United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Bakersfield Field Office

Environmental Assessment

Vintage Production LLC. Mount Poso; Six APDs for Wells Sarrett Fee 1113LVH, 1114TVH, 1115LVH & 1116FVH and Matthew Fee 1107LVH & 1108LVH DOI-BLM-CA-C060-2016-0004-EA Programmatic Project #828

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

PURPOSE AND NEED

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes to approve six (6) Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs) submitted by Vintage Production California LLC. (Vintage) to drill 6 new oil wells: Sarrett Fee 1113LVH, 1114TVH, 1115LVH & 1116FVH and Matthew Fee 1107LVH & 1108LVH on Vintage’s federal mineral lease (CAS019301C) in Section 4, T27S, R28E, MDBM. This project is sited on private land owned by Vintage, containing BLM administered subsurface minerals within the . The proposed project is located northeast of Bakersfield, California, in Kern County. The proposed well pad sites are accessed by a series of unpaved roads off Famoso Road. The drilling of 6 new wells would require the expansion of current well pads onto previously disturbed and undisturbed locations. Vintage would also install fourteen (14) power poles, eleven (11) anchors, and six (6) new flowlines that total 4,900 feet. In addition, the project would require construction of permanent access roads. Estimated surface disturbance for the proposed project is 2.993 acres, which would total 6.144 acres of compensation as required by the BLM Bakersfield Field Office 2001 Oil and Gas Programmatic Biological Opinion.

The purpose of the proposed action is to provide Vintage with the authority to drill 6 new oil wells and associated facilities to produce its federal mineral lease (CAS019301C) and to supply energy resources to the American public. The need for the proposed action is to respond to the 6 APDs submitted by the applicant to conduct operations on lands containing BLM administered subsurface minerals.

This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. The purpose of this document is to disclose and analyze the environmental consequences that are anticipated from the drilling of 6 new oil wells and the expansion of 6 well pads, installation of 14 power poles, 11 anchors, 6 flowlines, and construction of permanent access roads in the Mount Poso Oil Field. CONFORMANCE WITH BLM LAND USE PLANS

The proposed action has been reviewed for conformance with the Bakersfield Resource Management Plan approved on December 22, 2014; it has been determined that the proposed action conforms with the land use plan, terms, and conditions as required by 43 CFR 1610.5. The proposed action and modifications were specifically provided for in the following land use plan decision:

[MM-O-1] “Facilitate reasonable, economical, and environmentally sound exploration and development of leasable minerals while minimizing impacts to other resources.”

RELATIONSHIP TO STATUTES, REGULATIONS AND OTHER PLANS

Oil and Gas Laws and Regulations The BLM manages lands that contain a number of extractable minerals including oil and gas. These minerals are managed in accordance with the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended; the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970; the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987; 43 CFR, Onshore Orders 1-8; the Energy Policy Act of 2005; and other laws, regulations, orders, and also in accordance with all applicable state, county, and local laws and ordinances. BLM requires existing lessees to strictly adhere to all laws, regulations, and policies that govern oil and gas leases, while at the same time recognizing that existing leases grant the lessee certain rights. No additional requirements can be placed on an existing lessee that conflict with the rights already granted to the lessee.

Onshore Order No. 1 identifies the requirements necessary for approving proposed oil and gas exploration, development, and servicing wells on all Federal and Indian oil and gas leases. This includes all components required for the management of fluid minerals including: completed Form 3160-3, well plat, drilling plan, surface use plan, bonding, operator certificate, onsite inspection, processing, reclamation, and Sundries. Onshore Order No.1 also identifies processing timelines and valid period of approvals.

Endangered Species Act The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) requires federal agencies to complete formal consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for any action that “may affect” federally listed species or critical habitat. The ESA also requires federal agencies to use their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species.

BLM completed formal consultation with the FWS for the Bakersfield RMP; the proposed action is in accordance with provisions of the Bakersfield RMP Biological Opinion. Furthermore, if it is determined that a specific oil and gas project “may affect” listed species in Kern or Kings County, California, the action may be covered by the 2001 Oil and Gas Programmatic Biological Opinion (1-1-01-F-0063).

An applicant may choose or be required to complete separate formal consultation if a project is deemed out of scope with the 2001 Oil and Gas Programmatic Biological Opinion. This project is within the scope of the 2001 Oil and Gas Programmatic Biological Opinion, so separate consultation is not required. Due to the anticipated disturbance to potential listed species habitat, this project will be covered under the 2001 Oil and Gas Programmatic Biological Opinion and will be subject to compliance with its Project Specific Provisions.

Clean Air Act The Unified Air Pollution Control District has state air quality jurisdiction over the project area. Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) and regulations under 40 CFR part 93, subpart W, with respect to conformity of general Federal actions to the applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP) apply to projects within nonattainment and maintenance areas. Under those authorities “no department, agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government shall engage in, support in any way or provide financial assistance for, license or permit, or approve any activity which does not conform to an applicable implementation plan.” Under CAA 176(c) and 40 CFR part 93 subpart W, a Federal agency must make a determination that a Federal action conforms to the applicable implementation plan before the action is taken.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires agencies to make a reasonable and good faith effort to identify historic properties that may be affected by an agency’s undertakings and take those effects into account in making decisions. The BLM process for implementing this NHPA requirement is set forth in the State Protocol Agreement Among the California State Director of the Bureau of Land Management and the California State Preservation Officer and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer (2014).

Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act of 1977 establishes authority to regulate any action where pollutants may be discharged into waters of the United States. Section 303 of the federal Clean Water Act requires states to adopt water quality standards that “consist of the designated uses of the navigable waters involved and the water quality criteria for such waters based upon such uses.” In California, these water quality standards and the administrative policies and procedures for protecting state waters are disclosed in regional water quality control board basin plans. Hence, California’s basin plans serve as regulatory references for meeting both State and federal requirements for water quality control (40 CFR Parts 130 and 131). These basin plans establish standards for ground waters in addition to surface waters, unlike the federal program.

The Clean Water Act also established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, regulating point source discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States. Section 402 of the Clean Water Act provides that storm water discharges associated with industrial activity and construction must be authorized under a NPDES permit. Clearing, grading, and excavation projects that disturb more than one acre are required to obtain a NPDES storm water discharge permit under EPA regulations, though certain regulations such as 40 CFR parts 122.26 (a)(2), (e)(8), and (c)(1)(iii) codify exemptions for oil and gas operations. In California, oil and gas operations are not required to obtain a discharges for storm water permit (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ) under the authority of the Clean Water Act and the Code of Federal Regulations. This does not exempt oil and gas operations from section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which establishes the authority to issue permits for dredged or fill material.

