United States Department ofthe Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Texas Chenier Plain NWR Complex June 15, 2017
Dear Reviewer:
This is to provide notification of availability of a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Draft Environmental Assessment for review and comment. The Draft Environmental Assessment addresses the issuance of an Operational Permit by the USFWS for two proposed oil and natural gas drilling and production project on the Mcfaddin National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) in Jefferson County, Texas. The project has been proposed by OLEUM Exploration, LLC ofBrodheadsville, Pennsylvania. The company possesses valid leases to explore and/or develop oil and gas reserves underlying the refuge from the rightful mineral owners.
The purpose for the proposed Federal action is to insure that mineral rights holders have reasonable access to develop their non-Federal oil and gas interests and minimize impacts to refuge resources to the extent practicable under the USFWS's 50 CFR Part 29, Subpart D regulations for managing non-Federal oil and gas on USFWS administered lands and waters. Issuance ofthe Operations Permit in the end should protect the human environment in such a way as to further the Refuge's efforts to achieve its established purposes, and the general resource conservation mission ofthe USFWS.
Written comments may be mailed to Texas Chenier Plain Refuge Complex at P.O. Box 278, Anahuac, TX 77514. Comments may also be electronically mailed to monique [email protected] with "OLEUM EA Comments" in the subject line. All comments sent must be post marked or electronically sent by June 29th, 2017.
If you need additional information, feel free to visit our offices or contact myself, Monique Slaughter, Oil and Gas Specialist for the refuge complex (409) 267-3337 or Refuge Manager Douglas Head at (409) 971-2909.
Sincerely
Tim Cooper Project Leader DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Issuance of an Operations Permit by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for OLEUM Exploration, LLC’s Exploration and Production Activities within the McFaddin National Wildlife Refuge, Texas
Prepared for:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service & OLEUM Exploration, LLC
Prepared by:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Texas Chenier Plain NWR Complex Anahuac, TX
&
DESCO Environmental Consultants, LP Magnolia, TX
JUNE 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ...... 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ...... 1 1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTION ...... 3 1.3 LEGAL MANDATES AND POLICY GUIDELINES ...... 4 1.4 USACE 404 PERMITTING ...... 4 2.0 ALTERNATIVES ...... 5 2.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL ...... 5 2.1.1 Alternative A. Proposed Action. The USFWS Would Issue an Operations Permit for the Proposed Drilling and Production Activities ...... 5 2.1.2 Alternative B. No Action. The USFWS Would Not Issue an Operations Permit for the Proposed Drilling and Production Activities ...... 5 2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ...... 6 2.2.1 Proposed Project Area ...... 6 2.2.2 Equipment and Construction ...... 8 2.2.3 Schedule ...... 9 2.3 PROVISIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES OF THE USFWS OPERATIONS PERMIT .. 10 2.3.1 General Provisions of Drilling and Production Operations Permits ...... 11 2.3.2 Mitigation Measures to Protect Migratory Birds, Other Wildlife, and Habitats ...... 12 2.3.3 Mitigation Measures to Protect Cultural Resources ...... 17 2.3.4 Mitigation Measures to Minimize Interference with Public Use of the Refuge ...... 17 2.3.5 Mitigation Measures to Protect Refuge Facilities and Infrastructure ...... 18 2.3.6 Other Mitigation Measures ...... 19 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 19 3.1 CLIMATE AND CLIMATE CHANGE ...... 21 3.2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ...... 22 3.3 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ...... 23 3.4 VEGETATION AND HABITAT ...... 25 3.4.1 Wetland and Aquatic Habitats ...... 27 3.4.2 Uplands ...... 30 3.5 FISH AND WILDLIFE ...... 32 3.5.1 Avian Species ...... 33 3.5.2 Mammals ...... 38 3.5.3 Amphibians and Reptiles ...... 39 3.5.4 Fish and Other Aquatic Resources ...... 41 3.5.5 Invertebrates ...... 41 3.5.6 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 41 3.6 HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...... 48 3.7 LAND USE/PUBLIC USE ...... 49 3.8 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES ...... 50 4.0 IMPACTS ANALYSIS ...... 50 4.1 CLIMATE AND CLIMATE CHANGE ...... 50 4.2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ...... 51 4.2.1 Alternative A. Proposed Action. The USFWS Would Issue an Operational Permit for the Proposed Drilling and Production Activities ...... 52 4.2.2 Alternative B. No Action. The USFWS Would Not Issue an Operational Permit for the
Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page i OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 Proposed Drilling and Production Activities ...... 52 4.3 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ...... 53 4.3.1 Alternative A. Proposed Action. The USFWS Would Issue an Operational Permit for the Proposed Drilling and Production Activities ...... 53 4.3.2 Alternative B. No Action. The USFWS Would Not Issue an Operational Permit for the Proposed Drilling and Production Activities ...... 54 4.4 VEGETATION AND HABITAT...... 54 4.4.1 Alternative A. Proposed Action. The USFWS Would Issue an Operational Permit for the Proposed Drilling and Production Activities ...... 54 4.4.2 Alternative B. No Action. The USFWS Would Not Issue an Operational Permit for the Proposed Drilling and Production Activities ...... 55 4.5 FISH AND WILDLIFE ...... 55 4.5.1 Alternative A. Proposed Action. The USFWS Would Issue an Operational Permit for the Proposed Drilling and Production Activities ...... 56 4.5.2 Alternative B. No Action. The USFWS Would Not Issue an Operational Permit for the Proposed Drilling and Production Activities ...... 56 4.6 FEDERALLY-AND STATE-LISTED THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ...... 57 4.7 HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...... 57 4.8 LAND USE/PUBLIC USE ...... 57 4.8.1 Alternative A. Proposed Action. The USFWS Would Issue an Operational Permit for the Proposed Drilling and Production Activities ...... 61 4.8.2 Alternative B. No Action. The USFWS Would Not Issue an Operational Permit for the Proposed Drilling and Production Activities ...... 61 4.9 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES...... 62 4.10 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...... 62 4.10.1 Past and Present Actions ...... 62 4.10.2 Biological Resources ...... 65 4.10.3 Water Quality ...... 67 4.10.4 Cultural and Historic Resources ...... 67 4.10.5 Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste ...... 68 4.10.6 Air Quality and Ambient Noise Levels ...... 69 4.10.7 Land Use and Socioeconomics ...... 69 5.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK...... 71 5.1 COASTAL MANAGEMENT ZONE ...... 71 5.2 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT ...... 71 5.3 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES ...... 71 5.4 ENDANGERED SPECIES ...... 71 5.5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES ...... 71 5.6 WATER QUALITY ...... 71 5.7 STATE SUBMERGED LANDS...... 71 5.8 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ...... 72 6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 72
Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page ii OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map ...... 2 Figure 2: Project Area ...... 7 Figure 3: Soil Types ...... 24 Figure 4: Wetlands/Waters ...... 26
