Preliminary Draft Plan of Development: January 2009

Preliminary Draft
Plan of Development
January 2009
RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT
PRELIMINARY DRAFT PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT
Table of Contents
Project Summary ..................................................................1-1
Purpose and Need ................................................................2-1
Plan of Development ............................................................3-1

3.1
3.2
Project Description...............................................................4-1
4.1
4.3
4.4
Relationship to Other Environmental Documents ..................................... 3-2

Federal and State Agency Involvement .................................................... 3-2
Description of Proposed Facilities............................................................. 4-1

4.1.1 Pipeline Facilities .......................................................................... 4-1
4.1.2 Aboveground Facilities .................................................................. 4-2
4.1.3 Access Roads ............................................................................... 4-4
4.1.4 Temporary Extra Workspace ........................................................ 4-5
4.1.5 Staging Areas ............................................................................. 4-19
4.1.6 Storage Staging Yard/Contractor Yards ...................................... 4-19
Project Schedule and Workforce ............................................................ 4-23
4.3.1 Construction Schedule ................................................................ 4-23
4.3.2 Project Workforce ....................................................................... 4-24
Human Health and Safety....................................................................... 4-24
General Pipeline Construction Procedure..........................5-1

5.1
5.2
5.3
Pipeline Construction Sequence Summary............................................... 5-1

5.1.1 Environmental Compliance ........................................................... 5-1
5.1.2 Pipeline Construction .................................................................... 5-2
5.1.3 Clearing and Grading .................................................................... 5-2
5.1.4 Trenching...................................................................................... 5-4
5.1.5 Lowering Backfilling ...................................................................... 5-5
5.1.6 Hydrostatic Testing ....................................................................... 5-6
5.1.7 Clean-up and Restoration ............................................................. 5-7
Aboveground Facility Construction Procedures ........................................ 5-7
5.2.1 Clean-up and Restoration ............................................................. 5-8
Special Construction Methods .................................................................. 5-8
5.3.1 Foreign Pipelines, Unpaved and Paved Roads, State and
Interstate Highways, and Railroad Crossings................................ 5-8
5.3.2 Waterbody and Wetland Crossings............................................... 5-9
January 2009
i
5.3.4
5.3.5
5.3.6
5.3.7
5.3.8
5.3.9
5.3.10
5.3.11
5.3.12
5.3.13
Fueling 5-12
Noxious and Invasive Weed Control ........................................... 5-12
Wildfire Control ........................................................................... 5-12
Fish and Wildlife of Concern ....................................................... 5-12
Contingency for Unforeseen Conditions...................................... 5-14
Cultural and Paleontological Resource Sites............................... 5-14
Areas Requiring Blasting............................................................. 5-14
Residential Areas ........................................................................ 5-15
Dust Control ................................................................................ 5-15
Visual Resources Management................................................... 5-15
Post-Construction Monitoring and Response....................6-1
Pipeline Operation and Maintenance ..................................7-1
A.
Project Route Maps and Plans Provided under

Separate Cover .................................................................... A-1
B.
Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan ......... B-1
C.
Hydrostatic Testing and Discharge Plan ........................... C-1
D.
Rubys Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and

Maintenance Plan ................................................................ D-1
E.
Reclamation Plan................................................................. E-1
F.
Rubys Wetland and Waterbody Construction and

Mitigation Procedures ..........................................................F-1
G.
Major Waterbody Crossing Plans....................................... G-1
H.
Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan.......................... H-1
I.
Special Status Species Conservation Measure Plan ..........I-1
January 2009
ii
J.
Unanticipated
Discoveries
Plan
for
Cultural
Resources .............................................................................J-1
K.
Unanticipated Discoveries Plan for Paleontological

Resources ............................................................................ K-1
L.
Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan ...............................L-1
M.
Blasting Plan........................................................................M-1
N.
Fugitive Dust Control Plan.................................................. N-1
O.
Transportation Plan............................................................. O-1
P.
Visual Resources................................................................. P-1
Q.
Preliminary Wetland Mitigation Plan.................................. P-1
January 2009
iii
List of Tables
Table
Table 4.1-1
Table 4.1-2
Table 4.1-3
Table 4.1-4
Table 4.1-5
Page
Ruby Pipeline Facilities............................................................................. 4-2
Ruby Aboveground Jurisdictional Facilities............................................... 4-3
Extra Workspace and Staging Areas for the Project................................. 4-5
Land Requirements for Contractor Construction Yards .......................... 4-20
Ruby Aboveground Auxiliary Facilities .................................................... 4-21
January 2009
iv
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

API
BA
Bcf/d
MMDth/d
BLM
CEQ
CFR
cfs
COE
CPUC
Dth
DOT
EIA
EIS
FERC
HDD
HP
ISO
KOP
MAOP
Mcf/d
MP
NDOW
NEPA
NPCC
NPDES
NRCS
NWP
NWGA
ODFW
POD
Project
RMP
ROD
ROW
Ruby
SCADA
American Petroleum Institute

biological assessment
billion cubic feet per day
million dekatherms per day
Bureau of Land Management
Council on Environmental Quality
Code of Federal Regulations
cubic feet per second
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
California Public Utilities Commission
Dekatherms
United States Department of Transportation
Energy Information Administration
environmental impact statement
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
horizontal directional drill
horsepower
International Standards Organization
Key Observation Points
maximum allowable operating pressure
thousand cubic feet per day
milepost
Nevada Department of Wildlife
National Environmental Policy Act
Northwest Power and Conservation Council
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Natural Resources Conservation Service
nationwide permit
Northwest Gas Association
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Plan of Development
Ruby Pipeline Project
Resource Management Plan
Record of Decision
right-of-way
Ruby Pipeline, LLC
supervisory control and data acquisition
January 2009
v
SHPO
tcf
UDWR
USFS
USFWS
VER
VQO
VRM
WCSB
WGFD
State Historic Preservation Officers

trillion cubic feet
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
United States Forest Service
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
voluntary emissions reduction
visual quality objectives
Visual Resource Management
Western Canadian Supply Basin
Wyoming Game and Fish Department
January 2009
vi
1 Project Summary
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.
January 2009
1-1
Purpose and Need
The primary customer base for the proposed Ruby Project consists of two consumer
groups: 1) end users in Northern California, Nevada, and the Pacific Northwest, and 2)
Rockies Producers. Although very recent economic indicators now suggest slower
projected economic growth and concurrent business and electric generation development,
there is and will be an increasing, long-term demand for natural gas in the Project area.
Combined with increasing consumer demand, end-users in Northern California, Nevada,
and the Pacific Northwest are facing declining supplies of Canadian natural gas.
Consequently, even if gas demand slows in the near term, the natural gas supplies
originating from Canada must be replaced. The Project provides the infrastructure to move
the historically lower priced domestic natural gas supplies originating from the Rocky
Mountain supply areas to demand regions that find themselves captive to constrained
supplies at this time. In summary, Ruby would (i) replace declining, higher priced Canadian
supplies; (ii) increase supply diversity; (iii) enhance pipeline and supply source reliability; (iv)
promote gas-on-gas competition; and (v) bridge to renewal energy sources. Moreover,
flexible and reliable Rocky Mountain supplies will help serve as a backstop to new
renewable energy sources as they are brought online and integrated into the regional
energy infrastructure.
January 2009
2-1
Plan of Development
The Plan of Development (POD) has been prepared to identify construction plans and
specifications, which include BLM stipulations, construction procedures, environmental
requirements, site-specific and Project plans, and mitigation measures that would be
implemented by Ruby.
The POD purpose is too appended to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Right-of-Way
Grant. The POD describes the processes and procedures that would be used to comply
with the environment requirements of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC),
BLM, and other federal state and local agencies.
Federal lands crossed by the Project route include lands managed by the BLM through their
field offices located in Kemmerer, Wyoming; Salt Lake, Utah; Elko and Winnemucca,
Nevada; Surprise, California (the Project lands are located in Nevada but managed by the
Surprise office); and Lakeview and Klamath, Oregon. The Project would also cross lands
managed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) in the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest in
Utah and the Fremont-Winema National Forest and Bureau of Reclamation in Oregon.
During the course of preparing for and constructing the Project, changes to the POD would
occur. The POD would be the Project reference for new or amended permits, approvals,
clearances, and plans that may be issued during construction. Unless otherwise specified
by the landowner or land management agency, specifications in the POD would be
implemented along the entire length of the Project as a general construction document.
The following items are appended in the POD:
Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan;
Hydrostatic Testing and Discharge Plan;
Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Rubys Plan);
Reclamation Plans;
Wetland and
Procedures);
Major Waterbody Crossing Plans;
Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan;
Special-Status Species Conservation Measure Plan;
Unanticipated Discoveries Plan for Cultural Resources;
Waterbody
Construction
and
Mitigation
Procedures
(Rubys
January 2009
3-1
Unanticipated Discoveries Plan for Paleontological Resources;
Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan;
Blasting Plan;
Fugitive Dust Control Plan; and,
Transportation Plan.
3.1 Relationship to Other Environmental Documents

The POD was developed from the environmental analysis conducted through the agency
consultation and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance process. This
analysis contributed measures for avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of environmental
impacts resulting from construction of the Project facilities. The POD appendices
incorporate regulatory approvals, plans, permits, maps, and other authorizations that involve
environmental requirements, and serve as the mechanism to implement FERC and BLM
requirements identified during agency consultation of lands under federal jurisdiction.
3.2 Federal and State Agency Involvement

The Project is under the jurisdiction of FERC, the lead agency for the Project. The FERC is
responsible for the preparation of the Projects environmental impact statement (EIS) in
compliance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing
procedural provisions of NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508),
and FERCs NEPA implementing regulations (18 CFR Part 380).
Cooperating agencies with jurisdictional authority over the Project include the BLM, USFS,
and the Bureau of Reclamation. As cooperating agencies, they would adopt the FERC EIS
to satisfy their responsibility under NEPA in issuing ROW grants across lands under their
jurisdiction.
The BLM issues ROW grants for natural gas pipelines under the authority of Section 185(f)
of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, through issuance of a Record of Decision
(ROD). The ROW grant application for this Project is subject to standard approval
procedures as outlined in 43 CFR parts 2800 and 2880. BLM would need to obtain the
concurrence of the USFS and Bureau of Reclamation before issuing a ROW grant for this
Project that involves lands managed by the USFS (43 CFR 2884.26).
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
State Historic Preservations Officers (SHPOs), and other state and local agencies also have
regulatory authority over the Project. The Corps has the regulatory authority under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) for the protection of waters of the U.S., including
wetlands, impacted by the Project. Section 404 of the CWA regulates the discharge of
January 2009
3-2
dredged material, placement of fill material, or excavation within waters of the U.S. and
authorizes the Corps to issue individual or nationwide permits (NWP) for projects.
The FERC, in consultation with the USFWS, is the lead federal agency responsible for
compliance with Sections 7(a)(2) and 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C.
1536(a)(2), 1536(c)) . The FERC will prepare a Biological Assessment (BA) consistent with
the requirements of 50 C.F.R. 402.12(f). The BA will identify conservation measures to
avoid or minimize any adverse effects the Project may have on federally listed species and
their critical habitat.
The FERC, in consultation with the SHPOs, is also responsible for compliance with Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. 470f). Section 106, and
its implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800) promulgated by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation (ACHP), require federal agencies to take into account the effects of
federal undertakings on historic properties, and to afford the ACHP an opportunity to
comment on such undertakings. The Section 106 regulations also require federal agencies
with responsibility for an undertaking to consult with the relevant SHPOs, federal land
management agencies, federally recognized Native American tribes, representatives of
local government, and other potentially interested parties (as defined by 36 CFR
800.2(c)(5)), and to provide appropriate mechanisms for public participation, in the review of
that undertaking.
January 2009
3-3
Project Description
4.1 Description of Proposed Facilities

Ruby proposes to utilize a 115-foot-wide nominal construction ROW for installation of the
42-inch-diameter pipeline (mainline and lateral) in upland areas. This ROW width would
accommodate large equipment, pipe stringing and set up, welding, the trench, and the
temporary storage of topsoil and trench spoil. The construction area for this Project
includes the 115-foot nominal construction ROW and acreages associated with
aboveground facilities, including access roads and additional temporary workspace. 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 equipment required for construction of a 42-inch-diameter pipeline includes numerous
large trenchers, trackhoes, sidebooms, and other tractors in each construction spread.
Ruby also plans to use automatic welding for the majority of the Project. Automatic welding
operations are conducted in portable shelters, commonly referred to as sheds. The
standard width of these sheds is 10 feet, and they are moved by sidebooms in a leapfrog
manner during mainline welding operations. Depending on the sideboom used, movement
of the sheds could require up to 30 feet of width. Depending on the type of trench
excavation equipment used, the ditch width would vary from five to 15 feet or wider in some
soils. The trench would be roughly seven feet or greater in depth, depending on sitespecific factors, such as topography, and the crossing of existing utilities and underground
infrastructure, such as drain tiles.
Pursuant to U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements, the pipeline would
have at least 30 inches of cover from the top of the pipe to the natural ground surface in
normal soil conditions. Additional depth of cover to address landowner concerns (e.g.,
agricultural lands) would be determined during the ROW negotiation process. The amount
of spoil generated from a trench of this size typically requires 20 to 25 feet of the ROW
width for storage on the spoil side. Depending on topsoil segregation requirements, the
amount of topsoil generated would typically require an additional 10 to 20 feet of ROW or
additional temporary workspace for storage. Ruby would obtain landowner approval and
environmental clearance prior to use of the additional 10-foot to 20-foot ROW.
4.1.1 Pipeline Facilities
The Project consists of the following facilities:
Approximately 675.2 miles of 42-inch-diameter natural gas mainline pipeline,
January 2009
4-1
Approximately 2.6 miles of 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline lateral,
Ten interconnects located within four measurement facilities,
Forty-four mainline valves, and
Four compressor stations.
Table 4.1-1
Facility
Line No. 300A
Ruby Pipeline Facilities

Pipeline
Diameter
and Type
42 Mainline
42 Mainline
Milepost
County
State
Approximate
Length
(miles)
0.0 21.1
21.1 48.0
Lincoln
Uinta
Wyoming
Wyoming
21.1
26.9
Subtotal WY
48.0
Utah
Utah
Utah
25.1
27.8
129.9
Line No. 300A
42 Mainline
42 Mainline
42 Mainline
48.0 73.1
73.1 100.9
100.9 230.8
Rich
Cache
Box Elder
Line No. 300A
42 Mainline
42 Mainline
42 Mainline
230.8 397.3
397.3 536.0
536.0 588.2
Elko
Humboldt
Washoe
Line No. 300A
42 Mainline
42 Mainline
588.2 646.9
646.9 675.2
Lake
Klamath
Subtotal UT
Nevada
Nevada
Nevada
Subtotal NV
Line No. 301A
42 Lateral
Klamath
182.8
166.5
138.7
52.2
357.4
Oregon
Oregon
58.7
28.3
Subtotal OR
87.0
Subtotal Mainline
675.2
Oregon
Total Length of Pipeline Facilities
2.6
677.8 miles
4.1.2 Aboveground Facilities

Compressor Stations
The design for the Project requires four compressor stations. The first station, the
Roberson Creek Compressor Station, would be located near the existing Opal Hub in
Lincoln County, Wyoming. The quarter-point station, the Wildcat Hills Compressor Station,
would be located in western Box Elder County, Utah. The mid-point station, the Wieland
Flat Compressor Station, would be located north of the city of Elko in Elko County, Nevada.
The three-quarter point station, the Desert Valley Compressor Station, would be located in
Humboldt County, northwest of Winnemucca, Nevada.
January 2009
4-2
The Roberson Creek Compressor Station would utilize three electric drive units. Each of
these units has a 23,000 horsepower (HP) [International Standards Organization (ISO)]
rating. In total, the Roberson Creek Compressor Station would use up to 69,000 HP (ISO).
The Wildcat Hills Compressor Station would consist of two Solar Mars 100 gas turbinecentrifugal compressor units. In total, this station would have available 30,000 HP (ISO).
Under existing site conditions, this station would utilize 16,787 HP.
The Wieland Flat Compressor Station would consist of two Solar Titan 130 gas turbinecentrifugal compressor units. In total, this station would have available 41,000 HP (ISO).
The Desert Valley Compressor Station would consist of one Solar Titan 130 gas turbinecentrifugal compressor unit. In total, this station would have available 20,500 HP (ISO).
Measurement Facilities
Ruby is proposing to install 10 interconnects (i.e., receipt and/or delivery points) within four
separate measurement facilities. The first measurement facility would be installed within
Colorado Interstate Gas Companys King Compressor Station. The second measurement
facility would be installed within the Roberson Creek Compressor Station. The remaining
two measurement facilities would be installed within their own 500-by-500 foot sites.
These plans show permanent acreage as well as temporary acreage required for
construction at the facility locations. The facilities and associated surface disturbance are
detailed in Table 4.1-2, below.
Table 4.1-2
Facility
Ruby Aboveground Jurisdictional Facilities

Facility
Description
MP
County
State
Land
Ownership
Temporary
Dimension
(feet)
Temporary
Surface
Disturbance
(acres)
Permanent
Dimension
(feet)
Permanent
Surface
Disturbance
(acres)
Measurement
Facility 1
Four Interconnects
0.0
Lincoln
WY
BLM
500 x 500
5.7
500 x 500
5.7
Compressor
Station
Measurement
Facility 2
Roberson
Creek
Station
Two Interconnects
5.7
Lincoln
WY
BLM
1620 x
1620
60.0
1400 x
1250
40.0
Compressor
Station Site
Wildcat Hills
172.7 Box Elder
Station
UT
State of
Utah
1620 x
1620
60.0
1000 x
1100
25.0
January 2009
4-3
Table 4.1-2
Facility
Ruby Aboveground Jurisdictional Facilities

Facility
Description
MP
Compressor
Station Site
Wieland Flat
330.4
Station
Measurement
Facility 3
Interconnect
Compressor
Station Site
Measurement
Facility 4
County
State
Land
Ownership
Temporary
Dimension
(feet)
Temporary
Surface
Disturbance
(acres)
Permanent
Dimension
(feet)
Permanent
Surface
Disturbance
(acres)
NV
Private
1620 x
1620
60.0
1000 x
1100
25.0
437.6 Humboldt
NV
Private
500 x 500
5.7
500 x 500
5.7
Desert
Valley
Station
476.5 Humboldt
NV
BLM
1620 x
1620
60.0
1000 x
1100
25.0
Three Interconnects
675.2
OR
Private
500 x 500
5.7
500 x 500
5.7
Elko
Klamath
Total Disturbance
257.1
132.1
4.1.3 Access Roads

Ruby would use existing public and private roads to access the construction corridor and
staging areas. Currently, there are no plans for construction of new access roads. Access
to aboveground facilities would utilize existing access roads or the pipeline ROW.
Measurement facilities would be either located within existing permanent facilities or
accessed by existing roads. If Ruby determines that new access roads are necessary,
Ruby would complete the required analysis and secure the necessary approvals prior to
use.
Ruby would leave access roads in their present or a slightly improved condition, to the
extend practicable. For roads needing improvement, Ruby generally would grade or
conduct maintenance no wider than 30 feet. In a few isolated locations, Ruby may require
extra grading to allow for adequate turning radius. This additional grading would fall outside
the 30-foot-wide road ROW. The proper authorizations and clearances would be obtained
prior to grading. All temporary road impacts would be restored to their pre-construction
condition, to the extent practicable, as provided in the Reclamation Plan. For all roads
requiring improvements, 25 feet on either side of the road have been surveyed for biological
and cultural resources. Any unavoidable disturbance outside of the roads original footprint
would be re-contoured and seeded with an appropriate seed mix. Ruby would coordinate
with landowners or land management agencies to reclaim any two-track roads that are
disturbed. Ruby is currently in the process of securing authorization for the use of access
roads. Ruby will continue to coordinate with the BLM, USFWS, private landowners, and
other permitting agencies prior to using such roads.
January 2009
4-4
4.1.4 Temporary Extra Workspace

Ruby would require an additional 25 feet in areas of heavy timber and significant surface
rock for equipment required during construction. This 25-foot area would not be cleared of
existing vegetation.
Ruby would obtain landowner approval and would perform
environmental clearance for these locations prior to submission to the FERC for
authorization.
The Project also would require extra temporary workspace to facilitate construction adjacent
to waterbody, road, and railroad crossings; topography constraints; and crossing of other
buried utilities. Extra workspaces for staging areas would also be used to place pipe in
reasonable proximity to the construction ROW prior to stringing that pipe along the ROW.
Extra workspaces may also be required for staging of large mechanical equipment. Table
4.1-3 identifies extra workspace that would be used for the Project.
Table 4.1-3
Extra Workspace and Staging Areas for the Project
Facility
Location by MP
LINCOLN COUNTY, WYOMING

Staging Area
0.0
Extra Workspace
0.2
Staging Area
0.4
Extra Workspace
0.8
Extra Workspace
1.0
Extra Workspace
1.9
Staging Area
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Staging Area
5.7
5.8
6.3
8.8
10.9
11.7
12.0
12.3
15.6
17.8
19.5
19.8
Extra Workspace
19.8
Extra Workspace
20.3
Extra Workspace
21.0
Land Use Classification

Open Land
Developed
Open Land
Developed
Agriculture
Forest
Forest
Open Land
Agriculture
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Developed
Open Land
Forest
Open Land
Developed
Open Land
Acreage
13.55
0.02
9.85
10.89
4.05
0.91
0.17
27.17
1.43
60.23
0.62
3.12
2.69
1.34
3.71
0.05
1.35
9.76
6.24
5.88
0.92
0.72
0.76
0.14
6.44
2.15
2.42
January 2009
4-5
Table 4.1-3
Facility
Location by MP
UINTA COUNTY, WYOMING

Extra Workspace
21.0
Extra Workspace
23.9
Staging Area
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Staging Area
26.0
26.2
27.1
28.8
34.8
Extra Workspace
36.3
Extra Workspace
Staging Area
38.7
39.5
Extra Workspace
40.2
Extra Workspace
41.3
Extra Workspace
42.0
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
42.4
43.3
44.8
Extra Workspace
47.6
RICH COUNTY, UTAH

Extra Workspace
47.6
Extra Workspace
50.7
Extra Workspace
52.5
Extra Workspace
54.2
Extra Workspace
54.5
Staging Area
Extra Workspace
Staging Area
55.1
58.1
61.4
Extra Workspace
63.5
Staging Area
69.2
Acreage
Open Land
Forest
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Forest
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Forest
Developed
Open Land
Developed
Open Land
Developed
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Forest
Forest
Open Land
0.00
1.28
0.57
0.92
12.20
2.69
30.07
0.92
0.06
52.39
2.34
0.44
2.1
0.11
28.98
0.65
0.67
0.58
3.25
4.87
5.49
0.86
0.13
25.31
Open Land
Agriculture
Open Land
Open Land
Agriculture
Forest
Developed
Agriculture
Open Land
Agriculture
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Forest
Open Land
Agriculture
Developed
Open Land
7.31
1.63
15.67
1.62
33.44
2.13
0.89
1.74
0.06
3.72
0.67
98.21
0.92
36.53
121.27
1.66
0.54
3.14
January 2009
4-6
Table 4.1-3
Facility
Extra Workspace
Location by MP
72.7
Acreage
Forest
Open Land
24.34
2.69
Forest
Developed
Open Land
Forest
Open Land
Open Land
Forest
Open Land
Forest
Forest
Developed
Open Land
Developed
Open Land
Developed
Open Land
Forest
Developed
Open Land
Forest
Developed
Open Land
Forest
Open Land
Forest
Developed
Open Land
Forest
Open Land
Forest
Agriculture
Open Land
Forest
Open Land
Forest
Open Land
Agriculture
Forest
Agriculture
Open Land
Agriculture
1.48
1.17
2.15
0.94
0.92
0.92
3.73
2.31
5.28
37.06
0.31
5.18
0.29
0.63
0.96
0.86
31.44
0.85
24.72
0.39
0.92
9.90
0.23
1.10
20.01
0.91
4.34
34.81
1.50
4.09
0.40
1.33
0.17
0.76
18.31
18.12
1.78
0.89
0.19
3.71
2.42
CACHE COUNTY, UTAH

