Ruby Pipeline Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Ruby Pipeline, L.L.C. 

Docket Nos. CP09-54-000, PF08-9-000 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Office of Energy Projects 

Washington, DC 20426 

FERC/EIS – 0232D 

Cooperating Agencies 

June 2009 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Docket Nos. 

CP09-54-000 

PF08-9-000 

June 2009 

FERC/EIS-0232D 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
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-0232 D

TO THE PARTY ADDRESSED: 

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

has prepared a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the natural gas pipeline 

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

Ruby Pipeline Project facilities would be located in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and 

Oregon and would be capable of transporting up to 1.5 million dekatherms per day of 

natural gas. 

The draft EIS was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation, and Fish and Wildlife Service; the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS) and Natural Resources 

Conservation Service; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; the State of Utah Public Lands 

Policy Coordination Office; and the Board of County Commissioners in Lincoln County, 

Wyoming are participating as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EIS. 

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

resources potentially affected by the proposal, and participate in the NEPA analysis. The 

Ruby Pipeline Project would require permits from the cooperating agencies pursuant to 

right-of-way grants (and/or temporary use or special use permits) for federally 

administered lands/canals crossed in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon.

Based on the analysis included in the EIS, the FERC staff concludes 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-thansignificant 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 recommended by 

staff in the EIS.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Docket No. CP09-54-000

- 2 -

The draft EIS addresses the potential environmental effects 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;

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;

5 new communication towers; and

miscellaneous communications equipment installed at eight existing 

communication towers.

Comment Procedures and Public Meetings

You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or 

concerns about the Ruby Pipeline Project. Your comments should focus on the potential 

environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen 

environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. 

To ensure consideration of your comments on the proposal in the final EIS, it is important 

that the Commission receive your comments before August 10, 2009. 

For your convenience, there are four methods in which you can use to submit your 

comments to the Commission. In all instances please reference the project docket 

number CP09-54-000 with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic 

filing of comments and has dedicated eFiling expert staff available to assist you at (202) 

502-8258. or efiling@ferc.gov. Please carefully follow these instructions so that your 

comments are properly recorded:

1) You may file your comments electronically by using the Quick Comment 

feature, which is located on the Commission’s Internet website at 

http://www.ferc.gov under the link Documents and Filings. A Quick Comment 

is an easy method for interested persons to submit text-only comments on a 

project;

2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, which 

is located on the Commission’s Internet website at http://www.ferc.gov under 

the link to Documents and Filings. eFiling involves preparing your submission 

in the same manner as you would if filing on paper, and then saving the file on 

your computer’s hard drive. You will attach that file as your submission. New 

eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “Sign-up” or 

“eRegister.” You will be asked to select the type of filing your are making. A 

comment on a particular project is considered a “Comment on a Filing;” 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Docket No. CP09-54-000

- 3 -

3) You may file your comments via mail to the Commission by sending an original 

and two copies of your letter to:

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

888 First St. NE; Room 1A

Washington, DC 20426; 

label one copy of your comments for the attention of the Gas Branch 1, PJ-11.1 

and reference Docket No. CP09-54-000 on the original and both copies; and 

4) In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the FERC invites you to 

attend one of the public comment meetings the staff will conduct in the project 

area to receive comments on the draft EIS. All meetings will begin at 7:00 

p.m., local time, and are scheduled as follows:

Date Location

July 21, 2009 Malin Community Hall

2307 Front Street

Malin, OR 97623

July 22, 2009 Elks Lodge

323 N. F Street

Lakeview, OR 97630

July 23, 2009 Winnemucca Convention Center

50 W. Winnemucca Blvd.

Winnemucca, NV 89445

July 27, 2009 Brigham City Senior Center

24 N 300 W

Brigham City, UT 84302

July 28, 2009 Hilton Garden Inn

3650 East Idaho St.

Elko, NV 89801

July 29, 2009 Kemmerer Senior Center

105 J.C. Penney Drive

Kemmerer, WY 83101

July 30, 2009 Hyrum Civic Center

83 W. Main St.

Hyrum, UT 84319

Interested groups and individuals are encouraged to attend and present oral 

comments on the draft EIS. Transcripts of the meetings will be prepared.

After the comments are reviewed, any significant new issues are investigated, and 

modifications are made to the draft EIS, a final EIS will be published and distributed. 

The final EIS will contain the staff’s responses to timely comments received on the draft 

EIS.

Comments will be considered by the Commission but will not serve to make the 

commentor a party to the proceeding. Any person seeking to become a party to the 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Docket No. CP09-54-000

- 4 -

proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214). Anyone may intervene in this 

proceeding based on this draft EIS. You must file your request to intervene as specified 

above.1 Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission’s decision. 

You do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.

The draft EIS has been placed in the public files of the FERC, BLM, and USFS

and is available for public inspection at: 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission

Public Reference Room

888 First Street NE, Room 2A

Washington, DC 20426

(202) 502-8371

U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

Wyoming State Office

PO Box 1828

Cheyenne, WY 82003

Kemmerer Field Office

312 Highway 189 N

Kemmerer, WY 83101

Utah State Office

440 West 200 South, Suite 500

Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0155

Salt Lake Field Office

2370 South 2300 West

Salt Lake City, UT 84119

Nevada State Office

1340 Financial Blvd.

Reno, NV 89502

Elko District Office

3900 E. Idaho Street

Elko, NV 89801

Winnemucca District Office

5100 E. Winnemucca Blvd.

Winnemucca, NV 89445

Surprise Field Office

602 Cressler Street

Cedarville, CA 96104

Oregon State Office

333 SW First Avenue

Portland, OR 97204

Lakeview Office

1301 S. G Street

Lakeview, OR 97630

Klamath Falls Office

2795 Anderson Avenue, Bldg. #25

Klamath Falls, OR 97603

U.S. Forest Service

Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest, Ogden Ranger District

507 25th Street

Ogden, UT 84401

Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest, Salt Lake Office

8256 Federal Building

125 S. State Street

Salt Lake City, UT 84138

Fremont-Winema National Forest

1301 S. G Street

Lakeview, OR 97630

U.S. Forest Service Intermountain 

Regional Office

324 25th Street

Ogden, UT 84401

 

1

Interventions may also be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See the previous 

discussion on filing comments electronically.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Docket No. CP09-54-000

- 5 -

A limited number of hard copies and CD-ROMs of the draft EIS are available 

from the FERC’s Public Reference Room identified above. This draft EIS is also 

available for public viewing on the FERC’s Internet website at www.ferc.gov. In 

addition, copies of the draft EIS have been mailed to federal, state, and local government 

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

intervenors in the FERC’s proceeding; individuals who provided scoping comments; 

affected landowners and individuals who requested the draft EIS; and new landowners 

identified as being crossed by route alternatives either recommended by FERC staff or 

stuill under consideration. 

Route Alternatives Recommended or Considered by FERC in the Draft EIS

Some landowners are receiving this draft EIS because their property has been 

identified as potentially being affected by certain route alternatives recommended or 

considered by FERC staff to avoid or lessen environmental impacts along Ruby’s 

proposed pipeline route in several locations. Refer to the discussion of the Terrace Basin, 

Willow Creek, Southern Langell Valley, Sheldon, and Black Rock Route Alternatives in 

section 3.4 of the draft EIS. Please note that while staff has recommended the use of the 

first three listed alternatives, a decision whether or not to recommend use of the Sheldon 

Route Alternative or Black Rock Route Alternative has not yet been made. The 

Commission staff wants to ensure that all potentially affected landowners have the 

opportunity to participate in the environmental review process, thus staff is soliciting

comments to assist with the environmental analysis of these route alternatives, which will 

be presented in the final EIS. 

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 Internet website 

(http://www.ferc.gov). Using the “eLibrary” link, select “General Search” from the 

eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and “Docket Number,” excluding the last 

three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP09-54), and follow the instructions. You 

may also search using the phrase “Ruby Pipeline Project” in the “Text Search” field. For 

assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at 1-866-208-3676, TTY 

(202) 502-8659, or at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov. The eLibrary link on the FERC 

Internet website also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the 

Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription that allows 

you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This 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. To register for this service, go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

Kimberly D. Bose

Secretary

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Ruby Pipeline Project

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

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

LIST OF APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................... VII

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................ VIII

LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................................................... IX

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................ XII

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

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

1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED......................................................................................1-3

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS STATEMENT ............................................................1-3

1.3 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT ................................................................................1-5

1.4 NON-JURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES............................................................................1-10

1.5 PERMITS, APPROVALS, AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS..........................1-13

1.5.1 Conformance with Resource Management Plans ........................................1-14

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..................................................................................2-1

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

2.2.1 Pipeline Facilities...........................................................................................2-5

2.2.2 Aboveground Facilities..................................................................................2-6

2.3 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES.....................................................................................2-8

2.3.1 General Pipeline Construction Procedures ....................................................2-8

2.3.1.1 Survey and Staking ............................................................................2-10

2.3.1.2 Clearing and Grading .........................................................................2-10

2.3.1.3 Trenching ...........................................................................................2-11

2.3.1.4 Pipe Stringing, Bending, and Welding...............................................2-11

2.3.1.5 Lowering-in and Backfilling..............................................................2-12

2.3.1.6 Hydrostatic Testing............................................................................2-13

2.3.1.7 Cleanup and Restoration ....................................................................2-13

2.3.1.8 Commissioning ..................................................................................2-14

2.3.1.9 Post-Construction Monitoring............................................................2-14

2.3.2 Special Pipeline Construction Procedures...................................................2-15

2.3.2.1 Wetland Crossings .............................................................................2-15

2.3.2.2 Waterbody Crossings.........................................................................2-17

2.3.2.3 Road and Railroad Crossings.............................................................2-20

2.3.2.4 Utility Crossings ................................................................................2-21

2.3.2.5 Steep Terrain......................................................................................2-21

2.3.2.6 Geologic Faults..................................................................................2-21

2.3.2.7 Blasting ..............................................................................................2-22

2.3.3 Aboveground Facility Construction.............................................................2-22

2.4 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE........................................................................................2-23

2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTION, COMPLIANCE MONITORING, AND POSTAPPROVAL VARIANCES................................................................................................2-23

2.5.1 Environmental Inspection ............................................................................2-23

2.5.2 Compliance Monitoring...............................................................................2-25

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
II

2.5.3 Post-Approval Variance Process..................................................................2-25

2.6 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE..............................................................................2-26

2.6.1 Right-of-Way Monitoring and Maintenance................................................2-26

2.6.2 Pipeline and Compressor Station Integrity ..................................................2-27

2.7 FUTURE PLANS AND ABANDONMENT.....................................................................2-27

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 ..............................................................................................3-5

3.2.4 Fossil Fuels....................................................................................................3-5

3.3 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES................................................................................................3-6

3.4 MAJOR ROUTE ALTERNATIVES....................................................................................3-8

3.4.1 Northern Route Alternative............................................................................3-9

3.4.2 Central Route Alternative ............................................................................3-12

3.4.3 North Kemmerer Route Alternative.............................................................3-13

3.4.4 Route 30 Alternative ....................................................................................3-15

3.4.5 Questar Route Alternative............................................................................3-15

3.4.6 South Brigham City Route Alternative........................................................3-16

3.4.7 Terrace Basin Route Alternative..................................................................3-19

3.4.8 West-wide Energy Corridor Route Alternative ...........................................3-21

3.4.9 AT&T East Route Alternative .....................................................................3-22

3.4.10 Willow Creek Route Alternative .................................................................3-25

3.4.11 Sheldon Route Alternative...........................................................................3-27

3.4.12 Black Rock Route Alternative .....................................................................3-32

3.4.13 Jungo-Tuscarora Route Alternative .............................................................3-36

3.4.14 Southern Langell Valley Route Alternative.................................................3-39

3.5 ROUTE VARIATIONS ......................................................................................................3-41

3.5.1 Ryckman Creek Route Variation .................................................................3-41

3.5.2 Sheep Mountain Road Route Variation .......................................................3-44

3.5.3 Woodruff East Route Variation ...................................................................3-44

3.5.4 Woodruff West Route Variation..................................................................3-47

3.5.5 Prasthofer Route Variation ..........................................................................3-47

3.5.6 South End Brigham Bench Route Variation................................................3-49

3.5.7 Brigham Bench Route Variation..................................................................3-51

3.5.8 North End Brigham Bench Route Variation................................................3-51

3.5.9 Roper Route Variation .................................................................................3-52

3.5.10 Peterson Pond Route Variation....................................................................3-52

3.5.11 ATK Route Variation...................................................................................3-55

3.5.12 State Route 30 Variation..............................................................................3-57

3.5.13 Tabor Ranch Route Variation ......................................................................3-57

3.5.14 VORTAC Route Variation ..........................................................................3-60

3.5.15 Bud Garrett Marsh Rookery Route Variation..............................................3-60

3.6 ABOVEGROUND FACILITY SITE ALTERNATIVES.................................................3-63

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...........................................................4-2

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

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

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
III

4.1.2.2 Oil and Gas Production ........................................................................4-7

4.1.2.3 Geothermal Extraction and Carbon Sequestration...............................4-7

4.1.3 Geologic Hazards...........................................................................................4-8

4.1.3.1 Seismicity.............................................................................................4-8

4.1.3.2 Landslides ..........................................................................................4-10

4.1.3.3 Subsidence .........................................................................................4-11

4.1.3.4 Volcanism ..........................................................................................4-12

4.1.4 Paleontological Resources...........................................................................4-13

4.2 SOILS...................................................................................................................................4-14

4.2.1 Standard Soil Limitations ............................................................................4-14

4.2.1.1 Erosion Potential................................................................................4-18

4.2.1.2 Prime Farmland..................................................................................4-19

4.2.1.3 Compaction Potential.........................................................................4-20

4.2.1.4 Stony-Rocky or Droughty Soils.........................................................4-20

4.2.1.5 Hydric Soils........................................................................................4-21

4.2.1.6 Shallow Bedrock................................................................................4-21

4.2.2 Other Soil Limitations..................................................................................4-21

4.2.2.1 Surface Horizon Alkalinity ................................................................4-22

4.2.2.2 Cryptobiotic Crusts............................................................................4-22

4.2.2.3 Playas.................................................................................................4-23

4.2.3 Spill/Contamination Prevention...................................................................4-23

4.2.4 Topsoil Segregation .....................................................................................4-24

4.3 WATER RESOURCES.......................................................................................................4-24

4.3.1 Groundwater ................................................................................................4-24

4.3.1.1 Sole-Source and Protected Aquifers ..................................................4-26

4.3.1.2 General Impacts and Mitigation.........................................................4-26

4.3.1.3 Water Supply Wells and Springs .......................................................4-28

4.3.1.4 Accidental Spills of Hazardous Materials..........................................4-31

4.3.1.5 Blasting ..............................................................................................4-32

4.3.2 Surface Waters.............................................................................................4-32

4.3.2.1 State Water Classifications ................................................................4-35

4.3.2.2 Sensitive Waterbodies........................................................................4-39

4.3.2.3 Potential Surface Water Impacts........................................................4-40

4.3.2.4 Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures.........................4-40

4.3.2.5 Horizontal Directional Drill Crossing Method...................................4-46

4.3.2.6 Hydrostatic Testing and Dust Control................................................4-47

4.3.3 Wetlands ......................................................................................................4-50

4.3.3.1 Potential Wetland Impacts .................................................................4-52

4.3.3.1 Wetland Construction and Mitigation Procedures.............................4-53

4.3.3.2 Wetland Restoration...........................................................................5-54

4.3.3.3 Wetlands of Special Concern or Value ..............................................4-55

4.4 VEGETATION....................................................................................................................4-55

4.4.1 Vegetation Resources...................................................................................4-56

4.4.1.1 General Vegetation Impacts...............................................................4-58

4.4.1.2 Construction and Restoration Procedures..........................................4-60

4.4.1.3 Aboveground Facilities......................................................................4-61

4.4.2 Vegetation Communities of Special Concern or Value ...............................4-61

4.4.2.1 Rogger Meadow.................................................................................4-61

4.4.3 Riparian Habitats .........................................................................................4-62

4.4.4 Conservation Reserve Program....................................................................4-64

4.4.5 Vegetation Habitat Categorization...............................................................4-64

4.4.6 Noxious Weeds and Other Invasive Plants..................................................4-65

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
IV

4.4.7 Vegetation Pathogens...................................................................................4-67

4.4.8 Habitat Fragmentation and Edge Effect.......................................................4-69

4.4.9 Wild Harvesting...........................................................................................4-70

4.4.10 Timber Removal ..........................................................................................4-70

4.4.11 Fire Regimes................................................................................................4-71

4.5 WILDLIFE...........................................................................................................................4-73

4.5.1 Wildlife Resources.......................................................................................4-73

4.5.1.1 General Wildlife Impacts and Mitigation...........................................4-73

4.5.1.2 Habitat Fragmentation and Edge Effect.............................................4-75

4.5.1.3 Noise ..................................................................................................4-77

4.5.1.4 Noxious and Invasive Species............................................................4-78

4.5.1.5 Aboveground Facilities......................................................................4-78

4.5.2 Big Game Species........................................................................................4-78

4.5.3 Small Game Species ....................................................................................4-81

4.5.4 Game Harvesting .........................................................................................4-82

4.5.5 Raptors and Other Migratory Birds .............................................................4-82

4.5.6 Special Wildlife Areas.................................................................................4-86

4.6 FISHERIES AND AQUATIC RESOURCES....................................................................4-87

4.6.1 General Fisheries and Aquatic Resources....................................................4-87

4.6.1.1 Sediment and Turbidity......................................................................4-87

4.6.1.2 Timing of Construction......................................................................4-88

4.6.1.3 Vegetation Removal and Streambank Erosion...................................4-89

4.6.1.4 Contaminated Sediment Resuspension ..............................................4-89

4.6.1.5 Entrainment and Entrapment..............................................................4-90

4.6.1.6 Water Temperature.............................................................................4-90

4.6.1.7 Blasting ..............................................................................................4-90

4.6.1.8 Hydrostatic Testing and Water Withdrawals.....................................4-91

4.6.1.9 Fuel and Chemical Spills ...................................................................4-92

4.6.1.10 Pipeline Rupture.................................................................................4-92

4.6.2 Invasive Fisheries Species ...........................................................................4-93

4.7 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES............................................................................................4-94

4.7.1 General Measures to Minimize Impacts on Special Status Species.............4-95

4.7.2 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species ................................4-96

4.7.2.1 Black-footed Ferret ............................................................................4-96

4.7.2.2 Lahontan Cutthroat Trout.................................................................4-105

4.7.2.3 Endangered Colorado River Fish.....................................................4-107

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

 Warner Sucker..................................................................................4-108

4.7.2.5 Slender Orcutt Grass and Greene’s Tuctoria....................................4-109

4.7.2.6 Ute ladies’-tresses............................................................................4-110

4.7.3 Federally Petitioned or Candidate Species................................................. 4-111

4.7.3.1 Greater Sage-Grouse ........................................................................ 4-111

4.7.3.2 Yellow-billed Cuckoo ......................................................................4-115

4.7.3.3 Pygmy Rabbit...................................................................................4-115

4.7.3.4 White-tailed Prairie Dog ..................................................................4-117

4.7.3.5 Northern Leatherside Chub..............................................................4-117

4.7.3.6 Columbia Spotted Frog ....................................................................4-118

4.7.4 Sensitive and State-Listed Species.............................................................4-119

4.7.4.1 Sagebrush Steppe Habitat Association.............................................4-120

4.7.4.2 Grassland Habitat Association .........................................................4-120

4.7.4.3 Salt Desert Scrub Habitat Association .............................................4-121

4.7.4.4 Mixed Conifer Forest Habitat Association.......................................4-121

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
V

4.7.4.5 Wetland Habitat Association............................................................4-122

4.7.4.6 Juniper Woodland Habitat Association............................................4-122

4.7.4.7 Riparian Habitat Association ...........................................................4-123

4.7.4.8 Coldwater Fishery Habitat Association............................................4-123

4.7.4.9 Warmwater Fishery Habitat Association .........................................4-124

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

Species......................................................................4-124

4.7.4.11 Summary of Conservation Measures for Agency Sensitive and StateListed Species..............................................................4-125

4.8 LAND USE AND VISUAL RESOURCES .....................................................................4-126

4.8.1 General Impacts and Mitigation.................................................................4-126

4.8.1.1 Open Land........................................................................................4-130

4.8.1.2 Forested Land...................................................................................4-130

4.8.1.3 Agricultural Land.............................................................................4-130

4.8.1.4 Developed Land ...............................................................................4-132

4.8.1.5 Open Water ......................................................................................4-133

4.8.2 Land Ownership.........................................................................................4-133

4.8.2.1 Federal Land ....................................................................................4-134

4.8.3 Recreation and Special Interest Areas .......................................................4-138

4.8.3.1 National Forest Campground ...........................................................4-138

4.8.3.2 National Trails..................................................................................4-138

4.8.3.3 National Wild and Scenic Rivers.....................................................4-139

4.8.3.4 National Scenic Byways ..................................................................4-140

4.8.3.5 Other Recreational Areas.................................................................4-141

4.8.3.6 Wild Horses and Burros...................................................................4-142

4.8.4 Visual Resources........................................................................................4-142

4.8.4.1 Visual Resource Federal Land Classifications.................................4-143

4.8.4.2 Impacts and Mitigation ....................................................................4-145

4.9 SOCIOECONOMICS .......................................................................................................4-148

4.9.1 Population and Employment......................................................................4-148

4.9.2 Housing......................................................................................................4-151

4.9.3 Public Services...........................................................................................4-154

4.9.4 Transportation............................................................................................4-155

4.9.5 Property Values..........................................................................................4-157

4.9.6 Economy and Tax Revenues......................................................................4-157

4.9.7 Environmental Justice................................................................................4-159

4.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................4-162

4.10.1 Cultural Resource Surveys.........................................................................4-163

4.10.1.1 Wyoming.........................................................................................4-163

4.10.1.2 Utah.................................................................................................4-163

4.10.1.3 Nevada ............................................................................................4-164

4.10.1.4 Oregon.............................................................................................4-164

4.10.2 Unanticipated Discovery Plans..................................................................4-165

4.10.3 Native American Consultation and Ruby Tribal Coordination..................4-165

4.10.4 Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act..........................4-174

4.11 AIR QUALITY & NOISE ................................................................................................4-175

4.11.1 Air Quality .................................................................................................4-175

4.11.1.1 Existing Air Quality........................................................................4-176

4.11.1.2 Air Quality Regulatory Requirements ............................................4-181

4.11.1.3 Construction Impacts on Air Quality ..............................................4-188

4.11.1.4 Operational Impacts on Air Quality................................................4-190

4.11.2 Noise ..........................................................................................................4-192

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
VI

4.11.2.1 Noise Regulatory Requirements .....................................................4-193

4.11.2.2 Existing Noise Environment ...........................................................4-193

4.11.2.3 Construction Noise..........................................................................4-194

4.11.2.4 Operational Noise ...........................................................................4-196

4.12 RELIABILITY AND SAFETY........................................................................................4-198

4.12.1 Safety Standards ........................................................................................4-198

4.12.2 Pipeline Accident Data ..............................................................................4-202

4.12.3 Impact on Public Safety.............................................................................4-205

4.12.4 Terrorism and Security Issues....................................................................4-206

4.13 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS...............................................................................................4-207

4.13.1 Geology......................................................................................................4-211

4.13.2 Soils ...........................................................................................................4-212

4.13.3 Water Resources........................................................................................4-213

4.13.4 Vegetation..................................................................................................4-214

4.13.5 Wildlife, Fisheries, and Special Status Species .........................................2-214

4.13.6 Land Use and Visual Resources ................................................................4-215

4.13.7 Socioeconomics.........................................................................................4-216

4.13.8 Cultural Resources.....................................................................................4-217

4.13.9 Air Quality and Noise ................................................................................4-218

4.13.10 Reliability and Safety.................................................................................4-221

4.13.11 Conclusion .................................................................................................4-222

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 ...............................................................................................................5-2

5.1.3 Water Resources............................................................................................5-2

5.1.4 Vegetation......................................................................................................5-4

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

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

5.1.7 Special Status Species....................................................................................5-6

5.1.8 Land Use and Visual Resources ....................................................................5-7

5.1.9 Socioeconomics.............................................................................................5-8

5.1.10 Cultural Resources and Native American Consultation ................................5-8

5.1.11 Air Quality and Noise ....................................................................................5-9

5.1.12 Reliability and Safety...................................................................................5-10

5.1.13 Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................5-10

5.1.14 Alternatives Considered...............................................................................5-10

5.2 FERC STAFF’S RECOMMENDED MITIGATION........................................................5-12

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
VII

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Draft EIS Distribution List for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Appendix B Facility Location Maps for the Ruby Pipeline Project

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

Appendix D Temporary Extra Workspaces, Staging Areas, Water Appropriation Sites, 

Contractor and Pipe Yards, and Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Appendix E Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan

Appendix F Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures

Appendix G Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan

Appendix H Paleontological Resources Monitoring Plan 

Appendix I Waste and Spill Management Specification 

Appendix J Hydrostatic Test Plan

Appendix K Preliminary Reclamation Plan

Appendix L Draft Blasting Plan

Appendix M Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

Appendix N Wetlands Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

Appendix O Preliminary Wetland Mitigation Report

Appendix P Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan

Appendix Q Sensitive and State-listed Species Considered for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Appendix R Crucial Seasonal Periods for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Appendix S Collocated Rights-of-Way for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Appendix T Traffic and Transportation Management Plan

Appendix U Draft Fugitive Dust Control Plan

Appendix V References

Appendix W List of Preparers

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
VIII

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Project Location Map......................................................................................................1-2

Figure 1.4-1 Possible Location of Nonjurisdictional Pipeline Facilities........................................... 1-11

Figure 1.4-2 Possible Location of Nonjurisdictional Electric Transmission Line............................. 1-12

Figure 2.3.1-1 Pipeline Construction Sequence .....................................................................................2-9

Figure 3.3-1 System Alternatives........................................................................................................3-7

Figure 3.4.1-1 Northern and Central Route Alternatives ..................................................................... 3-11

Figure 3.4.3-1 North Kemmerer and Route 30 Route Alternatives...................................................... 3-14

Figure 3.4.5-1 Questar Route Alternative............................................................................................. 3-17

Figure 3.4.6-1 South Brigham City Route Alternative......................................................................... 3-18

Figure 3.4.7-1 Terrace Basin Route Alternative................................................................................... 3-20

Figure 3.4.8.1 West-Wide Energy Corridor Route Alternative............................................................ 3-23

Figure 3.4.9-1 AT&T East Route Alternative ...................................................................................... 3-24

Figure 3.4.10-1 Willow Creek Route Alternative .................................................................................. 3-26

Figure 3.4.11-1 Sheldon Route Alternative............................................................................................ 3-28

Figure 3.4.12-1 Black Rock Route Alternative ...................................................................................... 3-33

Figure 3.4.13-1 Jungo-Tuscarora Route Alternative .............................................................................. 3-37

Figure 3.4.14-1 Southern Langell Valley Route Alternative.................................................................. 3-40

Figure 3.5.1-1 Ryckman Creek Route Variation.................................................................................. 3-43

Figure 3.5.2-1 Sheep Mountain Road Variation................................................................................... 3-45

Figure 3.5.3-1 Woodruff East and West Route Variation .................................................................... 3-46

Figure 3.5.5-1 Prasthofer Route Variation ........................................................................................... 3-48

Figure 3.5.6-1 North End, South End, and Brigham Bench Route Variations..................................... 3-50

Figure 3.5.9-1 Roper Route Variation .................................................................................................. 3-53

Figure 3.5.10-1 Peterson Pond Route Variation..................................................................................... 3-54

Figure 3.5.11-1 ATK Route Variation.................................................................................................... 3-56

Figure 3.5.12-1 State Route 30 Route Variation .................................................................................... 3-58

Figure 3.5.13-1 Tabor Ranch Route Variation ....................................................................................... 3-59

Figure 3.5.14-1 VORTAC Route Variation ........................................................................................... 3-61

Figure 3.5.15-1 Bud Garrett Marsh Rookery Variation ......................................................................... 3-62

Figure 4.3.2-1 Major Watershed Basins............................................................................................... 4-33

Figure 4.13-1 Present and Foreseeable Projects................................................................................ 4-209

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
IX

LIST OF TABLES

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

Table 1.3-1 Open House and Public Scoping Meetings for the Ruby Pipeline Project .....................1-6

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

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

Table 1.5-1 Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Ruby Pipeline Project............... 1-17

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................................2-3

Table 2.2.1-1 Pipeline Land Requirements for the Ruby Pipeline Project ...........................................2-6

Table 2.2.2-1 Aboveground Facility Site Dimensions for the Ruby Pipeline Project...........................2-7

Table 2.2.2-2 Aboveground Facility Land Requirements for the Ruby Pipeline Project .....................2-7

Table 2.3.2-1 In-stream Construction Timing Windows for the Ruby Pipeline Project..................... 2-18

Table 3.2.4-1 Comparison of Air Emissions from Burning Fossil Fuels..............................................3-6

Table 3.4-1 Route Alternatives Summary for the Ruby Pipeline Project ..........................................3-9

Table 3.4.1-1 Northern Route Alternative Comparison ...................................................................... 3-10

Table 3.4.2-1 Central Route Alternative Comparison......................................................................... 3-12

Table 3.4.3-1 North Kemmerer Route Alternative Comparison ......................................................... 3-13

Table 3.4.4-1 Route 30 Alternative Comparison ................................................................................ 3-15

Table 3.4.5-1 Questar Route Alternative Comparison ........................................................................ 3-16

Table 3.4.6-1 South Brigham City Route Alternative Comparison .................................................... 3-16

Table 3.4.7-1 Terrace Basin Route Alternative Comparison .............................................................. 3-19

Table 3.4.9-1 AT&T East Route Alternative Comparison.................................................................. 3-22

Table 3.4.10-1 Willow Creek Route Alternative Comparison.............................................................. 3-25

Table 3.4.11-1 Sheldon Route Alternative Comparison ....................................................................... 3-29

Table 3.4.12-1 Black Rock Route Alternative Comparison.................................................................. 3-32

Table 3.4.13-1 Jungo-Tuscarora Route Alternative Comparison.......................................................... 3-36

Table 3.4.14-1 Southern Langell Valley Route Alternative Comparison ............................................. 3-39

Table 3.5-1 Route Variation Summary for the Ruby Pipeline Project............................................. 3-42

Table 3.5.1-1 Ryckman Creek Route Variation Comparison.............................................................. 3-42

Table 3.5.2-1 Sheep Mountain Road Route Variation Comparison.................................................... 3-44

Table 3.5.3-1 Woodruff East Route Variation Comparison................................................................ 3-44

Table 3.5.4-1 Woodruff West Route Variation Comparison .............................................................. 3-47

Table 3.5.5-1 Prasthofer Route Variation Comparison....................................................................... 3-49

Table 3.5.6-1 South End Brigham Bench Route Variation Comparison ............................................ 3-49

Table 3.5.7-1 Brigham Bench Route Variation Comparison .............................................................. 3-51

Table 3.5.8-1 North End Brigham Bench Route Variation Comparison ............................................ 3-51

Table 3.5.9-1 Roper Route Variation Comparison.............................................................................. 3-52

Table 3.5.10-1 Peterson Pond Route Variation Comparison ................................................................ 3-55

Table 3.5.11-1 ATK Route Variation Comparison ............................................................................... 3-55

Table 3.5.12-1 State Route 30 Variation Comparison .......................................................................... 3-57

Table 3.5.13-1 Tabor Ranch Route Variation Comparison................................................................... 3-57

Table 3.5.14-1 VORTAC Route Variation Comparison....................................................................... 3-60

Table 3.5.15-1 Bud Garrett March Rookery Route Variation Comparison .......................................... 3-63

Table 4.1.1-1 Geologic Conditions Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project...........................................4-2

Table 4.1.2-1 Mineral Resources within 1,500 feet of the Construction Workspace for the Ruby 

Pipeline Project...............................................................................................................4-5

Table 4.1.3-1 Faults with Recurrence Intervals/Displacement Crossed or within 1,500 feet of 

the Ruby Pipeline Project ...............................................................................................4-8

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

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

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
X

Table 4.1.3-3 Areas of Karst/Pseudokarst Terrain Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project ................. 4-12

Table 4.2.1-1 Soil Limitations (Pipeline) for the Ruby Pipeline Project ............................................ 4-15

Table 4.2.1-2 Soil Limitations (Aboveground Facilities) for the Ruby Pipeline Project.................... 4-16

Table 4.2.2-1 Location of Playas Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project............................................ 4-23

Table 4.3.1-1 Water Supply Wells Within 300 Feet of the Ruby Pipeline Project............................. 4-29

Table 4.3.1-2 Springs Within 300 Feet of the Ruby Pipeline Project ................................................. 4-30

Table 4.3.2-1 Major Watershed Basins Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project .................................. 4-34

Table 4.3.2-2 Summary of Surface Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project.................... 4-35

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

along the Ruby Pipeline Project.................................................................................... 4-36

Table 4.3.2-4 303(d)-Listed Waterbodies in Nevada Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project ............. 4-38

Table 4.3.2-5 303(d)-Listed Waterbodies in Oregon Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project.............. 4-39

Table 4.3.2-6 Waterbodies Containing Special Status Species and Proposed for Wet Open-cut 

Crossings for the Ruby Pipeline Project ....................................................................... 4-43

Table 4.3.2-7 Proposed Hydrostatic Test Water and Dust Control Water Sources for the Ruby 

Pipeline Project............................................................................................................. 4-47

Table 4.3.2-8 Historic Flow Data and Time Required to Appropriate Water for the Ruby 

Pipeline Project............................................................................................................. 4-48

Table 4.3.3-1 Summary of Wetlands Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project...................................... 4-51

Table 4.4.1-1 Upland Vegetation Communities Occurring along the Ruby Pipeline Project............. 4-57

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

Pipeline Project............................................................................................................. 4-59

Table 4.4.3-1 Woody Riparian Habitat Crossed by the Proposed Ruby Pipeline Project................... 4-63

Table 4.5.1-1 Wildlife Species Common to the Ruby Pipeline Project Area ..................................... 4-74

Table 4.5.2-1 Big Game Habitat Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project............................................. 4-79

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

for the Ruby Pipeline Project........................................................................................ 4-81

Table 4.5.5-1 Raptor Nests Identified in 2008 Within 0.5-Mile of the Ruby Pipeline Project........... 4-84

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

Pipeline Project............................................................................................................. 4-85

Table 4.7-1 Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Petitioned Species for the Ruby 

Pipeline Project............................................................................................................. 4-97

Table 4.7.2-1 Perennial Waterbodies that May Support Lahontan Cutthroat Trout ......................... 4-105

Table 4.7.2-2 Known Locations and Critical Habitat for Lost River Sucker, Modoc Sucker, 

Shortnose Sucker, and Warner Sucker for the Ruby Pipeline Project ........................ 4-109

Table 4.7.3-1 Greater Sage-Grouse Features Associated with the Ruby Pipeline Project................ 4-111

Table 4.7.3-2 Aboveground Facilities, Access Roads, and Staging Areas Near Active SageGrouse Leks for the Ruby Pipeline Project................................................................. 4-112

Table 4.7.3-3 Pygmy Rabbit Observations Along the Ruby Pipeline Project................................... 4-116

Table 4.7.3-4 Potential Suitable Habitat for the Columbia Spotted Frog along the Ruby 

Pipeline Project........................................................................................................... 4-118

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

Steppe Habitat along the Ruby Pipeline Project ......................................................... 4-120

Table 4.7.4-2 Summary of Sensitive and State-Listed Species Associated with Grassland 

Habitat along the Ruby Pipeline Project..................................................................... 4-121

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

Scrub Habitat along the Ruby Pipeline Project........................................................... 4-121

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

Forest Habitat along the Ruby Pipeline Project.......................................................... 4-122

Table 4.7.4-5 Summary of Sensitive and State-Listed Species Associated with Wetland Habitat 

along the Ruby Pipeline Project.................................................................................. 4-122

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
XI

Table 4.7.4-6 Summary of Sensitive and State-Listed Species Associated with Juniper 

Woodland Forest Habitat along the Ruby Pipeline Project ........................................ 4-123

Table 4.7.4-7 Summary of Sensitive and State-Listed Species Associated with Riparian Forest 

Habitat along the Ruby Pipeline Project..................................................................... 4-123

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

Project (in acres)......................................................................................................... 4-127

Table 4.8.1-2 Collocated and Parallel Rights-of-Way for the Ruby Pipeline Project....................... 4-129

Table 4.8.2-1 Federal and Private Lands Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project.............................. 4-134

Table 4.8.4-1 VRM Class II Areas Crossed or Adjacent to the Ruby Pipeline Project .................... 4-144

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

Pipeline Project........................................................................................................... 4-149

Table 4.9.1-2 Estimated Construction Workforce for the Ruby Pipeline Project ............................. 4-150

Table 4.9.2-1 Vacant Accommodation Housing Units for the Ruby Pipeline Project...................... 4-152

Table 4.9.2-2 Vacant Accommodation Units in Counties within 50 miles of Contractor Yards 

for the Ruby Pipeline Project...................................................................................... 4-153

Table 4.9.6-1 Total Estimated Economic Output for the Ruby Pipeline Project (in millions) ......... 4-158

Table 4.9.6-2 Estimated Annual Property (Ad Valorem) Tax for the Ruby Pipeline Project........... 4-159

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

percent) ....................................................................................................................... 4-160

Table 4.9.7-2 Economic Statistics for Counties Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project ................... 4-161

Table 4.10.3-1 Native American Consultations for the Ruby Pipeline Project................................... 4-166

Table 4.11.1-1 Proposed Compressor Stations for the Ruby Pipeline Project.................................... 4-176

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

Project Area ................................................................................................................ 4-177

Table 4.11.1-3 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards for the Ruby Pipeline Project ...... 4-178

Table 4.11.1-4 Ambient Air Quality Measurements for the Ruby Pipeline Project ........................... 4-181

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

on the Ruby Pipeline Project....................................................................................... 4-182

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

Ruby Pipeline Project ................................................................................................. 4-184

Table 4.11.1-7 Project Emissions vs. General Conformity Thresholds for the Ruby Pipeline 

Project......................................................................................................................... 4-187

Table 4.11.1-8 Applicable Fugitive Dust Regulations for the Ruby Pipeline Project......................... 4-189

Table 4.11.1-9 Annual GHG Emissions Estimates from Pipeline and Compressor Station 

Operation for the Ruby Pipeline Project..................................................................... 4-191

Table 4.11.1-10 Dispersion Modeling Results for the Ruby Pipeline Project ...................................... 4-192

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 .......................................... 4-194

Table 4.11.2-2 Construction Noise from Typical Pipeline Construction Equipment Activities......... 4-195

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

Activity ....................................................................................................................... 4-196

Table 4.11.2-4 Operational Noise Level Summary at NSAs for the Ruby Pipeline Project............... 4-196

Table 4.11.2-5 Projected Sound Levels for a Blowdown Event for the Ruby Pipeline Project.......... 4-197

Table 4.12.1-1 Class Locations for the Ruby Pipeline Project ........................................................... 4-200

Table 4.12.2-1 Natural Gas Service Incidents by Cause..................................................................... 4-203

Table 4.12.2-2 Outside Forces Incidents by Cause ............................................................................. 4-204

Table 4.12.2-3 Corrosion-related Incidents......................................................................................... 4-205

Table 4.12.3-1 Nationwide Accidental Fatalities Per Year from Various Hazards (2000-2005) ....... 4-206

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

Area of the Ruby Pipeline Project .............................................................................. 4-208

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
XII

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards

ACAD Antelope Creek Archaeological District

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

AT&T American Telephone and Telegraph

AQCR Air Quality Control Regions

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 Bureau of Land Management

Btu British thermal units

CAA Clean Air Act

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plans

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CH4 methane

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

CO2e CO2 equivalent

COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Certificate Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cfs cubic feet per second

CRP Conservation Reserve Program

CWA Clean Water Act

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act

dB decibels

dBA decibels on the A-weighted scale

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

Dth/d dekatherms per day

EI Environmental Inspector 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPAct 2005 Energy Policy Act of 2005

ESA Endangered Species Act

°F degrees Fahrenheit

FERC or Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FR Federal Register

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

FWS U.S. Department of 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

hp horsepower

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
XIII

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code

ISO International Organization for Standardization

Kern River Kern River Gas Transmission Company

KOP Key Observation Points

lb/hr pounds per hour

Ldn day-night sound level

Leq(24) 24-hour equivalent 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

MLA Mineral Leasing Act

MLV mainline valve

MP milepost

MSFCMA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

N2O nitrous oxide

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NCA National Conservation Area

NDEP Nevada Division of Environmental Protection

NDOW Nevada Department of Wildlife

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

NF National Forest

NGA Natural Gas Act

NGPSA Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NNSR Nonattainment New Source Review

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

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

NWI National Wetland Inventory 

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

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 on Non-Environmental Issues 

PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric Company

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

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
XIV

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 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

psig pounds per square inch gauge

Reclamation U.S. Department of 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

SMS Scenery Management System

SO2 sulfur dioxide

Spill Plan Waste and Spill Management Specification 

SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic Database

STATSGO State Soil Geographic Database

tcf trillion cubic feet

tpy tons per year

TSL toxic screening level

ug micron

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

UDAQ Utah Department of Environmental Quality–Division of Air Quality

UDWQ Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality

UDWR Utah Department of Natural Resources, 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

USITLA Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration

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 California, Oregon, and Washington

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department

Williams Northwest Williams Northwest Pipeline 

WRP Wetland Reserve Program 

WSA Wilderness Study Area

WWEC West-wide Energy Corridor

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This draft 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). 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 Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), and 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 

based on this EIS; however, the BLM would not issue a right-of-way grant 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 proposed in Ruby’s application and subsequent filings on federal lands must comply 

with the respective resource management plans of the affected federal land managing agencies, or the 

management plans must be amended. If the Ruby Pipeline Project is approved as proposed, the BLM and 

USFS would be required to amend their various resource management plans to ensure consistency. 

Reclamation and FWS would not need to amend their plans. This EIS examines the proposed action and 

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

agencies. 

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. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
ES-2

The natural gas pipeline facilities would include: 

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

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

The 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;

5 new communication towers; and

miscellaneous communications equipment installed at eight existing communication 

towers.

In addition to the natural gas pipeline and compressor facilities, the Ruby Pipeline Project would 

require construction of facilities that do not fall under the Commission’s jurisdiction. These include 

electric transmission lines in Wyoming that would be constructed by Rocky Mountain Power and minor 

intrastate natural gas pipeline facilities in California that would be constructed by Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Ruby initially contacted federal and state agencies to inform them about the project and the 

FERC’s Pre-filing Process. Subsequently, 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 

other federal, state, and local agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise to formally 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. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
ES-3

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

oral comments. Additionally, the Commission received comment letters from 10 federal agencies, 18 

state agencies, 7 local agencies, 8 Native American tribes, 26 non-governmental organizations, and 74 

individuals. This draft EIS is being mailed to those agencies, tribes, organizations, and individuals that 

attended meetings or submitted written comments on the project, as well as others shown on the mailing 

list in Appendix A.

PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 

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

environment. We1evaluated 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, migratory birds, visual resources, non-local worker

housing, and cultural resources. Our analysis of these issues is summarized below and are 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 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 105 faults or fault zones and across 3 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. Approximately 20 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 significant 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 occur. Cryptobiotic crusts can take several years to several centuries to be 

restored after alteration, depending on rainfall conditions. This could be considered a significant impact. 

Ruby would implement the mitigation measures contained its Reclamation Plan 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.

 

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

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
ES-4

Waterbody Crossings, Water Use, and Wetlands 

The proposed project would cross 1,132 ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial waterbodies and 

channels (some multiple times) within 10 watershed basins. The pipeline generally would cross 

waterbodies using the open-cut method, except at those containing sensitive species which would be 

crossed using a dry crossing method. Ruby would use about 327 million gallons of water for hydrostatic 

testing of the pipeline and dust control along the construction right-of-way. Waterbody crossings and 

water withdrawal and discharges 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), its 

Hydrostatic Test Plan, and our additional recommended measures. 

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 permanently 

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. Ruby would be 

required to follow all conditions in the COE permit, including any requirements for compensatory 

mitigation.

Federally Listed Species

Based on consultations with the FWS, 13 federally listed species (black-footed ferret, slemder 

orcutt grass, Greene’s tuctoria, Ute ladies’-tresses, and nine fish species) may be affected by the proposed 

project. We have determined that project-related 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 14,402,192 gallons (about 44 acrefeet) of water from the Hams Fork River for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. Thus, we will be entering 

formal consultation with the FWS for these four 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. 

Sagebrush Steppe Habitat and Greater Sage-Grouse

Construction of the Ruby Pipeline Project would disturb more than 12,600 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. Pipeline operation would result in permanent 

impacts on more than 2,200 acres of this habitat. Depending on site-specific conditions, even the 

temporary construction impacts on sagebrush steppe habitat could be significant as it can take as long as 

50 years 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 Endangered Species 

Act (ESA) protection. Ruby has committed to measures to minimize impacts on greater sage-grouse, 

including micro-realignment of the pipeline, pre-construction surveys, construction buffers, timing 

restrictions, and specific revegetation activities. Ruby is presently working with the BLM, FWS, USFS, 

and other agencies to evaluate the quality of sagebrush habitat along the pipeline route, and is developing 

measures to minimize impacts on this habitat type to acceptable levels. Ruby has also committed to not 

remove sagebrush during routine vegetation maintenance activities after construction. We have 

concluded that with the implementation of the proposed and recommended mitigation, the project would 

not cause population-level effects or lead to a trend toward federal listing for the greater sage-grouse.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
ES-5

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. In order to minimize these impacts, we have made recommendations that Ruby 

comply with seasonal and spatial buffer zones for nesting raptors established by resource agencies. 

Further, Ruby is in the process of preparing a Memorandum of Understanding with the FWS for the 

protection of migratory birds during construction. We expect that the Memorandum of Understanding 

will outline additional procedures to avoid direct impacts on certain migratory birds, including passerine 

species. 

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 re-established over the long term. Ruby would employ painting schemes and 

landscaping to provide visual screening at aboveground facilities where requested by land managing 

agencies or landowners. The project route would cross six visually sensitive (Class II) areas on BLMmanaged land, two visually sensitive (Partial Retention and Retention) areas on the Fremont-Winema 

National Forest, and one visually sensitive (High Scenic Integrity Objective) area on the Uinta-WasatchCache National Forest. The BLM and USFS are working with Ruby to develop site-specific plans to 

minimize visual impacts on these areas to acceptable levels. 

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. 

To address a potential lack of housing resources in northwestern Nevada, Ruby would establish a 

construction camp in Washoe County to provide temporary housing for workers during construction.

Cultural Resources 

Ruby has conducted cultural resource inventory surveys of approximately 97 percent of the 

pipeline route, as well as surveys of extra work spaces, staging areas, access roads, and aboveground 

facility sites. Ruby has identified cultural resource sites within the construction area in all states that 

would be crossed by the project (32 sites in Wyoming, 52 sites in Utah, 337 sites in Nevada, and 96 sites 

in Oregon). About 3 percent of the proposed project remains to be surveyed, including portions of the 

construction right-of-way, extra work spaces, staging areas, yards, camps, and access roads. Additional 

surveys remain to be completed for some of the route alternatives and variations. In addition, Ruby must 

still complete revisions to reports, additional evaluations, and geoarchaeological and ethnographic studies. 

Ruby has indicated that it would complete these activities by June 30, 2009. 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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
ES-6

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. 

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 

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 for the West Coast and northern Nevada would not 

be met. 

We considered two newly proposed interstate pipelines as possible system alternatives to the 

Ruby Pipeline Project. However, our review found that neither the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project nor 

the Sunstone Pipeline Project would be reasonable alternatives to Ruby. We also considered using two 

other 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 the Ruby 

Pipeline Project, and both systems would be required to construct facilities similar to those proposed by 

Ruby in order to expand their systems between the Rocky Mountain region, northern Nevada, and the 

West Coast.

We considered 14 route alternatives for the Ruby Pipeline Project to determine whether these 

alternatives would avoid or reduce impacts on the environmentally sensitive resources that would be 

crossed by the proposed pipeline. Three of these route alternatives would meet the project objectives, 

would be technically and economically feasible, and would confer an environmental advantage over the 

proposed route. Therefore, we have recommended that the three route alternatives listed below be 

incorporated into the project.

Terrace Basin Route Alternative (to avoid salt-desert shrub vegetation and potential 

wilderness characteristics);

Willow Creek Route Alternative (to maximize collocation with an existing corridor and 

avoid unique wetland habitat); and

South Langell Valley Route Alternative (to avoid Antelope Creek Archaeological 

District, reduce crossings of Reclamation-administered facilities, and avoid Wetland 

Reserve Program land).

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. While we have determined that Ruby’s proposed routes for the corresponding segments 

of these two alternatives are environmentally acceptable, we believe these route alternatives may have 

merit based on reduced resource impacts. However, because we are awaiting the results of additional 

field studies and a sagebrush habitat quality assessment, at this time there is not sufficient information to 

conclusively establish whether the proposed route or either alternative is environmentally superior. We 

are specifically requesting comments on the feasibility and environmental impacts associated with 

construction of either of these route alternatives. The additional information and comments will be 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
ES-7

considered any analyzed in the final EIS and we will recommend a final alignment in these locations at 

that time. 

We also considered 15 minor route variations for the Ruby Pipeline Project to determine whether 

these variations would avoid or reduce impacts on certain environmentally sensitive resources crossed by 

the proposed route. All of the route variations were identified by Ruby to address minor, site-specific 

landowner or resource agency concerns. We concluded that each of these 15 route variations meet the 

project objectives, are technically and economically feasible, and are preferable compared to the proposed 

route. Therefore, we have recommended that these route variations be incorporated into the project.

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 30 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 DOT 

regulations;

Ruby would implement resource- or activity-specific plans, procedures, and agreements 

(both those generated proactively by Ruby and those required specifically by federal, 

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; and

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, as necessary, before Ruby would be authorized 

to begin construction.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
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 has prepared this draft 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). The U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is participating as a 

cooperating agency1in the preparation of the EIS because the project would cross federally administered 

lands in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon. The U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation 

(Reclamation) is participating as a cooperating agency because the project and one of the recommended 

alternatives would cross federally administered canals in Oregon. The U.S. Department of Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS) is participating as a cooperating agency because of its special expertise with 

regard to fish, wildlife, and wetland and waterbody ecology, and because Ruby would use access roads on

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) system land in Nevada.2 The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service (USFS) is participating as a cooperating agency because the project would cross National Forest 

(NF) system land in Utah and Oregon. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) is participating as a cooperating agency because the project may cross land 

enrolled in the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) in Oregon. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE); 

State of Utah Public Lands Policy Coordination Office; 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 Ruby Pipeline Project would involve the construction and operation of about 677.8 miles of 

42-inch-diameter pipeline and about 160,500 horsepower (hp) of new compression.3 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. Ruby proposes to 

begin construction in February 2010 and place the pipeline in service by March 2011. Figure 1-1 

provides an overview of the proposed facilities. A detailed discussion of the proposed facilities is 

presented in section 2.

 

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.

2 The proposed project also may cross one unconfirmed parcel of NWR system land in Nevada at about milepost 549. If 

confirmed, Ruby would realign its route to avoid the parcel. Such realignment would be addressed in the final EIS. 

3 The proposed system would be capable of operating at up to 160,500 hp of new compression, although it would utilize only 

about 121,881 hp under normal operating conditions.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
1-211--22

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
1-3

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 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.

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 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 Hub4in Wyoming to four delivery interconnects with other pipeline systems in Nevada and 

the existing Malin Market Center5in Oregon. Table 1.1-1 identifies the contracted volumes established in 

the precedent transportation agreements.

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 (i.e., issues a Certificate). We6prepared this draft EIS to assess the 

environmental impact associated with the proposed project in compliance with the requirements of 

NEPA, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the procedural

provisions of NEPA in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500-1508 (40 CFR 1500-

1508), and the FERC’s regulations implementing NEPA (18 CFR 380). 

The BLM, Reclamation, FWS, USFS, NRCS, COE, the State of Utah Public Lands Policy 

Coordination Office, and the Lincoln County Board of County Commissioners are participating as 

 

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 PG&E. The 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.

6

“We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the FERC's Office of Energy Projects.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
1-4

cooperating agencies in the preparation of this EIS because of jurisdiction over part of the project area or 

because of special expertise with respect to environmental resources in the project area. As cooperating 

agencies, the BLM, Reclamation, FWS, USFS, and/or NRCS 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 

environmental analysis to meet their responsibilities under NEPA.

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.

Our principal objectives in preparing this draft 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 

environmental effects both on and offsite; and

encourage and facilitate involvement by the public and interested agencies in the 

environmental review process.

The environmental topics addressed in this draft 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; reliability and safety; and cumulative impacts. This draft EIS describes the affected environment 

as it currently exists, addresses the environmental consequences of the proposed project, and compares 

the project’s potential impact to that of alternatives. This draft EIS also presents our recommended 

mitigation measures and conclusions.

The Commission will consider the findings of the final EIS as well as non-environmental issues 

in its review of Ruby’s application to determine whether a Certificate should be issued for the Ruby 

Pipeline Project. A Certificate will be granted only if the FERC finds that the evidence produced on 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
1-5

financing, rates, market demand, gas supply, existing facilities and service, environmental impacts, longterm feasibility, and other issues demonstrates that the project is required by the public convenience and 

necessity. Environmental impact assessment and mitigation development are important factors in the 

overall public interest 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 to Ruby to cross all federal

land based on this EIS; however, the BLM would not issue a right-of-way grant until the heads of the 

BLM, Reclamation, FWS, and USFS have 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. 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.

The BLM will consider the findings of the 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 grant. If approved, the 

ROD would specify environmental protection measures to be implemented on federal lands as well as 

concurrence from Reclamation, FWS, and USFS. The FWS has indicated it would need to issue a 

separate ROD for any use of access roads and/or pipeline routing in the Sheldon NWR. 

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. 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 No. 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, 

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. 

 

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 #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
1-6

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.

TABLE 1.3-1

Open House and Public Scoping Meetings for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Datea Open House Meeting Locationb Public Scoping Meeting Locationc

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

─────────────────────────

a All dates were in 2008.

b All open house meetings were sponsored by Ruby.

c All public scoping meetings were sponsored by the FERC and the BLM.

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 formally 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 in the region 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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
1-7

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 

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. The FERC continued to review and accept comments after the close of the second scoping 

period.

In total, about 444 people attended the public scoping meetings, excluding representatives from 

Ruby, the FERC, the BLM, and the USFS. A total of 76 individuals provided oral comments on the 

project at the scoping meetings. Additionally, as of April 22, 2009, 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 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 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; 

USFS; FWS; COE; NRCS; Wyoming Department of Transportation (WDOT); Utah Department of 

Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality (UDWQ); Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

(UDWR); Utah Governor’s Energy Advisor Office (UGEAO); Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands 

Administration (USITLA); 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 the interagency meetings.

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. This EIS addresses 

all substantive comments made at the scoping meetings and sent to the FERC. Table 1.3-2 lists the 

environmental issues and concerns identified by the commenters during the scoping process and identifies 

the EIS section where the issue is addressed.

 

8 Using the “eLibrary” link, select “General Search” from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and Docket 

Number (i.e., CP09-54 and PF08-9), and follow the instructions.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
1-8

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, including wetlands enrolled in the WRP 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

4.3.2.6

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, 4.7 

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

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, 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 laserleveled 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

4.8.1.1, 4.8.3.6

Potential for problematic reclamation if grazing is allowed in disturbed areas immediately following 

construction

4.8.1.1

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

4.3.3.5, 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

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
1-9

TABLE 1.3-2 (cont.)

Environmental Issues and Concerns Identified During the Scoping Process for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Issue/Concern EIS Section Addressing 

Issue/Concern

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., Interstate 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 National Wildlife Refuge 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 #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
1-10

The FERC has issued a Notice of Availability for this draft EIS and has also filed this draft EIS 

with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for issuance of its notice of availability in the 

Federal Register which opens the formal comment period. The FERC has also mailed this draft EIS 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., landowners, miscellaneous 

individuals, and environmental groups who provided scoping comments or asked to remain on the 

mailing list) identified on the distribution list in Appendix A. The public has 45 days after the date of 

publication of the EPA’s notice in the Federal Register to file comments on the draft EIS. We also will be 

holding comment meetings for agencies and the public to provide oral comments on the draft EIS. All 

timely environmental comments on the draft EIS will be addressed in the final EIS.

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 678 

miles of new pipeline facilities, 4 new compressor stations, 4 new meter stations containing 8 

interconnects with other pipeline systems, 44 new mainline valves (MLVs), and 20 new pig9launchers or 

receivers. These facilities are described in detail in section 2.1.

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.

According to Ruby, Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) would be required to construct 

minor pipeline facilities to connect to the proposed pipeline at the Oregon-California border. These 

facilities would include up to 1,000 feet of intrastate natural gas pipeline, valves, over-pressure protection, 

communication equipment, and other appurtenant facilities. The PG&E facilities likely would be within 

or adjacent to existing PG&E rights-of-way and aboveground facilities in California. Also, Rocky 

Mountain Power would be required to construct electric transmission facilities to provide power to the 

proposed Roberson Creek Compressor Station, which consists of a 160,500 horsepower electric 

compressor unit. These facilities would include about 2.0 miles of electric transmission line, associated 

pylons, and other related components. All of the Rocky Mountain Power facilities would be located in 

Wyoming. The specific locations for these non-jurisdictional facilities have not been established at this 

time. Figures 1.4-1 and 1.4-2 illustrate our presumptive locations where the non-jurisdictional facilities 

may be sited.

 

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 #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
1-11

Figure 1.4-1

1-12

1-11

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
1-12

Figure 1.4.2

1-13

1-12

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
1-13

Construction and operation of non-jurisdictional facilities would require easements and result in 

impacts similar to the Ruby Pipeline Project, except on a smaller scale and except that ground disturbance 

for electric transmission lines would be limited to locations where pylons would be sited. Further, 

establishment of new electric transmission lines could increase impacts on birds as a result of 

electrocution and collision with wires and pylons. The FWS recommends that electric transmission 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). The 

electric transmission line facilities proposed by Rocky Mountain Power may, depending on their final 

location and design, cross land administered by the BLM. Electric transmission line facilities on federal 

lands would be subject to supplemental NEPA review. The facilities 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. Further, Rocky Mountain Power would be required to 

obtain and adhere to other necessary federal, state, and local permits. The facilities proposed by PG&E 

similarly would undergo an intensive environmental review by the California Public Utilities Commission 

under the California Environmental Quality Act, and PG&E 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 Endangered Species Act (ESA), 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), and National 

Historic Preservation Act (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 species10; 

therefore, the 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 occur in the 

vicinity of the proposed project. If, upon review of existing data, it is determined that species or habitats 

may be affected by the proposed project, the FERC is required to initiate informal consultation with the 

FWS. Where species or habitats would be affected, the FERC is required to prepare a Biological 

Assessment (BA) to identify the nature and extent of adverse impacts and to recommend measures that 

would avoid the species and/or habitats or would reduce potential impacts to acceptable levels. If, 

however, the FERC determines that no federally listed or proposed endangered or threatened species or 

their designated critical habitats would be affected by the proposed project, no further action is necessary 

under the ESA. The draft EIS discusses the status of this review in section 4.7.

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 act 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, 

 

10 Anadromous fish are fish that migrate up rivers from the ocean to spawn in fresh waters.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
1-14

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. This draft EIS discusses compliance with the MBTA in section 4.5.5.

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 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. 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 draft 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 on 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. The draft 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. 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. 

1.5.1 Conformance with Resource Management Plans

Issuance of a right-of-way grant for the Ruby Pipeline Project would require amendments to 

various BLM Resource Management Plans (RMPs) where the RMPs are inconsistent with the project. 

An RMP is a land use plan that describes broad multiple-use direction for managing public lands. RMPs 

are intended to guide management activities for 15 to 20 years. During that timeframe, however, changes 

in land use requirements, resource concerns, and federal policies may necessitate amending the RMP to 

adapt to new conditions. This may be the case for the Ruby Pipeline Project.

The USFS also manages land under guidance similar to RMPs. If a right-of-way grant is issued 

for USFS-managed land, the USFS would be required to amend its Land and Resource Management 

Plans (LRMPs) for the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache NF and the Fremont-Winema NF. Within the UintaDocument Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
1-15

Wasatch-Cache NF, the USFS requires pipelines to follow designated utility corridors. As proposed, the 

Ruby Pipeline Project would not consistently follow a designated utility corridor; therefore, the USFS 

will use this EIS to consider amending the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache NF LRMP to allow the pipeline to cross 

the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache NF as proposed.

Within the Fremont-Winema NF, the proposed project is inconsistent with a number of standards 

and guidelines in the Fremont NF LRMP.11 Specifically, the pipeline would pass through portions of 

Management Areas 6 – Scenic; 14 – Old Growth; and 15 – Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Water Quality;

as well as portions of Soil Capability Areas 1, 2, and 3 and scabland portions of Capability Area 13 

covered by general forest standards and guidelines. For the construction to occur, the Fremont-Winema 

NF 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 to 

exempt the project from the detrimental soil and erosion standard and guidelines. If the project is 

approved, the USFS would be required to amend the Fremont NF LRMP as follows:

General Forest Plan Standard and Guideline for Soils Management – Forest Plan 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 Project 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 Upland Erosion, Revegetation, and Mitigation Plan will reduce 

erosion impacts and minimize impacts on soil productivity.”

General Forest Standard and Guideline for Soils Management – Forest Plan pages 83 

and 84, add a statement under item 4, 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 middleground partial retention. Item B will be added 

to Land Uses on Forest Plan 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 15 - 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 Forest Plan, 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.”

 

11 The USFS has separate LRMPs for the Fremont NF and Winema NF. These plans are not yet merged.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
1-16

The FWS manages its land in accordance with Comprehensive Conservation Plans (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. Ruby 

proposes to use access roads on NWR system land. The FWS is in the process of developing a CCP for 

the Sheldon NWR that will 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. The FWS would need to find the proposed use of access roads appropriate and compatible 

with the refuge purposes, goals, and objectives for Ruby to use the above-mentioned access roads or for 

the project to otherwise proceed on NWR system land. The FWS has indicated that this process would 

require the issuance of Special Use Permits.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
1-17

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 Grants 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.

RMP Amendments under Section 202 of 

the Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act

Consider amending RMPs to allow the 

proposed project.

Reclamation Consultation on 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 #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
1-18

TABLE 1.5-1 (cont.)

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultation Agency Action

USFS Consultation on 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 LRMP for the UintaWasatch-Cache NF and the FremontWinema NF to allow the proposed project.

FWS Consultation on 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 for use of 

access roads.

Consideration of Special Use Permits 

under the NWR Administration Act

Consider appropriateness findings or 

compatibility determinations for use of 

Sheldon NWR jurisdictional lands or roads.

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.

NPDES Waste Water Discharge Permit 

under Section 402 of the CWA

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.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
1-19

TABLE 1.5-1 (cont.)

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultation Agency Action

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 Statutes Consider issuing easements to cross 

state-owned roadways.

Non-Roadway Easement under State 

Statutes

Consider issuing easements to cross 

state-owned land.

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 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.

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.

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.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
1-20

TABLE 1.5-1 (cont.)

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultation Agency Action

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.

Utah Department of Transportation Statewide Utility License Agreement 

under State Statutes

Consider issuing a license for crossing or 

sharing state highway rights-of-way.

Utah Public Lands Policy 

Coordination Office

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 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 compressor stations.

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.

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.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
1-21

TABLE 1.5-1 (cont.)

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultation Agency Action

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.

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 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 #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
2-1

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

2.1 PROPOSED FACILITIES

The Ruby Pipeline Project would involve the construction and operation of buried natural gas 

pipeline and related aboveground facilities. An overview map showing the 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 C illustrate typical right-of-way 

configurations.

2.1.1 Pipeline Facilities

Ruby proposes to construct and operate a total of about 677.8 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 Malin Market 

Center in Klamath County, Oregon at MP 675.2. Ruby also proposes to construct and operate about 2.6 

miles of 42-inch-diameter lateral1in Oregon. The lateral would begin near the Malin Market Center in 

Klamath County at MP 0.0l,

2

and proceed southerly to the Oregon-California state line where it would 

connect to a PG&E pipeline 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, length, and county.

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 ISO (International Organization for 

Standardization) operating conditions, the compressor station would utilize 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 utilize about 16,787 hp output.

The Wieland Flat Compressor Station would be located at MP 330.1, 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 utilize about 27,004 hp output.

The Desert Valley Compressor Station would be located at MP 476.3, near the pipeline threequarter point 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 utilize about 9,090 hp output.

 

1 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.

2 MPs on the lateral pipeline are identified by a subscript “l” throughout this EIS.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
2-2

TABLE 2.1.1-1

Pipeline Facilities for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Facility Type MP Range County Length (miles)

WYOMING

Mainline 0.0 – 21.2 Lincoln 21.2

Mainline 21.2 – 48.1 Uinta 26.9

Subtotal 48.1

UTAH

Mainline 48.1 – 73.2 Rich 25.1

Mainline 73.2 – 101.0 Cache 27.8

Mainline 101.0 – 230.6 Box Elder 129.6

Subtotal 182.5

NEVADA

Mainline 230.6 – 396.8 Elko 166.2

Mainline 396.8 – 536.0 Humboldt 139.2

Mainline 536.0 – 588.2 Washoe 52.2

Subtotal 357.6

OREGON

Mainline 588.2 – 647.4 Lake 59.2

Mainline 647.4 – 675.2 Klamath 27.8

Lateral 0.0l – 2.6l Klamath 2.6

Subtotal 89.6

Grand Total 677.8

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 less than 50 feet tall (to facilitate communication and operation of the pipeline 

system). Table 2.1.2-1 lists aboveground facilities by facility type, milepost, and county.

2.2 LAND REQUIREMENTS

Construction of the Ruby Pipeline Project would disturb a total of about 24,933.7 acres of land, 

including the pipeline construction right-of-way, temporary extra workspaces, contractor yards, access 

roads, and aboveground facilities. Operation of the pipeline would require about 4,268.0 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 would be limited to the areas described in this EIS and any 

subsequent Commission authorizations.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
2-3

TABLE 2.1.2-1

Location of Aboveground Facilities for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Facility Type MP County

WYOMING

Meter Station (with three Interconnects), MLV, Launcher 0.0aLincoln

Roberson Creek Compressor Station, Meter Station (with one Interconnect), MLV, 

Launcher, Receiver, Communication Tower 5.7 Lincoln

MLV 21.1 Uintah

MLV 39.5 Uintah

Subtotal 4 Sites

UTAH

MLV 55.1 Rich

MLV 73.3 Cache

MLV 92.2 Cache

MLV, Launcher, Receiver 102.9 Box Elder

MLV 108.6 Box Elder

MLV 127.4 Box Elder

MLV 144.6 Box Elder

MLV 161.1 Box Elder

Wildcat Hills Compressor Station, MLV, Launcher, Receiver, Communication Tower 172.5 Box Elder

MLV 190.6 Box Elder

MLV 209.7 Box Elder

MLV 222.3 Box Elder

Subtotal 12 Sites

NEVADA

Communication Tower N/AbElko

MLV 239.1 Elko

MLV, Launcher, Receiver 257.4 Elko

MLV 275.8 Elko

MLV 295.0 Elko

MLV 311.0 Elko

Wieland Flat Compressor Station, MLV, Launcher, Receiver, Communication Tower 330.1 Elko

MLV 345.7 Elko

MLV 364.1 Elko

MLV 383.6 Elko

MLV, Launcher, Receiver 403.5 Humboldt

MLV 421.0 Humboldt

Meter Station (with one Interconnect), MLV 437.4 Humboldt

MLV 456.9 Humboldt

Desert Valley Compressor Station, MLV, Launcher, Receiver, Communication Tower 476.3 Humboldt

MLV 493.2 Humboldt

MLV 509.7 Humboldt

MLV, Launcher, Receiver 528.7 Humboldt

MLV 547.8 Washoe

MLV 567.1 Washoe

MLV, Launcher, Receiver 581.9 Washoe

Subtotal 21 Sites

OREGON

MLV 601.1 Lake

MLV 614.2 Lake

MLV 627.8 Lake

MLV 643.0 Lake

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
2-4

TABLE 2.1.2-1 (cont.)

Location of Aboveground Facilities for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Facility Type MP County

MLV 658.1 Klamath

Meter Station (with three Interconnects), two MLVs, Receiver 675.2, 0.0l Klamath

MLV 2.6l Klamath

Subtotal 7 Sites

Grand Total 44 Sites 

─────────────────────────

a These facilities would be installed at Colorado Interstate Gas Company’s existing King Compressor Station.

b Ruby has proposed to install a communication tower at an office site in Elko.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
2-5

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 in some areas to minimize impacts on sensitive environmental 

resources such as wetlands (as described in section 4.3.3), and would use a wider right-of-way in areas of 

uneven terrain and other construction constraints (as discussed below). Following construction, Ruby 

would retain a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way to operate the pipeline. In total, the construction 

right-of-way would temporarily disturb about 9,343.9 acres of land, not including temporary extra 

workspaces, access roads, contractor yards, or aboveground facility sites. The permanent right-of-way 

would require about 4,111.1 acres of land. 

Ruby would use a number of temporary extra workspaces and staging areas totaling about 2,936.1 

acres during construction. Extra workspace typically would be located along the construction right-ofway on both sides of wetland, waterbody, road, and utility crossings, and in areas of rugged terrain. 

Staging areas may be located along the construction right-of-way or off the right-of-way in nearby areas. 

Most extra workspaces would add 80 feet on to the 115-foot-wide construction right-of-way, effectively 

creating a 195-foot-wide work area. Staging areas would vary in size and in many instances would widen 

the construction right-of-way even further for short distances. Table D-1 in Appendix D lists each 

proposed temporary extra workspace, staging area, and water appropriation site for the project. We have 

reviewed Ruby’s list of temporary extra workspaces, staging areas, and water appropriation sites and have 

concluded that Ruby has not provided sufficient justification for locating workspaces and staging areas in 

or near playas, waterbodies, wetlands, and woody riparian areas. Restrictions on the use of workspaces 

and staging areas in or near these areas are discussed in sections 4.2.2.3, 4.3.2.4, 4.3.3.2, and 4.4.3.

Ruby would use 39 contractor yards and one construction camp totaling about 1,758.6 acres to 

support pipeline construction. Contractor yards typically would be located away from the construction 

right-of-way and would be used for stockpiling pipe, storing materials, staging work, fabricating 

accessories, repairing equipment, housing mobile offices, and parking vehicles. The construction camp, 

as its name implies, would be a campground used to provide temporary housing and for up to 600

nonlocal workers in areas where adequate existing housing is not readily available (i.e., in northwestern 

Nevada). Camp components include 400 temporary modular-type housing units, 200 camper and 

recreation vehicles (RVs) parking pads, as well as access to support facilities such as potable water, waste 

treatment, fuel, and electrical power. A more detailed description of required infrastructure 

improvements for the camp is presented in section 4.9.2. Table D-2 in Appendix D lists each contractor 

yard and the construction camp on this project.

Ruby would use existing public and private roads and would construct new roads to gain access 

to the project area. 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. About 595 roads totaling 

about 10,724.9 acres would be 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. A total of 20 new dirt and gravel roads totaling about 

13.3 acres would be constructed up to 15 feet wide to accommodate timber clearing at various locations, a 

landowner request, or access to an aboveground facility (a MLV at MP 108.6). Following construction, 

roads would be retained in their new or improved condition, unless otherwise requested by a landowner 

or land managing agency. In such cases, Ruby would restore roads to their preconstruction condition. 

Ruby presently does not know specifically where all road improvements would be required along any 

given road. This information will not be available until after Ruby’s construction contractor identifies 

which roads it prefers to use and how it prefers to use the roads. Therefore, for the purpose of this EIS we 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
2-6

have conservatively estimated that all roads would need to be improved over their entire length. This 

undoubtedly is an overestimation. Table D-3 in Appendix D identifies each access road used by the 

project that would potentially require improvement.

We have reviewed Ruby’s list of existing access roads and have concluded that many of the roads 

are primitive two-tracks that would required significant improvement 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 previously inaccessible areas to 

public use. Therefore, we are including a recommendation in sections 4.8.1 and 5.2 that Ruby 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.

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 C illustrate typical right-of-way configurations. 

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 670.5 293.5

Workspaces & Staging Areas 141.3 -

Access Roads 980.2 -

Yards & Camps 140.4 -

Subtotal 1,932.4 293.5

UTAH

Right-of-Way 2,515.6 1,105.8

Workspaces & Staging Areas 904.6 -

Access Roads 2,492.2 -

Yards & Camps 211.2 -

Subtotal 6,123.6 1,105.8

NEVADA

Right-of-Way 4,964.9 2,165.8

Workspaces & Staging Areas 1,295.4 -

Access Roads 5,262.8 -

Yards & Camps 1,050.5 -

Subtotal 12,573.6 2,165.8

OREGON

Right-of-Way 1,192.9 546.0

Workspaces & Staging Areas 594.8 -

Access Roads 2,003.0 -

Yards & Camps 356.5 -

Subtotal 4,147.2 546.0

Grand Total 24,776.8 4,111.1

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 194.0 acres during construction and about 161.6 acres for 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
2-7

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.

TABLE 2.2.2-1

Aboveground Facility Site Dimensions for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Facility Type Construction Dimensions (feet) Permanent Dimensions (feet)

Roberson Creek Compressor Station and Associated 

Facilities

1,620 x 1,620 1,400 x 1,250

All Other Compressor Stations and Associated Facilities 1,620 x 1,620 1,100 x 1000

Meter Station and Associated Facilities 500 x 500 500 x 500

MLV with Launcher and/or Receiver 500 x 300 320 x 125

MLV Only 200 x 115 75 x 50

TABLE 2.2.2-2

Aboveground Facility Land Requirements for the Ruby Pipeline Project a

Facility Type Construction Area (acres) Permanent Area (acres)

WYOMING

Roberson Creek Compressor Station and Associated 

Facilities

47.6 47.6

Meter Stations and Associated Facilities 13.6 8.3

MLVs Only 1.0 0.4

Subtotal 62.2 56.3

UTAH

Wildcat Hills Compressor Station and Associated 

Facilities

29.3 29.3

MLVs with Launchers and/or Receivers 3.4 0.9

MLVs Only 10.0 2.0

Subtotal 42.7 32.2

NEVADA

Wieland Flat & Desert Valley Compressor Stations and 

Associated Facilities

50.6 50.6

Meter Stations and Associated Facilities 5.5 5.5

MLVs with Launchers and/or Receivers 13.6 3.6

MLVs Only 7.0 2.8

Subtotal 76.7 62.5

OREGON

Meter Stations and Associated Facilities 9.4 9.4

MLVs Only 3.0 1.2

Subtotal 12.4 10.6

Grand Total 194.0 161.6

─────────────────────────

a Aboveground facilities may overlap the construction work area and/or permanent right-of-way.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
2-8

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 its own 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 proposed 

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). The BLM and other 

cooperating agencies are still reviewing Ruby’s Plan and Procedures with respect to their areas of 

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 or other agency standards. We have included copies of Ruby’s Plan 

and Procedures in Appendices E and F, respectively. The FERC Plan and Procedures can be accessed at 

the FERC website (www.ferc.gov).

The BLM will require that Ruby prepare a Plan of Development (POD) as part of the right-ofway granting process in accordance with the regulations found at 43 CFR 2884.11. Ruby’s various 

construction and restoration plans referenced in this EIS and included in the appendices (e.g., Plan, 

Procedures, Reclamation Plan, Hydrostatic Test Plan, Blasting Plan, Unanticipated Discoveries Plan, etc.) 

also would be part of Ruby’s POD with the BLM.

2.3.1 General Pipeline Construction Procedures

Ruby would construct the pipeline by following 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 seven construction spreads on the Ruby Pipeline Project, 

with each spread between 80 and 120 miles in length. In this manner, Ruby would be able to construct 

the project much quicker and more efficiently than if it were using just one spread.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
2-9

Figure 2.3.1-1 Pipeline Construction Sequence

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
2-10

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.

2.3.1.1 Survey and Staking

The first step of construction would involve survey crews staking the limits of the construction 

right-of-way, the centerline of the proposed trench, and temporary extra workspaces. Access roads would 

be clearly marked using temporary signs or flagging. Wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas 

also would be marked where appropriate. Fences would be braced and cut and temporary gates and 

fences would be installed to contain livestock in active allotments and grazed areas.

We received comments during scoping regarding the potential for geodetic survey monuments to 

be disturbed by construction. Ruby would flag geodetic survey monuments during the pre-construction 

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.

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 make an effort to preserve topsoil in sensitive areas affected by 

construction. Ruby would separate topsoil from subsoil from either the full work area or from the trench 

and subsoil storage area in actively cultivated or rotated croplands and pastures; residential areas; 

hayfields; and other areas at the landowner’s or land managing agency’s request. 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 and would be returned to its original horizon. Ruby 

would make every effort to return topsoil to its original horizon.

In accordance with its Plan, Ruby would install temporary erosion control devices (e.g., silt fence 

straw bales, wood straw) during clearing and grading to minimize the potential soil erosion and sediment 

runoff. Permanent erosion control devices, such slope breakers and riprap, would be installed during 

cleanup and restoration.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
2-11

We received comments during scoping regarding the potential for increased wildfire hazard from 

construction equipment (e.g., welding torches, exhaust pipes, etc.) operating on the right-of-way and from 

placing cut vegetation back on the right-of-way after construction. Ruby has prepared a Fire Prevention 

and Suppression Plan (see Appendix G) 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 

covered by the right-of-way grant. The potential for wildfires is discussed in more detail in section 

4.12.1.

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.

We received comments regarding the potential for discovery of unanticipated cultural or 

paleontological resources during trenching. Ruby 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 (see section 4.10.2 for further discussion). Ruby also has prepared a 

Paleontological Resources Monitoring Plan to be used when constructing in areas of moderate to high 

likelihood of containing significant paleontological resources (see Appendix H).

We received comments regarding the potential for the construction right-of-way to impede 

wildlife and livestock movement. Ruby would install ramps in and across the pipeline trench and leave 

gaps in the spoil piles to allow for wildlife and livestock movement across the construction right-of-way. 

Section 4.5 provides a more detailed discussion of wildlife and livestock movement and Ruby’s actions to 

minimize such impacts.

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. 

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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
2-12

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 faults, scratches, or 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 I). 

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.

Padding material such as sand or fine grain soil or gravel would be placed in the bottom of the 

trench in rocky areas to protect the pipeline. If the excavated material is rocky, the pipeline would be 

protected with a rock shield (fabric or screen that is wrapped around the pipe to protect the pipe and 

coating from damage by rocks, stones, roots, and other debris) before backfilling or would be covered 

with more suitable fill (e.g., fill obtained by separating suitable material from the existing excavated 

trench material or new material from a commercial source). Once the pipe is sufficiently covered with 

suitable material, the excavated rocky soil would be used for backfill within the original rocky soil 

horizon. A mound of soil about the width of the trench and 1 foot high would be left over the trench in 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
2-13

upland areas to compensate for settling. Appropriately spaced breaks would be left in the mounded soil to 

prevent interference with groundwater runoff and irrigation.

We received comments during scoping regarding the potential for soil mounding or 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 draft Hydrostatic Test Plan in 

Appendix J). 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 214 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 section 4.3.2.6.

Ruby would generally discharge water to the ground or into surface waters following testing of a 

pipe segment within the same hydrologic region from which the water was obtained. Sufficient water 

supplies may not be available for all test segments within a hydrologic region. Therefore, water from a 

test segment in one region may be transferred to a test segment in another region for subsequent testing 

and discharge. Where Ruby could not discharge water to its source region, Ruby has proposed to treat the 

water with biocides to avoid introduction of waterborne pathogens from one region to another. Biocidetreated water would be neutralized prior to discharge. Section 4.3.2.6 provides a more detailed discussion 

of hydrostatic testing and the use of biocides. We have made additional recommendations in section 

4.3.2.6 to address shortcomings in Ruby’s Hydrostatic Test Plan.

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 (or pneumatic testing) is possible. From a 

practical standpoint, testing with air is not conducted 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 weaknesses or flaw is encountered during a hydraulic test, the resulting energy 

release is typically inconsequential. For this reason, pipelines are normally tested with water. 

2.3.1.7 Cleanup and Restoration

Ruby would make every reasonable effort to complete final cleanup, including final grading and 

the installation of erosion control devices, within 20 days of backfilling. Construction debris would be 

cleaned up and taken to a disposal facility, and work areas would be restored to preconstruction contours 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
2-14

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.

Ruby would seed the right-of-way after final grading in accordance with the specifications 

outlined in its Reclamation Plan (see Appendix K). 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 allowed for a different timeframe (such as on some BLM land where seeding would be allowed 

only from October through December). After seeding, the right-of-way would be stabilized by applying 2 

tons per acre of weed-free straw or hay (or functional equivalent) on non-agricultural slopes, where 

necessary, to stabilize the soil surface and to reduce wind and water erosion, except where written 

concurrence from the local soil conservation authority, landowner, or land managing agency has been 

obtained (such as on federal land administered by the BLM in Humboldt and Washoe counties, Nevada 

where the BLM has indicated that use of straw or hay 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 

minimize the disturbance of revegetation efforts by grazing.

Ruby would install gates or other barriers (e.g., rock berms, log barricades, roughen the right-ofway) to minimize unauthorized entry by all-terrain vehicles where requested by landowners or land 

managing agencies. 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.

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 in-service approval from the Director of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP).

2.3.1.9 Post-Construction Monitoring

Ruby would monitor all areas disturbed by construction until the right-of-way surface conditions 

are similar to the adjacent undisturbed land and all 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, crop productivity, soil settling, soil compaction, excessively rocky 

soils, and drainage pattern problems. Ruby would monitor wetland areas for 3 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. The FERC would continue its oversight 

of Ruby after construction by periodic field inspections and reviews of Ruby’s monitoring reports. FERC 

staff has concluded that the proposed monitoring time frames for playas, wetlands, waterbodies, and 

woody riparian areas would not be adequate to assess the success of restoration; therefore, we are 

recommending that Ruby extend its post-construction monitoring program to 5 years in these areas in 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
2-15

accordance with sections 4.2.2.3, 4.3.3.4, 4.3.2.4, and 4.4.3. We also note that federal land managing 

agencies may require different monitoring periods and practices as a condition of the right-of-way grant 

or consent document. 

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. We are interested in ensuring that 

landowner issues and complaints received during construction are resolved in a timely and efficient 

manner, assuming that the proposed project is approved. We would expect Ruby to develop and 

implement standard complaint resolution procedures to provide landowners with clear and simple 

directions for identifying and resolving their environmental concerns during and after construction (see 

condition 9 in section 5.2). We would require Ruby to mail these procedures to each landowner whose 

property would be crossed by the project prior to construction. In addition, we would require Ruby to 

provide to the FERC a periodic report that summarizes information for each concern identified during and 

after construction.

2.3.2 Special Pipeline Construction Procedures

Special construction techniques are typically required when constructing across most wetlands, 

waterbodies, roads, railroads, foreign utilities, steep slopes, and geologic faults. 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. 

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 (see Appendix F) to reduce the potential impact on wetland hydrology and soil structure (see 

section 4.3.3).

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; no setback would be required in actively cultivated or rotated cropland or 

other disturbed land. We are still in the process of reviewing Ruby’s proposed locations for temporary 

extra workspaces and staging areas and have made recommendations in section 4.3.3.2. 

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 wetlands, non-essential equipment (that is, equipment not necessary to construct the 

crossing) would be allowed to travel through wetlands only if the ground is firm enough or has been 

stabilized to avoid rutting. Otherwise, non-essential equipment would be allowed to travel through 

wetlands as a one-time pass-through.

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 (see 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
2-16

Appendix I) addresses the handling of fuel and other potentially hazardous materials (e.g., pipe coating 

epoxy or mastic) in or within 100 feet of wetlands.

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 and 

maintained 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. 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 during construction in lieu of silt fence or straw bales if they are 

adequate to control the movement of sediment into the wetlands. 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. 

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.

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 at the time of construction 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 

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 by 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. 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 to the original 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.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
2-17

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 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, and fertilizer would not be used in wetlands. We have made an additional recommendation in 

section 4.3.3.4 regarding 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 

through the waterbody before the bridge is installed. 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 are still in the process of reviewing Ruby’s proposed locations for 

temporary extra workspaces and staging areas 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 clearing in these 

areas.

In general, equipment refueling and lubricating would take place in upland areas more than 100 

feet from the edges of waterbodies. Federal land managing agencies may require greater setbacks on 

federal land. However, 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 (see Appendix I) addresses the handling of fuel and other 

potentially hazardous materials (e.g., pipe coating epoxy or mastic) in or near waterbodies.

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 runoff. 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 method crossing method for all waterbodies up to 100 feet 

wide, except where waterbodies contain special status fish species. Where waterbodies contain special 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
2-18

status fish species or where required by a permit (such as at Reclamation-administered waterbodies), 

Ruby would implement a dry-ditch method and additional mitigation (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 either 

come from the general timing requirements of the FERC’s Procedures (which Ruby has incorporated into 

its Procedures) or from specific agency comments on Ruby’s proposed construction activities.

TABLE 2.3.2-1

In-stream Construction Timing Windows for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Timing Window for Construction Fishery Type Source Agency

WYOMING

June 1 – September 30 Coldwater Fisheries FERC

June 1 – November 30 Coolwater and Warmwater Fisheries FERC

UTAH

July 16 – February 28 Fisheries Containing Bonneville Cutthroat Trout UDWR

June 1 – September 30 Coldwater Fisheries FERC

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

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 ODFW

July 1 – March 31 Fisheries in Lost River Basin Below Bonanza ODFW

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 prefabricate 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 as required by federal land managing agencies on federal land.

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.

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).

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
2-19

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 restoration.

The first step in a dry-ditch crossing involves diverting water around the in-stream work area by 

placing a sufficient number of adequately sized flume pipes in the waterbody or by using hoses and highcapacity pumps. In either case, Ruby would install energy dissipation devices (e.g., plywood boards) 

when appropriate on the downstream side at the discharge point to prevent streambed scour. Next, sand 

or pea gravel bags, water bladders, or metal wing deflectors would be placed 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 water flow 

from the construction area between the dams. Such devices also would 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. 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. The banks would be stabilized 

before removing the dams, flume pipes, hoses, and pumps and returning flow to the waterbody channel.

Waterbody restoration would begin immediately after the pipeline is installed beneath the 

waterbody. Waterbody banks would be restored to preconstruction contours or to a stable angle of 

repose. 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 by DOT safety regulations.

Horizontal Directional Drill Method

The horizontal directional drill (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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
2-20

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. 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 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 hydraulic drilling system. If a wetland 

or waterbody is nearby, mud could be released to the wetland or waterbody. In the event mud is released 

to a wetland, a sump can be excavated to contain the spread and the mud collected and removed. 

However, a release to a waterbody is much more difficult to contain. Effects could range from localized 

sedimentation and turbidity which would be quickly dissipated by the waterbody’s flow, to significant 

sedimentation and turbidity capable of killing fish and covering habitat.

At this time, Ruby has not proposed to use the HDD method for crossing any waterbodies. Ruby 

stated that it would consider using HDD if construction were required to occur outside an in-stream work 

window and Ruby were unable to obtain a waiver of the timing extension from the jurisdictional resource 

agency. If Ruby were to propose the HDD method at a waterbody crossing or any other area, Ruby 

would be required to submit to the FERC for review and approval a site-specific plan of the crossing in 

accordance with Ruby’s Procedures. Because of the potential for adverse impacts from the HDD method, 

we would expect the plan to include water appropriation specifications, frac-out containment procedures, 

and contingency crossing methods, for each location where HDD would be used. We would 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 if a void were encountered to 

limit the amount of mud lost and successfully complete the drill.

2.3.2.3 Road and Railroad Crossings

Construction across roads and railroads would be conducted in accordance with the requirements 

of the appropriate road and railroad crossing permits obtained by Ruby. Generally, paved roads and 

railroads would be crossed by boring beneath the road or railroad. Boring would allow construction to 

proceed without disturbing the road bed or disrupting traffic. Boring would involve excavating a pit on 

each side of the feature, placing the boring equipment in the pit, and then boring a hole under the feature 

at least equal to the diameter of the pipe. Once the hole is bored a prefabricated 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 to traffic and the establishment of detours. In instances 

where a reasonable detour is not feasible, at least one lane of traffic would be kept open except during 

brief periods when it would be essential to close the road to install the pipeline. Most open-cut crossings 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
2-21

require only 1 or 2 days to install the pipe and backfill the trench, although resurfacing could require 

several weeks to allow for soil settlement and compaction.

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 transmission line 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 be required where the pipeline would be constructed in the vicinity of 

aboveground facilities. 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

Steep terrain presents unique challenges to pipeline construction. Frequently, a significant 

amount of grading is required in such areas, 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.

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 

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 E). Sediment barriers would be maintained across the right-of-way until permanent vegetation 

is established.

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 (e.g.,

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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
2-22

high levels of activity or in populated areas are evaluated for design treatment 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 identified three geologic faults that would require 

treatment. Treatment prescribed for the faults included one or more of the following: utilizing heavier 

wall pipe, relocation of shut-off valves, and compaction of backfill around pipe bends to transfer stress. 

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. 

All blasting activities would be performed in compliance with federal, state, and local codes, ordinances, 

and permits; manufacturers’ prescribed safety procedures; and industry practices. Section 4.1.1.1

provides a more detailed discussion of blasting activities.

2.3.3 Aboveground Facility Construction

Aboveground facilities for the Ruby Pipeline Project would include 4 compressor stations, 4 

meter stations, 44 MLVs, and 20 pig launchers/receivers. All aboveground facilities would be installed at 

one of 44 sites as described in table 2.1.2-1. Separate construction crews from those building the pipeline 

would be required for each of the four compressor stations.

The first step of construction would involve the removal of vegetation from the 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 located 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, prefabricated 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 #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
2-23

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 proposes to begin construction in February 2010, with an in-service date in March 2011. 

Ruby would be required to obtain separate FERC approvals before starting construction and before 

placing the pipeline in service. FERC in-service approval would be granted only if restoration and 

reclamation of the project area were proceeding satisfactorily. Ruby also would be required to obtain the 

BLM right-of-way grant and temporary use permits 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 would 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 unless specifically modified by other Certificate conditions. 

Other regulatory agencies also may issue conditions 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 placed on 

the project by regulatory agencies.

Ruby is proposing to employ at least one Environmental Inspector (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. Because of the complex nature of this project, we are recommending 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
2-24

that Ruby employ at least two EIs per spread (see condition 7 in section 5.2). In accordance with Ruby’s 

Plan, 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;

ensuring restoration of contours and topsoil;

verifying that the soils 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 Reclamation Plan (Appendix K);

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.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
2-25

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, and the mitigation measures proposed by Ruby in the application submitted to 

the FERC, and 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 may require a third-party compliance monitoring program on 

federally managed lands as a condition of its right-of-way grant to evaluate Ruby’s environmental 

inspection program during construction and to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the 

BLM right-of-way grant. In the event that the BLM does require third-party monitors, Ruby would be 

funding the program for approximately 55 percent of the route. These monitors would provide 

continuous feedback on environmental compliance to the BLM. 

While Ruby has not proposed to use a third-party compliance monitoring program on this project, 

we believe that extending this program to the full project would be beneficial. The overall objective of a 

third-party program is threefold: to assess environmental compliance during construction in order to 

achieve a high 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. We strongly encourage Ruby to 

consider using a joint third-party compliance monitoring program for the entire project.

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.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
2-26

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 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 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 (and 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, asbuilt drawings would be provided to the FERC (and BLM, Reclamation, FWS, USFS, and NRCS, 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.

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 and Procedures. 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-foot-wide permanent right-of-way in most land uses types, 

including open land, agricultural land, developed land, and open water (about 92 percent of the project 

area). 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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
2-27

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 foot 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. 

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.

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.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
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, route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. 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. The 

evaluation criteria we use for considering alternatives are:

ability to meet the overall project objective of transporting up to 1.5 million Dth/d of 

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 and economically 

feasible and 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 

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.

Demand for natural gas is expected to increase in the United States over the next decade; natural 

gas consumption is expected to increase from 21.7 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2006 to a peak value of 23.8 

tcf in 2016 (EIA, 2008a). Consumers in the project area are currently served by natural gas supplies from 

a variety of sources, including Canada. About 16 percent of the natural gas presently used in the United 

States is imported from foreign sources, and more than 80 percent of that foreign natural gas comes from 

Canada (EIA, 2008b; EIA, 2008c). Canada also is experiencing an increase in demand for natural gas. 

However, unlike the United States, natural gas production in Canada has slowed considerably (EIA, 

2008b). Declining production and increased demand have caused Canada’s natural gas export volumes to 

drop (NEB, 2007).

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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-2

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 

Rocky Mountain region with demand markets in Nevada and 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 

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.

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 British thermal units (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 use of natural gas 

for electricity generation (EIA, 2009).

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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-3

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 

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. 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 reduce the fuel 

requirements of Ruby’s natural gas-fired compressor stations and would decrease associated greenhouse 

gas (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. However, there are also environmental impacts associated with some 

types of renewable resources. For example, hydropower dams may affect fish, and wind turbines may 

affect birds and bats.

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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-4

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).

Although numerous preliminary permits have been issued, only a few hydrokinetic projects have 

been licensed under the FERC pilot program. There are currently no commercial hydrokinetic facilities 

operating in the United States. Two experimental test projects are currently in operation: one in the East 

River of New York, and one off the Washington coast. The development of future hydrokinetic resources 

is speculative at this time because of the challenges related to the use of new technologies, financial 

barriers, and an unclear regulatory process. The potential environmental impacts that could result from 

the construction and operation of a hydrokinetic facility are also not known, although it appears that such 

a facility would likely have some effects to aquatic resources. 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 kilowatt hours in 2006 (1.0 percent of the total electricity generated in the United States) to 170 

billion kilowatt hours in 2030 (3.2 percent) (EIA, 2008a). 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). 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 using photovoltaic cells or solar panels. Solar power has never made a 

significant contribution to the U.S. energy mix, and solar technologies in general remain too costly for 

grid-connected application (EIA, 2008a). 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 proposed 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, 2008a). Due to the variable nature of wind, wind turbines 

only generate about one-third of their maximum output capacity, on average. Another barrier to 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-5

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. Therefore, we do not believe that wind power represents a reasonable, feasible, foreseeable 

alternative to the proposed project.

3.2.3 Nuclear Energy

Nuclear power has the potential to generate enough energy to substitute for 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 between 

2009 and 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 kilowatt-hours in 2007 to 905 billion kilowatthours in 2030, which would account for about 18 percent of total generation in 2030 (about 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 costs. 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 use of petroleum or coal-based energy would result in greatly 

increased air emissions of pollutants. Natural gas, when compared to other fossil fuels such as coal or 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 1.3 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 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 that new coal/oil power plants could be sited and developed to 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-6

serve the markets targeted by the proposed project within a timeframe that would meet the objectives of 

the project. Therefore, we believe use of this energy source is not preferable to the proposed project.

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 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 natural gas to customers in Nevada and on the West Coast;

and 2) the system alternative would need to be able to transport the required volumes within the same 

general timeframe as the proposed project.

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 (see figure 3.3-1). 

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. These pipelines do not have the capacity 

available on their existing systems 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 the 

West Coast and Nevada, 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 them.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-7

Figure 3.3-1

3-8

33--77

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-8

 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 1.2 bcf per day of natural gas and would consist of a new 618-mile-long, 42-inch-diameter 

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. From the Stansfield

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, although 

it appears that the Gas Transmission Northwest system would require upgrades to accommodate the 

required volumes. The purpose of the Sunstone Pipeline Project would be to transport natural gas 

produced in the Rocky Mountain region to markets in the West and Pacific Northwest. At this time, the 

project sponsors have announced that they are re-evaluating the scope and timing of the project. There 

presently is not suitable information to determine if the Sunstone Pipeline Project would be a viable 

alternative to the Ruby Pipeline Project. We will reexamine the viability of the Sunstone Pipeline Project 

if additional information becomes available prior to publication of the final EIS.

Subsidiaries of Williams Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; PG&E; and Fort Chicago Energy 

Partners L.P. have agreed to jointly pursue construction of an LNG import terminal (Jordan Cove LNG) 

and an interstate natural gas transmission system (Pacific Connector). These projects, if completed,

would increase the supply of natural gas for the Pacific Northwest, northern California, and northern 

Nevada. On May 1, 2009, the FERC issued a final EIS evaluating the environmental impacts associated 

with the proposed Jordan Cove LNG and Pacific Connector projects. Jordan Cove LNG has not revealed 

its expected sources for the LNG, but it would most likely come from LNG-exporting countries around 

the Pacific Basin, including Australia, Malaysia, and Indonesia. In 2006, Trinidad and Tobago was the 

largest supplier of LNG for the existing import terminals operating on the East and Gulf coasts and 

accounted for about 67 percent of all LNG imported into the United States (EIA, 2008a). 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 alleviate bottlenecking of gas 

supplies in the Rocky Mountain region by connecting those supplies with demand on the West Coast and 

in Nevada. Other LNG projects and associated pipelines, such as Bradwood Landing LNG and Oregon 

LNG, present similar shortcomings. Further, these other LNG projects would terminate about 200 miles 

north of the Malin Market Center. Thus, we are not recommending Pacific Connector or any of the 

mentioned LNG projects as a system alternative to the Ruby Pipeline Project. 

3.4 MAJOR ROUTE ALTERNATIVES

We considered route alternatives for the Ruby Pipeline Project to determine whether these 

alternatives would avoid or reduce impacts on environmentally sensitive resources that would be crossed 

by the proposed pipeline. The origin and delivery points of a route alternative are generally the same as 

for the corresponding portion of a proposed pipeline. However, the alternatives would follow routes 

significantly different from the proposed pipeline. Route alternatives would not modify or make use of 

other existing or new pipeline systems, except that they may be collocated within the same rights-of-way 

as existing or new pipeline systems.

Route alternatives frequently are identified in an attempt to minimize the creation of new rightsof-way by routing pipelines within or adjacent to existing rights-of-way. Collocation of facilities is a 

generally accepted practice as a means to control the location of development and limit impacts on 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-9

sensitive resources by keeping disturbance within established corridors. Installation of new pipeline 

along existing, cleared rights-of-way (such as pipelines, transmission lines, roads, and railroads) may be 

environmentally preferable to construction along new rights-of-way, and construction effects and 

cumulative impacts can normally be reduced by use of previously cleared rights-of-way. Likewise, longterm or permanent environmental impacts can normally be reduced by avoiding the creation of new 

rights-of-way through undisturbed areas. We have also identified route alternatives that would avoid

specific environmental resources. Ruby would be required to complete biological and cultural surveys 

and consultations on the alternatives designated “recommended” below and file such information with the 

FERC prior to the final EIS.

Table 3.4-1 presents the 14 route alternatives we identified and evaluated, based on input 

provided to us by the general public, federal and state resource agencies, Ruby, and our own review.

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

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 an existing corridor through the 

Uinta-Wasatch-Cache NF 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 road corridors, avoid saltscrub habitat Recommended

West-wide Energy Corridor 270.0 – 673.0 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

Sheldon 483.2 – 599.7 Follow more existing road corridor Undetermined

Black Rock 424.2 – 562.2 Follow more existing road and transmission 

line corridors Undetermined

Jungo-Tuscarora 424.2 – 675.2 Follow more existing road and transmission 

line corridors Not Recommended

Southern Langell Valley 643.2 – 672.6 Avoid sensitive cultural resource area Recommended

a The endpoints for the Northern and Central Route Alternatives correspond to where the route alternative rejoins the 

proposed route. However, the environmental analyses for these two route alternatives reflect the entire length of each 

resulting overall route, from Kemmerer to Malin, 636.8 miles and 607.0 miles respectively. The comparison for all 

other alternatives is limited to the alternative and the corresponding segment of the proposed route.

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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-10

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 public and private land. The BLM is 

the largest land managing agency along the alternative route. Table 3.4.1-1 provides a comparison of the 

significant environmental features of this alternative and the proposed route.

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

Wild and Scenic River 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

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

The total length of the Northern Route Alternative is 636.8 miles, which would be 38.4 miles 

shorter (5.6 percent) than the proposed route. The Northern Route Alternative would reduce the total 

amount of land disturbance as compared to the proposed route and would cross less range capable of 

supporting sage grouse (34.0 fewer miles) and pronghorn antelope (164.5 fewer miles). However, the 

alternative would parallel substantially less existing right-of-way (178.9 fewer miles) and would affect 

more other significant environmental resources. The Northern Route Alternative would traverse 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), 

and three Wild and Scenic Rivers, including the Donner and Blitzen River, crossed twice. Ruby’s 

proposed route would not cross any of these areas. The alternative also would cross 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 Northern 

Route Alternative also would require construction of new laterals in excess of 100 miles to reach 

locations in Nevada that the proposed project can serve by installing taps and interconnects. 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 environmental 

impacts compared to the proposed project. Therefore, we do not recommend that this alternative be 

incorporated into the proposed project.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-11

figure 3.4.1-1 (northern/central)

3-11

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-12

3.4.2 Central Route Alternative

Ruby identified the Central Route Alternative during preliminary project planning as the shortest 

technically practical route for transporting Rocky Mountain natural gas 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 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 significant environmental features of this alternative and the proposed route.

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

Wild and Scenic River 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

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

The total length of the Central Route Alternative would be 607 miles, which would be 68.2 miles 

(10.0 percent) shorter than the proposed route. The Central Route Alternative would reduce the total 

amount of land disturbance as compared to the proposed route and would cross less range capable of 

supporting sage grouse (50.4 fewer miles) and pronghorn antelope (186.5 fewer miles). However, the 

alternative would parallel substantially less existing right-of-way (213.9 fewer miles) and would affect 

more environmental resources. The Central Route Alternative would traverse 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 (Rahilly-Gravelly), 1 proposed Special Management Area (Rock Creek 

Tunp), 1 Wild and Scenic River (West Little Owyhee River), 2 bighorn sheep habitat areas (BruneauJarbidge River and Owyhee River), and 7 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. The proposed 

pipeline route would not cross any of these areas. The alternative also would cross 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 Central 

Route Alternative would also require construction of new laterals in excess of 100 miles to reach 

locations in Nevada that the proposed project can serve by installing taps and interconnects. Although the 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-13

Central 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 environmental 

impacts as compared to the proposed pipeline. Therefore, we do not recommend that this alternative be 

incorporated into the proposed project.

3.4.3 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 

NF, then turns southwest to reconnect with the proposed route at MP 173.1 in Box Elder County, Utah

(see figure 3.4.3-1). Table 3.4.3-1 presents a comparison of the significant environmental features of this 

alternative and the corresponding segment of the proposed route.

TABLE 3.4.3-1

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

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. In fact, 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), and two Inventoried Roadless Areas within the CaribouTarghee NF (11.2 miles). The corresponding segment of the proposed pipeline route crosses none of 

these areas. 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 #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-14

Figure 3.4.3-1 north Kemmerer/route 30

33-14-14

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-15

3.4.4 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 would converge with the proposed pipeline route at about MP 173.1 (see figure 3.4.3-1). 

Table 3.4.4-1 presents a comparison of the significant environmental features of this alternative to the 

corresponding segment of the proposed route.

TABLE 3.4.4-1

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

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 would be 182.8 miles, which is longer than the 

corresponding segment of the proposed route (9.7 miles longer). The Route 30 Alternative would parallel 

less existing right-of-way (3.7 miles less), cross more private land (31.4 miles more), and impact more 

sage grouse range (9.7 additional miles), more perennial waterbodies (three additional waterbodies), more 

wetlands (3.1 additional miles), and more National Historic Trails (four additional crossings). 

Additionally, the alternative would cross one NWR (Cokeville Meadows), one proposed Special 

Management Area (Rock Creek Tunp), and two Inventoried Roadless Areas within the Caribou-Targhee 

NF (11.2 miles). The corresponding segment of the proposed route would not cross any of these areas, 

but would 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.

3.4.5 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 Uinta-WasatchCache NF 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 would then traverses down Hyrum Canyon. After 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-16

exiting Hyrum Canyon, the Questar Route Alternative proceeds west across Cache Valley and turns 

southwesterly and reconnects with the proposed route just east of Brigham City at MP 104.3 (see figure

3.4.5-1). The total length of the Questar Route Alternative is 26.0 miles. Table 3.4.5-1 provides a 

comparison of the significant environmental characteristics of the alternative and the corresponding 

segment of the proposed route. 

TABLE 3.4.5-1

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

Perennial Streams Crossed (number) 1 2

Wetland Habitat Crossed (miles) 0.4 0.0

The Questar Route Alternative would be 5.1 miles longer than the proposed route, but would 

parallel about 21.4 more miles of existing right-of-way. The alternative would cross one fewer perennial 

waterbody, but would affect 0.4 more mile of wetlands. The alternative would generally follow 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 alternative would require a greater offset from the existing 

right-of-way and roads to accommodate the necessary additional grading and workspace. Consequently, 

the alternative also would result in higher erosion risk. We conducted an aerial photography review of 

this route alternative and concluded that, while it could be constructed, the constraints mentioned by Ruby 

appear to be valid. Based on this information, we have determined that the Questar Route Alternative 

would not confer 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 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 3.4.6-1). Table 3.4.6-1 provides a comparison of the significant 

environmental characteristics of the alternative and the corresponding segment of the proposed route.

TABLE 3.4.6-1

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

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-16

figure 3.4.5-1 (Questar)

33--16 3-17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-17

figure 3.4.6-1 (s. Brigham city)

33--18

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-19

The total length of the South Brigham City Route Alternative is 75.3 miles, which would be 22.7

miles longer than the proposed route. The route alternative, however, would parallel about 36.2 more 

miles of existing right-of-way. The route alternative would cross one additional perennial waterbody and 

would affect 22.5 more miles of wetlands. Additionally, the alternative would cross 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). It 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 whitefaced ibis, American avocets, white pelicans, cinnamon teal, Wilson’s phalaropes, red-necked phalaropes, 

snowy plovers, marbled godwits, and black-necked stilts. The alternative would cross 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 work spaces, 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.

3.4.7 Terrace Basin Route Alternative

The Terrace Basin Route Alternative was suggested by the BLM to avoid impacts on a sensitive 

habitat area of salt-desert shrub vegetation and to avoid an area of potential wilderness characteristics in 

the area northwest of the Great Salt Lake between the Matlin-Terrace Mountains and the Grouse Creek 

Mountains. The route alternative diverges from the proposed route at MP 189.8 and follows a county 

road southwest until it reaches State Highway 30, where the route turns south following the highway until 

it reconnects with the proposed route at MP 209.7 (see figure 3.4.7-1). The total length of the Terrace 

Basin Route Alternative is 22.6 miles. Table 3.4.7-1 provides a comparison of the significant 

environmental characteristics of the alternative and the corresponding segment of the proposed route.

TABLE 3.4.7-1

Terrace Basin Route Alternative Comparison

Environmental Factors Terrace Basin Route

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Proposed 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 Scrub Habitat Crossed (miles) 0.0 10.9

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-20

Figure 3.4.7-1(terrace basin)

3-20 3-20 3-20

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-21

The primary purpose of the alternative would be 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 would be 2.6 miles longer than the proposed route, but by 

following more miles of existing road right-of-way as opposed to creating a new corridor, the alternative 

would cross 10.9 fewer miles of salt-desert scrub habitat. The alternative would instead cross 14.2 more 

miles of sagebrush steppe habitat. The Terrace Basin Route Alternative also would avoid crossing an 

area that contains potential wilderness characteristic elements. This area of the proposed route, referred 

to as the Rosebud Creek Wilderness Character Unit, is not currently designated as a wilderness area, but 

the area is noted as retaining characteristics of naturalness, size, and opportunity for a primitive 

recreational experience, prerequisites for a determination as a wilderness area. Neither the alternative nor 

the proposed route would cross perennial waterbodies or wetlands. 

We believe that the proposed route and the alternative are both environmentally acceptable. 

However, the Terrace Basin Route Alternative avoids the salt-desert scrub habitat of concern to the BLM 

as well as the Rosebud Creek Wilderness Character Unit. In addition, the BLM indicated that it favors 

this alternative and would likely require Ruby to adopt it in the BLM’s permitting process. Because of 

this, and the apparent benefits to the alternative regarding habitat restoration and avoiding an area the 

BLM considers to have potential wilderness characteristic elements, we find the alternative to be 

environmentally preferable. Thus, we recommend that Ruby incorporate the Terrace Basin Route 

Alternative, as depicted in figure 3.4.7-1, into the final pipeline route.

3.4.8 West-wide Energy Corridor Route Alternative

We received several comments during scoping requesting that the pipeline be rerouted to follow 

the West-wide Energy Corridor (WWEC). The WWEC is a collection of non-contiguous energy 

corridors identified by the U.S. Department of Energy, 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, 2008). 

EPAct 2005 requires federal agencies to identify corridors for oil, gas, and hydrogen pipelines 

and electricity transmission and distribution facilities on federal land. It also requires federal agencies to 

incorporate the corridors into their land use plans and expedite applications to construct or modify oil, 

gas, and hydrogen pipelines and electricity transmission and distribution facilities within such corridors.

The U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Defense, BLM, and USFS are in the process of 

amending their respective affected land use plans to incorporate the WWEC designation. As many as 165 

land use plans could require amendments.

The WWEC includes more than 6,000 miles of 3,500-foot-wide, non-contiguous corridor on 

federal lands. A 3,500-foot-wide 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 is designated only on 

federal land. The corridor does not extend onto interposing private or non-federal parcels.

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.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-22

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 right-of-way on 

interposing private lands that do not have a corridor designation. For Ruby to make use of the noncontiguous segments of WWEC Route Alternative, the alternative route would begin at about MP 270.0 

in Elko County, Nevada and proceed in a southwesterly direction, generally following Interstate 80, to 

approximately Wadsworth, Nevada, then turn northwesterly, through Washoe County, Nevada, and 

Lassen and Modoc counties in California, before terminating at the project end point in Malin, Oregon 

(see figure 3.4.8-1). 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.

Although the WWEC Route Alternative would meet the project objective and is technically 

feasible, increasing the project footprint by about one-third would result in a substantially larger footprint 

that would result in greater environmental impacts. Further, Ruby stated that the additional pipeline 

length as well as the need for additional compression at existing stations or possible new compressor 

stations would result in substantial increased costs that would make the project economically infeasible. 

Therefore, we do not recommend that this alternative be evaluated further or incorporated into the 

proposed project.

3.4.9 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 approximate MP 349.9. Ruby’s 

proposed route along this section follows several miles of an overhead electric transmission line (see 

figure 3.4.9-1). The total length of the AT&T East Route Alternative is 48.5 miles. Table 3.4.9-1 

provides a comparison of the significant environmental characteristics of the alternative and the 

corresponding segment of the proposed route.

TABLE 3.4.9-1

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

 

The AT&T East Route Alternative would be 1.2 miles longer than the proposed route, but would 

cross slightly less wetland and waterbody habitat. It would also be collocated with about 19.9 miles of 

former AT&T cable right-of-way. However, the benefits of collocation would not be fully realized since 

this right-of-way has been abandoned and is not currently maintained. The proposed route’s crossing of 

the Mary’s River would result in less impact on the associated wetland than the alternative route river 

crossing location. The alternative route would also cross more private land and could have greater impact 

on irrigation systems associated with Tabor Creek Ranch. We conclude that the AT&T East Route 

Alternative would not convey a significant environmental advantage over the proposed pipeline route; 

thus we are not recommending it.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-23

figure 3.4.8-1 (WWEC)

3-22 3-23

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-24

figure 3.4.9-1 (AT&T East)

3-23 3-24

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-25

3.4.10 Willow Creek Route Alternative

During the scoping process the BLM requested consideration of a route that would mainly follow 

an abandoned AT&T cable right-of-way and the Jungo-Tuscarora Road, west of where the AT&T East 

Route Alternative would end. The Willow Creek Route Alternative begins at approximate MP 349.2 and 

rejoins the proposed route at MP 410.6 (see figure 3.4.10-1). The total length of the Willow Creek Route 

Alternative is 61.4 miles. Table 3.4.10-1 provides a comparison of the significant environmental 

characteristics of the alternative and the corresponding segment of the proposed route.

TABLE 3.4.10-1

Willow Creek Route Alternative Comparison

Environmental Factors Willow Creek Route 

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Proposed Route

Length (miles) 61.4 61.4

Parallel Existing ROW (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 (miles) 0.9 0.0

The Willow Creek Route Alternative would be the same length as the proposed pipeline route, 

but about 25.3 miles of the alternative would be collocated with the former AT&T cable right-of-way. 

The alternative would affect 0.6 fewer mile of wetlands, including avoiding a unique wetland habitat 

called the Hot Lakes wetland at about MP 381.7 along the proposed route. However, the alternative 

would cross three more perennial streams, including two crossings of Willow Creek. The alternative also 

would cross about 0.9 mile of the Willow Creek Restoration Area, whereas the proposed pipeline route 

would not affect this area. The 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 project 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 within the restoration area. The BLM stated that it favors the alternative, and Ruby stated 

that it would not be opposed to it. 

We believe that the proposed route and the alternative are both environmentally acceptable. The 

additional amount of collocation of the alternative, combined with otherwise generally similar 

environmental impacts between the routes, lead us to view the alternative favorably. We have also taken 

into consideration the BLM’s input regarding resource impacts and its support of the alternative. For 

these reasons, we recommend that Ruby incorporate the Willow Creek Route Alternative, as 

depicted in figure 3.4.10-1, into the final pipeline route.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-26

figure 3.4.10-1 (willow creek)

3-326-25

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-27

3.4.11 Sheldon Route Alternative

The Sheldon Route Alternative was identified by the BLM and NDOW during scoping as an 

alternative that would reduce the project’s impacts on greater sage-grouse habitat 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 would

attempt to avoid impacting this type of habitat by being collocated with State Highway 140 along a large 

part of its 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. The tribe also expressed concerns about 

known traditional sacred sites and possible burials along the proposed route. 

Collocation of facilities is a generally accepted practice as a means to control the location of 

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 has exclusive 

rights to construct, maintain, and develop the land within the easement for a highway, and other uses are 

prohibited. The Nevada Department of Transportation has indicated that it is generally not opposed to 

collocation with other facilities and that it can share easements under the right circumstances. 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, which is essentially an agency 

policy and permitting matter (i.e., that the FWS amend the existing right-of-way easement for Highway 

140 to include Ruby Pipeline use). The Sheldon Route Alternative does include two locations totaling 4.5 

miles where road switchbacks and rough terrain dictate aligning the pipeline outside of and away from the 

highway easement. Any portion of the alternative not within the highway easement on the Sheldon NWR 

would be contingent upon the FWS concurring with additional new right-of-way. 

The Sheldon Route Alternative departs from the proposed route in Humboldt County, Nevada at 

about MP 483.2 and generally follows State Highway 140 northwesterly through the Sheldon NWR and 

into Oregon, then reconnects with the proposed route at about MP 599.7 (see figure 3.4.11-1). Table

3.4.11-1 presents a comparison of the important environmental features of this alternative to the 

corresponding segment of the proposed route. 

The Sheldon Route Alternative would impact many of the same resources as the proposed 

pipeline route. 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. The geologic, soil, and 

other environmental conditions in northwestern Nevada would be expected to be about the same on the 

two routes, except that the Sheldon Route Alternative crosses volcanic plateaus and may require more 

blasting than the proposed route, which crosses mainly alluvium. 

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. Because the routes are nearly the same 

length and because the construction techniques and mitigation measures for the routes would be the same, 

the impacts of construction and operation on many resources (e.g., amount of soil exposed to erosion, 

volume of water needed for hydrostatic testing, demand for temporary housing, routine vegetation 

maintenance during operation) would be expected to be about the same. Section 4.0 provides a discussion 

of those impacts. The following analysis is focused on those areas where impacts are expected to be 

different.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-28

figure 3.4.11-1 (Sheldon)

33-3-28--2728

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-29

TABLE 3.4.11-1

Sheldon Route Alternative Comparison

Environmental Factor Sheldon Route

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Proposed Route

Length (miles) 118.3 116.5

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

NWR Wilderness Management Area 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) 6.4 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

Geologic Faults (number) 21 7

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.

Although the length of the Sheldon Route Alternative is nearly the same as the corresponding 

segment of the proposed route, the Sheldon Route Alternative would parallel substantially more existing 

right-of-way (28.2 additional miles) than the proposed route, impact substantially less greater sage-grouse 

winter habitat (59.8 fewer miles), may affect fewer greater sage-grouse leks (13 fewer leks),1and would 

avoid concerns identified along the proposed route with Northern Paiute traditional foods, medicines, 

sacred sites, and possible burials. Conversely, the alternative would impact more pronghorn crucial 

winter habitat (4.0 additional miles), more perennial streams (3 additional streams), more wetlands (6.0 

additional miles), and would cross more geologic faults (14 additional faults). Additionally, the 

alternative would cross the Sheldon NWR and at least one WSA within the Sheldon NWR. It would also 

cross or be immediately adjacent to four citizen-proposed WSAs outside the Sheldon NWR. The citizenproposed WSAs are areas recommended by the Oregon Natural Desert Association for designation as 

WSAs for their wilderness resource values and characteristics. The BLM is presently evaluating 

wilderness resource values and characteristics of these areas. The corresponding segment of the proposed 

pipeline route would not cross any of these areas.

The Sheldon Route Alternative would cross about 34.5 miles of the Sheldon NWR. Federal land 

management strategies on FWS-administered land differ from strategies on other federal land. The 

regulatory obligation of the FWS is to manage the Sheldon NWR as sagebrush-steppe habitat for 

optimum populations of native plants and wildlife. The Sheldon Route Alternative would be within the 

State Highway 140 easement within the Sheldon NWR, except for about 4.5 miles that would need to 

diverge from the highway easement due to road switchbacks and rough terrain. 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 that is benefiting from current efforts 

to remove feral horses and burros. (FWS, 2008a). Approximately 300 species of birds, mammals, 

amphibians, fish, and reptiles are present on the Sheldon NWR. Data suggest that wildlife diversity 

 

1 Ruby field-verified many of the greater sage-grouse lek sites along the proposed route, but has not yet field-verified lek 

locations along the alternative. We instead used existing lek information provided by the FWS, BLM, and NDOW. Ruby is 

planning to field-verify lek locations along the alternative in 2009. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-30

within the Sheldon NWR may be higher than areas outside its borders; however, based on our experience, 

wildlife diversity within and immediately adjacent to existing highway easements, such as where a 

majority of the Sheldon Route Alternative would be sited on the Sheldon NWR, typically is not reflective 

of the species richness found in more remote locations. In addition, 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, may be higher than that of the alternative route within the State Highway 140

easement. The FWS has suggested this may not be the case because species richness on the Sheldon 

NWR in general has been documented to be higher than surrounding areas (Herbst, 1996; Williams and 

Storm, 1978). Ruby is in the process conducting field studies to document habitat quality along the 

Sheldon Route Alternative and the proposed route. The results of these studies will provide some insight 

as to species richness along the two routes and will be disclosed in the final EIS. 

Within the Sheldon NWR, the State Highway 140 easement abuts four WSAs (Big Springs Table, 

Gooch Table, Sagehen Hills, and Round Mountain). The Sheldon Route Alternative would cross about 

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 high as 5.3 miles depending on 

the degree of collocation within the highway easement. The FWS stated that routing the pipeline through

the WSA would adversely affect its wilderness character and would conflict with the management 

direction of the area. 

Upon exiting the Sheldon NWR, the alternative route would continue northwesterly in Oregon. 

The ODFW has identified several sensitive species and habitats along the Sheldon Route Alternative in 

Oregon including: intact shrub-steppe habitat from MPs 558 to 580; two California Bighorn sheep ranges 

at MP 565 and MP 580; an area with known pygmy rabbit occurrence at MP 580; an active greater sagegrouse lek from MPs 579 to 580, and greater sage-grouse nesting and late summer brood habitat from

MPs 578 to 580 and again at MP 594; and Warner Sucker habitat from MPs 590 to 593. The alternative 

route also would cross or be immediately adjacent to about 14.1 miles of citizen-proposed WSAs in 

Oregon; including the Sheldon Rim, Spaulding Addition, Coleman Rim, and Sucker Creek citizenproposed WSAs. The BLM is not prohibited from routing pipelines through citizen-proposed WSAs, but 

is required to review such projects within these areas under project-specific EISs such as this.

The Sheldon Route Alternative would avoid known areas of concern to the Summit Lake Paiute 

Tribe along the proposed route, but it is presently unknown if similar areas of concern are present on the 

alternative route. 

Ruby submitted a Class I cultural resource records review of the Sheldon Route Alternative route 

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 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 proposed route and the Sheldon 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 that are recorded are prehistoric rock shelters, petroglyphs, quarries, and lithic 

scatters. Survey records from the General Land Office (a predecessor agency to 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). 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-31

The Class III survey of the proposed route through Nevada discovered 337 archaeological sites to 

date, with 168 of the sites recommended as eligible for listing on the NRHP (see section 4.10.1.3). The 

Class I records review suggest 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 pass through the Virgin Valley Mining District but would 

be located within or adjacent to the road easement and would not impact currently operating mines. The 

alternative would cross 21 geologic faults (14 more than the proposed route). Although more faults

would be crossed, the faults are within an equivalent or lower seismic risk area as rated by the USGS. As 

discussed in section 4.1.3.1, seismic activity poses little risk to well-constructed steel pipelines. 

Regardless of the route, the proposed project would be designed and constructed in accordance with 49 

CFR 192 to ensure adequate protection from earthquake hazards.

If the Sheldon Route Alternative is 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-of-way grant, but 

would not issue the grant until the FWS concurred with the route. 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. 

A compatible use is one that would not materially interfere with or detract from the purposes of a refuge 

or the mission of the NWR system. The purpose of the Sheldon NWR is to conserve wildlife including 

greater sage-grouse, pronghorn antelope, and other native species dependent on the sagebrush-steppe 

ecosystem. The mission of the NWRs 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, in conflict with the legal and policy mandate to maintain biological integrity 

and diversity on the Sheldon NWR. The Sheldon Route Alternative would be classified as a commercial 

use of land, would include development of a permanent structure/facility, and would destroy or disturb 

substantial acreage of a WSA in violation of FWS policy for management of such special areas. For these 

and other reasons, the FWS has stated that it is highly unlikely that development of the Sheldon Route 

Alternative could be determined compatible within the Sheldon NWR and that it could not concur with 

the route.

All things being equal, the FERC generally prefers routes that are collocated with existing rightsof-way in order to minimize impacts associated with greenfield construction (e.g., habitat fragmentation). 

All things rarely are equal, however, and 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 highquality habitat). We have concluded in this EIS that Ruby’s proposed pipeline route is environmentally 

acceptable (see section 5.1). This determination is based, in part, on the commitments Ruby presented in 

its application and supplemental filings, our independent evaluation of the available data (including 

information and analysis provided by cooperating and resource agencies), and our recommendations. The 

Sheldon Route Alternative, however, also meets the project objectives and is technically and 

economically feasible. We acknowledge the permitting considerations and issues raised by the FWS 

related to compatible use and the goals of the NWR system. However, the purpose of this EIS is to 

evaluate environmental impacts of the proposed project and compare these to reasonable alternatives. As 

such, we believe that the Sheldon Route Alternative has merit based on the potential for large amount of 

collocation with a state highway (rather than crossing a previously undisturbed and somewhat more 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-32

remote area), and the associated apparent reduced impacts on greater sage-grouse habitat, greater sagegrouse leks, and possibly Northern Paiute foods, medicines, sacred sites, and burials.

We are awaiting the results of additional field studies being conducted by Ruby, and at this point

we are requesting additional comments to help focus the analysis on the significant environmental issues 

related to the alternative as compared to the corresponding segment of the proposed route. We especially 

invite agencies, landowners, and Native American tribes to comment. We will consider all comments as 

well as updated field data before we make our final recommendations to the Commission, which will be 

presented in the final EIS.

3.4.12 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 alternative route’s overall length. The resulting route analyzed here 

(Black Rock 7) departs from the proposed route at MP 424.2 and proceeds in a southwesterly direction to 

Winnemucca where it intersects Jungo Road and continues in a southwesterly direction. The alternative 

then continues along the southern border of the Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails 

National Conservation Area (NCA) (Black Rock NCA), to Gerlach, Nevada, where it proceeds in a 

northwesterly direction to an electric transmission line and then follows the line before reconnecting with 

the proposed route at MP 562.2 (see figure 3.4.12-1). Table 3.4.12-1 presents a comparison of the 

significant environmental features of this alternative to the corresponding segment of the proposed route.

TABLE 3.4.12-1

Black Rock Route Alternative Comparison

Environmental Factor Black Rock Route Corresponding Segment 

of the Proposed Route

Length (miles) 180.0 138.1

Parallel to Existing Rights-of-Way (miles within 500’ of centerline) 52.4 30.1

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

Perennial Waterbodies Crossed (number) 1 3

Wetland Habitat Crossed (miles crossed) 10.5 3.6

Cultural Resource Sites Crossed (number identified in Class I 

records review)

102 21

Additional Compression Required Yes No

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-33

Figure 3.4.12-1 (black rock)

3-31 3-332

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-34

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 add 6.1 percent to the 

overall project length. 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 rightof-way (19.6 additional miles) than the proposed 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.

The Black Rock Route Alternative may impact fewer greater sage-grouse leks (three fewer leks)2

and fewer perennial streams (two fewer streams); it would however, impact more greater sage-grouse 

winter habitat (6.6 additional miles), substantially more pronghorn crucial winter habitat (18.8 additional 

miles), more wetland habitat (6.9 additional miles), and would cross more national historic trails (three 

additional trails). Additionally, the alternative would cross a NCA administered by the BLM.

The Black Rock Route Alternative would cross the Black Rock Desert NCA at two locations for a 

total distance of about 3.7 miles. According to the BLM, the focal point of the Black Rock Desert 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 would cross the Applegate 

National Historic Trail at two locations within the NCA. The alternative also would cross 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 BLM 

would be required to amend its RMP to allow for one additional utility crossing at these locations.

The Summit Lake Paiute Tribe expressed concern about the potential for the proposed pipeline 

route 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. Similar to the Sheldon Route Alternative, the Black Rock Route Alternative would avoid these 

areas of concern along the proposed route and the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe indicated that it favors the 

Black Rock Route Alternative because it avoids these areas of concern. 

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, and 102 

sites recorded, compared to 29 percent surveyed and 21 sites recorded for the 138-mile 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. 

 

2 Ruby field-verified many of the greater sage-grouse lek sites along the proposed route, but has not yet field-verified lek 

locations along the alternative. We instead used existing lek information provided by the FWS, BLM, and NDOW. Ruby is 

planning to field-verify lek locations along the alternative in 2009. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-35

The record review of the broader 2-mile study area along the pipeline corridor reveals 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). 

The Class III survey of the proposed route through Nevada has discovered 337 archaeological 

sites to date, with 168 of them recommended as eligible for listing on the NRHP (see section 4.10.1.3). 

The Class I record 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 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 an enormous, 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 50,000 people attended the festival in 2008. If pipeline 

construction were to occur in this area during the festival the influx of non-local workers would increase 

competition for limited resources, such as lodging and public services, and could disrupt transportation 

and traffic flow.

Ruby stated that the route and additional length of the Black Rock Route Alternative would 

require installing an additional compressor unit at the Desert Valley Compressor Station and moving the 

station to approximately MP 512 to achieve the required delivery volumes. The additional compressor 

unit would about double air emissions at the station. Ruby also would be required to install inlet air 

cooling equipment at all three of its gas-fired compressor stations in order to maintain summer delivery 

capacity. Ruby stated that the compressor station modifications 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, Ruby suggests that the route alternative may be economically infeasible. We believe Ruby’s 

cost assessment may be incomplete because it does not account for certain cost savings associated 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. 

Notwithstanding, we do not believe that the reduction in impacts on greater sage-grouse leks 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 of fragmentation and on 

wetlands, greater sage-grouse winter habitat, pronghorn crucial winter habitat, national historic trails, 

recreation, and air quality. However, biologists with the BLM, FWS, and NDOW have suggested that the 

quality of greater sage-grouse habitat along the proposed route may be higher than along the Black Rock 

Route Alternative, and that this could be an overriding factor that “tips the scales” in favor of the 

alternative.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-36

In conjunction with the BLM, FWS, and NDOW, Ruby is developing a greater sage-grouse 

habitat ranking system and will be conducting greater sage-grouse surveys during the 2009 field season. 

We are awaiting the results of the assessment and surveys, and are requesting additional comments to 

help focus the analysis on environmental issues related to the alternative as compared to the proposed 

route. We especially invite agencies, landowners, and Native American tribes to comment. We will 

consider all comments and forthcoming information before we make our final recommendation to the 

Commission, which will be presented in the final EIS.

3.4.13 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 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

3.4.13-1). The total length of the Jungo-Tuscarora Route Alternative is 312.8 miles. Table 3.4.13-1 

presents a comparison of the significant environmental features of this alternative and the corresponding 

segment of the proposed route.

TABLE 3.4.13-1

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

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-37

figure 3.4.13-1 (Jungo-Tuscarora)

3-35 33-36-37

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-38

Our review of the Jungo-Tuscarora Route Alternative indicates that it would be about 51.9 miles 

(or 20 percent) longer than the corresponding segment of the proposed route. This would add 7.7 percent 

to the overall project length. The Jungo-Tuscarora Route Alternative would parallel more existing rightof-way (113.4 additional miles) than the proposed route and would create less greenfield right-of-way 

(61.5 fewer miles). The alternative would impact less greater sage-grouse winter habitat (34.0 fewer 

miles), fewer greater sage-grouse leks (9 fewer leks),3fewer perennial streams (13 fewer streams), and 

less wetland habitat (12.3 fewer miles). Conversely, the alternative would impact 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 alternative would cross a 

NCA administered by the BLM, a WSA administered by the BLM, and a NWR administered by the 

FWS. The corresponding segment of the proposed route would not cross any of these areas.

The Jungo-Tuscarora Route Alternative would cross the Black Rock Desert NCA at one location 

for a total distance of about 2.5 miles. Within the NCA, the alternative would cross the Applegate 

National Historic Trail. The alternative also would cross the Nobles Emigrant Trail, but on BLMadministered land just outside of the NCA. In both instances, the alternative would follow existing utility 

or transportation corridors across the trails. The BLM would be required to amend its RMP to allow for 

additional utility crossings at these locations.

The Jungo-Tuscarora Route Alternative would pass 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 the Black Rock Route Alternative for a more detailed discussion of the festival). The 

alternative also would cross about 0.7 mile of the Tule Mountain WSA administered by the BLM in 

California, and 1.2 miles of the Modoc NWR administered by the FWS in California.

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. The 

additional compression as well as the additional length of pipeline would increase the total project cost. 

According to Ruby, the additional compression and pipeline length would add approximately $271

million to the project cost. Ruby has committed to transportation rates in binding precedent agreements 

with its shippers. Ruby stated that increased construction costs 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). 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 

review (up to 1 year or more) would prevent Ruby from meeting its in-service date and would render the 

project infeasible. Further, we believe the reduction in impacts on greater sage-grouse winter habitat, 

greater sage-grouse leks, perennial streams, and wetlands would not 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. Therefore, we are not recommending this 

alternative.

 

3 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 #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-39

3.4.14 Southern Langell Valley Route Alternative

Ruby developed the Southern Langell Valley Route Alternative as an alternative that would 

reduce the project’s impacts on a sensitive archaeological area in Oregon known as the proposed 

Antelope Creek Archaeological District (ACAD). The ACAD is located on BLM land and is managed by

the Klamath Falls Resource Area office. Ruby has been coordinating efforts with both the Klamath Falls 

Resource Area office and the Klamath Tribe to locate an alternative route through this area. The Southern 

Langell Valley Route Alternative would avoid impacts on the ACAD by placing the pipeline more than 2

miles away from the area. The alternative departs from the proposed 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 3.4.14-1). Table 3.4.14-1 presents a comparison of the significant environmental features of 

this alternative to the corresponding segment of the proposed route.

TABLE 3.4.14-1

Southern Langell Valley Route Alternative Comparison

Environmental Factor Southern Langell 

Valley Route

Corresponding Segment of 

the Proposed Route

Length (miles) 29.4 31.9

Parallel to Existing Rights-of-Way (miles within 500’ of centerline) 8.0 5.9

Nonfederal Landowners Crossed (number) 9 17

Mule Deer Crucial Winter Habitat Crossed (miles) 1.3 0.0

Proposed ACAD Crossed (miles) 0.0 0.3

Reclamation Canals Crossed (number) 1 3

Perennial Waterbodies Crossed (number) 2 4

Wetland Habitat Crossed (miles) 0.5 2.9

WRP Easements Crossed (number) 0 1

The Southern Langell Valley Route Alternative would connect with the PG&E pipeline system at 

the Oregon-California state line, but would not negate the need for the lateral which would need to extend 

from the PG&E interconnect 2.6 miles to the north and interconnect with other pipelines at the Malin 

Market Center. The alternative would be 2.5 miles shorter than the proposed route, would parallel about 

3.9 more miles of existing right-of-way, and would affect 8 fewer nonfederal landowners. In addition to 

avoiding the ACAD, the Southern Langell Valley Route Alternative would avoid two of the three

Reclamation canals crossed by the proposed project (the Lost River Improvement Channel and the Main

Drain), and would avoid NRCS WRP easements. The alternative also would cross two fewer perennial

waterbodies, and would affect 2.1 fewer miles of wetlands. However, it would cross 1.3 miles of mule 

deer crucial winter habitat and 3.6 additional miles of federal land administered by Reclamation. We 

have concluded that the Southern Langell Valley Route Alternative would confer an overall 

environmental advantage over the proposed pipeline route. Therefore, we recommend that Ruby 

incorporate the Southern Langell Valley Route Alternative, as depicted in figure 3.4.14-1, into the 

final pipeline route.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-40

figure 3.4.14-1 (S. Langell)

3-39403-38

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-41

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 resources 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.

Ruby evaluated several minor route variations during the Pre-filing Process and during the 

development of the pipeline route (see section 1.3). Those variations that provided environmental or 

constructability advantages were incorporated into the proposed route by Ruby, which is analyzed in 

section 4 of this EIS. Ruby also identified several additional route variations which it plans to adopt into 

the proposed design but has not incorporated into its proposed route to date. We have evaluated these 

additional variations to determine if they are environmentally preferable to the corresponding segment of 

the proposed route. 

Our evaluation of route variations was based on information provided by Ruby, information 

provided by cooperating agencies, comments provided at public comment meetings or filed with the 

FERC, review of available aerial photography and USGS topographic maps, and site visits. Ruby would 

be required to complete biological and cultural surveys and consultations on the variations recommended 

below and file such information with the FERC prior to the final EIS. The 15 variations we considered 

are listed on table 3.5-1, along with the segments of the proposed route they would replace and the reason 

for the variation. 

3.5.1 Ryckman Creek Route Variation

The Ryckman Creek Route Variation was developed to minimize impacts on riparian areas along 

Ryckman Creek. This variation involves minor pipeline alignment shifts while generally still following 

the proposed route. Most of the variation and the corresponding segment of the proposed route is on 

BLM land. The variation diverges from the proposed pipeline route at MP 27.3, reconnecting with the 

proposed route 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 proposed route.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-42

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

Sheep Mountain Road 41.4 – 42.2 Reduce impacts on drainage wash Recommended

Woodruff East 51.1 – 51.4 Improve canal crossing constructability Recommended

Woodruff West 51.8 – 54.9 Avoid crowding in electric transmission line right-of-way Recommended

Prasthofer 75.9 – 76.6 Landowner request and improve constructability Recommended

South End Brigham Bench 104.9 – 105.7 Improve constructability on slope Recommended

Brigham Bench 106.9 – 107.3 Avoid impacts on springs, avoid fault line Recommended

North End Brigham Bench 108.5 – 109.1 Avoid crowding in electric transmission line right-of-way Recommended

Roper 116.0 – 117.2 Landowner request Recommended

Peterson Pond 125.4 – 126.3 Landowner request Recommended

ATK 135.3 – 139.4 Avoid ATK facility Recommended

State Route 30 214.2 – 222.1 Landowner request Recommended

Tabor Ranch 287.9 – 299.3 Landowner request, avoid irrigation circles Recommended

VORTAC 462.3 – 465.5 Avoid interference with VORTAC facility Recommended

Bud Garrett Marsh Rookery 614.4 – 621.0 Minimize colonial water bird nesting habitat impacts Recommended

TABLE 3.5.1-1

Ryckman Creek Route Variation Comparison

Environmental Factors Rickman Creek

Variation

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Proposed Route

Length (miles) 0.4 0.4

Parallel to Existing Rights-of-Way (miles within 500’ of centerline) 0.4 0.4

Private Landowners Crossed (number) 1 1

Ephemeral Wash Crossed (number) 3 3

Wetland Habitat Crossed (miles) <0.1 <0.1

The Ryckman Creek Route Variation would be the same length as the proposed route, and would 

affect very similar types and quantities of resources as the proposed route. The variation would place the 

pipeline further away from Ryckman Creek, reduce the amount of impact on riparian areas, and would not 

affect any new landowners. Based on this information, we have determined that the Ryckman Creek 

Route Variation is environmentally preferable to the corresponding segment of the proposed route. 

Therefore, we recommend that Ruby incorporate the Ryckman Creek Route Variation, as depicted 

in figure 3.5.1-1, into the final pipeline route.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-43

Figure 3.5.1-1 (Ryckman creek)

1.1.1

3-40 3-423-43

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-44

3.5.2 Sheep Mountain Road Route Variation

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 minor pipeline alignment shifts 

while generally still following the proposed route. Most of the variation and the corresponding segment 

of the proposed route are on BLM land. The variation diverges from the proposed route at MP 41.4, 

reconnecting 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 proposed route.

TABLE 3.5.2-1

Sheep Mountain Road Route Variation Comparison

Environmental Factors Sheep Mountain 

Road Variation

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Proposed Route

Length (miles) 0.8 0.8

Parallel to Existing Rights-of-Way (miles within 500’ of centerline) 0.8 0.8

Private Landowners Crossed (number) 1 1

Ephemeral Wash Crossed (number) 1 1

Wetland Habitat Crossed (miles) 0.0 0.0

The Sheep Mountain Road Route Variation would be the same length, affect the same private 

landowner as the proposed route, and would affect very similar types and quantities of resources. The 

route variation, however, would place the pipeline further away from the ephemeral wash that drains into 

Salt Creek. Based on this information, we have determined that the Sheep Mountain Road Route 

Variation is environmentally preferable to the corresponding segment of the proposed route. Therefore, 

we recommend that Ruby incorporate the Sheep Mountain Road Route Variation, as depicted in 

figure 3.5.2-1, into the final pipeline route.

3.5.3 Woodruff East Route Variation

The Woodruff East Route Variation was developed to improve the constructability of a canal 

crossing. This variation involves minor pipeline alignment shifts while generally still following the 

proposed route. The variation diverges from the proposed route at MP 51.1, reconnecting 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 proposed route.

TABLE 3.5.3-1

Woodruff East Route Variation Comparison

Environmental Factors Woodruff East

Variation

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Proposed 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

3-44

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-45

Sheep Mtn Figure 

3-45

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-46

igure 3.5.3-1 woodruff east/west

3-4445 3-46

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-47

The Woodruff East Route Variation would be about the same length as the proposed route and 

would affect very similar types and quantities of resources as the proposed route. The route variation 

would shift the pipeline alignment at the approaches leading up to a canal tributary that flows into the 

Bear River to allow a better crossing of the canal. It also would affect one fewer landowner. Based on 

this information, we have determined that the Woodruff East Route Variation is environmentally 

preferable to the corresponding segment of the proposed route. Therefore, we recommend that Ruby 

incorporate the Woodruff East Route Variation, as depicted in figure 3.5.3-1, into the final pipeline 

route.

3.5.4 Woodruff West Route Variation

The Woodruff West Route Variation was developed to avoid crowding near two existing Rocky 

Mountain Power electric transmission lines, and improve the constructability of a highway crossing. This 

variation involves minor pipeline alignment shifts while generally still following the proposed route. The 

variation diverges from the proposed route at MP 51.8, reconnecting 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 

proposed route.

TABLE 3.5.4-1

Woodruff West Route Variation Comparison

Environmental Factors Woodruff West Variation

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Proposed 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 would be about the same length as the proposed route and 

would affect very similar types and quantities of resources as the proposed route. The variation, however, 

would shift the pipeline route to the south side of the Rocky Mountain Power transmission corridor and 

would parallel about 0.6 more mile of existing right-of-way. It also would affect five fewer landowners.

Based on this information, we have determined that the Woodruff West Route Variation is

environmentally preferable to the corresponding segment of the proposed route. Therefore, we 

recommend that Ruby incorporate the Woodruff West Route Variation, as depicted in figure 3.5.3-

1, into the final pipeline route.

3.5.5 Prasthofer Route Variation

The Prasthofer Route Variation was developed to accommodate a landowner’s request to shift the 

pipeline on their property and improve the constructability in an area of steep terrain. The Prasthofer 

property is a private tract within the Cache NF. This variation involves minor pipeline alignment shifts 

while generally still following the proposed route. The variation diverges from the proposed route at MP 

75.9, reconnecting 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 proposed route.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-48

figure 3.5.5-1 (Prasthofer)

3-46 33--473-48

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-49

 

TABLE 3.5.5-1

Prasthofer Route Variation Comparison

Environmental Factors Prasthofer Variation

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Proposed Route

Length (miles) 0.7 0.7

Parallel to Existing Rights-of-Way (miles within 500’ of centerline) 0.7 0.7

Private Landowners Crossed (number) 1 1

Perennial Streams Crossed (number) 0 0

Wetland Habitat Crossed (miles) 0.0 0.0

The Prasthofer Route Variation would be the same length as the proposed route and would affect 

very similar types and quantities of resources as the proposed route. The route variation also would 

address a landowner’s concern and would not affect any new landowners. Based on this information, we 

have determined that the Prasthofer Route Variation is environmentally preferable to the corresponding 

segment of the proposed route. Therefore, we recommend that Ruby incorporate the Prasthofer 

Route Variation, as depicted in figure 3.5.5-1, into the final pipeline route.

