miles) 

UTAH 

Rich 51.8 Bear River Domestic, Irrigation, Stock 1.7 

Rich R52.0 Bear River Domestic, Irrigation, Stock 1.7 

Rich R54.1 Tributary to Woodruff Creek Domestic, Stock 0.02 

Rich R54.6 Woodruff Creek Domestic 1.5 

Rich R54.7 Tributary to Woodruff Creek Domestic, Irrigation, Stock 0.2 

Rich 60.0 Woodruff Creek Domestic, Irrigation 2.2 

Rich 60.0 Woodruff Creek Domestic, Irrigation 2.1 

Rich 60.0 Woodruff Creek Domestic, Irrigation 2.0 

Rich 60.6 Woodruff Creek Domestic, Irrigation 2.6 

Rich 60.6 Woodruff Creek Domestic, Irrigation 2.5 

Rich 60.6 Woodruff Creek Domestic, Irrigation 2.4 

Rich 60.8 Woodruff Creek Domestic, Irrigation 2.3 

Rich 60.8 Woodruff Creek Domestic, Irrigation 2.2 

Rich 60.8 Woodruff Creek Domestic, Irrigation 2.1 

Rich 61.4 Woodruff Creek Domestic, Irrigation 2.79 

Cache 87.1 Unnamed Domestic, Stock 0.01 

Cache 92.7 East Fork Bear River 

Domestic, Irrigation, Other, 

Stock 1.5a

Cache 92.7 East Fork Bear River Domestic, Irrigation, Stock 1.5a

Cache 93.5 East Fork Bear River 

Domestic, Irrigation, Other, 

Stock 1.1a

Cache 93.5 East Fork Bear River 

Domestic, Irrigation, Other, 

Stock 1.1 

Cache 93.5 East Fork Bear River Domestic, Irrigation, Stock 1.1a

Cache 93.5 East Fork Bear River Domestic, Irrigation, Stock 1.1 

Cache 93.5 East Fork Bear River Domestic, Irrigation, Stock 1.1 

Cache 93.5 East Fork Bear River Domestic, Irrigation, Stock 1.1 

Cache 92.7 East Fork Bear River 

Domestic, Irrigation, Other, 

Stock 2.4 

Cache 97.7 East Fork Bear River 

Domestic, Irrigation, Other, 

Stock 2.4 

Cache 93.5 East Fork Bear River 

Domestic, Irrigation, Other, 

Stock 2.0a

Cache 92.7 East Fork Bear River Domestic, Irrigation, Stock 1.5 

Cache 93.5 East Fork Bear River Domestic, Irrigation, Stock 1.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-57 

TABLE 4.3.2-3 

Potable Water Intakes Within 3 Miles Downstream of Waterbody Crossings Along the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County Approximate 

MP Waterbody Name Water Use 

Approximate 

Distance 

Downstream of 

Pipeline Crossing 

(miles) 

Cache 92.7 East Fork Bear River Domestic, Irrigation, Stock 1.5 

Cache 93.5 East Fork Bear River Domestic, Irrigation, Stock 2.0 

Cache 97.7 East Fork Bear River 

Domestic, Irrigation, Other, 

Stock 2.4 

Cache 93.5 East Fork Bear River 

Domestic, Irrigation, Other, 

Stock 2.0 

Cache 92.7 East Fork Bear River Domestic, Irrigation, Stock 2.4 

Cache 93.5 East Fork Bear River Domestic, Irrigation, Stock 2.0 

Cache 94.7 Little Bear River 

Domestic, Irrigation, Other, 

Stock 0.28a

Cache 94.9 Little Bear River 

Domestic, Irrigation, Other, 

Stock 0.1a

Cache 94.4 Little Bear River 

Domestic, Irrigation, Other, 

Stock 0.4a

Cache 98.4 West Fork Little Bear River Domestic, Irrigation 2.7 

Box Elder 107.8 

Tributary to North Spring Irrigation 

Ditch Domestic, Irrigation, Stock 0.02a

Box Elder 109.0 North Spring Irrigation Ditch Domestic, Irrigation 0.18 

Box Elder 109.0 North Spring Irrigation Ditch Domestic, Irrigation, Stock 0.18 

NEVADA 

Humboldt 508.6 Tributary to Great Salt Lake Domestic 2.4 

OREGON 

Lake 629.9 Tributary to Goose Lake Irrigation, Domestic 2.4 

─────────────────────────

a Location has more than one potable water intake at that specific location downstream of the proposed waterbody 

crossing. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-58 

Wyoming 

The state of Wyoming classifies surface waters into six uses and four classes. Surface water uses 

are agriculture, protection and propagation of fish and wildlife, industry, human consumption, recreation, 

and scenic value. Designated classifications are Class 1 – outstanding waters; Class 2 – fisheries and 

drinking water; Class 3 – aquatic life other than fish; and Class 4 – agriculture, industry, recreation, and 

wildlife. These classifications are designed for conservation, protection, maintenance, and improvement 

of water quality for public water supplies; for the propagation of wildlife, fish, and aquatic life; and for 

domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational, and other legitimate beneficial uses. 

None of the waterbodies that would be crossed in Wyoming are on the 303(d) list of impaired 

waters. No potable water intake sources have been identified within 3 miles downstream of any of the 

proposed waterbody crossings in Wyoming. 

Utah 

The state of Utah designates five major management and protection classifications to surface 

waters (UDWQ, 2006); Class 1 – raw water source for domestic water systems; Class 2 – recreational use 

and aesthetics; Class 3 – aquatic wildlife; Class 4 – agricultural use including irrigation and stock 

watering; and Class 5 – primary and secondary contact recreation, aquatic wildlife, and mineral extraction 

for the Great Salt Lake. These classifications are designated to protect waters for drinking, fishing, 

boating, irrigation, stock watering, aquatic wildlife, and other legitimate beneficial uses. 

One of the waterbodies that would be crossed in Utah is on the 303(d) list of impaired waters. A 

tributary to Saleratus Creek (MP R54.6) has failed to meet its designated beneficial use criteria for 

dissolved oxygen. Sixty-nine potable water intake sources have been identified within 3 miles 

downstream of the proposed waterbody crossings in Utah (see table 4.3.2-3). The majority of these 

intakes are for domestic uses. 

Nevada 

The state of Nevada assigns the following beneficial uses to classified waters: aquatic life, 

wildlife propagation, recreation involving water contact, recreation not involving water contact, municipal 

drinking supply, stock watering, irrigation, and industrial supply. 

Five of the waterbodies that would be crossed in Nevada are on the 303(d) list of impaired waters 

(see table 4.3.2-4). One potable water intake source has been identified within 3 miles downstream of the 

proposed waterbody crossings in Nevada (see table 4.3.2-3). 

TABLE 4.3.2-4 

303(d)-Listed Waterbodies in Nevada Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

County Approximate MP Waterbody Name Parameter Exceeded 

Elko 300.1 Mary’s River Dissolved Oxygen, Total Phosphorus, Temperature 

Elko 315.2 Indian Creek Total Phosphorus 

Elko 316.4 North Fork Humboldt River Total Phosphorus 

Elko R362.6 Willow Creek Total Phosphorus 

Humboldt 432.6 Little Humboldt River Total Phosphorus 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-59 

Oregon 

The state of Oregon assigns the following beneficial uses to classified waters: domestic water 

supply, fishing, industrial water supply, boating, irrigation, water contact, recreation, livestock watering, 

aesthetic quality, fish and aquatic life, hydropower, wildlife and hunting, and commercial navigation and 

transportation. 

Eight of the waterbodies that would be crossed in Oregon are on the 303(d) list of impaired 

waters (see table 4.3.2-5). One potable water intake source has been identified within 3 miles 

downstream of the proposed waterbody crossings in Oregon (see table 4.3.2-3). The intake is used for a 

combination of domestic, livestock, and irrigation uses. 

TABLE 4.3.2-5 

303(d)-Listed Waterbodies in Oregon Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

County Approximate MP Waterbody Name Parameter Exceeded 

Lake 588.3 Twelvemile Creek Silver, Temperature, Arsenic 

Lake 596.0 Twentymile Creek Silver, Temperature, Arsenic, Dissolved Oxygen 

Lake 601.8 Deep Creek Temperature 

Lake 605.4 Horse Creek Temperature 

Lake R620.2 Thomas Creek Temperature, Iron, Dissolved Oxygen 

Lake 642.5 North Fork Willow Creek Temperature 

Lake R651.9 Rock Creek Temperature 

Klamath R665.2 Lost River Dissolved Oxygen, Chlorophyll a, Ammonia 

4.3.2.2 Sensitive Waterbodies 

Waterbodies may be considered sensitive for a number of reasons including, but not limited to: 

size, the presence of coldwater fish species or special status species, the presence of high-quality 

recreational or visual resources, historic value, or the presence of impaired water or contaminated 

sediments. 

The project would cross 83 waterbodies that are considered sensitive because of the presence of 

special status species. Mitigation measures to avoid or minimize impacts on special status species within 

these waterbodies are discussed in section 4.7. 

As discussed in section 4.3.2.1, the project would cross 14 waterbodies designated as impaired 

waters. Phosphorus, temperature, and dissolved oxygen appear to be the most common impairments. 

Parameters for silver, arsenic, iron, and ammonia have also been exceeded in five Oregon streams. 

The project would not cross any designated WSRs. However, the project would cross 

Twelvemile Creek, which has been proposed for designation as a WSR. The Lakeview RMP determined 

that approximately 4.4 miles of Twelvemile Creek in Oregon is suitable for designation by Congress as a 

WSR and that management standards and guidelines for a Recreational classification should be followed 

in the interim. A Recreational designation is given to those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily 

accessible by road or railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have 

undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past. Under a Recreational designation, rights-of-way 

for pipelines are avoided or restricted to existing rights-of-way. Ruby has proposed to locate the pipeline 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-60 

adjacent to an existing power line right-of-way where the project crosses Twelvemile Creek. Ruby stated 

that it would implement the interim management guidelines and standards for Wild, Scenic, and 

Recreational classifications as specified in the Lakeview RMP. The management standards emphasize 

fisheries as its primary outstanding remarkable value. Ruby would submit a detailed stream crossing plan 

for Twelvemile Creek to the ODFW for review. Ruby has filed a crossing plan for Twelvemile Creek 

with the FERC (we assess the adequacy of this crossing plan in section 4.7.2.4). Ruby would cross 

Twelvemile Creek using a dry-ditch crossing method and implement the timing restrictions presented in 

table 2.3.2-1. 

4.3.2.3 Potential Surface Water Impacts

Pipeline construction could affect surface waters in several ways. Clearing and grading of stream 

banks, in-stream trenching, trench dewatering, and backfilling could result in modification of aquatic 

habitat, increased sedimentation, turbidity, decreased dissolved oxygen concentrations, releases of 

chemical and nutrient pollutant from sediments, and introduction of chemical contaminants such as fuel 

and lubricants. The use of surface waters and groundwater for hydrostatic testing, dust abatement, and 

vehicle washing could directly or indirectly affect surface water volumes. The crossing of irrigation 

canals could interrupt the flow of irrigation water, which could damage crops and reduce crop yields. 

Downstream sedimentation is a primary concern during in-stream construction. The extent of 

sedimentation impacts would depend on sediment loads, stream velocity, turbidity, bank composition, and 

sediment particle size. In-stream construction could cause the dislodging and transport of channel bed 

sediments and the alteration of stream contours. Changes in the bottom contours could alter stream 

dynamics and increase downstream erosion or deposition, depending on circumstances. Turbidity 

resulting from resuspension of sediments from in-stream construction or erosion of cleared right-of-way 

areas could reduce light penetration and photosynthetic oxygen production. In-stream work also could 

introduce chemical and nutrient pollutants from sediments. Resuspension of deposited organic material 

and inorganic sediments could cause an increase in biological and chemical use of oxygen, potentially 

resulting in a decrease of dissolved oxygen concentrations in the affected area. Lower dissolved oxygen 

concentrations could cause temporary displacement of motile organisms, such as fish, and may kill nonmotile organisms within the affected area. 

The clearing and grading of streambanks would expose soil to erosional forces and would reduce 

riparian vegetation along the cleared section of the waterbody (see section 4.4.3 for a discussion of 

riparian habitat). The use of heavy equipment for construction would cause compaction of near-surface 

soils, an effect that could result in increased runoff into surface waters. The increased runoff could 

transport additional sediment into the waterbodies, resulting in increased turbidity levels and 

sedimentation rates in the receiving waterbody. Disturbances to stream channels and streambanks could 

increase the likelihood of scour after construction. 

Refueling of vehicles and storage of fuel, oil, or other hazardous materials near surface waters 

could create a potential for contamination. If a spill were to occur, immediate downstream users of the 

water could experience degradation in water quality. Acute and chronic toxic effects to aquatic organisms 

could also result from such a spill. 

Blasting may be required in Utah, Nevada, and Oregon in locations of shallow bedrock from MP 

57.5 to the terminus of the project, and could include blasting within streams and wetlands. In-stream 

blasting has the potential to injure or kill aquatic organisms, displace organisms during blast-hole drilling 

operations, and temporarily increase stream turbidity. Byproducts from the blast could also be released 

and could potentially contaminate the water. To minimize or avoid these impacts, Ruby would comply 

with all instream blasting permit requirements and would avoid blasting in sensitive streams during 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-61 

critical periods (see table 2.3.2-1). In Oregon, a permit would be required for use of explosives on, under, 

in, or adjacent to waters of the State of Oregon that could impact fish, wildlife, or their habitat (OAR 635-

425-000). 

An ephemeral waterbody flows east to west across the Vya Construction Camp site. On October 

29, 2009, Ruby submitted a layout design of the Vya camp. The design of the camp indicates all camp 

facilities, including the helicopter pad, offices, and fuel storage area, would be located north of the 

ephemeral waterbody. Therefore, direct impacts on the ephemeral waterbody would be avoided. Ruby 

would be required to comply with state stormwater discharge requirements which would ensure that 

indirect impacts on the waterbody would also be avoided. 

A manmade flood diversion channel is located approximately 200 feet north of the Lakeview 

Temporary Housing Facility. This channel is bermed to keep water from spreading across the adjacent 

landscape, which includes the project area. Given the channel’s periodic connectivity to Warner Creek 

(which ultimately flows into Goose Lake), it is likely this hydrologic feature would fall under COE 

jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA. Accordingly, the Lakeview facility would be 

constructed and operated in a manner to avoid discharges of fill material into the channel. Based on the 

Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) floodplains maps, the lodging facility site is 

within a 100-year floodplain (FEMA, 2009). Ruby has stated project construction and operation would 

comply with all relevant FEMA regulations as well as Town of Lakeview (Lakeview Development Code, 

Chapter 3.7), Lake County (Lake County Comprehensive Plan, Part VIII) floodplain development 

requirements, and state stormwater discharge requirements. 

4.3.2.4 Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures

Ruby has proposed to use several different waterbody crossing methods depending on site- and 

waterbody-specific conditions. The majority of the waterbodies that would be crossed by the pipeline are 

intermittent drainages and washes that are expected to be dry at the time of construction. These 

waterbodies do not typically support fisheries or provide critical aquatic habitat or migratory passage for 

aquatic organisms. Ruby has proposed to cross waterbodies and canals that are dry at the time of the 

crossing using conventional upland construction methods (see section 2.3.1). Ruby would continue to 

place excavated trench material a minimum of 10 feet from the high water mark of the waterbody where 

upland construction methods are utilized. If a rain event were to occur and the waterbody begins to flow, 

Ruby would implement standard waterbody crossing techniques such as installation of erosion control 

devices, temporary bridges, or flumes, and would limit the duration of the crossing as described in its 

Procedures. When water is present in canals and ditches that are set into the ground, an open-cut crossing 

method would be implemented. Trench plugs may be used within the excavated trench to prevent water 

from flowing laterally along the excavated trench. When canal or ditch banks are built up, the pipe would 

be installed using the horizontal bore method. 

Ruby would utilize the open-cut crossing method (see section 2.3.2.2) at waterbodies that are 

inundated or flowing at the time of construction and do not contain special status species. Based on 

Ruby’s data, roughly 75 streams would be crossed using this method. Ruby would minimize impacts on 

waterbodies during open-cut construction by implementing measures contained in its Procedures, which 

include: 

• locating temporary extra workspaces at least 50 feet from surface waters except where 

adjacent upland is actively farmed or developed or where approved by the FERC and 

appropriate agencies; 

• limiting clearing of vegetation between temporary extra workspaces and the edge of the 

waterbody to preserve riparian vegetation; 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-62 

• constructing the crossing as close to perpendicular to the waterbody as site conditions 

allow; 

• maintaining adequate flow rates throughout construction to protect aquatic life and 

prevent the interruption of existing downstream uses; 

• locating equipment parking areas, equipment refueling areas, concrete coating activities, 

and hazardous material storage at least 100 feet from surface waters, unless unfeasible; 

• locating equipment parking areas and refueling areas at least 500 feet from surface waters 

on BLM-administered land, unless infeasible; 

• requiring construction across waterbodies to be completed as quickly as possible and 

during the windows specified in the Procedures or required by applicable permits; 

• developing and adhering to any required site-specific construction plan for each 

waterbody greater than 100 feet wide at the crossing location (major waterbody); 

• requiring temporary erosion and sediment control measures to be installed across the 

entire width of the construction right-of-way after clearing and before ground 

disturbance; 

• requiring maintenance of temporary erosion and sediment control measures throughout 

construction until streambanks and adjacent upland areas are stabilized; 

• requiring bank stabilization and reestablishment of bed and bank contours and riparian 

vegetation after construction; 

• maintaining a 25-foot-wide strip of riparian vegetation along the waterbody and 

restricting maintenance of vegetation to a 10-foot-wide strip centered over the pipeline to 

trees greater than 15 feet in height within 15 feet of the pipeline centerline; 

• consulting with the appropriate land managing or state agencies to develop plans for 

restoring vegetation, and, where necessary, preventing the invasion or spread of 

undesirable exotic and invasive vegetation; 

• monitoring the success of vegetation restoration annually for a period of at least 5 years 

after construction, or until the waterbody banks are successfully revegetated; and 

• implementing the Spill Plan if a spill or leak occurs during construction. 

Ruby has stated that it would cross all flowing waterbodies with the potential to contain special 

status fish species using a dry-ditch crossing method. Dry-ditch waterbody crossing methods generally 

result in less sedimentation and turbidity in and downstream of the project area. The dry-ditch crossing 

method involves diverting the flow of water across the work area using water pumps (dam-and-pump 

method) or through flume pipes (flume method). (See section 2.3.2.2 for a description of waterbody 

crossing techniques). The use of such methods is generally restricted to waterbodies less than 30 feet 

wide as it is typically considered infeasible to use such methods on wider crossings; the wider the 

waterbody the more difficult it is to get a good seal for the dam or around the flume pipes. Ruby would 

also construct stream crossings during windows established by state agencies and the FERC to protect 

fishery resources (see table 2.3.2-1). Ruby also would adopt additional measures based on any state 

agency permitting requirements. 

In addition to streams that contain special status species, the WGFD recommended that the Hams 

Fork River and Little Muddy Creek be bored to reduce impacts on downstream aquatic resources. While 

this method would substantially minimize impacts on waterbodies, the amount and depth of ground 

disturbance required to excavate a bore hole, stage boring equipment, and store the excavated soil 

adjacent to the waterbody would be considerable. Ruby has proposed to cross the Hams Fork River using 

a HDD, and the Little Muddy Creek using a dry-ditch crossing method. We believe that these crossing 

methods would reduce sedimentation from construction activities to a level that would not threaten 

downstream fish populations and recreational opportunities. Therefore, we concur with Ruby’s proposed 

crossing methods for the Hams Fork River and Little Muddy Creek. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-63 

The ODFW recommended that all perennial streams in Oregon be crossed using a dry-ditch 

method. Additionally, fish passage regulations in Oregon require construction activities to allow fish to 

pass across the construction work area. Ruby has proposed to use a dry-ditch crossing method to cross all 

flowing streams that are known to contain special status fish in Oregon. However, the Lost River (MP 

R665.2, which is 360 feet wide at the proposed pipeline crossing location, would likely be crossed using 

the wet open-cut crossing method, although Ruby has not indicated how it proposes to cross the 

waterbody. As stated above, a dry-crossing method is generally restricted to waterbodies less than 30 feet 

wide as it is typically considered infeasible to use this method on wider crossings. Because a dam-andpump crossing method likely would prevent fish from passing through the construction workspace 

(contrary to the ODFW requirements), we expect that the ODFW would require a flume crossing method 

in Oregon wherever a dry-ditch crossing is warranted. The ODFW would review Ruby’s fish passage 

plans and crossing methods for adequacy and compliance with state requirements. 

Ruby stated it would cross the Hams Fork River and the two Bear River crossings using the HDD 

method. Ruby states it would consider using HDD in other locations if construction were required 

outside an in-stream work window and Ruby were unable to obtain a waiver of the timing extension from 

the jurisdictional resource agency, and physical conditions were appropriate. A successful HDD would 

result in less impact on water resources along the path of the HDD. No sedimentation would be created 

by the crossing, and stream bank and stream bottom restoration would not be needed as disturbance to 

these areas would be avoided by the HDD. However, the likelihood of HDD failure increases in areas of 

glacial till or outwash interspersed with boulders and cobbles, fractured bedrock, or non-cohesive coarse 

sands and gravels. 

Temporary extra workspace is generally required at waterbody crossing to store excavated trench 

material from the waterbody. Ruby’s Procedures state that all extra workspaces could generally be 

located at least 50 feet from waterbody edges, but site-specific conditions may require extra workspaces 

in or within waterbodies. Ruby submitted site-specific construction plans and an extra workspace table 

(see table E-1 in Appendix E) that identifies extra workspaces and staging areas in and within 50 feet of 

waterbodies. We have reviewed the plans and extra workspace table and have determined that Ruby has 

not provided sufficient site-specific justification to allow us at this time to approve Ruby’s use of extra 

workspaces and staging areas in or within 50 feet of waterbodies. Therefore, we recommend that Ruby 

locate all temporary extra workspaces and staging areas at least 50 feet from waterbodies and limit 

the construction right-of-way to 115 feet wide in waterbodies. Prior to construction, Ruby would 

include these measures in its final construction alignment sheets filed for review and written approval by 

the Director of OEP. We would reconsider Ruby’s waterbody crossing plans prior to issuing a Notice to 

Proceed if Ruby provides reasonable site-specific justification for each extra workspace and staging area 

within 50 feet of a waterbody and each instance where the construction right-of-way width would exceed 

115 feet in a waterbody. 

Seasonal and flash flooding hazards are a potential concern where the pipeline would cross or is 

near major streams, lakes, and small watersheds. Although flooding itself does not present a risk to 

pipeline facilities, bank erosion and/or scour could expose the pipe or cause sections of pipe to become 

unsupported. The FWS indicated it has had preliminary discussions with Ruby regarding stream scour. 

Additionally, Ruby has committed to discussing natural stream restoration techniques with the FWS and 

state resource agencies. All proposed pipeline facilities would be designed and constructed in accordance 

with 49 CFR 192, at a minimum. These specifications ensure that pipeline facilities are designed and 

constructed in a manner to provide adequate protection from washouts and floods, and include 

specifications for installing the pipeline at a sufficient depth to avoid possible scour at waterbody 

crossings. Ruby would monitor all streams disturbed by construction for at least 5 years after 

construction, and would conduct aerial and pedestrian surveys of the pipeline right-of-way throughout the 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-64 

life of the pipeline to identify issues such as streambed scouring or potential pipe exposure. The FERC 

and the BLM (on BLM-managed lands) would also monitor restoration and revegetation success and 

would ultimately determine if restoration is successful. Should bank erosion or stream scour issues be 

identified, Ruby would be required to remediate the problems. 

Some landowners along the proposed pipeline route have expressed concern that construction of 

the pipeline would change drainage and flow patterns on their properties. Ruby’s Procedures detail 

measures that would be implemented to mitigate for potential impacts resulting from dewatering, 

excavation, excessive soil compaction, and removal of vegetation within construction areas. Ruby’s 

Procedures also require that the construction area be restored to preconstruction conditions. Although 

drainage patterns could change during construction, these impacts would be localized and temporary. 

Further, Ruby’s Plan details measures it would implement to mitigate for changes in drainage patterns. 

These measures include restoration, monitoring, and correction of drainage and irrigation system 

problems that could result from pipeline construction in active agricultural areas. 

Comments were received about the potential to increase stream water temperatures during 

operation of the pipeline. Compression is required to move natural gas along a pipeline system. 

Compressor stations, usually placed at 40 to 100 mile intervals along the pipeline, compress the natural 

gas by either a turbine, motor, or engine. For this project, three of Ruby’s compressor stations would use 

turbine units and one compressor station would use electric drive engines (see section 2.1.2). The use of 

these units generates heat and warms the natural gas as it is compressed. At the Roberson Compressor 

Station, Ruby proposes to install discharge coolers to reduce the temperature of the natural gas as it leaves 

the station. The remaining compressor stations would operate at a reduced compression capacity, thus 

minimizing the amount of heat generated during compression. Ruby is also internally coating the pipeline 

to reduce the amount of compression needed to operate the pipeline. Further, the temperature of the 

natural gas and the pipeline drop with the distance from the compressor station. The pipeline would be 

installed a minimum of 5 feet below stream bottoms. Alliance Pipeline Limited Partnership conducted 

studies to monitor the heat effects of pipelines on soil temperature. Although these studies relate to plant 

growth in terrestrial environments, preliminary results indicate that temperature transfer from the pipeline 

does not appear to affect plant growth (Alliance, 2009). We are not aware of similar studies for an 

aquatic ecosystem; however, we expect that the amount of heat transfer through the ground at a distance 

of 5 feet would be minimal and would not markedly increase flowing water temperatures. 

In addition to the construction and conservation measures described above, Ruby would need to 

obtain a COE Section 404 permit and Section 401 state water quality certifications and comply with all 

conditions within these authorizations. 

4.3.2.5 Hydrostatic Testing and Dust Control 

Ruby would verify the integrity of its pipeline before placing it into service by conducting a series 

of hydrostatic tests. Ruby also would implement dust control procedures when a visible plume of dust 

extends more than 300 feet from the source with an estimated opacity exceeding 20 percent. Ruby would 

use both groundwater and surface water sources for hydrostatic testing and dust control. The surface 

water sources Ruby proposes to use for hydrostatic test water and dust abatement are presented in table 

4.3.2-6. Groundwater sources and impacts associated with hydrostatic testing and dust control are 

discussed in section 4.3.1.6. 

Ruby’s Hydrostatic Test Plan (Appendix K) and Draft Fugitive Dust Control Plan (Appendix O) 

state that 51,506,417 gallons of surface water would be required for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. Of 

this, 22,517,633 gallons would be obtained from the Bear River. Subsequently, Ruby indicated in its 

September 10, 2009 filing that the Bear River would not be used as a water source for hydrostatic testing 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-65 

and dust control and that Ruby is seeking alternate water sources from the Bear River Canal Company for 

the 22,517,633 gallons of water that originally were to be used from the Bear River. For the purposes of 

our review, we are evaluating the use of 28,988,784 gallons of surface water as indicated in table 4.3.2-6 

(i.e., not withdrawn from the Bear River). Ruby has estimated that about 152,040,000 gallons of water 

would be required for dust abatement. Of this total, 35,280,000 gallons would be obtained from surface 

water sources. 

TABLE 4.3.2-6 

Surface Water Sources for Hydrostatic Testing and Dust Control for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State MP Surface Water Source 

Hydrostatic Test 

Water Volume 

(gallons) 

Dust Abatement and 

Alternate Hydrostatic 

Test Water Volume 

(gallons) 

Total Volume to be 

Appropriated 

(gallons) 

Wyoming 0.4 Roberson Creek - 1,680,000 1,680,000 

0.8 Hams Fork River 14,452,371 1,680,000 16,132,371 

1.3 South Side Ditch - 1,680,000 1,680,000 

19.8 Little Muddy Creek - 1,680,000 1,680,000 

20.4 Little Muddy Creek - 1,680,000 1,680,000 

23.9 Little Muddy Creek - 1,680,000 1,680,000 

27.1 Ryckman Creek - 1,680,000 1,680,000 

Utah 43.3 Hopkins #2 Pond - 1,680,000 1,680,000 

60.7 Woodruff Creek 5,477,349 1,680,000 7,157,349 

90.9 Little Bear River East 

Fork - 1,680,000 1,680,000 

92.0 Porcupine Canal 9,059,064 9,059,064 

94.7 Bear River South Fork - 1,680,000 1,680,000 

94.8 Bear River South Fork - 1,680,000 1,680,000 

117.7 Corrine Canal - 1,680,000 1,680,000 

118.2 Central Canal - 1,680,000 1,680,000 

119.5 Sulphur Creek - 1,680,000 1,680,000 

127.3 West Canal - 1,680,000 1,680,000 

132.3 West Canal Faust 

Road - 1,680,000 1,680,000 

149.3 Holmgren Pond - 3,360,000 3,360,000 

Oregon 632.5 Dry Creek - 1,680,000 1,680,000 

R662.0 Willow Valley Reservoir - 1,680,000 1,680,000 

Total 28,988,784 35,280,000 64,268,784

The withdrawal of large volumes of water from the surface water sources could temporarily affect 

the recreational and biological uses of the resource if the diversions constitute a large percentage of the 

source’s total flow or volume. Water withdrawals could also result in temporary loss of habitat, change in 

water temperature and dissolved oxygen levels, and entrainment or impingement of fish or other aquatic 

organisms. Section 4.6 further discusses potential impacts on aquatic resources due to water withdrawals. 

Eight of Ruby’s proposed water sources (Hams Fork River, South Side Ditch, Little Muddy 

Creek, Ryckman Creek, Woodruff Creek, Little Bear River East Fork, Bear River South Fork, and Dry 

Creek) are known to contain special status species. In addition, the FWS stated that water withdrawals 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-66 

(depletions) from the Hams Fork River, which is located within the Colorado River system, may affect 

the bonytail chub, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, and humpback chub. Impacts on these and 

other federally listed species, including potential depletion impacts, are discussed in section 4.7. 

Ruby would minimize the potential effects of water withdrawals from surface waters by adhering 

to measures in its Hydrostatic Test Plan (Appendix K). As stated in the Hydrostatic Test Plan, Ruby 

would screen intake hoses to prevent the entrainment of fish and other aquatic organisms. Ruby would 

acquire the necessary permits and approvals from state and federal agencies and obtain or comply with 

water rights before appropriating surface waters. 

Ruby has proposed to appropriate water for hydrostatic testing between the months of August and 

March. Ruby stated that it would regulate the rate of withdrawal of test water to avoid adverse impacts on 

aquatic resources or downstream flows. Ruby’s Hydrostatic Test Plan states these rates would not exceed 

2,500 gallons per minute and would not exceed 10 percent of the waterbody’s base flow rate at the time of 

water withdrawals. We have reviewed the most current, available historic stream flow data for Hams 

Fork River and Woodruff Creek where the majority of surface water would be appropriated. No historic 

stream flow data is available for Porcupine Canal. Table 4.3.2-7 identifies average historic stream flows 

and the amount of time required to appropriate the necessary test water while maintaining 10 percent of 

the historic base flow of the waterbodies. Based on available data, sufficient stream flows would likely 

be available for the Hams Fork River and Woodruff Creek. Additionally, Ruby has stated that its water 

withdrawals from the Hams Fork River would coincide with water releases from PacifiCorp’s upstream 

reservoir to maintain base streamflow in the river. For the remaining surface waters identified in table 

4.3.2-6 that would be used for dust control, we do not believe the small volumes of water required from 

each source and the duration over which the water would be appropriated (small incremental volumes 

over the duration of construction to control dust) would affect aquatic or sensitive resources or 

downstream water rights. As previously stated, Ruby would not appropriate waters from any source 

unless it receives approval from the state water engineer’s office and water rights holders. 

TABLE 4.3.2-7 

Historic Flow Data and Time Required to Appropriate Water for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Water Source 

Total Volume to be 

Appropriated 

(gallons) 

USGS Gauging 

Station/Estimated 

Distance from 

Crossing (river miles) 

Historic Average 

Monthly 

Streamflow 

Between August 

and December 

(gpm) 

Historic Average 

Monthly 

Streamflow 

Between January 

and March(gpm) 

Time Required to 

Appropriate 

Required Volume 

While Maintaining 

10 Percent Historic 

Flows (days) 

Hams Fork 

River 

16,132,371 09223000 / 37 8,527.2a 7,630.1 a 13.1-14.7 

Woodruff 

Creek 

7,157,349 10020900 / 2.5 3,133.5b 1,265.7 b 15.9-39.3 

───────────────────────── 

a USGS, 2009. Data compiled from 1985 to 2008. 

b USGS, 2009. Data compiled from 1970 to 1986. 

Ruby would test the pipeline in about 90 to 100 test sections. The number of test sections would 

be necessitated by elevation changes and availability of water sources across the project area. Therefore, 

Ruby would discharge test water at numerous locations along the pipeline route (see Appendix K). 

All surface water used for hydrostatic testing would be discharged within the same 8-digit HUC 

watershed from which it was withdrawn. This would prevent the inadvertent transfer of pathogens or 

NAS between 8-digit HUC watersheds. No chemicals would be used during testing of the pipe; however, 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-67 

Ruby would use industry-accepted and agency-approved biocides to appropriately treat test water for 

pathogens and NAS when source waters have the potential to or have been identified as having pathogens 

or NAS, and the discharge of those source waters have the potential to reach other surface waters that do 

not contain pathogens or NAS. Ruby conducted a database search and consulted with state resource 

agencies to identify surface water sources that may contain pathogens and/or NAS (Appendix K). The 

Hams Fork River, Woodruff Creek, and Porcupine Canal have the potential to contain NAS. Surface 

water sources to be used for dust control may contain pathogens or NAS; however, we do not believe 

there is a potential to transfer pathogens or NAS between surface waters during dust control as these 

practices would typically be conducted in dry upland locations. As stated in the Hydrostatic Test Plan, 

Ruby would implement various procedures to ensure pathogens or NAS are not spread between 

waterbodies, such as: 

• discharge of surface waters within the same 8-digit HUC watershed in which it was 

appropriated; 

• screen intakes with 0.25-inch screens or screens necessary to comply with Oregon fish 

screen requirements to prevent NAS fish entrainment; and 

• discharge of surface waters to upland areas and treat discharges that may contain NAS 

with biocides as discussed below. 

Ruby has identified a number of biocides and chemicals that could be used to neutralize 

pathogens and NAS, which include GreenClean Pro, CO2, Formula 409, bleach, copper sulfate, 

quaternary ammonium salts, potassium permanganate, hydrogen peroxide, and tetrakis hydroxymethyl 

phosphonium sulfate. Ruby has identified pros and cons for each biocide in Appendix K. Should 

treatment be necessary, Ruby would conduct a bench test to determine dose and contact time for the 

chosen biocide in relation to the pathogen and/or NAS that is being treated. Additionally, should biocide 

treatment be required, an appropriate biocide would be selected in consultation with agency partners. 

The WGFD and NDOW recommend the use of temporary sediment basins where water discharge 

points are less than 0.5 mile from a perennial stream, and when the discharge point is more than 0.5 mile 

from a stream and the discharge flow is greater than 0.5 cubic feet per second (cfs). Ruby has committed 

to discharging to temporary sediment basins when the discharge point is less than 0.5 mile from a stream 

and the discharge flow is greater than 0.5 cfs. However, due to the sparse vegetation and high erodibility 

throughout the project area, we recommend that Ruby discharge all hydrostatic test water to a 

temporary sediment filtration and energy dissipation structure. 

UTPL has requested that hydrostatic test water discharges in Utah do not come within 50 feet of 

the high-water line of receiving waters. Ruby would be required to comply with NPDES waste water 

discharge permit requirements under Section 402 of the CWA, which include provisions for sampling and 

monitoring hydrostatic test water discharges. Additionally, we have recommended that Ruby discharge 

all hydrostatic test water to temporary sediment structures. We believe these measures would sufficiently 

protect water resources in the State of Utah. 

No long-term, significant impacts on surface waters are anticipated as a result of the project 

because designated water uses would not be permanently affected, the pipeline would be installed beneath 

the bed of waterbodies, erosion controls would be implemented, and the streambanks and streambed 

contours would be restored as close as practical to preconstruction conditions. We believe the techniques 

proposed by Ruby and our recommendations adequately address potential impacts on surface waters. 

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-68 

4.3.3 Wetlands 

Wetlands are areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and 

duration sufficient to support a prevalence of wetland vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil 

conditions (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Wetlands can be a source of substantial biodiversity and 

can serve a variety of functions. These functions include: providing wildlife and aquatic habitat, 

recreational opportunities, naturally improving water quality, and providing flood control. 

Sections 401 and 404 of the CWA of 1972 were created specifically with the intent “to restore 

and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of our Nation’s waters.” The COE has 

authority under section 404 of the CWA to review and issue permits for activities that would result in the 

discharge of dredged or fill material into wetlands. Section 401 of the CWA requires that proposed 

dredge and fill activities under section 404 be reviewed by designated state agencies. The designated 

state agencies also must certify that the proposed action would meet state water quality standards. 

Executive Order 11990, amended in 42 USC 4321 et. seq., requires federal agencies “to avoid 

adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands wherever there is a 

practicable alternative” and to “include all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands” on 

federally managed land. Further, the agencies are required to preserve and enhance the natural and 

beneficial values of wetlands. 

The COE Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) provides the 

standards for determining areas of wetlands and deepwater habitats. Land areas are defined as wetlands 

when soil, hydrology, and vegetation all meet the technical criteria for establishing wetlands. Wetland 

delineations for the Ruby project were conducted in 2008 and 2009 in accordance with these federal 

regulations and methodologies, including the Arid West Region supplement to the 1987 COE Manual. 

Palustrine emergent (herbaceous) wetlands are the most common type of wetland community 

crossed by the pipeline route, followed by unconsolidated bottom and shore wetlands. Other wetland 

communities crossed include scrub-shrub wetlands, lacustrine aquatic bed or unconsolidated shore 

wetlands, and forested wetlands. Table 4.3.3-1 summarizes the type and amount of wetland that would be 

impacted by the proposed pipeline route, extra workspaces, yards, and access roads. A complete list of 

wetlands crossed by the project is provided in Appendix R. No wetlands were identified at aboveground 

facility sites, the Vya Construction Camp site, or the Lakeview Temporary Housing Facility site. 

4.3.3.1 Potential Wetland Impacts 

As shown in Appendix R, the proposed pipeline route, including extra workspace, would cross 

148 wetland areas for a total of 376 acres. The use of contractor yards, staging areas, and access roads 

may also temporarily affect about 59 acres of wetland. About 79 percent of the wetlands affected by the 

project is palustrine emergent (i.e., herbaceous) wetland. The remaining wetland types include 

unconsolidated shore wetland (21.3 percent) and scrub-shrub wetland (0.6 percent). No forested wetlands 

would be crossed or otherwise affected by the project. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-69 

TABLE 4.3.3-1 

Summary Of Wetlands Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State Cowardin 

Classification 

Wetland 

Acreage within 

the 75' 

Construction 

Workspace 

Wetland Acreage 

within the 50' 

Operational 

Right-of-Way 

Wetland 

Acres within 

the Extra 

Workspace 

Wetland Acres 

within 

Construction 

Yards and 

Staging Areas 

Wetland 

Acres within 

the Access 

Road 30' 

Improvement 

WYOMING 

PEM 3.0 2.0 0.8 0.1 0.3 

WYOMING 

PEM / PSS 1.9 1.2 - - - 

PSS 0.1 0.1 - - - 

PEMF 0.1 0.1 - - - 

Unknown - - - 3.7 0.5 

Subtotal 5.1 3.3 0.8 3.8 0.9 

 

UTAH 

PEM 14.3 9.7 16.8 36.0 6.1 

PEM / L2USA 1.5 1.0 2.4 - - 

PEMA 0.1 0.1 0.2 - - 

PEMC 0.3 0.2 0.3 - - 

PEM / L2USA / 

PUSA 27.5 18.4 43.9 - 0.2 

PSS 1.3 0.9 0.7 - 2.3 

PUSC 1.0 0.7 - - - 

L2USA 3.0 2.0 - - 

PUSCx 0.3 0.2 1.4 - - 

Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.1 - 1.0 

Subtotal 49.3 33.2 65.8 36.0 9.6 

 

NEVADA 

PEM 19.1 12.7 0.4 0.9 2.3 

PSS 0.1 0.1 - - - 

Subtotal 19.2 12.8 0.4 0.9 2.3 

 

OREGON 

PEM 93.6 62.3 142.0 3.0 2.6 

PSS 0.2 0.1 - - 0.0 

Subtotal 93.7 62.4 142.0 3.0 2.6 

Total 167.3 111.8 208.9 43.7 15.3 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-70 

TABLE 4.3.3-1 

Summary Of Wetlands Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State Cowardin 

Classification 

Wetland 

Acreage within 

the 75' 

Construction 

Workspace 

Wetland Acreage 

within the 50' 

Operational 

Right-of-Way 

Wetland 

Acres within 

the Extra 

Workspace 

Wetland Acres 

within 

Construction 

Yards and 

Staging Areas 

Wetland 

Acres within 

the Access 

Road 30' 

Improvement 

___________________________________________

PEM Palustrine Emergent Wetland 

PEMA Palustrine Emergent, Temporarily Flooded 

PEMC Palustrine Emergent, Seasonally Flooded 

PEMF Palustrine Emergent, Semi-permanently Flooded 

PSS Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetland 

PUSC Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore, Seasonally Flooded 

PUSCx Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore, Seasonally Flooded Excavated 

L2USA Lacustrine Littoral Unconsolidated Shore, Temporarily Flooded 

PUSA Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore, Temporarily Flooded

The construction of a pipeline could have several impacts on a wetland system. Removal of 

vegetation could result in alteration of various wetland functions including loss of fish and wildlife 

habitats, sediment and nutrient trapping, and other water quality functions. Soil disturbance and removal 

of vegetation could temporarily affect a wetland’s capacity to moderate flood flow, control sediment, or 

facilitate surface water flow. Removal of vegetation could increase water and soil temperatures and alter 

species composition within forested and shrub wetlands to a more shade-intolerant composition. Digging 

a trench through an impervious layer of soil in a wetland could alter the hydrology of a perched water 

table and affect the reestablishment of wetland functions. Failure to segregate topsoil from the trench 

could result in altered biological and chemical functions in the wetland soil and could affect vegetation 

reestablishment, recruitment of native vegetation, or success of future plantings. Improper operation of 

equipment in wetlands could inadvertently rut or compact the soil and affect natural hydrologic patterns, 

which may lead to inhibited seed germination or increase the potential for siltation. Improper sediment 

controls could lead to sediment deposition in the wetlands, which could lead to the release of chemical 

and nutrient pollutants from sediments. The primary effects of the proposed pipeline construction and 

operation activities on wetlands would be the short- and long-term alteration of wetland vegetation. 

In herbaceous wetlands (palustrine, emergent, and riverine), the effects of pipeline construction 

would be considered temporary because the topsoil would be preserved, the hydrology would not be 

altered, and herbaceous vegetation would transition back to a community with functionality similar to that 

of the wetland prior to construction (typically within 1 to 3 years). Ruby would work to reestablish 

preexisting wetland elevations, restore surface hydrology, and allow herbaceous vegetation to return to 

preconstruction conditions after construction. 

 Scrub-shrub wetlands could take considerably longer to recover and reach functionality similar 

to preconstruction conditions. Construction activities would temporarily displace wildlife from the 

pipeline right-of-way and reduce the recreation and aesthetic functions of wetlands. Indirect effects to 

wetlands outside the construction right-of-way are expected to be negligible because Ruby would 

implement measures during construction to avoid changes to wetland hydrology and to contain sediment 

within the construction right-of-way. Additional measures to mitigate for any permanent effects to scrubshrub wetlands would be determined during Ruby’s COE permitting process and may require 

compensatory mitigation as discussed in section 4.3.3.3. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-71 

Ruby’s Procedures allow maintenance clearing to be conducted along a corridor centered on the 

pipeline to facilitate periodic pipeline and corrosion/leak surveys. A vegetation strip up to 10 feet wide 

may be maintained in an herbaceous state. In addition, trees within 15 feet of the pipeline greater than 15 

feet in height may be selectively cut and removed from the permanent right-of-way. By maintaining 

scrub-shrub vegetation in an herbaceous type, some of the functions (primarily wildlife habitat) of scrubshrub wetlands would be permanently altered. This would not result in a net loss of wetland, but rather a 

conversion from scrub-shrub vegetation to a more herbaceous vegetation type. Based on Ruby’s field 

survey data, about 1.5 acres of scrub-shrub wetland would be converted to herbaceous wetland. 

Ruby’s Procedures state that the only access roads, other than the construction right-of-way, that 

would be used in wetlands without additional FERC approval are existing roads that can be used with no 

modification and no impact on the wetland. However, Ruby has identified 98 wetland areas that occur 

within the 30-foot-wide access road improvement workspace (see Appendix R). Ruby is seeking 

approval to improve access roads in all these wetland areas. To facilitate our review of Ruby’s request, 

we recommend that Ruby file site-specific justification that identifies where access road 

improvements in wetlands are proposed to occur. Ruby should include an explanation as to why 

each wetland cannot be avoided and a description of the construction and restoration measures that 

would be implemented to minimize wetland impacts. Ruby should not begin access road 

improvements in wetlands until it has received written authorization from the Director of OEP. It 

should be noted that it is impossible to determine precisely where access roads improvements would be 

required, and access road improvements may not be required in all the wetland areas identified in 

Appendix R. Where access road improvements occur within wetlands, temporary impacts such as loss of 

vegetation, compaction, and altered wetland hydrology may occur. Ruby would install temporary 

culverts to minimize hydrology impacts. Ruby has stated it would restore all lands impacted by access 

road improvements to its original condition unless otherwise approved by land-managing agencies and/or 

authorized by wetland regulatory agencies. Ruby would also monitor restoration of disturbed wetland 

areas as discussed below. No permanent wetland impacts are anticipated by access road improvements. 

Dredge and fill activities in COE jurisdictional wetlands, which include access road improvement 

activities, would require additional authorization from the COE. 

4.3.3.2 Wetland Construction and Mitigation Procedures

Ruby’s Procedures (Appendix F) contain wetland mitigation measures that are designed to 

minimize the overall area and duration of wetland disturbance, reduce the amount of wetland soil 

disturbance, and enhance wetland restoration following construction. Ruby’s Procedures include the 

following wetland mitigation and restoration measures: 

• limit the operation of construction equipment within wetlands to equipment essential for 

clearing, excavation, pipe installation, backfilling, and restoration; 

• limit grading to directly over the trench line, except where necessary to ensure safety; 

• limit grading by using low ground weight construction equipment, or by operating 

equipment from prefabricated timber mats in saturated or standing-water wetlands; 

• segregate topsoil from the trench line in non-saturated wetlands; 

• minimize the time the trench is open in wetlands; 

• use the push-pull crossing method in wetlands, where possible; 

• install trench breakers at the boundaries of wetlands as needed to prevent draining of a 

wetland and to maintain original wetland hydrology; 

• prohibit storage of hazardous materials, chemicals, fuels, and lubricating oils within 100 

feet of a wetland boundary (150 feet in Oregon) unless infeasible; 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-72 

• prohibit the refueling of equipment within 100 feet of wetlands, and 500 feet of wetlands 

on BLM-administered lands, unless the EI finds no reasonable alternative; 

• restrict annual maintenance of vegetation to a 10-foot-wide strip centered over the 

pipeline to trees greater than 15 feet in height within 15 feet of the pipeline centerline; 

• consult with the appropriate land managing or state agencies to develop plans to 

revegetate wetlands, and, where necessary, preventing the invasion or spread of 

undesirable exotic and invasive vegetation; and 

• monitor the success of wetland revegetation annually for a period of at least 3 years after 

construction, or until the wetland is successfully revegetated. 

Ruby would restore wetlands to preconstruction contours and elevations and would leave existing 

root systems intact where possible to encourage regrowth and revegetation along the equipment passage 

and soil storage areas. Ruby would salvage topsoil in areas to be excavated, unless saturated soil 

conditions are present. The replaced topsoil would be a source of native seeds and propagules. Ruby 

would implement a program to control and prevent the spread of noxious and invasive weeds along the 

construction right-of-way (see section 4.4.6). 

In general, the width of the construction right-of-way in wetlands would be limited to 75 feet; 

however, Ruby has identified 53 wetland crossings where it believes the 75-foot wide construction rightof-way should be expanded to accommodate topographic conditions, soil storage, crossing of 

waterbodies, and other construction and safety issues. About 51.0 acres of wetland would be impacted by 

expanding the pipeline right-of-way in wetlands. In addition, Ruby has identified 54 areas (totaling about 

2.7 acres) where the temporary extra workspaces would be located less than 50 feet from wetlands. 

Ruby’s Procedures state extra workspaces would generally be located at least 50 feet away from wetland 

boundaries. Ruby submitted site-specific plans for a portion of the areas where the construction right-ofway should be expanded and where extra workspaces are located in wetlands and within 50 feet of 

wetlands. Ruby has also submitted a table identifying the location and acreage of wetlands impacted by 

expanding the construction right-of-way and the use of extra workspaces in and within 50 feet of wetlands 

(Appendix E). However, we have reviewed these plans and the extra workspace table and determined 

that Ruby has not provided sufficient site-specific justification to support its requests. Therefore, we

recommend that Ruby locate all temporary extra workspaces and staging areas at least 50 feet from 

wetlands and limit the construction right-of-way to 75 feet wide in wetlands. Prior to construction, 

Ruby would include these measures in its final construction alignment sheets filed for review and written 

approval by the Director of OEP. We would reconsider Ruby’s wetland crossing plans if Ruby provides 

case-by-case, site-specific justification for: 1) each extra workspace and staging area within 50 feet of a 

wetland, and 2) each instance where the construction right-of-way would exceed 75 feet wide in a 

wetland. 

Ruby would generally locate the pipeline 50 feet from existing utilities. Our Procedures require 

that new pipelines be located no more than 25 feet away from existing pipelines in wetlands unless sitespecific constraints would adversely affect the stability of the existing pipelines. Ruby indicated that a 

50-foot separation is necessary because existing pipelines and utilities may deviate up to 3 feet from their 

generally accepted centerlines. Ruby also stated that a minimum 50-foot separation would be required at 

tie-in locations to existing pipelines to maintain the stability of the existing pipelines as well as to meet 

OSHA ditch safety standards. The offset would also facilitate future maintenance inspections of the 

pipeline where excavation would require safe ditches and could affect the integrity of the adjacent 

pipelines. We believe Ruby’s proposed 50-foot separation from existing utilities in wetlands is 

reasonable. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-73 

4.3.3.3 Wetland Restoration 

Ruby’s Procedures include the commitment to successfully restore wetland vegetation. 

Revegetation would be considered successful if the cover of herbaceous and/or woody vegetation is at 

least 80 percent of the type, density, and distribution of vegetation in adjacent undisturbed wetland areas. 

Ruby stated it would monitor the success of wetland revegetation annually for the first 5 years after 

construction or until revegetation is successful. After 5 years of annual monitoring, Ruby would file a 

report identifying the status of wetland revegetation efforts, and would continue filing an annual report 

until wetland revegetation is successful. If revegetation is not successful at the end of 5 years, Ruby 

would develop and implement (in consultation with a professional wetland ecologist) a remedial plan to 

actively revegetate wetland areas until revegetation is successful. Ruby stated it would employ 

maintenance measures to ensure successful wetland restoration, including irrigation system repair, plant 

replacement, non-native plant control, water structure repair, fertilization, erosion control, wildlife 

protection, trash removal, and/or any other related activities. Dead plants would be replaced during the 

growing season in which they are identified and/or immediately in the beginning of the next growing 

season (i.e., replacement would occur at the earliest feasible period based on seasonal limitations). All 

plant material would be replaced in-kind with native material; consisting of potted, nursery stock and/or 

native cuttings collected from local sources. 

Ruby’s Procedures also state that it would develop a project-specific wetland restoration plan to 

restore affected wetland areas. The plan would outline site preparation techniques, grading plans, 

methods to sustain hydrology, planting and seeding plans, and schedules. Although Ruby has not 

finalized its specific wetland restoration plan, Ruby has identified several restoration techniques that may 

be used to restore wetland vegetation, which include: 

• wetland sod harvesting and transplanting; 

• harvesting and transplanting herbaceous plugs, shrubs, and trees; 

• live cutting collection, storage and planting; 

• wetland soil harvesting and transplanting; 

• planting of commercially grown herbaceous plugs, shrubs, and trees; 

• planting of commercially grown wetland sod; 

• temporary or permanent/above or below ground irrigation systems; 

• erosion control blankets (weed free); 

• soil enrichment (decompaction and organic/nutrient amendment); 

• temporary seeding (sterile or native seed for site protection or nitrogen fixing); 

• permanent seeding (regional native seed or site specific harvesting); 

• straw mulching (not weed free); 

• hydro mulching (weed free); 

• cattle removal and recovery systems (fencing and control water access); and 

• invasive plant and weed management systems, including: 

o mechanical (mowing, tilling); 

o chemical (water safe herbicides); 

o biological (integrated pests); and 

o cultural (grazing and burning). 

Ruby’s Procedures state that this plan would be developed in consultation with appropriate land 

management or state agencies and would be provided to FERC (upon request). Because wetlands are a 

limited and unique feature in the arid west and are crucial to numerous wildlife and aquatic species, we 

recommend that, prior to construction, Ruby file its Wetland Restoration Plan. This plan should 

be developed in consultation with the COE and appropriate state and land managing agencies. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-74 

This plan should include measures for seeding and replanting wetland vegetation affected by all 

project activities and should identify measures for ensuring wetland revegetation would be 

successful. 

Ruby may be required to compensate for permanent wetland impacts through various forms of 

compensatory mitigation with the COE and other appropriate state agencies. Ruby is considering the 

option of wetland mitigation banking as a form of compensatory mitigation for wetland impacts. 

Mitigation banks are a form of “third-party” compensatory mitigation in which the responsibility for 

compensatory mitigation implementation and success is assumed by a party other than the permittee 

(EPA, 2009a). Mitigation banking is an approved alternative to onsite mitigation and often provides for 

greater likelihood of success in replacement of wetland function and long-term management of restored 

wetland areas. A preliminary review of available and appropriate mitigation banking credits suggests 

sufficient mitigation credits are not available for the project. Ruby has prepared a Preliminary Wetland 

Mitigation Report (Appendix S) that describes the current status of wetland mitigation consultations and 

provides project wetland impacts, proposed mitigation ratios for each state, and suggested mitigation 

recommendations. The exact type and amount of mitigation that would be required for the project cannot 

be determined until the COE reviews Ruby’s application. The COE would complete its own internal 

review of the project to ensure the project meets the requirement of the CWA.

In addition to the mitigation measures and compensatory mitigation described above, Ruby would 

be required to comply with the COE’s Section 404 permit conditions and state-issued Section 401 water 

quality certifications or waivers. By implementing construction and restoration measures outlined in 

Ruby’s Plan and Procedures, completing compensatory mitigation as determined by the COE and other 

appropriate state agencies, complying with federal and state permit conditions, and implementing our 

recommendations above, we do not believe the project would result in any significant impacts on 

wetlands. 

4.3.4 Non-Jurisdictional Electric Power Lines 

The Rocky Mountain Power and Harney Electric Cooperative electric transmission and 

distribution lines would be located in areas where depth to groundwater exceeds 200 feet and 40 feet, 

respectively. Boreholes are not expected to exceed 10 feet below the surface ground. Therefore, no 

impacts on groundwater are expected. Field surveys did not identify any streams or wetlands within the 

proposed Rocky Mountain Power project area, and only one ephemeral waterbody and no wetlands would 

be crossed by the Harney Electric Cooperative electric distribution line. The ephemeral waterbody is 

narrow enough that it could be spanned with normal spacing of the power line poles. Therefore, there 

would be no direct impacts on the waterbody. Indirect impacts, however, could occur as a result of 

vegetation clearing and surface grading to access and construct the line. Stormwater runoff could result 

in increased turbidity and localized sedimentation of the stream. Harney Electric Cooperative would 

install erosion control devices during construction to prevent or minimize sediment runoff. These 

impacts, therefore, would be expected to be temporary and minor. 

4.4 VEGETATION 

The project would cross five ecoregions: the Wyoming Basin, the Wasatch and Uinta Mountain 

Basin, the Central Basin and Range, the Northern Basin and Range, and the Cascades Slopes and 

Foothills Basin (Bailey, 1995; EPA, 2009g). Ecoregion land classifications provide information for 

research, assessment, monitoring, and management of ecosystems and ecosystem components. Federal 

and state agencies and nongovernmental organizations responsible for different types of resources use this 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-75 

information to estimate ecosystem productivity, determine probable responses to land management 

practices and other ecosystem disturbances, and to address environmental issues over large areas, such as 

air pollution, forest disease, or threats to biodiversity.

The Wyoming Basin ecoregion is a broad intermontane basin dominated by arid grasslands and 

shrublands and interrupted by high hills and low mountains. The region is somewhat drier than the 

Northwestern Great Plains to the northeast. The Wyoming Basin is nearly surrounded by forest-covered 

mountains but does not have the extensive cover of pinyon-juniper woodland found in the Colorado 

Plateaus to the south. Much of the ecoregion is used for livestock grazing, although many areas lack 

sufficient vegetation to support this activity. This ecoregion contains major producing natural gas and 

petroleum fields. 

The Wasatch and Uinta Mountain Basin ecoregion is composed of a core area of high, precipitous 

mountains with narrow crests and valleys flanked in some areas by dissected plateaus and open high 

mountains. The elevational banding pattern of vegetation is similar to that of the Southern Rockies 

except that aspen, chaparral, and juniper-pinyon and oak are more common at middle elevations. This 

characteristic, along with a far lesser extent of lodgepole pine and greater use of the region for grazing 

livestock in the summer months, distinguishes the Wasatch and Uinta Mountain Basin ecoregion from the 

more northerly Middle Rockies. 

The Central Basin and Range ecoregion is internally drained and is characterized by a mosaic of 

xeric basins, scattered low and high mountains, and salt flats. It has a hotter and drier climate, more 

shrubland, and more mountain ranges than the Snake River Plain and Northern Basin and Range 

ecoregions to the north. Basins in this ecoregion are covered by basin big sagebrush or saltbushgreasewood vegetation that grows well in Aridisol soils. Cool-season grasses are less common in this 

ecoregion than in the Mollisol soils of the Snake River Plain and Northern Basin and Range. The 

ecoregion is not as hot as the Mojave and Sonoran Basin and Range ecoregions, and a greater percent of 

land is grazed. 

The Northern Basin and Range ecoregion contains arid intermontane basins, dissected lava plains, 

and scattered mountains. Shrub communities and aridisol soils are common, and non-mountain areas 

have sagebrush steppe vegetation. Ranges are generally covered in sagebrush at higher elevations. 

Overall, the ecoregion is drier and less suitable for agriculture than the Columbia Plateau and is higher 

and cooler than the Snake River Plain. Rangeland is common and irrigated agriculture occurs in the 

ecoregion’s basins. 

The Eastern Cascade Slopes and Foothills ecoregion is in the rainshadow of the Cascade 

Mountains. Its climate exhibits greater temperature extremes and less precipitation than ecoregions to the 

west. Open forests of ponderosa pine and some lodgepole pine distinguish this ecoregion from the higher 

ecoregions to the west where fir and hemlock forests are common, and the lower, dryer ecoregions to the 

east where shrubs and grasslands are predominant. Vegetation in this ecoregion is adapted to the 

prevailing dry continental climate and is highly susceptible to wildfire. Volcanic cones and buttes are 

common in much of the region. 

4.4.1 Vegetation Resources 

The Ruby Pipeline Project would cross nine upland vegetation cover types: sagebrush steppe, salt 

desert scrub, juniper woodland, mixed conifer forest, North Pacific wooded volcanic flowage, riparian 

forest, grasslands, mountain meadow/brush, and agricultural land and pasture. Descriptions of each 

vegetation cover type are presented in table 4.4.1-1. Wetland vegetation crossed by the project is 

discussed in section 4.3.3. Non-vegetated areas are discussed in section 4.8.1.4. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-76 

TABLE 4.4.1-1 

Upland Vegetation Communities Occurring Along the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Vegetation Community 

Type General Description and Notes Representative Plant Species 

Sagebrush Steppe Largely treeless. Mosaic of grasses and shrubs. 

Most undisturbed area has very little bare ground and 

contains a larger proportion of perennial grasses than 

shrubs. Particularly vulnerable to disturbance, 

especially that caused by grazing. Cheatgrass 

usually replaces native perennial grasses in disturbed 

sagebrush habitats. 

Wyoming big sagebrush, basin big sagebrush, 

Lahontan sagebrush, low sagebrush, mountain big 

sagebrush, bitterbrush, and rabbitbrush. 

Salt Desert Scrub Vegetation composition and density varies 

considerably along the varying gradients of moisture, 

salinity, and microtopography. Generally occurs at 

lower to middle elevations and at many locations 

intergrades with a number of other arid and semiarid 

wildlife habitats such as desert grasslands and 

sagebrush steppe. 

Four-wing saltbush, shadescale mat-atriplex, 

greasewood, sagebrush, blackbrush, galleta, 

Indian ricegrass, three-awn, and sand dropseed. 

Juniper Woodland Juniper woodlands generally occur at middle 

elevations, forming a transition between habitats at 

higher and lower elevations. These habitats can 

occur on all exposures and slopes but are common 

on level to gently rolling topography. Junipers can be 

found on soils ranging from rocky and well drained to 

drier and poorly drained. 

Dense stands of juniper (Juniperus spp.) occur in 

Elko County and at the Nevada-Utah state border. 

Other species include antelope bitterbush, buck 

wheat species, and big sage. Curl-leaf mountain 

mahogany is associated with open juniper 

woodlands on dry rocky sites. 

Mixed Conifer Forest Characterized by large, mature tree species with a 

diverse understory of forbs, grasses, and shrubs. A 

popular area for wildlife due to the abundant forage. 

Aspen, white fir, grand fir, subalpine fir, juniper, 

bitterbrush, snowberry, sagebrush, chokecherry, 

serviceberry, mule-ears and heart-leaved arnica. 

Northern Pacific 

Wooded Volcanic 

Flowage 

This ecological system is found from foothill to 

subalpine elevations and includes woodland to 

sparsely vegetated landscapes (generally greater 

than 10 percent plant cover) on recent lava flows, 

excessively well-drained lahars, debris avalanches 

and pyroclastic flows. 

Open to sparse tree cover with Douglas fir, 

lodgepole pine, western white pine, and subalpine 

fir. Scattered to dense shrubs may include vine 

maple, thinleaf huckleberry, kinnikinnick, cascade 

barberry, Saskatoon serviceberry, and common 

beargrass. 

Riparian Forest Varies in type from grasses and grasslike plants to 

shrubs, deciduous trees, and conifer trees depending 

on climate, terrain, soils, geomorphology, stream size, 

and recent flood-disturbance. Associated with river 

channels, lake shores, hummocks, and wetland 

edges. Riparian community assemblages vary in 

composition throughout the project area. 

In Wyoming, vegetation generally includes 

hawthorn, chokecherry, tamarisk, shrubby 

cinquefoil, timothy grass, reedgrass, and blue 

wildrye. In Oregon, dominant species include 

grand fir, white fir, and ponderosa pine with a mix 

of sedges, rushes, and spikerushes. 

Grasslands Generally used by livestock for grazing. Many of the 

noxious and invasive plant species that occur in 

agricultural land also occur in grasslands. 

Smooth brome, ricegrass, dropseed, western 

wheatgrass, and red clover. 

Mountain 

Meadow/Brush 

Components of montane zones and generally occur 

just above mountain foothills. Important areas of 

biological diversity that attract and sustain a rich 

variety of wildlife. 

Wheat grass, needle-and-thread grass, fescues, 

various region-specific grasses and wildflowers, big 

sagebrush, juniper, mahogany, Saskatoon, and 

chokecherry. 

Agricultural Land and 

Pasture 

The majority of crops are irrigated. Agricultural land 

can harbor populations of noxious and invasive 

plants. Pastures are used by livestock for forage. 

Routinely planted crops include barley, wheat, 

corn, potatoes, onions, beans, and alfalfa. 

Pastures include smooth brome, western 

wheatgrass, barley, oats, and red clover. Invasive 

species include cheatgrass, musk thistle, 

dandelion, field bindweed, bull and Canada thistle, 

sand bur, foxtail barley, puncture vine, and 

cocklebur. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-77 

Ruby has completed a survey and vegetation classification on approximately 96 percent of the 

project area, including the Vya Construction Camp and Lakeview Temporary Housing Facility sites. 

Project areas that have not been surveyed include some staging areas, contractor yards, and access roads. 

We have conducted an aerial photo assessment of the proposed contractor yards and have determined the 

majority of the yards, which accounts for 78 percent of the unsurveyed project area, are located in 

industrial parks that have been formally disturbed or developed, or are located in areas that were used as 

pipeline contractor or pipe storage yards during previous pipeline construction projects.

Our assessment of impacts take into account the entire length of the construction right-of-way for 

the mainline and lateral pipeline, temporary extra workspaces, aboveground facilities, access roads, the 

construction and housing camps, and contractor and pipe storage yards. Actual acreage impacted during 

construction may differ somewhat, as Ruby would reduce its right-of-way width in non-cultivated 

wetlands and certain other locations and could use or request increased width in other locations for 

engineering or constructability reasons. Newly identified or revised temporary extra workspaces would 

affect acreage totals. 

4.4.1.1 General Vegetation Impacts

Table 4.4.1-2 identifies acreages of the vegetation types identified through Ruby’s field surveys 

that would be directly affected by construction and operation of the project. Based upon Ruby’s survey 

results to date, construction of the project within surveyed areas would impact about 9,224.8 acres of 

sagebrush steppe, 2,519.6 acres of salt desert scrub, 346.5 acres of juniper woodland, 577.1 acres of 

mixed conifer forest, 2.2 acres of North Pacific wooded volcanic flowage, 205.9 acres of riparian forest, 

1,055.7 acres of grassland, 788.0 acres of mountain meadow brush, and 1,021.4 acres of pasture and 

agricultural land. 

The primary direct impact from pipeline construction would be the cutting, clearing, and removal 

of existing vegetation within the construction workspace. The degree of impact would depend on the type 

and amount of vegetation affected, the rate at which vegetation would regenerate after construction, and 

the frequency of vegetation maintenance conducted on the right-of-way during pipeline operation. The 

degree and duration of construction-related impacts varies between vegetation communities as discussed 

below. 

Impacts on agricultural lands, pastures, and grassland communities (2,077.1 acres, or 13.2 percent 

of vegetation impacted by the project) would be short-term as these vegetation types would return to their 

herbaceous status within one to three growing seasons after the completion of construction, cleanup, and 

effectively implemented reclamation. Impacts on these communities during operation of the pipeline 

would be minimal because these areas would be allowed to recover following construction and would 

typically not require maintenance mowing. Areas planted with field crops would likely be replanted in 

the next growing season. The development of noxious weeds in agricultural lands, pasture, and grassland 

and the spread of weeds or seed from infested areas to adjacent uninfested vegetation communities could 

occur without proper safeguards. Noxious and invasive weed impacts and mitigation are discussed in 

detail in section 4.4.6. Agricultural impacts are discussed further in section 4.8.1.3. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-78 

TABLE 4.4.1-2 

Vegetation Communities Affected by Construction and Operation of the Ruby Pipeline Project (in acres)a

Vegetation Component 

Sagebrush Steppe Salt Desert Scrub Juniper Woodland Mixed Conifer Forest Riparian Forest Grassland Mountain Meadow/Brush 

Con. Op. Con. Op. Con. Op. Con. Op. Con. Op. Con. Op. Con. Op. C

WYOMING 

Right-of-Way 496.7 217.3 93.5 40.9 2.5 0.9 - - 20.4 9.3 15.0 6.3 5.4 2.3 Extra Workspaces and Staging Areas 103.3 - 13.0 - 2.0 - - - 6.0 - 3.7 - 3.3 - Access Roads 237.1 - 62.0 - 0.9 - - - 12.0 - 7.5 - 0.4 - Yards - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Aboveground Facilities 34.1 34.1 5.4 5.4 - - - - - - 2.8 2.8 - - 

Subtotal 871.3 251.5 173.9 46.3 5.5 0.9 0.0 0.0 38.4 9.3 29.0 9.1 9.1 2.3 

UTAH 

Right-of-Way 723.4 311.3 625.8 275.6 41.4 18.2 9.8 4.7 42.2 18.4 95.4 40.7 335.0 146.5 3Extra Workspaces and Staging Areas 331.5 0.0 178.8 0.0 27.9 0.0 6.7 0.0 25.8 0.0 35.2 0.0 141.0 0.0 2Access Roads 282.6 - 182.0 - 11.9 - 0.9 - 14.0 - 31.8 - 116.3 - 1Yards 5.2 - 1.5 - - - - - - - 2.7 - 0.2 - 7Aboveground Facilities 

- - 26.6 26.6 - - - - - - - - - - 

Subtotal 1,342.7 311.3 1,014.7 302.2 81.2 18.2 17.4 4.7 82.0 18.4 165.1 40.7 592.5 146.5 7

NEVADA 

Right-of-Way 3673.7 1404.8 1030.5 394.5 85.0 31.4 1.9 0.6 25.2 9.7 666.5 256.3 50.7 19.4 5Extra Workspaces and Staging Areas 1,078.2 - 52.0 - 33.5 - 1.7 - 6.9 - 109.1 - 24.6 - Access Roads 1,138.7 - 73.3 - 11.5 - 0.6 - 15.5 - 72.1 - 13.2 - Yards 278.4 - 73.2 - - - - - - - 1.0 - - - Aboveground Facilities 26.0 26.0 23.7 23.7 - - - - - - 0.1 0.1 - - 

Subtotal 6194.9 1430.9 1252.8 418.2 130.0 31.4 4.1 0.6 47.7 9.7 848.8 256.4 88.5 19.4 6

OREGON 

Right-of-Way 511.2 222.4 49.4 21.7 84.5 36.6 268.9 117.1 16.8 8.3 4.5 2.3 55.5 24.7 9Extra Workspaces and Staging Areas 157.0 - 10.2 - 35.8 - 142.8 - 10.2 - 2.3 - 25.5 - 4Access Roads 92.9 - 13.8 - 9.5 - 143.4 - 10.4 - 5.9 - 16.8 - Yards 53.5 - 0.1 - - - 0.6 - 0.3 - 0.2 - - - 2Aboveground Facilities 1.2 1.2 4.8 4.8 - - - - - - - - - - 

Subtotal 815.9 223.7 78.3 26.4 129.8 36.6 555.6 117.1 37.7 8.3 12.9 2.3 97.9 24.7 1

Total 9224.8 2217.3 2519.6 793.2 346.5 87.1 577.1 122.4 205.9 45.6 1055.7 308.4 788.0 193.0 10

─────────────────────────

a Habitat surveys have not been completed for some portions of the project. Vegetation impacts for 1,779.30 acres of unsurveyed areas are not repres

Wooded Volcanic Flowage vegetation impacts (2.2 acres during construction and 0.3 acre during operation) in Oregon are not represented in this tab

Con. = Acres of vegetation within the 115-foot-wide construction workspace, including the operation 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way. Op. = Acres of vegetation within the 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way of the mainline and lateral pipeline. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-79 

Impacts on juniper woodland, mountain meadow/brush, and salt desert scrub (3,654.2 acres, or 

23.2 percent of the vegetation impacted by the project) would be long-term due to the time required to 

reestablish the vegetation characteristic of these community types. The arid environment in these regions 

is not conducive to plant growth, and regeneration of vegetation following construction would be slow. 

Moreover, the regeneration success of seeded or planted natural vegetation in these areas varies 

significantly and can be ineffective. Natural regeneration of these areas may take 50 years or longer. 

Site-specific conditions such as grazing, rainfall amounts, elevation, weeds, and soil type could extend 

impacts beyond 50 years, or could aid reclamation success and shorten restoration timeframes. 

Permanent impacts on these shrub habitats would result primarily from right-of-way maintenance 

activities. Maintenance activities would be conducted in accordance with Ruby’s Plan and Procedures 

(Appendix F), which describe annual vegetation clearing over a 10-foot-wide corridor centered over the 

pipeline and vegetation clearing every 3 years within the 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way in nonriparian areas. These clearing activities would prevent larger woody species from returning within the 

permanent 50-foot-wide pipeline right-of-way. 

Impacts on mixed conifer and riparian forested communities (783 acres, or 5 percent of the 

vegetation impacted by the project) would constitute the most pronounced change in vegetation strata, 

appearance, and habitat, as mature trees would be replaced for many years by herbaceous plants, shrubs, 

saplings, and other successional species. The 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way would be kept free of 

trees and shrubs in upland areas through selective cutting and vegetation maintenance. The loss of shrub 

and forested vegetation along the pipeline route as a result of periodic vegetation maintenance would 

result in habitat fragmentation and subsequent loss of wildlife habitat (see sections 4.4.8 and 4.5.1.2 for 

more detail). Other impacts resulting from removal of vegetation include increased erosion, sediment 

runoff, altered soil chemistry, modified infiltration and groundwater recharge rates, an increased 

susceptibility to invasive or exotic species, increased human activity, and “edge effects” to wildlife. The 

removal of trees on the right-of-way could also expose trees growing adjacent to the newly cleared areas 

to higher wind gusts, which could increase the risk of tree blowdowns. 

Numerous concerns have been raised about the construction of the project through sagebrush 

steppe habitat, which is the most dominant vegetation community crossed by the project (9,224.8 acres, or 

58.6 percent of the vegetation impacted by the project). Sagebrush habitat is essential for many of the big 

game, raptors, migratory birds, and sensitive species in the project area. Fire, weed colonization, 

livestock grazing, oil and gas development, and drought, among others influences, have reduced or 

degraded sagebrush habitat in the western United States. A detailed analysis of existing sagebrush habitat 

along the proposed pipeline route, along with construction and conservation measures to reduce impacts, 

is provided in section 4.7. 

The eastern portion of the Vya Construction Camp site is dominated by grasses and scattered 

sagebrush, and the remaining camp site is dominated by sagebrush. The site has been heavily grazed by 

cattle. Sagebrush impacts for the Vya camp have been included in table 4.4.1-2 under “Nevada yards.” 

The Lakeview Temporary Housing Facility would be located in a highly disturbed area that was 

previously used for cattle grazing and as pasture. Vegetation consists of low-quality sagebrush and 

noxious weeds. 

4.4.1.2 Construction and Restoration Procedures

The impacts of vegetation clearing can be effectively minimized through the use of special 

construction techniques, proper restoration measures, and post-construction monitoring. Ruby has 

developed a set of measures it would use to minimize vegetation impacts during and after construction 

activities. These measures are fully detailed in Ruby’s Plan, Procedures, Restoration and Revegetation 

Plans, and Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan (see Appendices F, L, and T, respectively). In 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-80 

relatively level terrain, Ruby would attempt to limit grading, topsoil segregation, and ditch line 

excavation to an approximate 14- to 18-foot-wide pipeline trench. In uneven and steep terrain, up to 195 

feet of construction right-of-way width could be subject to clearing and grading for safety and 

construction needs. Ruby would leave as much sod and root layer intact as practical, which would 

increase the probability of success for post-construction revegetation and would reduce the potential for 

weedy native and non-native plant species to become established or spread to uninfested areas (see 

section 4.4.6). 

Ruby has proposed, at a minimum, to segregate topsoil over the trench line and spoil storage area 

for the entire length of the project except in certain locations as discussed in section 4.2.4. The working 

side of the right-of-way would be mowed or scraped to allow for equipment passage. In addition, Ruby 

would segregate topsoil over the entire construction right-of-way (i.e., full right-of-way topsoil stripping) 

in areas where topsoil and subsoil may mix; in areas of steep slopes, side hills, or cut and fills; where soil 

compaction or rutting may exceed 6 inches (4 inches on BLM land); or at a landowner’s or landmanaging agency’s request. The existing seedbank within the replaced topsoil should increase 

revegetation success. However, the results of this process can be less than favorable. Weedy species are 

among the largest component of grassland seed banks (Rice, 1989; Leck, et al., 1989). The presence of 

numerous noxious and invasive weed species identified during Ruby’s 2008 and 2009 inventories indicate 

that weed colonization or at least initial recruitment in disturbed sites would likely occur. 

Several stakeholders provided comments that the seed mixes provided in Ruby’s draft Restoration 

and Revegetation Plans did not adequately represent the native plant species that would be disturbed by 

the project. Ruby has subsequently consulted with the BLM, USFS, FWS, Reclamation, and state 

wildlife agencies to develop proper reclamation procedures, including appropriate seed mixes. Based on 

recommendations from these agencies, Ruby developed separate Restoration and Revegetation Plans for 

Oregon, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming (see Appendix L). Ruby would reseed disturbed lands as specified 

in these plans so as to expedite revegetation and reduce the potential for weed establishment and soil 

erosion. The seed mixes specified in Ruby’s Restoration and Revegetation Plans include species similar 

to those currently in the natural plant communities affected in each state and would facilitate the recovery 

of the preconstruction plant community.

Seeding would be the primary method of reestablishing plants within the right-of-way, extra 

workspaces, and access roads. However, Ruby has committed to planting container-grown shrubs and 

bare-root conifer trees in appropriate locations to reestablish important shrubs such as low sagebrush, 

Wyoming sagebrush, bitterbrush, and Utah serviceberry in critical habitat areas such as greater sagegrouse nesting and pygmy rabbit colonies. Ruby would transplant bare-root ponderosa pine seedlings 

along the right-of-way where ponderosa pine trees are removed in the clearing operation. Specifically, 

Ruby has committed to transplanting 150 ponderosa pine seedlings within the Fremont National Forest on 

the portion of the right-of-way that would not be maintained during operation of the pipeline. Containergrown shrubs and bare-root trees would be planted at stocking rates similar to those prior to right-of-way 

clearing. Ruby would use tubing would be used to protect the seeding from livestock and wildlife 

browsing. 

Revegetation would be considered successful when the cover and density of non-noxious 

vegetation within the construction right-of-way is similar to the adjacent undisturbed land. According to 

Ruby’s Plan, Ruby would monitor disturbed areas for the first and second growing seasons after 

construction. It should be noted that this monitoring timeframe is a baseline requirement adopted from 

the FERC’s Plan. Ruby would be required to monitor the success of revegetation and restore all disturbed 

areas until restoration and revegetation is deemed successful, regardless of the amount of time this may 

take. We are fully aware of the amount of time that may be required to restore vegetation and habitats in 

the arid West. During the restoration phase of the project, landowners may identify areas where 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-81 

additional seeding or restoration actions may be required, including areas of weed infestations. The 

FERC and various land managing agencies, as appropriate, would also monitor restoration and 

revegetation success and would ultimately determine if restoration is successful. 

The BLM has stated that it would require Ruby to fence public lands in Box Elder County, Utah. 

This is due to the precarious nature of the vegetation type the pipeline is crossing and because of low 

precipitation, soil type, and BLM’s firsthand knowledge of the area with regards to stabilization and 

rehabilitation. The majority of the proposed fence would be located within the disturbance area of the 

pipeline; therefore, no new disturbance is anticipated from fence construction. In an effort to minimize 

the number of miles of fence constructed, in the few areas where the fence location would be outside the 

immediate construction disturbance, strategic fencing locations would be examined by the BLM and 

utilized within the project survey resource clearance areas. In areas where the BLM determines 

vegetation needs to be reduced, mowing would be done to reduce mature brush and leave smaller 

vegetation intact, enhancing re-growth potential. This technique would only be used in isolated areas, 

given that most of the vegetation throughout this section of pipeline is not tall enough to inhibit fence 

construction. The fencing would follow BLM construction standards and specifications (ref. Manuals H1741-1 Karsky [1988]) for fences. BLM would then make the determination when the fence can or 

should be removed based on the “success” of the rehabilitation efforts. Fence locations and specifications 

are referenced in Ruby’s POD. 

Pasture would be susceptible to an increase in weed species; however, restoration practices 

proposed by Ruby should minimize weed colonization. One commenter expressed concern that the 

project would negatively impact natural grass pasture on their property and inquired how Ruby would 

propose to restore natural grass pasture to its preconstruction state. Ruby indicated that it would replant 

native grass pastures in accordance with NRCS or landowner recommendations. Ruby would be required 

to monitor all disturbed areas to determine the success of restoration, including natural grass pasture, and 

restore land until restoration and revegetation is deemed successful. 

The project would require the use of temporary contractor and pipe yards that would affect a total 

of 1,070.3 acres of land. About 90.3 acres of agricultural land would be used for these yards. Restoration 

in agricultural areas would generally occur within 1 to 3 years. About 170.5 acres of sagebrush steppe, 

74.8 acres of salt desert scrub, 3.7 acres of grassland, 0.6 acre of mixed conifer forest, 0.3 acre of riparian 

forest, and 0.2 acres of mountain meadow/brush would also be utilized for yards. Removal of shrubland 

would result in long-term or permanent impacts due to the length of time needed to restore shrubland to 

preconstruction conditions. Herbaceous and grassland areas affected by contractor and pipe yards would 

revegetate in a shorter timeframe. About 504.0 acres of land required for project yards have not been 

surveyed. We conducted an aerial photo assessment of this land and determined that much of the area 

was previously disturbed and likely would have low habitat value. 

The pipeline right-of-way could be managed to create a fire break. Excess fuel such as 

vegetation, debris, and detritus could be removed and appropriate vegetation planted to minimize and 

control the spread of fires. Land managing agencies would determine the necessity of maintaining the 

pipeline right-of-way as a fire break and would coordinate with Ruby to implement the appropriate 

restoration and maintenance procedures should a fire break be necessary. 

4.4.1.3 Aboveground Facilities 

Construction of Ruby’s aboveground facilities (i.e., compressor stations, meter stations, pig 

launchers/receivers, and MLVs) would convert about 61.3 acres of sagebrush steppe, 60.5 acres of salt 

desert scrub, 12.8 acres of pasture and agriculture land, and 2.9 acres of grassland to aboveground natural 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-82 

gas facilities (see table 4.4.1-2). We do not consider this to be a significant impact as this represents a 

very small percentage of the total available land of similar type in areas adjacent to the project. 

4.4.2 Vegetation Communities of Special Concern or Value 

Rogger Meadow, located in the Fremont National Forest, contains a colony of camas (Quamasia 

quamish) (a bulb flower that grows in wet meadows) and is managed under the Fremont Forest Plan as 

Management Area 7, a Special Management Area. This area was established in 1939 to protect the 

camas. The goal of the management area is to provide an attractive, natural-appearing forest character in 

areas that possess unique or special biological or physical character. Rogger Meadow is characterized by 

a landscape depression which allows water to accumulate in the meadow area. Sufficient water is 

important to the survival of the camas, and the local population therefore depends on water flow to the 

depression. The proposed pipeline route would cross the northern portion of Rogger Meadow; however 

the crossing angle would not establish a barrier to water movement. Water would still be able to flow 

above and below the installed pipe. Ruby personnel have reviewed the pipeline alignment in the field 

with various personnel from the Fremont National Forest. The Fremont National Forest personnel 

determined that the proposed route was acceptable. 

Only about 96 acres of the Rogger Meadow drainage area would be upstream of the project. This 

acreage represents about 5 percent of the meadow’s entire 1,910-acre drainage area. The project would 

be constructed north of all known inlets and intermittent streams that provide water to the meadow. The 

ground slopes upward on both sides of the meadow; therefore, the trench would be unlikely to capture or 

divert flow from the meadow. If necessary, Ruby would install trench breakers where the pipeline enters 

and exits the meadow. Ruby also would replace the original soil from the trench during backfilling and 

would restore the soil’s original profile as close to preconstruction conditions as possible. These 

measures would restore the original drainage of the right-of-way; therefore, construction of the pipeline 

would not be expected to affect the hydrologic regime of the meadow or otherwise impinge on the health 

of the meadow and the associated camas habitat. 

4.4.3 Riparian Habitats 

Riparian habitats are essential in maintaining hydrologic, geomorphic, and ecological processes 

that directly affect standing and flowing waterbodies such as lakes, ponds, wetlands, streams, and stream 

tributaries. These habitats provide food, cover, and a migratory corridor for a wide variety of terrestrial 

species; protect waterbodies and provide cover and habitat for fish and other aquatic species; and provide 

numerous recreational opportunities such as fishing, hunting, hiking, and camping. 

Construction of the pipeline (including access road improvements and new access road 

construction) would affect an estimated 205.9 acres of forested riparian habitat. Approximately 45.6 

acres of forested riparian habitat would be permanently maintained as herbaceous vegetation within 

Ruby’s permanent pipeline right-of-way, and 51.9 acres may be impacted by access road improvements 

and new access road construction. Approximately 157.2 acres of forested riparian habitat would 

eventually be restored to its original condition; however, this would be a long-term impact as these areas 

may not return to their original character and function for several decades or longer. We have reviewed 

Ruby’s data, construction alignment sheets, and aerial photography and identified 14 woody riparian 

areas, including both forested and shrub habitat, that form a unique vegetation corridor as compared to the 

surrounding landscape (see table 4.4.3-1). 

Because of the high wildlife value and stream protection that riparian areas provide, it is essential 

that impacts on woody riparian areas be minimized to the greatest extent practicable. Therefore, we 

recommend that Ruby limit its construction right-of-way width to 75 feet in the woody riparian 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-83 

habitats identified in table 4.4.3-1 of the EIS. For any location where Ruby believes temporary 

extra workspaces/staging areas are necessary in woody riparian habitat, Ruby should provide sitespecific justification for review and written approval from the Director of OEP prior to using the 

temporary extra workspace or staging area. In addition, Ruby should plant woody riparian 

vegetation (e.g., shrubs, cuttings, seedlings, saplings) in all woody riparian areas (except directly 

over the trenchline) as soon as possible after construction within the appropriate planting season, 

including the riparian areas impacted by access roads. Ruby should consult with the landowner or 

appropriate land managing agency to identify the species and planting densities to be used and any 

methods to protect planted riparian areas from grazing and browsing impacts, such as browse 

protection or fencing, until these areas become established. Ruby should monitor the success of 

riparian habitat restoration for 5 years after construction. At the end of the 5-year period, Ruby 

should file a report identifying the status of the woody riparian restoration and the need for any 

additional restoration efforts. 

Ruby is coordinating with the FWS, BLM, and state resource agencies to minimize short- and 

long-term impacts on riparian habitats. Specific conservation and mitigation measures have yet to be 

identified; however, Ruby has identified a number of measures it could implement to reduce and mitigate 

project impacts on riparian habitat and the species that utilize these habitats, including: 

• acquiring title or easement to private lands adjacent/near the pipeline that could be 

managed or preserved as riparian habitat. Alternatively, Ruby could find and acquire 

these easements or properties and deed them to a federal agency or a conservation 

organization or trust; 

• acquiring title or easement to private lands to block up ownership with the BLM or USFS 

to increase connectivity. Alternatively, Ruby could find and acquire these easements or 

properties and deed them to a federal agency or a conservation organization or trust; 

• fencing or otherwise excluding cattle from sensitive areas to protect/enhance habitat; 

• restoring degraded riparian habitats through off-site revegetation projects; 

• conducting off-site in-stream habitat improvement projects; 

• acquiring conservation easements to protect or improve important riparian habitats; 

• installing fences in allotments to improve riparian habitats; or 

• decommissioning of roads identified by the BLM and USFS that are no longer needed for 

resource management, which could provide the following benefits: 

o lower road density; 

o minimization of channel extensions; 

o minimization of sedimentation; 

o improvement of fish passage through culvert removal; and 

o reduction of riparian habitat fragmentation. 

4.4.4 Conservation Reserve Program 

The project would cross approximately 5 miles of land enrolled in the CRP. The CRP is managed 

and administered by the USDA’s FSA. The program provides eligible farmers and ranchers both 

technical and financial assistance to conserve and protect soil, water, and related natural resources on 

their land. It also provides these individuals guidance and assistance in complying with federal, state, and 

tribal environmental laws and, therefore, helps enable environmental enhancement. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-84 

TABLE 4.4.3-1 

Woody Riparian Habitat Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Waterbody Location (MP) 

Length of Riparian Habitat 

East/South of the 

Waterbody (feet) 

Length of Riparian Habitat 

West/North of the Waterbody 

(feet) 

Little Muddy Creek 19.8 50 100 

Woodruff Creek 60.8 50 150 

East Fork Little Bear River 77.9 50 50 

East Fork Little Bear River 92.7 ~ 2,500 120 

South Fork Little Bear River 94.8 120 500 

Little Bear River 94.9 190 40 

Bear River 113.7 50 - 

Tributary to Brush Creek 267.5 11 11 

Brush Creek 267.8 - 4 

Pole Creek 280.2 20 - 

Mary’s River 300.0 50 150 

Tributary to Indian Creek 315.1 200 - 

North Fork Humboldt River 316.3 40 40 

Gance Creek 329.2 50 50 

Unnamed stream R350.0 12 - 

Tributary to Willow Creek 358.1 50 50 

Tributary to Willow Creek 358.4 50 50 

Soldier Creek 359.3 50 50 

Unnamed a R378.6 50 - 

Unnamed a 413.5 - 20 

12-Mile Creek a 588.3 100 100 

Unnamed a R105.1 100 - 

Unnamed a R105.6 40 - 

Brush Creek a 269.6 4 - 

West Brush Creek a 270.3 2 - 

Pole Creek a 279.4 - 100 

Pole Creek a 279.6 - 100 

Pole Creek a 280.0 - 50 

Pole Creek a 280.2 - 50 

Hot Springs Creek a 301.8 100 - 

Unnamed a 505.9 10 - 

Unnamed a 514.2 - 50 

Unnamed a 514.4 - 25 

Unnamed a 573.6 - 6 

Dry Creek a 630.0 - 20 

Unnamed a R671.9 10 - 

─────────────────────────

a Woody riparian habitats that would be impacted by access road improvements 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-85 

Short- and long-term impacts on CRP land would generally be the same as impacts described for 

pasture and grassland. To minimize impacts and ensure site stabilization and revegetation Ruby would 

implement its Plan and Restoration and Revegetation Plans. Ruby would implement full right-of-way 

topsoil segregation or the ditch-plus-spoil-side topsoil segregation method in CRP land. Ruby also would 

reseed disturbed areas with a seed mix recommended by the NRCS, FSA, or the landowner. 

4.4.5 Vegetation Habitat Categorization 

Each state crossed by the proposed project has developed habitat conservation programs to 

protect sensitive and high quality habitats used by fish and wildlife. These programs identify key habitats 

or present a framework to assign “quality categories” to habitat types impacted by development projects 

based on the relative importance and/or availability of habitats to fish and wildlife and the status of 

species associated with impacted habitats. These programs also guide the development of conservation 

and mitigation goals. 

Ruby, the FWS, BLM, and some state agencies worked together to map and categorize habitat 

quality along the project and develop conservation and mitigation strategies to minimize and mitigate 

impacts on high-quality habitat and those species that depend on those habitats. As part of this 

cooperative effort, a “mile-by-mile” habitat analysis was completed for big game, greater sage-grouse, 

pygmy rabbit, and various other species. Detailed results of the habitat analysis are provided in Appendix 

M and are summarized in table 4.4.5-1. A detailed description of the habitat categories is also provided in 

Appendix M. Generally, category 1 is high-quality habitat while category 4 is low-quality habitat. We 

note that FWS and some state agencies question the validity of various data inputs and parameters and 

state that the data are not representative of actual habitat quality. 

Identifying high-quality habitat for sensitive and big game species is a key step in determining 

where to implement avoidance and/or conservation measures. Ruby and various agencies are working 

together to identify key areas where minor route variations could be adopted to avoid or minimize impacts 

on high-quality or unique habitats. Several construction techniques and conservation measures have also 

been developed to minimize habitat impacts and aid in restoration efforts. Many of these construction 

and conservation measures are included in conservation agreements and other plans that are being 

developed between Ruby, the BLM, state agencies, and the FWS and are included in draft form in 

Appendix M. These conservation agreements and other plans are discussed in more detail in sections 

4.5.5, 4.7.2, and 4.7.3. Ultimately, the adoption and implementation of the conservation agreements and 

other plans would minimize habitat impacts; promote restoration success; and ensure that sensitive 

species, big game, and migratory bird populations are maintained and enhanced in the project area. 

4.4.6 Noxious Weeds and Other Invasive Plants 

Noxious weeds and other invasive plants are non-native, undesirable native, or introduced species 

that are able to exclude and outcompete desirable native species, thereby decreasing overall species 

diversity. The term “noxious weed” is legally defined under both federal and state laws. Under the 

Federal Plant Protection Act of 2000 (formerly the Noxious Weed Act of 1974 [7 USC SS 2801-2814]), a 

noxious weed is defined as “any plant or plant product that can directly or indirectly injure or cause 

damage to crops, livestock, poultry, or other interests of agriculture, irrigation, navigation, the natural 

resources of the United States, the public health, or the environment.” The Federal Plant Protection Act 

contains a list of 137 federally restricted and regulated federal noxious weeds, including 19 aquatic and 

wetland weeds, 62 parasitic weeds, and 56 terrestrial weeds (7 CFR Chapter III, Part 360). Each state is 

federally mandated to uphold the rules and regulations set forth by the Federal Plant Protection Act and 

manage its lands accordingly. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-86 

TABLE 4.4.5-1 

Habitat Quality Along the Ruby Pipeline Project 

 Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 None 

WYOMING 

Greater sage-grouse (miles) 33.8 12.0 2.4 - - 

 

UTAH 

Greater sage-grouse (miles) 42.6 50.4 71 20.8 - 

Pygmy rabbit (miles) 2.5 - - - - 

Sharp-tailed grouse (miles) 22.5 20.9 24.2 117.2 - 

Burrowing owl (miles) 10.8 36.0 138.0 - 

Mule deer (miles) 89.5 15.2 13.9 66.2 - 

Moose (miles) 32.8 20.4 - 131.6 - 

Elk (miles) 56.1 - - 128.7 - 

Pronghorn antelope (miles) 7.4 86.5 14.2 76.7 - 

 

NEVADA 

Greater sage-grouse (miles) 66.5 89.4 70.8 14.6 123.7 

Pygmy rabbit (number of sites) 1 10 - - - 

Mule deer (miles) 76.5 95.5 160.7 37.8 - 

 

OREGONa

Greater sage-grouse (miles) - 3.5 10.0 12.0 59.0 

Pygmy rabbit (number of sites) - - - - - 

Big Game Habitats (see Appendix M) 

────────────────────

a The ODFW’s Mitigation Goals and Standards consists of a six-category system to mitigate impacts on fish and wildlife

habitat from land and water developments. Ruby’s Habitat Category Matrix differs from the ODFW Habitat Mitigation 

Goals and Standards categories. The ODFW agreed to use the habitat classification matrix identified in Appendix M 

for mapping purposes. The ODFW Mitigation Goals and Standards are still applicable for mitigation purposes. 

Noxious weeds are addressed by Executive Order 13112, which directs federal agencies to 

prevent the introduction of invasive species; provide for their control; and minimize the economic, 

ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species can cause. The Executive Order further 

specifies that federal agencies shall not authorize, fund, or carry out actions likely to cause or promote the 

introduction or spread of invasive species in the United States or elsewhere unless it has been determined 

that the benefits of such actions outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive species and that all 

feasible and prudent measures to minimize the risk of harm will be taken in conjunction with the actions. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-87 

In addition to federal noxious weed lists, each state crossed by the project maintains a list of 

regulated and prohibited noxious and invasive weed species. County weed control boards or districts are 

present in most counties crossed by the pipeline route. These county weed control boards monitor local 

weed infestations and provide guidance on weed control. 

Vegetation communities are more susceptible to infestations of invasive or noxious weed species 

following soil disturbances. Vegetation removal and soil disturbance during construction could create 

optimal conditions for the establishment of undesirable species. Noxious weeds could adversely affect an 

area when invasive plants become established or when an existing species’ population size increases. 

Invasive or noxious plants could negatively affect habitat by competing for resources such as water and 

light, changing the community composition, eliminating or reducing native plants, or by changing the 

vegetation structure. The changes in community composition or vegetation structure could reduce native 

plant populations and can also negatively affect habitat for wildlife. Soil disturbance and/or removal of 

existing vegetation for pipeline or road construction could provide openings for invasive or noxious 

plants to establish or spread. Movement of equipment along the construction right-of-way and along 

access roads also could provide opportunities for seed transport into new uninfested areas. In general, 

habitats with more bare ground, such as cropland, sagebrush, salt desert scrub, and relatively dry or open 

forests are more susceptible to invasion than areas that have relatively closed canopy cover or have 

extreme climate or soils that are tolerated by fewer noxious weeds. Due to the connectivity of lands by 

access roads, the potential effects of invasive or noxious weeds would not be limited to the project’s area 

of disturbance. 

Ruby consulted with the BLM, USFS, and various other federal, state, and local agencies for 

recommendations to prevent the introduction or spread of noxious and invasive weeds. Various agencies 

provided known locations of weed infestations and provided recommendations for weed prevention, 

control, and treatment. Based on the agency recommendations, Ruby developed a Noxious and Invasive 

Weed Control Plan (Appendix T) to minimize and control the spread of noxious and invasive species. To 

complement agency weed data, Ruby conducted surveys along the proposed pipeline right-of-way in 2008 

and 2009 to identify locations of existing noxious and invasive weeds. Data from the 2009 field season 

are still being incorporated into Ruby's Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan. Ruby would continue 

to survey for and document the location of noxious and invasive species until construction, and would 

update its Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan with new information as it is identified. Some of the 

minimization and control measures outlined in Ruby’s Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan are 

discussed below. All measures are detailed in Appendix T. 

• Ruby would inform and train construction contractors regarding noxious weed 

management, weed identification, and the potential impacts of noxious weeds on 

agriculture, livestock, and wildlife. Qualified biological monitors approved by the BLM 

and USFS, as appropriate, would conduct the training and would provide on-site 

biological monitoring before, during, and after construction on federal land. 

• Equipment and vehicle cleaning would be carried-out using power or high-pressure 

equipment to remove seeds, roots, and rhizomes prior to arrival at the project right-ofway. Cleaning would concentrate on tracks, feet, or tires and on the undercarriage, with 

special emphasis on axles, frames, cross members, motor mounts, the underside of 

running boards, and front bumper/brush guard assemblies. If the weather conditions and 

right-of-way conditions were dry, compressed air would be used to clean vehicles and 

equipment. If muddy conditions exist, a mat platform with containment would be set up 

and the vehicles and equipment would be cleaned with high-pressure water. In Oregon, 

additional equipment cleaning would occur as equipment entered and/or exited the 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-88 

medusahead rye infestation area from approximately MPs 611 through 615. Equipment 

mat platforms would be disinfected with a hot bleach/water solution or other approved 

cleaning method prior to being transferred off-site when construction in an area was 

completed. 

• Ruby would stockpile cleared vegetation and salvaged topsoil adjacent to the area from 

which they were stripped to eliminate the transport of soil-borne noxious and invasive 

weed seeds, roots, or rhizomes. Weed-infested stockpiles would be marked with clearly 

visible signage until reclamation, when the contractor would return topsoil and vegetative 

material from infestation sites to the areas from which they were stripped. In addition, 

the contractor would not be permitted to move soil and vegetative matter outside of the 

identified and marked noxious weed infestation areas. No construction equipment would 

be allowed to work in or on these areas and stockpiles. 

• Ruby would ensure that straw or hay bales used for sediment barrier installations or 

mulch distribution, where appropriate, are certified weed-free and obtained from statecleared sources. If certified weed-free bales are unavailable, alternative weed-free 

sediment barrier installations would be utilized. 

• Reclamation of disturbed lands would occur immediately following construction as 

outlined in Ruby’s state-specific Restoration and Revegetation Plans. Continuing 

revegetation efforts would ensure adequate vegetation cover to prevent the invasion of 

noxious weeds. 

• Ruby would take appropriate action (including the potential use of herbicides) prior to 

construction on identified weed infestations to reduce the spread or proliferation of 

weeds. Applications would be controlled to minimize the impacts on the surrounding 

vegetation. In areas of dense infestation, a broader application would be used and a 

follow-up seeding program implemented. Treatment methods would be based on 

species-specific and area-specific conditions (e.g., proximity to water, riparian areas, or 

agricultural land; time of year) and would be coordinated with regulatory offices. 

Ruby has committed to power-wash all equipment with water at temperatures greater than 230 

degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (steam cleaning) prior to and upon leaving Reclamation property to prevent the 

spread of invasive weed species. This requirement, along with the measures outlined in Ruby’s Noxious 

and Invasive Weed Control Plan, would comply with the management goals of the Integrated Pest 

Management Plan for the Langell Valley Irrigation District. 

The FWS has recommended that treatment for invasive species be conducted prior to equipment 

entering the Sheldon NWR, including all proposed access roads as discussed in section 4.8.3.5. The FWS 

would incorporate invasive species treatment requirements into any authorization it would issue to Ruby 

to ensure that treatment would be completed in compliance with FWS standards. 

Ruby would begin monitoring the project right-of-way for infestations of noxious and invasive 

species in the first growing season after construction (spring 2011) and would continue to monitor the 

project area biannually (spring and fall) until 2015. Additionally, Ruby would maintain ongoing 

communication with individual landowners, counties, and land management agencies regarding noxious 

weeds within the respective jurisdictions. These parties may also contact Ruby to report the presence of 

noxious weeds for the life of the project. Ruby would control the weeds on a case-by-case basis and 

include a summary of actions taken in the Reclamation Report for that period. Ruby would maintain 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-89 

operations personnel trained in the identification of noxious weed species, who would contribute to 

monitoring reports by documenting noxious weeds observed during the normal course of maintenance. In 

this way, the project right-of-way would be monitored on an ongoing basis. 

Should infestations be identified during monitoring, Ruby would assess the potential for the 

infestation to spread and would develop a treatment plan to control the infestation. The treatment plan 

would be developed using integrated weed management principles, and if herbicides are used, all 

applicable approvals would be obtained prior to their use, including landowner approvals. Only 

herbicides that are approved for use within treated lands (private, state, or federal) would be used. Ruby 

has committed to following herbicide and pesticide label instructions. Treatments would not be 

conducted during precipitation events or when precipitation is expected within 24 hours. Proper buffers 

would be used if weeds targeted for herbicide treatments are in the vicinity of sensitive sites so as to 

prevent the spread of herbicides. Ruby would conduct follow-up inspections of treated areas biannually 

to determine the success of weed control and revegetation, and would continue inspections until 

revegetation is considered successful or the infestation is eradicated. As previously stated, the FERC 

and/or the applicable federal land managing agency would ultimately determine if restoration and 

revegetation is successful and if the project is in compliance with Executive Order 13112. 

We conclude that by Ruby’s implementation of the procedures identified above and the Noxious 

and Invasive Weed Control Plan, the spread of noxious and invasive species would be minimized and 

controlled. 

4.4.7 Vegetation Pathogens 

During public scoping we received comments about the potential for the project to spread insect 

parasites and tree pathogens along the construction right-of-way. Several parasites and pathogens are 

known to occur within the project area, including western pine beetle, Douglas fir beetle, fir engraver, 

flathead borer, annosus root rot and butt rot, laminated root rot, Port-Orford cedar root disease, dwarf 

mistletoe, and sudden oak death. 

Insects and diseases could adversely affect a forest ecosystem if project activities introduced new 

infestations or contributed to the spread of existing infestations. Trees may be more susceptible to 

infestation if damaged during clearing activities and/or have soil compacted over their roots. 

Construction equipment could transport insects or diseases along the construction right-of-way or in and 

out of the project area. The spread of insects or disease could result in both short- and long-term effects, 

such as reduced species diversity and/or a loss of habitat function for wildlife. 

Infestations of insect parasites and tree pathogens exist at some locations along the proposed 

pipeline route. Where specific insect or diseased areas are identified, Ruby has proposed to implement 

the following measures. 

• Western pine beetle – Ruby would remove infested trees in overstocked, infested stands 

prior to beetle emergence in early June to reduce potential for infestation, as feasible. 

Also, if a mature ponderosa pine tree is identified with western pine beetle infestation 

within, but on the immediate edge of the construction right-of-way and would not pose a 

safety or construction hazards, it would be retained for future snag recruitment to benefit 

wildlife. 

• Douglas fir beetle – Methylcyclohexenone capsules (a natural beetle repellant) would be 

applied to trees along the edge of the construction right-of-way. This treatment would 

occur before beetle flight in April to protect remaining stands of Douglas fir and to 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-90 

prevent the spread of Douglas fir beetle. No Douglas fir down wood 12 inches or larger 

in diameter would be left in areas on USFS lands where there are known infestations of 

Douglas fir beetle. 

• Fir engraver – Ruby would utilize logging practices that directionally fall timber onto the 

right-of-way, as well as store logs away from trees adjacent to the right-of-way to 

minimize or prevent damage to standing trees, when clearing the construction right-ofway within true fir stands. Fresh slash greater than 4 inches provides breeding material 

for the beetles and can contribute to outbreaks. Ruby would use the BLM and USFS fuel 

loading specifications to minimize slash accumulations. 

• Flatheaded borer – Ruby would minimize damage to adjacent trees when clearing and 

maintaining the right-of-way, including felling trees within the right-of-way away from 

adjacent, standing trees. 

• Annosus root and butt rot – Sites infected with annosus root and butt rot have been 

documented. Management to reduce tree loss from Fomes annosus (the pathogen 

responsible for the disease) varies depending on the tree species affected. Dry borax 

would be applied to freshly cut stumps and wounds inflicted on trees adjacent to the 

construction right-of-way in areas identified with infestations of annosus root rot, 

especially when true firs and pine are present. Cut surfaces of all susceptible species 

would be treated in areas where the disease may be occurring. P-type strain occurs 

mainly on pines and incense cedar, but also on hardwoods and brush. The s-type strain 

infects spruces, firs, Douglas fir, western red cedar, and hemlocks. 

• Laminated root rot – Infected stands would be documented and planted with resistant 

conifer species (native cedars, pines, and spruces). 

• Dwarf mistletoe – Ruby would consult with appropriate agencies to determine the 

appropriate plan to minimize the spread of dwarf mistletoe in the event that it is found 

within the project area. 

4.4.8 Habitat Fragmentation and Edge Effect 

Forest Fragmentation 

The breaking up of contiguous habitats into smaller patches results in vegetation fragmentation 

and the creation of habitat edges. Forest edges play a crucial role in ecosystem interactions and landscape 

function, including the distribution of plants and animals, fire spread, vegetation structure, and wildlife 

habitat. Creation of new forest edge along dense canopy forests could impact microclimate factors such 

as wind, humidity, and light and could lead to a change in species composition within the adjacent forest 

or increase invasion by invasive species. Vegetation along forest edges receive more direct solar 

radiation during the day, lose more long-wave radiation at night, have lower humidity, and receive less 

short-wave radiation than areas in the forest interior. Increased solar radiation and wind could desiccate 

vegetation by increasing evapotranspiration, could affect which species survive along the edge (typically 

favoring shade intolerant species), and could impact soil characteristics. Fragmentation and a loss of 

habitat connectivity could also impact wildlife (see section 4.5.1.2). 

The amount of solar radiation falling on a newly created edge would depend on the direction it 

faces, its latitude, the time of year and time of day (solar azimuth and solar altitude), and the height of the 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-91 

trees that would cast shadows on the new edge. Because these values constantly change temporally and 

spatially, the edge effects would also constantly change along the pipeline, as tree shadows would extend 

different distances across the right-of-way depending on the time of year. This would result in some areas 

being in shade at one point in the year (reducing edge effects) and in sunlight during another portion of 

the year (increasing edge effects). These changing amounts of solar radiation due to tree shadows would 

occur along the entire route although the shortest shadows (and most solar radiation) would always occur 

on the summer solstice when the solar altitude is at its maximum. 

The natural landscape crossed by the proposed project has already experienced fragmentation in 

the form of existing roads, other rights-of-way, and clear cuts. However, the pipeline would create 

approximately 38.6 miles of new forest edge, or 77.2 miles of new forest edge when both sides of the 

right-of-way are taken into account. This estimate does not include previously clear-cut or regenerating 

forest. The creation of new access roads in forested areas would also create new forest edges. Temporary 

extra workspaces would also contribute to fragmentation by creating larger patches within contiguous 

habitats; however, clearing for the temporary extra workspaces would add to the patch size created along 

the right-of-way rather than create new cleared patches. 

To minimize fragmentation impacts and restore portions of the construction right-of-way, Ruby 

would replant the construction right-of-way according to its Plan and its Restoration and Revegetation 

Plan, except within the 50-foot permanent pipeline right-of-way where clearing is necessary to comply 

with operational safety standards. Timber and slash may be redistributed across the right-of-way 

following final clean-up. The right-of-way would be seeded in areas deemed acceptable to the landowner 

or land managing agency in accordance with Ruby’s Plan and its Restoration and Revegetation Plan. 

We reviewed the project area during a helicopter fly-over in Summer 2008 and also have 

conducted a more recent aerial photo assessment of the project area. Based on these reviews, we 

determined that forested areas crossed by the project are intermixed with areas of herbaceous and low 

shrub habitats. Large contiguous tracts of forested habitat are not common along the proposed pipeline 

right-of-way. Additionally, numerous unimproved roads and forest roads are located along the project in 

Oregon. While the project would fragment forested habitats, we believe these impacts would be 

minimized by implementation of Ruby’s proposed restoration practices. 

Sagebrush Fragmentation 

Sagebrush habitats support a diverse variety of wildlife. The impact of fragmentation on wildlife 

is discussed in section 4.5.1.2. From a vegetation perspective, impacts of fragmentation on sagebrush 

would be similar to that discussed for forested areas. Solar radiation, wind desiccation, and 

evapotranspiration would increase only slightly along the cleared corridor and the newly created 

sagebrush edge. Herbaceous species used to temporarily revegetate the right-of-way would minimize 

these fragmentation impacts while sagebrush is allowed to recover and repopulate the right-of-way. 

However, the recovery timeframe would be long-term along portions of the right-of-way. 

4.4.9 Wild Harvesting 

Wild harvesting is the act of harvesting food or medicinal products that grow naturally on lands 

not normally associated with agriculture. Some of the more common non-timber forest products 

harvested on public lands near the project area include chokecherry, pinyon pine nuts, wild cherry, and 

various berries, mushrooms, and herbs. Harvesting of non-timber forest products is common on public 

lands and can occur year-round. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-92 

USFS lands and BLM-administered lands crossed by the pipeline require permits to harvest wild 

products for both recreational and commercial uses. The permit process provides forest managers with 

the means to track demand for products, the amount of products removed from the forests, and to protect 

sensitive resources. Some legal (i.e., permitted) recreational and commercial harvesters could be 

temporarily displaced during pipeline construction, and some of the forest products that are typically 

harvested would be removed during land clearing phases of pipeline construction. Much of the wild 

harvesting that occurs on federal land is illegal (i.e., conducted without a permit). The creation of a new 

pipeline right-of-way and improvement of access roads would create new access into forested areas, and 

potentially increase the amount of illegal wild harvesting. Ruby would consult with landowners and land 

managing agencies to determine the most appropriate and effective measures to restrict OHV use and 

illegal access along the pipeline right-of-way in an effort to limit use of the right-of-way by illegal 

harvesters. These measures are discussed in section 4.8.1.1. 

Several comments were received regarding the potential for the project to impact current and 

historical wild harvesting areas used by Native Americans. Ruby, the BLM, and the FERC are consulting 

with Native American tribes to identify wild harvesting areas along the pipeline route and to develop 

proper avoidance or mitigation measures when crossing identified harvesting areas. These consultations 

are ongoing and would likely continue throughout the duration of the project. Ruby has proposed to 

employ tribal construction monitors to ensure that tribal concerns are addressed during the construction 

and restoration phase of the project. Wild harvesting by Native American tribes is discussed further in 

section 4.10. 

4.4.10 Timber Removal 

The pipeline would cross approximately 31.8 miles of mature forested lands in Oregon. Land 

ownership within forested lands includes privately owned timberland, USFS lands, and BLMadministered lands. The project would cross approximately 7 miles of “complex forest.” Complex forest 

stands are defined as those with a dominant and subdominant canopy based on Lidar remote imagery. 

The designation of “complex forests” was applied because of difficulties separating mature and old 

growth forests using remote imagery. The USFS has designated approximately 42,745 acres for 

management as Old Growth in Management Area 14 within the Fremont National Forest. The proposed 

pipeline corridor crosses approximately 0.3 mile (6.6 acres) within this management area. The USFS has 

stated this forest area meets the criteria for old growth forest and according to the USFS, 43 acres of old 

growth forest adjacent to the stand being crossed by the pipeline would be added to the USFS’ existing 

dedicated old growth management area. The old growth network would be continued as provided by the 

LRMP. This adjustment in boundary does not impact forest-wide multiple use goals and objectives. The 

change would not impact current projects nor would adding 43 acres cause any changes in the ability of 

the Fremont National Forest to achieve long-term goals and objectives. The designation of additional 

old growth shifts the management focus on a small part of the forest to provide old growth species 

protection without impacting the ability of the Fremont National Forest to achieve other LRMP 

objectives. The addition of old growth forest to Management Area 14 is also discussed in section 4.5.1.2. 

Ruby stated it would survey the complex forest stands on public and private lands along the 

pipeline using a protocol obtained from the USFS. The protocol defines old growth forest stands as those 

having at least 10 trees per acre with a diameter-at-breast height greater than 21 inches. Ruby would also 

obtain core samples from the largest trees in a forest stand to document tree age. Ruby stated the results 

of the complex forest survey would be provided to FERC, BLM, the USFS and other appropriate 

agencies. 

All timber cleared from the right-of-way would be cut and cleared in accordance with land 

owner/land managing agency requirements, where practical. Ruby has proposed to conduct all clearing 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-93 

operations and tree felling within the certificated construction work limits, and to ensure that trees would 

be directionally felled or sheared so as to prevent damage to adjacent trees, facilities, or structures. The 

majority of timber would be removed from the work area as soon as practical. Slash (wood debris created 

during construction) and logs used for habitat restoration would be decked along the edge of the 

construction right-of-way or stored within a 25-foot storage area adjacent to the construction workspace. 

With BLM or USFS approval, a portion of logging slash would be retained for restoration. Slash 

used for restoration efforts would be placed in designated areas along the edge of the right-of-way and 

then scattered or redistributed across the right-of-way during final cleanup and reclamation (following 

seeding). Ground-based skidding and cable logging methods would be used to efficiently clear timber 

from the right-of-way. Ruby would implement the following measures to minimize timber clearing 

impacts as specified in Appendix M. 

• Equipment customary to the local area and conventional logging practices would be used 

to clear and yard logs. 

• All tree felling and vegetation clearing would occur within the approved construction 

work areas. Trees within the construction work areas would be directionally sheared or 

felled away from existing trees so as to prevent damage to residual trees. 

• Logs would be decked along the edge of the right-of-way so as to minimize damage to 

any residual trees. Logs planned for removal from the site would be hauled off the site as 

soon as practical following yarding. 

• On slopes less than 50 percent, workers would suspend one end of the log while skidding 

to minimize soil and biotic disturbances. Ruby would make every attempt to minimize 

soil impacts and maintain duff layers within the right-of-way. 

• Logs and slash would be skidded away from streams as much as possible. When 

necessary, logs and slash would be skidded across perennial streams using matting 

designed to minimize sediment delivery to streams. 

• Logging slash would be hauled to staging areas adjacent to the construction right-of-way 

to either be hauled off, used in restoration efforts, or burned/chipped at the appropriate 

time. Slash used for restoration efforts would be placed in designated areas along the 

edge of the right-of-way and then scattered or redistributed across the right-of-way during 

final cleanup and reclamation (following seeding). Any burning of slash would be 

completed in compliance with any state smoke management regulations and registration 

requirements. 

• Forested areas disturbed by the project would be replanted according to federal (e.g., 

BLM and USFS) and state requirements (e.g., Oregon reforestation rules, Oregon 

Administrative Rules 629-610-0000 through 629-610-0090). Planting would occur on all 

forested lands disturbed by the project located more than 10 feet from the centerline of 

the pipeline. 

• Ruby would follow USFS procedures for disposal of merchantable timber cut from USFS 

lands for construction of the project as described in 36 CFR 223.12. This regulation 

authorizes the USFS, under the issuance of a right-of-way or special use authorization, to 

sell the timber directly to Ruby at the current appraised value. Ruby intends to negotiate 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-94 

one contract covering the crossing in the Fremont National Forest. In the event 

commercial timber removal is necessary in the Cache National Forest, a separate contract 

would be negotiated. 

Ruby is requesting that the BLM administer the disposal of merchantable timber across BLMadministered lands using the same method that is implemented by the USFS. This approach would allow 

Ruby to use the same logging contractor, which would provide for a more efficient and timely logging 

process. We understand that timber disposal procedures would be included as part of the right-of-way 

grant process with the BLM. The BLM can negotiate a timber sale at current appraised prices for the 

merchantable trees being removed from the BLM portion of the right-of-way. If this method is 

implemented, the timber would be appraised by Klamath Falls Resource Area personnel. 

Additionally, we note that Reclamation does not have specific procedures in place for disposal of 

merchantable timber, and because this is not a reservoir construction project, the BLM would be 

responsible for disposing of merchantable timber on Reclamation land in accordance with the provisions 

of 586 DM 1. Net receipts from timber sales would be deposited in the Reclamation Fund in accordance 

with the Act of July 19, 1919 [Sundry Civil Appropriations Act (41 Stat. 163)], or other special fund as 

authorized. 

4.4.11 Fire Regimes 

A natural fire regime is a general classification of the role fire would play across a landscape in 

the absence of modern human intervention, but including the influence of aboriginal burning. In a healthy 

community with a natural fire regime, fire serves as an integral component to the function and 

biodiversity of the community; organisms within the community would have likely adapted to withstand 

and potentially benefit from the fire. Invasive plant species that are introduced to an ecosystem can result 

in unforeseen changes to a natural fire regime. Their presence increases the incidence of fire in forests 

and rangelands, and the disturbances resulting from such fires often leads to increased opportunities for 

invasive plants to take hold. In fact, invasive plants that modify fire regimes cause some of the most 

extensive ecosystem changes known. Non-native plants can change the fire regime to such an extent that 

native plants switch from their roles as fire suppressors to fire promoters. Invasive plants that enhance 

fuel availability can initiate a vicious cycle, actually promoting their own invasiveness while further 

decreasing the presence of natives, especially those that are more fire-resistant. 

We received comments during public scoping suggesting that the removal of native vegetation 

could result in disturbed areas that are more vulnerable to establishment of invasive species. The BLM 

has noted that once invasive species become established in an area and ecological thresholds are 

exceeded, the fire regime can increase (thus, fires may become more likely). The rangelands of the 

western United States have experienced greatly altered fire regimes with the introduction of cheatgrass 

(also called downy brome), an annual grass from Eurasia. This grass grows during the cool months of 

winter and spring and forms prominent hairy leaves. It quickly dries out, leaves numerous seed-filled 

awned spikelets, and provides a large amount of fuel. Once fire has swept through such an area, 

cheatgrass can rapidly germinate and produce seeds while native perennial grasses struggle to become 

reestablished. The presence of cheatgrass increases the occurrence of fire from every 60 to 100 years in 

native rangelands to every 3 to 5 years (Arid Lands Information Center, 2006). Once this regime has 

been established, native plants are not able to become reestablished without extensive intervention using 

primarily chemical control methods to eradicate the cheatgrass. The State of Utah has recommended that 

Ruby plant Kochia (a wildlife-supporting perennial forb that competes successfully against cheatgrass) as 

a part of its fire regime mitigation strategy. Ruby has incorporated Kochia into various seed mixes that it 

would use in Utah (see Appendix L). 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-95 

Ruby’s Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan is designed to minimize and control the spread 

of invasive species, including cheatgrass, along the project and takes into account agency input and 

recommendations. According to Ruby’s Plan, revegetation would be considered successful when the 

cover and density of non-noxious vegetation within the construction right-of-way is similar to the 

adjacent undisturbed land. The FERC and various land managing agencies, as appropriate, would also 

monitor restoration and revegetation success and would ultimately determine if restoration is successful. 

Ruby would be required to continue monitoring and restore all disturbed areas until restoration and 

revegetation is deemed successful. Thus, the likelihood that the project’s clearing of vegetation would 

promote invasive species that would alter the local fire regime is low. 

We received comments during public scoping regarding the potential for cleared vegetation or 

slash scattered within and along the construction right-of-way to increase the local fire regime. 

According to Ruby’s Plan, Ruby would remove construction debris (including vegetation) from all 

construction work areas during the clean-up process, unless the landowner or land managing agency 

requests otherwise. Ruby would manage logging slash as outlined in section 4.4.10. 

In addition, commenters expressed concern that vehicles traveling along access roads and the 

construction right-of-way would ignite wildfires, which could then subsequently trigger forest/rangeland 

fires within adjacent vegetation. All of Ruby’s internal combustion engines, stationary and mobile, would 

be equipped with spark arresters. In addition, Ruby has developed a Fire Prevention and Suppression 

Plan (Appendix H) to minimize the potential for fires and to facilitate a plan of action should a fire occur. 

Some of the procedures and measures identified in Ruby’s Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan include: 

• Identification of key personnel responsible for fire prevention and suppression. Although 

these personnel have not yet been identified, Ruby would be required to update its Fire 

Prevention and Suppression Plan and identify such key personnel prior to commencing 

project activities. Key personnel would be responsible for ensuring all aspects of the Fire 

Prevention and Suppression Plan, the construction contractor’s fire control plan, and 

implementation of any laws or regulations that pertain to fire prevention and suppression. 

• Identification of notification procedures to be used in the event of a fire, using contact 

information for each land managing agency and fire department within or crossed by the 

project. 

• Definition of fire restriction categories for work areas along the construction right-ofway. Fire restrictions would be issued by the Field Safety Officer on a daily basis and in 

conjunction with the appropriate federal, state, or local fire management office. 

• Inclusion of a 5-pound fire extinguisher in all construction vehicles. Other firefighting 

tools also would be required in specified vehicles, and water tankers would be required at 

specific locations along the pipeline right-of-way. 

• Prohibition of smoking, except in designated areas as indicated by signage. Torches 

other than welder and cutting torches, fuses, highway flares, or other devices with open 

flames would not be allowed. 

Ruby and key construction personnel would coordinate with land managing agencies and regional 

fire departments throughout the project construction period, especially during periods of high or severe 

fire conditions, to ensure that all permit stipulations are being met and appropriate preventive measures 

are in place. The Oregon Department of Forestry, for instance, has specifically requested that Ruby 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-96 

comply with requirements of Oregon Revised Statute Chapter 477 regarding wildfire prevention and 

suppression. Ruby would coordinate with land managing agencies to determine an appropriate method to 

remove cleared vegetation along the right-of-way. By implementing these practices and other prevention 

methods outlined in the Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan, we believe the likelihood of fires as a 

result of project activities would be small. 

4.4.12 Non-Jurisdictional Electric Power Lines 

The proposed Rocky Mountain Power electric transmission and distribution line right-of-way is 

dominated by sagebrush community. Species composing the shrub layer include Wyoming big 

sagebrush, Great Basin sagebrush, low sage, black sagebrush, and green rabbitbrush. Species observed in 

the herb layer include cheatgrass, bluebunch wheatgrass, Sandberg bluegrass, Indian ricegrass, stemless 

goldenweed, hooker sandwort, phlox species, and lupine species. Small, isolated stands of high-quality 

sagebrush habitat were documented by Ruby field biologists along the power line corridor in June 2009. 

The proposed Harney Electric Cooperative electric distribution line right-of-way is dominated by 

greasewood, spiny hopsage, big sagebrush, green rabbitbrush, Russian thistle, and annual grasses. 

Construction and maintenance of the electric power lines would occur in areas dominated by 

sagebrush and other low profile vegetation. Vegetation would only be cleared for the pole locations, and 

the ground would be graded only as needed to provide safe and efficient operation of construction 

equipment. Vegetation within the rights-of-way could be damaged by heavy equipment and vehicle 

movement during construction. Following construction, the rights-of-way would be allowed to recover to 

their preconstruction conditions. Vegetation impacts due to the proposed work would be minor. 

Herbicides would be used during maintenance for control of woody-stemmed vegetation within 

the rights-of-way. As a result of herbicide application, vegetation in the right-of-way would be limited to 

low-growing plant species including shrubs, ferns, grasses, forbs, and woody-stemmed species controlled 

by herbicides. Over time, the taller growing tree species would be eliminated. Through usage of 

herbicides, low growing plant communities could become better established because the woody-stemmed 

species would be reduced or eliminated, providing more open areas for these communities to thrive. 

Non-target plants could be impacted from spray-over, drift, or accidental spillage/discharge of 

herbicides. However, through proper application techniques such impact can be minimized and managed. 

Application of herbicides would comply with the applicable federal and state laws regarding the use of 

pesticides and would be used only in accordance with their registered uses and within limitations imposed 

by the Secretary of the Interior. BLM approval would be required prior to the use of pesticides on BLMadministered land. Ruby would seek landowner approval before applying pesticides or herbicides on 

privately owned land. 

4.5 WILDLIFE 

The project area would encompass a wide diversity of animal taxa, including large and small 

mammals, raptors, waterfowl, and various reptiles and amphibians. General impacts on these wildlife 

resources are discussed in the following sections. Detailed information is also provided for sensitive 

wildlife that occur in the project area, including raptors and other migratory birds, as well as for managed 

and sensitive wildlife areas that would be affected by the project. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-97 

4.5.1 Wildlife Resources 

The project area consists of diverse wildlife habitats and a diverse array of wildlife species. The 

vegetation characteristics of each habitat (i.e., height, type, and extent of coverage) are the most important 

factors for determining a species presence or absence at a particular site. 

Table 4.5.1-1 provides a partial list of species that are known to occur or could occur in the 

project area. Several of the species are opportunistic and have adapted to degraded habitats or have 

expanded their range as a result of landscape fragmentation and land use change. 

4.5.1.1 General Wildlife Impacts and Mitigation 

Pipeline construction would have direct, indirect, short-term, and long-term impacts on wildlife 

resources. As defined in section 4.0, short-term impacts generally require the resource to return to 

preconstruction conditions within 3 years following construction. Long-term impacts require anywhere 

from 3 to 50 years to return to preconstruction conditions. Permanent impacts would occur when 

preconstruction conditions are not restored within 50 years. Direct impacts on wildlife habitat, whether 

by vegetation removal, conversion of one type to another, alteration of key components, or degradation 

due to proximity of disturbances, also indirectly affect wildlife populations. Such indirect impacts on 

wildlife are often subtle and difficult to document. The severity of impacts would depend on factors such 

as the sensitivity of the species impacted, seasonal use patterns, type and timing of project activities, and 

physical parameters (e.g., topography, cover, forage, and climate). 

Construction of the Ruby Pipeline Project would disturb about 15,739 acres of wildlife habitat 

(see table 4.4.1-2). Construction of the project would have long-term impacts on the majority of the 

wildlife habitat crossed. Due to the arid conditions in the project area and the sensitivity of many of the 

habitats crossed by the project, vegetation in certain habitats could be permanently impacted. 

Additionally, habitat that is converted to an aboveground facility, is maintained along the 50-foot-wide 

permanent pipeline right-of-way, or is permanently improved by the construction of access roads would 

be permanently impacted. 

The impact of the project on wildlife species and their habitats would vary depending on the 

habitat requirements of each species and the existing habitat present along the pipeline route. Direct 

impacts from construction would include the displacement of wildlife along the pipeline right-of-way and 

access roads and direct mortality of some individuals. Larger or more mobile wildlife, such as birds and 

large mammals, would leave the vicinity of the right-of-way as construction activities approach. 

Construction would also disrupt bird courting or nesting and wildlife breeding behaviors on and adjacent 

to the right-of-way, depending upon the season in which construction occurs. Much of this wildlife 

would relocate into similar habitats nearby; however, if there were a lack of adequate territorial space, 

inter- and intra-specific competition and lower reproductive success and survival may result. 

The influx and increased density of animals in nearby undisturbed areas could also reduce the 

reproductive success of animals that are not displaced by construction, and increase the risk of predation 

in the area. Additionally, some smaller, less mobile wildlife, such as small mammals, reptiles, and 

amphibians could be crushed by construction equipment or trapped in trenches. These effects would 

diminish after construction, and wildlife could return to the newly disturbed areas and adjacent, 

undisturbed habitats after right-of-way restoration is completed and access roads are restored or their use 

is no longer required. Wildlife populations would return to preconstruction levels previous to 

development only if suitable habitat is restored. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-98 

TABLE 4.5.1-1 

Wildlife Species Common to the Ruby Pipeline Project Area 

Category Species Name 

MAMMALS 

Big Game Elk, moose, white-tailed deer, pronghorn antelope, mule deer, big-horn sheep 

Small Game 

and NonGame 

Great Basin ground squirrel, Belding’s ground-squirrel, golden-mantled ground squirrel, least chipmunk, 

northern pocket gopher, white-tailed prairie dog, kangaroo rat, bushy-tailed woodrat, pocketmouse, deer 

mouse, northern grasshopper mouse, Ord’s western jumping mouse, meadow vole, montane vole, pygmy 

rabbit, mountain cottontail, desert cottontail, white-tailed jackrabbit, black-tailed jackrabbit, Merriam’s shrew, 

western small-footed myotis, little brown myotis, silver-haired bat, beaver, river otter, muskrat, porcupine, 

yellow-bellied marmot, cougar, bobcat, coyote, kit fox, northern raccoon, western spotted skunk, striped skunk, 

long-tailed weasel, badger, gray squirrel, ground squirrel, Wyoming ground squirrel 

BIRDS 

Upland 

Game Birds 

Ring-necked pheasant, gray partridge, dusky grouse, ruffed grouse, greater sage-grouse, sharp-tailed grouse, 

California quail, mountain quail, chukar, mourning dove, wild turkey 

Wading 

Birds 

American avocet, white-faced ibis, sandhill crane, killdeer, spotted sandpiper, long-billed curlew, Wilson’s 

snipe, black-crowned night heron, great blue heron, great egret, Forster’s tern, willet, Wilson’s phalarope 

Water Birds American white pelican, California gull, Franklin’s gull, ring-billed gull, cinnamon teal, merganser, northern 

shoveler, mallard, gadwall, green-winged teal, northern pintail, Canada Goose, redhead, western grebe 

Raptors Bald eagle, northern harrier, sharp-shinned hawk, Cooper’s hawk, golden eagle, Swainson’s hawk, red-tailed 

hawk, ferruginous hawk, American kestrel, prairie falcon, peregrine falcon, barn owl, western screech-owl, 

great horned owl, burrowing owl, long-eared owl, short-eared owl, osprey 

Other birds Rock pigeon, nighthawk, poorwill, broad-tailed hummingbird, calliope hummingbird, rufous hummingbird, 

belted kingfisher, northern flicker, downy woodpecker, hairy woodpecker, Lewis’ woodpecker, white-headed 

woodpecker, red-naped sapsucker, Williamson’s sapsucker, blue-gray gnatcatcher, ash-throated flycatcher, 

dusky flycatcher, gray flycatcher, Hammond’s flycatcher, olive-sided flycatcher, western wood-pewee, whitethroated swift, bank swallow, barn swallow, cliff swallow, northern rough-winged swallow, tree swallow, violetgreen swallow, Say’s phoebe, eastern kingbird, western kingbird, loggerhead shrike, pinyon jay, Steller’s jay, 

western scrub-jay, western meadowlark, dark-eyed junco, black-headed grosbeak, Bullock’s oriole, horned 

lark, northern mockingbird, black-billed magpie, American crow, raven, juniper titmouse, hermit thrush, canyon 

wren, house wren, rock wren, mountain bluebird, American robin, sage thrasher, brown creeper, pine siskin, 

lazuli bunting, black-capped chickadee, mountain chickadee, pygmy nuthatch, red-breasted nuthatch, whitebreasted nuthatch, warbling vireo, yellow-rumped warbler, MacGillivray’s warbler, orange-crowned warbler, 

black-throated gray warbler, yellow warbler, yellow-breasted chat, green-tailed towhee, spotted towhee, song 

sparrow, black-throated sparrow, chipping sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, fox sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, 

house sparrow, lark sparrow, sage sparrow, savannah sparrow, vesper sparrow, white-crowned sparrow, redwinged blackbird, yellow-headed blackbird, Brewer’s blackbird, brown-headed cowbird, European starling, 

Clark’s nutcracker, yellowthroat, bushtit, western bluebird, western tanager, American goldfinch, Cassin’s 

finch, lesser goldfinch, house finch 

REPTILES 

Turtles Western painted turtle 

Lizards Western fence lizard, desert collared lizard, Lahontan basin leopard lizard, short-horned lizard, long-nosed 

leopard lizard, desert horned lizard, sagebrush lizard, side-blotched lizard, western skink, western whiptail 

lizard 

Snakes Western garter snake, rubber boa, racer, desert night snake, striped whipsnake, garter snake, western 

rattlesnake, night snake, Great Basin gopher snake, kingsnake, wandering garter snake 

AMPHIBIANS Great Basin spadefoot, green frog, northern leopard frog, western toad, Pacific treefrog, Columbia spotted frog 

We received comments on the draft EIS stating that the emission of artificial light at night at 

compressor stations could have adverse effects to wildlife. Artificial light is known to affect wildlife 

movement, but not all species respond to light in the same way. Some animals avoid lighted areas at 

night, while others congregate near lighted areas. Artificial lights have been shown to impact foraging, 

migration, communication, and reproductive behaviors of various species. A noteworthy impact of 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-99 

artificial light is its effect on migrating birds. Bright lights are known to disorient migrating birds and 

interfere with the birds’ internal magnetic compasses. Once distracted by artificial light, birds may be 

reluctant to fly out of the lighted area and often continue to circle in the light beam until they are not 

longer able to continue with their migration. 

Ruby’s four communication towers could impact bird flight patterns and increase bird injury or 

mortality as a result of collisions with towers or support wires or from the station towers’ artificial 

lighting. These towers would be constructed within the four compressor station yards. Noise generated 

during operation of the compressor stations may to some extent deter birds from flying, foraging, or 

nesting near the communication towers, and may reduce bird flight impacts. The FWS has suggested that 

Ruby construct the communication towers in accordance with its Guidance on the Siting, Construction, 

Operation and Decommissioning of Communications Towers. These guidelines include 

recommendations for tower siting, tower height, guy wires, visual markers, and light shielding. We have 

reviewed these guidelines and believe they provide adequate protection to birds. Therefore, we 

recommend that Ruby incorporate into its project design the FWS’s Guidance on the Siting, 

Construction, Operation and Decommissioning of Communications Towers. 

The cutting, clearing, and/or removal of existing vegetation would also affect wildlife by 

reducing the amount of available cover, nesting, and foraging habitat. The degree of impact would 

depend on the type of habitat affected and the rate at which vegetation regenerates after construction. The 

impact on species that commonly inhabit agricultural land would be relatively minor and temporary 

because these areas are regularly disturbed and would be replanted during the next growing season. 

Herbaceous habitats would be restored to a structural condition similar to preconstruction in a relatively 

short time (i.e., 3 to 5 years). This would be facilitated by reseeding disturbed areas with native seed and 

by minimizing the disturbance to the existing sod layer in the construction right-of-way. The effect to 

forest-dwelling wildlife species would be greater because forest habitat would take a comparatively 

longer time to regenerate and would be prevented from reestablishing on the permanent 50-foot-wide 

pipeline right-of-way. The impacts on shrub-dwelling species would be comparable to impacts on forestdwelling species due to the significant regeneration timeframes of these habitats. Such habitats could take 

50 years or longer to regenerate, depending on site-specific conditions such as rainfall, elevation, grazing, 

and weed introduction. However, unlike forested habitats, Ruby would not maintain (i.e., clear) shrubs 

within its permanent 50-foot-wide right-of-way in sagebrush habitats. Although the structural component 

of shrub-dominated habitats would recover slowly, successful restoration of non-woody vegetation may 

improve the forage value for some wildlife species within a relatively short time. 

The vegetation fencing that would be required on BLM-administered lands in Box Elder County, 

Utah (see section 4.4.1.2) is not anticipated to have negative impacts on wildlife species. According to 

the BLM, the fence would be built to wildlife friendly specifications as outlined in Manuals H-1741-1 

Karsky (1988) for fences. Fencing would only be required on public lands and therefore any and all state 

and/or private lands that are not fenced would continue to allow for wildlife movement. 

4.5.1.2 Habitat Fragmentation and Edge Effect 

Construction of the project would require clearing approximately 1,129.5 acres of forested 

habitat, consisting of 346.5 acres of juniper woodland, 577.1 acres of mixed conifer forest, and 205.9 

acres of riparian forest. Ruby would maintain a 50-foot-wide right-of-way centered over the pipe during 

operation of the pipeline. As a result, 255.1 acres of forested habitat would be permanently converted to 

an herbaceous state for pipeline operation. Fragmentation would also occur where primitive access road 

improvements and new access road construction are required. Approximately 230.6 acres of forested 

habitat may be cleared for access road use (this clearing is included in the 1,129.5 acres of “project 

clearing” described above). Forested habitats outside the maintained pipeline right-of-way and all other 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-100 

non-forested habitats crossed by the pipeline would be revegetated and restored to their preconstruction 

condition; however, this could take several years to complete. Sagebrush communities also would be 

subject to fragmentation and would experience effects similar in nature to those experienced in forested 

habitats for certain species. 

Habitat fragmentation is a frequent concern when clearing and maintaining rights-of-way. In 

general, fragmentation could result in an altered wildlife community as species more adaptable to edge 

habitats establish themselves, while species requiring undisturbed habitats are subject to negative effects 

such as predation, parasitism, or inter-specific competition; reduced pairing and reproductive success; 

reduced nesting areas; increased destruction of habitat of understory species by browsers; inhibited 

migration, dispersal, foraging, and other movements of forest interior species that are hesitant to cross 

openings; and expansion of non-native vegetation. Moist, cool, and stable microclimatic conditions are 

essential to amphibian species. Fragmentation may affect woodland amphibians by decreasing the 

amount of cover, prompting changes in ground moisture, and increasing potential exposure to the sun. 

Habitat fragmentation has already occurred in many areas that would be crossed by the pipeline due to 

fires, tree harvests, highways, roads, and utility corridors. The cumulative effect of these actions to 

wildlife are expected to increase in the foreseeable future. 

Potential impacts on birds include increased brood parasitism, increased nest depredation in 

grasslands, and lower nesting success (Thomas and Towiell, 1982; Burger et al., 1994; Marini et al.,

1995; Danielson et al,. 1997; Brand and George, 2000). Edges provide the brown-headed cowbird, a nest 

parasite, access to interior forest patches. Effects from such access can extend into forest interiors as far 

as 600 meters (Norse et al, 1986). Nest parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds is especially likely in 

fragmented shrub-dominated habitats (Vander Haegen and Walker, 1998). A local increase in nest 

predators (corvids such as black-billed magpie, American crow, and raven) also could contribute 

additional impacts on breeding birds as a result of edges created by the pipeline right-of-way. Corvids in 

particular could be attracted to the work areas during construction if trash and food were inappropriately 

disposed of by work crews. 

Potential positive impacts would include increased diversity and density of bird species, increased 

access to a variety of food resources, and increased ground cover, which would favor ground-nesting 

species (Rosenberg and Raphael, 1986). The close proximity of cover and forage areas at forest edges 

provides ideal habitat for many game species. For example, bird species diversity in power line corridors 

through forested vegetation was found to be higher in the corridor than within the adjacent forest 

(Kroodsma, 1984). Higher levels of flower and fruit production, pollinator, and frugivore densities and 

seed dispersal are often found along the edge. In addition, deer, moose, and elk have been documented to 

use available browsing areas within corridors or on edges of corridors (Hartley et al., 1984; Brusnyk and 

Westworth, 1985). 

To minimize fragmentation impacts on wildlife, Ruby would clear shrubs along the edge of the 

construction workspace using a zigzag clearing pattern (“feathering”) to reduce the creation of hard edges 

along the edge of the construction workspace; or, if possible, would implement measures to create shrub 

patches within the pipeline corridor as agreed to by landowners and land-managing agencies. Some large 

shrubs and trees removed during clearing operations and stockpiled may be used to construct wildlife 

shelters. These shelters would be constructed after reseeding and container-grown plant placement as a 

wildlife habitat enhancement measure. Approximately 5 to 8 shelters for every 20 acres of right-of-way 

in shrub habitats would be established. Shelter size would be commensurate to the adjacent undisturbed 

habitat. Additionally, Ruby would transplant container-grown shrubs and bare-root conifer trees in 

appropriate locations within the temporary construction work areas as discussed in section 4.4.1.2. These 

measures would reduce fragmentation effects of abrupt edge created by construction and operation 

practices. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-101 

As stated in section 4.4.10, the proposed pipeline crosses a portion of dedicated old-growth forest 

in the Fremont National Forest. There are currently two roads within and adjacent to this forest plot. To 

ensure old-growth forest is maintained within the National Forest, an additional 43 acres of field verified 

old-growth forest adjacent to the existing dedicated old-growth forest would be added to the old-growth 

management boundaries of the Forest Plan. The combined old-growth forest would create a functional 

block able to provide old-growth habitat consistent with Forest Plan direction. This addition would not 

change the old-growth grid or pattern across the landscape and connectivity with other blocks of oldgrowth would be maintained. 

4.5.1.3 Noise 

Noise could impact wildlife during clearing and grading of the construction right-of-way, during 

pipeline construction (including any HDD and conventional boring operations), and during right-of-way 

cleanup and restoration. Ambient sound levels were determined at four noise-sensitive areas along the 

project (see section 4.11.2.2). Ambient sound ranged from 30 decibels (dB) to 43 dB. Distances at which 

construction-related noise would attenuate to ambient levels would depend on local conditions such as 

tree cover and density, topography, weather (humidity), and wind. Noise levels associated with some 

common machines and activities that would be present during pipeline construction (considering ambient 

sound as a base) are discussed in section 4.11.2. 

Research has demonstrated varying short-term reactions of wildlife to noise; however, specific 

studies to determine impacts on wildlife from typical pipeline construction noises have not been 

conducted. Most research has focused on wildlife reaction to noise generated by roads and high-volume 

traffic (e.g., Forman and Alexander, 1998). However, some research has recorded wildlife reaction to 

activities that could produce similar reactions from noises associated with pipeline construction activities 

(airplanes, sonic booms, helicopters, artillery, and blasting). For example, mule deer have been 

documented to respond to short-duration seismic exploration (blasting) with alert postures. The mule 

deer observed in the study occasionally ran for short distances after the noise event but did not shift home 

ranges (Ihsle, 1982). Mule deer did avoid areas of seismic exploration that were closer (0.6 mile away) 

but whether the avoidance was due to human presence, noise, or a combination of the factors was not 

distinguishable (Horejsi, 1979). 

Construction-related sounds may have an adverse impact on raptors and bird species during 

nesting and breeding. These impacts occur when noise levels substantially exceed ambient conditions 

that existed prior to a project (i.e., by 20 to 25 dB, as experienced by the animal) and/or when the total 

sound level exceeds 90 dB. Such impacts could potentially result in nest abandonment, egg failure, 

reduced juvenile survival, malnutrition or starvation of the young, or a reduction of the growth or 

likelihood of survival of young. While this could represent an adverse impact for the first year of 

compressor station operation as birds in the area are subjected to the novel noise source, we expect that in 

subsequent years, birds and other wildlife would either be habituated to the noise source, or could move 

into similar available habitat further from the noise source. This, in turn, could lead to increased 

competition for preferred habitats, depending on the amount of habitat available. We further discuss 

potential noise impacts from compressor station operation on the greater sage-grouse in section 4.7.3.1. 

Overall, we believe that impacts on wildlife due to construction noise would be of short duration 

and spatially localized, and that noise impacts from operation would not represent a significant impact on 

local wildlife. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-102 

4.5.1.4 Noxious and Invasive Species 

Short- or long-term impacts on wildlife habitat could occur if pipeline construction spreads 

noxious weeds and other invasive species (see section 4.4.6 for a discussion regarding noxious weed 

impacts on vegetation). Noxious weeds can outcompete native vegetation and displace native species by 

spreading rapidly and co-opting resources (i.e., nutrients, water, and sunlight) that can eventually lead to a 

weed-dominated monoculture. Such transformed habitat can be unsuitable to former wildlife inhabitants. 

Often, as habitat quality degenerates, wildlife diversity declines. For example, purple loosestrife forms 

dense monocultures that inhibit native vegetation from flourishing, cause a decrease in species diversity, 

limit water flow and wildlife access to water, and in some instances make waterfowl nesting areas 

unsuitable (Whitson, 1996). Scotch broom is another example of a highly aggressive invasive species 

that becomes rapidly established within open areas, including forest clear-cuts, where it may inhibit 

reforestation. 

Ruby has developed construction and restoration procedures to minimize impacts on wildlife 

habitat and reduce and control the spread of noxious and invasive plants (see section 4.4.6), vegetation 

pathogens (see section 4.4.7) and invasive aquatic species (see section 4.6.2). 

4.5.1.5 Aboveground Facilities 

Construction and operation of the proposed aboveground pipeline facilities (i.e., compressor 

stations, meter stations, pig launchers/receivers, and MLVs) would have minimal impact on total 

available wildlife habitat. None of the areas proposed for aboveground facilities are known to harbor 

critical habitat for federally listed species or species of special concern. Big game crucial habitats 

impacted by aboveground facility construction are discussed in the following section. We do not consider 

these impacts significant as the habitat affected represents a very small percentage of total available 

wildlife habitat in the surrounding project area. However, we acknowledge that construction of the 

aboveground facilities would constitute a cumulative impact on the affected habitats (see discussion in 

section 4.5.2). 

4.5.2 Big Game Species 

The primary big game species occurring in the project area include moose, elk, mule deer, and 

pronghorn antelope. Bighorn sheep could also be present. Certain habitat ranges for these species are 

considered crucial for maintenance of game populations. State agencies and the BLM have established 

several habitat categories based on species’ seasonal use of the habitat. For example, crucial winter range 

areas are used as survival areas during harsh winters and are considered essential in determining a game 

population’s ability to maintain itself at a certain level over the long term. Other habitat categories for big 

game include winter range, summer range, calving or fawning areas, or year-round range. Table 4.5.2-1 

summarizes the linear miles of pipeline that would cross big game crucial winter range along the project 

route. 

The presence of moose in the project area is limited to forested areas in eastern Utah. The project 

would cross approximately 27.3 miles of crucial winter range for moose. Elk inhabit a variety of habitats 

along the project route including grassland, shrubland, coniferous forests, aspen, and, to a lesser extent, 

agriculture and pasture. The project would cross approximately 42.8 miles of crucial winter range for elk 

in Utah and Nevada and 25.1 miles of winter range for elk in Oregon. Mule deer occur throughout the 

majority of the project region. Mule deer inhabit virtually all vegetation types but reach the greatest 

densities in shrublands on rough, broken terrain which provides abundant browse and cover habitat. The 

project would cross approximately 66.2 miles of crucial winter range for mule deer in Wyoming, Utah, 

and Nevada and 37.4 miles of mule deer winter range in Oregon. Pronghorn antelope are generally found 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-103 

in prairie grassland and semi-desert shrubland habitats on flat to rolling terrain with good visibility. They 

are most abundant in short- or mid-grass prairies and are least common in xeric habitats. The project 

would cross approximately 21.8 miles of crucial winter range for antelope in Wyoming and Nevada. 

Bighorn sheep live in alpine meadows, mountain slopes, and foothills and prefer rocky slopes they can 

climb to evade predators. According to data provided by NDOW, the project would cross about 16 miles 

of occupied bighorn sheep habitat. In addition to crucial winter ranges, a quality analysis of various big 

game habitats has been conducted along the project route. Results of this analysis are discussed in section 

4.4.5. 

TABLE 4.5.2-1 

Big Game Habitat Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State Big Game Habitat Designated Construction Avoidance 

Periods Pipeline MP Range 

Wyoming Mule Deer Crucial Winter 

Range 

November 15 to April 30 24.5 to 30.0 

40.2 to 47.9 

Pronghorn Antelope Crucial 

Winter Range 

November 15 to April 30 19.3 to 25.7 

Utah Moose Crucial Winter Range November 1 to January 15 60.2 to 73.0 

75.1 to 89.6 

Elk Crucial Winter Range November 1 to January 15 55.4 to 67.4 

88.8 to 94.8 

95.8 to 105.5 

Mule Deer Crucial Winter 

Range 

December 1 to April 15 47.9 to 51.0 

56.1 to 62.6 

88.3 to 94.8 

95.4 to 109.2 

133.4 to 135.2 

141.9 to 143.7 

154.6 to 157.4 

229.2 to 230.8 

Nevada Elk Crucial Winter Range December 15 to March 15 231.7 to 237.9 

247.4 to 256.3 

Mule Deer Crucial Winter 

Range 

December 15 to March 15 230.8 to 239.3 

R384.8 to 391.4 

Pronghorn Antelope Crucial 

Winter Range 

December 15 to March 15 in 

Elko BLM District; 

November 1 to April 15 in Winnemucca 

BLM District 

270.4 to 275.4 

R385.7 to R395.9 

R396.9 to R397.1 

Oregon Elk Winter Range November 1 to April 1 630.2 to 655.3 

Mule Deer Winter Range November 1 to April 1 588.2 to 601.6 

611.0 to 615.4 

627.6 to 632.2 

R653.9 to R665.1 

R667.9 to R671.7 

Construction impacts on big game species would include an incremental increase in habitat 

fragmentation as well as a loss of potential forage within the area of disturbance. However, projectrelated loss or change in habitat/forage would represent only a small percent of the overall available 

habitat within the broader project area. Herbaceous forage species would be expected to recolonize 

quickly. In most instances, suitable habitat adjacent to the disturbed areas would be available for wildlife 

species until grasses and woody vegetation are reestablished in disturbed areas. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-104 

Indirect impacts on big game species could include those caused by increased human activity, 

augmented noise levels, dispersal of noxious and invasive weeds, and dust effects from unpaved road 

traffic. Big game animals (especially pronghorn and mule deer) would likely decrease their use of an area 

within 0.5-mile of surface disturbance activities (Ward et al., 1980; Ward, 1976). This displacement 

would be short-term and animals would likely return to the disturbance area after construction and 

restoration efforts are complete. However, assuming the adjacent habitats are at or near carrying capacity, 

and given the current drought conditions in the project region, displacement of or stress on big game 

species could cause some unquantifiable reduction in wildlife populations if measures were not taken to 

minimize impacts during crucial migration periods. 

Big game could utilize the newly established right-of-way for travel and foraging following 

construction. Elk tend to use pipeline rights-of-way for feeding areas, especially when hunting is not 

occurring (Lees, 1989), and deer use various open areas for foraging (Jageman, 1994). A pipeline rightof-way provides an opportunity for developing high-quality feeding areas for elk and deer, especially if 

noxious weeds are controlled and native forage is seeded (Lees, 1989). Ruby would seed disturbed areas 

within big-game winter ranges with native vegetation as described in the Restoration and Revegetation 

Plans (Appendix L). Additionally, Ruby would control noxious weeds on the right-of-way on all lands 

crossed, including both summer and winter rangelands. 

Construction of the project may coincide with big game calving and fawning times which 

generally occur in late spring (May to early June). Calving and/or fawning areas may be close to winter 

ranges or may be at higher elevations than winter ranges. Big game would most likely avoid active 

construction areas and may be adversely affected in one or more ways, including: increased energy 

expense due to escape from disturbances, displacement to areas of deeper snow accumulation, use of 

suboptimal habitats that do not provide adequate functions (food, shelter, escape cover), and use of 

habitats that increase the risk of predation. The expected consequences of these responses would be a 

decrease in over-winter survival and possible decrease in calving and/or fawning success. The BLM’s 

Salt Lake Field Office has requested that crucial calving areas be avoided between May 1 and June 30; 

however, it does not appear that crucial calving areas would be crossed by the project. 

Ruby proposes to avoid construction and non-emergency maintenance activities in designated 

crucial winter big game ranges as identified in table 4.5.2-1. The BLM has requested that Ruby avoid 

pronghorn antelope migration corridors in the Winnemucca District and Surprise Field Office 

management areas from April 1 to June 30. The BLM’s Elko District has requested that big game 

intermediate range and migration corridors for big game be avoided between October 15 to December 14 

and from March 16 to May 1. Additional construction and restoration procedures that have been 

proposed by Ruby in big game winter ranges include: 

• seeding of disturbed big game winter range areas with preferred big game forage species, 

as recommended by the BLM, USFS, and state wildlife agencies; 

• controlling noxious weeds on the right-of-way on all lands crossed, including both 

summer and winter rangelands, to help maintain native forage species; 

• installing or leaving crossovers at 1,200 foot intervals, near water sources, at existing 

roads or two-tracks, and at visible livestock/wildlife trails to serve as routes for big game 

to cross the construction right-of-way until the pipe is ready to be installed. Crossovers 

would be constructed on each side of stream water sources. Each crossover would be 

sloped on each side to act as an escape ramp for any livestock/wildlife that happens to 

become trapped in the trench. Ruby would also inspect the open ditch line daily to 

ensure that livestock/wildlife is not trapped in the open trench; 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-105 

• leaving a 10-foot gap in spoil and topsoil stockpiles at all hard or soft plug locations, and 

a corresponding gap in the welded pipe string. Suitable ramps also would be installed 

from the bottom to the top of the trench to allow any wildlife that enter the trench to 

escape. The ramps would be spaced at approximately 0.5-mile intervals in big game 

migration corridors or within winter range areas; and 

• installing OHV barriers after construction is complete to reduce unauthorized public 

access and to maximize big game use of the right-of-way. These barriers could include 

dirt/rock berms, log barriers, signs, and locked gates. Slash from clearing operations 

would also be redistributed on the right-of-way and would help discourage OHV travel. 

We received comments from the Klamath Tribes in Oregon that the project may impact mule deer 

that migrate across the project area. We believe that Ruby’s proposed construction practices identified 

above would not preclude mule deer from crossing the construction work area or otherwise adversely 

impact mule deer migration. 

We also received comments from the Lincoln County Board of Commissioners that seasonal 

restrictions can have adverse impacts on the environment as well. The board contends that seasonal 

restrictions concentrate development during seven short months, thus increasing the intensity of the 

impacts during this period. Because most tourism occurs during the same time, this increases traffic, air 

emissions, dust, and resulting haze. According to the Board, the seasonal restrictions also make it 

difficult to attract and keep permanent workers. When workers are needed for only a few months, 

families do not move into the area and local governments do not realize the full benefits of revenue from 

property and sales tax. Yet local governments must still provide law enforcement, medical, and other 

services for the temporary workers. The Board contends there is controversy about the rationale for 

winter and spring restrictions on big game areas and states that research shows that after initial 

construction big game return to the area, and as more data are developed, waivers to seasonal restrictions 

should be granted based on a broader view of the science and current game and wildlife numbers. We 

could not corroborate the research cited by the Board. We appreciate the Board’s perspective on seasonal 

restrictions for big game; however, all four state wildlife departments have seasonal restrictions for big 

game and Ruby has agreed to adopt them. For this project, we defer to each state’s requirements. 

Construction of permanent aboveground facilities (i.e., compressor stations, pig 

launchers/receivers, meter stations, and MLVs) would result in the permanent loss of critical winter 

habitat for big game (see table 4.5.2-2). This loss of habitat constitutes a very small percentage of 

available habitat on a regional basis and is not likely to affect big game populations in the project area. 

TABLE 4.5.2-2 

Permanent Loss of Big Game Habitat by Construction of Aboveground Facilities for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State Big Game Habitat Type Habitat Permanently Lost (acres) 

Wyoming Antelope Crucial Winter Range 0.1 

 Utah Elk Crucial Winter Range 2.1 

 Mule Deer Crucial Winter Range 2.3 

Nevada Mule Deer Crucial Winter Range 0.1 

Oregon Elk Winter Range 0.1 

 Mule Deer Winter Range 0.4 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-106 

4.5.3 Small Game Species 

Small game species within the project region include upland game birds, waterfowl, furbearers, 

and other various small mammals. Examples include greater sage-grouse, sharp-tailed grouse, dusky 

grouse, ruffed grouse, California quail, mountain quail, pheasant, chukar, gray partridge, mourning dove, 

migratory waterfowl, white-tailed jackrabbit, desert cottontail, mountain cottontail, beaver, muskrat, 

mink, badger, bobcat, coyote, red fox, and swift fox. The greater sage-grouse and pygmy rabbit are likely 

the most sensitive small game species along the project route and are discussed further in section 4.7.3. 

The project’s potential impacts on small game would be similar to those discussed above for 

general wildlife species. Species would be subject to the incremental loss of habitat and increased habitat 

fragmentation until restoration has been completed and native vegetation is reestablished. Waterfowl 

could be temporarily disturbed during construction across certain wetlands. Direct impacts on small 

game species could include nest or burrow abandonment, loss of eggs or young, or death. Indirect 

impacts could include the temporary displacement of small game from the disturbance areas as a result of 

increased noise and human presence. We believe that such impacts would be short-term and that animals 

would likely return to the project area following construction. 

4.5.4 Game Harvesting 

Construction of the project would cause short-term, localized impact on hunter success rates 

within the project area. If construction in an area coincides with hunting seasons, hunter utilization and 

success in the immediate vicinity would probably be adversely affected for the duration of construction. 

Big game likely would be displaced from habitats adjacent to construction-related disturbance. In 

general, big game would be expected to return to habitats from which they have vacated after construction 

and restoration efforts are completed. 

Harvest rates could increase after construction by hunters using a new pipeline right-of-way to 

access remote or previously inaccessible areas (Comer, 1982). In addition, big game species that utilize a 

cleared right-of-way could be more likely to be harvested than animals in forested habitat. Increased 

public recreation along cleared rights-of-way in the fall hunting season, especially near crossings of 

existing access points, has been documented elsewhere (Crabtree, 1984). Increased public access as a 

result of the newly cleared pipeline right-of-way could increase poaching of game animals and non-game 

wildlife. Ruby would coordinate with landowners and land managing agencies to determine appropriate 

responses to OHV and other access issues. Ruby would install fences, gates with locks, blockades, and/or 

berms to prevent or discourage unauthorized access to the right-of-way, as appropriate. 

We received a comment on the draft EIS concerning the potential for increased poaching by 

construction workers staying at the Vya Construction Camp. Ruby would require each construction camp 

occupant to read and sign orientation documents that would contain information, including use 

restrictions, regarding historic and natural wildlife/conservation areas and tribal lands. Ruby would hold 

its contractors accountable for compliance. Ruby has also stated that it welcomes input from any 

agencies that would like specific information included in the orientation information. 

4.5.5 Raptors and Other Migratory Birds 

The MBTA (16 USC 703-711) is a federal law that implements the United States’ commitment to 

international conventions with Canada (1916), Mexico (1936), Japan (1972) and Russia (1978) for 

protection of shared migratory bird resources (FWS, 2002). The MBTA prohibits the taking, killing, 

possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests, except when 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-107 

specifically authorized by the DOI. Executive Order 13186 (2001) directs departments and agencies to 

take certain actions to further implement the MBTA. The Executive Order, among other things, directs 

federal agencies to identify where unintentional takes reasonably attributable to agency actions have, or 

are likely to have, a measureable negative effect to migratory bird populations, focusing first on species of 

concern, priority habitats, and key risk factors. With respect to those actions so identified, the agency 

shall develop and use principles, standards, and practices that lessen the amount of unintentional take, 

developing any such conservation efforts in cooperation with the FWS. 

The BGEPA prohibits knowingly taking, or taking with wanton disregard for the consequences of 

an activity, any bald or golden eagle or their body parts, nests, chicks or eggs, which includes collection, 

molestation, disturbance, or killing. The term “disturb” is defined as “to agitate or bother a bald or golden 

eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, (1) 

injury to an eagle, (2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering behavior, or (3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal 

breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior” (50 CFR 22.3 [72 FR 31132]). BGEPA protections include 

provisions not included in the MBTA such as the protection of unoccupied nests and the definition of take 

that includes the prohibition of disturbing eagles. 

In September 2009, the FWS finalized new regulations under the BGEPA to allow for the limited 

take of bald and golden eagles, or their nests, when the take is associated with otherwise lawful activities 

and the take would be compatible with the preservation of the bald eagle or the golden eagle (74 Federal 

Register 46835). The, final rule regarding take permits was published in the Federal Register on 

September 11, 2009 and outlines the types of permits, the permit application process, required 

monitoring, mitigations that may be required, and the application review process. Ruby is not 

anticipating the need for a take of bald or golden eagles and is not seeking seek a permit under these new 

regulations at this time. 

Although eagle foraging habitat is not specifically protected under the BGEPA, activities that 

disturb (50 CFR 22.3) foraging eagles are prohibited by the BGEPA. Eagles are particularly sensitive to 

disturbance when nesting and roosting. Activities involved in the construction, operation, and 

maintenance of the Ruby project may have the potential to result in the take of eagles (e.g., disturbance or 

killing). 

The 1988 amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act mandates that the FWS “identify 

species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory nongame birds that, without additional conservation 

actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.” As a 

result of this mandate, the FWS created the Birds of Conservation Concern list (FWS, 2008b). The goal 

of the Birds of Conservation Concern list is to prevent or remove the need for additional ESA bird listings 

by implementing proactive management and conservation actions and coordinating consultations in 

accordance with Executive Order 13186. 

Migratory raptor species in the project area are generally considered sensitive and in need of 

specialized protective measures. As such, FERC typically requires applicants to identify the location of 

raptor nests and commit to species-specific seasonal and/or spatial restrictions in order to minimize and 

avoid impacts on nesting raptors. Ruby reviewed numerous data sources and consulted with numerous 

resource agencies and conservation groups to obtain information on raptor species in the project area. 

Ruby conducted raptor surveys in 2008 within 0.5 mile of the outside edge of the proposed construction 

right-of-way along the entire pipeline route. Ruby conducted additional raptor surveys between April 15 

and June 15, 2009, within 1 mile of all project areas. A summary of documented raptor nests is provided 

in table 4.5.5-1. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-108 

TABLE 4.5.5-1 

Raptor Nests Identified Within 0.5 Mile of the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State Raptor Species No. Observed Active Nests No. Observed Inactive Nests 

Wyoming Burrowing Owl - - 

 Golden Eagle - - 

 Northern Harrier 1 - 

 Red-Tailed Hawk - - 

 Unknown Raptora - 6 

Utah American Kestrel - - 

 Bald Eagle - - 

 Burrowing Owl 1 - 

 Ferruginous Hawk - - 

 Golden Eagle - 3 

 Great Horned Owl - - 

 Northern Harrier - - 

 Prairie Falcon - - 

 Red-Tailed Hawk - 1 

 Swainson’s Hawk - - 

 Unknown Raptora 1 51 

Nevada American Kestrel - - 

 Burrowing Owl - 19 

 Cooper’s Hawk - - 

 Ferruginous Hawk - - 

 Golden Eagle 1 30 

 Great Horned Owl - - 

 Long-eared Owl - - 

 Northern Harrier - - 

 Prairie Falcon - - 

 Red-tailed Hawk 1 6 

 Short-eared Owl - - 

 Swainson’s Hawk - 1 

 Unknown Accipiter Speciesa - - 

 Unknown Buteo Speciesa - - 

 Unknown Owla - 1 

 Unknown Raptora - 279 

Oregon Bald Eagle - - 

 Great Horned Owl - - 

 Northern Goshawk - - 

 Osprey - - 

 Prairie Falcon - - 

 Red-Tailed Hawk - - 

 Unknown Raptora - 11 

California Red-tailed Hawk - - 

 Unknown Raptora 1 

────────────────────

a A nest is present but its location (i.e., tree cavity or rock cliff/cavity) or lack of raptor present during the survey make 

identification impractical. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-109 

Ruby has committed to completing aerial surveys within 1 mile of the pipeline corridor for active 

raptor nests prior to commencement of project activities, as raptors may change nesting locations from 

year to year. These surveys would enable Ruby to identify specific areas where construction may affect 

active nests (and, in the case of burrowing owls, cause direct impacts on nests and nesting habitat) and 

where buffer zones may be required. 

Ruby has stated it would adopt the seasonal and spatial restrictions outlined in the FWS’s Utah 

Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection from Human and Land Disturbances (2002) (see table 

4.5.5-2) , and would adhere to the most restrictive buffers of each state’s guidelines and guidance. The 

FWS would consider any request from Ruby regarding modifications to seasonal or spatial requirements 

on a case-by-case basis. Any modifications would be based on biological information collected by 

qualified personnel. Ruby would not be authorized to begin or continue with construction within seasonal 

restricted timeframes or spatial buffers without site-specific approval by local FWS personnel. Any such 

change to its proposal would require Ruby to file a request for the review and written approval of the 

Director of OEP. 

TABLE 4.5.5-2 

General Seasonal Restrictions and Spatial Buffers for Raptors Along the Ruby Pipeline Projecta

Species Spatial Buffer (miles) Seasonal Restriction 

Bald eagle 1.0 January 1 – August 31 

Golden eagle 0.75 January 1 – August 31 

Northern goshawk 0.75 March 1 – August 15 

Northern harrier 0.75 April 1 – August 15 

Cooper’s hawk 0.75 March 15 – August 31 

Ferruginous hawk 1.0 March 1 – August 1 

Red-tailed hawk 0.75 March 15 – August 15 

Sharp-shinned hawk 0.75 March 15 – August 31 

Swainson’s hawk 0.75 March 1 – August 31 

Turkey vulture 0.75 May 1 – August 15 

Peregrine falcon 1.0 February 1 – August 31 

Prairie falcon 0.75 April 1 – August 31 

Merlin 0.75 April 1 – August 31 

American kestrel 0.05 (300 feet) April 1 – August 15 

Osprey 0.75 April 1 – August 31 

Boreal owl 0.75 February 1 – July 31 

Burrowing owl 0.75 March 1 – August 31 

Flammulated owl 0.75 April 1 – September 30 

Great gray owl 0.25 March 1– June 30 

Great horned owl 0.75 December 1 – September 31 

Long-eared owl 0.75 February 1 – August 15 

Northern saw-whet owl 0.75 March 1 – August 31 

Short-eared owl 0.75 March 1 – August 1 

Mexican Spotted owl 0.75 March 1 – August 31 

Northern Pygmy owl 0.75 April 1 – August 1 

Western Screech owl 0.75 March 1 – August 15 

Barn-owl 0.25 February 1 – September 15 

──────────────────── 

a Seasonal and spatial restrictions may change based on site-specific criteria provided the BLM and state agencies. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-110 

The FWS has recommended that Ruby and the FERC work closely with the appropriate FWS 

representative when blasting is proposed within 1 mile of an eagle nest and 0.5 mile within any other 

known raptor nests. Ruby may be required to develop a site-specific blasting plan to avoid take under the 

MBTA and/or the BGEPA. Avoidance or minimization measures that may be recommended by the FWS 

include delaying blasting activities, buffering or muffling the blasting area, or some other measure to 

ensure compliance with the MBTA and/or BGEPA. 

The BLM has stated that certain spatial buffers outlined in various RMPs are different than those 

identified in table 4.5.5-2. For instance, the BLM’s Kemmerer District stated it would restrict 

construction activities between February 1 and July 31 within 0.75 mile of active raptor nests. The BLM 

has indicated it is coordinating with Ruby to determine appropriate spatial and seasonal buffers on BLMmanaged lands and would incorporate appropriate raptor protection measures into the POD and right-ofway grant. The BLM may consider modifications to seasonal or spatial guidelines on a case-by-case 

basis. 

Ruby conducted breeding bird surveys within the 300-foot survey corridor centered on the 

proposed pipeline route in the spring and summer of 2008. The survey was conducted along the entire 

pipeline route and identified 79 nests and 135 fledged young within the survey corridor. 

Ruby’s construction schedule would overlap with the nesting season for many migratory bird 

species in the project area. Thus, construction could cause direct and indirect impacts on migratory birds. 

Indirect impacts could be associated with increased human presence and noise from construction activity 

that are close enough to disturb actively nesting birds. We do not believe that such impacts would be 

significant for non-nesting birds, as these individuals would temporarily relocate to avoid construction 

activities. However, construction activity near active nests during incubation or brood rearing could 

result in nest abandonment; overheating, chilling, or desiccation of unattended eggs or young causing 

nestling mortality; premature fledging; and ejection of eggs or young from the nest. 

Ruby, in collaboration with the FWS, is preparing a Draft Conservation Agreement (Agreement) 

for the conservation of migratory bird species (Appendix M). The Agreement represents a voluntary, 

collaborative effort between Ruby and the FWS and is designed to include conservation measures that 

avoid and minimize potential adverse impacts on migratory birds and their habitats. The Agreement also 

provides a list of conservation options that the FWS and Ruby would consider as compensatory 

mitigation for loss of “habitat services” from the temporary and permanent loss of migratory bird habitat 

for development and operation of the project. The goal of this Agreement is to aid in the long-term 

conservation of migratory birds with active management of the species and the habitat upon which they 

depend. 

Ruby proposes to enter into the Agreement in order to coordinate and collaborate with the 

agencies regarding the implementation of effective conservation measures for migratory birds and their 

habitats within and in the vicinity of its proposed right-of-way. These conservation measures are further 

outlined in Ruby’s POD and provide additional conservation benefits that go beyond typical avoidance, 

minimization, and compensatory conservation measures. The decision for a company to enter into such a 

conservation measure agreement is voluntary but recommended by the FWS. Ruby has filed (and thus 

has committed to implementing) measures that (1) are technically and economically feasible; (2) would 

provide benefits to migratory birds within the project area (as defined in this final EIS); and (3) would 

avoid, minimize, or address direct and indirect impacts of the project on migratory birds and their habitat. 

Examples of conservation include: (1) avoidance and minimization measures; (2) implementation of 

timing and spatial buffers for raptors, including bald and golden eagles; (3) monitoring and postconstruction activities; and (4) habitat conservation measures. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-111 

According to the BLM, a Habitat Equivalency Analysis approach was used to determine 

appropriate compensation ratios and acreages for the loss of migratory bird habitat resulting from direct, 

indirect, and residual project impacts. Habitat Equivalency Analyses quantify interim and permanent 

habitat injuries measured as a loss of habitat services from predisturbance conditions, and scaling 

compensatory habitat requirements to those injuries (King 1997; Dunford et al., 2004; Allen et al., 2005; 

Kohler and Dodge, 2006; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2006; 2009). Habitat 

services are generally defined by metrics that represent the functionality of that habitat (i.e., the ability of 

that habitat to provide “services” such as nest sites, prey populations, and cover from predators). 

Interim habitat injuries are those habitat services absent during disturbance and during vegetation 

restoration that would have been available if that disturbance had not occurred (direct, indirect, and 

residual impacts). Permanent habitat injuries are those habitat injuries remaining after vegetation 

recovery is complete (residual impacts). The objective of a Habitat Equivalency Analysis is to replace 

lost services with like services, providing replacement for the interim and permanent injury caused by the 

project. The Habitat Equivalency Analysis methodology employed for the Agreement and used in the 

analysis is provided in Appendix M. 

According to the BLM, approximately 19,108 acres of migratory bird habitat would be directly 

impacted by pipeline construction activities. Of this, 1,485 acres (7.8 percent) would occur in Wyoming; 

5,061 acres (26.5 percent) would occur in Utah; 10,042 acres (52.5 percent) would occur in Nevada; and 

2,520 acres (13.2 percent) would occur in Oregon. Of the 19,108 acres of direct project impacts, 11,151 

acres (58.4 percent) would occur in sagebrush steppe and associated ecosystems and are addressed as part 

of sections 4.7.3.1 and 4.7.3.3 because migratory birds associated with the sage-steppe ecosystem would 

benefit from conservation measures targeted toward greater sage-grouse and pygmy rabbits. 

According to the BLM, the Habitat Equivalency Analysis quantified the compensation acreages 

necessary to mitigate and offset the direct impacts associated with the disturbance of the 7,957 acres not 

considered as part of the greater sage-grouse and pygmy rabbit conservation plan. It also considered the 

indirect impact on migratory bird habitat functionality that would occur as a result of noise and dust 

impacts on migratory bird habitats immediately adjacent to project construction areas, as well as the 

fragmentation of habitats that would result from pipeline and road construction. Residual impacts 

associated with permanent loss of migratory bird habitat and the 5- to 100-year duration of some 

vegetation restoration activities were also factors in the Habitat Equivalency Analysis for migratory birds. 

Results of the Habitat Equivalency Analysis indicate that 2,647 acres of migratory bird habitat of similar 

quality to that impacted would need to be purchased, enhanced, or created to offset the indirect and 

residual effects that would not be fully mitigated by vegetation restoration activities in areas disturbed by 

the project (table 4.5.5-3). More than 69 percent of the acreage would be necessary for replacement of 

the long-term loss of deciduous forest in Utah and coniferous forest in Oregon. The 2,647 acres would be 

in addition to the restored project right-of-way and associated temporary infrastructure (temporary access 

roads, storage yards, etc.). 

We note that Executive Order 13186 requires federal agencies to avoid or minimize negative 

impacts on migratory bird populations. The Executive Order also requires federal agencies to identify 

where unintentional “take” is likely to have a measurable negative effect to migratory bird populations. 

Effects to non-special status bird species (which do not have significantly reduced populations) would not 

result in long-term or significant population level effect, given the stability of local populations and the 

abundance of available habitat outside the proposed right-of-way and the linear nature of the project over 

a large geographic range. The FWS has indicated that negative population-level impacts on bird species 

of conservation concern could occur from habitat removal and clearing during the critical nesting period; 

however, the FWS has not identified any specific species for which it believes a population-level impact 

could result from pipeline construction. The FWS has commented that the MBTA applies to all 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-112 

migratory birds and nests. We believe that the project would not result in population-level impacts on 

migratory bird species, but acknowledge that pipeline construction during the migratory bird breeding 

season could impact individual birds and/or nests, and have a greater impact on birds of conservation 

concern due to their limited populations in the area. However, we also believe that Ruby’s continuing 

coordination with the FWS to develop plans and procedures whereby pipeline construction could occur 

during the migratory bird nesting season, and especially development of the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Agreement, represents a good-faith effort to avoid or minimize impacts on migratory birds. Ruby, under 

encouragement from FERC, is fulfilling the responsibilities outlined in Executive Order 13186 by 

developing principles, standards, and practices that would lessen the amount of unintentional take, and is 

developing these conservation efforts in cooperation with the FWS. 

TABLE 4.5.5-3 

Acres Required by States to Compensate for the Direct, Indirect, and Residual Impacts on Migratory Bird Habitat 

Associated with Construction of the Ruby Pipeline Projecta

Vegetation Type 

State 

Wyoming 

(acres) 

Utah 

(acres) 

Nevada 

(acres) 

Oregon 

(acres) 

Total 

(acres) 

Agricultural and Developed 1.3 57.6 11.3 18.3 88.4 

Conifer Forest 2.7 16.4 1.9 1344.4 1365.4 

Deciduous Forest 1.7 465.1 66.6 34.1 567.5 

Mixed Deciduous Conifer Forest 0.0 19.9 0.0 0.0 19.9 

Pinyon-Juniper Woodland 0.4 193.4 164.9 246.8 605.5 

Total 6.1 752.3 244.7 1643.6 2646.6 

────────────────────

a This dara was provided by the BLM. 

If the conservation plans in Appendix M are implemented, then direct, indirect, and residual 

impacts would be appropriately mitigated. To ensure that the necessary projects to fully offset impacts 

are funded, Ruby has committed dedicated funding for the purposes of completing migratory bird 

conservation measures identified in the migratory bird plan in Appendix M. 

4.5.6 Special Wildlife Areas 

The proposed project would cross or is in close proximity to a colonial wading bird nesting area 

near Goose Lake, Oregon (MPs R618 to R620). Ruby has adopted the Bud Garrett Marsh Rookery Route 

Variation to avoid the wading bird nesting area (see section 3.5.16). The ODFW has endorsed the 

variation, but has requested that no construction occur within 1,200 feet of the Bud Garrett marsh from 

May 1 to July 15. The route variation is located a minimum 1,200 feet from the marsh; therefore, a 

construction timing restriction is not required. 

4.5.7 Wild Horses and Burros 

The BLM and USFS protect, manage, and control wild horses and burros under the authority of 

the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 (WHBA) to ensure that healthy herds thrive on 

healthy rangelands. Under the WHBA, the BLM is required to manage wild horses and burros in those 

specific areas (herd areas) where they were found when the WHBA was passed in 1971. Some wild 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-113 

horses and burros are also present on the Sheldon NWR; however, the WHBA does not apply on the 

Sheldon NWR. Instead, the Sheldon NWR manages resident feral horses and burros through its own 

horse and burro management program under the direction of the NWR System Administration Act. 

Through land use planning, the BLM also evaluates each herd area to determine if it has adequate food, 

water, cover, and space to sustain healthy and diverse wild horse and burro populations over the longterm. Herd areas which meet these criteria are then designated as Herd Management Areas (HMAs). The 

BLM also evaluates each HMA to determine how much forage is available for use. The available forage 

is then allocated among wildlife, wild horses and burros, and domestic livestock. 

The BLM estimates that approximately 33,100 wild horses and 3,800 wild burros are roaming on 

BLM-managed rangelands in 10 western states, based on the latest data available (compiled as of 

February 28, 2009). The number of horses and burros that can graze without causing damage to the range 

is called the Appropriate Management Level (AML); the AML for the western states area is 

approximately 26,600 horses and burros (BLM, 2009a). The BLM has determined that the estimated 

current free-roaming population of wild horses and burros exceeds the AML that can exist in balance with 

other public rangeland resources and uses by about 10,300 animals. 

To help bring herd populations into balance with rangeland conditions and the AML, the BLM 

gathers wild horses and burros from public rangelands each year and offers them for adoption or sale to 

individuals and groups willing and able to provide humane, long-term care. Further, the Secretary of the 

Interior recently announced a proposal for a new wild horse and burro management program whereby the 

BLM would establish new wild horse preserves across the nation, especially on the productive grasslands 

of the Midwest and East, and begin applying new strategies aimed at slowing population growth rates on 

Western public rangelands (BLM, 2009b). 

Ruby’s proposed route crosses five HMAs south and west of the Sheldon NWR in Humboldt and 

Washoe counties, Nevada. Table 4.5.7-1 lists the size of each of the HMAs crossed by the project and the 

associated AML (BLM, 2009a). Two of these HMAs, Black Rock Range West and Warm Springs 

Canyon, are in the BLM Winnemucca Field Office resource management area, while the Wall Canyon, 

Nut Mountain, and Massacre Lakes HMAs are in the BLM Surprise Field Office resource management 

area. The five HMAs crossed by the project comprise approximately 35 total miles of HMA land (BLM, 

2009a). 

TABLE 4.5.7-1 

BLM Horse Management Areas Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

HMA Name Entire HMA Area (acres) AML 

Black Rock Range West 93,000 56 – 93 

Warm Springs Canyon 83,000 119 – 199 

Wall Canyon 42,000 15 – 25 

Nut Mountain 40,500 30 – 55 

Massacre Lakes 40,000 25 – 35 

Total 298,500 245 – 407 

While the proposed pipeline route crosses the southern portion of the Massacre Lake HMA, 

impacts on this herd are expected to be low as current census and distribution information indicates that 

the wild horses and burros typically do not use this portion of the HMA. The BLM has expressed 

concern regarding the impact of construction on restricting wild horse and burro access to important water 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-114 

sources as water source access points are located north and south of the proposed route as it crosses the 

other four affected HMAs. Construction of the pipeline could affect wild horses and burros by restricting 

access to water sources; restricting movement within the HMA thereby reducing the availability of forage 

and sanctuary or the ability to escape areas of human disturbance; and displacing horses and burros, 

which could intensify their impacts on other areas. 

The BLM would require, as part of its right-of-way grant, that Ruby implement mitigation 

techniques to ensure water supplies are available to wild horses and burros during construction. The 

BLM has identified four perennial, four intermittent, and one mechanical water source within 1.5 miles of 

the proposed pipeline route within the Winnemucca Field Office resource management area HMAs, and 

eight perennial water sources in the Surprise Field Office resource management area HMAs. Wild horses 

would be temporarily displaced by construction activities and they would have to move around and/or 

across the proposed construction areas to utilize these water sources. Water conditions vary seasonally 

and annually, but impacts on wild horse and burro access to water sources would likely be greatest during 

summer and fall months. Water may need to be hauled-in during the construction phase of the project to 

mitigate the project’s effects to wild horses and burros, and water hauling sites would need to be 

predetermined so that water could be made available to the horses if the need arises. 

Ruby has committed to installing soft plugs in the pipeline trench/crossovers (i.e., gaps in the 

trench, spoil piles, and pre-welded pipe sections) every 0.5 mile or less when the route crosses agencydefined migration corridors and when water sources are present within 1,200 feet of the right-of-way. If 

pipeline construction comes within 0.25 mile of an existing water source or impedes access to a nearby 

water source, and if Ruby sees evidence that wild horses and burros are not crossing at installed soft plugs 

or crossovers, Ruby would locate temporary water supplies 0.5 mile outside of the construction area for 

wild horse and burro use. The BLM would require, as part of its right-of-way grant, that Ruby identify 

where supplemental water supplies may be necessary for wild horses and burros. Ruby also would be 

required to establish crossovers at well-defined trails, existing roadways, and other locations where the 

BLM expects wild horse and burro movement. Ruby would leave major horse trails across trenches intact 

as long as possible so as to minimize access impacts on forage areas and minimize loss of movement to 

habitat. Ruby also would install crossovers at existing fences within grazing allotments. These 

mitigation measures would minimize impacts on wild horses and burros. 

The FWS has expressed concern that certain measures proposed by Ruby (i.e., facilitation of 

horse and burro movement around construction areas, fence line manipulation, and opening of gates for 

construction activities) could result in additional wild horses or burros entering the Sheldon NWR. The 

FWS could then be required to increase its expenditures to manage the wild horse and burro populations, 

which could detract from the funds necessary to manage other NWR resources. Ruby has committed to 

coordinating with the Sheldon NWR to implement and maintain access restriction controls to prohibit the 

migration of wild horses and burros onto the Sheldon NWR. Ruby would coordinate with the FWS to 

repair or replace any cattle guards on the Sheldon NWR damaged by construction, and install new 

fencing, gates, or cattle guards at key areas. Finally, Ruby would erect fences to restrict animal 

movement out of the HMAs. 

Construction of the pipeline could also affect wild horses and burros by creating safety hazards 

for the animals due to open trenches or vehicle collisions and increasing the likelihood of harassment. 

The BLM would require, as part of its right-of-way grant, that Ruby minimize the amount of time that the 

trench is open to decrease the potential for wild horse and burro entrapment, and also would install exit 

ramps every 0.5 mile in trenches within HMAs to facilitate escape for animals that enter the trench. Ruby 

also has stated that it would educate construction personal regarding the federal protection status of wild 

horses and burros and the penalties associated with their harassment. Ruby would post warning signs on 

access roads in areas known to have wild horses and burros to warn construction workers and to help 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-115 

minimize the risk of accidental vehicle/animal collisions. Finally, the BLM would require that Ruby 

contact the BLM immediately should wild horses or burros be injured during project activities to 

determine a proper course of action for compliance with the WHBA. 

As with livestock grazing impacts on restored construction areas, wild horses and burros could be 

attracted to the new plant growth in reclaimed areas, and their grazing could affect the seeding success 

and recovery of right-of-way vegetation. Ruby has committed to working with the BLM to limit wild 

horse and burro grazing along the reclaimed right-of-way for 3 years following construction by providing 

water sources away from the right-of-way, including low-palatable plant species (such as sagebrush) in 

the seed mix, placing temporary fencing, and/or reducing wild horse and burro populations in appropriate 

HMAs. Any efforts to reduce wild horse and burro populations would be done in consultation with the 

BLM and in accordance with BLM policies. 

4.5.8 Non-Jurisdictional Electric Power Lines 

Wildlife species present along the Rocky Mountain Power and Harney Electric Cooperative 

electric transmission and distribution line routes would be similar to those species found on the nearby 

pipeline route. Wildlife species moving through the area would be temporarily impacted by the noise and 

human activity associated with construction of the lines, and would disturbed and displaced for the 

duration of active construction. Some less mobile species occurring in the construction corridor could be 

directly impacted, and movements between habitat areas could be temporarily impeded due to noise and 

human presence. Additional temporary disturbances could occur during future maintenance activities 

along the lines. Wildlife impacts due to the proposed work would be temporary and minor. 

Establishment of new electric power lines could increase impacts on birds as a result of 

electrocution and collision with wires and pylons. The FWS and BLM recommend that electric power 

lines be constructed in accordance with Edison Electric Institute’s Suggested Practices for Raptor 

Protection on Power Lines – The State of the Art to minimize impacts on birds (Edison Electric Institute, 

2006). Rocky Mountain Power is proposing to equip each pole with raptor anti-perching devices as well 

as conform to the standards as outlined in the Suggested Practices publication. We do not know if 

Harney Electric Cooperative is proposing to use anti-perching devices or to conform to the Edison 

Electric Institute’s standards. 

4.6 FISHERIES AND AQUATIC RESOURCES 

4.6.1 General Fisheries and Aquatic Resources 

The Ruby Pipeline Project would cross 167 different waterbodies that support fish species. 

Waterbodies known to contain fish species and their associated management classifications are presented 

in Appendix Q. A total of 83 waterbodies are known or suspected to contain federally or state-listed 

special status species. Special status species are discussed in section 4.7. The remaining waterbodies that 

would be crossed by the project are not expected to contain fish species but could support some aquatic 

invertebrates. 

There are no surface waters within or immediately adjacent to the boundaries of aboveground 

facility sites or the Lakeview Temporary Housing Facility; thus, no fishery resources or other aquatic 

resources would be affected by the construction or operation of these facilities. An ephemeral stream is 

within the Vya Construction Camp site; however, it does not support aquatic resources. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-116 

Representative coldwater fish species that occupy waterbodies crossed by the proposed project 

include brook trout, brown trout, rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, redband trout, mountain whitefish, 

longnose dace, and speckled dace. Representative warmwater fish species include bass, walleye, perch, 

crappie, bullhead, green sunfish, suckers, chubs, carp, shiners, dace, tui chub, lamprey, and sculpin. 

No waterbodies crossed by the project contain or have the potential to contain anadromous 

species or species managed by the National Marine Fisheries Service, nor do they support essential fish 

habitat as defined under the MSFCMA (Public Law 94-265 as amended through October 11, 1996). 

Therefore, no essential fish habitat would be affected by the proposed project. 

Construction of the project could result in impacts on waterbodies and fisheries from 

sedimentation and turbidity, habitat alteration, stream bank erosion, fuel and chemical spills, water 

depletions, entrainment or entrapment due to water withdrawals or construction crossing operations, 

blasting, and operational pipeline failure. The extent of impact on aquatic resources from pipeline 

construction would depend on the waterbody crossing method, the existing conditions at each crossing 

location, the restoration procedures and mitigation measures employed, and the timing of construction. 

Impacts could either be short-term or long-term. Most short-term impacts would be associated with the 

immediate crossing activity itself (e.g., trenching and laying of the pipe and substrate sediment being 

redeposited downstream) and would dissipate within a few days of the crossing being completed. Other 

short-term impacts could last from the initiation of construction up to 3 years after construction ends, as 

streambank restoration efforts become established. Long-term degradation of habitats could occur if 

stream contours are modified in the area of the crossing (effectively changing the flow patterns) and if 

erosion of the bed or banks introduces sediment that becomes deposited in the stream. However, with 

appropriate restoration and monitoring we do not expect long-term impacts on aquatic organisms. 

4.6.1.1 Sediment and Turbidity 

Pipeline construction through flowing waterbodies could increase sediment loads and 

downstream turbidity during construction. Open-cut construction (see section 2.3.2.2 for a discussion of 

waterbody crossing techniques) produces the highest downstream sediment loads of any standard 

construction technique (Mutrie and Scott, 1984; Reid and Anderson, 1999; Reid et al., 2004). The 

amount of sediment produced by open cutting depends on multiple characteristics at the construction site 

including depth and width of the waterbody, current velocity and local turbulence at the site, 

concentrations of suspended sediment initially at the site and at some distance downstream, particle 

diameter, specific weight, and settling velocity of the excavated and backfilled materials (Reid et al.,

2004). However, an open-cut crossing is typically the quickest crossing method. Ruby would complete 

in-stream, open-cut construction activities within 24 hours for minor waterbodies (less than 10 feet wide) 

and within 48 hours for intermediate waterbodies (10 to 100 feet wide), except for blasting and other 

rock-breaking measures which would not be limited to these timeframes. Minimizing the time required 

for in-stream activities is a very important factor in reducing construction-related sedimentation and 

turbidity and overall in-water impacts. 

Dry-ditch crossings, such as the dam-and-pump or flume methods, would be used at several 

stream crossings, especially those that contain special status species. Sedimentation and turbidity impacts 

associated with dry-ditch methods are generally limited to: 1) installation and removal of the upstream 

and downstream dams used to isolate the construction area; 2) water leaking through the upstream dam 

and collecting sediment as it flows across the work area and continues through the downstream dam; 3) 

movement of in-stream rocks and boulders to allow proper alignment and installation of the flume and 

dams; and 4) when streamflow is returned to the construction work area after the crossing is complete and 

the dams and flume are removed. Both dry-ditch crossing methods produce much less sediment in the 

water than a traditional “wet” open-cut method (Reid and Anderson, 1999; Reid et al., 2002; Reid et al.,

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-117 

2004). Dry methods have been reported to produce at least seven times less suspended sediment in 

streams than wet methods (Reid et al., 2002). 

Increased sediment loads associated with high turbidity can affect fish behavior and physiological 

processes such as blood chemistry, gill trauma, and immune system resistance, all of which can result in 

fish mortality. Sediment stirred into the water column can be redeposited on downstream substrates and 

could bury aquatic macro-invertebrates and other fish food sources. Additionally, downstream 

sedimentation could affect spawning habitat, spawning activities, eggs, larvae, and juvenile fish survival, 

as well as benthic community diversity and health. The duration of these effects would usually be 

relatively short as the effects of increased sedimentation and turbidity are often limited to the period of instream work. However, specific site characteristics including flow, substrate composition, relative 

disturbance, and other factors could make the duration of construction effects last longer. For example, 

rapid recolonization of benthic organisms has been documented within 30 days following pipeline 

construction (Gartman, 1984). Pipeline stream crossings in coldwater streams have documented a return 

to preconstruction conditions 2 to 4 years after construction (Blais and Simpson, 1997). 

Ruby would minimize sedimentation and turbidity impacts on surface waters and aquatic 

resources by implementing the waterbody crossing and erosion and sediment control measures in its 

Procedures (Appendix G). Construction across waterbodies would be completed as quickly as possible to 

shorten the duration of sedimentation and turbidity. Ruby would stabilize the construction site, including 

the streambanks, immediately following installation of the pipeline. Ruby would also install and maintain 

sediment barriers (e.g., silt fence, straw/hay bales) throughout construction to prevent sedimentation from 

surface run-off from entering waterbodies. Ruby would employ site stabilization measures in accordance 

with its Procedures and permit conditions in the event that circumstances required a construction delay. 

4.6.1.2 Timing of Construction 

The degree of impacts on aquatic resources associated with construction activities would depend 

on the timing and duration of in-water construction. Construction during periods of special status fish 

activity (i.e., spawning, juvenile and adult rearing, and migration) could have a greater impact on fish 

than construction during other periods. Ruby would adhere to the in-water work windows in table 2.3.2-1 

to minimize impacts on fish. Ruby has stated that some streams may need to be crossed outside of the 

referenced construction windows. Because the construction windows were intended to minimize effects 

of stream disturbance when the most sensitive fish life stages are present, the potential for adverse effects 

to these resources would increase if construction occurred outside the recommended windows. Ruby 

stated it would consult with appropriate state and federal resource agencies to obtain clear, written 

authorization should Ruby believe construction is necessary outside the established construction windows 

(see Appendix M, Draft Biological Resources Conservation Measures Plan). This is consistent with 

Ruby’s Procedures and our guidance. 

4.6.1.3 Vegetation Removal and Streambank Erosion 

The clearing and grading of vegetation during construction could increase erosion along 

streambanks and increase turbidity levels in the waterbodies. Clearing and grading would adversely 

affect the beneficial functions and services of riparian and upland vegetation, especially to riparian and 

aquatic species. The degree of impact on aquatic organisms from erosion would depend on sediment 

loads, stream velocity, turbulence, streambank composition, and sediment particle size. Long-term 

degradation of habitats could occur if the stream contours are modified in the area of the crossing, the 

flow patterns are changed, or if erosion of the bed, banks, or adjacent upland areas introduces sediment 

into the waterbody beyond the temporary short-term construction stabilization period. Loss of riparian 

vegetation along the banks would reduce shade (potentially increasing water temperatures), remove an 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-118 

important source of terrestrial food for aquatic organisms, and decrease existing root stock used to 

stabilize waterbody banks. Additionally, the removal of boulders, woody debris, streambank vegetation, 

and undercut banks could temporarily displace fish that utilize these features for cover, nesting, and 

feeding. 

Where necessary, Ruby would grade an approach across the entire construction workspace at 

intermittent and dry waterbodies to the flow line of the stream where steep or cut banks exist. Ruby 

would grade a 50- to 60-foot-wide approach on the working side of the construction workspace at 

perennial waterbodies to the flow line of the stream where steep or cut banks exist. Ruby would then 

install temporary equipment bridges, mats, and pads across waterbodies less than 25 feet wide to support 

equipment that must cross the waterbody. Ruby also would limit construction equipment working in 

waterbodies greater than 25 feet wide that do not contain special status species as specified in its 

Procedures. 

Ruby would cut most trees near the bank at ground level to aid in maintaining bank stability, 

except those trees in the trench line. Roots would be removed over the trench line or from any steam 

banks that would need to be cut down or graded to accomplish the pipeline crossing. 

Ruby would install sediment barriers, such as silt fence and straw/hay bales, across the right-ofway at the edge of waterbodies throughout construction except for short periods when the removal of 

these sediment barriers is necessary to dig the trench, install the pipe, pass vehicles, and/or restore the 

right-of-way. Ruby would locate temporary extra workspaces at least 50 feet from the edge of flowing 

waterbodies, except where a site-specific variance has been granted, and would limit clearing of 

vegetation between temporary extra workspaces and the edge of the waterbody to the construction rightof-way. We have recommended in section 4.4.3 that Ruby limit its right-of-way width to 75 feet; replant 

woody riparian vegetation; and monitor the success of restored woody riparian habitats for a minimum of 

5 years. Ruby would immediately stabilize the construction site, including stream banks, following 

completion of construction. If circumstances required a construction delay Ruby would employ site 

stabilization measures in accordance with its Procedures and other permit conditions. A detailed 

description of Ruby’s proposed waterbody mitigation is provided in section 4.3.2.4. Ruby would be 

required to monitor and restore all disturbed areas until restoration and revegetation is deemed successful. 

4.6.1.4 Contaminated Sediment Resuspension 

As indicated in table 4.3.2-5 in section 4.3.2.1, Twelvemile Creek, Twentymile Creek, and 

Thomas Creek could have the potential to contain contaminated sediments. Ruby has proposed to use a 

dry-ditch crossing method in these three waterbodies to limit in-stream activity and therefore minimize 

resuspension of any potentially contaminated sediment. Ruby states it would stockpile excavated material 

in adjacent upland extra workspace, install erosion control devices to minimize or eliminate spoil from 

entering the waterbodies, and return the streambed profiles to preconstruction conditions. Ruby would 

incorporate any special COE or state conditions and adhere to all permit stipulations when handling 

potentially contaminated sediments. 

4.6.1.5 Entrainment and Entrapment 

Dry-ditch crossing methods that involve a dam and pump may result in some fish being trapped 

between the upstream and downstream dams of the waterbody crossing. Ruby states it would utilize an 

experienced biologist qualified in fish capture and release techniques to relocate any fish trapped within 

the isolated work area along the entire project. Ruby would contact the ODFW at least 48 hours prior to 

stream crossing construction in Oregon to allow the ODFW to conduct fish salvage operations at 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-119 

waterbody crossings in Oregon. Ruby has stated it would submit fish passage plans to the ODFW for 

review and approval. 

Some small fish, larvae, and fish eggs could be entrained by water pumps during the dam-andpump process or during water withdrawals for hydrostatic testing and dust control. Larger fish should be 

able to avoid entrainment and would likely avoid the project area during these activities. Ruby would 

minimize these potential effects by adhering to measures in its Procedures (Appendix F) and Hydrostatic 

Test Plan (Appendix K). These plans include screening criteria for intake hoses, details on locating pump 

intakes to minimize entrainment, and regulation of the pumping rate to avoid adverse impacts on aquatic 

resources or downstream flows. Ruby would acquire the necessary permits and approvals from state and 

federal agencies before withdrawing hydrostatic test water. Impacts would further be minimized by 

adhering to in-water work windows when few fish and larvae would be present. 

Ruby states that it would comply with fish screening criteria established by the ODFW and that 

0.25-inch fish screens would be used on pump intakes. However, the ODFW has commented that this 

screen size is not consistent with ODFW screening criteria. Ruby would be required to coordinate with 

the ODFW to ensure that its proposed fish screening plan complies with ODFW requirements. 

4.6.1.6 Water Temperature 

Vegetation cover that provides shade, especially during summer, is one factor that regulates 

stream temperatures (WDNR, 1997). Construction across waterbodies would necessitate removal of trees 

and riparian shrubs at the crossing locations. Review of available information on the effects of pipeline 

construction in other regions to water temperature reveals that pipeline construction activities would 

result in little to no measurable change in water temperature. The total width of riparian area affected by 

shade tree removal would be small (approximately 75 feet) relative to the length of any stream crossed. 

In one study, construction across two coldwater, fish-bearing streams in Alberta required removal of 

forested riparian vegetation. Water temperatures at construction sites and downstream did not increase 

above temperatures at control sites upstream from construction (Brown et al., 2002). Similarly, water 

temperatures measured at four coldwater streams in New York before and during pipeline construction 

and for 3 years following construction showed no short-term or long-term effects to water quality 

parameters, including water temperature, even though streambank vegetation was cleared (Blais and 

Simpson, 1997). 

The studies by Brown, et al., and Blais and Simpson, even if not conducted in the Pacific 

Northwest, have determined that no measurable change in water temperature is observed as a result of 

construction activities. We also discuss how operation of the pipeline could potentially impact stream 

temperatures in section 4.3.2.4, and conclude that the amount of heat transfer from the pipeline to a 

surface water would be minimal and would not noticeably increase water temperatures. We conclude that 

any changes in water temperature related to vegetation clearing and operation of the pipeline at waterbody 

crossings are likely very small and undetectable, and would not have an ecological impact. 

4.6.1.7 Blasting Impacts on Fisheries and Aquatic Resources 

Explosives detonated near water produce shock waves that can be lethal to fish, eggs, larvae, and 

other aquatic species by rupturing swim bladders and addling egg sacs (British Columbia Ministry of 

Transportation, 2000). Shock waves propagated from ground to water are less lethal to fish than in-water 

explosions as some energy is reflected or lost at the ground-water interface (Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game, 1991). 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-120 

As stated in section 4.1.1.1, blasting may occur at certain locations between MP 57.5 and the 

terminus of the project near Malin, Oregon. Several waterbodies along that portion of the pipeline route 

have the potential to support special status fish species (see Appendix Q). The best way to reduce or 

eliminate blasting effects to fish when blasting is required is to keep fish out of regions where pressure 

waves could be harmful. Several techniques have been implemented during similar pipeline construction 

projects to remove fish from the construction area or reduce the effect of blasting on fish, including strobe 

lighting, low frequency sound (e.g., pneumatic propellers), fishpulsers, scare charges, and bubble curtains. 

Proper use of these techniques could significantly reduce the number of fish in the blasting area. We 

recommended in the draft EIS that Ruby implement one or more of these practices before blasting in a 

waterbody with special status fish. The FWS subsequently indicated that some of these practices (e.g., 

scare charges and bubble curtains) could harm or harass fish and result in a violation of the ESA or other 

laws designed to protect special status fish species. Therefore, we recommend that Ruby coordinate 

with the FWS, NDOW, and ODFW to determine if and how fish deterrence practices would be 

implemented before blasting takes place in any waterbody that has the potential to contain special 

status fish species as identified in section 4.7 of this EIS. Ruby should file the results of its 

consultations with these agencies prior to crossing the affected waterbody.

4.6.1.8 Hydrostatic Testing and Water Withdrawals 

Ruby indicated it would require about 28,988,784 gallons (89 acre-feet) of surface water for dust 

control and hydrostatic testing of the pipeline, and may use up to 51,506,417 gallons (158 acre-feet), 

pending approval from the Bear River Canal Company (see section 4.3.2.5). The appropriation of surface 

waters could impact aquatic resources if the diversions constitute a large percentage of the river’s total 

flow or volume. These impacts could include the temporary loss of habitat, changes in water temperature 

and dissolved oxygen levels, and entrainment or impingement of fish or other aquatic organisms. The 

discharge of large volumes of hydrostatic test water could result in a change in water temperature and 

dissolved oxygen levels, cause an increase in downstream flows, and contribute to streambank and 

substrate scour. Several commenters have also expressed concern that discharging hydrostatic test water 

to different water basins could potentially transfer nuisance exotic organisms between basins. The 

transfer of water between water basins is discussed in section 4.6.2. 

The potential effects of water withdrawals would be minimized by adhering to the measures in 

Ruby’s Procedures and Hydrostatic Test Plan. These measures include: screening intake hoses to prevent 

the entrainment of fish and other aquatic organisms as previously discussed; positioning water intakes in 

the upper level of the water column to minimize entrainment of fish, larvae, and eggs; placing water 

pumps in containment devices to minimize the potential for fuel spills or leaks; and limiting water 

withdrawals to rates less than 2,500 gpm and rates that would be less than 10 percent of a river’s flow at 

the time of water withdrawal (see section 4.3.2.5). 

The Hams Fork River is the only hydrostatic test water source known to contain special status 

species. The FWS has stated that water withdrawals (depletions) from the Hams Fork River, which is 

located within the Colorado River system, may adversely affect the bonytail chub, Colorado pikeminnow, 

razorback sucker, and humpback chub. Impacts on these species and other federally listed species, 

including potential depletion impacts, are discussed in section 4.7. 

All surface water used for hydrostatic testing would be discharged within the same 8-digit HUC 

watershed from which it was withdrawn. This would prevent the inadvertent transfer of pathogens or 

NAS between watersheds. Ruby would use industry-accepted and agency-approved biocides to 

appropriately treat test water for pathogens and NAS if the source water is known to contain pathogens or 

NAS and the discharge has the potential to reach other surface waters not known to contain similar 

pathogens or NAS (see section 4.3.2.5). Ruby would discharge the test water to upland areas and 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-121 

sediment filtration/energy dissipation devices as described in section 4.3.2.5. No impacts on aquatic 

resources are anticipated from the discharge of hydrostatic test waters. 

4.6.1.9 Fuel and Chemical Spills 

Any large construction project presents the potential for spills of fuel or other hazardous liquids 

from storage containers, equipment working in or near streams, and fuel transfers. Any spill of fuel or 

other hazardous liquid that reaches a waterbody would be detrimental to water quality. The chemicals 

released during spills could have acute, direct effects to fish, or could have indirect effects such as altered 

behavior, changes in physiological processes, or changes in food sources. Fish also could be killed if a 

large volume of hazardous liquid is spilled into a waterbody. Ingestion of large numbers of contaminated 

fish could affect primary and secondary fish predators in the food chain. 

Ruby would implement its Spill Plan (Appendix J) to minimize impacts related to spills. The 

Spill Plan specifies preventive measures such as personnel training, equipment inspection, and refueling 

procedures to reduce the likelihood of spills, as well as mitigation measures such as containment and 

cleanup to minimize potential impacts should a spill occur. Adherence to the Spill Plan would prevent a 

large spill from occurring near surface waters because construction equipment fueling would be 

prohibited within 100 feet of the waterbody banks, and hazardous material storage would be prohibited 

within 100 feet of waterbodies. Ruby has agreed to a 500-foot setback where required by the BLM on 

federal lands. The BLM has indicated that it would require a 500-foot setback at most waterbodies on 

BLM-managed lands. If a small spill were to occur, adherence to measures in the Spill Plan would 

decrease the response time for control and cleanup, thus avoiding or minimizing the effects of a spill on 

aquatic resources. Training and lines of communication to facilitate the prevention, response, 

containment, and cleanup of spills during construction activities also are described in the Spill Plan. 

Ruby’s implementation of its Spill Plan would minimize the potential for and the impact of any spill near 

surface water on aquatic resources. 

4.6.1.10 Pipeline Rupture 

The pipeline would be designed, installed, tested, and maintained such that the chance of a 

pipeline rupture would be extremely remote (see section 4.12). However, if a pipeline rupture were to 

occur beneath a waterbody crossing, natural gas would percolate through the soil and sediments 

underlying the stream, rise through the water column of the stream, and rapidly dissipate into the 

atmosphere. The potential outcome would depend on the volume of natural gas released and whether an 

ignition source is available. A pipeline break could result in soil, sediment, and debris being thrown from 

the area of the break, destruction of streambank vegetation, and, in the case of ignition, explosion, or fire 

potentially resulting in a severe impact on nearby fisheries and habitat. For a less severe release, natural 

gas would displace oxygen within the interstitial water of the sediments, resulting in temporary hypoxia 

within the sediments. As natural gas ascended through the water column, it would displace oxygen, 

possibly producing hypoxic conditions in the immediate vicinity of the release and for some distance 

downstream. Fish in the vicinity of a natural gas release could be impacted by temporary hypoxia. 

Considering the narrow width of the majority of the waterbodies that would be crossed and their relatively 

shallow depth, most of the natural gas would be rapidly released to the atmosphere, and any change in 

water chemistry or quality would be minor. Because fish are mobile, most would have the ability to avoid 

or leave the areas with unfavorable environmental conditions resulting from such a release. We believe 

the chance for a pipeline rupture to affect aquatic resources is extremely remote. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-122 

4.6.2 Aquatic Pathogens and Nonnative Aquatic Species 

The project would have the potential to spread invasive aquatic organisms, such as the New 

Zealand mud snail, whirling disease, European ear snail, Quagga mussels, and Zebra mussels. Such 

species degrade aquatic ecosystem functions and in some cases completely alter aquatic systems by 

displacing native species, degrading water quality, altering trophic dynamics, and restricting beneficial 

uses. 

The New Zealand mud snail was identified in the Little Bear River near the project area in 2001 

and 2002.4 These snails invade aquatic systems by attaching themselves to boots, waders, sandals, fishing 

gear, boats, rafts, and earth-moving equipment. New Zealand mud snails are nearly impossible to 

eradicate or contain once they have invaded an aquatic ecosystem. The snails can survive for several days 

out of water and can withstand a wide range of temperatures. These snails have been known to pass 

unscathed through the digestive tracts of fish. The snails are self-reproducers that give birth to welldeveloped clones. Therefore, it only takes one New Zealand mud snail to start a new colony in a stream 

or river. 

Ruby proposes to implement disinfection measures for vehicles, construction equipment, hand 

tools, boots, and other equipment used in waterbodies or permanently inundated wetlands to minimize the 

spread of the New Zealand mud snail, as deemed appropriate by a suitable qualified EI. The disinfection 

measures proposed by Ruby (which are included in the recommendation below) are standard disinfection 

measures recommended by agencies such as the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food, the Colorado 

Division of Wildlife, and the USDA. We find these disinfection measures generally acceptable; however, 

Ruby only proposed these for control of the New Zealand mud snail. In addition, we believe these 

measures should not be used solely at the discretion of an EI, and therefore we recommend that Ruby 

implement an equipment disinfection plan to incorporate one or more of the following measures 

during construction as equipment enters and exits each of the 25 HUC watersheds crossed by the 

project, as equipment exits the Little Bear River, and as equipment exits waterbodies known to 

contain pathogens and nonnative aquatic species that can be spread by contact with construction 

equipment. Ruby should remove mud and debris from equipment and either: 

a. keep the equipment dry for at least 10 days prior to use; 

b. spray or soak the equipment with 1) a 10-percent chlorine bleach solution, 2) a 1:1 

solution of Formula 409 household cleaner, or 3) a 1:15 solution of Sparquat 256 

institutional cleaner, making sure to keep the equipment moist with the cleaner for 

at least 10 minutes; or 

c. spray or soak the equipment with steam or water greater than 130 °F for at least 10 

minutes. 

Additionally, if Ruby identifies any invasive water organism on any equipment as it leaves a 

waterbody or wetland, Ruby should report the sighting to the appropriate state conservation office 

and implement disinfection measures on all equipment as it leaves the infected waterbody or 

wetland. 

The UTPL has requested that only hot water (greater than 140 °F) and drying be used to disinfect 

equipment before it leaves a waterbody. We do not believe this is necessary at every waterbody crossed 

 

4

 Current sightings and distribution of the New Zealand mud snail can be found at: http://nas.er.usgs.gov/taxgroup/mollusks/ 

newzealandmudsnaildistribution.asp. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-123 

by the project in Utah. Our recommendation above, if diligently implemented, would avoid or limit the 

spread of pathogens and NAS during project construction. 

During the comment period of the draft EIS, we requested that stakeholders identify and provide 

documentation of any known populations of aquatic nuisance species that could be encountered along the 

project. No specific locations were identified during the comment period. If any known locations are 

identified prior to and during construction, Ruby would disinfect equipment where these species are 

identified in accordance with our recommendation above. 

4.6.3 Non-Jurisdictional Electric Power Lines 

No streams exist within the proposed Rocky Mountain Power project area, and only one 

ephemeral waterbody would be crossed by the Harney Electric Cooperative electric distribution line. The 

ephemeral waterbody is narrow enough that it could be spanned with normal spacing of the power line 

poles. Therefore, there would be no direct impacts on the waterbody. Indirect impacts, however, could 

occur as a result of vegetation clearing and surface grading to access and construct the line. Stormwater 

runoff could result in increased turbidity and localized sedimentation of the stream. Harney Electric 

Cooperative would install erosion control devices during construction to prevent or minimize sediment 

runoff. These impacts, therefore, would be expected to be temporary and minor. 

4.7 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

Special status species are those species for which state or federal agencies afford an additional 

level of protection by law, regulation, or policy. Included in this category are species federally listed as 

endangered or threatened, are considered as candidates for such listing by the FWS, or are petitioned for 

listing under the ESA; species managed by the BLM or USFS to prevent listing under the ESA; and those 

species that are state-listed as threatened or endangered or designated as a state species of concern. 

In accordance with Section 7 of the ESA, the lead federal agency (in this case, the FERC) in 

coordination with the FWS must ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency 

does not jeopardize the continued existence of a federally listed threatened or endangered species or result 

in the adverse modification of the designated critical habitat of a federally listed species. The lead federal 

agency also must prepare a BA for actions involving major construction activities with the potential to 

affect listed species or designated critical habitat. The lead agency must submit its BA to the FWS and, if 

it is determined that the action is likely to adversely affect a listed species, the lead federal agency must 

submit a request for formal consultation to comply with Section 7 of the ESA. The FWS would then 

issue a Biological Opinion as to whether or not the federal action would likely jeopardize the continued 

existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical 

habitat. We have determined that the Ruby Pipeline Project could affect federally listed species and their 

designated critical habitats. Therefore, we are submitting a BA under separate cover to the FWS for the 

project. The analysis in this EIS and the BA would also be used by other federal cooperating agencies, as 

applicable, to fulfill their permitting requirements. Federally listed species that may be affected are 

presented in table 4.7-1 and discussed individually in section 4.7.2. 

The project would cross FWS Regions 1, 6, and 8. The FWS typically designates a lead office 

for project review and ESA consultation in the case of a multiregional project such as the Ruby Pipeline 

Project. The FWS’s Denver Resource Office would coordinate NEPA review for the project and the 

FWS’s Oregon Field Office in Portland, Oregon would coordinate the Section 7 review for the project. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-124 

Although candidate and petitioned species do not receive federal protection through the ESA, the 

FWS specifically requested that the FERC consider the potential effects to certain candidate and 

petitioned species in the EIS so that Section 7 consultation could be facilitated in the event one or more of 

these species become listed before or during project construction. There is suitable habitat within the 

project area for two candidate species (the yellow-billed cuckoo and Columbia spotted frog) and five 

petitioned species (the greater sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit, white-tailed prairie dog, northern leatherside 

chub, and the northern leopard frog). Federal candidate species and those petitioned for federal listing 

that may be affected are presented in table 4.7-1 and discussed individually in section 4.7.3 of this EIS. 

Land managing agencies are charged with managing lands to prevent species listing under the 

ESA. Each BLM Field Office and USFS National Forest designates species for extra management efforts 

intended to meet the conservation needs of these species and maintain viable populations (USFS, 1995; 

BLM, 2001; USFS 2004). However, within Nevada, the BLM state office designates the sensitive species 

list. Oregon is the only affected state that provides regulatory protection for state-listed species. BLMlisted, USFS-listed, and state-listed species that may be affected are presented in Appendix U and further 

discussed in section 4.7.4 by habitat association. 

Our analysis of special status species focuses on 421 species that are known to occur in the 

project area (Appendix U). This list of species was developed by Ruby through informal consultation 

with, and technical assistance from, the FWS, BLM, USFS, and state resource management agencies and 

by comments on the draft EIS. Our evaluation determined that 189 species are highly unlikely to occur in 

the project area or would otherwise not be affected by project activities. Thus, the project would not 

affect these 189 species. Our comments for federally listed species that would not be affected by the 

project and have been removed from further consideration in this EIS are included, among others, in table 

4.7-1. We provide our comments for BLM and USFS sensitive species and state-listed species that would 

not be affected by the project and have been removed from further consideration in this EIS in Appendix 

U. 

4.7.1 General Measures to Minimize Impacts on Special Status Species 

Ruby has proposed several measures to minimize impacts on special status species and their 

habitats. We have summarized these primary measures to provide a context for our discussion of impacts. 

Our discussion below includes recommendations and measures we believe are necessary to prevent 1) 

adverse impact on a federally listed species; 2) adverse modification to designated critical habitat; 3) loss 

of viability for BLM-, USFS-, or state-listed species; 4) or actions that are contrary to an agency’s 

conservation needs. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-125

TABLE 4.7-1 

Federal Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Petitioned Species for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Species 

FWS and Federal Land Managing Agency Statusa

FWS Comment

Status 

BLM Field Offices Forest Service

State 

Statusb

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

 LFO

KFO

FNF

CNF

BIRDS 

Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) 

Pet S S S S S S S S S WGFD-SC 

UDWR-SC ODFW-S 

Suitable habitat consists of mid- to low-heigcross potential lekking, nesting/brood-rearinUtah, and Nevada. 

Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina)

T Prefers old growth mixed-conifer forests. N

ledges, tree cavities, and abandoned hawk 

present near the project, and the project is 

range. This species has been eliminated fr

Yellow-billed cuckoo (Western Distinct Population Segment) (Coccyzus americanus)

C S S S S S S WGFD-SC 

UDWR-SC NDOW-SP 

Breeds in riparian woodlands and shrubs wwould cross potential breeding habitat in W

MAMMALS 

Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes)

E S WGFDNSS1 Suitable habitat consists of black-tailed and 

composed of short- to mid- grass prairies, aand shrubs intermingled. The project would large prairie dog colonies in Wyoming and U

Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis)

T S S S UDWR-SC 

WGFDNSS1 

Suitable habitat consists of boreal and monconiferous or mixed forests with thick underThe project would cross a travel corridor anthe Cache National Forest. However, agenthat lynx are not known to occur in the projeproject activities, though unlikely, would not the Canada lynx. This species has been el

consideration.

Fisher (Martes pennanti)

C S S S Inhabits coniferous and mixed forests, inclu

with dense overhead cover. The project is range. This species has been eliminated fr

Gray wolf (Canis lupis)

E WYEXPNc

 Occupies a wide range of habitat dependen

species' primary prey (big game). The projeCache National Forest and Fremont Nationis not known to occur in either area. The grspecies. There is a low possibility that gray area; however, because construction windogame winter range and migration periods, tgray wolves. A chance encounter by projecnot result in any noticeable effects to the gr

eliminated from further consideration.

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-126

TABLE 4.7-1 

Federal Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Petitioned Species for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Species 

FWS and Federal Land Managing Agency Statusa

FWS Comment

Status 

BLM Field Offices Forest Service

State 

Statusb

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

 LFO

KFO

FNF

CNF

Pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis)

Pet S S S S S S S S S WGFD-SC 

UDWR-SC ODFW-S 

Suitable habitat consists of dense stands of and terraces where relatively deep soils allocross known occupied habitat in Wyoming, 

White-tailed Prairie dog (Cynomys leucrurus) 

Pet S S WGFD-SC Suitable habitat consists of dry, flat, open g

sparse vegetation. The project would cross Wyoming and Utah. White-tailed prairie doto 5.5, MPs 20 to 25, MPs 48 to 49, and ne

Wyoming pocket gopher (Thomomys clusius) 

Pet S Known from Sweetwater and Carbon count

consists of well-drained soils on gravelly ridis about 30 miles east of the project. Predicconducted by the Wyoming Natural DiversitWyoming, suggest that the closest suitable 

southeast of the proposed project. Thus, thspecies' known and modeled range, and th

from further consideration.

FISH 

Bonytail chub (Gila elegans)

E S Known in the Colorado River and limited lar

water of mid to large rivers and reservoirs. the Yampa River, Green River, Colorado Rconfluence of the Green and Colorado RiveArizona. This species has not existed in the Wyoming since the closure of Flaming GorgRiver System water withdrawals may affect 

Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus)

T Found in deep water of cold rivers and strea

and reservoirs in the Jarbidge River, Nevadlocated 25 miles north of the project area. MCounty, Oregon. However, an ODFW 1997 Trout) did not list any historic or current preOregon portion of the project area, including 

been eliminated from further consideration.

Clover Valley speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus oligoporus)

E Restricted to reservoirs and outflows of thre

in Elko County, Nevada. Habitats vary from thermal springs. The project is outside of th

species has been eliminated from further co

Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius)

E S Restricted to the Upper Colorado River bas

River and Little Snake River systems in Wymedium to large rivers that maintain high spSystem water withdrawals may affect this s

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-127

TABLE 4.7-1 

Federal Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Petitioned Species for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Species 

FWS and Federal Land Managing Agency Statusa

FWS Comment

Status 

BLM Field Offices Forest Service

State 

Statusb

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

 LFO

KFO

FNF

CNF

Cui-ui (Chasmistes cujus)

E NDOW-SP Endemic to Pyramid Lake, Nevada and spa

April through mid-May. The project is outsiThis species has been eliminated from furth

Desert dace (Eremichthys acros)

T S NDOW-T Restricted to thermal springs and their asso

Meadows in Humboldt County, Nevada. Thspecies' known range. This species has be

consideration.

Foskett speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus ssp.)

T ODFW-S Known in Foskett Spring in Lake County, O

with grass overhangs. This isolated spring into dry Coleman Lake. The project is outsThis species has been eliminated from furth

Humpback chub (Gila cypha)

E S Known sparingly in the Colorado River syst

rivers. This species has not existed in the Gsince the closure of Flaming Gorge Dam in System water withdrawals may affect this s

Hutton tui chub (Gila bicolor ssp.)

T Restricted to Hutton Spring in Lake County

ranging from 20 to 40 feet in width, and abosurrounded by herbaceous cover. The projknown range. This species has been elimin

Independence Valley speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus lethoporus)

E S NDOW-E Restricted to Independence Valley in Elko C

from cold streams and rivers to small thermof the species' known range. This species 

consideration.

June sucker (Chasmistes liorus)

E S UDWR-S Endemic to Utah Lake, migrates to Provo R

populations have been established in parts the species' known range. This species ha

consideration.

Lahontan cutthroat trout (introduced, refugia population) (Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawii)

T S S S NDOW-SP 

UDWR-S 

Inhabits cool, well-oxygenated waters of sastreams. The project would cross known hacounties, Nevada; potential, but unlikely, haand a number of dry and intermittent streamwaterbodies with known populations. 

Least chub (Lotichthys phlegethontis)

Pet S UDWR-S Inhabits springs and streams in western Uta

Springs, Mills Valley, and Clear Lake. The known range. This species has been elimin

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-128

TABLE 4.7-1 

Federal Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Petitioned Species for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Species 

FWS and Federal Land Managing Agency Statusa

FWS Comment

Status 

BLM Field Offices Forest Service

State 

Statusb

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

 LFO

KFO

FNF

CNF

Lost River sucker (Deltistes luxatus)

E ODFW-S Inhabits lakes in the Upper Klamath Basin. 

in springs and tributary streams over gravel cross proposed critical habitat within the Clepotential habitat at the Lost River crossing ithe South Arm of and North Fork of Willow 

Modoc sucker

(Catostomus microps)

E ODFW-S Known in the Pit River system in Modoc an

the Goose Lake basin in Oregon. Inhabits flowing through meadows and dry forests babove mean sea level. The project would cCreek in Lake County, Oregon. The FWS hCreek and Twelvemile Creek may provide h

presence there has not been established. 

Northern leatherside chub (Lepidomeda copei)

Pet S S WGFD-SC Inhabits rocky, flowing pools and low-veloci

medium-sized rivers. The project would intat Salt Creek in Uinta County, Wyoming at River and its tributaries in Uinta County, UtaMPs 45 to 70. 

Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus)

E S Known in the Colorado River system. Inhab

This species has not existed in the Green Rthe closure of Flaming Gorge Dam in 1964; 

Green River basin south of the project areawater withdrawals may affect this species. 

Shortnose sucker (Chasmistes brevirostis) 

E S ODFW-S Endemic to Upper Klamath Basin. Inhabits 

springs and tributary streams. The project wwithin the Lost River watershed in Klamath 

Warner sucker (Catostomus warnerensis)

T S ODFW-S Known in Warner Basin. Use pools of strea

larvae. The project would cross designated Twelvemile creeks. 

HERPTOFAUNA 

Columbia spotted frog (Great Basin population) (Rana luteiventris)

C S S S S S S ODFW-S 

WGFD-SC 

Occupies aquatic habitats of permanent waponds, and lakes at 5,600 to 8,700 feet. Thhabitat in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Ore

Mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa)

C Suitable habitat consists of streams, rivers, 

Mountains. The project is outside of the sp

has been eliminated from further considera

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-129

TABLE 4.7-1 

Federal Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Petitioned Species for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Species 

FWS and Federal Land Managing Agency Statusa

FWS Comment

Status 

BLM Field Offices Forest Service

State 

Statusb

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

 LFO

KFO

FNF

CNF

Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) 

Pet S S S Breeds in a variety of waterbodies and fora

areas of perennial crops. The project would 

1, intermittently between MPs 21 to 24, and 

Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) 

C S S S ODFW-S This species is highly aquatic, occurring at 

western Oregon. The project is outside of t

species has been eliminated from further co

INVERTEBRATES 

Carson wandering skipper (Pseudo-copaeodes eunus obscurus) 

E Suitable habitat consists of salt grass, necta

springs. Known populations are located in Douglas counties, Nevada and Lassen Counot cross the species' known range. This s

further consideration.

Elongate mud meadows springsnail (Pyrugulopsis notidicola)

C S Endemic to Soldier Meadow in Humboldt C

not cross the species' known range. This s

further consideration.

Fat-whorled pondsnail (Stagnicola bonnevillensis) 

C S UDWR-S Inhabits spring-fed pools up to an acre in si

consisting of mud to rocks that are well vegponds fed by three springs in Box Elder Cocross intermittent ditches and tributaries of miles north. Ruby’s use of its Procedures awould avoid impacts on this species. This s

further consideration. 

Mardon skipper butterfly (Polites mardon)

C S Dependent upon native, fescue-dominated 

Cascade Range of southern Oregon. The pknown range. This species has been elimin

VASCULAR PLANTS 

Applegates milk-vetch (Astragalus applegatei)

E Endemic to the lower Klamath Basin near th

central Oregon. Occurs in flat, seasonally mfloodplain grasslands at about 4,000 feet. Aa single site in an urbanized area. The projrange. This species has been eliminated fr

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-130

TABLE 4.7-1 

Federal Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Petitioned Species for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Species 

FWS and Federal Land Managing Agency Statusa

FWS Comment

Status 

BLM Field Offices Forest Service

State 

Statusb

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

 LFO

KFO

FNF

CNF

Blowout penstemon (Penstemon haydenii)

E S Found in sparsely vegetated, early success

blowouts created by wind erosion, primarily of the blowout. Occurs on sand dunes in thapproximately 160 miles east of Opal. The known range. This species has been elimin

Gentner's fritillary (Fritillaria gentneri)

E Suitable habitat consists of openings in oak 

conifer-deciduous forests. Known from JacOregon. The project is outside the species

been eliminated from further consideration.

Goose Creek milkvetch (Astragalus anserinus)

C S S Known from Goose Creek basin within Idah

sandy, rhyolitic ash from the Salt Lake formjuniper, big sagebrush, and rabbitbrush at 4sea level. The closest population occurs beproject. This species has been eliminated f

Greene's tuctoria (Tuctoria greenei) d

E Inhabits vernal pools in California. Ruby su

potential habitat in Oregon and none was id

Maguire's primrose (Primula maguirei)

T S Prefers north-facing, moss-covered limesto

bottom, at 5,100 to 5,500 feet above mean Canyon in Cache County, Utah, approximaThis species has been eliminated from furth

Slender orcutt grass (Orcuttia tenius) d

T Inhabits vernal pools in California. Ruby su

potential habitat in Oregon and none was id

Soldier meadows cinquefoil / Black Rock potentilla (Potentilla basaltica) 

C S Known from two occurrences in southweste

two occurrences in California. Prefers soutcrusted clay in alkaline meadows with therm4,580 feet above mean sea level. Potential project. This species has been eliminated f

Steamboat buckwheat (Eriogonum ovalifolium var. williamsiae) 

E Known from the Steamboat Hot Springs are

Grows in young soils deposited by thermal outside the species' known range. This spe

further consideration.

Tahoe yellow cress (Rorippa subumbellata) 

C Endemic to the shore zone of Lake Tahoe i

the species' known range. This species ha

consideration.

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-131

TABLE 4.7-1 

Federal Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Petitioned Species for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Species 

FWS and Federal Land Managing Agency Statusa

FWS Comment

Status 

BLM Field Offices Forest Service

State 

Statusb

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

 LFO

KFO

FNF

CNF

Ute ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) 

T S Known to occur in Converse, Goshen, Lara

Wyoming. Known along the Wasatch front documentations have been reported in counUtah. Grows in the moist soils of perennial springs, seeps, and suitable excavations. Fin 2008 did not locate the species along the species is known to occur in the vicinity. Ruas having marginal to moderate habitat for 

Webber's ivesia (Ivesia webberi) 

C Known from western Nevada on shrink-swe

sagebrush and squirreltail. The project is oThis species has been eliminated from furth

a FEDERAL STATUS (E = Endangered, T = Threatened, C = Candidate, S= Sensitive, Pet = Petitioned)

b STATE STATUS (for informational purposes only. State special status species are discussed in section 4.7.4 and are presented in Appendix U) (E 

S= Sensitive, SC = Species of Concern, SP = State protected, NSS1 = Populations greatly restricted or declining, extirpation possible-or-Ongoing s

c EXPN = Experimental population, non-essential d Although this species was determined to not occur in the project area and therefore would not be affected by the proposed project, we have kept ou

4.7.2.5 to present the additional surveys and analysis and to further justify our effects determination. 

KFO = Kemmerer Field Office SLFO = Salt Lake Field Office EFO = Elko Field Office WFO = Winnemucca Field Office SFO = Surprise Field Office LFO = Lakeview Resource Area KFFO = Klamath Falls Resource Area FNF = Fremont National Forest CNF = Cache National Forest 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-132 

Ruby’s primary measures to minimize impacts on special status species have been and would 

continue to be developed in consultation with applicable resource agencies, and include: 

• restoration of preconstruction topography to the greatest extent practicable; 

• revegetation of disturbed areas with appropriate seed mixes that would eventually restore 

habitat characteristics, including native grasses, shrubs, and trees; 

• replanting trees within forested areas on federal land and replanting trees and shrubs 

within riparian areas; 

• collecting or purchasing seeds of salt heliotrope and planting the seeds within the rightof-way at known population locations; 

• control of noxious weeds; 

• blocking or discouraging unauthorized post-construction access to the right-of-way with 

boulders or timber debris; 

• incorporating route realignments around certain habitat features; 

• creating small shrub patches within the right-of-way and utilizing “zig-zag” clearing 

patterns in heavily forested areas to reduce edge effects; 

• application of additional best management practices to reduce impacts on sagebrushdependent species; 

• application of spatial buffers, seasonal no-construction timing constraints, and restrictions 

on aboveground facilities around habitat features such as nests, breeding areas, or 

wintering areas; 

• utilizing dry-crossing methods for flowing waterbodies that contain special status fish; 

• abiding by seasonal, agency-specified, in-water work windows; 

• developing site-specific waterbody crossing plans for several waterbodies in Oregon that 

contain special status fish; 

• limiting water withdrawal to 10 percent of a waterbody’s base flow and no more than 

2,500 gpm; 

• screening water withdrawal intake hoses to prevent fish entrapment as described in 

section 4.6.1.5; 

• maintaining experienced biologists at sensitive habitats to report any impacts on blackfooted ferrets, Ute ladies’-tresses, and federally listed fish that may become entrapped 

during waterbody crossings, and to initiate conservation measures as necessary; and 

• developing and implementing, with cooperating federal and state agencies, conservation 

agreements for greater sage-grouse and pygmy rabbits, and agreements for migratory 

birds and ESA species. 

We have considered potential impacts on special status species with regards to Ruby’s 

commitments. Federally listed species that may be affected are discussed individually in section 4.7.2. 

Federal candidate species and those petitioned for federal listing that may be affected are discussed in 

section 4.7.3. BLM-, USFS-, and state-listed species that may be affected are discussed in section 4.7.4, 

by habitat association. 

4.7.2 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species 

While Ruby has conducted a proactive effort, in coordination with numerous agencies and 

landowners, to route, construct, and maintain the pipeline and associated features in a fashion that would 

minimize impacts on ESA-listed species and designated critical habitats, adverse effects to listed species 

and critical habitats may still occur. Through a voluntary agreement with the FWS, Ruby proposes to 

implement and/or fund measures that are clearly beneficial to listed species and their habitats and that 

would assist with recovery of these species. This voluntary ESA Conservation Action Plan is separate 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-133 

from, and in addition to, any reasonable and prudent measures that the FWS may impose as part of the 

Section 7 consultation process for the project. Likewise, the actions in the ESA Conservation Action Plan 

are not required for, or a part of, the project that is currently being reviewed under NEPA. To the extent 

any of the conservation actions identified in the ESA Conservation Action Plan require a NEPA analysis, 

such analysis would be conducted separately from the NEPA process for the Ruby Pipeline Project. 

Additionally, the project could proceed without the voluntary conservation measures in the ESA 

Conservation Action Plan, and, conversely, conservation actions identified in the ESA Conservation 

Action Plan could proceed regardless of whether the Ruby project were authorized. 

Ruby, the BLM, FWS, and state wildlife management agencies have drafted an ESA 

Conservation Action Plan (ESA Plan) (Appendix M) for ESA-listed species that would be impacted by 

The Ruby Pipeline Project. The current version of the ESA Plan is provided in Appendix M. The ESA 

Plan is expected to be finalized and signed in early 2010. This voluntary plan is separate from, and in 

addition to, any reasonable and prudent measures that the FWS may impose as part of the Section 7 

consultation process for the project. Likewise, the actions in the ESA Plan are not required for, or a part 

of, Ruby’s proposal that is analyzed in this NEPA document. As such, any of the specific actions 

identified in the plan would be subject to NEPA analysis separate from the analyses presented in the draft 

EIS or this final EIS. 

The FWS agrees that the ESA Plan conservation actions would provide conservation benefits to 

listed species and their habitats and would assist with conservation and/or recovery of these species. The 

ESA Plan conservation actions (1) have been extracted from listed species recovery plans, other ESA 

action plans, or recovery team activities; (2) reflect high-priority actions for these listed species and 

critical habitats; and (3) would offset the project’s adverse impacts on listed species and their critical 

habitats that are not otherwise offset or addressed though regulatory requirements associated with the 

various permits, authorizations, and other approvals required for the project. The ESA Plan would assist 

with conservation of listed species, in conjunction with Ruby’s existing proposed actions and any 

reasonably and prudent measures that may be identified in the FWS’s Biological Opinion for the Ruby 

project. 

4.7.2.1 Black-Footed Ferret 

The black-footed ferret is a federally listed endangered species and a BLM sensitive species in 

Wyoming. Black-footed ferrets have been reintroduced in large prairie dog colonies or complexes in 

Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Montana, South Dakota, Kansas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Mexico (FWS, 

2008c). There are no other known wild populations of black-footed ferret. However, white-tailed prairie 

dog colonies or complexes greater than 200 acres with an average intact burrow density of 8 burrows per 

acre are considered potential suitable habitat unless they have been “block-cleared” for ferret presence 

(i.e., the FWS has determined that black-footed ferrets do not occur in the area) (FWS, 1989). Blacktailed prairie dog towns greater than 80 acres are also considered potential suitable habitat for the blackfooted ferret (FWS, 1989). Critical habitat has not been designated for the black-footed ferret. 

Black-footed ferrets could be impacted by the project if occupied habitat were crossed or if 

habitat suitable for black-footed ferret reintroduction were negatively affected. Ruby conducted surveys 

for white-tailed prairie dog colonies and black-footed within 0.5 mile of the pipeline right-of-way 

between MPs 12 and 29 in Wyoming and MPs 48 and 60 in Utah. The pipeline right-of-way between 

MPs 0 and 12 and MPs 29 and 48 has been previously block-cleared by the FWS (BLM, 2008b); 

therefore, surveys were not conducted in these areas. White-tailed prairie dog surveys were conducted in 

July 2009 and black-footed ferret surveys were conducted in August and September 2009. All surveys 

were conducted using protocol described in Guidelines for Black-Footed Ferret Surveys (FWS, 1989). 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-134 

A total of 34 white-tailed prairie dog towns were located within 0.5 mile of the right-of-way in 

Wyoming. Total acreage for these 34 towns was 1,024.05 acres. One white-tailed prairie dog town was 

450 acres and had about 300 active burrows. The burrow density of this town does not meet the preferred 

habitat requirements for the black-footed ferret. The remaining towns in Wyoming were less than 200 

acres. No black-footed ferrets were observed during the nine-day nocturnal survey in Wyoming. 

A total of 25 white-tailed prairie dog towns were located within a 0.5 mile of the right-of-way in 

Utah. Total acreage for these 25 towns was 522.29 acres. The largest town was 134 acres with about 500 

active burrows. No towns in Utah meet the preferred habitat requirements for the black-footed ferret. No 

black-footed ferrets were observed during the six-day nocturnal survey in Utah. 

Ruby has proposed to fund a survey of the white-tailed prairie dog colonies located within the 

Cumberland Complex in Lincoln and Uinta counties, Wyoming as part of the ESA Plan. Construction 

would likely destroy some of the prairie dog burrows in this area; however, none of the towns are 

considered preferred habitat for the black-footed ferret, and no black-footed ferrets were observed during 

surveys for the species. Implementing the actions in the ESA Plan would further mitigate or compensate 

for impacts on this species and would assist in managing and preserving white-tailed prairie dog colonies. 

Based on the above analysis (primarily the crossing of prairie dog habitat), we conclude that the project 

may affect, but would be unlikely to adversely affect the black-footed ferret. 

4.7.2.2 Lahontan Cutthroat Trout 

The Lahontan cutthroat trout is a federally listed threatened species and is managed by the BLM 

as a sensitive species in the Elko, Winnemucca, and Salt Lake Field Office regions. Lahontan cutthroat 

trout inhabit cool, well-oxygenated waters in saline and alkaline lakes and streams. Spawning typically 

peaks in May and June, and occurs from March to July depending on water conditions. Primary stream 

habitat includes rocky areas, riffles, deep pools, and areas under logs and overhanging banks. Critical 

habitat has not been designated for this species. 

The project’s potential effect to Lahontan cutthroat trout is an issue of great concern to the 

Summit Lake Paiute Tribe. The tribe provided comments during the scoping period and on the draft EIS 

that the project could affect Lahontan cutthroat trout spawn runs, affect population of Lahontan cutthroat 

trout in Mahogany Creek, and affect the overall population Lahontan cutthroat trout that the tribe may 

harvest. None of the waterbodies crossed by the project are tributaries to Mahogany Creek. Waterbodies 

that are crossed near the Summit Lake Indian Reservation and the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Natural Area 

either flow north and are tributaries to Craine Creek or drain to Fivemile Flat. No indirect downstream 

impacts on Mahogany Creek or Summit Lake would occur as a result of project activities, and no impacts 

on Lahontan cutthroat trout populations utilized by the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe are anticipated. 

Ruby, NDOW, and the FWS also identified 22 perennial or intermittent waterbodies that have the 

potential to support Lahontan cutthroat trout. These waterbodies are all in Elko County, Nevada (see 

Appendix Q). 

Potential impacts on Lahontan cutthroat trout would be similar to impacts described in section 

4.6.1 for other fish species. Ruby has committed to avoiding construction within designated Lahontan 

cutthroat trout streams from January 1 to June 30. Ruby has agreed to cross the 22 waterbodies known to 

contain Lahontan cutthroat trout using a dry-ditch crossing method. Although Ruby has not specifically 

identified which dry crossing method would be used, Ruby has committed to maintain fish passage across 

the construction work area at all times. Therefore, we believe Ruby would use the flume method rather 

than the dam-and-pump method. None of the surface water sources proposed for hydrostatic test water 

and dust control are known to contain Lahontan cutthroat trout. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-135 

Under the ESA Plan, Ruby is proposing four conservation actions for Lahontan cutthroat trout. 

On the Marys River, Ruby would replace an irrigation diversion to allow fish passage and prevent fish 

entrainment. To protect Humboldt River Lahontan cutthroat trout populations from invading, non-native 

trout, Ruby is proposing to construct a fish migration barrier on the Upper North Fork Humboldt River. 

Ruby is also proposing stream improvement and restoration along portions of Rock and Willow Creeks. 

Finally, Ruby is proposing the installation of a fish screen on a private landowner’s irrigation system to 

prevent entrainment of fish. 

By constructing outside of the spawning season, crossing Lahontan cutthroat streams using a dryditch crossing method, and avoiding water withdrawals from Lahontan cutthroat streams, the project 

would minimize impacts on the Lahontan cutthroat trout to the greatest extent practical. Implementing 

the actions in the ESA Plan would further mitigate or compensate for impacts on this species. However, 

by modifying streamside vegetation, modifying the bed and banks of Lahontan cutthroat streams, and by 

possibly salvaging Lahontan cutthroat trout from the project area, we conclude that the project may affect, 

and is likely to adversely affect the Lahontan cutthroat trout. We will request in our BA to initiate formal 

consultation with the FWS regarding Lahontan cutthroat trout. Ruby would not be authorized to begin 

construction until Section 7 consultation between the FERC and the FWS is complete. 

4.7.2.3 Endangered Colorado River Fish 

Four endangered fish species occur within the upper Colorado River system; the Colorado 

pikeminnow, humpback chub, razorback sucker, and bonytail chub. All four species have been 

negatively impacted by dam construction, water withdrawal, and introduction of non-native fish into the 

Colorado River system. 

Colorado pikeminnow were once abundant in the Colorado River and several tributaries in 

Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California, and Mexico. The species 

currently occurs in the Colorado River from Palisade downstream to Lake Powell and several major 

tributaries such as the Duchesne, Gunnison, Little Snake, and Green Rivers. Its preferred habitat includes 

deep pools with a rocky or sandy substrate within medium or large rivers. 