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Common Indicator Plant Species Of Wetland and Aquatic Habitats on the Texas Chenier Plain National Wildlife Refuge Complex ...... 29 Table 2: Indicator Plant Species of Terrestrial Upland Habitats on the Texas Chenier Plain National Wildlife Refuge Complex ...... 31 Table 3: Avian Species Frequently Observed on the Texas Chenier Plain Complex ...... 33 Table 4: Avian Species Known to Nest on the Texas Chenier Plain Complex ...... 33 Table 5: List of Rare and Declining Birds In the Coastal Prairies Region of Texas Occurring on the Refuge Complex (per Habitat) ...... 36 Table 6: Mammalian Species with Ranges that Include the Refuge Complex ...... 38 Table 7: Amphibian Species with Ranges that Include the Refuge Complex ...... 39 Table 8: Reptilian Species with Ranges that Overlap the Refuge Complex ...... 40 Table 9: Federally- and State-Listed Threatened, Endangered, or Rare Species of Concern, with May Occur in Jefferson County, Texas...... 42
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Project Maps/Plans/Plats Appendix B: THC Correspondence
Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page iii OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
The purpose for the proposed action is to respond to a request by OLEUM Exploration, LLC (Applicant) for an Operations Permit (Permit) for Applicant’s proposed activities of drilling McFaddin State 39 & McFaddin Trust 106 wells. The Applicant has filed with U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), Texas Chenier Plain National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Refuge Complex) documentation demonstrating that it holds the legal right to conduct the proposed operations. This proposed action is needed in order to ensure that mineral rights holders have reasonable access to develop their non-Federal oil and gas interests and minimize impacts to Refuge resources to the extent practicable under the USFWS’s 50 CFR Part 29, Subpart D regulations (29D Regulations) for managing non-Federal oil and gas on USFWS-administered lands and waters. The purposes of implementing these regulations are:
1. Protecting USFWS-administered lands and waters, and resources of the Refuge; 2. Protecting Refuge wildlife-dependent recreational uses and experiences, and visitor and employee health and safety; 3. Conserving the Refuge for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans; and 4. Implementing technologically feasible and least damaging methods for oil and gas activities on the Refuge. These methods are those that we determine, on a case-by-case basis, to be most protective of Refuge resources and uses while ensuring human health and safety, taking into consideration all relevant factors, including environmental, economic, and technological factors and the requirements of applicable law.
OLEUM Exploration, LLC (OLEUM) proposes to drill up to two wells from a single well pad site located within a previously disturbed oilfield pipe storage yard, and utilize an existing McFaddin National Wildlife Refuge (McFaddin NWR or Refuge)/oilfield road to explore for, develop, and produce minerals underlying the area. The proposed project is located in the T.& N.O.RR. A-282 Survey of Jefferson County, Texas (Appendix A - Plats).
1.1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The McFaddin NWR, one of four coastal refuges located in southeast Texas, is part of the Texas Chenier Plain Refuge Complex. The Refuge Complex contributes to the conservation of wildlife and their habitats in the Texas Gulf Coast Ecosystem. The individual NWRs in the Refuge Complex encompass a diversity of habitats: aquatic habitats (open water and near shore Gulf habitats), freshwater to saline marshes, riparian habitats, coastal woodlots, rice fields, native prairies, cheniers and coastal beach and dune habitats. These areas host a multitude of plant, invertebrate and vertebrate species including over 300 bird species, 75 species of freshwater fish, and 400 species of salt and brackish water fish and shellfish. The Refuge Complex protects quality habitats for migrating, wintering, and breeding waterfowl; shorebirds; and waterbirds, and provides strategic and crucial resting areas for Neotropical migratory songbirds migrating across the Gulf of Mexico.
McFaddin NWR is located on the upper Texas coast, approximately 15 miles south-southeast of the city of Winnie in Galveston, Chambers, and Jefferson Counties, Texas (Figure 1).
Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 1 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 GRAYBURG
S Main St
Sab La
HAI SAIRE " . 11s \t11 73 +Ch, bertt:oS TOWEll Winni StowetP Airport AB IIIE -, 0 Sabino Li h1J R ••~r Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map Oleum Exploration - P1·oposed Well Pad Legend McFaddin ational Wildlife Refuge ,A Proposed ProjecL Lw a~ion Jeffe1·son County, Texas 1"300,000 1111 !vkFaddiu Nawonal Wil dlife Refuge 1fap a e: E ru treetmap World 2D .D.~SCQ Map Datum: NAD 19 3 UTM Zo ne 15N, met r 0 2 ,1 fop DaLe: June .13, 20 .17 Mil s -- Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 2 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 The primary authority in establishing the McFaddin NWR was the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (MBCA) of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715d), “…for use as an inviolate sanctuary, and for any other management purposes, for migratory birds.” The Refuge Complex is administered by the USFWS, as a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). Lands or certain interests in lands added to the Refuge Complex since their original establishment were also acquired under the authority of the MBCA, with the same establishment purpose. Lands have been added to the Refuge Complex under three additional authorities, with the following purposes: “… the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions…” 16 U.S.C. 3901(b), 100 Sta. 3583 (Emergency Wetlands Resources Act); “…suitable for—(1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species…” 16 U.S.C. 460K-1 (Refuge Recreation Act); and, “…for the conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and its habitat thereon,…” 16 U.S.C. 661-667e (Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). The USFWS acquired all the lands comprising the McFaddin NWR subject to the exercise of privately-held mineral rights, which include rights to explore for and develop oil, gas and other hydrocarbons. Texas State Law allows for subsurface mineral rights owners to explore and recover minerals found within their specific property. Texas property law allows the subsurface mineral owner to make reasonable and necessary use of the surface to explore for, develop, and produce its mineral interest. The legal concept is commonly described as “split estate” with surface estate being the subordinate estate. Federal law recognized these rights and manages the exploration and or production of such outstanding minerals right under 29D Regulations. Oil and gas exploration and production has been actively pursued in this field since the late 1930’s. Texas Railroad Commission records show that by 1967 the Clam Lake Field had 50 producing wells. Ownership of the field’s mineral lease has exchanged hands throughout the years. In April 2017, OLEUM purchased the Clam Lake Field mineral lease and field inventory of 33 wells in various states along with production infrastructure (Appendix A – Clam Lake Field/OLEUM Lease Area Map). As required by 29D Regulations OLEUM has demonstrated that through ownership of oil and gas rights, they have the right to access and develop oil and gas resources underneath the Refuge, and has submitted the required application for an Operations Permit to continue operations of the field and the proposal to drill two new directional wells from the proposed well pad site upon issuance of the Permit. 