January 4, 2010
Ms. Kimberly D. Bose
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First St. NE
Washington, DC 20426
RE: Ruby Pipeline Docket CP09-54-000, PF08-9-000
Dear Ms. Bose,
Western Watersheds Project is submitting additional comments on the Ruby Pipeline
Project, Docket CP09-54-000, and/or PF08-9-000.
We ask that you accept these comments on the Ruby Pipeline DEIS and various
conservation and mitigation actions. We have tried to keep up with the dozens of
piecemeal Ruby filings on the FERC site that have continued into late December. Ruby
documents posted have frequently had Attachments, Tables, Maps, or the whole body of
the document missing. The public has been informed of missing information through
brief Ruby cover letters that accompany the filings. In some instances, missing portions
were added later to documents previously posted. This has caused a fog of confusion for
the public trying to understand the full scope and scale of the adverse effects of this
massive new pipeline project. It makes understanding and assimilating the full effects of
the project very difficult.
From the info that we have accessed since the DEIS: The evidence is overwhelmingly
that there are gaping data holes, insufficient analysis of data using current ecological and
conservation science related to sagebrush ecosystems, analysis fraught with omissions or
misleading statements, and a continued failure to adequately evaluate a suitable range of
alternatives.
We are submitting these comments now – in the hopes that FERC and BLM will
immediately act to uphold NEPA, FLPMA, the ESA, as well as sound planning for our
Nation’s infrastructure by requiring Ruby to prepare a supplemental EIS.
FERC and other agencies have allowed Ruby to make unsubstantiated claims about many
environmental aspects of this project. FERC approved Ruby’s Certificate of Necessity
and other steps in this process without critically examining the quality and sufficiency of
the biological, cultural, recreational reporting and without requiring a critical examination
of common-sense Alternative Routing.
BIOLOGICAL AND OTHER RELATED CONCERNS
“We recommend a
paradigm shift from local to landscape conservation and discuss the implications of this
change”. USGS Naugle et al. 2009
1
“Conservation of the species
will initially require a recognition of the intrinsic value of sagebrush-dominated
landscapes,
followed by the development of a comprehensive approach to sagebrush habitat
conservation …”. USGS Johnson et al. 2009
“The immediate need is for
planning tools that overlay the best remaining areas for sage-grouse with the extent of
current and anticipated development. …
Multiple stressors including energy development must
be managed collectively to maintain sage-grouse populations over time in priority
landscapes)”. USGS Naugle et al. 2009
The Ruby Conservation Plan is described as a collaborative effort. WWP specifically
requested to participate in this process and its meetings. WWP was denied the
opportunity to participate, or to even attend the meetings and observe, but be silent.
The collaboration was limited to a closed door agency-industry process with what
appears to be largely pre-ordained outcome from which the public was excluded. Many
elements of the proposed and limited mitigation in the DEIS remain little changed in
Ruby’s December 2009 piecemeal Filings related to conservation and mitigation. When
dealing with very powerful industries on western public lands issues, exclusion of the
public increases the likelihood of inadequate compromises related to mitigation.
The Conservation Plan is described as a voluntary effort. This maximizes uncertainty of
its effectiveness in limiting severe adverse short, mid and long-term effects of Ruby.
There is no assurance that voluntary measures will be fully implemented, or that they will
be sufficient and effective. This loose, uncertain, voluntary Adaptive Plan maximizes
uncertainty in understanding and addressing all of the direct, indirect and cumulative
effects of the Ruby Project. The “avoidance” is limited, and full of promises that can be
changed at any point. There are no specific sideboards or thresholds established to trigger
any change or to require mandatory action.
Ruby claims it will provide a conservation benefit beyond the claimed mitigation of
avoidance. This is not explained. What is the conservation benefit, and how specifically
will it be achieved?
The use of the phrase “mitigation by avoidance” seems out of place here. Ruby has not
been required by FERC and BLM to adequately analyze a range of alternative routes that
would minimize and avoid many of the serious impacts that plague the Proposed,
Sheldon, segments of the Black Rock and other routes through critically important
habitats in NW Nevada. Alternative routes, such as the I-80 area and portions the
Westwide Corridor and Jungo-Tuscarora Route were cast aside. Even the Black Rock
route was not adequately examined (roads for construction access were not revealed by
Ruby). The Mile-by-Mile analysis shows portions of this route too may seriously impact
2
the declining sage-grouse population in the region, including have adverse effects on the
viability of the small number of grouse that remain in this area.
The Proposed Route cuts right through a known core area in Wyoming, and numerous
sage-grouse core areas in Nevada including the Globally Significant block of sagebrush
in NW Nevada. In Utah, where grouse and pygmy rabbit habitats and populations are
severely reduced over nearly all the state, Ruby plows right through critical habitats. In
fact, Ruby intrudes on the largest block of remaining contiguous pygmy rabbit habitat
and critical core sage-grouse habitat in Utah contiguous with Wyoming.
Necessary baseline studies to understand the full Footprint of the project remain lacking.
Ruby’s mitigation ignores the most basic and common sense measures to protect
migratory birds and their nests, by seeking to blast the pipeline through sensitive habitats
non-stop throughout the nesting period.
Conservation Science and Ecological Principles Ignored
The new Monograph Chapters compiled by USGS in Ecology and Conservation of
Greater SageGrouse: A Landscape Species and its Habitats describe the importance of landscape
analyses to understand and conserve sage-grouse, a landscape species. WWP comments
on the Ruby DEIS, and stacks of comments we have submitted to the Nevada BLM
offices over the past decade also emphasize this need. Similar analysis is needed to fulfill
NEPA’s “hard look” requirement. It is needed to determine if the battery of adverse
impacts of an industry’s actions are not able to be appropriately mitigated. It is needed to
develop effective mitigation for construction and other actions as they are being carried
out.
Project Magnitude
This is the largest project of its type across significant public lands in the American West
in recent memory. Where have other projects of this magnitude been built across large
areas of public lands in recent years? Where have such projects been built across
nationally and Globally Significant areas for species conservation like the large block of
unique sagebrush habitats of Summit Lake-Sheldon?
Mitigation Bar Appears to Have Been Lowered in the Region
We have observed that Federal Agencies in Nevada and other western states in recent
years have settled for minimal mitigation for mining and other projects that involve
powerful interests. For example, mine “mitigation” for billion dollar gold mines that will
permanently drop water tables (including in the area of Ruby impact) has involved such
things as harmful fences for the public lands allotments where mine-controlled cattle
graze, rather than actions to reduce or eliminate livestock disturbance to restore habitats
using passive restoration. We fear mitigation shortcomings may be due to the political
muscle of mining, energy and other large entities in this region.
3
Has the bar been lowered on what federal agencies accept as mitigation, and how they
gauge and evaluate whether mitigation is reasonable, effective, or adequate for the values
lost, destroyed or impaired? How does mitigation rigor in this region compare to a
comparable effort in California?
Federal agencies in recent years have a poor track record of requiring adequate mitigation
for energy projects that is in synch with current best available conservation science for a
species or ecosystem. Wyoming gas and oil energy development on BLM lands
illustrates this. In Wyoming, agencies time after time failed to require strong or sufficient
protective measures for sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats when faced with powerful
gas and oil energy developers. See Connelly et al. 2004, Naugle et al. 2009. Wells and
pipeline infrastructure were permitted by BLM in areas of critical sagebrush habitats
where biologists knew beforehand that the outcome would be sharp and rapid population
declines for the sage-grouse and other sagebrush species. The Holloran, Naugle and other
sage-grouse studies that tracked these losses only served to document what anyone with a
sense of the outdoors or basic biology knew in advance: Sage-grouse, a landscape
species, would not be able to tolerate infrastructure and other disturbances associated
with energy development in important sagebrush habitats. The recent USGS (Knick and
Connelly 2009) Chapters describe the unfolding collapse of the sage-grouse populations
under BLM-sanctioned energy mitigation in Wyoming.
In Wyoming, the energy companies that produce the gas that would travel through the
Ruby El Paso line were allowed by BLM to gain access to many of the state’s most
sensitive wildlife areas. Energy titans were permitted to: 1) develop sensitive habitats –
such as lek complexes and wintering habitats, and in fact were permitted to pepper the
most sensitive habitats with development; 2) disturb sensitive habitat areas with minimal
temporal or spatial avoidance for construction required; 3) Agencies accepted funds that
were to go to mitigate impacts, but the mitigation has not resulted in positive trends for
sagebrush species.
The tragic story of destruction of critical sage-grouse habitats on public lands in much of
Wyoming and portions of Utah and Montana by energy companies in the past decade is
now well-documented. See Naugle et al. 2009. This same scenario appears to
unfortunately be on the verge of being repeated with Ruby, and with renewable energy
and transmission corridors in the remaining portions of the sage-grouse range – especially
Nevada, Oregon and southern Idaho. In the sagebrush landscapes targeted by Ruby, there
are now also new transmission lines (SWIP, Transcanada) and major mountain top wind
farms, geothermal projects and much other development and infrastructure being planned
or underway. Plus mining in the region is likely to increase even more – including mining
for rare minerals used in renewable energy devices that require minerals now being
targeted for extraction in this region.
Chapters in the recent USGS Sage-grouse Monograph describe the sage-grouse habitat
and population declines that are playing out across the species range, and the recent welldocumented rapid declines with energy and infrastructure development. Across the
4
sagebrush biome, the chronic disturbance of livestock grazing and its supporting harmful
infrastructure of fences, wells and pipelines continue to degrade and intrude on nearly all
sage-grouse habitats, promoting weeds, removing nesting cover and fundamentally
altering the composition, function and structure of sagebrush communities (Fleischner
1994, Connelly et al. 2004). WWP discusses this extensively in Ruby DEIS comments.
As each Wyoming gas well field, pipeline, electric line, improved road, or other
development was punched in – industry and BLM represented to the public that species
like sage-grouse and pygmy rabbit were receiving adequate protections.
The public can only interpret the inadequate Ruby DEIS, the piecemeal
conservation/mitigation filings, and resultant inadequate Ruby mitigation as
demonstrating that BLM, USFWS and state agencies are about to repeat the mistakes
made in Wyoming. Agencies still appear to be unable to stand up to powerful energy
interests. Agencies seem to have learned few lessons from the loss of sage-grouse
habitats and populations that have undergone development, new infrastructure,
construction disturbances that promote weed expansion, and habitat fragmentation that
increases predation.
No detailed conservation-based analysis has been conducted to establish a baseline of
landscape effects. This is needed to understand the magnitude of the biological and other
losses that Ruby will cause – both from direct disturbance and as the sagebrush
ecosystem unravels as the impacts of roads, weeds, noise, human intrusion, fragmentation
play out. The short, mid, and long-term adverse effects of this massive new development
on sagebrush species habitats, populations, and species viability must be rigorously
examined.
The December filings show inconsistent and piecemeal mitigation that varies greatly
even by state. The state agencies are not be unified and are not relying on current
conservation science for sage-grouse. Ruby is promising funding for scattershot projects,
and inconsistent and minimal “avoidance” mitigation. Nevada, Oregon and Sheldon
appear to have been divided. Each entity sought to keep Ruby out of its domain. Sadly,
what has fallen through the cracks is the significance of the Globally Significant shared
landscape that will be fragmented, altered and destroyed by this new Corridor pioneered
by Ruby. Agencies have failed to speak with one voice for the landscape and shared
populations of sagebrush species.
Agencies have not been unified in telling Ruby to move its pipeline to a less damaging
route and stay out of NW Nevada and Sheldon altogether - rather than taking the most
roundabout way imaginable to get gas to the population centers of CA and NV. This has
resulted in the Mile by Mile analysis with confusing bar graphs showing there is no good
or acceptable route in northwestern Nevada and SE Oregon. It has also served to confuse
the public, which should be able to look to agencies as a sound conservation voice.
FERC and BLM have failed to say that the Proposed Route and intrusions into Sheldon in
this area are not able to be mitigated. The area is undeveloped, Globally Significant, and
unique.
5
Ruby Ignores Baseline Data Collection and Mitigation for Many Species
Ruby failed to survey for many rare, sensitive and declining animal and plant species in
the Footprint of its route. For the few species that were inventoried, studies were
inadequate and analyses constricted to a much smaller area of the landscape than current
science shows the impacts will be felt. Thus, there is no way that mitigation for
loggerhead shrike, sage sparrow, rare fish, rare shorebirds on playas, springsnails, or
other declining native biota can be considered adequate. We are concerned that the
limited and piecemeal “avoidance” under the Conservation Agreement will differentially
impact other species that agencies have apparently placed in the “expendable” category –
such as salt desert shrub, or mixed Wyoming big sagebrush salt desert shrub species.
Agencies failed to require adequate baseline studies, and there is no mitigation for many
conservation species of concerns. We discuss throughout the comments below.
Constricted Footprint Analysis Thwarts Understanding of Scale and Scope of
Mitigation That Is Necessary
Ruby failed to identify and analyze a broad range of significant impacts over the entire
area of its Footprint. With every new piecemeal Ruby filing, we become aware of more
impacts and a larger area of Ruby Footprint that are not sufficiently analyzed or
effectively mitigated. For example, from a late December filing, we became aware that
the project may be accompanied by extensive helicopter disturbance throughout sensitive
periods for native wildlife. Extensive helicopter use may startle and displace wildlife in
many areas, may adversely affect wintering wildlife, and may also affect the very
important bighorn sheep populations in the Footprint of Ruby. See for example Bighorn
Sheep habitat mapping, August 10, 2009 Sheldon Rout Comparison filing Map Figure 7.
BLM, FWS and FERC Cannot Accept Ruby’s Plans and Mitigation As Sufficient or
Scientifically Sound in 2010
BLM’s interpreting guidance requires that it use best available science and supporting
studies conducted in accordance with sound and
objective scientific practices. Much of the best available science on sage-grouse was
compiled in the WAFWA 2004 Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment (Connelly et al.
2004). This described the importance of understanding and addressing sage-grouse needs
on a landscape level. The mid-decade work by Holloran, Naugle and others on the
impacts of energy infrastructure development and intrusions into sage-grouse strongholds
was readily available to Ruby. Scientific articles such as Weiss and Verts (1984), recent
Nevada and other studies, the USFWS Federal Register info on the pygmy rabbit,
summaries of habitat requirements and other info in the WWP pygmy rabbit petition
were readily available to Ruby. Abundant science on cheatgrass expansion and risk
especially in the arid lands traversed by Ruby, and info on the long recovery times for
sagebrush communities has been available for understanding the battery of threats to this
landscape from Ruby.
6
WWP provided extensive scientific literature on the impacts of disturbance in promoting
weeds especially in the Great Basin portion of the sagebrush biome, very long recovery
times of sagebrush communities, tremendous impacts of recent fires on sagebrush
landscapes along the path of Ruby, the imperilment of sagebrush species, and the lack of
adequate baseline inventories for all native biota across the path of Ruby. We also
provided ICBEMP info, Ecoregional Analyses. This should have been used to guide
alternatives development, analysis of impacts, develop sound mitigation, to move the
Pipe Route out of a unique and unmitigatable route in Northwestern Nevada, and alter
several other segments as well.
We are now submitting info from the recent USGS sage-grouse publication (Knick and
Connelly 2009), and Literature on adverse fence impacts on sage-grouse, info on minimal
population sizes, and other recent studies that further highlight the severe adverse
environmental impacts that Ruby will cause.
When there is scientific uncertainty, NEPA requires that FERC and BLM: (1) disclose
the scientific uncertainty; (2) information be gathered and completed if no adequate
information exists unless the costs are exorbitant or the means of obtaining the
information are not known; and (3) the potential, reasonably foreseeable impacts must be
adequately evaluated.
The EIS, subsequent blizzard of filings and mitigation documents lack adequate and
systematic studies across the actual north-south Footprint of the project in the landscape
where Ruby cuts across over 675 miles east to west. Ruby water sources, gravel pits,
worker camps, water use (withdrawal/extraction effects, conveyance, spill-out/discharge),
vehicle travel routes and traffic volumes, pipe yards, radically upgraded access routes, 50
ft. tall communications towers, noise impact zones, bright signage, helicopter use, etc.
sprawl across a huge landscape. The energy corridors pioneered by Ruby will promote
other energy development and sprawl.
Current conservation science shows the need to examine nesting habitat conditions for 18
km from leks for many sage-grouse populations. Ruby is going to be destroying
degrading, fragmenting and disturbing sage-grouse nesting and other habitats over a
much larger area than the “baseline” of disturbance examined in the mitigation and
Conservation Plan. To understand the effects on local and regional populations, Ruby
must analyze the entire footprint of the project, and look at the habitat conditions for the
affected populations. 675 miles x 18 km. (1 km =roughly 11 miles) = 7425 square miles.
This is an area much larger than the size of the state of Connecticut.
The Footprint includes all the activities Ruby would conduct – from gravel pits to well
drilling to workers camps to de-watering to revealing and analyzing areas where livestock
use will be shifted and intensified if Ruby builds hundreds or thousands of miles of
fencing for “rehab” in chronically grazed landscapes. The Footprint includes all the
Ruby-affected habitats and populations and impacts to important resources such as water.
7
How will all of this impact habitats and populations? What are the sage-grouse, pygmy
rabbit, antelope and mule deer habitats and populations, and what are the trends in both?
What land area does their habitat encompass? What are their numbers and what threats do
various populations face? Are they declining? Have they recently faced losses of habitat
from wildfires? Please see earlier WWP comments for discussion of habitat losses from
wildfire. How, in the context of such losses, is any remaining habitat made more critical
to the species survival? How much has the “carrying capacity” for affected sage-grouse
populations been reduced in the past decade alone? How much is the carrying capacity
reduced by BLM grazing schemes along the route that annually allow turnout of cattle
right on top of nesting sage-grouse? Or that annually allow removal of grass nesting
cover to levels of 50% – which translates into a 2-3 inch height of the dominant depleted
understory grasses being all that remains behind for wildlife. Or that allow continued hot
season use on the degraded springs, seeps and drainage networks that Ruby will also
affect? Even the Nevada gold mine EIS’s may describe losses or reductions in affecting
wildlife in terms of carrying capacity. Where is any Ruby EIS or mitigation assessment
consideration of this?
Carrying capacity must be understood in terms of the affected population. With species
like sage-grouse and pygmy rabbit, it must also be understood in terms of essential
habitat components. Where are the land areas that - if they are disturbed, degraded or
destroyed by Ruby activity – the species population may suffer significant impacts, or
where local populations may no longer be viable? The severity of the effects of habitat
losses may depend on the current status of the population. The EIS and mitigation are
silent on this. There is not a single lek or lek complex, or a single patch of deep soil big
sagebrush that Ruby is required to avoid by any significant distance.
We’ve watched as the Ruby route is moved about in some areas for a private landowner
with center pivots that Ruby may seek to buy water from, to maintain a lifestyles in an
area of Utah, to deal with cultural concerns and other considerations – while Ruby
refuses to avoid destruction of critical wildlife habitats and a Globally Significant public
wild land area.
Ruby’s piecemeal submissions all the while lack critical biological info, analysis, and use
of current conservation science. Both the EIS and the mitigation are plagued by this, and
a lack of foreseeable and cumulative impacts analysis. They lack conservation planning
and analysis of the degree of fragmentation and impacts to sensitive and imperiled
species in the Footprint of Ruby as well a “hard look” at the real-world effectiveness of
any mitigation package.
Agencies have faced stubborn and unjustified resistance from El Paso/Ruby in refusing to
examine part or all of an I-80 and DOE Corridor route to get the gas to Nevada and
California population centers – which is where Ruby claims the customers are! Ruby
refuses to avoid/abandon the destructive Proposed Route between Sheldon and Summit
Lake and other areas in this region, and stay out of this sensitive Globally Significant
region of northwestern Nevada. Ruby failed to examine the Jungo-Tuscarora route.
Ruby’s failure to avoid sensitive habitats and its refusal to adequately evaluate several
8
reasonable science and conservation-based alternative routes shows the public that the U.
S. oil and gas industry is still not willing to adequately consider the plight of sagebrush
species.
If the need is to get gas to the population centers of Nevada and California, the NW
Nevada route chosen makes no sense, especially in the context of energy infrastructure.
Part of the reason for the DOE Corridors (near I-80) was supposed to be to diversify
routes for national security purposes. Basically: Don’t put all your infrastructure eggs in
one basket. So why would Ruby then put even more eggs in the Malin hub basket, and
pipe gas through a lengthy circuitous route to get to Malin – where so much gas
infrastructure is already concentrated - in order to get gas to the supposed CA and NV
population center Markets?
Climate Change and Mitigation
While saying the undertaking is carbon neutral, Ruby would fragment and set in motion
insidious cheatgrass/medusahead weed spread, soil erosion, road expansion,
desertification processes, watershed disruption, de-watering, and large-scale disturbance
in one of the least fragmented sagebrush habitats remaining, and harm restoration efforts.
This will amplify the effects of climate change on imperiled species and habitats in the
region. Unspecified “active” restoration projects that Ruby mitigation dollars would
foreseeably be spent on may actually promote more desertification, climate change
processes, habitat loss and population declines for native wildlife. See WWP Pygmy
Rabbit Status Review comments (Attached).
Research and reports by university
researchers, USGS, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), climate change
experts, and others describe land management, climate change, desertification, soil
erosion, and fugitive dust impacts. Undisturbed public wild lands naturally sequester
carbon. Invasion and dominance by cheatgrass and other weeds that will thrive on Ruby
disturbance alter fire cycles, increasing carbon in the air – and increase annual grass and
other weed dominance. Cheatgrass-dominated vegetation communities have little ability
to naturally store and sequester carbon – in contrast to healthy native plant communities
that include mature native vegetation including healthy microbiotic crusts. Ruby has not
shown how these impacts are mitigated for, or if various state agency “active” veg
treatments that kill and disturb native vegetation, may actually promote desertification,
climate change, and species loss.
Ruby’s conservation plans and analyses fail to examine how the changes in the sagebrush
landscape that it will promote (including insidious weed expansion and altered fire
cycles) may amplify the effects of climate change on sensitive species habitats. For
example, Ruby proposes mowing sagebrush. Mowing sagebrush results in hotter, drier
sites once the mature sagebrush is killed, and hotter drier sites are very susceptible to
cheatgrass invasion. The mitigation also references potential future “fuelbreaks” – that
would expand the zone of pipeline disturbance outward. Agencies are not learning from
their past fuelbreaks in the region. Cheatgrass invasion of mowed fuelbreaks is occurring
9
across many of the fuelbreaks that Elko BLM and others have imposed on sagebrush
habitats in the region in recent years. See WWP Tabor Creek photos. See Peterson (2007)
mapping and analysis. Peterson found in the adjacent Owyhee region of NV, ID and OR
that cheatgrass was spreading into areas thought to be immune in the hotter microsites.
Mowing sagebrush results in hotter site conditions. Recent research by Prevey and others
at ISU (see Prevey et al. 2009) show how mature sagebrush anchors the plant community,
and how sagebrush removal causes exotic species to expand. Cheatgrass invasion
promotes frequent fires and prevents native species recovery.
We are also concerned that Ruby mitigation references fuelbreaks because the gas
company knows its actions will substantially increase fire danger in the region. The threat
of increased fire risk from Ruby has not been adequately examined.
Impacts from climate change are predicted to be particularly pronounced in
Nevada, the most arid of western states, and other states in the sagebrush and salt desert
shrub lands that Ruby will disturb and destroy. Government and university
studies predict that lands will get even hotter, water will become even scarcer, native
plant and animal life will suffer, and wildfires will become larger and hotter. These
impacts must be taken into full consideration when examining the adequacy and
effectiveness claimed to occur from mitigation, as well as in taking a “hard look” at
alternatives and the relative degree of irreparable harm. Climate change science for the
sagebrush biome (see also USDI BLM Pellant Congressional testimony, USGS Knick
and Hanser 2009) shows lands cut through by Ruby will be subject to much greater
stress, and suffer reduced ability to recover native vegetation and ecosystem processes,
face increased loss of surface waters due to heat and rapid runoff and changes in rainfall
patterns. Changes in precipitation patterns are likely to favor cheatgrass and other weed
expansion. The effects of Ruby disturbance in creating a permanently disturbed area, the
effectiveness of the rehab actions, and the adequacy of Ruby mitigation for both
immediate and longer-term disturbance effects (weed increase, soil erosion, watershed
and hydrological disruption, water loss) and the degree of irreparable harm that will result
are not adequately examined in the EIS, or conservation and mitigation measures.
Without data to inform understanding of all this, including in selection and development
of alternatives, meaningful and sufficient mitigation cannot be applied. This data is also
necessary to gauge if the impacts are unable to be mitigated. If impacts are great, and are
not able to be mitigated, then how significant to species persistence are they? If impacts
that are not able to be mitigated are found to be highly significant, how that may trigger
the need to revise alternatives, or consider new alternatives entirely? Which range of
possible routes and route segments suggested to Ruby would most serve to minimize
adverse effects to the sagebrush biome and sage-grouse and pygmy rabbits? This was
never analyzed in detail.
The EIS, RPCA and CMP also fail to consider and weigh the global significance of NW
Nevada landscapes for species persistence in the face of climate change. Imposing
intensive and long-lasting disturbance on this globally significant area promotes habitat
fragmentation, weed spread, sagebrush loss. This will lower the natural resiliency of the
10
area, the carrying capacity for native wildlife, and will affect the viability of wildlife
populations.
If Ruby is allowed to build this route, it will cut a corridor that other
energy/transmission/water mining and export companies and other developers will
certainly use - through an undisturbed area in the heart of undeveloped Northwestern
Nevada sagebrush wild lands. All sound conservation science principles show should be
“off-limits”. The Proposed Route will degrade and destroy habitats in one of the largest
and only remaining strongholds of sagebrush species. It must be viewed for what it is.
Analyses, alternatives development and mitigation must recognize the irreplaceable
values that will be lost.
If the Proposed Route is allowed to go forward – it will demonstrate that agencies and
industry are continuing the outdated mindset that sagebrush is a “disposable” landscape.
From the start, it was known that the Summit Lake-Sheldon-Proposed Route area was a
stronghold and core area for sagebrush species and the entire area should have been
avoided.
Inconsistencies Abound
It is inconsistent that Ruby’s mitigation in Wyoming mentions a bit of seasonal
avoidance for Core Areas for sage-grouse. Other states, even though plans may describe
Core Areas, do not appear to apply measures to protect them. We emphasize that Ruby’s
Wyoming route also cuts right through a large identified Wyoming sage-grouse core
area and important leks. It cuts right through the heart of a Wyoming Governor core
area and an NRDC/Audubon Core Area that includes adjacent Utah as well. See WWP
Appendix A Wyoming Core Areas Map Overlays. See also Appendix A Ruby Route
Overlays with Knick and Hanser USGS Mapping.
Agencies cannot allow Ruby to show concern for core areas in Wyoming, but not other
states! If Wyoming deserves mention of core areas – why don’t other states?
Even in Wyoming, a state that has been so torn apart by gas and oil industry development
and infrastructure, Ruby is not avoiding building its pipeline through the heart of a sagegrouse Core Area. Ruby has provided no mapping that shows Wyoming core areas. All
mitigation does is to alter times of construction in the area of occupied active leks for a
distance of 3 miles inside Core Areas, and occupied active leks for 2 miles outside Core
Areas. This is unacceptable, since the number and density of leks is part of what is
considered in mapping the Core Areas in the first place. If there are fewer leks, the status
of the population is likely more perilous and the habitat already more fragmented. By
providing lesser lek avoidance distance “protections” for leks outside core areas, the
mitigation actions relegate the non-core lek to a sacrifice area and so lesser protections
may hasten the demise of the lek. This is unacceptable.
Agencies cannot look at Wyoming with a different conservation lens than they do Utah,
Nevada, Oregon and California – where numbers of birds on leks are lower that those
11
reported by Ruby for Wyoming. Agencies can not piecemeal sagebrush habitat
protections - requiring avoidance for grouse but no avoidance of any kind for the pygmy
rabbit, or several other species. What is the scientific basis for this? What is the
conservation science basis for this? If anything, the Utah and Nevada leks and all
remaining sagebrush in Nevada should have maximum protection, given how low bird
numbers are along much of the route, and how vulnerable to cheatgrass the Nevada route
is. This state-by-state approach is inconsistent with best available science, and arbitrary.
The historical age-grouse range has already shrunk dramatically. The ink isn’t even dry
on the Wyoming Core Area mapping effort. Yet Ruby is routing its pipeline through a
Critical Core Area there as well and not adequately analyzing alternatives. So now the
Core Area will be more fragmented and suffer greater disturbance – and be on its way to
no longer being a Core Area!
To understand the adequacy of any of the mitigation, much more detailed baseline data,
mapping and analysis of sage-grouse core areas, and sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit, and
other sensitive species occurrence and abundance, and key habitat components must be
provided. This must include mapping and information from all time periods for which
information is available. Were some leks recently connected to other leks – but habitat
intrusions have severed connectivity? Have several previously active leks blinked out so
only one or two remain in an area? What is the basis for some lands being considered
core and others not? How much core habitat is Ruby crossing in Wyoming, vs. non-core
habitat? Whose mapping is Ruby using to determine this? Have Biological Conservation
Alliance or others in Wyoming delineated important sagebrush habitats differently? What
is the trajectory of the affected populations inside and outside core areas?
BLM Sagebrush Conservation Guidance
In allowing this project to proceed without much more detailed analysis, BLM has failed
to comply with its own guidance for sagebrush landscape conservation. With a project of
Ruby’s magnitude that proposes to sever and destroy a globally significant sagebrush
stronghold and landscape in order to get gas during a gas glut to population centers in
California and Nevada by a roundabout Oregon route, agencies should have insisted that
an effort be made at some type of conservation plan and recognition of critical areas of
the landscape along the lines of the core area concept. This would have allowed
reasonable alternatives to be developed, and the significance of the route’s habitat
destruction and loss to be understood.
Concerns about NV Ruby Pipeline Conservation Agreement (RPCA) Approach
We will provide more detail on concerns about the Ruby Pipeline Conservation
Agreement Impacts Analysis Mile-By-Mile approach and mitigation later. Here are some
overview concerns.
The NV RPCA is largely adopting a piecemeal approach to the sagebrush landscape that
limits mitigation efforts applied. See RPCA at 1 “the team considered on site mitigation
12
opportunities along the route in the form of limited operating periods”. RPCA at 2 states
that Ruby Consultants provided the Habitat Matrix that has been used to limit mitigation.
This results in Ruby being allowed to operate across many areas of native sagebrush, salt
desert shrub and other habitats during sensitive nesting periods for migratory birds and
other sensitive periods. Only some limited stretches here or there along the route would
be avoided for a brief time period, while extensive disturbance and habitat destruction
would be allowed to occur to nesting birds and wintering wildlife along much of the
route. The Limited Operating Periods (LOPs) are themselves extremely limited and
insufficient.
Agencies sacrifice habitats critical to sage-grouse and many species of wildlife. For
example, significant areas of low elevation big sagebrush that could provide “make or
break” habitat for populations in hard winters is allowed to suffer unfettered winter
disturbance. The Plan defines habitat to be avoided in winter extremely narrowly:
“Winter. Higher elevation, typically low sage sites, confirmed to support concentrations
of grouse during harsh winter conditions”. See RPCA at 7.
Why are there no areas of the globally significant sagebrush in the Black Rock and
Sheldon alternatives with any winter avoidance LOP for sage-grouse? This is what the
Table on NV RPCA p. 7 shows. Where is all recent systematic winter survey info over a
period of winters with varying snow levels that supports this? Unless a full and complete
landscape analysis is added or overlaid, what this approach is really doing here is
minimizing mitigation and conservation of species.
The NV RPCA LOPs further write off sagebrush habitats by primarily focusing on
Categories 1 and 2 habitats and casting aside Category 3 Habitats as defined in this
approach.
This approach maximizes Ruby getting what it wants: Year-round ability to construct the
line, and to continue to disturb the area for future “maintenance” with few constraints. It
also sets a precedent for when Ruby lays a second line, or when a transmission or water
export pipeline follows the route Ruby has pioneered, or when gas lines to industrial
development branch off in the future. Ruby intends to simultaneously construct the line in
seven Construction Segments, and has considered no alternatives to that. With the narrow
approach to mitigation, disturbance to “avoidance” areas will inevitably occur. Ruby
traffic and activity will pass by or through temporal avoidance areas - while traveling to
construct the “open” segments. The traffic impacts and travel/traffic Footprint of Ruby
has never been examined.
In the avoidance mitigation, pygmy rabbits don’t rate any seasonal avoidance period. Not
even the time when pygmy rabbits may have young kits in shallow natal burrows, or in
winter when stresses of temperature for this one pound rabbit are great. Rabbits construct
special snow burrows to escape the cold and to still be able to safely access food. Pygmy
rabbit kits may be in burrows extending into late July or August, especially in the
relatively higher elevation sagebrush areas. Disturbance and displacement of pygmy
13
rabbits in winter away from burrows, protective and thermal cover, and adequate food
may be especially stressful. Studies of pygmy rabbits show snow burrows may be an
adaptation to winter survival, and foraging activity period is highest in winter. (Katzner
and Parker, USFWS 2005, Larrucea 2009).
Global Significance of Summit Lake-Sheldon Area-Black Rock NCA Landscape
The Black Rock NCA is located just to the south of the Proposed Route. The NCA Act
provides special designation to nearly 1.2 million acres of public land in northwestern
Nevada, establishing an 800,000 acre National Conservation Area (NCA) and designating
about 750,000 acres as wilderness. About 380,000 acres of the wilderness is within the
NCA.
http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/wfo/blm_programs/planning/Black_Rock_DesertHigh_Rock_Canyon_Emigrant_Trails_National_Conservation_Area/black_rock_deserthigh.html
The NCA language emphasizes the remoteness of the area:
Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area
Act
of 2000 [Page 114 STAT. 2763 Page 114, (U.S. Statutes at Large, page 114 ff.), Public
Law 106-554]. The language of the Act states:
The areas of northwestern Nevada known as the Black Rock Desert and High Rock
Canyon contain and
surround the last nationally significant, untouched segments of the historic California
emigrant Trails, including
wagon ruts, historic inscriptions, and a wilderness landscape largely unchanged since
the days of the pioneers. …
The language of the NCA Act emphasizes the last natural untouched pioneer trail
segments.
The sagebrush wild lands in the northern NCA, Summit Lake Reservation, Sheldon, the
Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Natural Area, and the yet-unprotected critical connecting areas
of sagebrush that are targeted by Ruby for development, are all part of one sagebrush
block. This area represents one of only two large remaining minimally developed blocks
of sagebrush. The other is the Owyhee region. The NW Nevada-Oregon area, with
portions already specially designated for wildlife is unique in the world – in diversity of
sagebrush areas protected, and in some portions having undergone significant recovery
from grazing disturbance. Ruby and the energy development route it would impose
destroys future opportunities to provide long-term protection of a landscape area that is
essential to sage-grouse and pygmy rabbits. Ruby will directly alter and disturb this area
and set in motion processes that promote the ecosystem to unravel over time - through
habitat fragmentation, weeds, roading, fences, noise, and other effects, will promote
14
degradation of the neighboring protected lands. WWP had requested BLM evaluate and
designate an ACEC due to the area’s relevant, unique and important values to sagebrush
species conservation.