Extra Workspace
72.7
Extra Workspace
73.8
Staging Area
74.0
Extra Workspace
74.2
Extra Workspace
75.1
Extra Workspace
77.1
Staging Area
78.3
Extra Workspace
78.3
Extra Workspace
81.2
Extra Workspace
83.3
Extra Workspace
83.9
Extra Workspace
84.7
Extra Workspace
88.2
Extra Workspace
89.7
Staging Area
90.5
Extra Workspace
91.2
Staging Area
92.1
Extra Workspace
92.3
Extra Workspace
92.7
January 2009
4-7
Table 4.1-3
Facility
Location by MP
Extra Workspace
92.9
Extra Workspace
93.5
Extra Workspace
93.9
Extra Workspace
94.8
Extra Workspace
96.4
Staging Area
96.7
Extra Workspace
97.5
Staging Area
99.0
Extra Workspace
100.6
Acreage
Forest
Open Land
Forest
Open Land
Forest
Forest
Developed
Agriculture
Open Land
Forest
Open Land
Agriculture
Open Land
Forest
Developed
Open Land
Forest
Developed
Open Land
Forest
Open Land
1.21
1.89
2.25
11.33
2.38
0.28
1.39
4.78
3.84
3.44
7.58
0.45
0.92
1.42
0.41
17.65
0.00
0.49
0.43
23.04
16.96
Forest
Open Land
Forest
Open Land
Forest
Developed
Open Land
Agriculture
Forest
Open Land
Forest
Agriculture
Developed
Forest
Agriculture
Developed
Agriculture
Developed
Forest
Open Water
Agriculture
Developed
4.76
16.36
0.36
0.56
27.41
7.51
116.99
4.14
1.88
0.70
1.87
4.59
1.8
0.14
1.76
0.44
3.52
0.45
0.45
0.90
1.56
0.48
BOX ELDER COUNTY, UTAH

Extra Workspace
100.6
Staging Area
102.8
Extra Workspace
104.6
Extra Workspace
110.8
Extra Workspace
111.2
Extra Workspace
112.4
Extra Workspace
113.1
Extra Workspace
113.6
Extra Workspace
114.5
January 2009
4-8
Table 4.1-3
Facility
Location by MP
Acreage
Extra Workspace
115.5
Extra Workspace
115.8
Extra Workspace
117.1
Staging Area
117.1
Extra Workspace
118.0
Extra Workspace
118.5
Extra Workspace
119.6
Staging Area
121.80
Extra Workspace
123.0
Agriculture
Developed
Agriculture
Forest
Agriculture
Developed
Open Land
Agriculture
Developed
Forest
Open Water
Agriculture
Agriculture
Developed
Developed
Forest
Open Land
Agriculture
Developed
Forest
Open Land
Agriculture
Open Land
0.82
0.92
1.58
0.53
1.58
0.41
0.01
0.89
0.41
0.86
0.37
0.37
7.83
0.57
3.47
1.05
2.25
5.91
2.45
8.00
8.22
1.11
1.33
Extra Workspace
123.8
Open Land
12.03
Staging Area
124.0
Extra Workspace
124.4
Extra Workspace
124.9
Extra Workspace
125.1
Extra Workspace
125.4
Extra Workspace
125.9
Staging Area
127.4
Open Land
Forest
Agriculture
Forest
Agriculture
Forest
Agriculture
Open Land
Open Land
Forest
Agriculture
Developed
Forest
Open Land
Agriculture
Forest
Agriculture
1.07
0.74
0.53
0.27
2.71
2.57
0.15
0.27
0.25
0.51
0.13
0.03
5.70
4.22
1.87
0.10
0.81
January 2009
4-9
Table 4.1-3
Facility
Location by MP
Extra Workspace
129.7
Extra Workspace
Staging Area
132.6
132.6
Extra Workspace
134.8
Extra Workspace
136.6
Extra Workspace
137.1
Staging Area
137.7
Extra Workspace
137.7
Extra Workspace
139.3
Extra Workspace
142.6
Staging Area
144.5
Extra Workspace
145.2
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
146.0
146.6
Extra Workspace
150.4
Staging Area
150.4
Extra Workspace
155.4
Extra Workspace
157.8
Staging Area
160.9
Extra Workspace
161.0
Extra Workspace
Staging Area
Extra Workspace
Staging Area
166.9
172.4
173.1
174.2

Agriculture
Developed
Forest
Open Land
Agriculture
Agriculture
Agriculture
Open Land
Developed
Open Land
Agriculture
Open Land
Agriculture
Agriculture
Developed
Open Land
Agriculture
Developed
Open Land
Open Land
Agriculture
Forest
Open Land
Open Land
Developed
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Developed
Open Land
Open Land
Developed
Agriculture
Developed
Open Land
Open Land
Developed
Open Land
Developed
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Acreage
23.5
1.65
0.04
87.33
4.10
0.92
1.86
32.81
0.90
0.99
0.25
2.24
0.40
0.28
0.39
0.26
1.13
0.88
1.32
2.85
0.41
3.19
71.98
1.33
0.39
8.17
3.05
2.8
0.76
0.37
0.67
0.48
10.76
0.63
10.21
37.96
0.25
0.97
0.07
1.18
1.38
2.22
1.35
35.64
January 2009
4-10
Table 4.1-3
Facility
Location by MP
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
176.7
177.8
179.8
181.1
184.8
Extra Workspace
188.4
Staging Area
189.6
Extra Workspace
190.5
Staging Area
198.0
Staging Area
206.0
Extra Workspace
206.2
Extra Workspace
206.9
Extra Workspace
207.6
Extra Workspace
211.4
Extra Workspace
Staging Area
Staging Area
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
213.0
216.8
222.2
222.2
224.1
224.9
227.6
229.3
ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA

Extra Workspace
Staging Area
229.3
230.9
Extra Workspace
234.0
Staging Area
235.3
Extra Workspace
239.0
Extra Workspace
239.3
Extra Workspace
244.0
Staging Area
Extra Workspace
Staging Area
244.5
247.5
250.3
Acreage
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Developed
Developed
Open Land
Open Land
Developed
Open Land
Open Land
Developed
Open Land
Developed
Open Land
Developed
Open Land
Developed
Open Land
Developed
Open Land
Developed
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
5.20
2.26
6.86
1.77
0.09
6.28
46.45
0.92
0.22
1.57
1.22
0.19
0.72
0.94
0.05
0.72
0.37
3.22
5.15
0.04
2.62
1.24
41.40
2.45
0.38
13.42
8.89
1.98
59.90
Open Land
Open Land
Forest
Open Land
Open Land
Developed
Agriculture
Agriculture
Open Land
Forest
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
33.41
1.13
14.83
112.65
2.25
0.95
0.15
2.57
2.47
3.21
134.83
1.12
25.10
1.12
January 2009
4-11
Table 4.1-3
Facility
Location by MP
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
251.0
253.1
Extra Workspace
254.8
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Staging Area
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Staging Area
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Staging Area
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
258.1
260.6
264.7
266.5
270.5
270.5
271.5
273.7
277.9
280.7
282.9
287.1
288.0
291.9
292.0
294.9
298.0
299.9
300.4
301.5
304.6
Extra Workspace
306.3
Staging Area
307.6
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Staging Area
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Staging Area
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Staging Area
Extra Workspace
308.7
311.2
312.4
314.7
315.6
317.1
319.9
322.1
323.4
323.7
324.5
325.8
326.9
327.3
327.7

Open Land
Open Land
Forest
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Developed
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Developed
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Developed
Open Land
Developed
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Acreage
34.85
27.25
0.53
36.16
5.43
0.45
11.67
0.45
1.47
0.97
1.12
101.95
0.45
1.12
141.50
23.71
37.61
2.09
1.56
2.27
0.45
8.09
2.33
0.44
8.01
0.55
60.22
1.00
0.12
3.36
0.45
1.44
0.45
1.12
76.01
13.39
60.75
1.13
0.76
22.89
11.80
16.75
1.13
12.01
January 2009
4-12
Table 4.1-3
Facility
Location by MP
Extra Workspace
329.1
Extra Workspace
330.3
Staging Area
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Staging Area
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
330.3
331.2
331.8
332.9
333.8
334.1
335.9
336.4
336.9
338.0
Extra Workspace
338.7
Staging Area
339.0
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Staging Area
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Staging Area
339.0
340.6
342.7
343.1
344.7
345.7
Extra Workspace
348.7
Staging Area
Extra Workspace
Staging Area
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Staging Area
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Staging Area
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Staging Area
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
352.4
357.0
361.3
362.8
364.8
366.8
368.2
369.2
373.2
376.2
377.6
382.4
386.1
390.3
393.8
393.8
396.0

Open Land
Forest
Developed
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Developed
Open Land
Developed
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Forest
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Acreage
15.01
3.51
0.29
1.96
1.13
4.46
9.31
19.33
6.31
1.13
14.62
5.33
1.77
3.93
0.27
8.00
0.78
0.35
0.29
29.16
1.13
10.47
19.70
1.13
6.16
147.24
1.13
154.01
1.13
70.16
12.60
4.41
1.13
65.74
1.99
1.13
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
1.12
1.67
4.56
January 2009
4-13
Table 4.1-3
Facility
Location by MP
HUMBOLDT COUNTY, NEVADA

Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
397.8
401.5
403.5
404.7
407.7
410.8
Extra Workspace
411.2
Extra Workspace
Staging Area
Extra Workspace
Staging Area
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
412.8
416.1
418.0
420.1
421.1
421.6
424.1
425.1
428.8
432.4
Extra Workspace
435.3
Staging Area
437.8
Staging Area
438.6
Extra Workspace
438.7
Staging Area
438.7
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
443.7
446.1
447.9
449.7
451.2
452.3
454.1
455.9
458.1
460.2
462.8
463.5
465.3
467.2
469.7
473.1

Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Developed
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Developed
Open Land
Developed
Developed
Open Land
Developed
Open Land
Developed
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Acreage
2.09
0.45
2.38
2.44
0.45
2.39
2.26
2.79
2.22
1.13
89.94
1.13
3.01
2.57
2.79
3.15
2.89
0.45
0.08
0.37
0.89
1.56
3.12
2.05
1.80
0.40
3.10
59.53
1.38
0.45
1.47
2.85
2.86
0.45
2.76
0.45
3.33
2.67
0.73
2.09
1.63
2.12
0.45
January 2009
4-14
Table 4.1-3
Facility
Location by MP
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
479.0
480.5
482.8
486.0
487.8
Extra Workspace
489.4
Extra Workspace
490.0
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
491.1
493.1
495.2
495.4
497.3
499.1
499.4
500.8
501.7
Extra Workspace
502.4
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Staging Area
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Staging Area
Extra Workspace
Staging Area
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Staging Area
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Staging Area
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
503.0
504.2
505.4
505.9
507.5
509.7
509.7
514.4
517.4
519.7
521.4
523.1
524.1
525.1
526.1
526.8
527.5
528.1
529.5
531.8
532.4
533.0
534.4
534.9

Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Agriculture
Open Land
Agriculture
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Agriculture
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Acreage
5.23
1.28
4.16
71.72
0.95
1.09
0.42
0.45
0.83
0.45
4.51
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
21.83
1.90
0.90
2.54
1.89
3.49
9.53
1.12
80.51
211.04
1.12
1.05
2.25
2.56
64.80
5.04
2.44
8.88
8.13
11.67
5.27
1.12
60.88
27.76
1.13
4.54
6.22
5.30
January 2009
4-15
Table 4.1-3
Facility
Location by MP
Acreage
Extra Workspace
536.5
Open Land
2.60
WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA

Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Staging Area
Extra Workspace
Staging Area
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Staging Area
Extra Workspace
536.5
538.6
538.8
539.9
542.6
543.7
545.3
546.7
547.6
548.7
549.9
549.9
550.5
Extra Workspace
551.2
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Staging Area
553.4
555.6
557.6
559.6
561.9
564.1
566.1
568.3
571.4
572.5
Extra Workspace
573.9
Staging Area
573.9
Extra Workspace
576.0
Extra Workspace
578.9
Extra Workspace
579.6
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
581.8
585.0
Extra Workspace
588.0
Staging Area
588.1
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Developed
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Forest
Open Land
Forest
Forest
Open Land
Open Land
Forest
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Forest
Open Land
Open Land
30.97
20.96
1.12
30.55
1.12
47.95
31.26
2.89
6.22
5.65
2.27
1.12
4.24
1.43
1.18
2.14
0.45
3.32
2.26
2.07
2.99
0.44
0.45
2.30
1.74
4.29
65.52
0.51
0.53
12.02
0.45
0.96
1.75
2.04
0.90
1.42
3.54
2.70
LAKE COUNTY, OREGON

Extra Workspace
Staging Area
Extra Workspace
588.0
588.1
588.2
Forest
Open Land
Open Land
2.94
2.55
6.05
January 2009
4-16
Table 4.1-3
Facility
Location by MP
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
589.3
590.4
Extra Workspace
596.7
Extra Workspace
598.1
Extra Workspace
601.4
Staging Area
Staging Area
601.6
603.5
Extra Workspace
605.3
Extra Workspace
606.6
Staging Area
609.8
Staging Area
611.7
Staging Area
614.1
Staging Area
617.7
Extra Workspace
617.7
Staging Area
Staging Area
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
620.8
627.6
627.9
628.3
629.1
Extra Workspace
629.7
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
630.9
631.6
632.5
632.7
633.3
634.5
Extra Workspace
635.4
Staging Area
637.2
Extra Workspace
638.1

Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Forest
Open Land
Forest
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Forest
Open Land
Forest
Open Land
Forest
Open Land
Forest
Open Land
Developed
Open Land
Agriculture
Agriculture
Open Land
Agriculture
Developed
Forest
Open Water
Open Water
Open Land
Agriculture
Agriculture
Open Land
Open Land
Forest
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Forest
Forest
Forest
Open Land
Acreage
12.69
16.21
19.32
1.97
9.50
34.42
72.30
1.24
1.24
17.32
1.06
4.78
4.59
0.95
0.43
0.26
0.75
0.60
0.00
0.63
3.85
132.78
88.98
1.65
92.24
76.81
1.24
1.24
1.00
1.90
1.93
13.38
0.54
20.06
1.34
5.22
0.11
2.22
4.15
3.93
31.18
1.24
49.39
2.89
January 2009
4-17
Table 4.1-3
Facility
Location by MP
Extra Workspace
639.7
Extra Workspace
641.4
Extra Workspace
642.3
Extra Workspace
642.9
Extra Workspace
643.7
Staging Area
644.6
Extra Workspace
645.2
Extra Workspace
Staging Area
Extra Workspace
646.5
646.9
647.4
KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON

Extra Workspace
647.4
Extra Workspace
649.5
Staging Area
650.0
Extra Workspace
651.9
Extra Workspace
653.2
Extra Workspace
655.0
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
Extra Workspace
657.6
657.8
660.4
Extra Workspace
661.6
Extra Workspace
663.7
Extra Workspace
665.2
Extra Workspace
666.5
Extra Workspace
666.7
Acreage
Forest
Open Land
Forest
Open Land
Forest
Open Land
Open Land
Forest
Open Land
Forest
Open Land
Forest
Open Land
Open Land
Forest
Forest
8.88
1.98
8.41
2.73
0.12
2.18
1.95
17.04
2.08
0.11
1.13
17.53
0.13
1.71
1.24
1.60
Open Land
Forest
Open Land
Forest
Open Land
Forest
Open Land
Forest
Open Land
Forest
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Forest
Agriculture
Forest
Open Land
Open Land
Agriculture
Developed
Forest
Agriculture
Developed
Open Land
Agriculture
0.35
15.50
3.92
0.97
0.27
0.42
1.40
13.78
7.46
7.56
2.06
5.68
0.32
1.92
15.13
1.58
5.26
2.86
14.35
0.81
35.91
1.61
5.90
1.41
0.28
1.09
1.86
January 2009
4-18
Table 4.1-3
Facility
Location by MP
Extra Workspace
667.2
Staging Area
667.3
Staging Area
669.7
Extra Workspace
671.6
Staging Area
672.8
Staging Area
675.0
Acreage
Agriculture
Developed
Open Land
Agriculture
Open Land
Open Land
Open Land
Agriculture
Forest
Open Land
Agriculture
Developed
Open Land
3.52
0.46
0.51
0.96
0.29
1.25
71.63
0.21
96.57
1.24
0.84
0.10
5.51
Agriculture
Developed
Agriculture
Developed
Agriculture
Developed
Agriculture
2.11
0.03
1.83
0.54
0.81
0.38
1.24
KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON (PG&E LATERAL)

Extra Workspace
0.0
Extra Workspace
1.0
Extra Workspace
1.6
Staging Area
2.5
Overlapping staging areas not included in acreage.
4.1.5 Staging Areas

Staging areas would be used after the receipt of the certificate approvals to place pipe in
reasonable proximity to the Project ROW prior to stringing that pipe along the ROW.
Staging areas may also be required for staging of contractor large mechanical equipment.
Table 4.1-3 identifies the staging areas that would be used by the Project during
construction.
4.1.6 Storage Staging Yard/Contractor Yards
The Project includes 15 contractor construction yards that would be used to store materials
associated with pipeline construction, park personal vehicles and construction equipment,
and possibly house temporary office facilities. Table 4.1-4 shows the land requirements for
contractor construction yards.
January 2009
4-19
Table 4.1-4
Contractor
Construction
Yards
Land Requirements for Contractor Construction

Yards
County
State
Section/Township
Range
Temporary
Construction
(acres)
WY
WY
UT
NV
NV
NV
OR
S24, T20N, R115W

TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
WY
WY
NV
OR
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
5
5
5
5
PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION
Spread 1
Lincoln
Spread 2
Uinta
Spread 3
Box Elder
Spread 4
Elko
Spread 5
Elko
Spread 6
Humboldt
Spread 7
Klamath
MEASUREMENT FACILITIES
Yard No. 1
Lincoln
Yard No. 2
Lincoln
Yard No. 3
Humboldt
Yard No. 4
Klamath
COMPRESSOR STATIONS
Roberson Creek
Lincoln
Wildcat Hills
Box Elder
Wieland Flat
Elko
Desert Valley
Humboldt
WY
UT
NV
NV
S24, T20N, R115W

15*
S16, T12N, R11W
15*
S28/29, T39N, R53E
15*
S24, T41N, R33E
15*
Total Acreage
220
* This workspace is included in the 60-acre construction sites required for the compressor
station.
Mainline Valves
A total of 44 mainline valves would be located along the pipeline as described in Table 4.15. Eight-foot-high chained-link fence enclosures measuring 75 by 100 feet would be
installed around each valve assembly that is not enclosed within a measurement facility or
compressor station. The fenced enclosures would be contained within the limits of the
permanent ROW.
January 2009
4-20
Table 4.1-5
Facility
Description
Ruby Aboveground Auxiliary Facilities

Temporary
MP
County
State
Ownership Dimension
(feet)
Temporary
Surface
Disturbance
(acres)
Permanent
Dimension
(feet)
Permanent
Surface
Disturbance
(acres)
MLV 1
Launcher (to
be installed
within the
existing CIG
King
Compressor
Station site)
0.0
Lincoln
Wyoming
BLM
500 x 500
5.7*
500 x 500
5.7*
MLV 2
Launcher /
Receiver (to
be installed at
the Roberson
Creek
Compressor
Station)
5.7
Lincoln
Wyoming
BLM
300 x 500
3.44*
125 x 320
0.92*
MLV 3
21.1
Uinta
Wyoming
Private
115 x 200
0.53
75 x 100
0.17
MLV 4
39.4
Uinta
Wyoming
BLM
115 x 200
0.53
75 x 100
0.17
MLV 5
55.1
Rich
Utah
Private
115 x 200
0.53
75 x 100
0.17
MLV 6
73.3
Cache
Utah
Private
115 x 200
0.53
75 x 100
0.17
MLV 7
92.1
Cache
Utah
State of
Utah
(DNR)
115 x 200
0.53
75 x 100
0.17
MLV 8
Launcher/
Receiver
102.9 Box Elder
Utah
Private
300 x 500
3.44
125 x 320
0.92
MLV 9
108.6 Box Elder
Utah
Private
115 x 200
0.53
75 x 100
0.17
MLV 10
127.5 Box Elder
Utah
Private
115 x 200
0.53
75 x 100
0.17
MLV 11
144.6 Box Elder
Utah
Private
115 x 200
0.53
75 x 100
0.17
MLV 12
161.1 Box Elder
Utah
Private
115 x 200
0.53
75 x 100
0.17
MLV 13
Launcher /
Receiver (to
be installed at
172.7 Box Elder
the Wildcat
Hills
Compressor
Station)
Utah
State of
Utah
300 x 500
3.44*
125 x 320
0.92*
MLV 14
190.6 Box Elder
Utah
BLM
115 x 200
0.53
75 x 100
0.17
MLV 15
209.7 Box Elder
Utah
State of
Utah
115 x 200
0.53
75 x 100
0.17
January 2009
4-21
Table 4.1-5
Facility
Description

Temporary
MP
County
State
Ownership Dimension
(feet)
MLV 16
222.3 Box Elder
MLV 17
239.2
MLV 18
Launcher/
Receiver
Temporary
Surface
Disturbance
(acres)
Permanent
Dimension
(feet)
Permanent
Surface
Disturbance
(acres)
Utah
BLM
115 x 200
0.53
75 x 100
0.17
Elko
Nevada
Private
115 x 200
0.53
75 x 100
0.2
257.5
Elko
Nevada
BLM
300 x 500
3.44
125 x 320
0.92
MLV 19
276.0
Elko
Nevada
BLM
115 x 200
0.53
75 x 100
0.17
MLV 20
295.1
Elko
Nevada
Private
115 x 200
0.53
75 x 100
0.17
MLV 21
311.2
Elko
Nevada
Private
115 x 200
0.53
75 x 100
0.17
MLV 22
Launcher /
Receiver
(to be installed
330.4
at the Wieland
Flat
Compressor
Station)
Elko
Nevada
Private
300 x 500
3.44*
125 x 320
0.92*
MLV 23
345.9
Elko
Nevada
Private
115 x 200
0.53
75 x 100
0.17
MLV 24
364.3
Elko
Nevada
Private
115 x 200
0.53
75 x 100
0.17
MLV 25
383.8
Elko
Nevada
Private
115 x 200
0.53
75 x 100
0.17
MLV 26
Launcher/
Receiver
403.7 Humboldt
Nevada
BLM
300 x 500
3.44
125 x 320
0.92
MLV 27
421.3 Humboldt
Nevada
Private
115 x 200
0.53
75 x 100
0.17
MLV 28
437.6 Humboldt
Nevada
Private
115 x 200
0.53
75 x 100
0.17
MLV 29
457.1 Humboldt
Nevada
BLM
115 x 200
0.53
75 x 100
0.17
MLV 30
Launcher /
Receiver (to
be installed at
476.5 Humboldt
the Desert
Valley
Compressor
Station)
Nevada
BLM
300 x 500
3.44*
125 x 320
0.92*
493.4 Humboldt
Nevada
BLM
115 x 200
0.53
75 x 100
0.17
MLV 32
510.0 Humboldt
Nevada
BLM
115 x 200
0.53
75 x 100
0.17
MLV 33
Launcher/
Receiver
528.9 Humboldt
Nevada
BLM
300 x 500
3.44
125 x 320
0.92
Microwave
Tower
530.0 Humboldt
Nevada
BLM
200 x 200
0.91
100 X 100
0.23
MLV 31
January 2009
4-22
Table 4.1-5
Facility
Description
MLV 34