3.5.6 South End Brigham Bench Route Variation

The South End Brigham Bench Route Variation was developed to improve constructability. This 

variation would move the pipeline alignment north, following a more direct route coming off a hill. The 

variation diverges from the proposed route at MP 104.9, reconnecting at 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 proposed route.

TABLE 3.5.6-1

South End Brigham Bench Route Variation Comparison

Environmental Factors South End Brigham 

Bench Variation

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Proposed 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 would be about the same length as the proposed 

route, would improve the constructability in an area of steep terrain, and would affect one fewer 

landowner. Based on this information, we have determined that the South End Brigham Bench Route 

Variation is environmentally preferable to the corresponding segment of the proposed route. Therefore, 

we recommend that Ruby incorporate the South End Brigham Bench Route Variation, as depicted 

in figure 3.5.6-1, into the final pipeline route.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-50

figure 3.5.6-1 (S. End Brigham, Brigham Bench, N. End Brigham Bench)

3-47

3-349-4950

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-51

3.5.7 Brigham Bench Route Variation

The Brigham Bench Route Variation was developed to minimize impacts on groundwater 

springs, improve the crossing alignment of a fault line, and avoid crowding near an existing and future 

Rocky Mountain Power transmission line. This variation involves minor pipeline alignment shifts while 

generally still following the proposed route. The variation diverges from the proposed route at MP 106.9, 

reconnecting 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 proposed route.

TABLE 3.5.7-1

Brigham Bench Route Variation Comparison

Environmental Factors Brigham Bench

Variation

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Proposed 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

The Brigham Bench Route Variation would be the same length as the proposed route and would 

affect very similar types and quantities of resources as the proposed route. The route variation would 

minimize impacts on groundwater, improved the crossing alignment of a geologic fault line, improve the 

constructability of the route, and would not affect any new landowners. Based on this information, we 

have determined that the Brigham Bench Route Variation is environmentally preferable to the 

corresponding segment of the proposed route. Therefore, we recommend that Ruby incorporate the 

South End Brigham Bench Route Variation, as depicted in figure 3.5.6-1, into the final pipeline 

route.

3.5.8 North End Brigham Bench Route Variation

The North End Brigham Bench Route Variation was developed to improve the crossing 

alignment of a fault line and to improve the crossing alignment with an existing and a proposed future 

Rocky Mountain Power transmission line. This variation involves minor pipeline alignment shifts while 

generally still following the proposed route. The variation diverges from the proposed route at MP 108.5, 

reconnecting 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 proposed route.

TABLE 3.5.8-1

North End Brigham Bench Route Variation Comparison

Environmental Factors North End Brigham 

Bench Variation

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Proposed 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

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-52

The North End Brigham Bench Route Variation would be slightly longer than the proposed route, 

but would affect very similar types and quantities of resources as the proposed route. The route variation 

would affect one fewer landowner and would improve the constructability of the route. Based on this 

information, we have determined that the North End Brigham Bench Route Variation is environmentally 

preferable to the corresponding segment of the proposed route. Therefore, we recommend that Ruby 

incorporate the North End Brigham Bench Route Variation, as depicted in figure 3.5.6-1, into the 

final pipeline route.

3.5.9 Roper Route Variation

The Roper Route Variation was developed to accommodate a landowner’s request to shift the 

pipeline on their property. This variation involves minor pipeline alignment shifts while generally still 

following the proposed route. The variation diverges from the proposed route at MP 116.0, reconnecting

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 proposed route.

TABLE 3.5.9-1

Roper Route Variation Comparison

Environmental Factors Roper Variation

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Proposed 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

The Roper Route Variation would be the same length as the proposed route and would affect very 

similar types and quantities of resources as the proposed route. The variation also would affect two fewer 

landowners and would address the landowners’ concern. Based on this information, we have determined 

that the Roper Route Variation is environmentally preferable to the corresponding segment of the 

proposed route. Therefore, we recommend that Ruby incorporate the Roper Route Variation, as 

depicted in figure 3.5.9-1, into the final pipeline route.

3.5.10 Peterson Pond Route Variation

The Peterson Pond Route Variation was developed to accommodate landowner requests to shift 

the pipeline on their property. This variation involves minor pipeline alignment shifts while generally 

still following the proposed route. The variation diverges from the proposed route at MP 125.4, 

reconnecting 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 proposed route. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-53

figure 3.5.9-1 roper).

333--52-5053

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-54

figure 3.5.10-1 (Peterson pond)

3-534

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-55

TABLE 3.5.10-1

Peterson Pond Route Variation Comparison

Environmental Factors Peterson Pond 

Variation

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Proposed 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 would be the same length as the proposed route and would 

affect very similar types and quantities of resources. It also would address the landowners’ concerns and 

would not affect any new landowners. Based on this information, we have determined that the Peterson 

Pond Route Variation environmentally preferable to the corresponding segment of the proposed route. 

Therefore, we recommend that Ruby incorporate the Peterson Pond Route Variation, as depicted in 

figure 3.5.10-1, into the final pipeline route.

3.5.11 ATK Route Variation

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. This 

variation involves moving the route alignment about 0.25 mile to the north. The variation diverges from 

the proposed route at MP 135.3, reconnecting 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 proposed route. 

TABLE 3.5.11-1

ATK Route Variation Comparison

Environmental Factors ATK Variation

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Proposed 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 would be the same length as the proposed route and would affect one 

fewer landowner (ATK). It would, however, parallel less existing right-of-way and affect 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 have determined that the ATK Route Variation is 

environmentally preferable to the corresponding segment of the proposed route. Therefore, we 

recommend that Ruby incorporate the ATK Route Variation, as depicted in figure 3.5.11-1, into the 

final pipeline route.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-56

figure 3.5.11-1 (ATK)

1.1.2

3-356-55

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-57

3.5.12 State Route 30 Variation

The State Route 30 Variation was developed to accommodate a landowner’s request to shift the 

pipeline from an alignment 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 variation diverges from the proposed route 

at MP 214.2, reconnecting 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 proposed route. 

TABLE 3.5.12-1

State Route 30 Variation Comparison

Environmental Factors State Route 30 

Variation

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Proposed Route

Length (miles) 8.0 7.9

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

The State Route 30 Variation would affect similar types and quantities of resources as the 

proposed route, except the variation would be routed adjacent to an existing road right-of-way for its 

entire length. Based on this information, we have determined that the State Route 30 Variation would 

confer an environmental advantage over the proposed route, and we recommend that Ruby incorporate 

the State Route 30 Variation, as depicted in figure 3.5.12-1, into the final pipeline route.

3.5.13 Tabor Ranch Route Variation

The Tabor Ranch Route Variation was developed to accommodate a landowner’s request to avoid 

pivot irrigation systems. The variation diverges from the proposed route at MP 287.9, reconnecting 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 proposed route. 

TABLE 3.5.13-1

Tabor Ranch Route Variation Comparison

Environmental Factors Tabor Ranch 

Variation Proposed 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

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-58

State Route 30

3-58

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-59

figure 3.5.13-1 (tabor ranch)

3-55

3-56 3-58 3-59

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-60

The variation is 0.8 mile shorter, would affect nine fewer intermittent washes, would 

accommodate the landowner’s request to avoid pivot irrigation systems, and would not affect any new 

landowners. The variation, however, would not parallel any existing right-of-way, whereas the proposed 

route would parallel 0.5 mile of existing right-of-way. Overall, we have determined that the Tabor Ranch 

Route Variation is environmentally preferable to the corresponding segment of the proposed route. 

Therefore, we recommend that Ruby incorporate the Tabor Ranch Route Variation, as depicted in 

figure 3.5.13-1, into the final pipeline route.

3.5.14 VORTAC Route Variation

The proposed route passes close to a VHF Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Aircraft Control 

(VORTAC) facility at approximate MP 463.6. The VORTAC Route Variation was developed to provide 

a wider separation distance between the VORTAC facility and the pipeline to avoid interference with the 

VORTAC site. This variation involves a minor pipeline alignment shift while generally still following 

the proposed route. The variation diverges from the proposed route at MP 462.3, reconnecting at MP 

465.5 (see figure 3.5.14-1). 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 proposed route.

TABLE 3.5.14-1

VORTAC Route Variation Comparison

Environmental Factors VORTAC Variation

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Proposed Route

Length (miles) 3.5 3.2

Parallel to Existing Rights-of-Way (miles within 500’ of centerline) 0.0 0.0

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, would affect very 

similar types and quantities of resources as the proposed route but would ensure interference with the 

VORTAC facility is avoided. Based on this information, we have determined that the VORTAC Route 

Variation is environmentally preferable to the corresponding segment of the proposed route. Therefore, 

we recommend that Ruby incorporate the VORTAC Route Variation, as depicted in figure 3.5.14-

1, into the final pipeline route.

3.5.15 Bud Garrett Marsh Rookery Route Variation

The Bud Garrett Marsh Rookery Variation was developed in response to a request from the 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) to avoid impacts on colonial water bird nesting habitat

in a marsh on the north side of Goose Lake. The variation diverges from the proposed route at MP 614.3, 

reconnecting at MP 621.0 (see figure 3.5.15-1). The total length of the Bud Garrett Marsh Rookery Route 

Variation is 7.1 miles. Table 3.5.15-1 provides a comparison of the pertinent environmental 

characteristics of the variation and the corresponding segment of the proposed route.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-61

figure 3.5.14-1 (VORTAC)

3-3360--615860

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-62

3.5.15-1 (bud garret)

3-59 3-612

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3-63

TABLE 3.5.15-1

Bud Garrett Marsh Rookery Route Variation Comparison

Environmental Factors Bud Garret Marsh 

Rookery Variation

Corresponding 

Segment of the 

Proposed 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 variation would avoid affects to heron nesting habitats on the north side of Goose Lake of 

concern to the ODFW as well as an ongoing wetland restoration project being conducted by Ducks 

Unlimited. Both the ODFW and Ducks Unlimited support this variation. The variation, however, would 

affect two additional landowners. Based on this information, we have determined that the Bud Garrett 

Marsh Rookery Route Variation would confer an environmental advantage over the corresponding 

segment of the proposed route. Therefore, we recommend that Ruby incorporate the Bud Garrett 

Marsh Rookery Route Variation, as depicted in figure 3.5.15-1, into the final pipeline route.

3.6 ABOVEGROUND FACILITY SITE ALTERNATIVES

Ruby constrained its search for compressor station sites to those areas that best provided suitable 

access roads 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 would also be sited far from noise-sensitive locations and residential 

developments, and would not adversely affect sensitive environmental resources, as discussed in section

4.0. 

Ruby also constrained its search for meter stations to sites near the intersection of the proposed 

project route and the planned and existing pipeline facility locations because the locations of meter 

stations would be linked to the locations of the associated natural gas interconnect points. Similarly, the 

locations of pig launchers/receivers and MLVs were linked to the location of the proposed pipeline. All 

proposed pig launchers/receivers would be constructed within existing facilities or would be collocated 

with meter stations or MLV sites proposed as part of this project. Further, the proposed 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 eliminated or 

moved significantly. 

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, 

Reclamation 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 location of aboveground facilities during scoping and we did not identify any specific 

environmental problems associated with the proposed sites to warrant an alternative analysis. We are not 

considering alternative locations for the aboveground facility sites at this time.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
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 pre-construction 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 pre-construction 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 #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
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 and topography in the eastern portion of the region is 

generally moderate with localized areas of steep relief. In the central and western portions of the region, 

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 and topography in the region is generally moderate 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 and topography in the region is generally moderate. 

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 

alluvium and glacial, fluvial, lacustrine, and eolian deposits cover 30 percent of the project area. Tertiaryage (56 to 1.8 million years ago) volcanic rocks such as tuff, basalt flows, and rhyolites cover 27 percent 

of the project area. Paleozoic to Tertiary-age sedimentary rock such as sandstone, limestone, dolomite, 

and shale cover 43 percent of the project area. A summary of general geologic conditions that exist along 

the proposed project route is presented in table 4.1.1-1.

TABLE 4.1.1-1

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 674 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

Construction of the project 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 pre-construction 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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-3

identified a portion of the construction right-of-way in Nevada and Oregon (MPs 500.0 to 617.1) where 

blasting may be required. Over this stretch of right-of-way, approximately 62 percent of the soils are 

described as rock outcrop or weathered bedrock. Ruby would blast only where the rock could not be 

economically excavated by conventional means.

Blasting could potentially impact water wells, springs and seeps, adjacent pipelines and buried 

utilities, nearby structures, unstable slopes, and undiscovered paleontological resources. Potential 

impacts on wells and springs/seeps are discussed in section 4.3.1. To minimize impacts on 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 

utility owners 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 and would 

protect structures from potential fly rock by using blasting mats or soil padding on the right-of-way. 

Ruby would evaluate and monitor unstable slopes in 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.

Ruby would comply with all state and federal regulations governing the use of explosives. Ruby 

developed a Blasting Plan (Appendix L) 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.

 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.

Preliminary surveys of the right-of-way have determined that significant paleontological 

resources could be present within the project area (see section 4.1.4). Ruby has prepared a 

Paleontological Mitigation Plan (Appendix H), which provides procedures to monitor certain areas where 

there are potentially significant fossil resources and addresses the unanticipated discovery of significant 

fossil resources that may be encountered during construction.

Ruby has completed a preliminary evaluation of the right-of-way for sites that potentially contain 

hazardous waste or materials. Ruby has concluded that no contaminated groundwater sites, hazardous 

waste sites, mine dumps, tailing piles, or mud pits are present within 0.25 mile of the project. Ruby 

would complete a detailed geologic field survey of the project route that includes evaluation of 

contaminant hazards. Ruby also would query landowners regarding potential contamination hazards 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-4

during land negotiations. If contamination hazards are identified, Ruby would provide mitigation 

measures to properly address each specific situation.

Based on the overall geologic conditions present along the pipeline route and Ruby’s proposed 

construction procedures discussed in section 2.3 of this EIS, we conclude that construction of the 

proposed project would not significantly alter the geologic and physiographic conditions of the area or 

worsen any unfavorable geologic conditions in the region.

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.

4.1.2.1 Mining

Table 4.1.2-1 identifies 48 sand and gravel pits; rock, mineral, and ore quarries; and coal fields

within 1,500 feet of the project. Additionally, 29 mining prospects are located within 1,500 feet of the 

project. Three coal fields and one rock quarry in Wyoming would be 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. Ruby would parallel existing roads and rights-of-way where practical, which would 

minimize impacts on mining operations. Ruby also would coordinate with stakeholders to identify 

alternative access routes to mines and to time pipeline construction activities to minimize impacts. Where 

access to mineral resources may be restricted, Ruby would provide compensation for damage, access 

rights, and easements with mine owners and claim holders. 

We received comments that sand and gravel resources are limited along various portions of the 

project and project requirements may affect the availability of these resources. Ruby has estimated that 

the combined total gravel requirements for all compressor stations and measurement stations would be 

about 34,100 cubic yards of material. For MLVs and pig launcher/receiver sites the estimated total gravel 

requirements would be about 6,300 cubic yards of material. Ruby stated that access roads would not be 

graveled; however, we note that many of the access roads to be improved by Ruby are gravel roads and it 

may be impermissible or impractical to improve existing gravel roads without using gravel. We also note 

that Ruby has indicated that it would construct its new access roads using dirt/gravel. Ruby would source 

gravel for all aboveground facilities locally. In order to minimize impacts from acquiring such resources 

from areas where the resources may be limited in supply, Ruby stated that it would maximize use of 

existing rocky trench spoil material, when possible. 

We also received comments that the project route would cross areas where future mining rights 

have been staked. Ruby identified 173 open mining claims filed on public land within 1,500 feet of the

project. Ruby would negotiate, where appropriate, damages, access rights, and easements with claim 

owners to minimize any restrictions to future mining of mineral resources.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-5

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 and Direction 

From Centerline (feet)

WYOMING

Hams Fork Region 11.9 to 18.5 Coalfield Intersects Project

Owner Unknown 13.3 Oil/Gas Well 549-North

Owner Unknown 13.9 Oil/Gas Well 168-North

Owner Unknown 16.6 Oil/Gas Well 111-South

Owner Unknown 18.4 Oil/Gas Well 1,100-North

Kampman Mine 19.0 Abandoned Coal Mine 1,300-North

Owner Unknown 19.0 Oil/Gas Well 817-North

Owner Unknown 19.1 Oil/Gas Well 362-South

Owner Unknown 19.3 Oil/Gas Well 237-North

Owner Unknown 19.5 Oil/Gas Well 814-North

Cumberland Gap Hearthstone, 

Inc. 19.6 Rock Quarry 21-North

Hams Fork Region 21.3 to 23.6 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 32.1 to 36.9 Coalfield Intersects Project

Owner Unknown 41.2 Oil/Gas Well 728-North

Owner Unknown 41.9 Oil/Gas Well 314-South

UTAH

Woodruff Narrows No.1 Gravel 

Pits 51.3 Sand and Gravel 1,480-North

Owner Unknown 54.2 Gravel 173-South

Dairy Ridge Gravel Pit 73.1 Sand and Gravel 348-South

Lead King 94.5 Lead and Silver 1,330-North

McKenzie Flat Pit 94.6 Sand and Gravel 321-South

Fife’s Brigham City Pit 106.5 Sand and Gravel 168-South

Wright Pit 106.9 Sand and Gravel 313-North

F.O. Reeder Pit 107.9 Sand and Gravel 1,248-South

Owner Unknown 108.5 Gravel 525-South

Owner Unknown 120.1 Gravel 1,143-South

Nicholas Pit No. 02058 120.2 Sand and Gravel 765-South

Owner Unknown 124.0 Gravel 1,495-South

Christensen Pit 128.6 Sand and Gravel 342-North

Owner Unknown 133.1 Sand and Gravel 292-South

Dove Creek Well Gravel 185.9 Sand and Gravel 325-North

Granite West Gravel 204.8 Sand and Gravel 199-South

Watercress Road Gravel 205.9 Sand and Gravel 222-South

Transmitter Road Gravel 206.8 Sand and Gravel 507-North

American Montmorillonite 213.7 Volcanic Materials 849-North

Owner Unknown 219.2 Sand and Gravel 1,276-South

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-6

TABLE 4.1.2-1 (cont.)

Mineral Resources Within 1,500 feet of the Construction Workspace for the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/Facility MP Mineral Resource Distance and Direction 

From Centerline (feet)

NEVADA

Owner Unknown 230.8 Lead, Silver, Copper 1,386-North

Owner Unknown 275.9 Not specified 118-North

Hacky Sack 283.7 Barium-Barite 147-South

Owner Unknown 295.0 Sand and Gravel 626-South

The Canyon Property 327.8 Lead, Copper, Zinc 1,381-North

Spring Head/Hot Creek 368.0 Geothermal Source 1,012-South

Owners Unknown 371.5 to 374.0 Multiple Prospects Vary

Owner Unknown 381.6 Geothermal Source 1,051-South

Silver Hill Mine 423.2 Silver, Lead, Zinc 598-North

Dutch Flat Placer 428.1 Gold, Mercury, Tungsten 1,250-North

Sand Dunes 444.7 Sand and Gravel 1,097-North

Owner Unknown 451.9 Sand and Gravel 341-South

Amos Mill 452.0 Gold Ore 1,449-South

Owner Unknown 452.2 Sand and Gravel 1,398-South

Owner Unknown 452.7 Sand and Gravel 1,384-South

US Highway Administration 462.6 Sand and Gravel 285-South

US Highway Administration 462.8 Sand and Gravel 262-South

Owners Unknown 506.6 to 518.3 Multiple Prospects Vary

Owner Unknown 551.8 Mine 923-South

Owner Unknown 630.0 Mine 986-South

Owner Unknown 647.5 Gravel 215-North

R. Lentz 664.5 Geothermal Well 1,251-North

Federal Government 666.0 Geothermal Well 49-North

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-7

We also received a comment that the project could present an impediment to mine traffic 

currently using roads in the project vicinity. Ruby would coordinate 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. Where necessary, Ruby would provide mine 

operators access across the project area during construction.

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 would 

complete a pre-construction geological investigation of the right-of-way to evaluate if abandoned mines 

are present in the project area. If abandoned mines are present, Ruby would prepare measures to address 

hazards as necessary. Although Ruby has not identified specific plans to date, plans may include 

measures for avoiding or filling existing or potential sinkholes, cleaning up hazardous materials, etc.

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, 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. 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 to Klamath 

County, Oregon. These geothermal resources are utilized in various places for heating bath houses, 

swimming pools, livestock watering, and agriculture. Ruby identified one geothermal source and two 

geothermal wells within 1,500 feet of the project. One well located at MP 666.0 would be within the 

construction work area. Grading and trenching could damage the geothermal wellhead. Ruby has not 

provided a plan for constructing near this geothermal well or for protecting the integrity of the well and 

casing. Therefore, we recommend that prior to the close of the draft EIS comment period, Ruby 

should file a site-specific plan for installing the pipeline near the geothermal well located at MP 

666.0. The plan should include details on how Ruby will realign the pipeline and/or modify the 

workspace to ensure the well is outside the construction workspace, and how Ruby will contact the 

well owner prior to construction and protect and monitor the well during and after construction.

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.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-8

4.1.3 Geologic Hazards

Potential geologic hazards in the project area include seismicity (earthquakes and faults), 

landslides, subsidence, flooding/scour, and volcanism. Each of these hazards is discussed below.

4.1.3.1 Seismicity

Seismic hazards include earthquakes, ground faulting, and secondary effects such as liquefaction

and related slope failures. Ruby identified 105 faults or fault zones within 1,500 feet of the proposed 

project. 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 or Within 1,500 feet of the Ruby Pipeline Project

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 and 77.5 MLV at 73.3 68.7

(Roberson 

Creek)

Cache East Cache 8 15,000-

30,000

1.5-3.0 92.7 to 95.2 MLV at 92.2 77.3

(Wildcat Hills)

Box Elder Wasatch 4 1,000-

2,000

3-8 105.5 to 108.9 MLV at 108.6 63.3

(Wildcat Hills)

Box Elder North 

Promontory

1 3,700-

5,000

6.5-8 144.3 MLV at 144.6 27.9

(Wildcat Hills)

Box Elder Hansel 

Valley

1 10,000-

16,000

7.2-8.5 152.7 MLV at 144.6 19.5

(Wildcat Hills)

NEVADA

Elko Thousand 

Springs 

Valley

1 N/A 8 264.6 MLV/Launcher/

Receiver at 

257.4

65.5

(Wieland Flat)

Humboldt Santa Rosa 

Range

3 N/A 3-6 451.6 to 452.5 MLV at 456.9 23.8

(Desert Valley)

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 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 will 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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-9

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 

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 route 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 causing 

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 (7.1 M) within 100 miles of the project was in 

Pleasant Valley in 1915. 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 675.0. 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 will be 

constructed over active faults, and a significant portion will 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 and 

constructed in accordance with DOT regulations in 49 CFR 192. 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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-10

California earthquake. O’Rourke and Palmer also concluded that electric arc-welded pipelines in good 

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 geologic consultant, MACTEC, provided a fault hazard analysis for each of the 31 faults 

that cross or are within 300 feet of the project. MACTEC’s evaluation included a review of historical 

seismicity and seismic wave propagation. MACTEC also performed stress analysis at selected fault 

crossings and recommended treatment where necessary. MACTEC concluded that the pipeline alignment 

would be reasonably well-positioned at 17 of the fault locations to accommodate anticipated future fault 

displacements, and that the pipeline steel grade and wall thickness appears to be suitable for expected 

seismic loading. Eleven of the 14 remaining crossings would require pipeline surveillance and 3 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, realignment of 

the pipeline between MPs 108 to 109 to eliminate a portion of the crossings in the Wasatch Fault Zone, 

and relocation of one MLV. 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 states it would implement MACTEC’s recommendations.

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 ground 

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 

32 feet from the ground surface). Two areas of moderate to high liquefaction potential have been 

identified in the project area between MPs 93.5 to 95.5 and MPs 109.0 to 122.0 in Utah. One additional 

area of concern has been identified between MPs 124.0 and 128.0. Ruby has not provided a plan for 

installing the pipeline in these areas. Therefore, we recommend that prior to the close of the draft EIS 

comment period, Ruby should file a site-specific plan for installing the pipeline in areas of moderate 

to high liquefaction potential (MPs 93.5 to 95.5, MPs 109.0 to 122.0, and MPs 124.0 to 128.0). The 

plan should identify the measures Ruby would implement to minimize the potential for soil 

liquefaction to affect the pipeline. Ruby should address, at a minimum, the following measures: 

weighting the pipeline, deep burial below liquefiable material, removal or replacement of 

liquefiable soils, and/or a minor realignment of the pipeline to avoid susceptible soils in these areas.

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, as well as 

our recommendation, we do not expect seismic hazards and their secondary effects to pose a significant 

risk to the proposed pipeline 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 failures 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.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-11

The majority of the pipeline route would be located in areas of low landslide incidence. As 

defined, a low landslide incidence corresponds to less than 1.5 percent of the area being 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 18.9 to 22.6

22.6 to 30.9

30.9 to 37.1

37.1 to 44.1

44.1 to 47.8

High

Moderate

High

Moderate

High

Utah 85.3 to 91.8

101.5 to 112.4

Moderate

High

Nevada 513.0 to 515.2

515.2 to 552.3

High

Moderate

Oregon 607.2 to 615.1

625.5 to 637.9

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 

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, adding weight over unstable areas, and man-made 

vibrations from activities such as blasting and heavy traffic. Large area subsidence related to withdrawal 

of groundwater or petroleum is generally not a concern in the project area. There would be no active 

underground mines within 1,500 feet of the project. 

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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-12

rock mineralogy as well as local structural features, such as jointing, bedding characteristics, and 

differences in groundwater chemistry.

Approximately 8 percent of the pipeline route would have the potential for encountering 

karst/pseudokarst features. Approximately 7 percent would cross karst terrain formed in soluble rock

from less than 50 feet to over 250 feet below the ground surface, and 1 percent would cross pseudokarst 

terrain formed within lava from the surface to a depth of 250 feet or more. Table 4.1.3-3 identifies areas 

of the proposed pipeline route that would cross potential karst/pseudokarst terrain. Ruby would complete 

a geological investigation of the right-of-way to evaluate if solution features are present. If features with 

subsidence potential are noted during the geologic investigation, appropriate measures would be taken to 

avoid these areas. In addition, Ruby would inspect the ditch during excavation for karst features. If these 

features are found, Ruby would install appropriate erosion controls to prevent stormwater from flowing 

into the ditch and to areas susceptible to sinkhole development. Ruby would also avoid discharging 

hydrostatic test water near potential karst features.

TABLE 4.1.3-3

Areas of Karst/Pseudokarst Terrain Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State MP Range Type

Utah 76.9 to 112 Karst/carbonate rock

Nevada 230.9 to 235.8 Karst/carbonate rock

247.2 to 252.9 Karst/carbonate rock

442.5 to 448.7 Karst/carbonate rock

522.4 to 524.7 Pseudokarst/lava

Oregon 656.4 to 663.1 Pseudokarst/lava

Ruby stated that HDD operations may be used during construction; however, none are planned at 

this time. 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. If Ruby 

were to propose to use the HDD method, Ruby would be required to submit to the FERC for review and 

approval a site-specific plan of the HDD in accordance with Ruby’s Procedures. 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.

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. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-13

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 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act 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 re-grading 

and clearing of vegetation; and unauthorized collection of significant fossils by construction personnel or 

the public.

As defined by 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. Classification of fossil potential for a given milepost is based 

on the BLM Potential Fossil Yield Classification of 3 to 5. 

Ruby has completed initial surveys of the right-of-way and has classified all geologic deposits 

along the entire pipeline route (both federal and non-federal land) in accordance with the BLM’s Potential 

Fossil Yield Classification system. The survey has identified by milepost those areas with the potential to 

contain significant fossil resources as defined in the Potential Fossil Yield Classification system. 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.

0.0 to 0.6 134.9 to 135.5 248.2 to 248.4 300.3 to 301.6 443.2 to 484.5

1.4 to 6.6 141.3 to 141.9 248.9 to 249.9 302.0 to 304.5 485.2 to 485.4

7.4 to 7.7 143.3 to 143.5 250.2 to 250.4 306.7 to 307.4 486.0 to 500.6

9.3 to 48.0 187.8 to 188.1 251.5 to 255.5 309.2 to 310.2 501.2 to 506.2

55.3 to 60.7 189.5 to 189.8 256.2 to 256.4 311.2 to 315.4 509.6 to 511.0

61.1 to 71.1 192.6 to 193.0 257.3 to 259.8 324.7 to 327.7 511.6 to 516.2

71.5 to 72.2 193.7 to 193.8 262.1 to 262.5 328.2 to 328.3 517.5 to 517.8

72.3 to 72.9 196.9 to 197.3 263.2 to 264.8 329.0 to 333.5 523.2 to 525.2

73.6 to 73.8 213.6 to 214.1 265.2 to 266.4 333.8 to 336.7 532.8 to 533.4

73.9 to 74.0 228.7 to 228.9 272.5 to 273.0 364.0 to 368.3 533.7 to 533.9

74.2 to 75.1 229.8 to 230.6 276.0 to 280.0 368.4 to 369.0 538.7 to 540.2

75.4 to 76.6 231.1 to 231.2 283.7 to 291.1 371.0 to 371.8 551.7 to 552.0

76.7 to 82.7 244.4 to 245.2 291.3 to 293.6 373.2 to 373.2 554.4 to 555.3

92.9 to 94.5 246.7 to 247.1 294.9 to 295.1 393.1 to 416.0 555.7 to 556.0

95.2 to 98.8 247.3 to 247.7 296.2 to 299.4 420.1 to 442.6

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 has prepared a draft Paleontological Resources Mitigation Plan (Appendix H) which 

provides procedures to monitor those areas of the project (both federal and non-federal land) where there 

are potentially significant fossil resources and address the unanticipated discovery of significant fossil 

resources that may be encountered during construction. Primary elements of the Paleontological 

Resources Mitigation Plan include:

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-14

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 Mitigation Plan would be performed by 

a qualified consulting paleontologist and in consultation with BLM paleontologists in each state. The 

BLM indicated that it also may utilize third-party paleontological monitors during construction. 

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.

4.2 SOILS

Information regarding the soil types occurring in the project area and their characteristics was 

obtained from the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database (NRCS, 2004) for 598 miles of the 

overall project length. Information regarding the remaining 77 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 along the construction right-of-way could result in adverse impacts on 

soil resources. Clearing would remove protective vegetation cover and would expose soil to 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 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 E) and Reclamation Plan (Appendix K), would help minimize impacts on soils.

4.2.1 Standard Soil Limitations

Table 4.2.1-1 provides a summary of the soil limitations that would be encountered by the

proposed pipeline, while table 4.2.1-2 provides a summary of the soil limitations that would be 

encountered by the proposed aboveground facilities. An area may have more than one soil limitation. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-15

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 CompactionPronee Stony-Rockyf Droughtyg Shallow Bedrockh Hydric Soilsi

WYOMING

Lincoln 11.5 / 1,322.5 j j

0.0 / 0.0 0.0 / 0.0 11.5 / 1,322.5 7.7 / 885.5 0.0 / 0.0

Uinta 1.6 / 184.0 j j0.0 / 0.0 0.0 / 0.0 1.6 / 184.0 6.4 / 736.0 0.0 / 0.0

UTAH

Rich 0.0 / 0.0 0.0 / 0.0 4.7 / 540.5 0.0 / 0.0 8.0 / 920.0 0.3 / 34.5 2.7 / 310.5 1.0 / 115.0

Cache 0.0 / 0.0 1.6j/ 184.0 0.1j

/ 11.5 0.3 / 34.5 17.5 / 2,012.5 0.0 / 0.0 4.4 / 506.0 0.9 / 103.5

Box Elder 11.5 / 1,322.5 12.2 / 1,403.0 15.0 / 1,725.0 0.0 / 0.0 18.2 / 2,093.0 11.6 / 1,334.0 6.1 / 701.5 34.7 / 3,990.5

NEVADA

Elko 19.6 / 2,254.0 3.5 / 402.5 6.3 / 724.5 3.3 / 379.5 42.5 / 4,887.5 1.0 / 115.0 38.8 / 4,462.0 35.1 / 4,036.5

Humboldt 58.6 / 6,739.0 10.3 / 1,184.5 28.8 / 3,312.0 0.0 / 0.0 31.5 / 3,622.5 4.7 / 540.5 28.2 / 3,243.0 2.6 / 299.0

Washoe 11.1 / 1,276.5 11.5 / 1,322.5 0.1 / 11.5 0.2 / 23.0 20.4 / 2,346.0 10.5 / 1,207.5 15.8 / 1,817.0 1.4 / 161.0

OREGON

Lake 4.4 / 506.0 0.2j/ 23.0 2.7j

/ 310.5 0.0 / 0.0 37.3 / 4,289.5 5.5 / 632.5 18.5 / 2,127.5 12.4 / 1,426.0

Klamath 0.4 / 46.0 0.6j/ 69.0 0.9j

/ 103.5 0.0 / 0.0 13.1 / 1,506.5 0.1 / 11.5 3.6 / 414.0 3.0 / 345.0

PG&E Lateral 2.6 / 299.0 0.0 / 0.0 2.6 / 299.0 0.0 / 0.0 0.0 / 0.0 2.5 / 287.5 0.0 / 0.0 0.0 / 0.0

Total Miles/Acresb121.3 / 13,949.5 39.9j/ 4,588.5 61.2 j

/ 7,038.0 3.8 / 437.0 188.5 / 21,677.5 49.3 / 5,669.5 132.2 / 15,203.0 91.1 / 10,476.5

Total Percentagek17.9 5.9j

9.0j

0.6 27.8 7.3 19.5 13.4

a Acreage calculated assuming a 115-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 “weg”).

c

 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 reference column “farmlndcl”).

e

 Includes soils that meet compaction-prone criteria (i.e., soils with clay loam or finer texture, and somewhat poor, poor, and very poor drainage class) (SSURGO reference 

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 “frag3to101” and “fraggt10_r”).

g

 Includes soils that meet droughty soils criteria (i.e., soils with sandy loam or coarser texture and are moderately to excessively well drained) (SSURGO reference column “texcl”

and “drainagecl”).

h

 Includes soils that have lithic or paralithic bedrock within 60 inches of the soil surface (SSURGO and STATSGO reference column “rescind” and “resdept_r”).

I

 Includes soils that are classified as hydric (SSURGO and STATSGO reference column “hydricrati”).

J Wyoming, Oregon, and Cache County, Utah still contain data gaps in some categories, resulting in a missing or incomplete value.

k Percent of total pipeline length including lateral (677.8 miles).

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-16

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

StonyRockye Droughtyf Shallow 

Bedrockg

Hydric 

Soilsh

MLV 1 Launcher (installed within the 

existing King Compressor Station) 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 i

0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0

Roberson Creek Compressor Station and 

MLV 2 Launcher/ Receiver 5.7 40.3 0.0 0.0 i

0.0 0.0 40.3 0.0 40.3

MLV 3 21.1 0.2 i0.0 i0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MLV 4 39.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 i

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0

MLV 5 55.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MLV 6 73.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MLV 7 92.2 0.2 i

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MLV 8 Launcher/ Receiver 102.9 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MLV 9 108.6 0.2 i i0.0 i0.0 0.0 0.0 i

MLV 10 127.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MLV 11 144.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

MLV 12 161.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Wildcat Hills Compressor Station and 

MLV 13 Launcher/ Receiver 

172.5 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0

MLV 14 190.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MLV 15 209.7 0.2 i

0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2

MLV 16 222.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MLV 17 239.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2

MLV 18 Launcher/ Receiver 257.4 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.9 0.0

MLV 19 275.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0

MLV 20 295.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MLV 21 311.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Wieland Flat Compressor Station and 

MLV 22 330.1 25.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MLV 23 345.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MLV 24 364.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MLV 25 383.6 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MLV 26 Launcher/ Receiver 403.5 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MLV 27 421.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MLV 28 437.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MLV 29 456.9 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Desert Valley Compressor Station and 

MLV 30 Launcher/ Receiver 476.3 25.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MLV 31 493.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MLV 32 509.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0

MLV 33 Launcher/ Receiver 528.7 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-17

TABLE 4.2.1-2 (cont.)

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

StonyRockye Droughtyf Shallow 

Bedrockg

Hydric 

Soilsh

MLV 34 547.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0

MLV 35 567.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MLV 36 Launcher/ Receiver 581.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0

MLV 37 601.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

MLV 38 614.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MLV 39 627.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0

MLV 40 643.0 0.2 i

0.0 i0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2

MLV 41 658.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 i i0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MLV 42 Receiver Separation Facilities 675.1 6.5 6.5 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.0

MLV 301-12 0.0l 0.2 ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─

MLV 301-2 2.6l 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 i0.0 i0.0 0.2

Total Acres ─ 143.1 8.6 0.2 7.7 0.2 2.4 55.3 1.9 66.1

Total Percentage

j ─ ─ 6.0 0.1 5.4 0.1 1.7 38.6 1.3 46.2

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 “weg”).

c 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 reference column 

“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 class) (SSURGO reference 

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 “frag3to101” and “fraggt10_r”).

f Includes soils that meet droughty soils criteria (i.e., soils with sandy loam or coarser texture, and are moderately to excessively well drained) (SSURGO reference column 

“texcl” and “drainagecl”).

g Includes soils which have lithic or paralithic bedrock within 60 inches of the soil surface (SSURGO and STATSGO reference column “rescind” and “resdept_r”).

h Includes soils that are classified as hydric (SSURGO and STATSGO reference column “hydricrati”).

i Wyoming, Oregon, and Cache County, Utah still contain data gaps in some categories, resulting in a zero or incomplete value.

j Percent of total pipeline length including lateral (677.8 miles).

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-18

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.

4.2.1.1 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 17.9 percent (121.3 miles) of the soils crossed by the proposed pipeline route are 

highly susceptible to wind erosion and 5.9 percent (39.9 miles) of the soils are highly susceptible to water 

erosion (see table 4.2.1-1). Erosion in these areas can be compounded by poor revegetation of the soil. 

Clearing, grading, and equipment movement could accelerate the erosion process. Without adequate 

protection this could result in topsoil loss, reduced soil fertility, and discharge of sediment into sensitive 

areas. The sloping banks of ravines, waterbodies, and soil storage piles would be most susceptible to 

water erosion.

Ruby would implement the measures in its Plan designed to control erosion and sedimentation 

during construction. For example, Ruby would install and maintain various erosion control measures

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-of-way. Installation of such measures would help prevent sediment from flowing off the right-ofway during construction. 

We received several comments expressing concerns about erosion potential 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 erosion 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. 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. The extent of utilization of mulch on federally managed land will be established during the 

development of Ruby’s POD.

Ruby would also 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.

We received comments expressing concerns about erosion control in areas prone to washouts. 

We also received a comment about erosion in the water basin in the Oak Valley, Oregon area. Soils 

would be stabilized in washout-prone areas per Ruby’s Plan and Procedures. Water could accumulate in 

the open pipeline trench either from groundwater intrusion or precipitation during construction. Water

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-19

would be pumped from the trench into vegetated upland areas downstream of the construction area when 

trench dewatering is needed. In some locations, as required, the trench water would be filtered through a 

straw/hay bale structure, filter bag, or other appropriate structure prior to discharge. The rate of flow 

from the pump would be regulated to prevent scouring from runoff.

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 Reclamation Plan to reduce the potential for long-term erosion due to lack of vegetation

cover.

Permanent impacts on highly wind erodible soils at aboveground facilities would total 8.6 acres, 

or about 6.0 percent of the total area for all aboveground facilities. Permanent impacts on highly water 

erodible soils at the aboveground facilities would be 0.2 acre, or 0.1 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 USFS also identified a concern about construction impacts on soils in the Fremont-Winema 

NF. 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 Land and Resource Management Plan (USFS, 1989), as 

the pipeline route would traverse east-west across the Fremont-Winema NF. Avoidance of these areas 

would require a substantially longer route through the Fremont-Winema NF and the pipeline still could 

not be aligned to avoid all of these soils. 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 would be expected to be small because soils in the Fremont-Winema NF 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 mitigation would more than 

offset the environmental impact of a longer pipeline route and the associated resource impacts.

4.2.1.2 Prime Farmland

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (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 (61.2 miles) of the proposed pipeline route would cross soils 

designated as prime farmland (this includes soils classified as prime farmland if drained and/or irrigated 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-20

and/or reclaimed of excess salts and sodium). 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 the aboveground facilities would affect about 7.7 acres of prime farmland soils at 

seven MLV locations as detailed in Table 4.2.1-2. Six of the seven sites are 0.2-acre each, but the 

footprint at MLV 42 would be 6.5 acres. MLV 42 is at the very end of the Ruby pipeline system and is 

surrounded by prime farmland for several thousand feet in all directions. There are no nearby non-prime 

farmland areas that would offer alternative sites for the valve. While these soil resources would be

permanently lost, the acreage affected would not significantly reduce the overall agriculture 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 0.6 percent 

(3.8 miles) of the soils crossed by the proposed pipeline route are highly susceptible to compaction.

Although only 0.6 percent of the soils crossed by the project are highly susceptible to 

compaction, 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 pre-construction 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.

Permanent impacts on compaction-prone soils at aboveground facilities would total 0.2 acre, or 

about 0.1 percent of the total area for all 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 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 27.8 percent (188.5 miles) of the soils crossed by the proposed pipeline route are defined 

as stony-rocky. About 7.3 percent (49.3 miles) of the soils crossed are classified as 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. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-21

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. After padding the pipe, blast/excavated rock would be used 

to backfill the trench up to the level of the pre-existing bedrock profile in areas. Ruby would remove and 

dispose of excess blast/excavated rock (which is considered construction debris) per Ruby’s Plan. Ruby 

also would remove excess stones and rock 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. 

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 2.4 acres, or about 

1.7 percent of the total area for all aboveground facilities. Impacts to droughty soils total 55.3 acres, or 

about 38.6 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 13.4 percent (91.1 miles) of the soils crossed by the proposed pipeline route are 

designated as hydric soils. 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 66.1 acres, or about 46.2

percent of the total area for all aboveground facilities. Examples of permanent impacts to 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.

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 19.5 percent (132.2 miles) of the soils that would be crossed by 

the proposed pipeline route have the potential for shallow bedrock. Permanent impacts on rock with 

shallow bedrock at aboveground facilities would total 1.9 acres, or about 1.3 percent of the total area for 

all aboveground facilities. Specialized mechanical equipment or blasting may be required in order to 

trench through these areas. Ruby’s Plan also would allow blast rock to be used to backfill the trench up to 

the level of the pre-existing bedrock profile in the event that blasting were required and also would 

require the removal of excess blast/excavated rock (which is considered construction debris). Blasting is

discussed in more detail in section 2.3.2.7 and 4.1.1.1. 

4.2.2 Other Soil Limitations

In addition to the soil limitations discussed above, we received comments about several other soil 

features that are found in the proposed project area. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-22

4.2.2.1 Surface Horizon Alkalinity

The project would cross moderately acidic soils (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).

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. 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 concentrated in the top 0.5 inches 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. 

Cryptobiotic soil crust communities are poorly adapted to any sort of compressional disturbance. 

The large pieces of construction equipment necessary to clear the construction right-of-way of vegetation 

and dig the trenches for the proposed 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. Cryptobiotic crusts can take 5 to 250 years to 

be restored after alteration, depending on rainfall conditions. Crust loss 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. 

Ruby has attempted to identify areas of cryptobiotic soils along the project via literature review 

and agency contact; however, limited data were available. An area of cryptobiotic crust has been 

identified around milepost 594.0. 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. 

Organic matter and debris would be retained in the piles to help sustain biological activity and increase 

the effectiveness of re-spreading the crust material after construction. Based on our experience, the 

effectiveness of this technique is limited, and once biological soil crusts are disturbed, they cannot be 

effectively restored. No aboveground facilities are located in areas known to contain cryptobiotic crusts.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-23

4.2.2.3 Playas

Playas are shallow topographic depressions that function as ephemeral ponds with highly variable 

hydro-periods, usually from late winter until early summer. How playas are formed is the subject of 

much debate. Early researchers believed the formation of playas was related to glacial fluctuation. A 

more recent theory is that playas are formed when water collects in a natural depression. Over time, a 

chemical reaction dissolves the underlying caliche layer, the land surface subsides (sinks), and a playa is 

created. Other theories suggest wind erosion may result in playa depressions. Playas are found generally 

on the lower portions of arid basins with internal drainage that periodically flood. Playas are often 

evident by a deposit of salt or gypsum left after evaporation. 

Ruby identified 25 playas that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline (see table 4.2.2-1). No 

aboveground facilities would be located in playas. Numerous stakeholders have expressed concern that 

digging a trench through the impermeable layer of soil in playas could alter the surface hydrology in the 

area. To minimize or mitigate this effect, Ruby would install trench breakers at the boundaries of these 

features to limit the horizontal movement of water along the trenchline. Ruby would attempt to restore 

impermeable soil layers with the appropriate excavated trench material during backfilling operations and 

may use bentonite clay to restore the impermeable soil layer. Ruby also states it would attempt to

construct the pipeline across playas during drier periods of the season, but did not indicate when that 

would be or propose any specific timing windows for crossing playas. To further mitigate impacts and 

ensure playas are restored, we recommend that during construction within all playas crossed by the 

project, Ruby should segregate and store the impermeable soil layer from topsoil (or surface soil) 

and subsoil layers. Ruby should also limit the construction right-of-way width in playas to 75 feet 

and should not locate extra workspaces within playas. Ruby should monitor the success of playa 

restoration for 5 years following construction, specifically documenting playa hydrologic conditions 

when water is most likely to be present in these areas. At the end of the 5-year period, Ruby should 

file a report identifying the status of the playa restoration and the need for any additional 

restoration efforts.

TABLE 4.2.2-1

Location of Playas Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State MP Location

Utah 151.1, 167.00 - 174.00, 171

Nevada 435.1, 454.8, 455.1, 455.2, 455.7, 458.3, 460.5, 460.6, 463.9 (4 locations), 

464.0 (5 locations), 464.2, 465.0, 469.7, 487.9, 565.3

4.2.3 Spill/Contamination Prevention

Soil contamination along the pipeline route could result from at least two sources: material spills

during construction and trench excavation through existing contaminated areas. Contamination from

spills or leaks of fuels, lubricants, coolants, and solvents from construction equipment could impact soils. 

Ruby has not identified the presence of any existing contaminated sites in the immediate project vicinity.

Ruby’s Spill Plan (Appendix I) would include clean-up procedures designed to minimize soil 

contamination that could result from accidental spills or leaks of fluids from construction-related 

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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-24

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.

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, including 

methods and locations where it is appropriate, to prevent or minimize the mixing of topsoil with subsoil.

Ruby would use either full right-of-way topsoil stripping or the ditch-plus-spoil-side method in 1) 

actively cultivated or rotated croplands and pastures; 2) residential areas; 3) hayfields; and 4) other areas 

at the landowner's or land managing agency’s request (section IV.B.1 of Ruby’s Plan). Ruby would 

utilize the ditch-plus-spoil-side method for the entire right-of-way with the exception of wetlands with 

standing water at the time of construction. Full right-of-way topsoiling would be implemented in dry 

wetlands, areas requiring extensive grading, at landowner request, and in areas of high density noxious 

weeds. In areas where full right-of-way topsoiling is used, additional right-of-way widths may be 

required to store segregated topsoil. Additionally, Ruby has identified specific areas where full right-ofway topsoiling would occur in agricultural lands. In areas where full right-of-way topsoiling is used, 

additional right-of-way widths may be required to store segregated topsoil. 

Ruby would segregate at least 12 inches of topsoil in areas of deep soils (those having more than 

12 inches of topsoil). In areas where the topsoil is less than 12 inches, Ruby would attempt to segregate

the entire topsoil depth. 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.

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, 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-25

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. Well 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. 

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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-26

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 proposed project have been identified as EPAdesignated 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 would require operators to comply with state groundwater quality standards as 

described in Utah Administrative Code R317-6. 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. 

The project would not cross any groundwater management areas or wellhead protection areas. 

These areas are generally established by states to manage land use in areas where groundwater is used to 

supply public drinking water. 

4.3.1.2 General Impacts and Mitigation

The project would cross three 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 MPs 124.0 to 127.0) 

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.

 

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 can 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 a exhibiting both a total dissolved solid concentration of less than 500 mg/l and has 

no contaminant concentration that exceeds ground water quality standards as defined in Utah Administrative Code R317-6-

2.1.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-27

Construction of the pipeline would require trenching and backfilling to a depth of at least 6 feet 

below the ground surface. These construction activities are generally located 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 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 months. Dewatering 

of the trench would occur in an adjacent area 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

(Appendices E and F, respectively), 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 fertilizer, lime, and herbicides application to comply with state or 

federal requirements.

The backfilled trench could have different soil permeability after construction activities 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 flows. 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 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 would 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 

corrosion. Ruby’s implementation of these measures would reduce impacts associated with shallow 

groundwater to less than significant levels.

Ruby would restore the ground surface as close as practicable to pre-construction contours and 

restore vegetation along the right-of-way to ensure restoration of preconstruction overland flow and 

recharge patterns. Ruby has designed seed mixes that are compatible with the dominant vegetation 

communities crossed by the project. Ruby also would alleviate soil compaction by implementation of its 

Plan, which provides for testing and decompaction measures (see section 4.2.1.3). Impacts from 

compaction would be localized, temporary, and minimal compared to the total groundwater recharge area

adjacent to the project. 

Ruby has identified one groundwater well it proposes to use for dust control and hydrostatic 

testing. Ruby would procure about 49 million gallons of water for hydrostatic testing and about 17 

million gallons of water for dust control from this well (see also section 4.3.2.6). However, Ruby has also 

indicated that it is in the process of identifying new well locations along the project route to provide a 

supplemental water source for hydrostatic testing and dust abatement. Ruby has not identified the 

location of these wells or the amount of water that would be used for dust abatement or hydrostatic testing 

activities. FERC’s 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. 

The use of groundwater for construction purposes could stress the already limited water supply in these 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-28

areas. As such, water rights or water permits may not be available for construction purposes. Ruby

would then need to make other arrangements, such as trucking in water from approved sources or using 

alternative dust abatement techniques such as magnesium chloride, to obtain water needed for 

construction activities. Ruby stated that it would obtain all necessary water use permits and ensure 

existing water rights are not violated in the event that groundwater sources were used for construction 

purposes.

No significant impacts on groundwater resources are anticipated during the operational phase of 

the pipeline. 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 conducted an analysis of state databases to identify water supply wells and springs in the 

project area. Ruby field-verified the location of 31 wells and 33 springs within 300 feet of the proposed 

pipeline route (see tables 4.3.1-1 and 4.3.1-2).

A transient public water system well3is 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. 

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 would minimize the amount of time the trench 

remained open (generally no longer than 10 days) to allow the water table to return to original elevations 

as soon as possible. 

Ruby would maintain safe operation of each water well 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.

 

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 #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-29

 TABLE 4.3.1-1

Water Supply Wells Within 300 Feet of the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County Approximate MP Well Use Distance and Direction From Construction 

Workspace

WYOMING

Uinta 33.2 Miscellaneous 85.8 feet south

UTAH

Rich 53.8 Irrigation 177.0 feet south

Rich 53.8 Irrigation 177.0 feet south

Rich 54.7 Domestic, Irrigation, Stock watering 172.9 feet north

Rich 55.3 Irrigation 221.5 feet north

Rich 57.4 Irrigation 184.5 feet north

Cache 76.3 Domestic, Stock watering 245.6 feet north

Cache 76.6 Domestic 52.6 feet north

Cache 76.6 Domestic, Stock watering 52.6 feet north

Cache 92.8 Domestic, Irrigation 236.5 feet south

Cache 92.9 Domestic, Irrigation 197.5 feet south

Box Elder 105.6 Nonproduction Well - Test 191.1 feet north

Box Elder 107.6 Domestic, Irrigation, Stock watering 254.0 feet south

Box Elder 107.7 Domestic, Irrigation, Stock watering 122.7 feet south

Box Elder 109.2 Irrigation, Stock watering 83.0 feet south

Box Elder 130.6 Stock watering 166.9 feet north

Box Elder 185.1 Stock watering 203.0 feet south

NEVADA

Elko 241.2 Irrigation 11.8 feet south

Elko 292.4 Irrigation 109.0 feet north

Humboldt 410.9 Mining and Milling 92.9 feet south

Humboldt 410.9 Irrigation 92.9 feet south

Humboldt 410.9 Mining and Milling 92.9 feet south

Humboldt 410.9 Mining and Milling 92.9 feet south

Humboldt 410.9 Mining and Milling 92.9 feet south

Humboldt 410.9 Mining and Milling 92.9 feet south

Humboldt 410.9 Mining and Milling 92.9 feet south

Humboldt 415.9 Irrigation 217.8 feet south

Humboldt 433.5 Stock watering 14.4 feet south

Humboldt 502.2 Irrigation 196.3 feet north

Humboldt 503.3 Irrigation - Carey Act 28.7 feet north

Washoe 575.6 Stock watering 36.3 feet south

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-30

TABLE 4.3.1-2

Springs Within 300 Feet of the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County Approximate 

MP Water Use Distance and Direction From Construction Workspace

WYOMING

Uinta 37.1 Unknown 231.3 feet south

Uinta 37.6 Unknown 255.1 feet south

UTAH

Cache 81.0 Stock watering 195.4 feet south

Cache 89.0 Stock watering 233.5 feet north

Cache 89.0 Stock watering 233.5 feet north

Cache 89.0 Stock watering 233.5 feet north

Cache 89.0 Stock watering 233.5 feet north

Cache 92.3 Unknown 19.2 feet north

Cache 96.2 Unknown 97.8 feet north

Box Elder 105.1 Irrigation, Stock watering 189.3 feet north

Box Elder 105.8 Other 182.4 feet south

Box Elder 106.1 Domestic, Irrigation, Stock watering 212.3 feet south

Box Elder 106.3 Unknown 373.3 feet south

Box Elder 106.3 Irrigation 249.5 feet south

Box Elder 107.6 Domestic, Irrigation, Stock watering 254.0 feet south

Box Elder 107.9 Domestic, Irrigation, Stock watering 155.1 feet north

NEVADA

Elko 299.6 Unknown 12.1 feet south

Elko 300.0 Unknown 126.0 feet north

Elko 300.0 Unknown 70.1 feet north

Elko 300.1 Unknown 1.6 feet north

Elko 300.1 Unknown 30.3 feet south

Elko 327.1 Unknown 145.6 feet north

Elko 356.5 Unknown 20.0 feet north

Elko 415.9 Stock watering 217.8 feet south

Elko 415.9 Stock watering 217.8 feet south

Elko 415.9 Stock watering 217.8 feet south

Elko 415.9 Quasi-municipal 217.8 feet south

OREGON

Lake 596.0 Unknown 27.9 feet south

Lake 629.1 Unknown 76.8 feet south

Klamath 649.2 Unknown 41.0 feet north

Klamath 649.9 Unknown 38.0 feet north

Klamath 649.9 Unknown 12.1 feet north

Klamath 654.2 Unknown 24.3 feet north

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-31

Ruby has identified two stock watering wells and two irrigation wells that are less than 50 feet from 

the proposed pipeline centerline. Ruby stated it would move 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 portable fencing to distinguish its location. In addition, Ruby has committed to documenting the 

condition (i.e., water quality and flow evaluations) of potable water wells within 200 feet of the construction 

right-of-way prior to the start of construction and after construction is completed. Ruby would test each 

well 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 were 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 

was damaged by construction activities. Ruby’s Spill Plan (Appendix I) does not establish a spill 

prevention setback from water supply wells. Therefore, we recommend that Ruby revise section 

IV.A.1 of its Procedures to conduct all equipment staging and storage; contain and handle all fuels, 

solvents, and lubricants; and perform all concrete coating activities at least 200 feet from any water 

supply wells.

Ruby has identified 10 springs/seeps that are less than 50 feet from the proposed pipeline centerline. 

These springs/seeps are utilized as a water source for domestic use, irrigation, and stock watering. 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 that prior to construction 

and with landowner approval, each permitted spring would be tested for baseline condition, yield, and water 

quality. To ensure that all springs and seeps used for domestic use, irrigation, and stock watering are either 

restored to normal conditions or an alternative water source is provided should a spring be impacted by 

construction, we recommend that prior to construction, Ruby should conduct, with the owner’s 

permission, pre-and post-construction monitoring of springs and seeps used for domestic use, 

irrigation, and stock watering for water quality and yield that are within 150 feet of pipeline 

construction. If a water source is adversely affected by construction, Ruby should provide an 

alternative water source or determine a mutually agreeable solution to the problem with the 

spring/seep owner or manager. Additionally, Ruby should conduct all equipment staging and 

storage; contain and handle all fuels, solvents, and lubricants; and perform all concrete coating 

activities at least 200 feet from any spring/seep. Within 30 days of placing the facilities in service, 

Ruby should file a report discussing the outcome of the spring and seep monitoring and how Ruby 

resolved any impacts on these springs/seeps.

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 construction materials 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 training for construction personnel;

regular inspection of construction equipment for leaks;

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-32

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 Spill Plan, Plan, and Procedures and find that these protocols

adequately address the storage and transfer of hazardous materials and the response to be taken in the 

event of a spill.

4.3.1.5 Blasting

Ruby identified a portion of the construction right-of-way in Nevada and Oregon (MPs 500.0 to 

617.1) where blasting may be required for pipeline installation. Blasting could affect groundwater quality 

by 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 L) 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 if blasting were

required. All blasting activities would be conducted by licensed blasting contractors in accordance with 

all applicable regulatory requirements.

Ruby identified three wells and one spring/seep within 200 feet of the right-of-way between MPs 

500.0 to 617.1. Ruby’s Blasting Plan has set peak particle velocity 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 peak particle velocity on any 

underground structures. Ruby expects peak particle velocities to be 6 inches per second or lower on any 

underground structures and 1.5 inches per second or lower on wells and above ground structures. We 

anticipate that any effect to nearby wells and springs/seeps 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, we are recommending that Ruby test wells and springs for water quality and yield prior to and 

after construction, and provide an alternative water source or mutually agreeable solution to a well or 

spring problem that arises. 

4.3.2 Surface Waters

The Ruby Pipeline Project would cross 10 major watershed basins (see figure 4.3.2-1). Basin 

descriptions and approximate locations are provided in table 4.3.2-1. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-33

Figure 4.3.2-1 Major Watershed Basins Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

4-33

4-33

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-34

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 Uintas Mountains and flows about 193 miles north through this watershed before 

entering the Lower Bear Watershed. The Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge 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;

356 – 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 – 356 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 – 575 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.

Oregon Closed 

Basins

575 – 610 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 – 675 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 will be passing 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 #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-35

The proposed project would cross 1,132 waterbodies. Appendix M lists the location, name, type, 

proposed crossing method, fishery classification, state water quality/use classification, and impaired water 

quality designation for all waterbodies that would be crossed by the project. A summary of the 

waterbodies crossed by the project is provided in table 4.3.2-2. There are no waterbodies within or 

immediately adjacent to the boundaries of 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 Lake/Pond Canal/

Ditch Total

WYOMING

Lincoln 5 26 12 - 4 47

Uinta 3 17 13 1 - 34

UTAH

Rich 2 4 4 - 13 23

Cache 12 7 5 1 1 26

Box Elder 13 272 31 1 83 400

NEVADA

Elko 32 97 134 - 40 303

Humboldt 4 21 57 - 17 99

Washoe - 17 10 2 6 35

OREGON

Lake 27 44 12 14 13 110

Klamath 7 15 9 3 21 55

Total 105 520 287 22 198 1,132

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 waters attain the standards 

they are designated. Waters that fail to meet their designated beneficial use 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 #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-36

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 54.3 Canal Tributary to Woodruff Creek Domestic, Stock 0.2

Rich 54.3 Canal Tributary to Woodruff Creek Domestic, Stock 0.4

Rich 60.0 Tributary to Woodruff Creek Domestic, Irrigation 1.6a

Rich 60.0 Tributary to Woodruff Creek Domestic, Irrigation 1.7

Rich 60.0 Tributary to Woodruff Creek Domestic, Irrigation 2.1

Rich 60.6 Tributary to Woodruff Creek Domestic, Irrigation 1.8a

Rich 60.6 Tributary to Woodruff Creek Domestic, Irrigation 2.0

Rich 60.6 Tributary to Woodruff Creek Domestic, Irrigation 2.4

Rich 60.8 Woodruff Creek Domestic, Irrigation 1.8a

Rich 60.8 Woodruff Creek Domestic, Irrigation 2.0

Rich 60.8 Woodruff Creek Domestic, Irrigation 2.3

Rich 61.4 Tributary to Woodruff Creek Domestic, Irrigation 2.4a

Rich 61.4 Tributary to Woodruff Creek Domestic, Irrigation 2.5

Rich 61.4 Tributary to Woodruff Creek Domestic, Irrigation 2.9

Cache 92.1 Canal Trib. to East Fork Little Bear River Domestic, Irrigation, Stock 0.4a

Cache 92.3 East Fork Little Bear River Domestic, Irrigation, Stock 0.2a

Cache 92.7 East Fork Little Bear River Domestic, Irrigation, Stock 0.2a

Cache 92.7 East Fork Little Bear River Domestic, Irrigation, Stock 0.2a

Cache 92.7 East Fork Little Bear River Domestic, Irrigation, Other, Stock 1.3a

Cache 92.7 East Fork Little Bear River Domestic, Irrigation, Other, Stock 2.1a

Cache 92.7 East Fork Little Bear River Domestic, Irrigation, Stock 3.0

Cache 93.6 Trib. to East Fork Little Bear River Domestic, Irrigation 0.4a

Cache 93.6 Trib. to East Fork Little Bear River Domestic, Irrigation, Other, Stock 0.5a

Cache 93.6 Trib. to East Fork Little Bear River Domestic, Irrigation, Other, Stock 0.9a

Cache 93.6 Trib. to East Fork Little Bear River Domestic, Irrigation, Other, Stock 1.7a

Cache 93.6 Trib. to East Fork Little Bear River Domestic, Irrigation, Stock 2.9

Cache 94.4 Tributary to Little Bear River Domestic, Irrigation, Other, Stock 0.3a

Cache 94.6 Tributary to Little Bear River Domestic, Irrigation, Stock 2.2

Cache 94.6 Tributary to Little Bear River Domestic, Irrigation, Stock 2.6

Cache 94.7 Tributary to Little Bear River Domestic, Irrigation, Other, Stock 0.2a

Cache 94.7 Tributary to Little Bear River Domestic, Irrigation, Stock 2.1

Cache 94.7 Tributary to Little Bear River Domestic, Irrigation, Stock 2.4

Cache 94.8 Tributary to Little Bear River Domestic, Irrigation, Other, Stock 0.1a

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-37

TABLE 4.3.2-3 (cont.)

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 94.8 Tributary to Little Bear River Domestic, Irrigation, Stock 2.0a

Cache 94.8 Tributary to Little Bear River Domestic, Irrigation, Stock 2.3a

Cache 94.9 Tributary to Little Bear River Domestic, Irrigation, Other, Stock 0.1a

Cache 94.9 Tributary to Little Bear River Domestic, Irrigation, Stock 1.9

Cache 95.9 Tributary to Little Bear River Domestic, Irrigation, Stock 2.2

Box Elder 108.3 Canal to North Lake Domestic, Irrigation, Stock 0.5

NEVADA

Humboldt 508.5 Tributary to Leonard Creek Domestic 2.3

Humboldt 508.7 Tributary to Leonard Creek Domestic 2.3

OREGON

Lake 629.8 Dry Creek Irrigation & Domestic 2.2a

Lake 630.5 Dry Creek Irrigation & Domestic 3.0

Lake 630.6 Dry Creek Irrigation & Domestic 3.0a

─────────────────────────

a Location has more than one potable water intake within 3 miles downstream of the proposed waterbody crossing.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-38

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 to conserve, protect, maintain, and improve 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. 

None of the waterbodies that would be crossed in Utah are on the 303(d) list of impaired waters. 

Sixty-three 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 used 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. 

Six of the waterbodies that would be crossed in Nevada are on the 303(d) list of impaired waters 

(see table 4.3.2-4). Two potable water intake sources have 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 300.0 Mary’s River Dissolved Oxygen, Total Phosphorus, Temperature

Elko 315.1 Indian Creek Total Phosphorus

Elko 316.3 North Fork Humboldt River Total Phosphorus, Total Dissolved Solids

Elko 342.1 Maggie Creek Total Phosphorus

Elko 358.4 Willow Creek Temperature

Humboldt 432.6 Little Humboldt River Total Phosphorus

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-39

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. 

Five of the waterbodies that would be crossed in Oregon are on the 303(d) list of impaired waters 

(see table 4.3.2-5). Three potable water intake sources have been identified within 3 miles downstream of 

the proposed waterbody crossings in Oregon (see table 4.3.2-3). The intakes are permitted for domestic 

and 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 619.6 Thomas Creek Temperature, Iron, Dissolved Oxygen

Klamath 666.2

Lost River / Lost River 

Improved Channel 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 77 waterbodies and 10 shoreline/open water areas 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 shown in tables 4.3.2-4 and 4.3.2-5, the project would cross 11 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 Wild and Scenic Rivers. However, the project would 

cross Twelvemile Creek, which has been proposed for designation as a Wild and Scenic River. Ruby 

stated that it would implement the interim management guidelines and standards for Wild, Scenic, and 

Recreational classifications as specified in the Lakeview RMP and would submit a detailed stream 

crossing plan for Twelvemile Creek to the ODFW for review. The ODFW would consider the stream 

crossing plan in its permitting review of the project. Ruby would also file its Twelvemile Creek crossing 

plan with the FERC. Ruby stated it would cross Twelvemile Creek using a dry crossing method.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-40

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 crossing of irrigation canals could interrupt the flow of irrigation water, which could 

damage crops and reduce crop yields.

One potential impact on surface waters would result from the temporary increase in sediments 

during in-stream construction. The extent of the impact would depend on sediment loads, stream 

velocity, turbidity, bank composition, and sediment particle size. These factors would determine the 

density and downstream extent of sediment migration. 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 non-motile 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 Nevada and Oregon between MPs 500.0 to 617.1, 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. 

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 that are dry at the time of the crossing using 

conventional upland construction methods (see section 2.3.2). 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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-41

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.

Ruby would utilize the open-cut crossing method at waterbodies that are inundated or flowing at 

the time of construction and do not contain special status species. Based on Ruby’s field data, roughly 

150 streams would be crossed using this method. Ruby would minimize impacts on waterbodies during 

open cut construction by implementing the construction and mitigation procedures 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;

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;

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;

limiting post-construction maintenance of vegetated buffer strips adjacent to streams; and

implementing the Spill Plan if a spill or leak occurred during construction.

Ruby has stated it would cross all flowing waterbodies with the potential to contain special status 

fish species using a dry crossing method (but see below). This method would involve 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. Dry waterbody crossing methods generally result in less 

sedimentation and turbidity in and downstream of the project area. Ruby would also conduct stream 

crossings during construction windows established by state agencies and the FERC to protect fishery 

resources (see section 4.6).

Table 2A-2 in Ruby’s application identified several waterbodies that would be crossed using a 

wet open-cut method and that could contain special status species. Additionally, on April 20, 2009, Ruby 

submitted construction plans that identified extensive extra workspaces, staging areas, and water 

appropriation sitesin and within 50 feet of waterbodies, and indicated that some of the waterbodies known 

to contain special status fish species would be crossed using a wet open-cut method. These filings are

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-42

inconsistent with Ruby’s stated commitment that such waterbodies would be crossed using a dry-ditch 

technique. Ruby’s Procedures state that all extra work areas would be located at least 50 feet from 

waterbody edges except in actively cultivated cropland or otherwise disturbed land, unless specific 

permission has been requested (and subsequently granted by us) for a closer set-back. However, we have 

reviewed Ruby’s waterbody crossing plans 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, staging 

areas, or water appropriation sites in or within 50 feet of waterbodies or to use wet open-cut crossings on 

waterbodies known to contain special status fish species. Therefore, we recommend that Ruby locate 

all extra workspaces, staging areas, and water appropriation sites at least 50 feet from waterbodies 

and limit the construction right-of-way to 115 feet wide in waterbodies (unless a 75-foot-wide neckdown is required due to woody riparian habitat — see section 4.3.3.2). Ruby should utilize a dry 

crossing method for those waterbodies identified in table 4.3.2-6, which are known to contain 

special status fish species and have perceptible flow at the time of crossing. We will reconsider 

Ruby’s waterbody crossing plans before issuance of the final EIS if, prior to the close of the draft EIS 

comment period, Ruby provides additional site-specific justification for: 1) each extra workspace, staging 

area, and water appropriation site within 50 feet of a waterbody, 2) each instance where the construction 

right-of-way would exceed 115 feet wide in a waterbody, and 3) each occurrence where an open-cut 

crossing method would be preferred in a waterbodies listed in table 4.3.2-6.

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) recommended that the Hams Fork River, 

Little Muddy Creek, and the North Fork Little Muddy Creek be crossed using a horizontal bore method 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 these streams using a dry crossing method. The stream flow rates and 

crossing lengths of these waterbodies would make a dry crossing feasible. We believe a dry crossing of 

these waterbodies 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 method for Hams Fork River, Little Muddy Creek, and the North Fork Little Muddy 

Creek.

The ODFW recommended that all perennial streams in Oregon be crossed using a dry crossing 

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 crossing method to cross all 

flowing streams that are known to contain special status fish; stated it may use dry crossing methods on 

all perennial streams crossed in Oregon; and that it would submit fish passage plans to the ODFW for 

review and approval. Ruby also stated that screens would be installed on flume pipes to prevent 

entrainment of fish. We believe that the use of dam and pump crossings and the installation of fish 

screens on flume pipes would prevent fish from passing through the construction workspace. We 

acknowledge that the ODFW will review Ruby’s fish passage plans for adequacy and compliance with 

state requirements. 

Canals and ditches that are dry at the time of construction would be crossed using standard upland 

construction techniques (see section 2.3.1). If a rain event were to occur and canals or ditches begin 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. The Lost River Improved Channel would 

be crossed using a dry crossing method as this waterbody is known to contain special status fish species. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-43

TABLE 4.3.2-6

Waterbodies Containing Special Status Species and Proposed for Wet Open-cut Crossings for the 

Ruby Pipeline Projecta

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Flow Type

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

Special Status Species Potentially 

Present

UTAH

 Lincoln 1.0 Hams Fork River Perennial 25 Flannelmouth sucker, bluehead sucker, 

roundtail chub

 Rich 52.6

Tributary to Bear 

River / Old River 

Course

Intermittent 25 Bonneville cutthroat trout, bluehead 

sucker, Norhtern leatherside chub

 Rich 52.6 Thompson Canal Intermittent 20 Bonneville cutthroat trout, bluehead 

sucker, Norhtern leatherside chub

 Rich 52.9 Bear River Perennial 20 Bonneville cutthroat trout, bluehead 

sucker, Norhtern leatherside chub

 Rich 53.0 Randolph Woodruff 

Canal Intermittent 4

Bonneville cutthroat trout, bluehead 

sucker, Norhtern leatherside chub

 Cache 77.9 East Fork Little Bear 

River Perennial 4 Bonneville cutthroat trout

 Cache 79.5 East Fork Little Bear 

River Perennial 1 Bonneville cutthroat trout

 Cache 92.7 East Fork Little Bear 

River Perennial 18 Bonneville cutthroat trout

 Cache 93.6 Tributary to East Fork 

Little Bear River Perennial 4 Bonneville cutthroat trout

 Cache 94.8 South Fork Little Bear 

River Perennial 3 Bonneville cutthroat trout

 Cache 96.6 Spring Branch Perennial 5 Bonneville cutthroat trout

 Cache 97.9 Tributary to Spring 

Branch Perennial 2 Bonneville cutthroat trout

 Cache 98.9 West Fork Little Bear 

River Intermittent 2 Bonneville cutthroat trout

NEVADA

 Elko 329.1 Tributary to Gance 

Creek Intermittent -

Lahontan cutthroat trout

 Elko 346.1 Tributary to Maggie 

Creek Perennial 3

Lahontan cutthroat trout

OREGON

 Lake 601.8 Deep Creek Perennial 30 Warner Lakes redband trout,

Warner sucker (potential)

 Lake 610.9 Tributary to Deadman 

Creek Perennial 4

Goose Lake redband trout

 Lake 623.6 Drews Creek Perennial 15

Goose Lake redband trout, Goose 

Lake sucker, Goose Lake tui chub,

Goose Lake lamprey

 Lake 625.8 Dry Creek Intermittent 18

Goose Lake redband trout, Goose 

Lake sucker, Goose Lake tui chub,

Goose Lake lamprey, Pit Klamath 

brook lamprey

 Lake 626.0 Branch of Dry Creek Intermittent -

Goose Lake redband trout, Goose 

Lake sucker, Goose Lake tui chub,

Goose Lake lamprey, Pit Klamath 

brook lamprey

 Lake 629.1 Irrigation Canal to Dry 

Creek Intermittent 18

Goose Lake redband trout, Goose 

Lake sucker, Goose Lake tui chub,

Goose Lake lamprey, Pit Klamath 

brook lamprey

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-44

TABLE 4.3.2-6

Waterbodies Containing Special Status Species and Proposed for Wet Open-cut Crossings for the 

Ruby Pipeline Projecta

State/County

Crossing 

Location 

(MP)

Waterbody Name Flow Type

Width at 

Crossing 

(feet)

Special Status Species Potentially 

Present

 Lake 629.8 Irrigation Canal to Dry 

Creek Intermittent 18

Goose Lake redband trout, Goose 

Lake sucker, Goose Lake tui chub,

Goose Lake lamprey, Pit Klamath 

brook lamprey

 Lake 629.8 Dry Creek Intermittent 25

Goose Lake redband trout, Goose 

Lake sucker, Goose Lake tui chub,

Goose Lake lamprey, Pit Klamath 

brook lamprey

 Lake 631.3 Dry Creek Intermittent 12

Goose Lake redband trout, Goose 

Lake sucker, Goose Lake tui chub,

Goose Lake lamprey, Pit Klamath 

brook lamprey

 Lake 631.7 Sibley Draw Intermittent 2

Goose Lake redband trout, Goose 

Lake sucker, Goose Lake tui chub,

Goose Lake lamprey, Pit Klamath 

brook lamprey

 Lake 632.6 Dry Creek Intermittent 25

Goose Lake redband trout, Goose 

Lake sucker, Goose Lake tui chub,

Goose Lake lamprey, Pit Klamath 

brook lamprey

 Lake 633.6 Tributary to Dry Creek Ephemeral 25

Goose Lake redband trout, Goose 

Lake sucker, Goose Lake tui chub,

Goose Lake lamprey, Pit Klamath 

brook lamprey

 Lake 634.5 Dry Creek Intermittent 17

Goose Lake redband trout, Goose 

Lake sucker, Goose Lake tui chub,

Goose Lake lamprey, Pit Klamath 

brook lamprey

 Lake 634.6 Canal to Falls Creek Perennial 15

Goose Lake redband trout, Goose 

Lake sucker, Goose Lake tui chub,

Goose Lake lamprey, Pit Klamath 

brook lamprey

a This table does not include waterbody crossings that are greater than 30 feet in width or open water shoreline areas.

 Dry crossing methods are generally considered infeasible in waterbodies greater than 30 feet wide or in open water 

areas.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-45

Reclamation manages three water conveyance facilities (e.g., canals) that would be crossed by the 

project in Oregon: the Lost River or Lost River Improvement Channel (MP 666.2), the Main Drain (MP 

666.6), and the West Canal (MP 667.4). On May 1, 2009 Ruby submitted a route variation that would 

avoid the three water conveyance facilities managed by Reclamation. We are recommending Ruby adopt 

the route variation (see section 3.4.14 for our evaluation and recommendation of the Southern Langell 

Valley Route Variation); therefore, impacts to the water conveyance facilities would be avoided. Should 

Ruby’s proposed route end up being authorized, Reclamation requires that any project that crosses one of 

its water conveyance facilities comply with the Engineering and O&M Guidelines for Crossings 

(Reclamation, 2008). Reclamation specifically stated that Ruby would be required to cross the Lost River 

Improved Channel outside of the irrigation season, which generally occurs from April 1 to October 15. 

Ruby also would be required to coordinate fish salvage activities when crossing each of the Reclamationadministered canals or drains.

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 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. These specifications ensure that pipeline facilities are designed and constructed in a 

manner to provide adequate protection from washouts and floods. They include specifications for 

installing the pipeline at a sufficient depth to avoid possible scour at waterbody crossings. Ruby would 

monitor all areas disturbed by construction for at least 2 years after construction, and would conduct 

aerial and pedestrian surveys of the pipeline right-of-way throughout the life of the project to identify 

issues such as streambed scouring or potential pipe exposure. Should 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 pre-construction 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 

(see section 4.1.1.1 of this EIS). These measures include restoration, monitoring, and correction of 

drainage and irrigation system problems that could result from pipeline construction in active agricultural 

areas. 

Ruby would monitor all areas disturbed by construction for at least 2 years after construction, and 

would conduct aerial and pedestrian surveys of the pipeline right-of-way throughout the life of the project

to identify waterbody issues such as streambed scouring or bank erosion. Should waterbody issues be 

identified, Ruby would be required to remediate the problems. The FERC would also conduct periodic 

field inspections during and after construction and review Ruby’s inspection and monitoring reports. If 

the FERC determines that scouring issues are not adequately addressed, Ruby would be required to 

remediate the problem.

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. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-46

4.3.2.5 Horizontal Directional Drill Crossing Method

Ruby does not propose to use the HDD technique for crossing any waterbodies. Ruby states it 

would consider using HDD if construction were required outside an in-stream work window. 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, an HDD is generally 

not feasible in areas of glacial till or outwash interspersed with boulders and cobbles, fractured bedrock, 

or non-cohesive coarse sands and gravels. The likelihood of HDD failure increases when these materials 

are present. The Utah Public Lands Policy Coordination Office has stated it does not prefer the use of the 

HDD construction method because of the potential for increased impacts such as from the inadvertent 

release of drilling mud into waters containing native fishes.

Sands and gravel present in the proposed work area could permit drilling mud to run laterally or 

vertically away from the drill hole. Drilling mud is a non-toxic mixture of water and bentonite (a mineral 

clay). Drilling mud is supposed to form a seal around the drilled hole by filling the spaces between the 

sediment particles; however, the seal is not likely to develop when the drill hole is made in permeable, 

unconsolidated sand and gravel. Release of drill mud may not be evident on the ground if the mud moves 

laterally from the drill hole. However, if the mud moves vertically through overlying sand and gravel (or 

other material) or along a fault, mud could release at the ground surface. Drilling in sand and gravel 

could result in unnoticed releases of drilling mud underground and/or observable releases on the surface 

near the drill path.

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. The volume of drilling mud released would be dependent on a number of factors, 

including the size of the fault, the permeability of the overlying material, the viscosity of the drilling mud, 

and the pressure of the hydraulic drilling system.

When drilling mud is released to a waterbody it is quickly dispersed into the water and carried 

downstream by the current. 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. Such a release could be

capable of killing fish, altering water chemistry, changing water temperature, and altering habitat. 

In many cases, the HDD could still be completed after a drilling mud release. However, in some 

situations, the HDD may entirely fail and it may not be possible to cross the area using this method. In 

particular, drilling may not be feasible due to uncontrollable deflection or refusal of the drill bit by contact 

with random, inconsistent substrate (e.g., large cobbles and boulders), or by collapse of the bore hole in 

non-cohesive, unstable sand and gravel substrate. 

The HDD method also requires large volumes of water to manufacture the drilling mud. Water 

for drilling would likely be obtained from a local waterbody and could contribute to water depletions in 

the basin. 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). 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-47

4.3.2.6 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. These tests would be conducted in accordance with DOT regulations to ensure that 

the system is capable of operating at the MAOP. The tests would involve filling the pipeline with water, 

pressurizing the pipeline, and checking for pressure losses due to pipeline leakage. The vast majority of 

the test water would be drawn from local surface waters. Ruby has determined that approximately 

249,287,094 gallons of water would be required for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. Ruby has 

identified hydrostatic test water sources and has estimated the approximate amount of water that would be 

appropriated from each groundwater and surface waterbody (see table 4.3.2-7). 

TABLE 4.3.2-7

Proposed Hydrostatic Test Water and Dust Control Water Sources for the Ruby Pipeline Project

State MP Water Source Hydrostatic Test Water 

Volume (gallons)

Dust Abatement 

Water Volume 

(gallons)

Total Volume to be 

Appropriated 

(gallons)

Wyoming 0.8 Hams Fork River 14,402,192 -a14,402,192

Utah 52.9 Bear River (east) 12,873,028 8,640,000 21,513,028

94.9 Little Bear River 10,227,637 5,760,000 15,987,637

113.8 Bear River (west) 41,332,356 5,760,000 47,092,356

Nevada 300.1 Mary’s River 73,709,928 17,280,000 90,989,928

435.3 Irrigation Quarter

(groundwater well) 49,720,997 17,280,000 67,000,997

Oregon 601.8 Deep Creek 23,013,415 17,280,000 40,293,415

624.3 Irrigation Canal 13,828,771 2,880,000 16,708,771

666.2 Lost River / Lost River 

Improvement Channel 10,178,770 2,880,000 13,058,770

Total 249,287,094 77,760,000 327,047,094

─────────────────────────

a Ruby stated in its draft Biological Assessment that water used for dust abatement would not be obtained from the 

Hams Fork River, but would be obtained from wells or groundwater sources. This is a variation from what is proposed 

in Ruby’s Hydrostatic Test Plan.

Surface water and groundwater would also be used to suppress dust along the construction rightof-way. Dust abatement would be required when a visible plume of dust extends more than 300 feet from 

the source with an estimated opacity exceeding 20 percent. Ruby has estimated that about 77,760,000 

gallons of water would be required for dust abatement. The same surface water and groundwater sources 

used for hydrostatic testing would be used for dust abatement (see table 4.3.2-7).

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 4.5 further discusses potential impacts on aquatic resources due to water withdrawals.

Seven of Ruby’s proposed water sources (Hams Fork River, Bear River – East, Little Bear River, 

Bear River – West, Mary’s River, Deep Creek, and the Lost River) are known to contain special status 

species. In addition, the FWS stated that water withdrawals (depletions) from the Hams Fork River, 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-48

which is located within the Colorado River system, may affect the bonytail, 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 J). 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 withdrawing hydrostatic test water from surface water and groundwater sources.

Ruby has proposed to appropriate water for hydrostatic testing between the months of August and 

December. Ruby stated that it would regulate the rate of withdrawal of test water to avoid adverse impact 

on aquatic resources or downstream flows. These rates would not exceed 10 percent of the waterbody’s 

base flow rate at the time of water withdrawals. We have reviewed available historic stream flow data 

from the months of August through December. Table 4.3.2-8 identifies the average historic stream flows 

between August and December, 10 percent of historic base flow, and the amount of time required to 

appropriate the necessary test water volumes identified in table 4.3.2-7. 

TABLE 4.3.2-8

Historic Flow Data and Time Required to Appropriate Water for the Ruby Pipeline Projecta

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)b

10 Percent of 

Historic Average 

Monthly 

Streamflow (gpm)

Time Required to 

Appropriate 

Required Volume 

While Maintaining 

10 percent Historic 

Flows (days)

Hams Fork 

River

14,402,192 09224050 / 25 12,342.5 1,234.25 8.1

Bear River 

(east)

21,513,028 10020300 / 18 19,299.7 1,929.97 7.7

Little Bear 

River

15,987,637 10104700 / 0.25 12,656.8 1,265.68 8.8

Bear River 

(west)

47,092,356 10126000 / 0.5 539,493.8 53,949.38 0.6

Mary’s River 90,989,928 10315500 / 1.5 3,455.8 345.58 182.8

Deep Creek 40,293,415 10371500 / Unknown 147.9 14.8 1,890

─────────────────────────

a Historic stream flow data for Irrigation Canal, and the Lost River was not available.

b USGS, 2009. Data compiled from 1985 to 2008.

Based on available data, sufficient stream flows would likely be available for the Hams Fork 

River, Bear River, and Little Bear River. Mary’s River and Deep Creek do not appear to provide the 

necessary water capacity required by the project. We believe it would be necessary for Ruby to find 

supplemental water sources for hydrostatic testing and dust control or incorporate water cascading along 

its test sections to minimize depletion impacts on the Mary’s River and Deep Creek. 

Ruby has indicated that it is in the process of identifying new groundwater well locations along 

the project to provide a supplemental water source for hydrostatic testing and dust abatement. Ruby has 

not identified the location of these wells or the amount of water that would be used for dust abatement or 

hydrostatic testing activities; therefore, we are unable to determine how this may affect water use at this 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-49

time. Reclamation has indicated it would not allow water appropriation from water sources under its 

jurisdiction, such as the Lost River Improved Channel. Upon review of topographic maps, aerial 

photographs, and Ruby’s list of waterbody crossings, we have determined that the irrigation canal at MP 

624.3 does not appear to exist. Therefore, we recommend that prior to the close of the draft EIS 

comment period, Ruby should file a revised Hydrostatic Test Plan to:

a. identify any additional sources that would be used for hydrostatic testing and dust 

control;

b. identify alternative water sources for the Lost River Improved Channel, Mary’s

River, Deep Creek, and the irrigation canal at MP 624.3;

c. include a contingency plan to account for drought conditions that could prevent 

water appropriation from proposed sources;

d. identify the locations and volumes of water discharges that would occur outside the 

water sources’ eight-digit hydrologic unit; and

e. describe how Ruby proposes to neutralize biocides used to treat discharge water. 

Ruby would test the pipeline in about 214 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 J).

Test water generally would be discharged within the same eight-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC)

watershed from which it was withdrawn. This would prevent the inadvertent transfer of invasive 

organisms to new watersheds. No chemicals would be used during testing of the pipe; however, Ruby 

would use industry-accepted and agency-approved biocides to appropriately treat test water for pathogens 

when discharges occur outside the watershed from which the water was obtained. All biocide-treated 

water would be neutralized prior to discharge. As stated above, we have requested that Ruby identify 

where surface waters would be discharged outside their eight-digit HUC watershed, and how biocides 

would be neutralized prior to discharge. Ruby would discharge the test water to upland areas within or 

immediately adjacent to the construction right-of-way at a rate to prevent scour and erosion, and to 

prevent sediment migration to sensitive resources such as wetlands and waterbodies. All discharges 

would be monitored by EIs and compliance monitors, and energy dissipation and erosion control devices 

would be used to prevent soil erosion and scouring at upland discharge sites. Discharge rates would be 

controlled to ensure the discharged flows would not flow above the carrying capacity of the dissipation 

structure(s). 

The WGFD recommends 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 filtration devices when the discharge point is more than 0.5 mile from a stream and the 

discharge flow is greater than 0.5 cfs. However, Ruby has not committed to discharging to filtration 

devices when the discharge point is less than 0.5 mile from a perennial stream. Therefore, we 

recommend that prior to the close of the draft EIS comment period, Ruby should revise its 

Hydrostatic Test Plan to require all hydrostatic test water discharges to be directed to a filtration 

device.

No long-term 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.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-50

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 proposed project were conducted in 2008 in accordance with these federal regulations 

and methodologies, including the Arid West Region supplement to the 1987 COE Manual. Ruby used 

National Wetland Inventory (NWI) data to identify wetlands crossed by the proposed pipeline right-ofway and aboveground facilities in areas where access was denied. These areas will be surveyed for 

wetlands in 2009. A description of wetland types impacted by the proposed project is presented in table 

4.3.3-1.

The pipeline route would cross 159 wetlands for a combined linear crossing distance of 21.9 

miles. Table 4.3.3-1 summarizes the wetlands crossed by the proposed pipeline route. 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. A complete list of wetlands crossed by the project is provided in Appendix N. 

Ruby stated in its Certificate application that no wetlands were identified at aboveground facility 

sites. However, table 3.2-7 in the Certificate application identifies 0.1 acre of permanent wetland impact 

at aboveground facility sites in Lincoln County, Wyoming. We have reviewed Ruby’s wetland 

delineation report and alignment drawings, NWI data, and aerial photographs, and it appears no wetlands 

are present at aboveground facility sites in Lincoln County. Should wetlands indeed occur within these 

facilities, Ruby would be required to comply with the COE permit requirements. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-51

TABLE 4.3.3-1

Summary of Wetlands Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State Cowardin 

Classification

Length Crossed 

(miles) a

Construction Impacts

(acres) b 

Operational Impacts 

(acres) c 

Wyoming

PEM 0.53 4.99 3.25

PSS 0.01 0.1 0.07

PUS <0.01 0.01 0.0

Subtotal 0.55 5.1 3.32

Utah

PEM 2.6 23.23 15.6

PSS 0.12 1.07 0.73

PUS 0.26 2.31 1.6

PUB 0.21 1.99 1.32

L2USA 1.0 9.18 6.12

PEM/L2USA/PUSA 1.24 11.31 7.53

Subtotal 5.4 49.09 32.9

Nevada

PEM 2.8 25.37 16.94

PSS 0.04 0.33 0.24

Subtotal 2.84 25.7 17.18

Oregon

PEM 13.0 117.46 78.55

PFO 0.04 0.33 0.22

L1ABH 0.06 0.58 0.38

Subtotal 13.1 118.37 79.15

Total 21.89 198.26 132.55

─────────────────────────

a Calculation based on the length of wetland crossed.

b Construction impacts based on a 75-foot-wide construction workspace.

c Operational impacts based on a 50-foot-wide maintained pipeline right-of-way.

PEM = Palustrine Emergent Wetland

PSS = Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetland

PFO = Palustrine Forested Wetland

PUS = Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore 

PUB = Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom 

L2USA = Lacustrine Littoral Unconsolidated Shore Temporarily Flooded

PUSA = Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore Temporarily Flooded

L1ABH = Lacustrine Limnetic Aquatic Bed Permanently Flooded

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-52

4.3.3.1 Potential Wetland Impacts

The construction of a pipeline within wetlands could have several effects to the wetland system. 

Removal of vegetation could alter 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 hydrology of a perched water table 

leading to drier conditions 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 or transport of pipe in wetlands could inadvertently rut or compact the 

soil and affect natural hydrologic patterns of the wetlands and may lead to inhibited seed germination or 

increase the potential for siltation. Improper sediment controls could lead to sediment deposition in the 

wetlands that 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 be able to regenerate quickly. Ruby would work to reestablish 

pre-existing wetland elevations, restore surface hydrology, and allow herbaceous vegetation to return to 

pre-construction conditions after construction. Generally, the wetland vegetation community would 

transition back to a community with functionality similar to that of the wetland prior to construction. In 

emergent wetlands, the herbaceous vegetation would regenerate quickly (typically within 1 to 3 years). 

Scrub-shrub and forested wetlands could take considerably longer to recover to pre-construction 

conditions. Scrub-shrub wetlands could take several to many years to reach functionality similar to preconstruction conditions, depending on the age and complexity of the system. The habitat functions 

provided by forested wetlands would require even more time to recover. Measures to mitigate for any 

permanent effects to wetlands would be determined during Ruby’s COE permitting process and may 

require compensatory mitigation as discussed in section 4.3.3.2. Construction activities also 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.

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 

forested and scrub-shrub vegetation in an herbaceous type, some of the functions (primarily wildlife 

habitat) of forested and scrub-shrub wetlands would be permanently altered. This would not result in a 

loss of wetland, but rather a conversion from forested and scrub-shrub vegetation to a more herbaceous 

vegetation type. Based on Ruby’s field survey data, about 0.13 acre of forested wetland and 1.04 acres of 

scrub-shrub wetland would be converted to herbaceous wetland.

Access road improvements and new access road construction would not cause permanent impacts 

on nearby wetlands. Ruby’s Procedures state that the only access roads, other than the construction rightof-way, that would be used in wetlands without additional FERC approval are existing roads that can be 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-53

used with no modification and no impact on the wetland. No such areas have been identified, and it does 

not appear that Ruby would seek approval to improve access roads in wetland areas.

4.3.3.1 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. According to Ruby’s Procedures, 

the width of the construction right-of-way would be limited to 75 feet; however, Ruby has identified 51 

wetland crossings where the 75-foot wide construction right-of-way would be expanded to accommodate 

topographic conditions, stockpiling area requirements for topsoil segregation, crossing of adjacent 

waterbodies, and other construction and safety issues. An additional 198.0 acres of wetland would be 

impacted by the expanded right-of-way. 

Also according to Ruby’s Procedures, extra workspaces would be located at least 50 feet away 

from wetland boundaries. However, Ruby has identified nine areas where the temporary extra 

workspaces would be located less than 50 feet away from wetlands due to site-specific conditions (e.g.,

avoidance of sensitive areas or resources). About 0.56 acre of wetland would be located within 50 feet of 

extra workspaces. Ruby submitted site-specific plans for extra workspaces located in wetlands and within 

50 feet of wetlands. However, we have reviewed these plans and have determined that Ruby has not 

provided sufficient site-specific justification to support its requests. Therefore, we recommend that 

Ruby locate all extra workspaces, staging areas, and water appropriation sites at least 50 feet from

wetlands and limit the construction right-of-way to 75 feet wide in wetlands. We will reconsider 

Ruby’s wetland crossing plans before issuance of the final EIS if, prior to the close of the draft EIS 

comment period, Ruby provides additional site-specific justification for: 1) each extra workspace, staging 

area, and water appropriation site 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 stated that no wetlands would be affected at any staging areas or construction contractor 

yards although Ruby has not completed its surveys in these areas. Should wetlands be identified at any 

staging area, pipe yard, contractor yard, or construction camp that would be impacted by project 

activities, Ruby would be required to obtain authorization from the COE.

Ruby’s Procedures include the following additional 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; 

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;

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-54

consult with the appropriate land managing or state agencies to develop plans for 

revegetating 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 pre-construction contours and elevations. Ruby also 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 standing 

water is present. The 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-ofway (see section 4.3.6).

Ruby would generally locate the pipeline 35 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 

35-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 35-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 35-foot separation from existing utilities is reasonable.

4.3.3.2 Wetland Restoration

Ruby’s Procedures include the commitment to ensure that all disturbed areas successfully 

revegetate with wetland herbaceous and/or woody plant species. Revegetation would be considered 

successful if the cover of herbaceous vegetation is at least 80 percent of the type, density, and distribution 

of vegetation in adjacent undisturbed wetland areas. If revegetation is not successful at the end of 3 years, 

Ruby would develop and implement (in consultation with a professional wetland ecologist) a remedial 

plan to actively revegetate wetland areas. We have found that approximately two-thirds of monitored 

wetlands in arid ecoregions failed to meet our restoration criteria after several. Because of this, and 

because wetlands are a limited and unique feature in the arid west and are crucial to numerous wildlife 

and aquatic species, we recommend that Ruby file a revised Wetland Restoration Plan prior to the 

close of the draft EIS comment period. The revision should incorporate (as required by section 

VI.C.4 of Ruby’s Procedures) measures for replacing/planting woody species as soon as possible 

within the appropriate planting season using shrub or tree cuttings, seedlings, or saplings common 

to the wetlands being restored. The plan also should identify measures for protecting plantings, 

such as installation of exclusion fencing around wetland areas or using browse protectors to 

minimize grazing and wildlife browsing. In addition, Ruby should extend its post-construction 

wetland monitoring program to 5 years. The resulting monitoring and restoration program would be 

implemented and would continue until wetland revegetation is 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, 2009). 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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-55

sufficient mitigation credits are not available for the project. Ruby has prepared a Preliminary Wetland 

Mitigation Plan (Appendix O) that describes the current status of wetland mitigation consultations and 

provides project wetland impacts, proposed mitigation ratios for each state, and suggested mitigation 

recommendations. 

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, and complying with federal and state permit conditions, we do not believe the 

project would result in any significant impacts on wetlands.

4.3.3.3 Wetlands of Special Concern or Value

The WRP is a voluntary program offering landowners the opportunity to sell conservation 

easements and/or enter into cost-share agreements with the NRCS on eligible wetlands. The NRCS 

provides technical and financial assistance to eligible landowners to protect, restore, and enhance the 

original hydrology, native vegetation, and natural topography of a landowner’s property. The goal of the 

program is to restore and protect the functions and values of wetlands in the agricultural landscape. The 

emphasis of the program is to attain habitat for migratory birds and wetland-dependent wildlife, including 

threatened and endangered species; protect and improve water quality; attenuate water flows; recharge 

groundwater; and protect native flora and fauna.

One WRP easement is crossed by the proposed pipeline route in Oregon. On May 1, 2009 Ruby 

submitted a route variation that would avoid the WRP easement. We are recommending that Ruby adopt 

the route variation (see section 3.4.14 for our evaluation and recommendation of the Southern Langell 

Valley Route Variation). If this route variation is eventually certificated, impacts to the WRP easement 

would be avoided. No other WRP lands would be impacted by the project.

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, 2009). 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 

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.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-56

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 eight upland vegetation cover types: sagebrush steppe, 

salt desert scrub, juniper woodland, mixed conifer forest, 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. Nonvegetated areas are discussed in section 4.8.1.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-57

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, 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 NevadaUtah 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. 

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 flooddisturbance. 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 #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-58

Ruby completed survey and vegetation classification on approximately 88 percent of the project 

in 2008. Based upon Ruby’s survey results to date, construction of the project within surveyed areas 

would impact about 12,601.3 acres of sagebrush steppe, 3,443.6 acres of salt desert scrub, 413.3 acres of 

juniper woodland, 1,391.3 acres of mixed conifer forest, 368.8 acres of riparian forest, 1,334.3 acres of 

grassland, 41,042.6 acres of mountain meadow brush, and 41,350.1 acres of pasture and agricultural land. 

These impacts reflect the entire length of the 115-foot-wide construction right-of-way for the mainline 

and lateral pipeline, proposed extra right-of-way width and temporary extra workspaces, aboveground 

facilities, access roads, and contractor and 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 request increased width in other locations for engineering or constructability 

reasons. Newly identified or revised temporary extra workspaces could also affect acreage totals. Table 

4.4.1-2 identifies acreages of the vegetation types that would be directly affected by construction and 

operation of pipeline facilities. Ruby will file the vegetation and habitat survey results for the remaining 

segments of the pipeline route that have not been surveyed as soon as these results are available.

4.4.1.1 General Vegetation Impacts

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 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. 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.

Impacts on sagebrush steppe, juniper woodland, mountain meadow/brush, and salt desert scrub

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 as long as 50 years. 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 minimize restoration timeframes. Permanent impacts on shrubland would result primarily 

from right-of-way maintenance activities. Maintenance activities would be conducted in accordance with 

Ruby’s Plan and Procedures (Appendices E and F, respectively), which include 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 non-riparian areas. These clearing activities would 

prevent larger woody species from reverting to pre-construction form and size. Ruby has stated it would 

not remove sagebrush as part of its vegetation maintenance program; therefore, permanent impacts on 

sagebrush from pipeline construction and operation are not anticipated. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-59

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

Pasture and 

Agriculture Project Totals

Con. Op. Con. Op. Con. Op. Con. Op. Con. Op. Con. Op. Con. Op. Con. Op. Con. Op.

WYOMING

Right-of-Way 498.5 216.9 94.6 41.7 2.4 0.9 - - 21.4 9.3 14.5 6.4 5.0 2.3 10.3 5.3 646.7 282.8

Extra Workspaces

and Staging Areas 96.8 - 12.4 - 2.4 - - - 7.7 - 3.9 - 3.6 - 4.7 - 131.7 0.0

Access Roads 688.3 - 158.4 - 7.0 - 0.1 - 38.5 - 24.2 - 4.0 - 2.7 - 923.2 0.0

Yards - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.0 0.0

Aboveground 

Facilities 50.9 50.9 5.4 5.4 - - - - - - 3.4 3.4 - - - - 59.8 59.8

Subtotal 1334.6 267.8 270.8 47.1 11.8 00.9 0.1 0.0 67.7 9.3 46.0 9.8 12.6 2.3 17.7 5.3 1761.3 342.6

UTAH

Right-of-Way 759.4 332.1 708.1 309.3 42.2 18.1 10.8 4.7 40.3 18.0 94.5 40.7 339.0 147.9 321.8 144.5 2316.0 1015.4

Extra Workspaces

and Staging Areas 324.8 - 144.1 - 29.3 - 5.9 - 28.2 - 29.2 - 139.4 - 153.8 - 854.6 0.0

Access Roads 681.0 - 459.9 - 27.1 - 2.0 - 30.9 - 71.8 - 259.4 - 293.5 - 1825.6 0.0

Yards 12.4 - 1.5 - - - - - - - 4.0 - 0.2 - 153.8 - 171.9 0.0

Aboveground 

Facilities - - 26.6 26.6 - - - - * - - - - - - - 26.6 26.6

Subtotal 1777.5 332.1 1340.2 335.9 98.5 18.1 18.7 4.7 99.4 18.0 199.6 40.7 738.0 147.9 922.8 144.5 5194.7 1042.0

NEVADA

Right-of-Way 3252.4 1415.1 924.9 403.2 78.4 34.0 1.7 0.6 23.3 10.6 563.7 247.0 47.2 20.5 38.1 19.3 4929.6 2150.4

Extra Workspaces

and Staging Areas 1034.0 - 52.5 - 40.8 - 1.6 - 10.6 - 86.3 - 26.3 - 12.8 - 1264.9 0.0

Access Roads 3672.2 - 647.4 - 41.4 - 1.7 - 40.4 - 414.2 - 42.2 - 54.0 - 4913.5 0.0

Yards 118.4 - 69.1 - - - - - - - 1.2 - - - - - 188.7 0.0

Aboveground 

Facilities 27.0 27.0 23.7 23.7 - - - - - - 0.1 0.1 - - 2.5 2.5 53.4 53.4

Subtotal 8104.0 1442.1 1717.6 427.0 160.6 34.0 5.1 0.6 74.3 10.6 1065.4 247.1 115.6 20.5 107.5 21.8 11350.1 2203.8

OREGON

Right-of-Way 479.7 210.3 28.0 13.2 54.6 23.6 330.8 144.0 28.3 13.4 5.5 2.4 66.7 29.8 118.6 59.1 1112.2 495.9

Extra Workspaces

and Staging Areas 154.5 - 19.3 - 22.0 - 166.1 - 15.7 - 2.5 - 24.5 - 71.8 - 476.4 0.0

Access Roads 648.9 - 63.1 - 64.8 - 869.2 - 82.6 - 14.6 - 82.3 - 52.2 - 1877.7 0.0

Yards 101.2 - 0.1 - 1.0 - 1.3 - 0.7 - 0.8 - 2.9 - 50.5 - 158.5 0.0

Aboveground 

Facilities 0.9 0.9 4.5 4.5 - - - - - - - - - - 9.1 9.1 14.5 14.5

Subtotal 1385.2 211.2 115.0 17.7 142.4 23.6 1367.4 144.0 127.4 13.4 23.4 2.4 176.4 29.8 302.2 68.2 3639.3 510.4

Total 12601.3 2253.2 3443.6 827.8 413.3 76.7 1391.3 149.3 368.8 51.2 1334.3 300.1 1042.6 200.6 1350.1 239.8 21945.4 4098.7

─────────────────────────

a Habitat surveys have not been completed for portions of the project. Vegetation impacts for unsurveyed areas are not represented in the table. North Pacific Wooded Volcanic 

Flowage vegetation impacts (6.5 acres during construction and 0.3 acre during operation) in Oregon are not represented in this table. 

Con. = Impacts within the 115-foot-wide construction workspace. Op. = Impacts within the 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way of the mainline and lateral pipeline.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-60

Impacts on forested communities would constitute the most pronounced 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 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.

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 minimization measures, and post-construction monitoring. Ruby has 

developed a set of measures it would use to minimize vegetation clearing during and after construction 

activities. These measures are fully detailed in Ruby’s Plan, Procedures, Reclamation Plan, and Noxious 

and Invasive Weed Control Plan (see Appendices E, F, K, and P, respectively). In 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 postconstruction 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 to segregate topsoil over the trench line and spoil storage area for the entire 

length of the project except in saturated or inundated wetlands. The working side of the right-of-way 

would be mowed or scraped to allow for equipment passage. Ruby would segregate topsoil over the 

entire construction right-of-way (i.e., full right-of-way topsoil stripping) in unsaturated wetlands, in areas 

needing extensive grading, in identified noxious weed areas, where soil compaction or rutting exceeds 4 

inches on federally managed land, and at a landowner’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). Ruby documented the presence of numerous weedy species within all of the 

vegetation types surveyed during its 2008 inventories, which indicates that weed colonization of disturbed 

sites could occur. Disturbed sites often experience bursts of annual weed colonization in response to 

disturbance. However, after each isolated episode of rapid growth, the population of weedy species often 

declines as native and more desirable vegetation slowly recovers from the disturbance (Rice, 1989; Leck 

et al., 1989). 

Ruby would reseed the disturbed sites as specified in its Reclamation Plan so as to expedite 

revegetation and reduce the potential for weed establishment and soil erosion. The seed mixes specified 

in the Reclamation Plan 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. 

Several stakeholders provided comments that the seed mixes provided in Ruby’s draft Reclamation Plan 

did not adequately represent the native plant species that would be impacted by the project. Ruby has 

subsequently committed to developing a technical team to develop reclamation plans for each state 

crossed by the project. This technical team would seek input from the BLM, USFS, FWS, Reclamation, 

and state wildlife agencies to develop proper reclamation procedures, including appropriate seed mixes, to 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-61

be implemented during construction. As stated in section 4.4.1, we are recommending that Ruby file the 

results of its vegetation and habitat surveys with the FERC during the draft EIS comment period. 

Ruby would be required to monitor the success of revegetation. 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 the BLM 

(on BLM-managed lands) will also monitor restoration and revegetation success and will 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. 

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 pre-construction 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 519.1 vegetated acres. About 204.3 acres of agricultural land would be used for these yards. 

Restoration in agricultural areas would occur within 1 to 3 years. About 232.0 acres of sagebrush steppe, 

70.7 acres of salt desert scrub, 1.0 acre of juniper woodland, 1.3 acres of mixed conifer forest, 0.7 acre of 

riparian forest, 6 acres of grassland, and 3.1 acres of mountain meadow/brush would also be utilized for 

yards. Removal of shrubland would result in long-term impacts due to the length of time needed to 

restore shrubland to pre-construction conditions. Herbaceous and grassland areas affected by contractor 

and pipe yards would re-vegetate in a shorter timeframe.

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 impact 194.0 acres of land. Of the 194.0 acres of disturbance, 

39.9 acres of land would be restored as specified in Ruby’s Reclamation Plan. Of the remaining 154.1

acres of land, the project would convert about 78.8 acres of sagebrush steppe, 60.2 acres of salt desert 

scrub, 11.6 acres of pasture and agriculture land, and 3.5 acres of grassland to aboveground natural 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 the surrounding project area.

4.4.2 Vegetation Communities of Special Concern or Value 

4.4.2.1 Rogger Meadow 

Rogger Meadow, located in the Fremont-Winema NF, contains a colony of common 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 common camas. The goal of the management area is to provide an attractive, naturalDocument Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-62

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 common 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 reviewed the 

pipeline alignment in the field with various personnel from the Fremont-Winema NF. The FremontWinema NF 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 pre-construction 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 common 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. 

According to information provided by Ruby, construction of the pipeline (including access road 

improvements and new access road construction) would affect an estimated 368.8 acres of forested

riparian habitat. Approximately 51.2 acres of forested riparian habitat would be permanently maintained 

as herbaceous vegetation within Ruby’s permanent pipeline right-of-way, and 192.4 acres may be 

impacted by access road improvements and new access road construction. Approximately 176.3 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 up to 50 years. 

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 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 14 woody riparian habitats identified in table 4.4.3-1. For any location Ruby 

believes extra workspaces/staging areas are necessary in woody riparian habitat, Ruby should 

provide site-specific 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) as soon as possible after construction within 

the appropriate planting season. 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 this riparian 

habitat restoration for 5 years after construction. At the end of the 5-year period, Ruby should file 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-63

a report identifying the status of the woody riparian restoration and the need for any additional 

restoration efforts.

TABLE 4.4.3-1

Woody Riparian Habitat Crossed by the Proposed 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 Cr 60.8 50 150

East Fork Little Bear River 77.9 50 50

East Fork Little Bear River 92.7

The entire length of woody riparian 

habitat that is impacted by pipeline 

clearing

120

South Fork Little Bear River 94.8 120 500

Little Bear River 94.9 190 40

Bear River 113.7 50 -

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

Tributary to Willow Creek 358.1 50 50

Tributary to Willow Creek 358.4 50 50

Soldier Creek 359.3 50 50

Ruby stated that riparian areas and floodplains would not be used as staging or refueling areas. 

Ruby also stated in its Procedures that chemicals, fuels, and solvents would be stored at a minimum 100 

feet from waterbodies or riparian areas, or the fluids would be placed within secondary containment 

structures. We have received numerous comments from federal and state agencies that chemicals, fuels, 

and solvents should be stored at a minimum of 500 feet from waterbodies, wetlands, floodplains, and 

riparian areas. BLM has indicated that on land under its jurisdiction, it may require a 500 foot setback for 

hazardous materials storage and refueling activities. 

Ruby is coordinating with the FWS, BLM, and other state resource agencies to minimize shortand 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;

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-64

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 land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). The CRP is 

managed and administered by the USDA’s Farm Service Agency (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. 

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 Reclamation Plan. 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.

The FWS has developed a mitigation policy to assist FWS personnel in the development of 

consistent and effective recommendations to protect and conserve valuable fish and wildlife resources and 

to allow project developers to anticipate FWS recommendations and incorporate mitigation measures into 

the early stages of the planning process. The FWS policy established four “resource categories” with 

varying mitigation goals and provided five prioritized actions that could be taken to mitigate the impacts.

Ruby, the FWS, the BLM, and appropriate state agencies are discussing habitat quality and 

conservation and mitigation strategies for the project. The FWS is working with Ruby and other state and 

federal agencies to develop a habitat classification and mitigation plan for the project. The habitat map 

will identify high quality habitat and unique wildlife conditions. Habitat mapping will be the foundation 

for discussing minor route modifications to avoid or minimize impacts on high quality or unique habitats. 

Habitat mapping will also be useful in defining and agreeing to a final Ruby mitigation and conservation 

plan. Discussions regarding habitat quality and conservation measures are ongoing between Ruby and the 

above-mentioned agencies and will continue for some time. Ruby will file the results of the habitat 

analysis and its cooperative effort when complete. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-65

Ruby has evaluated the project pursuant to ODFW policy, identified category habitats impacted 

by the project in Oregon, and discussed potential compensatory mitigation measures for these habitats 

with the ODFW. Mitigation would address impacts on mule deer winter range habitat and riparian 

habitat. Ruby and the ODFW have agreed to involve the Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative, a non-profit 

organization, in developing and implementing off-site compensatory mitigation. The Cooperative 

Sagebrush Initiative has identified two projects in Oregon that may serve to offset the projects impacts in 

Oregon. Ruby, the ODFW, and the Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative will continue to develop and 

implement compensatory mitigation for the project.

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.

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.

In addition to federal noxious weed lists, each state crossed by the proposed 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. Direct effects 

could include the establishment or spread of invasive or noxious plants through the use of new roads after 

construction, maintenance activities, or by providing a corridor for the establishment and spread of 

invasive or noxious weeds to adjoining lands. 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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-66

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 conducted surveys along the proposed pipeline right-of-way in 2008 to identify locations of 

existing noxious and invasive weeds. Numerous weed locations were documented. Ruby will continue to 

survey for and document the location of noxious and invasive species until construction, and will update 

its Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan with new information as it is identified.

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 seed mixes and erosion 

control measures. Based on the agencies’ recommendations, Ruby drafted a Noxious and Invasive Weed 

Control Plan (Appendix P) to minimize and control the spread of noxious and invasive species. 

Minimization and control measures outlined in the plan include:

information and training for 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 and after construction;

cleaning of all contractor vehicles and equipment using power or high pressure 

equipment prior to the vehicle’s arrival at the project work site. The wash-down would

concentrate on tracks, feet, or tires and on the undercarriage, with special emphasis on 

axles, frame, cross members, motor mounts, and on underneath steps, running boards, 

and front bumper or brush guard assemblies. Vehicle cabs would be swept out and refuse 

would be disposed of in waste receptacles. The contractor, with EI oversight, would

ensure that vehicles and equipment are free of soil and debris capable of transporting 

noxious weed seeds, roots, or rhizomes before the vehicles and equipment leave the 

contractor yard and are allowed use of access roads and the right-of-way;

stockpiling of cleared vegetation and salvaged topsoil in areas where noxious weed 

infestations have been identified or are noted in the field. Cleared vegetation would be 

stored adjacent to the area from which it is stripped to eliminate the transport of soilborne noxious weed seeds, roots, or rhizomes. These stockpiled materials would be 

treated as contaminated and no construction equipment would be allowed to work in or 

on them. The contractor would return topsoil and cleared vegetation from infestation 

sites to the areas from which they were stripped;

use of water or compressed air and hand tools to remove seeds, roots, and rhizomes from 

clearing and reclamation equipment used to move vegetation and topsoil before the 

equipment is moved off site. Cleaning sites would be recorded using global positioning 

equipment and this information would be reported to the local contact person or agency;

ensuring that all straw or hay bales used for sediment barrier installations or mulch 

distribution are obtained from state-cleared sources that are free of primary noxious 

weeds;

reclamation of disturbed lands immediately following construction as outlined in Ruby’s 

Reclamation Plan. Continuing revegetation efforts would ensure adequate vegetation

cover to prevent the invasion of noxious weeds;

application of fertilizer to reclaimed areas according to Ruby’s Reclamation Plan and as 

directed by the jurisdictional land management agency, property owner, or EI; and

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-67

taking 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 or riparian areas, or agricultural 

land, and time of year) and would be coordinated with regulatory offices.

Reclamation has indicated it would require Ruby and its contractors to power wash all equipment 

with water at temperatures greater than 230 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) prior to and upon leaving 

Reclamation property (i.e., the Lost River Improvement Channel [MP 666.2], the Main Drain [MP 666.6], 

and the West Canal [MP 667.4]) to prevent the spread of invasive 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 Langell Valley Irrigation District. Should 

the Southern Langell Valley Route Variation be Certificated, Reclamation would likely request similar 

measures on Reclamation-managed lands (see section 3.4.14).

The FWS has recommended that treatment for invasive species be conducted prior to equipment 

entering the Sheldon NWR. We recognize that conservation measures regarding invasive and noxious 

weeds and the use of access roads within the Sheldon NWR will be developed and authorized through 

separate approval processes.

Ruby would begin monitoring the project right-of-way for infestations of noxious and invasive 

species the first growing season after construction (spring 2011). Ruby would continue to monitor the 

project area during the second, third, and fifth growing seasons to identify the location of weed 

infestations. 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 which are approved for use within treated lands (private, state, or federal) would be used.

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 management agency would ultimately determine if 

restoration and revegetation is successful.

We believe that if Ruby implements the procedures identified above and in its 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. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-68

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 potentially exist 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 – Methylcychexenone capsules (a natural beetle repellant) would be 

applied to trees along the edge of the construction right-of-way where Douglas fir beetle 

infestations are documented. This treatment would occur before beetle flight in April to 

protect remaining stands of Douglas fir and to 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 into 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 would be 

documented during timber cruises in 2010. 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 the tree species present. Unless the 

specific strain of annosus root disease is known (p-type strain or s-type strain), 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).

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-69

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. Areas near 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 

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 patches within contiguous habitats; 

however, clearing for the temporary extra workspaces would add to the patch size created on the right-ofway rather than create new cleared patches.

Forest areas that would be disturbed by the project would be replanted according to state and 

federal requirements, except within the 50-foot permanent pipeline right-of-way. Timber and slash may 

be redistributed across the right-of-way following final clean-up and seeded in areas deemed acceptable to 

the landowner or land managing agency. These efforts would reduce habitat fragmentation and edge 

effect impacts.

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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-70

sagebrush edge. Herbaceous vegetation 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.

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.

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 is illegal (i.e., not permitted) and the pipeline right-of-way and roads would create 

new access into forested areas. Illegal wild harvesting could increase as a result of Ruby’s construction 

and operation. Ruby would consult with landowners and land managing agencies to determine the most 

appropriate and effective measures to restrict off-highway vehicle use and illegal access along the 

pipeline right-of-way and therefore limit use of the right-of-way by illegal harvesters.

Several comments were received during the scoping period regarding the potential impact on 

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 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. Wild harvesting by Native American tribes is discussed 

further in section 4.10.

4.4.10 Timber Removal

The pipeline would cross approximately 38.6 miles of mature forested lands, which includes 

approximately 4.5 miles of possible old-growth forest. Land ownership within forested lands includes 

privately owned timberland, USFS lands, and BLM-administered lands.

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 

operations and tree felling within the certificated construction work limits, and to ensure trees within the 

certificated construction work area limits 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.

A portion of cleared trees would be retained for restoration. The EI or Ruby’s authorized 

representative would flag existing snags on the edges of the construction right-of-way or extra 

workspaces where feasible to save selected trees from clearing. These snags would be saved to benefit 

primary and secondary cavity nesting birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. The EI or Ruby’s 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-71

authorized representative would coordinate snag and vegetation distribution across the right-of-way with 

landowners or land managing agencies.

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: 

equipment customary to the local area and conventional logging practices would be used 

to clear and yard logs;

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 duff layers 

within the right-of-way;

logs and slash would not be yarded across perennial streams unless fully suspended over 

the stream and adjacent banks. Where yarding across intermittent streams may be 

necessary, log movement would be designed to minimize sediment delivery to streams;

designed skid trails would be employed to limit skidding impacts. In areas too steep to 

keep skidding operations defined within the construction right-of-way, the workspace

would be increased to the maximum width for safety purposes. Variations to the 

designated trails could occur due to site-specific circumstances, resource protection, or 

the need to maintain operator safety. Skid trails would be kept to the absolute minimum 

necessary to extract the resource from the site while still providing resource protection; 

logging slash would be treated immediately. 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);

stump removal would be limited to the 50-foot permanent right-of-way in upland areas 

and in areas where grading is necessary to construct a safe, level working area;

off-site slash disposal and/or burning could occur in areas where slash is concentrated, 

such as landings. Slash would be machine- or hand-piled and burned according to state 

burning requirements and landowner, BLM, and USFS stipulations;

forested areas disturbed by the project would be replanted according to state (Oregon 

reforestation rules, Oregon Administrative Rules 629-610-0000 through 629-610-0090)

and federal (BLM and USFS) requirements. Planting would occur on all forestlands 

disturbed by the project located more than 15 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 

one contract covering the crossing in the Fremont-Winema NF; and

Ruby would follow BLM procedures for disposal of merchantable timber from BLMadministered lands involved in the project, as described in 43 CFR 5400. The BLM 

could sell the right-of-way timber by competitive bidding or through negotiated sale 

where it is impracticable to obtain competition. Right-of-way timber would be sold 

under lump sum timber sale contract(s) at not less than the appraised value, as determined 

by the BLM. Timber sale contracts would be prepared, offered, and administered by the 

appropriate BLM district.

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. Plants are 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-72

the predominate group of invasive species relating to fires. 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-retardant.

Cheatgrass (also called downy brome) is an annual grass from Eurasia that is now found 

throughout the United States. It is most problematic in the western rangelands where it has greatly altered 

fire patterns. This grass grows during the cool months of winter and spring forming prominent hairy 

leaves. It quickly dries out leaving numerous seed-filled awned spikelets and providing 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 60-100 years in native rangelands to every 3-5 years. 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’s Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan is designed 

to minimize and control the spread of invasive species along the project and takes into account agency 

input and recommendations. Thus, the likelihood the project 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. 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.

Ruby has developed a Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan (Appendix G) to minimize the 

potential for fires and to facilitate a plan of action should a fire occur. 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;

notification procedures to be used in the event of a fire. Contact information for each 

land managing agency and fire department within or crossed by the project is provided;

definition of fire restriction categories for work areas along the construction right-of-way. 

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;

a 5-pound fire extinguisher would be required in all construction vehicles. Fire fighting 

tools also would be required in specified vehicles and water tankers would be required at 

specific locations along the pipeline right-of-way as described in the Fire Prevention and 

Suppression Plan;

all internal combustion engines, stationary and mobile, would be equipped with spark 

arresters; and

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-73

torches, fuses, highway flares, or other devices with open flames would not be allowed. 

Smoking would only be allowed in designated areas. Visible signage would identify 

smoking and non-smoking areas.

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 

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.

4.5 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 

resources that would occur in the project area, including raptors and migratory birds, as well as for

managed and sensitive wildlife areas that would be affected by the project.

4.5.1 Wildlife Resources

The project area would cross diverse wildlife habitats and would therefore encounter 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 (see section 4.0 for definitions of short-term, long-term, temporary, and permanent impacts). 

Various short-term impacts on wildlife would occur during construction and would extend beyond 

construction activities to include disturbances within habitats that may not be returned to former levels of 

functionality for up to 3 years following restoration efforts. Long-term impacts on wildlife could extend 

through the life of the project, and possibly longer, for those habitats that require many years to be fully 

restored. Permanent impacts would result from construction of aboveground facilities that convert natural 

habitat to land used for pipeline operations, and where operational maintenance of the right-of-way 

permanently alters vegetation characteristics. 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).

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-74

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, chipmunk, least 

chipmunk, domestic ferret, 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, cottontail, pygmy rabbit, mountain cottontail, desert cottontail, jackrabbit, white-tailed 

jackrabbit, black-tailed jackrabbit, Merriam’s shrew, western small-footed myotis, little brown myotis, silverhaired 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

Waterfowl American white pelican, California gull, Franklin’s gull, ring-billed gull, cinnamon teal, common 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, common nighthawk, common poorwill, broad-tailed hummingbird, calliope hummingbird, 

hummingbird species, 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, olivesided flycatcher, western wood-pewee, white-throated swift, bank swallow, barn swallow, cliff swallow, 

northern rough-winged swallow, tree swallow, violet-green 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, common raven, juniper titmouse, hermit thrush, canyon wren, house wren, rock wren, mountain 

bluebird, American robin, sage thrasher, brown creeper, pine siskin, indigo bunting, lazuli bunting, blackcapped chickadee, mountain chickadee, pygmy nuthatch, red-breasted nuthatch, white-breasted nuthatch, 

northern shrike, warbling vireo, yellow-rumped warbler, MacGillivray’s warbler, orange-crowned warbler, blackthroated 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, 

black tern, red-winged blackbird, yellow-headed blackbird, Brewer’s blackbird, brown-headed cowbird, 

European starling, Clark’s nutcracker, common yellowthroat, bushtit, western bluebird, western tanager, 

American goldfinch, Cassin’s finch, lesser goldfinch, house finch

REPTILES

Turtles Snapping turtle, western painted turtle, spiny softshell 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, common 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

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-75

Construction of the Ruby Pipeline Project would temporarily disturb about 21,945.4 acres of 

wildlife habitat (see table 4.4.1-2). The majority of affected habitat would be allowed to revert to its preconstruction condition. Habitat that is converted to natural gas facilities, is maintained along the 50-footwide pipeline right-of-way, or is permanently improved by the construction of access roads would 

continue to be impacted throughout the operation of the pipeline. However, due to the linear nature of the 

project over a large geographic area, these impacts represent far less than 1 percent of available wildlife 

habitat on a regional basis.

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. Many of these animals 

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 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 

completion of 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.

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 pre-construction 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 

right-of-way for pipeline operation. The impacts on shrub-dwelling species would be less than that of 

forest-dwelling species, but regeneration of these habitats would still take a minimum of 5 years due to 

the arid conditions that prevail along much of the pipeline route. Sagebrush habitats may not recover to 

pre-construction conditions for 10 to 50 years following construction depending on site specific 

conditions such as rainfall, elevation, grazing, and weed introduction. 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.

4.5.1.2 Habitat Fragmentation and Edge Effect

Construction of the project would remove approximately 2,173.4 acres of forested habitat, 

including 413.3 acres of juniper woodland, 1,391.3 acres of mixed conifer forest, and 368.8 acres of 

riparian forest. Ruby would maintain a 50-foot-wide corridor centered over the pipe during operation of 

the pipeline. As a result, 277.2 acres of forested habitat would be permanently converted to a shrub/

herbaceous state during operation of the pipeline. Forested habitats outside the maintained pipeline rightof-way and all other non-forested habitats crossed by the pipeline would be revegetated and restored to 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-76

their pre-construction state; however, this could take several years to complete. Fragmentation would 

also occur where primitive access road improvements and new access road construction are required. 

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 nest predation, parasitism, or inter-specific competition; reduced pairing success and 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 species. 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 tree harvests, highways, 

roads, and utility corridors. These sources of cumulative impacts on 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 common 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.

The presence of communication towers can also have impacts on birds, similar to those from 

electric transmission towers (e.g., collision with with the structure or support wires). The state of Utah 

has indicated it is available to consult with Ruby personnel regarding measures that would minimize the 

potential impact the proposed communication towers could have on birds. 

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).

Ruby has stated that timber, shrubs, and slash may be redistributed across the right-of-way 

following final clean-up and seeding. Ruby may also construct wildlife shelters along the right-of-way, 

although Ruby has not yet identified specific locations and circumstances for these shelters. Constructed 

wildlife shelters and woody debris placed within and/or across the right-of-way may eventually contribute 

to micro-site diversification and could provide corridors for some wildlife that would not otherwise cross 

open habitat. Ruby would maintain shrubs along the edge of the construction workspace and use zigzag 

clearing patterns to reduce the creation of hard edges along the edge of the construction workspace, and 

would implement measures to create shrub patches within the pipeline corridor. These measures would 

reduce fragmentation effects of abrupt edge and open characteristics created by construction and 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-77

operation practices. We encourage Ruby, landowners, and land managing agencies to work together to 

determine where these conservation practices should be implemented.

4.5.1.3 Noise

Noise could impact wildlife for a short duration 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 in much of the project area would 

likely be similar to those documented in the studies of the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office (FWS, 2006). 

Ambient sound is defined as sound qualities as they might exist currently and might include humangenerated sources over the long term. The typical ambient sound level for forest habitat ranges from 25 

decibels (dB) to 44 dB and is somewhat lower in sagebrush and open habitats. Distances at which 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.

A minimal increase in ambient noise levels would also occur during periodic right-of-way 

vegetation maintenance activities (i.e., mowing, chainsaws) during operation of the pipeline. Noise 

would most likely displace wildlife some distance away from noise sources. However, any short-term 

effects to wildlife caused by noise would occur simultaneously with human presence and the presence of 

heavy machinery normally required for pipeline construction. Any impacts on wildlife due to noise could 

not be separated from those due to all other construction-related activities occurring concurrently. Noise 

and human presence would move along the construction right-of-way as construction progresses.

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 or otherwise avoid a seismic blast 2 miles away (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). 

Project-generated sounds have demonstrated 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. We further discuss potential noise impacts 

from compressor station operation on the greater sage-grouse in section 4.7.3.1, and have included a 

recommendation (which would also confer an associated benefit on other birds and wildlife as well). 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-78

Overall, we conclude 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.

4.5.1.4 Noxious and Invasive Species

Short- or long-term impacts on wildlife habitat could also result if the pipeline results in 

establishment and spread of noxious weeds and other invasive species (animals and microbes) not native 

to a region (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 utilizing 

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 critical concern. We do not consider this to be a 

significant impact as this represents a very small percentage of total available wildlife habitat in the 

surrounding project area.

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 considered essential in determining a game population’s ability to maintain itself at a certain 

level over the long term. Other regions may not usually be a part of a herd’s range, but are used as 

survival areas during extremely harsh winters. Table 4.5.2-1 summarizes the linear miles of pipeline that 

would cross important big game ranges along the project route.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-79

TABLE 4.5.2-1

Big Game Habitat Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project

State Big Game Habitat Pipeline Milepost Range

Wyoming Mule Deer Crucial Winter Range 24.6 to 30.0

40.2 to 47.9

Antelope Crucial Winter Range 19.3 to 26.0

Utah Moose Crucial Winter Range 60.3 to 73.0

75.0 to 89.5

Elk Crucial Winter Range 55.4 to 67.4

88.8 to 94.7

95.6 to 105.5

Mule Deer Crucial Winter Range 48.3 to 51.0

56.2 to 62.6

88.3 to 94.7

95.4 to 109.3

133.4 to 135.2

142.0 to 143.7

154.5 to 157.6

229.2 to 230.6

Nevada Elk Crucial Winter Range 231.8 to 238.0

247.5 to 256.4

Mule Deer Crucial Winter Range 236.0 to 239.4

387.4 to 393.1

Antelope Crucial Winter Range 270.5 to 275.5

387.0 to 396.4

Oregon Elk Winter Range 630.2 to 655.6

Mule Deer Winter Range 588.3 to 601.7

611.0 to 615.3

627.7 to 632.2

658.5 to 664.8

672.9 to 675.2

The presence of moose in the project area is limited to forested areas in eastern Utah. The project 

would cross approximately 27.2 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 42.9 miles of crucial winter range for elk

in Utah and Nevada and 25.4 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 59.6 miles of crucial winter range for mule deer in Wyoming, Utah, 

and Nevada and 30.8 miles of mule deer winter range in Oregon. Pronghorn antelope are generally found 

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 21.1 miles of critical winter range for antelope in Wyoming and Nevada. 

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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-80

habitat within the broader project area. Herbaceous forage species would be expected to re-colonize 

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.

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 return to the disturbance area following construction activities. 

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.

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. 

Ruby proposed to avoid construction and non-emergency maintenance activities in designated 

crucial winter/yearlong big game ranges between November 15 and April 30 in Wyoming; November 1 

and January 15 in Utah; and November 1 and April 1 in Oregon; unless otherwise permitted by the BLM, 

USFS, and the FERC. In Nevada, Ruby proposes to avoid construction in mule deer winter ranges 

between October 15 and March 15; antelope winter ranges between November 1 and April 15; and along 

known migration corridors between April 1 and June 30; unless otherwise permitted by the BLM, USFS 

and the FERC. However, both the state of Utah and the BLM’s Salt Lake City Field Office have noted 

that the appropriate avoidance period for crucial mule deer winter range in Utah be from December 1 to 

April 15. Ruby would be required to adhere to the applicable state or BLM seasonal restrictions 

regarding mule deer and other big game species. Additional construction and restoration procedures that 

have been proposed by Ruby include:

seeding of disturbed areas with preferred big game forage species within big game winter 

ranges disturbed by the project, as recommended by the BLM, USFS, and state wildlife 

agencies;

control of noxious weeds on the right-of-way on all lands crossed, including both 

summer and winter rangelands, to help maintain native forage species;

limiting the length of time the trench is open to 10 days unless protective measures such 

as safety fences are installed;

leaving breaks at least 10 feet wide at approximately 0.5-mile intervals, and at visible 

wildlife trails, to serve as routes for big game to cross the construction right-of-way until 

the pipe is ready to be installed. This effort would minimize potential impact of open 

trenches on big game within delineated big-game winter and summer ranges. Ruby also 

would install soft plugs (backfilled trench materials) in the trench after excavation at 

these distances to provide wildlife passage;

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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-81

from the bottom to the top of the trench to allow any wildlife that enters 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

installation of off-highway vehicle 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 off-highway vehicle 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 in the project area. 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 (acre)

Wyoming Antelope Crucial Winter Range 0.1

Utah Moose Crucial Winter Range 0.1

Elk Crucial Winter Range 2.1

Mule Deer Crucial Winter Range 2.2

Nevada Mule Deer Crucial Winter Range 0.1

Oregon Elk Winter Range 0.1

Mule Deer Winter Range 6.4

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, Nuttall's cottontail, beaver, muskrat, mink, 

badger, bobcat, coyote, red fox, and swift fox. The greater sage-grouse is considered the most sensitive 

small game species along the project route and is discussed further in section 4.7.

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 return to the project area following construction.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-82

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 within a 

relatively short period of time. The length of time would depend on the time of year, available hiding 

cover, and duration of local disturbances. 

A secondary impact on harvest rates could potentially occur after construction because of 

increased access by hunters using the pipeline right-of-way to access remote 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 will coordinate with landowners and land 

managing agencies to determine appropriate off-highway vehicle 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.

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 open areas for foraging (Jageman, 1994). The pipeline right-of-way 

would provide an opportunity for developing high-quality feeding areas (Lees, 1989) for elk and deer, 

especially if noxious weeds are controlled and native forage is seeded. Ruby would seed disturbed areas 

within big-game winter ranges with native vegetation as described in the Reclamation Plan (Appendix K). 

Additionally, Ruby would control noxious weeds on the right-of-way on all lands crossed, including both

summer and winter rangelands. 

4.5.5 Raptors and Other Migratory Birds

The MBTA (16 USC 703-711) is a domestic 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, 2002a). The MBTA prohibits the taking, killing, 

possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests, except when 

specifically authorized by the Department of the Interior. 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 is likely to have, a measureable negative effect on 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 will 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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-83

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. 

The BGEPA includes limited exceptions to its prohibitions through a permitting process. The 

FWS has issued regulations concerning the permit procedures for several of the BGEPA exceptions, 

including permits to take golden eagle nests which interfere with resource development or recovery 

operations (50 CFR 22.25). The regulations identify the application requirements as well as the issuance 

criteria that must be met in order for a permit to be issued. The FWS has proposed a new permitting 

process that addresses all of the exceptions to the BGEPA (72 FR 31141). 

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 Pipeline 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. 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. The raptor surveys documented a total of 26 active nest and 

43 inactive nests within 0.5-mile of the project. A summary of raptor nest sightings by location and 

species is provided in table 4.5.5-1.

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 will 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. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-84

TABLE 4.5.5-1

Raptor Nests Identified in 2008 Within 0.5-Mile of the Ruby Pipeline Project

State Raptor Species

Number of 

Observed Active 

Nests

Approximate MP

Location(s) of Active 

Nests

Number of Observed 

Inactive Nests

Approximate MP 

Location(s) of 

Inactive Nests

Wyoming Northern Harrier 1 10 - -

Burrowing Owl 8 10 9 10

Golden Eagle 1 20 - -

Unknown Raptor - - 3 -

Utah Burrowing Owl 2 160, 200 3 120

Unknown Raptor - - 5 90 – 170

Nevada Burrowing Owl 5 240, 520 - -

Red-tailed Hawk 4 310 – 330 2 (alternate nests) 320

Unknown Raptor 5 550 – 570 27 230 – 580

Oregon Unknown Raptor - - 1 590

Ruby has stated it would adopt the spatial restrictions outlined in the FWS’ Utah Field Office 

Guidelines for Raptor Protection from Human and Land Disturbances (2002) (see table 4.5.5-2). 

However, specific seasonal restrictions outlined in the Utah Raptor Guidelines have not been adopted by 

Ruby, although Ruby states it will generally utilize an April 1 to August 15 timing restriction. Where 

Ruby believes construction activities are required within spatial and seasonal restrictions of identified 

raptor nests, Ruby states it would request that construction be allowed within the spatial buffers and 

seasonal timeframes. Ruby proposed to monitor nests and implement impact minimization techniques to 

reduce impacts to the nesting raptors. We do not agree with Ruby’s general timing restriction or its 

request to construct within spatial and seasonal timeframes without additional protection. Therefore, we 

recommend that Ruby adopt the seasonal restrictions identified in table 4.5.5-2. Additionally, Ruby 

should not construct within the spatial and seasonal restrictions identified in table 4.5.5-2 unless it 

receives authorization from the state or federal agency having jurisdiction over the species, on a 

nest-by-nest basis, that construction is allowed within restricted areas and any additional protection 

measures required by the appropriate agency are adopted.

The FWS has stated spatial buffers outlined in various RMPs are different than those identified in 

table 4.5.5-2. The BLM has indicated it is coordinating with Ruby to determine appropriate spatial and 

seasonal buffers with the BLM and incorporate appropriate raptor protection measures into the POD. 

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. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-85

TABLE 4.5.5-2

General Seasonal and Spatial Buffer Restrictions for Raptors along the Ruby Pipeline Projecta

Species Spatial Buffer (miles) Seasonal Buffer

Bald eagle 1.0 January 1 – August 31

Golden eagle 0.5 January 1 – August 31

Northern goshawk 0.5 March 1 – August 15

Northern harrier 0.5 April 1 – August 15

Cooper’s hawk 0.5 March 15 – August 31

Ferruginous hawk 0.5 March 1 – August 1

Red-tailed hawk 0.5 March 15 – August 15

Sharp-shinned hawk 0.5 March 15 – August 31

Swainson’s hawk 0.5 March 1 – August 31

Turkey vulture 0.5 May 1 – August 15

Peregrine falcon 1.0 February 1 – August 31

Prairie falcon 0.25 April 1 – August 31

Merlin 0.5 April 1 – August 31

American kestrel bApril 1 – August 15

Osprey 0.5 April 1 – August 31

Boreal owl 0.25 February 1 – July 31

Burrowing owl 0.25 March 1 – August 31

Flammulated owl 0.25 April 1 – September 30

Great horned owl 0.25 December 1 – September 31

Long-eared owl 0.25 February 1 – August 15

Northern saw-whet owl 0.25 March 1 – August 31

Short-eared owl 0.25 March 1 – August 1

Mexican Spotted owl 0.5 March 1 – August 31

Northern Pygmy owl 0.25 April 1 – August 1

Western Screech owl 0.25 March 1 – August 15

Common Barn-owl aFebruary 1 – September 15

────────────────────

a Seasonal and spatial restrictions may change based on comments from the BLM or state agencies.

b Due to an apparent high population densities and ability to adapt to human activity, a spatial buffer is not currently 

considered necessary for maintenance of American kestrel or common barn-owl populations. 

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 

close enough to disturb actively nesting birds. We do not believe that such impacts would be significant 

for non-nesting birds, as individuals temporarily relocating to avoid construction activity would 

experience a minor impact of limited duration. 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 is in the process of preparing a MBTA Memorandum of Understanding with the FWS, with 

assistance of various federal and state resource agencies in the project area, for the protection of MBTAprotected species during construction and operation of the pipeline. The MBTA Memorandum of 

Understanding would outline procedures that would seek to avoid direct impacts on migratory bird

species, minimize other direct and indirect effects, restore impacted migratory bird habitats, and mitigate 

for habitats that are damaged or removed by construction of the project. Although no specific agreements 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-86

have yet been reached, Ruby has identified several conservation measures that could be employed to 

minimize impacts on migratory birds:

maintain spatial buffers and work around nests until young fledge and are no longer 

vulnerable;

minimize adverse direct or indirect impacts on nesting birds by micro-realigning the 

pipeline an acceptable distance from nests;

delay local project activity until nesting is completed;

begin site preparation (clearing and grubbing) in advance of nest initiation to deter certain 

species from establishing nests within the construction work area (most suitable for 

ground nesting birds);

define best management practices to be employed for MBTA protection in a 

Memorandum of Understanding with the FWS prior to issuance of the FERC’s final EIS; 

and/or

conduct pre-construction surveys to document local occurrence of nesting birds prior to 

construction activities with the objective of anticipating protected resources at projectcritical times and locations; determining sensitive or protected behaviors; and devising

deterrence measures or pre-emptive mitigations.

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 

migratory birds and nests. We believe that 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 to 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 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. 

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 617.5 to 618.5). On April 6, 2009, Ruby filed information regarding a 

potential route variation that would avoid the wading bird nesting area. Section 3.5.15 analyzes the Bud 

Garrett Marsh Rookery Route Variation and provides ODFW’s endorsement of the variation. We have 

recommended in section 3.5.15 that Ruby adopt the route variation.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-87

4.6 FISHERIES AND AQUATIC RESOURCES

4.6.1 General Fisheries and Aquatic Resources

The Ruby Pipeline Project would cross a total of 339 different waterbodies that support fish 

species. Waterbodies that are known to contain fish species and their associated management 

classification are presented in Appendix M. A total of 82 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, thus no fishery resources or other aquatic resources would be affected by the construction or 

operation of the aboveground facilities. 

Representative coldwater fish species that occupy waterbodies crossed by the proposed project 

include brook trout, brown trout, rainbow trout, and cutthroat trout. Fish species known to occur in these 

coldwater waterbodies include redband trout, mountain whitefish, longnose dace, and speckled dace. 

Representative warmwater fish species that occupy waterbodies crossed by the project include bass, 

walleye, perch, crappie, bullhead, green sunfish, suckers, chubs, carp, shiners, dace, tui chub, lamprey,

and sculpin.

No waterbodies affected by the project contain or have the potential to contain anadromous 

species or species managed by 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 impacts on aquatic organisms and habitat 

are expected to last for more than 3 years, and much longer in some instances (e.g., where mature trees 

are cleared). Long-term degradation of habitats could also 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. 

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, 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-88

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 (Ritter, 1984;

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). 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 crossings, such as the dam-and-pump or flume methods, would be used at several stream 

crossings. 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 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., 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 

mortality. Sediment stirred into the water column can be re-deposited 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 re-colonization of benthic organisms was documented within 30 days following pipeline 

construction (Gartman, 1984). Pipeline stream crossings in coldwater streams have documented a return 

to pre-construction 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 F). 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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-89

would be required to submit a construction plan and obtain written authorization from the appropriate 

state resource agency should construction be necessary outside the established construction windows.

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. 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. Loss of riparian vegetation along the banks would 

reduce shade (potentially increasing water temperatures), remove an 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 also would install sediment barriers, such as silt fence and straw/hay bales, across the rightof-way 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, 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 right-of-way. 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 sediment. Ruby has proposed to use a 

dry 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 pre-construction conditions. Ruby would 

incorporate any special COE or state conditions and adhere to all permit stipulations when handling 

potentially contaminated sediments.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-90

4.6.1.5 Entrainment and Entrapment

Dry 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 fisheries 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 order to allow the ODFW to conduct fish salvage operations at 

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 J). These plans include screening criteria for intake hoses 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. 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). 

Past studies that have attempted to measure changes in water temperature in forested areas before 

and after pipeline right-of-way construction, even if not in the Pacific Northwest, have determined that no 

measurable change in water temperature is observed as a result of construction activities. Therefore, we 

conclude that any changes in water temperature related to vegetation clearing at waterbody crossings are 

likely very small and undetectable, and would not have an ecological impact.

4.6.1.7 Blasting

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). Explosives detonated underground produce two modes of seismic waves; shock 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-91

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). The Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game (1991) has reported that a pressure change of 2.7 pounds per square inch is 

the level at which no fish mortality occurs and is from 1.7 to 4.5 pounds per square inches below any 

level where mortality would be expected.