In the sagebrush biome, the areas currently “protected” by Wilderness – often do not
adequately protect the habitat components that species like sage-grouse or pygmy rabbits
require and Wilderness areas are grazed unless special efforts have been made to remove
livestock – efforts that are often fiercely resisted by BLM. Wilderness areas focus on
steep canyons and other areas that are the hardest areas for roads to have been built, or
are most fetching to the human eye – and that typically are not the flatter open landscapes
with combination of critical habitats areas required by sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit, sage
sparrow. Very important sage-grouse habitats in the NCA are in the northern portion but
the essential landscape for sage-grouse is located outside in the path of Ruby, as much of
the southern area of the NCA is salt desert shrub and playa. Some NCA sagebrush
habitats continue to be severely impaired by grazing practices and BLM has recently
authorized increased cattle disturbance in both NCA and non-NCA lands. See WWP
Ruby DEIS comments discussing Soldier Meadows Grazing EA.
Sage-grouse require landscapes, and Ruby cuts through the heart of a unique Landscape.
“The distribution of sage-grouse is closely aligned with the distribution of sagebrush
dominated
landscapes (Schroeder et al. 2004). The well-documented dependence of the species
on sagebrush cannot be overemphasized (Patterson 1952, Connelly et al. 2000, Hagen et
al.
2007). Lek trends across the range of the species were positively associated with the
proportions
of tall-stature sagebrush and all sagebrush land covers within 5- and 18-km radii of the
lek
location. Also, the coverage of sagebrush was greater within 5 km than within 18 km.
Low
sagebrush was common in only the northern Great Basin, where it was positively
associated with
sage-grouse. Walker et al. (2007a) found strong support for models relating lek
persistence in
southern portions of the Great Plains with the proportion of sagebrush habitat within 6.4
km.
Aldridge et al. (2008) predicted that across the range of the species areas where sagegrouse
persisted, compared with areas where populations were extirpated, were those
containing at least
25% sagebrush cover within 30 km. Clearly sagebrush at both local and landscape scales
is a necessary, if not sufficient, requirement for viable sage-grouse populations.
Sage-grouse depend on sagebrush through all seasonal periods”. USGS.
This highlights the importance of the unique large connected landscapes that the Ruby
15
route in NW Nevada would cut apart and adversely impact.
Sheldon, and Hart Mountain to the north, are the largest ungrazed blocks of sagebrush
habitat of which we are aware. They are essential scientific reference areas, and
important source habitats for sage-grouse - a landscape species, and pygmy rabbit, an
extreme habitat specialist. This area is unique in the biome and the world.
Sage-grouse populations use Ruby’s route in the course of their annual cycle. Only a
barbed wire fence separates Sheldon from the Ruby route. Sage-grouse populations in the
northern Black Rock NCA use the same landscape that will be disrupted by Ruby.
Summit Lake Reservation is the most remote Indian Reservation in the lower 48 states.
The Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Natural Area that Ruby also borders was established
because of the critical importance of the watershed, and the scenic beauty and biological
importance of the area.
The importance of this entire landscape as one of the largest blocks of undeveloped
sagebrush is shown by the recent USGS sage-grouse mapping. See WWP Appendix A
Maps (Knick and Hanser 2009 Overlays, Larrucea and Brussard 2008 overlays).
Ruby has seized upon a sliver of ecologically critical unprotected public wild land to
punch a new corridor through, and bisect this irreplaceable landscape. The existing
protective designations (Wildlife Refuge, NCA) did not quite include a narrow band only 2 miles wide in some areas– of sagebrush habitat between Sheldon and the NCA
where Ruby’s bulldozers and dynamite would blast through. All current conservation
science shows the importance of the entire area as a landscape. See Mapping and
discussion in USGS Knick and Connelly 2009, mapping in Knick and Hanser 2009. See
WWP maps Appendix A.
Not only is the area unique as the critical connection between Sheldon and the NCA, all
current conservation science for sage-grouse highlights the importance of this region of
NW Nevada and adjacent Oregon as well. Keeping this landscape whole, while
recovering livestock –damaged parts, is critical to support sustainable and viable
populations of sagebrush species. with the fires in Nevada and Idaho in this decade, and
as the rapid and recent devastation caused by oil and gas companies in Wyoming plays
out, NW Nevada is even more critical.
In the WWP Appendix A Mapping Overlays of USGS maps, as well as the Larrucea and
Brussard mapping, the actual lek count population numbers, pygmy occurrence work,
and/or sagebrush vegetation habitat info used in the analyses are largely from 2007 and
earlier. Thus the effects of recent fires including those on or near the path of Ruby, and
affecting the same grouse populations as Ruby, have not fully played out. Examples of
how the full impacts to grouse are not yet seen in the analysis and mapping provided is
the mapping in Knick and Hanser (2009) which relies on 2004 and 2006 data. If this
mapping was done using the most current info, it would likely highlight the importance
16
of NW Nevada even more. Most of the Larrucea field work was done from 2003-2006,
and several of the documented pygmy rabbit occurrences in Larrucea and Brussard
mapping in eastern Nevada have burned.
Concerns about Ruby Studies and Inadequate Baseline
Critical information necessary to understand the full scale of adverse impacts of Ruby’s
Footprint on sage-grouse and other native species habitats and populations have not been
conducted. Ruby’s studies have been conducted over a narrow land area, and for a
minimal period of time. There are many complexities of sage-grouse populations and use
of the landscape that must be determined before agencies can authorize Ruby’s route or
determine necessary mitigation.
USGS (Connelly et al. 2009) describe basic info on populations and leks that is essential
for understanding impacts of pioneering a mammoth new energy corridor and upgraded
road network in a sagebrush landscape.
“Sage-grouse populations may be non-migratory or migratory, moving >10 km between
or
among seasonal habitats (Connelly et al. 2000b). Leks for non-migratory populations
may occur
near the center of the annual range (Eng and Schladweiler 1972, Wallestad and Pyrah
1974,
Wallestad and Schladweiler 1974). Migratory populations typically do not exhibit this
pattern
(Dalke et al. 1963, Wakkinen et al. 1992). Travel by females dispersing between
wintering and
nesting areas, rather than vegetation type, may influence lek locations (Bradbury et al.
1989,
Gibson 1996).
Leks often occur in complexes, composed of one to two primary or large leks (>50
males), one or more smaller leks and at times, satellite leks. Smaller or declining
populations
may simply consist of a few smaller leks (Connelly et al. 2004). A satellite lek is defined
as a
relatively small lek (usually <15 males) that develops near a large lek during years with
relatively high grouse populations (Connelly et al. 2003). Occurrence of satellite leks
fluctuates
depending upon population size, and satellite leks may not be used in years when
populations are
low (Dalke et al. 1963). In a study of 31 leks in Idaho, mean interlek distance was about
1.6 km
(Wakkinen et al. 1992). Of 13 leks examined in the Upper Snake River Plain in Idaho
(Klebenow
1969), two had an interlek distance of 0.8 km, but the distance was 2.4 km for eight
others. In
17
Wyoming, lek density averaged 6.8 leks per 100 km2 within a water-reclamation project
area,
and 8.4 leks per 100 km2 in nearby, undeveloped sagebrush habitats (Patterson 1952).
Willis et
al. (1993) reported similar lek densities in Oregon”.
The baseline information Ruby collected was far too limited for the full adverse effects of
Ruby’s project and project Footprint to be understood.
The Ruby August 26, 2009 Biological Report filing shows:
Ruby’s efforts focused on leks within only 2 miles and surveys were conducted for only
one year. Yet differentiating between leks and satellite leks, and really understanding the
current status of the population and its use of the landscape is fraught with errors without
multiple year studies over a broader area of the landscape. Most of the leks Ruby
provides info for have numbers as low as those that typify satellite leks as defined in the
current literature.
Surveys were conducted only in narrow areas close to the pipeline, then extrapolated
outward over a distance of 5 miles on either side of the pipeline. In fragmented habitats,
in lands with fragmented ownership, and in lands with differing grazing management
activities - this extrapolation is fraught with uncertainty.
Ruby’s process for understanding vegetation communities is fraught with errors.
Extrapolating out from a small 300 ft. veg. area to a 5 mile distance is fraught with errors.
There can be dramatic veg changes in less than a mile due fire, agency “treatments” that
have destroyed native veg. to produce livestock forage. The quality of habitat and
presence of cheatgrass in the understory can change dramatically on one side of a barbed
wire fence compared to the other. There can also be tremendous soil and elevation
changes. See WWP Ruby DEIS comments.
Mapping extrapolated sagebrush habitats out only 5 miles from the pipeline is not
sufficient to characterize the landscape used by the affected sage-grouse population. In
areas of complex interspersion of vegetation communities and soils, fires, and veg
treatments, extrapolating over short distances may be riddled with errors, as well.
In 2008, Ruby was considering winter habitat as areas with 10-35% sagebrush cover,
patches > 5 acres, and height only 8-14 inches. (See Ruby August 26, 2009 filing), Table
1 Sagebrush-Steppe vegetation Functional Attributes to be used in Sage-Grouse Habitat
Model 1). Limiting sagebrush height like this is not consistent with the Literature, as it
appears to purposefully exclude large areas of sagebrush habitats used by sage-grouse in
winter where sagebrush heights are greater than 14 inches. Then, it appears that in the
December 2009 RPCA LOPs this was whittled down even more to only considering low
sage with known larger numbers of wintering grouse for avoidance. This means that vast
areas of sagebrush, and the wildlife using those habitats along the length of Ruby, would
have no winter avoidance.
18
Patches of sagebrush of 5 acres size or larger, and other smaller patches seem to have
disappeared from the December 2009 LOPs mitigation as well. What is the smallest
sagebrush area where avoidance periods or other mitigation would be applied?
Why has winter habitat been so narrowly defined? If Ruby avoided many important
sagebrush areas in winter - not just 8-14 inch high sagebrush at higher elevations - it
would not be able to build the pipeline in winter. This appears to be why the avoidance
mitigation was so narrowly defined and biologically ineffective. Was pressure was
brought on agencies to pare down avoidance, and to provide no real seasonal avoidance
of any kind for pygmy rabbits and migratory songbirds so Ruby could have seven
simultaneous construction zones operating around the clock including in the dead of
winter and also while birds are nesting in critical and sensitive sagebrush habitats?
Ruby’s pygmy rabbit search image might have excluded areas where big sagebrush
islands and inclusions are not the dominant vegetation type. This has not been adequately
described. How large an area of big sagebrush (height greater than 26 inches was part of
2008 criteria) was shown on the NV RPCA or other mapping? Pygmy rabbit-occupied
sagebrush may be shorter than this – how many of these areas were overlooked or
excluded by Ruby? Ruby used the characteristic of distance to perennial stream less than
28,000 ft. This is not relevant in much of the Great Basin. Did Ruby discard habitat by
using this model?
Ruby pygmy rabbit surveys were limited in lateral distance from the pipe line route:
“Field observations of a 300-foot corridor along the pipeline were made the summer of
2008. Information on soils and vegetation were collected in addition to other pertinent
data. The vegetation and soils data will be used to ground-truth the remote sensed data
within the 300-foot corridor. The habitat map within the 300-foot buffer [WHY is this
called a “buffer”] will have a high
degree of confidence because of the ground observations. Information from the 300-foot
corridor will then be used to map habitats in the 10-mile corridor albeit with a lesser
degree of accuracy than the 300-foot corridor”.
For sage grouse, Ruby’s August 26, 2009 Bio-Report filing (data obtained by FOIA)
indicates that Wyoming leks counts may be higher than other states. It is odd and
unexplained why the leks counted by the entity WWRLP in Lincoln County have more
birds than those counted by Ruby in Uinta County Wyoming where lek counts are more
similar to the low grouse numbers in Ruby and state agency counts along the rest of the
Ruby route. See Ruby August 2009 filing Bio Report. Is a much more intensive effort
made to maximize bird counts in Lincoln County? Is the habitat different? In Utah, and
much of Nevada, the numbers of birds in attendance at most leks is very low. Oregon lek
info has not been provided for alternatives. The low numbers of birds counted in
association with nearly all leks should have alerted agencies and Ruby to the fact that the
grouse populations are in significant trouble already. There are now areas across the
historical range of sage-grouse in Utah, Nevada, and Oregon where grouse have been
19
extirpated. Particularly in Utah and eastern Nevada, sagebrush has been replaced by
cheatgrass and agency planted crested wheatgrass - making some areas a biological
desert.
The Oregon portion of the Proposed Route runs through historical sage-grouse habitat but this is not considered or significantly mitigated for. Consideration of the Oregon
range of grouse along the Proposed Route and a Sheldon route must take into account the
rapid range contractions and extirpation of sage-grouse from much of adjacent California,
and the status of any remaining grouse across NE California. NE California is a region
where the pygmy rabbit historically occurred but has been extirpated. Range maps in
Connelly et al 2004 show the contraction of the sage-grouse range in NE California and
SW Oregon sagebrush habitats. The last-minute Fort Bidwell shift may impact more leks
in this area and important pygmy rabbit habitat at the westernmost margin of pygmy
rabbit occupied range.
Ruby’s analysis was flawed from the start. Ruby’s Baseline mapping in the August 2009
filing shows Potential Vegetation, and does not accurately provide a baseline for the
existing altered vegetation communities that are actually present on the ground now
(seedings, fire, weedlands). It does not show the fragmented, burned, agency
treated/seeded crested wheatgrass, cheatgrass-dominated and wildfire burned vegetation
in many areas of eastern Nevada, for instance. Detailed mapping of current veg
communities and their ecological condition over a land area that is relevant to the
population of sage-grouse or pygmy rabbits that would suffer a series of adverse effects
from Ruby must be provided.
Ruby NV RPCA LOPs and other Mitigation Ignores Effects of Water Withdrawal,
Use, and Discharge
There is no mitigation that addresses providing sufficient brood-rearing habitat for sagegrouse, undisturbed wildlife access to waters, avoidance of disturbance in late brood
rearing habitats, etc. Ruby will be depleting water sources and dumping waste water out
in numerous areas all along the line. The discharges have potential to drown rabbits,
inundate sage-grouse and migratory bird nests, promote invasive species, foster West
Nile virus, and have many other unaddressed and unmitigated impacts. All parts of this –
from surface water or aquifer de-watering, water transport or conveyance and discharge,
and effects of the Ruby pipeline, road network and other impacts in altering hydrology,
natural extent of meadow and other areas is ignored. There is no mitigation for this, and
the areas where this would occur, and the relative values and importance of those habitats
is not revealed. No part of the water use of Ruby is addressed.
Ruby Avoidance of Biologically Important Areas in the Plan Is Minimal and Is Not
Reasonable Based on Current Science
Ruby cuts through one of the last remaining blocks of sagebrush habitat that has not
undergone “development” for various industries, concentrations/complexes of leks, and
critical pygmy rabbit habitats.
20
This is the dead opposite of what a current sagebrush species conservation science-based
approach to route alternatives and responsible energy development would have done.
Ruby has not conducted necessary mitigation by avoidance. If it had done so, it would
have altered biologically significant portions of the Proposed Route and chosen one of
many other alternatives that it has refused to evaluate, or evaluate adequately.
For avoidance, Ruby could have followed the DOE Corridor along the interstate in all or
a portion of NV. That area already has a high Footprint of human disturbance, much
cheatgrass and other weeds, large burned areas, and reduced quality and quantity of
habitat for sagebrush species.
First and foremost, it would have abandoned the northern Black Rock-Summit LakeSheldon area and sought a route that did not set the devastating precedent of slicing a new
corridor and inflicting intensive new and long-lasting ecological disturbances on a critical
sagebrush habitat. The information that WWP provided to FERC in our comments,
accompanying scientific articles, and that is additionally discussed here shows the global
significance of the wildlife habitats and wild lands at stake here.
While Ruby has moved its pipelines to avoid disturbed agricultural lands, center pivots,
and rural homeowners who did not want their quality of life disturbed, and for other
concerns – it has stood firm in its plans to cut into critical sagebrush habitats. It has
ignored concerns about avoiding impacts to a unique area where a pipeline will
significantly and irreversibly degrade the quality of the habitat.
Ruby’s Uncertain Efforts Are Not Minimization of Adverse Effects
Ruby’s mitigation is not minimization of adverse effects. It is impossible to determine
WHAT action will actually be implemented WHERE. Where will each and every action
claimed to be mitigation be implemented and occur on the ground, including in
association with travel and access routes, water source and discharge sites, gravel pits,
etc? How will its success and effectiveness be gauged? All Ruby has done here is provide
a list of possible actions that are not required and can be thrown out in future sessions
with USWFS or others.
In closed door meetings with Ruby, state and federal agencies have acquiesced to the
highly uncertain and optional list of minimal mitigation for wildlife. There is nothing that
requires Ruby to move a single foot of the Route to avoid pygmy rabbits, or burrows, or
leks, if Ruby really doesn’t want to.
The reality of construction projects – especially in remote areas distant from population
centers- is that when the Pipeline is being built, it will be most expedient for Ruby to
minimize route micro-realignment or any deviation from long-planned routes. Large
crews of men working to stay within budgets and the clock/time commitments operating
bulldozers, land ripping equipment, and road construction equipment will be seeking a
straight path of operation to the maximum extent possible. Large equipment operators
21
and engineers that will be overseeing this tend to think in terms of what is most efficient,
a straight line, etc. Facing this, the old and mature sagebrush community micro-habitat
features required by a one pound rabbit don’t stand a chance once construction proceeds.
Does anyone really believe that all construction will grind to a halt for burrowing owl
chicks in underground burrows? No – they will be killed and their habitat destroyed.
Unless precise and detailed mapping and design of the route and activities is mapped,
staked, and identified as off-limits from the start, any promises of the micro-mitigation
will be lost in the construction. And of course the mitigation action must be binding,
mandatory and rock-solid. Not malleable, “adaptive” and changed by a phone call to
USFWS or NDOW.
The range of mitigation actions must be greatly expanded – if effects are indeed to
minimized. Agencies asked for much more substantial avoidance of sage-grouse leks, and
significant changes in routing alignment for some pygmy rabbit habitats, yet this was
ignored by Ruby. These concerns are not reflected in the mitigation.
Ruby has not collected adequate biological, aquatic, watershed and other info in advance
to understand where and how to make its micro moves, how to route a pipeline to
minimize adverse effects in the region, or to apply larger scale mitigation and sound
conservation science.
Ruby has not taken a modern-day sound conservation planning approach to
understanding the landscape-level Footprint and adverse impacts of Ruby. The public
(and agencies) trying to understand what is occurring were presented with a woefully
deficient DEIS followed by a series of inadequate piecemeal reports, many with critical
biological info omitted or brushed over. See WWP comments on Ruby DEIS.
It appears that Ruby, in a time of a national gas glut, may be racing to get this project
authorized prior to USFWS making an ESA Listing Decision on sage-grouse and pygmy
rabbit.
In apparently accepting Ruby’s uncertain, minimal and scattershot mitigation, USFWS,
BLM, and state agencies are not using current Best Available Science for sage-grouse,
pygmy rabbit and other sagebrush species. They are not ensuring the effectiveness of
mitigation by allowing it to be changed on a whim. FERC’s DEIS and the later
piecemealed series of Ruby reports certainly do not provide a sound basis. In denying
WWP an opportunity to participate in the closed door meetings in summer 2009, FWS
said they were pretty far long already and essentially that they didn’t want us there. It’s
hard to understand how the mitigation could have been so far along when the DEIS was
so flawed and lacking in biological data and substance. Ruby reports used to inform
understanding of what mitigation is needed are still being submitted piecemeal in late
December 2009, or are lacking altogether.
FERC (and BLM as a Cooperating Agency) have allowed a woefully inadequate DEIS
that shirked NEPA’s “hard look” requirement, including a hard current scientific look.
22
WWP provided extensive current scientific literature on the effects of disturbance to
sagebrush communities and wildlife. These deficiencies range from the key role of
microbiotic crusts, analysis of how Ruby disturbance effects will be amplified by grazing
disturbances, how weed spread will increase over time - particularly cheatgrass and other
weeds that pygmy rabbit and sage-grouse do not tolerate. The DEIS and mitigation
ignores consideration of how Ruby disturbance will cause rapid weed spread into some of
the best remaining habitats, how unstoppable weed advances will be, the sketchy and
incomplete info on rehab species and fencing, info on the very long recovery times (if
recovery is even possible) of sagebrush from disturbances across the Footprint of Ruby,
etc.
WWP provided science on the myriad threats to sagebrush communities, and the current
conservation science for sustaining viable populations of the imperiled species of the
sagebrush biome. We asked for full analysis of Ruby disturbance across the Project
footprint, the adverse project effects on local and regional populations and the risk of
Ruby as a cause of species extirpation and loss. We asked for full consideration of several
alternative routes other than the Proposed route that cuts asunder globally significant
remote and undeveloped wild land area that will be destroyed by the Pipeline. This
included abundant info on the harmful effects of infrastructure (Connelly et al. 2004
WAFWA Conservation Assessment for greater sage-grouse), various Holloran, Naugle
and other work, papers by Dr. Clait Braun, pygmy rabbit info and studies, etc.
This should have been examined while considering indirect, cumulative and synergistic
adverse effects, and whether portions of the route would not be able to be mitigated. We
also highlight the need to understand: 1) The precedent for many kinds of other
developments/lines that this route will set. If BLM allows Ruby to have this Route and
loose, uncertain and minimal mitigation, it will pave a new Corridor for all manner of
other development disturbances like high voltage transmission lines or gas plants in this
remote and undeveloped area; and 2) The rapidly unfolding series of new or expanded
development threats to the same species –local, mid-scale, PMUs and regional
populations - from renewable energy and corridor/transmission “rush” and sprawl
underway especially in Nevada and Oregon. SWIP and a proposed Transcanada Project
are examples of this.
Efforts to replace even one patch of old growth big sagebrush destroyed by Ruby can
only be understood in the context of the long time it will take for any recovery, the risk of
weed expansion and dominance, and the habitat deficits and fragmentation that will exist
until recovery occurs.
Science is increasingly showing the very long recovery times of sagebrush communities
from disturbance See USGS Baker (2009). It is showing the high susceptibility of
disturbed sagebrush communities to invasive exotic species. See Belsky and Gelbard
2000, Connelly et al. (2004), USGS Monograph Chapters 2009. Sage-grouse are most
likely to persist in large blocks of higher quality sagebrush habitat with minimum human
intrusions. See USGS Baker (2009).
23
All these concerns seem to have been ignored or minimized in the conservation measures
and mitigation. To understand how reasonable any mitigation is, it must be developed
based on sound current science, and its effectiveness must be determined using best
available conservation science. Allowing Ruby construction during the nesting period for
migratory birds when Ruby will certainly crush eggs and nests, kill nestlings, and kill or
displace adult birds is not compatible with current – or any - conservation science.
Allowing construction to occur on top of pygmy rabbit shallow natal burrows in spring
and summer, or destruction of rabbit soil and snow burrows and food plants during
stressful winter periods is not compatible with best available science.
Throughout Ruby’s claimed “mitigation” by avoidance the only gauge seems to be that if
anything discomforts Ruby very much it is not considered. The actions that are
considered are so whittled down, or subject to change– that many of the weak promises
will be meaningless or abandoned once bulldozing begins.
The limited site mitigation was further constrained by a narrow view of what Ruby’s
effects will be. “The teams considered on site mitigation opportunities in addition to and
assumption of basic reclamation [whatever this is] of the 115’ wide pipeline footprint”
(NV-RPCA at 1). In many areas, Ruby disturbance will extend far outside 115 ft. The full
Footprint of Ruby has not been adequately considered in mitigation analyses.
RPCA CONCERNS
NV Ruby Pipeline Conservation Agreement (RPCA) Impacts Analysis Mile By Mile
Effort
We commend Nevada for conducting a systematic analysis of some habitat components
impacted by Ruby. We have many concerns about the adequacy of baseline information
and data that Ruby should have been required to assemble, the failure to conduct
necessary analysis of the full Footprint of Ruby, and the failure to examine landscapes to
understand the effects on habitats and populations. We also do not understand why this
analysis was not conducted for the DOE Route and Jungo-Tuscarora.
The RPCA at 1 states: “The sage-grouse/pygmy rabbit team began the Conservation
Agreement process by completing an analysis of the impacts of the Ruby pipeline
proposal. Starting at the Utah/Nevada state line (approximate milepost 230) and ending
at the Oregon state line, the team completed a detailed assessment which considered the
life history requirements of each species along three pipeline route alternatives. The
process involved contractors associated with Ruby and the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), and the cooperating agencies, but focused primarily on local expertise and onthe-ground resource knowledge of employees of the BLM and the Nevada Department of
Wildlife (NDOW). The process utilized detailed mapping of the pipeline routes provided
by Ruby which was projected over various layers of GIS information. These layers
included aerial photography, vegetation and soils mapping, NDOW seasonal range
mapping, Nevada Natural Heritage data, and current wildlife survey information from
24
Ruby and the agencies. The process, dubbed a “mile-by-mile” analysis, displayed each
mapped seasonal range or life history element along the routes by species. Participants
then engaged in a detailed discussion of the impacts of the pipeline for that specific
resource value. Discussions considered habitat quality, degree of utilization by the
species, habitat degrading features such as anthropogenic impacts, recent wildfires,
invasive species, and other relevant information such as radio-telemetry or historical
utilization. Each route segment was then categorized using a set of Habitat Matrix
definitions specific to each species. Categories were defined to provide a habitat quality
metric as a basis for future consideration of mitigation opportunities. Thus higher
category impacted habitats would be considered for higher levels of mitigation than
lower ranked habitats”.
Where is all this information displayed? Where are the methods associated with all parts
of this process provided in a report, analysis or Appendix so that the public can
understand how this was carried out, and the protocols used to develop categories and to
make decisions? How were decisions of importance, significance, adverse effects,
relative harm, appropriate mitigation, effective mitigation, non-mitigatable done? How
were relative effects one various species balanced? As we review the limited “avoidance”
and other mitigations, it is hard to understand how such minimal protection measures
could have been obtained for wildlife and watersheds. Many of the measures proposed as
the minimal mitigation in the December 2009 documents show little change or
improvement from what was proposed in the DEIS. Many of the “mitigations” are really
just what other agency documents would call “BMPs” Best Management Practices. Many
are not really mitigation – just a minimum action required by common sense.
The RPCA is basically a mile-by-mile look. There was some limited integration of larger
scale info, but it is unclear how this was done, how Ruby vs. agency data was used, and
how decisions were made. This does not describe variations in the scope of analysis in
different areas. There is no list of areas in the landscape and times of the year for which
current surveys were lacking, where there were gaps or inadequacies in data, why only 2
mile intensive lek surveys were required, why Ruby was allowed to extrapolate data, how
Ruby mapping was derived, why winter habitat became to be defined so narrowly, how
active and historic leks were considered, info on population declines and trajectories of
populations, etc. There appears to be no identification of core habitat areas, no population
viability analysis, no fragmentation analysis, no analysis of how various threats were
addressed, or how the magnitude of Ruby adverse impacts was assessed.
The RPCA analysis summarizes by saying - essentially – that the Proposed Route is
worse, and “except
for pygmy rabbit would lead one to select Sheldon Route in Oregon”. How was this
arrived at? The report and mitigation appear to demonstrate a consistent bias that state
agencies seem to have to sacrifice pygmy rabbit habitat in attempts to stave off sagegrouse ESA Listing.
Our review of Ruby’s January 2009 and August 2009 filings related to wildlife
(discussed below) find inconsistencies, omissions, and mapping sleights of hand
25
(discussed later in these comments). This flawed Ruby info was the primary biological
information in front of FERC and the public when it granted the Certificate of Necessity
– and it was fraught with biological omissions and flaws.
This mile by mile analysis does not take into account the ecological importance of the
entire landscape that Ruby refuses to avoid, including by evaluating a broader range of
alternatives such as the Tuscarora gas line part of the Jungo-Tuscarora route, or portions
of the I-80 area DOE corridor, or re-routes along the length of the line consistent with
earlier agency comments. Until a landscape and population analysis is done, the
inconsistencies between Nevada, Sheldon and Oregon with each party pointing in the
direction of its neighbor, and saying “Put the Gas Line in that other place”, will continue.
No full and fair comparison of alternatives considered in the Mile-by-Mile anlaysis was
possible – since Ruby failed to reveal roads for the Gehrlach-Black Rock length (no fault
of the report). New roading with that segment would be minimal, as that route runs along
a paved road heading north from Gehrlach.
The analysis failed to provide the broad array of biological and ecological info that is
required to understand adverse effects along the length of the route or a broad range of
alternatives. Ruby was not required by agencies to conduct lek and other biological
surveys across the Footprint of Ruby, and along portions of other routes that may have
greatly reduced biological impacts in western Nevada and other areas.
There is no consideration of alternative routes in eastern and central Nevada. Agencies
appear to have given up on changes there. Yet conflicts with important sage-grouse lek
complexes and occupied pygmy rabbit habitat exist. In understanding adverse effects and
conducting conservation planning, the ground-disturbing activities of Ruby, and the
location of the Ruby Footprint and disturbance within the broader landscape should have
been examined. Ruby’s route has been tweaked for other concerns - for center pivots,
rural lifestyle and other concerns. Why did agencies not require bigger changes - for
sage-grouse or wildlife Example: avoid areas of Saval, Pie Creek, Taylor Pass, Upper
Maggie leks? Or for the concentrations of rabbit occurrences in eastern Nevada?
If agencies view the Matrix and other RPCA analyses as adequate for NV, why was a
mile by mile analysis not required for all states, and across a range of alternative routes in
all states? Are populations of affected species confined by state lines? In NE Utah, the
Ruby route crosses what is likely the habitat for one of the only populations of sagegrouse and pygmy rabbits that may be viable in Utah due to its connectivity with the
larger Wyoming area.
In other states: Why wasn’t the area of important pygmy rabbit habitat in Utah avoided
altogether? Why was more analysis of the entire route not required? Why was Ruby not
moved out of the core habitat in Wyoming? The leks reported in Wyoming within 2 miles
of the Ruby line have large numbers of grouse in attendance, compared to the vey few
grouse in Utah, and generally much lower lek attendance in Nevada. See Ruby August
26, 2009 filing.
26
The Garton et al. 2009 USGS analysis provide approaches to populations and
understanding changes over time in populations that is lacking in the EIS and RCPA.
Note: Garton et. al reference does not provide info based on the most current data as
sage-grouse population estimates are from 2007 and prior. In the case of Ruby, data
should be current. So the effects of most recent fires have not been fully seen in
population declines – in a species like sage-grouse which is a relatively long-lived bird being felt on the landscape. There were large fires in the Great Basin in both 2006 and
2007. See Espinosa and Phenix 2008. See Appendix A Map super-imposing Ruby’s path
on the NDOW Nevada wildfire and lek mapping from 2008.
Analysis for Ruby should take info for all time periods available, including up to 2008
and now 2009 lek info, and provide a much-expanded analysis based on conservation
science and population analyses. This is required to determine the full cumulative effects
to species in this landscape, and the current status and trajectories of populations
including into the future.
Then, critical analysis of the added or cumulative effects of Ruby in leading to potential
loss of individual leks, remaining lek complexes and population effects, and effects on
population trajectories should be provided. This should also consider the latest scientific
information on minimum population size for viability. See Traill et al. 2009.
Agencies and Ruby must conduct similar detailed analysis for local and regional
populations for all lengths of a wide range of alternative routes including those that
would significantly avoid impacts. A reader of the Ruby wildlife documents is not even
told if the affected sage-grouse populations are stationary or migratory.
In Elko County, there is no alternative analysis conducted for a route that would avoid
portions of the Elko-Hum route that are the most critical to sage-grouse. This could be
achieved by the pipeline dipping south to follow the Freeway at various points. There is
no analysis of Ruby heading south in Wyoming and avoiding the core area and the
adjacent area of Utah.
We fear that significant route deviations to avoid critical sage-grouse and pygmy rabbit
habitats in portions of Elko County or other areas were kept off the table because the
route goes close to gold mine activity. Mines may desire the Ruby gas to be used for the
polluting gold roasting operations that occur in this region. The mines and infrastructure
accompanying them are also greatly impacting sage-grouse habitats. These effects have
not been examined. For each route segment and the wildlife population in a local area,
what are the cumulative impacts of other disturbances or activities that adversely affect
species? For example, what are the impacts of the existing livestock degradation of
understories, fences and cattle water developments, powerlines, roading and other
disturbances in the mining belt lands west of Highway 225 and Wieland Flat?
Ruby’s most recent route change is south of Fort Bidwell and the biological effects are
not fully included in the mile-by-mile report. A change in routing here may increase
adverse wildlife impacts – but necessary grouse and pygmy rabbit surveys across the
27
landscape have not been conducted to understand such effects. The Gehrlach/Proposed
Route-Fort Bidwell route itself should have been re-considered – and a mile by mile and
landscape comparison made with siting Ruby towards California from Winnemucca,
Gehrlach or other areas - along some combination of mapping of routes shown in Ruby’s
January 2009 Wildlife Report filings.
The Proposed Fort Bidwell route followed the transmission line. If Ruby deviates from
that route, there will be a Footprint of extensive new disturbance and corridor sprawl
imposed in this landscape. Biological maps have not been adequately overlayed with all
roading, transmission line, and other mapping to fully understand infrastructure effects
along all of a range of potential routes. Note: Extensive ground-based impacts of pipeline
construction differ from the road and site disturbance for powerline placement. Co-siting
of a gas line with a powerline, or old co-axial cable route, does not mean that the impacts
are the same.
Large-scale depletion of water and placement of a highly controversial Worker Facility
and extensive road “improvement” near Vya, and the adverse effects of a greatly
intensified human disturbance Footprint across the entire region of NW Nevada, adjacent
California and Oregon are not adequately addressed or mitigated. From visits to the area,
it appears to us that some significant changes are already occurring to pave the way for
Ruby. County roads here have been recently bladed very wide, in likely anticipation of
Ruby. How has local infrastructure changed since Ruby began negotiations with various
parties? What changes will result in a permanently increased footprint of human
disturbance in this region? Constructing a 4-lane wide gravel road to get workers to and
from California to Vya is not analyzed in the EIS, and is not mitigated for. Our field
visits show the road from Cedarville has been expanded to a width more suitable for a
major highway.
By analyzing and selecting routes closest to areas with a pre-existing larger human
footprint, Ruby could greatly minimize its Footprint, required mitigation, and adverse
effects. Ruby would need to improve only a few roads, and could use the pre-existing
infrastructure and accommodations. If Ruby sought to conserve sagebrush species, this
should have been done. It must be analyzed in a much more comprehensive and
integrated NEPA analysis. This would also minimize the need to use even more fencing
for livestock, as often at least one side of larger roads may be fenced. This would
minimize the hazards to wildlife including sage-grouse and antelope. See WGFD Fence
Collision Study 2009, see Stevens et al. 2009.
Fence Hazards and other Livestock Infrastructure Ignored in All Analyses
There is no baseline analysis of the locations and effects of the existing battery of fencing
in the Footprint of Ruby, or the effects of other livestock infrastructure affecting the
various populations of sage-grouse. The RPCA Mile-by-Mile analysis ignores fences and
livestock developments. Fences are an element of livestock-associated habitat disturbance
and a lethal hazard to wildlife that is not considered. Marking fences does not eliminate
mortality and injury.
28
Serious impacts to avian species including many species of raptors and bats from fences
have long been understood by biologists. Recently, studies in Wyoming have highlighted
the very significant mortality of sage-grouse due to fence collisions. An ongoing study in
southern Idaho is also showing these effects. See Stevens See WGFD Fence Collision
Study 2009, see Stevens et al. 2009.
