Amy Haak

Resource Information Director

Attn: Ruby Pipeline Final EIS Comments

Mark Mackiewicz

BLM National Project Manager VIA EMAIL: blmruby@blm.gov

c/o 125 South 600 West

Price, UT 84501
 

February 11, 2009

Dear Mr Mackiewicz,
 

Trout Unlimited submits the following comments on the Ruby Pipeline Project Final Environmental Impact Statement. We understand the BLM is using this Final EIS to support its decision on Ruby's application for a Right of Way and Temporary Use Permits for all federal lands impacted by the project.  We expect the BLM will consider and adequately address our comments in any Record of Decision it may issue approving Ruby's application. TU also understands that formal consultation under the Endangered Species Act is ongoing and could result in additional stipulations and mitigation measures that the BLM must include in any Record of Decision.

I. Introduction

Trout Unlimited has been working since 1959 to conserve, protect, and restore North America’s trout and salmon fisheries and their watersheds. Today Trout Unlimited is America’s leading coldwater fisheries conservation organization with 140,000 members organized in more than 400 local chapters across the country, including 4,000 members and 34 chapters in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada and Oregon.  Trout Unlimited has extensive experience in and knowledge of the aquatic resources in the watersheds affected by the proposed Ruby pipeline. We are particularly concerned with potential impacts from the proposed pipeline on the native fish inhabiting the watersheds within the project area. Specifically this includes Bonneville cutthroat trout (BCT), Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT), and Goose Lake redband trout (GLRT).

Native trout are sensitive to habitat degradation and generally require streams and lakes with cold, high‐quality water that are free of nonnative salmonids. Instream barriers, invasions of nonnative fishes, habitat degradation, and management strategies of isolating native populations in headwater reaches above artificial barriers have all contributed to the creation of small fragmented and isolated populations of native trout distributions. Large, interconnected populations in higher order stream systems are rare with most inland trout now occupying only 10‐30% of their historic range, primarily in upper elevation headwater streams.

Stress from climate change is likely to compound existing problems associated with habitat degradation and introgression from introduced salmonids. The American southwest is already experiencing rising temperatures and persistent drought, and these trends are expected to worsen by mid‐century. In a recent publication by Trout Unlimited, ‘Healing Troubled Waters’, (Williams et al. 2007) we argue for a pro‐active, landscape approach to protecting, reconnecting, and restoring native and wild trout populations and their habitats so they can build resistance and resilience to the rapidly changing environmental conditions associated with global warming. A key part of our strategy is to reduce external stressors associated with degraded and fragmented habitats. Populations that are already pushed to their limits by water extraction, land use changes, barriers, and road densities will not be able to withstand the additional stress brought on by a changing climate. Native fishes across the arid Southwest have experienced extensive physical habitat alteration, biological manipulation of populations through the introduction of non‐native species, and persistent drought events. Additional stressors from land disturbing activities such as construction of the Ruby pipeline may exacerbate these effects and further reduce the resistance and resilience of native fish and their habitats to climate change.

According to the FEIS, the Ruby Pipeline Project would cross 167 different water bodies that support fish species, 83 of which likely contain federal or state‐listed special status species (page 4‐115). We support the use of the dry crossing method for all water bodies containing populations of native fish or that are suitable for native fish reintroductions in order to minimize adverse effects on stream morphology. Although an improvement over the wet bank method, the dry crossing approach is not without impacts on aquatic resources. Some of the potential adverse effects of concern to Trout Unlimited are described below.

II. General comments on the Final EIS
1. Loss of riparian cover. The removal of riparian vegetation may have negative consequences for aquatic habitat and the species it supports. The most immediate impact is the loss of the cooling effects of mature riparian cover. Although the FEIS states that the removal of riparian vegetation for pipeline construction across coldwater streams in New York and Alberta did not result in any significant temperature increases (FEIS page 4‐119) we would argue that the small desert streams crossed by the Ruby Pipeline are more vulnerable due to low summer flows and high summer temperatures. Recent localized removal of riparian vegetation in the Truckee River, where LCT are native, altered habitats enough to allow non‐native bass and several native fishes typically residing in warmer waters to move up river into the construction site (NDOW, unpublished data 2009). Increased drought events and high summer temperatures are already being experienced in this region and are expected to increase as a result of climate change. Removal of woody vegetation will exacerbate the effects of climate change and may render affected reaches thermally unsuitable to trout populations during the summer months.  Removal of woody riparian vegetation may also contribute to the degradation of stream channel structure that is important to fish. Loss of the stabilizing influence of riparian vegetation may increase the frequency and magnitude of post‐construction flood events. These events may scour the stream channel and deposit sediments downstream, filling in critical deep pools and spawning gravels. Finally, removal of mature streamside vegetation eliminates a critical source of woody debris that is an important component of high quality stream habitat and one that has already been lost along many of these desert streams.

We support the recommendations of FERC staff to limit the construction right‐of‐way to 75 feet in riparian areas and to require site‐specific review for any extra workspaces/staging areas in riparian habitats. We also support staff recommendations for replanting appropriate vegetation as soon as possible following construction with monitoring for a minimum of five years. Every effort should be made to minimize the removal of riparian vegetation along fish bearing streams, particularly mature woody vegetation that is not easily restored.