The humpback chub historically inhabited canyons of the Colorado River and the Green, Yampa, 

White, and Little Colorado rivers. Today the species is restricted to the Little Colorado River in the 

Grand Canyon and the Colorado River near the Colorado/Utah border. Its preferred habitat includes 

canyon white water within larger rivers. 

The razorback sucker was once widespread throughout most of the Colorado River Basin. 

Colorado River Basin populations are currently found in the upper Green River in Utah, above Lake 

Powell in the Colorado River Basin, and in Lakes Mead, Mohave, and Havasu in the lower Colorado 

River basin in Arizona. Preferred habitat includes deep, clear to turbid waters within large canyons. 

Wetland fringes and backwaters are critical to young survival. 

The bonytail chub historically inhabited portions of the upper and lower Colorado River Basin. 

Small, isolated populations currently exist in limited sections of the Yampa, Green, and Colorado rivers. 

Its preferred habitat includes flowing pools, backwaters, and swift runs, usually over mud or rock. 

Construction and operation of the Ruby Pipeline Project would not directly impact any waterbody 

occupied by these four species or any waterbody that supports suitable habitat. However, the FWS 

indicated to us in a letter dated May 9, 2008, that any federal action resulting in water depletions to the 

Colorado River system would adversely affect these species. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-136 

The FWS defines a “depletion” as consumptive loss plus evaporative loss of surface or 

groundwater within the affected basin. Any water depletion would represent an adverse impact on habitat 

for the Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, razorback sucker, and bonytail chub and must be 

considered in formal Section 7 consultation. Factors to consider in determining downstream effects to 

listed fishes include: what time of the year water is withdrawn, whether the water has been treated, other 

water uses at the time of withdrawal (cumulative impacts), and how close to the withdrawal source the 

water is returned (i.e., a source location return vs. a “basin return”). 

Ruby proposes to withdraw water from one waterbody within the Colorado River system, the 

Hams Fork River. As stated in section 4.3.2.5, Ruby intends to appropriate 16,132,371 gallons (about 

49.5 acre-feet) of water from the Hams Fork River for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline and dust control. 

Water used for dust abatement would be applied to the construction right-of-way and generally lost to 

evaporation (i.e., consumptive use). Ruby would discharge water used for hydrostatic testing to five 

locations within the Hams Fork watershed. We have recommended in section 4.3.2.5 that Ruby discharge 

hydrostatic test water to temporary sediment structures. A small amount of the discharged test water 

would evaporate; however, the majority of the water used would permeate into the local groundwater 

system (i.e., not lost from the basin). Withdrawal and discharge of the hydrostatic test water would likely 

occur between August 1, 2010 and March 31, 2011, although the exact project schedule is not known at 

this time. 

The FWS has established a Recovery Program which has established conservation measures to 

minimize adverse affects on the endangered Colorado fish species and their critical habitat caused by a 

project’s water depletions. Depletion impacts would be offset by the accomplishment of activities 

necessary to recover the endangered Colorado fish species as specified under the Recovery 

Implementation Program Recovery Action Plan and the water project’s proponent’s one-time contribution 

to the Recovery Program for new depletions greater than 100-acre-feet per year. The FWS has indicated 

that there would be no charge for existing depletions or for new depletions less than 100 acre-feet, such as 

those proposed by the Ruby project. Although depletion impacts would be offset by the Recovery 

Program, the FERC would retain discretionary federal authority for the project consistent with applicable 

regulations and Recovery Program provisions should Section 7 consultation be required. 

Implementing the actions in the ESA Plan would further mitigate or compensate for impacts on 

these species. Under the ESA Plan, Ruby would implement or provide funding for the enhancement of 

riparian habitats in the Green River basin. Enhancement would include the removal of tamarisk and 

planting of native willow. Monitoring would also occur and follow-up spot treatments may occur. These 

actions are intended to improve stream morphology, enhance habitat, and minimize water loss due to the 

high transpiration rate of tamarisk. 

Although Ruby’s proposed water withdrawal from the Colorado River Basin is considerably less 

than 100 acre-feet, it still represents a substantial quantity of water that may contribute to depletion 

effects to Colorado River Basin listed fishes. Consequently, we have determined the proposed project is 

likely to adversely affect the Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, razorback sucker, and bonytail chub. 

We will request in our BA to formally consult with the FWS on depletion-related effects to these four 

species. Ruby would not be authorized to appropriate water from the Colorado River Basin until Section 

7 consultation between the FERC and the FWS is complete. 

4.7.2.4 Lost River Sucker, Modoc Sucker, Shortnose Sucker, and Warner Sucker 

The Lost River sucker, Modoc sucker, shortnose sucker, and Warner sucker are known to occur 

in southeastern Oregon streams, rivers, and lakes. The Warner sucker is a federally threatened species; 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-137 

the three other species are federally endangered. These fish occur in relatively shallow lakes and their 

tributaries in the Upper Klamath, Warner Basin, and Goose Lake watersheds. The Warner sucker has 

been documented in Twelvemile Creek in an area less than 1 mile upstream and downstream of the 

proposed pipeline crossing. Each species was historically abundant but has declined substantially in the 

past 50 to 100 years due to the combined effects of dam construction, wetland and lake draining and 

dredging, stream channelization and sedimentation, overgrazing by livestock, removal of natural stream 

bank vegetation, and predation by non-native fish. Critical habitat has been designated for the Warner 

sucker in Twelvemile Creek and Twentymile Creek. A petition to propose critical habitat for the Lost 

River sucker and shortnose sucker was submitted in 1994; however, the petition was never finalized. 

Table 4.7.2-1 presents known locations and critical habitat for each species. 

TABLE 4.7.2-1 

Waterbodies Known to Contain the Lost River Sucker, Modoc Sucker, Shortnose Sucker, and Warner Sucker 

for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Species Waterbody Approximate MP Critical Habitat Crossed 

Lost River Sucker South Arm of East Willow Creek 639.3 None 

 North Fork Willow Creek 642.6 None 

Lost River R665.2 None 

Modoc Sucker Thomas Creek 619.9 None 

Shortnose Sucker South Arm of East Willow Creek 639.3 None 

North Fork Willow Creek 642.6 None 

Lost River R665.2 None 

Warner Sucker Twelvemile Creek 588.3 Designated 

Twentymile Creek 596.0 Designated 

The ODFW provided Ruby with basin-specific, in-water work windows to limit impacts on fish 

(see table 2.3.2-1), and Ruby has agreed to implement the timing restrictions. Ruby has committed to 

crossings all waterbodies that have flow at the time of construction and are known to support special 

status species using a dry crossing method. However, the Lost River (MP R665.2), which is 360 feet 

wide at the proposed pipeline crossing location, would likely be crossed using the wet open-cut crossing 

method (although Ruby has not yet indicated how it proposes to cross the waterbody). Ruby has filed 

waterbody crossing plans for Twelvemile Creek, Twentymile Creek, Thomas Creek, and Lost River. 

Although Ruby has not filed plans for the North Fork Willow Creek and the South Arm of East Willow 

Creek, we have reviewed Ruby’s alignment sheets and determined Ruby would use a nominal 115-footwide construction right-of-way when crossing these waterbodies and would not locate extra workspace 

within 50 feet of these waterbodies or associated riparian wetland habitats. 

The crossing plans that Ruby has filed fail to identify the in-stream work windows agreed to by 

Ruby, do not state that a dry crossing must be used at these waterbodies, and do not provide justification 

for locating extra work space in and within 50 feet of these waterbodies and associated wetland and 

woody riparian areas. Therefore, we recommend that Ruby revise the site-specific waterbody 

crossing plans for Twelvemile Creek, Twentymile Creek, Thomas Creek, and Lost River. These 

plans should include the proposed crossing method, seasonal timing restrictions, Ruby’s proposed 

construction procedures, and any other measures that would minimize impacts on the Lost River 

sucker, Modoc sucker, shortnose sucker, and Warner sucker. In addition, Ruby should file the 

results of any consultation with the FWS, Reclamation, and ODFW regarding the crossing method 

and conservation measures for the Lost River. Ruby should not begin any construction activities in 

these waterbodies until: 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-138 

a. FERC staff receives the requested information, as well as any comments from the 

FWS, Reclamation, and ODFW; 

b. staff completes any necessary Section 7 consultation with the FWS; and 

c. Ruby has received written notification from the Director of OEP that construction 

or use of mitigation may begin. 

As discussed above, critical habitat for the Warner sucker would be crossed where the project 

crosses Twentymile and Twelvemile Creeks. A 50-foot riparian zone on each side of these creeks is also 

included as critical habitat. The FWS has determined that the maintenance of this riparian zone is 

essential in protecting the integrity of the stream ecosystem and to the conservation of the Warner sucker. 

The FWS has identified certain activities which may adversely modify these critical habitats or 

affected their designation. These activities are: 1) overgrazing by livestock, which would eliminate 

riparian vegetation and lead to streambank erosion and subsequent siltation of the stream and lake 

environment; 2) introduction of exotic fishes into streams or lakes of the Warner Valley, which might 

compete with or prey on Warner suckers; 3) construction of additional diversion dams that do not have 

adequate fish passage facilities on streams inhabited by the Warner sucker; 4) channelization or diversion 

of streams inhabited by the Warner sucker; 5) application of herbicide or insecticide along stream courses 

or lakes inhabited by the Warner sucker, which could be toxic to the species or its food; 6) pollution of 

stream or lake habitat by silt or other pollutants; and 7) removal of natural vegetation within or along 

inhabited streams. For the Ruby Pipeline Project, activities 5, 6, and 7 have the potential to affect critical 

habitat and affect the Warner sucker. 

We have previously addressed the likely degree of sedimentation and the measures Ruby has 

proposed to reduce these impacts. Herbicide application has been proposed for use on the project. Ruby 

has developed a Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan (Appendix T) to prescribe methods to prevent, 

mitigate, and control the spread of noxious weeds during and following construction of the project. Ruby 

would implement these methods in accordance with existing regulations and jurisdictional land 

management agency or landowner agreements. Ruby would consult with the BLM, USFS, Reclamation, 

and state Department of Agriculture Noxious Weed Control Programs or local County Weed Programs 

for additional support regarding noxious weed control issues that may occur during the pipeline 

operations. For noxious weed infestations in the area immediately adjacent to wetlands or waterbodies, 

only herbicides approved by the relevant agencies would be used. If no herbicides were to be approved 

for use near wetland and waterbody features, Ruby would employ manual or mechanical weed removal 

methods. 

The construction of the project across Twentymile and Twelvemile Creeks and associated 

riparian habitats would affect critical habitat. Ruby has proposed several measures to minimize impacts 

on these streams and associated riparian habitats as discussed throughout this section of the EIS. These 

methods include constructing the project across these sensitive streams and their associated critical habitat 

during agency recommended periods, restricting water appropriations from these waterbodies, restoring 

stream bed and banks to preconstruction conditions, using appropriate short- and long-term erosion 

control measures, replanting woody riparian habitats after construction, implementing monitoring 

programs to identify restoration problems, and implementing remedial actions when restoration problems 

are identified. We have recommended additional measures that would minimize impacts on these water 

features and critical habitat, which include restricting extra workspaces within 50 feet of these 

waterbodies and limiting the construction right-of-way to 115 feet across waterbodies (see section 

4.3.2.4). 

Implementing the actions in the ESA Plan would further mitigate or compensate for impacts on 

these species. Conservation actions outlined in the ESA Plan for the Lost River sucker, Modoc sucker, 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-139 

shortnose sucker, and Warner sucker include stream and habitat enhancements, construction of fish 

ladders to promote fish passage, installing fish screens on water diversions, funding studies to determine 

the location and distribution of the shortnose and Lost River sucker, and reducing sedimentation caused 

by a failing road. 

Ruby has agreed to adopt the seasonal timing restriction within the Warner Valley, Goose Lake, 

and Lost River Basins that were recommended by the ODFW (see table 2.3.2-1). Ruby would utilize fish 

handling techniques as discussed in section 4.6.1.5 should fish be entrapped between the upstream and 

downstream dams during a dry-ditch crossing. Our recommendation and the conservation actions 

described in the ESA Plan would also minimize impacts on the Lost River sucker, Modoc sucker, 

shortnose sucker, and Warner sucker. However, by modifying streamside vegetation, modifying the bed 

and banks of streams, and by possibly salvaging these species from the project area, we conclude that the 

project may affect, and is likely to adversely affect the Lost River sucker, Modoc sucker, shortnose sucker, 

and Warner sucker. Additionally, we conclude that critical habitat designated for the Warner sucker is 

likely to be adversely affected by the proposed project. We will request in our BA to initiate formal 

consultation with the FWS regarding these four species and designated critical habitat for the Warner 

sucker. Ruby would not be authorized to begin construction until Section 7 consultation between the 

FERC and the FWS is complete. 

4.7.2.5 Slender Orcutt Grass and Greene’s Tuctoria 

Slender orcutt grass is a federally threatened plant species found in valley grassland and blue oak 

woodland in vernal pools on remnant alluvial fans and high stream terraces and recent basalt flows (FWS, 

2009a). It has some ability to colonize artificial habitats, such as the margins of stock ponds. A total of 

82 occurrences are known, of which 76 are presumed extant, 2 are possibly extirpated, and 4 are 

extirpated (CNDDB, 2008). All known occurrences are in California. The closest known population to 

Ruby’s proposed route is approximately 35 miles south of the Oregon portion of the pipeline in Modoc 

County, California. 

Greene’s tuctoria is a federally endangered plant species that grows in vernal pools. There are 41 

occurrences in 9 counties in California (CNDDB, 2008). The nearest extant population is approximately 

80 miles south of the proposed route in Shasta County, California. 

Both slender orcutt grass and Greene’s tuctoria are endemic to vernal pools. Vernal pools are 

seasonal wetlands that occur in shallow topographic depressions that are underlain by an impermeable 

soil layer that restricts the movement of water. Surface runoff from winter precipitation saturates the soil 

above this layer, inundating the depressions. The hydrology of vernal pools consists of three phases: an 

aquatic phase when the pool is filled with water from winter rains, a drying phase during early to midspring, and a dry phase during the summer and fall. 

As requested by the FWS, Ruby surveyed the project area in Oregon in summer 2009. Ruby did 

not identify suitable habitat for slender orcutt grass or Greene’s tuctoria. Implementing the actions in the 

ESA Plan would further mitigate or compensate for impacts on these species. Ruby is proposing under 

the ESA Plan to continue to assess the distribution of these species in Klamath and Lake Counties, 

Oregon. Because neither populations nor suitable habitat would be impacted by the project, we conclude 

that the project would not affect slender orcutt grass or Greene’s tuctoria. 

4.7.2.6 Ute Ladies’-Tresses 

The Ute ladies’-tresses is a federally listed threatened orchid species that grows in moist, 

seasonally flooded soils near wetland meadows, springs, lakes, and streams. Plants typically inhabit point 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-140 

bars, floodplains, and streambanks with low-growing, relatively sparse grass or forbs. Ute ladies’-tresses 

occur in several western states including parts of southwestern Wyoming, north-central and western Utah, 

and extreme eastern Nevada. The closest known population to Ruby’s proposed route is approximately 

20 to 25 miles south of the Utah portion of the pipeline. In 2008, Ruby completed surveys for the Ute 

ladies’-tresses at 35 areas in Wyoming and Utah according to FWS guidelines between mid-July and 

August 2008. Suitable habitat was determined through informal consultation with the FWS, 

conversations with state heritage botanists, and literature review. No Ute ladies’-tresses were identified 

during the 2008 surveys. Seventeen sites were determined to have no or low potential for Ute ladies’-

tresses based on the absence of suitable habitat. The other eighteen sites provided moderate potential for 

Ute ladies’-tresses. No sites provided high potential for Ute ladies’-tresses. 

Ruby conducted additional protocol surveys for the Ute ladies’-tresses in August and September 

2009. Sites visited in 2009 included 21 wetland areas crossed by proposed access road corridors; one 

wetland area included within the proposed Glencoe Junction pipe storage and staging yard; one wetland 

area included within the proposed contractor/construction yard north of Corinne, Utah; and two wetland 

areas crossed by proposed reroutes of the pipeline corridor. In addition, 14 of the 18 sites that were 

characterized as exhibiting moderate quality habitat potential for the orchid species during the survey in 

2008 were revisited to search for individuals or populations of the species. The remaining four sites 

exhibiting moderate habitat quality in 2008 were not revisited in 2009 because pipeline reroutes now 

avoid these wetland areas. No Ute ladies’-tresses were identified during the 2009 surveys. 

Ruby has stated it would retain a botanist to conduct surveys for Ute ladies’-tresses prior to 

clearing in potential habitat along the project to ensure that no Ute ladies’-tresses populations were 

overlooked or any new colonies have established along the project.5 Ruby would require this botanist to 

report any populations of Ute ladies’-tresses found during pipeline construction. Should Ute ladies’-

tresses be identified during the preconstruction surveys, Ruby states it would would implement measures 

such as installing signs or temporary fencing to prevent pipeline construction personnel from traversing 

populations of Ute ladies’-tresses. However, to ensure any potential effects to this species are minimized, 

we recommend that, Ruby not start construction in any area where Ute ladies’-tresses are identified 

during preconstruction surveys until: 

a. FERC staff receives the survey report for the Ute ladies’-tresses sighting, as well as 

any comments from the FWS regarding project impacts on this species; 

b. staff completes any necessary Section 7 consultation with the FWS; and 

c. Ruby has received written notification from the Director of OEP that construction 

or use of mitigation may begin. 

Implementing the actions in the ESA Plan would further mitigate or compensate for impacts on 

this species. Under the ESA Plan, Ruby is proposing to the preserve the only known population of Ute 

ladies’-tresses in Cache County, Utah. A conservation easement would be established for the property 

and possibly the adjacent property should surveys identify Ute ladies’-tresses on the adjacent property.

On the basis of current data (including negative survey results, and only limited, marginal- to 

moderate-quality habitat for this species crossed by the project); conducting additional, preconstruction 

surveys; implementing our recommendation; and implementing the ESA Plan, we conclude that the 

project may affect, but would be unlikely to adversely affect the Ute ladies’-tresses. 

 

5

 This may have limited effectiveness as it is difficult to identify this species outside the late-summer flowering period. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-141 

4.7.3 Federally Petitioned and Candidate Species 

4.7.3.1 Greater Sage-Grouse 

The greater sage-grouse was petitioned for ESA listing in 2002 and then again in 2003. The 

original petition was found by the FWS to not warrant listing. However, subsequent legal challenges to 

the original finding resulted in a FWS determination that the greater sage-grouse status would undergo 

additional review to determine if the species warranted ESA protection. The FWS’s decision on whether 

to list the greater sage-grouse is expected in February 2010. The greater sage-grouse is considered a 

BLM-sensitive species in all BLM districts that would be crossed by the project. Critical habitat has not 

been designated for this species. 

The greater sage-grouse commonly utilizes multiple habitats for multiple purposes throughout the 

year (Braun, Connelly, and Schroeder, 2001; Connelly et al., 2004). Lek sites, or courtship grounds, are 

crucial sites used to facilitate the breeding activities of the greater sage-grouse. Important components of 

lek sites include relatively open habitats with minimal sagebrush. Nesting habitat includes moderate 

amounts of sagebrush cover (about 23 percent) with varying heights, residual grass cover, and live forb 

cover. Brood-rearing habitat is defined as either early- or late-season brooding habitat; early season 

habitat is comprised of relatively open stands of sagebrush and high herbaceous cover while late-season 

habitat is comprised of riparian meadows or hay ground that supports succulent herbaceous vegetation 

and has a surrounding buffer of sagebrush. Winter habitat is comprised of areas where sagebrush extends 

10 to 14 inches above the snow or where sagebrush is blown free of snow by wind. 

Greater sage-grouse habitat occurs over much of the project area. Ruby conducted greater sagegrouse surveys for all active, inactive, historic, potential, and unknown leks within 2 miles of all project 

areas. Biologists conducted the surveys between March 30 and May 7 (peak lekking periods) using 

accepted agency protocol. Surveys identified 104 greater sage-grouse leks within 2 miles of project areas. 

A complete list of greater sage-grouse leks, their activity status, and locations are provided in Ruby’s 

Comprehensive Species-Specific Survey Field Report that is available for public review on the FERC 

website. Twenty-three leks are within 2 miles of the proposed pipeline; nine of these leks are within 0.25 

mile. 

As discussed and presented in section 4.4.5, a mile-by-mile habitat analysis was conducted along 

the project, which included an analysis of greater sage-grouse habitat. About 143 miles of high-quality 

greater sage-grouse habitat is crossed by the project in Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada. In addition, 336 

miles of moderate- to low-quality habitat are crossed in all four states. 

Aboveground facilities, access roads, and staging areas located near leks could negatively affect 

greater sage-grouse. Aboveground facilities would require monitoring and maintenance and could 

provide perches for raptors that prey on greater sage-grouse. BLM field offices typically prohibit 

aboveground features within a 0.25-mile radius of known lek sites. Traffic on access roads could disturb 

greater sage-grouse and cause them to avoid a lek or disrupt brood-rearing. Staging areas would 

frequently have high levels of construction activity that could disrupt greater sage-grouse within the 

general vicinity. 

Ruby has stated that no surface buildings or pipeline appurtenances (not including signage 

required by DOT, MLVs, or cathodic protection test facilities) would be occupied or constructed within 

0.6 mile of known active leks. Thirty-two leks are within 2 miles of the proposed access roads. Twentythree of these leks are within 0.25 mile. Some of these roads would be graded to facilitate construction 

traffic and later reclaimed as close as possible to preconstruction conditions; this would include, at a 

minimum, “pull-back” of graded road material from both sides of the road to original widths and seeding 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-142 

of any widened road edge. Access roads would be used extensively during pipeline construction and 

restoration activities and occasionally during operation to conduct monitoring and maintenance of 

pipeline facilities. Construction-related activities also would occur at temporary extra workspaces, 

staging areas, and contractor/pipe yards. These activities could discourage birds from using leks or 

disrupt brood-rearing near these areas. 

The degree of impact on greater sage-grouse would depend on the proximity of construction 

activities to habitat and leks and the amount of habitat that would be affected by the project. Potential 

direct impacts could include nest abandonment, dispersion of individuals from preferred habitat, and 

mortality due to collision with project vehicles. Long-term impacts could be associated with habitat 

fragmentation, loss, or degradation. Greater sage-grouse are fairly mobile and could fly over the project 

area to reach adjacent habitats. Once shrub cover was established on the right-of-way, greater sagegrouse could also walk across the right-of-way with a relatively low probability of increased predation. 

The right-of-way would not present a permanent physical barrier to greater sage-grouse movement if 

revegetation were accomplished successfully (Connelly, 2009). 

Potential construction-related impacts would be lessened by applying seasonal no-construction 

buffers around active greater sage-grouse leks. Through coordination with state agencies, Ruby has 

agreed to adopt the following construction restrictions for greater sage-grouse leks: 

• avoid construction within 3 miles of an occupied/active greater sage-grouse lek within 

designated core areas from March 15 to June 30 and within 2 miles of an active greater 

sage-grouse lek outside designated core areas from March 15 to June 30 throughout 

Wyoming; 

• avoid construction within 4 miles of an occupied/active greater sage-grouse lek between 

March 1 and June 15 throughout Utah; and 

• avoid construction within 2 miles of an occupied/active greater sage-grouse lek between 

March 1 and May 15 throughout Nevada. 

The BLM Kemmerer District has requested that Ruby avoid human activity from 8:00 p.m. and 

8:00 a.m. between March 1 and May 15 within 0.25 mile of the perimeter of active leks, which is 

consistent with Ruby’s proposed construction restrictions. 

Potential habitat degradation or loss could occur if revegetation does not restore habitat 

characteristics important to greater sage-grouse. Primary impediments to successful habitat restoration 

include wildfire impacts and invasion by cheatgrass or other weedy species and the slow reestablishment 

of sagebrush in many areas. Cheatgrass frequently invades disturbed lands in the Great Basin (McArthur 

et al., 1989). Wildfires in former sagebrush areas now dominated by cheatgrass are burning at shorter fire 

rotations (Baker, 2006). Wildfires from 1999 to 2007 resulted in an approximate 2.5-million acre loss of 

key sagebrush habitat in Nevada (Espinosa and Phenix, 2008). However, a study of native restoration 

along a 228-mile pipeline right-of-way in northwestern Nevada and northeastern California found that the 

initial increase in cheatgrass cover on the right-of-way subsided to levels similar to that of adjacent lands 

within 5 to 8 years (WESTECH, 2004). Native, seeded vegetation was frequently well-established on the 

right-of-way within 5 years in areas where the adjacent vegetation was also in good condition. Shrubs, 

particularly big sagebrush and green or rubber rabbitbrush, were well established on approximately 50 

percent of the right-of-way within 8 years. The success of greater sage-grouse habitat restoration on the 

construction right-of-way would be dependent on construction and reclamation practices, climate, and 

adjacent vegetation conditions. 

Ruby has developed several seed mixtures in consultation with the NRCS and BLM. Local 

collections of big sagebrush seed have been specified for some areas. Ruby has identified other best 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-143 

management practices to improve sagebrush reestablishment but has not specified where these practices 

would be applied. The BLM, FWS, and several state wildlife agencies have provided comments 

regarding greater sage-grouse habitat restoration efforts. These comments suggested that Ruby employ a 

range of procedures from using HDD to cross large tracts of intact big sagebrush to planting or seeding 

locally collected sagebrush on the right-of-way. However, these agencies have not identified specific 

locations where specific habitat restoration procedures are recommended. Further, the use of certain 

conservations measures, such as using the HDD method to cross habitat, may not be the most effective 

measure to reduce impacts on greater sage-grouse habitat. HDDs are used on occasion to cross small 

tracts; for example, to avoid direct impacts on site-specific resources such as waterbodies, discrete and 

contained sensitive plant populations, and known locations of sensitive cultural resource sites. However, 

an HDD would require large staging workspaces to set up drilling rigs and may require extensive pipe 

fabrication workspaces to complete the HDD. The amount of land disturbance that may occur in these 

circumstances may outweigh any benefit received from using the HDD as compared to standard and 

specialized construction and restoration procedures. 

Ruby has committed to seeding locally collected sagebrush and other shrub seed; however, we 

recognize that other methods may also be effective at establishing sagebrush. Mowing, hydro-axing, or 

harrowing with a Dixie harrow has been used to stimulate sagebrush recruitment and herbaceous 

understory production (ARS, 2008; BLM, 2008c; BLM, 2004a). Although mechanical removal of 

sagebrush decreases sagebrush structure in the short-term, mechanical removal is often less damaging to 

vegetation than removing the vegetation along with the topsoil horizon. A study of a power line right-ofway in northeastern California indicated that shrubs reestablished more quickly in areas that were mowed 

than in areas where the topsoil horizon was salvaged, stored, and replaced (WESTECH, 2001a). Other 

efforts to promote sagebrush habitat restoration include seeding high rates of native, palatable forbs 

within lek and breeding habitat to minimize the spread of invasive species and provide habitat and a food 

source to greater sage-grouse until sagebrush restoration is complete (CDOW, 2008). 

Two of the four proposed compressor station sites (Roberson Creek and Weiland Flat) are located 

in the vicinity of suitable greater sage-grouse habitat. The new noise sources could impact the greater 

sage-grouse, especially during the breeding and nesting season. Female greater sage-grouse use the 

acoustic component of male displays to locate leks and select a mate. Lyon and Anderson (2003) found 

that females had lower nest initiation rates and moved farther from leks to initiate nests when noise 

sources were present. Males may respond by increasing the frequency and amplitude of their calls. The 

closest known lek to a proposed compressor station is the East Devil’s Gate Lek #NOFO-114, which is an 

occupied inactive lek (not requiring a seasonal construction buffer) about 1.6 miles from the proposed 

Wieland Flat Compressor Station site. At a distance of 1.6 miles, the increase in noise generated from the 

compressor station would be about 4 to 8 dB. While this noise level is not likely to disturb behavior at 

the identified lek site, the potential exists for compressor station noise to either disturb greater sagegrouse using suitable habitat closer to the station, or effectively remove that habitat from future use if the 

birds were to avoid it entirely. 

Ruby conducted a greater sage-grouse habitat and impact analysis for the four proposed 

compressor stations (see Appendix M). The locations of the new compressor stations do not occur within 

any agency lek buffers that stipulate no surface occupancy. The Roberson Creek and Wildcat Hills 

compressor stations would require seasonal restrictions for construction activities. Compliance with the 

seasonal restriction can be adhered to for the Wildcat Hills Compressor Station (March 1 through June 

15). The Roberson Creek Compressor Station is located within core greater sage-grouse habitat that has a 

seasonal restriction of March 15 through June 30. Ruby is pursuing options with federal and state 

agencies in Wyoming to determine if a waiver can be provided to allow construction of the Roberson 

Creek Compressor Station prior to June 30. There are currently three existing compressor stations 

operating near Ruby’s proposed Roberson Creek Compressor Station site. Questar operates its Roberson 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-144 

Creek Compressor Station south and adjacent to the proposed site, Williams operates its Muddy Creek 

Compressor Station about 1,250 feet south of the proposed site, and Kern River operates its Muddy Creek 

Compressor Station about 2,500 feet south of the proposed site. We believe Ruby’s siting of its Roberson 

Creek Compressor Station in an area already developed by similar industrial facilities would not 

significantly change the existing noise environment in the vicinity, and that construction of the 

compressor station within the seasonal restriction period (March 15 to June 30) would not significantly 

affect greater sage-grouse lekking or breeding habitats in the area. 

Construction of the pipeline and associated infrastructure would result in immediate direct and 

indirect impacts on greater sage-grouse and pygmy rabbits and on both species’ habitats. However, 

restoration of disturbed areas associated with the right-of-way and associated facilities would not fully 

offset the permanent disturbance of new roads, compressor stations, and other permanent facilities. In 

addition, restoration and rehabilitation activities would not mitigate residual impacts on the species and 

their habitats that would continue until the disturbances are fully revegetated and restored. 

To mitigate the residual impacts associated with the loss of habitat function during pipeline 

restoration activities and pipeline operations and to provide conservation benefits to the species, Ruby, the 

BLM, and the wildlife management agencies in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon, with support and 

assistance from the FWS, have drafted a Cooperative Conservation Agreement (Cooperative Agreement) 

and an associated conservation plan for greater sage-grouse and pygmy rabbits (see Appendix M). The 

conservation plan represents a collaborative effort between Ruby and state and federal agencies to 

identify appropriate conservation actions for greater sage-grouse and pygmy rabbit populations within and 

in the vicinity of the Ruby pipeline right-of-way. Any of the specific conservation actions identified in 

the Cooperative Agreement and associated plan would be subject to NEPA review separate from the 

analyses presented in this final EIS. 

The draft conservation actions are based on potential measures each agency and state would like 

Ruby to implement. According to the agencies, these projects would benefit greater sage-grouse, pygmy 

rabbit, and migratory bird habitats, as well as other wildlife species. This list of projects is based on 

management needs found in the state and local working-group greater sage-grouse plans. Collectively, 

these projects would contribute to restoring vegetation and reducing the threat of habitat fragmentation 

Examples of such projects include sagebrush-steppe restoration, riparian restoration, spring enhancement, 

rangeland reseeding, burn-area reseeding, invasive-weed control, livestock exclosures, fuels management, 

conservation easements, and land acquisition. 

The conservation agreement and plan identify appropriate compensation ratios and acreages to 

offset the residual impacts associated with pipeline construction and to compensate for the spatial and 

temporal loss of habitat that would occur as a result of project construction activities. A Habitat 

Evaluation Analysis was completed to identify appropriate acreages and ratios of conservation and 

enhancement projects. According to the BLM, the project would impact approximately 11,151 acres 

(58.4 percent) of greater sage-grouse and pygmy rabbit habitats. Of the total disturbance, 1,205 (10.8 

percent) would occur in Wyoming; 1,525 acres (13.7 percent) would occur in Utah; 7,192 acres (64.5 

percent) would occur in Nevada; and 1,229 acres (11.0 percent) would occur in Oregon. Of this, the 

BLM contends that most would be restored over a 5- to 100-year period using the methods identified in 

Appendix L. 

The Habitat Evaluation Analysis completed as part of the greater sage-grouse and pygmy rabbit 

conservation plan (Appendix M) quantified the compensation acreages necessary to mitigate and offset 

the direct impacts associated with the disturbance to the sage-steppe ecosystem. It also considered the 

indirect impact on habitat functionality that would occur as a result of noise and dust impacts on areas 

immediately adjacent to project construction areas, as well as the fragmentation of habitats that would 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-145 

result from pipeline and road construction. Residual impacts associated with long-term loss of sage 

habitats (some sage species require 100 years or more to reach full restoration) and permanent losses 

associated with the compressor location and permanent roads were also factors in the Habitat Evaluation 

Analysis for sage-grouse and pygmy rabbit. According to the BLM, results of the Habitat Evaluation 

Analysis indicate that 16,066 acres of greater sage-grouse habitat of similar quality to that impacted 

would need to be purchased, enhanced, or created to offset the indirect and residual effects that would not 

be fully mitigated by vegetation restoration activities in areas disturbed by the project (table 4.7.3-1). The 

16,066 acres of habitat would be in addition to the restored project right-of-way and associated temporary 

infrastructure (temporary access roads, storage yards, etc.). 

TABLE 4.7.3-1 

Acres Required by States to Compensate for the Direct, Indirect, and Residual Impacts on Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Associated with Construction of the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Vegetation Type 

State 

Wyoming 

(acres) 

Utah 

(acres) 

Nevada 

(acres) 

Oregon 

(acres) Total (acres) 

Grassland/Herbaceous 4.6 9.2 44.4 0.6 58.8 

Riparian 2.8 5.9 3.0 2.3 14.0 

Sagebrush Steppe 1,471.7 2,026.5 6,782.6 1220.9 11,501.6 

Salt Desert Shrub 293.4 1,877.9 2,099.6 133.4 4,404.2 

Shrubland 0.1 68.0 4.2 14.8 87.0 

Total 1,772.5 3,987.5 8,933.6 1,372.0 16,065.6 

────────────────────

a This data was provided by the BLM. 

According to the BLM, current rangewide distribution of the greater sage-grouse is estimated at 

165,168,000 acres (258,075 square miles) (FWS, 2008d). In the Conservation Plan, vegetation was 

quantified within a 10-mile buffer centered on the pipeline (i.e., 5 miles on each side of the pipeline). 

Patches of greater sage-grouse habitat were mapped within the 10-mile buffer, and 1,614,210 acres were 

identified as greater sage-grouse habitat patches that would be intercepted by the pipeline. The 

Conservation Plan estimates that 0.9 percent of greater sage-grouse habitat within these patches would be 

impacted by the project. This impacts less than 0.01 percent of the habitat within greater sage-grouse 

range. 

The Ruby Pipeline Project would directly disturb approximately 16,427.5 acres of land (greater 

sage-grouse habitat and other habitat) for construction, including the pipeline right-of-way, temporary 

extra workspaces, contractor yards, access roads, and aboveground facilities. This is 1.5 percent of the 

greater sage-grouse habitat available along the pipeline and less than 0.02 percent of the land within its 

range. Operation of the pipeline would require approximately 4,268 acres of land, or about 0.3 percent of 

greater sage-grouse habitat within the buffer and less than 0.003 percent of the land within its range. 

Impacts related to loss of habitat and disruption of greater sage-grouse behavior would occur in 

the immediate vicinity of the pipeline during construction and revegetation. However, these impacts 

would be relatively localized and short term, given the small proportion of available greater sage-grouse 

habitat that would be permanently impacted. Adherence to BLM and state timing and spatial avoidance 

stipulations for greater sage-grouse would lessen these impacts. Some residual impacts on greater sagegrouse habitat would continue until the pipeline corridor is fully revegetated and the conservation projects 

discussed above are fully implemented. However, implementation of the conservation measures and the 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-146 

Cooperative Agreement and associated plan for greater sage-grouse would likely result in reduced 

impacts on greater sage-grouse and its habitat. The implementation of conservation efforts (removing 

unnecessary fences, enhancing existing habitats, etc.) in the landscape around the pipeline corridor could 

have long-term beneficial impacts on greater sage-grouse and other sage obligate species that would 

extend beyond the life of the pipeline project. These long-term benefits could include increased nesting, 

brood rearing, lekking, or wintering habitat quality that could be realized through completion of 

conservation projects focused on habitat enhancement. Although the Ruby project might impact the 

greater sage-grouse, it would not cause population-level effects nor lead to a trend toward federal listing, 

given the implementation of the Cooperative Agreement and associated plan, the relatively small 

disturbance of sage habitat (when compared to its overall availability in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and 

Oregon), adherence to BLM timing and spatial stipulations, and the requirement for pipeline revegetation 

and restoration. 

If the appropriate conservation projects and acreages are implemented and the signatory agencies 

agree, the conservation plans in Appendix M would appropriately mitigate the direct, indirect, and 

residual impacts. To ensure that the necessary projects to fully offset impacts are funded, Ruby has 

committed dedicated funding for the purposes of completing greater sage-grouse and pygmy rabbit 

conservation measures identified in the greater sage-grouse and pygmy rabbit conservation plan in 

Appendix M. 

4.7.3.2 Yellow-Billed Cuckoo 

The yellow-billed cuckoo (western distinct population segment) is a federal candidate species and 

a BLM sensitive species in Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada. The yellow-billed cuckoo inhabits woodlands 

with a dense scrub understory that are often near water, and generally breeds in the project area from midJune through July. Suitable habitat is limited in the project area to a few rivers and large streams with 

associated woody riparian vegetation in Wyoming and Utah. 

Through consultations with FWS, the WGFD, the UDWR, and a site visit at possible yellowbilled cuckoo nesting habitat areas along the proposed pipeline corridor in Cache County, Utah, by a 

sensitive species biologist with the UDWR, suitable nesting habitat and the need for yellow-billed cuckoo 

surveys were identified. Two areas in Wyoming were originally considered to have potential yellowbilled cuckoo habitat: the pipeline crossing of the Hams Fork River (MP 1) and an access road (LW6) 

crossing of the Hams Fork River. The WGFD subsequently determined that these two areas did not 

provide suitable habitat for the yellow-billed cuckoo and that surveys in these areas would not be 

required. Five areas in Utah were considered as having potential yellow-billed cuckoo habitat: the 

pipeline crossing of the Bear River (MP 52.9), Woodruff Creek (MP 60.9), East Fork of the Little Bear 

River (MPs 92.1 to 92.8), South Fork of the Little Bear River (MP 94.9), as well as an access road (C18) 

crossing at the South Fork of the Little Bear River. We determined that suitable nesting habitat does not 

exist at the Bear River and Woodruff Creek crossings due to a lack of tree canopy and continuous dense 

shrub layers, and these areas did not require survey for the yellow-billed cuckoo. 

The riparian areas where the proposed pipeline corridor crosses the East and South Forks of the 

Little Bear River have a greater potential for yellow-billed cuckoo habitat. These areas exhibit perennial 

flows and riparian areas supporting stands of willows and dogwood with occasional canopies of trees. 

The yellow-billed cuckoo has been observed in these areas in the recent past, and a decision was made by 

both Ruby biologists and agency personnel working on the project to conduct surveys at these locations. 

Ruby conducted surveys at four locations: two locations adjacent to the East Fork of the Little 

Bear River along the proposed pipeline corridor and in an associated staging area; and two at the 

proposed pipeline corridor crossing and adjacent to the South Fork of the Little Bear River and Spring 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-147 

Branch drainage where access road C18 crosses. Surveys were conducted in the early morning on August 

18 and September 1, 2009, according to FWS survey protocol (FWS, 2009c). 

The surveys identified marginal quality riparian habitat for the yellow-billed cuckoo. Extensive 

intact areas with dense shrubby vegetation and trees are limited due to previous fragmentation of the 

riparian habitat. The UDWR confirmed this site assessment. No yellow-billed cuckoos were seen or 

heard at any of the survey locations during either of the survey sessions. The survey results don’t 

preclude the possibility of yellow-billed cuckoos in the area; however, the existing lack of suitable habitat 

acreage and vegetation canopy structure and density at these locations may already limit any future 

nesting sites. We conclude that while the project might impact possible habitat for the yellow-billed 

cuckoo, it would not cause population-level effects, nor lead to a trend toward federal listing. 

4.7.3.3 Pygmy Rabbit 

The pygmy rabbit has been petitioned for listing under the ESA and is managed as a sensitive 

species throughout the project area. Pygmy rabbits are sagebrush obligates whose primary habitat 

includes tall, dense stands of big sagebrush with loose soils for burrowing. Bradfield (1974), Flath and 

Rauscher (1995), and Katzner and Parker (1997) have observed pygmy rabbit tracks in snow at distances 

between 262 and 328 feet or more from burrows. Spring and summer home ranges are larger than winter 

home ranges (Burak, 2006). Pygmy rabbits breed between February and May (Keinath and McGee, 

2004). Females may have up to three litters per year and construct natal burrows which can be located 

outside of their core home range (Rachlow et al., 2005; Burak, 2006). Suitable habitat for the rabbit is 

present along much of the pipeline route. 

Ruby conducted pygmy rabbit surveys in 2008 and 2009. Areas surveyed in 2009 included areas 

where pygmy rabbits were observed in 2008, where suitable habitat had yet to be surveyed, or where new 

project facilities were identified since the 2008 surveys. Field crews documented pygmy rabbit sightings, 

pellets, burrows, and the active status of the pygmy rabbit burrows/area. Eighty-three pygmy rabbit areas 

were observed in Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada in 2009. Table 4.7.3-3 summarizes the number, size, 

density, and active status of the pygmy rabbit areas identified in 2009. 

TABLE 4.7.3-3 

Pygmy Rabbit Observations Along the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State Number of Delineated 

Burrow Complexes Number of Burrows Total Area Delineated (acres) Status 

Wyoming 24 164 12 19 Currently Active 

5 Recently Active 

Utah 19 417 25.5 All Currently Active 

Nevada 34 784 24.8 

19 Currently Active 

13 Recently Active 

2 Historically Active 

Oregon 0 0 0 - 

Pygmy rabbits are highly mobile, and it is unlikely that a large number of individuals would be 

killed by construction equipment or related traffic, although some individual vehicle/rabbit collisions may 

occur. Some rabbits could remain in a burrow and be killed by trenching or burrow collapse. Pygmy 

rabbits could also be displaced if burrows are destroyed or filled in. Pygmy rabbits generally spend much 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-148 

of their lives within 400 to 800 feet of their burrows. Construction could displace pygmy rabbits 

inhabiting the right-of-way from their primary home range. 

Pygmy rabbits could also be impacted through removal of suitable habitat. Pygmy rabbits are 

susceptible to predation in areas with little shrub cover (Keinath and McGee, 2004), and substantial shrub 

cover would not be present on the right-of-way in many areas for several years or decades following 

construction. Consequently, the right-of-way could create a barrier to pygmy rabbit movement until 

revegetation is similar to adjacent conditions. To minimize impacts on pygmy rabbit habitat, Ruby has 

agreed to several conservation measures. Ruby’s proposed measures are included in Appendix M and 

summarized below: 

• realign the pipeline or construction workspace to avoid disturbance within 100 feet of 

active pygmy rabbit burrows, where possible; 

• seed high rates of the appropriate subspecies of sagebrush throughout the habitat; and 

• cut or mow sagebrush where full right-of-way grading is not required. 

Where the pipeline or construction workspaces cannot be realigned to avoid disturbance within 

100 feet of active pygmy rabbit burrows, Ruby would restore disturbed areas by creating shrub patches. 

Ruby has committed to avoiding identified breeding areas from February to March. The BLM Salt Lake 

Field Office may require this avoidance window to be extended through June in select areas. 

One commenter on the draft EIS suggested that pygmy rabbit burrows could be flooded by the 

discharge of hydrostatic test water. Several active burrows and one recently active burrow are within 0.25 

mile of potential hydrostatic discharge locations (MPs 6, 41.4 to 41.6, 56.5 to 59, 260.9 to 261, and 

275.8). In order to minimize the potential for flooding pygmy rabbit burrows, we recommend that Ruby 

control the outflow of hydrostatic test water discharge structures to ensure that discharge water 

does not reach occupied pygmy rabbit burrows at MPs 6, 41.4 to 41.6, 56.5 to 59, 260.9 to 261, and 

275.8. 

In the conservation plan referenced in the Cooperative Agreement (Appendix M), vegetation was 

quantified within a 10-mile buffer centered on the pipeline (i.e., 5 miles on each side of the pipeline). 

Pygmy rabbits primarily use areas with sagebrush-steppe vegetation for their habitat. According to the 

BLM, there are 2,301,539 acres of sagebrush-steppe habitat available within the 10-mile buffer. For the 

Ruby pipeline, 12,601 acres (0.6 percent) of sagebrush steppe within the 10-mile buffer would be directly 

affected by construction, and 2,253 acres (0.1 percent) would be directly affected by operations. 

However, not all sagebrush steppe is suitable habitat for the pygmy rabbit. Ruby surveyed the 115-footwide pipeline corridor for pygmy rabbit habitat and only 61.9 acres along the right-of-way was 

determined to be suitable. 

According to the FWS’s 90-day Finding (FWS, 2005), no substantial scientific information 

documents the historical or current range of pygmy rabbits within sagebrush ecosystems. However, the 

petition to list the pygmy rabbit estimated that the species’ historical range was 100 million acres and that 

populations may currently exist in portions of 7 to 8 million acres (FWS, 2005). Therefore, assuming that 

the current distribution of pygmy rabbits is approximately 7 million acres, the 61.9 acres of suitable 

pygmy rabbit habitat impacted by the pipeline would affect only 0.0008 percent of habitat across the 

species’ range. 

Impacts related to loss of habitat and disruption of pygmy rabbit behavior would occur in the 

immediate vicinity of the pipeline during construction and revegetation. However, these impacts would 

be relatively localized and short term, given the small proportion of available pygmy rabbit habitat that 

would be permanently impacted. Some residual impacts on pygmy rabbit habitat would continue until the 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-149 

pipeline corridor is fully revegetated. The Habitat Evaluation Analysis indicates that in addition to 

avoiding or replacing the 61.9 acres of habitat, an additional 53.8 acres of habitat should be enhanced or 

protected to offset the impacts of project activities. 

Ruby has committed dedicated funding for the purposes of completing greater sage-grouse and 

pygmy rabbit conservation measures identified in the conservation plan in Appendix M. These proposed 

conservation actions and a list of projects that would contribute to restoring vegetation and reducing the 

threat of habitat fragmentation are presented in section 4.7.3.1. Implementation of the conservation 

measures and the pygmy rabbit conservation agreement and plan would result in reduced impacts on 

pygmy rabbit habitat. The implementation of conservation projects in the landscape around the pipeline 

corridor could have long-term beneficial impacts on pygmy rabbits and other sage obligate species that 

would extend beyond the life of the Ruby project. Although the Ruby project might impact the pygmy 

rabbit, it would not cause population-level effects nor lead to a trend toward federal listing, given the 

implementation of the Agreement and associated plan, the relatively small disturbance of sage habitat 

(when compared to its availability in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon), adherence to BLM timing 

and spatial stipulations, and the requirement for pipeline revegetation and restoration. 

4.7.3.4 White-Tailed Prairie Dog 

The white-tailed prairie dog was petitioned for ESA listing in 2002. The original petition was 

found by the FWS to not warrant listing. However, subsequent legal challenges to the original finding 

resulted in a FWS determination that the white-tailed prairie dog status would undergo additional review 

to determine if the species warranted ESA protection. The FWS’s decision on whether to list the whitetailed prairie dog is expected in June 2010. The white-tailed prairie dog is considered a BLM sensitive 

species in the Kemmerer and Salt Lake Field Office planning areas and also is a WGFD species of 

concern. 

White-tailed prairie dogs live in colonies and inhabit dry, flat, open grasslands with low, 

relatively sparse vegetation, including areas overgrazed by cattle. Fine-to-medium textured soils are 

preferred, presumably because burrows and other structures tend to retain their shape and strength better 

than in coarse, loose soils. White-tailed prairie dogs typically live at higher elevations and in meadows 

with more diverse grass and herb cover than do black-tailed prairie dogs. 

The effects of construction through a white-tailed prairie dog colony include temporary loss of 

forage and shelter due to vegetation clearing, collapsing of burrows, and temporary disruption of foraging 

and nesting activities due to disturbance associated with construction equipment. Direct mortality of 

white-tailed prairie dogs could result if active burrows are occupied at the time of construction. If 

construction occurs later in the white-tailed prairie dog’s reproductive season, in late May to early June, 

most white-tailed prairie dogs are expected to be mobile and able to avoid construction traffic; however, 

some individual white-tailed prairie dogs may be injured or killed during construction. In addition, there 

is potential for destroying active dens with young, depending on construction timing. Following 

construction and restoration, the revegetated right-of-way would provide foraging habitat for white-tailed 

prairie dogs, and the unconsolidated soils along the trench would likely provide a good substrate for 

burrowing. 

Ruby conducted white-tailed prairie dog surveys in 2009. The results of these surveys are 

discussed in the black-footed ferret discussion in section 4.7.2.1. To limit construction-related impacts on 

those white-tailed prairie dog colonies within the construction right-of-way, we recommend that Ruby 

modify the right-of-way configuration (e.g., use the opposite side of the right-of-way to operate 

vehicle traffic) or reduce the construction right-of-way width to 75 feet where crossing known 

colonies to avoid white-tailed prairie dog burrows to the greatest extent possible. In addition, 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-150 

where a colony only occurs along the edge of the construction right-of-way, the colony edge should 

be flagged or exclusion fencing should be erected to avoid impacts on burrows. In accordance with 

condition 4 on section 5.2, Ruby would be required to identify these right-of-way modifications on its 

construction alignment sheets filed prior to construction for review and written approval by the Director 

of OEP. 

Our recommendation would ensure that Ruby implement construction techniques to minimize 

impacts on white-tailed prairie dogs. We believe that the project may impact individuals but is not likely 

to cause a trend toward federal listing or cause population-level effects. 

4.7.3.5 Northern Leatherside Chub 

The northern leatherside chub has been petitioned for listing under the ESA. This species is 

restricted to the upper Snake and Bear River drainages, where it inhabits rocky, low-velocity runs and 

pools in creeks and small to intermediate rivers. The northern leatherside chub is present in Salt Creek, 

Bear River, and some of their tributaries. The Ruby Pipeline Project would cross three ephemeral or 

intermittent tributaries to Salt Creek, none of which appear to support northern leatherside chub. The 

project would also cross channels and canals associated with the Bear River near MP 52.9 and Woodruff 

Creek, a perennial tributary to the Bear River, near MP 60.8. The northern leatherside chub could be 

present in these waterbodies. Ruby has stated it would cross waterbodies that could contain sensitive 

species using a dry-crossing method. This method would reduce impacts on the leatherside chub when 

compared to using traditional wet open-cut crossing methods. 

As stated in section 4.3.2.5, Ruby intends to appropriate 7,157,349 gallons (22 acre-feet) of water 

from Woodruff Creek for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline and dust control. We have recommended in 

section 4.3.2.5 that water withdrawal rates do not exceed 10 percent of a waterbody’s base flow at the 

time of construction. By incorporating the mitigation measures discussed in section 4.7.1 and our 

recommendation in section 4.3.2.5, we conclude that while the project might impact individual northern 

leatherside chub, it would not cause population-level effects, nor lead to a trend toward federal listing. 

4.7.3.6 Columbia Spotted Frog 

The Great Basin subpopulation of the Columbia spotted frog (eastern Oregon, southwestern 

Idaho, and northern Nevada) is listed as a federal candidate species. Another subpopulation, in 

southwestern Wyoming, is a BLM sensitive species and is not a federal candidate species, and is not 

evaluated in this section. Suitable habitat for the Columbia spotted frog includes springs, seeps, 

meadows, marshes, ponds, streams, and other areas where there is abundant mesic vegetation at 

elevations between 5,600 and 8,700 feet above mean sea level. Columbia spotted frogs often migrate 

along riparian corridors; through adjacent uplands; and between spring breeding, summer foraging and 

winter hibernation habitats. The species has declined due to wetland and riparian degradation, drought, 

fire, and dam and road construction. 

Ruby consulted with state wildlife agencies and heritage programs to identify areas along the 

proposed route that could support the Columbia spotted frog. Through consultations with NDOW, it was 

determined that Columbia spotted frog surveys should be conducted within three watersheds (South Fork 

Owyhee, Upper Humboldt, and North Fork Humboldt) in Elko County, Nevada from MPs 283 to R357. 

The ODFW recommended that Columbia spotted frog surveys should be conducted within the Warner 

Basin from MP 579 to 610. Qualified biologists conducted surveys at all project areas within the four 

watershed basins that contained wetlands, ponds, seeps, springs, ditches, or perennial streams crossings. 

Surveyed project areas included the pipeline right-of-way (including route variations that were adopted 

since the issuance of the draft EIS), extra workspaces, proposed access roads, and miscellaneous yards. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-151 

The biologists were trained by NDOW prior to conducting surveys and used Visual Encounter Surveys 

adapted from protocols employed by NDOW and other agencies (Toiyabe Spotted Frog Technical Team, 

2004). In addition to the focused surveys for the Columbia spotted frog, field biologists performing 

general biological surveys during 2008 and 2009 were instructed to document all wildlife observed over 

the entire project, with special attention to sensitive species like Columbia spotted frogs. 

Ruby did not observe Columbia spotted frogs during species-specific surveys in Elko County. 

However, a Columbia spotted frog was documented during general environmental surveys of proposed 

access roads. This frog was recorded at Rattlesnake Creek near its confluence with Willow Creek. This 

area lies outside of the focused survey area that was determined through consultation with NDOW. An 

NDOW biologist performed follow-up surveys in this area and discovered 75 juveniles at this stream 

crossing. He also documented a juvenile in a downstream portion of Willow Creek, upstream from the 

Willow Creek Reservoir. The biologist described these as new records for that area. The streams were 

relatively slow-moving and pooled, and the frogs appeared to be persisting. 

In the Warner Basin, Columbia spotted frogs were recorded in three locations. One individual 

was observed in a seep near Surveyor Spring, and two other individuals were recorded in or near Deep 

Creek near the northeast edge of Big Valley. At Deep Creek, one individual was detected near an access 

road and another individual was detected along the banks of Deep Creek. 

As stated in section 4.3.3.2 and 4.4.3, we have recommended that Ruby limit the construction 

right-of-way to 75 feet in wetlands and woody riparian habitats and locate extra workspaces outside 

wetlands and woody riparian habitats to minimize impacts on these habitats. Ruby has proposed to 

implement several construction and conservation measures to minimize impacts on Columbia spotted frog 

habitat, including restoring waterbodies and wetlands to their preconstruction condition, restoring trees 

and shrubs at woody riparian areas and wetlands, installing trench plugs to maintain wetland hydrology 

characteristics, and preventing the spread of weeds and treating weed infestations should they occur after 

construction. These measures would minimize Columbia spotted frog habitat impacts and facilitate 

successful restoration. We conclude that while the project might impact individual Columbia spotted 

frogs, it would not cause population-level effects, nor lead to a trend toward federal listing.

4.7.3.7 Northern Leopard Frog 

The northern leopard frog has been petitioned for listing under the ESA. The northern leopard 

frog historically ranged from Newfoundland and southern Quebec, south to West Virginia, and west 

across the Canadian provinces and the western United States (Rorabaugh, 2005). However, since the 

1970s the northern leopard frog has experienced significant declines throughout its range, particularly in 

the western United States and Canada (Corn and Fogelman, 1984). The species tends to become less 

abundant the further west within its range. The northern leopard frog is now considered uncommon in a 

large portion of its range in the western United States (Rorabaugh, 2005). 

The northern leopard frog requires a mosaic of habitats (i.e., overwintering, breeding, and upland 

post-breeding habitats) as well as habitat linkages to meet the requirements of all of its life stages (Pope et 

al., 2000). Northern leopard frogs breed in slow-moving or still water along streams, rivers, wetlands, 

permanent or temporary pools, beaver ponds, and human-constructed habitats such as earthen stock tanks 

and borrow pits (Rorabaugh, 2005). Adult northern leopard frogs require stream, pond, lake, and river 

habitats for overwintering and upland habitats adjacent to these areas for summer feeding. In summer, 

adults and juveniles commonly feed in open or semi-open wet meadows and fields with shorter 

vegetation, usually near the margins of waterbodies, and seek escape cover underwater. During winter, 

northern leopard frogs are found inactive underwater on the bottom of deeper streams or waters that do 

not freeze to the bottom and are well-oxygenated (Stewart et al., 2004). 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-152 

The measures discussed in section 4.7.3.6 would likewise minimize impacts on northern leopard 

frog habitat. We conclude that while the project might impact individual northern leopard frogs, it would 

not cause population-level effects, nor lead to a trend toward federal listing. 

4.7.4 Sensitive and State-Listed Species 

Ruby identified 374 sensitive BLM, USFS, or state-listed species that could occur in the project 

area. Species with potential to occur on or near the proposed route were determined through discussions 

with BLM, USFS, and state agencies, and through review of state heritage databases and literature. 

Appendix U presents each of these species, their agency status, general habitat requirements, habitat 

association, and likelihood of occurrence. A more comprehensive description of each species’ habitat 

needs and life history was presented in Ruby’s FERC Certificate application. Our analysis incorporates 

relevant sections of Ruby’s application through reference and tiers upon its descriptions. We eliminated 

159 of these species from further consideration due to lack of suitable habitat in the project area or a 

species’ restricted range that would not coincide with the project’s area of impact. The remaining 215 

species are discussed in this section. 

Most impacts on special status species are a function of the type of habitat disturbed (habitat 

association), the length of time necessary for important habitat characteristics to be restored, a species’ 

mobility, a species’ dependence on specific habitat features, or a species’ disturbance tolerance. We have 

organized our discussion of the project’s impacts on sensitive and state-listed species according to habitat 

association. We then considered impacts on groups of species within a habitat association according to 

the remaining four criteria. This method has been used to address a variety of species’ requirements 

within regional habitats, evaluate potential impacts on those species, and develop best management 

practices to reduce impacts (Barrows et al., 2005). We identified habitat associations through a review of 

species’ habitat requirements in combination with published data regarding species’ habitat associations 

in the Great Basin (Wisdom et al., 2005). Generalist species were placed in the habitat association they 

would be most likely to inhabit in those portions of the project where they are listed by the BLM, USFS, 

or state agencies. We used the vegetation cover types crossed by the proposed project as the basis for 

available habitat. 

4.7.4.1 Sagebrush Steppe Habitat Association 

The sagebrush steppe habitat association is the most common habitat type crossed by the project 

and occurs in all four states. This association is dominated by big sagebrush, primarily Wyoming big 

sagebrush and basin big sagebrush subspecies. Areas dominated by the larger basin big sagebrush often 

provide nesting habitat for sagebrush-dependent birds such as sage thrasher. Areas dominated by 

Wyoming big sagebrush, and to a lesser extent low sagebrush or black sagebrush, provide breeding, 

nesting, and foraging habitat for sagebrush-dependent species such as greater sage-grouse, and more 

generalist species such as ferruginous hawk. Sagebrush understories are typically interspersed with native 

perennial grasses, forbs, and other sub-dominant shrubs. Introduced annual grasses and forbs, primarily 

cheatgrass, have invaded many areas within this habitat association and decreased habitat quality and 

value for special status species. 

Construction would result in significant losses of sagebrush habitat (see section 4.4.1.1). 

Revegetation studies on a pipeline right-of-way in northeastern California indicated that approximately 50 

percent of the right-of-way supported shrubs with similar characteristics to adjacent undisturbed areas 

within 8 years (WESTECH, 2004). But other information suggests sagebrush revegetation could take as 

long as 50 years or more, depending on site-specific conditions. Species within this habitat association 

would be unable to fully use portions of the disturbed construction right-of-way for several years. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-153 

Table 4.7.4-1 summarizes classes of species common to this habitat association, the total number 

of sensitive species that inhabit this habitat, and the number of sensitive species with a high likelihood of 

occurrence within sagebrush habitats. 

TABLE 4.7.4-1 

Summary of Sensitive and State-Listed Species Associated with Sagebrush Steppe 

Habitat Along the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Number Bird Mammal Amphibian/ 

Reptile Invertebrate Vascular 

Plant 

Nonvascular 

Plant 

Affected 

Acreage 

Total 9 6 2 1 21 0 12,601 

High Likelihood of 

Occurrence 9 1 2 0 5 0 - 

4.7.4.2 Grassland Habitat Association 

This habitat association occurs primarily in Uinta County, Wyoming, and Rich, Cache, and Box 

Elder counties, Utah. Native perennial grasses are the typical dominants but may be replaced by 

cheatgrass in some areas. Shrubs are often lacking in grassland habitats. Grasslands provide habitat for 

special status species such as long-billed curlew, sharp-tailed grouse, and grasshopper sparrow. 

Grasslands along the project often occur at higher elevations and on deeper soils than do shrub-dominated 

communities. Herbaceous habitats with deeper soils typically revegetate quickly after construction. 

Revegetation studies on a pipeline right-of-way in Montana found that about 91 percent of native 

grassland habitats (about 98 miles) were similar to adjacent conditions within 5 years (WESTECH, 

2001b). Table 4.7.4-2 summarizes classes of species within this habitat association, the total number of 

species, and the number of species with a high likelihood of occurrence. 

TABLE 4.7.4-2 

Summary of Sensitive and State-Listed Species Associated with Grassland Habitat Along the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Number Bird Mammal Amphibian/ 

Reptile Invertebrate Vascular 

Plant 

Nonvascular 

Plant 

Affected 

Acreage 

Total 9 2 0 0 4 1 1,334 

High Likelihood of 

Occurrence 7 1 0 0 0 0 - 

4.7.4.3 Salt Desert Scrub Habitat Association 

The salt desert scrub habitat association occurs in Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada and is dominated 

by desert shrubs including shadscale, Gardner’s saltbush, greasewood, winterfat, and a variety of other 

shrub species. Perennial grasses are often limited, forbs may be common, and invasive annual grasses 

and forbs are frequently present. Salt desert scrub areas that are dominated by low-growing shrubs such 

as Gardner’s saltbush can provide habitat for special status species such as burrowing owl, white-tailed 

prairie dog, and mountain plover. 

Impacts on salt desert scrub habitats would be similar to those in sagebrush steppe since 

disturbances in shrub habitat typically require moderate to long time frames to resemble adjacent 

conditions. Pipeline disturbances within shadscale and salt desert scrub playa communities often require 

very long time periods to resemble adjacent habitats (WESTECH, 1999). In contrast, pipeline 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-154 

disturbances within many Gardner’s saltbush communities may recover more quickly (e.g., within 5 to 10 

years) (WESTECH, 1998). Table 4.7.4-3 summarizes classes of species within the salt desert scrub 

habitat association, the total number of species, and the number of species with a high likelihood of 

occurrence. 

TABLE 4.7.4-3 

Summary of Sensitive and State-Listed Species Associated with Salt Desert Scrub 

Habitat Along the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Number Bird Mammal Amphibian/ 

Reptile Invertebrate Vascular 

Plant 

Nonvascular 

Plant 

Affected 

Acreage 

Total 2 4 0 3 17 0 3,444 

High Likelihood of 

Occurrence 2 1 0 0 4 0 - 

4.7.4.4 Mixed Conifer Forest Habitat Association 

This habitat association includes areas dominated by ponderosa pine, various species of fir, 

western juniper, and occasional stands of aspen. The forest understory is frequently dominated by native 

shrubs and forbs, and grasses are often present in sparse stands. Mixed conifer forest occurs on the 

project route primarily in Lake and Klamath counties, Oregon. Minor amounts of mixed conifer forest 

occur at high elevations within Cache and Box Elder counties, Utah. Special status species included in 

this habitat association include several species of bats, woodpeckers, and owls. 

Mixed conifer forests impacted by the project would require decades to revegetate and resemble 

adjacent conditions. Further, trees would not be allowed to reestablish within the 50-foot operational 

corridor along the pipeline right-of-way. However, revegetation studies along a pipeline right-of-way in 

ponderosa pine forests of northeastern California indicate that herbaceous and shrub species typically 

reestablish well within 5 to 8 years (WESTECH, 2004). Ruby has committed to replanting trees in 

forested areas disturbed by the project according to Oregon reforestation rules (OAR 629-610-0000 

through 629-610-0090), BLM management direction, and USFS standards and guidelines. Table 4.7.4-4 

summarizes classes of species within the mixed conifer habitat association, the total number of species, 

and the number of species with a high likelihood of occurrence. 

TABLE 4.7.4-4 

Summary of Sensitive and State-Listed Species Associated with Mixed Conifer Forest 

Habitat Along the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Number Bird Mammal Amphibian/ 

Reptile Invertebrate Vascular 

Plant 

Nonvascular 

Plant Fungi Affected 

Acreage 

Total 11 10 0 2 10 0 1 1,391 

High 

Likelihood of 

Occurrence 

8 2 0 1 4 0 0 - 

4.7.4.5 Wetland Habitat Association 

The wetland habitat association occurs as scattered pockets of habitat within surrounding upland 

areas. Wetlands occur throughout the project area along springs, streams, ponds, and rivers that are most 

common in Lake and Klamath counties, Oregon, and Box Elder County, Utah. Most wetlands are 

dominated by herbaceous vegetation although some shrub and forested wetlands would also be 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-155 

encountered. Several special status species are associated with wetlands including herpetofauna (e.g., 

salamanders and frogs), invertebrates, birds, and vascular plants. Pipeline impacts on wetlands in arid 

ecoregions that would be crossed by the project could be long-term. Approximately two-thirds of 

monitored wetlands in arid ecoregions failed to meet our restoration criteria after several years (FERC, 

2004). However, many wetlands disturbed by non-FERC-related projects within these ecoregions also 

failed to meet criteria indicating that climactic rather than construction factors influenced success. Grade 

restoration and unauthorized vehicle use contributed to restoration failure in these and other ecoregions. 

The number of sensitive and state species that would be encountered within the wetland habitat 

association and the number of species with a high likelihood of occurrence are summarized in table 4.7.4-

5. 

TABLE 4.7.4-5 

Summary of Sensitive and State-Listed Species Associated with Wetland Habitat Along the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Number Bird Mammal Amphibian/ 

Reptile Invertebrate Vascular 

Plant 

Nonvascular 

Plant 

Affected 

Acreage 

Total 22 1 7 10 14 4 198 

High Likelihood of 

Occurrence 6 0 1 3 2 0 - 

4.7.4.6 Juniper Woodland Habitat Association 

Juniper woodland occurs primarily in Box Elder County, Utah; Elko County, Nevada; and Lake 

County, Oregon. Western and Utah juniper are the dominant species in this habitat and are accompanied 

by an understory of native shrubs and sparse forbs and grasses. Cheatgrass and introduced annual forbs 

can also be significant understory components. Relatively few special status species utilize juniper 

woodlands within the project area. Pipeline impacts within juniper woodlands would be similar to those 

within the mixed conifer habitat association, as junipers would require decades to achieve similar 

characteristics to adjacent undisturbed areas. Revegetation monitoring within juniper woodlands on a 

right-of-way in northeastern California and northwestern Nevada indicated that juniper understory 

components typically resemble adjacent conditions within 5 to 10 years, although trees require decades to 

appear similar to adjacent habitats (WESTECH, 2004). Ruby would replant trees on forested federal 

lands disturbed by the project. Table 4.7.4-6 summarizes classes of species within the juniper woodland 

habitat association, the total number of species, and the number of species with a high likelihood of 

occurrence. 

TABLE 4.7.4-6 

Summary of Sensitive and State-Listed Species Associated with Juniper Woodland 

Habitat Along the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Number Bird Mammal Amphibian/ 

Reptile Invertebrate Vascular 

Plant 

Nonvascular 

Plant 

Affected 

Acreage 

Total 3 2 0 0 6 0 413 

High Likelihood of 

Occurrence 2 2 0 0 2 0 - 

4.7.4.7 Riparian Habitat Association 

Riparian habitat occurs in limited, isolated areas along streams, rivers, and other water features 

crossed by the project. Ruby has identified 17 riparian habitat locations within Utah, Nevada, and 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-156 

Oregon. Riparian areas are typically dominated by cottonwoods, willows, and aspen with a shrub 

understory. Although riparian habitats are important habitat and travel corridors for many species, 

relatively few special status species within the project area are restricted to this habitat association. 

Similar to other woodland types, pipeline impacts would be relatively long-term, although water 

availability would likely increase the speed and success of restoration. Ruby has committed to restoring 

trees and shrubs in affected riparian areas and would limit maintenance clearing within 25 feet of a stream 

bank, thereby protecting some of the restored woody vegetation. We have also recommended that Ruby 

limit its construction right-of-way width to 75 feet and avoid locating extra workspaces within woody 

riparian habitats. The total number of species within the riparian habitat association and the number of 

species with a high likelihood of occurrence are summarized in table 4.7.4-7. 

TABLE 4.7.4-7 

Summary of Sensitive and State-Listed Species Associated with Riparian Habitat Along the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Number Bird Mammal Amphibian/ 

Reptile Invertebrate Vascular 

Plant 

Nonvascular 

Plant 

Affected 

Acreage 

Total 3 3 0 0 0 2 369 

High Likelihood of 

Occurrence 3 1 0 0 0 0 - 

4.7.4.8 Coldwater Fishery Habitat Association 

Coldwater fishery habitat is present at a relatively limited number of waterbodies crossed by the 

project. These waterbodies typically occur at relatively high elevations, have fast-flowing water, and 

have a cobble or gravel substrate. Various trout species are the primary special status fish within the 

coldwater fishery habitat association. Ruby identified 24 perennial waterbodies and 19 intermittent or 

ephemeral waterbodies that could support BLM or USFS sensitive or state-listed coldwater fish; several 

waterbodies also could support warmwater fish. Impacts on coldwater special status fish could occur as a 

result of sediment released during crossing procedures, hazardous material spills, channel movement, 

substrate alteration, and loss of riparian cover. 

Ruby has committed to crossing waterbodies known to contain special status fish species using a 

dry crossing method. Dam-and-pump, flume, or similar methods would eliminate a substantial amount of 

sedimentation compared to open-cut procedures and have been shown to have minimal impact on stream 

morphology, fish habitat, and fish populations. Dry crossing techniques typically would not result in 

adverse stream bed modification or long-term negative effects to fish and benthic invertebrate 

populations, although shrub and tree stream bank cover could be reduced for several years (Reid et al.,

2002; Reid, 2000; Reid and Anderson, 1999; WESTECH, 1997). Ruby would implement its Spill Plan 

(Appendix J) to prevent storage or handling of material around waterbodies. Ruby would also abide by 

agency-specified in-water work windows to reduce impacts on fish and would replant tree and shrub 

riparian species. Six fish species were included in the coldwater fishery habitat association of which two 

(the inland redband trout and the Bonneville cutthroat trout) would have a high likelihood of occurring in 

the project area. 

4.7.4.9 Warmwater Fishery Habitat Association 

Warmwater fishery habitat is represented at several waterbodies crossed by the proposed project. 

These waterbodies often have relatively turbid slow-moving water, high sediment loads, and soft, 

unconsolidated bottoms comprised of sand or mud. Several species of sucker and chub are the primary 

special status warmwater fish in waterbodies that would be crossed. Ruby identified 18 perennial and 22 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-157 

intermittent or ephemeral waterbodies that could support BLM sensitive or state-listed warmwater fish. 

Several waterbodies also support coldwater fish, primarily the Goose Lake population of inland redband 

trout. Impacts on warmwater special status fish could occur from the same activities that would cause 

impacts on coldwater fish. However, warmwater fish are typically more tolerant of higher sediment 

loads. Ruby would utilize dry crossing procedures at waterbodies that support warmwater special status 

species, construct during agency-specified in-water work windows, implement a Spill Plan to prevent 

impacts on waterbodies, and restore tree and shrub riparian species. Eight fish species were included in 

the warmwater fishery habitat association of which three (the Goose Lake lamprey, Goose Lake sucker, 

and Goose Lake tui chub) have a high likelihood of occurring in the project area. 

4.7.4.10 Summary of Potential Impacts on Agency Sensitive and State-Listed Species 

Potential impacts on agency sensitive and state-listed species may be greater than impacts on 

other vegetation and wildlife as these species may be more sensitive to disturbance, more specific to a 

habitat, and less able to move to unaffected suitable habitat, which may not be available (or currently 

exists only in small tracts). Disturbances could therefore have a greater impact on a species’ population. 

Potential impacts that could be contrary to a species’ conservation needs or decrease a population’s 

viability include habitat fragmentation, habitat loss or degradation, operation and maintenance activities, 

and unauthorized use of the right-of-way. 

Potential impacts and corresponding minimization or mitigation measures are often consistent 

within species’ habitat associations. For example, removal of sagebrush could have similar effects to 

greater sage-grouse, pygmy rabbits, sage thrasher, and other sagebrush obligate species. Corresponding 

measures to minimize impacts on sagebrush, particularly within high-quality or important habitat, would 

often benefit several sagebrush associate species. Similarly, measures to minimize disturbance to riparian 

habitats would reduce impacts on all special status species within that habitat association. 

Pipeline construction and operation could displace special status species or result in habitat 

degradation. Ruby has consulted with land managing and wildlife agencies to determine spatial buffers 

and construction timing restrictions that would minimize impacts around features such as raptor nests, 

greater sage-grouse leks, or stream crossings where special status fish are present. Ruby has also 

consulted with the NRCS and other agencies regarding revegetation mixtures. Successful revegetation 

would minimize long-term impacts on special status species by restoring habitat. Finally, Ruby has 

described best management practices (see section 4.7.1) that could be applied to minimize impacts on 

greater sage-grouse and pygmy rabbits. These best management practices would also reduce impacts on 

other species within the sagebrush steppe habitat association. Potential impacts on special status species 

are considered in light of these minimization measures. 

Habitat fragmentation would be a potential impact associated with pipeline construction and other 

forms of disturbance. Fragmentation occurs when habitats are disturbed to such a degree that species are 

unable to move across the disturbance to reach adjacent habitats or are unable to complete typical life 

cycle functions such as breeding, foraging, or migration. The degree to which a disturbance would create 

habitat fragmentation is dependent on a variety of factors, such as size and configuration of the 

disturbance, height, and quality of post-construction land use, type and extent of wildlife use in the area, 

and the disturbance’s influence on adjacent habitats. Fragmentation of low-quality or weedy habitat is 

typically not a concern since disturbances in these habitats are quickly colonized by the adjacent weed 

species, and special status species often do not use weedy habitats extensively. 

Solitary pipeline rights-of-way are typically small disturbances relative to the surrounding 

landscape and compared to other development activities in the project areas such as mining and logging. 

The majority of the project landscape does not contain large contiguous tracts of shrub or forest land. For 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-158 

instance, the proposed project would cross only 12 contiguous forest stands greater than 1 mile in length, 

the largest of which is 2.3 miles in length. Additionally, on November 13, 2008, the FWS commented 

that 95 percent of existing sagebrush habitat is located less than 1.6 miles from a mapped road. The 

project could create barriers for species with limited mobility or those with high fidelity to local habitats, 

such as reptiles, amphibians, or small mammals. 

Ruby would revegetate and restore the pipeline right-of-way following construction. Any 

fragmentation effects would decrease as revegetation begins to resemble adjacent conditions. Based on 

this analysis, the primary elements of habitat fragmentation relative to the proposed project would be 

adequacy of reclamation, post-construction use of the right-of-way, and the location of aboveground 

facilities within important habitat. Successful restoration of the right-of-way would reduce the length of 

time that habitat may be fragmented for less-mobile special status species. Successful restoration also 

would ensure that habitat important to all special status species would not be lost or degraded. Limiting 

post-construction use of the right-of-way would ensure that the right-of-way does not become a conduit 

for unauthorized traffic or project traffic during critical wildlife seasons. Traffic on the right-of-way, 

especially extensive unauthorized use, would promote habitat fragmentation. Aboveground features 

within important habitat would encourage traffic within that habitat, and possibly additional light and 

noise. 

4.7.4.11 Summary of Conservation Measures for Agency Sensitive and State-Listed Species 

Ruby has described several procedures (see section 4.7.1) and developed several plans it would 

implement during project construction and reclamation to reduce habitat impacts and impacts on various 

species. Ruby is continuing to consult with state and land managing agencies to identify and develop 

conservation and mitigation measures that could be implemented to further minimize impacts on sensitive 

and state-listed species. The BLM and USFS would have further opportunity during their right-of-way 

grant review processes to require additional conservation and mitigation that would protect and conserve 

sensitive species according to their agency conservation goals. 

Throughout this EIS, we have recommended additional construction practices, avoidance 

measures, and mitigation measures where we believe the project, as proposed, would not adequately 

support certain species’ conservation needs or agency-recommended conservation measures; or where 

additional habitat data or species-specific surveys are necessary. We note that implementation of these 

recommendations would minimize impacts on habitat associations generally considered sensitive (e.g., 

sagebrush, riparian, aquatic). Additionally, conservation plans are being developed between Ruby and 

various agencies to minimize construction-related impacts and mitigate for impacts on high-quality 

habitats. Thus, we believe that project-related impacts on special status species discussed in this section 

would be reduced to levels that would not threaten the population viability of agency sensitive or statelisted species, or contribute to trends toward federal listing. 

4.7.5 Non-Jurisdictional Electric Power Lines 

 No federally listed threatened or endangered species were identified along the Rocky Mountain 

Power and Harney Electric Cooperative electric transmission and distribution line routes. However, 

biologists recorded six pygmy rabbit complexes (petitioned species) along the proposed Rocky Mountain 

Power route. Twenty-one burrows were counted within the complexes, seven burrows of which were not 

entirely intact (e.g., enlarged by a predator). All other burrows entrances were usable and located at the 

bases of sagebrush shrubs. Twelve of the burrows had fresh pellets associated with them. The other nine 

burrows had older, gray pellets near their entrances. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-159 

As appropriate, Rocky Mountain Power would implement one or more of the following 

mitigation measures to minimize impacts on the pygmy rabbit: 

• identify densely growing, large-stature sagebrush plants with deep, loamy soils; 

• realign the H-frame structures to avoid appropriate habitat; 

• neck-down the construction right-of-way through known, active rabbit colonies; 

• trap and relocate pygmy rabbits if the area is unavoidable; 

• use BMPs to rehabilitate disturbed soil and sagebrush steppe vegetation; 

• haul topsoil off-site to keep the construction right-of-way narrow; 

• plant container sagebrush and monitor sites for rabbit return and usage; and/or 

• avoid identified breeding areas from February to March. 

Should a listing of any current candidate and petitioned species be made before or during 

construction of these facilities, the BLM would be required to initiate Section 7 consultation for that 

species. Since these projects would be required to restore their respective construction rights-of-way and 

adhere to all applicable laws and regulations regarding special status species and habitats, we believe that 

impacts on special status species and their habitats along the Rocky Mountain Power and Harney Electric 

Cooperative electric transmission and distribution line routes would not be significant. 

4.8 LAND USE AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

The Ruby Pipeline Project would consist of approximately 672.6 miles of 42-inch-diameter 

natural gas pipeline across Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon, and 2.6 miles of 42-inch-diameter 

lateral pipeline in Oregon. Aboveground facilities would include 4 new compressor stations, 8 

interconnects within 5 meter stations, 44 MLVs, and 20 pig launchers and receivers (see table 2.1.2-1). 

This section examines the land requirements for construction and operation of the project, 

describes the current use of those lands, and evaluates the significance of project-related impacts on those 

lands. This section quantifies the acreage of each land use type that would be affected and discusses 

measures that would be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate land use impacts. Impacts on recreational 

and special interest areas, as well as impacts on visual resources, are also presented. 

In general, lands required for construction would experience either short-term or long-term 

impacts based on the time it would take the land to recover to preconstruction conditions; lands required 

for operation would experience permanent impacts. Short-term impacts generally occur during 

construction with the resource returning to preconstruction condition within 3 years following 

construction. Long-term impacts require anywhere from an estimated 3 to 50 years to return to 

preconstruction conditions. Both short- and long-term impacts are considered temporary impacts. 

Permanent impacts would occur as a result of activities that modify resources to the extent that they 

would not return to preconstruction conditions within 50 years, such as clearing of old growth forest or 

conversion of land to an aboveground facility site. 

4.8.1 General Impacts and Mitigation 

Five general land use types would be affected by the project: open land (including rangeland), 

agricultural, forest, developed (including residential, industrial, commercial, and other lands), and open 

water. Table 4.8.1-1 summarizes the acreage of each land use type that would be affected by construction 

and operation of the project. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-160 

TABLE 4.8.1-1 

Land Use Types Affected by Construction and Operation of the Ruby Pipeline Project (in acres) 

State/Project Component Open Land Forested Agricultural Developed Open W

Con. Op. Con. Op. Con. Op. Con. Op. Con. 

WYOMING 

Right-of-Way 645.5 282.2 5.6 2.8 9.7 5.1 6.0 2.4 - Extra Workspaces and Staging Areas 133.5 - 1.5 - 1.5 - 7.0 - - Access Roads 324.5 - 3.5 - 1.9 - 3.1 - - Yards 118.1 - - - 19.5 - 2.7 - - Aboveground Facilitiesa 42.6 42.6 - - - - - - - 

Subtotal 1,264.2 324.8 10.6 2.8 32.6 5.1 18.8 2.4 0.0 

UTAH 

Right-of-Way 1,724.6 751.5 304.6 137.4 284.8 126.9 229.4 103.6 1.2 Extra Workspaces and Staging Areas 624.4 - 173.5 - 241.1 - 36.2 - 0.8 Access Roads 748.9 - 85.1 - 117.9 - 138.1 - 0.1 Yards 1- - 0.2 - 97.7 - 8.1 - - Aboveground Facilitiesa 27.5 27.5 - - - - - - - 

Subtotal 3,135.4 778.9 563.5 137.4 741.5 126.9 411.8 103.6 2.1 

NEVADA 

Right-of-Way 5,509.2 2,107.3 25.3 10.0 71.2 28.5 47.6 17.8 0.0 Extra Workspaces and Staging Areas 1,305.3 - 12.3 - 13.8 - 26.9 - - Access Roads 1,383.1 - 5.0 - 6.4 - 12.7 - - Camp 154.9 - 2.4 - - - 3.7 - - Yards 483.1 - - - - - 60.1 - - Aboveground Facilitiesa 51.9 51.9 - - 0.5 0.5 1.1 1.1 - 

Subtotal 8,887.5 2,159.3 45.0 10.0 91.9 29.0 152.0 18.9 0.0 

OREGON 

Right-of-Way 683.7 298.8 321.1 140.6 57.8 28.7 1.3 0.6 74.9 

0.1 l 0.1 l - l - l 34.7 l 14.8 l 2.1 l 1.0 l - l 

Extra Workspaces and 217.6 - 174.9 - 41.3 - 1.2 - 118.4 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-161 

TABLE 4.8.1-1 

Land Use Types Affected by Construction and Operation of the Ruby Pipeline Project (in acres) 

State/Project Component Open Land Forested Agricultural Developed Open W

Con. Op. Con. Op. Con. Op. Con. Op. Con. 

Staging Areas 

0.1 l - - - 3.3 l - 0.9 l - - 

Access Roads 154.2 - 145.6 - 3.2 - 0.2 - - Camp 5.4 - - - 6.7 - - - - Yards 45.1 - - - 30.4 - 22.3 - - Aboveground Facilitiesa 5.5 5.5 - - 11.4 11.4 0.3 0.3 - 

Subtotal 1,111.7 304.4 641.6 140.6 188.7 54.9 28.4 1.9 193.3 

Total 14,398.8 3,567.4 1,260.8 290.8 1,054.7 215.9 610.9 126.7 195.4 

ALL STATES/COMPONENTS 

Right-of-Way 8,563.0 3,733.2 656.7 292.2 423.4 193.2 284.2 126.8 76.1 

0.1l 0.1l -l - l 34.7l 14.8l 2.1l 1.0l -l 

Extra Workspaces and Staging Areas 2,280.8 - 362.2 - 297.8 - 71.3 - 119.2 

0.1l -l -l -l 3.3l -l 0.9l -l -l 

Access Roads 2,610.7 - 239.2 - 129.4 - 154.1 - 0.1 Yards and Camps 816.6 - 2.6 - 154.3 - 96.8 - - Aboveground Facilitiesa 127.5 127.5 - - 11.9 11.9 1.4 1.4 - 

Total 14,398.8 3,860.8 1,260.8 292.2 1,054.7 219.9 610.9 129.2 195.4 

a Construction and operational impacts associated with MLV’s are not presented under Aboveground Facilities. These impacts are included in th

Con.= Impacts within the 115-foot-wide construction workspace that are related to construction activities. 

Op.= Impacts within the 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way of the mainline and lateral pipeline and the footprint of aboveground facilities. Ruby ind

 maintain vegetation (i.e., mow) within the 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way in most land uses types. Additionally, Ruby indicated that most 

 wide permanent right-of-way, such as farming and grazing, would be allowed to continue after construction. Certain activities, such as erecting 

 structures, would be prohibited within the permanent right-of-way. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-162 

Construction of the proposed project would affect a total of about 17,520.5 acres of land; 

including 14,398.8 acres of open land, 1,260.8 acres of forested land, 1,054.7 acres of agricultural land, 

610.9 acres of developed land, and 195.4 acres of open water. Ruby would operate approximately 

4,109.1 acres of pipeline right-of way and 140.8 acres of aboveground facility sites after construction. 

Ruby indicated that it would not need to maintain vegetation (i.e., mow) within the 50-foot-wide 

permanent right-of-way in most land uses types, including open land, agricultural land, developed land, 

and open water. Permanent operation of Ruby’s facilities would affect about 3,567.4 acres of open land, 

290.8 acres of forested land, 215.9 acres of agricultural land, 126.7 acres of developed land, and 49.0 

acres of open water. Construction of the pipeline would not change the general use of the land but would 

preclude construction of aboveground structures on the permanent right-of-way. 

About 296.9 miles (44.0 percent) of the right-of-way would be collocated with (i.e., overlap or 

abut) other existing road or utility rights-of-way, or would be parallel to and offset from other existing 

road or utility rights-of-way. Other existing utility rights-of-way include pipelines, electric power lines, 

and fiber optic cables. Table 4.8.1-2 and Appendix V list the locations where the construction right-ofway would be collocated with or parallel to other existing rights-of-way. 

TABLE 4.8.1-2 

Collocated and Parallel Rights-of-Way for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County Utility Rights-of-Way 

(miles) 

Road Rights-of-Way 

(miles) 

Total 

(miles) 

WYOMING 

Lincoln 15.3 0.1 15.4 

Uinta 0 5 5 

Subtotal 15.3 5.1 20.4 

UTAH 

Rich 12.6 0.3 12.9 

Cache 10.2 0.8 11 

Box Elder 20.3 46.4 66.7 

Subtotal 43.1 47.5 90.6 

NEVADA 

Elko 121.2 0 121.2 

Humboldt 23.1 9.2 32.3 

Washoe 21.1 0 21.1 

Subtotal 165.4 9.2 174.6 

OREGON 

Lake 0 2 2 

Klamath 0.26 9 9.26 

Subtotal 0.26 11 11.26 

 

Total 224.1 72.8 296.9 

Many of the access roads proposed by Ruby for use during construction are small or impassable 

two-tracks that are not currently suitable for construction traffic. Ruby is proposing to improve unsuitable 

access roads through grading, filling, and/or widening. About 582 roads totaling about 4,003.7 acres 

would need to be graded or widened up to a total road width of 30 feet, with extra width of up to 25 feet 

beyond the existing road edge at sharp turns. Additionally, Ruby would construct new roads where 

existing roads do not provide adequate access. A total of 3 new dirt and gravel roads totaling about 0.9 

acres would be constructed up to 15 feet wide to accommodate timber clearing at various locations, to 

respond to a landowner request, and to gain access to an aboveground facility (a MLV at MP R109.0). 

Ruby presently does not know specifically where all road improvements would be required along any 

given road. This information would not be available until after Ruby’s construction contractor identifies 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-163 

which roads it prefers to use and how it prefers to use the roads. Therefore, for the purpose of this EIS we 

have conservatively estimated that all roads would need to be improved over their entire length. This 

undoubtedly is an overestimation. Appendix E identifies each new access road and each access road that 

would potentially require improvement. 

Ruby has not determined the volumes or locations where gravel fill would be needed for road 

improvements or maintenance because the volumes and locations would not be known until Ruby 

assesses each road’s use and to what extent weather conditions affect the road condition. Ruby estimates 

that less than 5 percent of the access road mileage would require some gravel for maintenance or 

improvement. To provide some perspective on the amount of gravel that may be needed, if Ruby were to 

place a 30-foot-wide, 6-inch-deep gravel cap across all 5 percent of the access road mileage needing some 

gravel for maintenance or improvement, about 160,150 cubic yards of gravel fill would be needed (about 

16,015 10-yard dump truck loads). This too, however, is an overestimation and represents a worst-case 

scenario. Some access roads would only require placement of gravel at specific locations such as where 

potholes or ruts currently exist. Ruby indicated that it would seek gravel locally from existing 

commercial sand and gravel pits or other retailers. It would not establish its own pits for the project. The 

BLM notes that there are no commercial gravel sources available in western Box Elder County, Utah, and 

commercial gravel sources are limited in proximity to the rest of the route in the State of Utah. 

Ruby originally proposed to leave access roads in their new or improved condition, unless 

otherwise requested by a landowner or land managing agency. We have reviewed Ruby’s list of existing 

access roads and have concluded that many of the roads are primitive two-tracks that would require 

significant improvement for project purposes over much of their length. Many of these two-tracks are 

also on public land where access is intentionally limited or restricted. Improving and retaining two-tracks 

would, for all practical purposes, open up these areas to increased public use. Therefore, we discussed in 

the draft EIS the need for a directive that would require Ruby to restore all roads to their preconstruction 

condition unless the landowner or land managing agency requests in writing that a road be left in its 

improved condition. Since the time the draft EIS was issued, Ruby has agreed to restore all access roads 

to their preconstruction condition unless the landowner or land managing agency requests in writing that a 

road be left in its improved condition. 

To date, some private landowners have indicated an interest in leaving roads in their improved 

condition, but are reserving the right to make that final decision until when they see the road’s condition 

at or close to the end of construction. The BLM has indicated that all BLM-administered roads in 

Humboldt and Washoe Counties would be required to be restored to their preconstruction condition. In 

those instances, the BLM would require Ruby to close each road in accordance with the standards and 

land use plans of the BLM. Closure activities may include, but are not limited to, scarifying the roadway 

and revegetating the entire length and width of the road used by Ruby. The FERC and BLM 

acknowledge that closing and/or restoring roads could be very difficult in some cases. The FERC and 

BLM would require Ruby to implement corrective actions in problem areas in accordance with the 

measures discussed in section 2.3.1.9. In the event that, after several attempts, the FERC or BLM 

determines that restoration would be infeasible, Ruby would be required to compensate for damages. 

Landowners, land managing agencies, or road permitting agencies would be responsible for enforcing 

road closures after construction and final restoration. 

Ruby has evaluated its need for access roads in California and determined that certain roads 

would be required to access portions of the project in Oregon. Ruby identified a total of 22.5 miles of 

access roads to be used in California, of which 5.9 miles would be roads on public lands and 16.6 miles 

would be roads on private lands. Ruby has stated it would not need to improve any of the roads in 

California and there would be no vegetative or soil disturbance associated with their use. Ruby would 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-164 

obtain the necessary authorizations to use the roads from the BLM, USFS, Modoc County and 

landowners. 

4.8.1.1 Open Land 

The majority of the project (about 14,398.8 acres, or 82.2 percent of the project total) would cross 

undeveloped open land within the Great Basin. The Great Basin is a large, arid region of the western 

United States that is characterized by high altitude desert and an internal drainage system that has no 

natural outflow to the sea. Dominant open land vegetation communities include sagebrush steppe, 

grasslands, and salt-desert scrub. Much of the Great Basin area is managed for livestock grazing or 

wildlife habitat. Potential impacts on vegetation and wildlife are addressed in sections 4.4 and 4.5, 

respectively. 

The proposed pipeline crosses numerous grazing allotments with different grazing systems, or 

pasture rotations. Construction would impact livestock grazing by disturbing foraging areas and 

interrupting/displacing grazing activities for the duration of construction. Construction activities could 

also cause damage to or require removal of fences or other natural barriers used for livestock control, 

could block access to water sources or other grazing areas, and could cause risk of livestock injury from 

falling in to or becoming entrapped in open trenches. Ruby would brace, cut, and temporarily gate fences 

during construction to contain livestock where appropriate. Ruby also would repair fences, install 

permanent gates (possibly with cattle guards in high traffic areas), and seed disturbed areas after 

construction in accordance with the specifications outlined in its Restoration and Revegetation Plans (see 

Appendix L). 

In some situations, Ruby would mitigate grazing displacement by developing grazing plans that 

would align construction schedules with pasture grazing schedules and avoid overlapping time conflicts 

as much as practicable. In the event that cattle are unable to graze in scheduled or alternate areas during 

construction, Ruby would be required to compensate grazing allotment permittees. 

We received comments during scoping and on the draft EIS regarding the potential for 

problematic revegetation after construction due to livestock grazing in reclaimed areas before vegetation 

has become established. Grazing can contribute to the rapid spread of weeds on western public lands, 

which can reduce habitat quality and accelerate natural fire cycles (Belsky et.al, 2000). Ruby is 

addressing this concern by committing to negotiate with allotment permittees and the BLM to limit 

livestock grazing in the right-of-way and on restored access roads, and by using a combination several 

approaches, including: 

• leaving the restored right-of-way surface in a roughened condition; 

• including low-palatable plant species in the seeding mix such as sagebrush and western 

yarrow that would discourage use by livestock; 

• herding or placing salt licks and/or protein blocks 100 to 200 feet away from the right-ofway; 

• fencing off crucial habitat areas or closing pastures; 

• developing grazing deferment agreements for 2 to 3 years, or implementing seasonal 

deferments; and/or 

• reducing stocking preference. 

The BLM has stated that any changes requested of the livestock operations that are outside the 

terms and the conditions of the grazing permits (i.e., using a pasture when it has should be rested, or vice 

versa) would require further NEPA analysis. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-165 

We also received comments from several parties regarding the potential for increased OHV use 

along the right-of-way, which could hamper revegetation efforts, cause erosion, and promote the spread 

of invasive weeds. Ruby stated that it would discuss OHV issues with landowners during easement 

negotiations. Ruby has committed to using the following deterrents, in consultation with the BLM, 

USFS, state resource agencies, and landowners, to discourage OHV use of the right-of-way: 

• leave the right-of-way surface in a roughened condition; 

• install “keep off” signs with an explanation at right-of-way entry points; 

• install fences, gates with locks, rock barriers, earthen berms, or other barricades at 

existing authorized OHV routes that cross the right-of-way to prevent or discourage 

unauthorized access to the right-of-way; and 

• in Oregon, construct “corn rows” for approximately 200 feet into the right-of-way from 

entry ways such as roads. 

Ruby has agreed to work closely with the BLM and private landowners, grazing lessees, local law 

enforcement personnel, and adjacent landowners to determine the adequacy and appropriateness of 

proposed deterrents. Ruby would maintain, repair, or replace deterrent measures for the life of the 

pipeline. In the spring of 2010, the Fremont National Forest is expected to have its Travel Management 

Rule implemented, which would mean motor vehicle use would only be allowed on designated routes 

shown on a Motor Vehicle Use Map. Vehicle use off these routes would be prohibited. 

4.8.1.2 Forested Land 

About 1,260.8 acres of forested land (or 7.2 percent of the project total) would be crossed by the 

project, mostly within the Cache National Forest in Cache County, Utah and the Fremont National Forest 

in Lake and Klamath counties, Oregon. The Cache National Forest contains a mixture of oak and 

coniferous trees of varying density. The Fremont National Forest consists primarily of pines and firs.

Pipeline installation would require that the construction work area be cleared of trees and shrubs. 

Trees and shrubs would be allowed to regenerate after construction in temporarily disturbed areas. Trees 

and shrubs within the 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way would be periodically cleared during routine 

right-of-way maintenance. Ruby would be required to replant and monitor forested areas temporarily 

disturbed by construction in accordance with BLM management directions, USFS standards and 

guidelines, and State of Oregon reforestation rules. The rate of forest regrowth would depend on the type 

and age of trees cleared for construction, the fertility of the soil, and the local rainfall amount. Many tree 

species would require decades to grow to maturity, which is a long-term impact. Ruby would be required 

to continue monitoring revegetation success as required by any right-of-way grant issued for the project. 

4.8.1.3 Agricultural Land 

About 1,054.7 acres of agricultural land (or 6.0 percent of the project total) would be crossed by 

the project, the majority of which is in Box Elder County, Utah and Lake County, Oregon. Typical row 

crops in Box Elder County include wheat, barley, and corn; specialty crops include peaches, apricots, 

cherries, and apples (Utah State University, 2005). The project does not cross any State of Utahdesignated Agricultural Protection Areas. Typical crops in Lake County include potatoes, wheat, and 

alfalfa. 

Impacts on agricultural land would include the loss of standing crops within the construction 

work area and the disruption of farming operations in the construction vicinity during the growing season 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-166 

in the year of construction. Pipeline installation would take agricultural land out of production for one 

growing season for row crops and for several growing seasons for specialty crops. Agricultural land, 

including the permanent right-of-way, would be allowed to revert to its former use after completion of 

construction activities, representing a short-term impact. Ruby would compensate agricultural 

landowners for actual crop losses resulting from the removal of standing crops, disruption of planned 

seeding activity, disruption of general farming activities, or other losses as agreed upon in individual 

landowner easement negotiations. Ruby also would compensate landowners for any crop reductions 

related to pipeline construction (both on and off the right-of-way) and would base such payments on 

landowner farming records from the previous 5-year average. Ruby would conduct post-construction 

monitoring to gauge revegetation success within affected agricultural areas, and restoration would be 

considered successful if crop yields were similar to adjacent undisturbed portions of the same field. 

As described in section 2.3.1.9, we recognize that during or after construction, issues or 

complaints may develop that were not addressed during the environmental proceedings at the 

Commission and it is imperative that landowners continue to have an avenue to contact Ruby’s 

representatives. Section 5.2 includes a complaint resolution procedure we are recommending that would 

require Ruby to ensure landowner issues and complaints received during and after construction are 

resolved in a timely and efficient manner. 

Construction-related activities such as grading, trenching, stringing, welding, backfilling, and 

restoration could impact agricultural lands by leading to soil erosion, interference with and/or damage to 

agricultural surface and sub-surface drainage and irrigation systems, loss of fertile topsoil through mixing 

with subsoil, and soil compaction. Ruby would implement measures in its Plan (Appendix F) designed to 

control erosion (e.g., installation of slope breakers and sediment barriers) during construction activities. 

Several commenters informed us that cropland could be equipped with tile drainage systems that 

remove excess subsurface water and/or manage irrigation water. Construction activities such as trenching 

could have the potential to damage these systems. Ruby has worked with individual landowners to 

identify and avoid drain tiles on individual properties. Ruby has determined that the only drain tiles 

affected by the project would occur between MPs 112.0 and 119.0 near Corrine, Utah (about 10 separate 

drain tile crossings within the milepost range). Drain tile locations would be marked prior to construction 

and the pipeline would be installed in a manner similar to other utility crossings (see section 2.3.2.4). 

Ruby has agreed to mark the locations of all unanticipated drain tiles encountered during construction and 

would the repair the drain tiles to preconstruction conditions or better. Ruby would maintain records of 

all drain tiles encountered during construction. 

Portions of the project would cross areas where crop irrigation practices may be used (e.g., pivot 

irrigation or flood irrigation). Ruby committed to contact landowners prior to construction to coordinate 

construction timing in relation to irrigation activities. Ruby would repair any damage to irrigation 

systems to preconstruction conditions or better and would compensate farmers for damage to crops, 

reduced crop yield, or loss of irrigation opportunity. 

We received several comments regarding the potential for construction to adversely affect 

precision-leveled fields. Precision leveling aids irrigation and surface drainage efforts as well as other 

farm management activities. Construction activities could change the surface topography and could result 

in the need to relevel cropland using laser leveling equipment. Ruby stated that it would coordinate 

construction with owners of precision-leveled fields and would arrange for local experts to relevel 

affected areas using precision-leveling techniques during restoration activities. In order for us to verify 

that landowners’ precision-leveled field issues are being met, we recommend that Ruby file with its 

quarterly reports (as specified in Ruby’s Plan, section VII.B.2) details discussing whether any 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-167 

complaints were received concerning the restoration of the precision-leveled fields crossed by the 

project and how each was resolved. 

We received several comments regarding the potential for post-construction soil subsidence in the 

trench to interfere with flood irrigation or the movement of pivot irrigation equipment. Interference with 

irrigation could result in the loss of crops or reduced crop yields. Ruby has committed to compact the 

trench during backfilling in irrigated cropland to minimize the likelihood of subsequent trench subsidence 

and disruption to equipment movement or water flow. Compaction involves backfilling the trench to the 

top of the pipe and saturating the trench with water to compact the soil around the pipe. Successive layers 

of soil are compacted in this manner, or by mechanical means if necessary, until the trench is completely 

backfilled. Ruby stated that it would work with each affected landowner to restore the original grade in 

the event that subsidence occurs. 

We received comments that expressed concern regarding whether the pipeline would be buried to 

a sufficient depth so as to not interfere with current agricultural practices. Ruby stated that the depth of 

cover over the pipeline would be established from the working grade during restoration, meaning that in 

active agricultural areas the depth of cover would exceed 30 inches once segregated topsoil had been 

restored. Ruby reiterated its commitment to install the pipeline deeper where requested by landowners. 

While burying the pipeline deeper may be advantageous in certain areas, based on specific land use or soil 

characteristics, it often requires a wider right-of-way to accommodate the extra spoil removed from the 

trench. In our draft EIS, we recommended that prior to the close of the draft EIS comment period Ruby 

notify by letter correspondence each agricultural landowner whose actively cultivated or rotated cropland 

and/or pasture property would be crossed by the project, offering the option of additional depth of cover 

over the pipeline. Ruby has filed documentation showing that it is offering this option to agricultural 

landowners; this would ensure that concerns related to insufficient cover depth in agricultural lands are 

addressed. 

4.8.1.4 Developed Land 

Developed land is one of the least common land use types that would be crossed by the project 

(about 610.9 acres, or 3.5 percent of the project total). Development in the project area generally consists 

of roads and single-family residences associated with agricultural lands. The project would not cross or 

otherwise impact commercial and industrial developments. Residences near the proposed pipeline route 

are generally concentrated in and around Woodruff and Brigham City, Utah, and Langell Valley and 

Malin, Oregon. Residential yards and lawns would be impacted by construction, although no buildings 

(residential or otherwise) are known to be present within 50 feet of any proposed construction work areas. 

General impacts of construction and operation on residential acreage would result from 

construction-related disturbances, including future use limitations on land within the permanent pipeline 

right-of-way and potential alteration of future development patterns. Construction-related disturbances 

could include inconvenience caused by limited access, increased congestion, noise and dust generated by 

construction, local increase in traffic, and removal of objects stored in the construction work area (e.g., 

trailers, wood piles). These effects would be short-term in nature and would last only a few weeks at any 

particular location. Most current uses of the residentially developed land crossed would be allowed 

continue within the permanent right-of-way following construction. However, land in the permanent 

right-of-way would be subject to some future use restrictions, typically regarding structures and other 

uses that could affect the safe operation of the pipeline. 

We received comments noting that the project could interfere with future planned property 

development. Affected landowners have the opportunity to request that future development plans for 

their property be considered during easement negotiations and that specific measures be undertaken to 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-168 

account for those plans. Ruby also contacted planning and development offices in each of the counties 

crossed by the project to determine if any residential and/or commercial developments were planned 

within 0.25 mile of the project. Planned development projects include those that are permitted and not yet 

constructed, or those with permit applications that have been filed but have not yet been approved. Ruby 

identified two such residential developments and one electric power line project within 0.25 mile of the 

pipeline route. These development projects are in the early stages of planning. 

The first such planned residential development, Flat Bottom Canyon, would be located between 

MPs 104.5 and 105.3 near Brigham City. Brigham City recently annexed land within Flat Bottom 

Canyon for a new residential community; however, preliminary information suggests that there would not 

be a conflict between the pipeline route and the development. The project developer has not yet filed a 

master plan with the Brigham City Planning and Zoning office. Ruby reiterated its commitment to 

continue to communicate with the developer and city/county officials regarding the pipeline route and 

construction schedule. 

The second residential development, Skyline Terrace, would be located between MPs 107.0 and 

107.2 near Brigham City. The pipeline would pass through a portion of the proposed development. The 

project developer has filed a preliminary design for the development with the Brigham City Planning and 

Zoning office; however, the city has not yet responded to the design. Ruby initiated preliminary 

negotiations with the developer to acquire an easement and identify potential conflicts, if any. Ruby 

stated that it would continue to negotiate with the developer and communicate with city/county officials 

regarding the pipeline route and construction schedule. 

Rocky Mountain Power has proposed to construct two 345-kilovolt electric power lines parallel 

to the pipeline route between MPs 105.7 and 108.5, near Brigham City. The electric power lines would 

be routed about 100 feet north of the pipeline. We do not know Rocky Mountain Power’s construction 

schedule at this time. Ruby would work with Rocky Mountain Power to coordinate construction 

activities should the projects’ schedules overlap. 

4.8.1.5 Open Water 

Open water is the least common land use crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project (about 195.4 acres, 

or 1.1 percent of the project total). The project would cross 117 perennial waterbodies, livestock watering 

ponds/lakes, numerous intermittent or ephemeral drainages and washes, canals, and ditches. Pipeline 

construction at waterbody crossings would be in accordance with all federal and state regulations and 

permit requirements, and Ruby would minimize impacts by following its Procedures. Installation of the 

pipeline would have only temporary impacts on waterbodies. A detailed discussion of impacts on water 

and water resources is discussed in section 4.3.2. 

4.8.2 Land Ownership 

The Ruby Pipeline Project would cross both public and private lands (see table 4.8.2-1). The 

majority of the federal land that would be crossed is administered by the BLM. The USFS and 

Reclamation also manage land crossed by the proposed project. No tribally-owned or reservation6

 land 

would be crossed. 

 

6

 Although no tribally-owned or reservation land would be crossed by the proposed project, several tribes have noted that the 

project could disrupt lands of traditional tribal significance and cultural importance. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-169 

TABLE 4.8.2-1 

Federal and Private Lands Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County MP Range BLM a

(miles) 

USFS a

(miles) 

Recl.a 

(miles) 

State 

(miles) 

Private 

(miles) 

Total 

(miles)

Federal 

(%) 

State 

(%) 

Private 

(%) 

WYOMING 

 Lincoln 0.0 - 21.1 9.2 -- -- 0.6 11.4 21.2 43 3 54 

 Uinta 21.1 - 48.1 11.2 -- -- 1.0 14.8 27.0 41 4 55 

Subtotal 20.4 0.0 0.0 1.6 26.1 48.1 42 3 54 

UTAH 

 Rich 48.1 - 73.1 9.8 -- -- 1.0 14.2 25.0 39 4 57 

 Cache 73.1 - 101.0 -- 1.2 -- -- 26.7 27.9 4 0 96 

 Box Elder 101.0 - 230.6 38.9 -- -- 9.7 81 129.6 30 7 63 

Subtotal 48.7 1.2 0.0 10.7 121.9 182.5 27 6 67 

NEVADA 

 Elko 230.6 - R396.7 86.5 -- -- -- 79.6 166.1 52 0 48 

 Humboldt R396.7 - 536.0 106.9 -- -- -- 32.4 139.3 77 0 23 

 Washoe 536.0 - 588.2 47.1 -- -- -- 5.1 52.2 90 0 10 

Subtotal 240.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 117.1 357.6 67 0 33 

OREGON 

 Lake 588.2 - R647.3 5.5 13.1 -- -- 40.5 59.1 31 0 69 

 Klamath R647.3 - R672.6 5.3 3.7 3.5 -- 12.8 25.3 49 0 51 

0.0 l - 2.6 l -- -- -- -- 2.6 2.6 0 0 100 

Subtotal 10.8 16.8 3.5 0.0 55.9 87.0 36 0 64 

Total 320.4 18.0 3.5 12.3 321.0 675.2 51 2 48 

a Classified as federal land. 

4.8.2.1 Federal Lands 

The pipeline would cross about 342 miles of federal lands (about 50.6 percent of the project 

total). Eighteen of the 44 aboveground facility sites would be located on federal lands, including the 

Roberson Creek Compressor Station at MP 5.7, a portion of the Wildcat Hills Compressor Station at MP 

172.5, and the Desert Valley Compressor Station at MP 476.3. Federal lands generally are managed for a 

variety of purposes that are primarily related to preservation, recreation, and development of natural 

resources. Ruby would be required to obtain a right-of-way grant from the BLM to construct and operate 

its pipeline and its aboveground facilities on federal land. The BLM is responsible for issuing right-ofway grants for natural gas pipelines across federal lands under the jurisdiction of the BLM or under the 

jurisdiction of two or more federal agencies. Right-of-way grants are issued under the MLA to any 

qualified individual, business, or government entity. The BLM would decide whether or not to issue 

Ruby a right-of-way grant to cross BLM-, Reclamation-, and USFS-managed land based, in part, on this 

EIS; however, the BLM would not issue a right-of-way grant until the heads of the BLM, Reclamation, 

and USFS had concurred on a mutually agreeable action. If the affected agency heads were not able to 

reach concurrence, the Secretary of the Interior, after consultation with the agency heads would decide 

whether or not to issue a right-of-way grant to Ruby. Section 28 of the MLA states, in part that “A rightof-way through a federal reservation shall not be granted if the Secretary or agency head determines that 

it would be inconsistent with the purposes of the reservation.” Right-of-way grants are typically issued 

for a 30-year period and contain a right of renewal if the permitted facilities are still used for their 

intended purpose upon expiration of the grant period. Where federally administered facilities with an 

easement are crossed, Ruby would be required to execute a consent document directly with the managing 

agency (e.g., Reclamation, FWS, NRCS) to allow for pipeline facilities to encroach in the easement. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-170 

Many federal agencies are mandated by law to prepare land use plans for land managed under 

their jurisdiction; and all agency actions, including issuance of permits or approvals, must conform to the 

land use plans. An action must be specifically allowed in the plan for the action to remain in 

conformance. If an action is not specifically mentioned in the plan, the land managing agency must make 

a determination that the action is consistent with the plan because it complies with all of the plan 

stipulations, constraints, standards, and guidelines, or the plan must be amended to accommodate the 

action. Section 1.5 provides a discussion of the project’s conformance with various land use plans along 

the project route. 

BLM Land 

BLM-administered land would comprise 47.5 percent of the entire route and 93.7 percent of all 

federal land crossed by the project. The BLM manages federal lands for multiple uses including 

recreation, wildlife, livestock grazing, and mineral resources. The pipeline would cross land managed by 

seven separate BLM field offices: Kemmerer, Wyoming; Salt Lake City, Utah; Elko and Winnemucca, 

Nevada; Surprise, California (which manages lands in northwest Nevada); and Lakeview and Klamath, 

Oregon. Ruby filed a right-of-way grant application with the BLM in 2007. Ruby would be required to 

follow all stipulations contained in any right-of-way grant issued for the project. 

USFS Land 

The USFS manages 155 National Forests and 20 national grasslands for grazing, timber, mining, 

recreation, wildlife habitat, and wilderness. USFS-administered land would comprise 5.3 percent of all 

federal land crossed by the project. The pipeline would cross 1.2 miles of the Cache National Forest in 

Cache County, Utah and 16.8 miles of the Fremont National Forest in Lake and Klamath counties, 

Oregon. 

While the USFS requires that pipelines follow designated utility corridors, Ruby’s proposed route 

within the Cache National Forest does not consistently follow designated utility corridors. Therefore, the 

USFS is using this EIS to consider amendments to the Cache National Forest LRMP to allow the pipeline 

to cross the forest as proposed. 

The project as proposed also would be inconsistent with a number of standards and guidelines in 

the Fremont National Forest LRMP. Specifically, the pipeline would pass through portions of 

Management Areas 6 – Scenic; 14 – Old Growth; and 15 – Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Water Quality; 

Soil Capability Areas 1, 2, and 3; and scabland portions of Capability Area 13. The Fremont National 

Forest LRMP would need to be amended to allow construction to occur (see section 1.5.3). LRMP 

amendments would need to include allowance for additional time to attain VQOs (see section 4.8.4), 

relocation or addition of dedicated old growth, allowance of heavy equipment operation through seeps 

and springs, and a specific exemption of the project from the LRMP’s detrimental soil and erosion 

standards and guidelines. The Fremont National Forest reviewed access routes needed for the 

construction of the pipeline. None of the proposed improvements would impact Inventoried Roadless 

Areas. The pipeline would cross just north of the Crane Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area; however, 

no roads that require improvement for access to the pipeline cross through this Inventoried Roadless Area. 

Therefore, the USFS is using this EIS to consider amendments to the Fremont National Forest LRMP to 

allow the pipeline to cross as proposed. 

The USFS noted that the pipeline route would depart from the WWEC as it passes through the 

Fremont National Forest. See section 3.4.9 for background information and a description of the WWEC. 

Applications for energy projects both within and outside of the WWEC continue to be subject to normal 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-171 

environmental review under applicable statutes. As proposed, Ruby’s pipeline route would avoid mule 

deer winter range and bald eagle nesting habitat crossed by the WWEC west of Goose Lake. 

Reclamation Land 

Ruby’s initial proposed route crossed three canals and drainages administered by Reclamation’s 

Klamath Basin Area Office. Since its initial proposal, Ruby modified its route in the area for various 

environmental reasons (see section 3.4.15). Ruby’s current proposed route avoids all three of 

Reclamation’s canal facilities. However, it crosses the Lost River at approximate MP R665.2, where 

Reclamation owns the easement on the southwest side of the Malone Reservoir. Reclamation would 

require that all waterbodies under its jurisdiction be crossed outside of the irrigation season (generally 

October 15 to March 15). Since the Lost River is under Reclamation’s jurisdiction, Ruby would be 

required to conform with Reclamation’s site-specific crossing methods, including their Engineering and 

O&M Guidelines for Crossings. 

The pipeline route also crosses approximately 3.5 miles of land owned and controlled by 

Reclamation from MPs R661.4 to R664.8. Reclamation-administered land comprises less than 1 percent 

of all federal land crossed by the project. Reclamation has expressed concern about minimizing OHV use 

along the pipeline right-of-way after construction. Reclamation states that the pipeline route crosses its 

lands in a remote area where unauthorized OHV use has been an issue in a similar setting. Ruby would 

implement the OHV mitigation measures described in sections 2.3.1.7, 4.8.1.1, in Ruby’s Plan (see 

Appendix F), and in Ruby’s Restoration and Revegetation Plans (see Appendix L). Ruby would install 

OHV barriers at appropriate locations in coordination with Reclamation. Ruby would submit designs for 

OHV barriers to Reclamation for review and approval. OHV barriers could include soil/rock berms, log 

barriers, vegetative screens, signs, fencing, and locked gates. Ruby would monitor and maintain OHV 

barrier effectiveness throughout the life of the project. Ruby would coordinate development of the 

construction mitigation measures with Reclamation, and Reclamation would incorporate measures into 

the right-of-way grant to ensure that construction and restoration would be completed in compliance with 

Reclamation standards (Reclamation, 2008). 

FWS Land 

The proposed pipeline route extends approximately 1.0 to 1.5 miles south of Sheldon NWR 

between MPs 516 and 543. The Sheldon NWR is managed by the FWS, and its primary goal for the 

refuge is wildlife conservation. The Sheldon NWR was established in 1931 with the following specific 

goals: provide habitat for pronghorn antelope (primary species) as well as mule deer, greater sage-grouse, 

and song birds; conserve threatened and endangered species; and provide a migratory bird sanctuary 

(FWS, 2009b). While the pipeline would not enter the Sheldon NWR boundaries, Ruby is proposing to 

use several roads within the Sheldon NWR for right-of-way access (Ruby’s original route crossed one 

parcel of the Sheldon NWR at approximately MP 539, but Ruby has since filed a route realignment which 

moves the pipeline route south to avoid entering the Sheldon NWR (see section 2.1.1)). With the 

exception of Nevada State Highway 140, the FWS has full jurisdiction over all roads and other travel 

routes within the Sheldon NWR. The Nevada DOT has a right-of-way for Highway 140, which grants it 

authority to allow highway-related uses. 

The FWS has expressed concern throughout scoping and during the comment period on the draft 

EIS regarding the potential impacts from the project’s use of access roads within the Sheldon NWR. The 

FWS has expressed particular concern regarding the use of primitive two-tracks used for the occasional 

passage of Sheldon NWR personnel or other authorized four-wheel-drive vehicles. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-172 

Ruby proposes to use 10 access roads and other travel routes located on and around the Sheldon 

NWR. Four of the roads provide primary access into and out of the Sheldon NWR, including Nevada 

State Route (SR) 140 and CRs 8A, 34, and 34a. Ruby is proposing to use and improve six smaller roads 

along the southern portion of the Sheldon NWR that would require substantial improvements and 

upgrades so they could be used by heavy construction-related vehicles. The FWS noted that these roads 

are maintained for and primarily used by FWS staff responsible for NWR management and members of 

the public visiting the NWR to participate in allowable public uses (e.g., hunting, fishing, and wildlife 

observation and photography). 

Consistent with relevant law and policy, the FWS would be required to complete several 

regulatory analyses to determine whether Ruby’s use and improvement of the aforementioned access 

roads could be found appropriate or determined compatible with the goals of the Sheldon NWR. These 

analyses would include use of the data and evaluations contained within this EIS, in addition to the FWS’ 

data and data provided by Ruby. If Ruby’s proposal to use access roads on the NWR is determined 

compatible, the FWS would then authorize the roads for the proposed uses and improvements, as 

appropriate. The FWS would also prepare and issue a ROD for these federal decisions. 

Other Federal Land 

Although not federally owned, land under conservation agreements with the FSA also is crossed 

by the proposed pipeline route. The FSA manages federal lands under a variety of conservation and 

easement programs, including the CRP. The CRP provides technical and financial assistance to eligible 

farmers and ranchers to address soil, water, and related natural resource concerns on their lands in an 

environmentally beneficial and cost-effective manner. The program also provides federal, state, and tribal 

environmental compliance assistance to farmers and ranchers and encourages environmental enhancement 

on enrolled lands. The CRP is administered by the FSA. The NRCS provides assistance with technical 

land eligibility determinations, conservation planning, and practice implementation. 

The project crosses about 5 miles of land enrolled in the CRP near MP 140.0. Ruby would be 

required to restore these areas in accordance with the landowners’ easements with the NRCS and ensure 

that all CRP requirements are met after construction. A more detailed discussion on potential effects to 

CRP land is presented in sections 4.4.4. 

4.8.2.2 State Lands 

The pipeline crosses about 12.3 miles (about 1.8 percent of the project total) of state-owned lands 

(1.6 miles in Wyoming and 10.7 miles in Utah). Two of the 44 aboveground facility sites are on stateowned land, including the Wildcat Hills Compressor Station at MP 172.5, which also is partially on 

federal land. None of the state-owned lands crossed by the project are within designated state forests or 

parks. Most of the land was granted to the states by the federal government for the support of public 

schools and other beneficiary institutions. The states manage the lands for a variety of uses, including oil 

and gas exploration, alternative energy production, coal and gravel mining, and forestry and timber 

harvesting; or the land is leased to private tenants for farming or livestock grazing. Other state-owned 

lands are managed for additional purposes, such as for wildlife habitat, recreational uses, or scenic beauty. 

In Utah, the UDWR is authorized to “enter into cooperative agreements and programs with other state 

agencies, federal agencies, states, educational institutions, municipalities, counties, corporations, 

organized clubs, landowners, associations, and individuals for purposes of wildlife conservation (Utah 

Code 23-22-1).” The UDWR is the wildlife authority for Utah, and is appointed as the trustee and 

custodian of protected wildlife (Utah Code 23-14-1). Ruby would acquire the necessary permits and 

approvals for construction across all state-owned lands. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-173 

East Fork of the Little Bear River and Salt Creek Wildlife Management Areas 

Within the state land crossed in Utah, two crossings occur on lands designated as WMAs. These 

two land parcels are managed by the UDWR and were acquired by the state for habitat conservation with 

federal aid funding from the FWS. The pipeline would cross the East Fork of the Little Bear River WMA 

(East Fork WMA) southeast of Avon in Cache County between MPs 91.8 and 92.6. The pipeline also 

would cross the Salt Creek WMA in Box Elder County between MPs 123.1 and 123.4. 

The East Fork of Little Bear and Salt Creek WMAs were purchased by the UDWR with Wildlife 

Restoration Act grant funds administered by the FWS’s Division of Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration. 

Before pipeline construction easements can be granted on these WMAs, UDWR is required to obtain the 

approval of the Regional Director, Region 6, FWS through grant amendments. 

Since these properties were purchased with Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration acts funding, any 

proposed uses or impacts on the properties must be evaluated to determine if the use materially interferes 

with or detracts substantially from the approved purposes of each WMA. The intent of this evaluation is 

to keep the properties “whole” or unaffected from the proposed use such that the property continues to 

uphold the wildlife and resource functions and values for which it was acquired. 

East Fork WMA

The purpose of the East Fork WMA is to preserve aquatic habitat and to provide public access. A 

perennial stream, the East Fork of the Little Bear River, crosses this land parcel and it supports a 

Bonneville cutthroat trout fishery. The riparian areas and forested hillsides support a wide variety of neotropical songbirds. The East Fork WMA also is within designated crucial winter range for mule deer. We 

received comments during scoping regarding the potential for impacts on this area, which is a popular 

hiking, biking, fly fishing, bird watching, and camping area. 

The East Fork WMA is approximately 234 acres in size and is composed primarily of mountain 

meadow and mountain meadow/shrub vegetation. The Ruby pipeline would linearly bisect the East Fork 

WMA for approximately 0.7 to 1.0 miles and approximately 11.2 acres of the WMA would be affected by 

the project (comprising mountain meadow, mountain meadow/shrub, and riparian vegetation). The extent 

and juxtaposition of these habitat types to each other is not common in the area and this uniqueness 

provides for increased value of the property for neo-tropical migrant songbirds, raptors, and other wildlife 

species. 

Ruby conducted special status plant, raptor, other bird, and mammal surveys along the pipeline 

corridor in this area. No special status species were identified. The proposed pipeline route does cross 

the East Fork of the Little Bear River at a point approximately 500 feet west of the boundary of the East 

Fork WMA at approximate MP 92.7. The pipeline would run along the river floodplain between MPs 

92.0 and 92.6 on the north side of the river. At two locations the construction workspace would be within 

10 feet of the river’s edge. As required in Ruby’s Procedures and discussed in section 4.3.2.4, Ruby 

submitted site-specific construction plans and an extra workspace table (Appendix E) that identifies extra 

workspaces and staging areas in and within 50 feet of waterbodies (in this case the East Fork of the Little 

Bear River). We have reviewed the plans and extra workspace table and have determined that Ruby has 

not provided sufficient site-specific justification to allow us at this time to approve Ruby’s use of extra 

workspaces and staging areas in or within 50 feet of this river. 

The impacts are associated with the pipeline corridor right-of-way itself, along with adjacent 

temporary workspaces, an equipment staging area, and a permanent MLV site. After the pipeline 

centerline was staked, UDWR biologists met on-site with Ruby personnel to walk the alignment and 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-174 

“micro-adjust” the centerline to minimize and avoid impacts on sensitive habitats and resources. 

Although this movement of the alignment was somewhat successful in protecting resources, some 

resources were either unable to be avoided or there was insufficient room to provide an adequate buffer to 

protect sensitive resources. The result is that there would be some permanent habitat impacts on 

resources on the East Fork WMA that would affect the wildlife functions and values for which the 

property was acquired. 

These impacts have not been quantitatively identified; however, the following impacts are 

predicted to occur on the property: 

• Direct/Permanent Loss of Tree/Shrub habitats: The pipeline right-of-way would be 

graded and cleared of all tree and shrub vegetation. The majority of the right-of-way 

would be permanently kept free of tree and shrub vegetation. This would result in the 

loss of semi-mature riparian and mature mountain shrub/tree habitats that would take 

decades to recover to their existing condition, if they are allowed to re-establish at all. On 

the western portion of the property, the right-of-way would cut through an old oxbow of 

the East Fork of the Little Bear River. This area supports a forested wetland habitat, a 

large portion of which would be permanently lost. In two locations, the pipeline right-ofway would be within 5 or 10 feet of the top of the East Fork of the Little Bear River 

streambank, which would result in the loss of the riparian vegetation. 

• Direct Loss of Mountain Meadow habitat: The establishment of the mainline valve would 

result in the permanent loss of a small area of mountain meadow grassland habitat. 

• Temporal Loss of Habitats: Since the pipeline right-of-way would be reseeded with a 

grass/forb mixture, the mountain meadow grassland habitat community should quickly 

return to pre-existing conditions. In other areas of the right-of-way where trees and 

shrubs would be allowed to re-establish, the vegetation components should be established 

within 5 to 10 years. However, some of these areas would not achieve their pre-existing 

conditions for more than 20 years. 

• Temporal Loss of Recreation Opportunities: The East Fork WMA is unusual in Cache 

County in that it provides relatively undisturbed and quiet public access to lowland 

riparian habitat. During the 3 to 4 months during the spring and summer of 2010 when 

the property would be disturbed by grading and pipeline installation activities, it would 

be essentially “unavailable” physically or aesthetically for most recreation opportunities. 

The parking lot would be used by Ruby for equipment storage, and heavy equipment 

would be working on the north side of the river (noise, workers, dust, etc.). During the 

time Ruby is present on-site, recreationists would be deterred from using the property. 

Recreational use in the East Fork WMA occurs year-round but use is higher in the fishing season 

between spring and fall (when construction is likely to occur). Construction impacts would include 

limiting or precluding access for recreational users during construction and a short-term loss of habitat 

along the East Fork of the Little Bear River, which would diminish the aesthetic appeal of the area. Ruby 

has coordinated with the UDWR to site the locations and width of the construction workspace in this area 

to minimize impacts on the river, associated wetlands, and adjacent riparian and forested areas. 

During construction, Ruby would provide signage for closed areas, would redirect traffic, and if 

appropriate, would post flaggers to direct motorists. As described in section 4.5.2, Ruby would 

implement several mitigation measures to protect big game winter ranges, including scheduling 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-175 

construction to avoid crucial big game winter range time periods, leaving trench cross-over breaks at 0.5-

mile intervals, leaving a 10-foot gap in soil stockpiles for wildlife movement, and installing trench ramps 

to allow tramp wildlife to escape. 

La Plata Road, located in the southwestern portion of the East Fork WMA, would be utilized as 

an access road. A disturbed grassland area located between La Plata Road and the pipeline, currently 

used as a visitor parking lot, would be used by Ruby as a staging area and parking lot. Ruby also 

proposes to construct an MLV immediately northwest of the staging area. This MLV site would require 

some permanent aboveground piping and would be contained within a 50-foot by 75-foot fence. 

After construction, Ruby would restore the contours of the affected area and reclaim and replant 

the riparian habitat. Rather than reseeding the riparian areas, Ruby would replant these areas with more 

mature trees and shrubs (2 to 5 years in age) to reduce the overall time required to reach preconstruction 

conditions. At the end of the reclamation phase of the project, all recreation activities would be able to 

resume to normal levels on the right-of-way, with the exception of the footprint of the MLV. 

Salt Creek WMA

The Salt Creek WMA is a 5,254-acre area of land located north of the Great Salt Lake and 6 

miles south of Tremonton, Utah. The Salt Creek WMA was established to preserve waterfowl habitat and 

provide access for public hunting. The pipeline crosses a southern extension the Salt Creek WMA and 

would affect about 7.4 acres of land that contains sagebrush steppe vegetation. The closest wetland areas 

occurs approximately 2,000 feet to the north of the pipeline. Ruby conducted special status plant, raptor, 

other bird, and mammal surveys along the pipeline corridor in this area. No special status species were 

identified. 

Recreational use of the Salt Creek WMA includes year-round bird watching from only select 

gravel roads and at one designated viewing site, and waterfowl hunting during the appropriate season, 

during which time camping is allowed. Construction traffic and noise would temporarily affect 

recreational uses of the Salt Creek WMA by interrupting access and disrupting bird activity; however, this 

would be a short-term impact of 2 to 3 months and would occur only when construction is active on or 

near this particular parcel. Ruby would provide road signage and, if necessary, traffic flaggers to 

maintain open access to parking areas and wildlife viewing areas. 

The impacts would be associated with the pipeline right-of-way itself as no temporary work 

spaces or staging areas have been identified for the property. This area, while it can support wildlife 

species associated with sagebrush steppe communities, is located adjacent to several roads and a landfill, 

and, as such, has a reduced wildlife value. 

• Direct Loss of Habitat: Since Ruby would allow shrub vegetation to re-establish on the 

pipeline right-of-way, this community should eventually return to pre-existing conditions. 

• Temporal Loss of Habitat: Sagebrush communities can take many years to recover and 

regeneration in this area may take 30 to 50 years or more to fully recover. Given this 

long rate of recovery of sagebrush communities, UDWR considers this a permanent 

impact on wildlife habitat. 

We received a comment on the draft EIS questioning the potential implications of the use of the 

East Fork WMA and Salt Creek WMA lands for a pipeline corridor. The commenter was concerned that 

the pipeline could possibly conflict with the terms of the FWS grant that were decided during the creation 

of the management areas. For any lands identified as state-owned lands and bound under contract with 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-176 

the FWS for habitat conservation, Ruby would be required to obtain rights-of-way from the State of 

Utah. The existing contracts between the UDWR and FWS would require amendments for a change in 

purpose and would precede the State of Utah issuing any rights-of-way across such lands. Specific details 

of the impacts as a result of the change in purpose and mitigation measures proposed must be clearly 

stated. This is typically done through an Environmental Assessment (EA) or EIS such as this. 

UDWR Granting of Right-of-Way Easements 

Prior to granting easements for the Ruby pipeline, the FWS would review and evaluate the 

proposed impacts on each WMA and discern how the properties may be materially affected by the project 

and the values protected. Upon completion of this process, the FWS can approve grant amendments for 

easements crossing each WMA. 

These grant amendments would serve to legally grant the conditioned right-of-way to Ruby for 

the pipeline. UDWR would work with Ruby and the FWS to identify potential special conditions with 

the intent of fully protecting the wildlife functions and values for which the properties were acquired. 

To ensure that Ruby completes its discussions with the UDWR to develop any special conditions 

for easements on the WMAs and receive the FWS grant amendments for the UDWR easements, we 

recommend that Ruby continue to work with UDWR and FWS to ensure all project impacts on the 

East Fork and Salt Creek WMAs’ resources are fully addressed via development of a WMA Impact 

Management and Mitigation Plan. 

4.8.2.3 Private Lands 

The proposed project route crosses about 321.0 miles of private lands (about 47.5 percent of the 

project total). Twenty-four of the 44 aboveground facility sites are sited on private lands, including the 

Wieland Flat Compressor Station at MP 330.1. Ruby would secure easements to convey both temporary 

(for construction) and permanent (for operation) rights-of-way on private lands. The easement acquisition 

process is designed to provide fair compensation to the landowners for the pipeline company’s right to 

use the property for pipeline construction and operation. Ruby would compensate landowners for loss of 

value to specific parcels. The easement agreement between the company and landowner typically 

specifies compensation for loss of use during construction, loss of nonrenewable or other resources, 

damage to property during construction, and limits on use of the permanent right-of-way after 

construction. Landowners have the opportunity to request that site-specific factors and/or development 

plans for their property be considered during easement negotiations, and that specific measures be taken 

into account. Other than the easement, construction of the pipeline would not place any restrictions on a 

landowner’s ability to sell or transfer ownership of a property during or after construction. 

Ruby could use the right of eminent domain granted to it under Section 7(h) of the NGA to obtain 

right-of-way and temporary work areas in the event that an easement could not be negotiated and the 

project is certificated by the FERC. In this case, Ruby still would be required to compensate the 

landowner for the right-of-way and for any damages incurred during construction; however, the level of 

compensation would be determined by the court. Eminent domain does not apply to land under federal 

ownership or management. 

4.8.3 Recreation and Special Interest Areas 

In addition to the recreational interests associated with the two state of Utah WMAs described in 

section 4.8.2.2, the Ruby Pipeline Project would cross several other recreation and special interest areas, 

including two National Trails, one proposed WSR, and three byways. The project as proposed would not 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-177 

cross any NWR land; however it would involve the use of several access roads on the Sheldon NWR. 

The project would not cross any National Wildlife Management Areas, National Park or Monument lands, 

National Forest campgrounds, Wilderness Areas, WSAs, Inventoried Roadless Areas, or NCAs. 

However, the project would be close to some special interest or recreation areas including one National 

Forest campground, one BLM campground, federal wilderness areas including the Black Rock NCA, the 

Black Rock Desert Wilderness, and the Massacre Rim WSA; and the recreational area where the Burning 

Man Festival is held annually. The project may result in some indirect effects to these nearby areas. The 

project is not within 0.25 mile of a sensitive receptor (i.e., church, school, cemetery, or hospital), 100-year 

flood plain, or Coastal Zone Management Area. 

4.8.3.1 National Forest Campgrounds 

The proposed project does not cross any National Forest campgrounds, but is in close proximity 

to the Monte Cristo Campground within the Cache National Forest. The proposed route crosses 

immediately north of and adjacent to about 3.3 miles of the northern boundary of the Cache National 

Forest between MPs 71.7 and 75.0. The project passes within about 800 feet of the closest loop of 

campground campsites at MP 73.3. The Monte Cristo Campground has 45 single campsites and 2 group 

areas, each of which hold between 80 and 100 people. The peak camping season is generally between 

July and November. Although construction would not directly affect designated campsites, campers 

would be inconvenienced by limited access, increased congestion, noise and dust, and impacts on 

vegetation, resulting in fewer opportunities for National Forest visitors to enjoy the facilities. These 

effects would be mostly short-term and limited to the duration of construction, except for effects to 

vegetation, which would require 1 year or more to reestablish. Ruby would coordinate development of 

the construction schedule and mitigation measures with the USFS, and the USFS would incorporate 

measures into the right-of-way grant to ensure that construction and restoration would be completed in 

compliance with USFS standards. 

4.8.3.2 National Trails 

The National Trail System Act of 1968 was established to designate and protect national scenic 

trails, national historic trails, and national recreational trails. The proposed centerline would cross two 

National Trails: the Oregon National Historic Trail and the Crane Mountain National Recreational Trail. 

Additionally, a segment of the Applegate-Lassen Trial, which is a component of the California National 

Historic Trail, is located on the southern edge of the Vya Construction Camp. 

Oregon Trail 

The Oregon National Historic Trail was once one of the main overland migration routes on the 

North American continent, and led from locations on the Missouri River westward to the Oregon 

Territory. Between 1841 and 1869 the Oregon Trail was used by settlers, ranchers, farmers, miners, and 

businessmen migrating to the Pacific Northwest. When the first transcontinental railroad was completed 

in 1869, the use of this trail by long distance travelers rapidly diminished. By 1883 the Northern Pacific 

Railroad had reached Portland, Oregon, and most of the reason for the trail disappeared. Roads were built 

over or near most of the trail as the local population traveled to cities originally established along the 

Oregon Trail. 

The project would cross the Oregon National Historic Trail on the Bear River Divide Segment at 

about MP 20.0. This segment of the trail is administered by the BLM’s Kemmerer Field Office. The 

BLM’s RMP allows right-of-way crossings of historic trails if the following criteria are met: (1) 

construction must minimize surface destruction; (2) the crossing must be located in an area where trail 

ruts have been modified by modern use, alongside a previously existing crossing, or where the crossing 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-178 

would not damage trail remains; (3) the crossing must avoid fragile trail resources; (4) the crossings 

should be made at a right angle to the trail and corridor unless it follows a previous crossing; (5) 

vegetative species indigenous to the protective corridor must be used to rehabilitate right-of-way surface 

disturbance; and (6) the disturbed area must be returned to a natural contour. 

 According to the National Parks Service Trails System Officer, the segment of the trail crossed 

by the proposed project has been previously determined to be a non-contributing portion of the property, 

and its setting does not convey the character of the trail’s historic period due to the number of modern 

developments in the area (see section 4.10.1.1). Although trail traces are present in the vicinity, no 

physical evidence of the trail exists at the proposed pipeline crossing. Ruby designed the trial crossing to 

create a very weak contrast so that the trail’s setting would not be adversely affected. Visual impacts are 

discussed further in section 4.8.4.6. Ruby also has coordinated with the BLM to ensure conformance 

with all RMP criteria for a trail crossing. The BLM would incorporate necessary measures into its rightof-way grant to ensure that construction and restoration would be completed in compliance with BLM 

standards. 

Crane Mountain Trail 

The Crane Mountain National Recreational Trail is 31 miles in length and connects into the 

Fremont National Recreation Trail at the South Fork Crooked Creek Trailhead. The Crane Mountain 

Trail offers travelers many scenic vistas and diverse environments as it traverses the slopes and summit of 

the rugged Crane Mountain. The trail is open to hikers, pack stock, and mountain bikes for its entire 

length, and motorized use is permitted on an 8-mile segment of the trail. The proposed project crosses the 

trail at about MP 610 within the Fremont National Forest near Rogger Meadow. 

Construction across the Crane Mountain National Recreational Trail would result in temporary, 

short-term closure to the portion of the trail located within Ruby’s construction right-of-way. Ruby has 

coordinated with the USFS to develop a construction plan that would minimize impacts on the trail and its 

recreational users. Ruby would coordinate trail closure with the USFS and would post notices 30 days 

prior to construction that explains the reason for closure of the trail and describes a temporary access or 

detour around the construction site. Ruby would construct a trail detour along the edge of the 

construction site during trail closure to provide hikers safe access around the construction site. Signs 

would be posted 100 feet up and down the trail from the construction site to warn hikers of the 

construction and associated detour ahead. The USFS would incorporate measures into the right-of-way 

grant to ensure that construction and restoration is completed in compliance with USFS standards. 

Applegate-Lassen Trail 

A previously unrecorded section of the Applegate-Lassen Trail was discovered and documented 

during Ruby’s Class III cultural resources survey of the Vya Construction Camp. This section of the trail 

crosses the Vya camp as it travels east-west near the southern edge of the 160-acre camp parcel. Historic 

artifacts and documentary evidence indicate that this segment of the trail was used as a commercial stage 

route and local access road after it was used for the initial exploration and settlement of the region. This 

section of the Applegate-Lassen Trail is recommended as a new contributing element to the NRHP-listed 

property. The camp parcel is privately owned, but the trail extends into lands administered by the BLM. 

Ruby has proposed several measures to protect the integrity of the NRHP-eligible ApplegateLassen Trail during construction and use of the camp, including: 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-179 

• The entire 160-acre camp parcel would be fenced and monitored so that only approved 

workers can access the camp. 

• Construction activity at the Vya camp would be monitored by a qualified archaeologist. 

• The segment of the trail that crosses the camp parcel near the southern boundary would 

be avoided through use of a 150-foot buffer and a chain link fence. 

• Ruby would prepare a plan for educating workers regarding the significance of and the 

need for protecting the trail. This plan would also address other historical or natural 

wildlife/conservation areas and tribal lands in the region as recommended in section 

4.8.3.6. 

• Ruby’s POD would address the protection of the trail at the Vya camp. 

Upon completion of the Ruby Pipeline Project, the construction camp would be completely 

dismantled and all camp facilities would be removed. The land surface would be regraded, cleaned-up, 

and restored to preconstruction conditions in accordance with Ruby’s Plan. These restoration efforts also 

would be monitored by a qualified archaeologist. Visual impacts on the trail from construction are 

discussed in section 4.8.4.6. Measures to mitigate impacts on the historic trail through the Section 106 

process are discussed in Section 4.10.1.3. 

4.8.3.3 National WSRs 

The National WSR System was created by Congress in 1968 to preserve certain rivers with 

outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational values in a free-flowing condition for the enjoyment of 

present and future generations. This legislation requires that wild and scenic river considerations be taken 

into account during federal agency planning. The Ruby Pipeline Project would not impact any currently 

designated WSRs; however, it would cross one waterbody, Twelvemile Creek, currently under 

consideration for listing as a WSR. 

Twelvemile Creek crosses lands under the jurisdiction of the BLM’s Lakeview and Surprise Field 

Offices. Both field offices were involved in the evaluation of Twelvemile Creek as a potential WSR. The 

Lakeview Field Office analyzed the eligibility of Twelvemile Creek while the Surprise Field Office made 

the final listing recommendation. The Lakeview RMP establishes about 4.4 miles of Twelvemile Creek 

in Oregon and 2.2 miles of Twelvemile Creek along the California/Nevada border as suitable for 

designation as a recreational WSR. The Surprise Resource Area RMP and Final EIS concurred with the 

Lakeview RMP analysis for the 2.2-mile portion of Twelvemile Creek along the California/Nevada 

border but made no recommendation for the 4.4-mile portion in Oregon. The final decision on whether to 

designate Twelvemile Creek as a WSR is currently pending in Congress. The BLM is protecting the 

recreational values of the river in the interim until the designation decision is finalized. Recreational 

rivers are those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have 

some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or diversion 

in the past. Typically, to be designated as a recreational river, the recreational opportunities of the river 

have to be (or at least must have the potential to be) popular enough to attract visitors from throughout or 

beyond the region, or are rare, unusual, or unique to the region. Visitors generally must be willing to 

travel long distances to use the river resources for recreational purposes. River-related opportunities 

could include, but are not limited to, sightseeing, wildlife observation, camping, photography, hiking, 

fishing, hunting, and boating/rafting. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-180 

The project would cross Twelvemile Creek at MP 588.8 north of the Oregon/Nevada border in an 

area that is difficult to access by road or trail. Recreational usage of Twelvemile Creek is low due to the 

limited access. BLM staff familiar with Twelvemile Creek estimate that between 75 and 100 recreational 

users visit the creek in this area annually; visitors consist primarily of hunters, anglers, and some camping 

enthusiasts. Visual impacts from construction on this river are discussed in section 4.8.4.6. Ruby would 

cross Twelvemile Creek using a dry-ditch crossing method and would submit a site-specific stream 

crossing plan for Twelvemile Creek to the FERC and BLM for review and approval prior to construction. 

Impacts on the long-term recreational values of the river would be mitigated through development and 

implementation of the plan. 

4.8.3.4 Back Country Byways and National Scenic Byways 

The project would parallel one Back Country Byway, cross one Back Country Byway (at two 

separate locations), and cross one National Scenic Byway. Back Country Byways are routes designated 

by the BLM to offer the American public opportunities for auto touring and pleasure driving on public 

lands. The National Scenic Byways Program was established under the Intermodal Surface 

Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. Under the program, the U.S. Secretary of Transportation 

recognizes certain roads as National Scenic Byways or All-American Roads based on their 

archaeological, cultural, historic, natural, recreational, and scenic qualities. There are 125 such 

designated byways in 44 states. The project would also cross one National Forest and Utah State Scenic 

Byway. 

Transcontinental Railroad Back Country Byway 

The Transcontinental Railroad National Back County Byway is a 90-mile-long dirt and gravel 

road that extends along the original Central Pacific Railroad grade from the Golden Spike National 

Historic Site to the Utah-Nevada border. The original railroad grade has been unaltered since 1903. It 

travels across the northern extension of the Great Salt Lake Desert and follows the northern rim of the 

Great Salt Lake Depression. This is a barren area of rolling hills and flat lands with expansive views. 

About half of the byway route is maintained as county road and the other half is not maintained. The 

byway is administered by the BLM for public use and enjoyment. Due to its unique history and scenic 

beauty, the byway is a designated Area of Critical Environmental Concern and is listed on the NRHP. 

The pipeline route does not cross the Transcontinental Railroad National Back County Byway, 

but would be parallel to and within 0.5 mile of the byway between MPs 165 to 170 and at MP 210. 

Although there would be no direct impacts on the byway, the pipeline could indirectly affect the visual 

character of the byway. Visual impacts on the byway are discussed in section 4.8.4.6. The BLM would 

incorporate measures into the right-of-way grant to ensure that construction and restoration would be 

completed in compliance with BLM standards. 

Barrel Springs Back Country Byway 

The project would cross the Barrel Springs Back Country Byway at MPs 571.5 and 581.9 in 

northwest Nevada. Both crossing locations are managed by the BLM’s Surprise Field Office. The 

pipeline would cross the byway in undeveloped, rural areas accessible only by unpaved roads and 

surrounded by open land used for grazing and recreation. Ruby would cross the byway using the opencut technique, which would result in direct disturbance to the byway and require temporary closure of the 

road to traffic and the establishment of detours. Construction also would affect the visual character of the 

byway. Visual impacts from construction on this byway are discussed in section 4.8.4.6. The BLM 

would incorporate measures into the right-of-way grant to ensure that construction and restoration would 

be completed in compliance with BLM standards. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-181 

Oregon Outback Scenic Byway 

The project would cross the Oregon Outback Scenic Byway at MP 614.3 in Lake County, 

Oregon. The byway is also known as U.S. Highway 395 at this location. The byway is managed by the 

BLM’s Lakeview Field Office. The pipeline would cross the byway in an area that is primarily used for 

farming and raising livestock. Ruby would install the pipe beneath the road using the bore technique, 

which would involve no direct disturbance to the byway. However, construction activities in the adjacent 

right-of-way areas would be visible to parties using the road for a period of about 2 to 5 weeks; visual 

impacts on this byway are discussed further in section 4.8.4.6. The BLM would incorporate measures 

into the right-of-way grant to ensure that construction and restoration would be completed in compliance 

with BLM standards. 

Ogden River (Highway 39) Scenic Byway 

The project would cross the Ogden River Scenic Byway at MP 73.5, which is not designated 

nationally but is designated as a National Forest Scenic Byway and Utah State Scenic Byway. The 

proposed pipeline is not located on National Forest system land where it crosses this byway. Neither the 

USFS nor the State of Utah includes language in their plans regarding utility crossings of scenic byways. 

Ruby would install the pipe beneath the road using the bore technique, which would involve no direct 

disturbance to the byway. However, construction activities in the adjacent right-of-way areas would be 

visible to parties using the road for a period of about 2 to 5 weeks; visual impacts on this byway are 

discussed further in section 4.8.4.6. 

4.8.3.5 Sheldon NWR 

As described in section 4.8.2.1, Ruby proposes to use three existing county roads and six existing 

smaller roads around and on the Sheldon NWR to provide access to the project. The three county roads 

provide ingress and egress on the southwest and west sides of the Sheldon NWR. CR 8A is unpaved but 

has been improved with graded gravel and drainage. CR 8A would be the primary access road to/from 

the Vya Construction Camp. Ruby’s only proposed improvement to CR 8A would be to realign two blind 

corners of the road for vehicle safety considerations. CRs 34 and 34A are unpaved and unimproved 

dirt/gravel roads. Ruby does not propose any improvements to CRs 34 or 34A. Although FWS has full 

jurisdiction over use of these three CRs, they are managed under a joint use agreement between the FWS 

and Washoe and Humboldt counties, Nevada. 

Two of the six smaller access roads, Knott Creek Road (Ruby’s road number H-46) and Summit 

Lake Road (also known as Badger Mountain Road, Ruby’s road number H-46B), are dirt/gravel roads 

maintained by the FWS in conjunction with the Humboldt County Road Department. According to the 

FWS, these roads are graded, have some gravel, and are occasionally maintained. In many locations these 

roads are rough, winding, narrow, have switchbacks and hairpin curves, cross wet swales, are worn-down 

to native rock on hills, and travel through or are adjacent to sensitive wildlife habitats. Higher-elevation 

sections are only passable seasonally. The FWS has noted that mountain mahogany is known to grow 

along Summit Lake Road. Ruby has proposed to blade Knott Creek Road and Summit Lake Road where 

necessary to accommodate construction traffic, and to install a flume bridge over one dry wash on Knott 

Creek Road. The FWS has indicated that project activities that damage or remove mountain mahogany 

along Summit Lake Road would be discouraged or prohibited, and requested more specific project 

information from Ruby regarding the use and improvement of both roads (e.g., vehicle numbers and 

types, frequency of use, improvement areas, material sources, costs, and mitigation). The FWS has 

indicated that, following analyses for appropriateness and compatibility, Ruby’s use or improvement of 

Knott Creek Road and Summit Lake Road could potentially be authorized for use. The FWS also would 

prepare and issue a ROD for this federal decision. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-182 

The remaining four smaller access roads are two-tracks (Ruby road numbers, W-1, H-52, H-53, 

and H-54). Ruby’s two-track numbers H-53 and H-54 are included in this impact assessment; however, if 

access to two-track number H-50 (located south of the Sheldon NWR on BLM-owned land) is granted, 

the use of two-tracks H-53 and H-54 would be unnecessary. Substantial improvements would be required 

to upgrade these two-tracks to facilitate travel by heavy construction-related vehicles. The FWS has 

indicated that it is considering permanent closure of some of the two-tracks as part of its ongoing CCP 

process. The FWS further states that Ruby’s use and improvement of the two-tracks could result in 

multiple adverse effects to natural and cultural resources and public use and such use is not compatible 

with the purposes or the mission of the Sheldon NWR and the NWR System. For these and other reasons, 

the FWS has stated that it is highly unlikely it would grant approval for the use or improvement of the 

two-tracks. 

Ruby’s Sheldon NWR Transportation Plan provides a detailed discussion of anticipated impacts 

of construction on the roads and specifies the mitigation Ruby would implement to avoid or minimize 

impacts on access roads on the refuge. This plan has been included in the final EIS as an addendum to 

Ruby’s general Traffic and Transportation Management Plan (Appendix X). A summary of impacts on 

the Sheldon NWR from use and improvements of roads and other access routes, and Ruby’s proposed 

mitigation measures are summarized below. 

Construction of the project would move progressively from east to west at a rate of approximately 

1 mile per day. The roads and other access routes through the Sheldon NWR would be used for 

approximately 6 months, and the vehicle count would vary from day to day. The habitat along the 

proposed access roads around and in the Sheldon NWR is sagebrush steppe, the most abundant habitat 

type at Sheldon NWR. When ungrazed by domestic livestock, such as is the case on the Sheldon NWR, 

sagebrush steppe habitat is one of the nation’s more endangered ecosystems (Noss and Peters, Dec 1995; 

Noss, R.F. et al., 1995). The FWS has stated its concern that impacts from the improvement and use of 

roads and other access routes could include increased safety hazards, loss of vegetation, potential soil 

erosion, habitat fragmentation, disturbance to and a redistribution of wildlife species, potential stream and 

wetland impacts, an increased potential for feral horses and burros to move onto the refuge, introduction 

of invasive plant species, generation of road dust, disturbance to higher-priority users of the Sheldon 

NWR (e.g., hunters, anglers, and wildlife observers and photographers), and a likely increase in 

vandalism, poaching, littering, fence cutting, and gate opening. 

Although these are existing roads, some of the impacts of use and improvement of roads and 

other access routes on physical and biological resources would be similar to those impacts related the 

construction right-of-way, addressed by resource type in sections 4.1 through 4.7 and 4.9 through 4.12. 

Ruby would be required to implement its mitigation plans (e.g., Sheldon Transportation Plan, Plan, 

Procedures, Restoration and Revegetation Plans, Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan, Fugitive Dust 

Control Plan, etc.) as well as our recommendations (see section 5.2), and any site-specific requirements 

identified by the FWS. 

The FWS expressed specific concerns regarding the impact of use and improvements of the roads 

on recreational users of the Sheldon NWR. Wildlife-dependent recreation on the Sheldon NWR is 

currently limited by the location and quality of roads and other access routes. Where they occur in the 

same areas as construction, project-related activities could discourage and potentially directly conflict 

with the FWS’ higher-priority wildlife-dependent uses such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and 

photography. The FWS states that no mitigation could compensate for this short-term impact, which 

would occur for approximately 6 months. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-183 

The FWS also expressed specific concerns regarding the potential impact of increased access to 

WSAs because of the proximity of access roads to WSAs. No access roads are located within WSAs, 

although Highway 140, CR 8A, Knott Creek Road, and Summit Lake Road all are adjacent to WSAs 

along portions of their routes. The nearby increase in vehicular traffic could adversely affect the WSAs’ 

wilderness character and would conflict with the management direction of the WSA. The FWS stated 

that any improvements of access roads through the Sheldon NWR would be conditioned on the 

prevention of inappropriate uses within a WSA. 

According to the FWS, Ruby’s proposed access road use within the Sheldon NWR could impact 

ongoing research programs on the Sheldon NWR. Based on information provided by the FWS, we have 

determined that most research programs in the vicinity of the project already have been completed or are 

sufficiently far from the access roads such that they would not be affected by construction. However, use 

of access roads during construction could affect a grazing exclosure study being conducted on the south 

end of the refuge. The grazing exclosure study was initiated in 2008 with the purpose of investigating the 

effects of feral horse use on hydrology as well as vegetative and invertebrate communities. Collaborators 

on the study include the FWS, the Oregon Agricultural Research Station, the Brigham Young University, 

the University of California, and the University of Nevada. Ruby’s proposed access road use and 

improvement could damage fences and other barriers to the exclosure area and negatively impact the 

research. The FWS indicated it would require diligent monitoring and repair of exclosure barriers on the 

Sheldon NWR to minimize the likelihood of this occurring if the use or improvement of access roads on 

the NWR is authorized. 

The FWS also raised concerns regarding use of the 14 campgrounds within the Sheldon NWR, 

which are designed to provide primitive experiences to wildlife-dependent public users such as hunters, 

anglers, wildlife observers, and photographers. With the exception of Virgin Valley Campground, the 

campgrounds are not developed nor are they managed to accommodate large crowds or multiple large 

vehicles. Most are small and remote and are difficult to access, and have no potable water, sanitary 

facilities, tables, or trash collection. Consistent with the Sheldon NWR’s statutory guidance, these 

campgrounds provide overnight spaces in support of Sheldon NWR’s primary and highest-priority 

clientele, that is, wildlife-dependent public users. There is a 2-week limit on campground use by the 

public. Consistent with federal statute (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended, 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) and FWS policy (Administration of Specialized Uses, 5 RM 17), use 

by pipeline construction workers as living accommodations during construction would constitute an 

economic use, the Sheldon NWR’s lowest priority use. Before any pipeline construction workers could 

use Sheldon NWR’s primitive campgrounds, a special use permit would be required. Before the special 

use permit could be issued, the use would have to formally be found appropriate and determined 

compatible. In light of the size, remoteness, and primitive nature of most of the NWR’s campgrounds, 

the FWS states that the environmental impacts generated from use by a large number of campers make it 

unlikely that issuance of such a special use permit for an economic use of this nature could be justified. 

However, based on our review of the situation, while it is possible that the influx of non-local 

workers to the general vicinity could result in increased use of the refuge’s campgrounds, project-related 

camping on the Sheldon NWR is not expected to occur. Construction workers would not be allowed to 

use the Sheldon NWR facilities during construction work days. Due to the nature of pipeline construction 

and the demanding work schedule (6 to 7 days per week, 10 to 12 hours per day) it would be unlikely that 

workers would use the Sheldon NWR for recreation on their days off. In addition, if construction workers 

chose to use and explore the Sheldon NWR’s campground features on their own time, the construction 

workers would be restricted to using the campgrounds for the stated purposes and durations. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-184 

4.8.3.6 Other Recreational Areas 

Rock Creek Camp 

We received comments during the review period for the draft EIS that the Southern Langell 

Valley Route Alternative, if approved, would be within 120 feet of a BLM-managed camp site at MP 

R651.8 called the Rock Creek Camp. We recommended in the draft EIS that Ruby incorporate the 

Southern Langell Valley Route Alternative into the final pipeline route. Ruby subsequently adopted this 

alternative, and as such, it is now a part of Ruby’s proposed project. The campsite at MP R651.8 is a 

remote site at which BLM has recently installed improvements (picnic table, fire grate, and vault toilet). 

Although construction would not directly affect the campsite, the public would be inconvenienced by 

limited access, increased congestion, noise and dust, and impacts on vegetation and visual aesthetics, 

resulting in fewer opportunities to fully enjoy the facilities. These effects would be mostly short-term and 

limited to the duration of construction, except for effects to vegetation, which would require 1 year or 

more to reestablish. Ruby would coordinate development of the construction schedule and mitigation 

measures with the BLM Klamath Falls Resource Area Field Office, and the BLM would incorporate 

measures into the right-of-way grant to ensure that construction and restoration would be completed in 

compliance with BLM standards. Recreational uses would return to normal after construction. 

Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails NCA and Black Rock Desert Wilderness 

Areas 

We received comments during the review period for the draft EIS regarding the project’s impacts 

on the Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area (NCA) and the 

adjacent Black Rock Desert Wilderness Area. The NCA and the wilderness area are south of the Sheldon 

NWR in northwestern Nevada and are managed by the BLM. The proposed pipeline would be routed inbetween these two areas and the Sheldon NWR, generally between MPs 495 and 560. While the pipeline 

would not cross either of these two areas, it would be within approximately 1 mile of the northern 

boundary of the Black Rock Desert Wilderness Area between MP 496 to 500 and within approximately 1 

mile of the northern boundary of the NCA between MP 548 to 558. 

The NCA is protected for its historical significance associated with emigrant trails and for 

wilderness recreation. The wilderness area was set aside for scientific study and non-mechanized 

recreation. The proximity of the proposed pipeline at the two locations nearest the Black Rock DesertHigh Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails NCA and Black Rock Desert Wilderness Area occur close to and 

cross already established roads (Leonard Creek Road and CR 8A). Visitors to the NCA or wilderness 

area may notice increased levels of construction traffic on roads in the general area; however, impacts on 

the recreational or historic values of the areas would be minor, short-term, and limited to the duration of 

construction at those locations. 

Burning Man Festival 

The Burning Man Festival is a popular annual recreational event that occurs annually in Nevada’s 

Black Rock Desert, approximately 63 miles southeast of Vya. This festival is a weeklong event that 

occurs around Labor Day weekend and attracts almost 50,000 people. While the project is sufficiently far 

enough away from the festival as to not cause a direct impact, the presence of construction traffic 

associated with the Vya Construction Camp could disturb access of those traveling to the Burning Man 

Festival on SR 34. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-185 

The entrance to the Burning Man Festival is from SR 34 approximately 8 miles north of Gerlach, 

Nevada. Participants driving to the festival from the north could travel south on either SR 447 or SR 34, 

and participants using the SR 34 route would pass by the Vya Construction Camp. However, most of the 

festival attendees are expected to arrive via the south route. 

Increased vehicle traffic from construction of the project around the Vya Construction Camp 

could cause traffic congestion and frustrations for festival participants travelling to and from the festival. 

To reduce these impacts, Ruby would work with Washoe County to mitigate traffic impacts by not 

scheduling any major shift changes in personnel during times when the majority of people are entering or 

leaving the Burning Man Festival. Ruby would employ traffic monitors during the festival to ensure that 

construction traffic does not disturb access of festival attendees, and Ruby would place signs on CRs 34 

and 8A to alert drivers to the presence of construction-related traffic. Ruby would be responsible for 

removing the signs during decommissioning of the Vya camp. 

 

Northwestern Nevada Sensitive Area - Contractor Education 

We received comments during the draft EIS comment period concerning the protection of historic 

and natural wildlife/conservation areas and tribal lands in northern Washoe and Humboldt counties, 

Nevada, particularly due to the large number of construction workers placed within driving distance from 

the Vya Construction Camp. Ruby committed to requiring that each occupant of the Vya camp read and 

sign orientation documents containing information on use restrictions regarding historic and natural 

wildlife/conservation areas and tribal lands near the Vya camp. We find this contractor education 

approach acceptable, but believe this plan should be extended to reach construction personnel along a 

larger area of the pipeline route in this area. Ruby should provide this education to all contractors 

working generally between MPs 490 to 580, and the education materials should address areas such as the 

Applegate-Lassen Trail, the Sheldon NWR, the Black Rock NCA, the Black Rock Desert Wilderness, the 

Massacre Rim WSA, and tribal lands on the Summit Lake Indian Reservation. Ruby has stated that it 

would hold contractors accountable for compliance with use restrictions associated with working near 

these sensitive areas. Ruby has also stated that it would welcome input from any agencies that would like 

specific information included in the education materials. To ensure that construction personnel respect 

and abide by use restrictions associated with sensitive areas in northwestern Nevada, we recommend 

that Ruby provide its Northwestern Nevada Sensitive Area Contractor Education training to all of 

its contractor personnel working between MPs 490 and 580. 

4.8.4 Visual Resources 

The term “visual resources” refers to the composite of basic terrain features, geologic features, 

hydrologic features, vegetative patterns, and anthropogenic features that influence the visual appeal of an 

area. The project would cross federal, state, and privately owned lands. NEPA, the Forest and Rangeland 

Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 

1976), and the FLPMA require the management of scenic resources on federal lands and ensure that 

scenic resources are treated equally with other resources. Private lands that would be crossed by the 

proposed pipeline route are not subject to federal or state visual management standards. 

This assessment identifies the visual impacts from construction and operation of the proposed 

project. Changes to the existing visual character and overall pre- and post-project visual conditions were 

evaluated to assess compliance with the BLM Visual Resource Management (VRM) System and the 

USFS Visual Management System (VMS) and Scenery Management System (SMS). Section 4.8.4 was 

prepared entirely by the BLM. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-186 

4.8.4.1 Existing Visual Character 

The overall visual character of the project area varies dramatically along the entire length of the 

pipeline and reflects dominant landforms, unique geologic patterns, distinct biotic communities, and land 

uses. The project would cross five ecoregions: Wyoming Basin, Wasatch and Uinta Mountains, Central 

Basin and Range, Northern Basin and Range, and Eastern Cascade Slopes and Foothills (EPA, 2009g). 

Each ecoregion has distinct landforms, climate, vegetation, and wildlife. In terms of visual resources, an 

ecoregion typically comprises similar dominant landscape character components. The assessment 

identified additional landform and vegetation characteristics within each ecoregion based on local 

conditions and assessed the characteristics over the length of the project. The assessment also identified 

nine regional landscape character units to further define the existing visual character of the project and to 

help analyze potential impacts on visual resources in areas with similar landscape characteristics (see 

table 4.8.4-1). Regional landscape character units were developed based on the assumption that visual 

impacts within the same landscape character unit would be similar regardless of the ecoregion in which 

they reside. 

4.8.4.2 Existing Visual Condition 

The Ruby Pipeline Project would initially traverse a landscape dominated by sagebrush, 

grasslands, and existing gas pipelines at the easternmost point in Opal, Wyoming. The project would 

increase in elevation at the Hogback Mountains and Bear River Divide in Wyoming where junipers occur 

in dispersed areas and aspen groves occur on north-facing slopes. The project would then travel west into 

eastern Utah where junipers and aspens are no longer present and sagebrush dominates the landscape, 

except in limited areas of agricultural fields, small-scale buildings, and power lines. The pipeline would 

then proceed to higher elevations where juniper woodlands are again present and large stands of aspens 

are present on north-facing slopes. The landscape character is more densely wooded with large stands of 

aspens and coniferous trees near the Cache National Forest in Utah. Visibility in this area is limited 

because of the irregular terrain and the dense stands of evergreen trees. As the alignment continues west 

it would traverse several mountainous valleys and ridges dominated by sagebrush and rabbitbrush before 

it reaches Brigham City, Utah. 

The project would cross numerous broad alkaline valleys dominated by salt playas, sagebrush, 

and grasslands as it travels west of Brigham City and into Utah and Nevada. In this area, rugged 

mountain ranges and rolling hills separate valleys and widely scattered ranches which are visible from 

long distances. Vegetation in this area is dominated by sagebrush and is interspersed with grasslands and 

occasional riparian areas along intermittent streams. In western Nevada the alignment would travel north 

along an existing power line and into the Fremont National Forest in Oregon. Within the Fremont 

National Forest, the project would initially rise in elevation through mountain conifer and mixed forests 

and would then descend in elevation and travel north of Goose Lake before regaining elevation in mixed 

conifer forests. The project would closely parallel the California-Oregon border before its terminus in an 

agricultural valley near Malin, Oregon. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-187 

4-187

Table 4.8.4-1 Regional Landscape Character Units 

Table 4.8.4-1 Regional Landscape Character Units 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-188 

4-188

Table 4.8.4-1 Regional Landscape Character Units 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-189 

4-189

Table 4.8.4-1 Regional Landscape Character Units 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-190 

4.8.4.3 BLM and USFS Visual Resource Management Objectives 

Federal agencies involved in activities proposed on federally managed land must consider the 

activity’s potential effects to visual resources, as well as to biological, cultural, water, and other resources. 

Each agency has a management program for evaluating the existing visual landscape and determining an 

activity’s or project’s ability to meet the goals of that program. The programs used by the BLM and 

USFS and their specific objectives are described below. 

The BLM’s VRM System incorporates scenic quality, viewer sensitivity, and distance zones to 

identify the levels of change or disturbance in the visual landscape that are allowed in certain areas. The 

BLM designates the VRM classes in its planning process and defines the specific management objectives 

required to maintain a given area’s visual setting—that is, its VRM class objectives. The objectives of 

each VRM classification, as described in the BLM VRM Manual 8400 (BLM, 2003a), are listed in table 

4.8.4-2.

TABLE 4.8.4-2 

BLM’s VRM System Classes and Management Objectives 

VRM Class Management Objective 

I 

Preserve the existing character of the landscape. This class provides for natural ecological changes but does not 

preclude very limited management activity. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be very 

low and must not attract attention. 

II 

Retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be 

low. Management activities may be seen but should not attract the attention of the casual observer. Any 

changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in the predominant natural 

features of the characteristic landscape. 

III 

Partially retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to characteristic landscape should be 

moderate. Management activities may attract attention but should not dominate the view of the casual observer. 

Changes should repeat the basic elements found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic 

landscape. 

IV Provide for management activities that require major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The 

level of change to the characteristic landscape can be high. 

The USFS has established a VMS to inventory, evaluate, and manage scenic resources on 

National Forest lands. The VMS combines scenic quality, viewer sensitivity, and distance zones to 

develop VQOs. VQOs are assigned to the landscape to describe the degree of acceptable alteration of the 

natural landscape. VQO classifications include Preservation, Retention, Partial Retention, Modification, 

and Maximum Modification. The Preservation classification allows for ecological changes only, while 

the Maximum Modification classification allows for landscape changes that may dominate the natural 

landscape character. 

The USFS has updated the VMS process to the SMS, which is currently being incorporated into 

respective National Forest management plans. Full adoption of the SMS would occur as each National 

Forest revises its LRMP. Unlike the VMS, the SMS is integrated with ecosystem management and 

addresses landscape character, constituent preferences, scenic integrity, and landscape visibility as key 

aesthetic considerations. Scenic integrity objectives (SIOs) are classified as very high, high, moderate, 

low, and very low and are used much in the same way as VQOs. 

4.8.4.4 Other Managed Scenic Resource Programs 

Lands managed under several other national and state scenic resource programs exist within the 

project area. Such programs include national and state scenic byways, national historic trails, and WSRs. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-191 

Scenic and Back Country Byways 

Two designated scenic byways and two back country byways exist within the project area: the 

Highway 39-Ogden River Scenic Byway and Transcontinental Railroad National Back Country Byway in 

Utah, the Barrel Springs Back County Byway in Nevada, and the Oregon Outback National Scenic 

Byway in Oregon. The Highway 39-Ogden River Scenic Byway travels through mostly private land in 

the project area and is designated as a National Forest Scenic Byway and a Utah State Scenic Byway. 

The proposed alignment would cross this byway at about MP 73.5 and is roughly parallel to the byway 

from about MPs 70 to 73. The Transcontinental Railroad National Back Country Byway is managed by 

the BLM Salt Lake District Office and traverses the flat lands of the Great Salt Lake Desert. The byway 

follows the deserted Central Pacific Railroad grade that stretches between the area just west of Golden 

Spike National Historic Site and the Utah-Nevada border. The project would parallel a portion of the 

byway but would not cross it. The Barrel Springs Back Country Byway is managed by the BLM Surprise 

District Office. The project would intersect the byway at about MPs 564 and 582. The Oregon Outback 

National Scenic Byway begins at Highway 395 on the Oregon/California border and extends 171 miles 

north through eastern Oregon. The project would cross the Oregon Outback National Scenic Byway at 

about MP 614. The Lakeview RMP’s management direction for this byway provides that all projects be 

designed to maximize scenic quality and minimize scenic intrusions. 

National Historic Trail System 

Portions of the Oregon and California National Historic Trails, Applegate-Lassen Trail, and 

Emigrant Trail would be crossed by or are parallel to the project area. These trails were part of a network 

of significant routes of travel used by settlers moving west into California and Oregon. The project would 

cross a segment of the Oregon/California Trail specifically designated for highway vehicle touring near 

MP 20. 

WSR System 

As noted in section 4.8.3.3, the BLM and USFS analyze rivers under their jurisdiction for 

suitability as a WSR and recommend rivers deemed “eligible” and “suitable” for designation by 

Congress. The project would not cross any rivers designated as a WSR. However, the project would 

cross Twelvemile Creek on BLM land near MP 590.0, which has been deemed “eligible” for designation 

as a WSR. 

4.8.4.5 Visual Resource Impacts 

Scenic or visual impacts are defined as the change in aesthetic value resulting from the 

introduction of modifications to the landscape. The nine regional landscape character units in the project 

area have been evaluated in terms of the anticipated magnitude of change in landscape character and the 

visibility of the proposed pipeline and associated aboveground facilities. The evaluation of impacts used 

an analysis of visual dominance, scale, continuity, and contrast to determine the degree to which the 

proposed pipeline and associated aboveground facilities would attract attention and to assess the relative 

change in character as compared to the existing characteristic landscape. Consideration of the amount of 

visual contrast created is directly related to the amount of attention that is drawn to an element in the 

landscape. For this assessment, the change in visual character was based on comparing the post-project 

condition to the visual elements and patterns of the regional landscape character units within the project 

area. The assessment of the change in visual character assumed that the landscape within the character 

units is intact with no evidence of any significant discordant features in either the natural or cultural 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-192 

settings. The magnitude of the changes in visual character from existing conditions to post-project 

conditions for this assessment are categorized as very low, low, moderate, high, and very high changes, as 

defined in table 4.8.4-3. 

TABLE 4.8.4-3 

Magnitude of Change in Landscape Character Ratings 

Rating Definition 

Very Low Landscape character remains intact with no apparent change to the existing visual elements (line, form, color, 

and texture) or pattern character (dominance, scale, diversity, and continuity) in the landscape. 

Low Magnitude of change from the existing landscape character is subtle and the changes in visual pattern elements 

or pattern character do not attract attention. 

Moderate Magnitude of change from the existing landscape character is noticeable and the changes in visual pattern 

elements or pattern character attract attention. 

High Magnitude of change from the existing landscape character is substantial and the changes in visual pattern 

elements or pattern character begin to dominate the landscape. 

Very High Magnitude of change from the existing landscape character is severe and the changes in visual pattern elements 

or pattern character dominate the landscape. 

Each of the nine regional landscape character units was evaluated based on viewer position and 

distance zone to determine the magnitude of change. Viewer position affects the perception of the degree 

of dominance of elements and patterns in the landscape. Distance zones are based on the distance from 

where the visual element is located in reference to the viewpoint. For this project, distance zones refer to 

the distance from the critical viewing platforms or key observation points (KOP) to the proposed pipeline. 

The distance zones were classified as foreground (0 feet to 0.5 mile) and middleground (0.5 mile to 5.0 

miles). Typically, people view changes in landscapes within the foreground more critically than changes 

in the middleground because of the ability to perceive greater detail the closer a person is to the landscape 

features. 

The evaluation of changes from existing conditions to post-project conditions within the project 

area also considered changes in visibility. The visibility analysis was performed for the proposed route 

using ArcView Spatial Analyst. The analysis identified all areas that could be seen from the pipeline, as 

well as the areas that would be visible from the linear viewing platforms, such as scenic byways and 

historic trails. The analysis identified where the pipeline would be visible if there were no vegetation or 

structures to screen the pipeline. This analysis, based on a “bald” landscape, reflects the worst-case 

scenario in determining the potential scenic impacts. Existing vegetation would substantially help to 

minimize the impacts on the scenic resources by screening views to and from the pipeline. Table 4.8.4-4 

presents a matrix summary of the magnitude of visual change by landscape unit, viewing distance, and 

viewing orientation. 

Impacts from construction of the project were also evaluated in terms of the impacts over time. 

For this assessment, short-term impacts are defined as effects that would be less than 3 years in duration 

and long-term impacts are considered to be impacts that would persist more than 3 years. 

A discussion of the specific visual impacts that would occur within each of the nine regional 

landscape character units is presented below. The following describes in qualitative terms the potential 

direct impacts on the visual resources from the proposed pipeline and the associated aboveground 

facilities. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-193 

TABLE 4.8.4-4 

Magnitude of Change in Visual Character in Regional Landscape Character Units Along the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Distance Zone/ 

Viewer Positiona

Regional Landscape Character Unitsb

MC/MF M/P DS FG J-P W VDS VG SD/P A/PV R/S 

Foreground 

Parallel/Tangential L L VL L L VL VL VL VL 

Head-on M M L M M L M L VL 

Intersecting M M L L L L L L VL 

Middleground 

Head-on M M VL M M VL M VL VL 

a The position of the viewer relative to the landscape may be described as parallel or tangential, head-on, or intersecting. 

Head-on views can be either from a superior (above) or inferior (below) viewer position. Intersecting viewer position 

refers to the perpendicular crossing of the pipeline. 

b MC/MF = Mountain Conifer/Mixed Forest; M/P DS = Mountain/Plateau Desertscrub; FG = Foothills Grassland; 

 J-P W = Juniper-Pinyon Woodland; VDS = Valley Desertscrub; VG = Valley Grasslands; SD/P = Salt Desert/Playa; 

A/PV = Agriculture/Pastoral Valley; R/S = Rural/Suburban; VL = Very Low; L = Low; M = Moderate; H = High; VH = 

Very High

Mountain Conifer/Mixed Forest, Mountain/Plateau Desertscrub, and Juniper Pinyon Woodlands 

Landscape Character Unit Direct Impacts 

The magnitude of change in the landscape character created by construction of the proposed 

pipeline within the Mountain Conifer/Mixed Forest Regional Landscape Character Unit would range from 

low to moderate (see table 4.8.4-4). Ground-disturbing activities would remove stands of vegetation, 

which would create a moderate level of change in the visual character of the landscape in this unit in the 

short- and long-term. The spatial enclosure and shortened views common in mountainous terrain would 

increase visual dominance of the pipeline area in foreground views. The spatial enclosure would be 

enhanced in the Mountain Conifer/Mixed Forest and Juniper-Pinyon Woodlands Regional Landscape 

Character Units because the height of the evergreen trees would attract more attention to the proposed 

pipeline. Head-on and intersecting views would still have a higher level of visibility in the middleground 

because of the sloping nature of the terrain. The variable patchiness of juniper vegetation would reduce 

the attraction of intersecting views of the pipeline in the Juniper-Pinyon Woodlands Regional Landscape 

Character Unit. The removal of vegetation and the constant width of the cleared area for the pipeline also 

would create a moderate level of contrast in the short-term because of the introduction of distinct lines in 

the landscape in both the foreground and middleground distance zones. Parallel views of the pipeline 

from linear viewing platforms such as roads or trails would not attract as much attention away from the 

natural setting since the proposed pipeline would mimic the linear form of this type of viewing platform. 

The cleared area for the pipeline would be highly visible from a head-on viewpoint in the foreground and 

middleground distance zones and would attract attention away from the natural landscape setting. 

No compressor stations are planned within the Mountain Conifer/Mixed Forest or Juniper-Pinyon 

Woodland Regional Landscape Character Unit; therefore, there would be no direct impacts. The Weiland 

Flat Compressor Station would be located within the Mountain/Plateau Desertscrub Regional Landscape 

Character Unit. The clearing of vegetation on the approximately 25-acre site would create a relatively 

large, geometric shaped area with a moderate level of contrast to the surrounding landscape. The 

compressor station would introduce vertical and geometric lines and forms and have a strong contrast 

with the existing landscape. This would result in a moderate magnitude of change to the existing 

landscape character and permanent impacts. A test manifold and two pipe storage areas also would be in 

the Mountain Desertscrub Regional Landscape Character Unit and would have impacts similar to the 

compressor station with regard to increased contrast and a notable change in landscape character. The 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-194 

impacts from the staging and storage sites would be short-term because these sites would not remain in 

permanent use after construction. MLVs, pig launchers/receivers, and water appropriation sites would be 

located within each of these units. Depending on the specific site location, construction of these 

aboveground facilities would require removal of additional trees and vegetation and would contribute to 

the contrast in line and color. Staging areas averaging approximately 1 acre per site would slightly 

increase the area of change in landscape character and would increase contrast over the short- and longterm.

Foothills Grasslands and Valley Grasslands Regional Landscape Character Unit Direct Impacts 

The magnitude of change in the landscape character created by construction of the proposed 

pipeline within the Foothills Grassland and Valley Grasslands Regional Landscape Character Units would 

range from low to very low (see table 4.8.4-4). Ground-disturbing activities would remove bands of low 

grasses and desertscrub, which would create low to very low change in the characteristic landscape of 

these units and would be noticeable in the natural setting for the short-term. The low stature of the 

vegetation and the sloping nature of the landforms in the Foothills Grassland Regional Landscape 

Character Units would increase the distance from which the disturbance could be seen. The open 

panoramic views common in flat valley terrain would decrease visual dominance of the proposed pipeline 

in the Valley Grasslands Regional Landscape Character Unit. Removal of the low vegetation would also 

create a low level of contrast in the short-term because of the introduction of distinct lines in the 

landscape in the foreground distance zone. The change to the existing landscape character in the 

middleground would be very low. Parallel views of the pipeline from linear viewing platforms would be 

even less noticeable in the natural setting since the proposed pipeline alignment would mimic the linear 

form of this type of viewing platform. 

No compressor stations are planned within the Foothills Grasslands Regional Landscape 

Character Unit; therefore, there would be no direct impacts. The Roberson Creek compressor station 

would be located within the Valley Grassland Regional Landscape Character Unit. The clearing of 

vegetation on the associated site would create a relatively large, geometric shaped area with a moderate 

level of contrast to the surrounding landscape. The compressor station would introduce vertical and 

geometric lines and forms not currently present and would create a strong contrast with the existing 

horizontal to indistinct lines and forms in the landscape. This would result in moderate magnitude of 

change from the existing landscape character, and a permanent change. MLVs, pig launchers/receivers, 

and water appropriation sites would be located within both units. Depending on the specific site location, 

these aboveground facilities would introduce vertical, geometric shapes into the character unit and would 

contribute to a contrast in both line and form. Staging areas averaging approximately 1 acre per site 

would slightly increase the area of change in landscape character and contrast over the short- and longterm. 

Valley Desertscrub and Salt Desert /Playa Regional Landscape Character Unit Direct Impacts 

The magnitude of change in the landscape character created by the construction of the proposed 

pipeline within the Valley Desertscrub and Salt Desert/Playa Regional Landscape Character Unit would 

range from very low to moderate (see table 4.8.4-4). Ground-disturbing activities would remove bands of 

grasses and low desertscrub, which would create a notable change in the characteristic landscape of this 

unit and would attract attention away from the natural setting in the short- and long-term. The panoramic 

views common in flat valley terrain would reduce visual dominance of the proposed project. Removal of 

the low vegetation, especially in areas of dense cover and the constant width of the cleared area for the 

pipeline would create a very low to moderate level of contrast in the short-term because of the 

introduction of distinct lines and a contrasting, light soil color in the landscape in the foreground distance 

zone. The contrast would increase in the Salt Desert/Playa Regional Landscape Character Unit because 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-195 

of the area’s almost white-colored soil. The change to the existing landscape character in the 

middleground would be notable. Parallel views of the pipeline from linear viewing platforms would not 

attract as much attention away from the natural setting since the proposed pipeline would mimic the linear 

form of this type of viewing platform. 

No compressor stations are planned in the Valley Desertscrub Regional Landscape Character 

Unit; therefore, there would be no direct impacts. The approximately 24.5-acre site for the Desert Valley 

Compressor Station and the 29.5-acre site for the Wildcat Hills Compressor Station would be located 

within the Salt Desert/Playa Regional Landscape Character Unit. Clearing of vegetation on the associated 

sites would have similar impacts on the existing landscape character as the facilities in the Foothills and 

Valley Grasslands Regional Landscape Character Units (a moderate level of contrast from the clearing of 

vegetation and a strong level of contrast from the introduction of discordant lines and forms). MLVs, pig 

launchers/receivers, and water appropriation sites would occur within this unit. These aboveground 

facilities also would introduce vertical, geometric shapes into the character unit and would contribute to 

the contrast in both line and form. Staging areas averaging approximately 1 acre per site would slightly 

increase the area of change in landscape character and would increase contrast over the short- and longterm.

Agriculture/Pastoral Valley and Rural/Suburban Regional Landscape Character Unit Direct 

Impacts 

The magnitude of change in the landscape character created by construction of the proposed 

pipeline within the Agriculture and Pastoral Valley and the Rural/Suburban Regional Landscape 

Character Units would be very low to low (Table 4.8.4-4). Ground-disturbing activities would primarily 

remove bands of mixed natural and rural vegetation, which would create very low change in the 

characteristic landscape of this unit. The panoramic views common in flat valley terrain would decrease 

visual dominance of the proposed pipeline. Removal of the existing vegetation and the constant width of 

the area cleared for the pipeline would create a very low level of contrast in the short-term, with the 

introduction of subtle lines in the landscape in the foreground and middleground distance zones. Views 

of the pipeline would be less noticeable than in the natural setting since the proposed pipeline would 

mimic the linear forms (e.g., fields and roads) found in these units. 

No compressor stations are planned within these units; therefore, there would be no direct 

impacts. Ancillary aboveground facilities would have a very low magnitude of change in the landscape 

character because of the developed characteristics of the existing landscape setting. 

Regional Landscape Character Unit Indirect Impacts 

The construction of the proposed pipeline may result in short-term and minor indirect impacts. 

The cleared area for the pipeline would create opportunities where people could park or access the area 

using their vehicles within the construction area to gain access to otherwise previously inaccessible areas 

of the landscape. This could result in trampling of vegetation and additional resource damage, which 

would lower the area’s scenic attractiveness and level of intactness. The access to the project area would 

also provide scenic viewing opportunities not currently available to many people. 

4.8.4.6 Compliance with Management Objectives 

BLM VRM Compliance 

BLM has developed measurable standards for managing the visual resources of BLM lands. As 

previously noted, management classes with established objectives have been identified for the project 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-196 

area’s visual resources as part of the RMP process. This analysis determined whether or not the pipeline, 

and the associated aboveground facilities would be in compliance with the established objectives. Based 

on the respective VRM, the stated management objectives were compared to the proposed pipeline and 

aboveground facilities’ magnitude of change in visual character based on the regional landscape character 

and the visual contrast created between the proposed pipeline and the existing landscape. 

The BLM’s Visual Resource Contrast System Handbook 8431-1 (BLM, 2003b) was used to 

evaluate the visual contrast created between the proposed pipeline and the existing landscape. The degree 

to which a management activity affects the visual quality of a landscape is largely dependent on the visual 

contrast created between the proposed project and the existing landscape. The contrast can be measured 

by comparing the project features or components with the major features in the landscape. The basic 

visual elements of form, line, color, and texture are used to make this comparison and to describe the 

magnitude of the visual contrast created by the proposed project. 

The contrast rating evaluations were conducted from 32 KOPs within the project area. The 

majority of the KOPs were selected by the BLM Field Offices. Some points were also determined based 

on other known sensitive viewpoints. The location of each of the KOP and the associated contrast rating 

evaluations are included in table 4.8.4-5. 

The determination of whether or not the proposed action would be in compliance with the various 

BLM management objectives is provided in table 4.8.4-6. The determination of compliance was based on 

the results of the contrast rating evaluations at the KOPs and if there were no KOPs identified, the 

magnitude of change in the landscape character based on the regional landscape character. Based on this 

evaluation, the proposed pipeline and associated aboveground facilities would create notable levels of 

changes to the landscape. The changes would attract the attention of the casual observer because of the 

moderate level of contrast in line and color in addition to the contrast in form by the four compressor 

stations. Therefore, the proposed route would not comply with Class I and Class II visual management 

objectives without the implementation of additional mitigation measures. If the site-specific measures 

that would be identified in Ruby’s POD are implemented, as well as the mitigation measures as outlined 

in section 4.8.4.7, the changes associated with the proposed pipeline would be subordinate, i.e., repeat the 

basic elements found in the natural and cultural landscape characteristics. Construction and maintenance 

of the proposed project would then comply with the existing Class I and Class II visual management 

objectives. Compliance with the existing Class III and Class IV visual management objectives would 

also be achieved with the implementation of the mitigation measures listed in section 4.8.4.7. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-197 

TABLE 4.8.4-5 

Location of KOPs Along the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Feature/KOP Name Approximate MP VRM Class 

Linear Feature 

Oregon Trail 20.0 IV 

Oregon / California Auto Route 20.0 IV 

Ogden River Scenic Byway 75.0 IV 

Emigrant Trail 172.0 IV 

Transcontinental Railroad National Back Country Byway 210.0 III 

California Trail 267.0 IV 

Barrel Springs Back Country Byway (North) 581.9 II & III 

Barrel Springs Back Country Byway (South) 571.5 I & IV 

Twelvemile Creek Crossing 588.5 II 

Oregon Outback Scenic Byway 614.0 N/Aa

Point location 

Road Crossing on Route 30 0.5 II 

Roberson Creek Compressor Station 6.0 IV 

Oregon Trail / California Trail 21.0 IV 

Salt Wells 150.5 IV 

Wildcat Hills Compressor Station 173.0 IV 

Kelton 173.0 IV 

Emigrant Trail R200.6 IV 

Winecup Ranch 267.0 II 

US Highway 93 Crossing / Staging 271.0 IV 

Wieland Flat Compressor Station 330.5 III 

Highway 226 Crossing 339.0 III 

China Creek Crossing R364.0 IV 

Willow Creek Reservoir R369.5 IV 

Owyhee Bluffs R393.0 III 

Desert Valley Compressor Station 476.5 IV 

Black Rock Desert #1 from Leonard Creek Road 497.0 IV 

Black Rock Desert #2 from Leonard Creek Road 500.5 IV 

Lahontan WSA 517.0 I

b

Badger Mountain 538.0 II 

Massacre 549.0 II 

Painted Point from Roadway 8 555.0 II 

Rock Creek Campground R651.7 III 

Wash near Rock Creek Campground R651.8 III 

Historic Corral R657.0 III 

a Private land, no VRM Class designation 

b Viewpoint is within VRM Class IV, but viewing VRM Class I area 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-198 

TABLE 4.8.4-6 

VRM Class Compliance for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

BLM District 

Office/Regional 

Landscape 

Character Unita

VRM 

Class 

Foreground Middleground 

Acres 

Compliance 

with VRM 

Class 

Additional 

Mitigation 

Measures 

Required 

Acres 

Compliance 

with VRM 

Class 

Additional 

Mitigation 

Measures 

Required 

Kemmerer District 

M/PDS I 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

II 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

III 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

IV 14,437 Yes -- 130,200 Yes No 

MG I 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

II 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

III 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

IV 4,469 Yes -- 35,265 Yes No 

VDS I 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

II 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

III 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

IV 3,032 Yes -- 21,948 Yes No 

VG I 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

II 0 -- -- 7 No Yes 

III 0 -- -- 7,910 -- 

IV 7,404 Yes No 79,174 Yes No 

A/PV I 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

II 1,225 Yes No 13,033 Yes No 

III 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

IV 48 Yes No 655 Yes No 

Salt Lake District 

M/PDS I 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

II 0 -- -- 15,267 No Yes 

III 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

IV 888 Yes No 0 -- -- 

SD/P I 0 -- 0 -- -- 

II 0 -- 4,308 No Yes 

III 296 Yes No 2,863 Yes No 

IV 27,754 Yes No 0 -- -- 

MC/MF I 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

II 0 -- -- 5,089 No Yes 

III 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

IV 0 -- -- 80 Yes No 

JW I 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

II 0 -- -- 1,436 No Yes 

III 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

IV 0 -- -- 5,443 Yes No 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-199 

TABLE 4.8.4-6 

VRM Class Compliance for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

BLM District 

Office/Regional 

Landscape 

Character Unita

VRM 

Class 

Foreground Middleground 

Acres 

Compliance 

with VRM 

Class 

Additional 

Mitigation 

Measures 

Required 

Acres 

Compliance 

with VRM 

Class 

Additional 

Mitigation 

Measures 

Required 

VDS I 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

II 0 -- -- 5,089 No Yes 

III 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

IV 1,903 Yes No 22,191 Yes No 

A/PV I 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

II 0 -- -- 1,436 No Yes 

III 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

IV 0 -- -- 499 Yes No 

R/S I 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

II 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

III 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

IV 0 -- -- 4,436 Yes No 

Elko District 

M/PDS I 0 -- -- 22 No Yes 

II 303 No Yes 33,588 No Yes 

III 12,834 Yes No 124,126 Yes No 

IV 31,786 Yes No 314,553 Yes No 

JW I 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

II 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

III 180 Yes No 36,700 -- No 

IV 10,687 Yes No 99,548 -- No 

VDS I 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

II 0 -- -- 274 No -- 

III 5,879 Yes No 7,930 Yes -- 

IV 27,733 Yes No 217,675 Yes No 

SD/P I 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

II 1,058 No Yes 7,012 No Yes 

III 0 -- -- 2,862 Yes No 

IV 12,399 Yes No 83,491 Yes No 

A/PV I 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

II 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

III 829 Yes No 343 Yes No 

IV 4,080 Yes No 16,202 Yes 

No 

Winnemucca District 

M/PDS I 94 No Yes 12,484 No Yes 

II 1,227 No Yes 10,238 No Yes 

III 131 Yes No 41,917 Yes No 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-200 

TABLE 4.8.4-6 

VRM Class Compliance for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

BLM District 

Office/Regional 

Landscape 

Character Unita

VRM 

Class 

Foreground Middleground 

Acres 

Compliance 

with VRM 

Class 

Additional 

Mitigation 

Measures 

Required 

Acres 

Compliance 

with VRM 

Class 

Additional 

Mitigation 

Measures 

Required 

IV 18,905 Yes No 196,402 Yes No 

VDS I 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

II 0 -- -- 78 No Yes 

III 8,824 Yes No 23,901 Yes No 

IV 16,678 Yes No 122,114 Yes No 

SD/P I 627 No Yes 30,087 No Yes 

II 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

III 0 -- -- 1,407 Yes No 

IV 32,687 Yes No 223,970 Yes No 

A/PV I 0 -- -- 352 No Yes 

II 0 -- -- 23 No Yes 

III 2,240 Yes No 30,269 Yes No 

IV 4,594 Yes No 34,587 Yes No 

Surprise District 

M/PDS I -- -- -- 18,750 No Yes 

II 10,657 No Yes 66,388 No Yes 

III 0 -- -- 19,644 -- -- 

IV 0 Yes No 0 -- -- 

JW I 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

II 6,448 No Yes 69,960 No Yes 

III 3,581 Yes Yes 25,556 Yes No 

IV 1 Yes No 4,051 Yes No 

VDS I 1,164 No Yes 46,933 No Yes 

II 5,125 No Yes 10,322 No Yes 

III 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

IV 612 Yes No 10,927 -- -- 

SD/P I 975 No Yes 7,774 No Yes 

II 790 No Yes 10,164 No Yes 

III 56 Yes No 9,286 Yes No 

IV 8,148 Yes No 48,552 Yes No 

A/PV I 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

II 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

III 0 -- -- 36 Yes No 

IV 0 -- -- 3,452 Yes No 

Lakeview District 

MC/MF I 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

II 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

III 2717 Yes No 4552 Yes No 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-201 

TABLE 4.8.4-6 

VRM Class Compliance for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

BLM District 

Office/Regional 

Landscape 

Character Unita

VRM 

Class 

Foreground Middleground 

Acres 

Compliance 

with VRM 

Class 

Additional 

Mitigation 

Measures 

Required 

Acres 

Compliance 

with VRM 

Class 

Additional 

Mitigation 

Measures 

Required 

IV 717 Yes No 19743 Yes No 

MPDS I 0 -- -- 0 

II 0 -- -- 316 No Yes 

III 0 -- -- 2654 Yes No 

IV 0 -- -- 5546 Yes No 

JW I 0 -- -- 0 

II 537 No Yes 5088 No Yes 

III 4157 Yes No 29562 Yes No 

IV 9795 Yes No 40730 Yes No 

VDS I 0 -- -- 0 

II 0 -- -- 167 No Yes 

III 0 -- -- 3901 Yes No 

IV 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

R/S I 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

II 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 

III 0 -- -- 125 Yes No 

IV 0 -- -- 8 Yes No 

a MC/MF = Mountain Conifer/Mixed Forest; M/P DS = Mountain/Plateau Desertscrub; FG = Foothills Grassland; J-P W = 

Juniper-Pinyon Woodland;VDS=ValleyDesertscrub; VG =Valley Grasslands; SD/P=Salt Desert/Playa; 

A/PV=Agriculture/Pastoral Valley; R/S= Rural/Suburban. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-202 

USFS SMS and VQO Compliance 

Approximately 1.2 miles within the foreground of the proposed project would be constructed in 

the Cache National Forest. A segment of the Highway 39-Ogden River Scenic Byway also is located 

within the Cache National Forest; potential impacts on the scenic road are discussed in this section. 

According to the Wasatch-Cache National Forest LRMP, this portion of the Cache National Forest should 

maintain a natural appearing landscape character theme where the natural elements found in the landscape 

should dominate the majority of the views in the forest. Between approximately MPs 71.6 to 73.5 the 

forest adjacent to the pipeline alignment has a High Scenic Integrity Level, meaning that the landscape 

should appear intact and that any deviation from the natural should not be evident. Between MPs 73.5 

and 76.2 the desired level of scenic integrity is moderate and any management activities should remain 

visually subordinate and not dominate the setting. The proposed project is on USFS land from 

approximately MPs 74.9 to 76.2. The proposed pipeline would meet with the SIO of Moderate Scenic 

Integrity in the foreground and middleground because it would not dominate the setting. Between 

approximate MPs 71.6 to 74.9 the landscape adjacent to the Cache National Forest would not appear 

intact and the level of contrast in line, form, and color from the removal of stands of dense evergreen trees 

could diminish the visual setting of the USFS lands. However, the proposed pipeline is not required to be 

consistent the USFS’s management objectives because it is not on USFS land at that location. 

Approximately 85 percent of the Fremont National Forest was inventoried to be natural appearing 

or slightly altered in 1985. Alterations have occurred in the Fremont National Forest over the past 2 

decades; however, the 1989 Fremont National Forest LRMP designated the VQO of the majority of 

national forest lands within the foreground and middleground of the proposed project as a VQO of Partial 

Retention. Deviation from the natural landscape would be considered visually subordinate to the existing 

landscape character; therefore, the proposed pipeline would meet the management objectives. Additional 

site-specific mitigation at Rogger Meadow would be required to meet the foreground VQO of Partial 

Retention. The pipeline alignment at Rogger Meadow prevents long views along the alignment and the 

creation of irregular openings and additional plantings in the forested perimeter of the meadow would 

retain a natural appearing landscape. Small portions of the middleground of the proposed alignment in 

the Fremont National Forest have a VQO of Retention, but the alignment would most likely not be visible 

because of evergreen trees and other vegetation that would obscure the proposed pipeline. There are also 

some areas with a VQO of Modification near MP 608 within the middleground portion of the proposed 

pipeline. In this area, the proposed activities would comply with the management objectives because the 

proposed pipeline would not begin to dominate the landscape. It would still create a moderate level of 

contrast in form, line, and color within the mountainous forested landscape. 

Scenic and Back Country Byways 

Impacts on byways are described in terms of change in the visual character of the landscape 

setting for the byway and the potential to affect its designation. For each byway, temporary impacts from 

construction of the pipeline would include visibility of the construction area at road crossings and 

possible disruption of travel along the road. Temporary impacts are expected to last less than 6 weeks at 

each location and changes in the landscape character in the short-term would be reduced by restoration of 

construction sites. 

Highway 39-Ogden River Scenic Byway

This byway is within the Mountain Conifer Mixed Forest Regional Landscape Character Unit and 

the roadway follows the Ogden River among tree-covered mountainsides. The proposed alignment 

crosses the byway at approximately MP 73.5. The byway is somewhat parallel within the foreground 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-203 

distance zone of the proposed pipeline between MPs 70 to 73. Forest vegetation cover is variable with 

some open areas but views are often spatially enclosed because of the terrain and height of vegetation. In 

areas where the roadway would be parallel to the proposed project, the change in landscape character 

would be low. The landscape character at the crossing of the pipeline would have a moderate level of 

change. Head-on views of the proposed project would occur as the roadway winds through the landscape 

adjacent to the pipeline. The head-on views would have a moderate level of change in landscape 

character because the clearing of trees would have a moderate level of contrast and would attract 

attention. The views change quickly along the winding road and the cleared area for the pipeline would 

not dominate the view in the landscape. Clearing stands of trees would create a moderate level of contrast 

in the short-term because of the introduction of distinct lines in the landscape in both the foreground and 

middleground distance zones. The impacts would be reduced over the long-term as understory vegetation 

and trees become reestablished. The low level of impacts on the visual setting would not affect the 

designation of the road as a scenic byway with the implementation of the mitigation measures listed in 

table 4.8.4.7 and additional mitigation measures identified in Ruby’s POD. 

Transcontinental Railroad National Back Country Byway

The Transcontinental Railroad National Back County Byway is located in the Salt Desert/Playa 

Regional Landscape Character Unit and the terrain is very flat. The project would parallel a portion of 

the byway but would not cross it. The visibility analysis indicates that all of the pipeline within the 

foreground and 83 percent of the pipeline within the middleground would be visible from the byway. 

Project construction would introduce contrast in form line and color that would attract attention. The 

magnitude of change in landscape character would be low to moderate because most views from the 

byway would be parallel to the pipeline alignment. Impacts would be short- and long-term. As 

vegetation becomes reestablished the contrast between soil and vegetation cover would be evident. 

Barrel Springs Back Country Byway

The proposed pipeline would cross the Barrel Springs Back Country Byway at approximately 

MPs 564 and 582. At MP 564 the byway is located within the Salt Desert/Playa Regional Landscape 

Character Unit, which is dominated by sagebrush. Steep juniper woodland hillsides are visible to the 

north in the middleground. The proposed project would follow an existing power line within the 

foreground and most of the middleground distance zones. The existing power line is visible approaching 

the pipeline crossing and attracts attention in the existing visual setting. Based on the visibility analysis, 

all of the proposed project in the foreground distance zone would be visible and approximately 70 percent 

of the proposed alignment within the middleground distance zone would be visible. There would be a 

low level of change in landscape character in the foreground and middleground and the visual contrast 

would be weak to moderate in the short term. The proposed pipeline would not attract attention and 

impact the existing visual setting of the byway in the long-term. 

At MP 582 the byway is located within the Juniper-Pinyon Regional Landscape Character Unit, 

though the proposed pipeline alignment is located in an area dominated by desertscrub vegetation. The 

proposed project also is located along the existing power line at this location and the power line can 

attract attention in the existing visual setting. The alignment would not require juniper vegetation 

clearing in the foreground. Juniper vegetation would need to be cleared in the middleground; however, 

the clearing would be located adjacent to the clearing area maintained for the power line. There would be 

a low level of change in landscape character in the desertscrub area in the foreground and middleground 

and contrast would be weak in the short-term. The proposed pipeline would not attract attention and 

impact the existing visual setting of the byway in the long-term. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-204 

Oregon Outback National Scenic Byway

The proposed pipeline would cross the Oregon Outback National Scenic Byway at approximately 

MP 614. The existing visual setting is rural to the west of the byway with distinct lines and colors 

associated with agricultural fields as the dominant landscape elements. There also are residences and 

farm buildings along the byway which add interest and variation of color and texture but remain 

consistent with the rural character. To the east of the byway at the pipeline crossing the alignment 

ascends rolling terrain with grassland and sparse juniper vegetation. According to the visibility analysis, 

approximately 80 percent of the pipeline in the foreground would be visible from the byway and 

approximately 60 percent of the pipeline in the middleground would be visible from the byway. When 

viewed from the intersecting viewpoint, the proposed alignment would have a low to very low magnitude 

of change in the landscape character. The contrast of the lines and colors created by the pipeline 

construction would be weak and would blend with the existing rural character west of the byway. The 

rolling terrain on the east side of the byway would expose the proposed pipeline alignment to views from 

along the byway. The change in the existing landscape character would be low and would not attract 

attention because of the variety of distinct lines and vivid colors and would not impact the existing visual 

setting of the byway in the short-or long-term. The low magnitude of change in the landscape character 

would not affect the designation of the road as a scenic byway. 

National Historic Trail System 

Oregon National Historic Trail

The Oregon National Historic Trail is located in the Mountain/Plateau Desert Scrub Regional 

Landscape Character Unit The rolling terrain limits views from the trail corridor except when it is 

parallel to the pipeline alignment. Approximately 90 percent of the pipeline within the foreground would 

be visible from the trail and approximately 39 percent of the proposed pipeline in the middleground 

would be visible from the trail. The proposed pipeline would have a moderate change in the existing 

visual character as views from most viewing positions in the foreground and middleground would 

introduce noticeable contrasts of line, form, and color until vegetation begins to reestablish. The trail at 

the pipeline crossing would not be readily distinguishable from the surrounding landscape and the 

pipeline would become a noticeable feature in the landscape setting of the trail. 

Oregon/California Auto Route

This segment of the Oregon/California Trail is in the Foothills Grassland Regional Landscape 

Character Unit and the magnitude of change in landscape character would be low to very low in the 

foreground and the middleground. The visibility analysis indicates that approximately 73 percent of the 

pipeline route in the foreground would be visible while the rolling terrain would allow approximately 38 

percent of the pipeline in the middleground to be visible. The low level of change in landscape character 

and limited visibility in the middleground would not impact the recreational user’s experience of the auto 

route in the short- long-term as vegetation becomes reestablished. 

Emigrant Trail

The proposed pipeline alignment follows the existing road/trail route through the Salt 

Desert/Playa Regional Landscape Character Unit. The change in the landscape character would be low 

because the disturbance would be in the same corridor and the views from the trail would be parallel. 

Construction activities should not prevent use of the trail, and short-term impacts would include corridor 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-205 

disturbance along the roadway. The construction would introduce contrasts in form, line, and color that 

would not attract attention in the long-term as vegetation becomes reestablished. 

California National Historic Trail

This portion of the California Trail is located in the Mountain/Plateau Desert Scrub Regional 

Landscape Character Unit and the rolling terrain limits some opportunities to view the pipeline from the 

trail. The visibility analysis indicates that approximately 53 percent of the pipeline alignment in the 

middleground would be visible from trail. No part of the alignment is within the foreground distance 

zone. The construction of the proposed pipeline would result in a moderate change in the existing 

landscape character in the middleground because of the introduction of contrasts in form line and color to 

the landscape. The primary viewing position would be mostly parallel and impacts would be short- and 

long-term. The slight elevation change between the trail and the proposed pipeline would increase 

visibility, but impacts would be reduced more substantially than for head-on views as vegetation is 

reestablished. 

Applegate-Lassen Trail

The Applegate Lassen Trail segment in the project area is located in the Salt Desert/Playa 

Regional Landscape Character Unit. Vegetation is fine-textured and dominated by saltbush and 

sagebrush and the soil color is very light. The visibility analysis indicates that approximately 36 percent 

of the pipeline in the foreground would be visible from the trail corridor and approximately 70 percent of 

the proposed pipeline in the middleground would be visible from the trail. A parallel view would have a 

very low magnitude of change in landscape character and opportunities for a head-on view are limited. 

Cleared areas would contrast to the existing vegetation in the short-term, but would not attract attention in 

the long-term because the vegetation would reestablish and the scale of view of the landscape draws the 

view to the middleground and beyond. 

WSR System 

As noted in section 4.8.3.3, a 2.2-mile portion of Twelvemile Creek is suitable for designation as 

a WSR with a classification as recreational. The suitable segment is managed as VRM Class II and the 

proposed alignment would cross at approximately MP 588.5. Under the recreational classification public 

use, forest practices and mining would be allowed, subject to regulations. These permitted activities 

could have impacts on the visual setting of Twelvemile Creek, though general use is low. The segment of 

the creek where the proposed alignment would cross consists of steep-banked, volcanic slopes and the 

coarse textured vegetation cover of the Juniper-Pinyon Woodlands Regional Landscape Character Unit. 

There is an existing power line across the creek at this location and towers are located near the edge of 

each bank of the creek. The magnitude of change in the landscape character would be moderate to high in 

the immediate vicinity of the crossing. The pipeline would introduce a strong contrast of line and 

moderate to strong contrast of color and texture on the steep slopes leading down to the creek. The 

visibility analysis indicates that approximately 46 percent of the pipeline within the foreground of the 

creek would be visible and approximately 45 percent of the portion within the middleground would be 

visible. The steep banks and meandering nature of the creek limit views of the proposed pipeline from 

outside the vicinity of the crossing. The change in visual character would attract attention in the shortand long-term, but would not be a dominant element in the landscape because the existing power line is 

highly visible from within a greater area of the viewshed of the creek. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-206 

4.8.4.7 Mitigation Measures 

Mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts on visual resources from the pipeline 

construction and maintenance have been identified from the visual resource technical report, the WWEC 

Programmatic EIS, and other resource areas examined in the EIS including soils, vegetation, and 

wetlands. Table 4.8.4-7 identifies general mitigation measures and those specific to the regional 

landscape character units as appropriate to meet Class III and Class IV VRM objectives. Additional, sitespecific mitigation (such as slight adjustments to the alignment) would be required to further reduce 

visual resource impacts from pipeline construction and associated activities and meet land management 

objectives in Class I and II areas. Any micro-routing of the pipeline alignment would involve 

coordination with the appropriate agencies and resource specialists to avoid potential impacts on other 

resources. Additional mitigation measures are recommended for specific KOPs within Class III and IV 

areas to reduce visual impacts on sensitive locations. The site-specific mitigation measures would be 

developed based on the design and construction details provided by Ruby to the BLM in the POD, and 

approved by the BLM in its right-of-way grant. 

4.8.5 Wilderness Resources 

The proposed pipeline crosses lands administered and managed by the BLM, USFS, and the FWS 

for their respective wilderness characteristics as designated wilderness, WSAs, or Inventoried Roadless 

Areas. In addition to these designations, the Wilderness Act of 1964 and agency wilderness inventory 

guidelines define other lands as having wilderness characteristics. A number of areas with wilderness 

characteristics occur along or in proximity to the proposed pipeline. To ensure a consistent analysis of the 

effects of construction and operation of the Ruby pipeline along the proposed route, the BLM field and 

district offices in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon conducted a wilderness inventory of affected 

lands under BLM, USFS, and FWS jurisdiction to determine the presence of wilderness characteristics. 

This Wilderness Characteristic Assessment is included in Appendix W and was prepared entirely by the 

BLM. 

As described in BLM’s wilderness inventory, the effects of construction and operation of the 

project on wilderness characteristics would further decrease the amount of undeveloped landscapes along 

the pipeline route. The effects could also reduce naturalness in areas with wilderness characteristics by 

introducing unnatural or human-made objects to the landscape, and affecting or reducing the amount of 

soils, vegetation, or natural habitats in the region. Ruby would mitigate impacts on wilderness 

characteristics by employing several venues to notify wilderness users prior to visiting the affected 

wilderness units, including publication of the construction schedule in local media, posting the schedule 

at administering agency offices, posting the schedule at trailheads or other recreation access points to 

wilderness units, or other means of reaching visitors. This notification process would alert wilderness 

users to the potential temporary impacts of presence and sound of construction on opportunities for 

experiences of solitude in primitive recreation settings, and would allow visitors to decide if they want to 

reschedule their visit. Also, similar to the mitigation measures described in section 4.8.4.7, Ruby would 

feather the edges of shrubs and trees adjacent to the right-of-way when recontouring and revegetating the 

construction work areas in vegetation communities with a large shrub or tree component. These 

mitigation efforts would reduce the line/edge that would be apparent between the shrubs, trees, and grass 

of the reclaimed right-of-way. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-207 

TABLE 4.8.4-7 

Visual Resource Mitigation Measures for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Regional Landscape 

Character Unit Mitigation Measures 

General Mitigation • Work with the BLM to ensure that construction, operation, and maintenance of the pipeline and 

associated aboveground facilities would be consistent with the objectives and guidelines of VRM 

Class I, II, III, and IV areas. 

• Segregate topsoil from the trench line and spoil storage area for the entire length of the project. 

• In relatively level terrain, limit grading, topsoil segregation, and ditch line excavation to a minimum 

width for the pipeline trench. 

• Use seed mixes that include species similar to those currently residing in the natural plant 

communities of each state and would facilitate the recovery of the pre-construction plant community. 

• Limit the width of the construction right-of-way to 75 feet, and extra workspaces at least 50 feet 

away from wetland boundaries. 

• Use rock staining on exposed rock surfaces to blend with the surrounding rock formations. 

• Shape rock cut slopes to mimic adjacent rock formations. 

• Salvage surface boulders relocate in the disturbance area similar to preconstruction conditions and 

to reduce motorized travel into corridor. 

• Monitor the success of revegetation. 

• Develop a technical team to develop reclamation plans for each state crossed by the project. 

• Minimize the potential for erosion, and revegetate disturbed areas and spoil storage area for the 

entire length of the project. 

• Construction must minimize surface destruction. 

• Crossing must be located in areas where trail ruts have been modified by modern use, alongside a 

previously existing crossing, or where the crossing would not damage trail remains. 

• Trail crossing must avoid fragile trail resources. 

• Make road and trail crossings at a right angle to the road or trail unless it follows a previous 

crossing. 

• Where right-of-way is parallel to existing roads maintain 25 to 50 feet of undisturbed area adjacent 

to road surface. 

• Vegetative species (including trees and shrubs) indigenous to the project area must be used to 

rehabilitate right-of-way surface disturbance. 

• Disturbed areas must be returned to a natural contour. 

• Continue to coordinate with the BLM to align the pipeline to minimize direct and visual impacts on 

the trail. 

• Utilize BLM standard color palette for all above ground structures, except as required for safety. 

Mountain Conifer/ Mixed 

Forest 

• Remove infested trees in overstocked, infested stands prior to beetle emergence in early June to 

reduce potential for infestation. 

• Feather the edge of the right-of-way to minimize the linear impact created by right-of-way clearing. 

• Limit clearing of vegetation to 75 feet of the centerline. 

• Redistribute timber and slash across the right-of-way following final clean-up and seeded in areas. 

• Root wads would be piled and burned, with any unburned root debris buried. Non-merchantable 

pine and juniper should be yarded to permit public firewood cutting along Willow Valley road, and 

any intersecting roads. 

• Reforest cleared areas in forests, except for the 50-foot pipeline operational right-of-way. 

• Consult with the appropriate land managing or state agencies to develop plans for revegetating 

wetlands. 

• Use additional clearing of vegetation and trees in forested and juniper-pinyon areas to create 

uneven, natural appearing openings in vegetation cover adjacent to the pipeline area. 

• Reseeding mixtures to include forest understory species based on specific forested vegetation 

communities. 

• Leave existing root systems intact where possible to encourage regrowth and revegetation along 

the equipment passage and soil storage areas. 

Mountain/ Plateau 

Desertscrub 

• Minimize the potential for erosion, revegetate disturbed areas. 

• Leave existing root systems intact where possible to encourage regrowth and revegetation along 

the equipment passage and soil storage areas. 

• Feather the edge of the right-of-way to minimize the linear impact created by right-of-way clearing 

• Limit clearing of vegetation to 75 feet of the centerline. 

• Control nighttime lighting at compressor sites by shielding and down-casting lights as practicable. 

• Landscape the areas with native shrubs and grasses to visually blend with adjacent areas. 

• Aboveground facilities to match the existing landscape colors as closely as possible. 

• Revegetate the right-of way to minimize visual fragmentation impacts while sagebrush is allowed to 

recover and repopulate the right-of-way. 

• Redistribute timber and slash across the right-of-way following final clean-up and seeded in areas. 

• Incorporate “pitting” and “vertical mulching” to discourage vehicle travel in disturbed pathways. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-208 

TABLE 4.8.4-7 

Visual Resource Mitigation Measures for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Regional Landscape 

Character Unit Mitigation Measures 

Pitting would include decompacting soil by digging pits roughly 1 to 2 feet apart and 6 to 12 inches 

deep to encourage collection of windblown seeds and to help collect water. Vertical mulching is 

accomplished by ‘planting’ dead vegetation and rocks in the route to obscure it from view. 

Foothills Grasslands • Minimize the potential for erosion, revegetate disturbed areas. 

• Control nighttime lighting by shielding and down-casting lights as practicable. 

Juniper-Pinyon 

Woodlands 

• Feather the edge of the right-of-way to minimize the linear impact created by right-of-way clearing. 

• Limit clearing of vegetation to 75 feet of the centerline. 

• Reforest cleared areas in forests, except for the 50-foot pipeline operational right-of-way. 

• Root wads would be piled and burned, with any unburned root debris buried. Non-merchantable 

pine and juniper should be yarded to permit public firewood cutting along Willow Valley road, and 

any intersecting roads. 

• Create natural openings to reduce the contrast between the right-of-way and surrounding tree 

growth. 

• Leave existing root systems intact where possible to encourage re-growth and revegetation along 

the equipment passage and soil storage areas. 

• Redistribute timber and slash across the right-of-way following final clean-up and seeded in areas. 

• Additional clearing of vegetation and trees in forested and juniper-pinyon areas would be used to 

create uneven, natural appearing openings in vegetation cover adjacent to the pipeline area. 

Valley Desertscrub • In relatively level terrain, limit grading, topsoil segregation, and ditch line excavation to an 

approximate to minimum required for pipeline trench. Trample/cut and retain existing vegetation 

where possible. 

• Revegetate the right-of way to minimize visual fragmentation impacts while sagebrush is allowed to 

recover and repopulate the right-of-way. 

• Leave existing root systems intact where possible to encourage regrowth and revegetation along 

the equipment passage and soil storage areas. 

• Feather the edge of the right-of-way to minimize the linear impact created by right-of-way clearing. 

• Incorporate “pitting” and “vertical mulching” to discourage vehicle travel in disturbed pathways. 

Pitting would include decompacting soil by digging pits roughly 1 to 2 feet apart and 6 to 12 inches 

deep to encourage collection of windblown seeds and to help collect water. Vertical mulching is 

accomplished by ‘planting’ dead vegetation and rocks in the route to obscure it from view. 

Salt Desert/Playa • Control nighttime lighting by shielding and down-casting lights. 

• Landscape facility areas with shrubs to provide visual blending with adjacent areas. 

• Aboveground facilities to match the existing landscape colors as closely as possible. 

• In relatively level terrain, limit grading, topsoil segregation, and ditch line excavation to an 

approximate to minimum required for pipeline trench. Trample/cut and retain existing vegetation 

where possible. 

• Revegetate the right-of way to minimize visual fragmentation impacts while sagebrush is allowed to 

recover and repopulate the right-of-way. 

• Leave existing root systems intact where possible to encourage regrowth and revegetation along 

the equipment passage and soil storage areas. 

• Incorporate “pitting” and “vertical mulching” to discourage vehicle travel in disturbed pathways. 

Pitting would include decompacting soil by digging pits roughly 1 to 2 feet apart and 6 to 12 inches 

deep to encourage collection of windblown seeds and to help collect water. Vertical mulching is 

accomplished by ‘planting’ dead vegetation and rocks in the route to obscure it from view. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-209 

4.8.6 Non-Jurisdictional Electric Power Lines 

The Rocky Mountain Power and Harney Electric Cooperative electric transmission and 

distribution lines would be routed through open sagebrush range. The Rocky Mountain Power facilities 

would require new right-of-way across about equal amounts of private land and land administered by the 

BLM. The Harney Electric Cooperative facilities would be collocated with an existing power line 

entirely on BLM-administered land. Construction of the new lines would not change the general use of 

the land, but would preclude construction development within the permanent right-of-way. No 

recreation-dedicated features or facilities (trails, back country byways, visitor centers, etc.) have been 

identified along the electric line routes. Land use and recreation impacts due to the proposed work would 

not be significant. 

The electric transmission and distribution lines do not cross visually sensitive areas. Where the 

lines are on BLM-administered land, they are in VRM Class IV areas, which allow activities that require 

major modification of the landscape. The Rocky Mountain Power lines would be located in a landscape 

already occupied by power lines, large compressor stations, and roads. The Harney Electric Cooperative 

distribution line would be routed next to an existing distribution line. Construction activity and 

equipment would temporarily be seen by viewers in close proximity to the right-of-way, including 

recreationalists and motorists on public roadways. Permanent scenic impacts would occur from the 

installation of power poles and lines. The overall visual contrast of the electric lines would be moderate 

to low. Visual impacts due to the proposed work would not be significant. 

4.9 SOCIOECONOMICS 

4.9.1 Population and Employment 

The Ruby Pipeline Project would begin at the existing Opal Hub in Lincoln County, Wyoming 

and would terminate at an existing pipeline facility near Malin in Klamath County, Oregon. The pipeline 

right-of-way would cross 10 counties in the states of Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon, and would be 

supported by numerous aboveground facilities, including the following four compressor stations: 

• the Roberson Creek Compressor Station in Lincoln County, Wyoming, at MP 5.7; 

• the Wildcat Hills Compressor Station in Box Elder County, Utah, at MP 172.5; 

• the Wieland Flat Compressor Station in Elko County, Nevada, at MP 330.2; and 

• the Desert Valley Compressor Station in Humboldt County, Nevada, at MP 476.4. 

We have assumed that the general socioeconomic impact area for the project would be the area 

within a 50-mile radius (approximate 1-hour travel time) to and from the project area. Table 4.9.1-1 

provides a summary of selected socioeconomic and demographic statistics for the states and counties 

crossed by the proposed project. 

Construction work areas for the project generally would be located in unpopulated areas or areas 

with low population density. The primary exception to this is Cache County, Utah, near Interstate 84 and 

Interstate 15 in Brigham City. Ogden, Utah, which lies approximately 15 miles south of the project is the 

only major metropolitan area with a population over 50,000 that would be within a 50-mile radius of the 

project. Population densities in the remaining counties are under 12 persons per square mile. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-210 

TABLE 4.9.1-1 

Existing Socioeconomic Conditions for States and Counties Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County Populationa

Population 

Density 

(persons/square 

mile) 

Per Capita 

Incomeb

Civilian Labor 

Forcec

(persons) 

Unemployment 

Rated

(percent) 

Major In

WYOMING 532,668 5.5 $47,047 292,606 3.1 Retail Trade, Healthca

Lincoln 16,631 4.1 $40,373 8,329 3.5 Retail TraUinta 20,617 9.9 $42,621 11,565 3.0 Mining, Healthcare 

UTAH 2,736,424 33.3 $29,831 1,383,743 3.4 Retail Trade, 

Rich 2,205 2.1 $26,465 1,441 2.5 Accommodation and FoCache 112,616 96.7 $22,874 61,146 2.7 Manufacturing, HealthcaBox Elder 49,015 8.6 $25,898 24,112 3.9 Manufacturin

NEVADA 2,600,167 23.7 $39,853 1,373,462 6.7 Accommodation and Fo

Elko 47,071 2.7 $34,869 27,030 4.2 Mining, AccommodatHumboldt 17,763 1.8 $30,687 8,002 4.9 Mining, AccommodatWashoe 69,044e 11.0e $45,410 32,376e 6.8 Accommodation and Fo

OREGON 3,790,060 39.5 $35,143 1,957,953 6.4 Retail Trade, 

Lake 7,239 0.9 $26,571 3,606 8.5 Manufacturing, HealthcaKlamath 66,425 11.2 $28,050 31,043 9.0 Retail Trade, Healthca

─────────────────────────a U.S. Census Bureau, 2008a. b U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2007. c U.S. Census Bureau, 2008b. d BLS, 2009. e Does not include data from the City of Reno, which is outside of the 50-mile radius of the project impact area. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-211 

The major industries in the counties that would be traversed by the project include retail trade, 

mining, accommodation and food services, manufacturing, healthcare and social assistance, and real 

estate. The county with the highest per capita income along the pipeline route is Washoe County, 

Nevada, at $45,410, which is partly due to the population center around Reno. Reno is about 140 miles 

south of the project area and county-wide data minus the impact from Reno was not available. Cache 

County, Utah, has the lowest per capita income at $22,874. With the exception of Washoe County the per 

capita income for each county that would be crossed by the pipeline is less than each respective state’s per 

capita income. 

Five of the 10 affected counties experience a higher unemployment rate than their state average. 

The most recent county-specific data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics are for 2008; however, a 

review of seasonally adjusted unemployment rates for affected states in October 2009 revealed higher 

state-wide rates of unemployment. Unemployment rates for Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon were 

6.8 percent, 6.2 percent, 13.3 percent, and 11.5 percent, respectively (BLS, 2009). It is possible that 

current county-wide unemployment rates have risen above the most recently published levels. 

Ruby would use seven spreads during construction, each approximately 80 to 120 miles long (see 

Appendix X, Figure 1). Construction on each spread would proceed as one continuous operation lasting 

approximately 10 months. Construction would require 400 to 500 workers per spread for a peak pipeline 

workforce of about 3,500 persons. Construction of the four compressor stations would require 150 to 200 

workers per station for a peak station workforce of about 800 persons. Table 4.9.1-2 presents the 

workforce estimates for the project. Ruby anticipates that construction activities could commence 

sometime in early spring 2010 in areas where weather allows and where there are no restrictions 

designated to protect sensitive species, species that are migrating, or cultural resources. Ruby’s estimated 

in-service date for all facilities is March 2011. 

TABLE 4.9.1-2 

Estimated Construction Workforce for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Facility/Activity Approximate Number of Workers (Local and 

Non-Local) 

PIPELINE FACILITIES 

Peak Construction Workforce (Total) 3,500 

Peak Construction Workforce (Per Spread) 500 

Average Construction Workforce (Total) 2,800 

Average Construction Workforce (Per Spread) 400 

COMPRESSOR STATIONS 

Peak Construction Workforce (Total) 800 

Peak Construction Workforce (Per Station) 200 

Average Construction Workforce (Total) 600 

Average Construction Workforce (Per Station) 150 

Peak Construction Workforce 4,300 

Average Construction Workforce 3,400 

Temporary population increase based on work influx would be expected in the affected counties 

and their communities. Ruby estimates that up to 15 percent of the workforce would be local hires and 

about 85 percent would be non-local. Therefore, during the peak of construction, up to 645 workers 

would be local hires and 3,655 workers would be non-local (pipeline and compressor station work 

combined). This would equate to about 75 local and 425 non-local workers per construction spread, and 

about 30 local and 170 non-local workers per compressor station during peak periods. A brief decrease in 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-212 

unemployment could occur as a result of hiring about 645 local workers for construction. Due to the 

transitory nature and short duration of pipeline construction, we would not expect most non-local workers 

to travel with their families. 

Ruby stated that it would employ 19 permanent employees for operation and maintenance of the 

pipeline and compressor stations. Two permanent employees would be needed to operate each 

compressor station, and approximately 11 employees would be needed for pipeline operation and 

maintenance. Employees associated with the compressor stations most likely would reside in Lincoln or 

Uinta counties, Wyoming; Box Elder County, Utah; and Elko or Humboldt counties, Nevada. Employees 

associated with pipeline operation and maintenance most likely would reside near Ruby’s corporate 

offices in Colorado Springs, Colorado. 

We received comments on the draft EIS requesting that specific socioeconomic impacts 

associated with the Vya Construction Camp and Lakeview Temporary Housing Facility be addressed in 

the final EIS. Table 4.9.1-3 provides a summary of select socioeconomic and demographic statistics for 

the Vya camp area, including data for Washoe County (Nevada), Modoc County (California), and the 

California communities of Cedarville, Eagleville, Fort Bidwell, and Lake City. Data for these California 

communities were included in table 4.9.1-3 due to the proximity of the Vya camp to California. Table 

4.9.1-4 provides a summary of select socioeconomic and demographic statistics for the Lakeview facility 

area, including data for the State of Oregon, Lake County, and the Town of Lakeview. 

TABLE 4.9.1-3 

Existing Socioeconomic Conditions in the Vicinity of the Vya Construction Camp 

Location Populationa,f

Population 

Density 

(persons/sq

. mile) 

Per Capita 

Incomeb,f

Civilian Labor 

Force 

(persons) c,f

Unemployment 

Rated,f

(percent) 

Major Industriesb

Washoe County, NV 69,044 e 11.0 e $45,410 32,376 e 6.8 Accommodation and 

Food Service, Retail 

Trade 

Modoc County, CA 9,184 2.3 $27,842 3,992 9.7 Agriculture, Public 

Administration, 

Education, Health and 

Social Services 

Cedarville /Eagleville, 

CA 

849 3.2 $20,360 408 7.4 Agriculture, Public 

Administration, 

Education, Health and 

Social Services 

Lake City, CA 112 2.4 $19,446 80 5.6 Agriculture, Education, 

Health and Social 

Services 

Fort Bidwell, CA 214 1.9 $13,782 76 8.4 Education, Public 

Administration, 

Agriculture 

─────────────────────────

a U.S. Census Bureau, 2008a 

b U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2007 

c U.S. Census Bureau, 2008b 

d BLS, 2009 

e Does not include data from the City of Reno, which is outside of the 50-mile radius of the project impact area. 

f The United States does not define census-designated places for Cedarville, Eagleville, Lake City, or Fort Bidwell. 

However, the U.S. Census Bureau does define Zip Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTA) 96104 (containing Cedarville and 

Eagleville), 96115 (Lake City), and 96112 (Fort Bidwell). The socioeconomic data for these three zip codes were used 

to depict existing conditions in these towns. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-213 

TABLE 4.9.1-4 

Existing Socioeconomic Conditions in the Vicinity of the Lakeview Temporary Housing Facility 

State/County/Town Populationa Population Density 

(persons/sq. mile) 

Per 

Capita 

Incomeb

Civilian Labor 

Force 

(persons) c

Unemployment 

Rated

(percent) 

Major Industriesb

OREGON 3,790,060 38.5 $35,143 1,957,953 11.5 Educational, 

Health and Social 

Services; 

Manufacturing; 

Retail Trade 

Lake County 7,239 0.89 $26,571 3,606 8.5 Agriculture; 

Educational, 

Health and Social 

Services; 

Manufacturing 

Town of Lakeview 2,427 1,553 $19,025 1,083 6.6 Educational, 

Health and Social 

Services; 

Manufacturing; 

Retail Trade 

─────────────────────────

a U.S. Census Bureau, 2008a (Lake County and State of Oregon); www.city-data.com (Town of Lakeview, 2008 data). 

b U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2007 (Lake County and State of Oregon); www.city-data.com (Town of Lakeview, 

2007 data). 

c U.S. Census Bureau, 2008b (Lake County and State of Oregon); U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census (Town of 

Lakeview). 

d BLS, 2009 (Lake County, 2008 data) (State of Oregon, 2009 seasonally adjusted data); www.city-data.com (Town of 

Lakeview, 2007 data). 

Population densities are low in the vicinity of the proposed Vya Construction Camp. Cedarville, 

California has a population of 849 and is the closest community to the Vya camp. The region relies on 

agriculture, public administration, education, health and social services, and retail trade as major 

employing sectors. Recent economic conditions have been weak, as shown by the preliminary June 2009 

unemployment rates for Modoc and Washoe (without Reno) counties. We received comments during the 

draft EIS comment period regarding potential employment opportunities associated with the Vya camp. 

Ruby has indicated that approximately 28 full-time workers would be hired to support construction 

workers lodging at the camp, and that their intent would be to hire some of the workers locally. 

The Town of Lakeview has an estimated population of 2,427, accounting for one third of the 

county’s total population. The economy of Lake County is anchored by timber and wood products, 

government offices, and agriculture. In addition, recreation, tourism, manufacturing, and retail trade are 

also important sectors (LCC, 2009). Incomes are below the Oregon State average. The unemployment 

rate provided for Lake County in the table above was obtained from 2008 data. As a result of the recent 

economic downturn, current estimates indicate that Lake County’s unemployment rate climbed as high as 

17.5 percent in February 2009, but then declined to 10.1 percent by July 2009. 

We do not anticipate that Ruby would hire many local workers to support the Lakeview 

Temporary Housing Facility because, based on the information Ruby has provided to date, it does not 

appear this facility would be self-sufficient like the Vya Construction Camp. Workers staying at the 

Lakeview facility would be required to obtain their own food and supplies, and would therefore purchase 

these goods and services from local vendors in the Town of Lakeview. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-214 

4.9.2 Housing 

The temporary influx of non-local construction workers would increase demand for housing, 

resulting in increased revenues to individuals and businesses with space for rent. Temporary housing in 

the project area is available in the form of daily, weekly, and monthly rentals at motels, hotels, casino 

hotels, campgrounds, RV parks, bed-and-breakfasts, boarding houses, apartments, and houses. The 

availability of these accommodations may vary, particularly during any tourist season, local event, or as a 

result of demand for housing by other industries (e.g., mining). Information regarding temporary 

accommodations in affected counties is presented in table 4.9.2-1. This information reflects the housing 

pressures currently applied by area industries, including mining. 

TABLE 4.9.2-1 

Vacant Accommodation Housing Units for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County Rental Vacancy Ratea 

(percent) 

Vacant Housing Units 

for Renta

Hotels and 

Motelsb RV Parks and Campsb

WYOMING 

Lincoln 21.8 275 17 1 

Uinta 17.7 363 10 0 

 

UTAH 

Rich 41.2 73 2 2 

Cache 4.4 446 14 3 

Box Elder 7.5 212 9 3 

 

NEVADA 

Elko 16.9 954 43 5 

Humboldt 19.7 381 18 2 

Washoec 7.4 317 23 0 

 

OREGON 

Lake 12.6 139 8 1 

Klamath 8.5 747 30 6 

───────────────────────── 

a U.S. Census Bureau, 2000a. 

b U.S. Census Bureau, 2006.

c Does not include data from the City of Reno, which is over 50 miles from the project area. 

It is also likely that non-local workers would seek accommodations in counties and communities 

not directly affected by the pipeline but within a reasonable commuting distance (50 miles) of contractor 

yards. Ruby stated that many workers would drive personal vehicles to contractor yards each day before 

the start of work for busing from the contractor yards to the right-of-way. Counties within 50 miles of the 

contractor yards include Summit, Morgan, Weber, Davis, Salt Lake, and Tooele in Utah; Franklin, 

Oneida, Bannock, Bear Lake, and Caribou in Idaho; Eureka, Lander, and Pershing in Nevada; Sublette 

and Sweetwater in Wyoming; Lassen and Modoc in California; and Harney in Oregon. Information 

regarding temporary accommodations in these counties is presented in table 4.9.2-2. 

The incremental temporary housing demand from construction workers, per spread, would be 

distributed over a large area and would be short-term. However, the combined demand for temporary 

housing from tourists, recreationalists, local workers, and project construction crews could at times 

exceed the supply in some communities. While this would benefit the proprietors of the local motels, 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-215 

hotels, casinos, RV camps, and other rental units, it could result in the short-term unavailability of such 

temporary housing for some tourists, recreationalists, or local workers. 

We received comments on the potential effects of construction workforce demands on temporary 

housing, particularly near Elko, where pipeline workers would compete with mine workers for housing. 

Mining is the primary industry in Elko and Humboldt counties, and it is likely that rental units are already 

heavily used by mining workers. Nearby counties such as Lander, Eureka, and Pershing have 

comparatively high rental vacancy rates (table 4.9.2-2), and vacancy rates in the area suggest that existing 

lodging facilities would be sufficient to meet the demand required by the Ruby construction workforce. If 

project demand for temporary housing were to exceed supply, project workers would be required to find 

accommodations in communities further from the project area, resulting in longer daily driving distances. 

TABLE 4.9.2-2 

Vacant Accommodation Units in Counties Within 50 Miles of Contractor Yards for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County Rental Vacancy Ratea 

(percent) 

Vacant Housing Units 

for Renta

Hotels and 

Motelsb RV Parks and Campsb

UTAH 

Summit 13.6 397 24 3 

Morgan 4.0 10 0 0 

Weber 8.6 1,555 27 4 

Davis 5.6 953 17 3 

Salt Lake 6.4 6,291 127 4 

Tooele 13.2 417 7 0 

 

IDAHO 

Franklin 4.6 32 3 1 

Oneida 5.6 15 0 0 

Bannock 8.4 728 21 4 

Bear Lake 12.8 57 4 3 

Caribou 28.9 214 4 0 

 

NEVADA 

Eureka 37.9 107 1 0 

Lander 32.4 229 5 0 

Pershing 25.7 207 5 0 

 

WYOMING 

Sublette 7.4 51 12 7 

Sweetwater 16.2 681 19 2 

CALIFORNIA 

Lassen 13.4 473 13 3 

Modoc 9.3 114 8 2 

OREGON 

Harney 15.8 156 8 1 

───────────────────────── 

a U.S. Census Bureau, 2000a. 

b U.S. Census Bureau, 2006. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-216 

The Vya Construction Camp would provide living quarters for up to 650 non-local pipeline 

workers. The Vya camp would accommodate the workers on Spreads 4A, 4B, 5, and 6B. The proposed 

camp would be located on a 160-acre private property parcel in Washoe County, Nevada (approximately 

6 miles west of MP 558). Approximately 80 acres of the camp would be used for worker lodging, RV 

facilities, and other associated facilities. The remaining 80 acres would not be developed (see Appendix 

P for a diagram of the proposed camp layout). The camp would be capable of housing approximately 425 

people in temporary modular-type structures. The facility also would include temporary pads for parking 

that could accommodate up to 200 RV trailers. Since the existing site is relatively flat, grading would be 

kept to a minimum and would only be necessary to place the modular structures and to create flat parking 

pads for the RVs. 

Ruby’s camp contractor would be responsible for providing the modular units and temporary 

trailer pads, along with food services, septic services, solid waste removal, water, and security. 

Electricity would be supplied to the camp by four self-contained, noise-attenuated, trailer-mounted 

Caterpillar diesel power generation units (one 2-MW unit and three 1-MW units). Electricity would be 

distributed from the generators to modular housing units and the RV hookups via underground electric 

lines installed per the Nevada electrical code. Residents of the temporary RV camp would use gas for 

cooking. 

Ruby plans to store propane (approximately 10,000 gallons), off-road diesel fuel (10,000 gallons), 

over-the-road diesel fuel (5,000 gallons), and unleaded gasoline (5,000 gallons) at the camp. Propane 

would be stored in a propane tank, and diesel fuel and gasoline would be stored in tanks within secondary 

containment structures, which would be bermed and lined in accordance with county, state, and/or federal 

permitting requirements. 

One water well currently exists on the southeastern portion of the parcel. Ruby would use this 

well for potable water supply. Ruby already has obtained a permit for this well from the State of Nevada, 

Division of Water Rights (permit number 78382) (see section 4.3.1.3 for additional information on this 

well). 

A wastewater system would be created on-site at the camp for the lodging units. The wastewater 

system would be designed as a typical septic tank with a grease trap for the kitchen facilities, in 

accordance with State of Nevada and Washoe County permitting requirements. In addition, a 

downstream sewage leach field would be installed, with the final design dependant on the results of 

percolation testing at the site, and would be permitted according to State of Nevada requirements. Three 

septic holding tanks would be provided for recreational vehicle users; the septic holding tanks would be 

regularly inspected and, as needed, wastes removed and discharged at a sanitary disposal facility in Reno. 

Solid waste from the camp would be collected in on-site, roll-off containers. Ruby estimates that 

a single 30-cubic-yard, roll-off container would be sufficient to manage solid waste for a week; however, 

Ruby’s current plan is to utilize two containers that would be emptied weekly by a waste management 

service that would haul the refuse to a licensed landfill for disposal in Alturas, California. 

Ruby stated that it would coordinate the camp construction and operations with the towns of 

Cedarville and Alturas (California) and other communities in Surprise Valley (California) and Long 

Valley (Nevada). Based on Ruby’s currently projected construction schedule, construction of the camp 

would begin in spring 2010 and would last for approximately 10 weeks. The camp would begin operation 

in summer 2010 and continue through December of 2010. Decommissioning would ensue after the 

workers leave in December of 2010, and would be completed by the third quarter of 2011. During 

decommissioning, the camp would be completely dismantled and all facilities would be removed. The 

land surface would be regraded as necessary, cleaned-up, and restored to preconstruction conditions in 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-217 

accordance with Ruby’s Plan and landowner preference. All construction camp improvements would be 

removed from the site no later than the third quarter of 2011, assuming Ruby’s anticipated construction 

schedule is implemented. 

The Lakeview Temporary Housing Facility would be located in Lake County, Oregon, west of 

the city limits of the Town of Lakeview (see Appendix P). The Lakeview facility would accommodate 

the workers necessary for construction on Spread 4 of the project. The facility site encompasses 

approximately 15.4 acres of open space. The parcel is presently divided into segments by poorly 

constructed barbed wire fences and man-made drainage ditches. The previous land use of this area was 

used for cattle grazing and possibly agriculture. The facility would include nine portable housing 

modules, each containing 49 units, although some units would be used for storage and not occupied by 

workers. Ruby estimates that up to 350 personnel could occupy the Lakeview facility during 

construction. 

Ruby’s contractor would be responsible for providing the modular housing units. Electric power 

to the housing units would be provided by an electric feed line from an existing power line located at the 

southeastern corner of the site. Water and sewer would be provided by existing municipal water and 

sewer infrastructure. The Town of Lakeview has indicated it has sufficient capacity to provide water and 

sewer services to the Lakeview facility. Lakeview Sanitation would provide dumpsters at several 

locations within the temporary housing site and provide weekly garbage collection services. 

4.9.3 Public Services 

A wide range of public services and facilities are available within the project area including law 

enforcement agencies, fire departments, medical facilities (including hospitals and emergency services), 

and schools. The level of demand on local public services that would result from project construction 

would vary from community to community, depending on the number of non-local workers temporarily 

residing in each location, the duration of their stay, and the size of the community. 

Other potential construction-related demands on local services would include increased demand 

for permits for vehicle load and width limits, local police assistance during construction at road crossings 

to facilitate traffic flow, and emergency medical services to treat injuries resulting from construction 

accidents. Based on the general remoteness of the work areas, the relatively short timeline for 

construction-related activities, and the estimated speed at which the project would move across the 

construction areas, most non-local workers are not expected to bring families or children with them to the 

construction spreads; therefore, little to no impact on schools or education resources are expected. Ruby 

would work with local law enforcement, fire departments, and emergency medical services to coordinate 

for effective emergency response. Ruby anticipates that the construction timeframe would fall within 

seasons with increased risk for rangeland fires; therefore, Ruby has developed a Fire Prevention and 

Suppression Plan (Appendix H) that includes measures for coordinating with local fire department 

services. 

We received a comment on the draft EIS from Washoe County, Nevada, stating that the Fire 

Prevention and Suppression Plan contained inaccurate information regarding the emergency personnel to 

be notified in the event of a fire. Ruby committed to revising its plan, as appropriate. We also received a 

comment concerning the overall inadequacy of the plan in Washoe County. In response, Ruby filed an 

updated Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan to address identified deficiencies. However, we believe 

that the current plan still lacks detail and clarity with regard to notification procedures and 

responsibilities. Therefore, we recommend that Ruby coordinate with all jurisdictional fire response 

authorities affected by the project to revise its Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan to meet the 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-218 

standards of those authorities. The revised plan, along with any agency comments on the plan, 

shall be filed for review and written approval of the Director of OEP prior to construction. 