BLM is now belatedly issuing guidance to mark new fences, rather than remove fencing
intruding on sage-grouse habitats over large areas. Markers are not a panacea. Even with
markers some sage-grouse fence collisions can occur. Markers are not permanent, and
fall off or weather. Sage-grouse sensitivity to, and avoidance of, taller objects in their
environment is now well documented in association with communications towers and
wind MET towers. It is very likely that visually distracting objects may cause avoidance
of use in or near fences as well. In dim light conditions or when startled by predators, the
visibility of markers may be less as well. To the recreational public, visually obtrusive
markers on fences mar wild landscapes and scenic settings even further. Livestock
concentration by fences promotes weeds. Disturbed areas near fences serve as predator
travel pathways.
Stevens et al. (2009) state: “Models will be developed with the goal of providing a tool
for managers to assess collision risk in sage-grouse breeding areas, to aide in prioritizing
areas for future management actions which could include recommendations for fence
removal, or guidelines for placing new fences in sage-grouse habitats”.
Riparian/Brood Rearing Concerns
What is the baseline of brood rearing habitat and its ecological conditions, and the
adverse impacts of Ruby disturbance to this habitat that is used in the NV RPCA
analysis? Where is a systematic look taken at both the baseline and adverse Ruby effects
on already greatly limited water sources, or depleted understories, in the region? What is
severity of adverse effects and losses that will result? Further reductions or losses in areas
with habitats where habitats are already greatly reduced or degraded may have serious
impacts on populations. Where is brood rearing habitat most limited, and where will
Ruby’s activity in disturbing sage-grouse and in altering hydrology including to
intermittent and ephemeral areas and meadows, be adverse? For example, WWP site
visits to Rock Spring in the western portion of the Soldier Meadows allotment in fall
2009 found the area to be severely degraded from grazing impacts and a series of
haphazard de-watering projects for livestock that have greatly reduced , altered and killed
surface flows. The springbrook has obviously suffered erosion, headcutting, and greatly
reduced flows. The Ruby access route crosses this severely degraded area. The existing
road here is a rugged jeep trail with vegetation in the center of the two-track. Ruby’s road
construction disturbance will further alter and disturb a site that is already greatly stressed
and that has lost much of its potential to support sage-grouse broods already. With new
Ruby disruption, even more potential and brood rearing habitat will be lost. Ruby and the
RPCA provide no baseline that is adequate for understanding such effects and
incorporating them into route analysis and effective mitigation actions.
29
A systematic assessment of the current baseline of hydrology, aquifer levels, ecological
conditions, livestock-associated developments, losses and reductions to natural springs,
current severity of desertification, and watershed conditions of springs and natural water
sources and stream networks, is needed to understand the scale and significance of
Ruby’s adverse effects and species losses to develop effective mitigation. Sage-grouse
brood rearing habitat in arid sagebrush landscapes often includes early brood rearing, and
later brood rearing on meadows and by riparian areas. In early brood rearing, chicks rely
on forbs and insects associated with forbs, in uplands and/or ephemeral drainage areas. In
late brood rearing habitats, chicks rely on moist and mesic areas in the sagebrush
landscape. Sage-grouse are increasingly shown to have traditional movement and use
areas in the landscape. There is no analysis of how Ruby may disrupt or sever
movement/migration paths/patterns across the landscape and use of the landscape –
especially features like water sources that may provide critical brood habitats. A more
precise examination of the characteristics of the affected habitats and populations in the
Footprint of Ruby is necessary to understand how much disturbance and loss will occur,
to determine how severe or irreparable Ruby adverse impacts will be, and to understand
how or where to route a pipeline, and to mitigate losses.
Current and foreseeable ground and surface water depletion including from Ruby water
use and depletion with wells, withdrawals, construction and other developments. There is
also potential geothermal development in several areas along Ruby’s path, and ongoing
watershed disruption and aquifer depletion from mining and other disturbances. The often
poor watershed health and ecological conditions must be fully considered. It is
impossible to understand all of these effects and develop adequate mitigation without
much more substantive EIS analysis of the baseline. Additionally, once Ruby wells are
drilled they are very likely to be used to intensify and extend livestock disturbance. All of
these Ruby effects on the habitat cannot have been adequately examined in the limited
mitigation because Ruby never collected or provided the data to do so.
Limited Operating Periods (LOPs)
The RPCA contains a Table of “Seasonal Range Definitions” for Sage-Grouse (at 7).
“Zones identified for seasonal restrictions are within 2 miles of active leks …”.
This describes avoidance for sage-grouse during critical lekking and nesting periods.
Sage-grouse are known to nest greater distances from leks than previously thought. See
Connelly et al. 2004, Knick and Connelly 2009, Knick and Hanser 2009, Connelly et al.
2009. Sage-grouse hens are increasingly known to return to near the site where they had
nested in the previous year. Suitable nesting habitat depends on both the configuration of
sagebrush in the landscape (and in much of the pipe route significant sagebrush has been
lost or fragmented due to fire), and the traditional use of the area by a sage-grouse
population.
The characteristics of the local population (migratory, non-migratory, if migratory how
and where do sage-grouse move across the landscape) need to be explained in detail and
30
super-imposed on top of the Ruby line route in order to understand how much greater
required avoidance should be.
There are differing and inconsistent avoidance LOPs by states. There is no explanation
for why Ruby’s avoidance distance for leks is greater in Utah than in Nevada, or why
time periods for avoidance differs based on an artificial state line - when the population
is shared between states.
How would the Nevada analysis of routes and other info be different if lek avoidance
distances for Utah were applied in Nevada? Why has such an analysis not been
conducted, including several reasonable routes Ruby has avoided examining or
considering? The Nevada lek avoidance distance is not minimization of impacts. Are
sage-grouse in Nevada worth less, or are they more expendable, than sage-grouse in Utah
or Wyoming? A state line does not change the biological needs of a species- and the
Wyoming and NE Utah grouse are part of the same population. Yet different avoidance
mitigation is applied in Utah than in Wyoming than in Nevada. And there is no
information what avoidance actions might be required in Oregon, which is necessary to
make a valid comparison of alternative segments.
Ruby would only avoid wintering habitats at higher elevations (RPCA LOPs at 7). This
will not adequately protect sage-grouse winter habitats particularly in the fragmented
landscapes or during hard winters when lower elevation patches of sagebrush may be
critical. See Braun Blueprint 2006, Knick and Connelly (2009). For example, on a
summer 2009 BLM Field Trip in the Tuscarora PMU where Elko BLM is desperate to
increase sagebrush in failed post-fire seedings, NDOW described sage-grouse moving 20
miles to winter in a small patch of unburned lower elevation Wyoming big sagebrush.
BLM’s November 2009 EA states: “the sagebrush ecosystem within the Tuscarora sage
grouse Population
Management Unit (PMU) has suffered catastrophic impacts from thirteen large wildland
fires, including the 1984 Lander Fire, 1985 Rock Creek and Clementine Fires, 1991
Izzenhood Fire, 1995 Midas Complex Fires, 1996 Antelope Fire, 1999 Clover and
Izzenhood Fires, 2001 Hot Lake, Sheep and Buffalo Fires, 2005 Esmeralda Fire and
2006
Sheep Fire (see Figure 1). The loss of hundreds of thousands of acres of sagebrush
communities by wildfire has resulted in a decline of sagebrush obligate species such as
sage grouse and pygmy rabbit, and crucial habitat for sagebrush associated species such
as mule deer and pronghorn antelope”.
How can agencies now allow supposed Ruby mitigation to write off these lower elevation
sagebrush areas in the vicinity of Ruby as winter habitat?
How can agencies allow the additional and cumulative permanent adverse impact of
Ruby disturbance in this PMU area?
The winter LOP area definition (and all aspects of the mitigation and cons plan) seems
31
more designed for the convenience of Ruby in avoiding higher elevations where there
would be too much snow or mud to work in winter. So lower elevations are sacrificed. It
appears to us that sufficient current baseline info on sage-grouse winter use all along the
path of Ruby has not been collected.
An example of LOPs being tailored for Ruby’s convenience: The “Common” route only
includes 32 miles of Winter (Dec Jan Feb) avoidance areas! Remaining patches of
sagebrush in eastern and central NV fire-ravaged landscape may provide critical
wintering habitat no matter what the elevation. Where is a systematic current analysis of
winter habitat use by sage-grouse all along the route? All remaining sagebrush habitats
should be “off-limits” to Ruby during the winter in an area where sagebrush is limited.
Antelope receive no winter LOP avoidance of any kind.
Disturbance from Ruby includes major construction on roads in making them passable
for large machinery and intensive traffic. It also includes worker and equipment travel to
and from these routes along minor gravel or other roads that typically receive minimal
use in winter in remote landscapes. Example: Vya. This will disturb and displace
wintering sage-grouse and other wildlife in sagebrush habitats that remain. Where is an
analysis of such effects?
There is no alternative examined in the EIS or mitigation documents that examines a late
summer-fall only Ruby Construction Period. The meager BMPs/mitigation was tailored
to conform to Ruby’s needs - not wildlife needs. The Operating Periods do not
adequately avoid or minimize disturbance and impacts to sagebrush communities. There
is no assessment of how scarce remaining less fragmented and higher quality sagebrush
really is along the Common Route. Is the report glossing over this? There may be agency
reticence to reveal how greatly altered the landscape is in eastern Nevada, and the
perilous status of sagebrush species in it.
The mitigation seems aimed at allowing Ruby to work on one mile of the pipeline in
spring right next to sage-grouse nesting habitat, while theoretically avoid the next mile in
sage-grouse nesting habitat. Of course, Ruby noise and disturbance will spill over and
affect the supposedly “avoided” area.
RPCA Page 8 claims the Proposed Route as high lek avoidance. This statement just does
not make sense, as mapping of lek occurrence shows the route lies next to many leks.
Ruby was not required to conduct multi-year lek surveys, or surveys over a broad enough
area to understand effects. Both active and historic leks are shown in Powerpoint
mapping that appears to be used in the RPCA. There is no explanation for why leks may
have blinked out. Ruby has not conducted necessary baseline surveys over multiple years
over a large enough area to understand if leks listed in NDOW’s list are really inactive, if
leks are satellite leks or if numbers of birds in many areas are very low and indicative of
populations in serious decline. See Connelly et al. 2009, Braun 2006.
The RPCA Report Conclusion (page 15) states that the Elko route is rich in wildlife
resources – along 156 contiguous miles. It does not identify in detail how fragmented
32
(fire, crested wheatgrass, powerlines, livestock facilities, disturbed by gold mining
activity, BLM “treatments”) much of the eastern Nevada sagebrush habitat is, and how
tenuous sagebrush species population persistence may be already in the Elko and some
other segments. See WWP Appendix A NDOW 2008 Fire Mapping, Espinosa and Phenix
2008, NV BLM Renewables map showing powerlines). It also appears that the pygmy
rabbit occurrences in the easternmost part of Nevada may not be considered in the
report’s “rich in wildlife” discussion here.
The RPCA report Conclusion states “the proposed route is most impacting to these
species [sagebrush species] with the exception of the pygmy rabbit” (RPCA at 15
Conclusions). It appears to us that the report may be setting the stage for sacrificing
pygmy rabbit habitat - indeed the most intact and largest block of pygmy rabbit habitat in
Nevada, and extending into Oregon – is being downplayed. This is unacceptable, but is a
common attitude of state wildlife agencies towards the pygmy rabbit. This also
demonstrates how under the mile by mile analysis used here, sage-grouse can not be
considered an adequate umbrella species for protecting habitats of the pygmy rabbit. This
is what we are seeing done many times - agencies sacrifice dense mature and old growth
big sagebrush and other habitats critical to the pygmy rabbit. The NV RPCA report fails
to show how important the lower elevation areas of Sheldon and Oregon are for sage
sparrow and loggerhead shrike, other species that are also of special concern – and
certainly of greater conservation concern – than are mule deer. See Dobkin and Sauder
(2004).
At times, this report appears to underplay the significance of the Sheldon and other
habitats for several species of conservation concern. Nevada seems to be pointing to
Sheldon and Oregon for the route, instead of both states and Sheldon working together to
insist Ruby move its route out of the area entirely. Sagebrush species and the sagebrush
biome will suffer if agencies persist in the “move it into somebody else’s back yard”
approach. FERC, and BLM as a Cooperating agency, must provide effective analysis
across state and jurisdiction lines.
All sagebrush and salt desert shrub habitats should be avoided during sensitive periods
for nesting migratory birds, and the pygmy rabbit. Yet agency mitigation resulting from
closed door meetings with industry are not requiring this. Instead, sage-grouse rate some
limited avoidance (the varying time period and distance avoidances from leks) and these
other species do not. Winter and spring-early summer Ruby activity avoidance must be
mandatory along the entire route for all wildlife.
The RPCA repeatedly references maps that are not provided.
Pygmy Rabbit RPCA Concerns
The NV RPCA report fails to fully consider the importance of the affected landscapes to
the pygmy rabbit. See WWP Appendix A Mapping, Ruby Route overlay with Larrucea
and Brussard Map. This shows Ruby cutting through the area of densest concentration of
pygmy rabbit occurrences portrayed in this article.
33
Ruby conducted only narrow surveys for pygmy rabbits in limited areas (300 ft) and
some larger areas in some places. It extrapolated across the landscape. It did not provide
detailed mapping of the extent of the historical, occupied, or other, habitat in the
landscape. It did not examine the relative degree of habitat fragmentation or connectivity
between occupied habitats. It did not identify how fragmented pygmy habitat is, and how
Ruby’s activities will increase this fragmentation. Avoiding all activity during periods
when pygmy rabbit kits are in shallow natal burrows, and during winter, is critical.
Ruby did not conduct camera surveys as did Larrucea. Descriptions of Ruby
methodology raise several concerns, and Ruby’s mapping has sought to minimize pygmy
occurrences along the Proposed Route in the flawed Ruby August 2009 Proposed Route
Comparison Mapping, and in the RPCA Matrix and bar graphs.
We are puzzled that the Common Alternative only has 7 areas identified as pygmy rabbit
habitat. Ruby’s 2009 Pygmy Rabbit Survey Report
Table A-1 “Delineated Pygmy Rabbit Areas on the Proposed Ruby Route and Associated
Project Areas” shows many more separate occurrences but it is not clear how many
occurrences are all close together. This also does not appear to include other documented
sitings. This information must be displayed in detail so the public can understand how
Ruby’s failure to move the Route a few miles may destroy some of the only remaining
pygmy rabbit habitat in an area, and so that the severity of adverse effects and the loss
can be considered in mitigation, and a determination be made if the action is able not able
to be mitigated.
We are concerned that the Ruby “Habitat Matrix Definitions” for Pygmy Rabbit (RPCA
Powerpoint) places higher priority in its “Categories” on 2 or more pygmy colonies
compared to isolated pygmy rabbit colonies. How is this justified, and how have the
effects to various populations been determined and factored into this? How has important
sagebrush cover for pygmy rabbits to disperse been considered?
What is the basis for valuing multiple occurrences more than single occurrences without
understanding the full habitat and population context? This leads to isolated colonies,
which may be more vulnerable to rapid extinction when stressed by Ruby – categorized
as being less valuable.
On this issue of “value” – how, really, have agencies “valued” loss or significant
fragmentation of isolated pygmy colonies compared to larger more connected colonies?
There has not been habitat and landscape analysis related to population status and
persistence provided, or potential uniqueness of rabbits examined. How has the group
valued loss of undeveloped/unfragmented landscapes? There appear to have been value
judgments made, but we see no rationale for them.
If the Ruby and the agencies plan to write off species when their numbers are limited, or
low in an area, or populations isolated, then we call the agency attention to the very low
numbers of sage-grouse and very few active sage-grouse leks in Utah and across
34
large areas of the eastern Nevada route as well. See Ruby August 26, 2009 Bio Report
Filing (data obtained by FOIA). Ruby initially filed this with lek specifics redacted. The
two active Utah leks have very few birds. Should we provide diminished protections for
low Nevada leks and the Utah sage-grouse populations?
Is Ruby sacrificing pygmy habitats and populations, and treating them in a manner
inconsistent with treat sage-grouse, along with covering up the low numbers of sagegrouse, without any valid reason for doing so?
We are concerned about the definition of “currently active” in Ruby’s August 2009 Bio
Report filing: “Survey plot contains any combination of Open burrow plus fresh pellets.”
An open burrow can be the result of burrow use by other species of rabbits that use them
for cover after pygmies dig them, or by small mammals. The pygmy rabbit literature is
replete with cautions about interpreting open burrows as being used by pygmy rabbits or
an indication of population abundance without other verification of the presence of
rabbits (droppings, camera, peeper probe). In addition, cameras have verified rabbit
presence in areas where there presence was uncertain.
The August 2009 Bio Report filing, Ruby Pygmy Survey Report at 4-1 states “grazing
was minimal on most delineated pygmy rabbit areas (80.7 percent)”.
Why, then, are we not seeing discussion of removal of livestock from large areas to
restore pygmy rabbit habitats - as mitigation for Ruby’s pygmy rabbit habitat impacts?
Why is there no discussion and identification of restoration potential of various habitats
and their importance to species recovery and restoration if grazing disturbance was
removed? Also, weed infestations caused by Ruby disturbance are likely to be more
extensive and severe in chronically grazed habitats.
Ancillary Road Surveys (NV RPCA)
The Ruby surveys and consideration of mitigation related to ancillary roads is inadequate
for wildlife and other affected values like impacts to water resources and hydrology. See
RPCA at 14 – “the identified roads have been biologically surveyed to a width of 140 ft
to accommodate these potentialities”. With such minimal surveys, no conservation-based
analysis and mitigation can be provided.
RPCA Rehab Concerns
The NV RPCA at 1 states that minimization and avoidance was applied in consideration
of the construction phase. The limited measures provided do not effectively minimize and
avoid significant impacts.
While the NV process may have started at the Utah line (RPCA-NV at 1) – no alternative
or partial re-routing or avoidance of occupied pygmy habitats or lek complexes by a
significant distance was considered for most of the route – the entire length from MP 230
to 424. This is half the Nevada route. Have agencies written off the sagebrush habitats of
35
eastern and central NV to fire, gold mining, SWIP and other new transmission
development, etc.?
Why weren’t wildlife-avoidance based routes considered for Utah or Wyoming in the
Ruby process? The route was changed in Utah to avoid a rural subdivision there.
The mitigation is based on the assumption that reclamation/rehab of the 115 ft. disturbed
pipeline area (RPCA NV at 1). Yet there are many Ruby construction-related sites and
disturbances that are much larger and wider.
There is uncertainty in assuming rehab/restoration of the 115 ft. area– especially in arid
livestock grazed landscapes. In fact, all BLM needed to do was to look at the many miles
of the proposed pipeline length in lands of Elko County and north of Winnemucca to see
how BLM has failed to rehab nearly all chronically grazed lands disturbed in recent
wildfires. See, for example, Elko BLM Tuscarora Sagebrush Restoration EA (2009)
Attached , describing the virtual wasteland where grazed fire rehab has been a resounding
failure over much of a million acres in this region.
The recent Elko Tuscarora Sagebrush Restoration EA illustrates the severe ongoing and
chronic degradation of significant areas of the route in eastern Nevada. It shows how
significant the loss of sagebrush that has occurred there already is, and the great
difficulties, uncertainty and expense of restoration. It also illustrates the failure of
agencies to use native species – instead continuing to rely on the aggressive invasive
weedy forage kochia that excludes recovery of sagebrush, and using cattle food grasses,
and claiming this to be “restoration”. See EA, and see WWP comments. There are nearcomplete “dead zones” for sagebrush biota along and near segments of the Ruby route in
this area. The situation is so desperate that agencies are now going back in and attempting
to rehab the chronically grazing-disturbed lands where U. S. taxpayers have already
poured millions of dollars into fire rehab efforts that have been subsequently grazed and
trampled to death, often by mine-controlled cattle. This Elko “restoration” EA, like
Ruby’s proposal, makes no commitment to remove livestock from disturbed lands for a
period sufficient to allow significant recovery to occur, and is proposing to spread even
more weedy aggressive forage kochia on the land, use multiple herbicides both 2,4-d and
Imazapic, and place even more fencing in unspecified areas right along the Ruby route.
Cumulative impacts of all of these activities are not adequately addressed.
How did the NV RPCA analysis take into account fences, troughs, and other livestock
infrastructure that degrade understories, promote weed infestations, render habitat
unsuitable, or may be lethal for sage-grouse? How was grazing, and grazing exclusion,
taken into account in the assumption that rehab would be successful? Where is a mile-bymile analysis of this? How is success gauged?
What percentage of fire rehab efforts in regions of Nevada and other states traversed by
Ruby been successful at recovering native habitats? Where are these areas? How do Ruby
and the agency mitigation preparers think their efforts will be any different?
There appears to be no analysis of the effects of cheatgrass and other weeds creeping
36
outwards from the disturbed Ruby corridor, or other ways in which Ruby will spawn
weeds in the mitigation process, of adverse effects of herbicide use, including on nontarget species, and other complicated factors associated with rehab.
The report states: “higher category impacted habitats would be considered for higher
level of mitigation than lower ranked habitats” (RPCA NV at 1). How is this a
conservation- based approach for sagebrush species populations – when so much habitat
has already been so fragmented, degraded and/or lost? Conservations plans in states like
Idaho identify habitat that needs to be restored for viable populations. We stress that the
lek count numbers are very low along much of this route, and populations in some areas
may be on the verge of being extirpated. It is the opposite of the approach that would
seek to preserve degraded or lower quality habitats adjacent to areas of intact habitat. It
also does not take into account unique or important attributes of populations, and the
vulnerability of populations to extinction with added Ruby disturbance and effects.
If the analysis is going to place more value on areas that the agencies and Ruby ranked as
“higher category”, why is there no “mitigation by avoidance” of the entire Proposed
Route near Sheldon-Summit Lake? Why is there no threshold set in the mitigation
process for prohibiting a route segment due to the significance of the area and the number
of biological and other conflicts?
This Habitat Bits and Pieces approach creates a LOP logistical timing “avoidance”
nightmare. A patch of sagebrush may occur for 2 miles, then a burned patch for five
miles, then a sagebrush patch for a ½ mile, then a burned area for 3 miles. Does this mean
the agencies plan to allow Ruby to construct segments of the pipeline during winter,
nesting and other periods right next to sagebrush habitats, amid other segments that are
“off-limits”? And it would allow many areas of sagebrush to have no timing avoidance.
How small a patch of sagebrush was considered to have any habitat value in this
analysis? Ruby initial studies (August 2009 filing) claim Ruby looked at 5 acre and larger
patches of sagebrush, but the RPCA seems to cast smaller areas aside. How much
sagebrush had to occur in a mile to be considered sagebrush habitat and to have any
sagebrush values in the NV RPCA analysis? How distant was any patch of sagebrush
allowed to be to be considered subject to Ruby disturbance?
Additional RPCA Concerns
We are concerned that Winter Habitats, especially in fragmented landscapes, may be
short-changed or omitted here. The Definition used for Winter habitat appears much
more restrictive than that for other habitat types. Our Rationale: Large-scale fires or other
recent disturbances may have altered sage-grouse use of habitats, making any remaining
habitats essential. Agencies may have not conducted studies on wintering use areas since
fires/disturbance. Such studies should be conducted prior to authorizing ROW.
What database was used for powerlines– and what size/type of powerline was
considered? In the poor Ruby mapping to date, it is very difficult to determine what type
of infrastructure actually exists – as any powerline show up as pale gray, and Ruby’s path
37
is often mapped on top of lines. There has been no systematic comparison of powerlines,
gas pipelines, railroad and major road infrastructure provided. No info on how long
developments have been in place has been provided, either.
Sage-grouse can’t be used as an umbrella for all imperiled migratory birds whose habitats
will be fragmented or altered by Ruby. Sage sparrow is typically lower elevation
Wyoming big sagebrush),as is loggerhead shrike here. These species’ habitat also
interfaces with/may include mixed Wyoming big sagebrush-salt desert shrub. Work in
southern Idaho shows sage sparrow to be sensitive to fragmentation.
We are very concerned that the analysis and bar graphs portray Sheldon as having less
habitat – but that is only the case if looked at through a sage-grouse lens. When Sheldon
is examined through a pygmy rabbit lens, or sage sparrow/loggerhead shrike lens, the
results show the Sheldon route being more harmful/having more higher quality habitat.
The relatively lower elevations of the Sheldon route vs. Black Rock may make any
recovery from disturbance even more difficult. We are greatly concerned that in looking
at this in bits and pieces, the value of the whole Proposed Route combined with the
Sheldon route landscape is being ignored. Both these routes are part of the same
landscape. Unfortunately, this “fragmented” look appears to be due to the biologically
meaningless presence of the state line, and both OR and especially NV wanting Ruby to
go in the other state.
What info was used to determine cheatgrass, fragmentation, and risk of increase with
Ruby disturbance etc.? Was the focus on the two mile area, or the landscape used by
birds?
Was there info on relative risk of cheatgrass/weed dominance if lands were disturbed by
Ruby? If so, more of the Sheldon route would show up at high risk (lower elevation,
more alkaline soils in places).
Why isn’t there much more discussion of discrete segments of the Elko-Hum route?
Why hasn’t this analysis been conducted for all states?
Since the Conservation Agreement and the RPCA are interwoven and developed from
closed door processes, it is at times difficult to separate the two in commenting.
CONSERVATION AGREEMENT CONCERNS
Unique Features of Wildlife Habitats, Sweeping Scenic Beauty, and Remote
Untrammeled Wild Lands Are All Unmitigated and Unmitigatable
There is no mitigation provided for destruction of the biologically critical wild, remote,
untrammeled setting of the globally significant undeveloped landscape NW Nevada or
SE Oregon.
The eyesore straight line gash, dynamited rimrocks, exposed whitish caliche boulders,
eroding soil, expanded road disturbance footprint from Ruby activities will permanently
38
alter, diminish and destroy the sense of remoteness, wildness, and the sweep of an
undeveloped landscape and untrammeled natural beauty of the Globally Significant
northern Black Rock NCA-Summit Lake-Sheldon Area. Straight line linear features
extending over large areas are not “natural” in wild landscapes. The route will have
brightly colored signs marking it, periodic piping and other facilities visible, upgraded
access roads will always be needed for maintenance, etc.
There is no comparable wild landscape in the American West that has such a large
amount of protected sagebrush habitat in one area to build ecosystem-based conservation
upon. Ruby would sever the critical link between NCA grouse and other habitats.
A permanent pipeline, permanent roading necessary to maintain the line under all
weather conditions, and a new utility corridor pioneered for future developments here
cannot be adequately mitigated – in terms of wild and remote landscapes.
Mitigation Value
The Ruby mitigation applies an average value to lands of $600 an acre, and funds
scattershot projects that do not begin to replace what Ruby would destroy. The EIS and
mitigation plans woefully under-represent the conservation values of the Globally
Significant public wild lands that would be disturbed and permanently altered, as well as
the potential cost to recover habitats and populations as the effects of Ruby’s disturbancespawned weed infestations creep out across the landscape.
Ruby applies its acreage figure only to a portion of the much greater environmental
Footprint of the line. Many Ruby disturbances are not tallied in the acreage here – for
example the wells and water discharge areas.
What is the value of a Globally Significant sagebrush stronghold, and a large
unfragmented sagebrush landscape including a long-established National Wildlife Refuge
that has been managed for conservation of antelope, a sagebrush-dependent species, for a
considerable period of time, and that has been ungrazed for over 15 years, right next to
and an NCA that is over ¾ million acres in size - of acre sagebrush and salt desert-shrub
and playa NCA? There is no comparable landscape anywhere on earth. Ruby has chosen
a route that all current sagebrush conservation science shows must be off limits to
development. Ruby’s weeds, water demands, road upgrades, fencing, disturbance of
wildlife, and eyesore straight line gash in the wide open high desert landscape, will
deplete critical habitats, set in motion weed invasions, expanded roading and other human
intrusion. It will sever the key undeveloped link between Sheldon and the NCA. The
Route contains sagebrush habitat especially critical to connectivity of the sage-grouse
populations and diminishing leks in the Black Rock NCA with Sheldon.
Ruby CCA at 9 states it has classified the habitat into categories based on veg and other
factors. There is nothing in these Categories that is more than a bits and pieces look.
There is nothing that categorizes/measures the integrity of the landscape and the
importance for conservation of large, connected habitats to ensure species persistence.
39
This lacks discussion of the wild and connected landscape that would be destroyed, and
Ruby’s effects over time in degrading the landscape of both Sheldon and the Black Rock
NCA.
There is no systematic analysis of what actions are required to sustain viable populations
over the long term in this landscape, of the conservation and recovery potential that
would be lost, due to risk of cheatgrass spread and dominance in the wake of Ruby, and
other severe environmental degradation that will not just be confined to the actual
bulldozed area but will also spread outward into surrounding areas across a vast Footprint
of disturbance.
In eastern Nevada: What would be the cost to recover each of the 7 isolated pygmy rabbit
colonies along the NV RPCA Common Route if Ruby destroys and fragments critical
habitats, and promotes cheatgrass infestation and spread, including through increased
livestock access over time that will lead to cheatgrass through trampling microbiotic
crusts, degrading understories, and other alteration? Cheatgrass will spread outward over
time into the now intact weed-free communities. This is even more of a risk because the
bulldozed Ruby line will facilitate livestock movement into less grazed areas along the
route – which are the areas where the pygmy rabbits are predominantly found. Ruby has
not determined the very high risks of its disturbance - including upgrading access roads as effects play out over time. How much might such impacts reduce habitat quality so the
population is no longer viable? We refer agencies and reviewers to the saga of the
Columbia Basin DPS of the pygmy rabbit, where the isolated population at Sagebrush
Flat that suffered grazing disturbance and intrusion of a powerline dropped to levels, the
crashed and the population was not recoverable.
What part of Ruby mitigation is aimed at restoration of degraded habitat, and what is
aimed at preserving or enhancing other lands? What is the ratio of projects or acres
restored, vs. those preserved or enhanced? If one considers how mitigation credits have
been applied in some areas, one credit is generally required to offset the loss of one acre
of wetland to development. However, in order to produce a credit, and satisfy the legal
obligation to compensate the environment, a company may have to restore at least one
acre of wetlands, and preserve or enhance up to ten additional acres.
Ruby CCA Is Greatly Inadequate
Ruby states:
“Literature indicates that pygmy rabbits were never evenly distributed across their
range. Rather, they are found in areas within their broader distribution where sagebrush
cover is sufficiently tall and dense, and where soils are sufficiently deep and loose to
allow burrowing. In the past, dense vegetation along permanent and intermittent stream
corridors, alluvial fans, and sagebrush plains probably provided travel corridors and
dispersal habitat for pygmy rabbits between appropriate use areas”.
Ruby never examines how its route impacts populations inhabiting areas that contain
some of the best remaining continuous sagebrush habitats of this type (NE Utah, NW
40
NV-Sheldon), and the deeper soils of valleys. See Larrucea 2007 mapping, Larrucea and
Brussard 2008 WWP mapping Overlay Appendix A.
The EIS and mitigation analysis never examine how severely Ruby impacts the heart of
the densest concentration of pygmy rabbit occurrences shown in Nevada, and likely in
Utah as well (see Ruby August 2009 filing noting larger pygmy rabbit areas, see Ruby
August 26, 2009 Bio Report Filing, Larrucea and Brussard 2008 WWP Map Overlay).
Ruby cuts right through many of the best remaining and most intact habitats in the biome.
Since the route of optimal construction ease for pipelines may differentially impact valley
and deeper soil areas, this means that within these best remaining sagebrush areas, Ruby
impacts to pygmy rabbit may be even greater.
The Ruby CCA states: “Existing and Potential Threats
The loss of sagebrush-steppe vegetation through such things as fire, livestock grazing,
invasive non-native plant species, energy development, urbanization, and agricultural
conversion is likely the most significant factor contributing to pygmy rabbit and greater
sage-grouse population declines. Because sagebrush-steppe vegetation is critical to both
species, sagebrush eradication is detrimental. Fragmentation of sagebrush plant
communities also poses a threat to pygmy rabbit and greater sage-grouse populations
because dispersal potential is limited. Also, the greater sage-grouse requires large,
extensive sagebrush-steppe landscapes for its seasonal habitats …”. Here Ruby admits
that sage-grouse are a landscape species. Yet the EIS, and the RPCA do not provide a
valid landscape analysis.
The NV RPCA dances around this, and does not admit that both areas are inter-connected
and critical, and are part of the same inter-connected landscape. These lands are
inappropriate for the large-scale new disturbance that Ruby would cause. Agencies have
not conducted analysis necessary to understand the full impacts of Ruby to this globally
significant area and core area that is shared between Nevada, Oregon and portions of
eastern California. Why?
Ruby agrees to undertake some voluntary measures as avoidance and mitigation – but
there is no certainty to them.
How have high quality and suitable sage-grouse and pygmy rabbit habitat been defined?
Is this habitat necessary to maintain and recover viable populations of these species?
How much of it is required?
All documents to date fail
to adequately analyze how the Project may exacerbate climate change effects in the
landscape the pipeline would disturb. They fail to examine how the effects of
climate change in concert with the Ruby habitat losses and disturbance will impact the
resources in the project area directly, indirectly and cumulatively.
The various mitigation documents refer to maps, but no maps were provided with the
41
Ruby filing. This is consistent with many other piecemeal Ruby filing info. Key pieces
are missing. Filings often reference documents are absent – and only a cover letter is
provided for public understanding. Key info to understand components of the Ruby’s
actions are not available, incomplete, missing, limited, and appear in a redacted or
piecemeal fashion.
There is no in depth discussion, and detailed mapping and data, that shows how the
habitat criteria that ended up being used for mitigation were developed and delineated.
Why was no restoration habitat identified? Where are populations low? Where is passive
restoration needed? Active restoration?
Ruby states: “Whenever determined as practicable by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in collaboration with Ruby, Ruby
will incorporate into its construction right-of-way existing roads that immediately
parallel the working side of the Project route in suitable sage-grouse and pygmy rabbit
habitat”.
This is uncertain and nearly meaningless. Where is all the info and analysis including
detailed mapping that shows where all roads to be used are, which specific lengths of
which specific roads would be used, would be greatly “improved”, and otherwise altered?
What is “practicable”? Where and when will the added disturbance of road deconstruction be conducted and carried out? Ruby hasn’t even bothered to provide upfront
analysis of roading associated with all of the limited range of alternatives segments.
Example: Roads are not provided for Black Rock Alternative. This is likely because few
or no new roads would be required, and Ruby did not want that fact to show up in the
mitigation comparison RPCA mile-by-mile report, and bar graphs of comparisons with
the Proposed Route. In other instances, other roads that would require upgrading to serve
Ruby’s activities are not considered in the analysis. See NV RPCA Ancillary Roads
discussion at 14 “the Sheldon alternative projections do not account for an approx. 10
mile diversion from highway 140 in the vicinity of Denio Summit …and Big Hot Valley ..
nor do the projections account for areas of more rugged terrain”.
Ruby states: The incorporation of an existing road into the working side of the
construction right-of-way will reduce the amount of new surface disturbance required for
the right-of-way in that area.
Where are all such roads for all of an expanded range of alternatives, and why haven’t
they been identified already?
Ruby states: Ruby will make micro-adjustments to the Project route where practicable to
reduce the incursion into suitable greater sage-grouse and pygmy rabbit habitat. For
example, the route could be shifted slightly to avoid an important sagebrush feature, such
as high density and cover sagebrush stands with deep, loamy soils or active and recently
active burrows that is beneficial to the species without requiring a major adjustment to
the route or bend in the pipeline. Where such micro-adjustments would impact another
sensitive resource, Ruby will coordinate with the appropriate agencies on a case-by-case
basis to determine whether the micro-adjustment should be implemented.