Temporary
MP
County
State
Ownership Dimension
(feet)
Temporary
Surface
Disturbance
(acres)
Permanent
Dimension
(feet)
Permanent
Surface
Disturbance
(acres)
548.0
Washoe
Nevada
Private
115 x 200
0.53
75 x 100
0.17
567.4
Washoe
Nevada
BLM
115 x 200
0.53
75 x 100
0.17
MLV 36
Launcher/
Receiver
582.1
Washoe
Nevada
BLM
300 x 500
3.44
125 x 320
0.92
MLV 37
601.3
Lake
Oregon
BLM
115 x 200
0.53
75 x 100
0.17
MLV 38
614.5
Lake
Oregon
Private
115 x 200
0.53
75 x 100
0.17
628.0
Lake
Oregon
Private
115 x 200
0.53
75 x 100
0.17
Lake
Oregon
Forest
Service
115 x 200
0.53
75 x 100
0.17
MLV 35
MLV 39
MLV 40
643.0
MLV 41
658.3
Klamath
Oregon
BLM
115 x 200
0.53
75 x 100
0.17
MLV 42
Receiver
Separation
Facilities
675.2
Klamath
Oregon
Private
500 x 500
5.7*
500 x 500
5.7*
MLV 301-1
Line
No.
301
MP
0.0
Klamath
Oregon
Private
Included in
MLV 42
Site
0.0
Included in
MLV 42 Site
0.0
MLV 301-2
Line
No.
301
MP
2.85
Klamath
Oregon
Private
115 x 200
0.53
75 x 100
0.17
Total Disturbance
56.81 acres
24.43 acres
Note: The temporary and permanent surface disturbance for mainline valves and launcher/receiver facilities overlaps the
nominal construction ROW.
4.3 Project Schedule and Workforce

4.3.1 Construction Schedule
Construction activities would commence as early as February 2010 in areas where weather
permits and where there are no restrictions designated to protect sensitive species, species
that are migrating, or cultural resources.
January 2009
4-23
4.3.2 Project Workforce

Ruby intends to utilize a total of seven construction spreads along the Project route, each
approximately 80 to 120 miles in length. The construction of the Project would require an
average of 400 workers per spread, using 500 workers during peak construction times,
totaling a maximum of approximately 4,300 workers for all seven spreads and compressor
stations. The four compressor stations would require approximately 150 workers per
station, employing 200 workers during peak construction times. The compressor stations
would be located near Opal, Wyoming; western Utah; Elko, Nevada; and northwest of
Winnemucca, Nevada.
4.4 Human Health and Safety

A human health and safety program would be implemented during the construction and
maintenance of the Ruby Project.
Solid Waste Control
The purpose of these solid waste control provisions is to provide procedures for the removal
and disposal of solid wastes (e.g., garbage, timber, undergrowth, etc.)
Definitions
Waste as used herein means all discarded matter including, but not limited
to, human waste, trash, garbage, refuse, oil and oil drums, petroleum
products, equipment, ashes, equipment filters, welding rods and scrapes from
pipes.
Vegetation means vegetative material from marketable timber, nonmarketable timber, understory, and ground cover.
Provisions
Solid waste control includes procedures for removal of all wastes.
All construction-generated waste would be removed or disposed of from

federal land. If any waste is dumped on federal land, the material would be
removed and the area restored.
There would be no release of equipment crank case oil, etc., into streams or
soil by any personnel.
Ruby would follow a continuous (at least bi-weekly) litter policing schedule on
all roads associated with the Project.
January 2009
4-24
Garbage would be collected as it is generated and properly contained for

disposal in an approved landfill operation.
The construction sites would be kept free from accumulation of waste

materials and rubbish resulting from construction activities as required for
safety, appearance, and avoidance of fire hazards.
Human waste would be collected in portable toilets. Portable toilets would be

located at equipment staging and storage yards located on federal lands.
The portable toilets would be emptied at an appropriate frequency and
disposed of in an appropriate manner at state-approved site.
EMERGENCY RESPONSE
The purpose of these emergency response provisions is to expedite the reporting of
emergencies and needed follow-up measures and activities. As used herein, emergencies
shall apply to personal injuries and property damage.
Procedures
Emergency procedures for wild fire protection are outlined in the Fire Prevention and
Suppression Plan (Appendix L).
In case of personal injury, first aid treatment and procedures would be initiated to determine
extent and nature of injury. If emergency medical services are required, Ruby would
request ambulance service and other appropriate help.
Accidents involving property damage needing emergency measures shall be reported to a
Ruby field office and the Project Leader of the construction spread. After notification,
procedures shall be instituted to prevent further damage.
A written report would be prepared by the personnel involved in the emergency, providing all
pertinent information and copies to the Spread Superintendent. In case of personal injuries,
accident forms would be filed with the appropriate authority having jurisdiction.
January 2009
4-25
General Pipeline Construction

Procedure
Ruby would implement an environmental compliance program for the Project. The Ruby
inspection and oversight personnel, including environmental inspectors and the construction
contractor, would receive copies of all applicable environmental permits, plans, and
procedures, as well as any conditions agreed to by Ruby and relevant landowners.
Further, the construction contractor would receive any Project-specific alterations to FERCs
standard Plan and Procedures as approved by the appropriate agencies, including FERC
(Ruby's Plan and Procedures, Appendix D and F, respectively). Rubys proposed
alterations are shown at the appropriate location in the text of the Plan or the Procedures, in
bold, italicized print. Additional information on particular construction methodology that
does not change the meaning of the Plan or the Procedures has been included at the
appropriate location in the text, but is shown only in bold print.
The construction contractor also would be provided with detailed and specific environmental
procedures and drawings to ensure compliance with the FERC requirements for this
Project, as they relate to notification requirements issued, mitigation measures approved by
FERC, and other related environmental permits.
5.1 Pipeline Construction Sequence Summary

Standard pipeline construction techniques would be employed along the Project route.
Those techniques typically involve the following sequential operations: fencing, clearing
and grading, ditching, stringing and bending, welding, joint coating, lowering and backfilling,
hydrostatic testing, and cleanup and restoration. Typical drawings depicting standard
construction techniques are provided under Appendix A and would be used unless
conditions warrant special methods described later in this section.
5.1.1 Environmental Compliance
Ruby proposes to use a Combined Environmental Inspector/Third-Party Environmental
Monitor Program. Under such a program, the same individual would fill both roles as a
Compliance Monitor. Ruby will work to develop a contract commitment from a company
acceptable to the approving agencies to provide such services, ideally with a contract
completed by May 2009. Ruby would only propose to use a company (or companies) that
have extensive experience in performing both inspection and monitoring responsibilities.
Through the company (or companies) chosen, Ruby would provide a list of names and
January 2009
5-1
resumes of proposed Compliance Monitors to FERC for approval prior to issue of a

certificate. Any individual deemed to be insufficiently qualified would not be used, and
alternate monitors would be proposed until FERC was satisfied that all monitors had the
knowledge and experience to function in a combined role. A combined program with
extremely competent and experienced monitors would be more efficient than a program
involving separate monitors and Environmental Inspectors and would be the best way to
provide the highest quality inspection. Since gas transmission pipelines are in high
demand, it is difficult for a project with the size and scope of the proposed Project to find
enough highly qualified Environmental Inspectors and Third-party Environmental Monitors to
fill all the required positions. The use of under-qualified personnel in either position leads to
extreme conflict between individuals, inconsistencies, and poor performance. A combined
program with all monitors reporting directly to FERC would be much more efficient and
could ensure a better qualified staff of inspectors.
A shortened chain of command is expected to greatly increase the efficiency of the variance
process. Through calibration and cooperation with the FERC staff, Level I Variances could
be efficiently granted or denied by Compliance Monitors in the field. In a compliance
program consisting of multiple layers of inspection, an Environmental Inspector must first
review a proposed variance and then call a Third-party Environmental Monitor for a second
review. This process usually doubles the average one-day turnaround for these variations.
The entire purpose of a Level I Variance process is to provide a quick determination on a
proposed very minor permit change. A combined Compliance Monitor program would
provide this. The Level II and Level III variance process would also benefit from more
efficiency with the direct input to the FERC staff from a Compliance Monitor in the field.
5.1.2 Pipeline Construction
Prior to any construction activities, survey crews would stake the outside limits of the
construction ROW, the centerline of the pipeline trench, and temporary workspace areas
with color-coded flagging. Sensitive areas to be avoided would be flagged, as appropriate,
and wetland boundaries would be clearly delineated using easily identifiable temporary
signage. Before construction begins, One-Call systems for the various states would be
contacted so that buried utilities could be identified and flagged by the facility owners. Ruby
would also work with the owners of the foreign facilities to develop a parallel construction
work plan agreement that would have specific safety-related procedures regarding
construction near third-party lines.
5.1.3 Clearing and Grading

Vegetation would be cleared and the construction corridor would be graded, as needed, to
provide safe and efficient operation of construction equipment. Space would be provided
for temporary storage of spoil material and segregated topsoil. The width of the
January 2009
5-2
construction corridor would be restricted to avoid undue surface disturbance to adjacent

resources. The construction corridor boundaries are the limits of the temporary workspace
and would be clearly staked or flagged. No disturbance would be allowed beyond the ROW
limits unless previously approved.
In most cases topography (side hill, cut and fill areas, irrigated lands) would dictate when
ROW vegetation is left in place or removed. Soil conditions (rutting, loose, sandy, limited
topsoil, etc.) would also help to determine how the ROW area would be prepared for
construction.
When grading is required, trees, brush, and shrubs within the construction corridor would be
cut or scraped at or near the ground level. Low brush would be scraped up and stored with
the topsoil. Timber and larger brush would be stored adjacent to the ROW and placed on
the ROW during final clean-up or removed from ROW. Slash would either be spread back
across the ROW, chipped and spread on the ROW, removed from the ROW, or burned
subject to landowner or land management agency approval and applicable law. All clearing
activities will utilize access roads and ROWs permitted for the Project.
The construction area would be graded to create a suitable work surface for construction
vehicles. The terrain along the Project varies from relatively flat and even to steep with
significant side slopes. Substantive cutting of terrain would not be performed unless
required.
For construction across all federally managed lands (not in wetlands), Ruby would enforce a
four-inch rutting standard when topsoil is present in construction areas. When soil
compaction and rutting exceed four inches, Ruby is proposing to either postpone
construction activities at those locations until conditions improve, remove up to 12 inches of
topsoil to resume construction activities, or stabilize to avoid rutting (e.g., with timber riprap,
prefabricated equipment mats, or terra mats).
To the extent rutting occurs on privately owned agricultural land during construction, Ruby
would restore such affected areas at the time restoration activities are performed. Should
rutting exceed 12 inches in depth and increase the potential for the mixing of topsoils with
subsoils, construction activities could continue so long as the rutted area is covered with an
adequate volume of new weed-free topsoil during the restoration of the right-of-way.
To the extent rutting occurs on privately owned agricultural land during construction, Ruby
will restore such affected areas at the time restoration activities are performed. Should
rutting exceed 12 inches in depth and increase the potential for the mixing of topsoils with
January 2009
5-3
subsoils, construction activities could continue so long as the rutted area is covered with an
adequate volume of new weed-free topsoil during the restoration of the ROW.
In any areas where replacement of topsoil is required as a result of rutting, Ruby will replace
such topsoil with topsoil from a local source acceptable to the landowner or land
management agency, or the addition of soil amendments, such as fertilizers or manure,
again with approval of the landowner or land management agency.
Fences crossed by the construction corridor would be braced, cut, and temporarily fitted
with a gate to permit passage of construction equipment while maintaining current livestock
barriers and to help prevent unauthorized public access. Approximately 20 feet of
temporary additional work space would required on each side of the specified construction
work space to allow the fencing crews to construct the temporary fence bracing. During
construction, the opening would be controlled as needed to prevent undesired passage.
Upon completion of construction activities, existing fences would be replaced, braces would
be left in place, and in some cases, gates would be permanently installed.
The Project would employ Ruby's Plan and Procedures to minimize erosion during
construction. The following general measures would be implemented as appropriate:
Minimize the quantity and duration of soil exposure;
Protect critical areas during construction by reducing the velocity of water and
redirecting runoff as appropriate;
Install and maintain erosion control measures during construction;
Establish vegetation as soon as possible following final grading; and
Inspect the ROW and maintain erosion control as needed until final stabilization is
achieved.
5.1.4 Trenching
Excavation of the pipeline trench would follow clearing and grading of the ROW. The
majority of the excavation would be accomplished using machinery such as ditching
machines, backhoes, or rippers.
Ruby would consult with landowners and land management agencies to determine the best
approach for topsoil segregation that would provide for successful reclamation. In areas
where segregation of topsoil is required, such as in pasture land, agricultural land, and in
residential areas, topsoil and subsoil would be separated using a two-pass excavation
process. The first cut would be a shallow excavation that removes the topsoil. The topsoil
would then be stockpiled for later replacement. The second cut would be a deeper
excavation that removes and stockpiles the subsoil on the spoil side of the trench. The
January 2009
5-4
trench would then be excavated to a sufficient depth to provide the minimum depth of cover
required by the DOT, allowing for at least 30 inches of cover between the top of the pipe
and the final land surface after backfilling. Hay bales or silt fences may be used to contain
soil piles and prevent erosion during construction, as appropriate.
Subject to the availability of the material in the affected states, Ruby is committed to using
weed-free hay or straw bales or other suitable material, such as corn husks. In cases
where weed-free material is not available, Ruby will work with respective agencies, including
the BLM and Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), to ensure a suitable
alternative is used.
Where topsoil exists and segregation is required, no more than 12 inches of topsoil would
be segregated. The native seed base is contained in the top 12 inches of topsoil. Removal
of deeper topsoil would dilute this seed base and slow the return of native vegetation.
Further, most soils along the Project are between six and 12 inches in depth.
Separation of salvaged topsoil and subsoil would be maintained throughout all construction
activities. Additionally, segregated topsoil may not be used for padding the pipe.
Ruby anticipates that approximately 50 miles of ditch per construction spread would be
open at any one time during construction. The duration that a trench would be left open
would be minimized to the extent practicable; local agency construction requirements would
be adhered to. Due to the difficulty of excavating the trench in rocky soils, an extension of
the local construction requirements regarding open trenches may be necessary. Typically,
crossovers and exit ramps for wildlife and livestock would be located to coincide with
identified wildlife and livestock crossings, existing roadways, and tie-in locations.
Crossovers consist of gaps in the trench, spoil piles, and pre-welded pipe. These
crossovers and exit ramps would be installed at intervals not to exceed 2,500 feet.
Any crossing of foreign pipelines would generally require the Ruby pipeline to be buried at
greater depths, consistent with applicable DOT regulations. Where practicable, at least
12 inches of clearance would be maintained when crossing foreign pipelines, cables, or
other similar structures.
5.1.5 Lowering Backfilling
Once the welding operation has been completed, the pipeline would be lowered into the
trench. Side boom tractors would be used to lift the pipe, position it over the trench, and
lower it in place. The pipeline and trench would be inspected to verify that minimum cover
is provided, that the trench is free of rock or debris, that external pipe coating is not
damaged, and that the pipe is properly fitted and installed into the trench.
January 2009
5-5
Trench dewatering may be necessary at certain times during the lowering-in process. Any
trench dewatering would be accomplished in a manner designed to prevent heavily siltladen water from flowing into wetlands or waterbodies.
After the pipe is lowered into the trench, the trench would be backfilled. Previously
excavated materials would be pushed back into the trench using bladed equipment,
backhoes, or auger type backfilling machines. Backfill material generally consists of the
material excavated from the trench. Padding or other protective coating would be used to
prevent damage to the pipe coating. This padding would typically consist of subsoil
removed from the trench that has been screened to remove larger rocks. Alternatively,
other suitable material (e.g., soil or sand) may be imported to the site. Topsoil would not be
used for padding. In agricultural lands and other areas where the topsoil has been
segregated, trench subsoil would be placed in the trench first and the topsoil placed on top
of the trench subsoil. Following backfilling, Ruby would feather any excess ditch spoil
across the construction corridor.
5.1.6 Hydrostatic Testing
Both the mainline and the lateral would be hydrostatically tested before being placed into
service to verify their integrity and to ensure their ability to operate at the maximum
allowable operating pressure (MAOP). Hydrostatic test water would be obtained in
compliance with state regulations and existing water rights. Topography and the availability
of test water would determine the length of each test segment. Pipeline test segments
would be capped and filled with water, then pressurized in accordance with DOT regulations
(49 CFR Part 192). Any leaks detected would be repaired and that section of pipeline retested.
Upon completion of the test, the water may be pumped to the next segment for testing, or
discharged. The test water would ultimately be discharged in accordance with the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) hydrostatic discharge permit
requirements, as administered by the individual states. Only clean pipe would be tested
and no chemicals would be added. Once a pipe segment has been successfully tested and
dried, the test cap and manifold would be removed and that section of the pipe would be
connected to the remainder of the tested pipeline. Preliminary locations of test water fill
sites and discharge sites have been identified and are provided in Rubys Hydrostatic Test
Plan, as identified on Project alignment sheets and topographical maps found in the
appendices to this report. Water would be discharged through energy dissipating devices
(e.g., hay bale filters, sediment bags) where necessary to control erosion and
sedimentation.
January 2009
5-6
5.1.7 Clean-up and Restoration

After backfilling is complete, disturbed areas would be final graded and erosion control
measures would be implemented. The erosion control measures used would be in
accordance with Ruby's Plan and Procedures and other applicable federal, state, and local
agency requirements. Final cleanup typically would involve a series of steps, including offsite waste disposal and equipment removal. A revegetation plan would be implemented to
the reasonable satisfaction of the individual landowners or in accordance with applicable
federal, state, and local regulations. Non-cultivated lands would be reseeded as soon as
possible to minimize erosion. If seasonal or weather conditions are not favorable,
revegetation would be delayed until favorable conditions exist. In the interim, the ROW
would be stabilized, including mulching or seeding with a sterile annual grass. Revegetation
would be accomplished in a manner compatible with preconstruction and adjacent
vegetation patterns, in accordance with 18 CFR 380.15 and FERC guidelines.
To the extent possible, streambeds would be returned to their preconstruction contours, and
stream and river banks would be restored to their preconstruction condition and revegetated in accordance with Ruby's Procedures. Periodic aerial and ground inspections of
the ROW would be conducted, and further restoration measures would be implemented if
necessary.
Fences and other existing infrastructure would also be returned to their pre-construction
condition as approved by landowners and/or land management agencies.
5.2 Aboveground Facility Construction Procedures

Typical construction activities associated with compressor stations are summarized below.
General construction activities and storage of construction materials and equipment would
be confined to areas within the approved compressor station construction sites. Debris and
wastes generated from construction would be disposed of appropriately. Installation of the
meter stations would meet the same standards and requirements established for the
compressor stations and pipeline construction.
Foundations
Excavation would be performed as necessary to accommodate the reinforced concrete
foundations required for the new compressor units. Forms would be set, rebar installed,
and the concrete poured and cured in accordance with applicable standards. Concrete
pours would be randomly sampled to verify compliance with minimum strength
requirements. Backfill would be compacted in place, and excess soil would be used
elsewhere or distributed around the site.
January 2009
5-7
Compression Equipment
The compression equipment would typically be shipped to the site by truck after
construction commences. The compressors would be offloaded and when ready for
installation, positioned on the foundation, leveled, grouted, and secured.
Piping
All pipe connections associated with the new compressors that are not flanged or screwed
would be welded. All welders and welding procedures would be qualified in accordance with
49 CFR Part 192, as administered by the DOT. All welds in gas piping systems would be
verified by a non-destructive testing method to ensure compliance with code requirements.
Hydrostatic Testing
All components in high-pressure natural gas service would be pressure tested prior to being
placed into service. Before being placed in service, all controls and safety equipment and
systems, including emergency shutdown, relief valves, gas and fire detection, engine overspeed, and vibration would be checked or tested.
5.2.1 Clean-up and Restoration
Upon completion, temporary disturbances at aboveground facilities would be revegetated as
described in the Reclamation Plan.
5.3 Special Construction Methods

Construction across the following features such as roads and railroads, wetlands and
waterbodies, residential/commercial/industrial areas, pipelines, and rugged terrain would
involve special construction techniques as described below.
5.3.1 Foreign Pipelines, Unpaved and Paved Roads, State and Interstate Highways,
and Railroad Crossings
Construction of pipelines across major paved highways, railroads, paved roads, and
unpaved roads where traffic cannot be interrupted would be accomplished by boring under
the roadbed. Smaller unpaved roads and drives would be crossed by open trenching and
then restored to pre-construction or better condition. If an open-cut road requires extensive
construction time, provisions would be made for detours or other measures to permit traffic
flow during construction. Ruby is proposing to work with landowners to determine the best
way to cross privately owned roads. Ruby would also repair road damage caused by
construction of the pipeline. The pipeline would be buried to the depth required by
applicable road crossing permits/approvals and would be designed to withstand anticipated
external loadings. Railroad crossings would be installed (typically using a bore) in
accordance with the requirements of the railroad.
January 2009
5-8
5.3.2 Waterbody and Wetland Crossings

Wetlands would be crossed following the methods outlined in Rubys Plan and Procedures.
These wetland construction methods are briefly outlined below. During clearing, sediment
barriers, such as silt fence or staked straw bales, would be installed and maintained
adjacent to all wetlands and within additional temporary workspace areas as necessary to
minimize the potential for sediment runoff. Sediment barriers would be installed across the
full width of the ROW and extra workspaces at the base of slopes adjacent to wetland
boundaries.
The method of pipeline construction used in the wetland would depend largely on the
stability of the soils at the time of construction. Where wetlands are saturated and the
trench fills with water, the pipeline segment could be assembled in an upland area and
installed using the push-pull or float technique.
Where wetland soils are stable enough to support the pipe, it would be assembled in a
manner similar to conventional construction techniques. The amount of time that the
excavated ditch is kept open would be minimized, as conditions allow, reducing the effect
on wetlands. For those wetlands occurring in actively cultivated or rotated cropland,
construction would progress using techniques similar to conventional upland cross-country
construction.
The construction ROW may be used for access when the wetland soil is firm enough to
support equipment or the construction ROW has been appropriately stabilized (e.g., with
timber rip-rap, prefabricated equipment mats, or terra mats). In wetlands that cannot be
appropriately stabilized, construction equipment other than that needed to install the
wetland crossing would use access roads located in upland areas. In areas where no
reasonable access exists, construction equipment would be permitted one pass through the
wetland using the construction ROW. The top one foot of topsoil would be segregated from
the trench area, except where standing water is present or soils are saturated or frozen.
Segregated topsoil would be immediately restored to its original location after backfilling is
complete.
Restoration of wetland contours to pre-construction levels would be accomplished during
backfilling. Prior to backfilling, trench breakers would be installed where necessary to
prevent the subsurface drainage of water from the wetland. Ruby would monitor and record
the success of wetland revegetation annually for a minimum of three years after
construction or until wetland revegetation is successful. Rubys Procedures include several
mitigation measures designed to minimize the overall effects of the Project on wetlands.
January 2009
5-9
Conventional Open-Cut Waterbody Crossings