As stated in section 4.1.1.1, blasting may occur between MPs 500.0 to 617.1. Three waterbodies 

along that portion of the pipeline route have the potential to support special status fish species: 

Twelvemile Creek, Twentymile Creek, and Deep Creek. The best way to reduce or eliminate blasting 

effects to fish 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. Therefore, we recommend that Ruby 

implement one or more fish deterrence practices, including strobe lighting, low frequency sound 

(e.g., pneumatic propellers), fishpulsers, scare charges, or bubble curtains before blasting takes 

place in any waterbody that has the potential to contain special status fish species.

4.6.1.8 Hydrostatic Testing and Water Withdrawals

Ruby indicated it would require about 327,047,094 gallons (1,003 acre-feet) of water for dust 

control and hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. The majority of this water would be appropriated from 

surface waters (see section 4.3.2). The appropriation of large volumes of surface waters could 

temporarily affect aquatic resources if the diversions constitute a large percentage of the river’s total flow 

or volume. The diversion of large volumes of water could result in 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 and nuisance exotic organisms 

between basins. The transfer of water between water basins is discussed in section 4.3.2.

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 that would be less than 10 percent of a river’s flow at the time of water withdrawal

(see section 4.3.2.6).

Six of Ruby’s proposed water sources (Hams Fork River, Bear River – East, Little Bear River, 

Bear River – West, Mary’s River, and Deep Creek) are known to contain special status species. In 

addition, 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, 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.

Ruby states that test water would be discharged within the same eight-digit HUC watershed from 

which it was withdrawn to the “greatest extent practical.” Ruby would discharge the test water to upland 

areas within or immediately adjacent to the construction right-of-way at a rate to prevent scour, erosion, 

and sediment migration to sensitive resources such as wetlands and waterbodies. All discharges would be 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-92

monitored and energy dissipation devices would be deployed to prevent soil erosion and scouring at 

upland discharge sites. Discharge rates would be controlled to ensure the discharged flows do not flow 

above the carrying capacity of the dissipation structure(s). Ruby would use industry-accepted and 

agency-approved biocides to appropriately treat test water for pathogens when discharges occur outside 

the watershed from which the water was obtained. Such practices would be conducted in accordance with 

manufacturer’s specifications prior to discharge. If necessary, all biocide-treated water would be 

neutralized prior to discharge.

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 I) 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 bank and hazardous material storage would be prohibited 

within 100 feet of waterbodies. The BLM has indicated it will require a greater setback on federally 

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 #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-93

4.6.2 Invasive Fisheries 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 function and benefits 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 20024. 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 wetland 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 the New Zealand mud snail. In addition, we believe these measures should 

not be implemented solely at the discretion of an EI, and therefore we recommend that prior to the 

close of the draft EIS comment period, Ruby revise its equipment disinfection plan to incorporate 

one or more of the following measures during construction of the project as equipment enters and

exits the eight-digit HUC watersheds crossed by the project and as equipment exits the Little Bear 

River: 

remove mud and debris from equipment and keep the equipment dry for at least 10 

days prior to use; or

remove mud and debris from equipment, followed by spraying or soaking 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

remove mud and debris from equipment, followed by spraying or soaking the 

equipment with water greater than 130 °F for at least 10 minutes. 

Additionally, should Ruby identify any invasive water organism on any equipment as it 

leaves a waterbody or wetland, Ruby should report the siting to the appropriate state conservation 

office and implement disinfection measures on all equipment as it leaves the infected waterbody or 

wetland. 

 

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 #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-94

During the comment period of this draft EIS, we request that stakeholders identify and provide 

documentation for any known populations of aquatic nuisance species that could be encountered along the 

project. We would request that Ruby disinfect equipment where these species are identified. 

Reclamation has indicated it would require Ruby and its contractors to power wash all equipment 

with water greater than 230 °F prior to and upon leaving Reclamation property (i.e., the Lost River 

Improvement Channel [MP 666.2], the Main Drain [MP 666.6], and the West Canal [MP 667.4]) to 

prevent the spread of invasive aquatic species.

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 habitat 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.

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 will coordinate NEPA review for the project and the FWS’s 

Wyoming Ecological Services Office in Cheyenne will coordinate the Section 7 review for the project.

Although candidate and petitioned species do not receive federal protection through the ESA, the 

FWS specifically requested that the FERC consider the potential effects on certain candidate and 

petitioned species 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 three petitioned 

species (the greater sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit, and northern leatherside chub). Our evaluation of these 

species is included 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). These species include those considered as sensitive by the agency as well as 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-95

other state-listed or regionally rare species. Oregon is the only state that would be crossed by the pipeline 

that provides regulatory protection for state-listed species. 

We note that surveys for several species have not been completed, and additional surveys will 

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. It may be necessary to enter formal 

consultation for one or more species in order to fulfill our Section 7 obligations, pending additional 

surveys and related information from Ruby. Our recommendations would ensure that Ruby would not be 

authorized to begin project work until all necessary comments, concurrence, or formal consultations 

between FERC and the FWS are complete. 

Our analysis of special status species originally focused on 421 species that were identified in the 

project area (Appendix Q). This list of species was developed by Ruby through informal consultation 

with the FWS, BLM, USFS, and state resource management agencies. Our evaluation of this list 

indicated that 190 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 190 species. Our comments for 

federally listed species that would not be affected by the project and have been removed from 

consideration in this EIS are included 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 consideration in this EIS in Appendix Q.

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 

and any additional measures we feel would be necessary to prevent adverse impact on a federally listed 

species; adverse modification to designated critical habitat; loss of viability for the BLM, the USFS, or 

state-listed species; or actions that are contrary to an agency’s conservation needs. Ruby’s primary 

measures to minimize impacts on special status species has been and will continue to be developed in 

consultation with applicable resource agencies, and include:

restoration of pre-construction 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;

conducting additional pre-construction surveys for:

o Ute ladies’-tresses in areas with moderate potential to support the species;

o raptors and other migratory birds, including special status species;

o greater sage-grouse;

o sharp-tailed grouse;

o black-footed ferret; and

o pygmy rabbit individuals and habitat.

incorporating micro-route realignments around certain habitat features;

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-96

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 or 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 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 proposed and candidate species and an ESA Mitigation and Conservation 

Plan for ESA listed species and their critical habitats.

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 are discussed in section 4.7.3. BLM, 

USFS, and state-listed species are discussed in section 4.7.4, by habitat association.

4.7.2 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species

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,

2008). 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. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-97

TABLE 4.7-1

Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Petitioned Species for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species 

FWS and Federal Land Management Agency Statusa

State 

Status FWS b Comments

Status

BLM Field Offices Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FWNF

UWCNF

BIRDS

Greater sagegrouse 

(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-height 

sagebrush. The project would cross potential 

nesting/brood-rearing and winter habitat in 

Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon.

Northern spotted 

owl 

(Strix occidentalis 

caurina)

T Prefers old growth mixed-conifer forests. Nests in 

broken tree tops, cliff ledges, tree cavities, and 

abandoned hawk nests. Potential habitat is not 

present near the project, and the project is outside 

of the species' known range. This species has 

been eliminated from further consideration.

Yellow-billed 

cuckoo 

(Coccyzus 

americanus)

C S S S S S S WGFD-SC 

UDWR-SC 

NDOW-SP

Breeds in riparian woodlands and shrubs with 

dense subcanopy. The project would cross

potential breeding habitat in Wyoming and Utah. 

MAMMALS

Black-footed 

ferret 

(Mustela 

nigripes)

E S WGFDNSS1Suitable habitat consists of black-tailed and whitetailed prairie dog towns composed of short- to midgrass prairies, and semi-desert areas with grass 

and shrubs intermingled. The project would cross

potential habitat within large prairie dog colonies in 

Wyoming and Utah. 

Canada lynx 

(Lynx 

canadensis)

T S S S UDWR-SC 

WGFDNSS1

Suitable habitat consists of boreal and montane 

regions made up of coniferous or mixed forests 

with thick undergrowth at 3,500 to 7,000 feet. The 

project would cross a travel corridor and potential

secondary habitat in the UWCNF. However, 

agency data and personnel indicate that lynx are 

not known to occur in the project area. This 

species has been eliminated from further 

consideration.

Fisher 

(Martes pennanti)

C S S S Inhabits coniferous and mixed forests, including 

early successional forests with dense overhead 

cover. The project is outside of the species' 

known range. This species has been eliminated 

from further consideration. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-98

TABLE 4.7-1

Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Petitioned Species for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species 

FWS and Federal Land Management Agency Statusa

State 

Status FWS b Comments

Status

BLM Field Offices Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FWNF

UWCNF

Gray wolf 

(Canis lupis)

E 

WYEXPNc

Occupies a wide range of habitat dependent upon 

the presence of the species' primary prey (big 

game). The project crosses potential habitat in the 

UWCNF and FWNF. However, the species is not 

known to occur in either area. The gray wolf is a 

wide ranging species. There is a low possibility 

that gray wolves could occur in the project area; 

however, because construction windows would be 

planned outside big game winter range and 

migration periods, the project would have no effect 

on gray wolves. A chance encounter by project 

activities, though unlikely, would not result in any 

noticeable effects to the gray wolf. This species 

has been eliminated from further consideration.

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 big 

sagebrush in alluvial fans and terraces where 

relatively deep soils allow burrowing. The project 

would cross known occupied habitat in Wyoming, 

Utah, and Nevada. 

White-tailed 

Prairie dog 

(Cynomys 

leucrurus)

Pet S S WGFD-SC Suitable habitat consists of dry, flat, open 

grasslands with low or relatively sparse 

vegetation. The project would cross known 

occupied habitat in Wyoming and Utah. Whitetailed prairie dogs were observed between MPs 2 

- 5.5, MPs 20 - 25, MPs 48 - 49, and near MP 54. 

Wyoming pocket 

gopher 

(Thomomys 

clusius)

Pet S Known from Sweetwater and Carbon Counties. 

The closest known location is about 30 miles east 

of the project. Predictive distribution models 

conducted by the Wyoming Natural Diversity 

Database, University of Wyoming, suggest that 

suitable habitat may be located 30 miles southeast 

of the proposed project. Suitable habitat consists 

of well-drained soils on gravelly ridges. The 

project is outside of the species' known and 

modeled range. This species has been eliminated 

from further consideration.

FISH

Bonytail 

(Gila elegans)

E S Known in the Colorado River and limited larger 

tributaries. Inhabits deep water of mid to large 

rivers and reservoirs. Found in isolated 

populations in the Yampa River, Green River, 

Colorado River at the Colorado/Utah border, 

confluence of the Green and Colorado Rivers, and 

in Lake Mohave in Arizona. This species has not 

existed in the Green River drainage of Wyoming 

since the closure of Flaming Gorge Dam in 1964. 

Upper Colorado River System water withdrawals 

may affect this species. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-99

TABLE 4.7-1

Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Petitioned Species for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species 

FWS and Federal Land Management Agency Statusa

State 

Status FWS b Comments

Status

BLM Field Offices Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FWNF

UWCNF

Bull trout 

(Salvelinus 

confluentus)

T

Found in deep water of cold rivers and streams, 

and large coldwater lakes and reservoirs in the 

Jarbidge River, Nevada, whose headwaters would 

be located 25 miles north of the project, and may 

possibly occur in Lake County, Oregon. However, 

an ODFW 1997 report, Status of Oregon’s Bull 

Trout, did not list any historic or current presence 

of bull trout within any Oregon portion of the 

project area, including Lake County. This species 

has been eliminated from further consideration.

Clover Valley 

speckled dace 

(Rhinichthys 

osculus oligoporus)

E Restricted to reservoirs and outflows of three 

spring systems in Clover Valley in Elko County, 

Nevada. Habitats vary from cold streams and 

rivers to small thermal springs. The project is 

outside of the species' known range. This species 

has been eliminated from further consideration.

Colorado 

pikeminnow 

(Ptychocheilus 

lucius)

E S Restricted to the Upper Colorado River basin, with 

populations in the Green River and Little Snake 

River systems in Wyoming. Inhabits deep areas of

medium to large rivers that maintain high spring 

flows. Upper Colorado River System water 

withdrawals may affect this species. 

Cui-ui 

(Chasmistes 

cujus)

E NDOW-SP Endemic to Pyramid Lake, Nevada and spawns in 

Truckee River in early April through mid-May. The 

project is outside of the species' known range. 

This species has been eliminated from further 

consideration.

Desert dace 

(Eremichthys 

acros)

T S NDOW-T Restricted to thermal springs and their associated 

outflows in Soldier Meadows in Humboldt County, 

Nevada. The project is outside of the species' 

known range. This species has been eliminated 

from further consideration.

Foskett speckled 

dace 

(Rhinichthys 

osculus ssp.)

T ODFW-S Known in Foskett Spring in Lake County, Oregon. 

Inhabits shallow waters with grass overhangs. 

This isolated spring is 100 meters long and 

subsides into dry Coleman Lake. The project is 

outside of the species' known range. This species 

has been eliminated from further consideration.

Humpback chub 

(Gila cypha)

E S Known sparingly in the Colorado River system. 

Inhabits deep, turbid water of rivers. This species 

has not existed in the Green River drainage of 

Wyoming since the closure of Flaming Gorge Dam 

in 1964. Upper Colorado River System water 

withdrawals may affect this species. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-100

TABLE 4.7-1

Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Petitioned Species for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species 

FWS and Federal Land Management Agency Statusa

State 

Status FWS b Comments

Status

BLM Field Offices Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FWNF

UWCNF

Hutton tui chub 

(Gila bicolor ssp.)

T Restricted to Hutton Spring in Lake County, 

Oregon. Inhabits deep springs ranging from 20 to 

40 feet in width, and about 15 feet in depth at the 

center, surrounded by herbaceous cover. The 

project is outside of the species' known range. 

This species has been eliminated from further 

consideration.

Independence 

Valley speckled 

dace 

(Rhinichthys 

osculus 

lethoporus)

E S NDOW-E Restricted to Independence Valley in Elko County, 

Nevada. Habitats vary from cold streams and 

rivers to small thermal springs. The project is 

outside of the species' known range. This species 

has been eliminated from further consideration.

June sucker 

(Chasmistes 

liorus)

E S UDWR-S Endemic to Utah Lake, migrates to Provo River for 

spawning. Introduced populations have been 

established in parts of Utah outside the project 

area. The project is outside of the species' known 

range. This species has been eliminated from 

further consideration.

Lahontan 

cutthroat trout 

(introduced, 

refugia 

population) 

(Oncorhynchus 

clarkii henshawii)

T S S S NDOW-SP 

UDWR-S

Inhabits cool, well-oxygenated waters of saline 

and alkaline lakes and streams. The project would 

cross known habitat in Elko and Humboldt 

counties, Nevada; potential, but unlikely, habitat in 

Box Elder County, Utah; and a number of dry and 

intermittent streams that pass near downstream 

waterbodies with known populations.

Least chub 

(Lotichthys 

phlegethontis)

Pet S UDWR-S Inhabits springs and streams in western Utah, 

including Snake Valley, Mona Springs, Mills 

Valley, and Clear Lake. The project is outside of 

the species' known range. This species has been 

eliminated from further discussion.

Lost River sucker 

(Deltistes 

luxatus)

E ODFW-S Inhabits lakes in the Upper Klamath Basin. 

Spawns from March through May in springs and 

tributary streams over gravel or cobble. The 

project would cross proposed critical habitat within 

the Clear Lake watershed, and crosses potential 

habitat at the Lost River crossing in Klamath 

County, Oregon and at the South Arm of and 

North Fork of Willow Creek in Lake County, 

Oregon.

Modoc sucker 

(Catostomus 

microps)

E ODFW-S Known in the Pit River system in Modoc and 

Lassen Counties, California and the Goose Lake 

basin in Oregon. Inhabits intermittent headwater 

streams flowing through meadows and dry forests 

between 4,219 and 5,141 feet. The project would 

cross potential habitat at Thomas Creek in Lake 

County Oregon. The FWS has indicated that 

Twentymile Creek and Twelvemile Creek may 

provide habitat, although the species’ presence 

there has not been established.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-101

TABLE 4.7-1

Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Petitioned Species for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species 

FWS and Federal Land Management Agency Statusa

State 

Status FWS b Comments

Status

BLM Field Offices Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FWNF

UWCNF

Northern 

leatherside chub 

(Lepidomeda 

copei)

PET S S WGFD-SC Inhabits rocky, flowing pools and low-velocity runs 

of creeks and small- to medium-sized rivers. The 

project would cross potential habitat in Salt Creek 

of Wyoming at approximate MP 42 and Bear River 

and its tributaries in Uintah County, Utah 

intermittently MPs 20 to 25 and MPs 45 to 70.

Razorback 

sucker 

(Xyrauchen 

texanus)

E S Known in the Colorado River system. Inhabits 

large clear to turbid rivers. This species has not 

existed in the Green River drainage of Wyoming 

since the closure of Flaming Gorge Dam in 1964; 

remnant populations exist in the Green River basin 

south of the project area. Upper Colorado River 

System water withdrawals may affect this species.

Shortnose sucker 

(Chasmistes 

brevirostis) 

E S ODFW-S Known in Klamath Basin. Inhabits deep water of 

lakes, spawn in springs and tributary streams. 

The project would cross potential habitat at the 

Lost River crossing in Klamath County, Oregon.

Warner sucker 

(Catostomus 

warnerensis)

T S ODFW-S Known in Warner Basin. Use pools of streams as 

adults and backwater as larvae. The project 

would cross designated critical habitat at 

Twentymile and 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 water 

such as springs, streams, ponds, and lakes at 

5,600 to 8,700 feet. The project would cross 

potential habitat in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and 

Oregon.

Mountain yellowlegged frog 

(Rana muscosa)

C Suitable habitat consists of streams, rivers, and 

lakes in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The project 

is outside of the species' known range. This 

species has been eliminated from further 

consideration.

Oregon spotted 

frog (Rana 

pretiosa)

C S S S ODFW-S This species is highly aquatic, occurring at grassy 

margins of waterbodies in Western Oregon. The 

project is outside of the species' known range. 

This species has been eliminated from further 

consideration.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-102

TABLE 4.7-1

Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Petitioned Species for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species 

FWS and Federal Land Management Agency Statusa

State 

Status FWS b Comments

Status

BLM Field Offices Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FWNF

UWCNF

INVERTEBRATES

Carson 

wandering 

skipper (Pseudocopaeodes 

eunus obscurus)

E Suitable habitat consists of salt grass, nectar 

sources, and open areas near springs. Known 

populations are located in Washoe, Carson City,

and Douglas counties, Nevada and Lassen 

County, California. The project is outside of the 

species' known range. This species has been 

eliminated from further discussion.

Elongate mud 

meadows 

springsnail 

(Pyrugulopsis 

notidicola)

C S Endemic to Soldier Meadow in Humboldt County, 

Nevada. The project is outside of the species' 

known range. This species has been eliminated 

from further discussion.

Fat-whorled 

pondsnail 

(Stagnicola 

bonnevillensis)

C S UDWR-S Inhabits spring-fed pools up to an acre in size with 

varied substrates consisting of mud to rocks that 

are well vegetated. Known to occur in five ponds 

fed by three springs in Box Elder County, Utah. 

The project would cross intermittent ditches and 

tributaries of the ponds 4 miles east and 6.5 miles 

north. Ruby’s use of its Procedures and the 

distance to the ponds would limit impacts on this 

species. This species has been eliminated from 

further consideration.

Mardon skipper 

butterfly 

(Polites mardon)

C S Dependent upon native, fescue-dominated 

grasslands. Known in the Cascade Range of 

southern Oregon. The project is outside of the 

species' known range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

VASCULAR 

PLANTS

Applegates milkvetch 

(Astragalus 

applegatei)

E Endemic to the lower Klamath Basin near the city 

of Klamath Falls in south-central Oregon. Occurs 

in flat, seasonally moist remnants of alkaline 

floodplain grasslands at about 4,000 feet. Almost 

all plants occur on a single site in an urbanized 

area. The project is outside the species' known 

range. This species has been eliminated from 

further consideration.

Blowout 

penstemon 

(Penstemon 

haydenii)

E S Found in sparsely vegetated, early successional 

habitats of sand dune blowouts created by wind 

erosion, primarily on the rim of the leeward slopes 

of the blowout. Occurs on sand dunes in the 

Ferris Mountains of Wyoming approximately 160 

miles east of Opal. The project is outside the 

species' known range. This species has been 

eliminated from further consideration.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-103

TABLE 4.7-1

Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Petitioned Species for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species 

FWS and Federal Land Management Agency Statusa

State 

Status FWS b Comments

Status

BLM Field Offices Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FWNF

UWCNF

Gentner's fritillary 

(Fritillaria 

gentneri)

E Suitable habitat consists of openings in oak 

woodlands, conifer stands, and conifer-deciduous 

forests. Known from Jackson County and 

Josephine County, Oregon. The project is 

outside the species' known range. This species 

has been eliminated from further consideration.

Goose Creek 

milkvetch 

(Astragalus 

anserinus)

Pet S S Known from Goose Creek basin within Idaho, 

Utah, and Nevada. Inhabits sandy, rhyolitic ash 

from the Salt Lake formation. Found sympatric 

with Utah juniper, big sagebrush, and rabbitbrush 

at 4,830 to 5,880 feet. The closest population 

occurs between 20 and 25 miles from the project. 

This species has been eliminated from further 

consideration.

Greene's tuctoria 

(Tuctoria 

greenei)

E Inhabits vernal pools in California. Potential 

habitat may be crossed by the project.

Maguire's 

primrose 

(Primula 

maguirei)

T S Prefers north-facing, moss-covered limestone cliffs 

at or near the canyon bottom, at 5,100 to 5,500 

feet. Restricted to Logan Canyon in Cache 

County, Utah approximately 15 miles north of the 

project. This species has been eliminated from 

further consideration.

Slender orcutt

grass (Orcuttia 

tenius)

T Inhabits vernal pools in California. Potential 

habitat may be crossed by the project.

Soldier meadows 

cinquefoil / Black 

Rock potentilla 

(Potentilla 

basaltica)

C S Known from two occurrences in southwestern 

Humboldt County, Nevada and two occurrences in 

California. Prefers southeast slopes and moist 

salt-crusted clay in alkaline meadows with thermal 

springs between 4,380 and 4,580 feet. Potential 

habitat is not present near the project. This 

species has been eliminated from further 

consideration.

Steamboat 

buckwheat 

(Eriogonum 

ovalifolium var. 

williamsiae)

E Known from the Steamboat Hot Springs area of 

Washoe County, Nevada. Grows in young soils 

deposited by thermal spring flows. The project is 

outside the species' known range. This species 

has been eliminated from further consideration.

Tahoe yellow 

cress (Rorippa 

subumbellata)

C Endemic to the shore zone of Lake Tahoe in 

Nevada. The project is outside the species' 

known range. This species has been eliminated 

from further consideration.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-104

TABLE 4.7-1

Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Petitioned Species for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species 

FWS and Federal Land Management Agency Statusa

State 

Status FWS b Comments

Status

BLM Field Offices Forest 

Service

KFO

SLFO

EFO

WFO

SFO

LFO

KFFO

FWNF

UWCNF

Ute ladies'-

tresses 

(Spiranthes 

diluvialis)

T S Known to occur in Converse, Goshen, Laramie, 

and Niobrara counties, Wyoming. Known along 

the Wasatch front in Utah; however, no 

documentations have been reported in counties 

crossed by the project in Utah. Grows in the moist 

soils of perennial rivers, streams, wet meadows, 

springs, seeps, and suitable excavations. Field 

surveys conducted by Ruby in 2008 did not locate 

the species along the right-of-way, although the 

species is known to occur in the vicinity. Ruby’s 

surveys identified 18 areas as having potential 

habitat for this species.

Webber's ivesia 

(Ivesia webberi)

C Known from western Nevada on shrink-swell clay 

soils that support low sagebrush and squirreltail. 

The project is outside the species' known range. 

This species has been eliminated from further 

consideration.

a

 FEDERAL STATUS (E = Endangered, T = Threatened, C = Candidate, Pet = Petitioned)

b

 STATE STATUS (for information purposes only. State special status species are discussed in section 4.7.4 and are presented in Appendix

 Q) (E = Endangered, T= Threatened, S= Sensitive, SC = Species of Concern, SP = State protected, NSS1 = Populations greatly restricted 

 or declining, extirpation possible-or-Ongoing significant loss of habitat)

c EXPN = Experimental population, non-essential

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

FWNF = Fremont-Winema National Forest

UWCNF = Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-105

Black-footed ferrets could be impacted by the project if occupied habitat were removed or if 

habitat suitable for black-footed ferret reintroduction were negatively affected. Ruby surveyed the project 

area for prairie dog colonies according to FWS guidelines. These surveys identified white-tailed prairie 

dog colonies and suitable habitat in Wyoming and Utah between MPs 0.0 and 60.0. Ruby indicated that 

none of the white-tailed prairie dog colonies were considered potential habitat for black-footed ferrets 

because individual colonies were 1) each less than 200 acres and 2) were not of sufficient burrow density 

to aggregately qualify as a complex of over 200 acres. Additionally, about one-half of the pipeline rightof-way would cross areas previously block-cleared by the BLM (BLM, 2008b). Therefore, specific 

surveys for the black-footed ferret were not conducted. However, Ruby has committed to conducting a 

preconstruction survey for the black-footed ferret near MP 23 in Uinta County, where a white-tailed 

prairie dog colony was observed during Ruby’s 2008 survey. We recommend that Ruby’s black-footed 

ferret survey be conducted in accordance with FWS and/or BLM (if on federally managed land) 

protocol. Results of the survey should be filed with the Secretary, FWS, and BLM Kemmerer Field 

Office. If individuals or evidence of black-footed ferrets are found, Ruby should not begin 

construction in this area until staff has reviewed Ruby’s proposed construction, avoidance, and/or

mitigation measures as well as any agency comments on these measures, and Ruby has received 

written notification from the Director of the OEP that construction or use of mitigation may begin.

Construction would likely destroy some white-tailed prairie dog burrows; however suitable 

habitat for the black-footed ferret, as defined by the FWS, would not be affected by the project. The 

survey discussed above would determine if black-footed ferrets occur near MP 23, and would ensure 

appropriate avoidance or mitigation is implemented should black-footed ferrets be identified during the 

survey. Based on this information, 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 weather conditions. Primary stream 

habitat includes rocky areas, riffles, deep pools, and areas under logs and overhanging banks. Populations 

occur in four perennial waterbodies that would be crossed by the project in Elko and Humboldt counties, 

Nevada. Ruby also identified 19 intermittent or ephemeral waterbodies that either support Lahontan 

cutthroat trout in their perennial reaches, or are tributaries to waterbodies that support Lahontan cutthroat 

trout. Critical habitat has not been designated for this species. Table 4.7.2-1 lists perennial waterbodies 

that may contain Lahontan cutthroat trout. The project’s potential effect on Lahontan cutthroat trout was 

raised during scoping by the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe as an issue of great concern to the tribe.

TABLE 4.7.2-1

Perennial Waterbodies along the Ruby Pipeline Project that May Support Lahontan Cutthroat Trout 

Waterbody Approximate MP Waterbody Width (feet)

Mary’s River 300.1 20

Pie Creek (lower) 327.7 21

Gance Creek (2 crossings) 329.3 12

Pie Creek (2 crossings) 333.9 10

Tributary to Maggie Creek 345.9 3

Tributary to Maggie Creek 346.1 3

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-106

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 May 31. This construction timing window was originally 

recommended by NDOW. The FWS and NDOW have subsequently requested that this timing window 

be modified to March 1 to July 31. Based on its Procedures, Ruby would be required to adhere to the 

agency-recommended timing windows.

Additionally, Ruby has indicated a dry crossing technique (flume, dam and pump, partial 

diversion, or HDD) would be used in waterbodies containing water at the time of construction and that 

may support sensitive species. However, we note that Ruby’s discussion of waterbody crossing methods 

in its Certificate application identifies several perennial waterbodies that support sensitive species as 

possibly being crossed using the open-cut technique. We will hold Ruby to its commitment that a dry 

crossing method would be used to cross flowing waterbodies identified as supporting sensitive species. 

This would ensure that any waterbodies known to contain Lahontan cutthroat trout would be crossed 

using a dry-ditch method.

Ruby identified two tributaries to Maggie Creek (MPs 345.9 and 346.1) as perennial waterbodies. 

Ruby also identified 15 ephemeral or intermittent tributaries to Maggie Creek between MPs 342.1 and 

345.7, and the intermittent waterbodies Badger Creek (MP 327.2) and Spring Branch Creek (MP 333.0) 

as waterbodies that may support Lahontan cutthroat trout. It is questionable whether hydrology is present 

at any of these areas to support Lahontan cutthroat trout. Therefore, we recommend that Ruby confirm 

the flow regime of the two tributaries to Maggie Creek (MPs 345.9 and 346.1), the 15 ephemeral or 

intermittent tributaries to Maggie Creek between MPs 342.1 and 345.7, and the intermittent 

waterbodies Badger Creek (MP 327.2) and Spring Branch Creek (MP 333.0) to determine if they 

could support Lahontan cutthroat trout. Any survey results, database research, and/or agency 

consultation should be filed with the Secretary and concurrently submitted to the FWS and BLM.

If it is determined that the hydrology of any waterbody between MPs 327 and 347 supports 

Lahontan cutthroat trout, Ruby should implement a dry crossing technique or demonstrate that 

other measures (e.g., open-cut crossing, specific timing windows, best management practices) are 

acceptable to the FWS and BLM.

As stated in section 4.3.2.6, Ruby intends to appropriate 90,989,928 gallons (279 acre-feet) of 

water from the Mary’s River for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline and dust abatement. Ruby stated that 

water withdrawal rates would not exceed 2,500 gpm and would not exceed 10 percent of the waterbody’s 

base flow. According to historic stream flow data, Mary’s River would not provide a sufficient water 

volume to meet the project requirements. Substantial drawdown could occur in this river system and 

could result in increased water temperature and reduced fish habitat, both of which could adversely affect 

the Lahontan cutthroat trout population within the river. Therefore, we recommend that prior to the 

close of the draft EIS comment period, Ruby identify an alternate hydrostatic test and dust 

suppression water source for the Mary’s River. Alternatively, Ruby should modify its water use 

procedures and identify conservation and mitigation measures that would minimize impacts on the 

Lahontan cutthroat trout and demonstrate that Lahontan cutthroat trout within the Mary’s River 

would not be adversely affected by project activities. Alternative water sources, modification of 

construction procedures, or conservation and mitigation measures should be filed. Ruby should not 

begin any construction activities until:

a. FERC staff receives the requested information and commitments regarding the 

Lahontan cutthroat trout and any comments from the FWS regarding the proposed 

action on this species;

b. staff completes Section 7 consultation with the FWS; and

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-107

c. Ruby has received written notification from the Director of OEP that construction 

or use of mitigation may begin.

Our recommendations would ensure that Ruby documents the presence of Lahontan cutthroat 

trout and suitable habitat that could be affected by the proposed project. Our recommendations would 

also ensure that Ruby verify water withdrawals from the Mary’s River and confer with the FWS regarding 

potential adverse effects to Lahontan cutthroat trout within the river and measures to minimize such 

impacts. Therefore, we conclude that the project may affect, but would be unlikely to adversely affect the 

Lahontan cutthroat trout.

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.

Ruby proposes to withdraw water from one waterbody within the Colorado River system, the 

Hams Fork River. As stated in section 4.3.2.6, Ruby intends to appropriate 14,402,192 gallons (about 44 

acre-feet) of water from the Hams Fork River for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. Water used for dust 

abatement would be obtained from either a well or an irrigation ditch and would be applied to the 

construction right-of-way and generally lost to evaporation (i.e., consumptive use). Ruby would 

discharge 4,299,058 gallons of the water used for hydrostatic testing directly into the Hams Fork River 

and the remaining water would be discharged to the ground at five locations within the Hams Fork 

watershed. A small amount of the discharged test water would evaporate; however, the majority of the 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-108

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 begin between August 1 and December 31, 2010. 

To alleviate impacts on surface waters proposed for use as hydrostatic test water sources, we have 

recommended in section 4.3.2.6 that Ruby revise its Hydrostatic Test Plan to identify additional water 

sources. 

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 water 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”). The FWS has previously determined 

that impacts associated with new water depletions of more than 100 acre-feet can be offset by a one-time 

monetary contribution to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fish Recovery Program. The FWS has 

indicated that there would be no charge for existing depletions or for new depletions less than 100 acrefeet.

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 on Colorado River basin listed fishes. Consequently, we have determined the proposed project 

may affect, and will likely adversely affect the Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, razorback sucker, 

and bonytail chub. We will be requesting in our BA to formally consult with the FWS on depletion 

related effects on these four species. Ruby would not be authorized to contribute to depletion of water in 

the Colorado River Basin until formal consultation with 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; 

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 occurs 

in Twelvemile Creek in an area less than 1 mile upstream 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, and predation by non-native fish. Critical habitat has been designated for the Warner

sucker in the project area. Critical habitat has been proposed for the Lost River sucker and shortnose 

sucker in the project area. Table 4.7.2-2 presents known locations and proposed or designated critical 

habitat associated with the project for each species.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-109

TABLE 4.7.2-2

Known Locations and Critical Habitat for the Lost River Sucker, Modoc Sucker, Shortnose Sucker, and Warner Sucker 

for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Species Waterbody Critical Habitat Crossed Approximate MP

Lost River Sucker South Arm of East Willow Creek

(2 crossings)

Proposed 639.2 and 639.3

North Fork Willow Creek Proposed 642.6

Lost River None 666.3

Modoc Sucker Thomas Creek None 619.9

Twelvemile Creek None 588.3

Twentymile Creek None 596.0

Shortnose Sucker South Arm of East Willow Creek

(2 crossings)

None 639.2 and 639.3

North Fork Willow Creek None 642.6

Lost River None 666.2

Warner Sucker Twelvemile Creek Designated 588.3

Twentymile Creek Designated 596.0

The ODFW provided Ruby with basin-specific, in-water work windows and other construction 

procedures to limit impacts on fish. Ruby has proposed to develop site-specific waterbody crossings with 

the ODFW for Twelvemile Creek, Twentymile Creek, Deep Creek, Drews Creek, Thomas Creek, East 

Branch Lost River, and Lost River. Ruby has also committed to utilize dry crossings on all perennial 

waterbodies that would support special status species. We recommend that Ruby file the site-specific 

waterbody crossing plans for Twelvemile Creek, Twentymile Creek, Deep Creek, Drews Creek, 

Thomas Creek, East Branch Lost River, and Lost River. These plans should include any seasonal 

timing restrictions and construction procedures that would limit impacts on the Lost River sucker, 

Modoc sucker, shortnose sucker, and Warner sucker. Ruby should not begin any construction 

activities until:

a. FERC staff receives the requested information and commitments regarding these 

four species as well as any comments from the FWS and ODFW regarding the 

proposed action on these species;

b. staff completes 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.

We conclude that with implementation of our recommendation the project may affect, but would 

be unlikely to adversely affect the Lost River sucker, Modoc sucker, shortnose sucker, and Warner sucker.

4.7.2.5 Slender Orcutt Grass and Greene’s Tuctoria

Slender orcutt grass is a federally threatened plant species that grows in valley grassland and blue 

oak woodland where it grows in vernal pools on remnant alluvial fans and high stream terraces and recent 

basalt flows (FWS, 2009). 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. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-110

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. 

Although Ruby did not identify suitable habitat for slender orcutt grass and Greene’s tuctoria

during initial project surveys, the FWS has since indicated that certain habitats in southern Oregon could 

support these species. Ruby has identified 26 emergent wetlands in Oregon but has not specifically 

identified if these areas contain preferred vernal pool characteristics (see Appendix N). Therefore, we 

recommend that Ruby conduct surveys for vernal pools along the Oregon portion of the proposed 

pipeline route (MPs 588.2 to 675.2) and along the Southern Langell Valley Route Alternative. 

Where vernal pools are identified, Ruby should survey for slender orcutt grass and Greene’s 

tuctoria according to FWS protocol. The results of the vernal pool and species surveys should be 

filed (and concurrently submitted to the FWS) prior to the close of the draft EIS comment period. 

Ruby should not begin construction until staff completes Section 7 consultation with the FWS and 

Ruby receives written notification from the Director of OEP that construction or the use of 

mitigation may begin. 

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 

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. Ruby completed surveys for the Ute ladies’-

tresses in suitable habitat 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. 

Ruby surveyed 35 sites where potential habitat was identified. No Ute ladies’-tresses were 

identified. 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 has committed to surveying areas 

with moderate potential for Ute ladies’-tresses prior to construction since the species does not flower 

every year and individuals may have been missed in the first effort. Ruby would also survey reroutes or 

minor route variations that support potential habitat.

In order to provide additional protection for this species, we recommend that Ruby file the 

results of any new survey efforts for the Ute ladies’-tresses with the FERC and submit them 

concurrently to the FWS. Further, Ruby should not begin construction until staff completes 

Section 7 consultation with the FWS and Ruby receives written notification from the Director of 

OEP that construction or the use of mitigation may begin. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-111

On the basis of current data and appropriate consultation and implementation of FWS 

recommended mitigation measures should the Ute ladies’-tresses be identified prior to construction, we 

conclude that that the project may affect, but would be unlikely to adversely affect the Ute ladies’-tresses. 

4.7.3 Federally Petitioned or Candidate Species

4.7.3.1 Greater Sage-Grouse

The greater sage-grouse was petitioned for ESA listing in 2002 and 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 the summer of 2009. The greater sage-grouse is considered a special 

status 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. Birds and their signs (e.g., scat 

piles or pellets) were observed in several locations during Ruby’s field surveys. Table 4.7.3-1 lists the 

number of known, active leks within 2 miles of the project and the approximate amount of nesting/brood 

habitat and winter habitat that would be affected along the construction right-of-way.

TABLE 4.7.3-1

Greater Sage-Grouse Features Associated with the Ruby Pipeline Project

State

Number of 

Known Leks 

within 2 Miles 

of the Pipeline

Approximate Miles Crossed Approximate Affected Acreage (Within 115-

foot-wide Construction Workspace)

Nesting or Brood 

Habitat

Winter Habitat Nesting or Brood 

Habitat Winter Habitat

Wyoming 3 Data Not Available Data Not Available Data Not Available Data Not Available

Utah 1 90 90 1,255 1,255

Nevada 31 104 210 1,450 2,927

Oregon 1 17 0 237 0

Total 36 211 300 2,942 4,182

─────────────────────────

Note: Nesting or brood habitat and winter habitat may overlap.

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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-112

provide perches for raptors that could 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 grouse within the general vicinity. 

Table 4.7.3-2 presents the number of aboveground facilities, miles of access roads, and number of staging 

areas within a 0.25-mile radius and a 2-mile radius of known, active leks.

TABLE 4.7.3-2

Aboveground Facilities, Access Roads, and Staging Areas Near Active Greater Sage-Grouse Leks

for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Feature Features within 0.25 Mile of Active Leks Features Within 2 Miles of Active Leks

Wyoming Utah Nevada Oregon Wyoming Utah Nevada Oregon

MLVs 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1

Compressor Stations 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Test Manifolds 0 0 0 0 2 1 31 1

Approximate Miles of 

Access Road 1 1 6 0 31 13 201 6

Staging Areas 0 0 0 0 1 0 13 0

Total 1 1 6 0 34 15 247 8

Ruby has not proposed any permanent aboveground facilities that would be within 0.25 mile of 

known active leks. Approximately 251 miles of access roads would be within a 2-mile radius of known, 

active leks. Some of these roads would be graded to facilitate construction traffic. Access roads would 

be used extensively during pipeline construction and restoration activities and occasionally during 

operation to conduct monitoring and maintenance of pipeline facilities. Extensive construction-related

activities also would occur at 14 temporary extra workspaces. 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 highly mobile birds and could fly over the 

project area to reach adjacent habitats. Once shrub cover was established on the right-of-way, greater 

sage-grouse could also walk across the right-of-way with a relatively low probability of increased 

predation. The right-of-way would not present a long-term physical barrier to greater sage-grouse 

movement if revegetation were accomplished successfully (Connelly, 2009). 

Potential construction-related impacts could be minimized by identifying important greater sagegrouse habitats and applying seasonal no-construction windows and spatial buffers around these habitats. 

Ruby has committed to pre-construction surveys to identify active leks. Ruby has also consulted with 

land managing agencies, state wildlife agencies, and the FWS to determine seasonal timing constraints 

and spatial buffers in and around leks, breeding habitat, and winter range. Ruby has committed to 

avoiding human activity from 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. between March 15 and May 31 within 0.25 mile of 

active leks. Seasonal and spatial restrictions specified by the BLM and state wildlife agencies are 

summarized in Appendix R. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-113

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 

would include invasion by cheatgrass or other weedy species and the slow reestablishment of shrubs in 

many areas. Cheatgrass frequently invades disturbed lands in the Great Basin (McArthur et al., 1989). 

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 as well as adjacent 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 

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 powerline 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 grouse until sagebrush restoration is complete (Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation 

Plan, 2008). 

As discussed in section 4.4.5 and 4.7.1, Ruby is developing a habitat map and associated high 

quality habitat mitigation plan to address sagebrush habitats and a Candidate Conservation Agreement for 

the greater sage-grouse. These plans would identify high-quality wildlife habitat and outline conservation 

and mitigation measures for the greater sage-grouse that would be adopted during construction and 

restoration of the project. Additionally, Ruby is coordinating with the ODFW to promote sagebrush 

restoration in Oregon. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-114

In order to further minimize the effects to the greater sage-grouse, we recommend that Ruby

should, in its habitat mitigation plan and Candidate Conservation Agreement developed with the 

FWS, BLM, and state wildlife agencies, include the following vegetation clearing/revegetation

measures. This plan should be applicable to all construction areas (including access roads, yards, 

and extra workspaces) within 2 miles of active greater sage-grouse leks and within high-quality 

nesting, brooding, or winter greater sage-grouse habitats:

a. Cut or mow sagebrush where full right-of-way grading is not required. Do not 

blade sagebrush in these areas; 

b. create shrub patches within the construction work area by planting appropriate 

sagebrush subspecies;

c. seed high rates of the appropriate subspecies of sagebrush throughout the habitat; 

and

d. include palatable, native forbs at high seed rates in greater sage-grouse nesting and 

brooding habitats.

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 source could impact the 

grouse, especially during the breeding and nesting season. Female 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. 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 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 sage-grouse using suitable habitat 

closer to the station, or effectively remove that habitat from future use, if the birds were to avoid it 

entirely. 

As mentioned above, Ruby is developing measures in consultation with federal and state agencies 

to protect greater sage-grouse from project-related impacts. To determine if additional mitigation is 

required to reduce compressor station operational noise impacts on the greater sage-grouse, we 

recommend that prior to the close of the draft EIS comment period, Ruby file a greater sage-grouse 

habitat assessment for the Roberson Creek and Weiland Flat compressor stations. This assessment 

should identify high-quality sage brush habitat and evaluate the use of the habitat by greater sagegrouse within 1 mile of each of these compressor stations. Based on the results of this assessment, we 

will consider requiring Ruby to implement mitigation to reduce potential noise impacts on greater sagegrouse associated with operation of these two compressor stations.

Development and implementation of the measures and recommendations identified and 

referenced above would result in reduced impact on greater sage-grouse and its habitat. Our 

recommendations would insure that Ruby develop minimization measures for access roads and staging 

areas within important greater sage-grouse habitat, and evaluate greater sage-grouse habitat near 

compressor stations. Ruby has also agreed to implement buffer zones and seasonal timing constraints 

consistent with agency stipulations as noted above. We have also specified that Ruby implement special 

clearing/revegetation measures identified above in important greater sage-grouse habitat. Through the 

development and implementation of Ruby’s proposed and our recommended measures, we conclude that

while the project might impact the greater sage-grouse, it would not cause population-level effects nor 

lead to a trend toward federal listing.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-115

4.7.3.2 Yellow-billed Cuckoo

The yellow-billed cuckoo 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 mid-June through July. 

Suitable habitat is limited in the project area to a few rivers and large streams with associated woody 

riparian vegetation. Such habitat includes woody riparian areas around the Hams Fork River, Bear River, 

Woodruff Creek, East Fork Little Bear River, Little Bear River, and other forested or scrub-shrub riparian 

habitats in southwestern Wyoming and northeastern Utah. 

Adult cuckoos within the project area could be temporary displaced by disturbance associated 

with project activity. We believe that such impacts would be short-term and individuals would return to 

the project area following construction. However, noise from construction-related activities during the 

cuckoo breeding season could result in nest abandonment and loss of eggs or young. 

Ruby has not conducted surveys for the yellow-billed cuckoo; therefore, if Ruby’s construction 

activities overlap the yellow-billed cuckoo breeding season, we recommend that Ruby conduct preconstruction surveys for yellow-billed cuckoo in areas of suitable habitat within 0.25 mile of 

construction. Surveys should be conducted according to FWS and/or land managing agency 

protocol, and the results should be filed. If individuals or nests are found, Ruby should not begin 

construction in these areas until we have reviewed Ruby’s proposed avoidance and/or mitigation 

measures, as well as any agency comments on these measures, and Ruby has received written 

notification from the Director of OEP that construction or use of mitigation may begin.

Our recommendation would ensure that surveys would be completed in suitable habitat for 

yellow-billed cuckoo (if construction were to occur during the nesting season) and that appropriate 

minimization measures developed in consultation with the FWS and/or BLM would be implemented as 

necessary. We conclude that while the project might impact the yellow-billed cuckoo and its habitat, 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. Pygmy rabbits generally 

remain within 100 feet of their burrows, although individuals may roam farther depending on season or 

other factors. Pygmy rabbits breed between February and May (Keinath and McGee, 2004). Suitable 

habitat for the rabbit is present along much of the pipeline route. 

Ruby conducted pygmy rabbit surveys in 2008. Field crews documented pygmy rabbit sightings, 

pellets, and burrows. Several pygmy rabbit sites were observed in Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada. Pygmy 

rabbit sites included area where multiple burrows and scat were observed in close proximity to each other. 

Most pygmy rabbit sites (about 81 percent) appeared to be used infrequently and were in heavily grazed 

areas. Individual rabbits were observed at one site in Wyoming and five sites in Nevada. Table 4.7.3-3 

summarizes the number of pygmy rabbit sites, and the total number of burrows found at the sites.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-116

TABLE 4.7.3-3

Pygmy Rabbit Observations Along the Ruby Pipeline Project

State Number of Sites Number of Burrows

Wyoming 4 21

Utah 31 134

Nevada 23 72

Oregon 0 0

Pygmy rabbits are highly mobile and it is unlikely that individuals would be killed by 

construction equipment or related traffic, although some individuals could remain in a burrow and be 

killed by trenching. Pygmy rabbits could also be displaced if burrows are destroyed or filled in. Since 

pygmy rabbits generally spend much of their lives within 400 feet of their burrows, a 115-foot right-ofway could displace pygmy rabbits from much of their primary home range. Ruby has indicated it may 

identify suitable habitat and active burrows and consider micro-realignments to avoid these areas. Ruby 

has also indicated that it would avoid identified breeding areas from February to March. The BLM Salt 

Lake Field Office has requested that this avoidance window be extended through June.

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 (10 to 50 years or more) 

following construction. Consequently, the right-of-way could create a barrier to pygmy rabbit movement 

until revegetation is similar to adjacent conditions.

As discussed in section 4.4.5 and 4.7.1, Ruby is developing a habitat map and associated high 

quality habitat mitigation plan to address sagebrush habitats and a Candidate Conservation Agreement for 

the pygmy rabbit. These plans would identify high-quality wildlife habitat and outline conservation and 

mitigation measures for the pygmy rabbit that would be adopted during construction and restoration of the 

project. 

Ruby has indicated that “best management practices” would be used “as appropriate” to minimize 

impacts and reclaim soils and sagebrush steppe vegetation, but has not yet completed its Candidate 

Conservation Agreement or identified specific practices relative to pygmy rabbit burrows and pipeline 

construction and reclamation. We received comments from the FWS requesting the development of 

avoidance and minimization measures around active pygmy rabbit burrows. Therefore, we recommend 

that Ruby include the measures listed below in its mitigation plan and Candidate Conservation 

Agreement developed with the FWS, BLM, and state wildlife agencies. Where pygmy rabbits or 

active burrows are identified, Ruby should:

a. realign the pipeline or construction workspace to avoid disturbance within 100 feet 

of active pygmy rabbit burrows; 

b. seed high rates of the appropriate subspecies of sagebrush throughout the habitat;

and

c. cut or mow sagebrush where full right-of-way grading is not required. (Ruby 

should not blade sagebrush in these areas).

Where the pipeline or construction workspaces cannot be realigned to avoid disturbance 

within 100 feet of active pygmy rabbit burrows, Ruby should restore disturbed areas by creating

shrub patches, and clearly identify in the mitigation plan and/or Candidate Conservation 

Agreement any other measures it would implement to minimize impacts on pygmy rabbits.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-117

Our recommendation would ensure that surveys would be completed in suitable habitat for 

pygmy rabbits and that appropriate minimization measures developed in consultation with the FWS 

would be implemented as necessary. We conclude that while the project might impact the pygmy rabbit it 

would not cause population-level effects, nor lead to a trend toward federal listing.

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. 

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. During field surveys conducted by Ruby in 2008, 

white-tailed prairie dog colonies were identified between MPs 2 and 5.5, MPs 20 and 25, MPs 48 and 49, 

and near MP 54.

The potential effects of construction through a prairie dog colony may 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 

prairie dogs could result if active burrows are occupied at the time of construction. If construction occurs 

later in the prairie dog’s reproductive season, in late May to early June, most prairie dogs are expected to 

be mobile and able to avoid construction traffic; however, some individual prairie dogs may be injured or 

killed during construction. In addition, there is potential for destroying active dens with young if 

construction occurs during the white-tailed prairie dog’s reproductive season. Following construction and 

restoration, the revegetated right-of-way would provide foraging habitat for prairie dogs, and the 

unconsolidated soils along the trench would likely provide a good substrate for burrowing.

To limit construction-related impacts on those prairie dog colonies within the construction rightof-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 to avoid prairie dog colonies to the greatest extent possible. In addition, if a colony only occurs 

along the edge of the construction right-of-way, the colony edge should be flagged or exclusion 

fencing should be placed to lessen impacts on the colony. Ruby should include these measures in its 

final construction alignment sheets filed prior to construction for review and approval.

Our recommendation would ensure that Ruby implement construction techniques to minimize 

impacts on white-tailed prairie dogs. We believe that the Ruby Pipeline Project may impact individuals 

but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing.

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, 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-118

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.

As stated in section 4.3.2.6, Ruby intends to appropriate 21,513,028 gallons (66 acre-feet) of 

water from the Bear River for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline and dust abatement. The average 

monthly and daily streamflow within the Bear River, as measured at the USGS monitoring gauge near 

Woodruff, Utah, was reviewed to determine if the removal of 66 acre-feet of water could impact northern 

leatherside chub. The average monthly streamflow between August 1 and December 31 is 24,776 gpm. 

Ruby stated water withdrawal rates would not exceed 2,500 gallons per minute and would not exceed 10 

percent of a waterbody’s base flow (2,478 gpm for the Bear River). Thus, it appears that water 

withdrawals could be managed to provide sufficient streamflow to downstream populations of aquatic 

resources.

By incorporating the mitigation measures discussed in section 4.7.1, 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. Suitable 

habitat for the Columbia spotted frog includes springs, seeps, meadows, marshes, ponds, streams, and 

other areas where there is abundant mesic vegetation. 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. Potential habitat for the species could occur between 5,600 and 8,700 feet at 

wetland, springs, seeps, marshes, streams, and riparian areas along the project route. 

Ruby consulted with state wildlife agencies and heritage programs to identify areas along the 

proposed route that could support the Columbia spotted frog. Table 4.7.3-4 lists segments of the route 

that may contain pockets of suitable habitat for this species.

TABLE 4.7.3-4

Potential Suitable Habitat for the Columbia Spotted Frog along the Ruby Pipeline Project

State Area Approximate MP Range

Wyoming Hams Fork River 0.5 - 1.5

Nevada Jarbridge, Independence, and 

Tuscarora Mountains 230 - 399

Oregon Lakeview Resource Area 602 - 675

Ruby has not conducted surveys for the Columbia spotted frog. Populations of Columbia spotted 

frog are known to occur near the project within Nevada, and may occur in suitable habitat in Wyoming 

and Oregon. Surveys for Columbia spotted frogs, even if the surveys occur in suitable habitat, may not 

result in location of individuals (individuals could utilize the surveyed areas in other seasons or even 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-119

within a few days of the survey). Consequently, negative survey results would not necessarily indicate 

that Columbia spotted frogs would always be absent or that the area does not provide habitat for the 

species. Construction through riparian and wetland corridors that have been identified as suitable habitat 

could create a barrier to movement by the Columbia spotted frog or could degrade occupied habitat. 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 wetland and riparian habitats and locate extra workspaces outside all wetland and riparian 

habitats to minimize impacts on these habitats. Ruby has committed to restoring trees and shrubs at 

woody riparian areas and wetlands. However, the short- to long-term lack of riparian canopy cover 

within the right-of-way could increase predation or result in hotter and drier conditions that could prevent 

individuals from crossing. Therefore, we recommend that prior to construction, Ruby should 

complete surveys for the Columbia spotted frog according to FWS or appropriate state agency 

guidelines in all potentially suitable habitat crossed by the proposed project. Regardless of whether 

Columbia spotted frogs are found, Ruby should identify all locations of high quality habitat for this 

species by milepost. The results of the species surveys and habitat assessment should be filed (and 

concurrently submitted to the FWS). Where high quality habitat is identified in the survey results,

Ruby should:

a. mow or crush riparian and wetland vegetation rather than remove vegetation by 

grading;

b. limit grading to the minimum area necessary to safely complete pipeline 

construction; and

c. reduce its construction right-of-way to 75 feet.

Our recommendation would ensure that impacts on Columbia spotted frogs and high-quality 

habitat would be minimized. 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.

4.7.4 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 Q 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 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 three 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, 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-120

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 could result in moderate- to long-term losses of sagebrush habitat. 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). Additional information suggests sagebrush revegetation could take as long as 50 

years or 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.

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 Amphibians/ 

Reptiles 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.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-121

TABLE 4.7.4-2

Summary of Sensitive and State-Listed Species Associated with Grassland Habitat along the Ruby Pipeline Project

Number Bird Mammal Amphibians/

Reptiles 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 

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 Amphibians/ 

Reptiles 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 re-vegetate 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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-122

reestablish well within 5 to 8 years (WESTECH, 2004). Ruby would replant 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 Amphibians/

Reptiles 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

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 Amphibians/

Reptiles 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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-123

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 Forest Habitat along the Ruby 

Pipeline Project

Number Bird Mammal Amphibians/

Reptiles 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 

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 forest 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 Forest Habitat along the Ruby Pipeline Project

Number Bird Mammal Amphibians/

Reptiles 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 28 perennial waterbodies and 12 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, 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-124

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. Drycrossing 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 I) 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 in area. 

4.7.4.9 Warmwater Fishery Habitat Association

Warmwater fishery habitat is represented by 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 29 perennial and 15 

intermittent or ephemeral waterbodies that could support BLM sensitive or state-listed warmwater fish. 

Several waterbodies also supported 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 wildlife as these species may be more sensitive to disturbance, more specific to a habitat, and less 

able to move to unaffected suitable habitat, or unaffected suitable habitat is not available (or currently 

exists in small populations). 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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-125

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 

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 habitat may be fragmented for less mobile special status species. Successful restoration would also 

ensure that habitat important to all special status species would not be lost or degraded. Limiting postconstruction 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 

individuals. Ruby is continuing to consult with state and land management 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 will have further opportunity during their Rightof-Way Permit 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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-126

additional habitat data or species-specific surveys are necessary. We note that implementation of these 

recommendations would minimize impacts to 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 to high quality 

habitats. Thus, we believe 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 trend toward federal listing.

4.8 LAND USE AND VISUAL RESOURCES

The Ruby Pipeline Project would consist of approximately 675.2 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 4 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 temporary impacts, either short-term 

or long-term based on the time it would take the land to recover to pre-construction conditions; lands 

required for operation would experience permanent impacts. Short-term impacts would extend beyond 

construction for a period of less than 3 years. Land that experiences long-term impacts would require 

more than 3 years to recover but would recover within the expected lifespan of the pipeline. Permanent 

impacts would last for the life of the pipeline or longer.

4.8.1 General Impacts and Mitigation

Five general land use types would be affected by the project: open land (includes rangeland), 

agricultural, forest, developed (includes 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. 

Construction of the proposed project would affect a total of about 24,933.7 acres of land; 

including 19,294.0 acres of open land, 2,287.8 acres of forested land, 1,513.7 acres of agricultural land, 

1,455.7 acres of developed land, and 170.1 acres of open water. Ruby would operate approximately 

4,111.1 acres of pipeline right-of way and 156.9 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 3,648.5 acres of open land, 

312.3 acres of forested land, 220.5 acres of agricultural land, 45.0 acres of developed land, and 41.7 acres 

of open water.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-127

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 Water Total

Con.a Op.b Con.a Op.

b Con.a Op.b Con.a Op.b Con.a Op.b Con.a Op.b

WYOMING

Right-of-way 649.4 283.5 6.0 2.7 9.8 5.2 5.3 2.1 0.0 0.0 670.5 293.5

Extra Workspaces and Staging Areas 128.4 0.0 2.6 0.0 3.9 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 141.3 0.0

Access Roads 874.9 0.0 45.7 0.0 2.7 0.0 56.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 980.2 0.0

Yards 117.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 140.4 0.0

Aboveground Facilitiesd 60.1 60.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.1 60.1

Subtotal 1,830.2 343.6 54.3 2.7 38.8 5.2 69.1 2.1 0.2 0.0 1,992.5 353.6

UTAH

Right-of-way 1,859.3 814.1 303.1 135.7 275.0 122.6 76.9 32.9 1.3 0.5 2,515.6 1,105.8

Extra Workspaces and Staging Areas 581.6 0.0 148.9 0.0 142.1 0.0 31.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 904.6 0.0

Access Roads 1,472.1 0.0 60.0 0.0 293.5 0.0 665.9 0.0 0.7 0.0 2,492.2 0.0

Yards 28.4 0.0 9.3 0.0 157.7 0.0 15.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 211.2 0.0

Aboveground Facilitiesd 27.5 27.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.5 27.5

Subtotal 3,968.9 841.6 521.3 135.7 868.3 122.6 790.0 32.9 2.6 0.5 6,151.1 1,133.3

NEVADA

Right-of-way 4,873.3 2,122.9 26.9 13.1 49.2 23.1 15.5 6.7 0.0 0.0 4,964.9 2,165.8

Extra Workspaces and Staging Areas 1,251.0 0.0 17.7 0.0 10.2 0.0 16.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,295.4 0.0

Access Roads 4,775.9 0.0 83.6 0.0 54.0 0.0 349.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 5,262.8 0.0

Yards 727.4 0.0 14.8 0.0 66.6 0.0 28.3 0.0 1.0 0.0 1,050.5C

0.0

Aboveground Facilitiesd 52.8 52.8 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 54.5 54.5

Subtotal 11,680.4 2,175.7 143.0 13.1 180.7 23.8 410.6 7.7 1.0 0.0 12,628.1 2,220.3

OREGON

Right-of-way 639.4 282.4 366.7 160.8 86.1 44.8 2.5 1.1 61.8 41.2 1,156.5 530.3

0.1l 0.0l 0.0l 0.0 l 33.8l 14.6l 2.5l 1.1l 0.0l 0.0 l 36.4 15.7

Extra Workspaces and Staging Areas 231.2 0.0 180.4 0.0 78.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 102.5 0.0 594.8 0.0

Access Roads 809.0 0.0 1,022.0 0.0 52.2 0.0 119.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,003.0 0.0

Yards 129.5 0.0 0.2 0.0 166.4 0.0 58.4 0.0 2.0 0.0 356.5 0.0

Aboveground Facilitiesd 5.2 5.2 0.0 0.0 9.5 9.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 14.8 14.8

Subtotal 1,814.4 287.6 1,569.3 160.8 426.0 68.9 186.0 2.3 166.3 41.2 4,162.0 560.8

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-128

TABLE 4.8.1-1 (cont.)

Land Use Types Affected by Construction and Operation of the Ruby Pipeline Project (in acres)

State/Component

Open Land Forested Agricultural Developed Open Water Total

Con.a Op.b Con.a Op.b Con.a Op.b Con.a Op.b Con.a Op.b Con.a Op.b

Total 19,294.0 3,648.5 2,287.8 312.3 1,513.7 220.5 1,455.7 45.0 170.1 41.7 24,933.7c

4,268.0

ALL STATES/COMPONENTS

Right-of-way 8,021.4 3,502.9 702.7 312.3 420.1 195.7 100.2 42.8 63.1 41.7 9,307.5 4,095.4

0.1l 0.0l 0.0l 0.0l 33.8l 14.6l 2.5l 1.1l 0.0l 0.0l 36.4l 15.8l

Extra Workspaces and Staging Areas 2,192.2 0.0 349.6 0.0 234.2 0.0 57.0 0.0 103.1 0.0 2,936.1 0.0

Access Roads 7,932.0 0.0 1211.2 0.0 402.3 0.0 1191.8 0.0 0.9 0.0 10,738.2 0.0

Yards 1,002.7 0.0 24.3 0.0 413.1 0.0 103.1 0.0 3.0 0.0 1,758.6c

0.0

Aboveground Facilitiesd 145.6 145.6 0.0 0.0 10.2 10.2 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 156.9 156.9

Total 19,294.0 3,648.5 2,287.8 312.3 1,513.7 220.5 1,455.7 45.0 170.1 41.7 24,933.7c

4,268.0

─────────────────────────

a Construction impacts comprise all areas affected during construction.

b

 Operational impacts comprise the area within the 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way and the footprint of aboveground facilities. 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. Additionally, Ruby indicated that most land use activities within the 50 

foot-wide permanent right-of-way would be allowed to continue after construction, such as farming and grazing. Certain activities, such as erecting a building, would be 

prohibited within the permanent right-of-way.

c Includes 212.4 acres proposed for contractor yards in Elko County, Nevada that have not been assigned a land use classification.

d

 Construction and operational impacts associated with MLV’s are not presented under Aboveground Facilities. These impacts are included in the right-of-way impacts.

Con. = Impacts within the 115-foot-wide construction workspace. 

Op. = Impacts within the 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way of the mainline and lateral pipeline. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-129

About 218.5 miles (32.2 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. Table 4.8.1-2 and Appendix S list the locations where the construction right-of-way 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 0.0 5.0 5.0

Subtotal 15.3 5.1 20.4

UTAH

Rich 12.6 0.3 12.9

Cache 10.2 0.8 11.0

Box Elder 29.9 19.6 49.5

Subtotal 52.7 20.7 73.4

NEVADA

Elko 86.2 0.0 86.2

Humboldt 2.2 9.2 11.4

Washoe 21.1 0.0 21.1

Subtotal 109.5 9.2 118.7

OREGON

Lake 0.0 1.7 1.7

Klamath 2.7 1.6 4.3

Subtotal 2.7 3.3 6.0

Total 180.2 38.3 218.5

We note that 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 improve 

unsuitable access roads through grading, filling, and/or widening. About 595 roads totaling about 

10,724.9 acres would be 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. A total of 20 new dirt and gravel roads totaling about 13.3 

acres also would be constructed up to 15 feet wide to accommodate timber clearing at various locations, a 

landowner request, and access to an aboveground facility (an MLV at MP 108.6). Ruby presently does 

not know specifically where all road improvements would be required along any given road. This 

information will not be available until after Ruby’s construction contractor identifies 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. Table D-3 in Appendix D identifies each new access road and each 

access road that would potentially require improvement.

We have reviewed Ruby’s list of access roads and have concluded that constructing new roads 

and improving and retaining two-track roads in many areas would open up previously inaccessible areas 

to vehicle traffic, frequently in undesirable locations where restricted access is preferred. Ruby is 

proposing to retain roads in their improved condition after construction, unless otherwise requested by a 

landowner or land managing agency. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-130

4.8.1.1 Open Land

The majority of the project (about 19,294.0 acres, or 77.4 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. 

Construction impacts on livestock grazing could include damage to or removal of fences or other 

natural barriers used for livestock control, removal of vegetative cover from the project area, blocking of 

access to water sources or other grazing areas, and the risk of livestock injury or entrapment from 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, and seed disturbed areas after 

construction in accordance with the specifications outlined in its Reclamation Plan (see Appendix K). We 

received comments during scoping regarding the potential for problematic reclamation due to grazing in 

disturbed areas immediately following construction. Ruby has agreed to develop grazing deferment 

arrangements with willing landowners, grazing permittees, and land managing agencies to minimize the 

disturbance of revegetation efforts by grazing (Appendix E).

We also received comments from landowners regarding the potential for increased off-highway 

vehicle use along the right-of-way, which could disturb vegetation, cause erosion, and promote the spread 

of invasive weeds. Ruby would discuss off-highway vehicle issues with landowners during easement 

negotiations. Ruby would install fences, gates with locks, blockades, and/or berms to prevent or 

discourage unauthorized access to the right-of-way, as appropriate.

4.8.1.2 Forested Land

About 2,287.8 acres of forested land (or 9.2 percent of the project total) would be crossed by the 

project, mostly within the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache NF in Cache County, Utah and the Fremont-Winema NF

in Lake and Klamath counties, Oregon. The Uinta-Wasatch-Cache NF contains a mixture of oak and 

coniferous trees of varying density. The Fremont-Winema NF 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 in any right-of-way grant issued for the project.

4.8.1.3 Agricultural Land

About 1,513.7 acres of agricultural land (or 6.1 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 UtahDocument Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-131

designated 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 

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.

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 E) 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 pre-construction 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 pre-construction 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 re-level 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 re-level 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-132

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) a report discussing whether any 

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 committed to compacting 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. Ruby has not provided information on how landowners would be made aware of the option for 

additional depth of cover or identified which, if any, landowners have requested additional depth of cover. 

Therefore, we recommend 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 should concurrently file a copy of this letter. 

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 1,455.7 acres, or 5.8 percent of the project total). Development in the project area generally 

consists of 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. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-133

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 

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 transmission 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 transmission lines

parallel to the pipeline route between MPs 105.7 and 108.5, near Brigham City. The electric transmission 

lines would be routed about 100 feet north of the pipeline. Rocky Mountain Power’s construction 

schedule is not known 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 170.1 acres, 

or 0.7 percent of the project total). The project would cross 105 perennial waterbodies, 22 livestock 

watering ponds/lakes, and numerous intermittent or ephemeral drainages and washes, and canals or 

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 state or tribal5land would be crossed. 

 

5 Although no tribal 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 #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-134

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 - 21.2 9.1 -- -- 0.6 11.5 21.2 43 3 54

 Uinta 21.2 - 48.1 11.0 -- -- 1.4 14.5 26.9 41 5 54

Subtotal 20.1 0.0 0.0 2.0 26.0 48.1 42 4 54

UTAH

 Rich 48.1 - 73.2 10.2 -- -- 1.0 14.0 25.2 40 4 56

 Cache 73.2 - 101.0 0.0 1.2 -- -- 26.6 27.8 4 0 96

 Box Elder 101.0 - 230.7 50.6 -- -- 11.4 67.7 129.7 39 9 52

Subtotal 60.8 1.2 0.0 12.4 108.3 182.7 34 7 59

NEVADA

 Elko 230.7 - 397.0 96.8 -- -- -- 69.5 166.3 58 0 42

 Humboldt 397.0 - 563.2 111.6 -- -- -- 27.6 139.2 80 0 20

 Washoe 536.2 - 588.4 46.5 -- -- -- 5.7 52.2 89 0 11

Subtotal 254.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 102.8 357.7 71 0 29

OREGON

Lake 588.4 - 647.6 8.3 12.7 -- 10.2 28.0 59.2 35 17 47

Klamath 647.6 - 675.3 12.2 1.2 0.1 0.1 14.0 27.6 49 0 51

0.0 l - 2.6 l -- -- -- -- 2.6 2.6 0 0 100

Subtotal 20.5 13.9 0.1 10.3 44.6 89.4 39 12 50

Total 356.3 15.0 0.1 24.7 281.7 677.9 55 4 42

─────────────────────────

a

 Classified as federal land.

4.8.2.1 Federal Land

The pipeline would cross about 371.5 miles of federal lands (about 54.6 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, Wildcat Hills Compressor Station at MP 172.5, and 

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-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. 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-, FWS- 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, FWS, 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. 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. The FWS has 

indicated it would need to issue a separate permit for any use of access roads in the Sheldon NWR.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-135

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.

BLM Land

BLM-administered land would comprise 52.4 percent of the entire route and 95.6 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; and Lakeview and Klamath, Oregon. Ruby filed a right-of-way grant 

application with the BLM in 2008. The BLM has indicated that issuance of a right-of-way grant for the 

project likely would require amendments to various RMPs where the RMPs are inconsistent with the 

project as proposed. 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 4.0 percent of all 

federal land crossed by the project. The pipeline would cross 1.2 miles of the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache NF 

in Cache County, Utah and 13.9 miles of the Fremont-Winema NF in Lake and Klamath counties, 

Oregon.

While the USFS requires that pipelines follow designated utility corridors within the UintaWasatch-Cache NF, Ruby’s proposed route does not consistently follow designated utility corridors 

through this National Forest. Therefore, the USFS is using this EIS to consider amendments to the UintaWasatch-Cache NF LRMP to allow the pipeline to cross as proposed.

The project as proposed also would be inconsistent with a number of standards and guidelines in 

the Fremont-Winema NF 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-Winema NF 

LRMP would need to be amended in a number of ways to allow construction to occur. LRMP 

amendments would need to include allowance for additional time to attain visual quality objectives (see 

section 4.8.4), relocation 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 USFS noted that the pipeline route would depart significantly from the WWEC as it passes 

through the Fremont-Winema NF. See section 3.4.8 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 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. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-136

Reclamation Lands

Reclamation-administered land would comprise less than 1 percent of all federal land crossed by 

the project. Reclamation helps states manage competing uses of water in the western United States. The 

pipeline would cross three canals or drainages administered by Reclamation’s Klamath Basin Area 

Office: the Lost River (also known as the Lost River Improved Channel at the crossing location) (MP 

666.2), the Main Drain (MP 666.6), and the West Canal (MP 667.4). Reclamation indicated that Ruby 

would be required to construct its pipeline in accordance with Reclamation’s Engineering and O&M 

Guidelines for Crossings (Reclamation, 2008). These guidelines are intended to protect Reclamation 

facilities from damage, ensure unrestricted flow and quality of water in Reclamation facilities, maintain 

Reclamation’s ability to conduct operation and maintenance of its facilities, and prevent any burden of 

liability on Reclamation. Reclamation specifically stated that Ruby would be required to cross all 

Reclamation facilities using the dry crossing method and crossing of the Lost River Improved Channel 

would need to occur outside of the irrigation season, which generally occurs from April 1 to October 15. 

Ruby also would be required to coordinate fish salvage activities when crossing each of the Reclamationadministered canals or drains. 

Other Federal Land

Although not federally owned, land under conservation agreements with the FSA and NRCS 

would also be crossed by the proposed project. The FSA and NRCS manage federal lands under a variety 

of conservation and easement programs, including CRP and WRP. 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 WRP is a voluntary program that offers landowners the opportunity to protect, restore, and 

enhance wetlands on their property. The NRCS provides technical and financial support to help 

landowners with wetland restoration efforts. The NRCS’s goal is to achieve the greatest wetland 

functions and values, along with optimum wildlife habitat, on every acre enrolled in the program. The 

WRP offers landowners an opportunity to establish long-term wildlife and habitat conservation practices 

on their property.

The project would cross about 1 mile of land enrolled in the CRP near MP 140.0 and one 

easement of land enrolled in the WRP in Oregon. Ruby would be required to restore these areas in 

accordance with the landowners’ easements with the NRCS and ensure that all CRP or WRP 

requirements are met after construction. A more detailed discussion on potential effects to CRP and WRP 

land is presented in sections 4.4.4 and 4.3.3, respectively.

Although the proposed pipeline would not cross any FWS-administered land, Ruby is proposing 

to improve six roads within the Sheldon NWR for project access. These roads include Knott Creek Road 

(road number H-46) and Summit Lake Road (road number H-46B), both of which 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 indicated that the use or improvement of Knott 

Creek Road and Summit Lake Road may be allowed under a special use permit provided Ruby projects 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-137

more specific project information regarding the use and improvement of these roads (e.g., vehicle 

numbers and types, frequency of use, improvement areas, material sources, costs, and mitigation). The 

FWS noted that mountain mahogany is known to grow along Summit Lake Road, and project activities 

that would damage or remove mountain mahogany would be discouraged or prohibited.

In addition to Knott Creek Road and Summit Lake Road, Ruby proposes to use four two-track 

roads (road numbers H-52, H-53, H-54, and W-1). These two-track roads are not graded or graveled and 

are evident only because of the occasional passage of refuge-owned or other FWS-authorized four-wheeldrive vehicles. Substantial improvements would be required to upgrade these roads to facilitate travel by 

heavy construction-related vehicles. According to the FWS, the roads are being considered for permanent 

closure to public use as part of the Sheldon NWR’s ongoing comprehensive conservation planning 

process. The FWS has indicated that Ruby’s use and improvement of the two-track roads would not 

contribute to the achievement of the NWR mission or purpose. For this reasons, it appears highly 

unlikely that a special use permit for the improvement or use of the roads would be granted.

State Lands

The pipeline would cross about 24.7 miles of state-owned lands in Wyoming, Utah, and Oregon 

(about 3.6 percent of the project total). Two of the 44 aboveground facility sites would be on state-owned 

land, including the Wildcat Hills Compressor Station at MP 172.5, which also would be partially located 

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, forestry and timber 

harvesting, or 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. Ruby 

would acquire the necessary permits and approvals for construction across all state-owned lands. In Utah, 

two parcels of state lands crossed by the project were acquired by the state for habitat conservation with 

federal aid funding from the FWS. According to the State of Utah, the FWS would need to make a 

decision of whether or not to amend the federal aid grants that allowed the purchase of conservation 

lands.

Private Lands

The pipeline would cross about 281.7 miles of private lands (about 41.6 percent of the project 

total). Twenty-four of the 44 aboveground facility sites would be on private lands, including the Wieland 

Flats 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 would 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. Construction of a 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 would still be required to compensate the 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-138

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

The Ruby Pipeline Project would cross several recreation and special interest areas, including two 

National Trails, one proposed Wild and Scenic River, three scenic byways, and one unofficial recreation 

area. The project as proposed would not cross any NWR land, National Wildlife Management Areas, 

National Park or Monument lands, Wilderness Areas, WSAs, Inventoried Roadless Areas, or NCAs. 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 Campground

The project would not cross any NF campgrounds, but it would be located in close proximity to 

the Monte Cristo Campground within the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache NF. The proposed route would be 

located immediately north of and adjacent to about 3.3 miles of the northern boundary of the UintaWasatch-Cache NF between MPs 71.7 and 75.0. The project would pass 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 park 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 project would cross two National Trails: the Oregon National Historic Trail and the Crane 

Mountain National Recreational Trail. A temporary construction housing area, the Vya Construction 

Camp, would be established adjacent to a third National Trail, the Applegate Historic Trail. The National 

Trail System Act of 1968 was established to designate and protect national scenic trails, national historic 

trails, and national recreational trails.

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 

business men 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 local travelers traveled to cities originally established along the Oregon 

Trail.

More than 2,000 miles of trail ruts and traces can still be seen in undeveloped western lands. 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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-139

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 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. Regarding the Ruby Pipeline Project, the trail is 

not visually distinguishable from its surroundings at the pipeline crossing site (the area is characterized by 

open, flat shrub land), and the pipeline right-of-way would not be visible from the nearby public road 

(Highway 189). Construction would temporarily introduce contrast in terms of form, line, shape, and 

space; however, visual impacts would be minimal as viewer sensitivity is low for this portion of the trail. 

Ruby would continue to coordinate with the BLM to align the pipeline to minimize direct and visual 

impacts on the trail. 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.

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 project would cross the trail 

at about MP 610.0 within the Fremont-Winema NF near Rogger Meadow. Ruby would continue to 

coordinate with the USFS to minimize impacts on the trail and its recreational users. The BLM would 

incorporate measures into the right-of-way grant to ensure that construction and restoration is completed 

in compliance with BLM and USFS standards.

The Applegate Historic Trail (also referred to as the Applegate-Lassen Trail) is a more southerly 

route into Oregon than the Oregon National Trail. Ruby proposes to construct its Vya Construction Camp 

on 160 acres of privately owned land in Washoe County, Nevada, because temporary housing for pipeline 

workers is limited in this area. The Applegate-Lassen Trail is located along the southern edge of the 

proposed Vya camp site. 

The Applegate-Lassen Trail has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the 

National Trail System, and is a National Historic Landmark. The Applegate-Lassen Trail District is 

considered significant at the national level for its contribution to our understanding of the historic 

research themes of exploration and settlement, transportation, and military. Ruby indicates it has 

completed an intensive pedestrian survey of the Vya Construction Camp for cultural resources, which 

included documenting the location of the Applegate-Lassen Trail. The Trail runs east-west, 

approximately 100 feet north of, and parallel to the originally planned southern edge of the proposed 

camp area. In order to avoid disturbance to this segment of the Trail, Ruby subsequently reduced the 

camp footprint to create a 100 to 125 foot buffer from the Trail. 

4.8.3.3 National Wild and Scenic Rivers

The National Wild and Scenic Rivers 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 Wild and Scenic Rivers; however, it would cross one waterbody, 

Twelvemile Creek, currently under consideration for listing as a Wild and Scenic River.

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 Wild and 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-140

Scenic River. 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 Wild and Scenic River. 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 Wild and Scenic River is currently pending in 

Congress. The BLM is protecting the recreational values of the river in the interim until the designation 

decision is finalized.

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, fishermen, and some 

camping enthusiasts. Ruby would cross Twelvemile Creek using a dry 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. 

4.8.3.4 National Scenic Byways

The project would cross two National Scenic Byways. 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.

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. The crossing at MP 581.9 is characterized by 

moderate to steep grades in the foreground, flat expanses in the background, and an indistinct ridgeline 

that forms the horizon. A high level of harmony exists among the pale colors of the valley and the 

reddish-brown hue of the dirt road. The flat, matte texture of the valley contrasts with the randomly 

spaced, coarser-grained texture of plant life in the foreground. 

Ruby would cross the road using the open-cut technique, which would require temporary closure 

of the road to traffic and the establishment of detours. Construction activities would be visible to parties 

using the road for a period of about 2 to 5 weeks, and color and texture changes associated with 

vegetation clearing would be noticeable for 1 to 5 years and perhaps longer. The crossing at MP 589.1 

would parallel an existing electric transmission line and would echo the form and line of this existing 

landscape feature. 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.

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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-141

farming and raising livestock. There are no dominant forms in foreground or middleground views, and 

indistinct ridgelines form the distant horizon. Straight lines associated with roads and farm fields 

dominate the view and contrast with the indistinct, irregular lines of the ridgelines in the horizon. A high 

level of harmony exists among the greens, browns, and yellows of the agricultural fields, but contrasts 

with the dull gray colors of the roadway. The fine-grain texture of agricultural lands contrasts with flat, 

matte surface of the roadway. The height of transmission line structures along the roadway contrasts with 

flatness of the farmland. 

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, and color and texture 

changes associated with vegetation clearing would be noticeable for 1 to 5 years. The right-of-way would 

not be noticeable within the agricultural landscape over the long-term. 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 

Although not designated as a National Scenic Byway, the project would cross the Ogden River 

Scenic Byway at MP 73.5, which is designated as National Forest Scenic Byway and a Utah State Scenic 

Byway. The proposed pipeline is not located on Uinta-Wasatch-Cache NF 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. The pipeline would cross the byway as the road winds through an area where 

little development has infringed upon panoramic views of forested peaks and valleys. Conifer trees 

dominate the foreground views at the crossing location and obscure middle and background views. The 

flat road forms a band through the viewshed and contrasts with the surrounding rugged forest. The color 

of the natural landscape consists of the dark, shady greens of conifers, the lighter brighter greens of 

nearby grasses and shrubs, and the vibrant blue of the sky. These colors contrast with the dull gray of 

roadway. The texture of the landscape is coarse and consists of densely spaced trees which contrast with 

the flat, matte surface of the roadway. 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. Long-term visual impacts resulting from creating a new corridor in a forested area are discussed 

in section 4.8.4.2. 

4.8.3.5 Other Recreational Areas

We received comments during scoping regarding the potential for impacts on the East Fork of the 

Little Bear River east of Avon, Utah at about MP 92.5. This area is a popular hiking, biking, fly fishing, 

and off-highway vehicle use area. Construction across the river and in the general vicinity would 

preclude recreational use of the project area for the duration of construction. Recreational users would be 

inconvenienced by limited access, increased congestion, noise and dust, and impacts on vegetation. 

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. Most recreational uses would be allowed 

to return post-construction, with the exception of off-highway vehicle use on the permanent right-of-way. 

Such use would be prohibited due to pipeline safety considerations.

The FWS raised concerns regarding use of campgrounds within the Sheldon NWR. The Sheldon 

NWR has 14 campgrounds designed to provide primitive experiences to wildlife-dependent public users, 

including hunters, anglers, and wildlife watchers and photographers. Some campgrounds offer pit-toilets, 

fire rings, meat-hanging poles, and horse corrals. However, most are small and remote, are difficult to 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-142

access, and have no potable water, sanitary facilities, tables, or trash collection. There is a 2-week limit 

on campground use by the public. It is possible that the influx of non-local workers to the general 

vicinity could result in increased use of NWR campgrounds; however, construction workers would be 

restricted to using the campgrounds for the stated purposes and durations. 

4.8.3.6 Wild Horses and Burros

In 1971 Congress stated that wild free-roaming horses and burros were living symbols of the 

historic and pioneer spirit of the American West; that they contributed to the diversity of life forms within 

the nation and enriched the lives of the American people; and that these horses and burros were 

disappearing quickly from the American landscape. Congress mandated that wild free-roaming horses 

and burros be protected from capture, branding, harassment, or death. The Wild Free-Roaming Horses 

and Burros Act of 1971 (Public Law 92-195) was therefore enacted to provide protection for all wild 

horses and burros and provide guidance for their management as a wildland species. The primary 

responsibility for management of the wild horses and burros on federal lands has fallen primarily to the 

BLM, with the USFS sharing some responsibility.

The BLM estimates that about 33,000 wild horses and burros (approximately 29,500 horses and 

3,500 burros) are roaming on BLM-managed rangelands (BLM, 2009), and an additional 30,000 other 

wild horses and burros are fed and cared for at short-term (corral) and long-term (pasture) holding 

facilities on public rangeland. All wild horses and burros in holding, like those roaming the public 

rangelands, are protected by the BLM.

The pipeline route would cross the Warm Springs Canyon and Black Rock Range West herd 

management areas in the Winnemucca resource management area. The Warm Springs Canyon herd 

management area has approximately 607 horses and 23 burros. Approximately 400 horses are located 

within the management boundaries of the Black Rock Range West herd management area (BLM, 2008a).

Construction of the pipeline could affect wild horses by creating a safety hazard, restricting the 

horses’ access to water sources, and increasing the likelihood of harassment to herds. The BLM has 

identified four perennial, four intermittent, and one mechanical wild horse water source within 1.5 miles 

of the proposed pipeline route. Wild horses are expected to move across the proposed project area to 

utilize these water sources. Ruby would install exit ramps at well-defined livestock and wildlife trails, 

existing roadways, tie-in locations and where wildlife movement is expected. Additionally, Ruby would 

establish trench crossovers (i.e., gaps in the trench, spoil piles, and pre-welded pipe) to facilitate livestock 

and wildlife movement. Exit ramps and crossovers would be installed at intervals not to exceed 2,500 

feet. The BLM stated it would require as part of its right-of-way grant Ruby to identify where 

supplemental water supplies may be necessary for wild horses and burrows. Ruby would be required 

contact the BLM or USFS immediately should wild horses or burros be observed during project activities 

to determine a proper course of action for compliance with the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros 

Act of 1971. Any project personnel found violating this Act could be subject to the Act’s criminal 

provisions.

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 for residents or visitors. The project route would cross both federal and privately owned lands. The 

responsibility for protecting visual resources on federal lands was established by the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act, which places emphasis on the protection of scenic resources on public land, and the 

Forestland and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act, which empowers the USFS to manage

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-143

scenery resources. Private lands that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline route are not subject to 

federal or state visual management standards. 

4.8.4.1 Visual Resource Federal Land Classifications

The BLM assigns Visual Resource Management (VRM) classes to the various landscapes under 

its management. VRM classes range from Class I to Class IV, with Class I being the most restrictive and 

Class IV being the least restrictive. These classes describe the different degrees of modification, or 

contrast, allowed to the basic visual elements of the landscape. VRM classes and the allowable visual 

changes in each class include:

Class I – The objective of this class is to preserve the existing character of the landscape. 

This class provides for natural ecological changes; however, it does not preclude very 

limited management activity. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should 

be very low and must not attract attention. 

Class II – The objective of this class is to 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. 

Class III – The objective of this class is to 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. 

Class IV – The objective of this class is to 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.

Construction and operation of the project would be consistent with the objectives and definitions 

of Class III and Class IV designations as defined by the BLM. The project, however, may not be 

consistent with the objectives and definitions of Class I and Class II designations. The project would not 

affect any Class I areas, although the project would cross or be adjacent to six Class II areas (see table 

4.8.4-1).

The Fremont-Winema NF currently uses the Visual Management System (VMS) to manage 

visual resources and analyze effects of proposed projects. The VMS uses a rating system known as VQO 

to establish standards for visual resources management. The VMS/VQO system represents a 

methodology for inventory and description based on the physical and sociological characteristics of an 

area. The sensitivity of the view to alteration by various forest activities is directly related to the 

frequency with which it is seen. Therefore, locations along highways, arterial roads, and next to private 

lands are considered more sensitive than remote areas. The Fremont-Winema NF rates its land according 

the following three VQOs:

Retention – Landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears” intact. 

Deviations may be present but must repeat form, line, color, texture and pattern common 

to the character so completely that they are not evident. This condition would not be 

noticeable to the casual observer.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-144

Partial Retention – Landscapes where the valued landscape character appears slightly 

altered. Noticeable deviations must remain visually subordinate to the landscape 

character being viewed. With consideration given primarily to the size and shape of 

created openings, this classification provides more latitude for the visual effects of stand 

treatments.

Modification – Landscapes where the valued landscape character appears moderately 

altered. Deviations begin to dominate the valued landscape character being viewed but 

they borrow valued attributes such as size, shape, edge effect, and pattern of natural 

openings.

TABLE 4.8.4-1

VRM Class II Areas Crossed or Adjacent to the Ruby Pipeline Project

State/County MP Range Crossed or 

Adjacent Location

UTAH

Box Elder 207 – 210 Adjacent Muddy Pass in Grouse Creek Mountain Range

NEVADA

Elko 265 – 269 Crossed Knoll Mountain

Elko 342 Adjacent Independence Mountain Range

Washoe 530 – 557 Crossed Between Black Rock NCA and Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge

Washoe 580 – 588 Crossed Mosquito Valley

OREGON

Lake 589 Crossed Twelvemile Creek

Construction and operation of the Ruby Pipeline Project would be consistent with the objectives 

and definition of the Modification designation as defined by the USFS. The project, however, may not be 

consistent with the objectives or definitions of Partial Retention or Retention designations. An evaluation 

of the pipeline route identified one Partial Retention and one Retention area in the Fremont-Winema NF. 

Rogger Meadow from about MPs 608.1 to 608.3 is designated as Partial Retention, and Forest Road 3915

at MP 608.1 is designated as Retention. 

Nationally, the USFS is moving away from VMS and instead using the Scenery Management 

System (SMS). When the Fremont-Winema NF LRMP is revised, the SMS will become the scenic 

management direction for the Fremont-Winema NF. The SMS is based on the idea that landscape 

management that tends to preserve positive scenic elements will maintain or increase the overall scenic 

integrity of the landscape and landscape management that eliminates or obscures positive scenic elements 

will degrade scenic integrity. Scenic integrity has to do with the state of disturbance created by human 

activities or alterations. The SMS acknowledges that 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 SMS uses 

Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO) to classify landscapes by degree of alteration and are defined as 

follows:

High – Landscapes where the valued landscape character appears intact and are said to 

have high scenic integrity. Deviations may be present but must repeat the form, line, 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-145

color, texture, and pattern common to the landscape character so completely and at such 

scale that they are not evident.

Moderate – Landscapes where the valued landscape character appears slightly altered. 

Noticeable deviations must remain visually subordinate to the landscape character being 

viewed.

Low – Landscapes where the valued landscape character appears moderately altered. 

Deviations begin to dominate the valued landscape character being viewed.

Very Low – Landscapes where the valued landscape character appears heavily altered. 

Deviations may strongly dominate the valued landscape character. Deviations must be 

shaped and blended with the natural terrain so that the unnatural elements do not 

dominate the composition.

Unacceptable Low – Landscapes where the valued landscape character being viewed 

appears extremely altered and that are considered to have unacceptable low scenic 

integrity. Deviations are extremely dominant and borrow little if any form, line, color, 

texture, pattern, or scale from the landscape character.

The Uinta-Wasatch-Cache NF uses the SMS to classify landscapes. Construction and operation 

of the project would be consistent with the objectives and definition of the Unacceptable Low, Very Low, 

and Low designations as defined by the USFS. The project, however, may not be consistent with the 

objectives or definitions of Moderate or High designations. The project would cross one area of 

Moderate SIO, and would not cross any areas of a High SIO.

4.8.4.2 Impacts and Mitigation

The project would alter existing visual resources on federal lands and throughout the entire 

project area in three ways: (1) construction activity and equipment would temporarily alter viewscapes; 

(2) construction and right-of-way maintenance would alter existing vegetation patterns; and (3) 

aboveground facilities would represent permanent alterations to the viewscape. The significance of these 

visual impacts would depend mainly on the quality of the current viewshed, the degree of alteration of 

that view, the number of potential viewers, and the perspective of the viewer.

The majority of the land traversed by the project would consist of flat expanses of shrub land or 

rolling hills with intermittent areas of arid riparian terrain, pinyon-juniper woodland, and agricultural 

land. Short-term construction impacts on visual resources would result from the presence of equipment, 

materials, and work force along the pipeline right-of-way, at temporary extra workspaces and contractor 

yards, and along access roads. Vehicles, heavy equipment, pipeline components, and workers would be 

visible during site clearing, grading, trenching, pipeline transport, welding, laying-in, backfilling, and 

site/right-of-way cleanup and restoration. Construction impacts on visual resources would also result 

from the temporary alteration of landforms and vegetation along the right-of-way. 

Construction equipment and activities would be seen by viewers in close proximity to the pipeline 

corridor including adjacent and nearby residents, recreationists on trails and roads, and general motorists 

on public roadways. View durations would vary from brief periods of time to extended periods of time. 

Visual impacts would be greatest where the pipeline route would parallel or cross roads or trails, where 

the right-of-way could be seen by passing motorists or other recreational users, or where the route would 

pass through residential areas. However, these effects would be temporary and would be limited to the 

construction period.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-146

The duration of visual impacts would depend on the type of vegetation or land formation that is 

cleared or altered. The duration of impact due to vegetation clearing would be shortest in agricultural 

crop lands, where the re-establishment of vegetation following construction would be relatively fast 

(generally within 2 years) and the 50-foot right-of-way corridor will match the surrounding landscape in 

terms of form, line, texture and color. The impact in shrub land areas may take several years to 

regenerate, but likewise will also eventually match the surrounding landscape. Ruby would implement 

the mitigation measures described in its Reclamation Plan (Appendix K) to minimize impact and to 

restore disturbed areas. The Reclamation Plan includes procedures for soil management, de-compaction, 

seeding methods and mixes, and monitoring revegetation.

Long-term operation and maintenance of the project would affect visual resources in forest lands

by altering the vegetation patterns associated with the maintained right-of-way. Clearing of forested areas 

would result in a new corridor with distinctive edges. The right-of-way would contrast with the form, 

line, texture, and sometimes color of the landscape. Visual color impacts would diminish over time as the 

affected areas age and vegetation planted during restoration grows. Visual color impacts would persist 

under certain seasonal condition when deciduous fall-time leaf color would contrast with green or golden 

brown hues of the corridor. However, as the 50-foot permanent right-of-way corridor over the pipeline is 

maintained in an herbaceous state, it would not achieve a state of matching the surrounding landscape in 

terms of form, line or texture for foreground, middle ground or background views. Long-term visual 

impacts in forested areas would be most noticeable where the pipeline crosses a road or trail, as the 

maintained right-of-way would remain visible to a passing motorists or hiker.

Where the project would cross VRM Class II areas on BLM-managed land, or VMS Partial 

Retention and Retention or SMS Moderate SIO areas on USFS lands, the level of change to the 

characteristic landscape should be low. 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. Visual impacts associated with the proposed

route would result from construction activities and, without additional mitigation, overall contrasts from 

vegetation clearing and soil disturbance would be moderate when compared to the undisturbed adjacent 

landscape. 

In VRM Class II, VMS Partial Retention and Retention, and SMS Moderate SIO areas, Ruby 

would modify its vegetation clearing procedures. As opposed to removing all trees in forested areas from 

the construction right-of-way, Ruby would leave intermittent stands of mature trees, if they are healthy 

and pose a minimum safety hazard, in extra workspace areas outside of the normal 115-foot-wide

construction corridor. This would provide a partial screening effect and help break up the pipeline’s 

visual impact. In desert areas of visual sensitivity with high-quality vegetation, Ruby would preserve and 

replant native vegetation that is removed from the right-of-way. In areas where vegetation would need to 

be cut for safety or other reasons, Ruby would cut in an uneven line (as opposed to straight cuts) to ensure 

more natural blending. 

When completing restoration work in VRM Class II, and USFS VMS and SMS areas, Ruby 

would minimize the visual resource impacts by limiting the duration of disturbance to visual resources. 

Ruby would backfill trenches immediately after pipeline installation, concurrently with other construction 

activities if necessary. Additionally, Ruby proposes to begin revegetation efforts immediately upon 

completion of backfilling unless replanting at that time would be ineffective due to temperature, rainfall 

levels, or other seasonal considerations. 

Ruby has committed to work with the BLM and USFS to identify and implement restoration 

techniques, such as vegetative feathering, boulder repositioning, and visual screening, to restore the 

landscape and retain its visual character. The BLM would require Ruby to prepare site-specific 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-147

restoration plans, including visual simulations, for Key Observation Points (KOPs) in VRM Class II areas 

prior to construction. KOPs are sensitive receptors on a travel route or at a use area where the view of a 

land use activity would be most revealing to residents and visitors, such as the scenic byways, trails, and 

rivers discussed above. The BLM would require mitigation and restoration on federal land to meet VRM 

Class II objectives at KOPs within 3 to 5 years. 

To protect and promote revegetation success on VRM Class II, VMS Partial Retention and 

Retention, and SMS Moderate SIO areas, Ruby would restrict off-highway vehicle usage on cleared or 

graded land. Ruby would consult with the BLM and/or USFS to install off-road vehicle barriers, which 

may include locked gates, earthen berms, rock piles, or any other method agreed upon by the relevant 

jurisdictional agency. The installation of barriers could create additional visual impact; however, the 

impacts of barriers would be highly localized and would increase the success of revegetation efforts along 

the entire route. The location of, and necessity for, barriers would be left to the discretion of the BLM or 

USFS.

The Fremont-Winema NF indicated that the location of the project route would minimize 

disturbance and visibility at the crossings of Rogger Meadow and Forest Road 3915 in the Forest. Bends 

in the pipeline route on both sides of Forest Road 3915 would limit line-of-site distance down the rightof-way to about 500 feet. Natural openings are common in the open mixed conifer forest to the northeast 

of the road. These natural openings would reduce the contrast between the right-of-way and surrounding 

forest and would be further reduced by feathering the edge of the right-of-way to minimize the linear 

impact created by right-of-way clearing. The right-of-way could be restored where it would cross Rogger 

Meadow so that the pipeline is subordinate to the meadow itself, even with the existence of the permanent 

right-of-way. The right-of-way would be visible during and after construction due to contrasting color 

and lack of vegetation; however, herbaceous meadow vegetation would be expected to recover relatively 

quickly. The foreground retention objective would be met once vegetation was established and the soil 

color contrast faded. The pipeline right-of-way would be expected to reach retention objectives more 

quickly and not be as noticeable in areas where the pipeline would cross the meadow. In the 

middleground partial retention area, the linear element of the right-of-way would be visually subordinate 

within the open canopy forest. The natural openings would reduce the degree to which the right-of-way 

clearing stands out by breaking up the edges. The USFS would incorporate measures (e.g., feathering and 

visual screening) into the right-of-way grant to ensure that construction and restoration would be 

completed in compliance with Partial Retention and Retention VQOs.

Where the project would cross the 1.2 miles of land owned by the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache NF, the 

Forest would require that the views of the permanent right-of-way comply with the management of a 

Natural Appearing Landscape Character Theme and a Moderate SIO rating. When clearing trees, Ruby 

would be required to create an undulating edge along the corridor to accomplish this objective for 

foreground views. To eliminate defining the geometry of the pipeline in the forested landscape the Forest 

would require that Ruby sculpt the edge of the overstory as directed by the Forest Landscape Architect up 

to 50 feet outside of the boundary of the permanent right-of-way. Once the canopy is established in the 

long-term outside of the operational right-of-way, the middleground and background views within the 

forested landscape would not be evident to the casual visitor. The USFS would incorporate measures 

(e.g., tree clearing, feathering and/or visual screenings) into the right-of-way grant to ensure that 

construction and restoration would be completed in compliance with a Moderate SIO.

Aboveground facilities would be the most visible features constructed as part of the project and 

would result in a permanent change to the landscapes where they are located. Ruby would construct 

aboveground facilities at 44 separate sites ranging in size from 0.2 acre to over 40 acres. Aboveground 

facilities would affect visual resources by introducing contrast in form, color, texture, and scale in 

undeveloped areas and disrupting the lines and spatial proportions of views. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-148

The four compressor stations and associated communication towers have been sited outside of 

areas with protected visual resources, such as scenic rivers, byways, and historic trails and away from 

areas with high viewer sensitivity, such as residential areas. None of the compressor stations would be 

sited in VRM Class II areas. Nonetheless, construction and operation of the compressor stations and 

other aboveground facilities would affect visual resources by introducing contrast with natural palettes, 

and the structures would disrupt lines and uniform textures in the landscape. Ruby would control 

nighttime lighting by shielding and down-casting lights as practicable, 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.

Other aboveground facilities associated with the project are relatively small and would have a 

minimal impact on the visual resources of the area. Ruby sited meter stations, MLVs, and pig 

launcher/receiver sites out of the viewshed of recreational areas, residential areas, areas with protected 

visual resources, and other areas with a high degree of viewer sensitivity. As with compressor stations, 

Ruby would paint aboveground facilities 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.

Ruby stated that it would work with the BLM to ensure that construction, operation, and 

maintenance of the pipeline and associated aboveground facilities in Class II areas would be consistent 

with the objectives and guidelines of Class II areas. The BLM would incorporate measures into its rightof-way grant to ensure that construction and restoration would be completed in compliance with Class II 

objectives and guidelines. 

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 point of interconnection in Malin, 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 330.1; and

the Desert Valley Compressor Station in Humboldt County, Nevada, at MP 476.3.

We have assumed that the general socioeconomic impact area for the project would be the area 

within a 50-mile radius (approximately 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.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-149

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 Industriesb

WYOMING 522,830 5.4 $40,655 287,743 3.1 Retail Trade, Healthcare and Social Assistance

Lincoln 16,171 4.0 $30,812 8,884 3.5 Retail Trade, Mining

Uinta 20,195 9.7 $37,250 11,245 3.0 Mining, Healthcare and Social Assistance

UTAH 2,645,330 32.2 $29,406 1,361,768 3.4 Retail Trade, Manufacturing

Rich 2,094 2.0 $26,457 1,469 2.5 Accommodation and Food Services, Real Estate

Cache 108,887 93.5 $22,624 60,083 2.7 Manufacturing, Healthcare and Social Assistance

Box Elder 47,846 8.4 $24,813 23,615 3.9 Manufacturing, Retail Trade

NEVADA 2,565,382 23.4 $38,994 1,335,852 6.7 Accommodation and Food Services, Retail Trade

Elko 47,010 2.7 $33,259 26,848 4.2 Mining, Accommodation and Food Services

Humboldt 17,523 1.8 $30,800 8,069 4.9 Mining, Accommodation and Food Services

Washoe 69,044e

11.0e

$44,418 32,376e6.8 Accommodation and Food Services, Retail Trade

OREGON 3,747,455 39.0 $33,299 1,927,802 6.4 Retail Trade, Manufacturing

Lake 7,277 0.9 $25,982 3,730 8.5 Manufacturing, Healthcare and Social Assistance

Klamath 66,512 11.2 $26,908 30,700 9.0 Retail Trade, Healthcare and Social Assistance

─────────────────────────

a U.S. Census Bureau. 2007a. 

b U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2006.

c U.S. Census Bureau. 2007b. 

d BLS, 2009.

e Does not include data from the city of Reno, which is outside of the 50-mile radius of the project area.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-150

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, Utah. Ogden, Utah, which lies approximately 15 miles south of the project 

in Weber County, 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.

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 at

$44,418, which is partly due to the population center around Reno (county-wide data minus the impact 

from Reno was not available). Cache County, Utah has the lowest per capita income at $22,624. 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.

The unemployment rate of the affected counties is generally lower than or equal to each 

respective state. Only Lake and Klamath 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 2007; 

however, a review of seasonally adjusted unemployment rates for affected states in January 2009 revealed 

higher state-wide rates of unemployment. Unemployment rates for Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon 

were 3.7 percent, 4.6 percent, 9.4 percent, and 9.9 percent, respectively (BLS, 2009). It is possible that 

current county-wide unemployment rates have risen above the most recently published (2007) levels. 

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. Construction activities could commence sometime in 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 

would be March 2011. Table 4.9.1-2 presents the workforce estimates for the project.

TABLE 4.9.1-2

Estimated Construction Workforce for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Facility/Activity 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 Compressor Station) 200

Average Construction Workforce (Total) 600

Average Construction Workforce (Per Spread) 150

Peak Construction Workforce 4,300

Average Construction Workforce 3,400

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-151

Temporary population growth 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. 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. A brief 

decrease in 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 following construction 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 County, Wyoming; Box Elder County, Utah; or Elko and Humboldt Counties, Nevada. 

Employees associated with pipeline operation and maintenance most likely would reside in Ruby’s 

corporate offices in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

Based on available information, we believe that construction of the Ruby Pipeline Project would 

benefit the local labor market by creating a number of temporary construction jobs. The need for nonlocal workers would result in a temporary increase in area populations; however, the short construction 

timeframe would make the increase short-lived and relatively insignificant. Most non-local workers 

would leave the project area at the completion of construction, and those who remain to complete 

operation-related tasks would not affect the local employment levels significantly. 

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, recreational vehicle (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. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-152

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

Washoe c

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 Data does not include data from the city of Reno, which is outside of the 50-mile radius of 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 are Summit, Morgan, Weber, Davis, Salt Lake, and Tooele Counties, Utah; Franklin, 

Oneida, Bannock, Bear Lake, and Caribou Counties, Idaho; Eureka, Lander, and Pershing Counties, 

Nevada; Sublette and Sweetwater Counties, Wyoming; Lassen and Modoc Counties, California; and 

Harney County, 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, recreationists, 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, hotels, 

casinos, RV camps, and other rental units, it could result in the temporary displacement of some tourists, 

recreationists, 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. Vacancy rates in the area suggest that existing lodging 

opportunities may be insufficient 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 distance. 

Nearby counties such as Lander, Eureka, and Pershing County have comparatively high rental vacancy 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-153

rates (table 4.9.2-2). Pipeline workers may be required to seek accommodations in these counties farther 

from the project area. 

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. 

In order to address the potential lack of housing resources in northwestern Nevada, Ruby would 

proposes to build a temporary construction camp to provide living quarters for up to 600 nonlocal 

pipeline workers. The Vya Construction Camp would be 160 acres in size and would be outside the town 

of Vya in Washoe County, Nevada, about 6 miles west of MP 558. The camp would be capable of 

housing up to 400 people in temporary modular-type structures and would also include temporary pads 

for parking up to 200 RV trailers.

The proposed site for the Vya Construction Camp does not have any existing infrastructure other 

than a county gravel road on one side of the parcel which would serve as access to the camp. Ruby would 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-154

implement several infrastructure improvements at the property to provide electricity, water, sewer, and 

fuel storage at the camp. The site is relatively flat so grading would be kept at a minimum and only to the 

extent required to place the modular structures, have a flat site for each of the RVs, and to prepare 

temporary roads around the site.

An on-site power generation unit would be installed to supply the electrical requirements for the 

entire camp. A water well currently exists on the parcel and Ruby would use this well for potable water 

after obtaining a permit for such use from the state of Nevada. The functioning capacity of the water well 

is uncertain and if Ruby is unable to use this well, Ruby states it would either drill a new well or truck in 

water to the site. Ruby proposes to construct a water purification and storage system at the camp, a 

temporary waste water containment system, and a fuel storage depot on site.

Upon the completion of the Ruby Project, the construction camp would be completely dismantled 

and all camp facilities would be removed. The land surface would be re-graded as necessary, cleaned-up, 

and restored to pre-construction conditions in accordance with Ruby’s Plan.

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. 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 would be expected. 

Ruby would work with local law enforcement, fire departments, and emergency medical services to 

coordinate for effective emergency response. Ruby also has anticipated 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 G) that includes coordination with local fire department 

services. 

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 we assume that the services provided by the county and its cities currently serve the mining 

communities adequately. Because the non-local workforce would be small relative to the current 

population, construction of the pipeline would result only in minor, temporary, or no impact on local 

facilities and services in and around the Elko area. 

We also received comments on the potential benefits of the project related to gas utility service 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 Project, 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 an extensive 

network of lower pressure, small-diameter distribution pipelines. Ruby stated that its pipeline is capable 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-155

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, and Ruby has no foreseeable expansion plans. If future expansion were necessary, Ruby would 

be required to seek appropriate regulatory approvals at that time, including any authorizations that might 

be required from the FERC.

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 broad region affected. The counties, cities, and towns in 

the project vicinity presently would have adequate infrastructure and services to meet the needs of the 

non-local workers. 

4.9.4 Transportation

Construction activities could also 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 

damage to local roads from the movement of heavy construction equipment and materials. Ruby has 

prepared a Traffic and Transportation Management Plan (Appendix T), 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 or at each station. These vehicles would include 

personal transportation for welders, foremen, miscellaneous workers, and inspectors; buses to transport 

construction workers from the contractor yards to the right-of-way; stringing trucks to deliver pipe to the 

right-of-way from pipe storage and staging areas; and heavy equipment needed to complete construction 

activities. Vehicle movement along established roads would generally occur 6 to 7 days per week during 

daylight hours; most activity would occur during the early morning and evening hours.

The addition of employee, truck, and equipment traffic would be expected to cause temporary, 

short-term, and relatively insignificant traffic impacts in most areas of the project. The majority of the 

construction area is rural and would therefore experience light traffic on a normal basis. However, 

mining areas near Elko and Winnemucca could experience a greater impact. These areas have limited 

road features, and a significant amount of traffic is already created by mining operations. Commuting 

patterns could create temporary traffic congestion if peak travel hours for the mining community and the 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-156

project coincide. This impact, however pronounced, would be short-lived based on the 10-month 

construction schedule.

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. Gravel roads, on the other 

hand, are much less durable. Ruby has committed to repairing construction-related road damage caused 

by the project. 

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 stated that it would work with local 

governmental agencies to define specific traffic control plans where traffic could be disrupted by 

construction or construction-related traffic. These plans would include at a minimum:

signage to identify approaching construction or access points;

daily review and cleanup of sediment deposits and pavement damage on roadways;

traffic control personnel in areas of lane closures or heavy traffic;

traffic counts; and

other information as required by local governmental agencies. 

Ruby has committed to providing this information as an amendment to its Traffic and 

Transportation Management Plan. We agree with Ruby’s assessment that specific traffic control plans 

would be needed to adequately manage the increase in traffic through project areas and that the best 

source of relevant traffic information would come from local authorities. Ruby’s existing Traffic and 

Transportation Management Plan does not address concerns specific to mining or road weight restrictions. 

Therefore, we recommend that Ruby file a revised Traffic and Transportation Management Plan 

developed in consultation with each state’s transportation department and local traffic authorities. 

The revised plan should include specific measures for road closures; detours; information on how 

traffic and commuter travel would be managed to reduce impacts on mining communities such as 

Elko and Winnemucca, Nevada; observance of vehicle weight and width restrictions on existing 

roads; the use of mats or other methods to ensure that construction vehicles and equipment would 

not damage paved roadways; and incorporating updates based on input from local authorities 

during construction. Ruby should file its revised Traffic and Transportation Management Plan

prior to construction.

We generally believe that construction impacts on traffic levels across the pipeline work area 

would not be significant because of the short duration of activities located within each construction spread 

and the generally rural locations in which most of the project would take place. More pronounced 

impacts could occur during peak commuting hours near mining communities due to the limited number of 

roads in the project area. No long-term impacts would be expected. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-157

4.9.5 Property Values

We received comments during scoping regarding the potential for property devaluation that could 

be caused by damage from construction 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 on 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. 

Ruby has estimated that the total construction payroll of the project 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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-158

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 will 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 $89.0 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 by state, which takes into account certain local economic variables. 

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, non-recurring 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.

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

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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-159

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. 

The most significant tax impacts would be generated by ad valorem (property) taxes generated by 

the project throughout the operational period. Ad valorem taxes would be allocated to affected states, and 

then to affected counties according to the proportion of miles of the project within each jurisdiction. 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.

We believe that construction of 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 project-specific materials, and sales tax. Operational impacts of these 

benefits would not be as significant. However, operation of the project would result in long-term property 

tax benefits for counties affected by the project.

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 

their social, economic, or political position. Environmental effects of the project on minority and lowincome communities or Native American programs must be disclosed. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-160

Overall, the 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 average national (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 mix 

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, 2007c

b People who identify themselves as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race and are also included in other race 

categories.

To assess the composition of the communities in immediate 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 and an 

area inclusive of the compressor stations. In addition, the locations of Native American tribal lands were 

also reviewed to determine the presence of potential Environmental Justice communities. 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).

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-161

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(%)

Households Receiving Public 

Assistance (2000)

b

(%)

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, 2007c

b U.S. Census Bureau, 2000b

Review of these data identified one area (census tract 9515) located in Elko County, Nevada, that 

has 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 a meaningful 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 of the project vicinity also has identified 

small areas with potential Environmental Justice concerns. In one area in Washoe County (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 MP 540 in Humboldt County 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. 

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, and overall cost. 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. 

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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-162

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 the minority or low-income communities or Native 

American programs.

4.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES

The FERC, the BLM, and other federal land managing agencies 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 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 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 recent expressions of concern by Indian tribes, the ACHP has decided to participate in the 

Section 106 consultation 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. 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 listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP would be adversely affected by 

the project, mitigation would be proposed. Mitigation may include, but not be limited to, one or more of 

the following measures: 1) avoidance through the use of realignment of the pipeline route, relocation of

temporary extra workspaces, HDD, or boring (see discussion in section 4.3.2.5), 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 on the historic setting or ambience of standing 

structures or other resources.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-163

4.10.1 Cultural Resource Surveys

Ruby conducted cultural resource literature reviews and pedestrian surveys for a majority of the 

project area in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon. In total, about 661 miles (97 percent) of the 

pipeline route has been surveyed. Ruby also surveyed most temporary extra workspaces, access roads, 

and some aboveground facility sites. A 300-foot-wide corridor was surveyed for the pipeline and a 100-

foot-wide corridor was surveyed for access roads. Surveys and reports still need to be completed for 

about 17 miles (3 percent) of the construction right-of-way, extra workspaces, staging areas, yards, access 

roads, and the construction camp. An unknown amount of surveys remain to be completed for route 

alternatives and route variations. Ruby indicated it would complete all remaining surveys and reports by 

June 30, 2009.

Ruby would complete an assessment of visual impacts on historic properties as part of its cultural 

resource surveys. Ruby has completed the visual assessment for the Wyoming and Utah portions of the 

project and will incorporate the results of its findings into revised reports that will be submitted to 

appropriate agencies for review and approval. Ruby must still complete visual assessments for Nevada 

and Oregon. Ruby is currently coordinating ethnographic studies with agencies and Native American

tribes. Geoarchaeological studies would also be conducted for Utah, Nevada, and Oregon, and would be 

included in revised reports for these states.

4.10.1.1 Wyoming 

Ruby conducted a literature review and pedestrian survey of 48 miles (100 percent) of the 

pipeline route in Wyoming. Ruby also surveyed 73 miles of access roads, approximately 60 acres for the 

Roberson Creek Compressor Station, and approximately 85 acres for the Glencoe Junction pipe yard. The 

survey identified a total of 55 archaeological sites within the survey corridors; 32 of these sites are located 

within the project construction area. Of the 32 sites, 5 sites are recommended as eligible for listing on the 

NRHP, 8 sites have not been evaluated for eligibility, 1 site is recommended to be avoided, and 18 sites 

are recommended as not eligible. 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. 

Several segments of the Oregon National Historic Trail are near or would be crossed by the project (see 

Section 4.8.3.2). 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 the report documenting the 

literature review and pedestrian survey to the FERC, BLM, and Wyoming SHPO. The BLM commented 

on the report and has requested revisions and additional field studies. The Wyoming SHPO has not 

commented on the report to date. Surveys and reports still need to be completed for some temporary 

extra workspaces, contractor yards, staging areas, and aboveground facility sites in Wyoming.

Ruby completed an assessment of the visual impacts on historic properties in the Cumberland 

Gap Area in Wyoming and indicated that the report of this study would be incorporated into the revised 

cultural resources survey report for Wyoming.

4.10.1.2 Utah

Ruby conducted a literature review and pedestrian survey of about 172 miles (94 percent) of the 

pipeline route in Utah. The survey identified a total of 75 archaeological sites within the survey corridor; 

52 of these sites are located within the project construction area. Of the 52 sites, 22 sites are 

recommended as eligible for listing on the NRHP and 30 are recommended as not eligible for listing. Site 

types identified include prehistoric lithic and artifact scatters; a rockshelter; quarries; arborglyphs; historic 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-164

artifact scatters; historic roads, canals, aqueducts, railroads, and telegraph/transmission lines; a 

homestead; and a historic pipeline. Ruby submitted a copy of the 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 USITLA. The Public Lands Policy Coordination Office, representing 

the Utah Office of the Governor and USITLA, and Utah Department of Transportation commented and 

requested additional information and revisions to the report. The BLM, USFS, and Utah SHPO have not 

commented on the report to date. Surveys and reports still need to be completed for about 11.5 miles (6 

percent) of the pipeline route, several temporary extra workspaces, contractor yards, access roads, and the 

Wildcat Hills Compressor Station in Utah. 

Ruby completed an assessment of the visual impacts on historic properties for Utah and indicated 

that the report of this study would be incorporated into the revised cultural resources survey report for 

Utah. Ruby is conducting a geoarchaeology study of the project area in Utah and will submit a report of 

the study as an appendix to the revised cultural resources survey report for Utah. 

4.10.1.3 Nevada

Ruby conducted a literature review and pedestrian survey of about 355 miles (99 percent) of the 

pipeline route in Nevada. The survey identified a total of 761 archaeological sites within the survey 

corridor; 337 of these sites are located within the project construction area. Of the 337 sites, 168 sites are 

recommended as eligible for listing on the NRHP. The remaining 169 sites have not been fully 

documented and have no recommendation regarding their NRHP eligibility. Site types identified include 

lithic scatters (which constituted the majority of site types found), some containing groundstone; quarries; 

rockshelters; historic trash scatters; historic roads, 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 to these resources and traditional places (see the discussion in Section 4.10.3).

Ruby submitted a copy of the report documenting the literature review and pedestrian survey to the 

FERC, BLM, and Nevada SHPO. The BLM Elko District and Winnemucca Field Office commented on 

the report and requested additional information and revisions. The Nevada SHPO has not commented on 

the report to date. Surveys and reports still need to be completed for about 3 miles (1 percent) of the 

pipeline route, temporary extra workspaces, contractor yards, the Vya Construction Camp, access roads, 

and aboveground facility sites in Nevada, including the Weiland Flat and Desert Valley Compressor 

Stations.

Ruby is in the process of conducting an assessment of the visual impacts on historic properties for 

Nevada. The report of this study would be incorporated into the revised cultural resources survey report 

for Nevada. Ruby is conducting a geoarchaeology study of the project area in Nevada and would submit 

a report of the study as an appendix to the revised cultural resources survey report for Nevada.

4.10.1.4 Oregon 

Ruby conducted a literature review and pedestrian survey of about 86 miles (97 percent) of the 

pipeline route in Oregon. Ruby also surveyed about 77 miles of access roads. The survey identified a 

total of 139 archaeological sites within the survey corridors, with 96 of these sites located within the 

project construction area. Of the 96 sites, 78 sites are recommended as eligible for listing on the NRHP, 

10 are recommended as not eligible for listing, 4 are not evaluated for potential eligibility, and 4 have not 

been fully documented. 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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-165

including lithic scatters. Rock features/stacks are an especially significant site type to the Klamath Tribes 

(see section 4.10.3). In addition, the Klamath Tribes and the BLM have expressed significant concerns 

over the Antelope Creek Area, which is being researched for nomination to the NRHP as a district based 

on its rich archaeological and religious landscape values. Reclamation has also commented that portions 

of the Klamath Project, a NRHP-eligible property, would be crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project. The 

pipeline route would cross the Main Drain, as well as the West Canal, and the Lost River Improved 

Channel of the Klamath Project. In consultation with Reclamation, these conveyance features will be 

individually evaluated for inclusion to the NRHP and to determine if they are contributing elements to the 

eligibility of the Klamath Project. 

Ruby submitted a copy of the report documenting the literature review and pedestrian survey to 

the FERC, BLM, Reclamation, USFS, and Oregon SHPO. The BLM and Reclamation have commented 

on the 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. Surveys and reports still 

need to be completed for about 2.5 miles (3 percent) of the pipeline route, temporary extra workspaces, 

contractor yards, and aboveground facility sites in Oregon.

An assessment of the visual impacts on historic properties for Oregon has not yet been completed. 

The study report would be incorporated into the revised cultural resources survey report for Oregon. 

Ruby is conducting a geoarchaeology study of the project area in Oregon and would submit a report of the 

study as an appendix to the revised cultural resources survey report for Oregon.

4.10.2 Unanticipated Discovery Plans

Ruby has prepared 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 Unanticipated Discovery Plans were provided to the FERC, SHPOs, BLM and other agencies. We 

have requested revisions to the plans. The Elko District Office of the BLM submitted comments to Ruby 

on the Nevada Unanticipated Discovery Plan. To date, only the Oregon SHPO has concurred with the 

Unanticipated Discovery Plan for that state. 

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 1.3-1). 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.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-166

TABLE 4.10.3-1

Native American Consultations for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Federally Recognized 

Native American Tribe

FERC Notice 

(March 2008)

FERC 

Meeting

(April 2008)

Ruby Letter 

(May 2008)

Ruby Meeting 

(July, 

September, 

November 

2008)

FERC Notice 

(September 

2008)

FERC 

Meeting

(October 

2008)

Ruby Letter 

(January 

2009)

BLM Letter 

(January 

2009)

Ruby State 

Survey Report 

(February, 

March 2009)

Written 

Comments 

to FERC

(All Dates)

Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind 

River Reservation, 

Wyoming

 *    

Burns Paiute Tribe of the 

Burns Paiute Indian Colony 

of Oregon

 *    

Cedarville Rancheria, 

California        

Confederated Tribes of the 

Goshute Reservation, 

Nevada and Utah

 *    



Confederated Tribes of the 

Siletz Reservation, Oregon  

Confederated Tribes of the 

Warm Springs Reservation 

of Oregon

 *    

Cow Creek Band of 

Umpqua Indians of Oregon  *     

Death Valley Timba-Sha 

Shoshone Band of 

California

 *    

Duckwater Shoshone Tribe 

of the Duckwater 

Reservation, Nevada

 *    

Ely Shoshone Tribe of 

Nevada  *    

Fort Bidwell Indian 

Community of the Fort 

Bidwell Reservation of 

California

 *       

Fort McDermitt PaiuteShoshone Tribe, Fort 

McDermitt Reservation, 

Nevada and Oregon

     





Hoopa Valley Tribe, 

California  

Karuk Tribe of California  

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-167

TABLE 4.10.3-1 (cont.)

Native American Consultations for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Tribe FERC Notice 

(March 2008)

FERC 

Meeting

(April 2008)

Ruby Letter 

(May 2008)

Ruby Meeting 

(July, 

September, 

November 

2008)

FERC Notice 

(September 

2008)

FERC 

Meeting

(October 

2008)

Ruby Letter 

(January 

2009)

BLM Letter 

(January 

2009)

Ruby State 

Survey Report 

(February, 

March 2009)

Commented 

to FERC

(All Dates)

Klamath Tribes, Oregon  *       

Lovelock Paiute Tribe of the 

Lovelock Indian Colony, 

Nevada

 *    

Moapa Band of Paiute 

Indians of the Moapa River 

Indian Reservation, Nevada

  

Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma  *    

Northwestern Band of 

Shoshoni Nation of Utah 

(Washakie)

 *    

Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah  *     

Paiute-Shoshone Tribe of 

the Fallon Reservation and 

Colony, Nevada

 *    

Pit River Tribe, California  *     

Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe 

of the Pyramid Lake 

Reservation, Nevada

 *       

Quartz Valley Indian 

Community of the Quartz 

Valley Reservation of 

California

 

Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, 

Nevada          

Shoshone Tribe of the Wind 

River Reservation, Wyoming  *    

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes 

of the Fort Hall Indian 

Reservation of Idaho

 *    

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-168

TABLE 4.10.3-1 (cont.)

Native American Consultations for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Tribe FERC Notice 

(March 2008)

FERC 

Meeting

(April 2008)

Ruby Letter 

(May 2008)

Ruby Meeting 

(July, 

September, 

November 

2008)

FERC Notice 

(September 

2008)

FERC 

Meeting

(October 

2008)

Ruby Letter 

(January 

2009)

BLM Letter 

(January 

2009)

Ruby State 

Survey Report 

(February, 

March 2009)

Commented 

to FERC

(All Dates)

Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of 

the Duck Valley 

Reservation, Nevada

 *    

Skull Valley Band of

Goshute Indians of Utah  *    

Summit Lake Paiute Tribe of 

Nevada          

Susanville Indian Rancheria, 

California  *       

Te-Moak Tribe of Western 

Shoshone Indians of 

Nevada

 *     

Ute Indian Tribe of the 

Uintah and Ouray 

Reservation, Utah

 *    

Walker River Paiute Tribe of 

the Walker River 

Reservation, Nevada

 

Washoe Tribe of Nevada 

and California  *     

Winnemucca Indian Colony 

of Nevada  *    

Yerington Paiute Tribe of 

the Yerington Colony and 

Campbell Ranch, Nevada

 †    

Yomba Shoshone Tribe of 

the Yomba Reservation, 

Nevada

 *     

Yurok Tribe of the Yurok 

Reservation, California  

──────────────────────────────

 Letter, notice, or report recipient or meeting attendee.

* Received invitation to meeting, but did not attend.

† Letter sent in November 2008.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-169

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 nine tribes. In addition to those tribes, the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs and California Native American Heritage Commission provided written 

comments on the project.

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. 

We have conducted ongoing discussions (during the Pre-filing Process and following the 

submittal of Ruby’s FERC application) with tribal representatives relating to 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 is taking steps to augment the 

joint agency consultation that has occurred to date. 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, will have sufficient opportunity to contribute to the 

decision, and (2) that the decision maker will give tribal concerns proper consideration” (BLM, 2004b).

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 Fort 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. Many of these meetings have been held in conjunction with cultural resources 

presentations made by Ruby and their 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. To date, no tribes have responded to the BLM’s January 26, 2009 letter with written 

comments.

On April 1, 2009, the BLM Klamath Falls Resource Area coordinated a meeting between the 

Klamath River Tribes and Ruby to discuss potential rerouting of the pipeline to avoid impacts on an 

NHRP-eligible District and traditional cultural properties located on KFRA lands. 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, Nevada, which took place 

on May 19, 2009.

Government-to-government consultation will continue to take place throughout the project, and 

information and concerns provided by Native American tribes will be incorporated into the EIS process as 

they are identified. Confidential information, such as the location and character of historic properties or 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-170

culturally sensitive areas, will be used in the decision-making process but will not be made available to 

the public; this information will 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 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 on potential impacts to 

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 the first 4 months of 2009, Ruby met with seven 

Native American tribes. During the Center for Legal Education conference on Historic Preservation in 

Denver in February 2009, Ruby met with several tribes 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.

In addition to letters and meetings, Ruby has conducted telephone, email, and fax communication 

with the Native American tribes who have traditional territory in the project area or who have expressed 

concerns about the project. Ruby has conducted site visits with several tribes to examine locations of 

concern to tribes. Ruby also sent letters to tribes in response to specific questions and concerns. Ruby 

continues to contact tribes and solicit their feedback, and cooperate with agencies in their consultation 

efforts. 

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 

Arapaho, Bannock, Ute, Eastern Shoshone, Western Shoshone, Northern Paiute, Modoc, and Klamath 

tribes. Some common concerns about the project expressed during tribal consultation 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 the 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 to date are summarized below.

The Cedarville Rancheria of California attended the April 23, 2008 Agency Scoping Meeting in 

Lakeview and expressed its concern about disturbance to traditional hunting and gathering locations. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-171

The Washoe Tribe of California and Nevada expressed concern that tribal monitors were not 

present during pedestrian surveys, and recommended tribal monitors during ground excavation. In 

addition, the Washoe Tribe requested and received a copy of the 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. A tribal representative attended the agency scoping 

meeting in Elko, Nevada, on April 15, 2008, and the Tribal Chairman attended the agency scoping 

meeting at Winnemucca, Nevada, on April 24, 2008. Ruby met with the Tribe in April 2009, where they 

expressed concerns about ancestral burial sites in the project area and their interest in using a tribal 

monitor. In May 2009 Ruby supplied the Tribe with cultural resources survey reports at their 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, Utah expressed their 

disappointment in the lack of appropriate government-to-government consultation with federal agencies. 

They inquired about an ethnographic study, and have been communicating with Ruby during the planning 

of these studies. The Tribe also expressed an interest in conducting a field review following the 

completion of the ethnographic studies.

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 their 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 paid Native American monitors 

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 has 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 Reservation in northern 

Nevada. The Tribe’s traditional homeland and current hunting and gathering territory extend into the 

project area. The Summit Lake Paiute Tribe has communicated to federal agencies their extensive 

concerns about 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; impact on the Summit 

Lake cutthroat trout fishery, bighorn sheep, antelope, greater sage-grouse, marmots, rabbits (including 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-172

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 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. 

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 Reclamation Plan (Appendix K), 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 to their traditional wildlife and hunting rights. The 

Tribe’s December 10, 2008 letter requests 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 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. Surface and groundwater resources are discussed in section 4.3.

In response to some of these concerns, Ruby committed to several mitigation measures, such as 

prevention of spreading invasive species, and continued dialog about the project and the Tribe’s concerns. 

The Tribe has expressed an interest in providing tribal monitors during pedestrian surveys, and is 

participating in the ethnographies that Ruby is preparing. Representatives of the Summit Lake Paiute 

Tribe are actively involved in disseminating information about the project and soliciting feedback from 

other Great Basin tribes. 

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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-173

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 

analysis, 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 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 with the Fort 

Bidwell 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 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, Klamath Falls Resource Area office has recommended 

that the area be nominated to the NRHP as an archaeological district, and possibly as a traditional cultural 

property. The Klamath Tribes are concerned 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 avoid the rock stack sites, but the Tribes would prefer that the entire area remain 

undisturbed. The Klamath Tribes have also expressed concern about the Goose Lake area. 

A January 27, 2009 meeting was held at the BLM Klamath Falls Resource Area offices 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 and arranging for Klamath tribal monitors for future field surveys. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-174

Ruby filed a letter with FERC on April 6, 2009, that commits to conducting additional field 

surveys at the alternative routes through Antelope Creek. 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.

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.

 

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 from them.

Since filing its application, Ruby has intensified its efforts to contact Native American groups, 

inform them about the project, and find solutions to Native American concerns. Ruby is conducting a 

series of ethnographic studies that will cover the geographic area of the pipeline route and include the 

many different tribes. Ruby is working with three ethnographers who were chosen following 

communication between Ruby and tribal representatives. These studies are currently underway.

Ruby is communicating with the tribes about employing tribal monitors for the remaining cultural 

resources surveys. Ruby has also met with several tribes since filing its application in January of 2009, 

including the Klamath Tribes, the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone, 

the Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Indian Reservation, the Lovelock Paiute Tribe, the Northwestern 

Band of Shoshone Nation, and the Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe. 

4.10.4 Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act

Cultural resources surveys, testing, and evaluations, as well as numerous ancillary studies, have 

not been completed. In addition, SHPO reviews and tribal consultations are still ongoing. Consequently, 

the FERC, BLM, and other agencies 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), will 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 eligible for listing on the NRHP 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 will address treatment related to any Native American traditional cultural 

properties and areas with traditional religious or cultural significance. The ACHP has indicated that it 

will participate in consultation.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-175

To ensure that the FERC’s, BLM’s, and other federal agencies’ responsibilities under the NHPA 

and its implementing regulations are met, we recommend that Ruby not begin implementation of any 

treatment plans/measures (including archaeological data recovery); construction of facilities,

including the pipeline, compressor stations, and meter stations; 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, files the 

revised reports with the Secretary of the Commission, and files the BLM’s, USFS’s, 

Reclamation’s, SHPOs’, and any Native American tribes’ (as appropriate) 

comments on the revised reports; 

b. Ruby files 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, or Reclamation requests;

c. Ruby files the SHPOs’, BLM’s, USFS’s, Reclamation’s, other appropriate state 

agencies’, and any Native American tribe’s (as appropriate) comments on the 

reports and plans; 

d. the ACHP has commented on the project; and

e. the Director of OEP reviews all cultural resource reports and plans, and notifies 

Ruby in writing that treatment 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

Impacts on air quality for a natural gas pipeline project generally fall into two categories: 

temporary impacts resulting from emissions associated with the operation of construction equipment

along the pipeline route, and long-term or permanent impacts resulting from emissions generated at 

compressor stations by the operation of natural gas-fired compressor engines, emergency generators, and 

auxiliary heaters. We received comments during scoping regarding the project’s impacts on air quality 

during construction and operations. Those comments are addressed below. 

The Ruby Pipeline Project would consist of approximately 677.8 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 February 2010 and would take approximately 

10 to 14 months to complete. Four new compressor stations would also be installed in three states 

(Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada). Table 4.11.1-1 provides an overview of the equipment proposed for each 

of the compressor stations.

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. The Roberson Creek Compressor 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 

engines 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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-176

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).

TABLE 4.11.1-1

Proposed Compressor Stations for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Compressor 

Station State/County Proposed Equipment ISO-rated hpa

Fuel Type

Roberson 

Creek

Lincoln County, WY 3 Compressors 69,000 Electric

1 Emergency Generator Natural Gas

Auxiliary Heaters Natural Gas

Wildcat Hills Box Elder County, UT 2 Turbines 26,554 Natural Gas

1 Emergency Generator Natural Gas

Auxiliary Heaters Natural Gas

Wieland Flat Elko County, NV 2 Turbines 33,964 Natural Gas

1 Emergency Generator Natural Gas

Auxiliary Heaters Natural Gas

Desert Valley Humboldt County, NV 1 Turbine 18,099 Natural Gas

1 Emergency Generator Natural Gas

Auxiliary Heaters Natural Gas

───────────────────────────

a ISO-rated horsepower is a standard measure and not representative of site conditions.

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. Additionally, Ruby filed Class II 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. The WDEQ indicated that an air quality impact analysis would not be 

required for the permit-to-construct application for the Roberson Creek Compressor Station. 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 amendments6. The CAA authorizes 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). 

4.11.1.1 Existing Air Quality

The climate in the vicinity of the pipeline and compressor stations is varied and is represented by 

four 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 four 

monitoring locations. Winds are generally light for all four locations. Precipitation is light during the 

summer and fall and becomes heavier during the winter and spring.

 

6

 The CAA, 42 USC 7401 et seq. as amended in 1977 and 1990 is the basic federal statute governing air pollution. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-177

TABLE 4.11.1-2

Representative Annual Average Weather Conditions for the Ruby Pipeline Project Areaa

Meteorological 

Monitor Location

Maximum 

Temperature (°F)

Minimum 

Temperature (°F)

Precipitationb

(inches)

Snowfall 

(inches)

Wind 

Speedg

(mph)

Wind 

Direction 

Lander, WYc

58.0 31.9 13.42 108.0 6.8 SW

Salt Lake City, UTd

62.9 41.2 16.5 61.0 8.8 SSE

Elko, NV

e

62.2 30.6 9.6 36.6 5.9 SW

Winnemucca, NV

f

65.6 33.0 8.3 22.7 8.0 S

───────────────────────────

a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2009

b 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 Based on 30 years of data (1971-2000).

d Based on 78 years of data.

e Based on 52 years of data.

f Based on 51 years of data.

g Based on wind data from 1930-1996.

Ambient air quality is regulated by federal, state, and local agencies. The NAAQS were 

developed to protect human health (primary standards) and public welfare (secondary standards). 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 or equal to 10 microns (ug)

(PM10);

Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 ug (PM2.5); and

SO2.

State ambient air quality standards 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 ambient air quality standards, but has adopted 

NAAQS for criteria pollutants. Federal and state ambient air quality standards 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. Ambient 

air quality standards, in general, have not been established for these pollutants. However, federal, state, 

and local regulations and guidelines have been established to reduce their release to the atmosphere.

GHGs are gases in the atmosphere that absorb infrared radiation and create what is known as the 

“greenhouse effect,” or global warming. The GHGs emitted from the construction and operation of 

natural gas transmission pipelines are CO2, methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (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. While GHGs are not yet regulated, many companies, including Ruby, are voluntarily taking 

steps to limit GHG emissions.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-178

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 

Standardso

Oregon Air Quality 

Standards

CO 8-Hour 9 ppma(10 

μg/m3)

9 ppma,h 

6 ppma,i

Same as 

NAAQS

Same as 

NAAQS

Same as NAAQS

1-Hour 35 ppma(40 

μg/m3)

Same as 

NAAQS

Same as 

NAAQS

Same as 

NAAQS

Same as NAAQS

Pb Quarterly 1.5 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 ppmb

(0.08 ppm)

c

- 0.08 ppmb

Same as 

NAAQS

0.08 ppmp

1-Hour 0.12 ppmd

0.12 ppmj

0.10 ppmj,k

- Same as 

NAAQS

-

PM10 Annual - 50 μg/m350 μg/m3

Same as 

NAAQS

50 μg/m3

24-Hour 150 μg/m3e

150 μg/m3l150 μg/m3m

Same as 

NAAQS

150 μg/m3q

PM2.5 Annual 15 μg/m3f- Same as 

NAAQS

Same as 

NAAQS

-

24-Hour 35 μg/m3g- 65 μg/m3n

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 ppma(365 

μg/m3)

Same as 

NAAQS

0.10 ppma

(260 μg/m3)

Same as 

NAAQS

0.10 ppma(260 μg/m3)

3-Hour 0.5 ppma(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 Not to be exceeded more than once per year.

b 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.

c 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.

d As of June 15, 2005, this standard was revoked in all areas except the 14 8-hour ozone early-action compact areas.

e Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years.

f The 3-year average of the weighted annual mean concentrations must not exceed the standard.

g The 3-year average of the 98th-percentile concentrations must not exceed this standard.

h Applicable to elevations less than 5,000 feet.

i Applicable to elevations at or greater than 5,000 feet.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-179

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 o

Oregon

Air 

Quality 

Standards

j 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.

k Applicable to Lake Tahoe Basin monitoring station 90 only.

l 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.

m Not to be exceeded more than once per year.

n 98th-percentile concentration.

o Utah has not adopted specific state ambient air quality standards, but has adopted NAAQS for criteria pollutants.

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

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-180

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. Maintenance areas are treated similarly as attainment areas 

when permitting stationary sources. However, a state’s approved maintenance plan may contain specific 

provisions for the permitting of stationary sources to ensure that the air quality in the area would continue 

to comply with the NAAQS. 

On December 22, 2008, the EPA issued a final rule re-designating portions of Cache and Box 

Elder counties in Utah as nonattainment for the PM2.5 NAAQS. These re-designations became effective 

on March 22, 2009. The Cache Valley PM2.5 nonattainment area is composed of western Cache County, 

Utah and southern Franklin County, Idaho. The Salt Lake City-Ogden-Clearfield-Provo-Orem PM2.5

nonattainment area is composed of the following counties in Utah: Box Elder County (partial-eastern 

part), Davis County, Salt Lake County, Tooele County (partial), Utah County (partial), and Weber County 

(partial). None of the proposed compressor stations would be located in the non-attainment areas. 

Moreover, all four of the proposed compressor stations 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 the background concentrations of the 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 area. These measurements are from urban, residential, or agricultural areas that may not be 

representative of the entire project area. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-181

TABLE 4.11.1-4

Ambient Air Quality Measurements for the Ruby Pipeline Project Area

Pollutant Averaging Time Ambient Air Quality Measurements a

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 in which 

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 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 turbines that power the 

compressors, emergency generators, and auxiliary heaters. The electric-driven Roberson Creek 

Compressor Station would emit air pollutants generated by the natural gas 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:

Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) / Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD);

Federal Class I Area Protection;

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-182

New Source Performance Standards (NSPS);

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP);

Title V Operating Permits; and

General Conformity.

TABLE 4.11.1-5

Ambient Air Quality Background Concentrations for Compressor Stations Sites on 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/m

3

10 μg/m3 e e

O3 1-Hour - -

e e

8-Hour - -

e e

PM10 Annual 6.2 μg/m310 μg/m39 μg/m39 μg/m3

24-Hour 17.7 μg/m334 μg/m310.2 μg/m310.2 μg/m3

PM2.5 Annual -

d e e

24-Hour -

d e e

SO2 Annual 5 μg/m35 μg/m3 e e

24-Hour 18 μg/m310 μg/m

3 e e

3-Hour 29 μg/m320 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.

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-Prevention of Significant Deterioration 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 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 

NNSR pollutant for a facility that is one of the 28 industrial source categories listed in 40 

CFR 52.21 (b)(1)(i)(a);

a source with a potential-to-emit of more than 250 tpy of any regulated NNSR pollutant 

for a facility that is not one of the 28 industrial source categories listed in 40 CFR 52.21 

(b)(1)(i)(a);

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-183

a modification to an existing major source that results in a net emissions increase of a 

regulated NNSR 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 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.

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 re-designated 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 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.

Because the proposed compressor stations are minor sources and not subject to PSD 

requirements, a Class I Visibility Impact analysis would not be required under PSD. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-184

TABLE 4.11.1-6

Estimated Operational Emission Rates for Proposed Compressor Stations for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Compressor 

Station Proposed Sourcea

CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 Volatile Organic 

Carbons

(VOC)

Formaldehyde Total HAPs

lb/hr tpy lb/hr tpy lb/hr tpy lb/hr tpy lb/hr tpy lb/hr tpy lb/hr tpy lb/hr tpy

Roberson 

Creek

Stand-by Generatord

2.4 0.6 1.2 0.3 <0.1 0.007 <0.1 0.007 <0.1 0.0004 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.04 0.2 0.05

Heatersc

<0.1 0.2 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 0.02 <0.1 0.02 <0.1 0.002 <0.1 0.01 <0.1 0.0002 <0.1 0.005

Total 2.4 0.8 1.2 0.6 <0.1 0.03 <0.1 0.03 <0.1 0.002 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.04 0.2 0.05

Wildcat Hills Solar Mars 100b

6.6 28.7 6.5 28.3 3.5 15.5 3.5 15.5 0.4 1.8 0.8 3.3 0.3 1.2 0.3 1.4

Solar Mars 100b

6.6 28.7 6.5 28.3 3.5 15.5 3.5 15.5 0.4 1.8 0.8 3.3 0.3 1.2 0.3 1.4

Stand-by Generatord

5.9 1.5 3.0 0.7 <0.1 0.02 <0.1 0.02 <0.1 0.001 1.5 0.4 0.4 0.09 0.5 0.1

Heatersc

<0.1 0.2 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 0.02 <0.1 0.02 <0.1 0.002 <0.1 0.01 <0.1 0.0002 <0.1 0.005

Total 19.1 59.0 16.0 58.0 7.0 31.0 7.0 31.0 0.8 3.5 3.0 7.0 0.9 2.6 1.1 2.9

Wieland Flat Solar Titan 130b

15.4 67.6 12.7 55.5 4.2 18.3 4.2 18.3 0.5 2.1 0.9 3.9 0.3 1.5 0.4 1.7

Solar Titan 130b

15.4 67.6 12.7 55.5 4.2 18.3 4.2 18.3 0.5 2.1 0.9 3.9 0.3 1.5 0.4 1.7

Stand-by Generatord

5.9 1.5 3.0 0.7 <0.1 0.02 <0.1 0.02 <0.1 0.001 1.5 0.4 0.4 0.09 0.5 0.1

Heatersc

<0.1 0.2 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 0.02 <0.1 0.02 <0.1 0.002 <0.1 0.01 <0.1 0.0002 <0.1 0.005

Total 36.8 137.0 28.4 112.0 8.4 37.0 8.4 37.0 1.0 4.1 3.3 8.2 1.0 3.0 1.2 3.4

Desert Valley Solar Titan 130b

16.4 72.0 13.5 59.1 4.4 19.4 4.4 19.4 0.5 2.2 0.9 4.1 0.4 1.6 0.4 1.8

Stand-by Generatord

5.9 1.5 3.0 0.7 <0.1 0.02 <0.1 0.02 <0.1 0.001 1.5 0.4 0.4 0.09 0.5 0.1

Heatersc

<0.1 0.2 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 0.02 <0.1 0.02 <0.1 0.002 <0.1 0.01 <0.1 0.0002 <0.1 0.005

Total 22.4 74.0 16.5 60.0 4.5 19.0 4.5 19.0 0.5 2.2 2.4 4.5 0.7 1.7 0.9 1.9

───────────────────────────

a Only natural gas-fired sources are listed because electric-motor driven sources would not impact air quality.

b NOx, CO, and VOC emission rates are based on the Emission Performance Data Sheet for Solar Turbines Titan 130-20502S and 100-15000S. PM10 and PM2.5 emission factors are based on 

Solar Turbines' Product Information Letter 171 "Particulate Matter Emission Estimates." Emission factors for SO2 were obtained from AP-42 Section 3.1. Emission factors for formaldehyde 

and total HAPs are based on Solar Turbines' Product Information Letter 168 "Volatile Organic Compound, Sulfur Dioxide, and Formaldehyde Emission Estimates." 

c Emission factors obtained from AP-42 Section 1.4 (Natural Gas Combustion).

d NOx, CO, and VOC emission factors obtained from NSPS Subpart JJJJ for spark-ignition emergency generators. Emission factors for PM10, PM2.5, SO2, and formaldehyde were obtained from 

AP-42 Section 3.2 (4-stroke lean burn engines).

lb/hr pounds per hour

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-185

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 

and energy requirements. The Ruby Pipeline Project would involve the installation of natural gas 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 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).

