Pipeline's impacts can be mitigated, report says

A report on the environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the Ruby pipeline says most of the damage could be lessened by steps taken by the company and agencies issuing the necessary permits.

A draft environmental impact statement issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission concluded that the 680-mile pipeline that would begin in Wyoming, traverse a section of northern Utah, Nevada and end in Oregon has "adverse" environmental impacts that could be reduced significantly given mitigation efforts.

Texas-based El Paso Corp., is proposing to construct the $2 billion pipeline to deliver 1.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day to consumers in Nevada and on the West Coast, including northern California.

The environmental statement, on which the public has until Aug. 10 to comment, will also be vetted at a series of informational meetings, two slated for late July in Cache and Box Elder counties.

Those meetings, both at 7 p.m., are July 27 at the Brigham City Senior Center, 24 N. 300 West, and July 30 at the Hyrum Civic Center, 83 W. Main St.

Any comments will be used in the preparation of the final analysis, which is expected to be completed and published by October.

The preliminary report indicates a number of environmental impacts that will have to be minimized, including:

Potential adverse impacts to four species of federally listed fish, among them the humpback chub and Colorado pike minnow

Disturbing 12,600 acres of sagebrush habitat for construction, with pipeline operation causing permanent impacts to 2,200 acres

The project will require El Paso to prepare treatment plans to address any historic properties adversely impacted. A survey of the pipeline's route identified 52 such "cultural resource" sites in Utah alone.

The necessary clearing of forests for construction would result in visual impacts that would have to be addressed by El Paso. The route would cross six "visually sensitive" areas, including one in Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest.

In coming to its conclusion, the commission said that a denial of project approval would obviously eliminate any of the environmental impacts, but the need to meet the growing demand for natural gas along the West Coast would not be met.