The open-cut crossing method is proposed for most minor waterbody crossings. These
crossings would involve excavation of the pipeline trench across the waterbody, installation
of the pipeline, and backfilling of the trench with no effort to isolate flow from construction
activities.
Excavation and backfilling of the trench would be accomplished using backhoes or other
excavation equipment working from the banks of or in the waterbody. Trench spoil would
be stored at least 10 feet from the banks (topographic conditions permitting). A section of
pipe long enough to span the entire crossing would be fabricated on one bank and either
pulled across the bottom to the opposite bank, floated across the stream, or carried into
place and submerged into the trench. The trench would then be backfilled and the bottom
of the watercourse and banks restored and stabilized. Sediment barriers, such as silt
fencing, staked straw bales, or trench plugs, would be installed to prevent spoil and
sediment-laden water from entering the waterbody from adjacent upland areas.
Dry Waterbody Crossings
A dry-ditch crossing method is appropriate for some minor and intermediate waterbodies.
A flumed crossing involves installation of a temporary dam and a flume pipe to divert the
entire stream flow over the construction area and allow for trenching of the crossing in dry
or nearly dry conditions. Dams would be constructed of sand bags alone, sand bags with
plastic sheeting, inflatable bladders, or similar materials to direct the flow into the flume
pipe. Spoil removed during the trenching would be stored at least 10 feet away from the
waters edge (topographic conditions permitting). A section of pipe long enough to span the
entire crossing would be fabricated on one bank and slipped under the flume pipe to the
opposite bank. The trench would be backfilled and the bottom of the watercourse and
banks restored and stabilized before the flume pipe and dams are removed. Sediment
barriers, such as silt fencing, staked straw bales, or trench plugs would be installed to
prevent spoil and sediment-laden water from entering the waterbody from adjacent upland
areas.
The dam-and-pump dry-ditch crossing method would involve damming the stream with
sandbags or equivalent materials on both sides of the construction work area and pumping
the stream flow around the construction zone. Excavation of the trench, installation of the
pipeline, and restoration would be similar to that described above for the flumed crossing.
Horizontal Directional Drill Crossings
Horizontal directional drill (HDD) is a method by which a pipeline is installed beneath
obstacles or sensitive areas. Typically during this process there is minimal disturbance of
the ground surface between the entry and exit points of the HDD. The feasibility and length
January 2009
5-10
of pipeline that can be installed by HDD depends upon such factors as access to the entry
and exit points, subsurface conditions (geology), and pipe diameter.
An HDD is a multi-stage process, consisting of establishing a small diameter pilot hole
along a crossing profile, followed by enlargement of the pilot hole (reaming) to
accommodate pullback of the pipeline. The pilot hole is drilled using rotation cutting and/or
jetting with a jetting assembly attached to the drill pipe. The cutting action of the drill head
is remotely operated to control its orientation and direction. Bentonite drilling fluid
(bentonite, a non-toxic, naturally occurring sedimentary clay, is composed of weathered and
aged volcanic ash) is delivered to the cutting head through the drill string to provide the
hydraulic cutting action, lubricate the drill bit, help stabilize the hole, and remove cutting
spoil as the drilling fluid is returned to the entry point. Drilling fluid is also used during the
reaming process to remove cutting spoil. The position of the drill string is electronically
monitored and directional corrections made as necessary to ensure that the drill string
maintains the desired alignment.
Enlarging the pilot hole is an incremental process accomplished with multiple reaming
passes, depending on the pipeline diameter and subsurface geology, to increase the hole
diameter. Upon successful completion of the reaming operation, a cylinder shaped swab is
pulled through the hole to ensure the integrity of the completed hole and prepare for
pullback of the pipe. The pre-assembled section of pipeline is then pulled into the
completed hole.
Ruby recognizes that HDD is not a fail-safe crossing methodology. As a result, Ruby would
evaluate each crossing with the appropriate agencies to develop site-specific crossing
methodologies.
Bored Crossings
Where traffic cannot be interrupted, major highways and railroads would be bored. Some
waterbodies may also be bored. Boring involves pushing the pipe through a hole below the
waterbody, road, or railroad. A bore pit is dug on one side of the crossing and a receiving
pit is dug on the other side of the crossing, and both are then graded so that the bore is at
the proper elevation for installation of the pipe. A boring machine is then lowered to the
bottom of the bore pit and placed on supports. The machine cuts a shaft under the crossing
using a cutting head mounted on an auger. The pipeline is then pushed through behind the
auger.
January 2009
5-11
5.3.4 Fueling
All refueling or lubricating of vehicles or equipment would occur no closer than 100 feet of a
waterbody or wetland unless no feasible alternative exists or if a greater setback is
stipulated by appropriate permitting agencies.
5.3.5 Noxious and Invasive Weed Control
Noxious weed surveys were conducted from April through October 2008 to determine
occurrence along the Project. The surveys focused on resources within a 300-foot-wide
corridor, and other areas outside this corridor, including access roads, extra work spaces,
and aboveground facilities. Resulting noxious weed location data collected by Ruby are
presented Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan (Appendix H).
5.3.6 Wildfire Control
Wildfire prevention and suppression measures that would be implemented are described in
Appendix L.
5.3.7 Fish and Wildlife of Concern
Biological resource protection measures have been developed to minimize impacts to
resources during construction. These measures include consultation with BLM, USFS,
USFWS, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Utah Division of Wildlife, Nevada
Department of Wildlife, and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Sensitive biological resources include habitats and species of wildlife and plants that are
considered to be sensitive or of special concern. A number of sensitivity classifications
exist; species may be considered sensitive due to inclusion in one or more of the following
classifications:
Federally listed threatened, endangered, or candidate species (Federal

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA));
Species proposed for federal listing under the ESA;
States Action Plan Conservation Status Species
Species protected by other federal acts, such as bald and golden eagles
(protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940) and wild
horses (protected by the Wild Free-roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971);
State-listed rare, threatened, or endangered species;
Other species afforded state protection;
Plant species included on lists compiled by the Natural Heritage Programs

for Oregon, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming;
BLM- and USFS-listed sensitive species;
January 2009
5-12
Biological surveys were conducted from April through October 2008 along the Project route.
These surveys focused on resources within a 300-foot-wide corridor along the Project ROW,
and other areas outside this corridor, including extra work spaces, aboveground facilities,
staging areas, contractor yards, spread breaks, parking area, and a construction camp. Data
collected were logged using global positioning system (GPS) units and then plotted on USGS
1:24,000 scale topographic maps.
Surveys were conducted for the following:
Habitat types
Dominant plant species
Noxious weeds
Wetlands
Streams
Sensitive plants
Greater sage-grouse
Pygmy rabbit
Great grey owls
Goshawk
Nesting raptors
Nesting birds
Burrowing owl
Black footed ferret/prairie dog towns
Ute ladies-tresses
Ruby recognizes the need for pre-construction surveys in addition to those conducted in
2008. Surveys to be completed include:
Modification to access roads and off-ROW facilities;
Black-footed ferret surveys in Wyoming;
Ute ladies-tresses surveys in Wyoming and Utah;
Pygmy rabbit surveys;
Aerial raptor surveys;
Burrowing owls in Wyoming and Utah;
Greater sage-grouse lek sites;
Sharp tailed-grouse in Utah; and
Boreal toads in Utah.
January 2009
5-13
As additional resources are identified in conjunction with the remaining surveys, additional
mitigation measures will be developed to minimize impacts.
Ruby has developed mitigation measures to reduce the likelihood and magnitude of
potential impacts to biological resources due to construction, operation, and maintenance
of the Project (Appendix I). Where mitigation measures have not been finalized, Ruby is
continuing its ongoing coordination with appropriate resource agencies to finalize and gain
concurrence on the proposed measures. As mitigation measures developed through
these coordination efforts are finalized, Ruby will forward them to the FERC, BLM, USFS,
and state agencies as appropriate for review and approval.
5.3.8 Contingency for Unforeseen Conditions
In the event of unforeseen problems or issues arising during construction that are not
addressed in the mitigation, resolution would be achieved by consultation among
designated representatives of Ruby, the construction contractor, biological monitoring
contractor, and the appropriate federal and state agencies. One person from each of the
above parties would be the designated contact throughout the construction phase. To
facilitate this response, a contact list would be developed including both primary and
secondary contacts for the federal agencies, state agencies, Ruby, spread contractors, and
biological monitors. The contact list would include phone, fax, cell, pager, and email
information as appropriate. The list would be provided prior to construction initiation and
would be updated via email and regular mail, as required. Resolution of such issues would
be achieved by a combination of telephone calls conferences, meetings, and field visits, as
necessary.
5.3.9 Cultural and Paleontological Resource Sites
The plans for protection of known and unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources and
paleontological resources are presented in Appendix J and K, respectively.
5.3.10 Areas Requiring Blasting
Since Ruby would likely encounter subsurface rock that cannot be excavated using
mechanical means, blasting for ditch excavation may be necessary. In such areas, care
would be taken to prevent damage to underground structures or to springs, water wells, or
other water sources in accordance with all applicable regulations. Blasting mats or soil
cover would be used as necessary to prevent the scattering of loose rock. Any blasting
would be conducted during daylight hours and would not begin until occupants of nearby
residences, buildings, places of business, or ranchers and farmers had been notified.
January 2009
5-14
Rubys blasting contractor would develop a Project-specific blasting plan in accordance with
industry-accepted standards and any applicable local permit requirements. The Preliminary
Blasting Plan is presented in Appendix M.
5.3.11 Residential Areas
Currently, there are no residences located within 100 feet of the proposed Project ROW.
Should modifications to Ruby's ROW result in the ROW being within 100 feet of any
residence, Ruby would implement specialized construction techniques in such areas.
During construction, the edge of the work area along any residences would be fenced for
safety purposes to a distance of 100 feet on either side of the residence. This would
include notifying landowners prior to construction and arranging work hours to take
landowners needs into consideration. Dust minimization techniques would be used on site,
and all litter and debris would be removed daily from the construction work area. Mature
trees and landscaping would be preserved to the extent possible while ensuring the safe
operation of construction equipment. Site-specific construction drawings depicting the
temporary and permanent ROW and noting special construction techniques would be
prepared for residential structures within 50 feet of the construction area.
5.3.12 Dust Control
Dust control measures that would be implemented are described in Appendix N.
5.3.13 Visual Resources Management
The BLMs general management objectives for public lands provide design standards on
projects to protect or enhance the four defined Visual Resource Management (VRM)
classes. Key Observation Points (KOPs) to assess the Projects impacts to visual
resources were selected according to the 2002 FERC Guidance manual, using BLM Visual
Resource Classifications, the USFSs Scenery Management System (SMS), and in
consultation with BLM field offices and the USFS. KOPs include, but are not limited to, any
location in which the Project crosses land with protected visual resources, any land with
high levels of viewer sensitivity such as residential and recreational areas, and the planned
locations of aboveground facilities associated with the Project. This information, including
analysis of the results of the visual simulations, were used to develop mitigation measures
for the Project that would allow the Project to proceed while still meeting the VRM Class
objectives. Measures that would be implemented are described in Appendix P.
January 2009
5-15
Post-Construction Monitoring
and Response
These discussions are directed to actions related to reclamation success as described in

the Reclamation Plan in Appendix E. Appendix Q (Preliminary Wetland Mitigation Report)
outlines Rubys plan to restore wetlands and streams impacted by construction.
January 2009
6-1
Pipeline Operation and

Maintenance
The Project facilities would be operated, maintained, and inspected in accordance with DOT
safety standards, and pursuant to the General Terms and Conditions of Rubys FERC Gas
Tariff. Ruby has integrated the following design features, construction techniques, and
operational procedures into its Project that would ensure pipeline facilities meet or exceed
required safety standards.
Design Features
As described above, Rubys 42-inch pipe would utilize different wall thickness criteria
depending on DOT class location designation and design requirements. Ruby would
give special design consideration to road crossings, river crossings, fault crossings, and
any areas with potential for class change in the future that would require heavier wall
thickness pipe (i.e., future residential developments).
The pipe installed by Ruby would be externally coated with a fusion-bonded epoxy
coating, or other suitable coating, that is designed to prevent or minimize the potential
for corrosion on the pipe. All welds on the pipe would also be coated with a fusionbonded epoxy. Before the pipe is lowered into its trench, it would be visually and
mechanically inspected and any defects would be repaired.
Ruby would also install cathodic protection systems along the entire length of its pipeline
in order to minimize corrosion on the pipeline.
Pig launcher and receiver facilities would be installed to allow Ruby periodically to run
internal inspection devices, once the pipeline is in operation.
Ruby intends to automate all of its mainline block valves, to the extent practicable, to
allow remote operation from a control center.
Construction Techniques
From a construction standpoint, Ruby would install its pipe in a trench that would allow a
minimum 30 inches of cover between the top of the pipe and the final land surface after
backfilling, all as required by the DOT. In agricultural areas, Ruby would install its pipe
in a deeper trench to allow for field plowing activities.
January 2009
7-1
All pipe welds would be in conformance with 49 CFR Part 192, Subpart E, "Welding of
Steel Pipelines, and API 1104 "Standard for Welding Pipelines and Related Facilities."
Welds would be inspected in conformance with DOT requirements. Any defects in the
welding would be repaired or removed as required by the specified regulations and
standards. All pipeline welds would be non-destructively tested.
Once in the trench and covered with padding and backfill, the mainline and lateral pipes
would be hydrostatically tested before being put into service to verify their integrity and
to ensure their ability to operate at the proposed Maximum Allowable Operating
Pressure (MAOP). As part of the hydrostatic test, pipeline test segments would be
capped and filled with water, then pressurized in accordance with DOT regulations
(49 CFR Part 192). If any leaks were detected, Ruby would repair the relevant section
of pipe, and it would be re-tested.
Operational Procedures
After the Project is placed into service, the pipeline would be inspected periodically from
the air and on the ground as required by applicable regulations. These surveillance
activities would provide information on possible encroachments and nearby construction
activities, erosion, exposed pipe, and any other potential concerns that may affect the
safety and operation of the pipeline. Aerial surveys of the pipeline system would be
performed in accordance with the U.S. DOT requirements of 49 CFR Part 192.
Ruby supports and actively participates in national 811 and state one-call programs.
Excavators, including individuals, are required to use the 811 National One Call
system or call their state one-call center if they plan to excavate near a pipeline or any
other buried facility. Active farmers are not required to place a One Call for their
normal farming practices unless they plan to remove significant cover over the top of the
pipeline.
Information about the use of one-call and the importance of calling before digging is
communicated to contractors and the affected public on a regular basis. However,
unauthorized encroachments still do occur. When they do, the first step is to educate
the encroaching party about using the one-call center and the potential consequences of
not doing so. If an encroaching party is aware of one-call requirements and elects not
to use the one-call, a warning letter would be sent to further emphasize Rubys request
to use the one-call and follow accepted safety practices in the future. If an enforcement
agency exists that can help achieve compliance, proper notice would be given to that
agency as well. Ruby would also consider seeking appropriate injunction relief from a
court of competent jurisdiction to prevent damage to the pipeline and achieve
compliance with one-call requirements.
If damage to the pipeline occurs,
January 2009
7-2
reimbursement for damages along with the imposition of any civil penalties would be
pursued. These types of events would be reported through normal internal reporting
processes. The events would be evaluated and if additional efforts (patrolling, etc.) are
necessary to ensure the safety of the pipeline, they would be performed.
Once the pipeline is installed, backfilled, cleaned up, and reclaimed, it would be
identified by the placement of pipeline markers identifying the owner of the pipe and a
24-hour telephone number. The pipeline markers would be placed for line of sight
visibility along the entire pipeline length, except in active agricultural crop locations and
in waterbodies. Pipeline marker locations are required by DOT policies.
Ruby would install a supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system that
would allow it to monitor pipeline flows and pressures at various points along the
system. It would also permit remote start and stop capability of the compressor stations
and closing of mainline valves (opening a closed mainline valve would probably require
local action). While this system is currently being designed, it will most likely utilize
some combination of radio, microwave and/or satellite communications to transmit data
from the pipeline to Rubys current gas control center in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
The SCADA system would enhance the safety of the Ruby pipeline since gas control
technicians would be able to monitor and react to conditions on the pipeline as needed
(gas control technicians are on duty 24 hours a day, 365 days a year). While leak
detection via SCADA systems is not a proven technology for gas pipelines, if
unexpected pressure changes are noted that indicate the possibility of a leak, the gas
controller on duty can either shut in the pipeline block valves upstream and downstream
of the apparent leak and/or dispatch field technicians to investigate the pressure
change. Reliability is enhanced because Ruby would not be as dependent on
technicians being able to travel to remote sites in inclement weather to actuate valves or
monitor pipeline operations. Finally, while the SCADA system would not directly
responsible for any of the safety functions, such as overpressure protection (because
the last line of defense on safety issues would be local controls and devices), safety
would enhanced by the SCADA system because it may 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 began to rise
rapidly because a customer unexpectedly reduced its natural gas receipts from the
pipeline, the gas control technician could slow or stop the upstream compression to
control the rising pressure.
Ruby would utilize the emergency procedures currently contained in its Emergency
Operating Procedures Manual.
Local contact phone numbers, external contact
information, equipment or resources available for mobilization, and any specific
January 2009
7-3
procedures to be followed for Ruby would be incorporated into this Manual prior to
commencement of pipeline operations.
Ruby would establish and maintain liaison with appropriate fire, police, and public
officials in a variety of ways. Annual communications would include the following
information:
o
o
o
o
o
o
The potential hazards associated with Ruby facilities located in their service area
and prevention measures undertaken,
The types of emergencies that may occur on or near Ruby facilities,
Purpose of pipeline markers and the information contained on them,
Pipeline location information and the availability of the National Pipeline Mapping
System,
Recognition of and response to pipeline emergencies, and
Procedures to contact Ruby for more information.
These communications may involve individual meetings with agency personnel, group
meetings, or direct mailings. In addition, Ruby would perform periodic table-top
emergency exercises and mock emergency drills with local government, law
enforcement, and emergency response agencies, subject to agency availability and
willingness to participate.
Coordination of mutual response is accomplished through the use of the Incident
Command System (ICS). This system is utilized by all emergency responders. Ruby
personnel are also trained on this system and understand their roles and responsibilities
within the ICS structure.
January 2009
7-4
A.
Project Route Maps and Plans
Provided under Separate Cover
January 2009
A-1
B.
Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasure Plan
January 2009
B-1
C.
Hydrostatic
Discharge Plan
Testing
and
January 2009
C-1
D.
Rubys Upland Erosion Control,
Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan
January 2009
D-1
E.
Reclamation Plan
January 2009
E-1
F.
Rubys Wetland and Waterbody
Construction and Mitigation
Procedures
January 2009
F-1
G.
Major Waterbody Crossing Plans
Plans are currently being prepared and will be provided upon completion.
January 2009
G-1
H.
Noxious and Invasive Weed
Control Plan
January 2009
H-1
I.
Special Status Species
Conservation Measure Plan
January 2009
I-1
Construction and Operation Impacts and Mitigation

This section outlines the construction and operation impacts of the Project to vegetative
communities, wildlife, and fisheries resources and outlines the conservation and mitigation
measures that Ruby would implement to minimize such impacts. Detailed impact and
conservation measures for federal threatened and endangered species are addressed in a
separate Biological Assessment. The preliminary mitigation approaches presented in this
section are those that would be used to compensate for unavoidable Project-related
impacts.
Prior to initiation of field surveys, lists of target species were developed to better focus the
field effort. These lists were developed based on known habitats and historic ranges of
species as derived from literature, agency communication, and best professional judgment.
Agency input was requested prior to the initiation of field surveys. Species occurrence
information, as confirmed by biological surveys has been previously provided in previous
sections.
Construction of the Project would require a nominal 115-foot-wide construction ROW in
order to accommodate pipe stringing and welding, large equipment, the pipeline trench, and
temporary storage of topsoil and trench spoil. Numerous mitigation measures and best
management practices (BMPs) have been developed and would be employed during
Project construction. The various state and federal regulatory agencies have been
consulted and would be consulted during the construction phase of the Project.
The following general measures may be employed during the construction phase of the
Project:
Throughout the permitting process, the various regulatory agencies, including FERC
and the BLM, may require additional resource protection measures in addition to
those presented in the following sections to ensure that federally listed and proposed
species are not adversely affected.
Ruby would implement an environmental compliance program for the Project.
The contractor would receive any alterations to FERCs standard Plans and
Procedures, as approved by the appropriate agencies, including FERC.
The contractor would be provided with detailed and specific environmental

procedures and drawings to ensure compliance with the FERCs and appropriate
agencies requirements for this Project.
Standard construction techniques would be used unless conditions warranted

special methods, including those required to minimize environmental damage and
any other special methods determined through consultation with federal and state
agencies.
January 2009
I-2
Ruby would minimize impacts to paved roadways, wetland and waterbodies, and
railroads by using appropriate crossing methods as described in Rubys Procedures.
Prior to any construction activities, survey crews would stake the outside limits of the
construction ROW, the centerline of the pipeline trench, and temporary workspace
areas. Sensitive areas to be avoided would be flagged as appropriate, and wetland
boundaries would be clearly delineated using easily identifiable temporary signage.
Substantive cutting of steep terrain would not be performed unless needed for the
safe operation of the equipment and safety of personnel.
During periods of precipitation when soil compaction and excessive rutting becomes
significant, many construction activities may be required to cease.
In other areas where compaction and rutting are unavoidable, measures would be
taken to adequately prepare soils for successful reclamation, including replacement
of topsoil with topsoil from a local source acceptable to the landowner.
In areas where segregation of soils is required, topsoil and subsoil would be

separated using a two-pass excavation process. The native seed base is contained
in the topsoil, whose depth varies along the Project route. Therefore, topsoil would
be removed in a manner that minimizes dilution of this seed base.
Ruby would adhere to its Noxious and Invasive Weed Control plan to prevent
noxious weeds and invasive plants from establishing on the areas disturbed by
construction activities.
When trench dewatering is necessary, Ruby would adhere to its Procedures to

prevent heavily silt-laden water from flowing into wetlands or waterbodies. The rate
of flow from dewatering pumps would be regulated to prevent erosion from runoff,
and dewatering would be conducted in a manner designed to ensure that water is
allowed to infiltrate into the ground rather than flow over the surface whenever
possible.
After backfilling is complete, disturbed areas would be final-graded, and erosion

controls would be implemented, including site-specific contouring and reseeding with
native species.
The surface of the ROW would be graded to conform to preexisting contours to the
highest extent possible.
Erosion control measures would implemented in accordance with Rubys Plan and
Procedures, other federal, state, and local agency requirements or landowner
requirements, as applicable.
A Reclamation Plan would be implemented in accordance with applicable federal,

state, local regulations, and landowner agreements.
Non-cultivated lands would be reseeded with native vegetation as soon as possible

to minimize erosion.
Revegetation would be accomplished in a manner compatible with preconstruction

and adjacent vegetation patterns, in accordance with 18 CFR 380.15 and FERC
guidelines.
January 2009
I-3
To the greatest extent possible, streambeds would be returned to their

preconstruction contours, and stream and river banks would be restored to their
preconstruction condition.
Periodic aerial and ground inspections of the Project route would be conducted, and
further restoration measures would be implemented (Rubys Reclamation Plan).
All test water used for pipeline hydrostatic testing would be discharged in
accordance with the NPDES permit.
Wetlands would be crossed following the methods outlined in Rubys Procedures.
All disturbed areas would be contoured to match pre-Project conditions, to the

highest extent possible, and would be stabilized with native grasses, shrubs, and
trees as necessary.
All disturbed stream channels would be restored with salvaged materials (plants and
substrate where practical) from construction, or with similar local materials.
The timing of construction activities would be designed to minimize impacts on species.