1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTION The Proposed Federal Action is the issuance of an Operations Permit by the USFWS to govern the implementation of oil and gas drilling and production operations by OLEUM on the McFaddin NWR. The Operations Permit contains a number of general provisions and Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 3 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 stipulations aimed at protecting natural and cultural resources and minimizing conflicts with public uses and other USFWS management activities within the McFaddin NWR. The USFWS requires an Operations Permit for those lands for which there are permitting requirements specified in the original conveyance documents and conforming to National Wildlife Refuge System regulations governing management of non-federal oil and gas rights. Consistent with agency policy, the USFWS has pursued permitting arrangements with OLEUM for conducting oil and gas drilling and production operations on lands within the McFaddin NWR. The USFWS is proposing to issue an Operations Permit to OLEUM to govern implementation of drilling and production activities. This includes construction of a drilling pad on a previously disturbed pipe yard location, drilling of up to two directional wells, completion of the well(s) if recoverable reserves are found, and use of a Refuge road (Clam Lake Road) to access the well pad site. Through this permitting action, the USFWS is ensuring maximum protection of McFaddin NWR habitats and fish and wildlife resources in accordance with 29D Regulations. 1.3 LEGAL MANDATES AND POLICY GUIDELINES The NWRs are guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), the designated purpose of the NWR unit as described in establishing legislation or executive orders, USFWS laws and policy, and international treaties. Key concepts and guidance of the NWRS are covered in the NWR Administration Act of 1966 as amended by the Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, the USFWS Manual, Title 50 of the Codes of Federal Regulations, and, most recently, through the revised 29D Regulations. 1.4 USACE 404 PERMITTING The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has been charged with the legal authority to protect the water resources of the United States, including vegetated wetlands, through Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. The USACE regulatory program supports the national policy of “no overall net loss” of wetlands through a process that ensures that any environmental impact on aquatic resources from construction projects requiring discharge of dredge or fill material, where applicable, will avoid, minimize, or mitigate for these unavoidable impacts to the “waters of the United States”, including wetlands. A wetland determination/delineation of the proposed project area by OLEUM’s consultant concluded that the proposed activities will not be performed in jurisdictional wetland areas and that Section 404 Clean Water Act (CWA) authorization from the USACE will not be necessary. No impact to “waters of the United States”, including wetlands would occur from the proposed project due to OLEUM’s commitment to utilize an existing upland pipe storage yard within the Clam Lake Oil Field to directionally drill the well(s) as opposed to utilizing closer target locations that would potentially involve impacts to wetlands. Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 4 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 2.0 ALTERNATIVES 2.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL 2.1.1 Alternative A. Proposed Action. The USFWS Would Issue an Operations Permit for the Proposed Drilling and Production Activities Under Alternative A, the USFWS would issue a Permit to OLEUM governing all aspects of drilling and production activities. Under this alternative, the Permit would require OLEUM to complete drilling and production activities in compliance with a set of restrictions/stipulations developed to ensure maximum protection of natural and cultural resources within the McFaddin NWR, and minimize conflicts with public uses and other USFWS management activities. The provisions and stipulations of the Permit are fully described in Section 2.3 of this EA. Through the issuance of a Permit, and its subsequent administration to ensure strict adherence to its provisions and stipulations by OLEUM, the USFWS would actively manage the proposed activity to provide maximum protection to natural and cultural resources and public safety on the NWRs. The Permit is issued in order to minimize impacts from such activities to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, the USFWS is proposing to issue a Permit that ensures that the applicant is using the most technologically feasible, least damaging methods to conduct operations on the Refuge in accordance with 50 CFR Part 29, Subpart D. By agreeing to conduct the proposed project within the McFaddin NWR under all provisions of the USFWS Permit, OLEUM would agree to conduct all operations under stipulations aimed at protecting natural and cultural resources and minimizing conflicts with other uses of the McFaddin NWR, including public recreation, environmental education, and scientific research. In addition, OLEUM would be responsible for restoration and/or mitigation of impacted habitats and infrastructure damages proven to be attributable to project activities. Under both the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives, OLEUM has committed to utilizing the existing upland pipe yard site for the proposed new wells to minimize impacts to Refuge resources. 2.1.2 Alternative B. No Action. The USFWS Would Not Issue an Operations Permit for the Proposed Drilling and Production Activities Since the USFWS is considering taking a new action, issuance of a Permit to OLEUM for the proposed drilling and production activities within the McFaddin NWR, the NEPA “No Action Alternative” is the USFWS not issuing a Permit. Therefore, the “No Action Alternative” addresses not issuing a Permit for the proposed project. Under the “No Action Alternative”, the USFWS would not issue a permit to the Applicant in a permitting process resulting in the Applicant accessing their minerals without complying with the 29D Regulations, and therefore there will be no assurance that the Applicant would use technologically feasible and least damaging methods. Throughout the impact evaluation below, we have contrasted the impacts of the proposed Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 5 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 permitting action of the USFWS with the current condition and expected future condition under the No Action Alternative. Under both the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives, OLEUM has committed to utilizing the existing upland pipe yard site for the proposed new wells to minimize impacts to Refuge resources. 2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION OLEUM is proposing to conduct drilling and production activities to develop oil and gas reserves underlying the McFaddin NWR. The project area is located in the eastern portion of the McFaddin NWR with the well pad site located within the existing Clam Lake Oil Field, approximately thirteen miles west of Sabine Pass, Texas. OLEUM owns the rights to explore for and develop oil and gas reserves within this portion of the McFaddin NWR, and has recently acquired Clam Lake Oil Field lease and assets (Appendix A – Clam Lake Field/OLEUM Lease Area Map). OLEUM’s proposal includes using an existing pipe yard storage location within the Clam Lake Oil Field as a well pad site. Access to the proposed well pad site would be from Clam Lake Road entrance at SH 87, which currently serves as the access to this part of the Refuge and the oil field (Figure 2). The pipe yard site OLEUM would utilize has an existing pipeline tie-in surface tap; therefore, OLEUM is not proposing any new access road or flowline construction. OLEUM is proposing to drill up to two directional wells from this single well pad, which would measure approximately 340 feet by 150 feet. In the event of successful well completion, any recoverable hydrocarbons would be transported via the existing Clam Lake Oil Field flowline and pipeline system and existing oil field infrastructure for distribution. All proposed activities would occur using existing infrastructure and previously disturbed areas in the Clam Lake Oil Field within the McFaddin NWR. There will not be any digging, dredging or fill added outside of the perimeter of the existing pipe yard. The tentative start date of the proposed project would begin upon issuance of the Permit, with the proposed project drilling operations targeted to be completed by October 1, 2017 due to stipulations in the Permit. A short extension may be granted due to extenuating circumstances at the discretion of Refuge Management. Upon completion of drilling operations for the two proposed wells, OLEUM would anticipate five to 15 years of production, dependent on the number of producing zones discovered during operations. A complete synopsis of the proposed project is in the following Sections 2.2.1 through 2.2.3. 