In California, oil and gas operators are required to obtain a permit for waste discharges to land (Water Quality Order No. 2003-0003-DWQ). The State may exempt State Waste Discharge Requirements for drilling mud and cuttings from well drilling operations, provided that such discharges are to on-site sumps, do not contain halogenated solvents, and at the end of drilling operations the discharger either removes all wastes from the sump or removes all free liquid from the sump and covers residual solid and semisolid wastes, provided that representative sampling of the sump contents after liquid removal shows residual solid wastes to be nonhazardous (California Code of Regulations, Title 27 section 20090).

Also, the State may exempt specific aquifers from particular beneficial use designations if the aquifer meets certain criteria, such as high TDS, contamination, low yield, and regulation as a geothermal energy source or exemption for the purpose of underground fluid injection pursuant to 40 CFR, Section 146.4 (CRWQCB – CVR, 2004).

Safe Drinking Water Act The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974 regulates the nation’s public drinking water supply to protect public health. SDWA authorizes the U.S. EPA to set national health-based standards for drinking water to protect against both naturally-occurring and man-made contaminants that may be found in drinking water. Also, the SDWA sets a framework for the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program to control the injection of wastes into ground water. California has received primacy to implement the SDWA and therefore oversees the UIC program. The UIC program provides for the protection of all aquifers containing formation waters with less than 10,000 milligrams-per-liter total dissolved solids (mg/l TDS). The State may exempt specific aquifers from particular beneficial use designations if the aquifer meets certain criteria, such as high TDS, contamination, low yield, and regulation as a geothermal energy source or exemption for the purpose of underground fluid injection pursuant to 40 CFR, Section 146.4 (CRWQCB – CVR, 2004). All proposed Class II injection wells must undergo a comprehensive review by the Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources. Also, all injection projects must be reviewed annually: operators must demonstrate that the injection is confined to the intended zone and that mechanical integrity for the well has been maintained.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 establishes a regulatory structure for the management and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes. Solid wastes consist of any discarded material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities. Solid wastes include both hazardous and nonhazardous waste. A waste may be considered hazardous if it is ignitable, corrosive, reactive, or contains certain amounts of toxic chemicals. Subtitle C of the RCRA creates a cradle-to-grave management system for hazardous waste, governing the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes. Subtitle D regulates the management of nonhazardous solid waste, establishing minimum federal technical standards and guidelines for state solid waste plans in order to promote environmentally sound management of solid waste.

Oil and gas exploration and production (E&P) wastes that are intrinsically derived from primary field operations are exempt from Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations, though Subtitle D, other federal regulations, and state regulations still apply. Exempt E&P wastes include any produced fluids or waste otherwise generated by contact with the oil and gas production stream during the removal of produced water or other contaminants from the product. Some specific E&P wastes designated as exempt include produced water, drilling fluids, drill cuttings, rig- wash, work-over wastes, and well completion, treatment, and stimulation fluids. Examples of non-exempt wastes include unused fracturing fluids or acids, waste solvents, used equipment lubricating oils, and caustic or acid cleaners.

Chapter 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives

ALTERNATIVE 1: PROPOSED ACTION

Bureau of Land Management proposes to approve 6 APDs submitted by Vintage for the drilling of six new oil wells: Sarrett Fee 1113LVH, 1114TVH, 1115LVH & 1116FVH and Matthew Fee 1107LVH & 1108LVH on its federal mineral lease (CAS019301C). The project would include expansion of 6 well pads, installation of 14 power poles, 11 anchors, 6 flowlines, and construction of permanent access roads; this would result in approximately 2.993 acres of new habitat disturbance. The proposed location is sited on private lands owned by Vintage, which contain subsurface minerals administered by the BLM in Section 4, T27S, R28E, MDBM.

The proposed well pad dimensions measure 100 feet by 195-200 feet. The well pads would be oriented so as to minimize vegetation disturbance and the existing access roads would be utilized to the maximum extent possible. Total ground disturbance is estimated at 2.993 acres, 1.501 of which would be considered permanent disturbance. Dirt work would be required for access roads which would measure approximately 20 feet in width, well pads measuring 100 feet by 195-200 feet, associated cut and fills, and installation of 14 power poles, 11 anchors, and 6 flowlines. Gravel or other surfacing would be used as necessary for soft road sections, steep grades, pad surfaces, highly erosive soils, clay and silty soils, or where all-weather access is required.

Non-hazardous, water-based mud would be used in drilling operations. All cuttings and drilling fluid would be collected in an enclosed temporary tank on-site and will be disposed of at a designated facility.

Approximately 20,000 gallons of fresh water would be used for drilling and dust abatement; all water would be obtained from the Kern Front fill station in Section 11, T28S, R27E. California Regional Water Quality Control Board issued Vintage and North Kern Water District an order for waste discharge (Order R5-2015-0127) that allows Vintage to provide oil field produced water from its to the District for irrigation and groundwater recharge purposes. Water trucks would be used to transport all water using existing access roads. Storage tanks would be used to minimize road traffic and conserve and reuse water. Following project completion, water would be removed from the project site. Project implementation could result in 100-1000 barrels of water per day (BWPD) of produced water per well; the estimate is approximately 400 BWPD. All produced water will go to the Sarrett Fee East facility for processing, then re-injected back into the same formation. In 2007, Vintage received approval for water disposal for up to 22 wells in the Mount Poso Field from California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (CDOGGR).

Drilling equipment and materials would be placed directly on the proposed well site, and the pad would be cleared of unnecessary items following well completion. Existing roads and other previously disturbed areas in the vicinity of the proposed project site would be utilized for vehicle passing, parking, and staging of materials, if necessary.

All garbage would be routinely collected and stored in bins. Garbage would be removed and trucked to an approved disposal site by a garbage collection company. Sanitary facilities would be provided for human waste disposal; upon completion of operations, portable sewage holding tanks would be pumped and contents disposed of at an approved sewage facility.

Ancillary facilities may be necessary for drilling operations, including self-contained wheeled or skid-mounted trailers. All trailers would be removed after drilling. If Vintage proposes any permanent facilities associated with the project in the future, BLM would process the proposal through a Sundry Notice of Intent.

Vintage has stated that no California Senate Bill No. 4 well stimulation activities (hydraulic fracturing, matrix or fracture acidization) will be conducted on the proposed wells.