42
What distance is considered a micro-adjustment? What determines practicability? What is
a slight shift? Why doesn’t Ruby know now where those sites are already? This all must
be determined beforehand. Why wasn’t a significant re-alignment to avoid the area
considered?
Ruby states: Rather than creating any new roads to access the ROW, Ruby will use
existing roads to reach the Project route during construction and operation of the Project
in suitable greater sage-grouse and pygmy rabbit habitat. Upgrades to existing roads
will be limited to situations where the road would not be otherwise passable by
construction equipment. Any upgraded roads will be returned to their pre-construction
condition, to the maximum extent practicable, unless otherwise directed by the landowner
or land management agency.
This is not adequate. Ruby has not avoided critical habitats, sensitive populations, and
unique areas. “Passable by construction equipment” is not defined. There is no adequate
baseline info and analysis of the pre-construction condition of any roads. What is “the
maximum extent practicable”? Once road base rock is dumped into clay mud holes of
two tracks, it will change the drivability of the road forever.
All roads that would be removed must be identified to be understood in applying
mitigation. BLM has no ability to control OHV and crosscountry use across many of the
affected lands under its Land Use Plans. No new Elko or Winnemucca Land Use Plans
are even in the draft stage. Under the old Land Use Plans, large areas of Nevada are
classified as Open to crosscountry travel. Once roads are bladed and soils disturbed, ideal
conditions will be provided for weed infestation. Water will pool in areas where road
material has been scoped out, or on either side of new improved roads. This will increase
livestock use of areas of Ruby disturbance by pooling rain or snowmelt water. Soil
compaction from Ruby travel will also increase this effect. Ruby will promote spread of
West Nile virus in road and other disturbance areas by creating sites where water will
pool, and with its waste-water disposal sites and other areas.
Many of Ruby’s Disturbances are not described or discussed in the NV RPCA or CCA.
What are the potential effects on local and regional populations of water discharges and
withdrawals? Many of the jeep trail access roads have grass and even short shrubs in the
center. How does Ruby plan to control livestock disturbance and recover ALL of the
disturbed areas of over 600 miles of access roads? How many hundreds of miles of
“temporary” fences would be required? Will de-constructed access road margins be
fenced for rehab? What would be the impacts to local and regional populations of
wildlife of all the new pipeline and access road fencing? Ruby has never addressed how it
will achieve effective rehab. across chronically livestock-disturbed lands. Will lands be
restored to the existing vegetation prior to the Ruby disturbance – or will they be restored
to native plant communities. This is all uncertain and up in the air. Why hasn’t Ruby
made certain with all landowners beforehand not later? There is no way to assess indirect
and cumulative effects, or restoration chances, unless this is done. The complicated
checkerboard and other private lands in some areas make coherent understanding of this
43
all even more difficult. Who holds the rights-of-way in the various roads at present? Are
there RS 2477 claims, and will those be used to prevent roads being “Unimproved” or
closed? RS 2477 claims are flashpoints for controversy in some portions of Nevada and
other western states.
Where will Ruby disturbance, roads, fences, etc. shift and displace excluded wildlife or
livestock to? What are the conditions of these lands? How much more will the carrying
capacity be reduced if Ruby returns existing gravel roads to pre-Ruby width or other
conditions – but leaves all former jeep trails wide, bladed, full of road base and smooth?
This must all be determined so that the effectiveness of any mitigation, including in
association with private lands, can be analyzed. What if roads cross both private and
public lands and there is a difference of opinion on rehab? Detailed photos of all lengths
of road to be altered must be provided as part of the baseline of this project. That will be
the only way to understand what the final condition any roads will be returned to – or to
understand how significant and irreversible the impacts of road upgrading will be. The
visual setting will change dramatically as white caliche deposits on boulders are turned
up, and soils displaced and disturbed. How will the pipeline and associated structures like
communications towers, fencing, and road and other Ruby disturbance like gravel piles
provide elevated or enhanced perches for sage-grouse nest predators, and habitat for
sage-grouse and pygmy rabbit predators especially skunks and other mesopredators?
Ruby states:“Ruby will cut or mow sagebrush in site-specific areas of suitable greater
sage-grouse and pygmy rabbit habitat where full ROW grading is not required for
construction. To help retain soil integrity, sagebrush will not be bladed in these areas. In
addition, the proper sagebrush taxon will be seeded or transplanted as part of the ROW
restoration process. As a note, the BLM has indicated that it will require full right-ofway grading for extended areas along the ROW. Ruby will work with BLM to limit such
full ROW grading…”.
Mowing promotes cheatgrass and other weeds. Mowing is no substitute for avoidance.
Where are all site-specific areas where the full ROW blading will be required? How
much of all the dozens if not hundreds of extra wide areas will be bladed? Please provide
detailed mapping and other info. Why doesn’t Ruby have to provide detailed mapping
and plans for all areas - not just nebulous and open-ended promises? How will any
decision be made? Will the public be involved? We foresee that it will be impossible to
balance many conflicting and competing uses (cultural vs. biological vs. ease of straightline construction) once the bulldozers are in the field. Further, a late December Ruby
filing shows plans to grub out vegetation to “mitigate” for having zero seasonal
avoidance for nesting migratory songbirds.
What does full right of way grading entail? Does this include the several hundred
OTHER areas of expanded work width, yards, gravel pits, water disposal areas, etc.? In
many areas, the zone of Ruby disturbance to soils and vegetation will be much greater
than that analyzed in the RPCA Report. See Ruby Topo maps with wide construction
zones.
44
Ruby states:“To the maximum extent practicable, Ruby will restore the Project route in
suitable greater sage-grouse and pygmy rabbit habitat using native grasses, palatable
native forbs, and appropriate sagebrush seed collected from the local vicinity so as to
achieve composition, diversity, and cover similar to that of the surrounding vegetation
community. Unless otherwise specifically instructed by the land managing agency, Ruby
will use native seed across the entire ROW, where such native seed is available..”.
What is maximum and practicable? What will limit or affect this? Cost? Livestock
disturbance? OHV use?
What and where is all suitable habitat located and how was this determined– please
provide mapping? Will this include all historical habitat? Where are historical, occupied
and restoration habitats identified and mapped? Where is all Restoration habitat? Isn’t
Ruby foreseeably planning another pipeline right next to this one.
Will Ruby be using locally collected native ecotype seeds – or pseudo-native cultivars
and hybrids from ARS and others that may pollute native gene pools?
What is meant by “palatable” – edible by livestock? Some plants that produce insects that
sage-grouse chicks eat are not palatable to livestock.
Is Ruby planning to only achieve cheatgrass if a site had cheatgrass pre-disturbance? We
are greatly concerned about the statement that “unless previously instructed by the land
management agency” Ruby will use native seed. Where and when will Ruby use native
seed? Where will it not? What has BLM instructed, and where – to use the weed forage
kochia across all of Utah and much of NV? There is great resistance by old-school
staffers in Nevada and Utah to using native seed, instead weeds like forage kochia are
being spread across the landscape (see WWP Tuscarora comments, and Tuscarora
“Restoration” EA Attached, see 10/1/2009 Federal Register Notice on ESA listing for
slickspot peppergrass. Aggressive non-native species are being spread across the
landscape because they tolerate livestock abuse. Ruby has had plenty of time to make
sure native seed is “available”. More specific detail must be provided on what plants will
be seeded in each and every mile of this line and road rehab, and all other disturbances.
Exotic species seeds will be spread over the landscape by Ruby vehicles, as well as
livestock grazing. There is no certainty that native vegetation will be rehabbed or recover
with continued chronic grazing disturbance.
Ruby has not addressed this in detail, mile by mile, pasture by pasture, allotment by
allotment. How will rehab occur where there is chronic grazing disturbance? How do
practices on private land increase uncertainty of any disturbed habitats recovering? ?
Ruby could promise the moon, but the reality of restoration in disturbed arid lands is not
addressed. If Ruby plans to string double lines of fencing all along its bulldozed
expanses, then the fence Footprint alone will be enormous. This is likely to be many
hundreds of miles of additional fences when the Pipe route, access roads, water
discharge/waste sites and other disturbed areas are all taken into account. This will have
tremendous impacts on native wildlife. See Wyoming Game and Fish Dept sage-grouse
45
fence collision study, Stevens et al. 2009, USDI BLM Jarbidge AMS discussion of
antelope and other wildlife adverse fence impacts . This will also shift and intensify
livestock use into areas that may have previously been less grazed. Livestock trailing
along fences will provide ideal sites for weed infestation.
How will this all affect sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit, antelope and other populations reeling
construction disturbance, the effects of large-scale fires, or foreseeable new transmission
lines and renewable energy sprawl such as that associated with the SWIP or other new
lines, corridors, and developments? We note that in the Wyoming fence marking study,
even with visibility markers some grouse collided with fences.
We also have observed extensive new 10 ft. tall woven wire wildlife barrier fencing on
private land parcels across northern and central Nevada – for example in the vicinity of
the Gamble Ranch near the Ruby path. On top of all the thousands of miles of preexisting livestock fence in the footprint of Ruby, NDOW is forced to build this fence to
keep big game out of private lands meadow and other areas. So this fencing has
differentially cutoff important brood rearing and other areas in the Footprint of Ruby.
This is significant to sage-grouse collision and use, of the landscape, and antelope and
other big game movement, too.
Ruby states:“Ruby will create shrub patches during restoration in site-specific areas of
high-quality greater sage-grouse and pygmy rabbit habitat by planting appropriate
sagebrush subspecies. These patches will be created in specific locations that received
more than ten inches of precipitation per year and have soils deeper than six inches”.
Where will this be done? How much will be planted? What is the condition of the land
where this would occur? Where is mapping and info that shows details of each planting
and each area? How have the agencies determined that the value of something as loose
and open-ended as this? Will this planting occur right along the route of Ruby – or miles
away?
What will happen on the sites with less than 10 inches of precipitation and shallow soils?
Where are all of these cast-aside sites that will be disturbed by Ruby? Will they be
condemned to be weed wastelands? Will the aggressive weedy exotic species forage
kochia or other undesirable cattle food be planted here? Ruby appears to have given up
on rehab to harsher sites with native vegetation.
Ruby states:“During construction, Ruby will implement typical dust control measures
…”. What are “typical dust control measures”? Are they adequate for white soil caliche
dust? How will dust affect remaining nearby vegetation and habitats? How will dust from
Ruby disturbance both during and after construction contribute to climate change?
Recent studies show wind-blown dust facilitates rapid melting of winter snowpacks.
More CCA Pygmy Rabbit Concerns
Ruby states that to avoid any negative impact on pygmy rabbits, "Ruby will use qualified
46
biologists to relocate rabbit colonies, using catch and release methods
into suitable habitat. Where catch and release has occurred, Ruby will
then mow the colony location to prevent repopulation during project
activities."
This does not avoid any negative impact, as Ruby can freely kill pygmy rabbits in
shallow natal burrows or in winter as there is no seasonal avoidance. It proposes to
remove and displace rabbits into unfamiliar areas where all suitable habitat may already
be occupied, and otherwise negatively impact individuals and populations. Ruby traffic
operating on myriad access roads will increase potential mortalities. As Ruby bulldozes
its path and upgrades primitive roads through critical dense big sagebrush habitats, the
route will create a travel corridor for predators, promote cheatgrass expansion, etc. We
are concerned that Ruby’s capture, removal and relocation of rabbits may not comply
with agency policy and translocation requirements.
Ruby has failed to adequately inventory and assess the local and regional populations
affected by the Footprint of the pipeline.
What is the definition of a colony? Over what land area has Ruby (and others
independently to verify) surveyed and censused colonies? How many colonies are found
with any local, midscale or larger population?
Much more detail is needed on the proposal for capturing, removing, and relocating
rabbits. Are agencies turning over handling rabbits to Ruby – based on Ruby claims of
rabbits being “everywhere”? If so, please review mapping overlays that display how
Ruby differentially impacts areas of densest known occurrences of rabbits in Nevada, and
a significant Utah area as well. Example: Larrucea and Brussard 2008 Map Overlay in
Attachment A.
What will be the effect on the local or population of removing rabbits? How many
rabbits will be removed? In the only state where any mile-by-mile analysis has been
done, there is not even an avoidance period for pygmy rabbits with young kits in
burrows, or for winter avoidance either. Ruby’s proposed grubbing is absurdly claimed to
be “mitigation” for birds - will destroy and alter habitat in some areas in advance of
bulldozers. Will rabbits be removed before grubbing? How will a determination be made
to relocate the route a little bit vs. trap rabbits? How can the impacts of this possibly be
understood unless detailed studies of local and regional populations of rabbits, and
connectivity between habitats, have been undertaken in advance?
Ruby’s route cuts through areas with the most dense documented occurrences of pygmy
rabbits in Nevada (Sheldon-Summit lake) Proposed Route and a critical area in highly
fragmented Utah. See Larrucea and Brussard (2008), Larrucea Ph. D dissertation 2007,
Ruby January 2009 Bio Report filing (Ruby omits pygmy occurrences in its August 2009
filing that presumably was part of the basis of mitigation discussions). Ruby January
2009 Mapping of the NE area of Utah substantially impacted by the project, shows that it
47
may have one of the only Utah populations of pygmy rabbits that have any reasonable
analysis can expect to be viable.
Ruby is claiming pygmy rabbits are “everywhere”. That is not the case. Maps filed by
Ruby show there are large areas lacking any rabbits. Plus the “abundance” of pygmy
rabbits Ruby claims is very easily explained. Ruby is cutting through and fragmenting
some of the last remaining and largest strongholds of the pygmy rabbits in Utah, Nevada
and Wyoming. The Nevada area is of critical importance – because the larger population
there spans ungrazed Sheldon lands and adjacent BLM lands. It is unique in that there is a
large block of ungrazed habitat that exists nowhere else across the range of the pygmy
rabbit except for Hart Mountain.
We are very concerned about possible disease exposure or spread that may result from
moving pygmy rabbits around. Captive Columbia Basin DPS pygmy rabbits exposed to
avian tuberculosis died, hastening the demise of the entire DPS. There is no background
information on disease in various populations of rabbits in the Footprint of Ruby. We are
aware of no protocols for this activity, and are actually quite concerned that Ruby may be
moving rabbits around before local genotypes, disease environments, possible disease
resistance of local populations, etc. are understood.
There is no study plan to understand: Where any unoccupied suitable habitat for pygmy
rabbits will be found to release the captured rabbits into; Prospects of rabbit survival in
that habitat; Potential disease spread or exposure. This approach seems to be “Out of
Sight, Out of Mind”.
In Utah, as USGS maps show (Knick and Connelly 2009), the range of sagebrush species
has shrunk dramatically already. Ruby crosses one of the most intact remaining
sagebrush landscapes areas in Utah. Western Utah has suffered large-scale fires and
agency sagebrush removal. Many areas are very vulnerable to cheatgrass increase. Janson
(2002) described the significant losses of the pygmy rabbit from large areas that had
formerly been occupied sagebrush habitat in NW Utah. See Pygmy Rabbit petition.
Please review the recent USGS sage-grouse discussion of Utah and other beleaguered
sage-grouse populations – as a window into the plight of all sagebrush species in Utah.
See USGS Garton et al. (2009).
As mapping in the USGS Monograph chapters show, several sage-grouse populations are
reduced and increasingly isolated. Several Utah sage-grouse populations are on a rapid
trajectory to extinction. The plight of the Utah sage-grouse populations - serves as a
rough barometer of the dire straits Utah pygmy rabbits are in.
Where are all identified release areas? What is the genetic makeup of all areas where
pygmies may be released? Is this an effort to dilute genetic uniqueness of other rabbits?
What is likelihood of mortality?
48
What is the status of the local population pre-mowing, pre-capture, pre-new weed
infestations, pre-new predator corridor? What will be the result afterwards? Year one?
Year five? Year ten? How might cheatgrass infestation and spread from Ruby disturbance
affect populations over time?
Please review WWP Overlay Maps in Appendix A Ruby Map Overlay with pygmy rabbit
occurrences as shown in Larrucea and Brussard. This shows Ruby cutting through the
dense concentration of documented pygmy rabbit occurrences along the Proposed Route
south of Sheldon.
There is no detailed mapping that specifies each area where the Ruby path will be moved
to avoid rabbits or leks, wintering areas, or any other important habitat. Much of this has
not been mapped and analyzed by Ruby at all. For example: How much winter habitat
lies in the path of Ruby? How locally, larger-scale and regionally significant is that
habitat? How important is a particular winter habitat to the particular population of sagegrouse at various scales?
Detailed upfront mapping and analysis must be provided for each and every area pygmy
rabbits and leks are known.
There is no analysis of what other values of the public lands may suffer greater impacts if
the route is shifted without careful site analysis. Moving the route a dozen feet may make
the difference between dynamiting through rimrock Native American blinds, vs.
bulldozing through rabbit burrow complexes. This is due to the complexity of the
sagebrush landscape, its many important values, the complex interspersion of soils, rock
formations, weed occurrence, suitable substrates for weeds once Ruby bulldozes soil
layers away, etc.
In some areas, sage-grouse and pygmy rabbits co-occur. Moving the line an unknown
distance to avoid grouse leks may end up increasing impacts on pygmy rabbits or other
species. How will a decision be made on which species loses out? What information,
science, and site-specific info will such a decision be based on? How will the competing
uses and values of the public lands be balanced?
It appears to us that when push comes to shove the pygmy rabbit will repeatedly be
sacrificed for sage-grouse in any of these instances – due to sage-grouse receiving so
much agency attention due to the possible impacts of an ESA Listing. The pygmy rabbit
has a suite of even more exacting and habitat requirements than sage-grouse.
Sage-grouse move over vast areas of the landscape over the course of the year to fulfill
their seasonal needs. Each of these Pygmy rabbits largely stay put ,and inhabit a much
smaller area. Limited dispersal, primarily by juveniles in late summer, requires
continuous sagebrush cover.
While sage-grouse may be an umbrella species at times, at the local site level of Ruby,
specific pygmy local site requirements are often more exacting than grouse. – such as
49
deep soil dense big sagebrush cover that is structurally complex and that lacks cheatgrass.
Rabbits are much less mobile than sage-grouse. Yet the receive almost no mitigation
consideration.
The EIS lacks necessary detailed analysis of the complete Footprint of the project,
complete biological inventories and consideration of all of Ruby’s effects over much
larger areas for sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit and several other sagebrush species. The
RPCA and other Conservation measures can not be finalized or considered adequate until
much more info and analysis is provided.
This is necessary so that the full range and intensity of effects on imperiled local and
regional populations of sensitive species can be understood and those effects be
minimized; Complete surveys for a wide range species including aquatic biota, a full and
comprehensive analysis.
Ruby CCA Sage Grouse Concerns
Ruby states: “In 2009, Ruby surveyed for leks, noting activity, within two miles of the
Project route and along access roads within sagebrush habitat”.
Why were all areas, and all documented leks – both active and historic – not surveyed for
5 miles? Or for 10 miles or 18 km as is more consistent with current science over a period
of multiple years? How can Ruby implement its LOP avoidance for some states when the
avoidance distance is greater than the 2 mile area intensively surveyed? Now that Ruby
has tweaked the route in several places, including the latest Fort Bidwell deviation(s)
have even leks within 2 miles been surveyed?
Wyoming and Utah avoidance is greater. We question why 2 miles was used as Ruby’s
survey area, when avoidance distances are 3 miles (Wyoming, and 4 miles Utah) Ruby
CA AMM. See avoidance discussion below.
There are several questions related to how a 2 mile distance was mapped and determined.
NDOW provides lek data by section only (example Section 36) which is typically plotted
to the center of that section, not a specific coordinate, or area of each section. So Ruby
may have plotted NDOW leks with significant errors. Is this the same in other states?
See also Ken Cole discussion of review of Ruby reporting of its lek data with WWP
Mapping Appendix A submitted with these comments.
Lek surveys were only conducted for one year. Multiple years should have been required
to compensate for possible lek disturbances, differences in weather and snowmelt, and
other variation.
Intensive surveys of winter and other habitats should also have been conducted prior to
issuance of a DEIS and range of alternatives.
“2. Where practicable, regardless of the quality of habitat, Ruby will make micro-
50
adjustments to the Project route in order to locate the pipeline at least 0.6 mile from the
perimeter of any occupied/active leks encountered”.
What is “practicable”? How will this be defined and determined?
How was it determined that moving the line a only 0. 6 miles will be sufficient?
Braun (2006 states): All surface activity should be prohibited within 5.5 km (Holloran
and Anderson
2004, 2005) of active sage-grouse leks. No surface occupancy is preferred to simply
limiting use of areas to specific periods, as the latter does not appear to benefit
sagegrouse.
Roads should not be placed within 5.5 km (3.3 miles) of active leks. If roads are
present, they should be seasonally closed during the sage-grouse breeding season from
1 March to 20 June.
Now even more info has been accumulated since 2006 on the adverse effects of
development. Agencies have requested greater avoidance (distance and temporal). Ruby
has ignored re-routing the pipe a sufficient distance across all states.
Won’t locating the pipeline 0.6 miles from some leks move it closer to others, including
leks that may not have been surveyed when the 2009 survey occurred within 2 miles of
the original ROW line, or that may have been missed due to intensive surveys only
occurring for one year and for limited periods?
Why was no analysis conducted to identify important lek areas and critical habitats for 5
miles, or 11 miles (18 km) avoidance? Why were no alternatives developed to understand
source and core areas, and adequately minimize conflicts?
Where specifically will this greatly insufficient 0.6 mile shift occur – for which specific
leks? How will this affect unsurveyed cultural sites? Pygmy rabbits? Sage sparrows?
Loggerhead shrikes? Burrowing owls? Golden eagles?
Ruby CCA sage-grouse measures include: 3. No permanent surface buildings or pipeline
appurtenances (not including signage required by the United States Department of
Transportation, main line valves or cathodic protection test facilities) will be constructed
within 0.6 mile from the perimeter of occupied/active lek sites.
Ruby fails to adequately examine the visual environment and landscape where these
signs, mainlines, cathodic structures ad other disturbances may be placed. How tall will
any structures be? Will bright colors discourage some grouse or other use, or provide
visual references for ravens or other avian predators?
4. Except as provided herein, Ruby will avoid construction activities as follows:
within three miles of an occupied/active lek within designated core areas from
March 15th to June 30th and within two miles of an occupied/active lek outside
51
designated core areas between March 15th and June 30th in the state of Wyoming;
within four miles of an occupied/active lek in Utah between March 1st and June
15th and
within two miles of an occupied/active sage-grouse lek throughout Nevada
between March 1st and May 15th.
This is an arbitrary piecemealing of mitigation actions by state areas, with no
consideration of the populations affected. Even when populations are inter-connected as with NE Utah and Wyoming - mitigation actions vary by state. There is an arbitrary
avoidance period that varies by state.
Most of the length of the pipeline is in Nevada, yet any supposed protections and
mitigations are weakest in Nevada. Why? Lek numbers across much of Nevada are very
low, especially when compared to Wyoming. See Ruby August 2009 GSG and STG
Report Tables.
Ruby activity in Nevada, in the very limited avoidance areas, could occur as early as May
16th. Sage-grouse will still have eggs in nests in many areas. Any sage-grouse re-nesting
efforts will be doomed. This will be especially detrimental to birds in the higher elevation
globally significant areas of the Proposed route by Sheldon and Summit Lake, or the
Black Rock area near the California border.
Pygmy rabbits have young kits in shallow natal burrows for months after May 15th. In
fact, they may be present until late July or August. See for example:
http://sibr.com/mammals/M044.html
Pygmy rabbit: Reproduction: Mating occurs from late February to early May. After a
27- to 30-day gestation period, the young are born from March to early August. Litter
size averages 6, and 3 litters per year have been reported in Idaho (Green and Flinders
1980). The young are altricial. Mortality is highest in late winter and early spring.
Nearly all sagebrush migratory birds will be nesting until well into June or early-mid
July. In fact, the USFWS Breeding Bird Surveys are typically conducted from June 1 to
June 30th. Ruby will greatly destroy and “take” migratory birds nests and young if
allowed to bulldoze, dynamite and generally disturb vast areas of the sagebrush landscape
as early as mid May. How could NDOW or USFWS who controlled the closed door
group that WWP was not allowed to participate in possibly agree to this?
Why has Ruby not been required to abide by a late summer-fall only construction period?
This would lessen deaths and disturbance of wildlife and young and losses to populations.
“5. If necessary for Project construction, Ruby will coordinate with the local BLM office,
USFWS, and the applicable state wildlife agency to identify acceptable construction
activities within agency-designated, temporal and/or spatial buffers to occupied/active
leks. Any deviation would require prior written approval of the FERC and the affected
land management agency”.
52
This means that Ruby can ignore claimed mitigation. This maximizes uncertainty, and
undercuts any claimed protection or effective mitigation. This would be done without
public input and awareness.
“6. Within the buffer to an occupied/active lek and in designated greater sage-grouse
winter habitat, Ruby will only replace or restore fences within the ROW; it will not create
any new fences unless otherwise directed by a land management agency. Ruby will add
permanent reflectors, markers, or other visibility-enhancing device on the top wire.
Unless in conflict with land management agency requirements, fences will have only
three strands, with barbless wires for the top and bottom strands. If feasible, the height of
the fence will be reduced below these standard heights”.
What is this lek buffer – 0.6 mile, or a few feet if Ruby has gotten the agencies to
concede to moving and shrinking its supposed avoidance once the project is underway
(see preceding #5 where Ruby has an “out” to cast aside any pre-agreed buffers). Why is
this only applied to leks?
Related to: “signage required by the United States Department of Transportation, main
line valves or cathodic protection test facilities”. Please describe in detail what this is, the
color, the visual impact in sagebrush landscapes, potential raven or predator perches
associated with all of this the full length of the route. Hw might sage-grouse avoid these
areas?
Does this mean that Ruby will build fences outside the buffer? At what distance and
where? Where and how will livestock be controlled, and all fencing be built? Why hasn’t
this been worked out in advance? There is the potential for hundreds and even thousands
of miles of fences to be spawned by this.
“7. Ruby will remove fences from the ROW that are not needed, as determined and
specified by the landowner or land management agency”.
Does this mean pre-existing fences, or all of the new fences at some distant point in time?
What will determine if a fence will be needed or not?
“8. To minimize the effects of continuous noise on greater sage-grouse populations, Ruby
will reduce noise levels to 49 dBA or less within two miles of an occupied/active lek.
Permanent, ongoing noise generators, such as compressor stations, will be located far
enough away from occupied/active greater sage-grouse …”.
Ruby must examine how its noise levels affect all seasonal habitats for grouse -including
the winter and other habitats that the Wieland Compressor and others would interfere
with.
Why are grouse in one state less deserving of protections than grouse in another? What is
the rationale for this? Why has no range of more protective mitigation actions applied
across the entire path of the line been considered in alternatives? Why has mitigation not
53
been considered and weighed under a range of alternatives?
For example, what might be the impacts of Ruby on sage-grouse if the I-80 route was
followed? If efforts had been made to actually avoid all leks by 2 miles? 5 miles? More?
There is no analysis of the communication tower impacts.
Why has Ruby not identified core areas or other critical sagebrush landscape components
for imperiled species all along its route, and acted to avoid them in order to prevent
adverse effects? Why did USFWS or state agencies not require that this at least be
examined? It is impossible to understand the full scale and scope of the impacts. Ruby’s
Proposed route flies in the face of all current conservation planning, which focuses on
identifying important or “stronghold” areas, and minimizing new disturbance in those
strongholds.
CCA Migratory Bird and Raptor Concerns
Ruby’s migratory bird mitigation is so poor it might better be termed hit and miss
“Salvage”. BLM has required avoidance periods for migratory birds during nesting
season in association with various mechanical veg treatments. This is routine and
standard – but not required for Ruby. Ruby must be required to avoid all construction and
all but emergency maintenance of its pipeline during the nesting season for migratory
birds. This period should extend from March 1-mid-July, at a minimum. Several species
likely to be encountered along the route arrive on nesting territories very early. These
include horned lark, western meadowlark, and sage sparrow for example. This is a
reasonable and prudent measure, and must be a rock solid component of any right-of-way
issuance.
Not only will Ruby kill large numbers of migratory birds in nests, it will destroy eggs.
Ruby has never revealed how many vehicles will be driving, and where, on all travel
routes and trips per day will be – across all roads to be used. There will be a very
significant mortality of migratory sagebrush birds from Ruby vehicle collisions. Many of
the remote roads, including access roads to the routes Ruby will very significantly alter,
currently receive minimal traffic. Ruby has provided no estimate of average daily or
annual traffic in all seasons of the year on all roads/routes it proposes to use, and how
much its activity will increase traffic on roads. Any large project like this must provide
detailed vehicle and travel info.
Species like the poor-will will be greatly impacted – due to the habit and behavior of this
species in sitting in openings (including roads) to catch insects at dusk.
Bird mortalities will be reduced if Ruby is required to operate in a late summer-fall
window only. Why is there no analysis of the efficacy of a range of various mitigation
actions?
54
These actions claimed by Ruby as “mitigation” have changed little from the earliest draft
proposals and the DEIS. This is entirely inadequate for a project that will have such a
tremendous impact ecological disturbance Footprint.
Full and detailed analysis and estimates of the numbers of birds and bird nests by species,
that are likely to be killed by Ruby construction, travel, and facilities must be provided.
There is no pressing need to speed up building this pipeline during the current period of a
gas glut. Ruby cannot be allowed to wantonly “take” imperiled and declining migratory
birds and nests by being allowed to operate throughout the nesting season.
Ruby states:“Although migratory bird habitat is not protected under the MBTA, activities
that affect habitat and result in direct take (i.e., wound or kill) of migratory birds would
violate the MBTA. Any activities, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of
migratory birds is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the FWS. Many migratory
birds, including raptor species, are sensitive to disturbance when nesting and roosting.
Should such disturbance result in the wounding or killing of adult birds, chicks, or eggs,
the activity causing the disturbance would violate the MBTA. Activities involved in
construction of the Project have the potential to result in take of migratory birds.
While the Act has no provision for allowing incidental take, the FWS recognizes that
some take of migratory birds may occur during pipeline construction even if all
reasonable measures to protect them are used …”.
It is not reasonable for Ruby to operate in nesting season. Wanton avian mortality will
result.
Ruby is silent on whether it will operate around the clock. If it does so, night lights and
other activity may result in even greater disturbance to migratory birds by startling and
displacing them, and making them vulnerable to predation and increased mortality. Are
rare bats likely to be killed or injured in areas with night lights? There have been mo
surveys to understand the effects of Ruby rock blasting and other activity on roosting
bats.
Ruby states:“The Project utilizes, to the degree possible, areas that contain limited
migratory bird habitat values, or which have been previously disturbed. More than half
of the Project facilities will be located within or adjacent to existing ROWs or
disturbances. By siting the Project within or adjacent to existing ROWs or disturbances,
Ruby has substantially reduced the Project’s impacts to migratory birds and their
habitats”.
This is just not true. Ruby has not provided a detailed and systematic analysis of the
effects and disturbance levels associated with the existing ROWs – on contrast the added
and cumulative Footprint of Ruby. Ruby has refused to move its line from extremely high
value sagebrush migratory bird habitat into areas closer to roads. Ruby has not considered
the I-80 or other more disturbed direct routes to get gas to California, or potentially less
harmful routes through CA to Malin. Several of the existing rights of ways had much less
55
ground disturbance than Ruby, did not include obliteration of all surface vegetation over
large areas and other massive construction impacts, did not include water depletion and
discharge, did not include massive upgrading of access roads, etc.
Ruby states: “The Project is divided into seven construction spreads, i.e., segments of
pipeline being constructed concurrently in an assembly line fashion, as described in the
EIS. Where Ruby is able to commence construction on a given construction spread prior
to the primary nesting season, it will, where possible, direct construction activities within
that spread to begin in areas of greater biological importance to migratory birds (see
Figure 1). This will increase the likelihood of completing construction of that spread
within those areas prior to the start of the nesting season.
f. For those construction spreads where Ruby must commence construction during …”.
Ruby must be required to avoid all construction during nesting periods for migratory
birds. There is no reason that this must occur – it is only for the convenience of the gas
industry. NO alternatives to seven spreads were considered.
Ruby states: “Where activities that will disturb migratory bird nesting habitat cannot be
avoided from April 1 through July 15, Ruby will have a qualified biologist assigned to
each spread survey the areas to be cleared, plus a 20-foot buffer adjacent to the areas
affected by clearing/cutting/removal of vegetation for nests. The qualified biologist will
adhere to generally accepted survey protocols. The qualified biologist will identify (using
GPS) any active nests located in areas to be cleared and the buffer adjacent to the ROW
and note associated species. Ruby’s biologists will monitor nests in the buffer and the
associated bird’s behavior and they will promptly notify and coordinate with FWS field
office staff in cases where nesting migratory birds are identified. Ruby will limit
construction in these circumstances to between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. and will provide
the FWS with a written explanation for why construction must occur during the primary
migratory bird nesting season”.
April 1 is long after the start of the period of territory establishment and nesting period
for some sagebrush and salt desert shrub migratory birds. What methods will the biologist
use to determine how many birds are nesting, and where? Will a series of surveys be
conducted? Ruby will encounter migratory birds the entire length of its route. The only
way to control wanton destruction is to require Ruby to avoid all activity in nesting
season, and operate in a late summer-fall window. There will be no effective way to
detect nests and protect them from destruction. Does this mitigation also apply to the
access roads?
The spatial buffer around raptor nests is inadequate. Further, Ruby has not revealed all
routes that will be used – so disturbances from noise including helicopter disturbances,
fumes, human intrusion across the Footprint have not been examined.
There are very likely to be many jackrabbits, reptiles and other small animals killed by
Ruby activity on roads. Golden and bald eagles at times feed on carrion, and are likely
to be killed or injured by Ruby vehicles while feeding on carrion. This level of loss and
“take” may be significant. Plus, the loss of habitat from Ruby, and significant disturbance
56
and mortality to prey species during construction, may impact raptor food and
reproductive success for a period of time.
This Ruby statement is false: “By implementing the best possible timing of clearing and
by buffering active nests from construction activities during nesting, Ruby will avoid most
nesting species”. Constructing the pipeline during nesting season for migratory birds is
not “the best possible timing of clearing and by buffering nests …”! Why are agencies
allowing Ruby to misrepresent the severe biological impacts of this pipeline to the public,
and call these actions a Conservation Plan?
Ruby states:“In coordination with FWS, Ruby will identify an appropriate conservation
organization(s) that will be responsible for utilizing funds from the conservation account
at the direction of the FWS for migratory bird habitat acquisition, restoration,
enhancement, improvement, and management efforts. This conservation organization will
be responsible for documenting Ruby’s compliance with its voluntary conservation
contributions, as detailed above, for reporting to FWS and Ruby concerning
expenditures, as well as providing reports on the implementation and success of habitat
acquisitions/management, restoration/enhancements, etc …”.
WWP was not allowed to participate in the Ruby- inter agency meetings discussing
impacts and appropriate mitigation, yet Ruby apparently allows other NGOs access.
We are concerned that sagebrush ecosystem conservation is falling by the wayside in
mitigation proposals. For example, wetland conservation efforts we have reviewed
elsewhere are doen within a framework for conservation effectiveness: Example Florida
wetlands mitigation framework: Regional mitigation should emphasize the restoration
and enhancement of degraded ecosystems and the preservation of uplands and
wetlands as intact ecosystems rather than alteration of landscapes to create wetlands.