We received comments on the potential effects of construction workforce demands on public 

services, particularly near Elko where pipeline workers would compete with mining companies for 

services. Elko County public services include a Sheriff’s Department, the Northwestern Nevada Regional 

Hospital, and city and county fire and police services. Mining is a well-established industry in Elko 

County and the services currently provided by the county and its cities serve the mining industry 

adequately. Because the non-local workforce would be small relative to the current population, we 

believe that construction of the pipeline would result in minor and temporary impacts on local facilities 

and services in and around the Elko area. 

We also received comments on the potential benefits that the availability of gas utility service 

would provide to local communities. Natural gas distribution to local communities is the final step in 

delivering natural gas to end-users. While some large industrial, commercial, and electric generation 

customers receive natural gas directly from high-capacity interstate pipelines like the Ruby pipeline, most 

end-users receive natural gas from a local distribution company. Local distribution companies typically 

transport natural gas from delivery points along interstate pipelines to local businesses and residences 

through a network of lower pressure, small-diameter distribution pipelines. Ruby stated that its pipeline 

is capable of delivering gas to local distribution companies in the communities through which it passes. 

However, Ruby’s open season did not result in contracts with local distribution companies for gas 

transportation service. If future delivery of gas to local distribution companies were necessary, Ruby 

would be required to seek appropriate regulatory approvals at that time, including any authorizations that 

might be required from the FERC to modify or expand its facilities. 

We received comments regarding the potential for increased demand on the Sheldon NWR staff 

for policing, fire protection, and clean-up associated with increased use of the Sheldon NWR by non-local 

workers. As discussed in section 4.8.3.5, a substantial increase in use of the Sheldon NWR and demand 

on staff is not expected. Construction workers would be on the project site during the day and, due to the 

nature of pipeline construction and the demanding work schedule (6 to 7 days per week, 10 to 12 hours 

per day), workers likely would not use the Sheldon NWR for recreation on their days off. If construction 

workers chose to use and explore the Sheldon NWR on their own time, the workers would be under the 

same restrictions as the general public. 

We received several comments during the draft EIS comment period on the effects of the Vya 

Construction Camp on public services in Modoc County, California (the closest community to the camp). 

Ruby met with public officials from Modoc County and the California cities of Cedarville and Alturas in 

July and August 2009 to discuss the project needs and public service impacts. Local community leaders 

invited Ruby to visit their medical facilities and to discuss anticipated construction-related medical needs. 

As a result of these meetings, the local medical community stated it would be able to provide any 

necessary emergency medical services. Ruby also met with local fire departments, reviewed their 

equipment, and is currently in discussion with the local fire departments regarding opportunities to lease 

idle fire equipment for use at the Vya camp. As a result of these meetings, an informal communication 

team of Ruby and local public service officials has been established that would develop a plan for 

effective communication and coordination in the event of an emergency. 

Ruby has indicated that a physician’s assistant would be employed on site by the construction 

contractor at the Vya Construction Camp to provide basic first aid and limited medical care to camp 

residents. An area would be made available at the camp for potential use by a helicopter to transport 

patients to the Sunrise Valley Hospital or the Modoc Medical Center. Due to the short duration of 

construction, any increased demands on medical services would be temporary. Further, historic accident 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-219 

data from pipeline construction show a low incidence of worker injuries and fatalities. From 1989 to 

2008, an average of 8 serious pipeline incidents (defined as an event involving a fatality or injury 

requiring in-patient hospitalization) per year occurred on natural gas transmission and gathering lines 

nationwide (PHMSA, 2009). Therefore, even assuming that average incident rates apply, it is unlikely 

that more than a few workers would require emergency service or medical attention during the time the 

Vya camp is in operation. The hospitals and medical service providers in the local area are not expected 

to be unduly burdened by this relatively small incremental demand. 

Modoc County has 15 fire departments serving its residents. These departments function under 

the auspices of the City of Alturas, California Pines Community Service District, Fort Bidwell Indian 

Community, and 12 additional fire protection districts (3 of which operate jointly in Modoc and a 

neighboring county). Nearly all fire fighters are volunteers. Generally, these departments are responsible 

for all structural fire fighting within their district boundaries. The departments are also responsible for 

wildland fires within the “Local Responsibility Areas” of their districts. Non-local responsibility for 

wildland fires falls to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Responsibility for 

wildland fires on federal lands are the responsibility of the USFS and/or the BLM. Fire protection 

services may be required, depending on the time of year and the potential for rangeland/grassland fires. 

Fire prevention services would be available on site at the camp for small emergencies and would follow 

the protocols of Ruby’s Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan (see Appendix H). Construction of the 

camp would include installation of two 13,000-gallon water storage tanks for fire fighting and a rented 

pumper engine to handle any potential fire emergencies at the camp. Construction crews and employees 

at the camp would be required to adhere to all hazard and safety requirements to mitigate the potential for 

fire along the route. Fire department services may also be called upon for construction injuries or 

accidents. 

Six ambulance services cover portions of Modoc County: Surprise Valley Health Care; Modoc 

Medical in Alturas and Adin; Mayers Memorial Hospital out of Fall River Mills; Basin Ambulance out of 

Merrill, Oregon; and Lakeview Ambulance based in Lakeview, Oregon. In addition, several fire 

departments operate medical aid units. Information regarding currently active units and response areas is 

maintained by the Modoc County 9-1-1 Coordinator. Trauma cases, as well as serious illness cases, must 

be sent to hospitals in Fall River Mills, Redding, Klamath Falls, or Reno/Sparks. Transport in emergency 

situations is usually by air ambulance (i.e., helicopter). 

Police services are covered under the Modoc County Sheriff’s department and the City of Alturas 

Police Department. In addition, Ruby has committed to staffing security at the entrance to the Vya 

Construction Camp 24 hours a day. The camp also would be gated and surrounded with barbed wire so 

that only approved workers would have access. Ruby is working with local law enforcement agencies to 

ensure that security would be adequate to meet the needs of the camp without creating an undue burden 

on the surrounding community. Appendix P provides additional information regarding police and 

emergency service personnel in Modoc County. 

We received comments on the draft EIS concerning the protection of people and resources 

located in the areas surrounding the camp. Ruby stated that it would require each construction camp 

occupant to read and sign orientation documents that would contain information, including use 

restrictions, regarding the surrounding communities and areas. Ruby would hold its contractors 

accountable for compliance. Ruby has also stated that it welcomes input from any agencies that would 

like specific information included in the orientation information. Ruby also plans to invite representatives 

from the local area (such as the sheriff’s office and state highway patrol) to speak at the worker training 

sessions. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-220 

Ruby does not anticipate that a significant percentage of family members would accompany 

construction workers during the project, and no school-age children would be allowed to lodge at the Vya 

Construction Camp. Thus, we conclude there would be no project-related impact on area schools. 

Similar to the Vya Construction Camp, the Lakeview Temporary Housing Facility potentially 

would impact public services. Medical care near the housing facility site is provided by Lake District 

Hospital. Lake District Hospital services include acute care, obstetrical services, surgery, emergency 

room, and related ancillary services (lab, x-ray, etc.). Twenty-four-hour emergency services are provided 

and air ambulance facilities and services are also available. An Federal Aviation Administration Helipad 

is located on campus and fixed wing transport via Lake County Airport is also available. Ambulance 

services are provided by volunteer emergency service technicians and workers operating through the 

Lakeview Disaster Unit, Paisley Disaster Unit, and the North Lake County Disaster Unit (Lake District 

Hospital, 2009). Ruby and its contractors are committed to operating safely to minimize the possibility of 

accidents and injuries. The hospitals and medical service providers in the local area are not expected to 

be unduly burdened by this relatively small incremental demand. 

The Lakeview Fire Department serves approximately 5,000 people living in a 54-square-mile 

area. The fire department provides firefighting, hazardous material response, and vehicle rescue 

(extrication) services. The fire department (a public department with both paid and volunteer members) 

operates out of one station and is made up of three divisions: (1) the professional fire department, (2) the 

volunteer fire department, and (3) the rural fire department. The professional fire department has six paid 

personnel who are 9-1-1 dispatchers/firefighter-engineers. The professional fire department operates 

dispatch services for all law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical service agencies within Lake 

County (an 8,000-square-mile area). The volunteer fire department is comprised of approximately 23 

volunteers. The rural fire department is comprised of all the professional and volunteer personnel 

(Firehouse Network, 2009). Fire prevention services would be available on site at the Lakeview facility 

for small emergencies and would follow the protocols of the revised Ruby Fire Prevention and 

Suppression Plan (see Appendix H). 

The Lakeview Police Department works in cooperation with the Oregon State Police, Lake 

County Sheriff's Office, Modoc County (California) Sheriff's Office, and the California Highway Patrol to 

ensure the security and safety of the Town of Lakeview (Town of Lakeview, 2009). Appendix P provides 

additional information regarding law enforcement personnel in the vicinity of the Town of Lakeview. 

Ruby does not anticipate that a significant percentage of family members would accompany 

construction workers during the project, and no school-age children would be allowed to lodge at the 

Lakeview Temporary Housing Facility. Thus, we conclude there would be no project-related impact on 

area schools. 

There would be no long-term impacts on public services because only 19 permanent employees 

would be associated with the project, 11 of which would likely reside in Colorado. Construction of the 

Ruby Pipeline Project would not significantly affect public services in affected counties or communities 

due to the short duration of construction and the large area over which the workforce would be dispersed. 

The counties, cities, and towns in the project vicinity presently have and would continue to have adequate 

infrastructure and services to meet the needs of the non-local workers. 

4.9.4 Transportation 

Construction activities could result in short-term impacts on transportation infrastructure. These 

impacts could include disruption to traffic flow due to the movement of construction equipment, 

materials, and crew members; construction of pipeline facilities across existing roads and railways; and 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-221 

damage to local roads from the movement of heavy construction equipment and materials. Ruby has 

prepared a Traffic and Transportation Management Plan (Appendix X), which is discussed further below. 

Construction across paved roads, unpaved roads where traffic cannot be interrupted, and railroads 

would result in short-term impacts on public transportation while construction activities pass through the 

project area. Such crossings would generally be completed by boring under the feature. There would be 

little or no disruption of traffic at road or railroad crossings by use of this technique. 

Most smaller, unpaved roads and driveways would be crossed using the open-cut method. For 

public roads, the open-cut method generally requires a temporary road closure and establishment of 

detours. If no reasonable detour is feasible, at least one lane of the road being crossed would be kept open 

to traffic except for brief periods when it would be essential to close the road to install the pipeline. Most 

open-cut crossings require only 1 or 2 days to install the pipe and backfill the trench, although final road 

resurfacing could require several weeks to allow for soil settlement and compaction. Ruby would work 

with individual landowners to determine the best way to cross privately owned roads. 

Construction of the pipeline would require a peak construction workforce of 3,500 persons, or 

500 persons per spread. Construction of the compressor stations would require a peak construction 

workforce of 800 persons, or 200 persons per station. Ruby anticipates that about 200 vehicles would be 

mobilized to support construction on each spread and at each station. These vehicles include personal 

transportation for an estimated 100 equipment operators, 30 welders, 15 foremen, 25 miscellaneous 

workers, and 30 inspectors for each spread. Many of the workers would depart directly from their homes 

or lodging each day and drive directly to the construction right-of-way. However, some workers would 

report to a contractor yard before boarding a bus and being transported to the right-of-way. Ruby 

estimates it would use 8 to 10 buses for transporting construction workers from the contractor yards to the 

construction right-of-way. 

Vehicles would also be entering and leaving the contractor yard throughout the day to 

accommodate construction management personnel, supply trucks, and vendors. Stringing trucks would 

deliver pipe to the right-of-way from pipe storage and staging areas. Each yard would accommodate 

approximately 50 stringing truck trips to the right-of-way each day. Heavy construction equipment would 

generally travel along established roads 6 to 7 days per week during daylight hours, with primary 

movements occurring between 5:00 and 6:00 in the morning and at 6:00 in the evening. Road bores, 

HDDs, and hydrostatic testing work would be conducted 24 hours per day and may require support traffic 

until the activity is completed. 

Paved roads could see an increase in sediment tracking from equipment and vehicle traffic. 

Roads also could experience surface damage. Every axle passing over a road consumes a portion of the 

pavement’s life. With each application of load, the pavement experiences compression and bending that 

eventually lead to rutting and cracking. Road tests have shown that the amount of pavement life 

consumed by heavy axles greatly exceeds the amount of life consumed by light axles. Paved roads are 

the most durable and stand up well to periodic surges in traffic and heavy use. Unpaved roads, on the 

other hand, are much less durable. Most states have adopted rules and procedures that help the trucking 

industry to operate competitively, have developed permitting systems that allow truckers to obtain permits 

quickly, and have identified safe routes for movement of oversize and overweight vehicles. Most states 

fund road repairs with motor fuel taxes, motor vehicle registration fees, and compensatory fees paid by 

commercial carriers. Commercial carriers need registrations to operate in each state and may need special 

permits for oversize and overweight vehicles, temporary trip permits within the state, or to haul hazardous 

materials. Ruby would coordinate with state and local departments of transportation and land managing 

agencies to obtain the required permits to operate trucks on public roads. Ruby also has stated it would 

inspect roads periodically during the construction period and would repair the roads as needed. Following 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-222 

construction, public roads would be repaired as close as practicable to their original condition, while 

private roads would be returned to their original condition or better unless otherwise requested by the 

landowner or land managing agency. 

Ruby’s Traffic and Transportation Plan (Appendix X) includes an analysis of the existing road 

network in the project area. This analysis concludes that all state-maintained roads are well under 

capacity, and with the addition of the proposed construction traffic the roads would be under 50 percent 

capacity at peak hour and most would be under 25 percent capacity at peak hour. We have reviewed this 

analysis and generally agree with its conclusions; however, we also note that a previous version of Ruby’s 

Traffic and Transportation Plan committed Ruby to working with local governmental agencies to define 

specific traffic control procedures where traffic could be disrupted by construction or construction-related 

traffic. Ruby’s current version of its Traffic and Transportation Plan does not include this commitment. 

Therefore, we recommend that Ruby work with local governmental agencies in Elko, Winnemucca, 

in the area of the Vya Construction Camp, and where conflicts with mining traffic may occur to 

identify all areas where traffic could be disrupted by construction or construction-related traffic 

and define specific traffic control plans for each of these locations. These plans should include (at a 

minimum) a commitment to provide, as necessary:

a. signage to identify approaching construction or access points; 

b. daily review and cleanup of sediment deposits and pavement damage on roadways; 

and 

c. traffic control personnel in areas of lane closures or heavy traffic. 

The traffic control plans should be filed for review and written approval of the Director of 

OEP prior to construction. 

Although the roads in the project area are generally rural with a low volume of traffic, there are 

several large mining operations in northern Nevada. The roads leading to these mines can be congested at 

peak morning and evening hours. The mines in the proximity of the project area are clustered in two 

areas in Nevada: the Carlin and Getchell trends. The Carlin Trend is located west of the city of Elko and 

the Getchell Trend is located east of the city of Winnemucca (USGS, 2007). We have reviewed the 

analysis in Ruby’s Traffic and Transportation Plan regarding current traffic levels in these areas due to 

mining activities, and Ruby’s proposed measures to minimize impacts on these mining communities. 

Commuting patterns could create temporary traffic congestion if peak travel hours for the mining 

community and the project coincide. This impact, however pronounced, would be short-lived based on 

the projected 10-month construction schedule. 

We received a comment on the draft EIS regarding the possibility of Ruby utilizing the Goose 

Lake Railroad to transport pipeline equipment and supplies to the project area. Ruby is negotiating with 

the Lake County Commission to determine if Ruby could assist in improving the condition of the Goose 

Lake Railroad through a grant process called ConnectOregon II. ConnectOregon is administered by 

ODOT and is a lottery-bond-based initiative first approved by the 2005 Oregon Legislature to invest in

air, rail, marine, and transit infrastructure (ODOT, 2009). Ruby has agreed to contribute a portion of the 

matching funds required by the ConnectOregon II grant to facilitate the improvement of the railroad and 

is awaiting acceptance by the Lake County Commission. If the Lake County Commission accepts Ruby’s 

offer, Ruby would be granted approval to utilize the railroad for the transportation of pipeline equipment 

and supplies to the project area. This would lessen the impacts on the local transportation infrastructure. 

Further, the railroad improvements would benefit the local Lake County economy by creating long-term 

stimulus through the increased capability of the transportation network in Lake County. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-223 

We received several comments regarding potential traffic and transportation impacts associated 

with the Vya Construction Camp. The Vya camp is located at a crossroads of Washoe CR 34, which runs 

north-south, and Washoe CR 8A, which runs east-west. Both CR 34 and CR 8A are unpaved, gravel 

roads traversing active rangeland, and in some areas roads may be unfenced. To the west of Vya, at the 

California border, CR 8A becomes SR 299. SR 299 is a paved two-lane road that can be taken west to 

reach the community of Cedarville in Modoc County, California. If taken east from Vya, CR 8A crosses 

into the Sheldon NWR and connects to SR 140. CR 34 runs south from Vya to the community of 

Gerlach, Washoe County, Nevada. From Gerlach, Nevada SR 447 leads south to I-80 and Reno. SR 447 

is a paved, two-lane road, and I-80 is a paved, four-lane road. The eastern Modoc County cities of 

Eagleville, Cedarville, Lake City, and Fort Bidwell are connected through the Surprise Valley Road, 

which runs from the southern county line north to the Oregon border. 

In addition to housing construction workers, the Vya Construction Camp would serve as a 

contractor staging yard. Therefore, the Vya camp would produce the same amount of traffic as a 

contractor yard during the day. A typical construction camp can be divided into two general categories: 

workforce personal vehicles and supply trucks. Those workers that do not live at the Vya camp would 

drive their personal vehicles to the camp and their vehicles would remain parked at the camp until the 

end of spread construction, except for an occasional trip off site during non-working days. The 

construction workforce would primarily reach Vya from I-80 in Nevada by taking SR 447 north to CR 34 

north to Vya. We anticipate this to be the case because the construction spreads run from east to west, so 

the workers who have been on the project would be coming primarily from the east, from Washoe and 

Humboldt counties, Nevada. There is a potential that some workers may come to Vya from California 

out of Cedarville or Alturas. In this case, SR 299 through Alturas would be used in combination with 

CRs 8A and 34. However, because only a low volume of workers are expected to use this route and they 

would primarily use it for one-time transportation to Vya or an occasional trip during non-working days, 

this additional traffic would not be disruptive to California SR 299. 

Once the workforce is at Vya, 8 to 10 buses would be used to transport pipeline laborers from the 

camp to the pipeline right-of-way on a daily basis. The pipeline right-of-way is located east and north of 

the Vya camp location and would be accessed via an approximately 10-mile-long segment of CR 8A. In 

addition, specialty workers such as welders and inspectors would drive their personal trucks from the 

camp to the right-of-way using the same segment of CR 8A. These specialty workers would add 50 to 60 

additional vehicles to CR 8A. Vehicle movements would generally occur during the daylight hours, with 

primary movements occurring between 5:00 and 6:00 in the morning and at about 6:00 in the evening. 

Most pipeline equipment supply trucks would reach Vya via CR 34. All supplies except pipe would 

come from Reno. Trucks transporting supplies from Reno to Vya would take I-80 east from Reno to 

West Fernley, then Nevada SR 447 north to Gerlach, then CR 34 north to Vya. Appendix W provides 

average daily traffic counts for SR 447. Data suggest that with the addition of 400 vehicles at peak hour, 

SR 447 would be at 12 percent of its capacity. We expect that off-hours traffic to nearby areas would be 

minimal due to planned work schedules. Some additional traffic related to the project may occur on SR 

299 between Cedarville and Vya. Ruby estimates there would be 40 vehicular trips on SR 299 weekly. 

As with all other project areas, Ruby would place signage to indicate heavy truck traffic at 

appropriate locations near Vya. Ruby is currently working with Modoc and Washoe county governments 

to determine appropriate speed limits and weight capacity for the roads. Potential impacts on local traffic 

patterns in the area would vary depending on the number of workers at the camp, timing, and construction 

activity. These impacts would be temporary and would be conducted within the bounds of local permits 

and guidelines and as permitted by local landowners. 

In addition, increased vehicle traffic from construction activity around the Vya Construction 

Camp could cause traffic congestion and inconveniences for festival participants traveling to and from the 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-224 

Burning Man Festival (see section 4.8.3.6). While the project is sufficiently far enough away from the 

festival as to not cause a direct impact, the presence of construction traffic associated with the Vya camp 

could disturb access for those traveling to the festival on CR 34. To reduce these impacts, Ruby has 

committed to work with Washoe County to mitigate traffic impacts by not scheduling any major shift 

changes in personnel during times when the majority of people are entering or leaving the festival. Ruby 

would employ traffic monitors during the festival to ensure that construction traffic does not disturb 

access of festival attendees, and Ruby would place signs on CRs 34 and 8A to alert drivers to the presence 

of construction-related traffic. 

Roadways surrounding the Vya Construction Camp typically have limited use and would 

experience intensive use during the construction period, which might result in surface impacts on gravel 

and dirt roads. Ruby is currently working with the Washoe and Humboldt county road divisions to 

identify needed improvements in local roads prior to establishing the Vya camp and starting construction. 

In addition, addressing maintenance issues as they arise rather than waiting until the end of the project 

would prevent small issues from developing into more extensive road damage. Under the current 

construction schedule, little snowfall is expected in area of the camp during the construction period. 

Climatological data shows that the area averages of about 2.9 inches of snowfall in November and about 

2.3 inches of snowfall in December (WRCC, 2009). If snow removal is required, Ruby’s contractor 

would utilize road graders to maintain the road and remove snow as approved by the county. Following 

construction, the roads would be restored as close as practicable to their original condition or better. 

Ruby’s Traffic and Transportation Management Plan (Appendix X) also discusses potential mitigation to 

roads that may be affected by construction. 

During the construction period, Ruby would inspect roads periodically and repair them, as 

needed, at its own expense. Depending on the quality of the road surface, impacts could occur to gravel 

or dirt roads during camp operation. 

Ingress and egress from the Lakeview Temporary Housing Facility would be via a graveled road 

off of Roberta Avenue at the northeastern corner of the site and a paved road off of Roberta Avenue 

entering the center of the site (see site layout provided in Appendix P). The paved road would extend 

through the center of the Lakeview facility, with gravel roads providing access to the modular housing 

units. Parking would be provided off the graveled roads and adjacent to the modular housing units. 

Ruby anticipates that some of the workers would carpool to the housing facility at the beginning 

of the project, but most would drive their own personal vehicles. Sufficient on-site parking would be 

provided for construction worker vehicles. During the construction period, Ruby estimates that 

approximately 130 vehicles would leave and return to the housing facility each day. The workers would 

carpool from the Lakeview facility to the contractor yard in Lakeview, where they would then either bus 

or carpool from the yard to the project work site. All ingress and egress from the site would be onto 

Roberta Avenue, with the majority of vehicles turning left onto Roberta Avenue and traveling north to 

intersect with SR 140, then turning right to the contractor yard and the City of Lakeview. Some vehicles, 

primarily technical specialists in their individual vehicles, would turn right onto Roberta Avenue, left onto 

3rd Street, and travel east until they intersect with SR 140, heading south directly to the project site. 

During the morning, the vehicles would leave the housing facility between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 

7:00 a.m. 

Traffic counts on SR 140 (0.1 mile east of Roberta Avenue) indicate an average annual daily 

traffic count of 2,200 vehicles (ODOT, 2009). Depending on the flow of traffic from the housing facility 

and the volume of traffic on SR 140, there is a potential for traffic congestion at the intersection of SR 

140 and Roberta Avenue, primarily on Roberta Avenue while vehicles wait to make right hand turns onto 

SR 140. During the evening hours, it is expected that workers would return to the housing facility over an 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-225 

extended period of time, primarily between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. Traffic congestion is not 

expected during the evening hours of workers returning to the housing facility. Ruby would meet with 

the ODOT to determine what, if any, mitigation would be required at the intersection of Roberta Avenue 

and SR 140 during the morning work commute. 

4.9.5 Property Values 

We received comments during scoping regarding the potential for property devaluation resulting 

from construction damage or placement of a permanent pipeline easement. An easement would be used 

to convey both temporary (construction-related) and permanent rights-of-way to Ruby. The easement 

would give Ruby the right to construct, operate, and maintain the pipeline, and would establish a 

permanent right-of-way. In return, Ruby would compensate the landowner for use of the land. The 

easement agreement between Ruby and the landowner would specify compensation for damage to 

property during construction, loss of use during construction, loss of renewable and nonrenewable or 

other resources, and allowable uses of the permanent right-of-way after construction. If an easement 

could not be negotiated with the landowner and the project is granted a Certificate, the easement could be 

obtained by use of eminent domain. In this case, the property owner would still be compensated by Ruby 

but the amount of compensation would be determined by the courts. 

The effect that a pipeline easement may have to property values is a damage-related issue that 

would be negotiated between the parties during the easement acquisition process. The easement 

acquisition process is designed to provide fair compensation to the landowner for the right to use the 

property for pipeline construction and operation. Appraisal methods used to value land would be based 

on objective characteristics of the property and any improvements. The impact a pipeline could have on 

the value of a tract of land would depend on many factors including the size of the tract, the values of 

adjacent properties, the presence of other utilities, the current value of the land, and the current land use. 

Subjective valuation is generally not considered in appraisals. This is not to say that the pipeline would 

not affect resale values. A potential purchaser of property may make a decision to purchase land based on 

his or her planned use. An industrial user might find the pipeline (i.e., a potential source of energy for an 

industrial plant) preferable; a farmer or resident may or may not find it objectionable. If the presence of a 

pipeline renders the planned use infeasible, it is possible that a potential purchaser would decide not to 

purchase the property. However, each potential purchaser has different criteria and differing capabilities 

to purchase land. 

Property taxes for a piece of property are generally based on the actual use of the land. 

Construction of the pipeline would not change the general use of the land but would preclude construction 

of aboveground structures on the permanent right-of-way. If a landowner feels that the presence of a 

pipeline easement reduces the value of his or her land, resulting in an overpayment of property taxes, he 

or she could appeal the issue of the assessment and subsequent property taxation to the local property tax 

agency. 

4.9.6 Economy and Tax Revenues 

Ruby estimated the capital cost for the project would be about $3.0 billion. Direct payroll and 

materials expenditures related to the project would have an immediate impact on local economies. 

Workers would spend a portion of their pay in local communities on items such as housing, food, 

automobile expenses, entertainment, and other items. Ruby would purchase goods and materials locally 

when possible which would stimulate local businesses. Sales tax would be generated on items purchased 

in the project area. These direct impacts would stimulate indirect impacts within the region as inventories 

are restocked and new workers are hired to meet demands. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-226 

Ruby has estimated that the total project construction payroll would be $523 million. Payroll 

taxes would be collected from the workers employed on the project. Approximately $78.5 million of the 

total payroll would be received by local workers (assuming that 15 percent of the workforce would be 

hired locally). This would translate to a disposable income of approximately $69 million for the entire 

project. Ruby has estimated that about $20 million in consumables and project-specific materials such as 

fuel, tires, concrete, sand, gravel, and office supplies would be purchased locally. 

At our request, Ruby conducted a basic regional input-output multiplier analysis for the Ruby 

Pipeline Project to estimate overall economic impacts of constructing and operating the pipeline. The 

analysis accounted for the direct increase in demand for goods and services that would result from the 

project, as well as the indirect and induced demand for goods and services. Indirect effects are changes in 

backward-linked industries due to the new demand of the directly affected industry. For example, 

demand for $1 million worth of pipe from the pipe industry would require the iron mining industry to 

increase its output as well. Induced effects take this linkage a step further and measures the changes of all 

industries’ output as a result of changes in household consumption generated from the increased 

household income stemming from the direct and indirect effects of business activity. These types of 

indirect and induced effects are often likened to a ripple through water. 

Economists have come up with a model for estimating the ripple effect of changes in the 

economy. This model is complex and relies on multipliers, which are numerical coefficients that relate a 

change in demand in one industry to consequential changes in total output, wages, and employment in 

other industries. The output multipliers represent the total dollar change in output (total expenditures) 

that occurs for each additional dollar of output (direct expenditures). For example, an output multiplier of 

1.50 for hotels and lodging places means that for each $1.00 spent for lodging, an additional $0.50 is 

spent by the lodging establishment and supporting industries (wages, goods and services, capital 

improvements). The $1.00 is the direct expenditure, the $0.50 is the indirect and induced expenditure and 

$1.50 is the total economic impact. 

Ruby used data provided by Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. to identify multipliers for the 

project area and to calculate the economic impact of construction and operation of the Ruby Pipeline 

Project. Based on its analysis, Ruby identified a 1.41 multiplier for the project area. This means that for 

every $1.00 Ruby would spend in project area, an additional $0.41 of indirect and induced output would 

be expected. Ruby estimates it would spend about $89 million locally for payroll and construction 

supplies. Therefore, an additional $36.5 million of indirect and induced output would be expected. Table 

4.9.6-1 provides a breakdown of economic impacts by state based on construction phase estimates of 

resources that would be directly mobilized in these states and the unique economic structure of supporting 

industry sectors within each state. Overall, these indirect and induced economic impacts would represent 

a small fraction of the total output of each affected state and would represent a minor one-time, nonrecurring stimulus to the statewide economies. Operational payroll would be relatively insignificant as 

only 19 employees would be employed permanently by the project, 11 of whom would most likely reside 

in Colorado. 

Construction and operation of the project would have beneficial impacts on local sales tax 

revenue in Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming (Oregon does not have a state sales tax). The anticipated 

revenue from sales tax across the project would be about $73.9 million. Sales tax generated during 

operational activities would be relatively insignificant as only 19 employees would be employed 

permanently by the project, 11 of whom would most likely reside in Colorado. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-227 

TABLE 4.9.6-1 

Total Estimated Economic Output for the Ruby Pipeline Project (in millions) 

State 

Local 

Payroll 

(1) 

Construction 

Supplies 

(2) 

Direct 

Expenditures 

(3)=(1)+(2) 

Indirect 

Impacts 

(4) 

Induced 

Impacts 

(5) 

Total 

Output 

(6)=(3+4+5) 

Wyoming $5.0 $1.5 $6.5 $1.2 $0.8 $8.4 

Utah $8.3 $2.4 $10.7 $2.9 $2.4 $16.0 

Nevada $37.0 $10.7 $47.7 $8.4 $7.5 $63.6 

Oregon $18.7 $5.4 $24.1 $7.4 $5.9 $37.4 

Total $69.0 $20.0 $89.0 $19.8 $16.7 $125.4 

The most significant tax impacts would be generated by ad valorem taxes. Ad valorem taxes are 

property taxes that would be assessed per year and distributed to the affected counties according to the 

proportion of miles of the project within each jurisdiction during the pipeline’s operational period, which 

is estimated to be 50 years. The total estimated ad valorem tax would be about $28.7 million per year. 

Table 4.9.6-2 provides an estimated ad valorem tax allocation by state and county. 

TABLE 4.9.6-2 

Estimated Annual Property (Ad Valorem) Tax for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County Estimated Taxa

WYOMING $2,110,242 

Lincoln $1,317,125 

Uinta $793,116 

 

UTAH $7,818,176 

Rich $598,813 

Cache $1,567,010 

Box Elder $5,652,354 

 

NEVADA $15,581,964 

Elko $7,403,280 

Humboldt $5,518,523 

Washoe $2,660,161 

 

OREGON $3,154,210 

Lake $1,854,911 

Klamath $1,299,298 

 

Total $28,664,591 

───────────────────────── 

a Totals may not add due to rounding. 

The Ruby Pipeline Project would benefit the state and local economies by creating a short-term 

stimulus to the affected areas through payroll expenditures, local purchases of consumables and projectspecific materials, and sales tax. Operational impacts of these benefits would not be as significant. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-228 

However, operation of the project would result in long-term property tax benefits for counties affected by 

the project. 

The Lincoln County (Wyoming) Board of Commissioners commented that the large amount of 

compensatory mitigation proposed by Ruby may have a negative economic impact because it would 

involve purchasing private land and placing it in public ownership (see Appendix M). The Lincoln 

County Board of Commissioners is concerned that such a land acquisition would remove property from 

the local tax base and could involve land that is an important part of the local community and economy. 

However, Ruby is not proposing to purchase property for this purpose in Wyoming. Ruby is proposing to 

possibly fund the purchase of at least two adjacent parcels of property in Cache County, Utah. Ruby 

would provide funding so that the land could be placed under a conservation easement with a non-profit 

land trust for management and protection of the property in perpetuity. In Utah, land subject to a 

conservation easement is assessed property tax at fair market value, although the county assessor is 

required to include as part of the assessment any effects the conservation easement may have on the fair 

market value of the property. The federal government may allow a tax deduction if the easement is 

perpetual and donated exclusively for conservation purposes. The amount of the tax deduction would be 

determined by the value of the conservation easement. Such land acquisitions could have negative tax 

impacts on local communities and could remove economically valuable land from production. 

We received a comment regarding the potential economic impacts of grazing deferment. The 

commenter noted that grazing deferment agreements could stretch beyond 2 or 3 years to allow 

reclamation to meet the identified goals as discussed in section 4.8.1.1. The commenter indicated this 

could positively affect the economy if the additional deferment payments exceed fluctuating cattle prices, 

or could negatively affect the economy if the deferment payments are less than cattle prices. As discussed 

in section 4.9.5, property value is a damage-related issue that would be negotiated between Ruby and the 

landowner and/or permittee during the easement acquisition process. 

We received comments on the draft EIS inquiring about what goods and services would be 

purchased locally for the Vya Construction Camp. Ruby and the construction contractor are in the 

process of contracting with local business owners in Cedarville and Alturas, California, for shipments of 

food (the camp would prepare/provide workers with breakfast, dinner, and a bag lunch), fuel, and ice, 

along with their local deliveries. This temporary spending would stimulate the local economy in the 

counties of Modoc, California and Washoe, Nevada. In addition, the businesses that would most likely 

receive any additional construction phase discretionary spending would be located within the food service 

sectors, retail trade, arts, entertainment and recreation, and possibly accommodations. These outlets 

(numbering at least 53 establishments) would provide recreational and retail spending opportunities for 

the construction workers living at the Vya camp (see Appendix P for additional information). However, 

due to the demanding schedules for workers on this project (6 to 7 days per week, 10 to 12 hours per day), 

the distance of the camp from these towns, the short duration of the construction period, and the services 

provided at the camp, it is unlikely that significant numbers of employees living at the camp would utilize 

these services. 

At the Lakeview Temporary Housing Facility, the businesses that would most likely receive the 

bulk of construction phase discretionary spending would be located within the retail trade; arts and 

entertainment; and accommodations and food services sectors. These outlets (numbering at least 70 

establishments) would provide recreational and retail spending opportunity for the construction workers 

living at the housing facility (see Appendix P for additional information). It is likely that many workers 

would avail themselves of discretionary spending opportunities at these outlets, thereby creating a shortterm stimulus to the Town of Lakeview and Lake County through the purchase of goods and services. In 

addition, Ruby would likely purchase basic supplies for the Lakeview facility as they need replenishment. 

The Town of Lakeview commented on the draft EIS that it is in support of the project and is cooperating 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-229 

with Ruby to establish the Lakeview facility; and that the Lakeview facility would provide a muchneeded boost to their local economy. 

4.9.7 Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice requires that each federal agency address 

disproportionate human health and environmental impacts that a community may experience because of 

its social, economic, or political position. Environmental effects of the project on minority and lowincome communities or Native American programs must be disclosed. Environmental Justice issues can 

potentially arise when minority, low-income, or Native American communities are disproportionately 

impacted by an activity related to a proposed project. 

Overall, the Ruby project area has a lower average minority population rate (6 percent) than the 

national average (24 percent). The project area has a lower average poverty rate in Wyoming, Utah, and 

Nevada (10 percent) than the national average (13 percent). The project area in Oregon, however, has a 

higher poverty rate (16 percent) than the national average. Table 4.9.7-1 provides the general ethnic 

composition of the states and counties that would be affected by the project. Table 4.9.7-2 provides the 

general economic status of these states and counties. 

TABLE 4.9.7-1 

Racial/Ethnic Comparison for Counties Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project (in percent)a

State/County White Black 

Native American 

& Alaskan 

Native 

Asian 

Native 

Hawaiian & 

Pacific 

Islander 

Persons 

Reporting 

Two or More 

Races 

Persons of 

Hispanic or 

Latino 

Originb

WYOMING 

Lincoln 97.7 0.2 0.7 0.3 0.1 1.1 3.6 

Uinta 96.9 0.2 1.1 0.4 0.1 1.3 7.2 

 

UTAH 

Rich 99.2 - 0.1 0.3 - 0.3 2.4 

Cache 95.1 0.7 0.6 2.3 0.2 1.0 8.6 

Box Elder 96.5 0.3 1.0 1.1 0.1 1.1 7.2 

 

NEVADA 

Elko 91.2 1.1 5.3 0.9 0.2 1.3 21.7 

Humboldt 91.8 0.7 4.9 0.8 0.1 1.7 21.4 

Washoe 87.9 2.5 1.9 4.9 0.5 2.2 20.7 

 

OREGON 

Lake 94.0 0.2 2.6 0.8 0.2 2.3 7.2 

Klamath 91.3 0.8 4.0 1.0 0.2 2.7 8.9 

───────────────────────── 

a U.S. Census Bureau, 2007. 

b People who identify themselves as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race and are also included in other race 

categories. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-230 

TABLE 4.9.7-2 

Economic Statistics for Counties Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County Median Household 

Income (2007)a

 

Persons Below Poverty 

(2007)a (percent) 

Households Receiving Public 

Assistance (2000)b (percent) 

WYOMING 

Lincoln $54,731 7.9 1.9 

Uinta $57,858 9.8 4.2 

UTAH 

Rich $49,889 9.0 4.6 

Cache $46,883 12.9 4.3 

Box Elder $52,615 8.3 4.8 

NEVADA 

Elko $62,801 8.7 3.7 

Humboldt $56,875 11.4 3.9 

Washoe $54,524 10.2 4.2 

OREGON 

Lake $37,129 15.6 6.8 

Klamath $41,724 15.9 8.0 

──────────────────── 

a U.S. Census Bureau, 2007. 

b U.S. Census Bureau, 2000b. 

To assess the composition of the communities in proximity to the pipeline, census tract, county, 

and state median household income and poverty indicators and percentages of minority and Hispanic 

households were reviewed for areas within a 2-mile buffer zone of the pipeline corridor. In addition, the 

nearby Native American tribal lands were reviewed to determine the presence of potential communities 

that would have Environmental Justice issues. The minority ratio aggregation was defined to include 

individuals who were members of the following single race population groups: American Indian or 

Alaskan Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; and Black, not of Hispanic origin. The Hispanic proportion of 

the population was reported separately and is also considered a minority population. Guidance from the 

CEQ states that “minority populations should be identified where either: (a) the minority population of 

the affected area exceeds 50 percent or (b) the minority population percentage of the affected area is 

meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or other 

appropriate unit of geographic analysis” (CEQ, 1997). 

Ruby evaluated several routes before selecting its proposed route (see section 3.4). According to 

Ruby, major factors considered in selecting its proposed route included constructability of terrain, 

existing congestion and development, availability of supporting infrastructure, opportunities for 

collocation, current land uses, sensitive environmental resources, overall cost, and agency input. Our 

review of Ruby’s proposed route identified three census tracts of disproportionally high minority 

populations or persons living below the poverty threshold and two areas of comparatively high Native 

American populations. Data identified one area (census tract 9515) located in Elko County, Nevada, with 

a majority Hispanic population of 52 percent. This tract also contains a higher percentage of families 

living below the poverty threshold compared to the county total (15.6 percent versus 7 percent). Another 

area (census tract 9506), also within Elko County, has an Hispanic minority of 37.6 percent of the total 

population. Within Klamath County, Oregon, there is a census tract (9706) that has a population 

composed of 32.7 percent Hispanic residents. This population is meaningfully greater than the Klamath 

County Hispanic proportion of 8 percent. The composition analysis within the 2-mile buffer zone 

identified one area in Washoe County, Nevada (census tract 35.01) between MP 540 and 590, the Native 

American population proportion is the largest compared to general population ratios for both the county 

and the state (14.1 percent). In addition, a Native American population was identified from MP 440 to 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-231 

MP 540 in Humboldt County, Nevada, of approximately 7.1 percent. Portions of this area along the 

pipeline route have been identified by the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe as traditional hunting and gathering 

areas. 

We received a comment on the draft EIS questioning the use of census data for ethnic comparison 

in the project area. The commenter noted that these types of data omit any reference to the cultural 

significance of traditional tribal economy and other traditional activities that would be impacted. The 

commenter notes that Native American tribes should be considered as a distinct and separate population 

with interests and legal entitlements different from those of other ethnic groups. We acknowledge that 

tribal economies may rely more heavily on traditional resources and practices. We also note that Ruby 

has engaged in outreach to Native American tribes regarding cultural resource issues and other project 

concerns, such as impacts on wildlife and subsistence lifestyles. Ruby has retained a Native American 

Coordinator who is assisting in identifying and training local Native American tribal monitors along the 

pipeline route to ensure that potential cultural impacts of the project, including any potential impacts on 

subsistence practices, are properly recognized and respected. 

Communities within the vicinity of the Vya Construction Camp also were evaluated to determine 

whether the presence of the camp and related activities would disproportionately impact any minority or 

low income populations residing within the camp’s vicinity. The area evaluated corresponds to zip code 

areas within the Surprise Valley. Census data regarding racial composition and poverty status were 

evaluated for zip code areas that correspond to the main population centers (towns) within the Surprise 

Valley. Table 4.9.7-3 presents the Environmental Justice Population composition indicators and shows 

that with the exception of the Fort Bidwell area, minority communities are not concentrated in any 

significant numbers near the proposed camp (Surprise Valley) vicinity. 

TABLE 4.9.7-3 

Racial/Ethnic Comparison for Communities in Surprise Valley and the Vicinity of the Vya Construction Camp (in percent)a

State/County/ 

Communityb

Total 

Population 

White 

(%) Black (%) 

Native American 

& Alaskan 

Native (%) 

Asian

(%) 

Native 

Hawaiian & 

Pacific Islander 

(%) 

Persons 

Reporting 

Two or More 

Races (%) 

Persons 

of 

Hispanic 

or Latino 

Origin 

(%)c

CALIFORNIA 36,264,467 60.4 6.3 0.7 12.2 0.4 3.3 35.7 

Modoc 9,449 85.9 0.7 4.2 0.6 0.1 2.8 11.5 

Cedarville 849 90.3 0.1 3.8 0.7 0.0 2.0 8.5 

Lake City 122 93.4 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.8 

Fort Bidwell 214 50.0 0.0 48.1 0.0 0.0 1.4 7.9 

Eagleville 116 91.4 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 

NEVADA 2,488,917 74.6 7.3 1.2 5.9 0.5 3.1 24.3 

Washoe 398,348 78.7 2.2 1.8 4.8 0.4 2.6 20.2 

────────────────────

a U.S. Census Bureau, 2009. 

b Composition data for Modoc County and the communities within Modoc County were obtained from Census 2000; State 

of California, State of Nevada, and Washoe County data were obtained from 2007 American Community Survey. 

c People who identify themselves as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race and are also included in other race categories. 

The composition analysis within the Surprise Valley area has identified the Fort Bidwell Indian 

Community as one community that could potentially be impacted. The Native American population 

proportion is the largest compared to the general population ratios for the Fort Bidwell zip code area (48.1 

percent versus 4 percent for Modoc County). The Fort Bidwell Indian Community is a federal reservation 

of Paiute Indians (part of the Northern Paiute Community, which also includes the Summit Lake Paiute 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-232 

Tribe) in Modoc County located within the far northwestern corner of California, near the town of Fort 

Bidwell. The reservation is 3,335 acres in size and has a population of approximately 108 individuals 

(ITMA, 2009). 

The Fort Bidwell Indian Community (as well as the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe) have voiced 

concerns about the location of the construction camp and potential impacts on wildlife, traditional foods, 

and potential interference/encroachment on burial grounds and sacred areas used for traditional and 

religious purposes (i.e., hunting, gathering, and spiritual purposes). Specifically, the Fort Bidwell Indian 

Community has expressed concern that the project could potentially damage its ancestral homeland 

including sacred sites and burial sites, and also expressed disappointment in the government-togovernment consultation efforts. We note that Ruby has engaged in significant outreach to Native 

American tribes regarding cultural resource issues and other project concerns, such as impacts on wildlife 

and subsistence lifestyles. As with other project areas, Ruby has retained a Native American Coordinator 

who is assisting in identifying and training local Native American tribal monitors along the pipeline route 

to ensure that potential cultural impacts of the project, including any potential impacts on subsistence 

practices, are properly recognized and respected. 

The FERC and BLM have implemented a public review and comment process for the 

involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the 

development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. This 

process is described in section 1.3. During the public review and comment process, Native American 

populations expressed concern about the potential for the proposed pipeline to impact traditional Northern 

Paiute foods, medicines, and other current or historic subsistence resources. They also expressed 

concerns about known traditional sacred sites and possible burials in the project area. These concerns, 

including measures the FERC, BLM, and Ruby would take to address the concerns, are discussed in 

section 4.10. Based on the few areas of environmental justice target populations affected by the project, 

the factors considered in selecting the proposed route, the public review and comment process, and the 

measures being taken to address Native American concerns, we do not believe the Ruby Pipeline Project 

would concentrate an inequitable environmental burden on any minority or low-income communities or 

Native American programs. 

4.9.8 Non-Jurisdictional Electric Power Lines 

The Rocky Mountain Power and Harney Electric Cooperative electric transmission and 

distribution line routes occur in the same economic impact area as the Ruby Pipeline Project. Rocky 

Mountain Power is proposing to employ 12 workers to construct its facilities in Lincoln County, 

Wyoming over the course of two to three months. Harney Electric Cooperative is proposing to employ 6 

to 10 workers in Humboldt County, Nevada over a two week period. Construction and operation of the 

lines would result in socioeconomic and environmental justice impacts similar in nature to the Ruby 

Pipeline Project, except on a smaller scale. Socioeconomic impacts due to the proposed work generally 

would be temporary and minor. 

4.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The FERC, as the lead federal agency, and the BLM, FWS, USFS, COE, and Reclamation are 

responsible for complying with Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended, which requires federal agencies to 

take into account the effect of their undertakings (including the issuance of permits and certificates) on 

properties listed, or eligible for listing, on the NRHP and to afford the ACHP an opportunity to comment 

on the undertaking. In addition to these responsibilities, federal land managing agencies must consider 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-233 

Native American religious and cultural concerns for the portions of the project crossing federal lands in 

accordance with the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, the Native American Graves Protection 

and Repatriation Act, and Sacred Sites Executive Order 13007. Federal agencies also must consider the 

effects of the project on properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to Native Americans in 

accordance with Section 101(d) (6) of the NHPA and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. Ruby, 

as a non-federal party, and its contractor EPG, are assisting us to meet our obligations under Section 106 

and the implementing regulations in 36 CFR 800 by preparing the necessary information, analyses, and 

recommendations, as authorized by 36 CFR 800.2(a)(3). In a letter dated May 19, 2009, the ACHP 

advised the FERC that, in response to concerns by Indian tribes, the ACHP would participate in the 

Section 106 consultation process for the Ruby Pipeline Project.

Construction and operation of the proposed project could potentially affect historic properties 

(i.e., cultural resources listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP). These historic properties could include 

prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, structures, and objects, as well as locations 

with traditional value to Native Americans or other groups, known as Traditional Cultural Properties 

(TCPs) (Parker and King, 1990). Such historic properties generally must possess integrity of location, 

design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and must meet one or more of the 

criteria specified in 36 CFR 60.4. 

If an historic property would be adversely affected by the project we would resolve adverse 

effects pursuant to 36 CFR 800.6 of the Section 106 implementing regulations. This may involve 

mitigation, which may include, but would not be limited to, one or more of the following measures: 1) 

avoidance through realignment of the pipeline route, relocation of temporary extra workspaces, HDD, 

boring, or changes in the construction and/or operational design; 2) data recovery, which may include the 

systematic professional excavation of an archaeological site, or the preparation of photographs and/or 

measured drawings documenting standing structures or other historic features; and 3) the use of 

landscaping or other techniques that would minimize or eliminate effects to the historic setting or 

ambience of standing structures or other resources. 

4.10.1 Cultural Resource Surveys 

Ruby conducted cultural resource literature reviews and pedestrian surveys for the proposed 

675.2-mile pipeline route. Ruby also surveyed temporary extra workspaces, access roads, the Vya 

Construction Camp, the Lakeview Temporary Housing Facility, and aboveground facility sites. 

Generally, a 300-foot-wide corridor was surveyed for the pipeline and a 100-foot-wide corridor was 

surveyed for access roads; these corridor widths were selected to encompass the maximum variable width 

of the project area of potential effect. Ruby has reported that field surveys for the proposed route are 

almost complete. The pipeline route through the Barrel Springs area in Nevada is still being inventoried 

and the survey report is pending. The FERC has received draft reports for most surveys and special 

studies, with the exception of the Barrel Springs area and areas not yet surveyed because of denied access. 

Ethnographic studies of Native American tribes who claim traditional territory along the pipeline route 

are nearing completion and final reports are expected in early 2010. Preliminary summary reports 

prepared by ethnographers have been provided by Ruby for the Klamath Tribes; Fort Bidwell Tribe; and 

the Shoshone and Paiute of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation and the Fort McDermitt Indian 

Reservation. Ruby also filed an internal ethnographic study prepared by the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe. 

Although an ethnographic study of the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony is underway, a preliminary report is 

not available at this time. 

We received comments during the draft EIS comment period regarding the impact of the project 

on historic trails. A network of historic trails crosses the region where the pipeline would be located; 

these trails represent the period of rapid overland emigration to the West Coast. Ruby is coordinating 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-234 

with public agencies such as the National Trails Intermountain Region Office of the National Park 

Service and private organizations such as the National California-Oregon Trail Center to identify trail 

locations and consider the project’s impacts on historic trails. Any impacts on historic trails would be 

reported and evaluated during the Section 106 process. These trails are also addressed in sections 3.4.13 

and 4.8.3.2. 

We received several comments from Native Americans about the treatment of archaeological 

artifacts encountered during pedestrian field surveys. The commenters expressed the potential tribal 

connection to the artifacts and asked where the artifacts would be permanently curated. In response to 

tribal concerns and questions about the need for BLM to notify tribes before initiating collections, the 

tribes were told that policies for artifact collection were determined during pre-survey meetings between 

federal land managing agencies, SHPOs, and Ruby’s contractors that conducted the surveys. Collection 

policies were designed according to the relevant standards and guidelines and to factors such as land 

ownership and the characteristics of the artifact. Generally, artifacts discovered on public land were 

collected if they were assignable to a particular date or past culture, or if they had the potential to provide 

additional information through studies such as obsidian hydration and source studies. Any permanent 

curation facilities would meet the standards set forth in 36 CFR 79. 

4.10.1.1 Wyoming 

Ruby conducted a literature review and pedestrian survey of 48 miles of the pipeline route in 

Wyoming. Ruby also surveyed 120.9 miles of access roads, approximately 30.8 acres for the Roberson 

Creek Compressor Station, approximately 78.2 acres for the Glencoe Junction pipe yard, 29.9 acres for 

the Sage Junction pipe yard, 32.2 acres for the Evanston construction yard, and 63.21 acres of staging 

access. Site types identified include prehistoric lithic scatters; historic artifact scatters; historic mines, 

ditches, and ranches; historic settlements (including the South Cumberland townsite); railroads; bridges; 

sites containing both prehistoric and historic components; and historic trails. The Oregon National 

Historic Trail would be crossed by the project. While the trail as a whole is eligible for the NRHP, Ruby 

has recommended that, due to more recent construction or erosion, the segments that would be crossed by 

the project are largely destroyed and are therefore non-contributing to its eligibility. Ruby submitted a 

draft report documenting the literature review and pedestrian survey to the FERC, BLM, and Wyoming 

SHPO. The BLM commented on the draft report and requested revisions and additional field studies. 

Ruby conducted additional survey and site testing and provided a revised draft report in 

November 2009, which integrated the results of the previous survey. Additional areas surveyed included 

a pipe yard, a construction yard, staging areas, and access roads. A total of 100 sites were identified 

within the project area. Of the 100 sites, Ruby recommended 36 as eligible for the NRHP, and 64 as not 

eligible for the NRHP. Eighty-two of the sites were located within the project construction area, with 31 

recommended as eligible and 51 recommended as not eligible. Avoidance, crossing at non-contributing 

portions, or various mitigation measures such as data recovery, monitoring, and open trench inspection 

were recommended for the eligible sites. The report also included an assessment of the visual impacts on 

historic properties in the Cumberland Gap Area in Wyoming. Seven properties were assessed including 

the Ziller Ranch, Sun Dial Rock Formation, Cumberland Mine, California/Oregon Trail, Company 

Ranch, and Cumberland Historic District. The assessment concluded that no effects to the landscape 

settings were anticipated because of existing cultural modifications (roads, pipelines, power lines, modern 

ranch facilities) which compromise the integrity of the landscape setting; topographical screening; and/or 

implementation of mitigation measures and revegetation of the right-of-way. This revised draft report is 

currently under review by the BLM and FERC. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-235 

4.10.1.2 Utah 

Ruby conducted a literature review and pedestrian survey of about 195.5 miles of the pipeline 

route in Utah. Approximately 15.3 miles were not surveyed due to denied access. The survey identified a 

total of 75 archaeological sites within the survey corridor (33 eligible and 42 not eligible); 50 of these 

sites were located within the project construction area. Of the 50 sites, 23 were recommended as eligible 

for the NRHP and 27 were recommended as not eligible for the NRHP. Site types identified include 

prehistoric lithic and artifact scatters; a rockshelter; quarries; arborglyphs; historic artifact scatters; 

historic roads, canals, aqueducts, railroads, and telegraph/power lines; a homestead; and a historic 

pipeline. Of the 23 sites recommended as eligible, avoidance was recommended for 9 of the sites, 

mitigation was proposed for 12 of the sites (monitoring was also recommended for 3 of these sites), and 2 

of the sites would be bored beneath. Ruby submitted a draft report documenting the literature review and 

pedestrian survey to the FERC, BLM, USFS, Utah SHPO, Utah Office of the Governor, Utah Department 

of Transportation, and SITLA in March 2009. UTPL and Utah Department of Transportation commented 

and requested additional information and revisions to the draft report. The FERC also provided 

comments on the draft report. A revised draft survey report was distributed in July 2009 and, following 

additional BLM comments, a finalized version distributed in November 2009. 

In September 2009 Ruby submitted three draft addenda to the main survey report distributed in 

July 2009: 1) an assessment of the visual impacts on historic properties for Utah; 2) the geoarchaeological 

study of the project area in Utah; and 3) an addendum report for additional pedestrian surveys in Utah 

completed between October 2008 and August 2009, including approximately 60 miles of pipeline corridor 

(comprised of realignments and the previously denied access areas), 187.9 miles of access roads, and 

646.7 acres of contractor yards, pipeyards, compressor stations, and staging areas. The visual assessment 

considered the landscape setting and views for the historic roads, canals, aqueducts, railroads, telegraph 

lines, homesteads, and the historic pipeline. The assessment concluded that minimal or no effects were 

anticipated due to modified landscape settings and/or implementation of mitigation measures, the 

geoarchaeological study concluded that subsurface excavation in moderate and high probability areas 

should be monitored. The addendum survey report identified an additional 48 sites including prehistoric 

lithic scatters; an arborglyph site; historic artifact scatters; historic roads, canals, aqueducts, homesteads, 

ranches, camps, and townsites; a railroad grade; a cement factory; and an historic pipeline. Twenty-three 

of the sites have been determined or were recommended as eligible for the NRHP. Twenty-five of the 

sites were determined or recommended as not eligible for the NRHP. Of the 23 eligible sites, avoidance 

was recommended for 2 sites; restrictions on use or maintenance of access roads was recommended for 5 

sites; avoidance or mitigation was recommended for 8 sites; mitigation recommended for 4 sites; and 4 

sites would be bored beneath. The report addenda are currently under review. 

4.10.1.3 Nevada 

Ruby conducted a literature review and pedestrian survey of about 357.4 miles of the pipeline 

route in Nevada. The survey identified a total of 549 archaeological sites within the survey corridor; 443 

of these sites were located within the project construction area. An additional 39 sites were not evaluated 

for NRHP eligibility and would require further work. Of the 443 sites within the construction area, 218 

sites were recommended as potentially eligible for the NRHP. Ruby proposed that there would be an 

adverse effect to these sites and recommended additional investigation/mitigation for these sites. Site 

types identified include lithic scatters (which constituted the majority of site types found), some 

containing groundstone; quarries; rockshelters; petroglyphs; historic trash scatters; historic roads, ditches, 

fencelines, polelines, and cairns; corrals; and an adit. Many of the prehistoric site types hold cultural 

significance for the Native American tribes that traditionally occupied the project area. The Summit Lake 

Paiute Tribe, Susanville Indian Rancheria, Fort Bidwell Tribe, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, Reno-Sparks 

Indian Colony, and other tribes have expressed concern regarding impacts on these resources and 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-236 

traditional places (see the discussion in section 4.10.3). Ruby submitted the draft report documenting the 

literature review and pedestrian survey to the FERC, BLM, and other project stakeholders. The FERC 

and BLM have commented on the draft report and requested additional information and revisions 

necessary for the BLM to make determinations of eligibility for BLM jurisdiction properties. The RenoSparks Indian Colony and the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe also submitted comments on the report. Ruby 

submitted a revised draft report in July 2009, and as a result of additional comments by the BLM, another 

revised draft in November 2009. 

The most recent draft report reflects some project modifications and additional survey (such as 

realignments and reroutes) since the original filing. The report identifies a total of 570 (revised from the 

above 549 sites) sites within the survey corridor, with 253 recommended as eligible for the NRHP. Of 

these 253 sites, 229 are within the construction area for the project. Ruby has recommended that these 

sites would require treatment to mitigate potential adverse effects from construction. The Class I 

literature review contained in the survey report also identified two TCPs located along the pipeline 

centerline within the Winnemucca District of the BLM; the Paradise Valley TCP and Santa Rosa 

Mountains TCP. Ruby would identify the project impacts on these TCPs and propose mitigation 

measures. The revised draft report is currently under review by the agencies and other appropriate 

parties. SHPO review would commence following completion of agency review, and receipt of a letter of 

combined federal agency determinations from the FERC. 

Ruby completed a supplemental survey of the Vya Construction Camp and also provided an 

Applegate-Lassen Trail visual impact assessment for the Vya camp. Ruby provided the visual assessment 

and survey report for the Vya camp on October 14, 2009. As a result of the Vya camp survey, ten 

archaeological sites, including historic refuse scatters, prehistoric lithic scatters, and a previously 

unrecorded segment of the Applegate-Lassen Trail were identified. The Applegate-Lassen Trail is one of 

the routes of the California Historic National Trail, which is listed on the NRHP; the segment identified 

was recommended as a contributing portion. Numerous mitigation measures were recommended for the 

trail including protective fencing, worker education, additional studies, and monitoring. None of the 

remaining nine sites were recommended as eligible for the NRHP. The visual assessment report 

concluded that minimal long-term residual effects are anticipated on the trail after the facilities are 

removed and restoration has been implemented. Ruby has indicated that it would return the site “as close 

as practical to its original condition, including pre-existing contours and vegetation, unless otherwise 

directed by the landowner.” Therefore, there remains the potential for visual impacts on the ApplegateLassen Trail. The Vya camp visual assessment and survey reports are currently under review. 

Ruby also would prepare a plan for educating workers regarding the significance of protecting the 

trail. Each camp occupant would be required to review the plan and sign a document that details the use 

restrictions, including restrictions on using the historic trails and tribal lands, before they are assigned a 

resident location. More information about the Vya camp is provided in sections 4.8.3.2 and 4.9. 

Ms. Wendi Lutz wrote several letters to the FERC that expressed her concerns about impacts 

resulting from construction and land use at the Vya Construction Camp, including potential impacts on 

the Applegate-Lassen Historic Trail. Ms. Lutz requested participation as a consulting party in the Section 

106 process and this was granted by FERC. 

In November 2009, Ruby submitted 4 draft addenda to the main survey report: 1) an addendum 

for survey of 97 access roads (totaling 149.33 miles); 2) a second addendum for survey of auxiliary 

facilities, including 2 compressor stations (Desert Valley and Wieland Flat), 20 main line valves, the Opal 

Valley Meter Station, 6 pipe storage yards, 56 staging areas, and 44 test manifolds; 3) a third addendum 

for survey of 6 reroutes (totaling 83.36 miles); and 4) the geoarchaeological study of the pipeline route in 

Nevada. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-237 

Ruby’s survey of access roads resulted in the identification of 240 archaeological sites; 190 

prehistoric sites (mostly lithic scatters), 21 historic sites (mostly refuse scatters), and 29 sites with both 

prehistoric and historic components. Of these, 78 were recommended as potentially eligible for the 

NRHP and 162 were recommended as not eligible for the NRHP. The report recommended avoidance or 

mitigation for the potentially eligible sites, and also provided a general recommendation for monitoring of 

ground-disturbing activities during construction. 

The survey of auxiliary facilities identified 38 sites within the construction areas; 31 prehistoric 

sites (mostly lithic scatters), 1 historic site (a road and refuse scatter), and 6 sites with both prehistoric and 

historic components. Of these, 21 were recommended as potentially eligible for the NRHP and 10 were 

recommended as not eligible for the NRHP. The report recommended mitigation for the potentially 

eligible sites. 

The survey of the reroutes identified 134 sites within the survey corridors; 95 prehistoric (mostly 

lithic scatters), 18 historic (mostly refuse scatters), and 21 sites with both prehistoric and historic 

components. Of these, 107 were identified within the project construction area, 49 of which were 

recommended as potentially eligible for the NRHP. The report recommended mitigation for the 

potentially eligible sites. The report also documented that 115 sites present on the original route were 

now avoided due to the reroutes. 

The geoarchaeological study concluded that subsurface excavation in moderate and high 

probability areas should be monitored. The report is being reviewed by the FERC and BLM. 

Ruby completed an assessment of the visual impacts on historic properties for Nevada; the report 

of this study has not yet been submitted. 

Sections of the pipeline in the Barrel Springs area were re-inventoried in September of 2009 but a 

report has not yet been submitted. The BLM indicates that preliminary results of the reinventory 

identified approximately 694 rock stacks. The BLM also states that the preliminary findings, in addition 

to the data from the initial inventory, indicate that the Rock Creek Archaeological District boundaries 

should be expanded to the east, well beyond the proposed route within the Barrel Springs area. 

On August 27, 2009, the BLM Surprise Field Office received a letter from the Fort Bidwell 

Indian Community Council identifying a potential TCP that includes portions of the proposed Ruby 

pipeline route. The potential TCP is located in Washoe County, Nevada on lands managed by the BLM. 

Ruby sponsored an ethnographic study of the Barrel Springs area with the Fort Bidwell Tribe, and 

provided a preliminary summary of the findings of this study, authored by Dr. Douglas Deur. The Fort 

Bidwell Reservation is located in northern California; the people of the community identify their 

aboriginal land as the northwestern corner of Nevada. Ruby’s ethnographer conducted 13 formal 

interviews of members of the Fort Bidwell Paiute community, and 4 informal interviews in order to solicit 

information about traditional practices and places of importance. The ethnographic study of the Fort 

Bidwell Indian Community identified the Barrel Springs area in northwestern Nevada as a potential TCP, 

consisting of lands the Fort Bidwell Paiute community traditionally uses for hunting and gathering. The 

tribe has identified the following as primary species of concern within the potential TCP: groundhog 

(marmot), deer, pronghorn (antelope), jackrabbit, greater sage-grouse, trout, yampah, wild plum, 

chokecherry, and willow. 

Archaeological features found within the potential TCP have been identified by tribal members as 

ritual areas associated with hunting and resource procurement. These archaeological sites and features 

appear to be visited by some Fort Bidwell tribal members for the purposes of ritual, historical 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-238 

commemoration, and the teaching of tribal youth regarding traditional cultural sites and practices. As 

such, the Fort Bidwell tribe has identified the following concerns/effects relating to the construction of the 

Ruby pipeline within the potential TCP: 

• the potential of the pipeline to impact all species of concern within the pipeline corridor, 

especially large game and marmot; 

• the potential of construction of the pipeline to affect migration patterns of big game, 

principally deer, a chief form of sustenance to the tribal community; 

• the effect of construction and blasting on the marmot (The Fort Bidwell Tribal Band 

name is Gidutikad, which translates to groundhog eater), a particularly symbolic species 

for the tribe; 

• the extirpation of game species and yampah patches, which has the potential to adversely 

impact not only the food security of the Fort Bidwell Paiute community, but also social 

cohesiveness and cultural continuity within this community; 

• the possibility of permanent alteration of groundwater and adverse effect of construction 

on two springs that are places of importance but located outside of the pipeline corridor; 

• expected destruction of multiple stacked rock features and the pipeline’s proximity to a 

number of places reported to be used for cultural purposes by tribal members; 

• adverse effect to the sensory experiences of individuals who might visit the area for 

ceremonial or other purposes; and 

• certain effects, mainly those affecting the spiritual values of place, cannot be mitigated. 

In a letter dated November 5, 2009 addressed to the FERC, Aaron Townsend, Tribal Chairman of 

the Fort Bidwell Indian Community, requested consultation with federal decision-making authorities in 

order to protect the Barrel Springs area. 

The BLM states that both the preliminary summary report and discussions between the Fort 

Bidwell Tribe and the BLM SFO provide supportive information that the Barrel Springs area represents a 

TCP to the tribe. The BLM has indicated that it is prepared to determine the Barrel Springs TCP as 

eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A, C, and D. The boundaries of the Barrel Springs TCP 

closely match what the BLM’s Surprise Field Office considers to be the new boundaries of the Rock 

Creek Archaeological District. In its ongoing permitting process, the BLM states that it would 

recommend that Ruby continue to work with the BLM and the Fort Bidwell Tribe to develop additional 

alternatives that minimize impacts on the Barrel Springs TCP. 

Ruby provided an interim report of ethnographic study for the Shoshone and Paiute of the Duck 

Valley Indian Reservation and the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation prepared by Dr. Deward E. 

Walker, Jr. Dr. Walker interviewed tribal members, including tribal elders, in their homes and during 

visits to sites. The report indicates that both tribes have concerns regarding culturally significant sites and 

species along the length of the pipeline corridor. The Shoshone and Paiute believe that pipeline 

construction and maintenance threatens to open their homelands and resources to additional injury that 

would affect cultural properties that until now have been isolated from extensive impacts from non-Indian 

activities. Rock art, massacre, and battle site locations are cited as especially significant cultural 

resources. The tribes’ ethnographer reports that many tribal respondents are reluctant to provide specific 

site locations of culturally sensitive sites, because the location of the pipeline corridor is not perceived as 

fixed and the release of specific locational information and concomitant spiritual information is not 

protected through binding memoranda of agreement between the FERC, BLM, SHPO and Ruby. 

The tribes report general concerns regarding the degradation of biotic species through 

construction and maintenance of the pipeline, which would in turn affect their ability to follow traditional 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-239 

practices associated with hunting, gathering, and religious ceremony. The tribes are further concerned 

that construction of the pipeline would disturb human remains and disrupt the spiritual integrity of place, 

which can in turn affect the well-being of the community and lead to social problems such as 

unemployment, substance abuse, and suicide. The ethnographic study summarizes that the three factors 

of cultural species variability, place integrity, and tribal community well-being must be considered in 

order to mitigate the adverse effects of pipeline construction. Other than the recorded TCPs of Santa 

Rosa Mountains and Paradise Valley noted above, two additional locations – Fort Ruby and Gravelly 

Ford – were identified as potential TCPs. It is not known if these locations are within the project 

construction area, and the criteria for NRHP eligibility as TCPs have not been applied to them. Both 

locations are associated with Indian massacres, but this alone would not make a site eligible as a TCP. 

 The Summit Lake Paiute Tribe of Nevada indicated that it preferred to conduct its own internal 

ethnographic study. The Summit Lake Paiute Tribe reservation is located just south of the pipeline route 

in northwestern Nevada; however tribal members live across the region. As part of a cost recovery 

program, Ruby provided funding that enabled the tribe’s Acting Environmental Coordinator, Mr. Ron 

Johnny, to conduct six regional information sessions/meetings in the spring of 2009 in Idaho, California, 

Nevada, and Oregon. The goal of Mr. Johnny’s study was to identify cultural resources important to the 

tribe, including the locations of natural resources with cultural significance, spiritual places, and burial 

sites. While the resulting report itemized the use of the funds for the meetings, purchases, and other 

activities unrelated to an ethnographic study, it contained no ethnographic analysis nor information on 

TCPs, and concluded “although the cultural importance of the area of the proposed pipeline was 

confirmed...permission to reveal exact locations for such resources was not given to the Council during 

any of the regional project site meetings unless the resources are actually threatened with destruction by 

Ruby.” 

4.10.1.4 Oregon 

Ruby conducted a literature review and pedestrian survey of about 86.9 miles of the pipeline 

route, 60.8 miles of centerline reroutes, and 77.5 miles of access roads in Oregon. The survey identified a 

total of 141 archaeological sites within the survey corridors, with 108 of these sites recommended as 

eligible for the NRHP. Thirty-three of the NRHP-recommended eligible sites are located within the 

project construction corridor; avoidance is recommended for 12 of these sites. Ruby proposed that there 

would be an adverse effect to the remaining 21 sites and mitigation was recommended. Sites that cannot 

be avoided would be mitigated in coordination with the appropriate land managing agencies, the Klamath 

Tribes, and the Oregon SHPO. 

Site types identified include lithic scatters (which constituted the majority of site types found), 

many with tools and/or rock features; rock features/stacks; a peeled tree site; aspen carvings; a historic 

rock fence; historic roads; and a limited number of historic trash scatters, some including lithic scatters. 

Rock features/stacks are an especially significant site type to the Klamath Tribes (see section 4.10.3.1). 

The Klamath Tribes and the BLM expressed significant concerns over the Antelope Creek Area, which is 

being researched for nomination to the NRHP as an archaeological district based on its rich 

archaeological and religious landscape values. Reclamation also commented that portions of the Klamath 

Project, a NRHP-eligible property, would be crossed by the original proposed pipeline route. The original 

pipeline route would cross the Main Drain, as well as the West Canal, and the Lost River Improved 

Channel of the Klamath Project. We recommended in the draft EIS that Ruby adopt the Southern Langell 

Valley Route Alternative to avoid both the concentration of culturally sensitive sites in the proposed 

ACAD and the irrigation features of the Klamath Project. Ruby has subsequently adopted this route 

alternative (section 3.4.15). The BLM indicates that review of the preliminary archaeological and 

ethnographic reports (discussed below) and BLM consultation with the Klamath Tribes suggests that 

there are considerably more sensitive sites, including rock stacks, along the adopted Southern Langell 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-240 

Valley Route Alternative than along the originally proposed route. In addition, the BLM believes that the 

boundaries of the ACAD should be expanded to the south. Thus, the current route would now also cross 

the proposed district. 

Ruby submitted a draft report documenting the literature review and pedestrian survey to the 

FERC, BLM, Reclamation, USFS, and Oregon SHPO in March 2009. The BLM, Reclamation, and 

FERC commented on the draft report and requested additional information and revisions. In a letter dated 

March 3, 2009, the Oregon SHPO requested additional information in order to complete its review. Ruby 

submitted a revised draft report in July 2009. The BLM, Reclamation, and the USFS have reviewed the 

July 2009 report; these agencies requested corrections to the report and site forms and have not yet made 

determinations of eligibility for properties under their respective jurisdictions. 

In a subsequent September 3, 2009 letter, the Oregon SHPO commented on Ruby’s need to 

address TCPs; requested information on alternative routes; noted the ACHP’s participation; requested 

information on the potential impact on archaeological sites caused by blasting; and expressed concern 

about project scheduling. Ruby has not yet addressed the SHPO’s comments. 

In September 2009 Ruby submitted four draft addenda to the main survey report distributed in 

July 2009: 1) an addendum report of survey for 320 additional acres of pipe yards, construction yards and 

the Malin lateral; 2) a second addendum report of survey for 1,718 additional acres of 35.5 miles of 

centerline (including the Goose Lake, Langell Valley, and Big Valley reroutes) and 35.3 miles of access 

roads; 3) a third addendum report of survey for 35 acres for the proposed Lakeview housing facility; and 

4) the geoarchaeological study of the pipeline route in Oregon. The first addendum report identified an 

additional 10 sites including prehistoric lithic scatters, an historic trash scatter, historic railroad features, a 

lumberyard, and a canal. Six of the sites were recommended as eligible for the NRHP, three were 

recommended as ineligible, and one required further evaluation. Eight of these sites were located within 

the project construction area including five eligible sites, two ineligible sites, and the unevaluated site. 

Ruby proposed that there would be an adverse effect to the five eligible sites, and data recovery was 

recommended. Further testing was recommended for the unevaluated site. The second addendum report 

identified an additional 57 sites, the majority of which consisted of prehistoric lithic scatters (some with 

rock stacks, tools, groundstone, and/or features) and rock stacks; historic trash scatters; a canal; a corral; 

and a telegraph line. Thirty-six of the sites were recommended as eligible for the NRHP, 6 were 

recommended as ineligible, and 15 required further evaluation. Forty-six of these sites were located 

within the project construction area including 30 eligible sites, 6 ineligible sites, and 10 unevaluated sites. 

Ruby indicated that impacts on 32 of the eligible sites could be avoided, 4 eligible sites would be 

adversely affected and require mitigation, and further testing was recommended for the 10 unevaluated 

sites. As a result of survey of the Lakeview housing facility, one historic trash scatter was identified and 

recommended as not eligible for the NRHP. However, a portion of the facility remains to be surveyed. 

The geoarchaeological study concluded that subsurface excavation in moderate and high probability areas 

should be monitored. The report addenda are under review. 

An assessment of the visual impacts on historic properties for Oregon has not been filed with 

FERC. Ruby also conducted additional fieldwork in July 2009 to evaluate the possible use of groundpenetrating radar or other geophysical methods to identify culturally sensitive sites around Goose Lake. 

The findings of any resulting studies would be reported in addenda to the main report. 

We received additional comments from the SHPO in November 2009. The SHPO noted receipt 

of the addendum reports and the need for additional studies in order to determine eligibility; expressed 

concern over impacts on TCPs and other outstanding issues; and indicated that this additional information 

was required in order for it to concur on effects to cultural resources, and that the consultation process 

was ongoing. Ruby has not yet addressed the SHPO’s comments. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-241 

Ruby initiated an ethnographic study of the Antelope Valley area with the Klamath Tribes, and 

provided a preliminary summary report prepared by Dr. Douglas Deur. Dr. Deur, who has served as the 

tribe’s ethnographer since 1998, interviewed 33 individuals for this study. The summary report indicates 

that the Antelope Valley presents some issues for ascription as a TCP. As its integrity of association with 

current practice is somewhat unclear, it may not be eligible for listing in the NRHP as a TCP. However, 

the report recommends further detailed study of the area for potential NRHP listing as either a single 

archaeological district or several archaeological districts that would encompass the rock stacks; the BLM 

has indicated that a multiple property NRHP listing may alternatively be appropriate. Additional survey 

work would be needed to define the boundaries of the district(s) before a formal nomination could occur. 

In its ongoing permitting process, the BLM states that it would recommend the use of tribal monitors for 

future archaeological investigations of this area. 

The preliminary results of the ethnographic study report the Klamath Tribes’ concerns with 

adverse impacts of the pipeline to the area around Antelope Valley, as well as Goose Lake. Both areas 

possess archaeological sites and features, including ceremonial rock stacks considered sacred by many 

tribal members, and also have a high likelihood of burials. Construction of the pipeline would likely 

destroy one or more rock stacks; if avoidance is not possible, mitigation would need to be developed and 

evaluated in consultation with the Tribes and appropriate land managing agencies. The section of 

pipeline passing through Oregon is also believed to pass through traditional plant gathering, hunting and 

fishing areas of the Klamath Tribes. The Klamath people regard the mule deer, which migrate yearly 

between California and Oregon (the “Interstate Herd”), as a significant traditional food source. The 

Klamath Tribes believe that certain effects, mainly those affecting the spiritual values of place, cannot be 

mitigated. 

 In a letter dated November 17, 2009, the Field Manager of the BLM Klamath Falls Resource 

Area expressed his support for the preliminary report submitted by Dr. Deur. The BLM indicated that it 

appreciated the additional information about the cultural significance of the rock sites which provided a 

context and better understanding of their importance to the Klamath Tribes. The BLM further described 

the ethnographic study as an excellent example of carrying out Section 106 while addressing tribal 

concerns. 

4.10.2 Unanticipated Discovery Plans 

Ruby has prepared draft Unanticipated Discovery Plans for each state to provide guidelines in the 

event that cultural resources, including human remains, are discovered during the course of construction. 

The plans call for monitoring all construction and include protocols for discovery of human remains. 

Each plan contains procedures for stopping work, protecting the discovery, notifying the proper 

authorities, and consulting with the appropriate parties. 

The draft Unanticipated Discovery Plans were provided to the FERC, SHPOs, BLM, and other 

agencies. We requested revisions to the draft plans for each state. The Elko District Office of the BLM 

submitted comments to Ruby on the draft Unanticipated Discovery Plan for Nevada. The Winnemucca 

District Office of the BLM has commented on two draft versions of the Unanticipated Discovery Plans 

for Nevada. To date, the only SHPO office that has concurred with the Unanticipated Discovery Plan is 

Oregon. The revised Unanticipated Discovery Plans are currently under review, and would be updated by 

Ruby as needed. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-242 

4.10.3 Native American Consultation and Ruby Tribal Coordination 

Native American consultations and contacts by the FERC, BLM, and Ruby are summarized in 

table 4.10.3-1 and further discussed in this section. 

On March 28, 2008, the FERC mailed a Notice of Pre-Filing Environmental Review for the Ruby 

Pipeline Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings

to numerous stakeholders, including 40 federally recognized Native American tribes. This notice initiated 

government-to-government consultation, invited the Native American tribes to formally cooperate with 

FERC in preparation of this EIS, and requested comments on the proposed project. 

In April 2008, the FERC and BLM sponsored six interagency meetings (see table 4.10.3-1). We 

contacted 31 federally recognized Native American tribes by email or fax prior to these meetings to 

inform them of the meeting times and locations and solicit their attendance. We also followed-up the emails and faxes with telephone calls. Four tribes attended one or more of the meetings. 

On September 26, 2008, we mailed a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement and Land Resource Management Plan Amendment for the Proposed Ruby Pipeline Project, 

Request for Comments on Environmental Issues and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings to project 

stakeholders, including the 40 federally recognized Native American tribes who received the previous 

notice. To date, we have received written comments from 14 tribes. In addition to those tribes, the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs and California Native American Heritage Commission provided written 

comments on the project. Many of the comments from tribes included concerns about government-togovernment consultation, impacts on natural and cultural resources, as well as treatment of human 

remains. We also received written comments supporting the project from tribes outside the pipeline 

stakeholder territory. The Southern Ute Indian Tribe and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, both energy 

providers in Colorado, requested approval of the draft EIS in order to open up markets on the West Coast. 

The Council of Energy Resource Tribes, a consortium of 54 U.S. Indian Tribes and four Canadian First 

Nation Tribes that promotes partnerships between tribes and energy companies, provided written 

comments urging acceptance of the draft EIS. 

On October 27 and 28, 2008, FERC staff met with members of the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, 

Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, and the Fort Bidwell Paiute Tribe to discuss the 

project. Topics of discussion included the FERC’s policies regarding government-to-government 

consultation, impacts on cultural resources, and concerns about the natural resources traditionally used by 

the tribes that may be affected by pipeline construction. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-243 

TABLE 4.10.3-1 

Native American Consultations for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Federally Recognized Native 

American Tribe 

FERC 

Notice 

(March and 

September 

2008) 

FERC 

Meeting 

(April 

2008) 

Ruby 

Letter 

(May 2008 

and 

January 

2009) 

Ruby 

Meeting 

(July, 

September, 

November 

2008) 

FERC 

Meeting 

(October 

2008) 

BLM Letter 

(2009) 

BLM 

Meeting 

(2009) 

Jan 

Apr 

Jul 

Sep 

Nov 

May 

Oct 

Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming 9 * 9 9 9Burns Paiute Tribe of the Burns Paiute Indian Colony of Oregon 9 * 9 9 9 9 9 9 *

Cedarville Rancheria, California 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 

Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, Nevada and Utah 9 * 9 9 9 Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation, Oregon 9Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon 9 * 9 9 9

Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians of Oregon 9 * 9 9 9 

Death Valley Timba-Sha Shoshone Band of California 9 * 9 9 9 

Duckwater Shoshone Tribe of the Duckwater Reservation, Nevada 9 * 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

Ely Shoshone Tribe of Nevada 9 * 9 9 9 9 9 9 *Fort Bidwell Indian Community of the Fort Bidwell Reservation of California 9 * 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 

Fort McDermitt Paiute-Shoshone Tribe, Fort McDermitt Reservation, Nevada and Oregon 

9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 * 9 

Hoopa Valley Tribe, California 9Karuk Tribe of California 9

Klamath Tribes, Oregon 9 * 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 * 9 

Lovelock Paiute Tribe of the Lovelock Indian Colony, Nevada 9 * 9 9 9 9 9 9 *

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-244 

TABLE 4.10.3-1 

Native American Consultations for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Federally Recognized Native 

American Tribe 

FERC 

Notice 

(March and 

September 

2008) 

FERC 

Meeting 

(April 

2008) 

Ruby 

Letter 

(May 2008 

and 

January 

2009) 

Ruby 

Meeting 

(July, 

September, 

November 

2008) 

FERC 

Meeting 

(October 

2008) 

BLM Letter 

(2009) 

BLM 

Meeting 

(2009) 

Jan 

Apr 

Jul 

Sep 

Nov 

May 

Oct 

Moapa Band of Paiute Indians of the Moapa River Indian Reservation, Nevada 

9 

Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma 9 * 9 9 9

Northwestern Band of Shoshoni Nation of Utah (Washakie) 9 * 9 9 9

Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah 9 * 9 9 9 

Paiute-Shoshone Tribe of the Fallon Reservation and Colony, Nevada 9 * 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

Pit River Tribe, California 9 * 9 9 9 

Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of the Pyramid Lake Reservation, Nevada 9 * 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 

Quartz Valley Indian Community of the Quartz Valley Reservation of California 

9

Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Nevada 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming 9 * 9 9 9

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation of Idaho 9 * 9 9 9

Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, Nevada 9 * 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 

Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians of Utah 9 * 9 9 9

Southern Ute Indian Tribe, Colorado 

Summit Lake Paiute Tribe of Nevada 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 

Susanville Indian Rancheria, California 9 * 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-245 

TABLE 4.10.3-1 

Native American Consultations for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Federally Recognized Native 

American Tribe 

FERC 

Notice 

(March and 

September 

2008) 

FERC 

Meeting 

(April 

2008) 

Ruby 

Letter 

(May 2008 

and 

January 

2009) 

Ruby 

Meeting 

(July, 

September, 

November 

2008) 

FERC 

Meeting 

(October 

2008) 

BLM Letter 

(2009) 

BLM 

Meeting 

(2009) 

Jan 

Apr 

Jul 

Sep 

Nov 

May 

Oct 

Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada 9 * 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Colorado 

Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, Utah 9 * 9 9 9 

Walker River Paiute Tribe of the Walker River Reservation, Nevada 9 

Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California 9 * 9 9 9 

Winnemucca Indian Colony of Nevada 9 * 9 9 9 9

Yerington Paiute Tribe of the Yerington Colony and Campbell Ranch, Nevada 

9 † 9 9 9 9 9 9 *

Yomba-Shoshone Tribe of the Yomba Reservation, Nevada 9 * 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 *Yurok Tribe of the Yurok Reservation, California 9 

──────────────────────────────9 Letter, notice, report recipient, meeting attendee, or letter author. 

* Received invitation to meeting, but did not attend. † First letter sent in November 2008. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-246 

We sent the draft EIS to 209 representatives and/or individual members of the tribes listed in 

table 4.10.3-1, as well as other Native American organizations (as listed in Appendix A of the draft EIS). 

The NOA contained in the draft EIS also announced public scoping meetings for the draft EIS, and 

invited recipients of the draft EIS to attend the meetings to express their concerns. A number of tribal 

members attended the scoping meetings, as discussed below. In addition, the FERC staff has continued 

our dialogue with tribes by responding to inquiries via further telephone and email 

contacts/communications. Additionally, formal responses issued by the Acting Director of the FERC’s 

Office of External Affairs were sent to: the Chairman of the Fort Bidwell Northern Paiute Tribe (letter 

dated January 6, 2009), addressing issues raised in an October 2, 2008 letter; the Chairman of the RenoSparks Indian Colony (letter dated September 17, 2008), addressing issues raised in an August 21, 2008 

letter; and the Chairman of the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe (letters dated September 25 and November 20, 

2008), addressing issues raised in August 16 and October 28, 2008 letters, respectively. These responses 

clarified the FERC’s environmental review processes and articulated the FERC’s tribal consultation 

policies. We also provided a project status summary (letter dated February 12, 2009), including status of 

consultation with tribes, to the ACHP in response to a January 13, 2009 ACHP inquiry. A FERC staff 

member also gave a presentation at the February 2009 Center for Legal Education Conference on Historic 

Preservation in Denver (further discussed below) describing the FERC process and procedures for 

conducting Section 106, and also attended an ad-hoc session to listen to tribal concerns. 

We have conducted ongoing discussions (during the pre-filing process and following the 

submittal of Ruby’s FERC application) with tribal representatives regarding how each agency conducts 

government-to-government consultations. Given the concerns expressed by some tribes, and in order to 

ensure that its tribal consultation requirements are being met, the BLM took steps to conduct tribal 

consultation beyond the joint FERC/BLM efforts. In accordance with NEPA, Section 106 of the NHPA, 

Executive Order 13175, and other laws, regulations, secretarial orders, etc., the BLM is conducting 

consultation on this project with the identified potentially affected tribes. The BLM conducts 

consultation activities in accordance with the BLM Handbook 8120-1, Guidelines for Conducting Tribal 

Consultation, which provides the following direction regarding tribal consultation: “(1) that federally 

recognized tribal governments and Native American individuals, whose traditional uses of public land 

might be affected by a proposed BLM action, would have sufficient opportunity to contribute to the 

decision, and (2) that the decision maker would give tribal concerns proper consideration” (BLM, 2004b). 

Generally, BLM consultation is conducted at the field office and district office levels as a responsibility 

of the appropriate BLM Manager; BLM managers may also rely on BLM archaeologists, tribal 

coordinators and other staff to obtain information from tribal cultural resources office staff, historic 

preservation officers and council officials. Consultation on the project has taken the form of field visits, 

BLM presentations to tribal council meetings, phone calls, emails and routinely scheduled meetings to 

solicit tribal input on BLM policy 

On January 26, 2009, the BLM sent letters to 31 Native American tribes and four bands of the TeMoak Tribe (the Elko Band Council, the South Fork Band Council, the Battle Mountain Band Council, 

and the Wells Band Council). This letter provided project information, defined the roles of the various 

involved agencies, clarified the BLM’s role and objectives in government-to-government consultation, 

and invited the tribes to participate in consultation to elicit concerns regarding the project. The BLM has 

followed up with telephone calls to the tribes, and has arranged and attended meetings with those tribes 

that have requested them. Some of these meetings have been held in conjunction with cultural resource 

presentations made by Ruby and its cultural resources consultant, EPG. General concerns voiced in these 

meetings focused on the articulation of FERC and BLM’s environmental and cultural resources review 

practices. On April 1, 2009, the BLM Klamath Falls Resource Area coordinated a meeting between the 

Klamath Tribes and Ruby to discuss potential rerouting of the pipeline to avoid impacts on the NRHPeligible ACAD located on BLM Klamath Falls Resource Area lands. At the Reno-Sparks Indian 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-247 

Colony’s request, on April 23, 2009, the BLM sent letters to 20 tribes, inviting them to a meeting to 

continue government-to-government consultation, provide additional project information and updates, 

and answer questions about the project. The Reno-Sparks Indian Colony assisted in coordinating the 

meeting in Reno, which took place on May 19, 2009. On September 15, 2009 BLM sent letters to the 

same 20 tribes that attended the meeting in Reno to extend an invitation to another information meeting. 

The meeting was held on October 8, 2009 in Winnemucca. At this meeting, the tribes in attendance 

voiced concerns regarding the collection of artifacts on BLM lands during pedestrian archaeological 

survey of the corridor and declined to hear the BLM’s presentation on the status of the pipeline project. 

The tribes caucused as a group and presented the BLM with nine points to be addressed by the Nevada 

State Office. The Nevada State Office responded to all 20 tribes with a letter addressing the nine points 

on November 12, 2009 and followed up with enclosures of meeting minutes and contact information for 

field offices on November 17, 2009. 

Government-to-government consultation would continue to take place throughout the project, and 

continuing information and concerns provided by Native American tribes would be addressed through the 

Section 106 process as they are identified. Confidential information, such as the location and character of 

historic properties or culturally sensitive areas, would be used in the decision-making process but would 

not be made available to the public; this information would be protected to the full extent of the law. 

 Ruby, as authorized by the FERC, and in accordance with 36 CFR 800.2(a)(3) and 36 CFR 

800.2(c)(4), also contacted Native American tribes who may claim traditional land in the project area and 

may attach religious and cultural significance to locations within the proposed pipeline route. Ruby’s 

contractor EPG initially sent a letter to 31 Native American tribes on behalf of Ruby in May 2008. The 

letter described the proposed activities related to the project and invited comment regarding potential 

impacts on known cultural resources as a result of the project. EPG followed-up with recipients to verify 

receipt and solicit comments. EPG sent the letter to one additional tribe in November 2008. In July, 

September, and November 2008, Ruby met with 10 tribes to discuss the project. 

Ruby sent a second project letter to 32 tribes on January 7, 2009. The second letter requested 

specific information about culturally sensitive resources, such as medicinal plants or sacred sites known 

to the tribes that might be impacted by the project. In addition to letters sent by their contractors, Ruby 

has undertaken significant outreach activities to interact with Native American tribes. The Executive 

Director of the Council of Energy Resource Tribes has stated that “ . . . [Ruby] has engaged in more and 

better Tribal outreach on the . . . project than I have ever seen any energy company do in more than 30 

years of working on Indian energy development” (in a letter dated August 4, 2009). 

In addition to letters, Ruby has communicated with Native American tribes throughout the project 

by telephone, email, fax, and face-to-face meetings, including site visits to locations along the pipeline 

route. The face-to-face meetings that Ruby has conducted with tribal members since filing their 

certificate application with the FERC on January 27, 2009 are summarized below: 

• On January 27, 2009, Ruby held a meeting at the BLM offices in Klamath Falls, Oregon 

to discuss the findings of the Class III survey in Oregon, especially the culturally 

sensitive sites in the Antelope Creek area. Two representatives of the Klamath Tribes, 

Perry Chocktoot and Les Anderson, attended the meeting and expressed their concerns 

about disturbing the many rock stack sites identified during the survey. BLM 

archaeologists stated that the pipeline centerline crossed the proposed Antelope Creek 

Archaeological District, which is associated with the historic Klamath Tribes. During the 

course of this meeting, Ruby representatives committed to changing the pipeline route. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-248 

• On February 20, 2009, Ruby arranged a meeting with the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe in 

their offices in Sparks, Nevada. Ron Johnny and William Cowan attended the meeting as 

representatives of the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe. Melinda Dollarhide of the Cedarville 

Rancheria also attended the meeting. Discussion at this meeting focused on 

environmental issues, such as noxious weed control and trash disposal. Ron Johnny stated 

that the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe members hunt in their ancestral territory, including the 

area of the pipeline route. In this regard, he requested that Ruby notify the tribe prior to 

construction. 

• On March 4, 2009, Ruby held a meeting with the Te-Moak Shoshone Tribal Council at 

their tribal offices in Elko, Nevada. Ruby presented project updates and answered 

questions from the nine tribal members in attendance. The Te-Moak Tribe requested a 

visit to the pipeline corridor, and better maps depicting the location of the pipeline. 

• On March 6, 2009, Ruby met with the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Tribal Council at 

their tribal offices in Ibapah, Utah. They presented project updates and answered 

questions from the six tribal members in attendance. The tribe requested additional 

cultural information and periodic project updates. 

• On March 26, 2009, Ruby met with the Lovelock Paiute Tribe at their tribal offices in 

Lovelock, Nevada. Ruby provided information about the project, and answered questions 

from the two tribal members in attendance. The Lovelock Paiute Tribe stated that the 

pipeline was not close to their reservation, but they would like to continue to receive 

information. 

• On March 31, 2009, Ruby met with the Northwestern Band of the Shoshoni in their tribal 

offices in Salt Lake City, Utah. Ruby provided information about the project to the two 

tribal members, and Shoshone Energy representative in attendance. Michael Devine of 

the Northwestern Shoshoni explained that the tribe is knowledgeable about energy 

production and planned to meet with other tribes about energy projects. 

• On April 1, 2009, Ruby met with Perry Chocktoot and Les Anderson of the Klamath 

Tribes. The BLM and Reclamation were also at this meeting, where alternative routes 

through the Antelope Creek area were discussed. Several alternate routes were examined; 

Ruby expressed their intention to avoid the proposed ACAD. 

• On April 14, 2009, Ruby met with Chairman Dale Barr of the Fort McDermitt PaiuteShoshone Tribe and the Tribal Council, and Michon Eben of the Reno-Sparks Indian 

Colony. This meeting was held in the Fort McDermitt tribal office in McDermitt, 

Nevada. Michon Eben gave a presentation about the project and the NEPA process was 

discussed. 

• On May 8, 2009 Ruby organized a conference call meeting to discuss the tribal 

ethnographic studies. Members of the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Fort Bidwell Paiute 

Tribe, Klamath Tribes, Fort McDermitt Paiute-Shoshone, and Shoshone Paiute of Duck 

Valley were in attendance, as well as the ethnographers. Several topics were discussed: 

the purpose of the studies; the study areas; the format of the studies; and confidentiality. 

• On July 7, 2009 Les Anderson of Ruby met with Kenneth Sam of the Fort Bidwell Tribe 

and Pacific Legacy for a field visit to Wall Canyon Creek and Cottonwood Creek. They 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-249 

met with the Pacific Legacy crew that was surveying in the area and spoke with James 

Barlese and Chris Brown, members of the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe who were serving 

as tribal monitors on the survey. 

• On July 10, 2009 Les Anderson met with Kenneth Sam of the Fort Bidwell Paiute Tribe 

and Elder Furman Sam of the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe. They made a field visit to the 

Summit Lake Paiute Reservation and several canyons. 

• On July 14, 2009 Ruby met with the Tribal Council of the Wells Band Indian Colony of 

the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone. The group made a field visit to recorded 

archaeological sites in Nevada after listening to project updates at the tribal council 

offices. 

• On July 15, 2009 Ruby met with Bernice Lalo and Edith Cybo of the Battle Mountain 

Band of the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone. Ruby provided updated project 

information and committed to arranging a future field visit. 

• On July 16, 2009 Ruby met with the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony and the Tri-Basin 

Cultural Committee at the Reno-Sparks tribal offices in Reno, Nevada. Les Anderson 

explained his position as Ruby’s Tribal Coordinator, and offered assistance with project 

concerns. 

• Following the FERC public comment meeting in Elko, Nevada on July 29, 2009, Ruby 

met with members of the Elko, Battle Mountain and Wells Bands of the Te-Moak Tribe 

of Western Shoshone, and members of the Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes. 

Ruby answered questions and arranged for future field visits. 

• On August 10, 2009 Les Anderson of Ruby met with Tribal Chairman Dale Barr of the 

Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes in Reno, Nevada. Anderson offered 

additional project information and offered to arrange for a site visit. 

• Les Anderson of Ruby met with members of the Fort Bidwell Indian Community on 

August 18 and 27, 2009. Mr. Anderson introduced his role as Tribal Coordinator for the 

project and offered assistance with tribal concerns. 

Ruby continued to conduct meetings in the subsequent months, and has committed to meetings 

and site visits as needed throughout the project timeframe. Ruby would coordinate tribal communication, 

including letters, emails, telephone calls, faxes, and meetings to address tribal concerns throughout the 

course of the project. 

During the Center for Legal Education Conference on Historic Preservation in Denver in 

February 2009, Ruby met with several tribal members in an ad-hoc session to discuss the Ruby Pipeline 

Project. Ruby also provided funding for a number of tribes’ members to attend this conference. 

From July 20 to 21, 2009, Ruby sponsored an event in Reno, Nevada titled “Bear Talk: An 

Energy Discussion for Tribes along the Ruby Pipeline Route.” The Council of Energy Resource Tribes 

organized and moderated the event, which discussed national energy policy and the potential benefits of 

energy production to Native American tribes. More than 70 tribal members attended the event, 

representing the following tribes: the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe; the Fort Bidwell Indian Community; the 

Susanville Indian Rancheria of California; the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe; the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-250 

the Duck Valley Reservation; the Paiute-Shoshone Tribe of the Fallon Reservation; the Death Valley 

Timbisha Shoshone Tribe; the Wells Band, Elko Band and Battle Mountain Band Councils of the TeMoak Tribe of Western Shoshone; the Fort McDermitt Paiute-Shoshone Tribe; the Ute Mountain Ute 

Tribe; the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation; and the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony. 

Chairman Warner Barlese of the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe stated that the majority of Northern Paiute 

tribes did not agree with the culture and philosophy of the event’s meetings, and that “not disturbing 

important, historic, cultural and other resources...is more important than the benefits [Council of Energy 

Resource Tribes’] natural gas selling members will receive” (in a letter to FERC dated August 10, 2009). 

In June 2009 Ruby contractor EPG hired Les Anderson as a Native American Coordinator. He is 

a member of the Modoc Tribe and has most recently served on the cultural resources staff of the Klamath 

Tribes. In a letter dated August 5, 2009 sent to the 32 tribes with traditional ties to the project location, 

Mr. Anderson explained his new role of conducting outreach to Native American tribal leaders on behalf 

of Ruby. In response to requests from several tribes, Ruby sponsored a tribal monitor training session 

facilitated by Mr. Anderson on August 4, 2009. More than 20 tribal members attended and 3 attendees 

joined the archaeology crews working in Nevada the next day. A special advisory committee of 12 

trained tribal members was organized as a result of the training and would be available to assist Ruby as 

needed. In his capacity of Native American Coordinator for Ruby, Mr. Anderson has continued contact 

and communications with the tribes to provide information and elicit concerns. 

On November 16, 17, and 18, 2009, Ruby sponsored three informational Tribal Workshops in 

Reno, Winnemucca, and Elko, Nevada, respectively. The workshops focused on tribal employment 

(union and non-union jobs, apprenticeships, and cultural resources technician/monitoring positions). The 

Reno meeting was attended by over 40 tribal members, the Winnemucca meeting was attended by 

approximately 45 tribal members, and the Elko meeting was attended by over 45 tribal members. Two 

more workshops are scheduled; one in Alturas, California (January 13, 2010), and one in Klamath Falls, 

Oregon (January 14, 2010). 

At the request of several Native Americans, Ruby is conducting ethnographic studies as part of its 

tribal outreach. These studies are beyond the ethnographic research efforts required to prepare historic 

context background material for each state survey. Ruby is completing three studies that cover the 

geographical span of the project through four states. Thirty-two tribes were invited to participate in the 

studies; to date, six tribes are participating. Ethnographic studies may also be a source of information 

about TCPs. TCPs are NHRP-listed or -eligible historic properties that carry historical and contemporary 

meaning for tribes or other ethnic groups (Parker and King, 1990). TCPs are identified as part of the 

inventory phase of the Section 106 process, and impacts on TCPs must be mitigated. Ruby is working 

with the ethnographers conducting the studies to identify any potential TCPs as soon as possible so that 

such sites can be identified and evaluated. Ruby’s tribal outreach efforts, as well as federal agency 

review of cultural resources reports, and other tribal consultation would occur until the EIS is published, 

and beyond as needed. 

Many tribes have expressed concern regarding the proposed project. In response to these 

concerns, on May 19, 2009, the ACHP indicated in a letter to FERC, their intention to participate in 

Section 106 consultation for the project. 

4.10.3.1 Native American Comments Received before Publication of the Draft EIS 

Native American groups attach cultural meaning to geographical locations and natural resources 

within the project area. These traditional or sacred resources would be identified, evaluated, and 

mitigated in collaboration with the affected Native American tribe(s). Although the Ruby Pipeline 

Project does not cross any tribal reservation land, it traverses the documented traditional territories of the 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-251 

Arapaho, Bannock, Ute, Eastern Shoshone, Western Shoshone, Northern Paiute, Modoc, and Klamath 

tribes. Some common concerns about the project expressed during tribal consultation before issuance of 

the draft EIS include: 

• government-to-government consultation; 

• tribal notification in the event that Native American human remains are discovered 

during the course of the project; 

• tribal monitors during archaeological field surveys; 

• tribal monitors during pipeline construction; 

• completion of ethnographic studies; 

• disturbance or destruction of native plant and animal species and habitats; 

• destruction or damage to the undisturbed and pristine traditional Native American 

territory along the pipeline route; and 

• protection of confidential and sensitive information. Tribal members are reluctant to 

reveal information about sacred or traditional locations. 

 Tribal comments and concerns received by FERC prior to publication of the draft EIS are 

summarized below. 

 The Cedarville Rancheria of California attended the April 23, 2008 agency scoping meeting in 

Lakeview, Oregon and expressed its concern about disturbance to traditional hunting and gathering 

locations. 

The Washoe Tribe of California and Nevada expressed concern that tribal monitors were not 

present during pedestrian surveys, and recommended that tribal monitors are present during ground 

excavation. In addition, the Washoe Tribe requested and received a copy of the draft survey report. 

The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon commented that the tribe 

would like to be notified of any significant findings in their traditional territory. 

The Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians requested information about the surveys in Oregon and 

a copy of the final survey report for their files. 

The Ely Shoshone Tribe of Ely, Nevada inquired about an ethnographic study. 

The Fort McDermitt Paiute-Shoshone Tribe expressed concern that the pipeline route would enter 

the tribe’s property, and requested consultation. Duane Masters, Sr., a member of the tribe, attended the 

agency scoping meeting in Elko, Nevada, on April 15, 2008, and Tribal Chairman Arlo Crutcher attended 

the agency scoping meeting at Winnemucca, Nevada, on April 24, 2008. Ruby met with the tribe in April 

2009, where the tribe expressed concerns about ancestral burial sites in the project area and its interest in 

using a tribal monitor. In May 2009, Ruby supplied the tribe with cultural resources survey reports at its 

request. 

The Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah requested a copy of the survey report, and information about the 

project’s progress. 

The Shoshone Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, Nevada expressed its 

disappointment in the lack of appropriate government-to-government consultation with federal agencies. 

The tribe inquired about an ethnographic study, and has been communicating with Ruby during the 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-252 

planning of these studies. The Tribe also expressed an interest in conducting a field review following the 

completion of the ethnographic studies. 

Members of the Skull Valley Band of Goshutes stated that the pipeline was too far north to 

concern them; however, they would like to stay informed about the project. 

The Susanville Indian Rancheria of California stated its support for the other sovereign nations, 

although they would not be directly affected by the project. The Susanville Indian Rancheria of 

California also expressed concern about human remains, recommended that paid Native American 

monitors be present during pedestrian surveys and the construction phase of the project, encouraged 

mutually agreeable mitigation, and expressed disappointment in the government-to-government 

consultation process. 

The Summit Lake Paiute Tribe of Nevada commented on the project numerous times. The 

Tribe’s reservation is located less than 1 mile south of the project area. The proposed pipeline corridor 

traverses through a 2-mile gap between the Sheldon NWR and the Summit Lake Paiute Reservation in 

northern Nevada. The tribe’s traditional homeland and current hunting and gathering territory extends 

into the project area. Members of the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe have communicated their extensive 

concerns to federal agencies regarding the potential impacts of the project on their traditional territory and 

way of life. A tribal representative attended the April 24, 2008 agency scoping meeting at Winnemucca 

via conference telephone call. Concerns expressed by the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe include: 

• disruption of the tribe’s aboriginal homeland in Nevada and Oregon, where tribal 

members still gather plants and hunt; 

• ceremonial and burial sites; Native American trails where Paiute peoples have 

traditionally traveled; 

• graves, prayer sites, caves, fire rings, camps, petroglyphs, and traditional hunting and 

gathering locations; 

• impacts on the Summit Lake Lahontan cutthroat trout fishery, bighorn sheep, antelope, 

greater sage-grouse, marmots, rabbits (including pygmy rabbits), golden eagles, and 

burrowing owls; 

• wildlife habitat; 

• vegetation including mountain mahogany, bitterbrush, big sage, wild rose, willow, and 

aspen; 

• introduction of invasive noxious weeds; 

• impacts on lakes and wetlands; 

• impacts on the scenic landscape; 

• alteration of or disturbance to the balance of nature that is important to the tribe; 

• and attraction of vandals and thieves to the area. 

In an August 16, 2008 letter to FERC, the Summit Lake Paiute Tribal Chairman requested that 

the FERC conduct meaningful government-to-government consultation, and expressed concern that 

pipeline construction could destroy historic tribal properties, including possibly graves, and would disrupt 

his tribe’s rights to hunt, gather traditional plants, and practice religious ceremonies. The FERC’s 

Director of the Office of External Affairs responded with a letter dated September 17, 2008. This letter 

explained that the Ruby project was in the pre-filing stage, and that opportunities for tribal input would be 

provided throughout the review process. The Summit Lake Paiute Tribe filed a series of Tribal Council 

Resolutions with FERC on October 28, 2008. These resolutions conveyed the tribe’s opposition to the 

planned route of the Ruby Pipeline Project. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-253 

The Summit Lake Paiute Tribe also filed multiple letters commenting on Ruby’s draft resource 

reports detailing the tribe’s many concerns about the construction of the pipeline through its ancestral 

territory including: destruction or disturbance of natural and cultural resources; impact on traditional 

Northern Paiute foods, medicines, and other current or historic subsistence resources; and failure to 

provide adequate control for noxious non-native plants. Ruby would be responsible for ensuring 

successful revegetation of soils disturbed by construction activities. Seedbed preparation and mixtures 

are defined in Ruby's draft Restoration and Revegetation Plans (Appendix L), and seeding would be 

performed in collaboration with the NRCS, local soil conservation authorities, landowners/land managing 

agencies, and interested tribes, as appropriate. Restoration in agricultural areas also may include the 

mitigation measures discussed above. We discuss the project’s impacts on agricultural areas in section 

4.8.1.3. 

Several animal species that are historical and modern subsistence food for the Summit Lake 

Paiute Tribe currently range in the tribe’s traditional territory between the reservation and the Sheldon 

NWR. The Lahontan cutthroat trout has an especially spiritual meaning for the tribe. Tribal members 

have expressed their concerns about project impacts on their traditional wildlife and hunting rights. The 

tribe’s December 10, 2008 letter requested that Ruby conduct a current inventory of wildlife along the 

proposed route. The tribe indicated it has knowledge about the wildlife of this region, but that Ruby had 

not spoken with them to that point. The tribe also stated that the 2-mile space between the Sheldon NWR 

and the Summit Lake Paiute Reservation is an important wildlife area that deserves more careful study. 

Ruby would be responsible for eliminating or minimizing impacts on the fish and land animals important 

to the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe in cooperation with the tribe, landowners, and land managing agencies. 

We discuss the project’s impacts on the Lahontan cutthroat trout in section 4.7.2.2. 

The Summit Lake Paiute Tribe also expressed concern that the reservation’s water source, One 

Mile Spring, would be impacted by construction and operation of the pipeline. Ruby would be 

responsible for assuring that the tribe’s water source is not adversely affected by the pipeline and would 

follow the proper permitting channels if ground or well water that would affect the tribe’s water source is 

used. Potential impacts on One Mile Spring are discussed in section 4.3.1.3. 

The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe submitted comments in support of the Summit Lake Paiute 

Tribe’s stance opposing the location of the pipeline so close to the Summit Lake reservation; repeating 

most of the concerns expressed by the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe; expressing concern about looting if 

new roads are built to construct the pipeline along traditional Northern Paiute lands; and regarding the 

destruction of locations of ceremonial practices that still take place today. Representatives of the Pyramid 

Lake Paiute Tribe attended the October 28, 2008 FERC meeting. 

The Pit River Tribe of California was added to the list of tribes at the request of the Pyramid Lake 

Paiute Tribe. The Pit River Tribe expressed concerns about the effect the project would have on the 

traditional territory of the Northern Paiute and repeated most of the same issues raised by the Summit 

Lake Paiute Tribe. 

 

The Fort Bidwell Indian Community has expressed concern that the project would damage its 

ancestral homeland including sacred sites and burial sites and also expressed disappointment in the 

government-to-government consultation efforts. The tribe also indicated it was aware of petroglyphs 

within the survey corridor, which were not reported in Ruby’s application, and requested an ethnographic 

study, a copy of the survey reports, and the use of Native American monitors during and after 

construction. Representatives of Fort Bidwell have attended FERC scoping meetings and the October 28, 

2008 FERC meeting. A representative of the Fort Bidwell Indian Community made a site visit to the 

location of the pipeline with other interested parties in early May 2009. Ruby indicated it was working 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-254 

with the Fort Bidwell Indian Community to coordinate an ethnographic study and arrange for tribal 

monitors for future field surveys. 

The Reno-Sparks Indian Colony expressed concern that traditional and sacred territory would be 

destroyed or disrupted by construction and operation of the pipeline along the proposed route. The RenoSparks Indian Colony has special concerns about the Native American items and information that are 

collected during the archaeological surveys and requested that recovered artifacts be returned to the 

Native American tribes of origin, and that no scientific study or destructive analysis be conducted on 

them. The Reno-Sparks Indian Colony also requested that no pictures, drawings, or depictions be made 

of any Native American human remains uncovered during the course of the project, and indicated that 

tribal permission would be required prior to cultural resources data being used for professional papers. 

The tribe also expressed its dissatisfaction with the government-to-government consultation for the 

project. 

 

 The Klamath Tribes of Oregon attended a cultural resource meeting in Oregon on April 8, 2008. 

The Klamath Tribes provided archaeological technicians for Ruby’s Class III survey of the proposed 

pipeline route through Oregon. The Klamath Tribes recognize the area around Antelope Creek, Oregon 

as a place with traditional and spiritual meaning. The area is characterized by the presence of rock stacks 

(some exhibiting apparent antiquity as evidenced by the fusion of lichen on the rocks’ surfaces), which 

hold religious significance to the tribes. The BLM’s Klamath Falls Resource Area office has 

recommended that the area be nominated to the NRHP as an archaeological district, and possibly as a 

TCP. The Klamath Tribes expressed concern about both direct and indirect effects to the rock stack sites 

from pipeline construction, including the potential effects from blasting and vibration. Ruby noted that it 

has routed the pipeline to minimize disturbance to the rock stack piles, but the tribes would prefer that the 

entire area remain undisturbed. The Klamath Tribes also expressed concern about the Goose Lake area. 

A January 27, 2009 meeting was held at the BLM Klamath Falls Resource Area office in order to 

discuss the significance of the rock stacks and the Antelope Creek area. The meeting was attended, either 

in person or via telephone, by the BLM, USFS, FERC, Reclamation, the Klamath Tribes, the Oregon 

SHPO, and Ruby along with its contractor EPG. Another meeting between the BLM, the Klamath Tribes, 

and Ruby regarding the same topic was held on April 1, 2009. Ruby is also coordinating an ethnography 

study of the Klamath Tribes and arranging for Klamath tribal monitors for future field surveys. 

Ruby filed a letter with FERC on April 6, 2009, that committed to conducting additional field 

surveys to gather information necessary to consider route variations in Oregon. Ruby is also planning to 

use ground-penetrating radar as a discovery method for possible burials in the vicinity of Antelope Creek 

and Goose Lake, and is currently working with tribal representatives to plan and conduct such a survey. 

Ruby stated its intention to avoid or mitigate, to the Klamath Tribes’ satisfaction, the culturally sensitive 

areas in the pipeline route. In consultation with the BLM and in discussion with Ruby, the Klamath 

Tribes have asserted that certain effects to archaeological sites may not be mitigated. 

The Klamath Tribes have traditionally hunted mule deer as a subsistence animal and continue to 

do so. Migratory mule deer herds are known to follow corridors that could be disrupted by construction 

of the pipeline. The Klamath Tribes requested a seasonal construction schedule that would avoid the 

migratory corridor during the deer migration (as discussed in section 4.5.2). 

The Eastern Shoshone Tribe expressed concern about project damage to sites that may be 

culturally sensitive to the Shoshone Nation. The Eastern Shoshone also requested a field visit to ensure 

that no pre-contact sites would be jeopardized by construction. 

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-255 

The Moapa Band of Paiutes indicated that the proposed project would not have any significant 

impact on them, but requested to be notified if items of interest were discovered. 

The Te-Moak Western Shoshone Indians expressed their dissatisfaction with the government-togovernment consultation conducted to date. 

The California Native American Heritage Commission indicated that the project would not be 

covered by the California Environmental Quality Act and no approvals would be required. 

4.10.3.2 Native American Comments on the Draft EIS 

The comments we received during the draft EIS comment period from Native American groups 

or individuals reiterated some of the same concerns expressed earlier, and noted some new concerns. The 

most common concerns were: 

• disappointment in government-to-government consultation; 

• the fast pace of the environmental review; 

• lack of information because surveys were not complete; 

• tribal interest in the artifacts collected during surveys; 

• natural geologic features and natural foods that have traditional and spiritual significance 

for the tribes; 

• the creation of a new transmission corridor that would attract additional energy 

development within the corridor; and 

• the use of Native American construction monitors. 

Members of Native American tribes attended and spoke at the public meetings during the draft 

EIS comment period. At the July 21, 2009 meeting in Malin, Oregon, Mr. Lyonel Degarmo, a member of 

the Fort Bidwell Paiute Tribe, commented that the proposed pipeline route would go though his tribe’s 

aboriginal land and might destroy sites historically connected to his tribe. Mr. Degarmo further stated 

that his aunt’s grave is in the path of the pipeline. In a September 2009 filing Ruby committed to working 

with Mr. Degarmo and the Fort Bidwell Paiute Tribe to identify and avoid any impact on this burial. 

Members of the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe attended meetings in Lakeview, Oregon and 

Winnemucca, Nevada. Mr. Ron Johnny, representing the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, commented at the 

July 22, 2009 meeting in Lakeview, Oregon that the cultural resource surveys are not complete and stated 

that information from the surveys should be used to select a project route. At the same meeting, Mr. 

Reggie Townsend expressed concerns about irreparably impacting the water system at his reservation and 

affecting wildlife species such as the Lahontan cutthroat trout. Mr. Townsend also stated that important 

sites are present along the proposed route, including possible burial grounds. Mr. Townsend stated his 

preference for using Highway 140, which is already disturbed. Ms. Jerri Lynn Barlese spoke at the July 

23, 2009 meeting in Winnemucca, Nevada. She commented that the draft EIS did not analyze the effects 

of the project on water resources and did not address the tribe’s water rights. She also stated that the draft 

EIS did not analyze the effects of pipeline construction on the tribe’s rights to use the land north of their 

reservation. She also asked if Ruby would train its employees to respect the cultural items that may be on 

the ground, because many of her ancestor’s artifacts have been sold. Ms. Robin Burdette spoke at the 

Winnemucca, Nevada meeting. She emphasized the remote and undeveloped character of the proposed 

route just north of the tribe’s reservation. She does not favor construction of the pipeline or any of the 

alternatives; she believes this area of northwestern Nevada should not be disturbed. She stated that once 

the area is impacted, it cannot be turned back. She stated that satellite imagery shows that this area of 

Nevada is one of the few places where there are no lights. Ms. Burdette also explained that tribal 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-256 

members like her may not be familiar with commenting in public and it would be preferable if 

consultation could take place in tribal communities. 

Ms. Justina Paradise, a member of the Council of the Fort McDermitt Paiute Shoshone Tribe, 

provided comments at the July 23, 2009 meeting in Winnemucca, Nevada. Ms. Paradise stated that the 

proposed route traverses the traditional territory traveled by Chief Winnemucca. She noted that she has 

information about the oral history of her tribe and knows the locations of some sacred sites. 

Ms. Michon Eben of the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony spoke at the July 23, 2009 meeting in 

Winnemucca, Nevada. She stated that the project would impact Shoshoni and Paiute aboriginal 

territories. She doesn’t believe that tribal concerns can be properly addressed at public meetings, and 

expressed her disappointment at the lack of government-to-government consultation. Ms. Eben expressed 

the Native American belief that cultural resources cannot be treated separately from other resources, and 

that her people attach spiritual meaning to all things. She believes that the EIS is incomplete without a 

review of the findings of the incomplete archaeological surveys. FERC responded to Ms. Eben at the 

meeting, stating that the surveys would be complete and the review of the surveys would run along a 

parallel track to the EIS. Ruby provided Ms. Eben with a copy of the Nevada cultural resources survey 

report for review. 

Ms. Bernice Lalo of the Battle Mountain Western Shoshone tribe provided comments at the July 

28, 2009 public meeting in Elko, Nevada. Ms. Lalo asked how FERC is dealing with artifacts and human 

bones. She would also like tribal monitors so that the tribes know what is happening on the ground 

during construction. She speaks for current and future Western Shoshone. 

Mr. Steve Brady also spoke at the July 28, 2009 public meeting in Elko, Nevada. Mr. Brady did 

not provide his tribal affiliation, but he spoke on behalf of Native Americans. He stated that the draft EIS 

did not involve Indians and the BLM does not inform them of actions. He requested tribal monitors, and 

also requested information about what happens to the artifacts and where they would be stored. At the 

meeting, FERC responded that the Section 106 process parallels the NEPA EIS process and would 

address issues such as artifacts and human remains. 

FERC also received several written comments on the draft EIS from Native Americans. 

Following issuance of the draft EIS, Mr. Warner Barlese, Chairman of the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, 

filed a lengthy letter on July 21, 2009 that provided comments regarding his tribe’s traditional and 

continued use of the proposed project area. According to Mr. Barlese, construction of the pipeline would 

prevent the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe from continuing their subsistence lifestyle, including collecting 

traditional resources and conducting spiritual ceremonies in the area immediately north of their 

reservation. Mr. Barlese wrote that the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe intends to extend the reservation 

boundaries to protect and manage their traditional resources. He requested that the project consider the 

tribe’s efforts at environmental preservation and protection. Ruby responded that the Summit Lake Paiute 

Tribe has not provided them with sufficient information about specific resources that the tribe would like 

protected. Mr. Barlese also expressed concern regarding the pipeline’s permanent 50-foot right-of-way. 

He stated that the right-of-way may affect the migration movements of antelope, bighorn sheep, and deer 

and further affect his tribe’s rights to hunt them. Ruby has considered the effect of the pipeline on large 

game animals and their migration patterns; these issues are addressed in sections 4.5.1 and 4.5.2. 

Mr. Barlese expressed several concerns about the impact of pipeline construction on the 

undeveloped and sparsely populated area around the tribe’s reservation. These concerns center on the 

temporary construction work camps and use of access roads. Ruby has stated that it would not use access 

roads on the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe reservation. Some off-reservation access roads would be 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-257 

improved to withstand construction traffic, but Ruby has committed to returning access roads to 

preconstruction condition as requested by the landowner. Mr. Barlese concurs with this action. 

Several comments, including Mr. Barlese’s, brought up the topic of mercury methylation. This 

naturally occurring toxin is found in certain rocks, and Ruby has identified a 1.5-mile segment of the 

pipeline route that has the potential to contain methyl mercury. Ruby would institute a testing and 

contamination containment plan for this segment of the pipeline (see section 4.1.2). Mr. Barlese also 

made several comments regarding possible contamination during the construction process. He noted that 

padding material used for filling the pipeline trench under certain circumstances should be free of 

contaminants. He also noted that water used for hydrostatic testing may contain pharmaceuticals such as 

endocrine disrupters; these should not be introduced to the Summit Lake Watershed, which supplies the 

tribe’s fishery. Ruby would commit to programs designed to avoid contamination of the ground and 

water during construction (see section 4.2.3). 

Mr. Barlese also commented on the possible impact on traditional Northern Paiute plants used for 

food and medicine. Ruby is aware of this issue and is working with a Northern Paiute tribal member to 

identify plants and seeds that would be appropriate for a seed bank or nursery which would assure 

accessibility to traditional plants during construction and reclamation. Ruby would need more 

information from the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe regarding the plants the tribe would like to bank in order 

to assist them with protecting culturally important plants. Ruby has agreed to develop grazing deferments 

and adopt other policies that would enhance revegetation efforts (see section 4.8.1.1), another concern 

expressed by Mr. Barlese. 

One Mile Spring is the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe reservation’s main source of drinking water. 

This spring is located 4,350 feet to the south of the pipeline route, and Mr. Barlese has made several 

comments expressing his concern that the spring would be impacted by blasting, vibration, or other 

construction activity. Ruby completed a geological study of potential project impacts on the spring, and 

although blasting and vibrations are expected to have no impact, Ruby would use trench plugs at the 

location to assure that the pipeline trench would not draw water away from the spring (see sections 4.2.1.1 

and 4.3.1.3). 

Mr. Barlese wrote that the tribe is in full agreement with the draft EIS condition for 

Environmental Inspection, and further supports the use of a joint third-party monitoring program. 

Mr. Barlese expressed his preference for using existing right-of-way rather than constructing 

across greenfield. In this regard, he prefers selecting the Sheldon Route Alternative or the Black Rock 

Route Alternative instead of the proposed route. He also suggested that we consider the WWEC Corridor 

Route Alternative; however, Ruby has addressed this suggestion and noted that this corridor is noncontiguous and currently the subject of a lawsuit challenging its designation as an energy corridor. We 

have not recommended this route alternative. Mr. Barlese pointed out that there is a higher likelihood for 

higher-quality habitat for native species along the proposed route as compared to the two alternatives. He 

also suggested that increased activity along the sparsely populated proposed route would result in more 

animals killed by vehicle traffic. 

Mr. Juan Laos of the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe submitted many of the same written comments as 

Mr. Barlese; the description of Mr. Barlese’s comments above applies to Mr. Laos’ as well. Mr. Laos 

stated that as a regular user of the land along the pipeline route, he is familiar with the practices of the 

Summit Lake Paiute Tribe and concerned that their ancestral lands would be destroyed. 

Mr. Buck Sampson, who identifies himself as a Northern Paiute, filed the same comments on the 

draft EIS as Mr. Barlese. Mr. Sampson filed a subsequent letter that stated Indian monitors should be 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-258 

with the survey crews, the land is his people’s aboriginal territory, and tribal consultation has not been 

adequate. 

Ms. Christina Gonzalez and Ms. Lorieta Cowan, members of the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe; Mr. 

Dean Barlese of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe; Mr. Xzavier Barr and Mr. Jerry Barr, who identified 

themselves as Northern Paiute; Mr. Duane Masters of the Fort McDermitt Paiute-Shoshone Tribe; and 

Mr. Orville Barlese, who identified himself as a Northern Paiute Elder, all filed the same comments as 

those filed on July 21, 2009 by Mr. Barlese and described above. Descriptions and responses to his 

comments apply to the comments received from these Native American tribal members. 

Mr. Robert Bear, Chairman of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, made 

several comments about the importance of the land to his people and the federal laws that address the 

tribe’s legal rights. Chairman Bear noted that his tribe from eastern Nevada has not been consulted as 

much as tribes from the western side of the state. Among his comments about traditional or spiritual 

places, Chairman Bear noted that his tribe has used hot springs for healing and spiritual purposes since 

time immemorial. We have discussed Ruby’s plans to mitigate impacts on geothermal resources such as 

hot springs in section 4.1.2.3. Mr. Bear also noted that the project may impact historic trails, such as the 

trail that Shoshone Mike traveled. In a September 14, 2009 filing, Ruby committed to consult with Mr. 

Bear about any project impacts on the tribe’s historic trails. With regard to important sites and possible 

TCPs, Mr. Bear emphasized the confidential nature of such locations. He stated that tribal members 

would not disclose such information at public meetings, and they would not reveal this sensitive 

information to people unfamiliar to them. The ethnographic studies that are currently underway should 

identify the locations of traditional sites such as these so that potential project impacts on them would be 

addressed. Mr. Bear stated that his tribe is open to government-to-government consultation, but that 

FERC and BLM have not fulfilled their obligations in this regard. He further emphasized that federal 

agencies should not assume that consultation with some tribes extends to all tribes. Each tribe is a 

sovereign nation and requires separate consultation. 

We received written comments from Mr. Stacy Dixon, Tribal Chairman of the Susanville Indian 

Rancheria in California. Mr. Dixon requested the presence of Native American tribal monitors during 

cultural resources surveys and ground disturbance during construction. He also requested face-to-face 

meetings between affected tribes and government agencies before surveys begin. Ruby has initiated a 

tribal monitor training program (see section 4.10.3, above), and the use of cultural resources monitors 

during construction is addressed in Ruby’s Unanticipated Discovery Plans. 

Mr. Aaron Townsend, Chairman of the Fort Bidwell Indian Community Council of California, 

expressed his dissatisfaction with the short review period and the rush to publish the EIS without 

completing the cultural resources studies. He stated that his main concerns were possible impacts on 

cultural sites, including ceremonial and burial sites, impacts on geological features such as springs, and 

impacts on roots and animals that are currently used by the tribes. These concerns would continue to be 

addressed through the Section 106 process, and should also be addressed by the ethnographic studies 

underway. 

Mr. Joe Kennedy, the Tribal Chairperson for the Death Valley Timbisha Shoshone Tribe, 

submitted a letter that concurred with the need for the Ruby Pipeline Project, but expressed 

disappointment in the lack of government-to-government consultation conducted for the project. 

We received a letter from Mr. Arlan D. Melendez, Chairman of the Tribal Council of the RenoSparks Indian Colony of Nevada. Mr. Melendez requested copies of the Unanticipated Discovery Plans, 

which are part of Ruby’s POD, and the treatment plans that would be developed to address the mitigation 

of NRHP-eligible properties. Mr. Melendez would be provided with a copy of the treatment plans. Mr. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-259 

Melendez also wrote about the importance of incorporating natural resources with cultural resources, 

especially in the ethnographic studies. With regard to the Sheldon Route Alternative, Mr. Melendez 

cautioned that the concerns of a different social sector such as recreational sportsmen shouldn’t trump the 

concerns of Native Americans, who depend on traditional resources along the proposed route. Mr. 

Melendez also expressed disappointment in the government-to-government consultation for the project, 

and concern about the short review period. 

Mr. Melendez sent a letter to FERC dated October 23, 2009 that requested participation in the 

development and implementation of the Memoranda of Agreements (MOA). Mr. Melendez noted that 

Tribes have a unique understanding of the region’s archaeological sites and artifacts and can contribute to 

the proper treatment of them. He also wants the Tribe’s interests to be represented and respected.

In a letter dated October 3, 2009, Johnnie L. Bobb, the Chief of the Western Shoshone National 

Council, stated that the pipeline should use the West-wide corridor under military authority, and use of 

any other land was a trespass under the conditions of the Treaty of Ruby Valley of 1863. The Western 

Shoshone National Council is not a federally recognized Indian entity. The West-wide Energy Corridor is 

discussed in section 3.4.9. 

We received several letters from Native Americans supporting the Ruby Pipeline Project, 

including Chairman Curtis R. Cesspooch of the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, 

Chairman Earnest House, Sr. of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, and Chairman Matthew J. Box of the 

Southern Ute Indian Tribe. These tribes produce and distribute energy from their tribal lands, and 

promote Native American energy production and better access to energy markets on the West Coast. We 

also received a letter of support for the project from A. David Lester, Executive Director of the Council of 

Energy Resource Tribes. 

In a letter dated November 5, 2009, the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe’s Chairman, Warner Barlese 

expressed concern over the sufficiency of the final EIS, requested an extension of time for completion of 

the final EIS and tribal consultation, and indicated that all information deficiencies and outstanding 

studies be completed and included in the FEIS. Mr. Barlese also voiced the tribe’s desire to participate in 

the drafting of endangered species mitigation plans. In addition, Mr. Barlese indicated that the tribe “has 

repeatedly declared the area along the proposed route in the narrow strip of land between the Summit 

Lake Reservation and the Sheldon NWR as a TCP, but this declaration has yet to be acknowledged by 

FERC or the BLM.” We note that a TCP was not identified in any of Mr. Barlese’s numerous previous 

correspondences, during our October 28, 2008 meeting (summarized above), nor in the tribe’s own study 

(see above). However, if the tribe has new information it now is willing to share, we would consider this 

during the Section 106 process. 

Although not a member of a Native American tribe, Ms. Sheri Eklund-Brown, Chairman of the 

Elko County Commission provided comments at the July 28, 2009 public meeting in Elko, Nevada that 

expressed her support of the project and the positive economic impact, but requested that the tribal 

concerns be addressed. She noted that she and other parties support the tribes in protecting some sacred 

Native American locations. 

4.10.4 Non-Jurisdictional Electric Power Lines 

As part of this final EIS, FERC is including an environmental review of two distribution line 

projects that would contribute to the operation of the pipeline compressor stations, but do not come under 

the same jurisdiction as the pipeline project. A 1.5-mile power line would be constructed by Rocky 

Mountain Power from their transmission grid to Ruby’s Roberson Creek Compressor Station in Lincoln 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-260 

County, Wyoming. A 3.5-mile power line would be constructed by Harney Electric Cooperative from 

their transmission grid to Ruby’s Desert Valley Compressor Station in Humboldt County, Nevada. 

In Environmental Resource Reports on the Rocky Mountain Power power line in Wyoming and 

the Desert Valley power line in Nevada filed with FERC on October 14, 2009, and December 2, 2009, 

respectively, Ruby reported that information about the cultural resources of the lines would be provided in 

separate reports. To date, Ruby has not provided these cultural resource reports. Depending on the 

jurisdiction over the distribution line projects, federal and state agencies, as well as other interested 

parties, would consult on the project, and Ruby would comply with the applicable laws and regulations. 

4.10.5 Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act 

Project reporting, as well as some field studies remain to be completed. Historic properties 

treatment plans that would address mitigation of those NRHP-eligible sites that cannot be avoided must 

be completed. In addition, report reviews and tribal consultations are still ongoing. Consequently, the 

FERC, BLM, FWS, USFS, COE, and Reclamation have not completed the process of complying with 

Section 106 of the NHPA. The FERC, in consultation with the SHPOs, BLM, and other 

consulting/appropriate parties (such as other federal agencies, tribes, or state agencies), would determine 

NRHP-eligibility of properties and also determine whether construction of the project would affect any 

historic properties when all surveys, evaluations, and studies have been completed and comments have 

been addressed. Ruby would develop treatment plans for historic properties that could not be avoided. 

These plans would be submitted for review and approval by appropriate parties, including the relevant 

SHPOs and land managing agencies. These treatment plans also would address treatment related to any 

Native American TCPs and areas with traditional religious or cultural significance. The ACHP has 

indicated that it would participate in consultation. Once treatment plans are approved, MOA would be 

executed for each state requiring resolution of adverse effects. Ruby would implement treatment 

measures only after MOAs are executed and Ruby receives the required project authorizations from the 

FERC and BLM. 

To ensure that the FERC’s, BLM’s, FWS’, USFS’, COE’s, and Reclamation’s responsibilities 

under the NHPA and its implementing regulations are met, we recommend that Ruby not begin 

construction of facilities, including the pipeline, compressor stations, and meter stations; and/or use 

of all staging, storage, or temporary work areas, and new or to-be-improved access roads until: 

a. Ruby addresses any comments on the cultural resources survey reports, addendum 

reports, and supplemental studies; 

b. Ruby files with the Secretary: 

(1) any required revised reports/studies and the BLM’s, USFS’s, 

Reclamation’s, COE’s, FWS’s, SHPOs’, and any Native American 

tribes’ (as appropriate) comments on the revised reports/studies; 

(2) any additional required cultural resource survey and evaluation 

reports, and avoidance and mitigation/treatment plans, and 

addresses any other information that the SHPOs, BLM, USFS, 

Reclamation, COE, or FWS request; and 

(3) the SHPOs’, BLM’s, USFS’s, Reclamation’s, COE’s, FWS’s, other 

appropriate state agencies’, and any Native American tribe’s (as 

appropriate) comments on the reports and plans; 

 

c. the ACHP has commented on the project; and 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-261 

d. the FERC staff reviews and the Director of OEP approves the cultural resource 

reports and plans, and notifies Ruby in writing that treatment plans/mitigation 

measures (including archaeological data recovery) may be implemented and/or 

construction may proceed. 

All material filed with the Commission that contains location, character, and ownership

information about cultural resources must have the cover and any relevant pages therein clearly 

labeled in bold lettering “CONTAINS PRIVILEDGED INFORMATION – DO NOT RELEASE.” 

4.11 AIR QUALITY & NOISE 

4.11.1 Air Quality 

Air quality would be affected by construction and operation of the proposed project. Although air 

emissions would be generated by operation of equipment during construction of the pipeline and 

aboveground facilities proposed by Ruby, the majority of the air emissions associated with the project 

would result from the operation of the proposed compressor stations. We received comments during 

scoping regarding the project’s impacts on air quality during construction and operation. Those 

comments are addressed in this section. 

The Ruby Pipeline Project consists of approximately 675.2 miles of new natural gas pipeline 

which would extend over portions of Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon. Construction activities are 

currently anticipated to commence as early as spring 2010 and would take approximately 10 to 13 months 

to complete. In addition, new compressor stations would be constructed in Wyoming Utah, and two in 

Nevada. Table 4.11.1-1 provides an overview of the emission-generating equipment proposed for each 

compressor station. Proposed emissions equipment for the Vya Construction Camp is identified in 

Section 9.1 of Appendix P and includes, among other things one 2,000 kW diesel electrical generator, 

three 1,000 kW diesel electrical generators, 42 propane water heaters, and 70 propane furnaces. Ruby’s 

Lakeview Temporary Housing Facility would utilize existing municipal electric, water, and sewer 

services. No emissions equipment is proposed for the Lakeview facility. 

TABLE 4.11.1-1 

Proposed Compressor Stations for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Compressor 

Station County, State Proposed Equipment ISO-rated hpa

 Fuel Type 

Roberson Creek Lincoln County, WY 3 Motor-Driven Compressors 69,000 Electric 

1 Emergency Generator Natural Gas 

Auxiliary Heaters Natural Gas 

Wildcat Hills Box Elder County, UT 2 Turbine-Powered Compressors 28,668 Natural Gas 

1 Emergency Generator Natural Gas 

Auxiliary Heaters Natural Gas 

Wieland Flat Elko County, NV 2 Turbine-Powered Compressors 39,662 Natural Gas 

1 Emergency Generator Natural Gas 

Auxiliary Heaters Natural Gas 

Desert Valley Humboldt County, NV 1 Turbine-Powered Compressor 19,831 Natural Gas 

1 Emergency Generator Natural Gas 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-262 

Auxiliary Heaters Natural Gas 

───────────────────────────

a ISO-rated horsepower is a standard measure and not representative of site conditions. 

The compressors at the Roberson Creek Compressor Station would be driven by electric motors, 

and the station would be equipped with a natural gas-fired emergency generator and natural gas-fired 

auxiliary heaters. This station would have short-term construction-related air quality emissions from the 

station installation and long-term emissions from operation of the generators and heaters. The remaining 

three stations are planned with natural gas-fired turbines and auxiliary equipment that would result in 

long-term operational impacts on air quality. Emissions from construction equipment would also 

contribute to air quality impacts. Our analysis focuses primarily on the nature and extent of the long-term 

operational impacts because the air quality impacts associated with station construction would be 

temporary (i.e., less than 1 year) and intermittent (i.e., not operated continuously). 

Each of the compressor stations would be required to comply with federal, state, and local air 

quality permitting requirements that are driven by the CAA and its amendments.7 The CAA authorizes 

the EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and 

public welfare and to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). The WDEQ indicated that 

air quality modeling would not be required for the permit application for the Roberson Creek Compressor 

Station. Because of the use of the electric engines at the station, we agree that air quality modeling is not 

necessary and thus is not included in table 4.11.1-9. 

Air quality modeling analyses would be required for the remaining three compressor stations. 

Ruby filed a Notice of Intent (NOI) and related air quality impact analyses with the Utah Department of 

Environmental Quality–Division of Air Quality (UDAQ) to construct the Wildcat Hills Compressor 

Station. UDAQ issued Approval Order Number DAQE-AN0142090001-09 for the Wildcat Hills 

Compressor Station on August 12, 2009. Ruby also filed Class I permit applications and submitted air 

quality impact analyses to the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) for the Wieland Flat 

and Desert Valley compressor stations. NDEP issued Class I Air Operating Permit to Construct AP4922-

2537 for the Wieland Flat Compressor Station on September 11, 2009. 

Emissions from the set-up, operation, and decommissioning of the Vya Construction Camp would 

be temporary. The camp would be required to comply with federal, state, and local air quality 

regulations. Air quality modeling would not be required for the camp. 

4.11.1.1 Existing Air Quality 

The climate in the vicinity of the pipeline and compressor stations is varied and is characterized 

by data collected at five meteorological monitor locations (see table 4.11.1-2). There is generally a large 

variation between the diurnal high and low temperatures due to the elevation and the proximity of 

mountains near all five monitoring locations. Winds are generally light for all five locations. 

Precipitation is light during the summer and fall and is heavier during the winter and spring. 

Ambient air quality is regulated by federal, state, and local agencies. The NAAQS were 

developed to protect the public health and welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a 

pollutant (examples of welfare include wildlife, buildings, national monuments, vegetation, visibility, and 

property values). The EPA has established NAAQS for seven criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO); 

lead (Pb); nitrogen dioxide (NO2); ozone (O3); particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 

 

7

 The CAA, 42 USC 7401 et seq. as amended in 1977 and 1990, is the basic federal statute governing air pollution. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-263 

or equal to 10 micrometers (μm) (PM10); particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or 

equal to 2.5 μm (PM2.5); and SO2. 

TABLE 4.11.1-2 

Representative Annual Average Weather Conditions for the Ruby Pipeline Project Areaa

Meteorological Monitor 

Location 

Maximum 

Temperatureb

(°F) 

Minimum 

Temperatureb

(°F) 

Precipitationb

(inches) 

Snowfallc

(inches) 

Wind Speedd

(mph) 

Wind 

Direction 

Lander, WY 58.0 31.9 13.42 104.0 7.0 WSW 

Salt Lake City, UT 62.9 41.2 16.5 61.0 9.0 SSE 

Elko, NV 62.2 30.6 9.6 36.6 6.0 SW 

Winnemucca, NV 65.6 33.0 8.3 22.7 8.0 S 

Vya, NVd 58.2 29.1 14.8 26.5 --- --- 

───────────────────────────

a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2009. 

b Maximum and minimum temperatures, precipitation, and snowfall based on data from 1971 to 2000. Precipitation 

amounts are liquid equivalents (i.e., amounts include rainfall as measured, and snowfall as a liquid equivalent [how 

much rain it would equal when the snow is melted]). 

c Snowfall based on data from 1959 to 1980. 

d Wind speed based on data from 1930-1996. 

State ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been adopted for most of these criteria 

pollutants in Nevada, Wyoming, and Oregon. Wyoming also has standards for hydrogen sulfide (H2S), 

suspended sulfates, and fluorides. Utah has not adopted state-specific AAQS, but has adopted the 

NAAQS for criteria pollutants. Federal and state AAQS are summarized in table 4.11.1-3. 

HAPs are pollutants that are known or suspected to cause acute or long-term serious health 

effects such as cancer, reproductive effects or birth defects, or adverse environmental impacts. The EPA 

lists a total of 187 HAPS under the CAA. Examples of toxic air pollutants include benzene, which is 

found in gasoline; perchlorethlyene, which is emitted from some dry cleaning facilities; and methylene 

chloride, which is used as a solvent and paint stripper by a number of industries. The primary HAP of 

concern for natural gas compressor facilities is formaldehyde. AAQS, in general, have not been 

established for these pollutants. However, federal, state, and local regulations such as the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) have been established to reduce their release 

to the atmosphere. 

GHGs occur in the atmosphere both naturally and as a result of human activities, such as the 

burning of fossil fuels. These gases are the integral components of the atmosphere’s greenhouse effect 

that warms the earth’s surface and moderates day/night temperature variation. The most abundant GHGs 

are water vapor, CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and O3. The primary GHGs emitted from the 

construction and operation of natural gas transmission pipelines are CO2, CH4, and N2O. Emissions of 

GHGs are typically expressed in terms of CO2 equivalents (CO2e), where the potential of each gas to 

increase heating in the atmosphere is expressed as a multiple of the heating potential of CO2, or its global 

warming potential (GWP). The potential for this project to contribute to climate change impacts is 

discussed in section 4.13.11. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-264 

TABLE 4.11.1-3 

Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Pollutant Averaging 

Period NAAQS 

Nevada Air 

Quality 

Standards 

Wyoming Air 

Quality 

Standards 

Utah Air 

Quality 

Standardsa

Oregon Air Quality 

Standards 

CO 8-Hour 9 ppmb (10 

μg/m3

) 

9 ppmb,i 

6 ppmb,j

Same as 

NAAQS 

Same as 

NAAQS 

Same as NAAQS 

1-Hour 35 ppmb (40 

μg/m3

) 

Same as 

NAAQS 

Same as 

NAAQS 

Same as 

NAAQS 

Same as NAAQS 

Pb Rolling 3-

monthv

0.15 μg/m3 Same as 

NAAQS 

Same as 

NAAQS 

Same as 

NAAQS 

Same as NAAQS 

NO2 Annual 0.053 ppm (100 

μg/m3

) 

Same as 

NAAQS 

0.05 ppm (100 

μg/m3) 

Same as 

NAAQS 

Same as NAAQS 

O3 8-Hour 0.075 

ppmc

(0.08 

ppm)d

- 0.08 ppmc

 Same as 

NAAQS 

0.08 ppmp

1-Hour 0.12 ppme

 0.12 ppmk 

 0.10 ppmk,l

- Same as 

NAAQS 

- 

PM10 Annual - 50 μg/m3

 50 μg/m3 Same as 

NAAQS 

50 μg/m3

24-Hour 150 μg/m3f

 150 μg/m3m 150 μg/m3n Same as 

NAAQS 

150 μg/m3q

PM2.5 Annual 15 μg/m3g

 - Same as 

NAAQS 

Same as 

NAAQS 

- 

24-Hour 35 μg/m3h

 - 65 μg/m3o Same as 

NAAQS 

- 

SO2 Annual 0.03 ppm (80 

μg/m3

) 

Same as 

NAAQS 

0.02 ppm 

 (60 μg/m3

) 

Same as 

NAAQS 

0.02 ppm (60 μg/m3

) 

24-Hour 0.14 ppmb

 (365 

μg/m3

) 

Same as 

NAAQS 

0.10 ppmb

 

(260 μg/m3

) 

Same as 

NAAQS 

0.10 ppmb

 (260 μg/m3) 

3-Hour 0.5 ppmb

 (1,300 

μg/m3

) 

Same as 

NAAQS 

Same as 

NAAQS 

Same as 

NAAQS 

Same as NAAQS 

H2S 1⁄2 Hour - - 70 μg/m3r 

40 μg/m3s - - 

Suspended 

Sulfates 

Annual - - 0.25 mg/ 

100 cm2

/day - - 

30-Day - - 0.50 mg/ 

100 cm2

/day - - 

Fluorides 

(ambient air 

standards) 

30 Days - - 0.4 μg/m3t

 - - 

7 Days - - 0.5 μg/m3t

 - - 

24 Hours - - 1.8 μg/m3t

 - - 

12 Hours - - 3.0 μg/m3t

 - - 

Fluorides (in 

forage for 

animal 

consumption) 

1 Year - - 30 ppmu

 - - 

60 Days - - 60 ppmu

 - - 

30 Days - - 80 ppmu - - 

a Utah has not adopted specific state AAQS, but has adopted the NAAQS for criteria pollutants. 

b Not to be exceeded more than once per year. 

c The 2008 standard. The 3-year average of the 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration over each year 

must not exceed the standard. 

d The 1997 standard, and the implementation rules for this standard, will remain in place for implementation purposes as 

EPA undertakes rulemaking to address the transition from the 1997 ozone standard to the 2008 ozone standard. 

e As of June 15, 2005, this standard was revoked in all areas except the 14 8-hour ozone early-action compact areas. 

f Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years. 

g The 3-year average of the weighted annual mean concentrations must not exceed the standard. 

h The 3-year average of the 98th-percentile concentrations must not exceed this standard. 

i Applicable to elevations less than 5,000 feet. 

j Applicable to elevations at or greater than 5,000 feet. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-265 

TABLE 4.11.1-3 (cont.) 

Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Pollutant Averaging Period NAAQS Nevada Air Quality 

Standards 

Wyoming 

Air 

Quality 

Standards 

Utah Air 

Quality 

Standards a

Oregon 

Air 

Quality 

Standards 

k The 1-hour ozone standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a maximum hourly 

average concentration above the standard is equal to or less than one. 

l Applicable to Lake Tahoe Basin monitoring station 90 only. 

m The standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration 

above the standard, rounded to the nearest 10 μg/m3, is equal to or less than 1. The expected number of days per 

calendar year is generally based on an average of the number of times the standard has been exceeded per year for the 

last 3 years. 

n Not to be exceeded more than once per year. 

o 98th-percentile concentration. 

p Standard is attained when the average annual 4th-highest 8-hour average concentration is equal or less to the standard. 

q Standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 

the standard is less than or equal to 1. 

r Standard not to be exceeded more than two times per year. 

s Standard not to be exceeded more than two times in any 5 consecutive days. 

t Measured as hydrogen fluoride. 

u Measured as fluorine. 

v Standard is 3-month rolling average, effective January 12, 2009. 

ppm parts per million 

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter 

mg milligram 

Air Quality Control Regions and Attainment Status 

Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs) were established in accordance with Section 107 of the 

CAA as a means to implement the CAA and to comply with the NAAQS through State Implementation 

Plans. The AQCRs are intrastate and interstate regions such as large metropolitan areas where the 

improvement of the air quality in one portion of the AQCR requires emission reductions throughout the 

AQCR. Each AQCR, or portion thereof, is designated as attainment (areas in compliance with the 

NAAQS), unclassifiable, maintenance, or nonattainment (areas not in compliance with the NAAQS). 

Areas where the ambient air pollutant concentration is determined to be less than the applicable ambient 

air quality standard are designated attainment. Areas where no data are available are designated 

unclassifiable. Unclassifiable areas are treated as attainment areas for the purpose of permitting a 

stationary source of pollution. Areas where the ambient air concentration is greater than the applicable 

ambient air quality standard are designated nonattainment. Areas that have been designated 

nonattainment but have since demonstrated compliance with ambient air quality standard(s) are 

designated maintenance for that pollutant. 

All four of the proposed compressor stations and the Vya Construction Camp would be located in 

areas designated by the EPA as attainment or unclassifiable for the seven regulated criteria pollutants. 

Air Quality Monitoring 

A network of ambient air quality monitoring stations has been established by the EPA and state 

and local agencies to measure and track background concentrations of criteria pollutants across the United 

States. Data from existing air quality monitoring stations were obtained to characterize the background 

air quality in the regions surrounding the compressor station sites. Given the remote location of the 

project, few ambient monitoring stations are located in proximity to the proposed project activities. Table 

4.11.1-4 provides air pollutant measurements from ambient air monitoring stations in the general project 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-266 

area. These measurements are from urban, residential, or agricultural areas that may not be representative 

of the entire project area. 

TABLE 4.11.1-4 

Ambient Air Quality Measurements for the Ruby Pipeline Project Area 

Pollutant Averaging Time 

Ambient Air Quality Measurementsa 

Murphy Ridge, WY Brigham City, UT North Portage, UT Elko, NV 

ID 560410101 ID 490030003 ID 490037001 ID 320070004 

CO 8-Hour 1.5 ppm (2007) - - - 

1-Hour 1.6 ppm (2007) - - - 

Pbb Quarterly - - - - 

NO2 Annual 0.003 μg/m3 (2007) - - - 

O3 1-Hour 0.081 ppm (2007) 0.117 ppm (2005) 0.091 ppm (2007) - 

8-Hour 0.070 ppmc (2007) 0.078 ppmd 

(2005-2007) 

0.076 ppmd 

(2005-2007) 

- 

PM10 Annual 12 μg/m3 (2007) - - 26 μg/m3 (2007) 

24-Hour 157 μg/m3 (2008) - - 163 μg/m3

(2003) 

PM2.5 Annual - 10.11 μg/m3 (2004) 5.36 μg/m3 (2005) - 

24-Hour - 52 μg/m3c (2004) 37.6 μg/m3c (2004) - 

SO2 Annual 0.001 μg/m3 (2007) - - - 

24-Hour 0.006 μg/m3 (2007) - - - 

3-Hour 0.007 μg/m3 (2007) - - - 

───────────────────────────

a EPA, 2007b. Except where noted, the maximum values measured over the period from 2003 through 2008 are listed. 

These measurements are from urban, residential, or agricultural areas that may not be representative of the areas in 

which the Ruby Pipeline Project compressor stations and other activities would be located. 

b Pb is not measured at any of the ambient air monitoring stations in the project area. 

c Value is 4th-highest value measured for the year listed. 

d Value is the 3-year average of the 4th-highest value measured for each year listed. 

Representative ambient air quality background measurements for the compressor station sites 

were provided by the WDEQ, UDAQ, and NDEP. These background concentrations are summarized in 

table 4.11.1-5. The state agencies indicated that some of these measurements are based on data from 

urban areas or industrial sites and may represent higher values than those found in the rural areas where 

the compressor stations would be located. 

4.11.1.2 Air Quality Regulatory Requirements 

Federal Regulations 

The Ruby Pipeline Project would generate air emissions through both short-term construction 

activities (including at the Vya Construction Camp) and long-term operation of the compressor stations. 

Three of the four proposed compressor stations would emit air pollutants as a result of natural gas 

combustion that powers compressors, emergency generators, and auxiliary heaters. The electric-driven 

Roberson Creek Compressor Station would emit air pollutants generated by the natural gas-powered 

emergency generator and auxiliary heaters. Each of the compressor stations would be subject to federal, 

state, and local air quality regulations that are driven by the CAA and its amendments. The provisions of 

the CAA that are potentially relevant to this project are listed below and are discussed in the following 

subsections: 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-267 

• Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD); 

• Federal Class I Area Protection; 

• New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); 

• NESHAP; 

• Title V Operating Permits; 

• General Conformity; and 

• GHG Reporting Rule. 

TABLE 4.11.1-5 

Ambient Air Quality Background Concentrations for Compressor Stations Sites for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Pollutant Averaging 

Period 

Roberson Creek Compressor 

Stationa

Wildcat Hills Compressor 

Stationb

Wieland Flat 

Compressor Stationc

Desert 

Valley 

Compressor 

Stationc

CO 8-Hour - 1 ppm e e 

1-Hour - 1 ppm e e 

Lead Quarterly - - e e 

NO2 Annual 3.4 μg/m3 10 μg/m3 e e 

O3 1-Hour - - e e 

8-Hour - - e e 

PM10 Annual 6.2 μg/m3 10 μg/m3 9 μg/m3 9 μg/m3

24-Hour 17.7 μg/m3 34 μg/m3 10.2 μg/m3 10.2 μg/m3

PM2.5 Annual - d e e 

24-Hour - d e e 

SO2 Annual 5 μg/m3 5 μg/m3 e e 

24-Hour 18 μg/m3 10 μg/m3 e e 

3-Hour 29 μg/m3 20 μg/m3 e e 

───────────────────────────

a Sharp, 2008. 

b Prey, 2008. Except for annual PM10, all values are based on estimates for rural areas. Annual PM10 value is based on 

monitoring at the ATK Solid Rocket Test Facility (Promontory, Utah). 

c NDEP, 2008. Values are based on monitoring data from Lehman Caves (Baker, Nevada) in the Great Basin National 

Park. 

d Background PM2.5 values have not been established by the UDAQ. Background PM10 values were used as a surrogate 

for PM2.5. 

e Background values have not been established by the NDEP for non-PSD emission sources in attainment areas. 

Nonattainment New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration

NNSR is required for major emission sources that would be located or expanded in a 

nonattainment area, while PSD review is required for major emission sources located or expanded in an 

area designated as attainment. None of the proposed compressor stations or the Vya Construction Camp 

would be located in a nonattainment area; therefore, NNSR would not apply. 

The PSD regulations, as codified in 40 CFR 52.21, define a major source or major modification 

as: 

• a source with a potential-to-emit of more than 100 tons per year (tpy) of any regulated 

criteria pollutant for a facility that is one of the 28 industrial source categories listed in 40 

CFR 52.21 (b)(1)(i)(a); 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-268 

• a source with a potential-to-emit of more than 250 tpy of any regulated criteria pollutant 

for a facility that is not one of the 28 industrial source categories listed in 40 CFR 52.21 

(b)(1)(i)(a); 

• a modification to an existing major source that results in a net emissions increase of a 

regulated criteria pollutant greater than the PSD significant emission rate specified in 40 

CFR 52.21 (b)(23)(i) or in state/local regulations (where state/local regulations are 

governing); or 

• an existing minor source proposing a modification that is major by itself. 

The PSD process evaluates existing ambient air quality, the potential impacts of the proposed 

source on ambient air quality and whether the source would contribute to a violation of the NAAQS, and 

a review of Best Available Control Technology (BACT). PSD limits the amount of ambient air 

deterioration that would be allowed in an attainment area by a proposed source. As part of PSD, the air 

quality deterioration within federal Class I areas (i.e., federally protected wilderness areas and national 

parks) is also limited. Natural gas compressor stations are not identified in the list of 28 source categories 

in the CAA; therefore, the applicability threshold for PSD review for the proposed compressor stations 

would be 250 tpy for each pollutant. 

Based on the emissions data available for each proposed compressor station (presented in table 

4.11.1-6), the estimated potential emissions for each pollutant would be below the 250-tpy threshold; 

therefore, the compressor stations would be considered minor sources and none would trigger PSD 

review. Ruby has stated the emissions from the Vya Construction Camp would not exceed the 250-tpy 

threshold; therefore, PSD review would not be required. Ruby would acquire air permits from the 

Washoe County Air Quality Management Division for operation of the Vya camp as necessary. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-269

TABLE 4.11.1-6 

Estimated Operational Emission Rates for Compressor Stations for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Compressor Station Proposed Sourcea

CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 Volatile O

Carbo

 (VOC

lb/hr tpy lb/hr tpy lb/hr tpy lb/hr tpy lb/hr tpy lb/hr 

Roberson Creek Stand-by Generatorb 2.4 0.6 1.2 0.3 <0.1 0.007 <0.1 0.007 <0.1 0.0004 0.6 

Heatersc <0.1 0.2 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 0.02 <0.1 0.02 <0.1 0.002 <0.1 

Total 2.4 0.8 1.2 0.6 <0.1 0.03 <0.1 0.03 <0.1 0.002 0.6 

Wildcat Hills Solar Mars 100d 6.6 28.7 6.5 28.3 3.5 15.5 3.5 15.5 0.4 1.8 0.8 

Solar Mars 100d 6.6 28.7 6.5 28.3 3.5 15.5 3.5 15.5 0.4 1.8 0.8 

Stand-by Generatorb 5.9 1.5 3.0 0.7 <0.1 0.02 <0.1 0.02 <0.1 0.001 1.5 

Heatersc <0.1 0.2 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 0.02 <0.1 0.02 <0.1 0.002 <0.1 

Total 19.1 59.0 16.0 58.0 7.0 31.0 7.0 31.0 0.8 3.5 3.0 

Wieland Flat Solar Titan 130d 15.4 67.6 12.7 55.5 4.2 18.3 4.2 18.3 0.5 2.1 0.9 

Solar Titan 130d 15.4 67.6 12.7 55.5 4.2 18.3 4.2 18.3 0.5 2.1 0.9 

Stand-by Generatorb 5.9 1.5 3.0 0.7 <0.1 0.02 <0.1 0.02 <0.1 0.001 1.5 

Heatersc <0.1 0.2 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 0.02 <0.1 0.02 <0.1 0.002 <0.1 

Total 36.8 137.0 28.4 112.0 8.4 37.0 8.4 37.0 1.0 4.1 3.3 

Desert Valley Solar Titan 130d 16.4 72.0 13.5 59.1 4.4 19.4 4.4 19.4 0.5 2.2 0.9 

Stand-by Generatorb 5.9 1.5 3.0 0.7 <0.1 0.02 <0.1 0.02 <0.1 0.001 1.5 

Heatersc <0.1 0.2 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 0.02 <0.1 0.02 <0.1 0.002 <0.1 

Total 22.4 74.0 16.5 60.0 4.5 19.0 4.5 19.0 0.5 2.2 2.4 

───────────────────────────a Only natural gas-fired sources are listed because electric-motor driven sources would not impact air quality. b NOx, CO, and VOC emission factors obtained from NSPS Subpart JJJJ for spark-ignition emergency generators. Emission factors for PM10, PM

from AP-42 Section 3.2 (4-stroke lean burn engines). 

c Emission factors obtained from AP-42 Section 1.4 (Natural Gas Combustion). 

d NOx, CO, and VOC emission rates are based on the Emission Performance Data Sheet for Solar Turbines Titan 130-20502S and 100-15000S. 

Solar Turbines' Product Information Letter 171 "Particulate Matter Emission Estimates." Emission factors for SO2 were obtained from AP-42 Seand total HAPs are based on Solar Turbines' Product Information Letter 168 "Volatile Organic Compound, Sulfur Dioxide, and Formaldehyde Em

lb/hr pounds per hour 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-270 

Federal Class I Area Protection

In 1977, the U.S. Congress designated certain lands (e.g., national parks or wilderness areas) as 

mandatory federal Class I areas because the air quality was considered a special feature of the given area. 

These federal Class I areas, and any other areas that have been redesignated as federal Class I areas since 

1977, are given special protection under the PSD program. The PSD program established air pollution 

increment increases that are allowed by new or modified air pollution sources. If the new source is 

required to comply with PSD program requirements and is near a federal Class I area (within 100 

kilometers), the source is required to determine its impacts at the nearby federal Class I area(s). The 

source is also required to notify the appropriate federal land managing agencies for the nearby federal 

Class I area(s). The nearest Class I areas to the proposed compressor station sites and the Vya 

Construction Camp are listed below: 

• The Roberson Creek Compressor Station would be approximately 84 miles (135 

kilometers) southwest of the Bridger Wilderness Area. 

• The Wildcat Hills Compressor Station would be approximately 103 miles (165 

kilometers) east of the Jarbidge Wilderness Area. 

• The Wieland Flat Compressor Station would be approximately 31 miles (50 kilometers) 

southwest of the Jarbidge Wilderness Area. 

• The Desert Valley Compressor Station would be approximately 68 miles (110 

kilometers) east of the South Warner Wilderness Area. 

• The Vya Construction Camp would be approximately 16 miles (26 kilometers) northeast 

of the South Warner Wilderness Area. 

Because the proposed compressor stations and Vya camp are minor sources and not subject to 

PSD requirements, a Class I Visibility Impact analysis is not required under PSD. 

New Source Performance Standards

Section 111 of the CAA requires EPA to identify categories of new and modified sources that 

contribute significantly to air pollution and endanger public health or welfare. After identifying 

approximately 60 source categories (e.g., fossil fuel-fired turbines, steam generating units, combustion 

engines) that are designated by size as well as type of process, the EPA established uniform, national 

emission standards known as NSPS in 40 CFR 60. 

The objective of NSPS is to promote use of the best demonstrated control technologies, taking 

into account the cost of such technology and any other non-air quality, health, and environmental impact, 

as well as energy requirements. The Ruby Pipeline Project would involve the installation of natural gasfired turbines that are subject to Subpart KKKK: Standards of Performance for Stationary Combustion 

Turbines. Pursuant to these regulations, each turbine would be required to meet emission limits for NOx

and SO2. The project also would involve installation of stand-by generator engines that are subject to 

Subpart JJJJ: Standards of Performance for Stationary Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines. 

Pursuant to these regulations, the emergency generators would be required to meet emission limits for 

NOx, CO, and Volatile Organic Carbons (VOC). 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-271 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

The NESHAP is codified in 40 CFR 61 and 40 CFR 63 to regulate the emissions of HAPs. The 

CAA established a list of 189 HAPs and technical criteria for establishing HAP emission limits for certain 

industries. The proposed turbines could be subject to 40 CFR 63 Subpart YYYY that requires Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) to reduce emissions of HAPs through the installation of control 

equipment if they were located at a major source for HAP pollutants. The compressor stations and the 

Vya Construction Camp are not expected to be major sources and therefore would not be subject to 

Subpart YYYY. 

The natural gas-driven emergency generators would be subject to the reciprocating internal 

combustion engine MACT standard published in 40 CFR 63 Subpart ZZZZ if the station rating is greater 

than 500 hp and the station’s potential HAP emissions exceed 10 tpy of an individual HAP or 25 tpy of 

HAPs collectively (i.e., major source of HAPs). All three of the natural gas-fired compressor stations 

with reciprocating internal combustion engines would have a station rating greater than 500 hp; however, 

as shown in table 4.11.1-6, the total potential HAP emissions for these compressor stations are expected 

to be below the major source thresholds, so Subpart ZZZZ would not apply. 

Title V Operating Permits

Title V of the CAA Amendments of 1990 requires a federal operating permit for major sources of 

criteria pollutants and requires states to establish an air operating permit program. The requirements for 

Title V are outlined in 40 CFR 70, and the permits required by these regulations are often referred to as 

Part 70 permits. The criteria for the Title V Program are as follows: 

• emissions of any criteria pollutant greater than 100 tpy; or 

• HAP emissions greater than 10 tpy of any individual HAP or greater than 25 tpy of all 

HAPs. 

Because the projected CO and NOx emissions for the Wieland Flat Compressor Station would be 

greater than 100 tpy (see table 4.11.1-6), this station would be considered a Part 70 major source and 

would require a Title V Operating Permit to operate. Thus, the Wieland Flat Compressor Station would 

need a Class I operating permit issued by the NDEP. The other three compressor stations have potential 

emissions that are less than the Title V Program criteria. Therefore, Title V Operating Permits would not 

be needed for these stations. 

General Conformity

The EPA promulgated the General Conformity Rule in 1993 to implement the conformity 

provision of Title I, Section 176(c)(1) of the CAA (40 CFR 51.853). Section 176(c)(1) requires that the 

federal government not engage, support, or provide financial assistance for licensing or permitting, or 

approve any activity not conforming to an approved CAA implementation plan. 

The General Conformity Rule is codified in 40 CFR 51, Subpart W; and 93, Subpart B, 

Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans. A federal 

action is subject to the General Conformity Rule if it is not classified as an exempt activity and if: 

• the total direct emissions of a nonattainment/maintenance pollutant (or its precursors) 

equal or exceed de minimis emission thresholds established in the General Conformity 

regulations; or 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-272 

• the emissions equal or exceed 10 percent of the total emissions budget for the entire 

nonattainment or maintenance area. 

If emissions are less than these criteria levels, then the federal action is presumed to conform with 

the State Implementation Plan, and the General Conformity Rule is not applicable. 

Section 176(c)(1) of the CAA states that a federal agency cannot approve or support any activity 

that does not conform to an approved State Implementation Plan. Conforming activities or actions should 

not, through additional air pollutant emissions: 

• cause or contribute to new violations of the NAAQS in any area; 

• increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any NAAQS; or 

• delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or interim emission reductions. 

The emissions from the construction and operation of the Ruby Pipeline Project would not occur 

in nonattainment areas; therefore, the General Conformity Rule is not applicable. 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule

 

On September 22, 2009, the EPA issued the final Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases 

Rule. It requires reporting of GHG emissions from suppliers of fossil fuels and facilities that emit greater 

than or equal to 25,000 metric tons9 of GHG (as carbon dioxide equivalent emissions) per year. The 

combustion-related GHG carbon dioxide equivalent emissions from operation of Ruby’s natural gas-fired 

compressor stations (Wildcat Hills, Wieland Flat, and Desert Valley) could potentially exceed 25,000 

metric tons per year. Ruby would be required to comply with all applicable requirements of EPA’s rule 

for all actual GHG emissions from proposed sources at the stations equal to or greater than 25,000 metric 

tons per year. 

State Regulations 

In addition to the federal regulations described above, Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada have state air 

quality regulations that would apply to the project. There would be no short- or long-term emissions 

sources constructed in Oregon. Ruby’s Lakeview Temporary Housing Facility in Oregon would utilize 

existing municipal electric, water, and sewer services 

Wyoming

Requirements for air permits are codified under the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and 

Regulations, Chapter 6. An application for a permit to construct the Roberson Creek Compressor Station 

was submitted to the WDEQ on February 18, 2009. The following regulations include state-specific 

emission requirements that would apply to the natural gas-fueled heaters and stand-by generators planned 

for the Roberson Creek Compressor Station: 

• Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations Chapter 3, Section 2. Emission 

Standards for Particulate Matter. Visible emissions of any contaminants discharged into 

the atmosphere from any single new emission source shall be limited to 20 percent 

opacity. 

 

9

 1 metric ton is equal to 2,205 pounds, or approximately 1.1 tons. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-273 

• Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations Chapter 6, Section 2. Permit 

Requirements for Construction, Modification, and Operation. A proposed facility will 

utilize BACT with consideration of the technical practicability and economic 

reasonableness of reducing or eliminating the emissions resulting from the facility. 

Utah

Utah air quality is regulated by the Utah Administrative Code, Title R307. An Approval Order 

from the UDAQ would be necessary prior to construction of the Wildcat Hills Compression Station. 

Before issuing an Approval Order, the UDAQ is required to review and assess an NOI submitted for a 

proposed facility. An NOI to construct the station was submitted to the UDAQ on February 16, 2009. 

UDAQ issued Approval Order Number DAQE-AN0142090001-09 for the Wildcat Hills Compressor 

Station on August 12, 2009. The following regulation includes state-specific emission requirements that 

would apply to the natural gas-fueled turbines and stand-by generators planned for the Wildcat Hills 

Compressor Station: 

• Utah Administrative Code R307-401-5. Permit: New and Modified Sources - Notice of 

Intent. New emission sources are required to consider BACT. Control may be achieved 

by means of good process design, sound operating practices, emission control devices, or 

a combination of these means. 

Therefore, Ruby prepared a BACT analysis as part of its NOI for the Wildcat Hills Compressor 

Station. In accordance with UDAQ guidance, the following criteria are used when analyzing strategies to 

achieve BACT: energy impacts, environmental impacts, economic impacts, other considerations, and cost 

calculations. 

Nevada

Nevada air emissions are codified under Nevada Administrative Code, Chapter 445B. These 

requirements would pertain to the Wieland Flat and Desert Valley Compressor Stations. The proposed 

emission sources at the Desert Valley Compressor Station would be below Title V thresholds. Therefore, 

this compressor station would be considered a minor source, and a Class II permit would need to be 

obtained from the NDEP. Permit-to-construct applications for the Wieland Flat and Desert Valley 

compressor stations were prepared accordingly and submitted to the NDEP in February 2009. NDEP 

issued Class I Air Operating Permit to Construct AP4922-2537 for the Wieland Flat Compressor Station 

on September 11, 2009. The following regulations include state-specific emission requirements that 

apply to the natural gas-fueled turbines and stand-by generators planned for the compressor stations: 

• Nevada Administrative Code 445B.22017. Visible Emissions: Maximum Opacity; 

Determination and Monitoring of Opacity. No owner or operator may cause or permit 

the discharge of emissions from any emission unit that has opacity equal to or greater 

than 20 percent. 

• Nevada Administrative Code 445B.2203. Emissions of Particulate Matter: Fuel-Burning 

Equipment. The allowable emissions of PM10 caused by the combustion of fuel in fuel 

combustion equipment must be calculated by the following formulas: 

o For maximum heat input equal to or greater than 4 million Btu/hour but less than 

or equal to 10 million Btu/hour, the allowable emission is 0.6 pound per million 

Btu of heat input. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-274 

o For maximum heat input greater than 10 million Btu/hour but less than 4,000 

million Btu/hour, the allowable emissions are calculated using the following 

equation: Y = 1.02X-0.231; where “X” means the maximum operating rate (in 

million Btu/hour) and “Y” means the allowable rate of emission (in 

pounds/million Btu). 

• Nevada Administrative Code 445B.22047. Sulfur emissions: Fuel-burning equipment. 

The allowable emission of compounds of sulfur caused by the combustion of fuel in fuelburning equipment with a maximum heat input of less than 250 million Btu/hour must be 

calculated by use of the following equation: Y = 0.7X; where “X” means the maximum 

operating heat input (in million Btu/hour) and “Y” means the allowable rate of emission 

of sulfur (in lb/hr). 

4.11.1.3 Construction Impacts on Air Quality 

Air quality impacts from the construction phase of the project would result primarily from 

construction equipment and fugitive dust emissions. Construction equipment and other mobile sources 

would be powered by diesel or gasoline fuels and would have intermittent and short-term (generally 

limited to the construction period) emissions of CO, SO2, NOx, PM10/PM2.5, and VOCs. Emissions from 

gasoline and diesel engines would be built to comply with the EPA mobile source regulations (40 CFR 

85). Air emissions from the electrical generators at the Vya Construction Camp would be mitigated 

through the use of a selective catalytic reduction system to reduce NOx emissions. Because the 

construction equipment would only be operated on an as-needed basis, the emissions resulting from the 

operation of construction equipment would be further minimized. 

We received comments during the scoping period regarding the potential of the project to 

generate nuisance fugitive dust during construction. Ruby would employ standard construction practices 

to control the generation of fugitive dust emissions during construction. State and local air quality 

agencies administer regulations that can require monitoring and/or control measures to minimize the 

generation of fugitive dust. A summary of the air quality fugitive dust regulatory requirements applicable 

to project construction activities is presented in Table 4.11.1-7. The NDEP and Washoe County (Nevada) 

Air Quality Management Division are the only jurisdictions that require specific plans and/or permits for 

large-scale construction projects. Ruby has submitted an application for a surface area disturbance 

permit/fugitive dust control plan for project construction activities in Elko and Humboldt counties to the 

NDEP. Ruby would be required to prepare and submit an application for a dust control permit for project 

construction activities in Washoe County to the Washoe County Air Quality Management Division. 

TABLE 4.11.1-7 

Applicable Fugitive Dust Regulations for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Air Quality Agency Rule Number and Title Rule Description 

Washoe County Air Quality 

Management Division 

40.030 

(Dust Control) 

The purpose of this rule is to limit particulate material emissions into 

the ambient air from any property, operations, or activities that may 

serve as a fugitive dust source. 

NDEP 

NAC 445B.22037 

(Emissions of Particulate 

Matter: Fugitive Dust) 

Requirements for fugitive dust control and requirements for dust 

control plans and permits. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-275 

Ruby has created a Fugitive Dust Control Plan (Appendix O) that identifies potential dust 

emission sources and requires control measures for the generation of fugitive dust during construction. 

The following construction activities have been identified as having the potential for generating fugitive 

dust: 

• vehicle and motorized equipment on paved and unpaved access roads; 

• vegetation removal; 

• clearing and grading; 

• topsoil removal; 

• cutting and filling; 

• trenching; 

• backfilling; 

• blasting; 

• track-out onto roads; 

• bulk material loading, hauling, and unloading; 

• use of material storage piles; and 

• use of parking, staging, and storage areas. 

The generation of fugitive dust during construction activities would be reduced through the 

application of appropriate control measures. The Fugitive Dust Control Plan outlines several specific 

control measures to be used as needed to control project-related fugitive dust emissions. These control 

measures are based on typical practices for natural gas pipeline construction and the requirements of the 

aforementioned agencies. The following control measures would be implemented as part of the Fugitive 

Dust Control Plan: 

• apply water one or more times per day to all actively used unpaved roads and unpaved 

haul and access roads; 

• reduce vehicle speeds on all unpaved roads, and unpaved haul and access roads. Speed 

limits may be set for travel on unpaved roads; and 

• apply water to active construction areas as needed. Areas should be pre-watered and 

soils maintained in stabilized condition where support equipment and vehicles would 

operate. Disturbed soils would be watered to form a crust. 

In their September filing, Ruby committed to update the Fugitive Dust Control Plan to revise 

language for haul trucks. Ruby agreed to cover haul truck loads carrying sand, gravel, solid trash, or 

other loose material. Ruby also would be required to obtain landowner or land managing agency 

approval and appropriate local permits prior to any open burning activities. 

Air emissions as a result of pipeline construction are typically intermittent and short-term, as 

projects typically move through an area relatively quickly. Emissions from fugitive dust and construction 

activities would be controlled to the extent required by state and local agencies. Typically, the greatest 

concern for construction emissions occurs at stationary sites where heavy construction equipment would 

operate for an extended period of time, such as at compressor stations. Based on our experience with 

similar projects, we would expect compressor station construction to result in air emissions within the 

following ranges: 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-276 

 Expected

 Air Pollutant Emissions Range

 PM2.5 2 to 40 tpy 

 PM10 10 to 30 tpy 

 NOx 8 to 40 tpy 

 CO 5 to 25 tpy 

 SO2 1 to 5 tpy 

 VOC 1 to 5 tpy 

We believe that the project would incorporate sufficient measures to ensure that appropriate 

levels of air quality are maintained during construction, and that Ruby would comply with the appropriate 

state regulations concerning the mitigation of fugitive dust emissions. If all the fugitive dust mitigation 

measures are implemented by Ruby, we conclude that emissions from construction-related activities 

would not significantly affect local or regional air quality. 

4.11.1.4 Operational Impacts on Air Quality 

Operational emissions would result primarily from natural gas-fired turbines, emergency 

generators, and auxiliary heaters located at the compressor stations. These compressor stations would be 

used to compress natural gas for transportation through the pipeline. Combustion emissions from these 

stations would mainly consist of NOx, CO, HAPs, VOCs, SO2, and PM10/PM2.5 (see table 4.11.1-6). As 

stated in section 4.11.1.2, none of the proposed compressor stations would have potential emissions in 

quantities large enough to trigger a PSD review. Therefore, the compressor stations would be minor 

sources relative to the PSD permitting process and would only require state construction and operating air 

permits. 

GHGs, which include CO2, CH4, and N2O, would also be produced from combustion sources at 

the compressor stations. CH4 can be released from blowdown events under routine operations or upset 

conditions (i.e., pipeline venting, compressor station venting, meter station venting, or pigging and 

inspection). In addition, CH4 emissions can occur due to leaks from pipeline and system components 

such as equipment packing, seals, valves, flanges, pneumatic devices, and connectors. GHG emission 

estimates for pipeline and compressor station operation are presented in table 4.11.1-8. Ruby and its 

shippers have agreed to construct and operate the Ruby Pipeline Project as a carbon-neutral pipeline, 

which would be achieved through various methods such as design and operation considerations, the use of 

offsets, restoration, etc. 

TABLE 4.11.1-8 

Annual GHG Emissions Estimates from Pipeline and Compressor Station Operation for the Ruby Pipeline Project

GHG Emission Category Emission Source GHG Emissions (metric tons CO2e/year) 

Stationary Combustion Compressors, Stand-By-Generators, Heaters 258,174 

Fugitive Pipeline 98 

Fugitive Meter Station Components 242 

Fugitive Compressor Station Components 5,168 

Fugitive Compressor Components 35,737 

Fugitive Station Blowdown 8,550 

Fugitive Pipeline Blowdown 11,230 

 Total 319,200 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-277 

Ruby would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local air quality 

regulations. Compliance with these regulations would minimize the air quality impacts of compressor 

station operation. The respective state air quality permitting process for each compressor station would 

dictate the level of mitigation that may be required for the potential emissions from each station. 

Following the permitting process, emissions compliance testing would be required to ensure that the 

compressor stations are operating within their federal, state, and local permit conditions. 

The Wieland Flat Compressor Station has a potential to emit greater than 100 tpy of NOx and CO, 

and therefore would be considered a Title V major source. Ruby would be required to obtain the 

necessary air quality permits for construction prior to building the compressor station, but the Title V 

Operating Permit could be obtained after operations have commenced. 

Ruby modeled future air emissions in accordance with guidance from the appropriate state air 

permitting agencies, and demonstrated that the operation of the compressor stations would not cause nor 

contribute to a violation of the NAAQS or any state AAQS. Given the projected low level of emissions 

for the Roberson Creek Compressor Station, air dispersion modeling was not required by the WDEQ. 

The UDAQ required that potential NO2, PM10, and formaldehyde emissions be modeled for the 

Wildcat Hills Compressor Station. The NDEP required that potential CO, NO2, PM10, SO2, and O3

emissions be modeled for the Wieland Flat and Desert Valley compressor stations. Since O3 is not 

directly emitted from emission sources, the ozone emissions were modeled using a screening technique 

developed by the EPA and summarized in VOC/NOx Point Source Screening Tables (Scheffe, 1988). The 

results of this modeling, as presented in Table 4.11.1-9, indicate that the compressor stations would not 

violate the NAAQS or any state AAQS. 

Air quality impacts would be mitigated through the use of natural gas-fired turbines and 

generators that are compliant with NSPS Subpart KKKK and NSPS Subpart JJJJ at all compressor 

stations. In addition, BACT would be applied to the turbines and stand-by generators operated at the 

Wildcat Hills Compressor Station. 

 Operation of the proposed project would be expected to result in long-term minor impacts on air 

quality from the proposed compressor stations and other aboveground facilities; however, significant 

impacts are not anticipated to occur. Periodic use of access roads during operations would result in 

infrequent and minor impacts associated with dust, and these impacts would be localized and temporary 

when they did occur. 

4.11.2 Noise 

 Noise levels can be affected both during construction and operation of pipeline projects. 

The magnitude and frequency of environmental noise may vary considerably over the course of the day, 

throughout the week, and across seasons, in part due to changing weather conditions and the effects of 

seasonal vegetative cover. Two measures to relate the time-varying quality of environmental noise to its 

known effect to people are the 24-hour equivalent sound level (Leq) and day-night sound level (Ldn). The 

Leq is the level of steady sound with the same total (equivalent) energy as the time-varying sound of 

interest, averaged over a 24-hour period. The Ldn is the Leq plus 10 decibels on the A-weighted scale 

(dBA) added to account for people’s greater sensitivity to nighttime sound levels (between the hours of 

10 p.m. and 7 a.m.). The A-weighted scale is used because human hearing is less sensitive to low and 

high frequencies than mid-range frequencies. The human ear’s threshold of perception for noise change 

is considered to be 3 dBA; 6 dBA is clearly noticeable to the human ear, and 10 dBA is perceived as a 

doubling of noise. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-278 

 TABLE 4.11.1-9 

Dispersion Modeling Results for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Pollutant Averaging 

Period 

Wildcat Hills Compressor 

Stationa

Wieland Flat Compressor 

Stationb

Desert Valley Compressor 

Stationb

Total 

Concentrationc

(μg/m3

) 

Utah AAQS 

or TSL 

(μg/m3

) 

Total 

Concentrationc

(μg/m3

) 

Nevada 

AAQS 

(μg/m3

) 

Total 

Concentrationc

(μg/m3

) 

Nevada 

AAQS 

(μg/m3

) 

CO 8-Hour - - 88.0 10,000 117 10,000 

1-Hour - - 303.0 40,000 242 40,000 

NO2 Annual 11.5 100 1.1 100 1.1 100 

PM10

d

 Annual 10.8 50 9.3 50 9.1 50 

24-Hour 51.2 150 16.6 150 13.8 150 

SO2 Annual - - 0.032 80 0.016 80 

24-Hour - - 0.7 365 0.4 365 

3-Hour - - 2.2 1,300 1.1 1,300 

O3 8-Hour 

- - 0.011 ppm 0.075 

ppm 0.011 ppm 0.075 

ppm 

1-Hour - - 0.011 ppm 0.12 ppm 0.011 ppm 0.12 ppm 

Formaldehyde 1-Hour 15.0 37 - - - - 

───────────────────────────

a NO2, PM10, and formaldehyde would be emitted at levels greater than UDAQ thresholds for modeling. Therefore, NO2

and PM10 were the only criteria pollutants, and formaldehyde the only HAP, included in the air quality impact analysis. 

Model used: EPA’s Industrial Source Complex model (ISC3). 

b O3 impacts were modeled using a screening technique developed by the EPA and summarized in VOC/NOx Point 

Source Screening Tables (Scheffe, 1988). Model used for CO, NO2, PM10, and SO2: EPA’s AERMOD, Version 070206. 

c Total concentration is the sum of the maximum modeled concentration and the background concentration. 

d The impact analysis for PM10 is used as a surrogate for the impact analysis of PM2.5. 

e Pb would not be anticipated to be emitted from station equipment; and therefore, is not included in the impact analysis. 

f An impact analysis was not performed for the Roberson Creek Compressor Station given the projected low level of 

emissions. The WDEQ would determine the need for an air quality analysis after reviewing the submitted permit-toconstruct application. 

TSL Toxic Screening Level 

Noise impacts related to a natural gas pipeline project generally fall into two categories: 

temporary impacts resulting from operation of construction equipment and long-term or permanent 

impacts resulting from operation of compressor units. Construction-related noise from heavy equipment 

would be of a similar nature regardless of the project. We received comments during the public scoping 

comment period regarding the project’s noise levels during construction and operations, and those 

comments are addressed in this section’s discussion. 

The ambient sound level of a region is defined by the total noise generated within the specific 

environment, and is usually comprised of sound emanating from natural and artificial sources. At any 

location, both the magnitude and frequency of environmental noise may vary considerably over the 

course of the day and throughout the week. This variation is caused in part by changing weather 

conditions and the effects of seasonal vegetation cover. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-279 

4.11.2.1 Noise Regulatory Requirements 

In 1974, the EPA published its Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to 

Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. This document provides 

information for state and local governments to use in developing their own ambient noise standards. EPA 

has determined that an Ldn of 55 dBA protects the public from indoor and outdoor activity noise 

interference. 

The FERC has adopted this criterion to screen for new compressor stations and associated 

pipeline facilities (18 CFR 380.12), and it is used here to evaluate the potential noise impact from 

operation of the project. An Ldn of 55 dBA is equivalent to a continuous noise level of 48.6 dBA for 

facilities that operate at a constant level of noise. Our guidelines also require that new pipeline facilities 

not result in a perceptible increase in vibration at any noise-sensitive area (NSA). In addition, a sound 

level of 55 dBA (Ldn) can be used as a “benchmark noise criterion” for assessing the noise impact of 

temporary or intermittent noise. 

Based on a review of the state regulations, no applicable noise regulations were identified for 

natural gas compressor station facilities constructed and operated in Wyoming, Utah, or Nevada. 

4.11.2.2 Existing Noise Environment 

Noise impacts are determined at NSAs including residences, schools, daycare facilities, hospitals, 

long-term care facilities, places of worship, libraries, and parks and recreational areas specifically valued 

for their solitude and tranquility, such as wilderness areas. Each compressor station has been evaluated 

for adjacent NSAs and surrounding ambient noise levels. 

Ruby identified existing NSAs in the vicinity of each of the proposed compressor station sites. 

Ruby also conducted daytime ambient noise monitoring at each closest NSA to determine daytime sound 

levels (Ld); nighttime sound levels (Ln) were assumed to be equal to Ld. Ruby used this information to 

calculate a day-night sound level (Ldn) for each compressor station. The NSAs, their distance and 

direction from each site, and the measured or estimated noise levels are summarized in table 4.11.2-1. 

The nearest NSA to the Vya Construction Camp is the Old Yella Dog Ranch located about 6,000 feet 

southeast of the camp. 

TABLE 4.11.2-1 

NSA Locations and Measured/Estimated Ambient Noise Levels in the Vicinity of the Compressor Stations 

for the Ruby Pipeline Projecta

Compressor Station Distance/Direction of Nearest NSA Ld (dBA) Ln

b

 (dBA) Ldn (dBA) 

Roberson Creek 25,900 feet / NNW 25.0 25.0 31.6 

Wildcat Hills 7,500 feet / NNW 28.0 28.0 34.4 

Wieland Flat 33,800 feet / SSW 37.0 37.0 43.4 

Desert Valley 23,800 feet / W 24.0 24.0 30.4 

─────────────────────────── 

a Acoustical analysis was performed by Hoover & Keith Inc., 2008. 

b Ln was not measured; it was assumed to be equal to Ld. 

The Roberson Creek Compressor Station would be in a rural area of Lincoln County, Wyoming. 

The nearest NSA is a residence approximately 25,900 feet (4.9 miles) north-northwest of the proposed 

station site. Ruby measured ambient sound on September 18, 2008. Noise sources at the NSA included 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-280 

the sound of birds and insects and occasionally the noise of distant aircraft. Daytime sound levels at the 

NSA were measured at 25.0 dBA with a calculated Ldn of 31.6 dBA. 

The Wildcat Hills Compressor Station would be in a rural area of Box Elder County, Utah. The 

nearest NSA is a residence located approximately 7,500 feet (1.4 miles) north-northwest of the station 

site. Ruby measured ambient sound on September 17, 2008. Noise sources at the NSA included the 

sound of birds and insects, the noise of distant aircraft, and occasionally wind-related noise (i.e., wind 

blowing in the grass/foliage). Daytime sound levels at the NSA were measured at 28.0 dBA with a 

calculated Ldn of 34.4 dBA. 

The Wieland Flat Compressor Station would be located in a rural area of Elko County, Nevada. 

The nearest NSA is a residence approximately 33,800 feet (6.4 miles) south-southwest of the station site. 

Ruby measured ambient sound on September 24, 2008. Noise sources at the NSA included wind-related 

noise (i.e., wind blowing in the grass/foliage), the noise of distant vehicles along Highway 225, the sound 

of birds/insects, and occasionally the sound of distant dog-barking. Daytime sound levels at the NSA 

were measured at 37.0 dBA with a calculated Ldn of 43.4 dBA. 

The Desert Valley Compressor Station would be in a rural area of Humboldt County, Nevada, 

approximately 43 miles northwest of Winnemucca. The nearest NSA is a residence approximately 23,800 

feet (4.5 miles) south-southwest of the station site. Ruby measured ambient sound on September 25, 

2008. Noise sources at the NSA included wind-related noise (i.e., wind blowing in the grass/foliage), the 

noise of distant vehicles along Highway 140, the sound of birds/insects, and occasionally, the sound of 

distant dog-barking. Daytime sound levels at the NSA were measured at 24.0 dBA with a calculated Ldn

of 30.4 dBA. 

4.11.2.3 Construction Noise 

Construction of the pipeline would cause temporary increases in ambient noise levels in the 

immediate vicinity of the construction sites. On-site construction noise would result mainly from heavyduty construction equipment (e.g., trucks, backhoes, excavators, loaders, and cranes). Typical pipeline 

construction equipment (both mobile and stationary) and corresponding noise emission levels are 

presented in table 4.11.2-2. The estimated “worst-case” noise level for the construction of the pipeline, 

excluding any HDDs, would be 85 dBA at 50 feet. The worst-case noise level is derived by assuming 

that all of the construction equipment listed in table 4.11.2-2 is operating simultaneously and by 

combining sound pressure levels logarithmically. It is highly unlikely that all of the equipment would 

operate simultaneously. Noise from on-site construction activities that may occur near a NSA along the 

pipeline route could be intermittent or continuous but would be limited to short durations over a period of 

3 to 4 weeks at any one location. 

Construction of the compressor stations would involve clearing and grading; placement of fill; 

and excavation for foundations for the compressor unit packages, other equipment settings, ancillary 

equipment, station piping, and associated unit housing and other structures. Ruby anticipates that 

construction of the compressor stations would commence as early as mid-May 2010 for completion in 

March 2011. Table 4.11.2-3 presents typical noise emission levels at 50 feet for the noise-producing 

equipment that would be used during the construction of the compressor stations. Because of the distance 

to the nearest NSA for each compressor station site, the noise resulting from construction activities should 

be significantly lower than 55 dBA (Ldn). 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-281 

TABLE 4.11.2-2 

Construction Noise from Typical Pipeline Construction Equipment Activities 

Equipment Reference 

dBA at 50 feet 

Number of 

Devices 

Usage 

(percent)b

Estimated Noise Level (dBA) at the Specified 

Distance from the Source (feet) 

50 100 250 500 1,000 2,500 

3-Ton Truck 84 1 40 80 74 66 60 54 46 

Dump Truck 84 1 40 80 74 66 60 54 46 

Concrete Truck 85 1 40 81 75 67 61 55 47 

Fuel Truck 84 1 40 80 74 66 60 54 46 

Backhoe 80 1 40 76 70 62 56 50 42 

Trenching Machine 85 1 40 81 75 67 61 55 47 

Crane 85 1 16 77 71 63 57 51 43 

Front End Loader 80 1 40 76 70 62 56 50 42 

Bulldozer 85 1 40 81 75 67 61 55 47 

Sideboom 85 1 16 77 71 63 57 51 43 

Boring Machine 85 1 20 78 72 64 58 52 44 

Padding Machine 85 1 40 81 75 67 61 55 47 

Farm Tractor 84 1 40 80 74 66 60 54 46 

Mulching Machine 86 1 40 82 76 68 62 56 48 

Air Compressor 80 1 40 76 70 62 56 50 42 

Generator/Light Plant 82 1 50 79 73 65 59 53 45 

Water Pump 77 1 50 74 68 60 54 48 40 

Water Truck 84 1 40 80 74 66 60 54 46 

Welding Machine 73 1 40 69 63 55 49 43 35 

Welding Truck 55 1 40 51 45 37 31 25 17 

X-Ray Truck 55 1 40 51 45 37 31 25 17 

Total Worst-Case Resulta 92 86 78 72 66 58 

───────────────────────────

a Derived by adding the individual equipment noise levels logarithmically using the following formula: Leqtotal = 

10log(Σ(10Leq/10)). 

b DOT, 2006. 

Ruby has committed to implementing the following measures during construction of the pipeline 

and compressor stations: 

• where possible, perform construction primarily during daytime hours when there is less 

sensitivity to sound. However, water pumping operations and hydrostatic testing of the 

pipeline would likely occur on a 24-hour basis; 

• ensure that all equipment has sound control devices no less effective than those provided 

by the manufacturer. No equipment would have unmuffled exhausts; and 

• to the extent feasible, configure the construction site in a manner that keeps noisier 

equipment and activities as far as possible from NSAs. 

Construction of the Vya Construction Camp also would cause temporary increases in noise levels 

in the immediate vicinity of the construction site. Construction noise levels would be expected to range 

from 70 to 80 dBA at 50 feet and would last for a period of about 10 weeks. At the nearest NSA, 6,000 

feet away, an 80-dBA construction noise level would be reduced to 38 dBA due to geometric spreading of 

sound energy. 

Sound sources associated with the operation of the Vya Construction Camp would include four 

diesel generators and 70 small furnaces operating for a period of about 8 to 10 months. Because of the 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-282 

distance to the nearest NSA, the noise resulting from the operation of the camp should not have a noise 

impact at the NSA. No long-term impacts on the existing noise environment would occur as the Vya 

camp would only actively operate for 8 to 10 months (not including setup or decommissioning).

TABLE 4.11.2-3 

Construction Noise from Typical Compressor Station Construction Equipment Activities 

Construction Activity Equipment Noise Level at 50 Feet (dBA) 

Land Clearing & Grading Backhoe 85 

Bulldozer 80 

Chainsaw 81 

Truck 88 

Maximum Sound Level 91 

Compressor Station Construction Truck 88 

Forklift 83 

Backhoe 85 

Cement Truck 85 

Maximum Sound Level 92 

4.11.2.4 Operational Noise 

Ruby performed noise analyses to estimate noise levels that would be attributable to compressor 

station operation. These levels were evaluated against the existing baseline Ldn noise levels and our 

impact criterion to determine potential impacts at the nearby NSAs. The calculated noise levels for each 

compressor station, as well as the existing ambient sound level and future sound level for the nearest 

NSAs, are presented in table 4.11.2-4. The analyses for most of the sites indicated that noise level 

increases would be less than 3 dBA. Industry standards consider increases of 3 dBA or less to be 

imperceptible to the human ear, 6 dBA to be distinctly noticeable and 10 dBA to be approximately a 

doubling of noise. 

TABLE 4.11.2-4 

Operational Noise Level Summaries at NSAs for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Compressor 

Station NSA Description Ambient Ldn(dBA) 

Estimated Station 

Ldn (dBA) 

Estimated Totala

 Ldn

(dBA) 

Potential Noise 

Increase (dBA) 

Roberson Creek Residence 31.6 19.6 31.9 0.3 

Wildcat Hills Residence 34.4 36.6 38.6 4.2 

Wieland Flat Residence 43.4 19.3 43.4 0.0 

Desert Valley Residence 30.4 21.7 30.9 0.5 

─────────────────────────── 

a Ldn of compressor station plus ambient noise. 

As shown in table 4.11.2-1, the distance from the compressor stations to the NSAs are 

considerable. Operational noise from the four compressor stations is estimated at values well below the 

maximum Ldn value of 55 dBA that is required under the FERC guidelines for operational compressor 

station noise at the nearest NSAs. Because of the extreme distance to NSAs at the Roberson Creek, 

Wieland Flat, and Desert Valley compressor stations, little to no impacts at the NSAs are expected. 

However, the Wildcat Hills Compressor Station has an NSA approximately 7,500 feet away, which is 

close enough that the potential noise increase of 4.2 dBA could be noticeable, and an impact greater than 

55 dBA Ldn is possible, depending on local conditions (e.g., climate, topography). To ensure that noise 

impact at the nearest NSA to the Wildcat Hills Compressor Station is not significant, we recommend 

that Ruby make all reasonable efforts to ensure its predicted noise level from the Wildcat Hills 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-283 

Compressor Station is not exceeded at the nearest NSA. Ruby should file noise surveys no later 

than 60 days after placing this compressor station in service. If the noise attributable to the 

operation of all of the equipment at the Wildcat Hills Compressor Station at full load exceeds an 

Ldn of 55 dBA at any nearby NSAs, Ruby should install additional noise controls to meet the level 

within 1 year of the in-service date. Ruby should confirm compliance with the above requirement 

by filing a second noise survey no later than 60 days after it installs the additional noise controls. 

A sound level analysis was also performed for unit blowdown events. Two types of gas 

blowdown events could occur at each station: (1) a maintenance gas blowdown that can occur when a 

compressor is stopped, and gas between the suction/discharge valves and compressors is vented to the 

atmosphere via a blowdown stack, and (2) an emergency shutdown that would only occur at required 

DOT test intervals or in an emergency situation. The unit blowdown event would occur infrequently and 

only for a short time frame (e.g., 1 to 5 minutes). Table 4.11.2-5 presents Ruby’s projected sound levels 

for a blowdown event at the nearest NSA for each compressor station. 

TABLE 4.11.2-5 

Projected Sound Levels for a Blowdown Event at the Nearest NSA for the Ruby Pipeline Project a

Compressor Station Distance to Nearest NSA (feet) 

Peak Sound Level 

(dBA) Ldn (dBA) 

Roberson Creek 25,900 16 23 

Wildcat Hills 7,500 47 54 

Wieland Flat 33,800 14 21 

Desert Valley 23,800 22 29 

The Ldn for unit blowdown events is below our 55 dBA criterion. In addition, due to the distance 

between the closest NSAs and the proposed compressor station sites, the noise resulting from a unit 

blowdown event would be short-lived and would not have a significant impact on the surrounding 

environment. 

Operational noise impacts at the compressor stations would be lessened by installing the 

compressor engines within insulated building structures and by the use of attenuation equipment such as 

exhaust and intake silencers. The use of attenuation equipment and the normal attenuation of sound with 

distance generally ensures that noise levels are controlled. 

The proposed compressor station locations are in relatively remote areas currently devoid of 

residential or industrial activity and, as can be seen in table 4.11.2-1, are very quiet. Thus, the large 

increase in operational noise within the immediate vicinity of the compressor stations represents a change 

to the ambient environment and has the potential to disturb or otherwise impact wildlife. We discuss 

project-related noise impacts on wildlife in general and on the greater sage-grouse in particular, in 

sections 4.5.1.3 and 4.7.3.1, respectively. 

4.11.3 Non-Jurisdictional Electric Power Lines 

Neither the Rocky Mountain Power nor Harney Electric Cooperative electric transmission or 

distribution lines would involve the construction or modification air emission sources or substantial noisegenerating facilities. There would be no long-term air quality or impacts associated with construction of 

the lines. Air quality impacts from the construction phase of the lines would be similar to pipeline 

construction and would result primarily from combustion and fugitive dust emissions associated with 

construction equipment. Noise impacts also would be similar and would occur mainly from heavy-duty 

construction equipment (e.g., trucks, backhoes, excavators, loaders, and cranes). 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-284 

4.12 RELIABILITY AND SAFETY 

The transportation of natural gas by pipeline involves some risk to the public in the event of an 

accident and subsequent release of gas. The greatest hazard is a fire or explosion following a major 

pipeline rupture. 

CH4, the primary component of natural gas, is colorless, odorless, and tasteless. Methane is not 

toxic and is classified as a simple asphyxiate that possesses a slight inhalation hazard. Respiration of high 

concentrations of CH4 can lead to oxygen deficiency and serious injury or death. CH4 has an auto-ignition 

temperature of about 1,000 °F and is flammable at concentrations between 5 percent and 15 percent in air. 

These concentrations are usually reached when methane is present in a confined space. Unconfined 

mixtures of methane in the air are highly diluted and are not usually explosive; however, high 

concentrations of methane within an enclosed space can explode if exposed to an ignition source. 

Methane is buoyant at atmospheric temperatures and disperses rapidly in air. 

4.12.1 Safety Standards 

We received comments regarding the hazards associated with living near a natural gas pipeline 

and the potential for natural gas leaks and explosions. We also received comments regarding the need for 

adequate pipeline maintenance during operation. The following section details the safety standards that 

would apply to the Ruby Pipeline Project. 

The DOT is mandated to provide for pipeline safety under 49 USC 601. The Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), administers the 

national regulatory program to ensure the safe transportation of natural gas and other hazardous materials 

by pipeline. The PHMSA has developed safety regulations and other approaches to risk management that 

ensure safety in the design, construction, testing, operation, and maintenance of pipeline facilities. The 

OPS has also developed similar resources for pipeline emergency response activities. Many of the 

regulations are written as performance standards that set the desired level of safety also and allow the 

pipeline operator to use various technologies to achieve safe operations. 

The PHMSA also ensures that people and the environment are protected from the risk of pipeline 

incidents. This work is shared with state agency partners and others at the federal, state, and local level. 

Section 5(a) of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act (NGPSA) requires state agencies to assume all aspects 

of the safety program for intrastate facilities by adopting and enforcing the federal standards. Section 

5(b) permits a state agency that does not qualify under Section 5(a) to perform certain inspection and 

monitoring functions. A state may also act as DOT’s agent to inspect interstate facilities within its 

boundaries; however, the DOT remains responsible for enforcement actions. Most states have either 5(a) 

certifications or 5(b) agreements. Nine states act as interstate agents. 

The DOT pipeline standards are published in 49 CFR 190-199. 49 CFR 192 specifically 

addresses natural gas pipeline safety issues. Under a Memorandum of Understanding on Natural Gas 

Transportation Facilities dated January 15, 1993, between the DOT and FERC, the DOT has the exclusive 

authority to promulgate federal safety standards used in the transportation of natural gas. Section 157.14 

(a) (9) (vi) of the FERC’s regulations require that an applicant for a FERC Certificate certify that it would 

design, install, inspect, test, construct, operate, replace, and maintain the facility for which a Certificate is 

requested in accordance with federal safety standards and plans for maintenance and inspection or shall 

certify that it has been granted a waiver of the requirements of the safety standards by the DOT in 

accordance with Section 3(e) of the NGPSA. The FERC accepts this certification and does not impose 

additional safety standards other than the DOT standards. If the Commission becomes aware of an 

existing or potential safety problem, there is a provision in the Memorandum of Understanding that 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-285 

requires FERC to promptly alert the DOT. The Memorandum of Understanding also provides for 

referring complaints and inquiries made by state and local governments and the general public involving 

safety matters related to pipeline under the Commission’s jurisdiction. 

The FERC also participates as a member of the DOT’s Technical Pipeline Safety Standards 

Committee, which determines if proposed safety regulations are reasonable, feasible, and practicable. 

The Ruby Pipeline Project would be designed and constructed to meet or exceed the safety 

standards established in 49 CFR 192. The regulations are intended to ensure adequate protection for the 

public and to prevent natural gas facility accidents and failures. The project would be built in accordance 

with regulations that govern material selection and qualification, minimum design requirements, location 

adjacent to roads and railroads, and protection from internal, external, and atmospheric corrosion. 

49 CFR 192 also defines area classifications based on population density near the vicinity of the 

pipeline and specifies more rigorous safety requirements for more populated areas. The class location 

unit is an area that extends 220 yards on either side of the centerline of any continuous 1-mile length of 

pipeline. The four area classifications are defined as follows: 

• Class 1: A location with ten or fewer buildings intended for human occupancy; 

• Class 2: A location with more than 10 but less than 46 buildings intended for human 

occupancy; 

• Class 3: A location with 46 or more buildings intended for human occupancy, or where 

the pipeline lies within 100 yards of any building or small well-defined outside area 

occupied by 20 or more people on at least 5 days per week for 10 weeks in any 12-month 

period; and 

• Class 4: A location with a prevalence of buildings with four or more stories aboveground. 

Class locations representing more populated areas require higher safety factors in pipeline design, 

testing, and operation. Minimum safety factors for each classification area are specified in the safety 

standards. Consistent with the regulations, the pipeline would be designed utilizing 0.80 and 0.72 design 

factors in Class 1 areas, a 0.60 design factor in Class 2 areas, and 0.50 design factor in Class 3 areas. 

Pipelines constructed on land in Class 1 locations in normal soil must be installed with a minimum depth 

of cover of 30 inches where a 0.72 design factor is used and 36 inches of cover where a 0.80 design factor 

is used. In consolidated rock, the minimum depth of cover is 18 inches. Pipelines in Class 2, 3, and 4 

locations, as well as under drainage ditches of public roads and railroad crossings, must be installed with 

a minimum cover of 36 inches in normal soil and 24 inches in consolidated rock. 

Class locations also specify the maximum distance to a sectionalizing MLV (e.g., 10.0 miles in 

Class 1, 7.5 miles in Class 2, 4.0 miles in Class 3, and 2.5 miles in Class 4). Pipe wall thickness, pipeline 

design pressures, hydrostatic test pressures, MAOP, inspection and testing of welds, frequency of pipeline 

patrols, and frequency of leak surveys must also conform to higher standards in more populated areas. 

Table 4.12.1-1 identifies the milepost range, class locations, wall thickness, and MAOP for the project. 

If a subsequent increase in population density adjacent to the right-of-way indicated a change in 

class location for the pipeline, Ruby would reduce the MAOP or replace the segment with pipe of 

sufficient grade and wall thickness to comply with the DOT regulations for the new class location. 

49 CFR 192 also would require that Ruby implement several safety measures during the 

construction and operation of its compressor stations. The piping, fittings, and other components 

containing natural gas under pressure must be designed with a significant margin of safety above normal 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-286 

operating parameters. This means the piping must be constructed to safely contain pressures significantly 

higher than those that are likely to occur at the station. The system must be equipped with safety relief 

valves set to release gas so that the maximum pressure is never exceeded. The relief valves or overpressure protection devices must be tested periodically for proper operation and set point and repaired as 

required. Gas vented to the atmosphere must be directed away from any potential sources of ignition. 

TABLE 4.12.1-1 

Class Locations for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

MP Range Length (miles) MAOP (psig) Pipe Diameter 

(inches) 

Pipe Wall Thickness 

(inches) Class Locationa

0.0 – 5.7 5.7 1,000 42 0.541 1 

5.7 – 53.6 47.9 1,440 42 0.541 1 

53.6 – 55.1 1.5 1,440 42 0.721 1b

55.1 – 105.4 50.3 1,440 42 0.541 1 

105.4 – 105.9 0.5 1,440 42 0.865 2 

105.9 – 107.2 1.3 1,440 42 0.865 3 

107.2 – 109.2 2 1,440 42 0.865 1c

109.2 – 675.2 566 1,440 42 0.541 1 

0.0l – 2.6 l 2.6 1,440 42 0.541 1 

─────────────────────────

a Pipeline classification is based on population density as defined in 49 CFR 192. Design factors are also specified in 

49 CFR 192. However, these are the minimum requirements. In many locations, Ruby would utilize a greater design 

factor than required. 

b Designed for Class 2. 

c Designed for Class 3. 

The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (HR 3609) was signed into law in December 2002. 

The intent of HR 3609 was to strengthen U.S. pipeline safety laws. HR 3609 required gas transmission 

operators to prepare a written integrity management program that contained all the elements described in 

49 CFR 192.911 and addressed the risks on each covered transmission pipeline segment. Pipeline 

operators were required to prepare the plan no later than December 17, 2004. The law also establishes the 

requirement to prepare an integrity management program that applies to all high consequence areas 

(HCAs). The DOT defines HCAs as they relate to the difference class zones, potential impact circles10, or 

areas containing an identified site as defined in 49 CFR 192.903. DOT regulations that define 

requirements for integrity management plans are found at 49 CFR 192.911. 

The DOT published a series of rules from August 6, 2002 to May 26, 2004 (69 FR 29903) that 

defined those HCAs where a gas pipeline accident could do considerable harm to people and property. In 

addition, 69 FR 29903 requires that pipeline operators prepare an integrity management program to 

minimize the potential for an accident. This definition satisfies, in part, the congressional mandate in 49 

USC 60109 for OPS to prescribe standards that establish criteria for identifying each gas pipeline facility 

in a high-density population area. Examples of HCAs might include housing developments, business 

establishments, or mobile home parks. 

An HCA may be established by one of two methods. In the first method, an HCA includes: 

 

10 The potential impact circle is a circle of radius equal to the potential impact radius (see next footnote). 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-287 

• Class 3 and 4 locations; 

• any area in a Class 1 or 2 location where the potential impact radius11 is greater than 660 

feet and there are 20 or more buildings intended for human occupancy within the 

potential impact circle; or 

• any area in a Class 1 or 2 location where the potential impact circle includes an identified 

site.12

In the second method, an HCA includes any area within a potential impact circle that contains: 

• 20 or more buildings intended for human occupancy; or 

• an identified site. 

Pipeline operators are required to apply elements of an integrity management program to 

segments of the pipeline that cross HCAs. Currently, there are two HCAs along the Ruby Pipeline 

Project route: from MP 105.3 to MP 107.1 and from MP 136.3 to MP 137.3. Pipeline segments that cross 

HCAs must be inspected every 7 years. 

49 CFR 192 of the DOT regulations prescribes minimum standards for operating and maintaining 

pipeline facilities, including the requirement to establish a written plan governing operation and 

maintenance activities. 49 CFR 92.615 also requires that each pipeline operator establish an emergency 

plan that includes procedures to minimize the hazards in a pipeline emergency. Emergency plans must 

contain procedures for: 

• receiving, identifying, and classifying emergency events, gas leakage, fires, explosions, 

and natural disasters; 

• establishing and maintaining communications with local fire, police, and public officials 

and coordinating emergency response; 

• initiating the emergency shutdown of the pipeline system and safe restoration of service; 

• making personnel, equipment, tools, and materials available at the scene of an 

emergency; and 

• protecting people before property and guarding people from actual or potential hazards. 

49 CFR 192 requires that each operator establish and maintain liaison with appropriate fire, 

police, and public officials to define the resources and responsibilities of each emergency response 

organization and to coordinate mutual assistance in the event of a pipeline incident. The operator must 

also establish a continuing education program to enable customers, the public, government officials, and 

those engaged in excavation activities to recognize a gas pipeline emergency and report it to appropriate 

public officials. Ruby would establish and maintain liaison with appropriate fire, police, and public 

officials in a variety of ways. Communications may involve individual meetings with agency personnel, 

group meetings, or direct mailings and would include: 

• the potential hazards associated with project facilities located in specific service areas; 

• preventative measures taken to avoid accidents; 

• the types of emergencies that may occur on or near project facilities; 

 

11 The potential impact radius is calculated as the product of 0.69 and the square root of the MAOP of the pipeline in psi 

multiplied by the pipeline diameter in inches. 12 An identified site is an outside area or open structure that is occupied by 20 or more persons on at least 50 days in any 12-

month period; a building that is occupied by 20 or more persons on at least 5 days a week for any 10 weeks in any 12-month 

period; or a facility that is occupied by persons who are confined, are of impaired mobility, or would be difficult to evacuate. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-288 

• the purpose and meaning of pipeline markers; 

• pipeline location information and the how to use the National Pipeline Mapping System; 

• recognition of and response to pipeline emergencies; and 

• procedures to contact Ruby for more information. 

In addition, Ruby would perform periodic tabletop emergency exercises and mock emergency 

drills with local governments, law enforcement, and emergency response agencies, subject to agency 

availability and willingness to participate. 

Coordination of mutual response would be accomplished through the use of the Incident 

Command System, a universal system utilized by all emergency responders. Ruby personnel would be 

trained on this system and would be required to fully understand their roles and responsibilities within the 

Incident Command System structure. 

Ruby would install a supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system that would allow 

pipeline operators to monitor pipeline flows and pressures at various points along the system. The 

SCADA system would allow for remote start and stop of the compressor stations and MLV closure; 

opening a closed mainline valve would likely require local action. The system would most likely utilize 

some combination of radio, microwave, and/or satellite communications to transmit data from the 

pipeline to Ruby’s gas control center in Colorado Springs, Colorado. 

The SCADA system would enhance the safety of the pipeline as gas control technicians would be 

able to monitor and react to conditions on the pipeline as needed (gas control technicians would be on 

duty 24 hours a day, 365 days a year). While leak detection via SCADA systems is not a proven 

technology for gas pipelines, the gas controller would be able to monitor unexpected pressure changes 

that could indicate the possibility of a leak. At that point the gas controller on duty could either close the 

pipeline, block valves upstream and downstream of the apparent leak, and/or dispatch field technicians to 

investigate the pressure change. The SCADA system also would enhance the reliability of the pipeline 

system; technicians would not need to travel to remote sites to actuate valves or monitor pipeline 

operations. Finally, while the SCADA system would not be directly responsible for any of the safety 

functions such as overpressure protection, the SCADA system would allow the gas control technician 

monitoring the pipeline to detect incipient issues and take actions to avoid problems. For example, if 

pipeline pressures downstream of a compressor station begin to rise rapidly because a customer 

unexpectedly reduces their natural gas receipts from the pipeline, the gas control technician could slow or 

stop the upstream compression to control the rising pressure. 

We received comments during scoping regarding the potential for increased wildfire hazard from 

high risk equipment (e.g., exhaust pipes, welding torches, etc.) operating on the right-of-way during 

construction. Ruby has prepared a Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan (see Appendix H) to prevent and 

respond to wildfires during construction. Ruby’s plan includes requirements for training, equipment, and 

monitoring, and establishes protocols and lines of communication to report fires. The plan also increases 

fire prevention and response commitments during high-risk fire periods. 

We also received comments regarding the potential for increased wildfire hazard from OHV use 

on the right-of-way during operation. Ruby’s Restoration and Revegetation Plans (Appendix L) includes 

measures to discourage such use of the pipeline right-of-way, including leaving the right-of-way in a 

roughened condition; placing signage in key areas; and installing rock barriers, earthen berms, or other 

barricades at existing OHV routes that cross the right-of-way. Ruby has also committed to work closely 

with the BLM, USFS, Reclamation, landowners, grazing lessees, local law enforcement personnel, and 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-289 

adjacent landowners to monitor and eliminate unauthorized access to the right-of-way by installing 

exclusion fencing on a case-by-case basis. 

Finally, we received comments regarding risk for wildfire as a result of increased fuel loads from 

placing cut vegetation back on the right-of-way after construction. Ruby has committed to work with fire 

response and land managing agencies to identify areas where placing cut vegetation back on the right-of-way 

may create a potential fire hazard and restrict this practice in those areas. 

Based on the above commitments, we believe there would not be a significant risk of 

construction-related fires from high risk equipment, use of OHVs within the right-of-way, or increased 

fuel loads. 

4.12.2 Pipeline Accident Data 

49 CFR 191, as originally written in February 1970, requires that all operators of transmission 

and gathering systems notify the DOT of any reportable incidents. Pipeline operators also are required to 

submit a DOT incident report (Form F7100.2) within 20 days of any incident. Reportable incidents are 

defined as any leaks that: 

• caused a death or personal injury requiring hospitalization; 

• required any segment of power line to be removed from service; 

• resulted in gas ignition; 

• caused estimated damage to the property of the operator, or others, or both, in an amount 

of $5,000 or more; 

• required immediate repair of a power line; 

• occurred while testing with gas or another medium; or 

• in the judgment of the operator, was significant even though it did not meet the above 

criteria. 

The DOT amended 49 CFR 191 in June 1984 and changed a number of incident reporting 

requirements. The new regulations required that operators only report incidents that involve property 

damage of more than $50,000, injury, death, release of gas, or that are otherwise considered significant by 

the operator. Table 4.12.2-1 presents a summary of incident data from 1970 to mid-1984 and incident 

data from mid-1984 through 2008. 

TABLE 4.12.2-1 

Natural Gas Service Incidents by Cause 

 Incidents per 1,000 miles of pipeline 

Cause 1970 to Mid-1984 Percent of Total, 

1973 to Mid-1984 Mid-1984 to 2008 Percent of Total, 

Mid-1984 to 2008 

Outside Forces 0.70 54 0.13 42 

Corrosion 0.22 17 0.07 23 

Construction or 

Material Defect 

0.27 21 0.05 16 

Other 0.11 8 0.06 19 

Total 1.30 0.31 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-290 

During the 14.5-year period from 1970 to mid-1984, about 5,862 service incidents were reported 

on more than 300,000 total miles of natural gas transmission and gathering systems nationwide. Service 

incidents, defined as failures that occur during pipeline operation, remained fairly constant over this 

period with no clear upward or downward trend in annual totals. During the 24.5-year period from mid1984 to 2008, about 2,374 service incidents were reported over about the same miles of pipeline, likely 

attributed to the change in reporting requirements. Again, service incidents remained fairly constant over 

this period. The one exception is an upward trend in incidents (about 43 percent) over the last 5 years. 

We received comments regarding the potential for third-party damage to the pipeline to cause a 

pipeline incident. Incidents are mostly caused by outside forces, including encroachment of mechanical 

equipment such as bulldozers and backhoes; earth movements due to soil settlement, washouts, or 

geologic hazards; weather effects such as winds, storms, and thermal strains; and willful damage. Table 

4.12.2-2 presents a percentage breakdown of incidents caused by outside forces. Most notable is a 

downward trend in third-party damage since 1984. Since April 1982, pipeline operators have been 

required to participate in one-call public utility programs in populated areas to minimize unauthorized 

excavation activities in the vicinity of pipelines. The one-call program is a service used by public utilities 

and some private sector companies (e.g., oil pipelines and cable television) to provide preconstruction 

information to contractors or other maintenance workers on the underground location of pipes, cables, and 

culverts. Ruby would support and actively participate in the one-call program. 

Pipelines included in the data presented in table 4.12.2-2 vary widely in terms of age, pipe 

diameter, and level of corrosion control. Each variable influences the incident frequency that may be 

expected for a specific segment of pipeline. 

TABLE 4.12.2-2 

Outside Forces Incidents by Causea

Cause 1970 to mid-1984 (percent)b 2002 to 2008 

(percent / incidents per 1,000 miles of pipeline) 

Third-Party Damage 67 51 / 0.69 

Natural Forces (Weather or Earth 

Movement) 24 26 / 0.35 

Pipeline Operator Damage 7 9 / 0.12 

Other or Unknown 2 14 / 0.19 

─────────────────────────

a Data for the period from mid-1984 to 2001 were not provided due to the lack of reporting consistency for natural forces. 

b Incidents per 1,000 miles of pipeline was not available for this time period.

The frequency of service incidents is largely dependent on the age of the pipeline. Pipelines 

installed since 1950 exhibit a fairly constant level of service incident frequency. However, pipelines 

installed before 1950 have a significantly higher rate of incident, partially due to corrosion (as corrosion 

is a time-dependent process). New pipe generally is equipped with more advanced coatings and cathodic 

protection to reduce corrosion potential. 

Older pipelines also have a higher frequency of incidents due to outside force because their 

locations may be less well-known and well-marked than newer lines. In addition, older pipeline systems 

often contain a disproportionate number of small-diameter pipelines, which have a greater rate of 

incidents caused by outside forces. Small diameter pipelines are more easily crushed or broken by 

mechanical equipment or earth movements. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-291 

Table 4.12.2-3 demonstrates the effectiveness of corrosion control in reducing the incidence of 

failures caused by external corrosion. The data show that the rate of incidents has decreased about 96 

percent from the 1970 to 1984 period to the current period. Pipelines installed after July 1971 must have 

both an external protective coating and a cathodic protection system. The use of these two safety 

measures has significantly reduced the rate of pipeline failure. The data also shows that coated and 

cathodically protected pipe have a higher incident rate than unprotected pipe. This anomaly reflects the 

pipeline industry’s initiative to retrofit old pipe with cathodic protection and the resultant decrease in 

miles of unprotected pipe. 

TABLE 4.12.2-3 

Corrosion-Related Incidents 

 Incidents per 1,000 miles of pipeline 

Cause 1970 to mid-1984 Percent of Total, 

1973 to mid-1984 mid-1984 to 2008 Percent of Total, 

mid-1984 to 2008 

None (Bare Pipe) 0.42 22 0.003 5 

Cathodic Protection 

Only 

0.97 51 0.005 9 

Coated Only 0.40 21 0.004 6 

Coated and 

Cathodic Protection 

0.11 6 0.051 81 

 

Total 1.90 0.063 

We received comments on how Ruby would address unauthorized encroachments on its facilities, 

particularly for landowners and contractors who do not use the one-call program prior to digging. We 

also received a comment regarding identification of safe setback distances for living or working near a 

pipeline. Currently, there are no federally mandated distances identifying setbacks from homes or 

businesses. The DOT has a minimum separation distance between pipelines and other underground 

structures; however, natural gas pipelines are routinely located adjacent to homes and businesses. 

Ruby would actively participate in the nationwide one-call program. In the event that an 

encroaching party has proposed to construct near the pipeline or is identified constructing in the area of 

the pipeline without using the one-call system, Ruby has indicated it would first educate the encroaching 

party of the one-call program and the potential consequences of not using the system. If the encroaching 

party was aware of one-call requirements and elected not to use the program, a warning letter would be 

sent to further emphasize Ruby’s request to use the one-call program and follow accepted safety practices 

in the future. Ruby would also consider seeking appropriate injunction relief from a court to prevent 

damage to the pipeline and achieve compliance with one-call requirements. Ruby would pursue 

reimbursement in the event that damage to the pipeline occurred as a result of the non-compliance with 

the one-call system. Ruby also would pursue imposition of any civil penalties, as appropriate. Events of 

this type would be reported and evaluated through normal internal reporting processes. Additional efforts 

(patrolling, etc.) would be instituted, as necessary, to ensure the safety of people and the pipeline. 

Further, each state’s Department of Transportation could pursue action against violators in accordance 

with applicable law. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-292 

4.12.3 Impact on Public Safety 

The service incident data summarized in table 4.12.2-1 include pipeline failures of all magnitudes 

with widely varying consequences. About two-thirds of the incidents were classified as leaks, and the 

remaining third were classified as ruptures, implying a more serious failure. 

From 1970 to mid-1984, an average of 5.0 fatalities per year occurred on natural gas transmission 

and gathering lines. Pipeline fatalities decreased from mid-1984 to 2008 to 3.1 fatalities per year. Table 

4.12.3-1 presents the nationwide totals of accidental fatalities from various hazards in 2000 to 2005 

(average per year) so as to provide a relative measure of the industry-wide safety of natural gas pipelines. 

Direct comparisons between accident categories should be made cautiously, however, because individual 

exposures to hazards are not uniform among all categories. Nevertheless, the natural gas transmission 

and gathering industry’s average number of fatalities from 2000 to 2005 of 3.16 fatalities per year (from 

PHMSA) is relatively small considering the approximate 327,000 miles of transmission and gathering 

lines in-service nationwide. The fatality rate is between 100 to 10,000 times lower than the fatalities from 

other accidental causes. Furthermore, the natural gas transmission and gathering industry’s accidental 

fatality rate continued to decline in 2006 (3 fatalities), 2007 (2 fatalities), and 2008 (0 fatalities). 

TABLE 4.12.3-1 

Nationwide Accidental Fatalities Per Year from Various Hazards (2000-2005) 

Cause Average Number of Fatalities Per Year 

(2000-2005) 

Percent of Total 

Motor Vehicle Traffic 43,157 44 

Falls 16,715 17 

Poisoning 18,068 19 

Unspecified 6,633 7 

Suffocation 5,682 6 

Fire/burn 3,375 3 

Drowning 3,401 4 

 

Total 97,030 

a National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System) 

The available data show that natural gas pipelines continue to be a safe, reliable means of energy 

transportation. Based on about 327,000 miles of pipe in service, the rate of public fatalities for the 

nationwide mix of transmission and gathering lines in service is 0.01 public fatalities per year per 1,000 

miles of pipeline. Therefore, the project could result in one fatality every 154 years. This would 

represent a slight increase in risk to the nearby public. 

One commenter expressed concern about the potential for cattle to be drawn to the newly 

revegetated right-of-way adjacent to Highway 30 in Utah, and the potential for those cattle to create a 

traffic hazard with vehicles traveling on the highway. We anticipate that revegetation in this area would 

be a gradual process and would not be any more likely to draw cattle onto the highway than adjacent 

areas; therefore, we do not believe revegetation of the right-of-way in this area would be a hazard to 

public safety. Further, Ruby would repair or replace cut and damaged fences during restoration to contain 

livestock in active allotments and grazed areas. The BLM also has indicated that it would require Ruby to 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-293 

gate and fence disturbed areas on BLM-administered land in western Box Elder County, Utah to keep 

livestock and OHVs off restored areas until vegetation has become established. Western Box Elder 

County is the location where the pipeline parallels Highway 30 in Utah. 

We also received comments during the draft EIS comment period noting that construction and 

other activities may result in an increase in vehicle traffic collisions (with other vehicles, pedestrians, and 

wildlife). Ruby stated that it would require its contractors to comply with its safety procedures and 

policies (including complying with posted speed limits). Ruby and its contractors would report any 

vehicle accidents involving construction personnel to the appropriate authorities. Ruby has committed to 

reviewing and discussing safety and notification requirements with its contractors prior to construction 

and to providing additional training during construction, as necessary. In addition, Ruby would invite 

each state’s wildlife agency to review wildlife concerns and notification requirements regarding vehicle 

traffic/wildlife collisions prior to construction. 

4.12.4 Terrorism and Security Issues 

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, terrorism has 

become a very real issue for the facilities under the Commission’s jurisdiction. The FERC, like other 

federal agencies, is faced with a dilemma in how much information can be offered to the public while still 

providing a significant level of protection to energy facilities. Consequently, the FERC has removed 

certain energy facility design plans and location information from its internet website to ensure that 

sensitive information is not readily available (per RM02-4-000 and PL02-1-000, issued February 20, 

2003). 

Since September 11, 2001, the FERC has been involved with other federal agencies in developing 

a coordinated approach to protecting the energy facilities of the United States, and continues to coordinate 

with these agencies to address this issue. A Security Task Force has been created and is addressing ways 

to improve pipeline security practices, strengthen communication within the industry and the interface 

with government, and extend public outreach efforts. 

Increased security awareness has occurred throughout the industry and the nation. The Office of 

Homeland Security was established with the mission of coordinating the efforts of all executive 

departments and agencies to detect, prepare for, prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from 

terrorist attacks within the United States. The FERC, in cooperation with other federal agencies and 

industry trade groups, has joined in the efforts to protect the energy infrastructure, including the 

approximate 327,000 miles of interstate natural gas transmission and gathering pipelines. 

Safety and security are important considerations in any Commission action. The attacks of 

September 11, 2001 have changed the way pipeline operators as well as regulators must consider 

terrorism, both in approving new projects and in operating existing facilities. However, the likelihood of 

future attacks of terrorism or sabotage occurring along the Ruby Pipeline Project, or at any of the myriad 

natural gas pipeline or energy facilities throughout the United States, is unpredictable given the desperate 

motives and abilities of terrorist groups. The continuing need to construct facilities to support the future 

natural gas pipeline infrastructure is not diminished from the threat of any such future acts. Moreover, the 

unpredictable possibility of such acts does not support a finding that this particular project should not be 

constructed. 

4.12.5 Non-Jurisdictional Electric Power Lines 

The Rocky Mountain Power and Harney Electric Cooperative electric power lines would be 

designed and operated to meet or exceed the standards of the National Electrical Safety Code and state 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-294 

safety requirements. The dangers of electricity are commonly understood and involve a variety of 

hazards. The risks inherent with electric power can generally be divided into two categories: direct and 

indirect. The direct danger is the damage that the power itself can do to the human body, such as 

stoppage of breathing or regular heartbeats, or burns. The indirect dangers of electricity include the 

damages that can result to the human body as a result of something caused by electric shock, such as a 

fall, an explosion, or a fire. To prevent accidents and maintain safe facilities, Rocky Mountain Power and 

Harney Electric Cooperative would generally prohibit or restrict certain activities on their electric line 

rights-of-way, including operating heavy equipment, installing metal, constructing buildings, and certain 

types of recreating (e.g., flying kites or model airplanes). 

4.13 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

NEPA requires that federal agencies consider the cumulative impacts of proposals under their 

review. Cumulative impacts are defined in the CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1508.7 as “...the impact on 

the environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions regardless of what agency...or person undertakes such other actions.” 

These actions can include previously approved or conducted actions as well as pending actions with the 

FERC or other federal, state, and local agencies, plus privately financed projects when they have 

overlapping impacts with the environmental resources that the Ruby Pipeline Project would impact. 

Although the individual impacts of each project might not be significant separately, the additive effects of 

multiple projects could be significant. 

Cumulative impact analyses are used to consider and modify projects if adverse cumulative 

impacts have been identified and may be avoidable; to determine if additional or more appropriate project 

mitigation is necessary; and to include effective monitoring of any impact(s) of concern in project 

implementation. To meaningfully address and achieve these purposes and to avoid lengthy discussions of 

inconsequential impacts and projects, the cumulative impact analysis for the Ruby Pipeline Project was 

conducted in the following manner: 

• Projects and activities included in this analysis are those having impacts on resources that 

overlap with the predicted impacts of the Ruby Pipeline Project. Generally, these 

projects are located in the same vicinity (within the same counties) directly affected by 

construction of the Ruby Pipeline Project. Most effects of more distant projects are not 

assessed because their impact would generally be localized and not contribute 

significantly to impact associated with the proposed project. The obvious exception to 

this approach involves air quality, which is considered on a regional basis. 

• Other projects were identified from information provided by Ruby, field reconnaissance, 

Internet research, scoping comments, and communications with federal, state, and local 

agencies. Where the analysis indicated a potential for cumulative impacts, information 

has been quantified to the extent feasible; however, quantitative details about future 

projects and their potential impacts are conceptual, indeterminate, and only can be 

described qualitatively. Economic conditions, the availability of financing, the issuance 

of permits, and a project’s construction schedule can all affect how a project is quantified. 

• The temporal range, or how far into the future we conducted our analysis, was based on 

whether the effects would be short-term, long-term, or permanent. Most impacts would 

occur during the construction phase of the project which Ruby has projected to occur 

from about spring 2010 to early 2011. The temporal range was extended for any impacts 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-295 

resulting from construction or operation of the project that would result in long-term or 

permanent impacts. Examples of long-term or permanent impacts include conversion or 

loss of certain habitats (e.g., upland and riparian forest; forested wetland; sagebrush 

steppe) as well as habitat fragmentation. 

• Potential cumulative impacts are discussed for each resource category analyzed in the 

EIS. For each resource, first the direct and indirect impacts of the project are briefly 

summarized. Then, any past impacts from other projects on that resource are described. 

Finally, any potential impacts from present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are 

considered. 

Table 4.13-1 lists past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects or activities that may 

cumulatively or additively impact resources that would be affected by the construction and operation of 

the Ruby Pipeline Project. Figure 4.13-1 illustrates the locations of these projects. These projects and 

activities are discussed below. 

TABLE 4.13-1 

Projects with Potential Cumulative Impacts on Resources Within the General Area of the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Project / Activity 

Counties/State Where 

Project Coincides with 

the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Description Date of Construction or 

Project Status 

Moxa Arch Area Infill Gas 

Development Project 

Lincoln and Uinta, WY Up to1,861 new natural gas wells and the 

installation and operation of additional 

ancillary facilities in southwestern WY 

2010 - 2020 

Jordan Cove LNG Import 

Terminal & Pacific 

Connector Pipeline 

Project 

Klamath, OR LNG import terminal and 230-mile-long, 

36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline 

from the terminal to two interconnects 

with markets in the region 

Undetermined 

Energy Gateway Project Lincoln and 

Uinta, WY; 

Box Elder, UT; 

Lake and Klamath, OR 

1,900 miles of new electric power lines 

across the western United States 

2007 - 2014 

Brigham City Area 

Residential Developments 

Box Elder, UT Flat Bottom Canyon and Skyline Terrace 

residential developments 

Undetermined 

Upper Willow Creek 

Enhancement Project 

Elko, NV Habitat restoration project on retired 

ranch land in the Willow Creek watershed 

2005 - Present 

Southwest Intertie Project Elko, NV 515-mile-long electric power line from 

southern Idaho to southern Nevada 

2009 - 2011 

China Mountain Wind 

Project 

Elko, NV Eight existing and three proposed 

meteorological towers to support 

development of a 185-turbine wind farm 

2002 - 2012 

Canada – Pacific 

Northwest – Northern 

California Transmission 

Project 

Klamath, OR 1,000-mile-long electric power line from 

British Columbia to California 

2009 - 2015 

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-296 

Figure 4.13-1 Present and Forseeable Projects 

 

4-209 

4-225 

4-266 

4-296 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-297 

The draft EIS included a discussion of potential cumulative impacts associated with the proposed 

Sunstone Pipeline Project, a 560-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline that would have 

extended from Opal, Wyoming to Stanfield, Oregon. On November 5, 2009, Sunstone terminated its prefiling process with the FERC, effectively cancelling the project. Therefore, we have not included a 

discussion of this project in the final EIS. We also received comments during the draft EIS comment 

period regarding the potential cumulative impacts of the Ruby Pipeline Project on the proposed upgrade 

of the Nevada Northern Railroad, which would have transported coal to the White Pine Energy Station, a 

1,590 MW coal-fired power plant. This portion of the railroad is currently inactive, deteriorated, and is 

incapable of carrying commercial freight. However, the project’s sponsors announced in March 2009 that 

construction of the White Pine Energy Station had been indefinitely postponed. Therefore, we have not 

included a discussion of this project in the final EIS. 

The potential for wildfires as a result of construction of the pipeline is discussed in section 4.12.1. 

Wildfires are part of the ecological regime (not projects) and, as such, are considered part of the 

environmental baseline of the area. They are not discussed as projects with cumulative effects in section 

4.13. Additionally, livestock grazing has occurred throughout western United States for more than a 

century. The presence of a pipeline, such as the Ruby pipeline, would not necessitate any change in 

grazing practices within the project area after construction, except perhaps for allowing vegetation on the 

right-of-way to become reestablished before reintroducing livestock. Because grazing has occured in the 

project area in the distant as well as the near past, and because grazing is likely to continue in the project 

area into the foreseeable future, grazing is considered part of the ecological regime (not a project or 

projects) and, as such, is considered part of the environmental baseline of the area. The impacts of the 

proposed project on the same resources affected by grazing are, however, evaluated throughout this EIS. 

Speculating as to how public policy would or should change with regard to grazing is beyond the scope of 

this EIS. 

Moxa Arch Area Infill Gas Development Project

EOG Resources, Inc. and other companies are proposing to expand existing natural gas drilling 

and field development operations in the Moxa Arch Area of southwestern Wyoming. The Moxa Arch 

Area Infill Gas Development Project encompasses approximately 475,808 acres of federal, state, and 

private lands in Sweetwater, Lincoln, and Uinta counties, Wyoming. The project would involve drilling 

up to 1,861 new wells and the installation and operation of additional ancillary facilities, including roads; 

gas pipelines; and separation-dehydration, metering, and fluid storage facilities. Wells would be drilled to 

depths of 11,000 to 12,000 feet. Densities would range from 2 to 12 wells per square mile. The project is 

expected to commence in 2010 and end in 2020. The precise locations where these wells would be drilled 

are not known at this time. The area of surface disturbance associated with drilling and completion 

activities would be approximately 18,650 acres over a 10-year drilling schedule. After interim 

reclamation is completed, the area of long-term disturbance associated with project development would 

be approximately 5,997 acres. Potential cumulative impacts of the Ruby Pipeline Project and Moxa Arch 

Area Infill Gas Development Project would be limited to Lincoln and Uinta counties. 

Jordan Cove LNG Import Terminal and Pacific Connector Pipeline Project

Subsidiaries of Williams, PG&E, and Fort Chicago Energy Partners L.P. are jointly pursuing 

construction of the Jordan Cove LNG import terminal and the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project, an 

interstate natural gas transmission system. The Jordan Cove LNG terminal, if built, would be capable of 

receiving LNG supplies from oversea production areas. Pacific Connector would be a 230-mile-long, 36-

inch-diameter pipeline designed to transport up to 1 bcf per day of natural gas from the Jordan Cove LNG 

terminal to markets in the Pacific Northwest, northern California, and northern Nevada. On May 1, 2009, 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-298 

FERC issued a final EIS evaluating the environmental impacts associated with the proposed Jordan Cove 

and Pacific Connector projects. The Commission authorized this project on December 17, 2009. The 

only county common to the Jordan Cove LNG import terminal, the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project, 

and the Ruby Pipeline Project is the Pacific Connector pipeline in Klamath County, Oregon. Any 

cumulative impacts would be limited to this county. 

Energy Gateway Project

Rocky Mountain Power proposes two 345-kilovolt electric power lines parallel to the Ruby 

Pipeline Project between MPs 105.7 and 108.5, near Brigham City, Utah. This work is part of a larger 

project known as the Energy Gateway Project, to expand Rocky Mountain Power’s electric transmission 

program. The project would add more than 1,900 miles of new electric power lines across the western 

United States. The purpose of the Energy Gateway Project is to provide access to areas of strong 

renewable development potential, such as wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal. Construction of the 

project began in 2007. Major segments are scheduled be online by 2014. The counties common to both 

the Energy Gateway Project and the Ruby Pipeline Project are Lincoln and Uinta counties, Wyoming; 

Box Elder County, Utah; and Lake and Klamath counties, Oregon. 

Brigham City Area Residential Developments

Ruby contacted planning and development offices in each of the counties crossed by the project 

to determine if any residential and/or commercial developments were planned within 0.25 mile of the 

project. Ruby identified two residential developments within 0.25 mile of the pipeline route, both near 

Brigham City in Box Elder County, Utah. The first residential development, Flat Bottom Canyon, would 

be located at about MP 105. The second residential development, Skyline Terrace, would be located at 

about MP 107. The developers of Flat Bottom Canyon have not filed a master plan with the Brigham 

City Planning and Zoning Office. The developers of Skyline Terrace have filed a preliminary design with 

the same office, which has yet to respond to the design. If and when these projects would be approved 

and built is still unknown. Potential cumulative impacts associated with the Ruby Pipeline Project and 

these two developments would be limited to Box Elder County. 

Upper Willow Creek Enhancement Project

The Upper Willow Creek Enhancement Project is a wildlife habitat enhancement initiative on 

public and private lands being implemented by Barrick Goldstrike Mines, Inc. and the BLM about 50 

miles northwest of Elko, Nevada. The project was initiated to mitigate the effects of mining on the Carlin 

Mining Trend to the southeast. The project would help to enhance greater sage-grouse, mule deer, and 

Lahontan cutthroat trout habitats while still allowing livestock grazing. These three species are featured 

in the Elko Resource Management Plan. Collectively, at least 250 wildlife species, including those 

designated as special status species or migratory birds, would benefit from improved forage and cover 

diversity on uplands and improvement of riparian and meadow conditions. The Ruby Pipeline Project 

would pass within about 500 feet of the southwest corner of the enhancement area at MP 367.5. Any 

cumulative impacts would be limited to Elko County. 

Southwest Intertie Project

 

The Southwest Intertie Project is a 515-mile-long power line running from southern Idaho to 

southern Nevada. It is being developed by Great Basin Transmission, LLC to transport power generated 

from alternative energy sources including solar, wind, and geothermal power. The project is divided into 

two phases: the southern portion scheduled to be operational in 2010 and the northern portion to be 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-299 

operational in 2011. The Southwest Intertie Project would cross the proposed Ruby Pipeline Project in 

northeastern Elko County, Nevada, between approximately MPs 267 and 270. The project has obtained a 

number of federal, state, and local approvals, and the project’s owners are currently finalizing financing. 

Construction may start as early as September 2009. Construction of the Southwest Intertie Project would 

involve placement of transmission towers well outside of the Ruby right-of-way, though the power lines 

would cross over the right-of-way. Depending on the Southwest Intertie Project construction plan, that 

project’s access roads would cross the Ruby right-of-way. Any cumulative impacts would be limited to 

Elko County. 

China Mountain Wind Project

We received comments during the draft EIS comment period regarding the potential cumulative 

impacts of the project and the proposed China Mountain Wind Project. The China Mountain Wind 

Project would involve the construction of a 425-MW wind power facility and associated power lines in 

Twin Falls County, Idaho, and Elko County, Nevada. The project would include up to 185 turbines, a 

number of meteorological towers, and would use 4.2 miles of existing BLM-managed access roads. 

Certain components of the project have already been constructed; eight towers were built in 2002, one 

tower was built in 2005, and three more towers were built in 2008. In May 2007, the project’s developers 

submitted an application to the BLM to construct and operate the wind power generation facility. In June 

2008, the project developer requested to amend the right-of-way grant to construct three additional 

meteorological towers to support the data gathering for the project. The BLM held public scoping 

meetings on the project in June 2008 and most recently completed an EA in March 2009 for the three 

additional meteorological towers (BLM, 2009c). The BLM is currently preparing a draft EIS on the 

entire wind farm project, which should be available for public review in early 2010, with a final ROD and 

EIS completed in summer 2011. The complete extent of the project (turbine locations, etc.) is not known 

at this time. Based on our current knowledge regarding the project, no components of the China 

Mountain Wind Project would overlap or occur within the Ruby Pipeline Project right-of-way. Any 

cumulative impacts would be limited to Elko County. 

Canada - Pacific Northwest - Northern California Transmission Project

We received comments during the draft EIS comment period regarding the potential cumulative 

impacts of the project and the proposed Canada - Pacific Northwest - Northern California Transmission 

Project. Sponsors of the Canada - Pacific Northwest - Northern California Transmission Project, 

including PG&E, are currently analyzing the feasibility of constructing a high-voltage electric power line 

that runs from British Columbia, through Washington, Oregon, and terminates east of the San Francisco 

metro area (PG&E, 2009). The power line would be intended to access new renewable energy resources 

and to increase the reliability of interconnected electrical networks, and could be operational as early as 

2015. Project sponsors have not yet determined a final route but are currently evaluating resources 

present within a 40-mile-wide, 1,000-mile-long study area. The line, if permitted as presented in recent 

sponsor publications, would likely travel to the west of Malin, Oregon. The only county common to both 

projects is Klamath County, Oregon. Any cumulative impacts would be limited to this county. 