Certain construction related activities may begin as early as February 2010 and extend until
March 2011. Ruby anticipates that all construction work will be completed by end of spring
2011. Specific construction windows are provided for each of the relevant biological groups
in the following sections. In addition heavy equipment would be limited to daytime operation
to minimize impacts on nocturnal activity. Some stationary equipment such as pumps and
air compressors may be operated 24 hours a day.
Fisheries Resources
Impacts to fisheries may occur as a result of two primary construction-related activities:
pipeline stream crossing and hydrostatic testing. This section provides information regarding
the potential effects of these two activities on fish and presents mitigation measures that
would reduce these potential effects. Impacts to fish and other aquatic resources can occur
through three general pathways:
1. Impacts to fertile eggs, juveniles, or adults. Equipment moving through a
stream and the trenching of a waterbody may result in increased sediment loads,
high turbidity, and physical effects to fish. Fuel spills from equipment in or
proximate to streams can be toxic to any of the life stages.
2. Interference with essential life processes of spawning or migration. Instream construction, whether by fluming or by open-cut techniques, may delay or
prevent breeding fish from reaching spawning sites upstream or delay
downstream movement of juveniles.
In-stream structures for support of
equipment bridges over streams may similarly affect fish.
January 2009
I-4
3. Habitat degradation; short- and long-term. Temporary, short-term habitat

impacts occur with trenching at the crossing sites. Further, sediment stirred into
the water column can be redeposited on downstream habitats (Reid et al. 2002,
2004). 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 streambed, stream banks, or adjacent upland areas introduces sediment
to aquatic habitat.
In-Water Construction Activities
Impacts to fisheries associated with Project construction along the route would be mostly
associated with the in-water construction activity and the crossing of waterbodies. The
extent of impacts on aquatic resources from Project construction would depend on the
waterbody crossing method, the existing conditions at each crossing location, the mitigation
measures employed, and the timing of construction. Potential short-term impacts that could
degrade habitat could occur with trenching and laying of pipe at waterbody crossings.
Additionally, sediment entering the water column could be re-deposited on downstream
substrates. Long-term degradation of habitats could occur if stream contours are modified
in the area of the crossing, changing the flow patterns, and if erosion of the bed or banks
introduces sediment that becomes deposited in the stream. During all waterbody crossing
activities, instream water flows would be maintained during and following construction.
At a minimum, Ruby would adhere to FERCs waterbody crossing requirements, including
construction techniques and time limits, as detailed in Rubys Procedures unless site
specific variances have been submitted and approved in writing by FERC and other
associated agencies. Ruby has received specific waterbody crossing requirements from
state agencies in Wyoming (WGFD) and Oregon (ODFW) and general requirements for
waterbody crossings from state agencies in Utah (UDWR) or Nevada (NDOW). Ruby will
conduct further consultations with agencies to determine site-specific waterbody crossing
requirements for each state.
In-Water Work Windows
The Project would adhere to in-water work windows as required by individual state fisheries
agencies or FERC, described below:
Wyoming
June 1 September 30
for coldwater fisheries (FERC)
June 1 November 30
for coolwater and warmwater fisheries (FERC)
July 16 February 28
for Bonneville cutthroat trout fisheries (UDWR)
June 1 September 30
for other cold water fisheries (FERC)
Utah
January 2009
I-5
June 1 November 30
for coolwater and warmwater fisheries (FERC)
Nevada
June 1 August 31
for Spring and Fall spawning (NDOW)
June 1 December 31
for Spring spawning (NDOW)
March 1 September 30 Fall spawning (NDOW)
Oregon
July 15 September 30 for Warner Valley tributaries (ODFW)
July 15 September 30 for Goose Lake and tributaries (ODFW)
July 1 January 31
for Lost River above Bonanza (ODFW)
July 1 March 31
for Lost River below Bonanza (ODFW)
In the event that Ruby determines that construction through a waterbody is required outside
of an in-water work window, Ruby would consult with the appropriate state agencies in order
to obtain clear, written authorization for such activities. This coordination may include close
approximations of both beginning and completion dates of expected work, method of
construction, potential impacts, and mitigation measures to minimize impacts. If such an
action were to be approved, Ruby would ensure that all agency-required mitigation
measures were incorporated into the construction sequence.
During installation of the pipeline, Ruby would ensure that the final placement of the pipeline
is at or below a vertical elevation in the stream bed that would not be scoured. In addition,
following construction, all perennial and intermittent stream crossings would have no vertical
elevation discontinuities greater than six inches between water surfaces. For all perennial
and intermittent stream crossings, the stream bed composition above the crossing would
consist of native streambed materials or materials of similar size and have a longitudinal
stream profile similar to baseline conditions. These measures would ensure that the
operation of the Project would not obstruct passage of native migratory fish.
Wyoming In-Water Construction Activities
The WGFD has requested that Hams Fork River, Little Muddy Creek, and North Fork Little
Muddy Creek be crossed by boring underneath the stream channel from locations outside
riparian zones. Boring is impractical due to the high water tables and wetland areas
associated with these streams. Ruby is proposing to develop site-specific waterbody
crossing methodologies in conjunction with WGFD for Hams Fork River, Little Muddy Creek,
and North Fork Little Muddy Creek that will minimize disturbance impacts, such as
sedimentation and contamination to local and downstream aquatic resources.
January 2009
I-6
Utah In-Water Construction Activities

Ruby was provided with an in-water work window by the UDWR for streams containing
Bonneville cutthroat trout (all located east of Brigham City, Utah). If Ruby receives no
further waterbody crossing requirements from the UDWR, it would at a minimum adhere to
FERCs waterbody crossing requirements, as detailed in Rubys Procedures. Ruby will
consult with the UDWR to determine site-specific requirements for stream crossings.
Nevada In-Water Construction Activities
Ruby has received in-water work windows from NDOW. If Ruby receives no further
waterbody crossing requirements from the NDOW, it would at a minimum adhere to FERCs
waterbody crossing requirements, as detailed in Rubys Procedures. Ruby will consult with
the NDOW to determine site-specific requirements for stream crossings.
Oregon In-Water Construction Activities
Based on comments from the ODFW, Ruby may utilize a dry waterbody crossing method in
streams with an active flow in Oregon. These crossing methods require that flow rates can
be accommodated by either dam-and-pumps or flumes. For construction activities that
involve this technique, Ruby would contact the ODFW 48 hours prior to construction, in
order to provide the opportunity for the ODFW to conduct a fish salvage operation prior to
dewatering. In addition, the Project would utilize fish screens in the flume pipes and pumps
to minimize entrainment of fish in accordance with ODFW screening criteria. Fish screens
would be sized to avoid impingement and potential impacts to fish. This would include
designing screen approach velocities to not exceed 0.4 cubic feet per second (cfs) for active
(self-cleaning) pump screens and to not exceed 0.2 cfs for passive (screen with no self
cleaning system) screens. Flow deflectors would be placed at the bottom of flume pipes
and pump hoses to prevent scouring downstream and the associated degradation of water
quality and condition of the channels, beds, or banks of the downstream waterbody.
Sensitive fish impinged on the intake screen or entrained into irrigation canals will be
reported to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the appropriate state agency.
Ruby was provided with basin specific in-water work windows by ODFW, which are more
stringent that FERCs in-water work windows. If construction activities are required outside
of the ODFW in-water work windows in stream crossings greater than 30 feet and if ground
contour and soil conditions allow, the horizontal directional drill (HDD) or other specialized
dry crossing techniques may be considered. If the HDD or other specialized technique is
proposed, a site-specific plan would be submitted to the appropriate agencies for approval.
In the event that blasting is needed to construct any waterbody crossing, Ruby would obtain
an in-water blasting permit. This permit would be acquired for the use of explosives on,
under, in, or adjacent to waters of the State of Oregon that could impact fish, wildlife, or
their habitat (OAR 635-425-000).
January 2009
I-7
Based upon comments from ODFW, Ruby is proposing to develop site-specific waterbody
crossing methodologies in conjunction with ODFW for Twelvemile Creek, Twentymile
Creek, Deep Creek, Drews Creek, Thomas Creek, East Branch Lost River; and Lost River.
These site specific drawings and methods will be available on or before March 15, 2009.
Stream Crossing
Because pipeline crossing construction can alter river and stream channels, it may cause
detrimental effects to fish species and aquatic ecosystems that support them. Potential
impacts to listed fish species may include degradation of in-stream habitat from equipment
operation, pipeline trenching or excavation, water withdrawals/diversions, or frac-out during
HDD operations. In addition, clearing and destruction of vegetation within riparian areas of
the pipeline ROW could cause adverse impacts to fish and/or fish habitat through increased
turbidity and/or temperature changes.
Waterbody crossing construction activities can compromise the integrity of the physical and
chemical nature of fish habitat and affect biological habitat (e.g., benthic invertebrates and
invertebrate drift) as well as fish behavior and physiology. Indicators of effect include: water
quality (total suspended solids); physical habitat (substrate particle size and channel
morphology); benthic invertebrate community structure and drift (abundance, species
composition, diversity, and standing crop); and fish behavior and physiology (hierarchy,
feeding, respiration rate, and loss of equilibrium).
Riparian vegetation contributes to the shading rivers and their tributaries. It controls the
amount of solar radiation that reaches the water surface, which, in turn, controls the input of
heat into the stream system. Installing pipelines near waterways, or installing pipeline
stream crossings, would necessitate the removal of some of the riparian growth. Once this
vegetation is removed, the water will be subject to full sunlight exposure, which could cause
increases to stream temperature. Such increases would most likely not be lethal to fish
populations but may result in behavioral changes. In addition to changing the temperature
regime, removing riparian vegetation may also alter channel morphology through increased
erosion and deposition and could affect the abundance and distribution of invertebrates.
Ruby would use the dry-crossing method for flowing waterbody crossings containing
sensitive species. Less sediment would be generated where dry-crossing methods (e.g.,
flume or dam-and-pump) are employed, and direct sediment impacts would be avoided
where the HDD method or horizontal bore method is used. Where the flume or dam-andpump methods are used, temporary construction-related impacts would be limited primarily
to short periods of increased turbidity during the construction of upstream and downstream
dams prior to pipeline installation, and following installation of the pipeline when the dams
are pulled, and flow across the restored work area is re-established. Ruby believes that
January 2009
I-8
where a minor waterbody crossing can be completed in four hours (excavation of trench,
installation of pipe and backfilling of trench) the short term increases in turbidity are similar
to those resulting from the installation of a dam-and-pump or flume system and the
elimination of the other impacts to the streambed make this a superior alternative.
The primary impact that could occur from HDD activities is an inadvertent release of drilling
mud (frac-out) directly or indirectly into the stream/rivers. Drilling mud may leak through
previously unidentified fractures in the material underlying the riverbed, in the area of the
mud pits or tanks or along the path of the drill, due to unfavorable ground conditions.
Although drilling mud consists of naturally occurring nontoxic materials, such as bentonite
clay and water, in larger quantities the release of drilling mud into a waterbody could affect
fisheries or other aquatic organisms by settling and temporarily inundating the habitats used
by these species.
Ruby would minimize the potential for frac-outs (inadvertent release of drilling fluid) by
implementing a HDD Contingency Plan. If using HDD, Ruby will conduct geological testing
prior to drilling to ensure a high probability of success, ensure that the HDD Contingency
Plan is in place and that such a plan requires incident clean-up materials to be onsite during
HDD activities, and immediately notify state emergency response centers and resource
agencies in the event of a frac-out or spill.
Temporary increases in turbidity and downstream sedimentation due to excavation activities
during stream crossing activities can cause short-term changes to downstream aquatic life
and habitat. Identified effects include alterations to streambed conditions; reductions in the
abundance and diversity of benthic invertebrate communities; and reductions in the
abundance of fish populations. The magnitude and duration of increases in suspended
sediment concentrations during construction would reflect watercourse size, volume of flow,
bed material, construction activity, and sediment particle settling rate. The following
mitigation measures may be employed to minimize impacts to fish from stream crossing
activities.
Ruby proposes to use open-cut crossing during in-water work windows for minor
(<10 feet wide) and intermediate (10 to 100 feet wide) stream crossings containing
no sensitive fish species. Ruby would adhere to FERC construction requirements
limiting the instream construction period for open-cut crossings of minor waterbodies
to 24 hours and 48 hours for intermediate waterbodies.
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 site-specific plan drawing and method is
approved by FERC and appropriate agencies.
January 2009
I-9
For major waterbody crossing (>100 feet), Ruby would adhere to FERC
requirements, unless a site-specific plan drawing and method is approved by FERC
and appropriate agencies.
Ruby would locate extra workspaces at least 50 feet back from waterbody
boundaries unless a reduced setback is requested on a site-specific basis and a
variance is issued by appropriate agencies.
Ruby would maintain adequate flow rates throughout construction to protect aquatic
life and prevent the interruption of existing downstream uses.
Ruby would restrict spoil placement near surface waters to the construction ROW at
least 10 feet from the waters edge or within additional extra workspaces placed at
least 50 feet from the waters edge.
Ruby proposes to allow a one-time pass through for the entire construction spread
within in-stream work windows of streams with no sensitive species. In areas where
clearing equipment would make waterbody crossings, equipment would be inspected
for leaks and excessive dirt prior to crossing the waterbody.
All refueling or lubricating of vehicles or equipment will occur no closer than 100 feet
of a waterbody or wetland unless no feasible alternative exists or if a greater setback
is stipulated by appropriate permitting agencies.
Ruby would return all waterbody banks to preconstruction contours or to a stable

angle of repose, as approved by the environmental inspector.
Potential incidental trapping of fish in isolated work areas and inhibition of fish passage
could occur at stream crossing. The following mitigation measures will be employed to limit
this impact:
An experienced fisheries biologist, familiar with fish capture and handling

techniques, would relocate any fish that became trapped within the isolated work
area to an area within the main channel or to the downstream side of the stream
crossing.
Uninhibited fish passage would be maintained around the isolated work area at all
times during construction.
Short-term stress and mortality of fish during relocation would be minimized through
the use of careful handling techniques.
Potential harm to fish populations can result from destruction or disturbance of riparian
habitat at stream crossings and personnel impacts to habitat/fishery. The following
mitigation measures will be employed to limit this impact:
Avoid exposing instream biota to major, sudden runoff events, through work in
streams and on adjacent riparian areas during mid-to-late summer when stream
flows are reduced and more stable.
January 2009
I-10
Prevent impacts on surface soils by implementing basic cleanup and restoration

measures, such as replanting after mitigation measures are in place to control
erosion.
Prior to construction, conduct a geomorphologic survey to locate any sensitive

areas.
Maintain a full-time biologist during pipeline construction to monitor for presence of

identified sensitive species.
Place signs prohibiting pipeline construction personnel from fishing in potential

sensitive species habitat, including defining possible fines for taking listed species.
Oregon Fish Passage Reports

Site-specific fish passage plans would be prepared and submitted to the ODFW for
approval. The plans are required per Oregon State Statute (ORS 509.580 through 509.645)
and corresponding Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR 635-412-0005 through 635-4120040) for all stream crossings where native migratory fish species presently exist or have
historically existed. Fish passage plans would be prepared for Twelvemile Creek,
Twentymile Creek, Deep Creek, Drews Creek, McCoin Creek, Thomas Creek, East Branch
Lost River, and Lost River.
Meetings would be held with the ODFW to obtain guidance on how and when the plans
should be submitted. ODFW fish passage approval is a unique permit that is independent
of the Division of State Lands (DSL) permitting process. Ruby can submit the plans along
with the DSL joint application permitting process, or the plans can be submitted independent
of the DSL process.
The processing time for each specific fish passage approvals can vary depending on the
complexity of the site, design approach, potential engineering review, completeness of the
fish passage approval application, and existing ODFW staff workload(s). Ruby would be
meeting with the ODFW prior to submitting the plans to ensure that all the required
information has been included to facilitate a quicker review and final approval. In general,
processing time of these approvals, assuming ODFW fish passage design criteria are met,
range from one to three months.
Operations & Maintenance
Impacts associated with pipeline operations and maintenance would be relatively minor and
limited to periodic clearing of vegetation occurring within the permanent ROW at waterbody
crossings. If in-stream maintenance activities are required, Ruby would work with the
permitting agencies to devise a work plan that would limit potential impacts to the species.
January 2009
I-11
Aquatic Invasive Species

The New Zealand mud snail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum) has no natural predators or
parasites in the United States, and consequently has become an invasive species. It can
endanger the food chain by outcompeting native snails and water insects for food, leading
to sharp declines in the native populations. Fish populations then suffer because the native
snails and insects are their main food source.
The New Zealand mud snail invades aquatic systems by attaching themselves to clothing
such as boots, waders, and sandals; fishing gear, boats and rafts, and earth moving
equipment. New Zealand mud snails are nearly impossible to contain once they have
invaded an aquatic ecosystem. The snails can survive several days out of water and can
withstand a wide range of temperatures. 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.
The highly invasive New Zealand mud snail has been identified in the Little Bear River, with
the closest occurrence around 1.6 miles north of approximate MP 97.5 (Benson 2008).
Impact
Construction activities within the Little Bear River may facilitate the spread of the invasive
New Zealand mud snail. Mud snails can become attached to vehicles and equipment and
be transported from one area to another.
Mitigation Measures
Note that the presence of the mud snail at stream crossings and proposed hydrostatic
withdrawal and discharge sites may require confirmation by a suitably qualified
Environmental Inspector before the following mitigation measures are to be implemented.
Control measures will be implemented at stream crossings and the proposed

hydrostatic water withdrawal site to prevent the spread of the mud snail.
Ruby proposes to implement disinfection measures for vehicles, construction

equipment, hand tools, boots, and other equipment to be used in a perennial
waterbody or permanently inundated wetland. Unless equipment has remained dry
for ten consecutive days, equipment would be cleaned prior to being used in a
perennial waterbody or permanently inundated wetland by implementing one of the
three following methods:
o
Mud and debris would be removed from equipment. Equipment would then
be sprayed or soaked with an approved solution of cleaner, making sure to
keep the equipment moist with the cleaner for at least 10 minutes; or
January 2009
I-12
Mud and debris would be removed from equipment. Equipment would then
be sprayed or soaked with water greater than 130F for at least 10 minutes.
If utilizing Little Bear River as a water source cannot be avoided, the following measures will
be implemented within the subject watershed:
Ruby proposes to discharge water used for hydrostatic testing within the same
hydrologic region from which it was taken.
The proposed water discharge point identified 1-2 miles north of Porcupine
Reservoir (MP88.25), is situated within the same 10 digit HUC from which water will
be withdrawn for this portion of the pipeline.
o Streams draining from this site do not contain sensitive fish species.
o Ruby will ensure that the discharge site will not be situated closer than a mile
from Porcupine Reservoir which contains sensitive fish species.
Habitat and Vegetation

Each state crossed by the Project route has developed state Action Plans to estimate
overall habitat quality. Ruby has used this information along with field data to identify
important habitats traversed by the route and to assist with development of mitigation
measures for impacts.
Construction of the pipeline would have short-term impacts (three to five years) to
vegetation within approximately 7,159.4 acres of shrub steppe, 887.8 acres of juniper
woodlands, 247.0 acres of agricultural lands, 390.0 acres of grasslands-shrub land, 458.8
acres of conifer forest, 10.7 acres of riparian area, and 295.5 acres of wetlands.
Construction of the pipeline would have long-term impacts on vegetation within
approximately 350.8 acres of forest, 103.1 acres of juniper woodland forest, and 3.7 acres
of riparian forest. Impacts to forested areas would be considered long-term because of the
time required for trees (20 to 30 years) to reach the same pre-construction age within the
Project route. Ruby proposes to limit vegetation maintenance within its permanent pipeline
easement to a 50-foot-wide maintenance corridor.
Project facilities would have short-term impacts within approximately 65.4 acres of shrub
steppe. During operation on the permanent pipeline easement, aboveground facilities
would impact approximately 617.6 acres of habitat. Long-term impacts to vegetation within
the compressor stations and above ground facilities would be approximately 138.4 acres.
Of the total construction impact of 14,009.7 acres of habitat, 12,875.2 acres would be
restored or allowed to revegetate following construction.
January 2009
I-13
Operation and maintenance activities would be conducted in accordance with appropriate