This is best accomplished through restoration of ecological communities that were
historically present.
How are Ruby and agencies defining the projects related to the environment at one
location, and the project’s usefulness as compensation to damage done by Ruby?
How were the highest value habitats determined? How does one rate a loggerhead shrike
habitat compared to a pygmy rabbit habitat compared to a burrowing owl site?
What percentage and value (monetary and ecological value) of Ruby mitigation is aimed
at restoring degraded sagebrush habitat, including both active and passive restoration?
What percentage and value is aimed at preservation of sagebrush lands?
Ruby states: “The 50-foot permanent ROW would be periodically maintained using
mowing, cutting, and trimming either through mechanical methods or by hand to
maintain vegetation height of not greater than 15 feet. Maintenance activities are
expected to occur approximately every three to five years, depending on the vegetation’s
growth rate. Mowing on the ROW would occur in areas where deep-rooted trees and/or
plants could create a safety concern to the pipeline or limit Ruby's ability to visually
57
inspect its pipeline (10 feet on either side of the pipeline). In areas where sagebrush has
been reestablished after reclamation, no mowing or cutting of vegetation would occur.
Vegetation manipulation would be considered, in consultation with the land management
agency, in the event that there would be benefits by creating and maintaining fire-breaks
in site specific locations as an effort to protect wildlife habitat”.
There are no criteria for what is meant by “where sagebrush has been reestablished”. If
sagebrush is not reestablished after a few years – does this mean that the ROW will be
permanently kept to a low level?
If there are just a couple of sagebrush plants, will they be left unmowed? What is the
threshold of sagebrush recovery for reestablishment? Does this mean that rabbitbrush,
greasewood and other desirable native shrubs of they grow will be mowed and killed off.
Ruby fails to explain how control of weeds will occur, and how herbicides may impede
sagebrush recovery.
Ruby states: “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”, …
These elevated rocks and boulders will serve as elevated perching sites for nest predators,
brown-headed cowbirds and other troublesome avian species.
We again stress that the mitigation and analysis for aquatic species, including Lahontan
cutthroat trout is inadequate. For example, Ruby fails to provide necessary detailed
analysis of how all of its disturbances may affect ephemeral, intermittent and tributaries.
Ruby fails to avoid operation during periods of muddy weather when runoff may be
maximized. Ruby does not consider seasonal limitations on its disturbances in ESA or
other watersheds. Ruby fails to maximize how all of its activities may affect ground and
surface water quantity and quality – including its water discharges.
Ruby states: “Ruby has provided a complete list of wetlands where Ruby will require
additional workspace in wetlands and wetland locations where additional workspace is
proposed to be closer than 50 feet from waterbodies”.
Where is detailed mapping of this? How has any need for this or other areas been
justified and verified, and why is Ruby not forbidden from having additional workspace
in wetlands?
Ruby states: “Fragmentation impacts to wildlife are grouped into six major categories:
individual disruption, habitat avoidance, social disruption, habitat disruption, direct and
indirect mortality, and population effects (URS 2000)”.
Yet the EIS and minimal mitigation fail to adequately evaluate all of these effects,
including effects on populations. There is no baseline of populations and their viability,
or analysis of Ruby effects.
58
Ruby’s piecemeal filings make integrated understanding of biological effects and
mitigation impossible. As we were working on these comments - Ruby filed what
appeared to be a slightly modified version of the migratory bird actions – now saying it
will grub areas. There is no limitation on the impacts to other species like the pygmy
rabbit as this grubbing occurs.
Ruby states: “The Project utilizes, to the degree possible, areas that contain limited
migratory bird habitat values, or which have been previously disturbed”.
There has been no systematic examination of whether this statement is true. How have
agencies systematically verified this in all areas? WWP saw Ruby survey crews smashing
sagebrush and bitterbrush for one of its sites this summer – while right next to this area
shrubs had previously burned. Ruby chose the site with the shrubs for its work area.
Ruby has refused to move its line put of critically important habitats. The grubbing and
destruction of vegetation and extremely limited “mitigation” conflicts with statements
elsewhere about how Ruby will leave so much sagebrush for pygmy rabbits.
This whole mitigation package is minimal, inconsistent, non-binding and impossible to
implement in the field. The only way to minimize impacts is to move large sections of the
route to more disturbed areas like the I-80 corridor and find an alternative route to CA or
Malin, significantly re-align other sections, and prohibit all Ruby work in winter- spring
and early summer.
“From January 1 to August 31, Ruby will adhere to minimum spatial buffers for active
bald eagle nests (1.0 mile) and golden eagle nests (0.75 mile). However, depending on
the physical location of the nest (i.e., whether there are any natural barriers between the
nest and the Project) and the type of disturbance activity, these buffers could either
decrease or increase. For instance, the FWS has greater concerns for actions that
generate high-decibel level noise, such as blasting and helicopter use, than for operating
heavy equipment or welding pipes. Hence, the FWS recommends that Ruby use 1.0-mile
buffers for actions like blasting unless local landscape features lessen blasting impacts.
Ruby will coordinate with FWS and other appropriate natural resource agencies
regarding these site-specific variances”.
There has been no systematic analysis in the EIS or mitigation reports of helicopter
disturbances to wildlife and wild lands. Helicopters will startle and stress wildlife in
surrounding areas. Where and how and by what routes will low helicopter flight and
activity occur over the whole route?
59
60
Ruby has ignored repeated requests to choose alternate routes, and significantly re-align
segments in several areas. This is not minimization.
61
c. Ruby will avoid direct impacts to migratory birds during construction, e.g., impact
caused by cutting, clearing, or removal of vegetation along the pipeline route, by
implementing appropriate temporal and spatial avoidance measures, to the maximum
extent practicable.
If Ruby wants to minimize impacts, it will not operate during nesting periods.
d. Ruby will mow, grub, remove, or scrape migratory bird habitat, and remove…
This conflicts with the loose, uncertain pygmy rabbit and sage-grouse mitigation
promises of maximizing sagebrush plants remaining.
Why do some raptors rate spring-summer and longer avoidance periods, and loggerhead
shrike, sage-grouse and other species do not? Why the double standard in avian
mitigation here?
Ruby states: “Regardless of the progression of a construction spread, no activity will take
place within a raptor’s buffer zone until the young have fledged”
How, precisely, does Ruby plan to deal with burrowing owls or northern harriers - where
young are likely to be in burrows and killed? If Ruby clears the ROW in advance, it may
draw more burrowing owls or other open-nesting species to it.
Ruby states: “Exceptions to the guidelines will be considered on a case-by-case basis,
based on biological support and in coordination with the FWS”. This is a loophole big
enough to drive a Ruby bulldozer through.
We are very concerned that species like burrowing owls will have burrows destroyed or
surrounding habitats so altered that nests will be abandoned.
Ruby only surveyed a mile on either side of the line. So how can it then shift the Fort
Bidwell route? Why wasn’t a much broader area surveyed so the line could be moved if
the mitigation process found it necessary for biological reasons?
Ruby activity during nesting season will reduce prey availability, and may impact nest
success by reducing prey species, interfering with foraging behavior, and other adverse
effects. It will result in significant avian injury and mortality from collision with vehicles.
This may be particularly pronounced during migration periods, as well.
UNDERLYING RUBY BIO REPORT FLAWS
We discuss some of these concerns elsewhere related to the January 2009 Report, August
26, 2009 Report, August 2009 Sheldon Comparison Report and other documents. Here
are additional concerns.
Ruby’s August 2009 “Comparison of the Proposed Route and Sheldon”
62
A limited comparison between Sheldon and the Proposed Route between Sheldon and
Summit Lake was filed by Ruby with the same data as a series of Bio Reports.
Ruby recognizes that Sheldon is “the largest contiguous piece of land representative of
the shrub steppe ecosystem in the nation that is not grazed by domestic livestock”.
Ruby states that routing the pipeline through Sheldon could affect restoration there.
Ruby also states: “an additional impact of the Sheldon alternative that has strong
implications for refuge management and the health and quality of its habitats is the
crossing of refuge fences and cattle guards by construction activities. The refuge
expended large amounts of resources maintaining its fences to keep livestock out and
populations of feral horses and burros”.
Ruby recognizes both routes contain high value sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit and big game
habitat, the proceeds to find ways to minimize the importance of the habitats along the
Proposed Route.
Ruby makes the false comparison claim that the Proposed Route may affect more species
because more species have been documented on the Refuge. That is very likely because
Sheldon is a Wildlife Refuge – and has staff on site on the ground year round devoted to
Wildlife. Long-term efforts have been put into documenting species in the Refuge, and
members of the public who seek out and visit wildlife refuges to observe and enjoy
wildlife and are likely to report rare animal sightings. We remind Ruby that a Breeding
Bird survey was done in the Mahogany Creek Area to the south in the Lahontan
Cutthroat Trout Natural Area that very close to Ruby’s route that showed a diversity of
birds in the ungrazed habitats there as well. Ruby falsely compares the entire Refuge List
to few observations that have been officially recorded outside, and omits info from BLM
studies that have occurred. See USDI BLM Soldier Meadows 2004 FMUD, EA, and
associated AIE and other documents.
Ruby states “Overall the Sheldon Alternative route would impact less greater sagegrouse habitat .. It appears that the Proposed Route would pass through a greater
amount of winter habitat… “. Ruby then explains that the two states define winter habitat
differently, and states that Oregon has higher density winter habitat. Ruby seems to
downplay the importance of the winter habitat all along the Proposed Route – and ends
up proposing outrageously minimal sagebrush for its limited winter avoidance.
Ruby then further minimizes the significance of the sagebrush habitats of the Proposed
route and Nevada as a whole by stating “The density of greater sage-grouse across their
range is relegated to approximately 10 major areas of greatest density (population
strongholds) based on numbers of males at leks (Connelly et al. 2004). With the exception
of the southeastern Oregon stronghold, which the Sheldon Alternative would pass
through, all of these strongholds are located east of the Nevada/Utah border.”
63
Ruby fails to recognize the now severe effects of oil and gas industry destruction and
fragmentation to most of the eastern areas that Ruby points to as stellar examples of
strongholds.
Ruby states “the Oregon state conservation Plan has designated the area crossed by the
Sheldon alternative as a high viability core area for conservation of greater sage-grouse”.
Ruby seizes on the failure of the state of Nevada to “designate” areas as stronghold
habitats in its planning, and a general failure to conduct a range of current conservation
principle-based planning in several western states. Ruby has ignored discussion of any of
the Nevada PMUs, and the other components of the Nevada 2004 Planning effort. Does
Ruby believe the “stronghold” ends at the state line? What areas are regionally
significant, source or core habitats? It appears to us that Ruby has used a much more
comprehensive landscape set of lek data pints in Oregon compared to Nevada, where
over much of the region, Ruby acquired only lek info from within 2 miles of the pipeline
route. See discussion of Ruby January 2009 and August 2009 filings.
Table 2.2-1 is based on a 2-mile distance from the line path. Sheldon Route would affect
78,907 acres of sage-grouse habitat, compared to 111,056 acres of sage-grouse habitat on
the Proposed Route acres. The Sheldon alternative would affect only 19,000 acres of
sage-grouse winter habitat, but the Ruby route would affect 93,000 acres. Note: This is
then largely written off in the mitigation documents, where Ruby claims only low
sagebrush at higher elevations with documented grouse presence is winter habitat.
Ruby’s August 2009 pygmy rabbit info and mapping doesn’t mesh with the info it has
reported in January 2009.
Ruby’s pygmy rabbit detection methods differed from Larrucea. Ruby has failed to
conduct surveys with cameras as Larrucea did, which accounted for a large number of the
documented Sheldon observations that Ruby has mapped surrounded by green in Sheldon
in its Alternatives comparison mapping. Ruby did not conduct thorough and intensive
surveys using similar methods over the affected landscape. This is necessary to make a
valid comparisons between routes – and Ruby failed to systematically survey a broader
landscape as well
As with migratory bird observations, incidental pygmy rabbit observations are much
more likely to have been catalogued over the years on a Wildlife Refuge than on BLM
lands.
The info in Table 2.2-3 conflicts with earlier info from a Ruby (January 2009) filing. This
is discussed below.
In discussing big game habitat, Ruby states”
“Compared to the
sagebrush habitat managed by the BLM, the Sheldon NWR has relatively higher-quality
sagebrush with good habitat integrity, low fragmentation, and high species richness
because
64
the refuge does not allow cattle grazing inside its borders (Dobkin and Sauder 2004;
USFWS
2008a). Cattle grazing is both highly destructive to the habitat and increases the
opportunity
for noxious weed dispersal from the cattle inadvertently picking up seeds and moving
them
around and between their pastures (Abruzzi 1995). Cattle grazing also contributes to the
expansion of juniper trees into grasslands and other communities because juniper seeds
germinate only after passing through the alimentary tract of an animal (Abruzzi 1995).
Table 2.2.4 of big game habitat shows the disturbance of the Proposed Route may have
significant impact on bighorn sheep as well.
The report shows that Ruby did not even bother to conduct a cultural survey along the
Sheldon Route, so no valid comparison of Ruby impacts to cultural values is possible.
“Since no pedestrian survey for the Sheldon Alternative has been conducted to evaluate
archaeological resources, Class I information (literature search) was obtained for the
alternative”.
Figure 1 shows Wilderness, WSA and proposed WSA areas. It does not show the NCA
boundary. Note pale yellow mapping of designated Wilderness bordering Ruby’s western
path touching the Proposed route. The ONDA litigation was related to the Oregon WSAs,
not the Sheldon USFWS areas that are not BLM lands, and that are now also being
revised by Sheldon and may be changed.
Figure 2. Sage-Grouse Habitat mapping in Nevada shows extensive areas of Nevada as
winter habitat. This was jettisoned in the greatly inadequate mitigation proposal in
December 2009.
Figure 3. Ruby’s stab at mapping sage-grouse strongholds ignores the presence of large
areas of inter-connected sagebrush along the Proposed Route, and focuses on Oregon
grouse numbers. Although it is not shown here, we presume the center of the stronghold
is Hart Mountain. Ruby fails to provide mapping of the relative abundance of sage-grouse
at lek areas along all of its route, and a series of alternatives. Ruby fails to discuss how oil
and gas development is destroying strongholds it points to in the east. This Ruby
mapping even minimizes the importance of Sheldon. Ruby does not provide the current
lek numbers this was based on. Ruby conducts no other current conservation-based
mapping. Ruby does not reveal if it has used current California lek numbers here, or
differences between states in leks regularly surveyed, or how info was examined.
Figure 4. Pygmy Rabbit Habitat. Ruby maps large areas of Sheldon with dark green, yet
fails to map several clusters of Larrucea pygmy rabbit habitat occurrences outside
Sheldon. There were much different survey methods by Larrucea vs. Ruby.
Ruby has not collected necessary data with remote cameras left for several weeks at a
time along its pipe route - and that was the survey technique used to document many of
the Sheldon occurrences by Larrucea. So basically –Ruby is comparing Larrucea camera
65
survey info to its limited in area and limited in methodology surveys. We also stress that
Ruby surveyed only a small and minimal distance (300 ft) typically in association with its
route- this was greatly inadequate as well. Plus, Ruby’s August 2009 mapping as
described selectively omits numerous pygmy rabbit occurrences on, along and near its
Proposed Route south of Sheldon.
Ruby’s mapping shows rabbits along and the area of roads that would be used to access
the Proposed Route in Sheldon.
Ruby’s antelope mapping in both January and August 2009 filings only shows winter
habitat mapping, and not year-round habitat or movement corridors. As Ruby plans to
fence and greatly disturb large areas of the landscape, including with an unrevealed heavy
volume of vehicle traffic. All info on antelope, and their movement across the landscape
must be provided to determine the effects of year-long non-stop disturbance in direct,
indirect and cumulative effects and stress and mortality.
Concerns from Ruby August 26, 2009 Greater Sage-Grouse and Sharptail Grouse
Bio Report
It does not appear that Ruby has surveyed all access routes in the vicinity of Sheldon.
Five leks listed in Tables are described as Not Surveyed No Access. Ruby has still not
provided info on traffic volumes, some routes, water sources, gravel sources, hydrostatic
testing, helicopter use and intensity, etc. necessary to understand impacts and the full
footprint of its disturbance and survey leks at suitable distances.
The western Nevada portion of the Proposed Route diverges from the Black Rock
Alternative at Pipeline Path Milepost 424 or thereabouts. See DEIS Map at 3-33 figure
3.4.12-1. The Proposed (PR) goes from Milepost PR 424 to PR 600. Along this path, info
in Table A-1 shows 29 leks affected by the pipeline path and access routes. SF Willow 1,
SF Willow 2, Bishop Flats 1, Bishop Flats, 2, etc. 15 of these leks are active. 5 leks
along this route are not surveyed (one of the 5 unsurveyed leks is termed active, and
4 unsurveyed leks are termed inactive). This is the Proposed Route past Summit Lake,
through Soldier Meadows and a lot of critical “wild” country.
The Black Rock Route (via Gehrlach) goes from Milepost 424 to BR Milepost 680.
Along this path, Ruby’s Info shows that there are 13 leks affected by the pipeline path
and access routes. 5 of these leks are active. Some of these may be satellite leks. Ruby
presents info so that one can not tell if some of these are right on top of one another, or
not. Leks along the access routes are not identified as to location along the access routes,
only by the Descriptor that Ruby has applied to the entire access route. We are not certain
if all access routes were known or surveyed in spring 2009. This Route parallels existing
roads, and is near a high tension electric line north from Gehrlach. Thus, the disturbance
effects of development in the Gehrlach and parts of the northward path of the Black Rock
route may already have been playing out on wildlife populations for some time. There is
no info on population trends, leks becoming inactive, and changes over time including in
association with the powerline.
66
In eastern NV the path of Ruby goes through some relatively intact grouse habitat as well
as some weed and crested wheatgrass wastelands. It comes within 2 miles of 64 leks
(active and mostly inactive) from Bach 28 Lek in Table A-1 to Governor Lek.
A comparison of leks affected by the Ruby Proposed route here, with the route of the
Westwide Energy Corridor down along I-80, would be shocking. There are few leks
along the Freeway, compared to the 64 leks to the north. We again note the already low
numbers of birds at many of the leks along the pipeline and access route path in Utah and
portions of Nevada.
Review of the lek info and maps reveals that the landscape that will suffer direct, indirect
and cumulative impacts from Ruby’s Proposed Routes comprise what would be defined
as “Core Habitat” or state or regional strongholds in several areas. This includes
easternmost Utah, lands north of Elko between Highway 225 and Tuscarora, and the
highly controversial “Proposed Route” through NE Nevada Summit Lake-Sheldon if
viewed over a broader landscape than 2 miles, and if values were correctly mapped and
examined. In fact, the Proposed Route in the latter cuts through one of the largest intact
blocks of sagebrush remaining. See USGS Knick and Hanser 2009 mapping and
Overlays of Mapping in Appendix A.
Ruby disturbances will promote many new disturbances and unforeseen consequences. It
is very likely to produce new development disturbance in the remote lands where it
would pioneer a new corridor.
Just today, the Reno Gazette reported a Ruby spokesman as stating that Ruby had found
31 leks in Nevada.
http://www.rgj.com/article/20100103/NEWS/100103012/1321/news
This Ruby statement appears to minimize the sage-grouse impacts of the Proposed Route,
and misleads the public. The August 26, 2009 report states that Ruby found 4 new leks
(Bio Report p. 4-1). There are 43 active leks in Nevada listed in Ruby’s report. Ruby
surveyed 31 of these, most leks were already known to NDOW. NDOW surveyed its
trend leks, and did not allow Ruby to do so. Several leks near Summit Lake were not
surveyed. See Report “A Tables”. Pages A-1 to A-5. Such statements confuse the public
who do not have access to the blizzard of Ruby reports. WWP had to obtain the full info
from this report with a FOIA request, as it was not part of the Ruby filing displayed on
the FERC site.
Ruby January 2009 Biological Data and Mapping
Agencies must critically compare Ruby’s August 2009 Sheldon Route Comparison
Mapping and info for Pygmy Rabbit Habitat and other wildlife species with the info and
Appendix maps filed by Ruby in January 2009. WWP is submitting these documents for
comparison and review by agencies.
67
We are also submitting a separate Ruby January 2009 single map of pygmy rabbit
occurrences across all Ruby- affected states. We are concerned that Ruby maps a 2 mile
wide band, but did not conduct surveys across that 2 mile band.
The January 2009 filings included E&E observations and Larrucea data point plotting.
These two sets of January 2009 maps show that a large number of pygmy rabbit
occurrences mapped along the Proposed Route and in the landscape south of Sheldon
were clearly known to Ruby in January 2009. Yet Ruby’s August 2009 Sheldon Route
Comparison filing text and mapping point to only one pygmy rabbit occurrence along the
entire Proposed Route in the area south of Sheldon. This is clearly erroneous. Selective
mapping and analysis was used to downplay values of the Proposed route in relation to
Sheldon. So it appears that from Jan 2009 to August 2009, as closed door agency
mitigation discussions proceeded, Ruby’s methodology and information input was
significantly altered and became even more deeply flawed than before. What is the
relationship between Ruby’s input and the Mile-by-Mile analysis?
Maps in these two filings should be contrasted with the August 2009 Ruby Sheldon
Route Comparison Report and Mapping. It appears that some undescribed mapping
artifice was used to cast the January 2009 Pygmy information aside. How can there be
only one pygmy rabbit observation along the Proposed Route in Ruby’s August 2009
Sheldon Comparison Report – when in January 2009 Ruby mapped an abundance of
pygmy rabbit occurrences along the Proposed Route in the same area? Wasn’t this
August 2009 info part of the basis for the closed door discussion of mitigation? We note
the date on the NV RPCA Powerpoint is 9/09 – so we fear Ruby mapped away pygmy
info that was used in the RPCA bar graph, Matrices, and other comparisons.
See NV RPCA “Pygmy Rabbit Habitat Matrices” “Proposed” Route (p. 9). The Pygmy
Rabbit Habitat Matrix Totals show only one pygmy rabbit occurrence on the Proposed
Route. It also may not show info on Access Roads, and pygmy rabbit occurrence along
several access roads in Sheldon, including dense occurrences Ruby has mapped from the
Crawford study. All roads in the area will suffer greatly increased traffic volumes from
Ruby.
The NV RPCA Pygmy Rabbit info omits numerous pygmy occurrences shown in the
Ruby January 2009 Appendix 10-C-4. Map of Pygmy Rabbit Habitat Data - Data
Sources on the January Map include E&E Field data, CNDDB, Elko FO, Lakeview FO.
Oregon Nat Heritage, UNR, NDOW, Larrucea Dissertation Field data 2007 [Note – 2007
is the date the Dissertation was completed– not the date of the field data – most was
collected several years previous].
The maps filed in January 2009 provide insight into Ruby’s limited and deficient surveys,
and provide info that sharply conflict with its August 2009 filing where Ruby strove to
discount biological values of the Proposed Route. Ruby and the inadequate mitigation
proposals appear to have written off pygmy rabbit habitats impacted by the Proposed
Route, and minimized the importance of the impacts of Ruby’s Proposed route on the
68
concentration of leks in southern Sheldon, and the habitats in the critical connecting
sagebrush between Sheldon and the northern Black Rock NCA.
Both the January and August 2009 Route Comparison filings highlights the great
differences between how different states deal with habitats. For this multi-billion dollar
project – current systematic surveys over a broad region were required, with high quality
data, and detailed mapping at all scales. This is essential to clear up all the conflicting and
inconsistent info and uncertainty before decisions can be made, and alternatives
developed and compared.
Ruby’s Sage Grouse Leks and Winter Habitat Data. January 2009 filing Appendix 10
Map C-1.
shows large amounts of sage-grouse winter habitat occurring along the Ruby pipeline
route in Nevada. This map also shows that it appears that Ruby has only mapped sagegrouse leks in Nevada within 2 miles of the pipeline, except for NW Nevada region. This
is greatly inadequate. Is this the basis of the Ruby version of Stronghold mapping that
ignores vast areas of Nevada? This map shows how limited California leks are (if Ruby’s
CA info is accurate). Ruby’s Proposed Route will affect a population of sage-grouse
Nevada shares with California. It will affect the population of CA birds that is potentially
most viable.
Ruby’s mapping does not bother to show the leks in the Montana Mountains and other
areas of northern Nevada. It appears database mapping info on leks from all across
southern Oregon over large distances was used, but somehow Nevada areas in the region
were excluded.
A serious flaw in this entire process is that Ruby did not employ and does not show in its
mapping the hundreds of inactive and active leks across northern Nevada that are greater
than 2 miles distant from the pipeline path, but still within the landscape used by the
affected population of sage-grouse. Nevada bears the brunt of the Ruby impacts, making
these discrepancies and omissions of even greater concern.
This map also shows that many leks in Sheldon are close to the Ruby Route – and both
the Proposed and the Sheldon Ruby access roads may greatly affect the viability of
Sheldon sage-grouse.
Selective representation of biological info and omissions plague Ruby’s raptor info and
mapping. Ruby’s mapping in its January 2009 filing Map 10-C5 omits northern harrier
(Circus cyaneus) entirely from the legend and mapping. Northern harriers are present
along large segments of the route, yet no mapping of either sightings or nests is provided.
Ruby also appears to significantly under-represent the number of burrowing owls in this
mapping. It has failed to survey over a sufficient land area to detect many nesting or
wintering birds of prey whose foraging territories will be impaired by Ruby, as well as
birds of prey occurrence all along the various access roads that will be altered, and other
roads where high traffic volumes would occur. Ruby has failed to reveal its helicopter
and other disturbance activities in any detail, so the complete area of impact to raptors is
69
not known. There also appears to be no info on wintering Rough-legged Hawk, wintering
golden eagles, or other wintering raptors – all species for whom this project could have
substantial effects in winter periods. Vehicle and fence collision mortalities have not been
examined. The August 26, 2009 Ruby filing (report obtained by FOIA) Table A-1
contains no mention of the northern harrier. It is impossible to understand how such a
blatant omission could occur. How could FERC and BLM possibly let Ruby avoid a
raptor well known to occur across this region in both reports? We are also greatly
concerned about the large uncertainty here. This report documents several pages of
“unknown raptor nests”. Why were studies not conducted to adequately document species
use and occurrence?
Both the Sheldon and Proposed Routes are part of the same inter-connected landscape,
and both are terrible paths for major new development. That is in part why the NV RPCA
bar graph comparisons are so confusing. If sagebrush species that depend on this
landscape are to be conserved, this whole area must be left intact, and presently damaged
areas in this landscape should be restored. Ruby failed to provide necessary baseline
information to make valid comparisons. Discrepancies between states in local sagegrouse plans, how states classified habitats, selective portrayal of biological data between
states, and political limitations in some instances all have resulted in a flawed and
inconsistent analysis of biological values of this Globally Significant area.
The January 2009 10 C-1 Map provides insight into potential alternative routes that Ruby
has refused to analyze but that must be examined in a Supplemental EIS– For example, a
route in or near the DOE Corridor or at least portions of that Corridor, and the JungoTuscarora Route segment heading into California then towards Malin - or other paths
Ruby has not provided adequate mapping of sagebrush species and habitats, leks and
other habitats, rabbits, raptors and other wildlife across the landscape to adequately
evaluate any of a range of biologically acceptable and valid alternatives to conserve
sensitive species. Please see WWP Comments Appendix A Map Overlays that show very
few leks in proximity to I-80 or portions of the DOE Route or lands near that route.
Pygmy rabbits have been extirpated in NE California, so the Jungo-Tuscarora route
would have greatly reduced rabbit impacts. Why was the Mile-by-Mile analysis not
conducted for these other routes?
Ruby’s Selective Use of Data
Ruby Mapping for the Sheldon Alternatives comparison (August Sheldon Alternatives
filing 2009 filing) used info from an Oregon State Grad Student Justin Crawford’s Study
of pygmy rabbit survival and movement to inflate mapping depiction of dense rabbit
occurrences inside Sheldon in contrast to rabbit occurrence to the south/Proposed Route.
None of the Crawford rabbit studies were conducted to the south of Sheldon –so of
course there would not be similar dense circles recorded in the NHP or other databases
where Ruby got its mapping info.
Crawford radio telemetry studies were conducted inside Sheldon and to the north in
Oregon. The Crawford study areas inside and north of Sheldon is where Ruby has
70
mapped a large occurrence of rabbits. The Crawford study was not designed to be an
inventory of rabbits across the region. Ruby’s Alternative filing maps show a large dense
circle of rabbits inside Sheldon. This was a Crawford study site, where rabbits were
trapped and studied. Using that as an indication of one area or route being more important
than the other, and thus Ruby’s destruction and fragmentation of habitat in an area being
of more or less significance – can not be legitimately understood without systematic
studies across the landscape.
OTHER CONCERNS
New Fort Bidwell Ruby Route Deviations
We have examined a December 2009 potential change in the Ruby route, and it raises
several concerns. We have reviewed an agency December Powerpoint
“Ruby Pipeline Route Discussion Reno” in trying to understand the new potential
deviations.
1) The PowerPoint slide 18 map appears to show inactive and active leks
so is confusing. There are only 2 active leks left on Nevada Cowhead - one on
the state line west of Barrel Springs, and the one on the slide 18 map
on the Nevada-Oregon border just east of the proposed route. We are uncertain about the
status of all the leks west of the Cal-Nev border, but it seems that many of them may also
now be inactive.
They would be much further away from the preferred route than from the western
deviation.
2) We are concerned that active and inactive leks have not been clearly differentiated in
this process, and their connectivity to other habitats of importance has not been
examined by Ruby across a much broader landscape area. This is necessary to understand
how precarious the status of a local population may be.
3) The Alternatives map doesn't show the North Hays Range Cultural
Resource Management Area (CRMA). The Barrel Springs West Alternative
bisects the North Hays Range CRMA. The proposed route goes through less
of the CRMA. The North Hays CRMA was designated in the Surprise RMP. The
Surprise RMP is governed by the agreement with California SHIPO not
Nevada SHIPO so California SHIPO should be involved in this. See CRMA map
Surprise RMP.
4) The Barrel Springs West Alternative goes along the Rock Springs
Exclosure and right through an area where the permittee wants to
put in a new reservoir. This alternative might impact the hydrological
flows to Rock Creek which has red banded trout and feeds into Warner
sucker habitat to the north in Twelvemile Creek.
5) The Barrel Springs West Alternative will cross the Proposed
Twelvemile Creek Wild and Scenic River and cause new disturbance.
71
6) The Barrel Springs East Alternative would miss most of the CRMA and
leks but goes through all the private lands at Bally Mountain.
7) The power line (preferred route) area may be the most degraded, and
may minimize effects of yet another disturbance. But baseline information on ecological
conditions have not been provided by Ruby so that any valid ecological comparison can
be made.
This illustrates the complexity of understanding impacts and adverse effects of Ruby
routing. Information required to evaluate often competing values of the public lands and
understand the setting and context has not yet been provided for any portion of this
mammoth gas project. Winter weather precludes the public from accessing the new
proposed areas to examine site conditions.
Ruby now has moved the route a distance of a mile or greater from the existing
disturbance area of a transmission line and access routes for a distance of over 10 miles
near the California border, with the exact location still not finalized, it appears. Complete
and thorough pygmy rabbit, sage-grouse and other inventories and analysis have not been
provided for this route. Ruby is moving the route to avoid cultural concerns – but not
seriously taking into account the adverse impacts of its destructive segments in Nevada to
Globally Significant Sagebrush Habitats. In fact, this route shift moves the pipeline
path into an area away from the transmission line and promotes Ruby Corridor sprawl
into sagebrush habitats.
Biological Assessment Must Be Prepared to Accompany FEIS
Ruby references agency preparation of a BA for BLM Lands, apparently only if sagegrouse or pygmy rabbit are Listed under the ESA. If BLM, USFS and others are going to
rely on a closed door “cooperative” mitigation agreement, then it and the EIS must be
rigorously and honestly evaluated for effectiveness at every level. This must occur prior
to any mitigation finalization or FEIS.
Wild Horse Conflicts Exacerbated and Unresolved
Wildlife in large areas of NW Nevada will be subject to non-stop disturbances from BLM
Wild Horse Roundups for a period of 2-3 months (Dec. 28-Feb-28).
BLM expanded its highly controversial Calico Wild Horse Round-up EA in the Final EA
version. BLM is removing horses that the agency has misled the pubic about over a vast
area in the Footprint of Ruby. We are concerned that this action may essentially be
clearing the way to get horse numbers low for Ruby’s comfort.
We stress that BLM is NOT zeroing out the HMAs, and some horses are supposed to
remain. BLM has targeted HMAs in Ruby’s path. BLM claims it has suddenly learned
that the horses move over a larger area of the landscape. BLM has long known this –the
72
sudden revelation that horses use a broad landscape appears to have been made for
Ruby’s convenience. Please see WWP Calico EA comments Attached, see BLM Calico
EA Cumulative Impacts Map. So BLM has now recognized the importance of the entire
landscape in NW Nevada in the Ruby Footprint for wild horses, yet nowhere has there
been analysis of Ruby’s Footprint and adverse impacts to wild horses over a vast land
areas.
Fencing off the vast swath of Ruby disturbance so “rehab” can occur in grazed lands is
part of Ruby’s supposed mitigation. Ruby can not build fences in any of the HMA areas
where horses have been removed, as there has been no NEPA analysis conducted for
further impeding the free roaming nature of the horses here.
We are concerned that the highly controversial round-up was conducted at least in part
for the convenience of Ruby. This must be fully and honestly examined in this process.
Ruby activity, including very high volumes of road traffic in previously remote wild
lands in the HMAs in this region will further stress and displace any remaining horses in
the HMAs after suffering two months of winter harassment from BLM. None of this has
been adequately examined.
Restoration
How are agencies and Ruby defining restoration? Ruby has not provided detailed
information and analysis on the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of actions
described as restoration. Is restoration getting some pseudo-native grass cultivar to grow
– or is it the recovery of an intact native sagebrush system – with all essential component
of shrub structural integrity, microbiotic crusts, local native ecotype grasses and forbs?
What are all active and passive restorations that will occur? Where will they be done?
There is No Analysis or Certainty of the Mitigation Effectiveness of Unspecified
Habitat Restoration Projects in Conserving Species
WWP described in 2008 comments on the Pygmy Rabbit Status Review how western
states were using state and federal funds to aggressively alter, fragment and destroy
sagebrush in a piecemeal fashion, while claiming they were doing “restoration” projects
for sage-grouse. This continues to occur with no analysis of the full range of direct,
indirect and cumulative effects on native biota. Comments Attached. Now studies are
starting to emerge that record what any credible biologist has known all long that the
effects of the Utah projects would be– i. e. the devastating effects of such treatments to
sagebrush wildlife, and their effectiveness in eradicating pygmy rabbits. See Lee (2008)
BYU thesis. These treatments are having serious adverse effects on pygmy rabbits and
other imperiled species that rely on mature and old growth big sagebrush.
A recent filing by Ruby “Appendix B” Proposed State Agency Conservation Projects
includes info referring to Utah. As evidenced in the BYU Lee Thesis, Utah has been
undertaking destruction of dense and mature big sagebrush required by the pygmy rabbit
73
(and also by sage-grouse!), and calling this restoration. WWP’s 2008 Pygmy Rabbit
comments review a list of projects from the same state site that Ruby refers to in its
mitigation.
