WordPress.com
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
“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 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 Sage-
Grouse: 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.
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 well-documented rapid declines with energy and infrastructure development. Across the 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.
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.
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.
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 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 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 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 sage-grouse 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 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 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 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.
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 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 sage-grouse
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 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 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 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.
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 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 sage-grouse, 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.
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 Lake- Sheldon 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 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. 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).
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 on-the-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 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 sage-grouse 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 (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 sage-grouse 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.
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 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.
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.
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 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 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 (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.
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 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 sage-grouse, 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 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 near-complete “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-by-mile 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 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 non-target 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 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 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 disturbance-spawned 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. 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 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 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 de-construction 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.
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 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-of-way 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 straight-line 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.
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 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 pre-existing 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
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 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?
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 sage-grouse 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 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-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 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:
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”.
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 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?
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 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 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 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.
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?
Ruby has ignored repeated requests to choose alternate routes, and significantly re-align segments in several areas. This is not minimization.
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”
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 sage-grouse 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.”
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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 sage-grouse 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 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 sage-grouse 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 Jungo-Tuscarora 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 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.
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 sage-grouse 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 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 (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 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 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 sage-grouse 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 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”.
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 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 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?
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 brood-
rearing, 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 sage-
grouse 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 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
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 pre-designed 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 sage-
grouse 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.
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:
.../blm/.../Planning.../Sage-Grouse_Strategy_1_3_1.pdf1.pdf
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 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 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 sage-grouse (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 radio-marked 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 Sage-grouse 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).
In southeastern Oregon alone, about 9,000 km2of 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).
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). Sage-grouse 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.
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 sage-grouse 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:
Documents accessed here are described:
US Fish and Wildlife Service Says Core Sage Grouse Habitat Areas Must Remain Protected - Even From Wind Development
[pic] 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.
[pic] WGFD Wind Sage Grouse Letter
[pic] USFWS Wind Sage Grouse Letter
Sage Grouse Protection and Stipulations for Development
[pic] Executive Order - Greater Sage Grouse Core Area Protection
[pic] Stipulations for Develoment in Core Sage Grouse Population Areas
[pic] 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 sage-grouse 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, 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 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 off-limits 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 sage-
grouse 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 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
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). …
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
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:
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 Buffalo-Skedaddle 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 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
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.
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 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
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 ( ................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- wordpress passing data between pages
- wordpress business templates
- wordpress rss feed not working
- wordpress jquery is not defined
- create wordpress blog
- wordpress roles editor
- wordpress full rss feed
- wordpress rss feed settings
- wordpress rss feed plugin
- wordpress display rss feed
- wordpress rss feed link
- wordpress rss feed to post