In addition, Vintage proposes to comply with all of the “Avoidance & Mitigation Actions” recommended by consulting biologist Brian Berry (Berry Environmental Consulting) in his December 3, 2015, Sensitive Species Review Form:

1. No more than 14 days prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct a final pre-construction survey of the project area to ensure that no special-status wildlife species have recently occupied the project site. 2. A biologist shall be present immediately prior to and during ground disturbing activities that have potential to impact sensitive species and their habitats to identify and protect potentially sensitive resources. 3. Project site shall be clearly delineated by stakes, flagging and/or rope or cord to minimize inadvertent degradation or loss of adjacent habitat during construction activities. 4. An Environmental Awareness Training program shall be conducted to orient all employees involved in project activities in the field. The program shall consist of a brief presentation in which biologists knowledgeable of endangered species biology and legislative protection shall explain endangered species concerns. The program shall include a discussion of special-status plants and sensitive wildlife species. 5. In order to avoid or reduce potential impacts to nesting migratory bird species, biologists will conduct pre-construction nesting surveys for these species in appropriate habitat during the appropriate nesting period for these species. Where active nests of these species are identified or suspected to occur during pre- construction surveys, a qualified biologist will establish the following buffer zone around nest sites, and no disturbance activities will occur within these buffer zones until young birds have fledged. Migratory bird species typically nest and rear young from February through August. In order to avoid and minimize impacts on migratory bird species, and 250-foot buffer will be established around active nesting sites when project activities will occur during their active nesting period. No project-related activities will occur within this zone. The buffer area can be removed prior to August if a qualified biologist determines that all juveniles have fledged from the occupied nests. 6. All project activities shall be confined to the approved project footprint, and within existing pre-disturbed access roads. No activities shall take place outside the BLM approved project site. 7. A project representative shall establish restrictions on construction-related traffic to approved construction areas, storage areas, staging and parking areas via signage. Off-road traffic outside of designated project areas shall be prohibited. Project- related vehicles shall observe a 15 mph speed limit in all project areas except on County roads and state and federal highways to avoid impacts to special-status wildlife species. 8. Hazardous materials, fuels, lubricants, and solvents that spill accidently during project-related activities shall be cleaned up and removed from the project sites as soon as possible according to applicable federal, state and local regulations. 9. All equipment storage and parking during site development and operation shall be confined to the project site or to previously disturbed, off site areas that are not suitable habitat for listed species. 10. All excavated steep-walled holes or trenches in excess of three feet in depth left open for more than one (1) work day shall be provided with one or more escape ramps constructed of earth fill or other material to prevent entrapment of endangered species or other animals. Ramps shall be located at no greater than 1,000 foot intervals (for pipelines etc.) and at not less than 45 degree angles. Trenches shall be inspected for entrapped wildlife each morning prior to onset of construction activities and immediately prior to the end of each working day. Before such holes or trenches are filled they shall be inspected thoroughly for entrapped animals. Any animals discovered shall be allowed to escape voluntarily without harassment before construction activities resume, or removed from the trench or hold by a qualified biologist and allowed to escape unimpeded. 11. All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures stored at the construction site overnight having a diameter of four (4) inches or greater shall be inspected thoroughly for wildlife species before being buried, capped or otherwise used or moved in any way. Pipes laid in trenches overnight shall be capped. If during construction a wildlife species is discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe shall not be moved or, if necessary, moved only once to remove it from the path of construction activity, until the wildlife species has escaped. 12. All food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles or food scraps generated during construction or during subsequent operation shall be disposed of only in closed containers and regularly removed from the project site. Food items may attract wildlife species onto a project site, consequently exposing such animals to increased risk of injury or mortality. No deliberate feeding of wildlife shall be allowed. 13. To prevent harassment or mortality of wildlife species via predation, or destruction of their dens or nests, no domestic pets shall be permitted on the project site. 14. Use of rodenticides and herbicides is not permitted on the federal lease unless such use is approved on a case-by-case basis by the BLM. This is necessary to prevent primary or secondary poisoning of endangered species using adjacent habitats or depletion or prey upon which sensitive wildlife may depend. 15. CRC (Vintage) staff and/or its contractors should designate a specific individual as a contact representative between CRC (Vintage) and all applicable federal, state and local agencies to oversee compliance with these avoidance and mitigation measures.

Design Features/Additional Conditions of Approval (COAs) for Surface This project will be covered under the 2001 Oil and Gas Programmatic Biological Opinion (1-1- 01-F-0063) in order to mitigate potential impacts to federal and state threatened or endangered species, as well as species of concern. Compliance with the Project Specific Provisions of this Opinion is required. A preliminary estimate of compensation is 6.144 compensation acres (1.501 permanent acres compensated at 3:1 = 4.503 + 1.492 temporary acres compensated at 1.1:1 = 1.641 + 0 replacement acres).

Vintage is required to abide by the following measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts to biological and cultural resources. These measures are divided into five phases: Biological Monitoring, Cultural Resources, Construction and Interim Reclamation, Management of Noxious Weeds, and Final Reclamation.

Biological monitoring Vintage will comply with all “Avoidance & Mitigation Actions” recommended by consulting biologist Brian Berry (Berry Environmental Consulting) in his September 29, 2015, Sensitive Species Review Form.

Vintage will implement USFWS’s Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (USFWS 2011).

If blunt-nosed leopard lizard is observed on the project location, all work will stop and the BLM will be contacted to provide further guidance.

As close to beginning of construction as possible, but not more than 30 days prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct a final pre-construction survey of area of potential effect to ensure that no special-status wildlife species have recently occupied the project site.

Biological monitors will be required to be present on site during initial habitat disturbing actions, including off-road travel and the placement of equipment in habitat, to minimize direct take of listed species. Subsequent to initial surface disturbing activities, biological monitors are not required to be present, but must be available within 24 hours’ notice from the applicant, BLM or Service, in order to troubleshoot potential take situations.

Animals at the project site will be detected and monitored for avoidance by watching their activities. Construction will not proceed in a manner that would result in take. Activities that could result in mortality would not proceed until the animal has moved outside of the area of surface disturbance.

Any person who inadvertently kills or injures a listed wildlife species or who discovers a dead or injured listed wildlife species must immediately report the incident to their representative. The representative must immediately contact BLM. All project activity likely to cause additional take shall cease immediately.

Cultural Resources The operator shall immediately notify the Bakersfield BLM Field Manager and Field Office Archaeologist (661-391-6000) of any cultural resources discovered as a result of operations under this authorization. The operator shall suspend all activities in the vicinity of such a discovery and shall protect the discovery from damage or looting until the discovery has been assessed and appropriate measures for avoidance or mitigation can be implemented. Work shall not proceed without written authorization from the BLM.