4.13.1 Geology 

Mineral Resources

Ruby’s facilities would be expected to have a temporary impact on near-surface geology. During 

construction, Ruby would implement site-specific construction techniques and best management practices 

to mitigate local geological hazards that could not be completely avoided. Implementation of Ruby’s 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-300 

Plan and Procedures would minimize or avoid the potential for construction to adversely affect slope 

stability at geologic hazard sites that are presently known or discovered during construction. Because 

these effects would be highly localized and limited primarily to the period of construction, cumulative 

impacts would only occur if other projects involve excavation and are constructed at the same time and 

place as the facilities proposed by Ruby. None of the other projects meet these criteria. 

The project area has experienced impacts on and losses of geological resources due to resource 

extraction and development, including oil, gas, coal, ores, salts, precious and semiprecious stones, sand, 

gravel, and clay. Active, inactive, and planned mining sites within 1,500 feet of the Ruby Pipeline Project 

are identified in section 4.1.2.1. Other than mineral material sites (rock quarries), there are no reasonably 

foreseeable mining projects that would contribute to cumulative effects in the project area. 

 Generally, linear projects such as pipelines, electric power lines, railroads, and roadways in the 

affected region have impacts on mineral resources similar to those of the Ruby Pipeline Project. The 

construction of these other projects would preclude extraction of sand and gravel and other minerals, such 

as coal, from within and near the permanent rights-of-way. Some resources, such as oil and gas 

production, could still be extracted through offsets and directional drilling or mining. The project area is 

generally remote with vast undeveloped resources and inactive mining claims. The Ruby project has little 

potential for cumulative impacts on mineral resource development. 

The projects identified in table 4.13-1 may remove mineral resources such as rock, sand, and 

gravel from area quarries/borrow pits for maintenance of existing roads or other uses. Removal of these 

resources from quarries/borrow pits owned by the BLM or by other public and private parties for the 

Ruby Pipeline Project or any other project would only occur at the discretion of the quarry/pit owner. 

Any gravel or rock needed for future use, as identified by a land managing agency, would be reserved and 

not sold. However, excess rock generated by pipeline construction could be stored in the quarries for 

reuse or sold by the quarry owner in the future. The intended use of a quarry or borrow pit is to generate 

mineral resources to support construction projects. The use of these resources for a project would result 

in a permanent impact, regardless of whether the resource was used for the Ruby Pipeline Project. 

Mineral resource use by the Ruby Pipeline Project or other projects identified in table 4.13-1 may 

accelerate the rate at which mineral resources from quarries/borrow pits would be utilized; however, the 

use would be unlikely to change the net cumulative impact. 

Paleontological Resources

The Ruby Pipeline Project would cross about 255 miles of geologic formation that has moderate 

to high potential to contain significant fossils. Almost any excavation activity associated with regional 

projects has the potential to destroy or uncover fossils of potential scientific importance. Construction of 

pipelines, roads, natural gas wells, and other surface-disturbing activities in the area have previously 

removed some surficial paleontological resources. The proposed project could contribute to the 

cumulative exposure and potential loss of scientifically valuable fossils. However, Ruby would 

implement its Paleontological Resources Monitoring Plan (Appendix I) to monitor construction for the 

presence of paleontological resources in high-potential areas. If fossil occurrences of scientific 

significance are found, Ruby would collect, assess, and curate into the permanent collections of an 

established institution a representative sample of the find. Doing so would ensure that new scientific 

information would be collected and added to the existing body of knowledge. Thus, we do not believe 

there would be significant cumulative effects to paleontological resources from the Ruby Pipeline Project. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-301 

4.13.2 Soils 

Past land uses within areas crossed by the proposed project have disturbed soils during land 

clearing, residential development, forest harvest, agricultural use, mining, livestock grazing, road 

development, and oil and gas exploration and production. These past actions have removed soil cover 

and have altered soils and increased erosion potential and sediment yield. Any increase in land clearing 

and soil disturbance due to project construction and operation has the potential to contribute to direct 

cumulative impacts. 

The Energy Gateway Project would parallel about 2.8 miles of the Ruby Pipeline Project. Soil 

disturbance associated with the electric power lines mainly would be limited to locations where pylons 

would be sited; however, disturbance from construction equipment traveling on the right-of-way could 

also occur. Assuming that a 115-foot-wide construction right-of-way is used to construct the electric 

power line, we have conservatively estimated that the additional soil disturbance from the Energy 

Gateway Project where it parallels the Ruby Pipeline Project would be 39 acres. 

The Southwest Intertie Project would cross the proposed Ruby Pipeline Project in northeastern 

Elko County, Nevada, between approximately MPs 267 and 270. As with the Energy Gateway Project, 

cumulative effects to soil resources could occur in the area of crossing, depending on the location of the 

power line pylons. The existence of the pipeline would preclude placement of any power line structure in 

the right-of-way; therefore, cumulative impacts associated with this crossing would be minor. 

Potential cumulative erosion could occur where construction disturbance areas overlap or are 

located near each other. However, the existing pipeline, utility, roadway, and oil and gas projects have 

been in-place for a number of years and these construction rights-of-way have been partially or 

completely restored. The potential for cumulative erosion from one or more of these projects is 

temporary and low because erosion control practices would be applied to the Ruby Pipeline Project and 

likely to other projects. Although erosion is always a concern, it is not considered to be a major risk. The 

Upper Willow Creek Enhancement Project is dedicated specifically to stabilizing soils and restoring 

habitat from overgrazed, fire-damaged ranch lands. We do not expect the Ruby Pipeline Project to 

significantly contribute to the cumulative impact on soils. 

4.13.3 Water Resources 

Groundwater

Ruby has indicated that it may use approximately 337.9 million gallons of groundwater for 

hydrostatic testing and dust control. The Pacific Connector Pipeline Project would also involve use of up 

to 87.3 million gallons of groundwater for hydrostatic testing. Groundwater for hydrostatic testing and 

dust control would be a short-term, limited use. Construction of power lines and residential developments 

would require little to no groundwater, except perhaps a small amount for dust control. Once operational, 

pipeline and other utility projects do not typically use much groundwater. However, once constructed, 

groundwater may be used as the source of water for the residential developments near Brigham City. All 

projects identified in this cumulative effects analysis would be required to obtain water use permits and 

would implement spill containment and control plans as required by federal and state agencies. No 

significant or long-term cumulative impacts would be expected on groundwater. 

Surface Water

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-302 

Pipeline waterbody crossing impacts are generally localized and short term. Several projects 

could contribute to cumulative surface water impacts. The Energy Gateway Project and the Southwest 

Intertie Project would cross above two and three intermittent waterbodies, respectively, that also would be 

crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project. Little or no additional work associated with the Energy Gateway 

Project or the Southwest Intertie Project would be conducted in the streams themselves, except that 

construction equipment may bridge over or pass through the waterbody while travelling down the rightof-way. The Upper Willow Creek Enhancement Project is specifically aimed at improving the quality of 

Willow Creek for the Lahontan cutthroat trout through habitat improvement measures. Cumulative 

impacts associated with these projects would be short-term and minor, and in the case of the Upper 

Willow Creek Enhancement Project, beneficial. 

Wetlands

Cumulative wetland impacts would occur if more than one project were affecting the same 

wetland at the same location at the same time, where wetlands are permanently drained or filled, and 

where wetland characteristics and functionality are altered by construction and operational activities. The 

Ruby Pipeline Project would not affect the same wetland at the same location and time as other projects. 

Nor would the Ruby project permanently fill or drain wetlands. Many projects, especially linear projects 

such as pipelines and power lines, could temporarily affect wetlands during construction; however, 

restoration measures employed by each project should ensure wetlands are fully restored. Operation of 

these utilities would require maintenance and vegetation clearing along the utility rights-of-way, which 

could alter the vegetation component of various wetlands. For instance, operation of the project would 

convert 0.1 acre of forested habitat to an herbaceous wetland type. Operation of the Pacific Connector 

pipeline would convert 1.1 acres of forested wetland and 0.1 acre of scrub-shrub wetland to a herbaceous 

wetland type. No significant cumulative impact on wetlands would occur. 

All project applicants would be subject to conditions contained in the COE’s Section 404 permits 

and state water quality permits. Compensatory wetland mitigation may be required in certain 

circumstances to replace wetlands permanently impacted by project activities. Therefore, individual 

project impacts on wetlands should be minimized and mitigated according to federal and state 

requirements. 

4.13.4 Vegetation 

The total amount of vegetation that may be affected by all of the proposed or anticipated projects 

is substantial but still relatively small compared to the abundance of similar habitat in the region. Impacts 

resulting from construction of the pipelines would result in the long-term and permanent loss of nonherbaceous vegetation and would cause an incremental increase in fragmentation of forested and 

sagebrush areas. Timber harvesting and land development activities, particularly in the forested areas on 

the western end of the project in Oregon, also have resulted in the cumulative loss of forest habitat over 

the years. Sagebrush communities were once dominant in western North America. Wildfires, grazing by 

livestock, horses and burros, invasion of non-native plants, fragmentation by development (e.g., roads, 

fences, power lines, and pipelines) and other activities have resulted in the cumulative loss of sagebrushdominated areas over the years. Specifically, wildfires in Nevada from 1999 to 2007 have resulted in an 

approximate 2.5-million acre net loss of key sagebrush habitat (Espinosa and Phenix, 2008). 

In the case of the Southwest Intertie Project, the power line could be designed to intersect the 

Ruby Pipeline Project at a point to minimize cumulative impacts on vegetation, including spanning the 

pipeline right-of-way and placing the transmission towers at the greatest distance from the right-of-way as 

possible. Because the Southwest Intertie Project would not require the removal of shrub-type vegetation 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-303 

under the power lines, the cumulative impacts on vegetation at the point of intersection would be 

minimal. 

The additive effects of present and future projects would continue a trend toward a reduction in 

these vegetative communities. This effect would be reduced to some extent by the collocation of 

proposed utilities with existing and proposed rights-of-way. Through the applicable permitting process, 

we expect that mitigation measures would be implemented for these projects to revegetate disturbed 

areas, increase the stabilization of site conditions, minimize potential for erosion, and in many cases 

control the spread of noxious weeds, thereby minimizing the degree and duration of the impact on 

vegetation from these projects and avoiding significant cumulative impacts. 

4.13.5 Wildlife, Fisheries, and Special Status Species 

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

Construction and operation of the Ruby Pipeline Project along with other projects mentioned in 

table 4.13-1 would incrementally add to the width of habitat discontinuities (for collocated projects) or 

otherwise contribute to habitat disturbance. Utility rights-of-way would fragment habitats where the 

utilities are not collocated with existing corridors, and construction of aboveground facilities would 

permanently remove habitat from the landscape. This would cause associated impacts on wildlife species 

as they adjust to the various projects’ activities. Increased movement or displacement of species 

dependent on these habitats could reduce carrying capacities, reproductive effort, or survival. This 

potential is greater for species that have limited habitat in the project area or are otherwise more sensitive 

to disturbance. Livestock grazing in riparian areas (especially in the arid western United States) can 

cause immeasurable damage to riparian resources, including the loss of fish and wildlife habitat, soil 

erosion, and diminished water quality and quantity (Salvo, 2009). Some experts estimate that livestock 

grazing has damaged 80 percent of the streams and riparian ecosystems in the western United States 

(Belsky et.al, 1999). The removal of riparian ecosystems, woodlands and shrublands would result in a 

long-term reduction of wildlife habitat because the regeneration of woody species is typically slow in the 

region. The FWS has indicated energy development projects have degraded important sagebrush habitat, 

even when mitigation measures have been implemented. 

The Southwest Intertie Project would intersect the Ruby Pipeline Project in Elko County, Nevada, 

in an area dominated by primarily sagebrush steppe and salt desert scrub habitat. The removal of 

shrublands would result in a long-term reduction of wildlife habitat because the regeneration of woody 

species is typically slow in the project region. However, construction of the two projects is not likely to 

result in significant cumulative impacts on wildlife given that the habitat types crossed are widely 

available for wildlife use outside of the immediate area of where the projects would intersect.

The amount of available winter range habitat would be reduced where projects are constructed 

within the same “range” habitat or geographic location. This generally occurs near the terminus of the 

project in Oregon. Big game habitat for elk and mule deer would be affected by the Ruby Pipeline 

Project and the Energy Gateway and Pacific Connector Pipeline projects, though not likely at the same 

time. 

Establishment of structures for Ruby’s communication towers and for new power line projects 

could increase impacts on birds as a result collisions with wires and pylons. The FWS has suggested and 

we have recommended that Ruby construct the communication towers in accordance with its Guidance on 

the Siting, Construction, Operation and Decommissioning of Communications Towers. The FWS also 

recommends that electric power lines be constructed in accordance with Edison Electric Institute’s 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-304 

Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines – The State of the Art in 2006 (APLIC, 2006) 

and Mitigating Bird Collisions With Power Lines: The State of The Art in 1994 (APLIC, 1994) to 

minimize impacts on birds. Electric power line facilities on federal lands would be subject to 

supplemental NEPA review. The electric transmission facilities may also be required to undergo an 

environmental review by state agencies. 

The Draft Conservation Plan for greater sage-grouse and pygmy rabbit identifies projects that 

have been identified by each state to provide replacement or compensatory habitats for sage-grouse, 

pygmy rabbits, and other wildlife species. The types of projects under discussion include sagebrushsteppe restoration, riparian restoration, spring enhancement, conservation easements and land acquisition, 

rangeland reseeding, burn-area reseeding, invasive-weed control, livestock exclosures, fuels management, 

and research projects. These projects would reduce the threats posed by other projects, would have a 

long-term benefit for sage-grouse and pygmy rabbits, and would be cumulatively beneficial for these 

species both regionally and rangewide. The identified projects would provide replacement or 

compensatory habitats with a goal of “net zero impact.” However, all projects and conservations 

measures would have to be 100 percent successful for this to occur. Since the projects and measures have 

not been implemented, the success rate cannot be determined. Based on past experience in implementing 

similar types of projects, the likelihood of success is high. 

Projects would restore areas of degraded habitat and would protect habitat from future 

development and other uses (e.g., grazing). Over the long term, sage-grouse and pygmy rabbits within 

the Project vicinity would benefit from the reduced threats of habitat loss and degradation. Fuel reduction 

projects in sagebrush would reduce the risk of large wildfires and would benefit various habitats and 

wildlife throughout the region. Research projects would contribute to a better understanding of sagegrouse and would cumulatively benefit the species rangewide; pygmy rabbit research projects, in 

particular, would contribute to a better understanding of pygmy rabbit biology, natural history 

requirements, and habitat impacts and would ultimately benefit the species rangewide. 

In summary, we do not believe that construction of the Ruby Pipeline Project would result in 

significant cumulative impacts on wildlife, given that most of the project area is relatively open 

sagebrush, and habitat types crossed are widely available for wildlife use outside of the immediate area of 

project disturbance. 

Fisheries and Aquatic Resources

Cumulative impacts on fisheries and aquatic resources could occur if multiple projects are 

constructed within the same stream segment and have similar construction timeframes. The only projects 

with the potential to occur within the same stream segment at the same time are the Energy Gateway 

Project, the Southwest Intertie Project, and the Upper Willow Creek Enhancement Project. The Energy 

Gateway Project and the Southwest Intertie Project, both electric power lines, would cross above two and 

three intermittent waterbodies, respectively, that also would be crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project. 

Little or no work associated with the projects would be conducted in the streams themselves, except that 

construction equipment may bridge over or pass through the waterbody while travelling down the rightof-way. The Upper Willow Creek Enhancement Project is specifically aimed at enhancing the quality of 

Willow Creek for the Lahontan cutthroat trout through habitat improvement measures. Cumulative 

impacts associated with these projects would be short-term and minor, and in the case of the Upper 

Willow Creek Enhancement Project, beneficial. Cumulative impacts on fisheries from hydrostatic test 

water withdrawals are not anticipated as water withdrawals for the Ruby Pipeline Project and Pacific 

Connector Pipeline Project would not occur within the same watershed. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-305 

Special Status Species

The species discussed in section 4.7 of this EIS have the potential to be affected by construction 

and operation of the various projects discussed in this cumulative analysis. Ruby consulted with federal, 

state, and local agencies to determine which species may occur within its project area, evaluate potential 

impacts on those species as a result of construction and operation, and implement measures to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate impacts on special status species and their habitats. Further, for each federally 

permitted project, the federal action agency would be required to complete its own separate Section 7 

consultation. 

Pygmy rabbit habitat was observed in the area where the project would intersect with the 

Southwest Intertie Project; two inactive greater sage-grouse leks were also documented. The species that 

occur in this area have the potential to be affected by construction and operation of the projects. Ruby is 

working with numerous agencies to develop conservation agreements to address potential project impacts 

on listed and other special status species. These efforts include development of a cooperative 

conservation agreement to specifically fund projects that would improve pygmy rabbit and greater sagegrouse habitat and conservation agreements to address ESA-listed species and migratory bird impacts. 

Because both the Southwest Intertie and Ruby projects would be required to restore their respective 

construction rights-of-way and adhere to all applicable laws and regulations regarding special status 

species and habitats, the cumulative impacts on special status species and their habitats are not likely to be 

significant. 

The BLM’s EA for three meteorological towers related to the China Mountain Wind Project 

analyzed the impacts on greater sage-grouse within 2- and 5-mile “buffer zones.” Two of the proposed 

meteorological towers (M010 and M011) have buffer zones which contain greater sage-grouse leks and 

extend into Elko County, Nevada. The southern edge of the 5-mile buffer for the proposed new towers is 

37.3 miles north of the Ruby project. The project’s sponsors have conducted a number or surveys for 

greater sage-grouse leks and other indications of the presence of greater sage-grouse. Surveys discovered 

40 documented greater sage-grouse leks within 5 miles of the proposed meteorological towers. The lek 

status for 24 of these sites is either inactive or unknown. There are five documented lek sites within 2 

miles of the proposed towers, three of which are active near M012 and two that are inactive near M010 

and M011. Preliminary observations during scat collection in 2008 showed 1 individual scat pellet and 1 

scat cluster (more than 3 pellets together) at M010 and 119 scat pellets and 63 scat clusters at M011. 

Eighteen greater sage-grouse were flushed from an island of big sagebrush approximately 150 feet away 

from MO11. Although no active leks were documented near M011, there is evidence that greater sagegrouse use this area during certain periods of the year. 

One tower for the China Mountain Wind Project has already been constructed (403) and one 

tower has been approved for construction (M103) in Elko County, Nevada. These towers are 

approximately 35 miles north of the proposed Ruby Pipeline Project right-of-way. Greater sage-grouse 

attendance of active leks following the first tower installation in 2002, and subsequent installations 

thereafter, has shown to be variable. No consistent patterns are readily visible, and these data are limited 

by a small sample size and limited years of monitoring following tower installation. Conclusions 

regarding whether the existing meteorological towers in the project area are displacing greater sagegrouse cannot be made from these data. The existing towers can directly impact greater sage-grouse by 

providing increased perching and nesting opportunities for raptors and corvids that prey upon greater 

sage-grouse and can increase the risk of greater sage-grouse collision with guy wire-supported structures. 

However, there have been no recorded greater sage-grouse injuries or mortalities associated with the 

existing meteorological towers. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-306 

Meteorological towers related to the China Mountain Wind Project are used to gather data to 

support turbine placement and would therefore be temporary. Habitat loss or alteration related to 

construction and operation of the meteorological towers would be short-term and localized in nature, as 

the proposed towers would be removed after 3 years of operation. Subsequent habitat restoration is 

expected to result in a no-net-loss of greater sage-grouse habitat over the long term. Visual and noise 

disturbance during the installation and removal processes would result in the temporary displacement of 

greater sage-grouse. Installation, operation, maintenance and decommissioning of the towers would be 

done using existing roads. A minor amount of habitat disturbance and potential displacement would take 

place while personnel are on site performing maintenance. The three proposed meteorological towers are 

not anticipated to have an additive greater sage-grouse injury or mortality effect, primarily because of 

their temporary nature (3 years). Due to the location of the meteorological towers in relation to the Ruby 

Pipeline Project, we anticipate that any cumulative impacts on the greater sage-grouse would be 

temporary and minor. 

In summary, since most projects (especially those having federal or state permitting 

requirements) would be required to restore their respective construction rights-of-way and adhere to all 

applicable laws and regulations regarding special status species and habitats, we believe that the 

cumulative impacts on special status species and their habitats would not be significant. 

4.13.6 Land Use and Visual Resources 

Land Use

The majority of land use in the project area is undeveloped open land. That portion of any project 

with a permanent aboveground component, such as buildings, pavement, power poles, or stations, would 

have more significant impacts on land use than that portion of a project with an underground component 

because the aboveground component would preclude the use of the land for the foreseeable future. 

Underground components of any project would temporarily preclude use of the land during construction, 

but in many cases, land could revert to its preconstruction use after the facilities are built. 

Notwithstanding the benefits of underground development, the underground facilities would still 

encumber the land with utility easements. The cumulative effect of multiple contiguous easements for 

underground facilities would be more apparent through forested areas than across open lands or 

agricultural areas. Multiple easements through open lands or agricultural areas would normally not 

impact the continued use of the land. That is, easements in open or agricultural areas typically continue in 

their function with little in the way of restrictions on the landowner. However, if the land in the easement 

was intended for a use other than open land, the landowner would face restrictions on structural 

development. Consequently, there would be some cumulative impact on landowners that are facing the 

addition of a new easement on their property. 

New land requirements for the construction and operation of the Ruby project’s aboveground 

facilities would involve the acquisition of about 221 acres for the four new compressor stations. Land 

requirements for all other aboveground facilities (MLVs, launcher/receiver facilities, and meter stations) 

total about 26 acres. Cumulatively, the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project’s Tule Lake and Russell 

Canyon meter stations (the end delivery points of the Pacific Connector pipeline) would require about 7 

acres of land for construction and operation in Klamath County, Oregon. Construction of the Pacific 

Connector pipeline would cumulatively add to the acreage of aboveground natural gas facilities in the 

general region. 

Construction of the Southwest Intertie Project would cumulatively add to the acreage of industrial 

facilities in the area in the form of a small footprint from the footings for the power line towers. The 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-307 

Southwest Intertie Project would also result in additional utility easements in the area. This project could 

be designed to intersect the Ruby Pipeline Project at a point to minimize cumulative impacts, including 

spanning the pipeline right-of-way and placing the transmission towers at the greatest distance from the 

right-of-way as possible. 

Construction of the Energy Gateway Project and the two residential development projects would 

cumulatively add to the acreage of residential land and industrial facilities in the project area. The Ruby 

pipeline would be located near these projects around Brigham City, Utah. Ruby’s aboveground facilities 

in this area include two MLVs and one launcher/receiver facility, which represents a small footprint (1.1 

acres) added to the area encumbered by the footings for the power line towers and the residential 

developments. 

The Ruby Pipeline Project would parallel an estimated 296.9 miles of road, power line, or 

pipeline rights-of-way. While installation of new pipelines parallel to existing corridors would 

incrementally reduce the area available for certain future developments, use of established utility 

corridors concentrates cumulative land use impacts. A further cumulative effect from the project is that it 

could increase the potential for an additional utility corridor to be sited along the pipeline route, as 

planning for a future linear project could look to follow the project as a way to reduce impacts by keeping 

disturbances within an existing corridor. 

Although timber harvesting activities (particularly in forested areas in Oregon) have resulted in 

the loss of forest over the years, implementation of silvicultural actions in designated timber production 

areas on or near Ruby’s route would not be considered a cumulative impact on land use because they are 

timber production projects in areas specifically designated for that purpose and their implementation 

would not convert or alter the designated future use of these areas. To minimize impacts on forest land 

uses from the Ruby project, all disturbed forest areas would be reforested, except for the 50-foot 

operational right-of-way, according to BLM and USFS requirements on federal lands and State of Oregon 

reforestation rules on private lands in Oregon. 

No cumulative land use impact would occur between the Upper Willow Creek Enhancement 

Project area and the Ruby Pipeline Project as the pipeline corridor would revert to its pre-existing 

condition of open land, the same land use as the Upper Willow Creek Enhancement Project area. 

Visual Resources

The projects listed in table 4.13-1 would have varying impacts on visual resources. Pipeline 

projects would have similar impacts as those discussed for the pipeline components of the Ruby Pipeline 

Project (see section 4.8.4). We do not expect a significant cumulative impact on visual resources from 

pipeline projects for the reasons discussed above (e.g., collocation, restoration practices, and mitigation 

measures developed with the BLM and USFS where sensitive visual resource areas would be crossed). 

Cumulative impacts on visual resources include the extent of the area from which the project 

would be visible. Visibility of the project may extend from 5 miles to the horizon. Past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable projects that could cumulatively affect visual resources include the construction of 

the existing utilities (gas, overhead transmissions lines, and fiber optic lines), planned renewable energy 

projects like the China Mountain Wind Project, and the expansions of utilities such as the Energy 

Gateway and Southwest Intertie projects. The proposed project, when considered with these major 

aboveground, multiple-state projects would notably change the existing landscape characteristics of the 

area. These regional projects would contrast in terms of color, form, texture, and line and begin to 

spatially dominate the landscape, creating a substantially more altered landscape that would detract from 

the existing visual setting. Any project occurring on land owned by the federal government would 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-308 

comply with the respective agency’s visual resource management objectives. In complying with these 

management objectives, the potential visual impacts on the characteristic landscape would be reduced. 

Therefore, when considered along with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, the 

project would have a low cumulative impact on visual resources. 

4.13.7 Socioeconomics 

The Ruby Pipeline Project could result in cumulative socioeconomic impacts during both 

construction and operation. During construction, the estimated number of people who may relocate to the 

project area may result in a shortage of housing at certain locations during certain periods. We recognize 

that workers would be dispersed over the entire length of the pipeline route and throughout the counties 

crossed by the pipeline; however, based on our review of the information regarding availability of local 

rental housing for the project in Elko and Humboldt counties, Nevada, the combined number of non-local 

workers from the project alone may exceed the available housing in a given area. Ruby has proposed to 

address this possible housing shortage by establishing a construction camp near Vya, Nevada. 

Additionally, Ruby has proposed to establish a temporary housing facility in Lakeview, Oregon. The 

only other known projects in an area of low housing availability would be the Upper Willow Creek 

Enhancement Project, which does not have housing needs; and the China Mountain Wind Farm, which 

would likely be constructed in 2012 and would not overlap with Ruby’s proposed construction schedule. 

Other projects would occur in areas where rental housing should be sufficient. Housing impacts, however 

pronounced, would be short-lived and limited to the approximate 10-month construction schedule, and 

would therefore not result in a long-term cumulative impact. Only 19 permanent employees would be 

associated with operation of the Ruby project. 

It is unlikely that Ruby project-related traffic volumes would reach peak conditions at the same 

time and in the same location as another project. Construction in the vicinity of on-going mining 

activities near Elko and Winnemucca could result in a greater traffic impact in these areas. In addition, 

increased vehicle traffic from construction activity around the Vya Construction Camp and the Lakeview 

Temporary Housing Facility could cause traffic congestion and inconveniences. In particular, the Vya 

camp could inconvenience participants traveling to and from the Burning Man Festival, which is located 8 

miles north of Gerlach, Nevada. While the project is sufficiently far enough away from the festival as to 

not cause a direct impact, the presence of construction traffic associated with the Vya camp could disturb 

access for those traveling to the Burning Man Festival on SR 34. To reduce these impacts, Ruby has 

agreed to work with Washoe County to mitigate traffic impacts by not scheduling any major shift changes 

in personnel during times when the majority of people are entering or leaving the Burning Man Festival. 

Ruby has committed to employ traffic monitors during the festival to ensure that construction traffic does 

not disturb access of festival attendees. In addition, Ruby would place signs on CRs 34 and 8A to alert 

drivers to the presence of construction-related traffic. Overall, any cumulative traffic impacts would be 

for a short period of time and would be coordinated with Ruby and local officials. During operations, the 

number of workers required to maintain pipeline facilities would be minimal, resulting in no significant 

additive impact on traffic levels. Therefore, we conclude that the project would not generate excessive 

traffic during construction or operations, and therefore would have little to no cumulative impact on 

traffic. 

Ruby’s expenditures for payroll, local purchases, and related tax revenues would provide a shortterm beneficial impact on the affected counties during construction. We expect that similar benefits 

would be associated with the other projects in the vicinity. There may also be positive long-term 

cumulative impact tax revenue paid to the state and local governments over the life of the projects 

(including the Ruby Pipeline Project), particularly with the combination of the Southwest Intertie Project, 

China Mountain Wind Project, the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project, and the Energy Gateway Project. 

These positive cumulative impacts would serve to expand the tax bases of some of the rural counties 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-309 

along the pipeline right-of-way and would provide the counties with locally generated funds and enable 

them to diversify their tax rolls. 

4.13.8 Cultural Resources 

There are a few areas where other projects would take place at the same location as the proposed 

project and may result in cumulative effects to cultural resources. The majority of the proposed Ruby 

pipeline corridor is not in the path of other ground-disturbing projects. 

The eastern terminus of the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project is currently planned to be in the 

vicinity of the western terminus of the Ruby Pipeline Project near Malin, Oregon. The area around Malin 

is considered a feeder location for energy transmission facilities. There is a north/south pipeline as well 

as a steel tower power line and a wooden pole power line in the vicinity. The ground has been repeatedly 

disturbed at this location, and the cultural resources of the area have been previously studied. The 

presence of another energy project such as Ruby or Pacific Connector is not expected to have any 

significant cumulative effect to cultural resources. The situation is similar on the eastern end of the Ruby 

project near Opal, Wyoming. There are several energy transmission facilities near the project’s eastern 

end, and the addition of another facility is not expected to have any meaningful cumulative effect. 

The Energy Gateway Project, if constructed, would intersect with the Ruby Pipeline Project near 

Brigham City, Utah. New residential development is also planned for Brigham City, according to Box 

Elder County authorities. Ruby recorded several linear cultural properties in its 2008 survey of the 

project corridor near Brigham City. Depending on the location of the Energy Gateway Project and new 

housing developments, there could be a cumulative effect from construction projects on the linear cultural 

resources in and around Brigham City. Linear cultural sites recorded to date include a power line, historic 

canals, and a section of rail line. The significance of historic linear features lies in part in their integrity 

as a location that retains the look and feel of the original historic material and setting. If the material of 

the resources is compromised by pipeline construction and the viewshed affected by new housing, there 

could be a negative cumulative effect. 

One known cultural resource site is within the immediate vicinity of the potential intersection of 

the Southwest Intertie Project and the Ruby Pipeline Project. However, because the span separation for a 

power line can range between 1,200 to 1,500 feet, the Southwest Intertie Project should be able to avoid 

impacts on this site. Thus, it is unlikely that the Southwest Intertie the Ruby projects would have 

significant cumulative impacts on cultural resources. 

The BLM’s Upper Willow Creek Enhancement Project is located in Elko County, Nevada, just 

north of the proposed Ruby Pipeline Project corridor. Nothing about the activities associated with the 

project (e.g., topsoil preparation, seeding, watering) suggests that such restoration would contribute to 

cumulative effects to cultural resources. Federally regulated projects would be subject to Section 106 of 

the NHPA, which includes requirements for the identification of historic properties, as well as the 

determination of effects and the mitigation of impacts on them. Such a project would also require 

consultation with the appropriate SHPOs, Native American groups, and other parties. 

4.13.9 Air Quality and Noise 

Air Quality

Construction of the Ruby Pipeline Project, as well as past projects and reasonably foreseeable 

future projects listed in table 4.13-1, would involve the use of heavy equipment that would produce dust 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-310 

from soil disruption and air contaminants from combustion emissions. All projects would follow state 

and local requirements for dust control on roads and excavated surfaces. 

The majority of the construction effects of the Ruby Pipeline Project would be mitigated by the 

large five-state geographical area over which the various projects presented in table 4.13-1 are located, 

and the fact that these projects would be constructed over different periods. Construction- and operationrelated air emissions are not expected to have significant impacts on air quality in the area. Because the 

projects listed in table 4.13-1 are located over a large area; have varying construction schedules; and must 

adhere to federal, state, and local regulations for the protection of ambient air quality, we do not expect 

significant cumulative impacts from construction. 

On a regional airshed scale, cumulative increases in air pollutant emissions are not anticipated to 

be significant due to the minor source classification of all four compressor stations. All of the compressor 

stations and the Vya Construction Camp would be located in areas designated by the EPA as attainment 

or unclassifiable for the seven regulated criteria pollutants. Because the compressor stations and the Vya 

camp are minor sources and not subject to PSD requirements, long-range (airshed scale) modeling is not 

required under PSD. 

Operation of the Ruby Pipeline Project, Gateway Energy Project, and Moxa Arch Area Infill Gas 

Development Project would contribute cumulatively to ongoing air emissions. Operation of the 

Southwest Intertie Project would contribute minimally to cumulative ongoing air emissions, and the 

sources of energy for transmission for the Southwest Intertie Project are proposed to be renewable energy 

projects. 

On a local scale, cumulative increases in air pollutant emissions could occur where new 

compressor or pumping stations are sited at or near existing or proposed compressor stations. Each 

compressor station would be required to obtain state construction and operation permits, and potential 

interactions with nearby emission sources would be considered in these permit applications; therefore, we 

do not expect significant cumulative impacts. 

Ruby’s Roberson Creek Compressor Station in Wyoming would consist of three electric-driven 

compressors totaling 69,000 (ISO) hp, a natural gas-fired emergency generator, and natural gas-fired 

auxiliary heaters. The compressor station would not be an emission source, except when the emergency 

generator and auxiliary heaters would be used. Ruby’s Wildcat Hills Compressor Station in Utah would 

consist of two natural gas-fired turbines totaling 28,668 (ISO) hp, a natural gas-fired emergency 

generator, and natural gas-fired auxiliary heaters. Ruby’s Wieland Flat Compressor Station in Nevada 

would consist of two natural gas-fired turbines totaling 39,662 (ISO) hp, a natural gas-fired emergency 

generator, and natural gas-fired auxiliary heaters. Ruby’s Desert Valley Compressor Station would 

consist of a natural gas-fired turbine at 19,831 (ISO) hp, a natural gas-fired emergency generator, and 

natural gas-fired auxiliary heaters. To minimize potential air quality impacts at the three natural gas-fired 

compressor stations, the compressor units would be equipped with low-NOx control technology, and 

clean-burning natural gas would be utilized exclusively at the station. The compressor stations would be 

required to meet federal and state regulatory standards, and emissions associated with the compressor 

stations would be subject to air quality protection measures to ensure that air emissions remain at or 

below local, state, and federal emission standards for criteria air pollutants. 

Ruby and its shippers have agreed to construct and operate the Ruby Pipeline Project as a carbonneutral pipeline, which would be achieved through various methods such as design and operation 

considerations, the use of offsets, restoration, etc. This would minimize the cumulative impacts 

associated with air quality. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-311 

Noise

The Ruby Pipeline Project and those projects listed in table 4.13-1 may affect ambient noise 

levels during construction. Because construction proceeds as a moving assembly line along the pipelines, 

the duration of construction activities, and therefore noise impacts, at any one location would be limited 

to the short-term. Noise levels resulting from operation of the Ruby compressor stations would be 

minimal or not noticeable as the proposed facilities would be located in areas of low population density; 

thus, no significant cumulative impacts are expected. Based on the estimates presented in the acoustical 

analysis for the Ruby project, noise levels would remain below an Ldn of 55 dBA at any NSA. 

Noise levels from operation of the nearby China Mountain Wind Farm turbines would also be 

minimal or not noticeable as the project would be in areas of low population density and a significant 

distance from the pipeline right-of-way; therefore, do not expect significant cumulative impacts. 

4.13.10 Reliability and Safety 

The Ruby Pipeline Project would be designed and constructed to meet or exceed the safety 

standards established in 49 CFR 192. The project would be built in accordance with regulations that 

govern material selection and qualification, minimum design requirements, location adjacent to roads and 

railroads, and protection from internal, external, and atmospheric corrosion. Other facilities would be 

subject to DOT, and/or other federal, state and local regulations as well. Ruby would support and actively 

participate in the one-call program in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon to provide preconstruction 

information to contractors or other maintenance workers on the underground location of pipes, cables, and 

culverts. Ruby would maintain liaison with appropriate fire, police, and public officials to define the 

resources and responsibilities of each emergency response organization and to coordinate mutual 

assistance in the event of a pipeline incident. Ruby also would establish a continuing education program 

to enable customers, the public, government officials, and those engaged in excavation activities to 

recognize a gas pipeline emergency and report it to appropriate public officials. Therefore, we do not 

believe there would be significant cumulative operational safety impacts among pipelines and other 

facilities located in the general vicinity of the proposed project. 

4.13.11 Climate Change 

A discussion of climate change impacts associated with the project was requested by multiple 

commenters on the draft EIS, including the EPA. Climate change is the change in climate over time, 

whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity, and cannot be represented by single 

annual events or individual anomalies. For example, a single large flood event or particularly hot summer 

is not an indication of climate change, while a series of floods or warm years that statistically change the 

average precipitation or temperature over years or decades may indicate climate change. 

The leading U.S. scientific body on climate change is the U.S. Global Change Research Program 

(USGCRP). Thirteen federal departments and agencies13 participate in the USGCRP, which began as a 

presidential initiative in 1989 and was mandated by Congress in the Global Change Research Act of 

1990. The USGCRP recently issued a report, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, which 

summarized the impacts that climate change has already had on the United States and what projected 

impacts climate change may have in the future (USGCRP, 2009). The report includes a breakdown of 

overall impacts by resource and describes impacts for various regions of the United States. Although 

 

13 The following departments comprise the USGCRP: EPA, DOE, Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, USDA, 

DOI, Department of State, DOT, Department of Health and Human Services, National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, National Science Foundation, Smithsonian Institution, and Agency for International Development. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
4-312 

climate change is a global concern, we focus on the potential cumulative impacts of climate change in the 

project area for this cumulative analysis. The USGCRP’s report notes the following observations of 

environmental impacts that may be attributed to climate change in the Northwest and Southwest United 

States: 

• average temperatures have risen about 1.5° F over the past century and are projected to 

increase another 3 to 10° F during this century; 

• droughts in arid and semi-arid areas are expected to increase in frequency and severity; 

• drought stress and increased temperatures are projected to decrease tree growth in low 

and mid-elevation forests; 

• summer moisture deficits are projected to increase the risk of forest fires (a pattern 

already being observed in recent decades); and 

• shifts in the timing of runoff (towards an earlier streamflow) have been observed as much 

as 25 to 30 days earlier over the past 50 years, which lowers late summer flows (this 

shift, combined with increased rainfall instead of winter snowfall and warmer summers 

with increased evaporation, is projected to contribute to increased flood risks in the 

winter and increased drought risks in the summer). 

The GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of the project are identified in 

Section 4.11.1.1. GHG emissions from the proposed project would not have any direct impacts on the 

environment in the project areas. Currently there is no standard methodology to determine how the 

project’s relatively small incremental contribution of GHGs would translate into physical effects to the 

global environment. However, the emissions would increase the atmospheric concentration of GHGs, in 

combination with past and future emissions from all other sources, and would contribute incrementally to 

climate change that produces the impacts previously described. 

Ruby proposes to be the first pipeline in the United States to construct and operate its project in a 

manner considered carbon neutral. In order to achieve carbon neutrality, Ruby has stated that it would 

incorporate a variety of design and operation considerations into the project, such as using internally 

coated pipe to improve hydraulic efficiency, following Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and 

Environmental Design criteria for buildings, reforestation, and/or purchase various financial instruments 

to offset Ruby’s carbon production. Although we cannot accurately determine a project’s incremental 

addition to the impacts of climate change on the environment, if Ruby is successful in its goal of carbon 

neutrality the project would not directly contribute to regional cumulative impacts on climate change. 

4.13.12 Conclusion 

The majority of cumulative impacts discussed above would be temporary and minor. However, 

long-term cumulative impacts on vegetation and land uses could occur if the other current and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects listed in table 4.13-1 are constructed and result in similar vegetation/land use 

impacts. Portions of projects with permanent aboveground components would have significant impacts 

on future land use, and construction of projects in the same vegetation types would result in the long-term 

and permanent loss of sagebrush and timber resources and an incremental increase in habitat 

fragmentation. Long-term cumulative benefits would be realized as a boost to the local economy 

associated with tax revenues. Short-term cumulative benefits would also be realized through jobs and 

wages and purchases of goods and materials. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
5-1 

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

5.1 CONCLUSIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 

The conclusions and recommendations presented in this section are those of the FERC 

environmental staff. Our conclusions and recommendations were developed with input from the BLM, 

Reclamation, FWS, USFS, NRCS, COE, UTPL, and the Board of County Commissioners in Lincoln 

County, Wyoming as cooperating agencies in the preparation of this EIS. However, the BLM, 

Reclamation, FWS, and USFS would present their own conclusions and recommendations in their 

respective RODs, and may elect to adopt this EIS per 40 CFR 1506.3 if, after an independent review of 

the document, they conclude that their permitting requirements have been satisfied. Otherwise, they may 

elect to conduct their own supplemental environmental analysis. 

We have determined that construction and operation of the Ruby Pipeline Project would result in 

adverse environmental impacts. We evaluated all environmental resources to determine whether any 

significant impacts would remain after application of the conservation or mitigation measures proposed 

by Ruby. We then developed practical, appropriate, and reasonable measures which would further reduce 

project-related impacts, where necessary. We are recommending that these additional measures be 

included as specific conditions to any Certificate issued to Ruby by the Commission. Our analysis 

indicates that with the application of Ruby’s proposed mitigation and implementation of our 

recommendations (as presented in section 5.2, below) most project impacts would be reduced to lessthan-significant levels. Significant impacts would occur on groundwater resources and sagebrush steppe 

habitat. A summary of the proposed project’s impacts and our conclusions are presented below by 

resource. 

5.1.1 Geology 

The Ruby Pipeline Project would cross a large number of geologic formations and features. Ruby 

anticipates that blasting may be necessary where hard, non-rippable bedrock occurs and where it would be 

necessary to fracture surface rock during grading activities. Ruby has stated that blasting may be required 

in Utah, Nevada, and Oregon at various locations from MP 57.5 to the terminus of the project. 

Specifically, blasting may be necessary where rock outcrop is present or where shallow soils are underlain 

by bedrock. Ruby would blast only where the rock could not be economically excavated by conventional 

means to achieve a depth sufficient for pipeline burial. To the extent possible, Ruby has sited its pipeline 

alignment to avoid rock cliffs and rock ledges. However, Ruby has identified two areas (near MPs 588 

and 653) where construction through exposed rock would be inevitable. Removal of rock within these 

two areas during construction activities would be considered a permanent impact. 

Blasting could potentially impact water wells, springs, and seeps; adjacent pipelines and buried 

utilities; nearby structures; unstable slopes; and undiscovered paleontological resources. Ruby would 

comply with all state and federal regulations governing the use of explosives. In addition, Ruby has 

developed a Blasting Plan that would be implemented during construction and requires Ruby to evaluate 

and monitor any potential blasting impacts. Ruby would be responsible for restoring areas affected by 

blasting as close as practical to preconstruction conditions and for compensating the landowner for any 

damages to structures. The potential impact on these resources and structures, with the exception of 

exposed rock as noted, is considered temporary and short-term with implementation of the measures cited 

in Ruby’s Blasting Plan. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
5-2 

Numerous sand and gravel pits; rock, mineral, and ore quarries; and coal fields, mining prospects 

and claims were identified within 1,500 feet of the project right-of-way in all four states. The 

construction and operation of project facilities near or over mines and exploitable mineral resources could 

impact the present and future extraction of resources on a short-term basis by impeding traffic access to 

mines during project construction and on a permanent basis by restricting future mining within the rightof-way following construction. Ruby would parallel existing roads and rights-of-way where practical, 

contact stakeholders to identify possible alternative access routes to mines, and notify mine owners of the 

construction timeline to minimize short-term impacts on mining operations. Where access to existing, 

permitted mineral resources would be restricted or lost, Ruby would negotiate compensation for damage, 

access rights, and easements with mine owners and claim holders. Ruby would survey the right-of-way 

for abandoned mines prior to construction and would develop site-specific plans to address any identified 

abandoned mine hazards. We have further recommended that Ruby work with the BLM, state geologists, 

or other state agencies as appropriate to develop those site-specific plans. 

Areas of significant petroleum exploration, recovery, and transportation infrastructure exist along 

the project right-of-way, particularly in Wyoming. Ruby would take measures to avoid existing oil and 

gas production facilities and existing pipelines. Additionally, because oil and gas are generally produced 

from depths of more than 1,000 feet, and because the proposed pipeline generally would be at a maximum 

depth of 8 feet from the ground surface, construction of the pipeline would not be expected to affect 

future oil or gas production. Therefore, the project would not have significant impact on oil and gas 

production in the project area. 

Areas suited for geothermal extraction are located from the Great Salt Lake Basin in Utah to 

Klamath County, Oregon. Geothermal resources are used for heating bath houses and swimming pools; 

for livestock watering and agriculture; and for healing and spiritual use. Ruby has not identified 

geothermal wells or springs within 1,500 feet of the project, but has identified three geothermal prospect 

wells and a “direct use” geothermal area in Oregon. To ensure that geothermal wells and springs are not 

affected by the project, we have recommended that Ruby consult with the Oregon Department of Geology 

and Mineral Industries to develop mitigation plans should any geothermal wells or springs be identified 

by preconstruction surveys. 

We received comments on the draft EIS regarding the release of mercury through exposure and 

subsequent erosion of mercury-containing geologic materials. Though unlikely, there is a possibility that 

a release of mercury could impact environmental resources and create a risk to project workers. We have 

recommended that Ruby implement measures to manage mercury-containing rock along the right-of-way 

and to protect worker health and safety. 

Potential geologic hazards in the project area include seismicity, landslides, and subsidence. The 

project would be constructed across 110 faults or fault zone crossings and 32 areas with moderate to high 

susceptibility to soil liquefaction. Ruby has prepared site-specific measures to reduce the risk associated with 

these geologic hazards, including the use of heavier-walled pipe, pipeline realignment to avoid specific faults, 

and post-seismic event field evaluation and monitoring. Approximately 16 percent of the pipeline route would 

cross areas of moderate to high landslide risk. Ruby has agreed to implement measures such as providing 

negative buoyancy for the pipe using concrete coating, set-on weights, or screw anchors, and alignment 

monitoring following the occurrence of significant earthquakes. Ruby also would employ measures to 

control runoff and erosion, thereby minimizing the potential for slope failures. 

Approximately 5 percent of the pipeline route would have the potential for encountering 

karst/pseudokarst features. Ruby would conduct inspections during the trenching phase of pipeline 

construction in these karst/pseudokarst areas (MPs 96.0 to 112.0, 444.0 to 448.0, 521.0 to 525.0, and 

655.0 to 663.0). If solution features are found, Ruby would develop appropriate mitigation measures 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
5-3 

based on the specific features identified and their relation to the pipeline trench. Ruby also would avoid 

discharging hydrostatic test water near potential karst/pseudokarst features. We also have recommended 

that Ruby restrict refueling and other measures in karst/pseudokarst areas. Ruby’s proposed evaluation, 

monitoring, and mitigation measures in geologic hazard areas would result in temporary, short-term 

impacts. 

We have identified several areas along the proposed route with a moderate to high potential for 

containing significant paleontological resources. Potential impacts in fossil localities during construction 

could include direct, permanent impacts such as damage to, or destruction of, fossils resulting from 

excavation activities; indirect impacts such as erosion of fossil beds resulting from slope regrading and 

clearing of vegetation; and unauthorized collection of significant fossils by construction personnel or the 

public. To minimize permanent impacts, Ruby has agreed to conduct preconstruction surveys for 

significant fossils in a number of areas in response to comments from the BLM. Ruby has prepared and 

has committed to implement a Paleontological Resources Monitoring Plan to monitor for and address the 

discovery of significant fossil resources during construction. All work conducted under the 

Paleontological Resources Monitoring Plan would be performed by qualified paleontologists. The BLM 

indicated that it also may utilize third-party paleontological monitors on federal land during construction 

and that it would require that Ruby report paleontological finds as part of its right-of-way grant. Thus, we 

conclude that project impacts on paleontological resources would not be significant. 

5.1.2 Soils 

The soils in the project area are diverse and include sands and loamy and clayey soils derived from 

various bedrock materials. Pipeline construction activities such as clearing, grading, trench excavation, 

backfilling, heavy equipment traffic, and restoration along the construction right-of-way could result in 

adverse impacts on soil resources. Soil contamination from equipment spills and/or leakage of fuels, 

lubricants, and coolants could also impact soils. To minimize such impacts Ruby would implement the 

mitigation measures contained in its Plan (which provides for erosion control during construction and 

addresses restoration and right-of-way maintenance during pipeline operation); and its Restoration and 

Revegetation Plans for soil management, seeding, restoration, and monitoring. Ruby also would follow 

additional measures required by federal land managing agencies for construction activities on federal land. 

Ruby originally identified 25 areas of potential playa habitat (shallow topographic depressions that 

function as ephemeral ponds with highly variable hydro-periods) using criteria from two COE documents. 

Ruby initiated a geotechnical and geophysical field investigation of the potential playa areas. The 

analysis and data collected during the field investigation resulted in a reassessment of the definition of 

what constitutes a playa. Based on the new definition, the project crosses six playas (at MPs 150.3, 

167.0, 168.6, 171.0, 487.9, and 565.2). Ruby has committed to a number of mitigation measures in 

playas, including installing trench breakers, conducting studies during construction to identify sensitive 

soil conditions, constructing in the drier periods of the year, restoration of excavated areas, and limiting 

the width of the right-of-way. We have recommended that Ruby further restrict its construction right-ofway in playas and relocate the temporary extra workspaces and a pipe storage yard to avoid a playa. 

Ruby’s proposal, as written, would allow expanding the construction right-of-way width in 

wetlands, playas, and forested areas without the need for additional regulatory approval. We have 

recommended that Ruby revise its Plan to prohibit expanding the construction right-of-way width for 

temporary storage of timber, slash, stumps, surface rock, or snow in wetlands, playas, and forested areas. 

Permanent impacts on soils would mainly occur at compressor stations and other aboveground 

facility sites where the sites would be graveled and converted to natural gas industrial facility use. No 

long-term or significant impacts on soils are anticipated within areas temporarily affected by pipeline 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
5-4 

construction, except where cryptobiotic soil crusts occur. Ruby has attempted to identify areas of 

cryptobiotic soils along the project via literature review and agency contact; however, limited data were 

available. Areas of cryptobiotic soil crusts were identified at MPs 594.0, 170.0, and 487.9. Aboveground 

facilities are not located in areas with high concentrations of cryptobiotic crusts. Ruby would take steps 

to restore the crusts to the disturbed areas in the event that damaging or destroying the crusts could not be 

avoided. The top 2 to 5 inches of topsoil, inclusive of the cryptobiotic soils, would be carefully stripped 

and stockpiled separately from all other soil materials in areas. Organic matter and debris would be 

retained in the piles to help sustain biological activity and increase the effectiveness of respreading the 

crust material after construction. We have recommended specific measures for segregation of trench 

spoil into three piles and for replacing and watering the top-most 2 inches of trench spoil during 

restoration. However, once cryptobiotic soil crusts are disturbed it can take 5 to 250 years to be restored 

after alteration (if at all). This represents an irreversible or irretrievable project impact. 

Construction of aboveground facilities would affect about 13.0 acres of prime farmland soils (see 

table 4.2.1-2). The footprint at the Tule Lake Valley Meter Station at MP R672.6 would affect up to at 

12.2 acres of prime farmland soils, if irrigated. The meter station is in an actively cultivated area and is 

surrounded by similar prime farmland for several thousand feet in all directions. 

5.1.3 Water Resources 

The major aquifer systems underlying the proposed project area are the Upper Colorado River 

Basin aquifer system (primarily sandstone aquifers) in Wyoming; the Basin and Range aquifer system 

(primarily carbonate rock and basin-fill aquifers) in Utah and Nevada; and the Pacific Northwest aquifer 

system (primarily basaltic rock and basin-fill aquifers) in Oregon. None of the aquifers that would be 

crossed by the proposed project have been identified as EPA-designated sole-source aquifers. 

The pipeline would be within 200 feet of 21 wells and 60 springs. Ruby has agreed to repair any 

damage to wells or springs or compensate landowners. Groundwater wells beyond 200 feet of the construction 

work areas are not expected to be adversely affected by the proposed project. Ruby has determined that the 

project would cross or would be near seven wellhead protection areas in Utah and Oregon. We have 

recommended that Ruby work cooperatively with relevant agencies responsible for wellhead protection in 

Utah and Oregon to determine if land use and/or water rights restrictions conflict with Ruby’s plans. We 

also have recommended that Ruby restrict refueling and certain other activities (i.e., handling or storage of 

fuels, solvents, or lubricants; performing concrete coating activities; or staging and storing equipment) within 

200 feet of water supply wells or springs and that Ruby conduct water well and spring tests at wells and 

springs within 200 feet of the right-of-way within 30 days of the completion of construction. To address 

concerns of the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, Ruby has specifically committed to monitoring both water 

quality and quantity at One Mile Spring, which is over 4,000 feet south of the project area, prior to, 

during, and after construction. Impacts on wells and springs, with Ruby’s mitigation and our 

recommendations, would be short term and not significant. 

About 402 million gallons of water from groundwater and surface water sources would be used for 

hydrostatic testing of the pipeline and dust control along the construction right-of-way. The pipeline would be 

hydrostatically tested in accordance with DOT regulations. Ruby has applied for the temporary use of water 

rights for water sources in all four states crossed by the project. Each state would determine whether 

water is available in the quantity that Ruby is seeking. Any appropriation of water would be subject to 

conditions imposed by the state engineer to minimize impacts on the water source from which water is 

appropriated. Ruby would only utilize water sources that are authorized and approved by the respective 

state water right permitting agencies, and Ruby would be required to comply with any limitations or 

conditions on withdrawal imposed by these agencies. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
5-5 

The volumes of groundwater to be appropriated for hydrostatic testing and dust abatement are 

estimated at 338 million gallons, which is substantially more than the 66 million gallons originally 

identified by Ruby and evaluated by us in the draft EIS. Because the volume of water is considerable and 

the project is located in a region of the country where water resources are limited, we believe that 

appropriating water of this volume could result in a significant impact. We assert, however, that water 

rights are a complex issue and that permission to appropriate water in reasonable quantities would be 

handled by each state’s engineering office. Water use during operation, however, would not be 

substantial and no significant impacts on groundwater are anticipated during the operational phase of the 

pipeline. 

All hydrostatic test water from surface water sources would be discharged within the same 8-digit 

HUC watershed from which it was withdrawn, which would prevent the inadvertent transfer of pathogens 

or NAS between watersheds. Ruby would use biocides to appropriately treat test water for pathogens and 

NAS when source waters have the potential to or have been identified as having pathogens or NAS, and 

the discharge of those source waters have the potential to reach other surface waters that do not contain 

pathogens or NAS. All biocides used to treat test water would be neutralized prior to discharge. 

Ruby would follow mitigation measures outlined in its project-specific Hydrostatic Test Plan during 

hydrostatic testing to minimize water withdrawal impacts at source locations, lessen erosion potential at release 

points, and prevent the transport of pathogens between hydrologic basins. Due to the sparse vegetation and 

high erodibility throughout the project area we have recommended that Ruby discharge all hydrostatic test 

water into temporary sediment basins. 

The proposed project would cross 1,069 perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral waterbodies 

within 11 major watershed basins. The greatest potential impact on surface waters would result from the 

temporary increase in sediments during in-stream construction. Changes in the bottom contours could 

alter stream dynamics and increase downstream erosion or deposition, depending on circumstances. 

Ruby would employ the open-cut method for most of the waterbodies crossed by the project, but has 

proposed to use the dry-ditch crossing method for waterbodies that contain special status fish species. 

Ruby also would adopt additional measures per agency permitting requirements and requests. Ruby has 

proposed to cross three waterbodies using the HDD method. Ruby would minimize impacts on 

waterbodies during construction by implementing the construction and mitigation procedures contained in 

its Procedures. 

Construction activities at waterbody crossings would be conducted in accordance with all federal 

and state regulations and permit requirements. Depending on the overall construction schedule, pipeline 

construction at waterbody crossings would be conducted during low-flow periods whenever possible and 

within agency-recommended in-water construction windows. Construction during low flows would 

minimize sedimentation and turbidity, minimize streambank and bed disturbances, and limit the time it 

takes to complete in-stream construction. We have recommended that Ruby further minimize impacts on 

waterbodies by locating all temporary extra workspaces and staging areas away from waterbodies and 

limiting the width of the construction right-of-way within waterbodies. 

The pipeline would cross approximately 148 wetland areas for a total of 376 acres. The use of 

contractor yards, staging areas, and access roads may also temporarily affect about 59 acres of wetland. 

Of the affected acreage, about 79 percent of the wetlands would be palustrine emergent (i.e., herbaceous) 

wetland, 21.3 percent would be unconsolidated shore wetland, and 0.6 percent would be scrub-shrub 

wetland. No forested wetlands would be crossed or otherwise affected by the project. Construction and 

operation of the pipeline would not result in the permanent filling of any wetlands. The wetlands affected 

by the pipeline would be restored. Ruby would reduce temporary impacts on wetlands by following its 

Plan and Procedures, and would follow additional measures identified in the POD. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
5-6 

Ruby is currently coordinating with the COE to develop a Wetland Mitigation Plan to mitigate 

long-term impacts on wetlands. We have recommended that Ruby continue to develop and finalize the 

Wetland Restoration Plan in consultation with COE and appropriate state and land managing agencies and 

file the plan with FERC prior to construction. We also have recommended additional measures regarding 

setbacks, replanting, and use of access roads through wetlands that would provide additional protection to 

wetlands and ensure restoration. 

5.1.4 Vegetation 

Construction of the Ruby Pipeline Project would require cutting, clearing, and/or removal of 

existing vegetation within the construction right-of-way and temporary work areas. Construction of the 

pipeline would have short- to long-term impacts on vegetation within about 974.3 acres of grassland, 

781.8 acres of mountain meadow brush, and 1,015.1 acres of pasture and agricultural land. Long-term 

impacts would occur within about 8,775.9 acres of sagebrush steppe, 2,393.7 acres of salt desert scrub, 

336.1 acres of juniper woodland, 576.9 acres of mixed conifer forest, 2.2 acres of North Pacific wooded 

volcanic flowage, and 202.8 acres of riparian forest. Impacts on 1,770.8 acres of unsurveyed land and 

open water are not represented in these totals. 

Impacts on agricultural lands, pastures, and grassland communities would be short-term as these 

vegetation types would return to their herbaceous status within one to three growing seasons after the 

completion of construction, cleanup, and restoration activities. Impacts on these communities during 

operation of the pipeline would be minimal because these areas would be allowed to recover following 

construction and would typically not require maintenance mowing. Areas planted with field crops would 

likely be replanted in the next growing season. 

Impacts on forested upland communities would result in a change in vegetation strata, 

appearance, and habitat, as mature trees would be replaced for several years by herbaceous plants, shrubs, 

saplings, and other successional species. The impacts on forest/woodland, North Pacific wooded volcanic 

flowage, and salt desert scrub would be long-term or permanent due to the time required to reestablish the 

vegetation characteristic of these community types. The arid environment in these regions is not 

conducive to plant growth, and regeneration of vegetation following construction would be slow. 

Moreover, the regeneration success of seeded or planted natural vegetation in these areas varies 

significantly and can be ineffective. Site-specific conditions such as grazing, rainfall amounts, elevation, 

weeds, and soil type could extend impacts beyond 50 years, or could aid in reclamation success and 

lessen restoration timeframes. 

Permanent impacts on forest/woodland would also result from right-of-way maintenance 

activities. Right-of-way maintenance activities could include mowing and clearing in accordance with 

Ruby’s Plan, e.g., annually over a 10-foot-wide corridor centered over the pipeline and every 3 years on 

the entire 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way in non-wetland areas. These clearing activities would 

prevent larger woody species from reverting to preconstruction form and size. Ruby has stated it would 

not remove sagebrush as part of its vegetation maintenance program. Additionally, Ruby would not 

routinely need to conduct vegetation clearing in open land, agricultural land, and developed land. 

Although discrete locations of forested habitat would undergo a long-term or permanent impact, the total 

such acreage of forested impact within Ruby’s permanent right-of-way is only 290.8 acres. As such, we 

do not believe that this impact is significant. 

Impacts on the sagebrush steppe community, which is the most dominant vegetation community 

crossed by the project, would be long-term or permanent because this vegetation type could take as long 

as 50 years or more to return to preconstruction conditions, depending on site-specific conditions. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
5-7 

Removal of sagebrush could impact greater sage-grouse, pygmy rabbits, and other obligate species. Sage 

grouse and pygmy rabbit are petitioned for listing under the ESA. Ruby has committed to implementing 

measures to minimize impacts on petitioned sagebrush obligate species; however, because a substantial 

amount of sagebrush steppe habitat would be removed during construction and because of the long 

timeframe required for this community type to return to preconstruction conditions, we have determine 

that project impacts on sagebrush steppe vegetation would be significant. 

Riparian habitats are essential in maintaining hydrologic, geomorphic, and ecological processes 

that directly affect standing and flowing waterbodies such as lakes, ponds, wetlands, streams, and stream 

tributaries. Because of the high wildlife value and stream protection riparian areas provide, we have 

recommended that Ruby limit its construction right-of-way width in woody riparian habitat to 75 feet. 

Multiple species of noxious weeds were documented within the project areas during botanical 

surveys. The presence of these species increases the potential for new or expanded growth of noxious or 

invasive weeds as a direct consequence of ground disturbance and equipment movement during pipeline 

construction. Ruby consulted with the BLM, USFS, NRCS, and various state and local agencies for 

recommendations on how to prevent the introduction or spread of noxious and invasive weeds. These 

agencies provided known locations of weed infestations and provided recommendations for seed mixes 

and erosion control measures. Based on these consultations and recommendations, Ruby developed a 

Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan and state-specific Restoration and Revegetation Plans that 

would minimize and control the spread of noxious and invasive species, direct reseeding of disturbed 

lands so as to expedite revegetation and reduce the potential for weed establishment and soil erosion, 

monitor disturbed areas after construction is complete, and control noxious and invasive species that 

occur after construction. Ruby would continue to survey for and document the location of noxious and 

invasive species until construction, and would update its Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan with 

new information as it is identified. As such, we conclude that project impacts related to noxious weeds 

would not be significant. 

5.1.5 Wildlife 

Construction-related impacts on wildlife species and their habitats include displacement, mortality, 

behavior disruptions, and habitat fragmentation or loss. Because Ruby would make use of existing rights-ofway as much as possible and would adhere to its Plan, Procedures, and other measures discussed in this EIS, 

we conclude that the project would not substantially alter local wildlife populations, and that the impact of 

habitat fragmentation on wildlife would likely be minimal. Potential project impacts on big and small game 

were also determined to not be significant. 

A variety of migratory bird species, including both songbirds and raptors, are associated with the 

habitats identified along the project. Construction could cause direct and indirect impacts on raptors and 

other migratory birds. Ruby has committed to comply with seasonal and spatial buffer zones for nesting 

raptors established by resource agencies. To minimize bird impacts from communication towers and 

associated guy wires, we have recommended that Ruby implement FWS guidelines on constructing 

communication towers. Further, Ruby is in the process of preparing an agreement with the FWS for the 

protection of migratory birds during construction. The agreement would outline procedures to avoid and 

minimize direct and indirect impacts on migratory birds. 

The pipeline would cross five BLM wild horse and burro HMAs south and west of the Sheldon 

NWR in Humboldt and Washoe counties, Nevada. Construction of the pipeline could affect wild horses 

and burros by restricting access to water sources; restricting movement within the HMA, thereby reducing 

the availability of forage and sanctuary or the ability to escape areas of human disturbance; and displacing 

horses and burros, which could intensify their impacts on other areas. Construction could also create 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
5-8 

safety hazards for the animals due to open trenches or vehicle collisions and increase the likelihood of 

harassment. Ruby has committed to several measures such as trench crossovers and providing access to 

water to minimize impacts on wild horses and burros. 

Ruby, the BLM, FWS, WGFD, UDWR, ODFW, and NDOW have worked together to map and 

categorize habitat quality along the project and develop conservation and mitigation strategies to 

minimize and mitigate impacts on high quality habitat and those species which depend on those habitats. 

Ruby and the various agencies are working together to identify key areas where minor pipeline 

realignments could be incorporated into the project design to avoid or minimize impacts on high quality 

or unique habitats. Several construction techniques and conservation measures have also been developed 

to minimize habitat impacts and aid in restoration efforts. These construction and conservation measures 

have been included in the agreements that are being developed between Ruby, the BLM, the FWS, and 

state agencies. 

5.1.6 Fisheries and Aquatic Resources 

The Ruby Pipeline Project would cross 167 different waterbodies known to support fish species. 

Of these, 83 are known or suspected to contain federally or state-listed special status species. Other 

waterbodies that would be crossed by the project are not expected to contain fish species but could 

support some aquatic invertebrates. No waterbodies affected by the project contain or have the potential 

to contain anadromous species. 

The pipeline would be installed using the open-cut method at most crossings, while waterbodies 

containing sensitive species would be crossed using a dry-ditch or HDD crossing method. Pipeline 

construction at waterbody crossings would be conducted in accordance with all federal and state regulations 

and permit requirements. Ruby would minimize construction impacts on fish and aquatic/streambank habitat 

by following measures identified in its Procedures and POD. Ruby would comply with Oregon’s fish passage 

requirements in Oregon, and would utilize appropriate fish screens on all water intakes. Where blasting may 

occur within waterbodies along the pipeline route, we have recommended that Ruby reduce blasting effects to 

fish by consulting with the FWS, NDOW, and the ODFW for implementing deterrence practices. 

Pipeline construction could spread aquatic pathogens or NAS between waterbodies and watersheds. 

We have recommended that Ruby implement an equipment cleaning program to ensure construction activities 

would not spread aquatic nuisance species. 

5.1.7 Special Status Species 

Special status species are those species for which state or federal agencies afford an additional 

level of protection by law, regulation, or policy. Included in this category are species federally listed as 

endangered or threatened, considered as candidates for such listing by the FWS, or are petitioned or 

proposed for listing under the ESA; species managed by the BLM or USFS to prevent listing under the 

ESA; and those species that are state-listed as threatened or endangered or designated as a state species of 

concern. 

Our analysis focused on 421 special status species that are known to occur in the project area. 

This list of species was developed by Ruby through informal consultation with the FWS, BLM, USFS, 

and state resource management agencies and by comments on the draft EIS. Our evaluation of this list 

indicated that 189 species are highly unlikely to occur in the project area or would otherwise not be 

affected by project activities. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
5-9 

We identified 49 federally listed endangered, threatened, petitioned, and candidate species that 

potentially occur in the vicinity of the proposed project. We note that surveys for several species have not 

been completed, and additional surveys would need to be completed during the NEPA and project review 

processes. Some of our recommendations in this EIS address instances where sufficient resource data are 

lacking. 

We have determined that the Ruby Pipeline Project may affect 11 federally listed species (blackfooted ferret, Ute ladies’-tresses, and 9 fish species); we will submit our BA for the project to the FWS 

under separate cover within 2 weeks of the issuance of this final EIS. We have determined that projectrelated water depletions in the Colorado River drainage basin are likely to adversely affect four of the 

federally listed fish species (Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, razorback sucker, and bonytail 

chub). Specifically, Ruby proposes to withdraw 16,132,371 gallons (about 49.5 acre-feet) of water from 

the Hams Fork River for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline and dust control. We have also determined 

that project-related activities and impacts on streams are likely to adversely affect the Lahontan cutthroat 

trout and four sucker species (Lost River sucker, Modoc sucker, shortnose sucker, and Warner sucker), 

and have recommended that Ruby revise its site-specific crossing plans for a number of waterbodies to 

limit impacts on these four sucker species. Thus, we will enter into formal consultation with the FWS for 

these nine fishes and will request that the FWS prepare a Biological Opinion as to whether or not the 

Ruby Pipeline Project would likely jeopardize the continued existence of these species. 

We are recommending additional mitigation to avoid or reduce impacts on certain federally listed 

and other special status species that may be affected by the project. We have recommended additional 

measures that would further minimize project-related impacts on Ute’s Ladies’-tresses. Additionally, Ruby 

and the FWS are developing a conservation agreement that would identify off-site actions that further 

minimize project effects to ESA-listed species and critical habitat, as well as provide conservation benefit 

to these species. In particular, Ruby is proposing four conservation actions for Lahontan cutthroat trout, a 

species of particular concern to several tribes. In addition, Ruby has committed to avoiding construction in 

known Lahontan cutthroat trout streams and tributaries during the spawning season from March 1 to July 31. 

Ruby also would minimize impacts by following all measures identified in its Procedures. Our Section 7 

consultation with the FWS would further ensure that impacts on Lahontan cutthroat trout would be reduced to 

an acceptable level. We are also recommending that construction not begin until after we complete our 

Section 7 consultation with the FWS. 

The greater sage-grouse and pygmy rabbit are considered two of the most sensitive small game 

species in the project area and are currently undergoing review by the FWS to determine if these species 

warrant ESA protection. Both the greater sage-grouse and pygmy rabbit are dependent on sagebrush steppe 

habitat for survival. 

Ruby has committed to measures to minimize impacts on pygmy rabbit and greater sage-grouse, 

including realignment of the pipeline, preconstruction surveys, construction buffers, timing restrictions, and 

specific revegetation activities. Ruby, the BLM, the FWS, and appropriate state agencies worked together 

to map and categorize habitat quality along the project and develop conservation and mitigation strategies 

to minimize and mitigate impacts on high quality habitat and those species which depend on those 

habitats for survival. As part of this cooperative effort, a “mile-by-mile” habitat analysis was completed 

for big game, greater sage-grouse, pygmy rabbits, and other various species. These efforts and the 

implementation of cooperative conservation agreements between Ruby, the BLM, FWS, NDOW, WGFD, 

and UDWR would help avoid and minimize impacts on the greater sage-grouse and pygmy rabbit, and 

would provide compensation for permanent and long-term impacts on sagebrush habitats. We have 

recommended additional measures that would further minimize project-related impacts on the pygmy rabbit. 

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
5-10 

5.1.8 Land Use and Visual Resources 

Construction of the proposed project would disturb a total of about 16,829.7 acres of land, which 

includes 13,725.6 acres of open land, 1,257.7 acres of forested land, 1,046.0 acres of agricultural land, 

605.1 acres of developed land, and 195.4 acres of open water. The pipeline right-of-way or extra 

workspaces would not be within 50 feet of any residences. After construction, about 75 percent of this land 

would return to its previous use. 

During operation, Ruby would require approximately 4,109.1 acres for pipeline right-of-way and 

140.8 acres for aboveground facility sites after construction. Ruby would not need to maintain vegetation 

(i.e., mow) within the 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way in most land uses types, including open land, 

agricultural land, developed land, and open water. 

About 296.9 miles (44.0 percent) of the right-of-way would be collocated with (i.e., overlap or 

abut) other existing road or utility rights-of-way, or would be offset from other existing road or utility 

rights-of-way. Other existing utility rights-of-way include pipelines, electric transmission lines, and fiber 

optic cables. 

The proposed route crosses both public and private lands, with 342 miles (50.6 percent of the 

project total) occurring on federal lands. The majority of the federal land that would be crossed is 

administered by the BLM (47.5 percent of the entire route and 93.7 percent of all federal land crossed by 

the project). The USFS and Reclamation also manage land crossed by the project. The FWS manages 

lands that would be affected by certain access roads. 

About 1,046.0 acres of agricultural land would be crossed by the project. Construction-related 

activities could impact agricultural lands by leading to soil erosion, interference with and/or damage to 

agricultural surface and sub-surface drainage and irrigation systems, changing the contours of precisionleveled fields, loss of fertile topsoil through mixing with subsoil, and soil compaction. Impacts would 

include the loss of standing crops within the construction work area and the disruption of farming 

operations in the construction vicinity during the growing season in the year of construction. Ruby’s use 

of its Plan would help minimize such impacts. Ruby has also committed to discussing site-specific 

factors with landowners. We have further recommended that Ruby develop a complaint resolution 

procedure to address landowner concerns and measures to specifically address field-leveling concerns. 

The main visual impact from construction of the pipeline would be from the clearing of forest 

areas for the pipeline, and from the construction of aboveground facilities. According to analysis 

provided by the BLM, the project would create notable levels of visual changes to the landscape that 

without mitigation would attract the attention of the casual observer because of the moderate level of 

contrast in line and color in addition to the contrast in form by the four compressor stations. Generally, 

visual impacts along the pipeline would diminish over time as the affected areas age and blend in with the 

surrounding landscape as vegetation becomes reestablished over the long-term. Ruby continues to 

coordinate with the BLM and USFS to develop site-specific plans to ensure that impacts on visually 

sensitive areas are reduced to acceptable levels. By implementing the mitigation measures outlined in 

Section 4.8.4.7 and the measures that Ruby would develop in its POD, the visual changes associated with 

the proposed pipeline would be subordinate, i.e., repeat the basic elements found in the natural and 

cultural landscape characteristics, and would therefore comply with the existing BLM visual management 

objectives. 

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
5-11 

5.1.9 Socioeconomics 

Areas within a 50-mile radius of the project area (approximately 1-hour travel time to and from 

the project) were evaluated for socioeconomic impacts. Construction work areas for the project generally 

would be located in unpopulated areas or areas with low population density. The primary exception to 

this is Cache County, Utah, near Interstates 84 and 15 in Brigham City, Utah. Ogden, Utah, which lies 

approximately 15 miles south of the project in Weber County, is the only major metropolitan area (i.e., 

population over 50,000) that would be within a 50-mile radius of the project. Population densities in the 

remaining counties are under 12 persons per square mile. 

Ruby would use seven spreads during construction, each approximately 80 to 120 miles long. 

Construction on each spread would proceed in one continuous operation lasting approximately 10 

months. Construction would require 400 to 500 workers per spread for a peak pipeline workforce of 

3,500 persons. Construction of the four compressor stations would require 150 to 200 workers per station 

for a peak station workforce of 800 persons. The incremental temporary housing demand from 

construction workers, per spread, would be distributed over a large area and would be short-term. 

However, the combined demand for temporary housing from tourists, recreationists, local workers, and 

project construction crews could at times exceed the supply in some communities. If project demand for 

temporary housing were to exceed supply, project workers would be required to find accommodations in 

communities further from the project area. While this would benefit the proprietors of the local motels, 

hotels, casinos, RV camps, and other rental units, it could result in the temporary displacement of some 

tourists, recreationists, or local workers. 

In order to address the potential lack of housing resources in northwestern Nevada, Ruby has 

proposed a temporary construction camp to provide living quarters for up to 650 non-local pipeline 

workers. This proposed Vya Construction Camp would be located on a 160-acre privately owned parcel 

in Washoe County, Nevada. Ruby also is coordinating with the Town of Lakeview (Oregon) to establish 

temporary lodging to accommodate construction employees at a 12.1-acre temporary lodging facility. 

This facility would include a total of seven buildings which would provide sleeping quarters for up to 425 

workers. 

Potential impacts on transportation infrastructure would be minimized through the development 

of specific traffic control plans that would be included as an amendment to Ruby’s Traffic and 

Transportation Management Plan. We have recommended that Ruby develop such plans in coordination 

with local departments of transportation and land managing agencies. Ruby would file its revised plan 

prior to construction. 

The proposed project would cross two parcels of WMA land managed by the UDWR that were 

acquired with federal aid funding from the FWS. Ruby is working with the UDWR and FWS to develop 

measures to minimize impacts on these land parcels. We have recommended that Ruby continue to work 

with the UDWR and FWS to ensure that all impacts are addressed in a WMA Mitigation Plan. 

Due to the concerns over protection of historic and natural wildlife/conservation areas and tribal 

lands in northwestern Nevada, Ruby has committed to holding contractors responsible for use restrictions 

associated with these areas. We have recommended that Ruby prepare a Contractor Education Plan that 

identifies sensitive resources with use restrictions in northwestern Nevada that includes a discussion of 

how Ruby would enforce its policies. 

We received comments during the draft EIS comment period that the Fire Prevention and 

Suppression Plan contained incorrect information or did not include sufficient information to adequately 

address emergency response to fires. We have recommended that Ruby coordinate with local fire 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
5-12 

responders to revise its Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan to meet the standards of all fire response 

agencies with fire response authority in the project area. 

The impacts of the proposed project are distributed across 10 counties within 4 states. Based on 

our review of the project area, we do not believe the Ruby Pipeline Project would concentrate an 

inequitable environmental burden on the minority or low-income or tribal communities. 

5.1.10 Cultural Resources and Native American Consultation 

The FERC and the cooperating federal agencies must comply with Section 106 of the NHPA, 

which addresses cultural resources that are listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP. As authorized by 

the implementing regulations in 36 CFR 800, Ruby is assisting FERC in complying with Section 106. 

Ruby has conducted cultural resource inventory surveys of the proposed pipeline route, as well as surveys 

of temporary extra workspaces, staging areas, access roads, construction camps, and aboveground facility 

sites. Ruby has identified cultural resource sites within the construction area in all states that would be 

crossed by the project. FERC has not received reports for all surveys and special studies, such as geoarchaeological studies and visual resource studies. Ruby would be required to prepare treatment plans to 

address any historic properties that would be adversely affected by the project once all studies and the 

appropriate consultations are completed. These treatment plans would be subject to review and approval 

by the appropriate agencies. 

The FERC initiated consultation with Native American tribes about the project early in the prefiling process. We sent our notices to 40 tribes, conducted public meetings, and arranged and attended 

meetings with tribes. The BLM is also conducting consultations with Native American tribes. The BLM 

has sent out consultation letters to 31 tribes, conducted meetings with tribes, and arranged field visits to 

identify sensitive resources. Ruby has also been in communication with Native American tribes as part of 

their project planning. We continued to receive comment and input from Native American tribes and 

individuals during the draft EIS comment period. 

The Section 106 review process is on-going. Survey reports and unanticipated discovery plans 

are currently under review. Tribal consultation is also continuing. Supplemental to the Section 106 

survey reports, Ruby is sponsoring ethnographic studies of Native American tribes who claim traditional 

territory along the pipeline route. These studies are underway and would not be completed until 2010, 

although information from the studies may identify TCPs. 

We have recommended that no cultural resource treatment plans be implemented, and that no 

construction activities begin, until all required surveys, evaluations, and studies are reviewed, and the 

appropriate Section 106 consultations are completed. 

5.1.11 Air Quality and Noise 

Air quality impacts from the construction phase of the project would result primarily from air 

pollutant combustion emissions and fugitive dust emissions. Construction equipment and other mobile 

sources would be powered by diesel or gasoline fuels and would have intermittent and short-term 

emissions of CO, SO2, NOx, PM10/PM2.5, and VOCs. Emissions from gasoline and diesel engines would 

be minimal because the engines would be built to comply with the EPA mobile source standards. Ruby 

has created a Fugitive Dust Control Plan that identifies potential dust emission sources and provides 

guidance on control measures for the generation of fugitive dust during construction. We have concluded 

that impacts on air quality during construction from heavy equipment emissions and fugitive dust would 

not significantly affect local or regional air quality and would not cause nor contribute to an exceedance 

of an ambient air quality standard. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
5-13 

Operational emissions would result primarily from air pollutant combustion emissions from 

natural gas-fired turbines, emergency generators, and auxiliary heaters located at the compressor stations. 

GHGs, which include CO2, CH4, and N2O, would also be produced from combustion sources at the 

compressor stations. None of the proposed compressor stations would have potential emissions in 

quantities large enough to trigger PSD review. Therefore, the compressor stations would be minor 

sources relative to the PSD permitting process and would require state-only construction and operating air 

permits. We have concluded, based on the dispersion modeling analyses completed for each of the 

natural gas-fired compressor stations, that operation of the pipeline system would not cause nor contribute 

to an exceedance of an ambient air quality standard. Dispersion modeling analysis would not be required 

by the WDEQ for the Roberson Creek Compressor Station due to the particularly low emissions expected 

with the station. Potential emissions are not available for the Vya Construction Camp at this time. 

Acquisition of air permits from the Washoe County Air Quality Management Division for operation of 

camp equipment would be the responsibility of the pipeline contractor, as deemed necessary. 

We do not anticipate significant noise impacts associated with construction of the project. 

Construction of the Vya camp would cause temporary increases in noise levels in the immediate vicinity 

of the construction site. At the nearest NSA, 6,000 feet away, an 80 dBA construction noise level would 

be reduced to 38 dBA due to geometric spreading of sound energy. Three of the four proposed 

compressor station sites are in remote areas that do not have any nearby NSAs. The Wildcat Hills 

Compressor Station has an NSA approximately 7,500 feet in distance which is close enough that the 

potential noise increase could be noticeable, depending on local conditions. Thus, we have recommended 

that Ruby conduct a noise survey at the NSA closest to the Wildcat Hills Compressor Station after the 

station is placed into service and assess whether any additional measures are needed to reduce noise 

levels. As such, noise levels at each compressor station would remain below a day-night sound level of 

55 dBA at the nearest NSAs. 

5.1.12 Reliability and Safety 

The Ruby Pipeline Project would be designed and constructed to meet or exceed the safety 

standards established in Title 49 CFR Part 192. The regulations are intended to ensure adequate 

protection for the public and to prevent natural gas facility accidents and failures. The project would be 

built in accordance with regulations that govern material selection and qualification; minimum design 

requirements; location adjacent to roads and railroads; and protection from internal, external, and 

atmospheric corrosion. Ruby would actively participate in the nationwide one-call program and has 

identified measures to address unauthorized encroachments. 

Wildfires sparked by construction activities or OHV use were identified as a concern on this 

project. Ruby has prepared a Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan to prevent and respond to wildfires 

during construction. Ruby’s Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan includes requirements for training, 

equipment, and monitoring and establishes protocols and lines of communication to report fires. The plan 

also increases fire prevention and response commitments during high-risk fire periods. Ruby would work 

with the BLM, FWS, Reclamation, and landowners to identify areas where placing cut vegetation back on 

the right-of-way after construction could create a potential fire hazard and prohibit or restrict this practice 

in such areas. Ruby also would work closely with agencies and landowners to monitor and eliminate 

unauthorized access to the right-of-way after construction. 

5.1.13 Cumulative Effects 

We evaluated eight past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects or activities that may 

cumulatively or additively impact resources that would be affected by the construction and operation of 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
5-14 

the Ruby Pipeline Project. These other projects include oil and gas development, pipeline and electric 

transmission line, residential development, wind farm development, and habitat restoration projects. We 

have not identified any significant cumulative impact. Short-term cumulative impacts associated with 

these projects are most likely to occur on mineral and paleontological resources; soils; surface waters and 

wetlands; wildlife; visual resources; socioeconomics; and cultural resources. Long-term and permanent 

cumulative impacts associated with these projects are most likely to occur with vegetation (including 

habitat fragmentation), land use, and air quality. We include recommendations in this EIS to reduce the 

environmental impacts associated with the project. Similarly, each of the other actions has been or would 

be designed to avoid or minimize impacts on sensitive environmental resources to some extent. 

5.1.14 Alternatives Considered 

Our discussion of alternatives considered for the Ruby Pipeline Project can be found in section 3 

of the EIS. Alternatives considered include no action or postponed action, system alternatives, route 

alternatives, route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. While denying project approval 

or taking no action (or postponing action) would avoid the environmental impacts identified in this EIS, 

the objective of providing a new source of natural gas from the Rocky Mountains to Nevada and the West 

Coast would not be met. 

We considered the recently authorized Pacific Connector Pipeline Project as a possible system 

alternative to the Ruby Pipeline Project. However, our review found that this project would not be a 

reasonable alternative to the Ruby Pipeline Project. We also considered using two existing pipeline 

systems (the Williams Northwest Pipeline and Kern River Gas Transmission Company) to move Rocky 

Mountain gas to the west. However, neither of these pipelines have the capacity (using existing facilities) 

to accommodate the volumes that would be transported by Ruby, and both systems would need to expand 

their facilities between the Rocky Mountains and Nevada and the West Coast in a manner similar to 

Ruby. 

We originally considered 14 route alternatives to the Ruby pipeline to determine whether the 

alternatives would avoid or reduce impacts on environmentally sensitive resources crossed by the 

pipeline. We concluded in the draft EIS that three of the route alternatives (Terrace Basin, Willow Creek, 

and South Langell Valley) would meet the project objectives, would be technically and economically 

feasible, and would confer an environmental advantage over the proposed route. Therefore, we 

recommended in the draft EIS that Ruby incorporate these three route alternatives into the project. Since 

then, Ruby formally modified its proposal to adopt the recommended route alternatives. The data and 

analysis in this final EIS reflect the inclusion of these three alternatives in Ruby’s proposed route. We did 

not make a conclusive recommendation in the draft EIS regarding the Black Rock Route Alternative or 

the Sheldon Route Alternative. After a detailed analysis of the routes, we have determined that the Black 

Rock Route Alternative is not environmentally superior and we are not recommending that Ruby 

incorporate the alternative into its pipeline route. It appears that the Sheldon Route Alternative may be 

environmentally preferable. However, according to the FWS, the Sheldon Route Alternative would not 

be compatible with the purposes of the Sheldon NWR or the mission of the NWR System, and therefore 

the FWS would not grant authorization for crossing the refuge. For this reason, we do not recommend the 

Sheldon Route Alternative. 

We also originally considered 15 minor route variations to determine whether the variations 

would address land use concerns and/or avoid or reduce impacts on certain environmentally sensitive 

resources crossed by the proposed route. After our evaluation, we recommended in the draft EIS that 

Ruby incorporate all 15 route variations into the project. Since then, Ruby formally modified its proposal 

to adopt the recommended route variations. The data and analysis in this final EIS reflect the inclusion of 

these 15 variations in Ruby’s proposed route. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
5-15 

We received comments on the draft EIS requesting an analysis of a route alternative that would 

follow existing highways along the entire route, particularly I-80 where possible. We developed the I-80 

Corridor Route Alternative in response to these comments. Based on our analysis, we have not 

recommended that Ruby incorporate the I-80 Corridor Route Alternative into the project. 

We also evaluated a potential route variation between MPs 575 and 590 in an area recently 

identified as the proposed Barrel Springs TCP. Based on our analysis of the Barrel Springs Western 

Route Variation, we concluded that there is no compelling reason to require Ruby to move its proposed 

alignment, which is adjacent to a power line corridor and associated access road. 

5.2 FERC STAFF’S RECOMMENDED MITIGATION 

If the Commission authorizes the Ruby Pipeline Project, we recommend that the following 

measures be included as specific conditions in the Commission's Order. We believe that these measures 

would further mitigate the environmental impact associated with the construction and operation of the 

proposed project. In the following section, “file” means to file with the Secretary of the FERC. 

1. Ruby shall follow the construction procedures and mitigation measures described in its 

application, supplemental filings (including responses to staff data requests), and as identified in 

the EIS, unless modified by the Commission’s Order. Ruby must: 

a. request any modification to these procedures, measures, or conditions in a filing; 

b. justify each modification relative to site-specific conditions; 

c. explain how that modification provides an equal or greater level of environmental 

protection than the original measure; and 

d. receive approval in writing from the Director of OEP before using that modification. 

2. The Director of OEP has delegated authority to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure the 

protection of all environmental resources during construction and operation of the project. This 

authority shall allow: 

a. the modification of conditions of the Commission’s Order; and 

b. the design and implementation of any additional measures deemed necessary (including 

stop work authority) to assure continued compliance with the intent of the environmental 

conditions as well as the avoidance or mitigation of adverse environmental impact 

resulting from project construction and operation. 

3. Prior to any construction, Ruby shall file an affirmative statement, certified by a senior 

company official, that all company personnel, EIs, and contractor personnel will be informed of 

the EI's authority and have been or will be trained on the implementation of the environmental 

mitigation measures appropriate to their jobs before becoming involved with construction and 

restoration activities. 

4. The authorized facility locations shall be as shown in the EIS, as supplemented by filed alignment 

sheets. As soon as they are available, and before the start of construction, Ruby shall file any 

revised detailed survey alignment map/sheets at a scale not smaller than 1:6,000 with station 

positions for all facilities approved by the Commission’s Order. All requests for modifications of 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
5-16 

environmental conditions of the Commission’s Order or site-specific clearances must be written 

and must reference locations designated on these alignment maps/sheets. 

Ruby's exercise of eminent domain authority granted under Section 7(h) of the NGA in any 

condemnation proceedings related to the Commission’s Order must be consistent with these 

authorized facilities and locations. Ruby's right of eminent domain granted under Section 7(h) of 

the NGA does not authorize Ruby to increase the size of its natural gas pipeline to accommodate 

future needs or to acquire a right-of-way for a pipeline to transport a commodity other than 

natural gas. 

5. Ruby shall file detailed alignment maps/sheets and aerial photographs at a scale not smaller than 

1:6,000 identifying all route realignments or facility relocations, and staging areas, pipe storage 

yards, new access roads, and other areas that would be used or disturbed and have not been 

previously identified in previous filings. Approval for each of these areas must be explicitly 

requested in writing. For each area, the request must include a description of the existing land 

use/cover type, documentation of landowner approval, whether any cultural resources or federally 

listed threatened or endangered species would be affected, and whether any other 

environmentally sensitive areas are within or abutting the area. All areas shall be clearly 

identified on the maps/sheets/aerial photographs. Each area must be approved in writing by the 

Director of OEP before construction in or near that area. 

This requirement does not apply to route variations recommended herein, extra workspace 

allowed by Ruby’s Plan, or minor field realignments per landowner needs and requirements that 

do not affect other landowners or sensitive environmental areas such as wetlands. Examples of 

alterations requiring approval include all route realignments and facility changes resulting from: 

a. implementation of cultural resources mitigation measures; 

b. implementation of endangered, threatened, or special concern species mitigation 

measures; 

c. recommendations by state regulatory authorities; and 

d. agreements with individual landowners that affect other landowners or could affect 

sensitive environmental areas. 

6. Within 60 days of the acceptance of the Certificate and before construction begins, Ruby shall 

file an Implementation Plan for the review and written approval of the Director of OEP. Ruby 

must file revisions to the plan as schedules change. The plan shall identify: 

a. how Ruby will implement the construction procedures and mitigation measures described 

in its application and supplements (including responses to staff data requests), identified 

in the EIS, and required by the Order; 

b. how Ruby will incorporate these requirements into the contract bid documents, 

construction contracts (especially penalty clauses and specifications), and construction 

drawings so that the mitigation required at each site is clear to onsite construction and 

inspection personnel; 

c. the number of EIs assigned per spread and aboveground facility site, and how Ruby will 

ensure that sufficient personnel are available to implement the environmental mitigation; 

d. company personnel, including EIs and contractors, who will receive copies of the 

appropriate materials; 

e. the location of the environmental compliance training Ruby will give to all personnel 

involved with construction and restoration (initial and refresher training as the project 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
5-17 

progresses and personnel change), with the opportunity for OEP staff to participate in the 

training session(s); 

f. the company personnel (if known) and specific portion of Ruby’s organization having 

responsibility for compliance; 

g. the procedures (including use of contract penalties) Ruby will follow if noncompliance 

occurs; and 

h. for each discrete facility, a Gantt or PERT chart (or similar project scheduling diagram), 

and dates for: 

i. the completion of all required surveys and reports; 

ii. the environmental compliance training of onsite personnel; 

iii. the start of construction; and 

iv. the start and completion of restoration. 

7. Ruby shall employ a team of two or more EIs, or as may be established by the Director of OEP, 

per construction spread. The EIs shall be: 

a. responsible for monitoring and ensuring compliance with all mitigation measures 

required by the Order and other grants, permits, certificates, or other authorizing 

documents; 

b. responsible for evaluating the construction contractor's implementation of the 

environmental mitigation measures required in the contract (see condition 6 above) and 

any other authorizing document; 

c. empowered to order correction of acts that violate the environmental conditions of the 

Order, and any other authorizing document; 

d. a full-time position, separate from all other activity inspectors; 

e. responsible for documenting compliance with the environmental conditions of the Order, 

as well as any environmental conditions/permit requirements imposed by other federal, 

state, or local agencies; and 

f. responsible for maintaining status reports. 

8. Beginning with the filing of its Implementation Plan, Ruby shall file updated status reports on a 

weekly basis until all construction and restoration activities are complete. On request, these 

status reports will also be provided to other federal and state agencies with permitting 

responsibilities. Status reports shall include: 

a. an update on Ruby’s efforts to obtain the necessary federal authorizations; 

b. the construction status of each spread, work planned for the following reporting period, 

and any schedule changes for stream crossings or work in other environmentally sensitive 

areas; 

c. a listing of all problems encountered and each instance of noncompliance observed by the 

EIs during the reporting period (both for the conditions imposed by the Commission and 

any environmental conditions/permit requirements imposed by other federal, state, or 

local agencies); 

d. a description of the corrective actions implemented in response to all instances of 

noncompliance, and their cost; 

e. the effectiveness of all corrective actions implemented; 

f. a description of any landowner/resident complaints that may relate to compliance with 

the requirements of the Order, and the measures taken to satisfy their concerns; and 

g. copies of any correspondence received by Ruby from other federal, state, or local 

permitting agencies concerning instances of noncompliance, and Ruby’s response. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
5-18 

9. Prior to receiving written authorization from the Director of OEP to commence 

construction of any project facilities, Ruby shall file with the Secretary documentation that it 

has received all authorizations required under federal law (or evidence of waiver thereof). 

10. Ruby shall develop and implement an environmental complaint resolution procedure that remains 

active for at least 3 years following the completion of project construction. The procedure shall 

provide landowners with clear and simple directions for identifying and resolving their 

environmental mitigation problems/concerns during construction of the project and restoration of 

the right-of-way. Prior to construction, Ruby shall mail the environmental complaint resolution 

procedure to each landowner whose property would be crossed by the project. 

a. In the letter to affected landowners, Ruby shall: 

(1) provide a local contact that the landowners should call first with their concerns; 

the letter shall indicate how soon to expect a response; 

(2) instruct the landowners that, if they are not satisfied with the response, they 

should call Ruby's Hotline; the letter shall indicate how soon to expect a 

response; and 

(3) instruct the landowners that, if they are still not satisfied with the response from 

Ruby's Hotline, they should contact the Commission's Enforcement Hotline at 

(888) 889-8030. 

b. In addition, Ruby shall include in its weekly status report a table that contains the 

following information for each problem/concern: 

(1) the identity of the caller and the date of the call; 

(2) the identification number from the certificated alignment sheet(s) of the affected 

property and appropriate location by milepost; 

(3) a description of the problem/concern; and 

(4) an explanation of how and when the problem was resolved, will be resolved, or 

why it has not been resolved. 

11. Ruby must receive written authorization from the Director of OEP before placing the project 

into service. Such authorization will only be granted following a determination that 

rehabilitation and restoration of the right-of-way and other areas of project-related disturbance are 

proceeding satisfactorily. 

12. Within 30 days of placing the certificated facilities in service, Ruby shall file an affirmative 

statement, certified by a senior company official: 

a. that the facilities have been constructed in compliance with all applicable conditions, and 

that continuing activities will be consistent with all applicable conditions; or 

b. identifying the Certificate conditions with which Ruby has complied or will comply. The 

statement shall also identify any areas affected by the project where compliance measures 

were not properly implemented, if not previously identified in filed status reports, and the 

reason for noncompliance. 

13. Ruby shall restrict the use of temporary extra workspaces to those locations identified as 

“Conditionally Approved for Use” in table E-1, Appendix E of this EIS. (section 4.1.1) 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
5-19 

14. Prior to construction, Ruby shall file the results of its preconstruction geological investigation to 

evaluate if abandoned mines are present in the project area. If abandoned mines are present, 

Ruby shall file a plan to address abandoned mine hazards and file documentation of consultation 

with the BLM and appropriate state geologists in the development of these plans for the review 

and written approval by the Director of OEP. (section 4.1.2.1) 

15. Prior to construction from MPs 519.0 to 524.0 and MPs 631.5 to 633.0, Ruby shall file the 

results of its preconstruction surveys for mercury-containing rock along these segments, including 

results of any soil samples collected and analyzed as part of the preconstruction surveys. (section 

4.1.2.1) 

16. Prior to construction from MP 613.4 to 614.6, Ruby shall file the results of its preconstruction 

survey of this direct use geothermal area. If Ruby identifies geothermal wells or springs in the 

geothermal area, Ruby shall consult with the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral 

Industries to develop appropriate measures to mitigate impacts on these resources and file 

documentation of consultation and any mitigation plans for review and written approval by the 

Director of OEP. (section 4.1.2.3) 

17. If Ruby identifies karst/pseudokarst features during construction, it shall clearly mark the area of 

the feature and shall handle and store all fuels, solvents, and lubricants; perform all concrete 

coating activities; and stage and store all equipment at least 100 feet from the feature. Ruby shall 

inform the appropriate state natural heritage agency if a feature is opened during construction. In 

addition, Ruby shall include the identification of these features in its weekly construction status 

report. (section 4.1.3.3) 

18. Ruby shall implement the USGS’s specified soil segregation technique for cryptobiotic soil crusts 

in the areas of MPs 170.0, 487.9, and 594.0. (section 4.2.2.2) 

19. Ruby shall relocate the temporary extra workspaces and a pipe storage yard at MP 487.9 to avoid 

the underlying playa and file the revised workspace and yard locations for review and written 

approval of the Director of OEP. Where temporary work areas abut a playa, Ruby shall install 

exclusion fencing and warning signs around the playa to prevent project disturbance. (section 

4.2.2.3) 

20. Ruby shall revise its Plan to prohibit expanding the construction right-of-way width for 

temporary storage of timber, slash, stumps, surface rock, or snow in wetlands, playas, and 

forested areas. Ruby shall file its revised Plan prior to construction. (section 4.2.4) 

21. Ruby shall conduct its proposed post-construction well testing within 30 days of the completion 

of construction in the area of each water well presented in table 4.3.1-1 of final EIS. If testing 

indicates diminished yield, water quality, and/or usability, Ruby shall provide a temporary source 

of water or provide other remedies as agreed to by the landowner. (section 4.3.1.3) 

22. Prior to construction, Ruby shall test all springs presented in table 4.3.1-2 of this EIS. Testing 

shall be conducted using a certified water testing laboratory and shall include analysis of yield; 

contaminants associated with fuels, lubricants, oils, etc.; and standard drinking water parameters. 

These same springs shall be tested again within 30 days of the completion of construction in 

the area of the spring. If testing indicates diminished yield, water quality, and/or usability of the 

spring for its permitted or intended purposes, Ruby shall provide a temporary source of water or 

provide other remedies as agreed to by the landowner. (section 4.3.1.3) 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
5-20 

23. Prior to construction, Ruby shall file plans developed in consultation with the appropriate state 

agencies to protect wellhead protection areas. (section 4.3.1.3) 

24. Ruby shall revise section IV.A.1 of its Procedures, and its Spill Plan, to prohibit handling or 

storage of fuels, solvents, or lubricants; performing concrete coating activities; or staging or 

storing equipment within 200 feet of any water supply well or spring. (section 4.3.1.4) 

25. Ruby shall locate all temporary extra workspaces and staging areas at least 50 feet from 

waterbodies and limit the construction right-of-way to 115 feet wide in waterbodies. (section 

4.3.2.4) 

26. Ruby shall discharge all hydrostatic test water to a temporary sediment filtration and energy 

dissipation structure. (section 4.3.2.5) 

27. Ruby shall file site-specific justification that identifies where access road improvements in 

wetlands are proposed to occur. Ruby shall include an explanation as to why each wetland 

cannot be avoided and a description of the construction and restoration measures that would be 

implemented to minimize wetland impacts. Ruby shall not begin access road improvements in 

wetlands until it has received written authorization from the Director of OEP. (section 4.3.3.1) 

28. Ruby shall locate all temporary extra workspaces and staging areas at least 50 feet from wetlands 

and limit the construction right-of-way to 75 feet wide in wetlands. (section 4.3.3.2) 

29. Prior to construction, Ruby shall file its Wetland Restoration Plan. This plan shall be developed 

in consultation with the COE and appropriate state and land managing agencies. This plan shall 

include measures for seeding and replanting wetland vegetation affected by all project activities 

and shall identify measures for ensuring wetland revegetation would be successful. (section 

4.3.3.3) 

30. Ruby shall limit its construction right-of-way width to 75 feet in the woody riparian habitats 

identified in table 4.4.3-1 of the EIS. For any location where Ruby believes temporary extra 

workspaces/staging areas are necessary in woody riparian habitat, Ruby shall provide site-specific 

justification written approval from the Director of OEP prior to using the temporary extra 

workspace or staging area. (section 4.4.3) 

31. Ruby shall plant woody riparian vegetation (e.g., shrubs, cuttings, seedlings, saplings) in all 

woody riparian areas (except directly over the trenchline) as soon as possible after construction 

within the appropriate planting season, including the riparian areas impacted by access roads. 

Ruby shall consult with the landowner or appropriate land managing agency to identify the 

species and planting densities to be used and any methods to protect planted riparian areas from 

grazing and browsing impacts, such as browse protection or fencing, until these areas become 

established. Ruby shall monitor the success of riparian habitat restoration for 5 years after 

construction. At the end of the 5-year period, Ruby shall file a report identifying the status of 

the woody riparian restoration and the need for any additional restoration efforts. (section 4.4.3) 

32. Ruby shall incorporate into its project design the FWS’s Guidance on the Siting, Construction, 

Operation and Decommissioning of Communications Towers. (section 4.5.1.1) 

33. Ruby will coordinate with the FWS, NDOW, and ODFW to determine if and how fish deterrence 

practices shall be implemented before blasting takes place in any waterbody that has the potential 

to contain special status fish species as identified in section 4.7 of this EIS. Ruby shall file the 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
5-21 

results of its consultations with these agencies prior to crossing the affected waterbody. 

(section 4.6.1.7) 

34. Ruby shall implement an equipment disinfection plan to incorporate one or more of the following 

measures during construction as equipment enters and exits each of the 25 HUC watersheds 

crossed by the project, as equipment exits the Little Bear River, and as equipment exits 

waterbodies known to contain pathogens and nonnative aquatic species that can be spread by 

contact with construction equipment. Ruby shall remove mud and debris from equipment and 

either: 

a. keep the equipment dry for at least 10 days prior to use; 

b. spray or soak the equipment with 1) a 10-percent chlorine bleach solution, 2) a 1:1 

solution of Formula 409 household cleaner, or 3) a 1:15 solution of Sparquat 256 

institutional cleaner, making sure to keep the equipment moist with the cleaner for at 

least 10 minutes; or 

c. spray or soak the equipment with steam or water greater than 130 °F for at least 10 

minutes. 

Additionally, if Ruby identifies any invasive water organism on any equipment as it leaves a 

waterbody or wetland, Ruby shall report the sighting to the appropriate state conservation office 

and implement disinfection measures on all equipment as it leaves the infected waterbody or 

wetland. (section 4.6.2) 

35. Ruby shall revise the site-specific waterbody crossing plans for Twelvemile Creek, Twentymile 

Creek, Thomas Creek, and Lost River. These plans shall include the proposed crossing method, 

seasonal timing restrictions, Ruby’s proposed construction procedures, and any other measures 

that would minimize impacts on the Lost River sucker, Modoc sucker, shortnose sucker, and 

Warner sucker. In addition, Ruby shall file the results of any consultation with the FWS, 

Reclamation, and ODFW regarding the crossing method and conservation measures for the Lost 

River. Ruby shall not begin any construction activities in these waterbodies until:

a. FERC staff receives the requested information, as well as any comments from the FWS, 

Reclamation, and ODFW; 

b. staff completes any necessary Section 7 consultation with the FWS; and 

c. Ruby has received written notification from the Director of OEP that construction or use 

of mitigation may begin. (section 4.7.2.4) 

36. Ruby shall not start construction in any area where Ute ladies’-tresses are identified during 

preconstruction surveys until:

a. FERC staff receives the survey report for the Ute ladies’-tresses sighting, as well as any 

comments from the FWS regarding project impacts on this species; 

b. staff completes any necessary Section 7 consultation with the FWS; and 

c. Ruby has received written notification from the Director of OEP that construction or use 

of mitigation may begin. (section 4.7.2.6) 

37. Ruby shall control the outflow of hydrostatic test water discharge structures to ensure that 

discharge water does not reach occupied pygmy rabbit burrows at MPs 6, 41.4 to 41.6, 56.5 to 59, 

260.9 to 261, and 275.8. (section 4.7.3.3) 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
5-22 

38. Ruby shall modify the right-of-way configuration (e.g., use the opposite side of the right-of-way 

to operate vehicle traffic) or reduce the construction right-of-way width to 75 feet where crossing 

known colonies to avoid white-tailed prairie dog burrows to the greatest extent possible. In 

addition, where a colony only occurs along the edge of the construction right-of-way, the colony 

edge shall be flagged or exclusion fencing be erected to avoid impacts on burrows. (section 

4.7.3.4) 

39. Ruby shall file with its quarterly reports (as specified in Ruby’s Plan, section VII.B.2) details 

discussing whether any complaints were received concerning the restoration of the precisionleveled fields crossed by the project and how each was resolved. (section 4.8.1.3) 

40. Ruby shall continue to work with UDWR and FWS to ensure all project impacts on the East Fork 

and Salt Creek WMAs’ resources are fully addressed via development of a WMA Impact 

Management and Mitigation Plan. (section 4.8.2.2) 

41. Ruby shall provide its Northwestern Nevada Sensitive Area Contractor Education training to all 

of its contractor personnel working between MPs 490 and 580. (section 4.8.3.6) 

42. Ruby shall coordinate with all jurisdictional fire response authorities affected by the project to 

revise its Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan to meet the standards of those authorities. The 

revised plan, along with any agency comments on the plan, shall be filed for review and written 

approval of the Director of OEP prior to construction. (section 4.9.3) 

43. Ruby shall work with local governmental agencies in Elko, Winnemucca, in the area of the Vya 

Construction Camp, and where conflicts with mining traffic may occur to identify all areas where 

traffic could be disrupted by construction or construction-related traffic and define specific traffic 

control plans for each of these locations. These plans shall include (at a minimum) a commitment 

to provide, as necessary: 

a. signage to identify approaching construction or access points; 

b. daily review and cleanup of sediment deposits and pavement damage on roadways; and 

c. traffic control personnel in areas of lane closures or heavy traffic. 

The traffic control plans shall be filed for review and written approval of the Director of OEP 

prior to construction. (section 4.9.4) 

44. Ruby shall not begin construction of facilities, including the pipeline, compressor stations, and 

meter stations; and/or use of all staging, storage, or temporary work areas, and new or to-beimproved access roads until: 

a. Ruby addresses any comments on the cultural resources survey reports, addendum 

reports, and supplemental studies; 

b. Ruby files with the Secretary: 

(1) any required revised reports/studies and the BLM’s, USFS’s, Reclamation’s, 

COE’s, FWS’s, SHPOs’, and any Native American tribes’ (as appropriate) 

comments on the revised reports/studies; 

(2) any additional required cultural resource survey and evaluation reports, and 

avoidance and mitigation/treatment plans, and addresses any other information 

that the SHPOs, BLM, USFS, Reclamation, COE, or FWS request; and 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
5-23 

(3) the SHPOs’, BLM’s, USFS’s, Reclamation’s, COE’s, FWS’s, other appropriate 

state agencies’, and any Native American tribe’s (as appropriate) comments on the 

reports and plans; 

 

c. the ACHP has commented on the project; and 

d. the FERC staff reviews and the Director of OEP approves the cultural resource reports 

and plans, and notifies Ruby in writing that treatment plans/mitigation measures 

(including archaeological data recovery) may be implemented and/or construction may 

proceed. 

All material filed with the Commission that contains location, character, and ownership

information about cultural resources must have the cover and any relevant pages therein clearly 

labeled in bold lettering “CONTAINS PRIVILEDGED INFORMATION – DO NOT 

RELEASE.” (section 4.10.5) 

45. Ruby shall make all reasonable efforts to ensure its predicted noise level from the Wildcat Hills 

Compressor Station is not exceeded at the nearest NSA. Ruby shall file noise surveys no later 

than 60 days after placing this compressor station in service. If the noise attributable to the 

operation of all of the equipment at the Wildcat Hills Compressor Station at full load exceeds an 

Ldn of 55 dBA at any nearby NSAs, Ruby shall install additional noise controls to meet the level 

within 1 year of the in-service date. Ruby shall confirm compliance with the above requirement 

by filing a second noise survey no later than 60 days after it installs the additional noise controls 

(section 4.11.2.4) 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX A 

Final EIS Distribution List for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
                 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX A – FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION 

A-1 

Federal Government Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Director of 

Cultural Resources, DC 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Director of 

Planning and Review, DC 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, John M. 

Fowler, DC 

American Gas Association, President, DC 

Center for Disease Control, GA 

Center for Disease Control, Kenneth W Holt, MSEH, GA 

Commission on Energy and Natural Gas, U.S. Senate, DC 

Council on Environmental Quality, Director for NEPA 

Oversight, DC 

Council on Environmental Quality, DC 

Council on Environmental Quality, General Counsel, DC 

Crater Lake National Park, Carolyn Hescock, OR 

Crater Lake National Park, Mack Brock, OR 

Department of Energy, Director of Import/Export 

Activities, DC 

Department of Energy, Manager, DC 

Department of Energy, Manager, Natural Gas Regulatory 

Activities, DC 

Department of Energy, Michael J Taylor, WY 

Department of Energy, Office of Env Compliance, DC 

Department of Energy, Office of Environmental 

Compliance, DC 

Department of Energy, Western Area Power Admin Steven 

W Webber, CO 

Department of Justice Land and Nat Res Div, DC 

Department of Labor Office of Regulatory Economics, DC 

Department of State Office of Environment/Health, DC 

Department of the Air Force, Office of the Deputy Sec, 

Env, Safety and Occupational Health, DC 

Department of the Interior, Deputy Director, Minerals 

Mgmt Service, DC 

Department of the Interior, Deputy Assist Sec. for Land 

and Minerals Mgt, DC 

Division of Environmental Coordination, DC 

Environmental Defense, DC 

Federal Aviation Administration, Airport Dist Office, Joe 

Rodriguez, CA 

Federal Aviation Administration, CA 

Federal Aviation Administration, Cheryl M Thompson, CA 

Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain 

Regional Office Acting Deputy Manager Key, Carol, 

WA 

Federal Aviation Administration, NW Mountain Region, 

WA 

Federal Communications Commission, DC 

Federal Highway Administration, CO 

Federal Highway Administration, UT Division, 

Administrator, UT 

Federal Highway Administration, WY Division, Tom 

Bonds, WY 

Fossil Butte National Monument, WY 

Golden Spike National Historic Site Superintendent, UT 

Gordon Smith Congressional Staff, Esther Kennedy, OR 

Great Basin National Park, Ms. Betsy Duncanclark, NV 

Great Basin National Park, NV 

Greg Walden Congressional Staff, John Snider, OR 

Humboldt National Forest, Forest Supervisor, NV 

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, NV 

Interstate Commerce Comm., Chief Energy and 

Environment, DC 

IRS/Forester/Engineer Group 107, WA 

Klamath National Forest, Goosenest Ranger District, John 

Hitchcock, CA 

Klamath National Forest, Harry Frey, CA 

Library of Congress, Fed Documents Section, DC 

Logan Ranger District, District Ranger, UT 

Minerals Management Service, CO 

Minerals Management Service, Royalty Management 

Program, Harry Corley, CO 

Modoc National Forest Berny Weisgerber, CA 

Modoc National Forest, Planning, CA 

Mojave Southern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council, 

Edward Skudlarek, NV 

Mojave Southern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council, 

Jerry Helton, NV 

Mojave Southern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council, 

John E Hiatt, NV 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Garwin Yip, CA 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Pat Rutten, CA 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Don Rech, CA 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Habitat 

Protection, Marine Resource Habitat Specialist, MD 

National Park Service DOI, Div of Env Compliance, DC 

National Park Service, C/O U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management Harry Williamson, CA 

National Park Service, CO 

National Park Service, DC 

National Park Service, DC 

National Park Service, DC 

National Park Service, Dee Morris, CO 

National Park Service, Golden Spike National Historic Site, 

Bret Guisto, UT 

National Park Service, Golden Spike National Historic Site, 

Planning/Env Quality Technician, Roxanne Runkel, CO 

National Park Service, Long Distance Trails, Jere Krakow, 

UT 

National Park Service, National Trails System, John 

Conoboy, UT 

National Park Service, Superintendent, National Trails 

System, UT 

National Park Service, Superintendent, UT 

National Park Service, Susan Rosebrough, WA 

National Trails Office, National Park Service, Lee 

Kreutzer, UT 

National Weather Service, MD 

National Wildlife Refuge System, FWS, Geoffrey Haskett, 

DC 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Asst. State 

Conservationist, Lisa Coverdale, Salt Lake City, UT 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Baggs, WY 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Brian David, UT 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Chuck Petersen, 

NV 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Cliff Fox, OR 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Craig Plummer, 

NV 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, District 

Conservationist, UT 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX A – FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION 

A-2 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Elko Service 

Center, Area Conservationist, Rick Orr, NV 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Elko Service 

Center, Paulette Ballet, NV 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Jim Gifford, NV 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Karen Fullen, UT 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Klamath Falls 

Service Center, Basin Team Leader, Kevin Conroy, OR 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Lakeview Field 

Office, Dist Conservationist, Max Corning, OR 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Linden Brooks, 

CA 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, M Ron Davidson, 

UT 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, National 

Environmental Coordinator, DC 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Niels Hansen, UT 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, OR 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Oregon William 

B. White, OR 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Peggy Hughes, 

NV 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Portland OR State 

Conservationist, Bob Graham, OR 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Randy Seelbrede, 

CA 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City 

UT State Conservationist, Sylvia Gillen, UT 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Shelly Tucker, 

OR 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, State 

Conservationist, J Xavier Montoya, Casper, WY 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, State 

Conservationist, Richard Sims, Boise, ID 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Sweetwater Co 

Dist Conservationist, Jeff Lewis, WY 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Thomas Hoskins, 

UT 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Tim Julander, UT 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Unita County, 

Dist Conservationist, Jeff Lewis, WY 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, UT 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, William B. 

White, OR 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Winnemucca 

Service Center, District Conservationist, Denise Adkins, 

NV 

NCA, Public Lands Com, Ed Depaoli, NV 

NOAA, Director Ecology and Conservation, DC 

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, Director, 

DC 

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, Phyllis 

Davis, DC 

Office of Fed Activities, 2251A Director, DC 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Habitat 

Protection, Marine Resource Habitat Specialist, MD 

Office of Pipeline Safety, Associate Administrator, DC 

Office of Pipeline Safety, Community Assistance/Technical 

Services, CO 

Office of Pipeline Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Admin, DC 

Office of Pipeline Safety, USDOT, MO 

Office of Pipeline Safety, USDOT, Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Admin, MO 

Office of Pipeline Safety, USDOT, P/L and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Admin, GA 

Office of Public Affairs, DC 

Office of Surface Mining, Acting Director, Frank Atencio, 

WY 

Office of the Assist Secretary of the Navy, Installations and 

Environment, Tom Egeland, DC 

Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Mgmt, 

Operations Directorate – Operations Division, Ravin 

Howell, VA 

Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Mgmt, 

Paul E Mason, ACSIM, VA 

Office of the Deputy A/S of the USAF, DC 

Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense – 

Installations and Environment, Robert Uhrich, DC 

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, IRM, DC 

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, DC 

Principal Assistant Deputy under Secretary of Defense, DC 

Rocky Mountain Pipeline Contractors Association, 

Executive Director, LA 

Ron Wyden Congressional Staff, Field Representative, 

Traci Dow, OR 

Senator Barrasso, Sandra Darift, WY 

Tribal and Regulatory Affairs, Office of the Assist 

Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), Assistant for 

Environment, DC 

U.S. Air Force, Center for Engineering and the 

Environment, CCR-S, Gary Munsterman, CA 

U.S. Air Force, Christopher S Martin, Lt Col, UT 

U.S. Air Force, Environment, Safety, Occupational Health 

Office of Deputy A/S, DC 

U.S. Air Force, Headquarters, LEEV, DC 

U.S. Air Force, Real Property Agency, Jeffrey Blevins, TX 

U.S. Air Force, Real Property Agency, VA 

U.S. Air Force, Ron McRobbie, CA 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Army Engineer Div Chief, 

Planning Div, CA 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Army Engineer Div, OR 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, CA 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, CA 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, J. Richard Capka, CA 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Katrina Smolen, NV 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kristine Hansen, NV 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Nancy Kang, NV 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, NE 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Office of the Chief of 

Army Engineers, DC 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Matthew 

Bilodeau, WY 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland Dist, Regulatory 

Branch, Branch Chief Lawrence C. Evans, OR 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District, Branch 

Chief, Lawrence Evans, OR 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Reno Regulatory Office, 

Office Chief, Kevin Roukey, NV 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento Dist, Kevin 

Roukey, UT 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento Dist, 

Sacramento District, Chief of Environmental Res. 

Branch, Clark, Scott, CA 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX A – FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION 

A-3 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, Mike 

Jewell, CA 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, Reg 

Off, Acting Chief, Gipson, Jason, UT 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tom Johnson, WY 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, UT 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla Dist, 

Regulatory Chief, Daly, Brad, WA 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, 

Regulatory Project Manager, Robert Brochu, ID 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, WY Regulatory Off, Sr 

Project Manager, Peter, Chandler J, WY 

U.S. Army, Engineering Division, South Pacific, CA 

U.S. Army, Engineering Division, South Pacific, CESPDCMP, CA 

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Acting Deputy Regional 

Director, John Philbin, AZ 

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bernie Burnham, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Cheryl Lohman, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Dan Hall, CA 

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, DC 

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Donna Bradley, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Eastern Nevada Agency, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Eastern NV Agency, Robert 

Marcio, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Mike Smith, CA 

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento Area Office, 

Rick Fielitz, CA 

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Superintendent, Athena 

Brown, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Virgil Akins, CA 

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Western NV Agency, Matt 

Spaulding, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Western Regional Office, 

NEPA Coordinator, Amy Heuslein, AZ 

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Western Regional Office, 

Regional Director, Allen Anspach, AZ 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management Buffalo Field Office, 

Paul Beels, WY 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, (WO 210), Peg 

Sorensen, DC 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, 

Michael Bennett, AK 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, 

State Director, AK 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Alaska, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Allen Munhall, 

Lakeview, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Arcata Resource Area, 

CA 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Archaeologist, Bill 

Canon, Lakeview, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Archaeologist, Bryan 

Hockett, Elko, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Archaeologist, Laird 

Naylor, UT 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Archaeologist, Lynn 

Harrell, WY 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Archaeologist, Michelle 

Durant, Klamath, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Archaeologist, Penni 

Borghi, Surprise, CA 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Archaeologist, Peter 

Ainsworth, UT 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Archaeologist, Samuel 

L. Potter, Winnamucca, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Baker City Resource 

Area, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Barbara Machado, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Bryan Fuell, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Burns District, Joan 

Suther, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Burns District, State 

Director, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, CA 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, CA State Office, CA 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, CA State Office, State 

Director, CA 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Cameron Mcquivey, 

Winnemuca, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Carol Benkosky, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Carson City Field 

Office, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Chris Crews, 

Kemmerer, WY 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Clear Lake Resource 

Area, CA 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, CO State Office, State 

Director, CO 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Cody Field Office, 

Shirley Bye-Jeck, WY 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Coos Bay Dist, State 

Director, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Dan Oles, Kemmerer, 

WY 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Dan Stewardson, 

Lakeview, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Dave Hays, 

Winnemuca, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Dave Valentine, 

Winnemuca, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Dave Watson, Salt Lake 

City, UT 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Debora Boudreau, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Dino Borghi, Surprise, 

CA 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Director, DC 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Eagle Lake Resource 

Area, John Bosworth, CA 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Eastern States Office, 

Director, VA 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Elias Flores Jr., 

Surprise, CA 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Elko Dist Office, Steve 

Dondero, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Elko Field Office, 

Danielle Storey, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Elko Field Office, Deb 

Mcfarlane, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Elko Field Office, 

District Manager, Ken Miller, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Elko Field Office, 

Donna Jewel, NV 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX A – FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION 

A-4 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Elko Field Office, 

Helen Hankins, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Elko Field Office, 

Kathy Gunderman, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Elko Field Office, Ken 

Wilkinson, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Elko Field Office, 

Leona Rodreick, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Elko Field Office, Mark 

Dean, AZ 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Elko Field Office, 

Randall Jayo, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Elko Field Office, 

Tamara Hawthorne, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Elko Field Office, Tom 

Reid, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Eugene District Office, 

District Manager, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Eugene District Office, 

Richard Hanes, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Field Manager, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Fred Mcdonald, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Gerald Dickson, Elko, 

NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Gerald M Smith, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Heather Emmons, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Holly Roberts, Salt 

Lake City, UT 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, ID Falls Dist Office, 

District Manager, Joe Kraayenbrink, ID 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, ID State Office, Branch 

of Lands and Minerals, Chief, Jimmie Buxton, ID 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, ID State Office, Realty 

Specialist, Cathy Foster, ID 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, ID State Office, State 

Director, ID 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Jackie Gratton, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Jeff Fontana, CA 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Jerry B. Fant, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Jim Dunder, Kemmerer, 

WY 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Jim Lindsey, Elko, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Joan Cole, Klamath 

Falls, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, John Axtell, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, John Henderson, 

Kemmerer, WY 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Katrina Symons, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Kelly Lamborn, 

Kemmerer, WY 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Kemmerer Field Office, 

WY 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Kemmerer Field Office, 

John R. Christensen, WY 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Kemmerer Field Office, 

Mark Meyer, WY 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Kemmerer Field Office, 

Michele Easley, WY 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Kemmerer Field Office, 

Nancy Baker, WY 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Kemmerer Field Office, 

Ron Mitchell, WY 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Kemmerer Field Office, 

Viola Hillman, WY 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Kemmerer Resource 

Area, Realty Specialist, Kelly Lamborn, WY 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Ken Collum, Surprise, 

CA 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Kimberly Pore, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Klamath Falls Resource 

Area, Mike Bechdolt, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Klamath Falls Resource 

Area, Field Manager, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Klamath Falls Resource 

Area, Planning and Env., Don Hoffeins, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Klamath Falls Resource 

Area, Younger, Linda, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Klamath Falls, Brooke 

Brown, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Klamath Falls, Dana 

Eckard, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Klamath Falls, Donald 

Holmstrom, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Klamath Falls, Mike 

Angell, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Klamath Falls, 

Resource Area Lands and Realty, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Klamath Falls, 

Resource Area Planner, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Klamath Falls, 

Resource Area Public Affairs, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Klamath Falls, 

Resource Area, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Klamath Falls, Rob 

Roninger, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Klamath Falls, Scott 

Senter, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Lakeview District 

Manager, Shirley Gammon, Lakeview, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Lakeview District, Paul 

Whitman, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Lakeview Office, Lands 

and Realty Specialist, Dan Stewardson, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Lakeview Office, Tom 

Rasmussen, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Lakeview Resource 

Area, Shirley Gammon, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Lakeview, Julie Martin, 

OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Lakeview, Les Booth, 

OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Lakeview, Steve Flock, 

OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Lakeview, Vern 

Stofleth, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Lakeview, William 

Cannon, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Lander Field Office, 

Carol Anne Murray, WY 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Lucile Housley, 

Lakeview, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Mark Morse, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Medford District, 

District Manager, OR 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX A – FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION 

A-5 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Medford District, Jean 

Williams, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Michael T Green, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Mike Nelson, Salt Lake 

City, UT 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, National Applied Res 

Science Center, Paul Summers, CO 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, National Project 

Manager, Mark Mackiewicz, UT 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, National Training 

Center, Terry Loyer, AZ 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, New Mexico State 

Office, State Director, NM 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Newcastle Field Office, 

WY 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, NV State Office 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, NV State Office, 

Branch Chief, Pat Gubbins, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, NV State Office, Lands 

and Planning, Lands Program Lead, Jim Stobaugh, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, NV State Office, NV 

Management Rep., Gene Seidlitz, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, NV State Office, 

Permitting, Jacqueline Gratton, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, NV State Office, State 

Director, Ron Wenker, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, NV State Office, State 

Director, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, NV State Office, Tom 

Burke, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, OR State Office 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, OR State Office, Joyce 

Watson, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, OR State Office, 

Lyndon Werner, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, OR State Office, Realty 

Specialist, John Styduhar, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, OR State Office, State 

Director, Edward Shepard, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix Field Manager, 

Teresa Raml, AZ 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix Resource Area, 

Bill Gibson, AZ 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office, 

Kellie Roadifer, WY 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, PMP, Mark A. 

Mackiewicz, Price, UT 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Pocatello Field Office, 

Field Manager, Dave Pacioretty, ID 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Pocatello Field Office, 

Lands and Realty, Realty Specialist, Jan Parmenter, ID 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Prineville District, 

District Manager, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Public Affairs, Chris 

Strebig, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins Field Office, 

John Spehar, WY 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Redding Field Office, 

Bill Kuntz, CA 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Redding Field Office, 

Glen Miller, CA 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Redding Field Office, 

Manager, CA 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Redding Resource 

Area, Steve Anderson, CA 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Regulatory Affairs 

Group (WO-630) Kelly Odom, DC 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Renewable Resources 

and Planning, Ed Shepard, DC 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Rey Adame, WY 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Richard H Brown, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Rock Springs Field 

Office Renee Dana, WY 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Rock Springs Field 

Office, Dennis Doncaster, WY 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Rock Springs Field 

Office, Jim Glennon, WY 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Roseburg District, 

District Manager, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Roswell District, 

District Manager, NM 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Royal Gorge Resource 

Area, CO 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Salem Dist, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City, Cindy 

Ledbetter, UT 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City, Glenn 

Carpenter, UT 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake Dist, Land 

Law Examiner, Anita Jones, UT 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake Field Office, 

UT 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake Field Office 

Associate Field Manager, David H Murphy, UT 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake Field Office, 

Mike Gates, UT 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake Field Office, 

NEPA Coordinator, Pam Schuller, UT 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake Field Office, 

Recreation Planner, UT 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Scott Florence, DC 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Scott Stoffel, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Shannon Theall, 

Lakeview, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Sierra Front RAC, Larie 

Trippet, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Spokane District, 

District Manager, WA 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, State Director OR/WA, 

Elaine M. Brong, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, State Office, UT 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Stephen Smith, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Steven Hayner, 

Klamath Falls, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Surprise Field Office, 

CA 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Surprise Field Office, 

Field Manager, Shane Deforest, CA 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Surprise Field Office, 

Land and Realty Specialist, Ken Collum, CA 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Susanville District, 

District Manager, CA 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX A – FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION 

A-6 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Tillamook Resource 

Area, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Todd Forbes, 

Lakeview, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Tom Leshendok, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Training Coordinator, 

Planning and NEPA, Cathy Humphrey, AZ 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, UT State Office State 

Director, Selma Sierra, UT 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, UT State Office, Byron 

Loosle, UT 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, UT State Office, Realty 

Lead/Realty Specialist, Michael Dekeyrel, UT 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Vale District, District 

Manager, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Vernal Dist, David 

Moore, UT 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, W0-480, Brenda 

Williams, DC 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Washington Office, 

Mel Meier, DC 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Wenatchee Resource 

Area, WA 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca, Brooks 

Wilson, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca, Craig 

Drake, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca District 

Office, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca Field 

Office, Lynn Harrison, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca Field 

Office, Realty Lands/ Realty Specialist, Lewis W. Trout, 

NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca, Amanda 

Deforest, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca, Gail 

Givens, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca, Ken 

Loda, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca, Mike 

Zielinski, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca, Rodger 

Bryan, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca, Scott 

Richey, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, WO-610 Public Affairs, 

DC 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Worland District, Jim 

Roseberry, WY 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Worland Field Office, 

Don Ogaard, WY 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, WY State Office 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, WY State Office, 

Judyth Reed, WY 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, WY State Office, 

Realty, Tamara Gertsch, WY 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, WY State Office, 

Realty Specialist, Janelle Wrigley, WY 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, WY State Office, State 

Director, Robert Bennett, WY 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, WY State Office, State 

Director, WY 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, 

Bill Daniels, WY 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Area Manager, Pablo 

Arroyave, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Cecil Lesley, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Christine Karas, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, CO 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Craig Frisbee, UT 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, D-8510 River Systems, CO 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, David Krueger, UT 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, DC 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Eric Stiles, CO 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Jennie Land, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Basin Area Office, 

Bob Davis, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Kristen Hiatt, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, OR 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Patrick Welch, CA 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Provo Beverly Heffernan, UT 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, UT 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, USGS (D-8220), Jim Sartoris, 

CO 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Water and Lands Specialist, 

Jennifer Birri, OR 

U.S. Coast Guard, Environmental Management, CG-443, 

DC 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Senior Policy Advisor, 

Office of the Secretary, DC 

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Intergovernmental 

Affairs, DC 

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of NEPA Policy and 

Compliance, Director, DC 

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of NEPA, DC 

U.S. Department of Energy, Tom Pansky, OR 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

Director of Environment, DC 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Mgmt Service, 

DC 

U.S. Department of the Interior, MS 2340 MIB Office of 

Environmental Policy and Compliance, DC 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 

Intermountain Region, Env. Compliance Spec., Cheryl 

Eckhardt, CO 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental 

Policy and Compliance, CA 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental 

Policy and Compliance, Director, DC 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental 

Policy and Compliance, Office of the Secretary, CA 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental 

Policy and Compliance, Phyllis Davis, DC 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining, 

Chief, DC 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Regional Environmental 

Officer, Robert F. Stewart, CO 

U.S. Department of the Interior, USGS, VA 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Virg. Tech/Dept for USGS 

Patuxent Wld. Res., Jeff Marion, VI 

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms, and Explosives, DC 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX A – FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION 

A-7 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Env. Policies Team 

Leader, DC 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline 

Safety, Research and Special Programs Admin, 

Administrator, DC 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline 

Safety, Research and Special Programs Admin, DC 

U.S. Department of Transportation, P/L and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Admin, MO 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Admin, DC 

U.S. Department of Transportation, RSPA, OPS/E 

Region/DPS-24, Director, E. Region, DC 

U.S. Department of Transportation, RSPA, OPS/E 

Region/DPS-24, DOT Director, DC 

U.S. Department of Transportation, RSPA, 

OPS/OHME/SW Region Houston Office, TX 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency NEPA Compliance 

Div Pearl E Young, DC 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8, EPR-N, 

CO 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8, EPR-N, 

Rich Mylott, CO 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Dan Meyer, WA 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EIS Registration 

Section, OEPR Director, DC 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Jeanne 

Geselbracht, CA 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Jason Bill, NV 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, John Hillenbrand, 

CA 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal 

Activities, Acting Director, Susan Bromm, DC 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal 

Activities, EIS Filing Section, DC 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal 

Activities, DC 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, EIS 

Coordinator, WA 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Env 

Review Coordinator, Ralph Rogers, WA 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Judith 

Leckrone Lee, WA 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 

Regional Administrator, Elin Miller, WA 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Tim 

Hamlin, WA 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Chief, 

Water Quality Unit, Hamilton, Karen, CO 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Dana 

Allan, CO 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Larry 

Svoboda, CO 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, NEPA 

Group, Larry Kimmel, CO 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Env. 

Review Coordinator, CA 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Leonidas 

Payne, CA 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, NEPA 

Group, Nova Blazej, CA 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region Ix, Office 

of Federal Activities, CA 

U.S. Federal Highway Admin, Western Fed Land Div, WA 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Allen Taylor, NV 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Allen Taylor, NV 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bear River Migratory Bird 

Refuge, UT 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bend Field Office, Field 

Supervisor, Gilbert, Nancy, OR 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, CA 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California/Nevada 

Operations Office, Manager, CA 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cheyenne, WY 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cokeville Meadows 

National Wildlife Refuge, John Martin, UT 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cokeville Meadows 

National Wildlife Refuge, Manager, Carl Milligan, WY 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, DC 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Dr. Terry Terrell, CO 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Eastern ID Field Office, 

Damien Miller, ID 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Enhancement, OR 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ESA, FERC Coordinator, 

Estyn Mead, OR 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Field Supervisor, Bob 

Williams, NV 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Henry R. Maddux, UT 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Basin National 

Wildlife Refuges, Ron Cole, CA 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Malheur National Wildlife 

Refuge, OR 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marcy Haworth, NV 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain Prairie Region, 

Acting Asst. Reg. Dir., Ecological Services, Julie Lyke, 

CO 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region, 

Stephen Guertin, CO 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nolan Banish 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NV 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, OR 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, OR Energy PM, Doug 

Young, OR 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Office State 

Supervisor, Paul Henson, OR 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Paul Steblein, OR 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pinedale Field Office, 

Kathleen Erwin, WY 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Randy Brown, CA 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Rollie White, OR 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ron Iverson, CA 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Salt Lake City Field Office, 

Betsy Herrmann, UT 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, UT 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Seedskadee National 

Wildlife Refuge, John Martin, WY 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sheldon Hart Mountain, 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Steve Clay, OR 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sheldon National Wildlife 

Refuge, Brian Day, NV 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sheldon National Wildlife 

Refuge, Mike Andrews, OR 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX A – FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION 

A-8 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sheldon-Hart Mountain 

National Wildlife Refuge, Paul Steblein, OR 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sheldonhart Mountain 

Refuges Mark Strong, OR 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Snake River Field Office 

ESA, FERC Coordinator, Mark Robertson, ID 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Steve Abele, NV 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tim Modde, CO 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Travis Sanderson, WY 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, UT Field Office Project 

Leader, Larry Crist, UT 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Marianne Crawford, 

CO 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, VA 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wayne White, CA 

U.S. Forest Service, Paisley Ranger District, OR 

U.S. Geological Survey, CA 

U.S. Geological Survey, Klamath Falls Field Office, Rip 

Shively, OR 

U.S. Geological Survey, VA 

U.S. Geological Survey, Water Service Center, Cheyenne, 

WY 

U.S. Government Printing Office, DC 

U.S. House of Reps, Constituent Services C/O Joan, UT 

U.S. Minerals Management Service, Env. Assessment Div, 

VA 

U.S. NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service Mattie 

Crosby, OR 

U.S. NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Svc, WA 

U.S. Regional Ecosystem Office, OR 

United States Coast Guard Commandant, DC 

United States Coast Guard, Office of Operating and Env. 

Standards, DC 

United States Congressman, Congressman Rob Bishop, UT 

United States Department of Energy, DC 

United States Postal Services, Tim Messmer, NV 

United States Senate, John Ensign, NV 

USDA, Ann M. Bartuska, DC 

USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 

PPD/EAD, Deputy Director, MD 

USDA Forest Service Bob Bachman, OR 

USDA Forest Service Deputy Chief, National Forest 

System, DC 

USDA Forest Service Director of Lands, DC 

USDA Forest Service Ecosystem Mgmt Coordination, DC 

USDA Forest Service Humboldt National Forest, Ms. 

Patricia Irwin, NV 

USDA Forest Service, Ashley National Forest, UT 

USDA Forest Service, Big Horn National Forest, WY 

USDA Forest Service, Bly Ranger Dist, Terry Sodorff, OR 

USDA Forest Service, Bridger-Teton National Forest, WY 

USDA Forest Service, Caribou-Targhee National Forest, 

Recreation, Lisa Klinger, ID 

USDA Forest Service, Caribou-Targhee National Forest, 

Regional Forester, Jack Troyer, UT 

USDA Forest Service, Chiloquin Ranger District, Kevin 

Moore, OR 

USDA Forest Service, Chiloquin Ranger District, Sanborn 

Jen, OR 

USDA Forest Service, Employees for Environmental 

Ethics, Forrest Fleischman, OR 

USDA Forest Service, Environmental Coordinator, DC 

USDA Forest Service, Evanston Ranger District, WY 

USDA Forest Service, Freemont National Forest, OR 

USDA Forest Service, Fremont National Forest, 

Archaeologist, John Kaiser, OR 

USDA Forest Service, Fremont-Winema and Modoc 

National Forest Realty Specialist, Catherine Callahan, 

OR 

USDA Forest Service, Fremont-Winema National Forest, 

Allan Hahn, OR 

USDA Forest Service, Fremont-Winema National Forest, 

Dave Hogen, OR 

USDA Forest Service, Fremont-Winema National Forest, 

Donna Stubbs, OR 

USDA Forest Service, Fremont-Winema National Forest, 

Doug Miller, OR 

USDA Forest Service, Fremont-Winema National Forest, 

Forest Supervisor, Karen Shimamoto, OR 

USDA Forest Service, Fremont-Winema National Forest, 

Jeannette Wilson, OR 

USDA Forest Service, Fremont-Winema National Forest, 

Jimmy Leal, OR 

USDA Forest Service, Fremont-Winema National Forest, 

Lisa Swinney, Public Affairs, OR 

USDA Forest Service, Fremont-Winema National Forest, 

OR 

USDA Forest Service, Fremont-Winema National Forest, 

SE Zone NEPA Coordinator, Rachelle HuddlestonLorton, OR 

USDA Forest Service, Fremont-Winema National Forest, 

Timber Dept, Tina Sazama, OR 

USDA Forest Service, Gasquet Ranger District, CA 

USDA Forest Service, Kamas Ranger District, UT 

USDA Forest Service, Klamath and Six Rivers National 

Forest, Lynda Carnes, CA 

USDA Forest Service, Klamath and Six Rivers National 

Forest, Robbie Vanderwater, CA 

USDA Forest Service, Klamath Falls Ranger Dist, OR 

USDA Forest Service, Klamath National Forest, CA 

USDA Forest Service, Klamath National Forest, Jan Ford, 

CA 

USDA Forest Service, Klamath National Forest, Scott 

River Rd, Connie Hendryx, CA 

USDA Forest Service, Klamath Ranger Dist, District 

Ranger, OR 

USDA Forest Service, Lakeview Ranger Dist, District 

Ranger, Terry Sodorff, OR 

USDA Forest Service, Lakeview, Barry Schullanberger, 

OR 

USDA Forest Service, Medicine Bow/Routt National 

Forest, WY 

USDA Forest Service, Modoc National Forest, Robert 

Haggard, CA 

USDA Forest Service, Montpelier Ranger Dist, Dist 

Ranger, Dennis Duehren, ID 

USDA Forest Service, Montpelier Ranger District, ID 

USDA Forest Service, Mountain View Ranger District, 

WY 

USDA Forest Service, NV 

USDA Forest Service, Ogden Ranger District, UT 

USDA Forest Service, OR Dunes Kerrie Palermo, OR 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Julie 

Tupper, CA 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX A – FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION 

A-9 

USDA Forest Service, PSW Research Station, Garland 

Mason, CA 

USDA Forest Service, Region 4 Intermountain, Special 

Use Coordinator, Melissa Hearst, UT 

USDA Forest Service, Regional Forester, Dale N 

Bosworth, UT 

USDA Forest Service, RLM, James Sauser, OR 

USDA Forest Service, Robin Tausch, NV 

USDA Forest Service, Salt Lake Ranger District, UT 

USDA Forest Service, Scott Bushman, UT 

USDA Forest Service, Shasta-Trinity National Forest, 

Forest Supervisor, CA 

USDA Forest Service, Shooting Sports Liaison, Jamie 

Schwartz, DC 

USDA Forest Service, Shoshone National Forest, WY 

USDA Forest Service, Sierra National Forest, CA 

USDA Forest Service, Six Rivers National Forest, Lou 

Woltering, CA 

USDA Forest Service, Steve Munson, UT 

USDA Forest Service, Uinta National Forest, UT 

USDA Forest Service, Warner Mountain Ranger Dist, 

Edith Asrow, CA 

USDA Forest Service, Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 

Archaeologist, Tom Flanigan, UT 

USDA Forest Service, Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 

Chip Sibbernsen, UT 

USDA Forest Service, Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 

Lands / Special Uses, David Ream, UT 

USDA Forest Service, Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 

Larry Lucas, UT 

USDA Forest Service, Wasatch-Cache National Forest, UT 

USDA Forest Service, Wasatch-Cache, David Ream, UT 

USDA Forest Service, Winema National Forest, Brent 

Frazier, OR 

USDA Forest Service, Winema National Forest, Jerry 

Haugen, OR 

USDA Humboldt Co ASCS, NV 

USDA Nat Res, Chuck Houston, NV 

USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Charlie Clements, 

NV 

USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Debra Palmquist, 

NV 

USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Jim Young, NV 

USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Robert Blank, NV 

USDA, Dave Kern, NV 

USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Joe 

Gallagher, UT 

USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Jim 

Regan-Vienop, OR 

USDA, Office of Finance and Management, DC 

USDA, Steve Williams, NV 

USGS, Biological Res Div, Jayne Belnap, UT 

USGS, Denver Federal Center, MS 905, Connie Nutt, CO 

USGS, Environmental Affairs, Trish Riley, VI 

USGS, Sharon Campbell, CO 

Wally Herger Congressional Staff, Dave Meurer, CA 

Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, CO 

Western Area Power Administration, Loveland, CO 

Federal Senators and Representatives

U.S. Senator John Barrasso, WY 

U.S. Senator Robert Bennett, UT 

U.S. Representative Shelley Berkley, NV 

U.S. Representative Rob Bishop, UT 

U.S. Representative Earl Blumenauer, OR 

U.S. Representative Thomas Butler, OR 

U.S. Representative Jason Chaffetz, UT 

U.S. Representative Peter Defazio, OR 

U.S. Senator John Ensign, NV 

U.S. Senator Michael B. Enzi, WY 

U.S. Representative Bill Garrard, OR 

U.S. Senator Orrin G. Hatch, UT 

U.S. Representative Dean Heller, NV 

U.S. Representative Wally Herger, CA 

U.S. Representative Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

U.S. Representative Jim Matheson, UT 

U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley, OR 

U.S. Senator Harry Reid, NV 

U.S. Representative Kurt Schrader, OR 

U.S. Senator Gordon H. Smith, OR 

U.S. Representative, Dina Titus, NV 

U.S. Representative Greg Walden, OR 

U.S. Representative David Wu, OR 

U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, OR 

State Government Agencies

Bear Lake State Park, Larry Gray, UT 

Bureau of Plant Industry, Martin Larraneta, NV 

Bureau of Water Quality Planning, Glenn Gentry, NV 

California Department of Boating and Waterways, CA 

California Department of Fish and Game, Ann Manji, CA 

California Department of Fish and Game, Associate 

Fisheries Biologist, Dennis Maria, CA 

California Department of Fish and Game, CA 

California Department of Fish and Game, CEQA Review, 

Richard Lis, CA 

California Department of Fish and Game, Director, CA 

California Department of Fish and Game, Kit Novak, CA 

California Department of Fish and Game, Mike Rode, CA 

California Department of Food and Agriculture, CA 

California Department of Forestry, Alan Stovall, CA 

California Department of Parks and Recreation, Director, 

CA 

California Department of Transportation, Dist 2, CA 

California Department of Transportation, Marcelino 

Gonzalez, CA 

California Department of Water Resources, Acting Dist. 

Chief, Glenn Pearson, CA 

California Department of Water Resources, Div of 

Planning and Local Assistance, Chief Dwight P. Russell, 

CA 

California Environmental Protection Agency, CA 

California Governor’s Office, Governor Arnold 

Schwarzenegger, CA 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, NCR 

TMDL, Coordinator, David Leland, CA 

California State Lands Commission, Judy Brown, CA 

California Water Resources Control Board, Russ Kanz, CA 

Collier Memorial State Park, Park Manager, OR 

Colorado Division of Wildlife, Rebecca Frank, CO 

Department of Agriculture, Bob Meinke, OR 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 

Freeman Johnson, NV 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX A – FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION 

A-10 

Department of Cultural Affairs, State Historic Preservation 

Officer, Ronald James, NV 

Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water 

Quality, Shelly Andrews, UT 

Department of Environmental Quality, Todd Hesse, OR 

Department of Environmental Quality, Watershed Program, 

David Waterstreet, WY 

Department of Fish and Wildlife Kammy Kern-Korot, OR 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Phillip Millburn, OR 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Shannon Hurn, OR 

Department of Justice, Nat Res Section, Atty in Charge, R. 

Whitman, OR 

Department of Land Conservation and Development, Bob 

Rindy, OR 

Department of Land Conservation and Development, Jim 

Knight, OR 

Department of State Lands, Eastern Region, OR 

Executive Director Brian Jefferies, WY 

Forestry, Fire, and State Lands, Blain Hemp, UT 

Forestry, Fire, and State Lands, UT 

Governors Energy Advisor Office, Mary Ann Wright, UT 

Governors Natural Resource Office, Governor Ted 

Kulongoski, OR 

Hyrum State Park, Floyd Powell, UT 

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Deputy 

Director, Curt Fransen, ID 

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, FERC and 

Water Quality Standards, C. Johanna Sandow, ID 

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Pocatello 

District, Regional Air Quality Manager, Tom Edwards, 

ID 

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Pocatello 

District, Reg. Water Quality Mgr, Lynn Vanevery and 

Tom Edwards, ID 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Director, Cal Groen, 

ID 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game, South East Region, 

Regional Supervisor, Mark Gamblin, ID 

Idaho Department of Water Resources, Director, David R. 

Tuthill, Jr., ID 

Idaho Fish and Game Department, Assistant Director, Ken 

Norrie, ID 

Idaho Fish and Game, Jim Mende, ID 

Idaho Governor's Office of Species Conservation, Env. 

Liaison, Nate Fisher, ID 

Land Use Board of Appeals, Virginia Gustafson, OR 

Nevada Board of Wildlife Commission, Dr. Boyd 

Spratling, NV 

Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, Jonathan Price, NV 

Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, NV 

Nevada Department of Agriculture, NV 

Nevada Department of Agriculture, Robert Gronowshi, NV 

Nevada Department of Business and Industry, Sidney 

Wickliffe, NV 

Nevada Department of Conservation and Nat. Res., 

Administrator, Pamela B. Wilcox, NV 

Nevada Department of Conservation and Nat. Res., Bureau 

Chief, Kathy Sertic, NV 

Nevada Department of Transportation District Office, NV 

Nevada Department of Transportation, Brad Bauman, NV 

Nevada Department of Transportation, Clint Garrett, NV 

Nevada Department of Transportation, Director, Susan 

Martinovich, Per, NV 

Nevada Department of Transportation, District 2, Bob 

Newberg, NV 

Nevada Department of Transportation, District 2, Dist. 

Engineer, Thor Dyson, NV 

Nevada Department of Transportation, District 3, Dist. 

Engineer, Kevin Lee, NV 

Nevada Department of Transportation, Environmental 

Services, James Murphy, NV 

Nevada Department of Transportation, J.P. Marden, NV 

Nevada Department of Transportation, James Morefield, 

NV 

Nevada Department of Transportation, Jim French, NV 

Nevada Department of Transportation, Jim Jeffers, NV 

Nevada Department of Transportation, Joe Gnibus, NV 

Nevada Department of Transportation, John Gilbert, NV 

Nevada Department of Transportation, John L. Bunch, NV 

Nevada Department of Transportation, Lonnie See, NV 

Nevada Department of Transportation, Mike Glock, NV 

Nevada Department of Transportation, R. P. Loncar, NV 

Nevada Department of Transportation, Ralph Phenix, NV 

Nevada Department of Transportation, Rory Lamp, NV 

Nevada Department of Transportation, Sam Waldridge, NV 

Nevada Department of Transportation, Steve Foree, NV 

Nevada Department of Transportation, W. Dean Bliss, NV 

Nevada Department of Wildlife, D. Bradford Hardenbrook, 

NV 

Nevada Department of Wildlife, Dave Pulliam, NV 

Nevada Department of Wildlife, Director, NV 

Nevada Department of Wildlife, Doug Hunt, NV 

Nevada Department of Wildlife, Eastern Region, NV 

Nevada Department of Wildlife, Ed Partee, NV 

Nevada Department of Wildlife, Hab. Sect., Director, 

Kenneth Meyer, NV 

Nevada Department of Wildlife, Hab. Sect., NV 

Nevada Department of Wildlife, Jim French, NV 

Nevada Department of Wildlife, John Gebhardt, NV 

Nevada Department of Wildlife, North Western Region, 

NV 

Nevada Department of Wildlife, NV 

Nevada Department of Wildlife, Rory Lamp, NV 

Nevada Department of Wildlife, Steven Siegel, NV 

Nevada Department of Wildlife, Supervising Habitat 

Biologist, Steve Foree, NV 

Nevada Department of Wildlife, Teri Slatauski, NV 

Nevada Department of Wildlife, West Region, Gregg 

Tanner, NV 

Nevada Division of Agriculture, Don Henderson, NV 

Nevada Division of Conservation Dist, NV 

Nevada Division of Forestry, Brad Oberstaller, NV 

Nevada Division of Forestry, Dennis Walker, NV 

Nevada Division of Minerals, Alan R. Coyner, NV 

Nevada Division of State Lands, NDOW, NV 

Nevada Division of Water Resources, NV 

Nevada Division of Wildlife, UR Richard T. Heap Jr, NV 

Nevada Governor’s Office, Governor James R. Gibbons, 

NV 

Nevada Grazing Board, Demur Dahl, NV 

Nevada Highway Patrol, Mel Pennington, NV 

Nevada Highway Patrol, Roger Vind, NV 

Nevada Natural Heritage Program, Glenn Clemmer, NV 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX A – FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION 

A-11 

Nevada Natural Heritage Program, James D. Morefield, 

NV 

Nevada Public Service Commission, Chairman, JoAnn P. 

Kelly, NV 

Nevada Public Utilities Commission, Commissioner, 

Rebecca Wagner, NV 

Nevada Public Utilities Commission, Commissioner, Sam 

Thompson, NV 

Nevada Public Utilities Commission, Director of 

Regulatory Operations, Kirby Lampley, NV 

Nevada State Assembly, Honorable Peter J. Goicoechea, 

NV 

Nevada State Clearinghouse, Clearinghouse Coordinator, 

NV 

Nevada State Clearinghouse, Gosia Sylwestrzak, NV 

Nevada State Clearinghouse, NV 

Nevada State Historic Preservation Office, Alice Baldrica, 

NV 

Nevada Wildlife Commission, Bill Bradley, NV 

Nevada, Planning Coordinator, NV 

Office of Energy, Catherine Van Horn, OR 

Office of the Attorney General, BCP Consumer Advocate, 

Eric Witkoski, NV 

Office of the Governor, Bill Ritter Jr., CO 

Office of the State Planning, Coordinator, UT 

Oregon Department of Agriculture, Jim Johnson, OR 

Oregon Department of Agriculture, Phil Ward, OR 

Oregon Department of Agriculture, Rebecca Currin, OR 

Oregon Department of Agriculture, Tim Butler, OR 

Oregon Department of Aviation Thomas E Highland, OR 

Oregon Department of Econ Develop Business Information 

Div, OR 

Oregon Department of Energy Bless, Adam, OR 

Oregon Department of Energy Director, OR 

Oregon Department of Energy Steven Baker, OR 

Oregon Department of Energy, Director, Michael Grainey, 

OR 

Oregon Department of Energy, Policy Analyst, Susan C. 

Hughs, Salem, OR 

Oregon Department of Energy, Tom Stoops, Salem, OR 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Agency 

Receptionist, OR 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Agency 

Receptionist, OR 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Alex Cyril, 

OR 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Brett 

Mcknight, OR 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Bruce 

Hammon, OR 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Deputy 

Director, Joni Hammond, OR 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Dick 

Nichols, OR 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Director, 

Langdon Marsh, OR 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Eastern 

Region, Air Quality, Mark Fisher, OR 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Eastern 

Region, Steve Kirk, OR 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Eric Nigg, 

OR 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Larry 

Calkins, OR 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Paul Devito, 

OR 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Peter 

Brewer, OR 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Roberta 

Young, OR 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Thane 

Jennings, OR 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Water 

Quality Manager, Dick Nichols, OR 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Western 

Region, Kerri Nelson, OR 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Amy Stuart, OR 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Asst Dist Bio, 

Mary Jo Hedrick, OR 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bob Hooten, OR 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Chris Carey, OR 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Craig Foster, OR 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Craig Foster, OR 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Director, OR 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Glen Ardt, OR 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Klamath Dist 

Office, Tom Collom, OR 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Linda Belamini, 

OR 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Maranda Wood, 

OR 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Mary Jo Hedrick, 

OR 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, OR 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Owens, Rose, OR 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Paul Scheerer 

and Mary Hanson, OR 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Ron Larson, OR 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Tim Walters, OR 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Tom Collum, OR 

Oregon Department of Forestry, Assessment Coordinator, 

Mindy Sherrieb, OR 

Oregon Department of Forestry, Bill Hunt, OR 

Oregon Department of Forestry, Bill Hunt, OR 

Oregon Department of Forestry, Danny Benson, OR 

Oregon Department of Forestry, David Morman, OR 

Oregon Department of Forestry, Ed Scheick, OR 

Oregon Department of Forestry, Klamath Lake District, 

Unit Forester, Greg Pittman, OR 

Oregon Department of Forestry, Klamath/Lake Forest 

Health Partnership, Anne Maloney, OR 

Oregon Department of Forestry, OR 

Oregon Department of Forestry, Pat Schrader, OR 

Oregon Department of Forestry, Ray Miller, OR 

Oregon Department of Forestry, Resource Planning, OR 

Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Dr. 

Vicki Mcconnell, OR 

Oregon Department of Geology and Minerals, State 

Geologist, Yumei Wang, Pe, OR 

Oregon Department of Justice, Kurt Burkholder, OR 

Oregon Department of Justice, Lynne Perry, OR 

Oregon Department of Justice, Nat Resources Sect, Senior 

Asst Attorney, Gen. Jan Prewitt, OR 

Oregon Department of Justice, Shelly Mcintyre, OR 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX A – FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION 

A-12 

Oregon Department of Land Conservation and 

Development, Dick Benner, OR 

Oregon Department of Land Conservation and 

Development, John Jinings, OR 

Oregon Department of Land Conservation, Bill Thomas, 

OR 

Oregon Department of Parks and Recreation, Henry 

Kunowski, OR 

Oregon Department of Revenue Property, Tax Div-Timber 

Unit, OR 

Oregon Department of State Lands, Elizabeth Martino, OR 

Oregon Department of State Lands, Erick Metz, OR 

Oregon Department of State Lands, Nicole Kielsmeier, OR 

Oregon Department of State Lands, OR 

Oregon Department of State Lands, Shawn Zumwalt, OR 

Oregon Department of Transportation, Claire Carder, OR 

Oregon Department of Transportation, D-11 Manager, 

Michael J. Stinson, OR 

Oregon Department of Transportation, David Steiner, OR 

Oregon Department of Transportation, Dean Fuller, Salem, 

OR 

Oregon Department of Transportation, Director, Grace 

Crunican, OR 

Oregon Department of Transportation, Program and 

Planning, Peter Russell, OR 

Oregon Department of Transportation, Randy Bednar, OR 

Oregon Department of Transportation, Regional Planner, 

OR 

Oregon Department of Transportation, ROW Engineer, 

Matt Caswell, OR 

Oregon Department of Water Resources, Del Sparks, OR 

Oregon Department of Water Resources, Jerry Sauter, OR 

Oregon Division of Fish and Wildlife, State Police Captain, 

Lindsay Ball, OR 

Oregon Division of State Lands, Director, Louise C. 

Solliday, OR 

Oregon Division of State Lands, Director, OR 

Oregon Economic and Community Development, John 

Gorlorwulu, OR 

Oregon Economic and Community Development, Larry R. 

Holzgang, OR 

Oregon Economic Develop Department, Director, Bill 

Scott, OR 

Oregon Employment Department, Steve Williams and Jan 

Swander, OR 

Oregon Geology and Mineral Industries, OR 

Oregon Governor’s Office, Governor Ted Kulongoski, OR 

Oregon Governor's Forest Planning Team, Office Manager, 

Jan Shaw, OR 

Oregon Governor's Forest Planning Team, Paula Burgess, 

OR 

Oregon Highway Division, Maintenance Supervisor, OR 

Oregon Historic Preservation Office, Deputy SHPO 

Officer, Roger Roper, OR 

Oregon Historic Preservation Office, SHPO Officer, Tim 

Wood, OR 

Oregon Marine Board, OR 

Oregon Natural Desert Association, Peter M. Lacy, OR 

Oregon Natural Heritage Information Systems, Manager, 

Cliff Alton, OR 

Oregon Office of State Fire Marshall, OR 

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, Area 5 Manager, 

Larry Miller, OR 

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, Planning and 

Dev. Coord, Jan E Houck, OR 

Oregon Parks and Recreation, Nancy Pustis, OR 

Oregon Public Utility Comm., Chairman, OR 

Oregon Public Utility Comm., Jerry Murray, OR 

Oregon Public Utility Comm., Mike Thompson, OR 

Oregon Public Utility Comm., Roger Hamilton, OR 

Oregon Public Utility Commission, Commissioner Lee 

Beyer, OR 

Oregon Public Utility Commission, Commissioner Ray 

Baum, OR 

Oregon Public Utility Commission, Commissioner, John 

Savage, OR 

Oregon State Police, Glenn Smith, OR 

Oregon Water Resources Department, Director, Martha 

Pagel, OR 

Oregon Water Resources Department, Kyle Gorman, OR 

Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, Ken Bierly, OR 

Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, OR 

Public Lands Policy Coordination Office, Judy Edwards, 

UT 

Public Utilities Commission of Nevada, General Counsel, 

Jan J. Cohen, NV 

Representative Barbara Cubin’s Office, Bonnie Cannon, 

WY 

Resource Development Coordinating Committee (RDCC), 

Coordinator, Carolyn Wright, UT 

Resource Development Coordinating Committee (RDCC), 

Executive Director, John Harja, UT 

State Historic Preservation Office, Archaeologist, NV 

Rebecca Palmer, NV 

State Historic Preservation Office, Deputy SHPO, UT Matt 

Seddon, UT 

State Historic Preservation Office, Deputy SHPO, WY 

Hopkins, Mary, WY 

State Historic Preservation Office, Dr. Dennis Griffin, OR 

State Historic Preservation Office, State Archaeologist, OR 

Dennis Griffin, OR 

State Institutional Trust Lands Administration, Kristine 

Curry, UT 

State of Nevada, Assemblyman, John W. Marvel, NV 

State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands 

Administration (SITLA), Archaeologist, Curt Higgins, 

UT 

State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands 

Administration (SITLA), Archaeologist, Kenny Wintch, 

UT 

State of Utah, Blain Hamp, UT 

State of Utah, Chris Fausett, UT 

State of Utah, Dee Kunzler, UT 

State of Utah, UT 

State of Wyoming, Minority Leader, Monte Olson, WY 

State Trust Lands Administration, Surface Group, UT 

University of Wyoming, Nat Diversity Database, Melanie 

Arnett, WY 

Utah Cattleman’s Association, UT 

Utah Department of Agriculture and Food, Bill Hopkins, 

UT 

Utah Department of Agriculture and Food, Cary Peterson, 

UT 

Utah Department of Agriculture, UT 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX A – FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION 

A-13 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Dianne 

Nielson, UT 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Executive 

Director, Sprott, Rick, UT 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality, FO Division, 

Director Water Quality, Walter Baker, UT 

Utah Department of Natural Resources, Dennis Strong, UT 

Utah Department of Natural Resources, Executive Director, 

Michael R. Styler, UT 

Utah Department of Natural Resources, Jerry Olds, UT 

Utah Department of Natural Resources, Kelly J. Allen, UT 

Utah Department of Transportation, Executive Director, 

John Njord, UT 

Utah Department of Transportation, NEPA/NHPA 

Specialist, James D. Beers, UT 

Utah Department of Transportation, Passenger Ropeway 

Safety Comm, Briand Allen, UT 

Utah Division Forestry, Barbara Gardner, UT 

Utah Division Forestry, Fire and State Lands, Colleen 

Keyes, UT 

Utah Division Forestry, Fire and State Lands, Dave 

Grierson, UT 

Utah Division Forestry, Fire and State Lands, Kelly Allen, 

UT 

Utah Division of History, Max J. Evans, UT 

Utah Division of History, State Historic Preservation 

Officer, UT 

Utah Division of Oil Gas and Mining, UT 

Utah Division of Parks and Recreation, Bill Thompson, UT 

Utah Division of Parks and Recreation, Director, UT 

Utah Division of Parks and Recreation, Fred Hayes, UT 

Utah Division of State Lands, Janet Morlan, OR 

Utah Division of Water Resources, UT 

Utah Division of Water Rights, Robert Morgan, UT 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Conservation Officer, 

Rick Schultz, UT 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Bill James, UT 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Dave Olsen, UT 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Dennis Austin, UT 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Director, Jim 

Karpowitz, UT 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Dr. Frank Howe, UT 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Habitat Manager, UT 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, John Pratt, UT 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Kirt Enright, UT 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Mitch Lane, UT 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Natural Heritage 

Program, Info. Manager, Sarah Lindsey, UT 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Pam Kramer, UT 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Ralph A Miles, UT 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Randy Thacker, UT 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Ron Hodson, UT 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Scott Walker, UT 

Utah Division Parks and Recreation, Jay Christianson, UT 

Utah Geological Association, UT 

Utah Geological Survey Office, Mike Hylland, UT 

Utah Geological Survey, Roger L. Bon, UT 

Utah Governor’s Office, Governor Jon Huntsman, UT 

Utah Grazing Improvement Org, Troy Forrest, UT 

Utah Highway Patrol, UT 

Utah Historic Preservation Office, Associate Director, 

Wilson Martin, UT 

Utah OHV Advisory Council, Chairman, UT 

Utah Parks and Recreation, Roland Bringhurst, UT 

Utah Public Lands Policy Coordination Office, Lori 

Hunsaker, UT 

Utah Public Lands Policy Coordination Office, R. Kelly 

Beck, UT 

Utah State Department of Community and Economic 

Development, Director, UT 

Utah State Parks and Recreation, Susan Zarekarizi, UT 

Utah State Parks, Law Enforcement, Eric Stucki, UT 

Utah State Tax Commission, Daniel Palmer, UT 

Utah Trust Lands Administration, Trust Lands Resource 

Specialist, Chris Fausett, UT 

Wyoming Agriculture Board, John Etchepare, WY 

Wyoming Air Quality Advisory Board, Dave Finley, WY 

Wyoming Department of Administration and Information, 

WY 

Wyoming Department of Agriculture, Don Christenson, 

WY 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Air 

Quality Division, David Finley, WY 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Air, 

Paige Smith, WY 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Darla 

Potter, WY 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Deputy 

Director, John Parfitt, WY 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, 

Groundwater, Mark Thiesse, WY 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, John 

Corra, WY 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Land 

Quality Division, Rick Chancellor, WY 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Water 

Quality, Mark Conrad, WY 

Wyoming Department of Fish and Game, Director, Terry 

Cleveland, WY 

Wyoming Department of Parks and Cultural Res, Interim 

State Officer, Mary Hopkins, WY 

Wyoming Department of State Parks, Historic Sites and 

Trails, Kim Rap, WY 

Wyoming Department of State Parks, State Museums, 

Patrick Green, WY 

Wyoming Department of Transportation, Director, John 

Cox, WY 

Wyoming Department of Transportation, Jim Montuoro, 

WY 

Wyoming Department of Transportation, John Eddins, WY 

Wyoming Department of Transportation, Timothy Stark, 

WY 

Wyoming Environmental Quality Council, Terri Lorenzon, 

WY 

Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, Ken Hamilton, WY 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Deputy Director, 

John Emmerich, WY 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Hilda Sexauer, WY 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Jeff Short, WY 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Rick Huber, WY 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Rob Gipson, WY 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Robert Keith, WY 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Ron Lockwood, 

WY 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX A – FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION 

A-14 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Vern Stelter, WY 

Wyoming Governor’s Office, Governor Dave Freudenthal, 

WY 

Wyoming House of Representatives, Speaker, Roy Cohee, 

WY 

Wyoming Land Quality Advisory Board, Richard 

Chancellor, WY 

Wyoming Livestock Board, Dwayne Oldham, Dvm, WY 

Wyoming Mining Council, Donald Stauffenberg, WY 

Wyoming Natural Gas Pipeline Authority, Mark Doelger, 

WY 

Wyoming Office of State Lands and Investments, Director, 

Lynne Boomgaarden, WY 

Wyoming Office of State Lands and Investments, Susan 

Child, WY 

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, Don 

Likwartz, WY 

Wyoming Public Service Commission, Agency 

Administrator, Harry Ivey, WY 

Wyoming Public Service Commission, Chairperson, Cindy 

Lewis, WY 

Wyoming Public Service Commission, Commer, Mary 

Brynes, Cheyenne, WY 

Wyoming Public Service Commission, Commissioner, 

Steve Oxley, WY 

Wyoming Public Service Commission, Kathleen A. Lewis, 

WY 

Wyoming State Board of Outfitters and Professional 

Guides, Jane Flagg, WY 

Wyoming State Engineers Office, Jodee Pring, WY 

Wyoming State Geologic Survey, Lance Cook, WY 

Wyoming State Geological Survey, Ronald Surdis, WY 

Wyoming State Grazing Board, Dick Loper, WY 

Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office, Chief, Judy 

Wolf, WY 

Wyoming State Planning Coordinator’s Office, Temple 

Stevenson, WY 

Wyoming State Senate, President, John Schiffer, WY 

Wyoming Trails Advisory Council, Tracy Williams, WY 

State Senators and Representatives

State Senator Pat Aulliman, WY 

State Representative Ralph Becker, UT 

State Senator Tex Boggs, WY 

State Senator Larry Caller, WY 

State Representative John C. Carpenter, NV 

State Senator Stan Cooper, WY 

State Representative Greg J. Curtis, UT 

State Senator Ken Decaria, WY 

State Senator Mike Dmitrich, UT 

State Senator Dan Dockstader, WY 

State Representative Jack R. Draxler, UT 

State Senator Ted Ferrioli, OR 

State Representative Ben C. Ferry, UT 

State Representative Bill Garrard, OR 

State Representative George Gilman, OR 

State Representative Don Gustavson, NV 

State Representative John M. Hastert, WY 

State Senator Lyle W. Hillyard, UT 

State Representative Fred R. Hunsaker, UT 

State Representative Dave Hunt, OR 

State Representative Allen Jaggi, WY 

State Senator Rae Lynn Job, WY 

State Senator Peter C. Knudson, UT 

State Representative Randall B. Luhti, WY 

State Representative Marty Martin, WY 

State Representative Ronda Rudd Menlove, UT 

State Representative Saundra Meyer, WY 

State Representative Fred Parady, WY 

State Representative Owen Peterson, WY 

State Representative Mick Powers, WY 

State Representative Tobias Read, OR 

State Senator Dean A. Rhoads, NV 

State Representative Bill Thompson, WY 

State Senator John L. Valentine, UT 

State Senator Maurice E. Washington, NV 

State Representative R. Curt Webb, UT 

State Senator Doug Whitsett, OR 

Local Government Agencies

Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Elko, NV 

Bannock County, Pocatello, ID 

Bear Lake County Commissioner, Vaughn Rasmussen, 

Georgetown, ID 

Bear Lake County, Planning & Zoning, Allen Harrison, 

Fish Haven, ID 

Bear River Association, Executive Director, Roger Jones, 

Logan, UT 

Bear River City Council Member, Hal Jeffs, Bear River 

City, UT 

Bear River City Council Member, Melanie Holmgren, Bear 

River City, UT 

Bear River City Council Member, Patti Anderson, Bear 

River City, UT 

Box Elder County Commissioners, Brigham City, UT 

Box Elder County, Board of Commers, Brigham City, UT 

Box Elder County, Commission Chair, Jay Hardy, Brigham 

City, UT 

Box Elder County, Donnie Tarver, Brigham City, UT 

Box Elder County, Economic Development, Susan 

Thackeray, Brigham City, UT 

Box Elder County, GIS, Chuck Shaw, Brigham City, UT 

Box Elder County, Mary Davis, Brigham City, UT 

Box Elder County, Municipal Bldg. Authority, Brigham 

City, UT 

Box Elder County, Planner, Brigham City, UT 

Box Elder County, Planning & Community Development 

Director Hamilton, Kevin, Brigham City, UT 

Box Elder County, Sheriff, Brigham City, UT 

Box Elder County, Sheriff, Lynn Yeats, Brigham City, UT 

Brigham City, Administrator, Bruce Leonard, Brigham 

City, UT 

Brigham City, Chamber of Commerce, Monica Holdaway, 

Brigham City, UT 

Brigham City, Council Member, Reese Jensen, Brigham 

City, UT 

Brigham City, Council Member, Scott Erickson, Brigham 

City, UT 

Brigham City, Econ. Dev., Paul Larsen, Brigham City, UT 

Brigham City, Emergency Services Buchanan, Jim, 

Brigham City, UT 

Brigham City, Mayor, Lou Ann Christensen, Brigham City, 

UT 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX A – FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION 

A-15 

Brigham Parks and Recreation, Ben Boyce, Brigham City, 

UT 

Cache Chamber of Commerce, Executive Director, Sandra 

Emile, Logan, UT 

Cache Chamber of Commerce, Logan, UT 

Cache County Corporation, Cache County Water, Manager, 

Robert Fotheringham, Logan, UT 

Cache County Council, Logan, UT 

Cache County Planner, Mark Tuescher, Logan, UT 

Cache County Road Dept., Larry Brunson, Logan, UT 

Cache County Sheriff, Lynn Nelson, Logan, UT 

Cache County Zoning Office, Director, Logan, UT 

Cache County Zoning Office, Logan, UT 

Cache County Zoning Office, Lorene Greenhalgh, Logan, 

UT 

Cache County, Attorney, George Daines, Logan, UT 

Cache County, Clerk, Logan, UT 

Cache County, County Planning & Zoning Director, 

Wendell Morse, Logan, UT 

Cache County, Josh Runhaar, Logan, UT 

Cache County, Office Executive, M. Lynn Lemon, Logan, 

UT 

Carlin Planning Board, City Hall, Carlin, NV 

Carson City Board of Supervisors, Carson City, NV 

Carson City Wildlife Adv. Board, Larry Blank, Carson 

City, NV 

Carson County Wildlife Adv. Board, Chris Mackenzie, 

Carson City, NV 

Carson County Wildlife Adv. Board, Norman Pedersen, 

KELSO, WA 

Carson County Wildlife Adv. Board, Steve Walker, 

CARSON CITY, NV 

Chairman John Milton, Winnemucca, NV 

Chairman Warren Russell, Elko, NV 

Churchill County Commissioners, Fallon, NV 

Churchill County Wildlife Adv. Board, Jim Curran, Fallon, 

NV 

Churchill County Wildlife Adv. Board, Sam Bradley, 

Fallon, NV 

Churchill County Wildlife Adv. Board, Sam Kelly, Fallon, 

NV 

City Mayor, Carlin, NV 

City of Ashland Parks & Recreation Dept., Donn Todt, 

Ashland, OR 

City of Bonanza, Mayor, Betty Tyree, Bonanza, OR 

City of Chiloquin, Mayor, Joyce Smith, Chiloquin, OR 

City of Klamath Falls, City Manager, Jeff Ball, Klamath 

Falls, OR 

City of Klamath Falls, Mayor, Todd Kellstrom, Klamath 

Falls, OR 

City of Klamath Falls, Sandra Zaida, Klamath Falls, OR 

City of Los Angeles, Dept. of Water & Power, Kelly 

Walker, Los Angeles, CA 

City of Lovelock, NV 

City of Malin, Mayor Gary Zig, Malin, OR 

City of Merrill, Mayor Rhonda Lyon, Merrill, OR 

City of Perry, Mayor, Ed Skrobiszewski, Perry, UT 

City of Wells, NV 

City of Winnemucca, NV 

Clark County Commers, Las Vegas, NV 

Clark County Wildlife Adv. Board, Daniel Swanson, 

Overton, NV 

Clark County Wildlife Adv. Board, Dr Ron Meek, 

Henderson, NV 

Clark County Wildlife Adv. Board, Kensen Lee, Las 

Vegas, NV 

Clark County Wildlife Adv. Board, Rod Smith, Las Vegas, 

NV 

Clark County Wildlife Adv. Board, Wilford Allen, 

Henderson, NV 

Clerk Tami Spero, Winnemucca, NV 

Clerk Winifred Smith, Elko, NV 

Commissioner Bonnie Weber, Reno, NV 

Commissioner Charles Giordano, Winnemucca, NV 

Commissioner Charles Myers, Elko, NV 

Commissioner Clark Davis, Brigham City, UT 

Commissioner Dan Cassinelli, Winnemucca, NV 

Commissioner David Humke, Reno, NV 

Commissioner Jay Hardy, Brigham City, UT 

Commissioner Jim Galloway, Reno, NV 

Commissioner John Ellison, Elko, NV 

Commissioner Kitty Jung, Reno, NV 

Commissioner Mike Nannini, Elko, NV 

Commissioner Norman Weston, Randolph, UT 

Commissioner Richard Vandyke, Brigham City, UT 

Commissioner Robert Larkin, Reno, NV 

Commissioner Sheri Eklund-Brown, Elko, NV 

Commissioner Stephen Vandyke, Brigham City, UT 

Commissioner Thomas Weston, Randolph, UT 

Commissioner Tom Fransway, Winnemucca, NV 

Commissioner William Cox, Randolph, UT 

Communications Manager, Lou Torres, Salem, OR 

Corinne Council Member, Ann Whitaker, Corinne, UT 

Corinne Council Member, Barry Evans, Corinne, UT 

Corinne Council Member, Curtis Hansen, Corinne, UT 

Corinne Council Member, Shara Ward, Corinne, UT 

Council Member, Cory Yeates, Logan, UT 

Council Member, Darrel Gibbons, Logan, UT 

Council Member, Gordon Ziles, Logan, UT 

Council Member, H. Craig Peterson, Logan, UT 

Council Member, John Hansen, Logan, UT 

Council Member, Kathy Robison, Logan, UT 

Council Member, S. Brian Chambers, Logan, UT 

County Clerk, Amy Harvey, Reno, NV 

County Clerk, Becky Peart, Randolph, UT 

County Clerk, Jill Zollinger, Logan, UT 

County Development Service, Garth Day, Logan, UT 

County Planner, Josh Runhaar, Logan, UT 

County Recorder Luann Adams, Brigham City, UT 

Denio Fire Volunteers, John Reter, Denio, NV 

Deschutes County Board of Commers, Tom Throop, Bend, 

OR 

Douglas County Board of Commers, Minden, NV 

Douglas County Wildlife Adv. Board, Bruce Jacobsen, 

Minden, NV 

Douglas County Wildlife Adv. Board, Matt Bernard, 

Minden, NV 

Douglas County Wildlife Adv. Board, Mike Davies, 

Gardnerville, NV 

Douglas County Wildlife Adv. Board, Stan Hanes, Zephyr 

Cove, NV 

Elko City Manager, Chris Calder, Elko, NV 

Elko City Manager, Elko, NV 

Elko City Mayor, Elko, NV 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX A – FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION 

A-16 

Elko City Planning Board, Elko, NV 

Elko Councilman Jay Elquist, Elko, NV 

Elko Councilman, Chris Johnson, Elko, NV 

Elko Councilman, Jim Conner, Elko, NV 

Elko Councilman, John Patrick Rice, Elko, NV 

Elko County Board of Commissioners, Robert Stokes, 

Elko, NV 

Elko County Comm., Elko, NV 

Elko County Commission Chair, Elko, NV 

Elko County Manager, Elko, NV 

Elko County Planning & Zoning, Director, Scott R. Brown, 

Elko, NV 

Elko County School District, Elko, NV 

Elko County Treasurer, Elko, NV 

Elko County Wildlife Adv. Board, Choch Zaga, Elko, NV 

Elko County Wildlife Adv. Board, Gary Carver, Elko, NV 

Elko County Wildlife Adv. Board, Kenneth L. Siri, 

GOLDFIELD, NV 

Elko County Wildlife Adv. Board, Steve Wright, WELLS, 

NV 

Elwood Council Member Steve Woerner, Elwood, UT 

Elwood Council Member, Neil Anderson, Elwood, UT 

Elwood Council Member, Ron Thompson, Elwood, UT 

Esmeralda County Commers, Goldfield, NV 

Eureka County Commer, Sandra Green, Eureka, NV 

Eureka County Commissioners, Eureka, NV 

Eureka County Department of Natural Resources, Jon 

Hutchings, Eureka, NV 

Eureka County Nat Res. Dept., Eureka, NV 

Eureka County Public Land Advisory Commission, Eureka, 

NV 

Eureka County Wildlife Adv. Board, Clayton E Nicholes, 

Eureka, NV 

Eureka County Wildlife Adv. Board, Jim Baumann, 

Eureka, NV 

Eureka County Wildlife Adv. Board, Ken Connelly, 

Eureka, NV 

Eureka County Wildlife Adv. Board, Lisa Hoehne, Eureka, 

NV 

Eureka County Wildlife Adv. Board, Mike Rabaleati, 

Eureka, NV 

Eureka County Wildlife Adv. Board, Tom Buffington, 

Eureka, NV 

Fernely City Manager, Fernely, NV 

Fernley, Town Manager, Gary A. Bacock, NV 

Garley Amos, Winnemucca, NV 

Gerlach Empire Citizens Adv. Board, Patti Hanneman, 

Empire, NV 

Gerlach Volunteer Fire Dept., Bill Gooch, Gerlach, NV 

Harney County Board of Commers, Jack Drinkwater, 

Burns, OR 

Harney County Planning, Director, Brandon Mcmullen, 

Burns, OR 

Harney County Road Master, Kerry Landers, Burns, OR 

Harney County Sheriff, David Glerup, Burns, OR 

Harney County, Dan Nichols, Burns, OR 

Honeyville Council Member, Boyd Bingham, Honeyville, 

UT 

Honeyville Council Member, Craig Gradner, Honeyville, 

UT 

Honeyville Council Member, David Forsgren, Honeyville, 

UT 

Honeyville Council Member, Mark Bingham, Honeyville, 

UT 

Honeyville Council Member, Richie Aoki, Honeyville, UT 

Honeyville Mayor Paul Orme, Honeyville, UT 

Humboldt County Administrator, Bill Deist, Winnemucca, 

NV 

Humboldt County Board of Commers, Kerry L. Hawkins, 

Winnemucca, NV 

Humboldt County Board of Commissioners, Winnemucca, 

NV 

Humboldt County Chamber of Commerce, Debbie Stone, 

Winnemucca, NV 

Humboldt County Comm, Janet Kubichek, Winnemucca, 

NV 

Humboldt County Comm, Winnemucca, NV 

Humboldt County Cooperative Extension Service, Brad 

Schultz, Winnemucca, NV 

Humboldt County Env Health Dept., Eureka, CA 

Humboldt County NV Board of Commers, Chairman John 

Milton III, Winnemucca, NV 

Humboldt County Road Dept., Ben Garrett, Winnemucca, 

NV 

Humboldt County Road Dept., John Russum, Winnemucca, 

NV 

Humboldt County Sheriffs Dept., Dave Ross, Winnemucca, 

NV 

Humboldt County Treasurer Regional Planning 

Commission, Winnemucca, NV 

Humboldt County Treasurer Trustee, Winnemucca, NV 

Humboldt County Treasurer, Winnemucca, NV 

Humboldt County Wildlife Adv. Board, Fred Stewart, 

Paradise Valley, NV 

Humboldt County Wildlife Adv. Board, Giovanni 

Giordano, Winnemucca, NV 

Humboldt County Wildlife Adv. Board, James Rackley, 

Winnemucca, NV 

Humboldt County Wildlife Adv. Board, Jim Billingsley, 

Winnemucca, NV 

Humboldt County Wildlife Adv. Board, Tom Cassinelli, 

Paradise Valley, NV 

Humboldt County, Paul Burkholder, Winnemucca, NV 

Huntsville Mayor, James Mckay, Huntsville, UT 

Huntsville Town Council, Huntsville, UT 

Hyrum City Council Member, Craig Rasmussen, Hyrum 

City, UT 

Hyrum City Council Member, Douglas Stipes, Hyrum City, 

UT 

Hyrum City Council Member, Martin Felix, Hyrum City, 

UT 

Hyrum City Council Member, Paul James, Hyrum City, UT 

Hyrum City Council Member, Stephanie Miller, Hyrum 

City, UT 

Imlay Fire Volunteers, Dusty Esenarro, Imlay, NV 

Klamath Basin Audubon Society, Rick Hardy, Klamath 

Falls, OR 

Klamath County Board of Commers, Chairman, John 

Elliott, Klamath Falls, OR 

Klamath County Commers, Commissioner, Al Switzer, 

Klamath Falls, OR 

Klamath County Commission, Bill Brown, Klamath Falls, 

OR 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX A – FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION 

A-17 

Klamath County Community Development, Pier Bartow, 

Klamath Falls, OR 

Klamath County Economic Development Assoc., Russ 

Carter, Klamath Falls, OR 

Klamath County Economic Development Assoc., Tonya 

Dowse, Klamath Falls, OR 

Klamath County Economic Development Assoc., Trey 

Senn, Klamath Falls, OR 

Klamath County Local Res., Ron Loveness, Klamath Falls, 

OR 

Klamath County Parks Dept., Keith Read, Klamath Falls, 

OR 

Klamath County Planner, Heather Marlow, Klamath Falls, 

OR 

Klamath County Planning Dept., Director, Carl Shuck, 

Klamath Falls, OR 

Klamath County School Dist., Ted Gehrman, Klamath 

Falls, OR 

Klamath County Sherriff, Tim Evinger, Klamath Falls, OR 

Klamath County Solid Waste Director, Klamath Falls, OR 

Klamath County, Charlie Whitlach, Klamath Falls, OR 

Klamath Falls Chamber of Commerce, Stephanie Bailey, 

Klamath Falls, OR 

Klamath Falls Council - Ward 1, Trish Seller, Klamath 

Falls, OR 

Klamath Falls Council - Ward 2, Irving ‘Bud’ Hart, 

Klamath Falls, OR 

Klamath Falls Council - Ward 3, Cheri Howard, Klamath 

Falls, OR 

Klamath Falls Council - Ward 4, Betty Dickson, Klamath 

Falls, OR 

Klamath Falls Council - Ward 5, Bill Adams, Klamath 

Falls, OR 

Klamath River F & W Office, Phil Detrich, Yreka, CA 

Klamath River Watershed Working Group, Anita Ward, 

Klamath Falls, OR 

Klamath Soil & Water Conservation Dist., Andrea Rabe, 

Klamath Falls, OR 

Klamath Soil & Water Conservation Dist., Bill Johnson, 

Klamath Falls, OR 

Klamath Soil & Water Conservation Dist., Earl Miller, 

BONANZA, OR 

Klamath Soil & Water Conservation Dist., Martin & 

Shirley Kerns, Klamath Falls, OR 

Klamath Soil & Water Conservation Dist., Rick Woodley, 

Klamath Falls, OR 

Klamath Water Users Assoc., Executive Director, Greg 

Addington, Klamath Falls, OR 

Klamath Watershed Council, Larry Hill, Klamath Falls, OR 

Klamath Watershed Council, Ruth Mirth, Klamath Falls, 

OR 

Lake County Board of Commers, Kent Kestner, Lakeview, 

OR 

Lake County Board of Commers, Lakeview, OR 

Lake County Chamber of Commerce, Caro Johnson, 

Lakeview, OR 

Lake County Chamber of Commerce, Lakeview, OR 

Lake County Commers Chair, JR Stewart, Lakeview, OR 

Lake County Council, City Manager, Ray Simms, 

Lakeview, OR 

Lake County County Community Development Planning 

Division Wilson, Leslie C, Klamath Falls, OR 

Lake County Courthouse, Lake County Commers, 

Lakeview, OR 

Lake County Dan Shoun, Lakeview, OR 

Lake County Extension, Lakeview, OR 

Lake County Farm Bureau, Alan Parks, Silver Lake, OR 

Lake County Libraries, Noni Vandenberg, Lakeview, OR 

Lake County Planning Comm., Ken Gerschler, Lakeview, 

OR 

Lake County Planning, Lakeview, OR 

Lake County Res. Initiative, Bill Duke, Lakeview, OR 

Lake County Road Dept., Lakeview, OR 

Lake County School District #7, Superintendent, Sean 

Gallagher, Lakeview, OR 

Lake County, Brad Winters, Lakeview, OR 

Lakeview Chief of Police, Lakeview, OR 

Lakeview Multiple Use Adv. Council, Eldon Kent, 

Bonanza, OR 

Lakeview Mutiple Use Adv. Council, Ed Maloney, 

Klamath Falls, OR 

Lakeview Town Council, Michael D. Hughes, OR 

Lander County Comm, Steve Stienmetz, Battle Mountain, 

NV 

Lander County Commers, Battle Mountain, NV 

Lander County Dist Attorney, Hy Forgeron, Battle 

Mountain, NV 

Lander County Public Planning Comm/Land Use, Ray 

Salisbury, Austin, NV 

Lander County Wildlife Adv. Board, Gordon Jackson, 

Battle Mountain, NV 

Lander County Wildlife Adv. Board, Joel Lenz, Battle 

Mountain, NV 

Lander County Wildlife Adv. Board, Ray Williams III, 

Austin, NV 

Lane County Council of Government, Steve Gordon, 

Eugene, OR 

Lassen County Community Development Dept., Robert 

Sorvaag, Susanville, CA 

Lincoln Conservation District, Robert Peternal, Kemmerer, 

WY 

Lincoln County Board of Commissioners, Kemmerer, WY 

Lincoln County Commers, Pioche, NV 

Lincoln County Commissioner, Chairman, Kent Connelly, 

Kemmerer, WY 

Lincoln County Commissioner, Jerry Harmon, Kemmerer, 

WY 

Lincoln County Conservation District, Vickie Child, 

Cokeville, WY 

Lincoln County County Clerk, Jeanne Wagner, Kemmerer, 

WY 

Lincoln County Development Office, Jonathan Teichert, 

WY 

Lincoln County Historical Society, Kemmerer, WY 

Lincoln County Planning & Development, Planning 

Director, John Woodward, Afton, WY 

Lincoln County Planning Dept., Permit Tech, Afton, WY 

Lincoln County Public Lands Comm., Shelley Hartman, 

Pioche, NV 

Lincoln County Wildlife Adv. Board, Jim Cole, Pioche, 

NV 

Lincoln County Wildlife Adv. Board, Mark Holt, Caliente, 

NV 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX A – FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION 

A-18 

Lincoln County Wildlife Adv. Board, Pat & Kena 

Gloeckner, Pioche, NV 

Lincoln County, Tammie Archibald, Kemmerer, WY 

Lovelock City Council, Lovelock, NV 

Lovelock Meadows Water Dist., Rusty Keil, Lovelock, NV 

Lt. Governor Gary Herbert, Salk Lake City, UT 

Lyon County Commers, Yerington, NV 

Lyon County Wildlife Adv. Board, Charles E Lawson, 

Stagecoach, NV 

Lyon County Wildlife Adv. Board, Ed Mcintire, Yerington, 

NV 

Lyon County Wildlife Adv. Board, George May, Fernley, 

NV 

Lyon County Wildlife Adv. Board, Jeff Pauly, Yerington, 

NV 

Lyon County Wildlife Adv. Board, Roy Lerg, Smith, NV 

Mantua Council Member Carter, Reese, Mantua, UT 

Mantua Council Member Jeppesen, Richard, Mantua, UT 

Mantua Council Member, Jan Palmer, Mantua, UT 

Mantua Council Member, Jeff Kearl, Mantua, UT 

Mayor of Bear River City, UT 

Mayor of Corrine, UT 

Mayor of Elwood, Lynn Hardy, UT 

Mayor of Mantua, Scott Butler, UT 

Mayor of Paradise, UT 

Mayor of Woodruff, UT 

McDermitt Fire Volunteers, Gary Wilson, McDermitt, NV 

Mineral County Commers, Hawthorne, NV 

Mineral County Wildlife Adv. Board, Glenn Bunch, 

Hawthorne, NV 

Mineral County Wildlife Adv. Board, John Peterson, 

Hawthorne, NV 

Mineral County Wildlife Adv. Board, Robert Tompkins, 

Hawthorne, NV 

Minority Leader Brad King, Price, UT 

Modoc County Board of Supervisors, Chairman Joe Colt, 

Alturas, CA 

Modoc County Board of Supervisors, David Bradshaw, 

Lookout, CA 

Modoc County Board of Supervisors, Patricia Cantrall, 

Likely, CA 

Modoc County Department of Natural Resources, Sean 

Curtis, Alturas, CA 

Modoc County Land Use Comm., Carolyn Carey, Alturas, 

CA 

Modoc County Record, Alturas, CA 

Modoc Fish & Game, Delbert E. Craig, Tulelake, CA 

Morgan County Council, Bart Smith, Morgan, UT 

Morgan County Council, Dan Hancock, Morgan, UT 

Morgan County Council, Morgan, UT 

Morgan County Fire, Morgan, UT 

Morgan County Planning, Morgan, UT 

Morgan County Sheriff, Gene Ercanbrack, Morgan, UT 

North Ogden City, UT 

Nye County Admin., Tonopah, NV 

Nye County Wildlife Adv. Board, Charles Cecchini, 

Tonopah, NV 

Nye County Wildlife Adv. Board, Don Holbrook, 

Pahrump, NV 

Nye County Wildlife Adv. Board, Mark Barlow, Round 

Mountain, NV 

Ogden City Council, Ogden, UT 

Ogden City Fire Department, Mike Mathieu, Ogden, UT 

Ogden City Mayor, Matthew R. Godfrey, Ogden, UT 

Ogden City Parks & Recreation, Jay Lowder, Ogden, UT 

Ogden City Planner, Greg Montgomery, Ogden, UT 

Oneida County ID Planning & Zoning, Deputy Clerk, 

Diane Skidmore, MALAD, ID 

Paradise Council Member, Dale Anderson, Paradise, UT 

Paradise Council Member, Gerald Winn, Paradise, UT 

Paradise Council Member, Leland Howlett, Paradise, UT 

Paradise Council Member, Margaret Obray, Paradise, UT 

Paradise Fire Volunteers, Rick Latimer, Paradise Valley, 

NV 

Pershing County - Board of Commissioners, Chairman, 

Darin Bloyed, Lovelock, NV 

Pershing County - Planning Department, Planning Tech, 

Michael Johnson, Lovelock, NV 

Pershing County - Road Department, Superintendent, Brian 

Greene, Lovelock, NV 

Pershing County Board of Commers, Lovelock, NV 

Pershing County Clerk, Donna Giles, Lovelock, NV 

Pershing County Comm, Frank Rutherford, Lovelock, NV 

Pershing County Coop Extension, Don Breazeale, 

Lovelock, NV 

Pershing County DA, Belinda Quilici, Lovelock, NV 

Pershing County Dist Attorneys Office, Susan Cerini, 

Lovelock, NV 

Pershing County Planning Dept., Lovelock, NV 

Pershing County Water Cons Dist., Bennie Hodges, 

Lovelock, NV 

Pershing County Wildlife Adv. Board, Earl L. Malay, 

Lovelock, NV 

Pershing County Wildlife Adv. Board, James Jurad, 

Lovelock, NV 

Pershing County Wildlife Adv. Board, James Shepherd, 

Winnemucca, NV 

Pershing County Wildlife Adv. Board, Terry Holland, 

Lovelock, NV 

Pershing County Wildlife Adv. Board, Tony Booth, 

Lovelock, NV 

Public Land Use Planning Commission, Elko, NV 

Public Works, Harpold Quarry, Klamath County, Klamath 

Falls, OR 

Regional Emergency Medical Services Authority, Ron 

Harmon, Reno, NV 

Reno Fire Dept., Asst. Chief FE Kajans, Reno, NV 

Reno Fire Dept., Rik Kajans, Reno, NV 

Rich County Board of Commers, Commissioner, Bill Cox, 

Woodruff, UT 

Rich County Commission, Chair, Thomas J. Weston, 

Randolph, UT 

Rich County Commissioner, Bill Cox, Randolph, UT 

Rich County Commissioner, Norm Weston, Randolph, UT 

Rich County Commissioners, Randolph, UT 

Rich County Development, Allan Harrison, Fish Haven, ID 

Rich County Sheriff, Randolph, UT 

Riverdale Fire Dept., Ogden, UT 

Siskiyou County, Board of Supervisors, Yreka, CA 

Siskiyou County, Nat. Res. Specialist, Jim De Pree, Yreka, 

CA 

Siskiyou County, Supervisor, Joan Smith, Yreka, CA 

South Central Oregon Economic Development District, 

Betty Riley, Klamath Falls, OR 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX A – FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION 

A-19 

Storey County Board of Commers, Virginia City, NV 

Storey County Wildlife Adv. Board, Fred Gladding, 

Virginia City, NV 

Storey County Wildlife Adv. Board, Gregory Hess Jr., 

Virginia City, NV 

Storey County Wildlife Adv. Board, Richard Bacus, 

Virginia City, NV 

Storey County Wildlife Adv. Board, William Clarke Jr., 

Virginia City, NV 

Surprise Valley Chamber of Commerce, Cedarville, CA 

Surprise Valley Chamber of Commerce, Sheila Cotton, CA 

Sweetwater County Conservation District, Mary Thoman, 

Green River, WY 

The City of Brigham City, Mayor, Brigham City, UT 

The City of Corinne, Mayor, Richard Nimori, UT 

The City of Cornish, Mayor, Cornish, UT 

The City of Elko, Mayor, Michael J. Franzoia, NV 

The City of Garden City, Mayor, UT 

The City of Honeyville, Mayor, Ellen Cook, UT 

The City of Hyde Park, Mayor, UT 

The City of Hyrum, Mayor, W. Dean Howard, UT 

The City of Laketown, Mayor, UT 

The City of Lakeview, Mayor, Rick Watson, OR 

The City of Lewiston, Mayor, UT 

The City of Logan, Mayor, UT 

The City of Malin, Mayor, Gary Zieg, OR 

The City of Mendon, Mayor, UT 

The City of Millville, Mayor, UT 

The City of Newton, Mayor, UT 

The City of Nibley, Mayor, UT 

The City of Paradise, Mayor, UT 

The City of Providence, Mayor, UT 

The City of Richmond, Mayor, UT 

The City of River Heights, Mayor, UT 

The City of Smithfield, Mayor, UT 

The City of Snowville, Mayor, Mike Morgan, UT 

The City of Tremonton, Mayor, Max Weese, UT 

The City of Wells, City Manager, Jolene Supp, NV 

The City of Wells, Councilman, John Riddle, NV 

The City of Wells, Councilman, Kenny Huff, NV 

The City of Wells, Mayor, Rusty Tybo, NV 

The City of Wells, Vice Mayor, Cal Stark, NV 

The City of Wellsville, Mayor, UT 

The City of Wellsville, Mayor, Ruth Maughan, UT 

The City of Winnemucca, City Manager, D. Stephen West, 

NV 

The City of Winnemucca, Mayor, Di Ann Puttman, NV 

Town of Lakeview, Mayor Mike Patrick, OR 

Town of Pahrump, NV 

Tremonton Council Member, Byron Wood, UT 

Tremonton Council Member, David Deakin, UT 

Tremonton Council Member, Jeff Reese, UT 

Tremonton Council Member, Lyle Holmgren, UT 

Tremonton Council Member, Stanley Stokes, UT 

Truckee Meadows Fire Protection Dist., Amy Ray, Reno, 

NV 

Uinta County Commissioners, Kent Williams, Evanston, 

WY 

Uinta County Conservation District, Annette France, 

Lyman, WY 

Uinta County Conservation District, Kerri Sabey, Lyman, 

WY 

Uinta County, Evanston, WY 

Uintah Fire Dept, Chief, Dave Boothe, Uintah, UT 

Village of Gerlach - General Land Assoc., Stuart Robinson, 

Gerlach, NV 

Village of Gerlach - Governing Board, Lisa Bertschi, 

Gerlach, NV 

Washoe County, Reno, NV 

Washoe County Assessor’s Office, Carol Buonanoma, 

Reno, NV 

Washoe County Board of Commers, Reno, NV 

Washoe County Comprehensive Planning, Bill Whitney, 

Reno, NV 

Washoe County Dist Health, Reno, NV 

Washoe County Health, Jeanne Rucker, Reno, NV 

Washoe County Planning Comm, Reno, NV 

Washoe County Planning Comm., Jeff Gruess, Reno, NV 

Washoe County Roads, Gary Minto, Gerlach, NV 

Washoe County Sheriff Office, Milt Perry, Reno, NV 

Washoe County Wildlife Adv. Board, Dr. Gerald Lent, 

Reno, NV 

Washoe County Wildlife Adv. Board, Jerry W. Lowery, 

Reno, NV 

Washoe County Wildlife Adv. Board, Troy Lane, Reno, 

NV 

Washoe County, Community Development, Dept Director, 

Adrian P. Freund, Reno, NV 

Washoe County, Paul Kelly, Reno, NV 

Washoe County, Wendy Pitts, Reno, NV 

Weber Basin Water Conservancy District, Chris Hogge, 

Layton, UT 

Weber Basin Water Conservancy District, Grant Salter, 

Layton, UT 

Weber Basin Water Conservancy District, Mark Anderson, 

Layton, UT 

Weber Basin Water Conservancy District, Tage Flint, 

Layton, UT 

Weber Country Planner, Ogden, UT 

Weber County Commission, Craig Dearden, Ogden, UT 

Weber County Commissioners, Ogden, UT 

Weber County Fire Warden, Dave Vickers, Farr West, UT 

Weber County Planning, Jim Gentry, Ogden, UT 

Weber County Planning, Scott Mendoza, Ogden, UT 

Weber County Public Lands Advisory Council, Edward 

Jager, North Ogden, UT 

Weber County Public Lands Advisory Council, Elizabeth 

Griffith, Ogden, UT 

Weber County Public Lands Advisory Council, Eugene 

Hansen, North Ogden, UT 

Weber County Public Lands Advisory Council, Scott 

Vanleeuwen, Marriot, UT 

Weber County Public Lands, Louis Cooper, Huntsville, UT 

Weber County Sar, Chad Ferrin, Ogden, UT 

Weber County Sheriff, Brad Slater, Ogden, UT 

Weber Fire District, Dave Austin, Farr West, UT 

Weber-Morgan Health Dept., Joseph Decaria, Ogden, UT 

Wells Chamber of Commerce, NV 

Wellsville Council Member, Kent Brenchley, UT 

Wellsville Council Member, Marcene Parker, UT 

Wellsville Council Member, Ron Case, UT 

Wellsville Council Member, Thomas Bailey, UT 

West Corrine Drainage District, Van Bingham, UT 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX A – FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION 

A-20 

White Pine County Wildlife Adv. Board, Bill Miller, Ely, 

NV 

White Pine County Wildlife Adv. Board, Jimmy Danner, 

Ely, NV 

White Pine County Wildlife Adv. Board, Ramona Maestes, 

Ely, NV 

White Pine County Wildlife Adv. Board, Stephen Marich, 

Ely, NV 

White Pine County Wildlife Adv. Board, Steve Marquez, 

Ely, NV 

White Pine County Wildlife Adv. Board, Wade Robison, 

Ely, NV 

Willard City, UT 

Winnemucca Council 5, Don Stoker, NV 

Winnemucca Council Seat 1, Richard Stone, NV 

Winnemucca Council Seat 2, Doug Cain, NV 

Winnemucca Council Seat 3, Joyce Sheen, NV 

Winnemucca Council Seat 4, Patty Herzog, NV 

Woodruff Town Mayor, UT 

Bly Water District, JC Lansdowne, OR 

Washoe County Treasurer, Trustee, NV 

City of Winnemucca, Honorable Paul Vesco, NV 

Pershing County Sheriff’s Office, Ron Skinner, NV 

Native American Tribes

Band of Paiutes, Cultural Resources, Dorena Martineau, 

UT 

Battle Mountain Band Council Tribal Chairman, Mike 

Young, NV 

Battle Mountain Band Council, Environmental 

Coordinator, Bernice Lalo, NV 

Battle Mountain Band Council, Joe Burgen, NV 

Battle Mountain Band Council, Tribal Administrator, 

Yvonne Webb, NV 

Battle Mt Band Te-Moak Tribe Western Shoshone, 

Environmental Coordinator Lalo, Bernice, NV 

Battle Mt Band Te-Moak Tribe Western Shoshone, Yvonne 

Webb, NV 

Burns Northern Paiute (Wadakida), General Manager Don 

Munkers, OR 

Burns Paiute Tribe, Linda Jerofke, OR 

Burns Paiute Tribe, OR 

Burns Paiute Tribe, Tribal Chairman, OR 

Cedarville Rancheria, CA 

Cedarville Rancheria, Northern Paiute Tribe, EPA 

Coordinator, Melinda Dollarhide, CA 

Cedarville Rancheria, Northern Paiute Tribe, Tribal 

Chairman, Cherie Rhoades, CA 

Cedarville Rancheria, Northern Paiute Tribe, Tribal 

Chairperson, Marisha Noneo, CA 

Chairman - Shasta Nation, Roy Hall, Jr., CA 

Confederated Tribes of Siletz, Cultural Res Director, 

Robert Kentta, OR 

Confederated Tribes of Siletz, Tribal Chair, Delores 

Pigsley, OR 

Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation, Fara 

Ann Currim, OR 

Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation, Olney 

Patt Jr., OR 

Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation, Tribal 

Chairman, OR 

Council of Energy Resource Tribes, Executive Director, A. 

David Lester, CO 

Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians, Chairperson, Sue 

Shaffer, OR 

Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians, Cultural Resource 

Director, Jessica Bochart, OR 

Duck Valley Reservation, Shoshone-Paiute Tribes, Robert 

Bear, NV 

Duck Valley Sho-Pai Tribes, Environmental Director, 

Marcie Phillips, NV 

Duck Valley Tribal Council, Marvin Cota, NV 

Duck Valley Tribal Council, NV 

Duckwater Shoshone Tribe Tribal Chair Millett, Jerry, NV 

Duckwater Shoshone Tribe, Nette George, NV 

Duckwater Shoshone Tribe, Tribal Chair, Maurice Frank 

Churchill, NV 

Eastern Shoshone Tribe - Wind River Reservation, 

Chairman, Ivan D. Posey, WY 

Eastern Shoshone Tribe - Wind River Reservation, Vice 

Chairman, Arlen Shoyo, Sr., WY 

Eastern Shoshone Tribes, Richard Burnett, WY 

Elko Band Council, Administrator, Fermina Stevens, NV 

Elko Band Council, Chairperson, Lynnette Piffero, NV 

Elko Band, Te-Moak Tribe, Ekwood Mose, NV 

Elko Band, Te-Moak Tribe, Raymond Gonzales, NV 

Ely Shoshone Tribe, Cindy Marques, NV 

Ely Shoshone Tribe, EPA Assistant Manager, Boyd 

Graham, NV 

Ely Shoshone Tribe, Kathryn Griffith, NV 

Ely Shoshone Tribe, Tribal Chair, Diana Buckner, NV 

Ely Shoshone Tribe, Tribal Council, C. Roy Apodaca, NV 

Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Business Council, Reservation & 

Colony Chairperson, Alvin Moyle, NV 

Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Business Council, Vice 

Chairperson, Rochanne Downs, NV 

Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe, Donna Cossette, NV 

Fort Bidwell Indian Community Council, Ben Wynne, CA 

Fort Bidwell Indian Community Council, Tribal Chairman, 

Aaron Townsend, CA 

Fort Bidwell Indian Res (Paiute), Active Chairperson, 

Paula Sam, CA 

Fort Bidwell Paiute Tribe, EPA, Loyette Meza, CA 

Fort Bidwell Paiute Tribe, Kenneth Sam, CA 

Fort Bidwell Paiute Tribe, Loretta Degarmo, CA 

Fort Bidwell Res, Todd Degarmo, CA 

Fort Hall Indian Res Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, 

Chairperson, Alonzo Coby, ID 

Fort Hall Indian Res Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Cultural 

Resources, Carolyn Smith, NV 

Fort Hall Indian Res Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Vice 

Chairman, Nathan Small, ID 

Fort Hall Indian Res Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Vice 

Chairman, Lee Juan Tyler, ID 

Fort McDermitt Indian Res (Paiute & Shoshone), Env 

Director, Duane Masters, NV 

Fort McDermitt Indian Res (Paiute & Shoshone), Tribal 

Chair, Arlo Crutcher, NV 

Fort McDermitt Paiute & Shoshone Tribe, Dennis Smartt, 

NV 

Fort McDermitt Paiute Shoshone Tribe, Vice Chairman, 

Dale Barr, NV 

Fort McDermitt Tribal Council, Tribal Chairman, NV 

Ft Hall Shoshone-Bannock, Marv Osborne, ID 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX A – FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION 

A-21 

Goshute Business Council, Edwin Neranajo, UT 

Goshute Business Council, Honorable Rupert Steele, UT 

Goshute Tribe, Vice Chair, Ed Naranjo, UT 

Hoopa Valley Res, CA 

Hoopa Valley Tribal Fisheries Dept, Daniel Newberry, CA 

Hoopa Valley Tribal Fisheries Dept, Michael Orcutt, CA 

Hoopa Valley Tribe, Duane Sherman, Sr, CA 

Hoopa Valley Tribe, Fisheries Dept Hydrologist, CA 

Hoopa Valley Tribe, Leonard Masten, CA 

Inter-Tribal Council of NV, Daryl Crawford, NV 

Intertribal Council of NV, Lawrence Astor, NV 

Karuk Tribe of Calif, Alvis Johnson, CA 

Karuk Tribe of Calif, Harold Tripp, CA 

Karuk Tribe of Calif, Leaf Hillman, CA 

Karuk Tribe of Calif, Maggie Lee Peters, CA 

Karuk Tribe of Calif, Robert Rohde, CA 

Karuk Tribe, Ronnie Pierce, CA 

Klamath River Inter-Tribal Fish and Water Commission, 

Merv George Jr., CA 

Klamath Tribes (Modoc, Klamath, Yahooskin Paiute), 

Cultural & Heritage Director, Perry Chocktoot, OR 

Klamath Tribes (Modoc, Klamath, Yahooskin Paiute), G. 

Skelton & P. Chocktoot, OR 

Klamath Tribes, Allen Foreman, OR 

Lovelock Paiute Tribe, Glenn Wasson, NV 

Lovelock Paiute Tribe, NV 

Lovelock Paiute Tribe, NV 

Lovelock Paiute Tribe, Tribal Chair, Clark Rhodes, NV 

Moapa Business Council, Tribal Chairman, Philbert Swain, 

NV 

Moapa Tribal Business Council, Candice Grayman, NV 

Modoc of Oklahoma, 2nd Chief Judy Cobbs, OK 

Modoc of Oklahoma, Chief Bill Follis, OK 

Modoc of Oklahoma, Environmental Director, John 

Ballard, OK 

Modoc Washoe ESP, CA 

Native American Heritage Commission, Katy Sanchez, CA 

Northern Arapaho Business Council, Arapaho Tribe of the 

Wind River Reservation, Chairman Anthony Al Eddison 

Sr., WY 

Northern Arapaho Tribes, Rick Brannon, WY 

Northern Ute - Cultural Rights & Protection Dept., 

Executive Director, Barry Jenson, UT 

Northern Ute - Cultural Rights & Protection, Dept Director, 

Betsy Chapoose, UT 

Northern Ute - Uintah & Ouray Tribal Business Comm., 

Chairwoman, Maxine Natchees, UT 

Northern Ute-Uintah & Ouray Tribal Business Committee, 

Chairman, Curtis Cesspooch, UT 

Northwestern Band of Shoshone Nation, Chairman, Parry, 

Bruce, ID 

Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation, Patty 

Timbimboo-Madsen, ID 

Office of the Hoopa Tribe, Attorney, Bradley BledsoeDownes, CA 

Paiute Indian Tribe, Chairwoman, Lora E. Tom, UT 

Paiute-Shoshone Tribe of the Fallon Reservation, 

Environmental, Richard Black, NV 

Pit River Paiute Tribe, CA 

Pit River Tribal Council, Chairperson, Ida Riggins, CA 

Pit River Tribal Council, Gene Preston, CA 

Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, Environmental Director, John 

Mosley, NV 

Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, Vice Chairman, Clayton 

Servilican, NV 

Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, Joe Bergen, NV 

Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, Norm Harry, NV 

Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, NV 

Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, Tribal Chair, Melvin Wright 

Jr., NV 

Quartz Valley Indian Res, Edward Sanderson, CA 

Quartz Valley Indian Res, Roy Lincoln, CA 

Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Arlan D. Melendez, NV 

Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Cultural Director, Michon 

Eben, NV 

Shasta Nation, Board Member, Jim Prevatt, OR 

Shasta Nation, Mary Carpelan, CA 

Shasta Tribes, Inc., Allen Vandyke, OR 

Shasta Tribes, Inc., Roy Hall, CA 

Shoshone - Bannock Tribes, ID 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Chairman Arnold Appeney, ID 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Larae Buckskin, ID 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Yvette Tuell, ID 

Shoshone-Paiute Tribe, Tribal Chair, Nancy Egan, NV 

Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of The Duck Valley Reservation, 

Cultural Director, Ted Howard, NV 

Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of The Duck Valley Reservation, 

Tribal Chair, Kyle Prior, NV 

Skull Valley Band Goshute, Chair, Leon Bear, UT 

Skull Valley Band of Goshutes, Chairman Bear, Lawrence, 

UT 

Skull Valley Band of Goshutes, UT 

South Fork Band Council, Chairman, Cheryl MoseTemoke, NV 

South Fork Band Council, Jacob Tybo, NV 

South Fork Band of the Te-Moak Tribe, Vince Garcia, NV 

Southern Ute Indian Tribe, Chairman, Matthew J. Box, CO 

Summit Lake Indian Paiute Tribe, Chairman, Warner 

Barlese, NV 

Summit Lake Indian Paiute Tribe, Environmental 

Coordinator, Ron Eagleye Johnny, NV 

Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, Arthur Brown, NV 

Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, Chanell Barlese, NV 

Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, Dean Barlese, NV 

Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, James Barlese, CA 

Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, Jerri Lynn Barlese, NV 

Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, Lorieta Cowan, NV 

Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, Orville Barlese, NV 

Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, Vicky Brown, CA 

Susanville Indian Rancheria, Cult Res Spec/Nagpra Coord, 

Melany L. Johnson, CA 

Susanville Indian Rancheria, Tribal Chairman, Dixon, 

Stacy, CA 

Temoak Band of Western Shoshone, Elwood Mose, NV 

Temoak Band of Western Shoshone, Felix Ike, NV 

Te-Moak Tribal Council, Pat Stevens, NV 

Temoak Tribe Western Shoshone, Lydia Johnson, NV 

Te-Moak Western Shoshone, Chairperson, Gonzalez, 

David, NV 

Te-Moak Western Shoshone, NV 

The Confederated Tribes of The Goshute, Integrated Res 

Mgmt, Mary Pete, UT 

The Confederated Warm Springs Tribes - Cultural 

Resources, Sally Bird, OR 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX A – FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION 

A-22 

The Confederated Warm Springs Tribes (Warm Springs, 

Wasco, Northern Paiute), Chairman, Ronnie Suppa, OR 

The Klamath Tribes, Chairman, Joseph S. Kirk, OR 

The Klamath Tribes, Culture & Heritage Dept, OR 

The Klamath Tribes, Game Comm, Joe Hobbs, OR 

The Klamath Tribes, Gerald Skelton, OR 

The Klamath Tribes, James Hill, OR 

The Klamath Tribes, Kathleen Mitchell, OR 

The Klamath Tribes, Marry Gentry, OR 

The Klamath Tribes, Nat Res Dept Forester, Will Hatcher, 

OR 

The Klamath Tribes, Nat Res Director, OR 

The Klamath Tribes, Nat Res Specialist, Don Gentry, OR 

The Klamath Tribes, Tribal Council, Jeff C. Mitchell, OR 

The Klamath Tribes, Vice Chairman, Joe Hobbs, OR 

The Klamath Tribes, Wildlife Biologist, David Speten, OR 

The Klamath Tribes, Wildlife Biologist, Rick Ward, OR 

The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Senior Chairman, Ernest 

House, CO 

Timbisha-Shoshone Tribe of Death Valley, Tribal Chair, 

Joseph Kennedy, CA 

Ute Indian Tribe of The Uintah, Betty Chabose, UT 

Ute Tribes, Curtis Cesspooch, UT 

Shasta Nation, Vice Chairman, Don Boat, OR 

Walker Lake Paiute Tribe, Johnathan Hicks, NV 

Walker Lake Paiute Tribe, Raymond Hoferer, NV 

Walker River Paiute Tribe, Honorable Robert Quintero, 

NV 

Washoe Tribe of California/Nevada, Environmental 

Director, Marie Barry, NV 

Washoe Tribe of California/Nevada, Tribal Chairman, 

Waldo Walker, NV 

Wells Band Council, Chairperson, Stevens, Julie, NV 

Wells Band Council, Environmental Coordinator, Aurora 

Aboite, NV 

Wells Band Council, Paula Salazar, NV 

Wells Band Council, Vice Chair, Kristi Begay, NV 

Western Band of Shoshone, NV 

Western Shoshone, B.A. Lalo, NV 

Western Shoshone Committee, Deb Blossom, NV 

Western Shoshone Committee, Naomi Mason, NV 

Western Shoshone Committee, Reggie Premo, NV 

Western Shoshone Defense Project, Carrie Dann, NV 

Western Shoshone Defense Project, Mike Miller, NV 

Western Shoshone History Pres Society, Larry Kibby, NV 

Western Shoshone-Descendants of Big Smoky, Felix Ike, 

NV 

Winnemucca Indian Colony, Tribal Chair, Linda Ayer, NV 

Winnemucca Tribal Council, NV 

Yerington Paiute Tribe, Johanner Emm, NV 

Yomba Shoshone Tribal Council, Wayne K. Dyer, NV 

Yomba Shoshone Tribe, James Birchim, NV 

Yomba Shoshone Tribe, Teola Brady, NV 

Yomba-Shoshone, Tribal Chair, Dennis J. Bill, NV 

Yomba-Shoshone, Tribal Chair, Wayne K Dyer, NV 

Yurok Tribe, Chairperson, Howard Mcconnell, CA 

Yurok Tribe, Charlie Chamberlain, CA 

Yurok Tribe, Culture Dept, North Coastal Information 

Center, Dr. Thomas Gates, CA 

Yurok Tribe, David Hillemeier, CA 

Yurok Tribe, Natural Resource Office, Dan Gale, CA 

Yurok Tribe, Natural Resource Office, Troy Fletcher, CA 

Libraries

Battle Mountain Branch Library, NV 

BLM Library, CO 

Bly Branch Library, OR 

Brigham City Carnegie Library, UT 

Brigham City Library, UT 

Cokeville Branch Library, WY 

Colorado State University Library, Judy Smith, CO 

Delamare Library /MS 262, NV 

Department of Interior – Natural Resources Library, DC 

Elko County Library, NV 

Eureka County Library, NV 

Great Basin College Library, NV 

Klamath County Library – Bonanza Branch, Helen 

Hankins, OR 

Humboldt County Library, NV 

James Dickenson Library, NV 

Klamath County Library, Christy Davis, OR 

Lander County Library, NV 

Lander County Library, NV 

Library of Congress, DC 

Life & Health Sciences Library, NV 

Lincoln County Library - Kemmerer, WY 

Lincoln County Public Library, WY 

Logan City Library, UT 

Logan Library, UT 

Lyon County Library, NV 

Malin Branch Library, OR 

Nevada State Library, NV 

North Branch Library, UT 

Ogden Valley Branch Library, UT 

Oregon State University, Melissa Hartley, OR 

Pershing County Public Library, NV 

Regional Planning Comm. Library, NV 

Sacramento City College Library, CA 

Salt Lake City Public Library, UT 

Siskiyou County Library, CA 

Southern Oregon University, Government 

Documents/Hannon Library, Tatiana Fox, OR 

Sublette County Public Library, WY 

Susanville Library Dist, CA 

Sweetwater County Public Library, WY 

Tremonton City Library, UT 

Uinta County Library, WY 

University of California, Steve Black, CA 

University of Nevada – Reno, NV 

University of Oregon Library, OR 

University of Wyoming Library, WY 

University Of Nevada Libraries Business & Government 

Information Center/322, NV 

University of Nevada – Las Vegas Library, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Library, Mary Stegeman, CO 

U.S. Dept of Interior, Nat Res Library, MS 2258, DC 

U.S. Geological Survey Library, VA 

USDA National Agricultural Library, MD 

USDI-Nat Res Library, DC 

Washoe County Branch Library, NV 

Washoe County Public Library, NV 

Weber County Main Library, UT 

Wells Branch Library, NV 

West Wendover Branch Library, NV 

Western Wyoming College Library, WY 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX A – FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION 

A-23 

Media

Associated Press, Scott Sonner, NV 

Back Country Magazine, Brian Brinkerhoff, UT 

Boulder City News, NV 

Box Elder News & Journal, Ellen Cook, UT 

Box Elder News Journal, UT 

Carson City Chronicle, NV 

Casper Star-Tribune, Jeff Gearino, WY 

Central Nevada Newspaper/ Eureka Sentinel & Tonopah 

Times, Bill Roberts, NV 

Comstock Amateur Radio Assn, Larry E Oakley, NV 

Deseret News, Jerry Sprangler, UT 

Deseret News, UT 

Elko Daily Free Press, Adella Harding, NV 

Elko Daily Free Press, Ali Helgoth, NV 

Elko Daily Free Press, NV 

Elko Free Press, Gracie Sheen, NV 

Ely Times, Nola Munson, NV 

Fox News, KSTU Channel 13, UT 

Herald & News, Lee Juillerat, OR 

Herald & News, OR 

Herald & News, OR 

Herald Journal, Karen Lambert, UT 

Herald Journal, Nancy Bodily, UT 

High Country News, CO 

High Country News, Matt Jenkins, CO 

Humboldt Sun, NV 

KAGO, OR 

KAME, Steve Halliwell, NV 

KBOY, OR 

KBYU, UT 

KCEP, NV 

KDKF, OR 

KDOT/KOZZ, NV 

KDRV, Rhea Silver-Smith, OR 

KDSS, NV 

KELK/KLKO, NV 

Kemmerer Gazette, WY 

KENV, NV 

KEYV, NV 

KFBT, NV 

KHIT, NV 

KHWK, Don Kaminsky, NV 

KILA, NV 

KJUL, NV 

KKDD/KFMS, NV 

KKOH/KNEV, NV 

KKRB/KFLS, Station Manager, OR 

KLAD, Michael Hodson, OR 

Klamath Falls Herald & News, OR 

KLVX, Leann Green, NV 

KMXB, NV 

KMZQ, NV 

KNIS, NV 

KNPB TV, Jack Kelly, NV 

KNPB TV, Ronda Clark, NV 

KNPR, NV 

KOLO, NV 

KOTI, OR 

KOTI-TV, Lyle Ahrens, OR 

KPTL, NV 

KREN, NV 

KRNV, Mike Burns, NV 

KRNV, NV 

KSL Radio, Marc Giauque, UT 

KSL Radio, UT 

KSL TV, Channel 5, UT 

KSL TV, John Hollenhorst, UT 

KSOR, Jefferson Public Radio, OR 

KTHX, NV 

KTSN/KRJC, Nancy Sawyer, NV 

KTVL - Channel 10, OR 

KTVN, Bob Moffett, NV 

KTVN, Community Project Director, Deidre, NV 

KUNR, NV 

KUNV, NV 

KUSU, UT 

KUTV Channel 2, UT 

KVBC, Program Director, Judy Reich, NV 

KVLV, NV 

KVLY, The Valley Channel, Sharalyn, UT 

KVVU, NV 

KWCR, UT 

KWNA, Kathy Doyle, NV 

KXEQ, NV 

KXTO, NV 

KXTV 10, Dale Schornack, CA 

Lahontan Valley News & Fallon Eagle Standard, NV 

Lahontan Valley News-Eagle, Steve Lyon, NV 

Lake Co Examiner, OR 

Las Vegas Asian American Times, NV 

Las Vegas Review-Journal, Beth Deilo, NV 

Las Vegas Sentinel-Voice, NV 

Lincoln County Record, Conny Finkins, NV 

Logan Herald Journal, UT 

Lovelock Review Miner, NV 

Lyon County Leader-Courier, Dave Sanford, NV 

Mason Valley News, Dave Sanford, NV 

Mineral County Independent, NV 

Montpelier News-Examiner, ID 

N Lake Tahoe Bonanza, Rick Adair, NV 

Nellis AFB Bullseye, NV 

Nevada Appeal, Berry Smith, NV 

News-Examiner, Rosa Moosman, ID 

Ogden Standard Examiner, Charlie Trentelman, UT 

Ogden Standard-Examiner, Bryce Peterson, UT 

Ogden Standard-Examiner, UT 

Ogden Valley News, Shauna Francis, UT 

Pahrump Valley Gazette, Beverly, NV 

Pahrump Valley Times, NV 

Reno Gazette Journal, Scott Tomsen, NV 

Reno Gazette-Journal, NV 

Reno Gazette-Journal, NV 

Reno News & Review, Jimmy Bogoele, NV 

Sacramento Bee, CA 

Salt Lake Tribune, Arrin Newton Brunson, UT 

San Francisco Chronicle, CA 

San Francisco Examiner, CA 

Sarkes-Tarzian Inc, KTVN-KEKO, Albert D Richards, NV 

Sarkes-Tarzian, Inc, KTVN-KEKO, Thomas Tarzian, IN 

Siskiyou Daily News, CA 

Smithsonian Magazine, Jim Chiles, MN 

Sparks Daily Tribune, Dan Eckles, NV 

Standard-Examiner, Nancy Fuller, UT 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX A – FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION 

A-24 

The Herald Journal, Lance Frazer, UT 

The Humboldt Sun, NV 

The Leader, Debra Jandreau, UT 

Times-Bonanza, Bill Robert, NV 

Tremonton - The Leader, UT 

Tremonton Leader Times, UT 

Wendover Advocate, Howard Coplin, NV 

Intervenors

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Timothy Battaglia, TX 

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Steven J. Abbey, TX 

Avista Corporation Staff Attorney, Michael G. Andrea, 

WA 

BP America Production Co., BP Energy Co, Frederick T. 

Kolb, TX 

BP America Production Co., BP Energy Co, Steve P. 

Tarpey, TX 

Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Charles H. Shoneman, DC 

Cable, Huston, Benedict, Haagensen & Lloyd, Attorney, 

Chad Stokes, OR 

California Public Utilities Commission, Staff Counsel, 

Jonathan Bromson, CA 

Center for Biological Diversity, Staff Attorney, Amy 

Atwood, OR 

Chevron USA Inc., Chuck Cook, TX 

Chevron USA Inc., Lisa Herrmann, TX 

ConocoPhillips Company, Director Regulatory Affairs, 

Bruce A. Connell, Esq., TX 

Defenders of Wildlife, Staff Attorney, Adam Kron, DC 

Duncan, Weinberg, Genzer & Pembroke PC, Kathleen L. 

Mazure, DC 

Duncan, Weinberg, Genzer & Pembroke PC, Jason T. 

Gray, DC 

Duncan, Weinberg, Genzer & Pembroke PC, LaTravia 

Pannell, DC 

Edwards & Associates, Katherine B. Edwards, VA 

Edwards & Associates, John Paul Floom, VA 

EnCana Marketing (USA) Inc., Director, US Regulatory 

Affairs, Keith M. Sappenfield, II, CO 

Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation, Senior Counsel, 

Ellen A. Berman, CA 

Hogan & Hartson, LLP, Lee A. Alexander, Esq., DC 

Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP, Nancilee Holland, DC 

Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP, Shannon P. Coleman, DC 

Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP, William F. Demarest, Jr., 

DC 

Iberdrola Renewables Inc., Julie Morris, OR 

Iberdrola Renewables Inc., Mark Lewis, DC 

Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, Timm 

Abendroth, DC 

John & Hengerer, Gordon J. Smith, DC 

John & Hengerer, Douglas F. John, DC 

John & Hengerer, Elizabeth A. Zembruski, DC 

Law Offices of David A. Hornbeck, David A. Hornbeck, 

Esq., NV 

Law Office of Julia E. Sullivan, LLC, Julia E. Sullivan, 

Esq., MD 

Marathon Oil Company, Dave Davis, TX 

McCarthy, Sweeney & Harkaway, P.C., Douglas M. 

Canter, Esq., DC 

Miller, Balis & O'Neil, P.C., Joshua L. Menter, DC 

Nexen Marketing USA Inc., Director, Regulatory Diane 

Cameron, AB 

Niska Gas Storage LLC, Vice President, General Counsel 

& Corp Secretary, Jason A. Dubchak, AB 

Northwest Industrial Gas Users, Executive Director, Paula 

E. Pyron, OR 

Northwest Natural Gas Company, Attorney, Susan Bergles, 

MD 

Occidental Energy Marketing Inc., Porter K. Ryan, TX 

Occidental Energy Marketing Inc., Director, Regulatory 

Affairs, Larry Jenkins, TX 

ONEOK Inc., General Manager, C. David Crisp, OK 

Oregon Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Attorney 

General, Janet Prewitt, OR 

Oregon Natural Desert Association, Staff Attorney, David 

Becker, OR 

Oregon Wild, Restoration Coordinator, Doug Heiken, OR 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Keith T. Sampson, CA 

Portland General Electric Company, Manager, Gas 

Trading, Val Yildirok, OR 

Portland General Electric Company, Assistant Geneneral 

Counsel, Loretta I. Mabinton, OR 

Public Utilities Commission of Nevada, General Counsel, 

Jan J. Cohen, NV 

Puget Sound Energy Inc., Director, Federal Regulatory 

Affairs, Christine Philipps, WA 

Puget Sound Energy Inc., Manager, Natural Gas Resources, 

William Donahue, WA 

Quality for Animal Life, Dick Jones, UT 

Questar Gas Company, Senior Corporate Counsel, David S. 

Andersen, UT 

Questar Gas Company, Gas Supply Manager, Tina Faust, 

UT 

Questar Pipeline Company, Division Counsel, Tad M. 

Taylor, UT 

Questar Pipeline Company, Manager, Federal Regulatory 

Affairs, L. Bradley Burton, UT 

Ruby Pipeline, LLC, Vice President, Craig Richardson, CO 

Ruby Pipeline, LLC, Director, Regulatory Affairs, Susan C. 

Stires, CO 

Sempra Energy, Inc., Attorney, John R. Ellis, CA 

Sempra Energy, Inc., Attorney, Jonathan J. Newlander, CA 

Sempra Energy, Inc., FERC Case Manager, Tanya 

Peacock, CA 

Shell Energy North America (US), L.P., Amy Gold, TX 

Southwest Gas Corporation, Director, Federal Regulatory 

Affairs, Edward C. McMurtrie, NV 

Southwest Gas Corp Senior Counsel, Keith A. Layton, NV 

Summit Lake Indian Paiute Tribe, Environmental 

Coordinator, Ron Eagleye Johnny, NV 

The Utility Reform Network, Senior Attorney, Michel 

Peter Florio, Esq., CA 

Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club, Peter J. Smith, Esq., 

NV 

Ultra Resources, Inc., Vice President – Marketing, Stuart E. 

Nance, TX 

Van Ness Feldman, PC, Emily Pitlick, DC 

Van Ness Feldman, PC, Pamela Anderson, WA 

Western Watersheds Project, Katie Fite, ID 

Wyoming Pipeline Authority, Director, Brian Jeffries, WY 

Organizations

26 Ranch Inc., Stephen D. Alfers, CO 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX A – FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION 

A-25 

AFL-CIO, Kenneth Reed, WY 

Ag and Auto Inc., Don Lasley, OR 

Agri Beef Co., Rick Stott, ID 

Alice M. Ray Gibbons Trust, UT 

Allen Farms LC, Darwin R. Allen, UT 

Alliance for Historic Wyoming, Lesley Wischmann, WY 

Amerititle, Kristi Redd, OR 

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Steven J. Abbey, TX 

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Timothy Battaglia, TX 

Arimo Corp. an ID Corp, Gm: D. Lane Schumann c/o Dick 

Jones, UT 

Arimo Corp. an ID Corp, Lane Schumann, Agt. 

Christopher Robinson, UT 

Audubon Society, Robin Powell, NV 

Audobon Society, Daly Edmonds, WY 

Avista Corporation, Senior Counsel, Michael G. Andrea, 

WA 

Balance Environmental, Nate Norman, UT 

Bar M Land & Livestock, Randy M. Moulding, UT 

Barrick Gold of North America, Steve Schoen, NV 

Barrick Goldstrike Mines, Inc., Robley E. Berry, UT 

Battle Born Ventures LLC, Eric Lee, NV 

Bear Lake Realty, Teri Eynon, ID 

Bell Butte Grazing, Charles Rex, UT 

Benjami and C. Solomon Trust, HI 

Bernard Cannon Family Trust, NV 

Bess Ranch, Noel Bess, UT 

Bethel LLC, Manager, Todd J. Mcmillan, AZ 

Beus Group, Leo R Beus, Esq, AZ 

Bill J. & Carol L. Graham Family Trust, Bill & Carol 

Graham, OR 

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, Wayne Prindle, WY 

Black Rock City LLC (DBA Burning Man), Managers 

Harvey Dubois and Nanci Elliott, Registered Agent Eric 

Pulver, CA 

Blue Creek Ranch LLC, Dean Christensen, UT 

Boss Eng., Ed Shaw, UT 

BP America Production Co, Bp Energy Co, Frederick T. 

Kolb, TX 

BP America Production Co, Bp Energy Co, Steve P. 

Tarpey, TX 

Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Charles H. Shoneman, DC 

Brandsness, Brandsness & Rudd, P.C., OR 

Bridgerland Audubon Society, Conservation Chair, Richard 

Mueller, UT 

Brigham City Corp, Jared Johnson, UT 

Bright-Holland Co., Pierre A. Hascheff, NV 

Brindley Living Trust, Jeanne Brindley and Judith Howe, 

CA 

Bruner, Alston & Marilyn, OR 

Bus Prop Co., T.G. & M.E. Shepard, NV 

Business Properties Companies, NV 

BVK Inc., PA 

Cable Huston Benedict Haagensen & Lloyd LLP, Chad M. 

Stokes, OR 

Cahill Ranches Inc., Frank Cahill, OR 

Catherine Urroz Seale Trust, WY 

Center for Biological Diversity, Amy Atwood, OR 

Chanshare Farms, VP Business Operations, Staci L. 

Palmer, UT 

Chevron Global Gas, Lisa Herrmann, TX 

Chevron USA Inc., Chuck Cook, TX 

Chris and Mary Ann Quinn Trusts, MT 

Christopher Robinson C Bar Cattle Company, UT 

Coalition for Nevada Wildlife, Larry Johnson, NV 

Coldwater Ranch Inc., Dee's Inc., Todd Olsen, UT 

Conocophillips Company, Regulatory Counsel, Bruce A. 

Connell, Esq., TX 

Cornelia Land Co. LLC, Ace Felder, OR 

C-Punch Corporation, Betty F. Irvin/Robert G. 

Irvin/Lawrence O. Irvin, NV 

Crawford Family Living Trust, Eldon Crawford, NV 

Crawford Family Living Trust, NV 

Dale D. Klum Living Trust, NV 

Damibri, LLC, Bree Giron/David Nokes, AZ 

Dearborn Corp Trustee, John D. Spackman, NV 

Defenders of Wildlife, Director of Federal Lands Program, 

Peter Nelson, DC 

Della Ranches, Jay M. Tanner, UT 

Delong Ranches, Inc., NV 

Delong Ranches, Inc., Registered Agent, O. Kent Maher, 

NV 

Delong Ranches, Inc., Director, Dale Delong, 

Delora M. Fowers Inter Vivos Trust, UT 

Delphine Betka Trust, Delphine Betka, Trustee, NV 

Delphine Betka Trust, NV 

University of Notre Dame, Department of Anthropology--

Flanner 611, Joanne Mack, PhD., IN 

Derek C. & Lamae Hunwick Trusts, UT 

Dodson Lake LLC, Frank T Cahill, OR 

Don T. & Filomena C. Nebeker Trust, UT 

Donald and Ann Darlene Jones Trust, NV 

Donald and Shelley Leveille Trust, NV 

Doral Deeloy Rupp Trustee, Rupp Trust, UT 

Douglas Co Forest Products, D. Reeves, OR 

Downing Properties LLC, UT 

Duck Lake Ranch LLC, Pierre A. Hascheff, NV 

Duncan, Weinberg, Genzer & Pembroke PC, Jason T. 

Gray, DC 

Duncan, Weinberg, Genzer & Pembroke PC, Kathleen L. 

Mazure, DC 

Duncan, Weinberg, Genzer & Pembroke PC, Latravia 

Pannell, DC 

Ecology and Environment Inc., Jim Thornton, OR 

Ecology and Environment Inc., Noreen Roster, OR 

Ed Garrett Ranch, OR 

Edwards & Associates, John Paul Floom, VA 

Edwards & Associates, Katherine B. Edwards, VA 

El Paso Corporation, Robert C. Newberry, TX 

Elaine H. Watkins Northern El Ray Corp, UT 

Elges Jean Trst/S Krell/G Elges, NV 

Ellifritz Family Trust, NV 

Empire Communications, LLC, CA 

Encana Marketing (USA) Inc., Director, US Regulatory 

Affairs, Keith M. Sappenfield, II, CO 

Environmental Planning Group, Les Anderson, NV 

Environmental Planning Group, Kris Dobschuetz, AZ 

Estill Ranches, LLC, Registered Agent, James Newman, 

NV 

Eureka Livestock LLC, CA 

Fahmy and Booke LLP, Stewart Fahmy, CA 

Fascio Living Trust, NV 

Ferraro Cattle Company, NV 

Finance All, LLC, Paul Amato, CA 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX A – FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION 

A-26 

Finance All, LLC, Paul Sabesky, CA 

Flynn Ranch, Jack Flynn, OR 

Franklin I. & Ryoko Bacheller Trust, Franklin I. Bacheller, 

UT 

Friends of Living Oregon Waters, Joe Serres, OR 

Friends of NV Wilderness, Executive Director, Shaaron 

Netherton, NV 

Gene & Jo Christison Family Trust, NV 

Gerber Ranch, Sylvia Bruce, OR 

Gerlach General Improvement District, NV 

Gerlach Improvement Association, Joe Ulgade, NV 

Glaser Land & Livestock Co, Robin Van Norman, NV 

Glaser Ranch, Susan Church, NV 

Granite Propane, Inc., Johnny A. Forester, NV 

Great Basin Resource Watch, Staff Chemist, John Hadder, 

NV 

Hardware Park Mountain Estates, Farrel Lewis, UT 

Harold Selman Inc., Bret & Michelle Selman, Fred & 

Laura Selman, UT 

Harold Selman Inc., Fred and Laura Selman, UT 

Hawkwatch International, Inc., Conservation Scientist, 

Steven J. Slater, Ph.D., UT 

High Rock Holding, LLC, F. De Armond Sharp, NV 

Hogan & Hartson, LLP, Lee A. Alexander, Esq., DC 

Holland & Hart, John Clark, DC 

Home Camp Land and Livestock Company, Inc., Pierre A 

Hascheff, NV 

Hopkin and Co., V. Stuart Hopkin, UT 

Howard Melvin & Delphine Trust, NV 

Hulme Sub-D Inc., Travis Hulme, UT 

Humboldt Ranches, Inc., NV 

Humboldt Ranches, Inc., O. Kent Maher, NV 

Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP, Nancilee Holland, DC 

Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP, Shannon P. Coleman, DC 

Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP, William F. Demarest, Jr., 

DC 

Iberdrola Renewables Inc., Julie Morris, OR 

Iberdrola Renewables Inc., Mark Lewis, DC 

Idaho Conservation League, Senior Conservation 

Associate, Johathan Oppenheimer, ID 

Jackson Family Ltd. Partnership, Andrea Jackson, NV 

James R. & Myrna A. Knowles Trust, UT 

JBR Environmental Consultants, Kristi McKinnon, NV 

JBR Environmental Consultants, Richard Weber, NV 

Jim Billingsley Family Trust, NV 

Jimmie R. & Jennie J. Parrish Trust, UT 

John & Hengerer, Douglas F. John, DC 

John & Hengerer, Elizabeth A. Zembruski, DC 

John & Hengerer, Gordon J. Smith, DC 

John Properties LLC, Kris John and David Owen John Jr., 

UT 

John Sowell Consulting, John Sowell, OR 

Johnson Family Trust, Jewell and Mary Johnson, CA 

Jose & Blanca Pinedo, CA 

Juniper Hill Partners, LLC, F. De Armond Sharp, NV 

Juniper Resort, Mr. & Mrs. Chuck Kelley, OR 

JWTR, LLC, Craig Ditman, OR 

K&K Mining Inc., James C. Prichard, NV 

Kalvin & Anita Rabineau Trust, CA 

Kenneth W. Solomon Living Trust, NV 

Key Ranches LLC, NV 

KH Investors LLC, Ken Hudson, TX 

KH Investors LLC, TX 

Klamath Basin Audubon Society, Ralph Opp, OR 

KMM Property LLC, Kevin Martin, NV 

Kunzler Sheep & Cattle LLC, Kerry Kunzler, UT 

Knife River, Warren Olson, OR 

L C Planning, Jeannette Fagnant, WY 

Lakeview Redi-Mix Co., Sam Steward and Suzanne 

Steward, OR 

Land Gift 4 U, LLC, Ahmed A. Mutalib, CA 

Langell Valley Irrigation, Linda Hammerich and Carl D 

Gibson, OR 

Laski D. & L. Kapper Living Trust, CA 

Law Office of Julia E. Sullivan, LLC, Julia E. Sullivan, 

Esq., MD 

Little Paradise Ranch, Inc., Dan H. Skeen, UT 

Logan Simpson Design, Inc., Jim Carter, AZ 

Logan Simpson Design, Inc., Grace Ellis, AZ 

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Real Estate 

Officer, Kelly Nicholson, CA 

Lucchesi Family Trust, NV 

M.D.B., LLC, Mike Byrne, OR 

Marathon Oil Company, Dave Davis III, TX 

Maria and Keith Properties, Inc., NV 

Mccarthy, Sweeney & Harkaway, PC, Douglas M. Canter, 

Esq., DC 

Mentaberry Brothers, Eddie Mentaberry, NV 

Merjent, Inc., John Muehlhausen, MN 

Miller, Balis & O'Neil, PC, Joshua L. Menter, DC 

Min-Ad, Inc., NV 

Moana Investments, LLC, NV 

National Audobon Society, Important Bird Areas Coord., 

Wayne Martinson, UT 

National Audobon Society, Legislative Director, Mike 

Daulton, DC 

National Wildlife Refuge Association, President, Evan 

Hirsche, DC 

Ned Waldner Living Trust, NV 

Neil C. Grohs Trust, Phillip Grohs and Neil Grohs, Sr., OR 

Nevada 1st Corporation, Pat Echeuarria, NV 

Nevada Cement Co., Cale Pressey, NV 

Nevada Land & Resource Co. LLC, NV 

Nevada Land & Resource Co. LLC, Stephen D. Hartman, 

NV 

Newmont Mining Corp., Jeff White, NV 

Nexen Marketing USA Inc., Director, Regulatory Diane 

Cameron, AB 

NFC Land & Cattle LLC, Anthony G. Bonavia, NV 

NFC Land & Cattle LLC, Gary Bengochea, NV 

NGP Blue Mountain 1, LLC, NV 

Niska Gas Storage LLC, Vice President, General Counsel 

& Corp Secretary, Jason A. Dubchak, AB 

Norco Inc., Jerry Jones, OR 

North West Great Basin Association, Sophie Sheppard, CA 

Northern Nevada Racing Association, Patty Melanovich, 

NV 

Northern Title, Lori Thornock, ID 

Northtree Fire Int, Steve Rife, CA 

Northwest Industrial Gas Users, Executive Director, Paula 

E. Pyron, OR 

Northwest Natural Gas Company, Attorney, Susan Bergles, 

MD 

NV State Museum - Anthropology Program, NV 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX A – FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION 

A-27 

NV Trophy Hunts, Tony Diebold, NV 

Occidental Energy Marketing Inc., Larry Jenkins, TX 

Occidental Energy Marketing Inc., Porter K. Ryan, TX 

Okazaki Living Trust, CA 

Oneok Inc., C. David Crisp, OK 

OR Wild Conservation & Restoration Coordinator, Doug 

Heiken, OR 

Oregon Farm Bureau, President, Barry Bushue, OR 

Oregon Idaho Utilities, Doug Musgrave, ID 

Oregon Natural Desert Assoc – Portland, Staff Attorney, 

Becker, Dave, OR 

Oregon-California Trails Association, Bill Robinson, MO 

Oregon-California Trails Association, Gail Robinson, MO 

Oregon-California Trails Association, National Trails 

Preservation Officer, David Jon Welch, MO 

Oro Vaca Inc., Thomas May, CO 

Owen M. Casperson Family Trust, C/O Dottie Casperson, 

Trustee, Dottie and Craig Casperson, ID 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Keith T. Sampson, CA 

Pacific Power & Light Company, Jay Neil, OR 

Pacific West Financial Corp, NV 

Paiute Pipeline Company, Vice Pres/Gen Manager, Edward 

C. Mcmurtrie, NV 

Paul Lundell, UT 

PBS&J, Ron Walker, CA 

Pedroli Ranches, B. Paganini, CA 

Peregrine Properties, LLC, David H. Jamieson, NV 

Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Bruce Hinchey, WY 

Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Vice President, Cheryl 

Sorenson, WY 

Pipeline Contractors Association, TX 

Portland General Electric Company, Asst. Gen. Counsel, 

Loretta I. Mabinton, OR 

Portland General Electric Company, Manager, Gas 

Trading, Val Yildirok, OR 

Priestley Family Limited Partnership, OK 

Pritchett Unlimited LLC, NV 

Public Lands Foundation, Tom Allen, NV 

Public Utilities Commission of California, Jonathan A. 