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

The NESHAP was 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 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 permit to operate. Thus, the Wieland Flat Compressor Station would need a 

Class I operating permit issued by NDEP. The other three compressor stations have potential emissions 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-186

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 on November 30, 1993 in Volume 58 of the 

Federal Register to implement the conformity provision of Title I, Section 176(c)(1) of the CAA. 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 

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 (40 CFR 51.853), 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.

While the four compressor stations would be located in areas classified as attainment or 

unclassifiable, the pipeline route would cross Cache and Box Elder Counties in Utah, which were 

designated as non-attainment for PM2.5, effective March 22, 2009. As none of the project compressor 

stations would be constructed in nonattainment areas, only short-term project construction emissions 

would occur in the PM2.5 nonattainment areas. The estimated construction emissions that would occur in 

Cache County and Box Elder County would be less than General Conformity threshold (see table 4.11.1-

7). Therefore, the General Conformity Rule would not be applicable to the project.

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. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-187

TABLE 4.11.1-7

Project Emissions vs. General Conformity Thresholds for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Nonattainment Area Air Pollutant Construction 

Emissions (tons)

General Conformity Thresholdsa

(tpy)

Cache Valley PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 

(includes Cache County, Utah)

PM2.5 3.5 100

NOx 

(PM2.5 precursor) 17.0 100

SO2 

(PM2.5 precursor) 0.5 28b

Salt Lake City-Ogden-Clearfield-Provo-Orem 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Area (includes Box Elder 

County, Utah)

PM2.5 19.0 100

NOx 

(PM2.5 precursor) 93.0 100

SO2 

(PM2.5 precursor) 2.5 100

a Except where noted, de minimis thresholds are listed.

b Threshold represents approximately 10 percent of the total emissions inventory for the entire nonattainment area, as 

value is less than applicable de minimis threshold.

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 turbines 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. 

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. 

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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-188

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 were 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. 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 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.

o For maximum heat input greater than 10 million Btu/hour but less than 4,000 

million Btu/hour, the allowable emissions is 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 

combustion 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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-189

diesel engines would be minimal because the engines would be built to comply with the EPA mobile 

source regulations (40 CFR 85). Because the construction equipment would only be operated on an asneeded 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 4.11.1-8. The NDEP and Washoe County Air 

Management Department are the only jurisdictions that require specific plans and/or permits for largescale construction projects. An application for a surface area disturbance permit/fugitive dust control plan 

for project construction activities in Elko and Humboldt counties was submitted to the NDEP. An 

application for a dust control permit for Project construction activities in Washoe County, Nevada will be 

prepared and submitted to the Washoe County Air Management Department. 

TABLE 4.11.1-8

Applicable Fugitive Dust Regulations for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Air Quality Agency Rule Number and Title Rule Description

Washoe County Air 

Management Department

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.

Ruby has created a Fugitive Dust Control Plan (Appendix U) that identifies potential dust 

emission sources and provides guidance on 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 fugitive dust emissions for the project. These control 

measures are based on typical practices for natural gas pipeline construction and the requirements of the 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-190

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 affected 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 will 

operate. Disturbed soils will be watered to form a crust.

Ruby 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:

 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 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. Therefore, we conclude that emissions 

from construction-related activities would not significantly affect local or regional air quality and would 

not cause nor contribute to an exceedance of the ambient air quality standards.

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. In addition, methane emissions can occur due to leaks from pipeline and system components 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-191

such as equipment packing, seals, valves, flanges, pneumatic devices, and connectors at pipeline facilities, 

compressor stations, and meter and pressure regulation stations. GHG emission estimates for pipeline 

and compressor station operation are presented in Table 4.11.1-9.

TABLE 4.11.1-9

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/yr)

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

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. 

Ruby identified all of the applicable federal, state, and local air quality regulations that would 

apply to each of their stations and would be required to comply with these regulations. Compliance with 

these regulations would minimize the air quality impacts of the proposed stations and construction 

activities. The respective state air quality permitting process for each 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 stations would be 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, but the Title V operating permit could be obtained once 

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 ambient air quality standards. Given the projected 

low level of emissions for the Roberson Creek Compressor Station, air dispersion modeling was not 

required by WDEQ. 

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 ozone 

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 4.11.1-10, indicate that the compressor stations would not 

violate the NAAQS or any state ambient air quality standards.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-192

 TABLE 4.11.1-10

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 will determine the need for an air quality analysis after reviewing the submitted permit-toconstruct application.

AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards

TSL Toxic Screening Level

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.

4.11.2 Noise

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 comment 

period regarding the project’s noise levels during construction and operations and those comments are 

addressed in this section’s discussion. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-193

Noise would affect the local environment during both construction of the pipeline and compressor 

stations and operation of each of the compressor stations. 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.

Two measures used by federal agencies to relate the time-varying quality of environmental noise 

to its known effect on people are the 24-hour equivalent sound level (Leq(24)) and the day-night sound level 

(Ldn). The Leq(24) 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 takes into account the duration and time the 

noise is encountered. The Ldn is the Leq(24) with 10 decibels on the A-weighted scale (dBA) added to the 

sound levels between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., to account for an individual’s greater sensitivity to 

sound during nighttime hours.

4.11.2.1 Noise Regulatory Requirements

In 1974, the EPA published Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect 

Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety (EPA 1974). This publication evaluates 

the effects of environmental noise with respect to health and safety. The document provides information 

for state and local governments to use in developing their own ambient noise standards. The EPA has 

determined that in order to protect the public from activity interference and annoyance outdoors in 

residential areas, noise levels should not exceed an Ldn of 55 dBA. 

The FERC has adopted this criterion for new compression 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 location. 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

Impacts are determined at receptors known as Noise-Sensitive Areas (NSAs). NSAs include 

residences, schools, daycare facilities, hospitals, long-term care facilities, places of worship, libraries, and 

parks and recreational areas specifically known 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. Nighttime noise levels 

were estimated and an Ldn was calculated. 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 Roberson Creek Compressor Station would be in a rural area of Lincoln County, Wyoming. 

The closest 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 

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 31.4 dBA.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-194

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 closest NSA Ld (dBA) Ln

b

(dBA) Ldn (dBA)

Roberson Creek 25,900 feet / NNW 25.0 25.0 31.4

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 Wildcat Hills Compressor Station would be in a rural area of Box Elder County, Utah. The 

closest 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 closest 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 closest 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 occur 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. (No HDD crossings have been proposed by Ruby.) 

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 noise-sensitive receptor 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.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-195

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 of the closest NSA for each compressor station site, the noise resulting 

from construction activities should be significantly lower than 55 dBA (Ldn).

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 The worst case result is derived by adding the individual equipment noise levels logarithmically using the following 

formula: Leqtotal = 10log(Σ(10Leq/10))

b (DOT, 2006)

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-196

TABLE 4.11.2-3

Construction Noise from Typical Compressor Station Construction Equipment Activity

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 9 dBA to be approximately a 

doubling of noise. 

TABLE 4.11.2-4

Operational Noise Level Summary at NSAs for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Compressor 

Station

NSA 

Description

Ambient Ldn

(dBA)

Estimated Station 

Ldn (dBA)

Estimated TotalaLdn

(dBA)

Potential Noise 

Increase (dBA)

Roberson Creek Residence 31.4 18.1 31.6 0.2

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 can been seen 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 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 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 the Wildcat Hills Compressor Station 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-197

at full load exceeds 55 dBA Ldn at the closest NSA, Ruby should file a report on what changes are 

needed and should install additional noise controls to meet the level within 1 year of the in-service 

date. Ruby should confirm compliance with this requirement by filing a second noise survey no 

later than 60 days after it installs any 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 blow down 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 closest NSA for each compressor station.

TABLE 4.11.2-5

Projected Sound Levels for a Blowdown Event for the Ruby Pipeline Project a

Compressor Station Distance to Closest NSA 

(feet)

Peak Sound Level 

(dBA) Ldn (dBA)

Roberson Creek 25,900 16 22-23

Wildcat Hills 7,500 47 53-54

Wieland Flat 33,800 14 20-21

Desert Valley 23,800 22 28-29

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 should not have a significant impact on the surrounding environment.

Ruby has committed to implementing the following measures during construction of the pipeline 

and compressor stations:

perform construction primarily during daytime hours when there is less sensitivity to 

sound;

ensure that all equipment has sound control devices no less effective than those provided 

by the manufacturer. No equipment should 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 noise sensitive-locations.

Noise impacts at the compressor stations would be further mitigated by installing the compressor 

engines within an insulated building structure and by the use of attenuation equipment such as exhaust 

and intake silencers, as necessary. The use of attenuation equipment and the normal attenuation of sound 

with distance generally ensure 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. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-198

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.

Methane, 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 methane can lead to oxygen deficiency and serious injury or death. Methane has 

an ignition temperature of 1,166 °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 on the potential for 

damage of the pipeline as a result of inadequate maintenance. 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 DOT’s 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 OPS 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 OPS 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 OPS 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 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 will 

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 

requires FERC to promptly alert the DOT. The Memorandum of Understanding also provides for 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-199

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. Pipelines constructed on land in Class 1 locations must be installed with a 

minimum depth of cover of 30 inches in normal soil and 18 inches in consolidated rock. 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 

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 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.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-200

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 – 105.3 105.3 1,440 42 0.541 1

105.3 – 105.4 0.1 1,440 42 0.721 2

105.4 – 107.1 1.7 1,440 42 0.865 3

107.1 – 675.2 568.1 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.

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 circles7, 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:

Class 3 and 4 locations;

any area in a Class 1 or 2 location where the potential impact radius8is 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.

9

 

7 The potential impact circle is a circle of radius equal to the potential impact radius (see footnote 8).

8 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.

9 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 #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-201

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;

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.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-202

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 MLVs 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 G) 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 offhighway vehicle use on the right-of-way during operation. Ruby’s Reclamation Plan (Appendix K) 

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 off-highway vehicle 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 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 would work with the appropriate 

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 off-highway vehicles 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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-203

submit a DOT incident report (Form F7100.2) within 20 days of the incident. Reportable incidents are

defined as any leaks that:

caused a death or personal injury requiring hospitalization;

required any segment of transmission 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 transmission 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

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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-204

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 pipelines 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.

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.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-205

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.

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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-206

and gathering average in 2000 to 2005 of 3.16 fatalities per year (from the Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration) 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 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 (2000-2005a)

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. It is anticipated that revegetation in this area will 

be a gradual process and will not be any more appealing to the cattle than adjacent areas; therefore, we do 

not believe revegetation of the right-of-way in this area will be a hazard to public safety.

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

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-207

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 proposed Ruby pipeline, 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.

4.13 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.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-208

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 (e.g., acres of disturbed wetlands); however, the 

potential impacts from some actions can be described only qualitatively, especially those 

in the future where construction schedules could depend on economic conditions, the 

availability of financing, and the issuance of permits.

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 

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; sage 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 current, proposed, or 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 Where Project 

Coincides with the Ruby 

Pipeline Project

Description

Date of 

Construction or 

Project Status

Sunstone Pipeline Project Lincoln, WY 618-mile-long, 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline 

from Opal, WY to Stanfield, OR

Undetermined

Moxa Arch Area Infill Gas 

Development Project

Lincoln and Uinta, WY 1,861 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, 36-inch-diameter

natural gas pipeline from the terminal to 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 transmission 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

Willow Creek Restoration 

Project

Elko, NV Habitat restoration project on retired ranch land in 

the Willow Creek watershed

2005

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-209

Figure 

4-209

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-210

Sunstone Pipeline Project

The Sunstone Pipeline Project is a joint initiative between Williams Gas Pipeline Company, 

L.L.C. and TransCanada PipeLine USA Ltd. for a new 618-mile-long, 42-inch-diameter natural gas 

pipeline parallel to the existing Williams Northwest mainline from Opal, Wyoming to an interconnection 

with TransCanada’s Gas Transmission Northwest system near Stanfield, Oregon. The project would be 

designed to transport about 1.2 bcf per day of natural gas. Originally, construction was expected to occur 

in late 2010 with an in service date of November 2011. Though the Sunstone Project is still under 

consideration, the project sponsors have announced they are re-evaluating the scope and timing of the 

project and have temporarily suspended field work activities. The only county common to both the 

Sunstone Pipeline Project and the Ruby Pipeline Project is Lincoln County, Wyoming.

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. The project would involve drilling 

approximately 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 precise locations of these wells 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. 

Jordan Cove LNG Import Terminal & Pacific Connector Pipeline

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 interstate natural gas 

transmission system. Jordan Cove LNG, if built, would be capable of receiving LNG supplies from 

specially designed marine vessels. The Pacific Connector Project is a 230-mile, 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 region. On May 1, 2009, FERC issued a final EIS evaluating the environmental impacts 

associated with the proposed Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector projects. The Commission has not 

indicated when (or if) these projects will be scheduled for Commission action, and the timing of other 

necessary reviews (e.g., U.S. Coast Guard, State of Oregon) is unknown at this time. Thus, the 

construction and in-service dates for these projects can not yet be determined. The only county common 

to both the Jordan Cove LNG/Pacific Connector Project and the Ruby Pipeline Project is Klamath 

County, Oregon. 

Energy Gateway Project

Rocky Mountain Power proposes two 345-kilovolt electric transmission 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 transmission 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. The project began in 

2007. Major segments are scheduled be online by 2014. The counties common to both the Energy 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-211

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. 

Willow Creek Restoration Project

The Willow Creek Restoration Project is a habitat restoration initiative being implemented about 

50 miles northwest of Elko, Nevada. Barrick Mines implemented this project on overgrazed ranchland in 

2005 after a lighting strike caused a range fire and burned much of the area. The objectives of the project 

are to improve greater sage-grouse habitat and water quality of Willow Creek for the Lahontan cutthroat 

trout. The restoration project is the result of a cooperative effort between the BLM, NDOW, Barrick 

Mines, and the Reno, Nevada and Midas Bighorns Unlimited groups. The Ruby project would pass 

within about 500 feet of the southwest corner of the restoration area at MP 367.5. 

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 

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 would involve excavation and are constructed at the same time 

and place as the facilities proposed by Ruby. None of the other projects, including the Energy Gateway 

Project and the approximately 475,808-acre Moxa Arch Area Infill Gas Development Project, 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. Generally, linear projects such as pipelines, electric transmission lines, and roadways in 

the affected region would have impacts on mineral resources similar to those of the Ruby Pipeline 

Project. The construction of these other projects would preclude extraction of 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. Few past, present, 

and future developments are in the project area; therefore, potential cumulative impacts on mineral 

resource development would be minor as a result of the Ruby Pipeline Project.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-212

Active, inactive, and planned mining sites within 1,500 feet of the Ruby pipeline are identified in 

section 4.1. Other than mineral material sites (rock quarries), there are no reasonably foreseeable mining 

projects that would contribute to cumulative effects in the project area. Rock removal and use from 

quarries managed by the BLM and the USFS may occur related to other projects identified in table 4.13-1

or for use by the agencies, such as for maintenance of existing roads. It is not anticipated that the 

cumulative effects of rock removal from quarries would be adverse. Because removal of rock from 

quarries on federal lands is at the discretion of the agency, rock needed for use by the agencies would be 

reserved. Rock stored in quarries as a result of pipeline construction could be used or sold by the 

agencies in the future.

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 surficial paleontological resources. The proposed project could contribute to the cumulative 

exposure and potential loss of scientifically valuable fossils. However, Ruby would monitor construction 

for the presence of paleontological resources in high potential areas and, 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 on paleontological resources from the Ruby Pipeline 

Project.

4.13.2 Soils

Past land uses within areas crossed by the project have disturbed soils from land clearing, 

residential development, forest harvest, agricultural 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 proposed project. Soil 

disturbance associated with the electric transmission 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 transmission line, we have conservatively estimated that the additional soil disturbance from the 

Energy Gateway Project where it parallels the Ruby Pipeline Project would be 39.0 acres. 

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 installed for a number of years and the construction rights-of-way have been partially or completely 

restored to pre-existing conditions. Irrigated agricultural land and pasturelands have returned to their 

prior uses. 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 the other 

project. The Willow Creek Restoration Project is dedicated specifically to stabilizing soils and restoring 

habitat from overgrazed, fire-damaged ranch lands. Therefore, we do not expect the Ruby Pipeline 

Project to significantly contribute to the cumulative impact on soils.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-213

4.13.3 Water Resources

Groundwater

Once operational, pipeline and other utility projects do not typically use much groundwater. 

Ruby has indicated that it may use 66 million gallons of groundwater for hydrostatic testing and dust 

control from a well located in Nevada, and would use an additional undetermined volume of groundwater 

for hydrostatic testing and dust control. Pacific Connector would utilize water from the Coos Bay North 

Bend Water Board for hydrostatic testing, which would be obtained from both groundwater and reservoir 

sources. Construction of powerlines and residential development would require little to no groundwater. 

However, once constructed, groundwater may be used as the source of water for the residential 

developments near Brigham City. All projects identified in the 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 cumulative impacts on groundwater are expected.

Surface Water

Pipeline waterbody crossing impacts are generally localized and short term. Cumulative effects 

would only occur if more than one project were affecting the same waterbody at the same location at the 

same time. The only projects with this potential are the Energy Gateway Project and the Willow Creek 

Restoration Project. The Energy Gateway Project, an electric transmission line, would cross above two 

intermittent waterbodies that also would be crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project. Little or no additional 

work associated with the Energy Gateway Project would be conducted in the streams themselves, except 

that construction equipment may bridge over or pass through the waterbody to travel down the right-ofway. The Willow Creek Restoration 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 Willow Creek 

Restoration Project, beneficial.

Wetlands

Cumulative wetland impacts would occur when wetlands are permanently drained or filled, where 

wetland characteristics and functionality are altered by construction and operational activities, and if more 

than one project were affecting the same wetland at the same location at the same time. The Ruby 

Pipeline Project would not permanently fill or drain wetlands. Pacific Connector would fill about 0.14 

acre of emergent wetland. It is not know if the remaining projects in this analysis would permanently 

drain or fill wetlands.

The proposed utility projects would temporarily affect wetlands during construction of the 

projects; however, restoration measures employed by each project should ensure wetlands are fully 

restored to their original condition. 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 a herbaceous wetland 

type. Operation of Pacific Connector would convert 1.1 acres of forested wetland and 0.1 acre of scrubshrub wetland to a herbaceous wetland type. 

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, impact on 

wetlands should be minimized and mitigated according to federal and state requirements

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-214

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 sage 

brush areas. Sagebrush communities were once dominant in western North America. Grazing by 

livestock and feral 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 

sagebrush-dominated areas over the years. 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. 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 cumulative impact on vegetation from these projects.

4.13.5 Wildlife, Fisheries, and Special Status Species

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. 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 which have limited habitat in the project area or are otherwise more sensitive to 

disturbance. The removal of woodlands and 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, we do 

not believe 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. 

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 projects, though not likely at the same time. 

Fisheries and Aquatic Resources

Cumulative impacts on fisheries and aquatic resources could occur if multiple projects occur 

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 and 

the Willow Creek Restoration Project. The Energy Gateway Project, an electric transmission line, would 

cross above two intermittent waterbodies that also would be crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project. Little 

or no work associated with the Energy Gateway Project would be conducted in the streams themselves, 

except that construction equipment may bridge over or pass through the waterbody to travel down the 

right-of-way. The Willow Creek Restoration Project is specifically aimed at improving the quality of 

Willow Creek for the Lahontan cutthroat trout through habitat improvement measures. Cumulative 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-215

impacts associated with these projects would be short-term and minor, and in the case of the Willow 

Creek Restoration Project, beneficial. Cumulative impacts from hydrostatic test water withdrawals are not 

anticipated as water withdrawals for the Ruby Pipeline Project and Pacific Connector would not occur 

within the same watershed. 

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 projects discussed in this analysis. Ruby and Pacific Connector would each be 

required to consult 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. 

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. Depletion effects on federally listed species within the 

Colorado River system from hydrostatic test water withdrawals would be covered under separate 

consultations.

4.13.6 Land Use and Visual Resources

Land Use

The majority of land use in the project area is undeveloped open land. Projects that have a 

permanent aboveground component, such as buildings or pavement, would have more significant impacts 

on land use than a pipeline project since they would preclude the use of the land for any other uses. 

Pipeline projects, except for the aboveground facilities (compressor stations, meter stations, and MLVs), 

would have only a short-term or temporary impact on existing open lands.

New land requirements for the construction and operation of the 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. Construction of Pacific Connector and the Sunstone Pipeline Project would 

cumulatively add to the acreage of aboveground gas facilities in the general region.

The Tule Lake and Russell Canyon Meter Stations (the end delivery points of the planned Pacific 

Connector Project) would require about 7 acres of land for construction and operation in Klamath County, 

Oregon. Assuming the Sunstone Pipeline Project was constructed, it would require the construction of a 

new compressor station facility near Opal, in Lincoln County, Wyoming. This new compressor station 

would add about another 40 acres of energy-related aboveground facilities near the beginning of the Ruby 

Pipeline Project.

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 transmission line towers and the residential 

developments.

The cumulative effect of multiple contiguous easements for the pipeline portion of the project 

would be more apparent through forested areas than across open lands. Multiple easements through open 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-216

or agricultural areas would normally not impair the continued use of the land. That is, pipeline 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 pipeline easement was intended for a use other than open land, the 

landowner would face restrictions on structural development over the pipelines. Consequently, there 

would be some cumulative impact on landowners that are facing the addition of a new easement on their 

property.

The Ruby pipeline would be collocated with an estimated 218 miles of road, powerline, 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 of collocating along or 

creating a new right-of-way corridor 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 the future disturbance within an existing 

corridor.

Although timber harvesting activities (particularly in forested areas in Oregon) have resulted in 

the loss of forest over over the years, implementation of silvicultural actions in designated timber 

production areas on or near the Ruby project route would not be considered a cumulative impact to 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 project, all disturbed forest areas would be reforested, except for the 50-foot 

pipeline 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 Willow Creek Restoration Project area 

and the Ruby project as the pipeline corridor would revert to its pre-existing condition of open land, the 

same land use as the Willow Creek restoration area.

Visual Resources

The various 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 crossed).

Cumulative impacts on visual resources could occur where a compressor station is constructed in 

close proximity to a transmission line, residential development, or other aboveground facility. No 

cumulative impacts on visual resources are expected from the electric transmission line or either of the 

proposed residential developments as the nearest compressor stations would be more than 60 miles away. 

Cumulative impacts from construction of MLVs near these proposed development areas would be small 

as the amount of land used for a MLV is a fraction of an acre each. In addition, the new aboveground 

facilities associated with the Ruby project would be limited in number and widely distributed. Thus, 

there would not be a concentration of facilities in one particular area that could lead to a significant 

impact at a given location.

4.13.7 Socioeconomics

The estimated number of people who may relocate to the project area for construction of the 

project may result in a shortage of housing at certain locations during certain periods of the construction 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-217

schedule. We recognize that workers would be dispersed over the entire length of the pipeline route and 

throughout the counties crossed by the pipelines; 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. The only other known project in an area of low housing availability would be the Willow 

Creek Restoration Project, which does not have housing needs. Other projects would occur in areas 

where housing should be sufficient. Housing impacts, however pronounced, would be short-lived and 

limited to the approximate 10-month construction schedule. Only 19 permanent employees would be 

associated with the project.

Because the Ruby Pipeline Project would be constructed primarily in rural areas, we do not 

expect any significant cumulative impacts on traffic along the pipeline route. In addition, it is unlikely 

that the 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. Any cumulative traffic impacts would 

be for a short period of time and coordinated with local officials. During operations, the number of 

workers required to maintain pipeline facilities would be minimal, resulting in no 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 to 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, particularly with 

the Sunstone Pipeline Project and Pacific Connector and Energy Gateway projects.

4.13.8 Cultural Resources

There are a few areas where other projects will 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, according to available information. 

The eastern terminus of Pacific Connector project is currently planned to be in the vicinity of the

western terminus of the Ruby 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 

transmission line and a wooden pole transmission 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 Pacific Connector, in addition to the Ruby Pipeline Project, is 

not expected to have any significant cumulative effect. The situation is similar on the eastern end of the 

Ruby Pipeline Project near Opal, Wyoming. There are several energy transmission facilities near the 

project’s eastern end, and the addition of another facility (e.g., the Sunstone Pipeline Project) 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 transmission 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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-218

material of the resources is compromised by pipeline construction and the view shed affected by new 

housing, there could be a negative cumulative effect.

The BLM is planning a wetland restoration project in Elko County, Nevada, just north of the 

proposed Ruby project corridor. Nothing about the activities associated with wetland restoration (topsoil 

preparation, seeding, watering) suggests that such a restoration project would contribute to the effects of 

pipeline construction on cultural resources. Federally regulated projects would be subject to Section 106 

of the NHPA, which includes the identification of historic properties, as well as the determination of 

effects and the mitigation of impacts to 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 

from soil disruption and air contaminants from the combustion emissions. Operation of the Ruby 

Pipeline Project, Sunstone Pipeline Project, Gateway Energy Project, and Moxa Arch Area Infill Gas 

Development Project would contribute cumulatively to ongoing air emissions. All projects would follow 

state and local requirements for dust control on roads and excavated surfaces.

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. For 

example, Sunstone’s new compressor station would be located near Ruby’s Roberson Creek Compressor 

Station in Lincoln County, Wyoming. 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.

Ruby’s Roberson Creek Compressor Station would consist of three electric-driven compressors 

ISO-rated at a total of 69,000 hp, a natural gas-fired emergency generator, and natural gas-fired auxiliary 

heaters, while the Sunstone Compressor Station would consist of either electric-driven or natural gas-fired 

turbines ISO-rated at a horsepower output that has yet to be determined. Each compressor station would 

be required to meet federal and state regulatory standards. If Sunstone were to use natural gas-fired 

turbines, the compressor units would utilize natural gas (which is relatively clean-burning) and the station 

could be equipped with low-NOx control technology. The Sunstone compressor stations would have 

short-term construction-related air quality emissions from station installation, and long-term emissions 

from operation of the turbines (if natural gas-fired turbines were utilized), generator, and heaters. 

Emissions associated with future 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’s Wildcat Hills Compressor Station in Utah would consist of two natural gas-fired turbines 

ISO-rated at a total of 28,046 hp, a natural gas-fired emergency generator, and natural gas-fired auxiliary 

heaters. In addition, to minimize potential air quality impacts, the compressor units at the Wildcat Hills 

Compressor Station would be equipped with low-NOx control technology, and clean-burning natural gas 

would be utilized exclusively at the station. The compressor station would be required to meet federal 

and state regulatory standards. The Wildcat Hills Compressor Station would have short-term 

construction-related air quality emissions from station installation, and long-term emissions from 

operation of the turbines, generator, and heaters.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-219

Ruby’s Wieland Flat Compressor Station in Nevada would consist of two natural gas-fired 

turbines ISO-rated at a total of 33,954 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 

ISO-rated at a total of 18,095 hp, a natural gas-fired emergency generator, and natural gas-fired auxiliary 

heaters. In addition, to minimize potential air quality impacts, the compressor units at each station would 

be equipped with low-NOx control technology, and clean-burning natural gas would be utilized 

exclusively. These proposed compressor stations would be required to meet federal and state regulatory 

standards. The stations would have short-term construction-related air quality emissions from station 

installation, and long-term emissions from operation of the turbines, generator, and heaters.

The majority of the construction and operational 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. Constructionand operation-related 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.

We received several comments during scoping inquiring if the project would contribute to

increased GHG emissions, either through construction of the project and operation of the compressor 

facilities, or through the ultimate end-use of the natural gas transported in the pipeline. The principle 

GHGs are CH4, CO2, N2O, and various fluorinated gases which trap heat in the atmosphere and are the 

primary drivers of the increase in global mean temperature, known as global warming. No fluorinated 

gases would be emitted by the Ruby project, so we need only look at N2O, CH4, and CO2. There are no 

federal regulations at this time limiting the emissions of CO2; however, emissions of N2O are regulated 

through limitations of NOx emissions under NSPS and federal permits. CH4 emissions are limited by 

valve and pipe leak standards.

Emissions of GHGs are typically estimated as carbon equivalents, or carbon dioxide equivalents. 

The GHGs are ranked by their global warming potential (GWP). The GWP is a ratio relative to CO2, 

which is based on the properties of the GHGs to absorb solar radiation as well as the residence time 

within the atmosphere (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007). Thus, CO2 has a GWP of 1. 

Methane has a GWP of approximately 21, and N2O has a GWP of approximately 310.

We reviewed a LNG and Natural Gas Review prepared by the ODE during the Bradwood 

Landing LNG Project that included a literature review, summary, and comparison of life-cycle 

assessments of LNG-based natural gas, domestic natural gas, synthetic gas (or “syngas”), and coal. A 

life-cycle assessment looks at all the CO2 emitted during the entire “life” of the fuels, from extraction, 

transportation, processing, and end use. This type of assessment is different from the approach the EPA 

takes in regard to regulation of criteria pollutants, which typically regulate emissions at the point of 

release. There have been numerous pieces of draft legislation introduced in the U.S. Senate and House of 

Representatives that propose in some fashion to regulate the emission of GHG. Some of these draft bills 

would impose upon importers of fuels some sort of GHG reporting, while others do not and would leave 

it to the discretion of the EPA. There are two primary regulatory frameworks that have been proposed in 

the draft legislation. One regulatory framework would be a “cap and trade” system, which would cap the 

overall emissions while developing a market to buy and sell emission allotments of CO2. The second 

approach would impose a carbon tax on fuels, thus penalizing use of the most carbon intensive fuels. 

This summary is not intended to be a comprehensive list of proposals, merely a brief description of the 

two primary methods to regulate CO2. Should the U.S. government decide to regulate the emission of 

CO2 and other GHG, it is not known at this time how the legislation and implementing regulations would 

be crafted. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-220

Intrinsic in the ODE’s analysis is that carbon capture and storage would be a viable technology 

within 20 years. Carbon capture and storage involves removing a portion of the CO2 from combustion 

emissions and injecting it into geologic formations so that it does not enter the atmosphere. To this point, 

only limited trials have been attempted for capturing carbon. Carbon sequestering is not economically or 

technologically feasible at this time; although it has been used in the production of syngas. The ODE 

admits that it is difficult to assess when carbon capture and storage may become a commercial 

technology.

The ODE determined that for electric generation, the life-cycle emissions of CO2 for LNG is 

approximately the same as for syngas with upstream carbon sequestration, is significantly less than coal, 

and is greater than domestic sources of natural gas. Without the carbon capture and storage in the syngas 

creation process, the emissions of CO2 from the life cycle of syngas are significantly greater than LNG 

sourced natural gas. Natural gas from LNG would produce between 6 to 12 percent more GHG than 

domestic natural gas transported by interstate pipelines if both were combusted in conventional electric 

power plants. 

Construction and operation of the pipeline and aboveground facilities would emit CO2. Ruby and 

its shippers have agreed to construct and operate the Ruby Pipeline Project as a carbon-neutral pipeline. 

In order to achieve carbon neutrality, Ruby has state that it would, as applicable, 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 

footprint such as renewable energy credits, e-tags, allowances, etc. Construction and operation of a 

carbon neutral pipeline would, by definition, result in no added GHG impacts.

Noise

The Ruby Pipeline Project and those listed in table 4.13-1 may affect ambient noise levels during 

construction. Construction noise impacts would be temporary and occur only during the construction 

period for each facility. However, 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 short-term.

Noise levels resulting from operation of the compressor stations would be minimal or not 

noticeable as the proposed facilities would be located in areas of low population density; thus, no 

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 NSAs. We are uncertain at this 

time where Sunstone’s compressor stations would be sited. We believe it is likely that one would be sited 

near the beginning of the pipeline in Opal, Wyoming, possibly near Ruby’s Roberson Creek Compressor 

Station. This would be the only location where Sunstone and the Ruby Pipeline Project could operate 

compressor stations in the same vicinity. The closest NSA is located almost 5 miles north-northwest of 

the Roberson Creek Compressor Station. As shown in table 4.11.2-1, the Ldn levels attributable to each of 

the Ruby Pipeline Project’s compressor stations are predicted to be below 50 dBA at the nearest NSAs. 

Taking into account the geographical locations of the four stations, the noise data available, and 

preliminary calculations, we conclude that cumulative noise impacts associated with the operation of the 

Ruby Pipeline Project and Sunstone Pipeline Project would not be significant. Because noise levels at the 

compressor stations from both projects would not be allowed to exceed an Ldn of 55 dBA at any nearby 

NSA and since these facilities are generally dispersed along the pipeline route, we do not believe there 

would be a cumulative noise impact.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4-221

4.13.10 Reliability and Safety

We do not believe there would be cumulative operational safety impacts among pipelines and 

other facilities located in the same general vicinity. 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. 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.

4.13.11 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 reasonably foreseeable 

future projects listed in table 4.13-1 would be constructed and affect similar vegetation/land uses. Longterm cumulative benefits would be realized from 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 #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
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, State of Utah Public Lands Policy Coordination Office, and the 

Board of County Commissioners in Lincoln County, Wyoming as cooperating agencies in the preparation 

of this EIS. However, the BLM, FWS, and USFS would present their own conclusions and 

recommendations in their respective Records of Decision, and would 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. 

We have determined that construction and operation of the Ruby Pipeline Project would result in 

some adverse environmental impacts. Effects to all environmental resources were evaluated to determine 

whether any significant impacts would remain after application of the mitigation or conservation 

measures proposed by Ruby. We then developed practical, appropriate, and reasonable measures which 

would further reduce project-related impacts. 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. 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 identified a portion of the 

construction right-of-way in Nevada and Oregon (MPs 500.0 to 617.1) where blasting may be required. 

Over this stretch approximately 62 percent of the soils are described as rock outcrop or weathered 

bedrock. Ruby would blast only where the rock could not be economically excavated by conventional 

means. 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, and Ruby has developed a 

Blasting Plan that would be implemented during construction. 

Geothermal resources are utilized in various places in the general project area for heating bath 

houses, swimming pools, livestock watering, and agriculture. The project as proposed could impact a 

geothermal well; thus, we have recommended that Ruby realign the pipeline and/or modify the workspace 

to ensure this well is outside the construction workspace.

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

proposed project would be constructed across 105 faults or fault zones and 3 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. Approximately 20 percent of the pipeline route would cross 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 recommended that Ruby develop site-specific plans for 

specific segments of the pipeline route known to have moderate to high liquefaction potential. Approximately 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
5-2

8 percent of the pipeline route would have the potential for encountering karst/pseudokarst features. Ruby has 

committed to conducting a pre-construction investigation of the right-of-way to evaluate if solution features are

present. If features are present, Ruby committed to preparing and implementing measures to avoid or 

minimize risks in these areas. 

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

containing significant paleontological resources. Ruby has prepared and has committed to implement a 

Paleontological Resources Mitigation Plan to monitor for and address the discovery of significant fossil 

resources during construction. All work conducted under the Paleontological Resources Mitigation Plan 

would be performed by qualified paleontologists with trained assistants.

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 Reclamation Plan 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. 

The project would cross 25 playas (shallow topographic depressions that function as ephemeral

ponds with highly variable hydro-periods). Trenching through the impermeable soil layer (typically a 

clay) in playas could alter the surface hydrology in the area. To minimize this effect, Ruby would install 

trench breakers at playa boundaries to limit the horizontal movement of water along the trenchline, and 

would attempt to restore impermeable soil layers with the appropriate excavated trench material or 

bentonite clay during backfilling operations. We have further recommended construction and restoration 

monitoring measures that would provide additional protection to playas. 

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 

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. An area of cryptobiotic crust has been identified around MP 594.0. No aboveground facilities 

are located in areas known to contain 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 re-spreading the crust material after 

construction. However, once cryptobiotic soil crusts are disturbed it can take more than 50 years to be 

restored (if at all). No additional mitigation was identified by the resource agencies to effectively reduce

project effects on cryptobiotic soils. 

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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
5-3

(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 proposed pipeline route would be within 300 feet of 31 wells and 33 springs. Ruby has agreed 

to correct and/or compensate landowners for any damage to wells or springs. Groundwater wells beyond 200 

feet of the construction work areas are not expected to be adversely affected by the proposed project. No 

public or municipal water supply systems or wellhead protection areas have been identified within 300 feet of 

the proposed route. To protect water supply wells along the pipeline route, we have recommended measures 

to prevent hazardous spills in proximity to wells, springs, and seeps, and we have recommended that Ruby 

conduct water well supply tests prior to and after construction.

About 330 million gallons of water 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 would obtain all necessary appropriations and withdrawal permits prior to use. Ruby 

does not anticipate that chemicals would be added to the hydrostatic test water. Where possible, test water 

would be released within the same hydrologic basin from which it was withdrawn. However, elevation 

changes may make this impractical. Where discharges would occur outside the hydrologic basin in which the 

water was obtained, Ruby would use agency-approved biocides to treat the test water and prevent the transport 

of pathogens between hydrologic basins. 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. Ruby is currently identifying 

additional water sources for hydrostatic testing to further minimize impacts on surface waters. We have 

recommended that Ruby revise its Hydrostatic Test Plan to address any new water source information.

The proposed project would cross 1,132 perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral waterbodies (some 

multiple times) within 10 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 the dry crossing method for waterbodies that contain special status fish species. 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.

The pipeline would cross approximately 21.9 miles of wetlands and affect about 198 wetland acres, 

including 171 acres of emergent wetland, 21 acres of lacustrine shoreline wetland, 2.3 acres of unconsolidated 

shore wetland, 2 acres of unconsolidated bottom wetland, 1.5 acres of shrub wetland, and 0.33 acre of forested 

wetland. 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, 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 Plan and Procedures, and would follow additional measures 

identified in the POD. Ruby is currently developing a Wetland Mitigation Plan to mitigate long-term impacts 

on wetlands. The Wetland Mitigation Plan will be finalized through Ruby’s ongoing coordination with the 

COE. Ruby is continuing to consult with the COE to develop a final Wetland Mitigation Plan. We have 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
5-4

recommended additional measures regarding setbacks and monitoring 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-term impacts on vegetation within about 1,334 acres of grassland, 1,043 acres 

of mountain meadow brush, and 1,350 acres of pasture and agricultural land. Long-term impacts would 

occur within about 12,601 acres of sagebrush steppe, 3,444 acres of salt desert scrub, 413 acres of juniper 

woodland, 1,391 acres of mixed conifer forest, and 369 acres of riparian forest.

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 communities would constitute the most significant 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 sagebrush steppe, forest/woodland, and 

salt desert scrub 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 as long as 50 years. 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 lessen restoration timeframes. Permanent impacts on shrubland would result primarily 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 pre-construction form and 

size. Ruby has stated it would not remove sagebrush as part of its vegetation maintenance program; 

therefore, permanent impacts on sagebrush are not anticipated. Ruby would not routinely need to conduct 

vegetation clearing in open land, agricultural land, and developed land.

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 weed 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, and various state and local agencies for 

recommendations 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 would minimize and control the spread of noxious and invasive species, 

monitor disturbed areas after construction is complete, and restore and control noxious and invasive 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
5-5

species that occur after construction. Ruby is continuing to consult with agencies to develop measures to 

prevent and control the spread of weeds.

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 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. In order to minimize these impacts, we have made recommendations that Ruby comply with 

seasonal and spatial buffer zones for nesting raptors established by resource agencies. Further, Ruby is in the 

process of preparing a Memorandum of Understanding with the FWS for the protection of migratory birds 

during construction. We expect that the Memorandum of Understanding will outline additional procedures to 

avoid direct impacts on certain migratory birds, including passerine species.

Ruby, the FWS, the BLM, and appropriate state agencies are cooperatively discussing habitat 

quality, conservation, and mitigation strategies for the project. High quality wildlife habitat would be 

identified, and would provide the framework for discussing minor route modifications to avoid or 

minimize impacts on high quality or unique habitats. In addition to those already proposed by Ruby, 

construction practices would be developed to minimize habitat disturbance and increase restoration and 

reclamation success. Where long-term habitat impacts are unavoidable, habitat mitigation and habitat 

improvement programs would be developed to offset construction impacts and provide continued high 

quality habitat for wildlife. This cooperative effort between Ruby, the FWS, the BLM, and state agencies 

are ongoing. We will provide the status of Ruby’s mitigation and conservation plans in the final EIS. 

5.1.6 Fisheries and Aquatic Resources

The Ruby Pipeline Project would cross 339 different waterbodies known to support fish species. 

Of these, 82 are known or suspected to contain federally or state-listed special status species. The other 

793 waterbodies that would be crossed 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 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 for the 

entire length of the project, and would utilize appropriate fish screens on all water intakes. Where blasting 

may occur along the pipeline route, we have recommended that Ruby reduce blasting effects on fish by 

implementing deterrence practices.

Pipeline construction could spread aquatic nuisance species between waterbodies and watersheds. 

We are recommending Ruby implement an equipment cleaning program to ensure construction activities 

would not spread aquatic nuisance species.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
5-6

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 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.

Our analysis originally focused on 421 special status species that were identified 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. Our evaluation of this list indicated that 190 species are 

highly unlikely to occur in the project area or would otherwise not be affected by project activities.

We identified 46 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 will 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 13 federally listed species (blackfooted ferret, slender orcutt grass, Greene’s tuctoria, Ute ladies’-tresses, and nine fish species); we will

submit our BA for the project to the FWS under separate cover within 2 weeks of the issuance of this 

draft EIS. We have determined that project-related 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 14,402,192 gallons 

(about 44 acre-feet) of water from the Hams Fork River for hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. Thus, we 

will be entering formal consultation with the FWS for these four 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. Ruby would not be authorized to contribute to depletion of water in 

the Colorado River Basin until formal consultation with the FWS is complete. 

Another of the federally listed fishes, the threatened Lahontan cutthroat trout, is known to occur in 

four perennial waterbodies that would be crossed by the project in Nevada, and is also known to occur 

downstream of 13 intermittent or ephemeral waterbodies that would be crossed. We received scoping 

comments from several tribes and agencies expressing concern for potential project-related impacts on this 

species. Ruby has committed to avoiding construction in known Lahontan cutthroat trout streams and 

tributaries during the spawning season from January 1 to May 31, and to construct across the streams and 

tributaries using a dry crossing technique if flowing water is present at the time of construction. Ruby also 

would minimize impacts by following all measures identified in its Procedures. We have further 

recommended that Ruby identify alternate water sources for one stream or modify its water use procedures to 

minimize impacts on Lahontan cutthroat trout. Our ESA consultation with the FWS will further ensure that 

impacts on Lahontan cutthroat trout would be minimized.

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 are also recommending that 

construction not begin until after we complete our ESA consultation with the FWS. 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.

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 the species 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
5-7

warrants 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, pre-construction surveys, construction buffers, timing restrictions, and 

specific revegetation activities. To further minimize impacts to the greater sage-grouse and pygmy rabbit, 

Ruby, the FWS, the BLM, and appropriate state agencies are cooperatively discussing habitat quality,

conservation, and mitigation strategies for the project, and are developing a Candidate Conservation 

Agreement for the greater sage-grouse and pygmy rabbit. The cooperative efforts and the implementation 

of conservation agreements between Ruby, the FWS, the BLM, and appropriate state agencies will help 

avoid and minimize impacts to the greater sage-grouse and pygmy rabbit, and will provide compensation for 

permanent and long-term impacts to sagebrush habitats. We have recommended additional measures that 

would further minimize project-related impacts on the pygmy rabbit and greater sage-grouse. The results of 

the Candidate Conservation Agreement will be reported in the final EIS.

5.1.8 Land Use and Visual Resources

Construction of the proposed project would disturb a total of about 24,934 acres of land, which 

includes 19,294 acres of open land, 2,288 acres of forested land, 1,514 acres of agricultural land, 1,456 

acres of developed land, and 170 acres of open water. The pipeline right-of-way or extra workspaces would 

not be within 50 feet of any residences. After construction, about 78 percent of this land would return to its 

previous use.

During operation, Ruby would require approximately 4,111 acres for pipeline right-of-way and 

157 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 218.5 miles (32.2 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 371.5 miles (54.6 percent) 

occurring on federal lands. The majority of the federal land that would be crossed is administered by the 

BLM (356.3 miles). The USFS and Reclamation also manage land crossed by the project.

About 1,514 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 pipeline depth-of-cover 

and 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. Generally, visual impacts along the 

pipeline would diminish over time as the affected areas age and blend in with the surrounding landscape 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
5-8

as vegetation becomes re-established over the long term. Ruby would employ painting schemes and 

landscaping to provide visual screening at the four compressor stations and other aboveground facilities 

where requested by land managing agencies or landowners. The project route would cross six visually 

sensitive (Class II) areas on BLM-managed land, two visually sensitive (Partial Retention and Retention) 

areas on the Fremont-Winema NF, and one visually sensitive (High SIO) area on the Uinta-WasatchCache NF. The BLM and USFS are working with Ruby to develop site-specific plans to ensure visual 

impacts on these areas are at acceptable levels. 

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. To address a potential lack of housing resources in northwestern 

Nevada, Ruby has proposed to establish a construction camp in Washoe County to provide temporary housing 

for workers during construction.

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 revise its Traffic and Transportation Management Plan 

to address state-specific factors and concerns for each state crossed by the project. Ruby would file its revised 

plan prior to construction. 

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 approximately 97 percent of the pipeline 

route, as well as surveys of extra work spaces, staging areas, access roads, and aboveground facility sites. 

Ruby has identified cultural resource sites within the construction area in all states that would be crossed 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
5-9

by the project (32 sites in Wyoming, 52 sites in Utah, 337 sites in Nevada, and 96 sites in Oregon). 

About 3 percent of the proposed project remains to be surveyed, including portions of the construction 

right-of-way, extra work spaces, staging areas, yards, camps, access roads, and route alternatives and 

variations. In addition, Ruby must still complete revisions to reports, additional evaluations, and 

geoarchaeological and ethnographic studies. Ruby has indicated that it would complete these activities by 

June 30, 2009. 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 review 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. 

The Section 106 review process is on-going. Survey reports and unanticipated discovery plans 

are currently under review. Tribal consultation is also continuing. Ruby is conducting a series of 

ethnographic studies in cooperation with a number of Native American tribes, and some tribes will 

provide monitors for upcoming inventory surveys. 

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. 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.

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.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
5-10

We do not anticipate significant noise impacts associated with construction of the project. 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 off-highway vehicle 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 six current, proposed, or 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. These other projects include oil and gas development, pipeline and electric 

transmission line, residential 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

Alternatives considered by the FERC 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 proposed project objective would not be met of providing a new source of natural gas for the 

West Coast and northern Nevada. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
5-11

We considered two newly proposed interstate pipelines as possible system alternatives to the 

Ruby Pipeline Project, the proposed Pacific Connector Pipeline Project and the planned Sunstone Pipeline 

Project. However, our review found that neither the Pacific Connector Project nor the Sunstone Project 

would be reasonable alternatives to Ruby. Pacific Connector would not meet Ruby’s stated objective of 

alleviating bottlenecking of gas supplies in the Rocky Mountain region by connecting those supplies with 

demand on the West Coast. At this time, the viability of the Sunstone Project is in question. Further, if 

approved, the Sunstone Project would terminate about 300 miles to the north of Ruby, requiring that 

substantial additional pipeline facilities be built to deliver gas to the Malin Market Center in southern 

Oregon near the California state line. 

We considered using existing pipeline systems, the Williams Northwest and Kern River systems,

to move Rocky Mountain gas to the west. However, neither of these pipelines have the capacity available 

on their existing systems to accommodate the volumes that would be transported by the Ruby Pipeline 

Project, and both systems would be required to construct facilities similar to those proposed by Ruby in 

order to expand their systems from the Rocky Mountain region to the West Coast and Northern Nevada.

We considered 14 route alternatives for the Ruby Pipeline Project to determine whether these 

alternatives would avoid or reduce impacts on the environmentally sensitive resources that would be 

crossed by the proposed pipeline. We concluded that 9 of the 14 route alternatives would not meet the 

project objectives, would not be technically or economically feasible, or would not confer a significant 

environmental advantage over the proposed route. Therefore, we do not recommend that those nine

alternatives be incorporated into the proposed project route. The following 3 of the 14 route alternatives 

were identified by resource agencies to reduce the project’s impacts on sensitive resources:

Terrace Basin Route Alternative (avoid salt-desert shrub vegetation and potential 

wilderness characteristics);

Willow Creek Route Alternative (maximize collocation with an existing corridor and 

avoid unique wetland habitat); and

South Langell Valley Route Alternative (avoid Antelope Creek Archaeological District, 

reduce crossings of Reclamation-administered facilities, and avoid WRP land).

All three of these route alternatives would meet the project objectives, would be technically and 

economically feasible, and would confer an environmental advantage over the proposed route. Therefore, 

we are recommending that these three route alternatives be incorporated into the project.

Two final route alternatives, known as the Sheldon Route Alternative and Black Rock Route 

Alternative, were also 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. While we have determined that Ruby’s proposed routes for the corresponding segments 

of these two alternatives are environmentally acceptable, we believe these route alternatives may have 

merit based on reduced resource impacts. However, because we are awaiting the results of additional 

field studies and a habitat quality assessment, at this time there is not sufficient information to 

conclusively establish whether the proposed route or either alternative is environmentally superior. 

We also considered 15 minor route variations for the Ruby Pipeline Project to determine whether 

these variations would avoid or reduce impacts on certain environmentally sensitive resources crossed by 

the proposed route. All the route variations were identified by Ruby to address minor, site-specific 

landowner or resource agency concerns. We concluded that all of the route variations would meet the 

project objectives, would be technically and economically feasible, and would be preferred over the 

proposed route. Therefore, we are recommending that all of these route variations be incorporated into 

the project.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
5-12

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. Certain 

recommendations listed below request that Ruby provide information to assist us in the development of 

the final EIS. Such recommendations that are satisfied by Ruby prior to the final EIS would then no 

longer need to be included as recommended conditions.

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, and shall include the staff's recommended facility locations identified in tables 3.4-1 and 

3.5-1 of the EIS. 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 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.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
5-13

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 landowner 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 

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:

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
5-14

(1) the completion of all required surveys and reports;

(2) the environmental compliance training of onsite personnel;

(3) the start of construction; and

(4) 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.

9. 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:

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
5-15

i. provide a local contact that the landowners should call first with their concerns; 

the letter shall indicate how soon to expect a response;

ii. 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

iii. 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:

i. the identity of the caller and the date of the call;

ii. the identification number from the certificated alignment sheet(s) of the affected 

property and appropriate location by milepost;

iii. a description of the problem/concern; and

iv. an explanation of how and when the problem was resolved, will be resolved, or 

why it has not been resolved.

10. Ruby must receive written authorization from the Director of OEP before commencing service 

of the project. 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.

11. 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.

12. Prior to the close of the draft EIS comment period, Ruby shall file a site-specific plan for 

installing the pipeline near the geothermal well located at MP 666.0. The plan shall include 

details on how Ruby will realign the pipeline and/or modify the workspace to ensure the well is 

outside the construction workspace, and how Ruby will contact the well owner prior to 

construction and protect and monitor the well during and after construction. (section 4.1.2.3)

13. Prior to the close of the draft EIS comment period, Ruby shall file a site-specific plan for 

installing the pipeline in areas of moderate to high liquefaction potential (MPs 93.5 to 95.5, MPs 

109.0 to 122.0, and MPs 124.0 to 128.0). The plan shall identify the measures Ruby will

implement to minimize the potential for soil liquefaction to affect the pipeline. Ruby shall

address, at a minimum, the following measures: weighting the pipeline, deep burial below 

liquefiable material, removal or replacement of liquefiable soils, and/or a minor realignment of 

the pipeline to avoid susceptible soils in these areas. (section 4.1.3.1)

14. During construction in all playas crossed by the project (identified in table 4.2.2-1 of the EIS), Ruby 

shall segregate and store the impermeable soil layer from topsoil (or surface soil) and subsoil layers. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
5-16

Ruby shall also limit the construction right-of-way width in playas to 75 feet and shall not locate 

extra workspaces within playas. Ruby shall monitor the success of playa restoration for 5 years 

following construction, specifically documenting playa hydrologic conditions when water is most 

likely to be present in these areas. At the end of the 5-year period, Ruby shall file a report

identifying the status of the playa restoration and the need for any additional restoration efforts.

(section 4.2.2.3)

15. Ruby shall revise section IV.A.1 of its Procedures to conduct all equipment staging and storage; 

contain and handle all fuels, solvents, and lubricants; and perform all concrete coating activities at 

least 200 feet from any water supply wells, springs, and seeps. (section 4.3.1.3)

16. Prior to construction, Ruby shall conduct, with the owner’s permission, pre-and post-construction 

monitoring of springs and seeps used for domestic use, irrigation, and stock watering for water 

quality and yield that are within 150 feet of pipeline construction. If a water source is adversely 

affected by construction, Ruby shall provide an alternative water source or determine a mutually 

agreeable solution to the problem with the spring/seep owner or manager. Within 30 days of 

placing the facilities in service, Ruby shall file a report discussing the outcome of the spring and 

seep monitoring and how Ruby resolved any impacts on these springs/seeps. (section 4.3.1.3)

17. Ruby shall locate all extra workspaces, staging areas, and water appropriation sites at least 50 feet 

from waterbodies and limit the construction right-of-way width to 115 feet (or 75 feet if required 

by condition 21) in waterbodies. Ruby shall utilize a dry crossing method for those waterbodies 

identified in table 4.3.2-6 of the EIS if the waterbody has perceptible flow at the time of crossing. 

(section 4.3.2.4)

18. Prior to the close of the draft EIS comment period, Ruby shall file a revised Hydrostatic Test 

Plan to:

a. identify any additional sources that would be used for hydrostatic testing and dust 

control;

b. identify alternative water sources for the Lost River Improved Channel, Mary’s River, 

Deep Creek, and the irrigation canal at MP 624.3;

c. include a contingency plan to account for drought conditions that could prevent water 

appropriation from proposed sources;

d. identify the locations and volumes of water discharges that would occur outside the water 

sources’ eight-digit hydrologic unit;

e. describe how Ruby proposes to neutralize biocides used to treat discharge water; and

f. ensure that all hydrostatic test water discharges are directed to a filtration device.

(section 4.3.2.6)

19. Ruby shall locate all extra workspaces, staging areas, and water appropriation sites at least 50 feet 

from wetlands and limit the construction right-of-way to 75 feet wide in wetlands. (section 

4.3.3.2)

20. Prior to the close of the draft EIS comment period, Ruby shall file a revised Wetland 

Restoration Plan. The revision shall incorporate (as required by section VI.C.4 of Ruby’s 

Procedures) measures for replacing/planting woody species as soon as possible within the 

appropriate planting season using shrub or tree cuttings, seedlings, or saplings common to the 

wetlands being restored. The plan also shall identify measures for protecting plantings, such as 

installation of exclusion fencing around wetland areas or using browse protectors to minimize 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
5-17

grazing and wildlife browsing. In addition, Ruby shall extend its post-construction wetland 

monitoring program to 5 years. (section 4.3.3.3)

21. Ruby shall limit its construction right-of-way width to 75 feet in the 14 woody riparian habitats 

identified in table 4.4.3-1 of the EIS. For any location Ruby believes extra workspaces/staging 

areas are necessary in woody riparian habitat, Ruby shall provide site-specific justification and 

request written approval from the Director of OEP prior to using the extra workspace or staging 

area. (section 4.4.3)

22. Ruby shall plant woody riparian vegetation (e.g., shrubs, cuttings, seedlings, saplings) within the 

riparian habitats identified in table 4.4.3-1 of the EIS as soon as possible after construction and 

within the appropriate planting season. 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 this 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)

23. Ruby shall adopt the seasonal restrictions for raptors as identified in table 4.5.5-2 of the EIS. 

Additionally, Ruby shall not construct within the spatial and seasonal restrictions identified in 

table 4.5.5-2 unless it receives authorization from the state or federal agency having jurisdiction 

over the species, on a nest-by-nest basis, that construction is allowed within restricted areas and 

any additional protection measures required by the appropriate agency are adopted. (section 

4.5.5)

24. Ruby shall implement one or more fish deterrence practices, including strobe lighting, low 

frequency sound (e.g., pneumatic propellers), fishpulsers, scare charges, or bubble curtains 

before blasting takes place in any waterbody that has the potential to contain special status fish 

species. (section 4.6.1.7)

25. Prior to the close of the draft EIS comment period, Ruby shall revise its equipment 

disinfection plan to incorporate one or more of the equipment disinfection measures listed in 

section 4.6.2 of the EIS. Ruby must implement the measure(s) during construction of the project

as equipment enters and exits eight-digit hydrologic unit code watersheds crossed by the project

and as equipment exits the Little Bear River. Additionally, if Ruby identifies any invasive water 

organism on any equipment as it leaves a waterbody or wetland, Ruby shall report the siting 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)

26. Ruby shall not begin any construction activities until:

a. FERC staff receives any pending survey results, requested information, and/or

commitments regarding the black-footed ferret, Lahontan cutthroat trout, Lost River 

sucker, Modoc sucker, shortnose sucker, Warner sucker, Colorado pikeminnow, 

humpback chub, razorback sucker, and bonytail chub slender orcutt grass, Greene’s 

tuctoria, and Ute ladies’-tresses, as well as any comments from the FWS (and the BLM 

and/or state resource agency, if applicable) regarding the proposed action on these

species;

b. staff completes Section 7 consultation with the FWS; and

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
5-18

c. Ruby has received written notification from the Director of OEP that construction or use 

of mitigation may begin. (section 4.7.2)

27. Prior to construction, Ruby shall complete its black-footed ferret survey near MP 23 in 

accordance with FWS and/or BLM (if on federally managed land) protocol. Results of the survey 

shall be filed, and concurrently submitted to the FWS and the BLM Kemmerer Field Office.

(section 4.7.2.1)

28. Prior to construction, Ruby shall confirm the flow regime of the two tributaries to Maggie 

Creek (MPs 345.9 and 346.1), the 15 ephemeral or intermittent tributaries to Maggie Creek 

between MPs 342.1 and 345.7, and the intermittent waterbodies Badger Creek (MP 327.2) and 

Spring Branch Creek (MP 333.0) to determine if they could support Lahontan cutthroat trout.

Any survey results, database research, and/or agency consultation shall be filed, and concurrently 

submitted to the FWS and BLM. If it is determined that the hydrology of any waterbody between 

MPs 327 and 347 supports Lahontan cutthroat trout, Ruby shall implement a dry crossing 

technique or demonstrate that other measures (e.g., open-cut crossing, specific timing windows, 

best management practices) are acceptable to the FWS and BLM. (section 4.7.2.2)

29. Prior to the close of the draft EIS comment period, Ruby shall identify an alternate hydrostatic

test and dust suppression water source for the Mary’s River. Alternatively, Ruby shall modify its 

water use procedures and identify conservation and mitigation measures that would minimize 

impacts on the Lahontan cutthroat trout and demonstrate that Lahontan cutthroat trout within the 

Mary’s River would not be adversely affected by project activities. Any alternate water sources, 

modification of construction procedures, and/or conservation and mitigation measures must be 

filed. (section 4.7.2.2)

30. Ruby shall file the site-specific waterbody crossing plans for Twelvemile Creek, Twentymile 

Creek, Deep Creek, Drews Creek, Thomas Creek, East Branch Lost River, and Lost River. These 

plans shall include any seasonal timing restrictions and construction procedures that would limit 

impacts on the Lost River sucker, Modoc sucker, shortnose sucker, and Warner sucker. (section 

4.7.2.4)

31. Ruby shall, in its mitigation plan and Candidate Conservation Agreement developed with the 

FWS, BLM, and state wildlife agencies, include the following vegetation clearing/revegetation 

measures. This plan shall be applicable to all construction areas (including access roads, yards, 

and extra workspaces) within 2 miles of active greater sage-grouse leks and within high-quality 

nesting, brooding, or winter greater sage-grouse habitats:

a. Cut or mow sagebrush where full right-of-way grading is not required. Do not blade 

sagebrush in these areas; 

b. create shrub patches within the construction work area by planting appropriate sagebrush 

subspecies;

c. seed high rates of the appropriate subspecies of sagebrush throughout the habitat; and

d. include palatable, native forbs at high seed rates in greater sage-grouse nesting and 

brooding habitats. (section 4.7.3.1)

32. Prior to the close of the draft EIS comment period, Ruby shall file a greater sage-grouse 

habitat assessment for the Roberson Creek and Weiland Flat compressor stations. This 

assessment must identify high-quality sage brush habitat and evaluate the use of the habitat by 

greater sage-grouse within 1 mile of each of the above compressor stations. (section 4.7.3.1)

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
5-19

33. If Ruby’s construction activities overlap the yellow-billed cuckoo breeding season, Ruby shall 

conduct pre-construction surveys for yellow-billed cuckoo in areas of suitable habitat within 0.25 

mile of construction. Surveys shall be conducted according to FWS and/or land managing 

agency protocol, and the results shall be filed. If individuals or nests are found, Ruby shall not 

begin construction in these areas until FERC staff has reviewed Ruby’s proposed avoidance 

and/or mitigation measures, as well as any agency comments on these measures, and Ruby has 

received written notification from the Director of OEP that construction or use of mitigation may 

begin. (section 4.7.3.2)

34. Ruby shall include the measures listed below in its mitigation plan and Candidate Conservation 

Agreement developed with the FWS, BLM, and state wildlife agencies. Where pygmy rabbits or 

active burrows are identified, Ruby shall:

a. realign the pipeline or construction workspace to avoid disturbance within 100 feet of 

active pygmy rabbit burrows; 

b. seed high rates of the appropriate subspecies of sagebrush throughout the habitat; and

c. cut or mow sagebrush where full right-of-way grading is not required. (Ruby should not 

blade sagebrush in these areas).

For locations where the pipeline or construction workspaces cannot be realigned to avoid 

disturbance within 100 feet of active pygmy rabbit burrows, Ruby shall restore disturbed areas by 

creating shrub patches, and clearly identify in the mitigation plan and/or Candidate Conservation 

Agreement any other measures it would implement to minimize impacts on pygmy rabbits.

(section 4.7.3.3)

35. 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 when crossing 

white-tailed prairie dog colonies between MPs 2 and 5.5; 20 and 25; 48 and 49; and near MP 54

to minimize impacts on these colonies. In addition, if a colony only occurs along the edge of the 

construction right-of-way, the colony edge shall be flagged or exclusion fencing be placed to 

lessen impacts on the colony. Ruby shall include these measures in its final construction 

alignment sheets filed prior to construction for the review and approval of the Director of OEP. 

(section 4.7.3.4)

36. Prior to construction, Ruby shall complete surveys for Columbia spotted frog according to FWS 

or appropriate state agency guidelines in all potentially suitable habitat crossed by the proposed 

project. Regardless of whether Columbia spotted frogs are found, Ruby shall identify all 

locations of high quality habitat for this species by milepost. The results of the species surveys 

and habitat assessment shall be filed (and concurrently submitted to the FWS). Where high 

quality habitat is identified in the survey results, Ruby shall:

a. mow or crush riparian and wetland vegetation rather than remove vegetation by grading;

b. limit grading to the minimum area necessary to safely complete pipeline construction; 

and

c. reduce its construction right-of-way to 75 feet. (section 4.7.3.5)

37. 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)

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
5-20

38. Prior to the close of the draft EIS comment period, Ruby shall 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 shall concurrently file a copy of this letter. (section 4.8.1.3)

39. Prior to construction, Ruby shall file a revised Traffic and Transportation Management Plan 

developed in consultation with each state’s transportation department and local traffic authorities

and file the revised plan. The revised plan shall include specific measures for road closures; 

detours; information on how traffic and commuter travel would be managed to reduce impacts on 

mining communities such as Elko and Winnemucca, Nevada; observance of vehicle weight and 

width restrictions on existing roads; the use of mats or other methods to ensure that construction 

vehicles and equipment would not damage paved roadways; and incorporating updates based on 

input from local authorities during construction. (section 4.9.4)

40. Ruby shall not begin implementation of any cultural resource treatment plans/measures 

(including archaeological data recovery); construction of facilities including the pipeline, 

compressor stations, and meter stations; 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, files the revised 

reports, and files the BLM’s, USFS’s, Reclamation’s, SHPOs’, and any Native American 

tribes’ (as appropriate) comments on the revised reports; 

b. Ruby files 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, or Reclamation requests;

c. Ruby files the SHPOs’, BLM’s, USFS’s, Reclamation’s, other appropriate state 

agencies’, and any Native American tribe’s (as appropriate) comments on the reports and 

plans; 

d. the ACHP has commented on the project; and

e. the Director of OEP reviews all cultural resource reports and plans, and notifies Ruby in 

writing that treatment 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 PRIVILEGED INFORMATION – DO NOT 

RELEASE.” (section 4.10.4)

41. 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 the Wildcat Hills Compressor Station at full load exceeds 55 dBA Ldn at the nearest 

NSA, Ruby must file a report on what changes are needed and shall install additional noise 

controls to meet the level within 1 year of the in-service date. Ruby shall confirm compliance 

with this requirement by filing a second noise survey no later than 60 days after it installs any 

additional noise controls. (section 4.11.2.4)

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX A

Draft EIS Distribution List for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX A – DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION 

Federal Government Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Director of 

Cultural Resources, DC 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Director of 

Planning and Review, 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, Associate 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, Michael J Taylor, WY 

Department of Energy, Office of Env Compliance (Eh-42), 

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 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 College USDA Cooperative Extension Service, 

NV 

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 Services, Don Rech, CA 

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 

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 

A-1 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX A – DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION 

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, State 

Conservationist, UT 

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 

Office of Habitat Protection, Marine Resource 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, 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, DC 

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 Under Secretary of Defense LRM, 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), 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, Headquarters, LEEV, Env. Div, DC 

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, Michael A. Schwinn, UT 

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 

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 

A-2 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX A – DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION 

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, 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, Patrick 

Haynal, Winnamucca, NV 

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, Arizona State Office, 

State Director, AZ 

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 

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, Mark 

Dean, AZ 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Elko Field Office, 

Randall Jayo, NV 

A-3 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX A – DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION 

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, 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, 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, Kelly Lamborn, 

Kemmerer, 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, 

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, 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 

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, Montana State Office, 

State Director, MT 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, National Applied Res 

Science Center, Paul Summers, CO 

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, 

Branch Chief, Pat Gubbins, NV 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, NV State Office, Lands 

and Planning, Lands Program Lead, Jim Stobaugh, NV 

A-4 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX A – DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION 

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, 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 Dist, Land 

Law Examiner, Anita Jones, 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, 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 

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 Field 

Office, Lynn Harrison, NV 

A-5 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX A – DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION 

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, 

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, 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, 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 Impact Branch, DC 

U.S. Coast Guard, Environmental Management, CG-443, 

DC 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development, 

UT 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Senior Policy Advisor, 

Office of the Secretary, DC 

U.S. Department of Energy, NV 

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, USGS, Carol Boughton, 

NV 

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 the Navy, Jerry Knowles, WA 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Env. Policies Team 

Leader, 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, John Hillenbrand, 

CA 

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 

A-6 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX A – DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION 

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, Akimi King, OR 

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, Ecosystem Restoration 

Office, David Ross, OR 

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, Klamath Falls Office 

Project Leader, Curt Mullis, OR 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Larry Harris, UT 

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, 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, Rick Hardy, OR 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Rollie White, OR 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ron Iverson, CA 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ron Larson, OR 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Salt Lake City Field Office, 

Betsy Herrmann, UT 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Scott Hix, 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 

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, 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 

A-7 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX A – DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION 

United States Postal Services, Tim Messmer, NV 

United States Senate, John Ensign, NV 

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 

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 

A-8 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX A – DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION 

USDA Humboldt Co ASCS, NV 

USDA Nat Res, Chuck Houston, NV 

USDA Nat Res, Maggie Liebel, 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 

USGS, Water Science Center, OR 

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 Chris Cannon, UT 

U.S. Senator Bev Clarno, OR 

U.S. Representative Barbara Cubin, WY 

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. Representative James A. Gibbons, NV 

U.S. Senator Steven V. Harper, OR 

U.S. Senator Orrin G. Hatch, UT 

U.S. Representative Dean Heller, NV 

U.S. Representative Wally Herger, CA 

U.S. Representative Darlene Hooley, OR 

U.S. Representative Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

U.S. Representative Jim Matheson, UT 

U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley, OR 

U.S. Representative Jon Porter, NV 

U.S. Senator Harry Reid, NV 

U.S. Senator Gordon H. Smith, OR 

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 

Big Meadow Conservation District, NV 

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 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 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 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Jim 

Deloney, NV 

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 

A-9 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX A – DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION 

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 Bureau of Protective Services, Jim Hogan, NV 

Nevada Department Agriculture, Don Henderson, NV 

Nevada Department of Agriculture, 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 Environmental Protection, NV 

Nevada Division of Forestry, Brad Oberstaller, NV 

Nevada Division of Forestry, Dennis Walker, NV 

Nevada Division of Forestry, NV 

Nevada Division of Health, Richard Elloyan, 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 

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 Assembly, John W. Marvel, NV 

Nevada State Clearinghouse, Clearinghouse Coordinator, 

NV 

Nevada State Clearinghouse, Gosia Sylwestrzak, NV 

Nevada State Clearinghouse, NV 

Nevada State Division of Parks, NV 

Nevada State Historic Preservation Office, Alice Baldrica, 

NV 

Nevada Wildlife Commission, Bill Bradley, NV 

Nevada, Planning Coordinator, NV 

Office of Emergency Management, Galen Ozawa, NV 

Office of Emergency Management, Mary Ceragioli, NV 

Office of Energy, Catherine Van Horn, OR 

A-10 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX A – DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION 

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 ATV Coordinator Terry Eccles, OR 

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, 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 

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 

A-11 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX A – DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION 

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 Economic Development, Larry Holzgang, 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 Department, Steve Brutscher, 

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 Historic Preservation Office, Bob Meinen, 

OR 

Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, James Hamrick, 

OR 

Oregon State Police, Glenn Smith, OR 

Oregon Water Resources Department, Craig Kohanek, OR 

Oregon Water Resources Department, Director, Martha 

Pagel, OR 

Oregon Water Resources Department, Kyle Gorman, OR 

Oregon Water Resources Department, Laura Snedaker, OR 

Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, Ken Bierly, OR 

Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, OR 

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, WY 

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 Association of Local Governments Wasatch Front 

Regional Council, UT 

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 

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 

A-12 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX A – DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION 

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 Quality, Bill Damery, UT 

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, 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, David Gillette, 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, Floyd Roadifer, 

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 

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 

A-13 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX A – DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION 

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 Representative Tom R. Butler, OR 

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 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 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 

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 

A-14 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX A – DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION 

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, Richard Kudrna, 

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 

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 

A-15 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX A – DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION 

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 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., 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 Board of Commers, 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 

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 

A-16 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX A – DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION 

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 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 

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 

Lander County Wildlife Adv. Board, Ted Mcelvain, Battle 

Mountain, 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 Commers, Pioche, NV 

Lincoln County Commissioner, Chairman, Kent Connelly, 

Kemmerer, WY 

Lincoln County Commissioner, Jerry Harmon, Kemmerer, 

WY 

Lincoln County Commissioners, Mike Archibald, 

Kemmerer, WY 

Lincoln County Conservation District, Vickie Child, 

Cokeville, WY 

Lincoln County County Clerk, Jeanne Wagner, Kemmerer, 

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 Sheriff, Wendell R Cowart, Caliente, NV 

Lincoln County Wildlife Adv. Board, Jim Cole, Pioche, 

NV 

Lincoln County Wildlife Adv. Board, Mark Holt, Caliente, 

NV 

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 

Lovelock Volunteers, Chuck Rasco, Lovelock, NV 

Lt. Governor Gary Herbert, Salk Lake City, UT 

Lyon County Commers, Yerington, NV 

Lyon County Public Lands Comm, Yerington, NV 

Lyon County Wildlife Adv. Board, Charles E Lawson, 

Stagecoach, NV 

A-17 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX A – DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION 

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 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 

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 

A-18 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX A – DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION 

Sweetwater County Commissioners, Wally Johnson, Green 

River, WY 

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, 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 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 Sheriff’s Office, Lt. Will Mchardy, 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, John K. Rogers, 

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 Fire District, Ogden, 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 

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 

A-19 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX A – DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION 

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, Albert Teman, 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 

Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians, Chairperson, Sue 

Shaffer, OR 

Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians, Cultural Resource 

Director, Jessica Bochart, OR 

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 

Goshute Business Council, Edwin Neranajo, UT 

Goshute Business Council, Honorable Rupert Steele, UT 

Goshute Skull Valley Band, Tribal Historic Preservation 

Office, Melvin Brewster, 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 

A-20 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX A – DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION 

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 

Nevada Indian Environmental Coalition, NV 

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, Chairperson, Jessica Jim, 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, Howard Wynant, CA 

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 

Summit Lake Indian Paiute Tribe, Chairman, Warner 

Barlese, NV 

Summit Lake Indian Paiute Tribe, Environmental 

Coordinator, Ron Eagleye Johnny, NV 

Summit Lake Indian Res (Paiute), Chairman, Steve Frank, 

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, NV 

Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, Orville Barlese, NV 

Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, Robyn Burdette, 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 

A-21 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX A – DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION 

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 

Timbisha-Shoshone, 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, Vice Chair, Kristi Begay, NV 

Western Band of Shoshone, NV 

Western Shoshone Committee, Deb Blossom, NV 

Western Shoshone Committee, Reggie Premo, NV 

Western Shoshone Defense Project, Carrie Dann, 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 

Media

Associated Press, Scott Sonner, NV 

Back Country Magazine, Brian Brinkerhoff, UT 

Battle Mountain Bugle, Lorrie Baumann, NV 

Boulder City News, NV 

A-22 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX A – DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION 

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 

Green Valley News, NV 

Henderson Home News, NV 

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 

KBRE/KSUB/KSSD, UT 

KBUL, NV 

KBYU, UT 

KCBN/KRNO, NV 

KCEP, NV 

KDKF, OR 

KDOL, NV 

KDOT/KOZZ, NV 

KDRV, Rhea Silver-Smith, OR 

KDSS, NV 

KDWN, NV 

KEDG, NV 

KELK/KLKO, NV 

KELY, Jenny Wilson, NV 

Kemmerer Gazette, WY 

KENO/KOMP, NV 

KENV, NV 

KEYV, NV 

KFBT, NV 

KGVM, NV 

KHIT, NV 

KHWK, Don Kaminsky, NV 

KILA, NV 

KJUL, NV 

KKDD/KFMS, NV 

KKLZ, NV 

KKOH/KNEV, NV 

KKRB/KFLS, Station Manager, OR 

KLAD, Michael Hodson, OR 

Klamath Falls Herald & News, OR 

KLAS, Melissa Cipriano, NV 

KLAV, NV 

KLVX, Leann Green, 

KMXB, NV 

KMZQ, NV 

KNIS, NV 

KNPB TV, Jack Kelly, NV 

KNPB TV, Ronda Clark, NV 

KNPR, NV 

KNUU, NV 

KOLO, NV 

KOOL, NV 

KORK/KXPT, NV 

KOTI, OR 

KOTI-TV, Lyle Ahrens, OR 

KPTL, NV 

KQLO, 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 

KSNE, NV 

KSOR, Jefferson Public Radio, OR 

KTHX, NV 

KTSN/KRJC, Nancy Sawyer, NV 

KTVL - Channel 10, OR 

KTVL, OR 

KTVN, Bob Moffett, NV 

KTVN, Community Project Director, Deidre, NV 

KUNR, NV 

KUNV, NV 

KUPN, NV 

KUSU, UT 

KUTV Channel 2, UT 

KUTV, Larry Warren, UT 

KUTV, Reece Stein, UT 

KVBC, Program Director, Judy Reich, NV 

KVEG, NV 

KVLV, NV 

KVLY, The Valley Channel, Sharalyn, UT 

KVVU, NV 

KWCR, UT 

KWNA, Kathy Doyle, NV 

KWNZ, 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 1 News, NV 

Las Vegas Asian American Times, NV 

Las Vegas City Life, NV 

Las Vegas Review-Journal, Beth Deilo, NV 

Las Vegas Sentinel-Voice, NV 

Las Vegas Sun, Warren Johnston, NV 

Lincoln County Record, Conny Finkins, NV 

Logan Herald Journal, UT 

Lovelock Review Miner, NV 

Lyon County Leader-Courier, Dave Sanford, NV 

Mail Box News, NV 

Mason Valley News, Dave Sanford, NV 

Mineral County Independent, NV 

A-23 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX A – DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION 

Monthly: Nevada Times, Debra Tobin, NV 

Montpelier News-Examiner, ID 

N Lake Tahoe Bonanza, Rick Adair, NV 

Nellis AFB Bullseye, NV 

Nevada Appeal, Berry Smith, NV 

Nevada Woman Magazine, NV 

News-Examiner, Rosa Moosman, ID 

Northwest Rider Magazine, AZ 

Off-Road Publications, Greg Bromka, UT 

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 

Salt Lake Tribune, Jim Woolf, UT 

Salt Lake Tribune, Tom Wharton, 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 

The Herald Journal, Lance Frazer, UT 

The Humboldt Sun, Jackie Kaczmarek, NV 

The Humboldt Sun, NV 

The Leader, Debra Jandreau, UT 

The Record-Courier, NV 

The Valley Observer, NV 

Times-Bonanza, Bill Robert, NV 

Tremonton - The Leader, UT 

Tremonton Leader Times, UT 

Vegas Times, NV 

Wendover Advocate, Howard Coplin, NV 

Intervenors

Governor Dave Freudenthal, WY 

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Timothy Battaglia, TX 

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Steven J. Abbey, TX 

Avista Corporation Senior Counsel, 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, LLP, Chad M. 

Stokes, OR 

Chevron Global Gas, Lisa Herrmann, TX 

Chevron USA Inc, Chuck Cook, TX 

ConocoPhillips Company Regulatory Counsel, Bruce A. 

Connell, Esq., TX 

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 

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 

John & Hengerer, Gordon J. Smith, DC 

John & Hengerer, Douglas F. John, DC 

John & Hengerer, Elizabeth A. Zembruski, DC 

Law Office of Julia E. Sullivan LLC, Julia E. Sullivan, 

Esq., MD 

Marathon Oil Company, Dave Davis Iii, TX 

McCarthy, Sweeney & Harkaway, PC, Douglas M. Canter, 

Esq., DC 

Miller, Balis & O'Neil, PC, 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., Larry Jenkins, TX 

Oneok Inc, C. David Crisp, OK 

OR Dept of Justice, Nat Resources Sect., Senior Asst 

Attorney Gen., Jan Prewitt, OR 

OR Nat Desert Assoc - Portland Staff Attorney Dave 

Becker, OR 

OR Wild Conservation & Restoration Coordinator Doug 

Heiken, OR 

Oregon Dept. of Energy Policy Analyst, State of Oregon, 

Susan C. Hughs, OR 

Oregon Natural Desert Assoc – Portland, Staff Attorney, 

Dave Becker, OR 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Keith T. Sampson, CA 

Paiute Pipeline Company Vice Pres/Gen Manager, Edward 

C. Mcmurtrie, NV 

Portland General Electric Company, Manager, Gas 

Trading, Val Yildirok, OR 

Portland General Electric Company, Asst Gen Counsel, 

Loretta I. Mabinton, OR 

Public Utilities Commission of California, Jonathan A. 

Bromson, CA 

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, 

Bill Donahue, WA 

Quality for Animal Life, Dick Jones, UT 

A-24 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX A – DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION 

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, Federal Regulatory Affairs 

Manager, L. Bradley Burton, UT 

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 

Southwest Gas Corp Senior Counsel, Keith A. Layton, NV 

Summit Lake Indian Paiute Tribe, Environmental 

Coordinator, Ron Eagleye Johnny, NV 

Summit Lake Indian Paiute Tribe, Chairman, Warner 

Barlese, NV 

The Utility Reform Network Senior Attorney, Michel Peter 

Florio, Esq., CA 

Transcanada Gas Transmission, Northwest Corporation, 

Senior Counsel, Ellen A. Berman, OR 

Ultra Resources, Inc. Vice President – Marketing, Stuart E. 

Nance, TX 

Van Ness Feldman, PC, Emily Pitlick, WA 

Van Ness Feldman, PC, Pamela Anderson, WA 

Wyoming Pipeline Authority, Director, Brian Jeffries, WY 

Organizations

26 Ranch Inc., Stephen D. Alfers, CO 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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. 

A-25 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX A – DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION 

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 

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 

Estill Ranches, LLC, Registered Agent, James Newman, 

NV 

Eureka Livestock LLC, CA 

Fascio Living Trust, NV 

Ferraro Cattle Company, NV 

Finance All, LLC, Paul Amato, CA 

Finance All, LLC, Paul Sabesky, CA 

Flynn Ranch, Jack Flynn, OR 

Franklin I. & Ryoko Bacheller Trust, Franklin I. Bacheller, 

UT 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

Ned Waldner Living Trust, NV 

Neil C. Grohs Trust, Phillip Grohs and Neil Grohs, Jr., 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 

Northern Nevada Racing Association, Patty Melanovich, 

NV 

A-26 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX A – DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION 

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 

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, David J. Welch, 

Steilacoom, WA 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 and Peter Mostow, 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 

Toiyabe Chapter Sierra Club, David Von Seggern, NV 

Toiyabe Chapter Sierra Club, Chairman, Executive 

Committee, David A Hornbeck, NV 

Toiyabe Chapter Sierra Club, Dennis Ghiglieri, NV 

Toiyabe Chapter, Sierra Club, Catherine Smith, NV 

Transcanada Gas Transmission, Northwest Corporation, 

A-27 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX A – DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION 

Senior Counsel, Ellen A. Berman, OR 

Transwood, Inc., NV 

Twichell Family Trust Agreement, NV 

Ultra Resources, Inc. Vice President - Marketing Stuart E. 

Nance, 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 

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 

Western Pacific Railroad Company, Property Tax 

Department, NE 

Western States Mineral Corp, New West Gold USA, Inc, 

NV 

Western Watersheds Project, Jon Marvel, ID 

WH Pacific, Jack Butler, OR 

White Pine Lumber Company, 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 Pipeline Authority, Director, Brian Jeffries, 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 

Thomas Allen, OR 

Carlos F. Andersen, UT 

J. and Mary Anderson, OR 

Jason A. Anderson, UT 

Jay R. Anderson, WY 

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 

James Baird, OR 

Eric Bastian, ID 

Eric E. Bastian Et. Ux., ID 

Ed Batalla, FL 

William V. Bate, UT 

Burt W. Baty, UT 

Ralph Baull, OR 

Brandon Baxier, UT 

Easy L. and Alexandra Bearden, NV 

Sue Becker, CA 

Forrest Bell, NV 

David Benard, UT 

C. L. Suzanne Berchtold, CA 

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 

Freida Blackmon, IN 

Richard Blackmore, CA 

Jason and Nathen Blatzheim, NV 

James Bohler, NV 

Ryan Bonham, OR 

Joshua A. and Micayla L. Bonner, NV 

David Book, NV 

Joshua and Vanessa Borges, UT 

Wayne Dean and Marlene Bosworth, UT 

Richard and Elizabeth Bowen, IA 

Ray A. and Marcia T. Bramble, UT 

Kenneth A. Bricker, NV 

T.C. and J.R. Bricker, NV 

Thomas C. and Carol Bricker, NV 

Clay Broadhead, WY 

Daniel Bromley, CA 

Kenneth Buckingham, NV 

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 

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 

Shirley Jean Choate, NV 

Lynn Clair Christensen, CA 

Michael and Geraldean Christopher, NV 

A-28 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX A – DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION 

Rodney D. and Virginia M. St. Clair, ID 

Catherine Clark, NV 

Katherine Clark, OR 

Richard Farnsworth and Steve Clark, NV 

Kent Clement, ID 

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 

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 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 

Larry L. and Michelle Dowd, 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 

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 

Phil Finkel, CA 

Laura Fisher, UT 

Arnold and Susan Fitzgerald, TX 

Con and Sally Fitzgerald, OR 

Patrick Fitzgerald, CA 

Nancy M. Flores, NV 

Dennis and Andrea Flynn, OR 

Lee C. Folkman, UT 

Robert C. Folkman, UT 

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 

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 

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 

Robert and Marian Gooch, NV 

Willard and Karen Gooch, NV 

Jere and Beatrice Goss, OR 

Joan Elizabeth Graham, NV 

B. Granger, OR 

C. Val Grant, UT 

Barry Gray, OR 

Robert and Sylvia A. Gray, NV 

A-29 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX A – DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION 

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 

Steven T. and Rhonda K. Hackmeister, AZ 

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 

Rick Hardy, OR 

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 

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 

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 

Kenneth and Rosemarie Huff, NV 

Bobbie Ann Hunsaker, UT 

Michael S. Hunsaker, UT 

John Hussa, CA 

L. Huttman, NV 

Wilbur N. Hudson III, AZ 

David Jamieson, NV 

Louis and Penita Reys Jean, NJ 

Alice A. Jefferson, OR 

Peter Jenks, UT 

Bill and Vicki Jensen, UT 

Lawrence Jensen, UT 

Linda Jensen, UT 

Jordan B. Jeppson, WA 

Steven Dallas Jeppson, UT 

Virgil Jochin, OR 

Kevin and Denise John, 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 

Carolyn Julian, OR 

Dennis 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 

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 

Ivan Leonhardt, ID 

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 

A-30 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX A – DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION 

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 

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 

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 

Neal and Diane Miller, CA 

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 

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 

Sidney J. Norman, UT 

Wade Norman, UT 

Gary Nuffer, UT 

Kevin O'Brian, OR 

Henry O'Keeffe, 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 

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 

Orson L. Poulsen, UT 

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 

Deareld Rich, UT 

Blaine B. Richins, UT 

Thomas and Diana Rios, NV 

Mark L. Robbins, NV 

A-31 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX A – DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION 

Charles W. and Shirley L. Roberts, FL 

Bill and Gail Robinson, WY 

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 

Dorothy M. Rosenfeld, CA 

Gerald Roskelley, UT 

Christine Ross, UT 

James and Lenora Ross, OR 

Lucille JP Rossetto, OR 

Lucille Rossotto, OR 

Ted C. Roundy, UT 

Paula Rowles, NV 

Ramona Rukavina, UT 

Elizabeth Ryan, WA 

Paul Sabesky, CA 

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 

Claude and John Shipley, NV 

Larry E. Shires, UT 

Jess R. Showell, ID 

Mike Shults, OR 

David and Ila Shumway, UT 

Chip Sibbernsen, UT 

John Sims, WA 

Suzan K. Smigel, CA 

Dennis L. Smith, CA 

Duane Smith, UT 

Eugene Smith, ID 

Gary Smith, TN 

Larrimore Smith, CA 

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 

Joe Sonei, CA 

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 

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 

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 

Richard H. Tomko, FL 

C.A. Towers, OR 

Gladys Townsend, NV 

James E. Tregellas, NV 

Joel R. Turnbow, 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 

Harold G. and Deanna Weeks, UT 

Kayte Wehinger, OR 

Gladys Weinert-Townsend, NV 

Lance J. Westmoreland, UT 

A-32 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX A – DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION 

A-33 

Beverly E. White, NV 

Lew E. White, UT 

Kent H. and Trudy Whiteman, UT 

Frank Whitman, NV 

Thoedore D. Willer, 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 

Karen Zamudio, OR 

Scott Zerkle, UT 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
S-2

S-3 S-7

S-4

S-1

S-8 S-5

S-6

S-9

011

001

002 044 043 042

041

003 040 039

004 038

005 037

006 036

035

034 007

032 008 033

009 025 014 031 026 015 013 016 012 010 030 029 028 027 024

017 023 018 022 020 019 021 S-11

S-38

S-39

S-12

S-40 S-47

S-41 S-48

S-42

S-53 S-51 S-31

S-43 S-54 S-52 S-37 S-36

S-49 S-44

S-50 S-45

S-33 S-30 S-24 S-46

S-26 S-17 S-13 S-35

S-34 S-32 S-25

S-23 S-18 S-22 S-14 S-29 S-28 S-20 S-10

S-15

S-21 S-16

S-19

S-27

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

INDEX 1 of 5

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
049 048 047 046 045 044 043 042

050

051

052

054 053

055

056

057

058

059

060

062 061 065

064 063

S-59

S-60 S-47

S-48 S-62

S-61 S-58 S-63

S S-55 S-53 S-51 -57 S-64

S-56 S-54 S-52 S-64

S S-49 -65

S-50

S-68 S-67

S-70 S-69 S-66

S-71

S-75

S-77 S-73 S-72 S-78 S-74

S-79

S-76

069 068

070

077 073 072 071

076 074

078 075

079 080

081

082

083

S-111

S-113

S-114 S-110

S-115

S-116 S-112

S-117

S-118

S-119

S-095 S-092

S-098 S-089

S-099 S-090

S-103 S-088 S-080

S-109

S-091

S-120 S-104 S-093

S-121 S-107

S-123

S-081

S-082

S-100 S-096 S-094

S-105

S-121 S-108

S-131

S-083

S-101 S-097 S-106

S-122

S-132

S-084

S-102

S-130

S-085

S-134 S-129

S-086

S-124

S-135

S-087

S-125

S-136 S-126

S-137 S-127

S-138 S-128

S-139

067 066

082

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

INDEX 2 of 5

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
111

119

118

117 110

116 115 112 114 113

081

082

089 088 090 084 083

092 091 085

120 093 094 087

098 095 101 097 096 099

086

100 102 104

106 105 103 107 108 109

S-211

S-131

S-169 S-166 S-148 S-132

S-170 S-167

S-215

S-147 S-130

S-194 S-192 S-191

S-203 S-193

S-149

S-199 S-197 S-196

S-161 S-134 S-129

S-171 S-140

S-204

S-150

S-200

S-135 S-162

S-201

S-154

S-175 S-172 S-146

S-216

S-141

S-205

S-151 S-136

S-176 S-206 S-168 S-142

S-152

S-207

S-137

S-163 S-177 S-143 S-153 S-138 S-164 S-178 S-144 S-155

S-210

S-139

S-179 S-145 S-156

S-180 S-157

S-212 S-181 S-158

S-213 S-182 S-159

S-214 S-183 S-165 S-160

S-184

S-208 S-185

S-186 S-173

S-187

S-188

S-189

S-190

S-133

S-174

S-195

S-198

S-209

S-202

082

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

INDEX 3 of 5

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
119

118

117

116

167

166

165

164

163

162

161

160

159

158

157

156

155

145 144 143 142

152 150 153

146

151 148

154

149 147

141

135 140

136 139 134 138 137 133 132 131 130 129 128 127 126

125

124

123

122

121

120

S-234

S-274

S-235

S-275

S-273

S-236

S-272

S-237

S-271

S-238

S-253 S-239

S-254 S-240

S-265

S-255 S-241

S-242

S-266

S-246 S-261 S-256

S-224

S-251

S-243

S-267

S-249 S-248 S-247

S-263 S-262 S S-257 S-250 -259

S-225

S-252

S-232

S-268

S-226

S-269

S-244

S-223

S-264

S-260 S-258

S-230

S-270

S-245

S-227 S-222 S-233

S S-228 S-221 -231

S-220

S-215

S-217 S-216

S-218

S-219

S-229

169

168

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

INDEX 4 of 5

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
167

166

165

164

163

162

161

160

159

158

157

156

155

153 152 151 154

S-275 S-274

S-273

S-272

S-271

S-265

S-266

S-267

S S-263 -268

S-269

S-270 S-264

174 173

175 172

191 190

176

189

171

177

188 187 192 186 185

170

178

184

193

179 183

169

182 181 180 168

S-311

S-314

S-315

S-283 S-279

S-287 S-284 S-280

S-288 S-277

S-307

S-281

S-308

S-290 S-294 S-291 S-285 S-282

S-295 S-292 S-297

S-313

S-286

S-309

S-278

S-296 S-293

S-305 S-303 S-312 S-301 S-299

S-310

S-276

S-306 S-298 S-304 S-302 S-300 S-289

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

INDEX 5 of 5

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
1

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 001

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
3

2

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 002

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
4

5

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 003

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
6

7

8

9

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 004

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-1

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-2

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-3

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-4

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
10

11

12

13

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 005

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-5

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-7

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
16

15

14

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 006

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-6

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-8

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
17

18

19

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 007

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
20 21

22

23

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 008

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ryckman

Creek

Variation

Ryckman

Creek

Variation

24

25

26

27

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 009

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ryckman

Creek

Variation

28

29

30 31

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 010

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
32

33

34

35

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 011

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-9

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
36

37

38

39

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 012

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-10

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-11

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-12

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-13

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Sheep Mountain

Road Variation

40

41

42

43

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 013

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-14

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-15

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-16

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-17

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
46 47

44

45

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 014

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-18

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-19

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Woodruff East

Variation

50 49 48

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 015

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Woodruff West

Variation

53

54

55

52

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 016

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-20

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
57

58

59

56

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 017

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
60

61

62 63

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 018

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-21

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
67

64

65

66

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 019

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
68

69

70

71

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 020

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
74

75

73 72

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 021

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-22

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Variation

Prasthofer

76

78 77

79

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 022

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
83

84 85

82

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 024

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
80

81

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 023

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
86

87

88

89

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 025

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-23

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
90

91

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 026

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
92 93

94

95

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 027

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-24

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-25

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
99

96

97

98

100

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 028

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-26

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-27

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
101

102

103

104

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 029

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-28

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Brigham

Bench

Variation

Southern Brigham

Bench Variation

105

106

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 030

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-29

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
North

End

Brigham

Variation

108

109

110

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 031

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-30

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
111 112

113

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 032

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-32

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-31

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Roper Variation

114

115

116

117

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 033

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-34

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-33

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
118

119

120

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 034

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-35

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
123

124

121

122

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 035

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Peterson Pond

Variation

125

127

128

129

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 036

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
130

131

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 037

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-36

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
134

135

132

133

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 038

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
ATK Revised Variation

136

137

138

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 039

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-37

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
ATK Revised

Variation

139

140

141

142

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 040

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-38

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-39

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-40

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-41

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-42

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
146

143

144

145

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 041

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-43

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-44

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-45

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-46

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-47

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-48

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
148

149

150

147

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 042

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-49

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-50

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
151 152 153 154

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 043

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-51

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-52

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
155

156

157

158

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 044

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-53

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-54

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
159 160 161 162

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 045

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-55

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-56

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
163 164 165

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 046

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-57

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-58

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
166 167 168 169

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 047

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
170 171 172

173

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 048

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-59

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-60

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-61

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
174

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 049

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
175

176

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 050

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
177

178

179

180

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 051

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
181

182

183

184

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 052

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-62

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-63

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-64

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-64

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-65

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
185 187 186

188

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 053

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Terrace Basin

Variation

190

191

189

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 054

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Terrace Basin Variation

Terrace Basin

Variation

193

194

192

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 055

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-66

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Terrace Basin Variation

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-67

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
195

196

197

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 056

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Terrace Basin Variation

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-68

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Terrace

Basin

Variation

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-69

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Terrace

Basin

Variation

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-70

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
198

199

200

201

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 057

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Terrace

Basin

Variation

Terrace

Basin

Variation

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-71

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Terrace

Basin

Variation

202

203

204

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 058

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Terrace Basin Variation

206

207

205

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 059

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Terrace Basin Variation

208

209

210

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 060

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
211

212

213

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 061

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Route 30 Variation

214

215

216

217

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 062

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Route 30 Variation

218

219

220

221

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 063

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Route 30

Variation

222

223

224

225

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 064

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-72

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
229

226

227

228

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 065

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-73

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-74

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
232

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-75

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
231

233

230

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-76

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-77

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-78

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 Feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-79

UTM Zone 12

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
230

231

232

233

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 066

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
236

237

234

235

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 067

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-080

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
238

239

240

241

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 068

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-081

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-082

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-083

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-084

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-085

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-086

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-087

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-088

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
243

244

245

242

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 069

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
246

247

248

249

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 070

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-089

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-090

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-091

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-092

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-093

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
251

252

253

250

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 071

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-094

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-095

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
254

255

256

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 072

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-096

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-097

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-098

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-099

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-103

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-104

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-101

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
257

258

259

260

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 073

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-100

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-102

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
264

261

262

263

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 074

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-105

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-106

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-107

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
265

266

268 267

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 075

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-108

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-109

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-110

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
271

272

269 270

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 076

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-111

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-112

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-113

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-114

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
273

274

275

276

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 077

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-115

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-116

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-117

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-118

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-119

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-120

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-121

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
277

278

279

280

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 078

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-121

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-122

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-123

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
283 282

284

281

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 079

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-124

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-125

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-126

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-127

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-128

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Tabor Ranch

Variation

285

286

287

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 080

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-129

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Tabor Ranch Variation

Tabor Ranch

Variation

289

290

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 081

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-130

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Tabor Ranch Variation

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-131

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
293

291

292

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 082

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Tabor Ranch Variation

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-132

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
294

295

296

297

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 083

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-134

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-135

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-136

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-137

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-138

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-139

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Tabor Ranch Variation

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-133

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Tabor Ranch Variation

Tabor Ranch Variation

298

299

300

301

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 084

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
303

304

302

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 085

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-140

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-141

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-142

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-143

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-144

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-145

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
305

306

307

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 086

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-146

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-147

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
308

309

310

311

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 087

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-148

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
315

316

312

313

314

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 088

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-149

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-150

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-151

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-152

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-153

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-155

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-156

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-157

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-158

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-159

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-160

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
317

318

319

320

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 089

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-154

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
322

323

324

321

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 090

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-161

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-162

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-166

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-167

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
325

326

327

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 091

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-169

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-170

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
328

329

330

331

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 092

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-171

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-172

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-168

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-163

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-164

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-165

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
335

332

333

334

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 093

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-173

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
336

337

338

339

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 094

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
342

343

340

341

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 095

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-174

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
344

345

346

347

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 096

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-175

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-176

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-177

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-178

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-179

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-180

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-181

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-182

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-183

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-184

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-185

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-186

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-187

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-188

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-189

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-190

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Willow Creek Variation

348

349

350

351

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 097

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Willow Creek Variation

355

352

353

354

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 098

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Willow Creek Variation

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-191

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Willow Creek Variation

Willow Creek Variation

356

357

358

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 099

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Willow Creek Variation

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-192

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Willow Creek Variation

362

359

360

361

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 100

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Willow Creek Variation

363

364

365

366

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 101

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Willow Creek Variation

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-193

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
368

369

370

367

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 102

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Willow Creek Variation

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-194

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
371

372

373

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 103

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Willow Creek Variation

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-195

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
374

375

376

377

378

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 104

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Willow Creek Variation

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-196

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
379

380

381

382

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 105

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Willow Creek Variation

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-197

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-198

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
383

384

385

386

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 106

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Willow Creek Variation

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-199

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
390

387

388

389

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 107

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Willow Creek Variation

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-200

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Willow Creek Variation

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-201

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
391 392 393

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 108

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Willow Creek Variation

Willow Creek Variation

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-202

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Willow Creek Variation

394

395

396

397

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 109

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-203

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-204

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-205

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Willow Creek Variation

398

399

400

401

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 110

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Willow Creek Variation

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-206

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Willow Creek Variation

w Creek

ariation

403

404

405

402

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 111

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-208

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Willow Creek

Variation

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-207

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Willow Creek Variation

Willow Creek

Variation

406

407

408

409

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 112

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Willow Creek Variation

410

411

412

413

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 113

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
414 413

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-209

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
417

418

414

415

416

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 114

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
419

420

421

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 115

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-210

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-211

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-212

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-213

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-214

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
422

423

424

425

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 116

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
426

427

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 117

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
428

429

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 118

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-216

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-217

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-218

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-219

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
430

431

432

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 119

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
433

434

435 436

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 120

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-215

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
440

437 438

439

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 121

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
441

442

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 122

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
443

444

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 123

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
445

446

447

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 124

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
450

448

449

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 125

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-220

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
451

452

453 454

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 126

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
VORTAC Variation

455

456

457

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 127

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
VORTAC Variation

458

459

460

461

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 128

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
VORTAC Variation

462

463

464

465

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 129

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
466

467

468

469

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 130

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
470

471

472

473

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 131

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-221

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
476

477

474

475

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 132

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-222

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
478

479

480

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 133

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
483

484

481

482

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 134

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-223

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-227

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
485

486

487

488

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 135

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-226

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-225

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-224

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-228

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
490

491

492

489

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 136

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
493

494

495

496

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 137

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
499

498

497

500

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 138

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-229

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-231

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
501

502

503

504

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 139

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-230

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-233

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
505

506

507

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 140

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-245

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
508

509

510

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 141

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-244

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-232

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
513

511

512

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 142

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-243

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-242

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-241

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-240

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-239

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-238

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-237

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-236

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-235

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-234

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-246

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-247

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
514

515

516

517

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 143

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-248

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
520

521

518

519

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 144

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-249

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
522

524 523 525

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 145

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-250

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
526

527

528 529

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 146

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-251

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-252

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
533

530

531

532

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 147

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-253

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-254

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-255

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-256

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-257

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
534

535 536

537

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 148

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-258

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-259

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
538

539

540

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 149

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-260

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-261

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-262

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
541

542

543

544

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 150

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-263

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
545

546

547

548

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 151

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
552

549

550

551

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 152

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
552

549

550

551

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
553

554

555

556

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 153

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-264

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
557

558

559

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 154

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
561

562

560

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 155

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
563

564

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 156

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
565

566

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 157

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
567

568

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 158

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-265

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-266

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-267

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-268

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-269

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-270

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
569

570

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 159

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
571

572

573

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 160

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-271

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
574

575

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 161

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-272

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
577

576

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 162

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-273

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
578

579

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 163

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-274

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
580

581

582

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 164

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-275

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
583

584

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 165

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
585

586

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 166

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
587

588

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 167

UTM Zone 11

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

#

!(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
591

592

590

589

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 168

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
593

594

595

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 169

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-276

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
596

597

598

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 170

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-278

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
599

600

601

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 171

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-282

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
602

603

604

605

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 172

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-277

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-279

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-280

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
609

606

607

608

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 173

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-281

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-283

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-284

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
610

611

612

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 174

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Goose Lake Variation

616

613

614

615

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 175

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Goose

Lake

Variation

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-285

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-286

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-287

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-288

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Goose Lake Variation

618

619

617

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 176

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Goose Lake Variation

620

621

622

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 177

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
623

624

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 178

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
628

625

626

627

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 179

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-289

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
631

632

629

630

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 180

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-290

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
633

634

635

636

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 181

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-291

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-292

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-293

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
637

639 638 640

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 182

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-294

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-295

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-296

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Southern Langell

Valley Variation

641

642

643

644

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 183

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-297

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Southern Langell

Valley Variation

Southern Langell

Valley Variation

648

645

646

647

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 184

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Southern Langell

Valley Variation

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-298

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
649

650

651

652

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 185

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Southe

Valley 

Southern Langell

Valley Variation

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-299

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-300

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
655

656

653

654

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 186

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Southern Langell

Valley Variation

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-301

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Southern Langell Valley Variation

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-302

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
657

658

659

660

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 187

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-303

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Southern Langell Valley Variation

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-304

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
662 661 663

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 188

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Southern Langell Valley Variation

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-306

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-305

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-307

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-308

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
664

665 666

667

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 189

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-309

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Southern Langell Valley Variation

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-310

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
668

669

670

671

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 190

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-311

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Southern Langell Valley Variation

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-312

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
672

673

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 191

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
674

675

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 192

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Southern Langell

Valley Variation

NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map 193

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-313

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-314

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
NEVADA UTAH

IDAHO

CALIFORNIA

OREGON WYOMING

1:24,000

1 inch = 2,000 feet

1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Jun 02, 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Map S-315

UTM Zone 10

Legend Proposed Construction

Camp Site

Proposed Compressor

Station Site

Proposed Access Road

Proposed Main Line Valves

Proposed Yards

Proposed Staging Area

Proposed Meter

Station Site

Proposed 75' to 115' wide !( construction right-of-way 17

Proposed 115' wide construction

right-of-way plus 80' wide extra

workspace

#

# !(17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX C

 Right-of-Way Configurations for the 

 Ruby Pipeline Project

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
FERC FILING VERSION 1/23/09

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
12"−18" 28"−30"

FERC FILING VERSION 1/23/09

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
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 #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
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 #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
FERC FILING VERSION 1/23/09

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
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 #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
FERC FILING VERSION 1/23/09

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
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 #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
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 #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
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 #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
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 #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
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 #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
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 #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
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 #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
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 #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
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 #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
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 #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
FERC FILING VERSION 1/23/09

1.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

A A

2.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX D

 Temporary Extra Workspaces, Staging Areas, Water 

Appropriation Sites, Contractor and Pipe Yards, and 

 Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
TABLE D-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 

EWS 0.0 - 0.5 5.0 - - Rough Terrain and Highway 30 Crossing 

SA 0.0 13.6 - - King Compressor Station 

SA 0.5 7.5 - - - 

EWS 0.8 - 0.9 0.9 0.8 - Union Pacific Rail Crossing, Deep Bore Pit 

EWS 0.9 - 1.1 1.3 1.0 <0.1 Hams Fork River Crossing, Spoil Storage 

WAS 1.0 0.9 - - 6,909 feet - 1.3 miles from Milepost 1 

WAS 1.0 0.9 - - 2,162 feet - 0.4 miles from Milepost 1 

EWS 1.4 - 2.6 11.7 - - Rough Terrain and Pipeline Corridor Crossing, Spoil Storage 

SA 5.8 0.9 - - Roberson Creek 

SA 5.8 47.6 - - Roberson Creek Compressor Station 

EWS 5.8 - 5.9 1.1 - - Pipeline Corridor Crossing and Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 6.3 - 6.4 1.3 - - Pipeline Corridor Crossing, Bore Pit Spoil Storage 

EWS 8.8 - 8.9 1.1 <0.1 - Deep Ravine (Dry Muddy Creek) Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 10.9 - 11.0 0.6 - - Rough Terrain Spoil Storage 

EWS 11.7 - 11.8 0.8 - - Side Slope Cut, Spoil Storage 

EWS 12.0 - 12.1 0.8 - - Rough Terrain and Foreign Line Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 12.3 - 12.4 0.6 - - Foreign Line Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 14.2 - 14.3 0.8 - - - 

EWS 14.9 - 15.1 1.1 - - Rough Terrain and Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

SA 15.0 0.9 - - - 

EWS 15.5 - 15.9 4.0 - - Rough Terrain and Sidecut, Spoil Storage 

EWS 17.7 - 18.0 2.6 - - Rough Terrain and Sidecut, Spoil Storage 

EWS 18.7 - 18.9 2.3 - - - 

EWS 19.4 - 19.6 1.2 - - Rough Terrain and Sidecut, Spoil Storage 

EWS 19.7 - 19.9 2.0 <0.1 - Little Muddy Creek, Highway 412 Bore Pit and Foreign 

Pipeline Crossing, Spoil Storage 

SA 19.8 0.9 - - - 

EWS 20.2 - 20.4 2.6 0.1 - Rough Terrain and Little Muddy Creek Crossing, Spoil 

Storage 

WAS 20.4 - - - Falls in existing Extra Workspace 

WAS 20.8 - - - Falls in existing Extra Workspace 

EWS 21.0 - 21.2 2.1 - - Highway 189 Deep Bore Pit, Spoil Storage 

EWS 22.2 - 22.3 0.4 - - - 

EWS 23.9 - 23.9 0.8 0.2 - Little Muddy Creek Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 26.0 - 26.7 6.7 - - Very Rough Terrain and Steep Sidecuts, Spoil Storage 

SA 26.0 1.5 - - - 

EWS 27.0 - 27.2 1.8 <0.1 - Rough Terrain and Ryckman Creek Crossing, Spoil Storage 

SA 27.2 3.5 - - Ryckman Creek 

WAS 27.2 - - - Falls in Existing Extra Workspace 

D1 - 1 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
TABLE D-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 

EWS 28.2 - 29.4 12.3 - - Rough Terrain and Sidecut, Spoil Storage 

SA 29.8 0.9 - - - 

EWS 33.6 - 33.8 2.1 - - Rough Terrain and Sidecut, Spoil Storage 

SA 34.9 0.9 - - - 

EWS 35.2 - 37.5 21.5 <0.1 - Rough Terrain, Mountain Construction and Sidecut, Spoil 

Storage 

EWS 38.7 - 38.8 1.0 - - Pipeline Corridor Crossing, Spoil Storage 

SA 39.5 0.9 - - - 

EWS 39.5 - 39.6 0.8 - - Mountain Construction and Steep Sidecut, Spoil Storage 

EWS 39.9 - 40.9 10.2 - - Mountain Construction and Steep Sidecut, Spoil Storage 

EWS 41.3 - 41.4 0.5 - - Aboveground Hydrogen Sulfide Pipeline Crossing, Spoil 

Storage 

EWS 41.3 - 41.4 0.5 - - Aboveground Hydrogen Sulfide Pipeline Crossing, Spoil 

Storage. On Sheep Mountain Road Variation 

EWS 41.9 - 42.1 2.3 - - On Sheep Mountain Road Variation 

EWS 42.0 - 42.2 1.6 - - Two Roads and Foreign Pipeline Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 42.3 - 42.5 2.0 <0.1 - Steep Terrain and Deep Wash Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 43.3 - 43.5 2.3 - - Side Slope Cut, Spoil Storage 

EWS 44.5 - 45.2 7.3 <0.1 <0.1 Alkali Creek Wash Crossing and Rough Terrain, Spoil 

Storage 

SA 44.9 0.9 - - - 

EWS 47.0 - 48.4 13.4 - - Side Slope Cut and Rough Terrain, Spoil Storage 

SA 50.0 0.9 - - - 

EWS 50.4 - 53.3 28.4 - - Three Road Crossings, Extra Spoil Storage High Water 

Table, Thompson Canal and Bear River Crossings 

SA 52.2 28.5 - - Staging Area and Spread Break 

SA 52.2 13.2 - - Staging Area and Spread Break 

EWS 53.8 - 54.1 2.3 - - On Woodruff West Variation 

WAS 54.0 0.9 - - 2,934 feet - 0.6 miles from Milepost 54 

EWS 54.1 - 54.3 1.10 - - - 

EWS 54.2 - 54.2 0.4 - - On Woodruff West Variation 

EWS 54.4 - 54.4 0.4 - - On Woodruff West Variation 

EWS 54.5 - 54.6 1.1 - - On Woodruff West Variation 

EWS 54.5 - 54.6 0.8 - - - 

EWS 54.7 - 54.8 0.7 - - - 

EWS 54.7 - 54.8 0.4 - - On Woodruff West Variation 

WAS 55.0 0.9 - - 1,865 feet - 0.4 miles from Milepost 55 

SA 55.1 0.9 - - - 

EWS 56.6 - 59.7 30.1 - - Very Rough Terrain, Steep Sidecuts and Deep Ravines, 

Spoil Storage 

EWS 59.8 - 61.1 12.5 1.1 - Very Rough Terrain, Steep Sidecuts, Two Road Crossings, 

Woodruff Creek Crossing and Deep Ravines, Spoil Storage 

SA 61.0 7.2 - - Staging Area and Spread Break 

WAS 61.0 0.9 - - 3,910 feet - 0.7 miles from Milepost 61 

D1 - 2 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
TABLE D-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 

EWS 61.4 - 67.6 59.6 - - Very Rough/Rocky Terrain, Red Mountain Construction, 

Steep Sidecuts and Deep Ravines, Spoil Storage 

SA 61.5 0.9 - - - 

SA 69.2 6.9 - - - 

WAS 70.0 0.9 - - 5,181 feet - 1.0 miles from Milepost 70 

EWS 72.0 - 73.4 13.1 - - Steep Sidecuts, Deep Ravine and Highway 39 Crossing, 

Spoil Storage and Trees 

EWS 73.8 - 73.9 0.8 - - Steep Sidecut, Spoil Storage 

SA 74.0 0.9 - - - 

EWS 74.1 - 74.4 2.5 - - Rough Terrain, Spoil Storage 

EWS 75.1 - 75.3 2.2 - - Rough Terrain and Steep Sidecuts, Spoil Storage and Trees 

EWS 76.2 - 78.0 17.4 - - Rough Terrain and Steep Sidecuts, Spoil Storage and Trees 

EWS 76.2 - 78.0 17.4 - - Starts On Prasthofer Variation 

WAS 77.0 0.9 - - 2,762 feet - 0.5 miles from Milepost 77 

EWS 78.3 - 78.4 0.8 - - Ant Flat Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

SA 78.4 0.9 - - - 

EWS 80.0 - 82.4 23.4 - - Rough Terrain and Steep Sidecuts, Spoil Storage and Trees 

EWS 83.1 - 83.5 4.6 - - Steep Sidecuts, Spoil Storage 

EWS 83.9 - 84.0 0.5 - - Foreign Line Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 84.3 - 85.3 9.9 - - Rough Terrain and Steep Sidecuts, Spoil Storage and Trees 

SA 87.0 0.7 - - - 

EWS 87.4 - 88.9 14.9 - - Rough Terrain and Steep Sidecuts, Spoil Storage and Trees 

EWS 89.7 - 89.9 2.4 - - Rough Terrain and Steep Sidecuts, Spoil Storage and Trees 

SA 90.4 0.9 - - - 

EWS 90.4 - 92.1 16.2 - - Rough Terrain and Steep Sidecuts, Spoil Storage and Trees 

SA 92.0 0.5 - - Lime Kill Canyon Parking Area 1 (3,312 feet - 0.63 miles 

from Milepost 92) 

SA 92.0 0.2 - - Lime Kill Canyon Parking Area 2 (3,165 feet - 0.60 miles 

from Milepost 92) 

SA 92.1 1.2 - - - 

EWS 92.3 - 92.5 1.5 0.4 - Sidecut, Spoil Storage 

EWS 92.7 - 92.7 0.8 - - East Fork Little Bear River Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 92.8 - 93.0 2.0 - - La Plata Road Crossing Bore Pit and Steep Slope, Spoil 

Storage 

WAS 93.0 0.9 - - 3,256 feet - 0.6 miles from Milepost 93 

EWS 93.3 - 93.7 4.0 <0.1 - Steep Slope and County Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 93.8 - 94.0 2.6 - - Sidecut and Ravine Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 94.5 - 95.1 5.1 0.1 - Steep Sidecuts, Highway 162 Crossing and Little Bear River 

Crossing, Spoil Storage 

SA 94.9 1.1 - - - 

SA 95.0 29.2 - - Summer (1,983 feet - 0.4 miles from Milepost 95) 

WAS 95.0 0.9 - - 6,475 feet - 1.2 miles from Milepost 95 

EWS 96.3 - 96.7 4.0 <0.1 - Steep Sidecut, Rough Terrain and Creek Crossing, Spoil 

Storage 

D1 - 3 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
TABLE D-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 

SA 96.6 0.9 - - - 

EWS 97.2 - 98.0 8.0 - - Steep Sidecut, Rough Terrain and Creek Crossing, Spoil 

Storage 

SA 99.1 0.9 - - - 

EWS 99.3 - 101.9 25.1 - - Steep Sidecut, Rough Terrain, Steep Slopes and Deep 

Ravine Crossing, Spoil Storage and Trees 

WAS 102.0 0.9 - - 12,246 feet - 2.3 miles from Milepost 102 

EWS 102.2 - 109.0 66.3 0.4 0.1 Very Steep Sidecuts (Brigham Bench), Rough Terrain and 

Highway 89/91 Crossing, Spoil Storage and Trees 

SA 102.9 8.5 - - - 

SA 105.0 4.4 - - Bench Winch (866 feet - 0.2 miles from Milepost 105) 

SA 105.1 0.9 - - - 

EWS 109.0 - 110.8 17.6 - - - 

EWS 110.8 - 110.9 0.8 1.2 - High Water Table, Spoil Storage 

EWS 110.9 - 111.2 2.8 - - - 

WAS 111.0 0.9 - - 6,609 feet - 1.3 miles from Milepost 111 

EWS 111.2 - 111.3 1.1 1.4 - High Water Table and Union Pacific Rail Crossing, Spoil 

Storage 

EWS 111.3 - 112.3 10.1 - - - 

SA 112.1 28.3 - - - 

EWS 112.3 - 112.5 1.9 0.6 - Interstate 15 Deep Bore Road Crossing and High Water 

Table, Spoil Storage 

EWS 112.5 - 112.7 1.9 - - - 

EWS 112.7 - 112.8 0.8 - - High Water Table and Irrigation Canal Crossing, Spoil 

Storage 

EWS 112.8 - 113.1 2.5 - - - 

EWS 113.1 - 113.2 0.9 - - High Water Table and N 2800 W Road Crossing, Spoil 

Storage 

EWS 113.2 - 113.5 3.5 - - - 

EWS 113.5 - 113.7 2.2 - - High Water Table and Bear River Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 113.7 - 114.4 6.8 - - - 

EWS 114.4 - 114.5 0.8 - - High Water Table and N 4000 W Road Crossing, Spoil 

Storage 

EWS 114.5 - 115.5 9.1 - - - 

WAS 115.0 0.9 - - 2,576 feet - 0.5 miles from Milepost 115 

EWS 115.5 - 115.6 0.7 - - High Water Table and Highway 13 Road Crossing, Spoil 

Storage 

EWS 115.6 - 115.8 2.7 - - - 

EWS 115.8 - 115.9 0.86 - - High Water Table and Union Pacific Rail Crossing, Spoil 

Storage 

EWS 115.9 - 117.0 10.9 - - - 

EWS 117.0 - 117.1 0.9 - - High Water Table and W 4000 N Road Crossing, Spoil 

Storage 

SA 117.1 0.9 - - - 

EWS 117.1 - 118.0 8.4 - - - 

EWS 118.0 - 118.1 0.8 - - High Water Table and Irrigation Canal Crossing, Spoil 

Storage 

D1 - 4 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
TABLE D-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 

EWS 118.1 - 118.5 3.7 - - - 

EWS 118.5 - 118.7 2.0 0.2 - High Water Table and Irrigation Canal Crossing, Spoil 

Storage 

EWS 118.7 - 119.4 6.9 - - - 

EWS 119.4 - 119.9 5.2 0.5 - High Water Table and Water Body Crossings, Spoil Storage 

EWS 119.9 - 122.9 29.3 - - - 

EWS 122.9 - 123.0 0.5 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 123.0 - 123.5 5.3 - - - 

EWS 123.5 - 124.1 5.0 - - Sidecut and Little Mountain Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

SA 124.0 1.1 - - - 

EWS 124.1 - 124.4 3.0 - - - 

EWS 124.4 - 124.4 0.5 <0.1 - High Water Table and Creek Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 124.4 - 124.9 4.6 - - - 

EWS 124.9 - 125.0 0.6 0.8 - High Water Table and Creek Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 125.0 - 125.1 1.5 - - - 

WAS 125.0 0.9 - - 8,080 feet - 1.5 miles from Milepost 125 

EWS 125.1 - 125.2 0.8 0.3 - High Water Table and Creek Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 125.2 - 125.4 2.2 - - - 

EWS 125.4 - 125.5 0.4 0.5 <0.1 High Water Table and Creek Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 125.5 - 125.7 2.0 - - - 

EWS 125.7 - 126.2 4.8 3.3 <0.1 High Water Table and N 11600 W Road Crossing, Spoil 

Storage 

EWS 126.2 - 127.3 10.6 - - - 

EWS 127.3 - 127.4 0.9 - - Highway 102 Deep Bore Pit Road Crossing and High Water 

Table, Spoil Storage 

EWS 127.4 - 127.6 2.7 - - - 

SA 127.4 0.9 - - - 

EWS 128.1 - 132.7 44.8 - - Faust Valley Road Crossing Bore Pit, Spoil Storage 

EWS 132.1 - 132.1 0.5 0.3 - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

SA 132.7 0.9 - - - 

EWS 134.1 - 135.6 14.2 - - Steep Sidecut, Mountain Construction (Blue Spring Hills), 

Deep Ravines, Rocky and Rough Terrain, Spoil Storage 

EWS 136.6 - 136.7 0.9 - - Highway 83 Crossing Bore Pit, Spoil Storage 

WAS 137.0 0.9 - - 1,924 feet - 0.4 miles from Milepost 137 

EWS 137.1 - 137.2 1.1 - - Deep Ravine (Blue Creek) Crossing, Spoil Storage 

SA 137.6 0.9 - - - 

EWS 137.7 - 137.8 1.4 - - N 18000 W Road and Sand Hollow Ravine Crossing, Spoil 

Storage 

EWS 139.3 - 139.4 1.3 - - Deep Ravine Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 141.1 - 144.3 30.8 - - Steep Sidecut, Steep Slopes, Mountain Construction 

(Promontories), Deep Ravines, Rocky and Rough Terrain, 

Spoil Storage 

SA 144.5 0.9 - - - 

D1 - 5 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
TABLE D-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 

EWS 144.5 - 144.6 0.9 - - Sunset Pass Road Crossing and Sidecut, Spoil Storage 

EWS 145.0 - 145.4 3.5 - - Sidecut and Slope, Spoil Storage 

EWS 146.0 - 146.1 1.3 - - Two Deep Ravines Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 146.6 - 146.7 0.6 - - Deep Ravine Crossing, Spoil Storage 

WAS 149.0 0.9 - - 4,360 feet - 0.8 miles from Milepost 149 

EWS 149.6 - 149.6 0.6 - - Foreign Line Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 150.4 - 150.4 0.5 - - Salt Wells Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

SA 150.4 1.2 - - - 

EWS 154.2 - 156.7 24.4 - - Rough Terrain, Sidecuts and Deep Ravine Crossings, Spoil 

Storage 

SA 155.8 0.9 - - - 

EWS 157.1 - 158.7 15.6 - - Rough Terrain, Sidecuts and Steep Slopes, Spoil Storage 

EWS 161.0 - 161.1 0.7 - - Road Crossing, Truck Turnaround 

SA 161.0 1.2 - - - 

EWS 165.8 - 166.0 1.9 - - Deep Ravine Crossing, Spoil Storage 

SA 165.9 0.9 - - - 

EWS 166.8 - 167.7 8.7 - - Road Crossing, Truck Turnaround 

SA 172.5 29.3 - - Wildcat Hills Compressor Station 

EWS 172.6 - 172.7 0.7 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

WAS 173.0 0.9 - - 12,751 feet - 2.4 miles from Milepost 173 

EWS 173.1 - 173.2 0.6 - - Fiber Optic Line Crossing, Spoil Storage 

SA 174.3 35.7 - - - 

SA 174.3 35.7 - - - 

EWS 176.7 - 176.9 2.1 - - Rough Terrain and Deep Ravine Crossings, Spoil Storage 

EWS 177.8 - 177.9 0.9 - - Rough Terrain and Deep Ravine Crossings, Spoil Storage 

EWS 179.6 - 180.0 3.6 - - Rough Terrain and Sidecuts, Spoil Storage 

EWS 180.0 - 180.2 2.0 - - - 

EWS 181.1 - 181.2 0.7 - - Rough Terrain and Deep Ravine Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 184.7 - 185.2 4.0 - - Board Ranch Road and Ravine (Dove Creek) Crossing, Spoil 

Storage 

SA 184.8 0.9 - - - 

EWS 185.8 - 189.7 38.0 - - Rough Terrain, Sidecuts and Matlin Mountain Construction, 

Spoil Storage 

WAS 187.0 0.9 - - 17,804 feet - 3.4 miles from Milepost 187 

SA 189.5 0.9 - - - 

EWS 190.5 - 190.6 1.2 - - Ends On Terrace Basin Variation 

EWS 190.5 - 190.6 0.8 - - Emigrant Trail Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

WAS 198.0 0.9 - - 22,922 feet - 4.4 miles from Milepost 198 

SA 198.1 1.2 - - - 

SA 199.0 3.5 - - Highway 30 (22,502 feet - 4.3 miles from Milepost 199) 

SA 206.1 0.9 - - - 

D1 - 6 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
TABLE D-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 

EWS 206.2 - 206.2 0.4 - - Sidecut and Deep Ravine Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 206.9 - 207.0 0.5 - - Sidecut and Deep Ravine Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 207.6 - 207.8 2.4 - - Sidecut and Deep Ravine Crossings, Spoil Storage 

EWS 208.0 - 208.0 0.6 - - Sidecut and Deep Ravine Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 208.1 - 208.1 0.5 - - Sidecut and Deep Ravine Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 211.4 - 211.5 1.6 - - Fiber Optic Line and Deep Ravine Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 211.9 - 214.2 22.1 - - Rough Terrain and Deep Ravine Crossings, Spoil Storage 

EWS 211.9 - 214.2 22.1 - - Ends On Route 30 Variation 

EWS 214.4 - 214.4 0.8 - - Highway 30 Deep Bore Pit Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 214.4 - 214.4 0.6 - - On Route 30 Variation 

EWS 214.5 - 214.6 0.8 - - Fiber Optic Line and Deep Ravine Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 214.7 - 214.9 1.7 - - On Route 30 Variation 

EWS 214.9 - 215.0 1.7 - - Deep Ravine Crossings, Spoil Storage 

EWS 215.2 - 215.3 0.6 - - Deep Ravine Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 215.4 - 216.0 5.7 - - On Route 30 Variation 

EWS 215.6 - 216.0 4.3 - - Rough Terrain and Deep Ravine Crossings, Spoil Storage 

EWS 216.1 - 216.2 0.7 - - Deep Ravine Crossing, Spoil Storage 

SA 216.9 41.5 - - - 

EWS 218.0 - 219.5 14.9 - - Rough Terrain and Deep Ravine Crossings, Spoil Storage 

WAS 219.0 0.9 - - - 

EWS 220.6 - 220.7 1.0 - - Deep Ravine Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 222.1 - 222.2 0.7 - - On Route 30 Variation 

EWS 222.2 - 222.3 0.6 - - Grouse Creek Road Crossing, Spoil Storage and Truck 

Turnaround 

SA 222.3 6.0 - - - 

EWS 223.6 - 224.5 8.4 - - Deep Ravine Crossing (Grouse Creek), Spoil Storage 

EWS 224.8 - 225.1 3.6 - - Deep Ravine Crossing, Spoil Storage 

SA 226.1 0.9 - - - 

EWS 227.6 - 227.7 0.8 - - Foreign Line Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 228.1 - 237.5 91.3 - - Rough Terrain, Steep Sidecuts, Mountain Construction, 

Deep Ravine Crossings and Steep Slopes, Spoil Storage 

WAS 230.0 0.9 - - 20,029 feet - 3.8 miles from Milepost 230 

SA 230.9 1.1 - - - 

WAS 234.0 0.9 - - 18,180 feet - 3.4 miles from Milepost 234 

SA 235.4 1.1 - - - 

SA 236.5 1.1 - - - 

SA 238.0 19.9 - - 28,400 feet - 5.4 miles from Milepost 238 

SA 238.0 19.9 - - 28,400 feet - 5.4 miles from Milepost 238 

EWS 239.1 - 239.1 0.6 - - Wilkins - Montello Road Crossing, Spoil Storage and Truck 

Turnaround 

EWS 239.3 - 239.5 1.9 - - Sidecut, Spoil Storage 

D1 - 7 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
TABLE D-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 

WAS 241.0 0.9 - - 322 feet - >0.1 miles from Milepost 241 

EWS 241.0 - 246.9 56.9 - - Rough Terrain, Steep Sidecuts, Mountain Construction, 

Deep Ravine Crossings and Steep Slopes, Spoil Storage 

SA 244.5 1.1 - - - 

EWS 247.5 - 247.7 1.6 - - Rough Terrain and Deep Ravine Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 247.8 - 248.7 8.7 - - Rough Terrain, Steep Sidecuts and Steep Slopes, Spoil 

Storage 

EWS 250.3 - 251.8 14.5 - - Rough Terrain, Sidecuts and Deep Ravine Crossings, Spoil 

Storage 

SA 250.4 1.1 - - - 

EWS 252.6 - 253.8 11.2 - - - 

EWS 254.1 - 255.7 15.1 - - Rough Terrain, Sidecuts and Slopes, Spoil Storage 

EWS 258.0 - 258.3 2.2 - - Sidecuts and Deep Ravine Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 260.7 - 260.7 0.2 - - Truck Turnaround 

WAS 262.0 0.9 - - 5,768 feet - 1.1 miles from Milepost 262 

EWS 264.5 - 265.0 4.8 - - Rough Terrain and Sidecuts, Spoil Storage 

EWS 270.5 - 270.6 1.0 - - Highway 93 Crossing Deep Bore Pit, Spoil Storage 

SA 271.6 1.1 - - - 

EWS 271.6 - 275.9 41.8 0.2 - Rough Terrain, Steep Sidecuts, Mountain Construction, 

Deep Ravine Crossings and Steep Slopes, Spoil Storage 

EWS 278.0 - 278.0 0.2 - - Truck Turnaround 

EWS 280.0 - 286.0 58.3 0.6 - Rough Terrain, Steep Sidecuts, Steep Slopes, Mountain 

Construction, Deep Ravine and Creek Crossings, Spoil 

Storage 

SA 280.7 1.1 - - - 

EWS 286.7 - 287.7 9.7 - - Rough Terrain and Steep Sidecuts, Spoil Storage 

EWS 287.9 - 288.3 3.4 - - Sidecuts and Deep Ravine Crossings, Spoil Storage 

EWS 287.9 - 288.3 3.3 - - Sidecuts and Deep Ravine Crossings, Spoil Storage. Ends 

on Tabor Ranch Variation 

EWS 288.4 - 289.2 8.1 - - Rough Terrain, Steep Sidecuts, Steep Slopes and Deep 

Ravine Crossings, Spoil Storage 

EWS 289.3 - 289.7 3.9 - - Steep Sidecut, Spoil Storage 

EWS 290.5 - 290.6 1.3 - - Steep Sidecut and Steep Slopes, Spoil Storage 

EWS 291.9 - 292.0 0.9 - - Road Crossing Deep Bore Pit, Spoil Storage 

SA 292.0 10.0 - - 9,788 feet - 1.9 miles from Milepost 292 

WAS 293.0 0.9 - - 10,821 feet - 2.1 miles from Milepost 293 

EWS 295.0 - 295.1 0.9 - - Road Crossing, Deep Bore Pit, Spoil Storage (Oneil Deeth 

Road) 

SA 295.0 20.2 - - - 

EWS 298.1 - 298.1 0.2 - - Truck Turnaround 

EWS 299.8 - 300.2 3.3 0.1 - River Crossing, Deep Bore Pit, Spoil Storage (Mary’s River) 

EWS 300.4 - 300.5 1.0 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 301.6 - 301.6 0.2 - - Truck Turnaround 

EWS 304.5 - 304.9 3.3 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Spoil Storage 

EWS 305.1 - 307.7 25.2 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Deep Ravines, Road 

D1 - 8 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
TABLE D-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 

Crossings, Spoil Storage 

SA 307.7 1.1 - - - 

EWS 308.7 - 308.9 1.4 - - Rocky Terrain, Deep Ravine, Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 311.3 - 311.3 0.2 - - Truck Turnaround 

EWS 312.5 - 312.6 0.6 - - Deep Ravine, Spoil Storage 

EWS 314.7 - 314.8 0.2 - - Truck Turnaround 

EWS 315.6 - 318.8 31.4 0.3 - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Deep Ravines, Road 

Crossings, Spoil Storage 

SA 315.8 1.1 - - - 

EWS 319.7 - 320.2 5.5 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Deep Ravines, Spoil 

Storage 

EWS 320.9 - 323.4 25.0 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Deep Ravines, Road 

Crossings, Spoil Storage 

SA 323.5 1.1 - - - 

EWS 323.8 - 323.9 0.3 - - Deep Ravine, Spoil Storage 

EWS 324.1 - 325.1 9.4 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Deep Ravines, Road 

Crossings, Spoil Storage 

EWS 325.7 - 326.2 4.8 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Deep Ravines, Spoil 

Storage 

EWS 326.6 - 327.3 6.9 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Deep Ravines, Road 

Crossings, Spoil Storage 

WAS 327.0 0.9 - - 5,176 feet - 1.0 miles from Milepost 327 

WAS 327.0 0.9 - - 2,116 feet - 0.4 miles from Milepost 327 

SA 327.4 1.1 - - - 

EWS 327.6 - 328.1 4.9 0.2 - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Deep Ravines, Road 

Crossings, Creek Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 328.5 - 328.8 2.4 - - Steep Side Slopes, Deep Ravines, Road Crossings, Spoil 

Storage 

EWS 328.9 - 329.5 5.2 4.6 - Road Crossing, Side Slope, Spoil Storage 

EWS 330.3 - 330.4 1.1 - - Road Crossing, Deep Bore Pit, Spoil Storage (Highway 225) 

SA 330.3 25.3 - - Wieland Flat Compressor Station 

SA 330.4 1.1 - - - 

EWS 331.2 - 331.4 1.8 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slope, Road Crossing, Spoil 

Storage 

EWS 331.7 - 332.1 3.8 - - Deep Ravine, Spoil Storage 

EWS 332.5 - 333.4 7.9 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Deep Ravines, Spoil 

Storage 

EWS 333.7 - 334.0 2.6 - - Ravine Crossing, Spoil Storage 

SA 334.2 1.1 - - - 

EWS 335.4 - 335.6 1.7 - - Steep Side Slopes, Deep Ravines, Spoil Storage 

EWS 335.8 - 336.2 4.3 - - Steep Side Slopes, Deep Ravines, Spoil Storage 

EWS 336.4 - 336.6 2.2 - - Steep Side Slopes, Deep Ravines, Spoil Storage 

EWS 336.9 - 337.0 0.7 - - Steep Side Slope, Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 338.0 - 338.1 1.6 - - Steep Side Slope, Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 338.6 - 339.0 3.3 - - Steep Side Slopes, Road Crossing, Deep Bore Pit, Spoil 

Storage (Highway 226) 

D1 - 9 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
TABLE D-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 

EWS 339.0 - 339.1 0.4 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

SA 339.1 1.1 - - - 

EWS 340.0 - 341.3 12.0 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Deep Ravines, Road 

Crossings, Spoil Storage 

WAS 342.0 0.9 - - 11,217 feet - 2.1 miles from Milepost 342 

SA 342.8 1.1 - - - 

EWS 342.9 - 343.4 4.3 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Spoil Storage 

EWS 344.4 - 345.2 8.1 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Deep Ravines, Spoil 

Storage 

EWS 345.5 - 352.0 63.1 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Deep Ravines, Road 

Crossings, Spoil Storage 

SA 345.7 1.1 - - - 

SA 352.5 1.1 - - - 

EWS 353.8 - 360.4 63.2 <0.1 <0.1 Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Mountain Construction, 

Deep Ravines, Road Crossings, Trees, Spoil Storage 

SA 361.3 1.1 - - - 

EWS 361.3 - 364.3 29.0 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Mountain Construction, 

Deep Ravines, Road Crossings, Spoil Storage 

EWS 364.7 - 365.2 5.2 - - Steep Side Slopes, Deep Ravines, Spoil Storage 

EWS 366.8 - 366.9 1.8 - - Steep Slope, Deep Ravine, Spoil Storage 

EWS 367.4 - 367.9 5.2 - - Steep Side Slope, Deep Ravines, Spoil Storage 

EWS 368.1 - 370.4 22.0 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Deep Ravines, Spoil 

Storage 

SA 368.3 1.1 - - - 

WAS 369.0 0.9 - - 17,709 feet - 3.4 miles from Milepost 369 

EWS 373.3 - 373.4 0.8 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

SA 376.5 1.1 - - - 

EWS 377.7 - 377.7 0.2 - - Truck Turnaround 

EWS 382.5 - 382.5 0.2 - - Truck Turnaround 

WAS 383.0 0.9 - - 19,240 feet - 3.6 miles from Milepost 383 

EWS 386.2 - 386.2 0.2 - - Truck Turnaround 

EWS 390.3 - 390.3 0.2 - - Truck Turnaround 

SA 393.8 1.1 - - - 

EWS 393.9 - 393.9 0.8 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 396.0 - 396.2 1.9 - - Road Crossing, Ravine Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 397.8 - 397.9 0.9 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 401.5 - 401.6 0.2 - - Truck Turnaround 

EWS 403.6 - 403.7 1.0 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 404.8 - 404.9 1.0 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 407.8 - 407.8 0.2 - - Truck Turnaround 

WAS 408.0 0.9 - - 1,704 feet - 0.3 miles from Milepost 408 

EWS 410.8 - 410.9 1.0 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 411.2 - 411.4 2.0 - - Road Crossing, Deep Bore Pit, Spoil Storage (Highway 789) 

D1 - 10 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
TABLE D-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 

EWS 412.9 - 413.0 0.9 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 416.2 - 420.0 37.0 - - Steep Side Slopes, Mountain Construction (Soldier Pass), 

Deep Ravines, Road Crossings, Spoil Storage 

SA 416.2 1.1 - - - 

SA 420.2 1.1 - - - 

EWS 421.1 - 421.2 1.2 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 421.6 - 421.7 1.0 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 424.2 - 424.3 1.1 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

WAS 425.0 0.9 - - 7,689 feet - 1.5 miles from Milepost 425 

EWS 425.1 - 425.3 1.3 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 428.8 - 428.9 1.2 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 432.4 - 432.4 0.2 <0.1 - Truck Turnaround 

EWS 435.3 - 435.3 0.2 - - Truck Turnaround 

SA 437.4 5.5 - - Opal Valley Meter Station 

SA 437.8 4.8 - - - 

EWS 438.6 - 438.9 2.5 - - Road Crossing, Deep Bore Pit, Spoil Storage (Highway 95) 

SA 438.7 10.0 - - - 

SA 438.8 4.1 - - - 

WAS 441.0 0.9 - - 12,315 feet - 2.3 miles from Milepost 441 

EWS 442.5 - 445.0 24.4 - - Steep Side Slopes, Deep Ravines, Spoil Storage 

EWS 446.2 - 446.2 0.6 - - Ravine Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 447.9 - 447.9 0.2 - - Truck Turnaround 

EWS 449.8 - 449.8 0.6 - - Ravine Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 451.3 - 451.4 1.2 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

WAS 452.0 0.9 - - 1,458 feet - 0.3 miles from Milepost 452 

EWS 452.3 - 452.4 1.2 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 454.2 - 454.2 0.2 - - Truck Turnaround 

EWS 455.9 - 456.0 1.1 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 458.1 - 458.2 0.2 - - Truck Turnaround 

EWS 460.2 - 460.3 1.4 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 462.8 - 462.9 1.1 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 463.6 - 463.6 0.3 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

WAS 465.0 0.9 - - 4,191 feet - 0.8 miles from Milepost 465 

EWS 465.3 - 465.4 0.9 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 467.3 - 467.3 0.7 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 469.8 - 469.9 0.9 - - Ravine Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 473.1 - 473.2 0.2 - - Truck Turnaround 

EWS 476.2 - 476.3 1.4 - - Road Crossing, Deep Bore Pit, Spoil Storage (Bottle Creek 

Road) 

SA 476.4 25.3 - - Desert Valley Compressor Station 

D1 - 11 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
TABLE D-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 

EWS 479.0 - 479.2 2.2 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 480.5 - 480.6 0.5 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

WAS 481.0 0.9 - - 3,579 feet - 0.7 miles from Milepost 481 

EWS 482.8 - 483.0 1.7 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 484.6 - 487.5 27.2 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Deep Ravines, Road 

Crossings, Spoil Storage 

EWS 487.6 - 487.6 0.3 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 487.7 - 488.0 2.3 - - Road Crossing, Deep Bore Pit, Spoil Storage (Leonard 

Creek Road) 

WAS 488.0 0.9 - - 9,195 feet - 1.7 miles from Milepost 488 

EWS 489.4 - 489.5 0.6 0.3 - Ravine Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 490.1 - 490.1 0.5 - - Ravine Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 491.1 - 491.1 0.2 - - Truck Turnaround 

EWS 493.1 - 493.2 1.9 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 495.3 - 495.3 0.2 - - Truck Turnaround 

EWS 495.5 - 495.5 0.2 - - Truck Turnaround 

EWS 497.3 - 497.4 0.2 - - Truck Turnaround 

EWS 499.2 - 499.2 0.2 - - Truck Turnaround 

EWS 499.4 - 499.5 0.2 - - Truck Turnaround 

EWS 500.4 - 501.4 9.0 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Deep Ravines, Road 

Crossings, Spoil Storage 

EWS 501.7 - 501.8 0.8 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

WAS 502.0 0.9 - - 1,691 feet - 0.3 miles from Milepost 502 

EWS 502.4 - 502.6 1.4 - - Creek Crossing, Road Crossing, Spoil Storage (Leonard 

Creek) 

EWS 503.0 - 503.1 0.8 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 504.2 - 504.3 1.4 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 505.3 - 505.7 3.9 - - Deep Ravine Crossings, Steep Slopes, Spoil Storage 

SA 505.9 1.1 - - - 

EWS 505.9 - 509.4 33.2 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Mountain Construction, 

Deep Ravines, Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 509.7 - 509.8 1.1 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

SA 509.8 1.1 - - - 

SA 509.9 10.0 - - Staging Area and Spread Break 

EWS 510.0 - 510.2 2.0 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Mountain Construction, 

Deep Ravines, Road Crossings, Spoil Storage 

SA 517.5 1.1 - - - 

SA 518.8 1.1 - - - 

EWS 519.7 - 519.8 1.1 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 520.1 - 522.8 26.6 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Mountain Construction, 

Deep Ravines, Road Crossings, Spoil Storage 

EWS 523.1 - 523.3 2.1 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Deep Ravines, Spoil 

Storage 

EWS 524.1 - 524.2 1.0 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

D1 - 12 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
TABLE D-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 

EWS 524.9 - 525.3 3.6 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Spoil Storage 

EWS 526.0 - 526.4 3.3 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Spoil Storage 

EWS 526.6 - 527.1 4.8 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Deep Ravines, Spoil 

Storage 

EWS 527.4 - 527.7 2.2 - - Deep Ravine Crossings, Steep Slopes, Spoil Storage 

SA 528.2 1.1 - - - 

EWS 528.3 - 530.9 25.0 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Mountain Construction, 

Deep Ravines, Road Crossings, Spoil Storage 

WAS 531.0 0.9 - - 3,743 feet - 0.7 miles from Milepost 531 

EWS 531.3 - 532.5 11.5 - - Steep Side Slopes, Deep Ravines, Road Crossing, Spoil 

Storage 

SA 532.4 1.1 - - - 

EWS 533.0 - 533.2 1.9 - - Deep Ravine Crossings, Steep Slopes, Spoil Storage 

EWS 534.3 - 534.6 2.6 - - Rocky Terrain, Deep Ravines, Spoil Storage 

EWS 534.9 - 535.1 2.2 - - Rocky Terrain, Deep Ravines, Spoil Storage 

EWS 535.9 - 537.3 13.9 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Deep Ravines, Road 

Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 538.2 - 539.1 8.8 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Deep Ravines, Road 

Crossing, Spoil Storage 

SA 538.9 1.1 - - - 

EWS 539.8 - 540.1 3.7 - - Deep Ravine Crossings, Steep Slopes, Spoil Storage 

EWS 540.2 - 541.2 8.9 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Deep Ravines, Spoil 

Storage 

EWS 542.0 - 543.1 10.9 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Deep Ravines, Road 

Crossings, Spoil Storage 

SA 542.6 1.1 - - - 

EWS 543.3 - 544.2 9.0 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Deep Ravines, Spoil 

Storage 

EWS 544.7 - 546.0 12.8 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Deep Ravines, Road 

Crossings, Spoil Storage 

WAS 546.0 0.9 - - 1,847 feet - 0.4 miles from Milepost 546 

EWS 546.8 - 546.9 1.2 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Slope, Deep Ravine, Road Crossing, 

Spoil Storage 

EWS 547.6 - 547.8 2.6 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slope, Deep Ravine, Road 

Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 548.7 - 548.9 2.3 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slope, Deep Ravine, Spoil 

Storage 

EWS 549.9 - 550.0 1.1 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

SA 549.9 10.0 - - Staging Area and Spread Break 

EWS 550.5 - 550.6 1.7 - - Deep Ravine Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 551.2 - 551.3 1.1 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 553.5 - 553.6 0.9 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 555.7 - 555.7 0.2 - - Truck Turnaround 

EWS 557.6 - 557.8 1.4 - - Road Crossing, Ravine Crossing, Spoil Storage 

WAS 558.0 0.9 - - 13,756 feet - 2.6 miles from Milepost 558 

EWS 559.6 - 559.7 0.9 - - Deep Ravine Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 561.9 - 562.0 0.9 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

D1 - 13 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
TABLE D-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 

EWS 564.1 - 564.3 1.2 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

WAS 565.0 0.9 - - 23,313 feet - 4.4 miles from Milepost 565 

EWS 566.2 - 566.2 0.2 - - Truck Turnaround 

EWS 568.4 - 568.4 0.2 - - Truck Turnaround 

EWS 571.4 - 571.5 1.0 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 572.5 - 575.5 29.1 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Mountain Construction, 

Deep Ravines, Spoil Storage 

WAS 574.0 0.9 - - 1,800 feet - 0.3 miles from Milepost 574 

EWS 575.9 - 576.4 5.2 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Deep Ravines, Spoil 

Storage 

EWS 579.0 - 579.0 0.2 - - Truck Turnaround 

EWS 579.6 - 579.7 1.1 - - Rocky Terrain, Spoil Storage 

EWS 581.9 - 582.0 0.8 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 585.0 - 585.1 0.4 - - Rocky Terrain, Spoil Storage 

SA 586.9 1.1 - - - 

SA 586.9 6.5 - - - 

EWS 588.0 - 588.3 2.1 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Deep Canyon, Creek 

Crossing, Trees, Spoil Storage (Twelvemile Creek) 

SA 588.3 1.1 - - - 

SA 588.3 2.1 - - - 

SA 589.0 2.1 - - 2,035 feet - 0.4 miles from Milepost 589 

SA 589.0 2.1 - - 2,035 feet - 0.4 miles from Milepost 589 

EWS 589.1 - 589.6 5.2 - - Rocky Terrain, Side Slopes, Road Crossings, Spoil Storage 

WAS 590.0 0.9 - - 15,250 feet - 2.9 miles from Milepost 590 

EWS 590.2 - 590.8 5.6 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Spoil Storage 

EWS 590.9 - 591.0 1.1 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

SA 590.9 8.6 - - - 

WAS 591.0 0.9 - - 12,049 feet - 2.3 miles from Milepost 591 

EWS 592.8 - 593.3 4.5 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Spoil Storage 

EWS 594.2 - 594.5 3.1 - - Rocky Terrain, Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 595.8 - 595.9 1.2 - - Rocky Terrain, Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 596.0 - 596.2 1.4 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Slope, Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 596.4 - 597.3 8.7 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Spoil Storage 

EWS 598.0 - 598.4 3.9 - - Rocky Terrain, Deep Ravines, Spoil Storage 

EWS 599.3 - 603.9 44.3 0.9 - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Mountain Construction, 

Deep Ravines, Road Crossings, Creek Crossing, Trees, 

Spoil Storage 

SA 601.7 1.2 - - - 

WAS 602.9 - - - Falls in Existing Extra Workspace 

SA 603.5 1.3 - - - 

EWS 605.1 - 605.8 7.5 0.4 - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Deep Ravines, Road 

Crossings, Trees, Spoil Storage 

D1 - 14 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
TABLE D-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 

EWS 606.5 - 606.9 3.9 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Road Crossing, Trees, 

Spoil Storage 

EWS 607.6 - 608.9 12.5 154.8 - Rocky Terrain, Mountain Construction, Steep Side Slopes, 

Deep Ravines, Highway 395 Road Crossing, Deep Bore Pit, 

Trees, Spoil Storage, (High Water Table at Goose Lake) 

EWS 608.9 - 627.9 183.9 - - - 

EWS 608.9 - 627.9 183.9 - - On Goose Lake Variation 

SA 609.9 1.2 - - - 

WAS 610.0 0.9 - - 807 feet - 0.2 miles from Milepost 610 

SA 611.8 1.2 - - - 

SA 614.3 1.2 - - - 

SA 621.0 1.2 - - - 

WAS 624.0 0.9 - - 6,250 feet - 1.2 miles from Milepost 624 

SA 627.0 3.9 - - - 

SA 627.8 1.2 - - - 

EWS 628.0 - 628.1 0.9 0.3 - Deep Ravine Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 628.3 - 628.4 0.8 - - Canal Crossing, Deep Bore Pit, Spoil Storage 

EWS 629.2 - 629.2 0.8 - - Canal Crossing, Deep Bore Pit, Spoil Storage 

EWS 629.5 - 630.1 5.7 - - Road Crossing, Canal Crossings, Deep Bore Pit, Steep Side 

Slopes, Spoil Storage 

EWS 630.6 - 631.5 8.2 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Canal Crossing, Deep 

Bore Pit, Spoil Storage 

EWS 631.7 - 631.8 0.6 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 632.6 - 632.7 1.4 - - Steep Side Slope, Canal Crossing, Deep Bore Pit, Spoil 

Storage 

EWS 632.8 - 632.9 0.8 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 633.4 - 633.5 0.9 <0.1 <0.1 Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 634.6 - 634.7 1.7 - - Steep Slope, Creek and Canal Crossing, Deep Bore Pit, 

Spoil Storage 

EWS 634.8 - 636.3 14.5 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Road Crossings, Trees, 

Spoil Storage 

EWS 637.1 - 639.4 21.7 <0.1 - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Mountain Construction, 

Deep Ravines, Road Crossings, Trees, Spoil Storage 

SA 637.3 1.2 - - - 

WAS 638.0 0.9 - - 2,295 feet - 0.4 miles from Milepost 638 

EWS 639.6 - 640.0 4.5 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Road Crossings, Trees, 

Spoil Storage 

EWS 641.3 - 641.8 4.6 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Road Crossings, Trees, 

Spoil Storage 

EWS 642.4 - 642.5 1.0 - - Deep Ravine Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 643.0 - 643.1 0.8 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 643.4 - 644.2 7.9 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Road Crossings, Trees, 

Spoil Storage 

EWS 643.4 - 644.0 5.7 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

EWS 644.3 - 644.4 1.0 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

SA 644.7 1.2 - - - 

EWS 644.8 - 645.0 1.3 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

D1 - 15 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
TABLE D-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 

EWS 645.2 - 645.3 0.8 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

EWS 645.3 - 645.5 1.7 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Slope, Deep Ravine, Trees, Spoil 

Storage 

EWS 645.5 - 645.5 0.3 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

EWS 645.6 - 645.6 0.4 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

EWS 646.0 - 646.1 0.7 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

EWS 646.3 - 647.0 6.3 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Road Crossings, Trees, 

Spoil Storage 

EWS 646.4 - 646.5 1.3 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

EWS 646.6 - 646.7 0.6 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

EWS 646.8 - 646.9 0.9 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

SA 647.0 1.3 - - - 

EWS 647.0 - 647.2 1.6 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

EWS 647.5 - 647.6 1.0 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

EWS 647.5 - 647.6 0.8 - - Road Crossing, Trees, Spoil Storage 

EWS 649.2 - 650.1 8.0 <0.1 - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Deep Ravines, Trees, 

Spoil Storage 

EWS 649.3 - 649.5 1.4 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

EWS 650.1 - 650.3 1.2 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

SA 650.2 1.3 - - - 

EWS 650.7 - 650.7 0.2 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

EWS 651.0 - 651.0 0.5 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

EWS 651.8 - 651.8 0.4 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

EWS 651.9 - 652.0 1.1 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

EWS 652.0 - 652.0 0.7 - - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 652.3 - 652.4 0.5 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

EWS 652.9 - 653.8 8.7 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Deep Ravines, Road 

Crossing, Trees, Spoil Storage 

EWS 653.4 - 653.5 1.1 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

EWS 654.0 - 654.0 0.6 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

EWS 655.0 - 655.4 3.9 - - Rocky Terrain, Side Slopes, Road Crossing, Trees, Spoil 

Storage 

EWS 655.3 - 655.3 0.2 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

WAS 656.0 0.9 - - 2,282 feet - 0.4 miles from Milepost 656 

EWS 657.7 - 657.7 0.4 <0.1 - Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 657.8 - 658.1 2.1 - - Rocky Terrain, Deep Ravine, Road Crossing, Spoil Storage 

EWS 658.9 - 658.9 0.6 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

EWS 658.9 - 658.9 0.6 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

EWS 659.0 - 659.1 1.0 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

EWS 659.2 - 659.3 0.9 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

EWS 660.3 - 660.4 1.0 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

EWS 660.5 - 660.5 0.8 - - Rocky Terrain, Ravine Crossing, Spoil Storage 

D1 - 16 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
D1 - 17 

TABLE D-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 

EWS 661.2 - 661.8 5.9 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

EWS 661.3 - 662.0 6.9 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Slopes, Deep Ravine, Trees, Spoil 

Storage 

EWS 662.8 - 662.9 1.0 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

EWS 663.4 - 664.3 8.8 9.4 - Rocky Terrain, Canal Crossings, Spoil Storage 

EWS 664.4 - 666.3 18.6 9.3 - Rocky Terrain, Steep Slope, Highway/East Langell Valley 

Road Crossing, Deep Bore Pit, Canal Crossings, Spoil 

Storage, High Water Table at Lost River Canal 

EWS 665.4 - 665.6 1.9 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

EWS 666.1 - 667.0 8.4 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

EWS 666.5 - 666.6 1.1 - - Canal Crossings, Deep Bore Pit, Spoil Storage 

EWS 666.8 - 666.8 0.8 2.9 - Canal Crossing, Deep Bore Pit, Spoil Storage 

EWS 667.1 - 667.5 3.4 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

EWS 667.2 - 667.5 2.0 - 0.2 Highway/West Langell Valley Road Crossing, Deep Bore Pit, 

Canal Crossings, Spoil Storage 

SA 667.5 1.3 - - - 

EWS 667.6 - 668.0 3.9 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

EWS 668.0 - 675.1 69.6 - - Rocky Terrain, Steep Side Slopes, Mountain Construction, 

Deep Ravines, Road Crossings, Trees, Spoil Storage 

WAS 668.0 0.9 - - 2,612 feet - 0.5 miles from Milepost 668 

EWS 668.1 - 668.5 4.3 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

EWS 668.7 - 669.1 3.7 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

EWS 669.7 - 669.9 1.6 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

SA 669.8 1.3 - - - 

EWS 670.0 - 670.5 4.5 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

EWS 671.3 - 671.6 2.9 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

EWS 671.7 - 671.7 0.2 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

EWS 671.9 - 671.9 0.2 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

EWS 672.1 - 672.2 0.4 - - On South Langell Valley Variation 

SA 672.6 9.4 - - New Meter Station Due to the Southern Langell Valley 

Variation 

SA 672.9 1.2 - - - 

WAS 675.0 0.9 - - 7,273 feet - 1.4 miles from Milepost 675 

SA 675.2 6.5 - - - 

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 or woody riparian area, would 

 not be approved for use. 