U.S. Department of Transportation regulations. The 50-foot permanent ROW would be
periodically maintained using mowing, cutting, and trimming either through mechanical
methods or by hand. Maintenance activities are expected to occur approximately every
three to five years, depending on the vegetations growth rate. In areas where sage brush
has been reestablished after reclamation, no mowing or cutting of vegetation would occur.
On a yearly basis, trained personnel would patrol the entire length of the Project route to
identify areas of concern associated with pipeline integrity and areas that may require
additional remedial actions. Patrol activities typically include observations of soil stability
within the pipeline route, as well as searching for evidence of leaks, third-party impacts,
ground movement, vandalism, and any other factor that could affect the integrity and safety
of pipeline operations.
As appropriate, the following measures would be implemented to minimize impacts to
vegetation and ensure successful reclamation of disturbed areas.
The Project route would be graded to restore preconstruction contours and leave the
soil in proper condition for seeding or planting.
Restoration plans would include measures for re-establishing herbaceous or woody

vegetation, controlling the establishment or spread of invasive species, weed
control, and monitoring.
Disturbed areas would be seeded in accordance with written recommendations for

seed mixes, rates, and dates obtained from the land management agency, local
conservation authority, or as requested by the landowner.
Ruby would use weed-free mulch as needed during seeding. In addition, certified
weed-free mulch would be used for mulch and sediment barriers, dewatering
structures, or other purposes along the Project route, if available.
All disturbed areas would be given long-term monitoring (three to five years) to
ensure successful reclamation.
Slash from timber clearing would be scattered (chipped or burned) across the
Project route to return organic material to the soil and serve as erosion control.
In agricultural areas, reclamation would be considered successful if crop yields are

similar to adjacent undisturbed portions of the same field.
Replanting of trees within forested areas would comply with both state and federal
guidelines.
Vegetation within the upland portion of the 50-foot permanent ROW, generally
centered over the pipeline, would be maintained in an herbaceous/shrub state of
less than six feet in height. For waterbody crossings, Ruby would limit vegetation
maintenance to maintain a 25-foot buffer from the stream bank.
The construction ROW would be limited to 75 feet at wetland crossings, unless a

sitespecific drawing and method is approved for additional workspace.
January 2009
I-14
Temporary work space areas would be located 50 feet back from wetlands and
streams unless a site-specific drawing and method have been approved showing
less distance.
Damage to drain tiles or irrigation systems resulting from construction in active

agricultural areas would be corrected and monitored until restoration is successful.
Prior to construction or disturbance, areas of known noxious weeds may be

pretreated with herbicides.
No herbicides would be used in the 50-foot permanent ROW unless invasive species
infestations were to occur, in which case only landowner or land managing agency
approved herbicides would be used for eradication following required guidelines for
herbicide application.
Boulders and other large rocks generated by construction activities would be used to
block access to the cleared Project route by recreational and off-highway vehicles,
which have the potential to spread noxious weeds, insects, and vegetation diseases.
Disturbed areas will be revegetated using respread topsoil materials and plant
species adapted to site conditions (including species recommended by affected
tribes) in order to establish a long-term productive biotic community compatible with
existing and proposed land uses.
Wetlands
A Preliminary Wetland Mitigation has been prepared to address impact to wetlands and
Waters of the United States that are temporarily and permanently affected by the Project.
The goals and objectives are to replace and/or restore the wetlands and waters of the
United States and riparian habitat that would be disturbed during Project construction.
Temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands and riparian habitat would be mitigated and
sites restored as discussed in Rubys Preliminary Wetland Mitigation Plan. Development of
the wetland mitigation or a site-specific or state-specific mitigation plan would provide the
requirements for replacing the disturbed vegetation with selected native plant species with
habitat-enhancement properties. Species selections would be based on the abilities of the
plants to become established within existing plant communities in this region. The selection
of species composition and densities for replacement vegetation would be based on
knowledge of the region and species identified during the wetland delineations, as well as
approval from appropriate agencies.
To minimize impacts on wetlands and waters of the U.S. Ruby proposes the following:
Ruby would reduce the ROW to 75 feet to minimize impacts through wetlands and
waters of the United States, unless a sitespecific drawing and method is approved
for additional workspace.
January 2009
I-15
A wetland specialist would determine areas where it is necessary to preserve an

impermeable clay layer to preserve the characteristic of the wetland. Ruby would
separate the existing clay layer from the topsoil and from the rest of the ditch spoil.
During the backfill process the clay layer would be placed back in its original position
to re-establishing the impermeable layer. Since the soils would most likely be
saturated from a high water table a large trackhoe will be used to separate the clay
from the other subsoils as the ditch is excavated.
If for some reason this method is proven infeasible, Ruby would reestablish the clay
layer with a layer of bentonite or similar, neutral material to assure that vertical
hydrology functions continue within the wetland.
If required to maintain horizontal hydrology functions within the wetland, Ruby would
install trench plugs in the ditchline at 200 foot intervals or possibly at the edge of the
wetland.
Permanent effects on vegetation would result from the modification of forested

wetlands into emergent wetlands within the 50-foot-wide permanent ROW. Ruby
would maintain a portion of the ROW in an herbaceous state, approximately 30 feet
wide, allowing the remaining portion of the ROW to reestablish with forest
vegetation. This is necessary to allow adequate spacing for review during flyovers
of the pipeline ROW and access during annual site reviews required by the U.S.
Department of Transportation. In addition, it is necessary to ensure that tree roots
do not infringe on the pipeline because roots, depending on size and type may,
cause problems with the pipeline coating and may also shield the pipeline from
cathodic protection potentials.
The top one foot of topsoil would be segregated from the subsoil in the area
disturbed by trenching, except where standing water is present or soils are saturated
or frozen.
Immediately after backfilling, the segregated soil would be restored to its original
location.
Construction equipment operating in the wetland would be limited to that needed to

clear vegetation, dig trenches, install the pipe, backfill, and restore the ROW.
Low ground-weight equipment would be used in saturated wetlands or the normal

equipment would be operated on prefabricated equipment mats.
Permanent slope breakers and sediment controls would be installed in the case of
slopes greater than five percent that are less than 50 feet from a waterbody. They
would be properly maintained or re-installed, as needed.
Temporary erosion control methods would be used as necessary to minimize

potential runoff from entering wetlands.
Ineffective temporary erosion control methods would be replaced within 24 hours of

their discovery.
Trench breakers would be installed, or the bottom of the trench would be sealed as
necessary to maintain the original wetland hydrology.
January 2009
I-16
Hazardous materials, fuels, and oils would not be stored in a wetland or within 100
feet of a wetland, unless unavoidable.
Wetlands would be monitored after revegetation for three to five years after
construction or until the revegetation is successful.
Riparian areas would be restored with appropriate native trees and shrubs.
Construction efforts would be scheduled to take advantage of dryer seasons in order

to minimize potential effects to wetlands.
Forested Areas Oregon

Impacts from cutting, clearing, and/or removing forested areas as required for clearing of
the pipeline route would depend on the logging methods used, quantity of lumber removed,
and the age of affected stands. The Project would remove approximately 1.5 million board
feet of timber (based upon a 195 foot pipeline route) through a region of the FremontWinema National Forest allocated to timber production. Future timber production would be
lost within the 50 foot Project route for at least the life of the pipeline. All vegetation
removed would be cleared by chainsaws and bulldozers. The logs would be sold when
possible and the stumps ground or buried within the ROW, where practical. In cases where
this method of disposal would not be practical, the trees and stumps would be burned under
a state-burning permit.
Ruby would submit a Reclamation Plan to the BLM and the Forest Service for approval
during easement acquisition. Following construction, previously forested areas within the
temporary Project route would be replanted in accordance with Oregon reforestation rules
(OAR 629-610-0000 through 629-610-0090), BLM Management Directions, and USFS
Standards and Guidelines. Areas within the 50-foot wide operational pipeline route would
remain cleared and maintained in an herbaceous or low shrub state.
As appropriate, Ruby would implement the following mitigation measures to reduce impacts
on timber production on federal land.
Ruby would be responsible for logging and marketing the harvested timber.
Logging methods used would minimize disturbance to sensitive areas such as

wetlands and riparian areas at the time of actual harvest. Logging methods would
be proposed by the contractor and subject to appropriate company and agency
approval.
All tree felling and vegetation clearing would occur within the approved construction
work areas. Trees within the construction work areas would be directionally sheared
or felled away from existing trees so as to prevent damage to residual trees. To
facilitate minimizing resource damage to the felled trees as well as the residual
trees, occasional tree tops may extend out past the clearing limits of the ROW. This
could occur because of the lean of the tree or for safety factors. These tops will be
January 2009
I-17
skidded back into the ROW to keep vegetation within the confines of the Project
boundaries.
Logs would be decked along the ROW so as to minimize damage to any residual
trees. Logs planned for removal from the site would be hauled off the site as soon
as practical following yarding.
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.
All clearing of timber from the Project route would be conducted in accordance with
the land owner/land management agency requirements. Merchantable timber would
be removed and sold according to land owner/land management agency direction
except for trees required by agency representatives to be left to meet resource
objectives.
Most timber removal would be accomplished through ground skidding and cable
yarding. Where ground skidding is used, the following measures would be
employed to minimize soil disturbance (compaction and displacement):
o
Equipment customary to the local area will be used to yard the logs, which
may be low ground weight (pressure) vehicles. Equipment used on the
Project would be the same type of equipment that is used in conventional
logging of adjacent timer stands within the local forest resource area.
Equipment used on the Project will have to pass the requirements of the
USFS National Environmental Policy Act process for ground compaction
issues.
To minimize soil and biotic disturbances due to logging, logs would have one
end suspended while skidding. Every attempt would be made to minimize
the impact to the soil and duff layers within the ROW; and
Ruby would attempt to keep skidding impacts to a minimum. Designed skid
trails would be employed to limit impacts to the area by equipment activity.
Areas that are too steep to keep operations defined within the construction
ROW may be increased to the maximum width for safety purposes.
Variations to the designated trails may occur due to site specific
circumstances, resource protection, and 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. Material designated to remain on site

to meet resource concerns would be placed in designated areas along the edge of
the ROW and then scattered/redistributed across the ROW during final cleanup and
reclamation (following seeding).
January 2009
I-18
In upland areas, stump removal would be limited to the 50-foot permanent ROW and
areas where grading is necessary to construct a safe, level working area.
Off-site slash disposal and/or burning may 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 and
federal (BLM and USFS) requirements. Planting would occur on all forestlands
disturbed by the Project that are located more than 15 feet from the centerline of the
permanent ROW 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 CFR 223.12. This
regulation authorizes the USFS, under the issuance of an ROW or special use
authorization, to sell the timber directly to Ruby at the current appraised value. Ruby
intends to negotiate one contract covering the Fremont-Winema National Forest
crossed by the Project.
Ruby would follow BLM procedures for disposal of merchantable timber from BLM
administered lands involved in the Project, as described 43 CFR part 5400. The
BLM may sell the ROW 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 each BLM district involved.
Vegetation Pathogens
Within the Project area, various insect pests could occur, including Douglas-fir beetle, fir
engraver, flatheaded borer, and western pine beetle. Other tree stand diseases that may
occur or have potential to occur within the Project area are annosus root rot, butt rot ,
laminated root rot, dwarf mistletoe, and sudden oak death. Aerial surveys of all forested
land in Oregon are conducted annually by the USFS and Oregon Department of Forestry to
determine insect and disease activity status. Survey data would be obtained to determine if
the listed insect and/or disease activity occurs within 0.5 mile of the Project route.
Treatment would be predicated on data obtained from these surveys.
Insects and diseases can adversely affect a forest if Project-associated activities introduce
new or spread existing infestations. Trees damaged during clearing activities and/or have
soil compacted over their roots, may be more susceptible to infestation. In addition,
equipment can transport insects or disease in or out of an area. The use of the ROW and
roads can spread or introduce insects or disease to new areas. The spread of insects or
disease within the Project area would result in both short- and long-term effects, such as
January 2009
I-19
reduced species diversity due to invasion or infestation and a loss of habitat function for
wildlife.
The following mitigations would be implemented for each specific insect or disease as
identified in areas prior to construction activities.
Douglas-fir beetle Methylcychexenone capsules (a natural beetle repellant) would

be applied to trees along the edge of the construction ROW. 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 Forest Service land where there are
known infestations of Douglas-fir beetle.
Fir engraver When clearing the construction ROW within true fir stands, Ruby
would utilize logging practices that directionally fall timber into the ROW, as well as
store logs away from trees adjacent to the ROW to minimize or prevent damage to
standing trees. Additionally, since fresh slash greater than four inches provides
breeding material for the beetles and can contribute to outbreaks. Ruby would use
the BLM and Forest Service fuel loading specifications to minimize slash
accumulations.
Flatheaded borer Ruby would minimize damage to adjacent trees when clearing
and maintaining the ROW, including felling trees within the ROW away from
adjacent, standing trees.
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 edge of the construction ROW and would not pose a
safety or construction hazards, it would be retained for future snag recruitment to
benefit wildlife.
Laminated root rot Infected stands would be documented and revegetated with
resistant conifer species (native cedars, pines, and spruces).
Dwarf mistletoe In the event that dwarf mistletoe is found within the Project area,
Ruby would consult with the agencies to determine the appropriate plan to minimize
its spread.
Annosus root and butt rot During timber surveys in 2009, sites infected with
annosus root and butt rot would be documented. Management to reduce tree loss
from F. annosus varies depending on tree species affected. To reduce the spread
of annosus root rot in the Project area overall, dry borax would be applied to freshly
cut stumps and wounds inflicted on trees adjacent to the construction ROW 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
January 2009
I-20
be treated in areas where the disease may be occurring to prevent spread. 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.
Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species
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
many natural resources, including soil and water, wildlife habitat, and recreational and
wilderness values. Federal Invasive Species Executive Order 13112 (U.S. 1999) defines
invasive plants as an alien (non-native) species whose introduction causes or is likely to
cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.
Multiple noxious weeds were documented along the Project route during field surveys
conducted in 2008. Occurrences of these species increase the potential for new or
expanded growth of noxious weeds as direct consequence of pipeline construction.
Ruby has developed a Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Plan, which incorporates
recommendations from the NRCS, BLM, and Forest Service. The plan provides
procedures to minimize the potential introduction or spread of weeds along the
ROW.
Sensitive Plants
Impacts to sensitive plant species within the Project area could include the direct removal
and/or crushing of individual plants within the Project route, temporary work areas, and at
above-ground facilities.
During surveys of the ROW, one sensitive plant the salt heliotrope (Heliotropium
curassavicum) was identified within the survey corridor in Lake County, Oregon. One
federally listed plant species the Ute ladies-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) has the potential to
occur along the Project ROW in Wyoming and Utah, but was not observed.
Ute Ladies-Tresses
Ruby evaluated 35 sites within the Project route and one compressor station site were
evaluated for their potential to support Ute ladies-tresses and ranked such sites as having
high, medium, or low potential. No individuals or populations of Ute ladies-tresses were
observed at any of the surveyed locations, although 18 locations along the Project route
were determined to exhibit moderate potential to support the species. The remaining 17
locations within the proposed pipeline corridor and the compressor station site were
determined to exhibit low or no potential to support Ute ladies-tresses.
January 2009
I-21
Clearing and grading activities could temporarily remove habitat that could support Ute
ladies-tresses populations. If Ute ladies-tresses are found during construction, trenching
activities could result in loss of topsoil to support the species if backfilling activities fail to
reestablish the natural soil base. Pre-construction surveys would be completed again in
habitat that supports the species to confirm its presence or absence. While the likelihood of
encountering this plant species during pipeline construction is low, suitable BMPs and
additional mitigation measures would be employed to avoid or minimize damage to any
plants that are encountered.
As appropriate, the following mitigation measures would be employed to reduce the level of
impacts to the species if encountered during Project activities.
Maintain a full-time biologist to ensure that no Ute ladies-tresses populations were

overlooked, or newly colonizing along the Project; require this biologist to report any
populations of Ute ladies-tresses found during pipeline construction.
The locations determined to exhibit moderate potential to support individuals or

populations of Ute ladies tresses would be surveyed again during the flowering
period for the species (late July to early September) during 2009.
Use BMPs and additional mitigation measures based on field observation and
literature review to minimize the likelihood of damage to Ute ladies-tresses habitat.
Install signs and or fencing that prohibit contract pipeline construction personnel
from traversing populations of Ute ladies-tresses.
Salt Heliotrope
Salt heliotrope (Heliotropium curassavicum) is a highly salt tolerant species. Surveys
identified 6 populations of the species within the Project route in Lake County, Oregon.
Since the salt heliotrope is an annual and does not always show up every year, Ruby would
mitigate for impacts to the species by replanting the species by using seeds collected from
the population within the Project route or purchasing seeds if available.
Habitat Fragmentation
Habitat fragmentation occurs when a large expanse of habitat is transformed into a number
of smaller patches of less total area that are isolated from each other by a matrix of habitats
unlike the original (URS 2000). This breaking up of contiguous areas of vegetation or
habitat into smaller patches results in the creation of forest edges along utility corridors. In
addition to the direct effects of removing vegetation from a pipeline corridor, indirect effects
would result from the fragmentation of previously connected vegetation types. Linear
pipeline projects have been shown to provide beneficial value to many wildlife species
through edge effects on affected habitat. Forest edges play a crucial role in ecosystem
interactions and landscape function, including the distribution of plants and animals, fire
breaks, vegetation structure, and wildlife habitat. Compared to the forest interior, areas near
January 2009
I-22
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. Fragmentation and a loss
of habitat connectivity can also have a negative impact on local wildlife populations.
Fragmentation impacts to wildlife are generally grouped into six major categories: individual
disruption, habitat avoidance, social disruption, habitat disruption, direct and indirect
mortality, and population effects (URS 2000). Generally, it has been shown that pipelines
have the least impact on wildlife populations as compared to other linear corridor projects
such as roads. Most impacts to wildlife from construction or operation of pipeline corridors
appear to be related to human access, with completed buried pipelines not significantly
affecting wildlife movement. The following provides general information on the potential
impacts of habitat fragmentation on migratory birds and mammals expected along the
Project route.
Migratory Birds
For migratory birds, nest predation and nest parasitism are components of the edge effect.
Higher predation/parasitism rates are found to be dependent on landscape context and
edge type (URS 2000). Edge effect appears more pronounced in forested habitats
contained within a mosaic landscape of forested, residential, and agricultural ecosystems as
opposed to an overall forested landscape (Gates and Gysel 1978). Edge effect also
appears to be more pronounced along abrupt, man-made edges as compared to soft
natural edges.
Mammals
For large and small mammals, pipeline corridors may act as barriers to movement. Without
concealing vegetative cover, they may be unwilling to cross a cleared corridor. Factors
such as corridor width, the species in question, and the degree of vegetative cover are
important factors in this issue. In some instances, corridors may facilitate movement by
acting as corridors for travel. However, this could make them more vulnerable to hunting
and predation.
Mitigation measures for habitat fragmentation fall into two broad categories: avoidance and
vegetation management. Ruby would employ both measures by routing around important
habitat, where practicable, and using the following mitigation measures to minimize impacts
to species from fragmentation.
Ruby would limit the maintained corridor to a width of 50 feet.
Rubys siting policy has been directed at minimizing the removal of vegetation to the
greatest extent possible for construction.
State-specific Reclamation Plans would be developed that would include elements to

enhance wildlife use of the Project route.
January 2009
I-23
Measures would be employed to create small shrub patches in the Project corridor
and maintain shrubs along the Project route forest interface to reduce edge effects.
Ruby would work with the contractors to develop plan to reduce hard edges by
using zig-zag clearing patterns in heavily forested areas.
The use of zig-zag clearing patterns outside the construction ROW would have full
agency/landowner approval.
In prairie habitats, Ruby would develop a reasonable maintenance schedule for

removal of shrubs and saplings that create edges.
Ruby would not mow sage brush areas that have been restored.
Terrestrial Fauna and Avian

Terrestrial wildlife resources may be impacted directly and indirectly by various phases of
the Project on both a short-term or long-term basis. Ruby initiated field surveys for wildlife
species in 2008, with plans to perform follow-up surveys in 2009. Additionally, preconstruction surveys in some areas for select species may be needed immediately prior to
ground disturbance. These species include nesting raptors, nesting migratory birds, greater
sage-grouse, sharp-tailed grouse, burrowing owls, and black footed ferret. Pre-construction
surveys for sharp-tailed grouse would be completed in Utah; surveys for the remaining
species-, would be conducted where individuals or signs were found to be present based
upon 2008 survey results. Potential impacts and mitigation measures to minimize these
impacts are outlined below.
Short-term impacts to wildlife would occur during construction and could extend beyond the
construction period if habitats do not return to pre-construction conditions within three years
following reclamation efforts. Long-term impacts to wildlife could extend through the life of
the Project and beyond if supporting capabilities of that habitat are not fully restored. Direct
impacts to wildlife habitat, whether through removal, conversion, alteration of key
components, or close proximity of disturbances, can indirectly affect wildlife populations.
Compared to the effects of direct impact, such indirect impact to wildlife is often more subtle
and difficult to document. Indirect impacts also may be expressed over the long-term, with
some time lag between onset of impact and detection of the impact to wildlife populations.
In addition to variability over time, indirect impact to wildlife due to habitat impacts may be
variable over space, such that the expression of the impact may occur some distance away
from the impact source.
Direct mortality of species could occur during pipeline construction activities and
maintenance operations. Individual wildlife species may also be directly impacted during
construction if they are killed by vehicles traveling to and from the Project. Species most
susceptible to vehicle-related mortality include those that are inconspicuous (such as
salamanders, frogs, snakes, and small mammals) and those whose behavioral activity
patterns make them vulnerable (e.g., nocturnal). Species most susceptible to mortality from
January 2009
I-24
clearing and grading operations during construction are those with limited mobility (such as
amphibians) and burrowing species (such as mice and voles, weasels, beaver, frogs and
toads, and snakes). Other species are likely to be displaced from habitats that are cleared
of vegetation (such as passerine birds and tree-dependent/cavity-dependent birds and
mammals) and from areas adjacent to construction sites (such as waterfowl, raptors, and
mammals).
Displacement from adjacent habitats would most likely be a short-term effect with animals
returning once construction and reclamation of the route is complete. Activities associated
with construction of the Project could decrease individuals reproductive success by
increasing neonate or nest abandonment and possibly by interfering with breeding
behaviors, sustenance, and growth of young, conception rates, and fetal survival. These
direct impacts may negatively affect population growth through diminished rates of
survivorship and fecundity. Wildlife populations may also be negatively affected if
individuals are displaced from habitats affected by disturbances. Both long-term and shortterm impacts could occur to species associated with waterbodies and riparian areas.
Removal of riparian vegetation along stream edges that are crossed by the Project could
increase sedimentation into the waterbody and/or increase water temperatures. Changes in
hydrology could also occur within wetlands and waterbodies used for breeding, which could
limit dispersal or reduce breeding habitat. These modifications to riparian habitat could
directly cause mortality of reptiles and amphibians, cause disturbance and/or displacement,
and indirectly lower breeding success and survival.
Since Ruby proposes to initiate construction of the Project in March 2010, prior to the
nesting season, Ruby expects that construction activities would not impact ground-nesting
bird species. Based on the magnitude of the Project and the seasonal constraints that the
Project would face, only limited modification of the construction schedule would be possible.
However, in recognition of its obligation to protect migratory birds under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (MBTA), Ruby would coordinate with the USFWS to develop appropriate
conservation and protection measures for migratory birds and to establish a protocol for
addressing the potential unavoidable disruption of nesting activity. Ruby proposes that the
Project route be cleared during the first months of construction to reduce the potential for
ground nesting birds within the Project route.
In consultation with federal and state agencies, Ruby has avoided or minimized impacts to
wildlife by:
Rerouting sections of the pipeline;
Minimizing impact to habitat by restricting widths of the pipeline corridor in