Bromson, CA 

Puget Sound Energy Inc., Director, Federal Regulatory 

Affairs, Christine Philipps, WA 

Puget Sound Energy Inc., Manager, Natural Gas Resources, 

Bill Donahue, WA 

Pyllis Ann Bailey Trust, NV 

Quality for Animal Life, Dick Jones, UT 

Questar Gas Company, Gas Supply Manager, Tina Faust, 

UT 

Questar Gas Company, Senior Corporate Counsel, David S. 

Andersen, UT 

Questar Pipeline Company, Division Counsel, Tad M. 

Taylor, UT 

Questar Pipeline Company, Federal Regulatory Affairs 

Manager, L. Bradley Burton, UT 

Quinn River Crossing Ranch, LLC, CA 

R.C. Rochelle & Associates, Robert Rochelle, CA 

Rainbow Land & Livestock Co., Herbert Minich, UT 

Real Estate Operations, University Of Wyoming Trustees, 

WY 

Redi Services, LLC, Jay Anderson, WY 

Redi Services, Laura Eklund, NV 

Redi Services, Scott Burke, NV 

Rev Kenneth & Shirley Kay Revocable Trust, CA 

Richard H. Egger Living Trust and the Carol J. Egger 

Living Trust, Et. Al. Richard H. Egger and Carol J. 

Egger, NV 

Richard P. Kiely Trust Richard Kiely, OR 

Richard R. Rasmussen Trust, UT 

RK Excavating, Ryan Kautz, CA 

Rocky Mountain Power, Assist. Gen. Counsel, R. Jeff 

Richards, UT 

Rocky Mountain Power, Gateway West Project Manager, 

Pam Anderson, UT 

Rod J. & Lori Cushman Trusts, UT 

Roman Catholic Bishop of Reno, NV 

Roy Echeverria Family Trust, NV 

Ruby Pipeline LLC, Lynn Christensen, CO 

Ruby Pipeline LLC, Dan Gredvig, CO 

Ruby Pipeline LLC, Bill Healy, CO 

Ruby Pipeline LLC, Nicole Pedigo, CO 

Ruby Pipeline LLC, Floyd Robertson, CO 

Ruby Pipeline LLC, Francisco Tarin, CO 

S & C Holmgren Properties LLC, Charles Holmgren, UT 

S & C Holmgren Properties LLC, Spencer Holmgren, UT 

Sassass, Friends of the Blackrock, Brian and Brooke 

Covey, NV 

Schadler Ranch, Inc., Robert Kelly Woodworth, OR 

Sierra Club, Toiyabe-Chapter, Chairman, Executive 

Committee, David A Hornbeck, NV 

Sierra Club, Toiyabe-Chapter, Dennis Ghiglieri, NV 

Sierra Club, Toiyabe-Chapter, Catherine Smith, NV 

Sierra Club, Toiyabe-Chapter, Rose Strickland, NV 

Sierra Club, Toiyabe-Chapter, David Von Seggern, NV 

Selmi Family Trust, NV 

Sempra Energy, Attorney, John R. Ellis, CA 

Sempra Energy, Attorney, Jonathan J. Newlander, CA 

Sempra Utilities, Regulatory Case Manager, Tanya 

Peacock, CA 

Shell Energy North America (US) LP, Amy Gold, TX 

Sherry A. Carter Trust, Sherry A. Carter, NV 

Shields Ltd., Anna Lord, NV 

Sierra Nevada Holding Company, Glade L. Hall, NV 

Silver City Land Co, LLC, Jill A. Pryor, Registered Agent, 

GA 

Sims Livestock Co., Martha P. Hoots, NV 

Smile 4U, Inc., Charlotte Abbott, WA 

Snowy Range, Inc., William Wade, WY 

Southwest Gas Corp., Senior Counsel, Keith A. Layton, 

NV 

Sprint Communications Co., LP, Charlene Kastanek, KA 

Stabb Living Trust, OR 

Stewart Land & Development LLC, UT 

Stoel Rives LLP, Aaron Courtney, OR 

Summers Land & Livestock LLC, Lee Summers, UT 

Sunrise Engineering, Chris Hershberger, AZ 

Sweeney Mining Rock and Sand LLC, NV 

Symbiotic Assets LLC, CA 

The Hideout 1000 LLC, Barry Swartz, UT 

The Nature Conservancy in Utah, State Director, Dave 

Livermore, UT 

The Utility Reform Network, Senior Attorney, Michel 

Peter Florio, Esq., CA 

The Wilderness Society, Resource Economist, CO 

Theodore G. Nelson Living Trust, Theodore Nelson, CA 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX A – FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION 

A-28 

Transcanada Gas Transmission, Northwest Corporation, 

Senior Counsel, Ellen A. Berman, OR 

Transwood, Inc., NV 

Twichell Family Trust Agreement, NV 

Uinta Livestock Grazing Partnership, Charles Rex, UT 

Ultra Resources, Inc. Vice President - Marketing Stuart E. 

Nance, TX 

Union Pacific Land Resource Co., Suzann Turner, TX 

UNR - Dept of Mining Eng - MS 173, Jaak Daemen, NV 

URS, Kathi Futoinck, OR 

USU Forest, Range & Wildlife Sciences, Neil West, UT 

Utah Crossroads, OR-CA Trails Assoc., Craig Fuller, UT 

Utah Environmental Congress, Kevin Mueller, UT 

Utah Wilderness Coalition, Coordinator, Wayne Hoskisson, 

UT 

Van Ness Feldman, PC, Emily Pitlick, WA 

Van Ness Feldman, PC, Pamela Anderson, WA 

Ven Bob Unger and Ida Cordelia Unger Family Trust 

Agreement, Ven and Ida Cordelia, Co-Trustees, NV 

Vernon & Dana Jennings Trust, NV 

Warm Creek Ranch Co., A. Sherman Lee, UT 

Warner H Stuart, Trustee Warner H Stuart Trust, ID 

Wells Rural Electric Company, Tommi Reynolds, NV 

Western Pacific Railroad Company, Property Tax 

Department, NE 

Western States Mineral Corp, New West Gold USA, Inc, 

NV 

Western Watersheds Project, Katie Fite, ID 

Western Watersheds Project, Jon Marvel, ID 

WH Pacific, Jack Butler, OR 

White Pine Lumber Company, Pierre A. Hascheff, NV 

White Pine Ranch, Pierre A. Hascheff, NV 

Willard Peak Meadows Inc., Jason Summers, UT 

William E Barlow Trust, UT 

Winidred Mendiboure, OR 

Winnemucca Farms, Inc., NV 

World Plus Entertainment, Richard Reid, AZ 

Wyoming Outdoor Council, Bruce Pendery, UT 

Wyoming Outdoor Council, Lisa McGee, WY 

Wyoming Pipeline Authority, Director, Brian Jeffries, WY 

Wyoming Pipeline Authority, Kellie Cairns Vlastos, WY 

Y & K Enterprises, LLC, Yer Xiong, GA 

Individuals

Charles Adams, OR 

Marion B. Afurong, CA 

Alexander Akkurt, AZ 

Gregg Walters Et Al, OR 

Jack and Florence Albertson, OR 

John and Susan Albertson, OR 

Steve and Nancy Albertson, OR 

Warren and Barbara Albertson, NV 

William L. Albulse, OR 

Eugene and Mary L. Alder, UT 

John and Patricia K. Allaire, UT 

Edward Allen, NV 

Michael Allen, ID 

Thomas Allen, OR 

Carlos F. Andersen, UT 

Gary Anderson, UT 

J. and Mary Anderson, OR 

Jason A. Anderson, UT 

Jay R. Anderson, WY 

David Andrews, CA 

John and Ethel Anundson, NV 

Benson Astle, UT 

Bill Astle, UT 

Scott T. Athay, TX 

Gary Atkin, UT 

W. G. Austin, NC 

Martin Dean and Helen Avery, NV 

Augusto Badillo, OR 

James Baird, OR 

Melissa Barker, WY 

Jerry Barr, NV 

Xzavier Barr, NV 

Eric Bastian, ID 

Eric E. Bastian Et. Ux., ID 

Ed Batalla, FL 

William V. Bate, UT 

Burt W. Baty, UT 

Ralph Baull, OR 

Easy L. and Alexandra Bearden, NV 

Sue Becker, CA 

Forrest Bell, NV 

Mike Bell, NV 

David Benard, UT 

Dale Benson, WY 

C. L. Suzanne Berchtold, CA 

James Beresovoy, NV 

Cliff L. Betton, UT 

Emily Leishman Beus, UT 

Marilyn Bickmore, UT 

Davie Bigelow, UT 

Joanne Bigman, OR 

Cory Bingham, UT 

Lyle W. Bingham, UT 

Richard J. and Adele Bingham, UT 

Christopher and B. Bishop, NV 

Kenneth Black, UT 

Freida Blackmon, IN 

Richard Blackmore, CA 

Jason and Nathen Blatzheim, NV 

James Bohler, NV 

Ryan Bonham, OR 

Joshua A. and Micayla L. Bonner, NV 

Chuck Bonomo, WY 

David Book, NV 

Joshua and Vanessa Borges, UT 

Wayne Dean and Marlene Bosworth, UT 

Richard and Elizabeth Bowen, IA 

Cori Bozeman, OR 

Ray A. and Marcia T. Bramble, UT 

Beverly Brazzanovich, NV 

Kenneth A. Bricker, NV 

T.C. and J.R. Bricker, NV 

Thomas C. and Carol Bricker, NV 

Earl Bridges, UT 

Ben Bridges, UT 

Clay Broadhead, WY 

Daniel Bromley, CA 

Robert H. Brooke, UT 

Jim Brown, CA 

Kenneth Buckingham, NV 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX A – FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION 

A-29 

Floyd Bunderson, ID 

Roy Bunderson, ID 

Ken and Bernie Burkholder, OR 

Ken Burkholder, OR 

David Burns, NV 

Joanne Burt Hunt and Garth C. Burt, UT 

Jack Butler, OR 

J. Darrell and Lavera Byram, UT 

Val M. Byram, UT 

Verl D. Byram, UT 

Gordon Cadd, CA 

Hugh and Lesa Cahill, OR 

Lewis Cain, CA 

Milo Cain, OR 

Henry J. Caldwell, OR 

Renae E. Call, UT 

Catherine Callaghan, OR 

Kent W. and Elaine F. Calvert, UT 

Tyler Carlson, WY 

John V. and Elaine S. Carruth, NV 

David Carter, NV 

John and Donna Carter, NV 

Curtis Cash, CA 

Jesus J. Castaneda, NV 

George Checketts, UT 

Carol Chichester, NV 

Lowell Chichester, NV 

Shirley Jean Choate, NV 

Lynn Clair Christensen, CA 

Michael and Geraldean Christopher, NV 

Rodney D. and Virginia M. St. Clair, ID 

Catherine Clark, NV 

Katherine Clark, OR 

Richard Farnsworth and Steve Clark, NV 

Kent Clement, ID 

Allison Clough, AZ 

Christopher Cokinos, UT 

Billo Comola, CA 

April M. Conner, UT 

Lillian Conner, WA 

Clyde H. Cook, ID 

F. Grant Cook, UT 

Hans and Judity Copek, MA 

Chad A. and Tracy E. Cornia, UT 

Cecil and Lena Courtney, NV 

William Courtney, NV 

Brian Covey, NV 

Lorieta Cowan, NV 

Stanford J. and Jeannie A. Cowley, NV 

Neil Cox, UT 

Ginger Cramblet-Macklin, OR 

Keni D. Craven, UT 

John Crawford, Jr., NV 

William and Marilyn Creveling, NV 

Andy Kit Crozier, UT 

Karen Crozier, UT 

Kelly Crozier, UT 

Lorna Crozier, UT 

Max Crozier, 

Laura Cunningham, NV 

Laura Curtin, CA 

Darrin J. and Angela Cushman, UT 

Glenna Jo Cutler, UT 

R. C. Cutten, CA 

Tom and Jessica Damsen, CA 

Jeff Daniels, OR 

Bruce E. Davis, UT 

Dwight Davis, UT 

Jeri Davis, CA 

Laurel Davis, UT 

Robert G. and Leslie Davis, UT 

Roger Davis, CA 

Margaret Dean, CA 

Doanld F. Degroot, CO 

Abe Dejonge, OR 

Frederick Davis Dellinger, OR 

Robert and Debra R. Depaoli, NV 

John and Wanda Derra, OR 

Serein Diaz, AZ 

Denver Dickerson, NV 

Ken Dillree, UT 

Bryan Dixon, UT 

Charles H. Dodd, CA 

Georgia V. Douglas, NV 

Chuck Duff, NV 

Alex T. and Linda E. Dufurrena, NV 

Ron and Trudie Dymak, UT 

Daniel B. Eastman, UT 

Max Eddy, UT 

Sherri Gayle Edwards, UT 

Theodore M. and Helen S. Edwards, UT 

Chris and Richard A. Eggli, UT 

Gregory Eisen, NV 

Steve and Sheri Eklund-Brown, NV 

Nadine C. Ekstrom, OR 

Ray K. Elges, NV 

Don Eliason, ID 

Michael and Patricia Ellifritz, NV 

Fred Lee and Nona May Ellis, UT 

Kevin Emmerich, NV 

Brenda Ensign, UT 

Marc K. Ensign, UT 

Marc K. Ensign, UT 

Charisse Erickson, UT 

Fernando Esparza, UT 

Fernando Esparza, UT 

Leonard Esparza, UT 

Prince Estalilla, CA 

Bob and Billie Evans, OR 

Charles Sr. and Joanne Evans, NV 

Jerry and Taunie Evans, OR 

Kris and Cole Evans, UT 

Tony L. Ewing, CA 

David Fagnant, WY 

Royce Thailduong Fhan, UT 

Jacqueline Farless, OR 

Robert Favere, UT 

Mechelle and Doug Feldkamp, OR 

Ray Finch, OR 

Phil Finkel, CA 

Laura Fisher, UT 

Arnold and Susan Fitzgerald, TX 

Con and Sally Fitzgerald, OR 

Patrick Fitzgerald, CA 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX A – FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION 

A-30 

Lee Fledderjohann, OR 

Nancy M. Flores, NV 

Dennis and Andrea Flynn, OR 

Tillie Flynn, OR 

Lee C. Folkman, UT 

Robert C. Folkman, UT 

Rick and Lynnae Folson, OR 

Eric Fontenot, OR 

Wilford L. Forsberg, UT 

Darrell E. and Virginia H. Frazier, UT 

Jacqueline Freshwater, UT 

Barbara C. Frost, UT 

Natalie N. Gaddis, IL 

James F. and Jeannette L. Gansberg, OR 

Shantel Garcia, WY 

Quentin Gardner, ID 

Ronald James Garner, VA 

Bud Garrett, OR 

Colleen Rambo-Garrett and James Garrett, OR 

Lyle and Frankie Garrett, OR 

Mike L. Garrett, OR 

Steve and Martin Gartiez, NV 

Amalia Garza, UT 

Robert G. Gates, UT 

John Geddie, NM 

Charles and Patricia Gentry, CA 

Patricia W. and Wayne Gibbs, UT 

Noel C. and Elizabeth W. Gill, UT 

Alice Iverson Gladwill, CA 

Patricia J. Glasgow, NV 

Bradford and Danny Glover, UT 

Lathan and Tammie Godfrey, NV 

Christina Gonzalez, NV 

Robert and Marian Gooch, NV 

Willard and Karen Gooch, NV 

Jere and Beatrice Goss, OR 

Joan Elizabeth Graham, NV 

Kenneth Graham, NV 

B. Granger, OR 

C. Val Grant, UT 

Barry Gray, OR 

J. Patrick Gray, NV 

Robert and Sylvia A. Gray, NV 

Dorothy Reynolds Gribble, MO 

Dave and Terrie Griffith, UT 

Thomas Griffith, CA 

George Grippen, UT 

Neil Grohs, OR 

Phil Grohs, OR 

Jack Guidera, CA 

Larry and Don Guisasola, NV 

Sherrill D. Guisasola, NV 

Gerald Gulley, NV 

Ben H. and Annette Hadfield, UT 

David E. Hadley, UT 

Rod and Leeanna Hadley, OR 

Allan Hahn, OR 

Margaret Hales, CA 

Darwin R. Halling, UT 

Joann Hana, NV 

Robert Hannum, CA 

Dennis E. and Cuma H. Hansen, UT 

Dennis E. and Cuma H. Hansen, UT 

Reed Hansen, ID 

Samuel W. Hansen, UT 

Chris and Edna S. Hardy, UT 

Darrell T. and Marilyn B. Hargis, UT 

David and Ila Dawn Harmer, UT 

James O. Harris, CA 

Richard and Jane M. Harris, AZ 

Richard C. and Jane M. Harris, AZ 

Jay and Kthleen Harrison, UT 

Harold Hartman, OR 

James and Louise Hayhurst, ID 

Melvin and Judith J. Hein, CA 

Lindsay K. Henderson, UT 

Mark Henderson, NV 

Carl T. Henry, UT 

Janet Hess, UT 

Gordon Hevern, OR 

Mary Hickman, WA 

Dennis and Janis Hitt, OR 

Dennis Hitt, OR 

Bill and Tina Hodge, CA 

Sheila Holloway, OR 

Spencer P. Holmgren Jr., UT 

Jerry Hooper, NV 

Don and Helen Horsley, OR 

Harold and Beverly Hotchkiss, OR 

Ray Houlan, OR 

James Howe, CA 

Fred A. and Mary A. Howell, NV 

Rachelle Huddleston, OR 

Wilbur N. Hudson III, AZ 

Kenneth and Rosemarie Huff, NV 

Brendan Hughes, CA 

Bobbie Ann Hunsaker, UT 

Michael S. Hunsaker, UT 

John Hussa, CA 

L. Huttman, NV 

Gholam Jabari, TX 

David Jamieson, NV 

Louis and Penita Reys Jean, NJ 

Alice A. Jefferson, OR 

Peter Jenks, UT 

Bill and Vicki Jensen, UT 

Brenna Jensen, UT 

Lawrence Jensen, UT 

Linda Jensen, UT 

Jordan B. Jeppson, WA 

Steven Dallas Jeppson, UT 

Virgil Jochin, OR 

Kevin and Denise John, UT 

Bill Johnson, UT 

Cindy Johnson, UT 

Everett and Pansy M. Johnson, NV 

Kathy M. Johnson, UT 

Laurie Robert Johnson, UT 

Thad and Jennifer Johnson, OR 

Carol Jones, CA 

David B. Jones, PA 

Jess and Lois Jones, CA 

Judi Munk Jorgensen, UT 

Todd and Susan Josi, OR 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX A – FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION 

A-31 

Carolyn Julian, OR 

Dennis Kalina, OR 

Janis Kalina, OR 

Dennis Kalins, OR 

Bennie L. and Betty Kay, UT 

Rudy Keci, WY 

Helen M. Keen-Moore, NV 

L.D. Kenneth, NC 

David Kenney, OR 

Galen W. Kester, UT 

David and Patricia Kettles, NV 

Bridie Kiely, OR 

Matthew and Marlene King, CA 

Beverley Anne Kinnaman, OR 

James W. Kinney, NV 

Dale D. Klum, WA 

Bill Klun, WY 

Scott W. and Heather A. Knowles, UT 

Peter Knudson, UT 

Lois Koefoed, OR 

Constance Koller, OR 

Alfred Kosky, CA 

Wayne J. Kotter, UT 

L. Kraeme, CO 

Curtis Kramer, UT 

Florence Kreutzian, NV 

Keith and Janet Kubichek, NV 

Paul Kuhel, AZ 

Vance Tolman Lamborn, UT 

Martin Landa, OR 

Juan A. Laos, CA 

Arnold N. and Debbie K. Larson, WY 

Bliss Law, UT 

Lee Lawrence, NV 

Orval Layton, OR 

Eric Douglas Lee, AK 

Richard E. Lee, UT 

Herman Lehman, CA 

Bruce and Carolyn D. Leishman, UT 

Lana Leishman, MN 

Nathan Leishman, UT 

Roland Leishman, UT 

John Lemme, UT 

Ivan Leonhardt, ID 

Bobby Lewis, WY 

Sarah J. Lindley, NV 

Lance Linker, CA 

Fern and Fred Linton, WY 

Edward and Marilyn Livingston, OR 

Bill and Ginni Lloyd, UT 

Lyle B. and Julie Lofthouse, UT 

Lydie Looker, NV 

Michael Looker, NV 

Glenn Lorton, OR 

Stephen A. Loughry, NV 

Fern and Vinton Loveness, CA 

Jeff Lowe, WY 

Don and Doris Lucas, OR 

Don Lucas, OR 

Ed and Wendi Lutz, CA 

Orville Floyd Lynch, NV 

Rod Lyon, OR 

William and Blanche Macdonald, NV 

Charlene Maeger (Hicks), OK 

Richardo D. and Rene C. Maestrejuan, NV 

Teo R. and Sarah D. Maestrejuan, NV 

Dale L. and Dawna B. Major, UT 

Tom Malugani, OR 

Linda Manley, NV 

George J. Mansfeld, ID 

Curtis L. Marble, UT 

Leo J. and Naomi E. Marchand, NV 

Sean J. Marcinik, NV 

Rosa Margotta, NV 

Duane Masters Sr., NV 

Jeff A. Matthes, UT 

Monte T. and Janae F. Matue, UT 

Chris Matve, UT 

Scott May, UT 

Joseph Mazzoni, CA 

Helen Kathleen Koch Mcafee, UT 

Con J. Mcauliffe, OR 

Eddie Mcauliffe, OR 

Dennis and Catherine Mcclellen, OR 

Michael and Peggy Mcfailand, OR 

Leonard and Dolores Mcilroy, AZ 

Dan McKee, UT 

Carl and Brenda Mckenzie, CA 

Paul Mckinnon, UT 

Robert Mckinnon, NV 

James and Lisa Mcneill, NV 

James P. Mcnerney, CA 

Donald G. and Patricia Meldrum, NV 

Henry and Mary Mendoza, UT 

Thaddeus and Anne Metelski, AZ 

Sheri R. Metzzler, NV 

Linda Michaelson, OR 

George L. and Jacqueline R. Miller, NV 

James E. Miller, UT 

Luke Miller, NV 

Neal and Diane Miller, CA 

Steven Ray Miller, UT 

Brett Milligan, UT 

Richard and Linda Mills, OR 

Leon John Minasian, CA 

Hilmi Mohamad, NV 

John and Theresa Molthan, OR 

Mary Monahan, PA 

Jesus Monroy, NV 

Suzanne M. Montero, NV 

Louis A. Morfin, NV 

Ruben and Carolina Morfin, NV 

Harvey R. Morgan, UT 

Paul De Morgan, UT 

Bill Moser, NV 

Jola Mott, NV 

Louise “Mickey” Moulton, OR 

Louise Garrett Moulton, OR 

Susanna M. Mrosek, CA 

Mariner Munk, UT 

Monte R. and Karen Munns, UT 

Donald Myers, SD 

Norma Myers, NV 

Alicia Nakamura, NV 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX A – FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION 

A-32 

Tina Nappe, NV 

Kevin Estelle Nelson, UT 

Reed Nelson, UT 

Rodney J. Nelson, UT 

Paulette Ness, NV 

Douglas and Tamera Newman, UT 

Scott Newman, UT 

Nicoli G. Nicholas, CA 

Nicoli Nicholas Jr., CA 

Nick Nielsen, UT 

Phyllis Nielsen, UT 

Sidney J. Norman, UT 

Wade Norman, UT 

Gary Nuffer, UT 

Kevin O'Brian, OR 

Henry O'Keeffe, OR 

Tim O’Sullivan, OR 

Curtis Olsen, UT 

Arley and Beverly Osborn, NV 

Mike O'Sullivan, OR 

James T. Palmer, UT 

Antonio and Audrey Palmieri, CA 

Leroy G. and Donetta Parkinson, UT 

Bob and Winnie Parsons, OR 

Susan Parsons, OR 

Tony Pate, OR 

Manji Patel, OR 

Shital and Hitesh Patel, CA 

Mike Patrick, OR 

Arthur W. Patton, NV 

George and Helen Paul, CA 

Enid Fishburn Peters and Marsha Peters, UT 

Bruce P. and Julie R. Peterson, UT 

Everett Peterson, OR 

Lewis Petterson, UT 

Lewis Petterson, UT 

Wendell K. Petterson, UT 

Francis Phillip, NV 

Jerry Pierce, WY 

Jim Platt, OR 

Cliff Ponsock, NV 

Windy Ponsock, NV 

Orson L. Poulsen, UT 

Toni Prada, OR 

Joni Preston, CA 

Melvin A. and Catherine B. Pryor, CA 

Blake D. and Jodie F. Pulsipher, UT 

Roger and Colette Pulsipher, UT 

P/T Pungprakearti, CA 

Lanny Putnam, UT 

Christina Quigley, NV 

Diane Raine, UT 

Donald Rajnus, OR 

Michael Raketich, CA 

Doug Reader, UT 

Kenneth W. Reed, WY 

Merlin L. Reeder, UT 

Morgan L. Reeder, UT 

Rob Reish, OR 

Robert Reish, OR 

Kevin B. and Mollie N. Rhea, OR 

Zack Rhoads, WY 

Deareld Rich, UT 

Blaine B. Richins, UT 

Thomas and Diana Rios, NV 

Mark L. Robbins, NV 

Charles W. and Shirley L. Roberts, FL 

Bill and Gail Robinson, WY 

Luke Robinson, OR 

Peter Robinson, CO 

Stuart and Majorie Robinson, NV 

Fredrick Arthur Rodriguez, CA 

Vicki Sue Rogal, CA 

Kathy Adair Rogers, CA 

Jesse Ronald, Jr. and Helen Kathleen Rock, UT 

Colleen Roniero, UT 

Connard O. Roper, UT 

Sherry Rose, OR 

Dorothy M. Rosenfeld, CA 

Gerald Roskelley, UT 

Christine Ross, UT 

Dave Ross, NV 

James and Lenora Ross, OR 

Patrysha Ross-Gobrick, NV 

Lucille JP Rossetto, OR 

Lucille Rossotto, OR 

Ted C. Roundy, UT 

Paula Rowles, NV 

Ramona Rukavina, UT 

Elizabeth Ryan, WA 

Paul Sabesky, CA 

Bonnie Samms, NV 

Buck Sampson, NV 

Pedro and Anita Sandoval, NV 

Tony J. Santos, Trustee, NV 

Gerald and Judith Scanlan, OR 

Frank R. Scheubel, CO 

Tom Schopper, NV 

Wallace J. Jr. and Jeanette Schulthess, UT 

Wallace J. Schulthess, UT 

Kenneth Schwartz, UT 

David Schweickert, CA 

Leroy and Grace P. Seber, UT 

Lloyd Seely, OR 

Bruno and Frances Selmi, NV 

Giovanni and Frances Selmi, NV 

Michael Shannon, OR 

Steve Shettler, NV 

Mike Shiffermiller, WY 

Claude and John Shipley, NV 

Larry E. Shires, UT 

Jess R. Showell, ID 

Mike Shults, OR 

David and Ila Shumway, UT 

Chip Sibbernsen, UT 

Bill Sims, NV 

John Sims, WA 

Suzan K. Smigel, CA 

Dennis L. Smith, CA 

Duane Smith, UT 

Eugene Smith, ID 

Gary Smith, TN 

Larrimore Smith, CA 

Lynn Smith, UT 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX A – FINAL EIS DISTRIBUTION 

A-33 

Michael Smith, UT 

Paul G. and Myrtle Virginia Smith, NV 

Phillip and Tori Smith, UT 

Ronald J. Smith, UT 

Sandra Nessler Smith, UT 

Walter and Dorothy Smith, OR 

Terry Sodorff, OR 

Joe Sonei, CA 

Krystal Spinder, OR 

Edwin Stastny, Jr., OR 

Glenn Dee Stauffer, UT 

Timothy Stevens, NV 

Myron and Judith Steward, OR 

Fred R. Stewart, UT 

Robert Stewart, UT 

Ruth Stibre, WA 

Josephine Stimac, NV 

Harold S. and Mary E. Stock, UT 

James V. and Jean Roberts Stokes, UT 

Jean C. Stokes, UT 

Charles L. and Colleen Stratton, UT 

Brian Strawn, OR 

Allen Strong, NV 

Adam G. Stuart, UT 

Brent Stuart, UT 

Doug and Valerie Stuart, UT 

Gary W. Stuart, UT 

Russell Stuart, UT 

James K. and Jane Studebaker, NV 

Mark Stuebe, NV 

Mark E. Sullivan, WA 

Edward Ray and Ruth E. Summers, UT 

Zan Summers, UT 

Lourdes and Jaime Sunga, CA 

Joan Supplee, NV 

Willard and Loella Sweet, NV 

Darian Swig, CA 

Jim Swinehart, CA 

Frank P. and Peggy Szostek, UT 

Daniel F. Tams, CA 

Menas Tashjia, NV 

Warren and Joyce Taylor, OR 

Glen Thiede, NV 

Leslie Thomas, OR 

Grant L. Thompson, CA 

Joel Thomson, UT 

Orson Tingey, NV 

Charles E. and Patricia Tinney, UT 

Cathi Tipton, NV 

Ken Tipton, NV 

Richard H. Tomko, FL 

C.A. Towers, OR 

Gladys Townsend, NV 

James E. Tregellas, NV 

Doug Troutman, OR 

Joel R. Turnbow, NV 

Myron Tybo, NV 

Hans Van Der Hock, NV 

Rich and Shari Vandyke, UT 

Francis E. Vargo, MT 

Frank Vaughn, OR 

Vance Vesco, NV 

John G. and Donna M. Vineis, NV 

Juventino Virgen, UT 

Gerald Vitolo, OH 

Gary L. Voight, OR 

John and Denise Wagner, NV 

Dee G. Walker, UT 

Don D. Walker, UT 

Ladd H. and Marilyn M. Walker, UT 

Bryan J. Ward, UT 

Jerrold M. Ward, UT 

Kendell J. Ward, ID 

Legrand B. and Connie Ward, UT 

Scott Warner, OR 

Douglas Warnick, NV 

Elaine and Reynold Watkins, UT 

Blanche T. Webb, UT 

Chris Webb, UT 

Curt Webb, UT 

Paul J. Weber, FL 

Barbara Weed, OR 

Harold G. and Deanna Weeks, UT 

Kayte Wehinger, OR 

Gladys Weinert-Townsend, NV 

Lance J. Westmoreland, UT 

Beverly E. White, NV 

Lew E. White, UT 

Kent H. and Trudy Whiteman, UT 

Frank Whitman, NV 

Clifford and Victoria Williams, NV 

Dale Hurley and Vicki Williams, NV 

Dick and Jean Williams, NV 

Larry R. Williams, UT 

Richard Lee and Emily Williams, UT 

Robert Y. Williams, NV 

William Williams, NV 

Rosann Wilson, UT 

Lt. Wiltse, ID 

Lloyd Wood, UT 

Barbara M. Wright, UT 

Quinn Yarbrough, NV 

Kent L. Yates, UT 

Kent Yates, UT 

Stephen Yeoman, UT 

Ken Young, WY 

Karen Zamudio, OR 

Scott Zerkle, UT 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX AA 

Comments on the Draft EIS and Responses 

• Public Meeting 

• Federal 

• State Agency 

• Local Agency/Official/Group 

• Native American 

• Non-Governmental Organization 

• Individual 

• Applicant 

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
                 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Public Meeting 

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-1

PUBLIC MEETING 1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-2

PUBLIC MEETING 1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-3

PUBLIC MEETING 1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-4

PUBLIC MEETING 1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-5

PUBLIC MEETING 1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-6

PUBLIC MEETING 1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-7

PUBLIC MEETING 1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-8

PUBLIC MEETING 1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-9

PUBLIC MEETING 1 

PM-1.1 A summary of sites is presented in EIS section 4.10.1. Any historic properties that would be adversely affected would be subject to mitigation. Ruby has committed to work to obtain the location of this grave and reroute the pipeline to avoid any impact to it. 

PM-1.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-10

PUBLIC MEETING 1 

PM-1.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-11

PUBLIC MEETING 1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-12

PUBLIC MEETING 1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-13

PUBLIC MEETING 2 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-14

PUBLIC MEETING 2 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-15

PUBLIC MEETING 2 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-16

PUBLIC MEETING 2 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-17

PUBLIC MEETING 2 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-18

PUBLIC MEETING 2 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-19

PUBLIC MEETING 2 

PM-2.1 Section 4.3 (water resources) has been revised to include updated information provided by Ruby. PM-2.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-20

PUBLIC MEETING 2 

PM-2.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-21

PUBLIC MEETING 2 

PM-2.2 The economic impact of and tax revenues from the project are addressed in section 4.9.6. Residents of the counties that the project would cross would not be taxed because of the project. Equipment and supplies would be moved along local roads to the project site. All roads would be maintained or repaired to previous condition. See section 4.9.4. 

PM-2.1 PM-2.2

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-22

PUBLIC MEETING 2 

PM-2.3 See sections 4.9.2, 4.9.3, 4.9.4, and 4.9.6 for an updated discussion of the impacts of the Vya Construction Camp on housing, public services, transportation, and local economies. Ruby and the construction contractor are in the process of contracting with local business owners in Cedarville and Alturas, California for shipments of food (the camp would prepare/provide workers with breakfast, dinner, and a bag lunch), fuel, and ice along with their local deliveries. 

PM-2.3

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-23

PUBLIC MEETING 2 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-24

PUBLIC MEETING 2 

PM-2.4 See sections 4.9.2, 4.9.3, 4.9.4, and 4.9.6 for an updated discussion of the impacts of the Vya Construction Camp on housing, public services, transportation, and local economy. PM-2.4

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-25

PUBLIC MEETING 2 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-26

PUBLIC MEETING 2 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-27

PUBLIC MEETING 2 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-28

PUBLIC MEETING 2 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-29

PUBLIC MEETING 2 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-30

PUBLIC MEETING 2 

PM-2.5 Hardcopies of the draft EIS were sent to all persons that 

identified to the FERC a problem with the CD. PM-2.6 Cultural resources studies have been conducted at the appropriate level for all project areas and alternative routes. The Section 106 process, through which cultural resources are identified, impacts evaluated, and treatment addressed, will continue after the final EIS is issued. Recent updates to the status of the cultural resources studies are provided in section 4.10.1. 

PM-2.5 PM-2.6

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-31

PUBLIC MEETING 2 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-32

PUBLIC MEETING 2 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-33

PUBLIC MEETING 2 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-34

PUBLIC MEETING 2 

PM-2.7 Burial grounds, or other culturally sensitive sites, should be identified through the Section 106 process and the ethnographic studies that are ongoing. Ruby has committed to avoiding or mitigating culturally sensitive sites. PM-2.8 Water impacts are discussed in EIS section 4.3. As described in section 4.7.2.2, no indirect downstream impacts on Mahogany Creek or Summit Lake will occur and no impacts on Lahontan cutthroat trout populations utilized by the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe are anticipated. 

PM-2.7 PM-2.8

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-35

PUBLIC MEETING 2 

PM-2.9 See response to PM-2.7. PM-2.10 See response to PM-2.8. 

PM-2.9 PM-2.10

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-36

PUBLIC MEETING 2 

PM-2.10

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-37

PUBLIC MEETING 2 

PM-2.11 See sections 4.9.1, 4.9.4, and 4.9.6 for an updated discussion of the impacts of the Vya Construction Camp on population and employment, transportation, and local economy. Ruby estimates that up to 15 percent of the workforce would be local hires. Ruby has indicated that approximately 28 full-time workers would be hired to support construction workers that would be lodging at the Vya camp, and that Ruby’s intent would be to hire some of the workers locally. We expect that off-hours traffic to nearby areas would be minimal due to planned work schedules. Ruby and the construction contractor are in the process of contracting with local business owners in Cedarville and Alturas, California, for shipments of food (the camp would prepare/provide workers with breakfast, dinner, and a bag lunch), fuel, and ice along with local deliveries. PM-2.12 See section 4.9.3 for an updated discussion of the impacts of the Vya Construction Camp on public services. Ruby has indicated that it will have medical, fire, and police personnel and equipment on-site; however, depending on the nature of the emergency, may also utilize local services. Ruby has developed a fire plan that would be implemented should a fire occur. We have made a recommendation in section 4.9.3 that Ruby coordinate with local fire responders and land managing agencies to revise its fire plan to meet the standards of all agencies with fire authority in the project area. 

PM-2.11 PM-2.12

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-38

PUBLIC MEETING 2 

PM-2.13 Section 4.9.3 has been updated to address this issue. Ruby does not anticipate that a significant percentage of family members would accompany construction workers during the project, and no school-age children would be allowed to lodge at the Vya Construction Camp. Thus, we conclude there would be no impact on area schools. PM-2.14 The final EIS has been updated to address the issue of water supply; see sections 4.3.1.3 and 4.9.3. One water well currently exists on the southeastern portion of the parcel. Ruby would use this well for potable water supply. Ruby already has obtained a permit for this well from the State of Nevada Division of Water Rights (permit number 78382) (see section 4.3.1.3 for additional information on the well at the Vya Construction Camp). The generation of fugitive dust during construction activities would be reduced through the application of appropriate control measures; see Appendix O for specific control measures.PM-2.15 See response to PM-2.3.PM-2.16 See response to comment PM-2.11.

PM-2.12 PM-2.13 PM-2.14 PM-2.15 PM-2.16

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-39

PUBLIC MEETING 2 

PM-2.17 Section 4.9.6 has been revised to further explain ad valorem taxes. Ad valorem taxes are property taxes that would be assessed on Ruby per year and would be allocated to affected states, and then to affected counties according to the proportion of miles of the project within each jurisdiction during the pipeline’s operational period, which is estimated to be 50 years. 

PM-2.16 PM-2.17 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-40

PUBLIC MEETING 2 

PM-2.18 Ruby would be responsible for proven construction and operation related damages. The effect that a pipeline easement may have to property values is a damage-related issue that would be negotiated between the parties during the easement acquisition process. The pipeline would be designed, installed, tested, and maintained such that the chance of a pipeline rupture would be extremely remote. However, if a pipeline rupture were to occur beneath a waterbody, spring, or groundwater source, natural gas would percolate through the soil and sediments underlying the stream, rise through the water, and rapidly dissipate into the atmosphere. Considering the narrow width of the majority of the waterbodies that would be crossed and their relatively shallow depth, most of the natural gas would be rapidly released to the atmosphere, and any change in water chemistry or quality would be minor. PM-2.19 See response to PM-2.18. 

PM-2.18 PM-2.19

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-41

PUBLIC MEETING 2 

PM-2.19

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-42

PUBLIC MEETING 2 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-43

PUBLIC MEETING 2 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-44

PUBLIC MEETING 2 

PM-2.20 See table 4.9.1-2 in section 4.9.1 for the estimated construction workforce for the project by spread. The Vya construction Camp will provide living quarters for up to 650 nonlocal pipeline workers. PM-2.21 Section 4.9.4 has been updated with this information. Ruby is negotiating with the Lake County Commission to determine if Ruby could assist in improving the condition of the Goose Lake Railroad through a grant process called ConnectOregon II. If the Lake County Commission accepts Ruby’s offer and the railroad upgrades allow, Ruby would be granted approval to utilize the railroad for the transportation of pipeline equipment and supplies to the project area. 

PM-2.20 PM-2.21

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-45

PUBLIC MEETING 2 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-46

PUBLIC MEETING 2 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-47

PUBLIC MEETING 3 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-48

PUBLIC MEETING 3 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-49

PUBLIC MEETING 3 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-50

PUBLIC MEETING 3 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-51

PUBLIC MEETING 3 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-52

PUBLIC MEETING 3 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-53

PUBLIC MEETING 3 

PM-3.1 See response to comment PM-2.5 PM-3.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-54

PUBLIC MEETING 3 

PM-3.2 The environmental impacts of the project are discussed throughout the final EIS. Cultural resources and tribal lands are discussed in section 4.10.

PM-3.1 PM-3.2

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-55

PUBLIC MEETING 3 

PM-3.3 Neither overall project approval nor a particular route has been pre-determined by the FERC. A project's need is established by the FERC when it determines whether the project is required by the public convenience and necessity. The FERC's Certificate Policy Statement provided guidance as to how the Commission evaluates proposals for new construction, and establishes criteria for determining whether there is a need for a proposed project and whether it will serve the public interest. During our review of Ruby's proposal, we evaluated, without prejudice, several route alternatives and variations to the proposed route to address specific landowner and/or environmental concerns with the proposed route. We recommended in the draft EIS that Ruby incorporate 3 route alternatives and 15 route variations into the final pipeline route. Ruby has formally modified its proposed route to adopt all 3 alternatives and 15 variations, and as such, they are now a part of Ruby’s proposed project. These alternatives and variations are discussed in section 3 of the final EIS. The project was not “purposely designed” to “rip apart” sagebrush habitat, although impacts to this habitat will occur, as discussed in section 4.4 (vegetation). PM-3.4 See response to comment PM-2.5 

PM-3.2 PM-3.3 PM-3.4

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-56

PUBLIC MEETING 3 

PM-3.5 Impacts on biological resources including sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit, antelope, and mule deer are discussed in sections 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7. Ruby consulted with the BLM, USFS, and various other federal, state, and local agencies for recommendations to prevent the introduction or spread of noxious and invasive weeds. Based on the agency recommendations, Ruby developed a Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan (Appendix T) to minimize and control the spread of noxious and invasive species. We believe that by Ruby’s implementation of the procedures identified in section 4.4.6 and the Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan, the spread of noxious and invasive species would be minimized and controlled. 

PM-3.4 PM-3.5

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-57

PUBLIC MEETING 3 

PM-3.6 The visual impacts associated with the proposed project, both short and long term, are discussed in section 4.8.4. PM-3.7 Section 4.3.2.5 has been revised to include updated information related to hydrostatic test water use provided by Ruby. 

PM-3.5 PM-3.6 PM-3.7

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-58

PUBLIC MEETING 3 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-59

PUBLIC MEETING 3 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-60

PUBLIC MEETING 3 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-61

PUBLIC MEETING 3 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-62

PUBLIC MEETING 3 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-63

PUBLIC MEETING 3 

PM-3.8 Impacts on water resources are discussed in section 4.3. Impacts on wildlife are discussed in section 4.5. Impacts on special status species are discussed in 4.7. A summary of cultural resource surveys and Native American consultations is included in section 4.10. 

PM-3.8 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-64

PUBLIC MEETING 3 

PM-3.9 As discussed in section 4.9.3, Ruby is working with local law enforcement agencies to ensure that security would be adequate to meet the needs of the camp without creating an undue burden on the surrounding community. PM-3.10 Ruby and federal agencies are working with tribes to identify and protect traditional resources along the pipeline route that are important to the tribes. Potential impacts on traditional foods, medicines, and other subsistence resource, as well as sacred sites and possible burials are discussed in section 3.4.12, 3.4.13, 4.4.9, and 4.10. Construction impacts on big game species are discussed in section 4.5.2. Ruby would require its employees to review and sign an orientation document that addresses culturally sensitive locations. Hunting may be impacted along the pipeline route during construction and reclamation; see section 2.3.1.3 and sections 4.5 and 4.8.1.1 for Ruby's plans to minimize such impacts. 

PM-3.9 PM-3.10

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-65

PUBLIC MEETING 3 

PM-3.11 The Section 106 process, through which cultural resources are identified, impacts evaluated, and treatment addressed, will continue after the final EIS is issued. Recent updates to the status of the cultural resources studies is provided in section 4.10.1. 

PM-3.11

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-66

PUBLIC MEETING 3 

PM-3.11

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-67

PUBLIC MEETING 3 

PM-3.12 See response to comment NA-3.8. PM-3.12

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-68

PUBLIC MEETING 3 

PM-3.12

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-69

PUBLIC MEETING 3 

PM-3.12

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-70

PUBLIC MEETING 3 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-71

PUBLIC MEETING 3 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-72

PUBLIC MEETING 3 

PM-3.13 Thank you for your comment. PM-3.13

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-73

PUBLIC MEETING 3 

PM-3.14 The Lahontan cutthroat trout is discussed in section 4.7.2.2. Raptors and migratory birds are discussed in section 4.5.5. 

PM-3.14

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-74

PUBLIC MEETING 3 

PM-3.15 Thank you for your comment. 

PM-3.14 PM-3.15

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-75

PUBLIC MEETING 3 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-76

PUBLIC MEETING 3 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-77

PUBLIC MEETING 4 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-78

PUBLIC MEETING 4 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-79

PUBLIC MEETING 4 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-80

PUBLIC MEETING 4 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-81

PUBLIC MEETING 4 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-82

PUBLIC MEETING 4 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-83

PUBLIC MEETING 4 

PM-4.1 Refer to section 4.3.3.3 for a discussion on compensation related to permanent wetland impacts and 4.8.1.1 and 4.8.1.3 for a discussion on grazing and agricultural land loss compensation. See sections 4.8.2.3 and 4.9.5 for a discussion on compensation related to private land loss of value and property value losses, respectively. 

PM-4.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-84

PUBLIC MEETING 4 

PM-4.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-85

PUBLIC MEETING 4 

PM-4.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-86

PUBLIC MEETING 4 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-87

PUBLIC MEETING 4 

PM-4.2 Landowners are encouraged to inform Ruby of failed land restoration. If Ruby does not respond to damages or failed restoration practices, the FERC may take action against Ruby to ensure issues are settled. 

PM-4.2 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-88

PUBLIC MEETING 4 

PM-4.2

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-89

PUBLIC MEETING 4 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-90

PUBLIC MEETING 4 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-91

PUBLIC MEETING 5 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-92

PUBLIC MEETING 5 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-93

PUBLIC MEETING 5 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-94

PUBLIC MEETING 5 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-95

PUBLIC MEETING 5 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-96

PUBLIC MEETING 5 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-97

PUBLIC MEETING 5 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-98

PUBLIC MEETING 5 

PM-5.1 Unanticipated Discovery Plans are Appendix J of the POD, most recently filed with FERC on November 4, 2009. Ruby has initiated a tribal monitor training program and hired tribal monitors, see EIS section 4.10.3. 

PM-5.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-99

PUBLIC MEETING 5 

PM-5.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-100

PUBLIC MEETING 5 

PM-5.2 Mineral resource locations, proximity to the project and 

mitigation are addressed in section 4.1.2. PM-5.2

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-101

PUBLIC MEETING 5 

PM-5.3 Artifact collection policies were designed according to 

the relevant standards and guidelines for each affected state; see section 4.10.1. Ruby has initiated a tribal monitor training program and hired tribal monitors, see section 4.10.3. 

PM-5.3

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-102

PUBLIC MEETING 5 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-103

PUBLIC MEETING 5 

PM-5.4 Thank you for your comment. PM-5.4

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-104

PUBLIC MEETING 5 

PM-5.5 Thank you for your comment. PM-5.5

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-105

PUBLIC MEETING 5 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-106

PUBLIC MEETING 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-107

PUBLIC MEETING 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-108

PUBLIC MEETING 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-109

PUBLIC MEETING 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-110

PUBLIC MEETING 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-111

PUBLIC MEETING 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-112

PUBLIC MEETING 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-113

PUBLIC MEETING 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-114

PUBLIC MEETING 7 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-115

PUBLIC MEETING 7 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-116

PUBLIC MEETING 7 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-117

PUBLIC MEETING 7 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-118

PUBLIC MEETING 7 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-119

PUBLIC MEETING 7 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-120

PUBLIC MEETING 7 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
PM-121

PUBLIC MEETING 7 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Federal 

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-1

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.1 Ruby has submitted a revised Hydrostatic Testing Plan and Fugitive Dust Control Plan and has further described water sources for dust control. Our augmented analysis of these new data is provided in sections 4.3.1.6 and 4.3.2.5 of the final EIS. Ruby stated that it would regulate the rate of withdrawal of test water to avoid adverse impacts on aquatic resources or downstream flows. Ruby’s Hydrostatic Test Plan states these rates would not exceed 2,500 gallons per minute and would not exceed 10 percent of the waterbody’s base flow rate at the time of water withdrawals.

FED-1.2 An analysis of groundwater impacts from hydrostatic testing and dust control is provided in section 4.3.1.6. Ruby has applied for the temporary use of water rights for water sources in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon. The states will determine whether water is available in the quantity that Ruby has requested. Any pumping activities would be subject to conditions imposed by the state engineer to minimize impact such as those identified in the comments. 

FED-1.1 FED-1.2 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-2

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.3 Ruby would not be authorized to obtain water from any source, including the Bear River, without obtaining the required permits and authorizations. Ruby would not be allowed to use the water where no water rights are available and would have to find other water sources where water rights are available. An analysis of surface water impacts from hydrostatic testing and dust control is provided in section 4.3.2.5. FED-1.4 See response to FED-1.2. FED-1.5 A discussion of noxious weed transfer and biocide use is provided in sections 4.4.6 and 4.3.2.5. FED-1.6 We are recommending that Ruby discharge all hydrostatic test water to a temporary sediment filtration and energy dissipation structure. A discussion regarding water discharge is provided in section 4.3.2.5. An example of an energy dissipation and filtration structure is provided in Appendix K. FED-1.7 Thank you for your comment. The text in section 4.8.1.1 has been revised to further describe impacts on grazing. FED-1.8 Access road impacts associated with the Sheldon and Black Rock route alternatives are discussed in EIS sections 3.4.12 and 3.4.13, respectively. Biological, cultural, and other resource impacts associated with access roads along Ruby's proposed route are discussed throughout the final EIS. 

FED-1.3 FED-1.4 FED-1.5 FED-1.6 FED-1.7 FED-1.8 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-3

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.9 The completed “mile-by-mile” habitat analysis is provided in Appendix M and discussed throughout the final EIS.FED-1.10 Recent updates to the status of the cultural resources studies are provided in section 4.10.1. Tribal consultation is discussed in section 4.10.3, and Native American concerns have been updated and are addressed throughout section 4. The Section 106 Process, through which cultural resources are identified, impacts evaluated, and treatment addressed (including any required monitoring plans), will continue after the EIS is issued. Information about the cultural resources and paleontological resources for the Sheldon and Black Rock Alternatives has been updated and are discussed in sections 3.4.12 and 3.4.13, respectively. FED-1.11 Ruby updated many of its construction and mitigation 

plans since the time the draft EIS was released. Updated plans are included as appendices to the final EIS.

FED-1.12 The final EIS has been updated with the most recent project information and studies available. The EIS is consistent with FERC style, formatting, and policy regarding NEPA evaluation of alternatives and different types of impacts, including cumulative impacts. Duration and significance of impacts are discussed throughout the various EIS resource sections.

FED-1.9 FED-1.10 FED-1.11 FED-1.12 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-4

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.13 Mining and other surface-disturbing projects that affect the same geographic area as the proposed project are discussed in section 4.13. The potential for wildfires as a result of construction of the pipeline is discussed in section 4.12.1. Wildfires are part of the ecological regime (not projects) and, as such, are considered part of the environmental baseline of the area. They are not discussed as separate projects with cumulative effects. FED-1.14 Conformance with BLM, USFS, and FWS land use plans is discussed in section 1.5.1.FED-1.15 The draft EIS does indeed discuss these issues. The proposed action is discussed in sections 1 and 2. Public scoping issues are discussed in section 1, while alternatives are discussed in section 3. Land Use, Recreation, Special interest Areas, and Visual Resources are discussed in section 4.8. The final EIS was augmented to update these discussions.FED-1.16 The potential for development of renewable energy, such as solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass, was discussed in section 3.2 of the draft EIS and are also discussed in section 3.2 of the final EIS.FED-1.17 Thank you for your comment. Section 3.4.12 provides our analysis of the Sheldon Route Alternative. It has been augmented with more detailed discussions of habitat, transportation, recreation, research projects, etc. The final EIS is 

not recommending that the Sheldon Route Alternative be constructed. Access roads associated with the proposed route on the Sheldon NWR are discussed in sections 4.8.2.1, 4.8.3.5, and 4.9.4. Ruby also prepared a traffic management plan that addresses access in and around the Sheldon NWR. This plan is included as an addendum to Ruby's general Transportation Plan in Appendix X. A discussion of the various conservation agreements is provided in sections 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7. Ruby has proposed to use the HDD method at the Hams Fork River, Bear River (East), and Bear River (West) crossings. The use of HDD is further discussed in sections 2.3.2.2 and 4.3.2.4. The most recent version of Ruby's Hydrostatic Test Plan is provided as Appendix K and is discussed in sections 4.3.1.6 and 4.3.2.5. 

FED-1.12 FED-1.13 FED-1.14 FED-1.15 FED-1.16 FED-1.17 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-5

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.18 Utah state lands purchased with federal aid funding are discussed in section 4.8.2.2. FED-1.19 Thank you for your comment. The right-of-way granting process for the Sheldon Route Alternative, including compatibility with NWR purpose and mission, is discussed in section 3.4.12. Our analysis was updated with information provided by the FWS, from this comment as well as other submittals. 

FED-1.18 FED-1.19 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-6

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.20 The final EIS is not recommending that the Sheldon Route Alternative be constructed. The Foskett Springs speckled dace inhabits Foskett and Dace springs, small desert springs located approximately 1.1 and 1.8 miles south of the Sheldon Route Alternative at MP 584.0, and impacts on occupied habitat are not anticipated. The Warner sucker is known to occur in the Warner Valley and could occur near the Sheldon Route Alternative crossing of Twentymile Creek at MP 587.6. Designated critical habitat for the Warner sucker is located approximately 1.4 miles upstream of the Sheldon Route Alternative crossing of Twentymile Creek, but would not be crossed by the Sheldon Route Alternative. An analysis of potential impacts are discussed in section 3.4.12. 

FED-1.20

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-7

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.21 See response to FED-1.17.

FED-1.22 Ruby, the BLM, the FWS, and various state agencies have been working together to develop conservation agreements 

to minimize and mitigate potential impacts on: 1) threatened and endangered species, 2) migratory birds, and 3) greater sage-grouse and pygmy rabbit. These conservation agreements are discussed in more detail in sections 4.5.5, 4.7.2, and 4.7.3 and draft copies of the agreements are included in Appendix M.

FED-1.21 FED-1.22 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-8

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.23 Our updated discussion on migratory birds is in section 4.5.5.FED-1.24 See response FED-1.17.

FED-1.25 We believe the open-cut and dry-ditch methods proposed by Ruby for most of waterbody crossings are environmentally acceptable or, in many instances, preferable to the HDD method (see discussion in sections 2.3.2.2 and 4.3.2). As discussed in section 4.3.2.4, Ruby has proposed to use the HDD method at three waterbody crossings: the Hams Fork River (at one crossing location) and the Bear River (at two crossing locations).

FED-1.22 FED-1.23 FED-1.24 FED-1.25 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-9

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.26 See response to FED-1.18. FED-1.27 We are not recommending that Ruby adopt the 

Sheldon Route Alternative for the reasons discussed in section 3.4.12.FED-1.28 See response to FED-1.22..

FED-1.29 Comment noted. The HDD method is discussed in 

section 2.3.2.2 and 4.3.2.4. See also response to FED-1.2.

FED-1.30 See response to comment FED-1.1. 

FED-1.26 FED-1.27 FED-1.28 FED-1.29 FED-1.30

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-10

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.31 The pipeline will not cross the Applegate-Lassen Trail within the Black Rock NCA. However, the Vya Construction Camp would be located adjacent to this trail, outside of the Black Rock NCA. The text in section 4.8.3.2 has been revised to reflect this. No remnants of the Hensley-Salt Lake Cutoff were identified during field surveys in the project area. Historic trails located in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline are discussed in sections 4.10.1 and 4.8.3.2. 

FED-1.31

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-11

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.32 Both the draft and final EIS reflect text submitted by the Department of Interior (BLM and FWS, as applicable) regarding the MLA and permits and authorizations necessary to cross federal land. Where conflicting text was submitted by the BLM and FWS, we deferred to the text submitted by the BLM. FED-1.33 Ruby is proposing to operate the pipeline for the foreseeable future and has no expansion or abandonment plans. We have assumed the pipeline would operate for more than 50 years for the purpose of the EIS. FED-1.34 We requested that the FWS provide "the level of detail" and "scope of resource data" it needs in order to issue a Special Use Permit. Information received from the FWS is included in the final EIS. 

FED-1.32 FED-1.33 FED-1.34 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-12

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.35 In the event that use of Summit Lake Road/Knott Creek Road is not allowed, Ruby would need to access the project area using other approved access roads and driving down the right-of-way.FED-1.36 Study areas and access road impacts within the Sheldon NWR are discussed in section 3.4.12 and 4.8.3.5.FED-1.37 Access roads on the Sheldon NWR associated with the proposed route are discussed in sections 4.8.2.1, 4.8.3.5, and 4.9.4. Ruby also prepared a traffic management plan that addresses access in and around the Sheldon NWR. This plan is included as an addendum to Ruby's general Transportation Plan in Appendix X. 

FED-1.34 FED-1.35 FED-1.36 FED-1.37 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-13

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.38 We expect that requirements for noxious and invasive weed control will be included as part of any special use authorizations issued by the FWS for the Sheldon NWR. See section 3.4.12 for a discussion of impacts and mitigation regarding the Sheldon Route Alternative.FED-1.39 We are recommending that Ruby follow the USGS recommended method of topsoil segregation for biological soil crust preservation and that Ruby implement USGS crust restoration techniques as outlined in section 4.2.2.2. FED-1.40 The Unanticipated Discovery Plans for cultural resources were filed as Appendix J of Ruby's POD (most recently filed with the FERC on November 4, 2009). The Paleontological Resources Monitoring Plan is Appendix I of the final EIS. Ruby would provide the FWS copies of these plans upon request. We have asked Ruby to provide the FWS with a copy of the Class III cultural resources survey report for access roads in Nevada, which includes roads in the Sheldon NWR. Regarding cultural resources generally, the Section 106 process, through which cultural resources are identified, impacts evaluated, and treatment addressed, will continue after this final EIS is issued.

FED-1.37 FED-1.38 FED-1.39 FED-1.40 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-14

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.41 Section 3.4.12 has been augmented to include a discussion of wildlife diversity on the Sheldon NWR. FED-1.42 This concern has been incorporated into section 4.5.5.

FED-1.43 The definition of public convenience and necessity is flexible and case-specific. Among other factors, the Commission examines if a proposed project has reasonable expectations of customers, if the facilities are adequate to serve the customers, if the project can obtain adequate financing, if the cost of the project appears reasonable, and if the rates are reasonable in terms of cost to the customers and revenue for the pipeline company.FED-1.44 The FERC does not "encourage" construction techniques or mitigation measures on unregulated, non-jurisdictional facilities. However, we expect that power line companies will adhere to applicable regulations and permits as well as generally accepted conservation measures.

FED-1.45 The discussion of the Sheldon NWR's comprehensive conservation planning has been updated in section 1.5.4.

FED-1.40 FED-1.41 FED-1.42 FED-1.43 FED-1.44 FED-1.45 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-15

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.46 Table 1.5-1 has been revised as appropriate.FED-1.47 See sections 4.2.4 and 4.4.1.2 for a discussion of topsoil segregation. FED-1.48 We believe the construction techniques proposed by Ruby adequately address fluvial geomorphological processes at waterbody crossings in general and that additional study at all waterbodies by hydrologists and geomorphologists is not warranted. We acknowledge that site-specific conditions at some waterbodies may warrant such analysis, and have asked FWS to identify those very specific waterbodies where these conditions exist. The FWS has not identified any such specific waterbodies to the FERC. Potential pipeline effects on water temperature are discussed in section 4.3.2.4.

FED-1.45 FED-1.46 FED-1.47 FED-1.48 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-16

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.49 Ruby's Restoration and Revegetation Plans (Appendix L) state restoration activities will begin within 10 days after pipeline trench closure. FED-1.50 Section 2.3 identifies standard construction procedures that would be used during construction of the pipeline and provides a brief discussion of restoration procedures following construction. A detailed discussion of restoration requirements and site-specific restoration and monitoring procedures are identified throughout section 4.0 and in the appendices to the final EIS. Ruby's Plan has been adopted from the FERC's Plan and they are generally consistent.FED-1.51 Thank you for your comment. 

FED-1.48 FED-1.49 FED-1.50 FED-1.51

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-17

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.52 It has been our experience that the establishment of wetland vegetation occurs rapidly in wetlands through natural seed dispersal and existing seed banks in the soil. Additionally, where water depths exceed 2 feet, vegetation is often absent. Should a rain event occur and/or abnormally high water levels be present in wetland areas, Ruby would monitor these areas as indicated in its Reclamation Plan and seed the construction rightof-way as necessary when water levels have receded. FED-1.53 This construction timing window is presented in 

section 4.7.2.2 and was agreed to by Ruby in its August 19, 2009 supplemental filing. FED-1.54 Ruby’s proposed use of a 50-foot setback is consistent with the FERC Procedures. FED-1.55 See response to FED-1.17.

FED-1.56 Nearly all of the perennial streams greater than 5 feet wide are either known to contain sensitive species and will be crossed using a dry-ditch crossing method or are irrigation canals that are not anticipated to exhibit high/peak water flows and would likely have minimal aquatic resources. The in-stream construction timing windows (table 2.3.2-1) adopted by Ruby would also avoid peak stream flows from spring snowmelt.

FED-1.51 FED-1.52 FED-1.53 FED-1.54 FED-1.55 FED-1.56 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-18

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.57 See section 4.3.2.4 for a discussion on waterbody construction and mitigation procedures. Ruby's Site-Specific Crossing Plans indicate spoil would be replaced to its original location.FED-1.58 We agree that either method could be acceptable, given 

the site-specific circumstances. The construction contractor, working with the EI, could make that determination in the field.FED-1.59 Riprap and/or gabion baskets would be installed in accordance with Ruby’s permits and approvals from the COE and/or state regulatory agencies.FED-1.60 Blasting impacts on aquatic species are discussed in section 4.6.1.7.FED-1.61 Ruby's Environmental Inspection program, along with the third-party compliance monitoring program, should prevent activities from causing excessive rutting. Ruby has agreed to implement the third-party compliance monitoring program for the entire project.FED-1.62 Ruby's proposed vegetation maintenance is consistent with the FERC Plan and is typical for pipeline vegetation maintenance throughout the United States.FED-1.63 Thank you for your comment. 

FED-1.56 FED-1.57 FED-1.58 FED-1.59 FED-1.60 FED-1.61 FED-1.62 FED-1.63 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-19

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.64 The Ruby EIS is consistent with FERC style, formatting, and policy regarding alternatives and impact analysis.

FED-1.65 Cost information provided by Ruby has been included in the alternatives analysis to the extent that cost would affect the feasibility of an alternative. We have identified those alternatives where increased costs would render the alternative infeasible, causing Ruby to not meet the overall project objective.FED-1.66 Access roads associated with the proposed route on the Sheldon NWR, including the potential for increased access into WSAs, are discussed in sections 4.8.2.1 and 4.8.3.5. FED-1.67 Figure 3.4.9-1 shows the WWEC Route Alternative as well as other WWEC-designated corridors in the vicinity of the proposed project. The only routes to use the WWEC corridors are the WWEC Route Alternative, Black Rock Route Alternative, and Jungo-Tuscarora Route Alternative. These portions of the alternative routes that overlap the WWEC can be identified by comparing each alternative map with figure 3.4.9-1.FED-1.68 We do not believe there are other reasonable routes that would more substantially follow the WWEC in northwestern Nevada than those alternatives and variations already evaluated in the EIS. Refer to figure 3.4.9-1 in section 3 of the final EIS for a map that identifies the WWEC in the project vicinity. 

FED-1.64 FED-1.65 FED-1.66 FED-1.67 FED-1.68

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-20

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.69 Paleontological resources have been evaluated for the Sheldon Route Alternative. Approximately 70 miles of paleontological resources with a PFYC rating greater than 3 were identified. See section 3.4.12. FED-1.70 Ruby could construct the Sheldon Route Alternative 

within the Highway 140 easement, except for about 4.5 miles as described in section 3.4.12. There is no DOT rule that states that pipelines cannot be collocated in road rights-of-way. FED-1.71 Ruby is not proposing to construct new access roads 

within the Sheldon NWR.FED-1.72 Topography along the Sheldon Route Alternative is discussed in section 3.4.12. According to Ruby, topography along the Sheldon Route Alternative would not render the project infeasible from a technical or economic standpoint.

FED-1.73 The Sheldon Route Alternative would largely follow Highway 140 through the Sheldon NWR. Highway 140 represents a discontinuity that contributes to habitat fragmentation within the Sheldon NWR. Conversely, the corresponding section of the proposed route would not follow an existing discontinuity. Instead, it would create a new discontinuity and increase fragmentation in an area that is relatively remote and unfragmented. High viability core areas for conservation of sagegrouse in Oregon are discussed in section 3.4.12. 

FED-1.68 FED-1.69 FED-1.70 FED-1.71 FED-1.72 FED-1.73 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-21

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.74 The fact that the FWS likely would not allow pipeline construction in a WSA is discussed in section 3.4.12.FED-1.75 In the context of the discussion, the term "citizenproposed" is correct. FED-1.76 Pygmy rabbit and mule deer comparison data are included for the Sheldon and Black Rock alternatives. Regardless of the route, Ruby would comply with the same spatial and seasonal restrictions that are discussed in the final EIS to avoid impacts on sensitive resources, including migratory birds.FED-1.77 The Summit Lake Northern Paiute tribe has indicated that it prefers the Sheldon Route Alternative because it would avoid areas and sites of concern to the tribe. However, we agree that additional cultural resource surveys could identify sites of concern on the NWR. FED-1.78 The process for authorizing activities in a WSA is discussed in section 3.4.12.FED-1.79 We evaluated all data provided to us by the Ruby, Ruby's consultants, the FWS, other resource agencies, and scoping commenters.FED-1.80 The fact that the FWS likely would not allow pipeline construction in the Sheldon NWR is discussed in section 3.4.12.

FED-1.74 FED-1.75 FED-1.76 FED-1.77 FED-1.78 FED-1.79 FED-1.80 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-22

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.81 We requested that the FWS provide "the level of detail" and "scope of resource data" it needs in order to issue a Special Use Permit. Information received from the FWS is included in the final EIS.

FED-1.80 FED-1.81 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-23

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.82 A clearer distinction between citizen-proposed and designated WSAs is included in section 3.4.12.FED-1.83 The authorization process to cross WSAs within the Sheldon NWR is discussed in section 3.4.12. FED-1.84 The fact that the Wilderness Act generally prohibits several uses that would or could occur with construction and operation of a natural gas pipeline, including commercial enterprises, roads, use of motor vehicles or motorized equipment, landing of aircraft, other forms of mechanical transport, and structures or installations has been added to section 3.4.12.FED-1.85 Thank you for your comment.FED-1.86 The WWEC Route Alternative and Jungo-Tuscarora Route Alternative both cross California. Ruby's proposed route through Nevada and into Oregon follows an existing Los Angeles Department of Water and Power electric transmission line which happens to be sited in an area of northwestern Nevada very near the California border. Both the WWEC and Junco-Tuscarora alternatives were not recommended for several reasons, including, but not limited to, potential regulatory delays.

FED-1.87 A habitat analysis was conducted along the proposed route, the Black Rock Alternative, and the Sheldon Route Alternative. Habitat comparison data are provided in section 3.4.12 and 3.4.13. FED-1.88 Access roads associated with the Black Rock Route Alternative are discussed in section 3.4.13. FED-1.89 A habitat analysis was conducted along the proposed route, the Black Rock Alternative, and the Sheldon Route Alternative. The analysis included input from the BLM, NDOW, and ODFW. Based on this analysis, the Sheldon Route Alternative would cross less greater sage-grouse habitat and mule deer habitat, but more pygmy rabbit habitat. Habitat comparison data are provided in section 3.4. 

FED-1.82 FED-1.83 FED-1.84 FED-1.85 FED-1.86 FED-1.87 FED-1.88 FED-1.89 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-24

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.90 The need for and sources of local gravel are discussed in section 2.2.1.FED-1.91 MACTEC, Ruby's geotechnical contractor, estimated potential impacts from construction activities on caverns and determined that any caverns, if present, would not collapse due to construction activities. Ruby queried state geological agencies and found no documentation on caves underlying the project. See section 4.1.3.3.FED-1.92 Approximately 70 miles of paleontological resources with a PFYC rating greater than 3 were identified along the Sheldon Route Alternative. See section 3.4.12. Ruby’s Paleontological Resources Monitoring Plan is attached to the EIS as Appendix I.FED-1.93 See section 3.4.12 for information on soils within the Sheldon NWR. See table 4.2.1-3 for information on soils and access roads.FED-1.94 Certain practices, such as the use of Ruby’s Plan (Appendix F), Spill Plan (Appendix J), and Restoration and Revegetation Plans (Appendix L), would help minimize impacts on soils. Ruby’s Plan also require that the construction area be restored to preconstruction conditions.FED-1.95 See section 4.2.2.2 for a revised discussion on 

cryptobiotic soil crusts. FED-1.96 Ruby would restore vegetation according to its Reclamation Plans which were developed in consultation with federal and state agencies.FED-1.97 Ruby identified the location of waterbodies and wetlands along the Sheldon Route Alternative. These data are summarized in section 3.4.12. 

FED-1.89 FED-1.90 FED-1.91 FED-1.92 FED-1.93 FED-1.94 FED-1.95 FED-1.96 FED-1.97

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-25

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.98 Ruby has completed a survey of springs along the Sheldon Route Alternative and has identified one permitted spring within 300 feet of the Sheldon Route Alternative.FED-1.99 Ruby has never stated, and the EIS does not suggest, that any of the springs identified in section 4.3.1.3 would be used for dust abatement or hydrostatic testing.

FED-1.100 Ruby has stated it will comply with ODFW fish screening guidelines (see section 4.6.1.5), which are generally adopted from National Marine Fisheries Service guidelines. Ruby would leave existing vegetative root systems intact where possible at waterbody crossings to encourage regrowth and revegetation.FED-1.101 Ruby’s plan for fish salvage is discussed in the aquatic resources section of the EIS (section 4.6.1.5).FED-1.102 The WGFD identified boring as its preferred stream 

crossing method. There is possible confusion between a horizontal bore and a horizontal direction drill (HDD). Boring under a small stream is feasible under some circumstances, but would have substantial impacts on the adjacent riparian and wetland habitats. The amount and depth of ground disturbance required to excavate a bore hole, stage boring equipment, and store the excavated soil adjacent to the waterbody can at times considerable. Bore holes often fill with water and require constant dewatering. An HDD is generally not advantageous for small streams due to engineering and spatial factors, but is proposed for the larger Hams Fork and Bear river crossings. Dry crossing methods are proposed for other waterbodies containing sensitive species.FED-1.103 Ruby has agreed to include these bullet items in its 

Procedures. These are included in section 4.3.2.4.FED-1.104 Section 4.3.2 specifically discusses surface water 

impacts. A separate discussion of wetland protection, impacts, and mitigation, including workspace and refueling setbacks, is provided in section 4.3.3. The statutory requirements of the Clean Water Act are generally discussed in section 4.3.3 and requirements of each COE district are provided in the draft Wetland Mitigation Plan in Appendix S. 

FED-1.97 FED-1.98 FED-1.99 FED-1.100 FED-1.101 FED-1.102 FED-1.103 FED-1.104 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-26

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.105 Specific woody riparian habitats were identified in section 4.4.3 where Ruby would be required to reduce its construction right-of-way to 75 feet and implement described restoration and monitoring recommendations. The EIS specifically addresses surface water, wetland and riparian construction techniques, mitigation, and monitoring requirements in each of these resources sections. The FERC generally does not allow extra workspaces in riparian areas. We are recommending that Ruby limit its construction right-of-way width to 75 feet in the woody riparian habitats identified in table 4.4.3-1. For any location where Ruby believes extra workspaces/staging areas are necessary in woody riparian habitat, Ruby should provide sitespecific justification and request written approval from the Director of OEP prior to using the extra workspace or staging area. In addition, Ruby should plant woody riparian vegetation (e.g., shrubs, cuttings, seedlings, saplings) in all woody riparian areas (except directly over the trenchline) as soon as possible after construction within the appropriate planting season, including the riparian areas impacted by access roads. Ruby should consult with the landowner or appropriate land managing agency to identify the species and planting densities to be used and any methods to protect planted riparian areas from grazing and 

browsing impacts, such as browse protection or fencing, until these areas become established. Ruby should monitor the success of riparian habitat restoration for 5 years after construction. FED-1.106 We find Ruby’s proposed crossing methods for these waterbodies to be acceptable and are not recommending HDD.

FED-1.107 Kirk Miller has been contacted and updated stream flow data have been incorporated into the final EIS.

FED-1.104 FED-1.105 FED-1.106 FED-1.107 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-27

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.108 Section 4.3.3 of the final EIS states that sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act apply to "our Nation's waters." Stating "our Nation's waters" is equivalent to saying "waters of the United States." FED-1.109 Ruby conducted wetland surveys at all project areas using COE methodologies. No wetlands were identified at any aboveground facility sites in Wyoming.FED-1.110 A refueling restriction within 100 feet of wetlands is included in section 4.3.3.2.FED-1.111 These ratios have not been determined. The COE will determine necessary mitigation ratios during its review and authorization process.FED-1.112 See response to FED-1.89.

FED-1.113 Maintenance of vegetation along the permanent pipeline right-of-way will be limited to 30 feet within 25 feet of waterbodies and within wetland riparian habitats. Vegetation maintenance within non-wetland riparian habitats would be limited to 50 feet. 

FED-1.107 FED-1.108 FED-1.109 FED-1.110 FED-1.111 FED-1.112 FED-1.113 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-28

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.114 The lifespan of the pipeline would not change the impacts that would occur should the project be constructed, nor would it change the type of conservation and mitigation measures described and recommended in the EIS. This type of analysis is not required for the scope of this project. Ruby does not have abandonment plans at this time.FED-1.115 A 100 foot refueling setback is consistent with the FERC Procedures, and in our opinion, generally provides adequate protection to waterbodies, wetlands, floodplains, and riparian areas. However, we acknowledge the disagreement and understand that other permitting agencies may require additional setback distances.FED-1.116 Invasive plants and fire regimes are discussed in section 4.4.11.FED-1.117 The discussion of temporary vegetation acting as a proxy has been removed from the EIS.FED-1.118 Research and studies conducted within the Sheldon NWR are discussed in section 3.4.12.

FED-1.114 FED-1.115 FED-1.116 FED-1.117 FED-1.118 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-29

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.119 The text has been revised as requested.FED-1.120 This discussion is specific to vegetation characteristics, not wildlife. Elevation and habitat influences on wildlife are not relevant to this specific discussion.FED-1.121 Section 4.5.1.1 has been revised per the request.

FED-1.122 Table 4.4.1-2 identifies the quantity of vegetation (habitat) communities that would be temporarily and permanently impacted by the project. The table breaks down each habitat crossed, identifies acreages impacted by various project work areas, such as access roads, and identifies which habitats are within the temporary construction workspaces and which are within the permanent 50-foot-wide pipeline easement. 

FED-1.119 FED-1.120 FED-1.121 FED-1.122 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-30

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.123 This statement has been removed from the EIS.FED-1.124 Section 4.5.1.1 has been revised per the request.

FED-1.125 The discussion in section 4.5.1.2 is focused on how the Ruby Pipeline Project would result in fragmentation impacts, not how other projects have or would fragment the landscape. Section 4.13.4 discusses how other projects could result in cumulative fragmentation. 

FED-1.122 FED-1.123 FED-1.124 FED-1.125 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-31

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.126 This paragraph has been modified per the request.

FED-1.127 We have recommended that Ruby adopt the FWS bird mitigation guidelines on communication tower construction.FED-1.128 Comment noted.FED-1.129 Section 4.5.1.2 has been revised per the request.

FED-1.130 Section 4.5.1.3 has been revised per the request.

FED-1.126 FED-1.127 FED-1.128 FED-1.129 FED-1.130 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-32

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.131 As the paragraph indicates, “project-generated sounds” refers to noise levels that substantially exceed ambient conditions that existed prior to construction (i.e., by 20 to 25 dB, 

as experienced by the animal) and/or when the total sound level exceeds 90 dB. FED-1.132 Overall, we believe that impacts on wildlife due to construction noise would be of short duration and spatially localized, and that noise impacts from operation would not represent a significant impact on local wildlife. FED-1.133 Comment noted. FED-1.134 Thank you for your comment. FED-1.135 Thank you for your comment. FED-1.136 Thank you for your comment. If vegetation is fully restored to pre-construction condition, there will no longer be fragmentation of habitat regardless of whether there is a pipeline below ground.

FED-1.131 FED-1.132 FED-1.133 FED-1.134 FED-1.135 FED-1.136 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-33

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.137 Text has been added to section 4.5.5 stating that Ruby has agreed to implement the MOU.FED-1.138 See section 4.5.5 for our revision of this text.FED-1.139 We have revised the header as per the comment.

FED-1.140 We have added specific language that was provided to us by the FWS (see section 4.5.5).

FED-1.136 FED-1.137 FED-1.138 FED-1.139 FED-1.140 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-34

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.141 It is not known if any "take" of an eagle or migratory bird would actually occur as a result of the project, especially as it applies to habitat. Following the broad definition of "take" in the comment could imply that any disturbance to foraging habitat would be considered a "take," a point with which we disagree.

FED-1.142 Ruby has been working with the FWS to develop a migratory bird conservation agreement. The agreement is in draft form and is included in Appendix M. Ruby intends to follow the measures agreed to in the conservation agreement. Specific conservation measures would be approved and implemented on a case-by-case basis by the FWS. FED-1.143 This reference has been incorporated.FED-1.144 Section 4.5.5 has been revised with updated raptor survey information and defines "Unknown Raptor." Unknown Raptor, Unknown Accipiter Species, Unknown Buteo Species, and Unknown Owl indicate a nest is present, but its location (i.e., 

tree cavity or rock cliff/cavity) or lack of raptor present during the survey make identification impractical.FED-1.145 The paragraph indicated Ruby adopted the spatial restrictions of the Utah raptor guidance but did not adopt the seasonal restrictions. Ruby has since adopted both the seasonal and spatial restrictions outlined in the Utah guidelines. Section 4.5.5 has been revised to indicate this change.FED-1.146 Breeding bird information was provided in Ruby's certificate application. Raptor surveys have been conducted by Ruby for all project areas identified in the final EIS and for the Black Rock Alternative. Updated breeding bird information has not been provided for revised or new project areas since the certificate application was filed. FED-1.147 The FWS document is now cited in the final EIS. 

FED-1.141 FED-1.142 FED-1.143 FED-1.144 FED-1.145 FED-1.146 FED-1.147

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-35

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.148 Thank you for your comment.

FED-1.149 Updated raptor survey information has been provided and is summarized in the final EIS. All raptor nests within 1 mile of project facilities have been identified. No bald eagle nests were identified within 1 mile of project facilities in Oregon.FED-1.150 Open-cut waterbody crossings are usually completed quickly and do not result in long-term downstream impacts. Dry ditch crossings may take longer, but typically have even less sedimentation impact. FED-1.151 Ruby’s proposed grading techniques at waterbody crossings are consistent with standard FERC requirements. FED-1.152 Ruby has stated it is agreeable to mowing rather than clearing or grading. However, clearing and grading would be required along the trench line and spoil side and in areas where topographical conditions are difficult. 

FED-1.153 The EIS now indicates that clearing and grading would adversely affect the beneficial functions and services of riparian and upland vegetation, especially to riparian and aquatic species. Review of Ruby's crossing plan of Twelvemile Creek indicate very few trees are within the construction workspace. Ruby indicated on the crossing plan that woody vegetation would be preserved to the greatest extent practical. Trees to be saved would be surrounded by orange barricade fencing. 

FED-1.148 FED-1.149 FED-1.150 FED-1.151 FED-1.152 FED-1.153

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-36

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.154 Potential for the pipeline to increase water temperatures during operation is discussed in section 4.3.2.4. We do not expect heat transfer from the pipeline to significantly affect stream temperatures. FED-1.155 Section 4.6.2 addresses this request.FED-1.156 Section 4.7 has been revised accordingly. FED-1.157 Ruby is no longer appropriating water from the Marys River. Other comments have been incorporated as appropriate.FED-1.158 Ruby conducted surveys for suitable habitat for these species and it was determined suitable habitat is not crossed by the project. Ruby does not propose to conduct targeted surveys for these species. Section 4.7 has been revised accordingly.FED-1.159 Distribution and preferred habitat information identified by the resources presented on the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database indicate the species is not likely to be present in the project area. 

FED-1.154 FED-1.155 FED-1.156 FED-1.157 FED-1.158 FED-1.159 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-37

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.160 Section 4.7.3.7 has been added to the final EIS to discuss the northern leopard frog. FED-1.161 The project does not cross Colorado, and no indirect impacts on sage-grouse habitat are expected in Colorado.FED-1.162 These sections have been revised per the FWS suggestions.FED-1.163 White-tailed prairie dog surveys were conducted in July 2009, and black-footed ferret surveys were conducted in August and September 2009. All surveys were conducted using protocol described in Guidelines for Black-Footed Ferret Surveys.

FED-1.164 See response to FED-1.20. 

FED-1.160 FED-1.161 FED-1.162 FED-1.163 FED-1.164

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-38

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.165 We have determined that the project is likely to adversely affect the Lahontan cutthroat trout. A complete impact analysis will be presented in the Biological Assessment.FED-1.166 The ESA conservation plan is discussed in section 4.7.2 and is included in Appendix M. We did not include a recommendation but recognize that Ruby is entering this agreement in good faith and has stated it proposes to implement the actions identified in the ESA plan.FED-1.167 Section 4.7.2.3 clearly acknowledges the potential for water withdrawals (diversion) from the Colorado River to adversely affect the four fish species in question. Accordingly, these species will be considered in formal ESA Section 7 consultation. From a technical standpoint, pressure testing pipelines with air (pneumatic testing) is possible. Pneumatic testing, when used, is generally applied to short segments of station piping. FED-1.168 From a practical standpoint, testing with air is not conducted on longer projects for safety reasons. Air is very compressible, which means that it stores very large amounts of energy when it is highly compressed, as it would be during a pneumatic pipeline test. If a weakness or flaw is encountered during a pneumatic test, the resulting energy release could be catastrophic. Water is much less compressible than air and, therefore, stores much less energy. If a weakness or flaw is encountered during a test with water, the resulting energy release is typically inconsequential. For this reason, pipelines are normally tested with water to identify flaws before pressurizing with natural gas (see final EIS section 2.3.1.6).FED-1.169 Section 4.7.2.3 has been revised accordingly.FED-1.170 We have determined that the project is likely to adversely affect these sucker species. A complete impact analysis will be presented in the Biological Assessment.

FED-1.164 FED-1.165 FED-1.166 FED-1.167 FED-1.168 FED-1.169 FED-1.170 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-39

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.171 The final EIS has been updated to explain how construction will avoid impacting important stream habitat, how complex stream bank and bed habitat will be restored, how any unavoidable impacts will be mitigated, and how fish will be salvaged prior to construction activities.

FED-1.170 FED-1.171 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-40

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.172 Although Ruby has not developed site-specific plans for North Fork Willow Creek and the South Arm of East Willow Creek, we have reviewed Ruby’s alignment sheets and determined Ruby would use a nominal 115-foot-wide construction right-ofway when crossing these waterbodies, but is not proposing to locate extra workspace within 50 feet of the waterbodies or associated riparian wetland habitats. We do not believe sitespecific plans are necessary for these crossings.FED-1.173 Section 4.7.2 has been revised accordingly.

FED-1.174 Ruby consulted with state wildlife agencies and heritage programs to identify areas along the proposed route that could support the Columbia spotted frog. Through consultations with NDOW, it was determined that Columbia spotted frog surveys should be conducted within three watersheds (South Fork Owyhee, Upper Humboldt, and North Fork Humboldt) in Elko County, Nevada from MP 283 to R357. The ODWF recommended that Columbia spotted frog surveys should be conducted within the Warner basin from MP 579 to 610. See section 4.7.3.6 for survey results and additional information. FED-1.175 Vehicle-vehicle and vehicle-pedestrian collisions are an inherent risk for any road use in the United States. We do not believe that Ruby's proposed action elevates this risk.

FED-1.171 FED-1.172 FED-1.173 FED-1.174 FED-1.175 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-41

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.176 Aboveground facilities include compressor stations, meter stations, valve stations, and pig launchers and receivers. Two powerlines would be constructed as a result of the project. Section 4.7.3.1 now states that aboveground facilities may provide a perch for predators. FED-1.177 This reference has been revised throughout the document.FED-1.178 Conservation measures regarding sage brush removal 

are discussed in Ruby’s Greater Sage-grouse and Pygmy Rabbit Conservation Plan and section 4.7.3.1.FED-1.179 Preferred habitat was cited from a scoping comment letter on the Ruby Pipeline Project submitted by the FWS.FED-1.180 Section 4.7.3.2 has been revised accordingly.FED-1.181 Through consultations with FWS, the WGFD, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), and a site visit at possible yellow-billed cuckoo nesting habitat areas along the proposed pipeline corridor in Cache County, Utah by a sensitive species biologist with the UDWR, suitable nesting habitat and the need for yellow-billed cuckoo surveys were identified. See section 4.7.3.2 for a thorough discussion of agency consultation and survey results.FED-1.182 Section 4.7.3.3 has been revised to include the FWS comments. 

FED-1.176 FED-1.177 FED-1.178 FED-1.179 FED-1.180 FED-1.181 FED-1.182 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-42

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.183 Section 3.4.13 has been revised to address this species.FED-1.184 The citation has been provided.FED-1.185 Text in section 4.8.3.5 has been added to further describe the regulatory permitting implications of Ruby's access roads on the Sheldon NWR. 

FED-1.182 FED-1.183 FED-1.184 FED-1.185

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-43

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.186 Sections 1.5.1 and 4.8.2.2 of the final EIS have been updated to discuss in more detail two state-owned WMAs in Utah that were acquired with federal aid funding from the FWS. FED-1.187 Text in section 4.8.3.5 has been added to further describe the recreational impacts of the project on the Sheldon NWR. The text in section 4.8.2.1 has also been revised to note that Ruby has revised its proposed route to avoid crossing the referenced location of Sheldon NWR land. 

FED-1.185 FED-1.186 FED-1.187 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-44

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.188 The text discussing impacts on wild horses and 

burros has been revised, and this section has been moved to section 4.5.7.FED-1.189 Impacts of the Vya Construction Camp on the Sheldon NWR are included in section 4.8.3.5. 

FED-1.187 FED-1.188 FED-1.189

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-45

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.190 We have updated the final EIS to include discussion of potential impacts on the Sheldon NWR. The issue of increase demand on the Sheldon NWR is discussed in sections 4.8.3.5 and 4.9.3. For example, Ruby has committed to requiring that each occupant of the Vya Construction Camp read and sign orientation documents containing information on use restrictions regarding historic and natural wildlife/conservation areas (including the Sheldon NWR) near the Vya camp. Construction workers would not be allowed to use the Sheldon NWR facilities during construction work days. In addition, if construction workers chose to use and explore the Sheldon NWR’s campground features on their own recreational time, the construction workers would be restricted to using the campgrounds for the stated purposes and durations. FED-1.191 The cultural resources for the Sheldon Alternative Route are addressed in section 3.4.12. We are not recommending this route alternative be adopted. A Class III inventory would be completed if this alternative were to be adopted.FED-1.192 Non-jurisdictional facilities and the Canada – Pacific Northwest – Northern California Transmission Project have been added to the cumulative effects analysis in section 4.13. Ruby originally proposed to leave roads in their new or improved condition unless otherwise requested by a landowner or land managing agency. Ruby now is proposing to restore all roads to their pre-construction condition unless the landowner or land managing agency requests in writing that a road be left in its improved condition. To date, no landowners or land managing agencies have made such a request, although some are reserving the right to make the final decision when they see the road’s condition near the end of construction. FED-1.193 The possibility of a refuge headquarters and visitor center is discussed in section 3.4.12. Potential impacts on Sheldon NWR research, monitoring, and restoration projects are discussed in section 3.4.12 .FED-1.194 Cumulative impacts are discussed in section 4.13. The WWEC is discussed in section 3.4.9.

FED-1.190 FED-1.191 FED-1.192 FED-1.193 FED-1.194 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-46

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.195 Climate change is discussed in section 4.13.11.

FED-1.196 Section 4.13.4 has been revised accordingly.

FED-1.197 Section 4.13.5 has been revised accordingly. 

FED-1.194 FED-1.195 FED-1.196 FED-1.197 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-47

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.198 Section 5.1.4 has been revised accordingly.

\ FED-1.199 Section 5.1.5 has been revised accordingly.

FED-1.200 The status of the conservation agreements and mileby-mile mapping effort are discussed in various sections throughout this final EIS.FED-1.201 Thank you for your comment.

FED-1.202 Section 5.1.7 has been revised accordingly.

FED-1.203 Section 4.8.1.1 has been revised accordingly.FED-1.204 The recommendation has been revised in section 5.2 to include ODFW. 

FED-1.198 FED-1.199 FED-1.200 FED-1.201 FED-1.202 FED-1.203 FED-1.204 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-48

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.205 Thank you for your comment. FED-1.206 Thank you for your comment. 

FED-1.205 FED-1.206

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-49

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.207 The FWS has been added as a cooperating agency in the Recommendations Section and throughout the final EIS. We acknowledge the FWS responsibilities regarding the resources under its management. We have asked Ruby to provide the FWS with a copy of the cultural resources survey report for access roads in Nevada, which includes roads in the Sheldon NWR. Ruby would conduct Class III cultural resources surveys for any location in the Sheldon NWR that would be impacted by the project; see section 4.10.5 regarding compliance with the NHPA. 

FED-1.206 FED-1.207

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-50

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.208 Temporary extra workspaces are identified on the maps in Appendix B.FED-1.209 Thank you for your comment. Vehicle and equipment washing would be conducted with the approved construction right-of-way, extra workspaces, and staging areas identified in section 2 of the final EIS.FED-1.210 The referenced extra workspaces are included in Appendix E (Appendix D of the draft EIS is Appendix E in the final EIS), see footnote at the end of the table. FED-1.211 Construction and pipe yards have been surveyed for protected species and are considered in the development of conservation plans.FED-1.212 We do not believe that temporarily storing soil in these areas would be detrimental to wetlands and riparian areas.FED-1.213 Ruby has proposed seed mixes for use on this project based on input from various land managing and resource agencies. However, Ruby’s Plan clearly states that it would seed land in accordance with the written seed mixes, rates, and dates obtained from the landowner or land managing agency. This includes the seeding land in the Sheldon NWR in accordance with the FWS’ written recommendations.

FED-1.207 FED-1.208 FED-1.209 FED-1.210 FED-1.211 FED-1.212 FED-1.213 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-51

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.214 The definition of a waterbody has not been changed in the final EIS. Appendix F is a construction document prepared by Ruby and submitted to the FERC, BLM, and other agencies to describe proposed construction and mitigation plans for this project. We have, throughout the EIS, provided our evaluations and conclusions on Ruby’s construction and mitigation plans and made recommendations to revise the plans where appropriate. Section 2.3.2.2 identifies stream crossing windows recommended by the FWS and NDOW, which differ than the windows suggested here. We note that it will not be possible to maintain an undisturbed strip of vegetation 100 feet wide where the pipeline parallels waterbodies closer than 100 feet. FED-1.215 This construction plan specifically states bridges will 

be removed and not left in place.FED-1.216 Appendix F is a construction document prepared by Ruby and submitted to the FERC, BLM, and other agencies to describe proposed construction and mitigation plans for this project. We have, throughout the EIS, provided our evaluations and conclusions on Ruby’s construction and mitigation plans and made recommendations in the EIS to revise the plans where appropriate. FED-1.217 See response to FED-1.214.

FED-1.218 In Ruby's responses to public comment on the draft EIS, submitted on September 10, 2009, Ruby states "Ruby is committed to performing all in-water work activities within specific work windows, utilizing BMPs during construction activities, and restoring all disturbed areas (including the channel bottom) to previous conditions utilizing native materials, or those of a similar condition. In addition, Ruby would restore all disturbed areas and ensure that all pipeline waterbody crossings are buried sufficiently to minimize future alteration of channel conditions."FED-1.219 It will not be possible to maintain a riparian strip 100 feet wide in all locations. Ruby has committed to following herbicide and pesticide label instructions. 

FED-1.214 FED-1.215 FED-1.216 FED-1.217 FED-1.218 FED-1.219 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-52

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.220 Appendix F is a construction document prepared by Ruby and submitted to the FERC, BLM, and other agencies to describe proposed construction and mitigation plans for this project. We have, throughout the EIS, provided our evaluations and conclusions on Ruby’s construction and mitigation plans and made recommendations to revise the plans where appropriate. Section 2.3.2.2 identifies stream crossing windows recommended by FWS and NDOW, which differ than the windows suggested here. We note that it will not be possible to maintain an undisturbed strip of vegetation 100 feet wide where the pipeline parallels waterbodies closer than 100 feet. FED-1.221 Typically a bentonite or similar clay layer can be used to seal the ditch. This appendix is a construction document submitted by Ruby. The FERC does not edit and revise the actual documents submitted by the applicant. Our comments and recommendations regarding Ruby's construction plans are provided in EIS sections 1 through 5. FED-1.222 See response to FED-1.1. FED-1.223 These appendices are construction documents prepared by Ruby and submitted to the FERC, BLM, and other agencies to describe proposed construction and mitigation plans for this project. We have, throughout the EIS, provided our evaluations and conclusions on Ruby’s construction and mitigation plans and made recommendations to revise the plans where appropriate. 

FED-1.220 FED-1.221 FED-1.222 FED-1.223 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-53

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.224 Ruby's Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan has been updated to provide more details in areas such as the identification of problem areas, herbicide treatment, and preventive measures. Additional changes and updates will be made as new field data become available, and as agency consultations progress. FED-1.225 Ruby stated that it has received no requirements or recommendations for specific noxious weed control from NDOW. Ruby would utilize only weed control methods approved by the FWS, on FWS land. FED-1.226 Appendix F is a construction document prepared by Ruby and submitted to the FERC, BLM, and other agencies to describe proposed construction and mitigation plans for this project. We have, throughout the EIS, provided our evaluations and conclusions on Ruby’s construction and mitigation plans and made recommendations to revise the plans where appropriate. FED-1.227 See response to FED-1.224.

FED-1.228 Those species which also have a federal designation are discussed in section 4.7.2.FED-1.229 This revision has been incorporated. FED-1.230 This revision has been incorporated.

FED-1.231 This revision has been incorporated.

FED-1.223 FED-1.224 FED-1.225 FED-1.226 FED-1.227 FED-1.228 FED-1.229 FED-1.230 FED-1.231 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-54

FEDERAL 1 

FED-1.232 Ruby has adopted new buffers and seasonal windows as described in section 4.7.3.1 and Appendix M of the final EIS.FED-1.233 The plans that are included as appendices of the EIS are part of Ruby's Plan of Development. The FERC does not have editorial authority over these documents. However, we analyze these plans throughout the EIS and provide recommendations when we believe the documents are inadequate or additional measures are required. FED-1.234 Access roads associated with the proposed route on the Sheldon NWR are discussed in sections 4.8.2.1, 4.8.3.5, and 4.9.4. Ruby also prepared a transportation plan that addresses access in and around the Sheldon NWR (see Appendix X). FED-1.235 Ruby has since provided a Transportation Plan specific to access around and within the Sheldon NWR. This plan is included in this final EIS as Appendix X. The text in section 4.8.3.5 has been revised to include a discussion of access road impacts on the Sheldon NWR. FED-1.236 Ruby has agreed to modify the Draft Fugitive Dust Control Plan to require that all haul truck loads carrying sand, gravel, solid trash, or other loose material be covered to minimize fugitive dust.

FED-1.232 FED-1.233 FED-1.234 FED-1.235 FED-1.236 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-55

FEDERAL 1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-56

FEDERAL 2 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-57

FEDERAL 2 

FED-2.1 A description of the wet open-cut and dry crossing (flume, dam-and-pump, and HDD) methods are discussed in section 2.3.2.2 of the final EIS. A discussion of impacts related to 

these methods is discussed in sections 4.3, 4.6, and 4.7. We agree that the sensitivity of the waterbody and the potential presence of federally listed species are important factors in choosing a waterbody crossing method.FED-2.2 The final EIS addresses mitigation measures for federally listed species. The FERC is submitting a BA to the FWS which will further address impacts on federally listed species. The final EIS does not include the BO by the FWS. 

FED-2.1 FED-2.2

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-58

FEDERAL 2 

FED-2.3 The FERC recommends that Ruby located extra work spaces a minimum 50 feet from the edge of wetlands. The FERC does not suggest Ruby provide a 50 foot natural buffer around wetland boundaries. Ruby’s Procedures include measures that prevent sediment from the right-of-way from entering wetlands. Ruby stated it would monitor the success of wetland revegetation annually for the first 5 years after construction or until revegetation is successful. 

FED-2.2 FED-2.3 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-59

FEDERAL 2 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-60

FEDERAL 2 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
F-61

FEDERAL 3 

FED-3.1 Hardcopies of the draft EIS were sent to all persons that identified to the FERC a problem with the CD, including the BIA. Although the FERC did not formally extend the comment period, we continued to accept comments after the close of the comment period. 

FED-3.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
State Agency 

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-1

STATE AGENCY 1 

S-1.1 We are not recommending that Ruby adopt the Sheldon Route Alternative for the reasons discussed in section 3.4.12 of this final EIS. Winter construction and access are discussed in section 2.3.2.8. S.1-2 Project impacts on sage grouse and other wildlife species are discussed in sections 4.5 and 4.7.3.1 this final EIS. A sage brush habitat comparison between the proposed route and the Sheldon Route Alternative is provided in section 3.4.12. To mitigate the residual impacts associated with the loss of habitat function during pipeline restoration activities and pipeline operations and to provide conservation benefits to the species, Ruby, the BLM, WGFC, UDWR, and NDOW, with technical support and assistance from the FWS, have drafted a Cooperative Conservation Agreement for the Greater Sage-Grouse and Pygmy Rabbit (see Appendix M). The conservation agreement includes measures for minimizing impacts during construction (such as timing windows and minimizing ground disturbance) as well as plans for funding for off-site conservation projects. 

S-1.1 S-1.2

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-2

STATE AGENCY 1 

S-1.3 We are not recommending that Ruby adopt the Sheldon Route Alternative for the reasons discussed in section 3.4.12 of this final EIS. Ruby would discuss OHV issues with landowners during easement negotiations. Ruby has committed to using the deterrents identified in section 4.8.1.1, in consultation with the BLM, USFS, state resource agencies, and landowners, to discourage OHV use of the right-of-way. S-1.4 See section 4.2, paragraph 1 of this final EIS for a discussion on the sources of soils data used in this analysis. S-1.5 Ruby has developed its seed mixes through coordination with numerous seed and restoration authorities across the project area (see section 4.4.1.2 of this final EIS). 

S-1.2 S-1.3 S-1.4 S-1.5

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-3

STATE AGENCY 1 

S.1-5 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-4

STATE AGENCY 2 

S-2.1 Thank you for your comment. We are not recommending any pipeline routing in California. S-2.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-5

STATE AGENCY 3 

S-3.1 The Nevada SHPO's role is clarified in this final EIS (see section 4.10). A letter requesting formal consultation with the Nevada SHPO will be sent when federal agencies have completed their review of the reports, and provided their determinations of eligibility and effect for historic properties under their respective jurisdictions. 

S-3.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-6

STATE AGENCY 3 

S-3.2 Consultation initiated at the initial Section 106 meeting on April 14, 2008, attended by SHPO, BLM, Ruby, and FERC (via phone conference). There have been numerous contacts with the Nevada SHPO office since that tune. The Nevada SHPO was provided project documentation on September 26, 2008 (our NOI) and June 19, 2009 (the draft EIS). According to information received from Ruby, the field survey of the pipeline centerline and ancillary locations is complete. The main report and three addenda for the Class III survey of Nevada are under review. When determinations of eligibility and effect are complete, the findings will be presented to the Nevada SHPO. Section 4.10 of this final EIS has been updated to reflect the most current cultural resources information. 

S-3.2

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-7

STATE AGENCY 4 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-8

STATE AGENCY 4 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-9

STATE AGENCY 4 

S-4.1 This final EIS has been updated with the most recent project information and studies available. The EIS is consistent with FERC style, formatting, and policy regarding NEPA evaluation of alternatives and different types of impacts, including cumulative impacts. S-4.2 Section 2.3.2.3 of this final EIS have been updated to generally reflect these suggestions. 

S-4.1 S-4.2 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-10

STATE AGENCY 4 

S-4.3 This permitting requirement is identified in table 1.5-1. Ruby would be required to obtain all necessary permits and approvals to construct the project. 

S-4.3

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-11

STATE AGENCY 4 

S-4.4 Limited License requirements are identified in table 1.5-1. Ruby would be required to obtain all necessary permits and approvals to construct the project. Ruby is in the process of applying for the temporary use of water rights through the OWRD for Dry Creek and the Willow Valley Reservoir. Dry Creek and the Willow Valley Reservoir are the only surface waterbodies being considered as water sources for dust abatement (but not for hydrostatic testing). All other water sources being considered in Oregon are groundwater sources for both hydrostatic testing and dust abatement. S-4.5 The referenced Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) permit for work on private forest lands has been added to table 1.5-1. Ruby would coordinate directly with the ODF regarding its specific requirements for timber harvested tree and slash management on private forest lands, fire suppression, and restoration. We received comments during the draft EIS comment period concerning the overall inadequacy of Ruby’s Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan. Since the time the draft EIS was issued, Ruby filed an updated Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan to address perceived deficiencies. However, we believe that the current plan still lacks detail and clarity with regard to notification procedures and responsibilities. Therefore, we recommend that Ruby coordinate with local fire responders and land managing agencies to revise its Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan to meet the standards of all agencies with fire response authority in the project area. State of Oregon-listed species are addressed in EIS sections 4.7.1 and 4.7.4, and Appendix U. 

S-4.3 S-4.4 S-4.5 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-12

STATE AGENCY 4 

S-4.5

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-13

STATE AGENCY 4 

S-4.6 Section 4.1.3 of this final EIS references potential geologic hazards in the project area include seismicity (earthquakes and faults), landslides, subsidence, flooding/scour, and volcanism. Ruby determined the locations of these potential hazards through various methods including aerial photo review, database searches, literature review, topographic map review, field surveys, and detailed site-specific investigations completed by state-licensed geologists and/or engineers. Licensed professionals also will be responsible for pre-construction surveys and assessments as required under each state’s laws. Specific documents were developed for Ruby that assessed specific geologic hazards and were signed by state-licensed professionals. The MACTEC reports are available through the FERC website. Discussions regarding Geologic Setting (4.1.1), Mining (4.1.2.1), and Geothermal Resources (4.1.2.3) have been modified to reflect additional data and new mitigation proposed by Ruby. 

S-4.5 S-4.6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-14

STATE AGENCY 4 

S-4.6

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-15

STATE AGENCY 4 

S-4.6

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-16

STATE AGENCY 4 

S-4.6

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-17

STATE AGENCY 4 

S-4.7 Ruby has agreed to adopt Oregon fish screening requirements. 

S-4.6 S-4.7 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-18

STATE AGENCY 4 

S-4.8 Wildlife, vegetation, and wetland information for the Sheldon Route Alternative is included in section 3.4.12 of this final EIS. Pertinent information from the comment was used to update the analysis. S.4-9 Thank you for your comment. S-4.10 We have reviewed the states timing windows and determined that because the project route is more than 1,200 feet away a timing window is not warranted. Ruby would install trench breakers at the entry and exit of the wetland. Ruby conducted soil investigations at several areas suspected of containing an impervious, confining soil layer. No such layers were found during the investigation. Ruby is proposing to segregate the soil layers during excavation, including any impermeable clay layers, and replace the layers to their original horizon during backfill to the greatest extent possible. Separating and replacing soil layers in this manner should ensure wetland mitigation. 

S-4.8 S-4.9 S-4.10 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-19

STATE AGENCY 4 

S.4-11 See response to S-4.10. This final EIS has been updated to discuss wetland trench plugs in section 4.3.3. S-4.12 Restoration and the duration of sagebrush steppe impacts have been revised in various sections of this final EIS. S.4-13 Ruby no longer intends to use magnesium chloride for dust abatement. Ruby no longer intends to use surface waters in Nevada or Oregon for hydrostatic testing. Additional waterrelated information is discussed in section 4.3 of this final EIS, including information on water needed for hydrostatic testing and dust abatement, requirements for fish passage at stream crossings, and dry-crossing construction recommendations at streams that are known to contain special status fish species. 

S.4-11 S-4.12 S-4.13 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-20

STATE AGENCY 4 

S-4.14 Table 4.5.2-2 identifies habitat affected by construction of aboveground facilities, such as valve and meter stations. The table is not intended to represent impacts from construction of the pipeline. Ruby has stated it would adopt Oregon fish screen requirements. Ruby would be required to coordinate with the ODFW to ensure that its proposed fish screening plan complies with ODFW requirements. 

S-4.13 S-4.14 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-21

STATE AGENCY 4 

S-4-15 We do not believe a 2 to 3 mile buffer is a reasonable requirement for placement of aboveground structures near sagegrouse leks. Ruby is proposing a 0.25-mile buffer. S-4-16 Ruby has agreed to restore roads that have been improved, unless otherwise requested by landowners and land managing agencies. S-4.17 The Section 106 process, through which cultural resources are identified, impacts evaluated, and treatment addressed, will continue after this final EIS is issued. Recent updates to the status of the cultural resources studies is provided in section 4.10.1. S-4.18 Thank you for your comment. 

S-4-14 S-4.15 S-4.16 S-4.14 S-4.17 S-4.18 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-22

STATE AGENCY 4 

S-4.19 Ruby would obtain all permits and authorizations for construction, and would comply with discharge and stream standards when constructing the project. Ruby has committed to refuel equipment at least 150 feet from waterways and wetlands in Oregon. Secondary containment would be used where refueling would occur within 150 feet of waters and wetlands. S-4.20 Ruby would obtain the necessary permits and approvals for blasting, waterbody crossings, water appropriation, and erosion control. Ruby would be required to provide the necessary information and analysis toe the permitting agency for these permits. 

S-4.19 S-4.20

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-23

STATE AGENCY 4 

S-4.20

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-24

STATE AGENCY 4 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-25

STATE AGENCY 5 

S-5.1 See section 4.4.1.2 of this final EIS for a discussion on construction and restoration procedures and section 4.4.6 for a discussion on noxious weed and other invasive plant prevention measures. S-5.2 Ruby would be required to restore all areas after construction, regardless of the duration required to achieve success. 

S-5.1 S-5.2 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-26

STATE AGENCY 5 

S-5.3 Thank you for your comment. This final EIS is consistent with FERC style, formatting, and policy regarding NEPA evaluation of alternatives and different types of impacts. S-5.4 Thank you for your comment. 

S-5.3 S-5.4

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-27

STATE AGENCY 5 

S-5.5 Thank you for your comment. We are not recommending that Ruby adopt the Sheldon Route Alternative for the reasons discussed in section 3.4.12 of this final EIS. S-5.6 The need for and sources of local gravel are discussed in section 2.2.1 of this final EIS. S-5.7 The discussion of playas has been updated based on information provided by Ruby (see section 4.2.2.3 of this final EIS). S-5.8 The table has been updated accordingly. S-5.9 Ongoing pedestrian and aerial surveys by Ruby, along with periodic inspections by the FERC, would identify if waterbody restoration has failed or new restoration is required. 

S-5.5 S-5.6 S-5.7 S-5.8 S-5.9 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-28

STATE AGENCY 5 

S-5.10 Ruby no longer proposes to use surface water in Nevada for hydrostatic testing or dust control. S.5-11 Ruby would discharge to upland locations. Should discharge water have a potential to reach receiving waters, Ruby stated it would treat the water as described in section 4.3.2.5 of this final EIS. S-5-12 We have recommended that Ruby extend its postconstruction monitoring plan to 5 years. Ruby also stated it would monitor wetland areas until agencies have determined restoration is successful. S-5.13 We have recommended in section 4.3.3 of this final EIS that, prior to construction, Ruby submit a Wetland Restoration Plan developed in conjunction with the COE and appropriate state and land managing agencies to provide for seeding and replanting of wetland vegetation affected by all project activities and to identify measures for ensuring that wetland revegetation would be successful. 

S-5.10 S-5.11 S-5.12 S-5.13 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-29

STATE AGENCY 5 

S-5.14 See section 4.4.1.2 of this final EIS for an updated description on restoration criteria. S-5.15 The draft EIS public comment period is designed to provide opportunities for stakeholders to identify and recommend mitigation. This final EIS has been updated to reflect comments received as well as Ruby’s proposed mitigation. S-5.16 These data have been incorporated into section 4.4.5 of this final EIS. 

S-5.14 S-5.15 S-5.16 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-30

STATE AGENCY 5 

S-5.17 Ruby's Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan identifies where and how weeds will be controlled and is located in Appendix T of this final EIS. S-5.18 The impacts of fragmentation on sagebrush habitat are discussed in section 4.4.8 of this final EIS. S-5.19 Ruby does not propose to clear sagebrush that establishes within the construction or operation right-of-way. Shrubs and small tress may be cleared within the 50-foot permanent pipeline easement in non-sagebrush habitats to facilitate periodic pipeline inspections and aerial reconnaissance. A 25-foot-wide buffer along waterbodies would not be cleared of shrubs. 

S-5.17 S-5.18 S-5.19 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-31

STATE AGENCY 5 

S-5.20 Thank you for your comments. S-5.21 These data have been incorporated into section 4.4.5 of this final EIS. S-5.22 Section 4.5.2 of this final EIS has been updated to discuss this issue. Additional construction and restoration procedures that have been proposed by Ruby in big game winter ranges include installing or leaving crossovers at 1,200 foot intervals, near water sources, at existing roads or two-tracks, and at visible livestock/wildlife trails to serve as routes for big game to cross the construction right-of-way until the pipe is ready to be installed. Each crossover would be sloped on each side to act as an escape ramp for any livestock/wildlife that happens to become trapped in the trench. Ruby would also inspect the open ditch line daily to ensure that livestock/wildlife is not trapped in the open trench. S-5.23 Section 4.6.1.2 of this final EIS has been updated to address this issue. It has not yet been determined when Ruby would need to construct outside of these timing windows; however, Ruby has stated it would consult with appropriate state and federal resource agencies to obtain clear, written authorization should Ruby believe construction is necessary outside the established construction windows. S-5.24 The timeframe in section 4.3.2.4 pertains to vegetation along the streambank. 

S-5.20 S-5.21 S-5.22 S-5.23 S-5.24 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-32

STATE AGENCY 5 

S-5.25 Ruby no longer proposes to use the Marys River for hydrostatic testing or dust control. Ruby would not use Willow Creek Reservoir for hydrostatic testing; however, Ruby is proposing to use 1,680,000 gallons from the reservoir for dust abatement (see section 4.3.2.5). Ruby has stated that discharge of surface waters would be directed to upland areas. In addition, we have recommended that Ruby discharge all hydrostatic test water to a temporary sediment structure. S-5.26 Thank you for your comment. S-5.27 This statement has been revised in section 4.7.1 of this final EIS. S-5.28 Section 4.7.2.2 of this final EIS has been revised. Ruby, NDOW, and the FWS identified 22 perennial or intermittent 

waterbodies that have the potential to support Lahontan cutthroat trout. These waterbodies are all located in Elko County, Nevada (see Appendix Q). Potential impacts on Lahontan cutthroat trout would be similar to impacts described in section 4.6.1 for other fish species. Ruby has committed to avoiding construction within designated Lahontan cutthroat trout streams from January 1 to June 30. Ruby has agreed to cross the 22 waterbodies known to contain Lahontan cutthroat trout using a dry-ditch crossing method. None of the surface water sources proposed for hydrostatic test water and dust control are known to contain Lahontan cutthroat trout. S-5.29 Ruby no longer proposes to use the Marys River for hydrostatic testing or dust control. 

S-5.25 S-5.26 S-5.27 S-5.28 S-5.29 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-33

STATE AGENCY 5 

S-5.30 We have updated section 4.7.3.3 of this final EIS to include information from this study regarding the pygmy rabbit's typical home range. To minimize impacts on pygmy rabbit habitat, Ruby has agreed to realign the pipeline or construction workspace to avoid disturbance within 100 feet of active pygmy rabbit burrows, where possible; seed high rates of the appropriate subspecies of sagebrush throughout the habitat; and cut or mow sagebrush where full right-of-way grading is not required. Where the pipeline or construction workspaces cannot be realigned to avoid disturbance within 100 feet of active pygmy rabbit burrows, Ruby would restore disturbed areas by creating shrub patches. Ruby has committed to avoiding identified breeding areas from February to March. S-5.31 Thank you for your comment. S-5.32 Thank you for your comment. S-5.33 Ruby has agreed to avoid construction within 2 miles of an occupied sage-grouse lek between March 1 and May 15 throughout Nevada. 

S-5.30 S-5.31 S-5.32 S-5.33

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-34

STATE AGENCY 5 

S-5.34 Thank you for your comment. S-5.35 See response to S-5.33. S-5.36 This section of this final EIS has been revised to incorporate new sage grouse habitat information. S-5.37 Noise impacts at the compressor stations would be mitigated by installing the compressor engines within an insulated building structure and by the use of attenuation equipment such as exhaust and intake silencers. The use of attenuation equipment and the normal attenuation of sound with distance generally ensure that noise levels are controlled. Therefore, Ruby has agreed to install insulated building structures and attenuation equipment at all compressor stations. S-5.38 This impact has been incorporated into section 4.7.3.3 of this final EIS. S-5.39 Thank you for your comment, section 4.7.3.6 has been updated. 

S-5.34 S-5.35 S-5.36 S-5.37 S-5.38 S-5.39

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-35

STATE AGENCY 5 

S-5.40 Thank you for your comments. S-5.41 Section 4.13 of this final EIS has been updated to include these projects and other projects identified during the comment period on the draft EIS. S-5.42 Thank you for your comment. 

S-5.40 S-5.41 S-5.42 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-36

STATE AGENCY 5 

S-5-43 Thank you for your comment. S-5.43

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-37

STATE AGENCY 6 

S-6.1 Thank you for your comment. Table 1.5-1 has been updated. 

S-6.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-38

STATE AGENCY 6 

S-6.2 Thank you for your comments. S-6.3 See response S-1.5. S-6.4 Thank you for your comment. S-6.5 Ruby has agreed to avoid construction activities within 3 miles of an occupied/active lek within designated core areas from March 1st to July 15th and within 2 miles of an active lek outside designated core areas between March 1st and July 15th in the state of Wyoming. Core areas are discussed in section 4.7.3.1 of this final EIS. 

S-6.2 S-6.3 S-6.4 S-6.5

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-39

STATE AGENCY 6 

S-6.6 Ruby would return all access roads used during construction to their preconstruction condition as close as practicable, unless the landowner or land managing agency requests in writing that a road be left in its improved condition. Ruby would determine the final disposition of access roads after construction in Wyoming through easement acquisition discussions with the Wyoming Office of State lands. S-6.7 Thank you for your comment. Ruby has updated its Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan based on comments received during the draft EIS comment period concerning the overall inadequacy of the plan. We believe that the current plan still lacks detail and clarity with regard to notification procedures and responsibilities. Therefore, we are recommending that Ruby coordinate with local fire responders and land managing agencies to revise its Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan to meet the standards of all agencies with fire response authority in the project area (see section 4.9.3). 

S-6.6 S-6.7

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-40

STATE AGENCY 7 

S-7.1 Thank you for your comment. Section 4.4.1.1 of this final EIS has been revised. S-7.2 Thank you for your comment. This change has been made to section 4.5.2 of this final EIS. S-7.3 Thank you for your comment. These sections of this final EIS have been revised as appropriate. 

S-7.1 S-7.2 S-7.3

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-41

STATE AGENCY 7 

S-7.4 Thank you for your comment. Cumulative impacts are discussed in section 4.13 of this final EIS. 

S-7.3 S-7.4 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-42

STATE AGENCY 7 

S-7.5 Ruby stated it would add Gardner saltbrush to the seed mix as long as viable ecotypic seed is available. S-7.6 Thank you for your comment. S-7.7 Thank you for your comment. We believe that a 50-foot setback is sufficient to adequately protect wetlands. S-7.8 Thank you for your comment. We believe that a 100-foot setback is sufficient to adequately protect wetlands from refueling and lubrication activities. The BLM has indicated it would require a 500-foot setback on BLM land. S-7.9 Ruby is proposing to cross the Hams Fork River (at one location, MP 0.8) using the HDD method. Ruby is proposing to use the dry crossing method for Muddy Creek, see section 2.3.2.2 of this final EIS for additional information. 

S-7.4 S-7.5 S-7.6 S-7.7 S-7.8 S-7.9

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-43

STATE AGENCY 7 

S-7-10 Thank you for your comment. We believe that a 50-foot setback is sufficient to adequately protect waterbodies. S-7.11 These timing windows have been updated in table 2.3.2-1. 

S-7.10 S-7.11 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-44

STATE AGENCY 7 

S-7.12 Thank you for your comment. S-7.13 See section 4.2.2.3 of this final EIS for an updated discussion of playas. S-7.14 We make resource-specific “recommendations” for the project throughout the EIS. These recommendations, which 

appear as bolded text in the EIS, are not recommendations to Ruby. Rather, they are conditions that FERC environmental staff is recommending to the FERC Commission for inclusion in the certificate if the Commission chooses to approve the project. If adopted, these recommendations would become project requirements. S-7.15 Thank you for your comment. 

S-7.12 S-7.13 S-7.14 S-7.15 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-45

STATE AGENCY 7 

S-7.16 Roads and railroad tracks are generally elevated above the landscape and do not require an extensive and deep bore pit to obtain the necessary pipe depth below the feature. Streams on the other hand are depressed in the landscape and require a sizeable bore pit. It should be noted that a horizontal bore is a different construction method than an HDD. S-7.17 Thank you. This error has been corrected. S-7.18 Section 4.3.2.5 of this final EIS has been revised to discuss these issues. 

S-7.16 S-7.17 S-7.18 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-46

STATE AGENCY 7 

S-7.19 See response S-7.14. S-7.20 We agree and have made a recommendation that would ensure that impacts on this habitat would be minimized (see section 4.4.3 of this final EIS). S-7.21 We have recommended in section 4.4.3 of this final EIS that Ruby limit its workspace in certain riparian habitats to 75 feet, replant woody riparian vegetation, and monitor the success of restoration of woody riparian habitats for a minimum of 5 years. S-7.22 Table 4.7-1 only identifies federally listed species. Statelisted or sensitive species are presented in Appendix U. S-7.23 Section 4.13.3 of this final EIS has been revised. 

S-7.19 S-7.20 S-7.21 S-7.22 S-7.23 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-47

STATE AGENCY 7 

S-7.24 Thank you for your comment. S-7.25 Thank you for your comment. We believe that a 50-foot 

setback is sufficient to adequately protect waterbodies, springs, wetlands, riparian areas, and playas. 

S-7.23 S-7.24 S-7.25 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
S-48

STATE AGENCY 7 

S-7.26 Section 4.3.2.5 of this final EIS has been revised to discuss this issue. All discharges of surface water used for hydrostatic testing would be discharged with the same 8-digit HUC watershed from which it was withdrawn. Ruby has committed to conducting a bench test to determine dose and contact time for the chosen biocide in relation to the pathogen and/or NAS that is being treated.

S-7.25 S-7.26

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Local Agency 

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
L-1

LOCAL AGENCY/OFFICIAL/GROUP 1 

L-1.1 Thank you for your comment. 

L-1.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
L-2

LOCAL AGENCY/OFFICIAL/GROUP 2 

L-2.1 Hardcopies of the draft EIS were sent to all persons that identified to the FERC a problem with the CD. Although the FERC did not formally extend the comment period, the FERC continued to accept comments after the close of the comment period. L-2.2 Project impacts on geology, wildlife, recreation, and visual 

resources are discussed in sections 4.1, 4.4, and 4.8 of this final EIS. Mitigation proposed by Ruby and our recommendations to minimize impacts on these resources are also discussed in these sections. Impacts of the Vya Construction Camp are discussed throughout this final EIS. L-2.3 Project impacts on transportation (including those related to 

the Vya Construction Camp) are discussed in section 4.9 of this final EIS. Stipulations to address transportation impacts are discussed in this section and detailed in Ruby’s Traffic and Transportation Management Plan. Our recommendation for Ruby to work with local governmental agencies near the Vya Construction Camp to develop a specific traffic control plan for this area would further minimize impacts on transportation. 

L-2.1 L-2.2 L-2.3 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
L-3

LOCAL AGENCY/OFFICIAL/GROUP 2 

L-2.4 Project impacts on greater sage-grouse are discussed in section 4.7 of this final EIS. Ruby has committed to measures to minimize impacts on greater sage-grouse including realignment of the pipeline, preconstruction surveys, construction buffers, timing restrictions, and specific revegetation activities. Revegetation would be considered successful when the density and cover of non-nuisance vegetation in the disturbed work area are similar to adjacent undisturbed lands as determined by the FERC and federal land managing agency. The FERC would continue its oversight of the project area after construction until it is satisfied and the area has been fully restored.L-2.5 Ruby has committed to requiring that each occupant of the 

Vya Construction Camp read and sign orientation documents containing information on use restrictions at the Vya camp. Ruby would be required to comply with all federal, state, and local laws regarding hunting and target shooting. L-2.6 Noxious weeds and other invasive plants are discussed in section 4.4.6 of this final EIS. Ruby consulted with the BLM, USFS, and various other agencies for recommendations to prevent the introduction and spread of noxious and invasive weeds. Based on these agency recommendations, Ruby has developed a Noxious and Invasive Weed Control plan (see Appendix T). L-2.7 Ruby has committed to requiring that each occupant of the Vya Construction Camp read and sign orientation documents containing information on use restrictions at the Vya camp. Ruby would be required to comply with all federal, state, and local laws regarding hunting and target shooting. L-2.8 Ruby has committed to requiring that each occupant of the 

Vya Construction Camp read and sign orientation documents containing information on use restrictions of wilderness areas and the Sheldon NWR. Ruby would be required to comply with all federal, state, and local laws regarding use of these areas. L-2.9 Upon completion of the project, the Vya Construction Camp would be completely dismantled and all Vya camp facilities would be removed. The land would be restored to preconstruction conditions or in accordance with the landowner’s preference. 

L-2.4 L-2.5 L-2.6 L-2.7 L-2.8 L-2.9

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
L-4

LOCAL AGENCY/OFFICIAL/GROUP 2 

L-2.10 Information on Ruby’s plans for roads, pads, water systems, sewer systems, and solid waste management for the Vya Construction Camp are discussed in section 4.9 of this final EIS. Ruby would obtain all necessary permits prior to construction. L-2.11 Ruby met with local officials, community leaders, and fire departments regarding emergency services and has updated its Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan to include coordination with municipalities and counties. Since the time the draft EIS was issued, we received comments concerning the overall inadequacy of the plan. Ruby filed an updated Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan to address perceived deficiencies. However, we believe that the current plan still lacks detail and clarity with regard to notification procedures and responsibilities. Therefore, we are recommending that Ruby coordinate with local fire responders and land managing agencies to revise its Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan to meet the standards of all agencies with fire response authority in the project area.

L-2.10 L-2.11 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
L-5

LOCAL AGENCY/OFFICIAL/GROUP 2 

L-2.12 This final EIS has been updated to include a discussion of the transportation impacts from the Vya Construction Camp. Section 4.9.4 includes discussion of the road network that would be utilized as well as Ruby's plan to reduce potential impacts on 

the roads and traffic levels in this area. L-2.13 Ruby has committed to conducting periodic road 

inspections during construction and to perform road repairs, as needed. Following construction, the roads would be repaired as close to practicable to their original condition. Appendix X and section 4.9.4 of this final EIS provide further discussion of traffic and transportation impacts. Videotaping the condition of roads prior to construction could be a requirement of the jurisdictional road agency. L-2.14 Ruby does not plan to use Dug Way Road as proposed access to the Vya Construction Camp or the pipeline right-of-way. L-2.15 As discussed in section 4.9.3 of this final EIS, Ruby would require each camp occupant to read and sign orientation documents that would contain information, including use restrictions, regarding the surrounding communities and areas. Ruby is also working with local law enforcement agencies to ensure that law enforcement services would be adequate to meet the needs of the camp without creating undue burden on the surrounding community. L-2.16 Project impacts on transportation (including those related to the Vya Construction Camp) are discussed in section 4.9 of this final EIS. Stipulations to address transportation impacts are discussed in this section and detailed in Ruby’s Traffic and Transportation Management Plan. Our recommendation for Ruby to work with local governmental agencies to identify all areas where traffic could be disrupted by construction or constructionrelated traffic would further minimize impacts on transportation. L-2.17 See response to comment L-2.13. 

L-2.12 L-2.13 L-2.14 L-2.15 L-2.16 L-2.17 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
L-6

LOCAL AGENCY/OFFICIAL/GROUP 3 

L-3.1 See response to comment L-2.11. L-3.2 The road network that Ruby proposes to use for construction and operation of the Vya Construction Camp are described in section 4.9.4 of this final EIS. L-3.3 Ruby has indicated that approximately 28 full-time workers would be hired to support the Vya Construction Camp. Ruby has indicated its intent would be to hire some of the workers locally. Employment opportunities may include security, food service, etc.

L-3.4 Ruby and its camp contractor are working to contract with local business owners in Cedarville and Alturas, California for shipments of food, fuel, and ice (see section 4.9.6 of this final EIS). L-3.5 Ruby does not anticipate that a significant percentage of family members would accompany construction workers during the project. Further, no school age children would be allowed to lodge at the Vya Construction Camp (see section 4.9.3 of this final EIS). L-3.6 Ruby has already obtained a permit for the well from the State of Nevada Division of Water Rights (permit number 78382). The estimated volume of water to be appropriated on a daily basis is 18,000 gallons for the duration of the camp’s use (8 to 10 months). The source aquifer for this water supply is expected to provide a good yield and impacts on other area wells are not anticipated (see sections 4.9.3 and 4.3.1.6 of this final EIS). In the event that the well would run dry Ruby would be required to repair the well or obtain water from an alternate source. L-3.7 The primary commute of construction workers would occur between 5:00 and 6:00 in the morning and at 6:00 in the evening. Typically, the workweek is six days, sometimes extending to seven days as required by the workload and construction schedule. Remuneration of project workers is at the discretion of Ruby. 

L-3.1 L-3.2 L-3.3 L-3.4 L-3.5 L-3.6 L-3.7 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
L-7

LOCAL AGENCY/OFFICIAL/GROUP 4A 

L-4A.1 Thank you for your comment. 

L-4A.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
L-8

LOCAL AGENCY/OFFICIAL/GROUP 4A 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
L-9

LOCAL AGENCY/OFFICIAL/GROUP 4B 

L-4B.1 Thank you for your comment. L-4B.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
L-10

LOCAL AGENCY/OFFICIAL/GROUP 4B 

L-4B.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
L-11

LOCAL AGENCY/OFFICIAL/GROUP 5 

L-5.1 Thank you for your comment. 

L-5.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
L-12

LOCAL AGENCY/OFFICIAL/GROUP 6 

L-6.1 Thank you for your comment. 

L-6.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
L-13

LOCAL AGENCY/OFFICIAL/GROUP 6 

L-6.2 New access roads and access roads that would require improvement are identified on the maps in Appendix B and on table E-3 in Appendix E. Ruby would be required to obtain road use authorization and permits in accordance with the law. L-6.3 Ruby has committed to conducting periodic road inspections during construction and to perform road repairs, as needed. Following construction, the roads would be restored as close as practicable to their original condition. Further discussion of these issues is provided in section 4.9.4 and Appendix X of this final EIS. L-6.4 Ruby has committed to maintaining the condition of access roads, employing erosion control measures on access roads, and employing dust abatement measures to minimize fugitive dust from vehicle traffic on access roads (see appendices O and X). L-6.5 While is it technically feasible to construction the pipeline aboveground, the pipeline would be installed below grade in accordance with standard pipeline construction methods and DOT federal safety standards. Ruby’s proposed construction and restoration methods and our recommendations would minimize disturbance associated with construction. L-6.6 Concerns regarding seasonal restriction waivers are discussed in section 4.5.2 of this final EIS. 

L-6.2 L-6.3 L-6.4 L-6.5 L-6.6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
L-14

LOCAL AGENCY/OFFICIAL/GROUP 6 

L-6.7 Ruby is responsible for ensuring successful revegetation. Ruby acknowledges in its Reclamation Plan (Appendix K) that vegetation types within the project area vary according to soil types, topography, climatic conditions, and land management practices. Ruby would use several different reclamation requirements to accommodate these differences. The various reclamation requirements were developed with input from the BLM, Reclamation, USFS, WGFD, UDWR, NDOW, ODFW and NRCS. Analysis of ecological sites along the right-of-way also was used in the development of seeding mixes and appropriate locations for their application. L-6.8 Crucial winter range is discussed in section 4.5.2 of this final EIS. Conservation measures and plans are discussed throughout this final EIS. L-6.9 See section 4.9.3 of this final EIS for impacts on local public services during construction of the project, which is estimated to be a 10 month endeavor. As described in section 4.9.1, eight permanent employees would be hired to operate the four compressor stations and would likely reside in the same or nearby counties. Therefore, there would be a negligible impact on local public services from the permanent workforce. L-6.10 Economic impacts of land purchases for compensatory mitigation are discussed in section 4.9.6 of this final EIS. 

L-6.6 L-6.7 L-6.8 L-6.9 L-6.10 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
L-15

LOCAL AGENCY/OFFICIAL/GROUP 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
L-16

LOCAL AGENCY/OFFICIAL/GROUP 7 

L-7.1 Thank you for your comment. 

L-7.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
L-17

LOCAL AGENCY/OFFICIAL/GROUP 8 

L-8.1 Thank you for your comment. 

L-8.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
L-18

LOCAL AGENCY/OFFICIAL/GROUP 8 

L-8.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
L-19

LOCAL AGENCY/OFFICIAL/GROUP 9 

L-9.1 Thank you for your comment. 

L-9.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
L-20

LOCAL AGENCY/OFFICIAL/GROUP 10 

L-10.1 This final EIS has been updated to include impacts on public services and transportation in California, see sections 4.9.3 and 4.9.4 of this final EIS. Ruby met with public officials from Modoc County and the cities of Cedarville and Alturas in July and August 2009 to discuss the project needs and public service impacts. Local community leaders invited Ruby to visit their medical facilities and to discuss anticipated construction-related medical needs. As a result of these meetings, the local medical community stated it would provide any necessary emergency medical needs. Ruby also met with local fire departments and reviewed equipment. An informal communication team has been established that would develop a plan for effective communication in the event of an emergency. This final EIS has been updated to include information about the existing public services that would be affected by the Vya Construction Camp, see section 4.9.3. 

L-10.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
L-21

LOCAL AGENCY/OFFICIAL/GROUP 10 

L-10.2 As discussed in section 4.9.3 of this final EIS, Ruby would require each camp occupant to read and sign orientation documents that would contain information, including use restrictions, regarding the surrounding communities and areas. Ruby is also working with local law enforcement agencies to ensure that law enforcement services would be adequate to meet the needs of the camp without creating undue burden on the surrounding community. L-10.3 Ruby has committed to staffing security at the Vya Construction Camp 24 hours a day. The Vya camp would be gated fenced and only approved workers would have access. Ruby is currently working with local law enforcement agencies to ensure that security would be adequate to meet the needs of the Vya camp without creating an undue burden on the surrounding communities as discussed in section 4.9.3 of this final EIS. L-10.4 This final EIS has been updated to include socioeconomic impacts and mitigation for Modoc County, California, See section 4.9.1 for a discussion on population and employment, section 4.9.2 for a discussion on housing, section 4.9.3 for a discussion on public services, section 4.9.4 for a discussion on transportation, section 4.9.6 for a discussion on economy and tax revenues, and section 4.9.7 for a discussion on environmental justice. 

L-10.1 L-10.2 L-10.3 L-10.4 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
L-22

LOCAL AGENCY/OFFICIAL/GROUP 11 

L-11.1 We are recommending that Ruby work with local governmental agencies to define specific traffic control plans where traffic could be disrupted by construction or by construction-related traffic. Section 4.9.4 of this final EIS provides a discussion of transportation impacts. L-11.2 We are recommending that Ruby work with local governmental agencies to define specific traffic control plans where traffic could be disrupted by construction or by construction-related traffic. Section 4.9.4 of this final EIS provides a discussion of transportation impacts. 

L-11.1 L-11.2 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Native American 

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-1

NATIVE AMERICAN 1A 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-2

NATIVE AMERICAN 1A 

NA-1A.1 The final EIS has been updated with the most recent project information and studies available. Site-specific information has been provided in the EIS where necessary to address site-specific issues that have been raised by stakeholders. The timeframe for environmental review is dictated by several factors, including the applicant's schedule, the need for and availability of environmental data, FERC regulations and policy, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and the National Environmental Policy Act. NA-1A.2 Ruby and federal agencies are working with the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe to identify and protect traditional resources along the pipeline route that are important to the tribe. Potential impacts on traditional foods, medicines, and other subsistence resource, as well as sacred sites and possible burials are discussed in sections 3.4.12, 3.4.13, and 4.10. Construction impacts on big game species are discussed in section 4.5.2. 

NA-1A.1 NA-1A.2 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-3

NATIVE AMERICAN 1A 

NA-1A.3 Thank you for your comment. NA-1A.4 Activities that can be authorized under blanket 

certificates are defined in 18 CFR Part 157 Subpart F. NA-1A.5 See response to comment NA-1A.2. 

NA-1A.3 NA-1A.4 NA-1A.5 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-4

NATIVE AMERICAN 1A 

NA-1A.6 Ruby has now identified it would construct communication towers up to 40 feet in height, except at the Roberson Creek Compressor Station where the tower would be 50 feet. The proposed height for the communications towers is dictated by the local elevation and requirements for line-of-sight transmission. 

NA-1A.5 NA-1A.6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-5

NATIVE AMERICAN 1A 

NA-1A.7 Ruby currently has no foreseeable expansion or abandonment plans for the proposed pipeline system. Market forces (e.g., natural gas supply and demand) are the main factors that would determine the need for expansion or abandonment of the proposed facilities. If future expansion or abandonment were necessary, Ruby would be required to seek appropriate regulatory approvals at that time, including any authorizations that might be 

required from the FERC, BLM, or other agency. NA-1A.8 See response to comment NA-1A.2. 

NA-1A.7 NA-1A.8

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-6

NATIVE AMERICAN 1A 

NA-1A.9 All appropriate cultural resources and environmental studies have been or would be conducted for the construction camp and contractor yards. Section 4.10 of the final EIS includes a discussion of the status of these studies. 

NA-1A.9 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-7

NATIVE AMERICAN 1A 

NA-1A.10 Conformance with BLM, USFS, and FWS land use plans is discussed in EIS section 1.5.1. Ruby would be required to obtain permits from road agencies, as appropriate, for use of public roads. Ruby also would be required to obtain landowner permission for use of private roads. NA-1A.11 The comment regarding the remoteness and undeveloped nature of the Summit Lake Paiute reservation and the proposed pipeline route is noted. Ruby does not plan to use any access roads on the Summit Lake Paiute Reservation, and has agreed to return access roads to pre-construction conditions according to landowner wishes. 

NA-1A.10 NA-1A.11 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-8

NATIVE AMERICAN 1A 

NA-1A.12 Ruby's plan for noxious and invasive weed control and restoration requirements are discussed in section 4.4.6. NA-1A.13 A discussion regarding the potential to for mercury to be present in naturally occurring rock has been included in section 4.1.2.1. NA-1A.14 The seedbed is predominantly located in the topsoil layer of the soil. Fill material is excavated from existing, local gravel pits and is mined from well below the depth of seedbeds. Therefore, we do not believe that there would be a significant transfer of invasive, noxious weed seeds introduced due to backfilling operations. 

NA-1A.12 NA-1A.13 NA-1A.14 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-9

NATIVE AMERICAN 1A 

NA-1A.15 Endocrine disrupters are not likely to be present in groundwater sources to be used for hydrostatic testing. All water sources for hydrostatic testing in Nevada are groundwater sources. Ruby is planning to utilize existing high capacity wells or possibly drilling new wells. Groundwater wells such as this are not correlated with endocrine-disrupter risk. The groundwater source that would be used for testing the pipeline in the Summit Lake area is from a well within the Lower Quinn Watershed. Summit Lake is also within the Lower Quinn Watershed. The nearest discharge location to Summit Lake is approximately 5.5 miles away; which is also within the Lower Quinn Watershed. NA-1A.16 Natural gas is different than air in that natural gas poses a risk for fire and explosion, whereas air does not pose the same risk. 

NA-1A.15 NA-1A.16 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-10

NATIVE AMERICAN 1A 

NA-1A.17 See response to comment NA-1A.2. Also, we note that Seeding would be the primary method of reestablishing plants within the right-of-way, extra workspaces, and access roads. However, Ruby has committed to planting container-grown shrubs and bare-root conifer trees in appropriate locations to reestablish important shrubs such as low sagebrush, Wyoming sagebrush, bitterbrush, and Utah serviceberry in critical habitat areas such as sage-grouse nesting and pygmy rabbit colonies (see section 4.4.1.2). Ruby, the BLM, and the FERC are consulting with Native American tribes to identify wild harvesting areas along the pipeline route and to develop proper avoidance or mitigation measures when crossing identified harvesting areas. These consultations are ongoing and will likely continue throughout the duration of the project. Ruby has proposed to employ tribal construction monitors to ensure that tribal concerns are addressed during the construction and restoration phase of the project (see section 4.4.9 and 4.10). 

NA-1A.17

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-11

NATIVE AMERICAN 1A 

NA-1A.18 Section 4.4.1.1 of the final EIS discusses long-term (3 

to 50 years) and permanent impacts (50 years and greater) on juniper woodland, mountain meadow/brush, salt desert scrub, mixed conifer forest, riparian forest, and sagebrush steppe vegetation communities. NA-1A.19 Ruby completed a geological study of potential project impacts on the spring, and although blasting and vibrations are expected to have no impact, Ruby would use trench plugs at the location to assure that the pipeline trench would not draw water away from the spring. See sections 4.3.1.3 and 4.3.1.5. NA-1A.20 The pipeline would be installed below grade, including in rocky areas of steep terrain as discussed in section 2.3.2.5. No aerial spans are proposed on the Ruby Pipeline Project. 

NA-1A.18 NA-1A.19 NA-1A.20 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-12

NATIVE AMERICAN 1A 

NA-1A.21 Ruby has agreed to work with the tribe to identify and ensure the viability of plants that are important to them, including the establishment of a seed bank, see section 4.10.3.2. 

NA-1A.21 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-13

NATIVE AMERICAN 1A 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-14

NATIVE AMERICAN 1A 

NA-1A.22 Ruby is proposing to use a joint third-party compliance monitoring program for the entire project as discussed in section 2.5.2. NA-1A.23 Abandonment of the pipeline would be subject to FERC regulations in 18 CFR 157. 

NA-1A.22 NA-1A.23

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-15

NATIVE AMERICAN 1A 

NA-1A.24 Ruby has committed to conducting site visits through their tribal outreach program, and has been in communication with the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe. See section 3 for the discussion of alternative routes. 

NA-1A.23 NA-1A.24

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-16

NATIVE AMERICAN 1A 

NA-1A.25 Thank you for your comment. 

NA-1A.25 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-17

NATIVE AMERICAN 1A 

NA-1A.26 Collocation of facilities is a generally accepted means to control the location of development and limit impacts on sensitive resources by keeping disturbance within established corridors, and is one of many factors considered when evaluating the benefits and drawbacks of the proposed route as compared to alternatives. 

NA-1A.26

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-18

NATIVE AMERICAN 1A 

NA-1A.27 Thank you for your comment. NA-1A.28 Pipeline reliability and safety, including concerns 

regarding terrorism and security threats, are discussed in section 4.12. 

NA-1A.27 NA-1A.28

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-19

NATIVE AMERICAN 1A 

NA-1A.29 We have updated our evaluation of the Sheldon Route Alternative in the final EIS. We are not recommending that Ruby adopt the Sheldon Route Alternative for the reasons discussed in section 3.4.12. 

NA-1A.29 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-20

NATIVE AMERICAN 1A 

NA-1A.29 NA-1A.29 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-21

NATIVE AMERICAN 1A 

NA-1A.29 NA-1A.29

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-22

NATIVE AMERICAN 1A 

NA-1A.29

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-23

NATIVE AMERICAN 1A 

NA-1A.29

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-24

NATIVE AMERICAN 1A 

NA-1A.30 We have updated our evaluation of the Black Rock Alternative in the final EIS. We are not recommending that Ruby adopt the Black Rock Route Alternative for the reasons discussed in section 3.4.13. NA-1A.31 See response to NA-1A.19. 

NA-1A.30 NA-1A.31

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-25

NATIVE AMERICAN 1A 

NA-1A.31 NA-1A.31

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-26

NATIVE AMERICAN 1A 

NA-1A.32 See response to comment NA-1A.13. NA-1A.33 Section 4.3.2.5 of the final EIS has been revised to include dust abatement sources, locations of potential pathogens, and the treatment and discharge to test water. 

NA-1A.31 NA-1A.32 NA-1A.33

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-27

NATIVE AMERICAN 1A 

NA-1A.34 Ruby has applied for (and in some cases already obtained) the temporary use of water rights for water sources in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon. The states will determine whether water is available in the quantity that Ruby has requested. Any pumping activities would be subject to conditions imposed by the state engineer to minimize impact such as those identified in the comments. NA-1A.35 Thank you for your comment. NA-1A.36 Ruby's plan for noxious and invasive weed control and restoration requirements are discussed in section 4.4.6. 

NA-1A.34 NA-1A.35 NA-1A.36

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-28

NATIVE AMERICAN 1A 

NA-1A.36

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-29

NATIVE AMERICAN 1A 

NA-1A.37 Ethnographic studies completed by the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe should identify if subsistence hunting rights will be affected by the project, see EIS section 4.10 for additional discussion of the ethnographic studies. We believe the construction and restoration procedures proposed by Ruby, and discussed in section 4.5.2, would not preclude big game from crossing the construction work area or otherwise adversely impact big game migration. NA-1A.38 Ruby has surveyed for sage-grouse leks within 2 miles of the project in Nevada. Section 4.7.3.1 discusses potential impacts on sage-grouse as a result of this project. NA-1A.39 The project area located north of the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe Reservation is not currently classified as a BLM VRM Class I or II area. Designation of new areas as VRM Class I or II is a BLM land management issue, and a separate action from the Ruby EIS analysis. 

NA-1A.37 NA-1A.38 NA-1A.39

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-30

NATIVE AMERICAN 1A 

NA-1A.40 A discussion of groundwater use and impacts is provided in section 4.3.1. NA-1A.41 The merits of the Sheldon Route Alternative and Black Rock Alternative are discussed in sections 3.4.12 and 3.4.13. We are not recommending that Ruby adopt the Sheldon or Black Rock Alternatives for reasons discussed in these sections. NA-1A.42 Nothing in the FERC's certificate would preclude future facilities from being collocated with the Ruby pipeline. Depending on the type of future facility, regulatory authorizations may be required. 

NA-1A.40 NA-1A.41 NA-1A.42

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-31

NATIVE AMERICAN 1A 

NA-1A.43 Results of the habitat survey are provided in sections 3.4.12, 4.4.5, and Appendix M. 

NA-1A.43

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-32

NATIVE AMERICAN 1B 

NA-1B.1 The final EIS has been updated with the most recent project information and studies available. NA-1B.2 The Class III field survey in Nevada is complete. The Nevada survey reports are currently under review by federal agencies. NA-1B.3 Winter construction and access are discussed in section 2.3.2.8. NA-1B.4 The Vya Construction Camp is undergoing the same environmental review, including Section 106 process review of cultural resources, as the pipeline corridor and other project faculties. Ruby has submitted an Environmental Analysis of the Camp (see Appendix P of the final EIS), and our analysis is presented throughout the EIS. Also, Ruby employees and contractors who live at the Vya camp will be required to sign an orientation document regarding treatment of sensitive resources surrounding the camp. See sections 4.9.3 and 4.10.1.3. 

NA-1B.1 NA-1B.2 NA-1B.3 NA-1B.4

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-33

NATIVE AMERICAN 1B 

NA-1B.5 Fire prevention services would be available on site at the camp for small emergencies and would follow the protocols of Ruby’s Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan (see Appendix H). Construction of the camp would include installation of two 13,000-gallon water storage tanks for fire fighting and a rented pumper engine to handle any potential fire emergencies at the camp. Construction crews and employees at the camp would be required to adhere to all hazard and safety requirements to mitigate the potential for fire along the route. Fire department services may also be called upon for injuries or accidents along the proposed route (see section 4.9.3). NA-1B.6 The final EIS has been updated to include socioeconomic impacts and mitigation for local communities, including communities in California, that would be affected by implementation of the Vya Construction Camp. See section 4.9 for a discussion on population, employment, housing, public services, transportation, economy, tax revenues, and environmental justice. NA-1B.7 A discussion of groundwater and surface water impacts 

from water appropriation associated with the project is provided in sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2. 

NA-1B.4 NA-1B.5 NA-1B.6 NA-1B.7

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-34

NATIVE AMERICAN 1B 

NA-1B.8 See response to comment NA-1A.34 . NA-1B.9 See response to NA-1A.19. NA-1B.10 Impacts and mitigation for the Lahontan cutthroat trout are discussed in section 4.7.2.2. None of the waterbodies crossed by the project are tributaries to Mahogany Creek. Waterbodies that are crossed near the Summit Lake Indian Reservation and the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Natural Area either flow north and are tributaries to Craine Creek or drain to Fivemile Flat. No indirect downstream impacts on Mahogany Creek or Summit Lake would occur and no significant impacts on Lahontan cutthroat trout populations utilized by the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe are anticipated. 

NA-1B.7 NA-1B.8 NA-1B.9 NA-1B.10

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-35

NATIVE AMERICAN 1B 

NA-1B.11 NDOW has been involved with the preparation of a 

project-specific cooperative conservation agreement for sagegrouse in Nevada. This agreement incorporates many construction and restoration procedures that would lessen project impacts on greater sage-grouse. A draft copy of the agreement is in Appendix M. NA-1B.12 Impacts of noise and light on wildlife are discussed in sections 4.5.1.1 and 4.5.1.3. Section 4 has been updated to include impacts of the non-jurisdictional electric transmission and distribution lines. NA-1B.13 Artifact collection and curation will follow applicable state and federal standards and is addressed in section 4.10.1. 

NA-1B.10 NA-1B.11 NA-1B.12 NA-1B.13

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-36

NATIVE AMERICAN 1B 

NA-1B.14 The Ruby EIS is consistent with FERC style, formatting, and policy regarding NEPA, evaluation of alternatives, and different types of impacts. Temporary extra work spaces, staging areas, water appropriation sites, contractor/pipe yards, camps, and temporary housing facilities are discussed throughout and are identified on the maps in Appendix B. NA-1B.15 Neither overall project approval nor a particular route has been pre-determined by the FERC. A project's need is established by the FERC when it determines whether the project is required by the public convenience and necessity. The FERC's Certificate Policy Statement provided guidance as to how the Commission evaluates proposals for new construction, and establishes criteria for determining whether there is a need for a proposed project and whether it will serve the public interest. During our review of Ruby's proposal, we evaluated, without prejudice, several route alternatives and variations to the proposed route to address specific landowner and/or environmental concerns with the proposed route. We recommended in the draft EIS that Ruby incorporate 3 route alternatives and 15 route variations into the final pipeline route. Ruby has formally modified its proposed route to adopt all 3 alternatives and 15 variations, and as such, they are now a part of Ruby’s proposed project. These alternatives and variations are discussed in section 3 of the final EIS. 

NA-1B.13 NA-1B.14 NA-1B.15

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-37

NATIVE AMERICAN 1B 

NA-1B.16 The final EIS has been updated with the most recent project information and studies available. Site-specific information has been provided in the EIS where necessary to address site-specific issues that have been raised by stakeholders. The timeframe for environmental review is dictated by several factors, including the applicant's schedule, the need for and availability of environmental data, FERC regulations and policy, the EPAct 2005, and NEPA. 

NA-1B.15 NA-1B.16

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-38

NATIVE AMERICAN 1B 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-39

NATIVE AMERICAN 1C 

NA-1C.1 Since the time the draft EIS was issued, Ruby filed an updated Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan to address perceived deficiencies. We believe that the current plan is a significant improvement, but still lacks detail and clarity with regard to notification procedures and responsibilities. Therefore, we have recommended in section 4.9.3 of the final EIS that Ruby revise its Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan to meet the standards of fire all response authorities in the project area. 

NA-1C.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-40

NATIVE AMERICAN 1C 

NA-1C.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-41

NATIVE AMERICAN 1C 

NA-1C.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-42

NATIVE AMERICAN 1C 

NA-1C.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-43

NATIVE AMERICAN 1C 

NA-1C.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-44

NATIVE AMERICAN 1C 

NA-1C.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-45

NATIVE AMERICAN 1C 

NA-1C.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-46

NATIVE AMERICAN 2 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-47

NATIVE AMERICAN 2 

NA-2.1 Thank you for your comment. NA-2.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-48

NATIVE AMERICAN 3 

NA-3.1 The Section 106 process, through which cultural resources are identified, impacts evaluated, and treatment addressed, will continue after the final EIS is issued. Recent updates to the status of the cultural resources studies is provided in section 4.10.1. 

NA-3.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-49

NATIVE AMERICAN 3 

NA-3.2 Ruby's Unanticipated Discovery Plans were provided as 

Appendix J of the POD, most recently filed with FERC on November 4, 2009. NA-3.3 The Reno-Sparks Indian Colony would receive the treatment plans. NA-3.4 Ruby is conducting ethnographic studies; preliminary findings, which identified potential TCPs and sacred sites, have been reported for three of the studies (see EIS section 4.10.1.3). 

NA-3.1 NA-3.2 NA-3.3 NA-3.4

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-50

NATIVE AMERICAN 3 

NA-3.5 Potential impacts on traditional foods, medicines, and other subsistence resources, as well as sacred sites and possible burials are discussed in EIS sections 3.4.12, 3.4.13, and 4.10. NA-3.6 The merits of the Sheldon Route Alternative and are discussed in sections 3.4.12. We are not recommending that Ruby adopt the Sheldon Route Alternative for reasons discussed in this sections. NA-3.7 The FERC tribal consultation processes were articulated in our September 17, 2008 letter to the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, and tribal consultation has been ongoing. Tribal consultation for the Ruby project has been consistent with FERC policy. Native American concerns are discussed not only in section 4.10, but throughout the final EIS. Section 4.10.3 has been updated since publication of the draft EIS. FERC invited Native American tribes to the interagency scoping meetings in 2008; a representative of Reno-Sparks Indian Colony attended. The FERC also invited tribes to a meeting in October 2008 to discuss the project; a representative of Reno-Sparks Indian Colony attended. Other agencies often conduct meetings, and if FERC attends, it is as an invitee. 

NA-3.4 NA-3.5 NA-3.6 NA-3.7 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-51

NATIVE AMERICAN 3 

NA-3.8 FERC has sent notices to the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony (Reno-Sparks Indian Colony), conducted several public meetings in Nevada, and met with representatives of the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony. FERC acknowledges that the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation will participate in the Section 106 consultation for the project. See section 4.10.3 for additional discussion of Native American consultation. 

NA-3.7 NA-3.8

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-52

NATIVE AMERICAN 3 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-53

NATIVE AMERICAN 4 

NA-4.1 Thank you for your comment. The quoted text is a list of cooperating agencies that participated in the development of the EIS and is not to be interpreted as limiting other FERC consultations, responsibilities, or legal obligations. 

NA-4.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-54

NATIVE AMERICAN 4 

NA-4.2 The BLM has augmented the FERC’s tribal consultation process for the Ruby Pipeline Project by conducting numerous meetings and conference calls with tribes in the project area. 

NA-4.1 NA-4.2

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-55

NATIVE AMERICAN 4 

NA-4.3 The FERC, the BLM, and Ruby as the project proponent have consulted with American Indian tribes since March of 2008; see section 4.10.3 of the final EIS. Consultation activity has increased in 2009, and will continue throughout the project. We understand the sensitive nature of cultural resources information. The FERC is committed to keeping such sensitive information confidential (as allowed and/or required by law), whether submitted by Ruby, and agency, or a tribe. NA-4.4 Conservation measures for greater sage-grouse are 

identified in Ruby's POD and discussed in section 4.7.3.1 and Appendix M. These conservation measures were developed in cooperation with the state agencies. Traffic on access road would disturb grouse using leks; however, Ruby has committed to adhering to agency-approved construction windows. And lek distance buffer zones. 

NA-4.3 NA-4.4 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-56

NATIVE AMERICAN 4 

NA-4.5 Potential impacts on historic trails are discussed in EIS sections 4.8.3.2 and 4.10.1. Impacts on historic trails are also evaluated during the cultural resources studies. NA-4.6 The federal land managing agencies (e.g., BLM, FWS) 

would be required to document conformance with the visual standards outlined in their respective land use plans, which were developed, in part, under the FLPMA. Conformance with these plans is discussed in section 4.8.4. NA-4.7 We acknowledge that tribal economies may rely more heavily on traditional resources and practices. We also note that Ruby has engaged in outreach to Native American tribes regarding cultural resource issues and other project concerns, such as impacts on wildlife and subsistence lifestyles. Ruby has retained a Native American Coordinator who is assisting in identifying and training local Native American tribal monitors along the pipeline route to ensure that potential cultural impacts of the project, including any potential impacts on subsistence practices, are properly recognized and respected (see sections 4.9.7 and 4.10 for additional information). 

NA-4.5 NA-4.6 NA-4.7

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-57

NATIVE AMERICAN 4 

NA-4.8 Tribal Consultation has been underway since March of 2008. Ruby is conducting ethnographic studies, which would provide information about TCPs and culturally sensitive locations; see section 4.10.1.3. Preliminary findings identified potential TCPs, which will be evaluated and treated through the Section 106 process. NA-4.9 The Advisory Council for Historic Preservation enters the Section 106 process at its discretion and acts as an advocate for 

the historic properties. Tribal consultation has been underway since March of 2008. 

NA-4.7 NA-4.8 NA-4.9 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-58

NATIVE AMERICAN 4 

NA-4.10 Dr. Deward E. Walker, Jr. is conducting an ethnographic study of the Duck Valley Shoshone-Paiute; see EIS section 4.10.1.3. Ruby filed the preliminary findings from this study in November 2009. NA-4.11 According to information received by FERC, the Shoshone-Paiute Tribe of the Duck Valley Reservation has received copies of the requested reports. NA-4.12 Updates about the status of cultural resource studies is provided in section 4.10.1. Because they contain protected information, survey reports are sent out only to approved recipients. FERC has asked Ruby to provide copies of reports to tribes upon request; the Shoshone-Paiute Tribe can contact Ruby directly for a report copy. 

NA-4.10 NA-4.11 NA-4.12

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-59

NATIVE AMERICAN 4 

NA-4.13 According to information provided to FERC, the studies began mid-August 2009. NA-4.14 According to information provided to FERC, copies of the reports were sent to the tribe. NA-4.15 The tribal consultation section has been revised in the final EIS; these comments are addressed in section 4.10.3.2. NA-4.16 The Shoshone-Paiute Tribe received copies of the latest 

reports. The tribe can request report comments from the respective BLM district offices. NA-4.17 Specific criteria are used to evaluate the visual impacts on historic properties, which is part of the Section 106 review process. However, American Indian connections to the visual landscape should be addressed in the ethnographic studies; see section 4.10.1.3 for studies in Nevada. Such traditional connections to the visual landscape may be an element of a TCP or sacred site. 

NA-4.13 NA-4.14 NA-4.15 NA-4.16 NA-4.17 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-60

NATIVE AMERICAN 4 

NA-4.18 Tribal consultation has been underway since March of 2008 and has been conducted consistent with FERC policy and practice. See also response to comment NA-4.2. Section 4.10.3 contains additional information. NA-4.19 FERC sent the tribe a Notice of Pre-Filing 

Environmental Review regarding the Ruby project on March 28, 2008, and a Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS for the project on September 26, 2008. FERC also invited the tribe to attend scoping meetings in the spring of 2008. Copies of the draft EIS were sent to members of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation. The BLM has sent separate correspondence to the tribe and held separate meetings with the tribe on various occasions in 2009. 

NA-4.18 NA-4.19

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-61

NATIVE AMERICAN 4 

NA-4.20 According to information the BLM has provided, they have sent four tribal consultation letters to the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, and the tribe attended a BLM meeting in May of 2009. NA-4.21 The FERC is able to keep confidential any sensitive cultural resource information so identified by a tribe. Ethnographic studies and tribal consultation, which are designed to identify but protect culturally sensitive locations, are underway. These comments are addressed in section 4.10.3.2. NA-4.22 FERC acknowledges the reluctance of tribal members to divulge sensitive information. Provisions of the Section 106 process protect information about the location and character of sensitive cultural sites. Government-to-government tribal consultation is addressed in EIS section 4.10.3. 

NA-4.20 NA-4.21 NA-4.22 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-62

NATIVE AMERICAN 4 

NA-4.23 Treatment plans to address impacts on cultural resources, including properties important to American Indian tribes, will be developed in the coming weeks. Input from local tribes will be an important factor in designing appropriate and acceptable treatments for cultural resources important to the tribes. Treatment plans and other conditions for complying with the NHPA are addressed in section 4.10.5. NA-4.24 Ruby hired Dr. Deward E. Walker, Jr. to conduct an ethnographic study of the Shoshone and Paiute people of the Duck Valley and Fort McDermitt reservations; see section 4.10.1.3. Ruby filed an interim report from this study with FERC in November 2009, and it will be reviewed to identify culturally sensitive locations. NA-4.25 Impacts on wells and springs are discussed in section 4.3.1.3; blasting is discussed in section 4.3.1.5. Geothermal resources are discussed in section 4.1.2.3. NA-4.26 Geologic hazards and monitoring and mitigation are addressed in section 4.1.3. NA-4.27 Comment noted. 

NA-4.23 NA-4.24 NA-4.25 NA-4.26 NA-4.27

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-63

NATIVE AMERICAN 4 

NA-4.27

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-64

NATIVE AMERICAN 4 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-65

NATIVE AMERICAN 5 

NA-5.1 Tribal consultation has been underway since March of 2008 and has been conducted consistent with FERC policy and practice. See also response to comment NA-4.2. Section 4.10.3 of the final EIS contains additional information. NA-5.2 American Indian concerns about project impacts on 

traditional resources are discussed in section 4.10.3.2. Class III cultural resource surveys for the majority of the pipeline route and ancillary facilities have been completed and the survey reports are under review. Ruby is conducting several ethnographic studies. Preliminary reports from these studies, which provide information about potential TCPs and sacred sites, have been filed with FERC. The Section 106 process, through which cultural resources are identified, impacts evaluated, and treatment addressed, will continue after the final EIS is issued. 

NA-5.1 NA-5.2

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-66

NATIVE AMERICAN 5 

NA-5.3 See response to comment NA-5.1. NA-5.4 Thank you for your comment. NA-5.5 Tribal consultation has been underway since March of 2008. The comments regarding the tribes dissatisfaction with government-to-government consultation are noted. Native American consultation is discussed in section 4.10.3. See also response to comment NA-5.1. 

NA-5.2 NA-5.3 NA-5.4 NA-5.5 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-67

NATIVE AMERICAN 5 

NA-5.6 The FERC is responsible for complying with Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended, which requires federal agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings (including the issuance of permits and certificates) on properties listed, or eligible for listing, on the NRHP and to afford the ACHP an opportunity to comment on the undertaking. The BLM, FWS, USFS, and Reclamation (as cooperating agencies) are augmenting the Section 106 process as per each agency’s responsibilities. In addition to these responsibilities, federal land managing agencies must consider Native American religious and cultural concerns for the portions of the project crossing federal lands in accordance with the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and Sacred Sites Executive Order 13007. NA-5.7 Compliance with ARPA is acknowledged in table 1-15.1, and ARPA is noted in EIS section 4.10. NA-5.8 AIRFA is noted in section 4.10. NA-5.9 Ruby has initiated the hiring and training of tribal monitors, see section 4.10.3. 

NA-5.5 NA-5.6 NA-5.7 NA-5.8 NA-5.9

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-68

NATIVE AMERICAN 5 

NA-5.9

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-69

NATIVE AMERICAN 6 

NA-6.1 This letter is essentially the same as letter NA-1A. As such, see our responses to that letter. 

NA-6.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-70

NATIVE AMERICAN 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-71

NATIVE AMERICAN 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-72

NATIVE AMERICAN 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-73

NATIVE AMERICAN 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-74

NATIVE AMERICAN 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-75

NATIVE AMERICAN 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-76

NATIVE AMERICAN 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-77

NATIVE AMERICAN 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-78

NATIVE AMERICAN 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-79

NATIVE AMERICAN 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-80

NATIVE AMERICAN 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-81

NATIVE AMERICAN 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-82

NATIVE AMERICAN 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-83

NATIVE AMERICAN 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-84

NATIVE AMERICAN 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-85

NATIVE AMERICAN 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-86

NATIVE AMERICAN 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-87

NATIVE AMERICAN 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-88

NATIVE AMERICAN 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-89

NATIVE AMERICAN 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-90

NATIVE AMERICAN 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-91

NATIVE AMERICAN 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-92

NATIVE AMERICAN 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-93

NATIVE AMERICAN 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-94

NATIVE AMERICAN 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-95

NATIVE AMERICAN 6 

\ 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-96

NATIVE AMERICAN 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-97

NATIVE AMERICAN 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-98

NATIVE AMERICAN 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-92

NATIVE AMERICAN 7 

NA-7.1 Thank you for your comment. 

NA-7.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-93

NATIVE AMERICAN 7 

NA-7.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-94

NATIVE AMERICAN 8 

NA-8.1 Thank you for your comment. 

NA-8.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-95

NATIVE AMERICAN 8 

NA-8.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-96

NATIVE AMERICAN 8 

NA-8.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-97

NATIVE AMERICAN 9 

NA-9.1 The Section 106 Process, through which cultural resources are identified, impacts evaluated, and treatment addressed, will continue after the final EIS is issued. Tribal consultation is discussed in section 4.10.3, and Native American concerns are addressed throughout the EIS. The Fort Bidwell Indian Community has received project communication from FERC, BLM, and Ruby, see table 4.10.3-1. NA-9.2 Ruby is conducting ethnographic studies; preliminary findings, which identified potential TCPs and sacred sites, have been reported for three of the studies (see section 4.10.1.3). 

NA-9.1 NA-9.2

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-98

NATIVE AMERICAN 9 

NA-9.3 Through the ethnographic studies and tribal consultation, sensitive cultural sites, including burials, would be identified, and the impacts on them evaluated and mitigated. See section 4.10.1.3 for a discussion of the ethnographic study for the Fort Bidwell Indian Community. Impact on traditional resources are discussed in section 4.10.3.2. Impacts on vegetation are discussed in section 4.4, and impacts on wildlife are discussed in section 4.5. Potential impacts on springs and other water resources is addressed in section 4.3.1. NA-9.6 The project has been under environmental review since the pre-filing period, which was announced in a March 2008 FERC mailing received by the Fort Bidwell Community Council. FERC recognized Native American concerns, which are addressed throughout the EIS. 

NA-9.3 NA-9.6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-99

NATIVE AMERICAN 10 

NA-10.1 Native American consultation is discussed in EIS section 4.10.3. NA-10.2 The EIS is an environmental review document and does not establish or determine land ownership, user privileges, or treaty conferred rights. The FERC is a licensing agency and does not own or manage any federal lands. 

NA-10.1 NA-10.2

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
NA-100

NATIVE AMERICAN 11 

NA-11.1 Thank you for your comment. 

NA-1.1.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Non-Governmental Organization 

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-1

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 1A 

N-1A.1 A clearer explanation of why the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project is not a reasonable system alternative is provided in section 3.3 of the final EIS. Consideration of the Sunstone Pipeline Project is now moot, as it has been withdrawn by the applicant. N-1A.2 Neither overall project approval nor a particular route has 

been pre-determined by the FERC. The “proposed route” in the EIS is Ruby’s proposed route, not the FERC’s. The FERC does not propose routes, but rather responds to an applicant’s proposed route, which is presented in the EIS as the proposed route. We evaluated several route alternatives and variations to the proposed route to address specific landowner and/or environmental concerns with the proposed route. We recommended in the draft EIS that Ruby incorporate 3 route alternatives and 15 route variations into the final pipeline route. Ruby has formally modified its proposed route to adopt these 3 alternatives and 15 

variations, and as such, they are now a part of Ruby’s proposed project. These alternatives and variations as well as other alternatives and variations are discussed in section 3 of the final EIS. 

N-1A.1 N-1A.2

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-2

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 1A 

N-1A.3 The final EIS has been updated to include a discussion of socioeconomic impacts for California communities that would be affected by the Vya Construction Camp. See section 4.9 for a discussion on population, employment, housing, public services, transportation, the economy, tax revenues, and environmental justice. N-1A.4 A temporary well is proposed for a camp potable water supply. Ruby’s permit for this well (No. 78382) has been reviewed and approved by the State of Nevada. There would be no detrimental impact from using this well on a temporary basis. Ruby also submitted an updated Hydrostatic Test Plan in November 2009. Table 4.3.1-1 provides details on the groundwater sources for hydrostatic testing and dust control. See section 4.3.1.2, Appendix K, and Appendix O for further information as well. Table 1.5.1 presents timelines and regulatory requirements for water appropriation permits. Any appropriation of groundwater would be subject to conditions imposed by the state engineer to minimize impacts on the aquifer from which water is appropriated. Ruby would only utilize water sources that are authorized and approved by the respective state water right permitting agencies and Ruby must comply with any limitations or conditions on withdrawal imposed by these agencies. 

N-1A.2 N-1A.3 N-1A.4

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-3

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 1A 

N-1A.5 Table 1.3-2 indentifies issues raised during scoping and the locations where these issues are addressed in the final EIS. N-1A.6 The process for authorizing a right-of-way grant on federal lands, including within the Highway 140 easement on the Sheldon NWR, is discussed in sections 1.5 and 3.4.12. N-1A.7 Acreage impacts are discussed throughout the final EIS. In particular, acreage impacts on vegetation and land use are presented in sections 4.4 and 4.8, respectively. N-1A.8 Access road impacts are discussed, as appropriate, in various parts of EIS sections 2, 3, and 4. N-1A.9 Sagebrush steppe habitat is limited in the Oregon portion 

of the Ruby project area. Based on existing data, no previously recorded sage-grouse leks were indentified within 2 miles of the project in Oregon. Ruby, however, did observe sage-grouse individuals in Oregon near the Oregon-Nevada border. Pygmy rabbits were not observed during species-specific surveys. Sagegrouse and pygmy rabbit data collected by Ruby during the 2008 and 2009 field season are discussed in this final EIS. 

N-1A.4 N-1A.5 N-1A.6 N-1A.7 N-1A.8 N-1A.9

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-4

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 1A 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-5

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 1B 

N-1B.1 The final EIS has been revised to include a discussion of the road network that Ruby proposes to use for construction and operation of the Vya Construction Camp, see section 4.9.4 and Appendix X. 

N-1B.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-6

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 1B 

N-1B.2 The final EIS has been updated to include socioeconomic impacts and mitigation for California communities that would be affected by implementation of the Vya Construction Camp. See section 4.9.1 for a discussion on population and employment, 4.9.2 for a discussion on housing, 4.9.3 for a discussion on public services, 4.9.4 for a discussion on transportation, 4.9.6.1 for a discussion on economy and tax revenues, and 4.9.7 for a discussion on environmental justice. Socioeconomic impacts of the project on Modoc County are discussed in section 4.9. 

N-1B.2

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-7

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2A 

N-2A.1 Thank you for your comment. However, we are not recommending the Sheldon Route Alternative for the reasons discussed in section 3.4.12 of the final EIS. N-2A.2 A discussion of vegetation and habitat impacts including 

sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit, and migratory birds is provided in sections 4.4, 4.5, and 4.7. N-2A.3 Thank you for your comment. 

N-2A.1 N-2A.2 N-2A.3

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-8

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-9

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.1 An explanation of how the FERC establishes purpose and need is included in section 1.1 of the final EIS. Neither overall project approval nor a particular route has been pre-determined by the FERC. A project's need is established by the FERC when it determines whether the project is required by the public convenience and necessity. The FERC's Certificate Policy Statement provided guidance as to how the Commission evaluates proposals for new construction, and establishes criteria for determining whether there is a need for a proposed project and whether it will serve the public interest. During our review of Ruby's proposal, we evaluated, without prejudice, several route alternatives and variations to the proposed route to address specific landowner and/or environmental concerns with the proposed route. These are discussed in section 3 of the final EIS. The timeframe for environmental review is dictated by several factors, including the applicant's schedule, the need for and availability of environmental data, FERC regulations and policy, EPAct 2005, and the NEPA. N-2B.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-10

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.2 We disagree. Although the FERC did not formally extend the comment period, the FERC continued to accept comments after the close of the comment period. The final EIS has been updated with the most recent project information and studies available. 

N-2B.1 N-2B.2 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-11

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.3 Our (FERC staff’s) conclusions regarding the environmental impact of the project are clearly presented in section 5 of the final EIS; and were based on the most updated information available, input from cooperating and other resource agencies, public comments, etc. The Ruby EIS is consistent with FERC style, formatting, and policy regarding NEPA evaluation of alternatives and different types of impacts. 

N-2B.3 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-12

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.4 An explanation of how the FERC establishes purpose and need is included in section 1.1 of the final EIS. This may be different from what the commenter is familiar with from other agency environmental documents. 

N-2B.4

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-13

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.5 Energy alternatives, including increased efficiency and conservation, are discussed in section 3.2. N-2B.6 The alternatives that would “render the pipeline unnecessary” as well as alternatives through less ecologically sensitive areas were evaluated in the EIS. Where the alternative was found to contain a significant environmental advantage over the proposed route, while still being technically and economically feasible, we recommended that Ruby adopt the alternative route. Specifically, we evaluated several route alternatives and variations to the proposed route to address specific landowner and/or environmental concerns. N-2B.7 The reference to "other pipeline systems in Nevada" refers to Ruby's planned interconnection with the existing Paiute Pipeline at MP 437.4. N-2B.8 An analysis of the end use of the natural gas and whether it will be exported to foreign countries or whether foreign gas will be imported to the United States is outside the scope of this EIS. The extent to which future projects may or may not be collocated with the Ruby Pipeline Project is unknown; however, collocation with existing corridors is frequently preferred as a means to reduce environmental impacts. As the project is currently designed, natural gas can be moved only from east to west. Route alternatives and variations are evaluated in EIS sections 3.4 and 3.5. 

N-2B.5 N-2B.6 N-2B.7 N-2B.8

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-14

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.9 See responses to N-2B.1 and N-2B.6. 

N-2B.9 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-15

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.10 Ruby's proposed route was designed to follow an existing Los Angeles Department of Water and Power electric transmission line in northwestern Nevada. Our analysis of the Jungo-Tuscarora Route Alternative is presented in EIS section 3.4.1.4. Impacts of the Vya Construction Camp on California are discussed mainly in section 4.9. Impacts of non-jurisdictional facilities are discussed in section 1.4 and throughout the EIS. N-2B.11 The final EIS has been updated with the most recent project information and studies available. The Ruby EIS is consistent with FERC style, formatting, and policy regarding NEPA evaluation of alternatives and different types of impacts. Each alternative was analyzed for these resources to a point where it was clear whether the alternative could meet the project objectives with or without an environmental advantage. The evaluation of alternatives attempted to focus on resources where impacts would be different, not similar, so as to be able to draw conclusions regarding the merits and drawbacks of each alternative. Where resources are not discussed in an alternative’s analysis they are unknown or assumed to be similar and would not contribute toward a clearer understanding of the alternative’s merits or drawbacks. N-2B.12 The Sheldon Route Alternative was identified by the BLM and NDOW as one possible means of addressing specific 

environmental concerns with the proposed route by following an existing corridor (State Highway 140) through northwestern Nevada. Our goal is to evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of the Sheldon Route Alternative as compared to Ruby’s proposed route. The results of our evaluation are included in section 3.4.12. 

N-2B.10 N-2B.11 N-2B.12

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-16

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.13 We have concluded that the Jungo-Tuscarora Route Alternative would not confer an environmental advantage over the proposed route, but rather it would shift environmental impacts from one area and group of resources to another area and group of resources. Ruby also stated that additional length of pipe and additional compression required to construct the Jungo-Tuscarora Route Alternative would considerably increase construction costs and make the project infeasible. Reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint. An agency's responsibilities to examine alternatives have always been bounded by some notion of feasibility to avoid the NEPA review process from becoming frivolous analysis. N-2B.14 Where appropriate, issues such as constructability, 

accessibility, and impacts on communities have been discussed in the alternatives analyses. Costs have been evaluated in the alternatives analysis insofar as they would affect the feasibility of an alternative. We have identified those alternatives where increased costs would render the alternative infeasible, and Ruby would not be able to meet the overall project objective. Regarding Ruby's initial contact with agencies and the public, Ruby filed a request with the FERC to implement the FERC’s pre-filing process for the Ruby Pipeline Project. FERC established the prefiling process to encourage early involvement of interested stakeholders, facilitate interagency cooperation, and identify and resolve environmental issues with a proposed project before an application is filed with the FERC. Ideally, the process results in a route that satisfies all concerns raised by stakeholders prior to filing an application with the FERC; and in such cases, there is usually very little need to modify the project route. In the case of the Ruby Pipeline Project, Ruby was able to satisfy many, but not all, route concerns raised by stakeholders. Therefore, we evaluated several route alternatives and variations in an attempt to address those unresolved concerns. N-2B.15 Agency oversight during construction is discussed in 

EIS section 2.5. 

N-2B.13 N-2B.14 N-2B.15

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-17

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.16 The final EIS has been updated with the most recent project information and studies available including information regarding other natural gas, utility, and energy projects. See section 4.13. N-2B.17 The extent to which future projects may or may not be collocated with the Ruby Pipeline Project is unknown; however, collocation with existing corridors is frequently preferred as a means to reduce environmental impacts. As the project is currently designed, natural gas can be moved only from east to west. Route alternatives and variations are evaluated in sections 3.4 and 3.5, cumulative impacts are discussed in section 4.13. N-2B.18 The text in section 4.13 of this final EIS has been revised to include a discussion of the Southwest Intertie Project. 

N-2B.16 N-2B.17 N-2B.18

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-18

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-19

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-20

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.19 Thank you for your comment. N-2B.20 The Ruby Pipeline would not connect with other El Paso 

pipelines. Currently, there are no other El Paso expansion plans along the pipeline route. N-2B.21 Mining, oil and gas development, and other energy projects that affect the same geographic area as the proposed project are discussed in section 4.13. The potential for wildfires as a result of construction of the pipeline is discussed in section 4.12.1. Wildfires are part of the ecological regime (not projects) and, as such, are considered part of the environmental baseline of the area. We do not anticipate the Ruby Pipeline Project causing any lakes to disappear. 

N-2B.19 N-2B.20 N-2B.21 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-21

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.22 See response to N-2B.21 N-2B.23 The existing environment throughout the project area, as well as environment impacts and mitigation for the project, are described in the various resource sections of chapter 4. Livestock grazing has occurred throughout western United States for more than a century. Impacts of grazing are understood to include destruction of native vegetation, increased spread of invasive weeds and exotic species, damage to topsoil, exposure of soil to erosion, detrimental effects to water quality and availability, and increased competition with native wildlife for food and space. There is little consensus, however, on how to best manage grazing. The presence of a pipeline, such as the Ruby pipeline, would not necessitate any change in grazing practices within the project area after construction, except perhaps to allow vegetation on the right-of-way to become re-established before reintroducing livestock. Because grazing has been occurring in the project area in the distant as well as the near past, and because grazing is likely to continue in the project area into the foreseeable future, grazing is considered part of the ecological regime (not a project or projects) and, as such, is considered part of the environmental baseline of the area. The impacts of the proposed project on the same resources affected by grazing are, however, evaluated throughout this EIS. Speculating as to how public policy would or should change with regard to grazing is beyond the scope of this EIS. 

N-2B.22 N-2B.23

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-22

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-23

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.24 Irrigation utilizes the majority of surface water and groundwater rights in the project area. In Uinta County, Wyoming, for example, irrigation utilized 176 million of the 180 million gallons of water used in 1995 (http://wy.water.usgs.gov/projects/water_use/data1995/counties/uinta.htm). In Humboldt County, Nevada, irrigation utilized 

434,000 of the 470,100 acre-feet of water in 1990 (http://water.nv.gov/WaterPlanning/wat-fact/use1990.cfm). The 

volumes of water to be used for dust abatement and hydrostatic testing are discussed in EIS sections 4.3.1.2 and 4.3.2.5. N-2B.25 Section 4.13 has been revised to include a discussion of the cumulative effects of foreseeable wind energy and transmission projects in the proposed project area. 

N-2B.23 N-2B.24 N-2B.25

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-24

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.26 A route alternative that would largely follow the WWEC is discussed in section 3.4.9. The WWEC does not preclude a project from being constructed outside of the corridor, and these projects are still subject to environmental review under applicable statutes. N-2B.27 Section 4.8.4 has been revised to discuss visual impacts in greater detail. 

N-2B.26 N-2B.27

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-25

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.28 Impacts on recreation are discussed in section 4.8.3. A wilderness characteristics analysis is included in Appendix W. N-2B.29 Conducting a regional analysis of roading and road densities and fencing and fence densities is outside the scope of this EIS. 

N-2B.28 N-2B.29

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-26

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.30 See section 4.11.2.1 for information on the applicable noise regulations. For additional information on potential impacts on wildlife and recreation including impacts from noise and disturbance to the landscape, refer to section 4.5.1.3 and 4.8.3.

See section 4.13.9 of this final EIS for information on cumulative noise impacts. 

N-2B.29 N-2B.30 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-27

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.30

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-28

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.31 All relevant present and foreseeable projects identified by the BLM are discussed in section 4.13. N-2B.31

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-29

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.32 There are no plans to move Ruby-supplied gas into the Pacific Connector Pipeline; the planned flow of gas from Pacific Connector is to Malin, Oregon, not away from it. The Pacific Connector and Jordon Cover projects are discussed in sections 3.3 and 4.13 of both the draft EIS and final EIS. N-2B.33 Greater sage-grouse impacts and mitigation associated with the Ruby Pipeline Project are discussed in section 4.7.3.1 and Appendix M. Evaluating the impacts of natural gas exploration and production in Wyoming on greater sage-grouse is outside the scope of this EIS. 

N-2B.32 N-2B.33

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-30

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.34 Our analysis of sage-grouse impacts is not discussed in relation to PMUs but is discussed as a "whole" population. The BLM, NDOW, ODFW, and other agencies contributed to a detailed greater sage-grouse habitat analysis for the project area. The results of this analysis are discussed in section 4.7.4. 

N-2B.34

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-31

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.35 The mile-by-mile analysis in the habitat report was not completed until well after the draft EIS was issued. The data in the report was developed to determine habitat quality along the proposed route and the Sheldon and Black Rock route alternatives and to determine possible compensatory mitigation should either of the routes be selected for construction. The mile-by-mile habitat analysis is provided in Appendix M. Other possible route alternatives and route variations are analyzed in section 3.0. . N-2B.36 Thank you for this information. We have reviewed this information and incorporated it in to our overall analysis as appropriate. 

N-2B.35 N-2B.36

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-32

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-33

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.37 Thank you for this information. We have reviewed this information and incorporated it into our overall analysis as appropriate. N-2B.37 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-34

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.38 Pygmy rabbit impacts and mitigation associated with the Ruby Pipeline Project are discussed in section 4.7.3.3 and Appendix M. Evaluating the impacts of natural gas exploration and production in Wyoming on pygmy rabbits is outside the scope of this EIS. N-2B.39 Due to the project proximity to California, direct and indirect impacts could occur on many of those species identified in the letter. The majority of these impacts would occur from vehicle use and noise-related activities. Ruby does not propose to construct the project or make road improvements in California. The extent at which the project vegetation and wildlife, including special status species, is discussed in sections 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7. 

N-2B.38 N-2B.39

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-35

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-36

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.40 The final EIS has been updated with the most recent project information and studies available. Site-specific information has been provided in the EIS where necessary to address site-specific issues that have been raised by stakeholders. Recovery times for some species in the EIS have been revised to reflect local experts’ opinions on reclamation. N-2B.41 Survey information was provided in Ruby's application to the FERC which is available at www.FERC.gov. Ruby's 

Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan was developed in consultation with numerous federal, state, and local agencies. The survey information provided a baseline for the existing environment. Cheatgrass and other invasive species are addressed in the plan. We have reviewed Ruby’s Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan and have concluded that the measures proposed by Ruby would be adequate, as discussed in section 4.4.6. 

N-2B.40 N-2B.41

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-37

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.42 Ruby would apply herbicides according to all local, state, and federal protocols for herbicide application. These protocols have been developed to protect human health and the environment. N-2B.43 Impacts of grazing are understood to include destruction of native vegetation, increased spread of invasive weeds and exotic species, damage to topsoil, exposure of soil to erosion, detrimental effects to water quality and availability, and increased competition with native wildlife for food and space. There is little consensus, however, on how to best manage grazing. Live stock grazing will be allowed to continue within the project right-of-way after construction, except where prohibited. Analyzing the impacts of livestock grazing on weeds is outside the scope of the EIS. 

N-2B.42 N-2B.43

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-38

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.44 Thank you for your suggestions. N-2B.45 See response to N-2B.43. N-2B.46 See response to N-2B.41. N-2B.47 See section 4.2.2.2 for a revised discussion on cryptobiotic soil crusts. 

N-2B.44 N-2B.45 N-2B.46 N-2B.47

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-39

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.48 Ruby is no longer proposing to apply fertilizer to reclaimed lands. N-2B.49 Thank you for your comment. N-2B.50 Rare plant surveys are not required for the entire project. Ruby consulted with federal and state agencies to determine where surveys would be required. Survey results are provided throughout EIS section 4.7. 

N-2B.48 N-2B.49 N-2B.50 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-40

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.51 The final EIS acknowledges that linear corridors can create opportunities for predators, promote reference points for nest predators, provide sites for weed invasion and spread, be used as jump-off points for ATV use, etc. N-2B.52 Several alternatives to the proposed route are discussed in EIS section 3. The Sheldon Route Alternative is not being recommended for construction. N-2B.53 Section 4.4.10 has been revised to include updated information on timber removal. 

N-2B.51 N-2B.52 N-2B.53

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-41

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.54 Ruby would be required to revegetate the project area such that the density and cover of non-nuisance vegetation in the disturbed work area are similar to adjacent undisturbed lands or as otherwise specified by the landowner or land managing agency. The FERC would continue its oversight of the project area after construction by reviewing Ruby’s periodic monitoring reports and conducting its own compliance inspections. We note that federal land managing agencies may require different monitoring criteria or periods on federal lands as conditions of the right-of-way grant. However, based on these revegetation requirements, we do not expect cheatgrass or other weeds to proliferate in the project area to an extent different from current conditions nor affect current fire regimes. N-2B.55 Ruby consulted with the BLM, USFS, FWS, Reclamation, and state agencies to develop proper reclamation procedures, including appropriate seed mixes. Based on recommendations from these agencies, Ruby developed separate Restoration and Revegetation Plans for Oregon, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming (see Appendix L). Some of the seed mixes specify forage kochia and other non-native species such as intermediate wheatgrass. N-2B.56 Ruby has updated its Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan (Appendix H) that includes coordination with local fire department services and includes additional information regarding responsibilities and fire precautions during construction. We are also recommending in section 4.9.3 that Ruby revise the plan to meet the requirements of fire response agencies in the project area. N-2B.57 See response to N-2B.55. 

N-2B.54 N-2B.55 N-2B.56 N-2B.57 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-42

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.58 Comment noted. N-2B.59 Portions of the right-of-way would be fenced, particularly on BLM land in Box Elder County, Utah. Other areas where fencing may occur would be determined by landowner, and land-managing agencies. N-2B.60 Blasting is not expected to create boulders or rock of a size that could be used effectively for perching or predation. N-2B.61 Communication towers would be constructed at each of 

the four compressor stations. The height of each tower would be less than 50 feet. We do not believe there is a correlation between the visual appearance of a communication tower and a wind farm. The closest known lek to a proposed compressor station is the East Devil’s Gate Lek #NOFO-114, which is an occupied inactive lek (not requiring a seasonal construction buffer) about 1.6 miles from the proposed Wieland Flat Compressor Station site. At a distance of 1.6 miles, the visual effect of a 50-foot communication tower to sage grouse associated with this lek would be minimal. 

N-2B.58 N-2B.59 N-2B.60 N-2B.61 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-43

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.62 Thank you for your comment. See Appendix H for Ruby’s Draft Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan. Pipeline facilities are designed and constructed to withstand wildfires in accordance with DOT safety standards in 49 CFR192. Pipeline burial and graveling above ground facility sites are both measures that help ensure the integrity of the pipeline during wildfires.N-2B.63 Ruby's Reclamation Plan (Appendix L) identifies the specific seed mixes to be used to revegetate disturbed project areas. These seed mixes were developed with input from the BLM, USFS, NDOW, ODFW, and NRCS. N-2B.64 Electrocution is a primary cause of bird deaths related to electric transmission lines. In addition to killing birds, electrocutions sometimes start wildfires when a bird catches fire and falls to the ground. Determining when and where wildfires will occur from bird electrocution is exceptionally challenging. Variables such as local bird populations, electric transmission line configurations, weather conditions, vegetation cover, and fuel load all play a role in assessing risk. The electric transmission industry has started implementing measures to reduce the likelihood of electrocutions (and resulting wildfires). Of the two nonjurisdictional electric distribution lines associated with the Ruby Pipeline Project, one has already agreed to equip each pole with raptor anti-perching devices as well as conform to the standards as outlined in Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power 

Lines – The State of the Art (see section 1.4 of this final EIS). It is unclear if the other line would employ similar measures. N-2B.65 See section 4.12 for information on pipeline reliability and safety. The transportation of natural gas by pipeline involves some risk. Fire or explosion following a major pipeline rupture is 

the greatest hazard to the public in the event of an accident and subsequent release of gas. Methane (CH4 ), the primary component of natural gas, has an auto-ignition temperature of about 1,000 °F. The potential for earthquake impact was evaluated by Ruby and areas were identified with potential for seismic impact. Mitigation measures would be implemented at these points to reduce the potential for pipeline damage, as discussed in section 4.1.3. N-2B.66 Sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 provide details on mining and 

subsidence issues as well as seismic hazards for the project corridor. Design specifications must meet the DOT regulations found in 49 CFR 192 providing protection from these hazards. Groundwater appropriation for the project is addressed in section 4.3.1.6. 

N-2B.62 N-2B.63 N-2B.64 N-2B.65 N-2B.66

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-44

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.67 Cumulative impacts on other reasonably foreseeable projects, including known coal bed methane projects, are discussed in section 4.13. N-2B.68 As discussed in the EIS, Ruby would restore roads to their preconstruction condition and would close roads where requested by the BLM. Ruby would install gates and other barriers (e.g., rock berms, log barricades, roughen the right-ofway) to minimize unauthorized entry by off-road vehicles. The BLM would be responsible for enforcing off-road vehicle laws on BLM-administered land. N-2B.69 As discussed in EIS section 2.2, should the Ruby Pipeline Project be approved, Ruby’s construction and operation work areas, including access roads, would be limited to the areas described in the EIS and any subsequent Commission authorizations. As described in section 2.5, environmental inspectors and monitors would be responsible for documenting only approved work areas and access roads are used during construction. Following construction, Ruby and local law enforcement agencies would be responsible for ensuring proper access to pipeline facilities. N-2B.70 Access to the Vya Construction Camp and Lakeview Temporary Housing Facility are discussed in section 4.9.4. Project-wide, all new access roads and access roads that would require improvement are identified on the maps in Appendix B and on table E-3 in Appendix E. Ruby originally proposed to leave roads in their new or improved condition unless otherwise requested by a landowner or land managing agency. Ruby now is proposing to restore all roads to their pre-construction condition unless the landowner or land managing agency requests in writing that a road be left in its improved condition. To date, no landowners or land managing agencies have so requested, although some are reserving the right to make the final decision when they see the road’s condition near the end of construction. N-2B.71 Roads to be closed or returned to their pre-construction condition would be restored and revegetated in the same manner as the construction right-of-way as described throughout the EIS, including measures to minimize off-road vehicle use and grazing disturbance. N-2B.72 Thank you for your comment. 

N-2B.67 N-2B.68 N-2B.69 N-2B.70 N-2B.71 N-2B.72

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-45

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.73 Winter construction and access are discussed in section 2.3.2.8. N-2B.74 Ruby's agreements with shippers require delivery to Malin, Oregon. Ruby is not proposing to construct facilities in California. The non-jurisdictional facilities are being proposed by PG&E, EIS section 1.4 provides some details regarding these facilities and provides rationale as to why the FERC does not consider them further. N-2B.75 Ruby has identified all known sage grouse leks and pygmy rabbit locations, and has categorized habitats for these species as well as for big game species. Ruby’s conservation measures and mitigation are discussed in section 4.7.1 and Appendix M. N-2B.76 Noxious and invasive weeds are discussed in section 4.4.6. 

N-2B.73 N-2B.74 N-2B.75 N-2B.76

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-46

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.77 The final EIS identifies the amount of vegetation that would be impacted by the project, see section 4.4.1. N-2B.78 Impacts on vegetation communities from noxious weeds during construction and operation of the project are discussed in section 4.4.6. N-2B.79 See response to N-2B.41. 

N-2B.77 N-2B.78 N-2B.79 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-47

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-48

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.80 Conformance with BLM, USFS, and FWS land use plans is discussed in section 1.5.1 of the final EIS. N-2B.80 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-49

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.81 Wilderness characteristics are analyzed in Appendix W. N-2B.81 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-50

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.82 The specific types and amounts of herbicide that would be used during operation will not be known until after construction. Ruby would apply herbicides according to any and all local, state, and federal protocols for herbicide application. These protocols have been developed to protect human health and the environment. 

N-2B.82 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-51

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-52

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.82 An discussion of potential biocides is provided in Ruby's Hydrostatic Test Plan in Appendix K. 

N-2B.82

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-53

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.83 Under applicable DOT/PHMSA rules, pneumatic pressure testing of the pipeline is not possible with pipe of the design thickness (0.8) being used on this project. Ruby submitted an updated Hydrostatic Test Plan in November 2009. Table 4.3.1-1 provides details on the groundwater sources for hydrostatic testing and dust control. See section 4.3.1.2, Appendix K, and Appendix O of this final EIS. Any appropriation of groundwater would be subject to conditions imposed by the state engineer to minimize impacts on the aquifer from which water is appropriated. Ruby would only utilize water sources that are authorized and approved by the respective state water right permitting agencies and Ruby would be required to comply with any limitations or conditions on withdrawal imposed by these agencies. N-2B.84 Four active and one recently active pygmy rabbit burrow areas are located within 0.25-mile of potential discharge locations. We are recommending in the EIS that Ruby monitor these discharges to ensure the burrows are not flooded (see section 4.7.3.3). N-2B.85 Ruby is no longer proposing to use Deep Creek as a source of hydrostatic test water. Ruby has applied for the temporary use of water rights for water sources in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon. The states will determine whether water is available in the quantity that Ruby has requested. Any pumping activities would be subject to conditions imposed by the state engineer to minimize impact such as those identified in this comment. 

N-2B.83 N-2B.84 N-2B.85

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-54

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.86 Discharges would typically occur at test manifolds. Testing sections are determined by elevation changes, watershed boundaries, and availability of water sources. See sections 2.3.1.6 and 4.3.2.5 for discussions on hydrostatic testing. N-2B.87 Lands would not be destroyed by hydrostatic test water discharges. No impoundments would be constructed. See sections 2.3.1.6 and 4.3.2.5 for discussions on hydrostatic testing. N-2B.88 Water would be discharged to filtration /energy 

dissipation devices to prevent erosion. We estimate water or pooling could range from just a few square feet to more than an acre. See sections 2.3.1.6 and 4.3.2.5 for discussions on hydrostatic testing, as well as our additional recommendations. 

N-2B.86 N-2B.87 N-2B.88

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-55

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.89 Ruby submitted an updated Hydrostatic Test Plan in November 2009. Table 4.3.1-1 provides details on the groundwater sources for hydrostatic testing and dust control. See section 4.3.1.2, Appendix K, and Appendix O. N-2B.90 Ruby has committed to discharging all surface waters to 

the 8-digit HUC drainage basin in which it was obtained. There is potential for groundwater to be discharged outside the drainage 

basin in which it was obtained. 

N-2B.89 N-2B.90

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-56

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.91 The final EIS requires that prior to construction, Ruby must submit to the FERC a modified Hydrostatic Test Plan describing how water will be conveyed from the wells to the project site, the proposed routes, potential impacts, and any associated mitigation plans (see section 4.3.1.2). No impoundments will be created. N-2B.92 See response to N-2B.85. N-2B.93 The project is not expected to promote West Nile virus. 

Water would be expected to infiltrate into the ground and/or evaporate in a matter of days N-2B.94 No impoundments would be created. 

N-2B.91 N-2B.92 N-2B.93 N-2B.94

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-57

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.95 We are recommending that Ruby discharge all hydrostatic 

test water to a temporary sediment filtration and energy dissipation structure. 

N-2B.96 These structures are constructed of straw bales anchored by metal or wooden posts. There is no depression illustrated on the drawing, and no depressions would be excavated. 

N-2B.97 Ruby has drafted its water appropriation plans as discussed in sections 4.3.1.6 and 4.3.2.5. 

N-2B.95 N-2B.96 N-2B.97 

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-58

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.98 The final EIS has been updated to include impacts on groundwater based on Ruby’s water appropriation plans. N-2B.99 Thank you for your comment. N-2B.100 In accordance with Section 7 of the ESA, the lead federal agency, in coordination with the FWS must ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency does not jeopardize the continued existence of a federally listed threatened or endangered species or result in the adverse modification of the designated critical habitat of a federally listed species. We have determined that the Ruby Pipeline Project could affect federally listed species and their designated critical habitats and will therefore prepare and submit a BA under separate cover to the FWS for the project. The analysis in this EIS and the forthcoming BA will also be used by other federal cooperating agencies, as applicable, to fulfill their permitting requirements. Federally listed species that may be affected are presented in table 4.7-1 and discussed individually in section 4.7.2 of this final EIS. N-2B.101 Thank you for your comment. Water used for HDD is discussed in section 4.6.1.8. We do not anticipate that such water use would be of a magnitude that would lend to destruction of wildlife or aquatic habitat. N-2B.102 The FERC regulates and oversees energy industries in the economic, environmental, and safety interests of the American public. NEPA is intended to ensure that information on the environmental impacts of any federal action is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made, and that environmental impacts be given appropriate consideration in decision making along with economic and technical consideration. The focus of NEPA, however, is on disclosure of environmental, not economic or technical, considerations. This final EIS has been updated with the most recent project information and studies 

available. The timeframe for environmental review is dictated by several factors, including the applicant's schedule, the need for and availability of environmental data, FERC regulations and policy, the EPAct 2005, and the NEPA. N-2B.103 Section 4.3.2.5 has been updated to discuss updated information regarding proposed water sources for the proposed project. 

N-2B.98 N-2B.99 N-2B.100 N-2B.101 N-2B.102 N-2B.103

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-59

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.104 Pipeline construction can be conducted during any season and in most types of weather, including wet and snowy conditions. Construction during excessively wet weather is often discouraged or prohibited due to potential for soil rutting and mixing. Ruby does not anticipate much winter construction as discussed in section 2.3.2.8. Ruby's environmental inspectors would be responsible for advising the Chief Construction inspector when conditions (such as wet weather) make it advisable to restrict construction activities to avoid excessive rutting, as discussed in Appendix F. N-2B.105 Thank you for your comment.

N-2B.104 N-2B.105 

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-60

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.106 The FERC does not require bonding. Other federal, state, and local agencies may require/request binding as part of their permitting processes and responsibilities. N-2B.107 Climate change is discussed in section 4.13.11. We note that many of the construction and restoration measures that would be implemented on the Ruby Pipeline Project are designed to be effective in a variety of climates and weather conditions or they contain performance-based standards that would ensure success regardless of climate or weather conditions (e.g., criteria 

for the use of silt fence and straw bales; requirements for vegetation cover to be similar to adjacent undisturbed lands; etc.). 

N-2B.108 As discussed in section 4.11.2, noise studies were conducted at all compressor stations. FERC guidelines require that compressor stations not exceed an Ldn of 55dBA or result in a 

perceptible increase in vibration at any noise-sensitive location. Compressor stations were not sited in designated visually sensitive areas; therefore, detailed viewshed analysis of compressor stations were not completed. Ruby has stated it would control nighttime lighting by shielding and down-casting lights, would paint the stations to match the existing landscape colors as closely as possible, and would landscape the areas with trees and shrubs to provide visual screening where requested by land managing agencies or landowners. The locations of compressor stations are largely dictated by the pipeline route and engineering requirements so that gas can be moved through the pipeline. We received several stakeholder comments identifying specific concerns with the pipeline route; we did not, however, receive stakeholder comments identifying specific concerns with the proposed compressor station sites. Therefore, we did not evaluate specific site alternatives for those facilities. 

N-2B.106 N-2B.107 N-2B.108 

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-61

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.109 As discussed in section 4.8.4.7, Ruby has committed to working with land managing agencies to identify and implement restoration techniques, such as vegetative feathering, boulder repositioning, and visual screening, to restore the landscape and retain its visual character. N-2B.110 The effects of blasting are discussed in section 4.1.1.2. Section 4.3.1.3 addresses monitoring and mitigation of springs. N-2B.111 Sensitive cultural resource data are treated as privileged and confidential by the FERC. N-2B.112 The effects of blasting are discussed in section 4.1.1.2. 

The Paleontological Mitigation Plan contained in Appendix I provides procedures to provide mitigation procedures in areas of the project where significant paleontological resources are anticipated. Initial surveys are limited by soil cover over the rock potentially containing fossils. 

N-2B.109 N-2B.110 N-2B.111 N-2B.112

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-62

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.113 See response to N-2B.43. Also see sections 4.2.1.1 and 4.8.1.1 for a discussion on soil erosion potential and grazing impacts respectively. N-2B.114 See section 4.2.2.2 for a revised discussion on cryptobiotic soil crusts. We acknowledge that cryptobiotic crusts are present throughout the project area; however, the areas recognized in the final EIS for additional conservation measures are considered to be more complex, older crusts. N-2B.115 Noise impacts on wildlife and greater sage-grouse from compressor station operation are discussed in sections 4.5.1.3 and 4.7.3.1. N-2B.116 Ruby has committed to shielding and down-cast lighting at compressor stations. No other expansion plans for compressor stations currently exist. However, increasing compression is frequently used as one means of increasing pipeline capacity. Ruby could not increase compression beyond certificated levels without further Commission review and approval. N-2B.117 Compressor stations pump gas through a pipeline by compressing the gas at intervals along the system. Gas flows by expanding in the pipe from the discharge side (high pressure point) of one station to the suction side (low pressure point) of the next. Under normal operating conditions, compressor station engines run 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. While stations vary according to the number and types of engines they use, most compressor stations consist of piping, engines, compressors, fuel gas systems, lube oil systems, engine jacket water systems, electrical generators, safety systems, and personnel to maintain and operate these elements. The location of compressor stations along a pipeline are dictated by the pipeline route and engineering requirements so that gas can be moved through the pipeline; the location of the compressor stations are not related to gas plants for mines or to other purposes. Ruby has not indicated any plans for facility expansion. 

N-2B.112 N-2B.113 N-2B.114 N-2B.115 N-2B.116 N-2B.117 

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-63

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.118 The dispersion modeling analysis determined the maximum concentration of each modeled pollutant at and beyond the fenceline of each facility. This analysis includes actual meteorology, including all seasons of the year. Ruby modeled future air emissions in accordance with guidance from the appropriate state air permitting agencies, and demonstrated that the operation of the compressor stations would not cause nor contribute to a violation of the NAAQS or any state AAQS. N-2B.119 An alternative that would follow Interstate 80 and other established corridors is included in section 3.4.3. N-2B.120 See response to N-2B.23. N-2B.121 Presiding information on grazing permits controlled by mining interests is outside the scope of this final EIS. N-2B.122 Contamination associated with mining, and recommendations to address abandoned mine hazards, including contaminated soils, in the path of construction are discussed in sections 4.1 and 4.2.3. 

N-2B.118 N-2B.119 N-2B.120 N-2B.121 N-2B.122

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-64

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.123 Resuspension of contaminated sediments in waterbodies is discussed in section 4.6.1.4.N-2B.124 Understanding the interactions between ozone and climate change, and predicting the consequences of change requires enormous computing power, reliable observations, and robust diagnostic abilities. The science community's capabilities have evolved rapidly over the last decades, yet some fundamental mechanisms at work in the atmosphere are still not clear. The success of future research depends on an integrated strategy, with more interactions between scientists' observations and mathematical models. (NASA: Tango in the Atmosphere: Ozone and Climate Change) N-2B.125 Please see section 4.11.1.2 for applicable regulations regarding Class I areas. N-2B.126 Access roads associated with the Sheldon Route Alternative are discussed in section 4.8.3.5.N-2B.127 Some site-specific information regarding the location of certain resources (such as highly erodible soils) was not evaluated during report preparation, and was instead generally summarized in the final EIS. In some cases, however, such as where complex, older cryptobiotic crusts would be crossed, sitespecific information was provided. 

N-2B.123 N-2B.124 N-2B.125 N-2B.126 N-2B.127 

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-65

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.128 A description of the existing environment at perennial waterbodies is provided in section 4.3.2 of the final EIS. The project does not cross the known range for the elongate mud meadows snail. A description of aquifers crossed by the proposed project including those from which hydrostatic test water would be withdrawn are included in section 4.3.1. The three major aquifer systems crossed by the project are the Upper Colorado River Basin aquifer systems in Wyoming, the Basin and Range aquifer system in Utah and Nevada, and the Pacific Northwest aquifer system in Oregon. N-2B.129 Thank you for your comment. The Ruby EIS is consistent with FERC style, formatting, and policy regarding NEPA evaluation of alternatives and different types of impacts. N-2B.130 Permanent and irreversible/irrevocable impacts are discussed throughout the final EIS.

N-2B.131 No significant land disturbance is expected from these hydrostatic test water discharges given that the discharges would be discarded into an energy dissipation device. N-2B.132 The basis for the determination that the project would not have population-level effects as lead to a trend toward federal listing of greater sage-grouse is discussed in section 4.7.3.1. N-2B.133 A 50-mile impact radius would not be appropriate for other environmental resources (e.g., geology, soils, vegetation, etc.) as the area of potential impact is much smaller. N-2B.134 The term of the right-of-way grant on federal land will 

be dictated by the BLM. The BLM has indicated that right-ofway grant, if issued, would be good for 30 years with the right of renewal. On private land, right-of-way easements durations typically would be indefinite. There is no regulatory basis for the FERC to re-license natural gas pipelines or periodically conduct post-certificate NEPA reviews, unless the company were to request an amendment to its project. The FERC does not require project proponents to post performance bonds; however, land managing and permitting agencies frequently do require bonds. 

N-2B.128 N-2B.129 N-2B.130 N-2B.131 N-2B.132 N-2B.133 N-2B.134

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-66

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.135 Thank you for your comment. 

N-2B.135 

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-67

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.136 Thank you for your comment. 

N-2B.136 

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-68

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.137 Gravel sources for the project are discussed in sections 

2.2.1 and 4.1.2.1 of the final EIS. 

N-2B.138 Other El Paso facilities are not within the scope of this EIS. N-2B.139 Desertification is the deterioration of the land due to loss of vegetation and soil moisture. Desertification results chiefly from climatic variations and human activities. It is principally caused by overgrazing and overuse of water resources. Desertification is not expected on this project as water use would be short-term and Ruby generally would actively restore the project area to its preconstruction condition. 

N-2B.137 N-2B.138 N-2B.139 

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-69

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.140 Thank you for your comment. Impacts from the project on water resources, species viability, and other environmental factors are discussed throughout the final EIS. .

N-2B.140 

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-70

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.141 Operation of the Ruby pipeline will not affect flow rates in streams. The pipeline would be installed at least 5 feet below stream beds, and stream function should return to normal after construction. N-2B.142 Impacts related to blasting are discussed in sections 4.1.1.2, 4.1.3.2, 4.3.1.5, and 4.6.1.7. N-2B.143 Thank you for your comment. Climate change is 

discussed in section 4.13.11. 

N-2B.141 N-2B.142 N-2B.143 

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-71

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-72

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-73

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-74

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-75

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.144 Thank you for your comment. 

N-2B.144

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-76

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.145 Cryptobiotic soil crusts are discussed in section 4.2.2.2. 

N-2B.145

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-77

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

N-2B.146 Livestock disturbance effects on carbon sequestration 

are outside the scope of the EIS. N-2B.146 

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-78

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

.

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-79

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-80

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-81

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-82

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-83

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-84

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-85

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-86

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-87

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-88

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-89

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-90

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-91

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-92

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-93

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-94

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-95

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-96

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-97

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-98

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-99

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 2B 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-100

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 3 

N-3.1 An explanation of how the FERC establishes purpose and need is included in section 1.1 of the final EIS. Basically, the FERC Commission determines the need for the project, not FERC environmental staff. As such, section 1 of the EIS does not attempt to “establish” the need for a project but rather presents the applicant’s proposed action. 

N-3.1 

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-101

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 3 

N-3.2 Although the FERC did not formally extend the comment period, the FERC continued to accept comments after the close of the comment period. The timeframe for environmental review is dictated by several factors, including the applicant's schedule, the need for and availability of environmental data, FERC regulations and policy, the EPAct 2005, and the NEPA. N-3.3 We are not recommending that the Commission adopt the 

No Action Alternative for the reasons discussed in section 3.1. N-3.4 See response to N-3.1. 

N-3.2 N-3.3 N-3.4

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-102

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 3 

N-3.5 Consistent with 40 CFR 1502.25 (b), the EIS lists federal permits, licenses, and other entitlements that must be obtained in implementing the proposal. Identifying the specific timing and costs of these regulatory actions on an individual basis, and evaluating budgets to cover these costs is outside the scope of the EIS. This list is not meant to be exclusive. N-3.6 An updated discussion regarding conformance with BLM land use plans is discussed in EIS section 1.5.1. The schedule and cost for updating land use plans is outside the scope of the EIS. The permitting and right-of-way granting process is described in sections 1.2, 1.5, and 3.4.12. 

N-3.4 N-3.5 N-3.6 

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-103

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 3 

N-3.9 The road improvement acreages listed in section 2.2.1 are included in the total construction disturbance acreages listed in section 2.2. The acreages have been updated to reflect changes since the time the draft EIS was issued in June 2009. N-3.10 A road improvement is any activity that would materially change the condition of the road from its pre-construction condition through grading, filling, widening, or resurfacing. N-3.11 The need for and sources of local gravel are discussed in section 2.2.1. N-3.12 Restoration of roads to their preconstruction condition would be difficult in some cases. The FERC would require road restoration and monitoring to be conducted in accordance with section 2.3.1.9 of the final EIS. Where necessary, roads would be closed after construction as described in section 2.3.1.7. Landowners and land managing agencies would be responsible for monitoring use of the road after construction. N-3.13 See section 4.9.4 and Appendix X for information on construction traffic and transportation. N-3.14 Vehicle-vehicle and vehicle-pedestrian collisions are an inherent risk for any road use in the United States. We assume compliance with all traffic rules and laws. We do not believe that Ruby's proposed action constitutes an unusual or unnecessary risk. N-3.15 Land use impacts have been established and disclosed to the extent practical. Ruby has identified the need for temporary extra workspaces in many areas of the steep and rugged terrain. This final EIS reflects these areas. Our recommendations for restricting temporary extra workspaces to that necessary to safely and efficiently construct the pipeline are discussed in section 2.2.1. N-3.16 Thank you for your comment. N-3.17 A public road is a road under the jurisdiction of a federal, state, or local agency. A private road is a road that is not under the jurisdiction of a federal, state, or local agency. The distinction between public and private roads has been removed from table E3 in Appendix E to avoid confusion, particularly with roads that have both public and private segments. Although Ruby has reviewed each road and identified whether road improvements would be necessary, Ruby presently does not know the specific locations where all road improvements would be required along any given road. As described in section 2.2.1, we have conservatively estimated that all roads needing improvement would need to be improved up to 30 feet wide over their entire 

N-3.9 N-3.10 N-3.11 N-3.12 N-3-13N-3.14 N-3.15 N-3.16 N-3.17 

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-104

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 3 

N-3.18 Details regarding the Vya Construction Camp are provided throughout the final EIS. Specifics on water supply, waste treatment, fuel, and electric power are discussed in 4.9.3. N-3.19 Electric transmission lines associated with the Ruby Pipeline Project are discussed in section 1.4 and throughout section 4 of the final EIS. N-3.20 Travel times between worker lodging and project work areas is discussed in section 2.3.1. N-3.21 Details regarding how and when construction equipment would be cleaned are provided in section 4.4.6. Water requirements and sources for cleaning are discussed in section 4.3.1.6. N-3.22 Ruby's Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan (Appendix F) and Wetland and Waterbody Construction and mitigation Procedures (Appendix F) discuss the criteria for installing erosion control devices. N-3.23 Portions of the right-of-way may be fenced, but no specific areas have been identified. Areas where this may occur would be developed between Ruby, landowners, and landmanaging agencies. N-3.24 Ruby has committed to work closely with the BLM, USFS, Reclamation, landowners, grazing lessees, local law enforcement personnel, and adjacent landowners to monitor and eliminate unauthorized access to the right-of-way by installing exclusion fencing on a case-by-case basis. N-3.25 Section 6 of the Restoration and Revegetation Plans addresses post-construction monitoring and defines revegetation success. Revegetation success is performance-based and not timelimited. Upland reclamation of non-agriculture land will generally be considered successful when vegetation within the reclaimed right-of-way supports non-invasive plants that are similar in forb, graminoid, and woody plant density and cover to those growing on adjacent undisturbed lands. However, on federal land, success is ultimately determined by the land-managing agency. 

N-3.18 N-3.19 N-3.20 N-321 N-3.22 N-3.23 N-3.24 N-3.25 

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-105

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 3 

N-3.26 A more detailed discussion of construction techniques in steep terrain is included in sections 2.3.2.5 and 4.1.1 of this final EIS. N-3.27 Ruby's geotechnical consultant MACTEC evaluated seismic hazard and its potential impact on pipeline construction. MACTEC has determined that the proposed pipeline construction methods are appropriate in Nevada's seismic setting and have provided monitoring and mitigation plans to evaluate any pipeline damage in the event of a seismic event. See section 4.1.3. N-3.28 Ruby is proposing to begin construction in February 2010 with an in-service date in March 2011. However, even if the Commission issues authorization for construction to proceed by February 2010, there is no guarantee that Ruby would be able to meet all other preconstruction obligations in time for a February 2010 start date. Issues such as easement acquisition, other federal permits, and consultations (e.g., endangered species and historic preservation 

consultations), and FERC staff’s approval of Ruby’s Implementation Plan and related environmental conditions would be important factors in determining the eventual project construction schedule. Although we believe that Ruby is being overly optimistic with regard to its construction schedule, we do note that, in accordance with EPAct 2005, all federal agencies have a federal authorization decision deadline of February 23, 2010. N-3.29 Winter construction and access are discussed in section 2.3.2.8. N-3.30 See response to N-3.28. N-3.31 Thank you for your comment.N-3.32 Ruby's updated plans for compliance monitoring, as well as the FERC's plans for site visits, are discussed in section 2.5.2. N-3.33 Thank you for your comment. N-3.34 Comment noted. The Ruby EIS is consistent with FERC 

style, formatting, and policy regarding NEPA evaluation of the variance process. 

N-3.26 N-3.27 N-3.28 N-3.29 N-3.30 N-3.31 N-3.32 N-3.33 N-3.34 

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-106

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 3 

N-3.35 Section 3.3 of the final EIS discusses gas from other 

possible sources, including the Pacific Connector Pipeline. N-3.36 Thank you for your comment. Ruby would deliver gas at an interconnect with Paiute Pipeline Company's facilities in northwestern Nevada at MP 437.4. 

N-3.35 N-3.36 

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-107

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 3 

N-3.37 Ruby’s customers are the natural gas suppliers listed in Table 1.1-1. N-3.38 Section 3.1 has been revised to reflect updated Energy Information Agency data, see also section 1.1 for a description of the project's purpose and need. 

N-3.37 N-3.38

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-108

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 3 

N-3.39 Ruby's proposed route is illustrated on figure 1-1 in section 1 of the final EIS. The proposed route is depicted in more detail on the larger scale maps in Appendix B. Our review of the draft EIS did not identify any missing maps. Map 142 and maps S-234 to S-246 can be found between sheets 794 and 809 of the draft EIS. N-3.40 The final EIS has been updated with the most recent project information and studies available. Site-specific information has been provided in the EIS where necessary to address site-specific issues that have been raised by stakeholders. The timeframe for environmental review is dictated by several factors, including the applicant's schedule, the need for and availability of environmental data, FERC regulations and policy, the EPAct 2005, and the NEPA. 

N-3.39 N-3.40

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-109

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 3 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-110

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 3 

N-3.41 Efficiency and conservation are synonymous with Demand-side management. N-3.42 Renewable portfolio standards and an updated discussion on solar and wind technologies are included in section 3.2.2. 

N-3.41 N-3.42

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-111

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 3 

N-3.43 The purpose of the table 3.2.4-1 is to compare air emissions from burning natural gas with other fossil fuels, not renewable energy sources. However, a discussion of air emissions 

associated with renewable energy resources has been included in section 3.2.2. N-3.44 The Paiute Pipeline is not included on the Systems Alternatives figure as it is not a potential alternative to the project because it would not meet one of Ruby's project objectives of delivering Rocky Mountain gas to customers in northern Nevada and on the West Coast. N-3.45 Expanding pipeline infrastructure from northern Oregon to Malin was not evaluated in the draft EIS because it does not meet one of Ruby's project objectives, which is to deliver Rocky Mountain gas to customers in northern Nevada and on the West Coast. N-3.46 See response to N-3.1. N-3.47 The statement is accurate, but bas been clarified. The exact location of where the laterals would be required is irrelevant as the alternative would not be recommended even if no laterals were required. N-3.48 As described in section 3.4.9, because this route alternative would be approximately 150 miles longer, it would affect a larger footprint than the proposed route segment and would be economically infeasible. 

N-3.43 N-3.44 N-3.45 N-3.46 N-3.47 N-3.48

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-112

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 3 

N-3.49 The WWEC does not provide a feasible route from Opal, Wyoming to Malin, Oregon. As section 3.4.9 describes, projects are not restricted only to the WWEC, and the presence of the WWEC does not preclude a project from being constructed outside of the corridor. N-3.50 We are not recommending that Ruby adopt the Sheldon 

Route Alternative for the reasons discussed in section 3.4.12. 

N-3.49 N-3.50

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-113

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 3 

N-3.51 The Black Rock Route Alternative is discussed in section 3.4.13. We note that the Black Rock Route Alternative follows an existing Los Angeles Department of Water and Power electric transmission line from Gerlach to Vya. The existing powerline happens to be located in northwestern Nevada near the NevadaCalifornia border. N-3.52 Ruby's proposed route is illustrated on figure 1-1 in section 1 of the final EIS. The proposed route is depicted in more detail on the larger scale maps in Appendix B. Our review of the draft EIS did not identify any missing maps. Map 142 and maps S-234 to S-246 can be found between sheets 794 and 809 of the draft EIS. According to Ruby, it selected the proposed route in an effort to balance environmental, technical, and cost considerations while providing for the safe transportation of natural gas. Had Ruby selected a straight route between Opal, Wyoming and Malin, Oregon, it would be about 100 miles shorter than the proposed route. It also would cross two additional national forests, the Duck Valley Indian Reservation, the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge, Goose Lake, and other sensitive areas. 

N-3.51 N-3.52

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-114

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 3 

N-3.53 Thank you for your comment. 

N-3.52 N-3.53

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-115

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 3 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-116

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 3 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-117

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 3 

N-3.54 Evaluating the costs associated with land use plan amendments, construction compliance, and restoration and monitoring is outside the scope of this EIS. N-3.55 Ruby and regulatory agencies are required to comply with the law. Our evaluation in the EIS is premised on compliance with the law. N-3.56 Analyzing the costs of mitigation and monitoring and the impacts of those costs on natural gas rates is outside the scope of the EIS. Short-term and long-term and permanent impacts on public lands and wildlife are discussed in sections 4.8 and 4.5 of the final EIS, respectively. N-3.57 The final EIS has been updated with the most recent project information available. Ruby also updated many of its construction and mitigation plans since the time the draft EIS was released. Updated plans are included as appendices to the final EIS. Although the FERC did not formally extend the draft EIS comment period, the FERC continued to accept comments after the close of the comment period. 

N-3.54 N-3.55 N-3.56 N-3.57

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-118

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 3 

N-3.58 Alternatives are discussed in detail in section 3 of the final EIS. This final EIS has been updated with the most recent project information and studies available and is consistent with FERC style, formatting, and policy regarding NEPA evaluation of alternatives and different types of impacts. Preconstruction baseline studies already have been conducted or would be required for several resources as discussed throughout the EIS (e.g., soil sampling for mercury, playa testing for caliche or impermeable layers, water well quality testing, raptor nest and greater sagegrouse surveys, etc.)N-3.59 See section 4.1.3. Ruby's geotechnical consultant MACTEC evaluated hazards associated with seismic activity and its potential impact on pipeline construction based on field observations, testing and published studies. MACTEC determined that the proposed pipeline construction methods, conforming to requirements codified in 49 CFR 192, are appropriate in the projects seismic setting and have provided monitoring and mitigation plans to evaluate any pipeline damage in the event of a seismic event that exceeds 5.5 M within 20 miles of the pipeline alignment. N-3.60 See section 4.1.3.1 for a discussion on seismicity and earth quakes. N-3.61 See section 4.2.2.2 for an updated discussion on cryptobiotic soil crusts. 

N-3.58 N-3.59 N-3.60 N-3.61

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-119

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 3 

N-3.62 Post-construction monitoring of restoration would be conducted by periodic inspections of the right-of-way. Depending on other permitting requirements, monitoring may be conducted weekly, after significant rainfall events, or at other intervals, as necessary. Ruby would be required to monitor right-of-way restoration and reclamation regardless of how long it takes to document success. Ruby would also be required to restore or repair the right-of-way should restoration be deemed unsuccessful. N-3.63 Ruby submitted an updated Hydrostatic Test Plan in November 2009. Table 4.3.1-3 provides details on the groundwater sources for hydrostatic testing and dust control. See section 4.3.1.2, Appendix K, and Appendix O of the final EIS. Any appropriation of groundwater would be subject to conditions imposed by the state engineer to minimize impacts on the aquifer from which water is appropriated. Ruby would only utilize water sources that are authorized and approved by the respective state water right permitting agencies, and Ruby must comply with any limitations or conditions on withdrawal imposed by these agencies. N-3.64 The groundwater and surface water sources Ruby proposes to utilize are discussed in section 4.3 of the final EIS. Ruby has applied for the temporary use of water rights for water sources in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon. The states will determine whether water is available in the quantity that Ruby has requested. Any pumping activities would be subject to conditions imposed by the state engineer to minimize impact such as those identified in the comments. 

N-3.61 N-3.62 N-3.63 N-3.64

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-120

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 3 

N-3.65 An estimate of the water needed for equipment cleaning is included in section 4.3.1.6. N-3.66 Impacts from water appropriation and discharge are addressed in sections 4.3.1.2 and 4.3.2.5. N-3.67 Section 4.3.1.3 addresses monitoring and mitigation of 

springs within 200 feet of the project area, and includes language on wildlife. 

N-3.64 N-3.65 N-3.66 N-3.67

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-121

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 3 

N-3.68 Thank you for your comment. Section 4.3.3 has been revised, as appropriate, based on updated information provided by Ruby. We note that information in the draft EIS may have come from different sources than the final EIS. For example, the numbers and locations of some wetlands in the draft EIS were based on National Wetland Inventory mapping, whereas most wetlands locations in the final EIS were based on survey data. N-3.69 Our conclusion regarding noxious and invasive weeds is in full compliance with Executive Order 13111. See section 4.4.6. N-3.70 The difference in impacts between the proposed and alternative routes is disclosed in sections 3.4 and 3.5. 

N-3.67 N-3.68 N-3.69 N-3.70

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-122

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 3 

N-3.71 The potential for spills of chemicals and toxic substances is addressed in section 4.2.3. Typical chemicals and toxic substances would include fuels, lubricants, coolants, and certain solvents, although the specific types, brands, volumes, and locations of use will not be known until the time of construction. N-3.72 The final EIS discusses fragmentation and its effects to wildlife species, and discusses measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts. See section 4.5.1.2. N-3.73 The anticipated date of the FWS listing decision for greater sage-grouse has been corrected. See section 4.7.3.1. N-3.74 The report was filed and is available on the FERC's website, and is included as part of Appendix M of the final EIS. N-3.75 Thank you for your comment. N-3.76 Ruby has adopted new seasonal and spatial restrictions for 

construction near active sage-grouse leks. These restrictions were developed in conjunction with the BLM, FWS, and state wildlife agencies. See section 4.7.3.1. 

N-3.71 N-3.72 N-3.73 N-3.74 N-3.75 N-3.76

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-123

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 3 

N-3.77 Ruby has committed to a Voluntary Cooperative Conservation Agreement for the Greater Sage-Grouse and Pygmy Rabbit with the BLM, WGFC, DWR, and NDOW. The agreement is not a “Candidate Conservation Agreement” and the FWS is not a signatory to the agreement, although the FWS provided input. N-3.78 Sage-grouse and pygmy rabbit data collected by Ruby during the 2008 and 2009 field season are discussed in section 4.7.3. Updated survey information has been provided by Ruby and the BLM which includes the location of pygmy rabbit areas along access roads. N-3.79 The Wall Canyon sucker is discussed in section 3.4.13. N-3.80 Section 4.8.3.6 has been revised to include a discussion of 

the project's proximity to the Black Rock NCA. N-3.81 Sections 4.8.2.1 and 4.8.3.5 have been revised to include a more detailed discussion of the potential impacts of the project’s proposed access roads to the Sheldon NWR. N-3.82 The text in section 4.8.3.2 has been revised to further discuss the project effects to the Applegate-Lassen trail at the Vya Construction Camp. N-3.83 The final EIS has been updated to include a thorough discussion of the Vya Construction Camp, specifically in section 4.9. In addition, a separate environmental analysis of the Vya camp prepared by Ruby is provided as Appendix P. 

N-3.77 N-3.78 N-3.79 N-3.80 N-3.81 N-3.82 N-3.83

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-124

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 3 

N-3.84 The Ruby pipeline would interconnect with another interstate natural gas company, Paiute Pipeline Company, in northern Nevada. N-3.85 Sections 3.4.12 and 4.8.3.5 have been updated to include a discussion of potential impacts on on-going research activities on the Sheldon NWR. N-3.86 See sections 4.5.7 and 4.8.1.1 for updated discussions on wild horses and grazing, respectively. N-3.87 The draft EIS did not state that "there are no significant project impacts on cultural resources in Nevada." Information about the status of the cultural resources field surveys and Section 106 review is updated in section 4.10. The Section 106 process will continue until all cultural resource issues are addressed. N-3.88 Thank you for your comment. Section 4.11.2.1 of the final EIS contains information on the applicable noise regulations. 

N-3.84 N-3.85 N-3.86 N-3.87 N-3.88 

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-125

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 3 

N-3.89 Non-jurisdictional powerline facilities are discussed in section 1.4 and throughout section 4 of the final EIS. N-3.90 Mining, oil and gas development, and other energy projects that affect the same geographic area as the proposed project are discussed in section 4.13. The potential for wildfires as a result of construction of the pipeline is discussed in section 4.12.1. Wildfires are part of the ecological regime (not projects) and, as such, are considered part of the environmental baseline of the area. N-3.91 Ruby updated many of its construction and mitigation plans since the time the draft EIS was released. The final EIS has been updated with the most recent project information available. Many updated plans are included as appendices to the final EIS. N-3.92 Weekly status reports are public documents; they will be posted to the FERC's eLibrary throughout the duration of the project. N-3.93 Evaluating the costs associated with construction compliance, restoration, and monitoring is outside the scope of this EIS. The FERC does not require bonding. Other federal, state, and local agencies may require/request binding as part of their permitting processes and responsibilities. N-3.94 Our review of the draft EIS did not identify any missing maps. Map 142 and maps S-234 to S-246 can be found between sheets 794 and 809 of the draft EIS. 

N-3.89 N-3.90 N-3.91 N-3.92 N-3.93 N-3.94

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-126

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 3 

N-3.95 Table E-3 in Appendix E has been updated to reflect new 

information regarding public and private ownership. N-3.96 We believe our description of existing road surfaces to be 

appropriate. Ruby has reviewed each road and identified whether road improvements would be necessary. As described in section 2.2.1 of this final EIS, we have conservatively estimated that all roads needing improvement would need to be improved up to 30 feet wide over their entire length. This undoubtedly is an overestimation and in no way minimizes road improvement impacts of the project. See also response to N-3.17. N-3.97 As described in section 2.2.1, we have conservatively estimated that all roads needing improvement would need to be improved up to 30 feet wide over their entire length. We have not subtracted the width of the existing road from our impact acreage calculations. We acknowledge that an additional 25 feet beyond the existing road edge may be required at sharp turns, but do not know the specific locations at this time. Ruby has conducted biological and cultural resource surveys within a 140-foot-wide corridor centered on each existing road. N-3.98 Road improvements would be restricted to this corridor. Impacts of roads are summarized throughout the EIS and are part of the proposed project's footprint considered in the cumulative impacts analysis. 

N-3.95 N-3.96 N-3.97 N-3.98

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-127

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 3 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-129

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 4 

N-4.1 An analysis of an I-80 Route Alternative has been included in the final EIS, see section 3.4.3. 

N-4.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-130

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 4 

N-4.2 Impacts on "core" areas are discussed in section 4.7.3.1. The Ruby Project Cooperative Conservation Agreement for the Greater Sage-grouse and Pymgy Rabbit (Draft) in Appendix M identifies and refers to measures to minimize impacts on sagegrouse and sagebrush habitats. 

N-4.2

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-131

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 4 

N-4.3 Thank you for your comment. 

N-4.3 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-132

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 4 

N-4.4 Thank you for your comment. N-4.4 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-133

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 4 

N-4.5 Thank you for your comment. We note that the conclusions regarding sage-grouse in the EIS are those of FERC staff, not Ruby. 

N-4.5 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-134

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 4 

N-4.6 We evaluated an alternative route that follows I-80 in Wyoming in this final EIS (see section 3.4.3). Based on our review, we have determined that although the route alternative crosses less core breeding area, it does not avoid it altogether. The route alternative crosses 21.1 miles of core breeding area, whereas the proposed route crosses 34.2 miles. Ruby has developed a greater sage-grouse habitat conservation agreement for the proposed route in cooperation with the FWS, BLM, UTPL, and WGFD. The conservation agreement addresses effects of the project to core greater sage-grouse areas and propose mitigation to reduce effects to an acceptable level. N-4.7 The Cooperative Conservation Agreement for the Greater Sage-grouse and Pymgy Rabbit (Draft) in Appendix M identifies and refers to measures to minimize impacts on sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats. 

N-4.6 N-4.7 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-135

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 4 

N-4.8 See responses to N-4.6 and N-4.7. N-4.9 Ruby’s resource reports are not part of the EIS. The EIS is based, in part, on information in Ruby’s resource reports and supplemental filings with the FERC. Many other sources of information also provide the basis for the EIS. Ruby has committed to implementing numerous conservation and mitigation measures as described throughout the EIS. We would hold Ruby to those commitments. In addition, we have explicitly recommended that Ruby implement additional mitigation as described in section 5.2. Our recommendations are not always the same as those measures practiced by other stakeholders. This would be the case with the 3.3-mile setback and seasonal closure to human activity timing restriction. 

N-4.8 N-4.9 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-136

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 4 

N-4.10 Increased predation as a result of habitat fragmentation is discussed generally in section 4.5.12. This impact would apply to greater sage-grouse. N-4.11 See response to N-4.9. N-4.12 Thank you for your comment. N-4.13 Comment noted. 

N-4.10 N-4.11 N-4.12 N-4.13

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-137

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 4 

N-4.14 Thank you for the submittal. It has been placed into the official public record at FERC. 

N-4.13 N-4.14

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-138

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 4 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-139

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 4 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-140

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 5 

N-5.1 Thank you for your comment. We are not recommending that Ruby adopt the Sheldon Route Alternative for the reasons discussed in section 3.4.12 of the final EIS. N-5.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-141

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 5 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-142

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-143

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 6 

N-6.1 See response to N-3.1. N-6.2 The EIS was prepared by FERC staff and the FERC's thirdparty environmental contractor in accordance with 40 CFR 1506.5(c). The FERC required Ruby to prepare and submit environmental studies in compliance with 40 CFR 1506.5(a). 

N-6.1 N-6.2 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-144

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 6 

N-6.3 Ruby responded to FERC’s inquiry in response to the FOIA request, noting that Ruby requested confidentiality of this information solely because Ruby obtained it from the state governmental agencies pursuant to confidentiality agreements and 

constraints required by state laws. The information, if disclosed in its entirety, could lead to loss of species or their habitat. Ruby has recently filed revised public versions of these species reports that are available to all parties. We note that interested parties could request the confidential information directly from the original sources, pursuant to their own confidentially arrangements. 

N-6.3 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-145

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-146

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 6 

N-6.4 The final EIS has been updated with the most recent project information and studies available. Site-specific information has 

been provided in the EIS where necessary to address issues that have been raised by stakeholders. 

N-6.4

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-147

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 6 

N-6.5 Climate change is discussed in section 4.13.11. 

N-6.5

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-148

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-149

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 6 

N-6.6 See response to N-6.5. N-6.6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-150

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-151

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 6 

N-6.7 See response to N-6.3. N-6.7 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-152

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 6 

N-6.8 Mitigation proposed throughout the EIS is based on input from various sources, including scientific research, various regulatory and resource agency recommendations, and the FERC staff’s own experience with pipeline construction projects. The EIS does not conclude that all of the project impacts would be insignificant. N-6.9 Conformance with BLM and FWS management practices is discussed in section 1.5. 

N-6.8 N-6.9

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-153

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-154

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-155

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-156

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-157

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-158

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 7 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-159

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 7 

N-7.1 We are not recommending that Ruby adopt the Sheldon Route Alternative for the reasons discussed in section 3.4.12 of this final EIS. N-7.2 Refer to EIS section 4.4 for a discussion of impacts and mitigation on sagebrush steppe habitat. N-7.3 Refer to section 4.4.6 for a discussion of impacts and mitigation of weeds. N-7.4 As discussed in section 1.5.1, a compatibility determination will be made for road development and use within the Sheldon NWR. N-7.5 The timeframe for environmental review is dictated by several factors, including the applicant's schedule, the need for and availability of environmental data, FERC regulations and policy, the EPAct 2005, and the NEPA. Although the FERC did not formally extend the comment period, the FERC continued to accept comments after the close of the comment period. 

N-7.1 N-7.2 N-7.3 N-7.4 N-7.5

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-160

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 7 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-161

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 8 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-162

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 8 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-163

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 8 

N-8.1 We are not recommending that Ruby adopt the Sheldon Route Alternative for the reasons, including compatibility issues, as discussed in section 3.4.12 of the final EIS. N-8.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-164

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 8 

N-8.2 Comparable survey information for the Sheldon Route Alternative was included where such information was available. . N-8.3 Ruby indicated in its filings with the FERC that it could construct the Sheldon Route Alternative entirely within the Highway 140 easement, except for about 4.5 miles as described in section 3.4.12. Based on our experience, we believe that construction within the limited right-of-way would be feasible. 

However, the point is moot as we are not recommending the Sheldon Route Alternative. . 

N-8.2 N-8.3

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-165

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 8 

N-8.4 Ruby’s proposed route appears to be environmentally preferable to alternative routes analyzed in the EIS for the reasons cited in section 3. One factor of many factors considered in the environmental analysis was impacts on sagebrush ecosystems (see sections 4.4 and 4.7.4.1 of the final EIS). Ultimately, we believe the project would result in significant impacts on sagebrush habitat. Ruby has committed to several measures to minimize impacts on sagebrush habitat (such as avoiding or restoring soil compaction issues, controlling invasive and noxious weeds, replanting the right-of-way with native vegetation, not mowing sagebrush during operation of the pipeline). See also Appendix M. N-8.5 Ruby Ruby has stated that the additional compression and additional length of pipeline would increase the total project cost by $271 million. 

N-8.4 N-8.5

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-166

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 8 

N-8.6 The benefits and drawbacks of the Black Rock Route Alternative are discussed in section 3.4.13. We are not recommending the Black Rock Route Alternative. N-8.7 Ruby is not proposing to build new access roads on the Sheldon NWR. However, Ruby is requesting authorization to improve several existing roads, including two-track roads. Ruby prepared a traffic management plan specific to access around and within the Sheldon NWR. This plan is included in the final EIS as an addendum to Ruby's general transportation plan (Appendix X). The text in sections 4.8.2.1 and 4.8.3.5 has been revised to include a discussion of transportation on the Sheldon NWR. The FWS has indicated it would not approve the use of the two tracks. 

N-8.6 N-8.7

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-167

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 8 

N-8.8 Conformance with FWS land use plans is discussed in section 1.5.1 of this final EIS. Whether the FWS determines the use of access roads on to the Sheldon NWR is permittable is up to the FWS. Although the FERC did not formally extend the comment period, the FERC continued to accept comments after the close of the comment period. 

N-8.8

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-168

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 8 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-169

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 9 

N-9.1 The purpose and need for the project are discussed in section 1.1 of this final EIS. Energy alternatives, including renewable energy and increased efficiency and conservation, are discussed in section 3.2. Carbon dioxide emissions and climate 

change are discussed in sections 4.11.1 and 4.13.11. 

N-9.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-170

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 9 

N-9.2 An analysis of an I-80 Route Alternative has been included in the final EIS at section 3.4.3. N-9.3 A route alternative following Interstate 80 to Winnemucca 

is included in EIS section 3.4.3. Two route alternatives that would follow Highway 49 from Winnemucca to Gerlach are included in sections 3.4.13 and 3.4.14. We have not evaluated a route alternative that would follow Highway 34 from Gerlach to the proposed route because there is an electric transmission corridor in the vicinity that would be more direct and would be further from designated wilderness areas. The route alternative that follows the electric transmission corridor is discussed in section 3.4.13. N-9.4 Thank you for your comment. N-9.5 Water use for cleaning would be relatively small. In total, Ruby estimated that it would use less than 100,000 gallons of water to clean and disinfect equipment. See section 4.3.1.6. N-9.6 Thank you for your comment. 

N-9.1 N-9.2 N-9.3 N-9.4 N-9.5 N-9.6

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-171

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 9 

N-9.7 The final EIS has been updated with the most recent project information and studies available. A route alternative that follows U.S. Highway 189, to Interstate 80, to U.S. Highway 95, to State Highway 140 is included in section 3.4.3. Ruby's customers have requested natural gas delivery in northern Nevada and at an existing natural gas market center in Malin, Oregon. Ruby's customers have not requested direct natural gas delivery in California. 

N-9.7

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-172

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 10 

N-10.2 Ruby has completed an assessment of the pipeline route for abandoned mines and hazardous materials and wastes. In addition, Ruby has committed to interviewing property owners to determine if hazardous wastes are present on their property. We do not expect seismic activity from blasting to upset old mine waste solids. Refer to section 4.1.2.1 of this final EIS for mitigation measures regarding hazardous materials and mining waste. N-10.3 Ruby submitted an updated Hydrostatic Test Plan (Appendix K). Hydrostatic testing is the only viable option as discussed in section 2.3.1.6 of this final EIS. N-10.4 Thank you for your comment. HDDs are used on occasion to cross small tracts; for example, to avoid direct impacts on site-specific resources such as waterbodies, discrete and contained sensitive plant populations, and known locations of sensitive cultural resource sites. However, an HDD would require large staging workspaces to set up drilling rigs and may require extensive pipe fabrication workspaces to complete the HDD. The amount of land disturbance that may occur in these circumstances may outweigh any benefit received from using the HDD as compared to standard and specialized construction and restoration procedures. 

N-10.2 N-10.3 N-10.4

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-173

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 10 

N-10.5 The fish species identified in the comment are discussed in section 4.7.2.3. N-10.6 Thank you for your comment. N-10.7 The FERC requires a 100-foot setback. The BLM has indicated it would require a 500-foot setback. N-10.8 Collocation of facilities is a generally accepted means to control the location of development and limit impacts on sensitive resources by keeping disturbance within established corridors. Collocation is one factor we evaluate when analyzing routes and route alternative. However, collocation is not always feasible or preferred due to environmental, technical, or economic reasons. 

N-10.9 See section 4.7.3.1 for our discussion on Greater sagegrouse. 

N-10.5 N-10.6 N-10.7 N-10.8 N-10.9 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-174

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 10 

N-10.10 Thank you for your comment. Ruby has developed a greater sage-grouse habitat conservation agreement for the proposed route in cooperation with the FWS, BLM, UTPL, and WGFD. The conservation agreement addresses effects of the project to core greater sage-grouse areas and propose mitigation to reduce effects to an acceptable level. N-10.11 See section 3.5.16 for a discussion of the Bud Garrett Marsh Route Variation. N-10.12 Timing windows recommended by resource agencies are discussed throughout the EIS. N-10.13 No crucial fish spawning habitat has been identified. Fish passage is a requirement in Oregon. Should a dam-and-pump method be employed outside Oregon, dams would only be left in place a maximum of 48 hours. N-10.14 Thank you for your comment. 