2.2.1 Proposed Project Area The McFaddin NWR is located approximately 15 miles SSE of Winnie, Texas in Jefferson, Chambers, and Galveston Counties, Texas. The proposed well pad would be located in the northern portion of the developed Clam lake field approximately 0.4 miles north of Clam Lake, within the field’s shelled road infrastructure system, a dike road that encircles the Clam Lake Oil Field. The proposed project will utilize the existing Clam Lake Road accessed from State Highway 87, through the McFaddin NWR to the proposed well pad site (Figure 2). Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 6 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 FigUl'e 2: Project Area Map N Legend Oleum Exploration - Proposed Well Pad P .... pnsod Wn ll T.rwn t.inns - C:al \Vn lk McFaddin National Wildlife Refuge A Aqun D.irn LJ Cl,olrn I lontors 1:26,000 Flowlines LJ Mud Pit Jefferson CUL1nLy, Texa · --Proposed Pad Sil<> LJ Separntors ;sfop Buse: 2016 CIR. eriul Imagery from TNRJS LJ 210xl20' Ll ncr Work Site Map Datum: NAD HJ8a U1'Nf Zon e l ii 1• metf'rs 0 0. 125 0.25 0.5 - 90xo0' Wood Mnts !'lfop Date: June 13, 2017 M M Mi les Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 7 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 2.2.2 Equipment and Construction Equipment and personnel to be used during the proposed project would vary with the particular phase of the project as well as with the type of work being executed. The project would be scheduled in four phases totaling approximately 60 to 80 days. The drilling phase is anticipated to be conducted from the date of Permit issuance through October 1st of 2017. The first phase would include site preparation for the well pad location. During construction and preparation of the well pad, transport trucks would deliver board mats to be placed directly beneath the drill, rig and substructure for a solid base. The anticipated traffic during this phase is less than 5 trucks per day for approximately 2 to 5 days. Preparation of the well pad would be conducted during daylight hours. The existing site would largely be used as is, without any major modification, as it has been utilized as a pipe yard storage site since prior to 1970, and is currently surfaced with gravel. Construction equipment may consist of a bulldozer to level out the well pad, fork lift(s), typical dump trucks (possibly with pup-trailers), and track hoe. This equipment would be mobilized to the site via transport truck and trailer. The well pad area of preparation would be approximately 340 feet by 150 feet in size, with the area within which board mats would be placed beneath the drill rig and substructure being 90 feet by 50 feet in size. No construction or upgrade to the existing oil field shelled road(s) is proposed, as this road is already constructed to sufficient standards to accommodate all traffic. The well pad would initially occupy a total area of 340 feet by 150 feet (1.17 acres) for drilling of the initial well(s). The well pad location would not be built up any more than it is already. OLEUM would install a perimeter bunker/barrier consisting of a product named AquaDam to reduce impacts from the construction of an earthen berm. Additionally, a 30 millimeter impermeable liner would be placed on the existing site, including under all operating areas that have contamination potential. The impermeable liner would cover an approximate 210 foot by 120 foot area to accommodate operations. Wood board mats would be placed at the well pad site over the existing ground elevation. The second phase would be moving the drilling rig to the pad, the assembly of the drilling rig, drilling of the well, and removal of the drilling equipment. Drilling rig move and assembly would take approximately 3 to 5 days and work would be conducted during daylight hours. Between 25 and 35 trucks would be used for 3 to 5 days while moving the rig and equipment onto the drill pad and assembling the rig to drill. Once these steps were completed, OLEUM would begin drilling operations. OLEUM would drill the initial well, and is proposing using a typical 1200 hp SCR drill rig. OLEUM would have the drill rig set and operational for approximately 30-60 days during drilling operations. Twenty individuals would be on-site during normal drilling operations, increasing to between 30 and 35 when running casing and cementing. Equipment needed during this phase includes the drilling rig and typical heavy equipment transport semi-tractor trailer trucks and a truck-mounted crane. The drilling rig consists of a substructure, a mast, drilling mud containment vessels, drill pipe, electrical generators, diesel engines, well control equipment, a closed-loop mud system, and personnel support trailers. An estimated 35 loads (3 to 4 of these anticipated requiring state permits) of equipment would be needed to deliver and construct the drill rig on the well pad, and demobilize the drill rig equipment. Traffic during this phase is estimated to be between 1 and 4 vehicles a day, and Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 8 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 would be restricted to the existing Clam Lake Road and primarily on the oilfield’s existing shelled road system and well pad. Demobilization traffic should be approximately the same as that estimated for installation of the drill rig. The third phase would consist of well completion and testing and would require 7 to 10 days. A smaller workover rig would be mobilized for completion. Workover rig mobilization would require approximately five to seven loads of equipment and the workover rig itself. During the operation, vacuum transport trucks and pipe delivery transport trucks would travel to the well site. Demobilization traffic would be the same as that estimated for mobilization. The anticipated traffic during these activities would be 2 to 5 trucks per day, increasing to 5 to 10 trucks per day during stimulation and cementing operations. Well completion would take place during daylight hours, unless there would be a well testing event or an unexpected complication with the well. Under these circumstances, 24 hour work days may be necessary. In the event of a successful well completion, OLEUM would remove the temporary board mat pad, utilizing the existing pad site construction. The permanent pad site would remain as is, in its original state, at the original dimensions of the existing pipe yard area (approximately 340 feet by 150 feet). Fourth, upon a successful completion and testing, which would involve flaring (standard producing procedure to test well output and pressures) for an anticipated 3 to 7 days, OLEUM would install the following equipment at the well location: (1) a production wellhead, (2) a choke heater, (3) a meter run and (4) a high pressure separator. Ultimately, a gas compressor(s) may be installed, if necessary to transport natural gas and fluids when pressures are reduced toward the end of the life of the well(s). Installation of this equipment would require approximately four to five vehicles a day and be accomplished by approximately 15 people. Additionally, OLEUM would install a flow line from the well to the existing tie-in location at the access road intersection. This work would be conducted during daylight hours. The production wellhead, choke heater, separator, and meter run would be installed at the well pad site with a containment berm placed around the perimeter. This phase would require 2 to 3 days and estimated 5 to 10 personnel with 3 to 5 vehicles per day, in addition to the material loads listed above. 2.2.3 Schedule Activity Anticipated Timeframe (approximations) Site Preparation 2-5 days Drilling rig move and assembly 3-5 days Drilling operations 30-60 days Completion and Testing 7-10 days Prep for Production 2-3 days Production (dependent on resources found) 5-15 years Upon completion of the well(s), OLEUM estimates production for five to 15 years. All drilling activities for the second well would utilize the existing permanent well pad site and require move over and assembly of the drilling rig, drilling of the well, and completion of the well. Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 9 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 2.3 PROVISIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES OF THE USFWS OPERATIONS PERMIT Under the USFWS Permit, several management and operational procedures will be required throughout OLEUM’s drilling and production activities to eliminate avoidable impacts to natural and cultural resources and infrastructure on the McFaddin NWR and to control, reduce, and correct unavoidable adverse impacts. These required management and operational procedures are defined through the provisions and mitigation measures, which become the Special Conditions of the Permit. Administration of the Permit would include active monitoring of drilling and production operations, to provide the Refuge Manager with high-quality current information throughout the course of the drilling operations and allow the Refuge Manager to, if necessary, modify the course of the operations to protect McFaddin NWR resources. The McFaddin NWR Manager, environmental monitor(s), and any third party observers, if required, will retain the right to “stop work” in any situation that imperils a threatened or endangered species or its habitat, causes significant harm to resources of the McFaddin NWR, threatens cultural or historic resources, or endangers public safety. Any sightings of cultural resources or artifacts or sightings of threatened or endangered species by employees, contractors, or subcontractors of OLEUM will be immediately reported to the McFaddin NWR Manager. As per regulations specified in 29D Regulations regarding oil and gas exploration activities on USFWS lands, the following stipulations will apply: • OLEUM would to the greatest extent practicable, conduct all exploration in such a manner as to minimize damage, erosion, pollution or contamination to the lands, waters, facilities and vegetation of the area. • So far as is practicable, drilling and production operations would be conducted without interference with the operation of the McFaddin NWR or disturbance to the wildlife thereon. • The physical occupancy of the area would be kept to the minimum space compatible with the conduct of efficient mineral development and production. • Upon the cessation of operations, the area would be restored as nearly as possible to its condition prior to the commencement of drilling and production operations or as directed by Refuge Management. • OLEUM will be responsible for any damage caused by its personnel or that of any contractors or subcontractors hired by OLEUM, and for restoring impacted areas as closely as possible to original conditions prior to the end of operations. OLEUM will be responsible for restoration of and/or mitigation for damages to McFaddin NWR habitats and repairing damages to McFaddin NWR facilities and infrastructure including roads, bridges, cattle guards, parking areas, levees, fences, culverts, and water control structures. Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 10 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 The USFWS will enforce all applicable Federal statutes and regulations, including all McFaddin NWR-specific regulations. 2.3.1 General Provisions of Drilling and Production Operations Permits • The project would follow the operational procedures described in this Environmental Assessment (EA) and Operations Plan (OP) dated June 2017. The Texas Chenier Plain NWR Complex Project Leader would be the coordinating official having immediate jurisdiction and administrative responsibility for McFaddin NWR lands and property. All entry upon the McFaddin NWR would be coordinated with the Project Leader, or his authorized representative, the McFaddin NWR Refuge Manager. These officials would have “stop work” authority for any activity which threatens to harm a threatened or endangered species, which would cause significant harm to McFaddin NWR resources, which threatens historic or cultural resources, or which endangers public safety. Any sightings of cultural features or artifacts or sightings of threatened or endangered species by Permittee and its assigns would be immediately reported to the Refuge Manager and or his designated representative. • Permittee would designate an onsite representative for field operations who would be present during all phases of operations and be the sole representative of Permittee and its assigns for communication with the Refuge Manager. Permittee would inform the Refuge Manager immediately of any change in the designated field operations point-of contact. • Permittee would comply with all applicable ordinances, laws, decrees, statutes, rules and regulations of all federal and state entities. All appropriate local, state and federal permits would be obtained prior to operations. Permittee would provide copies of all required permits/certificates to the USFWS once issued by the federal and state agencies prior to project start date. • Permittee would observe all McFaddin NWR regulations while within the McFaddin NWR except where specifically exempted by this permit. Permittee would be responsible to assure that on-site activity of all employees, contractors, and subcontractors comply with terms of these permit stipulations. Personnel associated with the activities of Permittee would also be personally responsible for complying with all applicable McFaddin NWR rules and regulations. An Environmental Orientation meeting, for all field operations personnel, would be held at the beginning of the operations. This meeting would include review of the Special Conditions of this permit. • Permittee would provide 24-hour security for equipment/supplies stored on the McFaddin NWR. The USFWS would not be responsible for theft or damage occurring to construction and drilling and production equipment or materials while on McFaddin NWR lands. • Prior to rig up, Permittee would provide an Emergency Preparedness Plan covering exploratory drilling, well control, materials hauling, spill response, fire, hurricane Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 11 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 evacuation, and other emergencies to the Refuge Manager. A telephone list would be included naming key contacts for emergency operations and activation. • Strict adherence to Permittee’s Drug and Alcohol Policy would be enforced for all employees, including contractors and subcontractors. Violation of this policy would be grounds for immediate dismissal. Consumption of alcohol would also be prohibited by McFaddin NWR regulations. • Permittee could be required to provide an environmental field representative, approved by and reporting to the Refuge Manager, to conduct inspections for and provide daily reports to the USFWS. In the absence of this requirement, fees could be charged for inspection and monitoring by USFWS employees. • Permittee would provide the Refuge Manager with the Prognosis to Drill and the Mud Program prior to commencing drilling activities. 2.3.2 Mitigation Measures to Protect Migratory Birds, Other Wildlife, and Habitats • The timeframe for conducting drilling operations would begin upon Permit issuance to October 1, 2017 to reduce disturbance impacts to migrating/wintering migratory birds including waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds and to avoid the peak nesting season for mottled ducks. Permittee would understand that an earlier completion date would be preferable to reduce potential disturbance impacts to blue-winged teal and other early migrating species, and would strive to complete the oil and gas development project at the earliest possible date. • Impacts of noise to area wildlife would be reduced by Permittee by installing mufflers and silencers on equipment, proper maintenance of equipment, and by constructing noise barriers. • Taking, disturbing, injuring, or killing snakes, turtles, frogs, or any other wildlife or plant species would be prohibited. Only McFaddin NWR personnel would remove poisonous snakes and alligators from work areas. Spotlighting of wildlife would be prohibited. • Fishing or hunting by Permittee or its contractor and subcontractor personnel while on duty is prohibited. • Persons possessing, transporting or carrying firearms on national wildlife refuges must comply with all provisions of state and local law. Discharging firearms is prohibited on the Refuge except within permitted hunting zones and seasons, and in accordance with refuge regulations (50 CFR 27.42 and specific refuge regulations in 50 CFR Part 32). • Permittee would reduce impact of lighting to wildlife by using the minimum amount of lighting and voltage in lighting. Lighting would be focused directly on drilling and construction locations and away from areas surrounding the well pad. Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 12 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 • Pad location would be as specified in this EA/OP, and the well would be drilled from the approved pad location. • Pad size would be the minimum required to support the drilling and production operations. Where necessary, a fence with silt screening and hay bales, or other means approved by USFWS, would be constructed around the lowest perimeter of the pad site prior to clearing to prevent construction runoff or spills. • Access to the well site would be via existing roads or access routes, as designated by the Refuge Manager and specified in this EA/OP. • A closed loop system for storage of all drilling mud, drill cuttings, chlorine fluids and hydrocarbon wastes would be utilized during the drilling of the well. The closed loop system would consist of an above ground storage container, linear motion shaker, a high- G mud cleaner and decanting centrifuge, or a closed loop system that would meet or exceed these specifications. Drill cuttings and drilling fluids would be hauled to an appropriate state-approved disposal site. • No cross-country travel by vehicles or equipment would be permitted in the McFaddin NWR. Permittee and its assigns would confine movements to the designated access routes at all times during travel to and from work. While on the job site, Permittee would confine all activities to the designated work areas. • Refuge speed limits (25 mph) would be strictly enforced to protect public safety and reduce potential for road kills of wildlife. The Refuge Manager could post lower speed limits when necessary. • All vehicles entering the McFaddin NWR would have proper license and meet all state highway operating requirements. • Operating ATVs, boats or aircraft on or over the McFaddin NWR without Refuge Manager approval is prohibited. • Soil testing at the well pad site, production facility site, and surrounding the ring levees could be required to determine any levels of heavy metals, chemicals, or other pollutants prior to construction and drilling activities. The testing program would include duplicate tests prior to completion and/or at abandonment of the site. Soil testing would be conducted according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency SW-846 protocols for RCRA metals (Arsenic, Barium, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Mercury, Selenium, and Silver), soil pH, soil conductivity (salinity), sulfates, BTEX (Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene) and TPH (Total PetrPermittee Hydrocarbons). Three soil samples would be collected for analysis in: A) the proximity of the proposed well head location, B) down gradient of the proposed well head between the well head and the ring levee, and C) down gradient outside of the ring levee. If exit tests reveal contaminant levels above ecological threshold levels, further testing and/or remedial actions would be required. Any required disposal of contaminated soils would occur at a State-approved Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 13 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 disposal facility. • All reasonable precautions would be in place to prevent the escape of Permittee products. In the event of an accidental spill or discharge of oil, brine, or any petrochemical or chemical product, Permittee would immediately notify the Refuge Manager. All spills, of any size, would be reported. Spill clean-up would occur according to state laws and other authorities. Contaminated soils not remediated on site and absorbent materials would be removed to a state-approved disposal site. • All hazardous materials (oil, grease, gasoline, diesel, paint and other petrochemical derivatives) would be centrally stored. In the event of an accidental spill or discharge of oil, brine, or any petrochemical or chemical product, Permittee would immediately notify the Refuge Manager. Spill clean-up would occur according to state laws and other authorities. Contaminated soils and absorbent materials would be removed to a State- approved disposal site. • Any board road (mats) leading to the drilling pad site would be anchored down with cable and screw in anchors of sufficient size, so as to reduce the potential for loss of the mats into the marsh from hurricanes, tropical storms, or high tide events. • In the event of a hurricane, tropical storm, or high tide event that would wash the anchored temporary access board road mats or drilling pad mats into the marsh, Permittee would consult with Refuge management on the least damaging methods of retrieval. • No waste water would be discharged on McFaddin NWR lands, into canals or other waterways, unless previously approved by the Refuge Manager and under other appropriate authorities. • Water well abandonment would comply with State law and USFWS specifications. The USFWS could require that water wells and all associated materials be retained for future management use. • Catch pans and 30 millimeter impermeable liners would be required under equipment such as mud pumps, bulk mud additive tanks, fuel tanks, fuel shed, generators, accumulator and lines, and under the entire drilling rig floor. The catch pans and 30 millimeter impermeable liners would cover the entire surface area of the equipment. The location would be kept free and clean of accumulated debris and spilled materials. • Oil or fluid changes would be permitted on the McFaddin NWR within the 30 millimeter impermeable liner area of the drilling pad area. Spilled oil would require immediate cleanup. Therefore, appropriately sized spill kits would be required on site at all times as a precautionary measure. • Permittee would report any occurrence of wildfire to the Refuge Manager. The McFaddin NWR would continue to conduct normal prescribed fire and wildfire suppression activities on the Refuge. The well pad site and production facility site would be Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 14 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 maintained in a condition free of all fuels which are capable of maintaining flame such that McFaddin NWR personnel could continue to implement fire management activities. Permittee could remove fuels by mowing, raking or application of herbicides approved by the Refuge Manager. Fuels would be reduced from around the well pad site and production facility site sufficient for McFaddin NWR staff to be able to light a backing fire from the edge of the sites without the potential of any portion of the sites catching fire. The USFWS would not be responsible for any damages caused to well pad site locations or production facilities as a result of any wildfire or wildfire suppression actions. • Permittee would provide all water needed for drilling operations. Surface water use could be permitted on a case-by-case basis, and would require approval of the Refuge Manager. No waste water would be discharged on McFaddin NWR lands, into canals or other waterways, unless previously approved by the Refuge Manager and under other appropriate authorities. Abandonment or pulling of a water well would be done in the presence of the Refuge Manager or his designee. Water well abandonment would comply with State law. The McFaddin NWR could require that water wells be retained for future habitat management use. • Permittee would provide a containerized or temporary septic system for domestic sewage disposal during the drilling operations, which would be removed and the surface restored upon completion of drilling. • All materials, cans, bottles, paper, and other trash generated would be placed in designated trash receptacles and removed from the McFaddin NWR. The drill site and operational area would be kept free of debris and trash at all times. Trash and debris would be secured in such a manner as to prevent spreading by wind or wildlife. No trash would be disposed of or buried on the McFaddin NWR. • Upon completion of drilling operations, Permittee would advise the Refuge Manager within 30 days whether the well would be retained or plugged. If the well site would be abandoned, the well would be plugged within 90 days and according to state law, and all above ground structures/facilities removed. Permittee would be responsible for restoring the site, levees, roads and other infrastructure as directed by the Refuge Manager. The surface of each pad site would be restored as nearly as possible to its original condition and elevation. Any contaminated soils and materials would be removed and taken to a state-approved waste disposal site. • The production well would have a Subsurface Safety Valve or similar device installed as part of the completion process. The production wellhead cellar would be filled with sand or pea gravel to surface elevations to prevent entry and harm to all wildlife. The production wellhead would have a clay soil berm surrounding it with a height of 18 inches or higher to prevent potential escape of contaminants in the event of a release and adequate fencing to prevent entry by cattle or wildlife. All other well production equipment located on the well pad would have a clay soil berm surrounding it with a height of three feet to prevent escape of contaminants in the event of a release and if Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 15 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 required, adequate fencing to prevent entry by cattle or wildlife. • The gathering pipelines would be constructed in the manner and location designated by the Refuge Manager and as specified in this EA/OP, connecting the well site to the production facility and pipeline tie-in, in a less sensitive area of the McFaddin NWR. All production flow lines would be buried. If steel pipelines were utilized, the pipeline(s) would be constructed using 100% x-ray to ensure that the pipeline strength and life would be at the maximum capacity obtainable to prevent contamination of McFaddin NWR soils, waters, and biota. The flow lines would have cathodic protection at all times. The flow lines would be monitored using corrosion coupons. If necessary, internal corrosion inhibitors would be utilized. All chemical tanks would be strapped to a stand and the tank and stand placed into a containment pan of appropriate size to prevent contamination to McFaddin NWR lands. All contents accumulated in the containment pan would be removed via vacuum truck and properly disposed of. All chemical tanks would be located within the bermed areas with adequate fencing if deemed necessary. All flowlines would be marked with State-approved signs. • The permanent pad size at the well pad site location would be of the minimum size necessary to support production and gathering pipeline operations, and future well maintenance needs. • Permittee would provide a schedule for monitoring of well sites and pipelines and associated equipment for approval by the Refuge Management. Monitoring would be conducted in a manner and during time frames, which minimize disturbance impacts to migratory birds and other wildlife and minimize conflicts with public recreational uses. • Permittee would provide the McFaddin NWR with a monthly report of well activity (cumulative numbers for oil and gas production). • All repair work to infrastructure and facilities would be thorough and permanent. Advanced verbal notification (minimum of 24 hours) to the Refuge Complex Project Leader or Refuge Manager would be required for conducting minor repairs planned in advance. An advanced written notification would be required for major repairs including well re-completions, tubing or down hole equipment repairs. • The provisions of 50 CFR §29.180 and 181 apply upon suspension of drilling operations or cessation of production at a well. Permittee would provide the Refuge Manager written notification if drilling operations have ended and no further action on the well has occurred within 60 calendar days; or when a well, which has been completed for production operations, has no measurable production quantities for 12 consecutive months. This notification would provide details of the Permittee’s intention to resume well operations, proceed to well plugging and reclamation, or maintain the well in shut-in status. The Permittee will modify its operations permit as appropriate. Resumption of well drilling or recompletion, production operations, or plugging and abandonment would begin within 90 days of this notification. Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 16 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 • Plugging and abandonment of wells would be conducted according to state law. Permittee would develop a Refuge Manager-approved Site Restoration Plan that meets the standards of 50 CFR §29.117 (b) or (d) as appropriate, and would begin site restoration within 90 days of official plugging and abandonment. All above ground structures/facilities would be removed. Permittee would be responsible for restoring the pad sites, roads, levees and other infrastructure as approved by the Refuge Manager. The surface of each pad, road and other infrastructure site would be restored as nearly as possible to its original condition. Any contaminated soils and materials would be removed and taken to a state approved waste disposal site. Should the permanent well pad and production/pipeline facilities support multiple wells, removal of the same and complete site restoration would be required to begin within 90 days of plugging and abandonment of all wells. The Refuge Manager may review Permittee’s operations for potential for partial reclamation in accordance with 50 CFR §29.117(b). • Permittee would be responsible for mitigating damages affecting existing wildlife habitat on the McFaddin NWR. Mitigation would include payment of fees and/or restoration and enhancement of like habitats impacted by drilling and production operations, as directed by the Refuge Manager. 2.3.3 Mitigation Measures to Protect Cultural Resources • Permittee would contract a State-certified archaeologist to conduct a file search of the Texas Archaeological Resource Library and a site survey (if required) of areas impacted by the project. • All cultural resources identified in the file search or site survey would be mapped and/or flagged in the field by the archaeologist prior to beginning operations, and such sites would be avoided by field crews during all phases of the project. • Any discovery of cultural artifacts or features during the course of the drilling and production operations would be immediately reported to the USFWS and State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The Refuge Manager would have “stop work” authority for any activity that may threaten a cultural artifact or feature. 