environmentally sensitive situations;
January 2009
I-25
Limiting trenches to be open no longest than 10 days for a majority of the Project. At
locations where the ditch will need to remain open for longer periods, such as tie-ins,
test manifolds, block valves, etc, the open ditch will be fenced with safety fence or
protected with other means so wild animals or livestock will not become trapped. All
fences on the Project will be cut for construction access with temporary gaps
installed for control of livestock and wildlife. These gaps will be kept closed or
guarded;
Proposing to restore affected habitats to the maximum extent practicable,
Proposing to reduce impact over time by minimizing future disturbances (i.e., routine
vegetation maintenance every three to five years); and
Proposing to compensate for impact after consultation with agencies.
Black-footed ferret
Loss of habitat has been identified as the primary impact to black-footed ferrets viability and
survival. Conversion of grasslands to agricultural uses, widespread prairie dog eradication
programs, and plague have reduced ferret habitat to less than two percent of what once
existed. Remaining habitat is now fragmented, with prairie dog towns separated by great
expanses of cropland and human development.
The requirement to conduct ferret-specific surveys is based on the USFWSs BlackFooted, Ferret Survey Guidelines (April 1989) which direct that if black-tailed prairie dog or
white-tailed prairie dog towns greater than 80 and 200 acres, respectively, are not found,
then ferret surveys are not required. Although 2008 surveys noted prairie dog towns along
the route, none were large enough to meet the requirements for ferret surveys. Blackfooted ferrets were not observed during the 2008 biological survey along the Project route.
This information indicates a moderate to low potential for occurrence of black-footed ferret
in areas proximal to the Project route in Wyoming and Utah. Because historical data from
these states indicate that the species has occurred near the Project route in the past, there
remains a remote possibility that Project construction and operation could affect individuals.
Should ferrets occur in the Project vicinity, the conservation measures described in the list
below would be used to reduce or eliminate potential effects.
Standard pipeline construction techniques would be employed along the pipeline route.
Clearing, grading, and subsequent ditching activities would temporarily remove grassland,
steppe, and shrub-steppe habitat within the portion of the Project route (MP 0 to MP 60) that
has been shown to potentially support ferret populations. Trees, brush, and shrubs within
the construction route would be cut or scraped at or near the ground level.
As indicated, the black-footed ferrets potential to occur near the Project in Wyoming and
Utah is moderate to low. As a result, no mortality to individuals would be anticipated,
January 2009
I-26
although indirect impacts could result from temporary loss of habitat that supports prey
species (e.g., prairie dog). In addition, if ferrets occur within 0.25 miles of the Project,
increased noise and human presence at work site locations may disrupt normal behavioral
patterns. Similar constraints and/or conservation measures related to increased noise and
human presence may apply to any pipeline maintenance activities if black-footed ferret
breeding areas are identified within 0.25 mile of the Project. Effects could occur if
construction were to take place during the breeding season or when females are caring for
young. Construction personnel would coordinate with the USFWS to establish authorization
for construction if activities are required during the mating season within 0.25 mile of
suitable breeding habitat. Breeding activity generally occurs in March through May.
The following mitigation measures may be employed to minimize impact to ferrets where
appropriate.
Conduct preconstruction surveys for black footed-ferrets near MP 23 within a

potential white-tailed prairie dog colony.
Maintain a biologist during construction to observe potential black-footed ferret

habitat or populations in the vicinity of the Project route.
Consult with appropriate state and federal agencies to avoid black-footed ferret
populations, should they be encountered within the Project route.
Designate a construction period for black-footed ferret colonies occurring within 0.25
mile of the Project route to avoid the March to May breeding and rearing season.
Prohibit all pipeline construction personnel from hunting in potential black-ferret

habitat (i.e., prairie dog habitat).
Prohibit all pipeline personnel from driving vehicles off ROW through habitat or
conducting any other activities that may result in take of black-footed ferret.
The project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect black-footed ferret. This
determination is based on the low potential for occurrence of individual black-footed ferrets
in the Project area, in addition to the NHP data that indicate that although prairie dog
populations may occur near the ROW, viable ferret populations do not appear to be
associated with them.
Pygmy Rabbit
Pygmy rabbit populations and habitat type occurrence are possible along the Project route.
The pygmy rabbit is a habitat-specialized species requiring dense-growing, large-statured
sagebrush plants with deep, loamy soils for protection and burrowing. The Project route
may impact pygmy rabbit habitat in Lincoln and Uinta counties in Wyoming; Rich and Box
Elder counties in Utah; Elko, Humboldt, and Washoe counties in Nevada; and Lake and
Klamath counties in Oregon. Habitat would temporarily be disturbed within the 115-foot
pipeline construction corridor as vegetation and soil were removed.
January 2009
I-27
Field surveys completed in 2008 documented four observations of pygmy rabbit utilization
and 13 burrow entrances in Wyoming. In Utah, 31 observations of pygmy rabbit utilization
with 134 burrow entrances were observed. In Nevada, 23 observations with 72 burrow
entrances were observed, and no observations were recorded in Oregon.
Impacts to the pygmy rabbit could result from such activities as grading, clearing, trench
excavation, equipment operation, staging of the pipe, and vehicular travel. Construction
noise may impact rabbits and breeding behavior if it occurs within 0.5 miles of the Project
route. Noise would be generated from such activities as trench excavation, compressor
stations, equipment operation, staging of the pipe, and vehicular travel.
Similar constraints and/or mitigation measures related to increased noise and human
presence may apply to any pipeline maintenance activities if pygmy rabbit breeding areas
are identified within 0.5 miles of the Project. Operations personnel would coordinate with
the USFWS to establish authorized mitigation if maintenance activities are required during
the breeding season within 0.5 miles of suitable areas.
As appropriate, Ruby would implement the following mitigation measures for impacts to the
pygmy rabbit:
Careful identification of densely growing, large-stature sagebrush plants with deep,

loamy soils;
Potential micro-realignment of pipeline to avoid appropriate habitat;
Use BMPs to avoid or minimize impacts on pygmy rabbit habitat in the Project route
during pipeline construction;
Use of BMPs to rehabilitate Project route soil and sagebrush steppe vegetation; and
Avoidance of identified breeding areas from February to March.
The Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect pygmy rabbit. This
determination is based on a moderate potential for occurrence of pygmy rabbit individuals
and supporting habitat in the Project area. Based on the conservation measures proposed,
impacts to pygmy rabbit will not result in take.
Big Game
Construction impacts on big game species, including elk, moose, deer, antelope, and
bighorn sheep, would include an incremental increase in habitat fragmentation as well as a
loss of potential forage. However, Project-related loss or change in habitat or forage would
represent only a small portion of the overall available big game habitat within the Project
area. Forage species utilized by big game are expected to reestablish quickly, depending
on weather conditions and grazing management practices, which would affect reclamation
January 2009
I-28
success. In most instances, suitable habitat adjacent to the construction areas would be
available for wildlife species until vegetation has been reestablished.
Indirect impacts on big game species include those caused by increased human activity
(e.g. noise levels), dispersal of noxious and invasive weeds, and dust produced by gravel
road traffic. Increased noise levels and human presence would likely result in reduced use
of the construction area by big game. Species temporarily displaced by construction would
likely return upon completion of the Project. As such, displacement would be short-term
and not significant.
To protect important big game winter habitat, Ruby would comply with agency seasonal
restrictions for winter range. The BLM can grant exceptions to seasonal restrictions if the
BLM wildlife biologist, in consultation with the state wildlife agencies, determines that
granting an exception would not jeopardize the population being protected. Coordination
with BLM and USFW is ongoing about construction in winter habitat.
As appropriate, Ruby would implement the following mitigation measures to protect big
game winter ranges where appropriate:
Within big game winter ranges disturbed by the Project, Ruby would seed disturbed
areas with preferred big game forage species, as recommended by BLM, USFS, and
state wildlife agencies.
Ruby would control noxious weeds on the ROW on all lands crossed, including both
summer and winter rangelands, to help maintain native forage species.
To minimize potential impact of open trenches on big game within delineated biggame winter and summer range, Ruby would leave 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 ROW until pipe is ready to be installed. Ruby
would also install soft plugs (backfilled trench materials) in the trench after
excavation at these distances to provide wildlife passage.
A 10-foot gap would be left in spoil and topsoil stockpiles at all hard or soft plug
locations, and a corresponding gap in the welded pipe string would be left in these
locations. Suitable ramps would also be installed from the bottom of the trench to
the top to allow any wildlife that enters the trench to escape. The ramps would be
spaced at approximately half-mile intervals at big game migrations corridors or within
winter range areas.
After construction is complete, Ruby would install OHV barriers to reduce

unauthorized public access and to maximize big game use of the ROW. These
barriers may include dirt/rock berms, log barriers, signs, and locked gates. Slash
from clearing operations would also be redistributed on the ROW, which would help
discourage OHV travel.
January 2009
I-29
To reduce potential impacts to big game species, Ruby has agreed to avoid
construction activities in designated crucial winter big game ranges. Should Ruby
find it necessary to construct within this time period, it would seek written
authorization from the BLM, USFS, and FERC. Crucial winter range restrictions
would include:
Wyoming
Utah
Nevada
Oregon
November 15 to April 30
November 1 to January 15
Mule deer - October 15 to March 15
Pronghorn
Winter - November 1 to April 15
Migration Corridor restriction - April 1 to June 30
November 1 to April 1
Greater Sage-grouse
Sagebrush and associated plant species are important to sage-grouse for nesting,
protection, and forage. Sagebrush leaves are critical forage for sage-grouse during late fall
and winter months. Greater sage-grouse leks, nesting areas, and seasonal habitats could
occur in the Project route in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon. Sage-grouse habitat
within the 115-foot pipeline construction corridor would be temporarily disturbed by the
removal of vegetation and soil. Impacts would result from such activities as trench
excavation, equipment operation, staging of the pipe, and vehicular travel. Construction
noise may impact sage-grouse lek and nesting behavior if it occurs within two miles of the
Project route. Noise would be generated from activities such as trench excavation,
compressor stations, equipment operation, staging of the pipe, and vehicular travel.
Similar constraints and/or mitigation measures related to increased noise and human
presence may apply to any pipeline maintenance activities if greater sage-grouse breeding
and nesting areas are identified within 0.6 miles of the Project. Operations personnel would
coordinate with the USFWS to establish authorized mitigation if maintenance activities are
required during the mating season within 0.6 miles of suitable breeding and nesting areas.
As appropriate, Ruby would implement the following mitigation measures for the greater
sage-grouse:
Careful identification of active leks in the Project route to avoid impacts;
Potential micro-realignment of the Project route to avoid leks should they be

encountered;
Minimization of construction activities when leks are active or nesting and early
brood rearing is occurring (approximately mid-March to mid-June);
Efforts to locate the pipeline at least 0.6 mile from the perimeter of active leks;
January 2009
I-30
No permanent surface structures would be constructed adjacent to lek sites that

have been documented based upon 2008 field surveys;
Rehabilitation of the Project route using native grasses, forbs, and big sagebrush
seed collected from the local vicinity to the greatest extent possible. Reclamation
would achieve composition, diversity, and cover similar to that of the surrounding
vegetation community;
Avoid human activity between 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. from March 15 to May 31
within 0.25 mile of the perimeter of occupied greater sage-grouse leks.
Appropriate compensatory sagebrush steppe rehabilitation as specified by the BLM

(or other landowner) and state wildlife agencies; and
Construction in known greater sage-grouse habitat would be not be allowed during
the following months for:
Wyoming
Leks and breeding habitat - March 15 to May 31 (0.6-mile buffer)
Winter range - November 1 to March 31 (0.6-mile buffer)
Utah
Leks - March 1 to July 15
Winter - November 15 to March 14
Nevada
Leks - March 1 to May 15 (0.3-mile buffer BLM; 2.0-mile buffer
NDOW)
Winter Range/Concentration Area - November 1 to March 30
Summer - June 1 to August 15
Oregon
Leks - March 1 to May 1 (2-mile buffer ODFW)
The Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect greater sage-grouse. This
determination is based on a moderate potential for occurrence of individual greater sagegrouse in the Project area, in addition to the NHP data that indicate that although leks may
occur near the ROW, conservation measures will be employed to minimize impacts.
Sharp-tailed Grouse
Ruby has consultation with the UDWR regarding impacts to sharp-tailed grouse population
located in eastern Utah. The UDWR recommends that aerial surveys for lek sites be
completed following the UDWR survey protocols. A biologist from the UDWR would
participate in these aerial surveys. Consultation is ongoing with the UDWR to develop
mitigation measures. The following are possible mitigation measures that would be
implemented. However, the UDWR would have final approval of these measures:
January 2009
I-31
Avoid surface disturbance or occupancy within 0.25 miles of the perimeter of any
sharp-tailed grouse lek.
Avoid human activity between 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. from March 15 to May 31
within 0.25 mile of the perimeter of occupied sharp-tailed grouse leks.
Raptors
Raptors include eagles, accipiters, falcons (peregrine, prairie, and merlin), buteos
(ferruginous and Swainson's hawks), osprey, and burrowing owls. Raptors require nesting
protection during construction activities. Ruby would comply with the spatial buffers
presented in below. The same birds often require protection from disturbance from
November 15 through April 30 while they occupy winter concentration areas.
Raptor Nest Buffers

Species
Spatial
Buffer
(miles)
Seasonal Buffer
Bald eagle
1.0
Jan 1 Aug 31
Golden eagle
0.5
Jan 1 Aug 31
Northern goshawk
0.5
March 1 Aug 15
Northern harrier
0.5
April 1 Aug 15
Coopers hawk
0.5
March 15 Aug 31
Ferruginous hawk
0.5
March 1 Aug 1
Red-tailed hawk
0.5
March 15 Aug 15
Sharp-shinned hawk
0.5
March 15 Aug 31
Swainsons hawk
0.5
March 15 Aug 31
Turkey vulture
0.5
May 1 Aug 15
Peregrine falcon
1.0
Feb 1 Aug 31
Prairie falcon
0.25
April 1 Aug 31
Merlin
0.5
April 1 Aug 31
American kestrel
NN
April 1 Aug 15
Osprey
0.5
April 1 Aug 31
January 2009
I-32
Raptor Nest Buffers

Species
Spatial
Buffer
(miles)
Seasonal Buffer
Boreal owl
0.25
Feb 1 July 31
Burrowing owl
0.25
March 1 Aug 31
Flammulated owl
0.25
April 1 Sept 30
Great horned owl
0.25
Dec 1 Sept 31
Long-eared owl
0.25
Feb 1 Aug 15
Northern saw-whet owl
0.25
March 1 Aug 31
Short-eared owl
0.25
March 1 Aug 1
Mexican Spotted owl
0.5
March 1 Aug 31
Northern Pygmy owl
0.25
April 1 Aug 1
Western Screech owl
0.25
March 1 Aug 15
Common Barn-owl
NN
Feb 1 Sept 15
1 Due to 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. Actions resulting in
direct mortality of individual birds or take of known nest sites is unlawful.
Source: USFWS - Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection from
Human and Land Use Disturbance.
The Utah Field Office for the USFWS has established guidelines for raptor protection from
human and land use disturbances. However, it must be noted that these guidelines are
intended as general protection measures and can be subject to modification on a sitespecific basis depending on the specific species, the topography, habitat features, and level
of disturbance. Ruby would generally follow the approach set out in the Utah Field Offices
manual, which includes:
Resource Identification;
Assessment of Level of Impact;
Protection of Habitat Components;
Provision for Reasonable Protection of raptor nesting; and

January 2009
I-33
Mitigation and Documentation.
Ruby would conduct a pre-construction aerial survey within a one-mile corridor centered on
the Project route. Each active nesting site would be evaluated for potential level of impact.
Considerations would include species using the nest, distance from the Project route, local
land use patterns, topography, and aspect of the nest in relation to the construction ROW.
It is expected that most impacts would be considered indirect impacts due to noise
disturbance in the ROW, and, potentially, minimal degradation of adjacent habitats. Nests
would not be directly impacted. This assessment would be conducted by Ruby and
reviewed by USFWS and BLM resource specialists.
USFWS guidelines recommend both seasonal and spatial buffer zones for raptor species.
In general, construction activities are scheduled to avoid the most critical stages of breeding
activity, the mating and egg laying stages. By this time, raptor chicks should have hatched
and been in the nest for several weeks. Each active nest identified during the aerial surveys
would be evaluated for the appropriateness of the seasonal and spatial buffers that are
recommended in the guidelines. Ruby would consult with the appropriate state and
federally agencies to develop specific conservation measures for each nest site within 0.5
mile of the Project route.
In the event that a conflict with this period arises due to Project constraints, Ruby would
request that construction be allowed within the recommended spatial and seasonal buffer
zones. It is highly unlikely that any specific taking of a nest would be required. Based on a
specific location, resource managers may request that specific mitigation measures be
employed. Ruby would work with resource managers on a case-by-case basis to determine
the appropriate and prudent mitigation measures in these situations. For any sites where
the recommended seasonal or spatial buffers cannot be adhered to, Ruby would propose
monitoring of active sites by an accredited biologist during construction activities to assess
impacts. Following completion of construction activities, Ruby would submit to resource
agencies, a summary report detailing the location of active nests in the Project area,
specific treatment of each nest, and apparent health and status of each nest through the
completion of the breeding season.
Bald Eagle
If a bald eagle nest is identified during the aerial survey, Ruby would coordinate with state
resource agencies to develop appropriate conservation measures based on the proposed
timing of the construction. The USFWS Utah Field has established guidelines to protect
raptors from Human and Land Use Disturbances, which would be applied. These protocols
include, recommended buffers to provide protection for the nesting birds.
January 2009
I-34
For those portions of the Project route where blasting may be required, Ruby would survey
nest sites within one mile of the specific blasting sites prior to pipeline construction to
determine if these nests are active. Based on those surveys, if any nests are determined to
be active bald eagle nests, Ruby would implement a site management plan describing
specific construction methods and/or mitigation based on agency consultation and
recommendations.
Peregrine Falcon
Peregrine falcons are known to occur in the general vicinity of the Project, and were
observed during 2008 surveys. The peregrine falcon alternates nesting locations and often
utilizes vacant nests of other raptor species. Therefore, each year the species could utilize
a different nest location. The potential impact to a given nesting pair as a result of the
construction activities would be based on what nest the falcon pair is using and its specific
relationship to the ROW, including aspect, line of sight, and distance. The impact would
also depend upon the phase of construction within a particular spread. Impacts to this
species are not expected since no nests were observed during the 2008 surveys. However,
if the aerial surveys indicate the presence of a peregrine nest in the vicinity, Ruby would
coordinate with BLM, USFWS, and state wildlife agencies to develop suitable conservation
measures and spatial buffers based on the proposed timing of construction. Each nest
location would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine the most effective
conservation measures.
Northern Goshawk
Ruby conducted protocol level surveys for goshawks in areas along the ROW where
suitable habitat occurred. Survey results did not document species occurrence within 0.5
miles from the ROW. The lack of habitat along the route minimizes the potential of impact
to this species. However, if aerial surveys indicate the presence of a goshawk nest in the
vicinity of the ROW, Ruby would coordinate with BLM, USFWS, and state wildlife agencies
to develop suitable conservation measures for this species.
Golden Eagle
Golden eagles are known to breed in the general area of the Project, and confirmed nesting
locations occur within the proximity of the ROW. Species like the golden eagle often utilize
several different nesting locations. Therefore, each year the species could utilize a different
nest location, all with different aspects. The potential impact to a given nesting pair as a
result of the construction activities would be based on which particular nest an eagle pair is
using and its specific relationship to the ROW, including aspect, line of sight, and distance.
If aerial surveys indicate the presence of a golden eagle nest in the vicinity of the ROW,
Ruby would coordinate with the BLM, USFWS, and state wildlife agencies to develop
suitable conservation measures for this species.
January 2009
I-35
Burrowing Owl
Burrowing owls were identified on the Project route in Lincoln County, Wyoming, Box Elder
County, Utah; and Elko and Humboldt counties, Nevada. Ruby is currently coordinating
with resource agencies to develop appropriate conservation measures for this species. The
construction schedule may overlap with the later stages of young rearing for the owl.
Specific conservation measures would be developed based on the results of the summer
2009 follow-up surveys.
Ruby proposes a plan of action that would include passive relocation for burrowing owls
prior to nesting season. Passive relocation would not involve actual capture and removal.
Rather, the owls would be enticed to artificial (or natural) burrows by providing such burrows
and using one-way door traps that allow owls to leave the burrow of concern but would not
let them reenter. Relocation is most successful if the added burrows are located less than
200 meters away. Once the passive relocation has been completed all burrows within the
ROW would be collapsed to assure owls do not occupy the ROW. Ruby would work with
the BLM, USFWS, and state wildlife agencies to further refine the measures to move owls
off the ROW prior to construction.
Red-tailed Hawk
Surveys identified red-tailed hawks nesting within 0.5 miles of the ROW. Based on the
availability of suitable habitat and widespread range of the red-tailed hawk, it is expected
that additional nests would be found along the ROW. If the aerial surveys indicate the
presence of additional nests in the vicinity, Ruby would coordinate with the BLM, USFWS,
and state wildlife agencies to develop suitable conservation measures for the species. The
USFWS Utah Field Office has established guidelines to protect raptors from human and
land use disturbances, which include recommended buffers for the protection for the nesting
birds. These buffers would be considered in conjunction with the proposed construction
schedule and nest specific information to develop the conservation measures.
Ferruginous Hawk
Ferruginous hawks are known to breed in the general area of the Project. To assess the
presence of active nests near the ROW, Ruby would complete aerial surveys in the
breeding season during spring of 2009. These surveys would encompass a one-mile-wide
corridor centered on the ROW. If the aerial surveys indicate the presence of a ferruginous
hawk nest in the vicinity, Ruby would coordinate with the BLM, USFWS and state wildlife
agencies to develop suitable conservation measures for the species. Ruby would adhere to
the USFWS Utah Field Office guidelines to protect raptors from human and land use
disturbances, which include recommended buffers to provide protection for the nesting
birds.
January 2009
I-36
Northern Harrier
Northern harriers were observed during 2008 surveys in the vicinity of the ROW. Therefore,
there is a potential for impacts to this species. Ruby would complete aerial surveys in the
breeding season during spring of 2009 to assess the presence of active nests near the
ROW. These surveys would encompass a one-mile-wide corridor centered on the ROW. If
the aerial surveys indicate the presence of a raptor nest in the vicinity, Ruby would
coordinate with the BLM, USFWS, and state wildlife agencies to develop suitable
conservation measures for the species. Ruby would adhere to the USFWS Utah Field
Office guidelines to protect raptors from human and land use disturbances. Within these
protocols, recommended buffers provide optimum protection for the nesting birds.
Swainsons Hawk
Based on the known range of the Swainsons hawk, the Project could potentially impact this
species. Ruby would complete aerial surveys in the breeding season during spring 2009 to
assess the presence of active nests near the ROW. These surveys would encompass a
one-mile wide corridor centered on the ROW. If the aerial surveys indicate the presence of
a nest in the vicinity, Ruby would coordinate with the BLM, USFWS, and state wildlife
agencies to develop suitable conservation measures for the species. The USFWS Utah
Field Office has established guidelines to protect raptors from human and land use
disturbances. Within these protocols, recommended buffers provide optimum protection for
the nesting birds. Each nest location would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to
determine the most effective conservation measures.
Raptor Best Management Practices
Ruby may utilize the following raptor BMPs and would seek technical assistance
from the BLM and the USFWS as necessary.
Conduct appropriate raptor surveys before commencement of ground-disturbing

activities within one mile of a proposed disturbance to determine the status of known
nests and roosts and to identify new nests and roosts.
Monitor any activities that may adversely impact raptor species.
If passive relocation is unsuccessful, surface-disturbing activity would be prohibited

within 0.5 miles of occupied burrowing owl nests from April 1 through August 15.
Restrict activities within 0.5 miles of active raptor nests from the period of early
courtship through the fledging of chicks (generally from February 1 to August 15).
With assistance from the USFWS, modifications to protective buffers may be
considered when topography, vegetation, or other variables serve as natural
protective buffers.
Restrict activities within one mile of known bald eagle or golden eagle nest during
nesting periods. With assistance from the USFWS, modifications to the one-mile
protective buffer may be considered when topography, vegetation, and other
variables serve as natural protective buffers.
January 2009
I-37
In coordination with the USFWS noise reduction barriers may be used to minimize
disturbance when activities are proposed within an established protective buffer.
Prohibit activities that produce extremely loud noises within one mile of active bald
eagle or golden eagle nests during nesting periods unless greater tolerance to the
activity has been demonstrated by the particular pair of bald eagles through
monitoring.
To preclude eagles or other raptors from nesting on human-made structures such as

communication towers and to avoid impeding operation or maintenance activities,
install anti-perching devices on structures to discourage use by raptors.
MBTA Protected Species

The construction of the Project has the potential to impact birds protected under the MBTA.
Habitat for one or more MBTA-protected nesting bird species is found along most of the
Project route. Ruby is in the process of preparing a Memorandum of Understanding, as
recommended the USFWS, for the protection of MBTA-protected species during
construction.
During construction Ruby would avoid both temporal and spatial direct impacts to passerine
species. Temporal avoidance eliminates impact to nesting birds by constructing outside the
nesting season. This can be accomplished by starting construction prior to the onset of
nesting, so that nesting cannot be initiated that would then be impacted by construction.
Spatial avoidance is used when construction occurs during the nesting season and nests
are present, but construction would be avoided within a protective buffer around the nest.
The following temporal and spatial mitigation measures may be employed as appropriate.
Maintain spatial buffers and work around the nest until young fledge and are no
longer vulnerable.
Micro-realignment of the pipeline to establish an acceptable distance to ensure

against adverse direct or indirect impacts.
Delay Project activity until after nesting is completed.
When clearing and grubbing or other site preparation can be scheduled in advance
of nest initiation, this may deter certain species from establishing nests that would
then require avoidance. This is most suitable for ground nesting birds.
Ruby would propose to define BMPs to be employed for MBTA protection in a MOU
with USFWS prior to issuance of the Final EIS and the Biological Opinion.
Pre-construction surveys would be conducted and would document local occurrence

of nesting birds prior to construction activities. The objectives for these surveys are:
Anticipate protected resources at Project-critical times and locations;
Determine sensitive or protected behaviors; and
Devise deterrence measures, or pre-emptive mitigations.