Ruby’s mitigation approach provides no sound methodology for objective vetting of
projects, or examining their potential adverse effects the sagebrush biome and an array of
impacted native wildlife and sensitive species habitats and populations. How has any
certainty of effectiveness for mitigation been guaranteed? Will crushing or herbiciding
more sagebrush or burning more junipers in Utah really effectively mitigate Ruby effects
by Summit Lake?
How much of the mitigation funding is going to sage-grouse, or pygmy rabbit values
“lost” due to Ruby – vs. rancher-palatable projects to produce mule deer? Agencies at
times place a higher value on mule deer, a generalist species, because they sell tags and
get revenue from hunting.
Projects to produce harvestable deer may harm rare wildlife species.
Some projects now being called “restoration” are similar to the devastating BLM
sagebrush and juniper eradication projects of the past that were done to promote grass as
livestock forage. Those “treatments” especially those done on deeper soil sites, helped
create the cheatgrass expansion and altered fire cycles, intensive livestock disturbance to
habitats, and habitat fragmentation of the present day. Killing native woody plants is
much easier to do than restoring a weed-infested area. Throwing “mitigation” funds at
killing native species without examining the consequences to all species that rely on
those communities and the effectiveness of the action at conserving native species is
madness. Where is a coherent plan for conservation, protection and real restoration of
sagebrush in the 2009 environment? Nevada’s plans are outdated. For example, Elko
County’s Sagebrush Plan (2004) and recent derivatives we have seen still propose
additional fragmentation and eradication of sagebrush – even after the 2006 and 2007
fires!
There is little current conservation-based planning that takes a “hard look” at what really
needs to be done for sagebrush species based on the current status of habitats, and the
current population status and trajectories. The extensive crushing, mowing, and
destruction of sagebrush that has been occurring in Utah is now moving west into
Nevada, and is destroying big sagebrush on deep soil sites. Across several areas of
Nevada, Sagebrush is being destroyed (crushed and sprayed with Tebuthiuron) on Ely
BLM lands where sage-grouse populations at the periphery of the range are already very
low. This is coincidentally occurring in areas where aquifer mining by the Southern
Nevada Water Authority is proposed. See Fite e-mail, photos, Lincoln County EA
describing herbiciding sagebrush (use of Tebuthiuron). Winnemucca BLM has also
recently herbicided (2007 and 2008 and perhaps 2009) mature and denser sagebrush
critical to the pygmy rabbit and sage grouse including areas along or near the path of
Ruby, as we described in comments on the DEIS. Are these the kind of projects that
Ruby mitigation funds will be used for? We fear that may be the case.
Potential adverse effects of mitigation projects, as well as any conservation values that
74
may result, must be critically examined. A full ecological accounting of similar projects
conducted in recent years must be provided to inform understanding of the effectiveness
of any further projects of this kind. A comprehensive analysis of the effects of such
projects in promoting habitat fragmentation, losses and declines should be provided
before Ruby funds more of them as mitigation. How has the extensive recent sagebrush
crushing, chopping, mowing, etc. in Utah, Nevada and Wyoming newly fragmented and
altered sage-grouse and pygmy rabbit habitats? This serves as a baseline to understand
the effects of any additional projects. Ruby points to a state Website where Utah projects
would be available for review. Full and upfront information on where, what and how
funds claimed to be used for restoration will be spent. Impartial analysis of the
effectiveness of actions as mitigation should be provided.
Ruby must detail how grazing disturbance on any mitigation treated areas will be
controlled. Just north of the path of the Ruby line in Tabor Creek in the Mary’s River
country, WWP site visits revealed large blocks of sagebrush right next to a burn had been
mowed and destroyed. Cattle were trampling the site, and cheatgrass was already
thriving. See WWP 2009 Cole letter and photos of Tabor Creek.
Without comprehensive analysis of the results and the effectiveness of all funds to be
applied to fencing, and to projects that kill native vegetation species, and full
consideration of the effects of other similar recent treatments, benefits of projects using
mitigation funds is very uncertain. Unless this is done, we fear that Ruby’s mitigation
may actually worsen the plight of both sage-grouse and pygmy rabbit in some states.
BLM veg treatments are palatable to the public lands livestock industry. Sagebrush
destruction and juniper treatments that also destroy sagebrush and spawn weed
infestations are termed habitat “restoration” by agencies. Yet passive restoration, such as
removing or reducing livestock grazing disturbance so natural recovery processes can
occur, is not considered by agencies due to cattleman resistance. Yet as Ruby’s own
studies show, pygmy rabbits in surveys were detected for the most part in areas with
minimal grazing. Areas targeted by Ruby for its route in NW Nevada have significant
recovery potential for pygmy rabbits - but the Ruby disturbance will likely doom that
due to weeds and other effects. Current science shows the very long recovery times for
sagebrush communities in areas where sagebrush has been removed (see USGS Baker
2009). Yet the sagebrush communities and understories have healed significantly since
grazing was removed from Sheldon. This demonstrates the great potential for passive
recovery if new large-scale disturbance of Ruby is not inflicted, and grazing disturbance
is removed.
There is no certainty that any funds would be used for passive restoration – removal of
grazing, or natural recovery instead of taking lands down to bare dirt to “farm” them for
livestock and grouse. There is no assurance that active restoration such as significant
removal of facilities, roading etc. would occur to any degree.
There is no analysis of the collateral active treatment damage that may occur to other
wildlife species, watersheds and the climate buffering capability of undisturbed native
75
vegetation. If a mature pinyon-juniper forest is destroyed with Ruby’s funds to try to get
sagebrush to grow in its place – How does that affect the ability of the lands to sequester
carbon? How do Ruby’s disturbance effects and mitigation actions feed back into the
climate change processes that are affecting the sagebrush biome?
Environmental Sideboard Uncertainty
Ruby claims its Plan of Development “will comply with the applicable laws, regulations,
and BLM Resource Management Plans in the construction and operation of the Project,
it also describes additional environmental protection measures that Ruby has committed
to implement above and beyond these minimum requirements on the public and private
lands crossed …”.
This does not explain WHAT exactly Ruby and agencies believe any minimum
requirements are, or how the now voluminous Literature on detrimental effects of
development, habitat loss and fragmentation to sagebrush ecosystems and species enters
into any considerations of minimum requirements. What are the minimum requirements
of BLM sensitive species policy, living up to agency commitments made in sage-grouse
conservation plans, minimum requirements of the ESA, the MBTA, etc.?
Ruby Alternatives Bio-Team Powerpoint Presentation Uncertainties, Questions and
Concerns
This Powerpoint (Attached) was apparently presented at a December agency meeting,
and summarizes measures in the RPCA Mile-By-Mile Report.
Slide 17 of the PPT shows sage-grouse leks within 2 miles. Are these only active leks?
Review of lek locations shown in Slides 17 and 18 shows Ruby will very likely not be
able to move its pipeline here the 0.6 miles the mitigation says might be done in some
unspecified areas. If Ruby did so, it would either bump into Sheldon, or the Black Rock
NCA, or the Summit Lake Reservation, or into other leks. And since Ruby’s pygmy
surveys were not over a broad enough area to understand the extent of pygmy occurrence
in the surrounding landscape, it would very likely then land on top of pygmy rabbits as
well.
Slide 18 shows the large number of leks, and the value of this landscape that includes the
northern area of the Proposed Route and the Sheldon Route. Leks in part of this area are
less likely to be known here due to the limited road access during portions of the sagegrouse lekking period. Road conditions and access to much of the area is typically
blocked by snow melt, or mud.
Slide 19 also shows the critical importance of this region to maintaining any sage-grouse
in northern California.
Ruby must provide mapping and analysis showing known active, inactive and historical
leks - and historical vs. occupied habitat -for sage-grouse in NE California. There is a
76
greater concentration of leks in the Vya-Massacre PMU areas shown on this map along
the NV-CA border than remain in other areas in CA. The Proposed Route would impact a
grouse population shared with California.
Slide 18 shows leks over a broader area. Why was this broader area info not presented for
all segments of the route and Ruby Footprint and for public review with the Draft? This is
essential to understand how few leks remain in many areas, how significant Ruby will be
for impacting remaining leks, and for demonstrating the critical importance of the
landscape affected by both the Proposed Route and Sheldon.
PPT Slide “Miles of sagebrush habitat affected by Alternative”. Where is Historical
described? Where have sage-grouse already been extirpated and the range contracted?
The density of leks shown on these slides illustrate the significance of this landscape for
sage-grouse. Just as the density of pygmy rabbit occurrences on the mapping in Larrucea
and Brussard show the importance of this shared NV and OR BLM lands, and the
USFWS Sheldon landscape for the pygmy rabbit.
Related to the Pygmy Rabbit Info in Powerpoint: How were colonies defined, what is the
extent of the colony? How much connectivity is there between them? Where is the next
patch of sagebrush that supports pygmy rabbits at present? We have described the need
for the BLM to prepare similar analyses to the Knick and Hanser Connectivity Analysis
and other habitat and population mapping. This mapping including connectivity analyses
for sage-grouse. Connectivity and population analyses should be performed for the
pygmy rabbit as well.
Detailed mapping should occur to understand connectivity with other pygmy rabbit
colonies in the landscape. This is necessary to assess the degree and locations where
Ruby will sever or disrupt connectivity. What is the areal extent of any colony? How was
structural complexity of sagebrush, dense canopy cover, and the condition of the
understory determined? How was the effect of livestock breakage to shrubs considered
(See USFWS 2005). What areas might have greater structural complexity of shrubs if
livestock disturbance was removed? How much cheatgrass is present in the colony? What
is the condition of the microbiotic crusts? Are soils vulnerable to cheatgrass if disturbed?
The risk of cheatgrass with Ruby disturbance must be factored into any analysis here. See
Weiss and Verts (1984), USFWS Federal Register (2005).
Sheldon is a large ungrazed protected area with pygmy rabbits. This makes Sheldon and
the BLM lands surrounding it extremely significant and unique.
Info presented in PPT Slide “Habitat Matrix Categories by Alternative” shows only 1
high quality pygmy site along the entire length of the Common Route, and 7 Category 2
sites. Category 2 pygmy sites are defined as Isolated in this presentation in the slide
“Habitat Matrix definitions - Pygmy Rabbit”.
77
Along the 200 miles of the Common Route (ElkoHum miles 230-424 and), only 7
colonies of pygmy rabbits remain, and each of them is defined as isolated. This greatly
increases the direct, indirect and cumulative risks of Ruby to the viability of pygmy
rabbit populations in this region.
We are very concerned that Ruby only has detected pygmy rabbit colonies in 3 areas of
the Proposed Route near Sheldon. Much more potential habitat exists here, and this
habitat is still recoverable for pygmies if grazing is removed. This analysis also does not
take into account potential recovery if environmental stressors are removed. Why didn’t
agencies require Ruby to place cameras, and use techniques similar to Larrucea in these
critically important areas?
Were all pygmy rabbit records in agency and conservation center databases, and their
origin - mapped and overlaid with Ruby? This is essential to understand impacts.
We are concerned that the Crawford M. S. Thesis work was used to inflate pygmy rabbit
occurrence in Sheldon.
What is the size and continuity/connectivity of all pygmy colonies? This is critical to
understanding impacts to populations and habitats, and the relative significance of
colonies that would be destroyed. It is our observation that pygmy rabbits may occupy a
bit more marginal habitat area if it is next to extensive areas of old growth and mature big
sagebrush in the area. But even otherwise suitable-looking habitat may be unoccupied if
it is only small, isolated habitat areas remain. A “critical mass” of rabbits may need to be
present for populations to be viable and persist over time.
What Criteria Would Trigger BLM Denying a Route or Segment to Ruby?
At what point does the biological reality that neither the Proposed or the Sheldon Route
can be adequately or appropriately mitigated in this unique and globally significant
landscape factor into BLM denying Ruby a ROW on either of these segments? What is
the threshold of biological or other values that will trigger requiring analysis and siting of
this pipeline in some other area? What is the threshold of relative values that will
determine what decision is made if a choice comes down to destroying pygmy rabbit
habitats vs. destroying a lek complex area or other sage-grouse habitats? What is the
framework for determining what will be destroyed?
There must be a process and decision framework established to address these issues and
conflicts.
Will agencies, for example, establish an independent body of biologists familiar with
sagebrush values and sagebrush conservation (some of the USGS scientists, for example,
and keep them free from political pressure) that examines and weighs values?
If this is done, we request that much more info on wintering and other habitats over a
broader area be acquired, and more extensive info pygmy rabbits be provided. Info must
78
be acquired for the Common Segment in eastern Nevada, and the other states as well – so
that the relative degree of loss can be understood. The same question must be asked of
other portions of Ruby’s route – Utah where many habitats been lost altogether, and the
Wyoming path of Ruby is clearly in a Core Area.
FERC and BLM have not required a rigorous and integrated analysis. Agencies have not
provided a framework for establishing a process and set of actions for protecting the
unique biological values and remote, wild public lands landscapes that would be
impaired, and that would suffer irreversible biological and scenic losses from Ruby’s
actions. Why wasn’t there a threshold of Ruby impacts established that would make a
segment of the route unacceptable, and trigger rejection of ROW issuance for a segment,
while Ruby seeks an Alternative compatible with sagebrush species conservation? The
public has seen the pliability of Ruby to re-route its line for center pivots.
Adverse Impacts to Antelope Are Largely Ignored and Unmitigated
Why is there no analysis of Ruby effects on antelope habitats and populations, and this
species use and movement through the landscape? Ruby is proposing to blast the pipe
route and/or access routes near and through a Globally Significant landscape for antelope
(Sheldon-Hart)– yet agencies care so little that detailed analysis of impacts to this
important sagebrush species was not conducted.
Many of Ruby’s actions will significantly and adversely affect antelope. For example,
Ruby proposes an unspecified number - potentially hundreds of miles - of new fences in
unrevealed and unspecified locations.
No matter what the wire spacing on a fence is, antelope have problems negotiating
fencing, particularly new fencing in traditional use areas. Winter snows worsen the
problem with any fencing no matter how long it has been in place. High fence densities
have been correlated with reductions in antelope populations. See USDI BLM Jarbidge
AMS (2007). No info on current fence density is provided.
Antelope, sage-grouse and other wildlife already face a maze of fence hazards across
public and private lands. This was ignored in the EIS and habitat analyses. There is no
mapping of fences by pasture and allotment, as well as private lands and roadside fencing
across the Footprint of Ruby. This is essential to understand the baseline impacts, current
fence density, impacts of shifted, or intensified livestock grazing, etc. All areas where
fencing would be placed by Ruby must be mapped and impacts analyzed.
Why are all antelope winter ranges not examined? Why is the minimal “avoidance”
mitigation not avoiding antelope winter range? Mule deer are more of a generalist species
than antelope.
In disturbed landscapes (significant lengths of the chronically grazed Common Route and
portions of the other routes) once they are subject to Ruby disturbance, windblown
tumbleweeds and tumblemustards may accumulate in fences to such a density that they
serve as barriers to ungulate passage. The fence becomes a wall of windblown weeds and
79
animals can not pass through it. Many of these fencing concerns for antelope are
discussed in the Jarbidge AMS (USDI Jarbidge BLM Analysis of the Management
Situation 2007).
Ruby Is Already Spawning New Transmission Lines
In another recent filing, Ruby describes conducting surveys for a new powerline to be
built in Nevada for a Ruby Compressor. Ruby states:
“Terrestrial wildlife resources may be impacted directly and indirectly by various phases
of the
DVDL line on both a short-term or long-term basis. Field surveys for wildlife species
were
conducted on October 7th and 9th, 2009. Pre-construction surveys would not need to be
conducted based on the lack of sensitive species being present”.
Surveys were conducted during a period when many migratory birds, bats, reptiles,
amphibians would not be present or not active. This is not biologically valid. How many
other lines will Ruby incrementally spawn as the natural gas results in new industrial
development in the region?
AGENCIES IGNORE BLM SAGE-GROUSE CONSERVATION
REQUIREMENTS
Ruby EIS and Mitigation Lacks a Sage-Grouse Alternative - Siting of Large
Portions of the Pipeline Route Violate BLM and Other Sagebrush Species
Conservation Plans
BLM’s goal in its Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan is to:
“Sustain or reestablish the integrity of the sagebrush biome to
provide the amount, continuity, and quality of habitat that is
necessary to maintain sustainable populations of sage-grouse and
other sagebrush-dependent wildlife species”.
Ruby’s EIS and the mitigation analyses never define and describe landscapes of
conservation significance, and never adequately describe the habitat and population
trajectories in the Footprint of Ruby. They never examine the sustainability and viability
of populations of sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit, sage sparrow, loggerhead shrike, or other
species.
The mitigation at best takes a small-scale bits and pieces look at habitats. It avoids
delineation and consideration of core areas, and restoring landscape connectivity. How
much habitat remains that will be undisturbed, what is the continuity of habitats, and
what is the quality of the habitat for the Ruby-affected species and populations in the
area?
80
Examples of some other relevant provisions of the BLM Plan:
“ Avoid the impact of construction and operations by not placing mines, oil and gas
and geothermal drilling sites and facilities, roads, and mineral material disposal sites
in or next to sensitive habitats such as sage-grouse leks, nesting, early broodrearing, breeding, and wintering habitat. When habitat loss cannot be avoided,
stipulations, conditions of approval, or mitigating measures should be developed to
reduce impacts on sage-grouse habitats”.
“Whenever feasible and environmentally preferred, avoid surface occupancy by
roads, livestock management facilities, well pads, powerlines, fences, or other
structures adjacent to occupied leks, i.e., those leks attended by 2 or more males in
at least 2 of the previous 5 years (Connelly et al. 2000)x’.
Ruby did not conduct thorough searches over a sufficient time period as defined in this
plan. Note: This BLM info is from circa 2004 – and science including Connelly et al
(2004) and all the later science now emphasizes that sage-grouse may nest much greater
distance from leks. Ruby has ignored this guidance throughout the process.
“23. Encourage placement of new utility developments (power lines, pipelines, etc.)
and transportation routes in existing utility or transportation corridors to minimize
fragmentation of sage-grouse habitat. If corridors do not exist, consider consolidating
utility lines, pipelines, and other structures along the same new route (e.g., at one
location) that least impacts sagebrush habitat”.
Ruby has ignored full and adequate consideration of the alternative routes and segment
paths that would greatly serve to minimize Ruby adverse effects.
“25. Manage existing road use to decrease the level of disturbance during critical
periods such as breeding (lek use) by implementing seasonal or daily use
schedules, by limiting traffic volume, and/or by posting speed limits”.
Ruby reveals no solid information about traffic volume and disturbance by vehicles,
helicopters or other motorized activity. Temporal avoidance mitigation is variable
between states, inconsistent and largely inadequate. Spatial avoidance (0.6 mi. from
active leks) is inadequate.
27. Design and locate the placement of fences for livestock, wildlife, wild horse and
burro, recreation and developed site protection so as not to disturb important sagegrouse habitat areas. Poorly placed or improperly designed fences can provide
perches for raptors and cause mortality of birds that fly into wires. Increasing the
visibility of new fences can reduce hazards to flying sage-grouse. Impacts of
livestock congregation against fences and its effect on sage-grouse habitat near
leks, nesting, and wintering areas should be considered.
Ruby fencing effects are fraught with uncertainty. Ruby crosses critical core and seasonal
81
habitats. Any “rehab” fences placed by Ruby in those areas are likely to cause adverse
impacts – especially since recovery of arid landscapes may require a significant period of
time.
“Mapping populations and habitat is crucial to conserving and protecting habitat. The
more that is known about the location and quality of sage-grouse populations and
habitat, the easier it will be to evaluate, select and prioritize management actions, and
the more cost-effective it will be to implement them. In addition, maintaining and
updating knowledge of known habitat and potential habitat will establish a baseline for
determining habitat loss and restoration over time, and for evaluating the effectiveness
of management actions and mitigation measures. Mapping should be accomplished in
GIS and used in coordination with mapping efforts performed by state wildlife agencies.
Most management activities require knowledge of populations and habitat.
First, map known habitat, which includes areas that sage-grouse definitely
occupy and use at various times of the year. Time permitting, map potential
habitat, which refers to the kind of lands, land forms, and plant communities that
could, but are not known to, support sage-grouse during breeding, summer and
late brood-rearing, fall, or wintering. BLM should consider all documented
historical habitats as potential habitat until better information is acquired through
state and regional conservation planning efforts”.
Populations ! Migratory or Non-migratory – Determine whether the population is
migratory,
non-migratory or a combination.
! Source – Populations in which the output of offspring results in a population
that exceeds the carrying capacity of the local habitat promoting dispersal.
! Isolated– Relatively small populations, which may be stable or declining, that
are isolated by farmlands, forests, grasslands and/or development.
First, map source populations. Second, concentrate on mapping isolated
populations. Note, however, that in some locations the isolated populations may
be equally important as source populations, as they provide alternative genetic
sources”.
We’re still waiting for all of this to be provided to the public by Ruby. This analysis was
ignored in the EIS, alternatives development and minimized in the mitigation actions.
A goal of the BLM Plan Habitat Fragmentation SMPs is to Maintain Habitat
Connectivity
24. Place new roads where construction activity and use is concentrated and does
not impact critical areas such as leks, nesting, early brood-rearing, and winter
habitat riparian areas, springs and wetlands. Predesigning a road system (and
pipeline collection system) for the entire area will ensure the minimum impact to
82
resource values. An increase in the number of roads increases habitat
fragmentation, stress and sage-grouse displacement to less suitable habitats.
Roads can create barriers to movement/dispersal, increased levels of disturbance
(adjacent to suitable habitat), increased mortality (road kills), and reduced habitat
suitability (within patch microclimate effects), and may increase susceptibility to
predation. The type, intensity and volume of traffic, the road surface, and the type
and structure of adjacent vegetation are all factors that contribute to impacts
imposed by roads on sage-grouse and their habitat.
Ruby’s upgrades of roads with rock and gravel road base will significantly alter the
roading and disturbance footprint in remote wild areas. The Ruby line was not predesigned to limit or minimize impacts – in fact it maximizes impacts to a Globally
Significant sagebrush area in NW Nevada where the prospect of Ruby impacting this
landscape set NDOW, Sheldon and ODFW into a scramble to point to the other agency’s
lands to locate the pipeline.
Ruby’s large-scale road upgrades to two tracks will be the same as building significant
new roading and increasing roading.
27. Design and locate the placement of fences for livestock, wildlife, wild horse and
burro, recreation and developed site protection so as not to disturb important sagegrouse habitat areas. Poorly placed or improperly designed fences can provide
perches for raptors and cause mortality of birds that fly into wires. Increasing the
visibility of new fences can reduce hazards to flying sage-grouse. Impacts of
livestock congregation against fences and its effect on sage-grouse habitat near
leks, nesting, and wintering areas should be considered.
A reader of the EIS, RPCA and Ruby’s rehab plans has no idea how many dozens,
hundreds, or thousands of miles of fencing may already exist in this landscape, or how
many more miles of fences may be placed - with resultant shifts and intensification of
livestock use and disturbance to non-fenced areas.
BLM’s Guidance for Land Use Plans states:
“The alternatives should identify and evaluate reasonable, feasible and effective options
for conserving sagebrush habitats and associated species in accordance with BLM’s
multiple-use mandate in FLPMA.
Ensure that each alternative contains considerations for sagebrush habitat conservation
by (1) developing one or more goals related to sagebrush habitat with emphasis on
sage-grouse habitat that will apply to all alternatives, (2) including objectives in each
alternative that pertain to the goals, and (3) identifying allowable uses or management
actions to achieve the objectives. This method will ensure that all alternatives, including
the preferred alternative, will include sagebrush and sage-grouse habitat
considerations.
83
Evaluate different levels of sagebrush (and associated sage-grouse) habitat
conservation in the range of alternatives. The amount of sagebrush and sage-grouse
conservation will vary as the alternatives respond to other resource concerns or
demands. The evaluation of different levels of habitat conservation will help determine
which combination represents the best balance of sagebrush and sage-grouse habitat
conservation and resource use over the long term.
Describe and analyze at least one alternative that maximizes conservation of sagebrush
habitat (emphasizing special status species habitat) through objectives, land use plan
decisions and management direction”.
See:
www.blm.gov/.../blm/.../Planning.../Sage-Grouse_Strategy_1_3_1.pdf1.pdf
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/sage_grouse_home2.html
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Planning_and_Renewable_Resources/fi
sh__wildlife_and.Par.44452.Image.-1.-1.1.jpg
Ruby’s impacts will persist longer than the tenure of any Land Use Plan (RMP). The
BLM RMP shelf life is typically 15-20 years. Large portions of the route in Utah, and
Nevada, are governed by very old and outdated land use plans from the 1980s. Salt Lake,
Wells, Elko RMPs, Sonoma-Gerlach MFP. Many of these plans are so outdated that
BLM was still promoting sagebrush eradication in many areas for livestock forage
purposes.
A project of Ruby’s magnitude to be undertaken in the sagebrush biome today must
consider a solid and science-based sagebrush and sage-grouse based Alternative in
routing and mitigation actions.
Landscape Planning Long Known to Be Important for Sage-grouse
Some state planning documents have long recognized the importance of retaining
unfragmented sagebrush.
Oregon State Plan:
Objective 1— Statewide: retain !70% of sage-grouse range as sagebrush habitat in
advanced
structural stages, sagebrush class 3, 4 or 5, with an emphasis on classes 4 and 5. The
remaining
30% will include areas of juniper encroachment, non-sagebrush shrubland, and
grassland that
potentially can be rehabilitated or enhanced.
Objective 2— Maintain 100% of existing sagebrush habitats and enhance potential
84
habitats that
have been disturbed in the following regions. Existing conditions are:
Baker Resource Area: 82% sagebrush and 18% disturbed habitats.
Vale District (not including Baker): 73% sagebrush and 27% disturbed habitats.
Burns District: 68% sagebrush and 32% disturbed habitats.
Lakeview District: 72% sagebrush and 28% disturbed habitats.
Prineville District: 47% sagebrush and 53% disturbed habitats
The Oregon Grouse Plan cites BLM’s:
Sage-grouse use large landscapes often traveling over vast areas to fulfill various
seasonal habitat requirements. They require specific vegetation types, and or structure to
meet daily nutritional and protection needs. Sage-grouse are a multi-scale species that
will require innovative approaches to management strategies and techniques. For the
purposes of this document broad-scale management includes actions at the state or
interstate level; BLM districts and/or planning areas within a district are considered
mid-scale; pastures (allotments) are fine scale; and site level would include an
ecological site (U.S. Department of Interior 2005).
The Oregon Plan also describes:
There is an opportunity to combine techniques of the mid-scale and site-level, to increase
the understanding of sage-grouse ecology. The task is to inventory landscape
characteristics of a given block of habitat as well as the shrub, forb, and grass
composition of the site. Ideally the “habitat blocks” would be identified as breeding,
brood-`rearing or winter habitat. U.S. Department of Interior (2005) provided the
following description of fine scale monitoring: (which excluded landscape statistics,
although they should be applied to this inventory).
The multi-scale approach requires integration of GIS and field techniques to identify the
extent of sagebrush habitats in a region (Appendix II). At the broad and mid-scale
habitat quality can be evaluated with landscape statistics that describe, for example,
patch size, patch connectivity, patch configuration (area/perimeter ratios), and patch
isolation. Ultimately, habitat inventory is most beneficial when conducted in known
seasonal habitats.
The NV RPCA mile-by-mile approach to a landscape species, and the basis for much
Ruby mitigation analysis, appears to be roughly akin to a site level look with meager
larger-scale analysis. Nevada is to be commended for at least getting a level of analysis
done. But there must be much more information and analysis provided on the importance
and status of habitats and populations in a conservation context, and a range of
alternatives developed that fully consider sage-grouse needs. Ruby has not been required
by FERC to provide sufficient baseline info in the EIS to allow this to be understood. No
real “hard look” at alternatives or adverse impacts has been taken. No sage-grouse
Alternative has been developed for Ruby.
The Ruby project Footprint sprawls across large portions of four western states in the
85
heart of the sagebrush biome, numerous BLM Districts, dozens if not hundreds of grazing
allotments and diverse vegetation communities. Agencies cannot allow the analysis
provided so far to be the basis for understanding effects to a landscape species. Ruby’s
Footprint cuts through the heart of habitats for several different populations of sagegrouse (Connelly et al. 2004, Garton et al. 2009), including the Globally Significant
sagebrush wild lands around, in and near Sheldon NWR, the Black Rock NCA, and
Summit Lake.
Of note for the unexamined effects of short, mid and long-term increases in motorized
use caused by Ruby road upgrades and maintenance, the OR Plan recognized:
“Mortalities from vehicle collisions were more frequent than collisions with wires and
fences in Montana (Wallestad 1975), and in Idaho vehicles accounted for 4% of
mortalities of 77 radio-marked females (Connelly et al. 2000a).
Wires and fences. Utility wires are known to cause mortality (Borell 1939), and collisions
with power lines accounted for 2% of male and 0.9% of overall mortalities of radiomarked sage-grouse in Idaho (Connelly et al. 2000b). A barbed wire fence in winter
habitat killed at least 36 sage-grouse the first winter after installation (Call and Maser
1985), and 21 mortalities were reported along a similar fence in Wyoming (Connelly et
al. 2004)”.
This Plan was preceded by an Oregon analysis that discusses habitat challenges. Since
this time, significant areas of sagebrush in Oregon have burned. The earlier Oregon
analysis, following analyses by Wisdom et al. conducted in association with ICBEMP,
was:
Rowland, M. M., and M. J. Wisdom. 2002. Research problem analysis for Greater Sagegrouse in Oregon. Final report. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon/Washington State
Office; and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research
Station. 75 p.
Concurrent with declines in grouse populations are declines in habitat quality and
quantity. Habitat loss in the sagebrush ecosystem has been dramatic (Schneegas 1967,
Knick 1999, Miller and Eddleman 2000). Schneegas (1967) estimated >2 million
hectares of sagebrush range were treated using a variety of methods (e.g., through
burning, spraying, or chaining) from the 1930s to the 1960s.
Of all vegetation cover types in the Basin, big sagebrush (A. tridentata) has suffered from
the greatest losses (Hann et al. 1997).
2
In southeastern Oregon alone, about 9,000 km of sagebrush on Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) lands was converted, primarily to crested wheatgrass (Agropyron
cristatum) plantings, as of 1991 (Willis et al. 1993). Declines in sage-grouse habitat are
projected to continue in the future, due primarily to habitat degradation from such causes
as the continued invasion of exotic vegetation (e.g., cheatgrass), which has resulted in
altered fire regimes (Hemstrom et al. 2002).
86
Primary factors affecting sage-grouse
A plethora of factors has been suggested as affecting sage-grouse populations and
habitats throughout the species’ range. The composition of the list has evolved over time,
reflecting the decreased importance of some issues, such as large-scale conversion of
sagebrush to cultivated croplands, and the emergence of others, such as energy
development or altered fire regimes in relation to invasions of exotic plants. Summaries
of current issues are found in several sources, including the Gunnison sage-grouse
conservation plan (Anonymous 1997), Braun’s review of sage-grouse declines (1998), the
Birds of North America account (Schroeder et al. 1999), and the revised sage-grouse
guidelines (Connelly et al. 2000c; see Table 2). Paramount among the issues in these
syntheses are habitat loss and degradation, which Schroeder et al. (1999:16) designate
as the “primary explanations for the rangewide reduction in distribution and populations
of sage-grouse.” … Habitat loss. Outright loss of habitat through conversion to
agriculture or other uses, such as urban development, is often cited as the primary cause
of habitat and population problems affecting sage-grouse (Willis et al. 1993, Schroeder
et al. 1999). By 1974, about 10-12% of the 40 million ha of sagebrush rangelands in
North America had been treated to provide more forage for livestock (Vale 1974).
Overall, >80% of sagebrush rangelands have been altered in some way by human
activities (West 1999). In Washington, it was estimated that >60% of the native
sagebrush steppe had been converted for human use by 1994 (Dobler 1994). Nearly
170,000 ha of BLM-managed rangelands in Oregon were treated with brush control in 1
decade, from 1960 to 1970 (BLM et al. 2000). Sagebrush control efforts diminished in the
1970s, both in Oregon and across the range of sage-grouse, primarily due to reduced
federal funding combined with increasing concerns over the environment (Donoho and
Roberson 1985). Although habitat conversion has not been as pervasive in southeastern
Oregon as it has in the northern portions of the state or in Washington (Willis et al.
1993), such losses comprise about 12% of the present range of sage-grouse in the state
(Willis et al. 1993). For a species so intimately allied with an ecosystem, such losses are
unavoidably detrimental ...
Riparian areas and wetlands (playas are included in wetland) within sage-grouse habitat
have a long history of mismanagement. Stream channels and wetlands have been
degraded, channelized, dredged and filled resulting in the loss of connectivity between
the stream channels and the flood plains. This de-watering has led to site desiccation and
a loss of associated riparian/wetland plant communities. Much of this mismanagement
has been associated with commodity-driven land use (e.g., livestock grazing). Sagegrouse adults and chicks depend on high quality forage (e.g., forbs) in these
riparian/wetland areas during the late growing season when upland communities have
desiccated (Savage 1968, Oakleaf 1971, Crawford et al. 2004). Chick survival has been
identified as one of the greatest limiting factors for sage-grouse populations. Research
suggests that the earlier the transition to a fall/winter sagebrush diet (e.g., during
drought years) the lower the survival of sage-grouse chicks (Drut et al. 1994). In effect,
riparian/wetland areas help fill the dietary gap between a protein rich growing season
diet of forbs and insects and winter diet dependent on sagebrush leaves.
87
The long-term decline of sage-grouse is likely a result of the cumulative impact of
several previously identified risks. The objective of this analysis is to quantify the amount
of remaining habitat and the extent of connectedness (or fragmentation) with respect to
cumulative impacts of disturbances. The approach uses a GIS to identify vulnerable and
intact habitat regions, based on landscape level assessments (e.g., habitat patch size,
connectivity) of cumulative effects of habitat modifications and human-caused
disturbance (e.g., power lines, roads) and the resulting map is referred to as a
connectivity mode …”.
Careful baseline analysis of all of these factors in the Footprint of Ruby has been ignored.
In the EIS and various reports and alternatives comparisons.
Prior to development of the Oregon Plan, a 2002 Oregon analysis by Rowland and others
describes the landscape requirements of sage-grouse: “Sage-grouse are sagebrush
obligates requiring large areas with a variety of sagebrush communities
to meet life-history needs. The primary objective of this Plan is to maintain large
expanses of
intact sagebrush habitat for the benefit of sage-grouse and other sagebrush associated
species.
Based on this assessment of habitat and populations, several core areas of habitat have
sustained
populations over the last 20+ years. Protecting large expanses of sagebrush
communities from
fragmentation and habitat degradation should ensure sustainable populations into the
future …”.
This is consistent with the state of understanding of sagebrush ecosystems and threats to
native species that emerged from the ICBEMP planning process that included portions of
northern NV in the analysis areas as well. The principles of analysis and conservation of
sagebrush species have long been known, yet they have been ignored by Ruby in its EIS
and its mitigation. Circa 2005, similar reviews to ICBEMP Scientific Assessments and
Ecoregional Analyses were conducted in Nevada and the Great Basin.