N-10.10 N-10.11 N-10.12 N-10.13 N-10.14

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-175

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 10 

N-10.15 Cultural resources surveys of any location that may be impacted by the pipeline have been underway since the spring of 2008. See section 4.10.1 for the current status of surveys. N-10.16 Thank you for your comment. N-10.17 See section 4.4.10 for a revised discussion on timber removal. N-10.18 Conservation measures such as these are included in the Cooperative Conservation Agreements provided in Appendix M. N-10.19 Thank you for your comment. N-10.20 Thank you for your comment. N-10.21 Thank you for your comment. N-10.22 There is no reference in the document to a 300 foot construction pathway. Ruby's nominal footprint is 115 feet. Several areas may expand up to 185 feet. N-10.23 Thank you for your comment. N-10.24 Thank you for your comment. N-10.25 Thank you for your comment. 

N-10.15 N-10.16 N-10.17 N-10.18 N-10.19 N-10.20 N-10.21 N-10.22 N-10.23 N-10.24 N-10.25

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-176

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 10 

N-10.26 Thank you for your comment. N-10.26

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-177

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 11 

N-11.1 Thank you for your comment. 

N-11.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
N-178

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 11 

N-11.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Individual 

 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-1 

INDIVIDUAL 1A 

IND-1A.1 The Sheldon Route Alternative and the Black Rock Route Alternative were identified by stakeholders to address specific environmental concerns with the proposed route. Our goal is to evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of route alternatives as compared to Ruby’s proposed route. The timeframe for environmental review is dictated by several factors, including the applicant's requested schedule, the need for and availability of environmental data, FERC regulations and policy, EPAct 2005, and NEPA. The methods and rationale of how the FERC evaluates alternatives compared to an applicant’s proposed route is explained in EIS section 3.0. 

IND-1A.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-2 

INDIVIDUAL 1A 

IND-1A.2 Ruby's customers have requested natural gas delivery in northern Nevada and Malin, Oregon. Ruby's customers have not requested natural gas delivery near Reno, Nevada. The FERC is not aware of any future project that would extend from Opal, Wyoming to Reno to Malin. IND-1A.3 The "Immigrant Trail" identified on the Terrace Basin Route Alternative map is the name of the road parallel to the proposed pipeline. Ruby has conducted a Class III cultural resource inventory of the Terrace Basin Route Alternative and Immigrant Trail Road was not identified as a significant historic trail. Any impacts on historic trails identified during the Class III Inventory will be evaluated as part of the Section 106 process, which is on-going. The historic trails in the region of the proposed pipeline are discussed in sections 4.8.3.2 and 4.10.1 of the final EIS. IND-1A.4 We are not recommending that Ruby adopt the 

Sheldon Route Alternative for the reasons discussed in section 3.4.12. Winter construction and access are discussed in section 2.3.2.8. 

IND-1A.1 IND-1A.2 IND-1A.3 IND-1A.4 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-3 

INDIVIDUAL 1A 

IND-1A.5 Our detailed evaluation of the Sheldon Route Alternative and our rationale for not recommending it is presented in section 3.4.12. If the Sheldon Route Alternative were to be built, Ruby has indicated that at least one MLV would be required on the Sheldon NWR because crossing the Sheldon NWR would exceed the maximum valve spacing limits specified in DOT safety regulations. IND-1A.6 Ruby would return all access roads used during construction to their preconstruction condition as close as practicable, unless the landowner or land managing agency requests in writing that a road be left in its improved condition. The project area between MP 500 and the Oregon Border is a combination of VRM classes I, II, III, and IV. VRM classes are discussed in more detail in section 4.8.4. The BLM has indicated all BLM-administered roads in Humboldt and Washoe counties (MPs R396.7 to 588.2) would be required to be returned to preconstruction condition. Winter construction and access are discussed in section 2.3.2.8. IND-1A.7 One 400-foot-deep well exists on the Vya Construction Camp site. This well is located in a basin-fill aquifer comprised of unconsolidated sands and gravel, and would be used as the camp's potable water supply. Ruby's permit for this well has been reviewed and approved by the State of Nevada Division of Water Rights, and "Ready for Action" status has been conveyed for the well's use. The estimated volume of water to be appropriated on a daily basis is 18,000 gallons for the duration of the camp's use (8 to 10 months). The source aquifer for this water supply is expected to provide a good yield, and impacts on other area wells are not anticipated. IND-1A.8 The final EIS has been updated to include a thorough discussion of the Vya Construction Camp. See section 4.8.3.2 for a discussion of the Applegate-Lassen Trail at the Vya camp site; section 4.9 for a discussion of transportation and public services (e.g., medical, fire, and law enforcement); and section 4.12.3 for a discussion of safety. 

IND-1A.5 IND-1A.6 IND-1A.7 IND-1A.8 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-4 

INDIVIDUAL 1A 

IND-1A.9 The Class III cultural resource surveys looked for but failed to locate the Fremont Party camp sites. The historic trails in the region of the proposed pipeline are discussed in EIS sections 4.10.1 and 4.8.3.2. IND-1A.10 Winter construction and access are discussed in section 2.3.2.8. 

IND-1A.8 IND-1A.9 IND-1A.10 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-5 

INDIVIDUAL 1B 

IND-1B.1 Ruby is proposing to locate its pipeline adjacent to an existing overhead electric transmission line where the project crosses Twelvemile Creek. Ruby stated that it would implement the interim management guidelines and standards for Wild, Scenic, and Recreational classifications as specified in the BLM's Lakeview RMP. See section 4.8.3.3 for additional information. IND-1B.2 We have augmented our discussion of access to the project area in various sections the final EIS; specifically, see section 4.9.4 for a detailed discussion of traffic impacts and mitigation and section 4.12.3 for a discussion of safety. IND-1B.3 See response on next page.

IND-1B.1 IND-1B.2 IND-1B.3

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-6 

INDIVIDUAL 1B 

IND-1B.3 Neither overall project approval nor a particular route has been pre-determined by the FERC. A project's need is established by the FERC when it determines whether the project is required by the public convenience and necessity. The FERC's Certificate Policy Statement provided guidance as to how the Commission evaluates proposals for new construction, and establishes criteria for determining whether there is a need for a proposed project and whether it will serve the public interest. During our review of Ruby’s proposal, we evaluated, without 

prejudice, several route alternatives and variations to Ruby’s proposed route to address specific landowner and/or environmental concerns with the proposed route. We recommended in the draft EIS that Ruby incorporate 3 route alternatives and 15 route variations into the final pipeline route. Ruby has formally modified its proposed route to adopt all 3 alternatives and 15 variations, and as such, they are now a part of Ruby’s proposed project. These alternatives and variations are discussed in section 3 of the final EIS. IND-1B.4 The final EIS has been updated with the most recent project information and studies available. Site-specific information has been provided in the EIS where necessary to address site-specific issues that have been raised by stakeholders. The timeframe for environmental review is dictated by several factors, including the applicant's requested schedule, the need for and availability of environmental data, FERC regulations and policy, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and the National Environmental Policy Act. IND-1B.5 See response to IND-1B.3. 

IND-1B.3 IND-1B.4 IND-1B.5

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-7 

INDIVIDUAL 1B 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-8 

INDIVIDUAL 2 

IND-2.1 During our review of Ruby’s proposal, we evaluated 31 route alternatives and variations to Ruby’s proposed route to address specific landowner and/or environmental concerns with the proposed route. A route alternative that follows existing rightof-way for nearly its entire route (U.S. Highway 189, to Interstate 80, to U.S. Highway 95, to State Highway 140) is included in section 3.4.3. Ruby's customers have requested natural gas delivery in northern Nevada and Malin, Oregon. Ruby's customers have not requested natural gas delivery near Reno, or in California's Central Valley. 

IND-2.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-9 

INDIVIDUAL 3 

IND-3.1 Thank you for your comment. 

IND-3.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-10 

INDIVIDUAL 4A 

IND-4A.1 The final EIS has been updated with the most recent information on the Vya Construction Camp. IND-4A.2 Ruby conducted a Class III cultural resource inventory of the proposed Vya camp site. We note that the Applegate-Lassen Emigrant Trail, as part of the California National Historic Trail, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, but is not listed as a National Historic Landmark according to the National Park Service. The cultural resources associated with the Vya camp, including the trail, are discussed in section 4.10.1 (see also section 4.8.3.2). The Nevada SHPO's role is clarified in the final EIS (see section 4.10). A letter requesting formal consultation with Nevada SHPO will be sent when federal agencies have completed their review of the reports, and provided their determinations of eligibility and effect for historic properties under their respective jurisdictions. Consultation initiated at the initial Section 106 meeting on April 14, 2008, attended by the SHPO, BLM, Ruby, and FERC (via phone conference). There have been numerous contacts with the Nevada SHPO office since that tune. The Nevada SHPO was provided project documentation on September 26, 2008 (our NOI) and June 19, 2009 (the draft EIS). According to information received from Ruby, the field survey of the pipeline centerline and ancillary locations is complete. The main report and three addenda for the Class III survey of Nevada are under review. When determinations of eligibility and effect are complete, the findings will be presented to the Nevada SHPO. Section 4.10 of the final EIS has been updated to reflect the most current cultural resources information. 

IND-4A.1 IND-4A.2

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-11 

INDIVIDUAL 4A 

IND-4A.3 Various sections of the final EIS has been updated to include a thorough discussion of the Vya Construction Camp, including sewage disposal, water treatment, and transportation. In addition, Ruby prepared an environmental analysis of the Vya camp, which is included as Appendix P. The Applegate-Lassen Emigrant Trail is discussed in sections 4.8.3.2 and 4.10.1. A well is proposed for a camp potable water supply. Ruby’s permit for this well (No. 78382) has been reviewed and approved by the State of Nevada Division of Water Rights and “Ready for Action” status has been conveyed for its use (see section 4.3.1.6). The proposed water volume to be appropriated on a temporary basis is 18,000 gallons per day. 

IND-4A.3 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-12 

INDIVIDUAL 4B 

IND-4B.1 See response IND-4A.3 

IND-4B.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-13 

INDIVIDUAL 4B 

IND-4B.2 The final EIS has been updated with the most recent project information and studies available. The EIS is consistent with FERC style, formatting, and policy regarding NEPA evaluation of alternatives and different types of impacts, including cumulative impacts. 

IND-4B.2

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-14 

INDIVIDUAL 4B 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-15 

INDIVIDUAL 4B 

IND-4B.3 Transportation is discussed in section 4.9.4. 

IND-4B.3

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-16 

INDIVIDUAL 4B 

IND-4B.4 Water, waste and fuel storage, and air are discussed in sections 4.3.1.6, 4.9.3, and 4.11.1, respectively. IND-4B.5 Sagebrush steppe ecosystem as it applies to the project, including the Vya camp, is discussed in sections 4.4 and 4.7.4.1. IND-4B.6 See response to IND-4A.3. IND-4B.7 Monitoring is discussed in section 2.6.1. We are also recommending that Ruby develop and implement an environmental complaint resolution procedure that remains active for at least 3 years following the completion of project construction. The procedure would provide landowners with clear and simple directions for identifying and resolving their environmental mitigation problems/concerns during construction of the project and restoration of the right-of-way. 

IND-4B.4 IND-4B.5 IND-4B.6 IND-4B.7 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-17 

INDIVIDUAL 4B 

IND-4B.8 This is stated in EIS section 1.5. IND-4B.9 See response IND-4A.2. 

IND-4B.8 IND-4B.9 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-18 

INDIVIDUAL 4B 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-19 

INDIVIDUAL 4C 

IND-4C.1 See responses IND-4A.1, IND-4A.2, and IND-4A.3. 

IND-4C.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-20 

INDIVIDUAL 4C 

IND-4C.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-21 

INDIVIDUAL 4C 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-22 

INDIVIDUAL 4C 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-23 

INDIVIDUAL 4C 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-24 

INDIVIDUAL 4C 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-25 

INDIVIDUAL 4D 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-26 

INDIVIDUAL 4D 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-27 

INDIVIDUAL 4D 

IND-4D.1 A visual resource study was completed on the portion of the Applegate Lassen Emigrant Trail in the vicinity of the Vya Construction Camp. The visual resource study noted that this portion of the Applegate Lassen Emigrant Trail is in an area previously disturbed by construction of a road and agricultural activities. However, the results of the study do indicate that the construction of the Vya camp would have a temporary adverse visual effect to the trail. The adverse effect would be temporary due to the eventual removal of the Vya camp and restoration of the area, thereby resulting in minimal long-term impact to the trail. It is important to note that the construction of the Vya camp would have no direct effect on the Applegate Lassen Emigrant Trail because the trail will be fenced off and retained in its current condition. Due to the sensitive nature of identifying the location of cultural resource sites, a cultural resources inventory analysis for the Vya camp was marked confidential and provided under separate cover to the FERC on October 14, 2009. When instructed to do so by the FERC, Ruby would submit the report to the Nevada SHPO for review. This analysis will allow FERC and the SHPO to evaluate the Vya camp’s impacts on cultural resources, including the Applegate Lassen Emigrant Trail, and to develop appropriate measures to protect such resources. IND-4D.2 Section 4.9.4 has been updated. Ruby has committed to using water trucks and other dust abatement procedures, such as magnesium chloride treatment, to minimize fugitive dust emissions on county roads. Ruby evaluated locations for temporary housing and did not identify any sites adjacent to paved roads, which would accomplish the goal of minimizing worker travel to the right-of way. In addition to the Vya camp, Ruby is also proposing a separate temporary housing facility in Lake County, Oregon to accommodate approximately 350 construction personnel during construction. 

IND-4D.1 IND-4D.2 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-28 

INDIVIDUAL 4D 

IND-4D.3 The Vya Construction Camp is now designed to include 425 housing units and 200 RV spaces. The number of people residing at the Vya camp at any one time will not exceed 650. Although the Vya Environmental Report indicated that the peak workforce in the area could be over 800, Ruby would ensure that the camp population does not exceed 650. This will be accomplished by reducing crew sizes, shifting crews to other locations, or a combination of these measures. Ruby would be working with the local governments in Washoe County, Nevada and Modoc County, California, through their public safety departments to determine the correct procedure for contacting emergency medical services, fire response, and law enforcement for the Vya camp. Ruby would work with the local county governments through their public safety departments to determine the correct procedure for contacting emergency medical services, fire response, and law enforcement for the Vya camp. Ruby’s camp contractor would have dedicated water well and fire suppression equipment at the site to fight any fire located at the site. Ruby’s pipeline construction contractor is required to have fire suppression equipment with its crews at all times. While Ruby does not anticipate needing additional fire fighting services, Ruby is currently in discussion with local authorities in Modoc County and will be contacting Washoe County governments to determine the correct procedures to handle extraordinary circumstances, should they arise. Ruby is working with communications providers to review options for the installation of a communication network to help facilitate construction and future local use. Ruby has submitted its Special Use Application to Washoe County. Ruby has contacted the Sheriff's office and invited them to attend the field discussion at the Vya camp location with local residents. Ruby is working with Washoe County Road and Bridge Department to determine road impacts, repair procedures, maintenance and identify needed road upgrades. In evaluating potential locations for the Vya camp, Ruby considered the following factors: (1) the location of the site in proximity to the pipeline route in northwest Nevada, where contractor housing options were unavailable; (2) the presence or absence of sensitive environmental resources; (3) the willingness of the landowner to allow use of the site for the Vya camp; (4) the effects the Vya camp would have on the surrounding community; and (5) the capability of the site to accommodate the required number of housing units and camp facilities. 

IND-4D.3 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-29 

INDIVIDUAL 4D 

IND-4D.4 Ruby has already obtained a permit for the well from the State of Nevada Division of Water Rights (permit number 78382). The estimated volume of water to be appropriated on a daily basis is 18,000 gallons for the duration of the camp’s use (8 to 10 months). The source aquifer for this water supply is expected to provide a good yield and impacts on other area wells is not anticipated (see sections 4.9.3 and 4.3.1.6). IND-4D.5 A sewage leach field is designed and based on percolation testing results and not soil attributes. While soil attributes from the NRCS can infer a soil condition exists, that soil attribute condition should not define whether a leach field can operate in place. If the percolation tests indicate the soil is not ideal for a sewage leach field, there are engineering solutions to allow the leach field to be constructed. These include a mound system or a dousing system, or a combination of the two. The leach field at the Vya Construction Camp would be permitted according to State regulations, and the Vya camp contractor would take any measures necessary to ensure that the leach field design is appropriate in light of the percolation testing results. Ruby would be responsible for the successful reclamation of the disturbed portions of the Vya camp area. Ruby would seed with an appropriate seed mix as suggested in Ruby’s reclamation plan or as directed by the landowner. IND-4D.6 The proposed location for the Vya Construction Camp is located adjacent to a Washoe County public road. The County road already dissects the foothills from the desert shrub. The Vya camp would primarily be used during a time period that does not impact big game migration or nesting/breeding seasons. The land proposed for the Vya camp does not have any seasonal restrictions since it does not include any crucial habitat or nesting species. In addition, the location of the Vya camp site does not block movement of wildlife from either moving north/south or east/west since there is significant room in all directions to move around the site. Site investigations indicate the shrub steppe habitat is significantly degraded from past grazing practices and has sparse understory grasses. No sage-grouse lek sites or signs of pygmy rabbits were observed by Ruby surveys during site visits. A review of raptor nesting data from the NDOW and aerial surveys 

in the Project area found no raptor nests within 1 mile of the Vya camp. The disturbed portions of the Vya camp area would be returned to their original contours and reclaimed pursuant to Ruby’s reclamation plan or as directed by the private landowner. 

IND-4D.4 IND-4D.5 IND-4D.6 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-30 

INDIVIDUAL 4D 

IND-4D.7 While it is true that existing land use permits can be modified, such modification would require public notice and approval by the County. Washoe County also requires reclamation plans to be signed by a licensed revegetation specialist or landscape architect. Ruby would be responsible for returning the site as close as practical to its original condition, including pre-existing contours and vegetation, unless otherwise directed by the landowner. Ruby anticipates construction of the Vya Construction Camp most likely will begin in March or April 2010, with occupancy from June to December 2010. Decommissioning of the Vya camp will begin in December 2010 and may extend to May 2011, depending on weather conditions. If the spring of 2011 is mild, the Vya camp could be fully decommissioned by March 2011. 

IND-4D.6 IND-4D.7 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-31 

INDIVIDUAL 4D 

IND-4D.8 See response IND-4B.2 IND-4D.8 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-32 

INDIVIDUAL 4D 

IND-4D.8 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-33 

INDIVIDUAL 4D 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-34 

INDIVIDUAL 4D 

IND-4D.9 These comments pertain to documents prepared by Ruby. See Ruby’s response to these comments located in Appendix P. 

IND-4D.9 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-35 

INDIVIDUAL 4D 

IND-4D.9 These comments pertain to documents prepared by Ruby. See Ruby’s response to these comments located in Appendix P. 

IND-4D.9 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-36 

INDIVIDUAL 4D 

IND-4D.9 These comments pertain to documents prepared by Ruby. See Ruby’s response to these comments located in Appendix P. 

IND-4D.9 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-37 

INDIVIDUAL 4D 

IND-4D.9 These comments pertain to documents prepared by Ruby. See Ruby’s response to these comments located in Appendix P. IND-4D.9 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-38 

INDIVIDUAL 4D 

IND-4D.9 These comments pertain to documents prepared by Ruby. See Ruby’s response to these comments located in Appendix P. 

IND-4D.9 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-39 

INDIVIDUAL 4D 

IND-4D.9 These comments pertain to documents prepared by Ruby. See Ruby’s response to these comments located in Appendix P. 

IND-4D.9 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-40 

INDIVIDUAL 4D 

IND-4D.9 These comments pertain to documents prepared by Ruby. See Ruby’s response to these comments located in Appendix P. 

IND-4D.9 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-41 

INDIVIDUAL 4D 

IND-4D.9 These comments pertain to documents prepared by Ruby. See Ruby’s response to these comments located in Appendix P. 

IND-4D.9 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-42 

INDIVIDUAL 4D 

IND-4D.9 These comments pertain to documents prepared by Ruby. See Ruby’s response to these comments located in Appendix P. 

IND-4D.9 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-43 

INDIVIDUAL 4D 

IND-4D.9 These comments pertain to documents prepared by Ruby. See Ruby’s response to these comments located in Appendix P. 

IND-4D.9 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-44 

INDIVIDUAL 4D 

IND-4D.9 These comments pertain to documents prepared by Ruby. See Ruby’s response to these comments located in Appendix P. 

IND-4D.9 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-45 

INDIVIDUAL 4D 

IND-4D.9 These comments pertain to documents prepared by Ruby. See Ruby’s response to these comments located in Appendix P. 

IND-4D.9 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-46 

INDIVIDUAL 4D 

IND-4D.9 These comments pertain to documents prepared by Ruby. See Ruby’s response to these comments located in Appendix P. 

IND-4D.9 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-47 

INDIVIDUAL 5 

IND-5.1 Ruby stated that additional length of pipe and additional compression required to construct the Jungo-Tuscarora Route Alternative would considerably increase construction costs and make the project infeasible. Ruby’s proposed route was developed to follow an existing Los Angeles Department of Water and Power electric transmission line in the area, which, as the commenter noted, resulted in the proposed route not entering California. Our evaluation of the Jungo-Tuscarora Route Alternative and our rationale for not recommending it are presented in section 3.4.14. 

IND-5.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-48 

INDIVIDUAL 6 

IND-6.1 Thank you for your comment. 

IND-6.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-49 

INDIVIDUAL 7 

IND-7.1 Our detailed evaluation of alternatives in this portion of Nevada is presented in sections 3.4.12, 3.4.13, and 3.4.14. 

IND-7.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-50 

INDIVIDUAL 8 

IND-8.1 Our detailed evaluation of alternatives in this portion of Nevada is presented in sections 3.4.12, 3.4.13, and 3.4.14. 

IND-8.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-51 

INDIVIDUAL 9 

IND-9.1 Ruby submitted an updated Hydrostatic Test Plan on November 4, 2009. Table 4.3.1-1, Appendix K, and Appendix O provide details on the groundwater sources for hydrostatic testing and dust control. 

IND-9.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-52 

INDIVIDUAL 9 

IND-9.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-53 

INDIVIDUAL 10 

IND-10.1 See EIS sections 1.4, 2 and 4 for discussions of facilities, construction techniques, and non-jurisdictional powerline facilities. IND-10.2 Impacts and mitigation related to the greater sage grouse and associated habitat are discussed in section 4.7.3.1. IND-10.3 See sections 4.1.2.1, 4.4, 4.5.7, 4.8.1, 4.8.3, and 4.10 for discussions on wild horses and burros, domestic livestock, cultural resources, collocated right-of-way, recreation, mining, vegetation, and land use impacts and mitigation (respectively) associated with the construction, operation and maintenance of the Ruby Pipeline Project. IND-10.4 See sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 for discussions on sources, usage requirements and impacts on groundwater and surface water resources, respectively. IND-10.5 See sections 4.10.1.3 and 4.10.3 for discussions of impacts on and consultations with tribes in Nevada, and section 4.9 for a discussion on socioeconomic impacts on nearby Nevada communities. IND-10.6 See section 4.8.4 for a discussion on visual resources impacts and mitigation. 

IND-10.1 IND-10.2 IND-10.3 IND-10.4 IND-10.5 IND-10.6

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-54 

INDIVIDUAL 10 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-55 

INDIVIDUAL 11 

IND-11.1 Thank you for your comment. A discussion of the socioeconomic impacts of the project is provided in section 4.9 of the final EIS. 

IND-11.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-56 

INDIVIDUAL 11 

IND-11.2 Our detailed evaluation of the Sheldon Route Alternative and our rationale for not recommending it is presented in section 3.4.12. 

IND-11.2

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-57 

INDIVIDUAL 12 

IND-12.1 The FERC regulates and oversees certain energy industries in the economic, environmental, and safety interests of the American public as established by Congress in the National Gas Act, EPAct 2005, and other legislation. NEPA is intended to ensure that information on the environmental impacts of any federal action is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made, and that environmental impacts be given appropriate consideration in decision-making along with economic and technical consideration. IND-12.2 Impacts on water resources, wildlife habitat, and the 

pre-historic and historic cultural resources are discussed in sections 4.3, 4.5, and 4.10, respectively. 

IND-12.1 IND-12.2 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-58 

INDIVIDUAL 13 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-59 

INDIVIDUAL 13 

IND-13.1 The environmental impact of the Sheldon Route Alternative as compared to Ruby's proposed route is discussed in section 3.4.12. We are not recommending that the Sheldon Route Alternative be constructed. IND-13.2 The timeframe for environmental review is dictated by several factors, including the applicant's requested schedule, the need for and availability of environmental data, FERC regulations and policy, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and the National Environmental Policy Act. 

IND-13.1 IND-13.2

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-60 

INDIVIDUAL 13 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-61 

INDIVIDUAL 14 

IND-14.1 Impacts on recreation and special interest areas, and cultural resources are discussed in EIS sections 4.8.3 and 4.10, respectively. Impacts caused by access roads and associated facilities are discussed in sections 2.2 and 4.8. IND-14.2 Winter construction and access are discussed in section 2.3.2.8. ID-14.3 The extent to which future projects may or may not be collocated with the Ruby Pipeline Project is unknown; however, collocation with existing corridors is frequently preferred as a means to reduce environmental impacts. Additional utility projects would have to undergo separate review in accordance with applicable laws. IND-14.4 The final EIS has been updated to include impacts of the Vya Construction Camp on local services. See section 4.9.3. IND-14.5 Ruby submitted an updated Hydrostatic Test Plan on August 10, 2009. Table 4.3.1-1, Appendix K, and Appendix O provide details on the groundwater sources for hydrostatic testing and dust control. Table 4.3.2-6 provides details on the surface water sources for hydrostatic testing and dust control. Appropriation of groundwater would be subject to conditions imposed by the state engineer to minimize impacts on the aquifer from which water is appropriated. Ruby would only utilize water sources that are authorized and approved by the respective state water right permitting agencies, and Ruby must comply with any limitations or conditions on withdrawal imposed by these agencies. IND-14.6 The impact of the project on roads and transportation is discussed in section 4.9.4. IND-14.7 See response to IND-14.3. IND-14.8 Potential effects on the trail will be determined by the FERC in consultation with the SHPO and other appropriate parties. Any adverse effects would be mitigated. See Appendix P of the final EIS for an environmental analysis of the proposed Vya Construction Camp prepared by Ruby. Also refer to section 4.10.1 for our analysis of the Vya camp. IND-14.9 The final EIS has been updated to include impacts of the Vya Construction Camp on local services; see section 4.9.3. IND-14.10 The environmental impact of several alternative routes, including the Sheldon Route Alternative that follows Highway 140 in northwest Nevada., are discussed in section 3.4. 

IND-14.1 IND-14.2 IND-14.3 IND-14.4 IND-14.5 IND-14.6 IND-14.7 IND-14.8 IND-14.9 IND-14.10

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-62 

INDIVIDUAL 15 

IND-15.1 Thank you for your comment. 

IND-15.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-63 

INDIVIDUAL 16 

IND-16.1 Thank you for your comments. 

IND-16.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-64 

INDIVIDUAL 17 

IND-17.1 Thank you for your comments. 

IND-17.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-65 

INDIVIDUAL 18 

IND-18.1 Thank you for your comments. IND-18.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-66 

INDIVIDUAL 19 

IND-19.1 Thank you for your comments. IND-19.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-67 

INDIVIDUAL 20 

IND-20.1 Thank you for your comment. 

IND-20.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-68 

INDIVIDUAL 21 

IND-21.1 Thank you for your comment. IND-21.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-69 

INDIVIDUAL 22 

IND-22.1 Although the FERC did not formally extend the comment period, the FERC continued to accept comments after the close of the comment period. 

IND-22.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-70 

INDIVIDUAL 23 

IND-23.1 Thank you for your comment. IND-23.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-71 

INDIVIDUAL 24 

IND-24.1 Thank you for your comment. IND-24.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-72 

INDIVIDUAL 25 

IND-25.1 Thank you for your comment. 

IND-25.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-73 

INDIVIDUAL 26 

IND-26.1 Thank you for your comment. IND-26.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-74 

INDIVIDUAL 27 

IND-27.1 Thank you for your comment. IND-27.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-75 

INDIVIDUAL 28 

IND-28.1 Thank you for your comment. 

IND-28.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-76 

INDIVIDUAL 29 

IND-29.1 Thank you for your comment. 

IND-29.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-77 

INDIVIDUAL 30 

IND-30.1 Thank you for your comment. IND-30.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-78 

INDIVIDUAL 31 

IND-31.1 Thank you for your comment. IND-31.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-79 

INDIVIDUAL 32 

IND-32.1 Thank you for your comment. IND-32.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-80 

INDIVIDUAL 33 

IND-33.1 Thank you for your comment. IND-33.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-81 

INDIVIDUAL 34 

IND-34.1 Thank you for your comment. IND-34.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-82 

INDIVIDUAL 35 

IND-35.1 Thank you for your comments. 

IND-35.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-83 

INDIVIDUAL 36 

IND-36.1 Thank you for your comment. 

IND-36.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-84 

INDIVIDUAL 37 

IND-37.1 Thank you for your comment. Our detailed evaluation of the Sheldon Route Alternative and Black Rock Route Alternative and our rationale for not recommending them is presented in section 3.4.13. 

IND-37.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-85 

INDIVIDUAL 38 

IND-38.1 Thank you for your comment. IND-38.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-86 

INDIVIDUAL 39 

IND-39.1 Thank you for your comment. IND-39.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-87 

INDIVIDUAL 40 

IND-40.1 Thank you for your comment. IND-40.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-88 

INDIVIDUAL 41 

IND-41.1 Thank you for your comment. IND-41.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-89 

INDIVIDUAL 42 

IND-42.1 Thank you for your comment. IND-42.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-90 

INDIVIDUAL 43 

IND-43.1 Thank you for your comment. IND-43.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-91 

INDIVIDUAL 44 

IND-44.1 Thank you for your comment. IND-44.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-92 

INDIVIDUAL 45 

IND-45.1 Thank you for your comment. 

IND-45.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-93 

INDIVIDUAL 46 

IND-46.1 Thank you for your comment. IND-46.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-94 

INDIVIDUAL 47 

IND-47.1 Thank you for your comment. IND-47.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-95 

INDIVIDUAL 48 

IND-48.1 Thank you for your comment. IND-48.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-96 

INDIVIDUAL 49 

IND-49.1 Thank you for your comment. IND-49.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-97 

INDIVIDUAL 50 

IND-50.1 Thank you for your comment. 

IND-50.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-98 

INDIVIDUAL 51 

IND-51.1 Thank you for your comment. IND-51.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-99 

INDIVIDUAL 52 

IND-52.1 Thank you for your comment. IND-52.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-100 

INDIVIDUAL 53 

IND-53.1 Thank you for your comment. IND-53.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-101 

INDIVIDUAL 54 

IND-54.1 Thank you for your comment. IND-54.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-102 

INDIVIDUAL 55 

IND-55.1 Habitat impacts are discussed in EIS sections 4.4 and 

4.5. Impacts specific to fragmentation are discussed in sections 4.4.8 and 4.5.1.2. IND-55.2 Mitigation measures are discussed throughout the final EIS. These measures were developed as a result of coordination with and information obtained from various federal, state, and local agencies. IND-55.3 Although the FERC did not formally extend the comment period, the FERC continued to accept comments after the close of the comment period. An explanation of how the FERC establishes purpose and need is included in EIS section 1.1. 

IND-55.1 IND-55.2 IND-55.3

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-103 

INDIVIDUAL 56 

IND-56.1 Thank you for your comment. 

IND-56.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-104 

INDIVIDUAL 56 

IND-56.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-105 

INDIVIDUAL 57 

IND-57.1 Thank you for your comment. IND-57.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-106 

INDIVIDUAL 58 

IND-58.1 Thank you for your comment. IND-58.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-107 

INDIVIDUAL 59 

IND-59.1 Thank you for your comment. IND-59.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-108 

INDIVIDUAL 60A 

IND-60A.1 Thank you for your comment. The environmental impact of the Sheldon Route Alternative as compared to Ruby's proposed route is discussed in section 3.4.12. We are not recommending that the Sheldon Route Alternative be constructed. 

IND-60A.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-109 

INDIVIDUAL 60A 

IND-60A.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-110 

INDIVIDUAL 60B 

IND-60B.1 A discussion of the Vya Construction Camp, including impacts on roads, trash, and medical facilities is included in section 4.9.4. IND-60B.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-111 

INDIVIDUAL 60C 

IND-60C.1 The final EIS has been updated to include a more detailed discussion of the socioeconomic impacts of the Vya Construction Camp on California communities; see section 4.9. IND-60C.2 Based on our analysis, it appears that the Sheldon Route Alternative would result in fewer overall environmental impacts as compared to the proposed route. Despite the apparent environmental advantage of the Sheldon Route Alternative, it is clear that the FWS could not concur with a right-of-way grant for the route. For this reason, we do not recommend the Sheldon Route Alternative IND-60C.3 The final EIS has been updated to include impacts on public services, transportation, and use of campgrounds in California; see sections 4.9.3 and 4.9.4. While it is possible that the influx of non-local workers to the general vicinity could result in increased use of area campgrounds, project-related camping is not expected to occur. Due to the nature of pipeline construction and the demanding work schedule (6 to 7 days per week, 10 to 12 hours per day), it would be unlikely that workers would use campgrounds for recreation on their days off. In addition, if construction workers chose to use and explore any campground features on their own recreational time, the construction workers would be restricted to using the campgrounds for the stated purposes and durations. IND-60C.4 The final EIS has been updated to include impacts on public services including healthcare in California, see section 4.9.3. Ruby has indicated that a physician’s assistant would be employed on site by the construction contractor at the Vya Construction Camp 24 hours a day to provide basic first aid and limited medical care to camp residents. The Vya camp might increase the utilization of these facilities due to the potential for worker illnesses and injuries. However, due to the short duration of construction, increased demands on medical services would be temporary. No school-age children would be allowed to lodge at the Vya camp. IND-60C.5 The final EIS has been updated to include impacts on public services and transportation in California; see sections 4.9.3 and 4.9.4. Ruby met with public officials from Modoc County and California cities of Cedarville and Alturas in July and August 2009 to discuss the project needs and public service impacts. Local community leaders invited Ruby to visit their medical facilities and to discuss anticipated construction-related medical needs. As a result of these meetings, the local medical community stated it would provide any necessary emergency medical services. Ruby also met with local fire departments, reviewed their equipment, and is currently in discussion with the local fire 

IND-60C.1 IND-60C.2 IND-60C.3 IND-60C.4 IND-60C.5

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-112 

INDIVIDUAL 61 

IND-61.1 Thank you for your comment. IND-61.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-113 

INDIVIDUAL 61 

IND-61.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-114 

INDIVIDUAL 62 

IND-62.1 Thank you for your comment. 

IND-62.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-115 

INDIVIDUAL 63 

IND-63.1 Thank you for your comment. 

IND-63.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-116 

INDIVIDUAL 64 

IND-64.1 Thank you for your comments. IND-64.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-117 

INDIVIDUAL 65 

IND-65.1 The final EIS has been updated with the most recent project information and studies available. The Ruby EIS is consistent with FERC style, formatting, and policy regarding NEPA evaluation of alternatives and different types of impacts, including cumulative impacts. 

IND-65.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-118 

INDIVIDUAL 65 

IND-65.2 The comments regarding the remoteness and undeveloped nature of the Summit Lake Paiute reservation and the proposed pipeline route, as well as the traditional practices of Northern Paiute people in this region, are noted. Ruby would continue to work with the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe to identify and avoid or minimize impacts on places and resources of significance to the tribe. IND-65.3 Thank you for your comment. IND-65.4 Activities that can be authorized under blanket certificates are defined in 18 CFR Part 157, Subpart F. Blanket authorization does not grant a pipeline company permission to construct a second natural gas transmission pipeline or other major facilities within the same or different rights-of-way. IND-65.5 Impacts on tribal resources, including hunting, gathering, and cultural resources are discussed in sections 4.9.7 and 4.10.3. Impacts on tribal resources are discussed in sections 4.9.7 and 4.10.3. 

IND-65.2 IND-65.3 IND-65.4 IND-65.5 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-119 

INDIVIDUAL 66A 

IND-66A.1 Hard copies of the draft EIS were sent to all persons that identified to the FERC a problem with their CD. Although the FERC did not formally extend the comment period, the FERC continued to accept comments on the draft EIS after the close of the comment period. IND-66A.2 The responses provided in comment letter NA-1 apply to this letter as well. 

IND-66A.1 IND-66A.2 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-120 

INDIVIDUAL66A 

IND-66A.2 The responses provided in comment letter NA-1

apply to this letter as well. IND-66A.2

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-121 

INDIVIDUAL 66A 

IND-66A.2 The responses provided in comment letter NA-1apply to this letter as well. 

IND-66A.2

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-122 

INDIVIDUAL 66A 

IND-66A.2 The responses provided in comment letter NA-1apply to this letter as well. 

IND-66A.2

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-123 

INDIVIDUAL 66A 

IND-66A.2 The responses provided in comment letter NA-1

apply to this letter as well. IND-66A.2

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-124 

INDIVIDUAL 66A 

IND-66A.2 The responses provided in comment letter NA-1apply to this letter as well. 

IND-66A.2

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-125 

INDIVIDUAL 66A 

IND-66A.2 The responses provided in comment letter NA-1apply to this letter as well. IND-66A.2

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-126 

INDIVIDUAL 66A 

IND-66A.2 The responses provided in comment letter NA-1 apply to this letter as well. 

IND-66A.2

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-127 

INDIVIDUAL 66A 

IND-66A.2 The responses provided in comment letter NA-1 apply to this letter as well. 

IND-66A.2

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-128 

INDIVIDUAL 66A 

IND-66A.2 The responses provided in comment letter NA-1 apply to this letter as well. IND-66A.3 The environmental impact of the Jungo-Tuscarora Route Alternative as compared to Ruby's proposed route is discussed in EIS section 3.4.14. IND-66A.2 The responses provided in comment letter NA-1 apply to this letter as well. 

IND-66A.2 IND-66A.3 IND-66A.2 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-129 

INDIVIDUAL66A 

IND-66A.2 The responses provided in comment letter NA-1apply to this letter as well. 

IND-66A.2

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-130 

INDIVIDUAL 66A 

IND-66A.2 The responses provided in comment letter NA-1 apply to this letter as well. 

IND-66A.2

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-131 

INDIVIDUAL 66B 

IND-66B.1 Several factors dictate the width of a construction 

right-of-way, including pipe diameter, equipment size, trench dimensions, spoil storage requirements, soil stability, steep slopes, and worker safety. Based on our experience regulating pipeline construction throughout the United States, we believe the construction right-of-way width proposed by Ruby for this project is reasonable. Ruby stated that it has no foreseeable expansion plans for the proposed pipeline system, and the FERC is not aware of any other pipeline systems being proposed along this same route. IND-66B.2 Ethnographic studies sponsored by Ruby should identify if medicinal plants would be impacted by the project. Ruby has stated it is willing to continue to work with tribes to minimize or avoid impacts on traditional resources should such resources be identified. Treatment of Native American traditional or medicinal plants is addressed in Ruby's Draft Restoration and Revegetation Plans, Appendix L of the final EIS. IND-66B.3 Hiring would be at the discretion of Ruby. Ruby has stated that up to 15% of construction workforce would be local hires. IND-66B.4 A summary of the cultural resources identified to date is provided in section 4.10.1. Ruby has initiated a tribal monitor training program, held a training session in August 2009, and placed tribal monitors in the field; see section 4.10.3. Tribal consultation has been underway since March 2008, and is further discussed in section 4.10.3. IND-66B.5 For any cultural resource sites determined eligible for the NRHP that would be adversely affected, treatment would be proposed. 

IND-66B.1 IND-66B.2 IND-66B.3 IND-66B.4 IND-66B.5 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-132 

INDIVIDUAL 67 

IND-67.1 The responses provided in comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. IND-67.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-133 

INDIVIDUAL 67 

IND-67.2 The Section 106 Process, through which cultural resources are identified, impacts evaluated, and treatment addressed, will continue after the final EIS is issued. Recent updates to the status of the cultural resources studies is provided in section 4.10.1. Information about cultural resources along the Sheldon and Black Rock Alternatives has been updated and is discussed in section 3.4. IND-67.1 The responses provided in comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. 

IND-67.2 IND-67.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-134 

INDIVIDUAL 67 

IND-67.1 The responses provided in comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. 

IND-67.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-135 

INDIVIDUAL 67 

IND-67.1 The responses provided in comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. 

IND-67.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-136 

INDIVIDUAL 67 

IND-67.1 The responses provided in comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. 

IND-67.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-137 

INDIVIDUAL 67 

IND-67.1 The responses provided in comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. IND-67.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-138 

INDIVIDUAL 67 

IND-67.1 The responses provided in comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. 

IND-67.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-139 

INDIVIDUAL 67 

IND-67.1 The responses provided in comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. IND-67.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-140 

INDIVIDUAL 67 

IND-67.1 The responses provided in comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. 

IND-67.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-141 

INDIVIDUAL 67 

IND-67.1 The responses provided in comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. IND-67.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-142 

INDIVIDUAL 67 

IND-67.1 The responses provided in comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. 

IND-67.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-143 

INDIVIDUAL 67 

IND-67.1 The responses provided in comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. 

IND-67.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-144 

INDIVIDUAL 68 

IND-68.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A 

apply to this letter as well. IND-68.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-145 

INDIVIDUAL 68 

IND-68.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A 

apply to this letter as well. 

IND-68.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-146 

INDIVIDUAL 68 

IND-68.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A 

apply to this letter as well. 

IND-68.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-147 

INDIVIDUAL 68 

IND-68.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A 

apply to this letter as well. 

IND-68.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-148 

INDIVIDUAL 68 

IND-68.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A 

apply to this letter as well. IND-68.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-149 

INDIVIDUAL 68 

IND-68.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A 

apply to this letter as well. IND-68.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-150 

INDIVIDUAL 68 

IND-68.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A 

apply to this letter as well. 

IND-68.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-151 

INDIVIDUAL 68 

IND-68.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A 

apply to this letter as well. 

IND-68.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-152 

INDIVIDUAL 68 

IND-68.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A 

apply to this letter as well. 

IND-68.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-153 

INDIVIDUAL 68 

IND-68.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A 

apply to this letter as well. IND-68.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-154 

INDIVIDUAL 68 

IND-68.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A 

apply to this letter as well. IND-68.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-155 

INDIVIDUAL 68 

IND-68.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A 

apply to this letter as well. 

IND-68.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-156 

INDIVIDUAL 69 

IND-69.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. 

IND-69.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-157 

INDIVIDUAL 69 

IND-69.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. 

IND-69.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-158 

INDIVIDUAL 69 

IND-69.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. 

IND-69.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-159 

INDIVIDUAL 69 

IND-69.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. 

IND-69.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-160 

INDIVIDUAL 69 

IND-69.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. 

IND-69.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-161 

INDIVIDUAL 69 

IND-69.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. 

IND-69.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-162 

INDIVIDUAL 69 

IND-69.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. 

IND-69.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-163 

INDIVIDUAL 69 

IND-69.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. 

IND-69.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-164 

INDIVIDUAL 69 

IND-69.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. 

IND-69.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-165 

INDIVIDUAL 69 

IND-69.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. IND-69.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-166 

INDIVIDUAL 69 

IND-69.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. 

IND-69.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-167 

INDIVIDUAL 69 

IND-69.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. 

IND-69.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-168 

INDIVIDUAL 70 

IND-70.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. 

IND-70.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-169 

INDIVIDUAL 70 

IND-70.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. 

IND-70.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-170 

INDIVIDUAL 70 

IND-70.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. 

IND-70.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-171 

INDIVIDUAL 70 

IND-70.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. IND-70.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-172 

INDIVIDUAL 70 

 IND-70.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A 

apply to this letter as well. 

IND-70.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-173 

INDIVIDUAL 70 

IND-70.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. 

IND-70.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-174 

INDIVIDUAL 70 

IND-70.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. 

IND-70.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-175 

INDIVIDUAL 70 

IND-70.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. IND-70.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-176 

INDIVIDUAL 70 

IND-70.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. 

IND-70.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-177 

INDIVIDUAL 70 

IND-70.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. IND-70.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-178 

INDIVIDUAL 70 

IND-70.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. IND-70.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-179 

INDIVIDUAL 70 

IND-70.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. 

IND-70.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-180 

INDIVIDUAL 71 

IND-71.1 For any cultural resource sites determined eligible for the NRHP that would be adversely affected, treatment would be proposed. IND-71.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-181 

INDIVIDUAL 72 

IND-72.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. 

IND-72.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-182 

INDIVIDUAL 72 

IND-72.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. IND-72.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-183 

INDIVIDUAL 72 

IND-72.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. IND-72.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-184 

INDIVIDUAL 72 

IND-72.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. 

IND-72.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-185 

INDIVIDUAL 72 

IND-72.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. 

IND-72.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-186 

INDIVIDUAL 72 

IND-72.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. 

IND-72.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-187 

INDIVIDUAL 72 

IND-72.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. 

IND-72.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-188 

INDIVIDUAL 72 

IND-72.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. 

IND-72.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-189 

INDIVIDUAL 72 

IND-72.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. 

IND-72.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-190 

INDIVIDUAL 72 

IND-72.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. 

IND-72.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-191 

INDIVIDUAL 72 

IND-72.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. 

IND-72.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-192 

INDIVIDUAL 72 

IND-72.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. IND-72.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-193 

INDIVIDUAL 73 

IND-73.1 Impacts on tribal resources are discussed in EIS sections 4.9.7 and 4.10.3. Ruby would continue to work with the tribes to identify and avoid or minimize impacts on places and resources of tribal significance. 

IND-73.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-194 

INDIVIDUAL 74 

IND-74.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A apply to this letter as well. 

IND-74.1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-195 

INDIVIDUAL 74 

IND-74.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A 

apply to this letter as well. 

IND-74.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-196 

INDIVIDUAL 74 

IND-74.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A 

apply to this letter as well. 

IND-74.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-197 

INDIVIDUAL 74 

IND-74.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A 

apply to this letter as well. 

IND-74.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-198 

INDIVIDUAL 74 

IND-74.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A 

apply to this letter as well. 

IND-74.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-199 

INDIVIDUAL 74 

IND-74.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A 

apply to this letter as well. 

IND-74.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-200 

INDIVIDUAL 74 

IND-74.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A 

apply to this letter as well. 

IND-74.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-201 

INDIVIDUAL 74 

IND-74.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A 

apply to this letter as well. 

IND-74.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-202 

INDIVIDUAL 74 

IND-74.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A 

apply to this letter as well. 

IND-74.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-203 

INDIVIDUAL 74 

IND-74.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A 

apply to this letter as well. IND-74.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-204 

INDIVIDUAL 74 

IND-74.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A 

apply to this letter as well. 

IND-74.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-205 

INDIVIDUAL 74 

IND-74.1 The responses supplied for comment letter IND-66A 

apply to this letter as well. IND-74.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-206 

INDIVIDUAL 75 

IND-75.1 Thank you for your comment. IND-75.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-207 

INDIVIDUAL 76 

IND-76.1 Thank you for your comment. IND-76.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-208 

INDIVIDUAL 77 

IND-77.1 The final EIS has been updated to include a more detailed discussion of the potential project impacts on the communities surrounding the Vya Construction Camp, including communities in California; see section 4.9.3. IND-77.2 The final EIS has been updated to include impacts on transportation as a result of the Vya Construction Camp; see section 4.9.4. 

IND-77.1 IND-77.2

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-209 

INDIVIDUAL 78 

IND-78.1 Impacts on traditional Northern Paiute resources are discussed in EIS section 4.10.3. IND-78.2 Potential impacts on Northern Paiute traditional foods, medicines, and other subsistence resources, as well as sacred sites and possible burials are discussed in section 4.10.3.2. 

IND-78.1 IND-78.2

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-210 

INDIVIDUAL 79 

IND-79.1 Thank you for your comment. Pleas note that the Ruby Pipeline Project is not an LNG (liquefied natural gas) project. 

IND-79.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-211 

INDIVIDUAL 80 

IND-80.1 Thank you for your comment. Nothing in the Patriot Act requires that a pipeline, such as the Ruby pipeline, be routed within designated military corridors. Pipeline safety, as well as terrorism, are discussed in section 4.12.2. 

IND-80.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-212 

INDIVIDUAL 81 

IND-81.1 Ruby’s proposed route does not cross the Summit Lake 

Tribe’s Reservation. See section 4.10 of the final EIS for a discussion of Native American consultations. 

IND-81.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-213 

INDIVIDUAL 82 

IND-82.1 Ruby would need to obtain all necessary permits and approvals from Washoe County and any other applicable agencies prior to development of the Vya Construction Camp. Ruby would be subject to the county’s standard permitting process to obtain the necessary permit. IND-82.2 The Vya Construction Camp was presented in the text of the draft EIS to the extent of the information Ruby had provided to us at the time. Several other parties submitted valid comments on the Vya camp during the draft EIS comment period, including Washoe County. 

IND-82.1 IND-82.2

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-214 

INDIVIDUAL 82 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-215 

INDIVIDUAL 82 

IND-82.3 We understand that White Pine Ranch submitted this document to Washoe County as part of the public hearing dedicated to the review of Ruby’s application for a special use permit for the Vya Construction Camp.

IND-82.3

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-216 

INDIVIDUAL 82 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-217 

INDIVIDUAL 82 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-218 

INDIVIDUAL 82 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-219 

INDIVIDUAL 82 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-220 

INDIVIDUAL 82 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-221 

INDIVIDUAL 82 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-222 

INDIVIDUAL 82 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-223 

INDIVIDUAL 82 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-224 

INDIVIDUAL 82 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-225 

INDIVIDUAL 82 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-226 

INDIVIDUAL 82 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-227 

INDIVIDUAL 82 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-228 

INDIVIDUAL 82 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-229 

INDIVIDUAL 82 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-230 

INDIVIDUAL 82 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
I-231 

INDIVIDUAL 82 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Applicant 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-1 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.1 Thank you for your comment. 

APP1-1.1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-2 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.2 Ruby’s comments and additional information regarding the Sheldon Route Alternative are noted. We are not recommending the Sheldon Route Alternative for the reasons discussed in section 3.4.12 of this final EIS. 

APP1-1.2

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-3 

APPLICANT 1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-4 

APPLICANT 1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-5 

APPLICANT 1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-6 

APPLICANT 1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-7 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.3 Ruby’s comments and additional information regarding the Black Rock Route Alternative are noted. We are not recommending the Black Rock Route Alternative for the reasons discussed in section 3.4.13 of this final EIS. APP-1.3 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-8 

APPLICANT 1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-9 

APPLICANT 1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-10 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.4 Thank you for the additional information. Our updated discussion of the Southern Langell Valley Alternative is included in section 3.4.15 of this final EIS. APP-1.5 Comment noted. Section 1.5.2 of this final EIS includes additional information from the BLM regarding the projects consistence with BLM RMPs. APP-1.6 Thank you for the additional information. Section 1.5.2. 

APP-1.4 APP-1.5 APP-1.6

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-11 

APPLICANT 1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-12 

APPLICANT 1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-13 

APPLICANT 1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-14 

APPLICANT 1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-15 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.7 Thank you for your comment. The BLM has provided a wilderness characteristic study for inclusion in this final EIS (see Appendix W). APP-1.8 Additional discussion of conformance with USFS LRMPs has been included in section 1.5.1. 

APP-1.7 APP-1.8

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-16 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.9 Thank you for the additional information. We have concluded that the Ruby project would not affect these two plant species. APP-1.10 Thank you for the additional information. Our evaluation of project impacts on the black-footed ferret is included in section 4.7.2.1 of this final EIS. APP-1.11 Thank you for your comment. Section 4.7.3.2 of this 

final EIS has been updated. 

APP-1.9 APP-1.10 APP-1.11

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-17 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.12 Thank you for the additional information. The most recent version of the draft Endangered Species Act Conservation Action Plan is included in Appendix M of this final EIS. 

APP-1.12 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-18 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.13 Thank you for your comment. We have updated the analysis for sensitive species in the final EIS (section 4.7.4). APP-1.24 Thank you for your comment. Ruby’s commitments regarding the greater sage-grouse are included in section 4.7.3.1 of this final EIS and in the draft Ruby Project Cooperative Conservation Agreement for the Greater Sage-grouse and Pygmy Rabbit included in Appendix M. 

APP-1.19 APP-1.20

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-19 

APPLICANT 1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-20 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.21 Thank you for your comment. Ruby’s commitments regarding the pygmy rabbit are included in section 4.7.3.3 of this final EIS and in the draft Ruby Project Cooperative Conservation Agreement for the Greater Sage-grouse and Pygmy Rabbit included in Appendix M. 

APP-1.21

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-21 

APPLICANT 1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-22 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.22 The conservation measures identified in Ruby’s Greater Sage Grouse and Pygmy Rabbit Conservation Plan (see Appendix M) were developed through consultation with the BLM, FWS, and state resource agencies and do not identify any avoidance timeframes for pygmy rabbits. Ruby has stated it would adopt agency recommendations and incorporate the requirements into its POD, which include the Greater Sage Grouse and Pygmy Rabbit Conservation Plan. Should resource agencies require an avoidance timeframe, it should be included in the final POD. APP-1.23 Thank you for the additional information. Ruby’s commitments regarding migratory birds are included in section 4.5.5 of this final EIS. 

APP-1.22 APP-1.23

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-23 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.24 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.5.2 of this final EIS has been updated. APP-1.25 Thank you for your comment. Section 4.3.3 of this final EIS has been updated. APP-1.26 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.3.2 of this final EIS has been updated. 

APP-1.24 APP-1.25 APP-1.26

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-24 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.27 We have recommended in sections 4.3.2.4 and 4.3.3.2 that Ruby locate all temporary extra workspaces and staging areas at least 50 feet from wetlands and waterbodies. 

APP-1.27

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-25 

APPLICANT 1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-26 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.28 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.2.2.3 and our recommendation have been updated. APP-1.28

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-27 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.29 Thank you for the comment. Section 4.4.1.2 has been updated. APP-1.29

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-28 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.30 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.4.10 has been updated. APP-1.31 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.10.1 has been updated. 

APP-1.30 APP-1.31 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-29 

APPLICANT 1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-30 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.32 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.10.4 has been updated. 

APP-1.32

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-31 

APPLICANT 1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-32 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.33 Thank you for your comment. Section 4.10.1 has been updated. APP-1.33

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-33 

APPLICANT 1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-34 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.34 Thank you for your comment. Section 4.10.3 has been updated. APP-1.34

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-35 

APPLICANT 1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-36 

APPLICANT 1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-37 

APPLICANT 1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-38 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.35 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.2.3 has been updated. APP-1.36 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.1.2.1 has been updated. 

APP-1.35 APP-1.36

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-39 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.37 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.1.3 has been updated. APP-1.38 Thank you for your comment. Section 4.1.3 has been updated. 

APP-1.37 APP-1.38

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-40 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.39 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.8.4 has been updated. 

APP-1.39

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-41 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.40 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.8.4 has been updated. APP-1.41 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.8.3 has been updated. 

APP-1.40 APP-1.41

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-42 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.42 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.13 has been updated. 

APP-1.42

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-43 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.43 Thank you for your comment. Section 4.13.1 has been updated. APP-1.44 Thank you for your comment. Section 4.13.2 has been updated. APP-1.45 Thank you for your comment. Section 4.13.3 has been updated. APP-1.46 Thank you for your comment. Section 4.13.3 has been updated. 

APP-1.43 APP-1.44 APP-1.45 APP-1.46

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-44 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.47 Thank you for your comment. Section 4.13.3 has been updated. APP-1.48 Thank you for your comment. Section 4.13.4 has been updated. APP-1.49 Thank you for your comment. Section 4.13.5 has been updated. 

APP-1.47 APP-1.48 APP-1.49 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-45 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.50 Thank you for your comment. Section 4.13.5 has been updated. APP-1.51 Thank you for your comment. Section 4.13.5 has been updated. APP-1.52 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.13.6 has been updated. 

APP-1.50 APP-1.51 APP-1.52

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-46 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.53 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.13.6 has been updated. APP-1.54 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.13.7 has been updated. APP-1.55 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.13.8 has been updated. 

APP-1.53 APP-1.54 APP-1.55

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-47 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.56 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.13.9 has been updated. APP-1.57 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.13.9 has been updated. APP-1.58 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.13.10 has been updated. APP-1.59 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.13.11 has been updated. 

APP-1.56 APP-1.57 APP-1.58 APP-1.59

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-48 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.60 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.13.11 has been updated. APP-1.61 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.13.6 has been updated. APP-1.62 Thank you for your comment. Section 4.3.2 has been updated. 

APP-1.60 APP-1.61 APP-1.62

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-49 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.63 Thank you for your comment. Section 1.5 has been updated. APP-1.64 Thank you for your comment. Section 1.5.4 has been updated. APP-1.65 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.2.4 has been updated. 

APP-1.66 APP-1.67 APP-1.68

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-50 

APPLICANT 1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-51 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.66 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.3.2.5 has been updated. APP-1.67 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.3.2.5 has been updated.

APP-1.66 APP-1.67

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-52 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.68 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.3.2.5 has been updated. APP-1.69 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.2.1.6 has been updated. APP-1.70 Thank you for your comment. Section 2.3.1.7 has been updated. APP-1.71 Thank you for your comment. Section 2.3.1.7 has been updated. 

APP-1.68 APP-1.69 APP-1.70 APP-1.71

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-53 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.72 Thank you for your comment. Section 2.3.1.7 has been updated. APP-1.73 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.4.6 has been updated. APP-1.74 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.8.1.1 has been updated. 

APP-1.72 APP-1.73 APP-1.74

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-54 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.75 Thank you for the additional information. Sections 4.3.2.4 and 4.3.3.2 have been updated. 

APP-1.75

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-55 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.76 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.3.1.3 has been updated. APP-1.77 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.5.2 has been updated. 

APP-1.76 APP-1.77

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-56 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.78 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.4.10 has been updated. APP-1.78

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-57 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.79 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.4.10 has been updated. APP-1.79

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-58 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.80 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.4.10 has been updated. APP-1.81 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.4.10 has been updated. APP-1.82 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.4.10 has been updated. 

APP-1.80 APP-1.81 APP-1.82

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-59 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.83 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.1.2.3 has been updated. APP-1.84 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.11.1.2 has been updated. APP-1.85 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.8.1.3 has been updated. 

APP-1.83 APP-1.84 APP-1.85

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-60 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.86 Thank you for the additional information. Sections 4.8.3.2, 4.9.2, 4.9.3, 4.9.4, and 4.10.1.3 have been updated. 

APP-1.86

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-61 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.87 Thank you for the additional information. Section 2.5.2 has been updated. 

APP-1.86 APP-1.87

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-62 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.87

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-63 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.88 Thank you for the comments. These edits have been made in the appropriate locations of the final EIS, as applicable. APP-1.88

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-64 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.88

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-65 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.88

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-66 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.88

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-67 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.88

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-68 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.88

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-69 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.88

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-70 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.88

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-71 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.88

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-72 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.88

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-73 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.88

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-74 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.88

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-75 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.88

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-76 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.88

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-77 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.88

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-78 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.88

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-79 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.88

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-80 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.88

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-81 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.88

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-82 

APPLICANT 1 

APP1.88

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-83 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.88

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-84 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.88

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-85 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.88

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-86 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.88

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-87 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.88

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-88 

APPLICANT 1 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-89 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.89 Thank you for the comments. These edits have been made in the appropriate locations of the final EIS, as applicable.. 

APP1-89

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-90 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.89

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-91 

APPLICANT 1 

APP-1.89

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-92 

APPLICANT 2 

APP-2.1 Thank you for your comment. Section 4.3.2.5 has been updated. APP-2.2 Thank you for your comment. Section 1.5.3 has been updated. 

APP-2.1 APP-2.2 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-93 

APPLICANT 2 

APP-2.3 Thank you for the additional information. Sections 4.7.3.2 and 4.7.3.6 have been updated. APP-2.4 Thank you for the additional information. Section 4.5.1.1 has been updated. 

APP-2.2 APP-2.3 APP-2.4 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-94 

APPLICANT 2 

APP1-2.4 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-95 

APPLICANT 2 

APP-2.5 Thank you for the clarification, the final EIS has been updated. 

APP-2.5

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-96 

APPLICANT 2 

APP-2.5

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
A-97 

APPLICANT 2 

APP-2.5 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010

File [APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_1_of_20.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (To download this 

file in its original format, please use the filename hyperlink from your search results. If you 

continue to experience difficulties, or to obtain a PDF generated version of files, please 

contact the helpdesk at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or, call 866-208-3676 from 9AM to 5PM EST, 

weekdays. Please allow at least 48 hours for your helpdesk request to be processed.)
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010

File [APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_2_of_20.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (To download this 

file in its original format, please use the filename hyperlink from your search results. If you 

continue to experience difficulties, or to obtain a PDF generated version of files, please 

contact the helpdesk at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or, call 866-208-3676 from 9AM to 5PM EST, 

weekdays. Please allow at least 48 hours for your helpdesk request to be processed.)
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010

File [APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_3_of_20.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (To download this 

file in its original format, please use the filename hyperlink from your search results. If you 

continue to experience difficulties, or to obtain a PDF generated version of files, please 

contact the helpdesk at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or, call 866-208-3676 from 9AM to 5PM EST, 

weekdays. Please allow at least 48 hours for your helpdesk request to be processed.)
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010

File [APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_4_of_20.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (To download this 

file in its original format, please use the filename hyperlink from your search results. If you 

continue to experience difficulties, or to obtain a PDF generated version of files, please 

contact the helpdesk at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or, call 866-208-3676 from 9AM to 5PM EST, 

weekdays. Please allow at least 48 hours for your helpdesk request to be processed.)
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010

File [APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_5_of_20.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (To download this 

file in its original format, please use the filename hyperlink from your search results. If you 

continue to experience difficulties, or to obtain a PDF generated version of files, please 

contact the helpdesk at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or, call 866-208-3676 from 9AM to 5PM EST, 

weekdays. Please allow at least 48 hours for your helpdesk request to be processed.)
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010

File [APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_6_of_20.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (To download this 

file in its original format, please use the filename hyperlink from your search results. If you 

continue to experience difficulties, or to obtain a PDF generated version of files, please 

contact the helpdesk at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or, call 866-208-3676 from 9AM to 5PM EST, 

weekdays. Please allow at least 48 hours for your helpdesk request to be processed.)
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010

File [APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_7_of_20.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (To download this 

file in its original format, please use the filename hyperlink from your search results. If you 

continue to experience difficulties, or to obtain a PDF generated version of files, please 

contact the helpdesk at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or, call 866-208-3676 from 9AM to 5PM EST, 

weekdays. Please allow at least 48 hours for your helpdesk request to be processed.)
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010

File [APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_8_of_20.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (To download this 

file in its original format, please use the filename hyperlink from your search results. If you 

continue to experience difficulties, or to obtain a PDF generated version of files, please 

contact the helpdesk at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or, call 866-208-3676 from 9AM to 5PM EST, 

weekdays. Please allow at least 48 hours for your helpdesk request to be processed.)
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010

File [APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_9_of_20.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (To download this 

file in its original format, please use the filename hyperlink from your search results. If you 

continue to experience difficulties, or to obtain a PDF generated version of files, please 

contact the helpdesk at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or, call 866-208-3676 from 9AM to 5PM EST, 

weekdays. Please allow at least 48 hours for your helpdesk request to be processed.)
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010

File [APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_10_of_20.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (To download this 

file in its original format, please use the filename hyperlink from your search results. If you 

continue to experience difficulties, or to obtain a PDF generated version of files, please 

contact the helpdesk at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or, call 866-208-3676 from 9AM to 5PM EST, 

weekdays. Please allow at least 48 hours for your helpdesk request to be processed.)
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010

File [APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_11_of_20.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (To download this 

file in its original format, please use the filename hyperlink from your search results. If you 

continue to experience difficulties, or to obtain a PDF generated version of files, please 

contact the helpdesk at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or, call 866-208-3676 from 9AM to 5PM EST, 

weekdays. Please allow at least 48 hours for your helpdesk request to be processed.)
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010

File [APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_12_of_20.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (To download this 

file in its original format, please use the filename hyperlink from your search results. If you 

continue to experience difficulties, or to obtain a PDF generated version of files, please 

contact the helpdesk at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or, call 866-208-3676 from 9AM to 5PM EST, 

weekdays. Please allow at least 48 hours for your helpdesk request to be processed.)
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010

File [APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_13_of_20.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (To download this 

file in its original format, please use the filename hyperlink from your search results. If you 

continue to experience difficulties, or to obtain a PDF generated version of files, please 

contact the helpdesk at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or, call 866-208-3676 from 9AM to 5PM EST, 

weekdays. Please allow at least 48 hours for your helpdesk request to be processed.)
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010

File [APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_14_of_20.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (To download this 

file in its original format, please use the filename hyperlink from your search results. If you 

continue to experience difficulties, or to obtain a PDF generated version of files, please 

contact the helpdesk at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or, call 866-208-3676 from 9AM to 5PM EST, 

weekdays. Please allow at least 48 hours for your helpdesk request to be processed.)
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010

File [APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_15_of_20.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (To download this 

file in its original format, please use the filename hyperlink from your search results. If you 

continue to experience difficulties, or to obtain a PDF generated version of files, please 

contact the helpdesk at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or, call 866-208-3676 from 9AM to 5PM EST, 

weekdays. Please allow at least 48 hours for your helpdesk request to be processed.)
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010

File [APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_16_of_20.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (To download this 

file in its original format, please use the filename hyperlink from your search results. If you 

continue to experience difficulties, or to obtain a PDF generated version of files, please 

contact the helpdesk at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or, call 866-208-3676 from 9AM to 5PM EST, 

weekdays. Please allow at least 48 hours for your helpdesk request to be processed.)
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010

File [APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_17_of_20.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (To download this 

file in its original format, please use the filename hyperlink from your search results. If you 

continue to experience difficulties, or to obtain a PDF generated version of files, please 

contact the helpdesk at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or, call 866-208-3676 from 9AM to 5PM EST, 

weekdays. Please allow at least 48 hours for your helpdesk request to be processed.)
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010

File [APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_18_of_20.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (To download this 

file in its original format, please use the filename hyperlink from your search results. If you 

continue to experience difficulties, or to obtain a PDF generated version of files, please 

contact the helpdesk at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or, call 866-208-3676 from 9AM to 5PM EST, 

weekdays. Please allow at least 48 hours for your helpdesk request to be processed.)
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010

File [APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_19_of_20.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (To download this 

file in its original format, please use the filename hyperlink from your search results. If you 

continue to experience difficulties, or to obtain a PDF generated version of files, please 

contact the helpdesk at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or, call 866-208-3676 from 9AM to 5PM EST, 

weekdays. Please allow at least 48 hours for your helpdesk request to be processed.)
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010

File [APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_20_of_20.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (To download this 

file in its original format, please use the filename hyperlink from your search results. If you 

continue to experience difficulties, or to obtain a PDF generated version of files, please 

contact the helpdesk at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or, call 866-208-3676 from 9AM to 5PM EST, 

weekdays. Please allow at least 48 hours for your helpdesk request to be processed.)
SUBJECT INDEX 

 

BB-1 

100-year floodplain .................................................................................................................................. 4-61 

ambient air quality standard (AAQS) .................................................................. 4-263, 4-264, 4-277, 4-278 

abandonment ................................................................................... 2-33, 4-101, 4-106, 4-107, 4-110, 4-142 

Antelope Creek Archaeological District (ACAD) .............................. 3-51, 3-53, 3-54, 4-239, 4-246, 4-248 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHD) ... 1-18, 1-25, 4-232, 4-240, 4-246, 4-250, 4-260, 5-23 

acidic soil ................................................................................................................................................. 4-33 

ad valorem tax ........................................................................................................................................ 4-227 

AERMOD .............................................................................................................................................. 4-278 

agricultural resource ................................................................................................................................... 1-5 

Air Operating Permit to Construct ............................................................................................. 4-262, 4-273 

air quality .... 1-5, 1-11, 3-48, 3-51, 4-261, 4-262, 4-263, 4-265, 4-266, 4-268, 269, 4-270, 4-272, 4-273, 4-

274, 4-276, 4-277, 4-278, 4-283, 4-294, 4-310, 5-12, 5-13, 5-14 

alkaline soil .............................................................................................................................................. 4-33 

Alliance Pipeline Limited Partnership ..................................................................................................... 4-64 

allowable emission ..................................................................................................................... 4-273, 4-274 

alluvial deposit ......................................................................................................................................... 4-39 

Alvord Desert ........................................................................................................................................... 3-11 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act .............................................................................................. 4-233 

Appropriate Management Level (AML) ................................................................................................ 4-113 

Anadarko Energy Services Company ........................................................................................................ 1-4 

anadromous fish species .......................................................................................................................... 1-17 

Annosus root ............................................................................................................................................ 4-90 

Antelope Creek Area .............................................................................................................................. 4-239 

Antero Resources Piceance Corporation .................................................................................................... 1-4 

Applegate National Historic Trail .................................................................................................. 3-47, 3-50 

Applegate-Lassen Historic Trail ............................................................................................................ 4-236 

Approval Order .......................................................................................................................... 4-262, 4-273 

Air Quality Control Regions (AQCR) ................................................................................................... 4-265 

aquatic invasive species ........................................................................................................................... 1-10 

Arab Oil Embargo ...................................................................................................................................... 3-2 

archaeological site .. 1-30, 2-2, 3-38, 3-39, 3-46, 3-47, 3-51, 3-53, 3-78, 4-233, 4-235, 4-236, 4-237, 4-239, 

4-240, 4-241, 4-249, 4-254, 4-259 

archaeology ............................................................................................................................................ 4-250 

arc-weld ................................................................................................................................................... 4-17 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ............................................................................. 3-13, 3-14, 3-16 

American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) ................................. 3-10, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-32, 3-82, 3-83 

AT&T East ................................................................................................ 3-10, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-82, 3-83 

ATK Route ......................................................................................................... 3-70, 3-71, 3-82, 3-83, 3-84 

attenuation .............................................................................................................................................. 4-283 

Biological Assessment (BA) ............................................................... 1-18, 4-123, 4-135, 4-136, 4-139, 5-9 

Back Country Byway .................................................................... 4-180, 4-191, 4-197, 4-202, 4-203, 4-315 

backfill .................................................................................. 2-16, 2-26, 4-31, 4-32, 4-38, 4-42, 4-47, 4-221 

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) ................................................................. 4-268, 4-273, 4-277 

Balanced Rock ............................................................................................................................... 3-11, 3-13 

Barrel Springs Back Country Byway ................................................................... 4-180, 4-191, 4-197, 4-203 

Barrel Springs TCP ...........................................................................................3-56, 3-76, 3-78, 4-238, 5-15 

Basin and Range aquifer ......................................................................................................... 4-39, 4-40, 5-4 

Basque Hills ............................................................................................................................................. 3-11 

Battle Mountain Band Council .................................................................................................. 4-246, 4-250 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
SUBJECT INDEX 

 

BB-2 

Bear River .... 1-28, 2-24, 3-20, 3-23, 3-61, 4-16, 4-54, 4-56, 4-57, 4-63, 4-64, 4-65, 4-84, 4-120, 4-122, 4-

128, 4-146, 4-150, 4-173, 4-174, 4-177, 4-186, 5-21 

Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge ................................................................................................ 3-23, 4-54 

Bear River State Park ............................................................................................................................... 4-54 

bedrock ......... 2-14, 2-20, 2-26, 4-7, 4-9, 4-20, 4-24, 25, 27, 28, 4-32, 4-37, 4-39, 4-42, 4-47, 4-63, 5-1, 5-3 

beneficial impact .................................................................................................. 4-146, 4-149, 4-226, 4-308 

Berry Petroleum Company ........................................................................................................................ 1-4 

best management practices.............................................................. 4-38, 4-132, 4-143, 4-152, 4-157, 4-299

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) ................................................... 1-17, 1-18, 4-107, 4-110 

big game1-10, 2-14, 3-11, 3-13, 3-14, 3-16, 3-41, 4-79, 4-85, 4-102, 4-103, 4-104, 4-105, 4-106, 4-125, 4-

174, 4-238, 5-9 

bighorn sheep ................................................................................................3-13, 3-38, 4-103, 4-252, 4-256 

Bill Barrett Corporation ............................................................................................................................. 1-4 

bioaccumulation ....................................................................................................................................... 4-14 

biocide ...................................................................................................................................................... 4-67 

biofuel ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-3 

biomass ................................................................................................................................... 3-3, 3-5, 4-298 

Birds of Conservation Concern .............................................................................................................. 4-107 

Black Rock 1-11, 1-20, 3-10, 3-26, 3-42, 3-43, 3-44, 3-45, 3-46, 3-47, 3-48, 3-50, 3-82, 3-83, 4-54, 4-113, 

4-130, 4-177, 4-184, 4-185, 4-197, 4-257, 5-14 

Black Rock Desert .......................................................... 1-20, 3-47, 3-50, 4-54, 4-177, 4-184, 4-185, 4-197

Black Rock Desert NCA .......................................................................................................................... 3-50 

Black Rock Desert Playa ............................................................................................................... 3-47, 3-50 

Black Rock Desert Watershed ................................................................................................................. 4-54 

Black Rock Desert Wilderness Area ...................................................................................................... 4-184 

Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area (Black Rock NCA) 1-

20, 3-42, 3-47, 4-177, 4-185 

Black Rock Wilderness Area ................................................................................................................... 1-11 

black-necked stilt ..................................................................................................................................... 3-23 

Blanket Certificate ..................................................................................................................................... 1-1 

blasting . 1-25, 2-14, 2-26, 3-36, 3-45, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-13, 4-20, 4-32, 4-41, 4-42, 4-48, 4-60, 4-101, 4-110, 

4-116, 4-120, 4-238, 4-240, 4-254, 4-257, 4-275, 5-1, 5-8, 5-20 

Blasting Plan ................................................................................................. 2-11, 3-33, 3-43, 4-8, 4-48, 5-1 

Blitzen River ............................................................................................................................................ 3-11 

BLM Visual Resource Management ...................................................................................................... 4-185 

blowdown event ......................................................................................................................... 4-276, 4-283 

Board of County Commissioners ....................................................................................... 1-1, 1-5, 1-27, 5-1 

Boise River .............................................................................................................................................. 4-54 

Bonneville Salt Flats ................................................................................................................................ 4-54 

bonytail chub ......................................................................................... 1-10, 4-66, 4-120, 4-135, 4-136, 5-9 

Boulder Creek .......................................................................................................................................... 3-11 

Bowden Hills ........................................................................................................................................... 3-11 

Box Elder County 1-28, 2-3, 2-17, 3-17, 4-41, 4-51, 4-81, 4-99, 4-127, 4-129, 4-154, 4-155, 4-163, 4-165, 

4-173, 4-209, 4-212, 4-261, 4-280, 4-293, 4-298, 4-309 

Box Elder RMP ........................................................................................................................................ 1-19 

BP Energy Company .................................................................................................................................. 1-4 

Bridger Wilderness Area ........................................................................................................................ 4-270 

Brigham Bench Route ...................................................................... 3-62, 3-64, 3-65, 3-66, 3-82, 3-83, 3-84 

Bruneau River .......................................................................................................................................... 3-13 

Bruneau-Jarbidge River ........................................................................................................................... 3-13 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
SUBJECT INDEX 

 

BB-3 

Bureau of Indian Affairs ........................................................................................................................ 4-242 

Bureau of Reclamation .............................................................................................................................. 1-1 

burials .................................................................................................. 1-10, 3-32, 3-47, 4-232, 4-241, 4-254 

Burning Man Festival ............................................................ 3-47, 3-50, 4-177, 4-184, 4-185, 4-224, 4-308

burros .................................................................. 3-36, 3-41, 4-112, 4-113, 4-114, 4-115, 4-182, 4-302, 5-7 

butt rot ............................................................................................................................................ 4-89, 4-90 

Clean Air Act (CAA) 1-18, 1-25, 1-26, 1-27, 1-28, 4-262, 4-263, 4-265, 4-266, 4-268, 4-270, 4-271, 4-272 

Cache National Forest . 1-1, 1-21, 1-22, 1-26, 3-10, 3-19, 3-62, 4-94, 4-125, 4-131, 4-165, 4-170, 4-177, 4-

186, 4-202 

Cache Valley ................................................................................................................ 1-11, 3-10, 3-17, 3-19 

caliche ...................................................................................................................................................... 4-35 

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection ......................................................................... 4-219 

California Environmental Quality Act ....................................................................... 1-17, 3-28, 3-50, 4-255 

California National Historic Trail .......................................................................... 3-47, 4-177, 4-191, 4-205 

California Native American Heritage Commission ................................................................... 4-242, 4-255

California Public Utilities Commission ................................................................................ 1-17, 3-28, 3-50 

camas ....................................................................................................................................................... 4-82 

campground......................................................................................................................... 2-6, 4-177, 4-183 

camping ....................................................................... 1-11, 4-82, 4-173, 4-175, 4-177, 4-179, 4-180, 4-183 

Canada .................................................................. 1-2, 1-18, 4-76, 4-98, 4-106, 4-125, 4-151, 4-295, 4-299 

carbon capture and storage ....................................................................................................................... 4-15 

carbon sequestration ................................................................................................................................. 4-15 

carbon-neutral ............................................................................................................................ 4-276, 4-310 

Caribou-Targhee National Forest ................................................................................................... 3-17, 3-19 

cathodic protection .............................................................................. 2-27, 2-31, 4-41, 4-141, 4-290, 4-291 

Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCP) ........................................................................ 1-23, 3-40, 4-182 

Cedarville Rancheria of California ........................................................................................................ 4-251 

Central Valley .......................................................................................................................................... 4-54 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) ................................................ 1-1, 1-5, 1-12, 1-25, 4-230, 4-294 

Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (Certificate) . 1-1, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-12, 1-25, 2-28, 2-29, 2-

30, 2-33, 3-1, 3-54, 4-1, 4-152, 4-225, 4-284, 5-1, 5-16, 5-18 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) ... 1-1, 1-5, 1-6, 1-18, 1-24, 1-26, 1-27, 1-28, 1-29, 1-30, 2-10, 2-11, 2-

16, 2-25, 2-32, 4-13, 4-17, 4-20, 4-63, 4-85, 4-93, 4-107, 4-233, 4-234, 4-247, 4-267, 4-268, 4-270, 4-

271, 4-274, 4-279, 4-284, 4-285, 4-286, 4-287, 4-289, 4-294, 4-311, 5-1, 5-12, 5-13 

methane (CH4) ................................................................................................3-3, 4-263, 4-276, 4-284, 5-13 

cheatgrass ................................................................................... 4-76, 4-94, 4-95, 4-96, 4-142, 4-152, 4-153 

chief construction inspector ..................................................................................................................... 2-13 

China Mountain Wind Project ...................................................... 4-295, 4-299, 4-305, 4-306, 4-307, 4-308 

cinnamon teal ................................................................................................................................. 3-23, 4-98 

Class I Area ................................................................................................................................ 4-267, 4-270 

climate change ......................................................................................................... 3-4, 4-263, 4-311, 4-312 

carbon monoxide (CO) 3-7, 4-262, 4-264, 4-266, 4-267, 269, 4-270, 4-271, 4-274, 4-276, 4-277, 4-278, 5-

12 

carbon dioxide (CO2) ............................................................... 3-3, 3-6, 3-7, 4-15, 4-67, 4-263, 4-276, 5-13 

coal .................................................................... 3-2, 3-3, 3-6, 3-7, 4-9, 4-10, 4-13, 4-172, 4-297, 4-300, 5-2 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) ... 1-1, 1-5, 1-9, 1-17, 1-25, 1-28, 4-48, 4-61, 4-64, 4-68, 4-70, 4-71, 

4-73, 4-74, 4-118, 4-232, 4-260, 4-302, 5-1, 5-3, 5-6, 5-20, 5-22, 5-23 

Cokeville Meadows ........................................................................................... 3-11, 3-13, 3-17, 3-19, 4-54 

Cokeville Meadows NWR ............................................................................................................. 3-19, 4-54 

Coleman Lake .............................................................................................................................. 3-38, 4-127 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
SUBJECT INDEX 

 

BB-4 

Coleman Rim ................................................................................................................................. 3-33, 3-40 

Colorado Interstate Gas Company ............................................................................................................. 2-5 

Colorado pikeminnow ................................................................ 1-10, 4-66, 4-120, 4-126, 4-135, 4-136, 5-9 

Colorado River ...................... 1-10, 4-39, 4-54, 4-66, 4-120, 4-126, 4-127, 4-128, 4-135, 4-136, 4-314, 5-9 

Commissioning .............................................................................................................................. 2-18, 2-34 

communication tower .................................................................. 1-12, 2-3, 2-8, 2-27, 2-28, 4-99, 4-303, 5-7 

compaction ... 2-16, 2-18, 2-25, 2-29, 3-36, 3-45, 4-23, 25, 27, 28, 4-29, 4-31, 4-37, 4-38, 4-42, 4-60, 4-64, 

4-71, 4-80, 4-166, 4-221, 5-10 

compensatory mitigation .......................................................................................... 4-70, 4-74, 4-110, 4-228 

complaint resolution ............................................................................................................ 4-166, 5-10, 5-18 

Complex forest ......................................................................................................................................... 4-92 

compliance monitoring ............................................................................................................................ 2-30 

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon ........................................... 4-243, 4-251 

Congress ............................................................................ 3-4, 3-39, 3-40, 4-59, 4-179, 4-191, 4-270, 4-311 

ConnectOregon ...................................................................................................................................... 4-222 

Conservation Agreement ....................................................................................... 4-37, 4-110, 4-112, 4-144 

Conservation Division ............................................................................................................................... 3-3 

conservation easement ...................................................................... 1-11, 4-83, 4-140, 4-144, 4-228, 4-304 

construction camp ................................. 2-1, 2-3, 2-6, 4-106, 4-179, 4-217, 4-219, 4-232, 4-308, 5-11, 5-12 

construction noise .................................................................................................. 4-101, 4-280, 4-281, 5-13 

construction traffic ............ 2-7, 4-9, 4-141, 4-149, 4-162, 4-181, 4-184, 4-185, 4-222, 4-224, 4-257, 4-308 

contractor construction yard ...................................................................................................................... 2-6 

contractor yard ... 2-1, 2-3, 2-8, 2-11, 4-29, 4-51, 4-68, 4-77, 4-145, 4-214, 4-221, 4-223, 4-224, 4-235, 5-5 

corrective action ...................................................................................... 2-23, 2-29, 2-31, 2-32, 4-163, 5-17 

corrosion .......................... 1-12, 2-10, 2-14, 2-27, 2-31, 4-20, 4-41, 4-71, 4-285, 4-290, 4-291, 4-311, 5-13 

Cottonwood Creek ................................................................................................................................. 4-248 

Council of Energy Resource Tribes ..................................................................... 4-242, 4-247, 4-249, 4-259 

County Road (CR) .......................................................................... 4-51, 4-181, 4-183, 4-184, 4-223, 4-224 

Crane Mountain National Recreational Trail ............................................................................. 4-177, 4-178 

criteria pollutant .......................................... 4-262, 4-263, 4-264, 4-265, 4-267, 4-268, 4-271, 4-278, 4-310 

critical habitat 1-10, 1-17, 1-26, 3-38, 4-80, 4-102, 4-123, 4-124, 4-128, 4-132, 4-133, 4-136, 4-137, 4-

138, 4-139, 5-9 

crossover ................................................................................................................................................ 4-104 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) ........................................................................ 1-1, 4-83, 4-85, 4-172 

crust restoration ........................................................................................................................................ 4-34 

cryptobiotic .......................................................................................... 1-10, 4-2, 4-33, 4-34, 4-37, 5-4, 5-19 

cubic feet per second ................................................................................................................................ 4-67 

Cumberland Gap Area ........................................................................................................................... 4-234 

cumulative effect ................................................................ 4-100, 4-297, 4-300, 4-301, 4-306, 4-307, 4-309 

cumulative impact . 1-6, 1-11, 3-10, 4-102, 4-136, 4-294, 4-295, 4-297, 4-298, 4-299, 4-300, 4-301, 4-302, 

4-303, 4-304, 4-305, 4-306, 4-307, 4-308, 4-309, 4-310, 4-311, 4-312, 5-14 

Clean Water Act (CWA) ................... 1-18, 1-25, 1-26, 1-27, 1-28, 1-29, 1-30, 4-55, 4-61, 4-67, 4-68, 4-74 

cyanobacteria ................................................................................................................................. 4-33, 4-34 

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) ................................................................................................. 1-17 

Dace Spring .............................................................................................................................................. 3-38 

decibel (dB) ................................................................................................................................ 4-101, 4-143 

decibels on the A-weighted scale (dBA) ......... 4-277, 4-279, 4-280, 4-281, 4-282, 4-283, 4-311, 5-13, 5-23 

Death Valley Timbisha Shoshone .............................................................................................. 4-250, 4-258 

decommissioning ..................................................................... 4-7, 4-83, 4-185, 4-216, 4-262, 4-282, 4-306 

Deep Creek............................................................................................................................ 2-2, 4-59, 4-151 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
SUBJECT INDEX 

 

BB-5 

Department of Justice .............................................................................................................................. 1-25 

Desert Valley Compressor Station .... 1-12, 1-13, 2-3, 2-4, 2-9, 2-10, 2-28, 3-48, 26, 4-49, 4-169, 4-195, 4-

197, 4-209, 4-260, 4-267, 4-270, 4-273, 4-278, 4-280, 4-310 

Desert Valley Groundwater Basin ........................................................................................................... 4-41 

Disaster Peak ............................................................................................................................................ 3-13 

dispersion modeling ..................................................................................................................... 4-277, 5-13 

Dixie Valley ............................................................................................................................................. 4-17 

Docket Number CP09-54-000 ................................................................................................................... 1-1 

Docket Number PF08-9-000 ...................................................................................................................... 1-7 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) ................................................................. 3-1, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, 3-25, 4-311 

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) ................................................................................ 1-1, 4-107, 4-311 

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) ..... 2-10, 2-14, 2-17, 2-23, 2-25, 2-32, 3-33, 3-81, 4-17, 4-20, 4-

141, 4-171, 4-281, 4-283, 4-284, 4-285, 4-286, 4-287, 4-289, 4-291, 4-311, 5-4 

Douglas fir beetle ..................................................................................................................................... 4-89 

drainage . 1-10, 2-18, 2-20, 3-55, 4-7, 4-20, 25, 27, 28, 4-30, 4-31, 4-32, 4-34, 4-35, 4-42, 4-44, 4-54, 4-64, 

4-82, 4-126, 4-127, 4-128, 4-147, 4-164, 4-166, 4-181, 4-217, 4-285, 5-9, 5-10 

drilling mud ........................................................................................................................... 2-23, 2-24, 4-21 

Drinking Water Protection Area .............................................................................................................. 4-44 

droughty soil .............................................................................................. 3-36, 4-23, 25, 27, 28, 4-31, 4-32 

dry-ditch ........................... 2-21, 2-22, 4-60, 4-62, 4-63, 4-116, 4-118, 4-134, 4-135, 4-139, 4-180, 5-5, 5-8 

dry-ditch crossing method ..................................... 4-60, 4-62, 4-63, 4-116, 4-118, 4-134, 4-135, 4-180, 5-5 

Ducks Unlimited ...................................................................................................................................... 3-79 

dust abatement ............................................ 2-6, 4-48, 4-50, 4-51, 4-52, 4-60, 4-64, 4-65, 4-136, 4-150, 5-5 

dust control . 3-36, 3-45, 4-44, 4-47, 4-48, 4-51, 4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-67, 4-119, 4-120, 4-134, 4-136, 4-274, 

4-301, 4-310, 5-4, 5-9 

dwarf mistletoe ............................................................................................................................... 4-89, 4-90 

earthquake ........................................................................................ 1-10, 3-35, 3-45, 4-16, 4-17, 4-19, 4-20 

easement .... 1-1, 1-6, 1-30, 2-28, 2-29, 3-32, 3-33, 3-35, 3-36, 3-39, 3-41, 3-54, 3-70, 4-42, 4-83, 4-165, 4-

166, 4-167, 4-168, 4-169, 4-171, 4-172, 4-176, 4-225, 4-228, 4-306 

East Cache Fault Zone ................................................................................................................... 2-26, 4-18 

East Fork Little Bear River ................................................................................................... 2-26, 4-18, 4-84 

East Humboldt Range .............................................................................................................................. 4-54 

economic impact ....................................................................................... 4-226, 4-228, 4-232, 4-259, 4-273 

economy ............................................................................. 4-213, 4-222, 4-226, 4-228, 4-229, 4-231, 4-312 

ecosystem ... 3-23, 3-36, 3-41, 4-14, 4-64, 4-74, 4-89, 4-90, 4-94, 4-111, 4-112, 4-122, 4-138, 4-144, 4-190 

edge effect ........................................................................................................................... 4-79, 4-91, 4-132 

Environmental Inspector (EI)...........................................................................2-29, 4-37, 4-72, 4-122, 5-15 

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA) .............. 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, 3-6 

electric transmission .. 1-12, 1-13, 1-21, 2-25, 2-28, 3-10, 3-28, 3-30, 3-55, 3-65, 3-66, 4-23, 4-38, 4-74, 4-

96, 4-115, 4-158, 4-159, 4-209, 4-232, 4-283, 4-293, 4-298, 4-304, 5-10, 5-14 

electricity .............................................................................. 1-21, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, 3-6, 3-25, 3-26, 4-294 

Elko 1-8, 1-10, 1-11, 1-19, 1-20, 1-29, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, 3-16, 3-26, 4-10, 4-16, 4-20, 25, 28, 4-43, 4-45, 4-55, 

4-58, 4-76, 4-103, 4-104, 4-126, 4-127, 4-131, 4-134, 4-150, 4-151, 4-155, 4-162, 4-169, 4-170, 4-199, 

4-209, 4-210, 4-212, 4-214, 4-215, 4-218, 4-222, 4-227, 4-229, 4-230, 4-241, 4-246, 4-248, 4-249, 4-

250, 4-251, 4-256, 4-259, 4-261, 4-263, 4-266, 4-274, 4-280, 4-295, 4-298, 4-299, 4-301, 4-303, 4-305, 

4-308, 4-309, 5-22 

Elko Band Council ................................................................................................................................. 4-246 

Elko RMP ...................................................................................................................................... 1-19, 1-20 

Ely Shoshone Tribe .................................................................................................................... 4-243, 4-251 

emergency generator ........................................... 1-26, 4-262, 4-266, 269, 4-270, 4-271, 4-276, 4-310, 5-13 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
SUBJECT INDEX 

 

BB-6 

emergency response ............................................................... 4-47, 4-217, 4-284, 4-287, 4-288, 4-311, 5-11 

emergency service ........................................................................................................... 4-217, 4-219, 4-220 

eminent domain .................................................................................................1-4, 1-10, 4-176, 4-225, 5-16 

emissions ... 1-11, 1-26, 1-27, 1-28, 3-3, 3-6, 3-7, 3-16, 3-28, 3-48, 3-50, 4-15, 4-105, 4-261, 4-262, 4-266, 

4-268, 4-271, 4-272, 4-273, 4-274, 4-275, 4-276, 4-277, 4-278, 4-283, 4-310, 4-312, 5-12, 5-13 

endangered species .............................................. 1-10, 1-17, 2-28, 4-123, 4-133, 4-158, 4-171, 4-259, 5-16 

energy dissipation ................................................................. 2-19, 2-22, 2-23, 4-29, 4-51, 4-67, 4-121, 5-20 

Energy Program ......................................................................................................................................... 3-2 

entrainment .............................................................................. 4-65, 4-66, 4-67, 4-116, 4-119, 4-120, 4-135 

entrapment ...................................................................................................................... 4-114, 4-116, 4-132 

environmental consequence ............................................................................................................... 1-6, 4-1 

environmental justice ............................................................................................................................. 4-232 

environmental noise ................................................................................................................... 4-277, 4-278 

environmentally sensitive area .............................................................................................. 2-13, 5-16, 5-17 

environmentally sensitive resource .................................................................................................. 3-9, 5-14 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ... 1-9, 1-12, 1-25, 3-6, 3-7, 4-13, 4-14, 4-40, 4-74, 4-186, 4-

262, 4-263, 4-264, 4-265, 4-266, 4-270, 4-271, 4-272, 4-274, 4-277, 4-278, 4-279, 4-310, 4-311, 5-4, 5-

12 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) ........................................................................ 1-18, 3-4, 3-6, 3-25 

ephemeral pond ................................................................................................................................ 4-34, 5-3 

equipment cleaning .......................................................................................................... 2-6, 2-11, 4-87, 5-8 

erosion 1-10, 1-22, 2-13, 2-17, 2-19, 2-23, 2-29, 2-30, 2-31, 2-32, 3-20, 3-43, 3-62, 4-13, 4-19, 4-20, 4-22, 

4-23, 4-24, 25, 27, 28, 4-29, 4-30, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 4-38, 4-41, 4-60, 4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 4-67, 4-

73, 4-74, 4-79, 4-80, 4-116, 4-117, 4-118, 4-123, 4-130, 4-138, 4-165, 4-166, 4-170, 4-182, 4-207, 4-

208, 4-234, 4-301, 4-303, 5-2, 5-3, 5-5, 5-7, 5-10 

erosion control device ........................................................................... 2-17, 4-29, 4-61, 4-74, 4-118, 4-123 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) .. 1-6, 1-17, 1-26, 3-46, 4-37, 4-107, 4-120, 4-123, 4-124, 4-132, 4-133, 4-

134, 4-135, 4-136, 4-138, 4-139, 4-140, 4-141, 4-147, 4-149, 4-150, 4-151, 4-305, 5-7, 5-8, 5-9 

ethnographic studies ............................................................. 4-248, 4-250, 4-251, 4-252, 4-258, 4-259, 5-12 

Evaluation Report for the Fremont National Forest LRMP Amendment ................................................ 1-23 

Evaluation Report for the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest LRMP Amendment .......................... 1-22 

evapotranspiration .......................................................................................................................... 4-90, 4-91 

exceptionally rugged terrain ...................................................................................................................... 2-6 

existing corridor ....................................................................................................... 1-11, 3-10, 4-303, 4-307 

existing residence ..................................................................................................................................... 1-11 

explosion ......................................................................................................................... 4-121, 4-284, 4-294 

Explosive User Permit ............................................................................................................................. 1-25 

extra workspace ... 1-27, 2-6, 2-18, 2-19, 2-21, 2-25, 3-23, 3-35, 3-43, 3-48, 4-2, 4-30, 4-34, 4-36, 4-63, 4-

68, 4-72, 4-77, 4-80, 4-83, 4-91, 4-118, 4-137, 4-138, 4-150, 4-151, 4-156, 4-173, 4-207, 5-10, 5-16, 5-

20 

Fairview Peak........................................................................................................................................... 4-17 

Farm Service Agency ................................................................................................................................. 1-1 

fault hazard analysis ................................................................................................................................. 4-18 

faults ................................................................................ 2-15, 2-26, 4-14, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-40, 5-2 

Federal Communications Commission .................................................................................................... 1-25 

Federal Plant Protection Act .................................................................................................................... 4-85 

Federal Register ..................................................................................................... 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 1-12, 4-107 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ............... 4-61 

feral horse .....................................................................................................3-36, 3-41, 4-113, 4-182, 4-183 

Fir engraver .............................................................................................................................................. 4-90 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
SUBJECT INDEX 

 

BB-7 

fire 1-22, 1-30, 2-28, 2-32, 4-81, 4-90, 4-94, 4-95, 4-121, 4-142, 4-150, 4-164, 4-184, 4-217, 4-218, 4-219, 

4-220, 4-252, 4-284, 4-287, 4-288, 4-289, 4-294, 4-301, 4-311, 5-11, 5-13, 5-22 

fire department ............................................................................................4-95, 4-217, 4-218, 4-219, 4-220 

Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan ......... 2-14, 4-95, 4-96, 4-217, 4-219, 4-220, 4-288, 5-11, 5-13, 5-22 

Fish and Wildlife Service ........................................................................................................................... 1-1 

Flaming Gorge Reservoir ............................................................................................................... 4-39, 4-54 

Flatheaded borer ....................................................................................................................................... 4-90 

floodplain .......................................................................................................................... 4-61, 4-129, 4-173 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) ........................................... 1-19, 4-22, 4-185 

forest/woodland .......................................................................................................................................... 5-6 

Fort Bidwell .. 3-39, 3-78, 4-212, 4-219, 4-223, 4-231, 4-232, 4-233, 4-235, 4-237, 4-238, 4-242, 4-243, 4-

246, 4-248, 4-249, 4-253, 4-255, 4-258 

Fort Bidwell Indian Community ................. 4-219, 4-231, 4-232, 4-237, 4-238, 4-243, 4-249, 4-253, 4-258 

Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation .................................................................................. 3-14, 4-233, 4-238 

Fort McDermitt Paiute ...................................... 1-9, 3-39, 4-243, 4-248, 4-249, 4-250, 4-251, 4-256, 4-258 

Foskett Spring .............................................................................................................................. 3-38, 4-127 

Foskett Springs speckled dace ................................................................................................................. 3-38 

fossil fuel ................................................................................... 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, 3-6, 4-15, 4-263, 4-270, 4-272 

fossils ................................................................................................................. 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-300, 5-3 

Fremont National Forest 1-1, 1-6, 1-9, 1-21, 1-22, 1-26, 4-29, 4-80, 4-82, 4-92, 4-94, 4-101, 4-125, 4-131, 

4-165, 4-170, 4-178, 4-186, 4-202 

Fremont National Recreation Trail ........................................................................................................ 4-178 

Fremont-Winema National Forest ........................................................................................ 1-21, 1-22, 1-23 

Friends of the Great Salt Lake ................................................................................................................. 3-23 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency (FSA) ................................... 1-1, 4-83, 4-85, 4-172 

fuel oil ......................................................................................................................................... 3-2, 3-6, 3-7 

fugitive dust ............................................................................. 1-11, 4-13, 4-274, 4-275, 4-276, 4-283, 5-12 

Fugitive Dust Control Plan ...................................................................................... 4-64, 4-182, 4-275, 5-12 

future development ................................................................................................ 1-11, 4-167, 4-304, 4-307 

General Conformity ........................................................................................................ 4-267, 4-271, 4-272 

General Land Office ................................................................................................................................ 3-38 

geoarchaeological study ....................................................................................... 4-235, 4-236, 4-237, 4-240 

geodetic survey monument ...................................................................................................................... 2-13 

geologic fault ................................................................................... 1-10, 2-18, 2-26, 3-35, 3-45, 3-65, 3-66 

geologic hazard ......................................................................................... 4-15, 4-18, 4-290, 4-300, 5-2, 5-3 

geology ........................................................................................................................................... 1-5, 4-299 

geothermal .................................................................................. 3-2, 3-3, 3-5, 4-15, 4-258, 4-298, 5-2, 5-19 

Gerlach Water Tower ............................................................................................................................... 3-46 

greenhouse gas (GHG) ...................................................................... 3-3, 4-267, 4-272, 4-276, 4-312, 4-319 

global warming ................................................................................................................... 1-11, 4-15, 4-263 

Golden Spike National Historic Site .......................................................................................... 4-180, 4-191 

Gooch Table ............................................................................................................................................. 3-39 

Goose Lake 2-22, 3-79, 4-50, 4-54, 4-57, 4-61, 4-112, 4-128, 4-137, 4-139, 4-157, 4-171, 4-186, 4-222, 4-

240, 4-241, 4-254 

Goose Lake Railroad .............................................................................................................................. 4-222 

gravel pit ............................................................................................ 2-7, 2-16, 4-10, 4-13, 4-31, 4-163, 5-2 

Great Salt Lake ................................................ 3-20, 3-23, 4-15, 4-54, 4-57, 4-58, 4-175, 4-180, 4-191, 5-2 

Great Salt Lake Depression ................................................................................................................... 4-180 

Great Salt Lake Desert ............................................................................................................... 4-180, 4-191 

Great Salt Lake Watershed ...................................................................................................................... 4-54 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
SUBJECT INDEX 

 

BB-8 

greater sage-grouse ... 1-10, 1-19, 3-11, 3-13, 3-14, 3-16, 3-17, 3-19, 3-32, 3-37, 3-38, 3-40, 3-41, 3-42, 3-

45, 3-48, 3-50, 3-51, 3-78, 4-80, 4-85, 4-98, 4-101, 4-106, 4-111, 4-112, 4-124, 4-132, 4-141, 4-142, 4-

143, 4-144, 4-145, 4-146, 4-149, 4-152, 4-157, 4-171, 4-237, 4-252, 4-283, 4-298, 4-304, 4-305, 4-306, 

5-7, 5-9 

Green River ............................................................................ 4-39, 4-54, 4-126, 4-127, 4-128, 4-135, 4-136 

groundwater 1-10, 2-16, 3-36, 3-45, 3-65, 4-14, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-35, 4-36, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 

4-44, 4-47, 4-48, 4-51, 4-52, 4-60, 4-64, 4-68, 4-74, 4-79, 4-136, 4-238, 4-301, 5-1, 5-4, 5-5 

Groundwater Monitoring Plan ....................................................................................................... 4-43, 4-44 

groundwater quality standard ................................................................................................................... 4-40 

groundwater recharge ............................................................................................................ 4-41, 4-42, 4-79 

groundwater turbidity ............................................................................................................................... 4-48 

Grouse Creek Mountains ......................................................................................................................... 3-23 

Guidelines for Raptor Protection from Human and Land Disturbances ................................................ 4-109 

global warming potential (GWP) ........................................................................................................... 4-263 

hydrogen sulfide (H2S) .............................................................................................................. 4-263, 4-264 

habitat analysis ................................................................................................... 3-37, 3-45, 4-85, 4-141, 5-9 

Habitat fragmentation ................................................................................................................ 4-100, 4-157 

Hams Fork River .............................................. 2-24, 4-62, 4-63, 4-65, 4-66, 4-67, 4-120, 4-136, 4-146, 5-9 

Hansel Valley fault .................................................................................................................................. 4-17 

Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) ...................................................................................... 4-263, 4-271, 4-278 

Harney Electric Cooperative .. 1-13, 1-15, 1-17, 2-28, 2-35, 4-23, 4-38, 4-74, 4-96, 4-115, 4-123, 4-158, 4-

159, 4-209, 4-232, 4-260, 4-283, 4-293 

Hawk Mountain ....................................................................................................................................... 3-13 

Hawksie-Walksie ..................................................................................................................................... 3-13 

hazardous material 2-19, 2-21, 4-13, 4-36, 4-42, 4-47, 4-60, 4-62, 4-71, 4-121, 4-156, 4-220, 4-221, 4-284 

hazardous waste ....................................................................................................................................... 4-36 

High Consequence Area (HCA) ................................................................................................ 4-286, 4-287 

horizontal directional drill (HDD) ............ 2-21, 2-23, 2-24, 4-21, 4-62, 4-63, 4-101, 4-143, 4-233, 5-5, 5-8 

herbicide ..................................................................................................................... 4-41, 4-89, 4-96, 4-138 

High Lakes Area of Critical Environmental Concern .............................................................................. 3-14 

historic trail .............. 1-10, 3-14, 3-48, 3-50, 3-51, 4-177, 4-179, 4-190, 4-192, 4-233, 4-234, 4-236, 4-258 

Herd Management Area (HMA) .................................................................................................... 4-113, 5-7 

housing ..... 1-11, 2-6, 2-11, 4-77, 4-214, 4-215, 4-216, 4-217, 4-220, 4-223, 4-224, 4-225, 4-228, 4-240, 4-

280, 4-286, 4-308, 4-309, 5-11 

horsepower (hp) ........................................................................................................... 1-2, 2-3, 4-271, 4-310 

Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) ............................................... 2-16, 4-51, 4-66, 4-67, 4-120, 4-122, 5-5, 5-21 

Humboldt County . 1-13, 1-29, 2-3, 2-25, 2-28, 4-2, 4-13, 4-29, 4-41, 4-127, 4-129, 4-130, 4-181, 4-209, 4-

231, 4-232, 4-260, 4-261, 4-280 

Humboldt County Road Department ........................................................................................... 4-13, 4-181 

Humboldt Lake ........................................................................................................................................ 4-54 

Humboldt River ................................................................................................3-42, 4-54, 4-58, 4-84, 4-135 

Humboldt Watershed ............................................................................................................................... 4-54 

Humboldt Well ......................................................................................................................................... 4-54 

humpback chub ..................................................................................... 1-10, 4-66, 4-120, 4-135, 4-136, 5-9 

hydraulic conductivit ..................................................................................................................... 4-39, 4-40 

hydraulic efficiency ....................................................................................................................... 3-3, 4-312 

hydric soil .................................................................................................................... 3-36, 3-45, 4-23, 4-32 

hydrokinetic ............................................................................................................................................... 3-4 

hydro-mulching ........................................................................................................................................ 4-37 

hydropower ........................................................................................................................ 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 4-59 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
SUBJECT INDEX 

 

BB-9 

Hydrostatic Test ... 2-11, 2-16, 2-34, 3-33, 3-43, 4-49, 4-51, 4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-67, 4-119, 4-120, 4-313, 4-

314, 4-317, 5-5 

hypoxia ................................................................................................................................................... 4-121 

Hyrum Canyon ......................................................................................................................................... 3-19 

Interstate I-80 ............................................ 1-11, 3-10, 3-11, 3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 3-26, 3-82, 3-83, 4-223, 5-15 

impaired water ...................................................................................................................... 4-55, 4-58, 4-59 

impermeable layer .................................................................................................................................... 4-35 

impermeable soil ................................................................................................................. 4-35, 4-36, 4-139 

impingement ................................................................................................................................ 4-65, 4-120 

Incident Command System .................................................................................................................... 4-288 

Industrial Source Complex .................................................................................................................... 4-278 

insect parasite ........................................................................................................................................... 4-89 

In-stream construction ................................................................................................................... 2-21, 4-60 

Integrated Pest Management Plan ............................................................................................................ 4-88 

invasive plant species .......................................................................................................... 2-11, 4-76, 4-182 

invasive weed .............................................................. 3-41, 4-72, 4-77, 4-80, 4-87, 4-88, 4-104, 4-165, 5-7 

irrigation .. 1-10, 2-16, 2-32, 3-30, 3-55, 3-73, 4-30, 4-40, 4-42, 4-43, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-64, 4-73, 4-85, 4-

135, 4-166, 4-167, 4-171, 4-239, 5-10 

ISC3 ....................................................................................................................................................... 4-278 

International Organization for Standardization (ISO) .............................................. 2-3, 4-261, 4-262, 4-310 

Jarbidge River .............................................................................................................................. 3-13, 4-126 

Jarbidge Wilderness Area ...................................................................................................................... 4-270 

Jordan Cove ........................................................................................................................ 3-9, 4-295, 4-297 

Jungo-Tuscarora ............................................................ 3-10, 3-26, 3-30, 3-48, 3-49, 3-50, 3-51, 3-82, 3-83 

Jungo-Tuscarora Road ............................................................................................................................. 3-30 

karst .................................................................................................... 3-36, 3-45, 4-20, 4-21, 4-39, 5-2, 5-19 

Kelly Creek Area Groundwater Basin ..................................................................................................... 4-20 

Kemmerer RMP ....................................................................................................................................... 1-19 

Kern River .................................................................................................................... 1-19, 3-7, 4-144, 5-14 

King Compressor Station ........................................................................................................................... 2-5 

Klamath Basin Watershed ........................................................................................................................ 4-54 

Klamath Falls Resource Area .................... 1-20, 2-13, 3-51, 3-53, 4-94, 4-131, 4-184, 4-241, 4-246, 4-254 

Klamath Falls RMP ........................................................................................................................ 1-19, 1-20 

Klamath Project ..................................................................................................................................... 4-239 

Klamath Tribe ............... 3-53, 3-54, 4-105, 4-233, 4-239, 4-241, 4-243, 4-246, 4-247, 4-248, 4-250, 4-254 

Kochia ...................................................................................................................................................... 4-94 

Key Observation Points (KOP) ....................................................................................... 4-192, 4-196, 4-197 

Lahontan cutthroat trout ................ 1-10, 3-32, 4-127, 4-134, 4-135, 4-253, 4-255, 4-298, 4-302, 4-304, 5-9 

Lake County Commission ...................................................................................................................... 4-222 

Lake Lahontan .................................................................................................................... 3-47, 4-54, 4-252 

Lakeview RMP ..................................................................................... 1-19, 1-21, 3-78, 4-59, 4-179, 4-191 

Lakeview Temporary Housing Facility .. 4-7, 4-18, 4-22, 4-24, 4-30, 4-31, 4-32, 4-34, 4-44, 4-52, 4-61, 4-

68, 4-77, 4-115, 4-212, 4-213, 4-217, 4-220, 4-224, 4-228, 4-261, 4-272, 4-308, 4-318 

laminated root rot ..................................................................................................................................... 4-89 

Landscape Character Unit ........ 187, 4-193, 4-194, 4-195, 4-198, 4-202, 4-203, 4-204, 4-205, 4-207, 4-318 

landslide ........................................................................................................ 3-35, 3-45, 4-8, 4-18, 4-19, 5-2 

Langell Valley Irrigation District ............................................................................................................. 4-88 

lava flows ....................................................................................................................................... 4-21, 4-76 

law enforcement ..................................................................... 2-8, 4-105, 4-165, 4-217, 4-219, 4-220, 4-288 

daytime sound level (Ld) ....................................................................................................................... 4-279 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
SUBJECT INDEX 

 

BB-10 

day-night sound level (Ldn) ................................................. 4-277, 4-279, 4-280, 4-282, 4-283, 4-311, 5-23 

leak ........................................................................................................ 2-31, 4-17, 4-62, 4-71, 4-285, 4-288 

24-hour equivalent sound level (Leq) .................................................................................................... 4-277 

Lincoln County .. 1-1, 1-5, 1-12, 1-27, 2-1, 2-3, 2-28, 4-105, 4-209, 4-228, 4-232, 4-260, 4-261, 4-279, 5-1 

Lincoln County Board of Commissioners ................................................................................. 4-105, 4-228 

lineament .................................................................................................................................................. 4-44 

liquefaction .................................................................................................................... 4-16, 4-18, 4-20, 5-2 

Little Bear River watershed ..................................................................................................................... 4-51 

Little Muddy Creek ............................................................................................................... 4-62, 4-65, 4-84 

Little Owyhee River ................................................................................................................................. 3-13 

nighttime sound level (Ln) ..................................................................................................................... 4-279 

liquefied natural gas (LNG) ......................................................................................... 3-2, 3-9, 4-295, 4-297 

Local Responsibility Area ...................................................................................................................... 4-219 

Lone Tree Mine ........................................................................................................................................ 4-20 

long-term impact 4-1, 4-82, 4-83, 4-85, 4-97, 4-102, 4-116, 4-157, 4-159, 4-165, 4-192, 4-220, 4-282, 5-6, 

5-9 

Lookout Butte .......................................................................................................................................... 3-13 

Los Angeles Water and Power ....................................................................................................... 1-20, 3-47 

Lost River 2-22, 3-51, 3-54, 4-54, 4-59, 4-63, 4-128, 4-136, 4-137, 4-138, 4-139, 4-171, 4-239, 4-314, 5-9, 

5-21 

Lost River Basin .......................................................................................................................... 2-22, 4-139 

Lost River Sub Basin ............................................................................................................................... 4-54 

Lovelock Paiute Tribe ................................................................................................................ 4-243, 4-248 

Lower Bear Watershed ............................................................................................................................ 4-54 

Lower Salmon Falls Creek ....................................................................................................................... 3-13 

Fremont National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) .. 1-6, 1-9, 1-21, 1-22, 1-23, 1-26, 

4-29, 4-92, 4-170, 4-190, 4-202 

Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) ........................................................................... 4-271 

MACTEC .................................................................................................... 4-9, 4-15, 4-18, 4-44, 4-47, 4-48 

Mahogany Ridge ...................................................................................................................................... 3-13 

Main Drain ................................................................................................................................... 3-54, 4-239 

major source ............................................................................. 1-26, 1-27, 1-28, 4-267, 4-268, 4-271, 4-277 

Makah Bay ................................................................................................................................................. 3-4 

Malad River ............................................................................................................................................. 4-54 

Malin Market Center ................................................................................................................. 1-2, 3-9, 3-51 

maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) ................................................... 2-1, 4-285, 4-286, 4-287 

Marathon Oil Company ............................................................................................................................. 1-4 

marbled godwits ....................................................................................................................................... 3-23 

Marys River ................................................................................................................................. 3-30, 4-135 

Matlin-Terrace Mountains ....................................................................................................................... 3-23 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) ........................................ 1-17, 1-18, 4-37, 4-106, 4-107, 4-110, 4-111 

medusahead rye ........................................................................................................................................ 4-88 

Memorandum of Understanding .................................................................................................. 4-37, 4-284 

merchantable tree ..................................................................................................................................... 4-94 

mercury .............................................................................................................. 4-13, 4-14, 4-257, 5-2, 5-19 

meter station ... 1-12, 1-30, 2-1, 2-3, 2-8, 2-27, 3-81, 4-10, 4-23, 4-38, 4-81, 4-102, 4-105, 4-159, 4-260, 4-

276, 4-306, 5-4, 5-22 

Management Framework Plan (MFP) ............................................................................................ 1-19, 1-20 

migratory bird 1-10, 1-18, 1-26, 3-42, 3-79, 4-79, 4-85, 4-96, 4-106, 4-110, 4-111, 4-112, 4-132, 4-144, 4-

171, 4-298, 4-305, 5-7 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
SUBJECT INDEX 

 

BB-11 

mineral resource ................................................................................................. 4-9, 4-10, 4-170, 4-300, 5-2 

mines ......................................................... 1-10, 3-35, 3-36, 3-45, 4-10, 4-13, 4-20, 4-222, 4-234, 5-2, 5-19 

mitigation measure ... 1-5, 1-6, 1-17, 1-19, 2-28, 2-29, 2-30, 3-2, 3-20, 3-41, 4-1, 4-18, 4-20, 4-36, 4-74, 4-

83, 4-92, 4-114, 4-116, 4-121, 4-150, 4-157, 4-158, 4-159, 4-171, 4-174, 4-176, 4-177, 4-182, 4-184, 4-

196, 4-203, 4-206, 4-234, 4-235, 4-236, 4-253, 4-261, 4-276, 4-303, 4-307, 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-5, 5-10, 5-

15, 5-16, 5-17, 5-23 

Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) ........................................................................................ 1-6, 1-25, 1-26, 4-169 

mainline valve (MLV) ..... 2-1, 2-4, 2-5, 2-7, 2-9, 3-33, 3-51, 3-81, 4-16, 4-18, 26, 27, 4-30, 161, 4-162, 4-

173, 4-175, 4-285, 4-288 

Moapa Band of Paiutes .......................................................................................................................... 4-255 

mobile source ............................................................................................................................... 4-274, 5-12 

Modoc County ....................................... 1-13, 2-7, 4-139, 4-164, 4-212, 4-218, 4-219, 4-220, 4-223, 4-231 

Modoc Medical Center .......................................................................................................................... 4-218 

Monte Cristo Campgroun ...................................................................................................................... 4-177 

Mount Shasta ........................................................................................................................................... 4-21 

Moxa Arch ...................................................................................................................... 4-295, 4-297, 4-310 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) ............................ 1-17, 4-116 

mud slide .................................................................................................................................................. 4-30 

mule deer ...... 3-37, 3-45, 3-48, 3-50, 3-51, 3-54, 4-98, 4-101, 4-102, 4-104, 4-105, 4-171, 4-173, 4-241, 4-

254, 4-298, 4-303 

nitrous oxide (N2O) ................................................................................................... 3-3, 4-263, 4-276, 5-13 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) ......... 4-262, 4-263, 4-264, 4-265, 4-268, 4-272, 4-277 

nonnative aquatic species (NAS) ..................................................... 2-16, 4-66, 4-67, 4-120, 4-123, 5-5, 5-8 

National Drought Mitigation Center ........................................................................................................ 4-51 

National Forest campground .................................................................................................................. 4-177 

National Marine Fisheries Service ......................................................................................................... 4-116 

National Pipeline Mapping System........................................................................................................ 4-288 

National Scenic Byway ........................................................................................ 4-180, 4-191, 4-204, 4-315 

National Trail System Act ..................................................................................................................... 4-177 

National Wilderness Preservation System ............................................................................................... 3-39 

Nationwide Permit Program .................................................................................................................... 1-25 

Native American Coordinator ......................................................................................... 4-231, 4-232, 4-250 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act .................................................................... 4-233 

Native American reservation ................................................................................................................... 3-39 

Native American tribal monitor ...................................................................................... 4-231, 4-232, 4-258 

Native American tribes . 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 3-10, 4-92, 4-231, 4-232, 4-233, 4-235, 4-242, 4-246, 4-247, 4-249, 

4-254, 4-255, 4-260, 5-12, 5-22 

native grass pasture .................................................................................................................................. 4-81 

natural fire regime .................................................................................................................................... 4-94 

National Conservation Area (NCA) .................................................................................... 1-20, 3-47, 4-184 

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) .... 4-262, 4-266, 4-267, 4-271, 4-273, 4-274, 4-277 

Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) ... 1-9, 1-29, 2-22, 3-16, 3-32, 3-37, 3-42, 3-46, 3-48, 3-50, 4-67, 

4-103, 4-120, 4-125, 4-127, 4-134, 4-150, 4-151, 5-8, 5-9, 5-20 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ... 1-1, 1-5, 1-6, 1-12, 1-13, 1-17, 1-18, 1-24, 1-25, 1-26, 1-27, 

1-28, 3-1, 3-39, 3-41, 4-22, 4-123, 4-133, 4-144, 4-164, 4-185, 4-246, 4-248, 4-256, 4-294, 4-304, 5-9 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) ........................ 4-263, 4-267, 4-271 

Nevada Administrative Code ..................................................................................................... 4-273, 4-274 

Nevada Public Utilities Commission ....................................................................................................... 1-17 

Nevada Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Task Force ............................................................ 3-3 

Nevada State Office of Energy .................................................................................................................. 3-3 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
SUBJECT INDEX 

 

BB-12 

Nevada State Register of Historic Places ................................................................................................. 3-46 

Nevada Utility Environmental Protection Act ......................................................................................... 1-17 

New Zealand mud snail ......................................................................................................................... 4-122 

Newmont Mining Company .................................................................................................................... 4-20 

Nexen Marketing U.S.A. Inc. .................................................................................................................... 1-4 

Natural Gas Act (NGA) ....................................................................... 1-1, 1-5, 1-12, 1-25, 3-1, 4-176, 5-16 

Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act (NGPSA) ............................................................................................ 4-284 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) ... 1-6, 1-17, 1-18, 1-25, 1-27, 1-29, 1-30, 4-232, 4-246, 4-260, 

4-309, 5-12 

Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) ........................................................................................ 4-267 

No Action .................................................................................................................................. 3-1, 3-2, 3-82 

nitrogen dioxide (NO2) .......................................................... 3-7, 4-262, 4-264, 4-266, 4-267, 4-277, 4-278

Nobles Emigrant Trail ........................................................................................................... 3-46, 3-47, 3-50 

Notice of Intent (NOI) ............................................................................................................... 4-262, 4-273 

noise 1-5, 1-11, 3-81, 4-101, 4-104, 4-106, 4-110, 4-111, 4-112, 4-115, 4-143, 4-144, 4-158, 4-167, 4-174, 

4-175, 4-177, 4-184, 4-216, 4-277, 4-278, 4-279, 4-280, 4-281, 4-282, 4-283, 4-306, 4-311, 5-13, 5-23 

noise impact .................................................................................... 4-101, 4-279, 4-282, 4-283, 4-311, 5-13 

noise survey ........................................................................................................................ 4-283, 5-13, 5-23 

noncompliance ...................................................................................................................... 2-30, 5-17, 5-18 

non-jurisdictional facility ......................................................................................................................... 1-13 

North End Brigham Bench Route ......................................................................................... 3-66, 3-82, 3-83 

North Kemmerer Route Alternative ............................................................................. 3-17, 3-19, 3-82, 3-83 

North Lahontan Watershed ...................................................................................................................... 4-54 

North Pacific wooded volcanic flowage ................................................................................. 4-75, 4-77, 5-6 

Northern Paiute ................. 3-32, 3-35, 3-39, 3-47, 4-231, 4-232, 4-246, 4-250, 4-251, 4-253, 4-257, 4-258 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council ............................................................................................. 3-6 

Northwestern Band of the Shoshoni ...................................................................................................... 4-248 

Notice of Application ................................................................................................................................. 1-9 

Notice of Availability ................................................................................................................................ 1-9 

nitrogen oxide (NOx) ................................ 3-6, 269, 4-270, 4-271, 4-274, 4-276, 4-277, 4-278, 4-310, 5-12 

Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan ......... 3-33, 3-43, 4-79, 4-87, 4-88, 4-89, 4-95, 4-138, 4-182, 5-7 

noxious weed ... 1-10, 2-29, 2-30, 3-36, 4-77, 4-79, 4-85, 4-87, 4-88, 4-102, 4-104, 4-132, 4-138, 4-248, 4-

252, 4-303, 5-7 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) .......... 1-26, 1-27, 1-28, 1-29, 1-30, 4-29, 4-67 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) .. 1-1, 1-5, 1-9, 3-51, 3-

54, 3-79, 4-23, 25, 27, 28, 4-29, 4-33, 4-38, 4-81, 4-85, 4-142, 4-157, 4-169, 4-172, 4-253, 5-1, 5-7 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) ... 1-18, 1-27, 1-29, 1-30, 3-39, 3-46, 3-47, 3-51, 3-53, 4-178, 

4-180, 4-232, 4-233, 4-234, 4-235, 4-236, 4-237, 4-238, 4-239, 4-240, 4-241, 4-246, 4-254, 4-258, 4-

260, 5-12 

noise sensitive area (NSA) .............................. 4-279, 4-280, 4-281, 4-282, 4-283, 4-311, 4-319, 5-13, 5-23 

New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) .......................................................... 4-267, 269, 4-270, 4-277 

nuclear power ..................................................................................................................................... 3-2, 3-6 

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) . 1-1, 1-6, 1-23, 1-24, 1-26, 2-2, 3-11, 3-13, 3-17, 3-19, 3-32, 3-33, 3-36, 

3-39, 3-40, 3-41, 3-42, 3-50, 4-113, 4-114, 4-171, 4-172, 4-177, 4-181, 4-182, 4-183, 4-184, 4-218, 4-

253, 4-259, 5-14 

NWR System Administration Act of 1966 .............................................................................................. 3-41 

O’Rourke and Palmer .............................................................................................................................. 4-17 

ozone (O3) ......................................................................... 4-262, 4-263, 4-264, 4-266, 4-267, 4-277, 4-278 

Oak Valley ............................................................................................................................................... 4-30 

Oregon-California Trails Association (OCTA) ......................................................................................... 1-9 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
SUBJECT INDEX 

 

BB-13 

Oregon Department of Energy (ODE) ....................................................................................................... 3-3 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) ... 1-9, 1-30, 2-22, 3-37, 3-38, 3-79, 4-60, 4-63, 4-86, 4-

112, 4-118, 4-119, 4-120, 4-125, 4-126, 4-127, 4-128, 4-129, 4-137, 4-138, 4-139, 4-150, 5-8, 5-20, 5-

21 

ODFW Mitigation Goals and Standards .................................................................................................. 4-86 

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) ........................................................ 1-9, 1-30, 4-222, 4-224 

Office of Energy Projects (OEP) .... 2-18, 4-13, 4-15, 4-36, 4-63, 4-71, 4-72, 4-83, 4-109, 4-138, 4-140, 4-

150, 4-218, 4-222, 4-261, 5-15, 5-16, 5-17, 5-18, 5-19, 5-20, 5-21, 5-22, 5-23 

Office of Homeland Security ................................................................................................................. 4-293 

Office of Pipeline Safety ........................................................................................................................ 4-284 

Ogden River Scenic Byway ................................................................................. 4-181, 4-191, 4-197, 4-202 

off-highway vehicle (OHV) ................................................... 4-92, 4-105, 4-106, 4-165, 4-171, 4-288, 5-13 

Old Growth ................................................................................................................ 1-22, 1-23, 4-92, 4-170 

One Mile Spring ...................................................................................... 4-44, 4-47, 4-48, 4-253, 4-257, 5-4 

one-call program ...........................................................................................2-32, 4-290, 4-291, 4-311, 5-13 

Opal ..... 1-2, 2-1, 2-4, 2-9, 2-10, 3-9, 3-11, 3-13, 3-19, 4-2, 4-22, 4-130, 4-186, 4-209, 4-236, 4-297, 4-309 

Opal Hub ................................................................................................................................. 1-2, 2-1, 4-209 

open burning .......................................................................................................................................... 4-275 

open house ................................................................................................................................ 1-7, 1-8, 3-17 

open season .................................................................................................................. 1-2, 3-16, 3-50, 4-218 

open-cut construction ................................................................................................................... 4-61, 4-116 

operational noise .................................................................................................................................... 4-283 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) ...... 4-284, 4-286 

Oregon Closed Basins Watershed ............................................................................................................ 4-54 

Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries ......................................................... 4-15, 5-2, 5-19 

Oregon National Historic Trail ....................................................................................... 4-177, 4-204, 4-234 

Oregon Natural Desert Association ......................................................................................................... 3-40 

Oregon Outback Scenic Byway ................................................................................................. 4-181, 4-197 

Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board .................................................................................................. 3-79 

Oregon Wildlife Heritage Foundation ..................................................................................................... 3-79 

Organized Crime Control Act .................................................................................................................. 1-25 

U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) ................. 2-10, 4-72 

Outstanding Natural Area .............................................................................................................. 3-11, 3-13 

over-pressure protection device ............................................................................................................. 4-286 

Owyhee River ................................................................................................................................ 3-11, 3-13 

Pacific Connector ........................ 3-9, 4-295, 4-297, 4-301, 4-302, 4-303, 4-304, 4-306, 4-308, 4-309, 5-14 

Pacific Northwest aquifer ....................................................................................................... 4-39, 4-40, 5-4 

padding ............................................................................................................... 2-16, 2-26, 4-8, 4-31, 4-257 

Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah ........................................................................................................ 4-244, 4-251 

paleontological resources ......................................... 2-14, 3-35, 4-7, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-300, 5-1, 5-3, 5-14 

Paleontological Resources Monitoring Plan ...................................................... 2-14, 4-22, 4-23, 4-300, 5-3 

paleo-resource area .................................................................................................................................. 4-22 

Paradise Dry Canyon ............................................................................................................................... 3-19 

Paradise Hill ............................................................................................................................................. 1-11 

Paradise Valley TCP .............................................................................................................................. 4-236 

Paradise-Denio MFP ...................................................................................................................... 1-19, 1-20 

Part 70 .................................................................................................................................................... 4-271 

particulate matter ........................................................................................................................... 3-6, 4-262 

pathogens ...................................... 1-10, 2-16, 4-66, 4-67, 4-89, 4-102, 4-120, 4-122, 4-123, 5-5, 5-8, 5-21 

lead (Pb) ............................................................................................................... 4-262, 4-264, 4-266, 4-278 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
SUBJECT INDEX 

 

BB-14 

Preliminary Determination (PD) ........................................................................................................ 1-4, 1-6 

peak acceleration ............................................................................................................................ 4-16, 4-17 

pelicans .................................................................................................................................................... 3-23 

Permanent erosion control device .................................................................................................. 2-13, 2-17 

permanent impact ........................ 4-10, 4-32, 4-81, 4-159, 4-175, 4-193, 4-278, 4-295, 4-300, 5-1, 5-3, 5-6 

Peterson Pond Route .......................................................................................... 3-68, 3-69, 3-82, 3-83, 3-84 

Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) ................................................................................ 3-35, 4-22 

Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) ...................... 1-13, 1-16, 1-17, 2-35, 3-9, 3-51, 25, 4-297, 4-299 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) ............................. 4-219, 4-284, 4-292 

pig ................................................. 1-12, 2-1, 2-3, 2-8, 2-27, 3-81, 4-81, 4-102, 4-105, 4-159, 4-194, 4-195 

pig launchers and receivers ..................................................................................................... 2-3, 2-8, 4-159 

pipe padding .......................................................................................................................... 2-16, 4-31, 4-38 

pipe yard .......................................................................................... 2-1, 2-3, 2-6, 4-81, 4-142, 4-234, 4-240 

pipeline incident .............................................................................. 1-11, 4-219, 4-284, 4-287, 4-290, 4-311 

Pit River ................................................................................................................. 4-54, 4-128, 4-244, 4-253 

Pit River Tribe of California .................................................................................................................. 4-253 

pits ....................................................... 2-7, 3-35, 3-36, 3-45, 4-10, 4-52, 4-151, 4-163, 4-208, 4-208, 4-300 

playas .................................................... 2-6, 3-25, 3-41, 3-42, 4-2, 4-35, 4-36, 4-38, 4-39, 4-186, 5-3, 5-19 

Pleasant Valley ......................................................................................................................................... 4-17 

Plan of Development (POD) ..... 2-11, 2-17, 2-28, 4-30, 4-81, 4-110, 4-112, 4-179, 4-196, 4-203, 4-206, 4-

258, 5-5, 5-8, 5-10 

Police ......................................................................................................................................... 4-219, 4-220 

Porcupine Canal .................................................................................................................... 4-65, 4-66, 4-67 

potable water ................................... 1-27, 1-28, 1-29, 2-6, 4-40, 4-42, 4-52, 4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 4-183, 4-216 

potential emissions ......................................................................................4-268, 4-271, 4-276, 4-277, 5-13 

potential-to-emit ......................................................................................................................... 4-267, 4-268 

peak particle velocity (PPV) ............................................................................................................ 4-8, 4-48 

Prasthofer Route ................................................................................................. 3-62, 3-63, 3-82, 3-83, 3-84 

pre-coated pipe ......................................................................................................................................... 2-15 

predator species ........................................................................................................................................ 1-10 

preferred pipeline route .............................................................................................................................. 1-7 

pre-filing process ........................................................................ 1-7, 1-9, 3-4, 3-9, 3-55, 4-246, 4-297, 5-12 

prehistoric ................................................ 1-18, 3-46, 3-47, 4-54, 4-233, 4-234, 4-235, 4-236, 4-237, 4-240 

Preliminary Wetland Mitigation Report .................................................................................................. 4-74 

prime farmland .................................................................................... 3-36, 3-45, 4-23, 25, 27, 28, 4-30, 5-4 

Promontory Mountains ............................................................................................................................ 3-20 

pronghorn antelope ................................................. 3-11, 3-13, 3-19, 3-41, 3-42, 4-98, 4-102, 4-104, 4-171 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) ............................... 4-267, 4-268, 4-270, 4-276, 4-310, 5-13 

pseudokarst ..................................................................... 3-35, 3-36, 3-43, 3-45, 4-20, 4-21, 4-48, 5-2, 5-19 

Public Participation Plan ............................................................................................................................ 1-7 

Pueblo Mountains .................................................................................................................................... 3-13 

Pueblo Valley ........................................................................................................................................... 3-39 

pygmy rabbit .... 1-10, 3-36, 3-37, 3-38, 3-45, 3-48, 4-80, 4-85, 4-98, 4-106, 4-111, 4-112, 4-124, 4-132, 4-

144, 4-146, 4-147, 4-148, 4-149, 4-157, 4-158, 4-159, 4-252, 4-304, 4-305, 5-7, 5-9, 5-21 

Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe ........................................................... 4-235, 4-242, 4-244, 4-249, 4-253, 4-258 

pyroclastic flows ............................................................................................................................ 4-21, 4-76 

quarry ........................................................................................................................................... 4-10, 4-300 

Questar Route ..................................................................................................... 3-19, 3-20, 3-21, 3-82, 3-83 

radiographic ............................................................................................................................................. 2-15 

Rahilly-Gravelly ...................................................................................................................................... 3-13 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
SUBJECT INDEX 

 

BB-15 

Randolph MFP ......................................................................................................................................... 1-19 

raptor nest occupancy survey ................................................................................................................... 3-40 

razorback sucker ................................................................................... 1-10, 4-66, 4-120, 4-135, 4-136, 5-9 

Realty Management ................................................................................................................................. 1-21 

recreation ..... 1-11, 2-6, 2-25, 3-39, 3-40, 3-47, 3-48, 3-51, 3-54, 4-58, 4-59, 4-70, 4-106, 4-169, 4-170, 4-

174, 4-175, 4-176, 4-180, 4-182, 4-183, 4-184, 4-206, 4-209, 4-213, 4-218, 4-228 

Red Mountain........................................................................................................................................... 3-13 

red-necked phalaropes ............................................................................................................................. 3-23 

regulated pollutants .................................................................................................................................... 3-6 

rehabilitation .....................................................................................................3-25, 3-41, 4-81, 4-144, 5-18 

reliability and safety ................................................................................................................................... 1-5 

Renewable Energy ........................................................................................................................... 3-3, 3-82 

Reno-Sparks Indian Colony 1-9, 4-233, 4-235, 4-242, 4-244, 4-246, 4-248, 4-249, 4-250, 4-254, 4-256, 4-

258 

Reportable incident ................................................................................................................................ 4-289 

Research Natural Area ................................................................................................................... 3-13, 3-14 

restoration . 1-23, 2-8, 2-11, 2-13, 2-16, 2-17, 2-18, 2-30, 3-25, 3-32, 3-41, 3-62, 3-79, 4-23, 4-29, 4-34, 4-

36, 4-42, 4-44, 4-62, 4-63, 4-64, 4-71, 4-73, 4-74, 4-79, 4-80, 4-81, 4-83, 4-85, 4-89, 4-91, 4-92, 4-93, 

4-95, 4-97, 4-99, 4-101, 4-102, 4-104, 4-106, 4-111, 4-112, 4-116, 4-118, 4-132, 4-135, 4-138, 4-142, 

4-143, 4-144, 4-145, 4-146, 4-149, 4-151, 4-155, 4-156, 4-158, 4-163, 4-166, 4-167, 4-171, 4-177, 4-

178, 4-179, 4-180, 4-181, 4-184, 4-202, 4-236, 4-276, 4-287, 4-292, 4-295, 4-302, 4-304, 4-306, 4-307, 

4-309, 4-310, 5-3, 5-4, 5-6, 5-8, 5-14, 5-15, 5-16, 5-17, 5-18, 5-20, 5-22 

Restoration and Revegetation Plan .. 2-11, 2-17, 2-30, 3-81, 4-24, 4-29, 4-38, 4-79, 4-80, 4-85, 4-88, 4-91, 

4-104, 4-164, 4-171, 4-182, 4-253, 4-288, 5-3, 5-7 

re-vegetation ............................................................................................................................................ 4-38 

Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) ................................................................................................................ 1-18 

Richter Magnitude Value ...................................................................................................... 4-16, 4-17, 4-19 

right-of-way . 1-6, 1-10, 1-13, 1-17, 1-20, 1-21, 1-22, 1-24, 1-25, 1-26, 1-28, 1-29, 1-30, 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-6, 

2-8, 2-10, 2-11, 2-13, 2-14, 2-16, 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 2-21, 2-23, 2-25, 2-26, 2-28, 2-30, 2-31, 2-32, 

3-9, 3-11, 3-13, 3-16, 3-17, 3-19, 3-20, 3-23, 3-25, 3-28, 3-30, 3-32, 3-33, 3-35, 3-36, 3-39, 3-41, 3-42, 

3-43, 3-45, 3-48, 3-50, 3-54, 3-55, 3-70, 3-73, 3-76, 3-78, 4-2, 4-8, 4-10, 4-13, 4-18, 4-20, 4-22, 4-23, 

4-24, 25, 4-29, 4-30, 4-31, 4-34, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-41, 4-42, 4-44, 4-48, 4-51, 4-60, 4-63, 4-70, 4-71, 

4-72, 4-77, 4-78, 4-79, 4-80, 4-81, 4-82, 4-85, 4-87, 4-88, 4-90, 4-91, 4-92, 4-93, 4-94, 4-95, 4-96, 4-

97, 4-99, 4-100, 4-101, 4-104, 4-105, 4-106, 4-110, 4-111, 4-112, 4-114, 4-115, 4-118, 4-131, 4-132, 4-

133, 4-134, 4-142, 4-143, 4-144, 4-145, 4-148, 4-149, 4-150, 4-152, 4-153, 4-154, 4-155, 4-157, 4-158, 

161, 4-162, 4-164, 4-165, 4-166, 4-167, 4-169, 4-170, 4-171, 4-173, 4-174, 4-175, 4-176, 4-177, 4-178, 

4-180, 4-181, 4-184, 4-206, 4-207, 4-208, 4-209, 4-214, 4-221, 4-223, 4-225, 4-234, 4-256, 4-257, 4-

285, 4-288, 4-289, 4-292, 4-297, 4-299, 4-301, 4-302, 4-304, 4-305, 4-307, 4-309, 4-311, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 

5-6, 5-10, 5-13, 5-16, 5-18, 5-22 

right-of-way grant application ....................................................................................................... 1-6, 4-170 

Rincon ............................................................................................................................................ 3-11, 3-13 

riparian habitat 3-32, 3-79, 4-60, 4-82, 4-83, 4-84, 4-118, 4-136, 4-138, 4-147, 4-151, 4-155, 4-157, 4-174, 

4-175, 5-7, 5-20 

ripple effect ............................................................................................................................................ 4-226 

riprap ............................................................................................................................ 2-13, 2-17, 2-20, 2-23 

Resource Management Plan (RMP) 1-19, 1-20, 1-21, 1-22, 3-47, 3-50, 3-78, 4-60, 4-177, 4-178, 4-179, 4-

196 

Roberson Creek Compressor Station .... 1-12, 2-3, 2-4, 2-9, 2-28, 26, 4-143, 4-169, 4-197, 4-209, 4-234, 4-

259, 4-262, 4-266, 4-267, 4-270, 4-272, 4-277, 4-278, 4-279, 4-310, 5-13 

Rock Creek .................................................. 3-11, 3-13, 3-17, 3-19, 3-54, 4-59, 4-184, 4-197, 4-237, 4-238 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
SUBJECT INDEX 

 

BB-16 

Rock Creek Camp ............................................................................................................. 3-54, 4-184, 4-197 

rock shield ...................................................................................................................... 2-16, 2-26, 4-9, 4-31 

Rocky Mountain Power .... 1-12, 1-14, 1-17, 2-28, 2-35, 3-61, 3-65, 3-66, 4-23, 4-38, 4-74, 4-96, 4-115, 4-

123, 4-158, 4-159, 4-168, 4-209, 4-232, 4-259, 4-260, 4-283, 4-293, 4-298 

Rocky Mountain region ............................................................................................. 1-2, 1-13, 3-1, 3-7, 3-9 

Rocky Mountains ..................................................................................................... 1-2, 1-4, 3-13, 4-1, 5-14 

Record of Decision (ROD) ................................................................... 1-6, 3-26, 3-47, 4-172, 4-181, 4-299 

Rogger Meadow ................................................................................................................ 4-82, 4-178, 4-202 

Roper Route ....................................................................................................... 3-66, 3-68, 3-82, 3-83, 3-84 

route variation 2-2, 3-1, 3-54, 3-55, 3-56, 3-62, 3-65, 3-66, 3-76, 3-78, 3-79, 4-85, 4-112, 4-150, 4-254, 5-

14, 5-15, 5-16 

recreational vehicle (RV) ................................................................................2-6, 4-214, 4-215, 4-216, 5-11 

Ryckman Creek ................................................................................ 3-55, 3-56, 3-57, 3-58, 3-82, 3-83, 4-65 

Ryckman Creek Route ....................................................................................... 3-56, 3-57, 3-58, 3-82, 3-83 

ryegrass .................................................................................................................................................... 2-20 

Sacramento River ..................................................................................................................................... 4-54 

sacred sites ............................................................................... 1-10, 3-32, 3-47, 4-232, 4-247, 4-253, 4-256 

Sacred Sites Executive Order 13007 ...................................................................................................... 4-233 

safety standards ................................................................. 2-25, 2-32, 4-72, 4-91, 4-284, 4-285, 4-311, 5-13 

Sage Hen Hills ......................................................................................................................................... 3-13 

sagebrush steppe .. 2-32, 3-25, 3-36, 3-41, 4-75, 4-76, 4-77, 4-79, 4-81, 4-111, 4-112, 4-148, 4-152, 4-153, 

4-157, 4-159, 4-164, 4-175, 4-182, 4-295, 4-303, 5-1, 5-6, 5-9 

Saleratus Creek ........................................................................................................................................ 4-58 

salt desert scrub ..................................................................... 4-75, 4-77, 4-79, 4-81, 4-87, 4-153, 4-303, 5-6 

salt-scrub .................................................................................................................................................. 3-10 

San Francisco Bay .................................................................................................................................... 4-54 

Santa Rosa Mountains TCP ................................................................................................................... 4-236 

Sawtooth Range ....................................................................................................................................... 4-54 

supervisory control and data acquisition system (SCADA) .................................................................. 4-288 

Scarce Canyon ......................................................................................................................................... 4-30 

Scenic Viewsheds .......................................................................................................................... 1-22, 1-23 

Secretary of the Interior ....................................................................................1-6, 3-39, 4-96, 4-113, 4-169 

Section 106 1-6, 1-18, 1-25, 1-27, 1-29, 1-30, 3-54, 3-78, 4-179, 4-232, 4-233, 4-234, 4-236, 4-241, 4-246, 

4-247, 4-250, 4-256, 4-258, 4-259, 4-260, 4-309, 5-12 

Section 404 ............................................................................................. 1-25, 1-28, 4-61, 4-64, 4-74, 4-302 

Security Task Force ............................................................................................................................... 4-293 

sediment barrier ............................................. 2-19, 2-20, 2-21, 2-26, 4-29, 4-30, 4-88, 4-117, 4-118, 4-166 

sediment filtration .......................................................................... 2-15, 2-19, 2-23, 4-29, 4-67, 4-121, 5-20 

seeps ................................................................... 1-22, 1-23, 4-7, 4-35, 4-54, 4-55, 4-131, 4-150, 4-170, 5-1 

seismic ............................................................................ 1-10, 2-26, 4-9, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-101, 5-2 

seismic wave propagation .............................................................................................................. 2-26, 4-18 

Sensitive and State-Listed Species .............. 4-152, 4-153, 4-154, 4-155, 4-156, 4-157, 4-158, 4-315, 4-318 

sensitive viewpoints ............................................................................................................................... 4-196 

setback .................................................................................................. 1-11, 2-19, 2-21, 4-47, 4-121, 4-291 

shallow bedrock ............................................................................... 3-36, 3-45, 4-23, 4-32, 4-47, 4-48, 4-60 

Sheep Mountain Road Route ....................................................................................... 3-58, 3-59, 3-82, 3-83 

Sheldon NWR 1-6, 1-11, 1-23, 2-2, 3-14, 3-32, 3-33, 3-35, 3-36, 3-39, 3-40, 3-41, 3-42, 4-51, 4-88, 4-113, 

4-114, 4-171, 4-172, 4-177, 4-181, 4-182, 4-183, 4-184, 4-185, 4-218, 4-223, 4-252, 4-253, 4-315, 5-7, 

5-14 

Sheldon NWR Transportation Plan ................................................................................................ 1-6, 4-182 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
SUBJECT INDEX 

 

BB-17 

Sheldon Rim ............................................................................................................................................ 3-40 

short-term impact ........... 4-7, 4-10, 4-97, 4-116, 4-166, 4-175, 4-182, 4-192, 4-204, 4-220, 4-221, 5-2, 5-3 

Shoshone and Paiute of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation .................................................... 4-233, 4-238 

Shoshone Energy ................................................................................................................................... 4-248 

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) .... 1-18, 1-27, 1-29, 1-30, 4-234, 4-235, 4-236, 4-238, 4-239, 4-

240, 4-241, 4-254 

side-boom ................................................................................................................................................. 2-15 

silt fence ........................................................... 2-13, 2-17, 2-19, 2-21, 2-23, 2-26, 2-27, 4-29, 4-117, 4-118 

sinkhole .................................................................................................................................................... 4-20 

Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO) .......................................................................................................... 4-202 

Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) ............................................ 1-9, 4-235 

slash ............................................................ 1-10, 2-6, 4-38, 4-90, 4-91, 4-93, 4-95, 4-207, 4-208, 5-3, 5-19 

slope breaker ............................................................... 2-13, 2-17, 2-20, 2-26, 2-29, 4-19, 4-29, 4-30, 4-166 

Scenery Management System (SMS) ............................................................................. 4-185, 4-190, 4-202 

Snake River ......................................................................................................................... 4-54, 4-75, 4-126 

Snake River Plain ........................................................................................................................... 4-54, 4-75 

Sno Kap Ranch .......................................................................................................................................... 2-2 

snowy plovers .......................................................................................................................................... 3-23 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) ... 3-6, 3-7, 4-263, 4-264, 4-266, 4-267, 269, 4-270, 4-274, 4-276, 4-277, 4-278, 5-12 

socioeconomic .............................................................................................4-209, 4-212, 4-232, 4-308, 5-11 

Soil Capability Areas ................................................................................................................... 1-22, 4-170 

Soil contamination ......................................................................................................... 4-24, 4-36, 4-47, 5-3 

soil fertility ............................................................................................................................ 1-10, 4-24, 4-37 

soil pH modifiers ...................................................................................................................................... 4-33 

soils 1-5, 1-10, 2-13, 2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 2-30, 3-36, 3-45, 4-7, 4-13, 4-14, 4-18, 4-24, 25, 27, 28, 4-29, 4-30, 

4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-41, 4-47, 4-60, 4-75, 4-76, 4-87, 4-126, 4-130, 4-131, 

4-139, 4-147, 4-149, 4-153, 4-159, 4-206, 4-253, 4-275, 4-301, 5-1, 5-3, 5-4, 5-14 

solar ................................................................................................................................ 3-3, 3-5, 4-90, 4-298 

Solar Energy Technologies Program ......................................................................................................... 3-5 

Sonoma-Gerlach MFP ................................................................................................................... 1-19, 1-20 

South Brigham City .................................................................................. 3-10, 3-20, 3-22, 3-23, 3-82, 3-83 

South Canyon ........................................................................................................................................... 4-30 

South End Brigham Bench Route ................................................................................ 3-62, 3-65, 3-82, 3-83 

South Fork Band Council ....................................................................................................................... 4-246 

South Fork Crooked Creek Trailhead .................................................................................................... 4-178 

South Fork Owyhee River ....................................................................................................................... 3-13 

South Warner Wilderness Area .............................................................................................................. 4-270 

Southern Langell Valley .................................. 3-10, 3-11, 3-51, 3-52, 3-53, 3-54, 3-82, 3-83, 4-184, 4-239 

Southern Ute Indian Tribe .............................................................................................. 4-242, 4-244, 4-259 

Spaulding Addition .................................................................................................................................. 3-40 

Special Management Area ........................................................................ 3-11, 3-13, 3-14, 3-17, 3-19, 4-82 

special status species ... 1-5, 2-29, 4-59, 4-61, 4-62, 4-65, 4-115, 4-116, 4-118, 4-120, 4-124, 4-131, 4-132, 

4-137, 4-152, 4-153, 4-155, 4-156, 4-157, 4-158, 4-159, 4-173, 4-175, 4-298, 4-305, 4-306, 5-8, 5-9 

special use permit ................................................................................................................................... 4-183 

Ruby's Waste and Spill Management Specification (Spill Plan) 2-15, 2-19, 2-21, 2-29, 3-33, 3-43, 4-24, 4-

36, 4-47, 4-62, 4-121, 4-156, 4-157, 5-20 

spill response ............................................................................................................................................ 4-36 

spoil ..... 2-13, 2-14, 2-16, 2-18, 2-22, 2-23, 2-29, 3-23, 4-29, 4-30, 4-31, 4-37, 4-80, 4-85, 4-105, 4-114, 4-

118, 4-167, 4-207, 5-4 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
SUBJECT INDEX 

 

BB-18 

spread . 1-10, 2-11, 2-13, 2-17, 2-29, 4-14, 4-18, 4-36, 4-62, 4-67, 4-72, 4-77, 4-80, 4-81, 4-86, 4-87, 4-88, 

4-89, 4-90, 4-95, 4-102, 4-122, 4-123, 4-138, 4-143, 4-151, 4-164, 4-165, 4-211, 4-214, 4-221, 4-223, 

4-303, 5-7, 5-8, 5-11, 5-16, 5-17, 5-21 

springs 1-10, 1-22, 1-23, 2-26, 2-31, 3-5, 3-36, 3-38, 3-41, 3-45, 3-55, 3-65, 4-7, 4-14, 4-15, 4-35, 4-39, 4-

42, 4-43, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-51, 4-55, 4-126, 4-127, 4-128, 4-129, 4-130, 4-131, 4-139, 4-150, 4-154, 

4-170, 4-238, 4-258, 5-1, 5-2, 5-4, 5-19 

State Route (SR) ........................................................................... 4-172, 4-184, 4-185, 4-223, 4-224, 4-308 

Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) ...................................................................................... 4-23, 25, 27, 28 

staging area ..... 2-1, 2-3, 2-6, 2-19, 2-21, 2-31, 4-2, 4-30, 4-36, 4-38, 4-63, 4-68, 4-72, 4-77, 4-83, 4-93, 4-

141, 4-142, 4-146, 4-173, 4-175, 4-221, 4-234, 4-235, 4-236, 5-5, 5-12, 5-16, 5-20 

stakeholder ............................................................................................................................ 1-7, 3-20, 4-242 

Stanfield Market Center ............................................................................................................................. 3-9 

State Highway 140 ............................................. 1-11, 3-14, 3-32, 3-33, 3-35, 3-36, 3-39, 3-40, 3-41, 4-171 

State of Utah-designated Agricultural Protection Areas .............................................................. 1-11, 4-165 

State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) ....................................................................................... 4-23, 25, 27, 28 

steep slope ..................................................................... 2-13, 2-18, 2-26, 4-2, 4-19, 4-30, 4-37, 4-80, 4-205 

steep terrain ...................................................................................... 1-10, 2-26, 3-20, 3-62, 3-65, 4-30, 4-80 

steppe .................................................................. 3-25, 3-38, 4-111, 4-112, 4-144, 4-148, 4-182, 4-304, 5-7 

stimulus ................................................................................................................ 4-222, 4-226, 4-227, 4-228 

stony-rocky soil .............................................................................................................................. 4-31, 4-32 

storm water ............................................................................................... 1-26, 1-27, 1-29, 4-20, 4-29, 4-42 

straw bale ......................................................................................... 2-17, 2-19, 2-21, 2-23, 2-26, 2-27, 4-29 

stream scour ............................................................................................................................................. 4-63 

stress analyses .......................................................................................................................................... 4-18 

subsidence ................................................................................................. 4-13, 4-15, 4-20, 4-41, 4-167, 5-2 

subsoil ........................... 1-10, 2-13, 2-15, 2-20, 2-29, 4-24, 4-30, 4-31, 4-34, 4-37, 4-38, 4-80, 4-166, 5-10 

Summit Lake Indian Reservation ............................................................................................... 4-134, 4-185 

Summit Lake Paiute Tribe ... 1-9, 3-32, 3-39, 3-42, 3-47, 4-13, 4-14, 4-134, 4-231, 4-232, 4-233, 4-235, 4-

239, 4-242, 4-244, 4-246, 4-248, 4-249, 4-252, 4-253, 4-255, 4-256, 4-257, 4-258, 4-259, 5-4 

Sunrise Valley Hospital ......................................................................................................................... 4-218 

Sunstone Pipeline Project .............................................................................................................. 3-9, 4-297 

surface water . 1-5, 2-16, 2-22, 4-30, 4-35, 4-39, 4-41, 4-44, 4-48, 4-52, 4-55, 4-58, 4-60, 4-61, 4-62, 4-64, 

4-65, 4-66, 4-67, 4-70, 4-115, 4-117, 4-119, 4-120, 4-121, 4-134, 4-302, 5-4, 5-5, 5-14 

Surprise Field Office ............................ 1-20, 3-38, 4-104, 4-113, 4-114, 4-131, 4-179, 4-180, 4-237, 4-238 

Surprise RMP ................................................................................................................................. 1-19, 1-20 

Surprise Valley ................................................................................ 4-54, 4-216, 4-219, 4-223, 4-231, 4-318 

Susanville Indian Rancheria...................................................................... 4-235, 4-244, 4-249, 4-252, 4-258 

Tabor Creek Ranch .................................................................................................................................. 3-30 

Tabor Ranch Route ............................................................................................ 3-73, 3-74, 3-82, 3-83, 3-84 

Te-Moak Tribe .......................................................................................... 4-245, 4-246, 4-248, 4-249, 4-250 

temporary erosion control devices ........................................................................................ 2-13, 2-17, 2-18 

temporary extra workspace 2-1, 2-3, 2-6, 2-13, 2-19, 2-21, 2-31, 4-2, 4-36, 4-61, 4-63, 4-72, 4-77, 4-83, 4-

91, 4-118, 4-142, 4-145, 4-233, 5-3, 5-5, 5-12, 5-18, 5-19, 5-20 

temporary housing .................................... 1-11, 2-1, 2-3, 2-6, 4-19, 4-23, 4-214, 4-215, 4-217, 4-308, 5-11 

temporary impacts ............................................................. 4-1, 4-71, 4-159, 4-168, 4-202, 4-206, 4-278, 5-5 

tephra ....................................................................................................................................................... 4-21 

Terrace Basin ................................................................................... 3-10, 3-23, 3-24, 3-25, 3-82, 3-83, 5-14 

Terrace Basin Wilderness Character Unit ................................................................................................ 3-25 

third-party damage ....................................................................................................................... 1-11, 4-290 

Thousand Creek ....................................................................................................................................... 3-41 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
SUBJECT INDEX 

 

BB-19 

threatened species ...........................................................................................1-17, 3-38, 3-42, 4-134, 4-136 

Three Mile Island ....................................................................................................................................... 3-6 

timber mat ...................................................................................................................................... 2-20, 4-71 

Title V ...................................................................................... 1-26, 1-27, 1-28, 4-267, 4-271, 4-273, 4-277 

topsoil . 1-10, 2-6, 2-13, 2-15, 2-19, 2-20, 2-29, 2-30, 4-2, 4-24, 4-30, 4-31, 4-34, 4-37, 4-38, 4-70, 4-71, 4-

72, 4-80, 4-85, 4-88, 4-105, 4-143, 4-159, 4-166, 4-167, 4-207, 4-208, 4-275, 4-309, 5-4, 5-10 

topsoil compaction ................................................................................................................................... 4-30 

topsoil segregation ........................................................ 2-6, 2-19, 4-2, 4-37, 4-38, 4-80, 4-85, 4-207, 4-208 

Traditional Cultural Properties .................................................................................................... 3-78, 4-233 

Traffic and Transportation Management Plan ....................................................... 4-182, 4-221, 4-224, 5-11 

Transcontinental Railroad Back Country Byway .................................................................................. 4-180 

transient public water system ................................................................................................................... 4-44 

transportation agreement ............................................................................................................................ 1-2 

tree pathogen ............................................................................................................................................ 4-89 

trench breaker ..................................................................................... 4-19, 4-30, 4-35, 4-41, 4-71, 4-82, 5-3 

trench plug ................................................................................... 2-19, 2-22, 4-29, 4-41, 4-47, 4-151, 4-257 

trenching 2-11, 2-14, 2-16, 2-21, 4-7, 4-20, 4-31, 4-37, 4-41, 4-42, 4-44, 4-60, 4-116, 4-147, 4-166, 4-275, 

5-2 

tribal consultations ......................................................................................................................... 1-9, 4-260 

Tribal Workshop .................................................................................................................................... 4-250 

toxic screening level (TSL) .................................................................................................................... 4-278 

Tule Mountain WSA ................................................................................................................................ 3-50 

Tunp Area .................................................................................................................... 3-11, 3-13, 3-17, 3-19 

turbidity ..................................................................... 2-24, 4-42, 4-60, 4-62, 4-74, 4-116, 4-117, 4-123, 5-5 

turbine ...................................................................................... 2-3, 4-64, 4-270, 4-295, 4-299, 4-306, 4-310 

Twelvemile Creek ... 2-26, 3-78, 4-9, 4-59, 4-118, 4-128, 4-137, 4-138, 4-179, 4-180, 4-191, 4-197, 4-205, 

5-21 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ....................................................................................................... 3-6 

U.S. President........................................................................................................................................... 3-39 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality-Division of Air Quality (UDAQ) . 4-262, 4-266, 4-267, 4-273, 

4-277, 4-278 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality (UDWQ) ............... 1-9, 1-27, 4-58 

Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) 1-9, 1-26, 1-28, 2-22, 3-

20, 4-21, 4-125, 4-126, 4-127, 4-129, 4-146, 4-147, 4-172, 4-173, 4-174, 4-175, 4-176, 5-8, 5-9, 5-11, 

5-22 

Utah Governor's Energy Advisor Office (UGEAO) .................................................................................. 1-9 

Uinta Mountains ........................................................................................................................... 4-54, 4-186 

Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest ........................................................................................... 1-21, 1-22 

ultrasonic .................................................................................................................................................. 2-15 

Unanticipated Discovery Plan ................................................................................ 2-14, 4-241, 4-258, 4-316 

unemployment rate ..................................................................................................................... 4-211, 4-213 

unintentional take ....................................................................................................................... 4-107, 4-112 

Union Pacific Railroad ................................................................................................................... 1-20, 3-47 

United States 1-2, 1-6, 1-13, 1-17, 1-18, 1-25, 1-28, 2-13, 3-1, 3-2, 3-4, 3-5, 3-6, 3-41, 4-16, 4-33, 4-35, 4-

39, 4-79, 4-85, 4-86, 4-94, 4-106, 4-151, 4-164, 4-212, 4-265, 4-293, 4-295, 4-297, 4-298, 4-303, 4-

311, 4-312 

upland construction methods ................................................................................................................... 4-61 

Upper Bear Watershed ............................................................................................................................. 4-54 

Upper Colorado River Basin aquifer ............................................................................................... 4-39, 5-4 

Upper Green Watershed ........................................................................................................................... 4-54 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
SUBJECT INDEX 

 

BB-20 

Upper Lake............................................................................................................................................... 4-54 

Upper Sacramento Watershed .................................................................................................................. 4-54 

United States Code (USC) .............................................. 1-17, 1-19, 4-68, 4-85, 4-106, 4-262, 4-284, 4-286 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) .........................................................1-1, 4-30, 4-83, 4-122, 4-311 

USFS Visual Management System ........................................................................................................ 4-185 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) .......................... 2-13, 3-1, 3-40, 3-55, 4-16, 4-33, 4-34, 4-66, 4-222, 5-19 

Utah Administrative Code .................................................................................................. 1-28, 4-40, 4-273 

Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation .................................................. 4-245, 4-250, 4-259 

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe ....................................................................................... 4-242, 4-245, 4-250, 4-259 

State of Utah Public Lands Policy Coordination Office (UTPL) ... 1-1, 1-5, 1-28, 2-24, 3-16, 4-21, 4-67, 4-

122, 4-235, 5-1 

Virgin Creek............................................................................................................................................. 3-41 

Virgin Valley Campground .................................................................................................................... 4-183 

visibility analysis ............................................................................................................ 4-203, 4-204, 4-205 

visual impact . 3-33, 3-42, 4-181, 4-185, 4-186, 4-191, 4-192, 4-206, 4-207, 4-234, 4-235, 4-236, 4-237, 4-

240, 4-308, 5-10 

visual resource .................... 1-5, 4-59, 4-159, 4-185, 4-186, 4-190, 4-192, 4-195, 4-206, 4-307, 5-12, 5-14 

visually sensitive area .................................................................................................................. 4-209, 5-10 

Visual Management System (VMS) .......................................................................................... 4-185, 4-190 

volatile organic compound (VOC) ............................................................... 269, 4-270, 4-276, 4-277, 4-278

volcanic hazard ........................................................................................................................................ 4-21 

volcanism ................................................................................................................................................. 4-15 

VHF Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Aircraft Control (VORTAC) .. 3-55, 3-73, 3-75, 3-76, 3-82, 3-83, 3-

84 

VORTAC Route ........................................................................................ 3-73, 3-75, 3-76, 3-82, 3-83, 3-84 

Visual Quality Objectives (VQO) ..................................................................................... 1-23, 4-190, 4-202 

Visual Resource Management (VRM) ... 4-185, 4-190, 4-195, 4-196, 4-197, 4-198, 4-205, 4-206, 4-207, 4-

209, 4-318 

Wall Canyon Creek ...................................................................................................................... 3-46, 4-248 

Wall Canyon Reservoir ............................................................................................................................ 3-46 

Wall Canyon Sucker ................................................................................................................................ 3-46 

Warner sucker ................................................................. 3-38, 4-128, 4-136, 4-137, 4-138, 4-139, 5-9, 5-21 

Warner Valley .......................................................................................................... 2-22, 3-38, 4-138, 4-139 

Wasatch Fault........................................................................................................................ 2-26, 4-17, 4-18 

Wasatch Fault Zone .............................................................................................................. 2-26, 4-17, 4-18 

Washoe County Air Quality Management Division ......................................................... 4-268, 4-274, 5-13 

Washoe Tribe of California and Nevada ................................................................................................ 4-251 

Waste and Spill Management Specification ............................................................................................ 2-15 

water appropriation .................... 1-10, 2-1, 2-3, 2-6, 2-19, 2-21, 2-24, 4-2, 4-36, 4-44, 4-138, 4-194, 4-195 

water depletion ...................................................................................... 1-10, 2-23, 4-116, 4-135, 4-136, 5-9 

water discharge ......................................... 1-27, 1-28, 1-29, 1-30, 2-15, 2-19, 4-35, 4-44, 4-67, 4-148, 5-21 

water quality... 1-27, 1-29, 3-32, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 4-47, 4-55, 4-58, 4-60, 4-64, 4-68, 4-70, 4-74, 4-119, 4-

121, 4-122, 4-302, 4-303, 5-4, 5-19 

water resources ...................................................................... 3-46, 4-51, 4-52, 4-63, 4-67, 4-168, 4-255, 5-5 

water rights ......................................... 1-27, 1-28, 1-29, 2-23, 4-43, 4-46, 4-51, 4-52, 4-66, 4-255, 5-4, 5-5 

waterbody crossing ... 2-14, 4-29, 4-55, 4-58, 4-59, 4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 4-116, 4-117, 4-118, 4-119, 4-121, 4-

132, 4-137, 4-168, 4-302, 5-5, 5-8, 5-21 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) . 1-17, 1-26, 4-262, 4-266, 4-272, 4-277, 4-278, 

5-13 

Wyoming Department of Transportation (WDOT) ......................................................................... 1-9, 1-27

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
SUBJECT INDEX 

 

BB-21 

weed-free straw bale ................................................................................................................................ 2-13 

well yield ........................................................................................................................................ 4-40, 4-42 

wellhead protection area ................................................................................................ 4-44, 4-52, 5-4, 5-20 

wells ... 2-26, 2-31, 3-16, 3-36, 3-45, 4-7, 4-14, 4-15, 4-39, 4-40, 4-42, 4-43, 4-47, 4-48, 4-51, 4-52, 4-295, 

4-297, 4-300, 5-1, 5-2, 5-4, 5-19 

Wells RMP ..................................................................................................................................... 1-19, 1-20 

West Canal .......................................................................................................................... 3-54, 4-65, 4-239 

West Coast ..................................... 1-2, 1-4, 1-13, 3-1, 3-2, 3-7, 3-9, 3-11, 3-13, 4-233, 4-242, 4-259, 5-14 

West Little Owyhee River ....................................................................................................................... 3-13 

western juniper ............................................................................................................................. 2-13, 4-154 

Western pine beetle .................................................................................................................................. 4-89 

Western Shoshone National Council ..................................................................................................... 4-259 

wetland ... 1-1, 1-17, 2-6, 2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 2-29, 2-31, 3-10, 3-11, 3-13, 3-14, 3-17, 3-20, 3-23, 3-28, 3-30, 

3-32, 3-50, 3-55, 3-70, 3-79, 4-29, 4-38, 4-68, 4-70, 4-71, 4-72, 4-73, 4-74, 4-76, 4-85, 4-122, 4-137, 4-

138, 4-139, 4-140, 4-150, 4-151, 4-154, 4-174, 4-175, 4-182, 4-207, 4-295, 4-302, 5-5, 5-6, 5-20, 5-21 

wetland mitigation .............................................................................................................. 4-71, 4-74, 4-302 

wetland mitigation banking ...................................................................................................................... 4-74 

Wetland Mitigation Plan ............................................................................................................................ 5-6 

wetland restoration plan ........................................................................................................................... 4-73 

wetland revegetation .................................................................................................... 4-72, 4-73, 4-74, 5-20 

Wetlands Crossed ......................................................................................................................... 4-69, 4-317 

Wetlands Delineation Manual .................................................................................................................. 4-68 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) 2-22, 3-16, 4-62, 4-67, 4-125, 4-126, 4-128, 4-146, 4-149, 

5-8, 5-9 

white-faced ibis .............................................................................................................................. 3-23, 4-98 

Wieland Flat Compressor Station 2-1, 2-3, 2-4, 26, 4-49, 4-143, 4-176, 4-197, 4-209, 4-262, 4-267, 4-270, 

4-271, 4-273, 4-277, 4-278, 4-280, 4-310 

Wild and Scenic River ............................................................................................................................. 1-21 

wild harvesting ......................................................................................................................................... 4-92 

wild horse ................................................................................... 1-10, 3-47, 4-112, 4-113, 4-114, 4-115, 5-7 

Wildcat Hills Compressor Station 2-3, 2-4, 2-9, 2-10, 26, 4-143, 4-169, 4-172, 4-197, 4-209, 4-262, 4-267, 

4-270, 4-273, 4-277, 4-278, 4-280, 4-282, 4-310, 5-13, 5-23 

wilderness areas ..........................................................................................1-11, 4-177, 4-268, 4-270, 4-279 

wildfire ....................................................................................... 1-11, 2-14, 4-75, 4-96, 4-142, 4-288, 4-289 

Willard Bay State Park ................................................................................................................... 3-20, 3-23 

Williams Northwest ......................................................................................................... 3-7, 3-9, 3-19, 5-14 

Willow Creek ... 3-10, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32, 3-82, 3-83, 4-58, 4-59, 4-84, 4-128, 4-135, 4-137, 4-151, 4-197, 4-

295, 4-298, 4-301, 4-302, 4-304, 4-307, 4-308, 4-309, 5-14 

wind power ...................................................................................................................... 3-2, 3-3, 3-5, 4-299 

Wind River Mountains ............................................................................................................................. 4-54 

Winnemucca1-8, 1-10, 1-11, 1-19, 1-20, 3-14, 3-16, 3-42, 4-49, 4-103, 4-104, 4-113, 4-114, 4-131, 4-134, 

4-170, 4-199, 4-222, 4-236, 4-241, 4-245, 4-247, 4-250, 4-251, 4-252, 4-255, 4-256, 4-263, 4-280, 4-

308, 5-22 

Wildlife or Waterfowl Management Area (WMA) ........ 1-28, 3-20, 4-173, 4-174, 4-175, 4-176, 5-11, 5-22 

wood straw ............................................................................................................................................... 2-13 

Woodruff East Route ................................................................................................... 3-58, 3-61, 3-82, 3-83 

Woodruff West Route ........................................................................................................... 3-61, 3-82, 3-83 

woody riparian area ................................................................................. 2-6, 2-18, 4-82, 4-137, 4-151, 5-20 

workforce ........................................................ 1-11, 4-211, 4-215, 4-218, 4-220, 4-221, 4-223, 4-226, 5-11 

Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) ........................................................................................ 3-51, 3-53, 3-54 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
SUBJECT INDEX 

 

BB-22 

Wilderness Study Area (WSA) ....................................... 3-25, 3-35, 3-39, 3-41, 4-177, 4-183, 4-185, 4-197 

West-wide Energy Corridor (WWEC) ................................................ 3-25, 3-26, 3-28, 4-170, 4-206, 4-257 

Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations ..................................................................... 4-272, 4-273 

Wyoming Business Council ....................................................................................................................... 3-2 

Wyoming Industrial Information and Siting Act ..................................................................................... 1-17 

Yatahoney Creek ...................................................................................................................................... 3-13 

Yellowstone Park ..................................................................................................................................... 4-54 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX C 

Evaluation Reports for the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache and 

Fremont National Forest LRMP Amendments 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
                 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Evaluation Report for the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Evaluation Report for the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment

Ruby Pipeline Project

Page 1 of 8 

Amendments to the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

(LRMP) are being proposed because the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is 

considering authorizing a national gas pipeline that crosses from Wyoming to an interstate gas 

distribution line at Malin, Oregon. The FERC is the federal agency responsible for authorizing 

the construction and operation of natural gas pipelines. The Forest Service is a Cooperating 

Agency in the EIS being prepared by the FERC and the necessary LRMP amendments, specific 

to the Ruby Gas Pipeline Project, have been included in that analysis. 

Need for LRMP Amendment 

Within the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, the proposed project is inconsistent in two 

areas of management direction in the W-C LRMP (Include the following to footnote on page 1-

15: The USFS has separate LRMPs for the Uinta National Forest and the Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest. These plans are not yet merged.) 

Specifically Subgoal 12d states: 

“Utilize currently designated utility corridors fully for power transmission lines of 66kV or 

greater and oil and gas pipelines 10" or greater." 

Utility corridors are designated in guideline 85. The alignment of the proposed 36” Ruby 

pipeline is not within one of the ten designated corridors on the Forest. For construction to occur, 

the Wasatch-Cache LRMP would have to be amended to allow a one time waiver from the 

subgoal 12d direction. If the project is approved the USFS would be required to amend the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest LRMP as follows: 

LRMP page 4-25 add a statement that would allow a one time waiver from the subgoal 12d 

direction to allow placement of the pipeline outside of a designated corridor for approximately 

1.2 miles. The Ruby pipeline alignment would not become a designated LRMP corridor. Any 

future pipeline proposed in the right of way would necessitate further analysis prior to any 

decision being made. 

The proposed pipeline alignment is within the Bear Management Area. The broad management 

prescription assigned to the area where the pipeline and access roads are proposed is one of 

multiple resource uses where aquatic/watershed and terrestrial habitat integrity are emphasized. 

More specifically it is assigned a 3.2D prescription. These lands consist of terrestrial habitat 

areas where development is allowed for the purpose of maintaining, improving, or restoring key 

habitat elements. 

One of the guidelines for the area is the following: (G3.2D-1) Timber harvest, road construction, 

vegetation/fuel treatment, prescribed fire and wildland fire use are allowed for the purposes of 

maintaining, improving or restoring terrestrial habitat, for oil and gas exploration, for hazardous 

fuel reduction, and to protect property in the wildland urban interface. Road construction related 

to providing access to a pipeline is not included as an activity that is allowed however this 

guideline would not require a plan amendment In the W-C National Forest LRMP guidelines are 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Evaluation Report for the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment

Ruby Pipeline Project

Page 2 of 8 

defined as statements describing a preferred or advisable course of action that is generally 

expected to be carried out. Deviation from compliance does not require LRMP amendment, but 

that the rationale for such deviation be documented in the project decision document (page 4-36). 

 

Significance of LRMP Amendment 

The “significance” of an amendment must be determined. Determination of “significance” for a 

forest plan amendment is based on the following criteria defined in the Forest Service Manual 

1926.5 (Amendment No. 1900-2006-2, January 31, 2006). 

Changes to the land management plan that are not significant can result from: 

1. Actions that do not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for longterm land and resource management. 

2. Adjustments of management area boundaries or management prescriptions resulting 

from further on-site analysis when the adjustments do not cause significant changes in the 

multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and resource management. 

3. Minor changes in standards and guidelines. 

4. Opportunities for additional projects or activities that will contribute to achievement 

of the management prescription. 

Evaluation of Significance of LRMP Amendment 

Goals and Objectives 

This amendment will not alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and 

resource management established during the planning process. It does allow for a one-time 

exemption to a subgoal however all goals and objectives can continue to be achieved. 

Management Prescription 

Allowing this one-time waiver for 1.2 miles of pipeline construction in this specific location does 

not change or affect the management prescription for the rest of the Forest or for future projects 

in this same area. It does not alter the boundaries of the Bear Management Area. 

Minor changes in Standards and Guidelines 

This amendment does not change and standards and guidelines. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Evaluation Report for the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment

Ruby Pipeline Project

Page 3 of 8 

Opportunities for additional projects or activities that contribute to the achievement of the 

management prescription 

This change will not preclude opportunities for additional projects. This change does not alter the 

ability to achieve the management prescription 3.2D because it affects only a small portion of the 

Forest. The area mapped as 3.2D will continue to be managed for key habitat elements. 

After reviewing the Forest Service Manual direction the proposed amendment for Ruby pipeline 

was found to be not significant in accordance with the requirements of sections 1926.51 and 

1926.52. 

Relevant Standards and Guidelines 

Standards for Watershed, Riparian, and Aquatic Habitat Health:

(S1) Allow no ground-based skidding and oil and gas surface occupancy on slopes greater 

than 40%. 

(S2) Apply runoff controls during project implementation to prevent pollutants including 

fuels, sediment, oils, from reaching surface and groundwater. 

(S3) Unclassified roads and trails will be administratively closed and rehabilitated. 

(S4) Place new sources of chemical and pathogenic pollutants where such pollutants will not 

reach surface or ground water. 

(S6) Within legal authorities, ensure that new proposed management activities in watersheds 

containing 303d listed water bodies improve or maintain overall progress toward 

beneficial use attainment for pollutants which led to listing; and do not allow additions of 

pollutants in quantities that result in unacceptable adverse effects (Appendix II provides 

clarification of terms used in this Standard) 

(S7) Allow management activities to result in no less than 85% of potential ground cover for 

each vegetation cover type. (See Appendix VII for potential ground cover values by 

cover type.) 

Guidelines for Watershed, Riparian, and Aquatic Habitat Health: 

(G2) Projects in watersheds with 303(d) listed waterbodies should be supported by scale and 

level of analysis sufficient to permit an understanding of the implications of the project 

within the larger watershed context. 

(G3) Proposed actions analyzed under NEPA should adhere to the State Nonpoint Source 

Management Plan to best achieve consistency with both Sections 313 and 319 of the 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Evaluation Report for the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment

Ruby Pipeline Project

Page 4 of 8 

(G4) At the end of an activity, allow no more than 15% of an activity area (defined in 

Glossary) to have detrimental soil displacement, puddling, compaction and/or to be 

severely burned. 

(G5) Do not allow activities that could result in water yield increases that would degrade water 

quality and impact beneficial uses. 

 (G7) Manage Class 1 Riparian Area Greenlines for 70% or more late-seral vegetation 

communities as described in Intermountain Region Integrated Riparian Evaluation Guide 

(USDA Forest Service, 1992). Manage Class 2 Riparian Area Greenlines for 60% or 

more late-seral vegetation communities. Manage Class 3 Riparian Area Greenlines for 

40% or more late-seral vegetation communities. 

(G8) In stream channels naturally occurring debris shall not be removed unless it is a threat to 

life, property, important resource values, or is otherwise covered by legal agreement. 

(G9) Avoid soil disturbing activities (those that remove surface organic matter exposing 

mineral soil) on steep, erosive, and unstable slopes, and in riparian, wetlands, floodplains, 

wet meadows, and alpine areas. 

 (G11) Use Best Management Practices and Soil and Water Conservation Practices during 

project level assessment and implementation to ensure maintenance of soil productivity, 

minimization of sediment discharge into streams, lakes and wetlands to protect of 

designated beneficial uses. 

(G12) Locate new actions (such as incident bases, fire suppression camps, staging areas, 

livestock handling facilities, recreation facilities, roads and improvements including 

trails) outside of Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas. If the only suitable location for 

such actions is within Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, sites will be located to 

minimize resource impacts. 

Guidelines for Biodiversity and Viability: 

(G15) In goshawk habitat design all management activities to maintain, restore, or protect 

desired goshawk and goshawk prey habitats including foraging, nesting and movement. 

(G21) For projects that may affect Forest Service Sensitive species, develop conservation 

measures and strategies to maintain, improve and/or minimize impacts to species and 

their habitats. Short-term deviations may be allowed as long as the action maintains or 

improves the habitat in the long term. 

(G22) Use native plant species, preferably from genetically local sources (harvesting seed from 

a project area’s native species prior to project implementation), in revegetation efforts to 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Evaluation Report for the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment

Ruby Pipeline Project

Page 5 of 8 

the extent practicable. If no native seed of suitable origin is available, then certified weed 

free non-persistent non-natives may be used. 

(G23) Avoid actions on the Forest that reduce the viability of any population of plant species 

classified as Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive or recommended sensitive. Use 

management actions to protect habitats of plant species at risk from adverse modification 

or destruction. For species that naturally occur in sites with some disturbance, maintain 

the appropriate level of disturbance.

(G24) Management activities that negatively affect pollinators (e.g. insecticide, herbicide 

application and prescribed burns) should not be conducted during the flowering period of 

any known Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive plant populations in the application 

area. An exception to this guideline is the application of Bacillus thuringiensis. 

(G25) Integrated weed management should be used to maintain or restore habitats for 

threatened, endangered, proposed and sensitive plants and other native species of concern 

where they are threatened by noxious weeds or non-native plants. When treating noxious 

weeds comply with policy in Intermountain Region’s Forest Service Manual 2080, 

Supplement #R4 2000-2001-1 (Appendix III). 

(G26) Protect key big game calving, fawning and lambing habitat and provide security in 

summer concentration areas. 

(G29) Avoid disruptive management activities in elk calving areas, elk spring use areas, and 

bighorn sheep lambing areas from May 1 through June 30. 

(G30) Avoid disruptive management activities (not public recreation activities) on deer, elk, 

mountain goat and bighorn sheep winter range from November 15 through April 30. 

Standards for Road/Trail and Access Management:

(S17) All decommissioned roads/trails will be properly drained. 

(S20) When constructing or maintaining roads, trails and facilities, use Best Management 

Practices to minimize sediment discharge into streams, lakes and wetlands. 

Guidelines for Road/Trail and Access Management:

 (G44) When constructing and reconstructing roads, trails, and facilities minimize potential 

effects on habitat of plant species at risk and key big game winter and spring ranges. 

(G45) Access routes for heavy equipment should be selected to limit disturbance to riparian 

vegetation and to limit the number of stream crossings.

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Evaluation Report for the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment

Ruby Pipeline Project

Page 6 of 8 

(G46) Specify and control locations for water supply points, service areas, and any other needs 

for road and facility construction projects.

(G47) Waste material should be handled in a manner to avoid sidecasting materials to areas 

where they may enter a stream. 

(G48) Include motorized access in authorizations such as term grazing permits, communication 

sites, transmission lines, permits to drill, reservoirs and weather stations when needed for 

management consistent with management prescription and coordinated to mitigate 

impacts. In Lynx Analysis Units in winter, motorized use in these authorizations will be 

authorized only on designated routes. 

Guidelines for Recreation Management: 

(G49) Manage recreation opportunities consistent with Management Prescriptions Categories 

(MPCs), Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Classes, Landscape Character Themes 

(LCTs), Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs), and in accordance with Winter Recreation 

Maps as well as District Travel Management Plans. 

(G50) Design, construct, and operate recreation facilities, trails and concentrated use areas to 

provide a beneficial recreation experience, reducing social conflicts and minimizing or 

avoiding adverse effects on watershed integrity, soil productivity, aquatic/riparian 

systems, terrestrial species and their habitats, and cultural resources. 

(G51) In Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized areas, use of motorized equipment may be approved 

for administrative purposes.

Standards for Scenery Management 

(S22) Management actions that would result in a scenic integrity level of Unacceptably Low 

(defined in Glossary) are prohibited in all Landscape Character Themes. 

Guidelines for Scenery Management

(G59) Manage Forest landscapes according to Landscape Character Themes, and Scenic 

Integrity Objectives as mapped. (See Chapter 4, A.7. Scenery Management for 

definitions). 

(G60) Resource management activities should not be permitted to reduce Scenic Integrity below 

Objectives stated for Management Prescription Categories. 

(G61) For management activities viewable from Concern Level 1: (defined site-specifically) 

Scenic Byways (viewshed corridors 0-4 miles) and use areas, travelways, and Scenic 

Backways (viewshed corridors <1/2 mile) apply the Landscape Character Theme in 

which the management activity occurs and apply a Scenic Integrity Objective of high. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Evaluation Report for the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment

Ruby Pipeline Project

Page 7 of 8 

(G62) For management activities viewable from Concern Level 2: (defined site-specifically) use 

areas and travelways (viewshed corridors <1/2 mile) apply the Landscape Character 

Theme in which the management activity occurs and apply a Scenic Integrity Objective 

of at least moderate. 

(G63) Duration of visual impacts to allow for herbaceous and woody plants are established will 

be determined during project planning by the following criteria: 

 Capability of the landscape to recover

 The relationship of management activity to the seen area of sensitive, use areas 

and travel ways. 

(G64) Establishment of herbaceous vegetation may extend to 3 years after project 

completion for foreground and middleground in Concern levels 1 and 2 use areas and 

travel ways. Consider immediate initiation of reseeding in these areas where natural 

recovery is questionable. 

Standards for Minerals and Energy: 

(S27) No explosives or seismic helicopter activity are allowed one week prior to and during the 

general bull elk and buck deer rifle hunting seasons. 

Guidelines for Minerals and Energy:

(G76) Require warning systems for public safety when explosives are being used. 

(G77) Route helicopter flight paths to reduce conflicts with other resources (including 

recreation) that are sensitive to this activity. 

(G78) Restrict disruptive or surface disturbing activities during periods of concentrated public 

use. 

(G79) Avoid campgrounds, recreation residences, roads, and other heavy use areas with 

helicopter landing and refueling sites and parking areas. 

Guidelines for Transportation and Utility Corridors:

(G84) The following are corridors established and types of utilities allowed (See Transportation 

and Utility Corridors Map). Where the purpose of a utility line is to accommodate an 

individual small end user on national forest or for smaller utilities, placement is not 

restricted to these designated corridors. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Evaluation Report for the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment

Ruby Pipeline Project

Page 8 of 8 

Table (G84). Corridors on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest for underground, 

overhead and surface use. Corridor widths are also identified. 

Corridor Name Corridor Width Underground Overhead Surface

North Ogden Canyon 1⁄2 mile Yes Yes No 

Ogden Canyon 1 mile Yes Yes Yes 

Box Elder Canyon 1 mile Yes Yes Yes 

Weber Canyon 1 mile Yes Yes Yes 

Meridian Peak 1 mile Yes Yes No 

Little Mountain and Parleys Canyon 1⁄2 mile Yes Yes No 

Wasatch Front 1 mile Yes Yes No 

Ward Canyon 1 mile Yes Yes No 

Blacksmith Fork Canyon 1 mile Yes Yes No 

Monte Cristo 1 mile Yes Yes No 

Standards for Heritage Resources Management:

(S32) Review undertakings that may affect cultural resources to identify potential impacts. 

Compliance with Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act shall be 

completed before the responsible agency official signs the project decision document. 

Guidelines for Heritage Resources Management:

(G88) Design any mitigation measures necessary to resolve adverse affects to sites in such a 

way that they provide the maximum public benefit that the sites (or the information 

derived from them) can offer. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
                 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Evaluation Report for the Fremont National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Evaluation Report for the Fremont-Winema National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment

Ruby Pipeline Project

Page 1 of 10 

Background 

Amendments to Fremont National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) are 

being proposed because the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is considering 

authorizing a natural gas pipeline that crosses from Wyoming to an interstate gas distribution line 

at Malin, Oregon. The FERC is the federal agency responsible for authorizing the construction 

and operation of natural gas pipelines. The Forest Service is a Cooperating Agency in the EIS 

being prepared by the FERC and the necessary LRMP amendments, specific to the Ruby Gas 

Pipeline Project, have been included in that analysis. 

While the Forest Service has a mission to manage the National Forests, the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC) determines where and when new energy sources and 

transmission facilities need to be developed. The FERC is also the federal agency responsible 

for authorization of energy projects. Although each federal agency has different roles and 

responsibilities, the public expects those agencies to work together in the public interest. Part of 

FERC’s job is to evaluate public need during their review of projects. Construction and 

operation of public utilities, like the Ruby Pipeline, is regulated by the FERC to insure public 

interests are protected. When FERC accepts an application from a utility company to cross 

public land, Congress, through the 2005 Energy Policy Act (EPAct), has directed the responsible 

agencies to coordinate with FERC to process authorizations required to construct the project. 

The 2005 EPAct reinforced Executive Order (EO) 13212 issued May 18, 2001 which directed 

federal agencies to take appropriate actions, consistent with applicable law, to expedite reviews 

of authorizations for energy related projects and to take other action necessary to accelerate the 

completion of such projects while maintaining safety, public health and environmental 

protections. To facilitate EO 13212 the Secretaries of Agriculture, Interior and Energy and other 

federal agencies have agreed, through a formal Memorandum of Understanding, to coordinate 

their efforts and cooperate in the expeditious processing of authorizations for construction of 

natural gas pipelines. 

To accomplish these objectives, the Forest Service has been working with FERC as a 

cooperating agency under the National Environmental Policy Act and with Ruby Pipeline to 

develop a location that is feasible and minimizes potential impacts to National Forest System 

lands. Ruby Pipeline has done several route adjustments at the request of the Forest Service to 

protect special botanical areas, scenic values, an Inventoried Roadless Area, and other valuable 

National Forest resources. Where impacts cannot be avoided, a mitigation plan that has been 

adopted by Ruby Pipeline to rectify impacts. Combined, these and other measures have 

substantially reduced the possible effects of the project on National Forest System resources. 

Even with these protection measures the Forest Service has determined that portions of the 

construction process would not be consistent with the Fremont LRMP and amendments are 

required. 

The Forest Service is amending the Fremont LRMP under the 1982 planning regulations and 

using Forest Service handbook and manual direction to determine the need for an amendment 

and if the amendment is significant or non-significant. The amendment is being proposed as part 

of the Ruby Pipeline project and if implemented by FERC the Fremont LRMP will be amended 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Evaluation Report for the Fremont-Winema National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment

Ruby Pipeline Project

Page 2 of 10 

“contemporaneously with the project or activity decision” FSH 1909.12 section 25.4. FSM 

1926.5 lists the conditions when a forest plan amendment is needed including “Findings that 

existing or proposed permits, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other instruments 

authorizing occupancy and use are not consistent with the land management plan, but should be 

approved.” 

For an amendment to be non-significant the following direction in FSM 1926.51 – Changes to 

the Land Management Plan That are Not Significant will be evaluated: 

Changes to the land management plan that are not significant can result from: 

1. Actions that do not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for longterm land and resource management. 

2. Adjustments of management area boundaries or management prescriptions resulting 

from further on-site analysis when the adjustments do not cause significant changes in the 

multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and resource management. 

3. Minor changes in standards and guidelines. 

4. Opportunities for additional projects or activities that will contribute to achievement 

of the management prescription. 

The Forest, Grassland, Prairie, or other comparable administrative unit Supervisor must 

prepare an amendment to the land management plan to accommodate a change determined not 

to be significant. Appropriate public notification is required prior to implementation of the 

amendment.

Likewise, FSM 1926.52 – Changes to the Land Management Plan That are Significant provides 

the direction for determining if a proposed forest plan amendment is significant. 

The following examples indicate circumstances that may cause a significant change to a land 

management plan: 

1. Changes that would significantly alter the long-term relationship between levels of 

multiple-use goods and services originally projected (see section 219.10(e) of the planning 

regulations in effect before November 9, 2000 (see 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, revised as of 

July 1, 2000)). 

2. Changes that may have an important effect on the entire land management plan or 

affect land and resources throughout a large portion of the planning area during the planning 

period.

Need for LRMP Amendment: 

Approximately 14 miles of the Ruby Pipeline right-of-way (ROW) will be located on the 

Fremont National Forest disturbing about 328 acres, including temporary storage and staging 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Evaluation Report for the Fremont-Winema National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment

Ruby Pipeline Project

Page 3 of 10 

areas. Ruby is proposing to use a 115 foot wide construction right-of-way with a 50 foot wide 

permanent ROW over the top of the pipeline. Ruby considered 8 routes for the pipeline and 5 

variations to avoid specific impacts. Since the DEIS was completed another variation has 

considered for cultural resource protection. This variation has become part of the preferred route 

described in the FEIS and is not located on National Forest System lands. All alternate routes 

considered would cross Federal lands (BLM, Fish and Wildlife Service, or National Forests) and 

were discarded from further consideration because they were much longer, would spread impacts 

over a larger area; crossed more Federal lands, followed substantially less existing right-of-way; 

traversed many more special interest areas; crossed more national trails; crossed more perennial 

water bodies; crossed more wetlands; crossed more critical big game habitat; crossed inventoried 

roadless areas; would impact more geologic faults; crossed wilderness areas; and/or crossed 

through areas of higher erosion risk. The proposed route through the Fremont National Forest 

has been modified to provide resource protection identified by the Forest but just the nature of 

crossing east to west does not avoid all resource issues. The pipeline still had to cross through 

portions of sensitive soils, a road being managed for a scenic management objective of partial 

retention in Management Area 6, and a portion of old growth. Once the Ruby Pipeline is 

approved by FERC there will be a need to exempt the construction activity from several standard 

and guidelines found in the Fremont LRMP or to relocate a management area. This amendment 

will be specific to the Ruby project and the analysis will be included in the Ruby Pipeline Project 

EIS. The decision will be made contemporaneously with the FERC decision to allow permitting 

of the project with the Fremont-Winema National Forests preparing its own ROD. 

The route of the pipeline could not avoid passing through portions of Management Areas (MA): 

6 – Scenic; MA 14 – Old Growth; and MA 15 – Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Water Quality as 

well as portions of soil capability areas 1, 2, 3 and scabland portions of capability area 13 

covered by general forest standards and guidelines. Resource protection was considered in the 

route location and the current route reflects an integration of resource concerns like avoiding 

special interest areas in MA 7 or inventoried roadless areas. The general forest standard and 

guideline for detrimental soil conditions would not be met because equipment activity would be 

confined to the clearing limits, causing more than 20 percent of soil in the activity area (which 

for this project is the construction clearing limits) to be detrimentally impacted by displacement 

and compaction. The project needs to be exempt from this standard and guideline. Where the 

pipeline crosses MA 6 – Scenic the LRMP will need amending to allow more time to attain 

visual quality objectives. To avoid crossing an Inventoried Roadless Area MA 14 – Old Growth 

would be crossed requiring a replacement area to be located. The clearing limits have been 

surveyed and one seep is known to occur on the route; an amendment will be needed to allow 

heavy equipment to operate through seeps and springs. 

The LRMP Amendment 

1. General LRMP Standard and Guideline for Soils Management, LRMP pages 80 to 81. Add 

item (5) under the Operational Considerations for Surface Soil Condition which says: 

During and immediately after construction of the Ruby Pipeline the soil conditions within 

the activity area (construction right-of-way) will be permitted to exceed the 20 percent 

standard and guideline for detrimental soil condition. The implementation of Ruby’s 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Evaluation Report for the Fremont-Winema National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment

Ruby Pipeline Project

Page 4 of 10 

Upland Erosion, Revegetation and Mitigation Plan would reduce erosion impacts and 

minimize impacts to soil productivity. 

2. General Forest Standard and Guideline for Soils Management, LRMP pages 83 and 84. 

Add a statement under item 4, Operational Considerations “During installation of the Ruby 

pipeline exposed mineral soil standards displayed in Table 21 will be exceeded; however 

with the extra mitigation proposed in Ruby’s Upland Erosion, Revegetation and Mitigation 

Plan, these standards would be achieved once construction is completed.” 

3. Management Area 6 – Scenic Viewsheds: The pipeline crosses through a portion of 

Management Area 6 when it crosses FR 3915; the area has a VQO of foreground retention 

and middleground partial retention. Item B will be added to Land Uses on LRMP page 154: 

B. The cleared corridor needed to install the Ruby pipeline will not immediately meet VQO 

objectives of retention and partial retention. Mitigation measures, including vegetation 

management and restoration actions, will occur to move the construction corridor toward 

current visual quality objectives over an extended timeframe. 

4. Management Area 14 – Old Growth habitat: The pipeline crosses through a stand of 

dedicated old growth. The best stands either meeting or soon to meet old growth standards 

will be designated as replacement. 

5. Management Area 15 – Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Water Quality: The crossing of seeps 

and springs is expected to be uncommon. The pipeline is known to cross one seasonal seep. 

The following statement will be added under Seeps and Springs, management treatments on 

Forest plan page 204. (d) Construction equipment necessary to install the Ruby pipeline 

will be permitted in the area of seeps and springs. Implementation of Ruby’s Upland 

Erosion, Revegetation and Mitigation Plan and special construction measures would 

minimize impacts. 

Issues being considered: 

Location of Pipeline: There is concern about the pipeline crossing through dedicated old growth 

and sensitive soil areas. 

Response: The location of the Ruby pipeline corridor departs significantly from the West Wide 

Energy Corridor within the Fremont. The West Wide Energy Corridor route was established 

without really considering the implications of routing an energy corridor across the private 

lands intervening between federal tracts. Also the current route avoids mule deer winter range 

and bald eagle nesting habitat crossed by the WWEC route west of Goose Lake. When crossing 

the Fremont Winema National Forests two areas controlled the current route location. The 

pipeline corridor originally passed through a special botanical area for camas (MA 7) and a 

small portion of Inventoried Roadless Area. Both of these areas are near Rogger Meadow. New 

utility corridors could not be placed in or near special interest areas. The pipeline was moved 

north of the special interest area and crosses the northern portion of Rogger Meadow. As the 

pipeline moved west of Rogger Meadow, it needed to avoid an Inventoried Roadless Area, 

dedicated old growth (2 stands) and riparian areas. One of the dedicated old growth stands had 

to be crossed to pass between the inventoried roadless area and a larger dedicated old growth 

stand to the north and reduce the amount of riparian areas crossed. This stand of dedicated old 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Evaluation Report for the Fremont-Winema National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment

Ruby Pipeline Project

Page 5 of 10 

growth is currently fragmented by two roads passing through it making it the best choice for 

placement of the pipeline corridor and identifying a replacement stand. 

Since the pipeline is moving east-west across the Forest it was not possible to avoid crossing 

soils that are highly susceptible to erosion and represented by soil capability areas 1, 2, 3 and 

scabland portions of 13. To avoid the majority of the areas would require a substantially longer 

route through the forest, and would still not avoid these soils. The longer route would also 

impact more resources and cause a shift in effects involving more riparian areas and other 

resource values. Successful mitigation for erosion is possible which more than offsets the cost of 

a longer pipeline route and associated resource impacts. 

 

Crossing through Dedicated Old Growth: Cutting a 115 foot corridor and maintaining a 50 foot 

right-of-way clear of large vegetation (greater than 15 feet tall) would fragment the dedicated old 

growth. 

Response: The pipeline would fragment the old growth stand. A replacement stand will be 

located as close to the current stand as possible. 

Construction Impacts to Soils: Construction activities such as clearing, grading, trench 

excavation, backfilling, heavy equipment traffic, and restoration along the 115 foot construction 

clearing have the potential to adversely affect natural soil characteristics and reduce soil 

productivity. Clearing of the vegetative cover exposes soil to the effects of wind, sun, and rain, 

potentially increasing erosion. 

Response: Measures will be implemented to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the effects of pipeline 

construction. A set of best management practices would be implemented based on soil type and 

concerns. Best management practices for soil erosion have been demonstrated effective through 

past use. Top soil, where it can be saved, would be sorted for later restoration, like in meadows. 

Organic material would be scattered across the disturbed areas or organic mats used to control 

high erosive soils, both providing a contribution to future soil restoration. The amount of 

exposed soil during the construction action would exceed standards for erosion protection on 

sensitive soils, but after the restoration process, soils standards and guidelines dealing with 

cover will be met. 

Mixing of the top and subsoil with rock would occur. Due to the amount of disturbance the 

amount of soil impacted within the 115 foot construction corridor and associated temporary 

storage sites, the activity area would exceed 20 percent detrimental soil conditions from 

displacement and compaction. This is unavoidable given the process for constructing the 

pipeline and being confined to the construction corridor. Mitigation and restoration methods 

will help alleviate the impact and allow vegetation to recover the site, including trees within 30 

feet each side of the 50 foot pipeline right-of-way. Soil impacts associated with compaction is 

expected to be small because soils on the Forest are not compaction prone, based on soil texture 

information in the SRI. Much of the impacts to soils will come from displacement, the mixing of 

soil layers. Restoration and mitigation measures would help to develop and restore soil 

functions. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Evaluation Report for the Fremont-Winema National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment

Ruby Pipeline Project

Page 6 of 10 

Scenic Management: Construction of the pipeline and clearing the construction corridor are not 

compatible with retention and partial retention objectives along FR 3915. 

Response: When the forest plan amendment for the Designation of Energy Corridors on 

National Forest System Land in 10 Western States was signed by the Secretary of Agriculture it 

designated the use of the Scenery Management System for evaluation of scenic impacts. Scenery 

management acknowledges it takes a longer period of time for vegetation to recover and reach 

the scenic management objectives after completion of a project. It also allows the project to 

blend into the landscape using characteristic patterns for the vegetation type. The impacts 

associated with the construction occur in the area of Rogger meadow. The project route was 

selected to minimize disturbance and visibility through the area. Bends in the ROW on both 

sides of the road limit site distance down the ROW, about 500 feet. 

Natural openings are common in the open mixed conifer forest to the northeast of the road. 

These openings would reduce the contrast between the ROW and surrounding forest and can be 

further reduced by feathering the edge of the ROW to reduce the linear element created by ROW 

clearing. Were the pipeline crosses Rogger Meadow, it can be restored so that the pipeline is 

subordinate to the meadow itself, even with the long term 50 foot permanent ROW. It will be 

visible during and after construction due to contrasting color and lack of vegetation; however, 

herbaceous meadow vegetation is expected to recover quickly. 

The foreground retention objective would be met once vegetation becomes established and the 

soil color contrast faded. Where the pipeline crosses the meadow, it is expected to reach 

retention objectives more quickly and not be noticeable. 

In the middleground partial retention area the linear element of the construction would be 

visually subordinate within the open canopy forest. The natural openings would reduce the 

degree to which the ROW clearing stands out by breaking up the edges. 

Impacts to the Special Management Area: Construction of the pipeline near to the botanical area 

could potential impact the camas habitat. 

Response: The pipeline cross the northern end of Rogger Meadow at least 450 north of the 

special management area boundary. The project would not affect the hydrologic regime of the 

meadow or otherwise impinge on the health of camas. The pipeline does not cross any of the 

intermittent streams providing water to the meadow. 

Scientific literature indicates that properly constructed pipeline corridors have little long term 

impact on wetland vegetation communities. Site preparation is critically important to the 

successful restoration of the vegetation community. Site preparation for revegetation includes 

maintaining or restoring the topography, soil profile, and hydrology. A site’s ability to develop 

and support the desired plant community is ultimately dependant on its hydrology. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Evaluation Report for the Fremont-Winema National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment

Ruby Pipeline Project

Page 7 of 10 

Factors affecting meadow hydrology, and that of other wetlands, include inflows and outflow of 

surface and groundwater, groundwater levels, and the timing and duration of soil saturation or 

flooding. Pipeline construction and maintenance would not affect the inflow or outflow of either 

surface or groundwater, or other hydrologic variables. 

The Project route crosses the meadow near its upper end, above all of the known inlets. Only 

about 96 acres of drainage area are upstream from the Project; this represents about 5% of the 

meadow’s drainage area. The drainage area of the entire meadow is approximately 1,910 acres. 

The location of the Project in the upper end of the meadow should prevent impacts to either 

meadow inflows or drainage. The ground slopes up on both sides of the meadow, so the trench 

is unlikely to capture or divert flow from the meadow. If necessary, trench breakers would be 

installed where the trench enters and exits the meadow. The original subsoil from the trench 

would be used for backfilling, and backfilling would be conducted to restore the soil as close as 

is possible to the original profile. These measures should restore the original drainage to the 

ROW. 

In addition to water gained or lost, groundwater levels are dependent on basin shape and 

drainage. The trench would be backfilled and topsoil replaced to restore the original soil 

profile, surface elevation, and contours. This would maintain the original drainage and basin 

shape of the meadow, ensuring that the Project has no impact on the hydrology of Rogger 

Meadow. 

Impacts to Seeps and Springs: Use of heavy equipment would damage the function of seeps and 

springs. 

Response: Right-of-way construction will require equipment disturbance in the intermittent seep 

near MP 604. This is one of 46 crossings of MA 15 and due to location cannot be avoided by the 

pipeline route. Grading would be minimized to the extent possible to maintain the natural slope 

and the geotechnical configuration. Trenching would be monitored to ensure that soil layering 

would be preserved. If necessary, substitute materials such as PVC pipe and imported gravel 

would be used during the backfill operation to maintain the function of the spring/seep. 

Options for the LRMP Amendment: 

Should FERC authorize the Ruby Pipeline at the preferred location a forest plan amendment 

would be needed. There are no other options but to amend the LRMP. If the LRMP is not 

amended to make provision for the Ruby Gas Pipeline, the Forest Service would be unable to 

consent to the easement required for the project and unable to issue and administer subsequent 

permits and authorizations, such as road use permits, required by the project. Not amending 

LRMPs would not necessarily keep the project from being constructed. To authorize the project 

FERC does not require the consent of the Forest Service. Also, the Secretary of Interior still has 

the authority under the Natural Gas Act to issue a Right of Way across National Forest System 

lands, even without the consent of the Forest Service. This would create a use on National 

Forest lands that was not consistent with the LRMP. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Evaluation Report for the Fremont-Winema National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment

Ruby Pipeline Project

Page 8 of 10 

How the Amendment would impact existing, ongoing programs: 

Since this amendment is specific to the pipeline installation and maintenance, it would have no 

impact to other programs in the area. 

Any modifications to existing permits, contracts that would be needed for consistency with 

amendment: 

No existing permits would be impacted; permit modifications would not be needed. Since 

ongoing actions already meet LRMP standards and guidelines, there will be no need to change or 

modify permits.

Effect of new information on projects or activities: 

The Visual Management System (1974 direction) used to develop the LRMP is no longer being 

used by the Forest Service. The current thoughts shaping visual management are described in 

Landscape Aesthetics: a Handbook for Scenery Management (Scenery Management System) a 

Forest Service publication of 1995 and represents current Forest Service direction for visual 

quality. Scenery Management utilizes an ecosystem approach to managing visual quality. 

Partial Retention and Retention still are described by Scenery Management using the terms 

Moderate Scenic Objective and High Scenic Objective respectively. Scenic Management does 

not require meeting visual objectives within one year like the Visual Management System. The 

timeframe for meeting visual quality objectives under Scenery Management considers vegetation 

growth and ecosystem development; a 10 to 15 year recovery period is acceptable to meet 

objectives. The guidance provided in Scenery Management (new for the LRMP adapted in 

1990) would be used to amend the LRMP for this project. The visual objectives would not 

change but more time would be allowed for recovery to meet the visual objective. Lengthening 

the time needed to recover visual quality objectives apply to this action and its mitigation only. 

Future actions would still be evaluated and required to meet current LRMP direction, which is 

the 1989 LRMP. Exceptions would be considered on their own merits and covered by their own 

analysis. The LRMP amendment will have no impact to ongoing or future actions. 

Soil Impacts. There have been no other amendments to the Fremont LRMP to exempt an action 

from the Forest-wide soil protection standard and guideline. Projects have been large enough to 

spread the soil impacts over a larger activity area. Concentrating the construction to a narrow 

zone causes Ruby Pipeline to exceed soil standards. The amendment only applies for the Ruby 

Pipeline project so all other action will be required to meet the soil standard and guideline for 

detrimental soil conditions. The area of heaviest impacts will be approximately 30 feet wide, 

about 26 percent of the construction clearing, representing approximately 51 acres. This is a 

very small portion of the total 1.2 million acres of the Fremont National Forest and does not 

measurablely increase the percent of the area of the forest occupied by corridors. The proposed 

mitigation being used during construction will minimize the impacts to soil productivity and 

allow stabilization and soil development to occur. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Evaluation Report for the Fremont-Winema National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment

Ruby Pipeline Project

Page 9 of 10 

Public participation process and comment summary including a response: 

The Notice of Intent for the amendment appeared in the March 19, 2009 Federal Register. The 

proposed amendments were also sent to our Forest’s mailing list for scoping, placed in the 

Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA), as well as on the Forest’s project development web page. 

The forest received three written comments. 

Most of the comments received voiced concerns about impacts associated with construction of 

the pipeline, which relate to the FERC decision and are beyond the scope of the analysis for 

determination of whether the amendments are a significant or non-significant forest plan 

amendment. 

Concern was voiced about the narrow need for proposal that focused just on amending the 

LRMP. Tied with this concern was the feeling that the LRMP was being amended just to 

facilitate the action and the plan should not be amended. 

Response: As explained in the background section above, FERC has the authority to approve 

routes and authorize construction. The Forest Service worked with Ruby Pipeline on 

establishing the proposed route through the Forest. The Forest Service has determined that 

portions of the construction process would not be consistent with the Fremont LRMP and is 

responsible for the decision to amend the LRMP. Should the LRMP not be amended it would not 

necessarily keep the project from being constructed. To authorize the project, FERC does not 

require the consent of the Forest Service. Also, the Secretary of Interior still has the authority 

under the Natural Gas Act to issue a Right of Way across National Forest System lands, even 

without the consent of the Forest Service. This would create a use on National Forest System 

lands that was not consistent with the LRMP and cause further problems when the Forest 

Service would have to issue permits. FERC has determined the project is in the public interest 

and is the agency responsible for authorizing construction of natural gas pipelines. The 

amendments are needed should FERC authorize the construction of the pipeline and the Forest 

Service needs to determine if the amendment is a significant forest plan amendment or a nonsignificant amendment. Though the analysis for the amendment is included in the Ruby Pipeline 

EIS, the Forest Service will issue its own decision in a ROD and the amendment is being made 

contemporaneously with the FERC implementing decision. 

Commenters thought that the Forest Service needs to consider other options to Ruby Pipeline. 

Response: FERC determines where and when new energy sources and transmission facilities 

need to be developed. The FERC is also the federal agency responsible for authorization of 

energy projects. The Forest Service worked with Ruby Pipeline in routing the pipeline across 

the Fremont National Forest. Forest resource concerns were protected by avoidance whenever 

possible and in developing the mitigation plan. 

Concern was voiced about crossing through LRMP dedicated old growth because it would be 

hard to find replacement. 

Response: As discussed above, the old growth stand being impacted already contained two 

roads and was situated between an inventoried roadless area and larger stands of old growth. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Evaluation Report for the Fremont-Winema National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment

Ruby Pipeline Project

Page 10 of 10 

The stand being crossed was already fragmented. A replacement stand was found and is 

included in the decision. 

Concern was voiced about heavy equipment operating in wet areas and seeps. 

Response: Ruby Pipeline, with the Forest Service and other agencies, including the State of 

Oregon has developed a mitigation and operation plan for the project. This plan states the 

methods to be used to protect wet areas and seeps during the construction of the pipeline. 

Concern was voiced about unavoidable crossing of sensitive soil areas on the Fremont National 

Forest. The Forest worked with Ruby pipeline to avoid as much sensitive resources as possible. 

Response: It was not possible to bring a pipeline across the National Forest without crossing 

some of the sensitive soils. When the pipeline crosses these soils, Ruby Pipeline would adjust the 

construction techniques to fit the character of soils. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX D

 Right-of-Way Configurations for the 

 Ruby Pipeline Project

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
                 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
FERC FILING VERSION 1/23/09

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
12"−18" 28"−30"

FERC FILING VERSION 1/23/09

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
FERC FILING VERSION 1/23/09

36" X 2" X 2" MIN. FENCE POSTS OR

APPROVED EQUIVALENT

DRIVEN 12-18" INTO GROUND AS

SITE CONDITIONS ALLOW

WETLAND/

WATERBODY/

HIGHWAY/

RAILROAD

PROPOSED PIPE

SLOPE

HAY/STRAW BALES

HAY/STRAW BALES TIGHTLY

STAKED TOGETHER

BINDINGS SHOULD

BE HORIZONTAL

HAY/STRAW BALES TO BE EMBEDDED 2" MIN. INTO

GROUND AS SITE CONDITIONS ALLOW.

SECOND WOODEN STAKE

SHOULD BE ANGLED TO

PREVIOUSLY LAID BALE

INSTALL ROCK

CONSTRUCTION

ENTRANCE AT

ALL PAVED

ROADWAYS,

AS NEEDED.

1.

12-18"

2-4"

SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED WHEN ACCUMULATIONS

REACH 1/2 THE ABOVEGROUND HEIGHT OF THE BARRIER.

2.

HAY/STRAW BALES REMOVED FOR ACCESS PURPOSES

DURING THE DAY MUST BE REINSTALLED AFTER THE

CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY HAS PASSED THROUGH OR BY

THE END OF THE DAY.

3.

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
FERC FILING VERSION 1/23/09

NOTE

1. CONSTRUCT ON SLOPING TERRAIN AND ADJACENT TO ALL

 WATERBODIES AND WETLANDS, AS REQUIRED

 (SEE TABLE BELOW).

2. PRIOR TO LOWERING IN PIPE REMOVE ALL DECOMPOSABLE

 MATERIAL AND LARGE ROCKS.

3. BREAKERS MAY BE COMPOSED OF SANDBAGS OR OTHER

 APPROVED MATERIAL.

4. MINIMUM 12 INCHES COVER OVER SANDBAGS IN ALL CASES

 AND MUST BE A MINIMUM OF 2 SACKS WIDE.

5. TOPSOIL SHALL NOT BE USED TO FILL SACKS.

GRADED RIGHT-OF-WAY

SANDBAGS

PIPELINE

BOTTOM

OF DITCH

MIN. 2 SACKS WIDE

FILL RESTORED GRADE

SANDBAGS

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
FERC FILING VERSION 1/23/09

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
FERC FILING VERSION 1/23/09

STABILIZED FILL

JUTE OR EQUAL

EROSION

CONTROL FABRIC

DIVERSION BERM

STRAW

MULCH OR

EQUAL

PERMANENT BANK

STREAM BANK

TYPICAL

STREAM

EROSION CONTROL

FABRIC 12"

4' 4'

6"

STABILIZED FILL

PROVIDE MINIMUM OF 6" OF SOIL COVER OVER

FIRST 12" OF EROSION CONTROL FABRIC AS

SHOWN.

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
FERC FILING VERSION 1/23/09

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
FERC FILING VERSION 1/23/09

EROSION CONTROL

 DEVICES

(AS APPROPRIATE)

CONSTRUCTION ROW

TOPSOIL

MATERIAL

SUBSOIL

MATERIAL

HAYBALES AND/OR SILT

FENCE AS REQ'D TO

CONTROL RUNOFF

FROM SPOIL STORAGE

AREA

CORDUROY/TIMBER MATS

(METHOD II ONLY)

STUMPS REMAIN IN PLACE

WETLAND

ADDITIONAL

WORK SPACE

SETBACK

PROPOSED

PIPELINE

NOMINAL 115'

CONSTRUCTION ROW

UPLAND

WETLAND

50 FT

TYPICAL

TOPSOIL

MATERIAL

SUBSOIL

MATERIAL

CORDUROY OR

TIMBER MATS (NOT

REQUIRED FOR DRY

CROSSINGS)

PIPELINE

75' WETLAND

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
FERC FILING VERSION 1/23/09

SPOIL PILE

(10 FT SET BACK

SEE NOTE 3)

SPOIL PILE

(10 FT SET BACK

SEE NOTE 3)

EROSION

CONTROL

DEVICES AS

APPROPRIATE

STREAM FLOW

 PROPOSED

PIPELINE

CONSTRUCTION ROW

TRENCH

TRENCH

PLUGS

FLUME

PIPE(S)

50'

SEE NOTE 2

EXISTING VEGETATION

MAINTAINED TO MAX.

POSSIBLE WIDTH

TWS

SANDBAGS

TWS

EQUIPMENT

CROSSING

CROSS SECTION FOR EQUIPMENT CROSSING

EROSION

CONTROL

DEVICES AS

APPROPRIATE

EROSION

CONTROL

DEVICES AS

APPROPRIATE

CLEAN STONE OR ROCK

(INSTALL 1' MIN. OF FILL

OVER CULVERT)

FLUME PIPE(S) MIN. SIZE 12"

(SUBMERGED). IF MORE THAN

ONE CULVERT IS USED, THE

MIN. SPACING IS 12".

NOTE:

 1. PORTABLE BRIDGES OR MATS MAY BE USED FOR EQUIPMENT CROSSING IF CONTOURS ALLOW.

 2. THE REQUIRED SETBACK FOR ADDITIONAL WIDTH WORK SPACE IS 50 FEET FROM TOP OF BANK 

UNLESS APPROVED OTHERWISE BY THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES.

 3. THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACK FOR SPOIL PILE IS 10 FEET FROM THE TOP OF BANK.

 4. EQUIPMENT BRIDGE TO REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL THE COMPLETION OF FINAL RESTORATION.

 5. WEED-FREE STRAW BALES, SAND BAGS, DRIVABLE BERMS OR OTHER APPROPRIATE EROSION 

CONTROL MAY BE USED INTERCHANGEABLY AT THE EDGE OF EQUIPMENT BRIDGE.

12"

12 " MIN. SPACING

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
FERC FILING VERSION 1/23/09

SPOIL PILE (10 FT SET

BACK SEE NOTE 2)

EROSION

CONTROL

DEVICES AS

APPROPRIATE

EROSION

CONTROL

DEVICES AS

APPROPRIATE

EROSION

CONTROL

DEVICES AS

APPROPRIATE

SPOIL PILE (10 FT SET

BACK SEE NOTE 2) TEMPORARY DAM

(SANDBAGS)

STREAM FLOW

EQUIPMENT

CROSSING

FLUME

PIPE(S)

TRENCH PROPOSED

PIPELINE

CONSTRUCTION ROW

EXISTING VEGETATION

MAINTAINED TO MAX.

POSSIBLE WIDTH

ATWS

SANDBAGS

CROSS SECTION FOR TRENCH FLUMING

FLUME PIPE

PIPELINE

NOTE:

1. THE REQUIRED SET BACK FOR ADDITIONAL WIDTH WORK SPACE IS 50 FEET FROM TOP OF BANK

 UNLESS APPROVED OTHERWISE BY THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES.

2. A 10' VEGETATION BUFFER WILL BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN THE BANK AND TWS.

3. THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACK FOR SPOIL PILE IS 10 FEET FROM THE

 TOP OF BANK.

4. EQUIPMENT BRIDGE SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL THE COMPLETION

 OF FINAL RESTORATION.

5. WEED-FREE STRAW BALES, SAND BAGS, DRIVABLE BERMS OR OTHER APPROPRIATE EROSION 

CONTROL MAY BE USED INTERCHANGEABLY AT THE EDGE OF EQUIPMENT BRIDGE.

TEMPORARY DAM

(SANDBAGS)

50'

SEE NOTE 1

TWS

STREAM FLOW

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
FERC FILING VERSION 1/23/09

NOTES:

 1. SET UP PUMP AND HOSE AS SHOWN, OR USE OTHER PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVES. PUMP

 SHOULD HAVE TWICE THE PUMPING CAPACITY OF ANTICIPATED FLOW.

 2. CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF ACTIVE AND BACKUP PUMPS TO

 MAINTAIN THE CAPACITY OF THE STREAM FLOW AT ALL TIMES DURING INSTALLATION.

 3. ALL INTAKE HOSES WILL BE SCREENED.

 4. DISMANTLE DOWNSTREAM DAM, THEN UPSTREAM DAM. KEEP PUMP RUNNING TO MAINTAIN

 STREAM FLOW.

 5. THE REQUIRED SET BACK FOR ADDITIONAL WIDTH WORK SPACE IS 50 FEET FROM TOP OF 

BANK UNLESS APPROVED OTHERWISE BY THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES.

 6. A 10' VEGETATION BUFFER WILL BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN THE BANK AND TWS.

 7. THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACK FOR SPOIL PILE IS 10 FEET FROM THE TOP OF BANK.

 8. WEED-FREE STRAW BALES, SAND BAGS, DRIVABLE BERMS OR OTHER APPROPRIATE EROSION

CONTROL MAY BE USED INTERCHANGEABLY AT THE EDGE OF EQUIPMENT BRIDGE.

EROSION CONTROL

DEVICES AS

APPROPRIATE

EROSION

CONTROL DEVICES

AS APPROPRIATE

EROSION

CONTROL DEVICES

AS APPROPRIATE

SPOIL PILE (10 FT

SET BACK SEE

NOTE 6)

SPOIL PILE (10 FT SET

BACK SEE NOTE 6)

PUMP HOSE

PUMP

TRENCH

EQUIPMENT

CROSSING

UPSTREAM DAM

(SANDBAGS)

TRENCH PLUG

 PROPOSED

PIPELINE

DOWNSTREAM DAM

(SANDBAGS)

STREAM FLOW

ENERGY DISSIPATOR

AND/OR FILTER

SEE NOTE 5

ATWS

CONSTRUCTION ROW

PLAN

NOT TO SCALE

FUEL SPILL

PREVENTATIVE

DIKE

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
FERC FILING VERSION 1/23/09

ENTER SIDE EXIT SIDE

SEE DETAIL "A" SEE DETAIL "B"

RIVER RIGSIDE PIPESIDE

M K

L

JJ

H H

F G

C D

I

A

B E

ENTRY POINT

200'

150'

200'

150'

N.T.S. N.T.S.

PIPE ROLLERS

D

E F

A

B B

C

GG

EXIT

POINT

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
FERC FILING VERSION 1/23/09

NOTES

1. THIS TYPE OF BRIDGE IS GENERALLY USED FOR MEDIUM-SIZED STREAM

 CROSSINGS.

2. THE NUMBER AND SIZE OF THE FLUME PIPES WILL BE DESIGNED TO

 HANDLE MAXIMUM EXPECTED FLOW OF STREAM AT TIME OF

 CONSTRUCTION. MIN. SIZE CULVERT WILL BE 12".

3. CLEAN, SILT-FREE ROCK TO BE USED ONLY. INSTALL 1" MIN. OF

 FILL OVER CULVERT.

4. BRIDGE TO REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL THE COMPLETION OF FINAL

 RESTORATION.

5. SILT FENCE, WEED-FREE STRAW BALES, SANDBAGS, DRIVABLE BERMS OR

OTHER APPROPRIATE EROSION CONTROL MAY BE USED 

INTERCHANGEABLY.

6. STRAW BALES WILL BE PLACED AT THE EDGE OF EQUIPMENT BRIDGE

 AT THE END OF THE WORK DAY TO PREVENT EROSION BUT WILL BE

 REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY.

EROSION

CONTROL

DEVICE(S)

EROSION

CONTROL

DEVICE(S)

CLEAN, SILT-FREE

(WASHED) STONE

CLEAN, SILT-FREE

(WASHED) STONE

TIMBER MATS

EDGE OF WATER

 STREAM

TIMBER MATS

12" MIN. SPACING

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
FERC FILING VERSION 1/23/09

STREAM EDGE OF WATER

TIMBER MATS

HAYBALES

TIMBER MATS

HAYBALES

1. THIS TYPE OF BRIDGE IS GENERALLY USED FOR SMALL STREAM

 CROSSINGS LESS THAN 20 FEET IN WIDTH IN COMBINATION WITH

 A PROPER STREAM BANK CONFIGURATION.

2. BRIDGE WILL BE TEMPORARILY REMOVED IF HIGH WATER

 RENDERS IT UNSAFE FOR CROSSING.

3. BRIDGE TO REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL THE COMPLETION OF FINAL

 RESTORATION.

4. SILT FENCE, WEED FREE STRAW BALES, SAND BAGS, DRIVABLE 

BERMS OR OTHER APPROPRIATE EROSION CONTROL MAY BE USED

 INTERCHANGEABLY.

5. A "SKIRT" FORMED OF SILT FENCE, GEOTEXTILE FABRIC OR

 EQUIVALENT SHALL BE PLACED ON THE SIDES AND BOTTOM

 OF THE BRIDGE TO TRAP SEDIMENT AS NECESSARY.

6. INDIVIDUAL MATS SHALL BE ANCHORED AND BUTTED TIGHTLY TO

 MINIMIZE THE INTRODUCTION OF SEDIMENT TO THE WATERBODY.

7. STRAW BALES OR APPROPRIATE BARRIER WILL BE PLACED AT

 THE EDGE.

SILT FENCE, GEOTEXTILE

OR EQUIVALENT "SKIRT"

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
FERC FILING VERSION 1/23/09

STREAM

EDGE OF WATER

CLEAN, SILT-FREE

(WASHED) STONE

EROSION

CONTROL

DEVICE(S)

1. THIS TYPE OF BRIDGE IS USED ON MEDIUM TO LARGE STREAMS

 WITH POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT FLOW.

2. THE NUMBER AND SIZE OF FLUME PIPES WILL BE DESIGNED TO

 HANDLE THE MAXIMUM EXPECTED FLOW OF THE STREAM AT TIME

 OF CONSTRUCTION. MIN. SIZE CULVERT WILL BE 12".

3. CLEAN, SILT-FREE ROCK TO BE USED ONLY. INSTALL 1" MIN. OF

 FILL OVER CULVERT.

4. BRIDGE TO REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL THE COMPLETION OF FINAL

 RESTORATION.

5. SILT FENCE, WEED-FREE STRAW BALES, SANDBAGS, DRIVABLE BERMS OR

OTHER APPROPRIATE EROSION CONTROL MAY BE USED 

INTERCHANGEABLY.

6. ROCK MUST EXTEND 10' FROM TOP OF BANK ON BOTH SIDES

 OF WATERWAY.

7. STRAW BALES WILL BE PLACED AT THE EDGE OF EQUIPMENT

 BRIDGE AT THE END OF THE WORK DAY TO PREVENT EROSION

 BUT WILL BE REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY.

EROSION

CONTROL

DEVICE(S)

CLEAN, SILT-FREE

(WASHED) STONE

12" MIN. SPACING

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
FERC FILING VERSION 1/23/09

NOTES

1. THIS TYPE OF BRIDGE IS GENERALLY USED ON WIDE,

 DEEP CROSSINGS.

2. BRIDGE IS ANCHORED AND/OR TIED OFF TO ANCHOR

 BLOCKS FOR STABILITY.

3. BRIDGE TO REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL THE COMPLETION

 OF FINAL RESTORATION.

4. SILT FENCE, WEED-FREE STRAW BALES, SANDBAGS, DRIVABLE

BERMS OR OTHER APPROPRIATE EROSION CONTROL MAY BE

USED INTERCHANGEABLY.

5. STRAW BALES WILL BE PLACED AT THE EDGE OF

 EQUIPMENT BRIDGE AT THE END OF THE WORK DAY TO

 PREVENT EROSION BUT WILL BE REMOVED DURING

 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY.

ELEVATION

PLAN

STREAM

EDGE OF WATER

PORTABLE BRIDGE

EROSION

CONTROL

DEVICE(S)

PORTABLE BRIDGE

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
FERC FILING VERSION 1/23/09

4"-6" Pipe From Manifold

8' Min.

Steel Plates

Under Flow Weir

Over Flow Weir

12"-30" Pipe

8' Min.

NOTE

1. Energy Dissipator to be anchored by Contractor.

2. Typical Energy Dissipator must be used in

 conjunction w/filter (AS APPROPRIATE)

3. Must be located in an upland area.

4. Sediment must be removed when

 accumulations reach 1/2 the height of

 the filters.

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
FERC FILING VERSION 1/23/09

1.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

A A

2.

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX E

 Temporary Extra Workspaces, Staging Areas, Water 

Appropriation Sites, Contractor and Pipe Yards, and 

 Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E1 - 1

TABLE E-1

TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES, STAGING AREAS, AND WATER APPROPRIATION SITES FOR THE RUBY 

PIPELINE PROJECT

Workspace 

Type MP Range Size(acres)

Wetland 

Acreage 

Within Extra 

Workspacesa,c

Wetland 

Acreage Within 

50 feet of Extra 

Workspacesb,c

Workspace 

Justification/Notes

Conditionally 

Approved for 

Usec

EWS 0.1 - 0.6 2.12 - - - No

EWS 0.1 - 0.6 2.17 - - - No

WAS 0.1 - 0.1 0.9 - - - Yes

SA 0.5 - 0.5 7.5 - - - Yes

EWS 0.8 - 0.8 0.12 - <0.1 - No

EWS 0.8 - 0.8 0.10 - <0.1 - No

EWS 1.0 – 1.0 0.07 - <0.1 - No

EWS 1.0 – 1.0 0.13 - 0.1 - No

WAS 1.0 – 1.0 - - - Yes

EWS 1.4 - 2.6 6.19 - - - No

EWS 1.4 - 2.6 6.05 - - - No

WAS 1.4 - 1.4 - - - Yes

EWS 5.8 – 6.0 0.56 - - - No

WAS 5.8 - 5.8 - - - Yes

EWS 5.9 – 6.0 0.44 - - - Yes

SA 6.0 – 6.0 0.9 - - Roberson Creek 

C.S.