Construction and Interim Reclamation The depth of the topsoil should be determined prior to removal from the well pad footprint. Woody brush should be removed and stored separately from the topsoil. Topsoil will be stored on a nearby disturbed surface during pad construction. Any compacted surfaces will be ripped to at least 12 inches with rippers no farther than 24 inches apart, the topsoil will be roughly and evenly applied across the reclamation location, and then the woody brush will be scattered on top of the topsoil. DO NOT leave the reclamation area smooth (the surface should be rough to trap water on-site). Also, do not leave furrows running perpendicular to the contour since this would channel water off-site. The reclamation site should approximately be at the same slope and elevation as the surrounding landscape.

All completed interim reclamation activities must be described in the post-construction compliance report. The operator is responsible for the success of their reclamation efforts. Metrics of success include the establishment of vegetation composition and cover that approximates adjacent lands, the presence of small mammal burrows, and the absence of signs of wind and water erosion.

All practicable measures will be utilized to minimize wind and water erosion and stabilize disturbed soils.

All disturbed soil material will be placed in an area where it can be retrieved without creating additional undue surface disturbance.

Any excess spoils will be stockpiled where it can be used for recontouring during interim and final reclamation. If not used during the interim reclamation phase (within 6 months of well completion), the spoils must be signed and stabilized. Spoils will be stockpiled on the associated well pad unless the BLM project manager approves an alternative location.

Open pipeline trenches will have earthen escape ramps maintained at intervals no greater than 1000 feet and at a slope no greater than 1:1. Trenches, holes and excavations will be checked in the morning before beginning work and at the end of the work day. Any entrapped animals will be allowed to escape unharmed. All holes or excavations that are deeper than 2 feet that cannot accommodate an escape ramp will be completely covered to prevent wildlife entrapment. Covered holes will be check daily either by removing the cover or by designing the cover so that a portion is clear and the area under the hole can be visually inspected using a flashlight.

Project site boundaries shall be clearly delineated by stakes, flagging and/or rope or cord to minimize inadvertent degradation or loss of adjacent habitat during construction. All project activities shall be confined to the BLM approved project footprint, and within existing pre- disturbed access roads and well pads. No activities shall take place outside the approved project site without prior approval from the BLM project manager.

The area of disturbance will be reduced to the smallest practical area, considering topography, placement of facilities, location of burrows, nesting sites or dens, public health and safety, and other limiting factors.

The use of borrow material requires prior BLM approval.

All permanent above-ground structures (e.g., production equipment, etc.) not subject to safety requirements should be painted to blend with the natural color of the landscape. The paint used will be a color which simulates “Standard Environmental Colors.” The colors selected for the project location are Covert Green or Carlsbad Canyon.

Management of Noxious Weeds A site-specific weed control Environmental Assessment (EA) and a Pesticide Use Permit (PUP) must be completed before any use of pesticides on BLM lands. This can be a lengthy process and requires specific information, public notification, and review by the BLM State Office. In addition, any use of pesticides shall comply with all applicable Federal and State laws. Pesticides shall only be used in accordance with their registered uses, must be on the list of pesticides approved for use on California BLM lands, and used within limitations imposed by the Secretary of the Interior. Applicators of herbicides must have completed pesticide certification training and have a Certified Pesticide Applicator’s License. A Pesticide Use Report (PUR) must be completed within 48 hours of all herbicide applications and pesticide application records for the areas and acres treated must be submitted to the Authorized BLM Officer each year.

Final Reclamation Disturbed lands will be re-contoured back to conform with existing undisturbed topography. No depressions will be left that trap water or form ponds. All portions of final reclamation may be subject to additional cultural resources and paleontological inventory and will require a permit.

Before the location has been reshaped and prior to redistributing the topsoil, the operator will rip or scarify the drilling platform and access road on the contour, to a depth of at least 12 inches. The rippers are to be no farther than 24 inches apart.

Distribute the topsoil evenly over the entire location and other disturbed areas. Prepare the seedbed by disking to a depth of 4-to-6 inches following the contour. This area should be reseeded with locally collected seed. In the absence of locally collected seed, certified seed with a minimum germination rate of 80% and a minimum purity of 90% will be used. On BLM surface or in lieu of a different specific mix desired by the surface owner, the seed mix should include only native species, including Atriplex polycarpa (common saltbush). Collected seed or seed mix will be broadcast and secured to a depth of 0.5 inch, preventing soil and seed losses. Seed should be applied at a rate of approximately 12 lbs. per acre. Reseeded areas should be protected from livestock to allow plants (especially shrubs) to successfully re-establish.

All soil treatments and seeding must occur within October and/or November to limit soil wind erosion and seed predation.

The operator will follow the above guidance to specifically achieve the following:

1. The reclaimed area shall be stable and exhibit none of the following characteristics: a. Large rills or gullies (greater than 6 inches deep). b. Perceptible soil movement or head cutting in drainages. c. Slope instability on, or adjacent to, the reclaimed area in question.

2. The soil surface must be stable and have adequate surface roughness to reduce runoff and capture rainfall and snow melt. Additional short-term measures, such as the application of mulch, shall be used to reduce surface soil movement.

3. Vegetation production and species diversity (including shrubs) shall approximate the surrounding undisturbed area (50-150% of the adjacent species composition and cover). The vegetation shall stabilize the site and support the planned post disturbance land use, provide for natural plant community succession and development, and be capable of renewing itself. This shall be demonstrated by: a. Successful onsite establishment of species included in the planting mixture or other desirable species. b. Evidence of vegetation reproduction, either spreading by rhizomatous species or seed production.

The reclaimed landscape shall have characteristics that approximate the visual quality of the adjacent area with regard to location, scale, shape, color and orientation of major landscape features and meet the needs of the planned post disturbance land use.

ALTERNATIVE 2: NO ACTION

Under this alternative, BLM would not approve the 6 APDs for Sarrett and Matthew Fee wells 1113LVH, 1114THV, 1115LVH, 1116FVH, 1107LVH, and 1108LVH submitted by Vintage. By denying the applications, the federal lessee/operator would be denied the opportunity or right to develop and produce the federal mineral estate. Chapter 3. Affected Environment

This chapter briefly describes the physical and regulatory environment for elements that may be affected by the proposed action.

The following elements of the human environment were considered but determined to be either not present or unaffected by the proposed action and will therefore not be addressed further in this analysis. This project location does not occur within a designated Area of Critical Environmental Concern or within the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS). The project does not contain essential fish habitat, and there are no wetlands or riparian zones in the project area. The project would not affect low income or minority populations. The project area is located on private surface, where grazing potential within the project location is at the discretion of the land owner; the surface does not serve as a base property for a BLM grazing allotment. The proposed project would not affect recreational experience, and visual resources would not be impacted since the project resides on private property that is closed for public use. Cultural resource inventory was conducted for the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the proposed action (BLM CRIR# 6000-2016-10). No cultural resources were identified within the APE. Due to the nature and location of this project within an active oil field, within previously developed locations, there will be no impact to places of importance to Native Americans or their access to them.

Air Quality The proposed project area is located in Kern County, California, and within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. At the state level, air regulatory duties lie with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and at the federal level with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region IX. Oversight authority for air quality matters in California has been delegated to the county (District) level. The BLM has air program responsibilities through its permitting programs and Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements to analyze all actions for conformity to air quality plans. The BLM is further committed to comply with the procedures outlined in a recent Air Quality MOU (effective June 23, 2011) with the DOI, the USDA, and the EPA; this MOU outlines a common framework for analyzing and mitigating impacts to air quality and AQRVs associated with Federal oil and gas decisions through the NEPA process.

The federal Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended, and the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) contain the primary provisions relating to air quality. Provisions of the federal CAA that apply to BLM actions include the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), nonattainment area designation, the development of state implementation plans (SIPs), prevention of significant deterioration (PSD), air toxics, and federal conformity. The U.S. EPA, CARB, and regional air districts have issued rules to implement federal and state Clean Air Acts.

EPA uses “criteria pollutants" as indicators of air quality and has established for each of them a maximum concentration above which adverse effects on human health may occur. These threshold concentrations are called National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). One set of limits (primary standard) protects health; another set of limits (secondary standard) is intended to prevent environmental and property damage. Under the federal CAA, the U.S. EPA has established NAAQS for seven criteria pollutants: ozone, respirable particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, and sulfur dioxide. California has established state Ambient Air Quality Standards for the same criteria pollutants, plus an additional three pollutants (visibility reducing particulates, sulfates, and hydrogen sulfide). States may have standards that are more restrictive than the federal thresholds, but they cannot be less restrictive. Although more stringent, the State standards have no specific dates to attain, unlike federal standards. Under State law, designations are made by pollutant, rather than by averaging time. A geographic area that meets or exceeds the primary standard is called an attainment area; areas that do not meet the primary standard are called nonattainment areas (http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/peg/).

Federal air quality standards for PM2.5 and ozone have been exceeded in the San Joaquin Valley air basin due to locally generated and/or transported in pollutants. This has resulted in the current designation of the air basin as a federal non-attainment area for PM2.5 and ozone under the NAAQS. The air basin has recently been designated as a federal maintenance area for PM10. Based on the EPA 2010 designations, the primary pollutants of concern in the Project area are 8- hour ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. The remaining criteria pollutants are either unclassified or in attainment with the NAAQS.

The proposed project area is within the EPA Pacific Southwest Region 9 Planning Area; a State Implementation Plan (SIP) has been prepared for the planning area, which identifies sources of emissions and control measures to reduce emissions. In 2007, CARB adopted the State Strategy for achieving emissions reductions toward bringing these areas into attainment with federal standards for ozone and PM2.5. The SIP mainly addresses stationary sources that have been identified as major contributors affecting regional air quality, such as power plants, facilities, etc.

District air quality plans that have recently been adopted and are relevant to the proposed Project include the SJVAPCD 2007 Ozone Plan, 2013 Plan for the Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard, 2012 PM2.5 Plan, and 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan. These plans outline the strategy for achieving federal air quality standards by specific dates and identify control measures to reduce criteria pollutant emissions. Control measures identified in the 2007 Ozone Plan reduce ozone precursor emissions, NOx and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). Particulate matter attainment strategies include control measures to reduce dust from unpaved roads and construction activities.

Applicable SJVAPCD Rules to Implement Air Quality Plans Once air quality attainment demonstration Plans are adopted, the reductions necessary to meet the respective reduction mandates contained in the Plan(s) are achieved through prohibitory rules created and enforced by the local air quality board/APCD. Compliance with applicable Rules, Regulations, and land use and zoning requirements ensures continued movement towards achieving the SJVAPCD attainment goals. Examples of SJVAPCD rules that may be applicable to the proposed project are described below.

Rule 2010 (Permits Required): This rule requires that any project constructing, altering, replacing, or operating any source operation, the use of which emits, may emit, or may reduce emissions, to obtain an Authority to Construct (ATC) and a Permit to Operate (PTO). This rule applies to the construction of the proposed renovations and operation of the new processes and equipment to be installed.

Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review): This rule applies to all new and modified stationary sources that would emit, after construction, a criteria pollutant for which there is an established federal or state AAQS. The rule provides mechanisms including emission trade-offs by which an ATC can be granted without interfering with the Basin’s attainment with ambient air quality standards. These mechanisms offer methods to generate no net increases in emissions of nonattainment pollutants and their precursors over specific thresholds and the imposition of best available control technology for all emission increases.

Rule 2280 (Portable Equipment Registration): Certain portable emissions units would be required for well drilling, service or workover rigs, pumps, compressors, generators, and field flares.

Rule 4101(Visible Emissions): The purpose of this rule is to prohibit the emissions of visible air contaminants to the atmosphere.

Rule 4401 (Steam-Enhanced Crude Oil Production Well Vents): The purpose of this rule is to limit the volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from steam-enhanced crude oil production wells.

Rule 4623 (Storage of Organic Liquids): The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from the storage of organic liquids.

Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions): The purpose of Regulation VIII is to reduce ambient concentrations of particulate matter (PM10) by requiring actions to prevent, reduce, or mitigate anthropogenic fugitive dust emissions. Regulation VIII rules pertinent to the proposed project include, but are not limited to, the following:

Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities): This rule limits fugitive dust emissions (PM10) from construction, demolition, excavation, extraction, and other earthmoving activities. This rule applies to any such activity and other earthmoving activities, including, but not limited to, land clearing, grubbing, scraping, travel on-site, and travel on access roads to and from the site.

Rule 8031 (Bulk Materials): The purpose of this rule is to limit fugitive dust emissions from the outdoor handling, storage, and transport of bulk materials.

Conformity Determination The classification of any area as a federal nonattainment and/or maintenance area brings an additional requirement for federal agencies. Section 176(c) of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), and regulations under 40 CFR, part 93, subpart W, state that “no department, agency or instrumentality of the federal Government shall engage in, support in any way or provide financial assistance for, license or permit, or approve any activity which does not conform to an applicable implementation plan.” This means that under the CAA 176(c) and 40 CFR, part 93, subpart W (conformity rules), federal agencies must make a determination that proposed actions in federal nonattainment areas conform to the applicable EPA approved implementation plans (if pertinent) before the action is taken.

Soil Resources One soil map unit occurs in the proposed project area: Chanac-Pleito-Premier association (#305; 20-60% slopes). This map unit is present on fan remnants. Soil textures with the potential to be encountered by Vintage include loam, gravelly sandy clay loam, gravelly clay loam, sandy loam and course sandy loam. These soils are deep and well drained.

The above map unit has a water erosion K factor of 0.37. Values of K can range from 0.02 to 0.69. Other factors being equal, the higher the value, the more susceptible the soil is to sheet and rill erosion by water. Therefore, these soils have a moderate susceptibility to water erosion.

The Chanac-Pleito-Premier map unit is assigned to wind erodibility group 6. A wind erodibility group consists of soils that have similar properties affecting their susceptibility to wind erosion in cultivated areas. The wind erodibility group provides an indication of how susceptible areas disturbed by construction activities are to wind erosion. Soils assigned to group 1 are the most susceptible to wind erosion, and those assigned to group 8 are the least susceptible. Therefore, there is a relatively low potential for wind erosion on the proposed project locations.

Soils have a high level of disturbance across the landscape. Within the oil field, bare ground is pervasive, and only small patches of native vegetation occur within the development matrix. Outside of the oil field, soils have been heavily impacted by farming, livestock grazing, and mining operation. Vegetation on undisturbed soils within the project area consist of valley saltbush scrub and non-native annual grassland.

Water Quality The proposed project is within the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region, the San Joaquin Basin, and the Kern County Subbasin. This subbasin is bound on the north by the Kern County line, on the east and southeast by granitic bedrock of the foothills and Tehachapi Mountains, and on the southwest and west by the marine sediments of the San Emigdio Mountains and Coast Ranges. From oldest to youngest, the intermediate to shallow depth water-bearing deposits include the Olcese and Santa Margarita Formations (drinking water only in northeastern subbasin), the Tulare Formation (western subbasin), the Kern River Formation (eastern subbasin), older alluvium/stream deposits, and younger alluvium and flood basin deposits (DWR, 2006). The aquifers in this subbasin are generally quite thick, commonly exceeding 1,000 feet in depth. The maximum thickness of freshwater-bearing deposits (4,400 feet) occurs at the southern end of the subbasin (DWR, 2003).

There is a fresh water aquifer (per 40 CFR 144.3) in the project area, which is not exempted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The shallowest oil-producing reservoir is the Chanac-Kern River Formation of Pliocene and Pleistocene age, which can be as shallow as 250 feet in depth. The interval from surface to the top of the Chanac-Kern River Formation consists of Holocene, older alluvium, followed by Santa Margarita Formation, Round Mountain Formation, Olcese Formation, Freeman-Jewitt Formation, Pyramid Hill Formation, and Vedder Formation. Estimated depths of fresh water sands occur between 470 and 873 feet below surface and estimated depths of oil sands occur between 1506 and 2200 feet. Contamination of the fresh water aquifer during drilling and production will be prevented by a combination of steel casing, cement sheath, and other mechanical isolation devices installed as a part of the well construction process. In addition, impermeable rock formations lie between the hydrocarbon producing formations and existing groundwater, which has isolated the groundwater over millions of years.

There are a series of blue-line drainages within the project site and surrounding areas, which do not contain surface water. There are no surface waters located within proximity to the project site. Vintage would not make modifications to the blue line drainage during project implementation.

Since neither groundwater nor surface water resources have the potential to be impacted by the proposed action, water resources will not be further discussed in this document.

Biological Resources The project is proposed on private surface that occurs within an area identified as “White Zone” or out of strategy in the Bakersfield RMP and the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. A key component of the reserve and corridor linkage strategy is to maintain suitable amounts of habitat that are largely undisturbed by development activities. Habitat disturbance thresholds are criteria for maintaining long-term suitability of reserve areas (red zones) and habitat corridors (green zones). Limiting the amount of habitat (and ground) disturbance will allow sufficient habitat to remain intact, keep ecosystem processes functioning properly, and connect viable species populations across the landscape (see Bakersfield Proposed RMP/Final EIS, Appendix B, pp. 771-775).

Federally listed plant species in the southern San Joaquin Valley include Kern mallow (Eremalche kernensis), San Joaquin woolly-threads (Monolopia congdonii), California jewelflower (Caulanthus californicus), Hoover’s woolly-star (Eriastrum hooveri; delisted in 2003 but covered under the 2001 Oil and Gas Programmatic BO), and Bakersfield cactus (Opuntia basilaris var. treleasei). Listed animal species include San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis), blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila), giant kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ingens), and Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides). Additionally, this region contains the State listed San Joaquin antelope squirrel (Ammospermophilus nelsoni). Field surveys to identify the potential for the occurrence of these listed species in the general project area were conducted by Brian Berry of Berry Environmental Consulting on November 17 and 20, 2015. A project- specific onsite inspection was completed by BLM Natural Resource Specialists Dave Faires and Tiera Arbogast and Ecologist Ryan Klausch on November 18, 2015.

In general, the proposed project location is located within non-native annual grassland and valley saltbush scrub habitat that is heavily developed by oilfield infrastructure and is also used for livestock grazing. There is no critical habitat for any threatened or endangered species on the project site or in the vicinity. Dominant species that are observed onsite include red brome, rip- gut brome, red-stemmed filaree, golden bush, Russian thistle, wild oat, black mustard, and fiddleneck. Kern mallow, San Joaquin woolly-threads, Hoover’s woolly-star, California jewelflower, and Bakersfield cactus were not observed near the project area. California jewelflower is not known to naturally exist in Kern County, and Bakersfield cactus is endemic to a limited area of central Kern County in the vicinity of Bakersfield. This project is not likely to affect any listed or sensitive plant species.

The biological surveys found no evidence of giant kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ingens) or Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides) in the vicinity of the project sites, nor were there any observations of San Joaquin antelope squirrel (Ammospermophilus nelsoni); these species are not known to occur within the project site. There are no CNDBB records of these species within the footprint or surrounding areas of the project. In addition, disturbance levels and density of oilfield development make the project area unlikely habitat for these species. This project is not likely to affect Giant kangaroo rat, Tipton kangaroo rat, or San Joaquin antelope squirrel.

No species-specific protocol surveys for blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila) were carried out. There are no CNDBB records of blunt-nosed leopard lizard within the project footprint or surrounding areas. There are no burrows suitable for use by blunt-nosed leopard lizard within the proposed project site. Historical sightings of blunt-nosed leopard lizard occurred approximately 4 to 9 miles southwest of the project site between 1974 and 1987. However, due to disturbance levels and density of oilfield development, blunt-nosed leopard lizards are not likely to occur at the project site. This project is not likely to affect Blunt-nosed leopard lizard.

Three potential San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis) dens and one atypical den (8-inch pipeline) were observed within the project area. No individuals or sign of individuals (including scat, tracks, prey remains, etc.) were observed near the potential or atypical dens in the biological survey area. There are no CNDBB records of San Joaquin kit fox within the project footprint or surrounding areas. By following all guidelines issued by the USFWS and Conditions of Approval issued with project approval, Vintage would not adversely impact San Joaquin kit fox habitat or individuals. This project is not likely to adversely affect San Joaquin kit fox.

Chapter 4. Environmental Impacts

This section describes the environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives. This analysis addresses the direct and indirect effects of implementing the proposed wells and includes the identified measures and COAs described in Chapter 2.

Assumptions The following environmental impacts analysis assumes that: 1. The proposed wells will not be hydraulically fractured, matrix acidized, or fracture acidized: Vintage has stated that they do not plan to hydraulically fracture, matrix acidize, or fracture acidize the proposed wells. 2. Induced seismicity will not result from the proposed action: There has never been a recorded instance of induced seismicity at levels noticeable to the public in Kern County, and the likelihood for such an event is extremely unlikely. Only a very small fraction of injection and extraction wells in the U.S. have produced noticeable seismic activity. Felt seismic events from conventional oil and gas development are very rare; however, there have been at least seven documented or suspected cases of induced seismicity relating to oil and gas extraction in California (National Research Council, 2012). Furthermore, though the causes of induced seismicity are well understood, there are currently no means to predict the likelihood of an earthquake due to well activities. Therefore, the potential for an earthquake to result from the proposed actions is extremely low and not predictable. 3. The proposed project will not impact climate change: Capacity to analyze the impact of oil and gas development on climate change is limited; the tools necessary to thoroughly analyze climatic effects is currently unavailable. Furthermore, it is not possible to determine whether global climate change is affecting resources in the analysis area of the Bakersfield Resource Management Plan. It is common for regular fluctuations of temperature to occur in the plan region, which makes the measurability of climate change in the reasonably foreseeable future difficult. One potential long term effect of oil and gas exploration and development on climate change could include carbon sinks lost due to surface and vegetation disturbance during well site development. Based on conformance with the Bakersfield Resource Management Plan, GHG contributions resulting from oil and gas activities would be undetectable on a nationwide basis and would be expected to have a very minor influence on global climate change (Bakersfield Proposed RMP/Final EIS).

Air Quality The consumption of commodities produced on BLM lands (e.g. coal, oil and gas), would typically not constitute an indirect effect of the proposed action because it is not reasonably foreseeable how those commodities will be used. It is also difficult to discern if the consumption of those or any commodities is actually caused by the BLM’s action. For example, how crude oil will be used, whether any or all of the oil will be refined for plastics or other products that will not be burned; the possible mix of ultimate uses with disparate carbon emissions (e.g., auto fuel, bunker oil, diesel, kerosene); and the market forces that may replace lost BLM production with production from other sources are all uncertain. Therefore, the emissions that may ultimately result from the consumption of products derived from the crude oil generated on BLM lands would be speculative, and thus would not constitute and indirect effect of a BLM decision to approve the leasing, development, or production of oil in that area and will not be analyzed here.

Proposed Action: The proposed project would result in the emission of criteria pollutants for which the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin has a non-attainment or maintenance designation, including ozone (VOCs or NOx), PM10, and PM2.5. These emissions are associated with combustion sources such as diesel drill and completion/workover rig engines, drill pad construction equipment (i.e., dozers, backhoe, grader, etc.), equipment trucks, water trucks, drill rig crew trucks/vehicles, and portable lift equipment. In addition, localized impacts to air quality would occur during project implementation as a result of soil disturbance and fugitive dust emissions.

Vintage has estimated project-related emissions for all pollutants of concern in the project area. Construction emissions associated with drilling six new wells were quantified using a combination of load factors from EMFAC2011 model, the CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2. User’s Guide Appendix D, and the USEPA Tier III engine standards.

The following table compares estimated emissions from project activities with the EPA- determined de minimis emissions levels for all non-attainment and maintenance criteria pollutants in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin.

Comparison of Project Emissions to Federal De minimis Levels for San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Emission Estimate for De minimis level Project Regulated Pollutant Federal Designation (tons/year) (tons/year) Ozone (VOCs) 10 0.13* Extreme non-attainment Ozone (NOx) 10 1.377 PM10 Maintenance 100 0.504 PM2.5 (Direct emissions, SO2, NOx, VOC, or ammonia) Non-attainment 100 2.322

Maintenance for Bakersfield 0.670* CO Metropolitan Area only 100 0.055** *Estimates based on DOI-BLM-CA-C060-2016-0001-EA; no project specific estimates provided **Estimate includes road construction only

Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the SIP and emissions would not exceed the de minimis emission levels and are exempt from conformity determination (40 CFR Part 93.153). As a result, no formal conformity analysis or determination is required.

As described in Chapter 3, there are a number of SJVAPCD rules that will minimize air quality impacts, such as Rules 2280, 4101, 8021, and 8031. For example, applicant compliance with Regulation VIII (Rules 8021 and 8031) would minimize particulate emissions by requiring Vintage to water unpaved access roads in the project area and to water soils prior to excavation and trenching and during backfilling while compacting. Applicant compliance with Rule 2280 would ensure that VOC and NOx emissions from certain portable units, such as the drilling rig, would be evaluated per the SJVAPCD’s calculation methodologies, and any increase in emissions would be fully offset during the air permitting process. Implementation of this existing regulatory mechanism would offset the increase in potential emissions related to the proposed project.

No Action: There would be no additional impacts to air quality from the No Action Alternative. However, the rejection of the APDs would neither result in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin coming closer to conformance with federal air quality standards or aid in the achievement of goals in the SIP.

Soil Resources

Proposed Action: Pad construction at the proposed sites would compact soils and mix the removed soils from the cut and fill slopes and reserve pit, thereby changing nutrient availabilities and soil-water dynamics. The well pads would be designed in the short and long-term to maintain any cut and fill slopes without excessive erosion. Wind erosion of soil from dirt work and increased vehicle traffic would be reduced by complying with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII, though some fugitive dust emissions are inevitable. The application of erosion control materials would help stabilize disturbed surfaces and reduce the risk of accelerated erosion. Conserved topsoil would be used on both cut and fill slopes and on other areas of disturbance that are not needed for well maintenance. Recontouring would further reduce the risk of erosion by slowing water flow.

Oil and chemical spills have some potential to impact soil resources over the lifespan of the well. Any contaminated soils would be promptly removed from the project location and disposed of at a licensed off-site location. This could necessitate the importation of material to reclaim the landscape to pre-project form.