RUBY’S ROUTE AND INADEQUATE MITIGATION CONFLICTS WITH
STATE CONSERVATION EFFORTS
Wyoming Conservation Measures Conflict with Ruby Proposed Route and Limited
Mitigation Actions
The state of Wyoming’s Sage-grouse Web Page has several documents pertinent to sagegrouse conservation measures in the state. Ruby pipeline’s route and its uncertain and
insufficient mitigation measures, run counter to state conservation planning. See info at
Links on the Wyoming Website:
http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/wildlife_management/sageGrouse/index.asp
88
Documents accessed here are described:
US Fish and Wildlife Service Says Core Sage Grouse Habitat Areas Must Remain
Protected - Even From Wind Development
Cheyenne - Officials from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service this week said that
wind energy development in Wyoming's core sage grouse habitat areas, even for
research purposes, would "negate the usefulness of the core area concept" and
would bring into question whether adequate regulatory mechanisms are in place in
the state to protect the species.
WGFD Wind Sage Grouse Letter
USFWS Wind Sage Grouse Letter
Sage Grouse Protection and Stipulations for Development
Executive Order - Greater Sage Grouse Core Area Protection
Stipulations for Develoment in Core Sage Grouse Population Areas
Sage Grouse Core Breeding Areas - Version 2
An example is the Wyoming “Stipulations for Development in Core Sage Grouse
Population Areas” which includes:
“Proposals to deviate from standard stipulations will be considered by a team
including the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and appropriate land
management agencies, with input from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Project proponents need to demonstrate that the project area meets at least one of
the following conditions:
1) No suitable habitat is present in one contiguous block of land that
includes at least a 0.6-mile buffer between the project area and suitable
habitat;
2) No sage grouse use occurs in one contiguous block of land that
includes at least a 0.6 mile buffer between the project area and adjacent
occupied habitat, as documented by total absence of sage grouse
droppings and an absence of sage grouse activity for the previous ten
years;
3) Provision of a development/mitigation plan that has been implemented
and demonstrated not to cause declines in sage grouse populations through
credible monitoring data compiled and analyzed during the
implementation period.
Local Sage-grouse Plan for Southwest Wyoming Area
Ruby’s route and mitigation actions are also incompatible with provisions of local sagegrouse plans along the route it traverses. For example, the SW WY Plan states:
“Transportation Corridors – Habitat Sub-Goal
1. Minimize negative impacts to sage-grouse, especially habitat fragmentation, caused by
transportation corridors (roads, power lines, pipelines, transmission lines,
89
communication lines, railroads).
Work with utility operators to encourage project designs that would benefit sage-grouse.
7. Use common and existing corridors where possible to minimize overall disturbance to
the landscape.
1. Discourage new road construction through crucial sage-grouse habitat, especially
riparian zones.
2. Close and reclaim unauthorized, nonessential roads and railways.
3. Enforce seasonal road area closures and encourage use of signs to reduce illegal use
of roads.
4. In areas where new roads or railways must be constructed, all roads and railways
should be designed and constructed to minimize impacts to sage-grouse habitat.
5. Discourage fenced rights of way on new roads where it is appropriate.
6. Require companies to share roads and maintain rights of way. Prohibit parallel
redundant roads.
7. Recommend reduced speed limits in areas of sage-grouse use. (pages 56-57)
8. Require dust abatement measures on high use roads.
a. Underground level (pipelines, communication lines):
1. Use seed mixes on reclaimed areas that benefit sage-grouse and other wildlife species.
2. Use common and existing corridors where possible to minimize overall disturbance to
the landscape.
3. Ensure that reclamation is timely and appropriate to the soil type and vegetation prior
to disturbance. (One type seed mix does not work for all pipeline area.)
4. Avoid crucial sage-grouse habitat.
5. Apply seasonal stipulations to construction and maintenance activities to reduce
impacts to sage-grouse. (pages 56-57).
The SW WY Plan also raises concerns about the conflicts between different sensitive
species habitat needs that have NOT been systematically balanced and resolved in this
process: “Managing a single sagebrush site for all wildlife species that may inhabit
sagebrush communities is impractical or not possible because practices that benefit some
species can be detrimental to others. Approximately 100 bird species, 70 mammal
species, and several reptiles are found in sagebrush habitats including many sagebrush
obligates or near-obligates such as the sage-grouse, sage sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow,
sage thrasher, pygmy rabbit, sagebrush vole, sagebrush lizard, and pronghorn. A number
of other priority or sensitive wildlife species are dependent upon or inhabit the sagebrush
ecosystem including white-tailed prairie dog, ferruginous hawk, mountain plover,
midget-faded rattlesnake, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, and swift fox among others.
Each has specific micro-site habitat requirements that often conflict with the seasonal
habitat requirements of sage-grouse”. (pages 57- 58).
The plan also discusses various planned new sagebrush alteration and killing projects,
many of which may have resulted in collateral damage to other sagebrush species habitats
such as pygmy rabbit if they have been conducted. Baseline and cumulative effects of
90
these veg disturbance projects have been unexamined by Ruby to date. Plus, the Plan lists
livestock facilities (fences, wells) that serve to intensify livestock impacts, and new
livestock waters may also provide new sources of West Nile virus, etc. We are very
concerned about the adverse effects to several sagebrush species – as well oftentimes
sage-grouse – of many of the projects described here. The Plan also notes that cheatgrass,
previously not considered a serious problem in SW Wyoming, is now appearing. The
Wyoming Basin Ecoregional Assessment conducted by USGS and BLM several years
ago recognized that cheatgrass would be an emerging threat in this region.
Core Area Limitations
WWP believes the Core Area concept will not suffice to adequately protect, restore and
enhance viable populations of sage-grouse, but it is a start. It is accepted as a first step
toward recognition of the importance of conserving landscapes and keeping them free
from development. It certainly will not serve to restore the species to its historic range. It
will not prevent extinction of isolated or outlying populations. The outliers will be
sacrificed, including those that are now recently isolated due to human-caused
fragmentation. Core areas are unlikely to be sufficient to fully support populations
without recovering additional sagebrush habitats – especially since BLM refuses to
control or limit energy developments like Ruby would further carving up the Core Areas.
But without agency recognition and agreement that some sagebrush areas should be offlimits to further development in the sagebrush biome, effective conservation of the
species can not occur. In this case, the closed door agency Conservation Agreement and
mitigation meetings with Ruby have apparently resulted in industry once again being
allowed to destroy habitats in undeniable core area and strongholds. As described in
Knick and Hanser (2009), populations within core areas are likely to become more
isolated if habitats and important leks outside recognized core areas are eliminated. Gene
flow between populations will be stopped. Please see USFWS letter to Wyoming
Governor expressing concerns about fate of outlying (non-core) populations related if
Core Areas receive lesser protections. Attached.
Utah Sage-Grouse Plan (2009)
Some relevant info from the Utah (2009) Sage-grouse Plan includes:
“Sage-grouse are thought to have been historically distributed in all 29 Utah counties,
based on
sagebrush distribution (Figure 1), but are now found in 26 counties (Figure 2). It is
estimated
that Utah sage-grouse occupy only 41% of the historic habitats and are half as abundant
as they
were prior to 1850 (Beck and Mitchell 1997, Beck et al. 2003). Currently, the largest
Utah sagegrouse populations are found in western Box Elder County, on Blue and Diamond
Mountains in
Uintah County in northeastern Utah, in Rich County, and on Parker Mountain in south
91
central
Utah. Smaller populations are found scattered throughout parts of the state …”.
Utah conducted a type of core habitat mapping. The definition of core leks and mapping
here is rather opaque:
“Following Doherty’s work in Wyoming, Montana, and Colorado (Doherty 2008), core
Utah
sage-grouse breeding habitats were mapped (Figure 5). The mapping is accomplished
utilizing
occupied lek densities and associated male sage-grouse maximum lek attendance data for
the
period 1999 – 2008 (10 years). Lek density circles were developed utilizing a 4 – mile
radius
from the center of the lek site. Population parameters (contours shown on the map as
colored
circular dots) progressively representing 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of the statewide
breeding
populations were constructed. The first parameter (red dots) represents areas where
25% of the
state’s total spring breeding populations of sage-grouse are found. Thus, the individual
red dots
on the map collectively represent 25% of Utah’s sage-grouse population.
These red dots
therefore, symbolize the highest statewide density of breeding males. These can also be
viewed
as high priority leks or those leks and associated habitats that individually contribute
most to the
state’s sage-grouse total population. The second parameter on the map (combined
orange dots
and red dots) cumulatively represents areas where 50% of the state’s total breeding
populations
of sage-grouse are found. This is repeated successively in order of red, orange, yellow
and green
dots until cumulatively 100% of all occupied leks are represented. Viewed from the
converse,
the total known spring sage-grouse statewide population is shown by the combined area
of all
colored dots. If the green dots are removed, the remaining area would symbolize the
habitat
areas hosting 75% Utah’s breeding sage-grouse. Caution is advised in the wholesale
application
of the map due to migratory status of some populations and their associated broader
habitat
needs. The map however, does represent the relative contribution of leks and their
associated
92
habitats in maintaining the vigor of Utah’s statewide sage-grouse resource. The four
Western
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) identified Management Zones in
Utah
(MZ II, III, IV, and VII) are overlain for illustrative purpose”. 15-16
We have compared this Utah Mapping to Wyoming’s Core Area Mapping and the
NRDC-Audubon Mapping tha includes portions of eastern Utah at issue here. Although
some of the dot colors are similar in the NRDC-Audubon Mapping and the Utah Plan
mapping, the underlying concept associated with each color is different. See WWP Map
Overlays Appendix A.
The Utah mapping differs from NRDC Audubon: Though bright colors of dots are
similar in hue – the two Mapping efforts appear to use different methods to define and
depict core area relative “importance” Audubon mapped high, low, med density leks. UT
has 4 colors depending on “% Core” - the % of statewide total population. Since western
states hold sage-grouse population numbers closely, public understanding of Utah’s
grouse numbers is even more obscured by this manner of “core” mapping.
The WY Gov. Mapping shows Land Areas and not lek density. The WY Website has
land areas shown. These land areas are then overlaid with Ruby’s path in WWP mapping
in Appendix A.
Information in the Utah Plan relevant to winter habitat that is ignored in the Ruby
Mitigation avoidance:
It is critical that sagebrush be exposed at least 10-12 inches (25 cm) above snow level
(Hupp and
Braun 1989). This provides both food and cover for wintering sage-grouse. In situations
where
snow covers the sagebrush, birds will move to areas where sagebrush is exposed. During
severe
winter conditions, sage-grouse may either partially or completely bury themselves in
snow (snow
roosting) for added thermal protection.
Sage-grouse may be negatively influenced by disturbances within or near their winter
habitats.
Doherty et al. (2008) found that females avoided winter areas with coal-bed natural gas
development, and were 30% less likely to use an area with coal-bed natural gas
development
even if it contained suitable habitat.
For an extensive review of literature on habitat requirements readers are encouraged to
reference
the WAFWA document; Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush
Habitats (Connelly et al. 2004). …
93
Habitat Trends
The complex mosaic of land ownership, competing resource uses, and administration of
the
habitat compound the difficulty of properly managing sage-grouse. 29-30
Sage-grouse habitat quality and quantity has declined throughout Utah and coincides
with
declines in sage-grouse numbers. The reasons for habitat loss vary from site to site but
include
wildfire, urban expansion, development, agricultural conversion, herbicide treatments,
rangeland
seeding, noxious weeds/invasive species expansion, conifer encroachment, drought, and
improper livestock grazing management. Connelly et al. (2004) provide considerable
information on characteristics of sage-grouse habitats and the threats and risks facing
these
habitats. 30.
Utah Plan direction includes:
Maintain/protect large contiguous intact sagebrush communities that contain
seasonal habitat needs of sage-grouse populations within the state.
a) Identify and protect traditional breeding, brood-rearing, migration corridors, and
wintering habitats (local populations).
b) Identification of seasonal habitats and movements (migratory or non-migratory) for
all populations, including those on private lands (local populations).
c) Identify (good GIS database) and quantify (state their condition) sagebrush habitats.
d) Identify focus areas for fire prevention/suppression.
e) Identify how habitats are connected and determine if improvements can be made.
f) Develop energy and other development guidelines/strategies for Utah based on sound
science p. 30-31.
invasive species expansion
- Specifically annual grasses (cheatgrass, red brome) that detrimentally alter the fire
cycle
- Spread of other invasive species including: medusahead, non-native thistle and
knapweeds on rangelands, and tamarisk and Russian olive in riparian areas.
habitat conversion (agricultural, loss of CRP, urban encroachment)
conifer encroachment of sagebrush habitats (low and high elevations)
energy development (oil/gas, wind, etc.)
- Direct disturbance (vehicles, compressor stations), displacement, grouse mortality,
direct habitat loss, increase in predation pressure, increase in invasive plant species,
habitat quality decline and fragmentation (roads, fencing, powerlines, pipelines, etc.),
and cumulative landscape level impacts. Page 32
NDOW 2004 Sage-grouse Plan, PMUs and Other Habitat and Population Concerns
94
The NDOW sage-grouse Plan identified and mapped winter and other sage-grouse
habitats, including many PMU core areas. It provided preliminary info on sage-grouse
populations (migratory, non-migratory, two-stage migratory). This is available at:
http://www.ndow.org/wild/conservation/sg/plan/ The Plan and Appendices, including
Appendix C the PMU Appendix are available at this link.
Plan Appendix C (2001) describes development of PMUs, and their development as a
way to track populations more closely. It was based on clumped patterns of sage-grouse
leks, and assumptions that the surrounding lands might be “better” habitat. Telemetry
data that was available was then used to refine this, and new info was to be added.
Population estimates were made at that time.
The body of the Plan includes many biological and conservation concerns that are not
adequately addressed in the EIS or mitigation development process.
For example:
“Seventy-nine sage-grouse were marked in the Buffalo/Skedaddle portions of Lassen
County
(California) and Washoe County (Nevada) and monitored with radio telemetry from
1998-2000.
Birds captured on the same lek exhibited varied movement patterns, including residency
and
both types of migrations. These multiple migration types included interstate seasonal
movements of up to 70 kilometers”. Plan at 21. How was this understood in looking at the
effects of a Black Rock or other routes – the Black Rock Route borders the BuffaloSkedaddle PMU.
The NDOW Plan described core population areas. See Plan at 22. Core Areas Identified
in the NDOW Plan that Ruby would adversely affect appear to include: Gollaher,
IIlegible (north of Wells), O’Neil, North Fork Tuscarora, Santa Rosa, Illegible (north of
Winnemucca), Lone Willow, Illegible (north of Jackson Mountains), Black Rock, Pine
Forest, Sheldon, Massacre, Vya, Buffalo-Skedaddle affected by the Proposed Route or
the limited alternative segments that Ruby examined. See Map at Page 7 - Map has poor
resolution so some PMU names are illegible.
There is no current analysis of the status of habitats and populations in any of these core
areas or PMUs provided by Ruby or mitigation actions, or that appears to be the basis for
any mitigation actions.
Plan at 22 states: “The largest populations of sage-grouse in the Nevada portion of the
plan area inhabit most of
Elko County and portions of Washoe, White Pine, Humboldt, and Nye Counties in
Nevada. [Ruby affects Elko, Washoe, Humboldt Counties- with Elko and Humboldt
suffering wildfires].
Similarly, the highest concentrations of sage-grouse leks also occur in these areas (see
95
Figure
4). Specifically, the Gollaher, North Fork, OíNeil, and Tuscarora PMUs of Elko County
[wild fires!], the
Buffalo/Skedaddle, Massacre, and Sheldon PMUs of northern Washoe County, the
Butte/Buck/White Pine PMUs of White Pine County, the Santa Rosa PMU in northern
Humboldt
County, and the Reese River and Monitor PMUs of Nye County contain relatively high
densities
of sage-grouse”. Plan at 22.
The Plan states: “Sage-grouse in the Massacre PMU occur over a large geographic area
with little or no
occurrence of habitat fragmentation. The Bureau of Land Management manages over 80
percent of the land in this PMU, and no large-scale changes in land management
practices are
anticipated for the Massacre area. The population is estimated at 3,600 to 4,800 birds
based on
10 years of lek counts that show relatively stable bird numbers. No current or updated
info is provided by Ruby.
Ruby will be a significant large-scale change in this landscape. Assumptions made in the
NDOW planning effort are no longer valid with Ruby intrusion, disturbance,
fragmentation.
“Sage-grouse in the Vya PMU occur over a large geographic area with little or no
occurrence of
habitat fragmentation. Over 80 percent of the land in this PMU is managed by the
Bureau of
Land Management. No large-scale changes in land management practices are
anticipated for
this PMU. The population is estimated at 1,900 to 2,500 sage-grouse”.
Ruby will be a significant large-scale change in this landscape - affecting a population
that 5 years ago already had very low numbers. Ruby will be a significant large-scale
change in this landscape. Assumptions made in the NDOW planning effort are no longer
valid with Ruby intrusion, disturbance, fragmentation.
“The Lone Willow PMU in north-central Humboldt County historically and presently
supports a
large sage-grouse population. Prior to 2001, NDOW estimated that the population of
sagegrouse
in this area was approximately 3,000 birds based on lek counts and hunter harvest
information. It was also estimated that approximately 200 hunters visited the area
annually and
harvested between 350 and 400 birds. In 2000, NDOW collected 438 wings from
hunterharvested
96
birds, reflecting a harvest rate of approximately 15 percent of the estimated
population. The most recent population estimates from lek count data are 1,900 to 2,400
birds. Plan at 30. Ruby provides no updated info”.
The Plan also acknowledges that several populations have little data.
Ruby’s actions in Nevada are likely to affect the viability of the meager and declining
California grouse populations. These CA populations occur at the margin of the species
range, and have already declined and contracted significantly
The Plan describes Elko lek declines in 9 out 13 years. (Plan at 32). Ruby provides no
updated info since the major wildfires of 2006 and 2007.
The Plan states:
“The recently released Conservation Assessment for Greater Sage-Grouse and
Sagebrush
Habitats (Connelly et al. 2004) indicates that sage-grouse populations in California have
been
stable to increasing during the assessment period of 1965-2003. Available lek count data
was
used by the authors to reach this conclusion, which is probably accurate for the core
populations in California during the assessment period. However, longer-term losses of
sagegrouse
from peripheral areas such as western Modoc County, where few sage-grouse currently
exist, were anecdotally documented as far back as 1923 (Leach and Hensley 1954).
Concerns about harvest of sage-grouse dates back as far as 1901 in California, with
numerous … “Plan at 33.
“Sage-grouse population estimates in the Buffalo/Skedaddle PMU have ranged between
1,500
and 4,500 sage-grouse, depending on the year. These estimates are calculated from the
peak
number of males on California leks using methods in the published literature (see
Appendix G).
The number of active leks in the California portion of the PMU was 21 in 2003. In 1992
there
were 17 active leks in the Nevada portion of the PMU. Five of these were active in 1998.
Populations fluctuate depending largely on habitat quality and precipitation. For
example, the
highest recent breeding population was in 1990 but the population almost doubled
between
1996 and 1999 based on California lek data. However, overall population trend since
1987 has not changed substantially”. Plan at 35. See also Armentrout et al. (2006)
discussion below.
97
Highlighting how small and reduced CA populations are:
“Because the sage-grouse population in California is relatively small, all known leks are
usually sampled at least 3-4 times to obtain peak counts of males annually. However, not
every historically active lek site is checked every year …”. Plan at 84-85
The Plan described habitat quality and quantity, restoration habitat categories, etc. The
Restoration info - and perspective – has changed dramatically due to fires since 2004.
Note the plan discusses the large Elko and other fires that had occurred late-90s to 2004.
The Plan (at 44) discusses habitat fragmentation:
“Habitat fragmentation consists of breaking up large areas of habitat into smaller,
isolated areas
of habitat. Species need to move through non-habitat to use the resulting patchwork of
suitable habitats. The non-habitats can be physical/psychological barriers (e.g., roads or
fences), blocks of unsuitable habitat (e.g., crested wheatgrass seeding or annual
grassland), or
other zones that a species avoids due to predation risks (e.g., adjacent to transmission
lines).
Natural vegetation type transitions (e.g., salt desert shrub to sagebrush scrub) are not
considered fragmented habitat.
Change in land use refers to a change from wildlife habitat to another land use that
represents a
long-term or permanent change. This includes changes associated with construction of
reservoirs, recreational developments, urban sprawl, mining, wind energy development
or other
developments. The impacts are similar to those discussed under Habitat Quantity, but
because
of the permanent or long-term nature of these changes, the habitat values are generally
not
recoverable”.
The definition of an active lek in Nevada appears to differ from active lek definition used
in Utah.
“Active A lek that had two or more birds present during at least one of three or
more visitations in a given breeding season. For a strutting ground to attain this
status it must also have had two or more birds present during at least two years
in a five-year period (Connelly et al. 2003).
Inactive A lek that has been surveyed three or more times during one breeding
season with no birds detected during the visitations and no sign observed on the
lek. If a lek is only visited once during a breeding season and was surveyed
under adequate conditions and no birds were observed at the location during the
current and the previous year and no sign was observed at the lek, then an
inactive status can be applied to the lek. [Note: This definition does not correspond to
98
current protocols in Knick and Connelly (2009).
Unknown ñ a lek that may not have had birds present during the last visitation,
but could be considered viable due to the presence of sign at the lek. This
designation could be especially useful when weather conditions or observer
arrival at a lek could be considered unsuitable to observe strutting behavior. The
presence of a single strutting male would invoke the classification of the lek as
unknown. A lek that was active in the previous year, but was inadequately
sampled (as stated above) in the current year with no birds observed could also
be classified as unknown.
Historic A a lek that has not had bird activity for twenty years or more and has
been checked according to protocol at least intermittently. Another means of
classifying a lek as historic is to photograph a lek location (field biologist) and
determine if the habitat is suitable for normal courtship displays. For example, if a
lek location lies in a monotypic stand of sagebrush that is three to four feet tall,
then conditions are no longer suitable for lekking activity”. Pages 85-86.
Armentrout et al. 2006 Insights into Ruby Effects
CONSERVATION STRATEGY FOR SAGE-GROUSE (Centrocercus urophasianus)
AND SAGEBRUSH ECOSYSTEMS WITHIN THE BUFFALO – SKEDADDLE
POPULATION MANAGEMENT UNIT Northeast California Sage-grouse Working
Group Donald J. Armentrout, BLM
Frank Hall, CDFG
The B-K Cons Strategy states:
“Areas of the sagebrush ecosystem within the PMU that have the potential to
support sage-grouse (1,475,506 acres) have declined over the past 100 years.
Approximately 46% of potential habitat (mature sagebrush and seedlings
present) understory is dominated by annual grass, annual forbs, bare ground,
or 0-9% juniper cover. Approximately 19% of potential sagebrush habitat has
crossed the threshold from sagebrush dominated (mature sagebrush and
seedlings present) to juniper or annual grass dominated communities (mature
sagebrush and seedlings not present”). Page 6.
Almost all active leks known to be present in the California
portion of the PMU have been counted for peak male attendance (>/=4 counts)
since 1987. However, not every historically active lek site has been checked
every year. Only two leks (1%) of 149 leks active before 1987 in the California
portion were found to be still active in 2002 and 2003. Most inactive leks now
have immediately adjacent habitats that will not support breeding sage-grouse
due to conversion to agriculture, loss of adjacent sagebrush, juniper invasion,
overhead lines, newer fences, or other habitat changes. A recent estimate of
the numbers of active and inactive leks in the Nevada portion of the PMU is not
available. 23
Information from the 1998-2000 California telemetry study indicated that adult
99
sage-grouse losses were higher to avian rather than mammalian predators
(Figure 1). This is consistent with research reported by Aldridge and Brigham
(2002), Braun (1998), Braun et al. (2002), and Knock et al. (2003) that the
presence of raptors, such as golden eagles, perching on overhead lines cause
cessation of strutting on those leks in sight of the overhead lines or structures.
The sight of an overhead line or structure within the viewshed of the lek will
result in cessation of strutting and potential abandonment of the lek. Golden
eagles were the primary predator, especially near leks, and were the only
source of predator mortality determined for marked male sage-grouse. The
data also showed that mean survival of adult sage-grouse increased as
distance from leks to overhead lines and towers increased. These effects were
detectable at up to 20+ km (12+ miles). This is consistent with the role that lines
and towers can play as perches and nest sites for golden eagles and ravens,
respectively. However, these data do not indicate that these losses may be
limiting the population except near (</= 5 km; 3 miles) existing overhead lines
and towers (Figure 2). Pages 30-31.
The number of active leks in the
California portion of the PMU was 32 in 2004. The last check of active leks in
the Nevada portion were 17 in 1992 and 5 of these were active in 1998.
Populations fluctuate depending largely on habitat quality and precipitation. For
example, the highest recent breeding population was in 1990 but the population
almost doubled between 1996 and 1999 based on California lek data.
Population trend since 1987 has not markedly increased nor declined but does
cycle considerably. This suggests that potential risks from predation and
hunting, for example, have not had a recent significant impact on population 32
The most likely disease threat to sage-grouse throughout North America,
including in the Buffalo - Skedaddle PMU, is currently likely to be West Nile
virus (WNv). This virus has rapidly spread west across North America, infecting
and killing wild and domestic birds, horses, humans, and other animals (Center
for Disease Control and Prevention, e-com., 2004). Some groups of birds,
especially corvids, raptors, and sage-grouse appear to be particularly
susceptible. Disease.
Also: Data available for the Buffalo - Skedaddle PMU does not show that predation is
limiting the size of the population. However, data from the 1998-2000 California
telemetry study does show that both nests and adults from leks closest to
overhead lines are lost at a higher rate to avian rather than mammalian
predators. These effects were detectable at up to 20+ km (12+ miles) from leks
(Figure1).
Goal 1: Protect, Conserve, Restore, and Maintain Lek Habitat
Actions: 1) BLM shall not grant rights-of-way for any activity which
100
would necessitate construction (erection) of any type of
structure rising above the ground surface. These include
overhead lines and structures, micro-wave towers, wind
turbines, etc. within the lek viewshed or no closer than
3.2 km (2 miles) as was accomplished with the Alturas
Intertie Transmission Line. 51
Determining sage-grouse abundance and changes in populations
are critical to making proper management decisions and evaluating
the effectiveness of conservation measures. Differences in lek
monitoring between California and Nevada mean that the ability to
determine trends in the population are substantially different between
states. All active leks within 49 lek complexes (Table 10) in the
California portion of the PMU (32 in 2004) have been counted for
peak male attendance each year since 1987. The 35 known lek sites
identified in the Nevada portion of the PMU have not been combined
into lek complexes (Table 10) and have not been monitored for
activity or numbers of peak males on a regular basis …”. Page 51.
“Determining sage-grouse abundance and changes in populations
are critical to making proper management decisions and evaluating
the effectiveness of conservation measures. Differences in lek
monitoring between California and Nevada mean that the ability to
determine trends in the population are substantially different between
states. All active leks within 49 lek complexes (Table 10) in the
California portion of the PMU (32 in 2004) have been counted for
peak male attendance each year since 1987. The 35 known lek sites
identified in the Nevada portion of the PMU have not been combined
into lek complexes (Table 10) and have not been monitored for
activity or numbers of peak males on a regular basis …”.
Continue yearly lek counts … Continue to inventory inactive and historical leks to
substantiate if their status is
accurate or if they are actually active. Protect currently inactive and historical
leks that are in R-0 status to support potential expansion of sage-grouse back
into those areas. Maintain R-0 value nesting habitat to support potential
expansion of sage-grouse back into these areas. Page 59
The BK Cons Strategy also states:
“All currently ranked and unranked habitats that are occupied or have been
occupied by sage-grouse will be managed to protect the species.
On public lands, unoccupied, potentially suitable habitat will be surveyed at
least once every two years to identify new occupation events. Any newly
occupied habitats would then be managed as currently occupied habitat (see
101
above). In addition the following set of rules applies for unoccupied potentially
suitable habitat:
! No alterations of R-0 value habitat, soil/site stability, biotic integrity, and
hydrologic function without project review and protection of potentially
suitable habitat;
! Consider management actions that encourage occupation;
! Restore R-1 (herbaceous cover but sagebrush overstory lacking), R-2
(sagebrush overstory but herbaceous understory lacking), R-3 (juniper
encroachment) and R-4 (invasions of non-native herbaceous species) to
benefit sage-grouse occupation; and
! No introduction of noxious weeds, and control of these species, if
present”.
The Armentrout (2006) B-S Cons Plan is clearly aware of the precarious status of sagegrouse populations – as it includes an Extinction Contingency Plan.
“IMMINENT EXTINCTION CONTINGENCY PLANS
A necessary component of any conservation strategy and/or adaptive
management framework is to define the types and degree of actions to be taken
when the number of populations and/or size of populations become significantly
low (less than 300 total peak males on active leks within the PMU). This kind of
pre-planning for future action is necessary for the following two reasons:
1. There may be insufficient time between the identification of an imperiled
population and need to take action;
2. The description of possible actions to be taken to save the species will
be known to all stakeholders in advance.
To attempt to address imminent extinction across the entire area covered by
this Conservation Strategy will be too cumbersome and inaccurate.
Action: The agencies and Northern California Sage-Grouse Working
Group shall include actions to address imminent extinction
scenarios in the Lek Complex Implementation (Management)
Plans that are called for within the Conservation Strategy”. Page 81.
NDOW’s most recent sage-grouse reporting shows that the Vya and Massacre PMUs
showed a recent decline greater than the Buffalo-Skedaddale PMU.
"All of the PMUs within this planning area experienced population
decreases from 2007 to 2008. Overall, poor recruitment for the last
three years is to blame for the downward trend of this and other
sage-grouse populations. Declines were less severe in the
Buffalo/Skedaddle PMU than other Washoe/Lassen/Modoc PMUs as lek counts
102
from this PMU resulted in a 19.7% population estimate decline from 2007.
Population declines were more severe for the Massacre, Vya and Sheldon
PMUs as declines ranged from 44%, 41% and 50% respectively from 2007
estimates."
ALTERNATIVES WRONGFULLY IGNORED
DOE and JUNGO-TUSCARORA Routes Have Not Been Adequately Evaluated by
Ruby for Alternative Pipe Path – This Evaluation Must Be Done In a SEIS
The following info is posted on the Summit Lake Tribe’s Website related to JungoTuscarora. It shows that Ruby and agencies have long known the need to fully and
completely evaluate the Jungo-Tuscarora Alternative.
www.summitlaketribe.org/Environmental_Alerts.html
“December 5, 2008
Dear Tribal Members,
The Tribe found out about a BLM meeting that was being held on Tuesday, December 2,
2008, indirectly, and the Environmental Coordinator attended the meeting and poushed
for better BLM government-to-government consultation with the Tribe--Summit Lake and
Reno-Sparks Indian Colony were the only two tribes attending the meeting. At this
meeting, Ruby Pipeline, LLC, issued a new map showing where the Jungo (Road)
Tuscarora Alternative would likely be constructed. Most of those attending the
December 2 BLM Meeting are in favor of the Jungo Tuscarora Alternative (flat ground,
road-railroad line-power pole disruption of the ground, easier terrain the the preferred
route between Sheldon and Summit Lake Reservation, etc.). To see the left half of the
map (too big to scan the entire map), click here”.
We have attached the Ruby Jungo-Tuscarora map from the agency meeting described at
the Summit Lake Tribe Website. We request that FERC and BLM require this Alternative
as well as the DOE Corridors and routing closer to I-80, be fully evaluated in a
Supplemental EIS process. This path could be routed with minor deviation around two
sites with sage-grouse leks, yet otherwise follow the JT route and disturbed areas and
unsuitable habitats, that are found in much of the route.
January 2009 Resource Report #10 Filing: Ruby Downplays Viable and Valid
Alternatives
This Report and its Attachments highlights Ruby’s failure to consider a reasonable range
of alternatives that would reduce the adverse Footprint of the Proposed Route. It
demonstrates that the project does not avoid sensitive resources. Plus, Ruby has failed to
conduct a wide range of biological, cultural and other data that would enable
understanding of the relative effects of a valid expanded range of routes. Until it collects
and examines baseline data, Ruby has no basis for claiming one route is more destructive
than the other. Just because a pipeline is longer does not mean that its adverse effects n a
range of values and resources is necessarily greater, FERC and BM have allowed Ruby to
103
make unsubstantiated claims that have no data – other than it might cost Ruby mire – to
back them up. Another pipeline company had no problem in following significant
portions of the J-T route to Malin. So what is Ruby’s problem? Other pipelines have
followed winding routes along roads to some extent – to minimize impacts. FERC
provided no framework for making decisions related to routes and effects – and has
seemed to acquiesce to Ruby’s desires without valid analysis.
Ruby’s filings state:
“The Project is designed to connect areas of natural gas supply to areas of market
demand in
the most environmentally sound and cost-effective manner. However, none of the energy
corridors designed in the West-wide Energy Corridor PFEIS is appropriately located for
the
Project. To be environmentally sound and cost effective, a pipeline route should avoid
sensitive resources, where practicable, and should follow the most direct route possible
in
order to minimize surface disturbance, impacts to habitat, and associated costs. In this
instance, following proposed energy corridors would be inconsistent with these
objectives
because such a route would increase the length of the pipeline, with an associated
increase
in habitat disturbance and cost, and would require the crossing of sensitive resources,
such
as the Salt Flats in western Utah. For example, following one of the designated
corridors
would add approximately 143.3 miles to the Project and impact an additional 2,165
acres of
land, including a significantly greater impact to private land (Table 10.5-7)”.
Ruby has failed to collect baseline data needed to evaluate the full range of sensitive
resources along several alternative routes, and thus cannot make an informed comparison
between routes.
Ruby also uses spurious reasons to discount running the Jungo-Tuscarora and other
Routes:
“Direct impacts from disturbance would not be reduced by proximity to a road or a
utility
facility, i.e. the nominal construction ROW would remain 115 feet, and additional
temporary
workspaces would still be required for terrain and other special construction activities.
Ruby’s alignment would likely not be compatible with roads or smaller utility facilities
and as
a result Ruby would not be allowed to co-locate (overlap ROW) with these facilities. (p.
38)”.
104
Ruby certainly can locate very close to the existing disturbances on the Jungo-Tuscarora,
or other routes. The required separation distances are minimal. In fact, when it wants to
justify other routes segments, Ruby touts co-location/close proximity to various lines.
Ruby’s Biological Comparisons used as justifications for its harmful Proposed Route
segments in NW Nevada are woefully deficient, full of omissions, and error-riddled.
Ruby completely ignores pygmy rabbit, migratory bird, and many other sensitive and
imperiled species, including ESA-listed species, in making its comparisons in a Table
with this report.
In Report Table 10.5.8, Ruby identifies sage-grouse winter habitat – that then its
mitigation fails to avoid. Only two Alternatives are examined (Sheldon and Proposed
Route). (9 vs 22 leks), 49,000 vs. 188,000 acres of winter habitat. (Within 2 miles). This
188,000 acres of winter habitat later vanishes from mitigation “avoidance” considerations
in Ruby’s December 2009 filings.
Ruby writes off any bighorn sheep adverse impacts. The Table lists desert bighorn sheep
winter habitat. This then shows up as NA (no effect). That is because desert bighorn
sheep do not occur here – California bighorn sheep do. January 2009 Ruby filing
mapping shows extensive habitat areas impacted by Ruby.
Ruby ignores consideration of impacts of explosion noise, ground and helicopter-based
disturbance on bighorn habitats including lambing, winter and other habitats.
It also fails to consider nesting habitats, or the integrity, lack of fragmentation of the
affected sagebrush wild lands.
This is the kind of deficient and misleading biological reporting that Ruby has engaged in
throughout this process. These and numerous other omissions and errors are not
“flyspeck” errors. The sum of all the many omissions, distortions, and inaccuracies is not
a “flyspeck” either.