EWS = Extra Workspace 

SA = Staging Area 

WAS = Water Appropriation Site 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
TABLE D-2 

Construction and Pipe Yards for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Yard Use County State Township/Section/Range Temporary Surface Disturbance 

Attributed to Facility (acres)a

Pipeline Construction 

Construction Yard Uinta WY S30, T16N, R120W 32.3 

Construction Yard Cache UT S26, T10N, R1E 23.2 

Construction Yard Box Elder UT S24, T10N, R3W 36.3 

Construction Yard Elko NV S11, T37N, R62E 39.3 

Construction Yard Elko NV S8, T34N, R55E 34.4 

Construction Yard Humboldt NV S9/10, T37N, R38E 52.7 

Construction Yard Humboldt NV S21/22, T36N, R38E 78.6 

Construction Yard Lake OR S10, T39S, R20E 20.2 

Construction Yard Klamath OR S33, T38S, R9E 13.8 

Pipe Yard Lincoln WY S7/8, T20N, R116W 2.4 

Pipe Yard Lincoln WY S7/8, T20N, R116W 75.8 

Pipe Yard Lincoln WY S8/7, T21N, R119W 29.9 

Pipe Yard Box Elder WY S26, T10N, R3W 99.5 

Pipe Yard Box Elder WY S26, T10N, R4W 56.4 

Pipe Yard Box Elder WY S29/32, T12N, R2W 41.1 

Pipe Yard Elko NV S11, T37N, 62E 55.8 

Pipe Yard Elko NV S1, T38N, R52E 50.5 

Pipe Yard Elko NV S14, T33N, R52E 82.7 

Pipe Yard Elko NV S10, T25N, R56E 27.3 

Pipe Yard Elko NV S10/11, T25N, R56E 71.9 

Pipe Yard Elko NV S3/10/11, T25N, R56E 44.4 

Pipe Yard Elko NV S10, T25N, R56E 23.2 

Pipe Yard Elko NV S3/10/11, T25N, R56E 41.5 

Pipe Yard Elko NV S29, T41N, R64E 42.0 

Pipe Yard Humboldt NV S17, T37N, R42E 15.6 

Pipe Yard Humboldt NV S26/27, T41N, R35E 35.8 

Pipe Yard Humboldt NV S14, T42N, R31E 29.7 

Pipe Yard Humboldt NV S20/21/28/29, T35N, R43E 141.0 

Pipe Yard Humboldt NV S9/10, T37N, R38E 52.7 

Pipe Yard Washoe NV S3, T42N, R21E / 

 S34, T43N, R21E 75.8 

Pipe Yard Lake OR S27, T39S, R20E 89.6 

Pipe Yard Lake OR S10, T39S, R20E 20.2 

Pipe Yard Lake OR S21/22, T39S, R20E 44.2 

Pipe Yard Klamath OR S7, T40S, R14E 15.5 

Pipe Yard Klamath OR S1, T41S, R10E 49.4 

Pipe Yard Klamath OR S12, T41S, R10E 12.9 

Pipe Yard Klamath OR S33, T38S, R9E 13.8 

D2-1 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
D2-2 

TABLE D-2 (cont.) 

Land Requirements for Contractor Construction Yards for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Yard Use County State Township/Section/Range Temporary Surface Disturbance 

Attributed to Facility (acres)a

Pipe Yard Klamath OR S8/9, T39S, R9E 67.4 

Pipe Yard Klamath OR S8/9, T39S, R9E 43.5 

Construction Camp Washoe NV S10, T42N, R19E 160.6 

Measurement Facilities 

King Compressor Station Lincoln WY S28, T21N, R114W 8.3 

Roberson Creek Lincoln WY S24, T20N, R115W 0b

Opal Valley Humboldt NV S13, T42N, R13E 5.5c

Malin Klamath OR S11, T41S, R12E 5.7 

Tule Lake Klamath OR S24, T41S, R12E 9.4 

Compressor Stations 

Roberson Creek Lincoln WY S24, T20N, R115W 47.6 

Wildcat Hills Box Elder UT S16, T12N, R11W 29.3 

Wieland Flat Elko NV S29, T39N, R53E 25.3 

Desert Valley Humboldt NV S24, T41N, R33E 25.3 

Total Acreage 2,099.3 

a The temporary and permanent surface disturbance for mainline valves and launcher/receiver facilities overlaps the nominal 

construction right-of-way. These disturbance areas are reported with the right-of-way construction. 

b This workspace is included in the 60-acre construction sites required for the compressor station. 

c Acreage for this feature reflects total disturbance not additional disturbance. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
TABLE D-3 

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/ 

County/ 

Access Road 

Number 

Public or 

Private Road Name 

Existing 

Width 

(feet) 

Existing 

Surface 

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement 

WYOMING 

LINCOLN COUNTY 

LW-1 Private King Compressor 

Road 

24 Gravel 0.3 Gravel Grade 

LW-1A Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 2.4 Two-track Grade 

LW-1B Private Unnamed 12 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

LW-3 Private Unnamed 10 Dirt 0.5 Two-track Grade, Widen 

LW-4 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 2.4 Two-track Grade, Widen 

LW-5 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

LW-6 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 15.7 Two-track Grade, Widen 

LW-6B Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

LW-6C Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

LW-7 Private Unnamed 8 - 24 Gravel and 

Dirt 0.2 Good and Mostly Two-track Grade, Widen 

LW-8 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 2.3 Two-track Grade, Widen 

LW-9 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

LW-10 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

LW-11 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.6 Two-track Grade, Widen 

LW-12 Private Unnamed 10 Dirt 1.7 Two-track Grade, Widen 

LW-13 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.6 Two-track Grade, Widen 

LW-14A Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

LW-14B Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.0 Two-track Grade, Widen 

LW-15 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.0 Two-track Grade, Widen 

LW-16 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.9 Two-track Grade, Widen 

LW-17 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 2.8 Two-track Grade, Widen 

LW-18 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.2 Two-track Grade, Widen 

LW-19 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.8 Two-track Grade, Widen 

LW-20 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 2.9 Two-track Grade, Widen 

LW-21 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 6.4 Two-track Grade, Widen 

LW-21A Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

LW-21B Private NEW BUILD 10 Dirt 0.1 NEW Grade, Widen 

LW-22 Private Unnamed 20 Gravel 0.9 Good Grade 

LW-23 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 2.8 Two-track Grade, Widen 

LW-24 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.3 Two-track Grade, Widen 

LW-26 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.2 Two-track Grade, Widen 

LW-28 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.3 Two-track Grade, Widen 

LW-29 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.4 Two-track Grade, Widen 

D3-1 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
TABLE D-3 

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/ 

County/ 

Access Road 

Number 

Public or 

Private Road Name 

Existing 

Width 

(feet) 

Existing 

Surface 

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement 

LW-30 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

UTAH 

UINTA 

U-1 Private Unnamed 24 Paved 4.8 Paved None 

U-2 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

U-3 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.8 Two-track Grade, Widen 

U-4 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.7 Two-track Grade, Widen 

U-5 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

U-5A Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

U-5B Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.8 Two-track Grade, Widen 

U-6 Private Unnamed 16 Gravel and 

Dirt 12.7 Good and Mostly Two-track Grade, Widen 

U-7 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.3 Two-track Grade, Widen 

U-8 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.5 Two-track Grade, Widen 

U-10 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 2.5 Two-track Grade, Widen 

U-11 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.6 Two-track Grade, Widen 

U-12 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.3 Two-track Grade, Widen 

U-13 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.5 Two-track Grade, Widen 

U-14 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.0 Two-track Grade, Widen 

U-15 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.6 Two-track Grade, Widen 

U-16 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.8 Two-track Grade, Widen 

U-16A Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.9 Two-track Grade, Widen 

U-18 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 16.6 Two-track Grade, Widen 

U-18A Private Unnamed 24 Gravel 8.8 Good None 

U-19 Private Unnamed 24 Gravel 6.5 Good None 

U-20 Private Unnamed 16 Gravel and 

Dirt 1.6 Good and Partly Two-track Grade, Widen 

U-21 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.5 Two-track Grade, Widen 

U-21A Private Unnamed 8 Dirt <0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

U-21B Private Unnamed 8 Dirt <0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

U-23 Private Unnamed 20 Gravel 0.1 Good Grade 

U-24 Private Unnamed 10 Dirt 6.9 Two-track Grade, Widen 

U-25 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.8 Two-track Grade, Widen 

U-26 Private Unnamed 10 Dirt 1.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

U-27 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.5 Two-track Grade, Widen 

U-28 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.6 Two-track Grade, Widen 

D3-2 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
TABLE D-3 

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/ 

County/ 

Access Road 

Number 

Public or 

Private Road Name 

Existing 

Width 

(feet) 

Existing 

Surface 

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement 

U-30 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.4 Two-track Grade, Widen 

U-31 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 3.4 Two-track Grade, Widen 

U-31A Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.2 Two-track Grade. Widen 

RICH 

R-1 Private Unnamed 16 Gravel 0.8 Good Grade 

R-1A Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.7 Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-2 Private Unnamed 16 Gravel and 

Dirt 

2.7 Good and Partly 

Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-3 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.2 Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-5A Private Unnamed 8 Gravel 1.5 Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-5B Private Unnamed 8 Dirt <0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-5C Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-5D Private Unnamed 8 Dirt <0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-5E Private Unnamed 8 Dirt <0.1 Two-track Grade. Widen 

R-7A Public Unnamed 20 Gravel 0.6 Good None 

R-7B Public Schulthess Lane 20 Gravel 1.6 Good None 

R-7C Private Unnamed 8 Dirt <0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-8 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 7.3 Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-8A Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-8B Private Unnamed 16 Gravel 1.9 Good Grade, Widen 

R-8C Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.2 Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-8D Private Unnamed 8 Dirt <0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-8E Private Unnamed 8 Dirt <0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-8F Private Unnamed 8 Dirt <0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-8G Private Unnamed 8 Dirt <0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-8H Private Unnamed 8 Dirt <0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-8I Private Unnamed 8 Dirt <0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-8J Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.2 Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-9 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-10 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.3 Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-11 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.5 Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-12 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.3 Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-12A Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.4 Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-12B Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.2 Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-12C Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-13 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.3 Two-track Grade, Widen 

D3-3 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
TABLE D-3 

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/ 

County/ 

Access Road 

Number 

Public or 

Private Road Name 

Existing 

Width 

(feet) 

Existing 

Surface 

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement 

R-13A Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-14 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-15 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.4 Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-16 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.6 Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-17 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.5 Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-18 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-19 Private Unnamed 16 Gravel 2.3 Good Grade 

R-19A Private Unnamed 10 Dirt 3.6 Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-20 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.8 Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-21 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 4.9 Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-22 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-23 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-24 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.9 Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-25 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.5 Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-26 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 2.3 Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-26A Private Unnamed 8 Dirt <0.1 Track Grade, Widen 

R-27 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

R-27A Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.9 Two-track Grade, Widen 

CACHE 

C-1 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 7.3 Two-track Grade, Widen 

C-1A Private Unnamed 12 Gravel 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

C-1B Private Unnamed 12 Gravel 0.1 Good None 

C-1C Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.2 Two-track Grade, Widen 

C-1D Private Unnamed 8 Dirt <0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

C-2 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

C-3 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.3 Two-track Grade, Widen 

C-5 Private Unnamed 16 Dirt 8.9 Two-track Grade, Widen 

C-6 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.6 Two-track Grade, Widen 

C-7 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.0 Two-track Grade, Widen 

C-8 Private Unnamed 16 Dirt 0.3 Two-track Grade, Widen 

C-9 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.5 Two-track Grade, Widen 

C-9A Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

C-10 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

C-11 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.2 Two-track Grade, Widen 

C-12 Private Unnamed 8 Gravel and 

Dirt 

4.7 Good and Mostly 

Two-track Grade, Widen 

D3-4 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
TABLE D-3 

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/ 

County/ 

Access Road 

Number 

Public or 

Private Road Name 

Existing 

Width 

(feet) 

Existing 

Surface 

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement 

C-12A Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.4 Two-track Grade, Widen 

C-13 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.4 Two-track Grade, Widen 

C-13A Private NEW BUILD 10 -15 Dirt 1.9 NEW Grade, Widen 

C-13B Private NEW BUILD 10 -15 Dirt 0.6 NEW Grade, Widen 

C-14 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.5 Two-track Grade, Widen 

C-14A Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.2 Two-track Grade, Widen 

C-14B Public LaPlata County 

Road 24 Paved and Gravel 3.0 Good Grade 

C-14C Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

C-15 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.6 Two-track Grade, Widen 

C-15A Public South 1800 East 20 Gravel 0.6 Good Grade 

C-16 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.8 Two-track Grade, Widen 

C-17 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.3 Two-track Grade, Widen 

C-18 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 7.4 Two-track Grade, Widen 

C-18A Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 4.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

BOX ELDER 

B-1 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 2.2 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-1A Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 2.2 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-1B Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.6 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-1C Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.5 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-1D Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.2 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-1F Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.6 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-1G Private Unnamed 8 Dirt <0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-1H Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-1I Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.2 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-1J Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.5 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-1B1 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.4 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-2 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.8 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-2A Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.4 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-2B Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.2 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-2C Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.5 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-2D Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 2.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-2E Private Unnamed 8 Dirt <0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-2F Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.3 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-2G Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.2 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-2H Private Unnamed 8 Dirt <0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

D3-5 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
TABLE D-3 

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/ 

County/ 

Access Road 

Number 

Public or 

Private Road Name 

Existing 

Width 

(feet) 

Existing 

Surface 

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement 

B-2I Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-2J Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-2K Private Unnamed 8 Dirt <0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-2L Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.2 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-2M Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.4 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-2N Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.2 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-2O Private Unnamed 8 Dirt <0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-2P Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.3 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-3 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-3A Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-4 Public Hatch County 

Road N 2800 W 

20 Gravel 4.4 Good Grade 

B-4A Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.2 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-4B Public N 3300 W County 

Road 

16 Gravel 1.0 Good Grade, Widen 

B-4C Public N 4000 W County 

Road 

16 Gravel 1.2 Good Grade, Widen 

B-4D Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.7 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B4-E Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.0 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-4F Public N 4800 W County 

Road 

16 Gravel 0.8 Good Grade 

B-4F1 Public N 4400 W County 

Road 10 Gravel 0.7 Good Grade, Widen 

B-4G Public W 4300 N County 

Road 

20 Gravel 0.3 Good Grade 

B-4H Public W 4000 N County 

Road 

20 Gravel 2.5 Good Grade 

B-4I Public W 4000 N County 

Road 

20 Gravel 0.5 Good Grade 

B-6A Public N 6000 W County 

Road 20 Gravel 1.2 Good Grade 

B-6B Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.2 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-6D Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.8 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-7 Public N 7600 W County 

Road 20 Gravel 0.7 Good Grade 

B-8 Private Unnamed 16 Gravel 1.7 Good Grade, Widen 

B-9 Private Unnamed 16 Gravel 1.3 Good Grade, Widen 

B-10 Public W Evans N County 

Road 20 Gravel 3.6 Good Grade 

B-11 Public Dump County 

Road 

16 Dirt 0.4 Good Grade, Widen 

B-11A Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.2 Two-track Grade, Widen 

D3-6 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
TABLE D-3 

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/ 

County/ 

Access Road 

Number 

Public or 

Private Road Name 

Existing 

Width 

(feet) 

Existing 

Surface 

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement 

B11-B Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-12 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.4 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-12A Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.4 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-12B Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.3 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-12C Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-12D Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-13 Private Unnamed 20 Gravel 0.4 Good Grade 

B-14 Private Unnamed 20 Gravel 1.6 Good Grade 

B-14A Public N 11600 W County 

Road 

20 Gravel 1.0 Good Grade 

B14-B Public Unnamed 8 Dirt <0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-15 Public W 8040 N County 

Road 

20 Gravel 0.6 Good Grade 

B-15A Private Unnamed 16 Gravel 1.1 Good Grade, Widen 

B-15B Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.8 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-16A Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.8 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-16B Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-16C Private Unnamed 8 Dirt <0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-16D Private Unnamed 8 Dirt <0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-16E Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 4.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-17 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 5.5 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-18 Public W Faust Valley 

Road N 

24 Paved 10.5 Paved None 

B-18A Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.5 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-18B Private Unnamed 8 Dirt <0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-18C Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.3 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-19 Public N 18000 W County 

Road 

20 Gravel 1.1 Good Grade 

B-20 Public N 18800 W County 

Road 8 Dirt 0.7 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B20-A Public 11600 N. County 

Road 20 Gravel 1.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-21 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 5.5 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-22 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-23 Public Sunset Pass 

County Road 20 Gravel 16.5 Good Grade 

B-23A Public Salt Wells Flat 

Road 

20 Gravel 15.0 Good None 

B-24 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.5 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-24A Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.6 Two-track Grade, Widen 

D3-7 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
TABLE D-3 

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/ 

County/ 

Access Road 

Number 

Public or 

Private Road Name 

Existing 

Width 

(feet) 

Existing 

Surface 

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement 

B-25 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 4.2 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-26 Public Hansel Valley 

County Road 

20 Gravel 30.3 Good Grade 

B-26A Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-26B Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-27 Public 

Old Railroad 

Grade County 20 Gravel 10.5 Good Grade 

B-27A Public Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.2 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-27B Public Unnamed 20 Gravel 0.1 Good Grade 

B-27C Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.0 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-28 Public W 13600 N County 

Road 16 Gravel 2.3 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-28B Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.6 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-29 Public N 31600 W 16 Dirt 1.0 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-29A Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 3.6 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-29B Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.4 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-31 Public 

N Locomotive 

Springs County 

Road W 

20 Gravel 2.9 Good Grade, Widen 

B-32 Public Deep Creek Road 8 Dirt 1.6 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-33 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.3 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-34 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-35 Public Wildcat County 

Road 

12 Dirt 4.3 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-36 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 6.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-36A Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-37 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.7 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-38 Public Kelton County 

Road 

20 Gravel 6.5 Good Grade 

B-38B Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.4 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-38A Public Baker Mountain 

Loop County Road 10 Dirt 1.0 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-39 Public Emigrant Trail 

County Road 

16 Gravel 27.3 Good Grade, Widen 

B-39A Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-39B Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-39C Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.3 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-40 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.8 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-41 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-41A Private Unnamed 8 Dirt <0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

D3-8 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
TABLE D-3 

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/ 

County/ 

Access Road 

Number 

Public or 

Private Road Name 

Existing 

Width 

(feet) 

Existing 

Surface 

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement 

B-41B Private Unnamed 8 Dirt <0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-41-C Private Unnamed 8 Dirt <0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-41D Private Unnamed 8 Dirt <0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-41E Private Unnamed 8 Dirt <0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-42 Public Board Ranch 

County Road #13 20 Gravel 11.8 Good Grade 

B-42A Private Unnamed 8 Dirt <0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-45A Private Unnamed 8 Dirt <0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-45B Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-45C Private Unnamed 8 Dirt <0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-45D Private Unnamed 8 Dirt <0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-46 Public Water Cress 

County Road 16 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-46A Private Unnamed 8 Dirt <0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-47 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-48 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-49 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-49A Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-50 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-50A Private Unnamed 8 Dirt <0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-50B Private Unnamed 8 Dirt <0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-50C Private Unnamed 8 Dirt <0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-50D Private Unnamed 8 Dirt <0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-50E Private Unnamed 8 Dirt <0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-52 Public Mud Basin Springs 

County Road #73 

16 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-55 Public Grouse Creek 

County Road 

24 Gravel 0.2 Good Grade 

B-56 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.6 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-57 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.1 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-58 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.0 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-59 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.9 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-60 Public S Winter Cabin 

County Road 

8 Gravel and 

Dirt 

4.9 Good and some 

Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-60A Public SW Winter Cabin 

County Road 

8 Dirt 0.7 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-61 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 3.6 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-62 Public Kilgore Basin 

County Road 

8 Dirt 2.0 Two-track Grade, Widen 

B-62A Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.8 Two-track Grade, Widen 

D3-9 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
TABLE D-3 

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/ 

County/ 

Access Road 

Number 

Public or 

Private Road Name 

Existing 

Width 

(feet) 

Existing 

Surface 

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement 

B-63 Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.5 Two-track Grade, Widen 

NEVADA 

ELKO 

E-1 Private Unnamed 10 - 12 Gravel 7.0 Rough - Not 

Maintained Grade 

E1-A Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.5 Two-track Grade, Widen 

E-2 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 8.5 

Rough - Not 

Maintained Twotrack 

Grade 

E-3 Public Wilkins-Montello 

Road (#765) 24 - 30 Gravel 53.3 ImprovedMaintained None 

E-3A Private Unnamed 12 -16 Gravel 0.4 ImprovedMaintained Blade, Maintain 

E-4 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 26.7 Rough - Not 

Maintained TwoGrade 

E-5 Private Unnamed 12 - 14 Dirt/Gravel 21.7 Improved-Not 

Maintained 

Grade 

E-6 Private Unnamed 12 - 14 Dirt/Gravel 11.1 Improved-Not 

Maintained 

Grade 

E-7 Private Unnamed 12 - 14 Dirt/Gravel 4.4 Improved-Not 

Maintained 

Grade 

E-7A Private Unnamed 12 - 14 Dirt/Gravel 0.5 Improved-Not 

Maintained 

Grade 

E-8 Private Unnamed 12 - 14 Dirt/Gravel 4.6 Improved-Not 

Maintained 

Grade 

E-9 Private Winecup Ranch 

Road 

24 - 30 Gravel 8.6 ImprovedMaintained None 

E-9A Private Unnamed 8 Gravel 6.1 

Rough - Not 

Maintained Twotrack 

Grade 

E-9B Private Unnamed 8 Gravel 10.0 

Rough - Not 

Maintained Twotrack 

Grade 

E-10 Private Unnamed 16 - 20 Gravel 23.5 ImprovedMaintained Grade 

E-11 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 10.0 

Rough - Not 

Maintained Twotrack 

Grade 

E-12 Private Unnamed 12 - 14 Gravel 10.1 ImprovedMaintained Grade 

E-13 Private Unnamed 12 - 14 Gravel 6.4 Improved-Not 

Maintained 

Grade 

E-14 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 14.8 

Rough - Not 

Maintained Twotrack 

Grade 

D3-10 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
TABLE D-3 

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/ 

County/ 

Access Road 

Number 

Public or 

Private Road Name 

Existing 

Width 

(feet) 

Existing 

Surface 

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement 

E-14A Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 0.1 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

E-14B Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 0.5 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

E-15 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 3.0 

Rough - Not 

Maintained Twotrack 

Grade 

E-15A Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 1.2 Two-track Grade, Widen 

E-16 Public Upper Metropolis 

Road (#754) 

24 - 30 Gravel 21.6 ImprovedMaintained None 

E-17 Public Oneil Deeth Road 

(#753) 

24 - 30 Gravel 22.2 ImprovedMaintained None 

E-17A Private Unnamed 8 - 16 Dirt/Gravel 5.0 

Rough - Not 

Maintained Twotrack 

Grade 

E-17B Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.4 

Rough - Not 

Maintained Twotrack 

Grade 

E-17C Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.9 

Rough - Not 

Maintained Twotrack 

Grade 

E-17D Private Unnamed 8 Dirt 0.5 Two-track Blade 

E-18 Public Marys River Ranch 

Road 

18 - 24 Gravel 7.7 ImprovedMaintained None 

E-18A Private Unnamed 18 - 24 Gravel 0.7 

ImprovedMaintained Twotrack 

Grade 

E-19 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 0.3 

Rough - Not 

Maintained Twotrack 

Grade 

E-20 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 0.5 

Rough - Not 

Maintained Twotrack 

Grade 

E-21 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 0.8 

Rough - Not 

Maintained Twotrack 

Grade 

E-22 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 1.6 

Rough - Not 

Maintained Twotrack 

Grade 

E-23 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 3.3 

Rough - Not 

Maintained Twotrack 

Grade 

E-24 Public Charleston Deeth 

Road (#747) 

24 - 30 Gravel 16.9 ImprovedMaintained 

None 

E-25 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 6.5 

Rough - Not 

Maintained Twotrack 

Grade 

E-26 Private Unnamed 16 - 20 Gravel 9.4 ImprovedMaintained Grade 

D3-11 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
TABLE D-3 

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/ 

County/ 

Access Road 

Number 

Public or 

Private Road Name 

Existing 

Width 

(feet) 

Existing 

Surface 

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement 

E-27 Private Unnamed 12 - 20 Gravel 27.2 Improved-Not 

Maintained 

Grade 

E-28 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 1.1 Rough - Not 

Maintained 

Grade 

E-28A Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 2.2 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

E-29 Private Tule Ranch Road 16 - 20 Gravel 12.5 ImprovedMaintained Grade 

E-29A Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 2.2 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

E-30 Public Rynden Road 18 - 24 Gravel 13.6 ImprovedMaintained None 

E-31 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 11.9 Improved-Not 

Maintained 

Grade 

E-32 Public Coal Mine Canyon 

Road 

32 - 40 AsphaltGravel 23.1 ImprovedMaintained None 

E-33 Private Tule Ranch Road 14 - 18 Gravel 3.9 ImprovedMaintained None 

E-34 Private Unnamed 10 - 12 Dirt/Gravel 0.4 Improved-Not 

Maintained 

Grade 

E-35 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 0.5 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

E-36 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 3.6 Unimproved Twotrack 

Grade 

E-37 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 1.3 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

E-38 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 0.4 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

E-39 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 0.6 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

E-40 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 8.3 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

E-41 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 0.2 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

E-42 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 0.9 Unimproved Twotrack 

Grade 

E-42A Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 0.2 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

E-43 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 0.3 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

E-44 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Dirt/Gravel 0.7 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

E-45 Public Maggie Creek 

Road 

24 - 40 AsphaltGravel 43.0 ImprovedMaintained none 

E-45A Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 1.4 Two-track Grade 

E-45B Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 0.9 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

E-45C Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 0.1 Two-track Grade 

E-46 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 0.3 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

D3-12 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
TABLE D-3 

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/ 

County/ 

Access Road 

Number 

Public or 

Private Road Name 

Existing 

Width 

(feet) 

Existing 

Surface 

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement 

E-48 Private Unnamed 10 - 12 Dirt/Gravel 1.9 Improved-Not 

Maintained 

Grade 

E-48A Private Unnamed 10 - 12 Dirt/Gravel 4.7 

Improved-Not 

Maintained Twotrack 

Grade 

E-48B Private Unnamed 10 - 12 Dirt/Gravel 0.3 

Improved-Not 

Maintained Twotrack 

Grade 

E-48C Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Dirt/Gravel 5.2 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

E-48D Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Dirt/Gravel 0.3 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

E-48E Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Dirt/Gravel 0.3 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

E-49 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 1.1 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

E-50 Private Soldier Creek 

Road 

10 - 12 Gravel 0.4 Improved-Not 

Maintained 

Grade 

E-51 Private China Creek Road 10 - 12 Dirt/Gravel 0.4 Improved-Not 

Maintained 

Grade 

E-52 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 5.0 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

E-53 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 3.1 Rough - 

Unimproved TwoGrade 

E-54 Private Rock Creek Road 24 - 28 Gravel 2.8 ImprovedMaintained None 

E-55 Private Rock Creek Ranch 

Road 

10 - 12 Gravel 1.3 ImprovedMaintained Grade 

E-56 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 3.9 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

E-57 Private Unnamed 10 - 12 Gravel 0.7 Improved-Not 

Maintained TwoGrade 

E-58 Private Izenhood Road 10 - 12 Gravel 1.7 Improved-Not 

Maintained 

Grade 

E-59 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 6.5 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

E-60 Private Unnamed 18 - 20 Gravel 9.6 ImprovedMaintained 

Grade 

E-61 Private Unnamed 10 - 12 Gravel 0.3 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

HUMBOLDT 

H-2 Private Lower Clover 

Ranch Road 

18 - 22 Gravel 6.6 ImprovedMaintained None 

H-3 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel and 

Dirt 

1.0 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

H-4 Public Hot Springs Road 8 - 10 Gravel and 

Dirt 

0.6 Unimproved Twotrack 

None 

D3-13 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
TABLE D-3 

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/ 

County/ 

Access Road 

Number 

Public or 

Private Road Name 

Existing 

Width 

(feet) 

Existing 

Surface 

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement 

H-5 Private Hippy Ranch Road 8 - 10 Gravel and 

Dirt

0.6 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

H-6 Public 5 Mile Road aka 

Red House Road 

18 - 22 Gravel 0.2 ImprovedMaintained None 

H-8 Private Pettit Ranch Roadaka Christesen 18 - 20 Gravel 0.7 ImprovedMaintained Grade 

H-9 Public Unnamed 20 - 24 Gravel 2.4 ImprovedMaintained None 

H-10 Private Soldiers Pass 

Road 

10 - 12 Gravel and 

Dirt 

8.8 Unimproved Grade 

H-11 Public Eden Valley Road 28 - 32 Gravel 11.8 ImprovedMaintained None 

H-12 Public Dutch Flat Road 28 - 32 Gravel 15.0 ImprovedMaintained None 

H-13 Private Unnamed Road 16 - 20 Gravel and 

Dirt 

0.3 Improved-Not 

Maintained 

Grade 

H-14 Private Unnamed 13 - 24 Gravel and 

Dirt 

0.3 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

H-15 Private Unnamed 16 - 20 Gravel 0.1 Improved-Not 

Maintained 

Grade 

H-16 Private New Farm Road 18 - 20 Gravel 0.2 ImprovedMaintained None 

H-16A Private Unnamed 10 - 12 Gravel and 

Dirt 

0.6 Unimproved Twotrack 

Grade 

H-17 Public Unnamed 10 - 12 Gravel and 

Dirt 

3.8 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

H-18 Public Mauser Rd 12 - 16 Gravel and 

Dirt 

1.0 Unimproved Grade 

H-19 Public Paradise Ranchos 

Drive 

24 - 28 Asphalt/Grav

el 

3.5 ImprovedMaintained None 

H-20 Public Weatherby Road 12 - 14 Gravel and 

Dirt 

1.0 Improved-partially 

Maintained 

Grade 

H-21 Public Western Horizon 

Road 

18 - 24 Gravel 1.0 ImprovedMaintained Grade 

H-22 Private Unnamed 12 - 14 Asphalt/Grav

el 

1.7 Improved-Not 

Maintained 

Grade 

H-22A Private Unnamed 10 - 12 Gravel and 

Dirt 

0.1 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

H-23 Private Unnamed 12 - 14 Gravel and 

Dirt 

0.1 Improved-Not 

Maintained 

Grade 

H-24 Private Unnamed 10 - 12 Gravel and 

Dirt 

0.2 Improved-Not 

Maintained TwoGrade 

H-24A Private Unnamed 8 - 12 Gravel and 

Dirt 

0.3 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

H-25 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 0.7 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

H-26 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 0.6 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

H-26A Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 1.0 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

D3-14 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
TABLE D-3 

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/ 

County/ 

Access Road 

Number 

Public or 

Private Road Name 

Existing 

Width 

(feet) 

Existing 

Surface 

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement 

H-26B Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel and 

Dirt

0.9 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

H-27 Public Mount View Rd 

aka Cane Springs 

16 - 20 Gravel 2.1 ImprovedMaintained None 

H-27A Public Old 

Winnemucca 

14 -16 Gravel 0.4 Two-track Blade 

H-28 Public Valley County 

Road 

24 - 30 Gravel 0.6 ImprovedMaintained None 

H-29 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 0.4 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

H-29A Public Sod House Road 26 - 30 Gravel 0.3 Improved None 

H-30 Private Unnamed 14 - 18 Gravel 0.3 Improved/ 

Unimproved TwoGrade 

H-30A Private Unnamed 10 - 12 Gravel 0.6 Improved Twotrack Grade 

H-31 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 0.4 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

H-32 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel and 

Dirt 

0.8 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

H-33 Public Bottle Creek Road 20 - 24 Gravel 0.9 ImprovedMaintained None 

H-34 Public Happy Creek 

Ranch Road aka 

22 - 26 Gravel 14.3 ImprovedMaintained 

None 

H-34A Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Dirt 1.2 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

H-34B Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Dirt 1.7 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

H-35 Private Unnamed 10 - 12 Gravel and 

Dirt 

0.1 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

H-36 Private Unnamed 10 - 12 Gravel and 

Dirt 0.8 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

H-37 Public Leonard Creek 

Ranch Road 

20 - 26 Gravel 25.4 ImprovedMaintained None 

H-37A Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel and 

Dirt 

0.2 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

H-38 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel and 

Dirt 

5.5 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

H-38A Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 2.2 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

H-39 Private Unnamed 14 - 16 Gravel and 

Dirt 

1.3 Improved Grade 

H-40 Public Pearl Camp Road 16 - 20 Gravel 33.4 ImprovedMaintained None 

H-41 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel and 

Dirt 

0.3 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

H-42 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel and 

Dirt 

0.2 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

H-43 Private Unnamed 8 - 12 Gravel and 

Dirt 

2.2 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

D3-15 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
TABLE D-3 

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/ 

County/ 

Access Road 

Number 

Public or 

Private Road Name 

Existing 

Width 

(feet) 

Existing 

Surface 

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement 

H-45 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 4.4 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

H-45A Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 0.2 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

H-46 Public Summit Lake Road 18 - 24 Gravel 13.2 ImprovedMaintained None 

H-46A Private Unnamed 10 - 12 Gravel 3.0 UnimprovedRough Two-track Grade 

H-46B Public Summit Lake Road 18 - 24 Gravel 21.8 ImprovedMaintained None 

H-47 Private Unnamed 10 - 12 Gravel and 

Dirt 

1.8 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

H-48 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel and 

Dirt 

1.3 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

H-49 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 1.0 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

H-50 Private Unnamed 10 - 12 Gravel 16.4 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

H-50A Private Unnamed 10 - 12 Gravel and 

Dirt 

0.3 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

H-51 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 0.1 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

H-52 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 3.4 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

H-53 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 2.6 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

H-54 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 5.8 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

WASHOE 

W-1 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 13.2 Unimproved Twotrack 

Grade 

W-2 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 5.8 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

W-2A Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 0.1 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

W-3 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 5.5 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

W-3A Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 0.1 Unimproved Twotrack 

Grade 

W3-B Private Unnamed 14 -16 Gravel 1.9 Unimproved Twotrack Blade 

W-4 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 0.9 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

W-4A Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 1.1 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

W-5 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 0.7 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

W-7 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Dirt 1.1 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

D3-16 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
TABLE D-3 

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/ 

County/ 

Access Road 

Number 

Public or 

Private Road Name 

Existing 

Width 

(feet) 

Existing 

Surface 

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement 

W-8 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Dirt 0.5 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

W-9 Private Powerline Road 8 - 10 Dirt 13.9 Improved-Not 

Maintained TwoGrade 

W-10 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Dirt 1.0 Improved-Not 

Maintained TwoGrade 

W-10A Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Dirt 1.2 Improved-Not 

Maintained TwoGrade 

W-12 Public Dugway Road 16 - 20 Gravel 2.4 Improved None 

W-13 Public Ft. Bidwell Road 24 - 30 Gravel 16.4 ImprovedMaintained None 

W-13A Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Dirt 0.9 Two-track Grade 

W-14 Private Cow Camp Road 12 - 14 Gravel 3.8 Improved-Not 

Maintained 

Grade 

W-14A Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Dirt 2.4 Two-track Grade 

W-14B Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt 0.1 Unimproved Blade 

CT-1 Private Unnamed 8 -12 Dirt/Gravel 4.1 Unimproved Twotrack Blade, Widen 

CT-2 Private Unnamed 8 -12 Dirt/Gravel 1.7 Unimproved Twotrack Blade, Widen 

CT-3 Private Unnamed 8 -12 Dirt/Gravel 7.1 Unimproved Twotrack Blade, Widen 

CT-4 Private Unnamed 8 -12 Dirt/Gravel 2.2 Unimproved Twotrack Blade, Widen 

CT-5 Private Unnamed 8 -12 Dirt/Gravel 3.1 Unimproved Twotrack Blade, Widen 

CT-6 Private Unnamed 8 -12 Dirt/Gravel 0.1 Unimproved Twotrack Blade, Widen 

CT-A Private NEW BUILD 10 -15 Dirt/Gravel 0.2 NONE NEW 

CT-B Private NEW BUILD 10 -15 Dirt/Gravel 0.1 NONE NEW 

CT-C Private NEW BUILD 10 -15 Dirt/Gravel 0.2 NONE NEW 

CT-D Private NEW BUILD 10 -15 Dirt/Gravel 0.2 NONE NEW 

CT-7 Private Unnamed 8 -12 Dirt/Gravel 0.6 Unimproved Twotrack Blade, Widen 

CT-8 Private Unnamed 8 -12 Dirt/Gravel 0.2 Unimproved Twotrack Blade, Widen 

W-15 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 13.2 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

W-15A Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Dirt 0.2 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

W-16 Public Barrel Springs 

Road 

16 - 20 Gravel 14.3 ImprovedMaintained None 

OREGON 

LAKE 

D3-17 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
TABLE D-3 

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/ 

County/ 

Access Road 

Number 

Public or 

Private Road Name 

Existing 

Width 

(feet) 

Existing 

Surface 

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement 

L-1A Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 1.1 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

L-1B Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 2.4 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

L-1D Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Dirt 0.9 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

L-1E Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel and 

Dirt 

0.1 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

L-1F Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel and 

Dirt 

1.3 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

L-1A Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 0.4 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

L-3A Private Robinson Ranch 

Rd 12 - 14 Gravel 2.2 Improved Two-track Grade 

L-3C Private Unnamed 12 - 14 Gravel 17.2 Improved Two-track Grade 

L-3D Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 3.0 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

L-4 Private NFR 019 20 - 22 Gravel 0.2 ImprovedMaintained None 

L-5 Private NFR 3915 14 - 18 Gravel 1.0 ImprovedMaintained None 

L-6 Private NFR 39-22 10 - 12 Gravel 0.1 Unimproved None 

L-6A Private NFR 016 8 - 10 Gravel 4.8 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

L-6B Private Unnamed 10 - 14 Gravel 0.7 Improved Two-track Grade 

L-6C Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 1.6 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

L-7 Private NFR 3910 20 - 24 Asphalt 0.1 ImprovedMaintained None 

L-8 Private NFR 3915 20 - 24 Asphalt 6.5 ImprovedMaintained None 

L-9 Private NFR 3913 14 - 16 Gravel 0.2 Improved None 

L-9A Private NFR 037 10 - 12 Gravel 0.2 Unimproved Grade 

L-10 Private NFR 3922 14 - 16 Gravel 2.7 Improved-not 

Maintained 

None 

L-11 Private NFR 146 8 - 10 Gravel 3.4 Unimproved Grade 

L-11A Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 0.2 Unimproved Twotrack 

Grade 

L-12 Private NFR 3913 12 - 14 Gravel 0.8 Improved None 

L-12A Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel and 

Dirt 

0.9 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

L-12B Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel and 

Dirt 

2.1 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

L-12C Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel and 

Dirt 

4.3 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

D3-18 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
TABLE D-3 

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/ 

County/ 

Access Road 

Number 

Public or 

Private Road Name 

Existing 

Width 

(feet) 

Existing 

Surface 

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement 

L-12D Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel and 

Dirt

10.6 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

L-13 Public Bullard Canyon 

Road 

14 - 18 Gravel 0.1 ImprovedMaintained None 

L-14 Private/Public Old Wells Road 24 - 28/ 

10 - 12 

Gravel 0.8 Public is Maintained Grade 

L-14A Private/ 

Public 

Crane Creek 

Lane 

18 -20 /10 Gravel 1.5 Public is Maintained Blade 

L-14B Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt 0.2 Unimproved Twotrack Blade, Widen 

CT-9 Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt/Gravel <0.1 Unimproved Twotrack Blade, Widen 

CT-10 Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt/Gravel 0.3 Unimproved Twotrack Blade, Widen 

CT-11 Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt/Gravel 0.5 Unimproved Twotrack Blade, Widen 

CT-12 Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt/Gravel 0.8 Unimproved Twotrack Blade, Widen 

CT-13 Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt/Gravel 0.4 Unimproved Twotrack Blade, Widen 

CT-14 Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt/Gravel 0.1 Unimproved Twotrack Blade, Widen 

CT-15 Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt/Gravel 0.8 Unimproved Twotrack Blade, Widen 

CT-16 Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt/Gravel 1.0 Unimproved Twotrack Blade, Widen 

CT-17 Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt/Gravel 14.4 Unimproved Twotrack Blade, Widen 

CT-18 Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt/Gravel 9.5 Unimproved Twotrack Blade, Widen 

CT-E Private NEW BUILD 10 -15 Dirt/Gravel 0.4 NONE NEW 

CT-F Private NEW BUILD 10 -15 Dirt/Gravel 0.4 NONE NEW 

CT-G Private NEW BUILD 10 -15 Dirt/Gravel 0.2 NONE NEW 

CT-19 Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt/Gravel 0.6 Unimproved Twotrack Blade, Widen 

CT-20 Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt/Gravel 0.9 Unimproved Twotrack Blade, Widen 

CT-21 Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt/Gravel 1.2 Unimproved Twotrack Blade, Widen 

CT-22 Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt/Gravel 0.7 Unimproved Twotrack Blade, Widen 

CT-23 Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt/Gravel 1.0 Unimproved Twotrack Blade, Widen 

CT-24 Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt/Gravel 0.8 Unimproved Twotrack Blade, Widen 

CT-H Private NEW BUILD 10 -15 Dirt/Gravel 0.1 NONE NEW 

CT-I Private NEW BUILD 10 -15 Dirt/Gravel 0.3 NONE NEW 

CT-J Private NEW BUILD 10 -15 Dirt/Gravel 0.1 NONE NEW 

D3-19 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
TABLE D-3 

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/ 

County/ 

Access Road 

Number 

Public or 

Private Road Name 

Existing 

Width 

(feet) 

Existing 

Surface 

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement 

CT-K Private NEW BUILD 10 -15 Dirt/Gravel <0.1 NONE NEW 

L-15 Private NFR 412 10 - 12 Gravel 0.4 Improved-not 

Maintained 

Grade 

L-15A Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 6.1 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

L-15B Private Unnamed 10 - 12 Gravel and 

Dirt

0.4 Improved Two-track Grade 

L-15C Private Unnamed 10 - 12 Gravel and 

Dirt

0.1 Unimproved Grade 

L-15D Private Unnamed 12 - 14 Gravel 4.1 Partially Improved Grade 

L-15E Private Unnamed 10 - 12 Gravel and 

Dirt 

1.0 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

L-15F Private Unnamed 10 - 12 Gravel and 

Dirt 

1.2 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

L-16 Private NFR 4020 12 - 14 Gravel 6.7 Improved-not 

Maintained 

Grade 

L-17 Public Dog Lake Lane 12 - 16 Gravel 2.3 ImprovedMaintained None 

L-18 Private NFR 419 12 - 16 Gravel 2.7 ImprovedMaintained None 

L-19 Private NFR 4017 16 - 22 Gravel 1.6 ImprovedMaintained None 

L-20 Private NFR 407 12 - 14 Dirt 3.6 Improved-not 

Maintained 

Grade 

L-20A Private Unnamed 10 -12 Dirt 0.1 Unimproved Twotrack Blade 

L-20B Private Unnamed 10 -12 Dirt 1.1 Unimproved Twotrack Blade 

CT-25 Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt/Gravel 2.3 Unimproved Twotrack Blade, Widen 

CT-26 Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt/Gravel 0.5 Unimproved Twotrack Blade, Widen 

CT-27 Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt/Gravel 0.3 Unimproved Twotrack Blade, Widen 

CT-28 Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt/Gravel 1.4 Unimproved Twotrack Blade, Widen 

CT-L Private NEW BUILD 10 -15 Dirt/Gravel 0.2 NONE NEW 

CT-M Private NEW BUILD 10 -15 Dirt/Gravel 0.5 NONE NEW 

CT-N Private NEW BUILD 10 -15 Dirt/Gravel 0.3 NONE NEW 

CT-O Private NEW BUILD 10 -15 Dirt/Gravel 0.1 NONE NEW 

CT-P Private NEW BUILD 10 -15 Dirt/Gravel 0.4 NONE NEW 

L-21 Private NFR 3940 12 - 14 Gravel 0.4 Improved-not 

Maintained 

Grade 

L-22 Private NFR 016 16 - 20 Gravel 0.8 ImprovedMaintained Grade 

D3-20 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
TABLE D-3 

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/ 

County/ 

Access Road 

Number 

Public or 

Private Road Name 

Existing 

Width 

(feet) 

Existing 

Surface 

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement 

KLAMATH 

K-1 Private NFR 4017 20 - 24 Gravel 3.5 ImprovedMaintained None 

K-1A Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt 0.2 Unimproved Twotrack Blade 

K-1B Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt 0.3 Unimproved Twotrack Blade 

K-1C Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt 0.3 Unimproved Twotrack Blade 

K-1D Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt 0.4 Unimproved Twotrack Blade 

K-1E Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt 0.4 Unimproved Twotrack Blade 

K-2 Private NFR 4017-224 14 - 16 Gravel 3.9 Improved Grade 

K-3 Private Willow Valley 

Road (#K 6188) 

20 - 24 Gravel 16.1 ImprovedMaintained none 

K-3A Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt 0.8 Unimproved Twotrack Blade 

K-3C Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt <0.1 Unimproved Twotrack Blade 

CT-29 Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt/Gravel <0.1 Unimproved Twotrack Blade 

K-3B Public Hopeless Pass 

Road 

12 -14 Gravel 0.3 Improved None 

K-4 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 2.3 Improved Two-track Grade 

K-5 Private 6118 Road 14 - 18 Gravel 3.5 ImprovedMaintained Grade 

K-6 Private 6118-B Road 8 - 10 Gravel and 

Dirt 

2.5 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

K-7 Private 6148 Road 8 - 10 Gravel and 

Dirt 

2.0 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

K-7A Private 6118-D Road 8 - 10 Gravel 8.5 Unimproved Twotrack 

Grade 

K-7B Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 0.4 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

K-8 Private Unnamed 20 - 24 Gravel 4.4 Improved Grade 

K-9 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 0.2 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

K-9A Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel and 

Dirt 

0.1 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

K-10 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 1.4 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

K-10A Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel and 

Dirt 

1.5 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

K-10B Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel and 

Dirt 

5.7 Unimproved Twotrack 

Grade 

K-10C Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel and 

Dirt 

2.5 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

D3-21 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
TABLE D-3 

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/ 

County/ 

Access Road 

Number 

Public or 

Private Road Name 

Existing 

Width 

(feet) 

Existing 

Surface 

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement 

K-10D Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel and 

Dirt

4.2 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

K-10E Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt 1.3 Unimproved Twotrack Blade 

K-10F Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt 0.3 Unimproved Twotrack Blade 

K-11 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 7.4 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

K-11A Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt 0.5 Unimproved Twotrack Blade 

K-12 Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel 0.2 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

K-13 Private Unnamed 10 - 16 Gravel 6.1 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

K-13A Private Unnamed 8 - 10 Gravel and 

Dirt 

0.5 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

K-14A Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt 0.2 Unimproved Twotrack Blade 

K-14B Private Unnamed 8 -10 Gravel and 

Dirt 

0.9 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

K-14C Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt 0.2 Unimproved Twotrack Blade 

K-14D Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt 0.2 Unimproved Twotrack 

Blade 

K-14E Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt 0.3 Unimproved Twotrack Blade 

K-14F Private Unnamed 8 -10 Gravel and 

Dirt 

0.2 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

CT-30 Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt/Gravel 1.4 Unimproved Twotrack Blade 

CT-31 Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt/Gravel 0.3 Unimproved Twotrack Blade 

CT-32 Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt/Gravel 1.0 Unimproved Twotrack Blade 

CT-33 Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt/Gravel 1.4 Unimproved Twotrack 

Blade 

CT-34 Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt/Gravel <0.1 Unimproved Twotrack Blade 

CT-35 Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt/Gravel <0.1 Unimproved Twotrack Blade 

CT-36 Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt/Gravel 0.1 Unimproved Twotrack Blade 

CT-37 Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt/Gravel 0.2 Unimproved Twotrack Blade 

CT-38 Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt/Gravel 0.5 Unimproved Twotrack Blade 

CT-39 Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt/Gravel 1.3 Unimproved Twotrack Blade 

CT-40 Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt/Gravel 0.6 Unimproved Twotrack Blade 

D3-22 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
D3-23 

TABLE D-3 

Access Roads for the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/ 

County/ 

Access Road 

Number 

Public or 

Private Road Name 

Existing 

Width 

(feet) 

Existing 

Surface 

Length 

(miles) Existing Condition Proposed Improvement 

CT-41 Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt/Gravel 2.7 Unimproved Twotrack Blade 

CT-42 Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt/Gravel 0.1 Unimproved Twotrack Blade 

CT-Q Private NEW BUILD 10 -15 Dirt/Gravel 0.9 NONE NEW 

K-15A Private Unnamed 8 -10 Dirt 0.2 Unimproved Twotrack Blade 

K-16 Private Unnamed 10 - 12 Gravel 3.7 Improved Grade 

K-17 Private Unnamed 10 - 12 Gravel and 

Dirt 

1.5 Unimproved Twotrack Grade 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX E

Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and 

Maintenance Plan 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT

UPLAND EROSION CONTROL, REVEGETATION, AND

MAINTENANCE PLAN

NOVEMBER 2008

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT

UPLAND EROSION CONTROL, REVEGETATION, AND

MAINTENANCE PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. APPLICABILITY..................................................................................................................... 1

II. SUPERVISION AND INSPECTION ...................................................................................... 1

A. ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTION .................................................................................. 1

B. RESPONSIBILITIES OF ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTORS ........................................ 2

III. PRECONSTRUCTION PLANNING....................................................................................... 3

A. CONSTRUCTION WORK AREAS.................................................................................. 3

B. DRAIN TILE AND IRRIGATION SYSTEMS.................................................................... 3

C. GRAZING DEFERMENT................................................................................................. 3

D. ROAD CROSSINGS AND ACCESS POINTS ................................................................ 3

E. DISPOSAL PLANNING ................................................................................................... 3

F. AGENCY COORDINATION............................................................................................. 4

G. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN...................................................... 4

IV. INSTALLATION ..................................................................................................................... 4

A. APPROVED AREAS OF DISTURBANCE ...................................................................... 4

B. TOPSOIL SEGREGATION.............................................................................................. 5

C. DRAIN TILES................................................................................................................... 5

D. IRRIGATION.................................................................................................................... 6

E. ROAD CROSSINGS AND ACCESS POINTS ................................................................ 6

F. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL ............................................................................. 6

1. Temporary Slope Breakers......................................................................................... 6

2. Sediment Barriers ....................................................................................................... 6

V. RESTORATION..................................................................................................................... 8

A. CLEANUP........................................................................................................................ 8

B. PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL DEVICES............................................................. 9

1. Trench Breakers ........................................................................................................ 9

2. Permanent Slope Breakers ....................................................................................... 9

C. SOIL COMPACTION MITIGATION................................................................................. 9

D. REVEGETATION.............................................................................................................10

1. General ......................................................................................................................10

2. Soil Additives .............................................................................................................10

3. Seeding Requirements ..............................................................................................10

VI. OFF-ROAD VEHICLE CONTROL.........................................................................................11

VII. POST-CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES..................................................................................11

A. MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE .............................................................................11

B. REPORTING....................................................................................................................12

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

1

I. APPLICABILITY

A. The intent of this Plan is to assist applicants by identifying baseline mitigation

measures for minimizing erosion and enhancing revegetation.

Any individual measures in these Procedures Ruby Pipeline LLC (Ruby)

considers unnecessary, technically infeasible, or unsuitable due to local

conditions will be specified in this document which will be attached as an

appendix to Resource Report No. 1 filed with the FERC Certificate. Ruby will

describe any alternative measures proposed for implementation during the

construction of its Ruby Pipeline Project (Project). Applicants should also

explain how those alternative measures would achieve a comparable level of

mitigation. This text will be bold-faced and italicized herein.

Once a project is certificated, further changes can be approved. Any such changes

from the measures in this Plan (or the applicant’s approved plan) will be approved by

the Director of the Office of Energy Projects (Director), upon the applicant’s written

request, if the Director agrees that an alternative measure:

1. provides equal or better environmental protection;

2. is necessary because a portion of this Plan is infeasible or unworkable based

on project-specific conditions; or

3. is specifically required in writing by another Federal, state, or Native

American land management agency for the portion of the project on its land

or under its jurisdiction.

Project-related impacts on wetland and waterbody systems are addressed in Ruby’s

Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Procedures).

II. SUPERVISION AND INSPECTION

A. ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTION

1. At least one Environmental Inspector is required for each construction

spread during construction and restoration (as defined by section V). The

number and experience of Environmental Inspectors assigned to each

construction spread should be appropriate for the length of the construction

spread and the number/significance of resources affected.

2. Environmental Inspectors shall have peer status with all other activity

inspectors.

3. Environmental Inspectors shall have the authority to stop activities that

violate the environmental conditions of the Certificate, state and Federal

environmental permit conditions, or landowner requirements; and to order

appropriate corrective action.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

2

B. RESPONSIBILITIES OF ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTORS

At a minimum, the Environmental Inspector(s) shall be responsible for:

1. Ensuring compliance with the requirements of this Plan, the Procedures, the

environmental conditions of the Certificate authorization, the mitigation

measures proposed by the applicant (as approved and/or modified by the

Certificate), other environmental permits and approvals, and environmental

requirements in landowner easement agreements;

2. Identifying, documenting, and overseeing corrective actions, as necessary to

bring an activity back into compliance;

3. Verifying that the limits of authorized construction work areas and locations

of access roads are properly marked before clearing;

4. Verifying the location of signs and highly visible flagging marking the

boundaries of sensitive resource areas, waterbodies, wetlands, or areas with

special requirements along the construction work area;

5. Identifying erosion/sediment control and soil stabilization needs in all areas;

6. Ensuring that the location of dewatering structures and slope breakers will

not direct water into known cultural resources sites or locations of sensitive

species;

7. Verifying that trench 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 shall be

stopped and the design of the discharge shall be changed to prevent

reoccurrence;

8. Ensuring that subsoil and topsoil are tested in agricultural and residential

areas to measure compaction and determine the need for corrective action;

9. Advising the Chief Construction Inspector when conditions (such as wet

weather) make it advisable to restrict construction activities to avoid

excessive rutting;

10. Ensuring restoration of contours and topsoil;

11. Verifying that the soils imported for agricultural or residential use have been

certified as free of noxious weeds and soil pests, unless otherwise approved

by the landowner;

12. Determining the need for and ensuring that erosion controls are properly

installed, as necessary to prevent sediment flow into wetlands, waterbodies,

sensitive areas, and onto roads;

13. Inspecting and ensuring the maintenance of temporary erosion control

measures at least:

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

3

a. on a daily basis in areas of active construction or equipment

operation;

b. on a weekly basis in areas with no construction or equipment

operation; and

c. within 24 hours of each 0.5 inch of rainfall;

14. Ensuring the repair of all ineffective temporary erosion control measures

within 24 hours of identification;

15. Keeping records of compliance with the environmental conditions of the

FERC certificate, and the mitigation measures proposed by the project

sponsor in the application submitted to the FERC, and other Federal or state

environmental permits during active construction and restoration; and

16. Identifying areas that should be given special attention to ensure stabilization

and restoration after the construction phase.

III. PRECONSTRUCTION PLANNING

The project sponsor shall do the following before construction:

A. CONSTRUCTION WORK AREAS

1. Identify all construction work areas (e.g., construction right-of-way, extra work

space areas, pipe storage and contractor yards, borrow and disposal areas,

access roads, etc.) that would be needed for safe construction. The project

sponsor must ensure that appropriate cultural resources and biological

surveys have been conducted.

2. Project sponsors are encouraged to consider expanding any required cultural

resources and endangered species surveys in anticipation of the need for

activities outside of certificated work areas.

B. DRAIN TILE AND IRRIGATION SYSTEMS

1. Attempt to locate existing drain tiles and irrigation systems.

2. Contact landowners and local soil conservation authorities to determine the

locations of future drain tiles that are likely to be installed within 3 years of the

authorized construction.

3. Develop procedures for constructing through drain-tiled areas, maintaining

irrigation systems during construction, and repairing drain tiles and irrigation

systems after construction.

4. Engage qualified drain tile specialists, as needed to conduct or monitor

repairs to drain tile systems affected by construction. Use drain tile

specialists from the project area, if available.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

4

C. GRAZING DEFERMENT

Develop grazing deferment plans with willing landowners, grazing permittees, and

land management agencies to minimize grazing disturbance of revegetation efforts.

D. ROAD CROSSINGS AND ACCESS POINTS

Plan for safe and accessible conditions at all roadway crossings and access points

during construction and restoration.

E. DISPOSAL PLANNING

Determine methods and locations for the disposal of construction debris (e.g.,

timber, slash, mats, garbage, drilling fluids, excess rock, etc). Off-site disposal in

other than commercially operated disposal locations is subject to compliance with all

applicable survey, landowner permission, and mitigation requirements.

F. AGENCY COORDINATION

The project sponsor must coordinate with the appropriate local, state, and Federal

agencies as outlined in this Plan and in the Certificate.

1. Obtain written recommendations from the local soil conservation authorities

or land management agencies regarding permanent erosion control and

revegetation specifications.

2. Develop specific procedures in coordination with the appropriate agency to

prevent the introduction or spread of noxious weeds and soil pests resulting

from construction and restoration activities.

G. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN

Make available on each construction spread the Stormwater Pollution Prevention

Plan prepared for compliance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's

National Stormwater Program General Permit requirements.

IV. INSTALLATION

A. APPROVED AREAS OF DISTURBANCE

1. Project-related ground disturbance shall be limited to the construction right-ofway, extra work space areas, pipe storage yards, borrow and disposal areas,

access roads, and other areas approved in the Certificate. Any project-related

ground disturbing activities outside these Certificated areas, except those

needed to comply with the Plan and Procedures (e.g., slope breakers, energydissipating devices, dewatering structures, drain tile system repairs) will require

prior Director approval. All construction or restoration activities outside of the

Certificated areas are subject to all applicable survey and mitigation

requirements.

2.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

5

2. The construction right-of-way width for the Project shall not exceed

that described in the FERC application unless otherwise modified

by a Certificate condition. However, in limited, non-wetland areas, this

construction right-of-way width may be expanded by up to 25 feet without

Director approval to accommodate full construction right-of-way topsoil

segregation and to ensure safe construction where topographic

conditions (such as side-slopes) or soil limitations require it. Twenty-five

feet of extra construction right-of-way width may also be used in limited,

non-wetland or non-forested areas for truck turn-arounds where no

reasonable alternative access exists.

In limited areas where temporary storage of timber, slash, stumps,

surface rock, or snow is necessary, the right-of-way width may be

expanded by up to 25 feet without Director approval.

Project use of these additional limited areas is subject to landowner approval

and compliance with all applicable survey and mitigation requirements.

When such additional areas are used, each one should be identified and the

need explained in the weekly or biweekly construction reports to the FERC, if

required. The following material should be included in the reports:

a. the location of each additional area by station number and reference

to a previously filed alignment sheet, or updated alignment sheets

showing the additional areas;

b. identification of where the Commission's records contain evidence

that the additional areas were previously surveyed; and

c. a statement that landowner approval has been obtained and is

available in project files.

Prior written approval of the Director is required when the Certificated

construction right-of-way width would be expanded by more than 25 feet.

B. TOPSOIL SEGREGATION

1. Unless the landowner or land management agency specifically approves

otherwise, prevent the mixing of topsoil with subsoil by stripping topsoil from

either the full work area or from the trench and subsoil storage area (ditch

plus spoil side method) in:

a. actively cultivated or rotated croplands and pastures;

b. residential areas;

c. hayfields; and

d. other areas at the landowner's or land managing agency=s request.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

6

2. In residential areas importation of topsoil is an acceptable alternative to

topsoil segregation.

3. In deep soils (more than 12 inches of topsoil), segregate at least 12 inches of

topsoil. In soils with less than 12 inches of topsoil make every effort to

segregate the entire topsoil layer.

4. Where topsoil segregation is required, maintain separation of salvaged

topsoil and subsoil throughout all construction activities.

5. Segregated topsoil may not be used for padding the pipe.

C. DRAIN TILES

1. Mark locations of drain tiles damaged during construction.

2. Probe all drainage tile systems within the area of disturbance to check for

damage.

3. Repair damaged drain tiles to their original or better condition. Do not use

filter-covered drain tiles unless the local soil conservation authorities and the

landowner agree. Use qualified specialists for testing and repairs.

4. For new pipelines in areas where drain tiles exist or are planned, ensure that

the depth of cover over the pipeline is sufficient to avoid interference with

drain tile systems. For adjacent pipeline loops in agricultural areas, install

the new pipeline with at least the same depth of cover as the existing

pipeline(s).

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

7

D. IRRIGATION

Maintain water flow in crop irrigation systems, unless shutoff is coordinated with

affected parties.

E. ROAD CROSSINGS AND ACCESS POINTS

1. Maintain safe and accessible conditions at all road crossings and access

points during construction.

2. If crushed stone access pads are used in residential or active agricultural

areas, place the stone on synthetic fabric to facilitate removal.

F. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL

Install temporary erosion controls immediately after initial disturbance of the soil.

Temporary erosion controls must be properly maintained throughout construction

(on a daily basis) and reinstalled as necessary (such as after backfilling of the

trench) until replaced by permanent erosion controls or restoration is complete.

1. Temporary Slope Breakers

a. Temporary slope breakers are intended to reduce runoff velocity and

divert water off the construction right-of-way. Temporary slope

breakers may be constructed of materials such as soil, silt fence,

staked hay or straw bales, or sand bags.

b. Install temporary slope breakers on all disturbed areas, as necessary

to avoid excessive erosion. Temporary slope breakers must be

installed on slopes greater than 5 percent where the base of the

slope is less than 50 feet from waterbody, wetland, and road

crossings at the following spacing (closer spacing should be used if

necessary):

Slope (%) Spacing (feet)

5 - 15 300

>15 - 30 200

>30 100

c. Direct the outfall of each temporary slope breaker to a stable, well

vegetated area or construct an energy-dissipating device at the end of

the slope breaker and off the construction right-of-way.

d. Position the outfall of each temporary slope breaker to prevent

sediment discharge into wetlands, waterbodies, or other sensitive

resources.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

8

2. Sediment Barriers

a. Sediment barriers are intended to stop the flow of sediments and to

prevent the deposition of sediments into sensitive resources. They

may be constructed of materials such as silt fence, staked hay or

straw bales, compacted earth (e.g., driveable berms across

travelways), sand bags, or other appropriate materials.

b. At a minimum, install and maintain temporary sediment barriers

across the entire construction right-of-way at the base of slopes

greater than 5 percent where the base of the slope is less than 50

feet from a waterbody, wetland, or road crossing until revegetation is

successful as defined in this Plan. Leave adequate room between

the base of the slope and the sediment barrier to accommodate

ponding of water and sediment deposition.

c. Where wetlands or waterbodies are adjacent to and downslope of

construction work areas, install sediment barriers along the edge of

these areas, as necessary to prevent sediment flow into the wetland

or waterbody.

3. Mulch

a. Apply mulch on all slopes (except in actively cultivated cropland)

concurrent with or immediately after seeding, where necessary to

stabilize the soil surface and to reduce wind and water erosion.

Spread mulch uniformly over the area to cover at least 75 percent of

the ground surface at a rate of 2 tons/acre of straw or its equivalent,

unless the local soil conservation authority, landowner, or land

managing agency approves otherwise in writing.

b. Mulch can consist of weed-free straw or hay, wood fiber hydromulch,

erosion control fabric, or some functional equivalent.

c. Mulch before seeding if:

(1) final grading and installation of permanent erosion control

measures will not be completed in an area within 20 days after

the trench in that area is backfilled (10 days in residential

areas), as required in section V.A.1; or

(2) construction or restoration activity is interrupted for extended

periods, such as when seeding cannot be completed due to

seeding period restrictions.

d. If mulching before seeding, increase mulch application on all slopes

within 100 feet of waterbodies and wetlands to a rate of 3 tons/acre of

straw or equivalent.

e. If wood chips are used as mulch, do not use more than 1 ton/acre and

add the equivalent of 11 lbs/acre available nitrogen (at least 50

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

9

percent of which is slow release).

f. Ensure that mulch is adequately anchored to minimize loss due to

wind and water.

g. When anchoring with liquid mulch binders, use rates recommended

by the manufacturer. Do not use liquid mulch binders within 100 feet

of wetlands or waterbodies.

h. Install erosion control fabric on waterbody banks at the time of final

bank recontouring. Anchor the erosion control fabric with staples or

other appropriate devices.

V. RESTORATION

A. CLEANUP

1. Commence cleanup operations immediately following backfill operations.

Complete final grading, topsoil replacement, and installation of permanent

erosion control structures within 20 days after backfilling the trench (10 days

in residential areas). If seasonal or other weather conditions prevent

compliance with these time frames, maintain temporary erosion controls

(temporary slope breakers and sediment barriers) until conditions allow

completion of cleanup.

The project sponsor should file with the Secretary for the review and written

approval of the Director, a winterization plan if construction will continue into

the winter season when conditions could delay successful decompaction,

topsoil replacement, or seeding until the following spring.

2. A travel lane may be left open temporarily to allow access by construction

traffic if the temporary erosion control structures are installed (as specified in

section IV.F.) and inspected and maintained (as specified in sections II.B.12

through 14). When access is no longer required, the travel lane must be

removed and the right-of-way restored.

3. Rock excavated from the trench may be used to backfill the trench only to the

top of the existing bedrock profile. Rock that is not returned to the trench

should be considered construction debris, unless approved for use as mulch

or for some other use on the construction work areas by the landowner or

land managing agency.

4. Remove excess rock 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 other areas at the landowner's request. The size, density, and

distribution of rock on the construction work area should be similar to

adjacent areas not disturbed by construction. The landowner may approve

other provisions in writing.

5. Grade the construction right-of-way to restore pre-construction contours and

leave the soil in the proper condition for planting.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

10

6. Remove construction debris from all construction work areas unless the

landowner or land managing agency approves otherwise.

7. Remove temporary sediment barriers when replaced by permanent erosion

control measures or when revegetation is successful.

B. PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL DEVICES

1. Trench Breakers

a. Trench breakers are intended to slow the flow of subsurface water

along the trench. Trench breakers may be constructed of materials

such as sand bags or polyurethane foam. Do not use topsoil in

trench breakers.

b. An engineer or similarly qualified professional shall determine the

need for and spacing of trench breakers. Otherwise, trench breakers

shall be installed at the same spacing as and upslope of permanent

slope breakers.

c. In agricultural fields and residential areas where slope breakers are

not typically required, install trench breakers at the same spacing as if

permanent slope breakers were required.

d. At a minimum, install a trench breaker at the base of slopes greater

than 5 percent where the base of the slope is less than 50 feet from a

waterbody or wetland and where needed to avoid draining a

waterbody or wetland.

2. Permanent Slope Breakers

a. Permanent slope breakers are intended to reduce runoff velocity,

divert water off the construction right-of-way, and prevent sediment

deposition into sensitive resources. Permanent slope breakers may

be constructed of materials such as soil, sand bags, or some

functional equivalent.

b. Construct and maintain permanent slope breakers in all areas, except

cultivated areas and lawns, using spacing recommendations obtained

from the local soil conservation authority or land managing agency.

In the absence of written recommendations, use the following spacing

unless closer spacing is necessary to avoid excessive erosion on the

construction right-of-way:

Slope (%) Spacing (feet)

5 - 15 300

>15 - 30 200

>30 100

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

11

c. Construct slope breakers to divert surface flow to a stable area

without causing water to pool or erode behind the breaker. In the

absence of a stable area, construct appropriate energy-dissipating

devices at the end of the breaker.

d. Slope breakers may extend slightly (about 4 feet) beyond the edge of

the construction right-of-way to effectively drain water off the disturbed

area. Where slope breakers extend beyond the edge of the

construction right-of-way, they are subject to compliance with all

applicable survey requirements.

C. SOIL COMPACTION MITIGATION

1. Test topsoil and subsoil for compaction at regular intervals in agricultural and

residential areas disturbed by construction activities. Conduct tests on the

same soil type under similar moisture conditions in undisturbed areas to

approximate preconstruction conditions. Use penetrometers or other

appropriate devices to conduct tests.

2. Plow severely compacted agricultural areas with a paraplow or other deep

tillage implement. In areas where topsoil has been segregated, plow the

subsoil before replacing the segregated topsoil.

Alternatively, 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. If subsequent construction and cleanup activities

result in further compaction, conduct additional tilling.

3. Perform appropriate soil compaction mitigation in severely compacted

residential areas.

D. REVEGETATION

1. General

a. The project sponsor is responsible for ensuring successful

revegetation of soils disturbed by project-related activities, except as

noted in section V.D.1.b.

b. Restore all turf, ornamental shrubs, and specialized landscaping in

accordance with the landowner's request, or compensate the

landowner. Restoration work must be performed by personnel

familiar with local horticultural and turf establishment practices.

2. Soil Additives

Fertilize and add soil pH modifiers in accordance with written

recommendations obtained from the local soil conservation authority, land

management agencies, or landowner. Incorporate recommended soil pH

modifier and fertilizer into the top 2 inches of soil as soon as possible after

application.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

12

3. Seeding Requirements

a. Prepare a seedbed in disturbed areas to a depth of 3 to 4 inches

using appropriate equipment to provide a firm seedbed. When

hydroseeding, scarify the seedbed to facilitate lodging and

germination of seed.

b. Seed disturbed areas in accordance with written recommendations for

seed mixes, rates, and dates obtained from the local soil conservation

authority or as requested by the landowner or land management

agency. Seeding is not required in actively cultivated croplands

unless requested by the landowner.

c. Perform seeding of permanent vegetation within the recommended

seeding dates. If seeding cannot be done within those dates, use

appropriate temporary erosion control measures discussed in section

IV.F. and perform seeding of permanent vegetation at the beginning

of the next recommended seeding season. Lawns may be seeded on

a schedule established with the landowner.

d. In the absence of written recommendations from the local soil

conservation authorities, seed all disturbed soils within 6 working days

of final grading, weather and soil conditions permitting, subject to the

specifications in section V.D.3.a-c.

e. Base seeding rates on Pure Live Seed. Use seed within 12 months

of seed testing.

f. Treat legume seed with an inoculant specific to the species using the

manufacturer=s recommended rate of inoculant appropriate for the

seeding method (broadcast, drill, or hydro).

g. In the absence of written recommendations from the local soil

conservation authorities, landowner, or land managing agency to the

contrary, a seed drill equipped with a cultipacker is preferred for seed

application.

Broadcast or hydroseeding can be used in lieu of drilling at double the

recommended seeding rates. Where seed is broadcast, firm the

seedbed with a cultipacker or imprinter after seeding. In rocky soils or

where site conditions may limit the effectiveness of this equipment,

other alternatives may be appropriate (e.g., use of a chain drag) to

lightly cover seed after application, as approved by the Environmental

Inspector.

VI. OFF-ROAD VEHICLE CONTROL

To each owner or manager of forested lands offer to install and maintain measures to

control unauthorized vehicle access to the right-of-way. These measures may include:

A. Signs;

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

13

B. Fences with locking gates;

C. Slash and timber barriers, pipe barriers, or a line of boulders across the right-of-way;

and

D. Conifers or other appropriate trees or shrubs across the right-of-way.

VII. POST-CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

A. MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE

1. Conduct follow-up inspections of all disturbed areas after the first and second

growing seasons to determine the success of revegetation.

2. Revegetation in non-agricultural areas shall be considered successful if upon

visual survey the density and cover of non-nuisance vegetation are similar in

density and cover to adjacent undisturbed lands. In agricultural areas,

revegetation shall be considered successful if crop yields are similar to

adjacent undisturbed portions of the same field.

Continue revegetation efforts until revegetation is successful.

3. Monitor and correct problems with drainage and irrigation systems resulting

from pipeline construction in active agricultural areas until restoration is

successful.

4. Restoration shall be considered successful if the right-of-way surface

condition is similar to adjacent undisturbed lands, construction debris is

removed (unless requested otherwise by the land owner or land managing

agency), revegetation is successful, and proper drainage has been restored.

5. Routine vegetation maintenance clearing shall not be done more frequently

than every 3 years. However, to facilitate periodic corrosion and leak surveys,

a corridor not exceeding 10 feet in width centered on the pipeline may be

maintained annually in a herbaceous state. In no case shall routine

vegetation maintenance clearing occur between April 15 and August 1 of any

year.

6. Efforts to control unauthorized off-road vehicle use, in cooperation with the

landowner, shall continue throughout the life of the project. Maintain signs,

gates, and vehicle trails as necessary.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan

14

B. REPORTING

1. The project sponsor shall maintain records that identify by milepost:

a. method of application, application rate, and type of fertilizer, pH

modifying agent, seed, and mulch used;

b. acreage treated;

c. dates of backfilling and seeding;

d. names of landowners requesting special seeding treatment and a

description of the follow-up actions; and

e. any problem areas and how they were addressed.

2. The project sponsor shall file with the Secretary quarterly activity reports

documenting problems, including those identified by the landowner, and

corrective actions taken for at least 2 years following construction.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX F

Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation 

Procedures 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT

WETLAND AND WATERBODY CONSTRUCTION AND

MITIGATION PROCEDURES

January 2009

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
1

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT

WETLAND AND WATERBODY CONSTRUCTION AND

MITIGATION PROCEDURES (PROCEDURES)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. APPLICABILITY..................................................................................................................... 1

II. PRECONSTRUCTION FILING.............................................................................................. 1

III. ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTORS ....................................................................................... 2

IV. PRECONSTRUCTION PLANNING....................................................................................... 2

V. WATERBODY CROSSING ................................................................................................... 3

A. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES AND PERMITS........................................................... 3

B. INSTALLATION ............................................................................................................... 3

1. Time Window for Construction .................................................................................. 4

2. Extra Work Spaces .................................................................................................... 4

4. Spoil Pile Placement and Control .............................................................................. 4

5. Equipment Bridges..................................................................................................... 4

6. Dry-Ditch Crossing Methods ...................................................................................... 5

7. Crossings of Minor Waterbodies ............................................................................... 6

8. Crossings of Intermediate Waterbodies .................................................................... 6

9. Crossings of Major Waterbodies ............................................................................... 7

10. Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control ................................................................ 7

11. Trench Dewatering..................................................................................................... 7

C. RESTORATION ............................................................................................................... 7

D. POST-CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE ..................................................................... 8

VI. WETLAND CROSSINGS ...................................................................................................... 8

A. GENERAL ........................................................................................................................ 8

B. INSTALLATION ............................................................................................................... 9

1. Extra Work Areas and Access Roads ................................................................. 9

2. Crossing Procedures ........................................................................................... 9

3. Temporary Sediment Control...............................................................................10

4. Trench Dewatering...............................................................................................10

C. RESTORATION ...............................................................................................................10

D. POST-CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE .....................................................................11

VII. HYDROSTATIC TESTING ....................................................................................................12

A. NOTIFICATION................................................................................................................12

B. GENERAL ........................................................................................................................12

C. INTAKE SOURCE AND RAGE........................................................................................13

D. DISCHARGE LOCATION, METHOD, AND RATE..........................................................13

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures

1

I. APPLICABILITY

A. The intent of these Procedures is to assist applicants by identifying baseline mitigation

measures for minimizing the extent and duration of project-related disturbance on

wetlands and waterbodies.

Any individual measures in these Procedures Ruby Pipeline LLC (Ruby) considers

unnecessary, technically infeasible, or unsuitable due to local conditions will be

specified in this document which will be attached as an appendix to Resource

Report No. 1 filed with the FERC Certificate. Ruby will describe any alternative

measures proposed for implementation during the construction of its Ruby

Pipeline Project (Project). Applicants should also explain how those alternative

measures would achieve a comparable level of mitigation. This text will be boldfaced and italicized herein.

Once a project is certificated, further changes can be approved. Any such changes from

the measures in these Procedures (or the applicant’s approved procedures) will be

approved by the Director of the Office of Energy Projects (Director), upon the applicant’s

written request, if the Director agrees that an alternative measure:

1. provides equal or better environmental protection;

2. is necessary because a portion of these Procedures is infeasible or unworkable

based on project-specific conditions; or

3. is specifically required in writing by another Federal, state, or Native American

land management agency for the portion of the project on its land or under its

jurisdiction.

Project-related impacts on non-wetland areas are addressed in the Ruby’s Upland

Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Plan).

B. DEFINITIONS

1. "Waterbody" includes any natural or artificial stream, river, or drainage with

perceptible flow at the time of crossing, and other permanent waterbodies such

as ponds and lakes:

a. "minor waterbody" includes all waterbodies less than or equal to 10 feet

wide at the water's edge at the time of crossing;

b. "intermediate waterbody" includes all waterbodies greater than 10 feet

wide but less than or equal to 100 feet wide at the water's edge at the time

of crossing; and

c. "major waterbody" includes all waterbodies greater than 100 feet wide at

the water's edge at the time of crossing.

2. "Wetland" includes any area that is not in actively cultivated or rotated cropland

and that satisfies the requirements of the current Federal methodology for

identifying and delineating wetlands.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures

2

II. PRECONSTRUCTION FILING

A. The following information shall be filed with the Secretary prior to the beginning of

construction:

1. the hydrostatic testing information specified in section VII.B.3. and a wetland

delineation report as described in section VI.A.1., if applicable; and

2. a schedule identifying when trenching or blasting would occur within each

waterbody greater than 10 feet wide, or within any designated coldwater fishery.

The project sponsor shall revise the schedule as necessary to provide FERC staff

at least 14 days advance notice. Changes within this last 14-day period must

provide for at least 48 hours advance notice.

B. The following site-specific construction plans required by these Procedures must be filed

with the Secretary for the review and written approval by the Director:

1. plans for extra work areas that would be closer than 50 feet from a waterbody or

wetland;

2. plans for major waterbody crossings;

3. plans for the use of a construction right-of-way greater than 75 feet wide in

wetlands; and

4. plans for horizontal directional drill (HDD) "crossings" of wetlands or waterbodies.

III. ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTORS

A. At least one Environmental Inspector having knowledge of the wetland and waterbody

conditions in the project area is required for each construction spread. The number and

experience of Environmental Inspectors assigned to each construction spread should be

appropriate for the length of the construction spread and the number/significance of

resources affected.

B. The Environmental Inspector's responsibilities are outlined in the Upland Erosion Control,

Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Plan).

IV. PRECONSTRUCTION PLANNING

A. A copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared for compliance

with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Stormwater Program

General Permit requirements must be available in the field on each construction spread.

The SWPPP shall contain Spill Prevention and Response Procedures that meet the

requirements of state and Federal agencies.

1. It shall be the responsibility of the project sponsor and its contractors to structure

their operations in a manner that reduces the risk of spills or the accidental

exposure of fuels or hazardous materials to waterbodies or wetlands. The project

sponsor and its contractors must, at a minimum, ensure that:

a. all employees handling fuels and other hazardous materials are properly

trained;

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures

3

b. all equipment is in good operating order and inspected on a regular basis;

c. fuel trucks transporting fuel to on-site equipment travel only on approved

access roads;

d. all equipment is parked overnight and/or fueled at least 100 feet from a

waterbody or in an upland area at least 100 feet from a wetland boundary.

These activities can occur closer only if the Environmental Inspector

finds, in advance, no reasonable alternative and the project sponsor and

its contractors have taken appropriate steps (including secondary

containment structures) to prevent spills and provide for prompt cleanup in

the event of a spill;

e. hazardous materials, including chemicals, fuels, and lubricating oils, are

not stored within 100 feet of a wetland, waterbody, or designated

municipal watershed area, unless the location is designated for such use

by an appropriate governmental authority. This applies to storage of

these materials and does not apply to normal operation or use of

equipment in these areas; and

f. concrete coating activities are not performed within 100 feet of a wetland

or waterbody boundary, unless the location is an existing industrial site

designated for such use.

2. The project sponsor and its contractors must structure their operations in a

manner that provides for the prompt and effective cleanup of spills of fuel and

other hazardous materials. At a minimum, the project sponsor and its contractors

must:

a. ensure that each construction crew (including cleanup crews) has on hand

sufficient supplies of absorbent and barrier materials to allow the rapid

containment and recovery of spilled materials and knows the procedure

for reporting spills;

b. ensure that each construction crew has on hand sufficient tools and

material to stop leaks;

c. know the contact names and telephone numbers for all local, state, and

Federal agencies (including, if necessary, the U. S. Coast Guard and the

National Response Center) that must be notified of a spill; and

d. follow the requirements of those agencies in cleaning up the spill, in

excavating and disposing of soils or other materials contaminated by a

spill, and in collecting and disposing of waste generated during spill

cleanup.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures

4

B. AGENCY COORDINATION

The project sponsor must coordinate with the appropriate local, state, and Federal

agencies as outlined in these Procedures and in the Certificate.

V. WATERBODY CROSSINGS

A. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES AND PERMITS

1. Apply to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), or its delegated agency, for

the appropriate wetland and waterbody crossing permits.

2. Provide written notification to authorities responsible for potable surface water

supply intakes located within 3 miles downstream of the crossing at least 1 week

before beginning work in the waterbody, or as otherwise specified by that

authority.

3. Apply for state-issued waterbody crossing permits and obtain individual or generic

section 401 water quality certification or waiver.

4. Notify appropriate state authorities at least 48 hours before beginning trenching

or blasting within the waterbody, or as specified in state permits.

B. INSTALLATION

1. Time Window for Construction

Unless expressly permitted or further restricted by the appropriate state agency in

writing on a site-specific basis, instream work, except that required to install or

remove equipment bridges, must occur during the following time windows:

a. coldwater fisheries - June 1 through September 30; and

b. coolwater and warmwater fisheries - June 1 through November 30.

2. Extra Work Areas

a. Locate all extra work areas (such as staging areas and additional spoil

storage areas) at least 50 feet away from water’s edge, except where the

adjacent upland consists of actively cultivated or rotated cropland or other

disturbed land.

Temporary workspace would be located 50 feet back from wetlands

and streams unless as site-specific drawing has been approved by

FERC and appropriate agencies showing less distance.

b. The project sponsor shall file with the Secretary for review and written

approval by the Director, a site-specific construction plan for each extra

work area with a less than 50-foot setback from the water's edge, (except

where the adjacent upland consists of actively cultivated or rotated

cropland or other disturbed land) and a site-specific explanation of the

conditions that will not permit a 50-foot setback.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures

5

c. Limit clearing of vegetation between extra work areas and the edge of the

waterbody to the certificated construction right-of-way.

d. Limit the size of extra work areas to the minimum needed to construct the

waterbody crossing.

3. General Crossing Procedures

For streams flowing at the time of crossing and containing sensitive

fish species, Ruby would implement alternate dry crossing techniques

(dam and pump, flumed, partial diversion, or HDD), unless a sitespecific drawing and method is approved by FERC and appropriate

agencies.

For major waterbody crossings (>100 feet), Ruby would adhere to FERC

requirements, unless a site-specific drawing and method is approved

by FERC and appropriate agencies.

a. Comply with the COE, or its delegated agency, permit terms and

conditions.

b. Construct crossings as close to perpendicular to the axis of the waterbody

channel as engineering and routing conditions permit.

c. If the pipeline parallels a waterbody, attempt to maintain at least 15 feet of

undisturbed vegetation between the waterbody (and any adjacent

wetland) and the construction right-of-way.

d. Where waterbodies meander or have multiple channels, route the pipeline

to minimize the number of waterbody crossings.

e. Maintain adequate flow rates to protect aquatic life, and prevent the

interruption of existing downstream uses.

f. Waterbody buffers (extra work area setbacks, refueling restrictions, etc.)

must be clearly marked in the field with signs and/or highly visible flagging

until construction-related ground disturbing activities are complete.

4. Spoil Pile Placement and Control

a. All spoil from minor and intermediate waterbody crossings, and upland

spoil from major waterbody crossings, must be placed in the construction

right-of-way at least 10 feet from the water's edge or in additional extra

work areas as described in section V.B.2.

b. Use sediment barriers to prevent the flow of spoil or heavily silt-laden

water into any waterbody.

5. Equipment Bridges

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures

6

a. Only clearing equipment and equipment necessary for installation of

equipment bridges may cross waterbodies prior to bridge installation.

Limit the number of such crossings of each waterbody to one per piece of

clearing equipment.

b. Construct equipment bridges to maintain unrestricted flow and to prevent

soil from entering the waterbody. Examples of such bridges include:

(1) equipment pads and culvert(s);

(2) equipment pads or railroad car bridges without culverts;

(3) clean rock fill and culvert(s); and

(4) flexi-float or portable bridges.

Additional options for equipment bridges may be utilized that achieve the

performance objectives noted above. Do not use soil to construct or

stabilize equipment bridges.

Design and maintain each equipment bridge to withstand and pass the

highest flow expected to occur while the bridge is in place. Align culverts

to prevent bank erosion or streambed scour. If necessary, install energy

dissipating devices downstream of the culverts.

Design and maintain equipment bridges to prevent soil from entering the

waterbody.

Remove equipment bridges as soon as possible after permanent seeding

unless the COE, or its delegated agency, authorizes it as a permanent

bridge.

If there will be more than 1 month between final cleanup and the

beginning of permanent seeding and reasonable alternative access to the

right-of-way is available, remove equipment bridges as soon as possible

after final cleanup.

6. Dry-Ditch Crossing Methods

a. Unless approved otherwise by the appropriate state agency, install the

pipeline using one of the dry-ditch methods outlined below for crossings of

waterbodies up to 30 feet wide (at the water's edge at the time of

construction) that are state-designated as either coldwater or significant

coolwater or warmwater fisheries.

b. Dam and Pump

(1) The dam-and-pump method may be used without prior approval

for crossings of waterbodies where pumps can adequately transfer

streamflow volumes around the work area, and there are no

concerns about sensitive species passage.

(2) Implementation of the dam-and-pump crossing method must meet

the following performance criteria:

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures

7

(i) use sufficient pumps, including on-site backup pumps, to

maintain downstream flows;

(ii) construct dams with materials that prevent sediment and

other pollutants from entering the waterbody (e.g.,

sandbags or clean gravel with plastic liner);

(iii) screen pump intakes;

(iv) prevent streambed scour at pump discharge; and

(v) monitor the dam and pumps to ensure proper operation

throughout the waterbody crossing.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures

8

c. Flume Crossing

The flume crossing method requires implementation of the following

steps:

(1) install flume pipe after blasting (if necessary), but before any

trenching;

(2) use sand bag or sand bag and plastic sheeting diversion structure

or equivalent to develop an effective seal and to divert stream flow

through the flume pipe (some modifications to the stream bottom

may be required in to achieve an effective seal);

(3) properly align flume pipe(s) to prevent bank erosion and

streambed scour;

(4) do not remove flume pipe during trenching, pipelaying, or

backfilling activities, or initial streambed restoration efforts; and

(5) remove all flume pipes and dams that are not also part of the

equipment bridge as soon as final cleanup of the stream bed and

bank is complete.

d. Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD)

To the extent they were not provided as part of the pre-certification

process, for each waterbody or wetland that would be crossed using the

HDD method, provide a plan that includes:

(1) site-specific construction diagrams that show the location of mud

pits, pipe assembly areas, and all areas to be disturbed or cleared

for construction;

(2) a description of how an inadvertent release of drilling mud would

be contained and cleaned up; and

(3) a contingency plan for crossing the waterbody or wetland in the

event the directional drill is unsuccessful and how the abandoned

drill hole would be sealed, if necessary.

7. Crossings of Minor Waterbodies

Where a dry-ditch crossing is not required, minor waterbodies may be crossed

using the open-cut crossing method, with the following restrictions:

a. except for blasting and other rock breaking measures, complete instream

construction activities (including trenching, pipe installation, backfill, and

restoration of the streambed contours) within 24 hours. Streambanks and

unconsolidated streambeds may require additional restoration after this

period;

b. limit use of equipment operating in the waterbody to that needed to

construct the crossing; and

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures

9

c. equipment bridges are not required at minor waterbodies that do not have

a state-designated fishery classification (e.g., agricultural or intermittent

drainage ditches). However, if an equipment bridge is used it must be

constructed as described in section V.B.5.

8. Crossings of Intermediate Waterbodies

Where a dry-ditch crossing is not required, intermediate waterbodies may be

crossed using the open-cut crossing method, with the following restrictions:

a. complete instream construction activities (not including blasting and other

rock breaking measures) within 48 hours, unless site-specific conditions

make completion within 48 hours infeasible;

b. limit use of equipment operating in the waterbody to that needed to

construct the crossing; and

c. all other construction equipment must cross on an equipment bridge as

specified in section V.B.5.

9. Crossings of Major Waterbodies

Before construction, the project sponsor shall file with the Secretary for the review

and written approval by the Director a detailed, site-specific construction plan and

scaled drawings identifying all areas to be disturbed by construction for each

major waterbody crossing (the scaled drawings are not required for any offshore

portions of pipeline projects). This plan should be developed in consultation with

the appropriate state and Federal agencies and should include extra work areas,

spoil storage areas, sediment control structures, etc., as well as mitigation for

navigational issues.

The Environmental Inspector may adjust the final placement of the erosion and

sediment control structures in the field to maximize effectiveness.

10. Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control

Install sediment barriers (as defined in section IV.F.2.a. of the Plan) immediately

after initial disturbance of the waterbody or adjacent upland. Sediment barriers

must be properly maintained throughout construction and reinstalled as

necessary (such as after backfilling of the trench) until replaced by permanent

erosion controls or restoration of adjacent upland areas is complete. Temporary

erosion and sediment control measures are addressed in more detail in the Plan;

however, the following specific measures must be implemented at stream

crossings:

a. install sediment barriers across the entire construction right-of-way at all

waterbody crossings, where necessary to prevent the flow of sediments

into the waterbody. In the travel lane, these may consist of removable

sediment barriers or driveable berms. Removable sediment barriers can

be removed during the construction day, but must be re-installed after

construction has stopped for the day and/or when heavy precipitation is

imminent;

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures

10

b. where waterbodies are adjacent to the construction right-of-way, install

sediment barriers along the edge of the construction right-of-way as

necessary to contain spoil and sediment within the construction right-ofway; and

c. use trench plugs at all waterbody crossings, 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.

11. Trench Dewatering

Dewater the trench (either on or off the construction right-of-way) in a manner that

does not cause erosion and does not result in heavily silt-laden water flowing into

any waterbody. Remove the dewatering structures as soon as possible after the

completion of dewatering activities.

C. RESTORATION

1. Use clean gravel or native cobbles for the upper 1 foot of trench backfill in all

waterbodies that contain coldwater fisheries.

2. For open-cut crossings, stabilize waterbody banks and install temporary sediment

barriers within 24 hours of completing instream construction activities. For dryditch crossings, complete streambed and bank stabilization before returning flow

to the waterbody channel.

3. Return all waterbody banks to preconstruction contours or to a stable angle of

repose as approved by the Environmental Inspector.

4. Application of riprap for bank stabilization must comply with COE, or its delegated

agency, permit terms and conditions.

5. Unless otherwise specified by state permit, limit the use of riprap to areas where

flow conditions preclude effective vegetative stabilization techniques such as

seeding and erosion control fabric.

6. Revegetate disturbed riparian areas with conservation grasses and legumes or

native plant species, preferably woody species.

7. Install a permanent slope breaker across the construction right-of-way at the base

of slopes greater than 5 percent that are less than 50 feet from the waterbody, or

as needed to prevent sediment transport into the waterbody. In addition, install

sediment barriers as outlined in the Plan.

In some areas, with the approval of the Environmental Inspector, an earthen berm

may be suitable as a sediment barrier adjacent to the waterbody.

8. Sections V.C.3. through V.C.6. above also apply to those perennial or intermittent

streams not flowing at the time of construction.

D. POST-CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE

1. Limit vegetation maintenance adjacent to waterbodies to allow a riparian strip at

least 25 feet wide, as measured from the waterbody's mean high water mark, to

permanently revegetate with native plant species across the entire construction

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures

11

right-of-way. However, to facilitate periodic pipeline corrosion/leak surveys, a

corridor centered on the pipeline and up to 10 feet wide may be maintained in a

herbaceous state. In addition, trees that are located within 15 feet of the pipeline

that are greater than 15 feet in height may be cut and removed from the

permanent right-of-way.

2. Do not use herbicides or pesticides in or within 100 feet of a waterbody except as

allowed by the appropriate land management or state agency.

VI. WETLAND CROSSINGS

A. GENERAL

1. The project sponsor shall conduct a wetland delineation using the current Federal

methodology and file a wetland delineation report with the Secretary before

construction. This report shall identify:

a. by milepost all wetlands that would be affected;

b. the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) classification for each wetland;

c. the crossing length of each wetland in feet; and

d. the area of permanent and temporary disturbance that would occur in

each wetland by NWI classification type.

The requirements outlined in this section do not apply to wetlands in actively

cultivated or rotated cropland. Standard upland protective measures, including

workspace and topsoiling requirements, apply to these agricultural wetlands.

2. Route the pipeline to avoid wetland areas to the maximum extent possible. If a

wetland cannot be avoided or crossed by following an existing right-of-way, route

the new pipeline in a manner that minimizes disturbance to wetlands. Where

looping an existing pipeline, overlap the existing pipeline right-of-way with the new

construction right-of-way. In addition, locate the loop line no more than 25 feet

away from the existing pipeline unless site-specific constraints would adversely

affect the stability of the existing pipeline.

3. Limit the width of the construction right-of-way to 75 feet or less. Prior written

approval of the Director is required where topographic conditions or soil

limitations require that the construction right-of-way width within the boundaries of

a federally delineated wetland be expanded beyond 75 feet. Early in the planning

process the project sponsor is encouraged to identify site-specific areas where

existing soils lack adequate unconfined compressive strength that would result in

excessively wide ditches and/or difficult to contain spoil piles.

The construction ROW width for all wetland crossings will be limited to 75

feet to minimize impacts, unless a site-specific drawing and method is

approved by FERC and appropriate agencies.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures

12

4. Wetland boundaries and buffers must be clearly marked in the field with signs

and/or highly visible flagging until construction-related ground disturbing activities

are complete.

5. Implement the measures of sections V. and VI. in the event a waterbody crossing

is located within or adjacent to a wetland crossing. If all measures of sections V.

and VI. cannot be met, the project sponsor must file with the Secretary a sitespecific crossing plan for review and written approval by the Director before

construction. This crossing plan shall address at a minimum:

a. spoil control;

b. equipment bridges;

c. restoration of waterbody banks and wetland hydrology;

d. timing of the waterbody crossing;

e. method of crossing; and

f. size and location of all extra work areas.

6. Do not locate aboveground facilities in any wetland, except where the location of

such facilities outside of wetlands would prohibit compliance with U.S.

Department of Transportation regulations.

B. INSTALLATION

1. Extra Work Areas and Access Roads

a. Locate all extra work areas (such as staging areas and additional spoil

storage areas) at least 50 feet away from wetland boundaries, except

where the adjacent upland consists of actively cultivated or rotated

cropland or other disturbed land.

b. The project sponsor shall file with the Secretary for review and written

approval by the Director, a site-specific construction plan for each extra

work area with a less than 50-foot setback from wetland boundaries

(except where adjacent upland consists of actively cultivated or rotated

cropland or other disturbed land) and a site-specific explanation of the

conditions that will not permit a 50-foot setback.

c. Limit clearing of vegetation between extra work areas and the edge of the

wetland to the certificated construction right-of-way.

d. The construction right-of-way may be used for access when the wetland

soil is firm enough to avoid rutting or the construction right-of-way has

been appropriately stabilized to avoid rutting (e.g., with timber riprap,

prefabricated equipment mats, or terra mats).

In wetlands that cannot be appropriately stabilized, all construction

equipment other than that needed to install the wetland crossing shall use

access roads located in upland areas. Where access roads in upland

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures

13

areas do not provide reasonable access, limit all other construction

equipment to one pass through the wetland using the construction rightof-way.

e. The only access roads, other than the construction right-of-way, that can

be used in wetlands without Director approval, are those existing roads

that can be used with no modification and no impact on the wetland.

2. Crossing Procedures

a. Comply with COE, or its delegated agency, permit terms and conditions

b. Assemble the pipeline in an upland area unless the wetland is dry enough

to adequately support skids and pipe.

c. Use "push-pull" or "float" techniques to place the pipe in the trench where

water and other site conditions allow.

d. Minimize the length of time that topsoil is segregated and the trench is

open.

e. Limit construction equipment operating in wetland areas to that needed to

clear the construction right-of-way, dig the trench, fabricate and install the

pipeline, backfill the trench, and restore the construction right-of-way.

f. Cut vegetation just aboveground level, leaving existing root systems in

place, and remove it from the wetland for disposal.

g. Limit pulling of tree stumps and grading activities to directly over the

trenchline. Do not grade or remove stumps or root systems from the rest

of the construction right-of-way in wetlands unless the Chief Inspector and

Environmental Inspector determine that safety-related construction

constraints require grading or the removal of tree stumps from under the

working side of the construction right-of-way.

h. Segregate the top 1 foot of topsoil from the area disturbed by trenching,

except in areas where standing water is present or soils are saturated or

frozen. Immediately after backfilling is complete, restore the segregated

topsoil to its original location.

i. Do not use rock, soil imported from outside the wetland, tree stumps, or

brush riprap to support equipment on the construction right-of-way.

j. If standing water or saturated soils are present, or if construction

equipment causes ruts or mixing of the topsoil and subsoil in wetlands,

use low-ground-weight construction equipment, or operate normal

equipment on timber riprap, prefabricated equipment mats, or terra mats.

k. Do not cut trees outside of the approved construction work area to obtain

timber for riprap or equipment mats.

l. Attempt to use no more than two layers of timber riprap to support

equipment on the construction right-of-way.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures

14

m. Remove all project-related material used to support equipment on the

construction right-of-way upon completion of construction.

3. Temporary Sediment Control

Install sediment barriers (as defined in section IV.F.2.a. of the Plan) immediately

after initial disturbance of the wetland or adjacent upland. Sediment barriers

must be properly maintained throughout construction and reinstalled as

necessary (such as after backfilling of the trench). Except as noted below in

section VI.B.3.c., maintain sediment barriers until replaced by permanent erosion

controls or restoration of adjacent upland areas is complete. Temporary erosion

and sediment control measures are addressed in more detail in the Plan.

a. Install sediment barriers across the entire construction right-of-way at all

wetland crossings where necessary to prevent sediment flow into the

wetland. In the travel lane, these may consist of removable sediment

barriers or driveable berms. Removable sediment barriers can be

removed during the construction day, but must be re-installed after

construction has stopped for the day and/or when heavy precipitation is

imminent

b. Where wetlands are adjacent to the construction right-of-way and the

right-of-way slopes toward the wetland, install sediment barriers along the

edge of the construction right-of-way as necessary to prevent sediment

flow into the wetland.

c. Install sediment barriers along the edge of the construction right-of-way as

necessary to contain spoil and sediment within the construction right-ofway through wetlands. Remove these sediment barriers during right-ofway cleanup.

4. Trench Dewatering

Dewater the trench (either on or off the construction right-of-way) in a manner that

does not cause erosion and does not result in heavily silt-laden water flowing into

any wetland. Remove the dewatering structures as soon as possible after the

completion of dewatering activities.

C. RESTORATION

1. Where the pipeline trench may drain a wetland, construct trench breakers and/or

seal the trench bottom as necessary to maintain the original wetland hydrology.

2. For each wetland crossed, install a trench breaker at the base of slopes near the

boundary between the wetland and adjacent upland areas. Install a permanent

slope breaker across the construction right-of-way at the base of a slopes greater

than 5 percent where the base of the slope is less than 50 feet from the wetland,

or as needed to prevent sediment transport into the wetland. In addition, install

sediment barriers as outlined in the Plan. In some areas, with the approval of the

Environmental Inspector, an earthen berm may be suitable as a sediment barrier

adjacent to the wetland.

3. Do not use fertilizer, lime, or mulch unless required in writing by the appropriate

land management or state agency.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures

15

4. Consult with the appropriate land management or state agency to develop a

project-specific wetland restoration plan. The restoration plan should include

measures for re-establishing herbaceous and/or woody species, controlling the

invasion and spread of undesirable exotic species (e.g., purple loosestrife and

phragmites), and monitoring the success of the revegetation and weed control

efforts. Provide this plan to the FERC staff upon request.

5. Until a project-specific wetland restoration plan is developed and/or implemented,

temporarily revegetate the construction right-of-way with annual ryegrass at a rate

of 40 pounds/acre (unless standing water is present).

6. Ensure that all disturbed areas successfully revegetate with wetland herbaceous

and/or woody plant species.

7. Remove temporary sediment barriers located at the boundary between wetland

and adjacent upland areas after upland revegetation and stabilization of adjacent

upland areas are judged to be successful as specified in section VII.A.5. of the

Plan.

D. POST-CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE

1. Do not conduct vegetation maintenance over the full width of the permanent rightof-way in wetlands. However, to facilitate periodic pipeline corrosion/leak

surveys, a corridor centered on the pipeline and up to 10 feet wide may be

maintained in a herbaceous state. In addition, trees within 15 feet of the pipeline

that are greater than 15 feet in height may be selectively cut and removed from

the permanent right-of-way.

2. Do not use herbicides or pesticides in or within 100 feet of a wetland, except as

allowed by the appropriate land management agency or state agency.

3. Monitor and record the success of wetland revegetation annually for the first 3

years after construction or until wetland revegetation is successful. At the end of

3 years after construction, file a report with the Secretary identifying the status of

the wetland revegetation efforts. Include the percent cover achieved and problem

areas (weed invasion issues, poor revegetation, etc.). Continue to file a report

annually until wetland revegetation is successful.

4. Wetland revegetation shall be considered successful if the cover of herbaceous

and/or woody species is at least 80 percent of the type, density, and distribution

of the vegetation in adjacent wetland areas that were not disturbed by

construction. If revegetation is not successful at the end of 3 years, develop and

implement (in consultation with a professional wetland ecologist) a remedial

revegetation plan to actively revegetate the wetland. Continue revegetation

efforts until wetland revegetation is successful.

VII. HYDROSTATIC TESTING

A. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES AND PERMITS

1. Apply for state-issued water withdrawal permits, as required.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures

16

2. Apply for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) or stateissued discharge permits, as required.

3. Notify appropriate state agencies of intent to use specific sources at least 48

hours before testing activities unless they waive this requirement in writing.

B. GENERAL

1. Perform non-destructive testing of all pipeline section welds or hydrotest the

pipeline sections, before installation under waterbodies or wetlands.

2. If pumps used for hydrostatic testing are within 100 feet of any waterbody or

wetland, address the operation and refueling of these pumps in the project’s Spill

Prevention and Response Procedures.

3. The project sponsor shall file with the Secretary before construction a list

identifying the location of all waterbodies proposed for use as a hydrostatic test

water source or discharge location.

C. INTAKE SOURCE AND RATE

1. Screen the intake hose to prevent entrainment of fish.

2. Do not use state-designated exceptional value waters, waterbodies which provide

habitat for federally listed threatened or endangered species, or waterbodies

designated as public water supplies, unless appropriate Federal, state, and/or

local permitting agencies grant written permission.

3. Maintain adequate flow rates to protect aquatic life, provide for all waterbody

uses, and provide for downstream withdrawals of water by existing users.

4. Locate hydrostatic test manifolds outside wetlands and riparian areas to the

maximum extent practicable.

D. DISCHARGE LOCATION, METHOD, AND RATE

1. Regulate discharge rate, use energy dissipation device(s), and install sediment

barriers, as necessary, to prevent erosion, streambed scour, suspension of

sediments, or excessive streamflow.

2. Do not discharge into state-designated exceptional value waters, waterbodies

which provide habitat for federally listed threatened or endangered species, or

waterbodies designated as public water supplies, unless appropriate Federal,

state, and local permitting agencies grant written permission.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX G

Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Fire Prevention

and

Suppression Plan

FERC Docket No. CP09-___-000

January 2009

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Fire Prevention And Suppression Plan

January 2009

i

Table of Contents

Section Page

1 Purpose.................................................................................... 1-1

2 Objectives ................................................................................ 2-1

3 Responsibilities....................................................................... 3-1

4 Fire Notification ....................................................................... 4-1

5 Emergency Fire Protocols During Fire Season..................... 5-1

6 Fire Precautions During Construction................................... 6-1

6.1 Blasting ............................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 Welding ............................................................................................... 6-1

6.3 Equipment Provisions.......................................................................... 6-2

6.4 Spark Arrestors ................................................................................... 6-2

6.5 Equipment Parking and Storage Areas ............................................... 6-2

6.6 Power Saws ........................................................................................ 6-2

6.7 Warning Devices ................................................................................. 6-3

6.8 Warming and Cooking Fires................................................................ 6-3

6.9 Smoking .............................................................................................. 6-3

6.10 Refueling and Refueling Areas............................................................ 6-3

7 Fire Prevention Equipment..................................................... 7-1

7.1 Construction Vehicles.......................................................................... 7-1

7.2 Fire Fighting Tool Caches ................................................................... 7-1

7.3 Field Safety Officer.............................................................................. 7-2

8 Mandatory Training ................................................................. 8-1

8.11 Field Crew Training Requirements...................................................... 8-1

A. Construction Spreads .............................................................A-1

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Fire Prevention & Suppression Plan

January 2009

ii

List of Tables

Table Page

Table 3.1 Project Contacts for each Spread................................................................ 3-3

Table 4.1 Emergency Personnel to be Notified in the Event of a Fire ......................... 4-2

Table 5.1 Fire Restriction Stages................................................................................. 5-1

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Fire Prevention & Suppression Plan

January 2009

iii

List of Figures

Figure Page

Figure 1 Construction Spreads ..................................................................................A-2

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Fire Prevention And Suppression Plan

January 2009

iv

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs

BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management

EI Environmental Inspectors

NUIFC Northern Utah Interagency Fire Center

OSFM Office of State Fire Marshall

Plan Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan

Project Ruby Pipeline Project

Ruby Ruby Pipeline, LLC.

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Fire Prevention And Suppression Plan

January 2009

1-1

1 Purpose

The Ruby Pipeline Project (Project), proposed by Ruby Pipeline, LLC (Ruby), is comprised of

approximately 675.2 miles of 42-inch diameter natural gas pipeline, along with associated

compression and measurement facilities, located between Opal, Wyoming and Malin,

Oregon. An approximate 2.6-mile lateral, PG&E Lateral, would also be constructed south

from the Malin Hub. As proposed, the Project would have a design capacity of

approximately 1.5 million Dekatherms per day (MMDth/d), 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, one in western Utah,

one near the mid-point of the Project north of Elko, Nevada, and one northwest of

Winnemucca, Nevada.

The purpose of the Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan (Plan) is to define responsibilities

for prevention and suppression of fires during the construction Project. The Plan delineates

the minimum requirements that shall be followed for the project construction activities. Ruby

shall work with its construction contractors to assign specific rolls and responsibilities

consistent with this Plan.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Fire Prevention And Suppression Plan

January 2009

2-1

2 Objectives

The first objective of this Plan is to provide an implementation strategy to facilitate

immediate, aggressive action to extinguish any wildfires that occur during construction of the

Project. This Plan requires increased commitments of fire protection equipment, fire

watch/monitoring efforts, and personnel during high fire risk periods.

The second objective of this plan is to establish protocols and lines of communication for

reporting fires that occur as a result of construction activities or wildfires that are observed

outside of the Project area.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Fire Prevention And Suppression Plan

January 2009

3-1

3 Responsibilities

A Project map of each construction spread is included as Figure 1. The key persons

responsible for fire prevention and suppression during the Project are the Chief Inspector,

Spread Superintendents, Field Safety Officers, Environmental Inspectors, and Authorized

Officers. Contact information for these positions in each spread is provided in Table 3.1.

The Chief Inspector is responsible for oversight of all activities along the pipeline or

compressor station spread.

Spread Superintendents are responsible for general construction operations for their

construction area and for ensuring that all aspects of this Plan and contractor fire control

plans are being implemented. Spread Superintendents will be in communication with Chief

Inspectors, Field Safety Officers, Environmental Inspectors, Authorized Officers, and local

fire fighters, as necessary, to ensure that all personnel involved are aware of current fire

hazards and the prevention methods being implemented. The Spread Superintendent will

coordinate with federal and state fire management personnel during periods of high or

severe fire conditions to ensure that all permit stipulations are being met and appropriate

preventive measures are in place during all construction-related activities.

The Field Safety Officer (FSO) is responsible for managing all on-site fire suppression

documentation. The FSO is responsible for ensuring that all fire suppression equipment is

available and maintained, and that crewmembers are trained and certified to use the

equipment properly. The FSO is also responsible for communicating current fire hazards and

emphasizing any changes to the prevention methods to crew members on a daily basis.

One FSO will be assigned to each spread and will report directly to the Spread

Superintendent. When multiple activities require the presence of a FSO, the FSO shall

appoint a designee for monitoring purposes.

Environmental Inspectors primarily function as environmental regulatory oversight. This

oversight extends to the prevention and suppression of wildfires within and in the vicinity of

the Project area. Environmental Inspectors should be familiar with all federal, state and local

laws, ordinances, and regulations that pertain to the prevention, pre-suppression, and

suppression of fires. Environmental Inspectors, in the event of an emergency, should also be

briefed on, and have the ability to advise regarding all site-specific and contractor fire control

plans for their jurisdictional area.

Authorized Officers are representatives from the jurisdictional land agency who supply

information regarding potential fire hazard conditions or changes in prevention methods.

This information includes, but is not limited to, current Fire Danger Ratings, presence of

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Fire Prevention And Suppression Plan

January 2009

3-2

other wildfires in the vicinity, and temporary restrictions on construction activities. If extreme

fire danger is determined by the land management agency, the Authorized Officer, can direct

the Spread Superintendent to increase the level of fire monitoring, install additional fire

prevention or suppression equipment, or stop work, as necessary.

These key people will be responsible for the following procedures, as appropriate:

 Initiating and implementing all fire control activities during construction until relieved

by professional fire suppression crews, if necessary. Actions should not be taken

that may endanger employee safety. The Spread Superintendent and FSO must

determine if the equipment on hand and training of crewmembers is capable of

suppressing the fire. If the fire is determined to be too extensive or spreading too

rapidly to be contained by equipment and personnel on hand, then the Spread

Superintendent and FSO should instruct crewmembers to evacuate the site and yield

to professional fire suppression crews to control the wildfire.

 Complying with all federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations that

pertain to the prevention, pre-suppression, and suppression of fires.

 Immediately reporting all uncontrolled fires within the Project area or wildfires that are

observed outside of the Project area, regardless of the source, to the nearest fire

dispatch office as outlined in Table 4.1.

The Chief Inspector, Authorized Officer, Spread Superintendent, and Environmental

Inspector will have the authority to stop or reduce construction activities or operations that

pose a fire hazard until appropriate measures have been implemented.

The FSO will accompany the Spread Superintendent, Authorized Officer, or other third-party

compliance inspector on fire inspections and take corrective action when observing or having

been notified that fire protection measures have not been properly installed or maintained.

Additional responsibilities of the FSO will include:

 Ensure that all Project employees are informed of the Fire Control Plan.

 Conduct weekly inspections during fire season of tools, equipment, and first aid kits.

 Conduct regular inspections of flammable fuels and explosives storage and handling

areas.

 Post “No Smoking” and “Designated Smoking Area” signs and fire rules at

appropriate locations within the Project area.

 Provide initial response support in the event of a fire in the Project area and

supervise fire suppression activities until relieved.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Fire Prevention And Suppression Plan

January 2009

3-3

 Report all wildfires to the Spread Superintendent. In the absence of the Spread

Superintendent, the FSO would report the wildfire to the appropriate federal, state, or

local fire control jurisdiction.

 Provide weekly written burning and blasting schedules to the appropriate federal,

state, and local fire control jurisdiction.

 Monitor construction site areas where activities may present fire safety issues, such

as blasting.

 Maintain a 4X4, 3⁄4 ton pick-up truck with designated equipment (See Table 8.1) at all

times.

Table 3.1 Project Contacts for each Spread

Title Contact Telephone (Day) Telephone

(Night)

Chief Inspector TBD TBD TBD

Spread

Superintendent

TBD TBD TBD

Field Safety Officer TBD TBD TBD

Environmental

Inspector

TBD TBD TBD

Authorized Officer TBD TBD TBD

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Fire Prevention And Suppression Plan

January 2009

4-1

4 Fire Notification

In the event of an uncontrolled fire, construction personnel on the scene are to notify the

Spread Superintendent immediately. The Spread Superintendent is responsible for notifying

the appropriate federal, state, or local fire control jurisdiction.

Table 4.1 outlines personnel that will require notification in the event of a fire.

Following an uncontrolled fire, the Spread Superintendent will be responsible for providing a

written report within 24 hours to the appropriate land management agency and to the Chief

Inspector.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Fire Prevention And Suppression Plan

January 2009

4-2

Table 4.1 Emergency Personnel to be Notified in the Event of a Fire

911 should be used for emergency purposes, unless otherwise instructed by local officials.

Spread Land Type/ District Responding Agency Contact Contact

Number

WYOMING

Spread

No. n/a

BLM Rawlins Interagency

Dispatch Center

No contact specified 800-295-9953

or

307-328-4393

Spread

No. n/a

Wyoming State Land District Forester Dana Stone 307-787-6148

Spread

No. n/a

Private Land Wyoming Office of State

Fire Marshall (OSFM)

Lanny Applegate 307-777-7288

Spread

No. n/a

Private Land (Lincoln

County)

Local Fire Station South Lincoln County

Sheriff Dispatcher

800-442-9001

Spread

No. n/a

Private Land (Uinta County) Local Fire Station Uinta County Sheriff

Dispatcher

307-783-1000

UTAH

Spread

No. n/a

BLM Northern Utah Interagency

Fire Center (NUIFC)

Teresa Rigby 801-977-4344

Spread

No. n/a

Wasatch-Cache NF NUIFC Kathy Jo Pollock 801-236-3409

Spread

No. n/a

U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (USFWS)

NUIFC Tracy Swenson 435-734-6449

Spread

No. n/a

State of Utah Land NUIFC Barbra Gardner 435-538-5315

Spread

No. n/a

Indian Nations NUIFC Ute Indian Tribe

(Rich County)

Ronald Wopsock

435-772-4992

Spread

No. n/a

Private Land Utah OSFM Ron Morris 801-284-6350

NEVADA

Spread

No. n/a

Elko BLM District (Including:

BLM, Nevada Division Of Forestry,

FS, BIA, Sho-Pai Firefighters, and

USFWS)

Elko Interagency Dispatch

Center

No contact specified 775-748-4000

775-623-3444

(24hr fire

reporting)

Spread

No. n/a

Winnemucca BLM District

(Including: BLM, FS, BIA, USFWS)

Central Nevada Interagency

Dispatch Center

No contact specified

775-623-1555

(Business line)

Spread

No. n/a

Surprise BLM District (CA

and NV) (Including: BLM, FS,

California Department of Forestry,

public and private lands)

Surprise Valley Fire Station No contact specified 503-279-2729

Spread

No. n/a

Private Land Nevada OFSM James Wright 775-684-7500

OREGON

Spread

No. n/a

Lakeview BLM District

(Including: BLM, FS, Oregon

Department of Forestry, and

USFWS)

Lakeview Interagency Fire

Center

No contact specified 541-947-2177

Spread

No. n/a

Private Land Oregon OSFM General office

number

503-378-3473

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Fire Prevention And Suppression Plan

January 2009

5-1

5 Emergency Fire Protocols During Fire

Season

Fire condition classes based on standard vegetation fuel models will be used by the land

managing agencies to determine the required fire prevention, control, and monitoring efforts.

Based on the fire condition class, certain activities such as blasting, welding, or grinding

could be restricted during periods of high or severe fire danger. The Authorized Officer may

modify or change requirements based on the assessment of specific fire restriction notices

or localized risks or hazards.

Each morning, the FSO will contact the federal state or local fire management office to

obtain information on the fire restriction level and the potential for a “red flag warning”. The

FSO will communicate this information to the Spread Superintendent, Environmental

Inspectors, and field crews.

Fire restriction levels and required preventive measures are listed in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 Fire Restriction Stages

No Fire Restrictions

 Normal Fire Precautions

Stage 1 Fire Restrictions

 Normal fire precautions with the exception of designated smoking areas.

 A permit is required for warming or cooking fires.

Stage 1 Fire Restrictions with “Red Flag Warning”

 All machine treatment of slash, skidding, yarding, blasting, welding, metal

cutting, and offloading on the right-of-way are subject to BLM requirements.

 No smoking or warming/cooking fires are permitted.

 Power saws shut down from 9:00 P.M. to 8:00 A.M (local standard time).

 Hauling trucking must stay on the right-of-way or surfaced roads after 5:00

P.M. (local standard time).

 Utilization of additional personnel, equipment, and prevention measures.

Stage 2 Fire Restrictions

 Shutdown of all construction activities except operations on soil or graded

ROW, road excavation, watering, grading, trench excavation, padding,

backfilling, and clean-up.

 All other activities, such as blasting and welding, require an exemption from

the Authorized Agent.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Fire Prevention And Suppression Plan

January 2009

5-2

Table 5.1 Fire Restriction Stages

 The Chief Inspector or Environmental Inspector have the discretion to restrict

or shutdown construction activities on private lands during all precautionary

periods.

 In extreme cases, the Authorized Agent has the discretion to shut down all

construction activities and bar all right-of-way areas from entry.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Fire Prevention And Suppression Plan

January 2009

6-1

6 Fire Precautions During

Construction

6.1 Blasting

The Spread Superintendent will provide, in writing, a blasting schedule to the Superintendent

Chief Inspector and Environmental Inspector that includes locations and times. The Spread

Superintendent will also provide blasting schedules to the Authorized Officer. When

possible, an Environmental Inspector, the FSO or his designee should be on site during

blasting activities.

During Stage I Fire Restrictions, the Ruby FSO is required to be on site during the operation

and remain on site for one hour after the completion of blasting. At least one Size 0 or larger

shovel and one water-filled backpack pump must be on site.

During Stage II Fire Restrictions, blasting is prohibited unless an exemption has been

granted by the Authorized Agent. If an exemption has been granted, additional fire

prevention equipment and personnel must be on site prior to blasting. Equipment may

include fire tankers, shovels, backpack pumps, bulldozers, etc. Equipment must be kept on

site for at least two hours after the completion of blasting activities.

6.2 Welding

During fire season, welding, cutting, or drilling of metal components of the Project require the

approval of the Spread Superintendent. In areas where approval has been granted,

vegetation must be cleared at a minimum diameter of 20 feet around the center of the work

area. Each welding crew should be outfitted with at least one Size 0 or larger shovel, one

water-filled backpack pump, and one 5-pound dry powder CO2 fire extinguisher.

During Stage I Fire Restrictions with a “Red Flag Warning”, the above measures are

required. In addition, a Fire Watch will be assigned to each crew. The Fire Watch will

remain on site for one hour after the completion of welding activities.

During Stage II Fire Restrictions, an exemption by the Authorized Officer is required prior to

any welding activities. If an exemption is granted, all Stage I Fire Restriction measures must

be implemented. In addition, a water tanker and bulldozer are required to be on site during

all operations and remain on site for at least two hours after the completion of welding

activities.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Fire Prevention & Suppression Plan

January 2009

6-2

Fire restriction measures also apply to welding operations performed for equipment

maintenance within the Project area.

6.3 Equipment Provisions

The contractor shall furnish a list of construction equipment proposed for the Project. All

equipment assigned to the Project may be inspected by the Authorized Officer for the land

jurisdiction involved or other third party compliance inspector before it is used in construction

of the Project. The equipment may be used on the Project only while in good operating

order.

If required, flues used in construction camps and material staging yards shall be equipped

with spark arresters in good working order and meeting U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA) Forest Service standards.

6.4 Spark Arrestors

All internal combustion engines, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped with spark

arresters, meeting USDA Forest Service standards. Spark arresters shall be in good

working order. Light trucks and cars with factory-installed (type) mufflers, in good condition,

may be used on roads where the roadway is cleared of all vegetation. On roads where

vegetation exists, spark arresters shall be used.

Vehicles equipped with catalytic converters are potential fire hazards and will be parked on

areas cleared of vegetation.

6.5 Equipment Parking and Storage Areas

Equipment parking areas and small stationary engine sites shall be cleared of all extraneous

flammable materials.

Gas and oil storage areas shall be cleared of extraneous flammable material and “No

Smoking” signs shall be posted throughout the area at all times.

All used and discarded oil, oil filters, oily rags, or other waste shall be disposed of in

approved and marked containers. Containers shall be stored in approved locations and

removed from the site by licensed contractors or approved personnel and disposed or

recycled at approved facilities.

Glass jugs or bottles shall not be used as containers for gasoline or other flammable

materials.

6.6 Power Saws

All gasoline-powered saws shall be provided with approved spark arresters/ mufflers, which

shall be in good operating condition. Gasoline-powered chain saws shall be maintained in

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Fire Prevention & Suppression Plan

January 2009

6-3

good condition throughout their assignment to the Project. Chain saws and the operation of

chain saws shall comply with the following requirements.

 Arrester/muffler shall contain a 0.023-inch mesh, stainless steel screen.

 During operation of chain saws, the following conditions shall be adhered to:

o a) Chainsaw operators shall have a fire extinguisher or water backpack and

shovel available.

o b) Power saws shall be moved at least 10 feet from the place of fueling or

refueling before starting.

o C) All gas shall be carried in metal safety cans.

6.7 Warning Devices

Torches, fuses, highway flares, or other devices with open flames shall not be allowed. The

Contractor shall use only electric or battery-operated warning devices within the Project

area.

6.8 Warming and Cooking Fires

Permits shall be obtained from the Authorized Officer for lunch or warming fires when Stage

1 or higher fire conditions are declared. Permits shall:

 Specify the use and location of fires.

 Require all fire location to have shovels, extinguishers, and water available.

 Require that fires be completely extinguished at the end of the day and/or

when abandoned.

 Permits will be issued for use only in areas that require them.

6.9 Smoking

Smoking is allowed only in areas designated by Ruby’s FSO. Smoking signs that are visible

to all employees should be posted at designated areas and the Contractor’s supervisory

personnel will be responsible for enforcing smoking restrictions. “No Smoking” signs shall

be posted in all refueling areas and areas where flammable liquids or materials are used,

stored, or discarded.

6.10 Refueling and Refueling Areas

All fuel trucks shall be equipped with a 35-lb minimum CO2 fire extinguisher. If required,

helicopter refueling trucks will be electrically grounded to the helicopter during refueling.

Storage areas shall be cleared of all extraneous flammable materials. All discarded oil, oil

filters, oily rags, or other potentially flammable wastes shall be disposed as described in

Section 6.5 above. Only approved and properly maintained containers will be used to store

or transport flammable liquids.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Fire Prevention And Suppression Plan

January 2009

7-1

7 Fire Prevention Equipment

7.1 Construction Vehicles

All man-hauls, trucks, tractors, pickup trucks, and personnel vehicles assigned to the job

must be equipped with one 5-lb minimum dry chemical fire extinguisher and one shovel.

Water tankers on site during blasting “red flag warnings”, and Stage II scenarios will be

outfitted with a pressure pump, adjustable nozzle, threaded rubber-lined hose, a minimum of

300 feet of 1-1/2-inch cotton jacket, and have a minimum water storage capacity of 1,500

gallons.

7.2 Fire Fighting Tool Caches

At least three 10-person tool caches will be maintained per spread. One cache will be

placed in an Environmental Inspector’s 4 x 4 vehicle associated with the ROW clearing, the

improvement of access roads, and other construction activities. The second tool cache will

be located with the Spread Superintendent and the third will be assigned to the FSO, who

will have a radio in his vehicle. The tool boxes shall be red in color, sealed with metal boxcar-type seals, and labeled “For Fire Fighting Only”. The tool caches shall have the following

tools placed therein:

 Ten electric headlamps with batteries.

 One first aid kit, 10-man unit.

 Two knapsacks.

 Five pulaskies with sheaths.

 Five long-handled, rounded, Size 0 shovels.

 Five fire rakes.

 Ten one-gallon canteens, filled with water.

The Spread Superintendent will immediately expedite delivery of the tool caches upon

request of the FSO, the Authorized Officer, or when alerted to an emergency requiring the

tools.

In case any tool cache has been used, it shall be immediately replenished. When a first aid

kit is used (seal broken), it shall be replaced by a new (sealed) first aid kit. All replenished

first aid boxes shall be inspected by the FSO. The first aid box shall then be wired or

resealed before being returned to the construction site.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Fire Prevention & Suppression Plan

January 2009

7-2

7.3 Field Safety Officer

The FSO vehicle will maintain the required equipment list at all times, although suitable

substitutions may be made as necessary (Table 7.1).

Table 7.1 Minimum FSO Equipment

Item Description Quantity

1 Pickup Truck (4X4), 3⁄4 Ton 1

2 Two-Way Mobile Radio Operating (Administrative Unit) Frequency 1

3 Fire-Fighting Tool Cache (for contents see above) 1

3 “Slip On” Water Tank with 125 Gallon Capacity and Pump Units

with Hose Fittings

1

4 Axe, Double Bit, Cruiser Type 1

5 Sheath for Axe 1

Round-Pointed Size 0 Shovel 2

6 Hard Hat 2

7 Backpack Pump, Complete (filled with water) 2

8 Hoses

Cotton Jacket, 1-1/2” (NS Thread)

Cotton Jacket, 1” (IP Thread)

High Pressure, 1” (IP Thread)

Suction, 1-1/2”

200’

400’

250’

24’

9 Hose Fittings

R-F Forester Nozzles

R-S Nozzle, Tips

(a) Fog

(b) Straight Stream

Reducer, 1-1/2” NS to 1” IP

Stainer, Suction, 1-1/2”

Siamese, 1-1/2” NS Thread, both Male and Female

2

6

6

4

1

1

1

10 Tools

Spanner-Wrench, Large, 1-1/2” Hose

Spanner-Wrench, Small, 1” Hose

Carpenter Hammer

Pliers, Slip Joint

1

1

1

1

Fire Extinguishers

35-lb minimum CO2 1

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Fire Prevention And Suppression Plan

January 2009

8-1

8 Mandatory Training

8.11 Field Crew Training Requirements

In addition to personnel listed in 3.0, Foremen, Lead Personnel and Inspectors must

complete a site specific fire prevention and suppression training which will include:

 Briefing on the chain of command and fire reporting process;

 Emergency contacts and numbers;

 Basic fire prevention behavior controls;

 Basic training and uses of handtools, water backpacks, etc.;

 Briefing on all other information contained in this document;

 Specific actions and expectations when a fire occurs and safety precautions; and

 Evacuation procedures if ordered by the FSO.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Fire Prevention And Suppression Plan

January 2009

A-1

A. Construction Spreads

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Fire Prevention And Suppression Plan

January 2009

A-2

Figure 1 Construction Spreads

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
kj kj

kj

kj

kj

^

^ ^

^^

^

^^^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

§ ̈¦86

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦65

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦84

§ ̈¦15

!(97

!(138

!(58

!(44

!(20

!(6

!(78

!(299

!(395

!(139

!(91

!(93

!(95

!(191

!(40 !(87

!(30

!(36

!(189

!(89

!(140

Humboldt

Teton

Cassia

Payette

Tooele

Millard

Boise

Jerome

Gem

Davis

Crook

Modoc

Lake

Harney

Deschutes

Bannock

Butte

Clark

Shasta

Piute

Malheur

Gooding

Owyhee

Wayne

Camas

Duchesne

Elmore

Washington

Plumas

Lassen

Carson City

Storey Nevada

Siskiyou

Lane

Tehama

Yolo

Baker Valley Lemhi

Nye

Lincoln

Esmeralda Mono Tuolumne

Custer

Elko

Washoe

White Pine

Grant

Klamath

Box Elder

Park

Uinta

Butte

Sierra

Lander

Eureka

Pershing

Churchill

Mineral

Placer

Sutter

El Dorado

Alpine

Calaveras

Lyon

Douglas

Sacramento Amador

Yuba

Fremont

Cache

Morgan

Caribou

Lincoln

Bingham

Bonneville

Sublette

Fremont

Madison

Emery

Sanpete

Rich

Teton

Beaver

Carbon

Power

Juab

Jefferson

Oneida

Utah

Summit

Weber

Twin Falls

Minidoka

Bear

Lake

Lincoln

Wasatch

Blaine

Salt Lake

Ada

Canyon

Sevier

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

45

5

0

00

550

600

650

Elko

Brigham City

Winnemucca

Lakeview

Kemmerer

Boise

City

Nampa

Reno

Sparks

Carson

Salt Lake City

West Valley City

Taylorsville

Ogden

Sandy

Idaho

Falls

Pocatello

Klamath

Falls

Malin

Bend

Figure 1

Construction Spreads

Contractor Construction Yards

January 2009

Ruby Pipeline Project

Proposed Route (Nov 26 2008)

0 25 50 100

Miles  ́

Construction Spread

1A

1B

2

3

4A

4B

5

6A

6B

7

kj Contractor

Construction Yard

^ City

! Mile Post

Interstate

Highway

State Boundary

County Boundary

\Prtbhp1\gis\Portland\Ruby_Pipeline\Maps\MXDs\ResourceReportFigures\RR_05\RR05_ContractorSpreads.mxd 01/04/2009

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX H 

Paleontological Resources Monitoring Plan 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
January 2009

Paleontological Resources

Monitoring Plan

FERC Docket No. CP09-___-000

January 2009

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN

January 2009

i

Table of Contents

Section Page

1 Introduction ............................................................................. 1

2 Construction Methods ............................................................ 1

2.1 Contracted Paleontologist............................................................................ 1

2.2 Training of Contractors ................................................................................ 1

3 Areas to Be Monitored or Spot Checked ............................... 2

3.1 Wyoming ..................................................................................................... 2

3.2 Utah............................................................................................................. 2

3.3 Nevada ........................................................................................................ 3

3.4 Oregon ........................................................................................................ 3

4 Unanticipated Discoveries of Paleontological Resources ... 3

4.1 Paleontological Support During Construction............................................... 3

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...................................... 4

5 Contacts for Unanticipated Discoveries................................ 6

6. References............................................................................... 8

A Table A-1 ...............................................................................A-1

B Supporting Bureau of Land Management Documentation B-1

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN

January 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

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN

January 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

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN

January 2009

1

1 Introduction

The Ruby Pipeline Project (Project), proposed by Ruby Pipeline, LLC (Ruby), is comprised of

approximately 675.2 miles of 42-inch diameter natural gas pipeline, along with associated

compression and measurement facilities, located between Opal, Wyoming and Malin,

Oregon. An approximate 2.6-mile lateral, PG&E Lateral, would also be constructed south

from the Malin Hub. As proposed, the Project would have a design capacity of

approximately 1.5 million Dekatherms per day (MMDth/d), 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, 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 Contracted 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) 4 or

5, (3) evaluate paleontological discoveries made by Ruby and construction contractors, and

(4) determine appropriate actions regarding significant finds with BLM paleontologists.