No Action There would be no additional impacts to soil from the No Action alternative. However, rejection of the 6 APDs would not alter the quantity or quality of ecosystem services provided by soils in the region relative to the APDs’ approval because the amount of disturbance from the proposed action is inconsequential on a regional scale. Also, under the No Action alternative, there would be no off-site conservation of soils in perpetuity as a result of the habitat compensation requirement under the Oil and Gas Programmatic Biological Opinion, and the impacts to soils may only be postponed until the next APD is approved for the development of the mineral lease.

Biological Resources

Proposed Action: Construction of the access road, well pads, and other associated facilities would disturb 2.993 acres of habitat, although direct impacts to federally listed species would not be expected as there is no evidence of their presence in the vicinity of the project site. Never-the-less, the implementation of design features (COAs) for avoidance and protection of special status species would minimize any potential for impacts. Vintage’s dedication of their private, conserved lands for the permanent conservation of listed species habitat will compensate for unavoidable impacts to listed species. Loss of habitat in this connecting corridor would indirectly impact wildlife species, however, as it would modify prime linkage acres for listed and sensitive species.

No Action There would be no additional impacts to biological resources from the No Action Alternative. However, the rejection of the APDs would not alter the trajectory of listed species populations relative to APD approval because the amount of disturbance is inconsequential on a regional scale. Also, under the no action alternative, there would be no off-site conservation of listed species habitat in perpetuity, and the impacts to habitat may only be postponed until the next APD is approved for the development of the mineral lease.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Air Quality The cumulative effects analysis area for air resources is the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. This area includes the San Joaquin Valley, CA, (extreme) federal 8-hour ozone nonattainment area; the San Joaquin Valley, CA, federal PM2.5 nonattainment area; and the federal San Joaquin Valley, CA PM10 maintenance area. The drilling of oil wells in the San Joaquin Valley is one of the many activities that contribute to the nonattainment of federal air quality standards. Any increase in emissions from drilling hundreds of oil wells every year in the Valley is offset during the air permitting process. The effectiveness of this mitigation process is demonstrated in the California ARB Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality (2009). According to the Almanac, air quality in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin has shown dramatic improvement. Since 1990, ozone levels have decreased approximately 10 percent in the San Joaquin Valley. Also, according to the SJVAPCD Annual Report to the Community (2010), the San Joaquin Valley experienced the best air quality on record, continuing a 20 year trend. All nonattainment pollutant levels are nearly half or less of what they were four years ago.

Soil Resources Cumulative effects are expected to be negligible with the implementation of interim and final restoration measures required in the Design Features. Soils altered by project activities would be compensated for offsite; although Vintage would be compensating for habitat disturbance, BLM considers any surface and soil disturbance to be habitat disturbance.

Biological Resources Compliance with the Project Specific Provisions of the 2001 Oil and Gas Programmatic Biological Opinion would effectively compensate for any indirect effects to the San Joaquin Valley. Cumulative impacts from habitat disturbance would be minimized by purchasing off-site mitigation acreage for federal oil and gas projects, ensuring that land identified as core areas, linkages, or corridors be conserved as habitat.

Chapter 5. Consultation and Public Involvement Biological Consultation Formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was initiated February 16, 2001. The Fish and Wildlife Service issued their “No jeopardy” biological opinion on September 28, 2001 (Revised Formal Consultation on the Oil & Gas Programmatic Biological Opinion in Kings and Kern Counties, California, 1-1-01-F-0063).

Persons, groups, and agencies consulted

Gabriel Garcia, Bakersfield Field Office Manager Silvet Holcomb, Petroleum Engineer John Hodge, Assistant Field Manager for Minerals Dave Faires, Natural Resource Specialist Palmira Hernandez, Regulatory Analyst, Vintage Production California LLC.

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The BLM posts copies of each Application for Permit to Drill (APD) in the front lobby of the Bakersfield Field Office for that 30-day period. In addition, this project was listed on the California NEPA web list beginning on October 7, 2015.

LIST OF PREPARERS

Tiera Arbogast, Natural Resource Specialist Tamara Whitley, Archaeologist

Chapter 6. References

Bakersfield Resource Management Plan, December 2014.

Bureau of Land Management Cultural Resource Inventory Report 6000-2016-9. A Class III Inventory, Sarrett and Matthew Fee Leases, Mt. Poso Oil Field, Kern County, California. Russ Kaldenberg, ASM Affiliates, 2016. On file at the Bureau of Land Management Bakersfield Field Office and the San Joaquin Valley Archaeological Information Center.

California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2009. The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality–2009 Edition. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac09/almanac09.htm

California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, & Geothermal Resources, 1998. California Oil and Gas Fields, Volume I, Fourth Edition. Sacramento, California.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2008. California Natural Diversity Database. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 1996. California’s Groundwater – Bulletin 118: San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. Available at: http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/bulletin118/tulare_lake.cfm

California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2003. California’s Groundwater – Bulletin 118, Update 2003: Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region. Available at: http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/california's_groundwater__bulletin_11 8_-_update_2003_/bulletin118_7-tl.pdf

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) (online), 2014. Water Data Library. Available at: http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/index.cfm

California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Central Valley Region (CRWQCB – CVR), 2004. Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin, Second Edition. Available at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/tlbp.pdf

King, George E., and Daniel E. King, 2013. Environmental Risk Arising From Well Construction Failure: Differences Between Barrier Failure and Well Failure, and Estimates of Failure Frequency Across Common Well Types, Locations, and Well Age. Society of Petroleum Engineers. Available at: https://www.onepetro.org/conference-paper/SPE-166142-MS

Mitchell, David C., 1989. The Effects of Oilfield Operations on Underground Sources of Drinking Water in Kern County. California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil and Gas.

National Research Council, 2012. Induced Seismicity Potential in Energy Technologies. Available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record id=13355

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) (online), 2010. Current District Rules and Regulations. Available at: http://www.valleyair.org/rules/1ruleslist.htm

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), 2010. Annual Report to the Community. Available at: http://www.valleyair.org/General_info/pubdocs/AnnualReport2010- web.pdf

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Services, 2009. Soil Survey of Kern County, California, Southwestern Part. Prepared by Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with the regents of the University of California. U.S. Government Printing Office, 2009.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1988. Soil Survey of Kern County, California, Northwestern Part. Prepared by Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with the regents of the University of California. U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1988.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2004. Guidance Document Reasonable and Prudent Practices for Stabilization (RAPPS) of Oil and Gas Construction Sites. Prepared by Horizon Environmental Services, Inc. April 2004.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2001. Revised Formal Consultation on the Oil & Gas Programmatic Biological Opinion in Kings and Kern Counties, California (1-1-01-F-0163). September 28, 2001.