Report Page 10-32 shows that the BLM, USFWS and NDOW all requested that Ruby
examine Jungo-Tuscarora. “This alternative route, as provided by BLM to Ruby in
November 2008 by the BLM, would deviate from the Proposed route near Paradise
Valley Nevada (MP 414.2) and extend in a southwesterly direction to a point south of the
Black Rock Wilderness Area, near Gerhlach, then progressing into California …”.
Page A-10 shows the Opportunity of the Jungo-Tuscarora Route as “Avoids sagebrush
communities, Sited along existing Corridors (WWEC, Tuscarora Pipeline, ATT
Corridor), Ease of Constructability, Existing Access and Road Improvement,
Construction Timing Windows”. Constraints include CEQA.
This Report had Memos and Meeting Minutes Associated with it.
105
A January 22, 2008 Meeting Record shows: BLM staff was concerned Ruby was not
following existing corridors. BLM proposed looking at the Sheldon Route. BLM staff “is
concerned about the constricted corridor south of Sheldon, about a 1-2 mile gap between
Sheldon and existing resources that are protected”. BLM was concerned about having
enough time to review the Ruby resources report.
Ruby’s Claims on Have Not Been Carried Forward
Ruby still has not adequately collected bio data and conducted thorough and systematic
bio surveys to understand the effects of several various routes in the western portion of
the pipeline path.
Ruby stated:
“Ruby continues to work with affected landowners and agencies to optimize its
route and, to that end, is currently evaluating three route alternative options in
northwestern Nevada. Ruby currently believes each of the referenced three
alternatives are less environmentally and economically favorable than the selected
route. One alternative would cross the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge and two
other alternatives, i.e., the Black Rock and Jungo-Tuscarora alternatives, would go
significantly further south than the proposed route”.
These statements was made by Ruby. Yet FERC and BLM did not require Ruby to follow
through on full biological, cultural, recreational, hydrological and other analyses
necessary to understand the relative effects of an adequate range of alternatives including
the Jungo-Tuscarora or others. Agencies have not required Ruby to develop a route that
minimizes adverse effects to sagebrush species, ESA-listed species, and cultural values.
It is also clear by the careful wording that Ruby’s Footprint and continuing disturbance
along its route will expand over time - as Ruby is highly likely to add many more
facilities and disturbance over time:
“Ruby is proposing initially to install eight interconnects within four separate
measurement stations. There would be four receipt metering facilities that would
permit receipts of gas from CIG, Enterprise Products Partners, L.P., Williams Energy
Services, and Overthrust Pipeline Company. Currently, Ruby is proposing four
delivery metering facilities to interconnect with PG&E, Paiute Pipeline Company,
Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company and GTN”.
What is the next highly foreseeable stage in this, and what would the cumulative effects
be to the many sensitive resources adversely affected by the initial stages?
It is clear that Ruby’s ecological disturbance and footprint impacts to sensitive sagebrush
communities will only increase over time. Before any right-of-way can be issued, a
Supplemental EIS must be prepared, and several alternative routes fully considered.
106
Sincerely,
Katie Fite
Biodiversity Director
Western Watersheds Project
PO Box 2863
Boise, ID 83701
208-429-1679
Katie@westernwatersheds.org
WWP APPENDIX A MAPS
The Ruby Pipeline Route is Overlaid on Agency and Scientific Article Mapping for
Illustrative Purposes. We have not altered the base maps in any way.
Wyoming Governor Core Area Mapping.
Mapping of the path of Ruby in Wyoming shows that the Ruby Pipeline path cuts
through a Wyoming core area that is adjacent to NE Utah habitat.
NRDC-Audubon Core Area Mapping
This shows the path of Ruby through NRDC-Audubon mapped Core areas in Wyoming
and Utah.
Fire Sage-Grouse Map (NDOW January 2009 Espinosa and Phenix Powerpoint
Effects of Fire on GSG in Nevada).
This Overlay shows the path of Ruby through burned and unburned lek complexes in
Nevada. It shows Ruby cuts through critical areas of high density unburned leks in Elko
County and central Nevada. This January 2009 info pre-dated the spring 2009 Ruby lek
surveys.
Knick and Hanser Mapping.
We have overlaid the Ruby route on sagebrush habitat, lek connectivity, and other
mapping from Knick and Hanser (2009).
Note: Knick and Hanser (USGS 2009) mapping for eastern Nevada and some other areas
would quite likely show significantly reduced sagebrush habitat and increased sagebrush
107
habitat fragmentation in areas of eastern Nevada if mapping was redone based on 2009
conditions. Knick and Hanser mapping here used data sets prior to the most recent wild
fires. If effects of recent fires were included in the sagebrush habitat mapping, the
remote NW Nevada area targeted by Ruby would show up as even more critically
important to sagebrush species., as would the remaining unburned areas in Elko County
and other portions of the Ruby route.
Figures Overlay the Ruby Route on the Knick and Hanser article Mapping. Please refer
to the article discussion and map legends.
The path of the Ruby pipeline is green.
Interstate-80 is Gold in color. In all mapping, note the few leks in the vicinity of I-80.
In the Knick and Hanser (KH) Map Overlays:
KH Map 1. Percent of the landscape dominated by sagebrush within 5km. This has now
been reduced in eastern Nevada due to wildfires. Darker color = more sagebrush. Please
compare this figure to WWP Overlap of the Ruby route on the NDOW sage-grouse lek
and fire map.
KH Map 2. Percent of the landscape dominated by sagebrush within 54 km. This has now
been reduced in eastern Nevada due to wildfires. Darker color = more sagebrush. Please
compare this figure to WWP Overlap of the Ruby route on the NDOW sage-grouse lek
and fire map
KH Map 3. Sagebrush Edge. Small- and large-scale fragmentation of sagebrush habitats
represented by the total
distance of edge between sagebrush and other land-cover types. 5 km. Pale color shows
low edge. Pale color is present for both Proposed Route and Sheldon.
KH Map 4. Sagebrush Edge. Small- and large-scale fragmentation of sagebrush habitats
represented by the total
distance of edge between sagebrush and other land-cover types. 54 km. Pale color shows
low edge. Pale color is present for both Proposed Route and Sheldon
KH Map Sage-grouse lek connectivity (2003-2007). Distribution of current (2003–2007)
Greater Sage-Grouse leks. This shows Linkages. Ruby will sever linkages in several
places. Especially in NV where due to Basin and Range topog links are naturally limited
in places.
KH Map Lek dPC. Importance of individual leks in maintaining connectivity in the
range-wide
KH Map Component DPC. Lek dPC measures change in landscape connectivity that
results when a lek is removed from the network
108
This type of mapping highlights the importance of remaining leks in a fragmented
landscape–like those in eastern NV near Ruby.
In describing their Mapping of dPC, the authors state: We calculated the importance of
an individual lek for maintaining connectivity, dPC, as
the difference in landscape connectivity (PC):
when that lek was removed from the SGCA or management zone network.
Relative importance (higher dPC) of individual leks was a function of lek size
(number of male sage-grouse) and position within the network (number and strength of
connections to other high-ranking leks)”.
Figure 5. Number of components within the Greater Sage-Grouse range relative to
dispersal
distances.
Figure 6. Location of 209 components and their importance (dPC) in maintaining
connectivity
across the range-wide distribution of Greater Sage-Grouse. Number and spatial
arrangement of
components was evaluated for a dispersal distance of 18 km
Pygmy Rabbit Mapping Overlays
This is based on Larrucea and Brussard (2008). These authors performed a spatial
analysis to determine
areas with potential habitat for pygmy rabbits in Nevada and
California. The research conducted surveys for pygmy
rabbits at 1,394 additional sites across Nevada and California
and documented current activity of pygmy rabbits at 258 sites
(Fig. 2). See Mapping p. 695.
Ruby’s path has been overlaid on the article Maps for illustrative purposes.
No systematic analysis of this type that includes the full Footprint of Ruby has been
provided to establish a baseline for the Footprint of Ruby, and to predict potential effects
of Ruby. Remote cameras were placed to document rabbits, in contrast to Ruby’s
methods. As described in comments, pygmy rabbit mapping used by Ruby in Alternatives
comparisons is not derived from systematic inventories across the area Mapped – but
instead uses intensive rabbit study area occurrence data to slant rabbit occurrence and
abundance.
WWP Sage-grouse Lek Mapping Overlays
109
We have made 4 maps with data obtained though information Act requests. These maps
are:
Nevada Sage-grouse Males per Lek and Inactive Leks. This shows the large number of
inactive leks following the fires (based on NDOW 2008 lek data). Inactive leks are
shown in pink. Please compare to the NDOW PPT Fire Mapping Overlay we have
prepared.
Overlay of Ruby January 2009 Mapping with Active and Inactive leks for Nevada. In the
January 2009 mapping, Ruby had excluded all maps more distant than 2 miles from the
pipe Rpute over most of Nevada. Yet Ruby had included all of the Oregon leks over a
brad areas. We have filled in the Nevada leks that Ruby omitted.
Active Leks with Ruby Overlaid on Active leks. This includes the NDOW 2008 and the
info from the Topo Maps of Ruby surveys obtained from a FOIA.
The path of the Ruby pipeline is green.
Interstate-80 is Gold in color.
Methods for Mapping of Leks
Ken Cole compiled mapping based on information obtained from the Nevada
Department of Wildlife and the sage grouse mapping provided from a Ruby Pipeline
FOIA to FERC. Mr. Cole’s methods are as follows:
The locations are not precise but they are all within 1/2 mile
of the point shown. I was given a list of all leks in Nevada and the
location was based on the Township, Range and Section (TRS) listed in
the file. The locations were converted from TRS to latitude and
longitude points using an online program.
Presumably this is the way that Ruby Pipeline obtained their lek
location information as well. I could discern this based on the
locations indicated on their mapping when I overlayed them onto Google
Earth. Nearly all of the leks in Nevada fell on or near the center of
the sections and corresponded nearly identically with my locations.
It appears that some of the leks which were "discovered" by the Ruby
surveys are actually leks which had already been located by NDOW but
during the Ruby surveys they discovered the "actual" location rather
than the location mapped using the same process. It also appears that
when Ruby mapped the leks in this way they determined that several
leks had been mapped twice since there may have been more than one lek
in each section. I noticed that when this happened in Nevada some of
the leks had been removed from consideration.
110
According to the maps the Ruby surveys claim to have discovered 8 new
leks. Only 5 of those actually appear to be new leks though, the
others appear to be leks which had already been observed, but since
their maps didn't have the accurate information they mistook these for
being "new" leks.
The Ruby Pipeline path was Overlaid on Maps from Larrucea and Brussard Paper, and
USGS Knick and Hanser for illustrative purposes.
With other maps I overlayed the images onto Google Earth. The
accuracy of the maps is dictated by the size and scope of the images
overlayed. Due to the curvature of the Earth and the method maps were
made, some of the maps only show a general representation of where the
pipeline crosses.
APPENDIX B:
Some Relevant Excerpts from
USGS Knick and Hanser (2009), Garton et al (2009), others
We are including notes and excerpts from the recent USGS publication as an illustration
of the current state of understanding of the landscape and ecological processes that
should be used in consideration of a new range of alternatives routes, and used to inform
analyses in a Supplemental EIS. We are also including some info from the 2004 Connelly
et al. Assessment.
Knick and Hanser
Page 7. Translating landscape structure into species response has proven
elusive (Milne 1992, Wiens and Milne 1989, Wiens 2002, Calabrese and Fagan 2004),
and relies
on our ability to understand how a species perceives its environment (Wiens et al. 1993,
With et
al. 1997, Baguette and Van Dyck 2007). If animals are sensitive to arrangement of their
habitat
and if we can describe that relationship, we can understand how landscapes influence
individuals
or populations in daily and seasonal movements, how they disperse to new locations from
natal
ranges, and gene flow. Analysis of connectivity thus merges complementary
evaluation of
landscape pattern, resource selection, and population characteristics to identify core
regions, key
areas or locations that link core regions, and pathways important for conserving a
species
111
(Schultz 1998, Noss and Daly 2006, Crooks and Sanjayan 2006).
We described structural connectivity of sagebrush-dominated landscapes across the
SageGrouse Conservation Area (SGCA), which is the maximum extent encompassing
historical and
currently occupied ranges of Greater Sage-Grouse (Connelly et al. 2004).
p. 7
“ … maintaining landscapes dominated by sagebrush is a major
challenge because changes in fire regimes, widespread invasion by non-native plants,
and
increases in destructive land use are likely to accelerate the trajectory of fragmentation
and loss
(Knick et al. 2003, Wisdom et al. 2005a). Our objectives were to: (1) characterize the
hierarchical pattern of sagebrush landscapes that results from natural and human
disturbance, and
(2 (Rotenberry and ) identify spatial scales perceived by Greater Sage-Grouse and other
wildlife
Wiens 1980, Wiens et al. 1987, Knick et al. 2008).
p. 8
We also sought to determine if lek persistence during long-term population declines was
related to their connectivity within the sage-grouse network, structure of sagebrush
landscapes,
or environmental and human disturbance. The process of range contraction of sagegrouse then
might be understood in terms of interactions among a spatial network of populations
(Hanski and
Gilpin 1991, Hanski 1994) superimposed on spatial and temporal patterns of habitat
patches.
p. 11
Our comments discuss Ruby’s lack of information related to population characteristics,
including whether affected sage-grouse populations are migratory or non-migratory
populations, Ruby and agencies have failed to identify if populations are migratory (and
what type of migratory patternoccurs), or nonmigratory. The Ruby route cuts through
habitat for several populations.
The bottom line is: Larger land areas may need examined, and to be kept intact if the
population is migratory.
Leks are important for breeding although habitat characteristics at leks are less
important
than the surrounding landscape used for nesting and brood-rearing (Connelly et al.
112
1981,
Connelly et al. 2000a). Conservation of sagebrush within 5 km of leks has been
recommended to
maintain the most locations used for nesting and early brood-rearing by nonmigratory
populations, whereas 18-km radii have been recommended for migratory populations
(Wakkinen
et al. 1992, Connelly et al. 2000a, Holloran and Anderson 2005).
p. 15
Connectivity in Greater Sage-Grouse populations (PC) should decrease with loss of
larger leks, highly connected leks, or leks that serve as key stepping stones by
connecting core
regions.
p. 19
When using the
larger 54-km radii, four primary regions with landscapes dominated by sagebrush land
cover
were evident: south central Oregon and northwest Nevada; the Owyhee region of
southeast
Oregon, southwest Idaho, and northern Nevada; southwest Wyoming; and south central
Wyoming. Patterns of landscape fragmentation, delineated by calculating total distance
of edge
between sagebrush and other habitats, showed similar perspectives (Fig. 2).
Ruby cuts across two of these four areas. We stress that the sagebrush landscape of
southcentral Oregon and northwestern Nevada contains large contiguous blocks of
protected sagebrush habitats in significant areas, making it unique compared to the other
three highlighted areas.
p. 21
Small leks with low connectivity were lost as abundance of sage-grouse declined (Fig. 9),
which also changed the relative importance of persisting leks within the new network
configuration (Fig. 10).
p. 23
The most significant spatial scales for environmental predictors were proportion of
sagebrush within 54 km of the lek (P < 0.05), proportion of burned area within 54 km of
the lek
(P < 0.01) and level of human footprint within 5 km (P < 0.01)
p. 24
113
Spatial structure of
sagebrush landscapes and Greater Sage-Grouse populations can reveal underlying
processes that
have led to long-term trajectories of habitat loss and population declines. These analyses
also can
provide a foundation for future conservation strategies by identifying critical locations
necessary
to maintain range-wide and regional networks of interacting populations of Greater
Sage-Grouse.
Ruby has not done this.
p. 25
Spatial attributes of land cover influence spatial and temporal stability and contribute to
a
system’s resilience and resistance to change (Shugart 1998). Sagebrush systems in the
western
portion of the SGCA, including the Columbia Basin, Northern Great Basin, Southern
Great
Basin, and Snake River Plain management zones, have two primary endpoints that are
resistant
to further change (Hemstrom et al. 2002; Miller et al., this volume). A landscape
dominated by
sagebrush communities containing an understory of native grasses and forbs represents
one
stable endpoint because disturbance historically has been at small spatial scales and
occurred at
longer intervals than the period required for recovery (Laycock 1991; Baker, this
volume).
Cheatgrass-dominated grasslands without sagebrush represent an undesirable
endpoint that
remains stable because recurrent fires prevent recolonization by sagebrush and other
native forbs
and grasses (Young and Evans 1973, d’Antonio and Vitousek 1992, Chambers et al.
2007).
Building a giant new pipeline and other infrastructure, including imposing large-scale
road upgrading and other disturbances, in the heart of one of the only reaming blocks of
sagebrush habitats, and near the only larger ungrazed sagebrush habitat in the biome,
recklessly promotes cheatgrass and other invasive species expansion.
p. 21.
Critical thresholds where habitat amount becomes less important than habitat
arrangement vary with dispersal, habitat requirement, mobility, and vagility
114
characteristics of a
species (Andrén 1994, With and Crist 1995, Flather and Bevers 2002). Configuration of
land
cover may be less important to mobile species, such as sage-grouse, because small
amounts of
clumped habitat distributed across a landscape can be exploited and serve as population
sources …
Ruby, the CCA and the NV RPCA fail to adequately consider this and other current
conservation science for sagebrush species, including the differing needs of the pygmy
rabbit.
p. 28
… landscapes may have multiple structures that vary in importance from the
perspective of sagegrouse.
Identification of appropriate spatial scale(s) is important to effectively model habitat
associations or track species responses to changes in their habitat (Wiens 2002). Many
shrubland
birds are sensitive to landscape components at spatial scales much larger than
individual home
ranges (Vander Haegen et al. 2000, Knick and Rotenberry 2002). Large-scale
characteristics
within surrounding landscapes influenced locations selected by Greater Sage-Grouse in
Alberta
(1-km2; Aldridge and Boyce 2007) and Wyoming (>4-km; Doherty et al. 2008).
Probability of
persistence of sage-grouse populations in a range-wide comparison of historical and
current
distributions was greatest in areas containing >30% sagebrush within a 30-km radius of
a given
point and with a human density <4/km2 (Aldridge et al. 2008). In our study, fire within a
54-km
radius and human activity within 5 km of a lek influenced the probability of persistence
over 40
yr.
p. 29
Population
dynamics of sage-grouse within core components similarly may depend on amount and
quality
of sagebrush or level of disturbance. Sage-grouse populations distributed in more
isolated
components at the edge of the range-wide distribution may depend on dispersal from
115
connecting
leks.
See Discussion of Maps from Figures in Knick and Hanser on pages 63, 64, 65, 66 in
WWP Appendix A.
USGS Populations Info and Analysis
We are Attaching some info excerpted from the recent USGS report that discusses
population analyses, and declining trends for sage-grouse populations affected by Ruby.
USGS Chapter 16. Greater Sage-Grouse population dynamics and probability of
persistence - Edward O. Garton, John W. Connelly, Christian A. Hagen, Jon S. Horne,
Ann Moser, and Michael A. Schroeder
Connelly et al. (1988) suggested that
sage-grouse populations be defined on a temporal and spatial basis. A breeding
population can
be defined as a group of sage-grouse associated with one or more occupied leks in the
same
geographic area separated from other leks by >20 km (Connelly et al. 2003). We
followed these
definitions for this analysis, and further defined sage-grouse populations throughout
their North
American distribution based on the known locations of leks.
Wyoming Basin population (pps. 35-39). Population is declining.
The Gompertz model with declining time trend implies the Wyoming Basin population of
sage-grouse will fluctuate around an estimated carrying capacity which will decline from
20,980
males attending leks in 2007 to 7,545 males attending leks in 2037 to two in 2107 if this
trend
continues at the same rate in the future.
Western Great Basin population
This population occupies portions of southeastern Oregon, northwestern Nevada, and
northeastern California …
The Gompertz
model with a declining trend implies the sage-grouse in the western Great Basin
population will
fluctuate around an estimated carrying capacity of 4,111 males in 2007; 1,695 males in
2037;
and 200 males in 2107. A parametric bootstrap based on this model infers this
population has a
116
0% chance of declining below Ne = 500 within the next 30 yr, a 0% chance of declining
below
50 within 100 years, and a 100% chance of declining below 500 within the next 100 yr.
This
population has a 5.5% chance of declining below Ne = 50 within 30 yr, a 6% chance of
declining
below 500 within 30 yr, a 6% chance of declining below 50 within 100 yr, and a 99%
chance of
declining below 500 within 100 yr (Table 6) across all 26 models of population growth.
The Gompertz model with a time trend implies that sage-grouse in the Northern Great
Basin
SMZ will fluctuate around a decreasing carrying capacity of 5,529 males in 2007; 2,413
males in
2037, and 349 males in 2107 representing a 2.7% decrease in the carrying capacity per
year. A
parametric bootstrap based on this model infers this population has a 0% chance of
declining
below Ne = 500 within the next 30 yr, a 0% chance of declining below Ne = 50 within
100 yr,
USGS Chapter 19 Wisdom et al. Factors Associated with Extirpation
Geographic ranges of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) and
Gunnison Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus minimus) have contracted across large areas in
response to
habitat loss and detrimental land uses.
Areas currently occupied by sage-grouse, but with high similarity to
extirpated range, may not support persistent populations. Model estimates showed that
areas of
highest similarity were concentrated in the smallest, disjunct portions of occupied range
and
along range peripheries. Large areas in the eastern portion of occupied range also had
high
similarity with extirpated range. By contrast, areas of lowest similarity with extirpated
range
were concentrated in the largest, most contiguous portions of occupied range that
dominate
Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, and western Wyoming. Our results have direct relevance to
conservation
planning. We describe how results can be used to identify strongholds and spatial
priorities for
117
effective landscape management of sage-grouse.
Direct impacts result when animals avoid human infrastructure (Sawyer et al. 2006,
Doherty et al. 2008) or when development negatively affects survival (Holloran 2005) or
reproduction (Aldridge and Boyce 2007). Indirect impacts include changes in habitat
quality (Bergquist et al. 2007), predator communities (Hebblewhite et al. 2005), or
disease dynamics (Daszak et al. 2000) and can be equally deleterious if cascading effects
negatively influence sensitive species.
The potential for energy development to impact sagebrush-obligate species is high.
we recommend a
paradigm shift from local to landscape conservation and discuss the implications of this
change.
USGS Chapter 19. Naugle et al. Energy Development and Land Use Change.
Energy development and its infrastructure may negatively affect sage-grouse
populations via several different mechanisms. Mechanisms responsible for cumulative
impacts that lead to population declines depend in part on the magnitude and extent of
human disturbance. We quantified changes in landscape features detrimental to
sagegrouse
that result from energy development. Males and females may abandon leks if
repeatedly disturbed by raptors perching on power lines near leks (Ellis 1984), by vehicle
traffic on nearby roads (Lyon and Anderson 2003), or by noise and human activity
associated with energy development (Braun et al. 2002, Holloran 2005, Kaiser 2006).
Collisions with power lines and vehicles, and increased predation by raptors may also
increase mortality of birds at leks (Connelly et al. 2000, Lammers and Collopy 2007).
Roads and power lines may also indirectly affect lek persistence by altering productivity
of local populations or survival at other times of the year. Sage-grouse mortality
associated with power lines and roads occurs year-round (Aldridge and Boyce 2007),
and
man-made ponds created by development (Zou et al. 2006) that support breeding
mosquitoes known to vector West Nile virus (Walker et al. 2007b) elevate risk of
mortality from disease in late summer (Walker and Naugle, this volume). Sage-grouse
may also avoid otherwise suitable habitat as development increases (Lyon and Anderson
2003, Holloran 2005, Kaiser 2006, Doherty et al. 2008).
Negative responses of sage-grouse to energy development were consistent among
studies regardless of whether they examined lek dynamics or demographic rates of
specific cohorts within populations. Recent research demonstrated that sage-grouse
populations declined when birds behaviorally avoid infrastructure in one or more
seasons
(Doherty et al. 2008), when cumulative impacts of development negatively affect
reproduction or survival (Aldridge and Boyce 2007) or both (Lyon and Anderson 2003,
Holloran 2005, Kaiser 2006, Holloran et al. 2007). Avoidance of energy development
reduces the distribution of sage-grouse and may result in population declines if
densitydependence,
118
competition or displacement into poor-quality habitats lowers survival or
reproduction among displaced birds (Holloran and Anderson 2005, Aldridge and Boyce
2007).
POTENTIAL TRAJECTORIES
Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) has invaded many of the lower elevation, more xeric
sagebrush landscapes across the western portion of the range of Greater Sage-Grouse.
Additionally, conifer woodlands have expanded into sagebrush habitats at higher
elevations
creating stress on the sagebrush ecosystem from both extremes (Miller et al., this
volume). Fire
has also increased since 1980 throughout many portions of the species’ range (Baker,
this
volume; Miller et al., this volume). Other areas have been impacted by energy
development
(Naugle et al., this volume) and West Nile virus (Walker and Naugle, this volume). The
rapidity
with which an entire sagebrush landscape can now be transformed through land use
and
changing environments, i.e., energy development and fire, is much greater than the
natural
disturbances that previously influenced sagebrush ecosystems (Knick et al., this
volume). The
ultimate influence of these unprecedented landscape changes is not well understood for
sagegrouse populations.
Lek trends tended to be lower
as the cover of exotic species increased at both 5-km (Fig. 12) and 18-km scales,
although few
leks had >8% coverage within either 5 km or 18 km.
Distance to nearest road of any type appeared related to lek trends only in the Northern
Great Basin, where higher trends were associated with greater distances to a road (Fig.
44).
400 km in the northern Great Basin were evident.
2007). Lek trends across the range of the species were positively associated with the
proportions
of tall-stature sagebrush and all sagebrush land covers within 5- and 18-km radii of
the lek
location. Also, the coverage of sagebrush was greater within 5 km than within 18 km.
Low
sagebrush was common in only the northern Great Basin, where it was positively
associated with
sage-grouse. Walker et al. (2007a) found strong support for models relating lek
persistence in
119
southern portions of the Great Plains with the proportion of sagebrush habitat within
6.4 km.
Aldridge et al. (2008) predicted that across the range of the species areas where sagegrouse
persisted, compared with areas where populations were extirpated, were those
containing at least
25% sagebrush cover within 30 km. Clearly sagebrush at both local and landscape
scales is a necessary, if not sufficient, requirement for viable sage-grouse populations.
Sage-grouse depend on sagebrush through all seasonal periods.
Related to northwestern Nevada and Ruby’s Proposed Route path:
Lek trends were positively related to elevation in the northwestern portion of sagegrouse
range.
… few leks across the
range of the species had >8% cover within 5 km or 18 km, suggesting that when the
extent of the
landscape dominated by exotic vegetation becomes relatively high, leks become inactive
(Enyeart 1956, Connelly et al. 2000; Miller et al. this volume).
Weeds: The functional conversion of relatively small amounts of landscape either
through exotic
species invasion or agricultural conversion had pronounced negative effects on sagegrouse
Additionally, replacement of native understory vegetation by exotic annual grasses such
as cheatgrass has altered fire regimes, resulting in losses of sagebrush over large
expanses of the
southern Great Basin, Snake River Plain, northern Great Basin, and the Columbia Basin
(Mack
1981, Knick and Rotenberry 1997, Wambolt et al. 2002, Crawford et al. 2004, Beck et al.
2009).
Greater Sage-Grouse populations have consistently responded negatively to habitat
management practices that manipulated large proportions of sagebrush on a landscape
(Connelly
et al. 2000). We found that lek count trends across the range of the species generally
were lower
the greater the area burned within 5 km and 18 km.
Sage-grouse populations and distributions in many areas have diminished as a result
of
120
modifications to sagebrush-dominated landscapes from anthropogenic activities
(Connelly et al.
2000, Knick et al. 2003). Few sage-grouse leks were located within 5 km of developed
land, and
a strong negative relationship was found between lek count trends and the proportion
of the
landscape developed within 5 km or 18 km. Many of the anthropogenic stressors
associated with
urban and suburban areas may act synergistically to cause sagebrush habitat
fragmentation
(Knick et al. 2003, Leu et al. 2008). As a landscape becomes bisected into smaller
patches of
habitat, functional connectivity among patches may be lost (With and Crist 1995). A
patch of
habitat that by itself is too small to support sage-grouse may nonetheless be valuable to
the
species if it is connected to other patches of suitable habitat. If that connection is lost,
the patch
may no longer have value (Fahrig 2003).
Viable sage-grouse populations require large landscapes (Patterson 1952, Connelly et
al. 2000), so that fragmentation resulting even from
scattered disturbances may lead to disproportionate population declines or regional
extinctions.
Ruby’s Stronghold Mapping Ignores 2009 Importance of All Remaining Larger
Blocks of Sagebrush
Connelly et al. 2004 (Page ES-4) state:
“Although there are areas that presently could be considered
population strongholds, populations are still declining rather precipitously in various
portions of the species range”.
Ruby somehow ignores critical info throughout the Connelly et al 2004 Assessment on
the importance of the quality and quantity of habitats, and the threat of habitat
fragmentation. Ruby provides only the most meager of conservation mapping and uses it
to discount the significance of Nevada habitats, and ignore analysis of how the pipeline is
very likely to fragment habitats. We ask that agencies critically review the Figures in
Connelly et al. 2004 in Chapter 5, and mapping throughout the Assessment, and
population info in Chapter 6. This highlights the importance of the sagebrush habitats that
will be destroyed, fragmented and adversely affected by Ruby’s Footprint. While Ruby
seeks to discount Nevada habitat all along the path of Ruby as not being part of any
“stronghold”, the mapping shows Ruby has woefully failed to understand and employ the
info and analysis in Connelly et al. 2004 - the very source it cites to understand the
importance of the sagebrush habitats it would alter.
121
See Assessment maps 5.14, 5.16, 5.17 5.18, 5.41, 5.42 which highlight the great
significance of the sagebrush habitats affected by Ruby, and particularly NW NV and
adjacent OR. Note high cheatgrass risk (even under 2004 assumptions/data) of significant
areas of the Ruby route, and note high percentage of public land in NW NV making it
highly significant for management and restoration by federal agencies.
Ruby’s reliance on 10 strongholds all located somewhere else would have us cast aside
all the sagebrush habitats outside northern Sheldon in Nevada. The Connelly et al. 2004
info was based on males on leks – if male lek numbers are low in NW Nevada, but
sagebrush habitat is still intact, which is the case, then with improved habitat conditions
within the sagebrush one would expect significant recovery potential. However, the
Winnemucca and Surprise BLM Offices continue continue to sacrifice sagebrush habitats
to status quo or increased livestock grazing. See Soldier Meadows EA 2008 submitted
previously.
Ruby fails to provide current mapping of all of the other information on sagebrush
habitats and sage-grouse in the Assessment. It ignores discussion of the declining trends –
of the Wyoming red and purple areas. The Oregon numbers are so high because of two
ungrazed areas - Hart Mountain and Sheldon. There has now been some new wildfire loss
of habitats in SW Oregon, reckless prescribed burning, and BLM “treatments” are also
now affecting the SE Oregon landscape.
“The rapidity with which we can transform and develop an entire western landscape
is significantly greater than the natural disturbances that previously influenced the
dynamics
in sagebrush ecosystems. (13-8)
Ruby ignores the effects of its pipe line disturbance and drastic road alteration in
pioneering a new corridor across one of the largest remaining blocks of sagebrush habitat,
and the unraveling of the ecosystem that is likely to follow.
Ruby does not heed the following, or it would have looked at common sense sagebrush
conservation alternative routes:
The first rule of conservation is to preserve all the parts (Leopold 1966, Stein et al.
2000).
Sagebrush habitats cannot return to some pre-settlement condition because many of the
parts no
longer are present or the sagebrush ecosystem has gone past a threshold from which
recovery is
not possible. Recovery from these conditions may require periods longer than a century
in lower
elevation, more xeric conditions (Hemstrom et al. 2002, Billings 1986); longer than the
2-, 5-, or
10-year horizons of most management plans. New invasions by exotic plants and animals
(including those facilitated by human development) into the sagebrush community, longterm
122
climate changes, and increased CO2 further compromise restoration efforts.
On a local basis, declines largely reflected the disappearance of active leks. Although
there were clear indications that the average size of active leks has declined (Chapter 6,
Fig.
6.41), this difference was larger when the inactive leks are included in the analysis. This
same
trend was apparent in the loss and declines of populations.
The assessment describes the fragility of the sagebrush landscape targeted by Ruby, and
the difficulties of restoration of disturbed lands:
the areas in which larger patches of sagebrush remained received
lower precipitation and had drier and shallower soils; those regions were the least
resilient to disturbance. Those remaining landscapes of sagebrush habitats most
important to sage-grouse also are the most sensitive to disturbance impacts and also will
require the longest recovery
periods”. 13-8 to 13-9.
And:
“The primary anthropogenic stresses on natural ecosystems include (1) harvesting
renewable resources resulting in loss of productivity, (2) physical restructuring of the
landscape from land use, (3) introduction of exotic species, and (4) discharge of toxic
substances to air,
land, and water (Rapport and Whitford 1999). Ecosystems that are heavily stressed lack
the capacity to maintain normal function, initiating a process of degradation and lowered
resilience
for further disturbance (Milton et al. 1994). Many regions of the sagebrush biome now
exist in
an ecological state past thresholds from which recovery is likely (West 1999)”. 13-10
Chapter 6 Describes populations at a larger scale – which Ruby has ignored.
Table 6.16. General description and justification for delineation of greater sage-grouse
breeding
populations and subpopulations in North America (also see Figure 6.37).
Great Basin Core ~20-60 km and
topography
~10-30 km Large population in NV, SE OR, NE CA, SW ID, and NW UT. Natural
fragmentation within population is common. Seven subpopulations have
been delineated.
Central NV N.A. ~20-30 km
throughout
Large population in central NV is loosely connected with SE NV/SW UT
and NE NV/S-Central ID/NW UT. Fragmentation within population and
123
among adjacent populations is substantial.
E-Central OR ~10-30 km ~10-20 km Population in E-central OR is loosely connected
with Lake Area OR/NE
CA/NW NV and N-Central NV/SE OR/SW ID populations. Some
internal fragmentation is also apparent.
Lake Area
OR/NE
CA/NW NV
~20-50 km ~20-30 km Large population in NE CA, NW NV, and S-central OR.
Population
appears loosely connected with S-Central OR/N-Central NV and ECentral
OR. Some peripheral areas in NE CA may be partially
fragmented.
N-Central
NV/SE OR/SW
ID
~10-20 km N.A. Loosely connected with NE NV/S-Central ID/NW UT, E-Central OR, and
S-Central OR/N-Central NV populations.
NE NV/SCentral
ID/NW
UT
~10-20 km ~10-20 Large population in NE NV, S-central ID, and NW UT. Population
appears loosely connected with N-Central NV/SE OR/SW ID and Central
NV populations.
S-Central
OR/N-Central
NV
~20-30 km ~10-20 km Population straddling the border of NV and OR. Appears loosely
connected with 4 adjacent populations.
SE NV/SW UT N.A. ~10-20 km Large naturally fragmented population in SE NV that
appears loosely
interconnected with Central NV population.
This Table also contains info on WY-UT and other populations adversely affected by
Ruby’s Footprint.
Ruby has ignored analysis of its adverse impacts and effective mitigation in relation to
larger populations, or smaller state management areas – such as NDOW’s PMUs in
Nevada, or other local populations.
124
125