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

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN

January 2009

2

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. These rankings are listed in Table 6A-1 of

Resource Report No. 6. Following a literature search, paleontological field surveys of

segments ranked as PFYC 3, 4, or 5 were conducted during the summer of 2008. In some

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. PFYC geologic formations with rankings

of 3, 4, or 5 are listed in Table A-1 (Appendix A). 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 6.2 would be monitored during construction. Alluvium and colluvial deposits (PFYC

rank of 2) that are listed in Table 6A-1 that outcrop along these areas between higher

ranking formations would not require spot checking. Other outcrops of PFYC classes 4 and

5 (see Resource Report No. 6 for relevant outcrops) would be spot checked after trenching,

prior to trench infill. Trenches in the following PFYC ranked 3 to 5 formations would be spot

checked: Bridger, Green River, 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 paleontological

consultation recommended dropping the Wasatch Formation in this area of Utah to PFYC

class 3 (Resource Report No. 6). It is recommended that post-trenching spot checks of the

formation be conducted. Spot checks of the Wasatch Formation should be limited to three

0.5-mile segments along the total 22.6-mile length of outcrops of the formation within longer

segments occurring at MPs 55.28, 65.99 and 76.74.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN

January 2009

3

As discussed in Resource Report 6, the Salt Lake formation (PFYC 3) can contain significant

vertebrate fossils. Although no fossils were observed during the summer 2008 field surveys,

the nine instances where the Salt Lake formation would be crossed would be spot checked.

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 field spot checked.

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 488 and 496. The

Chinle and Ankareh formations also may contain significant fossils and would be spot

checked 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.

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.

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 paleontologists. 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.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN

January 2009

4

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. The paleontologist

would examine and record the paleontological resource and evaluate its significance in

collaboration with BLM paleontologists 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 paleontologists (consulting and

BLM) concur that construction may resume. Agencies may inform Ruby’s consultant

paleontologist of any required mitigation measures by telephone, with follow-up

documentation by mail or email. The list of agency paleontological 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, field 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

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

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN

January 2009

5

exact methods of material extraction, including rapid shovel excavation or use of backhoes

or other heavy equipment.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN

January 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

Office Manager

333 SW Fifth, Suite 600

Portland, OR 97204

Phone: 503.248.5600

Email: jmontgomery@ene.com

Consulting 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

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

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN

January 2009

7

Table 1 Contact Information

Agency Name Contact Information

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

Pat Haynal

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

Archaeologist

3050 NE Third

Prineville, OR 97754

Phone: 541.416.6735

Email: John_Zancanella@or.blm.gov

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN

January 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.

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.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN

January 2009

A-1

A Table A-1

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN

January 2009

A-1

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 most

sensitive

Summer

2008 Field

Checked

Recommend

for

Spot/Field

Check

0.00 0.23 0.23 Tb

Volcanic and

sedimentary Bridger Formation 5 Yes Yes

0.23 0.41 0.18 Tgl

Lacustrine

sedimentary

Green River Formation:

Laney Member 5 Yes Yes

0.41 0.61 0.20 Tw

Fluvial

sedimentary

Wasatch Formation,

main body 5 Yes Yes

1.36 1.78 0.42 Tgl

Lacustrine

sedimentary

Green River Formation:

Laney Member 5 Yes Yes

1.78 6.20 4.42 Tb

Volcanic and

sedimentary Bridger Formation 5 Yes Yes

6.20 6.64 0.44 Tgl

Lacustrine

sedimentary

Green River Formation:

Laney Member 5 Yes Yes

7.38 7.69 0.31 Tgl

Lacustrine

sedimentary

Green River Formation:

Laney Member 5 Yes Yes

9.30 10.20 0.90 Tw

Fluvial

sedimentary

Wasatch Formation,

main body 5 Yes Yes

10.20 11.06 0.86 Tgw

Lacustrine

sedimentary

Green River Formation:

Wilkins Peak Member 5 Yes Yes

11.06 11.76 0.70 Tgrw

Fluvial and

lacustrine

sedimentary

Green River and

Wasatch Formations 5

Yes Yes

11.76 12.89 1.13 Tgw

Lacustrine

sedimentary

Green River Formation:

Wilkins Peak Member 5 Yes Yes

12.89 13.39 0.50 Tgrw

Fluvial and

lacustrine

sedimentary

Green River and

Wasatch Formations 5

Yes Yes

13.39 14.44 1.05 Kg

Marine

sedimentary Gannett group 3 Yes Yes

14.44 15.12 0.68 Tw

Fluvial

sedimentary

Wasatch Formation,

main body 5 Yes Yes

15.12 16.44 1.32 Tgrw

Fluvial and

lacustrine

sedimentary

Green River and

Wasatch Formations 5

Yes Yes

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN

January 2009

A-2

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 most

sensitive

Summer

2008 Field

Checked

Recommend

for

Spot/Field

Check

16.44 19.15 2.71 Ka

Marine

sedimentary Aspen shale 3 Yes Yes

19.15 20.59 1.44 Kf

Marine

sedimentary Frontier Formation 3 Yes Yes

20.59 26.27 5.68 Kh

Marine

sedimentary Hilliard shale 3 Yes Yes

26.27 27.69 1.42 Kf

Marine

sedimentary Frontier Formation 3 Yes Yes

27.69 27.73 0.04 TKe

Fluvial and marsh

sedimentary Evanston Formation 3 Yes Yes

27.73 28.05 0.32 Kf

Marine

sedimentary Frontier Formation 3 Yes Yes

28.05 28.82 0.77 TKe

Fluvial and marsh

sedimentary Evanston Formation 3 Yes Yes

28.82 40.64 11.82 Tgrw

Fluvial and

lacustrine

sedimentary

Green River and

Wasatch Formations 5

Yes Yes

40.64 41.15 0.51 Tw

Fluvial

sedimentary

Wasatch Formation,

main body 5 Yes Yes

41.15 42.08 0.93 TKe

Fluvial and marsh

sedimentary Evanston Formation 3 Yes Yes

42.08 42.57 0.49 Kg

Marine

sedimentary Gannett group 3 Yes Yes

42.57 43.22 0.65 Tf

Fluvial

sedimentary

Fowkes Formation

(Pliocene? and

Eocene) 3

Yes Yes

43.22 43.34 0.12 Kss

Marine

sedimentary

Sage Junction, Quely,

Cokeville, Thomas

Fork, and Smiths

Formations 3

Yes Yes

43.34 46.21 2.87 TKe

Fluvial and marsh

sedimentary Evanston Formation 3 Yes Yes

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN

January 2009

A-3

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 most

sensitive

Summer

2008 Field

Checked

Recommend

for

Spot/Field

Check

46.21 47.68 1.47 Kss

Marine

sedimentary

Sage Junction, Quely,

Cokeville, Thomas

Fork, and Smiths

Formations 3 Yes Yes

47.68 48.01 0.33 Tf

Fluvial

sedimentary

Fowkes Formation

(Pliocene? and

Eocene) 3 Yes Yes

55.28 60.74 5.46 T1

Fluvial and

lacustrine

sedimentary

Wasatch, Cotton,

Flagstaff, Claron, White

Sage and other Fms 3 Yes Yes

61.07 64.89 3.82 T1

Fluvial and

lacustrine

sedimentary

Wasatch, Cotton,

Flagstaff, Claron, White

Sage and other Fms 3 Yes Yes

64.89 65.15 0.26 J1

Marine and eolian

sedimentary

Summerville, Entrada,

Carmel, Arapien, Twin

Creek and other Fms 3 Yes Yes

65.15 65.28 0.13 T1

Fluvial and

lacustrine

sedimentary

Wasatch, Cotton,

Flagstaff, Claron, White

Sage and other Fms 3 Yes Yes

65.28 65.99 0.71 J1

Marine and eolian

sedimentary

Summerville, Entrada,

Carmel, Arapien, Twin

Creek and other Fms 3 Yes Yes

65.99 71.10 5.11 T1

Fluvial and

lacustrine

sedimentary

Wasatch, Cotton,

Flagstaff, Claron, White

Sage and other Fms 3 Yes Yes

71.47 72.17 0.70 T1

Fluvial and

lacustrine

sedimentary

Wasatch, Cotton,

Flagstaff, Claron, White

Sage and other Fms 3 Yes Yes

72.34 72.87 0.53 T1

Fluvial and

lacustrine

sedimentary

Wasatch, Cotton,

Flagstaff, Claron, White

Sage and other Fms 3 Yes Yes

73.60 73.82 0.22 T1

Fluvial and

lacustrine

sedimentary

Wasatch, Cotton,

Flagstaff, Claron, White

Sage and other Fms 3 Yes Yes

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN

January 2009

A-4

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 most

sensitive

Summer

2008 Field

Checked

Recommend

for

Spot/Field

Check

73.85 74.01 0.16 T1

Fluvial and

lacustrine

sedimentary

Wasatch, Cotton,

Flagstaff, Claron, White

Sage and other Fms 3 Yes Yes

74.19 75.08 0.89 T1

Fluvial and

lacustrine

sedimentary

Wasatch, Cotton,

Flagstaff, Claron, White

Sage and other Fms 3 Yes Yes

75.40 76.64 1.24 T1

Fluvial and

lacustrine

sedimentary

Wasatch, Cotton,

Flagstaff, Claron, White

Sage and other Fms 3 Yes Yes

76.74 82.74 6.00 T1

Fluvial and

lacustrine

sedimentary

Wasatch, Cotton,

Flagstaff, Claron, White

Sage and other Fms 3 Yes Yes

92.88 94.54 1.66 T4

Volcanic and

sedimentary

Salt Lake Fm and other

valley-filling alluvial,

lacustrine, and volcanic

units 3 Yes Yes

95.22 98.77 3.55 T4

Volcanic and

sedimentary

Salt Lake Fm and other

valley-filling alluvial,

lacustrine, and volcanic

units 3 Yes Yes

134.86 135.51 0.65 M3

Marine

sedimentary

Chainman, Manning

Canyon, Doughnut and

other Fms 3 Yes No

141.25 141.87 0.62 T4

Volcanic and

sedimentary

Salt Lake Fm and other

valley-filling alluvial,

lacustrine, and volcanic

units 3 Yes Yes

143.25 143.54 0.29 T4

Volcanic and

sedimentary

Salt Lake Fm and other

valley-filling alluvial,

lacustrine, and volcanic

units 3 Yes Yes

187.78 188.07 0.29 T4

Volcanic and

sedimentary

Salt Lake Fm and other

valley-filling alluvial,

lacustrine, and volcanic

units 3 Yes Yes

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN

January 2009

A-5

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 most

sensitive

Summer

2008 Field

Checked

Recommend

for

Spot/Field

Check

189.46 189.80 0.34 P2

Lacustrine

sedimentary

Kaibab, Toroweap,

Park City and other

Fms 3 Yes Yes

192.61 192.95 0.34 T4

Volcanic and

sedimentary

Salt Lake Fm and other

valley-filling alluvial,

lacustrine, and volcanic

units 3 Yes Yes

193.74 193.81 0.07 P2

Lacustrine

sedimentary

Kaibab, Toroweap,

Park City and other

Fms 3 Yes Yes

196.94 197.26 0.32 T4

Volcanic and

sedimentary

Salt Lake Fm and other

valley-filling alluvial,

lacustrine, and volcanic

units 3 Yes Yes

213.60 214.10 0.50 T4

Volcanic and

sedimentary

Salt Lake Fm and other

valley-filling alluvial,

lacustrine, and volcanic

units 3 Yes Yes

228.74 228.86 0.12 P1

Marine

sedimentary

Cedar Mesa, Diamond

Creek, Arcturus and

other Fms 3 Yes No

229.78 230.57 0.79 P1

Marine

sedimentary

Cedar Mesa, Diamond

Creek, Arcturus and

other Fms 3 Yes No

230.57 230.62 0.05 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous

sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

231.10 231.21 0.11 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous

sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

244.44 245.24 0.80 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous

sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

246.70 247.07 0.37 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous

sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

247.32 247.66 0.34 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous

sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN

January 2009

A-6

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 most

sensitive

Summer

2008 Field

Checked

Recommend

for

Spot/Field

Check

248.16 248.37 0.21 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous

sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

248.88 249.86 0.98 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous

sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

250.24 250.43 0.19 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous

sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

251.46 255.45 3.99 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous

sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

256.22 256.38 0.16 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous

sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

257.25 259.78 2.53 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous

sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

262.11 262.53 0.42 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous

sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

263.18 264.75 1.57 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous

sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

265.23 266.38 1.15 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous

sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

272.45 272.96 0.51 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous

sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

275.96 280.22 4.26 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous

sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

283.74 291.11 7.37 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous

sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

291.27 293.58 2.31 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous

sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

294.87 295.10 0.23 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous

sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

296.18 299.37 3.19 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous

sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

300.30 301.61 1.31 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous

sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

301.97 304.51 2.54 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous

sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN

January 2009

A-7

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 most

sensitive

Summer

2008 Field

Checked

Recommend

for

Spot/Field

Check

306.74 307.36 0.62 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous

sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

309.15 310.24 1.09 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous

sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

311.16 315.35 4.19 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous

sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

324.68 327.67 2.99 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous

sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

328.18 328.29 0.11 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous

sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

329.00 333.52 4.52 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous

sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

333.79 336.70 2.91 Ts3 Volcanic

Tuffaceous

sedimentary rocks 3 Yes No

363.96 368.32 4.36 Tts Volcanic

Tuffaceous

sedimentary rocks;

tuffs; pumicites; and

silcic flows (Miocene) 3

Yes No

368.39 368.96 0.57 Tts Volcanic

Tuffaceous

sedimentary rocks;

tuffs; pumicites; and

silcic flows (Miocene) 3

Yes No

371.04 371.76 0.72 Tts Volcanic

Tuffaceous

sedimentary rocks;

tuffs; pumicites; and

silcic flows (Miocene) 3

Yes No

373.15 373.24 0.09 Tts Volcanic

Tuffaceous

sedimentary rocks;

tuffs; pumicites; and

silcic flows (Miocene) 3

Yes No

393.14 416.03 22.89 Qa

Unconsolidated

sedimentary

Surficial alluvium and

colluvium 3 Yes No

420.05 442.62 22.57 Qa

Unconsolidated

sedimentary

Surficial alluvium and

colluvium 3 Yes No

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN

January 2009

A-8

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 most

sensitive

Summer

2008 Field

Checked

Recommend

for

Spot/Field

Check

443.23 443.83 0.60 Qa

Unconsolidated

sedimentary

Surficial alluvium and

colluvium 3 Yes No

443.83 444.73 0.90 JTRs Sedimentary

Sedimentary rocks

(Jurassic and upper

Triassic) 3

Yes No

444.73 456.95 12.22 Qa

Unconsolidated

sedimentary

Surficial alluvium and

colluvium 3 Yes No

456.95 461.15 4.20 Qp

Unconsolidated

sedimentary

Playa, marsh, and

alluvial-flat deposits,

locally eroded 3

Yes No

461.15 463.75 2.60 Qa

Unconsolidated

sedimentary

Surficial alluvium and

colluvium 3 Yes No

463.75 483.26 19.51 Qp

Unconsolidated

sedimentary

Playa, marsh, and

alluvial-flat deposits,

locally eroded 3

Yes No

483.26 484.45 1.19 Qa

Unconsolidated

sedimentary

Surficial alluvium and

colluvium 3 Yes No

485.21 485.42 0.21 Qa

Unconsolidated

sedimentary

Surficial alluvium and

colluvium 3 Yes No

486.00 488.32 2.32 Qa

Unconsolidated

sedimentary

Surficial alluvium and

colluvium 3 Yes No

488.32 495.98 7.66 Qp

Unconsolidated

sedimentary

Playa, marsh, and

alluvial-flat deposits,

locally eroded 3

Yes No

495.98 500.55 4.57 Qa

Unconsolidated

sedimentary

Surficial alluvium and

colluvium 3 Yes Yes

501.20 506.05 4.85 Qa

Unconsolidated

sedimentary

Surficial alluvium and

colluvium 3 Yes Yes

506.05 506.23 0.18 JTRs Sedimentary

Sedimentary rocks

(Jurassic and upper

Triassic) 3

Yes Yes

509.56 510.37 0.81 Qa

Unconsolidated

sedimentary

Surficial alluvium and

colluvium 3 Yes Yes

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT MONITORING PLAN

January 2009

A-9

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 most

sensitive

Summer

2008 Field

Checked

Recommend

for

Spot/Field

Check

510.37 511.04 0.67 JTRs Sedimentary

Sedimentary rocks

(Jurassic and upper

Triassic) 3 Yes Yes

511.59 516.21 4.62 Tr2

Alluvial and

lacustrine

sedimentary

Age equivalent to

Chinle, Ankareh Fms 3 Yes Yes

517.54 517.77 0.23 Tr2

Alluvial and

lacustrine

sedimentary

Age equivalent to

Chinle, Ankareh Fms 3 Yes Yes

523.24 525.19 1.95 Qa

Unconsolidated

sedimentary

Surficial alluvium and

colluvium 3 Yes No

532.83 533.39 0.56 Tts Volcanic

Tuffaceous

sedimentary rocks;

tuffs; pumicites; and

silcic flows (Miocene) 3 Yes No

533.70 533.87 0.17 Tts Volcanic

Tuffaceous

sedimentary rocks;

tuffs; pumicites; and

silcic flows (Miocene) 3 Yes No

538.69 540.20 1.51 Tts Volcanic

Tuffaceous

sedimentary rocks;

tuffs; pumicites; and

silcic flows (Miocene) 3 Yes No

554.40 555.33 0.93 Tts Volcanic

Tuffaceous

sedimentary rocks;

tuffs; pumicites; and

silcic flows (Miocene) 3 Yes No

555.73 555.99 0.26 Tts Volcanic

Tuffaceous

sedimentary rocks;

tuffs; pumicites; and

silcic flows (Miocene) 3 Yes No

Notes:

This table reflects geologic units > PFYC 3 and accounts for the 675.2 miles of the Project.

Fms = Formations

Sources: United States Geological Survey, 1994, 2003a, 2003b; Utah Geological Survey, 2000.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX I

Waste and Spill Management Specification 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Waste and Spill Management

Specification

FERC Docket No. CP09-___-000

January 2009

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Waste and Spill Management Specifications

January 2009

iv

Table of Contents

Section Page

1.0 General..................................................................................... 1-1

2.0 Waste Management – Company Responsibilities................. 2-1

2.1 Before Work Commences................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Before Generating Waste.................................................................... 2-1

2.3 During Waste Generation.................................................................... 2-1

2.4 After Waste Generation ...................................................................... 2-1

3.0 Waste Management – Contractor Responsibilities............... 3-1

3.1 Before Work Commences................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Before Generating Waste.................................................................... 3-1

3.3 During Waste Generation.................................................................... 3-2

3.4 After Waste Generation ...................................................................... 3-2

4.0 Spill Management – Company Responsibilities.................... 4-1

5.0 Spill Management – Contractor Responsibilities.................. 5-1

6.0 Spill Prevention – Contractor Responsibilities ..................... 6-1

7.0 Spill Response - Contractor Responsibilities ....................... 7-1

Appendix

A El Paso Pipelines Waste Management Plan Template..........A-1

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Waste and Spill Management Specifications

January 2009

1-1

1.0 General

This specification shall apply to all work where waste may be generated or a spill may occur.

The Contractor shall attend a pre-job meeting to review environmental issues and

requirements relating to the job prior to initiating work activities. During the pre-job meeting,

El Paso Corporation (Company) will review the requirements for proper waste management,

spill reporting and cleanup. Contractor agrees to comply with the requirements set forth

below and in the contract’s Scope of Work.

The Contractor shall comply with the current edition of the Company’s Environmental

Handbook and all applicable federal, state, and local regulations.

Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that applicable Contractor personnel including

subcontractors understand spill prevention procedures and how to handle, store, transport,

and dispose of waste per this specification. Contractor shall keep records of training and

provide copies of such records to Company upon request.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Waste and Spill Management Specifications

January 2009

2-1

2.0 Waste Management – Company

Responsibilities

2.1 Before Work Commences

For all wastes anticipated to be generated as a result of the Scope of Work, Company shall

determine the classification (hazardous, non-hazardous and special waste) of all Company’s

waste generated by Company or Contractor. Company shall notify Contractor of waste

classification.

If waste classification is unknown, Company shall arrange for sampling to determine waste

classification as early as possible, but this may occur after work has commenced.

Company shall review and approve the Contractor’s Waste Management Plan prior to the

pre-job meeting.

Company shall conduct a pre-job meeting to review the Waste Management Plan and

responsibilities and review Company authorized personnel and environmental contacts.

Company shall make all required notifications unless otherwise specified in the Scope of

Work.

2.2 Before Generating Waste

Company shall inspect all secondary containment provided by the Contractor.

Company shall provide the EPA generator number if necessary for all hazardous waste

generated as a result of the performance of the Scope of Work and provide a hazardous

waste contingency plan if necessary.

2.3 During Waste Generation

For unanticipated wastes generated during the performance of the Scope of Work, Company

and Contractor shall confer on classification responsibilities as soon as possible after the

waste is generated. Company shall obtain a temporary hazardous waste EPA ID number if

necessary.

2.4 After Waste Generation

Company shall arrange for transportation and disposal of all hazardous and special wastes

generated during the performance of the Scope of Work.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Waste and Spill Management Specifications

January 2009

3-1

3.0 Waste Management – Contractor

Responsibilities

3.1 Before Work Commences

Contractor shall develop a Waste Management Plan for all wastes anticipated during the

project and submit to Company for approval. At the discretion of the Company, multiple

similar projects may be covered under one Waste Management Plan. The work shall not

commence prior to obtaining Company’s approval of Waste Management Plan. If the Waste

Management Plan addresses potentially hazardous waste or asbestos, the Contractor shall

have training in accordance with Contractor’s own training program.

Contractor shall minimize the waste generated during a project by purchasing and using only

the amount of material needed. All excess materials purchased by a Contractor shall be

removed by the Contractor at the end of the project.

Contractor shall furnish to the Company copies of any permits, clearances or authorizations

obtained by Contractor.

3.2 Before Generating Waste

Contractor shall be familiar with the state and local environmental requirements as

necessary for the performance of the Scope of Work.

Contractor shall provide all drums (DOT Spec. 1A1 or 1A2), rolloff boxes, or other containers

necessary to contain wastes generated during the performance of work, including wastes

generated in response to spill response and cleanup activities, unless otherwise specified in

the Scope of Work. All containers shall be approved by the Company.

Contractor shall provide containment areas for liquids, hazardous waste and special waste

as required by the Spill Management section of this specification. The containment shall be

impervious to the materials being stored. Temporary storage on the right-of-way does not

require protection from weather; temporary storage shall not exceed one week.

Contractor shall collect all waste near the close of each workday and shall place the waste in

a Company-approved location.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Waste and Spill Management Specifications

January 2009

3-2

3.3 During Waste Generation

Contractor shall be responsible for housekeeping activities in the work area.

Contractor shall notify the Company prior to placing any potentially hazardous or special

waste in storage so that Company may conduct sampling and analysis as necessary.

Contractor shall be responsible for proper packaging, labeling, marking and storing of waste.

Contractor shall keep hazardous, non-hazardous, special, and general trash wastes

separate and shall not mix waste streams.

Contractor shall keep a waste log identifying the Company facility at which the waste was

generated, the volume and type of waste generated, the date generated and, where

applicable, the Company-approved location to which the waste was transported or stored.

Contractor shall provide the waste log to the Authorized Company Representative weekly.

Any waste shipped to a Company facility shall be accompanied by a log.

For unanticipated wastes generated during the Scope of Work, Company and Contractor

shall confer on classification responsibilities as soon as possible after the waste is

generated.

If classification of a waste is unknown, all waste shall be assumed to be hazardous until final

classification is received from the Company. Contractor shall label and store waste

accordingly.

In accordance with the Contractor’s approved Waste Management Plan, the Contractor shall

be responsible for the handling, storing and transporting of non-hazardous and special

wastes generated by Contractor during the performance of the contract.

Any proposed changes to the approved Waste Management Plan regarding the methods

established for the handling, collecting, transporting, and storing of any waste shall be

submitted in writing and agreed to by both the Contractor and Company prior to instituting

the change.

3.4 After Waste Generation

Contractor shall notify Company personnel prior to moving any waste off-site to another

location.

Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that non-hazardous and special wastes are

transported by Company-authorized transporters only, and all waste is accompanied by the

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Waste and Spill Management Specifications

January 2009

3-3

appropriate shipping papers, complete with required information and signatures. Contractor

is prohibited from transporting hazardous waste unless specifically authorized.

Contractor shall submit all waste shipping papers to the Company.

Contractor shall supply disposal containers for the general trash waste generated by the

Contractor and its subcontractor; it shall be transported to a disposal facility in accordance

with the Waste Management Plan.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Waste and Spill Management Specifications

January 2009

4-1

4.0 Spill Management – Company

Responsibilities

Company shall review spill prevention and response as part of the pre-job meetings as

discussed above.

In the event of a reportable spill or release which involve Company-processed

products/materials (e.g. pipeline liquids, used oil, etc.), Company shall make notifications to

the appropriate agency.

Company shall provide a copy of release reports required by Federal or State agencies to

any jurisdictional land-managing agency, concurrent with the filing of reports to the involved

Federal and State agencies.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Waste and Spill Management Specifications

January 2009

5-1

5.0 Spill Management – Contractor

Responsibilities

The Contractor shall comply with the spill prevention, control, and containment procedures

set forth below and in the Scope of Work for all work undertaken during performance of the

contract.

Contractor shall ensure that their personnel and subcontractors involved in the work area are

aware of the spill prevention and containment responsibilities.

Contractor shall develop a list of all emergency contacts within the Contractor's and

subcontractors’ organization, and a description of emergency response equipment that will

be provided by the Contractor for use by their employees. Emergency equipment may

include but is not limited to shovels, backhoes, dozers, front end loader, etc.

Contractor shall have a copy of the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) of each chemical to

be used during the job and it shall be available for review if requested by the Company.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Waste and Spill Management Specifications

January 2009

6-1

6.0 Spill Prevention – Contractor

Responsibilities

Contractor shall install lined secondary containment impervious to the material being stored

(e.g., diking and/or earthen berms with liner) around liquids materials handling and storage

areas to prevent spilled material from reaching the waters of the state. Areas which require

containment structures include: (i) liquid and hazardous waste drum storage areas, (ii) bulk

storage tanks, (iii) tanker trucks if parked at one location for more than two days, (iv) liquids

handling and operations areas on offshore facilities. All equipment staging areas shall be

located at least 50 feet away from all water sources and wetland areas. No storage areas

shall be located within 100 feet of a perennial stream. No chemicals or fuel shall be

transferred within 100 feet of stream banks. The contractor shall install drip pans or other

suitable containment devices to collect all vehicle fluids when performing on-site

maintenance. All waste fluids shall be removed from the site by Contractor and disposed of

properly.

Contractor shall inspect equipment for integrity including, but not limited to, valves, hoses

and fittings. Contractor shall monitor all loading and unloading operations of chemicals and

fuels to ensure proper response to prevent spills. All hose connections shall be inspected

for leaks and if leakage should occur, the operation should cease until the leak is repaired or

a containment pan is placed under the leaking connection.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Waste and Spill Management Specifications

January 2009

7-1

7.0 Spill Response - Contractor

Responsibilities

Contractor shall provide immediate notice to the Company’s Authorized Representative in

the event of a spill or other emergency. All spills occurring on land or in watercourses

(including intermittent and ephemeral streams), regardless of quantity, shall be cleaned up

immediately.

If a release or spill occurs, Contractor shall stop operations and take immediate measures to

control the release and prevent dispersal of the spilled material. For spills to land (e.g. spills

in drum storage areas, spills at bulk storage tank areas, spill at truck staging areas,

equipment failure or leaks, etc.), Contractor shall initiate cleanup of the area affected by the

spill by removing the soil and placing it into new or reconditioned DOT Spec. 1A2/Z150/S

drums, or other suitable containers, as determined appropriate by Company. The Contractor

shall be deemed the generator of the waste resulting from the spill. The Contractor shall

excavate and remediate the area of the spilled material. For spills that enter water,

Contractor shall contain the spill and remove the spilled material to the extent practicable

using pumps or absorbent materials.

With the exception of spills/releases which involve Company-processed products/materials

(e.g. pipeline liquids, used oil, etc.), Contractor shall be responsible for making any

necessary notifications to the appropriate Federal or State agencies for any release or spill

of hazardous substances in excess of reportable quantities established by 40 CFR 117, 40

CFR 302, and 40 CFR 355 or releases of oil as defined by 40 CFR 110, which occurs as a

result of Contractor’s or its subcontractors’ activities.

Contractor shall document and record all spills. Copies of the documentation shall be

provided to the Company’s Authorized Representative.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Waste and Spill Management Specifications

November 2008

A-1

A El Paso Pipelines Waste

Management Plan Template

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Waste and Spill Management Specifications

Revised January 2007

1

El Paso Pipelines

Waste Management Plan Template

Project Name Project ID: Date:

Brief Description of Project:

Facility/Station: Division/Area: Line # (O&M):

EPA ID #:

Contractor Name:

Subcontractor Name:

Contractor Representative: Cell Phone No.:

On-Site El Paso Representative: Phone No.:

El Paso Project Coordinator: Phone No.:

El Paso Waste Coordinator: Phone No.:

Approved By: Date: Phone No.:

El Paso Environmental Representative

Objective

Contractor/Central Maintenance/Roving Crew shall list all waste streams expected to be generated and proposed plans for handling,

storage, and disposal of each waste stream. The plan shall include wastes generated during work performed by subcontractors, and

must be reviewed and approved (signed) by the El Paso Environmental Representative prior to the commencement of any work.

Instructions

1. Review project scope and check all appropriate waste streams (including wastes generated by subcontractor) listed in Attachment A.

2. For each waste stream checked in Attachment A, complete the associated Details information on Attachment B.

3. Provide original copies of manifests, bill of lading, and related waste documents to the On-Site El Paso Representative listed above.

4. Contact the Environmental Department if unanticipated waste is generated and modify Waste Management Plan to include new

waste.

Contractor/Central Maintenance/Roving Crew Responsibilities

1. Implement the completed Waste Management Plan and appropriate Company guidelines/procedures when handling, storing,

labeling, transporting, and disposing of waste. Refer to the current edition of the El Paso Pipeline Group’s Environmental Handbook

for more information. Contact the El Paso Project Coordinator with any project specific questions.

2. Maintain onsite Material Safety Data Sheets for hazardous chemicals used on the jobsite.

3. Inspect equipment to minimize releases to the environment.

4. Keep waste storage segregated (hazardous, non-hazardous, domestic, universal, etc.) – do not mix different wastes.

5. Inspect waste storage area to ensure that containers are properly closed, labeled, and stored.

6. Keep emergency and spill equipment (as needed) at the jobsite.

7. Communicate the status of all actual or potential non-compliance activities to the On-Site El Paso Representative.

8. Report all spills and agency inspections to the On-Site El Paso Representative.

9. Minimize waste generated during the project by purchasing and using only the amount of material needed.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Waste Management Plan

Project Name: ____________________________________________________ Project ID #: ________________________ Date: ______________

Revised January 2007

2

ATTACHMENT A

WASTE STREAMS

Asbestos Containing Materials Oily Debris

Ceiling tile repair/removal Oil stained cardboard

Floor tile repair/removal Oily rags

Gaskets Oil absorbent used to clean up spill:

Insulation Other oily debris:

Pipe coating

Roofing tiles and siding. Oily Liquids

Transite Used oil

Other: Hydraulic oil

Scrubber liquids

Abrasive Blasting Waste Distillate/condensate/pipeline drip

Blasting bare pipe Other oily liquids:

Feathering in fusion bonded epoxy

After removal of pipe coating Painting Waste

Blasting painted pipe (PHW)* Old paint/coatings (PHW)*

Paint brushes

Contaminated Soil Solvents used to clean all paint equipment (PHW)*

Hydrocarbon contaminated soil/gravel Other:

(specify source):

Mercury contaminated soil PCB Waste

Soil from cleanup of spill Air Systems

(specify contaminant): Pipe coating (asphaltic-based)

Soil from cleanup of Glycol/Ambitrol spill PCB impacted soils

Soil impacted with other historical containments PCB oil/liquids

(specify contaminant): Other:

Empty Containers Pigging Waste

Aerosol cans Pigging sludge (PHW/PE&P)*

Empty drums/baskets Pigging liquids (PHW* if not recyclable)

Other: Used pigs

Wash water from cleaning pigs or catch basins

Equipment, Tank or Facility Cleanout Waste (PHW)* Other:

Sludge/bottoms from cleanout of basement or sump

Sludge/bottoms from cleanout of separator

Sludge/bottoms from cleanout of scrubber

Sludge/bottoms from tank cleanout: Source:

Meter run cleanout: Chemicals/solvents:

Other equipment cleanout:

Filters

Air filters/oil filters *HW = Hazardous Waste

Scrubber filters (PHW)* *PHW = Potentially Hazardous Waste

Other filters (describe): *PE&P = Potentially Exploration & Production Waste

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Waste Management Plan

Project Name: ____________________________________________________ Project ID #: ________________________ Date: ______________

Revised January 2007

3

WASTE STREAMS

General Trash Other Waste (List other waste not identified previously)

Batteries (describe):

CPS rectifier

Fluorescent light bulbs

Plastics, Paper, wood, uncontaminated

cardboard/rubber/cloth, wood packing materials, food

wastes, aluminum cans/foil, glass, incandescent light

bulbs, other waste similar to domestic waste Lead acetate/rubicon tape (PHW)*

Mercury containing equipment (switches etc.)

Scrap Metal, Piping, Equipment

Scrap metal with no coating

Electronic equipment (circuit boards, transformers, etc.)

Describe:

Scrap metal with coating Creosote-coated wood products (PHW*)

Scrap metal with potential NORM

Equipment/vessels

Personal Protective Equipment/rags (PHW*)

Describe source:

Other: Pesticides:

Insecticides:

Fertilizers:

Spent Solvents Other waste:

Used cleaning solvents (PHW)*:

Other spent solvents (PHW)*:

Wastewater

Glycol liquids

Hydrostatic test water

Oil/water liquids in pipeline when pipe is cut in trench

Produced water

Scrubber liquids

Turbine/Engine wash water

Heater water

Other wash water:

Other Debris

Asphalt

Cleared Vegetation

Casing filler

Cement

Coke breeze

Concrete without contaminants

Contaminated concrete (e.g. oil, PCBs)

List possible contaminants:

Drilling mud

Lumber

Non-asbestos insulation *HW = Hazardous Waste

Pipe coating (non-asbestos, non-PCB) *PHW = Potentially Hazardous Waste

Other: *PE&P = Potentially Exploration & Production Waste

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Waste Management Plan

Project Name: ____________________________________________________ Project ID #: ________________________ Date: ______________

Revised January 2007

4

ATTACHMENT B

WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN DETAILS

Handling, Storage, Disposal

Waste Stream Name:

Estimated

Volume/Weight/

# of Containers:

Known HW

PHW

PE&P

Non-HW

Special

Unknown

Sampling

Required?

Yes

No

 Responsible for managing waste: Company Contractor

 Responsible for storing/labeling waste: Company Contractor

 Waste storage container type:

 Labeling requirements:

 Responsible to transport waste from site to secure storage site:

(obtain permission from El Paso facility before storage at a company location)

Company Contractor N/A Do Not Transport offsite for storage

 Transporter company name:

 Waste storage secure location:

 Storage site weekly inspections required? Yes No

 Responsible to coordinate disposal: Company Contractor

 Transporter company name:

 Final disposal site (if known):

 Any Special Issues:

Handling, Storage, Disposal

Waste Stream Name:

Estimated

Volume/Weight/

# of Containers:

Known HW

PHW

PE&P

Non-HW

Special

Unknown

Sampling

Required?

Yes

No

 Responsible for managing waste: Company Contractor

 Responsible for storing/labeling waste: Company Contractor

 Waste storage container type:

 Labeling requirements:

 Responsible to transport waste from site to secure storage site:

(obtain permission from El Paso facility before storage at a company location)

Company Contractor N/A Do Not Transport offsite for storage

 Transporter company name:

 Waste storage secure location:

 Storage site weekly inspections required? Yes No

 Responsible to coordinate disposal: Company Contractor

 Transporter company name:

 Final disposal site (if known):

 Any Special Issues:

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX J

Hydrostatic Test Plan 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Hydrostatic Test Plan

FERC Docket No. CP09-____000

January 2009

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
HYDROSTATIC TEST PLAN

Hydrostatic Test Plan 1

HYDROSTATIC TEST PLAN

INTRODUCTION

The Ruby Pipeline Project (Project), proposed by Ruby Pipeline, LLC (Ruby), is composed

of approximately 675.2 miles of 42-inch diameter natural gas pipeline, along with associated

compression and measurement facilities, located between Opal, Wyoming and Malin,

Oregon. An approximate 2.6-mile lateral would also be constructed south from the Malin

Hub in Klamath County, Oregon. The pipeline right-of-way (ROW) would cross four states:

Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon. Four new compressor stations would also be

installed as part of the Project. Once constructed, in order to assure compliance with U.S.

Department of Transportation regulations, Ruby must pressure test this pipeline in

accordance with CFR Part 192 requirements. For this Project, Ruby plans to hydrostatically

test the pipeline using water pressured to the appropriate level.

Agency Consultation

Ruby has consulted with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and the

Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) to determine general (non-site-specific)

requirements for water withdrawal or discharge. Although Ruby has also conducted initial

consultations with state agencies in Utah (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR)) and

Nevada (Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW), Nevada Department of Environmental

Protection (NDEP), and Nevada Division of Water Resources (NDWR)) regarding general

requirements for water withdrawal or discharge, it was indicated by agency personnel in

these states that this issue would be more appropriately addressed on a site-specific basis.

No general water withdrawal or discharge requirements were provided by UDWR, NDOW,

NDEP, or NDWR. Ruby is continuing to coordinate with these agencies regarding sitespecific mitigation measures for water withdrawal or discharge, such as the treatment of

water for water-borne diseases and parasites.

The WGFD recommends discharging waters used for hydrostatic testing to the same eightdigit fourth level Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) from which it was collected. This would

prevent the inadvertent transfer of fish/plant diseases and invasive organisms, and avoid the

release of water collected outside the State of Wyoming from being discharged to a live

drainage within the State of Wyoming.

WGFD also recommended the use of temporary sediment basins in any areas where

 the water discharge point is less than 0.5 miles from a perennial stream; and

 the water discharge point is more than 0.5 miles from a perennial stream but the

discharge flow is greater than 0.5 cubic feet per second (cfs).

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
HYDROSTATIC TEST PLAN

Hydrostatic Test Plan 2

Ruby has also received guidance from the ODFW regarding water withdrawal and discharge

locations and methods. In compliance with this guidance, water intakes would be screened

per ODFW guidelines, and Ruby would ensure that adequately sized screens and approach

velocities are included in the water withdrawal plans. All water would be discharged into the

same drainage basin from which it was withdrawn, to prevent the inadvertent transfer of

fish/plant diseases and invasive organisms. Approximate withdrawal rates would be 2,500

gallons per minute. During all proposed surface water withdrawals and waterbody

construction activities, Ruby would comply with ODFW fish passage statues (OAR 635-412-

0005). Ruby would maintain adequate fish passage at all Project crossings to provide

passage of native migratory fish (OAR 509.610). Ruby would provide fish passage design

plans for all intermittent and perennial streams crossed in Oregon. If necessary, Ruby

would apply for a fish passage waiver (OAR 635-412-0025) during in-water construction

activities in waterbodies that contain sensitive fish species (Resource Report No. 3, Table

3A-6). If water used for construction or hydrostatic testing is not obtained from municipal

supplies, Ruby would comply with Oregon Administrative Rules regarding Water Use

Authorization (OAR 690-340-0010).

Hydrostatic Test Water Uptake Locations

The Project would withdraw water for use during hydrostatic testing at nine separate

locations:

Waterbody Milepost State Fill Volume (gallons)

Hams Fork River MP 0.8 WY 14,402,192

Bear River (east) MP 52.9 UT 12,873,028

Little Bear River MP 94.9 UT 10,227,637

Bear River (west) MP 113.8 UT 41,332,356

Mary’s River MP 300.1 NV 73,709,928

Irrigation Quarter MP 435.3 NV 49,720,997

Deep Creek MP 601.8 OR 23,013,415

Irrigation Canal MP 624.3 OR 13,828,771

Lost River Canal MP 665.8 OR 10,178,770

A total of 249,287,094 gallons (763.12 acre-feet) of water are proposed to be used for

hydrostatic testing.

If needed, the East Ditch Canal at MP 91.8 could be used as an alternate water source to

Little Bear River. Additionally, Ruby is in the process of identifying new water well locations

along the Project. Ruby would acquire the appropriate permits necessary for drilling these

water wells to provide hydrostatic test and dust abatement water.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
HYDROSTATIC TEST PLAN

Hydrostatic Test Plan 3

Of these nine proposed water withdrawal locations listed above, six water sources, Hams

Fork River, Bear River (east), Little Bear River, Bear River (west), Marys River, and Deep

Creek potentially contain federally or state-listed (including BLM and USFS) sensitive fish

species at or in the vicinity of the Project crossing (Resource Report No. 3, Table 3A-6, and

Tables 3.4-2 through 3.4-5).

The Bear River is likely to contain the following sensitive fish species at or near the Project

crossing: bluehead sucker, Bonneville cutthroat trout, and northern leatherside chub. All

three species are listed as BLM sensitive and Utah sensitive.

The next nearest waterbodies with potential sensitive fish presence are Porcupine Reservoir

(Cache County, Utah) and Mantua Reservoir (Box Elder County, Utah). In both instances,

the location of discharge would be a mile or further from the potentially sensitive waterbody.

The intakes would be set in areas of flowing water to avoid sedimentation and the rate of

withdrawal would assure a continued flow in the river, up to 2,500 gallons per minute (5.6

cubic feet per second). Water would be drawn out with a low pressure pump, pumping into

the suction side of a high pressure pump that would move water into the pipeline. All pumps

would be located in fuel/oil containment areas.

Any additional restrictions issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

would be observed where water is withdrawn. Withdrawal and discharge would likely begin

between August 1 and December 31, 2010.

TESTING

The pipeline would be filled completely in 214 separate test sections; approximately 20

segments could be filled at one time from a single source. The following best management

practices (BMPs) would be implemented.

If the pump head is located in the river channel the following practices would apply:

a. the pump would not be situated in a low-flow or no-flow area, as these habitats tend

to concentrate larval fishes;

b. the amount of pumping rate would be limited, to the greatest extent possible, during

that period of the year when larval fish may be present.

c. the amount of pumping will be limited to the greatest extent possible, during the predawn hours as larval drift studies indicate that this is a period of greatest daily

activity.

During the filling of the pipeline, the water intake at the location where water is being taken

would be screened with 0.25-inch mesh screen to prevent entrainment of fish and other

aquatic organisms from the river.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
HYDROSTATIC TEST PLAN

Hydrostatic Test Plan 4

Any fish impinged on the intake screen or entrained into irrigation canals would be reported

to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the appropriate state agency.

Ruby intends to use water for testing purposes for no more than three months. Discharges

would occur at the locations described below. Prior to the hydro testing, the pipeline

segment to be tested has been inspected and welds have been x-rayed. In the unlikely

event that there should be an accidental release due to pipeline or valve failure, the location

of the release wouldl be contained as quickly as practicable and, once the facility has been

repaired and retested, the right-of-way would be recontoured and reclaimed in compliance

with the Reclamation Plan.

Hydrostatic Testing Water Discharge Locations

Ruby would test the Project in approximately 214 test sections. The number of test sections

is necessitated by both the elevation changes and water source availability across the area

of the Project. Sufficient sources of water, in close proximity to the Project, are not available

in all cases. This would prevent Ruby from being able to discharge its test water within the

same eight-digit fourth level HUC from which it was withdrawn. Additionally, cascading

water back across elevation changes following testing would need to be accomplished using

high-pressure air. Commercial air compressors cannot efficiently maintain the pressure

required to move test water over large elevation changes and long distances. Further, the

high-pressure air has a tendency to become entrained within the discharge water creating

unpredictable and unsafe conditions (e.g., uncontrolled releases of high pressure air and

water) at the discharge location.

Where Ruby cannot discharge into the same hydrologic region from which the water was

withdrawn, Ruby would use industry-accepted and agency-approved biocides to

appropriately treat testing water (with the exception of water obtained from wells

[groundwater]), for pathogens in accordance with manufacturer specifications prior to

discharge. If necessary, all biocide-treated water would be neutralized prior to discharge.

Discharges are planned to occur at the following locations identified in the table below:

Currently Proposed Hydrostatic Test Water Discharges for the Ruby Project

Manifold

Milepost Discharge Volume Gallons Water Source Water Disposal Site

0.00 0 Open Ground

0.98 4,299,058 Open Ground

11.68 2,618,454 Open Ground

18.80 3,635,735

Hams Fork 0.00 To 39.15

Open Ground

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
HYDROSTATIC TEST PLAN

Hydrostatic Test Plan 5

Currently Proposed Hydrostatic Test Water Discharges for the Ruby Project

28.68 734,393 Open Ground

30.68 1,301,562 Open Ground

34.22 1,812,990 Open Ground

40.15 369,984 Open Ground

40.76 171,982 Open Ground

42.07 533,724 Open Ground

48.71 2,442,171 Open Ground

52.70 3,310,345 Open Ground

57.71 859,049 Open Ground

60.15 556,718 Open Ground

61.67 346,294 Open Ground

62.61 363,713 Open Ground

63.59 335,842 Open Ground

64.51 456,383 Open Ground

65.75 301,700 Open Ground

66.57 1,227,008 Open Ground

69.85 971,991 Open Ground

72.49 73,587 Open Ground

72.69 552,537

Bear River (East Crossing)

39.15 To 74.19

Open Ground

74.35 57,832 Open Ground

75.59 456,383 Open Ground

76.39 294,036 Open Ground

76.80 153,986 Open Ground

77.51 259,894 Open Ground

77.92 151,199 Open Ground

81.55 1,335,007 Open Ground

82.81 461,957 Open Ground

84.45 604,098 Open Ground

85.13 250,140 Open Ground

86.09 348,384 Open Ground

87.54 526,464 Open Ground

88.24 258,932 Open Ground

88.63 145,624 Open Ground

89.26 232,024 Open Ground

91.43 796,406 Open Ground

91.84 150,198 Open Ground

92.88 355,352 Open Ground

94.61 664,888 Open Ground

94.87 264,772 Open Ground

95.33 236,901 Open Ground

95.92 381,048 Open Ground

97.04 1,090,442 Open Ground

100.01 232,024 Open Ground

100.64 252,087

Little Bear River 74.19 To

101.94

East Ditch Canal (Alternate

To Little Bear River) at MP

91.84

Open Ground

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
HYDROSTATIC TEST PLAN

Hydrostatic Test Plan 6

Currently Proposed Hydrostatic Test Water Discharges for the Ruby Project

101.33 267,559 Open Ground

103.66 633,362 Open Ground

104.68 373,272 Open Ground

105.09 153,289 Open Ground

109.05 1,421,284 Open Ground

113.65 6,992,763 Open Ground

128.11 282,888 Open Ground

128.87 357,442 Open Ground

129.84 452,202 Open Ground

131.07 375,558 Open Ground

132.13 1,214,466 Open Ground

135.43 1,308,530 Open Ground

138.99 472,409 Open Ground

140.27 390,887 Open Ground

141.33 300,307 Open Ground

142.15 418,061 Open Ground

143.29 197,589 Open Ground

143.82 174,192 Open Ground

144.30 340,719 Open Ground

145.22 386,009 Open Ground

146.27 2,435,900 Open Ground

152.89 1,145,486 Open Ground

156.01 712,794 Open Ground

157.95 121,238 Open Ground

158.27 6,826,932 Open Ground

176.83 843,089 Open Ground

179.13 1,006,133 Open Ground

181.87 1,460,425 Open Ground

185.84 534,421 Open Ground

187.29 889,076 Open Ground

189.71 1,489,341 Open Ground

193.76 1,920,989 Open Ground

198.98 5,701,303

Bear River (West Crossing)

Open Ground

227.58 4,823,724 Open Ground

229.22 600,614 Open Ground

229.68 172,798 Open Ground

230.11 157,470 Open Ground

231.49 507,944 Open Ground

232.76 466,834 Open Ground

234.75 733,000 Open Ground

236.53 654,962 Open Ground

241.28 1,752,371 Open Ground

243.68 886,289 Open Ground

245.42 638,239

Mary's River 214.47 To

414.70

Open Ground

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
HYDROSTATIC TEST PLAN

Hydrostatic Test Plan 7

Currently Proposed Hydrostatic Test Water Discharges for the Ruby Project

246.81 512,124 Open Ground

252.84 2,221,296 Open Ground

256.65 1,399,807 Open Ground

269.40 4,689,945 Open Ground

272.16 1,017,978 Open Ground

273.25 399,248 Open Ground

274.70 543,479 Open Ground

278.44 1,373,329 Open Ground

281.30 986,623 Open Ground

281.69 209,030 Open Ground

282.98 475,892 Open Ground

283.30 116,360 Open Ground

283.93 232,720 Open Ground

288.09 1,533,586 Open Ground

291.17 1,130,854 Open Ground

303.65 7,789,168 Open Ground

312.34 1,597,689 Open Ground

316.68 560,201 Open Ground

318.20 213,908 Open Ground

318.78 1,149,667 Open Ground

321.91 587,375 Open Ground

323.50 2,348,108 Open Ground

329.89 3,148,694 Open Ground

338.44 1,230,492 Open Ground

341.78 1,284,840 Open Ground

345.27 372,074 Open Ground

346.28 339,743 Open Ground

347.19 87,793 Open Ground

347.45 422,512 Open Ground

348.60 177,676 Open Ground

349.08 203,456 Open Ground

349.64 118,659 Open Ground

349.96 177,676 Open Ground

350.44 238,295 Open Ground

351.09 1,029,823 Open Ground

353.89 843,089 Open Ground

356.17 466,138 Open Ground

357.44 1,047,242 Open Ground

360.28 1,197,047 Open Ground

363.54 2,003,208 Open Ground

368.96 1,281,356 Open Ground

372.46 1,403,987 Open Ground

376.27 4,656,500 Open Ground

388.92 747,632 Open Ground

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
HYDROSTATIC TEST PLAN

Hydrostatic Test Plan 8

Currently Proposed Hydrostatic Test Water Discharges for the Ruby Project

390.95 8,749,314 Open Ground

415.85 413,183 Open Ground

417.00 427,815 Open Ground

418.66 610,369 Open Ground

419.14 176,979 Open Ground

420.23 399,945 Open Ground

436.94 6,794,880 Open Ground

438.69 1,937,015 Open Ground

443.95 409,998 Open Ground

445.08 2,158,238 Open Ground

450.09 12,321,991 Open Ground

484.43 675,865 Open Ground

486.26 5,243,178 Open Ground

500.52 2,069,401 Open Ground

506.14 146,321 Open Ground

506.54 292,643 Open Ground

507.37 1,111,345 Open Ground

510.35 355,352 Open Ground

511.31 283,585 Open Ground

512.08 568,064 Open Ground

513.63 510,897 Open Ground

515.03 459,867 Open Ground

516.28 621,935 Open Ground

517.98 498,886 Open Ground

519.33 512,124 Open Ground

520.72 324,425 Open Ground

521.61 1,458,335 Open Ground

525.58 593,646 Open Ground

527.21 477,286 Open Ground

528.50 474,499 Open Ground

529.79 822,883 Open Ground

532.03 171,405 Open Ground

532.49 2,071,491 Open Ground

538.12 785,954 Open Ground

540.27 315,956 Open Ground

541.14 378,345 Open Ground

542.16 334,449 Open Ground

543.07 341,416 Open Ground

544.00 849,959 Open Ground

546.31 1,321,072

Irrigation Well 414.7 To

549.9

Open Ground

572.46 8,304,079 Open Ground

574.21 643,619 Open Ground

577.44 1,185,202 Open Ground

579.93 919,037

Deep Creek 549.9 To 612.45

Open Ground

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
HYDROSTATIC TEST PLAN

Hydrostatic Test Plan 9

Currently Proposed Hydrostatic Test Water Discharges for the Ruby Project

584.24 1,501,535 Open Ground

587.94 1,444,400 Open Ground

588.85 328,874 Open Ground

591.02 801,283 Open Ground

592.10 395,764 Open Ground

599.82 2,840,723 Open Ground

602.22 1,789,997 Open Ground

604.68 418,757 Open Ground

605.82 1,774,668 Open Ground

610.64 200,669 Open Ground

611.19 464,808 Open Ground

612.45 Open Ground

612.96 186,037 Open Ground

613.39 155,675 Open Ground

613.72 122,620 Open Ground

614.23 187,553 Open Ground

627.85 7,506,280 Open Ground

634.64 421,853 Open Ground

635.79 3,605,774 Open Ground

645.59 1,642,979

Irrigation Canal 612.45 To

650.06

Open Ground

653.69 1,312,711 Open Ground

658.04 1,605,353 Open Ground

661.65 1,328,736 Open Ground

665.18 2,523,693 Open Ground

668.51 86,399 Open Ground

668.74 97,548 Open Ground

669.01 128,647 Open Ground

669.36 1,285,537 Open Ground

672.83 266,389 Open Ground

673.56 114,270 Open Ground

673.87 472,687 Open Ground

675.20 956,800

Lost River Canal 650.06 To

675.2 plus 2.6 mile lateral

Open Ground

Total 249,287,044

The pipe used for the Project would be new. Typically, hydrostatic test water will pick up

some iron oxide (rust) from new pipeline, depending on the total duration the water remains

in the pipeline. The quantity is generally fairly small and may give the discharge water a

slight red color. The water may also pick up some sand or dirt left over from the installation.

While night caps are always installed after a days work, dirt may still find its way into the

pipeline.

Ruby would discharge hydrostatic test water in a manner that precludes erosion. Where the

discharge point is more than 0.5 mile from a perennial stream and the flow is less than 0.5

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
HYDROSTATIC TEST PLAN

Hydrostatic Test Plan 10

cfs, Ruby would discharge hydrostatic test water into a temporary sediment basin or

structure consisting of both hay bales and/or silt fence for sediment control (Typical

Drawings, Appendix 1C, Resource Report No. 1). Any contaminants in the discharge water

would likely be below the required minimums. To ensure this conclusion, water would be

collected and testeda at a certified water testing laboratorya. The discharge locations would

consist of nearly level or gently rolling, vegetated upland areas to help avoid erosion issues.

Sites with restrictive drainage features (e.g., shallow depth to clay or bedrock) would be

avoided.

a

The hydrostatic test discharge permit in Wyoming will require analysis of TSS, TDS, total iron, pH, and a visual for oil and

grease (if a sheen is observed an oil and grease sample will be collected, if a sheen is not observed, it will be documented in

field notes/reports). Utah will require TSS, pH, and a visual for oil and grease.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX K

Preliminary Reclamation Plan 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Preliminary Reclamation Plan

FERC Docket No. CP09-___-000

January 2009

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY RECLAMATION PLAN

Page i

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1

2 PURPOSE.......................................................................................................... 2

3 PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES..................................................................... 2

4 RECLAMATION SCHEDULE ............................................................................. 5

5 RECLAMATION PROCESS ............................................................................... 5

5.1 RECLAMATION TREATMENTS ................................................................................... 5

5.1.1 Clearing, Grading, and Topsoil Removal........................................................... 5

5.1.2 Right-of-Way Restoration.................................................................................. 6

5.1.3 Revegetation..................................................................................................... 9

5.1.3.1 Seedbed Preparation ...............................................................................10

Desert Scrub........................................................................................................11

5.1.3.1.2 Sagebrush Steppe .............................................................................12

5.1.3.2 Seeding Methods .....................................................................................19

5.1.3.3 Soil Amendments/Fertilizer/Weed Control................................................20

5.2 RECLAMATION TREATMENT FOR STEEP SLOPES AND ERODIBLE SOILS......................20

6 POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE...................... 20

6.1 REVEGETATION PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ...............................................................21

6.2 REMEDIAL ACTION AND MAINTENANCE....................................................................22

6.3 REPORTING...........................................................................................................23

7 OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE (OHV) CONTROL .................................................. 23

7.1 RECLAMATION TREATMENTS FOR OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE ACCESS ..........................23

8 BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................... 24

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY RECLAMATION PLAN

Page ii

LIST OF FIGURES

4-1 FACILITIES LOCATION MAP, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON ............ 4

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY RECLAMATION PLAN

Page 1 January 2009

1 INTRODUCTION

The Ruby Pipeline Project (Project), proposed by Ruby Pipeline, LLC (Ruby), is

comprised of approximately 675.2 miles of 42-inch diameter natural gas pipeline,

along with associated compression and measurement facilities, located between

Opal, Wyoming and Malin, Oregon (see Figure 1). An approximate 2.6-mile lateral

would also be constructed south from the Malin Hub in Klamath County, Oregon.

The Project right-of-way (ROW) would traverse four states: Wyoming, Utah,

Nevada, and Oregon. Four new compressor stations would also be installed as part

of the Project. Ruby would utilize a 115-foot-wide nominal construction ROW for

installation of both the mainline and the lateral.

Ruby has prepared this Preliminary Reclamation Plan (Reclamation Plan) to outline

goals and objectives, proposed seed mixes for each state, reclamation process, and

monitoring and maintenance efforts. Ruby proposes to develop a technical team to

provide input on the Reclamation Plans that would be developed for each state.

Ruby would be seeking input from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U.S.

Forest Service (USFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and state wildlife

agencies to develop the technical team that would participate in the development of

each State Reclamation Plan.

Ruby has contacted two rangeland ecologists who are currently researching

reclamation techniques. Ruby would seek to use both of them to assist with

reclamation efforts by being on the technical team that would be developed for each

state.

Professor Val Jo Anderson, with the Plant and Animal Sciences Department at

Brigham Young University, is studying cheatgrass invasion in salt desert shrublands

and the benefits of postfire reclamation. Professor Anderson has expressed an

interested in assisting Ruby with reclamation efforts on the portion of the route that

traverses salt-desert shrub, as well as for the entire route.

Dr. Tom Monaco, with the Forage and Range Research Lab at Utah State

University, is researching strategies for improving plant materials to change wildfire

frequency and rebuild critical soil functions. Dr. Monaco has also expressed interest

in assisting Ruby with reclamation efforts along portions of the route that traverse

salt-desert shrub as well as for the entire route.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY RECLAMATION PLAN

Page 2 January 2009

The Reclamation Plan utilizes reclamation methods developed for other largediameter pipeline projects that were approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (FERC) (Dames and Moore 1990; Ecology & Environment, Inc. 2007).

Ruby has adapted and updated the Reclamation Plan by incorporating recent

technical standards and published long-term restoration monitoring information

associated with similar habitats (Ecology and Environment, Inc. 2007). The

Reclamation Plan also incorporates Ruby’s Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation,

and Maintenance Plan, and the Noxious Weed and Invasive Control Plan.

The Plan of Development (POD) would include additional reclamation measures for

visually sensitive areas and off-highway vehicle (OHV) control, as identified by the

BLM and USFS during their review of this Reclamation Plan. Also, any additional

landowner or other land management agency requirements as well as any special

conditions or recommendations of the FERC staff as it completes its environmental

review and the Final Environmental Impact Statement would be incorporated into

this Reclamation Plan. Restoration of wetlands and riparian areas along the Project

route are addressed in Ruby’s Wetland Mitigation Plan.

2 PURPOSE

The Reclamation Plan describes the reclamation process that Ruby would

implement to mitigate temporary habitat impacts within the construction ROW

crossed by the Project. It also presents a discussion of possible alternatives to

mitigate impacts to areas temporarily disturbed; such impacts may include

disturbance of habitat during construction of the Project, along access roads and at

staging areas, and at areas of temporary work space (TWS).

3 PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The short-term goals for reclamation are to minimize the erosion and sedimentation

potential on land impacted by the Project. Properly executed construction practices,

optimum scheduling, and timely construction can mitigate short-term impacts. Longterm reclamation goals include protection of water resources, soil stabilization

through successful establishment of stable vegetation cover, minimization of

impacts to the viewshed, and a return to preexisting land uses, with emphasis on

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY RECLAMATION PLAN

Page 3 January 2009

greater sage-grouse and big game habitat restoration. Monitoring during the

construction and operational phases would ensure the achievement of these goals.

Ruby’s reclamation efforts would meet short- and long-term reclamation goals by:

 Using proper soil management techniques, including stripping, stockpiling,

and reapplying topsoil material to restore soil horizons and establish

surface conditions that would enhance development of diverse, stable,

self-generating plant communities. Where the terrain is relatively flat and

topsoil exists, typically the ditch line and spoil side would be topsoiled.

 Full ROW topsoiling would be implemented in dry wetlands, areas

requiring extensive grading, at landowner request and areas of high

density noxious weeds based upon survey data.

 Ruby would discuss its topsoil segregation methods with each landowner or land

management agency. If a landowner or land management agency requires the

full ROW topsoil method, a wider construction ROW (10 - 20 feet) would be

necessary to provide space to store the segregated topsoil. In these cases,

Ruby would file for the necessary site-specific variance for the extra work space

to perform the full ROW topsoil method.

 Establishing stable soil surface and drainage conditions which would

minimize surface erosion and sedimentation.

 Revegetating disturbed areas with plant species adapted to site conditions

in order to establish long-term, productive plant communities compatible

with existing land uses; and concurrently minimize the chances for

noxious and invasive weeds to establish. Species would be native to the

area, including species utilized by tribes for food and medicine.

 Re-establishing topography compatible with the surrounding landscape.

 Monitoring (minimum of 5 years) during the construction and operational

phases to ensure the achievement of both short-term and long-term

reclamation goals.

 Minimizing temporary construction impacts along the route by limiting the

temporary construction ROW width to avoid impacts to native soil and

vegetation, where practical and safe.

 And finally, where longer term impacts occur to certain sensitive

environments and habitats, in order to off set those impacts, Ruby would

work with the BLM, the USFWS and other appropriate agencies to

develop a plan for off site mitigation.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY RECLAMATION PLAN

Page 4 January 2009

Insert Figure 1 Route Map

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY RECLAMATION PLAN

Page 5 January 2009

4 RECLAMATION SCHEDULE

Construction of the Project is scheduled to begin as early as February 2010 and to

continue through March 2011. The Project is planned to be placed into service in

March of 2011. This schedule includes cleanup, finishing of grading, installation of

permanent erosion control structures, and seeding and planting. Some reclamation

efforts may be required after March 2011 depending on weather and Project

cleanup activities. Reclamation efforts would occur, where possible, during late fall

to early winter to facilitate seed establishment when snow and rainfall are more

likely to occur (Monson 1999). In areas with frozen ground, final reclamation may

be completed in spring/summer of 2011.

5 RECLAMATION PROCESS

The reclamation process outlined below includes the necessary and appropriate

steps for Ruby to fulfill the short- and long-term goals described above.

5.1 Reclamation Treatments

The Reclamation Plan address restoration of the pipeline ROW in Wyoming, Utah,

Nevada, and Oregon. The Reclamation Plan includes topsoil and subsoil stocking

piling, backfilling, recontouring, imprinting, seeding plant establishment by seedings

or transplants, and erosion control. Location specific seed mixes to be applied in

the ROW would use seed from local plant communities.

5.1.1 Clearing, Grading, and Topsoil Removal

Ruby’s initial construction activities would include surveying and staking the

temporary construction ROW, clearing vegetation, surface-soil stripping and

stockpiling, and grading the ROW for safe construction passage.

The survey and staking of the temporary construction ROW would identify the width

of the excavation and blade-work along the ROW, including cut and fill locations.

Vehicle travel and equipment operation would be kept within the surveyed work

areas. Vegetation, such as large shrubs, would be cleared from the staked ROW

and stockpiled within the ROW for later use as soil mulch, OHV controls, and/or

wildlife shelters.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY RECLAMATION PLAN

Page 6 January 2009

Surface soil thickness varies throughout the ROW depending on soil type. Soil

scientists or Environmental Inspectors in the field, would identify surface soil

thickness for removal and stockpiling, where applicable. Surface soil containing the

seed reservoir would be stripped (up to 12 inches) within the trench and spoil

storage locations and any areas involving cut and fill. Ruby would segregate the

entire surface soil layer, taking care not to mix it with the underlying sub-soil

horizons, and stockpile it separately from all trench spoil material. Erosion control

blankets or straw bales would be used as appropriate to limit erosion. Surface soil

and sub-surface soils would be replaced in the proper order during backfilling and

final grading operations as quickly as possible after construction has ceased.

Surface rocks, where present and where useful for reclamation, would be

windrowed adjacent to the topsoil stockpile. In non-agricultural lands, after

backfilling, the rock would be separated from the topsoil and then placed on the

construction ROW or TWS in a manner that visually blends with the adjacent

undisturbed area, for use as an erosion control, or for OHV control, if requested by

the landowners or land management agencies. Rock remaining on the surface in

active agricultural lands after final cleanup would be removed and disposed of at an

approved location.

During construction of the pipeline, all vehicle travel would be within the identified

construction ROW, or on approved access roads. Cross-country vehicle travel

outside the construction ROW or within non-approved, existing access roads would

not be allowed.

5.1.2 Right-of-Way Restoration

Restoration of the construction ROW involves backfilling the excavated trenchline,

replacing stockpiled subsoil and surface soil, restoring pre-existing contours,

installing permanent erosion control structures (i.e., water bars/slope breakers), and

establishing native vegetation.

Backfilling

The excavated trench material (subsoil) would be used to backfill the

trenchline followed by return of topsoil. Following backfilling, Ruby would

feather or blend any excess ditch spoil across the construction corridor,

creating a rough surface to help retain precipitation and capture windblown

seed from adjacent vegetation.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY RECLAMATION PLAN

Page 7 January 2009

Decompaction

Compacted soils are typically associated with the ROW travel lane and

laydown locations. Decompaction would occur in certain areas and on a

case-by-case basis after consultation with the landowner or land

management agency. Each identified location would be decompacted to a

minimum depth of 16 inches prior to surface soil replacement using a

chisel plow (Institute for Land Rehabilitation 1978; Monson 2005). “Soil

ripping” would be done along contours to minimize soil erosion and

facilitate soil-water retention to aid revegetation. The surface soil would

then be prepared for seeding as describe in section 5.1.3.1.

Recontouring

All temporarily disturbed lands within the ROW and TWS would be

recontoured to blend with the surrounding landscape. Recontouring would

emphasize restoration of the existing drainage patterns and landform to

pre-construction condition, to the extent practicable.

Mulch

Any surface rock or cleared vegetation that is separated for use as natural

mulch in specified areas would be spread over the contoured topsoil

surface. Straw may be crimpt into the soil surface to conserve soil-water,

reduce surface temperatures, and create conditions to aid seedling

establishment.

Water Bars (Slope Breakers)

Water bars are earthen-berms that reduce and direct the flow of surface

water (University of Minnesota Extension 1998). Water bars would be

installed to provide erosion control in areas per Ruby’s Upland Erosion

Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan (Plan). Water bars would

also be installed on other soils types as specified in Ruby’s Plan and/or by

land management agencies, with spacing determined by the appropriate

agencies. Water bars usually consist of a one-foot high berm with an

upslope swale. Water bars would be reseeded. Water bars are gently

angled downslope to divert stormwater runoff to a stable upland discharge

point or to a “j” hook created at the outfall point.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY RECLAMATION PLAN

Page 8 January 2009

The purposes of water bars are:

 To decrease overland water velocities through disturbed lands by

reducing slope lengths;

 To remove water from the disturbed area in a controlled manner and at

frequent intervals to reduce its erosive power;

 To direct water into a stabilized location to minimize surface scour;

 To maximize water infiltration along the pipeline ROW; and,

 To slow water flow across the ROW to help maintain soil moisture for

restoration efforts.

Wildlife Shelters

Large shrubs and trees that are removed during ROW clearing operations

and stockpiled may be reused to construct wildlife habitat (shelter)

structures. These shelters, constructed after seed and container-grown

plant placement, would be placed within the reclaimed ROW as a wildlife

habitat enhancement measure. In addition to augmenting habitat, shelter

development would supplement other erosion controls, provide a trap for

seed recruitment from adjacent vegetation, and minimize soil

temperatures, allowing for increased water retention to improve seedling

establishment.

Biological Soils and Playas

Ruby has identified areas of biological crust soils along the Project via

literature review and agency contact; however, limited data are available.

To the extent that damaging or destroying the biological crusts can not be

avoided, steps would be taken to restore the crusts to the disturbed areas.

Ruby would segregate the various types of soil during the trenching activity

and would replace them in reverse order. In areas of identified biological

crust soils and at the land management agencies request, the top two to

five inches of topsoil, inclusive of the biological crust soils, could be

carefully stripped and stockpiled separately from all other soil materials.

Organic matter and debris could be retained in the piles to help sustain

biological activity and increase the effectiveness of respreading the crust

material after construction. Storage piles would be shallow and steep and

would be kept dry to preserve microorganisms and seeds (Bainbridge

2007).

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY RECLAMATION PLAN

Page 9 January 2009

The majority of the construction would occur in the early summer to late fall

timeframe, which should help minimize the chance of crossing playas

when significant water is present. Any playas that are disturbed would be

returned to their preconstruction condition, to the extent practicable,

through the use of clay or bentonite patches to the subsurface to ensure

that the preconstruction soil infiltration rates and drainage rates were

maintained.

5.1.3 Revegetation

Vegetation types within the Project area vary according to soil types, topography,

climatic conditions, and land management practices. The seeding mix would be

adapted as needed for specific situations.

Experimental plots would be established at specific locations such as the “Sage”

Sage-Grouse Core Breeding Area, Wyoming; Terrace Basin, Utah; Sheldon area,

Nevada, to evaluate seeding mixes, invasive weed control, and the use of fertilizers.

These studies would provide guidance to the revegetation of sagebrush-steppe and

salt-desert shrub habitats.

The proposed seed mixtures were designed to be compatible with the dominant

vegetation currently found along the proposed ROW. All disturbed areas would be

seeded using the specific species and seeding rates for the various vegetation types

found along the Project ROW.

The criteria used for selecting the seed mix are based on the following:

 Restoration performance of species within a similar habitat type based on

past pipeline reclamation projects in similar habitats (Ecology and

Environment, Inc. 2007);

 Erosion-control capability;

 Existing plant dominance;

 Availability of seed;

 Sage-grouse and big game habitat value;

 Livestock management; and

 Restoration of traditional food and medicine gathered by Native

Americans.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY RECLAMATION PLAN

Page 10 January 2009

Seeds would be tested for purity, percent live seed, and certified as weed free prior

to use to ensure compliance with local, state, and federal seed requirements

(Monsen 1999).

5.1.3.1 Seedbed Preparation

Seedbed preparation would consist of decompacting, recontouring, and surface soil

replacement, as described in Section 5.1.2, above. The ground surface would be

manipulated by equipment to create pockets to enhance soil water infiltration and

seedling establishment by providing “safe sites” for seed germination (Monson 1999,

2005). The seedbed would be firm but not compacted, nor would it have a crusted

surface. Ruby would use a proven reclamation and restoration procedure such as

the spreading of corn stalks and manure, disking the mixture into the top five to six

inches and then seeding with the appropriate seed mix. These areas would be

identified during the development of the final Reclamation Plans.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY RECLAMATION PLAN

Page 11 January 2009

Wyoming

The recommended seed mixtures and rates by community type traversed that are

applicable to the Wyoming portion of the Project are as follows:

Desert Scrub

The desert scrub community is composed primarily of low, widely spaced shrubs

such as shadescale, four-wing saltbush, winterfat, hopsage, horsebrush,

rabbitbursh, and greasewood with associated bunchgrasses and forbs. The

selected species and rates are designed to provide erosion control, sage-grouse

and pronghorn habitat, and livestock forage The proposed seed mix would be used

at the specified rate per acre (table 5.1-1). The seed mix would be approved by

BLM and/or NRCS.

Table 5.1-1 Wyoming Recommended Native Seed Mixtures for Desert Scrubc

Species b Cultivar d % Seed Mix

Comp.

Lbs PLS for

full seeding

e

Seeds/LB

PLS of seed

Seeding

rate

(seeds/

sqft)

PLS

seeding

rate a

(lbs/acre)

Slender wheatgrass Pryor or Copperhead 30% 12 140,000 11.6 3.60

Thickspike wheatgrass Critana 20% 12 145,000 8.0 2.40

Indian ricegrass Nezpar 25% 12 235,000 16.2 3.00

Lewis flax Appar 10% 6 286,690 3.9 0.60

Palmer penstemon 10% 4 586,088 5.4 0.40

Four-wing saltbush Wytana 15% 10 49,000 1.7 1.50

Winterfat Open Range 10% 2 210,000 1.0 0.20

Totals: 120% 48 11.7

Notes:

a The seeding rate is based on drill seeding. If broadcast or hydroseeding were used, the rate per acre would be doubled.

b Alternate grasses may include bottlebrush squirrel tail (rate dependent on species being replaced), and Sandberg bluegrass (rate

dependant on species being replaced). In visually sensitive areas, to be determined after coordination with appropriate agency,

shrubs would be transplanted including greasewood and big sagebrush.

c Mixtures have been recommended by the NRCS, Pinedale, Wyoming.

d When available, the cultivars listed above are recommended because of known quality and adaptability to the area.

e

Rates are based on the full seeding rate for the seeding method noted above multiplied by the % seed mix composition.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY RECLAMATION PLAN

Page 12 January 2009

5.1.3.1.2 Sagebrush Steppe

Wyoming sagebrush is the predominant species in this community and is

interspersed with grasses, forbs and other shrubs such as serviceberry. The

following seed mix would be used at the specified rate per acre. The seed mix

would be approved by BLM and/or NRCS.

Table 5.1-2 Wyoming Recommended Native Seed Mixtures for Sagebrush Scrubb

Species Cultivar c

% Seed

Mix

Comp.

Lbs PLS

for full

seeding d

Seeds/LB

PLS of

seed

Seeding

rate

(seeds/

sqft)

PLS

seeding

rate a

(lbs/acre)

Slender wheatgrass Pryor or Copperhead 30% 12 140,000 11.6 3.60

Thickspike wheatgrass Critana 25% 12 145,000 10.0 3.00

Indian ricegrass Nezpar 25% 12 235,000 16.2 3.00

Bottlebrush squirreltail 20% 10 192,000 8.8 2.00

Wyoming big sagebrush 10% 2 2,400,000 11.0 0.20

Serviceberry 10% 10 82,000 1.9 1.00

TOTALS: 120% 59 12.8

Notes:

a

The seeding rate is based on drill seeding. If broadcast or hydroseeding were used, the rate per acre would be

doubled.

b Mixtures have been recommended by the NRCS, Pinedale, Wyoming.

c When available, the cultivars listed above are recommended because of known quality and adaptability to the area.

d Rates are based on the full seeding rate for the seeding method noted above multiplied by the % seed mix

composition.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY RECLAMATION PLAN

Page 13 January 2009

Utah and Nevada

Table 5.1-3 Utah and Nevada Recommended Native Seed Mixturesc

Community type,

Mixture Variety

Seed Application Rate

(pounds/acre/PLS)a

Utah a

Intermediate wheatgrass – Oahe 3

Lewis flax – Apar 2

Alfalfa 2

Big sagebrush 2

Indian ryegrass 5

Sagebrush Scrub and

Pinyon-Juniper

Woodland, Mixture UT-1

Fourwing saltbush 2

Basin wildrye 2

Indian ricegrass - Nezpar 5

Globemallow 3

Fourwing saltbush 2

Penstemon 3

Low sagebrush 2

Desert Scrub,

Mixture UT-2

Winterfat 1

Forage kochia 1

Indian rice grass 2

Galleta grass 2

Winterfat 2

Grassland, Mixture UT-3

d

Alfalfa – dryland 1

Nevada b

Intermediate wheatgrass – Oahe 3

Lewis flax – Apar 2

Alfalfa

2

Big sagebrush 2

Indian ryegrass 5

Sagebrush Scrub and

Pinyon-Juniper

Woodland, Mixture NV-1

Fourwing saltbush 2

Basin wildrye 2

Indian ricegrass - Nezpar 5

Globemallow 3

Fourwing saltbush 2

Penstemon 3

Low sagebrush 2

Desert Scrub,

Mixture NV-2

Winterfat 1

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY RECLAMATION PLAN

Page 14 January 2009

General Notes :

- Exact mix to be used may differ from the proposed mixture, depending on seed availability.

- Seeding mixtures have been compiled based on the ecotones that would be crossed as well as success of other

large-diameter pipeline projects in similar habitats.

- Ruby would work with relevant agencies to develop and further refine appropriate seed mixes across sensitive

management areas.

Notes:

a Seeding rate is listed as pounds per acre of pure live seed (PLS). Seeding rate is doubled if hydroseeded or

broadcast. The seed mix may be modified based on site-specific conditions, identification of additional useful

species for rapid site stabilization, species success in past revegetation efforts, and seed availability and cost. An

alternative seeding rate may be applied in areas deemed appropriate by BLM, USFS, or the landowner.

b Yellow sweetclover may be substituted or added to the mixture.

c NRCS coordination pending.

Key:

NV = Nevada

OR = Oregon

PLS = Pure Live Seed

UT = Utah

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY RECLAMATION PLAN

Page 15 January 2009

Oregon

The recommended seed mixtures and rates by community type traversed that are

applicable to the Oregon portion of the Project are presented below. Ruby would

work with the USFS to develop the appropriate seed mix across the FremontWinema National Forest.

Table 5.1-4 Oregon Recommended Native Seed Mixtures c

Community type,

Mixture Variety

Seed Application Rate

(pounds/acre/PLS)a

Oregon a

Intermediate wheatgrass – Oahe 3

Lewis flax – Apar 2

Alfalfa 2

Big sagebrush 2

Indian ryegrass 5

Sagebrush Scrub and

Pinyon-Juniper Woodland,

Mixture OR-1

Fourwing saltbush 2

Basin wildrye 2

Indian ricegrass - Nezpar 5

Globemallow 3

Fourwing saltbush 2

Penstemon 3

Low sagebrush 2

Desert Scrub,

Mixture OR-2

Winterfat 1

a

Seeding rate is listed as pounds per acre of pure live seed (PLS). Seeding rate is doubled if hydroseeded or

broadcast. The seed mix may be modified based on site-specific conditions, identification of additional useful

species for rapid site stabilization, species success in past revegetation efforts, and seed availability and cost. An

alternative seeding rate may be applied in areas deemed appropriate by BLM, USFS, or the landowner.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY RECLAMATION PLAN

Page 16 January 2009

Table 5.1-5 Oregon Seed Mixture Recommendations for Livestock

Forage Production – Rangeland and Pastureland with

Effective Precipitation 9-12 Inches

Mixtures Alternatives (lbs/acre)

Common name

A B C D E F G

Crested wheatgrass (I) 5

Siberian wheatgrass (I) 4

Beardless wheatgrass(N) 5 3

Big bluegrass (N) 3 1

Sheep fescue (I) 2

Bluebunch wheatgrass (N) 1 3

Alfalfa (I) 1 1 1 1 1

Thickspike wheatgrass (N) 1 3

Seeds/sq ft/mixture 27 30 31 71 30 37 36

Notes:

N – Native plant, also may use any native plant listed in the NRCS ecological site description.

I – Introduced, non-native plant

Table adapted from NRCS (2000).

Table 5.1-6 Oregon Seed Mixture Recommendations for Livestock

Forage Production – Rangeland and Pastureland with

Effective Precipitation 12-15 Inches

Mixtures Alternatives (lbs/acre)

Common name

A B C D E F G

Big bluegrass (N)12 1

Thickspike wheatgrass (N) 4 1 0.5

Beardless wheatgrass(N) 4 2

Pubescent wheatgrass (I) 4 7

Intermediate wheatgrass (I)4 7

Alfalfa (I)21 2 2 2 2 2 2

Sheep fescue (I)3 1 1

Bluebunch wheatgrass (N) 3 2 5

Seeds/sq ft/mixture 56 38 42 36 30 30 35

Alternative Native species:

Notes:

N – Native plant, also may use any native plant listed in the NRCS ecological site description.

I – Introduced, non-native plant

1– Earliest spring forage

2– Add alfalfa at 1-2 lbs/acre for grazing and 3-4 lbs/acre for hay.

3– Add sheep fescue at 2 lbs/acre for weed and erosion control. Canby bluegrass (N) may be

substitute/alternative for sheep fescue.

4– Intermediate wheatgrass may not be effective in areas with less than 15 inches annual precipitation.

NRCS has recommended the use of a number of alternative species (all native), including Idaho

fescue, Thurber’s needlegrass, Sandberg bluegrass, and bottlebrush squirreltail. Mixture rates to be

determined, if used.

Table adapted from NRCS (2000).

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY RECLAMATION PLAN

Page 17 January 2009

Table 5.1-7 Oregon Seed Mixture Recommendations for Livestock

Forage Production – Rangeland and Pastureland with

Effective Precipitation 15-18 Inches

Mixtures (lbs/acre) Common name

A B C D E F G

Big bluegrass(N) 12

Thickspike wheatgrass(N) 6

Beardless wheatgrass(N) 7

Tall wheatgrass(I) 102 8

Intermediate wheatgrass(I) 7

Alfalfa(I) 2 2 2 4 4 2

Bluebunch wheatgrass(N) 3

Idaho fescue(N) 6

Seeds/sq ft/mixture 61 31 31 18 36 35 70

Notes:

N – Native plant, also may use any native plant listed in the NRCS ecological site description.

I – Introduced, non-native plant

1

– Earliest spring forage

2

– Sodic soil tolerance, pure stands only

Table adapted from NRCS (2000).

Table 5.1-8 Oregon Seed Mixture Recommendations for

Livestock Forage Production – Grazable Woodland

with Effective Precipitation 15-18 Inches (PineGrassland)

Mixtures (lbs/acre)

Common name

A

1

B C D E

Slender wheatgrass(N) 6 3 5

Intermediate wheatgrass(I) 6

Big bluegrass(N) 1 1

Alfalfa(I) 2

Hard fescue(I) 1

Orchardgrass(I) 4

White dutch clover (I) - or native clovers 1 1 1

Idaho fescue(N) 2 2

Seeds/sq ft/mixture 45 52 66 49

Notes:

N – Native plant, also may use any native plant listed in the NRCS ecological site description.

I – Introduced, non-native plant.

1

– Do not plant mixture in over 15% woodland canopy\

Table adapted from NRCS (2000).

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY RECLAMATION PLAN

Page 18 January 2009

Table 5.1-9 Oregon Seed Mixture Recommendations for

Livestock Forage Production – Irrigated Pasture

with Alkali Soils, Poor Drainage

Common name Single sp. Rate (lbs/ac)

Beardless wildrye(N) 10

Tall fescue(I) 8

Tall wheatgrass(I)110

Strawberry clover(I)22

Alsike clover(I) 3

Cereal barley (annual)(I) 20

Slender wheatgrass(N) 7

Notes:

N – Native plant, also may use any native plant listed in the NRCS ecological site

description.

I – Introduced, non-native plant

1

– Do not plant mixture in over 15% woodland canopy

Table adapted from NRCS (2000).

Table 5.1-10 Oregon Seed Mixture Recommendations for Sagebrush

Rangeland Sites

Common Name Scientific Name

Seeding rate

alone (lbs. /

ac.)

% in

mix

Seeding rate

in mix (lbs.

/ ac.)

Great Basin Wildrye Elymus cinereus 9 10% 0.9

Bluebunch wheatgrass Pseudoroegnaria spicata 8 10% 0.8

Bottlebrush squirreltail Elymus elymoides 10 10% 1

Western wheatgrass Psascopyrum smithii 10 15% 1.5

Thickspike Wheatgrass Elymus lanceolatus 8 15% 1.2

Thurber's Needlegrass Stipa thuberiana 8 10% 0.8

Idaho Fescue Festuca idahoensis 8 10% 0.8

Sandberg Bluegrass Poa Sandbergii (secunda) 3 15% 0.45

Lewis Blue Flax Linum lewisii 6 5% 0.3

Total 100% 7.75

Source: BLM Lakeview Resource Area

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY RECLAMATION PLAN

Page 19 January 2009

5.1.3.2 Seeding Methods

The main purpose of all seeding methods are to place the seed in direct contact with

the soil at average depths of approximately 0.5 inch to cover the seed with soil, and

to firm the soil around the seed in order to eliminate air pockets. Some methods of

seeding are more effective at seed placement than others. The type of terrain has

an impact on the type of seeding method that is practicable; therefore, the exact

method of seeding would have to be flexible. Seeding would be used in all areas

that have replaced topsoil or surface fines, which would include all disturbed areas

except exposed rock faces.

Broadcast seeding may be accomplished with a hand-operated, cyclone-type

seeder; a mechanical broadcast seeder attached to the imprinting device; or a

specially designed blower. Broadcast distributes the seed on top of the surface

without mulch. The seeds must be covered by raking or dragging a chain or harrow

over the seedbed. Imprinting with straw punch treatment also may be used to place

seed in the soil. The cyclone-type seeder can be used on any slope that can be

reached by foot; however, the blow seeder is limited by equipment access. Drill

seeding places seed into the soil at a uniform depth, but can be used only on flat

surfaces to moderate slopes. While drill seeding is the best method for seed

placement, broadcast seeding followed by imprinting or straw punching also would

provide effective seed placement where slope does not permit drill seeding only.

Hydromulching uses water with a slurry of seed, mulch, and tackifier (if required by

land management agencies), which is sprayed over the restored topsoil surface.

Hydroseeding alone sprays only the seed on the soil surface. Both methods often

do not allow for good soil-to-seed contact, leave seed exposed to desiccating wind

and temperatures, increase seed loss by rodent and avian foraging, and are limited

by equipment access. Hydromulching is effective for applying both seed and fiber

mulches.

Except for steep/erodible soils crossing areas, where additional methods would be

used, the seed either would be broadcast to the surface before the imprinting or

dragging process or would be drill seeded. On slopes that cannot be crimpt with

straw, but that can be reached with a hydromulcher (used in isolated areas), seed

would be applied to the slope in a slurry with fertilizer and mulch. Tackifier would be

added to the hydromulch application if slopes are in excess of 25 degrees. Slopes

that cannot be straw punched or hydroseeded/hydromulched may be broadcast

seeded and hand-raked, or chain harrowed.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY RECLAMATION PLAN

Page 20 January 2009

5.1.3.3 Soil Amendments/Fertilizer/Weed Control

Soil amendments consist of fertilizers, wood or straw mulches, tackifying agents, or

soil stabilizing emulsions. Based on the recent restoration efforts on other projects

involving large-diameter-pipelines that have met established success criteria, Ruby

is not currently proposing the application of fertilizers as part of its post-construction

restoration activities. Ruby may use pre-emergent herbicide, such as Oust®or

Plateau®, to minimize annual germination of weeds such as cheatgrass, hologeton,

and annual mustards, which would allow time for the perennial herbaceous species

to become established (Shaw and Monson 1999). Appropriate application rates

would be determined by the land management agency.

5.2 Reclamation Treatment for Steep Slopes and Erodible Soils

Erodible soil types would require additional restorative inputs to minimize the wind

and water erosion potential and to offset any poor reclamation potential. The

primary objective of any reclamation treatment is to rapidly stabilize the soil resource

through the establishment of wind and water control measures and a suitable

vegetative cover that emulates the existing landscape conditions.

Erosion control measures would be implemented to prevent adverse impacts to

erodible soils due to increased runoff, particularly in areas where protective

vegetation would be removed. Erosion control measures would implemented in

accordance with Ruby’s Plan and Procedures, other federal, state, and local agency

requirements and landowners, as applicable.

6 POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE

The purpose of post-rehabilitation monitoring is to evaluate the long-term soil

stability, vegetative cover and density, habitat quality, and levels of noxious and

invasive weeds in the ROW. Post-construction monitoring for the Ruby route would

include both qualitative and quantitative analysis.

The primary goals and objectives of monitoring are:

 Assess the effectiveness of temporary and permanent erosion-control

structures (e.g., water bars) to ensure the stability of the ROW and TWS

and to ensure that runoff is naturally controlled in place, with no accelerated

erosion or wash-outs. The first year monitoring would focus on qualitative

analysis of the ROW reclamation efforts. Locations where additional

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY RECLAMATION PLAN

Page 21 January 2009

remedial work may be required should be apparent and would be identified

by milepost (MP). The monitoring of the ROW for significant and/or new

erosion or third-party damage is an element of Ruby’s routine aerial

surveillance that would be conducted throughout the life of the pipeline. It is

anticipated that any active erosion would be apparent during the first two

years following reclamation or after the first runoff event.

 Monitor and assess, through quantitative analysis, the success of the

reseeding efforts during the second growing season, with subsequent

follow-up surveys in the third and fifth growing seasons. Line-intercept

transects would be used to measure plant densities and cover, bare

ground, vegetation litter, and rock for comparison with adjacent undisturbed

areas (Elzinga et al. 1998; Herrick et al. 2003, 2005).

 Monitor the survival of special plantings for visual restoration, if applicable,

and the extent to which the restored ROW blends in with the adjacent

undisturbed areas.

 Monitor and assess targeted noxious weeds and invasive plants in

accordance with Ruby’s Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan. The

plan includes measures to control the spread of noxious and invasive

weeds.

 Monitor and identify other disturbances that may hinder reclamation

success, such as excessive livestock and wildlife grazing or unauthorized

OHV use. Determine ways to take corrective actions.

 Identify places where other vegetation control may be needed. Note that

with the exception of noxious weed control, vegetation maintenance,

including mowing of non-agricultural lands or tree removal, is not

anticipated.

 Ruby would selectively remove large brush from the permanent Project

ROW to facilitate aerial surveillance and inspection.

6.1 Revegetation Performance Criteria

Upland reclamation of non-agriculture land would be considered successful when

vegetation within the reclaimed ROW supports non-noxious plants that are similar in

density and cover to those growing on adjacent undisturbed lands. A quantitative

vegetative monitoring program would document the reclamation progress along the

Ruby route. Monitoring plots would be established within the ROW and control plots

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY RECLAMATION PLAN

Page 22 January 2009

on adjacent undisturbed lands. The monitoring and control plots would be similar in

aspect, slope, and soils and approximately one acre in size. The control plots would

have similar dimensions as the ROW monitoring plots and be established in

undisturbed vegetation adjacent to the ROW approximately. Monitoring plots would

be established approximately every 10 miles along the ROW. A line-intercept

method would be used to assess species relative density and cover in the

monitoring and control plots (Brower and Zar 1977, Elzinga et al. 1998). Ten, 50-m

transects would be randomly placed in the monitoring and control plots to measure

plant-canopy intercepts along transects. A one-tailed independent-sample t test

would compare total grass, forb, and woody plant relative density and cover

between the monitoring and control plots.

As stated above, Ruby would quantitatively document reclamation success within

the ROW, using the line intercept method of vegetation analysis (Elinger et al. 1998,

Herrick et al. 2003, 2005). Parameters typically include a species list and estimates

of species density and percentage of plant cover, vegetation litter, rock, and bare

ground. Observations of soil disturbance, occurrence of native and invasive

species, plant growth stages, animal use, and grazing impacts would be

documented. Qualitative analysis methods would be incorporated at established

monitoring locations to provide digital-photo documentation of all quantitative data.

6.2 Remedial Action and Maintenance

Ruby would address identified erosion problems as soon as practical based on

evaluation of conditions outside the permanent ROW against the original erosion

control work. Additional erosion control work would be performed by applying the

same basic reclamation techniques identified in this Plan, based on site-specific

conditions. It is also noted that temporary erosion control structures, such as straw

bale or sediment barriers, would be removed when sites are deemed stable and

reclamation is determined to be successful.

Reseeding or replanting efforts, including supplemental mulching if necessary,

would occur, with the agreement of the landowner or land management agency in

any area where monitoring during the second growing season identifies a

reclamation failure, particularly where accompanied by observed increases in water

or wind erosion or excessive OHV use.

Noxious weed control also would be included in maintenance and would be

performed in accordance with the noxious weed control plan and as approved by

appropriate agencies.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY RECLAMATION PLAN

Page 23 January 2009

6.3 Reporting

Ruby would document its observations of reclamation success following the field

inspections and provide summary reports to the BLM, USFS, and FERC. The

summary reports would be provided to agencies in September of each year. Areas

that need remedial action would also be identified by MP and would include a

description of additional erosion controls or reclamation work anticipated. Reports

including a summary of corrective actions proposed would be submitted within three

months of identifying these conditions. Areas where control applications for noxious

weeds are needed would also be reported.

7 OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE (OHV) CONTROL

7.1 Reclamation Treatments for Off-Highway Vehicle Access

The BLM, USFS, and private landowners are concerned that the reclaimed ROW

would be used for unauthorized OHV travel, which could thwart reclamation efforts

and promote erosion. To discourage OHV use of the ROW, Ruby would use the

following deterrents, in consultation with appropriate agencies:

 Leave the ROW in a roughened condition;

 Place signage in key areas;

 Install exclusion fencing;

 Install rock barriers, earthen berms, or other barricades at existing OHV

routes that cross the ROW; and

 Work closely with the BLM, USFS, private landowners, grazing lessees,

local law enforcement personnel, and adjacent landowners to monitor and

eliminate unauthorized access to the ROW by installing exclusion fencing.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY RECLAMATION PLAN

Page 24 January 2009

8 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Amimoto, P.Y., 1981. Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, California

Department of Conservation, Special Services for Resource Protection, May

1981.

Anderson, A.E., 1969. 2-4-D, Sagebrush, and mule deer-cattle use of upper winter

range. Colorado Division of Game, Fish and Parks. Special Report Number

21.

Bainbridge, D.A. 2007. A Guide for Desert and Dryland Restoration. Society for

Ecological Restoration International. Tucson, Arizona.

Beck, Jeffery L., Dean Mitchell. 1997. Brief Guidelines for Maintaining and

Enhancing Sage Grouse Habitat on Private Lands in Utah. Utah Division of

Wildlife Resources. http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/uplandgame/sagegrouse/utguidef.htm

Branson, F.A., 1985. Vegetation Changes on Western Rangelands. Society for

Range Management, Denver, Co., Monograph No. 2.

Brown, R. W. and R. S. Johnson, 1979. Revegetation of disturbed alpine

rangelands. Pages 76-94. In D. A. Johnson (ed.), Special Management

Needs of Alpine Ecosystems, Range Science Series 5, Society for Range

Management, Denver, Colorado.

Brower, J.E. and J.H. Zar. 1977. Field and Laboratory Methods for General

Ecology., Dubuque, Iowa: Wm.C. Brown Company Publishers.

Chambers, J.C., 1989. Native species establishment on an oil drill pad site in the

Uinta Mountains, Utah: effects of introduced grass density and fertilizer. Res.

Pap. INT-402. Ogden, UT: USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Research

Station. 9 pp.

Colorado Greater Sage-grouse Steering Committee. 2008. Colorado Greater

Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Denver,

Colorado.

Connelly, John W., Michael A. Schroeder, Alan R. Sands, and Clait E. Braun. 2000.

Guidelines to Manage Sage Grouse Populations and their Habitats. Wildlife

Society Bulletin, 28(4): 967-985.

Dames and Moore, Inc. 1990. Kern River Pipeline Reclamation Plan, Dixie

National Forest Portion, Kern River Gas Transmission Company.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY RECLAMATION PLAN

Page 25 January 2009

DePuit E. J., 1. G. Coenenberg, 1979. Responses for revegetated coal strip mine

spoils to variable fertilization rates, longevity of fertilization program, and

season of seeding. Res. Pap. 150. Bozeman, Montana: Montana State

University, Montana Agricultural Experiment Station. 81 p.

Dietz, D.R., R.H. Udall, and L.E. Yeager, 1962. Chemical composition and

digestibility by mule deer of selected forage species, Cache la Poudre Range,

Colorado. Co. Game and Fish Depart., Tech. Pub. #14.

Dixon, R.M., 1990. Air-Earth Interface Model for Ecosystem Restoration and

Maintenance, Pp. 172-181, In Hughes, G.H. & T.M. Bonnicksen, eds.,

Restoration ‘89: The New Management Challenge, Proceedings of the First

Annual Conference for the Society for Ecological Restoration, Oakland, CA,

January 16-20, 1989.

Eubank, Mark E., 1979. Mark Eubank’s Utah Weather, Horizon Publishers,

Bountiful, Utah.

Ecology and Environment, Inc. March 2002. Reclamation Plan, Utah Portion 2003

Expansion Project. Prepared for Kern River Gas Transmission Company.

__________. September 2007. Right-of-Way Reclamation Monitoring Report Year

2007. Prepared for Kern River Gas Transmission Company.

Elzinga, C.L., D. W. Salzer, and J.W. Willoughby. 1998. Measuring & Monitoring

Plant Populations. BLM Technical Reference 1730-1. Bureau of Land

Management, National Business Center, Denver, CO.

Guillaume, M. W. A. Berg, and J. J. Herron, 1986. Performance of native and

introduced species seven years after seeding on alpine disturbances. In M. A.

Schuster and R. H. Zack, eds. Proceeding of the High Altitude Revegetation

Workshop No. 7, 1986. Information Series No. 58, Colorado Water

Resources Research Institute, Colorado State University, Fort Collins,

Colorado.

Herrick, J., Van Zee, J., Havstad, K., and Whitford, W. 2003. Draft: Monitoring

Manual for Grassland, Shrubland and Savanna Ecosystems. New Mexico

Agricultural Research Station, Jornada Experimental Range, New Mexico

State University. Las Cruces, New Mexico.

__________. 2005. Monitoring Manual for Grassland, Shrubland and Savanna

Ecosystems. New Mexico Agricultural Research Station, Jornada

Experimental Range, New Mexico State University. Las Cruces, New

Mexico.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY RECLAMATION PLAN

Page 26 January 2009

Horton, H., 1989. Interagency forage and conservation Planting guide for Utah.

Cooperative Extension Service, Utah University, Extension Circular EC 433.

Intermountain Nurseryman s Association and Western Forest Nursery Association

General Technical Report INT-109.

Jeppson, Roland W., Gaylen L. Ashcroft, A. Leon Huber, Gaylord V. Skogerboe, Jay

M. Bagley, 1968. Hydrologic Atlas of Utah, Utah State University - Utah

Division of Water Resources, Logan, Utah.

Kriger, J. A., W. A. Berg, J. T. Herron, C. M. Phillips, and R. Ci. Atkinson, 1987.

Shrub reestablishment in the mountain shrub zone. Presented at the

combined Forth Biennial Billings Symposium on Mining and Reclamation in

the west and the National Meeting of the American Society for Surface Mining

and Reclamation, Billings, Montana, March 17 to 19, 1987.

Kufeld, R.C., 1983. Responses of elk, mule deer, cattle, and vegetation to burning,

spraying, and chaining of Gambel oak rangeland. Technical Publication No.

34, Colorado Division of Wildlife.

Leizer, A., 1989. Vegetation components and requirements. Presented at the

workshop for Effective Slope Protection and Erosion Control,” College of

Engineering, University of Wisconsin.

Loveless, C.M., 1967. Ecological Characteristics of a Mule deer winter range.

Colorado Game, Fish and Parks Dept. Tech. Pub. #20.

Monsen, Stephen B. 2005. Restoration Manual for Colorado Sagebrush and

Associated Shrubland Communities. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Denver,

Colorado.

National Climatic Data Center, 1973. Precipitation Frequency Atlas of the Western

U. S., Volume 6, dated 1973.

Native Plants for the Intermountain Area, Proceedings: Intermountain Nurseryman’s

Association Conference, August 8-11, 1983, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Plummer, A.P., 1977. Revegetation of disturbed Intermountain area sites. In

Thames, J.L., ed. Reclamation of disturbed land in the southwest. Tucson,

AZ: University Arizona Press; Pages 302-339.

Plummer, A.P., D.R. Christensen, and S.B. Monsen, 1964. Job completion report for

game forage revegetation project. Utah State Department of Fish and Game,

Bulletin Number 64-14.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY RECLAMATION PLAN

Page 27 January 2009

Reveal, J.L., 1979. Biogeography of the Intermountain Region: A Speculative

Appraisal. Mentzelia No. 4 (The Journal for the Northern Nevada Native Plant

Society). 92 pp.

Richardson, E. Arlo, 1971. Estimated Return Periods for Short-Duration Precipitation

in Utah, Utah State University, Logan, Utah.

Stevens, Dale J., R. Clayton Brough, Rodney D. Griffin, E. Arlo Richardson, 1983.

Utah Weather Guide, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

United States Department of Commerce National Climatic Data Center, 1984,

Climatography of the United States No. 20, Climatic Summaries for Selected

Sites, 1951-1980.

Utah Department of Natural Resources. 2002. Strategic Management Plan for

Sage-Grouse 2002. Publication Number 02-20.

Desert: Revegetation of Disturbed Desert Lands, In Soil-Plant-Animal Relationships

Bearing on Revegetation and Land Reclamation in Nevada Deserts. Great

Basin Naturalist Memoirs, Number 4, Brigham Young University.

Welsh, S.L., N.D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, and L.C. Higgins. 1987. A Utah Flora. Great

Basin Naturalist Memoirs, No. 9. Brigham Young University

Zedler, P.H., and T.H. Ebert, 1977, Shrub Seedling Establishment and Survival

Following an Unusual September Rain in the Colorado Desert, Bulletin

Ecological Society of America 58:47.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

^ !

^

W Y

C A

I D

N V

O R

U T

§ ̈¦65

§ ̈¦215

§ ̈¦86

§ ̈¦70

§ ̈¦15

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦84

§ ̈¦343

Malin

Kemmerer

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

45

5

0

0

5

0

50

600

650

SSiiss kkii yyoo uu

LLii nnnn LLaa nnee

SShhaa ssttaa

LLee mmhh i V a i V a ll llee yy

WWhhee ee l e r BBaakkeerr l e r

NNyyee

CCuuss tteerr

EEllkkoo

HHuummbboo lldd tt

WWaasshhoo ee

WWhhii ttee PPii nnee

GGrraa nntt

KKllaa mmaa tthh

BBooxx EElldd eerr

PPaarrkk

UUiinn ttaa

BBuuttttee

SSiiee rrrraa

LLaa nndd eerr

EEuurree kkaa

PPeerrsshhii nngg

CChhuu rrcchh i l l i l l

MM i n e r a l i n e r a l

PPllaa ccee rr

EEll DDoo rraadd oo

LLyyoonn

DDoouu ggll aass

YYuubb aa

SSttoorree yy

LLaa sssseenn

PPlluu mmaa ss

EEllmmoorree CCaammaass

OOwwyyhhee ee

MMaa llhh eeuu rr GGoo oodd iinn gg

DDeess cchh uuttee ss

HHaarrnn eeyy

LLaa kkee

MMoo ddoo cc

CCrroooo kk

GGee mm BBooii ssee

PPaayyeettttee

CCaann yyoo nn

AAddaa

BBllaa iinn ee

LLii nnccooll nn

MMii nnii ddoo kkaa

PPoowwee rr

TTwwiinn FFaall llss

FFrreemmoonn tt

SSuubb llee ttttee

LLii nnccooll nn

CCaarrii bboo uu

BBaann nnoo cckk

JJee rroommee

CCaass ssii aa

BBeeaa rr LLaa kkee OOnn eeii ddaa FFrraann kkll iinn

CCaacchhee

FFrreemmoonn tt

BBuuttttee JJee ffffeerrssoonn TTeettoonn

MMaa ddii ssoo nn

BBoonn nnee vvii ll ll ee

BBiinn gghh aamm

TTeettoonn

SSuummmmii tt

UUttaahh

JJuu aabb

CCaarrbb oonn

SSaann ppee ttee

MMii ll ll aarrdd

SSeevv iiee rr

MMoo rrggaa nn

DDaavv iiss

TToooo eell ee WWaassaattcchh

DDuucchhee ssnn ee

EEmmee rryy

CCllaa rrkk

AAddaa mmss

!(191

!(20

!(189

!(6

!(95

!(97 !(78

!(140

!(201

!(50

!(40 !(87

!(214

!(395

!(126

!(58

!(44

!(99 !(88

!(106

!(49

!(287

!(26

!(36

!(299

!(91

!(139

!(89

!(30

!(93 

50 25

.

0 50

Miles

! Mile Post (Approx.)

Primary Route (26 Nov 2008)

Interstate

Highway

County Boundary

State Boundary

Figure 1

Reclamation Plan

Ruby Pipeline Project

Proposed Route November 26, 2008

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX L 

Draft Blasting Plan 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
January 2009

Draft

Blasting Plan

FERC Docket No. CP09-___-000

January 2009

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT BLASTING PLAN

January 2009

ii

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Section Page

1. Scope of Blasting Project ...........................................................1

2. Types of Blasting.........................................................................1

3. Location of Shots and Proximity to Existing Facilities.............1

4. Method to be Used to Minimize Hole-to-Hole

Propagation .................................................................................1

5. Types of Explosives / Initiation System to be Used..................1

6. Drill and Blast Pattern.................................................................2

7. Charge Weight and Delays..........................................................2

8. Flyrock Control Plan....................................................................2

9. Selection of Blasting Products and Methods............................2

10. Monitoring, Reporting and Controlling Ground

Cracking and Displacement........................................................3

11. Explosives Storage and Transportation Procedures................3

12. Peak Particle Velocity Monitoring and Control .........................3

13. Fire Prevention ............................................................................4

14. Environmental Concerns ............................................................4

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT BLASTING PLAN

January 2009

iii

Appendix A Explosives Safety Program ....................................A-1

Appendix B 42 FRD Examples....................................................B-1

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT BLASTING PLAN

January 2009

1

1. Scope of Blasting Project

Blasting will take place along the Ruby Pipeline Project right-of-way. Ruby Pipeline, LLC

plans to blast only in the areas where the rock cannot be economically excavated by

conventional means. It is anticipated that this may occur anywhere along the right-of-way.

2. Types of Blasting

Primary type of blasting will be for ditch excavation. Blasting may also be required during

the right-of-way grading operation.

If any streams and wetland areas require blasting to perform the ditch excavation, the

streams and wetland areas will be tested for rock and shot by the mainline trenching crew,

except when not specifically possible due to timing completion requirements.

3. Location of Shots and Proximity to Existing Facilities

No blasting will occur within 10 feet of existing pipelines or other structures. All blasting

located along adjacent power line rights-of-way shall be conducted in a manner that will not

cause damage to the power company property and facilities. The blast area will be

backfilled or covered by blasting mats and/or other material as needed to protect nearby

existing facilities, structures, highways, railroads or significant natural resources from thrown

rock fragments.

4. Method to be Used to Minimize Hole-to-Hole Propagation

Hole-to-hole propagation problems are not anticipated with the proposed product and pattern

for the following reasons:

Only cartridged explosives will be used.

The amount of explosives per borehole will be limited by the proximity of existing structures

and utilities.

5. Types of Explosives / Initiation System to be Used

Dyno Nobel Unimax®

An extra gelatin dynamite with a specific gravity of 1.51 and a detonation rate of 19,600 feet

per second (unconfined). The cartridge size will generally be 2” x 8” (1.25 lbs/cartridge) or 2”

x 16” (2.50 lbs/cartridge).

Dyno Nobel Unigel®

A semi-gelatin dynamite with a specific gravity of 1.30 and a detonation rate of 14,200 feet

per second (unconfined). The cartridge size will generally be 2” x 8” (1.15 lbs/cartridge) or 2”

x 16” (2.30 lbs/cartridge).

Dyno Nobel D-Gel® 1000

A desensitized dynamite to be used in water blasting, if necessary, with a specific gravity of

1.36 and a detonation rate of 18,000 feet per second (unconfined). The cartridge size will

generally be 2” x 8” (1.25 lbs/cartridge) or 2” x 16” (2.50 lbs/cartridge).

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT BLASTING PLAN

January 2009

2

Dyno Nobel Dynomax ProTM

A propagation resistant dynamite, with a specific gravity of 1.45 and a detonation rate of

19,700 feet per second (unconfined). The cartridge size will generally be 2” x 8”

(1.225lbs/cartridge) or 2” x 16” (2.45lbs/cartridge).

Dyno Nobel NONEL®

17 or 25 Millisecond Delay Connectors or Dyno Nobel NONEL EZ Det® (nonelectric) 25/350

or 25/500 or 25/700 millisecond delay.

Special 40-Grain Dyno Nobel Detonating Cord

With a detonation velocity of approximately 23,000 feet per second will be used as down

hole and trunk lines.

Dyno Nobel NONEL Nonelectric Shock Tube System Detonator

This will initiate all shots. This NONEL will be attached at one point only for initiation of the

entire shot and will not be used for down hole priming.

6. Drill and Blast Pattern

The drilling program will be based on 2 rows of 2-1/2 inch diameter holes drilled with a grid

spacing of approximately 3 feet by 5 feet along the ditch line. The drill pattern will be

established using a powder factor of about 3.0-4.0 pounds per cubic yard to achieve the

desired explosive energy ratio needed to break the rock and pull the ditch. This shot pattern

may be adjusted on a site-specific basis to compensate for different geology, nearby

structures, utilities or other sensitive areas.

7. Charge Weight and Delays

Delays will be used accordingly to control the vibration as well as limiting the transmission of

energy below the damaging levels at any existing structure. The delay pattern will be

created to provide the energy relief immediately down the ditch in preference to a horizontal

direction. The main type of delays will be NONEL® MS-25, 17ms or 42ms which are colorcoded for easy identification of delay length. The amount of dynamite used in each hole will

be limited to the manufacturer’s recommendations and specifications. We will also use down

hole delays where they are needed to meet specifications on maximum pounds per delay

allowed.

8. Flyrock Control Plan

All shots will be carefully designed by the Licensed Blaster to control flyrock. All hole loading

activity will be supervised by the Licensed Blaster. The Licensed Blaster will communicate

with the drillers to obtain geological information for each shot. Matting and/or padding be

utilized at the discretion of the Licensed Blaster.

A good quality, non-bridging stemming material that completely fills any voids in the drill hole

will also be used to reduce the amount of flyrock. A minus 3/8” crushed rock will be used.

This stemming size has been a standard for U.S. Corps of Engineers for decades.

9. Selection of Blasting Products and Methods

All blasting products manufactured by Dyno Nobel Inc. represented by Ed Gallagher [(480)

861-2864)].

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT BLASTING PLAN

January 2009

3

These blasting products were chosen because of many years of dependable use and

positive results which are demonstrated by the:

 quality, safety and reliability of the product

 support offered by the manufacturer

 availability

 price and

 same product was used to conduct the pre-construction ground vibration calibration

tests.

A Dyno Nobel NONEL nonelectric detonator will initiate all shots. Ruby Pipeline, LLC has

chosen this completely nonelectric system (including initiation) for several important reasons:

Due to the proximity of the high voltage power lines, stray current may be an issue that could

result in the premature firing of an electric detonator.

The numerous radio equipped trucks belonging to all personnel (surveyors, inspectors and

other subcontractors) on the project mandate that all shots be totally nonelectric to eliminate

accidental detonation of electric caps. Furthermore, there may be other commercial and/or

non-commercial radio users in the area not associated with the project (logging operations,

quarry sites, etc.) who could compromise the safety of the blasting operations.

The Dyno Nobel NONEL nonelectric detonator shock tube system works instantaneously

(like electric blasting caps). This allows for precise and reliable initiation of shots in

congested areas, adjacent to highways or in other locations where blast initiation control is

an issue. Unlike electric blasting caps, the Dyno Nobel NONEL nonelectric detonator shock

tube system is unaffected by extraneous electric currents from known and/or unknown

sources.

10. Monitoring, Reporting and Controlling Ground Cracking and

Displacement

It is not expected that this type of rock will fracture in such a way as to cause any kind of

ground displacement. Following each blast, the area will be examined for signs of ground

cracking. Any indication of overbreak (cracks greater than half the distance to the existing

pipeline) will be brought to the attention of the blaster and noted on the blast report. The

shot pattern and/or loading will be adjusted to minimize or eliminate overbreak.

11. Explosives Storage and Transportation Procedures

Explosives storage and transportation will be outlined in the Safety Program and will follow

the guidelines from the WY, UT, NV, OR Code of Regulations and ATF-Explosives Law and

Regulations.

12. Peak Particle Velocity Monitoring and Control

Each blast will be monitored by a licensed blaster or other person experienced in monitoring

blasts using a seismograph machine. The seismograph will be placed at the “point of

interest”. In most cases, this will be next to the foundation of the closest building, power line

foundation, utility or well. In all cases, both the sensor and seismograph will be protected

from flyrock.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT BLASTING PLAN

January 2009

4

This recorder gives a direct peak particle velocity (PPV) reading that is indicated on a tape

as well as decibel reading to capture sound levels.

After each blast, a blast report will be compiled and the peak particle velocity at the point of

interest will be recorded.

The industry standard for many years has been 12 inches per second maximum PPV on any

underground structures. Ruby Pipeline, LLC expects peak particle velocities to be six inches

per second or lower on any underground structures and 1.5 inches per second or lower on

wells and above ground structures.

13. Fire Prevention

Following the required waiting period after each shot, the blast area will be inspected for any

indication of fire or fire hazard. Particular attention will be paid to the vegetated areas

outside of the right-of-way. Normally, the explosives vaporize at the instant of detonation

and there is no fiber or other material left to smolder or be a source of concern. Any plastic

shock tube from the initiation system that remains after the blast will be picked up for proper

disposal immediately after the blast.

The blasting operation will generally take place after the grading operation has graded the

right-of-way to bare mineral soil. The blaster shall ensure that the initiating detonator is

placed on bare mineral soil and that there is no vegetation within a 20-foot radius.

The initiating detonator will be a minimum of 650 feet from the nearest loaded hole.

When fire danger is high due to forest conditions, a two-man fire watch team will patrol each

blast area for a period of one hour after the required waiting period.

14. Environmental Concerns

All residents within 750 feet of the blast will be notified one day before the blast day. All

residents within 50 feet of the blasting operation shall be given five days notice to evacuate

their residence during the loading, and blasting and one hour following the blast. It is

expected that all evacuated personnel could return to their homes by 6:00 pm.

All necessary measures will be taken to exclude livestock from the blasting area. During the

normal safety check prior to blasting, the area will be checked for both livestock and wildlife.

The blast will not be initiated until the area is clear.

For major stream crossings, Ruby Pipeline, LLC shall comply with applicable Stream and

Wildlife Construction and Mitigation Procedures and site-specific requirements.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT BLASTING PLAN

January 2009

A-1

Appendix A Explosives Safety

Program

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT BLASTING PLAN

January 2009

A-2

1. Federal and State Regulation

Ruby Pipeline, LLC will follow all Federal and State regulations.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms – 27CFR 181 (Commerce in Explosives).

Occupational Safety and Health Administration – 29CFR 1926.90 (Safety and Health

Regulations for Construction Blasting and Use of Explosives).

Carriage by Public Highway – 49CFR 177 (self-explanatory).

Explosives and Blasting Agents – OSHA, 29CFR 1910.109 (Safety in the Workplace When

Using Explosives).

Guidelines to be Followed by Natural Gas Pipeline Companies in the Planning,

Locating, Clearing and Maintenance of Right-of-Way and the Construction of Above

Ground Facilities – 18CFR 2.69.

General Regulations

Only authorized and qualified personnel shall handle explosives and shall always be under

the direct supervision of a blaster licensed, if required, by the state of WY, UT, NV, OR.

No flame, heat, radio transmitter or spark-producing device shall be permitted in or near

explosives during handling, transport or use.

No person shall be allowed to handle, use or work in the area while under the influence of

liquor, narcotic or dangerous drugs.

Explosives shall be accounted for at all times. Explosives not in use shall be kept in locked,

approved storage magazines. A running inventory shall be maintained at all times.

Appropriate authorities shall be notified of any loss, theft or unauthorized entry into a

magazine.

No explosives shall be abandoned.

No fires shall be fought where contact with explosives is imminent. All personnel shall be

cleared and area guarded against other intruders.

Separate Class I and II magazines shall be used for transport of detonators and explosives

from magazine storage area to blast site. Magazines shall be kept locked except for

removal of material for use. In addition, explosives will be loaded directly to each shot point

from the magazines on approved ground transportation equipment.

When blasting in areas of congestion or in close proximity of other structures or services,

special precaution will be taken to avoid damage or personal injury.

Every reasonable precaution shall be used to notify others of use of explosives (visual,

audible, flags, barricades, etc.). No onlookers or unauthorized personnel will be permitted

within 1000 feet during loading or blasting. Flaggers shall be stationed on roadways that

pass through the danger zone to stop traffic during blasting operations.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT BLASTING PLAN

January 2009

A-3

All necessary precautions shall be taken to prevent accidental current discharge from any

possible source. The exclusive use of a nonelectric initiation system will eliminate this

possibility in nearly every situation with the possible exception of lightning strikes. A

lightning detector will be used in all loading and shooting operations.

Electrical storms

All blasting operations shall be suspended and all persons shall be removed from the

blasting areas during the approach and progress of an electrical storm. The following rules

must be followed:

A lightning detector should be used to monitor the proximity of lightning to the shot. When

the storm is 10 miles distant as identified by the lightning detector, notify all persons in the

blasting crew of approaching storm. Stop all loading of holes and evacuate all personnel,

except blaster and assistant, to a safe distance (1000 feet) from the blast area.

If the blast cannot be initiated before the storm arrives (within 10 miles as indicated by the

lightning detector), the blaster and assistant shall evacuate the site to a safe distance.

Personnel may return to worksite when the storm has passed and is 10 miles distant as

determined by the lightning detector or after the completion of blast which allows for

inspection of site and/or misfire.

Packing Material

Empty packing material shall not be used again for any purpose. It shall be burned at an

approved location. Typically, this will be in the excavated trench or other designated area.

Blasting Supplies

Damaged or deteriorated blasting supplies shall not be used.

Delivery and issue of explosives

Delivery and issue of explosives shall only be under, by and to authorized persons and into

authorized magazine or temporary storage handling areas.

Blasting Operations

Blasting operations shall not be carried out in the proximity of other utilities or property

owners without prior approval. “ONE CALL” notification requirements shall be followed.

Loading and Firing

 All loading and firing shall be directed and supervised by a competent and

experienced person.

 No loaded holes shall be left unattended or unprotected. No explosives or blasting

agents shall be abandoned on the right-of-way. Explosives shall not be primed until

immediately before use and shall not be allowed to lay overnight in drilled holes.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT BLASTING PLAN

January 2009

A-4

Jurisdictional Authorities

All jurisdictional authorities shall be granted unrestricted access to all explosive records as

well as site access for procedural inspections. All personnel not involved with the current

blasting operation must check in with the blaster before entering the blasting zone.

Warning Signs

Warning signs, indicating the blast area, shall be erected and maintained at all approaches

to the blast area. Warning sign lettering shall be a minimum of four inches in height on a

contrasting background. Warning signs shall comply with the requirements of the

jurisdictional authorities.

 The warning signs (4” lettering) will be erected and maintained at all approaches to

the blast area. Flaggers will be stationed on all roadways passing within 1,000 feet of

the blast area and be responsible to stop all traffic during blasting operations. All

personnel not involved in the actual blast shall stand back at least 1,000 feet and

workers involved in the actual blast shall stand back 650 feet from the time the blast

signal is given until the “All Clear” has been sounded. An audible blasting signal (air

horn or siren) shall be used. The following blast signals will be used during blasting.

o Warning Signal A one minute series of long horn or siren sounds will be

made 5 minutes prior to the blast.

o Blast Signal A serious of short horn or siren sounds will be made one

minute prior to the blast.

o All Clear Signal A prolonged horn or siren sound following the inspection

of the blast area.

Nonelectric Initiation System

All blasting will be performed with a nonelectric initiation system and shall follow standard

industry guidelines in regard to use and safety.

Blaster Qualifications

Blaster qualifications shall meet all federal, state and local standards.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT BLASTING PLAN

January 2009

A-5

Misfires

If there are any misfires, all employees shall remain away from the suspected misfire area

for at least 15 minutes. Misfires shall be handled under the direction of the person in charge

of the blasting. All leads shall be carefully traced and a search made for unexploded

charges.

 If a misfire is found, the blaster shall provide proper safeguards for excluding all

employees from the danger zone.

 No other work shall be done except that necessary to remove the hazard of the

misfire and only those employees necessary to do the work shall remain in the

danger zone.

 No attempt shall be made to extract explosives from any charged or misfired hole! A

new primer shall be inserted into the hole and the hole shall be reshot. If refiring of

the misfired hole presents a hazard, the explosives may be removed by washing out

with water or, where the misfire is underwater, blown out with air.

 No drilling, digging or picking shall be permitted until all missed holes have been

detonated or the authorized representative has approved that work can proceed.

 Prior to the end of the working day, any misfires shall be located and rendered safe.

Initiation

Initiation will be accomplished using a NONEL (nonelectric) shock tube detonator or

comparable product.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT BLASTING PLAN

January 2009

B-1

Appendix B

42 FRD Examples

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT BLASTING PLAN

January 2009

B-2

US Pipeline- Ruby Pipeline- For use 40' and further from existing lines

Example 1- 2.5' Advance- 2112 Holes/mile

Full Rock Ditch

42" Pipe

13.47 lbs/ delay

13.47 lbs/ hole 2.5" Diameter Hole 60"

#1-Drill Pattern Ditch Width

o o o o 72"

Ditch Centerline

o o o o

30"

Bore Hole Cross Section Top Of Rock

44" Stemming *****

3/8 Crushed *****

Rock *****

*****

Total Hole

Finished Depth

Ditch 132"

84"

88" 5.5 Sticks 2x16

Dynomax Pro

13.47 lbs Subdrill

48"

Timing

= 25 milliseconds The configuration below represents 1 hole per delay

o o o o

o o o o

Vibration Prediction is 3.50 in/sec ppv @ 40'

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT BLASTING PLAN

January 2009

B-3

US Pipeline- Ruby Pipeline- For use 25' and further from the existing line

Example 2 - 2' Advance- 2640 holes/mile

Full Rock Ditch

42" Pipe

6.125 lbs/ delay

11.02 lbs/ hole 2.5" Diameter Hole 48"

Hole Pattern Ditch Width

o o o o 72"

Ditch Centerline

Please note that the pattern has been o o o o

pulled in to maximize fragmentation

in the ditch, and minimize vibration.

24"

Bore Hole Cross Section Top Of Rock

40" Stemming *****

3/8 Crushed *****

Rock *****

*****

Total Hole

Finished Depth

32" 2 Sticks 2x16 Ditch 132"

Dynomax Pro ***** 84"

4.9 lbs *****

20" 3/8 Crushed *****

Rock

40"

2.5 Sticks 2x16 Subdrill

Dynomax Pro 48"

6.125 lbs

Timing

= 25 milliseconds The configuration below represents 1/2 hole per delay

o o o o

o o o o

Vibration Prediction is 3.95 in/sec ppv @ 25'

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT BLASTING PLAN

January 2009

B-4

US Pipeline- Ruby Pipeline- For use 10' -25' from an existing line

Example 3- Vibration Sensitive - 4' Advance- 3960 holes/mile

Full Rock Ditch

42" Pipe

2.45 lbs/ delay

7.35 lbs/ hole 2.5" Diameter Hole 48"

Hole Pattern o o o o Ditch Width

72"

Ditch Centerline o o o o

Please note that the pattern has been o o o o

pulled in to maximize fragmentation

in the ditch, and minimize vibration.

24"

Bore Hole Cross Section Top Of Rock

36" Stemming *****

3/8 Crushed *****

Rock *****

16" 1 Stick 2x16

Dynomax Pro

24" 3/8 Crushed Total Hole

Rock ***** Finished Depth

***** Ditch 132"

16" 1 Stick 2x16 ***** 84"

Dynomax Pro

*****

24" 3/8 Crushed ***** Subdrill

Rock ***** 48"

16" 1 Stick 2x16

Dynomax Pro

Timing

= 25 milliseconds The configuration below represents 1/3 hole per delay

o o

o o

o o

Vibration Prediction is 3.08 in/sec ppv @ 10'

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX M

 Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-1 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

WYOMING 

Lincoln 0.1 Trib. to Ham's Fork River Intermittent 1 Dry Crossing - - Yes Lincoln 0.5 Trib. to Ham's Fork River Intermittent 8 Dry Crossing 2AB - Yes 

Lincoln 0.7 Ditch Trib. to Ham's Fork River Intermittent 1 Dry Crossing 2AB - No 

Lincoln 0.8 Trib. to Ham's Fork River Intermittent 15 Dry Crossing 2AB - Yes (sensitive species) 

Lincoln 1.0 Hams Fork River Perennial 25 Open Cutb 2AB - Yes (sensitive species) 

Lincoln 1.1 

Hams Fork River - 

Abandoned Oxbow 

Channel 

Perennial 40 Dry Crossing 2AB - Yes (sensitive species) 

Lincoln 1.1 Hams Fork River Perennial 0.5 Open Cutb 2AB - Yes (sensitive species) 

Lincoln 1.1 

Hams Fork River - 

Abandoned Oxbow 

Channel 

Intermittent 6 Dry Crossing 2AB - Yes (sensitive species) 

Lincoln 1.4 Irrigation Canal Trib. to Ham's Fork River Intermittent 8 Dry Crossing 2AB - Yes (sensitive species) 

Lincoln 1.8 Trib. to Ham's Fork River Intermittent 1 Dry Crossing - - Yes 

Lincoln 1.8 Trib. to Ham's Fork River Intermittent 1 Dry Crossing - - Yes 

Lincoln 1.9 Trib. to Ham's Fork River Intermittent 1 Dry Crossing - - Yes 

Lincoln 2.5 Trib. to Ham's Fork River Ephemeral 0.5 Dry Crossing - - Yes 

Lincoln 2.5 Trib. to Ham's Fork River Ephemeral 0.5 Dry Crossing - - Yes Lincoln 2.7 Trib. to Ham's Fork River Ephemeral 0.5 Dry Crossing - - Yes Lincoln 2.8 Trib. to Dry Muddy Cr. Intermittent 2 Dry Crossing - - Yes 

Lincoln 3.2 Trib. to Dry Muddy Cr. Intermittent 1 Dry Crossing - - No 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-2 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Lincoln 3.7 Trib. to Dry Muddy Cr. Intermittent 1.3 Dry Crossing - - No Lincoln 6.0 Trib. to Dry Muddy Cr. Intermittent 1 Dry Crossing - - No 

Lincoln 6.0 Trib. to Dry Muddy Cr. Intermittent 0.5 Dry Crossing - - No 

Lincoln 6.0 Trib. to Dry Muddy Cr. Intermittent 0.5 Dry Crossing - - No 

Lincoln 6.1 Trib. to Dry Muddy Cr. Intermittent 0.5 Dry Crossing - - No 

Lincoln 6.5 Trib. to Dry Muddy Cr. Intermittent 1 Dry Crossing - - No 

Lincoln 6.6 Trib. to Dry Muddy Cr. Intermittent 3 Dry Crossing - - No 

Lincoln 6.6 Trib. to Dry Muddy Cr. Intermittent 1 Dry Crossing - - No 

Lincoln 6.7 Trib. to Dry Muddy Cr. Intermittent 1 Dry Crossing - - No 

Lincoln 6.8 Trib. to Dry Muddy Cr. Intermittent 2 Dry Crossing - - No 

Lincoln 8.0 Trib. to Dry Muddy Cr. Intermittent Dry Crossing 3B - Yes 

Lincoln 8.0 Trib. to Dry Muddy Cr. Intermittent Dry Crossing 3B - Yes 

Lincoln 8.8 Trib. to Dry Muddy Cr. Intermittent 15 Dry Crossing 3B - Yes (sensitive species) 

Lincoln 8.8 Dry Muddy Cr. Intermittent 1 Dry Crossing - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Lincoln 8.9 Trib. to Dry Muddy Cr. Ephemeral 2 Dry Crossing - - Yes 

Lincoln 9.7 Trib. to Dry Muddy Cr. Ephemeral 1 Dry Crossing - - Yes 

Lincoln 14.0 Trib. to Little Muddy Cr. Intermittent Dry Crossing 3B - Yes 

Lincoln 14.2 Potential Trib. to Little Muddy Cr. Intermittent 12 Dry Crossing 3B - No Lincoln 15.5 Trib. to Little Muddy Cr. Intermittent 2 Dry Crossing - - Yes 

Lincoln 16.0 Ditch Trib. to Little Muddy Cr. Intermittent Dry Crossing 3B - No Lincoln 17.3 Trib. to Little Muddy Cr. Intermittent 1.5 Dry Crossing - - Yes 

Lincoln 18.5 Trib. to Little Muddy Cr. Ephemeral 3 Dry Crossing - - Yes 

Lincoln 18.7 Trib. to Little Muddy Cr. Ephemeral 2 Dry Crossing - - Yes 

Lincoln 18.9 Trib. to Little Muddy Cr. Intermittent 2 Dry Crossing 3B - Yes 

Lincoln 18.9 Trib. to Little Muddy Cr. Ephemeral 1 Dry Crossing - - Yes 

Lincoln 19.0 Trib. to Little Muddy Cr. Ephemeral 2 Dry Crossing - - Yes 

Lincoln 19.2 Potential Trib. to Little Muddy Cr. Ephemeral 2 Dry Crossing - - Yes Lincoln 19.2 Potential Trib. to Little Muddy Cr. Ephemeral 2 Dry Crossing - - Yes 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-3 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Lincoln 19.5 Little Muddy Cr. Ephemeral 2 Dry Crossing - - Yes (sensitive species) Lincoln 19.8 Trib. to Little Muddy Cr. Perennial 12 Dry Crossing 3B - Yes (sensitive species) 

Lincoln 20.4 Little Muddy Cr. Perennial 12 Dry Crossing 3B - Yes (sensitive species) 

Uinta 23.0 Trib. to Little Muddy Cr. Intermittent Dry Crossing 3B - Yes 

Uinta 23.3 Trib. to Little Muddy Cr. Intermittent 1.3 Dry Crossing - - Yes 

Uinta 23.5 Trib. to Little Muddy Cr. Intermittent 2.5 Dry Crossing 3B - Yes 

Uinta 23.6 Trib. to Little Muddy Cr. Intermittent 1 Dry Crossing 3B - Yes 

Uinta 23.9 Trib. to Little Muddy Cr. Intermittent 5 Dry Crossing 3B - Yes (sensitive species) 

Uinta 24.5 Trib. to Little Muddy Cr. Intermittent 1 Dry Crossing - - Yes 

Uinta 24.5 Trib. to Little Muddy Cr. Intermittent 2 Dry Crossing - - Yes 

Uinta 24.6 Trib. to Little Muddy Cr. Intermittent 5 Dry Crossing - - Yes 

Uinta 24.7 Trib. to Little Muddy Cr. Intermittent 1 Dry Crossing - - Yes 

Uinta 24.8 Trib. to Little Muddy Cr. Intermittent 0.3 Dry Crossing - - Yes 

Uinta 24.9 Trib. to Little Muddy Cr. Intermittent 0.8 Dry Crossing 3B - Yes 

Uinta 24.9 Trib. to Little Muddy Cr. Intermittent 2 Dry Crossing - - Yes 

Uinta 25.1 Trib. to Little Muddy Cr. Intermittent 1 Dry Crossing - - Yes 

Uinta 25.4 Trib. to Little Muddy Cr. Intermittent 1.8 Dry Crossing - - Yes 

Uinta 26.6 Trib. to Ryckman Cr. Ephemeral 3 Dry Crossing - - Yes 

Uinta 26.9 Trib. to Ryckman Cr. Ephemeral 1.5 Dry Crossing - - Yes 

Uinta 27.2 Ryckman Cr. Perennial Dry Crossing 2C - Yes (sensitive species) 

Uinta 27.3 Trib. to Ryckman Cr. Ephemeral 8 Dry Crossing - - Yes 

Uinta 27.4 Trib. to Ryckman Cr. Ephemeral 1 Dry Crossing - - Yes 

Uinta 27.4 Trib. to Ryckman Cr. Ephemeral 8 Dry Crossing - - Yes 

Uinta 27.5 - 27.6 Ryckman Cr. Perennial 1 Dry Crossing 2C - Yes 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-4 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Uinta 27.6 - 28.0 Ryckman Cr. Perennial 1 Dry Crossing 2C - Yes Uinta 28.1 Hill Cr. Intermittent 1 Dry Crossing - - Yes 

Uinta 31 Trib. to Hill Cr. Intermittent Dry Crossing Unavailable - Yes 

Uinta 37.1 Sheep Cr. Intermittent 1.5 Dry Crossing 2C - Yes (sensitive species) 

Uinta 37.1 Trib. to Sheep Cr. Ephemeral 1 Dry Crossing - - Yes 

Uinta 37.2 Trib. to Sheep Cr. Ephemeral 1 Dry Crossing - - Yes 

Uinta 42.1 Trib. to Salt Cr. Ephemeral 1 Dry Crossing - - Yes 

Uinta 42.4 Trib. to Salt Cr. Intermittent 2 Dry Crossing - - Yes 

Uinta 42.9 Trib. to Salt Cr. Ephemeral 1 Dry Crossing - - Yes 

Uinta 44.1 Trib. to Alkali Cr. Ephemeral 2 Dry Crossing - - Yes 

Uinta 44.5 Alkali Cr. Ephemeral 4 Dry Crossing - - Yes 

Uinta 44.6 Trib. to Alkali Cr. Ephemeral 6 Dry Crossing - - Yes 

Uinta 45.1 Trib. to Salt Cr. Ephemeral 1.5 Dry Crossing - - Yes 

UTAH 

Rich 48.0 Trib. to Canal to Bear River Intermittent Open Cut - - Yes 

Rich 50.5 Canal to Bear River Intermittent Open Cut - - Yes Rich 51.1 Canal to Bear River Intermittent 4 Open Cut - - Yes 

Rich 51.5 Canal to Bear River Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - Yes 

Rich 51.7 Canal to Bear River Intermittent 4 Open Cut - - Yes 

Rich 51.8 Canal to Bear River Intermittent 4 Open Cut - - Yes 

Rich 52.6 Trib. to Bear River / Old river course Intermittent 25 Open Cut - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Rich 52.6 Thompson Canal Intermittent 20 Open Cutb - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Rich 52.9 Side Channel of Bear River Perennial 45 Open Cut - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-5 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Rich 52.9 Bear River Perennial 20 Open Cutb 2 Dissolved Oxygen (parameter of 

concern) 

Yes (sensitive 

species) 

Rich 53.0 Randolph Woodruff Canal Intermittent 4 Open Cutb - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Rich 53.3 Ditch to Bear River Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No Rich 53.8 Irrigation Ditch Trib. to Bear River Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Rich 54.3 Canal Trib. to Woodruff Cr. Intermittent 4 Open Cut - - Yes 

Rich 54.4 Ditch to Woodruff Cr. Intermittent 4 Open Cut - - No 

Rich 54.6 Saleratus Cr. Intermittent 4 Open Cut - - Yes Rich 54.7 Ditch to Saleratus Cr. Intermittent 4 Open Cut - - No 

Rich 54.7 Ditch to Saleratus Cr. Intermittent 4 Open Cut - - No 

Rich 55.0 Randolf-Woodruff Canal Intermittent 8 Open Cut - - Yes 

Rich 60.0 Trib. to Woodruff Cr. Ephemeral 8 Open Cut - - Yes Rich 60.6 Trib. to Woodruff Cr. Ephemeral 5 Open Cut - - Yes 

Rich 60.8 Woodruff Cr. Perennial 15 Dry Crossingb 2 Not assessed Yes (sensitive species) 

Rich 61.4 Trib. to Woodruff Cr. Ephemeral 4 Open Cut - - Yes Rich 62.1 Trib. to Woodruff Cr. Ephemeral 3 Open Cut - - Yes Rich 72.0 Trib. to Woodruff Creak Intermittent Open Cut - - Yes 

Cache 77.9 East Fork Little Bear River Perennial 4 Open Cutb 2 - Yes (sensitive species) 

Cache 78.8 Trib. to East Fork Little Bear River Intermittent 4 Open Cut - - Yes 

Cache 79.5 East Fork Little Bear River Perennial 1 Open Cut 2 - Yes (sensitive species) 

Cache 81.5 Trib. to East Fork Little Bear River Perennial 3 Open Cut 2 Not assessed Yes 

Cache 82.2 Trib. to East Fork Little Bear River Ephemeral Open Cut - - Yes 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-6 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Cache 84.3 Trib. to Mill Cr. Ephemeral Open Cut - - Yes Cache 92.1 Canal Trib. to East Fork Little Bear River Intermittent Open Cut - - Yes 

Cache 92.3 Seep to East Fork Little Bear River Intermittent Open Cut - - Yes 

Cache 92.7 East Fork Little Bear River Perennial 18 Open Cut 2 - Yes (sensitive species) 

Cache 93.6 Trib. to East Fork Little Bear River Perennial 4 Open Cut 2 - Yes (sensitive species) Cache 94.4 - 94.5 Trib. to South Fork Little Bear River Ephemeral Open Cut - - Yes Cache 94.7 Trib. to South Fork Little Bear River Ephemeral Open Cut - - Yes 

Cache 94.8 Trib. to South Fork Little Bear River Ephemeral Open Cut - - Yes 

Cache 94.8 South Fork Little Bear River Perennial 3 Open Cut 2 - Yes (sensitive species) Cache 94.9 Little Bear River Perennial 25 Dry Crossingb 2 - Yes (sensitive species) 

Cache 96.2 Trib. to Spring Branch Perennial 1 Open Cut 2 - Yes 

Cache 96.6 Spring Branch Perennial 5 Open Cut 2 - Yes (sensitive species) 

Cache 97.9 Trib. to Spring Branch Intermittent 1 Open Cut 2 - Yes 

Cache 97.9 Trib. to Spring Branch Perennial 2 Open Cut - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Cache 98.5 Spring Branch Trib. Intermittent 1 Open Cut 2 - Yes 

Cache 98.5 Trib. to Spring Branch Perennial 2 Open Cut - - Yes 

Cache 98.6 Spring Branch Trib. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - Yes 

Cache 98.6 Trib. to Spring Branch Perennial 2 Open Cut 2 Not assessed Yes 

Cache 98.9 West Fork Little Bear River Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Cache 100.0 Trib. to West Fork Little Bear River Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Cache 100.4 Stock Pond Intermittent Open Cut - - Yes 

Cache 100.5 Trib. to West Fork Little Bear River Intermittent Open Cut - - Yes 

Box Elder 105.7 Canal to Bear River/North Bay Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - Yes 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-7 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Box Elder 108.3 Canal to North Lake Intermittent Open Cut - - Yes Box Elder 109.0 North Spring Irrigation Ditch Perennial Open Cut 3 Not assessed Yes 

Box Elder 110.9 North Lake Irrigation Canal Intermittent 14 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 112.5 Irrigation Ditch Trib. to Bear River Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 112.6 Irrigation Ditch Trib. to Bear River Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 112.8 Irrigation Ditch Trib. to Bear River Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 112.8 Irrigation Ditch Trib. to Bear River Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 112.8 Irrigation Ditch Trib. to Bear River Intermittent Open Cut - - Yes 

Box Elder 113.1 Canal to Bear River marsh Intermittent 8 Open Cut - - Yes Box Elder 113.1 Canal to Bear River marsh Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - Yes Box Elder 113.2 Canal to Bear River marsh Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - Yes Box Elder 113.4 Canal to Bear River marsh Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - Yes Box Elder 113.5 Canal to Bear River marsh Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - Yes Box Elder 113.7 Bear River Perennial 220 Open Cutb 4A Total Phosphorus (parameter of 

concern) 

No 

Box Elder 114.1 Irrigation Ditch Trib. to Bear River Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 114.4 Irrigation Ditch Trib. to Bear River Intermittent Open Cut - - No Box Elder 114.5 Irrigation Ditch Trib. to Bear River Intermittent Open Cut - - No Box Elder 114.5 Irrigation Ditch Trib. to Bear River Intermittent Open Cut - - No Box Elder 115.0 Ditch Trib. to Bear River Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 115.3 Ditch Trib. to Bear River Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - Yes 

Box Elder 115.3 Canal to Bear River Intermittent 5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 115.5 Ditch Trib. to Bear River Intermittent 5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 115.5 Ditch Trib. to Bear River Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 115.9 Ditch Trib. to Bear River Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 115.9 Ditch Trib. to Bear River Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 116.0 Ditch Trib. to Bear River Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-8 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Box Elder 116.1 Ditch Trib. to Bear River Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 116.3 Ditch Trib. to Bear River Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 116.6 Ditch Trib. to Bear River Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 116.7 Ditch Trib. to Bear River Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 117.1 Ditch to Corinne Canal Perennial 4 Open Cut 3 Not assessed No 

Box Elder 117.3 Irrigation Ditch Trib. to Bear River Perennial 4 Open Cut 3 Not assessed No 

Box Elder 117.3 Irrigation Ditch Trib. to Bear River Perennial 2 Open Cut 3 Not assessed No 

Box Elder 117.6 Irrigation Ditch Trib. to Bear River Perennial 1 Open Cut 3 Not assessed No 

Box Elder 117.8 Irrigation Ditch Trib. to Bear River Perennial 2 Open Cut 3 Not assessed Yes 

Box Elder 118.1 

Corinne Canal Trib. to 

Homestead Bay - Bear 

River 

Perennial 2 Open Cut 3 Not assessed Yes 

Box Elder 118.1 

Corinne Canal Trib. to 

Homestead Bay - Bear 

River 

Perennial 15 Open Cut 3 Not assessed No 

Box Elder 118.3 

Irrigation Ditch Near 

Corinne Canal - Bear 

River 

Perennial 1 Open Cut 3 Not assessed Yes 

Box Elder 118.6 Iowa Spring Canal Trib. to Sulphur Cr. Perennial Open Cut 3 Not assessed Yes 

Box Elder 118.6 Central Canal Trib. to Sulphur Cr. Perennial 2 Open Cut 3 Not assessed No 

Box Elder 118.9 

Irrigation Ditch to 

Central Canal - Sulphur 

Cr. 