January 2009
I-38
Construction Monitoring
Ruby proposes to use a Combined Environmental Inspector/Third-Party Environmental
Monitor Program. Under such a program, the same individual would fill both roles as a
Compliance Monitor. Ruby will work to develop a contract commitment from a company
acceptable to the approving agencies to provide such services, ideally with a contract
completed by May 2009. Ruby would only propose to use a company (or companies) that
have extensive experience in performing both inspection and monitoring responsibilities.
Through the company (or companies) chosen, Ruby would provide a list of names and
resumes of proposed Compliance Monitors to FERC for approval prior to issue of a
certificate. Any individual deemed to be insufficiently qualified would not be used, and
alternate monitors would be proposed until FERC was satisfied that all monitors had the
knowledge and experience to function in a combined role. A combined program with
extremely competent and experienced monitors would be more efficient than a program
involving separate monitors and Environmental Inspectors and would be the best way to
provide the highest quality inspection. Since gas transmission pipelines are in high
demand, it is difficult for a project with the size and scope of the proposed Project to find
enough highly qualified Environmental Inspectors and Third-party Environmental Monitors to
fill all the required positions. The use of under-qualified personnel in either position leads to
extreme conflict between individuals, inconsistencies, and poor performance. A combined
program with all monitors reporting directly to FERC would be much more efficient and
could ensure a better qualified staff of inspectors.
A shortened chain of command is expected to greatly increase the efficiency of the variance
process. Through calibration and cooperation with the FERC staff, Level I Variances could
be efficiently granted or denied by Compliance Monitors in the field. In a compliance
program consisting of multiple layers of inspection, an Environmental Inspector must first
review a proposed variance and then call a Third-party Environmental Monitor for a second
review. This process usually doubles the average one-day turnaround for these variations.
The entire purpose of a Level I Variance process is to provide a quick determination on a
proposed very minor permit change. A combined Compliance Monitor program would
provide this. The Level II and Level III variance process would also benefit from more
efficiency with the direct input to the FERC staff from a Compliance Monitor in the field.
Mitigation
In addition, Ruby is willing to work with the BLM, USFWS, various State wildlife agencies
and others to minimize the Projects impact through one or more of the following offsite
mitigation measures. Offsite mitigation is defined by the BLM as compensation for impacts
to a resource by replacing or providing a substitute resource or habitat at a different location
than the Project area. Offsite mitigation may include in-kind replacement of resources that
are being impacted, out-of-kind replacement or substitution of related resources that are of
equal or greater value to public lands, and in-lieu-fee payment to the BLM or a natural
January 2009
I-39
resource management agency, foundation, or other appropriate organization for mitigation

that address impacts of the Project. Below are possible offsite mitigation measures
identified by Ruby.
I.
Ruby has identified the following Projects to which it might contribute funding
A. Fallon NRCS Plant Materials Center (Fallon, NV)
a. Forb and grass ecotype selection and seed increase
B. Invasive Plant Control outside of the ROW for the Project
a. Treatment with Plateau
b. Treatment with Oust
C. Sage-grouse strategic management plan: Wyoming, Utah, Nevada
a. Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative
D. Define Key sagebrush/sage-grouse habitat attributes BLM/State
Biologists/University Research Programs
a. High-quality habitat
b. Vegetation surveys and habitat modeling
c. Reclamation Task Force BLM and state biologists
II. Ruby might be able to contribute funding to tentative Reclamation Study Areas
A. Wyoming Sage Sage Grouse Core Breeding Area in Lincoln and Uintah
Counties
B. Utah
a. Terrace Basin West Desert
b. Hogup area sharp-tail grouse
C. Nevada
a. Eastern Nevada
b. Sheldon/Summit Lake Area
III. Ruby might be able to contribute to studies of selected areas for success of various
reclamation techniques applied along its ROW, for example:
A. Application of reclamation procedures for specific control areas:
a. Forb and grass establishment
b. Cheatgrass control
c. Enhancement of existing native areas
January 2009
I-40
B. Contractors working in BLM, State Agencies or other receiving authorities

would then monitor the reclamation effort, using funding supplied by Ruby for
a period of three to five years to determine:
a. Success of invasive weed control
b. Success of forb establishment
c. Success of grass establishment
d. Passive establishment of sagebrush and other native species
C. For specific control areas, interseeding would be conducted based on results
of the initial seeding.
D. In areas where reclamation does not meet a prescribed return of native
plants, based on variety and density, Ruby would then provide additional
offsite compensatory rehabilitation to compensate for achieving less success
than desired.
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Categorization - Oregon
The ODFW has developed a mitigation policy to assist in the evaluation of habitats of fish
and wildlife impacted by proposed projects, as well as to provide guidance in the
development of consistent and effective mitigation measures. The policy presents a
framework to assign categories to habitat types impacted by a proposed project based on
the relative importance and/or availability of those habitats to fish and wildlife, and the status
of species associated with impacted habitats. The ODFW policy has six habitat categories
and provides mitigation goals and actions for each category.
Ruby has evaluated the Project pursuant to ODFW policy and has discussed potential
compensatory mitigation measures with the ODFW. Mitigation would address impacts to
Category II habitat for mule deer winter range and riparian habitat. Ruby is working with the
ODFW to apply the mitigation policy. Two potential mitigation sites in the Warner
Mountains and Langell Valley have been identified to off-set impacts for mule deer winter
range, which would consist of a 3:1 juniper removal for every acre of mule dear winter range
habitat impacted by the Project.
Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative - Oregon
Ruby and the ODFW are also proposing to involve the Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative
(CSI), a non-profit 501 organization, in off-site mitigation for Oregon as well as other states
traversed by the Project. CSI is willing to help local groups and wildlife agencies implement
mitigation projects with funds that Ruby may provide in conjunction with the pipeline, funds
from other affiliated corporate projects and additional funds CSI may leverage from third
parties using Ruby using Rubys contributions as matching funds.
January 2009
I-41
The CSI has identified two Oregon projects being developed in conjunction with the ODFW,
Lake County Watershed Coalition and other public and private stake holders. These
projects focus on sagebrush steppe restoration from the affects of invasive and encroaching
western juniper.
Warner Valley Sage Grouse Project
The proposed Warner Valley Sage Grouse Project will involve cutting western juniper on up to
5,000 acres of both privately and publicly owned lands. Landowners involved with the project
include: John OKeeffe, Don Robinson, Tom Lane, and the Lakeview BLM District. Specific
treatments will involve cut and leave, cut and jackpot burn, cut and chip, and lop and scatter.
Treatment types will be chosen on a number of indicators including soil type, aspect, slope,
type of habitat, etc. The Lake County Watershed Coalition will be the project lead and will be
assisted by CSI.
Bryant Mountain Sagebrush Steppe Restoration Project
The Bryant Mountain project, near the western termination of the pipeline, Malin, Oregon,
will be similar to the Warner Valley project in that its focus will be on the removal of invasive
and encroaching western juniper and the implementation of adaptive grazing management.
The plan is for CSI, local landowners and the local watershed group to restore 2,000-3,000
acres of sagebrush steppe deer and sage grouse habitat.
Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative - Utah and Nevada
Ruby is also proposing that some of the mitigation funds that it might contribute be set aside
for fire restoration projects within the Major Land Resource Areas (MLRA) the Project
traverses in Utah and Nevada. CSI will develop projects with local agencies, integrate the
projects into its trading system grant and help leverage the funds to provide even more
funds for fire restoration.
NDOW has identified some potential projects to CSI that include work in the Squaw Valley
portion of Elko County with green strips and fuel breaks in an effort to break up the spread
of fire in an area where there have been multiple fires and large amounts of money have
been spent to restore sagebrush habitats. In addition there is an opportunity to acquire key
sage grouse/sagebrush habitats from willing sellers in northern Elko County (i.e. lands
along the east Independence Bench, north of Elko).
In both states CSI is also proposing a unique type of project similar to one it has just
completed in conjunction with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, the Nature
Conservancy and an allotment Permittee. The Bear Den Butte Project is a fire restoration
project that involved rangeland drill seeding of perennial grasses and aerial seeding of
sagebrush in the fall/winter period following a major fire in the Craters of the Moon National
Monument.
January 2009
I-42
Additional Compensatory Mitigation

Following construction of the pipeline, habitat and ecosystem function would be restored in
place to the extent practicable. However, although compensatory mitigation actions would
restore habitat, there would be short-term adverse effects and longer-term adverse effects
on some non-target species. The goal of additional mitigation would be to restore habitat
with similar ecological function. Specific sites and actions for the mitigation have yet to be
identified, but it is expected that these would be developed during the development of a final
mitigation plan. The following are possible mitigation measures that Ruby could implement,
to reduce and mitigate Project impacts on species.
Acquiring title or easement to private lands adjacent/near the pipeline that could be
managed/preserved as late successional habitat; alternatively, Ruby may 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 may find and acquire these
easements or properties and deed them to a federal agency or a conservation
organization or trust;
Creating snags in adjacent habitat;
Fencing or otherwise excluding cattle from sensitive areas to protect/enhance

habitat;
Providing large woody debris and large rock for use by the agencies in habitat
restoration projects;
Donating large woody debris to agencies/conservation groups to perform in-stream

restoration projects;
Restoring degraded riparian habitats through off-site revegetation projects;
Conducting off-site in-stream habitat improvement projects;
Acquiring conservation easements to protect or improve important riparian habitats;
Installing fences in allotments to improve riparian habitats; and
Decommissioning roads identified by the BLM and Forest Service that are no longer
needed for resource management to provide numerous benefits, including lower
road density, minimization of channel extensions, minimization of sedimentation,
improvement of fish passage through culvert removal, and reduction of riparian
habitat fragmentation.
January 2009
I-43
J.
Unanticipated Discoveries Plan
for Cultural Resources
January 2009
J-1
K.
Unanticipated Discoveries Plan

for Paleontological Resources
January 2009
K-1
L.
Fire Prevention and Suppression
Plan
January 2009
L-1
M.
Blasting Plan
January 2009
M-1
N.
Fugitive Dust Control Plan
January 2009
N-1
O.
Transportation Plan
January 2009
O-1
P.
Visual Resources
January 2009
P-1
The Project would not cross any VRM Class I areas. The Project would either cross or run
adjacent to VRM Class II areas in Box Elder County, Utah; Elko County, Nevada; Washoe
County, Nevada; and Lake County, Oregon. Visual Resource Management Class II lands
are managed with the goal of retaining the existing visual character of the landscape. In
Box Elder County, the route would run adjacent to Muddy Pass in the Grouse Creek
Mountain range, on the southeastern edge of an area with a VRM Class II designation (MP
210). In Elko County, the route would run through the Knoll Mountain area of Nevada,
which has a Class II designation (MP 270). The route would also run adjacent to and north
of the Independence Mountain Range, a VRM Class II area (MP 342) in Elko, Nevada. In
Washoe County, the route would cross VRM Class II north of the Black Rock Desert
Wilderness Area from approximately MP 530 to MP 560 and the Mosquito Valley area from
approximately MP 580 to 588. Additionally, the route would run through the VRM Class II
areas surrounding Twelvemile Creek in Lake County near MP 589.
In the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, the Project would cross SMS areas with a
Landscape Character Theme of Natural Appearing and Developed Natural Appearing,
along the Ogden River National Scenic Byway. The Project area has a High Scenic
Integrity Objective. Landscape changes in these areas may be present, but must be
consistent with existing form, line, color, texture, and pattern. Land within the FremontWinema National Forest is managed according to the Visual Quality Objectives (VQO)
management classes. Within the Fremont-Winema National Forest, lands within view of
designated scenic travel routes are managed according to Retention or Partial Retention
goals. Special Management Areas within the Fremont-National Forest, including recreation
areas and wildlife habitats, are managed according to, at minimum, Partial Retention goals.
Forest Plans for the Winema-Fremont National Forest are currently being revised and will
include visual resource classifications according to the SMS. The VQO Partial Retention
management class is similar to the SMS Scenic Integrity Objective of Moderate (Slight
Alteration).
The Project would cross Twelvemile Creek, a proposed WSR that would include protection
of visual resources, at MP 588.8. The Project crosses Twelvemile Creek 500 feet west of
the existing high voltage direct current transmission line (3,100 megawatt capacity).
In addition to the proposed WSR designation, the land surrounding Twelvemile Creek has a
VRM Class II designation, which requires the existing character of the landscape to be
maintained. Access to Twelvemile Creek is extremely limited. Due to its proposed
protection under the WSR program and the visual resource classification of the surrounding
land, visual resource sensitivity for Twelvemile Creek is very high. The visual resource
analysis below addresses impacts to the creek and the surrounding area.
January 2009
P-2
Pipeline and Ancillary Facilities

Temporary visual impacts associated with the construction phase of the Project would be
more significant in areas requiring extra workspaces, including road and river crossings and
staging areas. Visual impacts associated with the Project would include the removal of
existing vegetation and the exposure of bare soils within construction workspaces, as well
as earthwork and grading, trenching, potential blasting, rock formation alteration or removal,
and equipment storage. Visual impacts due to construction are considered temporary for
underground pipeline once the land has reverted to its original uses.
The Project would pass through undeveloped land and would involve a number of crossings
of roads, waterbodies, and other lands with protected visual resources. The majority of the
land traversed constitutes flat expanses of shrubland or rolling hills with intermittent areas of
arid riparian terrain and pinyon-juniper woodland. Due to a lack of development, visual
scale is uniform, with little contrast in line, form, color, or texture and no dominant features.
Construction in flat terrains would disrupt and dominate fore- and middle-ground views with
the introduction of equipment, materials, trenches, and dirt piles. Construction in wooded
areas would similarly disturb views and would additionally alter the terrain with the clearing
of trees.
Construction impacts would be greatest for areas with high degrees of viewer sensitivity,
such as residential and recreational areas. Key Observation Points No. 3 (Woodruff, Utah)
and No. 6 (Brigham City, Utah) show views from residential areas. Visual impacts to
sensitive resource areas resulting from clearing and grading activities would be minor due to
the low density vegetation of the area. Transmission lines in Woodruff City currently
dominate the viewshed, and the trenching activities and introduction of construction
equipment would contribute cumulatively, though temporarily, to diminished visual
resources. Construction and operation of the pipeline would not require the removal of any
vegetative screening between residences and power lines or other existing ROWs.
Development on the outskirts of Brigham City is currently to scale with surroundings and
sited to minimize impacts to visual resources (power lines are not along the ridgeline);
construction activities and equipment would temporarily dominate the viewshed of hills from
residential areas.
Viewer sensitivity would also be high at road crossings, particularly those roadways
designated as scenic; construction activity would temporarily contrast with views of
undeveloped land along the roadways. The KOP photo log includes three road crossings,
all with protected visual resources - No. 4 Ogden River Scenic Byway in Utah, No. 10 Barrel
Springs Back-Country Byway in Nevada, and No. 12 Oregon Outback Back-Country Byway
in Oregon. In the areas where the Project would cross the Ogden River Scenic Byway
(near Monte Cristo), the road winds through the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, an
area with little development infringing on existing panoramic views of forested peaks and
January 2009
P-3
valleys. Barrel Springs Back-Country Byway winds up hills overlooking Mosquito Lake in an
undeveloped and rural area of Washoe County, Nevada. The Project would cross Barrel
Springs Back-Country Byway adjacent to an existing transmission line corridor. The portion
of the Oregon Outback Back-Country Byway that would be crossed by the Project
(northeast of Goose Lake) is largely agricultural land with some associated development in
the form of power lines, farmland equipment, residences, and roadways.
Construction impacts would be greatest to views from KOP No. 4, where the pipeline
crosses the Ogden River Scenic Byway; construction would cumulatively impact visual
resources where it runs adjacent to an existing utility corridor at KOP No. 10 along Barrel
Springs Back-Country Byway and in the more developed roadside areas at KOP No. 12
along the Oregon Outback Back-Country Byway.
VRM Class II areas are managed with the goal of preserving the existing character of the
landscape. The route would run adjacent to or cross six areas designated by the BLM as
VRM Class II. KOP No. 10 and KOP No. 9 show viewsheds within VRM Class II areas.
Construction activities including trenching and transporting and storing equipment would
temporarily alter viewsheds within these areas, diminish the visual quality, and alter the
existing character of the landscape.
Other sensitive viewpoints along the route identified as KOPs include recreation areas such
as KOP No. 5 Mantua Reservoir (Hatch 2008) and KOP No. 11 Rogger Meadow/Trailhead,
and areas with remarkable visual characteristics, such as KOP No. 9 Painted Point. For
KOPs Nos. 5, 9, and 11, construction activity and associated equipment would dominate
panoramic views and draw attention from existing natural focal points, temporarily impacting
visual resources.
The Project also crosses Twelvemile Creek, a proposed WSR, just north of the routes
crossing from Nevada into Oregon. Construction activity in the Twelvemile Creek area has
the potential to introduce contrast in an area designated by the BLM as VRM Class II land,
which requires that any development be consistent with the natural characteristic of the
landscape. Ruby would use a dry-ditch method to cross Twelvemile Creek. Impacts to
visual resources in the Twelvemile Creek area due to construction activities would be
temporary. All lands in the vicinity of Twelvemile Creek would be restored to their original
condition through recontouring and revegetation, where practicable. Additionally, the
Project would cross Twelvemile Creek parallel to an existing transmission line and
associated access road. Therefore, it would not introduce any permanent visual impacts in
the form of new contrast to existing line, color, form, or texture.
The Project would also cross the Bear River Divide Segment of the Oregon Trail, protected
under the National Trails System Act. KOP No. 2 is where the route would cross the
January 2009
P-4
Oregon Trail from the vantage of a private road off Highway 189. Highway 189 has signage
along the route denoting emigrant trails points of interest, but the crossing of the Project
and the trail would not be visible from a public roadway. Moreover, as seen in KOP No. 2,
the Oregon Trail is not visually distinguishable from its surroundings in this location.
Although temporary construction impacts would introduce contrast in terms of form, line,
shape, and space, viewer sensitivity is low for this portion of the Oregon Trail.
The Project has been designed to follow existing ROWs, where feasible. Impacts due to
both construction and operation would be minimal in areas where the Project follows
existing ROWs, as previous development has already introduced contrast in color and line.
In both residential views (KOPs Nos. 3 and 6), the Project would follow existing utility
corridors. These impacts would contribute to an overall effect on visual resources but would
not introduce new elements of contrast to previously undeveloped landscapes.
Longer-term visual impacts could result from the removal of trees, the removal or alteration
of vegetation that may currently provide a visual barrier, or landform changes that introduce
contrasts in visual scale, special characteristics, form, line, color, or texture. Because the
Project would be installed underground and affected land would revert to its original
condition, operational impacts to visual resources would be minimal for any open land or
agricultural land crossed by the Project. Flat land with grassland or sagebush cover would
not be visually impacted by the Project beyond temporary impacts associated with
construction. Additionally, Ruby would use appropriate crossing techniques at roadways to
minimize impacts to visual resources in these locations (KOPs Nos. 4 and 10).
Long-term impacts would be greatest in forested areas (KOPs Nos. 4 and 11) where the
Project ROW would contrast with the form, line, color, and texture of the landscape. To
mitigate the impacts of the ROW on forested lands, Ruby would use appropriate techniques
in consultation with land management agencies and landowners to reduce visual contrast.
In areas where the BLM management plans protect visual resources, including all VRM
Class II lands, Ruby would use appropriate techniques to restore the landscape in
consultation with the BLM. The land would be revegetated and re-contoured to restore it to
its preexisting condition and retain the visual character to the extent practicable. In visually
sensitive areas managed by USFS, Ruby would consult with appropriate management
agencies to develop revegetation plans. To mitigate permanent impacts in forested or VRM
Class II lands, Ruby would, to the extent practicable, restore the original contour of the land,
revegetate with seed and plant types approved by jurisdictional agencies, and employ
special construction methods as necessary including feathering or visually screening the
ROW.
January 2009
P-5
Aboveground Facilities
Aboveground facilities for the Project include four compressor stations, four measurement
facilities (some located in conjunction with existing or new compressor station facilities), 42
mainline valves (MLVs), 11 launchers, and 10 receivers (located in conjunction with other
aboveground facilities). Aboveground facilities may affect visual resources by introducing
contrast in form, color, texture, and scale in undeveloped areas and disrupting the lines and
spatial proportions of views. To minimize visual effects, Ruby would control compressor
station lighting by shielding and down-casting lights as practicable.
The four compressor stations and associated microwave towers have been sited outside of
areas with protected visual resources, including scenic rivers, byways, and historic trails,
and away from areas with high viewer sensitivity, including residential areas, to lessen their
impacts to visual resources. 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 may affect visual resources by introducing contrast and altering the
existing visual setting. The facility colors would contrast with natural palettes, and the
structures would disrupt lines and uniform textures in the landscape. The introduction of a
new form would alter existing spatial relationships and would introduce contrast. Due to the
effect to visual resources, in addition to siting compressor stations in areas of low viewer
sensitivity, Ruby would, to the greatest extent possible, site other aboveground facilities out
of the viewshed of recreational areas, residential areas, areas with protected visual
resources, and other areas with a high degree of viewer sensitivity. For aboveground
facilities constructed in any of the aforementioned areas, Ruby would take measures to
minimize contrast, including painting facilities to blend with surrounding environment and
screening facilities with vegetation as agreed upon by the landowner or jurisdictional
agency.
January 2009
P-6
Q.
Preliminary Wetland Mitigation

Plan
January 2009
P-1

Preliminary Draft Plan of Development: January 2009

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Preliminary Draft Plan of Development: January 2009

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Preliminary Draft

RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT