FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Transcription

1 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS In Reply Refer To: OEP/DG2E/Gas 1 Ruby Pipeline, LLC Ruby Pipeline Project Docket No. CP March 18, 2010 Wilson Martin, SHPO ATTN: James Dykman/Lori Hunsaker Utah State Historical Society 300 S. Rio Grande Street Salt Lake City, UT Re: Determinations of Eligibility and Effect for the Ruby Pipeline Project and Request for Review Dear Mr. Martin: The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has reviewed the reports Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of the Ruby Pipeline Project: Utah Segment-Rich, Cache, and Box Elder Counties (Alpine Archaeological Consultants, Inc., November 2009) (Class III Inventory report), and Addendum 1 to Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of the Ruby Pipeline Project: Utah Segment-Rich, Cache, and Box Elder Counties (Alpine Archaeological Consultants, Inc., December 2009) (Addendum 1 report). The reports have been provided to your office by Ruby Pipeline, LLC. We have also received determinations of National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) West Desert District (see attachment 1), Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest (USFS) (see attachment 2), State of Utah Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) (see attachment 3), Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) (see attachment 4), and Utah Department of Natural Resources (DNR) (see attachment 5). The FERC is providing you with our combined agency determinations of eligibility and effect for the project in Utah. The FERC, BLM, USFS, UDOT, SITLA and DNR concur with the recommendations in the reports. We request your review of and comments on the reports and our determinations.

2 2 The following sites have either been previously listed or determined eligible for the NRHP, or have been recommended as eligible for the NRHP (note: some sites occur in both the Class III Inventory and Addendum 1 reports): Class III Inventory report (site order follows table 29 of the report): 42RI176, 178, CA147, 62 42BO1637, 1638, 1639, 1640, 1641, 1642 (in Addendum 1 also), 1643 (in Addendum 1 also), 1644, 1645, 1647, 1648, 1649, 1167 (in Addendum 1 also), 1653, 1657 (in Addendum 1 also), 1658, 1661, 1228 (in Addendum 1 also), 1501, 1500, 1662, 1666 (in Addendum 1 also), 1335 (in Addendum 1 also), 1179 (in Addendum 1 also), 1667 (in Addendum 1 also), 1025 (in Addendum 1 also), 849, 1675 Addendum 1 report (site order follows table 42 of the report): 42RI205, BO593, 1642, 1643, 1736, 1740, 1167, 1741, 1742, 562, 1657, 1743, 1228, 1666, 1208, 1335, 1179, 1667, 1751, 1752, 1753, 1025 The following sites have either been previously determined not eligible for the NRHP, or have been recommended as not eligible for the NRHP (note: some sites occur in both the Class III Inventory and Addendum 1 reports): Class III Inventory report (site order follows table 29 of the report): 42RI174, 175 (in Addendum 1 also), 177, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, CA123, 146, BO1636, 1646, 1650, 1651, 1652, 1654, 1655, 1656, 1659, 1660, 1225 (in Addendum 1 also), 1429, 1432, 1433, 1434, 1438, 1444, 1663, 1664, 1665, 1668, 1669 (in Addendum 1 also), 1670, 1671, 1672, 334, 1673, 1674 Addendum 1 report (site order follows table 42 of the report): 42RI175, CA152, BO1733, 1734, 1735, 1737, 1738, 1739, 1744, 1225, 1745, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1669, 1750, 1754, 1755, 1756, 1757, 1758, 1759 The following eligible sites would be avoided (both by Class III and Addendum 1 activities): 42RI176 (reroute), 120 (bore) 42CA147 (outside right-of-way) 42BO1638 (bore), 1639 (passed beneath), 1641 (bore), 1644 (reroute or bore), 1648 (reroute), 1649 (reroute), 1500 (not identified in corridor), 1025 (bore), 1736 (outside pipeyard boundary), 1752 (outside right-of-way)

3 3 The remaining eligible sites may or would be affected by the pipeline or use of access roads, contractor yards, etc. Because avoidance is not possible for all historic properties and mitigation will be necessary, we also recommend a finding of adverse effect. A treatment/mitigation plan will need to be developed for those historic properties that cannot be avoided. If you have any questions, please contact Laurie Boros, staff archaeologist, at (202) , or via at laurie.boros@ferc.gov. Thank you for your cooperation. We look forward to continued consultation with your office. Sincerely, Attachments (5) J. Rich McGuire, Chief Gas Branch 1 Division of Gas Environment and Engineering cc: Public File, Docket No. CP (with attachments) Mark Mackiewicz National Project Manager Bureau of Land Management Price Field Office 125 South 600 West Price, UT Tom Burke Bureau of Land Management Nevada State Office 1340 Financial Blvd Reno, NV Glenn Carpenter ATTN: Dale Earl Bureau of Land Management West Desert District 2370 South 2300 West Salt Lake City, UT John Eddins Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Office of Federal Agency Programs 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 803 Washington, DC James Beers Utah Department of Transportation Region One 166 West Southwell Street Ogden, UT Lisa Beck State of Utah, Trust Lands Administration 675 East 500 South, Suite 500 Salt Lake City, UT

4 4 Monson Shaver Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife Resources 1594 W. North Temple Suite 2110 Salt Lake City, UT Rebecca Schwendler National Trust for Historic Preservation Mountains/Plain Office th Street, Suite 750 Denver, CO Rupert Steele, Chairman Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Indian Reservation P.O. Box Tribal Center Road Ibapah, UT Ed Naranjo Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Indian Reservation P.O. Box Tribal Center Road Ibapah, UT Robert Bear, Chairman Duck Valley Shoshone-Paiute Tribes P.O. Box 219 Owyhee, NV Ted Howard Duck Valley Shoshone-Paiute Tribes P.O. Box 219 Owyhee, NV Jeanine Borchardt, Chairman Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah 440 N. Paiute Drive Cedar City, UT Dorena Martineau Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah 440 N. Paiute Drive Cedar City, UT Lawrence Bear, Chairman Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians 1198 North Main Tooele, UT Curtis Cesspooch, Chairman Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation P.O. Box 190 Fort Duchesne, UT Betsy Chapoose, Director Cultural Rights and Protection Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation P.O. Box 190 Fort Duchesne, UT Bruce Perry, Chairman Northwest Band of the Shoshone Nation 707 North Main Street Brigham, UT Patty G. Timbimboo-Madsen Northwest Band of the Shoshone Nation 707 North Main Street Brigham, UT 84302

5 5 Floyd Robertson, Manager Environmental Project Management Two North Nevada Avenue Colorado Springs, CO Tom Flanigan Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest 8236 South State Street Salt Lake City, UT Rand Greubel Alpine Archaeological Consultants, Inc. P.O. Box 2075 Montrose, CO Kris Dobschuetz EPG 4141 N. 32 nd Street, Suite 102 Phoenix, AZ Scott Whiteside National Park Service Golden Spike National Historic Site P.O. Box 897 Brigham City, UT 84302

6 6 ATTACHMENTS 1-5

7 United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT West Desert District 2370 South 2300 West Salt Lake City, UT /12/2010 Ms. Laurie Boros, Archaeologist Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 1st St. NE Washington, DC Dear Ms. Boros, The purpose of this letter is to provide your office with BLM Salt Lake Field Office s comments on the adequacy of efforts to identify cultural resources for the Ruby Pipeline Project and to provide our determinations of National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility for historic properties identified through Class I and Class III cultural resources investigations. As you are aware, the Pipeline corridor and associated access roads and ancillary staging and work areas spans the States of Wyoming, Utah, Nevada and Oregon and passes through lands under the jurisdiction of Salt Lake Field Office. In general the cultural resource inventories that were conducted for the Ruby Pipeline project have been very well done. Alpine Archaeological Consultants Inc. has provided Salt Lake Field Office with inventory reports for both the main route of the pipeline and all access roads. They have also provided reports detailing the visual impacts to archaeological resources for this project and a report on the geoarchaeology of the area. BLM Salt Lake Field Office believes that these reports have adequately allowed us to determine the eligibility of the cultural resources that will be encountered by the pipeline. The reports provided by Alpine Archaeological Consultants Inc. identify a total of 110 archaeological sites within the Ruby Pipeline project area that fall under this office s jurisdiction. BLM Salt Lake Field Office has reviewed contractor s recordation of these resources, including recommendations of NRHP eligibility and offers the following eligibility determinations which are located in the attached table. While the Cultural Resource reports have been generally well done there are several concerns that still remain. Chief among these is language in the EIS that would allow Ruby to use the Transcontinental Railroad Grade, and other historic roads as access roads for this project. The BLM Salt Lake Field Office has expressed numerous times that these roads will not be used in any such fashion.

8 8 If you have any questions, or if you require further assistance, please contact the Salt Lake Field Office Archaeologist, Dale Earl, by at or by telephone at Regards, /s/ Glenn Carpenter Glenn Carpenter West Desert District Manager Cc: Mark Mackiewicz, National Project Manager, BLM; Ron Wenker, Director Nevada State Office BLM; Gene Seidlitz, Manager Winnemucca District Office; Tom Burke, Archaeologist, Nevada State Office Attachment: Table 1

9

10 10

11 11

12 12 ATTACHMENT 2 From: Tom Flanigan [tflanigan@fs.fed.us] Sent: Monday, February 01, :53 PM To: Laurie Boros Cc: mark_mackiewicz@blm.gov; David Ream Subject: Determination of Eligibility and Effect The following is an official response for the project record: To: Laurie Boros: No previously recorded, or newly identified cultural resources were found during the Class III pedestrian survey of the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest managed lands, by Alpine Archaeological Consultants. The USFS has made the determination that this proposed project will result in "No Historic Properties Affected" as per 36CFR800.4(d)(1). Sincerely, Tom Flanigan Forest Archaeologist Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest

13 13 ATTACHMENT 3 From: Lisa Beck [lisabeck@utah.gov] Sent: Tuesday, March 16, :34 PM To: Laurie Boros Cc: rand_greubel@alpinearchaeology.com; Kenny Wintch Subject: Ruby Natural Gas Pipeline Project - Utah Segment (Utah State Project No. U-08-A1-0075b,s,p,f) Laurie, Per the request from the consultant (Alpine) on the above project, the State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) has reviewed the following cultural resources reports, as revised: the main Class III inventory report (Landt et al. 2009), Addendum I (Mueller et al. 2009) and Addendum II (Mueller et al. 2010). Please note SITLA concurs with Alpine's NRHP eligibility determinations in the reports for all sites located either wholly or partially on trust lands. We do not wish to comment on any sites other than those on trust land. We look forward to discussing a treatment plan and some approaches to data recovery for the Ruby Pipeline Project in the upcoming weeks. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Lisa Lisa E. Beck Staff Archaeologist State of Utah Trust Lands Administration (office) (fax) lisabeck@utah.gov *Please consider the environment before printing*

14 14 ATTACHMENT 4 From: James Beers [jamesbeers@utah.gov] Sent: Thursday, March 18, :20 PM To: Laurie Boros Cc: rand_greubel@alpinearchaeology.com; Christopher Lizotte; James Beers Subject: Sites 42RI120 and 42BO1025 Laurie, I've reviewed the Ruby Pipeline cultural resources information on Sites 42RI120 and 42BO1025 (only sites on UDOT right-of-way) provided by Alpine Archaeological Consultants and agree with the recommendations for NRHP eligibility. It appears that the pipeline would be bored under both sites with no anticipated affect to the sites so no mitigation is necessary. In short, given the info currently available on both of those sites and the project plan, I agree with the NRHP eligibility and no effect on both of those sites. I do not really have any comments on the proposed mitigation and data recovery plans discussed in the preliminary draft (March 2010) and March 18, 2010 meeting. I would like to be kept in the loop when it comes to implementing the treatment plan and would certainly need to be included if any cultural resources are discovered during construction activities (boring) around any other UDOT roadways or right-of-way. I did have a question about the boring under UDOT right-of-way: will the staging for the boring be within UDOT right-of-way? If so, there are some requirements UDOT has for any work within the rightof-way (e.g., re-vegetate). I'm also not sure of what requirements there may be from our permits department when it comes to boring under UDOT right-of-way. You'd have to contact them, which I'm sure you or the Ruby Pipeline company are already aware of and have likely already done. I am interested in all the valuable archaeological information you can squeeze out of the data recovery and mitigation; it could be a great contribution to the region's archaeology. However, I have not deeply involved UDOT in the project - it does not affect much of UDOT land or right-of-way and there are only two cultural resource sites identified for the project that are under UDOT jurisdiction - so I have not provided many comments on the treatment plan or various other aspects of the project. From what I have seen in the treatment plan draft and from what we've discussed in the March 18, 2010 meeting, it looks like that aspect is well under control and, for the most part (I can see we're working on this), the agencies (at least the ones present at the meeting) are generally in agreement with what has been presented thus far. Just please keep me informed and I will provide any comments should I have any. When all is said and done I would like final copies of the inventory, mitigation, data recovery reports, and GIS files (if possible). If you have any questions for me, don't hesitate to call me or me. Thank you, James D. Beers, M.A., R.P.A. NEPA/NHPA Specialist Utah Department of Transportation Region One 166 West Southwell Street Ogden, Utah 84404

15 15 ATTACHMENT 5 From: Monson Shaver [monsonshaver@utah.gov] Sent: Monday, March 15, :34 PM To: Laurie Boros Cc: rand_greubel@alpinearchaeology.com Subject: Ruby Pipeline Cultural Resource Report Laurie, I have reviewed the Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of the Ruby Pipeline Project (Landt et el. 2009). The Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) concurs with Alpine Archaeological Consultants National Register of Historic Properties (NRHP) non-significant eligibility recommendation for site 42BO1646. Monson Shaver Archaeologist State of Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife Resources 1594 W. North Temple, Suite 2110 Salt Lake City, Utah (801) (801) (FAX)