Yes

EWS 6.3 - 6.4 0.63 - - - No

EWS 6.3 - 6.4 0.66 - - - No

EWS 8.7 - 8.8 0.53 0.1 - - No

EWS 8.7 - 8.8 0.61 0.1 - - No

EWS 10.9 - 10.9 0.28 - - - Yes

EWS 10.9 - 10.9 0.28 - - - Yes

EWS 11.7 - 11.8 0.38 - - - Yes

EWS 11.7 - 11.8 0.38 - - - Yes

EWS 11.9 – 12.0 0.40 - - - Yes

EWS 11.9 – 12.0 0.38 - - - Yes

EWS 12.3 - 12.3 0.28 - - - Yes

EWS 12.3 - 12.3 0.28 - - - Yes

EWS 14.1 - 14.2 0.41 - - - Yes

EWS 14.1 - 14.2 0.42 - - - Yes

EWS 14.9 – 15.0 0.54 - - - No

EWS 14.9 – 15.0 0.54 - - - No

SA 15.0 – 15.0 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 15.4 - 15.8 1.99 - - - No

EWS 15.4 - 15.8 2.02 - - - No

EWS 17.6 - 17.9 1.25 - - - No

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E1 - 2

TABLE E-1

TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES, STAGING AREAS, AND WATER APPROPRIATION SITES FOR THE RUBY 

PIPELINE PROJECT

Workspace 

Type MP Range Size(acres)

Wetland 

Acreage 

Within Extra 

Workspacesa,c

Wetland 

Acreage Within 

50 feet of Extra 

Workspacesb,c

Workspace 

Justification/Notes

Conditionally 

Approved for 

Usec

EWS 17.6 - 17.9 1.32 - - - No

EWS 18.7 - 18.9 1.13 <0.1 - - No

EWS 18.7 - 18.9 1.13 <0.1 - - No

EWS 19.4 - 19.5 0.58 - - - No

EWS 19.4 - 19.5 0.60 - - - No

EWS 19.7 - 19.7 0.17 - <0.1 - No

EWS 19.7 - 19.7 0.12 - - - Yes

EWS 19.7 - 19.9 0.68 - <0.1 - No

EWS 19.7 - 19.9 0.72 - <0.1 - No

WAS 19.7 - 19.7 - - - Yes

WAS 19.7 - 19.7 - - - Yes

SA 19.8 - 19.8 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 20.1 - 20.3 1.09 - - - No

EWS 20.1 - 20.3 0.70 - - - No

EWS 20.4 - 20.4 0.07 - <0.1 - No

EWS 20.4 - 20.4 0.15 - - - Yes

EWS 20.9 - 21.1 0.99 - - - No

EWS 20.9 - 21.1 1.15 - - - No

EWS 22.2 - 22.2 0.18 - - - Yes

EWS 22.2 - 22.2 0.18 - - - Yes

EWS 23.8 - 23.8 0.05 - 0.2 - No

EWS 23.8 - 23.8 0.09 - <0.1 - No

EWS 23.9 - 23.9 0.14 - - - Yes

EWS 23.9 - 23.9 0.13 - - - Yes

EWS 25.9 - 26.6 3.48 - - - No

EWS 25.9 - 26.6 3.19 - - - No

SA 26.1 - 26.1 1.5 - - - Yes

EWS 27.1 - 27.2 0.20 - - - Yes

EWS 27.1 - 27.2 0.20 - - - Yes

EWS 27.2 - 27.3 0.12 - <0.1 - No

EWS 27.2 - 27.3 0.12 - - - Yes

SA 27.3 - 27.3 3.5 - - Ryckman Creek Yes

EWS 28.2 - 29.5 6.17 - - - No

EWS 28.2 - 29.5 6.17 - - - No

SA 29.8 - 29.8 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 33.7 - 33.9 1.06 - - - No

EWS 33.7 - 33.9 1.06 - - - No

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E1 - 3

TABLE E-1

TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES, STAGING AREAS, AND WATER APPROPRIATION SITES FOR THE RUBY 

PIPELINE PROJECT

Workspace 

Type MP Range Size(acres)

Wetland 

Acreage 

Within Extra 

Workspacesa,c

Wetland 

Acreage Within 

50 feet of Extra 

Workspacesb,c

Workspace 

Justification/Notes

Conditionally 

Approved for 

Usec

SA 34.9 - 34.9 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 35.3 - 37.1 9.03 <0.1 <0.1 - No

EWS 35.3 - 37.1 8.87 <0.1 - - No

EWS 37.2 - 37.5 1.65 - <0.1 - No

EWS 37.2 - 37.5 1.78 - - - No

EWS 38.7 - 38.8 0.48 - - - No

EWS 38.7 - 38.8 0.48 - - - No

EWS 39.5 - 40.9 6.71 - - - No

EWS 39.5 - 40.9 6.83 - - - No

SA 39.6 - 39.6 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 41.3 - 41.4 0.27 - - - Yes

EWS 41.3 - 41.4 0.28 - - - Yes

EWS R41.9 - 42.2 1.16 - - - No

EWS R41.9 - 42.2 1.14 - - - No

EWS 42.3 - 42.6 1.00 <0.1 - - No

EWS 42.3 - 42.6 1.00 <0.1 - - No

EWS 43.3 - 43.5 1.13 - - - No

EWS 43.3 - 43.5 1.13 - - - No

EWS 44.5 - 45.2 3.64 0.1 <0.1 - No

EWS 44.5 - 45.2 3.63 0.1 - - No

SA 44.9 - 44.9 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 47.0 - 48.4 6.72 - - - No

EWS 47.0 - 48.4 6.72 - - - No

WAS 49.5 - 49.5 - - Located within 

Staging Area

Yes

SA 49.5 - 49.5 1.4 - - - Yes

SA 50.0 – 50.0 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 50.4 - 51.1 3.51 - - - No

EWS 50.4 - 51.1 3.59 - - - No

WAS 50.7 - 50.7 0.9 - - - Yes

SA 50.7 - 50.7 1.6 - - - Yes

EWS 51.7 - R52.9 6.76 0.8 - - No

EWS 51.8 - R52.9 6.41 0.4 - - No

SA R52.1 - R52.1 28.5 - - Staging Area Yes

SA R52.2 - R52.2 13.2 - - Staging Area and 

Spread Break 

Associated Pipeline

Yes

EWS R52.3 - R52.3 0.00 <0.1 - - No

WAS R52.9 - R52.9 - - - Yes

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E1 - 4

TABLE E-1

TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES, STAGING AREAS, AND WATER APPROPRIATION SITES FOR THE RUBY 

PIPELINE PROJECT

Workspace 

Type MP Range Size(acres)

Wetland 

Acreage 

Within Extra 

Workspacesa,c

Wetland 

Acreage Within 

50 feet of Extra 

Workspacesb,c

Workspace 

Justification/Notes

Conditionally 

Approved for 

Usec

EWS R53.9 - R53.9 0.29 - - - Yes

EWS R53.9 - R53.9 0.37 - - - Yes

EWS R54.0 - R54.1 0.20 - - - Yes

EWS R54.0 - R54.1 0.21 - - - Yes

EWS R54.2 - R54.3 0.18 - - - Yes

EWS R54.2 - R54.3 0.18 - - - Yes

EWS R54.4 - R54.4 0.18 - - - Yes

EWS R54.4 - R54.4 0.18 - - - Yes

EWS R54.5 - R54.6 0.55 - - - No

EWS R54.5 - R54.6 0.55 - - - No

WAS R54.6 - R54.6 0.9 - - Located within 

Staging Area

Yes

SA R54.6 - R54.6 0.2 - - - Yes

EWS R54.7 - R54.8 0.19 - - - Yes

EWS R54.8 - R54.8 0.18 - - - Yes

SA 55.1 - 55.1 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 56.5 - 59.6 15.07 - - - No

EWS 56.5 - 59.6 15.00 - - - No

EWS 59.8 - 60.8 5.09 - - - No

EWS 59.8 - 60.8 4.93 - - - No

WAS 60.8 - 60.8 - - - Yes

EWS 60.9 – 61.0 0.63 - <0.1 - No

EWS 60.9 – 61.0 0.89 - - - No

SA 61.0 – 61.0 7.2 - - Staging Area and 

Spread Break

Yes

EWS 61.4 - 67.6 29.85 - - - No

EWS 61.4 - 67.6 29.76 - - - No

SA 69.2 - 69.2 6.9 - - - Yes

WAS 69.6 - 69.6 0.9 - - Located within 

Staging Area

Yes

SA 69.6 - 69.6 0.3 - - - Yes

EWS 72.0 - 72.3 1.19 - - - No

EWS 72.0 - 73.4 6.64 - - - No

EWS 72.3 - 73.3 5.12 - - - No

EWS 73.8 - 73.9 0.37 - - - Yes

EWS 73.8 - 73.9 0.41 - - - Yes

SA 74.0 – 74.0 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 74.1 - 74.4 1.24 - - - No

EWS 74.1 - 74.4 1.24 - - - No

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E1 - 5

TABLE E-1

TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES, STAGING AREAS, AND WATER APPROPRIATION SITES FOR THE RUBY 

PIPELINE PROJECT

Workspace 

Type MP Range Size(acres)

Wetland 

Acreage 

Within Extra 

Workspacesa,c

Wetland 

Acreage Within 

50 feet of Extra 

Workspacesb,c

Workspace 

Justification/Notes

Conditionally 

Approved for 

Usec

EWS 75.1 - 75.3 1.13 - - - No

EWS 75.1 - 75.3 1.03 - - - No

EWS R76.2 - 77.9 7.99 - - - No

EWS R76.2 - 77.9 8.07 - - - No

EWS 77.9 – 78.0 0.59 - - - No

EWS 77.9 – 78.0 0.56 - - - No

EWS 78.3 - 78.4 0.41 - - - Yes

EWS 78.3 - 78.4 0.41 - - - Yes

WAS 78.4 - 78.4 0.9 - - Located within 

Staging Area and 

Extra Work Space

Yes

SA 78.4 - 78.4 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 80.0 - 82.4 11.66 0.1 - - No

EWS 80.0 - 82.4 11.75 0.1 - - No

EWS 83.1 - 83.5 2.30 - - - No

EWS 83.1 - 83.5 2.30 - - - No

EWS 83.9 – 84.0 0.21 - - - Yes

EWS 83.9 – 84.0 0.34 - - - Yes

EWS 84.3 - 85.3 5.02 - - - No

EWS 84.3 - 85.3 4.85 - - - No

SA 87.1 - 87.1 0.7 - - - Yes

EWS 87.4 - 88.9 7.48 - - - No

EWS 87.4 - 88.9 7.43 - - - No

EWS 89.6 - 89.9 1.21 - - - No

EWS 89.6 - 89.9 1.18 - - - No

EWS 90.4 - 92.1 8.13 - - - No

EWS 90.4 - 92.1 8.02 - - - No

SA 90.5 - 90.5 0.9 - - - Yes

WAS 91.7 - 91.7 - - - Yes

SA 91.7 - 91.7 1.1 - - Lime Kill Canyon 

Parking Area 1 -

Little BearRiver East

Fork

Yes

SA 91.7 - 91.7 0.2 - - Lime Kill Canyon 

Parking Area 2

Yes

WAS 92.1 - 92.1 - - - Yes

SA 92.1 - 92.1 1.2 - - - Yes

EWS 92.4 - 92.5 0.28 - - - Yes

EWS 92.7 - 92.7 0.11 - <0.1 - No

EWS 92.7 - 92.7 0.08 - - - Yes

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E1 - 6

TABLE E-1

TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES, STAGING AREAS, AND WATER APPROPRIATION SITES FOR THE RUBY 

PIPELINE PROJECT

Workspace 

Type MP Range Size(acres)

Wetland 

Acreage 

Within Extra 

Workspacesa,c

Wetland 

Acreage Within 

50 feet of Extra 

Workspacesb,c

Workspace 

Justification/Notes

Conditionally 

Approved for 

Usec

EWS 92.7 - 92.7 0.24 - - - Yes

EWS 92.8 – 93.0 1.24 - - - No

EWS 92.8 – 93.0 1.26 - - - No

SA 92.8 - 92.8 1.2 - - - Yes

SA 92.9 - 92.9 1.4 - - - Yes

EWS 93.3 - 93.7 1.93 <0.1 - - No

EWS 93.3 - 93.7 2.06 - - - No

EWS 93.8 – 94.0 1.31 - - - No

EWS 93.8 – 94.0 1.25 - - - No

EWS 94.6 - 94.6 0.16 - - - Yes

EWS 94.6 - 94.7 0.32 - - - Yes

WAS 94.7 - 94.7 - - - Yes

WAS 94.7 - 94.7 - - Located within Extra 

Work Space area

Yes

EWS 94.8 - 94.8 0.40 <0.1 <0.1 - No

EWS 94.9 - 95.1 0.97 - - - No

SA 94.9 - 94.9 29.2 12.6 <0.1 - Yes

SA 94.9 - 94.9 1.1 - - - Yes

EWS 95.0 - 95.1 0.46 - - - No

EWS 96.3 - 96.7 2.03 <0.1 - - No

EWS 96.3 - 96.7 1.95 - - - No

SA 96.7 - 96.7 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 97.2 – 98.0 3.92 - - - No

EWS 97.2 – 98.0 4.09 - - - No

SA 99.1 - 99.1 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 99.3 - 101.9 12.53 - - - No

EWS 99.3 - 101.9 12.52 - - - No

EWS 102.2 - 105.1 14.00 0.1 - - No

EWS 102.2 - 105.1 14.04 0.1 <0.1 - No

SA R102.9 - R102.9 8.5 - <0.1 - Yes

SA R105.1 - R105.1 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS R105.3 - R126.2 110.52 1.2 - - No

EWS R105.5 - 107.8 11.23 <0.1 - - No

SA R105.5 - R105.5 4.4 - - - Yes

WAS 105.8 - 105.8 0.9 - - - Yes

WAS 106.7 - 106.7 0.9 - - - Yes

WAS 107.4 - 107.4 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 107.8 - 127.7 104.19 0.4 <0.1 No

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E1 - 7

TABLE E-1

TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES, STAGING AREAS, AND WATER APPROPRIATION SITES FOR THE RUBY 

PIPELINE PROJECT

Workspace 

Type MP Range Size(acres)

Wetland 

Acreage 

Within Extra 

Workspacesa,c

Wetland 

Acreage Within 

50 feet of Extra 

Workspacesb,c

Workspace 

Justification/Notes

Conditionally 

Approved for 

Usec

SA 112.2 - 112.2 28.3 20.4 0.2 North Brigham 

Airport Staging Area

Yes

SA 116.9 - 116.9 24.1 3.0 0.5 - Yes

SA R117.1 - R117.1 0.9 - - - Yes

WAS 118.0 – 118.0 - - - Yes

WAS 118.6 - 118.6 - - - Yes

WAS 119.8 - 119.8 - - - Yes

SA 124.0 – 124.0 1.1 - - - Yes

EWS 126.2 - 127.7 7.29 0.4 - - No

SA 127.5 - 127.5 0.9 - - - Yes

WAS 127.6 - 127.6 - - - Yes

EWS 128.1 - 132.2 19.54 - - - No

EWS 128.1 - 132.2 19.66 - - - No

WAS 131.6 - 131.6 - - - Yes

EWS 132.6 - 132.7 0.82 - - - No

EWS 132.6 - 132.7 0.91 - - - No

SA 132.7 - 132.7 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 134.1 - R135.6 7.15 - - - No

EWS 134.1 - R135.6 7.04 - - - No

EWS R136.7 - R136.8 0.44 - - - Yes

EWS R136.7 - R136.8 0.33 - - - Yes

EWS R137.1 - R137.2 0.68 - - - No

EWS R137.1 - R137.2 0.51 - - - No

EWS R137.6 - R137.8 1.09 - - - No

EWS R137.6 - R137.8 0.83 - - - No

SA R137.8 - R137.8 1.0 - - - Yes

EWS 139.4 - 139.5 0.66 - - - No

EWS 139.4 - 139.5 0.67 - - - No

EWS 141.1 - 144.3 15.43 - - - No

EWS 141.1 - 144.3 15.41 - - - No

WAS 142.0 – 142.0 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 144.5 - 144.6 0.45 - - - Yes

EWS 144.5 - 144.6 0.45 - - - Yes

SA 144.6 - 144.6 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 145.0 - 145.4 1.76 - - - No

EWS 145.0 - 145.4 1.83 - - - No

EWS 146.1 - 146.2 0.63 - - - No

EWS 146.1 - 146.2 0.63 - - - No

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E1 - 8

TABLE E-1

TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES, STAGING AREAS, AND WATER APPROPRIATION SITES FOR THE RUBY 

PIPELINE PROJECT

Workspace 

Type MP Range Size(acres)

Wetland 

Acreage 

Within Extra 

Workspacesa,c

Wetland 

Acreage Within 

50 feet of Extra 

Workspacesb,c

Workspace 

Justification/Notes

Conditionally 

Approved for 

Usec

EWS 146.6 - 146.7 0.29 - - - Yes

EWS 146.6 - 146.7 0.30 - - - Yes

WAS 149.0 – 149.0 - - Located within 

Staging Area

Yes

SA 149.0 – 149.0 1.0 - - - Yes

EWS 149.6 - 149.7 0.28 - - - Yes

EWS 149.6 - 149.7 0.28 - - - Yes

EWS 150.4 - 150.5 0.26 - - - Yes

EWS 150.4 - 150.5 0.27 - - - Yes

SA 150.5 - 150.5 1.2 - - - Yes

EWS 154.3 - 156.8 12.23 - - - No

EWS 154.3 - 156.8 12.19 - - - No

SA 155.8 - 155.8 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 157.1 - 158.7 7.77 - - - No

EWS 157.1 - 158.7 7.80 - - - No

EWS 161.0 - 161.1 0.37 - - - Yes

EWS 161.0 - 161.1 0.37 - - - Yes

SA 161.0 – 161.0 1.2 - - - Yes

WAS 161.6 - 161.6 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 165.9 - 166.1 0.96 - - - No

EWS 165.9 - 166.1 0.97 - - - No

SA 165.9 - 165.9 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 166.8 - 167.7 4.35 - - - No

EWS 166.8 - 167.7 4.36 - - - No

EWS 172.7 - 172.7 0.24 - - - Yes

EWS 172.7 - 172.7 0.34 - - - Yes

WAS 172.7 - 172.7 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 173.2 - 173.2 0.26 - - - Yes

EWS 173.2 - 173.2 0.29 - - - Yes

SA 174.1 - 174.1 35.7 - - Staging Area and 

Spread Break US 

Pipeline to US 

Pipeline

Yes

SA 174.3 - 174.3 35.7 - - Staging Area and 

Spread Break US 

Pipeline to US 

Pipeline

Yes

EWS 176.7 - 176.9 1.07 - - - No

EWS 176.7 - 176.9 1.06 - - - No

EWS 177.8 - 177.9 0.46 - - - No

EWS 177.8 - 177.9 0.46 - - - No

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E1 - 9

TABLE E-1

TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES, STAGING AREAS, AND WATER APPROPRIATION SITES FOR THE RUBY 

PIPELINE PROJECT

Workspace 

Type MP Range Size(acres)

Wetland 

Acreage 

Within Extra 

Workspacesa,c

Wetland 

Acreage Within 

50 feet of Extra 

Workspacesb,c

Workspace 

Justification/Notes

Conditionally 

Approved for 

Usec

EWS 179.6 – 180.0 1.79 - - - No

EWS 179.6 – 180.0 1.79 - - - No

EWS 180.1 - 180.3 0.97 - - - No

EWS 180.1 - 180.3 0.98 - - - No

EWS 181.1 - 181.2 0.35 - - - Yes

EWS 181.1 - 181.2 0.37 - - - Yes

WAS 182.0 – 182.0 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 184.8 - 185.2 2.18 0.7 - - No

EWS 184.8 - 185.2 2.09 0.7 - - No

SA 184.8 - 184.8 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 185.9 - 187.7 9.00 - - - No

EWS 185.9 - 187.7 8.94 - - - No

EWS 189.4 - 189.8 1.73 - - - No

EWS 189.4 - 189.8 1.74 - - - No

SA 189.6 - 189.6 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS R190.5 - R190.6 0.61 - - - No

EWS R190.5 - R190.6 0.56 - - - No

SA R200.5 - R200.5 3.5 - - - Yes

WAS R201.9 - R201.9 0.9 - - - Yes

SA R201.9 - R201.9 1.8 - - - Yes

SA R206.0 - R206.0 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS R206.2 - R206.2 0.20 - - - Yes

EWS R206.2 - R206.2 0.20 - - - Yes

EWS R206.9 - R206.9 0.22 - - - Yes

EWS R206.9 - R206.9 0.22 - - - Yes

WAS R206.9 - R206.9 0.9 - - Located within 

Staging Area

Yes

SA R206.9 - R206.9 1.0 - - - Yes

WAS R207.1 - R207.1 0.9 - - Located within 

Staging Area

Yes

SA R207.1 - R207.1 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS R207.5 - R207.8 1.19 - - - No

EWS R207.5 - R207.8 1.19 - - - No

EWS R207.9 - R208.0 0.29 - - - Yes

EWS R207.9 - R208.0 0.29 - - - Yes

EWS R208.0 - R208.1 0.23 - - - Yes

EWS R208.0 - R208.1 0.23 - - - Yes

EWS 211.3 - 211.5 0.81 - - - No

EWS 211.3 - 211.5 0.79 - - - No

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E1 - 10

TABLE E-1

TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES, STAGING AREAS, AND WATER APPROPRIATION SITES FOR THE RUBY 

PIPELINE PROJECT

Workspace 

Type MP Range Size(acres)

Wetland 

Acreage 

Within Extra 

Workspacesa,c

Wetland 

Acreage Within 

50 feet of Extra 

Workspacesb,c

Workspace 

Justification/Notes

Conditionally 

Approved for 

Usec

EWS 211.9 - 214.2 11.11 - - - No

EWS 211.9 - 214.2 11.00 - - - No

WAS 212.8 - 212.8 0.9 - - Located within 

Staging Area

Yes

SA 212.8 - 212.8 1.5 - - - Yes

EWS R214.4 - R214.5 0.28 - - - Yes

EWS R214.4 - R214.5 0.28 - - - Yes

EWS R214.6 - R214.8 0.87 - - - No

EWS R214.6 - R214.8 0.87 - - - No

EWS R215.3 - R215.9 2.85 - - - No

EWS R215.3 - 215.9 2.85 - - - No

SA R216.7 - R216.7 41.5 - - - Yes

EWS R222.0 – R222.0 0.37 - - - Yes

EWS R222.0 – R222.0 0.37 - - - Yes

SA 222.2 - 222.2 6.0 - - - Yes

EWS 222.3 - 222.3 0.30 - - - Yes

EWS 222.3 - 222.3 0.28 - - - Yes

EWS 223.4 - 224.5 5.40 - - - No

EWS 223.4 - 224.5 5.30 - - - No

EWS 224.5 - 224.5 0.00 - - - Yes

EWS 224.8 - 225.1 1.77 - - - No

EWS 224.8 - 225.1 1.88 - - - No

WAS 225.0 – 225.0 0.9 - - Located within 

Staging Area

Yes

SA 225.0 – 225.0 0.4 - - - Yes

SA 226.1 - 226.1 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 227.6 - 227.7 0.39 - - - Yes

EWS 227.6 - 227.7 0.39 - - - Yes

EWS 228.1 - 230.6 12.32 - - - No

EWS 228.1 - 237.5 45.59 - - - No

EWS 230.6 - 237.5 33.28 - - - No

SA 230.9 - 230.9 1.1 - - - Yes

SA 235.4 - 235.4 1.1 - - - Yes

SA 236.6 - 236.6 1.1 - - - Yes

SA 238.0 – 238.0 19.9 - - - Yes

SA 238.0 – 238.0 19.9 - - - Yes

EWS 239.1 - 239.1 0.31 - - - Yes

EWS 239.1 - 239.1 0.27 - - - Yes

WAS 239.2 - 239.2 0.9 - - - Yes

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E1 - 11

TABLE E-1

TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES, STAGING AREAS, AND WATER APPROPRIATION SITES FOR THE RUBY 

PIPELINE PROJECT

Workspace 

Type MP Range Size(acres)

Wetland 

Acreage 

Within Extra 

Workspacesa,c

Wetland 

Acreage Within 

50 feet of Extra 

Workspacesb,c

Workspace 

Justification/Notes

Conditionally 

Approved for 

Usec

SA 239.2 - 239.2 0.2 - - - Yes

EWS 239.3 - 239.5 0.97 - - - No

EWS 239.3 - 239.5 0.97 - - - No

WAS 239.4 - 239.4 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 241.0 - 246.9 28.39 - - - No

EWS 241.0 - 246.9 28.46 - - - No

WAS 241.1 - 241.1 0.9 - - Located within 

Staging Area

Yes

SA 241.1 - 241.1 0.3 - - - Yes

SA 244.6 - 244.6 1.1 - - - Yes

EWS 247.5 - 247.7 0.77 - - - No

EWS 247.5 - 247.7 0.81 - - - No

EWS 247.8 - 248.7 4.40 - - - No

EWS 247.8 - 248.7 4.31 - - - No

EWS 250.3 - 251.8 7.26 - - - No

EWS 250.3 - 251.8 7.24 - - - No

WAS 250.4 - 250.4 0.9 - - Located within 

Staging Area

Yes

SA 250.4 - 250.4 0.2 - - - Yes

SA 250.4 - 250.4 1.1 - - - Yes

EWS 252.6 - 253.8 5.58 - - - No

EWS 252.6 - 253.8 5.60 - - - No

EWS 254.1 - 255.7 7.53 - - - No

EWS 254.1 - 255.7 7.52 - - - No

EWS 258.0 - 258.3 1.11 - - - No

EWS 258.0 - 258.3 1.11 - - - No

WAS 259.6 - 259.6 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 260.7 - 260.7 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 260.7 - 260.7 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 264.5 – 265.0 2.42 - - - No

EWS 264.5 – 265.0 2.37 - - - No

EWS 266.6 - 266.6 0.08 - - - Yes

EWS 266.6 - 266.6 0.10 - - - Yes

EWS 270.5 - 270.6 0.50 - - - No

EWS 270.5 - 270.6 0.50 - - - No

WAS 270.5 - 270.5 0.9 - - - Yes

SA 271.5 - 271.5 1.1 - - - Yes

EWS 271.6 - 275.7 19.73 - <0.1 - No

EWS 271.6 - 275.7 19.70 - - - No

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E1 - 12

TABLE E-1

TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES, STAGING AREAS, AND WATER APPROPRIATION SITES FOR THE RUBY 

PIPELINE PROJECT

Workspace 

Type MP Range Size(acres)

Wetland 

Acreage 

Within Extra 

Workspacesa,c

Wetland 

Acreage Within 

50 feet of Extra 

Workspacesb,c

Workspace 

Justification/Notes

Conditionally 

Approved for 

Usec

EWS 275.7 - 275.9 0.74 - - - No

EWS 275.7 - 275.9 0.85 - - - No

EWS 278.0 – 278.0 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 278.0 – 278.0 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 280.0 - 280.9 4.39 - - - No

EWS 280.0 - 280.9 4.58 - - - No

WAS 280.7 - 280.7 0.9 - - Located within

Staging Area and 

Extra Work Space

Yes

SA 280.7 - 280.7 1.1 - - - Yes

EWS 280.9 - 284.3 16.33 - - - No

EWS 281.0 - 284.3 15.76 - - - No

EWS 284.3 – 285.0 3.23 - <0.1 - No

EWS 284.3 – 285.0 3.34 - <0.1 - No

EWS 285.0 – 286.0 4.57 - <0.1 - No

EWS 285.0 – 286.0 4.55 - <0.1 - No

EWS 286.7 - 287.7 4.86 - - - No

EWS 286.7 - 287.7 4.86 - - - No

EWS 287.9 - R288.8 4.15 - - - No

EWS 287.9 - R288.8 4.18 - - - No

EWS R289.2 - R289.4 0.94 - - - No

EWS R289.2 - R289.4 0.94 - - - No

EWS R289.6 - R290.9 6.36 - - - No

EWS R289.6 - R290.9 6.35 - - - No

EWS R291.5 - R291.6 0.40 - - - Yes

EWS R291.5 - R291.6 0.40 - - - Yes

EWS R291.8 - R291.9 0.61 - - - No

EWS R291.8 - R291.9 0.61 - - - No

SA R292.5 - R292.5 10.0 - - - Yes

EWS R292.7 - R292.8 0.88 - - - No

EWS R292.7 - R292.8 0.87 - - - No

WAS R293.2 - R293.2 0.9 - - Located within 

Staging Area

Yes

SA R293.2 - R293.2 2.4 - - - Yes

SA R294.7 - R294.7 20.2 - - Staging Area and 

Spread Break US 

Pipeline to Precision

Yes

EWS R296.4 - R296.4 0.12 - - - Yes

EWS R296.4 - R296.4 0.12 - - - Yes

EWS 299.9 – 300.0 0.54 - <0.1 - No

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E1 - 13

TABLE E-1

TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES, STAGING AREAS, AND WATER APPROPRIATION SITES FOR THE RUBY 

PIPELINE PROJECT

Workspace 

Type MP Range Size(acres)

Wetland 

Acreage 

Within Extra 

Workspacesa,c

Wetland 

Acreage Within 

50 feet of Extra 

Workspacesb,c

Workspace 

Justification/Notes

Conditionally 

Approved for 

Usec

EWS 299.9 – 300.0 0.51 - - - No

EWS 300.0 - 300.2 0.93 - <0.1 - No

EWS 300.0 - 300.2 0.95 <0.1 - - No

EWS 300.4 - 300.5 0.46 - - - No

EWS 300.4 - 300.5 0.50 - - - No

WAS 300.4 - 300.4 0.9 - - Located within Extra 

Work Space area

Yes

EWS 301.6 - 301.6 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 301.6 - 301.6 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 304.6 - 304.9 1.66 - - - No

EWS 304.6 - 304.9 1.63 - - - No

EWS 305.1 - 307.7 12.61 - - - No

EWS 305.1 - 307.7 12.53 - - - No

SA 307.7 - 307.7 1.1 - - - Yes

EWS 308.8 - 308.9 0.69 - - - No

EWS 308.8 - 308.9 0.69 - - - No

EWS 311.3 - 311.4 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 311.3 - 311.4 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 312.5 - 312.6 0.30 - - - Yes

EWS 312.5 - 312.6 0.30 - - - Yes

WAS 314.2 - 314.2 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 314.8 - 314.8 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 314.8 - 314.8 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 315.6 - 316.4 3.84 - - - No

EWS 315.6 - 316.4 3.86 - - - No

SA 315.7 - 315.7 1.1 - - - Yes

EWS 316.4 - 318.8 11.63 - <0.1 - No

EWS 316.4 - 318.8 11.67 - - - No

EWS 319.7 - 320.3 2.75 - - - No

EWS 319.7 - 320.3 2.75 - - - No

EWS 320.9 - 323.5 12.52 - - - No

EWS 320.9 - 323.5 12.51 - - - No

SA 323.5 - 323.5 1.1 - - - Yes

EWS 323.9 - 323.9 0.16 - - - Yes

EWS 323.9 - 323.9 0.16 - - - Yes

EWS 324.2 - 325.1 4.70 - - - No

EWS 324.2 - 325.1 4.69 - - - No

EWS 325.7 - 326.2 2.42 - - - No

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E1 - 14

TABLE E-1

TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES, STAGING AREAS, AND WATER APPROPRIATION SITES FOR THE RUBY 

PIPELINE PROJECT

Workspace 

Type MP Range Size(acres)

Wetland 

Acreage 

Within Extra 

Workspacesa,c

Wetland 

Acreage Within 

50 feet of Extra 

Workspacesb,c

Workspace 

Justification/Notes

Conditionally 

Approved for 

Usec

EWS 325.7 - 326.2 2.42 - - - No

EWS 326.7 - 327.4 3.46 - - - No

EWS 326.7 - 327.4 3.46 - - - No

SA 327.4 - 327.4 1.1 - - - Yes

EWS 327.6 - 327.8 0.93 - - - No

EWS 327.6 - 327.8 0.88 - - - No

EWS 327.8 - 328.1 1.34 - <0.1 - No

EWS 327.8 - 328.1 1.42 - - - No

EWS 328.6 - 328.8 1.21 - - - No

EWS 328.6 - 328.8 1.21 - - - No

EWS 329.0 - 329.1 0.45 - - - Yes

EWS 329.0 - 329.1 0.52 - - - No

SA 329.1 - 329.1 0.2 - - - Yes

EWS 329.4 - 329.5 0.45 - - - Yes

EWS 329.4 - 329.5 0.33 - <0.1 - No

WAS R330.1 - R330.1 0.9 - - - Yes

SA R330.3 - R330.3 1.2 - - - Yes

EWS 331.2 - 331.4 0.89 - - - No

EWS 331.2 - 331.4 0.94 - - - No

EWS 331.7 - 332.1 1.93 - - - No

EWS 331.7 - 332.1 1.88 - - - No

EWS 332.5 - 333.4 3.98 - - - No

EWS 332.5 - 333.4 3.95 - - - No

EWS 333.7 – 334.0 1.29 - - - No

EWS 333.7 – 334.0 1.29 - - - No

SA 334.2 - 334.2 1.1 - - - Yes

EWS 335.4 - 335.5 0.76 - - - No

EWS 335.4 - 335.5 0.91 - - - No

EWS 335.8 - 336.2 2.16 - - - No

EWS 335.8 - 336.2 2.16 - - - No

EWS 336.4 - 336.6 1.09 - - - No

EWS 336.4 - 336.6 1.09 - - - No

EWS 336.9 – 337.0 0.36 - - - Yes

EWS 336.9 – 337.0 0.36 - - - Yes

EWS 338.0 - 338.1 0.81 - - - No

EWS 338.0 - 338.1 0.81 - - - No

EWS 338.6 - 339.1 1.99 - - - No

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E1 - 15

TABLE E-1

TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES, STAGING AREAS, AND WATER APPROPRIATION SITES FOR THE RUBY 

PIPELINE PROJECT

Workspace 

Type MP Range Size(acres)

Wetland 

Acreage 

Within Extra 

Workspacesa,c

Wetland 

Acreage Within 

50 feet of Extra 

Workspacesb,c

Workspace 

Justification/Notes

Conditionally 

Approved for 

Usec

EWS 338.6 - 339.1 1.99 - - - No

SA 339.0 – 339.0 1.1 - - - Yes

WAS 339.1 - 339.1 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 340.0 - 341.3 5.97 - - - No

EWS 340.0 - 341.3 6.00 - - - No

SA 342.8 - 342.8 1.1 - - - Yes

EWS 342.9 - 343.4 2.17 - - - No

EWS 342.9 - 343.4 2.13 - - - No

EWS 344.4 - 345.2 4.03 - - - No

EWS 344.4 - 345.2 4.06 - - - No

EWS 345.5 - 345.8 1.72 - <0.1 - No

EWS 345.5 - 345.8 1.72 - - - No

SA 345.7 - 345.7 1.1 - - - Yes

EWS 345.9 - R351.4 26.93 - - - No

EWS 345.9 - R351.5 27.00 - <0.1 - No

EWS R351.5 - R352 2.41 - - - No

EWS R351.5 - R352 2.42 - <0.1 - No

WAS R352.0 - R352.0 0.9 - - - Yes

SA R352.5 - R352.5 1.3 - - - Yes

EWS R352.9 - R353.1 0.62 - - - No

EWS R352.9 - R353.1 0.62 - - - No

EWS R353.5 - R353.7 0.73 - - - No

EWS R353.5 - R353.7 0.73 - - - No

SA R354.5 - R354.5 1.1 - - - Yes

EWS R354.6 - R355.4 3.96 - - - No

EWS R354.6 - R355.4 3.97 - - - No

SA R355.3 - R355.3 1.3 - - - Yes

EWS R355.5 - R355.8 1.45 - - - No

EWS R355.5 - R355.8 1.41 - - - No

EWS R356.4 - R357.5 5.18 - - - No

EWS R356.4 - R357.5 5.20 - - - No

EWS R357.7 - R359.6 9.62 <0.1 - - No

EWS R357.7 - R359.7 9.66 - - - No

SA R357.7 - R357.7 1.6 - - - Yes

EWS R359.7 - R359.9 1.15 - <0.1 - No

EWS R359.7 - R359.9 1.13 - - - No

EWS R359.9 - R362.1 10.71 0.1 - - No

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E1 - 16

TABLE E-1

TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES, STAGING AREAS, AND WATER APPROPRIATION SITES FOR THE RUBY 

PIPELINE PROJECT

Workspace 

Type MP Range Size(acres)

Wetland 

Acreage 

Within Extra 

Workspacesa,c

Wetland 

Acreage Within 

50 feet of Extra 

Workspacesb,c

Workspace 

Justification/Notes

Conditionally 

Approved for 

Usec

EWS R359.9 - R362.2 10.74 0.1 - - No

WAS R360.7 - R360.7 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS R362.2 - R364.3 10.35 - <0.1 - No

EWS R362.2 - R364.3 10.40 - - - No

SA R362.3 - R362.3 1.3 - - - Yes

SA R363.8 - R363.8 1.3 - - - Yes

EWS R364.6 - R365.6 4.74 - - - No

EWS R364.6 - R365.6 4.77 - - - No

EWS R366.1 - R366.3 1.25 - - - No

EWS R366.1 - R366.3 1.26 - - - No

EWS R367.1 - R367.3 0.87 - - - No

EWS R367.1 - R367.3 0.87 - - - No

EWS R368.0 - R368.1 0.70 - - - No

EWS R368.0 - R368.1 0.77 - - - No

EWS R368.2 - R368.6 1.94 - - - No

EWS R368.2 - R368.6 1.90 <0.1 - - No

WAS R368.3 - R368.3 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS R369.8 - R370.6 3.49 - - - No

EWS R369.8 - R370.6 3.60 - - - No

EWS R370.6 - R370.6 0.27 - - - Yes

EWS R370.6 - R370.6 0.15 - <0.1 - No

EWS R371.1 - R372.7 7.70 - - - No

EWS R371.1 - R372.7 7.68 - - - No

SA R371.4 - R371.4 1.3 - - - Yes

SA R372.7 - R372.7 1.3 - - - Yes

EWS R372.8 - R373.2 1.74 - - - No

EWS R372.8 - R373.2 1.71 - - - No

SA R373.2 - R373.2 1.3 - - - Yes

EWS R373.6 - R373.8 0.89 - - - No

EWS R373.6 - R373.8 0.96 - - - No

EWS R374.2 - R374.6 1.69 - - - No

EWS R374.2 - R374.6 1.72 - - - No

EWS R377.4 - R377.6 0.89 - - - No

EWS R377.4 - R377.6 0.95 - - - No

SA R377.8 - R377.8 1.3 - - - Yes

WAS R378.0 - R378.0 0.9 - - - Yes

SA R378.1 - R378.1 0.3 - - - Yes

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E1 - 17

TABLE E-1

TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES, STAGING AREAS, AND WATER APPROPRIATION SITES FOR THE RUBY 

PIPELINE PROJECT

Workspace 

Type MP Range Size(acres)

Wetland 

Acreage 

Within Extra 

Workspacesa,c

Wetland 

Acreage Within 

50 feet of Extra 

Workspacesb,c

Workspace 

Justification/Notes

Conditionally 

Approved for 

Usec

SA R378.8 - R378.8 1.3 - - - Yes

EWS R380.3 - R380.4 0.42 - - - Yes

EWS R380.3 - R380.4 0.42 - - - Yes

EWS R380.9 - R381.0 0.60 - - - No

EWS R380.9 - R381.0 0.60 - - - No

EWS R381.1 - R382.8 8.14 - - - No

EWS R381.1 - R382.8 8.16 - - - No

WAS R381.1 - R381.1 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS R384.1 - R384.9 3.86 <0.1 - - No

EWS R384.1 - R384.9 3.84 <0.1 - - No

EWS R385.1 - R385.3 1.09 - - - No

EWS R385.1 - R385.3 1.09 - - - No

EWS R386.4 - R386.4 0.17 - - - Yes

EWS R386.4 - R386.4 0.20 - - - Yes

EWS R386.5 - R388.4 9.27 - - - No

EWS R386.5 - R388.4 9.39 - - - No

EWS R392.0 - R392.1 0.28 - - - Yes

EWS R392.0 - R392.1 0.28 - - - Yes

WAS R392.0 - R392.0 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS R393.6 - R393.7 0.25 - - - Yes

EWS R393.6 - R393.7 0.25 - - - Yes

EWS R395.7 - R395.7 0.03 - - - Yes

EWS R395.7 - R395.7 0.06 - - - Yes

EWS R398.2 - R398.3 0.57 - - - No

EWS R398.2 - R398.3 0.55 - - - No

EWS R401.0 - R401.0 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS R401.0 - R401.0 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS R403.7 - R403.8 0.59 - - - No

EWS R403.7 - R403.8 0.59 - - - No

EWS R404.5 - R404.5 0.18 - - - Yes

EWS R404.5 - R404.5 0.18 - - - Yes

EWS R406.5 - R406.5 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS R406.5 - R406.5 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS R407.6 - R407.8 1.25 - - - No

EWS R407.6 - R407.8 1.25 - - - No

SA R407.6 - R407.6 1.1 - - - Yes

WAS R408.0 – R408.0 0.9 - - - Yes

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E1 - 18

TABLE E-1

TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES, STAGING AREAS, AND WATER APPROPRIATION SITES FOR THE RUBY 

PIPELINE PROJECT

Workspace 

Type MP Range Size(acres)

Wetland 

Acreage 

Within Extra 

Workspacesa,c

Wetland 

Acreage Within 

50 feet of Extra 

Workspacesb,c

Workspace 

Justification/Notes

Conditionally 

Approved for 

Usec

SA R408.0 – R408.0 0.9 - - - Yes

SA R408.6 - R408.6 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 410.8 - R410.9 0.49 - - - No

EWS 410.8 - R410.9 0.49 - - - No

EWS 411.2 - 411.3 0.77 - - - No

EWS 411.2 - 411.3 0.77 - - - No

EWS 412.9 – 413.0 0.39 - - - Yes

EWS 412.9 – 413.0 0.39 - - - Yes

WAS 414.2 - 414.2 0.9 - - Located within 

Staging Area

Yes

SA 414.2 - 414.2 1.0 - - - Yes

SA 414.2 - 414.2 1.0 - - - Yes

EWS 416.2 – 420.0 18.50 - - - No

EWS 416.2 – 420.0 18.52 - - - No

SA 416.2 - 416.2 1.1 - - - Yes

SA 420.1 - 420.1 1.1 - - - Yes

EWS 421.1 - 421.2 0.54 - - - No

EWS 421.1 - 421.2 0.54 - - - No

EWS 421.6 - 421.7 0.39 - - - Yes

EWS 421.6 - 421.7 0.39 - - - Yes

WAS 422.7 - 422.7 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 424.2 - 424.2 0.25 - - - Yes

EWS 424.2 - 424.2 0.25 - - - Yes

EWS 425.1 - 425.1 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 425.1 - 425.1 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 428.8 - 428.9 0.49 - - - No

EWS 428.8 - 428.9 0.49 - - - No

WAS 430.7 - 430.7 0.9 - - - Yes

WAS 430.7 - 430.7 0.9 - - - Yes

SA 430.7 - 430.7 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 432.3 - 432.3 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 432.3 - 432.3 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 435.3 - 435.3 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 435.3 - 435.3 0.09 - - - Yes

SA 437.9 - 437.9 4.8 - - - Yes

EWS 438.6 - 438.9 1.36 - - - No

EWS 438.6 - 438.9 1.12 - - - No

SA 438.7 - 438.7 10.0 - - - Yes

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E1 - 19

TABLE E-1

TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES, STAGING AREAS, AND WATER APPROPRIATION SITES FOR THE RUBY 

PIPELINE PROJECT

Workspace 

Type MP Range Size(acres)

Wetland 

Acreage 

Within Extra 

Workspacesa,c

Wetland 

Acreage Within 

50 feet of Extra 

Workspacesb,c

Workspace 

Justification/Notes

Conditionally 

Approved for 

Usec

SA 438.8 - 438.8 4.1 - - - Yes

WAS 441.3 - 441.3 0.9 - - Located within 

Staging Area

Yes

SA 441.3 - 441.3 1.0 - - - Yes

EWS 442.5 – 445.0 12.21 - - - No

EWS 442.5 – 445.0 12.21 - - - No

EWS 446.2 - 446.2 0.28 - - - Yes

EWS 446.2 - 446.2 0.28 - - - Yes

EWS 447.9 - 447.9 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 447.9 - 447.9 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 449.8 - 449.8 0.30 - - - Yes

EWS 449.8 - 449.8 0.30 - - - Yes

EWS 451.3 - 451.3 0.37 - - - Yes

EWS 451.3 - 451.3 0.37 - - - Yes

EWS 452.3 - 452.4 0.42 - - - Yes

EWS 452.3 - 452.4 0.42 - - - Yes

WAS 452.8 - 452.8 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 454.2 - 454.2 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 454.2 - 454.2 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 455.9 – 456.0 0.57 - - - No

EWS 455.9 – 456.0 0.57 - - - No

EWS 458.1 - 458.2 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 458.1 - 458.2 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 460.2 - 460.3 0.33 - - - Yes

EWS 460.2 - 460.3 0.33 - - - Yes

EWS R463.0 - R463.1 0.45 - - - Yes

EWS R463.0 - R463.1 0.45 - - - Yes

EWS R465.3 - R465.4 0.42 - - - Yes

EWS R465.3 - R465.4 0.44 - - - Yes

WAS R465.3 - R465.3 0.9 - - Located within 

Staging Area

Yes

SA R465.3 - R465.3 1.2 0.2 <0.1 - Yes

EWS 467.3 - 467.4 0.33 - - - Yes

EWS 467.3 - 467.4 0.33 - - - Yes

EWS 469.8 - 469.9 0.43 - - - Yes

EWS 469.8 - 469.9 0.44 - - - Yes

EWS 470.0 - 470.2 1.02 - - - No

EWS 470.0 - 470.2 1.02 - - - No

EWS 473.2 - 473.2 0.09 - - - Yes

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E1 - 20

TABLE E-1

TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES, STAGING AREAS, AND WATER APPROPRIATION SITES FOR THE RUBY 

PIPELINE PROJECT

Workspace 

Type MP Range Size(acres)

Wetland 

Acreage 

Within Extra 

Workspacesa,c

Wetland 

Acreage Within 

50 feet of Extra 

Workspacesb,c

Workspace 

Justification/Notes

Conditionally 

Approved for 

Usec

EWS 473.2 - 473.2 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 476.2 - 476.3 0.25 - - - Yes

EWS 476.2 - 476.3 0.30 - - - Yes

WAS 476.4 - 476.4 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 479.0 - 479.2 1.13 - - - No

EWS 479.0 - 479.2 1.01 - - - No

EWS 480.6 - 480.6 0.25 - - - Yes

EWS 480.6 - 480.6 0.28 - - - Yes

WAS 481.2 - 481.2 0.9 - - Located within 

Staging Area

Yes

SA 481.2 - 481.2 0.5 - - - Yes

EWS 482.9 – 483.0 0.51 - - - No

EWS 482.9 – 483.0 0.51 - - - No

EWS 484.7 - 487.5 13.54 - - - No

EWS 484.7 - 487.5 13.65 - - - No

EWS 487.6 - 487.7 0.16 - - - Yes

EWS 487.6 - 487.7 0.16 - - - Yes

EWS 487.8 – 488.0 1.12 - - - No

EWS 487.8 – 488.0 1.14 - - - No

SA 488.0 – 488.0 0.3 - - - Yes

SA 488.5 - 488.5 1.1 - - - Yes

WAS 488.6 - 488.6 0.9 - - Located within 

Staging Area

Yes

EWS 489.5 - 489.5 0.19 - <0.1 - No

EWS 489.5 - 489.5 0.14 - - - Yes

EWS 490.1 - 490.2 0.26 - - - Yes

EWS 490.1 - 490.2 0.26 - - - Yes

EWS 491.2 - 491.2 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 491.2 - 491.2 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 493.1 - 493.2 0.55 - - - No

EWS 493.1 - 493.2 0.55 - - - No

EWS 495.3 - 495.3 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 495.3 - 495.3 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 495.6 - 495.6 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 495.6 - 495.6 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 497.4 - 497.5 0.18 - - - Yes

EWS 497.4 - 497.5 0.18 - - - Yes

EWS 497.6 - 497.6 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 497.6 - 497.6 0.09 - - - Yes

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E1 - 21

TABLE E-1

TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES, STAGING AREAS, AND WATER APPROPRIATION SITES FOR THE RUBY 

PIPELINE PROJECT

Workspace 

Type MP Range Size(acres)

Wetland 

Acreage 

Within Extra 

Workspacesa,c

Wetland 

Acreage Within 

50 feet of Extra 

Workspacesb,c

Workspace 

Justification/Notes

Conditionally 

Approved for 

Usec

EWS 497.7 - 497.7 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 497.7 - 497.7 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 499.5 - 499.5 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 499.5 - 499.5 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 500.5 - 501.4 4.50 - - - No

EWS 500.5 - 501.4 4.46 - - - No

EWS 501.7 - 501.8 0.39 - - - Yes

EWS 501.7 - 501.8 0.39 - - - Yes

WAS 502.4 - 502.4 0.9 - - Located within 

Staging Area

Yes

WAS 502.4 - 502.4 0.9 - - Located within 

Staging Area

Yes

SA 502.4 - 502.4 1.0 - - - Yes

EWS 502.5 - 502.6 0.89 - - - No

EWS 502.5 - 502.6 0.90 - - - No

SA 502.5 - 502.5 0.4 - - - Yes

EWS 503.0 - 503.1 0.39 - - - Yes

EWS 503.0 - 503.1 0.39 - - - Yes

EWS 504.2 - 504.4 0.55 - - - No

EWS 504.2 - 504.4 0.55 - - - No

EWS 505.3 - 505.7 2.01 - - - No

EWS 505.3 - 505.7 1.90 - - - No

EWS 506.0 - 509.4 16.60 - - - No

EWS 506.0 - 509.4 16.64 - - - No

SA 506.0 – 506.0 1.1 - - - Yes

EWS 509.8 - 509.9 0.57 - - - No

EWS 509.8 - 509.9 0.57 - - - No

WAS 509.8 - 509.8 0.9 - - Located within 

Staging Area

Yes

SA 509.8 - 509.8 1.1 - - - Yes

SA 509.9 - 509.9 10.0 - - Staging Area and 

Spread Break

Yes

EWS 510.0 - 518.9 43.18 - - - No

EWS 510.0 - 518.9 43.30 <0.1 - - No

SA 517.5 - 517.5 1.1 - - - Yes

SA 518.8 - 518.8 1.1 - - - Yes

EWS 519.8 - 519.8 0.30 - - - Yes

EWS 519.8 - 519.8 0.30 - - - Yes

EWS 520.1 - 522.8 13.28 - - - No

EWS 520.1 - 522.8 13.30 - - - No

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E1 - 22

TABLE E-1

TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES, STAGING AREAS, AND WATER APPROPRIATION SITES FOR THE RUBY 

PIPELINE PROJECT

Workspace 

Type MP Range Size(acres)

Wetland 

Acreage 

Within Extra 

Workspacesa,c

Wetland 

Acreage Within 

50 feet of Extra 

Workspacesb,c

Workspace 

Justification/Notes

Conditionally 

Approved for 

Usec

EWS 523.1 - 523.3 1.03 - - - No

EWS 523.1 - 523.3 1.03 - - - No

EWS 524.1 - 524.2 0.41 - - - Yes

EWS 524.1 - 524.2 0.42 - - - Yes

EWS 525.0 - 525.3 1.81 - - - No

EWS 525.0 - 525.3 1.83 - - - No

WAS 525.2 - 525.2 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 526.1 - 526.4 1.69 - - - No

EWS 526.1 - 526.4 1.65 - - - No

EWS 526.7 - 527.2 2.39 - - - No

EWS 526.7 - 527.2 2.40 - - - No

EWS 527.5 - 527.7 1.08 - - - No

EWS 527.5 - 527.7 1.08 - - - No

SA 528.2 - 528.2 1.1 - - - Yes

EWS 528.3 - 530.9 12.51 - - - No

EWS 528.3 - 530.9 12.47 - - - No

EWS 531.3 - 532.5 5.75 - - - No

EWS 531.3 - 532.5 5.77 - - - No

SA 532.5 - 532.5 1.1 - - - Yes

EWS 533.0 - 533.2 0.96 - - - No

EWS 533.0 - 533.2 0.90 - - - No

EWS 534.4 - 534.6 1.27 - - - No

EWS 534.4 - 534.6 1.28 - - - No

EWS 534.9 - 535.1 1.12 0.2 - - No

EWS 534.9 - 535.1 1.11 0.2 - - No

WAS 535.0 – 535.0 0.9 - - Located within Extra 

Work Space area

Yes

EWS 535.9 - 536.5 2.83 - - - No

EWS 535.9 - 536.5 2.80 - - - No

EWS 536.8 - 537.4 2.91 - - - No

EWS 536.8 - 537.4 2.90 - - - No

EWS R538.0 - R538.1 0.40 - - - Yes

EWS R538.0 - R538.1 0.40 - - - Yes

EWS R538.3 - R538.4 0.45 - - - Yes

EWS R538.3 - R538.4 0.45 - - - Yes

EWS R538.5 - R538.9 1.95 - - - No

EWS R538.5 - R538.9 1.92 - - - No

EWS 539.6 - 539.6 0.39 - - - Yes

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E1 - 23

TABLE E-1

TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES, STAGING AREAS, AND WATER APPROPRIATION SITES FOR THE RUBY 

PIPELINE PROJECT

Workspace 

Type MP Range Size(acres)

Wetland 

Acreage 

Within Extra 

Workspacesa,c

Wetland 

Acreage Within 

50 feet of Extra 

Workspacesb,c

Workspace 

Justification/Notes

Conditionally 

Approved for 

Usec

EWS 539.6 - 539.6 0.39 - - - Yes

EWS 539.8 - 541.1 6.89 - - - No

EWS 539.8 - 541.1 6.87 - - - No

EWS 542.0 - 543.1 5.44 - - - No

EWS 542.0 - 543.1 5.45 - - - No

SA 542.6 - 542.6 1.1 - - - Yes

EWS 543.3 - 544.2 4.49 - - - No

EWS 543.3 - 544.2 4.49 - - - No

EWS 544.7 – 546.0 6.40 - - - No

EWS 544.7 – 546.0 6.41 - - - No

WAS 545.6 - 545.6 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 546.7 - 546.9 0.59 - - - No

EWS 546.7 - 546.9 0.59 - - - No

EWS 547.6 - 547.8 1.27 - - - No

EWS 547.6 - 547.8 1.28 - - - No

EWS 548.7 - 548.9 1.16 - - - No

EWS 548.7 - 548.9 1.16 - - - No

EWS 549.9 – 550.0 0.45 - - - Yes

EWS 549.9 – 550.0 0.45 - - - Yes

SA 549.9 - 549.9 10.0 - - Staging Area and 

Spread Break

Yes

EWS 550.5 - 550.6 0.50 - - - No

EWS 550.5 - 550.6 0.50 - - - No

EWS 551.2 - 551.3 0.53 - - - No

EWS 551.2 - 551.3 0.53 - - - No

EWS 553.5 - 553.6 0.43 - - - Yes

EWS 553.5 - 553.6 0.44 - - - Yes

EWS 555.7 - 555.7 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 555.7 - 555.7 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 557.6 - 557.8 0.81 - - - No

EWS 557.6 - 557.8 0.61 - - - No

WAS 559.4 - 559.4 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 559.6 - 559.7 0.46 - - - No

EWS 559.6 - 559.7 0.46 - - - No

WAS 559.6 - 559.6 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 561.9 – 562.0 0.43 - - - Yes

EWS 561.9 – 562.0 0.43 - - - Yes

WAS 562.9 - 562.9 0.9 - - Located within 

Staging Area

Yes

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E1 - 24

TABLE E-1

TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES, STAGING AREAS, AND WATER APPROPRIATION SITES FOR THE RUBY 

PIPELINE PROJECT

Workspace 

Type MP Range Size(acres)

Wetland 

Acreage 

Within Extra 

Workspacesa,c

Wetland 

Acreage Within 

50 feet of Extra 

Workspacesb,c

Workspace 

Justification/Notes

Conditionally 

Approved for 

Usec

WAS 562.9 - 562.9 0.9 - - Located within 

Staging Area

Yes

SA 562.9 - 562.9 0.9 - - - Yes

SA 563.4 - 563.4 0.9 - - - Yes

SA 563.8 - 563.8 8.5 - - - Yes

EWS 564.1 - 564.2 0.46 - - - No

EWS 564.1 - 564.2 0.46 - - - No

SA 564.9 - 564.9 0.9 - - - Yes

WAS 565.2 - 565.2 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 566.1 - 566.1 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 566.1 - 566.1 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 568.3 - 568.3 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 568.3 - 568.3 0.09 - - - Yes

SA 570.6 - 570.6 1.2 - - - Yes

WAS 570.7 - 570.7 0.9 - - Located within 

Staging Area

Yes

EWS 571.4 - 571.4 0.12 - <0.1 - No

EWS 571.4 - 571.4 0.27 - <0.1 - No

EWS 571.4 - 571.5 0.28 - <0.1 - No

EWS 571.5 - 571.5 0.15 - - - Yes

EWS 572.4 - 573.5 5.04 - - - No

EWS 572.4 - 573.5 5.06 - - - No

WAS 572.5 - 572.5 0.9 - - Located within 

Staging Area

Yes

SA 572.5 - 572.5 1.1 - - - Yes

SA 574.0 – 574.0 1.1 0.1 <0.1 - Yes

EWS 574.1 - 575.4 6.44 - - - No

EWS 574.1 - 575.4 6.47 - - - No

EWS 575.8 - 576.3 2.56 - - - No

EWS 575.8 - 576.3 2.59 - - - No

EWS 578.9 - 578.9 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 578.9 - 578.9 0.09 - - - Yes

EWS 579.6 - 579.7 0.56 - - - No

EWS 579.6 - 579.7 0.56 - - - No

EWS 581.8 - 581.9 0.42 - - - Yes

EWS 581.8 - 581.9 0.42 - - - Yes

WAS 581.9 - 581.9 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 585.0 – 585.0 0.18 - - - Yes

EWS 585.0 – 585.0 0.18 - - - Yes

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E1 - 25

TABLE E-1

TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES, STAGING AREAS, AND WATER APPROPRIATION SITES FOR THE RUBY 

PIPELINE PROJECT

Workspace 

Type MP Range Size(acres)

Wetland 

Acreage 

Within Extra 

Workspacesa,c

Wetland 

Acreage Within 

50 feet of Extra 

Workspacesb,c

Workspace 

Justification/Notes

Conditionally 

Approved for 

Usec

SA 586.9 - 586.9 6.5 - - - Yes

EWS 588.0 - 588.2 1.08 - - - No

EWS 588.0 - 588.2 1.03 - - - No

SA 588.1 - 588.1 2.1 - - - Yes

EWS 588.2 - 588.6 1.76 - - - No

EWS 588.2 - 588.6 1.90 - - - No

SA 588.5 - 588.5 2.1 - - - Yes

SA 588.5 - 588.5 2.1 - - - Yes

EWS 589.1 - 589.6 2.57 - - - No

EWS 589.1 - 589.6 2.64 - - - No

EWS 590.2 - 590.7 2.77 - - - No

EWS 590.2 - 590.7 2.77 - - - No

EWS 590.9 - 590.9 0.41 - - - Yes

EWS 590.9 - 590.9 0.41 - - - Yes

WAS 592.3 - 592.3 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 592.8 - 593.2 2.22 - - - No

EWS 592.8 - 593.2 2.25 - - - No

EWS 594.1 - 594.4 1.52 - - - No

EWS 594.1 - 594.4 1.56 - - - No

EWS 595.7 - 595.8 0.43 - - - Yes

EWS 595.7 - 595.8 0.43 - - - Yes

EWS 596.0 - 596.1 0.72 0.2 - - No

EWS 596.0 - 596.1 0.71 0.2 - - No

EWS 596.3 - 597.2 4.40 - - - No

EWS 596.3 - 597.2 4.33 - - - No

EWS 598.0 - 598.4 1.91 - - - No

EWS 598.0 - 598.4 1.99 - - - No

EWS 599.3 - 599.6 1.64 - - - No

EWS 599.3 - 599.6 1.60 - <0.1 - No

EWS 599.6 - 601.7 10.18 - <0.1 - No

EWS 599.6 - 601.8 10.30 - - - No

SA 601.7 - 601.7 1.2 - - - Yes

EWS 601.8 - 603.1 6.11 0.3 - - No

EWS 601.8 - 603.1 6.19 0.3 - - No

SA 602.5 - 602.5 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS R603.1 - R603.8 3.33 - - - No

EWS R603.1 - R603.8 3.06 <0.1 <0.1 - No

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E1 - 26

TABLE E-1

TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES, STAGING AREAS, AND WATER APPROPRIATION SITES FOR THE RUBY 

PIPELINE PROJECT

Workspace 

Type MP Range Size(acres)

Wetland 

Acreage 

Within Extra 

Workspacesa,c

Wetland 

Acreage Within 

50 feet of Extra 

Workspacesb,c

Workspace 

Justification/Notes

Conditionally 

Approved for 

Usec

SA R603.3 - R603.3 0.9 - - - Yes

SA R603.5 - R603.5 1.2 - - - Yes

EWS R603.8 - R604.1 1.26 - <0.1 - No

EWS R603.8 - R604.1 1.34 - - - No

SA R604.1 - R604.1 0.9 - - - Yes

SA 604.9 - 604.9 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 605.0 - 605.3 1.11 - <0.1 - No

EWS 605.0 - 605.9 3.77 - - - No

EWS 605.4 - 605.9 2.27 - - - No

SA 605.6 - 605.6 0.9 - - - Yes

SA 606.0 – 606.0 0.9 - - - Yes

SA 606.4 - 606.4 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 606.5 - 606.9 1.85 - - - No

EWS 606.5 - 606.9 1.85 - - - No

SA 607.1 - 607.1 0.9 - - - Yes

SA 607.6 - 607.6 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 607.7 - 608.1 2.22 - <0.1 - No

EWS 607.7 - 608.2 2.37 - - - No

SA 608.0 – 608.0 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 608.3 - 609.6 6.16 - <0.1 - No

EWS 608.3 - 609.6 6.21 - <0.1 - No

SA 608.5 - 608.5 0.9 - - - Yes

SA 609.0 – 609.0 0.9 - - - Yes

SA 609.4 - 609.4 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 609.7 - 627.9 113.91 1.7 <0.1 - No

EWS 609.7 - 627.9 113.84 1.7 <0.1 - No

SA 609.9 - 609.9 0.9 - - - Yes

SA 610.0 – 610.0 1.2 - - - Yes

WAS 610.8 - 610.8 0.9 - - - Yes

SA 610.8 - 610.8 0.5 - - - Yes

SA 611.3 - 611.3 0.8 - - - Yes

SA 611.8 - 611.8 1.2 - - - Yes

SA 614.2 - 614.2 1.2 - - - Yes

WAS R615.9 - R615.9 0.9 - - - Yes

WAS R617.3 - R617.3 0.9 - - - Yes

SA R617.5 - R617.5 3.7 - - - Yes

SA 621.0 – 621.0 1.2 1.1 0.9 - Yes

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E1 - 27

TABLE E-1

TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES, STAGING AREAS, AND WATER APPROPRIATION SITES FOR THE RUBY 

PIPELINE PROJECT

Workspace 

Type MP Range Size(acres)

Wetland 

Acreage 

Within Extra 

Workspacesa,c

Wetland 

Acreage Within 

50 feet of Extra 

Workspacesb,c

Workspace 

Justification/Notes

Conditionally 

Approved for 

Usec

SA 627.0 – 627.0 3.9 2.0 0.8 - Yes

SA 627.8 - 627.8 1.2 - - - Yes

EWS 628.4 - 628.4 0.39 - - - Yes

EWS 628.4 - 628.4 0.39 - - - Yes

EWS 629.2 - 629.3 0.39 - - - Yes

EWS 629.2 - 629.3 0.39 - - - Yes

EWS 629.6 - 630.2 2.89 - - - No

EWS 629.6 - 630.2 2.82 - - - No

WAS 629.9 - 629.9 - - - Yes

EWS 630.6 - 631.5 4.12 - - - No

EWS 630.6 - 631.5 4.11 - - - No

EWS 631.7 - 631.8 0.28 - - - Yes

EWS 631.7 - 631.8 0.28 - - - Yes

EWS 632.6 - 632.7 0.65 - - - No

EWS 632.6 - 632.7 0.70 - - - No

EWS 632.8 - 632.9 0.41 - - - Yes

EWS 632.8 - 632.9 0.41 - - - Yes

EWS 634.6 - 634.8 0.82 - - - No

EWS 634.6 - 634.8 0.82 - - - No

EWS 634.8 - 636.3 7.27 - - - No

EWS 634.8 - 636.3 7.19 - - - No

SA 635.1 - 635.1 1.4 - - - Yes

SA 635.9 - 635.9 0.6 - - - Yes

SA 636.3 - 636.3 1.0 - - - Yes

SA 637.0 – 637.0 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 637.2 - 638.8 7.96 - - - No

EWS 637.2 - 638.8 7.90 - - - No

SA 637.3 - 637.3 1.2 - - - Yes

SA 637.8 - 637.8 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 638.9 - 639.4 2.14 <0.1 <0.1 - No

EWS 638.9 - 639.4 2.29 - - - No

WAS 639.3 - 639.3 0.9 - - Located within Extra 

Work Space area

Yes

EWS 639.6 – 640.0 2.24 - - - No

EWS 639.6 – 640.0 2.21 - - - No

SA 639.6 - 639.6 0.9 - - - Yes

SA 640.7 - 640.7 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 641.4 - 641.8 2.28 - - - No

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E1 - 28

TABLE E-1

TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES, STAGING AREAS, AND WATER APPROPRIATION SITES FOR THE RUBY 

PIPELINE PROJECT

Workspace 

Type MP Range Size(acres)

Wetland 

Acreage 

Within Extra 

Workspacesa,c

Wetland 

Acreage Within 

50 feet of Extra 

Workspacesb,c

Workspace 

Justification/Notes

Conditionally 

Approved for 

Usec

EWS 641.4 - 641.8 2.28 - - - No

SA 641.7 - 641.7 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS 643.1 - 643.1 0.39 - - - Yes

EWS 643.1 - 643.1 0.39 - - - Yes

EWS R643.3 – R644.0 2.84 - - - No

EWS R643.3 – R644.0 2.84 - - - No

EWS R644.3 - R644.4 0.50 - - - No

EWS R644.3 - R644.4 0.50 - - - No

SA R644.3 - R644.3 1.7 - - - Yes

SA R644.6 - R644.6 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS R644.9 - R645.0 0.67 - - - No

EWS R644.9 - R645.0 0.67 - - - No

EWS R645.2 - R645.3 0.41 - - - Yes

EWS R645.2 - R645.3 0.41 - - - Yes

SA R645.3 - R645.3 0.5 - - - Yes

SA R645.3 - R645.3 0.7 - - - Yes

EWS R645.5 - R645.5 0.16 - - - Yes

EWS R645.5 -R 645.5 0.16 - - - Yes

EWS R645.6 - R645.7 0.22 - <0.1 - No

EWS R645.6 - R645.7 0.22 - - - Yes

EWS R646.0 - R646.1 0.34 - - - Yes

EWS R646.0 - R646.1 0.34 - - - Yes

SA R646.2 - R646.2 0.9 0.1 <0.1 - Yes

EWS R646.4 - R646.6 0.65 - - - No

EWS R646.4 - R646.6 0.65 - - - No

EWS R646.6 - R646.7 0.29 - - - Yes

EWS R646.6 - R646.7 0.29 - - - Yes

SA R646.6 - R646.6 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS R646.8 - R646.9 0.45 - - - Yes

EWS R646.8 - R646.9 0.45 - - - Yes

EWS R647.0 - R647.2 0.80 - - - No

EWS R647.0 – R647.2 0.80 - - - No

SA R647.3 - R647.3 0.8 - - - Yes

EWS R647.5 - R647.6 0.36 - - - Yes

EWS R647.5 - R647.6 0.39 - - - Yes

SA R648.0 - R648.0 0.9 - - - Yes

SA R648.3 - R648.3 0.9 - - - Yes

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E1 - 29

TABLE E-1

TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES, STAGING AREAS, AND WATER APPROPRIATION SITES FOR THE RUBY 

PIPELINE PROJECT

Workspace 

Type MP Range Size(acres)

Wetland 

Acreage 

Within Extra 

Workspacesa,c

Wetland 

Acreage Within 

50 feet of Extra 

Workspacesb,c

Workspace 

Justification/Notes

Conditionally 

Approved for 

Usec

SA R648.9 - R648.9 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS R649.3 - R649.5 0.69 - - - No

EWS R649.3 - R649.5 0.70 - - - No

SA R649.6 - R649.6 0.9 - - - Yes

SA R649.7 - R649.7 0.8 - - - Yes

EWS R650.1 - R650.3 0.61 - - - No

EWS R650.2 - R650.3 0.61 - - - No

SA R650.4 - R650.4 1.0 - - - Yes

EWS R650.7 - R650.7 0.06 - <0.1 - No

EWS R650.7 - R650.7 0.11 - - - Yes

EWS R651.0 - R651.1 0.25 - - - Yes

EWS R651.0 - R651.1 0.25 - - - Yes

EWS R651.8 - R651.9 0.21 - <0.1 - No

EWS R651.8 - R651.9 0.25 - - - Yes

EWS R651.9 - R652.0 0.52 - - - No

EWS R651.9 - R652.0 0.54 - - - No

SA R651.9 - R651.9 0.5 - - - Yes

SA R652.2 - R652.2 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS R652.3 - R652.4 0.26 - - - Yes

EWS R652.3 - R652.4 0.28 - - - Yes

SA R652.4 - R652.4 0.9 - - - Yes

SA R652.5 - R652.5 1.5 - - - Yes

SA R652.9 - R652.9 0.7 - - - Yes

WAS R653.4 - R653.4 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS R653.5 - R653.6 0.51 - - - No

EWS R653.5 - R653.6 0.55 <0.1 - - No

SA R653.9 - R653.9 1.0 - - - Yes

EWS R654.0 - R654.0 0.29 - - - Yes

EWS R654.0 - R654.0 0.30 - - - Yes

SA R654.0 - R654.0 1.0 - - - Yes

EWS R655.3 - R655.3 0.11 - - - Yes

EWS R655.3 - R655.3 0.11 - - - Yes

SA R655.3 - R655.3 0.9 - - - Yes

SA R656.3 - R656.3 1.4 - - - Yes

SA R657.3 - R657.3 1.4 - - - Yes

SA R658.4 - R658.4 1.4 - - - Yes

EWS R658.9 - R659.0 0.32 - - - Yes

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E1 - 30

TABLE E-1

TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES, STAGING AREAS, AND WATER APPROPRIATION SITES FOR THE RUBY 

PIPELINE PROJECT

Workspace 

Type MP Range Size(acres)

Wetland 

Acreage 

Within Extra 

Workspacesa,c

Wetland 

Acreage Within 

50 feet of Extra 

Workspacesb,c

Workspace 

Justification/Notes

Conditionally 

Approved for 

Usec

EWS R658.9 - R659.0 0.31 - - - Yes

EWS R659.0 - R659.1 0.42 - - - Yes

EWS R659.0 - R659.1 0.41 - <0.1 - No

EWS R659.1 - R659.2 0.28 - - - Yes

EWS R659.1 - R659.2 0.11 - - - Yes

EWS R659.3 - R659.4 0.47 - - - No

EWS R659.3 - R659.4 0.47 - - - No

SA R659.4 - R659.4 0.9 - - - Yes

WAS R660.0 - R660.0 - - - Yes

SA R660.0 - R660.0 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS R660.4 - R660.5 0.52 - - - No

EWS R660.4 - R660.5 0.52 - - - No

SA R661.0 - R661.0 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS R661.2 - R661.8 2.96 - - - No

EWS R661.2 - R661.8 2.91 - - - No

SA R662.3 - R662.3 0.9 - - - Yes

SA R662.3 - R662.3 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS R662.8 - R662.9 0.51 - - - No

EWS R662.8 - R662.9 0.51 - - - No

SA R664.4 - R664.4 0.9 - - - Yes

SA R664.5 - R664.5 1.4 - - - Yes

EWS R664.8 – R667.0 11.15 - - - No

EWS R664.8 - R667.0 11.11 - - - No

WAS R665.1 - R665.1 0.9 - - - Yes

SA R665.6 - R665.6 1.4 - - - Yes

SA R666.8 - R666.8 1.1 - - - Yes

SA R666.8 - R666.8 1.1 - - - Yes

SA R667.0 - R667.0 1.2 - - - Yes

EWS R667.2 - R667.5 1.68 - - - No

EWS R667.2 - R667.5 1.68 - - - No

EWS R667.6 - R668.0 1.94 - - - No

EWS R667.6 - R668.0 1.94 - - - No

SA R667.6 - R667.6 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS R668.1 - R668.6 2.16 - - - No

EWS R668.1 - R668.6 2.16 - - - No

EWS R668.7 - R669.1 1.84 - - - No

EWS R668.7 - R669.1 1.84 - - - No

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E1 - 31

TABLE E-1

TEMPORARY EXTRA WORKSPACES, STAGING AREAS, AND WATER APPROPRIATION SITES FOR THE RUBY 

PIPELINE PROJECT

Workspace 

Type MP Range Size(acres)

Wetland 

Acreage 

Within Extra 

Workspacesa,c

Wetland 

Acreage Within 

50 feet of Extra 

Workspacesb,c

Workspace 

Justification/Notes

Conditionally 

Approved for 

Usec

SA R669.4 - R669.4 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS R669.8 - R669.9 0.71 - - - No

EWS R669.8 - R669.9 0.82 - - - No

EWS R670.0 - R670.5 2.31 - - - No

EWS R670.0 - R670.5 2.22 - - - No

SA R670.8 - R670.8 0.9 - - - Yes

SA R670.8 - R670.8 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS R671.4 - R671.7 1.43 - - - No

EWS R671.4 - R671.7 1.45 - - - No

EWS R671.7 - R671.8 0.20 - - - Yes

EWS R671.7 - R671.8 0.25 - - - Yes

WAS R671.7 - R671.7 0.9 - - - Yes

SA R671.7 - R671.7 0.9 - - - Yes

EWS R671.9 - R671.9 0.12 - - - Yes

EWS R671.9 - R672.0 0.12 - - - Yes

EWS R672.2 - R672.2 0.22 - - - Yes

EWS R672.2 - R672.2 0.22 - - - Yes

a Acreage based on a 75-foot construction right-of-way through wetland areas. A 120-foot temporary extra workspace 

will be used in wetland areas. 

b Acreage calculated for wetlands or the portion of wetlands outside of the 195-foot temporary workspace.

c Any workspace or staging area that falls within 50 feet of a wetland or waterbody, or falls within a playa, woody 

riparian area, or area of identified cryptobiotic soil crust, would not be approved for use.

EWS = Extra Workspace (Multiple entries for a MP range indicate a 40-foot-wide EWS proposed on each side of the pipeline

centerline)

SA = Staging Area

WAS = Water Appropriation Site

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E2-1

TABLE E-2

Contractor and Pipe Yards for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Yard Use County State Township/Section/Range Temporary Surface Disturbance 

Attributed to Facility (acres)

Pipeline Construction

Contractor Yard Uinta WY S30, T16N, R120W 32.2

Pipe Yard Lincoln WY S8/S7, T21N, R119W 29.9

Pipe Yard Lincoln WY S7/S8, T20N, R116W 2.4

Pipe Yard Lincoln WY S7/S8, T20N, R116W 75.8

Pipe Yard Box Elder UT S26, T10N, R4W 56.4

Contractor Yard Box Elder UT S24, T10N, R3W 36.3

Contractor Yard Cache UT S26, T10N, R1E 23.2

Pipe Yard Elko NV S29, T41N, R64E 42.0

Pipe Yard Elko NV S11, T37N, R62E 55.8

Contractor Yard Elko NV S11, T37N, R62E 39.3

Contractor Yard Elko NV S8, T34N, R55E 34.4

Pipe Yard Elko NV S14, T33N, R52E 82.9

Pipe Yard Elko NV S1, T38N, R52E 50.5

Pipe Yard Humboldt NV S17, T37N, R42E 15.6

Contractor/Pipe Yard Humboldt NV S9/S10, T37N, R38E 52.7

Contractor/Pipe Yard Humboldt NV S21/S22, T36N, R38E 78.6

Pipe Yard Humboldt NV S26/S27, T41N, R35E 35.8

Pipe Yard Humboldt NV S14, T42N, R31E 27.9

Pipe Yard Washoe NV S3, T42N, R21E /

S34, T43N, R21E 30.0

Construction Camp Washoe NV S10, T42N, R19E 160.8

Pipe Yard Lake OR S10, T39S, R20E 20.2

Pipe Yard Lake OR S21/S22, T39S, R20E 35.5

Lakeview Temporary Housing Lake OR S16, T39S, R20E 12.1

Contractor Yard Klamath OR S7, T40S, R14E 15.4

Pipe Yard Klamath OR S12, T41S, R10E 12.9

Total Acreage 1,058.6

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E3-1

TABLE E-3

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/ County/ 

Access Road 

Number

Road Name

Existing 

Width 

(feet)

Existing 

Surface

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement

WYOMING

LINCOLN COUNTY

LW-1 King Compressor Road 24 Gravel 0.32 Gravel Grade

LW-1A Unnamed 8 Dirt 2.46 2-Track Grade

LW-1B Unnamed 0 Dirt 0.08 2-Track Grade, Widen

LW-3 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.50 2-Track Grade, Widen

LW-4 Unnamed 8 Dirt 2.42 2-Track Grade, Widen

LW-5 Unnamed 0 Dirt 0.16 2-Track Grade, Widen

LW-6 Unnamed 0 Gravel 6.54 Good Grade

LW-6A Unnamed 8 Dirt 9.25 2-Track Grade, Widen

LW-6B Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.09 2-Track Grade, Widen

LW-6C Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.04 2-Track Grade, Widen

LW-7 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.24 2-Track Grade, Widen

LW-8 Unnamed 8 Dirt 2.34 2-Track Grade, Widen

LW-9 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.14 2-Track Grade, Widen

LW-10 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.14 2-Track Grade, Widen

LW-10A Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.10 2-Track Grade, Widen

LW-11 Unnamed 10 Dirt 1.67 2-Track Grade, Widen

LW-12 Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.72 2-Track Grade, Widen

LW-13 Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.69 2-Track Grade, Widen

LW-14A Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.08 2-Track Grade, Widen

LW-14B Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.00 2-Track Grade, Widen

LW-15 Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.05 2-Track Grade, Widen

LW-16 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.95 2-Track Grade, Widen

LW-17 Unnamed 8 Dirt 2.83 2-Track Grade, Widen

LW-18 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.40 2-Track Grade, Widen

LW-19 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.81 2-Track Grade, Widen

LW-20 Unnamed 8 Dirt 2.92 2-Track Grade, Widen

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E3-2

TABLE E-3

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/ County/ 

Access Road 

Number

Road Name

Existing 

Width 

(feet)

Existing 

Surface

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement

LW-21 Unnamed 20 Gravel 6.48 Good Grade

LW-21A Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.04 2-Track Grade, Widen

LW-21B Unnamed 0 Dirt 0.02 Potential Blade Grade, Widen

LW-22 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.93 2-Track Grade, Widen

LW-23 Unnamed 8 Dirt 2.82 2-Track Grade, Widen

LW-24 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.35 2-Track Grade, Widen

LW-26 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.29 2-Track Grade, Widen

LW-28 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.34 2-Track Grade, Widen

LW-29 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.48 2-Track Grade, Widen

LW-30 Unnamed 24 Asphalt 0.19 Paved Potential Blade

LW-40 0.07 Assume New

UINTA COUNTY

U-1 Unnamed 24 Asphalt 4.89 Paved Potential Blade

U-2 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.10 2-Track Grade, Widen

U-3 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.89 2-Track Grade, Widen

U-4 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.74 2-Track Grade, Widen

U-5 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.05 2-Track Grade, Widen

U-5A Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.02 2-Track Grade, Widen

U-5B Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.82 2-Track Grade, Widen

U-6 Unnamed 16 Gravel/Dirt 12.74 Good and Mostly 2- Grade, Widen

U-7 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.33 2-Track Grade, Widen

U-8 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.55 2-Track Grade, Widen

U-10 Unnamed 8 Dirt 2.51 2-Track Grade, Widen

U-11 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.63 2-Track Grade, Widen

U-12 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.35 2-Track Grade, Widen

U-13 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.58 2-Track Grade, Widen

U-14 Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.05 2-Track Grade, Widen

U-15 Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.70 2-Track Grade, Widen

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E3-3

TABLE E-3

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/ County/ 

Access Road 

Number

Road Name

Existing 

Width 

(feet)

Existing 

Surface

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement

U-16 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.81 2-Track Grade, Widen

U-16A Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.99 2-Track Grade, Widen

U-18 Unnamed 24 Gravel 14.67 Good Potential Blade

U-18A Unnamed 24 Gravel 8.83 Good Potential Blade

U-19 Unnamed 16 Gravel/Dirt 6.66 Good and Partly 2-

Track Grade, Widen

U-20 Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.68 2-Track Grade, Widen

U-21 Unnamed 20 Gravel 1.60 Good Grade

U-21A Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.05 2-Track Grade, Widen

U-21B Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.03 2-Track Grade, Widen

U-23 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.19 2-Track Grade, Widen

U-24 Unnamed 10 Dirt 7.00 2-Track Grade, Widen

U-25 Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.82 2-Track Grade, Widen

U-26 Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.15 2-Track Grade, Widen

U-27 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.60 2-Track Grade, Widen

U-28 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.68 2-Track Grade, Widen

U-30 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.31 2-Track Grade, Widen

U-31 Unnamed 8 Dirt 3.45 2-Track Grade, Widen

U-31A Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.16 2-Track Grade, Widen

U-31B U-31B 0.12 Assume New

UTAH

RICH COUNTY

R-1 Unnamed 16 Gravel 0.84 Good Grade

R-1A Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.76 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-2 Unnamed 16 Gravel/Dirt 2.74 Good and Partly 2-

Track Grade, Widen

R-3 Unnamed 0 Dirt 0.21 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-5A Unnamed 8 Gravel 1.53 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-5B Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.08 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-5C Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.11 2-Track Grade, Widen

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E3-4

TABLE E-3

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/ County/ 

Access Road 

Number

Road Name

Existing 

Width 

(feet)

Existing 

Surface

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement

R-5D Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.07 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-5E Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.02 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-5F Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.58 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-7A 100 East County Road 0 Gravel 0.67 Good Potential Blade

R-7B Schulthess Lane 20 Gravel 0.51 Good Potential Blade

R-7C Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.09 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-8 Unnamed 8 Dirt 7.37 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-8A Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.15 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-8B Unnamed 16 Gravel 1.93 Good Grade, Widen

R-8C Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.15 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-8D Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.08 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-8E Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.06 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-8F Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.06 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-8G Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.09 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-8H Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.04 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-8I Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.02 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-8J Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.22 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-9 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.17 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-10 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.31 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-11 Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.51 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-12 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.35 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-12A Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.46 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-12B Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.25 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-12C Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.09 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-13 Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.36 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-13A Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.03 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-14 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.09 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-15 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.42 2-Track Grade, Widen

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E3-5

TABLE E-3

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/ County/ 

Access Road 

Number

Road Name

Existing 

Width 

(feet)

Existing 

Surface

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement

R-16 Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.62 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-17 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.56 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-18 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.21 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-19 Unnamed 16 Gravel 2.35 Good Grade

R-19A Unnamed 10 Dirt 3.82 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-20 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.82 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-21 Unnamed 8 Dirt 4.97 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-22 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.18 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-23 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.15 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-24 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.90 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-25 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.53 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-26 Unnamed 8 Dirt 2.36 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-26A Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.90 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-27 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.18 2-Track Grade, Widen

R-27A Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.07 2-Track Grade, Widen

CACHE COUNTY

C-1 Unnamed 8 Dirt 7.53 2-Track Grade, Widen

C-1A Unnamed 12 Gravel 0.20 2-Track Grade, Widen

C-1B Unnamed 12 Gravel 0.15 Good Potential Blade

C-1C Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.24 2-Track Grade, Widen

C-1D Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.05 2-Track Grade, Widen

C-2 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.20 2-Track Grade, Widen

C-3 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.37 2-Track Grade, Widen

C-5 Unnamed 16 Dirt 8.98 2-Track Grade, Widen

C-6 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.60 2-Track Grade, Widen

C-7 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.96 2-Track Grade, Widen

C-8 Unnamed 16 Dirt 0.34 2-Track Grade, Widen

C-9 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.56 2-Track Grade, Widen

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E3-6

TABLE E-3

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/ County/ 

Access Road 

Number

Road Name

Existing 

Width 

(feet)

Existing 

Surface

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement

C-9A Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.06 2-Track Grade, Widen

C-10 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.03 2-Track Grade, Widen

C-11 Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.21 2-Track Grade, Widen

C-12 Miles Canyon Road 8 Gravel/Dirt 4.73 Good and Mostly 2-

Track Grade, Widen

C-12A Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.42 2-Track Grade, Widen

C-13 Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.49 2-Track Grade, Widen

C-13A Unnamed 0 Dirt 1.89 Potential Blade Grade, Widen

C-13B Unnamed 0 Dirt 0.62 Potential Blade Grade, Widen

C-14 Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.53 2-Track Grade, Widen

C-14A Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.25 2-Track Grade, Widen

C-14B LaPlata County Road 24 Asphalt/

Gravel 3.57 Good Grade

C-14C Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.03 2-Track Grade, Widen

C-15 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.59 2-Track Grade, Widen

C-15A South 1800 East 20 Gravel 0.65 Good Grade

C-16 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.74 2-Track Grade, Widen

C-16A 11200 South County 

Road 24 Asphalt 0.14 Paved Potential Blade

C-17 Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.33 2-Track Grade, Widen

C-18 Unnamed 8 Dirt 7.48 2-Track Grade, Widen

C-18A Unnamed 8 Dirt 4.15 2-Track Grade, Widen

BOX ELDER COUNTY

B-1 Unnamed 8 Dirt 2.20 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-1A Unnamed 0 Dirt 1.63 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-1B Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.59 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-1C Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.52 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-1D Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.15 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-1E Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.41 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-1F Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.60 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-1G Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.08 2-Track Grade, Widen

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E3-7

TABLE E-3

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/ County/ 

Access Road 

Number

Road Name

Existing 

Width 

(feet)

Existing 

Surface

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement

B-1H Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.10 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-1I Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.16 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-1J Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.46 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-2 Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.90 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-2A Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.42 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-2B Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.17 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-2C Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.48 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-2D Unnamed 8 Dirt 2.12 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-2E Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.16 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-2F Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.30 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-2G Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.18 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-2H Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.09 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-2I Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.10 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-2J Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.12 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-2K Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.05 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-2L Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.23 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-2M Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.36 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-2N Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.24 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-2O Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.07 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-2P Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.28 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-2R B-2R 0.06 Assume New

B-3 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.31 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-3A Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.12 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-3B Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.28 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-4

Hatch County Road

N 2800 W 20 Gravel 4.48 Good Grade

B-4A Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.28 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-4B N 3300 W County 

Road 16 Gravel 1.05 Good Grade, Widen

B-4C N 4000 W County 

Road 16 Gravel 1.20 Good Grade, Widen

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E3-8

TABLE E-3

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/ County/ 

Access Road 

Number

Road Name

Existing 

Width 

(feet)

Existing 

Surface

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement

B-4D Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.78 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-4E Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.04 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-4F N 4800 W County 

Road, aka

State

16 Gravel 0.84 Good Grade

B-4F1 N 4400 W County 

Road 10 Gravel 0.74 Good Grade, Widen

B-4G W 4300 N County 

Road 20 Gravel 0.39 Good Grade

B-4H W 4000 N County 

Road 20 Gravel 2.50 Good Grade

B-4I W 4000 N County 

Road 20 Gravel 0.59 Good Grade

B-4J Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.60 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-5A Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.42 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-5B Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.28 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-5C Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.43 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-6A N 6000 W County 

Road 20 Gravel 1.23 Good Grade

B-6B Unnamed 0 Dirt 0.22 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-6D Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.75 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-7

N 7600 W County 

Road 20 Gravel 0.77 Good Grade

B-8 Unnamed 16 Gravel 1.74 Good Grade, Widen

B-9 Unnamed 16 Gravel 1.30 Good Grade, Widen

B-9A Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.34 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-10 W Evans N County 

Road (W 680)

20 Gravel 3.65 Good Grade

B-11 Dump County Road 16 Dirt 0.42 Good Grade, Widen

B-11A Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.51 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-11B Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.13 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-12 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.49 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-12A Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.57 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-12B Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.31 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-12C Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.09 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-12D Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.07 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-13 Little Mountain Road 20 Gravel 0.73 Good Grade

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E3-9

TABLE E-3

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/ County/ 

Access Road 

Number

Road Name

Existing 

Width 

(feet)

Existing 

Surface

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement

B-14 7000 N 20 Gravel 1.65 Good Grade

B-14A N 11600 W County 

Road 20 Gravel 1.01 Good Grade

B-14B Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.03 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-15 W 8040 N County 

Road 20 Gravel 0.62 Good Grade

B-15A Unnamed 16 Gravel 1.14 Good Grade, Widen

B-15B Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.98 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-16A Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.78 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-16B Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.12 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-16C Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.05 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-16D Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.08 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-16E Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.08 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-17 Unnamed 8 Dirt 5.57 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-17A Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.11 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-18 Faust Valley Road N 24 Asphalt 10.21 Paved Potential Blade

B-18A Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.69 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-18B Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.03 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-18C Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.27 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-18D Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.14 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-19 N 18000 W County 

Road 20 Gravel 1.18 Good Grade

B-20 N 18800 W County 

Road 8 Dirt 1.52 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-20A 11600 N County Road 20 Gravel 1.11 Good Grade

B-21 Unnamed 8 Dirt 6.30 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-22 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.23 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-23 Sunset Pass County 

Road 20 Gravel 16.59 Good Grade

B-23A 7480 West Road/a.k.a. 

Salt Well 20 Gravel 15.09 Good Potential Blade

B-24 Unnamed 8 Dirt 3.14 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-24A Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.71 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-25 Unnamed 8 Dirt 4.31 2-Track Grade, Widen

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E3-10

TABLE E-3

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/ County/ 

Access Road 

Number

Road Name

Existing 

Width 

(feet)

Existing 

Surface

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement

B-26 Hansel Valley 

Rd/County Road 20 Gravel 30.34 Good Grade

B-26A Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.15 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-26B Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.11 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-27 Old Railroad Grade 

County Road 20 Gravel 10.61 Good Grade

B-27A Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.28 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-27B Unnamed 20 Gravel 0.04 Good Grade

B-27C Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.02 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-28 W 13600 N County 

Road 16 Gravel 2.37 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-28B Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.74 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-29 N 31600 W 16 Dirt 1.04 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-29A Unnamed 8 Dirt 3.70 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-29B Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.49 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-31 N Locomotive Springs 

County Road

20 Gravel 2.92 Good Grade, Widen

B-32 Deep Creek Road 8 Dirt 1.70 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-33 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.38 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-34 Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.20 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-35 Wildcat County Road 12 Dirt 1.20 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-36 Unnamed 8 Dirt 6.15 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-36A Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.14 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-37 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.77 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-38 Kelton County Road 20 Gravel 6.56 Good Grade

B-38A Baker Mountain Loop 

County Road 10 Dirt 0.99 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-38B Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.42 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-39 Emigrant Trail County 

Road 16 Gravel 27.39 Good Grade, Widen

B-39A Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.14 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-39B Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.81 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-39C Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.30 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-40 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.88 2-Track Grade, Widen

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E3-11

TABLE E-3

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/ County/ 

Access Road 

Number

Road Name

Existing 

Width 

(feet)

Existing 

Surface

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement

B-41 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.06 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-41A Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.04 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-41B Baker Mountain Loop 8 Dirt 0.04 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-41C Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.02 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-41D Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.01 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-41E Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.02 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-42 Board Ranch County 

Road #13 20 Gravel 11.82 Good Grade

B-42A Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.02 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-45A Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.04 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-45B Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.10 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-45C Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.03 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-45D Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.03 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-46 Water Cress County 

Road 16 Dirt 0.07 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-46A Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.07 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-47 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.09 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-48 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.07 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-49 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.08 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-49A Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.09 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-50 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.07 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-50A Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.03 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-50B Pigeon Mountain Loop 8 Dirt 0.05 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-50C Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.03 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-50D Rabbit Springs Loop 8 Dirt 0.07 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-50E Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.08 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-52 Mud Basin Springs 

County Road 16 Dirt 0.14 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-55 Grouse Creek County 

Road 24 Gravel 0.20 Good Grade

B-56 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.66 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-57 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.15 2-Track Grade, Widen

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E3-12

TABLE E-3

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/ County/ 

Access Road 

Number

Road Name

Existing 

Width 

(feet)

Existing 

Surface

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement

B-58 Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.09 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-59 Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.99 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-60 S Winter Cabin County 

Road 8 Gravel/Dirt 4.99 Good and Some 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-60A SW Winter Cabin 

County Road 8 Dirt 0.78 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-61 Unnamed 8 Dirt 3.69 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-62 Kilgore Basin County 

Road 8 Dirt 2.06 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-62A Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.78 2-Track Grade, Widen

B-63 Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.51 2-Track Grade, Widen

NEVADA

ELKO COUNTY

E-1 Unnamed Road - Gravel 6.99 Rough - Not 

Maintained Blade

E-1A Unnamed Road 8 Dirt 0.47 2-Track Grade, Widen

E-2

Unnamed Road -

Communication Line

- Gravel 8.45 Rough - Not 

Maintained Blade

E-4

Unnamed Road -

Communication Line

- Gravel 26.59 Rough - Not 

Maintained Blade

E-5 Unnamed Road - Gravel/Dirt 21.64 Improved-Not 

Maintained Blade

E-6 Unnamed Road - Gravel/Dirt 11.12 Improved-Not 

Maintained Blade

E-7 Unnamed Road - Gravel/Dirt 4.37 Improved-Not 

Maintained Blade

E-7A Unnamed 12-14 Gravel/Dirt 0.49 Improved-Not 

Maintained Grade

E-8 Unnamed Road - Gravel/Dirt 4.56 Improved-Not 

Maintained Blade

E-9 Winecup Ranch Road 0 Gravel 8.58 ImprovedMaintained Potential Blade

E-9A Unnamed Road - 2 

Track 0 Gravel 1.02 Blade

E-9B Unnamed Road - 2 

Track 0 Gravel 8.50 Blade

E-10 Unnamed Road 0 Gravel 23.33 ImprovedMaintained Blade

E-11 Unnamed RoadCommunication Line - Gravel 9.97 Rough - Not 

Maintained Blade

E-12 Unnamed Road - Gravel 10.09 ImprovedMaintained Blade

E-13 Unnamed Road - Gravel 6.36 Improved-Not 

Maintained Blade

E-14 Unnamed Road -

Communication Line

- Gravel 14.73 Rough - Not 

Maintained Blade

E-14A Unnamed 8-10 Gravel 0.08 Unimproved 2-Track Grade

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E3-13

TABLE E-3

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/ County/ 

Access Road 

Number

Road Name

Existing 

Width 

(feet)

Existing 

Surface

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement

E-14B Unnamed 8-10 Gravel 0.50 Unimproved 2-Track Grade

E-15 Unnamed Road - 2 

Track - Gravel 3.05 Rough - Not Maintained Blade

E-15A Unnamed Road 8 Dirt 1.15 2-Track Grade, Widen

E-17A Unnamed Road - 2 

Track 5.04 Blade

E-17D Unnamed Road - 2 

Track 0.51 Blade

E-19 Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 0.32 Rough - Not Maintained Blade

E-20 Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 0.56 Rough - Not Maintained Blade

E-21 Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 0.81 Rough - Not Maintained Blade

E-22 Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 1.61 Rough - Not Maintained Blade

E-23 Unnamed Road -2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 3.39 Rough - Not Maintained Blade

E-25 Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 6.50 Rough - Not Maintained Blade

E-26 Unnamed Road 16-20 Gravel 9.50 ImprovedMaintained Blade

E-28 Unnamed Road 8-10 Gravel 0.29 Rough - Not 

Maintained Blade

E-28A Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 2.22 Unimproved Blade

E-29 Tule Ranch Road 16-20 Gravel 12.46 ImprovedMaintained Blade

E-29A Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 3.12 Unimproved Blade

E-31 Unnamed Road 8-10 Gravel 11.91 Improved-Not 

Maintained Blade

E-33 Tule Ranch Road 14-18 Gravel 3.97 ImprovedMaintained Potential Blade

E-34 Unnamed Road 10-12 Gravel/Dirt 0.40 Improved-Not 

Maintained Blade

E-35 Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 0.51 Unimproved Blade

E-36 Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 3.64 Unimproved Blade

E-37 Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 1.10 Unimproved Blade

E-38 Unnamed Road -2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 0.42 Unimproved Blade

E-39 Unnamed Road -2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 0.65 Unimproved Blade

E-3A Unnamed Road 40163 Gravel 0.44 ImprovedMaintained Blade, Maintain

E-40 Unnamed Road -

Communication Line 2 

Track

8-10 Gravel 8.32 Unimproved Blade

E-41 Unnamed Road - 2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 0.18 Unimproved Blade

E-42 Unnamed Road - 2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 0.87 Unimproved Blade

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E3-14

TABLE E-3

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/ County/ 

Access Road 

Number

Road Name

Existing 

Width 

(feet)

Existing 

Surface

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement

E-42A Unnamed - 2 Track 8-10 Gravel 0.25 Unimproved Blade

E-43 Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 0.34 Unimproved Blade

E-44 Unnamed Road- 2 

Track 8-10 Gravel/Dirt 0.72 Unimproved Blade

E-45 Maggie Creek Road 24-40 Asphalt/

Gravel 2.46 ImprovedMaintained Potential Blade

E-45A Unnamed Road-2 

Track Gravel 1.55 Blade

E-45B Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 0.93 Unimproved Blade

E-46 Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 0.28 Unimproved Blade

E-48 Unnamed Road 10-12 Gravel/Dirt 1.92 Improved-Not 

Maintained Blade

E-48A Unnamed Road-2 

Track

10-12 Gravel/Dirt 4.70 Improved-Not 

Maintained Blade

E-48B Unnamed Road-2 

Track

10-12 Gravel/Dirt 0.33 Improved-Not 

Maintained Blade

E-48C Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel/Dirt 5.17 Unimproved Blade

E-48D Unnamed Road-2 

Track

8-10 Gravel/Dirt 0.31 Unimproved Blade

E-48E Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel/Dirt 0.25 Unimproved Blade

E-48F Unnamed Road - 2 

Track

10-12 Dirt 1.45 Unimproved Blade

E-49A Unnamed Road -2 

Track 10-12 Dirt 0.28 Unimproved Blade

E-49B Unnamed Road -2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.30 Unimproved Blade

E-49C Unnamed Road -2 

Track 10-12 Dirt 1.02 Unimproved Blade

E-49D Unnamed Road -2 

Track 10-12 Dirt 0.17 Unimproved Blade

E-49E Unnamed Road -2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.16 Unimproved Blade

E-49F Unnamed Road -2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.20 Unimproved Blade

E-50A Unnamed Road -2 

Track 10-12 Dirt 1.05 Unimproved Blade

E-50B Unnamed Road -2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.23 Unimproved Blade

E-50C Unnamed Road -2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.35 Unimproved Blade

E-50D Unnamed Road -2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.34 Unimproved Blade

E-50E Unnamed Road -2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.18 Unimproved Blade

E-51 China Creek Road 10-12 Gravel/Dirt 0.39 Improved-Not 

Maintained Blade

E-51A Unnamed Road -2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.26 Unimproved Blade

E-51B Unnamed Road -2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.33 Unimproved Blade

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E3-15

TABLE E-3

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/ County/ 

Access Road 

Number

Road Name

Existing 

Width 

(feet)

Existing 

Surface

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement

E-51C Unnamed Road -2 

Track 10-12 Dirt 0.17 Unimproved Blade

E-52 Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 4.99 Unimproved Blade

E-52A Unnamed Road -2 

Track 10-12 Dirt 0.34 Unimproved Blade

E-52B Unnamed Road 12-14 Dirt 2.75 Unimproved Blade

E-52C Unnamed Road 12-14 Dirt 0.97 Unimproved Blade

E-52D Unnamed Road 12-14 Dirt 1.72 Unimproved Blade

E-52E Unnamed Road 12-14 Dirt 1.66 Unimproved Blade

E-52F Unnamed Road -2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.25 Unimproved Blade

E-52G Unnamed Road -2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.64 Unimproved Blade

E-54A Unnamed Road -2 

Track 10-12 Dirt 1.20 Unimproved Blade

E-54B Unnamed Road -2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.18 Unimproved Blade

E-54C Unnamed Road 12-14 Dirt 0.32 Improved-Not 

Maintained Blade

E-54D Unnamed Road 34-36 Gravel 0.12 ImprovedMaintained Blade

E-54E Unnamed Road 18-20 Gravel/Dirt 0.03 Improved-Not 

Maintained Blade

E-54F Unnamed Road 28-30 Gravel 0.11 ImprovedMaintained Blade

E-57 Unnamed Road-2 

Track 10-12 Gravel 6.50 Improved-Not Maintained Blade

E-57A Unnamed Road 16-18 Dirt 0.09 Improved-Not 

Maintained Blade

E-57B Unnamed Road 12-14 Dirt 0.05 Unimproved Blade

E-57C Unnamed Road 12-14 Gravel/Dirt 0.07 Improved-Not 

Maintained Blade

E-57D Unnamed Road 12-14 Dirt 0.33 Unimproved Blade

E-57E Unnamed Road 12-14 Dirt 0.41 Unimproved Blade

E-57F Unnamed Road 12-14 Dirt 0.50 Unimproved Blade

E-57G Unnamed Road 12-14 Dirt 0.30 Unimproved Blade

E-57H Unnamed Road 8-10 Dirt 0.13 Unimproved Blade

E-60A Unnamed Road 12-14 Gravel/Dirt 0.03 Improved-Not 

Maintained Blade

E-60B Unnamed Road 12-14 Gravel/Dirt 0.02 Improved-Not 

Maintained Blade

E-60C Unnamed Road 16-18 Gravel 0.06 ImprovedMaintained Blade

E-61A Unnamed Road 12-14 Dirt 0.03 Unimproved Blade

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E3-16

TABLE E-3

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/ County/ 

Access Road 

Number

Road Name

Existing 

Width 

(feet)

Existing 

Surface

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement

HUMBOLDT COUNTY

H-1A Unnamed Road 12-14 Dirt 0.03 Unimproved Blade

H-1B Unnamed Road 12-14 Dirt 0.04 Unimproved Blade

H-3A Unnamed Road 12-14 Dirt 0.04 Improved-Not 

Maintained Blade

H-5A Unnamed Road 12-14 Dirt 0.04 Unimproved Blade

H-8

Pettit Ranch Road-aka 

Christensen Ranch 

Road

18-20 Gravel 0.73 ImprovedMaintained Blade

H-9 County Haul Road 20-24 Gravel 2.35 ImprovedMaintained Potential Blade

H-10 Soldiers Pass Road 10-12 Gravel/Dirt 8.81 Unimproved Blade

H-15 Unnamed Road 16-20 Gravel 0.14 Improved-Not 

Maintained Blade

H-16 Unnamed Road aka 

New Farm Road 18-20 Gravel 0.17 ImprovedMaintained Potential Blade

H-16A Unnamed Road-2 

Track 10-12 Gravel/Dirt 0.51 Unimproved Blade

H-22 Unnamed Road 12-14 Asphalt/

Gravel 1.73 Improved-Not Maintained Blade

H-22A Unnamed Road 8-10 Gravel/Dirt 0.09 Unimproved Blade

H-23 Unnamed Road 12-14 Gravel/Dirt 0.07 Improved-Not 

Maintained Blade

H-24 Unnamed Road-2 

Track 10-12 Gravel/Dirt 0.22 Improved-Not Maintained Blade

H-24A Unnamed Road-2 

Track Gravel/Dirt 0.31 Unimproved Blade

H-25 Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 0.72 Unimproved Blade

H-26 Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 0.59 Unimproved Blade

H-26A Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 0.96 Unimproved Blade

H-26B Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel/Dirt 0.90 Unimproved Blade

H-29 Unnamed Road - 2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 0.35 Unimproved Blade

H-30A Unnamed 2 Track 10-12 Gravel 0.55 Improved Blade

H-31 Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 0.43 Unimproved Blade

H-32 Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel/Dirt 0.83 Unimproved Blade

H-34A Unnamed Road-2 

Track

8-10 Gravel 1.22 Unimproved Blade

H-34B Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel/Dirt 1.75 Unimproved Blade

H-35 Unnamed Road-2 

Track 10-12 Gravel/Dirt 0.14 Unimproved Blade

H-36 Unnamed Road-2 

Track 10-12 Gravel/Dirt 0.81 Unimproved Blade

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E3-17

TABLE E-3

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/ County/ 

Access Road 

Number

Road Name

Existing 

Width 

(feet)

Existing 

Surface

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement

H-37A Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel/Dirt 0.06 Unimproved Blade

H-38 Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel/Dirt 5.46 Unimproved Blade

H-38A Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 2.17 Unimproved Blade

H-39 Unnamed Road- 14-16 Gravel/Dirt 2.23 improved Blade

H-41 Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel/Dirt 0.31 Unimproved Blade

H-42 Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel/Dirt 0.17 Unimproved Blade

H-43

Unnamed Road - 2 

Track 8-12 Gravel/Dirt 4.42 Unimproved Blade

H-45 Unnamed Road - 2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 4.41 Unimproved Blade

H-45A Unnamed Road - 2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 1.18 Unimproved Blade

H-46A Unnamed Road 2 

Track 10-12 Gravel 3.03 Unimproved- Rough Blade

H-47 Unnamed Road-2 

Track 10-12 Gravel/Dirt 1.81 Unimproved Blade

H-48 Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel/Dirt 1.98 Unimproved Blade

H-49 Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 1.01 Unimproved Blade

H-4A Burma Road 42-44 Gravel 0.03 ImprovedMaintained Blade

H-50 Unnamed Road-2 

Track 10-12 Gravel 16.36 Unimproved Blade

H-50A Unnamed Road-2 

Track 10-12 Gravel/Dirt 0.30 Unimproved Blade

H-51 Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 0.15 Unimproved Blade

H-52 Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 3.38 Unimproved Blade

H-53 Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 2.56 Unimproved Blade

H-54 Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 5.82 Unimproved Blade

WASHOE COUNTY

W-1

Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 13.23 Unimproved Blade

W-2

Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 5.77 Unimproved Blade

W-2A Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 0.06 Unimproved Blade

W-3

Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 5.51 Unimproved Blade

W-3A Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 0.17 Unimproved Blade

W-3B Unnamed Road 14-16 Gravel 1.92 Improved-Not 

Maintained Blade

W-4

Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 0.93 Unimproved Blade

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E3-18

TABLE E-3

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/ County/ 

Access Road 

Number

Road Name

Existing 

Width 

(feet)

Existing 

Surface

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement

W-4A Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 1.06 Unimproved Blade

W-5

Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 0.69 Unimproved Blade

W-7

Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 1.08 Unimproved Blade

W-8

Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.51 Unimproved Blade

W-9

Powerline Road-2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 13.87 Improved-Not Maintained Blade

W-10 Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.93 Improved-Not Maintained Blade

W-10A Unnamed Road-2 

Track

8-10 Dirt 1.23 Improved-Not 

Maintained Blade

W-14 Cow Camp Road 12-14 Gravel 3.77 Improved-Not 

Maintained Blade

W-14A Unnamed Road-2 

Track 2.39 Blade

W-14B Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.13 Unimproved Blade

W-15 Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 13.22 Unimproved Blade

W-15A Unnamed Road-2 

Track

8-10 Dirt 0.09 Unimproved Blade

OREGON

LAKE COUNTY

CT-1 2-Track NFR 024 8-10 Dirt 4.09 Unimproved Blade

CT-1A Unnamed Road - 2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.25 Unimproved Blade

CT-1B Unnamed Road - 2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 1.77 Unimproved Blade

CT-2 2-Track NFR 195 8-10 Dirt 1.74 Unimproved Blade

CT2A Unnamed Road - 2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.41 Unimproved Blade

CT-3 NFR 3910 18-24 Gravel 7.08 ImprovedMaintained Blade

CT-3A Unnamed Road - 2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.19 Unimproved Blade

CT-4 NFR 016 14-16 Gravel 2.16 ImprovedMaintained Blade

CT-43 Unnamed Road - 2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.11 Unimproved Blade

CT-4A Unnamed Road - 2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.18 Unimproved Blade

CT-5 NFR 023 14-16 Gravel 3.10 Improved-Not 

Maintained Blade

CT-7

Unimproved Road 2-

Track 12-14 Gravel 0.54 Improved Potential Blade

CT-8

Unnamed Road 2-

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.21 Unimproved Blade

CT-9

Unnamed Road 2-

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.40 Unimproved Blade

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E3-19

TABLE E-3

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/ County/ 

Access Road 

Number

Road Name

Existing 

Width 

(feet)

Existing 

Surface

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement

CT-B Unnamed Dirt 0.09 Blade

CT-F Unnamed Dirt 0.35 Blade

CT-H NFR 407 12-14 Dirt 0.10 Improved-Not 

Maintained Blade

CT-10 Unnamed Road 2-

Track 8-10 Dirt 3.00 Unimproved Blade

CT-11 2-Track NFR 345 8-10 Dirt 0.53 Unimproved Blade

CT-12 Unnamed Road 2-

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.44 Unimproved Blade

CT-12 Unnamed Road 2-

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.38 Unimproved Blade

CT-14 Unnamed Road 10-12 Gravel/Dirt 0.10 Unimproved Blade

CT-17 NFR 4017 12-24 Asphalt/Gra

vel 14.37 ImprovedMaintained Potential Blade

CT-20 Unnamed Road-2 

Track 10-20 Dirt 0.86 Unimproved Blade

CT-21 Unnamed Road 2-

Track 8-10 Dirt 1.24 Unimproved Blade

CT-22 NFR 407 12-14 Dirt 0.70 Improved-Not 

Maintained

Blade

CT-23 NFR 407 12-14 Dirt 0.26 Improved-Not 

Maintained Blade

L-1B Unnamed Road-2 

Track 3.62 Unimproved Blade

L-1D Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.98 Unimproved Blade

L-1E Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel/Dirt 0.10 Unimproved Blade

L-1F Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel/Dirt 1.30 Unimproved Blade

L-3A Robinson Ranch Rd 12-14 Gravel 4.35 Grade

L-3D

Unnamed Road-2 

Track

8-10 Gravel 0.88 Unimproved Blade

L-4 NFR 019 20-22 Gravel 2.17 ImprovedMaintained Potential Blade

L-5 NFR 3915 14-18 Gravel 17.21 ImprovedMaintained Potential Blade

L-6 NFR 39-22 10-12 Gravel 3.02 Unimproved Potential Blade

L-6A NFR 016-2 Track 8-10 Gravel 0.25 Unimproved Blade

L-6B 2 Track 10-14 Gravel 0.99 Improved Blade

L-6C 2 Track 8-10 Gravel 0.06 Unimproved Blade

L-7 NFR 3910 20-24 Asphalt 4.83 ImprovedMaintained Potential Blade

L-8 NFR 3915 20-24 Asphalt 0.68 ImprovedMaintained Potential Blade

L-9 NFR 3913 14-16 Gravel 1.60 Improved Potential Blade

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E3-20

TABLE E-3

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/ County/ 

Access Road 

Number

Road Name

Existing 

Width 

(feet)

Existing 

Surface

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement

L-9A NFR 037 10-12 Gravel 0.11 Unimproved Blade

L-10 NFR 3922 14-16 Gravel 5.48 Improved-Not 

Maintained Potential Blade

L-11 NFR 146 8-10 Gravel 0.25 Unimproved Blade

L-11A Unnamed Road-2 

Track

8-10 Gravel 0.23 Unimproved Blade

L-12 NFR 3913 12-14 Gravel 2.60 Improved Potential Blade

L-12A Unimproved Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel/Dirt 3.51 Unimproved Blade

L-12B Unimproved Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel/Dirt 0.19 Unimproved Blade

L-12C Unimproved Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel/Dirt 0.73 Unimproved Blade

L-12D Unimproved Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel/Dirt 0.93 Unimproved Blade

L-14 Old Wells Road 10-12 Dirt 1.02 Unimproved Blade

L-14A Crane Creek Lane 10-12 Dirt 0.46 Unimproved Blade

L-14B Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.16 Unimproved Blade

L-15 NFR 412 10-12 Gravel 10.45 Improved-Not 

Maintained Blade

L-15A Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 0.12 Unimproved Blade

L-15B Unnamed Road -2 

Track 10-12 Gravel/Dirt 0.85 Improved Blade

L-15C Unnamed Road 10-12 Gravel/Dirt 0.40 Unimproved Blade

L-15D Unnamed Road 12-14 Gravel 6.04 Partially Improved Blade

L-15E Unnamed Road-2 

Track 10-12 Gravel/Dirt 0.36 Unimproved Blade

L-15F Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel/Dirt 0.05 Unimproved Blade

L-16 NFR 4020 12-14 Gravel 4.08 Improved-Not 

Maintained Blade

L-17 NFR Dog Lake Lane 12-24 Asphalt/

Gravel 1.04 ImprovedMaintained Potential Blade

L-18 NFR 419 12-16 Gravel 1.68 ImprovedMaintained Potential Blade

L-19 NFR 4017 16-22 Gravel 6.70 ImprovedMaintained Potential Blade

L-19A Unnamed Road-2 

Track 10-12 Dirt 0.25 Unimproved Blade

L-19B Unnamed Road-2 

Track 10-12 Dirt 0.26 Unimproved Blade

L-19C Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.03 Unimproved Blade

L-19D Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.10 Unimproved Blade

L-20 NFR 407 12-14 Dirt 2.66 Improved-Not 

Maintained Blade

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E3-21

TABLE E-3

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/ County/ 

Access Road 

Number

Road Name

Existing 

Width 

(feet)

Existing 

Surface

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement

L-20A Unnamed Road-2 

Track 10-12 Dirt 0.46 Unimproved Blade

L-20B Unnamed Road-2 

Track 10-12 Dirt 0.61 Unimproved Blade

L-20C Unnamed Road-2 

Track 10-12 Dirt 1.26 Unimproved Blade

L-21 NFR 3940 12-14 Gravel 0.15 Improved-Not 

Maintained Blade

L-22 NFR 016 16-20 Gravel 0.07 ImprovedMaintained Blade

KLAMATH COUNTY

K-1 NFR 4017 20-24 Gravel 3.49 ImprovedMaintained Potential Blade

K-1A Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.19 Unimproved Blade

K-1B Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.25 Unimproved Blade

K-1C Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.25 Unimproved Blade

K-1D Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.36 Unimproved Blade

K-1E Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.40 Unimproved Blade

K-2 NFR 4017-224 14-16 Gravel 0.14 Improved Blade

K-3

Willow Valley Road (#K 

6188) 20-24 Gravel 16.09 ImprovedMaintained Potential Blade

K-3A Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.76 Unimproved Blade

K-3B Hopeless Pass Road 12-14 Gravel 0.26 Improved Potential Blade

K-3C Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.02 Unimproved Blade

K-3D Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.10 Unimproved Blade

K-3E Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.05 Unimproved Blade

K-3F Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.01 Unimproved Blade

K-3G Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.02 Unimproved Blade

K-8 Unnamed Road 20-24 Gravel 0.38 Improved Blade

K-10E Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 2.52 Unimproved Blade

K-10F Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.07 Unimproved Blade

K-10G Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 1.22 Unimproved Blade

K-11 Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Gravel 0.19 Unimproved Blade

K-11A Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.48 Unimproved Blade

K-13 Unnamed Road-2 

Track 10-16 Gravel 0.17 Unimproved Blade

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
E3-22

TABLE E-3

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/ County/ 

Access Road 

Number

Road Name

Existing 

Width 

(feet)

Existing 

Surface

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement

K-14A Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.08 Unimproved Blade

K-14B Unnamed Road-2 

Track á8-10 Dirt 0.32 Unimproved Blade

K-14C Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.18 Unimproved Blade

K-14D Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.19 Unimproved Blade

K-14E Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.26 Unimproved Blade

K-14F Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.18 Unimproved Blade

K-14G Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.63 Unimproved Blade

K-14H Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.16 Unimproved Blade

K-14I Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.16 Unimproved Blade

K-14J Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.56 Unimproved Blade

K-15A Unnamed Road-2 

Track 8-10 Dirt 0.16 Unimproved Blade

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010

File [APPENDIX_F_RUBYS_PLAN_AND_PROCEDURES.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (To download this 

file in its original format, please use the filename hyperlink from your search results. If you 

continue to experience difficulties, or to obtain a PDF generated version of files, please 

contact the helpdesk at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or, call 866-208-3676 from 9AM to 5PM EST, 

weekdays. Please allow at least 48 hours for your helpdesk request to be processed.)
APPENDIX G

Ruby’s Draft Groundwater Monitoring Plan

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
DRAFT

Groundwater Monitoring Plan 

FERC Docket No. CP09-54-000

October 2009 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT GROUNDWATER MONITORING PLAN 

October 2009 

 i 

Table of Contents 

Section Page

1.0 Introduction............................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Identification of Groundwater Resources ............................................ 1-1

1.2 Determination of Susceptibility ............................................................ 1-1

2.0 Sampling ................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Methods of Sampling and Analysis ..................................................... 2-1

2.2 Sample Analysis .................................................................................. 2-2

2.2.1 Field Analysis ........................................................................... 2-2

2.1.2 Laboratory Analysis .................................................................. 2-2

2.2 Sampling Schedule ............................................................................. 2-2

3.0 Measures to Prevent Well Impacts ......................................... 3-1

4.0 Mitigation for Wells Impacted by Construction ..................... 4-1

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT GROUNDWATER MONITORING PLAN 

October 2009 

 ii 

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Project Ruby Pipeline Project 

ROW Right of Way 

Ruby Ruby Pipeline, LLC 

USGS U.S. Geologic Survey 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT GROUNDWATER MONITORING PLAN 

October 2009 

1-1

1.0 Introduction 

This Groundwater Monitoring Plan outlines measures proposed by Ruby Pipeline, LLC 

(Ruby) to determine if pipeline construction activities result in impacts to groundwater supply 

or water quality. The plan includes discussions relating to the identification of groundwater 

resources, determination of susceptibility, and monitoring and mitigation to protect potable 

and non-potable groundwater sources. The plan also addresses criteria for sampling, 

sampling procedures, schedule, and analysis of water samples 

1.1 Identification of Groundwater Resources 

Ruby has completed the initial identification of groundwater wells and springs using U.S. 

Geologic Survey (USGS), state and county contacts, aerial alignment sheets, USGS 

quadrangle maps, and field surveys. 

Final identification and confirmation of groundwater resources will be conducted through field 

studies and communications with local landowners within the Ruby Pipeline Project (Project) 

corridor prior to construction. Ownership of the well/spring will be identified through the 

landowner and appropriate agency records.

1.2 Determination of Susceptibility 

Groundwater supply wells and potable springs within 200 feet of the edge of proposed 

construction right-of-way (ROW) will be considered potentially susceptible to impacts from 

proposed construction activities.

Landowners identified as having potentially susceptible groundwater resources will be 

supplied with documentation explaining the field investigation, the proposed pipeline 

construction, and potential impacts on groundwater resources. The documentation will also 

indicate how the landowner can contact Ruby for further information. In addition, landowners 

shall be requested to verify groundwater supply wells and springs as well as identify the use 

of the well or spring (municipal, self-supplied, irrigation, industrial, or livestock). 

Owners of wells and potable springs potentially susceptible to impacts will be advised that 

pre-construction monitoring is recommended to establish a pre-construction water quality 

baseline. Owners will be requested to allow testing of their well and/or spring for production 

and water quality. 

During construction, Ruby notes that owners of wells and/or springs located outside the 200-

foot monitoring area may request pre- and post-construction water sampling. In these cases, 

sampling would follow the same schedule and utilize the same methods described for water 

wells and potable springs located within the 200-foot monitoring area. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT GROUNDWATER MONITORING PLAN 

October 2009 

2-1

2.0 Sampling 

Upon well/land owner consent, groundwater samples will be collected from each well 

determined to be potentially susceptible, as described above. Groundwater shall be sampled 

from existing wells/springs using existing fitted pumps and discharge lines where possible. 

In instances where dedicated pumps do not exist, sampling would be conducted using a 

submersible pump. When possible, sampling will occur directly from the pump outlet, before 

passage through holding tanks or water treatment systems such as water softeners or 

purifiers. Instances may occur in which access to the well or well head is blocked (i.e. the 

pump inside the well does not work; the well or well house is engulfed in vegetation etc.), in 

these situations, the field sampler shall coordinate with the well owner to gain access, 

otherwise, the well will not be sampled.

Upon spring/land owner consent, water samples will be collected from springs determined to 

be potentially susceptible, as described above. Samples will be collected as close to the 

source as possible, and upstream of any holding tanks or water treatment systems.

Prior to sample collection, the well or water system shall be purged to ensure that the water 

sample is representative of the aquifer. A water quality meter capable of measuring pH, 

conductivity, temperature, and turbidity shall be utilized to monitor water quality. A minimum 

of three sets of temperature, pH, conductivity, and turbidity readings shall be taken at fiveminute intervals. Once these measurements stabilize, water is considered to be flowing from 

the aquifer and is ready to sample. 

Discharge in gallons per minute will be determined at each well location either through the 

use of a flow meter or by using a container of known volume and a timer. Although the 

discharge value is a measurement of well yield at the time of sampling, it should not be 

considered to be a maximum well yield and does not represent aquifer yield.

Discharge of springs will also be calculated. A flow meter shall be employed to measure the 

velocity of the spring. The spring velocity will be multiplied by the cross sectional area of the 

spring to arrive at a discharge value in volume per time.

Following sample collection, wells and springs will be restored to the condition upon which 

they were found, unless the owner requests otherwise (e.g. the landowner does not want a 

non-operating pump re-installed). 

2.1 Methods of Sampling and Analysis 

Sampling methods will adhere to the prevailing U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

and state sampling and analytical procedures in place at the time of construction. All 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT GROUNDWATER MONITORING PLAN 

October 2009 

2-2

samples will be collected and properly preserved so that they are delivered to a certified 

laboratory and tested within the holding times required by the EPA and applicable state 

groundwater quality standards. 

2.2 Sample Analysis 

All water samples collected from wells and springs will undergo analytical testing. Both field 

analysis and laboratory analysis by a certified water testing laboratory will be utilized. The 

following sections describe the analytical methods for both field and laboratory analyses.

During water sampling Ruby will also record water level or flow rate, horsepower of the 

existing pump, date and time, location, weather (if outside), and number of samples taken. 

2.2.1 Field Analysis 

Field analysis shall be accomplished using a field water quality meter such as the YSI 556 

MPS or Horiba U-22 water quality meter. Parameters for field analysis shall include: pH, 

conductivity, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, total dissolved solids, and temperature.

2.1.2 Laboratory Analysis 

Laboratory samples shall be collected in laboratory supplied containers immediately following 

field analysis. Laboratory analysis will consist of; total coliform, nitrites, nitrates, chloride, 

iron, sulfate, calcium, sodium, magnesium, potassium, total carbonates, gasoline range 

organics, and diesel range organics.

2.2 Sampling Schedule 

Wells and springs for which landowner approval has been received will undergo preconstruction baseline sampling. Ruby will attempt to schedule sampling activities at a time 

convenient to the landowner and in a manner that does not damage the resource. In the 

event that a source can not be tested within the required schedule, a contingency agreement 

with the landowner will be negotiated. 

Water samples will be collected prior to construction to obtain baseline water quality and 

water system flow data for each sampling point. Ruby will conduct two rounds of postconstruction sampling, one within 90 days of construction and another within one year of 

construction to determine if there are any effects of construction on the water source. 

Sampling methods, locations, and analytical parameters of the post-construction sampling 

will be consistent with that of the pre-construction sampling.

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT GROUNDWATER MONITORING PLAN 

October 2009 

3-1

3.0 Measures to Prevent Well 

Impacts

The trench excavation will range from five feet to nine feet deep, which is too shallow to have 

a direct impact on major aquifer systems underlying the proposed pipeline ROW, and no 

producing aquifers will be encountered at this depth.

Ruby has prepared a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan that outlines proper 

storage, containment, and handling procedures to prevent the inadvertent release of fuels, 

solvents, or lubricants used during construction. The Spill Prevention Control and 

Countermeasure Plan also describes measures to be implemented by company personnel 

and contractors to prevent and control inadvertent spills of materials. 

The industry standard for peak particle velocity during blasting is 12 inches per second on 

any underground structures. Ruby expects peak particle velocity to be six inches per second 

or less on any underground structures and 1.5 inches per second or less on wells and above 

ground structures. These limits should protect water wells and other nearby structures from 

any structural damage. 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT GROUNDWATER MONITORING PLAN 

October 2009 

4-1

4.0 Mitigation for Wells Impacted by 

Construction

Should it be determined after construction that Ruby is responsible for any detrimental 

impact to groundwater supply or water quality, Ruby will work with the well/land owner to 

ensure that necessary measures are taken to provide an agreeable outcome for both Ruby 

and the land/well owner. If mitigation is necessary, measures would be coordinated with the 

individual land/well owner to meet the owner’s specific needs. Any mitigation measures 

would include coordination with applicable regulatory agencies and any permitting 

requirements would also be fulfilled. However, the likely solutions would be accomplished by 

transporting potable water to the site or by drilling a new well. 

Within 30 days of placing project facilities in-service, Ruby will file a report with Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission and the appropriate state agency regarding any landowner 

complaints regarding water supply or water quality received and the remedial action taken to 

address the complaint.

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010

File [APPENDIX_H_FIRE_PREVENTION_PLAN.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (To download this file in 

its original format, please use the filename hyperlink from your search results. If you continue 

to experience difficulties, or to obtain a PDF generated version of files, please contact the 

helpdesk at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or, call 866-208-3676 from 9AM to 5PM EST, weekdays. 

Please allow at least 48 hours for your helpdesk request to be processed.)
APPENDIX I 

Ruby’s Draft Paleontological Resources Monitoring Plan 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
                 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Draft Paleontological 

Resources Monitoring Plan 

FERC Docket No. CP09-54-000

November 2009 

November 2009 

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN 

November 2009 

i

Table of Contents 

Section Page 

1. Introduction............................................................................... 1

2. Construction Methods ............................................................. 1

2.1 Contracted Paleontologist .............................................................................. 1

2.2 Training of Contractors ................................................................................... 2

3. Areas to Be Monitored or Spot Checked ................................ 2

3.1 Wyoming ........................................................................................................ 2

3.2 Utah ................................................................................................................ 3

3.3 Nevada ........................................................................................................... 3

3.4 Oregon ........................................................................................................... 3

4. Unanticipated Discoveries of Paleontological Resources ... 4

4.1 Paleontological Support During Construction ................................................ 4

4.2 Procedures at Time of Discovery of Unanticipated Paleontological 

Resources ...................................................................................................... 4

4.3 Recording Procedures for Unanticipated Paleontological Resources ............ 4

4.4 Emergency Salvage of Paleontological Resources ....................................... 5

5. Contacts for Unanticipated Discoveries ................................ 6

6. References ................................................................................ 8

A. Table A-1 ................................................................................ A-1

B. Supporting Bureau of Land Management Documentation B-1

C. Ruby Supplemental Paleontological Report for the 

Winnemucca Field Office ...................................................... C-1

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN 

November 2009 

ii

List of Tables 

Table Page 

Table 1 Contact Information ........................................................................................... 6

Table A-1 Geologic Units by Milepost and Paleontologic Sensitive Areas with PFYC 

Rankings of 3–5 ............................................................................................. A-1

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN 

November 2009 

iii

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

MP milepost 

PFYC potential fossil yield classification 

PI principal investigator 

Project Ruby Pipeline Project 

ROW right-of-way 

Ruby Ruby Pipeline, LLC 

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN 

November 2009 

1

1. Introduction 

The Ruby Pipeline Project (Project), proposed by Ruby Pipeline, LLC (Ruby), is comprised of 

approximately 675.4 miles of 42-inch diameter natural gas pipeline, along with associated 

compression and measurement facilities, located between Opal, Wyoming and Malin, 

Oregon. The Project includes an approximate 2.6-mile lateral, the PG&E Lateral, to be 

constructed north to the Malin Hub. As proposed, the Project would have a design capacity 

of approximately 1.5 million Dekatherms per day, depending on final subscriptions. The 

Project's rights-of-way (ROW) would cross four states: Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and 

Oregon. In addition to the pipeline facilities, Ruby proposes the installation of four 

compressor stations for the Project: one located near the Opal Hub in Wyoming, one in 

western Utah, one near the mid-point of the Project north of Elko, Nevada, and one 

northwest of Winnemucca, Nevada. This summary of procedures is supplemented by 

detailed guidelines in Bureau of Land Management (BLM) document IM2009-011(see 

Appendix B). 

2. Construction Methods 

The Project would be constructed in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon. Preparing the 

right-of-way (ROW) would involve brush and topsoil removal, followed by mechanical grading 

to a working surface by blading machines, scrapers, and other heavy machinery. Trenching 

would be accomplished primarily via trenching machines and backhoes. In special cases, 

boring and directional drilling equipment or manual excavation may be utilized. 

2.1 Qualified Paleontologist 

The Principal Investigator (PI), a qualified paleontologist, would be contracted by Ruby 

Pipeline, LLC (Ruby) to oversee paleontological activities. Prior to construction, the PI would 

obtain relevant Paleontological Use Permits for BLM lands. These permits require a 

monitoring and recovery plan for fossils, as well as a repository agreement with a recognized 

institution for the curation and storage of scientifically significant fossils. The PI would (1) 

oversee training of construction personnel, (2) conduct or oversee monitoring and spot 

checks of geologic formations classified as Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) 5, 4 

and some PFYC 3 ranked strata, (3) evaluate paleontological discoveries made by Ruby and 

construction contractors, and (4) determine appropriate actions regarding significant finds 

with BLM paleontologist/archaeologists. The PI that conducted pre-construction field surveys 

during the summer of 2008 is Dr. Brooks Britt, PhD. Dr. Britt is a professional consulting 

paleontologist as well as a paleontology professor at Brigham Young University.

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN 

November 2009 

2

2.2 Training of Contractors 

When a qualified paleontologist is not present during construction activities, Ruby 

environmental inspectors and contractor personnel would be responsible for reporting 

significant fossil discoveries. To this end, Ruby will train contractor personnel prior to 

construction to (1) understand what a fossil represents, (2) recognize a fossil, (3) know the 

procedures to be followed when fossils are discovered, and (4) refrain from collecting 

significant fossils, except as part of an emergency recovery procedure. This training will be 

conducted by a qualified paleontologist.

3. Areas to Be Monitored or Spot 

Checked

In the planning and surveying stages of the ROW, each geologic formation along the route 

was ranked according to the BLM PFYC. Those formations ranked PFYC 3 or higher are 

listed in Table A-1. Following a literature search, paleontological field surveys of segments 

ranked as PFYC 3 and higher were completed along the Project route from the starting point 

near Opal, Wyoming westward to near the intersection with Nevada State Highway 225, 

northwest of Elko. Based on the field survey, the PI determined that further surveys west of 

MP 335 were not warranted because geologic maps indicated similar strata would be 

encountered, and the percentage of volcanic rock exposures increased. It should be noted 

that archaeology surveys were completed across the entire project length. The archaeology 

surveys did not reveal any significant paleontological finds (EPG 2009). 

In some surveyed areas, formation units ranked as PFYC 3 or higher did not yield fossil 

resources due to poor exposures, extreme weathering of outcrops, or the fact that no fossils 

could be identified. For these reasons, not all formations ranked as PFYC 3 are 

recommended for further field or spot checks prior to construction, as noted below. Field or 

spot checks would occur where geologic contact horizons appear the most promising for 

locating potential paleontologic resources.

Geologic formations with PFYC rankings of 3, 4, or 5 are listed in Table A-1. The following 

state-by-state construction phase recommendations are based on the PFYC rankings, 

literature reviews, and field surveys. 

3.1 Wyoming 

Preconstruction field surveys of the ROW in Wyoming revealed vertebrate fossils on the 

surface only in the Opal area on outcrops of the Bridger Formation, which has a PFYC class 

5 ranking. Accordingly, segments between milepost (MP) 0 and MP 0.2 and between MP 1.8 

and 6.1 would be monitored during construction. Alluvium and colluvial deposits (PFYC rank 

of 2) that outcrop along these areas between higher ranking formations would not require 

spot checking. Other outcrops of PFYC classes 4 and 5 would be spot checked after 

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN 

November 2009 

3

trenching, prior to trench infill. Trenches in the following PFYC ranked 3 to 5 formations 

would be spot checked: Bridger, Gannet Group, Evanston, Green River, Sage Junction, 

Wasatch, Hilliard, and the Aspen Shale-Frontier contact (for false trunks of the fern 

Tempskya (Ash and Read 1976). 

3.2 Utah 

In Utah, the highest-ranked formation with significant exposures along the ROW is the 

Wasatch Formation, ranked by BLM as a PFYC class 4. Preconstruction surveys and 

literature reports, however, revealed no significant fossils, and the field survey PI 

recommended dropping the Wasatch Formation in this area of Utah to PFYC class 3. The PI 

recommends that post-trenching spot checks of the Wasatch formation should be conducted.

The Salt Lake formation (PFYC 3) can contain significant vertebrate fossils. Although no 

fossils were observed during the summer 2008 field surveys, the eight instances where the 

Salt Lake formation would be crossed would be spot checked after trenching, prior to trench 

infill. See Table A-1 for the MP start and end points. Similarly other PFYC 3 ranked 

formations like the Kaibab, Toroweap, Park City, Summerville, Entrada, Carmel, Arapien, and 

Twin Creek formations may contain fossils and also would be spot checked after trenching, 

prior to trench infill.

3.3 Nevada 

No significant fossils were observed during preconstruction field surveys in Nevada. Spot 

checks would be conducted for areas near known paleobotanical localities in northwestern 

Nevada because plant compressions, unlike vertebrates, are typically found only in freshly 

excavated matrix. As suggested by the BLM, Ruby would conduct post-trenching spot 

checks of Pleistocene alluvial deposits along the ROW between MP 464.5 and 495.8. The 

Chinle and Ankareh formations also may contain significant fossils and would be spot 

checked after trenching, prior to trench infill from MP 511.6 to 516.2 and MP 517.5 to 517.8. 

There are no formations with a PFYC of 4 or 5 along the ROW in Nevada. 

The Winnemucca BLM office requested a stand-alone Supplemental Paleontological Plan for 

its district. Detailed information on paleontologic resources and monitoring for the 

Winnemucca District is located in Appendix C.

3.4 Oregon 

Because of the low PFYC classes of formations along the ROW in Oregon, Ruby would not 

conduct any monitoring or spot checks in this state. 

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN 

November 2009 

4

4. Unanticipated Discoveries of 

Paleontological Resources 

4.1 Paleontological Support During Construction 

Fossils (paleontological resources) likely to be encountered during construction include plant 

compressions (carbonized leaf remains) and petrifactions (petrified wood); mollusk shells 

(snails, clams, and etc.); and isolated or fragmentary vertebrate remains, such as teeth and 

bones. If such fossils are encountered, they would be evaluated and addressed 

appropriately by Ruby’s PI. There is a small possibility that scientifically significant 

articulated remains of vertebrate fossils may be encountered in excavations in areas that on 

the ground surface are classified as PFYC 2 or less, but are underlain by fossil-bearing 

formations. Such vertebrate fossils are most likely to be found near Opal, Wyoming or in the 

few Pleistocene deposits (mainly unconsolidated alluvium and colluvium) scattered along the 

route.

4.2 Procedures at Time of Discovery of Unanticipated 

Paleontological Resources

In accordance with BLM guidelines (IM2009-011, Appendix B), if significant fossils are 

discovered construction activity would cease in the immediate area of the discovery, and the 

discovery would be immediately reported to the Ruby construction supervisor responsible for 

protection of environmental resources on the associated spread or construction activity. The 

supervisor would ensure that the discovery is protected from damage and looting and would 

immediately report the discovery to Ruby’s consultant paleontologist and to the 

appropriate BLM District Office. The paleontologist would examine and record the 

paleontological resource and evaluate its significance in collaboration with BLM 

paleontologist/archaeologists and determine if additional mitigation (collection and curation) 

is required. Ground-disturbing construction activities would not resume in the immediate 

area of the paleontological resource until the paleontologist (consulting and BLM) concur that 

construction may resume. Agencies may inform Ruby’s PI paleontologist of any required 

mitigation measures by telephone, with follow-up documentation by mail or email. The list of 

agency paleontological/archaeological contacts is provided in Section 5 of this plan. 

4.3 Recording Procedures for Unanticipated Paleontological 

Resources

Paleontological materials of scientific significance discovered during construction would be 

recorded using methods consistent with modern professional paleontology standards, as 

detailed in IM2009-011, Appendix B. Initially, Ruby paleontologists would identify the 

horizontal and vertical extent (i.e., features visible in an exposed trench profile) of fossil 

vertebrate materials. Scientifically significant fossil vertebrates would be collected and 

curated into an acceptable museum or academic repository. Collection methods would 

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN 

November 2009 

5

depend on each individual fossil and its condition. Fractured vertebrate fossils may require 

the application of a consolidant and plaster and burlap field jacketing. Standard data on the 

discovered locality would be recorded, including Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates, 

geologic formation, lithology, and stratigraphic position. The localities would also be plotted 

on appropriate United States Geological Survey 7.5' quadrangles. In addition, the locality 

would be documented photographically. This information would be recorded on standard 

paleontological locality forms. 

4.4 Emergency Salvage of Paleontological Resources 

Unstable trench conditions and other unforeseen natural or work events could endanger 

paleontological resources discovered during construction of the pipeline. If paleontological 

resources are in imminent danger of destruction, Ruby would, without delay, take prudent 

action to preserve as much paleontological information as possible. Salvage activities would 

follow standard paleontological procedures to the greatest extent possible, but human safety 

concerns or the immediacy of the threat to the paleontological resource may require less 

exact methods of material extraction, including rapid shovel excavation or use of backhoes or 

other heavy equipment.

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN 

November 2009 

6

5. Contacts for Unanticipated 

Discoveries

Table 1 Contact Information 

Agency Name Contact Information

Ruby Pipeline, LLC Nicole Pedigo El Paso Corporation 

Two North Nevada Avenue 

Colorado Springs, CO 80903 

Phone: 719.667.7529 

Email: Nicole.Pedigo@elpaso.com 

Ecology and Environment, Inc. John Montgomery, R.G. 

Office Manager 

333 SW Fifth, Suite 600 

Portland, OR 97204 

Phone: 503.248.5600 

Email: jmontgomery@ene.com 

Qualified Paleontologist Brooks Britt, Ph.D. 

Principal Investigator 

545 Robin Road 

Orem, Utah 84097 

Phone: 801.422.7316 

Mobile: 801.616.9419 

Fax: 801.422.0267 

Email: brooks.britt@gmail.com

BLM - Utah State Office Regional 

Utah BLM Lands 

Scott Foss, Ph.D. 

Regional Paleontologist 

P.O. Box 45155 

Salt Lake City, Utah 84145 

Phone (801) 539-4272 

Mobile (801) 505-3356 

Fax (801) 539-4074 

Email: Scott_Foss@blm.gov

BLM Salt Lake Field Office Larry Garahana 

Geologist

2370 South 2300 West 

Salt Lake City, Utah 84119 

Phone: 801.977.4371 

Email: Larry_garahana@blm.gov

Wyoming BLM Lands Dale Hansen 

Wyoming BLM 

Paleontologist

Office phone 307-775-6052 

BLM - Wyoming State Office 

P.O. Box 1828 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003 

Phone: 307-775-6052 

Email: Dale_Hanson@blm.gov

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN 

November 2009 

7

Table 1 Contact Information 

Agency Name Contact Information

BLM Nevada State Office Nevada 

BLM Lands 

BLM Nevada Paleontology 

Tom Burke 

 Archaeologist 

1340 Financial Blvd 

Reno, Nevada 89502 

Phone: 775.861.6415 

Fax: 775.861.6712 

Email: tom_burke@blm.gov

BLM Elko District 

Tuscarora & Wells Field Offices 

Bryan Hockett

Bill Fawcett 

3900 East Idaho Street 

Elko, Nevada 89801 

Fax: 775.753.0255 

bryan_hockett@blm.gov

Phone: 775.753.0276 

bill_fawcett@blm.gov

Phone: 775.753.0200 

BLM Winnemucca District

Humboldt River Office 

Patrick Haynal, Ph. D. 

Archaeologist

5100 East Winnemucca Blvd. 

Winnemucca, Nevada 89445 

Phone: 775.623.1524 

Fax: 775.623.1503 

Patrick_haynal@blm.gov

BLM Surprise Field Office 

(covers northwestern Nevada) 

Penni Borghi 

Archaeologist

602 Cressler St. 

Cedarville, California 96104 

Phone: (530) 279-2732 

Email: Penni_Borghi@ca.blm.gov

BLM Oregon 

Prineville District 

John Zancanella 

Paleontology Program 

Coordinator

Archaeologist

3050 NE Third 

Prineville, OR 97754 

Phone: 541.416.6735 

Email: John_Zancanella@or.blm.gov

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN 

November 2009 

8

6. References 

Ash, S. R. and Read, C. 1976. North American Species of Tempskya and their 

Stratigraphic Significance. U.S. Government Printing Press. Washington, D.C.

EPG 2009. Personal Communication. Email from Kris Dobschuetz to Jim Thornton on July 

14, 2009. 

United States Geological Survey. 1994. Bedrock Geology for Wyoming at 1:500,000.

http://partners.wygisc.uwyo.edu/wygeolibrary/explorer.jsf. Accessed May 2008. 

__________. 2003a. Spatial Digital Database for the Geologic Map of Nevada.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/of03-66/. Accessed May 2008. 

__________. 2003b. Spacial Digital Database for the Geologic Map of Oregon.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/of03-67/. Accessed May 2008. 

Utah Geological Survey. 2000. Digital Geologic Map of Utah. http://ugs.utah.gov/.

Accessed May 2008.

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN 

November 2009 

A-1

A. Table A-1 

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN 

Table A-1 Geologic Units by Milepost and Paleontologic Sensitive Areas with PFYC Rankings of 

3–5

Start MP End MP 

Length 

(miles)

Map

Unit Rock Type Formation 

Paleo

Sensitivity 

(PFYC) 5 is 

the most 

sensitive 

Summer

2008 Field 

Checked 

Recommend 

for Posttrench 

Spot/Field

Check 

0.1 0.3 0.2 Tb 

Volcanic and sedimentary 

Bridgerformation 5 Yes Yes

0.3 0.4 0.1 Tgl 

Lacustrinesedimentary 

Green River formation:Laney member 5 Yes Yes

0.4 0.6 0.2 Tw 

Fluvialsedimentary 

Wasatch formation,main body 5 Yes Yes

1.4 1.8 0.4 Tgl 

Lacustrinesedimentary 

Green River formation:Laney member 5 Yes Yes

1.8 6.1 4.4 Tb 

Volcanic and sedimentary 

Bridgerformation 5 Yes Yes

6.1 6.6 0.5 Tgl 

Lacustrinesedimentary 

Green River formation:Laney member 5 Yes Yes

November 2009 

A-1

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN 

Table A-1 Geologic Units by Milepost and Paleontologic Sensitive Areas with PFYC Rankings of 

3–5

Start MP End MP 

Length 

(miles)

Map

Unit Rock Type Formation 

Paleo

Sensitivity 

(PFYC) 5 is 

the most 

sensitive 

Summer

2008 Field 

Checked 

Recommend 

for Posttrench 

Spot/Field

Check 

7.3 7.6 0.3 Tgl 

Lacustrinesedimentary 

Green River formation:Laney member 5 Yes Yes

9.2 10.2 1 Tw 

Fluvialsedimentary 

Wasatch formation,main body 5 Yes Yes

10.2 11.0 0.8 Tgw 

Lacustrinesedimentary 

Green River formation:WilkinsPeakmember 5 Yes Yes

11 11.7 0.7 Tgrw 

Fluvial and lacustrinesedimentary 

Green River andWasatch formations 5 Yes Yes

11.7 12.8 1.1 Tgw 

Lacustrinesedimentary 

Green River formation:WilkinsPeakmember 5 Yes Yes

12.8 13.3 0.5 Tgrw 

Fluvial and lacustrinesedimentary 

Green River andWasatch formations 5 Yes Yes

November 2009 

A-2

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN 

Table A-1 Geologic Units by Milepost and Paleontologic Sensitive Areas with PFYC Rankings of 

3–5

Start MP End MP 

Length 

(miles)

Map

Unit Rock Type Formation 

Paleo

Sensitivity 

(PFYC) 5 is 

the most 

sensitive 

Summer

2008 Field 

Checked 

Recommend 

for Posttrench 

Spot/Field

Check 

13.3 14.4 1.1 Kg

Marinesedimentary 

Gannettgroup 3 Yes Yes

14.4 15.1 0.7 Tw 

Fluvialsedimentary 

Wasatch formation,main body 5 Yes Yes

15.1 16.4 1.3 Tgrw 

Fluvial and lacustrinesedimentary 

Green River andWasatch formations 5 Yes Yes

16.4 19.1 2.7 Ka

Marinesedimentary Aspen shale 3 Yes Yes

19.1 20.5 1.4 Kf

Marinesedimentary 

Frontier formation 3 Yes Yes

20.5 26.2 5.7 Kh

Marinesedimentary Hilliard shale 3 Yes Yes

26.2 27.6 1.4 Kf

Marinesedimentary 

Frontier formation 3 Yes Yes

27.6 27.7 0.1 TKe 

Fluvial and marshsedimentary 

Evanstonformation 3 Yes Yes

November 2009 

A-3

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN 

Table A-1 Geologic Units by Milepost and Paleontologic Sensitive Areas with PFYC Rankings of 

3–5

Start MP End MP 

Length 

(miles)

Map

Unit Rock Type Formation 

Paleo

Sensitivity 

(PFYC) 5 is 

the most 

sensitive 

Summer

2008 Field 

Checked 

Recommend 

for Posttrench 

Spot/Field

Check 

27.7 28.1 0.3 Kf

Marinesedimentary 

Frontier formation 3 Yes Yes

28.1 28.9 0.8 TKe 

Fluvial and marshsedimentary 

Evanstonformation 3 Yes Yes

28.9 40.7 11.8 Tgrw 

Fluvial and lacustrinesedimentary 

Green River andWasatch formations 5 Yes Yes

40.7 41.2 0.5 Tw 

Fluvialsedimentary 

Wasatch formation,main body 5 Yes Yes

41.2 42.1 0.9 TKe 

Fluvial and marshsedimentary 

Evanstonformation 3 Yes Yes

42.1 42.6 0.5 Kg

Marinesedimentary 

Gannettgroup 3 Yes Yes

42.6 43.2 0.6 Tf 

Fluvialsedimentary 

Fowkes formation(Plioceneand Eocene) 3 Yes Yes

November 2009 

A-4

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN 

Table A-1 Geologic Units by Milepost and Paleontologic Sensitive Areas with PFYC Rankings of 

3–5

Start MP End MP 

Length 

(miles)

Map

Unit Rock Type Formation 

Paleo

Sensitivity 

(PFYC) 5 is 

the most 

sensitive 

Summer

2008 Field 

Checked 

Recommend 

for Posttrench 

Spot/Field

Check 

43.2 43.4 0.2 Kss

Marinesedimentary 

SageJunction,Quely, Cokeville,Thomas Fork, and SmithsFormations 3 Yes Yes

43.4 46.2 2.8 TKe 

Fluvial and marshsedimentary 

Evanstonformation 3 Yes Yes

46.2 47.7 1.5 Kss

Marinesedimentary 

SageJunction,Quely, Cokeville,Thomas Fork, and SmithsFormations 3 Yes Yes

47.7 48.1 0.4 Tf 

Fluvialsedimentary 

Fowkes formation(Plioceneand Eocene) 3 Yes Yes

November 2009 

A-5

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN 

Table A-1 Geologic Units by Milepost and Paleontologic Sensitive Areas with PFYC Rankings of 

3–5

Start MP End MP 

Length 

(miles)

Map

Unit Rock Type Formation 

Paleo

Sensitivity 

(PFYC) 5 is 

the most 

sensitive 

Summer

2008 Field 

Checked 

Recommend 

for Posttrench 

Spot/Field

Check 

48.1 48.1 0 Tf 

Fluvialsedimentary 

Fowkes formation(Plioceneand Eocene) 3 Yes Yes

55.3 60.7 5.4 T1 

Fluvial and lacustrinesedimentary 

Wasatch,Cotton,Flagstaff,Claron,White Sage and other Fms 3 Yes Yes

61.1 64.9 3.8 T1 

Fluvial and lacustrinesedimentary 

Wasatch,Cotton,Flagstaff,Claron,White Sage and other Fms 3 Yes Yes

64.9 65.1 0.2 J1

Marine and eoliansedimentary 

Summerville, Entrada, Carmel,Arapien,Twin Creek and other Fms 3 Yes Yes

November 2009 

A-6

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN 

Table A-1 Geologic Units by Milepost and Paleontologic Sensitive Areas with PFYC Rankings of 

3–5

Start MP End MP 

Length 

(miles)

Map

Unit Rock Type Formation 

Paleo

Sensitivity 

(PFYC) 5 is 

the most 

sensitive 

Summer

2008 Field 

Checked 

Recommend 

for Posttrench 

Spot/Field

Check 

65.1 65.3 0.2 T1 

Fluvial and lacustrinesedimentary 

Wasatch,Cotton,Flagstaff,Claron,White Sage and other Fms 3 Yes Yes

65.3 66.0 0.7 J1

Marine and eoliansedimentary 

Summerville, Entrada, Carmel,Arapien,Twin Creek and other Fms 3 Yes Yes

66 71.1 5.1 T1 

Fluvial and lacustrinesedimentary 

Wasatch,Cotton,Flagstaff,Claron,White Sage and other Fms 3 Yes Yes

November 2009 

A-7

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN 

Table A-1 Geologic Units by Milepost and Paleontologic Sensitive Areas with PFYC Rankings of 

3–5

Start MP End MP 

Length 

(miles)

Map

Unit Rock Type Formation 

Paleo

Sensitivity 

(PFYC) 5 is 

the most 

sensitive 

Summer

2008 Field 

Checked 

Recommend 

for Posttrench 

Spot/Field

Check 

71.5 72.1 0.6 T1 

Fluvial and lacustrinesedimentary 

Wasatch,Cotton,Flagstaff,Claron,White Sage and other Fms 3 Yes No

72.3 72.9 0.6 T1 

Fluvial and lacustrinesedimentary 

Wasatch,Cotton,Flagstaff,Claron,White Sage and other Fms 3 Yes Yes

73.6 73.8 0.2 T1 

Fluvial and lacustrinesedimentary 

Wasatch,Cotton,Flagstaff,Claron,White Sage and other Fms 3 Yes Yes

73.8 74.0 0.2 T1 

Fluvial and lacustrinesedimentary 

Wasatch,Cotton,Flagstaff,Claron,White Sage and other Fms 3 Yes Yes

November 2009 

A-8

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN 

Table A-1 Geologic Units by Milepost and Paleontologic Sensitive Areas with PFYC Rankings of 

3–5

Start MP End MP 

Length 

(miles)

Map

Unit Rock Type Formation 

Paleo

Sensitivity 

(PFYC) 5 is 

the most 

sensitive 

Summer

2008 Field 

Checked 

Recommend 

for Posttrench 

Spot/Field

Check 

74.2 75.1 0.9 T1 

Fluvial and lacustrinesedimentary 

Wasatch,Cotton,Flagstaff,Claron,White Sage and other Fms 3 Yes No

75.4 76.6 1.2 T1 

Fluvial and lacustrinesedimentary 

Wasatch,Cotton,Flagstaff,Claron,White Sage and other Fms 3 Yes No

76.7 82.7 6 T1 

Fluvial and lacustrinesedimentary 

Wasatch,Cotton,Flagstaff,Claron,White Sage and other Fms 3 Yes No

November 2009 

A-9

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN 

Table A-1 Geologic Units by Milepost and Paleontologic Sensitive Areas with PFYC Rankings of 

3–5

Start MP End MP 

Length 

(miles)

Map

Unit Rock Type Formation 

Paleo

Sensitivity 

(PFYC) 5 is 

the most 

sensitive 

Summer

2008 Field 

Checked 

Recommend 

for Posttrench 

Spot/Field

Check 

92.9 94.5 1.6 T4 

Volcanic and sedimentary 

Salt Lake Fm and other valleyfillingalluvial,lacustrine,and volcanic units 3 Yes No

95.2 98.8 3.6 T4 

Volcanic and sedimentary 

Salt Lake Fm and other valleyfillingalluvial,lacustrine,and volcanic units 3 Yes No

134.8 135.5 0.7 M3

Marinesedimentary 

Chainman,ManningCanyon, Doughnutand other Fms 3 Yes No

November 2009 

A-10

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN 

Table A-1 Geologic Units by Milepost and Paleontologic Sensitive Areas with PFYC Rankings of 

3–5

Start MP End MP 

Length 

(miles)

Map

Unit Rock Type Formation 

Paleo

Sensitivity 

(PFYC) 5 is 

the most 

sensitive 

Summer

2008 Field 

Checked 

Recommend 

for Posttrench 

Spot/Field

Check 

141.2 141.9 0.7 T4 

Volcanic and sedimentary 

Salt Lake Fm and other valleyfillingalluvial,lacustrine,and volcanic units 3 Yes Yes

143.2 143.5 0.3 T4 

Volcanic and sedimentary 

Salt Lake Fm and other valleyfillingalluvial,lacustrine,and volcanic units 3 Yes Yes

November 2009 

A-11

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN 

Table A-1 Geologic Units by Milepost and Paleontologic Sensitive Areas with PFYC Rankings of 

3–5

Start MP End MP 

Length 

(miles)

Map

Unit Rock Type Formation 

Paleo

Sensitivity 

(PFYC) 5 is 

the most 

sensitive 

Summer

2008 Field 

Checked 

Recommend 

for Posttrench 

Spot/Field

Check 

187.8 188.1 0.3 T4 

Volcanic and sedimentary 

Salt Lake Fm and other valleyfillingalluvial,lacustrine,and volcanic units 3 Yes Yes

189.4 189.8 0.4 P2

Lacustrinesedimentary 

Kaibab,Toroweap, Park City and other Fms 3 Yes Yes

192.6 192.9 0.3 T4 

Volcanic and sedimentary 

Salt Lake Fm and other valleyfillingalluvial,lacustrine,and volcanic units 3 Yes Yes

November 2009 

A-12

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN 

Table A-1 Geologic Units by Milepost and Paleontologic Sensitive Areas with PFYC Rankings of 

3–5

Start MP End MP 

Length 

(miles)

Map

Unit Rock Type Formation 

Paleo

Sensitivity 

(PFYC) 5 is 

the most 

sensitive 

Summer

2008 Field 

Checked 

Recommend 

for Posttrench 

Spot/Field

Check 

197.2 197.4 0.2 T4 

Volcanic and sedimentary 

Salt Lake Fm and other valleyfillingalluvial,lacustrine,and volcanic units 3 Yes Yes

213.5 214.0 0.5 T4 

Volcanic and sedimentary 

Salt Lake Fm and other valleyfillingalluvial,lacustrine,and volcanic units 3 Yes Yes

228.7 228.8 0.1 P1

Marinesedimentary 

CedarMesa,DiamondCreek,Arcturus and other Fms 3 Yes No

November 2009 

A-13

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN 

Table A-1 Geologic Units by Milepost and Paleontologic Sensitive Areas with PFYC Rankings of 

3–5

Start MP End MP 

Length 

(miles)

Map

Unit Rock Type Formation 

Paleo

Sensitivity 

(PFYC) 5 is 

the most 

sensitive 

Summer

2008 Field 

Checked 

Recommend 

for Posttrench 

Spot/Field

Check 

229.7 230.5 0.8 P1

Marinesedimentary 

CedarMesa,DiamondCreek,Arcturus and other Fms 3 Yes No

231.1 231.2 0.1 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

244.4 245.2 0.8 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

246.7 247.0 0.3 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

247.3 247.6 0.3 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

248.1 248.3 0.2 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

November 2009 

A-14

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN 

Table A-1 Geologic Units by Milepost and Paleontologic Sensitive Areas with PFYC Rankings of 

3–5

Start MP End MP 

Length 

(miles)

Map

Unit Rock Type Formation 

Paleo

Sensitivity 

(PFYC) 5 is 

the most 

sensitive 

Summer

2008 Field 

Checked 

Recommend 

for Posttrench 

Spot/Field

Check 

248.8 249.8 1 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

250.2 250.4 0.2 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

251.4 255.4 4 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

256.2 256.4 0.2 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

257.2 259.8 2.6 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

262.1 262.5 0.4 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

263.1 264.7 1.6 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

November 2009 

A-15

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN 

Table A-1 Geologic Units by Milepost and Paleontologic Sensitive Areas with PFYC Rankings of 

3–5

Start MP End MP 

Length 

(miles)

Map

Unit Rock Type Formation 

Paleo

Sensitivity 

(PFYC) 5 is 

the most 

sensitive 

Summer

2008 Field 

Checked 

Recommend 

for Posttrench 

Spot/Field

Check 

265.2 266.4 1.2 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

272.4 272.9 0.5 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

275.9 280.2 4.3 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

283.7 292.9 9.2 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

295.2 299.3 3.4 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

300.3 301.6 1.3 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

302 304.5 2.5 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

November 2009 

A-16

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN 

Table A-1 Geologic Units by Milepost and Paleontologic Sensitive Areas with PFYC Rankings of 

3–5

Start MP End MP 

Length 

(miles)

Map

Unit Rock Type Formation 

Paleo

Sensitivity 

(PFYC) 5 is 

the most 

sensitive 

Summer

2008 Field 

Checked 

Recommend 

for Posttrench 

Spot/Field

Check 

306.8 307.4 0.6 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

309.2 310.3 1.1 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

311.2 315.4 4.2 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

324.7 327.7 3 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

328.2 328.3 0.1 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

329 333.5 4.6 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

333.8 336.7 2.9 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

November 2009 

A-17

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN 

Table A-1 Geologic Units by Milepost and Paleontologic Sensitive Areas with PFYC Rankings of 

3–5

Start MP End MP 

Length 

(miles)

Map

Unit Rock Type Formation 

Paleo

Sensitivity 

(PFYC) 5 is 

the most 

sensitive 

Summer

2008 Field 

Checked 

Recommend 

for Posttrench 

Spot/Field

Check 

363.5 368.0 4.5 Tts Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks; tuffs; pumicites;and silcic flows (Miocene) 3 Yes No

368.7 371.5 2.8 Tts Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks; tuffs; pumicites;and silcic flows (Miocene) 3 Yes No

374.4 374.6 0.2 Tts Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks; tuffs; pumicites;and silcic flows (Miocene) 3 Yes No

November 2009 

A-18

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN 

Table A-1 Geologic Units by Milepost and Paleontologic Sensitive Areas with PFYC Rankings of 

3–5

Start MP End MP 

Length 

(miles)

Map

Unit Rock Type Formation 

Paleo

Sensitivity 

(PFYC) 5 is 

the most 

sensitive 

Summer

2008 Field 

Checked 

Recommend 

for Posttrench 

Spot/Field

Check 

375.1 376.9 1.8 Tts Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks; tuffs; pumicites;and silcic flows (Miocene) 3 Yes No

382.1 382.5 0.4 Tts Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks; tuffs; pumicites;and silcic flows (Miocene) 3 Yes No

384.3 384.6 0.3 Tts Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks; tuffs; pumicites;and silcic flows (Miocene) 3 Yes No

November 2009 

A-19

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN 

Table A-1 Geologic Units by Milepost and Paleontologic Sensitive Areas with PFYC Rankings of 

3–5

Start MP End MP 

Length 

(miles)

Map

Unit Rock Type Formation 

Paleo

Sensitivity 

(PFYC) 5 is 

the most 

sensitive 

Summer

2008 Field 

Checked 

Recommend 

for Posttrench 

Spot/Field

Check 

384.6 385.4 0.8 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

443.8 444.7 0.9 JTRs Sedimentary 

Sedimentary rocks(Jurassicand upper Triassic) 3 Yes No

456.9 460.3 3.4 Qp

Unconsolidated sedimentary 

Playa, marsh, and alluvial-flatdeposits,locally eroded 3

August

2009 No

464.1 483.3 19.3 Qp

Unconsolidated sedimentary 

Playa, marsh, and alluvial-flatdeposits,locally eroded 3

August

2009 No

November 2009 

A-20

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN 

Table A-1 Geologic Units by Milepost and Paleontologic Sensitive Areas with PFYC Rankings of 

3–5

Start MP End MP 

Length 

(miles)

Map

Unit Rock Type Formation 

Paleo

Sensitivity 

(PFYC) 5 is 

the most 

sensitive 

Summer

2008 Field 

Checked 

Recommend 

for Posttrench 

Spot/Field

Check 

488.3 496.0 7.7 Qp

Unconsolidated sedimentary 

Playa, marsh, and alluvial-flatdeposits,locally eroded 3

August

2009 No

506.1 506.2 0.1 JTRs Basalt Tertiary 3

August

2009 No

510.4 511.0 0.6 JTRs Sedimentary 

Sedimentary rocks(Jurassicand upper Triassic) 3

August

2009 No

511.6 516.2 4.6 Tr2 

Alluvial and lacustrinesedimentary 

Ageequivalent

3

Chinle,AnkarehFms

August

2009 Yes

November 2009 

A-21

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN 

Table A-1 Geologic Units by Milepost and Paleontologic Sensitive Areas with PFYC Rankings of 

3–5

Paleo

Sensitivity 

(PFYC) 5 is 

the most 

sensitive 

Summer

2008 Field 

Checked 

Recommend

for Posttrench 

Spot/Field

Check 

Length 

(miles)

Map

Unit Start MP End MP Rock Type Formation 

517.5 517.8 0.3 Tr2 

Alluvial and lacustrinesedimentary 

Ageequivalent

3

Chinle,AnkarehFms

August

2009 No

532.8 533.4 0.6 Tts Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks; tuffs; pumicites;and silcic flows (Miocene) 3 No No

533.7 533.9 0.2 Tts Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks; tuffs; pumicites;and silcic flows (Miocene) 3 No No

November 2009 

A-22

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN 

Table A-1 Geologic Units by Milepost and Paleontologic Sensitive Areas with PFYC Rankings of 

3–5

Paleo

Sensitivity 

(PFYC) 5 is 

the most 

sensitive 

Summer

2008 Field 

Checked 

Recommend 

for Posttrench 

Spot/Field

Check 

Length 

(miles)

Map

Unit Start MP End MP Rock Type Formation 

538.6 540.2 1.7 Tts Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks; tuffs; pumicites;and silcic flows (Miocene) 3 No No

551.7 552.0 0.3 Tts Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks; tuffs; pumicites;and silcic flows (Miocene) 3 No No

554.4 555.3 0.9 Tts Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks; tuffs; pumicites;and silcic flows (Miocene) 3 No No

November 2009 

A-23

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN 

Table A-1 Geologic Units by Milepost and Paleontologic Sensitive Areas with PFYC Rankings of 

3–5

Paleo

Sensitivity 

(PFYC) 5 is 

the most 

sensitive 

Summer

2008 Field 

Checked 

Recommend 

for Posttrench 

Spot/Field

Check 

Length 

(miles)

Map

Unit Start MP End MP Rock Type Formation 

555.7 556.0 0.3 Tts Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks; tuffs; pumicites;and silcic flows (Miocene) 3 No No

570.8 571.4 0.6 Qp

Unconsolidated sedimentary 

Playa, marsh, and alluvial-flatdeposits,locally eroded 3 No No

597.5 600.2 2.7 Tts Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks; tuffs; pumicites;and silcic flows (Miocene) 3 No No

November 2009 

A-24

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN 

November 2009 

A-25

Table A-1 Geologic Units by Milepost and Paleontologic Sensitive Areas with PFYC Rankings of 

3–5

Start MP End MP 

Length 

(miles)

Map

Unit Rock Type Formation 

Paleo

Sensitivity 

(PFYC) 5 is 

the most 

sensitive 

Summer

2008 Field 

Checked 

Recommend 

for Posttrench 

Spot/Field

Check 

602.2 602.4 0.2 Tts Volcanic

Tuffaceous sedimentary rocks; tuffs; pumicites;and silcic flows (Miocene) 3 No No

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN 

November 2009 

B-1

B. Supporting Bureau of Land 

Management Documentation 

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

DRAFT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN 

November 2009 

C-1

C. Ruby Supplemental 

Paleontological Report for the 

Winnemucca Field Office

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Draft Supplemental Paleontological 

Report for the BLM Winnemucca

Field Office 

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL PALEONTOLOGICAL REPORT 

FOR BLM WINNEMUCCA FIELD OFFICE 

November 2009 

 iii 

Table of Contents 

1.0 Introduction 1-1 

2.0 Background and Previous Work 2-1 

3.0 Geologic Formations crossed by the Right-of-Way and 

Potential Fossil Yield Classifications Rankings 3-1 

3.1 Igneous 3-1 

3.2 Mesozoic Marginal Marine Strata 3-1 

3.3 Pleistocene Alluvium and Colluvium 3-2 

3.4 Waterlain Tuffaceous Units 3-2 

4.0 Field Methodology 4-1 

5.0 References 5-1 

A. Responses to Comments on the Draft Supplemental 

Paleontological Report A-1 

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL PALEONTOLOGICAL REPORT 

FOR BLM WINNEMUCCA FIELD OFFICE 

November 2009 

 iv 

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

PFYC potential fossil yield classifications 

ROW right-of-way 

Ruby Ruby Pipeline, L.L.C. 

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL PALEONTOLOGICAL REPORT 

FOR BLM WINNEMUCCA FIELD OFFICE 

1.0 Introduction 

November 2009 

 1-1 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Winnemucca Field Office requested additional 

information regarding potential paleontologic resources traversed by the Ruby Pipeline 

Project within the Winnemucca District. Presented below is the requested information. It 

includes past paleontologic work completed in the Winnemucca District, a discussion of the 

geologic formations and potential yields (including findings of non-significance and the 

justification for defining the potential fossil yield classifications [PFYC] formation rankings), 

methodologies, and references.

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL PALEONTOLOGICAL REPORT 

FOR BLM WINNEMUCCA FIELD OFFICE 

November 2009 

 2-1 

2.0 Background and Previous Work 

Northwestern Nevada has produced an array of fossils, but it is best known for spectacular 

Cenozoic floras, including the Eocene Cedarville flora (LaMotte 1936), the Miocene Virgin 

Valley flora (Bertram et al. 1997) (Tidwell and Parker 1990), and the Lund Petrified Forest 

(Erwin 2005). Plant fossils range from palynomorphs (Bertram et. al. 1997) to wood 

petrifactions, including opalized wood (Crabtree 1983), leaf compressions (Tidwell 1998) 

and the earliest known Joshua tree relative (Tidwell and Parker 1989). Dramatic shifts in 

fossil floras preserved in the Great Basin document the onset of the Eocene-Oligocene 

cooling/drying shift and changes in the paleoaltitude of the region (Axelrod and Schorn 

1994; Wolfe et. al. 1997). For a summary of papers dealing with fossil floras in northwestern 

Nevada, see Call (1988). 

As with fossil plants, Cenozoic vertebrate fossils (primarily mammals) from the region have 

also been used to document climatic shifts in North America (Kohn and Fremd 2008). 

Nevada is well-known for its Miocene faunas, and Merriam’s 1910 and 1911 papers were 

milestones in the study of northwestern Nevada’s vertebrate fossils from Virgin Valley and 

Thousand Creek. Recently, Davis and Pyenson (2007) presented an overview of the state’s 

Miocene mammalian fauna. Younger mammals, primarily Quaternary-aged, are also 

present in the region, but most finds consist of isolated teeth and/or fragmentary bones 

(BLM Winnemucca District preliminary GIS files). Vertebrate finds closest to the ROW 

consist of bone fragments associated with freshwater, unionid clams found in Lahontan 

shoreline deposits at the tip of the Slumbering Hills. Well-preserved, nearly complete 

skeletons, such as the DeLong mammoth from the Black Rock Desert (Livingston 1992), 

have also been recovered from Quaternary deposits.

Mesozoic vertebrates occur in the region and all are marine. These include a number of 

ichthyosaurs and other marine reptiles, nothosaurs and possibly thalattosaurs, along with 

fish. They have been recovered primarily from the mid-Triassic Prida and Favret formations 

some 60 miles south of the right-of-way (ROW) in the southern Humboldt Range and New 

Pass Range areas (Sander et al. 1994). Perhaps the most spectacular find was the skull of 

Augustasaurus hagdorni.

Although there are well over 200 fossil localities recorded by the Winnemucca District BLM 

office alone, only three are within seven miles of the route ROW. From east to west, the 

closest localities are: (1) PaNV-02-052 – angiosperm plant compressions and fragmentary 

fish, about one mile south of ROW milepost (MP) 469; (2) PaNV-02-134 – Sequoia

petrifactions about five miles north of ROW MP 495; and (3) the Wall Creek paleobotany site 

– angiosperm petrifactions primarily consisting of three genera, Thuja, Robinia, and Quercu

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL PALEONTOLOGICAL REPORT 

FOR BLM WINNEMUCCA FIELD OFFICE 

November 2009 

 2-2 

(Call 1988), about seven miles north of ROW MP 624. All three of these localities are in 

Miocene-aged strata. 

With the occasional exceptions of Pliocene and Pleistocene strata, most post-Oligocene 

fossil assemblages in the area are preserved in lacustrine or fluvial sediments rich in 

volcanic ash-rich (tuffaceous) units. These reworked tuffs are preserved primarily in 

depocenters (Bonham 1969; Crabtree 1983; Livingston 1992, Bertram et. al. 1997; Call 

2008) related to extensional tectonics (Colgan et. al 2006) or calderas (Waggoner and 

Poteet 1996). Sources of the ashes are primarily from regional calderas (Perkins 1998). 

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL PALEONTOLOGICAL REPORT 

FOR BLM WINNEMUCCA FIELD OFFICE 

November 2009 

 3-1 

3.0 Geologic Formations crossed by 

the Right-of-Way and Potential Fossil 

Yield Classifications Rankings 

This section includes an overview of the four main classes of geologic formations 

encountered in the district, along with rankings of the paleontological sensitivity. 

3.1 Igneous 

The Project crosses approximately 135 miles of lands within the BLM Winnemucca District. 

Of those miles, over 15 pertain to igneous rocks, largely rhyolite and rhyolitic tuffs or basalt. 

Igneous rocks rarely preserve fossils and are defined as PFYC 1, a ranking that does not 

require preconstruction survey or construction phase monitoring.

3.2 Mesozoic Marginal Marine Strata 

Seven segments totaling about 11 miles of the ROW are on Triassic or undifferentiated 

Triassic/Jurassic that represent marine to marginal marine, primarily deltaic, strata. Some of 

the maps referred to lacustrine strata equivalent in age to the Chinle and Ankareh 

Formation, but these are likely marine to marginal marine, fluvial to deltaic deposits, possibly 

related to the Osobb Formation, which is part of the Chinle paleo river system that originated 

in Texas and flowed to the shoreline in what is now northwestern Nevada (Riggs et. al 1996; 

Dickinson and Gehrels 2008).

No marine vertebrate finds have been reported near the ROW, but such fossils could be 

found in these strata. In keeping with BLM recommendations, the Mesozoic marine strata 

along the ROW are considered PFYC 2, and the deltaic/marginal marine deposits here are 

ranked as PFYC 3 because these have moderate paleontological potential. Paleontological 

field surveys of over 7.5 miles of the proposed ROW along strata mapped as Triassic and 

Jurassic were conducted by E & E’s contract paleontologists and geologists in August of 

2009. Most of the rocks were mildly metamorphosed and consisted of quartzite or quartzcemented sandstones, with uncommon occurrences of phyllitic shales. No fossils were 

found.

3.3 Pleistocene Alluvium and Colluvium 

Within the district, the bulk of the ROW, approximately 105 miles, crosses unconsolidated 

alluvium/colluvium of indeterminate, but most probably Quaternary age. Such strata are 

usually assigned a PFYC rank of 2 because they are typically devoid of fossils; occasionally 

however, significant fossils are found. For example, a large number of Pleistocene 

vertebrates have been found in Utah (Nelson and Madsen 1987; Gillette and Miller 1999), 

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL PALEONTOLOGICAL REPORT 

FOR BLM WINNEMUCCA FIELD OFFICE 

November 2009 

 3-2 

but despite the wide aerial extent of Quaternary deposits, such fossils are uncommon and 

their occurrence cannot be accurately predicted. A comment from Ken Loda of the 

Winnemucca BLM on an early draft of the FERC Resource Report No. 6, Geologic 

Resources, requested that eight miles of Pleistocene Lake Lahontan sediments between 

MP 488 to 496 be changed to PFYC 5, because megafauna remains, including Mammuthus,

Smilodon and others (Grayson 2006), had been recovered some 20 miles south of the 

Project. Since the draft of Resource Report No. 6, the project route has changed along with 

the MP designations. As a consequence of this request, Pleistocene sediments between 

MPs 466 to 485 and 490 to 498 were assigned PFYC 3 (increased from PFYC 2) because 

the Pleistocene units have moderate potential to contain significant fossils and will be spot 

checked. Fossiliferous horizons of terrestrial vertebrates are notoriously limited in aerial 

extent, usually being limited to exposed and eroded margins of paleo basins—as was the 

case with the DeLong Black Rock Desert sites, located along the margins of the playas 

where lacustrine sediments interfinger with shoreline and fluvial deposits (Livingston 1992). 

To determine whether the playa deposits along the Ruby ROW within the Winnemucca 

district were fossiliferous, E & E paleontologists and geologists spot-checked exposures 

between MP 466–476 and MP 491–497 on 17 August 2009. Particular attention was given 

to gravels near the margins of the playas. No fossils were found. Based on our experience 

in other areas and after field surveying the ROW, we feel the chances of finding significant 

vertebrate fossils in the area’s playa deposits to be relatively low. Consequently, we rank 

these deposits as PFYC 3 rather than PFYC 5 If megavertebrate remains are present 

along the Project route, they are likely buried and the best opportunity to discover them is 

during the construction phase

3.4 Waterlain Tuffaceous Units 

Sedimentary rocks consisting primarily of reworked tuffaceous (ash-rich) materials occur 

along about four miles of the ROW and are ranked as PFYC 3 because they may contain 

significant fossils, particularly paleobotanical or vertebrate remains. Because rotary 

trenching machines reduce rock to powder and would obliterate fossils, it is recommended 

that several locations along these units be excavated with track hoes to permit inspection by 

paleontologists.

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL PALEONTOLOGICAL REPORT 

FOR BLM WINNEMUCCA FIELD OFFICE 

November 2009 

 4-1 

4.0 Field Methodology 

Paleontological localities in and near the BLM Winnemucca District were obtained from (1) 

the University of California at Berkeley Museum of Paleontology data base (2) the 

Winnemucca District Office of the BLM GIS files provided by Samuel Potter, (3) literature 

searches, and (4) personal communication with W.D. Tidwell, paleobotanist.

Because Nevada has not implemented a statewide PFYC ranking, Ruby Pipeline, L.L.C.’s 

(Ruby’s) permitted contract paleontologist developed a PFYC ranking for affected geological 

formations based on the existing ranking system in place for the Las Vegas area and the 

PFYC system in place for Utah and Idaho. No geologic formations along the Project route in 

Nevada were ranked higher than PFYC 3. Most known, pre-Pleistocene vertebrate and 

paleobotanical localities in northern Nevada occur in waterlain tuffaceous units. Because no 

significant fossils have been reported from such tuffaceous units along the Project route, 

however, these units were assigned to PFYC 3 to indicate that their potential remains to be 

determined.

In the summer of 2008, all PFYC 3 units along the Project route from the Utah-Nevada 

border westward to its intersection with Highway 225, northwest of Elko, were field surveyed 

by the permitted paleontologist and employees under his supervision. The survey was 

conducted by driving or hiking to outcrops along the ROW ranked PFYC 3 and walking out 

to examine the exposures. Principal fossils observed during the survey consisted of 

fragments of fossil wood replace by common opal carbonate root casts. No significant 

fossils were found. Based on the field survey, the permitted paleontologist determined that 

further surveys west of Highway 225 were not warranted because geologic maps indicated 

that westward of Highway 225 similar strata would be encountered, and the percentage of 

volcanic rock increased. However, based on a BLM request, Ruby conducted preconstruction surveys in August of 2009 of PFYC 3 units between MPs 445 and 518 where 

sedimentary units classified as PFYC 3 are shown to outcrop and where playas are present. 

Particular attention was given to Mesozoic strata. No significant fossils were found. 

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL PALEONTOLOGICAL REPORT 

FOR BLM WINNEMUCCA FIELD OFFICE 

November 2009 

 5-1 

5.0 References 

Axelrod, D.I., Schorn, H.E., 1994. The 15 Ma Floristic Crisis at Gillam Spring, Washoe 

County, Northwestern Nevada. PaleoBios Vol. 16, No. 2, pp 1-10.

Bertram, K.A., Pigg, K.B., Schorn, H.E., Erwin, D.M., 1997. Middle Miocene Flora from the 

Virgin Valley, Northwestern Nevada, USA. American Journal of Botany, Vol. 84, No. 6 

Supplement, Abstract 374.

Bonham, H.F., 1969. Geology and Mineral Deposits of Washoe and Storey Counties, 

Nevada. Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Bulletin 70.

Call, Victor. 1988. Silicified Wood of Thuja, Robinia, and Quercus from Miocene Rocks 

Near Wall Canyon Creek, Northwestern Nevada. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Department 

of Botany. Brigham Young University. 

Colgan, J.P., Dumitru, T.A., Reiners, P.W., Wooden, J.L., and Miller, E.L., 2006. Cenozoic 

Tectonic Evolution of the Basin and Range Province in Northwestern Nevada. American 

Journal of Science Vol. 306. pp 616-654.

Crabtree, D.R., 1983. Picea wolfei, A New Species of Petrified Cone from the Miocene of 

Northwestern Nevada. American Journal of Botany. Vol. 70, No. 9. pp 1356-1364. 

Davis, E.B., and Pyenson, N.D., 2007. Diversity Biases in Terrestrial Mammalian 

Assemblages and Quantifying the Differences between Museum Collections and

Published Accounts: A Case Study from the Miocene of Nevada. Palaeogeography, 

Palaeoclimatology, Paleoecology. Vol. 250, pp. 139-149 

Dickinson, W.R., and Gehrels, G.E., 2008. U-Pb Ages of Detrital Zircons in Relation to 

Paleogegraphy: Triassic Paleodrainage Networks and Sediment Dispersal Across 

Southwest Laurentia. Journal of Sedimentary Research. Vol. 78. pp. 745-764. 

Erwin, D.M., Schorn, H.E., Smith, R.C., Levy, L.M., Millar, C., Westfall, R.D., King, J.C., 

Moran, V.S., 2005. Nevada’s Buried Treasure: The Lund Petrified Forest. Botanical Society 

of America online abstracts. 

http://www.2005.botanyconference.org/engine/search/index.php?func=detail&aid=271

Grayson, D.K., 2006. The Late Quaternary Biogeographic Histories of Some Great Basin 

Mammals (Western USA). Quaternary Science Reviews Vol. 25. pp 2964-2991. 

Gillette, D.D., and Miller, W.E., 1999. Catalogue of New Pleistocene Mammalian Sites and 

Recovered Fossils from Utah. In: Gillette, D.D., (editor), Vertebrate Paleontology in Utah.

Utah Geological Survey Miscellaneous Publication 99-1. pp. 523-530. 

Kohn, M.J., and Fremd, T.J., 2008. Miocene Tectonics and Climate Forcing of Biodiversity, 

Western United States. Geology Vo. 30 No. 10, pp 783-786. 

LaMotte, R.S., 1936. The Upper Cedarville Flora of Northwestern Nevada and Adjacent 

California. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication 455, pp. 57-144. 

Livingston, S.D., 1992. The DeLong Mammoth Locality, Black Rock Desert, Nevada.

Current Research in the Pleistocene Vol. 8, pp 94-97. 

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL PALEONTOLOGICAL REPORT 

FOR BLM WINNEMUCCA FIELD OFFICE 

November 2009 

 5-2 

Merriam, J.C., 1910. Tertiary Mammal Beds of Virgin Valley and Thousand Creek in 

Northwestern Nevada, Part 1. University of California publications in Geological Sciences 

Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 21-53, pp. 199-304. 

Nelson, M.E., and Madsen, J.H., Jr., 1987. A Review of Lake Bonneville Shoreline Faunas 

(Late Pleistocene) of Northern Utah, pp. 319-333. In Kopp, R.S. and Cohenour, R.E., 

(editors), Cenozoic Geology of Western Utah – Site for Precious Metal and Hydrocarbon 

Accumulations. Utah Geological Associated Publication 16. 

Perkins, M.E., Brown, F.H., Nash, W.P., McIntosh, W. and Williams, S.K. 1998. Sequence, 

Age, and Source of Silicic Fallout Tuffs in Middle and Late Miocene Basins of the Northern 

Basin and Range Province. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 110(3):344-360. 

Riggs, N.R., Lehman, T.M.. Gehrels, G.H., Dickinson, W.R., 1995. Detrital Zircon Link 

Between Headwaters and Terminus of the Upper Triassic Chinle-Dockum Paleoriver 

System. Science Vol 273, No. 5271, pp. 97-100.

Rieppel, O., Sander, P.M., and Stoors, GW., 2002. The skull of the pistosaur 

Augustasaurus from the Middle Triassic of northwestern Nevada. Journal of Vertebrate 

Paleontology, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp 577-592. 

Sander, P.M., Rieppel, O.C., Bucher, H., 1994. New Marine Vertebrae Fauna from the 

Middle Triassic of Nevada. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Vol. 68, No. 3. P. 676-680. 

Tidwell, W.D., and Parker, L.R., 1989. Protoyucca shadishii gen. et sp. ov., An arborescent 

moncotyledon with secondary growth from the Middle Miocene of northwestern Nevada, 

U.S.A. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology, Vol. 62 pp 79-95. 

Tidwell, W.D., and Parker, L.R., 1990. Protoyucca shadishii gen. et sp. nov., An 

Arborescent Monocotyledon with Secondary Growth from the Middle Miocene of 

northwestern Nevada, USA. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology Vol. 62, pp 79-95. 

Tidwell, W.D., 1998. Common Fossil Plants of Western North America. Second Edition. 

Smithsonian Institution Press, 229 pp. 

Wolfe, J.A., Schorn, H.E., Forest, C.E., and Molnar, P. 1997. Paleobotanical Evidence for 

High Altitudes in Nevada During the Miocene. Science Vol. 276 pp 1672-1675. 

Waggoner, B.M., and Poteet, M.F., 1996. Unusual Oak Leaf Galls from the Middle Miocene 

of Northwestern Nevada. Journal of Paleontology, Vol. 70, No. 6, pp. 1080-1084. 

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL PALEONTOLOGICAL REPORT 

FOR BLM WINNEMUCCA FIELD OFFICE 

November 2009 

 A-1

A. Responses to Comments on the Draft 

Supplemental Paleontological Report 

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL PALEONTOLOGICAL REPORT 

 FOR BLM WINNEMUCCA FIELD OFFICE 

November 2009 

A-2

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT: Draft Supplemental Paleontological Report Winnemucca District, Nevada Office: Wells Field Office Report/Page/Paragh Commenter Comment Response

Pg. 2-1 Haynal Background and Previous Work: Discussion of fossils in 

Northern Nevada quite brief. No mention at all of famous Augustasaurus find. A table of regional fossils should be provided, along with expanded discussion. 

Discussion of regional fossils has been expanded that includes information on Augustasaurus. A 

discussion of regional fossils are included in the Supplemental Report text and Ruby considers its discussion sufficient at this time.A table of potential fossils that may be found and recorded during construction will be forwarded to the Winnemucca BLM at the completion of the project. The completed construction report fossil table will include reports of significant regional fossils. 

3-2 Haynal As noted, monitoring during construction in PFYC3 areas 

should be required. 

The areas that Ken Loda have requested upgrading the PFYC classification are listed as PFYC 3. Based on this request, Ruby proposes to complete a preconstruction survey of the areas between MPs 466 to 485 and MPs 490 to 498. 

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL PALEONTOLOGICAL REPORT 

 FOR BLM WINNEMUCCA FIELD OFFICE 

November 2009 

A-3

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT: Draft Supplemental Paleontological Report Winnemucca District, Nevada Office: Wells Field Office Report/Page/Paragh Commenter Comment Response

4-1, paragraph 3 Haynal No mention of the bed of Lake Lahontan fossil shells pointed 

out to me by Pacific Legacy. 

Ruby has added the information on fossil shell locations from the Pacific Legacy archaeology survey. Unionids are relatively common in lacustrine and fluvial deposits and are not generally considered significant fossils. 

4-1, paragraph 3 Haynal Last sentence: How does Ruby define relevant units, and why 

spot check instead of a thorough inventory? 

Field surveys of similar PFYC units east of the Wiinnemucca district did not yield any significant fossils and the amount of waterlain volcaniclastics decreases eastward, lessening the possibility of finding fossils. Relevant units has been removed and the paragraph has been clarified and changed to read: However, based on a BLM request, Ruby proposes to conduct pre-construction surveys of PFYC 3 units at MPs 508, 512 to 518 and from MP 519 to 520 where sedimentary units classified as PFYC 3 are shown to outcrop.

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL PALEONTOLOGICAL REPORT 

 FOR BLM WINNEMUCCA FIELD OFFICE 

November 2009 

A-4

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT: Draft Supplemental Paleontological Report Winnemucca District, Nevada Office: Wells Field Office Report/Page/Paragh Commenter Comment Response

General comment Haynal Who is the author of this report? Who is the permitted 

paleontologist and what is her/his qualifications? 

Dr. Brooks Britt initiated the report.His Curriculum Vitae was providedin an email on July 9, 2009 and a copy has been on file with the Nevada State Museum, filed with Permit number 561 since June 2008.

20091202-5115 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2009 4:47:21 PM

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010

File [APPENDIX_J_WASTE_AND_SPILL_PLAN.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (To download this file in 

its original format, please use the filename hyperlink from your search results. If you continue 

to experience difficulties, or to obtain a PDF generated version of files, please contact the 

helpdesk at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or, call 866-208-3676 from 9AM to 5PM EST, weekdays. 

Please allow at least 48 hours for your helpdesk request to be processed.)
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010

File [APPENDIX_K_HYDROSTATIC_TEST_PLAN.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (To download this file 

in its original format, please use the filename hyperlink from your search results. If you 

continue to experience difficulties, or to obtain a PDF generated version of files, please 

contact the helpdesk at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or, call 866-208-3676 from 9AM to 5PM EST, 

weekdays. Please allow at least 48 hours for your helpdesk request to be processed.)
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010

File [APPENDIX_L_RESTORATION_AND_REVEGETATION_PLANS.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (To 

download this file in its original format, please use the filename hyperlink from your search 

results. If you continue to experience difficulties, or to obtain a PDF generated version of 

files, please contact the helpdesk at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or, call 866-208-3676 from 9AM 

to 5PM EST, weekdays. Please allow at least 48 hours for your helpdesk request to be processed.)
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010

File [APPENDIX_M_BIOLOGICAL_AGREEMENTS_PLANS_AND_ANALYSIS.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (To 

download this file in its original format, please use the filename hyperlink from your search 

results. If you continue to experience difficulties, or to obtain a PDF generated version of 

files, please contact the helpdesk at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or, call 866-208-3676 from 9AM 

to 5PM EST, weekdays. Please allow at least 48 hours for your helpdesk request to be processed.)
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010

File [APPENDIX_N_BLASTING_PLAN.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (To download this file in its 

original format, please use the filename hyperlink from your search results. If you continue to 

experience difficulties, or to obtain a PDF generated version of files, please contact the 

helpdesk at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or, call 866-208-3676 from 9AM to 5PM EST, weekdays. 

Please allow at least 48 hours for your helpdesk request to be processed.)
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010

File [APPENDIX_O_DUST_CONTROL_PLAN.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (To download this file in 

its original format, please use the filename hyperlink from your search results. If you continue 

to experience difficulties, or to obtain a PDF generated version of files, please contact the 

helpdesk at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or, call 866-208-3676 from 9AM to 5PM EST, weekdays. 

Please allow at least 48 hours for your helpdesk request to be processed.)
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010

File [APPENDIX_P_TEMPORARY_HOUSING.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (To download this file in 

its original format, please use the filename hyperlink from your search results. If you continue 

to experience difficulties, or to obtain a PDF generated version of files, please contact the 

helpdesk at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or, call 866-208-3676 from 9AM to 5PM EST, weekdays. 

Please allow at least 48 hours for your helpdesk request to be processed.)
APPENDIX Q

 Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-1

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

WYOMING

Lincoln 0.1 Tributary to Hams Fork River Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lincoln 0.6 Roberson Ditch Intermittent 8.0 2AB N/A Yes No None

Lincoln 0.8 Tributary to Hams Fork River Intermittent 10.0 2AB N/A Yes Yes Bluehead sucker, 

Flannelmouth sucker, 

Roundtail chub

Lincoln 0.9 Tributary to Hams Fork River Perennial 15.0 2AB N/A Yes Yes Flannelmouth sucker, 

Bluehead sucker, 

Roundtail chub

Lincoln 1.0 Hams Fork River Perennial 25.0 2AB N/A Yes Yes Flannelmouth sucker, 

Bluehead sucker, 

Roundtail chub

Lincoln 1.1 Tributary to Hams Fork River Intermittent 40.0 2AB N/A Yes Yes Flannelmouth sucker, 

Bluehead sucker, 

Roundtail chub

Lincoln 1.4 Unnamed Ditch to Hams Fork 

River

Intermittent Unknown 2AB N/A No No None

Lincoln 1.4 South Side Ditch Intermittent 8.0 2AB N/A Yes Yes Flannelmouth sucker, 

Bluehead sucker, 

Roundtail chub

Lincoln 1.9 Tributary to South Side Ditch Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lincoln 1.9 Tributary to South Side Ditch Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lincoln 2.6 Tributary to Dry Muddy Creek Intermittent 0.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lincoln 2.8 Tributary to Dry Muddy Creek Intermittent 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lincoln 3.2 Tributary to Dry Muddy Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lincoln 3.8 Tributary to Dry Muddy Creek Ephemeral 1.3 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lincoln 6.1 Tributary to Dry Muddy Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lincoln 6.1 Tributary to Dry Muddy Creek Ephemeral 0.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lincoln 6.1 Tributary to Dry Muddy Creek Ephemeral 0.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lincoln 6.5 Tributary to Dry Muddy Creek Intermittent 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lincoln 6.6 Tributary to Dry Muddy Creek Ephemeral 1.0 3B N/A No No None

Lincoln 6.7 Tributary to Dry Muddy Creek Ephemeral 1.0 3B N/A No No None

Lincoln 6.8 Tributary to Dry Muddy Creek Intermittent 2.0 3B N/A No No None

Lincoln 8.7 Dry Muddy Creek Intermittent 15.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes Yes Flannelmouth sucker, 

Bluehead sucker, 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-2

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Roundtail chub

Lincoln 8.8 Tributary to Dry Muddy Creek Intermittent 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes Yes Flannelmouth sucker, 

Bluehead sucker, 

Roundtail chub

Lincoln 8.9 Tributary to Dry Muddy Creek Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lincoln 9.6 Tributary to Dry Muddy Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lincoln 14.2 Tributary to Little Muddy Creek Intermittent 12.0 3B N/A No No None

Lincoln 15.4 Tributary to Little Muddy Creek Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lincoln 17.2 Tributary to Little Muddy Creek Ephemeral 1.5 3B N/A No No None

Lincoln 18.5 Tributary to Little Muddy Creek Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lincoln 18.7 Tributary to Little Muddy Creek Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lincoln 18.8 Tributary to Little Muddy Creek Intermittent 2.0 3B N/A No No None

Lincoln 18.8 Tributary to Little Muddy Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lincoln 19.0 Tributary to Little Muddy Creek Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lincoln 19.2 Tributary to Little Muddy Creek Intermittent 2.0 Insufficient

Data

N/A No No None

Lincoln 19.4 Tributary to Little Muddy Creek Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lincoln 19.7 Little Muddy Creek Perennial 12.0 3B N/A Yes Yes Flannelmouth sucker, 

Bluehead sucker, 

Roundtail chub

Lincoln 20.3 Little Muddy Creek Perennial 12.0 3B N/A Yes Yes Flannelmouth sucker, 

Bluehead sucker, 

Roundtail chub

Uinta 20.7 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Uinta 21.0 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Uinta 23.3 Unnamed tributary to Lake 

(Cumberland Flats)

Ephemeral 1.3 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Uinta 23.5 Unnamed tributary to Lake 

(Cumberland Flats)

Intermittent 2.5 3B N/A Yes Yes Bluehead sucker, 

Flannelmouth sucker, 

Roundtail chub

Uinta 23.6 Unnamed tributary to Lake 

(Cumberland Flats)

Ephemeral 1.0 3B N/A No No None

Uinta 23.8 Little Muddy Creek Perennial 5.0 3B N/A Yes Yes Flannelmouth sucker, 

Bluehead sucker, 

Roundtail chub

Uinta 24.4 Tributary to Little Muddy Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-3

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Uinta 24.5 Tributary to Little Muddy Creek Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Uinta 24.5 Tributary to Little Muddy Creek Ephemeral 5.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Uinta 24.6 Tributary to Little Muddy Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Uinta 24.7 Tributary to Little Muddy Creek Ephemeral 0.3 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Uinta 24.8 Tributary to Little Muddy Creek Ephemeral 0.8 3B N/A No No None

Uinta 24.9 Tributary to Little Muddy Creek Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Uinta 25.0 Tributary to Little Muddy Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Uinta 25.4 Tributary to Little Muddy Creek Ephemeral 1.8 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Uinta 26.4 Tributary to Ryckman Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Uinta 26.5 Tributary to Ryckman Creek Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Uinta 26.8 Tributary to Ryckman Creek Ephemeral 1.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Uinta 27.2 Ryckman Creek Perennial 0.0 2C N/A Yes Yes Flannelmouth sucker, 

Bluehead sucker, 

Roundtail chub

Uinta R27.4 Tributary to Ryckman Creek Ephemeral 8.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Uinta R27.4 Tributary to Ryckman Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Uinta R27.5 Tributary to Ryckman Creek Ephemeral 8.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Uinta 28.1 Hill Creek Intermittent 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Uinta 37.1 Tributary to Sheep Creek Intermittent 15.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes Yes Flannelmouth sucker, 

Bluehead sucker, 

Roundtail chub

Uinta 42.4 Tributary to Salt Creek Intermittent 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Uinta 43.0 Tributary to Salt Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Uinta 44.1 Tributary to Alkali Creek Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Uinta 44.6 Tributary to Alkali Creek Intermittent 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Uinta 44.6 Alkali Creek Intermittent 6.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Uinta 45.1 Unnamed tributary to Bear 

River

Intermittent 1.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes Yes Leatherside chub

UTAH

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-4

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Rich 51.1 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Rich R51.2 Bear River Canal Intermittent 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Rich 51.4 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Rich 51.5 Canal to Bear River Intermittent 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Rich 51.7 Canal to Bear River Intermittent 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Rich 51.8 Canal to Bear River Intermittent 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Rich R52.0 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Rich R52.3 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Rich R52.6 Crawford Thompson Canal Perennial 25.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes Yes Bonneville cutthroat 

trout, Bluehead

sucker, Leatherside

chub

Rich R52.9 Bear River Perennial 45.0 2 N/A Yes Yes Bonneville cutthroat 

trout, Bluehead

sucker, Leatherside

chub

Rich R53.1 Canal to Bear River Intermittent 40.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes Yes Bonneville cutthroat 

trout, Bluehead

sucker, Leatherside

chub

Rich R53.3 Ditch to Bear River Intermittent 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Rich R53.7 Ditch to Dry Creek Intermittent 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Rich R54.1 Ditch to Woodruff Creek Intermittent 2.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Rich R54.3 Ditch to Woodruff Creek Intermittent 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Rich R54.6 Woodruff Creek Intermittent 9.0 2 N/A Yes No None

Rich R54.6 Ditch to Saleratus Creek Intermittent 4.0 5 Dissolved 

Oxygen

No No None

Rich R54.7 Ditch to Saleratus Creek Intermittent 3.0 5 Dissolved 

Oxygen

No No None

Rich 55.0 Randolf-Woodruff Canal Intermittent 8.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Rich 57.0 Unnamed tributary to Woodruff 

Creek

Intermittent 0.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes Yes Bonneville cutthroat 

trout

Rich 60.0 Tributary to Woodruff Creek Ephemeral 8.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Rich 60.6 Unnamed tributary to Woodruff Intermittent 5.0 Insufficient N/A Yes Yes Bonneville cutthroat 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-5

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Creek Data trout

Rich 60.8 Woodruff Creek Perennial 15.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes Yes Bonneville cutthroat 

trout

Rich 61.4 Tributary to Woodruff Creek Ephemeral 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Rich 62.1 Unnamed tributary to Woodruff 

Creek

Intermittent 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes Yes Bonneville cutthroat 

trout

Cache 77.9 East Fork Little Bear River Perennial 4.0 2 N/A Yes Yes Bonneville cutthroat 

trout

Cache 78.8 Tributary to East Fork Little 

Bear River

Perennial 4.0 2 N/A Yes Yes Bonneville cutthroat 

trout

Cache 79.5 East Fork Little Bear River Perennial 1.0 2 N/A Yes Yes Bonneville cutthroat 

trout

Cache 81.5 Unnamed tributary to Mill 

Creek

Perennial 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes Yes Bonneville cutthroat 

trout

Cache 82.2 Unnamed tributary to Mill 

Creek

Intermittent 0.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes Yes Bonneville cutthroat 

trout

Cache 84.3 Unnamed tributary to Bear 

Hollow

Intermittent 0.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes Yes Bonneville cutthroat 

trout

Cache 92.1 Canal Tributary to East Fork 

Little Bear River

Intermittent Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Cache 92.1 Canal Tributary to East Fork 

Little Bear River

Intermittent Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Cache 92.3 East Fork Little Bear River Intermittent Unknown 2 N/A Yes No None

Cache 92.4 East Fork Little Bear River Perennial 18.0 2 N/A Yes Yes Bonneville cutthroat 

trout

Cache 93.5 Tributary to East Fork Little 

Bear River

Perennial 4.0 2 N/A Yes Yes Bonneville cutthroat 

trout

Cache 94.5 Tributary to South Fork Little 

Bear River

Ephemeral 0.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Cache 94.7 Tributary to South Fork Little 

Bear River

Ephemeral 0.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Cache 94.8 South Fork Little Bear River Perennial 3.0 2 N/A Yes Yes Bonneville cutthroat 

trout

Cache 94.9 Little Bear River Perennial 25.0 2 N/A Yes Yes Bonneville cutthroat 

trout

Cache 96.1 Tributary to Spring Branch Perennial 1.0 2 N/A Yes Yes Bonneville cutthroat 

trout

Cache 96.6 Spring Branch Perennial 5.0 2 N/A Yes Yes Bonneville cutthroat 

trout

Cache 98.0 Unnamed tributary Ephemeral 0.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Cache 98.0 Tributary to Spring Branch Perennial 2.0 2 N/A Yes Yes Bonneville cutthroat 

trout

Cache 98.8 Tributary to West Fork Little 

Bear River

Perennial 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes Yes Bonneville cutthroat 

trout

Box Elder 100.4 Stock Pond Intermittent Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-6

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Box Elder 103.2 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 106.7 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 108.4 Tributary to North String 

Irrigation Ditch

Ephemeral 0.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R108.6 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R108.7 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R109.0 Canal from North String 

Irrigation Ditch

Intermittent 1.5 3 N/A No No None

Box Elder 110.9 Tributary to North Lake Perennial 14.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Box Elder 112.5 Field ditch Intermittent 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 112.6 Unnamed Canal from 

Hammond West Branch Canal

Intermittent 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 112.8 Field ditch Intermittent 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 113.1 Hammond West Branch Canal Intermittent 8.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Box Elder 113.1 Irrigation ditch Intermittent 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Box Elder 113.2 Canal to Bear River marsh Intermittent 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 113.4 Canal to Bear River marsh Intermittent 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 113.5 Irrigation ditch Intermittent 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Box Elder 113.7 Bear River Perennial 220.0 4A Total 

Phosphorus

(parameter of 

concern)

Yes No None

Box Elder 114.1 Irrigation ditch Intermittent 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 114.4 Irrigation canal tributary to Bear 

River

Intermittent 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 114.4 Irrigation canal tributary to Bear 

River

Intermittent 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 114.5 Irrigation Ditch Tributary to 

Bear River

Intermittent Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Box Elder 114.5 Irrigation canal tributary to Bear 

River

Intermittent 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 115.0 Irrigation canal tributary to Bear 

River

Intermittent 0.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 115.3 Irrigation canal tributary to Bear 

River

Intermittent 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-7

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Box Elder 115.3 Irrigation canal tributary to Bear 

River

Intermittent 5.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Box Elder 115.5 Irrigation canal tributary to Bear 

River

Intermittent 5.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 115.5 Ditch Tributary to Bear River Intermittent 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 115.9 Ditch Tributary to Bear River Intermittent 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 115.9 Ditch Tributary to Bear River Intermittent 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 116.0 Ditch Tributary to Bear River Intermittent 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R116.1 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R116.1 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R116.3 Ditch Tributary to Bear River Intermittent 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R116.4 Ditch Tributary to Bear River Intermittent 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R116.6 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R116.6 Irrigation ditch tributary to Bear 

River

Intermittent 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R116.7 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R116.7 Irrigation ditch tributary to Bear 

River

Intermittent 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R116.7 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R116.8 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R116.8 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R117.1 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R117.1 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R117.1 Ditch to Corinne Canal Perennial 4.0 3 N/A Yes No None

Box Elder 117.2 Ditch tributary to Bear River Intermittent 8.0 3 N/A Yes No None

Box Elder 117.3 Irrigation Ditch Tributary to 

Bear River

Perennial 2.0 3 N/A Yes No None

Box Elder 117.6 Irrigation Ditch Tributary to 

Bear River

Perennial 1.0 3 N/A Yes No None

Box Elder 117.7 Irrigation Ditch Tributary to 

Bear River

Perennial 2.0 3 N/A Yes No None

Box Elder 118.0 Corinne Canal Perennial 12.0 3 N/A Yes No None

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-8

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Box Elder 118.0 Corinne Canal Tributary to 

Homestead Bay - Bear River

Perennial 2.0 3 N/A Yes No None

Box Elder 118.6 Central Canal Tributary to 

Sulphur Creek

Perennial 2.0 3 N/A Yes No None

Box Elder 118.6 Unnamed Intermittent 1.0 3 N/A No No None

Box Elder 118.6 Central Canal Perennial 10.0 3 N/A Yes No None

Box Elder 118.8 Unnamed Unknown 2.0 3 N/A No No None

Box Elder 119.1 Tributary to Sulphur Creek. Perennial 2.0 3 N/A Yes No None

Box Elder 119.5 Unnamed Unknown Unknown 3 N/A No No None

Box Elder 119.8 Sulphur Creek Perennial 35.0 3 N/A Yes No None

Box Elder 120.9 Ditch to Sulphur Creek Intermittent Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Box Elder 124.2 Tributary of East Crocker Lake Intermittent Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 124.4 Tributary to Salt Creek Perennial 12.0 3 N/A Yes No None

Box Elder 124.8 Salt Creek Marsh Intermittent 20.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Box Elder 124.9 Salt Creek Marsh Perennial 12.0 3 N/A Yes No None

Box Elder 125.2 Salt Creek Marsh Perennial 6.5 3 N/A Yes No None

Box Elder R125.5 Salt Creek Marsh Perennial 12.0 3 N/A Yes No None

Box Elder R125.6 Unnamed Unknown 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 126.4 Salt Creek Marsh Perennial 15.0 3 N/A Yes No None

Box Elder 127.0 Salt Creek Marsh Perennial 1.0 3 N/A Yes No None

Box Elder 127.2 Salt Creek Marsh Perennial 2.0 3 N/A Yes No None

Box Elder 127.4 Irrigation Canal to Salt Creek 

Matsh

Intermittent 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Box Elder 127.8 Canal to Salt Creek Marsh Intermittent Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 128.0 West Canal Intermittent 15.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Box Elder 132.9 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 133.5 Unnamed tributary to Blue 

Creek (Faust Valley)

Intermittent 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Box Elder 134.6 Tributary to Blue Creek (Faust 

Valley)

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 134.7 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R137.1 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-9

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Box Elder R137.2 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R137.2 Blue Creek Perennial 10.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R137.6 Unnamed tributary to Blue 

Creek

Ephemeral 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 139.4 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 139.4 Tributary to Blue Creek Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 139.7 Unnamed Unknown 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 144.0 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 144.0 Unnamed tributary (Hansel 

Valley/Salt Wells Flat)

Unknown 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 144.1 Tributary (Hansel Valley/Salt 

Wells Flat)

Ephemeral 0.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 146.1 Tributary (Hansel Valley/Salt 

Wells Flat)

Intermittent 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 146.1 Tributary (Hansel Valley/Salt 

Wells Flat)

Intermittent 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 146.7 Tributary (Hansel Valley/Salt 

Wells Flat)

Intermittent 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 146.7 Tributary (Hansel Valley/Salt 

Wells Flat)

Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 149.0 Tributary to Salt Wells [Hills] 

Flat

Intermittent 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 149.7 Tributary to Salt Wells [Hills] 

Flat

Intermittent 25.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 149.8 Tributary to Salt Wells [Hills] 

Flat

Ephemeral 15.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 152.9 Tributary to Salt Wells [Hills] 

Flat

Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 154.5 Tributary to Salt Wells [Hills] 

Flat

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 154.6 Tributary to Salt Wells [Hills] 

Flat

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 155.3 Unnamed Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 158.4 Discontiguous Swale Intermittent Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 158.4 Discontiguous Swale Intermittent Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 161.8 Tributary to Dove Creek Intermittent Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Box Elder 162.1 Tributary (Sage Valley) Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-10

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Box Elder 166.0 Deep Creek Intermittent 8.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Box Elder 167.0 Tributary to Gunnison Bay Mud 

Flat

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 168.8 Tributary to Gunnison Bay Mud 

Flat

Ephemeral 6.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 171.3 Tributary to Gunnison Bay Mud 

Flat

Intermittent 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 174.7 Discontinuous Tributary Great 

Salt Lake Marsh

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 175.0 Discontinuous Tributary Great 

Salt Lake Marsh

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 175.2 Discontinuous Tributary Great 

Salt Lake Marsh

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 175.2 Discontinuous Tributary Great 

Salt Lake Marsh

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 176.1 Discontinuous Tributary Great 

Salt Lake Marsh

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 176.2 Tributary to Great Salt Lake 

Marsh

Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 176.3 Tributary to Great Salt Lake 

Marsh

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 176.3 Tributary to Great Salt Lake 

Marsh

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 176.4 Unnamed tributary to Great 

Salt Lake Mud Flat

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 176.5 Tributary to Great Salt Lake 

Marsh

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 176.5 Tributary to Great Salt Lake 

Marsh

Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 176.6 Tributary to Great Salt Lake 

Marsh

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 176.8 Tributary to Great Salt Lake 

Marsh

Intermittent 10.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 176.8 Tributary to Great Salt Lake

Marsh

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 176.9 Tributary to Great Salt Lake 

Marsh

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 177.6 Tributary to Great Salt Lake 

Marsh

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 177.8 Tributary to Great Salt Lake 

Marsh

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 177.9 Tributary to Great Salt Lake 

Marsh

Intermittent 7.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 178.4 Discontinuous Tributary Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 178.5 Discontinuous Tributary Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-11

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Box Elder 179.0 Discontinuous Tributary to 

Great Salt Lake Marsh

Intermittent 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 179.7 Tributary to Great Salt Lake 

Marsh

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 179.7 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 179.8 Discontinuous Tributary to 

Great Salt Lake Marsh

Intermittent 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 179.9 Tributary to Great Salt Lake 

Marsh

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 179.9 Tributary to Great Salt Lake 

Marsh

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 180.0 Tributary to Great Salt Lake 

Marsh

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 180.9 Tributary to Peplin Pond/Peplin 

Flats

Intermittent 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 181.0 Tributary to Peplin Pond/Peplin 

Flats

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 181.0 Tributary to Peplin Flats - Great 

Salt Lake

Intermittent 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 181.2 Tributary to Peplin Pond/Peplin 

Flats

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 181.4 Tributary to Peplin Flats - Great 

Salt Lake

Intermittent 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 181.5 Tributary to Peplin Flats - Great 

Salt Lake

Intermittent 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 181.5 Tributary to Peplin Pond/Peplin 

Flats

Intermittent 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 181.9 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 182.0 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 182.1 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.8 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 182.2 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.6 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 182.2 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 1.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 182.3 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 182.3 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 1.0 3 N/A No No None

Box Elder 182.4 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.8 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 182.6 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 182.6 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 183.0 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 1.5 Insufficient N/A No No None

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-12

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Data

Box Elder 183.0 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 183.0 Tributary to Dove Creek Intermittent 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 183.1 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.8 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 183.3 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.6 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 183.4 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.6 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 183.5 Tributary to Dove Creek Intermittent 5.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 183.5 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 183.6 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.6 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 183.7 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 183.8 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 2.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 183.9 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.8 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 183.9 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.6 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 184.4 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.3 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 184.4 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.3 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 184.5 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 184.6 Tributary to Dove Creek Intermittent 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 184.8 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 5.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 184.9 Dove Creek Intermittent 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Box Elder 185.0 Tributary to Dove Creek Intermittent 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 185.3 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 185.9 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 6.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 186.0 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 186.3 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 186.4 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.8 Insufficient N/A No No None

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-13

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Data

Box Elder 186.5 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.8 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 186.7 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.8 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 186.8 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 186.9 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 187.1 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 1.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 187.8 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 187.8 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 187.9 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 187.9 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 188.0 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.8 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 188.1 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 188.2 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 188.2 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.6 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 188.3 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 188.3 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.6 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 188.4 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.8 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 188.4 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.8 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 188.4 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 188.4 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 188.5 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 188.5 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 188.5 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 188.6 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 188.6 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.5 Insufficient N/A No No None

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-14

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Data

Box Elder 188.6 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.8 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 188.7 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 188.8 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 188.8 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.6 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 188.9 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.3 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 188.9 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.8 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 189.0 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.8 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 189.1 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 189.1 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 189.1 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 189.2 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 1.3 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 189.2 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.3 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 189.3 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 189.3 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.6 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 189.3 Tributary to Dove Creek Intermittent 1.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 189.3 Tributary to Dove Creek Intermittent 1.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 189.3 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 1.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 189.5 Tributary to Dove Creek Ephemeral 0.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 189.8 Tributary to Runswick Wash / 

Dove Creek

Ephemeral 0.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 189.8 Tributary to Runswick Wash / 

Dove Creek

Ephemeral 0.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R189.9 Tributary to Runswick Wash / 

Dove Creek

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R189.9 Tributary to Runswick Wash / 

Dove Creek

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R190.0 Tributary to Runswick Wash / 

Dove Creek

Ephemeral 0.8 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R190.2 Tributary to Runswick Wash / Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient N/A No No None

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-15

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Dove Creek Data

Box Elder R190.2 Tributary to Runswick Wash / 

Dove Creek

Ephemeral 1.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R190.3 Tributary to Runswick Wash / 

Dove Creek

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R190.5 Tributary to Runswick Wash / 

Dove Creek

Ephemeral 1.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R190.6 Tributary to Runswick Wash / 

Dove Creek

Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R190.7 Tributary to Runswick Wash / 

Dove Creek

Ephemeral 10.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R190.7 Unnamed tributary to Runswick 

Wash

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R191.8 Unnamed tributary to Runswick 

Wash

Ephemeral 0.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R192.1 Unnamed tributary to Runswick 

Wash

Ephemeral 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R197.5 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R198.6 Unnamed tributary to Muddy 

Creek

Ephemeral 0.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R199.6 Muddy Creek Intermittent 6.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Box Elder R200.8 Unnamed tributary to Muddy 

Creek

Ephemeral 9.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R202.5 Headwaters of Rosebud Creek Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R202.7 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R204.0 Discontiguous Creek (Great 

Salt Lake Desert)

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R205.4 Unnamed Tributary 

(Newfoundland Evaporation 

Basin)

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R205.4 Unnamed Tributary 

(Newfoundland Evaporation 

Basin)

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R205.4 Unnamed Tributary 

(Newfoundland Evaporation 

Basin)

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R205.5 Unnamed tributary to Great 

Salt Lake

Ephemeral 6.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R205.5 Unnamed Tributary 

(Newfoundland Evaporation 

Basin)

Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R206.2 Unnamed Tributary 

(Newfoundland Evaporation 

Basin)

Intermittent 5.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-16

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Box Elder R206.9 Discontiguous Creek (Great 

Salt Lake Desert)

Ephemeral 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R208.0 Unnamed Tributary 

(Newfoundland Evaporation 

Basin)

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R208.0 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R208.1 Unnamed Tributary 

(Newfoundland Evaporation 

Basin)

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R209.3 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 209.9 Unnamed Tributary 

(Newfoundland Evaporation 

Basin)

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 210.3 Unnamed Tributary 

(Newfoundland Evaporation 

Basin)

Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 210.8 Unnamed Tributary 

(Newfoundland Evaporation 

Basin)

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 211.0 Unnamed Tributary 

(Newfoundland Evaporation 

Basin)

Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 211.1 Unnamed Tributary 

(Newfoundland Evaporation 

Basin)

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 211.4 Unnamed Tributary 

(Newfoundland Evaporation 

Basin)

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 211.7 Unnamed Tributary 

(Newfoundland Evaporation 

Basin)

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 211.9 Unnamed Tributary 

(Newfoundland Evaporation 

Basin)

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 212.0 Unnamed Tributary 

(Newfoundland Evaporation 

Basin)

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 212.2 Unnamed Tributary 

(Newfoundland Evaporation 

Basin)

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 212.3 Unnamed Tributary 

(Newfoundland Evaporation 

Basin)

Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 212.4 Unnamed Tributary 

(Newfoundland Evaporation 

Basin)

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-17

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Box Elder 212.4 Unnamed Tributary 

(Newfoundland Evaporation 

Basin)

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 212.8 Unnamed Tributary 

(Newfoundland Evaporation 

Basin)

Ephemeral 0.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 213.2 Unnamed Tributary 

(Newfoundland Evaporation 

Basin)

Ephemeral 0.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 213.4 Unnamed Tributary 

(Newfoundland Evaporation 

Basin)

Intermittent 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 213.6 Unnamed Tributary 

(Newfoundland Evaporation 

Basin)

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 213.7 Unnamed Tributary 

(Newfoundland Evaporation 

Basin)

Intermittent 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 213.7 Unnamed Tributary 

(Newfoundland Evaporation 

Basin)

Ephemeral 0.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 213.8 Unnamed Tributary 

(Newfoundland Evaporation 

Basin)

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 213.9 Unnamed Tributary 

(Newfoundland Evaporation 

Basin)

Intermittent 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 214.2 Unnamed Tributary 

(Newfoundland Evaporation 

Basin)

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R214.5 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R214.7 Discontiguous Creek (Great 

Salt Lake Desert)

Ephemeral 6.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R214.8 Discontiguous Creek (Great 

Salt Lake Desert)

Ephemeral 6.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R215.5 Discontiguous Creek (Great 

Salt Lake Desert)

Ephemeral 8.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R215.6 Discontiguous Creek (Great 

Salt Lake Desert)

Ephemeral 20.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R215.7 Discontiguous Creek (Great 

Salt Lake Desert)

Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R215.8 Discontiguous Creek (Great 

Salt Lake Desert)

Ephemeral 10.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R217.5 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R219.7 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-18

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Box Elder R220.2 Discontiguous Creek (Great 

Salt Lake Desert)

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R220.5 Discontiguous Creek (Great 

Salt Lake Desert)

Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder R220.7 Discontiguous Creek (Great 

Salt Lake Desert)

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 221.1 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 223.6 Tributary to Grouse Creek Ephemeral 6.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 224.2 Grouse Creek Intermittent 30.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Box Elder 224.9 Tributary to Grouse Creek Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 224.9 Tributary to Grouse Creek Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 224.9 Tributary to Grouse Creek Ephemeral 20.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 227.4 Tributary to Grouse Creek Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 227.8 Tributary to Grouse Creek Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 227.9 Tributary to Grouse Creek Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 228.1 Tributary to Thousand Springs 

Creek

Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 228.2 Tributary to Thousand Springs 

Creek

Intermittent 5.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 228.7 Tributary to Thousand Springs 

Creek

Intermittent 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 229.2 Tributary to Thousand Springs 

Creek

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Box Elder 230.4 Tributary to Thousand Springs 

Creek

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

NEVADA

Elko 233.8 Unnamed tributary to 

Thousand Springs Creek

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 234.3 Unnamed tributary to 

Thousand Springs Creek

Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 234.5 Tributary to Thousand Springs 

Creek

Intermittent Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 234.9 Unnamed tributary the 

Thousand Springs Creek

Intermittent 5.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 235.3 Unnamed tributary to 

Thousand Springs Creek

Intermittent 12.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 236.6 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 236.7 Unnamed tributary to Ephemeral 4.0 Insufficient N/A No No None

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-19

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Thousand Springs Creek Data

Elko 237.9 Unnamed tributary to 

Thousand Springs Creek

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 238.0 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 238.4 Tributary to Crittenden Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 238.4 Tributary to Crittenden Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 238.5 Tributary to Crittenden Creek Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 238.6 Tributary to Crittenden Creek Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 239.1 Tributary to Crittenden Creek Intermittent Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 241.1 Thousand Springs Creek Intermittent 6.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 241.2 Tributary to Thousand Springs 

Creek

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 241.4 Unnamed tributary to 

Thousand Springs Creek

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 241.4 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 241.5 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 241.5 Tributary to Thousand Springs 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 242.1 Unnamed tributary to 

Thousand Springs Creek

Ephemeral 1.2 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 242.2 Tributary to Thousand Springs 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 242.2 Unnamed tributary to 

Thousand Springs Creek

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 242.6 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 242.8 Unnamed tributary to 

Thousand Springs Creek

Ephemeral 1.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 243.4 Tributary to Thousand Springs 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 243.5 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 243.6 Tributary to Thousand Springs 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 243.8 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 244.4 Unnamed tributary to 

Thousand Springs Creek

Ephemeral 1.2 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 244.5 Unnamed tributary to Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient N/A No No None

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-20

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Thousand Springs Creek Data

Elko 244.7 Tributary to Thousand Springs 

Creek

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 244.8 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 244.8 Unnamed tributary to 

Thousand Springs Creek

Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 246.2 Tributary to Thousand Springs 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 246.5 Tributary to Thousand Springs 

Creek

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 247.6 Unnamed tributary to 

Twentyone Mile Draw

Ephemeral 5.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 248.7 Tributary to Twentyone Mile 

Draw

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 248.7 Side Channel of Tributary to 

Twentyone Mile Draw

Ephemeral 0.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 249.6 Tributary to Twentyone Mile 

Draw

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 249.9 Tributary to Twentyone Mile 

Draw

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 250.0 Tributary to Twentyone Mile 

Draw

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 250.5 Twentyone Mile Draw Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 250.8 Tributary to Twentyone Mile 

Draw

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 253.3 Unnamed tributary to 

Twentyone Mile Draw

Ephemeral 1.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 253.6 Unnamed tributary to 

Twentyone Mile Draw

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 254.2 Unnamed tributary to 

Twentyone Mile Draw

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 255.3 Tributary to Fivemile Draw Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 255.7 Tributary to Fivemile Draw Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 256.9 Unnamed tributary to Fivemile 

Draw

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 257.8 Tributary to Fivemile Draw Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 260.0 Unnamed tributary to Fivemile 

Draw

Ephemeral 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 261.6 Unnamed tributary to Toano 

Draw

Ephemeral 2.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 261.7 Toano Draw Intermittent 6.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 262.4 Tributary to Thousand Springs Ephemeral 1.5 Insufficient N/A No No None

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-21

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Creek (Toano Draw) Data

Elko 267.2 Unnamed tributary to Brush 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 267.2 Unnamed Unknown 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 267.5 Unnamed tributary to Brush 

Creek

Ephemeral 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 267.7 Unnamed tributary to Red 

House Flat

Perennial 5.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 267.7 Unnamed tributary to Red 

House Flat

Perennial 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 267.8 Brush Creek Perennial 6.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 273.9 Tributary to Thousand Springs 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 274.9 Tributary to Thousand Springs 

Creek

Ephemeral 2.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 275.0 Tributary to Thousand Springs 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 275.3 Tributary to Thousand Springs 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 275.4 Tributary to Thousand Springs 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 275.7 Thousand Spring Creek Perennial Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Elko 275.7 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 275.7 Thousand Spring Creek Perennial 6.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Elko 275.7 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 275.7 Thousand Spring Creek Perennial 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Elko 280.2 Pole Creek Perennial 6.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 280.7 Tributary to Pole Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 280.9 Tributary to Pole Creek Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 280.9 Tributary to Pole Creek Perennial 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Elko 281.7 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 282.0 Tributary to Pole Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 284.3 Burnt Creek Perennial 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Elko 284.4 Tributary to Burnt Creek Ephemeral 1.5 Insufficient N/A No No None

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-22

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Data

Elko 284.6 Tributary to Burnt Creek Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 284.8 Tributary to Burnt Creek Ephemeral Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 285.0 Tributary to Burnt Creek Intermittent 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 285.3 Tributary to Burnt Creek Ephemeral 5.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 285.4 Tributary to Burnt Creek Ephemeral 3.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 285.6 Tributary to Burnt Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 285.9 Tributary to Burnt Creek Ephemeral 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 286.0 Tributary to Burnt Creek Ephemeral 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 287.0 Tributary to Burnt Creek Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R288.2 Unnamed tributary to Tabor 

Creek Valley

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R288.4 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R288.5 Discontiguous Creek (Tabor 

Creek Valley)

Intermittent 2.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R289.9 Unnamed tributary to Tabor 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.8 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R290.2 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R295.0 Tabor Creek Perennial 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Elko R296.8 Unnamed tributary to Marys 

River

Perennial 4.5 Insufficient

Data

N/A Yes Yes Lahontan cutthroat 

trout

Elko R297.4 Unnamed tributary to Marys 

River

Perennial 5.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes Yes Lahontan cutthroat 

trout

Elko R298.3 Unnamed tributary to Marys 

River

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 300.1 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 300.1 Marys River Perennial 20.0 5 Temperature, 

Dissolved 

Oxygen, Total 

Phosphorus

Yes Yes Lahontan cutthroat 

trout

Elko 301.2 Tributary to Hot Springs Creek Intermittent 2.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Elko 302.0 Tributary to Hot Springs Creek Intermittent 0.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Elko 302.0 Hot Springs Creek Intermittent 2.5 Insufficient N/A Yes No None

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-23

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Data

Elko 302.5 Unnamed tributary to Hot 

Springs Creek

Ephemeral 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 302.9 Unnamed tributary to Hot 

Springs Creek

Ephemeral 1.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 305.0 Tributary to Pole Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 305.8 Tributary to Pole Creek Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 306.1 Tributary to Pole Creek Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 308.2 Unnamed tributary to Pole 

Creek

Ephemeral 2.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 308.4 Unnamed tributary to Pole 

Creek

Ephemeral 2.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 308.9 Unnamed tributary to Pole 

Creek

Ephemeral 12.0 3 N/A No No None

Elko 311.1 Unnamed tributary to North 

Fork Humboldt River

Ephemeral 3.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 311.9 Unnamed tributary to North 

Fork Humboldt River

Ephemeral 12.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 312.6 Unnamed tributary to North 

Fork Humboldt River

Ephemeral 3.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 312.7 Tributary to the North Fork 

Humboldt River

Ephemeral 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 313.4 Tributary to the North Fork 

Humboldt River

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 314.7 Tributary to Indian Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 315.1 Tributary to Indian Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 315.1 Tributary to Indian Creek Intermittent 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 315.1 Tributary to Indian Creek Ephemeral 1.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 315.2 Indian Creek Intermittent 8.0 5 Total 

Phosphorus

Yes No None

Elko 315.2 Tributary to Indian Creek Ephemeral 6.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 315.3 Tributary to Indian Creek Ephemeral 5.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 315.4 Tributary to Indian Creek Ephemeral 2.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 315.7 Tributary to Indian Creek Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 316.4 North Fork Humboldt River Perennial 35.0 5 Total 

Phosphorus, 

Iron, Total 

Yes No None

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-24

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Dissolved 

Solids

Elko 316.5 Tributary to North Fork 

Humboldt River

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 317.8 Tributary to North Fork 

Humboldt River

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 318.0 Tributary to North Fork 

Humboldt River

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 319.1 Tributary to North Fork 

Humboldt River

Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 320.2 Tributary to North Fork 

Humboldt River

Ephemeral 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 320.8 Unnamed tributary to North 

Fork Humboldt River

Ephemeral 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 321.1 Tributary to North Fork 

Humboldt River

Ephemeral 10.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 321.5 Unnamed tributary to North 

Fork Humboldt River

Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 321.6 Tributary to North Fork 

Humboldt River

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 322.8 Tributary to North Fork 

Humboldt River

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 323.5 Unnamed tributary to Pie 

Creek

Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 323.6 Tributary to Pie Creek Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 323.9 Tributary to Pie Creek Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 324.4 Tributary to Pie Creek Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 324.9 Tributary to Pie Creek Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 325.1 Unnamed tributary to Pie 

Creek

Intermittent 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Elko 325.9 Tributary to Pie Creek Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 325.9 Tributary to Pie Creek Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 327.2 Badger Creek Intermittent 16.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes Yes Lahontan cutthroat 

trout

Elko 327.8 Pie Creek Perennial 21.0 3 N/A Yes Yes Lahontan cutthroat 

trout

Elko 328.0 Tributary to Pie Creek Intermittent 12.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes Yes Lahontan cutthroat 

trout

Elko 328.8 Tributary to Gance Creek Intermittent 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes Yes Lahontan cutthroat 

trout

Elko 329.2 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-25

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Elko 329.3 Gance Creek Perennial 12.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes Yes Lahontan cutthroat 

trout

Elko 331.4 Unnamed tributary to Pie 

Creek

Ephemeral 6.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 331.5 Tributary to Pie Creek Ephemeral 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 332.7 Tributary to Spring Branch 

Creek

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 332.7 Tributary to Spring Branch 

Creek

Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 333.0 Tributary to Spring Branch 

Creek

Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 333.1 Spring Branch Creek Perennial 15.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes Yes Lahontan cutthroat 

trout

Elko 333.5 Unnamed tributary to Pie 

Creek

Intermittent 6.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 333.9 Pie Creek Perennial 10.0 3 N/A Yes Yes Lahontan cutthroat 

trout

Elko 333.9 Pie Creek Perennial 4.0 3 N/A Yes Yes Lahontan cutthroat 

trout

Elko 336.0 Tributary to Pie Creek Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 337.0 Unnamed tributary to Eagle 

Rock Creek

Intermittent 12.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 338.3 Unnamed tributary to Eagle 

Rock Creek

Ephemeral 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 339.0 Eagle Rock Creek Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 339.2 Tributary to Eagle Rock Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 339.7 Tributary to Eagle Rock Creek Ephemeral 10.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 340.1 Tributary to Eagle Rock Creek Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 340.8 Tributary to Eagle Rock Creek Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko 342.1 Maggie Creek Perennial 4.0 3 N/A Yes Yes Lahontan cutthroat 

trout

Elko 342.4 Maggie Creek Intermittent 3.0 3 N/A Yes Yes Lahontan cutthroat 

trout

Elko 342.8 Maggie Creek Intermittent 4.0 3 N/A Yes Yes Lahontan cutthroat 

trout

Elko 342.9 Unnamed tributary to Maggie 

Creek

Intermittent 3.0 3 N/A Yes Yes Lahontan cutthroat 

trout

Elko 343.0 Maggie Creek Intermittent 3.0 3 N/A Yes Yes Lahontan cutthroat 

trout

Elko 343.2 Tributary to Maggie Creek Ephemeral 3.0 3 N/A No No None

Elko 343.3 Tributary to Maggie Creek Ephemeral 4.0 3 N/A No No None

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-26

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Elko 343.8 Unnamed tributary to Maggie 

Creek

Intermittent 3.0 3 N/A Yes Yes Lahontan cutthroat 

trout

Elko 344.1 Unnamed tributary to Maggie 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.0 3 N/A No No None

Elko 344.6 Tributary to Maggie Creek Intermittent 2.0 3 N/A Yes Yes Lahontan cutthroat 

trout

Elko 344.8 Unnamed tributary to Maggie 

Creek

Intermittent 3.0 3 N/A Yes Yes Lahontan cutthroat 

trout

Elko 345.8 Unnamed tributary to Maggie 

Creek

Intermittent 2.0 3 N/A Yes Yes Lahontan cutthroat 

trout

Elko 345.8 Unnamed tributary to Maggie 

Creek

Intermittent 2.0 3 N/A Yes Yes Lahontan cutthroat 

trout

Elko 346.1 Unnamed tributary to Maggie 

Creek

Intermittent 1.0 3 N/A Yes Yes Lahontan cutthroat 

trout

Elko 347.0 Unnamed tributary to Dip 

Creek

Perennial 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R350.2 Unnamed tributary to Indian 

Creek

Perennial 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Elko R350.9 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R351.1 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R351.5 Indian Creek Perennial 5.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R351.7 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R352.3 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R352.7 Unnamed tributary to Indian 

Creek

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R352.7 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R352.8 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R352.9 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R352.9 Unnamed tributary to Indian 

Creek

Perennial 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R353.0 Unnamed tributary to Ham 

Creek

Perennial 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R353.6 Ham Creek Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R353.6 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R353.6 Ham Creek Ephemeral 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R353.6 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-27

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Elko R354.3 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R354.5 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R355.3 Adams Creek Perennial 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R355.5 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R355.6 Unnamed tributary to Adams 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R355.6 Unnamed tributary to Adams 

Creek

Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R355.6 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R355.8 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R355.8 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R356.5 Unnamed tributary to Summit 

Creek

Intermittent 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Elko R357.8 Unnamed tributary to Willow 

Creek

Perennial 2.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R357.9 Unnamed tributary to Willow 

Creek

Ephemeral 2.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R358.9 Unnamed tributary to Willow 

Creek

Intermittent 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R359.7 Unnamed tributary to Willow 

Creek

Perennial 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R360.1 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R361.5 Rattlesnake Creek Perennial 15.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R361.5 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R362.2 Unnamed tributary to Willow 

Creek

Perennial 7.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R362.6 Willow Creek Perennial 8.0 5 Temperature No No None

Elko R363.6 Unnamed tributary to Willow 

Creek

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R364.1 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R364.1 tributary to China Creek Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R364.1 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R364.2 China Creak Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R364.7 Unnamed tributary to China Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient N/A No No None

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-28

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Creek Data

Elko R364.8 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R365.0 Unnamed tributary to China 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R365.0 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R365.5 Unnamed tributary to Willow 

Creek

Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R365.7 Unnamed tributary to Willow 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R366.2 Unnamed tributary to Willow 

Creek

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R366.3 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R366.5 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R367.2 Unnamed tributary to Willow 

Creek

Ephemeral 20.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R367.2 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R368.2 Hot Creek Perennial 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R368.2 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R368.3 Unnamed tributary to Willow 

Creek

Ephemeral 2.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R368.7 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R369.0 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R369.1 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R369.4 Unnamed tributary to Willow 

Creek

Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R369.7 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R370.6 Unnamed tributary to Willow 

Creek

Perennial 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R371.2 Unnamed tributary to Willow 

Creek

Ephemeral 5.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R371.5 Unnamed tributary to Willow 

Creek

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R371.9 Unnamed tributary to Willow 

Creek

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R372.6 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R373.0 Willow Creek Perennial 8.0 Insufficient N/A Yes No None

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-29

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Data

Elko R373.0 Willow Creek Intermittent 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R373.0 Willow Creek Canal Intermittent 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Elko R373.1 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R374.4 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R376.9 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R377.9 Rock Creek Perennial 30.0 1 N/A Yes No None

Elko R378.3 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R378.3 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R378.3 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R378.4 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R378.5 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R378.5 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R378.5 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R378.6 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R379.5 Unnamed tributary to High Line 

Canal

Intermittent 10.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R380.4 Unnamed tributary to Rock 

Creek

Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R381.0 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R381.0 Unnamed tributary to High Line 

Canal

Ephemeral 5.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R381.8 Unnamed tributary to High Line 

Canal

Ephemeral 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R382.3 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R382.6 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R382.7 Midas Creek Intermittent 3.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Elko R383.7 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R383.8 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-30

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Elko R383.9 Unnamed tributary to Hot Lake 

- Squaw Valley

Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R384.0 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R384.1 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R384.1 Unnamed tributary to Hot Lake 

- Squaw Valley

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R384.3 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R384.6 Unnamed tributary to Hot Lake 

- Squaw Valley

Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R384.8 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R384.8 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R385.0 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R385.2 Summit Creek Intermittent 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Elko R385.3 Unnamed tributary to Summit 

Creek

Intermittent 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Elko R385.4 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R385.5 Unnamed tributary to Summit 

Creek

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R386.5 Spring Creek Perennial 5.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R388.4 Unnamed tributary to Evans 

Creek

Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R388.7 Unnamed tributary to Evans 

Creek

Ephemeral 2.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R388.8 Unnamed tributary to Evans 

Creek

Ephemeral 3.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R389.1 Unnamed tributary to Evans 

Creek

Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R389.5 Unnamed tributary to Evans 

Creek

Ephemeral 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R389.5 Unnamed tributary to Evans 

Creek

Ephemeral 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R389.6 Unnamed tributary to Evans 

Creek

Intermittent 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R389.8 Unnamed tributary to Evans 

Creek

Intermittent 5.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R391.1 Unnamed tributary to Evans 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Elko R391.7 Unnamed tributary to Evans 

Creek

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-31

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Elko R394.8 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt R397.2 Unnamed tributary to Evans 

Creek

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt R397.5 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt R398.2 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt R398.2 Jake Creek Perennial 23.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt R398.2 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt R398.2 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt R403.3 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt R404.0 Unnamed tributary to 

Hammond Ditch

Ephemeral 1.1 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt R404.1 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt R404.2 Unnamed tributary to 

Hammond Ditch

Perennial 6.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Humboldt R404.5 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt R404.5 Kelly Creek Perennial 9.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Humboldt R405.0 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt R406.0 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt R406.9 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt R409.4 Unnamed tributary to Kelly 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt R409.4 Unnamed tributary to Kelly 

Creek

Ephemeral 0.6 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt R409.8 Unnamed tributary to Kelly 

Creek

Ephemeral 0.6 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt R410.0 Unnamed tributary to Kelly 

Creek

Ephemeral 0.6 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 411.1 Unnamed tributary to Kelly 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 411.4 Unnamed tributary to Kelly 

Creek

Ephemeral 4.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 411.9 Unnamed tributary to Kelly 

Creek

Ephemeral 6.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 412.3 Unnamed tributary to Kelly 

Creek

Ephemeral 4.6 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-32

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Humboldt 412.5 Unnamed tributary to Kelly 

Creek

Ephemeral 4.2 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 412.5 Unnamed tributary to Kelly 

Creek

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 412.5 Discontiguous Creek (Eden 

Valley)

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 412.5 Unnamed tributary to Kelly 

Creek

Ephemeral 0.8 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 412.6 Unnamed tributary to Kelly 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 412.7 Unnamed tributary to Kelly 

Creek

Ephemeral 0.8 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 413.0 Unnamed tributary to Kelly 

Creek

Intermittent 1.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 413.5 Unnamed tributary to Kelly 

Creek

Intermittent 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 413.6 Unnamed tributary to Kelly 

Creek

Intermittent 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 414.0 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 415.3 Unnamed tributary to Kelly 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.5 Insufficient

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 416.1 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 416.1 Unnamed tributary to Kelly 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 416.3 Unnamed tributary to Kelly 

Creek

Intermittent 1.2 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 416.5 Unnamed tributary to Kelly 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 417.9 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 419.3 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 419.3 Discontiguous Creek (Eden 

Valley)

Ephemeral 6.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 419.8 Discontiguous Creek (Eden 

Valley)

Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 420.9 Discontiguous Creek (Eden 

Valley)

Ephemeral 6.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 421.4 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 421.4 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 424.4 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 425.7 Tributary to Little Humboldt 

River

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-33

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Humboldt 428.0 Long Canyon Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 428.4 Tributary to Little Humboldt 

River

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 428.4 Tributary to Little Humboldt 

River

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 432.6 Little Humboldt River Intermittent 20.0 5 Total 

Phosphorus

No No None

Humboldt 432.7 Tributary to Little Humboldt 

River

Intermittent 13.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 433.3 Big Cottonwood Creek Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 433.5 Tributary to Big Cottonwood 

Creek

Ephemeral 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 434.7 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 437.6 Tributary to Big Cottonwood 

Creek

Ephemeral 6.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 439.2 Unnamed tributary to Paradise 

Valley

Ephemeral 5.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 439.3 Tributary to Big Cottonwood 

Creek

Ephemeral 4.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 439.8 Tributary to Big Cottonwood 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 441.7 Tributary to Big Cottonwood 

Creek

Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 442.5 Tributary to Big Cottonwood 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 443.3 Tributary to Big Cottonwood 

Creek

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 443.6 Tributary to Big Cottonwood 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 444.1 Tributary to Big Cottonwood 

Creek

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 446.7 Tributary to Tony Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 446.9 Tributary to Tony Creek Ephemeral 6.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 448.1 Tributary to Tony Creek Ephemeral 5.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 448.7 Tributary to Tony Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 449.3 Unnamed Unknown 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 449.5 Porcupine Creek Ephemeral 3.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 449.8 Chimney Creek Ephemeral 6.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-34

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Humboldt 450.0 Chimney Creek Ephemeral 5.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 450.2 Tributary to Tony Creek Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 451.0 Unnamed tributary of Tony 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 452.3 Unnamed tributary of Tony 

Creek

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 453.0 Tony Creek Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 461.5 Unnamed tributary to Quinn 

River

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 462.3 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt R462.4 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt R462.4 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt R462.4 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt R462.4 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 469.9 Bottle Creek Slough Ephemeral 25.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 476.3 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 478.7 Tributary to Quinn River Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 479.3 Tributary to Quinn River Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 479.3 Tributary to Quinn River Ephemeral 5.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 479.7 Tributary to Quinn River Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 480.8 Happy Creek Intermittent 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 481.6 Tributary to Quinn River Intermittent 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 481.6 Tributary to Quinn River Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 482.1 Tributary to Quinn River Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 482.4 Tributary to Quinn River Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 484.4 Tributary to Quinn River Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 484.8 Tributary to Quinn River Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-35

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Humboldt 485.0 Tributary to Quinn River Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 486.1 Tributary to Quinn River Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 487.1 Tributary to Quinn River Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 488.1 Tributary to Quinn River Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 488.3 Tributary to Quinn River Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 488.4 Tributary to Quinn River Ephemeral 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 488.4 Tributary to Quinn River Ephemeral 5.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 488.6 Tributary to Quinn River Ephemeral 5.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 489.5 Quinn River Intermittent 12.0 3,1 N/A No No None

Humboldt 489.6 Quinn River Perennial 30.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Humboldt 490.1 Tributary to Quinn River Intermittent 12.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 490.3 Tributary to Quinn River Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 490.7 Deep Creek Intermittent 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 491.4 Tributary to Quinn River Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 491.9 Tributary to Quinn River Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 498.7 Unnamed tributary to Leonard 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 500.2 Leonard Creek Slough Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 502.6 Leonard Creek Perennial 5.0 1 N/A Yes No None

Humboldt 504.4 Tributary to Leonard Creek Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 505.6 Tributary to Leonard Creek Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 508.6 Tributary to Leonard Creek Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 508.8 Tributary to Leonard Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 510.1 Tributary to Craine Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 510.4 Tributary to Craine Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 510.7 Tributary to Craine Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-36

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Humboldt 511.5 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 511.6 Center Creek Perennial 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Humboldt 513.6 Tributary to Craine Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 516.2 Tributary to Craine Creek Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 529.6 Sand Creek Ephemeral 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 533.1 Unnamed tributary to 

Cottonwood Creek

Ephemeral 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 533.6 Unnamed tributary to 

Cottonwood Creek

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 533.9 Unnamed tributary to 

Cottonwood Creek

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 533.9 Unnamed tributary to 

Cottonwood Creek

Ephemeral 1.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 534.5 Unnamed tributary to 

Cottonwood Creek

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Humboldt 535.0 Cottonwood Creek Perennial 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Washoe 536.1 Tributary to Wall Canyon Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Washoe R538.9 Wall Canyon Creek Intermittent 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Washoe R538.9 Unnamed tributary to Wall 

Canyon Creek

Intermittent 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Washoe 539.9 Unnamed tributary to Wall 

Canyon Creek

Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Washoe 540.4 Tributary to Wall Canyon Creek Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Washoe 544.1 Tributary to Massacre Lake Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Washoe 545.7 Tributary to Middle Lake Ephemeral 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Washoe 550.5 Massacre Creek Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Washoe 562.9 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Washoe 564.7 Tributary to Alkali Lake Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Washoe 565.7 Tributary to Alkali Lake Ephemeral 0.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Washoe 566.0 Tributary to Alkali Lake Ephemeral 2.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Washoe 568.0 Tributary to Alkali Lake Ephemeral 2.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-37

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Washoe 568.9 Tributary to Alkali Lake Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Washoe 569.4 Tributary to Alkali Lake Ephemeral 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Washoe 571.3 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Washoe 571.3 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Washoe 571.4 Unnamed tributary to Alkali 

Lake

Ephemeral 6.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Washoe 571.8 Unnamed tributary to Alkali 

Lake

Ephemeral 2.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Washoe 572.1 Tributary to Alkali Lake Ephemeral 0.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Washoe 573.5 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Washoe 574.0 Unnamed tributary to Lake 

tributary to Mosquito Valley

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Washoe 574.0 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Washoe 574.6 Unnamed tributary to Mosquito 

Lake

Intermittent 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Washoe 579.7 Tributary to Twelvemile Creek Ephemeral 5.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Washoe 579.8 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Washoe 579.8 Stock Pond Intermittent Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Washoe 580.9 Unnamed tributary to Twelve 

Mile Creek

Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Washoe 581.6 Tributary to Twelvemile Creek Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Washoe 582.2 Unnamed tributary to Twelve 

Mile Creek

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Washoe 582.7 Unnamed tributary to Twelve 

Mile Creek

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Washoe 585.2 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

OREGON

Lake 588.3 Twelvemile Creek Perennial 30.0 2, 3, 3B, 5 Arsenic (tri), 

silver, 

Temperature

Yes Yes Warner Lakes 

redband trout, Warner 

sucker

Lake 589.4 Unnamed tributary to 

Twelvemile Creek

Intermittent 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes Yes Warner Lakes 

redband trout, Warner 

sucker

Lake 589.7 Tributary to Twelvemile Creek Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 589.8 Unnamed tributary to Intermittent 1.5 Insufficient N/A Yes Yes Warner Lakes 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-38

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Twelvemile Creek Data redband trout, Warner 

sucker

Lake 589.8 Seep Potentially Tributary to 

Dove Creek

Intermittent Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 589.8 Unnamed tributary to 

Twelvemile Creek

Intermittent 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Lake 596.0 Twentymile Creek Intermittent 48.0 2, 3, 3B, 5 Dissolved 

Oxygen, 

Temperature, 

Arsenic (tri), 

Silver

Yes Yes Warner Lakes 

redband trout, Warner 

sucker

Lake 600.4 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 600.5 Tributary to Deep Creek Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 600.8 Tributary to Deep Creek Intermittent 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Lake 601.5 Unnamed tributary to Deep 

Creek

Intermittent 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Lake 601.7 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 601.8 Deep Creek Perennial 67.0 2, 3B, 5 Temperature Yes Yes Warner Lakes 

redband trout, Warner 

sucker

Lake 601.8 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 603.0 Unnamed tributary to Horse 

Creek

Ephemeral 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R603.1 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R603.1 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R603.1 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R603.1 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R603.1 Horse Creek Perennial 20.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Lake R603.5 Tributary to Horse Creek Intermittent 1.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R603.8 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 605.4 Tributary to Horse Creek Intermittent 2.5 5 Temperature No No None

Lake 606.3 Tributary to Horse Creek Intermittent 2.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Lake 607.4 Tributary to Burnt Creek Ephemeral 1.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 609.2 Unnamed tributary to Camas Intermittent 1.0 Insufficient N/A No No None

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-39

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Creek Data

Lake 609.2 Tributary to Camas Creek Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 609.5 tributary to Camas Creek Perennial 6.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 609.6 Camas Creek Perennial 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Lake 609.6 Tributary to Camas Creek Perennial 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 609.6 Camas Creek Perennial 5.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 609.7 Tributary to Camas Creek Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 610.7 Wash Tributary to Deadman 

Creek

Intermittent 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 610.7 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 610.8 Unnamed tributary to Deadman 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 610.8 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 610.8 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 610.8 Unnamed tributary to Deadman 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 610.8 Unnamed tributary to Deadman 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 610.8 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 610.9 Unnamed tributary to Deadman 

Creek

Intermittent 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 610.9 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 610.9 Canal Tributary to Bullard 

Creek

Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 610.9 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 611.0 Deadman's Creek Perennial 5.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 611.0 Unnamed tributary to Deadman 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 611.0 Unnamed tributary to Deadman 

Creek

Perennial 1.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 611.0 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 611.0 Unnamed tributary to Deadman 

Creek

Intermittent 0.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 611.0 Unnamed tributary to Deadman Perennial 4.0 Insufficient N/A No No None

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-40

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Creek Data

Lake 611.2 Unnamed tributary to Deadman 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 611.3 Unnamed tributary to Crane 

Creek

Intermittent 1.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 611.4 Unnamed tributary to Crane 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 611.5 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 611.6 Unnamed tributary to Crane 

Creek

Intermittent 1.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 611.6 Unnamed tributary to Crane 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 611.9 Unnamed tributary to Crane 

Creek

Ephemeral 0.8 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 611.9 Unnamed tributary to Crane 

Creek

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 611.9 Unnamed tributary to Crane 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 611.9 Unnamed tributary to Crane 

Creek

Ephemeral 2.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 611.9 Unnamed tributary to Crane 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 612.0 Unnamed tributary to Crane 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 612.4 Tributary to Thomas Creek Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 614.2 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 614.2 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 614.2 Unnamed tributary to Crane 

Creek

Intermittent 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Lake 614.4 Tributary to Crane Creek Perennial 5.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Lake R614.6 Unnamed Canal to Crane 

Creek

Perennial 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R614.6 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R614.6 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R614.7 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R614.7 Unnamed Tributary to Crane 

Creek

Perennial 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R614.7 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R614.9 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient N/A No No None

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-41

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Data

Lake R614.9 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R614.9 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R615.0 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R615.0 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R615.0 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R615.0 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R615.0 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R615.0 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R615.0 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R615.0 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R615.0 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R615.0 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R615.0 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R615.0 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R615.0 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R615.0 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R615.0 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R615.0 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R615.0 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R615.0 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R615.0 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R615.0 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R615.1 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R615.1 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient N/A No No None

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-42

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Data

Lake R615.2 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R615.2 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R615.2 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R615.2 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R615.2 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R615.3 Unnamed Tributary to Crane 

Creek

Intermittent 0.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R615.5 Unnamed Canal to Crane 

Creek

Intermittent 0.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R615.5 Unnamed Canal to Crane 

Creek

Intermittent 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R615.5 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R615.6 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R615.6 Unnamed Canal to Crane 

Creek

Intermittent 0.6 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R615.7 Unnamed Canal to Crane 

Creek

Intermittent 1.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R615.7 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R615.8 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R615.8 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R616.4 Unnamed Canal to Crane 

Creek

Intermittent 5.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R616.9 Unnamed Canal to Crane 

Creek

Intermittent 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R616.9 Unnamed Canal to Crane 

Creek

Perennial 6.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R620.2 Thomas Creek Perennial 40.0 2, 3, 3B, 5 Temperature, 

Dissolved 

Oxygen, Iron

Yes Yes Goose Lake sucker, 

Goose Lake tui chub, 

Goose Lake lamprey, 

Modoc sucker

Lake 622.8 Tributary to Goose Lake Intermittent 1.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes Yes Goose Lake redband 

trout, Goose Lake 

sucker, Goose Lake 

tui chub, Goose Lake 

lamprey

Lake 623.5 Tributary to Goose Lake Intermittent 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes Yes Goose Lake redband 

trout, Goose Lake 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-43

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

sucker, Goose Lake 

tui chub, Goose Lake 

lamprey

Lake 623.6 Tributary to Goose Lake Intermittent 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes Yes Goose Lake redband 

trout, Goose Lake 

sucker, Goose Lake 

tui chub, Goose Lake 

lamprey

Lake 623.7 Drews Creek Perennial 15.0 3 N/A Yes Yes Goose Lake redband 

trout, Goose Lake 

sucker, Goose Lake 

tui chub, Goose Lake 

lamprey

Lake 623.9 Tributary to Goose Lake Perennial 8.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Lake 624.5 Tributary to Goose Lake Intermittent 13.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes Yes Goose Lake redband 

trout, Goose Lake 

sucker, Goose Lake 

tui chub, Goose Lake 

lamprey

Lake 625.5 Tributary to Goose Lake Perennial 15.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes Yes Goose Lake redband 

trout, Goose Lake 

sucker, Goose Lake 

tui chub, Goose Lake 

lamprey

Lake 625.9 Tributary to Goose Lake Intermittent 18.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes Yes Goose Lake redband 

trout, Goose Lake 

sucker, Goose Lake 

tui chub, Goose Lake 

lamprey

Lake 627.5 Tributary to Goose Lake Perennial 5.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes Yes Goose Lake redband 

trout, Goose Lake 

sucker, Goose Lake 

tui chub, Goose Lake 

lamprey

Lake 627.6 Tributary to Goose Lake Perennial 2.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes Yes Goose Lake redband 

trout, Goose Lake 

sucker, Goose Lake 

tui chub, Goose Lake 

lamprey

Lake 628.1 Drews Creek Perennial 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 628.4 Tributary to Goose Lake Intermittent 10.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes Yes Goose Lake redband 

trout, Goose Lake 

sucker, Goose Lake 

tui chub, Goose Lake 

lamprey

Lake 629.2 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-44

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Lake 629.2 Tributary to Goose Lake Intermittent 18.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes Yes Goose Lake redband 

trout, Goose Lake 

Sucker, Goose Lake 

tui chub, Goose Lake 

Lamprey, Pit Klamath 

brooke lamprey

Lake 629.9 Tributary to Dry Creek Perennial 18.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes Yes Goose Lake redband 

trout, Goose Lake 

Sucker, Goose Lake 

tui chub, Goose Lake 

Lamprey, Pit Klamath 

brooke lamprey

Lake 630.0 Dry Creek Perennial 10.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes Yes Goose Lake redband 

trout, Goose Lake 

Sucker, Goose Lake 

tui chub, Goose Lake 

Lamprey, Pit Klamath 

brooke lamprey

Lake 630.6 Tributary to Dry Creek Ephemeral 2.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 630.7 Tributary to Dry Creek Ephemeral 5.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 631.3 Tributary to Dry Creek Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 631.3 Tributary to Dry Creek Ephemeral 6.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 631.4 Dry Creek Perennial 12.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 631.6 Tributary to Dry Creek Intermittent 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 631.7 Unnamed tributary to Dry 

Creek

Ephemeral 5.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 631.8 Sibley Draw Perennial 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 632.7 Dry Creek Perennial 14.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 632.9 Unnamed Unknown 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 633.2 Tributary to Dry Creek Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 633.4 Tributary to McCoin Creek Ephemeral 10.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 633.4 Tributary to McCoin Creek Ephemeral 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 633.7 Tributary to McCoin Creek Intermittent 25.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes Yes Goose Lake redband 

trout, Goose Lake 

Sucker, Goose Lake 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-45

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

tui chub, Goose Lake 

Lamprey, Pit Klamath 

brooke lamprey

Lake 634.2 Tributary to McCoin Creek Ephemeral 0.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 634.3 Tributary to McCoin Creek Intermittent 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes Yes Goose Lake redband 

trout, Goose Lake 

sucker, Goose Lake 

tui chub, Goose Lake 

lamprey, Pit Klamath 

brooke lamprey

Lake 634.7 McCoin Creek Intermittent 17.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes Yes Goose Lake redband 

trout, Goose Lake 

Sucker, Goose Lake 

tui chub, Goose Lake 

Lamprey, Pit Klamath 

brooke

Lake 634.7 Fall Creek Perennial 15.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes Yes Goose Lake redband 

trout, Goose Lake 

Sucker, Goose Lake 

tui chub, Goose Lake 

Lamprey, Pit Klamath 

brooke

Lake 634.8 Unnamed tributary to Dry 

Creek

Ephemeral 2.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 635.1 Unnamed tributary to Falls 

Creek

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 635.7 Unnamed tributary Falls Creek Ephemeral 3.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 636.1 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 636.3 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 636.6 Unnamed tributary to Fall 

Creek

Intermittent 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 636.7 Unnamed tributary to Fall 

Creek

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 637.0 Unnamed tributary to Fall 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 638.8 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 638.8 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 638.9 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 639.4 South Arm East Willow Creek Intermittent 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes Yes Lost River Sucker, 

Shortnose Sucker

Lake 642.1 Tributary to North Fork Willow 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-46

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Lake 642.1 Tributary to North Fork Willow 

Creek

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 642.2 Tributary to North Fork Willow 

Creek

Ephemeral 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 642.4 Tributary to North Fork Willow 

Creek

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 642.5 North Fork Willow Creek Intermittent 2.0 5 Temperature No No None

Lake 642.5 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 642.7 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 642.7 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake 643.1 Tributary to North Fork Willow 

Creek

Intermittent 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Lake R645.2 Unnamed tributary to Wild 

Horse Creek

Ephemeral 2.3 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R645.5 Unnamed tributary to Wild 

Horse Creek

Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R645.7 Unnamed tributary to Wild 

Horse Creek

Ephemeral 28.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Lake R646.1 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Klamath R647.0 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Klamath R648.5 Fourmile Creek Ephemeral 1.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Klamath R650.7 Rock Creek Springs Intermittent 16.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Klamath R650.9 Rock Creek Springs Perennial 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Klamath R651.9 Rock Creek Perennial 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

Temperature Yes No None

Klamath R656.0 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Klamath R656.8 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Klamath R657.5 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Klamath R657.9 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Klamath R661.6 East Branch Lost River Perennial 15.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes Yes Lost River Sucker, 

Shortnose Sucker

Klamath R662.3 Unnamed tributary to East 

Branch Lost River

Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Klamath R665.2 Lost River Perennial 360.0 2, 3, 3B, 5 Dissolved 

Oxygen, 

Ammonia, 

Yes Yes Lost River Sucker, 

Shortnose Sucker, 

Upper Klamath Basin 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-47

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

Chlorophyll a redband trout

Klamath R667.0 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Klamath R670.5 Unnamed tributary to Low Line 

Canal

Ephemeral 3.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Klamath R671.8 Low Line Canal Perennial 12.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Klamath R671.9 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Klamath R671.9 Unnamed tributary to High Line 

Canal

Ephemeral 2.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Klamath R671.9 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Klamath R672.2 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Klamath R672.5 Unnamed tributary to Canal D Perennial 2.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Klamath R672.6 Canal Tributary to D Canal Intermittent 1.5 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Klamath R672.6 Canal Tributary to D Canal Intermittent 4.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Klamath R672.6 High Line Canal Intermittent 1.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Klamath R672.6 Low Line Canal Intermittent 10.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Klamath R672.6 Low Line Canal Intermittent 15.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Klamath R672.6 Tributary to Low Line Canal Intermittent 5.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

Klamath R672.6 High Line Canal Intermittent 10.0 Insufficient 

Data

N/A Yes No None

Klamath R672.6 Unnamed Unknown Unknown Insufficient 

Data

N/A No No None

a Sensitive Fisheries Type/Issue:

1. Protected species (listed federal/state threatened or endangered)

2. Special status species, species of concern, other status (state or federal)

3. Salmonid/trout spawning habitat near crossing

4. Primary migration route

5. Significant recreational fisheries regulations or considered high priority by state

6. Potential lamprey spawning grounds

7. Designated critical habitat or proposed critical habitat

8. Risk of sedimentation of downstream of protected species

Wyoming Waterbody Classifications:

2: Known to support fish or drinking water supplies.

2AB: Known to support game fish populations or spawning and nursery areas at least seasonally and where a game fishery and drinking water use are otherwise attainable.

2C: Known to support or have the potential to support only nongame fish populations or spawning and nursery areas at least seasonally.

3: Neither support nor have the potential to support fish populations or spawning, or certain perennial waters that lack the natural water quality to support fish. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Q-48

APPENDIX Q

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Waterbody

Flow

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

State 

Waterbody 

Classification

303(d) Listed/ 

Parameter 

Exceeded

FishBearing

(status of 

species)

Sensitive 

Fisheries 

Type/Issuea

Prevalent Sensitive 

Fish Species

3B: Not known to support fish populations or drinking water supplies and where those uses are not attainable.

4A: Artificial canals or ditches that are not known to support fish populations.

Utah Waterbody Classifications:

2: Fully supporting for all assessed beneficial use classes.

3: Not assessed (not enough samples to make an assessment).

4A: All Total Maximum Daily Loads have been approved.

Nevada Waterbody Classifications:

Water quality standards for Nevada are contained in the Nevada Administrative Code, Chapter 445A.118-445A.225.

Oregon Waterbody Classification:

2: Some of the designated uses are met, but there are insufficient data to determine whether remaining designated uses are met.

3: Insufficient data to determine whether any designated uses are met.

3B: Insufficient data but some data indicate non-attainment of a criterion and a potential concern.

5: Water is impaired or threatened, and a Total Maximum Daily Load is needed. This category constitutes the Section 303(d) list that the EPA will approve or disapprove under the CWA.

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX R 

Wetlands Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
R-1

APPENDIX R

Wetlands Crossed By The Proposed Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County Wetland ID MP Wetland Typea

Wetland Acreage 

within the 75-foot 

Construction 

Workspace

Wetland Acreage 

within the 50-foot 

Operational Right-ofWay

Wetland Acreage

within the Extra 

Work Space

Wetland Acreage

within Construction 

Yards and 

Staging Areas

Wetland 

Acreage within 

the Access 

Road 30-foot 

Improvement

Access Road 

Name

WYOMING

Lincoln WW-16-007 0.6 PEM/PSS 1.38 0.92

Lincoln WW-16-008 0.7 PEMF 0.13 0.08

Lincoln WW-16-010 0.8 PEM/PSS 0.47 0.32

Lincoln WW-16-011 0.8 PSS 0.12 0.07

Lincoln WW-16-012 0.9 PEM 0.01 0.01

Lincoln WW-16-001 1.0 PEM 2.10 1.40 0.51

Lincoln WW-41-008 8.3 None Given 0.02 LW-13

Lincoln WW-41-009 8.4 None Given 0.02 LW-6A

Lincoln WW-17-005 8.6 PEM 0.04 0.03 0.09

Lincoln WW-41-007 14.9 None Given 3.66

Lincoln WW-39-016A 17.7 None Given 0.01 LW-23

Lincoln WW-16-002 18.8 PEM 0.02 0.01 0.03

Lincoln WW-16-003 19.7 PEM 0.07 0.05

Uinta WW-16-004 20.3 PEM 0.08 0.04

Uinta WW-16-006 20.5 PEM 0.30 0.20

Uinta WW-17-007 22.7 PEM 0.19 U-3

Uinta WW-17-010 23.5 PEM 0.07 0.04

Uinta WW-17-011 23.8 PEM 0.07 0.04 0.04 U-1

Uinta WW-17-012 23.9 PEM 0.06 0.03

Uinta WW-41-005 24.8 None Given 0.48 U-6

Uinta WW-26-008 27.1 PEM 0.02 0.01

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
R-2

APPENDIX R

Wetlands Crossed By The Proposed Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County Wetland ID MP Wetland Typea

Wetland Acreage 

within the 75-foot 

Construction 

Workspace

Wetland Acreage 

within the 50-foot 

Operational Right-ofWay

Wetland Acreage

within the Extra 

Work Space

Wetland Acreage

within Construction 

Yards and 

Staging Areas

Wetland 

Acreage within 

the Access 

Road 30-foot 

Improvement

Access Road 

Name

Uinta WW-26-003 28.0 PEM 0.09 0.03 0.01 U-6

Uinta WW-26-001 36.5 PEM 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.01 U-10

Uinta WW-26-006 37.0 PEM 0.00 0.00 0.01 U-10

Uinta WW-41-006 37.6 None Given 0.00 U-14

Uinta WW-39-018 R42.1 None Given 0.02

Uinta WW-26-005 42.3 PEM 0.04 0.02 0.03

Uinta WW-39-015 44.4 PEM 0.01 U-28

Uinta WW-34-003 44.5 PEM 0.03 0.02 0.07

Uinta WW-39-024B 44.7 PEM 0.01 U-19

Lincoln WW-124-001 44.8 PEM 0.11

Uinta WW-39-013 45.1 PEM 0.07 U-24

UTAH

Rich WW-26-004 49.6 PEM 1.68 1.12

Rich WW-28-011 R52.0 PUSCx 0.11 0.11 0.78

Rich WW-28-010 R52.1 PUSCx 0.07 0.07 0.23 R-5C

Rich WW-28-009A R52.2 PUSCx 0.01 0.01 0.00

Rich WW-28-009B R52.2 PUSCx 0.02

Rich WW-28-009 R52.2 PUSCx 0.11 0.03 0.39

Rich WW-165-002 R52.3 PSS 0.21 R-5F

Rich WW-165-003 R52.4 PEM 0.56 R-5F

Rich WW-28-008 R52.5 PEM 1.72 1.13 2.66

Rich WW-28-007 R52.8 PEM 2.57 1.74 3.92

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
R-3

APPENDIX R

Wetlands Crossed By The Proposed Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County Wetland ID MP Wetland Typea

Wetland Acreage 

within the 75-foot 

Construction 

Workspace

Wetland Acreage 

within the 50-foot 

Operational Right-ofWay

Wetland Acreage

within the Extra 

Work Space

Wetland Acreage

within Construction 

Yards and 

Staging Areas

Wetland 

Acreage within 

the Access 

Road 30-foot 

Improvement

Access Road 

Name

Rich WW-28-006 60.7 PEM 0.73 0.48

Rich WW-39-011A 60.8 None Given 0.03 R-8B

Rich WW-39-011 60.8 None Given 0.09 R-8B

Rich WW-39-010A 60.9 None Given 0.03 R-19

Rich WW-39-010 60.9 None Given 0.13 R-19

Rich WW-39-012 64.8 PSS 0.02 R-20

Rich WW-39-009 68.3 None Given 0.00 R-24

Rich WW-39-009A 68.3 None Given 0.00 R-24

Rich WW-39-008A 69.3 None Given 0.00 R-25

Rich WW-39-008 69.3 None Given 0.01 R-25

Cache WW-28-005 78.7 PEM 0.05 0.04

Cache WW-27-002A 79.4 PEM 0.02 0.01

Cache WW-27-002 79.4 PEM 0.05 0.04

Cache WW-39-002 80.2 PEM 0.00 C-5

Cache WW-39-003A 80.2 None Given 0.01 C-5

Cache WW-39-003B 80.2 None Given 0.00 C-5

Cache WW-39-003 80.2 None Given 0.00 C-5

Cache WW-39-007 80.5 None Given 0.12 C-7

Cache WW-39-006 80.6 None Given 0.05 C-7

Cache WW-39-005 81.0 None Given 0.02 C-5

Cache WW-165-005 81.4 PEM 0.05 0.03 0.08

Cache WW-41-003 82.1 None Given 0.00 C-5

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
R-4

APPENDIX R

Wetlands Crossed By The Proposed Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County Wetland ID MP Wetland Typea

Wetland Acreage 

within the 75-foot 

Construction 

Workspace

Wetland Acreage 

within the 50-foot 

Operational Right-ofWay

Wetland Acreage

within the Extra 

Work Space

Wetland Acreage

within Construction 

Yards and 

Staging Areas

Wetland 

Acreage within 

the Access 

Road 30-foot 

Improvement

Access Road 

Name

Cache WW-164-001 90.6 PEM 0.01 C-13A

Cache WW-28-004 92.2 PEM 0.33 0.26 0.05 C-14A

Cache WW-28-003 92.4 PSS 0.40 0.25

Cache WW-28-001 92.6 PEM 0.16 0.11

Cache WW-27-001 93.4 PEM 0.01 0.00 0.01

Cache WW-18-014 94.8 PSS 0.04 0.03 0.02

Cache WW-40-002 94.8 None Given 0.00 C-18

Cache WW-40-002B 94.8 None Given 0.00 C-18

Cache WW-41-002 94.8 None Given 0.01 C-18

Cache WW-143-002 94.8 PEM 12.56 0.06 C-18

Cache WW-18-013 96.5 PEM 0.03 0.01 0.03

Box Elder WW-18-011 102.5 PEM 0.00 B-1

Box Elder WW-18-010 R102.7 PEM 0.02 0.13 B-1

Box Elder WW-18-009 R102.8 PEM 0.08 B-1

Box Elder WW-18-008 R102.9 PEM 0.02 0.01 0.02 B-1A

Box Elder WW-145-002 103.5 PEM 0.08 B-1A

Box Elder WW-165-001 103.6 PEM 0.01 B-1F

Box Elder WW-18-007 R105.0 PSS 0.17 0.17 0.01 B-3

Box Elder WW-123-001 106.4 PEM 0.00 0.00 B-2A

Box Elder WW-123-002 106.6 PEM 0.04 B-2M

Box Elder WW-18-004A R108.8 PEM 0.07 0.06 0.18

Box Elder WW-17-004B 109.3 PEM/L2USA/P

USA 8.97 6.03 13.89

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
R-5

APPENDIX R

Wetlands Crossed By The Proposed Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County Wetland ID MP Wetland Typea

Wetland Acreage 

within the 75-foot 

Construction 

Workspace

Wetland Acreage 

within the 50-foot 

Operational Right-ofWay

Wetland Acreage

within the Extra 

Work Space

Wetland Acreage

within Construction 

Yards and 

Staging Areas

Wetland 

Acreage within 

the Access 

Road 30-foot 

Improvement

Access Road 

Name

Box Elder WW-17-004A 110.1 PEM/L2USA/P

USA 2.20 1.51 3.91 0.12 B-3B

Box Elder WW-17-004 110.6 PEM/L2USA/P

USA 6.20 4.12 9.90

Box Elder WW-17-001 111.5 PEM/L2USA/P

USA 10.13 6.75 16.21 0.13 B-3A

Box Elder WW-165-007 111.9 PEM 20.39 0.34 B-3A

Box Elder WW-18-003 112.2 PEM 0.01 0.01 0.02

Box Elder WW-165-006 112.2 PEM 0.00 B-3A

Box Elder WW-18-001 112.4 PEM 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.04 B-4E

Box Elder WW-165-004 112.4 PEM 0.00 B-4E

Box Elder WW-143-001 116.6 PEM 0.34 0.21 0.50 3.05

Box Elder WW-145-003 118.3 PEM 0.02 B-6D

Box Elder WW-39-019 118.3 PEM 0.11 0.07 0.18 0.01 B-6D

Box Elder WW-39-019A 118.3 PEM 0.02 0.01 0.04

Box Elder WW-39-020 118.9 PEMC 0.11 0.09 0.09

Box Elder WW-145-004 118.9 PEM 0.02 B-6D

Box Elder WW-11-012 119.2 None Given 0.03 0.02 0.09 0.02 B-6D

Box Elder WW-11-010 119.5 PEM 0.32 0.23 0.45

Box Elder WW-40-003B 120.0 None Given 0.11 B-8

Box Elder WW-40-003A 120.0 None Given 0.07 B-8

Box Elder WW-40-003 120.0 None Given 0.03 B-8

Box Elder WW-40-002A 120.4 None Given 0.03 B-8

Box Elder WW-40-002C 120.4 None Given 0.02 B-7

Box Elder WW-40-004 120.5 None Given 0.02 B-7

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
R-6

APPENDIX R

Wetlands Crossed By The Proposed Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County Wetland ID MP Wetland Typea

Wetland Acreage 

within the 75-foot 

Construction 

Workspace

Wetland Acreage 

within the 50-foot 

Operational Right-ofWay

Wetland Acreage

within the Extra 

Work Space

Wetland Acreage

within Construction 

Yards and 

Staging Areas

Wetland 

Acreage within 

the Access 

Road 30-foot 

Improvement

Access Road 

Name

Box Elder WW-11-009 123.9 PEM/L2USA 1.48 0.99 2.38

Box Elder WW-11-008 124.1 PEM 0.06 0.04 0.13

Box Elder WW-11-006 124.5 PEM 0.08 0.04 0.11

Box Elder WW-11-004 124.6 PEM 0.39 0.30 0.48

Box Elder WW-11-003 124.6 PEMA 0.09 0.07 0.23

Box Elder WW-11-002 124.8 PEM 0.56 0.44 0.83 B-14

Box Elder WW-11-001 124.9 PEM 0.18 0.13 0.29 0.00 B-14

Box Elder WW-10-008 125.0 PEMC 0.20 0.13 0.19 B-14

Box Elder WW-122-003 125.2 PEM 0.71 0.48 1.18

Box Elder WW-122-001 R125.7 PEM 2.93 1.89 4.64

Box Elder WW-10-004 126.3 PEM 0.33 0.30 0.23

Box Elder WW-123-003 126.4 PEM 0.31 0.21 0.38 0.10 B-16D

Box Elder WW-10-003 126.7 PEM 0.12 0.10 0.16

Box Elder WW-39-025 149.5 None Given 0.05 B-25

Box Elder WW-03-001 150.4 L2USA 3.02 2.00

Box Elder WW-01-002 161.8 PUSC 1.01 0.68

Box Elder WW-01-003 162.8 PUSC 0.03 0.03

Box Elder WW-164-002 169.5 PSS 2.03 B-27C

Box Elder WW-164-003 171.3 PEM 4.61 B-36

Box Elder WW-40-006 174.4 None Given 0.04 B-40

Box Elder WW-39-023A 176.1 None Given 0.00 B-39

Box Elder WW-39-023 176.1 None Given 0.04 B-39

Box Elder WW-09-003 184.1 PEM 0.31 0.19 0.10 B-39

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
R-7

APPENDIX R

Wetlands Crossed By The Proposed Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County Wetland ID MP Wetland Typea

Wetland Acreage 

within the 75-foot 

Construction 

Workspace

Wetland Acreage 

within the 50-foot 

Operational Right-ofWay

Wetland Acreage

within the Extra 

Work Space

Wetland Acreage

within Construction 

Yards and 

Staging Areas

Wetland 

Acreage within 

the Access 

Road 30-foot 

Improvement

Access Road 

Name

Box Elder WW-09-002 184.2 PSS 0.09 0.07 B-39

Box Elder WW-09-001 184.8 PSS 0.54 0.38 0.69 0.08 B-42A

NEVADA

Elko WW-149-003 270.3 PEM 0.14 0.09

Elko WW-112-001 276.4 PEM 0.03 E-10

Elko WW-15-001 278.2 PEM 0.13 0.09 0.04 E-11

Elko WW-132-004 281.9 PEM 0.07 E-12

Elko WW-15-002 283.4 PEM 0.06 0.04

Elko WW-15-004 286.8 PEM 0.33 0.20 0.03 E-14A

Elko WW-130-002 286.8 PEM 0.02 E-14A

Elko WW-15-006 287.5 PEM 0.05 0.04

Elko WW-53-001 301.7 PSS 0.08 0.08

Elko WW-54-002 301.8 PEM 0.01

Elko WW-54-001 301.8 PEM 0.00 0.00

Elko WW-07-002 302.9 PEM 0.02 0.02

Elko WW-110-001 303.1 PEM 0.04 E-20

Elko WW-110-003 303.7 PEM 1.04 0.70 1.36 E-21

Elko WW-06-001 318.1 PEM 0.16 0.11

Elko WW-06-003 329.5 PEM 0.14 0.10

Elko WW-06-004 331.0 PEM 2.89 1.92

Elko WW-101-001 343.9 PEM 0.16 E-44

Elko WW-151-001 346.5 PEM 0.55

Elko WW-151-002 347.7 PEM 0.23 0.16

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
R-8

APPENDIX R

Wetlands Crossed By The Proposed Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County Wetland ID MP Wetland Typea

Wetland Acreage 

within the 75-foot 

Construction 

Workspace

Wetland Acreage 

within the 50-foot 

Operational Right-ofWay

Wetland Acreage

within the Extra 

Work Space

Wetland Acreage

within Construction 

Yards and 

Staging Areas

Wetland 

Acreage within 

the Access 

Road 30-foot 

Improvement

Access Road 

Name

Elko WW-132-001 R350.7 PEM 0.00 E-48C

Elko WW-132-002 R350.7 PEM 0.01 E-48C

Elko WW-169-002 R353.3 PEM 0.03 0.02

Elko WW-168-006 R359.6 PEM 0.02

Elko WW-168-005 R361.5 PEM 0.04 0.02

Elko WW-168-004 R361.7 PEM 0.03 0.02

Elko WW-168-003 R363.3 PEM 0.06 0.04 0.12

Elko WW-183-001 R363.5 PEM 0.04 E-50A

Elko WW-168-002 R364.0 PEM 0.03 0.02

Elko WW-169-001 R370.0 PEM 0.03 0.03 0.03

Elko WW-168-001 R372.4 PEM 0.09 0.06

Elko WW-147-004 R380.3 PEM 0.02 0.02

Elko WW-183-004 R386.6 PEM 0.03 0.02 0.06 0.00 E-57A

Elko WW-147-001 R388.3 PEM 0.19 0.12

Humboldt WW-23-002 434.6 PEM 0.64 0.47

Humboldt WW-23-002A 435.1 PEM 7.51 4.98

Humboldt WW-182-001 467.6 PEM 0.24

Humboldt WW-12-001 483.2 PEM 0.94 0.63

Humboldt WW-12-002 491.9 PEM 3.50 2.33

Humboldt WW-23-001 513.1 PEM 0.00

Humboldt WW-150-003 519.4 PEM 0.00 H-48

Humboldt WW-183-005 537.2 PEM 0.13 0.08 0.17

Washoe WW-155-012 541.9 PEM 0.01 W-1

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
R-9

APPENDIX R

Wetlands Crossed By The Proposed Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County Wetland ID MP Wetland Typea

Wetland Acreage 

within the 75-foot 

Construction 

Workspace

Wetland Acreage 

within the 50-foot 

Operational Right-ofWay

Wetland Acreage

within the Extra 

Work Space

Wetland Acreage

within Construction 

Yards and 

Staging Areas

Wetland 

Acreage within 

the Access 

Road 30-foot 

Improvement

Access Road 

Name

Washoe WW-155-011 541.9 PEM 0.00 W-1

Washoe WW-155-010 541.9 PEM 0.00 W-1

Washoe WW-13-002 572.8 PEM 0.16 0.11 0.00 W-9

Washoe WW-140-008 573.7 PEM 0.11 0.06

Washoe WW-140-007 576.2 PEM 0.06 W-14A

Washoe WW-140-006 576.3 PEM 0.04 0.03 0.09 0.34 W-14A

Washoe WW-140-005 576.4 PEM 0.31 0.21

Washoe WW-140-004 576.4 PEM 0.04 W-14A

Washoe WW-108-003 576.5 PEM 0.05 W-14A

OREGON

Lake WW-184-002 598.3 PEM 0.09 0.06 0.15

Lake WW-20-007 R601.9 PEM 0.12 0.08

Lake WW-184-003 R603.8 PEM 0.23 0.15 0.29 0.40 L-3A

Lake WW-192-004 604.9 PEM 0.03 CT-1

Lake WW-172-004 605.5 PEM 0.05 0.04 0.04

Lake WW-172-003 605.6 PEM 0.00 0.00 CT-1

Lake WW-192-005 605.6 PEM 0.02 CT-1

Lake WW-192-006 605.9 PEM 0.00 CT-1B

Lake WW-174-005 606.1 PEM 0.03 0.00

Lake WW-20-002 607.6 PEM 0.03

Lake WW-192-002 608.9 PEM 0.01 CT-4

Lake WW-38-003 610.5 PEM 1.33 0.84 L-9A

Lake WW-200-001 611.8 PEM 0.08 0.08

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
R-10

APPENDIX R

Wetlands Crossed By The Proposed Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County Wetland ID MP Wetland Typea

Wetland Acreage 

within the 75-foot 

Construction 

Workspace

Wetland Acreage 

within the 50-foot 

Operational Right-ofWay

Wetland Acreage

within the Extra 

Work Space

Wetland Acreage

within Construction 

Yards and 

Staging Areas

Wetland 

Acreage within 

the Access 

Road 30-foot 

Improvement

Access Road 

Name

Lake WW-173-015 612.2 PEM 0.00 L-12

Lake WW-173-017 612.4 PEM 0.00 L-12

Lake WW-192-001 612.5 PEM 0.00 CT-7

Lake WW-173-018 612.5 PEM 0.00 L-12

Lake WW-173-020 612.6 PEM 0.00 L-12

Lake WW-155-003 612.9 PEM 0.01 L-12A

Lake WW-155-002 612.9 PEM 0.01 L-12A

Lake WW-173-006 613.0 PEM 0.01 0.01

Lake WW-173-003 613.1 PEM 0.01

Lake WW-173-013 613.2 PEM 0.03 L-12D

Lake WW-173-007 613.2 PEM 0.01 0.00 0.02

Lake WW-173-008 613.2 PEM 0.00

Lake WW-155-007 613.4 PEM 0.06 L-12D

Lake WW-173-011 613.6 PEM 0.01 0.02 0.02 L-12D

Lake WW-173-012 613.8 PEM 0.01

Lake WW-152-001 R617.2 PEM 4.11 2.72 6.81 0.43 L-14B

Lake WW-152-002 R617.7 PEM 0.02 0.01 0.02

Lake WW-152-011 R617.7 PEM 0.23 L-14A

Lake WW-152-010 R617.7 PEM 0.01 L-14A

Lake WW-152-003 R617.8 PEM 1.10 0.75 1.75

Lake WW-152-008 R617.8 PSS 0.03 L-14A

Lake WW-152-006 R617.9 PEM 0.11 L-14A

Lake WW-152-004 R619.0 PEM 7.49 5.00 11.88

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
R-11

APPENDIX R

Wetlands Crossed By The Proposed Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County Wetland ID MP Wetland Typea

Wetland Acreage 

within the 75-foot 

Construction 

Workspace

Wetland Acreage 

within the 50-foot 

Operational Right-ofWay

Wetland Acreage

within the Extra 

Work Space

Wetland Acreage

within Construction 

Yards and 

Staging Areas

Wetland 

Acreage within 

the Access 

Road 30-foot 

Improvement

Access Road 

Name

Lake WW-25-100 626.2 PEM 75.84 50.51 120.89 2.93

Lake WW-126-001 630.7 PEM 0.12 L-15

Lake WW-36-001 630.7 PSS 0.15 0.10

Lake WW-142-001 630.9 PEM 0.00 L-15

Lake WW-142-002 630.9 PEM 0.00 L-15

Lake WW-142-004 631.3 PEM 0.00 L-15

Lake WW-142-007 631.5 PEM 0.01 L-15

Lake WW-43-001 634.4 PEM 0.01 L-15

Lake WW-43-008 636.0 PEM 0.03 0.01 L-15

Lake WW-43-005 636.1 PEM 0.08 0.05 0.12 L-15

Lake WW-192-007 636.2 PEM 0.07 CT-9

Lake WW-43-010 636.3 PEM 0.00 L-15

Lake WW-171-001 638.9 PEM 0.00 L-15B

Lake WW-172-001 639.0 PEM 0.00 L-15D

Lake WW-171-003 639.0 PEM 0.00 L-15

Lake WW-171-004 639.1 PEM 0.03 L-15

Lake WW-172-002 639.2 PEM 0.11 0.06

Lake WW-199-004 639.4 PEM 0.01 CT-12

Lake WW-199-007 639.5 PEM 0.03 CT-12

Lake WW-171-009 639.6 PEM 0.00 L-15D

Lake WW-171-012 641.4 PEM 0.53 0.43 0.26 L-15D

Lake WW-184-006 641.4 PEM 0.18 L-16

Lake WW-37-001 641.7 PEM 0.02 0.01 L-15D

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
R-12

APPENDIX R

Wetlands Crossed By The Proposed Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County Wetland ID MP Wetland Typea

Wetland Acreage 

within the 75-foot 

Construction 

Workspace

Wetland Acreage 

within the 50-foot 

Operational Right-ofWay

Wetland Acreage

within the Extra 

Work Space

Wetland Acreage

within Construction 

Yards and 

Staging Areas

Wetland 

Acreage within 

the Access 

Road 30-foot 

Improvement

Access Road 

Name

Lake WW-171-011 641.9 PEM 0.08 L-15D

Lake WW-142-009 642.0 PEM 0.00 L-16

Lake WW-37-003 642.0 PEM 0.59 0.37

Lake WW-184-005 642.2 PEM 0.03 L-16

Lake WW-142-008 642.4 PEM 0.00 L-16

Lake WW-174-004 643.2 PEM 0.03 L-16

Lake WW-175-002 R645.1 PEM 0.14 0.10

Lake WW-156-002 R648.3 PEM 0.02 0.02

Lake WW-156-004 R648.3 PEM 0.01 0.01

Lake WW-174-002 R648.3 PEM 0.11 0.06

Lake WW-174-003 R648.8 PEM 0.09

Klamath WW-153-005 R650.1 PEM 0.18 0.12 K-1

Klamath WW-153-006 R650.5 PEM 0.21 0.15

Klamath WW-154-002 R651.1 PEM 0.24 0.16 0.19 K-1C

Klamath WW-154-004 R653.1 PEM 0.32 0.21

Klamath WW-154-003 R653.3 PEM 0.13 0.10

Klamath WW-154-005 R653.5 PEM 0.10 0.07

Klamath WW-154-001 R654.5 PEM 0.16 0.11 K-3

Klamath WW-153-004 R656.0 PEM 0.04 0.04 K-3

Klamath WW-153-003 R656.0 PEM 0.03 K-3

Klamath WW-153-001 R661.6 PEM 0.02 0.02

____________________________________

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
R-13

APPENDIX R

Wetlands Crossed By The Proposed Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County Wetland ID MP Wetland Typea

Wetland Acreage 

within the 75-foot 

Construction 

Workspace

Wetland Acreage 

within the 50-foot 

Operational Right-ofWay

Wetland Acreage

within the Extra 

Work Space

Wetland Acreage

within Construction 

Yards and 

Staging Areas

Wetland 

Acreage within 

the Access 

Road 30-foot 

Improvement

Access Road 

Name

a Wetland Type

PEM - Palustrine Emergent Wetland

PEMA - Palustrine Emergent, Temporarily Flooded

PEMC - Palustrine Emergent, Seasonally Flooded

PEMF - Palustrine Emergent, Semi-permanently Flooded

PSS - Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetland

PUSC - Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore, Seasonally Flooded

PUSCx - Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore, Seasonally Flooded Excavated

L2USA - Lacustrine Littoral Unconsolidated Shore, Temporarily Flooded

PUSA - Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore, Temporarily Flooded

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010

File [APPENDIX_S_WETLAND_MITIGATION_PLAN.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (To download this file 

in its original format, please use the filename hyperlink from your search results. If you 

continue to experience difficulties, or to obtain a PDF generated version of files, please 

contact the helpdesk at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or, call 866-208-3676 from 9AM to 5PM EST, 

weekdays. Please allow at least 48 hours for your helpdesk request to be processed.)
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010

File [APPENDIX_T_WEED_CONTROL_PLAN.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (To download this file in 

its original format, please use the filename hyperlink from your search results. If you continue 

to experience difficulties, or to obtain a PDF generated version of files, please contact the 

helpdesk at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or, call 866-208-3676 from 9AM to 5PM EST, weekdays. 

Please allow at least 48 hours for your helpdesk request to be processed.)
APPENDIX U

 Sensitive and State-Listed Species Considered for the 

 Ruby Pipeline Project 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
11

U-1

APPENDIX U

Sensitive and State-Listed Species Considered for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal Land Management Statusa

State Statusb Commentsc Habitat 

Association

Likelihood of 

Occurrence BLM Field Offices d

Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FNF

CNF

WY

UT

NV

OR

BIRDS

American bittern

(Botaurus lentiginosus)

WGFD-SC Suitable habitat consists of wetlands with tall, dense, emergent 

vegetation. The project would cross potential habitat near MP 1, MP 

19, MP 20, MPs 23 - 24, and MP 28.

Wetland M

American white pelican 

(Pelecanus 

erythrorhynchos)

S S S S S NDOW-SP Forages and breeds in inland lakes and marshes. Common summer 

resident in Goose Lake Valley. The project would cross potential 

habitat near MPs 96 - R139 and MPs R618 - 627.

Wetland H

Bald eagle 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

S S S S S S S S S Roosts and nests in tall trees near open water. Observed near MP 

R602, between MPs R620 - 628, and near MP R663. 

Riparian forest L L L H

Black rosy-finch 

(Leucosticte atrata)

S NDOW-SP Suitable habitat consists of barren, rocky, or grassy areas above 

treeline. The project would cross potential habitat in the Ruby 

Mountains of Nevada. 

Grassland M

Black swift 

(Cypseloides niger)

S Nests on canyon walls near water that is sheltered by overhanging 

rock or moss, preferably near waterfalls or on sea cliffs. Potential 

habitat is not present near the project. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Black tern 

(Chilodonias niger)

S WGFD-SC Suitable habitat consists of large (greater than 50 acres) shallow 

marshes with interspersed patches of open water for foraging with 

extensive stands of emergent vegetation for nesting. The project 

would cross potential habitat near MP 1, MP 19, MP 20, MPs 23 - 24, 

and MP 28.

Wetland M

Black-crowned night heron 

(Nycticorax nycticorax)

WGFD-SC Inhabits wetlands such as marshes, swamps, streams, lakes, and 

agricultural fields. The project would cross potential habitat near MP 

1, MP 19, MP 20, MPs 23 - 24, and MP 28. 

Wetland M

Bobolink 

(Dolichonyx oryzivorus)

S S Inhabits wet grass and forb areas, such as irrigated agricultural lands. 

The project would cross potential habitat in Utah. 

Grassland M

Boreal owl 

(Aegolis funereus)

S Inhabits boreal forests. The project would cross potential habitat in 

the Uinta-Wasatch Cache NF.

Mixed conifer 

forest

L

Brewer's sparrow 

(Spizella breweri)

S S WGFD-SC Suitable habitat consists of shrub-steppe typically dominated by 

dense stands of tall sagebrush, often basin big sagebrush. The 

project would cross potential habitat and known species' presence in 

Wyoming and Nevada. 

Sagebrush 

steppe

H H

Broad-tailed hummingbird 

(Selasphorus platycercus)

S Breeds in montane forests and meadows, typically near riparian 

areas. A species was recorded in the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache NF near 

MPs 65 - 92. The project would cross high value habitat with small 

areas of critical value habitat in Utah.

Riparian forest H

Bufflehead 

(Bucephala albeola)

S S Breeds in lakes or ponds with emergent vegetation and nearby pines 

and aspens with sufficient cavities for nesting. The project would 

Riparian forest H

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
22

U-2

APPENDIX U

Sensitive and State-Listed Species Considered for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal Land Management Statusa

State Statusb Commentsc Habitat 

Association

Likelihood of 

Occurrence BLM Field Offices d

Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FNF

CNF

WY

UT

NV

OR

cross potential breeding habitat intermitted from MPs R647 - R671.

Burrowing owl 

(Athene cunicularia)

S S S S S WGFD-SC 

UDWR-SC 

NDOW-SP

Suitable habitat consists of abandoned prairie dog, ground squirrel, or 

badger burrows in open grasslands and low shrublands with a high 

percentage of bare ground. The project would cross potential habitat 

and known occupied habitat in Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada. 

Salt desert 

scrub

H H H

Bushtit 

(Psaltriparus minimus)

WGFD-SC Inhabits pine-juniper and juniper-sagebrush in Wyoming. The project 

would cross potential habitat intermittently between MPs 29 - R42.

Juniper 

woodland

L

Canvasback 

(Aythya valisineria)

WGFD-SC Inhabits marshes, lakes, and rivers. Occupies deep, open water for 

foraging, resting, and courtship activities. The project would cross 

potential habitat near MP 1 and intermittently between MPs 45 - 48.

Wetland M

Clark's Grebe 

(Aechmophorous clarkia)

WGFD-SC Prefers lakes or marshes with large areas of open water, and thick 

patches of tall, emergent vegetation, particularly bulrush. The project 

would cross potential habitat near MP 1, MP 19.8, MP 20.4, MP 23.9, 

and intermittently between MPs 45-48. 

Wetland M

Columbia sharp-tailed 

grouse (Tympanuchus 

phasianellus columbianus) 

S S S UDWR-SC 

NDOW-SP

Suitable habitat consists of prairies or bunchgrass with scattered 

deciduous shrubs or trees. The project would cross potential habitat 

in Utah and Nevada. 

Grassland M H

Ferruginous hawk 

(Buteo regalis)

S S S S S WGFD-SC 

UDWR-SC 

NDOW-SP

Suitable habitat consists of open grasslands and shrub-steppe. 

Nests sites include buttes, ridges and rock outcrops. Nests were 

observed near the project in Utah and Nevada. The project would 

cross potential habitat In Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada.

Sagebrush 

steppe

H H H

Flammulated owl 

(Otus flammeolus)

S S Prefers mature stands of aspen, aspen/conifer, and conifer/aspen 

habitats within the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache NF; closely associated with 

old-growth ponderosa pine stands in most of their breeding range.

The project would cross potential habitat in the Uinta-Wasatch Cache 

NF and Fremont-Winema NF. 

Mixed conifer 

forest

H L

Foster's tern 

(Sterna forsteri)

WGFD-SC Inhabits wetlands in the summer and migrates through Wyoming. 

The project would cross potential habitat at the Hams Fork River at 

MP 1 and at Little Muddy Creek at MP 19.8, MP 20.4, and MP 23.9. 

Wetland M

Franklin's gull 

(Larus pipixen)

S Uses wetlands during nonbreeding and nests in marshes and lakes 

within prairie and steppe. The ODFW states that it is a summer 

resident in Goose Lake Valley, although no documentation has been 

identified to confirm this claim. 

Wetland L

Golden eagle

(Aquila chrysatos)

S S S NDOW-SP Nests in trees, cliffs, and steep rock faces. The project would cross 

potential nesting habitats and known occupied habitat in Nevada. 

Sagebrush 

steppe

H

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
33

U-3

APPENDIX U

Sensitive and State-Listed Species Considered for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal Land Management Statusa

State Statusb Commentsc Habitat 

Association

Likelihood of 

Occurrence BLM Field Offices d

Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FNF

CNF

WY

UT

NV

OR

Grasshopper sparrow

(Ammodramus 

savannarum)

S WGFD-SC 

UDWR-SC

Breeds in grasslands, prairies, and hayfields with minimal shrub 

cover. The project would cross potential habitat in Wyoming and 

Utah. 

Grassland L H

Great Blue heron 

(Ardea herodias)

WGFD-SC Inhabits rivers, lakes, and wetlands. The project would cross 

potential habitat at Hams Fork River near MP 1 and at Little Muddy 

Creek at MP 19.8, MP 20.4, and MP 23.9. 

Wetland H

Great gray owl

(Strix nebulosa)

S Inhabits dense forests adjacent to open meadows. The project would 

cross potential habitat in the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache NF. 

Mixed conifer 

forest

L

Greater sandhill crane 

(Grus canadensis tabida)

S S S NDOW-SP Forages in fields, grasslands, and marshes; nests in open, wet, 

marshy areas surrounded by shrubs and trees. The project would 

cross potential habitat in Nevada. 

Grassland H

Horned grebe 

(Podiceps auritus)

S S Uses wetlands with open water; nests in tall wetland vegetation. This 

species may occur in suitable habitat crossed by the project.

Wetland L

Juniper titmouse 

(Baeolophus griseus)

S S NDOW-SP Utilizes juniper or pinyon-juniper woodland habitat for both nesting 

and foraging year-round. The project would cross potential and 

known occupied habitat in Nevada.

Juniper 

woodland

H

Lark bunting 

(Calamospiza melanocorys)

WGFD-SC Inhabits short-grasslands, agricultural areas, sagebrush-grasslands, 

shrub-steppe communities, and mountain-foothill shrublands. The 

project would cross potential habitat in Utah and Wyoming. 

Sagebrush 

steppe

H

Least bittern 

(Ixobrychus exilis)

S The project would not occur near potential habitat. This species has 

been eliminated from further consideration.

--

Lesser scaup 

(Aythya affinis)

WGFD-SC Prefers wetland habitats at least 2 acres in size and nests in upland 

areas close to open water. The project would cross potential habitat 

intermittently between MPs 0 - 10 and MPs 15 - 48.

Wetland M

Lewis' woodpecker 

(Melanerpes lewis)

S S S S S S WGFD-SC 

NDOW-SP

Breeds in forests and riparian woodlands. Observed in Utah and 

Nevada. The project would cross potential habitat in Wyoming, Utah, 

Nevada, and Oregon.

Mixed conifer 

forest

L H H H

Loggerhead shrike 

(Lanius ludovicianus)

S S S S NDOW-SP Suitable habitat consists of a mosaic of shrub communities and/or 

grasslands. The project would cross potential habitat in Wyoming 

and known occupied habitat in Nevada. 

Sagebrush 

steppe

H H

Long-billed curlew 

(Munenius americanus)

S S S S S WGFD-SC 

UDWR-SC 

NDOW-SP

Nests and forages in grasslands, pastures, meadows, and 

agricultural fields; avoids trees, dense shrubs, or tall, dense grasses. 

The project would cross potential habitat in all affected states. 

Grassland H H H M

Long-eared owl 

(Asio otus)

S S S NDOW-SP Breeds throughout Nevada in woodlands with adjacent open habitats. 

The project would cross potential habitat in Nevada. 

Mixed conifer 

forest

H

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
44

U-4

APPENDIX U

Sensitive and State-Listed Species Considered for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal Land Management Statusa

State Statusb Commentsc Habitat 

Association

Likelihood of 

Occurrence BLM Field Offices d

Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FNF

CNF

WY

UT

NV

OR

Merlin 

(Falco columbarius)

WGFD-SC Nests in large trees, typically conifers or cottonwoods, surrounded by 

open shrubland or grassland. The project would cross potential 

breeding habitat near MP 1 and intermittently between MPs 33 - 48. 

Mixed conifer 

forest

H

Mountain plover 

(Charadrius montanus)

S S WGFD-SC Suitable habitat consists of flat topography with very short vegetation 

– shortgrass prairie, alkali flats, Gardner saltbush – and a high 

percentage of bare ground. Habitat often includes prairie dog towns 

and areas of heavy grazing. The project would cross potential habitat 

in Wyoming. 

Salt desert 

scrub

H

Mountain quail 

(Oreortyx pictus)

S Inhabits coniferous forests, brushy mountainsides, sagebrush, pinyon 

stands, and juniper stands. The project is outside of the species' 

range. This species has been eliminated from further consideration. 

--

Northern goshawk 

(Accipter gentilis)

S S S S S WGFD-SC 

UDWR-SC 

NDOW-SP

Breeds in mixed and coniferous montane forests. The project would 

cross potential habitat in the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache NF, and the 

mountainous areas of Nevada. 

Mixed conifer 

forest

L M H

Northern pintail 

(Anas acuta)

WGFD-SC Prefers shallow wetlands with emergent vegetation and low upland 

vegetation nearby. The project would cross potential habitat 

intermittently between MPs 0 - 10, and MPs 15 - 48.

Wetland M

Osprey

(Pandion haliaetus)

S NDOW-SP Nests in trees, cliffs, and other potential platforms adjacent to rivers, 

lakes, and reservoirs. Potential habitat is not present near the 

project. This species has been eliminated from further consideration.

--

Peregrine falcon 

(Falco peregrinus)

S S S S S S WGFD-SC 

NDOW-E

Occupies a variety of open habitats with cliffs for nesting and prey 

availability. The project would cross potential habitat in Wyoming, 

Utah, and Oregon. 

Sagebrush 

steppe

L L H

Pinyon jay 

(Gymnorhinus 

cyanocephalus)

S NDOW-SP Permanent resident in pinyon-juniper woodlands and sagebrush 

scrublands. The project would cross potential habitat in Nevada. 

Juniper 

woodland

H

Prairie falcon (Falco 

mexicanus)

S S S NDOW-SP Inhabits prairies, sagebrush scrub, sagebrush steppe, desert scrub, 

and barren lands. The project would cross potential habitat in 

Nevada. 

Sagebrush 

steppe

H

Purple Martin 

(Progne subis)

S Forages over open habitats. The project is outside of the species' 

range. This species has been eliminated from further consideration.

--

Redhead 

(Aythya americana)

WGFD-SC Occurs in wetlands, lakes, and rivers. The project would cross 

potential habitat intermittently between MPs 0 - 10 and MPs 15 - 48.

Wetland M

Red-naped sapsucker 

(Sphyrapicus nuchalis)

S S S NDOW-SP Breeds in montane coniferous forests, deciduous and mixed 

woodlands, and aspen groves. The project would cross potential 

Mixed conifer 

forest

H

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
55

U-5

APPENDIX U

Sensitive and State-Listed Species Considered for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal Land Management Statusa

State Statusb Commentsc Habitat 

Association

Likelihood of 

Occurrence BLM Field Offices d

Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FNF

CNF

WY

UT

NV

OR

habitat in Nevada. 

Red-necked grebe 

(Podiceps grisegena)

S S S Nests on shallow lakes and marshes with emergent vegetation. The 

project would be outside of the species' range. This species has 

been eliminated from further consideration.

--

Sage sparrow 

(Amphispiza belli)

S WGFD-SC Inhabits large, intact stands of dense sagebrush, particularly basin 

big sagebrush, and avoids greasewood. The project would cross 

potential habitat in Wyoming.

Sagebrush 

steppe

H

Sage thrasher 

(Oreoscoptes montanus)

S WGFD-SC Suitable habitat consists of shrub-steppe dominated by sagebrush 

that is typically in a climax seral stage. The project would cross 

potential habitat in Wyoming.

Sagebrush 

steppe

H

Sandhill crane 

(Grus canadensis)

WGFD-SC Forages in fields, grasslands, and marshes. Nests in open, wet, 

marshy areas surrounded by shrubs and trees. The project would 

cross potential habitat in Wyoming and Oregon. 

Wetland H M

Short-eared owl 

(Asio flammeus)

S S S WGFD-SC 

NDOW-SP

Nests on the ground in dry open areas such as grasslands, shrubsteppe, and agricultural areas with enough vegetation to conceal the 

incubating female. The project would cross potential habitat in 

Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada. 

Grassland H H H

Snowy egret 

(Egretta thula)

S WGFD-SC Occurs in reservoirs, lakes, ponds, marshes, and wet meadows. The 

project would cross potential habitat at Hams Fork River at MP 1; at 

Little Muddy Creek at MP 19.8, MP 20.4, and MP 23.9; and 

intermittently between MPs 45 - MP 48 and MPs R618 - MP 628.

Wetland H L

Swainson's hawk 

(Buteo swainsoni)

S S S WGFD-SC 

NDOW-SP

Adapted to foraging over agricultural lands and nests in trees along 

streams and open grassland or agriculture areas. The project would 

cross potential nesting habitat and known occupied habitat in Nevada 

and potential habitat in Wyoming. 

Grassland H H

Three-toed woodpecker 

(Picoides trydactylus)

S S Prefers mature or old growth coniferous forests with insect 

infestations or dying trees on flat to gently sloping terrain. The project 

would cross potential habitat in Uinta-Wasatch-Cache NF and known 

occupied habitat near the Rich/Cache county line.

Mixed conifer 

forest

H

Tricolored blackbird 

(Agelaius tricolor)

S S S Breeds in marshes and shrubby habitats and nests in upland and 

agricultural areas. The project would cross potential breeding habitat 

intermittently from MPs R620 – 628 and MPs R670 - R675. 

Wetland L

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
66

U-6

APPENDIX U

Sensitive and State-Listed Species Considered for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal Land Management Statusa

State Statusb Commentsc Habitat 

Association

Likelihood of 

Occurrence BLM Field Offices d

Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FNF

CNF

WY

UT

NV

OR

Trumpeter swan 

(Cygnus buccinators)

S S S WGFD-SC Occurs in areas with slow-moving water with a minimum of 328 feet 

unobstructed for take-off, such as lakes, ponds, marshes, and river 

oxbows. Occasional migrants through Wyoming, but no documented 

breeding pairs or winter staging areas are present. This species has 

been eliminated from further consideration.

-- L

Tule goose

(Anser alifrons elgasi)

S S Nests in Alaska and winters in the Central Valley of California and 

central and southern Oregon. The project would cross potential 

overwintering habitat intermittently between MPs 597 - 603. 

Wetland M

Upland sandpiper 

(Bartramia longicauda)

S Nests in short-grass prairies, other grasslands, and agricultural fields. 

The project would be outside of the species' range. This species has 

been eliminated from further consideration.

--

Vesper sparrow 

(Pooecetes gramineus)

S S S NDOW-SP Breeds in northern Nevada in grasslands, arid steppe, and open 

valleys. The project would cross potential habitat intermittently 

between MPs 438 - 443, MPs 504 - 506, and MPs 565 - 589. 

Grassland H

Western grebe 

(Aechmophorous 

occidentalis)

WGFD-SC Prefers lakes or marshes with large areas of open water and thick 

patches of tall, emergent vegetation, particularly bulrush. The project 

would cross potential habitat at the Hams Fork River at MP 1; at Little 

Muddy Creek at MP 19.8, MP 20.4, and MP 23.9; and intermittently 

between MPs 45 – 48.

Wetland M

Western snowy plover 

(Charadrius alexandrinus 

nivosus)

S Nests in alkaline flats and in other areas devoid of vegetation. The 

project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

White-faced ibis 

(Plegadis chihi)

S S S WGFD-SC 

NDOW-SP

Breeds in marshes and wet meadows and forages in marshes, 

flooded pastures, saltbush, and irrigated fields. 

Wetland H H H

White-headed woodpecker 

(Picoides albolarvatus)

S S S Found in ponderosa pine mixed forests east of the Cascade Crest, 

with less dense populations inhabiting the Blue Mountains in eastern 

Oregon. Recorded near the project area between MPs R645 - R650 

and near MP 639. The project would cross potential habitat 

intermittently between MPs 600 - 614, MPs 630 - R655, and MPs 

R667 - R674. 

Mixed conifer 

forest

H

Williamson's sapsucker 

(Sphyrapicus thyroideus)

S Breeds at mid to high elevations in coniferous forests and mixed 

forests with aspens. Has been observed in Utah near the Rich/ 

Cache County line and near MP 86 in the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache NF. 

The project would cross known occupied habitat in Uinta-WasatchCache NF.

Mixed conifer 

forest

H

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
77

U-7

APPENDIX U

Sensitive and State-Listed Species Considered for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal Land Management Statusa

State Statusb Commentsc Habitat 

Association

Likelihood of 

Occurrence BLM Field Offices d

Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FNF

CNF

WY

UT

NV

OR

Willow flycatcher 

(Empidonax traillii)

WGFD-SC Occurs along streams in willows, alder, or cottonwood stands, in 

brushy fields, marshes, thickets, or stands of small trees in 

grasslands. The project would cross potential habitat at the Hams 

Fork River at MP 1; Little Muddy Creek at MP 19.8, MP 20.4, and MP 

23.9; Ryckman Creek at MP 27.1; and Hill Creek at MP 28. 

Wetland M

Yellow rail 

(Coturnicops 

noveboracensis)

S S S Suitable habitat consists of emergent wetlands, grass or sedge 

marshes, and wet meadows. The project is outside of the species' 

range. This species has been eliminated from further consideration.

Wetland

Yellow-breasted chat 

(Icteria virens)

S S NDOW-SP Suitable habitat consists of riparian areas and breeds in dense 

thickets from 1,500 to 5,500 feet. The project would cross potential 

habitat in Nevada and known occupied habitat intermittently between

MPs R296 - R350. 

Wetland H

MAMMALS

Allen's lappet-browed bat 

(Idionycteris phyllotis)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

American pika 

(Ochotona princeps)

S Potential habitat is not present near the project. This species has 

been eliminated from further consideration.

-- L

Big brown bat 

(Eptesicus fuscus)

S WGFD-SC Suitable habitat consists of timberline meadows to lowland deserts. 

The project would cross potential habitat intermittently between MPs 

0 - 48 and MPs R398 - 535. 

Sagebrush 

steppe

M M

Big free-tailed bat 

(Nyctinomops macrotis)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Brazilian free-tailed bat 

(Tadarida brasiliensis)

S NDOW-SP Roosts in buildings, hollow trees, and caves. The project is outside of 

the species' range. This species has been eliminated from further 

consideration.

-- L

California leaf-nosed bat 

(Macrotus californicus)

S NDOW-SP The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

California myotis 

(Myotis californicus)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

-- L

California wolverine 

(Gulo gulo luteus)

S Suitable habitat consists of coniferous forests in montane regions. 

The project would cross potential habitat intermittently between MPs 

600 - 614 and MPs 630 - R655. 

Mixed conifer 

forest

L

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
88

U-8

APPENDIX U

Sensitive and State-Listed Species Considered for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal Land Management Statusa

State Statusb Commentsc Habitat 

Association

Likelihood of 

Occurrence BLM Field Offices d

Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FNF

CNF

WY

UT

NV

OR

Cave myotis

(Myotis velifer)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Desert bighorn sheep 

(Ovis canadensis nelsoni)

S Potential habitat is not present near the project. This species has 

been eliminated from further consideration.

--

Dwarf shrew 

(Sorex nanus)

WGFD-SC Inhabits rocky areas of alpine tundra, alpine and montane forests, 

shrubland foothills, and grasslands. The project would cross potential 

habitat in Wyoming from MPs 0 - 48.

Sagebrush 

steppe

M

Eastern red bat 

(Lasiurus borealis)

WGFD-SC Roosts in deciduous trees or shrubs in riparian areas, agricultural 

lands, plains grasslands, and sagebrush grasslands. The project 

would cross potential habitat intermittently in Wyoming from MPs 0 –

48.

Riparian forest M

Fringed myotis 

(Myotis thysanodes)

S S S S S S S NDOW-SP Inhabits desert scrub, mesic coniferous forests, grassland, and 

sagegrass steppe from sea-level to over 9,000 feet. The project 

would cross potential habitat intermittently between MPs R398 - 535, 

MPs 590 - 614, and MPs 630 - R675.

Mixed conifer 

forest

H L H

Great Basin pocket mouse 

(Perognathus parvus)

WGFD-SC Prefers arid, sagebrush dominant open shrubland and grassland with 

sandy or rocky soils. The project would cross potential habitat in 

Wyoming from MPs 0 - 48.

Sagebrush 

steppe

M

Greater western mastiff bat 

(Eumops perotis 

californicus)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Grizzly bear 

(Yellowstone DPS) (Ursus 

arctos horribilis)

S S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Hoary bat 

(Lasiurus cinereus) 

S WGFD-SC Roosts primarily in the foliage of coniferous and deciduous trees and 

forages for food in clearings. The project would cross potential 

habitat near MP 33 and MP 48 and intermittently between MPs R398 

- 535.

Mixed conifer 

forest

L L

Idaho pocket-gopher 

(Thomomys idahoensis)

S WGFD-SC Occupies underground burrow systems in shallow soils of higher 

elevation sagebrush, grasslands, and subalpine meadows. The 

project would cross potential habitat in Wyoming.

Sagebrush 

steppe

M

Kit fox 

(Vulpes macrotis)

S S UDWR-SC Inhabits arid and semi-arid regions dominated by desert scrub such 

as shadscale and greasewood. The project would cross potential 

habitat in Utah. 

Salt desert 

scrub

M L

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
99

U-9

APPENDIX U

Sensitive and State-Listed Species Considered for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal Land Management Statusa

State Statusb Commentsc Habitat 

Association

Likelihood of 

Occurrence BLM Field Offices d

Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FNF

CNF

WY

UT

NV

OR

Little brown myotis 

(Myotis lucifugus)

S WGFD-SC Found in mountainous and riparian areas in a wide variety of forest 

habitats and forages over water. The project would cross potential 

habitat in Wyoming and intermittently between MPs R398 - 535 and

potential roosting habitat intermittently between MPs 15 - 25. 

Mixed conifer 

forest

M L

Long-eared myotis 

(Myotis evotis)

S S S S WGFD-SC Prefers coniferous forest habitats with broken rock outcrops, tall 

timber, and streams or reservoirs nearby. Buildings, hollow trees, 

mines, caves, and fissures may be used as roost sites. The project 

would cross potential habitat in Wyoming and intermittently between

MPs 233 - 588.

Mixed conifer 

forest

L L

Long-legged myotis 

(Myotis volans)

S S S WGFD-SC Prefers conifer and mixed woodlands, deserts, grasslands, and 

forblands. Most common in montane coniferous forests from 6,500 to 

10,000 feet. The project would cross potential habitat intermittently 

between MPs 0 - 48 and near MP 233 and MP 588. 

Mixed conifer 

forest

L L

Moose 

(Alces alces)

WGFD-SC Found in shrublands interspersed with forest cover, wetlands, and 

perennial streams. The project would cross potential habitat 

intermittently between MPs 0 - 32 and MPs 40 - 48. 

Mixed conifer 

forest

M

Northern Flying Squirrel

(Glaucomys sabrinus)

UDWR-S The species occurs in many of Utah's mountainous areas, primarily in 

mature coniferous forests and riparian zones. According to UDWR 

distribution data; no critical, high value, substantial value, or limited 

value habitat would be crossed by the project.

Mixed conifer 

and riparian 

forest

L

Pallid bat 

(Antrozous pallidus)

S S S S NDOW-SP Inhabits arid deserts and canyonlands, shrub-steppe grasslands, 

juniper woodlands, and karst formations at lower elevations and open 

forest types such as ponderosa pine and oak woodlands at higher 

elevations. The project would cross potential habitat in Lake and 

Klamath counties, Oregon. 

Juniper 

woodland

L H

Plains pocket gopher 

(Geomys bursarius)

WGFD-SC Prefers deep sandy or loamy soils for burrowing in grasslands, 

sagebrush-grasslands, and agricultural areas. The project would 

cross potential habitat intermittently between MPs 0 - 48. 

Grassland L

Preble's shrew 

(Sorex plebei)

S S NDOW-SP Inhabits deserts, grassland/forbland, shrubland/chaparral, and 

hardwood or conifer woodlands. The project would cross potential 

habitat intermittently between MPs 230 - R386 and MPs R395 -

R398. 

Salt desert 

scrub

M

River otter 

(Lutra canadensis)

WGFD-SC Prefers valley streams with riparian vegetation, slow-moving water, 

deep pools, and high fish abundance. The project would cross 

potential habitat at the Hams Fork River at MP 1; Little Muddy Creek 

at MP 19.8, MP 20.4, and MP 23.9; Ryckman Creek at MP 27.1; and 

Hill Creek at MP 28.

Wetland M

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1010

U-10

APPENDIX U

Sensitive and State-Listed Species Considered for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal Land Management Statusa

State Statusb Commentsc Habitat 

Association

Likelihood of 

Occurrence BLM Field Offices d

Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FNF

CNF

WY

UT

NV

OR

Sagebrush vole 

(Lemmiscus curtatus)

WGFD-SC Suitable habitat consists of sagebrush or rabbitbrush interspersed 

with bunchgrasses. The project would cross potential habitat in 

Wyoming at MPs 0 - 48. 

Sagebrush 

steppe

M

Silver-haired bat 

(Lasionycteris notivagans)

S WGFD-SC Prefers forested areas adjacent to lakes, ponds, and streams. The 

project would cross potential habitat at the Hams Fork River at MP 1 

and intermittently between MPs 33 – 48 and MPs R398 - 535.

Riparian forest H L

Small-footed myotis 

(Myotis ciliolabrum)

S S S S Suitable habitat consists of desert, badland, semi-arid, mountainous 

woodland, grassland, chaparral, and riparian, but is most commonly 

found foraging above pinyon-juniper woodlands. The project would 

cross potential habitat within Uinta-Wasatch-Cache NF and near MP 

233 and MP 588.

Juniper 

woodland

H L

Spotted bat 

(Euderma maculatum)

S S S S S S S NDOW-T Found in desert scrub, short-grass prairie, and mountainous 

woodlands. The project would cross potential habitat intermittently 

between MPs R398 - 535 and MPs 535 - 588.

Salt desert 

scrub

L H

Swift fox 

(Vulpes velox)

WGFD-SC Prefers grasslands but inhabits agricultural areas, road and railroad 

right-of-ways, and sagebrush-grasslands. The project would cross 

potential habitat in Wyoming from MPs 0 - 48.

Grassland H

Townsend's big-eared bat 

(Corynorhinus townsendii)

S S S S S S S S NDOW-SP Suitable habitat consists of deciduous or coniferous forests within 

riparian zones. The project would cross potential habitat in the UintaWasatch-Cache NF and Klamath and Lake counties, Oregon, 

including the Fremont-Winema NF.

Mixed conifer 

forest

H L H

Western pipistrelle bat 

(Pipistrellus hesperus)

S S Occupies desert habitats of creosote, sagebrush, and salt desert 

scrub, with occasional utilization of pinyon-juniper and ponderosa 

pine forests that have rock features such as canyon walls and granite 

boulders. The project would cross potential habitat intermittently 

between MPs R398 - 535.

Salt desert 

scrub

L

Western red bat 

(Lasiurus blossevilii)

S Dependent on broad-leaf shrubs and trees in lowlands (5,700 to 

6,500 feet) and roosts in riparian zones. The project would cross 

potential habitat in the Bear River Basin near MP R53 and near 

branches of the Little Bear River near MP 92 and MP 95.

Mixed conifer 

forest

M

Western small-footed myotis 

(Myotis cilolabrum)

WGFD-SC The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

-- L

Wolverine 

(Gulo gulo)

S Suitable habitat consists of coniferous forests in montane regions. 

The project would cross potential habitat in the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache 

NF. 

Mixed conifer 

forest

L

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1111

U-11

APPENDIX U

Sensitive and State-Listed Species Considered for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal Land Management Statusa

State Statusb Commentsc Habitat 

Association

Likelihood of 

Occurrence BLM Field Offices d

Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FNF

CNF

WY

UT

NV

OR

Yuma myotis 

(Myotis yumanensis)

S NDOW-SP Occurs in a variety of habitats associated with open water, such as 

ponds or streams. The project would cross potential habitat 

intermittently between MPs 233 - 588.

Riparian forest L

FISH

Alvord chub 

(Gila alvordensis)

S Endemic to Alvord Basin in Oregon and Nevada. Occupies warmwater and cool-water springs, lakes, and reservoirs. The project is 

outside of the species' range. This species has been eliminated from 

further consideration.

--

Bear Lake sculpin 

(Cottus extensus)

S UDWR-S Restricted to Bear Lake in Idaho and Utah. Bear Lake is not crossed 

by the project. This species has been eliminated from further 

consideration.

--

Bear Lake whitefish 

(Prosopium abyssicola)

S UDWR-S Restricted to Bear Lake in Idaho and Utah. Bear Lake is not crossed 

by the project. This species has been eliminated from further 

consideration.

--

Bluehead sucker 

(Catostomus discobolus)

S S WGFD-SC 

UDWR-S

Known in the following waterbodies in Wyoming: Hams Fork River, 

Dry Muddy Creek, Little Muddy Creek, Ryckman Creek, Sheep 

Creek, and Salt Creek. Also known in the Upper Bear River in Utah. 

Uses small or mid-sized rivers with variable turbidity and turbulence. 

The project would not occur near potential habitat. This species has 

been eliminated from further consideration.

-- M M

Bonneville cutthroat trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarkii utah)

S S S WGFD-SC 

UDWR-S

Known in the Bonneville Basin watershed of Utah, Nevada, Idaho, 

and Wyoming. Ranges from high-elevation to low-elevation streams. 

The project would cross potential habitat in Cache County, Utah. 

Coldwater N H

Colorado River cutthroat 

trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarki 

pleuriticus)

S S S WGFD-SC Inhabits cool rivers and lakes at high elevations. Known in the high 

elevations of the Hams Fork and Black's Fork River Systems in 

Wyoming and in similar rivers on the eastern portion of the UintaWasatch-Cache NF. The project would not occur near potential 

habitat. This species has been eliminated from further consideration.

Coldwater

Dixie Valley tui chub 

(Gila bicolor ssp.) 

S Known from two sites in Dixie Valley, Nevada. This project is outside 

of the species' range. This species has been eliminated from further 

consideration.

--

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1212

U-12

APPENDIX U

Sensitive and State-Listed Species Considered for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal Land Management Statusa

State Statusb Commentsc Habitat 

Association

Likelihood of 

Occurrence BLM Field Offices d

Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FNF

CNF

WY

UT

NV

OR

Fine-spotted Snake River 

cutthroat trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarkii spp.)

S Known in the Upper Snake River and its tributaries. Inhabits fast 

moving rivers with cool temperatures. Potential habitat is not present 

near the project. This species has been eliminated from further 

consideration.

Coldwater

Flannelmouth sucker 

(Catostomus latipinnis)

S S WGFD-SC Known in Hams Fork River, Dry Muddy Creek, Little Muddy Creek, 

Ryckman Creek, and Sheep Creek and their associated tributaries. 

The project would cross potential habitat intermittently between MPs 

0 - 37. 

Warmwater M

Goose Lake lamprey 

(Lampetra tridentata ssp.)

S S ODFW-S Restricted to Goose Lake Basin in Modoc County, California and 

Lake County, Oregon. Spawns in Goose Lake tributaries. The 

project would cross potential habitat at Drew's Creek in Oregon. 

Warmwater H

Goose Lake sucker 

(Catostomus occidentalis 

lacusanserinus)

ODFW-S Restricted to Goose Lake Basin in Modoc County, California and 

Lake County, Oregon. Spawns in Goose Lake tributaries. The 

project would cross potential habitat. 

Warmwater H

Goose Lake tui chub 

(Siphateles bicolor 

thalassinus)

S S ODFW-S Restricted to shallow and turbid Goose Lake and its tributaries in 

Modoc County, California and Lake County, Oregon. The project 

would cross potential habitat. 

Warmwater H

Independence Valley tui 

chub (Gila bicolor isolata)

UDWR-E Restricted to warm springs of Independence Valley in Elko County, 

Nevada. Potential habitat is not present near the project. This 

species has been eliminated from further consideration.

--

Inland redband trout 

(Warner Lakes, Goose 

Lake, Upper Klamath Basin) 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss 

newberrii)

S ODFW-S Known habitat in lakes, montane forest streams, and high desert 

streams. The project would cross potential habitat for three 

populations of inland redband trout: the Goose Lake redband trout, 

the Warner Lakes redband trout, and the Upper Klamath Basin 

redband trout. 

Coldwater H

Interior redband trout 

(Onchorhynchus mykiss 

gibbi)

S Occurs in lacustrine, riverine, and marine environments. Known to 

inhabit small- to large-sized streams and rivers in the South Fork 

Owyhee watershed in Elko County, Nevada. The project would cross 

potential habitat intermittently between MPs 347 - R356. 

Coldwater M

Miller Lake lamprey 

(Lampetra minima)

S Known from Miller Lake, Miller Creek, Jack Creek, and Upper 

Williamson and Sycan Rivers in Klamath County, Oregon. Occupies 

creeks to medium-sized rivers. The project is outside of the species' 

range. This species has been eliminated from further consideration.

--

Oregon lakes tui chub 

(Gila bicolor oregonensis)

S S Endemic to lakes, rivers, and ditches of the Abert Lake Basin. The 

project is south of the basin and would not cross potential habitat. 

This species has been eliminated from further consideration.

--

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1313

U-13

APPENDIX U

Sensitive and State-Listed Species Considered for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal Land Management Statusa

State Statusb Commentsc Habitat 

Association

Likelihood of 

Occurrence BLM Field Offices d

Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FNF

CNF

WY

UT

NV

OR

Pit roach 

(Lavinia symmetricus 

mitrulus)

S Inhabits warm, slow moving streams. Restricted to Drew’s Creek, a 

Goose Lake tributary in Oregon. The project would cross potential 

habitat. 

Warmwater M

Pit sculpin 

(Cottus pitensis)

S Known in fast-flowing riffles of streams and rivers in the tributaries of 

Goose Lake in Oregon within the Pit River System. The project 

would cross potential habitat intermittently between MPs 610 - 630. 

Coldwater M

Pit-Klamath brook lamprey 

(Lampetra lethophaga)

ODFW-S Adults reside in riffles and runs over gravel areas. Larvae use soft 

substrate in areas of thick vegetation. Known in Lake and Klamath 

counties, Oregon in the Williamson, Sprague, Upper Klamath Lake, 

and Goose Lake watersheds. The project would cross potential 

habitat. 

Warmwater M

Roundtail chub 

(Gila robusta)

S S WGFD-SC Found in large, relatively turbid rivers in the Colorado River system. 

Present in Hams Fork River, Dry Muddy Creek, Little Muddy Creek, 

Ryckman Creek, and Sheep Creek and their associated tributaries. 

The project would cross potential habitat intermittently between MPs 

0 - 37.

Warmwater M

Sheldon tui chub 

(Gila bicolor eurysoma)

S Suitable habitat consists of small, turbid desert streams with 

abundant vegetation within Massacre Lake and Guano Basin in 

southeastern Oregon and northwestern Nevada. Potential habitat is 

not present near the project. This species has been eliminated from 

further consideration.

--

Summer Basin tui chub 

(Gila bicolor spp.)

S Endemic to springs and outflows in Summer Basin of south-central 

Oregon. Potential habitat is not present near the project. This 

species has been eliminated from further consideration.

--

Wall Canyon sucker 

(Catosomus spp.)

S Endemic to Wall Canyon Creek in Washoe County, Nevada in grazed 

sagebrush scrub. The project would cross potential habitat in Wall 

Canyon Creek near MP 536. 

Warmwater M

Yellowstone cutthroat trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarki 

bouvieri)

S UDWR-S Suitable habitat consists of rivers, creeks, ponds, lakes, and 

geothermally heated streams. The project is outside of the species' 

range. This species has been eliminated from further consideration.

--

AMPHIBIANS/REPTILES

Boreal toad

(Bufo boreas boreas)

S S WGFD-SC 

UDWR-S

Suitable habitat consists of high elevation (greater than 5,000 feet) 

springs, seeps, ponds, slow-moving streams, wetlands, and 

meadows and associated upland habitat. The project would cross 

potential habitat in Wyoming, near MP 70 and MP 77.5, and 

intermittently between MPs 80 - 92.

Wetland L L

Foothill yellow-legged frog 

(Rana boylii)

S Known in woodland streams in western Oregon. The project is 

outside of the species' range. This species has been eliminated from 

further consideration.

--

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1414

U-14

APPENDIX U

Sensitive and State-Listed Species Considered for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal Land Management Statusa

State Statusb Commentsc Habitat 

Association

Likelihood of 

Occurrence BLM Field Offices d

Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FNF

CNF

WY

UT

NV

OR

Great Basin spadefoot 

(Spea intermontana)

S WGFD-SC Xeric-adapted species that need sandy soil for burrowing to prevent 

desiccation; breeds in ephemeral and permanent water sources from 

early April through July. The project would cross potential habitat in 

Wyoming intermittently between MPs 0 - 15. 

Wetland L

Great Plains toad 

(Bufo cognatus)

S UDWR-S Prefers stream valleys in Utah with desert, grassland, semi-desert 

shrublands, open floodplains, and agricultural habitats. The project 

would cross potential habitat intermittently between MPs 75 - R105 

and MPs 120 - 125. 

Wetland M

Inland tailed frog 

(Ascaphus montanus)

S Suitable habitat consists of clear, cold mountain streams in eastern 

Oregon. The project is outside of the species' range. This species 

has been eliminated from further consideration.

--

Northern leopard frog 

(Rana pipiens)

S S S WGFD-SC Breeds in a variety of waterbodies and forages in meadows, peat 

bogs, and areas of perennial crops. The project would cross potential 

habitat near MP 1, intermittently between MPs 21 - 24, and near MP 

R42. 

Wetland M

Northern sagebrush lizard 

(Sceloporus graciosus 

graciosus)

S Inhabits sagebrush and juniper communities in the Great Basin 

region of northern Nevada, including Washoe County, Nevada. The 

project would cross potential habitat intermittently between MPs 535 -

588.

Sagebrush 

steppe

H

Northwestern pond turtle 

(Actinemys marmorata) 

S S S ODFW-S Inhabits lakes, streams, marshes, and irrigation ditches with rocky or 

muddy bottoms, usually at 6,000 feet. The project would cross 

potential habitat in Oregon. 

Wetland L

Short-horned lizard 

(Phrynosoma douglasii)

S Suitable habitat consists of loose, well-drained soils in bunchgrass, 

sagebrush, shrub-steppe, pinyon-juniper, and open woodland 

vegetation communities. The project would cross potential habitat in 

Nevada.

Sagebrush 

steppe

H

Smooth Greensnake 

(Opheodrys vernalis)

S Prefers moist, grassy areas and meadows in Utah's Wasatch, Uinta, 

Abajo, and La Sal Mountains. Potential habitat is not present near 

the project. This species has been eliminated from further 

consideration.

Wetland

Tiger salamander 

(Ambystoma tigrinum)

S WGFD-SC Adults occupy moist, terrestrial areas and breed in shallow 

waterbodies from March to June. The project would cross potential

habitat in Wyoming.

Wetland H

INVERTEBRATES

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1515

U-15

APPENDIX U

Sensitive and State-Listed Species Considered for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal Land Management Statusa

State Statusb Commentsc Habitat 

Association

Likelihood of 

Occurrence BLM Field Offices d

Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FNF

CNF

WY

UT

NV

OR

Alkaline sandhill skipper 

(Polites sabuleti alkaliensis)

S Little is known about the suitable habitat for this species. The closely 

related sandhill skipper (Polites sabuleti) inhabits alkaline grasslands, 

moist meadows, lawns, salt marshes, sand dunes, sagebrush flats, 

and alpine fell-fields. The project would cross potential habitat 

intermittently between MPs R398 - 535.

Salt desert 

scrub

L

Archimedes springsnail 

(Pyrgulopsis archimedis)

S Occurs in the benthic environment of still or slow-moving fresh water; 

11 sites have been recorded in Oregon's Klamath Basin. The project 

is outside of the species' range. This species has been eliminated 

from further consideration.

--

Bear Lake springsnail 

(Pyrgulopsis pilsbryana)

S UDWR-S Known to occur at 12 locations in springs and associated waters 

(e.g., spring outflows and spring-fed ponds); 3 of which are 

unmapped springs in Rich County, Utah. The project would cross 

potential habitat in streams in the Bear Lake Basin and intermittently 

between MPs 50 - 70. 

Wetland M

California floater 

(Anodonta californiensis)

S S UDWR-S 

NDOW-SP

Inhabits low-elevation shallow, muddy, or sandy habitats in large 

rivers, reservoirs, and lakes with pools or runs. The project would 

cross potential habitat at the Bear River near MP 115 in Cache 

County, Utah.

Wetland M L

Chase sideband 

(Monadenia chaceana)

S Suitable habitat consists of forested areas and talus or rocky areas of 

southwestern Oregon and northern California. The project is outside 

of the species' range. This species has been eliminated from further 

consideration.

--

Crater Lake tightcoil 

(Pristiloma arcticum 

crateris)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Denio sandhill skipper 

(Polites sabuleti 

sinemaculata)

S Endemic to Humboldt County, Nevada; one documented occurrence 

was recorded in 1984 at 4,213 feet. Little is known of the habits, 

habitat requirements, or distribution of this species. The closely 

related sandhill skipper (Polites sabuleti) inhabits alkaline grasslands, 

moist meadows, lawns, salt marshes, sand dunes, sagebrush flats, 

and alpine fell-fields. The project would cross potential habitat 

intermittently between MPs R398 - 535. 

Salt desert 

scrub

L

Desert mountainsnail 

(Oreophelix peripherica)

S UDWR-S Lives under vegetation and leaf litter associated with mountain maple, 

scrub oak, and balsam root and in limestone outcrops. The project 

would cross potential habitat intermittently between MPs 70 -R105. 

Mixed conifer 

forest

M

Dixie Valley springsnail 

(Pyrgulopsis dixensis)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1616

U-16

APPENDIX U

Sensitive and State-Listed Species Considered for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal Land Management Statusa

State Statusb Commentsc Habitat 

Association

Likelihood of 

Occurrence BLM Field Offices d

Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FNF

CNF

WY

UT

NV

OR

Dune honey ant 

(Myrmecocystus arenarius)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Eureka mountainsnail 

(Oreohelix eurekensis)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Evening fieldslug 

(Deroceras hesperium)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Fly Ranch pyrg 

(Pyrgulopsis bruesi)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Great Basin ramshorn 

(Helisoma newberryi 

newberryi)

S Inhabits large lakes and slow rivers, including spring sources and 

spring-fed creeks. The project would cross potential habitat 

intermittently between MPs 590 - R675.

Wetland H

Highcap lanx 

(Lanx alta)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Humboldt sericum scarab 

(Serica humboldti)

S Inhabits sand dunes. The only population recorded in Nevada was 

4,363 feet north of Winnemucca in 1963. The project would cross 

potential habitat intermittently between MPs 453 - 510. 

Salt desert 

scrub

L

Johnson's hairstreak 

(Callophrys johnsoni)

S Suitable habitat consists of old-growth coniferous forests with red firs, 

western hemlocks, or gray pines with parasitic mistletoes of the 

genus Arceuthobium. The project would cross potential habitat in the 

Fremont-Winema NF within Klamath and Lake counties, Oregon 

intermittently between MPs R602 - 614, MPs 632 - R665, and MPs 

R667 - R675. 

Mixed conifer 

forest

H

King's River springsnail 

(Pyrgulopsis imperialis)

S Endemic to Humboldt County, Nevada. Recorded in aquatic habitats 

at elevations ranging from 4,440 to 4,560 feet. The project would 

cross potential habitat near the King's River intermittently between

MPs R465 - 485.

Wetland L

Lined rams-horn 

(Vorticifex effusa diagonalis)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Lyrate mountainsnail 

(Oreophelix haydeni)

S UDWR-S Occurs in association with limestone outcrops or soils with high 

calcium concentration. Common vegetative habitat includes balsam 

root, bitterbrush, mountain maple, sagebrush, and wild cherry. The 

project would cross potential habitat intermittently between MPs 70 -

75, MPs 80 - 90, and MPs 100 - R105. 

Sagebrush 

steppe

M

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1717

U-17

APPENDIX U

Sensitive and State-Listed Species Considered for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal Land Management Statusa

State Statusb Commentsc Habitat 

Association

Likelihood of 

Occurrence BLM Field Offices d

Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FNF

CNF

WY

UT

NV

OR

Mattoni's blue butterfly 

(Euphilotes rita mattoni)

S NDOW-SP Endemic to Elko County, Nevada in sagebrush shrublands. Occurs 

in the Long and Ruby Valley and Bruneau watersheds. The project is 

15 to 25 miles outside of the species’ range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

-- L

Modoc Rim sideband 

(Monadenia fidelis spp. 

Nov.) 

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Montane peaclam 

(Pisidium ultramontanum)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Nevada viceroy 

(Limenitus archippus 

lahontani)

S S NDOW-SP Endemic to Nevada and associated with willows in riparian valley 

floors below 6,000 feet. The project would cross potential habitat 

intermittently between MPs R398 - 450.

Wetland L

Northwest Bonneville pyrg 

(Pyrgulopsis variegate)

S UDWR-S Occurs in springs that emerge from the ground as flowing streams 

and marshy springs between 4,235 and 6,640 feet. The project 

would cross potential habitat near MP 225. 

Wetland M

Pleasant Valley springsnail 

(Pyrgulopsis aurata)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Sada's pyrg 

(Pyrgulopsis aurata)

S Endemic to Nevada's springs and seeps between 4,640 and 6,440 

feet. The project would cross potential habitat intermittently between

MPs R398 - 535. 

Wetland L

Scale lanx (Lanx 

klamathensis)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Siskiyou hesperian 

(Vespericola sierranus)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Southern Bonneville pyrg 

(Pyrgulopsis transversa)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Turban pebblesnail 

(Fluminicola turbiniformis)

S Suitable habitat consists of swift-flowing water on sand-cobble 

substrate. The project would cross potential habitat intermittently 

between MPs 590 - R647.

Wetland H

Utah physa 

(Physella utahensis)

S UDWR-S Inhabits 0.25- to 1-acre well-vegetated spring-fed ponds with diverse 

substrates of mud, gravel, and/or rocks. The project would cross 

potential habitat intermittently between MPs 160 – 165.

Wetland H

Werstern pearlshell 

(Margaritifera falcate)

S UDWR-S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1818

U-18

APPENDIX U

Sensitive and State-Listed Species Considered for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal Land Management Statusa

State Statusb Commentsc Habitat 

Association

Likelihood of 

Occurrence BLM Field Offices d

Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FNF

CNF

WY

UT

NV

OR

Western Lahontan 

springsnail 

(Pyrgulopsis longiglans)

S Occurs in springs and seeps in Humboldt, Washoe, and Douglas 

counties from 4,040 to 6,730 feet. The project would cross potential 

habitat intermittently between MPs R398 - 535.

Wetland L

Western ridged mussel 

(Gonidea angulata)

S The FWS has indicated this species may occur within the Lost River 

basin.

Waterbody M

VASCULAR PLANTS

Abrupt-beaked sedge 

(Carex abrupta)

S S S Prefers moist mountains, meadows, and open forests ranging from 

4,600 to 10,800 feet. The project would cross potential habitat in 

Lake and Klamath counties, Oregon.

Grassland M

Adobe parsley

(Lomatium roseanum)

S Inhabits open, dry, basalt talus and overlying clay soils on gentle 

slopes with low sagebrush. The project would cross potential habitat 

intermittently between MPs 535 - 588. 

Sagebrush 

steppe

L

American pilwort 

(Pilularia americana)

S Grows in vernal pools and wet grasslands. The project would cross 

potential habitat intermittently between MPs 590 - R602, MPs 612 -

632, and MPs R657 - R667. 

Wetland H

Annual dropseed 

(Muhlenbergia minutissima)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Aristulate lipocarpha 

(Lipocarpha aristulata)

S S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Artic poppy 

(Papaver pygmaeum)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Barneby stemflower 

(Caulanthus barnebyi)

S S Endemic to Nevada where documented occurrences have been 

found in shadscale, mixed shrub, and lower sagebrush zones at 

4,080 to 5,000 feet. The project would cross potential habitat 

intermittently between MPs R398 - 411, MPs 426 - 435, MPs 453 -

524, and MPs 526 - 535. 

Sagebrush 

steppe

H

Barneby wood aster 

(Aster kingii var. 

barnebyana)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
1919

U-19

APPENDIX U

Sensitive and State-Listed Species Considered for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal Land Management Statusa

State Statusb Commentsc Habitat 

Association

Likelihood of 

Occurrence BLM Field Offices d

Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FNF

CNF

WY

UT

NV

OR

Barren Valley collomia 

(Collomia renacta)

S Grows in lightly disturbed rocky soils with parsley, mustard, 

buckwheat, big sage, and low sage at 6,800 to 7,200 feet. The 

project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

-- L

Bastard kentrophyta 

(Astragalus applegatei)

S S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Beaver Rim phlox 

(Phlox pungens)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Bellinger's meadow-foam 

(Limnanthes floccose ssp. 

Bellingeriana)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Blue-leaved penstemon 

(Penstemon glaucinus)

S S S Grows at middle elevations in lodgepole pine and white bark forests 

in sandy, volcanic soils on rocky ridge tops. The project would cross 

potential habitat intermittently between MPs 595 - 614 and MPs 632 -

R675.

Mixed conifer 

forest

M

Bog club-moss 

(Lycopodiella inundata)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop 

(Gratiola heterosepala)

S S Inhabits semi-aquatic areas and is typically found in mud or damp soil 

at lake edges. The only known Oregon population occurs 5 miles 

east of MP 590. The project would cross potential habitat in Oregon. 

Wetland M

Bolander spikerush 

(Eleocharis bolanderi)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Bristly sedge 

(Carex comosa)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Broad fleabane 

(Erigeron latus)

S Grows in sagebrush steppe and juniper zones with low sage and big 

sage at 6,200 to 6,450 feet in Nevada. The project would cross 

potential habitat in the Independence Mountains in Nevada. 

Sagebrush 

steppe

H

Broad-toothed 

monkeyflower 

(Mimulus latidens)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Brownie ladyslipper 

(Cypripedium fasciculatum)

S UDWR-S1 Grows along shaded streams and in the duff of spruce/fir or 

lodgepole pine forests at 8,000 - 9,000 feet. The project would cross 

potential habitat in Cache County, Utah. 

Mixed conifer 

forest

M

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
2020

U-20

APPENDIX U

Sensitive and State-Listed Species Considered for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal Land Management Statusa

State Statusb Commentsc Habitat 

Association

Likelihood of 

Occurrence BLM Field Offices d

Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FNF

CNF

WY

UT

NV

OR

Bruneau River prickly phlox 

(Leptodactylon glabrum)

S Grows in the rocky crevices of steep to vertical canyon walls and is 

intolerant of water paths or seeps. The project would cross potential 

habitat in Elko County, Nevada. 

Sagebrush 

steppe

L

Bulb-bearing waterhemlock 

(Cicuta bulbifera)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Cache beardtongue 

(Penstemon compactus)

S UDWR-S2 Occupies openings in coniferous communities on dolomite and 

limestone parent material at 7,000 to 9,800 feet. The project would 

cross potential habitat in Cache County, Utah. 

Mixed conifer 

forest

M

California maiden hair 

(Adiantum jordanii)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Candelaria blazingstar 

(Mentzelia canderlariae)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Capitate sedge 

(Carex capitata)

S S S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Casick hyssop 

(Agastache cusickii)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Clustered lady's-slipper 

(Cypripedium fasciculatum)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Columbia cress 

(Rorippa columbiae)

S S S Grows in gravelly soils, generally along rivers and near springs at 

lower to middle elevations. The project would cross potential habitat 

intermittently between MPs 595 - 610, MPs R620 - 630, and MPs 640 

- R675.

Wetland M

Constance's sedge 

(Carex constanceana)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Cooper's goldflower 

(Hymenoxys lemmonii)

S Inhabits shrub-scrub, coniferous forests, and meadows. The project 

would cross potential habitat intermittently between MPs 588 - 602. 

Mixed conifer 

forest

H

Cordelia beardtongue 

(Penstemon floribundus)

S Endemic to northwestern Nevada. Occurs within desert shrub and 

sagebrush communities on mountain slopes and associated alluvial 

fans of limestone or dark-colored volcanic talus. The project would 

cross potential habitat intermittently between MPs R398 - 411, MPs

426 - 435, MPs 453 - 524, and MPs 526 - 535. 

Sagebrush 

steppe

L

Cordilleran sedge 

(Carex cordillerana)

S Occurs in mesic mixed forests on rocky slopes and in grassy, open, 

disturbed slopes at 1,640 to 7,874 feet. The project would cross 

known occupied habitat at Deep Creek near MP 599.5. 

Mixed conifer 

forest

H

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
2121

U-21

APPENDIX U

Sensitive and State-Listed Species Considered for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal Land Management Statusa

State Statusb Commentsc Habitat 

Association

Likelihood of 

Occurrence BLM Field Offices d

Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FNF

CNF

WY

UT

NV

OR

Cottams cinquefoil 

(Potentilla cottamii)

S S S Inhabits cracks and crevices in quartzite outcrops at 7,500 to 10,400 

feet. Potential habitat is not present near the project. This species 

has been eliminated from further consideration.

-- L

Crater Lake rockcress 

(Arabis suffrutescens 

horizontalis)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Crenulate moonwort 

(Botrychium crenulatum)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

-- L

Cronquist daisy 

(Erigeron cronquistii)

S UDWR-S2 Endemic to north-central Utah. Occupies limestone cliff and talus 

habitat at 5,750 to 8,500 feet. The project is outside of the species' 

range. This species has been eliminated from further consideration.

-- L

Crosby's buckwheat 

(Eriogonum crosbyae)

S S S Occupies outcrops of volcanic ash deposits and shallow sandy to clay 

soils in sagebrush areas. The project would cross potential habitat 

intermittently between MPs R395 - 411, MPs 426 - 435, MPs 453 -

524, MPs 526 - 587, MPs 590 - 614, and MPs 630 - R665. 

Sagebrush 

steppe

H

Cusick's buckwheat 

(Eriogonum cusickii)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Cusick's giant-hyssop 

(Agastache cusickii)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Dainty moonwort 

(Botrychium crenulatum)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Dark alpine sedge 

(Carex subnigricans)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Davis peppercress 

(Lepidium davisii)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Deep Creek cinquefoil 

(Potentilla multisecta)

S WGFD-SC The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Deep Creek stickseed 

(Hackelia ibapensis)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Desert allocarya 

(Plagiobothrys salsus)

S Grows in wet to moist alkaline meadows and in playa lakes. The 

project would cross potential habitat intermittently between MPs 588 -

R675. 

Salt desert 

scrub

M

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
2222

U-22

APPENDIX U

Sensitive and State-Listed Species Considered for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal Land Management Statusa

State Statusb Commentsc Habitat 

Association

Likelihood of 

Occurrence BLM Field Offices d

Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FNF

CNF

WY

UT

NV

OR

Desert chaenactis 

(Chaenactis xantiana)

S Prefers chaparral, pinyon-juniper woodlands, and sagebrush-scrub 

communities. The project would cross potential habitat intermittently 

between MPs 588 - R602, MPs 612 - R615, MPs 630 - 634, and MPs

R657 - R665.

Juniper 

woodland

M

Desert glandular phacelia 

(Phacelia glandulosa var. 

deserta)

S WGFD-SC Endemic to the Great Divide Basin. Suitable habitat consists of 

semibarren south- or west-facing upper slopes dominated by cushion 

plants and in openings with shadscale, green rabbitbrush, and 

greasewood mixed shrubland. The project would cross potential 

habitat in Wyoming. 

Salt desert 

scrub

M

Disappearing monkeyflower 

(Mimulus evanescens)

S S S Grows at 4,000 to 5,500 feet in moist, gravelly, rocky areas and in 

low, wet fields. The project would cross potential habitat 

intermittently between MPs 595 - 614, MPs 632 - R665, and MPs

R667 - R675.

Wetland H

Divergent wild buckwheat 

(Eriogonum divaricatum)

S WGFD-SC The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Dorn's twinpod 

(Physaria dornii)

S WGFD-SC Endemic to the Overthrust Belt in Lincoln and Uinta counties. Grows 

on clay-gravel or sandy-shale slopes with little plant cover at 6,500 to 

7,600 feet. The project would cross potential habitat in Wyoming. 

Salt desert 

scrub

M

Douglas' campion 

(Silene douglasii)

S WGFD-SC Inhabits sagebrush, grassy or wooded mountain slopes, alpine 

meadows, and rocky ledges. A population exists about 13 miles 

north of MP 48. The project would cross potential habitat in 

Wyoming. 

Sagebrush 

steppe

L

Elko rockcress 

(Arabis falcifructa)

S Endemic to northeastern Nevada on dry, densely vegetated, relatively 

undisturbed, silty soils that have a high cover of moss and other crust 

components. Associated with Wyoming big sage, grey rabbitbrush, 

and Sandberg bluegrass. The project would cross potential habitat in 

northeastern Nevada. 

Sagebrush 

steppe

M

Entire-leaved peppergrass 

(Lepidium integrifolium var. 

integrifolium)

S WGFD-SC Endemic to northeastern Utah and southwestern Wyoming. Grows 

along the alkaline margins of wet meadows and is associated with 

low-elevation riparian habitat in foothills and valley bottoms. The 

project would cross potential habitat in Wyoming. 

Salt desert 

scrub

L

Fee's lip-fern 

(Cheilanthes feei)

S S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Frank smith violet 

(Viola frank-smithii)

S UDWR-S1 Grows in cracks, crevices, and holes in outcrops of limestone and 

dolomite in humid, shady places. Endemic to Logan Canyon in 

Cache County, Utah about 14 miles from the project. The project is 

outside of the species' range. This species has been eliminated from 

further consideration.

-- L

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
2323

U-23

APPENDIX U

Sensitive and State-Listed Species Considered for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal Land Management Statusa

State Statusb Commentsc Habitat 

Association

Likelihood of 

Occurrence BLM Field Offices d

Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FNF

CNF

WY

UT

NV

OR

Fullstem 

(Chamaechaenactis 

scaposa)

S WGFD-SC The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Garret bladderpod 

(Lesquerella garrettii)

S WGFD-SC The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Garrett's beardtongue 

(Penstemon scariosus var. 

garrettii)

S WGFD-SC Occurs in semi-barren areas or openings in sagebrush communities 

in the Green River Basin and northern foothills of the Uinta Range in 

Sweetwater and Uinta counties, Wyoming. The project is outside of 

the species' range. This species has been eliminated from further 

consideration. 

-- L

Geyer's milk-vetch 

(Astragalus geyeri var. 

geyeri)

S S Known from the Great Basin scrub habitat in sandy flats, valley floors, 

depressions in dunes, and along draws in gullied bluffs or knolls. The 

project would cross potential habitat intermittently between MPs 535 -

588. 

Salt desert 

scrub

M

Goodrich biscuitroot 

(Cynopterus goodrichii)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Grass-fern

(Asplenium septentrionale)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Great Basin downingia 

(Downingia laeta)

S WGFD-SC Grows in moist clay or sandy openings along the banks of ditches, 

streams, and ponds at 6,160 to 7,600 feet. Awetland obligate 

species in Wyoming. The project would cross potential habitat in 

Wyoming. 

Wetland L

Green buckwheat 

(Eriogonum umbellatum var. 

Glaberrimum)

S S S S Inhabits Great Basin scrub and lower and upper montane coniferous 

forests in Lake County, Oregon. The project would cross potential 

habitat intermittently between MPs 588 - R675 and known occupied 

habitat near MP R617. 

Mixed conifer 

forest

L H

Greene's mariposa-lily 

(Calochortus greenei)

S S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Green-tinged paintbrush 

(Castilleja chlorotica)

S S S Prefers loose sandy soils at 4,500 to 8,000 feet in shrub-forest 

openings within ponderosa pine communities. The project would 

cross potential habitat intermittently between MPs R602 - 614, MPs

632 - R665, and MPs R667 - R675. 

Mixed conifer 

forest

M

Grimes vetchling 

(Lathyrus grimesii)

S S S Occupies scree slopes with underlain soil in sage shrubland. The 

project would cross potential habitat in the Independence Mountains 

of Nevada. 

Sagebrush 

steppe

M

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
2424

U-24

APPENDIX U

Sensitive and State-Listed Species Considered for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal Land Management Statusa

State Statusb Commentsc Habitat 

Association

Likelihood of 

Occurrence BLM Field Offices d

Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FNF

CNF

WY

UT

NV

OR

Grimy ivesia 

(Ivesia rhypara var. rhypara)

S S S S Prefers dry, relatively barren volcanic habitats with five-leaf clover, 

Sandberg bluegrass, grey rabbitbrush, and Indian rice grass at 5,370 

to 6,200 feet. The project would cross potential habitat intermittently 

between MPs 230 - R386, MPs R395 - 411, MPs 510 - 524, and MPs

526 - 587. 

Grassland L L

Grouse Creek arabis

(Arabis falcatoria)

S S Occurs on mineralized chip-rock and gravel ridges in shaded crevices 

of open slopes. Found within the mountain mahogany zone in the 

shelter of low shrubs. The project would cross potential habitat in 

Box Elder County, Utah.

Salt desert 

scrub

H

Hayden's milkvetch 

(Astragalus bisculcatus var. 

haydenianus)

S WGFD-SC Grows on clay or sandy soils on rims, upper slopes, and draws 

associated with sandstone outcrops or springs at 6,600 to 7,660 feet 

and in microhabitats with sagebrush and juniper. The project would 

cross potential habitat in Wyoming. 

Juniper 

woodland

M

Holmgren snelowskia 

(Smelowskia holmgrenii)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Howell's thelypodium 

(Thelypodium howellii var. 

howellii)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Idaho penstemon 

(Penstemon idahoensis)

S Occurs in Cassia County, Idaho and Box Elder County, Utah and is 

restricted to silica-rich, tuffaceous outcrops of the Salt Lake 

Formation with sagebrush and juniper. The project would cross 

potential habitat north of the Great Salt Lake Desert in Box Elder 

County, Utah.

Juniper 

woodland

H

Jan's catchfly 

(Silene nachlingerae)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Juniper prickly pear 

(Opuntia polyacantha var. 

juniperina)

S WGFD-SC The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Kass rockcress 

(Draba kassii)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

King's milkvetch 

(Astragalus calycosus var. 

calycosus)

WGFD-SC Grows in pinyon-juniper woodlands at 4,921 to 11,647 feet. Four 

populations of King’s milkvetch exist within 5 miles of MP 0 in 

Wyoming. The project would cross potential habitat in Wyoming. 

Juniper 

woodland

H

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
2525

U-25

APPENDIX U

Sensitive and State-Listed Species Considered for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal Land Management Statusa

State Statusb Commentsc Habitat 

Association

Likelihood of 

Occurrence BLM Field Offices d

Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FNF

CNF

WY

UT

NV

OR

Lahontan Basin buckwheat 

(Eriogonum rubricaule) 

S Endemic to Nevada. Prefers clay, sand, or gravel sites with saltbush, 

sagebrush communities and pinyon-juniper woodlands at 3,500 to 

5,800 feet. The project would cross potential habitat intermittently 

between MPs R398 - 411, MPs 426 - 435, MPs 453 - 524, and MPs

526 - 535. 

Sagebrush 

steppe

M

Lahontan beardtongue 

(Penstemon palmeri var. 

macranthus)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Lahontan indigo bush 

(Psorothamis kingii)

S Inhabits deep sand of active dunes, inter-dune areas, vegetated 

dunes, and aeolian deposits in the shadscale, salt desert, and 

sagebrush zones between 4,140 and 5,250 feet. The project would 

cross potential habitat intermittently between MPs R398 - 411, MPs

426 - 435, MPs 453 - 524, and MPs 526 - 535. 

Salt desert 

scrub

L

Lahontan milkvetch 

(Astragalus porrectus)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Lamoille Canyon milkvetch 

(Astragalus robbinsii var. 

occidentalis)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Large-fruited bladderpod 

(Lesquerella macrocarpa)

S WGFD-SC Occupies an area of less than 25 square miles of sparsely vegetated 

Gardner's saltbush-squirreltail communities on barren, fine-textured 

clays and shales, often with gypsum or bentonite. The project would 

cross known occupied habitat near MP 4.

Salt desert 

scrub

H

Least phacelia 

(Phacelia minutissima)

S Inhabits meadows with California false hellebore, mule-ears, and/or 

aspen stands, and in sagebrush swales. Occurs along creek bed 

high-water lines and springs in flat to gently sloping areas. The 

project would cross potential habitat in the Independence Mountains 

of Nevada. 

Wetland M

Leiberg clover 

(Trifolium leibergiee)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Lemmon buckwheat 

(Eriogonum lemmonii)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Lesser bladderwort 

(Utricularia minor)

S S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Lesser panicled sedge 

(Carex diandra)

S S S Prefers swampy, marshy, or boggy habitats in montane areas. The 

project would cross potential habitat intermittently between MPs 588 -

R675. 

Wetland L

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
2626

U-26

APPENDIX U

Sensitive and State-Listed Species Considered for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal Land Management Statusa

State Statusb Commentsc Habitat 

Association

Likelihood of 

Occurrence BLM Field Offices d

Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FNF

CNF

WY

UT

NV

OR

Lewis buckwheat 

(Eriogonum lewisii)

S Prefers dry, exposed, barren ridge lines with low sage and squirreltail. 

The project would cross potential habitat in Elko County, Nevada. 

Sagebrush 

steppe

M

Little ricegrass

(Oryzopsis exigua)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Logan buckwheat 

(Eriogonum brevicaule var. 

Ioganum)

S UDWR-S2 Grows in sagebrush-bunchgrass and rocky outcrop communities 

between 4,800 and 6,700 feet. The project would cross potential 

habitat in Utah intermittently between MPs 60 - 70.

Sagebrush 

steppe

M

Lonesome milkvetch 

(Astragalus solitaries)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Long-flowered snowberry 

(Symphoricarpos 

longiflorus)

S Found in alkaline, rocky habitats, often in northern juniper and 

pinyon-juniper woodlands. Known to occur in southern Lake County, 

Oregon. The project would cross potential habitat intermittently 

between MPs 590 - 614 and MPs 632 - R675. 

Juniper 

woodland

M

Lowland toothcup 

(Rotala ramosior)

S S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Lyrate malacothrix 

(Malacothrix sonchoides)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Maguires draba 

(Draba maguirei)

S Endemic to Logan Canyon, Utah. Inhabits open areas in spruce/fir 

forests on dolomite at 8,000 to 9,500 feet. The project is outside of 

the species' range. This species has been eliminated from further

consideration.

-- L

Meadow pussytoes 

(Antennaria arcuata)

S Prefers alkaline meadows, seeps, and springs surrounded by 

sagebrush and grassland at 6,200 to 6,500 feet. The project would 

cross potential habitat near MP 330.

Salt desert 

scrub

M

Moab milkvetch 

(Astragalus coltonii var. 

moabensis)

S WGFD-SC The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Modoc bedstraw 

(Galium glabrescens 

ssp.modocense)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Mt. Mazama collomia 

(Collomia mazama)

S S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Narrow-leaved bladderpod 

(Lesquerella parvula)

S WGFD-SC The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
2727

U-27

APPENDIX U

Sensitive and State-Listed Species Considered for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal Land Management Statusa

State Statusb Commentsc Habitat 

Association

Likelihood of 

Occurrence BLM Field Offices d

Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FNF

CNF

WY

UT

NV

OR

Native sedge 

(Carex vernacular)

S S Prefers alpine tundra and forest openings below the tree line at 6,000 

to 12,300 feet. The project would cross known occupied habitat and 

potential habitat intermittently between MPs R602 - 614, MPs 632 -

R665, and MPs R667 - R675.

Mixed conifer 

forest

M

Nevada dune beardtongue 

(Penstemon arenarius)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Nevada lupine 

(Lupinus nevadensis)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Nevada sweetpea 

(Lathyrus lanszwertii var. 

lanszwertii)

S WGFD-SC The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Newberry's gentian 

(Gentiana newberryi)

S S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Northern bladderwort 

(Utriularia ochroleuca)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Obscure buttercup 

(Ranunculus triternatus)

S Occurs in sagebrush habitats. The project would cross potential 

habitat intermittently between MPs 230 - R386 and MPs R395 - R398 

in Elko County, Nevada.

Sagebrush 

steppe

M

Obscure scorpionflower 

(Phacelia inconspicua)

S NDOW-SP The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Oregon semaphoregrass 

(Pleuropogon oregonus)

S S Occupies wet meadows, marshlands, and stream banks. The project 

would cross potential habitat intermittently between MPs 600 - 614, 

MPs 632 - R665, and MPs R667 - R675.

Wetland M

Oryctes

(Oryctes nevadensis)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Osgood Mountain milkvetch 

(Astragalus yoder-williamsii)

S NDOW-SP Grows in decomposed granodiorite soils among boulders on flat and 

gentle slopes in sagebrush steppe. The project would cross potential 

habitat intermittently between MPs R395 - 411, MPs 426 - 435, and 

MPs 526 - 535. 

Sagebrush 

steppe

M

Owyhee prickly phlox 

(Leptodactylong glabrum)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
2828

U-28

APPENDIX U

Sensitive and State-Listed Species Considered for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal Land Management Statusa

State Statusb Commentsc Habitat 

Association

Likelihood of 

Occurrence BLM Field Offices d

Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FNF

CNF

WY

UT

NV

OR

Peck's milk-vetch 

(Astragalus peckii)

S S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Playa phacelia 

(Phacelia inundata)

S S Occurs between 4,500 and 6,000 feet in alkali playas with sagebrush 

steppe, alkali sink, yellow pine forest, and wetland-riparian habitats. 

The project would cross potential habitat in Nevada and Oregon. 

Salt desert 

scrub

L M

Pohl's milk-vetch 

(Astragalus lentiginosis var. 

pohlii)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Profuse-flowered mesa mint 

(Pogogyne floribunda)

S S Grows in vernal pools, seasonal lakes, and flats between 3,200 and 

5,100 feet. The project would cross potential habitat intermittently 

between MPs 590 - R602, MPs 612 - 632, and MPs R657 - R667.

Wetland M

Prostrate bladderpod 

(Lesquerella prostrate)

S WGFD-SC Suitable habitat consists of limey clays and soft sandstones 

dominated by sparse communities of cushion plants, bunchgrasses, 

and low shrubs at 6,630 to 7,700 feet. The project would cross 

potential habitat intermittently between MPs 35 - 45. 

Salt desert 

scrub

M

Prostrate buckwheat 

(Eriogonum prociduum)

S S S Grows in basalt flows and barren volcanic tuff with low vegetation 

cover at 4,600 to 8,320 feet. The project would cross potential 

habitat intermittently between MPs 590 - 614, MPs 630 - R655, and 

MPs R667 - R675. 

Salt desert 

scrub

L M

Pueblo Valley peppergrass 

(Lepidium montanum var. 

nevadense)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Pumice grape-fern 

(Bothrycium pumicola)

S S S Endemic to alpine and montane habitats of central and south-central 

Oregon. Occurs in open sites and in lodgepole pine forests with 

substantial herbaceous cover. The project would cross potential 

habitat intermittently between MPs R602 - 614, MPs 632 - R665, and 

MPs R667 - R675.

Mixed conifer 

forest

M

Rafinesque's pondweed 

(Potamogeton diversifolius)

S S Grows on shores of lakes, ponds, streams, and rivers. The project 

would cross potential habitat intermittently between MPs 595 - 610, 

MPs R620 - 630, and MPs 640 - R675.

Wetland M

Rattlesnake stickseed 

(Hackelia ophiobia)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Ravendale skullcap 

(Scutellaria holmgreniorum)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
2929

U-29

APPENDIX U

Sensitive and State-Listed Species Considered for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal Land Management Statusa

State Statusb Commentsc Habitat 

Association

Likelihood of 

Occurrence BLM Field Offices d

Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FNF

CNF

WY

UT

NV

OR

Red-rooted yampah 

(Perideridia glaucinus)

S S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Reese River phacelia 

(Phacelia glaberrima)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Rock violet 

(Viola lithion)

S S Prefers crevices and ledges of limestone and quartzite outcrops at 

8,500 to 10,000 feet. Potential habitat is not present near the project. 

This species has been eliminated from further consideration. 

-- L

Rockcress draba 

(Draba densifolia apiculata)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Ruby Mountain primrose 

(Primula capillaries)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Rufous-spine prickly pear 

(Opuntia polyacantha var. 

rufispina)

S WGFD-SC Grows in sagebrush grassland, salt desert shrublands, pinyon-juniper 

woodlands, and vegetated sand dunes on slopes and buttes at 6,500 

to 7,100 feet. The project would cross potential habitat in Wyoming.

Sagebrush 

steppe

L

Sagebrush loeflingia 

(Loeflingia squarrosa var 

artemisiarum)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Salt heliotrope

(Heliotropium 

curassavicum)

S S S Tolerates alkaline soil, salt, and seasonal flooding. The project would 

cross potential habitat intermittently between MPs 595 - 610, MPs

R620 - 630, and MPs 640 - R647. 

Salt desert 

scrub

H

Sand cholla 

(Opuntia pulchella)

S NDOW-SP The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Scheuchzeria 

(Scheuchzeria palustris var. 

Americana)

S S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Schoolcraft buckwheat 

(Eriogonum microthecum 

ssp. Schoolcraftii)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Schoolcraft catseye 

(Cryptantha schoolcraftii)

S S Endemic to Humboldt and Washoe counties in Nevada. Grows in 

weathered volcanic ash deposits in sagebrush steppe habitat. The 

project would cross potential habitat intermittently between MPs R395 

- 411, MPs 426 - 435, and MPs 515 - 535. 

Sagebrush 

steppe

H

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3030

U-30

APPENDIX U

Sensitive and State-Listed Species Considered for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal Land Management Statusa

State Statusb Commentsc Habitat 

Association

Likelihood of 

Occurrence BLM Field Offices d

Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FNF

CNF

WY

UT

NV

OR

Shaggy hawkweed 

(Heiracium horridum)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Shasta arnica 

(Arnica viscose)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Shelly's ivesia 

(Ivesia rhypara var. shellyi)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Shockley's ivesia 

(Ivesi shockleyi)

S S Associated with pinyon pine-juniper woodlands and ponderosa pine 

forests, growing on open, exposed rocky ridges and outcrops at 

8,100 to 13,200 feet. The project would cross potential habitat 

intermittently between MPs R602 - 614, MPs 632 - R655, and MPs

R667 - R675. 

Juniper 

woodland

M

Short-podded thelypody 

(Thelypodium 

brachycarpum)

S S S Grows in serpentine and alkaline soils in meadows and open flats 

between 2,000 and 7,500 feet. The project would cross potential 

habitat intermittently between MPs 590 - R675.

Salt desert 

scrub

M

Short-seeded waterwort 

(Elatine brachysperma)

S S Prefers shallow water, muddy shores of temporary ponds, oxbows, 

and other riverine habitats. The project would cross potential habitat 

intermittently between MPs 605 - 610, MPs R620 - 630, and MPs 640 

- R647. 

Wetland M

Sickle saltbush 

(Atriplex falcata)

S WGFD-SC Grows in sagebrush-dominated communities on desert hills, mesas, 

draws, and gravel benches with sandy to clay soil. The project would 

cross potential habitat in Wyoming.

Sagebrush 

steppe

L

Slender moonwort 

(Botrychium lineare)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Slender sedge 

(Carex lasiocarpa var. 

Americana)

S S S Found along shores of lakes and ponds, bogs, marshes, and stream 

banks. The project would cross potential habitat intermittently 

between MPs R602 - 614, MPs 632 - R665, and MPs R667 - R675. 

Wetland M

Small spring parsley 

(Cymopterus acaulis var. 

parvus)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Smooth stickleaf 

(Mentzelia mollis)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Snowline spring-parsley 

(Cymopterus nivalis)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3131

U-31

APPENDIX U

Sensitive and State-Listed Species Considered for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal Land Management Statusa

State Statusb Commentsc Habitat 

Association

Likelihood of 

Occurrence BLM Field Offices d

Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FNF

CNF

WY

UT

NV

OR

Sodaville milkvetch 

(Astragalus lentiginosis var. 

salinus)

S WGFD-SC The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Starvling milkvetch 

(Astragalus jejunus var. 

jejunus)

S Occurs among sagebrush and sagebrush-juniper communities at 

6,000 and 7,000 feet. The project would cross potential habitat in 

Rich County, Utah. 

Sagebrush 

steppe

M

Succor Creek parsley 

(Lomatium packardiae)

S Suitable habitat consists of soils derived from volcanic ash deposits in 

rocky, sagebrush habitat at 4,400 to 7,600 feet. The project would 

cross potential habitat intermittently between MPs R398 - 411, MPs

426 - 435, MPs 453 - 524, and MPs 526 - 535. 

Sagebrush 

steppe

M

Sucksdorf milkvetch 

(Astragalus pulsiferae var. 

sucksdorfii)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Swallen Mountain ricegrass 

(Achnatherum swallenii)

S WGFD-SC Inhabits rocky slopes, rims, and mesa summits and is associated with 

sagebrush-grasslands at 6,500 to 7,900 feet. The project would 

cross potential habitat in Wyoming. 

-- M

Ternate desert parsley 

(Lomatium triternatum var. 

anomalum)

WGFD-SC Grows in brown clay-humus soils on ridgetops or slopes dominated 

by little sagebrush/grasslands at 7,850 to 8,080 feet. The project 

would cross potential habitat intermittently between MPs 0 - 20. 

Sagebrush 

steppe

L

Three-colored 

monkeyflower 

(Mimulus tricolor)

S S S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Tiehm milkvetch 

(Astragalus tiehmii)

S S Occupies weathered volcanic ash deposits with rabbitbrush, 

globemallow, cryptantha, and buckwheats. The project would cross 

potential habitat from MPs R395 - 411, MPs 426 - 435, and MPs 526 

- 535 and known occupied habitat intermittently between MPs 540 -

565. 

Salt desert 

scrub

H

Trelease's racemose 

milkvetch 

(Astragalus racemosus var. 

treleasei)

S WGFD-SC The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Tufted twinpod 

(Physaria condensate)

S WGFD-SC Occurs on dry, rocky knolls and ridges, shaly hills, and clay banks in 

openings or sparsely vegetated cushion plant communities in 

sagebrush-grasslands at 6,700 to 7,400 feet. The project would 

cross potential habitat in Wyoming. 

Sagebrush 

steppe

H

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3232

U-32

APPENDIX U

Sensitive and State-Listed Species Considered for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal Land Management Statusa

State Statusb Commentsc Habitat 

Association

Likelihood of 

Occurrence BLM Field Offices d

Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FNF

CNF

WY

UT

NV

OR

Uinta green thread 

(Thelesperma pubescens)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Verrucose sea-purslane 

(Sesuvium verrucosum)

S S Prefers margins of saline or alkaline habitats, including coastal 

wetlands and desert playa lakes at 0 to 3,200 feet. The project would 

cross potential habitat intermittently between MPs 590 - R675.

Salt desert 

scrub

M

Warner Mountain bedstraw 

(Galium serpenticum ssp. 

Warnerense)

S S S Prefers subalpline forest communities in talus slopes and other rocky 

areas at 5,000 to 8,000 feet. The project would cross potential 

habitat intermittently between MPs R602 - 614. 

Mixed conifer 

forest

H

Wasatch jamesia 

(Jamesia americana 

macrocalyx)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Water clubrush 

(Schoenoplectis 

subterminalis)

S S S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Western bladderpod 

(Lesquerella multiceps)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Wheeler's angelica 

(Angelica wheeleri)

UDWR-S2 Endemic to Utah. Occupies bogs or other wet habitats at 5,000 to 

6,800 feet. The project would cross potential habitat in Cache 

County, Utah. 

Wetland M

White-flowered navarretia 

(Navarretia leucocephala 

ssp. Leucocephala)

S Grows in wetlands within grasslands, woodlands, and riparian areas. 

The project would cross potential habitat intermittently between MPs

588 - R675. 

Wetland M

White-margined phlox 

(Phlox albomarginata)

S WGFD-SC Grows on open, rocky slopes and rocky flats at moderate to high 

elevations. The project would cross potential habitat in Wyoming. 

Grassland L

Windloving buckwheat 

(Eriogonum anemophilum)

S S Suitable habitat consists of barren, rocky outcrops. The project would 

cross potential habitat in Nevada. 

Grassland M

Winged milkvetch 

(Astragalus pterocarpus)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Winward's narrowleaf 

goldenweed

(Ericameria disoidea var. 

winwardii)

WGFD-SC Endemic to Lincoln County, Wyoming. Grows on silty-clay and clayshale slopes at 6,562 to 7,218 feet. The project would cross potential 

habitat in Wyoming. 

Salt desert 

scrub

L

Wolf's willow 

(Salix wolfii)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3333

U-33

APPENDIX U

Sensitive and State-Listed Species Considered for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal Land Management Statusa

State Statusb Commentsc Habitat 

Association

Likelihood of 

Occurrence BLM Field Offices d

Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FNF

CNF

WY

UT

NV

OR

NONVASCULAR PLANTS

Liverwort 

(Barbilophozia 

lycopodioides)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Liverwort

(Chiloscyphus gemmiparus)

S S Inhabits rocks in cold, fast-moving streams at 5,000 to 7,000 feet. 

The project would cross potential habitat intermittently between MPs

590 - 614, MPs 632 - R665, and MPs R667 - R675.

Wetland M

Liverwort 

(Tritomaria exsectiformis)

S S Prefers coniferous forests with perennial water flow at or near springs 

and seeps along gentle topographic gradients. The project would 

cross potential habitat intermittently between MPs 590 - 614, MPs

632 - R665, and MPs R667 - R675.

Riparian forest M

Moss

(Codriophorus depressus)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Moss 

(Helodium blandowii)

S S Grows in wetlands with calcareous or basic groundwater, typically 

between 5,000 and 6,000 feet. The project would cross potential 

habitat intermittently between MPs 590 - R675.

Wetland M

Moss 

(Meesia uliginosa)

S Forms tuffs in medium to rich montane fens. Grows on saturated 

ground in full sunlight in coniferous forests at 5,000 to 6,000 feet. 

The project would cross potential habitat intermittently between MPs

R602 - 614, MPs 632 - R655, and MPs R667 - R675. 

Riparian forest

Moss 

(Polytrichium 

sphaerothecium)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Moss

(Pseudocalliergon trifarium)

S S Found in alkaline wetlands between 5,000 and 6,000 feet. The 

project would cross potential habitat intermittently between MPs 595 -

610, MPs R620 - 630, and MPs 640 - R675.

Wetland M

Moss 

(Rhizomnium nudum)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Moss 

(Splachnum ampullaceum)

S S Suitable habitat consists of old herbivore dung, or on soil enriched by 

dung, in wet habitats, typically at 500 to 5,000 feet. The project 

would cross potential habitat intermittently between MPs 590 - R675. 

Grassland M

Moss 

(Tomentypnum nitens) 

S Occupies alkaline wetlands and forest openings with calcareous 

bedrock and pumice deposits along the Cascade Range and the Blue 

Mountains of Oregon at 5,000 to 6,000 feet. The project would cross 

potential habitat intermittently between MPs 590 - R675.

Wetland M

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3434

U-34

APPENDIX U

Sensitive and State-Listed Species Considered for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal Land Management Statusa

State Statusb Commentsc Habitat 

Association

Likelihood of 

Occurrence BLM Field Offices d

Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FNF

CNF

WY

UT

NV

OR

Moss 

(Tortula mucronifolia)

S S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Moss 

(Trematadon boasii)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Lichen

(Dermatocarpon 

meiophyllizum)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Lichen 

(Leptogium burnetiae)

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Lichen 

(Texosporium sanctijacobi)

S S S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

FUNGI

Boletus pulcherrimus S Suitable habitat consists of coastal areas in hardwood/conifer forests. 

The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Gastroboletus vividus S Associated with the roots of various Pinaceae species. The project 

would cross potential habitat intermittently between MPs 632 - R665, 

and MPs R668 - R675.

Mixed conifer 

forest

M

Gomphus bonarii S Suitable habitat consists of old-growth coniferous forests. Potential 

habitat is not present near the project and the project is outside of the 

species' range. This species has been eliminated from further 

consideration.

--

Gomphus kauffmanii S S Suitable habitat consists of old-growth coniferous forests. Potential 

habitat is not present near the project and the project is outside of the 

species' range. This species has been eliminated from further 

consideration.

--

Hygrophorus caeruleus S Known to occur in the Sierra Nevada Mountains in conifer duff. The 

project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Otidea smithii S Inhabits coniferous forests in Western Oregon. The project is outside 

of the species' range. This species has been eliminated from further 

consideration.

--

Pseudorhizina californica S S Suitable habitat consists of low to mid-elevation coniferous forests. 

The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
3535

U-35

APPENDIX U

Sensitive and State-Listed Species Considered for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal Land Management Statusa

State Statusb Commentsc Habitat 

Association

Likelihood of 

Occurrence BLM Field Offices d

Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FNF

CNF

WY

UT

NV

OR

Ramaria 

aurantiisiccenscens

S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Rhizopogon ellipsosporus S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

Sowerbyella rhenana S The project is outside of the species' range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

--

 

a Federal Status: E = Endangered; T = Threatened; C = Candidate; Pet = Petitioned

KFO = Kemmerer Field Office

SLFO = Salt Lake Field Office

EFO = Elko Field Office

WFO = Winnemucca Field Office

SFO = Surprise Field Office

LFO = Lakeview Field Office 

KFFO = Klamath Falls Field Office

b State Status: E = Endangered; T = Threatened; S = Sensitive; SC = Species of concern; SP = State protected; S1/S2 = State sensitive

c Habitat descriptions and locations based on Environmental Resource Report 3 for the Ruby Pipeline Project, literature review, agency discussion, and on-line databases.

Potential habitat is defined as habitat that could support a special status species and that is within a jurisdiction where the species is designated as sensitive or state-listed. 

d Likelihood of occurrence: 

 Fish and Wildlife Plants

 Low (L): 20-30 miles of project 10-15 miles of project

 Moderate (M): 5-20 miles of project 5-10 miles of project

High (H): 1-5 miles of project 1-5 miles of project

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX V

Collocated and Parallel Rights-of-Way for the 

Ruby Pipeline Project

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
V-3

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
V-1

APPENDIX V

Collocated and Parallel Rights-of-Way for the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County MP Range Type of Collocated or Parallel

Right-of-Way

Offset Distance & 

Direction (feet)

Length 

(miles)

WYOMING

Lincoln 1.5 – 2.3 Pipeline 75 South 0.8

Lincoln 2.3 – 5.8 Pipeline 80 North 3.5

Lincoln 7.5 – 8.4 Pipeline 60 - 580 South 0.9

Lincoln 9.1 – 9.3 Pipeline 60 South 0.2

Lincoln 9.6 – 12.0 Pipeline 55 South 2.4

Lincoln 12.0 – 12.6 Pipeline 55 - 125 South 0.6

Lincoln 12.6 – 18.5 Pipeline 55 South 5.9

Lincoln 19.9 – 20.9 Pipeline 330 - 500 South 1

Lincoln 21.1 – 21.2 Road (Unnamed Road) 0 - 715 South 0.1

Uinta 21.2 – 26.2 Road (Unnamed Road) 0 - 715 South 5

Subtotal 20.4

UTAH

Rich 50.4 – 51.8 Electric Transmission Line 0 - 1,185 South 1.4

Rich 51.8 – 60.3 Electric Transmission Line 0 - 215 South 8.5

Rich 66.2 – 66.9 Pipeline 45 South 0.7

Rich 66.9 – 67.4 Pipeline 110 North 0.5

Rich 67.4 – 67.5 Pipeline 45 South 0.1

Rich 70.9 – 71.2 Road (State Route 39) 250 - 375 North 0.3

Rich 71.6 – 73.0 Pipeline 55 South 1.4

Cache 73.7 – 77.0 Pipeline 80 South 3.3

Cache 77.0 – 81.7 Pipeline 120 South 4.7

Cache 81.8 – 83.0 Pipeline 50 South 1.2

Cache 83.0 – 83.7 Pipeline 65 South 0.7

Cache 83.7 – 84.0 Pipeline 55 South 0.3

Cache 92.4 – 93.2 Road (La Plata Road) 0 - 450 South 0.8

Box Elder 104.0 – 105.3 Pipeline 30 - 500 North 1.3

Box Elder 105.5 – 106.1 Electric Transmission Line 0 - 66 North 0.6

Box Elder 106.1 – 106.7 Electric Transmission Line 0 - 182 South 0.6

Box Elder 106.7 – 106.9 Electric Transmission Line 0 - 67 North 0.2

Box Elder 106.9 – 108.5 Electric Transmission Line 0 - 450 South 1.6

Box Elder 108.5 – 108.8 Electric Transmission Line 0 - 290 North 0.3

Box Elder 127.1 – 127.7 Road (State Route 102) 0 - 250 North 0.6

Box Elder 133.0 – 133.8 Road (Faust Valley Road) 100 - 235 South 0.8

Box Elder 134.9 - R137.7 Pipeline 0 - 500 North/South 2.8

Box Elder 173.1 – 178.9 Fiber Optic Cable 60 - 118 South 5.8

Box Elder 178.9 – 180.4 Road (8560 N Rd) 50 - 215 South 1.5

Box Elder 180.4 – 181.6 Road (8560 N Rd) 60 South 1.2

Box Elder 181.6 – 181.8 Road (8560 N Rd) 60 - 360 South 0.2

Box Elder 181.8 – 185.2 Road (8560 N Rd) 60 - 110 South 3.4

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
V-2

APPENDIX V

Collocated and Parallel Rights-of-Way for the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County MP Range Type of Collocated or Parallel

Right-of-Way

Offset Distance & 

Direction (feet)

Length 

(miles)

Box Elder 185.2 – 187.5 Road (8560 N Rd) 50 - 60 South 2.3

Box Elder 187.5 – 189.4 Road (8560 N Rd) 50 South 1.9

Box Elder 189.4 – R190.5 Road (8560 N Rd) 50 - 135 South 1.1

Box Elder R190.8 - R200.1 Road (8560 N Rd) 75 - 95 South 9.3

Box Elder R200.6 - R222 Road (State Route 30) 120 - 330 North 24.1

Box Elder 224.6 – 230.6 Fiber Optic Cable 0 - 525 South 7.1

Subtotal 90.6

NEVADA

Elko 230.6 – R288.0 Fiber Optic Cable 0 - 525 South 57.4

Elko 287.9 – R290.6 Electric Transmission Line 115 South 2.9

Elko 302.6 - 305.1 Fiber Optic Cable 0 - 500 South 2.5

Elko 304.3 - 306.7 Electric Transmission Line 370 South 2.6

Elko 309.3 - 316 Electric Transmission Line 135 South 6.7

Elko 319.7 - 329.3 Electric Transmission Line 115 South 9.6

Elko 329.3 -331.7 Electric Transmission Line 240 - 620 South 2.4

Elko 333.8 -336.7 Electric Transmission Line 140 - 400 South 2.9

Elko 337.4 - 341.5 Electric Transmission Line 115 - 200 South 4.1

Elko R351.7 - R388.1 Electric Transmission Line 1.5 - 450 North 27.6

Elko R394.2 – R397.8 Electric Transmission Line 1.5 - 670 North 2.5

Humbolt R397.8 - 412 Electric Transmission Line 1.5 - 670 North 14.8

Humboldt 415.4 - 421.4 Electric Transmission Line 120 - 775 North/South 6.1

Humboldt 423.5 – 425.2 Road (Dutch Flat Road) 330 - 600 1.7

Humboldt 435.3 – 438.7 Road (H-17) 220 South 3.4

Humboldt 476.3 – 479.0 Road (Old Winnemucca Denio Road) 470 North 2.7

Humboldt 495.8 – 497.2 Road (Leonard Creek Ranch Rd) 250 - 500 North 1.4

Humboldt 498.2 – 500.4 Electric Transmission Line 260 South - 500 North 2.2

Washoe 562.0 – 571.0 Electric Transmission Line 0 - 215 North 9

Washoe 575.9 – 585.6 Electric Transmission Line 145 - 215 North 9.7

Washoe 585.6 – 588.0 Electric Transmission Line 145 - 480 North 2.4

Subtotal 174.6

OREGON

Lake 605.6 - 606 Road (Fremont National Forest) 70 North/South 0.3

Lake 630.6 - 631.3 Road (State Line Road) 70 - 500 North 0.7

Lake 633.4 - 634.4 Road (NFD 412-State Line Road) 0 - 500 North 1

Klamath R654 - R662 Road (Willow Valley Road) 180 - 660 North/South 8.3

Klamath R674.7 - end Road (Loveness Road) 197 South 0.7

Subtotal 11.0

Klamath 0.0 - 0.26 Pipeline 126 - 400 East/West 0.26

Subtotal 0.26

Total 296.86

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX W

Wilderness Characteristics Assessment

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Wilderness Resource Analysis

Page 1 of 24

Note: This Appendix was prepared by the BLM. Except for minor stylistic edits made by FERC staff, the 

BLM is entirely responsible for the analysis and conclusions below. Unless otherwise indicated, section, 

figure, and table references are to this Appendix. 

1.1 WILDERNESS RESOURCES

The proposed 675-mile-long Ruby Pipeline Project crosses lands in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and 

Oregon. Along the proposed alignment and other routing alternatives, the pipeline crosses lands 

administered by the BLM, USFS, Reclamation, and the FWS. Except for Reclamation, the other agencies 

manage lands for their wilderness characteristics as designated wilderness, WSAs, or inventoried roadless 

areas. 

In addition to these designations, the Wilderness Act of 1964 and agency wilderness inventory 

guidelines define other lands as having wilderness characteristics. To ensure a consistent analysis of the 

effects of construction and operation of the Ruby pipeline along the proposed and alternative alignments, 

the BLM field and district offices in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon conducted wilderness 

inventory of affected lands under their jurisdiction to determine the presence of wilderness characteristics.

For purposes of this analysis, these lands will be known as wilderness inventory units.

1.1.1 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

The different categories of lands with wilderness characteristics found along the proposed and 

alternative pipeline alignments are described below. 

1.1.1.1 Wilderness

Wilderness is a congressionally designated area of undeveloped federal land retaining its 

primeval character and influence without permanent improvements or human habitation. Wilderness land

is protected and managed to preserve its natural conditions, and it 1) generally appears to have been 

affected mainly by the forces of nature, with human imprints substantially unnoticeable; 2) has 

outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; 3) is at least 5,000 

acres in size or is large enough to make practical its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and 

4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historic 

value (Wilderness Act section 2(c) [16 U.S.C. 1131]) (Table 1).

1.1.1.2 WSAs 

A WSA is a roadless area that has been inventoried by an agency (but not designated by 

Congress) and found to have wilderness characteristics as described in section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act 

of 1964 (see section 1.1). BLM WSAs are managed under the Interim Management Policy and 

Guidelines (IMP–BLM, H-8550-1) to protect their values as wilderness until Congress either designates 

the areas as wilderness or releases them for management of other values and uses. Activities that would 

impair wilderness suitability are prohibited, subject to valid existing rights and grandfathered uses.

In their NWR System, the FWS manages WSAs to maintain their size, naturalness, and 

outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation, which is carried out to the extent that the 

management will not prevent the FWS from fulfilling and carrying out establishing purposes of the refuge 

and the NWR System mission. Once indentified as a WSA, the FWS protects the area by doing a caseby-case review of proposed or new site-specific projects, refuge management activities, or refuge uses in 

the WSA. WSAs recommended as suitable for wilderness designation are managed according to the final 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Wilderness Resource Analysis

Page 2 of 24

Comprehensive Conservation Plan until Congress makes a decision to designate a WSA as wilderness, or 

the FWS amends the Comprehensive Conservation Plan to modify or remove the suitable 

recommendation (Table 1).

TABLE 1

Areas with Wilderness Characteristics: Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas, and Inventoried Roadless Areas

Name Agency Type Acres Location to Pipeline State

Sugar Pine USFS Inventoried 

Roadless Area

5,595 Adjacent Utah

Wellsville USFS WA 23,032 Adjacent Utah

Black Rock Desert BLM WA 314,836 Adjacent Nevada

Big Springs Table FWS WSA 65,391 Adjacent Nevada

Blow-Out Mountain - Rock 

Springs Table

FWS WSA 97,598 Adjacent Nevada

Sagehen Hills FWS WSA 21,068 Adjacent Nevada

Gooch Table FWS WSA 41,130 Crossed Nevada

Round Mountain FWS WSA 35,954 Crossed Nevada

Massacre Rim BLM WSA 79,019 Adjacent Nevada

Poodle Mountain BLM WSA 141,664 Adjacent Nevada

Selenite Mountains BLM WSA 31,955 Adjacent Nevada

Steele Swamp USFS Inventoried 

Roadless Area

18,956 Adjacent California

1.1.1.3 Inventoried Roadless Areas 

Inventoried roadless areas are areas under USFS jurisdiction that are typically undeveloped 

landscapes without existing roads and may be suitable for roadless area conservation as wilderness. 

USFS Handbook 1909.12 identifies two primary criteria an area must meet to be considered a roadless 

area: 1) the areas must contain 5,000 acres or more and 2) the areas do not contain ―improved roads‖ 

maintained for travel. Inventoried roadless areas in this category are managed to restore ecological 

processes, provide habitat for endangered species, and maintain access for recreational opportunities. 

Generally, road construction is not allowed except when necessary for firefighting or other natural events 

that threaten public safety. Two inventoried roadless areas will be affected by the proposed and 

alternative pipeline alignment (Table 1). 

1.1.1.4 Wilderness Inventory Units

Wilderness inventory units are other areas that have been inventoried by an agency and found to 

have wilderness characteristics as defined by section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act or agency inventory 

policies. Inventories are completed to give consideration to wilderness characteristics in land use 

planning or to be able to assess the effects of an action (e.g., the Ruby Pipeline Project) on lands outside 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Wilderness Resource Analysis

Page 3 of 24

of wilderness, WSAs, and inventoried roadless areas that have these values. These inventory units are 

managed according to the prescriptions of the agency land use plans (Table 2). 

TABLE 2

Areas with Wilderness Characteristics: Wilderness Inventory Units

Name Agency Type Acres Location to 

Pipeline State Natural Condition

Outstanding 

Solitude

Primitive and

Unconfined 

Recreation

Supplemental 

Values

Coyote Hills BLM

Wilderness 

Inventory Unit 4,435 Crossed Utah Y Y Y None Noted

North Matlin BLM

Wilderness 

Inventory Unit 13,835 Crossed Utah Y Y Y None Noted

South Matlin BLM

Wilderness 

Inventory Unit 8,631 Crossed Utah Y Y Y None Noted

Terrace 

Basin BLM

Wilderness 

Inventory Unit 16,229 Crossed Utah Y Y Y

Wildlife, Plants, 

Cultural, Geologic

Bilk Creek BLM

Wilderness 

Inventory Unit 24,045 Adjacent Nevada Y Y Y None Noted

Mahogany 

Mountain BLM

Wilderness 

Inventory Unit 28,618 Crossed Nevada Y Y Y

Vegetation, 

Wildlife

Ten Mile BLM

Wilderness 

Inventory Unit 11,391 Crossed Nevada Y Y Y None Noted

Warm 

Springs BLM

Wilderness 

Inventory Unit 53,936 Crossed Nevada Y Y Y

Visual, Wildlife, 

Cultural

Hart 

Mountain BLM

Wilderness 

Inventory Unit 30,961 Adjacent Nevada Y Y N

Sensitive 

Species-Animals, 

Cultural

Lost Creek BLM

Wilderness 

Inventory Unit 46,571 Adjacent Nevada Y Y Y

Cultural, Sensitive 

Species-Animals, 

Wildlife, Geologic

Crooks BLM

Wilderness 

Inventory Unit 129,015 Crossed Nevada Y Y Y

Sensitive 

Species-Animals, 

Wildlife, Cultural

Pinto 

Springs BLM

Wilderness 

Inventory Unit 18,804 Crossed Nevada Y Y N

Sensitive 

Species-Animals, 

Cultural

Calcutta BLM

Wilderness 

Inventory Unit 65,260 Adjacent Nevada Y Y N

Sensitive 

Species-Animals, 

Wildlife, Cultural

Antelope BLM

Wilderness 

Inventory Unit 52,500 Crossed Nevada Y Y Y

Historic, Sensitive 

Species-Animals, 

Cultural, Wild 

Horses

Breezy BLM

Wilderness 

Inventory Unit 4,789 Crossed Oregon Y N Y

Sensitive 

Species-Animals, 

Wildlife, Cultural

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Wilderness Resource Analysis

Page 4 of 24

1.1.2 Areas Affected by the Proposed Ruby Pipeline

The proposed pipeline and alternative alignments will cross or lie adjacent to (within 1.75 miles) 

a number of areas with wilderness characteristics. Two Wilderness areas, 8 WSAs, 2 inventoried roadless 

areas, and 15 wilderness inventory units would be affected by the proposed Ruby pipeline route and 

alternative alignments and are shown in Figures 1 and 2: Ruby Pipeline East Areas with Wilderness 

Characteristics and Ruby Pipeline West Areas with Wilderness Characteristics, respectively. These areas 

are summarized by agency, type, acres, and location in Table 1 and Table 2. Table 2 lists the wilderness 

characteristics found to occur in each of the inventory units during the inventory conducted for this 

analysis. Wilderness character has been established in previous inventories for the areas listed in Table 1. 

It is anticipated that construction and operation of the proposed pipeline or alternatives would result in 

temporary, short-term, long-term, direct, and indirect impacts to the wilderness characteristics of the areas 

listed in Tables 1 and 2. The detailed analysis of the impacts is disclosed in section 1.1.3.

1.1.3 Impacts to Wilderness Resources

1.1.3.1 Background

The Wilderness Act of 1964 established the National Wilderness Preservation System, which 

identified a system of federally owned areas designated by Congress as ―wilderness areas.‖ It mandated 

that these lands would be administered for the use and enjoyment of U.S. citizens in such a manner as to 

leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment. The goal of the Wilderness Act was to ―secure for 

the American people of present and future generations the benefit of an enduring resource of wilderness.‖ 

Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act identifies the wilderness characteristics used for evaluation of 

lands proposed for wilderness protections. The characteristics generally used to describe and evaluate 

lands with wilderness characteristics include the following.

Size: The area must be at least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres, or be large enough to 

preserve as wilderness;

Naturalness: The area must be in a generally natural condition;

Opportunities for solitude and/or primitive recreation: The area must have outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; and

Special features: The area may contain ecological, geologic, or other features of 

scientific, scenic, or historic value (BLM, 2008 [see reference at the end of this 

Appendix]).

This analysis discloses the effects of project actions on the four wilderness characteristics listed 

below.

Size – The size of an area with wilderness characteristics is determined by roads, rights-of-way, 

or land ownership, but can also be determined by areas of unnaturalness. Impacts to the size requirement 

would be any types of development or construction that directly affects the roadless or naturalness 

characteristics of the area. For this project, the types of development or construction that affect 

naturalness include pipeline construction, construction or improvement of access roads, construction of 

compressor stations, placement of structures on the landscape, or any other ground disturbance (e.g.,

clearing of vegetation, digging, or grading of soil) from project actions. If project actions reduce a land 

unit identified as having wilderness characteristics to less than 5,000 acres, the project would affect the 

size characteristics and the entire unit would not have wilderness characteristics. However, if project 

actions bisect a unit but remaining portions of the unit are greater than 5,000 acres in size, the remaining 

portions may still have wilderness characteristics.

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Wilderness Resource Analysis

Page 5 of 24

Terrace Basin WIU

N Matlin WIU

S Matlin WIU

Coyote Hills WIU

Wellsville WA

Sugar Pine IRA

Tooele

Box Elder

Elko

Utah

Cassia

Rich

Cache

Oneida

Summit

Wasatch

Davis

Weber

Bear Lake

Salt Lake

Franklin

Morgan

Power Bannock

Twin Falls

White Pine

Caribou

Juab

NV

ID

UT

OR

CA

MT

WY

WA WA

Area Enlarged

Friday, December 4, 2009 4:13:39 PM

V:\15s\15950\Maps\Report\east2.mxd

0 10 20

mi

Contains Privileged Information: Do Not Release

0 20 40

km

Sheldon Alternative

Black Rock Alternative

Proposed Route

Inventoried Roadless Area

Wilderness Area

Wilderness Study Area

Wilderness Inventory Unit

Ruby Pipeline East Areas with Wilderness Characteristics 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Wilderness Resource Analysis

Page 6 of 24

Hart Mountain WIU

Warm Springs WIU

Ten Mile WIU

Bilk Creek WIU

Mahogany

Mountain WIU

Black Rock Desert WA

Crooks WIU

Poodle Mountain WSA

Calcutta WIU

Massacre Rim WSA

Antelope WIU

Lost Creek WIU

Big Springs Table WSA

Gooch Table WSA

Blow-Out

Mountain

- Rock Springs

Table WSA

Round Mountain WSA

Selenite Mountains WSA

Sagehen Hills WSA

Pinto Springs WIU

Breezy WIU

Steele Swamp IRA

Lassen

Washoe

Modoc

Lake

Humboldt

Pershing

Harney

Plumas

Klamath

Shasta

NV

ID

UT

OR

CA

WY

MT

AZ

WA

Area Enlarged

Friday, December 4, 2009 4:12:16 PM

V:\15s\15950\Maps\Report\west.mxd

0 10 20

mi

Contains Privileged Information: Do Not Release

0 20 40

km

Sheldon Alternative

Black Rock Alternative

Centerline

Inventoried Roadless Area

Wilderness Area

Wilderness Study Area

Wilderness Inventory Unit

Ruby Pipeline West Areas with Wilderness Characteristics

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Wilderness Resource Analysis

Page 7 of 24

Naturalness – Lands with wilderness characteristics must primarily be influenced by the forces 

of nature with evidence of humankind substantially unnoticeable. Evidence of humankind on the 

landscape affects the natural character of the area by introducing unnatural actions or objects. This can

cause direct impacts to vegetation, wildlife, soils, landforms, water, and wetlands. The types of unnatural 

objects and actions that affect naturalness include pipelines and access roads, compressor stations, other 

structures, or any other ground disturbance (e.g., clearing of vegetation, digging, or grading of soil).

Opportunities for solitude and/or primitive recreation – Opportunities for solitude and/or 

primitive recreation can be affected by project actions in two ways: whether a visitor can see the project 

action or hear the project action. In most cases, sound can affect wilderness characteristics for a much 

greater distance than visual effects noticeably affect characteristics. To provide an accurate and extensive 

estimate of the effects on opportunities for solitude and/or primitive recreation, this analysis uses changes 

in sound levels to calculate effects to areas with wilderness characteristics.

1 The noise analysis presented 

in section 4.11.2.3 of the EIS found that the maximum dB for construction and operational activities is 

approximately 85 dB at 50 feet. A decibel level for quiet rural and natural areas is typically 40 dB (NPS

2006).

2 Therefore, the area of impacts used in this analysis is the distance between sound-producing 

project actions (85 dB) and the point where the sound diminishes to a level of 40 dB. Sound reduces by 6 

dB for every doubling in distance from the source of the sound. Using calculations, the distance needed 

to reach a 40-dB level is approximately 1.75 miles from the source. Therefore, the analysis in this section 

uses a 3.5-mile corridor (or 1.75 miles on each side of the pipeline corridor) to evaluate effects of project 

actions on opportunities for solitude and/or primitive recreation during pipeline construction and 

operation.

Special features – Special features (or supplemental values) are those features identified as 

unique to the specific parcel. Most special features identified for areas with wilderness characteristics are 

items such as unique plants, wildlife, or geologic features, and are often analyzed in other sections of the 

EIS. The analysis in this section will identify any special features for areas with wilderness 

characteristics affected by project actions. Such impacts are disclosed in the appropriate section of the 

EIS for that special feature (see sections 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.10 of the EIS).

The FLPMA, enacted by Congress in 1976, requires the BLM to maintain on a continuing basis

an inventory of all public lands and their resources and other values, including wilderness resources. The 

NWR System Improvement Act of 1997 requires the FWS to evaluate all lands in the refuge system for 

wilderness characteristics. In the late 1990s, the USFS evaluated lands in national forests for areas 

without roads. In a 2001 decision, the Roadless Area Conservation System was established to indentify

inventoried roadless areas in national forests. Although conflicting court decisions on the final Roadless 

Rule leaves final management of these inventoried areas undecided, for disclosure, this analysis will 

include any direct or indirect impacts to inventoried roadless areas. For this project, wilderness 

characteristics were evaluated and described on all lands administered by the BLM, the FWS, and the 

USFS along the project corridor.

Under this project, the following four categories of areas with wilderness characteristics, and 

managing agency, were analyzed:

designated wilderness areas: BLM and USFS 

 

1

Although noise and visual impacts have an effect on lands with wilderness characteristics and the visitors to those areas, indirect impacts 

from noise and visual intrusion do not disqualify those lands from having wilderness characteristics.

2

Although 40 dB is a common sound level to use for natural areas, some visitors of an area may feel that any unnatural sound, regardless 

of how faint, reduces opportunities for solitude and/or primitive recreation.

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Wilderness Resource Analysis

Page 8 of 24

WSAs: BLM and FWS

inventoried roadless areas: USFS

wilderness inventory units: BLM

As such, this analysis focuses on impacts to wilderness characteristics of designated wilderness 

areas, wilderness study areas, inventoried roadless areas, and wilderness inventory units.

1.1.3.2 Actions Common to All Alternatives

Ruby proposes to install a 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline from Opal, Wyoming, to Malin, 

Oregon, passing through the states of Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon. Approximately 2.6 miles of 

42-inch-lateral pipeline would also be constructed to connect to existing gas pipelines in California. All 

pipeline alternatives would use the same path from Wyoming through eastern Nevada, where they split 

off into the Proposed Action, the Sheldon Alternative, and the Black Rock Alternative. All three 

alternatives reconvene in western Nevada and southern Oregon, and continue as one proposed line to 

Malin. For consistency in the analysis, each alternative analyzed will include impacts from portions of 

the pipeline in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon, where there is only one proposed pipeline route. In

addition to the pipeline, the proposed action and all alternatives in the EIS propose the following 

facilities.

One electric-powered compressor station and three natural gas–powered compressor 

stations (totaling 160,500 horsepower of new compression)

Four meter stations containing interconnects to other pipeline systems

Forty-four mainline valves

Twenty pig launchers or receivers

Five new communication towers

Miscellaneous communications equipment installed at eight existing communication 

towers

For construction related to all alternatives in the EIS, Ruby proposes to use extra work spaces and 

staging areas along the 115-foot right-of-way. These are located on rugged terrain or road and utility 

crossings adjacent to the right-of-way to allow for additional maneuvering in difficult areas. During 

construction, the extra work spaces and staging areas would be included in the analysis as areas that 

would affect the size, naturalness, opportunities of solitude and/or primitive recreation, and supplemental 

values (if any) of a given wilderness unit. 

For all alternatives evaluated in the EIS, Ruby also proposes to use contractor yards and one 

construction camp. These facilities are located on private lands, on previously disturbed areas, or in local 

communities where areas with wilderness characteristics do not exist. Therefore, the analysis of areas 

with wilderness characteristics does not disclose impacts from contractor yards or the construction camp.

Ruby would use existing public and private roads and would construct new roads to gain access 

to the project area during the construction period (one to two months). Many of the existing access roads 

are presently in a condition that could accommodate construction traffic without significant modification 

or improvement. Some roads, however, are small or impassable and are not currently suitable for 

construction traffic. Ruby would improve unsuitable access roads through grading, filling, and/or 

widening. Following construction, roads would be returned to their preconstruction condition, unless 

otherwise requested in writing by the landowner or land-managing agency. Ruby does not know 

specifically where all road improvements would be required along any given road, and this information 

will not be available until after Ruby’s construction contractor identifies which roads it prefers to use and 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Wilderness Resource Analysis

Page 9 of 24

how it prefers to use the roads. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, Ruby estimated that all roads 

would need to be improved over their entire length to a width of 30 feet. 

Creation of new roads, maintenance of existing roads, and use of access roads for construction 

would affect opportunities for solitude and/or primitive recreation in areas with wilderness characteristics 

by introducing the presence and noise of construction equipment within sight or sound of wilderness 

visitors. Because Ruby cannot identify which roads will be used during construction, the analysis cannot 

calculate the effects of the sight or sound of equipment on wilderness visitors in areas with wilderness 

characteristics. Instead, using the noise analysis methodology described above to determine the effects on 

opportunities for solitude and/or primitive recreation, it is assumed that visitors to areas with wilderness 

characteristics within 1.75 miles of access roads used for construction may be able to hear or see 

equipment during the construction period, and may experience a loss of opportunities for solitude and/or 

primitive recreation.

Following the completion of construction, a 50-foot permanent right-of-way with an access road 

to provide for inspection and maintenance of the pipeline would be constructed. As described in section

2.2.1 of the EIS, the 50-foot permanent right-of-way would be cleared of trees and large brush to allow 

for maintenance of the pipeline and related facilities, and occasional maintenance trucks would also be 

used along the permanent right-of-way.

1.1.3.3 Proposed Action

The Proposed Action would place approximately 675.2 miles of 42-inch-diameter natural gas 

pipeline from Opal to Malin, passing through the states of Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon. 

Approximately 2.6 miles of 42-inch-lateral pipeline would also be constructed to connect to existing gas 

pipelines in California. Under the Proposed Action, Ruby proposes the same amount and type of 

facilities, workspaces, storage areas, and construction camps as described in section 1.1.3.2, Actions 

Common to All Alternatives. Access roads under the Proposed Action would be analyzed and treated the 

same as those described in section 1.1.3.2, Actions Common to All Alternatives, with the analysis 

assuming that all access roads would be improved for their entire length up to 30 feet in width and that 

any access roads used would be restored to their original condition, unless determined otherwise by the 

managing agency. 

Construction Effects

Impacts to Size, Naturalness, and Supplemental Values

Granting a right-of-way for construction of a pipeline and related structures as well as 

construction or improvement of access roads would directly affect the size, roadless character, and natural 

condition of one inventoried roadless area and eight wilderness inventory units. This construction would 

reduce the size and natural character of these areas. However, the remaining portions of the wilderness 

inventory units would still be greater than 5,000 acres in size, and retain their natural condition. The total 

loss to the size characteristics of the wilderness inventory units for this alternative during construction is 

approximately 12,117.5 acres, and represents approximately 1.4 percent of all areas with wilderness 

characteristics in the project area (see Table 3). 

Impacts to naturalness would result from surface disturbance related to trenching and construction 

of the pipeline, widening of selected access roads, and from the presence of human constructed facilities 

on the landscape. These impacts include loss of vegetation, wildlife and wildlife habitat, fish and fish 

habitat, wetlands, water resources, and soil structure (including erosion potential, compaction, loss of 

cryptobiotic crusts, and loss of playas) from burying the pipeline (see sections 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6 of 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Wilderness Resource Analysis

Page 10 of 24

the EIS more information). Project construction would affect the natural characteristics of 0.3 acres of 

one inventoried roadless area and 618.8 acres of eight wilderness inventory units, for a total of 619.1

acres of impact to areas with wilderness characteristics. This represents less than 0.1 percent of all areas

with wilderness characteristics in the project area (see Table 3).

Supplemental values identified for areas with wilderness characteristics that are affected by 

surface disturbance associated with project construction are identified in Table 3 for the respective units. 

Impacts to those supplemental values are described in section 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.10 of the EIS.

Impacts to Solitude and/or Primitive Recreation

As described in section 1.1.3.1, Background, the analysis of effects on opportunities for solitude 

and/or primitive recreation resulting from project sound was used to calculate the number of areas with 

wilderness characteristics that would be impacted by project actions. Project sound generated during 

construction is expected to last between one and two months in a given wilderness unit. A 3.5-mile 

corridor encompassing the proposed alignment was developed, and impacts to wilderness, WSAs, 

inventoried roadless areas, and wilderness inventory units were calculated when a portion of the 3.5-mile 

corridor was within a given wilderness unit. 

Sound generated by implementation of the Proposed Action would reduce opportunities for 

solitude and/or primitive recreation in two wilderness areas, two WSAs, two inventoried roadless areas, 

and eight wilderness inventory units. The sound from and presence of the people, vehicles, and 

equipment needed for pipeline construction would degrade the setting required to support primitive 

recreation opportunities and the experience of solitude for up to 1.75 miles into the adjacent wilderness 

units. As visitors to the areas travel further into the core of the wilderness unit, the impact of the sight 

and sound of construction would lessen and eventually disappear. Furthermore, the effects of 

construction sights and sounds would vary by individual wilderness user—for some, the presence and 

sound of construction would have a lasting and thus greater effect on the desired activity and experience, 

whereas for others the effect would be more temporary and fleeting. Opportunities for solitude and 

primitive recreation would be reduced by the sound and presence of construction under this alternative on 

approximately 7,734.3 acres of wilderness, 9,900.6 acres of WSAs, 4,069.2 acres of inventoried roadless 

areas, and 64,860.6 acres of wilderness inventory units, for a total acreage of 86,564.7 acres. This 

represents approximately 10.3 percent of all areas with wilderness characteristics in the project area.

Impacts to Naturalness, Size, and Supplemental Values

After construction, the right-of-way needed for pipeline operation would be reduced to 50 feet 

and would encompass the completed pipeline, most related structures, and service roads for pipeline 

maintenance. The additional 65 feet of the construction right-of-way, access roads, extra work spaces, 

and staging areas used during construction would be recontoured and re-vegetated to a natural condition 

following completion of construction. In some locations, the vegetative communities in the rehabilitated 

construction right-of-way would visually contrast with the adjacent natural areas. However, the visual 

contrast between the rehabilitated construction right-of-way and natural areas would be lessened over 

time (between 6 months and 50 years, depending on vegetation type). 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Wilderness Resource Analysis

Page 11 of 24

TABLE 3

Construction Impacts to Wilderness Characteristics under the Proposed Action

Areas with Wilderness 

Characteristics 

(wilderness unit)

Unit Size 

(acres)

Impacts to Size 

(acres and 

percentage of 

unit)

Impacts to 

Naturalness 

(acres and 

percentage of unit)

Impacts to 

Solitude and 

Primitive 

Recreation

(acres and 

percentage of 

unit)

Supplemental 

Values 

(type of value 

identified)

Sugar Pine Inventoried 

Roadless Area (USFS)

5,594.9 acres 0.3 acres

(less than 0.1%)

0.3 acres 

(less than 0.1%)

4,059.3 acres 

(72.6 percent)

Unknown

Wellsville Wilderness 

Area (USFS)

23,032.1 

acres

0 acres 0 acres 2,371.1 acres 

(10.3 percent)

Unknown

Coyote Hill Wilderness 

Inventory Unit (BLM)

4,432.0 acres 21.5 acres 

(0.5%)

21.5 acres 

(0.5%)

2,883.2 acres 

(65.1%)

None

North Matlin 

Wilderness Inventory 

Unit (BLM)

13,835.3 

acres

118.1 acres 

(0.9%)

114.1 acres 

(0.8%)

8,937.0 acres 

(64.6%)

None

South Matlin 

Wilderness Inventory 

Unit (BLM)

8,361.1 acres 0.6 acres

(less than 0.1%)

0.5 acres

(less than 0.1%)

4,738.2 acres 

(56.7%)

None

Terrace Basin 

Wilderness Inventory 

Unit (BLM)

16,229.2 

acres

34.6 acres 

(0.2%)

23.0 acres 

(0.1%)

4,911.6 acres 

(30.3%)

Sage-grouse, 

desert scrub 

vegetation, and 

historic features

Black Rock Desert 

Wilderness Area (BLM)

314,836.5 

acres

0 acres 0 acres 5,363.2 acres 

(1.7%)

Unknown

Ten Mile Wilderness 

Inventory Unit

(BLM)

11,390.7 

acres

5,880.6 acres

(51.6%)

220.2 acres

(1.9%)

11,376.4 acres

(99.9%)

None

Warm Springs 

Wilderness Inventory 

Unit

(BLM)

53,935.5 

acres

5,622.7 acres

(10.4%)

121.4 acres

(0.2%)

15,102.2 acres

(28.0%)

Scenic quality, 

sage-grouse, and 

cultural resources

Blowout MountainRock Springs Table 

WSA (FWS)

97,597.6 

acres

0 acres 0 acres 269.9 acres 

(0.3 percent)

Unknown

Massacre Rim WSA 

(BLM)

79,019.0 

acres

0 acres 0 acres 9,630.7 acres 

(12.2%)

Unknown

Calcutta Wilderness 

Inventory Unit (BLM)

65,260.9

acres

63.4 acres 

(0.7%)

17.0 acres 

(less than 0.1%)

6,107.8 acres 

(9.4%)

Golden eagle, 

sage-grouse, 

pygmy rabbit, 

cultural resources

Crooks Wilderness 

Inventory Unit (BLM)

129,015.1 

acres

375.7 acres 

(0.3%)

101.1 acres 

(0.1%)

10,804.2 acres 

(8.4%)

Golden eagle, 

sage-grouse, 

pygmy rabbit, 

burrowing owl, 

cultural resources

Steele Swamp 

Inventoried Roadless 

Area (USFS)

18,956.1 

acres

0 acres 0 acres 9.9 acres

(less than 0.1%)

Unknown

Total 841,496.0

Acres

12,117.5 acres 

(1.4%)

619.1 acres 

(less than 0.1%)

86,564.7 acres 

(10.3 %)

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Wilderness Resource Analysis

Page 12 of 24

Operational Effects

Following reclamation, six wilderness inventory units would be reduced in size by the presence 

of the pipeline, related structures, and access roads through areas with wilderness characteristic, but 

would still remain above 5,000 acres in size. The total impact to the size characteristics for this 

alternative during operation is approximately 6,242.9 acres, and represents 0.7 percent of all areas with 

wilderness characteristics in the project area (see Table 4).

Impacts to naturalness during operation would result from the presence of the pipeline and service 

road, and vegetation clearing of the right-of-way. Impacts include loss of vegetation, wildlife and wildlife 

habitat, fish and fish habitat, wetlands, water resources, and soil structure (including erosion potential, 

compaction, loss of cryptobiotic crusts, and loss of playas) from operation of the pipeline (see sections 

4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6 of the EIS for more information). After construction and reclamation, pipeline 

operation would affect six wilderness inventory units for a total of 175.8 acres of impacts to the 

naturalness characteristics of these areas. This represents less than 0.1 percent of all areas with 

wilderness characteristics in the project area (see Table 4).

Supplemental values identified for areas with wilderness characteristics that are affected by 

surface disturbance associated with pipeline operation are identified in Table 4 for the respective 

units. Impacts to those supplemental values are described in 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.10 of the EIS.

Impacts to Solitude and/or Primitive Recreation

As described in section 1.1.3.1, Background, the analysis of effects to opportunities for solitude and/or 

primitive recreation resulting from project sound was used to calculate the number of areas with wilderness 

characteristics that would be impacted by project actions. Motorized travel along the right-of-way for pipeline 

inspection and maintenance and brush clearing of the permanent right-of-way in or adjacent to a given 

wilderness unit would result in sound that would degrade the setting needed to support primitive recreation 

opportunities and experiences of solitude. Project sound generated during pipeline operation is expected to 

occur intermittently for the life of the project in a given wilderness unit. A 3.5-mile corridor encompassing the 

proposed alignment was developed, and impacts to wilderness, WSAs, inventoried roadless areas, and 

wilderness inventory units were calculated when a portion of the 3.5-mile corridor occurred in a given 

wilderness unit. 

Sound generated during pipeline operation under the Proposed Action would reduce opportunities 

for solitude and/or primitive recreation in two wilderness areas, two WSAs, two inventoried roadless 

areas, and eight wilderness inventory units. The sound from and presence of the people, vehicles, and 

equipment needed for pipeline operation and maintenance would degrade the setting required to support 

primitive recreation opportunities and the experience of solitude for up to 1.75 miles into the adjacent 

wilderness units. As visitors to the areas travel further into the core of the wilderness unit, the impact of 

the sight and sound of operation and maintenance would lessen and eventually disappear. Furthermore, 

the effects of the sights and sounds of operation and maintenance would vary by individual wilderness 

user—for some, operation and maintenance presence and sound would have a lasting and thus greater 

effect on the desired activity and experience, whereas for others the effects would be more temporary and 

fleeting. Opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be intermittently reduced by the sound 

and presence of operation and maintenance under this alternative on approximately 7,734.3 acres of 

wilderness, 9,900.6 acres of WSAs, 4,069.2 acres of inventoried roadless areas, and 64,860.6 acres of 

wilderness inventory units, for a total acreage of 86,564.7 acres. This represents approximately 10.3 

percent of all areas with wilderness characteristics in the project area.

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Wilderness Resource Analysis

Page 13 of 24

TABLE 4

Operational Impacts to Wilderness Characteristics under the Proposed Action

Areas with 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

(wilderness unit)

Unit Size

(acres)

Impacts to Size 

(acres and 

percentage of 

unit)

Impacts to 

Naturalness 

(acres and 

percentage of unit)

Impacts to 

Solitude and 

Primitive 

Recreation

(acres and 

percentage of unit)

Supplemental 

Values 

(type of value 

identified)

Sugar Pine 

Inventoried Roadless 

Area (USFS)

5,594.9 acres 0 acres 0 acres 4,059.3 acres 

(72.6%)

Unknown

Wellsville Wilderness 

Area (USFS)

23,032.1 acres 0 acres 0 acres 2,371.1 acres 

(10.3%)

Unknown 

Coyote Hill 

Wilderness Inventory 

Unit (BLM)

4,432.0 acres 16.0 acres 

(0.4%)

12.6 acres 

(0.3%)

2,883.2 acres 

(65.1%)

None

North Matlin 

Wilderness Inventory 

Unit (BLM)

13,835.3 acres 63.1 acres 

(0.5%)

34.9 acres

(0.3 percent)

8,937.0 acres 

(64.6%)

None

South Matlin 

Wilderness Inventory 

Unit (BLM)

8,361.1 acres 0 acres 0 acres 4,738.2 acres 

(56.7%)

None

Terrace Basin 

Wilderness Inventory 

Unit (BLM)

16,229.2 acres 30.0 acres 

(0.2%)

10.9 acres 

(less than 0.1%)

4,911.6 acres 

(30.3%)

Sage-grouse, 

desert scrub 

vegetation, and 

historic features

Black Rock Desert 

Wilderness Area 

(BLM)

314,836.5 

acres

0 acres 0 acres 5,363.2 acres 

(1.7%)

Unknown 

Ten Mile Wilderness 

Inventory Unit

(BLM)

11,390.7 acres 2,806.8

(24.2%)

53.0 acres

(0.5%)

11,376.4 acres

(99.9%)

None

Warm Springs 

Wilderness Inventory 

Unit

(BLM)

53,935.5 acres 2,994.6 acres

(5.5%)

29.2 acres

(less than 0.1%)

15,102.2 acres

(28.0%)

Scenic quality, 

sage-grouse, and 

cultural resources

Blowout MountainRock Springs Table 

WSA (FWS)

97,597.6 acres 0 acres 0 acres 269.9 acres 

(0.3%)

Unknown 

Massacre Rim WSA 

(BLM)

79,019.0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 9,630.7 acres 

(12.2%)

Unknown 

Calcutta Wilderness 

Inventory Unit (BLM)

65,260.9 acres 0 acres 0 acres 6,107.8 acres 

(9.4%)

Golden eagle, 

sage-grouse, 

pygmy rabbit, 

cultural resources

Crooks Wilderness 

Inventory Unit (BLM)

129,015.1 

acres

332.4 acres 

(0.3%)

35.2 acres 

(less than 0.1%)

10,804.2 acres 

(8.4%)

Golden eagle, 

sage-grouse, 

pygmy rabbit, 

burrowing owl, 

cultural resources

Steele Swamp 

Inventoried Roadless 

Area (USFS)

18,956.1 acres 0 acres 0 acres 9.9 acres

(less than 0.1%)

Unknown 

Total 841,496.0

acres

6,242.9 acres 

(0.7%)

175.8 acres 

(less than 0.1%)

86,564.7 acres 

(10.3 %)

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Wilderness Resource Analysis

Page 14 of 24

1.1.3.4 Sheldon Alternative

The Sheldon Alternative would place approximately 677 miles of 42-inch-diameter natural gas 

pipeline from Opal to Malin, passing through the states of Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon. 

Approximately 2.6 miles of 42-inch-lateral pipeline would also be constructed to connect to existing gas 

pipelines in California. Under the Sheldon Alternative, Ruby proposes the same amount and type of facilities, 

workspaces, storage areas, and construction camps as described in section 1.1.3.2, Actions Common to All 

Alternatives. Access roads under the Sheldon Alternative would be analyzed and treated the same as those 

described in section 1.1.3.2, Actions Common to All Alternatives, with the analysis assuming that all access 

roads would be improved for their entire length up to 30 feet in width and that any access roads used would be 

restored to their original condition, unless determined otherwise by the managing agency. 

Construction Effects

Impacts to Size, Naturalness, and Supplemental Values

Granting a right-of-way for construction of a pipeline and related structures as well as construction 

or improvement of access roads would directly affect the size, roadless character, and natural condition of 

two WSAs, one inventoried roadless area, and six wilderness inventory units. Construction of a pipeline 

and related structures, as well as construction or improvement of access roads through two WSAs, one

inventoried roadless area, and six wilderness inventory units would reduce the size and natural character of 

these areas. However, the remaining impacted areas would still be greater than 5,000 acres in size, and 

would retain their natural condition. The total loss to the size characteristics in wilderness units for this 

alternative during construction is approximately 832.1 acres, and represents approximately 0.3 percent of all 

areas with wilderness characteristics in the project area (see Table 5). 

Impacts to naturalness would result from surface disturbance related to trenching and construction 

of the pipeline, widening of selected access roads, and from the presence of human constructed facilities 

on the landscape. These impacts include loss of vegetation, wildlife and wildlife habitat, fish and fish 

habitat, wetlands, water resources, and soil structure (including erosion potential, compaction, loss of 

cryptobiotic crusts, and loss of playas) from burying the pipeline (see sections 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 of the 

EIS for more information). Project construction would affect the natural characteristics of 12.4 acres of 

two WSAs, 0.3 acres of one inventoried roadless area, and 311.8 acres of six wilderness inventory units,

for a total of 324.5 acres of impact to areas with wilderness characteristics. This represents 0.1 percent of 

all areas with wilderness characteristics in the project area (see Table 5).

Supplemental values identified for areas with wilderness characteristics that are affected by 

surface disturbance associated with project construction are identified in Table 5 for the respective units. 

Impacts to those supplemental values are described in sections 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.10 of the EIS.

Impacts to Solitude and/or Primitive Recreation

As described in section 1.1.3.1, Background, the analysis of effects to opportunities for solitude 

and/or primitive recreation resulting from project sound was used to calculate the number of areas with 

wilderness characteristics that would be impacted by project actions. Project sound generated during 

construction is expected to last between one and two months in a given wilderness unit. A 3.5-mile 

corridor encompassing the proposed alignment was developed, and impacts to wilderness, WSAs, 

inventoried roadless areas, and wilderness inventory units were calculated when a portion of the 3.5-mile 

corridor was within a given wilderness unit. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Wilderness Resource Analysis

Page 15 of 24

TABLE 5

Construction Impacts to Wilderness Characteristics under the Sheldon Alternative

Areas with 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

(wilderness unit)

Unit Size 

(acres)

Impacts to Size 

(acres and 

percentage of 

unit)

Impacts to 

Naturalness 

(acres and 

percentage of unit)

Impacts to Solitude 

and Primitive 

Recreation

(acres and 

percentage of unit)

Supplemental Values 

(type of value 

identified)

Sugar Pine 

Inventoried 

Roadless Area

(USFS)

5,594.9 acres 0.3 acres

(less than 0.1%)

0.3 acres 

(less than 0.1%)

4,059.3 acres 

(72.6%)

Unknown

Wellsville 

Wilderness Area 

(USFS)

23,032.1 

acres

0 acres 0 acres 2,371.1 acres 

(10.3%)

Unknown

Coyote Hill 

Wilderness 

Inventory Unit (BLM)

4,432.0 acres 21.5 acres 

(0.5%)

21.5 acres 

(0.5%)

2,883.2 acres 

(65.1%)

None

North Matlin 

Wilderness 

Inventory Unit (BLM)

13,835.3 

acres

118.1 acres 

(0.9%)

114.1 acres 

(0.8%)

8,858.0 acres 

(64.0%)

None

South Matlin 

Wilderness 

Inventory Unit (BLM)

8,361.1 acres 0.6 acres

(less than 0.1%)

0.5 acres

(less than 0.1%)

4,737.7 acres 

(56.7%)

None

Terrace Basin 

Wilderness 

Inventory Unit (BLM)

16,229.2 

acres

34.6 acres 

(0.2%)

23.0 acres 

(0.1%)

4,899.4 acres 

(30.2%)

Sage-grouse, desert 

scrub vegetation, and 

historic features

Bilk Creek 

Wilderness 

Inventory Unit

(BLM)

24,045.5 

acres

0 acres 0 acres 259.2 acres

(1.1%)

None

Mahogany Mountain 

Wilderness 

Inventory Unit (BLM)

28,618.6

acres

539.3 acres

(1.9%)

89.2 acres

(0.3%)

10,643.7 acres

(37.2%)

Mahogany trees, big 

horn sheep and mule 

deer

Big Springs Table 

WSA (FWS)

65,391.1 

acres

0 acres 0 acres 11,721.4 acres 

(17.9%)

Unknown

Gooch Table WSA 

(FWS)

41,129.9 

acres

0.4 acres 

(less than 0.1%)

0.4 acres 

(less than 0.1%)

4,930.6 acres 

(12.0%)

Unknown

Round Mountain 

WSA (FWS)

35,953.8 

acres

12.0 acres 

(less than 0.1%)

12.0 acres 

(less than 0.1%)

10,187.4 acres 

(28.3 %)

Unknown

Sagehen Hills WSA 

(FWS)

21,067.8 

acres

0 acres 0 acres 9,848.5 acres 

(46.7 %)

Unknown

Breezy Wilderness 

Inventory Unit (BLM)

4,789.3 acres 105.3 acres 

(2.2%)

63.5 acres 

(1.3%)

4,789.3 acres 

(100.0%)

Yes 

(not known what)

Steele Swamp 

Inventoried 

Roadless Area

(USFS)

18,956.1 

acres

0 acres 0 acres 9.9 acres

(less than 0.1%)

Unknown

Total 311,436.7

acres

832.1 acres 

(0.3%)

324.5 acres 

(0.1%)

80,198.7 acres 

(25.8%)

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Wilderness Resource Analysis

Page 16 of 24

Sound generated by implementation of the Sheldon Alternative would reduce opportunities for 

solitude and/or primitive recreation in one designated wilderness area, four WSAs, two inventoried 

roadless areas, and seven wilderness inventory units. The sound from and presence of the people, 

vehicles, and equipment needed for pipeline construction would degrade the setting required to support 

primitive recreation opportunities and the experience of solitude for up to 1.75 miles into the adjacent 

wilderness units. As visitors to the areas travel further into the core of the wilderness unit, the impact of 

the sight and sound of construction would lessen and eventually disappear. Furthermore, the effects of 

construction sights and sounds would vary by individual wilderness user—for some, construction sights 

and sounds would have a lasting and thus greater effect on the desired activity and experience, whereas 

for others the effects would be more temporary and fleeting. Opportunities for solitude and primitive 

recreation would be reduced by the sound and presence of construction under this alternative on 

approximately 2,371.1 acres of designated wilderness, 36,687.9 acres of WSAs, 4,069.2 acres of 

inventoried roadless areas, and 37,070.5 acres of wilderness inventory units, for a total acreage of 

80,198.7 acres. This represents approximately 25.7 percent of all areas with wilderness characteristics in

the project area.

Operational Effects

Impacts to Size, Naturalness, and Supplemental Values

After construction, the right-of-way needed for pipeline operation would be reduced to 50 feet 

and would encompass the completed pipeline, most related structures, and service roads for pipeline 

maintenance. The additional 65 feet of construction right-of-way, access roads, extra work spaces, and 

staging areas used during construction would be recontoured and re-vegetated to a natural condition 

following completion of construction. In some locations, the vegetative communities in the rehabilitated 

construction right-of-way would visually contrast with the adjacent natural areas. However, the visual 

contrast between the rehabilitated construction right-of-way and natural areas would be lessened over 

time (between six months and 50 years, depending on vegetation type). 

Following reclamation, two WSAs and five wilderness inventory units would be reduced in size 

by the presence of the pipeline, related structures, and access roads through areas with wilderness 

characteristics, but would still remain above 5,000 acres in size. The total impact to the size 

characteristics for this alternative during operation is approximately 729.1 acres, and represents 0.2

percent of all areas with wilderness characteristics in the project area (see Table 6).

Impacts to naturalness during operation would result from the presence of the pipeline and service 

road, and vegetation clearing of the right-of-way. Impacts include loss of vegetation, wildlife and wildlife 

habitat, fish and fish habitat, wetlands, water resources, and soil structure (including erosion potential, 

compaction, loss of cryptobiotic crusts, and loss of playas) from operation of the pipeline (see sections 

4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6 of the EIS for more information). After construction and reclamation, pipeline 

operation would affect 1.4 acres of two WSAs and 112.8 acres of five wilderness inventory units for a 

total of 114.2 acres of impact to the naturalness characteristics of these areas. This represents less than 

0.1 percent of all areas with wilderness characteristics in the project area (see Table 6).

Supplemental values identified for areas with wilderness characteristics that are affected by 

surface disturbance associated with pipeline operation are identified in Table 6 for the respective units. 

Impacts to those supplemental values are described in sections 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.10 of the EIS

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Wilderness Resource Analysis

Page 17 of 24

TABLE 6

Operational Impacts to Wilderness Characteristics under the Sheldon Alternative

Areas with 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

(wilderness unit)

Unit Size 

(acres)

Impacts to Size 

(acres and 

percentage of 

unit)

Impacts to 

Naturalness 

(acres and 

percentage of unit)

Impacts to Solitude 

and Primitive 

Recreation (acres 

and percentage of 

unit)

Supplemental 

Values 

(type of value 

identified)

Sugar Pine 

Inventoried Roadless 

Area (USFS)

5,594.9 acres 0 acres 0 acres 4,059.3 acres 

(72.6%)

Unknown

Wellsville Wilderness 

Area (USFS)

23,032.1 acres 0 acres 0 acres 2,371.1 acres 

(10.3%)

Unknown

Coyote Hill 

Wilderness Inventory 

Unit (BLM)

4,432.0 acres 16.0 acres 

(0.4%)

12.6 acres 

(0.3%)

2,883.2 acres 

(65.1%)

None

North Matlin 

Wilderness Inventory 

Unit (BLM)

13,835.3 acres 63.1 acres 

(0.5%)

34.9 acres 

(0.3%)

8,858.0 acres

(64.0%)

None

South Matlin 

Wilderness Inventory 

Unit (BLM)

8,361.1 acres 0 acres 0 acres 4,737.7 acres 

(56.7%)

None

Terrace Basin 

Wilderness Inventory 

Unit (BLM)

16,229.2 acres 30.0 acres 

(0.2%)

10.9 acres 

(less than 0.1%)

4,899.4 acres 

(30.2%)

Sage-grouse, 

desert scrub 

vegetation, and 

historic features

Bilk Creek 

Wilderness Inventory 

Unit

(BLM)

24,045.5 acres 0 acres 0 acres 259.2 acres

(1.1%)

None

Mahogany Mountain 

Wilderness Inventory 

Unit (BLM)

28,618.6 acres 522.6 acres

(1.8%)

34.5 acres

(0.1%)

10,643.7 acres

(37%)

Mahogany trees, 

big horn sheep 

and mule deer

Big Springs Table 

WSA (FWS)

65,391.1 acres 0 acres 0 acres 11,721.4 acres 

(17.9%)

Unknown

Gooch Table WSA 

(FWS)

41,129.9 acres 0.1 acres 

(less than 0.1%)

0.1 acres 

(less than 0.1%)

4,930.6 acres 

(12.0%)

Unknown

Round Mountain 

WSA (FWS)

35,953.8 acres 1.3 acres 

(less than 0.1%)

1.3 acres 

(less than 0.1%)

10,187.4 acres 

(28.3%)

Unknown

Sagehen Hills WSA 

(FWS)

21,067.8 acres 0 acres 0 acres 9,848.5 acres 

(46.7%)

Unknown

Breezy Wilderness 

Inventory Unit (BLM)

4,789.3 acres 96.0 acres 

(2.0%)

19.9 acres 

(0.4 percent)

4,789.3 acres 

(100.0%)

Yes (not known 

what)

Steele Swamp 

Inventoried Roadless 

Area (USFS)

18,956.1 acres 0 acres 0 acres 9.9 acres

(less than 0.1%)

Unknown

Total 311,436.7

acres

729.1 acres 

(0.2%)

114.2 acres

(less than 0.1%)

80,198.7 acres 

(25.8%)

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Wilderness Resource Analysis

Page 18 of 24

Impacts to Solitude and/or Primitive Recreation

As described in section 1.1.3.1, Background, the analysis of effects to opportunities for solitude 

and/or primitive recreation resulting from project sound was used to calculate the number of areas with 

wilderness characteristics that would be impacted by project actions. Motorized travel along the right-ofway for pipeline inspection and maintenance and brush clearing of the permanent right-of-way in or 

adjacent to a given wilderness unit would result in sound that would degrade the setting needed to support 

primitive recreation opportunities and experiences of solitude. Project sound generated during pipeline 

operation is expected to occur intermittently for the life of the project within a given wilderness unit. A 

3.5-mile corridor encompassing the proposed alignment was developed, and impacts to wilderness, 

WSAs, inventoried roadless areas, and wilderness inventory units were calculated when a portion of the 

3.5-mile corridor occurred in a given wilderness unit. 

Sound generated during pipeline operation under the Sheldon Alternative would reduce 

opportunities for solitude and/or primitive recreation in one designated wilderness area, four WSAs, 

two inventoried roadless areas, and seven wilderness inventory units. The sound from and presence of 

the people, vehicles, and equipment needed for pipeline operation and maintenance would degrade the 

setting required to support primitive recreation opportunities and the experience of solitude for up to 

1.75 miles into the adjacent wilderness units. As visitors to the areas travel further into the core of the 

wilderness unit, the impact of the sight and sound of operation and maintenance would lessen and 

eventually disappear. Furthermore, the effects of operation and maintenance sights and sounds would 

vary by individual wilderness user—for some, operation and maintenance sights and sounds would 

have a lasting and thus greater effect on the desired activity and experience, whereas for others the 

effect would be more temporary and fleeting. Opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would 

be intermittently reduced on approximately 2,371.1 acres of designated wilderness, 36,687.9 acres of 

WSAs, 4,069.2 acres of inventoried roadless areas, and 37,070.5 acres of wilderness inventory units by 

the sound and presence of operation and maintenance under this alternative for a total acreage of 

80,198.7 acres. This represents approximately 25.8 percent of all areas with wilderness characteristics 

in the project area.

1.1.3.5 Black Rock Alternative

The Black Rock Alternative would place approximately 717.1 miles of 42-inch-diameter natural 

gas pipeline from Opal to Malin, passing through the states of Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon. 

Approximately 2.6 miles of 42-inch-lateral pipeline would also be constructed to connect to existing gas 

pipelines in California.

Under the Black Rock Alternative, Ruby proposes the same amount and type of facilities, 

workspaces, storage areas, and construction camps as described in section 1.1.3.2, Actions Common to 

All Alternatives. Access roads under the Black Rock Alternative would be analyzed and treated the 

same as those described in section 1.1.3.2, Actions Common to All Alternatives, with the analysis 

assuming that all access roads would be improved for their entire length up to 30 feet in width and that 

any access roads used would be restored to their original condition, unless determined otherwise by the 

managing agency. 

Construction Effects

Impacts to Size, Naturalness, and Supplemental Values

Granting a right-of-way for construction of a pipeline and related structures as well as construction 

or improvement of access roads would directly affect the size, roadless character, and natural condition of 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Wilderness Resource Analysis

Page 19 of 24

one inventoried roadless area and nine wilderness inventory units. Construction of a pipeline and related 

structures as well as construction or improvement of access roads through one inventoried roadless area and 

10 wilderness inventory units would reduce the size and natural character of these areas. However, the 

remaining impacted areas would still be greater than 5,000 acres in size and retain their natural condition. 

The total loss to the size characteristics in wilderness units for this alternative during construction is 

approximately 13,354.0 acres, and represents approximately 1.4 percent of all areas with wilderness 

characteristics in the project area (see Table 7). 

Impacts to naturalness would result from surface disturbance related to trenching and construction 

of the pipeline, widening of selected access roads, and from the presence of human constructed facilities 

on the landscape. These impacts include loss of vegetation, wildlife and wildlife habitat, fish and fish 

habitat, wetlands, water resources, and soil structure (including erosion potential, compaction, loss of 

cryptobiotic crusts, and loss of playas) from burying the pipeline (see sections 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6 of 

the EIS for more information). Project construction would affect the natural characteristics of 0.3 acres of 

one inventoried roadless area and 913.0 acres of 10 wilderness inventory units, for a total of 913.3 acres 

of impact to areas with wilderness characteristics. This represents approximately 0.1 percent of all areas 

with wilderness characteristics in the project area (see Table 7).

Supplemental values identified for areas with wilderness characteristics that are affected by 

surface disturbance associated with project construction are identified in Table 7 for the respective 

units. Impacts to those supplemental values are described in sections 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.10 of the 

EIS.

Impacts to Solitude and/or Primitive Recreation

As described in section 1.1.3.1, Background, the analysis of effects to opportunities for 

solitude and/or primitive recreation resulting from project sound was used to calculate the number of 

areas with wilderness characteristics that would be impacted by project actions. Project sound 

generated during construction is expected to last between one and two months in a given wilderness 

unit. A 3.5-mile corridor encompassing the proposed alignment was developed, and impacts to 

wilderness, WSAs, inventoried roadless areas, and wilderness inventory units were calculated when a 

portion of the 3.5-mile corridor was in a given wilderness unit. 

Sound generated by implementation of the Black Rock Alternative would reduce 

opportunities for solitude and/or primitive recreation in two designated wilderness areas, two WSAs, 

two inventoried roadless areas, and 10 wilderness inventory units. The sound from and presence of 

the people, vehicles, and equipment needed for pipeline construction would degrade the setting 

required to support primitive recreation opportunities and the experience of solitude for up to 1.75 

miles into the adjacent wilderness units. As visitors to the areas travel further into the core of the 

wilderness unit, the impact of the sight and sound of construction would lessen and eventually 

disappear. Furthermore, the effects of construction sights and sounds would vary by individual 

wilderness user—for some, construction sights and sounds would have a lasting and thus greater 

effect on the desired activity and experience, whereas for others the effect would be more temporary 

and fleeting. Opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be reduced by the sound and 

presence of construction under this alternative on approximately 3,248.8 acres of designated 

wilderness areas, 8,084.1 acres of WSAs, 4,069.2 acres of inventoried roadless areas, and 78,145.1

acres of wilderness inventory units, for a total acreage of 93,547.2 acres. This represents 

approximately 10.1 percent of all areas with wilderness characteristics in the project area. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Wilderness Resource Analysis

Page 20 of 24

TABLE 7

Construction Impacts to Wilderness Characteristics under the Black Rock Alternative

Areas with 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

(wilderness unit)

Unit Size 

(acres)

Impacts to Size 

(acres and 

percentage of 

unit)

Impacts to 

Naturalness 

(acres and 

percentage of unit)

Impacts to 

Solitude and 

Primitive 

Recreation

(acres and 

percentage of 

unit)

Supplemental Values 

(type of value 

identified)

Sugar Pine 

Inventoried Roadless 

Area (USFS)

5,594.9 

acres

0.3 acres

(less than 0.1%)

0.3 acres 

(less than 0.1%)

4,059.3 acres 

(72.6%)

Unknown

Wellsville Wilderness 

Area (USFS)

23,032.1 

acres

0 acres 0 acres 2,371.1 acres 

(10.3%)

Unknown

Coyote Hill 

Wilderness Inventory 

Unit (BLM)

4,432.0 

acres

21.5 acres 

(0.5%)

21.5 acres 

(0.5%)

2,883.2 acres 

(65.1%)

None

North Matlin 

Wilderness Inventory 

Unit (BLM)

13,835.3 

acres

118.1 acres 

(0.9%)

114.1 acres 

(0.8%)

8,858.0 acres 

(64.0%)

None

South Matlin 

Wilderness Inventory 

Unit (BLM)

8,361.1 

acres

0.6 acres

(less than 0.1%)

0.5 acres

(less than 0.1%)

4,737.7 acres 

(56.7%)

None

Terrace Basin 

Wilderness Inventory 

Unit (BLM)

16,229.2 

acres

34.6 acres 

(0.2%)

23.0 acres 

(0.1%)

4,899.4 acres 

(30.2%)

Sage-grouse, desert 

scrub vegetation, and 

historic features

Black Rock Desert 

Wilderness Area 

(BLM)

314,836.5 

acres

0 acres 0 acres 877.7 acres 

(0.3%)

Unknown

Selenite Mountains 

WSA (BLM)

31,955.3 

acres

0 acres 0 acres 4,071.4 acres 

(12.7%)

Unknown

Poodle Mountain 

WSA (BLM) 

141,664.4 

acres

0 acres 0 acres 4,012.7 acres 

(2.8%)

Unknown

Lost Creek 

Wilderness Inventory 

Unit (BLM)

46,570.6 

acres

42.7 acres 

(0.1%)

25.2 acres 

(less than 0.1%)

8,595.8 acres 

(18.5%)

Golden eagle, sagegrouse, burrowing 

owl, cultural resources

Antelope Wilderness 

Inventory Unit (BLM)

52,499.8 

acres

1,147.8 acres 

(2.2%)

303.9 acres 

(0.6%)

12,639.4 acres 

(24.1%)

Sage-grouse, pygmy 

rabbit, cultural 

resources

Hart Mountain 

Wilderness Inventory 

Unit (BLM)

30,961.4 

acres

4,277 acres

(13.8%)

69.7 acres

(0.2%)

1,317.1 acres

(4.3%)

Sage-grouse, pygmy 

rabbit, golden eagle, 

and cultural resources

Pinto Springs 

Wilderness Inventory 

Unit (BLM)

18,803.7 

acres

7,272.3 acres 

(38.7%)

237.0 acres 

(1.3%)

17,302.5 acres 

(92.0%)

Sage-grouse, pygmy 

rabbit, cultural 

resources

Calcutta Wilderness 

Inventory Unit (BLM)

65,260.9

acres

63.4 acres

(less than 0.1%)

17.0 acres 

(less than 0.1%)

6,107.8 acres 

(9.4%)

Golden eagle, sagegrouse, pygmy rabbit, 

cultural resources

Crooks Wilderness 

Inventory Unit (BLM)

129,015.1 

acres

375.7 acres 

(0.3%)

101.1 acres 

(0.1%)

10,804.2 acres 

(8.4%)

Golden eagle, sagegrouse, pygmy rabbit, 

burrowing owl, cultural 

resources

Steele Swamp 

Inventoried Roadless 

Area (USFS)

18,956.1 

acres

0 acres 0 acres 9.9 acres

(less than 0.1%)

Unknown

Total 922,008.4

acres

13,354.0 acres 

(1.4%)

913.3 acres 

(0.1%)

93,547.2 acres 

(10.1%)

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Wilderness Resource Analysis

Page 21 of 24

Operational Impacts

Impacts to Size, Naturalness, and Supplemental Values

After construction, the right-of-way needed for pipeline operation would be reduced to 50 feet,

and would encompass the completed pipeline, most related structures, and service roads for maintenance 

of the pipeline. The additional 65 feet of the construction right-of-way, access roads, extra work spaces, 

and staging areas used during construction would be recontoured and re-vegetated to a natural condition 

following completion of construction. In some locations, the vegetative communities in the rehabilitated 

construction right-of-way would visually contrast with the adjacent natural areas. However, the visual 

contrast between the rehabilitated construction right-of-way and natural areas would be lessened over 

time (between six months and 50 years, depending on vegetation type). 

Following reclamation, six wilderness inventory units would be reduced in size by the presence 

of the pipeline, related structures, and access roads through areas with wilderness characteristics, but 

would still remain above 5,000 acres in size. The total impact to the size characteristics for this 

alternative during operation is approximately 550.4 acres, and represents less than 0.1 percent of all areas

with wilderness characteristics in the project area (see Table 8).

Impacts to naturalness during operation would result from the presence of the pipeline and service 

road as well as vegetation clearing of the right-of-way. Impacts include loss of vegetation, wildlife and 

wildlife habitat, fish and fish habitat, wetlands, water resources, and soil structure (including erosion 

potential, compaction, loss of cryptobiotic crusts, and loss of playas) from operation of the pipeline (see 

sections 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6 of the EIS for more information). After construction and reclamation, 

pipeline operation would affect six wilderness inventory units for a total of 202.5 acres of impact to the 

natural characteristics. This represents less than 0.1 percent of all areas with wilderness characteristics in 

the project area (see Table 8).

Supplemental values identified for areas with wilderness characteristics that are affected by 

surface disturbance associated with pipeline operation are identified in Table 8 for the respective units. 

Impacts to those supplemental values are described in sections 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.10 of the EIS.

Impacts to Solitude and/or Primitive Recreation

As described in section 1.1.3.1, Background, the analysis of effects to opportunities for solitude 

and/or primitive recreation resulting from project sound was used to calculate the number of areas with 

wilderness characteristics that would be impacted by project actions. Motorized travel along the right-ofway for pipeline inspection and maintenance as well as brush clearing of the permanent right-of-way in or 

adjacent to a given wilderness unit would result in sound that would degrade the setting needed to support 

primitive recreation opportunities and experiences of solitude. Project sound generated during pipeline 

operation is expected to occur intermittently for the life of the project in a given wilderness unit. A 3.5-

mile corridor encompassing the proposed alignment was developed, and impacts to wilderness, WSAs, 

inventoried roadless areas, and wilderness inventory units were calculated when a portion of the 3.5-mile 

corridor was within a given wilderness unit. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Wilderness Resource Analysis

Page 22 of 24

TABLE 8

Operational Impacts to Wilderness Characteristics under the Black Rock Alternative

Areas with Wilderness 

Characteristics 

(wilderness unit)

Unit Size 

(acres)

Impacts to Size 

(acres and 

percentage of 

unit)

Impacts to 

Naturalness 

(acres and 

percentage of unit)

Impacts to Solitude 

and Primitive 

Recreation

(acres and 

percentage of unit)

Supplemental Values 

(type of value 

identified)

Sugar Pine 

Inventoried Roadless 

Area (USFS)

5,594.9 

acres

0 acres 0 acres 4,059.3 acres 

(72.6%)

Unknown

Wellsville Wilderness 

Area (USFS)

23,032.1 

acres

0 acres 0 acres 2,371.1 acres 

(10.3%)

Unknown

Coyote Hill Wilderness 

Inventory Unit (BLM)

4,432.0 

acres

16.0 acres 

(0.4%)

12.6 acres 

(0.3%)

2,883.2 acres 

(65.1%)

None

North Matlin 

Wilderness Inventory 

Unit (BLM)

13,835.3 

acres

63.1 acres 

(0.5%)

34.9 acres 

(0.3%)

8,858.0 acres 

(64.0%)

None

South Matlin 

Wilderness Inventory 

Unit (BLM)

8,361.1 

acres

0 acres 0 acres 4,737.7 acres 

(56.7%)

None

Terrace Basin 

Wilderness Inventory 

Unit (BLM)

16,229.2 

acres

30.0 acres 

(0.2%)

10.9 acres 

(less than 0.1%)

4,899.4 acres 

(30.2%)

Sage-grouse, desert 

scrub vegetation, and 

historic features

Black Rock Desert 

Wilderness Area 

(BLM)

314,836.5 

acres

0 acres 0 acres 877.7 acres 

(0.3%)

Unknown

Selenite Mountains 

WSA (BLM)

31,955.3 

acres

0 acres 0 acres 4,071.4 acres 

(12.7%)

Unknown

Poodle Mountain WSA 

(BLM) 

141,664.4 

acres

0 acres 0 acres 4,012.7 acres 

(2.8%)

Unknown

Lost Creek Wilderness 

Inventory Unit (BLM)

46,570.6 

acres

0 acres 0 acres 8,595.8 acres 

(18.5%)

Golden eagle, sagegrouse, burrowing owl, 

cultural resources

Antelope Wilderness 

Inventory Unit (BLM)

52,499.8 

acres

57.2 acres

(0.1%)

57.2 acres 

(0.1%)

12,639.4 acres 

(24.1%)

Sage-grouse, pygmy 

rabbit, cultural 

resources

Hart Mountain 

Wilderness Inventory 

Unit (BLM)

30,961.4 

acres

0 acres 0 acres 1,317.1 acres

Sage-grouse, pygmy 

rabbit, golden eagle, 

and cultural resources

Pinto Springs 

Wilderness Inventory 

Unit (BLM)

18,803.7 

acres

51.7 acres 

(0.3%)

51.7 acres 

(0.3%)

17,302.5 acres 

(92.0%)

Sage-grouse, pygmy 

rabbit, cultural 

resources

Calcutta Wilderness 

Inventory Unit (BLM)

65,260.9 

acres

0 acres 0 acres 6,107.8 acres 

(9.4%)

Golden eagle, sagegrouse, pygmy rabbit, 

cultural resources

Crooks Wilderness 

Inventory Unit (BLM)

129,015.1 

acres

332.4 acres 

(0.3%)

35.2 acres 

(less than 0.1%)

10,804.2 acres 

(8.4%)

Golden eagle, sagegrouse, pygmy rabbit, 

burrowing owl, cultural 

resources

Steele Swamp 

Inventoried Roadless 

Area (USFS)

18,956.1 

acres

0 acres 0 acres 9.9 acres

(less than 0.1%)

Unknown

Total 922,008.4

acres

550.4 acres 

(less than 0.1%)

202.5 acres 

(less than 0.1%)

93,547.2 acres 

(10.1 %)

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Wilderness Resource Analysis

Page 23 of 24

Sound generated during operation of the pipeline under the Black Rock Alternative would reduce 

opportunities for solitude and/or primitive recreation in two designated wilderness areas, two WSAs, two

inventoried roadless areas, and 10 wilderness inventory units. The sound from and presence of the 

people, vehicles, and equipment needed for pipeline operation and maintenance would degrade the setting 

required to support primitive recreation opportunities and the experience of solitude for up to 1.75 miles 

into the adjacent wilderness units. As visitors to the area travel further into the core of the wilderness 

unit, the impact of the sight and sound of operation and maintenance would lessen and eventually 

disappear. Furthermore, the effects of the sights and sounds of operation and maintenance would vary by 

individual wilderness user—for some, sights and sounds of operation and maintenance would have a 

lasting and thus greater effect on the desired activity and experience, whereas for others the effects would 

be more temporary and fleeting. Opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be 

intermittently reduced by the sound and presence of operation and maintenance under this alternative on 

approximately 3,248.8 acres of designated wilderness areas, 8,084.1 acres of WSAs, 4,069.2 acres of 

inventoried roadless areas, and 78,145.1 acres of wilderness inventory units, for a total of 93,547.2 acres. 

This represents approximately 10.1 percent of all areas with wilderness characteristics in the project area.

1.1.3.6 Cumulative Impacts

A number of areas with wilderness characteristics lie along (see section 1.1.1) or in proximity to 

the proposed pipeline and alternative alignments. In addition, many of the projects listed in table 4.13-1

of the EIS (Projects with Potential Cumulative Impacts) would have similar impacts to areas with 

wilderness characteristics as the Ruby Pipeline project. Several of those projects are linear features (such 

as pipelines and transmission lines) that have the potential to impact areas with wilderness characteristics 

directly by reducing the size (5,000 acres or more of undeveloped and unroaded lands), the naturalness 

condition (reduction of vegetation, wildlife, fisheries, or other natural resources), or any supplemental 

values identified for those lands. The projects can also affect areas with wilderness characteristics by 

reducing opportunities for solitude and/or primitive recreation. 

The cumulative impacts from construction and operation of the Ruby Pipeline and placement of 

other linear features and human-made structures on the landscape would further decrease the amount of 

undeveloped landscapes (areas with wilderness characteristics) along the pipeline route. Areas with 

wilderness characteristics directly affected by the Ruby Pipeline and any reasonably foreseeable present 

or future actions identified above could split areas with wilderness characteristics into separate parcels or 

reduce them in size below the 5,000-acre requirement by placement of human structures (including buried 

structures such as pipelines) and roads. 

The cumulative effects of construction and operation of the Ruby Pipeline with other reasonably 

foreseeable projects could also reduce naturalness in areas with wilderness characteristics by introducing 

unnatural or human-made objects to the landscape, and affecting or reducing the amount of soils, 

vegetation, or natural habitats in the region. 

Finally, the cumulative effects of construction and operation of the Ruby Pipeline with other 

reasonably foreseeable projects could alter the setting required to support opportunities for solitude and/or 

primitive recreation for visitors to areas with wilderness characteristics. It would be more difficult for 

visitors to find opportunities for solitude and/or primitive recreation throughout the region because fewer 

parcels would be out of sight or sound of modern human devices. Therefore, the cumulative effect of 

construction and operation of the Ruby Pipeline with other reasonably foreseeable projects could further 

reduce the availability of undeveloped areas with wilderness characteristics within the region.

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Wilderness Resource Analysis

Page 24 of 24

1.1.3.7 Mitigation

The following mitigation measures may lessen (or in some cases eliminate) the effects of pipeline 

construction and operation on the wilderness characteristics of each of the four categories of wilderness units. 

1. Explore opportunities to notify wilderness users prior to visiting the affected wilderness 

units by publication of the construction schedule in local media, posting the schedule at 

administering agency offices, posting the schedule at trailheads or other recreation access 

points to wilderness units, or other means of reaching visitors. This notification process 

would alert wilderness users to the potential temporary impacts of presence and sound of 

construction on opportunities for experiences of solitude and primitive recreation 

settings, and allow visitor to decide if they want to re-schedule their visit. 

2. Feather the edges of the shrubs and trees adjacent to the right-of-way when recon touring

and revegetating the construction right-of-way in vegetation communities with a large 

shrub or tree component to reduce the line or edge that would be apparent between the 

shrubs and trees and the grass of the reclaimed right-of-way.

1.1.3.8 References

BLM, 2008. Oregon/Washington Draft Wilderness Inventory Maintenance Handbook. USDI, BLM, 

Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland. Pgs. 3–8.

NPS, 2006. Denali National Park Backcountry Plan, General Management Plan amendment, and 

Environmental Impact Statement. USDI, NPS. Pg. 131

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010

File [APPENDIX_X_TRANSPORTATION_PLANS.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (To download this file in 

its original format, please use the filename hyperlink from your search results. If you continue 

to experience difficulties, or to obtain a PDF generated version of files, please contact the 

helpdesk at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or, call 866-208-3676 from 9AM to 5PM EST, weekdays. 

Please allow at least 48 hours for your helpdesk request to be processed.)
APPENDIX Y

References

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX Y– REFERENCES

Y-1

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1991. Rationale for Blasting Standards (11 AAC 95) Developed 

to Prevent Explosive Injury to Fish. Alaska Department of Natural Resources Office of Habitat 

Management and Permitting. Available online at: http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/habitat 

/explosives.htm.

Allen II, P. D., D. J. Chapman, and D. Lane. 2005. Scaling environmental restoration to offset injury 

using habitat equivalency analysis. Edited by R.F. Bruins and M.T. Heberling, Economics and 

Ecological Risk Assessment: Applications to Watershed Management. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 

FL.

Alliance Pipeline Limited Partnership (Alliance). 2009. Environment, Operational Responsibilities, 

Land Management, Soil Heating Effects Monitoring. Available online at: 

http://aplwww.alliance-pipeline.com/inside.jsp?cid1=9&cid2=56&cid3=73. Accessed December 

2009.

Arid Lands Information Center. 2006. Invasive Species, Submodule 8: Ecological Impacts, Change in 

Fire Regime. Available online at: http://alic.arid.arizona.edu/invasive/sub8/p3.shtml. Accessed 

September 2009. 

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 1994. Mitigation Bird Collisions with Power Lines: 

The State of the Art in 1994. Edison Electric Institute. Washington, D.C. 

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 2006. Suggested Practice for Avian Protection on 

Power Lines: State of the Art in 2006. Edison Electric Institute, APLIC, and the California 

Energy Commission. Washington, D.C. and Sacramento, CA.

Bailey, R.G. 1995. Description of the Ecoregions of the United States. United States Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. Second Edition. Washington, D.C. 

Baker, W. L, 2006. Fire and Restoration of Sagebrush Ecosystems. Peer Review. Ecology Program and 

Department of Geography, Dept. 3371, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.

Ballard, Hannah, Lisa Holm, Tiffany Tuttle, Starla Lane, Thomas Jackson, and Greg White (2009). Class 

I Cultural Resources Inventory Survey for Segments of the Proposed Ruby Pipeline Route and 

Black Rock Alternatives 6 and 7: Ruby Pipeline Project, Humboldt, Pershing, and Washoe 

Counties, Nevada. Draft report prepared by Pacific Legacy, Inc. for Ruby Pipeline, LLC.

Barrows, C.W., M.B. Swartz, W.L. Hodges, M.F. Allen, J.T. Rotenberry, B. Li, T.A. Scott, and X. Chen. 

2005. A framework for monitoring multiple-species conservation plans. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. Bethesda, Maryland. 69(4):1333-1345.

Belnap, J., J.H. Kaltenecker, R. Rosentreter, J. Williams, S. Leonard, and D. Eldridge. 2001. Biological 

Soil Crusts: Ecology and Management. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management. National Science and Technology Center. Denver Colorado. Technical Reference 

1730-2. 

Belsky, A. J. and J. L. Gelbard. 2000. Livestock grazing and weed invasions in the arid west. Oregon 

Natural Desert Association. Bend, OR: 4; Bureau of Land Management. 2000. Use of weed-free 

forage on public lands in Nevada. Fed. Reg. 65-54544. USDI-BLM.

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX Y – REFERENCES (cont.)

Y-2

Belsky, A. J., A. Matzke, S. Uselman. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian 

ecosystems in the western United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54(1): 419.

Blais, D.P., and D.L. Simpson. 1997. The Effects of a Buried Natural Gas Pipeline on Water Quality, 

Stream Habitat, and Biotic Populations within High Quality Coldwater Streams in Upstate New 

York. In Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium, Environmental Concerns in Rights-ofWay Management. New Orleans, Louisiana. 

Bradfield, T. D. 1974. On the Behavior and Ecology of the Pygmy Rabbit SYLVILAGUS 

IDAHOENSIS. M.S. Thesis, Idaho State University, Pocatello. 43 pp.

Brand, L.A., and T.L. George. 2000. Predation Risks for Nesting Birds in Fragmented Coast Redwood 

Forest. Journal of Wildlife Management 64: 42-51. 

Braun, C.E., J.W. Connelly, and M. A. Schroeder. 2001. Seasonal habitat requirements for sage-grouse: 

spring, summer, fall, and winter. In: Sage-grouse habitat restoration symposium proceedings. 

June 4-7, 2001, Boise, ID. Proc. RMRS-P-38. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 130 pp. 

British Columbia, Ministry of Transportation. 2000. Use of Explosives in or Near Fish and Fish Habitat. 

Technical Circular T3/00. British Columbia, Ministry of Transportation Environmental Services, 

Engineering Branch. Available online at: http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications/Circulars 

/Current/T_Circ/2000/t03-00.pdf. 

Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL). 2003. Practical Handbook of Photovoltaics: Fundamentals 

and Applications. General editors T. Markvart and L. Castaner. Elsevier. Maryland Heights, 

Missouri.

Brown, C.M., R.D. Revel, and J.R. Post. 2002. Effects of Pipeline Rights-of-Way on Fish Habitat at 

Two Alberta Stream Crossings. Pages 705- 715 in J.W. Goodrich-Mahoney, D.F. Mutrie, and 

C.A. Guild (editors). The Seventh International Symposium on Environmental Concerns in 

Rights-of-Way Management. Elsevier Science, Ltd., Boston, Massachusetts. 

Brusnyk, L.M., and D.A. Westworth. 1985. An Assessment of Post-construction Use of a Pipeline 

Corridor by Ungulates. Unpublished report for NOVA, An Alberta Corporation, Calgary, 

Alberta.

Dunford, R. W., T. C. Ginn, and W. H. Desvousges. 2004. The use of habitat equivalency analysis in 

natural resource damage assessments. Ecological Economics 48(2004): 49–70.

Burak, G. S. 2006. Home Ranges, Movements, and Multi-scale Habitat Use of Pygmy Rabbits 

(Brachylagus idahoensis) in Southwestern Idaho. Thesis, Boise State University. Boise, Idaho.

Burger, L.D., L.W. Burger, and J. Faaborg. 1994. Effects of Prairie Fragmentation of Predation on 

Artificial Nests. Journal of Wildlife Management 58: 249-254. 

California Biomass Energy Alliance (CBEA). 2008. California Biomass Energy Alliance. Available 

online at http://www.calbiomass.org. Accessed November 2008.

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX Y – REFERENCES (cont.)

Y-3

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2009. Geothermal Energy in California. Available online at 

http://www.energy.ca.gov/geothermal. Accessed November 2008.

California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2008. Natural Heritage Division. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act, Council on Environmental Quality. Executive Office of the President. 

Washington, D.C.

Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2008. Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan. 

Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colorado. 500 pp. and appendices.

Comer, R.D. 1982. Understanding Secondary Effects of Development on Wildlife Resources in 

Mitigation Planning. Issues and Technology in the Management of Impacted Western Wildlife. 

Thorne Ecological Institute Technical Publication No. 14. Boulder, Colorado: 16-31.

Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, M.A. Schroeder, and S.J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation assessment of greater 

sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats. Unpublished report. Western Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Connelly, J.W. 2009. Telephone communication on February 2, between John Beaver (WESTECH) and 

J. Connelly (Idaho Department of Fish and Game). 

Corn, P.S., and J.C. Fogelman. 1984. Extinction of montane populations of the northern leopard frog 

(Rana pipiens) in Colorado. Journal of Herpetology 18:147-152.

Cox, L. and R. Koenig. 2003. Solutions to Soil Problems II. High pH (alkaline soil). Available online 

at http://extension.usu.edu/files/publications/soils2n.pdf. Accessed March 2009.

Crabtree, A.F. 1984. Resolving Conflicts between two Natural Resource User Groups: Pipeline Rightsof-Way and Off-Road Vehicles. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on 

Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way Management. Mississippi State University, 

Mississippi State, Mississipppi: 472-487.

Danielson, W.R., R.M. DeGraaf, and T.K. Fuller. 1997. Rural and Suburban Forest Edges: Effect on 

Egg Predators and Nest Predation Rates. Landscape and Urban Planning 38:25-36. 

Day, K. 2008. Nuclear Plant Plans Shift to Elsmore County. Idaho Statesman, Boise, Idaho. April 5.

Desert Research Institute, Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2009. Vya, Nevada, Period of 

Record General Climate Summary – Precipitation. Available online at 

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?nv8810. Accessed September 2009.

Edison Electric Institute. 2006. Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines – The State of 

the Art (CEC-500-2006-022). University of California, Santa Cruz.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Prepared for the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX Y – REFERENCES (cont.)

Y-4

Espinosa, S. and R.Phenix. 2008. Effects of Wildfire (1999–2007) on Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) and Key Ecological Sagebrush Systems that They Depend on in Nevada. Nevada 

Department of Wildlife Game Division. Diversity Division

Eugster, Hans P. and Lawrence A. Hardie. 1978. Saline Lakes. Lakes: Chemistry, Geology and

Physics, edited by Abraham Lerman. Pringer-Verlag, New York: 237-293.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2004. Research of wetland construction and 

mitigation activities for certificated Section 7(c) pipeline projects. Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Washington D.C. 53 pp. and Appendices.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2008. Hydrokinetic Pilot Project Licensing Process. 

Available online at www.ferc.gov. Accessed February 2008.

Firehouse Network, 2009. Lakeview Fire Department. Available online at: 

http://departments.firehouse.com/dept/LakeviewOR. Accessed December 2009.

Flath, D. L. and Rauscher, R.L. 1995. Progress Report. Status of the Pygmy Rabbit in Montana. Montana 

Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, MSU Campus, Bozeman

Forman R.T., and L.E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and Their Major Ecological Effects. Annual Review of 

Ecology and Systematics 29:207-231.

Friends of the Great Salt Lake. 2009. Available Online at: https://www.fogsl.org/index.php. Accessed 

November 2008.

Gartman, D.K. 1984. The Impact of a Pipeline Crossing on the Benthos of a Pennsylvania Trout Stream. 

Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-way 

Management. Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, Mississippi: 461-471. 

Geothermal Energy Association (GEA). 2006. Geothermal Resource Development in Nevada—2006. 

Available online at http://www.geoenergy.org/publications/reports/Geothermal%20Resource 

%20Development%20in%20Nevada%202006.pdf. Accessed November 2008.

Hartley, D.R., D.H. Arner, and J.W. Lipe. 1984. A Comparison of Right-of-way Maintenance 

Treatments and Use by Wildlife. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on 

Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-way Management. Mississippi State University, 

Mississippi State, Mississippi. 623-629.

Herbst, D.B. 1996. Aquatic invertebrate biodiversity on the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada. 

Unpublished report to the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge, Lakeview, Oregon. 28 pp.

Horejsi, B.L. 1979. Seismic operations and their impact on large mammals: results of a monitoring 

program. Western Wildlife Environments. Unpublished Report. 86 pp.

Ihsle, H.B. 1982. Population Ecology of Mule Deer with Emphasis on Potential Impacts of Gas and Oil 

Development along the East Front of the Rocky Mountains, North Central Montana. M.S. 

Thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX Y – REFERENCES (cont.)

Y-5

Intertribal Monitoring Association (ITMA), 2009. Intertribal Monitoring Association of Indian Trust 

Funds. Available online at: http://www.itmatrustfunds.org/Tribes_folder/FortBidwell.htm. 

Accessed December 2009.

Jageman, H. 1994. White-tailed Deer Habitat Management Guidelines. Forest, Wildlife and Range 

Experiment Station. University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. 

Karsky, R. Compiler. 1988. Fences. U.S. Forest Service Technical and Development Center, Missoula, 

Montana, USA. 

Katzner, T.E. and K.L. Parker. 1997. Vegetative Characteristics and Size of Home Ranges Used by 

Pygmy Rabbits (Brachylagus idahoensis) During Winter in Southwestern Wyoming. Journal of 

Mammalogy. 78(4):1063-1072.

Keinath, D.A. and M. McGee. 2004. Species Assessment for Pygmy Rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) in 

Wyoming. Available online at http://www.uwyo.edu/wynddsupport/docs/Reports/Species 

Assessments/Pygmy Rabbit - Final (Mar 2004).pdf. Accessed on February 18, 2009.

Kendall, Alan C. 1980. Facies Models 13, Continental and Supradidal (Sabkha) Evaporites. Facies 

Models, Geoscience Canada, Reprint Series I, edited by Roger G. Walker, Department of 

Geology McMaster University, Hamilton Ontario, Canada: 145-157.

King, D. M. 1997. Comparing ecosystem services and values, with illustrations for performing habitat 

equivalency analysis. Prepared by King and Associates, Inc., Washington, D.C., for U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Silvery Spring, MD.

Kohler, K. E., and R. E. Dodge. 2006. Visual_HEA: Habitat equivalency analysis software to calculate 

compensatory restoration following natural resource injury. Proceedings of 10th International 

Coral Reef Symposium:1611–1616.

Kroodsma, R.L. 1984. Effects of Power-line Corridors on the Density and Diversity of Bird 

Communities in Forested Areas. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on 

Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-way Management. Mississippi State University, 

Mississippi State, Mississippi: 551-561. 

Lake County Chamber of Commers (LCC), 2009. Lake County Chamber of Commerce. Available 

online at: http://www.lakecountychamber.org/facts/index.html. Accessed December 2009.

Lake District Hospital, 2009. Ambulance service – disaster units. Available online at: http://www.lakehealth.com/. Accessed December 2009.

Leck, A. M., M A, Thomas V. Parker, Robert, L. Simpson (eds.). 1989. Ecology of Seed Banks. 

Academic Press, Inc. New York. 461 pp. 

Lees, A.T. 1989. The Effect of Recreational Activity on Elk Use and Distribution Along a Pipeline 

Right-of-Way. In Issues and Technology in the Management of Impacted Wildlife. Proceedings 

of a National Symposium. Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Edited by: P.R. Davis, J.E. Emerick, 

D.M. Finch, J.W. Monarch, S. Rush, O. Thorne, and J. Todd. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX Y – REFERENCES (cont.)

Y-6

Lyon, A. G., and S. H. Anderson. 2003. Potential gas development impacts on sage grouse nest initiation 

and movement. Wildlife Society Bulletin. Bethesda, Maryland. 31:486-491. 

MACTEC. 2008. Fault Rupture Hazard Evaluation, Proposed Ruby Pipeline, Opal Wyoming to Malin 

Oregon. December 30.

MACTEC. 2009a. Slope and Liquefaction Hazard Evaluation, Proposed Ruby Pipeline, Opal Wyoming 

to Malin Oregon. January 12.

MACTEC. 2009b. Liquefaction Hazard Evaluation: Proposed Ruby Pipeline, Opal Wyoming to Malin 

Oregon. July 27.

Marini, M.A., S.K. Robinson, and E.J. Heske. 1995. Edge Effects on Nest Predation in the Shawnee 

National Forest, Southern Illinois. Biological Conservation 74:203-213.

McArthur, E.D., E.M. Romney, S.D. Smith, and P.T. Tueller. 1989. Proceedings – Symposium on 

cheatgrass invasion, shrub die-off, and other aspects of shrub biology and management. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Intermountain Research Station. General Technical 

Report INT-276.

Mutrie, D.F., and I.F.H. Scott. 1984. Environmental Evaluation of Water Crossing Techniques for 

Pipeline Construction in Canada. Pages 508-517 in A.E. Crabtree (editor). Proceedings of the 

Third International Symposium on Environmental Concerns in Rights of-way Management. 

Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, Mississippi. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2006. Habitat equivalency analysis: An overview.

Available online at www.darrp.noaa.gov/library/pdf/heaoverv.pdf. Accessed July 2009.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Homepage. Available online at 

http://www.noaa.gov/. Accessed April 2009.

National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1998. Soil Quality Indicators: pH. Available online 

at http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/publications/files/indicate.pdf. Accessed March 2009. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2004. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database. 

Available online at http://soils.usda.gov/survey/geography/ssurgo/. Accessed March 2009.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2006. U.S. General Soil Map (STATSGO2). 

Available online at http://soils.usda.gov/survey/geography/statsgo/. Accessed March 2009.

Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP). 2008. Telephone communication on July 16 

between P. Van Kerkhove (Ecology and Environment, Inc.) and NDEP. 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NWPCC). 2007. Biennial Monitoring Report on the Fifth 

Power Plan. Portland, Oregon. 

Norse et. al. 1986. Conserving Biological Diversity in Our National Forests. The Wilderness Society. 

Washington, D.C.

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX Y – REFERENCES (cont.)

Y-7

Noss, R.F. and R.L. Peters. Dec 1995. Endangered Ecosystems, A Status Report on America’s 

Vanishing Habitat and Wildlife. Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC.

Noss, R.F., E.T. LaRoe, and J. M. Scott. 1995. Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: A 

Preliminary Assessment of Loss and Degradation. Biological Report 28. National Biological 

Service, Washington, DC.

O’Rourke, T.D., and M.C. Palmer. 1994. The Northridge, California Earthquake of January 17, 1994: 

Performance of Gas Transmission Pipelines. National Center for Earthquake Engineering 

Research, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York. Technical Report 

NCEER-94-0011.

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). 2009. ConnectOregon. Available online at 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/COMM/CO/about_us.shtml. Accessed on October 1, 2009.

Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E). 2009. Project Overview: Canada - Pacific Northwest -

Northern California Transmission Project. Available online at: http://www.pge.com/

mybusiness/customerservice/nonpgeutility/electrictransmission/canada/overview.shtml. 

Accessed September 2009. 

Parker, Patricia L. and Thomas F. King. 1990. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional 

Cultural Properties, National Park Service Bulletin No. 38, 1990, revised 1992, 1998. 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). 2009. Serious Pipeline Incidents. 

Available online at: http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety/. Accessed December 

2009.

Pope, Shealagh E., Fahrig, Lenore, and Merriam, H. Gray. 2000. Landscape Complementation and 

Metapopulation Effects on Leopard Frog Populations. Ecological Society of America, Vol. 81, 

No. 9, pp. 2498-2508.

Prey, D. 2008. Telephone communication on August 11 between P. Van Kerkhove (Ecology and 

Environment, Inc.) and D. Prey (UDAQ). 

Rachlow, J. L., D. M. Sanchez, and W. A. Estes-Zumpf. 2005. Natal burrows and nests of free-ranging 

pygmy rabbits (Brachylagus idahoensis). Western North American Naturalist 65:136–139.

Reid, S.M. and P.G. Anderson. 1999. Effects of sediment released during open-cut pipeline water 

crossings. Canadian Water Resources Journal. Ottawa, Ontario. 24: 23-39. 

Reid, S.M. 2000. Evaluations of isolated watercourse crossings during winter construction along the 

Alliance pipeline in northern Alberta. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium, 

Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way Management. September 9-13, 2000. Calgary, 

Alberta.

Reid, S.M., S. Stoklosar, S. Metikosh, and J. Evans. 2002. Effectiveness of isolated pipeline crossing 

techniques to mitigate sediment impacts on brook trout streams. Water Quality Research Journal 

of Canada. Mc Gill University Press, Montreal, Quebec. 37:473-488.

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX Y – REFERENCES (cont.)

Y-8

Reid, S.M., F. Ade, and S. Metikosh. 2004. Sediment Entrainment During Pipeline Water Crossing 

Construction: Predictive Models and Crossing Method Comparison. Journal of Environmental 

Engineering and Science 3:81-88. 

Rice, K. J. 1989. Impacts of seed banks on grassland community structure and population dynamics. 

Ecology of soil seed banks. Academic Press, San Diego, California. 211–230.

Robinson, R. and K. Dobschuetz. 2009. A Class I Records Review of the Proposed Sheldon Alternative 

Ruby Pipeline Project: Oregon and Nevada Segments. EPG Cultural Resource Services Technical 

Paper No. 2009-4 prepared for Ruby Pipeline, LLC.

Rorabaugh, J.C. 2005. Rana pipiens Schreber, 1782, Northern leopard frog. Pages 570-577 in M.J. 

Lannoo (ed), Amphibian Declines: The Conservation Status of United States Species. University 

of California Press, Berkeley.

Rosenberg, K.V., and M.G. Raphael. 1986. Effects of Forest Fragmentation on Vertebrates in Douglasfir Forests. Pages 263-272 in J. Verner, M.L. Morrison, and C.J. Ralph (editors), Wildlife 2000: 

Modeling Habitat Relationships of Terrestrial Vertebrates. University of Wisconsin Press. 

Madison, Wisconsin. 

Salvo, Mark. 2009. Western Wildlife Under Hoof: Public Lands Livestock Grazing Threatens Iconic 

Species. A Report from WildEarth Guardians.

Scheffe, R. 1988. VOC/NOx Point Source Screening Tables. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Technical Support Division, Washington, D.C.

Sharp, J. 2008. E-mail communication on August 12 between P. Van Kerkhove (Ecology and 

Environment, Inc). and J. Sharp (WDEQ).

Stewart, E. R., Reese, S. A. and Ultsch, G. R. 2004. The physiology of hibernation in Canadian leopard 

frogs (Rana pipiens) and bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana). Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 77, 65-73.

Toiyabe Spotted Frog Technical Team. 2004. Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris) Toiyabe Great 

Basin Subpopulation Long-term Monitoring Plan.

Town of Lakeview. 2009. Town of Lakeview Police Website. Accessed December 2009. 

http://www.lakevieworegon.org/policedepartment.html 

Thomas, J.W., and D.E. Toweill. 1982. Elk of North America: Ecology and Management. Stackpole 

Books. Harrisberg, Pennsylvania. 

United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). 2002. Global Mercury Assessment. Available 

online at: http://www.chem.unep.ch/mercury/Report/Summary%20of%20the%20report. 

htm#Chapter7. Accessed on December 1, 2009.

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2007. Regional Economic Accounts. Local Area Personal Income, 

Table CA1-3. Available online at http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis/default.cfm?series=ancillary. 

Accessed October 2009.

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX Y – REFERENCES (cont.)

Y-9

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000a. Housing, Physical Characteristics, Occupancy Characteristics. Available 

online at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFHousing?_sse=on&_submenuId= 

housing_0. Accessed February 2009.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000b. Poverty Status in 1999 of Families and Nonfamily Householders, Table 

QT-P35. Available online at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id 

=04000US56&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_QTP35&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U. 

Accessed April 2009.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. U.S. Census Bureau County Business Patterns Data, North American 

Classification System. USA Counties Data and Accommodation and Food Services – by Industry. 

Available online at http://censtats.census.gov/. Accessed February 2009.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. General Demographic Characteristics: July 2007, Table DP-1. Available 

online at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?-ds_name=PEP_2007_EST&-qr_name 

=PEP_2007_EST_DP1&-geo_id=05000US56023. Accessed February 2009.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008a. Annual Population Estimates, 2008. Available online at 

http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/ main.html?_lang=en. Accessed October 2009.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008b. USA Counties Data, Civilian Labor Force and Unemployment Rate, 2008. 

Available online at http://censtats.census.gov/usa/usa.shtml. Accessed October 2009. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (ARS). 2008. Influence of mowing 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis on winter habitat for wildlife. Oregon State University 

Publication, Corvallis, Oregon.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS). 1989. Fremont National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS). 1995. Forest Service Manual 2670, Region 4 

Revision to Sensitive Species. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS). 2003a. Uinta National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS). 2003b. Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land 

and Resource Management Plan. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, 

D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS). 2004. Forest Service Manual 2670, Region 6 

Revision to Sensitive Species. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Fossil Energy. 2003. Rocky Mountain States Natural Gas 

Resource Potential and Prerequisites to Expanded Production, DOE/FE-0460. U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 2008a. Information 

Resources: States with Renewable Portfolio Standards. Available online at 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX Y – REFERENCES (cont.)

Y-10

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/maps/renewable_portfolio_states.cfm. Accessed September 

2009.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 2008b. Solar 

EnergyTechnologies Program, Mulit Year Program Plan 2008-2012. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 2008c. 20% Wind Energy 

by 2030, Increasing Wind Energy’s Contribution to U.S. Electricity Supply (DOE/GO-102008-

2567). Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2008d. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, 

Designation of Energy Corridors on Federal Land in the 11 Western States (DOE/EIS-0386). 

Available online at http://www.gc.energy.gov/NEPA/draft-eis0386.htm. Accessed March 2009.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2009. Biomass Program: Environmental Benefits. Available online 

at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/environmental.html. Accessed September 2009.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. Map 

Service Center. http://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/FemaWelcomeView?storeId= 

10001&catalogId=10001&langId=-1. Accessed September 2009.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1980. Randolph Management 

Framework Plan. Available online at: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ut 

/natural_resources/planning/sj91rod_to_price_rod.Par.67399.File.dat/RANDOLPHMFP.PDF. 

Accessed December 2009.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1982a. Sonoma-Gerlach 

Management Framework Plan. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1982b. Paradise-Denio 

Management Framework Plan.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1985. Wells Resource 

Management Plan. Available online at: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/

nv/field_offices/elko_field_office/programs/planning/wells_planning.Par.18467.File.dat/Approve

d%20RMP%20and%20Record%20Decision.pdf. Accessed December 2009. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1986a. Kemmerer Resource 

Management Plan. Available online at: http://www.blm.gov/rmp/kemmerer/. Accessed 

December 2009. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1986b. Box Elder Resource 

Mangement Plan. Available online at: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ut/ 

natural_resources/planning/bookcliff_to_cedarbeavga.Par.76039.File.dat/BOXROD&RPS.PDF. 

Accessed December 2009. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1987. Elko Resource 

Management Plan. Available online at: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm

/nv/field_offices/elko_field_office/programs/planning/elko_planning.Par.82514.File.dat/Approve

d%20RMP%20amd%20Record%20of%20Decision.pdf. Accessed December 2009. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX Y – REFERENCES (cont.)

Y-11

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1995. Klamath Falls Resource 

Management Plan. Available online at: http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/rod/

files/wopr_kfalls_RMP.pdf. Accessed December 2009. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2001. Special status species 

Management: Manual 6840. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2003a. Lakeview Resource 

Management Plan. Available online at: http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans 

/lakeviewrmp.php. Accessed December 2009. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 2003a. BLM Manual 8400 –

Visual Resource Management. Available online at http://www.blm.gov/nstc/VRM/8400.html. 

Accessed October 2009.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 2003b. BLM Manual 8431 –

Visual Resource Contrast Rating. Available online at http://www.blm.gov/nstc/VRM/8400.html. 

Accessed October 2009.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2004a. Black Rock Desert-High 

Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area (NCA). Available online at: 

http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/wfo/blm_programs/planning/Black_Rock_Desert-High_Rock 

_Canyon_Emigrant_Trails_National_Conservation_Area/black_rock-high_rock.html. Accessed 

December 2009. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2004a. Multiple Use Management 

– Dixie harrow style. BLM Resource Notes No. 75. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 2004b. BLM Handbook 8120-1,

Guidelines for Conducting Tribal Consultation. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2008a. Surprise Resource 

Management Plan. Available online at: http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/surprise/propRMPFEIS.html. Accessed December 2009. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2008a. Nevada Wild Horse and 

Burro Areas Administered by the Bureau Of Land Management. Available online at 

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Planning_and_Renewable_Resources/wild_hors

es_and_burros/pls_herd_area_statistics/2007.Par.94097.File.dat/HAHMA2008statsNV.pdf. 

Accessed March 2009. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2008b. Black-footed ferret blockcleared areas in the Ruby PPLN ROW. Received from Chris Crews at the Wyoming BLM 

Kemmerer Field Office on February 1, 2008. Sent to Jennifer D’Avanzo at Ecology and 

Environment, Inc.

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX Y – REFERENCES (cont.)

Y-12

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2008c. Alkali Creek sagebrush 

restoration. BLM Stewardship Publication, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2008d. White Pine Energy 

Station Final Environmental Impact Statement. Ely, Nevada Field Office. Available online at: 

http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/ely_field_office/blm_programs/energy/egan_energy_projects/whi

te_pine_energy0/white_pine_energy0.html. Accessed September 2009. 

U.S Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2009a. Nevada’s Wild Horses 

and Burros. Wild Horse and Burro Quick Facts. Available online at 

http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/prog/wh_b/facts___stats.html. Accessed April 2009. 

U.S Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2009b. BLM Wild Horses and 

Burros. National Wild Horse and Burro Program. Available online at 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/wild_horse_and_burro.html. Accessed October 2009. 

U.S Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2009c. China Mountain 

Meteorological Tower Amendment. Jarbridge Field Office. Available online at: 

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/id/nepa/jarbidge_fo/china_mountain_wind.Par.2336

0.File.dat/China%20Mtn%20Met%20Tower%20EA.pdf. Accessed September 2009. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). 2008. Engineering and O&M 

Guidelines for Crossings. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, 

Colorado. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1989. Black-footed ferret survey 

guidelines for compliance with the Endangered Species Act. Available at: http://www.fs. 

fed.us/r2/Nebraska/gpng/reports/ferret_guidelines.html. Accessed July 2008.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2000. Service Guidelines on the 

Siting, Construction, Operation and Decommissioning of Communication Towers. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Memo to Regional Directors. September 14, 2000.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2002. Utah Field Office Guidelines 

for Raptor Protection from Human and Land Disturbances. Utah Field Office, Salt Lake City. 

January 2002 Updates.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005. Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Pygmy Rabbit as Threatened or 

Endangered. 70 FR 29253 29265. May 20, 2005.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2008a. Final Environmental 

Assessment for Horse and Burro Management at Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge, April 7, 

2008.

U.S Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2008b. Birds of Conservation Concern

2008. Division of Migratory Bird Management. Arlington, Virginia. December. Available 

online at: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/BCC2008/ 

BCC2008.pdf. Accessed September 2009.

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX Y – REFERENCES (cont.)

Y-13

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2008c. Black-footed ferret (Mustela 

nigripes) 5-year status review: summary and evaluation. 38 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2008d. Greater Sage-Grouse Interim Status Update. MountainPrairie Region, Wyoming Ecological Services Office, Cheyenne.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2009a. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife 

Office. Species Account: Slender Orcutt Grass. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/ 

sacramento/es/plant_spp_accts/slender_orcutt_grass.htm. Accessed June 2009.

U.S. Department of Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2009b. Sheldon National Wildlife 

Refuge: About Us. April 3, 2009. Available online at: 

http://www.fws.gov/sheldonhartmtn/sheldon/aboutus.html. Accessed July 2009.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2009c. Standard Operating 

Procedures (SOP) #3: Conducting Yellow-billed Cuckoo Surveys. DRAFT June 9, 2009.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2009. Local Area Unemployment 

Statistics. Available online at http://www.bls.gov/lau/. Accessed October 2009.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 2006. FHWA Highway 

Construction Noise Handbook. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2008a. Annual Energy Outlook 2008 with Projections to 

2030, DOE/EIA-0383(2008). U.S. Energy Information Administration, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2008b. U.S. Natural Gas Imports by Country, last 

updated 6/27/2008. Available online at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_impc

_s1_a.htm. Accessed July 2008.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2008c. U.S. Natural Gas Imports and Exports: 2006. 

U.S. Energy Information Administration, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2009a. Annual Energy Outlook 2009 with Projections 

to 2030, Year-by-Year Updated Annual Energy Outlook 2009 Reference Case with ARRA Tables 

(2006-2030). Washington, D.C.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2009b. Annual Energy Outlook 2009 with Projections to 

2030, DOE/EIA-0383(2009). U.S. Energy Information Administration, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1997. Mercury Study Report to Congress. Report 

number EPA-452/R-97-003. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007a. Clean Energy: Air Emissions. Available online at 

http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/air-emissions.html. Accessed January 

14, 2009.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007b. AirData: Access to Air Pollution Data. Available 

online at http://www.epa.gov/oar/data/. Accessed April 2009.

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX Y – REFERENCES (cont.)

Y-14

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007c. GHG Impacts of Expanded Renewable and 

Alternative Fuels Use (EPA420-F-07-035). Available online at http://www.epa.gov/OMS/

renewablefuels/420f07035.htm. Accessed September 2009.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009a. Mitigation Banking Factsheet. Available online 

at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/facts/fact16.html. Accessed March 2009.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009b. Frequently Asked Questions about Global 

Warming and Climate Change: Back to Basics EPA-430-R08-016. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009c. Inventory of U.S. GHG Emissions and Sinks: 

1990-2007 (EPA 430-R-09-004). Available online at http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/

usinventoryreport.html. Accessed September 2009.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009d. Climate Change: Basic Information. Available 

online at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html. Accessed September 2009.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009e. Climate Change: Emissions. Available online at 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/fq/emissions.html. Accessed September 2009.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009f. Mercury. Available online at: 

http://www.epa.gov/mercury/. Accessed December 1, 2009.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009g. Western Ecology Division-Level III Ecoregions. 

Available online at http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/level_iii.htm. Accessed October 

12, 2009. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2001. Biological Soil Crusts: Webs of Life in the Desert. Available 

online at http://fresc.usgs.gov/products/fs/fs-065-01.pdf. Accessed March 2009.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Canyonlands Research Station. 2006. Crust101: An Introduction to 

Biological Soil Crusts. Moab, Utah. Available online at: www.soilcrust.org/crust101.htm. 

Accessed October 2009.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2007. Figure: Sedimentary-rock hosted gold deposits in Nevada. Task 1 

of the Western Region Gold Deposits Project. October 24, 2007. Available online at: 

http://minerals.usgs.gov/west/projects/nngd.htm. Accessed February 20, 2009.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2009. USGS Water Data for the Nation. Available online at 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis. Accessed March 2009.

U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United 

States. Thomas R. Karl, Jerry M. Melillo, and Thomas C. Peterson, (eds.). Cambridge University 

Press, 2009.

Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality (UDWQ). 2006. Utah 2006 

Integrated Report – 305(b) Assessment. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of 

Water Quality, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX Y – REFERENCES (cont.)

Y-15

Utah State University. 2005. Box Elder County Agriculture Profile. Available online at 

http://extension.usu.edu/files/publications/Box%20Elder%20county%20profile.pdf. Accessed 

March 2009. 

Vander Haegen, W. M. and Walker, B. 1998. Parasitism by Brown-headed Cowbirds in shrub steppe 

communities of eastern Washington. 

Ward, A. L. 1976. Elk behavior in relation to timber harvest operations and traffic on the Medicine Bow 

Range in south-central Wyoming. In Proceedings Elk-logging-roads Symposium, ed. S. R. Hieb. 

Pp. 32-43. Moscow, University of Idaho. 142 pp. 

Ward, A. L., N. E. Fornwalt, S. E. Henry, and R. A. Hodorff. 1980. Effects of highway operation 

practices and facilities on elk, mule deer, and pronghorn antelope. Report No. FHWA-RD-79143. 

National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia. 48 pp. (or USDT-Fed. Highway 

Administration Report No. FHWA-RD-79-143. 48 pp.

WESTECH Environmental Services, Inc. 1997. Express Pipeline – sediment effects on selected stream 

crossings. Unpublished technical report prepared for Express Pipeline. Helena, Montana. 37 p. 

and appendices.

WESTECH Environmental Services, Inc (WESTECH). 1998. Revegetation monitoring report –

Wyoming: Express Pipeline. Unpublished technical report. Helena, Montana. 52 p. and 

appendices.

WESTECH Environmental Services, Inc (WESTECH). 1999. Upland revegetation monitoring report: 

Tuscarora Gas Transmission Project. Unpublished technical report. Helena, Montana. 58 p. 

and appendices.

WESTECH Environmental Services, Inc (WESTECH). 2001a. Revegetation monitoring report: Alturas 

Powerline Project. Unpublished technical report. Helena, Montana. 37 p. and appendices.

WESTECH Environmental Services, Inc (WESTECH). 2001b. Revegetation monitoring report –

Montana: Express Pipeline. Unpublished technical report. Helena, Montana. 45 p. and 

appendices.

WESTECH Environmental Services, Inc (WESTECH). 2004. Woody plant density evaluation. 

Tuscarora Gas Transmission Project. Unpublished technical report. Helena, Montana. 30 p. 

and appendices.

Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 1997. Final Habitat Conservation Plan. 

Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington.

Whitson, T.D. 1996. Weeds of the West. The Western Society of Weed Science, Newark, California. 

Williams, J.E. and R.M. Storm. 1978. Inventory of fishes, amphibians, and reptiles on the Sheldon 

National Wildlife Refuge. Unpublished quarterly report, Oregon State University, Corvalis, 

Oregon.

Wisdom, M.J., M.M. Rowland, L.H. Suring, L. Schueck, C.W. Meinke, S.T. Knick, and B.C. Wales. 

2005. Habitats for groups of species. Chapter 4 in Part II: Regional Assessments of Habitats for 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX Y – REFERENCES (cont.)

Y-16

Species of Conservation Concern in the Great Basin. Pages 205-231. In: Wisdom M.J, M.M. 

Rowland, and L.H. Suring, editors. Habitat Threats in the Sagebrush Ecosystem: Methods of 

Regional Assessment and Applications in the Great Basin. Alliance Communications Group, 

Lawrence, Kansas.

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX Z

List of Preparers 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Z-1

APPENDIX Z – LIST OF PREPARERS

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Swearingen, David – Project Manager

M.S., Marine Biology, 1996, University of North Carolina, Wilmington

B.S., Zoology, 1992, Louisiana State University

Hanobic, David – Assistant Project Manager, Vegetation, Wildlife, Fisheries, Special Status Species

B.S., Biology, 2003, Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania

Boros, Laurie – Cultural Resources

B.A., Anthropology/Archaeology, 1980, Queens College, C.U.N.Y.

Cefalu, Jenine – Land Use, Socioeconomics, Cumulative Impacts

Masters of Environmental Studies, 2005, The Evergreen State College

B.A., International Relations, 1996, San Francisco State University

Kopka, Robert – Geology, Soils, Water Resources, Wetlands

M.S., Soil Science, 1990, Cornell University

B.S., Agronomy, 1987, Delaware Valley College of Science and Agriculture

Tomasi, Eric – Air Quality, Noise, Reliability and Safety

B.S., Aerospace Engineering, 1994, Boston University

Merjent, Inc.

Muehlhausen, John – Project Manager

B.A., Anthropology, 1991, University of Wisconsin, Madison

Mackenthun, Jeff – Assistant Project Manager, Water Resources, Vegetation, Wildlife, Fisheries, 

Special Status Species

B.S., Environmental Studies, 1997, Bemidji State University

Beaver, John (Westech Environmental) – Water Resources, Vegetation, Wildlife, Fisheries, Special 

Status Species

M.S., Range Science, 1995, Montana State University

B.A., Biology, 1989, Grinnell College

Bergland, Britta – Editor

B.A., Environmental Studies/English, 2004, Gustavus Adolphus College

Boden, Peg – Cultural Resources

Ph.D., Near Eastern Studies, 1999, The John Hopkins University

M.S., Near Eastern Studies, 1991, The John Hopkins University

B.A. Anthropology/Near Eastern Studies, 1987, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX Z – LIST OF PREPARERS (cont.)

Z-2

Book, Paul – Geology and Water Resources

Ph.D., Environmental Engineering, 2004, Kennedy Western University, Wyoming

M.S.T., Earth Sciences, 1980, University of New Hampshire, Keene State College

B.S., Landscape Architecture/Environmental Design, 1977, Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst

Choquette, Lavern (Trinity Consultants) – Air Quality and Noise

B.S., Meteorology, 1987, University of Nebraska

Durand, Angie –Socioeconomics, Reliability and Safety

B.S., Environmental Studies, 1999, University of Minnesota

Livingood, Kate – Soils

B.S. Environmental Science, 2004, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

Regan, William –Land Use and Alternatives

B.S., Biology, 1980, University of Minnesota

Ronayne, Angela – Land Use and Alternatives

B.C.E, Civil Engineering, 2000, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

Schroedl, Alan (P-III Archaeology) – Cultural Resources

Ph.D., Anthropology, 1976, University of Utah

M.A., Anthropology, 1976, University of Utah

B.A., Anthropology, 1971, Macalester, College

B.A., Sociology, 1971, Macalaster College

VonSee, William – Air Quality and Noise

B.C.E, Chemical Engineering, 1999, University of Minnesota, Duluth 

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
Document Content(s)

FEIS_COVERS_AND_SPINES.PDF................................................1

COVER_LETTER_TO_THE_PARTIES.PDF..........................................10

TABLE_OF_CONTENTS.PDF....................................................14

EXECUTIVE_SUMMARY.PDF....................................................31

SECTION_1_INTRODUCTION.PDF...............................................40

SECTION_2_DESCRIPTION_OF_PROPOSED_ACTION.PDF.............................70

SECTION_3_ALTERNATIVES.PDF..............................................103

SECTION_4_ENVIRONMENTAL_ANALYSIS.PDF ...................................184

SECTION_5_CONCLUSION_AND_RECOMMENDATIONS.PDF............................496

APPENDIX_A_DISTRIBUTION_LIST.PDF........................................519

APPENDIX_AA_COMMENTS_ON_DRAFT_EIS_AND_RESPONSES_1_of_6.PDF .............554

APPENDIX_AA_COMMENTS_ON_DRAFT_EIS_AND_RESPONSES_2_of_6.PDF .............789

APPENDIX_AA_COMMENTS_ON_DRAFT_EIS_AND_RESPONSES_3_of_6.PDF .............920

APPENDIX_AA_COMMENTS_ON_DRAFT_EIS_AND_RESPONSES_4_of_6.PDF ............1003

APPENDIX_AA_COMMENTS_ON_DRAFT_EIS_AND_RESPONSES_5_of_6.PDF ............1098

APPENDIX_AA_COMMENTS_ON_DRAFT_EIS_AND_RESPONSES_6_of_6.PDF ............1330

APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_1_of_20.PDF .............................1428

APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_2_of_20.PDF .............................1429

APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_3_of_20.PDF .............................1430

APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_4_of_20.PDF .............................1431

APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_5_of_20.PDF .............................1432

APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_6_of_20.PDF .............................1433

APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_7_of_20.PDF .............................1434

APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_8_of_20.PDF .............................1435

APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_9_of_20.PDF .............................1436

APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_10_of_20.PDF.............................1437

APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_11_of_20.PDF.............................1438

APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_12_of_20.PDF.............................1439

APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_13_of_20.PDF.............................1440

APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_14_of_20.PDF.............................1441

APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_15_of_20.PDF.............................1442

APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_16_of_20.PDF.............................1443

APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_17_of_20.PDF.............................1444

APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_18_of_20.PDF.............................1445

APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_19_of_20.PDF.............................1446

APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_20_of_20.PDF.............................1447

APPENDIX_BB_SUBJECT_INDEX.PDF..........................................1448

APPENDIX_C_EVALUATION_REPORTS_FOR_LRMP_AMMENDMENTS.PDF.................1470

APPENDIX_D_RIGHT-OF-WAY_CONFIGURATIONS.PDF.............................1493

APPENDIX_E_WORKSPACE-YARD-ACCESS_ROAD_TABLES.PDF ......................1520

APPENDIX_F_RUBYS_PLAN_AND_PROCEDURES.PDF...............................1578

APPENDIX_G_GROUNDWATER_MONITORING_PLAN.PDF.............................1579

APPENDIX_H_FIRE_PREVENTION_PLAN.PDF....................................1583

APPENDIX_I_PALEONTOLOGICAL_PLAN.PDF....................................1584

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010
APPENDIX_J_WASTE_AND_SPILL_PLAN.PDF....................................1600

APPENDIX_K_HYDROSTATIC_TEST_PLAN.PDF ..................................1601

APPENDIX_L_RESTORATION_AND_REVEGETATION_PLANS.PDF......................1602

APPENDIX_M_BIOLOGICAL_AGREEMENTS_PLANS_AND_ANALYSIS.PDF................1603

APPENDIX_N_BLASTING_PLAN.PDF...........................................1604

APPENDIX_O_DUST_CONTROL_PLAN.PDF.......................................1605

APPENDIX_P_TEMPORARY_HOUSING.PDF.......................................1606

APPENDIX_Q_WATERBODY_CROSSING_TABLE.PDF................................1607

APPENDIX_R_WETLAND_CROSSING_TABLE.PDF..................................1657

APPENDIX_S_WETLAND_MITIGATION_PLAN.PDF.................................1672

APPENDIX_T_WEED_CONTROL_PLAN.PDF.......................................1673

APPENDIX_U_SENSITIVE_AND_STATE-LISTED_SPECIES.PDF......................1674

APPENDIX_V_COLLOCATED_RIGHT-OF-WAY_TABLE.PDF...........................1711

APPENDIX_W_WILDERNESS_CHARACTERISTICS_ASSESSMENT.PDF...................1715

APPENDIX_X_TRANSPORTATION_PLANS.PDF....................................1741

APPENDIX_Y_REFERENCES.PDF..............................................1742

APPENDIX_Z_LIST_OF_PREPARERS.PDF.......................................1759

Document Accession #: 20100108-4001 Filed Date: 01/08/2010