Perennial Open Cut 3 Not assessed Yes 

Box Elder 119.1 Trib. to Sulphur Cr.. Perennial 2 Open Cut 3 Not assessed Yes 

Box Elder 120.0 Sulphur Cr. Perennial Open Cut 3 Not assessed No Box Elder 120.9 Ditch to Sulphur Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 124.2 Trib. of East Crocker Lake Intermittent Open Cut - - Yes 

Box Elder 124.4 Trib. to Salt Cr. Marsh Perennial 12 Open Cut 3 Not assessed Yes 

Box Elder 124.8 Salt Cr. Marsh Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - Yes 

Box Elder 125.0 Salt Cr. Marsh Perennial 12 Open Cut 3 Not assessed Yes 

Box Elder 125.2 Salt Cr. Marsh Perennial 6.5 Open Cut 3 Not assessed Yes 

Box Elder 125.5 Salt Cr. Marsh Perennial Open Cut 3 Not assessed Yes 

Box Elder 126.2 Peterson Pond Perennial Open Cut - - Yes 

Box Elder 126.4 Salt Cr. Marsh Intermittent 15 Open Cut - - No 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-9 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Box Elder 127.0 Irrigation Ditch to Salt Cr. Marsh Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - Yes Box Elder 127.2 Irrigation Canal to Salt Cr. Marsh Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - Yes 

Box Elder 127.3 Irrigation Canal to Salt Cr. Marsh Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - Yes 

Box Elder 127.5 Trib. to Salt Cr. Marsh Perennial 3 Open Cut 3 Not assessed Yes 

Box Elder 127.6 Trib. to Salt Cr. Marsh Perennial 15 Open Cut 3 Not assessed No 

Box Elder 127.8 Canal to Salt Cr. Marsh Intermittent Open Cut - - No Box Elder 131.2 Trib. to Blue Cr. (Faust Valley) Intermittent 4 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 133.5 Trib. to Blue Cr. (Faust Valley) Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 134.7 Trib. to Blue Cr. (Faust Valley) Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - Yes Box Elder 137.0 Blue Cr. (Faust Valley) Intermittent 7 Open Cut - - Yes 

Box Elder 137.0 Trib. to Blue Cr. (Faust Valley) Intermittent Open Cut - - Yes 

Box Elder 137.0 Small Drainage Trib. to Blue Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 137.8 Trib. to Blue Cr. Intermittent 4 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 137.8 Trib. to Blue Cr. Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 139.4 Trib. to Blue Cr. Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 143.8 Discontig.Trib. (Big Valley/Rozel Fl) Ephemeral 18 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 143.9 Discontig.Trib. (Big Valley/Rozel Fl) Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 143.9 Discontig.Trib. (Big Valley/Rozel Fl) Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 144.0 Discontig.Trib. (Big Valley/Rozel Fl) Ephemeral 5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 144.2 Discontig.Trib. (Big Valley/Rozel Fl Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 144.2 Discontig.Trib. (Big Valley/Rozel Fl) Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 144.3 Discontig.Trib. (Big Valley/Rozel Fl) Intermittent 1.5 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 146.1 Discontig.Trib. (Big Valley/Rozel Fl Intermittent 4 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 146.1 Discontig.Trib. (Big Valley/Rozel Fl Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 146.6 Discontig.Trib. (Big Valley/Rozel Fl Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 146.7 Discontig.Trib. (Big Valley/Rozel Fl Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-10 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Box Elder 148.0 Trib. to Salt Wells (Hills) Flat Marsh Intermittent Open Cut - - No Box Elder 148.9 Trib. to Salt Wells (Hills) Flat Marsh Ephemeral 4 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 149.7 Trib. to Salt Wells (Hills) Flat Marsh Intermittent 25 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 149.8 Trib. to Salt Wells (Hills) Flat Marsh Ephemeral 15 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 150.0 Trib. to Salt Wells (Hills) Flat Marsh Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 151.1 Playa - Hansel Valley Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 152.9 Trib. to Salt Wells (Hills) Flat Marsh Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 154.5 Trib. to Salt Wells [Hills] Flat Marsh Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 154.6 Trib. to Salt Wells (Hills) Flat Marsh Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 158.3 Discontig.Swale Intermittent Open Cut - - No Box Elder 158.4 Discontig.Swale Intermittent Open Cut - - No Box Elder 161.3 Small Ditch Intermittent Open Cut - - No Box Elder 161.3 Small Ditch Intermittent Open Cut - - No Box Elder 161.8 Drainage to Great Salt Lake Marsh Ephemeral Open Cut - - Yes 

Box Elder 162.2 Marsh (West Lake/ East Lake-Great Salt Lake) Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - Yes 

Box Elder 163.0 Marsh (West Lake/ East Lake-Great Salt Lake) Intermittent Open Cut - - Yes 

Box Elder 164.0 Marsh (West Lake/ East Lake-Great Salt Lake) Intermittent Open Cut - - Yes 

Box Elder 165.3 Marsh (West Lake/ East Lake-Great Salt Lake) Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 166.0 Deep Cr. Intermittent 8 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 167.0 Trib. to Great Salt Lake Marsh Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 167.0 - 174.0 Playa of Great Salt Lake Marsh Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 168.8 Trib. to Great Salt Lake Marsh Intermittent 6 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 171.0 Great Salt Lake Marsh Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 171.3 Trib. to Great Salt Lake Marsh Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 171.4 Trib. to Great Salt Lake Marsh Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 174.0 Trib. to Great Salt Lake Marsh Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-11 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Box Elder 174.7 Trib. to Great Salt Lake Marsh Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - Yes Box Elder 175.0 Trib. to Great Salt Lake Marsh Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - Yes 

Box Elder 175.2 Trib. to Great Salt Lake Marsh Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - Yes 

Box Elder 175.2 Trib. to Great Salt Lake Marsh Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 176.1 Trib. to Great Salt Lake Marsh Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 176.2 Trib. to Great Salt Lake Marsh Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 176.2 Trib. to Great Salt Lake Marsh Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 176.2 Trib. to Great Salt Lake Marsh Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 176.4 Trib. to Great Salt Lake Marsh Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 176.4 Trib. to Great Salt Lake Marsh Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 176.5 Trib. to Great Salt Lake Marsh Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 176.6 Trib. to Great Salt Lake Marsh Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 176.7 Trib. to Great Salt Lake Marsh Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 176.8 Trib. to Great Salt Lake Marsh Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 176.8 Trib. to Great Salt Lake Marsh Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 177.5 Trib. to Great Salt Lake Marsh Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 177.8 Trib. to Great Salt Lake Marsh Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 177.8 Trib. to Great Salt Lake Marsh Intermittent 7 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 178.7 Trib. to Great Salt Lake Marsh Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 178.9 Trib. to Great Salt Lake Marsh Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 179.6 Trib. to Great Salt Lake Marsh Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 179.7 Trib. to Great Salt Lake Marsh Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 179.8 Trib. to Great Salt Lake Marsh Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 179.9 Trib. to Great Salt Lake Marsh Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 179.9 Trib. to Great Salt Lake Marsh Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-12 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Box Elder 180.0 Trib. to Great Salt Lake Marsh Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 180.9 Trib. to Peplin Flats - Great Salt Lake Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 181.0 Trib. to Peplin Flats - Great Salt Lake Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 181.0 Trib. to Peplin Flats - Great Salt Lake Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 181.1 Trib. to Peplin Flats - Great Salt Lake Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 181.4 Trib. to Peplin Flats - Great Salt Lake Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 181.4 Trib. to Peplin Flats - Great Salt Lake Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 181.5 Trib. to Peplin Flats - Great Salt Lake Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 181.9 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.5 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 182.0 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.5 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 182.1 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.8 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 182.1 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.6 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 182.2 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1.5 Open Cut - - Yes Box Elder 182.2 Trib. to Dove Cr. Perennial 0.5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 182.3 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut 3 Not assessed No 

Box Elder 182.3 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.5 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 182.3 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.8 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 182.4 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.8 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 182.6 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.5 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 182.6 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.5 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 182.8 Potential Trib. to Dove Cr. Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 182.9 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1.5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 183.0 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 183.0 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 183.1 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.8 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 183.3 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.6 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 183.4 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.6 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 183.4 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 5.5 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 183.5 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-13 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Box Elder 183.5 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.6 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 183.7 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 183.8 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 2.5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 183.9 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.8 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 183.9 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.6 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 184.4 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.3 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 184.4 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.3 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 184.4 Potential Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 184.4 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 184.5 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 184.6 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 184.6 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 184.7 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 5 Open Cut - - Yes 

Box Elder 184.8 Dove Cr. Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 185.0 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 185.2 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 185.3 Potential Trib. to Dove Cr. Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 185.8 Potential Trib. to Dove Cr. Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 185.9 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 6 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 185.9 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No Box Elder 186.0 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 186.2 - 186.3 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 186.4 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.8 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 186.4 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.8 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 186.5 Discontig.Drainage towards Dove Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 186.5 Drainage towards Dove Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 186.7 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.8 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 186.8 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.5 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 186.9 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 187.0 Discontig.Drainage towards Dove Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-14 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Box Elder 187.0 Drainage Towards Dove Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No Box Elder 187.1 Drainage Towards Dove Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 187.1 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1.5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 187.7 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 187.8 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 187.9 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 187.9 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 188.0 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.8 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 188.0 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 188.1 Drainage Towards Dove Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 188.2 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 188.2 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.6 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 188.2 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.6 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 188.3 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 188.3 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.6 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 188.3 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.8 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 188.4 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.8 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 188.4 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 188.4 Drainage Towards Dove Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 188.4 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 188.4 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 188.4 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.5 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 188.5 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.5 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 188.5 Drainage Towards Dove Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 188.5 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 188.5 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 188.6 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.3 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 188.6 Drainage Towards Dove Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 188.6 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.8 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 188.7 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.5 Open Cut - - No 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-15 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Box Elder 188.7 Drainage Towards Dove Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No Box Elder 188.7 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 188.7 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.6 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 188.9 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.3 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 188.9 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.8 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 189.0 Trib. to Dove Cr. Ephemeral 0.8 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 189.1 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 189.1 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 189.1 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 189.2 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1.3 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 189.2 Drainage Towards Dove Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 189.2 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.3 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 189.2 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 189.3 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.6 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 189.3 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1.5 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 189.3 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1.5 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 189.4 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 189.4 Drainage Towards Dove Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 189.4 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 189.7 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.5 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 189.8 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.5 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 189.8 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 189.9 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 190.0 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 0.8 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 190.1 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 190.2 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1.5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 190.2 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 190.3 Drainage Towards Dove Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 190.5 Trib. to Dove Cr. Ephemeral 1.5 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 190.6 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 190.6 Drainage Towards Dove Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-16 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Cr. 

Box Elder 190.7 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 190.7 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 190.7 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 190.7 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 190.8 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1.5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 191.0 Trib. to Dove Cr. Perennial 1 Open Cut 3 Not assessed No 

Box Elder 191.0 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 191.0 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1.5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 191.0 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 191.3 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 9 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 191.5 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1.5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 191.7 Drainage Towards Dove Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 192.2 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 192.3 Trib. to Dove Cr. Perennial 1.5 Open Cut 3 Not assessed No 

Box Elder 192.3 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 192.4 Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 193.4 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Ephemeral 3 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 193.5 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Ephemeral 1.5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 194.2 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 194.3 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 3.5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 194.3 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 194.3 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 196 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 196 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 200.4 Headwaters Muddy Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 200.5 Headwaters Muddy Cr. Intermittent 6 Open Cut - - Yes 

Box Elder 200.6 Muddy Cr. Intermittent 8 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 201.7 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-17 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Box Elder 201.8 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent Open Cut - - No Box Elder 202.1 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 202.8 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 203.0 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 203.1 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 203.2 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 203.4 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 203.5 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 203.5 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 203.6 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 203.6 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 203.6 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 203.6 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 203.8 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 204.0 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Ephemeral 3 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 205.0 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 205.0 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 205.0 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 205.0 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 205.0 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 205.0 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Ephemeral 5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 205.0 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 205.4 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 205.4 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 205.5 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-18 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Box Elder 205.5 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 206.2 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 206.9 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 208.0 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 208.1 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 208.8 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 209.9 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 210.3 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Ephemeral 3 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 210.8 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 211.0 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Ephemeral 3 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 211.1 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 211.4 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 211.7 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 211.9 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 212.0 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 212.2 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 212.3 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Ephemeral 3 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 212.4 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 212.4 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 212.8 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 0.5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 213.1 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 213.2 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 0.5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 213.4 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 213.6 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 213.7 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-19 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Box Elder 213.8 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 0.5 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 213.8 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 214.0 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 4 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 214.1 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 214.4 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 214.5 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 0.5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 214.6 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 214.7 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 1.5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 214.9 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 8 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 214.9 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 215.0 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 215.1 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 215.2 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 215.6 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 215.7 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 2.5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 215.7 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 215.8 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 0.5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 215.9 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 215.9 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 2.2 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 216.1 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 9 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 216.5 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 218.2 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 218.3 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 0.5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 218.4 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 218.4 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-20 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Box Elder 218.5 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 218.5 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 218.6 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 218.6 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 2.5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 218.7 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 218.7 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 218.7 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 218.8 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 218.9 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 1.5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 218.9 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 1.5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 219.0 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 1.5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 219.0 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 1.5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 219.0 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 1.5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 219.0 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 1.5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 219.0 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 1.5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 219.1 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 219.1 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 1.5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 219.2 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 219.3 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 219.4 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 219.4 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 219.6 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 219.6 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 219.7 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 219.8 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-21 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Box Elder 219.9 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 220.0 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 220.1 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 220.2 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 220.2 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 220.3 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 220.7 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 221.0 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent 4 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 221.6 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 221.9 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 221.9 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 223.5 Discontiguous Cr. (Great Salt Lake Desert) Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 223.6 Trib. to Grouse Cr. Intermittent 6 Open Cut - - Yes 

Box Elder 224.2 Grouse Cr. Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 224.9 Trib. to Grouse Cr. Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 224.9 Trib. to Grouse Cr. Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 224.9 Trib. to Grouse Cr. Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No Box Elder 226.9 Trib. to Grouse Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No Box Elder 227.4 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 227.8 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 227.9 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 228.1 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 228.2 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Intermittent 5 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 228.5 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 228.7 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Box Elder 229.1 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-22 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Box Elder 230.4 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

NEVADA 

Elko 234.3 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Intermittent 4 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 234.5 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Elko 234.9 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Intermittent 7 Open Cut - - No Elko 235.3 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No Elko 236.2 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Elko 236.4 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Intermittent 5 Open Cut - - No Elko 236.4 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Elko 236.7 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Elko 236.7 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Elko 236.7 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Elko 236.7 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Intermittent 6 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 237.9 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 238.4 Trib. to Crittenden Cr. Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 238.4 Trib. to Crittenden Cr. Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 238.5 Trib. to Crittenden Cr. Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 238.5 Trib. to Crittenden Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Elko 238.5 Trib. to Crittenden Cr. Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 238.6 Trib. to Crittenden Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Elko 239.1 Trib. to Crittenden Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Elko 239.3 Thousand Springs Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - Yes Elko 239.5 Thousand Springs Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - Yes Elko 241.0 Thousand Springs Cr. Intermittent 6 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 241.2 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 242.1 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 242.1 Trib. to Thousand Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-23 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Springs Cr. 

Elko 242.2 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Ephemeral 3 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 243.0 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Elko 243.6 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 244.4 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Ephemeral 3 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 244.7 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 246.2 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Ephemeral 1.5 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 246.4 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Elko 246.5 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 247.3 Trib. to Twentyone Mile Draw Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Elko 247.6 Trib. to Twentyone Mile Draw Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 248.6 Trib. to Twentyone Mile Draw Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 248.7 Side Channel of Trib. to Twentyone Mile Draw Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Elko 249.4 Potential Trib. to Twentyone Mile Draw Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Elko 249.6 Trib. to Twentyone Mile Draw Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 249.9 Trib. to Twentyone Mile Draw Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 250.0 Trib. to Twentyone Mile Draw Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 250.5 Twentyone Mile Draw Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 250.8 Trib. to Twentyone Mile Draw Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 253.6 

Discontig.Cr. 

(Twentyone Mile Draw 

Val 

Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 254.1 Discontig.Drainage (Fivemile Draw) Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Elko 255.3 Discontig.Cr. (Fivemile Draw) Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 255.7 Discontig.Cr. (Fivemile Draw) Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No Elko 255.8 Discontig.Cr. (Fivemile Draw) Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Elko 256.9 Discontig.Cr. (Fivemile Draw) Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-24 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Elko 256.9 Discontig.Cr. (Fivemile Draw) Ephemeral Open Cut - - No Elko 257.7 Trib. of Fivemile Draw Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Elko 258.0 Trib. of Fivemile Draw Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Elko 261.4 Potential Trib. to Toano Draw Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Elko 261.5 Trib. to Toano Draw Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No Elko 261.6 Trib. to Toano Draw Perennial 1.5 Open Cut - - Yes 

Elko 261.7 Toano Draw Intermittent 4 Open Cut - - Yes Elko 262.0 Trib. to Toano Draw Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Elko 262.4 Trib. to Toano Draw Ephemeral 1.5 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 263.8 Trib. to Toano Draw Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Elko 264.9 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Elko 265.2 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Elko 267.1 Trib. to Brush Cr. Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 267.8 Trib. to Brush Cr. Ephemeral 16 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 273.7 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Elko 273.9 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No Elko 274.9 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Intermittent 2.5 Open Cut - - No Elko 275.0 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Intermittent 1.5 Open Cut - - No Elko 275.0 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Intermittent 1.5 Open Cut - - No Elko 275.2 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Intermittent 1.5 Open Cut - - No Elko 275.3 Trib. to Thousand Springs Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No Elko 275.7 Thousand Spring Cr. Perennial 6 Open Cut - - Yes Elko 275.7 Thousand Spring Cr. Perennial 3 Open Cut - - Yes Elko 275.7 Thousand Spring Cr. Perennial Open Cut - - Yes 

Elko 280.2 Pole Cr. Perennial 5 Open Cut - - Yes Elko 280.7 Trib. to Pole Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 280.8 Trib. to Pole Cr. Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No Elko 280.8 Trib. to Pole Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No Elko 280.9 Trib. to Pole Cr. Perennial 1 Open Cut - - Yes 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-25 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Elko 282.0 Trib. to Pole Cr. Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No Elko 284.3 Burnt Cr. Perennial 2 Open Cut - - Yes Elko 284.4 Trib. to Burnt Cr. Intermittent 1.5 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 284.6 Trib. to Burnt Cr. Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 284.8 Trib. to Burnt Cr. Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Elko 285.0 Trib. to Burnt Cr. Intermittent 4 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 285.3 Trib. to Burnt Cr. Intermittent 5 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 285.4 Trib. to Burnt Cr. Intermittent 3.5 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 285.6 Trib. to Burnt Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 285.9 Trib. to Burnt Cr. Ephemeral 4 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 285.9 Trib. to Burnt Cr. Intermittent 4 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 287.0 Trib. to Burnt Cr. Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 288.8 Discontig.Cr. (Tabor Cr. Valley) Intermittent 1.5 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 288.8 Discontig.Cr. (Tabor Cr. Valley) Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 291.7 

Discontig.Drainage 

Towards Tabor Cr. 

Valley 

Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Elko 291.9 Ditch (Tabor Cr. Valley) Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Elko 293.1 Discontig.Drainage towards Tabor Cr. Valley Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Elko 293.8 

Discontig.Wash 

Towards Tabor Cr. 

Valley 

Ephemeral 0.5 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 294.8 Discontig.Cr. (Tabor Cr. Valley) Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 294.9 Discontig.Cr. (Tabor Cr. Valley) Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 295.4 Trib. to Tabor Cr. Ephemeral 3 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 295.6 Trib. to Tabor Cr. Intermittent 8 Open Cut 1 - No Elko 295.7 Tabor Cr. Intermittent 2.5 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 295.7 Drainage to Tabor Cr. Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 295.9 Drainage to Tabor Cr. Intermittent 6 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 295.9 Drainage to Tabor Cr. Ephemeral 5 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 296.0 Irrigation Ditch to Tabor Cr. Ephemeral 1.5 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 299.6 Trib. to Marys River Intermittent 5 Dry Crossing - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-26 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Elko 300.0 Marys River Perennial 20 Dry Crossing 5 

Dissolved 

Oxygen, Total 

Phosphorus, 

Temperature 

Yes (sensitive 

species) 

Elko 301.0 Drainage to Hot Springs Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Elko 301.2 Trib. to Hot Springs Cr. Perennial 2.5 Open Cut - - Yes Elko 301.9 Hot Springs Cr. Perennial 2.5 Open Cut - - Yes Elko 301.9 Trib. to Hot Springs Cr. Perennial Open Cut - - Yes 

Elko 301.9 Hot Springs Cr. Perennial 2.5 Open Cut - - Yes Elko 302.7 Trib. to Hot Springs Cr. Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 302.8 Trib. to Hot Springs Cr. Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 302.8 Trib. to Hot Springs Cr. Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 302.8 Trib. to Hot Springs Cr. Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 304.9 Trib. to Pole Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 305.7 Trib. to Pole Cr. Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 306.0 Trib. to Pole Cr. Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 308.2 Pole Cr. Ephemeral 4 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 308.3 Trib. to Pole Cr. Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 308.8 Trib. to Pole Cr. Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 311.0 Trib. to North Fork Humboldt River Ephemeral 5 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 311.6 Drainage to North Fork Humboldt River Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Elko 311.8 Trib. to North Fork Humboldt River Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 312.5 Trib. to North Fork Humboldt River Intermittent Open Cut - - No Elko 312.6 Trib. to North Fork Humboldt River Ephemeral Open Cut - - No Elko 312.7 Trib. to North Fork Humboldt River Ephemeral 4 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 313.3 Trib. to North Fork Humboldt River Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No Elko 314.5 Trib. to North Fork Humboldt River Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Elko 314.6 Trib. to Indian Cr. Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 314.6 Trib. to Indian Cr. Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Elko 315.1 Trib. to Indian Cr. Intermittent 1.5 Open Cut - - No Elko 315.1 Trib. to Indian Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-27 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Elko 315.1 Trib. to Indian Cr. Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No Elko 315.1 Indian Cr. Intermittent 8 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 315.1 Indian Cr. Perennial 4.5 Open Cut 5 Total Phosphorus Yes 

Elko 315.2 Trib. to Indian Cr. Intermittent 6 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 315.2 Trib. to Indian Cr. Intermittent 5 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 315.4 Trib. to Indian Cr. Intermittent 2.5 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 315.6 Trib. to Indian Cr. Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 315.6 Trib. to Indian Cr. Ephemeral 3 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 316.3 North Fork Humboldt River Perennial 35 Open Cut 5 Total Phosphorus, Total Dissolved Solids Yes 

Elko 316.4 Trib. to North Fork Humboldt River Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 316.4 Trib. to North Fork Humboldt River Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No Elko 317.7 Trib. to North Fork Humboldt River Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No Elko 317.7 Trib. to North Fork Humboldt River Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No Elko 318.0 Trib. to North Fork Humboldt River Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 318.0 Trib. to North Fork Humboldt River Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No Elko 319.0 Trib. to North Fork Humboldt River Ephemeral 3 Open Cut - - No Elko 320.2 Trib. to North Fork Humboldt River Ephemeral 4 Open Cut - - No Elko 320.7 Trib. to North Fork Humboldt River Ephemeral 4 Open Cut - - No Elko 321.0 Trib. to North Fork Humboldt River Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No Elko 321.4 Trib. to North Fork Humboldt River Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No Elko 322.0 Trib. to North Fork Humboldt River Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No Elko 322.7 Trib. to North Fork Humboldt River Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No Elko 323.4 Trib. to Pie Cr. Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - Yes 

Elko 323.4 Trib. to Pie Cr. Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - Yes 

Elko 323.5 Trib. to Pie Cr. Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - Yes 

Elko 323.8 Trib. to Pie Cr. Ephemeral 3 Open Cut - - Yes 

Elko 324.3 Trib. to Pie Cr. Ephemeral 3 Open Cut - - Yes 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-28 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Elko 324.8 Trib. to Pie Cr. Ephemeral 3 Open Cut - - Yes Elko 325.0 Trib. to Pie Cr. Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - Yes 

Elko 325.8 Trib. to Pie Cr. Ephemeral 3 Open Cut - - Yes 

Elko 325.8 Trib. to Pie Cr. Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - Yes 

Elko 327.2 Badger Cr. Intermittent 16 Dry Crossing - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Elko 327.7 Pie Cr. Perennial 21 Dry Crossing 3 - Yes (sensitive species) 

Elko 327.9 Trib. to Pie Cr. Ephemeral 12 Open Cut - - Yes 

Elko 328.7 Trib. to Gance Cr. Ephemeral 3 Dry Crossing - - Yes Elko 329.1 Trib. to Gance Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Elko 329.2 Gance Cr. Perennial 12 Dry Crossing - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Elko 329.3 Gance Cr. Perennial 12 Dry Crossing - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Elko 331.4 Trib. to Pie Cr. Intermittent 6 Open Cut - - Yes 

Elko 331.4 Trib. to Pie Cr. Intermittent 4 Open Cut - - Yes 

Elko 332.6 Trib. to Spring Branch Cr. Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - Yes 

Elko 332.7 Trib. to Spring Branch Cr. Ephemeral 3 Open Cut - - Yes 

Elko 333.0 Trib. to Spring Branch Cr. Ephemeral 3 Open Cut - - Yes 

Elko 333.0 Spring Branch Cr. Intermittent 15 Open Cut - - Yes Elko 333.4 Trib. to Pie Cr. Intermittent 15 Open Cut - - Yes Elko 333.9 Pie Cr. Perennial 10 Dry Crossing 3 - Yes (sensitive species) 

Elko 333.9 Pie Cr. Perennial 4 Dry Crossing 3 - Yes (sensitive species) 

Elko 336.0 Trib. to Pie Cr. Ephemeral 3 Open Cut - - Yes 

Elko 336.9 Trib. to Pie Cr. Ephemeral 6 Open Cut - - Yes 

Elko 338.3 Trib. to Pie Cr. Ephemeral 6 Open Cut - - Yes 

Elko 339.0 Eagle Rock Cr. Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No Elko 339.2 Trib. to Eagle Rock Cr. Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 339.7 Trib. to Eagle Rock Cr. Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 339.7 Trib. to Eagle Rock Cr. Ephemeral 3 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 340.1 Trib. to Eagle Rock Cr. Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 340.8 Trib. to Eagle Rock Cr. Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-29 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Elko 342.1 Maggie Cr. Ephemeral 5 Dry Crossing 5 Total Phosphorus Yes (sensitive species) Elko 342.4 Maggie Cr. Ephemeral 3 Dry Crossing - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Elko 342.7 Maggie Cr. Ephemeral 4 Dry Crossing - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Elko 342.7 Maggie Cr. Ephemeral 4 Dry Crossing - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Elko 342.8 Maggie Cr. Ephemeral 3 Dry Crossing - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Elko 342.9 Maggie Cr. Ephemeral 3 Dry Crossing - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Elko 343.2 Trib. to Maggie Cr. Ephemeral 3 Dry Crossing - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Elko 343.2 Trib. to Maggie Cr. Ephemeral 4 Dry Crossing - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Elko 343.2 Trib. to Maggie Cr. Ephemeral 4 Dry Crossing - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Elko 343.8 Trib. to Maggie Cr. Ephemeral 2 Dry Crossing - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Elko 344.1 Trib. to Maggie Cr. Ephemeral 1 Dry Crossing - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Elko 344.6 Trib. to Maggie Cr. Intermittent 2 Dry Crossing - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Elko 344.8 Trib. to Maggie Cr. Intermittent 3 Dry Crossing - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Elko 345.7 Trib. to Maggie Cr. Ephemeral 2 Dry Crossing - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Elko 345.7 Trib. to Maggie Cr. Ephemeral 2 Dry Crossing - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Elko 345.9 Trib. to Maggie Cr. Perennial 3 Dry Crossing - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Elko 346.1 Trib. to Maggie Cr. Perennial 3 Open Cut - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Elko 347.0 Trib. to Dip Cr. Perennial Open Cut - - Yes 

Elko 347.1 Trib. to Dip Cr. Perennial 2 Open Cut - - Yes 

Elko 349.7 Trib. to Indian Cr. Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 349.9 Trib. to Indian Cr. Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 349.9 Trib. to Indian Cr. Perennial Open Cut - - Yes Elko 351.4 Indian Cr. Intermittent 12 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 351.9 Trib. to Indian Cr. Ephemeral 4 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 352.7 Trib. to Indian Cr. Ephemeral 4 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 352.9 Trib. to Indian Cr. Ephemeral 6 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 353.6 Ham Cr. Ephemeral 8 Open Cut - - No 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-30 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Elko 354.6 Trib. to Adam Cr. Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No Elko 355.2 Trib. to Adam Cr. Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 355.3 Trib. to Adam Cr. Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No Elko 355.3 Trib. to Adam Cr. Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 355.5 Trib. to Adam Cr. Perennial 3 Open Cut - - Yes Elko 356.1 Adam Cr. Perennial 2.5 Open Cut - - Yes 

Elko 356.5 Seep to Adam Cr. Perennial Open Cut - - No 

Elko 357.4 Trib. to Willow Cr. Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - Yes 

Elko 358.1 Trib. to Willow Cr. Perennial Open Cut - - Yes Elko 358.1 Trib. to Willow Cr. Perennial Open Cut - - Yes Elko 358.1 Trib. to Willow Cr. Perennial 3 Open Cut - - Yes 

Elko 358.1 Trib. to Willow Cr. Perennial Open Cut - - Yes Elko 358.1 Trib. to Willow Cr. Perennial Open Cut - - Yes Elko 358.1 Trib. to Willow Cr. Perennial Open Cut - - No 

Elko 358.3 Trib. to Willow Cr. Ephemeral 3 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 358.4 Willow Cr. Intermittent 3 Open Cut 5 Temperature No 

Elko 358.6 Trib. to Willow Cr. Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Elko 359.3 Trib. to Willow Cr. Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 359.6 Trail - Potential Trib. to Willow Cr. Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Elko 360.4 Trib. to Soldier Cr. Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Elko 360.4 Trib. to Soldier Cr. Intermittent 4 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 361.2 Trib. to Soldier Cr. Ephemeral Open Cut - - Yes 

Elko 361.2 Soldier Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - Yes 

Elko 361.2 Soldier Cr. Intermittent 4 Open Cut - - Yes 

Elko 361.3 Soldier Cr. Intermittent 7 Open Cut - - Yes 

Elko 361.3 Soldier Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Elko 361.3 Trib. to Soldier Cr. Ephemeral 3 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 361.3 Trib. to Soldier Cr. Ephemeral Open Cut - - No Elko 361.4 Trib. to Soldier Cr. Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No Elko 361.6 Trib. to Soldier Cr. Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No Elko 361.7 Trib. to Soldier Cr. Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-31 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Elko 362.0 Trib. to Soldier Cr. Intermittent 1.5 Open Cut - - No Elko 362.4 Trib. to China Cr. Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 362.8 Trib. to China Cr. Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 363.1 Trib. to China Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Elko 363.1 Trib. to China Cr. Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 363.5 Trib. to China Cr. Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Elko 363.5 Trib. to China Cr. Ephemeral 6 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 363.5 Trib. to China Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Elko 363.5 Trib. to China Cr. Ephemeral 5 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 363.5 Trib. to China Cr. Ephemeral Open Cut - - Yes 

Elko 364.0 China Cr. Intermittent 15 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 364.3 Trib. to China Cr. Ephemeral 13 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 364.5 Trib. to China Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 364.5 Trib. to China Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Elko 364.5 Trib. to China Cr. Ephemeral 8 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 364.6 Trib. to China Cr. Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Elko 364.9 Trib. to China Cr. Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 364.9 Trib. to China Cr. Ephemeral 4 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 365.4 Trib. to Willow Cr. Intermittent 4 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 365.9 Trib. to Willow Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Elko 366.0 Trib. to Willow Cr. Intermittent 4 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 366.3 Trib. to Willow Cr. Intermittent 4 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 366.4 Trib. to Willow Cr. Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 366.9 Trib. to Willow Cr. Intermittent 7 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 369.7 Trib. to Hot Cr. Ephemeral 1.5 Open Cut - - Yes 

Elko 372.9 Ivanhoe Cr. Intermittent 8 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 372.9 Trib. to Invanhoe Cr. Ephemeral 3 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 373.0 Trib. to Invanhoe Cr. Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - Yes 

Elko 373.3 Ivanhoe Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 373.4 Trib. to Ivanhoe Cr. Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 373.4 Trib. to Ivanhoe Cr. Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Elko 373.7 Trib. to Ivanhoe Cr. Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-32 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Elko 374.1 Trib. to Ivanhoe Cr. Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No Elko 374.6 Trib. to Ivanhoe Cr. Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Elko 374.6 Trib. to Ivanhoe Cr. Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 374.7 Trib. to Ivanhoe Cr. Intermittent 0.5 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 376.6 Trib. to Willow Cr. Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 377.7 Trib. to Willow Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Elko 377.8 Trib. to Willow Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Elko 378.6 Trib. to Willow Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Elko 378.7 Trib. to Willow Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Elko 379.1 Trib. to Willow Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Elko 379.4 Trib. to Willow Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - Yes Elko 380.9 Rock Cr. Perennial 1 Open Cut 2 - No 

Elko 381.2 Trib. to Rock Cr. Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 381.3 Trib. to Rock Cr. Intermittent 12 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 381.3 Trib. to Rock Cr. Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 381.6 Trib. to Rock Cr. Intermittent 8 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 381.8 Trib. to Rock Cr. Intermittent 6 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 383.9 Trib. to Rock Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Elko 387.1 Clover Cr. Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 387.9 Clover Cr. Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 388.5 Clover Cr. Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Elko 391.4 Clover Cr. Ephemeral 4 Open Cut - - Yes 

Humboldt 393.3 - 393.4 Evans Cr. Perennial 5 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 396.8 Trib. to Jake Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 397.1 Trib. to Jake Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 397.6 Trib. to Jake Cr. Intermittent 4 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 397.6 Jake Cr. Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 397.6 Trib. to Jake Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 397.7 Trib. to Jake Cr. Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 403.8 Trib. to Kelly Cr. Intermittent 5 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 403.9 Trib. to Kelly Cr. Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - Yes 

Humboldt 404.5 Kelly Cr. Intermittent 5 Open Cut - - No 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-33 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Humboldt 407.8 Trib. to Kelly Cr. Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No Humboldt 409.1 Trib. to Kelly Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 411.3 Trib. to Kelly Cr. Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 412.0 Trib. to Kelly Cr. Ephemeral 5 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 412.5 Trib. to Kelly Cr. Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 412.5 Trib. to Kelly Cr. Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 412.5 Trib. to Kelly Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 419.0 Discontig.Cr. (Eden Valley) Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 419.2 Discontig.Cr. (Eden Valley) Ephemeral 5 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 419.6 Discontig.Cr. (Eden Valley) Ephemeral 5 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 425.1 Discontig.Cr. (Paradise Valley) Ephemeral Open Cut - - 

Humboldt 425.7 Discontig.Cr. (Paradise Valley) Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 426.4 Discontig.Cr. (Paradise Valley) Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 427.9 

Potential Drainage from 

Cow Trail (Paradise 

Valley) 

Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 428.0 Discontig.Cr. (Paradise Valley) Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 428.4 Discontig.Cr. (Paradise Valley) Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 428.4 Discontig.Cr. (Paradise Valley) Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 432.5 Little Humboldt River Intermittent 2 Open Cut 5 Total Phosphorus No 

Humboldt 432.7 Trib. to Big Cottonwood Cr. Intermittent 13 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 433.1 Trib. to Big Cottonwood Cr. Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 433.4 Trib. to Big Cottonwood Cr. Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 435.1 Small Playa Potentially Trib. to Big Cottonwood Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 437.6 Discontig.Cr. (Paradise Canyon) Ephemeral 6 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 438.0 Discontig.Cr. (Paradise Canyon) Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 439.2 Discontig.Cr. (Paradise Canyon) Ephemeral 5 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 439.3 Discontig.Cr. (Paradise Canyon) Ephemeral 4.5 Open Cut - - No 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-34 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Humboldt 439.8 Discontig.Cr. (Asa Moore Canyon) Ephemeral Open Cut - - No Humboldt 439.8 Discontig.Cr. (Asa Moore Canyon) Ephemeral 1.5 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 441.7 Discontig.Cr. (Paradise Valley) Ephemeral 3 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 442.5 Discontig.Cr. (Paradise Valley) Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 443.2 Discontig.Cr. (Paradise Valley) Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 443.6 Discontig.Cr. (Paradise Valley) Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 444.0 Discontig.Cr. (Paradise Valley) Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 446.6 Trib. to Tony Cr. Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 446.9 Tony Cr. Intermittent 6 Open Cut - - Yes 

Humboldt 448.1 Tony Cr. Intermittent 5 Open Cut - - Yes 

Humboldt 448.6 Trib. to Tony Cr. Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 448.6 Trib. to Tony Cr. Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 449.5 Porcupine Cr. Intermittent 3.5 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 449.8 Chimney Cr. Intermittent 6 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 450.0 Chimney Cr. Intermittent 5.5 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 450.2 Trib. to Tony Cr. Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 452.4 Trib. to Tony Cr. Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 453.0 Tony Cr. Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 454.8 Playa Gallagher Flat Intermittent Open Cut - - No Humboldt 455.1 Playa Gallagher Flat Intermittent Open Cut - - No Humboldt 455.2 Playa Gallagher Flat Intermittent Open Cut - - No Humboldt 455.7 Playa Gallagher Flat Intermittent Open Cut - - No Humboldt 458.3 Playa Gallagher Flat Intermittent Open Cut - - No Humboldt 460.5 Playa Gallagher Flat Intermittent Open Cut - - No Humboldt 460.6 Playa Gallagher Flat Intermittent Open Cut - - No Humboldt 463.9 Quinn River (Near Sod House Point) Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 463.9 Quinn River (Near Sod House Point) Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 463.9 Quinn River (Near Sod House Point) Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 463.9 Quinn River (Near Sod House Point) Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-35 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Humboldt 464.0 Quinn River (Near Sod House Point) Intermittent Open Cut - - No Humboldt 464.0 Quinn River (Near Sod House Point) Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 464.0 Quinn River (Near Sod House Point) Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 464.0 Quinn River (Near Sod House Point) Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 464.0 Quinn River (Near Sod House Point) Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 464.2 Quinn River (Near Sod House Point) Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 465.0 Quinn River (Near Sod House Point) Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 469.7 Playa Bottle Cr. Slough Intermittent Open Cut - - No Humboldt 469.8 Bottle Cr. Slough Ephemeral 25 Open Cut - - No Humboldt 469.9 Bottle Cr. Slough Intermittent Open Cut - - No Humboldt 478.6 Trib. to Quinn River Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 479.2 Trib. to Quinn River Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - Yes 

Humboldt 479.3 Trib. to Quinn River Ephemeral 5 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 479.6 Trib. to Quinn River Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 480.7 Irrigation Ditch to Happy Cr. (Trib. to Quinn Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 481.5 Trib. to Quinn River Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 481.5 Trib. to Quinn River Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 482.0 Trib. to Quinn River Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No Humboldt 482.4 Trib. to Quinn River Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - Yes 

Humboldt 484.3 Trib. to Quinn River Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 484.7 Trib. to Quinn River Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No Humboldt 485.0 Trib. to Quinn River Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No Humboldt 486.0 Trib. to Quinn River Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No Humboldt 487.0 Trib. to Quinn River Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No Humboldt 487.9 Trib. to Quinn River Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 488.1 Trib. to Quinn River Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 488.2 Trib. to Quinn River Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - Yes 

Humboldt 488.3 Trib. to Quinn River Ephemeral 4 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 488.4 Trib. to Quinn River Ephemeral 5 Open Cut - - No Humboldt 488.5 Trib. to Quinn River Ephemeral 5 Open Cut - - No 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-36 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Humboldt 489.4 Quinn River Intermittent 12 Open Cut 3,1 - No Humboldt 489.5 Quinn River Perennial 3 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 490.1 Trib. to Quinn River Intermittent 12 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 490.2 Trib. to Quinn River Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 490.7 Deep Cr. Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 491.3 Trib. to Quinn River Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 491.8 Trib. to Quinn River Ephemeral 3 Open Cut - - No Humboldt 500.1 Leonard Cr. Slough Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 502.5 Leonard Cr. Perennial 5 Open Cut 1 - No Humboldt 504.4 Trib. to Leonard Cr. Ephemeral 3 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 505.5 Trib. to Leonard Cr. Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 508.5 Trib. to Leonard Cr. Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 508.7 Trib. to Leonard Cr. Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 510.0 Trib. to Craine Cr. Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 510.4 Trib. to Craine Cr. Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 510.6 Trib. to Craine Cr. Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 511.6 Center Cr. Perennial 2 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 513.5 Trib. to Craine Cr. Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 516.1 Trib. to Craine Cr. Ephemeral 3 Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 525.8 Discontig.Cr. (Fivemile Flat) Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 527.4 Trib. of Sand Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 529.5 Sand Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No Humboldt 530.4 Sand Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No Humboldt 533.0 Trib. to Cottonwood Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 533.6 Trib. to Cottonwood Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Humboldt 534.9 Trib. to Cottonwood Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Washoe 536.1 Trib. to Wall Canyon Cr. Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No Washoe 536.4 Trib. to Wall Canyon Cr. Ephemeral Open Cut - - No Washoe 538.8 Wall Canyon Cr. Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No Washoe 539.0 Wall Canyon Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Washoe 539.8 Trib. to Wall Canyon Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-37 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Washoe 539.9 Trib. to Wall Canyon Cr. Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No Washoe 539.9 Trib. to Wall Canyon Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Washoe 544.1 Trib. to Massacre Lake Ephemeral 3 Open Cut - - No 

Washoe 545.7 Trib. to Middle Lake Ephemeral 4 Open Cut - - No 

Washoe 546.8 Trib. to Middle Lake Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Washoe 550.5 Massacre Cr. Ephemeral 3 Open Cut - - No Washoe 554.7 Trib. to West Lake Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Washoe 557.4 Trib. to West Lake Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Washoe 557.7 Trib. to West Lake Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Washoe 564.7 Trib. to Alkali Lake Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Washoe 565.3 Trib. to Alkali Lake Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Washoe 565.7 Trib. to Alkali Lake Ephemeral 0.5 Open Cut - - No 

Washoe 566.0 Trib. to Alkali Lake Ephemeral 2.5 Open Cut - - No 

Washoe 566.3 Trib. to Alkali Lake Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Washoe 567.6 Trib. to Alkali Lake Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Washoe 568.0 Trib. to Alkali Lake Ephemeral 2.5 Open Cut - - No 

Washoe 568.9 Trib. to Alkali Lake Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Washoe 569.3 Trib. to Alkali Lake Intermittent 4 Open Cut - - No 

Washoe 569.4 Trib. to Alkali Lake Intermittent 4 Open Cut - - No 

Washoe 569.4 Trib. to Alkali Lake Intermittent 4 Open Cut - - No 

Washoe 571.4 Trib. to Alkali Lake Intermittent 1.5 Open Cut - - No 

Washoe 571.8 Trib. to Alkali Lake Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Washoe 572.1 Trib. to Alkali Lake Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Washoe 572.1 Trib. to Alkali Lake Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Washoe 573.9 Trib. to Mosquito Lake Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

Washoe 574.0 Stock Pond - Mosquito Lake Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Washoe 579.7 Trib. to Twelvemile Cr. Intermittent 5 Open Cut - - No 

Washoe 579.7 Stock Pond Intermittent Open Cut - - No Washoe 580.9 Trib. to Twelvemile Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Washoe 581.6 Trib. to Twelvemile Cr. Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Washoe 582.2 Trib. to Twelvemile Cr. Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-38 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

OREGON 

Lake 588.3 Twelvemile Cr. Perennial 20 Dry Crossing Cat 2, 3, 3B, 5, Arsenic, Silver, Temperature Yes (sensitive species) 

Lake 589.5 Trib. to Twelvemile Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - Yes Lake 589.5 Trib. to Twelvemile Cr. Intermittent 1.5 Open Cut - - Yes Lake 589.7 Trib. to Twelvemile Cr. Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - Yes Lake 589.8 Seep Potentially Trib. to Dove Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Lake 589.8 Trib. to Twelvemile Cr. Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - Yes Lake 596.0 Seep to Twentymile Cr. Perennial Open Cut Cat 2, 3, 3B, 5, Arsenic, Silver, Dissolved Oxygen Yes 

Lake 596.0 Twentymile Cr. Perennial 10 Dry Crossing Cat 2, 3, 3B, 5, Arsenic, Silver, Dissolved Oxygen Yes 

Lake 599.6 Trib. to Deep Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - Yes 

Lake 600.5 Trib. to Deep Cr. Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - Yes 

Lake 600.8 Trib. to Deep Cr. Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Lake 601.8 Seep Trib. to Deep Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - Yes 

Lake 601.8 Deep Cr. Perennial 30 Open Cut Cat 2, 3, 3B, 5 Temperature Yes 

Lake 601.8 Seep Trib. to Deep Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - Yes 

Lake 603.0 Trib. to Deep Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Lake 603.3 Seep Trib. to Horse Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - Yes 

Lake 603.4 Horse Cr. Perennial 4 Open Cut - - Yes 

Lake 603.4 Horse Cr. Perennial 5 Open Cut - - Yes 

Lake 603.4 Horse Cr. Perennial 7 Open Cut - - Yes 

Lake 603.8 Trib. to Horse Cr. Intermittent 4 Open Cut - - Yes Lake 605.3 Trib. to Horse Cr. Perennial 4 Open Cut - - Yes 

Lake 606.2 Trib. to Horse Cr. Perennial 2.5 Open Cut - - No 

Lake 607.3 Trib. to Burnt Cr. Intermittent 1.5 Open Cut - - No 

Lake 609.1 Trib. to Camas Cr. Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Lake 609.4 Trib. to Camas Cr. Intermittent 6 Open Cut - - Yes Lake 609.5 Trib. to Camas Cr. Perennial 2 Open Cut - - No 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-39 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Lake 609.5 Wash Trib. to Camas Cr. Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - Yes Lake 609.5 Camas Cr. Perennial 5 Open Cut - - No 

Lake 609.6 Wash Trib. to Camas Cr. Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Lake 610.6 Wash Trib. to Deadman Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No Lake 610.8 Trib. to Deadman Cr. Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - Yes 

Lake 610.8 Trib. to Deadman Cr. Perennial 2 Open Cut - - Yes Lake 610.9 Trib. to Deadman Cr. Perennial 2 Open Cut - - Yes Lake 610.9 Trib. to Deadman Cr. Perennial 1 Open Cut - - Yes Lake 610.9 Trib. to Deadman Cr. Perennial 4 Open Cut - - No 

Lake 612.2 Trib. to Thomas Cr. Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Lake 614.2 Trib. to Thomas Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - Yes 

Lake 614.4 Trib. to Thomas Cr. Perennial Open Cut - - No 

Lake 615.1 Trib. to Thomas Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No Lake 615.3 Trib. to Thomas Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Lake 615.8 Trib. to Thomas Cr. Intermittent 6 Open Cut - - No 

Lake 616.5 Trib. to Thomas Cr. Intermittent 8 Open Cut - - No 

Lake 616.6 Trib. to Thomas Cr. Intermittent 8 Open Cut - - No 

Lake 616.7 Trib. to Thomas Cr. Intermittent 8 Open Cut - - No 

Lake 616.9 Trib. to Thomas Cr. Intermittent 8 Open Cut - - No 

Lake 616.9 Trib. to Thomas Cr. Intermittent 8 Open Cut - - No 

Lake 617.1 Trib. to Thomas Cr. Intermittent 18 Open Cut - - No 

Lake 617.2 Trib. to Thomas Cr. Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Lake 617.2 Trib. to Thomas Cr. Intermittent 6 Open Cut - - Yes 

Lake 617.7 Trib. to Thomas Cr. Perennial 5 Open Cut - - Yes 

Lake 618.0 Trib. to Thomas Cr. Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - Yes 

Lake 619.6 Thomas Cr. Perennial 30 Dry Crossing or Open Cutb Cat 2, 3, 3B, 5 Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, Iron Yes (sensitive species) 

Lake 620.4 Trib. to Goose Lake Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - 

Lake 620.9 Goose Lake Shoreline Perennial Open Cut - - Yes (sensitive 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-40 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

species) 

Lake 621.4 Trib. to Goose Lake Perennial 3 Open Cut - - Yes 

Lake 621.7 Trib. to Goose Lake Perennial 8 Open Cut - - Yes 

Lake 622.2- 622.3 Goose Lake Shoreline Perennial Open Cut - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Lake 622.6 - 622.7 Goose Lake Shoreline Perennial Open Cut - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Lake 622.7 Trib. to Goose Lake Perennial 1.5 Open Cut - - Yes 

Lake 622.7 - 622.9 Goose Lake Shoreline Perennial Open Cut - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Lake 623.4 Trib. to Goose Lake Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - Yes 

Lake 623.5 Trib. to Goose Lake Intermittent 4 Open Cut - - Yes 

Lake 623.6 Drews Cr. Perennial 15 Open Cut Insufficient Data - Yes (sensitive species) 

Lake 623.8 Trib. to Goose Lake Perennial 8 Open Cut - - Yes 

Lake 624.2 - 625.6 Goose Lake Shoreline Perennial Open Cut - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Lake 624.2 Pond on Shoreline of Goose Lake Intermittent Open Cut - - Yes 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-41 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Lake 624.4 Mill Cr. Intermittent 13 Open Cut - - Yes Lake 625.4 Inlet to Goose Lake Perennial 15 Open Cut - - Yes Lake 625.8 Dry Cr. Intermittent 18 Open Cut - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Lake 625.8 Goose Lake Shoreline Perennial Open Cut - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Lake 626.0 Branch of Dry Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Lake 626.1 Goose Lake Shoreline Perennial Open Cut - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Lake 626.2 - 626.3 Goose Lake Shoreline Perennial Open Cut - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Lake 626.5 Pond on Shoreline of Goose Lake Intermittent Open Cut - - Yes 

Lake 626.8 - 627.2 Goose Lake Shoreline Perennial Open Cut - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Lake 626.8 Small Inlet to Goose Lake Intermittent Open Cut - - Yes 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-42 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Lake 627.2 - 627.4 Goose Lake Marsh Intermittent Open Cut - - Yes (sensitive species) Lake 627.4 Trib. to Goose Lake Perennial 5 Open Cut - - Yes 

Lake 627.5 Trib. to Goose Lake Perennial 2.5 Open Cut - - Yes 

Lake 628.0 Trib. to Goose Lake Perennial Open Cut - - Yes 

Lake 628.3 Irrigation Ditch to Goose Lake Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - Yes 

Lake 629.1 Irrigation Canal to Dry Cr. Intermittent 18 Open Cut - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Lake 629.8 Irrigation Canal to Dry Cr. Intermittent 18 Open Cut - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Lake 629.8 Dry Cr. Intermittent 25 Open Cut - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Lake 630.5 Trib. to Dry Cr. Ephemeral 2.5 Open Cut - - Yes Lake 630.6 Trib. to Dry Cr. Ephemeral 5 Open Cut - - Yes Lake 630.6 Trib. to Dry Cr. Ephemeral 5 Open Cut - - Yes Lake 631.2 Trib. to Dry Cr. Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - Yes 

Lake 631.2 Trib. to Dry Cr. Intermittent 6 Open Cut - - Yes Lake 631.3 Dry Cr. Intermittent 12 Open Cut - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-43 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Lake 631.5 Trib. to Dry Cr. Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - Yes Lake 631.7 Sibley Draw Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Lake 632.6 Dry Cr. Intermittent 25 Open Cut - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Lake 632.7 Trib. to Dry Cr. Ephemeral 3 Open Cut - - No 

Lake 633.0 Trib. to Dry Cr. Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - Yes 

Lake 633.0 Trib. to Dry Cr. Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Lake 633.6 Trib. to Dry Cr. Ephemeral 25 Open Cut - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Lake 634.1 Trib. to Dry Cr. Perennial 1 Open Cut - - Yes 

Lake 634.1 Trib. to Dry Cr. Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Lake 634.5 Dry Cr. Intermittent 17 Open Cut - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Lake 634.6 Falls Cr. (Canal to) Perennial 15 Open Cut - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Lake 634.7 Trib. to Falls Cr. Intermittent 2.5 Open Cut - - Yes 

Lake 634.9 – 635.0 Trib. to Falls Cr. Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - Yes 

Lake 635.5 Trib. to Falls Cr. Intermittent 3.5 Open Cut - - Yes 

Lake 636.5 Trib. to Falls Cr. Perennial Open Cut - - Yes 

Lake 639.2 South Arm of East Ephemeral 3 Dry Crossing - - Yes (sensitive 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-44 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Willow Cr. species) 

Lake 639.3 - 639.4 South Arm of East Willow Cr. Intermittent 3 Dry Crossing - - Yes (sensitive species) 

Lake 642.0 Trib. to North Fork Willow Cr. Intermittent 1.5 Open Cut - - Yes 

Lake 642.0 Trib. to North Fork Willow Cr. Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - Yes 

Lake 642.0 Trib. to North Fork Willow Cr. Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - Yes 

Lake 642.3 Trib. to North Fork Willow Cr. Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - Yes 

Lake 642.4 North Fork Willow Cr. Intermittent 2 Dry Crossing - - Yes (sensitive species) Lake 643.0 Trib. to North Fork Willow Cr. Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - Yes 

Lake 645.8 Trib. to Wildhorse Cr. Ephemeral 4 Open Cut - - No 

Lake 646.1 Trib. to Wildhorse Cr. Ephemeral 2 Open Cut - - No 

Lake 647.1 Wildhorse Cr. Intermittent 6 Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 648.2 Trib. to Rock Cr. Intermittent 4 Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 649.2 Seep Trib. to Rock Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 649.4 Trib. to Rock Cr. Ephemeral 3 Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 649.9 Rock Cr. Perennial 6 Open Cut - - Yes 

Klamath 649.9 Spring Associated with Rock Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 649.9 Spring Associated with Rock Cr. Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 651.6 Trib. from Bear Valley Reservoir Intermittent 4 Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 651.9 Stock Pond Bear Valley Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 652.9 Trib. to Adobe Flat Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 652.9 Trib. to Adobe Flat Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 653.7 Trib. to Antelope Reservoir Intermittent 8 Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 654.2 Seep Near Antelope Reservoir Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 654.4 Trib. to Antelope Reservoir Intermittent 4 Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 654.4 Stream Draining Antelope Reservoir Intermittent Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 655.5 Discontig.Trib. (Antelope Flat) Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - Yes 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-45 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Klamath 657.9 Trib. to East Branch Lost River / Antelope Cr. Intermittent 3 Open Cut Cat 3 - No Klamath 657.9 East Branch Lost River / Antelope Cr. Intermittent 3 Open Cut Cat 3 - No Klamath 659.8 Seep Intermittent Open Cut - - Yes 

Klamath 659.9 Trib. to Woolen Canyon Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 660.4 Trib. to Woolen Canyon Perennial 2 Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 661.9 Woolen Canyon Ephemeral 8 Open Cut - - Yes 

Klamath 663.0 Trib. From Threemile Reservoir Intermittent 7 Open Cut - - Yes 

Klamath 663.3 Trib. From Threemile Reservoir Perennial 4 Open Cut - - Yes 

Klamath 663.3 Trib. From Threemile Reservoir Perennial 4 Open Cut - - Yes 

Klamath 663.7 Trib. From Threemile Reservoir Perennial 7 Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 664.0 Trib. From Threemile Reservoir Perennial Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 664.2 Irrigation Ditch From Threemile Reservoir Intermittent 6 Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 664.4 Irrigation Ditch - Langell Valley Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 664.7 Irrigation Ditch - Langell Valley Intermittent 2.5 Open Cut - - Yes 

Klamath 664.7 Irrigation Ditch - Langell Valley Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 664.9 Irrigation Ditch - Langell Valley Intermittent 15 Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 665.0 Irrigation Ditch - Langell Valley Intermittent 4 Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 665.0 Irrigation Ditch - Langell Valley Intermittent 4 Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 665.2 Irrigation Ditch Trib. to Lost River Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - Yes 

Klamath 665.5 Irrigation Ditch Trib. to Lost River Intermittent 8 Open Cut - - Yes 

Klamath 665.8 Irrigation Ditch Trib. to Lost River Intermittent 15 Open Cut - - Yes 

Klamath 666.1 Irrigation Ditch Trib. to Lost River Intermittent 8 Open Cut - - Yes 

Klamath 666.2 

Lost River “Also known 

as Lost River Improved 

Channel” 

Perennial 40 Open Cutb Cat 2, 3, 3B, 5 

Dissolved 

Oxygen, 

Chlorophyll a, 

Ammonia 

Yes (sensitive 

species) 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-46 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

Klamath 666.5 Irrigation Ditch - Langell Valley Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No Klamath 666.5 Irrigation Ditch - Langell Valley Intermittent 6 Open Cut - - Yes 

Klamath 666.5 Irrigation Ditch - Langell Valley Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 666.7 Irrigation Ditch - Langell Valley Intermittent 8 Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 666.7 Irrigation Ditch - Langell Valley Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 667.4 Trib. to West Canal Intermittent 6 Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 667.4 West Canal Perennial 16 Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 667.6 Trib. to West Canal Intermittent 2.2 Open Cut - - Yes 

Klamath 667.6 Trib. to West Canal Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 670.2 Trib. to Worlow Reservoir Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 670.9 Upper Worlow Reservoir Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 671.4 Lower Worlow Reservoir Intermittent 5 Open Cut - - Yes 

Klamath 671.9 Trib. to Pope Reservoir Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - Yes Klamath 672.4 Mills Cr. Ephemeral 5 Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 672.8 Canal Along Ridgetop Over Mill Cr. Intermittent 3 Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 672.8 Canal Along Ridgetop Over Mill Cr. Intermittent 5 Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 673.1 Trib. Towards High Line Canal Intermittent 1 Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 673.4 Trib. Towards High Line Canal Ephemeral 5 Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 673.5 Trib. Towards High Line Canal Intermittent 2 Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 673.7 Trib. Towards High Line Canal Ephemeral 3 Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 673.8 Trib. Towards High Line Canal Ephemeral 3 Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 673.9 Trib. Towards High Line Canal Ephemeral Open Cut - - No 

Klamath 675.0 Trib. Towards High Line Canal Ephemeral 1 Open Cut - - No 

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 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
M-47 

APPENDIX M 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County 

 Crossing 

Location 

(MP) 

Waterbody Name Waterbody Flow Width at Crossing (feet) Proposed Crossing Method State Waterbody Classification 303(d) Listed/ Parameter Exceeded Fish-Bearing (status of species) 

6. Potential lamprey spawning grounds 7. Designated critical habitat or proposed critical habitat 8. Risk of sedimentation of downstream of protected species 

b Crossing method was provided in site-specific crossing plans submitted by Ruby on April 9, 2009. 

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 

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. 

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 met3: 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 disa

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX N

 Wetlands Crossed by the Ruby Pipeline Project 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
N-1 

APPENDIX N 

Wetlands Crossed by the Proposed Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County Wetland ID From 

MP 

To 

MP 

Wetland 

Typea

Wetland Acreage within 

the 75-foot Construction 

Workspace 

Wetland Acreage within 

the 50-foot Operational 

Right-of-Way 

WYOMING 

Lincoln WW-16-007 0.6 0.8 PEM 1.37 0.91 

Lincoln WW-16-008 0.8 0.8 PEMF 0.13 0.08 

Lincoln WW-16-010 0.8 0.9 PEMC 0.48 0.32 

Lincoln WW-16-011 0.9 0.9 PSS 0.10 0.07 

Lincoln WW-16-012 0.9 0.9 PEM 0.01 0.01 

Lincoln WW-16-001 1.0 1.2 PEM 2.10 1.40 

Lincoln WW-17-005 8.8 8.8 PEM 0.04 0.03 

Lincoln WW-16-002 18.9 18.9 PEM 0.02 0.01 

Lincoln WW-16-003 19.8 19.8 PEM 0.07 0.05 

Lincoln WW-16-004 20.4 20.4 PEM 0.07 0.04 

Lincoln WW-16-006 20.5 20.6 PEM 0.30 0.20 

Uinta WW-17-007 22.7 22.7 PEM 0.03 0.00 

Uinta WW-17-010 23.5 23.5 PEM 0.07 0.04 

Uinta WW-17-011 23.9 23.9 PEM 0.07 0.04 

Uinta WW-17-012 24.0 24.0 PEM 0.05 0.03 

Uinta WW-26-008 27.2 27.2 PEM 0.02 0.01 

Uinta WW-26-003 28.0 28.1 PEM 0.07 0.03 

Uinta WW-26-001 36.6 36.6 PEM 0.01 0.01 

Uinta WW-26-006 37.1 37.1 PUS 0.01 0.00 

Uinta WW-26-005 42.4 42.4 PEM 0.03 0.02 

Uinta WW-34-003 44.6 44.6 PEM 0.03 0.02 

UTAH 

Rich WW-26-004 49.6 49.8 PEM 1.68 1.12 

Rich WW-28-011 52.1 52.2 PUSCx 0.92 0.67 

Rich WW-28-010 52.2 52.2 PUSCx 0.27 0.19 

Rich WW-28-009B 52.3 52.3 PUSCx 0.06 0.03 

Rich WW-28-008 52.4 52.6 PEM 1.71 1.14 

Rich WW-28-007 52.8 53.1 PEM 2.62 1.74 

Rich WW-28-006 60.8 60.9 PEM 0.73 0.48 

Cache WW-28-005 78.8 78.8 PEM 0.06 0.04 

Cache WW-27-002A 79.5 79.5 PEM 0.02 0.01 

Cache WW-27-002 79.5 79.6 PEM 0.05 0.04 

Cache WW-28-004 92.3 92.3 PEM 0.34 0.26 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
N-2 

APPENDIX N 

Wetlands Crossed by the Proposed Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County Wetland ID From 

MP 

To 

MP 

Wetland 

Typea

Wetland Acreage within 

the 75-foot Construction 

Workspace 

Wetland Acreage within 

the 50-foot Operational 

Right-of-Way 

Cache WW-28-003 92.5 92.6 PSS 0.37 0.25 

Cache WW-28-001 92.7 92.8 PEM 0.14 0.11 

Cache WW-18-014 94.9 94.9 PSS 0.04 0.03 

Cache WW-18-013 96.6 96.6 PEM 0.02 0.01 

Box Elder WW-18-010 102.8 102.8 PEM 0.24 0.17 

Box Elder WW-18-009 102.9 102.9 PEM 0.08 0.06 

Box Elder WW-18-008 103.0 103.0 PEM 0.02 0.01 

Box Elder WW-18-004A 109.1 109.1 PEM 0.10 0.06 

Box Elder WW-17-004B 109.1 110.1 PEM/L2USA/

PUSA 9.00 6.02 

Box Elder WW-17-004A 110.2 110.5 PEM/L2USA/

PUSA 2.31 1.51 

Box Elder WW-17-004 110.6 111.3 L2USA 6.18 4.12 

Box Elder WW-17-001 111.3 112.4 PEM 10.13 6.75 

Box Elder WW-18-003 112.5 112.5 PEM 0.01 0.01 

Box Elder WW-18-001 112.6 112.6 PEM 0.02 0.01 

Box Elder WW-39-019 118.6 118.6 PEM 0.11 0.07 

Box Elder WW-39-019A 118.6 118.6 PEM 0.02 0.01 

Box Elder WW-39-020 119.1 119.2 PEMC 0.12 0.09 

Box Elder WW-11-012 119.5 119.5 PEM 0.05 0.03 

Box Elder WW-11-010 119.8 119.8 PEM 0.30 0.21 

Box Elder WW-11-009 124.2 124.3 PEM/L2USA 1.55 1.03 

Box Elder WW-11-008 124.4 124.4 PEM 0.05 0.03 

Box Elder WW-11-006 124.8 124.8 PEM 0.06 0.04 

Box Elder WW-11-004 124.9 124.9 PEM 0.43 0.30 

Box Elder WW-11-003 124.9 125.0 PEMA 0.10 0.07 

Box Elder WW-11-002 125.0 125.1 PEM 0.63 0.44 

Box Elder WW-11-001 125.2 125.2 PEM 0.19 0.13 

Box Elder WW-10-008 125.3 125.4 PEMC 0.21 0.13 

Box Elder WW-10-007 125.4 125.5 PEM/PEMA 0.62 0.41 

Box Elder WW-10-006 125.9 126.1 PUBH 1.63 1.08 

Box Elder WW-10-009 126.1 126.2 PUBH 0.36 0.24 

Box Elder WW-10-004 126.6 126.6 PEM 0.39 0.30 

Box Elder WW-10-003 127.0 127.0 PEM 0.14 0.10 

Box Elder WW-03-001 150.5 150.8 L2USA 3.00 2.00 

Box Elder WW-01-002 162.0 162.2 PUSC 1.02 0.68 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
N-3 

APPENDIX N 

Wetlands Crossed by the Proposed Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County Wetland ID From 

MP 

To 

MP 

Wetland 

Typea

Wetland Acreage within 

the 75-foot Construction 

Workspace 

Wetland Acreage within 

the 50-foot Operational 

Right-of-Way 

Box Elder WW-01-003 163.0 163.1 PUSC 0.04 0.03 

Box Elder WW-09-003 184.4 184.4 PEM 0.30 0.19 

Box Elder WW-09-002 184.4 184.4 PSS 0.10 0.07 

Box Elder WW-09-001 185.0 185.1 PSS 0.56 0.38 

NEVADA 

Elko WW-06-002 267.7 267.8 PEM 0.01 0.00 

Elko WW-15-001 275.7 275.7 PEM 0.13 0.09 

Elko WW-15-002 280.9 280.9 PEM 0.05 0.04 

Elko WW-15-004 284.3 284.3 PEM 0.29 0.20 

Elko WW-15-006 285.0 285.0 PEM 0.06 0.04 

Elko WW-52-001 295.6 296.0 PEM 3.48 2.32 

Elko WW-53-001 299.9 300.0 PSS 0.11 0.08 

Elko WW-07-002 301.2 301.2 PEM 0.02 0.02 

Elko WW-07-003 301.9 302.0 PEM 1.03 0.68 

Elko WW-06-001 316.3 316.4 PEM 0.16 0.11 

Elko WW-06-003 327.7 327.7 PEM 0.14 0.10 

Elko WW-06-004 329.0 329.4 PEM 2.88 1.92 

Elko WW-24-003 358.0 358.1 PEM 0.04 0.03 

Elko WW-24-001 361.2 361.2 PSS 0.23 0.16 

Elko WW-30-002 381.2 381.6 PEM 2.91 1.94 

Elko WW-30-001 381.6 382.7 PEM 1.40 0.93 

Humboldt WW-23-002 432.4 432.5 PEM 0.70 0.47 

Humboldt WW-23-002A 432.5 433.4 PEM 7.48 4.98 

Humboldt WW-12-001 480.9 481.0 PEM 0.93 0.63 

Humboldt WW-12-002 489.4 489.8 PEM 3.50 2.33 

Washoe WW-13-002 570.5 570.5 PEM 0.16 0.11 

OREGON 

Lake WW-20-007 599.6 599.6 PEM 0.12 0.08 

Lake WW-20-004 601.8 601.8 PEM 0.36 0.26 

Lake WW-20-003 603.8 603.8 PFO 0.33 0.22 

Lake WW-38-003 608.0 608.2 PEM 1.26 0.84 

Lake WW-21-001 609.5 609.5 PEM 0.12 0.08 

Lake WW-21-005 615.4 615.5 PEM 0.29 0.2 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
N-4 

APPENDIX N 

Wetlands Crossed by the Proposed Ruby Pipeline Project 

State/County Wetland ID From 

MP 

To 

MP 

Wetland 

Typea

Wetland Acreage within 

the 75-foot Construction 

Workspace 

Wetland Acreage within 

the 50-foot Operational 

Right-of-Way 

Lake WW-21-010 615.8 618.2 PEM 21.59 14.39 

Lake WW-25-100 619.5 627.6 PEM 73.24 48.83 

Lake WW-29-001 627.6 627.6 PEM 0.28 0.18 

Lake WW-36-001 628.0 628.0 PEM/PSS 0.15 0.1 

Lake WW-43-005 633.3 633.4 PEM 0.09 0.05 

Lake WW-43-008 633.3 633.3 PEM 0.02 0.01 

Lake WW-37-003 639.3 639.4 PEM 0.58 0.37 

Klamath WW-21-009 649.2 649.2 PEM 0.07 0.04 

Klamath WW-21-010A 654.4 654.6 PEM 0.96 0.65 

Klamath WW-48-001 663.0 663.0 PEM 0.01 0.01 

Klamath WW-48-002 663.0 663.1 PEM 0.68 0.47 

Klamath WW-37-004 663.3 664.2 PEM 5.98 4.0 

Klamath WW-47-004 664.4 664.4 PEM 0.03 0.02 

Klamath WW-51-001 664.7 664.9 PEM 2.36 1.57 

Klamath WW-51-002 665.1 665.6 PEM 4.45 2.97 

Klamath WW-51-002A 665.6 665.7 PEM 0.5 0.33 

Klamath WW-51-002B 665.7 665.7 PEM 0.24 0.16 

Klamath WW-51-003 665.8 666.1 PEM 2.55 1.92 

Klamath WW-20-010 670.8 670.9 PEM 1.03 0.69 

Klamath WW-25-007 671.4 671.5 L1ABH 0.58 0.38 

Klamath WW-25-006 672.4 672.4 PEMC 0.15 0.1 

Klamath WW-25-004 673.1 673.1 PEM 0.02 0.01 

____________________________________ 

a Wetland Type

PEM - Palustrine Emergent Wetland 

PEMC - Palustrine Emergent, Seasonally Flooded 

PEMF - Palustrine Emergent, Semi-permanently Flooded 

PSS - Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetland 

PFO - Palustrine Forested Wetland 

PUS - Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore 

PUSC - Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore, Seasonally Flooded 

PUSCx - Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore, Seasonally Flooded Excavated 

PUBH - Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded 

L2USA - Lacustrine Littoral Unconsolidated Shore, Temporarily Flooded 

PUSA - Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore, Temporarily Flooded 

L1ABH - Lacustrine Limnetic Aquatic Bed, Permanently Flooded 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX O

Preliminary Wetland Mitigation Report 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Preliminary 

Wetland Mitigation Report 

January 2009 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT 

January 2009 

ii 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary .............................................................................. 1

1 Introduction...........................................................................1-1

1.1 Project Overview ......................................................................................1-1

1.2 Project Area Description...........................................................................1-2

1.3 Regulatory Overview ................................................................................1-2

1.3.1 Federal Regulation........................................................................1-2

1.3.2 State Regulations..........................................................................1-3

1.4 Jurisdictional Impacts ...............................................................................1-5

1.4.1 Temporary Impacts .......................................................................1-5

1.4.2 Permanent Impacts.......................................................................1-5

2 Federal Mitigation Requirements ........................................2-1

2.1 Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources..............................................2-1

2.2 USACE District Guidelines........................................................................2-1

2.2.1 Sacramento District.......................................................................2-2

2.2.2 Portland District.............................................................................2-2

2.2.3 Omaha District ..............................................................................2-3

2.3 Ruby’s Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation 

Procedures ...............................................................................................2-4

3 Summary of Jurisdiction Impact .........................................3-1

3.1 Stream and Wetland Crossings................................................................3-1

3.1.1 Wyoming Mitigation Requirements................................................3-1

3.1.2 Utah Mitigation Requirements .......................................................3-1

3.1.3 Nevada Mitigation Requirements ..................................................3-1

3.1.4 Oregon Mitigation Requirements...................................................3-1

3.1.5 Oregon Mitigation Process............................................................3-2

3.1.6 Mitigation Ratios and Acreage ......................................................3-3

4 Wetland Mitigation Process.................................................4-1

4.1 Federal .....................................................................................................4-1

4.2 Oregon .....................................................................................................4-2

4.3 Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada....................................................................4-4

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT 

January 2009 

iii 

5 References ............................................................................5-1

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT 

January 2009 

iv 

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CWM Compensatory Wetland Mitigation 

E & E Ecology and Environment, Inc. 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

M & M Mitigation and Monitoring 

NDEP Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 

NRC National Research Council 

OAR Oregon Administrative Rules 

ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

ODSL Oregon Department of State Lands 

ROW right-of-way 

UDEQ Utah Department of Environmental Quality 

UDNR Utah Department of Natural Resources 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

WDEQ Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

WQC Water Quality Certification 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT 

January 2009 

Ex-1 

Executive Summary 

This report summarizes the federal and state mitigation processes that are applicable to the 

Ruby Pipeline Project (Project). It includes a brief analysis of the proposed Project impacts; 

details the applicable federal and state mitigation requirements; and proposes methodology 

to streamline the overall mitigation process. 

At the federal and state levels, the mitigation process begins by selecting the least 

environmentally damaging practical alternative that avoids and minimizes impacts to 

jurisdictional waterbodies and wetlands during the construction and operation of the Project. 

Once all appropriate avoidance and minimization measures have been achieved and on-site 

restoration has been maximized (or cannot be accomplished) the following options are 

available to compensate for unavoidable impacts: 

1. Mitigation bank credits; 

2. In-lieu fee program credits; 

3. Permittee-responsible mitigation under a watershed approach; 

4. Permittee-responsible on-site and in-kind mitigation; and 

5. Permittee-responsible off-site and/or out-of-kind mitigation. 

Ruby Pipeline, LLC (Ruby) has implemented all appropriate avoidance and minimization 

measures during the planning and design of the Project and will continue to do so in 

coordination with the state and federal resource agencies during the implementation of the 

Project. Based on field data and impact analyses, unavoidable impacts would primarily be 

temporary in nature; and a minimal amount of unavoidable impact would be considered 

permanent and/or require additional compensatory mitigation due to a change in habitat 

type. 

Ruby intends to maximize on-site and in-kind mitigation (i.e., restoration) of temporary 

impacts to waterbodies and wetlands that may result from Project implementation. 

However, permanent impacts would require additional, compensatory mitigation measures. 

As of the drafting of this report, mitigation bank credits and in-lieu of fee program credits are 

not available within the scope of the Project area. Therefore, Ruby will need to investigate 

offsite mitigation options. 

The Project will follow the federal process laid out by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) for all mitigation requirements in Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada. However, in 

Oregon, administrative rules require specific coordination with the Department of State 

Lands to meet their mitigation requirements. Ruby recommends that the mitigation 

processes be managed and implemented concurrently to minimize review and approval 

timeframes. We also recommend that the federal and state mitigation requirements be 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT 

January 2009 

Ex-2 

consolidated into one Mitigation and Monitoring Plan that is coordinated with the federal and 

state resource agencies. 

 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT 

January 2009 

1-1 

1 Introduction 

1.1 Project Overview 

The Project is comprised of approximately 675.2 miles of 42-inch diameter natural gas 

pipeline, along with associated compression and measurement facilities, located between 

Opal, Wyoming and Malin, Oregon. An approximate 2.6-mile lateral, the PG&E Lateral, 

would also be constructed south from the Malin Hub. 

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, one in western Utah, 

one near the mid-point of the Project north of Elko, Nevada, and one northwest of 

Winnemucca, Nevada. 

Ruby proposes to construct and operate the Project to reliably deliver Rocky Mountain 

natural gas to consumers throughout the Project area, including the West Coast 

(Washington, Oregon, and California) and Nevada. Demand for natural gas in the Project 

area continues to grow, with additional natural gas supplies needed to replace declining 

Canadian supplies, increase diversity and reliability of supply, and provide flexibility as 

renewable energy is developed. 

Specifically, the Project pipeline facilities would consist of the following facilities: 

• Approximately 675.2 miles of 42-inch diameter natural gas pipeline (Ruby Mainline); 

• Approximately 2.6 miles of 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline lateral (PG&E 

Lateral); 

• Ten interconnects located within four measurement facilities; 

• Forty-four mainline valves, 11 Launchers, and ten receivers; and 

Additionally, the design for the Project requires four compressor stations. 

• Roberson Creek Compressor Station, Lincoln County, Wyoming; 

• Wildcat Hills Compressor Station, Box Elder County, Utah; 

• Wieland Flat Compressor Station, Elko County, Nevada. 

• Desert Valley Compressor Station, Humboldt County, Nevada. 

The Project would be designed in accordance with the U.S. Department of Transportation 

Pipeline Safety Regulations, 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 192. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT 

January 2009 

1-2 

1.2 Project Area Description 

The Project would cross four states (Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon) and 10 counties 

in the western United States. It would traverse approximately 48.0 miles in the State of 

Wyoming, through Lincoln and Uinta counties; 182.5 miles in the State of Utah, through 

Rich, Cache, and Box Elder counties; 357.6 miles in the State of Nevada, through Elko, 

Humboldt, and Washoe counties; and 86.9 miles in the State of Oregon, through Lake and 

Klamath counties. In addition, a 2.6-mile lateral would be installed in Klamath County, 

Oregon. The Project would result in a total of 4,328.8 acres of permanent (operational) 

disturbance and an additional 9,681.0 acres of temporary (construction) disturbance. 

The construction ROW through wetlands and waterbody crossings would be maintained at 

75 feet wide, as feasible. This ROW width would accommodate large equipment, pipe 

stringing and set up, welding, the trench, and the temporary storage of topsoil and trench 

spoil. Aboveground facilities have been located outside wetlands. 

The Project would also require extra temporary workspace and staging areas necessary for 

waterbody, roadway, and railroad crossings, and pipeline point of intersection locations. 

Ruby would use existing public and private roads to access the construction corridor and 

staging areas. Currently, there are no plans to construct new access roads. If Ruby 

determines that new access roads are necessary, Ruby would complete the required 

analysis and approvals prior to use. Access roads may be graded up to 30 feet wide with 

extra width at turns and where the access road intersects the Project ROW. 

As part of the routine maintenance of the Project, Ruby would monitor the condition of the 

pipeline ROW following pipeline installation and take corrective actions as necessary. 

1.3 Regulatory Overview 

1.3.1 Federal Regulation 

The USACE has permitting authority over activities affecting jurisdictional waters of the 

United States. Jurisdictional waters of the United States include surface waters such as 

navigable waters and their tributaries, all interstate waters and their tributaries, natural 

lakes, all wetlands adjacent to other waters, and all impoundments of these waters. 

Two federal statutes mandate USACE jurisdiction over navigable waterways and adjacent 

wetlands. These are Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of 

the Clean Water Act (CWA). Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act applies to all 

navigable waters of the United States. Section 404 of the CWA applies to all jurisdictional 

waters of the United States, including wetlands that have significant nexus to interstate 

commerce. Given the absence of navigable waters, Section 404 of the CWA would be the 

prevailing federal regulation for this Project. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT 

January 2009 

1-3 

Section 404 of the CWA requires authorization from the Secretary of the Army, acting 

through the USACE, for the discharge of dredged or fill material into all waters of the United 

States, including wetlands. Discharges of fill material generally include, without limitation: 

placement of fill that is necessary for the construction of any structure or impoundment 

requiring rock, sand, dirt, or other material for its construction; site-development fills for 

recreational, industrial, commercial, residential, and other uses; causeways or road fills; 

dams and dikes; artificial islands; property protection or reclamation devices such as riprap, 

groins, seawalls, breakwaters, and revetments; beach nourishment; levees; fill for intake 

and outfall pipes and subaqueous utility lines; fill associated with the creation of ponds; and 

any other work involving the discharge of fill or dredged material. A USACE permit is 

required whether the work is permanent or temporary. 

Pursuant to the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines in 40 CFR part 230, the USACE will only issue 

a Section 404 permit upon a determination that the proposed discharge complies with 

applicable provisions of 40 CFR part 230, including those that require the permit applicant to 

take all appropriate and practicable steps to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to waters 

of the United States. Upon completion of these steps, compensatory mitigation for 

unavoidable impacts may be required to ensure that an activity requiring a Section 404 

permit complies with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. 

United States Army Corps of Engineers regulations (33 CFR Parts 325 and 332) and United 

States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations (40 CFR Part 230) define the 

compensatory mitigation requirements for unavoidable impacts to wetlands and other 

jurisdictional waters of the United States. To assist the regulated public in interpreting these 

regulations, the USACE has issued formal Mitigation and Monitoring Proposal Guidelines 

(Appendix A). These guidelines apply to development of plans for onsite and/or offsite 

establishment (creation), enhancement, and restoration activities, as well as mitigation bank 

design. 

In addition to the USACE regulations and guidelines, Ruby will implement its Wetland and 

Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Appendix B) to minimize the extent and 

duration of project-related disturbance on wetlands and waterbodies. 

1.3.2 State Regulations 

Many states regulate waterways and adjacent wetlands, either through specific regulatory 

programs or via Section 401 of the CWA (also known as 401 Water Quality Certification). 

State regulatory programs may incorporate permitting procedures to authorize jurisdictional 

impacts to waterways and wetlands and may require compensatory mitigation for 

unavoidable impacts. In the absence of a specific regulatory program, states may utilize 

401 Water Quality Certification to require measures over and above those required by the 

USACE Section 404 permit. Section 401 allows a state to review, authorize or deny, and 

implement requirements additional to those of the USACE 404 permit. If a state chooses to 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT 

January 2009 

1-4 

utilize its authority under Section 401, the Section 404 permit does not go into effect until 

the state issues the 401 authorization. 

The state agencies and regulations that are applicable to wetlands and waters permitting 

and mitigation requirements for this Project are summarized below and detailed in the 

following sections of this report: 

Wyoming 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ), Water Quality Division: 

• CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC).

• Request for WQC submitted to WDEQ by USACE for Section 404 permits. 

• Section 401 certification issued by WDEQ prior to federal Section 404 approval. 

Utah 

Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR), Division of Water Rights: 

• Stream Channel Alteration Permit for alteration of bed or banks of a natural stream. 

• State Engineer’s Office has entered a joint permitting program with the USACE 

to issue Section 404 approvals through the State Stream Alteration Program. 

• Draft Mitigation Guidance 

• Utah Division of Water Rights, Stream Alteration Program Fact Sheet SA-5, 

Draft, Post Construction Establishment of Vegetation (refer to Appendix C) 

(UDWR 2008). 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ), Division of Water Quality: 

• CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification. 

• Request for certification submitted to UDEQ by USACE for Section 404 permits. 

• Section 401 certification issued by UDEQ prior to federal Section 404 approval. 

Nevada 

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP), Bureau of Water Pollution Control: 

• CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification. 

• Request for certification submitted to NDEP by USACE for Section 404 permits. 

• Section 401 certification issued by NDEP prior to federal Section 404 approval. 

Oregon 

Oregon Department of State Lands (ODSL): 

• Joint Removal-Fill Permit for removal or fill of materials in waters of the state 

• Complete Joint Permit Application Form for state removal-fill permit and Section 

404 permit. 

• The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) receives the Joint 

Permit Application from ODSL. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT 

January 2009 

1-5 

• Additional mitigation regulations will apply under Oregon’s Administrative Rules 

(refer to Appendix D). 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ): 

• CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification. 

• Joint Removal-Fill Permit/Section 404 application forwarded to ODEQ for 

certification. 

• Section 401 certification to be issued prior to federal Section 404 approval. 

1.4 Jurisdictional Impacts 

Unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and waterways would result from Project 

construction. For the purpose of this report “jurisdictional impacts” are defined as impacts 

to wetlands and waterways that are regulated by federal and/or state government. These 

jurisdictional impacts are broken down into two main categories: (1) temporary impacts and 

(2) permanent impacts. The jurisdictional impacts are summarized in this report; and 

detailed discussions are provided in the Ruby Wetland Delineation Report (E & E 2008d).

1.4.1 Temporary Impacts 

Temporary wetland impacts resulting from of the Project are anticipated to be limited to 

those activities associated with construction, including clearing of vegetation, topsoil 

removal, trenching, pipe installation, and backfilling. The total amount of temporarily 

affected wetlands is expected to be 197.9 acres (E & E, 2008d). 

1.4.2 Permanent Impacts 

No potential wetland areas were identified at any of the locations for Project aboveground 

facilities; therefore, no permanent wetland impacts are anticipated from the construction or 

operation of those facilities. However, 0.1 acres of forested wetlands would be converted to 

emergent wetlands as a result of the Project (E & E 2008d). The USACE has the discretion 

to deem said habitat conversion a permanent impact, and the State of Oregon defines said 

conversion as a permanent impact. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT 

January 2009 

2-1 

2 Federal Mitigation Requirements 

2.1 Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources 

Federal mitigation requirements are outlined in the Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of 

Aquatic Resources that were jointly developed and issued by the USACE (33 CFR Parts 

325 and 332) and the EPA (40 CFR Part 230) on April 10, 2008. These regulations define 

the compensatory mitigation requirements for unavoidable impacts to wetlands and other 

jurisdictional waters of the United States. Pursuant to the regulations, compensatory 

mitigation can be accomplished by restoring, enhancing, creating, or, in certain 

circumstances, preserving aquatic resources. However, restoration of temporary impacts 

should generally be the first method considered because its likelihood of success is greater. 

If all appropriate avoidance and minimization measures have been achieved, and on-site 

restoration has been maximized (or cannot be accomplished), the USACE will consider the 

following five types and location options to compensate for unavoidable impacts (in order to 

preference): 

1. Mitigation bank credits; 

2. In-lieu fee program credits; 

3. Permittee-responsible mitigation under a watershed approach; 

4. Permittee-responsible on-site and in-kind mitigation; and 

5. Permittee-responsible off-site and/or out-of-kind mitigation (USACE 2008a). 

2.2 USACE District Guidelines 

The USACE Districts are committed to improving the success of future compensatory 

mitigation projects. The Districts have issued Mitigation Guidelines and Monitoring 

Requirements (Guidelines) that are designed to assist the regulated public with all aspects 

of the mitigation process and to provide information to ensure that future mitigation sites 

successfully replace lost functions and values associated with unavoidable, regulated 

impacts to waters of the United States. The Guidelines utilized by the Sacramento, 

Portland, and the Omaha Districts of the USACE outline the mitigation criteria Ruby would 

utilize in selecting, designing, implementing, and monitoring wetland mitigation sites. 

There are no major substantive differences between the three District Guidelines. The only 

variation between them is that the Portland and Omaha Guidelines discuss mitigation 

criteria in greater detail, and the Sacramento Guidelines include ten Mitigation Principles 

that were developed by the National Research Council (NRC) and used by the USACE and 

EPA in developing their mitigation guidelines. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT 

January 2009 

2-2 

The following is a summary of the Mitigation Principles, Mitigation Guidelines, and 

Monitoring Requirements that have been adopted by the USACE Districts that Ruby would 

follow in selecting, designing, implementing, and monitoring wetland mitigation sites. 

2.2.1 Sacramento District 

In its report entitled “Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act,” the 

NRC provided 10 operational guidelines to aid in planning and implementing restoration, 

enhancement, and creation of aquatic resource systems. The Sacramento District adopted 

these 10 guidelines as Mitigation Principles for District staff and the regulated public to 

incorporate into the review and development of mitigation projects. The ten Mitigation 

Principles are arranged under two headings as outlined below: 

A. Basic Requirements for Success 

1. Whenever Possible, Choose Wetland Restoration over Creation; 

2. Avoid Over-Engineered Structures in the Wetland Design; 

3. Restore or Develop Naturally Variable Hydrological Conditions; 

4. Consider Complications Associated with Creation or Restoration in Seriously 

Degraded or Disturbed Sites; and 

5. Conduct Early Monitoring as Part of Adaptive Management. 

B. Guide for Mitigation Site Selection 

1. Consider the Hydrogeomorphic and Ecological Landscape and Climate; 

2. Adopt a Dynamic Landscape Perspective; 

3. Pay Attention to Subsurface Conditions, Including Soil and Sediment Geochemistry 

and Physics, Groundwater Quantity and Quality, and Infaunal Communities; 

4. Pay Particular Attention to Appropriate Planting Elevation, Depth, Soil Type, and 

Seasonal Timing; and 

5. Provide Appropriately Heterogeneous Topography (USACE 2004). 

The Sacramento District Mitigation and Monitoring Proposal Guidelines are provided in 

Appendix E. 

2.2.2 Portland District 

The Mitigation Guidelines and Monitoring Requirements prepared by the Portland District of 

the USACE are intended to assist the regulated public in preparing adequate and complete 

Mitigation and Monitoring (M&M) plans, implementing successful mitigation projects, and 

monitoring them to identify and remedy any problems that can reduce long term success. 

The language in the Portland District Mitigation Guidelines and Monitoring Requirements is 

consistent with the Federal Mitigation Requirements outlined in 33 CFR Part 332, as noted 

above. If after all appropriate avoidance and minimization has been achieved, and if on-site 

restoration can not be accomplished, the USACE will consider the following five (5) types 

and location options to compensate for unavoidable impacts (in order to preference): 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT 

January 2009 

2-3 

1. Mitigation bank credits; 

2. In-lieu fee program credits; 

3. Permittee-responsible mitigation under a watershed approach; 

4. Permittee-responsible on-site and in-kind mitigation; and 

5. Permittee-responsible off-site and/or out-of-kind mitigation (USACE, 2008b). 

The USACE policy outlined in the Section C of the Mitigation Guidelines and Monitoring 

Requirements for the Portland District discusses the mitigation process succinctly and in 

greater detail (refer to Appendix F). 

2.2.3 Omaha District 

The Omaha District Compensatory Mitigation Guidelines for Wyoming prepared by the 

Omaha District of the USACE are intended to provide applicants with projects which involve 

compensatory mitigation proposals. Below is an outline of information needed by the 

Wyoming Regulatory Office for compensatory mitigation plans. This guideline would 

establish the basic information required. At the request of the USACE, more extensive data 

and information may be required. 

1. Mitigation Goals 

2. Existing condition of mitigation site 

3. Design of Mitigation Site 

a. Drawings 

b. Other treatments 

c. Hydrology 

4. Monitoring 

a. Success Criteria/Performance Standards 

b. Sampling protocols 

c. Report content 

5. Additional Information Requirements 

a. Contingency Plans 

b. Deed Restrictions/Conservation Easements 

c. Performance Bonds 

The Omaha District Compensatory Mitigation Guidelines for Wyoming are provided in 

Appendix G. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT 

January 2009 

2-4 

2.3 Ruby’s Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation 

Procedures 

Ruby’s Procedures are intended to assist applicants by identifying baseline mitigation 

measures for minimizing the extent and duration of project-related disturbance on wetlands 

and waterbodies. The Procedures outline practical construction methods and best 

management practices (BMPs) that avoid and minimize impacts at waterbody and wetland 

crossings. 

Ruby’s Procedures are based on the FERC’s Wetland and Waterbody Construction and 

Mitigation Procedures. The FERC defers to the definition of waters and wetlands as 

outlined in the 1987 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands 

and, in effect, utilizes this definition in the specific restoration (i.e., mitigation) and postconstruction maintenance, monitoring, and performance requirements prescribe in its 

Procedures. The FERC’s prescriptive mitigation requirements are aligned with USACE 

mitigation guidelines and monitoring requirements and include “project-specific wetland 

restoration plans” as requested by FERC. Project-specific restoration plans are to include 

measures for re-establishing stream beds, banks, riparian and wetland herbaceous and/or 

woody species; controlling the invasion and spread of undesirable exotic species; and 

monitoring and reporting the success of the revegetation and weed control efforts. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT 

January 2009 

3-1 

3 Summary of Jurisdiction Impact 

3.1 Stream and Wetland Crossings 

Wetland and stream crossings by state are summarized in Appendix H. 

3.1.1 Wyoming Mitigation Requirements 

The federal mitigation requirements of the USACE will prevail within the state of Wyoming. 

Given that all impacts are proposed to be temporary, wetland restoration will be required at 

a rate of 1:1 (impact:mitigation). However, the WDEQ, Water Quality Division may request 

additional measures during their CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification review 

process. 

3.1.2 Utah Mitigation Requirements 

The federal mitigation requirements of the USACE would prevail within the State of Utah. 

Given that all impacts are proposed to be temporary, wetland restoration will be required at 

a rate of 1:1 (impact:mitigation). The UDNR, Division of Water Rights has issued draft 

mitigation guidance to assist applicants in the preparation of mitigation plans: Utah Division 

of Water Rights, Stream Alteration Program Fact Sheet SA-5, Draft, Post Construction 

Establishment of Vegetation (refer to Appendix I) (UDWR 2008). 

3.1.3 Nevada Mitigation Requirements 

The federal mitigation requirements of the USACE would prevail within the State of Nevada 

for jurisdictional waters. Because the State of Nevada takes jurisdiction over all waters in 

the state, including dry, “non-live” washes, the NDEP, Bureau of Water Pollution Control 

typically requires restoration as a special condition during its CWA Section 401 Water 

Quality Certification review process. Restoration typically requires returning a stream bed 

and banks to its original, pre-disturbance configuration and topography followed by 

revegetation. Photo documentation of the site before and after the disturbance is also 

typically required in order to ensure the restoration requirement is met (Gentry 2008). 

Nevada does not typically require additional compensatory mitigation over and above that 

required by the USACE. Given that all impacts are proposed to be temporary, wetland 

restoration would be required at a rate of 1:1 (impact:mitigation). 

3.1.4 Oregon Mitigation Requirements 

For projects where reasonably expected adverse effects to the water resources, including 

wetland functions, cannot otherwise be avoided or minimized, Oregon Administrative Rules 

(OAR-141-085-0121(2)) require a compensatory wetland mitigation (CWM) plan to 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT 

January 2009 

3-2 

compensate for the reasonably expected adverse effects of a project by replacing the 

functional attributes of the wetland impacted by project development. Compensatory 

wetland mitigation shall be limited to replacement of the functional attributes of the lost 

wetland. 

3.1.5 Oregon Mitigation Process 

There are generally several compensatory mitigation options available to permit applicants 

in Oregon, including on- and off-site mitigation, payment in lieu, and mitigation banking. 

However, based on a recent discussion with the ODSL, the payment in lieu and mitigation 

banking options are not available for the Ruby Project. Please refer to Appendix J for the 

detailed State of Oregon mitigation requirements (ODSL 2008a); and to Appendix K for the 

Guidance on Function Assessment and Mitigation Approach for Large Linear Corridor 

Projects, Draft Regulation 11-19-07 (ODSL 2008). 

The State of Oregon wetland and habitat mitigation are as follows:

Onsite Mitigation is conducting the compensatory wetland mitigation project on the same 

parcel as the wetland impact. Often, this is the best way to replace the lost functions close 

to where they will be lost. Sometimes, however, onsite mitigation is not practical or would 

not be ecologically successful. 

Offsite Mitigation is conducting the mitigation project somewhere other than on the 

development site. It may be done through a legal agreement with another landowner or by 

purchasing wetland mitigation credits from a mitigation bank (note: no banks are available in 

Lake or Klamath Counties). The offsite mitigation needs to be located in the same 

watershed and replace the same type of wetland functions that were lost. 

Mitigation for Other Waters: Projects on streams or riverbanks may also require mitigation 

to offset adverse impacts to water resources and navigation, fishing, or public recreation 

uses on those waters. Compensatory mitigation for non-wetland waters may include onsite 

or offsite improvement or enhancement of water resources or compensation to a third party 

to conduct, monitor, and maintain such mitigation sites. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Compliance Review: It is the Fish and Wildlife 

Habitat Mitigation Policy of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) to require 

or recommend, depending upon the habitat protection and mitigation opportunities provided 

by specific statutes, mitigation for losses of fish and wildlife habitat resulting from 

development actions. The ODFW shall apply the requirements of its policy when 

implementing its own development actions and when developing recommendations to other 

state, federal, or local agencies regarding development actions for which mitigation for 

impacts to fish and wildlife habitat is authorized or required by federal, state, or local 

environmental laws or land use regulations. Please refer to Appendix K (ODFW 2008) for 

the detailed ODFW mitigation requirements.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT 

January 2009 

3-3 

Administrative Rule Revisions: Oregon is currently in the process of revising its

Administrative Rules regarding fill-removal permits and mitigation (ODSL 2008b). Some of 

these revisions may affect mitigation requirements for this Project. 

3.1.6 Mitigation Ratios and Acreage 

State rules establish the following wetland replacement ratios for compensatory mitigation: 

1:1 for restoration; 1.5:1 for creation; 3:1 for enhancement; and 2:1 for enhancement of 

cropped wetlands. However, the administrative rules governing mitigation do provide some 

flexibility. 

The mitigation ratio will need to be specifically negotiated for areas where the wetland 

impact is temporary (e.g., the surface is restored to wetland after placement of pipe in a 

trench) but where the wetland habitat type that existed within the corridor will be changed 

(e.g., the corridor will be maintained as an emergent wetland and trees/shrubs prevented 

from growing back). Although Ruby will have provided a 1:1 mitigation ratio in the form of 

onsite restoration, it will also need to offset the loss of functions provided by the vegetative 

structure—notably thermoregulation (riparian shade) and songbird habitat—at an offsite 

location. The quantity and type of offsite mitigation would therefore be negotiated in 

advance with the ODSL. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT 

January 2009 

4-1 

4 Wetland Mitigation Process 

Ruby has implemented all appropriate avoidance and minimization measures during the 

planning and design of the Project and will continue to do so in coordination with the 

relevant state and federal resource agencies during the implementation of the Project. 

Based on field data and impact analyses, unavoidable impacts would primarily be temporary 

in nature, and a very minimal amount of unavoidable impact would be considered 

permanent and/or require additional compensatory mitigation. 

Ruby intends to maximize on-site and in-kind mitigation (i.e., restoration) of temporary 

impacts to waterbodies and wetlands that may result from Project implementation. 

However, permanent impacts would require additional, compensatory mitigation measures. 

As of the drafting of this report, mitigation bank credits and in-lieu of fee program credits are 

not available within the scope of the Project area. Therefore, Ruby will need to investigate 

offsite mitigation options. 

The Project would follow the federal process laid out by the USACE for all mitigation 

requirements in Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada. However, in Oregon, administrative rules 

require specific coordination with the Department of State Lands to meet its mitigation 

requirements. E & E recommends that the mitigation processes be managed and 

implemented concurrently to minimize review and approval timeframes. 

4.1 Federal 

The Federal mitigation process begins by initiating a pre-application consultation with the 

USACE to discuss potential mitigation requirements and information needs. Thereafter, 

Ruby will be required to prepare and submit a draft M & M Plan to the USACE for review 

and comment. This allows Ruby to get feedback and buy-in from the USACE prior to 

investing in an un-vetted approach or development of final plans. Before the USACE will 

authorize construction to begin in jurisdictional waters or wetlands, the USACE will need to 

approve a final M & M Plan. As outlined in 33 CFR Part 332, an M & M Plan must include 

the following elements: 

1. Mitigation Objectives; 

2. Site Selection; 

3. Site Protection Instrument; 

4. Baseline Information; 

5. Determination of Credits; 

6. Mitigation Work Plan; 

7. Maintenance Plan; 

8. Performance Standards; 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT 

January 2009 

4-2 

9. Monitoring Requirements; 

10. Long-term Management Plan; 

11. Adaptive Management Plan; 

12. Financial Assurances; and 

13. Other information that the DE may require to determine the appropriateness, 

feasibility and practicability of the mitigation project (USACE 2008a). 

Ruby must proceed through the following five key stages in the development of a 

compensatory mitigation project, as outlined in the Mitigation Guidelines and Monitoring 

Requirements issued by the Portland and Sacramento Districts: 

A. Project Site Impact Assessment; 

B. Compensatory Mitigation Site Selection; 

C. Compensatory Mitigation Site Design; 

D. Compensatory Mitigation Site Construction; and 

E. Long-Term Compensatory Mitigation Site Maintenance and Monitoring (USACE 

2004 and USACE 2008b). 

Within each of these stages, the USACE has identified mitigation concerns (i.e., criteria) 

that Ruby will need to consider and address when preparing M & M Plans. To the extent 

practical, these criteria must also be addressed in the preparation of M & M Plans for 

restoration of sites that have been temporarily impacted during Project construction. 

Addressing these criteria in the manner suggested by the USACE will facilitate the review 

and approval of the M & M Plan proposal. Again, note that that all wetland impacts 

resulting from the Project in the states of Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada to are proposed to 

be temporary, wetland restoration would be required at a rate of 1:1 (impact:mitigation) and 

would be conducted on-site at the location of construction. 

4.2 Oregon 

The Oregon mitigation process begins by initiating a pre-application consultation with the 

ODSL to discuss: 1) mitigation requirements and information needs; 2) how ODSL 

requirements may be coordinated with those of the USACE; and 3) how ODSL 

requirements may be incorporated into a “joint” M & M Plan. Specific discussion will include 

the quantity and type of offsite mitigation Ruby would provide to offset the loss of functions 

resulting from a change in vegetative structure (i.e., wooded to herbaceous). 

Following pre-application consultation, Ruby will be required to prepare and submit a draft 

of the joint M & M Plan to the ODSL for review and comment. This allows Ruby to get 

feedback and buy-in from the ODSL prior to development of final plans. Before the ODSL 

will authorize construction to begin in jurisdictional waters or wetlands, it will need to 

approve a final M & M Plan. As outlined in OAR-141-085-0141, the Oregon component of 

the joint M & M Plan must include the following elements: 

1. CWM site information: 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT 

January 2009 

4-3 

a. Area/size; 

b. Site ownership; and 

c. Legal description. 

2. Existing physical and biological baseline: 

a. Wetland determination/delineation report; 

b. Functional assessment; 

c. Description of the major plant communities; 

d. Description of water source, duration, frequency of inundation or saturation, 

depth of surface or subsurface water and approximate location of all water 

features (wetlands, streams, lakes) within 500 feet of the CWM site; and 

e. Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) and Cowardin classification of any wetlands 

present within the CWM site. 

3. CWM plan description: 

a. CWM plan goals, objectives and success criteria;

b. The CWM concept: 

i. How the plan will restore, reverse, minimize or control the causes of 

wetland degradation; and 

ii. Ensure that the wetland functions of the effected wetland are 

replaced; 

c. Description of the rationale for the CWM site selection; 

d. Proposed water source, duration, frequency of inundation or saturation; 

e. Any known CWM site constraints or limitations; 

f. Proposed HGM and Cowardin classification; 

g. Proposed net losses and gains of wetland functions; and 

h. Description of how the applicant will maintain and protect the direct CWM site 

beyond the monitoring period. 

4. CWM construction plans including: 

a. Scaled site plan showing CWM project boundaries, existing wetlands, 

restoration, creation and enhancement areas; 

b. Scaled grading plan with existing and proposed contours and cross section 

locations; 

c. Description of construction methods (access, equipment); 

d. Schematic of any proposed hydrological structures; 

e. Scaled cross sections showing elevations, distance; 

f. Planting plan (with species, size, number, spacing and installation methods); 

g. Monitoring plan (schedule, timetable, methods); 

h. Contingency plan for CWM failures; and 

i. Implementation schedule and construction sequence. 

5. Reference site, combination of reference sites, or reference data of the same HGM 

class (compare and relate the sites and/or data to the CWM goal). 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT 

January 2009 

4-4 

6. Provisions for a financial security instrument. 

7. Plans for vegetated buffers, if needed, to protect the viability and functions of the 

CWM site. 

8. Plans for the long-term protection of the CWM site (ODSL 2008b). 

4.3 Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada 

Although the Project will follow the federal process laid out by the USACE for mitigation 

requirements in Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada, Ruby will initiate pre-application consultation 

with the appropriate state personnel to ensure that the M & M plan will meet any special 

conditions that may apply under their 401 Water Quality Certification process. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT 

January 2009 

5-1 

5 References 

__________. 2008d. Wetland Delineation Report. Prepared for Ruby Pipeline, LLC. 

Portland, Oregon. November 2008. 

Gentry, Glen. November 6, 2008. Personal Communication. Nevada Division of 

Environmental Protection (NDEP), Bureau of Water Quality Planning. Telephone 

conversation with Jon Dauzvardis, Ecology and Environment, Inc. Boulder, CO. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2008. Division 415, Fish and Wildlife 

Habitat Mitigation Policy. 

http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_600/OAR_635/635_415.html. Accessed 

November 6, 2008. 

Oregon Department of State Lands (ODSL). 2008a. Division 85, Administrative Rules 

Governing the Issuance and Enforcement of Removal-Fill Authorizations Within 

Waters Of Oregon Including Wetlands. 

http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_100/OAR_141/141_085.html. Accessed 

November 6, 2008 

__________ 2008b. Division 141-085, Proposed Rule Change Summary by Major Topic 

(7/17/2008), Administrative Rules Governing the Issuance and Enforcement of 

Removal-Fill Authorizations Within Waters Of Oregon Including Wetlands. 

http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_600/OAR_635/635_415.html. Accessed 

November 6, 2008. 

United States Department of Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2004. Sacramento 

District Mitigation and Monitoring Proposal Guidelines. 

https://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/op/g/public.asp. December 30, 2004. 

__________. 2008a. Federal Register, 33 CFR Part 332, Compensatory Mitigation for 

Losses of Aquatic Resources. National Archives and Records Administration. April 

10, 2008. 

__________. 2008b. Portland District Mitigation Guidelines and Monitoring Requirements. 

from https://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/op/g/public.asp. Accessed October 17, 2008. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. Federal Register, 40 CFR 

Part 230, Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources. National 

Archives and Records Administration. April 10, 2008. 

United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2003. Wetland and 

Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures. 

http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/guidelines.asp. Accessed January 17, 

2003. 

Utah Division of Water Rights (UDWR). 2008a. Post Construction Establishment of 

Vegetation. Stream Alteration Fact Sheet SA-5. First Edition. February 15, 2008. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT PRELIMINARY WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT 

January 2009 

5-2 

http://www.waterrights.utah.gov/strmalt/whitepapers/default.asp. Accessed 

November 3, 2008. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX P 

Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Noxious and Invasive Weed

Control Plan

FERC Docket No. CP09-___-000

January 2009

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT NOXIOUS WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN

January 2009

i

Table of Contents

Section Page

1 Introduction ............................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Project Description .............................................................................. 1-1

1.2 Plan Purpose....................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 Goals and Objectives .......................................................................... 1-2

2 Noxious Weed Management Plan........................................... 2-3

2.1 Noxious Weed Inventory ..................................................................... 2-3

2.1.1 Weed Management Areas........................................................ 2-6

2.2 Noxious Weed Management............................................................... 2-6

2.2.1 Identification of Problem Areas................................................. 2-7

2.2.2 Preventative Measures............................................................. 2-7

2.2.3 Treatment Methods .................................................................. 2-9

2.2.4 Reclamation Methods............................................................. 2-12

2.2.5 Agency-Specific Requirements............................................... 2-13

2.2.5.1 United States Forest Service Lands .......................... 2-13

2.2.5.2 Bureau of Land Management Lands ......................... 2-14

2.2.5.3 Other Agency and Landowner Requirements............ 2-15

3.0 Monitoring.............................................................................. 3-16

3.1 Reclamation Monitoring..................................................................... 3-16

3.2 Ongoing Monitoring........................................................................... 3-17

3.3 Monitoring of Known Infestation Areas.............................................. 3-17

4.0 Herbicide Application, Handling, Spills, and Cleanup........ 4-18

4.1 Herbicide Application and Handling .................................................. 4-18

4.2 Herbicide Spills and Cleanup ............................................................ 4-19

4.3 Worker Safety and Spill Reporting .................................................... 4-19

5.0 References.............................................................................. 5-1

A Tables.......................................................................................A-1

B State Laws Regarding Noxious Weeds..................................A-1

C Agency Contact Reports ........................................................B-1

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

November 2008

iii

List of Tables

Table Page

Table 2-1 Noxious Weed Populations Identified Along Ruby Pipeline

Right-of-Way .......................................................................................A-1

Table 2-2 Designated Noxious Weeds of the State of Wyoming and

Appropriate Agencies and Counties within Wyoming........................A-11

Table 2-3 Designated Noxious Weeds of the State of Utah and

Appropriate Agencies and Counties within Utah ...............................A-13

Table 2-4 Designated Noxious Weeds of the State of Nevada and

Appropriate Agencies and Counties within Nevada ..........................A-14

Table 2-5 Designated Noxious Weeds of the State of Oregon and

Appropriate Agencies and Counties within Oregon...........................A-18

Table 2-6 Weed Management Areas and Mitigation Restrictions by

States and Appropriate Agencies and Counties Along

the Pipeline Right-of-Way .................................................................A-23

Table 2-7a Wyoming Recommended Native Seed Mixtures for

Desert Scrub .....................................................................................A-29

Table 2-7b Wyoming Recommended Native Seed Mixtures for

Sagebrush Scrub ..............................................................................A-29

Table 2-7c Utah and Nevada Recommended Native Seed Mixtures..................A-30

Table 2-7d Oregon Recommended Native Seed Mixtures .................................A-31

Table 2-7e Oregon Seed Mixture Recommendations for Livestock

Forage Production – Rangeland and Pastureland with

Effective Precipitation 9-12 Inches....................................................A-32

Table 2-7f Oregon Seed Mixture Recommendations for Livestock

Forage Production – Rangeland and Pastureland with

Effective Precipitation 12-15 Inches..................................................A-32

Table 2-7g Oregon Seed Mixture Recommendations for Livestock

Forage Production – Rangeland and Pastureland with

Effective Precipitation 15-18 Inches..................................................A-33

Table 2-7h Oregon Seed Mixture Recommendations for Livestock

Forage Production – Grazable Woodland with Effective

Precipitation 15-18 Inches (Pine-Grassland).....................................A-33

Table 2-7i Oregon Seed Mixture Recommendations for Livestock

Forage production – Irrigated Pasture with Alkali Soils,

Poor Drainage ...................................................................................A-34

Table 2-7j Oregon Seed Mixture Recommendations for Sagebrush

Rangeland Sites................................................................................A-35

Table 2-8 Herbicides Approved and Proposed for Use on Public

(BLM) Lands......................................................................................A-36

Table 2-9 States in Which Herbicides are Approved for Use on

Public (BLM) Lands Based upon Current Environmental

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
List of Tables (cont.)

Table Page

January 2009

iv

Impact Statements, Court Injunctions, and Changes in

Registration Status..............................................................................A-1

Table 2-10 Potential Treatment Methods for Invasive Plant Species....................A-2

Table 2-11 Characteristics of Invasive Species found in the

Fremont-Winema National Forest Planning Area................................A-4

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
January 2009

v

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

BLM Bureau of Land Management

EEAP employee environmental awareness program

EIS environmental impact statement

GIS Geographic Information System

GPS global positioning system

MP milepost

mph miles per hour

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service

Project Ruby Pipeline Project

ROW right-of-way

Ruby Ruby Pipeline, LLC

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USDOI United States Department of the Interior

USFS United States Forest Service

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
January 2009

1-1

1 Introduction

1.1 Project Description

The Ruby Pipeline Project (Project), proposed by Ruby Pipeline, LLC (Ruby), is composed of

approximately 675.2 miles of 42-inch diameter natural gas pipeline, along with associated

compression and measurement facilities, located between Opal, Wyoming and Malin,

Oregon. An approximate 2.6-mile lateral would also be constructed south from the Malin

Hub in Klamath County, Oregon. The pipeline right-of-way (ROW) would cross four states:

Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon. Four new compressor stations would also be

installed as part of the Project.

1.2 Plan Purpose

The purpose of this plan is to prescribe methods to prevent, mitigate, and control the spread

of noxious weeds during and following construction of the Project. Ruby and its contractors

would be responsible for carrying out the methods described in this plan. This plan is

applicable to the construction and operation of the Project.

Noxious weed control practices for the Project described in this plan have been developed

utilizing the following sources and agency contacts.

Wyoming:

 County Weed and Pest Control Districts in Lincoln and Uinta counties,

 The Wyoming Weed and Pest Control Act of 1973,

 The Wyoming State Weed Plan (2003),

 The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) State Office and Kemmerer Field Office,

and

 The State Weed and Pest Control Council.

Utah:

 County Weed Supervisors from Rich, Cache, and Box Elder counties,

 Utah Noxious Weed Act (2008),

 The BLM State Office and Salt Lake Field Office,

 The Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest Service,

 The Utah Department of Agriculture and Food, and

 Cooperative Weed Management / Weed Control Associations.

Nevada:

 Nevada Revised Statutes: Chapter 555—Control of Insects, Pests and Noxious

Weeds;

 The BLM State Office and Elko, Winnemucca, and Surprise field offices;

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED AND INVASIVE CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

1-2

 The Nevada Department of Agriculture; and

 Nevada Weed Action Committees.

Oregon:

 The Fremont-Winema National Forest Service,

 The BLM Lakeview and Klamath Falls field offices, and

 The Oregon Department of Agriculture (Noxious Weed Control Program).

Other:

 Cooperative Weed Management Associations in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and

Oregon;

 The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) in Wyoming and Oregon

(pending coordination from Utah and Nevada); and

 Information and observations made during field surveys performed in 2008 by Ruby.

Note that in most cases, coordination with the above agencies is ongoing.

1.3 Goals and Objectives

The goal of the preventative and control measures outlined in this document is to minimize

the spread of noxious weeds during the construction and maintenance of the Project.

Ruby’s objective is to assist federal, state, and local agencies’ noxious weed control efforts;

to comply with requirements designed to prevent the spread of noxious weeds; and to

implement weed control measures on areas of the Project that are identified to be of special

concern. In carrying out these measures, Ruby would target selected areas along the

Project ROW where noxious species are problematic and form a significant portion of the

vegetation community in comparison to adjacent undisturbed areas.

Monitoring during the construction and operational phases would include identification of any

local areas on and adjacent to the Project ROW that may experience potential infestation.

An evaluation of the efficiency of the prescribed control measures would also be

implemented during the operational phase.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED AND INVASIVE CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

2-3

2 Noxious Weed Management Plan

Noxious weeds are opportunistic and often exotic (non-indigenous) plant species that readily

invade disturbed areas, often producing monocultures and preventing native plant species

from establishing communities. Noxious weeds also degrade most agriculture and natural

resources, including soil and water, wildlife habitat, and recreational and wilderness values.

Federal Invasive Species Executive Order 13112 defines an invasive plant as an “alien”

(non-native) species whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or

environmental harm or harm to human health” (U.S. Federal Register 1999).

Studies have shown that new roads and pipeline/utility ROWs can become a pathway for the

spread of invasive plants (EPA 2008). Weed infestations can become permanent if left

untreated.

Federal Invasive Species Executive Order 13112 defines “control” as eradicating,

suppressing, reducing, or managing invasive species populations; preventing spread of

invasive species from areas where they are present; and taking steps such as restoration of

native species and habitats to reduce the effects of invasive species and to prevent further

invasions (U.S. Federal Register 1999).

2.1 Noxious Weed Inventory

For the Project, biological surveys were conducted from April through October 2008 to

determine noxious weed occurrence along the proposed Project. The surveys focused on

resources within a 300-foot-wide corridor centered on the Project centerline and other areas

outside this corridor, including access roads, extra work spaces, and aboveground facilities.

Data collected were logged using global positioning system (GPS) units and then plotted on

United States Geological Survey 1:24,000 scale topographic maps.

Resulting noxious weed location data collected by Ruby are presented in Table 2-1, which

lists observed weed species by state, county, and milepost (MP) range. Additionally, Table

2-1 is supplemented by local agency noxious weed infestation data on lands within or

adjacent to the Project area (provided prior to December 12, 2008 – coordination ongoing).

It should be noted that Table 2-1 does not include noxious weed field data collected by the

Project after November 22, 2008 and that a more comprehensive inventory will be compiled

following completion of the planned 2009 access road and Project ROW vegetation surveys.

Each state maintains a list of legally designated noxious weed species, pursuant to Weed

Control Acts or programs. Lists are also maintained by each BLM Resource Area/Field

Office/District and National Forest traversed by the Project. Within counties, local weed

supervisors may also designate additional weed species as noxious. Tables 2-2 to 2-5

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED AND INVASIVE CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

2-4

summarize the noxious weed designations for Wyoming (Table 2-2), Utah (Table 2-3),

Nevada (Table 2-4), and Oregon (Table 2-5).

In October 2008, Ruby initiated contact with local regulators (listed in Section 1.2) to request

information regarding noxious weed species identified in areas of potential concern along the

Project ROW, the location and extent of infestations, and any weed management

requirements or requests for inclusion in Ruby’s Noxious Weed Management Plan. Contact

reports summarizing this communication are included in Appendix C, and weed

management requirements outlined by agency contacts (including infested area information)

are summarized in Table 2-6.

Herbicide treatment of selected areas along the Project ROW would be carried out where

target species are problematic and form a significant portion of the vegetation community in

comparison to adjacent undisturbed areas. Section 2.2.2 identifies preventative measures

that would be implemented along the Project ROW and at all of the proposed facilities to

minimize the spread of noxious weeds during construction activities.

It should be noted, however, that repeated control measures are generally not considered to

be constructive in areas along or adjacent to the Project ROW where noxious weed species

are already established and abundant. For example, it is recognized by the BLM, and other

agencies that the widespread distribution of some non-native species such as cheatgrass

(Bromus tectorum), other grasses (Schismus spp.), and weeds not listed as noxious,

precludes the possibility of general control.

Summary of Noxious Weeds along Project Right-of-Way

The Project analyzed data provided by a number of agencies, as well as field survey data

(collected in 2008) to determine the locations of noxious weeds along the ROW.

The following agencies provided noxious weed distribution data for the Project area:

 BLM Kemmerer Field Office (WY),

 Lincoln County Weed and Pest Control District (WY),

 BLM Elko District (NV),

 BLM Winnemucca District (NV),

 BLM Surprise Field Office (NV),

 BLM Klamath Falls Resource Area (OR), and

 Fremont-Winema National Forest (OR).

Wyoming

In Wyoming, 25 plant species are officially designated as noxious weeds under the authority

of the Wyoming Weed and Pest Control Act of 1973, and several others are identified as

target species or species of special concern by federal and local agencies. The complete

species list is presented in Table 2-2.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED AND INVASIVE CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

2-5

A total of five noxious weed species were recorded at 19 sites within the 115-foot Project

ROW in Wyoming during field surveys conducted in 2008 (Table 2-1). The State of Wyoming

designates certain species as noxious weeds, but does not further classify them.

Of the five species documented, the two most abundant were Canada thistle (Cirsium

arvense), and musk thistle (Carduus nutans). Canada thistle was documented at seven

sites, with local densities recorded as low in six instances, and high in one instance. Musk

thistle was documented at four sites, with local densities recorded as low in all instances.

Occurrences of these species increase the potential for new or expanded growth of noxious

weeds as direct consequence of pipeline construction.

Utah

In Utah, 28 plant species are officially designated as noxious weeds under the

Commissioner of Agriculture’s authority (Section 4-17-3, Utah Noxious Weed Act). The

complete list of noxious weeds, along with additional targeted species of special concern

identified by federal and local agencies, is presented Table 2-3.

Ruby recorded 12 noxious weeds species at 102 sites within the 115-foot Project ROW in

Utah during field surveys conducted in 2008 (Table 2-1). Of the 12 species documented,

three are designated as Class A (very high priority), five are designated as Class B (high

priority), and four are designated as Class C (agricultural threat).

Of the three Class A species documented, medusahead rye (Taeniatherum caput-medusae)

was the most abundant, and was recorded at 10 sites with local densities ranging from low to

high. Of the five Class B species documented, Dyer’s woad (Isatis tinctoria) was the most

abundant, and was recorded at 27 sites with local densities ranging from low to moderate.

All other Class A and Class B species were recorded at five or fewer sites. Class C species

were recorded at fifty sites at densities ranging from low to high, with Field bindweed being

the most abundant (recorded at 31 sites).

Nevada

In Nevada, 48 species are officially designated as noxious weeds under the Nevada Control

of Insects, Pests and Noxious Weeds Act (Nevada Revised Statutes: Chapter 555). Table

2-4 presents the complete list of noxious weeds, with additional targeted species of special

concern identified by federal and local agencies.

Eight noxious and invasive weed species were recorded at 28 sites within the 115-foot

Project ROW in Nevada during field surveys conducted in 2008 (Table 2-1). Of the eight

species documented, none is designated as Class A (control required), three are designated

as Class B (control required in areas where not well established), and one is designated as

Class C (control at discretion of state officer). Of the remaining species, one is listed by

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED AND INVASIVE CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

2-6

agencies other than the State of Nevada, and three are not designated as noxious weeds,

but may still be considered invasive.

Of the three Class B species documented, Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens) was the

most abundant, having been recorded at five sites with local densities ranging from low to

high.

Oregon

In Oregon, 112 species are officially designated as noxious weeds under the Oregon

Department of Agriculture’s Noxious Weed Control Program. The Oregon State Weed

Board is responsible for maintaining the state noxious weed list. Table 2-5 presents the

complete list of noxious weeds, including federal and local agency species of concern/control

targets.

Ruby recorded six noxious weed species at 31 sites within the 115-foot Project ROW in

Oregon during field surveys conducted in 2008 (Table 2-1). All noxious weeds documented

are designated as Class B (widespread in state) by the Oregon Department of Agriculture.

No documented species are designated as the higher priority Class T (target species), or

Class A (not yet widespread in state, eradication or containment possible).

Of the six species documented, the two most abundant were bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare),

and scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium). Bull thistle was documented at 10 sites, with

local densities ranging from low to moderate. Scotch thistle was documented at seven sites,

with local densities ranging from low to high.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife noted that a large occurrence of medusa-head rye

is present from approximately mile post 611 through 615.

2.1.1 Weed Management Areas

Table 2-6 presents known noxious weed infestation areas subject to agency eradication

programs along the Project route, as identified by relevant federal and state agencies and

counties (obtained through agency coordination prior to December 12, 2008). These

management areas, along with weed infested areas identified during Ruby field surveys will

be subject to control measures described in this plan.

2.2 Noxious Weed Management

Regulatory agencies along the Project have varying weed management requirements.

Federal regulations that are more stringent than those imposed by local agencies, and that

diverge from the basic preventive measures Ruby already requires of its contractors, are

noted in section 2.2.6. The following sections outline Ruby’s approach to identifying problem

areas, preventative strategies, and treatment measures for noxious weeds.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED AND INVASIVE CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

2-7

2.2.1 Identification of Problem Areas

Between April 2008 and November 2008, noxious weed occurrence and densities were

recorded by qualified investigators along the Project area’s 300-foot wide survey corridor.

Disturbed areas, logged areas, roads, and pastures adjacent to cultivated agricultural land

possess the highest concentration of weed species. Table 2-1 lists weed species observed

during vegetation surveys (conducted April through November 2008) by state, county, and

MP, supplemented by noxious weed distribution data provided through correspondence with

relevant counties and agencies. A 115-foot wide ROW corridor was applied to spatial

noxious weed data presented in this table.

Prior to construction, Ruby would provide its contractors with information and training

regarding noxious weed management, weed identification, and the impacts of such weeds

on agriculture, livestock, and wildlife. The contractors would be informed of the importance

of preventing the spread of noxious weeds in areas not infested and of controlling the

proliferation of weeds already present.

Prior to construction, noxious weed infestation areas of concern would be identified and

flagged in the field by Ruby or contractor biologist staff. Areas of concern would include

species for which relevant agencies have requested treatment or pre-treatment. The

flagging would alert construction personnel to the infestation and prevent significant ground

disturbance until noxious weed preventive measures (outlined below) have been

implemented. These areas would be treated prior to construction using methods described

in section 2.2.3.

2.2.2 Preventative Measures

Ruby recognizes that prevention is the most cost-effective approach to noxious weed

management. Ruby would assist federal, state, and local agency noxious weed control

efforts; comply with preventative requirements; and implement weed control measures on

areas of the Project identified to be of special concern. The following preventive measures

would be implemented to prevent the spread of both terrestrial and aquatic noxious weeds:

General

 Ruby would conduct an employee environmental awareness program (EEAP) before

surface disturbance to educate all Project personnel regarding environmental

concerns and requirements, including weed identification, prevention, and control

methods. No personnel would be allowed to enter the Project ROW before taking

part in the EEAP, at any point during the Project. Qualified biological monitors or

environmental inspectors approved by BLM and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS)

would be used to conduct the EEAP program and on-site biological monitoring before

and during construction and during operation.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED AND INVASIVE CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

2-8

Cleaning

 All contractor vehicles and equipment would be cleaned, using methods described

below, prior to arrival on the Project ROW.

 The project would develop a ‘sticker’ program to identify all vehicles and equipment

that have successfully been cleared of noxious weeds. Vehicles and equipment

without the proper area-specific stickers would be barred from entering new areas

until cleaned of noxious weeds.

 Cleaning sites would be recorded using GPS equipment, and would be reported to

the local contact person or agency. Wash stations could be located on the ROW or

in off-ROW areas, such as contractor construction yards. While a number of

cleaning stations would be located off-ROW, the Ruby would place additional stations

near high-infestation areas on the ROW, if necessary.

 Off-ROW areas related to the Project, such as contractor construction yards, would

be kept weed-free with regular site assessments and suitable herbicide application.

Where the eradication of weeds in these areas may not be achievable, qualified

biological monitors or environmental inspectors would ensure that prescribed vehicle

cleaning measures be undertaken to prevent the transportation of noxious and

invasive weed propagules from these areas onto the ROW.

 Cleaning would be carried out using power or high-pressure equipment to remove

seeds, roots, and rhizomes from the equipment before transport off site. Cleaning

would concentrate on tracks 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 ROW

conditions are 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 exit and/or enter between

mile post 611 through 615.

 Vehicle cabs would be swept out and refuse disposed of in waste receptacles. The

contractor, with oversight from an environmental inspector, would ensure that

vehicles and equipment are free of soil and debris capable of transporting noxious

weed seeds, roots, or rhizomes before the vehicles and equipment are allowed use

of access roads.

Soil and Reclamation

 In areas where infestations were identified in the field, the contractor would stockpile

cleared vegetation and salvaged topsoil adjacent to the area from which they were

stripped to eliminate the transport of soil-borne noxious weed seeds, roots, or

rhizomes. Weed-infested stockpiles would be marked with clearly visible signage

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED AND INVASIVE CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

2-9

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.

 The contractor would ensure that straw or hay bales used for sediment barrier

installations or mulch distribution were weed-free. If weed free bales were

unavailable, alternative weed free sediment barrier installations would be utilized.

 The contractor would implement the reclamation of disturbed lands immediately

following construction, as outlined in Ruby’s Reclamation Plan, included in the BLM

Plan of Development. Continuing revegetation efforts would ensure adequate

vegetative cover to prevent the invasion of noxious weeds.

2.2.3 Treatment Methods

Ruby would implement noxious weed control measures in accordance with existing

regulations and jurisdictional land management agency or landowner agreements. Ruby

would focus noxious weed control efforts only on areas containing species specifically

requiring treatment, per agency discussions. The Project will continue coordinating with

appropriate agencies to determine which of the species presented in Table 2-1 (noxious

weed locations in ROW) would require treatment and/or treatment schedules. Relevant

agency contact reports regarding specific treatment needs are provided in Appendix C.

It should be noted that the occurrence of many noxious and/or invasive weed species within

the vicinity of the Project, is to an extent that eradication would not be possible unless

performed on a scale well beyond that of the Project construction. With this in mind,

preventative measures outlined in section 2.2.2 would be implemented for such species,

however Ruby proposes no herbicide treatment for these broadly distributed species.

Ruby’s approach to effective invasive weed mitigation is addressed in the Project’s

Reclamation Plan, which provides details of the proposed restoration activities following

construction in each state. Ruby will work cooperatively with relevant federal, state and local

weed control districts to develop site-specific mitigation approaches.

The following preventive measures would be implemented to prevent the spread of noxious

weeds.

 Ruby would conduct training before surface disturbance to educate all Project

personnel regarding relevant environmental concerns and requirements, including

weed identification, prevention, and control methods. No personnel shall enter the

Project area before taking part in the training, at any point during the Project.

 All contractor vehicles and equipment would be cleaned prior to arrival on the Project

route.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED AND INVASIVE CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

2-10

 Cleaning sites would be recorded using GPS, and this information would be reported

to the local contact person or agency; wash stations could be located on the Project

route, or in off-ROW areas, such as contractor construction yards.

 Off-ROW areas related to the Project, such as contractor construction yards, would

be kept weed-free. Qualified biological monitors or environmental inspectors would

ensure that noxious and invasive weeds are not transported from these areas onto

the Project route.

 Cleaning would be carried out using power or high pressure equipment to remove

seeds, roots, and rhizomes from the equipment before transport off site. Cleaning

would concentrate on tracks or tires and on the undercarriage, with special emphasis

on axles, frames, cross members, motor mounts, and underneath steps, running

boards, and front bumper/brush guard assemblies.

 Vehicle cabs would be swept out and refuse disposed of in waste receptacles. The

contractor, with oversight from an Environmental Inspector, would ensure that

vehicles and equipment are free of soil and debris capable of transporting noxious

weed seeds, roots, or rhizomes before the vehicles and equipment are allowed use

of access roads.

 In areas where infestations were identified in the field, the contractor would stockpile

cleared vegetation and salvaged topsoil adjacent to the area from which they were

stripped to eliminate the transport of soil-borne noxious weed seeds, roots, and

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.

 The contractor would ensure that straw or hay bales used for sediment barrier

installations or mulch distribution are free of noxious weeds.

Only herbicides which approved for use within treated lands (private, state, or federal) would

be used. Treatments would not be conducted during precipitation events or when

precipitation is expected within 24 hours. If weeds targeted for herbicide treatments are

found in the vicinity of sensitive sites, proper buffers would be used to prevent the spread of

herbicides to these areas. Ruby would consult with the BLM, Forest Service, 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.

General Methods

Within the Project area, general pre- and post-reclamation noxious weed control would be

carried out using herbicide treatment methods. For the Project, pre-construction treatment

would consist of broad area herbicide application to identified noxious weed infestations

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED AND INVASIVE CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

2-11

along the Project ROW (see Table 2-1). In areas where noxious weeds may be interspersed

with native vegetation, the herbicide application method will be adapted to target only

noxious weeds and therefore preserve and retain native plants. The Project would use only

herbicides that are permitted by the relevant land management agencies. This application

would treat any identified noxious weed populations in an effort to reduce infestations prior to

the soil disturbance caused by construction. Post-restoration strategies would entail

herbicide application to noxious weeds in infestation areas either after seedbeds were

established or after allowing two seasons of growth. For most noxious weeds identified

along the Project ROW, herbicide spraying would be most effective in early spring.

The initial, pre-construction herbicide application is planned for as early as first quarter 2010.

Following reclamation, all herbicide applications would occur in early spring, as described

above. On all BLM-administered lands, a pesticide use proposal would be required prior to

any herbicide application.

Post-reclamation Methods

Treatment methods other than herbicide application, such as mechanical, biological, and

enhancement measures, would be considered during the reclamation process to facilitate

noxious weed control. The clearing and grading of the Project ROW, coupled with

successful reclamation and monitoring, could also effectively combat noxious weeds as once

established, native vegetation has the potential to out-compete some noxious weeds.

Additionally, during years of higher-than-average rainfall, noxious weeds can appear in

greater numbers than normal. For these reasons, reclamation (through clearing, preparing

seedbeds, and seeding of native species) of areas containing these broadly occurring

species is the preferred measure (detailed reclamation measures are described in Ruby’s

Reclamation Plan).

Treatment methods would be based on species-specific and area-specific conditions (e.g.,

proximity to water, riparian areas, or agricultural areas, and time of year) and would be

coordinated with the local regulatory offices. Ruby will continue to coordinate with resource

agencies following construction to ensure that appropriate and adequate treatment is

implemented.

Post-construction control measures may include one or more of the following methods:

 Mechanical methods would use equipment to mow or disc weed populations.

Subsequent seeding would be conducted as soon as possible following soil

disturbance to re-establish a stabilizing vegetation cover and slow the potential reinvasion of noxious weeds. Such soil-disturbing activities would be avoided within

native habitat areas.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED AND INVASIVE CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

2-12

 Herbicide application is an effective means of reducing the size of noxious weed

populations. Applications would be controlled, as described in Section 4.1, to

minimize impacts on surrounding vegetation. In areas of dense infestation, a broader

application would be used and a follow-up seeding program implemented.

Supplemental seeding would be based on the criteria in the Reclamation Plan. The

timing of subsequent revegetation efforts would be based on the life of the selected

herbicide.

 Seed selection would be based on site-specific conditions and the appropriate seed

mix identified for those conditions. Reclamation seed mixtures are presented in

Tables 2-7a through 2-7j. These mixtures have been compiled based on the

ecotones being crossed by the ROW and on the success of similar projects in similar

habitats, along with recommendations provided by relevant agencies (primarily NRCS

and USFS). The seed mix assortments for a number of states are currently

incomplete; Ruby intends to fill all data gaps soon through pending agency

coordination. Ruby would obtain approval for all seed mixes from the appropriate

agencies before use. If weather or scheduling constraints prevent timely re-seeding

of disturbed areas, all annuals and undesirable vegetation that have become

established would be eradicated before seeding.

In addition, Table 2-10, which was taken from the USFS Region 6 (pacific northwest) Draft

Invasive Plant Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), provides a summary of possible

treatment methods for invasive plant species. Table 2-11 describes general and

reproductive characteristics that may assist in determining effective treatment approaches.

Table 2-12 identifies preliminary locations of equipment wash stations.

2.2.4 Reclamation Methods

Reclamation work, performed in advance of dormant seeding, would follow the progress of

construction. For each state, restoration and revegetation methods to be carried out by the

Project are addressed in the respective Reclamation Plan (Wyoming Reclamation Plan, Utah

Reclamation Plan, Nevada Reclamation Plan, and Oregon Reclamation Plan; collectively

known as Ruby’s Reclamation Plan). Of significant importance to weed control is the need

to re-seed areas as soon as possible following site disturbance. Planting would be done at

the appropriate time of year, considering weather conditions and construction timing.

Planting methods would be developed based on site-specific factors such as slope, erosion

potential, and size of the area in need of revegetation.

Disturbed ground may require chemical or mechanical weed control before weeds go to

seed. Re-seeding, including mulching, would be conducted on disturbed areas that have

reached final grade or that will remain un-worked for 30 days. Final seedbed preparation, as

required, and seeding and planting would be completed in September and October of the

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED AND INVASIVE CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

2-13

construction period to coincide with the optimal periods for dormant seeding for the identified

seed mixtures.

State-specific seeding methods, seed mixes, and maintenance guidelines are outlined in the

Reclamation Plan. Seed mixes (Tables 2-7a through 2-7j) are planned according to

standards and specifications outlined by the NRCS for each respective state and are based

on the existing vegetation makeup of the range and success of seed along similar projects.

2.2.5 Agency-Specific Requirements

As noted in Section 2.2, federal agency requirements that are more stringent than those

imposed by local agencies are presented below.

2.2.5.1 United States Forest Service Lands

Occurrence of weed infestations within the Project ROW would be reported to the District

Ranger office closest to where the weeds occur. The appropriate weed control procedures,

including target species, timing of control, and method of control, would be determined in

coordination with USFS personnel. Ruby would work with the USFS in establishing

cooperative agreements to provide the funds required for county (or other) personnel to

implement the necessary weed control procedures. Where this is not feasible, Ruby would

maintain responsibility for providing necessary personnel/contractors to implement required

weed control procedures.

Ruby would use only USFS-approved herbicides when applying chemical treatments to

noxious weed infested areas on USFS lands. USFS procedures for proper herbicide

application would be adhered to, in addition to Ruby’s guidelines for herbicide application,

handling, spills, and clean-up described in Section 4.0.

Fremont-Winema National Forest

The Fremont National Forest Environmental Assessment for the Management of Noxious

Weeds (USDA 1998) reports a variety of established noxious weed populations within the

Forest and notes particular concern for leafy spurge, musk thistle, dalmation toadflax, diffuse

knapweed, yellow sowthistle, and tansy ragwort (see Table 2-5 for complete list of species of

concern/targeted for control). The 1998 Environmental Assessment reports that noxious

weeds are systematically inventoried at the Ranger District level, and provides Geographic

Information Systems layers showing this information.

Ruby’s noxious weed management activities on Fremont-Winema Forest lands would be

consistent with the policies, goals, and mitigation and treatment practices presented in the

documents discussed below.

The Fremont-Winema National Forests Invasive Species Prevention Practices (USDA 2005)

is a comprehensive management document prescribed for use by the USFS that

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED AND INVASIVE CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

2-14

emphasizes the importance of prevention first, with early detection and intervention as a

second line of defense. In areas with established weed populations, containment and seed

suppression is recommended. In general, the document provides guidelines designed to

minimize the introduction of invasive species, minimize conditions that favor their spread,

and minimize conditions that favor their establishment.

It should be noted that the USFS Region 6 (in which the Fremont-Winema Forest is located)

currently has a draft Invasive Plant EIS underway. Portions of this draft have been provided

to Ruby through agency coordination, including a table that summarizes potential treatment

methods for invasive plant species known to occur (Table 2-10), and the general and

reproductive characteristics of invasive weeds found in the National Forest (Table 2-11).

Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest

The Wasatch-Cache National Forest has provided Ruby with the Wasatch-Cache National

Forest Noxious Weed Treatment Program (USDA 2006a). Included in the document are

guidelines for no-spray set-backs from water sources, known amphibian breeding grounds,

and developed springs. The document’s Record of Decision (USDA 2006b) specifies that

coordination be required between herbicide application operations and interested parties,

including district wildlife biologists and adjacent landowners. Additionally, contractors and

permittees may be required to provide a seven-day public notification prior to herbicide

application activities. Ruby’s noxious weed management activities on Wasatch-Cache

National Forest lands would be consistent with the policies, goals, and mitigation practices

presented in the document.

2.2.5.2 Bureau of Land Management Lands

The occurrence of noxious weeds within the Project ROW would be reported to the BLM

district office closest to where the weeds were identified. The appropriate weed control

procedures, including target species, timing of control, and method of control, would be

determined in coordination with BLM personnel. Ruby would work with the BLM in

establishing cooperative agreements to provide the funds required for county (or other)

personnel to implement the necessary weed control procedures. If this is not viable, Ruby

would be responsible for providing the necessary personnel/contractors to implement the

weed control procedures.

The BLM’s Final Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management

Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement contains

herbicide use Standard Operating Procedures, and Endangered Species Act consultation

(USDOI 2007, Appendices A, B, and C). Additionally, monitoring guidelines outlined in

Appendix D of the programmatic EIS specify implementation monitoring requirements

through the use of Pesticide Use Proposals and Pesticide Application Records (USDOI

2007). Ruby would work with the BLM to establish a process and scale for Pesticide Use

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED AND INVASIVE CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

2-15

Proposals submittal during the treatment, maintenance, and monitoring phases outlined in

this Plan.

Herbicides approved and proposed for use on public lands are presented in Table 2-8 and a

summary of states in which these herbicides are approved by BLM is presented in Table 2-9,

both of which were obtained from BLM’s programmatic EIS (USDOI 2007). It should be

noted that of the 20 BLM-approved herbicides, 14 are not approved within the State of

Oregon per court injunction.

2.2.5.3 Other Agency and Landowner Requirements

Unique, agency-specific requirements have been included in Table 2-6 and are correlated

with weed infestation data provided by the agencies.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED AND INVASIVE CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

3-16

3.0 Monitoring

Monitoring of noxious weeds would be conducted as part of reclamation monitoring specified

in the Reclamation Plan. In all areas affected by Project construction, noxious weeds will be

monitored for on an ongoing basis as described in section 3.2. Additionally, known

infestations and areas identified to be of special concern would be monitored bi-annually. If

infestations of noxious weeds are noted during monitoring activities, treatment methods

(provided in Section 2.2.3) would be implemented. In the event of an infestation, the

monitoring schedule described below may become more frequent, if determined necessary

by Ruby’s local weed supervisor. Small infestations are likely to be locally treated with

herbicide applications, with a focus on treating individual plants. In the event that a large

infestation occurs or reoccurs, an evaluation would be performed to determine what led to

the infestation, and a new strategy may be implemented. This evaluation would be made

available to relevant local noxious weed supervisory authorities.

3.1 Reclamation Monitoring

The overall purpose of a monitoring program is to document whether areas that have been

restored are progressing toward the long-term goal of soil stability, appropriate (noxious--

weed free) vegetative cover and diversity, and habitat replacement. Ruby intends to begin

monitoring during the first growing season following construction proposed to start in May

2010. Monitoring would be carried out as described below.

For all construction spreads, reclamation and associated noxious weed monitoring would

begin in the spring of 2011 following 2010 construction.

Targeted noxious weed reclamation would be monitored and assessed biannually for

approximately five years following construction. Accordingly, for all spreads, this would

occur during both the spring and fall of 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015. Ruby would

implement this schedule on USFS, BLM, state-owned, and private lands, and monitoring

would include:

 Identifying and evaluating noxious weed conditions in the primary and second

growing season, with particular attention given to any infestations occurring in

previously unaffected areas;

 Identifying and evaluating locations (by MP) where additional remedial action or

treatment may be required, and recommending treatment actions; and

 Recording any additional noxious weed control treatments carried out in the reporting

period.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED AND INVASIVE CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

3-17

In conjunction with Ruby’s reclamation monitoring (see Ruby’s Reclamation Plan), noxious

weed monitoring would include:

 Monitoring and assessment of the reseeding effort during the second growing

season, with subsequent follow-up surveys in the third and fifth growing seasons

post-restoration (note that reseeding efforts would occur in agreement with relevant

agencies in any area where monitoring during the second growing season

determines a revegetation failure); and

 Assessment of Project ROW stability, revegetation progress, and percentage of

vegetative cover (qualitative analysis and success criteria are specified in Ruby’s

Reclamation Plan).

Ruby would document the above observations for presentation in monitoring reports to be

made available to the BLM, USFS, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and

respective counties and local weed management boards, as required.

Summary versions of these monitoring reports would be provided to private land owners

every two years, or as determined by individual land owner agreements.

3.2 Ongoing Monitoring

Ruby would maintain ongoing communication with individual land owners, 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. Ruby would control

the weeds on a case-by-case basis and include a summary of actions taken in the

Reclamation Plan for that period (see Ruby Reclamation Plan contained in the BLM Plan of

Development). Ruby would maintain 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 ROW

would be monitored on an ongoing basis.

3.3 Monitoring of Known Infestation Areas

In addition to the biannual and ongoing noxious weed monitoring summarized above, Ruby

would conduct biannual site visits to monitor, evaluate, and control known infestation areas

(presented in Table 2-1). Ruby would continue to visit these identified infestation areas on

an ongoing basis or until noxious weeds at the site are eradicated.

If, following the commencement of construction activities, monitoring shows either an

increased or spreading abundance of noxious weeds in a known infestation area, or no

reduction in abundance treatment methods outlined in section 2.2.3 may be scheduled for

implementation. Refer to section 2.2.2 of this plan for measures proposed to prevent the

spread of noxious weeds.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED AND INVASIVE CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

4-18

4.0 Herbicide Application, Handling,

Spills, and Cleanup

4.1 Herbicide Application and Handling

Herbicide application would be conducted according to information gathered from the Weed

Districts, USFS, and the BLM. Prior to application, Ruby or its contractor would obtain any

required permits from the local relevant authorities (the Weed Districts, USFS, and BLM). A

licensed contractor would perform the application in accordance with applicable laws and

regulations. No treatments will occur without prior coordination with and concurrence of

jurisdictional agencies or landowners.

All herbicide applications would follow U.S. Environmental Protection Agency label

instructions. Application of herbicides would be suspended if any of the following conditions

existed:

 Wind velocity exceeds six miles per hour (mph) during application of liquids or 15

mph during application of granular herbicides;

 Snow or ice covers the foliage of noxious weeds; or

 Precipitation is occurring or imminent.

Vehicle-mounted sprayers (e.g., handgun, boom, and injector) would be used mainly in open

areas that are readily accessible by vehicle. Hand-application methods (e.g., backpack

spraying) that target individual plants would be used to treat small or scattered weed

populations in rough terrain. Calibration checks of equipment would be conducted at the

beginning of spraying and periodically to ensure that proper application rates were achieved.

Herbicides would be transported to the Project site daily with the following provisions:

 Only the quantity needed for that day’s work would be transported;

 Concentrate would be transported in approved containers only, in a manner that

would prevent tipping or spilling, and in a compartment isolated from food, clothing,

and safety equipment;

 Mixing would be done off site and at a distance greater than 200 feet from open or

flowing water, wetlands, or other sensitive resources. No herbicides would be

applied at these areas unless authorized by appropriate regulatory agencies; and

 All herbicide equipment and containers would be inspected for leaks daily.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED AND INVASIVE CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

4-19

4.2 Herbicide Spills and Cleanup

All reasonable precautions would be taken to avoid herbicide spills. In the event of a spill,

cleanup would be immediate. Contractors would keep spill kits in their vehicles and in

herbicide storage areas to allow for quick and effective response to spills. Items to be

included in the spill kit are:

 Protective clothing and gloves;

 Adsorptive clay, “kitty litter,” or other commercial adsorbent;

 Plastic bags and bucket;

 Shovel;

 Fiber brush and screw-in handle;

 Dust pan;

 Caution tape;

 Highway flares (use on established roads only); and

 Detergent.

Response to an herbicide spill would vary with the size and location of the spill, but general

procedures would include:

 Controlling traffic,

 Dressing the clean-up team in protective clothing,

 Stopping the leaks,

 Containing the spilled material,

 Cleaning up and removing the spilled herbicide and contaminated adsorptive material

and soil, and

 Transporting the spilled pesticide and contaminated material to an authorized

disposal site.

4.3 Worker Safety and Spill Reporting

All herbicide contractors would obtain and have readily available copies of the appropriate

material safety data sheets for the herbicides used. All herbicide spills would be reported in

accordance with applicable laws and requirements.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
January 2009

5-1

5.0 References

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1998. Fremont National Forest:

Environmental Assessment for the Management of Noxious Weeds. USDA Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Region.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/frewin/projects/analyses/1998fremontinvasives/. Accessed

October 22, 2008.

__________. 2005. Fremont-Winema National Forests Invasive Species Prevention

Practices. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplanteis/Region-6-Inv-Plant-Toolbox/Prevention/FREWIN_Prevention_practices_dec2005.doc&ei=ok8SSa3BEIjaM_mPtLUE&usg=AFQjC

NFv9YGsOdpijB1T5et_qQk4_Du9zg. Accessed October 20, 2008.

. 2006a. Wasatch-Cache National Forest Noxious Weed Treatment

Program. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region. September.

__________. 2006b. Record of Decision For the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Noxious

Weed Treatment Program. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region.

September.

__________. 2007. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vegetation

Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western

States. Washington, D.C.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Natural Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS). 2000. Oregon and Washington Guide for Conservation Seedings and

Plantings. Portland, Oregon.

________. 2008. Ogle, D., St. John, L., Cornwell, J., Stannard, M., and Holzworth, L.

2008. Plant Materials Technical Note No. 10. Pasture and Range Seedings;

Planning-Installation-Evaluation-Management.

United States Department of the Interior (USDOI). 1991. Final Environmental Impact

Statement on Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States.

Washington, D.C.

__________. 2007. Bureau of Land Management’s Final Vegetation Treatments Using

Herbicides Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/veg_eis.html. Accessed October 28, 2008.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED AND INVASIVE CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

5-2

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8. April 28, 2008. Denver,

Colorado. Letter submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Washington, DC.

United States Federal Register. February 8, 1999. Vol. 64. No. 25. Presidential

Documents. Executive Order 13112: Invasive Species.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=1999_register&docid=99-3184-filed.pdf. Accessed October

28, 2008.

Wyoming State Weed Team. 2003. The Wyoming State Weed Plan

http://www.wyoweed.org/Documents/DocumentPage/WyomingStateWeedPlan.pdf.

Accessed October 15, 2008.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
January 2009

A-1

A Tables

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
January 2009

A-1

Table 2-1 Noxious Weed Populations Identified Along Ruby Pipeline Right-of-Way

County

Milepost

Range Density(1) Noxious Weed Species Data Source(2)

Wyoming

Lincoln 0.0 - 0.5 None found

Lincoln 0.5 - 0.8 Low Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) Field surveys

Lincoln 0.8 Low Perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium) Field surveys

Lincoln 0.8 High Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), Quackgrass (Elymus repens) Field surveys

Lincoln 1.0 Moderate Quackgrass (Elymus repens) Field surveys

Lincoln 1.0 - 1.1 Low Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) Field surveys

Lincoln 1.1 - 20.4 None found

Lincoln 20.4 - 20.6 Low Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), Perennial pepperweed (Lepidium

latifolium)

Field surveys

Lincoln/Uinta 20.6 - 23.7 None found

Uinta 23.7 Moderate Hoary cress (whitetop) (Cardaria draba/Cardaria pubescens) Field surveys

Uinta 23.9 Low Hoary cress (whitetop) (Cardaria draba/Cardaria pubescens),

Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense)

Field surveys

Uinta 23.9 - 27.4 None found

Uinta 27.4 Moderate Quackgrass (Elymus repens), Perennial pepperweed (Lepidium

latifolium)

Field surveys

Uinta 27.4 - 37.1 None found

Uinta 37.1 - 37.2 Low Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) Field surveys

Uinta 37.2 - 38.4 None found

Uinta 38.4 Low Musk thistle (Carduus nutans) Field surveys

Uinta 38.4 - 39.6 None found

Uinta 39.6 - 40.6 Low Musk thistle (Carduus nutans) Field surveys

Uinta 40.6 - 42.3 None found

Uinta 42.3-42.4 Low Musk thistle (Carduus nutans), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) Field surveys

Uinta 42.4 None found

Uinta 44.6 Low Musk thistle (Carduus nutans) Field surveys

Uinta 44.6 - 48.1 None found

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-2

Table 2-1 Noxious Weed Populations Identified Along Ruby Pipeline Right-of-Way

County

Milepost

Range Density(1) Noxious Weed Species Data Source(2)

Utah

Rich 48.1 - 48.3 None found

Rich 48.3 Low Musk thistle (Carduus nutans) Field surveys

Rich 48.3 - 49.6 None found

Rich 49.6 Moderate Black Henbane (Hyoscyamus niger) BLM Kemmerer

Rich 50.4 Low Musk thistle (Carduus nutans) Field surveys

Rich 50.4 - 52.7 None found

Rich 52.7 Low Musk thistle (Carduus nutans) Field surveys

Rich 53.0 Low Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) Field surveys

Rich 53.0 - 54.6 None found

Rich 54.6 - 54.8 Low Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), Canada thistle (Cirsium

arvense), Musk thistle (Carduus nutans)

Field surveys

Rich 54.8 - 60.6 None found

Rich 60.6 Low Black Henbane (Hyoscyamus niger) BLM Kemmerer

Rich 60.9 Moderate Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) Field surveys

Rich 61.4-61.6 Low Musk thistle (Carduus nutans) Field surveys

Rich 61.6 Low Houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale) BLM Kemmerer

Rich 61.6 - 72.4 None found

Rich 72.4-73.2 Low Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) Field surveys

Cache 73.2 - 77.9 None found

Cache 77.9-78.8 Low Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) Field surveys

Cache 77.8 - 80.6 None found

Cache 80.6 Moderate Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) Field surveys

Cache 80.9 Low Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) Field surveys

Cache 80.9 - 82.2 None found

Cache 82.2 Low Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) Field surveys

Cache 82.3 Moderate Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) Field surveys

Cache 82.5 Low Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) Field surveys

Cache 83.0-83.1 Low Dyer's woad (Isatis tinctoria) Field surveys

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-3

Table 2-1 Noxious Weed Populations Identified Along Ruby Pipeline Right-of-Way

County

Milepost

Range Density(1) Noxious Weed Species Data Source(2)

Cache 83.8 Moderate Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Field surveys

Cache 83.8-83.9 Low Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), Dyer's woad (Isatis tinctoria) Field surveys

Cache 83.9 - 87.1 None found

Cache 87.1-87.2 Low Dyer's woad (Isatis tinctoria) Field surveys

Cache 87.2 - 89.6 None found

Cache 89.6 Low Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), Dyer's woad (Isatis tinctoria) Field surveys

Cache 90.3 Low Dyer's woad (Isatis tinctoria) Field surveys

Cache 90.3 - 92.5 None found

Cache 92.5 Low Poison Hemlock (Conium maculatum) Field surveys

Cache 92.8-93.0 Low Dyer's woad (Isatis tinctoria), Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Field surveys

Cache 93.3 Low Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Field surveys

Cache 93.5 High Medusahead rye (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) Field surveys

Cache 93.5 Low Poison Hemlock (Conium maculatum), Dyer's woad (Isatis tinctoria) Field surveys

Cache 93.6 Moderate Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Field surveys

Cache 93.6 Low

Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), Canada thistle (Cirsium

arvense), Dyer's woad (Isatis tinctoria), Scotch thistle (Onopordum

acanthium)

Field surveys

Cache 93.9 Low Dyer's woad (Isatis tinctoria) Field surveys

Cache 94.2 Low Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) Field surveys

Cache 94.2 Moderate Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Field surveys

Cache 94.6 Moderate Medusahead rye (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) Field surveys

Cache 94.7-94.8 Low Dyer's Woad (Isatis tinctoria), Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), Field

Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), Field surveys

Cache 94.8 Moderate Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Field surveys

Cache 94.8 Low Dyer's woad (Isatis tinctoria) Field surveys

Cache 94.9-95.1 Moderate Dyer's woad (Isatis tinctoria), Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis),

Medusahead rye (Taeniatherum caput-medusae), Field surveys

Cache 95.4 Moderate Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Field surveys

Cache 95.6 Low Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Field surveys

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-4

Table 2-1 Noxious Weed Populations Identified Along Ruby Pipeline Right-of-Way

County

Milepost

Range Density(1) Noxious Weed Species Data Source(2)

Cache 96.5 Moderate Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), Medusahead rye

(Taeniatherum caput-medusae)

Field surveys

Cache 96.6-96.7 Low Dyer's woad (Isatis tinctoria), Medusahead rye (Taeniatherum caputmedusae)Field surveys

Cache 96.7 Moderate Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Field surveys

Cache 97.2 Low Medusahead rye (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) Field surveys

Cache 97.3 Low Dyer's woad (Isatis tinctoria) Field surveys

Cache 97.9 Low Poison Hemlock (Conium maculatum) Field surveys

Cache 98.4-98.5 Low Dyer's woad (Isatis tinctoria) Field surveys

Cache 99.0 Moderate Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Field surveys

Cache 99.0 - 100.0 None found

Cache 100.0 Low Dyer's woad (Isatis tinctoria) Field surveys

Cache 100.2 Moderate Dyer's woad (Isatis tinctoria) Field surveys

Cache 100.4 Low Dyer's woad (Isatis tinctoria) Field surveys

Cache 100.4 -

101.0 Moderate Dyer's woad (Isatis tinctoria) Field surveys

Box Elder 101.6 Low Medusahead rye (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) Field surveys

Box Elder 101.6 -

101.9 Low Dyer's woad (Isatis tinctoria) Field surveys

Box Elder 102.0 Moderate Medusahead rye (Taeniatherum caput-medusae), Field Bindweed

(Convolvulus arvensis)

Field surveys

Box Elder 102.9 Moderate Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Field surveys

Box Elder 103.0 -

103.22 Low Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Field surveys

Box Elder 103.7 -

103.8 Low Hoary cress (whitetop) (Cardaria draba/Cardaria pubescens), Dyer'swoad (Isatis tinctoria)

Field surveys

Box Elder 103.8 -

105.1 None found

Box Elder 105.1 Low Dyer's woad (Isatis tinctoria) Field surveys

Box Elder 105.4 -

105.6 Low Medusahead rye (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) Field surveys

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-5

Table 2-1 Noxious Weed Populations Identified Along Ruby Pipeline Right-of-Way

County

Milepost

Range Density(1) Noxious Weed Species Data Source(2)

Box Elder 105.6 -

106.7 None found

Box Elder 106.7 Low Dyer's woad (Isatis tinctoria) Field surveys

Box Elder 107.0 Low Medusahead rye (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) Field surveys

Box Elder 107.0-107.2 Low Dyer's woad (Isatis tinctoria) Field surveys

Box Elder 107.6 Moderate Quackgrass (Elymus repens) Field surveys

Box Elder 107.9 Low Dyer's Woad (Isatis tinctoria) Field surveys

Box Elder 108.6 Moderate Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Field surveys

Box Elder 109.0 Low Dyer's woad (Isatis tinctoria) Field surveys

Box Elder 109.1-109.4 Low Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) Field surveys

Box Elder 109.4 -

110.9 None found

Box Elder 110.9 Low Musk thistle (Carduus nutans) Field surveys

Box Elder 110.9 Moderate Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) Field surveys

Box Elder 110.9-111.3 Low Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) Field surveys

Box Elder 111.3 -

112.6 None found

Box Elder 112.6-112.8 Moderate Quackgrass (Elymus repens) Field surveys

Box Elder 113.1 High Quackgrass (Agropyron repens) Field surveys

Box Elder 113.6 Low Dyer's Woad (Isatis tinctoria) Field surveys

Box Elder 113.6 -

115.3 None found

Box Elder 115.3 Low Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Field surveys

Box Elder 115.3 -

120.5 None found

Box Elder 120.5 High Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Field surveys

Box Elder 120.9 Low Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Field surveys

Box Elder 121.1 High Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Field surveys

Box Elder 121.1 Moderate Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Field surveys

Box Elder 122.0 Moderate Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), Quackgrass (Elymus

repens), Field surveys

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-6

Table 2-1 Noxious Weed Populations Identified Along Ruby Pipeline Right-of-Way

County

Milepost

Range Density(1) Noxious Weed Species Data Source(2)

Box Elder 122.1 Moderate Hoary cress (whitetop) (Cardaria draba/Cardaria pubescens) Field surveys

Box Elder 122.8-123.6 Moderate Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Field surveys

Box Elder 123.6-123.8 Low Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Field surveys

Box Elder 123.8 -

132.1 None found

Box Elder 132.1 Low Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Field surveys

Box Elder 132.1 -

230.6 None found

Nevada

Elko 230.6 -

239.0 None found

Elko 239.0 High Russian Knapweed (Centaurea repens) Field surveys

Elko 239.2 Moderate Russian Knapweed (Centaurea repens), Hoary cress (whitetop)

(Cardaria draba/Cardaria pubescens)

Field surveys

Elko 239.3 -

239.4 Moderate Hoary cress (whitetop) (Cardaria draba/Cardaria pubescens) Field surveys

Elko 239.4 -

241.0 None found

Elko 241.0 Moderate Russian Knapweed (Centaurea repens) Field surveys

Elko 241.0 -

252.8 None found

Elko 252.8 Moderate Hoary cress (whitetop) (Cardaria draba/Cardaria pubescens) Field surveys

Elko 252.8 -

293.8 None found

Elko 293.8-294.4 Low Russian thistle (Salsola kali) Field surveys

Elko 294.4 -

295.6 None found

Elko 295.6 Low Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) Field surveys

Elko 295.6 -

300.5 None found

Elko 300.5 Moderate Downy Brome (Bromus tectorum) Field surveys

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-7

Table 2-1 Noxious Weed Populations Identified Along Ruby Pipeline Right-of-Way

County

Milepost

Range Density(1) Noxious Weed Species Data Source(2)

Elko 300.5 -

314.2 None found

Elko 314.2-314.7 Low Hoary cress (whitetop) (Cardaria draba/Cardaria pubescens) BLM Elko

Elko 314.7 -

327.1 None found

Elko 327.1-327.7 Moderate Hoary cress (whitetop) (Cardaria draba/Cardaria pubescens) Field surveys

Elko 327.1 -

329.1 None found

Elko 329.1 Moderate Quackgrass (Elymus repens) Field surveys

Elko 329.1 -

361.2 None found

Elko 361.2 Moderate Hoary cress (whitetop) (Cardaria draba/Cardaria pubescens) Field surveys

Elko 361.2 -

373.5 None found

Elko 373.5 Low Medusahead rye (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) Field surveys

Elko 374.3 Low Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) Field surveys

Elko 374.3 -

393.3 None found

Elko 393.3 Low Hoary cress (whitetop) (Cardaria draba/Cardaria pubescens) Field surveys

Elko 393.3 -

396.8 None found

Elko 396.8 Moderate Hoary cress (whitetop) (Cardaria draba/Cardaria pubescens) Field surveys

Humboldt 396.8 -

480.7 None found

Humboldt 480.7 Low Hoary cress (whitetop) (Cardaria draba/Cardaria pubescens) Field surveys

Humboldt 480.9 High Hoary cress (whitetop) (Cardaria draba/Cardaria pubescens) Field surveys

Humboldt 480.9 -

490.1 None found

Humboldt 490.1 Moderate Hoary cress (whitetop) (Cardaria draba/Cardaria pubescens) Field surveys

Humboldt 490.1 -

500.0 None found

Humboldt 500.0 Low Hoary cress (whitetop) (Cardaria draba/Cardaria pubescens) Field surveys

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-8

Table 2-1 Noxious Weed Populations Identified Along Ruby Pipeline Right-of-Way

County

Milepost

Range Density(1) Noxious Weed Species Data Source(2)

Humboldt 500.0 -

502.0 None found

Humboldt 502.0 Low Hoary cress (whitetop) (Cardaria draba/Cardaria pubescens) Field surveys

Humboldt 502.2 Low Russian Knapweed (Centaurea repens) Field surveys

Humboldt 502.4 Moderate Hoary cress (whitetop) (Cardaria draba/Cardaria pubescens) Field surveys

Humboldt 502.4 Low Scotch Thistle (Onopordum acanthium) Field surveys

Humboldt 502.4 -

505.7 None found

Humboldt 505.7 Low Knapweed (Centaurea spp.) Field surveys

Humboldt 505.7 -

508.6 None found

Humboldt 508.6 -

509.5 Low Scotch Thistle (Onopordum acanthium) Field surveys

Humboldt/

Washoe

509.5 -

588.2 None found

Oregon

Lake 588.2 -

604.0 None found

Lake 604.0 Moderate Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Field surveys

Lake 604.0 -

605.2 None found

Lake 605.2 Moderate Thistle (Cirsium spp.) Field surveys

Lake 605.5 Low Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Field surveys

Lake 605.5 -

607.5 None found

Lake 607.5 Low Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) Field surveys

Lake 608.3 Moderate Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium) Field surveys

Lake 608.3 Low Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium) Field surveys

Lake 608.3 -

610.2 None found

Lake 610.2 Low Thistle (Cirsium spp.) Field surveys

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-9

Table 2-1 Noxious Weed Populations Identified Along Ruby Pipeline Right-of-Way

County

Milepost

Range Density(1) Noxious Weed Species Data Source(2)

Lake 610.4 -

615.6 None found

Lake 615.4-615.6 High Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Field surveys

Lake 615.6 High Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) Field surveys

Lake 616.1 Moderate Quackgrass (Elymus repens) Field surveys

Lake 616.1 -

618.2 None found

Lake 618.2 Moderate Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium) Field surveys

Lake 618.3 High Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium) Field surveys

Lake 618.3 -

619.6 None found

Lake 619.6 Low Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) Field surveys

Lake 619.6 -

623.5 None found

Lake 623.5 Low Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) Field surveys

Lake 623.5 -

645.2 None found

Lake 645.2 Moderate Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) Field surveys

Lake 645.3-645.9 Moderate Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Field surveys

Lake/Klamath 645.9 -

647.7 None found

Klamath 647.7 Moderate Quackgrass (Elymus repens), Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) Field surveys

Klamath 647.7 -

648.7 None found

Klamath 648.7-648.9 Moderate Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) Field surveys

Klamath 649.3 Low Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) Field surveys

Klamath 649.3-649.6 Moderate Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) Field surveys

Klamath 649.9-650.5 Low Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) Field surveys

Klamath 650.5 -

654.2 None found

Klamath 654.2 Low Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) Field surveys

Klamath 654.2 - None found

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-10

Table 2-1 Noxious Weed Populations Identified Along Ruby Pipeline Right-of-Way

County

Milepost

Range Density(1) Noxious Weed Species Data Source(2)

663.9

Klamath 663.9-664.0 Moderate Medusahead rye (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) Field surveys

Klamath 664.0 -

674.0 None found

Klamath 674.0-674.1 Moderate Quackgrass (Agropyron repens), Medusahead rye (Taeniatherum

caput-medusae)

Field surveys

Klamath 674.4 Low Scotch Thistle (Onopordum acanthium) Field surveys

Klamath 674.4 Moderate Quackgrass (Elymus repens) Field surveys

Klamath 674.4-674.8 Low Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium) Field surveys

Klamath 674.4-674.8 Moderate Medusahead rye (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) Field surveys

Klamath 674.4-674.8 Low Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium) Field surveys

Klamath 674.8 -

675.2 None found

Klamath

675.2 –

677.8

(Approx.,

PG&E

lateral)

None found

NOTES: None found = No noxious weeds within 115-ft ROW (+/- 5%), from agency data or E & E field surveys. A minimum threshold of

approximately one mile was applied when identifying these areas.

(1) Percent cover was used to determine density.

For E&E field survey data the following percent cover classes apply: Low = <1 & 1-5, Moderate = 6-50,

High = 51-100

For BLM Surprise data the following percent cover classes apply: Low = <1 & 1-5, Moderate = 5-25, High = 25 - 100

For BLM Winnemucca data the following percent cover classes apply: Low = 1 - 5, Moderate = 5 -25

For BLM Elko data the following Cover Category classes apply: Low = T and L, Moderate = M, and High = H

(2) Ruby performed noxious weed field surveys up to 150-feet off centerline (300-foot width total) along all sections of the

proposed right-of-way. In addition, Ruby received noxious weed spatial data for distance of up to five miles off centerline from a

number of agencies. All spatial data that was received has been applied to this analysis. Agencies that provided spatial noxious

weed data are:

a. BLM Kemmerer Field Office

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-11

Table 2-1 Noxious Weed Populations Identified Along Ruby Pipeline Right-of-Way

County

Milepost

Range Density(1) Noxious Weed Species Data Source(2)

b. Lincoln County Weed and Pest Control District (Wyoming)

c. BLM Elko Filed Office

d. BLM Winnemucca Field Office

e. BLM Surprise Field Office

f. Fremont-Winema National Forest

g. BLM Klamath Falls Resource Management Area

Table 2-2 Designated Noxious Weeds of the State of Wyoming and Appropriate Agencies and Counties within

Wyoming

Common Name Scientific Name

State of

Wyoming

(b)

BLM State

Office

BLM

Kemmerer

Field Office

Lincoln

County

Uinta

County

Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis L. X WC

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense L. X WC WC X

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula L. X WC WC

Perennial sowthistle Sonchus arvensis L. X WC

Quackgrass Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv. X WC

Hoary cress (whitetop) Cardaria draba and Cardaria pubescens

(L.) Desv. X

WC

Perennial pepperweed (giant whitetop) Lepidium latifolium L. X WC X

Ox-eye daisy Chrysanthemum leucanthemum L. X WC

Skeletonleaf bursage Franseria discolor Nutt. X WC

Russian knapweed Centaurea repens L. X WC

Yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris L. X WC WC

Dalmatian toadflax Linaria dalmatica (L.) Mill. X WC WC

Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium L. X WC

Musk thistle Carduus nutans L. X WC WC X

Common burdock Arctium minus (Hill) Bernh. X WC

Plumeless thistle Carduus acanthoides L. X WC

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-12

Table 2-2 Designated Noxious Weeds of the State of Wyoming and Appropriate Agencies and Counties within

Wyoming

Common Name Scientific Name

State of

Wyoming

(b)

BLM State

Office

BLM

Kemmerer

Field Office

Lincoln

County

Uinta

County

Dyers woad Isatis tinctoria L. X WC WC

Houndstongue Cynoglossum officinale L. X WC WC

Spotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa Lam. X WC WC

Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa Lam. X WC

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria L. X WC

Saltcedar Tamarix spp. X WC WC X

Common St. John’s wort Hypericum perforatum X WC

Common Tansy Tanacetum vulgare X WC

Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia L X

Black henbane(a) Hyosccyamus niger L. WC X X

Yellow starthistle(a) Centaurea solstitialis X X

Viper's bugloss(a) echium vulgare L. X X

Wild oats(a) Avena fatua L. X

Halogeton(a) Halogeton glomeratus WC WC X

Bull thistle(a) Cirsium vulgare L. WC X

Yellow toadflax(a) Linaria vulgaris WC

Perrenial sowthistle(a) Sonchus arvensis L. WC

Downy brome/cheatgrass(a) Bromus tectorum WC WC X X

Rush skeletonweed(a) Chondrilla juncea X X

Orange hawkweed(a) Hieracium aurantiacum X X

Yellow alyssum(a) Alyssum alyssoides L. X X

Note:

(a) Not listed as a State noxious weed; however, identified as a species of particular concern by relevant local management agencies.

(b) The State of Wyoming does not separate noxious weeds in to distinct management classes.

Key:

BLM = Bureau of Land Management

WC = Weed species of particular concern in respective management areas.

Sources:

http://plants.usda.gov/java/noxious?rptType=State&statefips=56

Agency coordination (see Appendix C)

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-13

Table 2-3 Designated Noxious Weeds of the State of Utah and Appropriate Agencies and Counties within Utah

Common Name Scientific Name

State of

Utah

BLM

Salt Lake

Field Office

UintaWasatchCache

NF

Box Elder

and Cache

Counties

Rich

County

Black henbane Hyoscyamus niger A WC WC X X

Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa A WC WC X X

Johnsongrass Sorghum halepense A WC X

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula A WC WC X X

Medusahead rye Taeniatherum caput-medusae A WC WC X X

Oxeye daisy Chrysanthemum leucanthemum A WC X

Perennial sorghum Sorghum almum A WC

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria A WC WC X X

Saint John's wort Hypericum perforatum A WC WC X

Spotted knapweed Centaurea stoebe micranthos A WC WC X X

Sulphur cinquefoil Potentilla recta A WC

Yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitialis A WC WC X X

Yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris A WC

Bermudagrass Cynodon dactylon B WC WC

Dalmation toadflax Linaria dalmatica B WC

Dyer’s woad Isatis tinctoria B WC WC X X

Hoary cress Cardaria draba and C. pubescens B WC WC X

Musk thistle Carduus nutans B WC WC X X

Perennial pepperweed Lepidium latifolium B WC WC X X

Poison hemlock Conium maculatum B WC WC X X

Russian knapweed Acroptilon repens B WC X X

Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium B WC WC X X

Squarrose knapweed Centaurea virgata squarrosa B WC X

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense C WC WC X X

Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis C WC WC X X

Houndstounge Cynoglossum officianale C WC X

Quackgrass Elymus repens C WC X

Saltcedar Tamarix ramosissima C WC X

Goatsrue(a) Galega officinalis X

Puncturevine(a) Tribulus terrestris WC WC X X

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-14

Table 2-3 Designated Noxious Weeds of the State of Utah and Appropriate Agencies and Counties within Utah

Note:

(a) Not listed as a State noxious weed; however, on 2008 Cache County list and identified as a species of particular concern by relevant local management agencies in Box

Elder County.

Key

BLM = Bureau of Land Management; RMA = Resource Management Area.

WC = Weed species of particular concern in respective management areas.

NF = National Forest.

Utah Department of Agriculture and Food classification codes:

A = Early Detection Rapid Response (very high priority).

B = Control (high priority).

C = Containment (agricultural threat).

Sources:

http://plants.usda.gov/java/noxious?rptType=State&statefips=49

http://ag.utah.gov/plantind/nox_utah.html

http://www.utahweed.org/weeds.htm

http://www.utahweed.org/PDF/weed_act.pdf

USDA 2006a

Agency coordination (see Appendix C).

Table 2-4 Designated Noxious Weeds of the State of Nevada and Appropriate Agencies and Counties within Nevada

Common Name Scientific Name

State of

Nevada

BLM

Elko

District

BLM

Winnemucca

District

BLM

Surprise

Field

Office

Elko,

Humboldt

and

Washoe

Counties

African rue Peganum harmala A NS H&W data gap

Austrian fieldcress Rorippa austriaca A NS H&W data gap

Austrian peaweed Sphaerophysa salsula / Swainsona salsula A NS H&W data gap

Camelthorn Alhagi pseudalhagi A NS H&W data gap

Black henbane Hyoscyamus niger A X NS H&W data gap

Camelthorn Alhagi camelorum A NS H&W data gap

Common crupina Crupina vulgaris A NS H&W data gap

Dalmation toadflax Linaria dalmatica A X NS X

(b)

Dyer’s woad Isatis tinctoria A X NS X X

(b)

Eurasian water-milfoil Myriophyllum spicatum A NS H&W data gap

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-15

Table 2-4 Designated Noxious Weeds of the State of Nevada and Appropriate Agencies and Counties within Nevada

Common Name Scientific Name

State of

Nevada

BLM

Elko

District

BLM

Winnemucca

District

BLM

Surprise

Field

Office

Elko,

Humboldt

and

Washoe

Counties

Giant reed Arundo donax A NS H&W data gap

Giant salvinia Salvinia molesta A NS H&W data gap

Goats rue Galega officinalis A NS H&W data gap

Green fountain grass Pennisetum setaceum A NS H&W data gap

Houndstongue Cynoglossum officinale A X NS H&W data gap

Hydrilla Hydrilla verticillata A NS H&W data gap

Iberian star thistle Centaurea iberica A NS H&W data gap

Klamath weed Hypericum perforatum A X NS H&W data gap

Malta star thistle Centaurea melitensis A NS H&W data gap

Mayweed chamomile Anthemis cotula A NS H&W data gap

Mediterranean sage Salvia aethiopis A NS X H&W data gap

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria, L.virgatum A NS H&W data gap

Purple star thistle Centaurea calcitrapa A NS H&W data gap

Rush skeletonweed Chondrilla juncea A NS H&W data gap

Sow thistle Sonchus arvensis A NS X

(b)

Spotted knapweed Centaurea masculosa A X NS X X

(b)

Squarrose star thistle Centaurea virgata Lam. Var. squarrose A X NS H&W data gap

Sulfur cinquefoil Potentilla recta A X NS H&W data gap

Syrian bean caper Zygophyllum fabago A NS H&W data gap

Yellow starthistle Centaurea solstiltialis A X NS X H&W data gap

Yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris A X NS X

(b)

Carolina horse-nettle Solanum carolinense B NS H&W data gap

Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa B X NS X X

(b)

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula B X NS X

(b)

Medusahead Taeniatherum caput-medusae B X NS X

(b)

Musk thistle Carduus nutans B X NS X X

(b)

Russian knapweed Acroptilon repens B X NS X X

(b)

Sahara mustard Brassica tournefortii B NS H&W data gap

Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium B X NS X X

(b)

White horse-nettle Solanum elaeagnifolium B NS H&W data gap

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense C X NS X X

(b)

Hoary cress Cardaria draba C X NS X X

(b)

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-16

Table 2-4 Designated Noxious Weeds of the State of Nevada and Appropriate Agencies and Counties within Nevada

Common Name Scientific Name

State of

Nevada

BLM

Elko

District

BLM

Winnemucca

District

BLM

Surprise

Field

Office

Elko,

Humboldt

and

Washoe

Counties

Johnson grass Sorghum halepense C NS H&W data gap

Perennial pepperweed Lepidium latifolium C X NS X X

(b)

Poison hemlock Conium maculatum C X NS H&W data gap

Puncture vine Tribulus terrestris C NS X X

(b)

Salt cedar (tamarisk) Tamarix spp C X NS X

(b)

Water hemlock Cicuta maculata C X NS H&W data gap

Bull thistle(a) Cirsium vulgare X X X

(b)

Halogeton(a) Halogeton glomeratus X X X

(b)

Note:

(a) Not listed as a State noxious weed; however, identified as a species of particular concern by relevant local management agencies.

(b) Species likely to occur as specified by Jay Paxson, City of Elko, NV (see Contact Report, Appendix C).

Key:

BLM = Bureau of Land Management.

RMA = Resource Management Area / Planning Area.

H&W data gap = Humboldt & Washoe Counties. Initial contact has been made, still pending further coordination.

NS = None specified: Agency coordination to date has not specified any weed species of particular concern in this management area.

State classification codes:

A = Weeds not found or limited in distribution throughout the state; actively excluded from the state and actively eradicated wherever found; control required by the state in all

infestations.

B = Weeds established in scattered populations in some counties of the state; actively excluded where possible; control required by the state in areas where populations

are not well established or previously unknown to occur.

C = Weeds currently established and generally widespread in many counties of the state; abatement at the discretion of the state quarantine officer.

Sources:

http://agri.nv.gov/nwac/PLANT_NoxWeedList.htm

http://plants.usda.gov/java/noxious?rptType=State&statefips=32

Agency coordination (see Appendix C)

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-17

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-18

Table 2-5 Designated Noxious Weeds of the State of Oregon and Appropriate Agencies and Counties within Oregon

Common Name Scientific Name

State of

Oregon

BLM

Lakeview

Resource

Area

BLM

Klamath

Falls

Resource

Area

FremontWinema

NF(b)

Lake

County

Klamath

County

African rue Peganum harmala A

Camelthorn Alhagi pseudalhagi A

Coltsfoot Tussilago farfara A

Common cordgrass Spartina anglica A

Dense-flowered cordgrass Spartina densiflora A

Saltmeadow cordgrass Spartina patens A

Smooth cordgrass Spartina alterniflora A

European water chestnut Trapa natans A

Giant hogweed Heracleum mantegazzianum A

Barbed goatgrass Aegilops triuncialis A

Ovate goatgrass Aegilops ovata A

Goatsrue Galega officinalis A

King-devil hawkweed Hieracium piloselloides A

Meadow hawkweed Hieracium pratense A

Mouse-ear hawkweed Hieracium pilosella A

Orange hawkweed Hieracium aurantiacum A

Yellow hawkweed Hieracium floribundum A

Hydrilla Hydrilla verticillata A

Kudzu Pueraria lobata A

Matgrass Nardus stricta A X

Oblong spurge Euphorbia oblongata A

Paterson’s curse Echium plantagineum A

Purple nutsedge Cyperus rotundus A

Silverleaf nightshade Solanum elaeagnifolium A

Skeletonleaf bursage Ambrosia tomentosa A

Squarrose knapweed Centaurea virgata A WC X X

Iberian starthistle Centaurea iberica A

Purple starthistle Centaurea calcitrapa A

Syrian bean-caper Zygophyllum fabago A

Texas blueweed Helianthus ciliaris A

Plumeless thistle Carduus acanthoides A X

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-19

Table 2-5 Designated Noxious Weeds of the State of Oregon and Appropriate Agencies and Counties within Oregon

Common Name Scientific Name

State of

Oregon

BLM

Lakeview

Resource

Area

BLM

Klamath

Falls

Resource

Area

FremontWinema

NF(b)

Lake

County

Klamath

County

Smooth distaff thistle Carthamus baeticus A

Taurian thistle Onopordum tauricum A X

Woolly distaff thistle Carthamus lanatus A

White bryonia Bryonia alba A

Yellow floating heart Nymphoides peltata A

Biddy-biddy Acaena novae-zelandiae B

French broom Genista monspessulana B

Portuguese broom Cytisus striatus B

Scotch broom Cytisus scoparius B WC X

Spanish broom Spartium junceum B

Buffalobur Solanum rostratum B

Butterfly bush Buddleja davidii (B. variabilis) B

Common bugloss Anchusa officinalis B

Common crupina

(bearded creeper) Crupina vulgaris B

Creeping yellow cress Rorippa sylvestris B

Cutleaf teasel Dipsacus laciniatus B X

Dodder Cuscuta spp. B X

Dyers woad Isatis tinctoria B WC WC X X

English ivy Hedera helix (H. hibernica) B

Eurasian watermilfoil Myriophyllum spicatum B

False brome Brachypodium sylvaticum B

Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis B

Garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata B

Giant horsetail Equisetum telmateia B

Gorse Ulex europaeus B

Halogeton Halogeton glomeratus B WC

Himalayan blackberry Rubus armeniacus (R. procerus, R.

discolor) B

Houndstongue Cynoglossum officinale B X

Johnsongrass Sorghum halepense B

Jointed goatgrass Aegilops cylindrica B X

Jubata grass Cortaderia jubata B

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-20

Table 2-5 Designated Noxious Weeds of the State of Oregon and Appropriate Agencies and Counties within Oregon

Common Name Scientific Name

State of

Oregon

BLM

Lakeview

Resource

Area

BLM

Klamath

Falls

Resource

Area

FremontWinema

NF(b)

Lake

County

Klamath

County

Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa B WC WC X X X

Meadow knapweed Centaurea pratensis (C. jacea x C. nigra) B X

Russian knapweed Acroptilon repens B WC WC X X

Spotted knapweed Centaurea stoebe (C. maculosa) B WC WC X X X

Giant knotweed Fallopia sachalinensis (Polyganum) B

Himalayan knotweed Polygonum polystachyum B

Japanese knotweed

(fleece flower)

Fallopia japonica (Polyganum

cuspidatum) B

Kochia Bassia scoparia (Kochia) B

Lesser celandine Ranunculus ficaria B

Mediterranean sage Salvia aethiopis B WC WC X X X

Medusahead rye Taeniatherum caput-medusae (T.

asperum) B

WC WC X X X

Old man’s beard Clematis vitalba B

Parrots feather Myriophyllum aquaticum B

Perennial peavine Lathyrus latifolius B

Perennial pepperweed Lepidium latifolium B WC WC X X

Poison hemlock Conium maculatum B X X

Policeman’s helmet Impatiens glandulifera B

Puncturevine Tribulus terrestris B WC X X

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria B WC X

Quackgrass Elymus repens (Agropyron) B

Ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia B

Rush skeletonweed Chondrilla juncea B WC X X

Saltcedar Tamarix ramosissima B

Small broomrape Orobanche minor B

South American

waterweed Egeria densa (Elodea) B

Spikeweed Centromadia pungens (Hemizonia) B

Spiny cocklebur Xanthium spinosum B WC X

Spurge laurel Daphne laureola B

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula B X X X

Myrtle spurge Euphorbia myrsinites B WC X

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-21

Table 2-5 Designated Noxious Weeds of the State of Oregon and Appropriate Agencies and Counties within Oregon

Common Name Scientific Name

State of

Oregon

BLM

Lakeview

Resource

Area

BLM

Klamath

Falls

Resource

Area

FremontWinema

NF(b)

Lake

County

Klamath

County

St. John’s wort (Klamath

weed) Hypericum perforatum B

WC X X X

Sulfur cinquefoil Potentilla recta B X

Swainsonpea (Austrian

peaweed) Sphaerophysa salsula B

Tansy ragwort Senecio jacobaea B WC X X

Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare B WC X X

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense B WC WC X X X

Italian thistle Carduus pycnocephalus B

Milk thistle Silybum marianum B

Musk thistle Carduus nutans B WC X X X

Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium B WC WC X X

Slender-flowered thistle Carduus tenuiflorus B

Dalmatian toadflax Linaria dalmatica (L.genista) B WC WC X X X

Yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris B X X X

Velvetleaf Abutilon theophrasti B

Hairy whitetop Lepidium pubescens (Cardaria) B

Lens-podded whitetop Lepidium chalepensis (Cardaria) B

Whitetop (hoary cress) Lepidium draba (Cardaria) B WC WC X X X

Yellow flag iris Iris pseudacorus B X

Yellow nutsedge Cyperus esculentus B

Yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitialis B WC WC X X

Field sowthistle(a) Sonchus arvensis X

Caper spurge(a) Euphorbia lathyris X

Pheasant's eye(a) Adonis aestivalis WC X X

Common mullein(a) Verbascum thapsus X

Creeping buttercup(a) Ranunculus repens X

Mayweed chamomile(a) Anthemis cotula X

Western waterhemlock(a) Cicuta douglasii X

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-22

Table 2-5 Designated Noxious Weeds of the State of Oregon and Appropriate Agencies and Counties within Oregon

Common Name Scientific Name

State of

Oregon

BLM

Lakeview

Resource

Area

BLM

Klamath

Falls

Resource

Area

FremontWinema

NF(b)

Lake

County

Klamath

County

Note:

(a) Not listed as a State noxious weed; however, identified as a species of particular concern by relevant local management agencies (see Contact Reports contained

in Appendix C).

(b) Further agency coordination pending.

Key:

BLM = Bureau of Land Management.

RMA = Resource Management Area.

WC = Weed species of particular concern in respective management area.

NF = National Forest.

Oregon Department of Agriculture Classification Codes:

A = a weed of known economic importance which occurs in the state in small enough infestations to make eradication or containment possible; or is not known to occur, but

its presence in neighboring states make future occurrence in Oregon seem imminent. Infestations are subject to eradication or intensive control when and where found;

B = a weed of economic importance which is regionally abundant, but which may have limited distribution in some counties. Limited to intensive control at the state, county or

regional level as determined on a case-by-case basis. Where implementation of a fully integrated statewide management plan is not feasible, biological control (when

available) shall be the main control methods.

Sources:

http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/PLANT/WEEDS/lists.shtml

http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/PLANT/WEEDS/docs/weed_policy.pdf

http://plants.usda.gov/java/noxious?rptType=State&statefips=41

Agency coordination (see Appendix C)

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-23

Table 2-6 Weed Management Areas and Mitigation Restrictions by States and Appropriate Agencies and Counties Along

the Pipeline Right-of-Way

Agency

Contact/

Number

Weed Management

Requirements/ Requests

Weed Infestation Maps And

Management Areas. Comments

Wyoming

BLM Wyoming State

Office

Ken Henke/

307-775-6041

No special mitigation measures.

The BLM standard for general

mitigation measures and Standard

operating procedures are

contained in the BLM’s Vegetation

Treatments Using Herbicides in 17

Western States, Programmatic

Environmental Impact Statement,

Record of Decision (2007).

None provided Kemmerer Field Office to provide.

BLM Kemmerer Field

Office Carl Bezanson

Guidelines in Partners Against

Weeds, An Action Plan for the

Bureau of Land Management

needs to be followed as outlined in

Appendix 4 as a prototype for

weed prevention measures on

public lands.

The Holder is responsible for

coordination with the Authorized

Officer and/or local authorities for

acceptable weed control methods,

and shall comply with the

stipulations outlined in the KFO

guidelines contained in appendix

C.

GIS data provided and presented

in table 2-1.

Note that Perennial pepperweed

and Russian Knapweed will mostly

likely be along the pipeline in the

Opal area, however this area has

little to no mapping at this time.

KFO 2008 Noxious Weed

Stipulations provided. See Contact

Report, appendix C for full details.

NRCS Pinedale

Karen Clause/

307-367-2282

Ext. 103

No noxious weed management

requirements. Requests that

cheatgrass be mitigated for in SW

Wyoming.

None provided.

Expressed interest in providing

information regarding restoration/

re-vegetation practices.

Wyoming State Weed

and Pest Control Council

Slade Frank/

307-777-6585

No noxious weed management

requirements. Identified specific

species of concern for Lincoln and

Uinta Counties.

None provided.

Lincoln County Weed

and Pest Control District

Farrel Hoops/

307-885-9333

No noxious weed management

requirements. Identified species of

concern in Lincoln Co.

GIS data provided and presented

in table 2-1

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-24

Table 2-6 Weed Management Areas and Mitigation Restrictions by States and Appropriate Agencies and Counties Along

the Pipeline Right-of-Way

Agency

Contact/

Number

Weed Management

Requirements/ Requests

Weed Infestation Maps And

Management Areas. Comments

Uinta County Weed and

Pest Control District

Chris Aimone/

307-789-9289

Identified particular species of

concern found in area of ROW. None provided. Expressed interest to provide moreadvice, if needed.

Utah

BLM Utah State Office Lisa Bryant/

801-539-4069

Referred to the BLM programmatic

EIS for mitigation (USDA 2007). None provided Noted that Utah state species listhad changed recently.

BLM Salt Lake Field

Office

Gary Kidd/

801-977-4375

The mitigation measures which

Gary outlined are in line with the

measures put forward in this Ruby

Plan. The State noxious weed list

defines target species for control in

the Salt Lake Field Office

management area. Gary identified

some additional species of

concern in the Box Elder county /

Park Valley region. Emphasized

that the BLM’s prescribed

mitigation measures focus on

prevention, early detection and

rapid response.

None provided.

Awaiting GIS data – Data Gap

El Paso contractors will be required

to submit Pesticide Use Proposals

(PUPs) when carrying out

treatment activities.

Reclamation: Recommended use

of seed mixes designed to compete

with invasive annuals.

Uinta-Wasatch-Cache

National Forest

(UWCNF)

Michael Duncan/

801-236-3415

Referred to the UWCNF Weed

Management strategy (USDA

2006a) from which the Forests

Noxious Weed Treatment EIS is

tiered.

None provided.

Awaiting GIS data – Data Gap

The UWCNF works cooperatively

with Weber County and Weber

River Weed Control Management

Associations.

NRCS State Office Salt

Lake City Ron Davidson Data Gap Data Gap Data Gap

NRCS State Office Salt

Lake City

Norm Evenstad/

801-524-4569, and

Karen Fullen

Refer to Technical Note 10 for

Pasture and Range Seedings; and

Technical note 24 (+supplement)

for intermountain species planting.

None provided.

State of Utah (Utah Dept

of Agriculture and Food),

Weed Control

Association

Steven

Burningham None specified None provided

Utah Cooperative Weed

Management Area

(CWMA)

James Barnhill/

jamesb@ext.usu.edu

Identified specific species of

concern in Utah. None provided. Expressed interest to provide moreadvice, if needed.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-25

Table 2-6 Weed Management Areas and Mitigation Restrictions by States and Appropriate Agencies and Counties Along

the Pipeline Right-of-Way

Agency

Contact/

Number

Weed Management

Requirements/ Requests

Weed Infestation Maps And

Management Areas. Comments

Rich and Cache County

Weed Control

Association

Joel Merrit,

Rich Roads Data Gap Data Gap Data Gap

Box Elder Weed Control

Association

Rick Kent/

435-230-1093

No special mitigation

requirements. Suggested use of

reclamation efforts which mitigate

the spread of weeds and

discussed a variety of possible

control methods.

None Provided Expressed interest to provide more

advice, if needed.

Nevada

BLM Nevada State Office Jackie Gratton/

775-861-6532 Data Gap Data Gap Data Gap

BLM Elko District Mark Coca/

Mark_Coca@blm.gov

No specific mitigation information

provided. Mark provided the BLM

Elko noxious weed species list.

GIS data provided and presented

in table 2-1

BLM Elko Field Office works with 3

conservation districts in Elko

County. A county weed agency is

currently being established.

BLM Winnemucca

District

Derek Messmer/

775-623-1583

Explained that the BLM uses the

State noxious weeds list to define

priority species. Stated that BLM

requires minimum 3 years of

monitoring and maintenance

responsibility by the project (postconstruction). Discussed

cheatgrass, Russian thistle and

halogeton as species recognized

by the BLM as significantly

widespread enough that

eradication would not be possible

and, therefore, not a BLM

requirement.

GIS data provided and presented

in table 2-1

Was referred to BMPs found in the

BLM’s Final Vegetation Treatments

Using Herbicides on Bureau of

Land Management Lands in 17

Western States Programmatic EIS

(PEIS) (USDOI 2007) and SOPs

contained in “The Gold Book” (a

BLM management document

designed mostly for mining

activities)

NRCS Elko Rod Dahl Data Gap Data Gap Data Gap

NRCS Winnemucca Denise Adkins Data Gap Data Gap Data Gap

Nevada Department of

Agriculture Scott Marsh Data Gap Data Gap Data Gap

Elko Area conservation

district Eleanor O’donnell None specified None Provided Provided list of weed species ofconcern in Elko Area.

BLM Surprise Field

Office (SFO)

Lynette Sullivan/

530-279-2714

Provided a list of noxious weeds

found on/near Ruby ROW,

Provided a .jpg file as well as a

shapefile of noxious weed

Provided list of CWMAs that BLM

SFO works with.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-26

Table 2-6 Weed Management Areas and Mitigation Restrictions by States and Appropriate Agencies and Counties Along

the Pipeline Right-of-Way

Agency

Contact/

Number

Weed Management

Requirements/ Requests

Weed Infestation Maps And

Management Areas. Comments

although SFO has not performed

an inventory. Discussed BMPs,

including the use of measures

consistent with those described in

this Plan.

occurrences, included in table 2-1.

NRCS Alturas Matt Drechsel None provided None provided See Contact report for general

comments

Oregon

BLM State Office John Styduhar/

503-808-6454 Data Gap Data Gap Data Gap

BLM Lakeview Resource

Area

Erin McConnell/

541-523-1325 Data Gap None provided

Noted the significant potential for

the accidental introduction of

weeds and the favorable conditions

for their establishment created by

the pipeline disturbance.

Mitigation measures should

address prevention and control.

BLM Klamath Falls

Resource Area

Molly Boyter/

541-885-4136

Follow BLM rules and regulations

for weed management. Establish

Ruby-BLM agreement via further

coordination. Noted that only 4

herbicides allowed on BLM land

until state wide EIS is completed in

2010.

All identified infestations lie outside

of ROW. Identified South Gerber

area as having medusahead rye as

a problem (currently un-mapped).

Fremont-Winema

National Forest (F-W NF)

Jeanette Wilson/

541-576-7593

Follow rules and regulations

outlined in the FS Weed

Prevention Practices (USDA

2005). Stated that the FS list of

weed species of concern is

extensive and inconclusive.

In December 2008 the FS provided

GIS data for the proposed ROW

(current on 10/24/08); No data

points fell within the proposed

ROW.

FS Region 6 currently has a Draft

EIS underway. It is not in effect yet

so Ruby should refer to the F-W NF

Environmental Assessment (USDA

1998) in the meantime.

NRCS Klamath Falls Jeremy Jirak

Follow guidelines detailed in

Oregon and Washington Guide for

Conservation Seedings and

Plantings, the interagency

technical guide used by NRCS in

Oregon.

None Provided

Provided seed mix advice. Stated

that his office is going through

audit, would not be able to respond

quickly until after the new year.

NRCS Lakeview Max Corning/

541-947-2367

Follow guidelines detailed in

Oregon and Washington Guide for None Provided Provided list of weed species ofconcern to Lake County /

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-27

Table 2-6 Weed Management Areas and Mitigation Restrictions by States and Appropriate Agencies and Counties Along

the Pipeline Right-of-Way

Agency

Contact/

Number

Weed Management

Requirements/ Requests

Weed Infestation Maps And

Management Areas. Comments

Ext. 108 Conservation Seedings and

Plantings, the interagency

technical guide used by NRCS in

Oregon.

Cooperative Weed Management

Area.

ODA Oregon Noxious

Weed Control Program,

State Office

Tim Butler/

503-986-4621

Refer to the State noxious weed

list for species requiring treatment

(Class A and Class B).

Awaiting GIS data – Data Gap Expressed interest to provide more

advice, if needed.

Oregon Noxious Weed

Control Program,

Klamath Falls Office

Bob Barrett None Provided None Provided

Klamath County Todd Pfeiffer/

541-883-4696 None provided

None provided.

Klamath county does not map

weed infestations.

Expressed concern over the

potential for weed spreading during

the construction of the Project.

Would like to work cooperatively

with Ruby to identify weed

infestation areas.

Note:

Identified species of concern

provided by above contacts

are included in State

noxious weed Tables 2-2

(WY), 2-3 (UT), 2-4 (NV),

and 2-5 (OR).

“Data Gap” = Coordination

pending,

Key:

BLM = Bureau of

Land Management.

CR= Contact Report

EIS = Environmental

Impact Statement.

GIS = Geographic

Information System.

NRCS = USDA

National Resources

Conservation Service

ODA = Oregon

Department of

Agriculture.

ROW = Right-of-way.

RMA = Resource

Management Area.

USDA = U.S.

Department of

Agriculture.

UWCNF = UintaWasatch-Cache

National Forest

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-28

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-29

SEED TABLES

Table 2-7a Wyoming Recommended Native Seed Mixtures for Desert Scrubc

Species b Cultivar d % Seed Mix

Comp.

Lbs PLS

for full

seeding e

Seeds/LB

PLS of

seed

Seeding

rate

(seeds/

sqft)

PLS

seeding

rate a

(lbs/acre)

Slender wheatgrass Pryor or Copperhead 30% 12 140,000 11.6 3.60

Thickspike wheatgrass Critana 20% 12 145,000 8.0 2.40

Indian ricegrass Nezpar 25% 12 235,000 16.2 3.00

Lewis flax Appar 10% 6 286,690 3.9 0.60

Palmer penstemon 10% 4 586,088 5.4 0.40

Fourwing saltbush Wytana 15% 10 49,000 1.7 1.50

Winterfat Open Range 10% 2 210,000 1.0 0.20

Totals: 120% 48 11.7

Notes:

a

The seeding rate is based on drill seeding. If broadcast or hydroseeding were used, the rate per acre will be

doubled.

b

Alternate grasses may include bottlebrush squirrel tail (rate dependent on species being replaced), and Sandberg

bluegrass (rate dependant on species being replaced). In visually sensitive areas, to be determined after

coordination with appropriate agency, shrubs would be transplanted including greasewood and big

sagebrush.

c Mixtures defined in tables 2-7a and 2-7b have been recommended by the NRCS, Pinedale, Wyoming. See Karen

Clause Contact Reports in appendix C.

d When available, the cultivars listed above are recommended because of known quality and adaptability to the area.

e

Rates are based on the full seeding rate for the seeding method noted above multiplied by the % seed mix

composition.

Table 2-7b Wyoming Recommended Native Seed Mixtures for Sagebrush Scrubb

Species Cultivar c

% Seed

Mix

Comp.

Lbs PLS

for full

seeding d

Seeds/LB

PLS of seed

Seeding

rate

(seeds/

sqft)

PLS

seeding

rate a

(lbs/acre)

Slender wheatgrass Pryor or Copperhead30% 12 140,000 11.6 3.60

Thickspike

wheatgrass Critana 25% 12 145,000 10.0 3.00

Indian ricegrass Nezpar 25% 12 235,000 16.2 3.00

Bottlebrush squirreltail 20% 10 192,000 8.8 2.00

Wyoming big

sagebrush 10% 2 2,400,000 11.0 0.20

Serviceberry 10% 10 82,000 1.9 1.00

TOTALS: 120% 59 12.8

Notes:

a

The seeding rate is based on drill seeding. If broadcast or hydroseeding were used, the rate per acre would be

doubled.

b Mixtures defined in tables 2-7a and 2-7b have been recommended by the NRCS, Pinedale, Wyoming. See Karen

Clause Contact Reports in appendix C.

c When available, the cultivars listed above are recommended because of known quality and adaptability to the area.

d

Rates are based on the full seeding rate for the seeding method noted above multiplied by the % seed mix

composition.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-30

Table 2-7c Utah and Nevada Recommended Native Seed Mixturesc

Community type,

Mixture Variety

Seed Application Rate

(pounds/acre/PLS)a

Utah a

Intermediate wheatgrass – Oahe 3

Lewis flax – Apar 2

Alfalfa 2

Big sagebrush 2

Indian ryegrass 5

Sagebrush Scrub and

Pinyon-Juniper

Woodland, Mixture UT-1

Fourwing saltbush 2

Basin wildrye 2

Indian ricegrass - Nezpar 5

Globemallow 3

Fourwing saltbush 2

Penstemon 3

Low sagebrush 2

Desert Scrub,

Mixture UT-2

Winterfat 1

Forage kochia 1

Indian rice grass 2

Galleta grass 2

Winterfat 2

Grassland, Mixture UT-3

d

Alfalfa – dryland 1

Nevada b

Intermediate wheatgrass – Oahe 3

Lewis flax – Apar 2

Alfalfa

2

Big sagebrush 2

Indian ryegrass 5

Sagebrush Scrub and

Pinyon-Juniper

Woodland, Mixture NV-1

Fourwing saltbush 2

Basin wildrye 2

Indian ricegrass - Nezpar 5

Globemallow 3

Fourwing saltbush 2

Penstemon 3

Low sagebrush 2

Desert Scrub,

Mixture NV-2

Winterfat 1

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-31

Table 2-7d Oregon Recommended Native Seed Mixtures c

Community type,

Mixture Variety

Seed Application Rate

(pounds/acre/PLS)a

Oregon a

Intermediate wheatgrass – Oahe 3

Lewis flax – Apar 2

Alfalfa 2

Big sagebrush 2

Indian ryegrass 5

Sagebrush Scrub and

Pinyon-Juniper

Woodland, Mixture OR-1

Fourwing saltbush 2

Basin wildrye 2

Indian ricegrass - Nezpar 5

Globemallow 3

Fourwing saltbush 2

Penstemon 3

Low sagebrush 2

Desert Scrub,

Mixture OR-2

Winterfat 1

a

Seeding rate is listed as pounds per acre of pure live seed (PLS). Seeding rate is doubled if

hydroseeded or broadcast. The seed mix may be modified based on site-specific conditions,

identification of additional useful species for rapid site stabilization, species success in past

revegetation efforts, and seed availability and cost. An alternative seeding rate may be applied

in areas deemed appropriate by BLM, USFS, or the landowner.

General Notes :

- Exact mix to be used may differ from the proposed mixture, depending on seed availability.

- Seeding mixtures have been compiled based on the ecotones that would be crossed as well as

success of other large-diameter pipeline projects in similar habitats.

- Ruby will work with relevant agencies to develop and further refine appropriate seed mixes across

sensitive management areas.

Notes:

a Seeding rate is listed as pounds per acre of pure live seed (PLS). Seeding rate is doubled if

hydroseeded or broadcast. The seed mix may be modified based on site-specific conditions,

identification of additional useful species for rapid site stabilization, species success in past

revegetation efforts, and seed availability and cost. An alternative seeding rate may be applied

in areas deemed appropriate by BLM, USFS, or the landowner.

b Yellow sweetclover may be substituted or added to the mixture.

c NRCS coordination pending.

Key:

NV = Nevada

OR = Oregon

PLS = Pure Live Seed

UT = Utah

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-32

Table 2-7e Oregon Seed Mixture Recommendations for

Livestock Forage Production – Rangeland and

Pastureland with Effective Precipitation 9-12 Inches

Mixtures Alternatives (lbs/acre) Common name

A B C D E F G

crested wheatgrass (I) 5

Siberian wheatgrass (I) 4

beardless wheatgrass(N) 5 3

big bluegrass (N) 3 1

sheep fescue (I) 2

bluebunch wheatgrass (N) 1 3

alfalfa (I) 1 1 1 1 1

thickspike wheatgrass (N) 1 3

Seeds/sq ft/mixture 27 30 31 71 30 37 36

Notes:

N – Native plant, also may use any native plant listed in the NRCS ecological site description.

I – Introduced, non-native plant

Table adapted from NRCS (2000).

Table 2-7f Oregon Seed Mixture Recommendations for Livestock

Forage Production – Rangeland and Pastureland with

Effective Precipitation 12-15 Inches

Mixtures Alternatives (lbs/acre) Common name

A B C D E F G

big bluegrass (N)12 1

thickspike wheatgrass (N) 4 1 0.5

beardless wheatgrass(N) 4 2

pubescent wheatgrass (I) 4 7

intermediate wheatgrass (I)4 7

alfalfa (I)21 2 2 2 2 2 2

sheep fescue (I)3 1 1

bluebunch wheatgrass (N) 3 2 5

Seeds/sq ft/mixture 56 38 42 36 30 30 35

Alternative Native species:

Notes:

N – Native plant, also may use any native plant listed in the NRCS ecological site description.

I – Introduced, non-native plant

1– Earliest spring forage

2– Add alfalfa at 1-2 lbs/acre for grazing and 3-4 lbs/acre for hay.

3– Add sheep fescue at 2 lbs/acre for weed and erosion control. Canby bluegrass (N) may be

substitute/alternative for sheep fescue.

4– Intermediate wheatgrass may not be effective in areas with less than 15 inches annual

precipitation. NRCS has recommended the use of a number of alternative species (all native),

including Idaho fescue, Thurber’s needlegrass, Sandberg bluegrass, and bottlebrush

squirreltail. Mixture rates to be determined, if used.

Table adapted from NRCS (2000).

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-33

Table 2-7h Oregon Seed Mixture Recommendations

for Livestock Forage Production – Grazable

Woodland with Effective Precipitation 15-18

Inches (Pine-Grassland)

Mixtures (lbs/acre) Common name

A

1 B C D E

Slender wheatgrass(N) 6 3 5

Intermediate wheatgrass(I) 6

Big bluegrass(N) 1 1

Alfalfa(I) 2

Hard fescue(I) 1

Orchardgrass(I) 4

White dutch clover (I) - or

native clovers 1 1 1

Idaho fescue(N) 2 2

Seeds/sq ft/mixture 45 52 66 49

Notes:

N – Native plant, also may use any native plant listed in the NRCS

ecological site description.

I – Introduced, non-native plant.

1

– Do not plant mixture in over 15% woodland canopy

Table adapted from NRCS (2000).

Table 2-7g Oregon Seed Mixture Recommendations for Livestock

Forage Production – Rangeland and Pastureland with

Effective Precipitation 15-18 Inches

Mixtures (lbs/acre) Common name

A B C D E F G

big bluegrass(N) 12

thickspike wheatgrass(N) 6

beardless wheatgrass(N) 7

tall wheatgrass(I) 102 8

intermediate wheatgrass(I) 7

alfalfa(I) 2 2 2 4 4 2

bluebunch wheatgrass(N) 3

Idaho fescue(N) 6

Seeds/sq ft/mixture 61 31 31 18 36 35 70

Notes:

N – Native plant, also may use any native plant listed in the NRCS ecological site description.

I – Introduced, non-native plant

1

– Earliest spring forage

2

– Sodic soil tolerance, pure stands only

Table adapted from NRCS (2000).

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-34

Table 2-7i Oregon Seed Mixture Recommendations for

Livestock Forage production – Irrigated Pasture with

Alkali Soils, Poor Drainage (may include delineated wetland –

use natives as first choice)

Common name Single sp. Rate (lbs/ac)

Beardless wildrye(N) 10

Tall fescue(I) 8

Tall wheatgrass(I)110

Strawberry clover(I)22

Alsike clover(I) 3

Cereal barley (annual)(I) 20

Slender wheatgrass(N) 7

Notes:

N – Native plant, also may use any native plant listed in the NRCS ecological site

description.

I – Introduced, non-native plant

1

– Do not plant mixture in over 15% woodland canopy

Table adapted from NRCS (2000).

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-35

Table 2-7j Oregon Seed Mixture Recommendations for Sagebrush

Rangeland Sites

Common Name Scientific Name

Seeding

rate alone

(lbs. / ac.)

% in

mix

Seeding

rate in mix

(lbs. / ac.)

Great Basin Wildrye Elymus cinereus 9 10% 0.9

Bluebunch wheatgrass Pseudoroegnaria spicata 8 10% 0.8

Bottlebrush squirreltail Elymus elymoides 10 10% 1

Western wheatgrass Psascopyrum smithii 10 15% 1.5

Thickspike Wheatgrass Elymus lanceolatus 8 15% 1.2

Thurber's Needlegrass Stipa thuberiana 8 10% 0.8

Idaho Fescue Festuca idahoensis 8 10% 0.8

Sandberg Bluegrass Poa Sandbergii (secunda) 3 15% 0.45

Lewis Blue Flax Linum lewisii 6 5% 0.3

Total 100% 7.75

Source: BLM Lakeview Resource Area

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-36

Table 2-8 Herbicides Approved and Proposed for Use on Public (BLM) Lands1

Areas Where Registered Use is Appropriate

Herbicide Herbicide Characteristics and Target Vegetation Rangeland Forestland Riparian and

Aquatic

Oil, Gas,

and

Minerals

ROW

Recreation and

Cultural

Resources

Herbicides Approved for Use on Public Lands

2, 4-D

Selective; foliar absorbed; postemergent; annual/perennial

broadleaf weeds. Key species treated include burningbush,

mustard species, and Russian thistle.

• • • • • •

2, 4-DP

Selective; foliar absorbed; postemergent; broadleaf weeds and

woody species. Key species treated include burningbush,

mustard species, Russian thistle, and brush species.

• • • • •

Asulam

Inhibits mitosis; controls growing grasses and certain broadleaf

weeds. Key species treated include brackenfern, dock, and

Johnsongrass.

• •

Atrazine

Selective; mostly root absorbed; inhibits photosynthesis. Key

species treated include annual grasses, mustards, pigweed, and

Russian thistle.

• •

Bromacil

Non-selective; inhibits photosynthesis; controls wide range of

weeds and brush. Key species treated include annual grasses and

broadleaf weeds, burningbush, and Russian thistle.

• • •

Chlorsulfuron

Selective; inhibits enzyme activity; broadleaf weeds and grasses. Key

species treated include biennial thistles and annual and perennial

mustards.

• • • •

Clopyralid

Selective; mimics plant hormones; annual and perennial

broadleaf weeds. Key species treated include knapweeds,

mesquite, and starthistle and other thistles.

• • • • •

Dicamba

Growth regulator; annual and perennial broadleaf weeds, brush,

and trees. Key species treated include knapweeds,

burningbush, and Russian and other thistles.

• • • •

Diuron

Preemergent control; annual and perennial broadleaf weeds and

grasses. Key species treated include annual grasses and broadleaf

weeds, burningbush, and Russian thistle.

• • •

Fosamine

ammonium

Inhibits bud and leaf formation; broadleaf weeds, brush, and

trees. Key species treated include field bindweed, leafy

spurge, and locust.

• • •

Glyphosate

Non-selective; annual and perennial grasses and broadleaf weeds,

sedges, shrubs, and trees. Key species treated include annual,

biennial, and perennial grasses and broadleaf weeds and woody

shrubs.

• • • • • •

Hexazinone Foliar or soil applied; inhibits photosynthesis; annual and perennial • • • • •

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-37

Table 2-8 Herbicides Approved and Proposed for Use on Public (BLM) Lands1

Areas Where Registered Use is Appropriate

Herbicide Herbicide Characteristics and Target Vegetation Rangeland Forestland Riparian and

Aquatic

Oil, Gas,

and

Minerals

ROW

Recreation and

Cultural

Resources

Herbicides Approved for Use on Public Lands

grasses and broadleaf weeds, brush, and trees. Key species

treated include mesquite and scrub oak.

Imazapyr

Non-selective; preemergent and postemergent uses; absorbed

through foliage and roots; annual and perennial broadleaf weeds,

brush, and trees. Key species treated include saltcedar.

• • • • • •

Mefluidide Growth inhibitor; suppresses seed production of grasses, brush,

and trees. Key species treated include roadside grasses. • • •

Metsulfuron methyl

Selective; postemergent; inhibits cell division in roots and shoots;

annual and perennial broadleaf weeds, brush, and trees. Key

species treated include annual and perennial mustards and biennial

thistles.

• • • • •

Picloram

Selective; foliar and root absorption; mimics plant hormones;

certain annual and perennial broadleaf weeds, vines, and shrubs.

Key species treated include knapweeds, leafy spurge, and

starthistle.

• • • • •

Simazine

Used selectively or as complete vegetation killer; requires much

moisture for activation; inhibits photosynthesis. Key species

treated include annual grasses, mustards, pigweed, and

Russian thistle.

• • •

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-1

-9 States in Which Herbicides are Approved for Use on Public (BLM) Lands 2

Based upon Current Environmental Impact Statements, Court Injunctions,

and Changes in Registration Status 1,2

AZ CA CO ID MT NV NM ND OK mical

OR

East

OR

West SD UT WA WY

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 

• P

® 0 m

• • • • • • • • • 0 0 • • • • ine

• • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • acil

• • • • • • • • 0 • • • • sulfuron

• • • • • • • • 0 • • • • ralid

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ba

• • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • n

• mine

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • osate

• • • • • • • • • 0 0 • • • • zinone

• • • • • • • • 0 • • • • pyr

• • • • • • • • 0 • • • • idide

lfuron

yl

• • • • • • • • 0 • • • •

• ® • • • • • • • • • • • • • am

• • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • zine

meturon

yl

• • • • • • • • 0 • • • •

• • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • thiuron

• • • • • • • • • 0 0 • • • • pyr

OI, 2007. rce: USD

se chemicals have not been approved for use in Alaska, Nebraska, and Texas.

se herbicides have been analyzed and approved for application on BLM lands. sed upon the current EISs, the

sed upon the current EISs, these herbicides have been analyzed and approved for application on BLM lands, but

approved for use in Oregon per court injunction (Southern Oregon Citizens Against Toxic Sprays not currently

-1098 (District Court of Oregon. October 20, 1982), 13 Environmental Law Report 20, OCATS) v. Watt, No. 79

6.

ion on BLM lands, but sed upon the current EISs, these herbicides have been analyzed and approved for applicat

plication is not allowed due to change in registration status in the state.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-2

Table 2-10 Potential Treatment Methods for Invasive Plant Species(1)

Common Name

Plant

Type Manual(2) Mechanical Cultural Herbicide(3)

Russian knapweed RP picloram, clopyralid,

aminopyralid

Musk thistle+B

dig, hoe, cut and bag

seed heads mowing, weed eating

possible use of goats or sheep

and competitive seeding on large

sites

aminopyralid, picloram,

chlorsulfuron, glyphosate

Spotted knapweed P pull, dig mowing, weed eating picloram, clopyralid,

aminopyralid

Diffuse knapweed A/B/P pull, dig (difficult) possible use of competitive

seeding if large sites develop

picloram, clopyralid,

aminopyralid

Yellow star-thistle A pull, dig mowing, weed eating possible use of competitive

seeding if large sites develop

picloram, clopyralid,

aminopyralid

Canada thistle+ RP aminopyralid, picloram,

clopyralid, glyphosate

Field bindweed RP

picloram, imazapic,

metsulfuron methyl,

imazapyr

Houndstongue B pull, dig (difficult) mowing, weed eating possible competitive seeding on

some sites

picloram, metsulfuron

methyl, chlorsulfuron,

aminopyralid

Teasel+B pull, dig mowing, weed eating possible use of competitive

seeding if large sites develop

metsulfuron methyl,

chlorosulfuron,

glyphosate

Leafy spurge RP picloram, imazapic,

glyphosate

St. Johnswort+ RP

picloram, aminopyralid,

metsulfuron methyl,

glyphosate

Dyer’s woad B pull, dig (difficult) mowing, weed eating possible use of competitive

seeding if large sites develop

chlorsulfuron, metsulfuron

methyl, imazapyr

Perennial

pepperweed+ RP

metsulfuron methyl,

chlorsulfuron, imazapic,

imazapyr

Oxeye daisy+ RP possible use of competitive

seeding

metsulfuron methyl,

picloram, clopyralid,

glyphosate

Dalmatian toadflax RP picloram, imazapic,

chlorsulfuron

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-3

Table 2-10 Potential Treatment Methods for Invasive Plant Species(1)

Common Name

Plant

Type Manual(2) Mechanical Cultural Herbicide(3)

Yellow toadflax RP picloram, imazapic,

chlorsulfuron

Birds-foot trefoil+ RP pull, dig aminopyralid, clopyralid,

glyphosate

Scotch thistle+B pull, dig aminopyralid, picloram,

chlorsulfuron, glyphosate

Reed canary grass+ RP

possible use of cattle to remove

biomass at large sites in grazing

allotments

glyphosate, imazapyr

sethoxydim, sulfometuron

methyl

Sulphur cinquefoil P pull, dig picloram, metsulfuron

methyl, aminopyralid

Creeping buttercup+SP pull glyphosate, metsulfuron

methyl, aminopyralid

Mediterranean sage B pull, dig (difficult) mow, weed eater picloram, metsulfuron

methyl, chlorosulfuron

Tansy ragwort B pull, dig picloram, metsulfuron

methyl, aminopyralid

Medusahead A

possible use of cattle at large

sites in grazing allotments,

competitive seeding with

perennial grasses

sulfometuron methyl,

imazapic,

glyphosate

Common tansy RP metsulfuron methyl,

chlorsulfuron, picloram

Scentless false

mayweed A/B/P pull mow, weed eater clopyralid, picloram,aminopyralid

Key;

A = Annual.

B = Biennial.

P = Perennial.

RP = Perennial with rhizomes or creeping roots.

SP = Perennial with stolons.

Notes:

(1) Source: National Forest Service Region 6 Draft EIS,

(2) Manual control may be used on 1-few individuals of all species.

(b) Under Alternative 1, herbicide control is limited to glyphosate and/or picloram for all species.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-4

Table 2-11 Characteristics of Invasive Species found in the Fremont-Winema National Forest Planning Area (1)

Species Plant Type Characteristics Reproduction

Russian knapweed

Acroptilon repens

perennial with

creeping and

deep roots

Typically invades disturbed areas. Once established, uses a

combination of creeping roots and allelopathic chemicals to

spread into undisturbed areas. Prefers heavy soils of

bottomlands, subirrigated slopes, and rangelands, and

tolerates saline conditions. Toxic to horses. A new invader

to the Forests, a single roadside site has been found on

Paisley District.

Creeping roots and seed.

Seed longevity 2-8 years.

Spread primarily via human activities (contaminated

seed, feed, hay, and vehicles)

Musk thistle Carduus

nutans

biennial with

taproot

Found in burns, plantations, roadsides, and power lines

within mixed conifer or upper elevation ponderosa pine forest

types. Also occurs in riparian areas. Populations can

fluctuate with annual conditions. Rapid increases follow

disturbances that create bare soil. May be allelopathic,

releasing chemicals that inhibit growth of other species. The

most abundant invasive plant, large infestations occur south

of Highway 140 on Bly District and adjacent ownerships.

Increasing in large fires on Silver Lake and Paisley Districts.

Seed only.

Seed longevity 10-15 years or more. Germination occurs

throughout the growing season.

Spread via wind, water, wildlife, livestock, and human

activities.

Spotted knapweed

Centaurea

biebersteinii

biennial or

perennial with

taproot and

lateral shoots

Most often in disturbed areas, such as roadsides, quarries,

and administrative sites, but can also invade undisturbed

rangelands. May be allelopathic, releasing chemicals that

inhibit growth of other species. A relatively new invader to

the Forests, infesting small sites scattered across the

planning area.

Seed and lateral shoots.

Seed longevity up to 8 years.

Spread via wind, passing animals, and human activities.

Diffuse knapweed

Centaurea diffusa

biennial with

taproot

Spreads quickly along roadsides and in overgrazed

rangelands, but can also invade undisturbed grasslands,

shrublands, and riparian communities. May be allelopathic,

releasing chemicals that inhibit growth of other species. A

new invader, occurring at Summer’s Rock Quarry on

Chiloquin District, and small, scattered sites.

Seed only.

Seed longevity unknown.

Spread primarily by wind, as plants break off and tumble.

Also spread by passing animals and human activities.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-5

Table 2-11 Characteristics of Invasive Species found in the Fremont-Winema National Forest Planning Area (1)

Species Plant Type Characteristics Reproduction

Yellow starthistle

Centaurea solstitialis

annual with

taproot

Favors open grasslands with deep soils. Often invades

recently disturbed sites, or areas dominated by annuals,

forming dense stands. Seeds germinate in fall, winter, or

spring. Toxic to horses. Occurs in southern Klamath County

and is a new invader to the Forests. One small site has

been recorded on Bly District.

Seed only.

Seed longevity up to 10 years.

Spread primarily by birds, mammals, and human

activities.

Canada thistle

Cirsium arvense

perennial with

creeping and

deep roots

Most often found in disturbed sites such as roadsides, burns,

and plantations. Also invades meadows and stream sides.

Widespread in the project area. The largest infestations are

on Lakeview and Paisley Districts, with many of the Paisley

sites located in riparian areas.

Lateral creeping roots, root fragments, and seed. Plants

are single sex; male and female plants must be in close

proximity to seed.

Soil viability up to 22 years if buried.

Spread by wind, water, animals, and human activities.

Field bindweed

Convolvulus arvensis

perennial vine

with deep

taproot, lateral

roots, and

rhizomes

Inhabits agricultural lands, roadsides, ditch banks, wildfires,

and riparian areas. Plants form tangled mats, which can

choke out native grasses and forbs. Ten small sites have

been mapped in the planning area, although more sites are

known to exist.

Seed and rhizomes.

Seed longevity 20-50 years

Spread via water, birds, animals, and human activities.

Houndstongue

Cynoglossum

officinale

biennial or short

lived perennial

with large

taproot

Most often invades disturbed forest openings, but once

established is somewhat shade tolerant and can move into

adjoining undisturbed areas. Can also invade moist

meadows and drainages in drier habitats. Contains toxic

compounds. Currently limited to southwest Klamath District

and adjacent ownerships.

Seed (in bur-like fruits).

Seed longevity 2-3 years.

Spread via passing animals, humans, and vehicles. Sold

as a medicinal plant.

Teasel

Dipsacus fullonum

biennial with

taproot

Found in moist sites, especially along irrigation ditches,

canals, road ditches, and disturbed meadows. A new

invader to the planning area, 4 small sites have been located

on Silver Lake and Lakeview Districts. Cutleaf teasel (D.

laciniatus) has been recently found in Klamath County.

Seed only.

Seed longevity unknown.

Spread via water, wind, and human activities. Sold as an

ornamental for flower arrangements.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-6

Table 2-11 Characteristics of Invasive Species found in the Fremont-Winema National Forest Planning Area (1)

Species Plant Type Characteristics Reproduction

Leafy spurge

Euphorbia esula

perennial with

deep taproot,

lateral roots,

and rhizomes

Found in roadsides, meadows, burns, and rangelands.

Highly competitive and difficult to control. Contains toxic

compounds, and the sap causes skin irritation. Currently

limited to the southwest Bly District and adjacent

ownerships, where it exists in several small sites.

Rhizomes, roots, and seeds

Seed longevity 5-8 years, most germinate within 2.

Spread via explosive dehiscence of the seed capsule,

water, birds, animals, and human activities.

St. Johnswort

Hypericum

perforatum

perennial with

deep taproot

and lateral

roots

Found most often in plantations, roadsides, and recreation

areas. Once established, can invade undisturbed and

partially shaded habitats. Contains toxic compound that

causes photo sensitivity. Occurs throughout the planning

area. Most abundant on Klamath District, where there is

close proximity to a large seed source on the west side of

the Cascades.

Lateral roots and seed

Seed longevity 6-10 years, with reports of 30 or even 50

years.

Spread by wind, water, animals, and human activity.

Sold as a medicinal plant.

Dyer’s woad

Isatis tinctoria

annual,

biennial, or

short-lived

perennial with

deep taproot

Invades roadsides and rangelands, tolerates dry, rocky soils.

Fruits contain a water-soluble inhibitor that prevents seed

germination until conditions are suitable for plant growth, and

also inhibits competing species. A new invader, 5 sites have

been mapped in the planning area on Bly, Lakeview and

Paisley Districts. Known to occur in southwestern Klamath

County. Well established in the New Pine Creek area.

Seed only

Seed longevity unknown

Spread by wind, water, animals, and human activity.

Sold for dye making.

Perennial

pepperweed

Lepidium latifolium

perennial with

creeping roots

Invades a wide range of moist to wet habitats, including

meadows, ditches, marshes, floodplains, and riparian areas.

Once established, forms large, dense stands. Plants are

tolerant of alkaline and saline conditions and can act as “salt

pumps” bringing salt ions from deep in the soil to the

surface. A new invader to the planning area, 3 small sites

have been located along main roads.

Creeping roots, root fragments, and seed.

Seed longevity is at least 2 years, possibly more.

Spread by water, wind, human activities, and possibly

waterfowl or other animals.

Oxeye daisy

Leucanthemum

vulgare

perennial with

rhizomes

Inhabits disturbed openings in forest land, roadsides,

meadows, and pastures. In drier areas, it can occur in

riparian sites. This species is increasing and currently

known to occur on Klamath, Bly, and Lakeview Districts.

Many of the Lakeview sites are in riparian corridors.

Seed and rhizomes.

Seed longevity is at least 2 years, much longer if buried.

Germinates throughout the growing season.

Spread by water, wind, animals and human activity. Sold

as an ornamental.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-7

Table 2-11 Characteristics of Invasive Species found in the Fremont-Winema National Forest Planning Area (1)

Species Plant Type Characteristics Reproduction

Dalmatian toadflax

Linaria dalmatica

perennial with

deep and

creeping roots

Rapidly colonizes open or disturbed areas, especially

roadsides, rangelands, burns, and clearcuts. Mature plants

can suppress other vegetation through intense competition

for limited water. A relatively new invader, with scattered

sites throughout the planning area. Largest populations are

on Modoc Rim on Chiloquin District and the Camp Ewana

area of Bly District. Well established in the Klamath Falls

area.

Lateral roots, root fragments, and seed.

Seed longevity est. 10 years.

Spread by wind, water, birds, animals, and human

activity. Sold as an ornamental.

Yellow toadflax

Linaria vulgaris

perennial with

deep and

creeping roots

Smaller in stature than Dalmatian toadflax, but has similar

characteristics. A new invader to the planning area, with

small scattered sites on Lakeview, Klamath, and Chiloquin

Districts, infesting 3.3 acres.

Lateral roots, root fragments, and seed.

Seed longevity est. 10 years.

Spread by wind, water, birds, animals, and human

activity. Sold as an ornamental.

Bird’s-foot trefoil

Lotus corniculatus

perennial with

taproot and

rhizomes

Invades moist sites such as road ditches, canals, and

reservoirs. Tolerant of a variety of soil types. Creates

tangled mats of dense growth that can choke out other

plants. A new invader, currently only known to occur along

the Cascade Canal on Klamath District.

Seed, rhizomes, and stolons.

Seed longevity unknown

Spread by water, birds, animals, and human activity.

Sold for erosion control and forage.

Scotch thistle

Onopordum

acanthium

biennial with

taproot

Invades ditches, shrublands, forest openings, burns,

meadows, and riparian areas. Seeds have a water soluble

inhibitor which prevents germination until sufficient moisture

is present for seedling establishment. A new invader to the

planning area, occurring in small sites on most Districts.

Well established in the Lakeview and New Pine Creek areas.

Seed only.

Seed longevity up to 20 years.

Spread by wind, water, animals, and human activity.

Reed canarygrass

Phalaris arundinacea

perennial grass

with rhizomes

Found along streambanks, ponds, lakes, irrigation canals,

ditches, and in wet meadows. Forms dense and

impenetrable mats of vegetation that choke out other

species. Currently mapped in 3 meadows on Klamath

District and 1 meadow on Chiloquin District. Likely to occur

elsewhere. Some infested meadows may have been

seeded.

Seed and rhizomes.

Seed longevity short when inundated.

Spread by water, animals, and human activity. Used for

hay and forage. Variegated variety sold as an

ornamental.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-8

Table 2-11 Characteristics of Invasive Species found in the Fremont-Winema National Forest Planning Area (1)

Species Plant Type Characteristics Reproduction

Sulphur cinquefoil

Potentilla recta

perennial with

taproot

Found in rangelands, logged areas, roadsides, and

abandoned fields with a variety of soil types. A new invader

in the planning area, with small sites located on Bly and

Lakeview Districts.

Seed and vegetative sprouting.

Seed longevity unknown est. 4 years or more.

Spread primarily by human activity.

Creeping buttercup

Ranunculus repens

perennial with

stolons

Found in moist to wet areas, such as road ditches, irrigated

pastures, springs, and canals. Tolerates trampling,

compaction, waterlogged soils, and moderate drought.

Contains compounds moderately toxic to cattle. A new

invader, with 3 sites found on Chiloquin and Klamath

Districts in recreation areas.

Seed and stolons

Seed longevity 5-7 years, up to 20.

Spread by water, birds, animals, and humans.

Sometimes a contaminant of hay.

Mediterranean sage

Salvia aethiopis

biennial with

taproot

Found in habitats with dry soils, such as roadsides and

disturbed rangelands. Can remain in the rosette stage for 2

years before becoming large enough to produce seed.

Occurs on most districts with the majority of sites located in

Lake County. Well established in the Lakeview, Paisley, and

Summer Lake areas.

Seed only.

Seed longevity unknown

Spread primarily by wind, as stalks break off and tumble.

Also spread by livestock, birds, wildlife, and human

activities.

Tansy ragwort

Senecio jacobaea

biennial with

taproot

Found in timber sale areas, roadsides, and pastures.

Germinates in the fall, and can grow as a winter annual,

biennial, or short-lived perennial. Toxic to cattle and horses.

A new invader, infesting 4 acres in scattered sites.

Seed and vegetative sprouting.

Seed longevity 10-16 years.

Spread by wind, water, animals, and human activity.

Sometimes a contaminant of hay and straw.

Medusahead

Taeniatherum caputmedusae

annual, with

minimal roots

Invades rangelands, establishing first where grazing,

burning, or other disturbance, has weakened vegetation.

Favors heavy soils, and is often seen on scablands. Seeds

germinate in fall, winter, or spring. Fall germination allows

roots to develop during the winter, giving a competitive

advantage over native plants. Forms thick mats of dead

stems that exclude growth of other species. Established in

areas of Bly and Silver Lake Districts and adjoining

ownerships.

Seed only.

Seed longevity 1-2 years.

Spread by animals, wind, water, and human activities. A

long, rough awn aids in attachment to passing animals,

humans, and machinery.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-9

Table 2-11 Characteristics of Invasive Species found in the Fremont-Winema National Forest Planning Area (1)

Species Plant Type Characteristics Reproduction

Common tansy

Tanacetum vulgare

perennial with

rhizomes

Found in road ditches, canals, riparian areas, timber sale

areas, and pastures. Toxic if consumed in quantity. Toxins

possibly may be absorbed through the skin. A new invader,

with 1 site mapped on Paisley District.

Seed and rhizomes.

Seed longevity is unknown.

Spread by water, birds, animals, and human activities.

Sold as an ornamental and medicinal.

Scentless false

mayweed

Tripleurospermum

perforate

annual,

biennial, or

perennial with

extensive

fibrous roots

Found in roadsides, pastures, fields, timber sale areas, and

other disturbed lands. Tolerates a variety of soil types.

Seeds are able to germinate under a wide range of

temperature and moisture conditions. A new invader to the

planning area with 2 sites mapped on Bly District. Known to

occur around Klamath Falls and adjacent agricultural lands.

Seed only (large plants can produce 1 million seeds).

Seed longevity up to 15 years

Spread by wind, water, drifting snow, and human activity.

Sometimes a contaminant of hay, grain, and grass seed.

Notes:

(1) Source: Fremont-Winema National Forests Invasive Plant DEIS

Table 2-12 Potential Wash Station Sites Along the Ruby Pipeline ROW, Based on Identified (1) High Density (2)

Noxious Weed Populations

County

Milepost of

Potential

Wash

Station* Noxious Weed Species

State Specified Control

Priority Rating

Wyoming

Lincoln 0.8 Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), Quackgrass (Elymus repens)

The State of Wyoming does not

separate noxious weeds in to distinct

management classes.

Utah

Cache 93.5 Medusahead rye (Taeniatherum caput-medusae)

A = Very high priority

(Early Detection Rapid Response).

Box Elder 113.1 Quackgrass (Agropyron repens)

Box Elder 120.5 Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis)

C =

Agricultural threat

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

A-10

Table 2-12 Potential Wash Station Sites Along the Ruby Pipeline ROW, Based on Identified (1) High Density (2)

Noxious Weed Populations

County

Milepost of

Potential

Wash

Station* Noxious Weed Species

State Specified Control

Priority Rating

Box Elder 121.1 Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) (Containment)

Nevada

Elko 239.0 Russian Knapweed (Centaurea repens) B

(3)

Humboldt 480.9 Hoary cress (whitetop) (Cardaria draba/Cardaria pubescens) C

(4)

Oregon

Lake 615.6 Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis)

Lake 615.6 Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense)

Lake 618.3 Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium)

B

(5)

=

Limited to intensive control at the

state, county or regional level as

determined on a case-by-case basis

*Note that in addition to the identified Mileposts, all proposed Ruby Staging Areas and Contractor Construction Yards are also potential wash

station sites.

NOTES: (1) This table shows only high density occurrences of noxious weed species within 115-ft ROW (+/- 5%), based on agency data

and E & E field surveys (refer to table 2-1 for data sources). Areas of high noxious weed abundance (encompassing

moderate and low density populations of high priority species) are not included in this table, and at this stage have not

been used to determine the potential location of additional wash stations.

(2) Percent cover was used to determine density. For the above densities, the following percent cover classes apply: Low = <1 &

1-5, Moderate = 6-50, High = 51-100

(3) Nevada “B” classification = Weeds established in scattered populations in some counties of the state; actively excluded where

possible; control required by the state in areas where populations are not well established or previously unknown to

occur.

(4) Nevada “C” classification = Weeds currently established and generally widespread in many counties of the state; abatement

at the discretion of the state quarantine officer.

(5) Oregon “B” classification definition = a weed of economic importance which is regionally abundant, but which may have limited

distribution in some counties. Limited to intensive control at the state, county or regional level as determined on a case-by-case

basis. Where implementation of a fully integrated statewide management plan is not feasible, biological control (when available)

shall be the main control methods.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009

File [APPENDIX_Q_SENSITIVE_AND_STATE-LISTED_SPECIES.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: 

File not found)
Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009

File [APPENDIX_R_CRUCIAL_SEASONAL_PERIODS_TABLE.PDF] cannot be converted to PDF. (Error: File 

not found)
APPENDIX S 

Collocated and Parallel Rights-of-Way for the 

Ruby Pipeline Project 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
S-1 

APPENDIX S 

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 1.0 

Lincoln 21.1 – 21.2 Road (Unnamed Road) 0 - 715 South 0.1 

Uinta 21.2 – 26.2 Road (Unnamed Road) 0 - 715 South 5.0 

 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 136.6 – 137.0 Road (Faust Valley Road) 460 South 0.4 

Box Elder 137.0 – 137.3 Road (State Route 83) 460 South 0.3 

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 

 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
S-2 

APPENDIX S (cont.) 

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 181.8 – 185.2 Road (8560 N Rd) 60 - 110 South 3.4 

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 – 190.5 Road (8560 N Rd) 50 - 135 South 1.1 

Box Elder 205.3 – 211.2 Road (State Route 30) 300 - 330 North 5.9 

Box Elder 211.2 – 211.5 Fiber Optic Cable 0 - 265 North 0.3 

Box Elder 211.5 – 214.5 Fiber Optic Cable 140 - 525 North 3.0 

Box Elder 214.5 – 223.6 Fiber Optic Cable 65 South 9.1 

Box Elder 223.6 – 230.6 Fiber Optic Cable 0 - 525 South 7.1 

 Subtotal 73.4 

NEVADA 

Elko 230.6 – 288.0 Fiber Optic Cable 0 - 525 South 57.4 

Elko 287.9 – 292.7 Electric Transmission Line 115 South 4.8 

Elko 292.7 – 293.3 Electric Transmission Line 115 - 500 South 0.6 

Elko 307.5 – 308.0 Electric Transmission Line 155 - 500 South 0.5 

Elko 308.0 – 309.7 Electric Transmission Line 155 South 1.7 

Elko 309.7 – 314.3 Electric Transmission Line 185 South 4.6 

Elko 318.7 – 319.5 Electric Transmission Line 145 - 475 South 0.8 

Elko 319.5 – 327.6 Electric Transmission Line 145 South 8.1 

Elko 332.0 – 332.9 Electric Transmission Line 147 - 415 South 0.9 

Elko 332.9 – 333.7 Electric Transmission Line 147 South 0.8 

Elko 333.7 – 334.9 Electric Transmission Line 147 - 450 South 1.2 

Elko 334.9 – 338.0 Electric Transmission Line 147 - 280 South 3.1 

Elko 338.0 – 339.7 Electric Transmission Line 135 South 1.7 

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 9.0 

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 118.7 

OREGON 

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 1.0 

Klamath 664.7 – 666.3 Road Johnson (Road) 125 South 1.6 

Klamath 0.0l – 2.7l Pipeline 50 North 2.7 

 Subtotal 6.0 

 Total 218.5 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX T

Traffic and Transportation Management Plan 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Traffic and Transportation

Management Plan

FERC Docket No. CP09-___-000

January 2009

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Traffic and Transportation Management Plan

January 2009

i

Table of Contents

Section Page

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Traffic Impacts..................................................................................... 1-1

2.0 General Requirements ............................................................ 2-1

2.1 Temporary Access Roads................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Permanent Access Roads................................................................... 2-2

2.3 Public Road Use ................................................................................. 2-2

2.4 Road Crossings................................................................................... 2-2

2.5.2 Rangeland ................................................................................ 2-3

2.5.3 Residential Areas ..................................................................... 2-3

2.5.4 Dust Control.............................................................................. 2-3

2.5.5 Reclamation and Abandonment ............................................... 2-3

2.5 Removal of Obstructions..................................................................... 2-3

A Access Roads.........................................................................A-1

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Traffic and Transportation Management Plan

January 2009

ii

List of Tables

Table Page

Table 2.1-1 Summary of Access Road Length................................................................. 2-1

Table A-1 Access Roads Used by the Project...............................................................A-2

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Traffic and Transportation Management Plan

January 2009

iii

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

BLM Bureau of Land Management

DOT Department of Transportation

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Project Ruby Pipeline Project

ROW Right-of-Way

Ruby Ruby Pipeline, LLC

Traffic Plan Traffic and Transportation Management Plan

USFS United States Forest Service

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Traffic and Transportation Management Plan

January 2009

1-1

1.0 Introduction

The Ruby Pipeline Project (Project), proposed by Ruby Pipeline, LLC (Ruby), is comprised of

approximately 675.2 miles of 42-inch diameter natural gas pipeline, along with associated

compression and measurement facilities, located between Opal, Wyoming and Malin,

Oregon. An approximate 2.6-mile lateral would also be constructed south from the Malin

Hub in Klamath County, Oregon. The pipeline right-of-way (ROW) would cross four states:

Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon. Four new compressor stations would also be

installed as part of the Project.

The purpose of this Traffic and Transportation Management Plan (Traffic Plan) is to describe

how Ruby will comply with federal policy and standards relative to planning, location,

improvement, maintenance, and operation of roads for the Project. The Plan also describes

how Ruby would implement equipment access to and from the ROW, drainage improvement

procedures, dust control and maintenance measures, and reclamation and abandonment of

roads.

1.1 Traffic Impacts

The addition of 4,300 construction employees and truck traffic to and from the Project ROW

construction could cause temporary impacts to traffic levels on local roads, particularly in the

more rural areas of the Project. Areas of particular concern are mining areas near Elko and

Winnemucca, Nevada, where road access is limited, but a significant amount of traffic is

created by mining operations. Construction employees for the Ruby project would be

dispersed over 675.2 miles, seven pipeline construction spreads, and four compressor

station construction crews. Construction workers would likely be located well within a 50-

mile radius of the Project route and commute to and from the central contractor yard location

for each spread. Commuting patterns could create potential temporary traffic congestion if

peak travel hours for the mining operations and Ruby construction coincide.

Vehicle movements would generally occur during the daylight hours, with primary

movements occurring during the early morning (6:30-7:30am) and evening hours (6:30-

9:00pm) when crews would be driving to and from the work site. Due to the long workday, it

is projected that the commute for construction crews would not interfere with local evening

commutes. However, the potential exists for localized traffic increases that could affect local

morning traffic. Typically, the work week is six days, sometimes extending to seven days as

required by the workload and construction schedule. During directional drilling and

hydrostatic testing, work would be conducted on a 24-hour basis until the drilling and testing

is complete.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Traffic and Transportation Management Plan

January 2009

1-2

It is expected that during construction the phase, there would be approximately 200 vehicles

mobilized to support the installation. These vehicles would be used to transport 100

equipment operators, 30 Welders, 15 Foremen, 25 miscellaneous and 30 inspectors for

each spread. These vehicles would report to the contractor staging yard before proceeding

to the ROW. In addition, there would be six to eight buses for transporting the other workers

to the ROW. These workers would drive to the contractor yard(s) and park their vehicles

before embarking via bus to the ROW. For stringing, there will be a sufficient number of

stringing trucks to make approximately 50 trips per day. This equates to an average

progress rate of 8,000 feet per day. These trucks would haul pipe from yards located in

proximity to the pipeline ROW.

The access roads are shown in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) route

maps included as an appendix to Resource Report No. 1 of Ruby’s application to FERC.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Traffic and Transportation Management Plan

January 2009

2-1

2.0 General Requirements

2.1 Temporary Access Roads

Ruby intends to use existing access roads on a temporary basis during construction of the

Project to transport personnel, equipment, vehicles (high clearance vehicles and heavy

trucks) and materials to work areas. The Project will utilize federal and state highways, and

numerous county, BLM, USFS, and private roads. Table 2.1-1 summarizes the total mileage

of access roads by state and county being proposed for use by Ruby, as well as the total

mileage that may require improvement. A complete listing of the proposed access roads is

shown on Table A-1 in Appendix A of this plan. Table A-1 includes information about the

class (i.e. dirt, gravel, pavement, etc.), land ownership, and additional information about

each of the access roads that Ruby and its contractors would utilize during the Project.

[

Table 2.1-1 Summary of Access Road Length

Total

(Miles)

Total Improved

(Miles)

Wyoming

Lincoln 53.5 53.5

Uinta 78.9 58.8

Utah

Rich 41.0 38.8

Cache 46.7 46.6

Box Elder 242.0 216.5

Nevada

Elko 538.8 339.0

Humboldt 234.7 108.0

Washoe 98.5 65.5

Oregon

Lake 101.3 83.1

Klamath 81.7 62.1

TOTAL 1,517.1 1,071.9

The access roads are generally classified into roads that would not require improvement

prior to, and during use and access roads that may or will require improvement prior to,

during, or after use for the Project.

Existing access roads may be modified to facilitate Project construction. Modifications to

existing access roads would consist primarily of increasing the width of the road up to 30 feet

by grading, where authorized. The improvements would be done to provide a safe and level

transportation surface for construction vehicles.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Traffic and Transportation Management Plan

January 2009

2-2

The use of dirt roads by construction vehicles may result in road deterioration, even without

rain events, due to the size and weight of these vehicles. Ruby proposes maintenance on

these roads to ensure they maintain their existing condition.

Roads that require new improvements, such as widening, would only be allowed after Ruby

completes the required biological and cultural resource surveys and secures approval for

these improvements from agencies or private landowners. Following construction, and at

the discretion of the landowner, these roads would be returned to their preconstruction

condition.

Landowners (county, federal, private) and county road departments would be consulted to

determine the preferred protocols for road maintenance and improvement activities.

Additionally, borrow material needed to improve access roads on federal land would be

obtained only from approved sources. On roads that may become rutted due to use by

construction equipment, Ruby will grade the road or fill the ruts to restore the road as close

as practicable to its original condition or improved condition. Ruby will employ erosion

control, revegetation, and restoration measures included in Ruby’s Reclamation plan.

2.2 Permanent Access Roads

Ruby intends to use all existing access roads for occasional maintenance purposes during

the operation of the Project facilities. Any new permanent access roads or any new road

infrastructure that will be necessary to access its Project facilities will be identified on its

alignment sheets or topographic maps that will be provided in Ruby’s certificate application.

2.3 Public Road Use

In many cases, existing public highways could be used to transport construction equipment

to the approved access roads. Ruby would obtain approvals from the appropriate state

DOT, BLM, USFS, or county road and bridge departments prior to construction. Ruby

estimates that road use by construction crews will occur between the hours of 5 am and 9

pm.

In an effort to address potential traffic impacts to local towns and communities, Ruby will

consult with respective county and highway officials to address traffic congestion issues.

Ruby will require its construction contractors to prepare traffic management plans to reduce

traffic congestion that may be created by construction personnel. The contractors’ traffic

management plans will be developed for each construction spread.

2.4 Road Crossings

Ruby will require its construction contractors to clear accumulated mud and debris where the

Project ROW intersects paved roads or in accordance with site specific crossing plans that

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Traffic and Transportation Management Plan

January 2009

2-3

are filed with each state highway or county road department. Where necessary, Ruby will

prepare specific traffic control plans to address construction activities, detours, and lane

closures.

2.5.2 Rangeland

In construction areas that cross rangelands, Ruby proposes to inspect cattle guards and

gates prior to construction and will maintain access through those facilities during

construction. Ruby is committed to maintaining, repairing, or replacing any cattle guards or

gates that may be damaged by construction to their Project pre-construction condition.

2.5.3 Residential Areas

The Project route will be located in the vicinity of various residential areas. At these

locations, Ruby is committed to maintaining traffic flow and emergency vehicle access on

roadways with traffic control personnel or detour signs where necessary. Ruby will also

inspect road surfaces near residences and, if necessary, clean street surfaces and wet

exposed soil to prevent generation of dust. Furthermore, Ruby will collaborate with local

officials and any homeowner groups to repair any damage to roads caused by Project

construction activities.

2.5.4 Dust Control

Ruby will develop a Project-wide fugitive dust control plan that will be implemented to meet

state by state requirements for dust control. This fugitive dust control plan will be included in

the Plan of Development being submitted as an appendix to Resource Report No. 1 of

Ruby’s application.

2.5.5 Reclamation and Abandonment

For any temporary access road authorized for the Project, Ruby will reclaim or abandon any

such road in accordance with the requirements of the appropriate landowner or land

managing agency.

2.5 Removal of Obstructions

Upon securing appropriate authorization from the appropriate landowner or land managing

agency, Ruby will trim or remove obstructions, such as limbs, rocks and/or fences, to

facilitate construction equipment ingress or egress.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Ruby Pipeline Project Traffic and Transportation Management Plan

January 2009

A-1

A Access Roads

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Refer to Ruby DEIS Appendix D2 for Access Roads 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX U

Draft Fugitive Dust Control Plan 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
January 2009

Draft

Fugitive Dust Control Plan

FERC Docket No. PF08-9-000

January 2009

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

i

Table of Contents

Section Page

1 Introduction ............................................................................. 1

1.1 Objective...................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Project Description....................................................................................... 1

2 Fugitive Dust Sources............................................................. 1

3 Applicable Regulatory Requirements .................................... 8

4 Fugitive Dust Control Measures............................................. 8

5 Inspection, Monitoring, and Recordkeeping ......................... 9

List of Tables

Table Page

Table 2-1 Watersheds Crossed by the Proposed Ruby Pipeline Project (Route

Version 26-November 2008) ........................................................................... 3

Table 3-1 Applicable Fugitive Dust Regulations .............................................................. 8

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

ii

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

NDEP Nevada Division of Environmental Protection

Project Ruby Pipeline Project

ROW right-of-way

Ruby Ruby Pipeline, LLC

WC-AQMD Washoe County District Health Department – Air Quality Management Division

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

1

1 Introduction

1.1 Objective

The objective of this fugitive dust control plan is to identify potential dust emission sources

and provide guidance to construction and field personnel on measures to control the

generation of fugitive dust during construction activities associated with the Ruby Pipeline

Project (Project). It will be the responsibility of Project contractors, working with designated

environmental inspectors, to identify all activities generating fugitve dust, implement feasible

control measures, and ensure compliance with applicable fugitive dust regulations.

1.2 Project Description

The Ruby Pipeline Project (Project), proposed by Ruby Pipeline, LLC (Ruby), is comprised of

approximately 675.2 miles of 42-inch diameter natural gas pipeline, along with associated

compression and measurement facilities, located between Opal, Wyoming and Malin,

Oregon. An approximate 2.6-mile lateral, PG&E Lateral, would also be constructed south

from the Malin Hub. As proposed, the Project would have a design capacity of

approximately 1.5 million Dekatherms per day (MMDth/d), 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, one in western Utah,

one near the mid-point of the Project north of Elko, Nevada, and one northwest of

Winnemucca, Nevada.

2 Fugitive Dust Sources

Fugitive dust could be generated directly from pipeline installation and aboveground facility

construction. The following construction activities have been identified as having the

potential for generating fugitive dust:

 vehicle and motorized equipment movement 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;

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

2

 use of material storage piles; and

 use of parking, staging, and storage areas.

It is the responsibility of the Project contractor(s) and the designated environmental

inspector(s) to ensure all sources of dust generation are identified.

Dust Abatement

The Project proposes to withdraw water for use in controlling dust at nine locations:

Locations MP State Volume (gallons)

Hams Fork River 0.81 Wyoming 2,880,000

Bear River (east) 52.9 Utah 8,640,000

Little Bear River 94.9 Utah 5,760,000

Bear River (west) 133.8 Utah 5,760,000

Mary’s River 300.1 Nevada 17,280,000

Irrigation Quarter 435.3 Nevada 17,280,000

Deep Creek 601.8 Oregon 17,280,000

Irrigation Canal 624.3 Oregon 17,280,000

Lost River 665.8 Oregon 17,280,000

Additionally, Ruby is in the process of identifying new water well locations along the Project.

Ruby would acquire the appropriate permits necessary for drilling these water wells to

provide hydrostatic test and dust abatement water.

Abatement measures for dust will be required on the construction ROW or access roads

when a visible plume of dust extends more than 300 feet from the source with an estimated

opacity exceeding 20 percent (objects partially obscured). The contractor will be responsible

for controlling dust by reducing travel speed and/or applying dust suppressants (e.g., water)

Assuming each contractor will supply three 80-barrel water trucks for dust abatement and

each truck will make ten trips per day, then each contractor would use 96,000 gallons per

day from any one water source in proximity to the spread. Assume 120 days of dust

abatement for each of the seven spreads, each contractor would use 11,520,000 gallons. A

total of 80,640,000 Gallons (247.5 acre-feet) would be used for dust abatement for the entire

Project.

Surface Water Basins

The United States is divided and sub-divided into successively smaller hydrologic units that

are classified into four levels: regions, sub-regions, basins, and sub-basins. Sub-basins are

further divided into watersheds. Several sub-basins in Nevada have not been officially

subdivided to the watershed level and are therefore addressed at the sub-basin level. The

Project would pass through 54 surface water basins (39 watersheds in Wyoming, Utah,

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

3

Nevada, and Oregon and 15 sub-basins in Nevada). A summary of surface water basins

that would be crossed by the Project and mileposts (MPs) for each crossing is shown in

Table 2-1. Surface water basins are listed at the watershed level, where available, and at

the sub-basin level, where watershed level was not available.

Table 2-1 Watersheds Crossed by the Proposed Ruby Pipeline Project (Route Version 26-

November 2008)

Start

MP

End

MP

Intersecting

Length

(Miles) State County Watershed

Hydrologic

Unit

Code

0.0 2.0 2.0 Wyoming Lincoln Lower Hams Fork 1404010707

2.0 5.9 3.9 Wyoming Lincoln Dry Muddy Creek 1404010705

5.9 12.7 6.8 Wyoming Lincoln Dry Muddy Creek 1404010705

12.7 13.3 0.6 Wyoming Lincoln Little Muddy Creek 1404010802

13.3 13.5 0.2 Wyoming Lincoln Dry Muddy Creek 1404010705

13.5 21.2 7.7 Wyoming Lincoln Little Muddy Creek 1404010802

21.2 21.6 0.4 Wyoming Uinta Little Muddy Creek 1404010802

21.6 25.2 3.7 Wyoming Uinta Little Muddy Creek 1404010802

25.2 26.3 1.0 Wyoming Uinta Albert Creek 1404010803

26.3 36.0 9.8 Wyoming Uinta Little Muddy Creek 1404010802

36.0 39.5 3.5 Wyoming Uinta Little Muddy Creek 1404010802

39.5 44.9 5.4 Wyoming Uinta Bear River-Pleasant Valley Creek 1601010103

44.9 48.1 3.2 Wyoming Uinta Bear River-Pleasant Valley Creek 1601010103

48.1 48.6 0.6 Utah Rich Bear River-Pleasant Valley Creek 1601010103

48.6 50.2 1.5 Utah Rich Bear River-Pleasant Valley Creek 1601010103

50.2 50.8 0.6 Utah Rich Bear River-Pleasant Valley Creek 1601010103

50.8 53.8 3.0 Utah Rich Bear River-Big Creek 1601010106

53.8 54.1 0.3 Utah Rich Woodruff Creek 1601010107

54.1 54.5 0.4 Utah Rich Bear River-Big Creek 1601010106

54.5 58.3 3.8 Utah Rich Saleratus Creek 1601010105

58.3 64.1 5.9 Utah Rich Woodruff Creek 1601010107

64.1 64.1 0.0 Utah Rich Woodruff Creek 1601010107

64.1 64.2 0.0 Utah Rich Woodruff Creek 1601010107

64.2 64.3 0.1 Utah Rich Woodruff Creek 1601010107

64.3 64.3 0.0 Utah Rich Woodruff Creek 1601010107

64.3 64.4 0.1 Utah Rich Woodruff Creek 1601010107

64.4 64.5 0.1 Utah Rich Woodruff Creek 1601010107

64.5 64.6 0.1 Utah Rich Woodruff Creek 1601010107

64.6 64.7 0.1 Utah Rich Woodruff Creek 1601010107

64.7 67.4 2.7 Utah Rich Woodruff Creek 1601010107

67.4 68.4 0.9 Utah Rich Woodruff Creek 1601010107

68.4 69.1 0.8 Utah Rich Woodruff Creek 1601010107

69.1 69.4 0.3 Utah Rich Woodruff Creek 1601010107

69.4 69.5 0.1 Utah Rich Woodruff Creek 1601010107

69.5 69.8 0.3 Utah Rich Woodruff Creek 1601010107

69.8 70.1 0.2 Utah Rich Woodruff Creek 1601010107

70.1 73.2 3.1 Utah Rich Woodruff Creek 1601010107

73.2 73.2 0.0 Utah Rich Blacksmith Fork 1601020302

73.2 75.8 2.6 Utah Cache Blacksmith Fork 1601020302

75.8 76.0 0.2 Utah Cache Headwaters Little Bear River 1601020301

76.0 76.2 0.2 Utah Cache Blacksmith Fork 1601020302

76.2 76.3 0.1 Utah Cache Headwaters Little Bear River 1601020301

76.3 76.5 0.2 Utah Cache Blacksmith Fork 1601020302

76.5 80.6 4.1 Utah Cache Headwaters Little Bear River 1601020301

80.6 83.1 2.5 Utah Cache Blacksmith Fork 1601020302

83.1 83.7 0.6 Utah Cache Headwaters Little Bear River 1601020301

83.7 85.4 1.7 Utah Cache Blacksmith Fork 1601020302

85.4 85.9 0.4 Utah Cache Blacksmith Fork 1601020302

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

4

Table 2-1 Watersheds Crossed by the Proposed Ruby Pipeline Project (Route Version 26-

November 2008)

Start

MP

End

MP

Intersecting

Length

(Miles) State County Watershed

Hydrologic

Unit

Code

85.9 86.4 0.5 Utah Cache Headwaters Little Bear River 1601020301

86.4 86.6 0.2 Utah Cache Blacksmith Fork 1601020302

86.6 87.0 0.4 Utah Cache Headwaters Little Bear River 1601020301

87.0 87.0 0.0 Utah Cache Blacksmith Fork 1601020302

87.0 94.3 7.3 Utah Cache Headwaters Little Bear River 1601020301

94.3 98.6 4.3 Utah Cache Headwaters Little Bear River 1601020301

98.6 101.0 2.4 Utah Cache Headwaters Little Bear River 1601020301

101.0 101.0 0.0 Utah Cache Box Elder Creek-Bear River 1601020405

101.0 104.2 3.2 Utah Box Elder Box Elder Creek-Bear River 1601020405

104.2 113.1 8.9 Utah Box Elder Box Elder Creek-Bear River 1601020405

113.1 118.5 5.5 Utah Box Elder Box Elder Creek-Bear River 1601020405

118.5 121.9 3.4 Utah Box Elder Whites Valley 1601020404

121.9 123.5 1.6 Utah Box Elder Whites Valley 1601020404

123.5 131.0 7.5 Utah Box Elder Box Elder Creek-Bear River 1601020405

131.0 137.2 6.2 Utah Box Elder Blue Creek 1602030908

137.2 137.8 0.6 Utah Box Elder Blue Creek 1602030908

137.8 140.5 2.7 Utah Box Elder Blue Creek 1602030908

140.5 141.3 0.8 Utah Box Elder Blue Creek 1602030908

141.3 141.5 0.2 Utah Box Elder Blue Creek 1602030908

141.5 141.6 0.0 Utah Box Elder Blue Creek 1602030908

141.6 141.6 0.0 Utah Box Elder Blue Creek 1602030908

141.6 141.9 0.3 Utah Box Elder Blue Creek 1602030908

141.9 142.0 0.1 Utah Box Elder Blue Creek 1602030908

142.0 142.4 0.4 Utah Box Elder Blue Creek 1602030908

142.4 142.6 0.2 Utah Box Elder Blue Creek 1602030908

142.6 142.6 0.1 Utah Box Elder Blue Creek 1602030908

142.6 142.7 0.0 Utah Box Elder Blue Creek 1602030908

142.7 142.8 0.1 Utah Box Elder Blue Creek 1602030908

142.8 143.3 0.5 Utah Box Elder Hansel Valley Wash 1602030905

143.3 143.5 0.2 Utah Box Elder Hansel Valley Wash 1602030905

143.5 147.6 4.1 Utah Box Elder Hansel Valley Wash 1602030905

147.6 149.2 1.6 Utah Box Elder Hansel Valley Wash 1602030905

149.2 150.2 1.0 Utah Box Elder Hansel Valley Wash 1602030905

150.2 150.4 0.2 Utah Box Elder Hansel Valley Wash 1602030905

150.4 153.5 3.1 Utah Box Elder Hansel Valley Wash 1602030905

153.5 157.6 4.1 Utah Box Elder Hansel Valley Wash 1602030905

157.6 164.7 7.1 Utah Box Elder Outlet Deep Creek 1602030904

164.7 166.5 1.9 Utah Box Elder Outlet Deep Creek 1602030904

166.5 168.4 1.9 Utah Box Elder Outlet Deep Creek 1602030904

168.4 171.3 2.9 Utah Box Elder Crystal Hollow-Indian Creek 1602030906

171.3 171.6 0.2 Utah Box Elder Crystal Hollow-Indian Creek 1602030906

171.6 171.7 0.2 Utah Box Elder Crystal Hollow-Indian Creek 1602030906

171.7 172.4 0.7 Utah Box Elder Crystal Hollow-Indian Creek 1602030906

172.4 173.7 1.3 Utah Box Elder Crystal Hollow-Indian Creek 1602030906

173.7 176.6 2.9 Utah Box Elder Crystal Hollow-Indian Creek 1602030906

176.6 180.7 4.1 Utah Box Elder Crystal Hollow-Indian Creek 1602030906

180.7 181.7 1.0 Utah Box Elder Crystal Hollow-Indian Creek 1602030906

181.7 189.6 7.9 Utah Box Elder Dove Creek 1602030814

181.7 189.6 7.9 Utah Box Elder Dove Creek 1602030814

189.6 192.8 3.2 Utah Box Elder Dove Creek 1602030814

189.6 192.8 3.2 Utah Box Elder Dove Creek 1602030814

192.8 199.5 6.7 Utah Box Elder Muddy Creek 1602030810

192.8 199.5 6.7 Utah Box Elder Muddy Creek 1602030810

199.5 201.0 1.4 Utah Box Elder Muddy Creek 1602030810

199.5 201.0 1.4 Utah Box Elder Muddy Creek 1602030810

201.0 201.7 0.8 Utah Box Elder Muddy Creek 1602030810

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

5

Table 2-1 Watersheds Crossed by the Proposed Ruby Pipeline Project (Route Version 26-

November 2008)

Start

MP

End

MP

Intersecting

Length

(Miles) State County Watershed

Hydrologic

Unit

Code

201.0 201.7 0.8 Utah Box Elder Muddy Creek 1602030810

201.7 203.8 2.1 Utah Box Elder Muddy Creek 1602030810

201.7 203.8 2.1 Utah Box Elder Muddy Creek 1602030810

203.8 206.6 2.7 Utah Box Elder Muddy Creek 1602030810

203.8 206.6 2.7 Utah Box Elder Muddy Creek 1602030810

206.6 207.0 0.5 Utah Box Elder Sand Wash-Pigeon Mountain 1602030809

206.6 207.0 0.5 Utah Box Elder Sand Wash-Pigeon Mountain 1602030809

207.0 214.1 7.1 Utah Box Elder Sand Wash-Pigeon Mountain 1602030809

207.0 214.1 7.1 Utah Box Elder Sand Wash-Pigeon Mountain 1602030809

214.1 217.3 3.2 Utah Box Elder Sand Wash-Pigeon Mountain 1602030809

214.1 217.3 3.2 Utah Box Elder Sand Wash-Pigeon Mountain 1602030809

217.3 223.1 5.8 Utah Box Elder Sand Wash-Pigeon Mountain 1602030809

217.3 223.1 5.8 Utah Box Elder Sand Wash-Pigeon Mountain 1602030809

223.1 228.0 4.8 Utah Box Elder Lower Grouse Creek 1602030803

223.1 228.0 4.8 Utah Box Elder Lower Grouse Creek 1602030803

228.0 230.6 2.7 Utah Box Elder Outlet Thousand Springs Creek 1602030708

228.0 230.6 2.7 Utah Box Elder Outlet Thousand Springs Creek 1602030708

230.6 231.8 1.2 Nevada Elko Outlet Thousand Springs Creek 1602030708

230.6 231.8 1.2 Nevada Elko Outlet Thousand Springs Creek 1602030708

231.8 233.4 1.5 Nevada Elko Outlet Thousand Springs Creek 1602030708

231.8 233.4 1.5 Nevada Elko Outlet Thousand Springs Creek 1602030708

233.4 233.8 0.4 Nevada Elko Northern Great Salt Lake Desert 16020308

233.8 283.0 49.2 Nevada Elko Pilot-Thousand Springs, Nevada, Utah 16020307

283.0 309.3 26.4 Nevada Elko Upper Humboldt 16040101

309.3 341.7 32.4 Nevada Elko North Fork Humboldt 16040102

341.7 347.6 5.9 Nevada Elko Upper Humboldt 16040101

347.6 348.0 0.4 Nevada Elko Headwaters South Fork Owyhee River 1705010501

347.6 348.0 0.4 Nevada Elko Headwaters South Fork Owyhee River 1705010501

348.0 348.1 0.1 Nevada Elko South Fork Owyhee 17050105

348.1 348.8 0.8 Nevada Elko Headwaters South Fork Owyhee River 1705010501

348.1 348.8 0.8 Nevada Elko Headwaters South Fork Owyhee River 1705010501

348.8 348.9 0.0 Nevada Elko South Fork Owyhee 17050105

348.9 349.4 0.5 Nevada Elko Headwaters South Fork Owyhee River 1705010501

348.9 349.4 0.5 Nevada Elko Headwaters South Fork Owyhee River 1705010501

349.4 357.2 7.8 Nevada Elko Headwaters South Fork Owyhee River 1705010501

349.4 357.2 7.8 Nevada Elko Headwaters South Fork Owyhee River 1705010501

357.2 387.5 30.3 Nevada Elko Rock 16040106

387.5 396.8 9.3 Nevada Elko Middle Humboldt 16040105

396.8 417.5 20.6 Nevada Humboldt Middle Humboldt 16040105

417.5 423.6 6.1 Nevada Humboldt Lower Humboldt 16040108

423.6 444.4 20.8 Nevada Humboldt Little Humboldt 16040109

444.4 444.5 0.1 Nevada Humboldt Upper Quinn 16040201

444.5 451.8 7.3 Nevada Humboldt Antelope Creek 1604020106

444.5 451.8 7.3 Nevada Humboldt Antelope Creek 1604020106

451.8 452.4 0.6 Nevada Humboldt Antelope Creek 1604020106

451.8 452.4 0.6 Nevada Humboldt Antelope Creek 1604020106

452.4 453.7 1.3 Nevada Humboldt Antelope Creek 1604020106

452.4 453.7 1.3 Nevada Humboldt Antelope Creek 1604020106

453.7 454.7 1.0 Nevada Humboldt Antelope Creek 1604020106

453.7 454.7 1.0 Nevada Humboldt Antelope Creek 1604020106

454.7 461.8 7.0 Nevada Humboldt Bloody Run Creek 1604020107

454.7 461.8 7.0 Nevada Humboldt Bloody Run Creek 1604020107

461.8 465.5 3.7 Nevada Humboldt Crowley Creek-Quinn River 1604020105

461.8 465.5 3.7 Nevada Humboldt Crowley Creek-Quinn River 1604020105

465.5 470.2 4.7 Nevada Humboldt Lower Bottle Creek Slough-Quinn River 1604020113

465.5 470.2 4.7 Nevada Humboldt Lower Bottle Creek Slough-Quinn River 1604020113

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

6

Table 2-1 Watersheds Crossed by the Proposed Ruby Pipeline Project (Route Version 26-

November 2008)

Start

MP

End

MP

Intersecting

Length

(Miles) State County Watershed

Hydrologic

Unit

Code

470.2 471.8 1.5 Nevada Humboldt Lower Bottle Creek Slough-Quinn River 1604020113

470.2 471.8 1.5 Nevada Humboldt Lower Bottle Creek Slough-Quinn River 1604020113

471.8 474.3 2.5 Nevada Humboldt Lower Bottle Creek Slough-Quinn River 1604020113

471.8 474.3 2.5 Nevada Humboldt Lower Bottle Creek Slough-Quinn River 1604020113

474.3 476.3 2.0 Nevada Humboldt Lower Bottle Creek Slough-Quinn River 1604020113

474.3 476.3 2.0 Nevada Humboldt Lower Bottle Creek Slough-Quinn River 1604020113

476.3 478.0 1.7 Nevada Humboldt Upper Quinn 16040201

478.0 509.1 31.1 Nevada Humboldt Lower Quinn 16040202

509.1 509.2 0.1 Nevada Humboldt Thousand-Virgin 16040205

509.2 510.7 1.6 Nevada Humboldt Craine Creek 1604020505

509.2 510.7 1.6 Nevada Humboldt Craine Creek 1604020505

510.7 516.6 5.9 Nevada Humboldt Craine Creek 1604020505

510.7 516.6 5.9 Nevada Humboldt Craine Creek 1604020505

516.6 519.6 3.0 Nevada Humboldt Craine Creek 1604020505

516.6 519.6 3.0 Nevada Humboldt Craine Creek 1604020505

519.6 520.1 0.5 Nevada Humboldt Lower Quinn 16040202

520.1 520.9 0.7 Nevada Humboldt Thousand-Virgin 16040205

520.9 525.6 4.8 Nevada Humboldt Lower Quinn 16040202

525.6 525.7 0.0 Nevada Humboldt Thousand-Virgin 16040205

525.7 525.8 0.1 Nevada Humboldt Virgin Creek 1604020502

525.7 525.8 0.1 Nevada Humboldt Virgin Creek 1604020502

525.8 525.8 0.1 Nevada Humboldt Thousand-Virgin 16040205

525.8 530.6 4.7 Nevada Humboldt Virgin Creek 1604020502

525.8 530.6 4.7 Nevada Humboldt Virgin Creek 1604020502

530.6 530.6 0.0 Nevada Humboldt Thousand-Virgin 16040205

530.6 536.0 5.3 Nevada Humboldt Smoke Creek Desert 16040203

536.0 542.9 6.9 Nevada Washoe Smoke Creek Desert 16040203

542.9 575.2 32.3 Nevada Washoe Massacre Lake 16040204

575.2 575.2 0.0 Nevada Washoe Warner Lakes 17120007

575.2 583.0 7.8 Nevada Washoe Twentymile Creek 1712000701

575.2 583.0 7.8 Nevada Washoe Twentymile Creek 1712000701

583.0 588.2 5.2 Nevada Washoe Twentymile Creek 1712000701

583.0 588.2 5.2 Nevada Washoe Twentymile Creek 1712000701

588.2 590.3 2.1 Oregon Lake Twentymile Creek 1712000701

588.2 590.3 2.1 Oregon Lake Twentymile Creek 1712000701

590.3 591.4 1.1 Oregon Lake Twentymile Creek 1712000701

590.3 591.4 1.1 Oregon Lake Twentymile Creek 1712000701

591.4 591.5 0.0 Oregon Lake Twentymile Creek 1712000701

591.4 591.5 0.0 Oregon Lake Twentymile Creek 1712000701

591.5 591.5 0.0 Oregon Lake Twentymile Creek 1712000701

591.5 591.5 0.0 Oregon Lake Twentymile Creek 1712000701

591.5 592.9 1.4 Oregon Lake Twentymile Creek 1712000701

591.5 592.9 1.4 Oregon Lake Twentymile Creek 1712000701

592.9 593.6 0.7 Oregon Lake Twentymile Creek 1712000701

592.9 593.6 0.7 Oregon Lake Twentymile Creek 1712000701

593.6 594.6 1.0 Oregon Lake Twentymile Creek 1712000701

593.6 594.6 1.0 Oregon Lake Twentymile Creek 1712000701

594.6 594.6 0.0 Oregon Lake Twentymile Creek 1712000701

594.6 594.6 0.0 Oregon Lake Twentymile Creek 1712000701

594.6 595.3 0.7 Oregon Lake Twentymile Creek 1712000701

594.6 595.3 0.7 Oregon Lake Twentymile Creek 1712000701

595.3 598.4 3.1 Oregon Lake Twentymile Creek 1712000701

595.3 598.4 3.1 Oregon Lake Twentymile Creek 1712000701

598.4 598.5 0.1 Oregon Lake Deep Creek 1712000703

598.4 598.5 0.1 Oregon Lake Deep Creek 1712000703

598.5 598.5 0.0 Oregon Lake Twentymile Creek 1712000701

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

7

Table 2-1 Watersheds Crossed by the Proposed Ruby Pipeline Project (Route Version 26-

November 2008)

Start

MP

End

MP

Intersecting

Length

(Miles) State County Watershed

Hydrologic

Unit

Code

598.5 598.5 0.0 Oregon Lake Twentymile Creek 1712000701

598.5 601.5 3.0 Oregon Lake Deep Creek 1712000703

598.5 601.5 3.0 Oregon Lake Deep Creek 1712000703

601.5 606.9 5.5 Oregon Lake Deep Creek 1712000703

601.5 606.9 5.5 Oregon Lake Deep Creek 1712000703

606.9 608.2 1.3 Oregon Lake Deep Creek 1712000703

606.9 608.2 1.3 Oregon Lake Deep Creek 1712000703

608.2 608.6 0.4 Oregon Lake Deep Creek 1712000703

608.2 608.6 0.4 Oregon Lake Deep Creek 1712000703

608.6 608.7 0.1 Oregon Lake Deep Creek 1712000703

608.6 608.7 0.1 Oregon Lake Deep Creek 1712000703

608.7 609.9 1.1 Oregon Lake Deep Creek 1712000703

608.7 609.9 1.1 Oregon Lake Deep Creek 1712000703

609.9 611.7 1.8 Oregon Lake Thomas Creek 1802000102

611.7 619.5 7.8 Oregon Lake Willow Creek-Frontal Goose Lake 1802000103

619.5 619.7 0.2 Oregon Lake Thomas Creek 1802000102

619.7 620.9 1.2 Oregon Lake Drews Creek 1802000101

620.9 621.9 1.1 Oregon Lake Goose Lake 1802000105

621.9 622.2 0.3 Oregon Lake Drews Creek 1802000101

622.2 622.3 0.1 Oregon Lake Goose Lake 1802000105

622.3 622.6 0.3 Oregon Lake Drews Creek 1802000101

622.6 622.7 0.1 Oregon Lake Goose Lake 1802000105

622.7 622.7 0.0 Oregon Lake Drews Creek 1802000101

622.7 622.9 0.2 Oregon Lake Goose Lake 1802000105

622.9 624.1 1.2 Oregon Lake Drews Creek 1802000101

624.1 624.1 0.0 Oregon Lake Dry Creek-Frontal Goose Lake 1802000104

624.1 625.7 1.5 Oregon Lake Goose Lake 1802000105

625.7 625.8 0.2 Oregon Lake Dry Creek-Frontal Goose Lake 1802000104

625.8 625.8 0.0 Oregon Lake Goose Lake 1802000105

625.8 626.0 0.2 Oregon Lake Dry Creek-Frontal Goose Lake 1802000104

626.0 626.1 0.0 Oregon Lake Goose Lake 1802000105

626.1 626.2 0.1 Oregon Lake Dry Creek-Frontal Goose Lake 1802000104

626.2 626.2 0.0 Oregon Lake Goose Lake 1802000105

626.2 626.2 0.0 Oregon Lake Dry Creek-Frontal Goose Lake 1802000104

626.2 626.3 0.1 Oregon Lake Goose Lake 1802000105

626.3 626.8 0.4 Oregon Lake Dry Creek-Frontal Goose Lake 1802000104

626.8 627.2 0.5 Oregon Lake Goose Lake 1802000105

627.2 629.3 2.1 Oregon Lake Dry Creek-Frontal Goose Lake 1802000104

629.3 638.1 8.8 Oregon Lake Dry Creek-Frontal Goose Lake 1802000104

638.1 644.5 6.4 Oregon Lake North Fork Willow Creek-Willow Creek 1801020402

644.5 647.4 2.9 Oregon Lake North Fork Willow Creek-Willow Creek 1801020402

647.4 647.8 0.4 Oregon Klamath North Fork Willow Creek-Willow Creek 1801020402

647.8 653.1 5.3 Oregon Klamath Rock Creek-Lost River 1801020404

653.1 658.2 5.1 Oregon Klamath Rock Creek-Lost River 1801020404

658.2 660.1 1.9 Oregon Klamath Rock Creek-Lost River 1801020404

660.1 669.6 9.6 Oregon Klamath Langell Valley-Lost River 1801020406

669.6 675.1 5.4 Oregon Klamath Mills Creek-Lost River 1801020409

Key:

Data Source: http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/Catalog/ProductDescription/WBDHU12.html

Where Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) - 10 data were not available, HUC - 8 data were used.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

8

3 Applicable Regulatory Requirements

The following air quality agencies are responsible for air quality management in areas of

Project construction activities:

 Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality;

 Utah Department of Environmental Quality – Division of Air Quality;

 Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP), for all parts of Nevada except

Washoe County;

 Washoe County District Health Department – Air Quality Management Division (WCAQMD); and

 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

A summary of the air quality agency fugitive dust regulatory requirements applicable to

Project construction activities is presented in Table 3-1. The NDEP and WC-AQMD require

specific plans and/or permits for large-scale construction projects. Prior to initial construction

activities, an application for a surface area disturbance permit/fugitive dust control plan for

Project construction activities in Elko and Humboldt Counties, Nevada would be prepared

and submitted to the NDEP and an application for a dust control permit for Project

construction activities in Washoe County, Nevada will be prepared and submitted to the WCAQMD.

Table 3-1 Applicable Fugitive Dust Regulations

Air Quality

Agency Rule Number and Title Rule Description

WC-AQMD 040.030

(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.

4 Fugitive Dust Control Measures

The generation of fugitive dust during construction activities would be reduced through the

application of appropriate control measures. Abatement measures will be utilized as needed

and appropriate to a particular situation. Based on typical practices for natural gas pipeline

installation and the requirements of the aforementioned agencies, the following specific

control measures are to be used as needed to control fugitive dust emissions for the Project.

 Construction equipment and vehicles will be properly maintained.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

9

 Existing public and private roads and pipeline ROW should be utilized for access

during construction wherever possible.

 Apply water one or more times per day to all affected 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.

 Clean up track-out and/or carry-out areas at paved road access points at a minimum

of once every 48 hours.

 Gravel pads may be installed adjacent to paved roadways to limit track-out, and

clearly established and enforced traffic patterns may be used to route traffic over

track-out control devices.

 For bulk transfer operations, spray handling and transfer points with water at least 15

minutes before use.

 Cover all haul truck loads, or maintain at least six (6) inches of freeboard space in

each cargo compartment. Insure that all haul truck cargo compartments are

constructed and maintained to minimize spillage and loss of materials, and clean or

wash each cargo compartment at the delivery site after removal of the bulk materials.

 Apply water to active construction areas as needed. Areas should be pre-watered

and soils maintained in a stabilized condition where support equipment and vehicles

will operate. Disturbed soils will be watered to form a crust.

 For temporary surfaces during periods of inactivity, restrict vehicular access by

means of either fencing or signage, and apply water to comply with the stabilized

surface requirements.

Water trucks will be the primary means of dust abatement during all phases of construction.

Water for dust control will be obtained from municipal water systems at a variety of locations

along the pipeline routes and will be of potable quality. If water is acquired from canals along

the pipeline route, this water is suitable for agriculture and, if treated, for potable use. Water

spray will be controlled so that over-spraying and pooling will be avoided to the extent

possible. Where roads are paved, no dust mitigation may be necessary.

5 Inspection, Monitoring, and Recordkeeping

The Project contractors will implement the dust control measures specified in this plan and in

the dust control permits issued by NDEP and WC-AQMD. Environmental inspectors will be

primarily responsible for monitoring and enforcing the implementation of needed dust control

measures. The inspectors will also be responsible for making sure that dust control is

effective and proper documentation is maintained. All construction site personnel will be

educated on the measures outlined in this plan.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT DRAFT FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL PLAN

January 2009

10

Field inspection for dust control will occur daily. The Project contractor(s) and the

environmental inspector(s) will be responsible for recording the following information on a

daily basis:

 weather conditions (temperature, wind speed, and direction);

 number of water trucks in use;

 cases where visible dust was of such a concentration that abatement measures were

implemented;

 condition of project soils (crusted, damp, or unstable);

 condition of project access roads (crusted, damp, or unstable);

 presence of track-out and when it was cleaned;

 overall status of dust control compliance.

This information will be incorporated into the environmental inspector’s daily report.

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX V

 References

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
V-1 

APPENDIX V– REFERENCES 

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.

Bailey, R.G. 1995. Description of the Ecoregions of the United States. United States Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. Second Edition. Washington, D.C. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX V– REFERENCES (cont.) 

V-2

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. 

Canada National Energy Board (NEB). 2007. Canada’s Energy Future, Reference Case and Scenarios 

to 2030, An Energy Market Assessment. Canada National Energy Board, Calgary, Alberta, 

Canada. 

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. 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). 

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. 

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Prepared for the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

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. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX V– REFERENCES (cont.) 

V-3

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. 

Jageman, H. 1994. White-tailed Deer Habitat Management Guidelines. Forest, Wildlife and Range 

Experiment Station. University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. 

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. 

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. 

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 #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX V– REFERENCES (cont.) 

V-4

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. 

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 (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. 

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. 

Prey, D. 2008. Telephone communication on August 11 between P. Van Kerkhove (Ecology and 

Environment, Inc.) and D. Prey (UDAQ). 

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, 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX V– REFERENCES (cont.) 

V-5

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. 

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, Rachelle and Kris 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. 

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. 

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). 

Thomas, J.W., and D.E. Toweill. 1982. Elk of North America: Ecology and Management. Stackpole 

Books. Harrisberg, Pennsylvania. 

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2006. Regional Economic Accounts. Local Area Personal Income, 

Table CA1-3. Available online at http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis/default.cfm?series=ancillary. 

Accessed March 2009. 

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. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX V– REFERENCES (cont.) 

V-6

U.S. Census Bureau. 2007a. Annual Population Estimates, 2007. Available online at 

http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/ main.html?_lang=en. Accessed March 2009. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2007b. USA Counties Data, Civilian Labor Force, 2007. Available online at 

http://censtats.census.gov/usa/usa.shtml. Accessed March 2009. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2007c. 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. 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. Land and Resource Management Plan, 

Fremont National Forest. 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). 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). 2008. 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 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). 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. 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. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX V– REFERENCES (cont.) 

V-7

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. 

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). 2009. 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 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 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 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 Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2006.  Estimating the Effects of Auditory 

and Visual Disturbance to Northern Spotted Owls and Marbled Murrelets in Northwestern 

California. Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, Arcata, California. July. 

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2008. Black-footed ferret (Mustela 

nigripes) 5-year status review: summary and evaluation. 38 pp. 

U.S. Department of 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). 2009. 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 Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2007. Annual Average-Statewide Data and 

County Data, 2007. Available online at http://www.bls.gov/lau/#tables. Accessed March 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 April 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. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX V– REFERENCES (cont.) 

V-8

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2008b. U.S. Natural Gas Imports and Exports: 2006. 

U.S. Energy Information Administration, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2008c. 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 18, 2008. 

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2009. 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). 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise 

Requisite to Protect Public Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 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. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. Level III Ecoregions of the Conterminous United 

States. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/level_iii.htm. Accessed 

August 2008. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Mitigation Banking Factsheet. Available online at: 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/facts/fact16.html. Accessed March 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). 2009. USGS Water Data for the Nation. Available online at 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis. Accessed March 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. 

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. 

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX V– REFERENCES (cont.) 

V-9

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 

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 #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX W

 List of Preparers

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
W-1 

APPENDIX W – 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 #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX W – LIST OF PREPARERS (cont.) 

W-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 #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
Document Content(s)

REPORT_COVER_AND_SPINE.PDF................................................1

COVER_LETTER_TO_THE_PARTIES.PDF...........................................4

TABLE_OF_CONTENTS.PDF.....................................................9

EXECUTIVE_SUMMARY.PDF....................................................23

SECTION_1_INTRODUCTION.PDF...............................................30

SECTION_2_DESCRIPTION_OF_PROPOSED_ACTION.PDF.............................51

SECTION_3_ALTERNATIVES.PDF...............................................78

SECTION_4_ENVIRONMENTAL_ANALYSIS.PDF ...................................141

SECTION_5_CONCLUSION_AND_RECOMMENDATIONS.PDF............................362

APPENDIX_A_DISTRIBUTION_LIST.PDF........................................382

APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_PART_1_of_14.PDF .........................416

APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_PART_2_of_14.PDF .........................455

APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_PART_3_of_14.PDF .........................486

APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_PART_4_of_14.PDF .........................520

APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_PART_5_of_14.PDF .........................565

APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_PART_6_of_14.PDF .........................604

APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_PART_7_of_14.PDF .........................647

APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_PART_8_of_14.PDF .........................687

APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_PART_9_of_14.PDF .........................723

APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_PART_10_of_14.PDF.........................765

APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_PART_11_of_14.PDF.........................809

APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_PART_12_of_14.PDF.........................848

APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_PART_13_of_14.PDF.........................890

APPENDIX_B_PROJECT_ROUTE_MAPS_PART_14_of_14.PDF.........................929

APPENDIX_C_RIGHT-0F-WAY_CONFIGURATION.PDF ..............................932

APPENDIX_D_WORKSPACE-YARD-ACCESS_ROAD_TABLES.PDF .......................958

APPENDIX_E_RUBYS_PLAN.PDF..............................................1001

APPENDIX_F_RUBYS_PROCEDURES.PDF........................................1018

APPENDIX_G_FIRE_PLAN.PDF...............................................1037

APPENDIX_H_PALEONTOLOGICAL_PLAN.PDF....................................1061

APPENDIX_I_WASTE_AND_SPILL_PLAN.PDF....................................1084

APPENDIX_J_HYDROSTATIC_TEST_PLAN.PDF ..................................1101

APPENDIX_K_RECLAMATION_PLAN.PDF........................................1113

APPENDIX_L_BLASTING_PLAN.PDF...........................................1145

APPENDIX_M_WATERBODY_CROSSING_TABLE.PDF................................1162

APPENDIX_N_WETLAND_CROSSING_TABLE.PDF..................................1210

APPENDIX_O_WETLAND_MITIGATION_PLAN.PDF.................................1215

APPENDIX_P_NOXIOUS_AND_INVASIVE_WEED_CONTROL_PLAN.PDF .................1240

APPENDIX_Q_SENSITIVE_AND_STATE-LISTED_SPECIES.PDF......................1315

APPENDIX_R_CRUCIAL_SEASONAL_PERIODS_TABLE.PDF..........................1316

APPENDIX_S_COLLOCATED_RIGHT-OF-WAY_TABLE.PDF...........................1317

APPENDIX_T_TRAFFIC_AND_TRANSPORTATION_PLAN.PDF ........................1320

APPENDIX_U_DUST_CONTROL_PLAN.PDF.......................................1332

APPENDIX_V_REFERENCES.PDF..............................................1346

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009
APPENDIX_W_LIST_OF_PREPARERS.PDF.......................................1356

Document Accession #: 20090619-4001 Filed Date: 06/19/2009