2.3.4 Mitigation Measures to Minimize Interference with Public Use of the Refuge • Permittee or its assigns would provide adequate signage to inform the public of the program at highly visible intersections with the public. The Refuge Manager would approve signs advising the public regarding drilling activities, or signs addressing public safety, before being posted. • Except for emergency situations, which would require temporary traffic control, obstructing traffic while on the McFaddin NWR without 24-hour notification to the Refuge Manager would be prohibited. Permittee would immediately notify Refuge management of any emergency situations requiring traffic control. Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 17 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 • Oleum will adjust or reroute project work plans as necessary in order to avoid any impacts to public accesses during early teal season as approved by the Refuge Manager 2.3.5 Mitigation Measures to Protect Refuge Facilities and Infrastructure • All roads, bridges, trails, parking areas, levees, fences and gates, cattle guards, water control structures and other infrastructure impacted by drilling and production activities would be repaired, upon direction of the Refuge Manager, as nearly as possible to their condition prior to the commencement of operations at Permittee’s expense. Permittee would be required to maintain all other facilities on the McFaddin NWR, which would be used by Permittee and its assigns, in good working condition, and repair any damages caused by Permittee or its contractors and subcontractors. • A scheduled program of road and bridge maintenance would be employed by Permittee. Any damage to roads, bridges, cattle guards, water control structures and culverts during construction, drilling, and production activities would be repaired upon the direction of the Refuge Manager. Road maintenance would include repairs as necessary to the black top road as deemed necessary to Refuge specifications, the purchasing and spreading gravel, grading roads as needed, and mowing of road shoulders. The Refuge Manager would direct scheduled road maintenance and the specific method needed to maintain roads used by Permittee. Travel on roads during wet conditions could significantly damage roads. Dust emissions from roads caused by traffic travel to well pads would be reduced by application of water as needed. Dust suppression activities would be coordinated and approved by the Refuge Manager prior to proceeding. • Permittee would be responsible for determining weight and width limits of bridges, water control structures, and culverts on roads they would be required to travel to complete all phases of the drilling and production activities. If weight restrictions exceed limits, then Permittee would upgrade roads, bridges, cattle guards, water control structures, and culverts to handle the proposed traffic. • Upon execution of an Operations Permit, the Permittee will have obtained and maintain for a continuous time period acceptable to USFWS, a non-cancelable performance bond (the “Bond”), naming USFWS, Attn: Project Leader (“Obligee”), and securing Permittee’s performance for oil and gas operations conducted upon the Refuge and provide an acceptable remedy to any damage(s) to USFWS road(s), bridge(s) or other USFWS facilities related to the proposed action. A - The Bond shall be placed with a surety company, acceptable to the Obligee, which is authorized and admitted to do business in the State of Texas, approved by the United States Department of Treasury, listed in the Federal Register and licensed by the State of Texas to execute bonds as surety. All Bonds must be approved in writing by Obligee. B- “Performance” as used in this provision shall mean compliance with and completion to the satisfaction of all federal, state or other governmental agencies, laws, rules, orders, regulations , and stipulations in connection with all Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 18 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 obligations accepted and assumed hereunder by the Permittee, C- The Permittee will maintain the performance bond in full force during the life of the exploratory drilling permit. The operations permit will require a continuation of a portion of performance bond adequate for the time of the Operations permit or any renewal thereof and the liability period necessary to plug and abandon the well(s) and complete all reclamation operations. 2.3.6 Other Mitigation Measures • Permittee would save, hold harmless, defend and indemnify the United States of America, its agents, and employees, for losses, damages or judgments and expenses on account of bodily injury, death, or property damage, or claims for bodily injury, death or property damage of any nature whatsoever, and by whomever made, arising out of Permittee, its employees, contractors, subcontractors or agents with respect to all phases of this oil and gas development project on the McFaddin National Wildlife Refuge. • The failure of the USFWS to require strict performance of the terms, conditions, covenants, agreements or stipulations of this permit would not constitute a waiver or relinquishment of the right of the USFWS to strictly enforce thereafter such terms, conditions, covenants, agreements or stipulations which would, at all times, continue in full force and effect. • This permit, or any of its provisions, would not be considered as a waiver by the USFWS of Permittee’s responsibility to repair, or compensate for, any damages to McFaddin NWR habitats, fish and wildlife resources, and infrastructure including equipment resulting from all phases of the project. • The USFWS would reserve the right to modify or add conditions to this permit, if deemed necessary by the Refuge Manager, to protect the McFaddin NWR environment or enhance public safety. Any modifications to these conditions would not waive Permittee of its responsibility to repair, or compensate for, any damages caused by construction and drilling or production activities. All refuge regulations will be enforced, and the permittee shall follow all applicable laws and regulations. The permittee is responsible for the actions of all employees, contractors, and support personnel. Violation of the terms and conditions of this permit by Permittee or its assigns would be just cause for permit revocation. A complete list of regulations can be found in the “Code Of Federal Regulations, Title 50 – Wildlife and Fisheries” at: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi bin/textidx?SID=d9d36ddafb7f99bcf8519c88286bb5ed&mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title 50/50tab_02.tpl. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The Texas Chenier Plain National Wildlife Refuge Complex currently includes over 105,000 acres of public land managed and administered by the USFWS as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Refuge Complex includes four refuges: McFaddin NWR, Anahuac NWR, Texas Point NWR, and Moody NWR. The Refuge Complex offers a wide variety of coastal Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 19 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 wetland and upland habitats suitable for a diversity of wildlife species unique to the Texas coast such as coastal wetlands, coastal prairies, croplands, bayous, wooded riparian zones, and small coastal woodlots. “This complex of refuges includes some of the most important bird habitat on the Gulf Coast,” (Gulf Coast Bird Observatory, 2011). These NWRs were established under the authority of the MBCA and are managed by the USFWS, DOI, as units of the NWRS. All proposed activities considered within this EA would occur solely within the McFaddin NWR, specifically within the existing Clam Lake Oil Field area of the Refuge. The project area encompasses 1.17 acres of the McFaddin NWR within an existing, previously disturbed pipe storage yard in the Clam Lake Oil Field. McFaddin NWR is a coastal refuge located adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico in southeast Texas, approximately 75 miles east-southeast of Houston. The McFaddin NWR was established in 1980, under authority of the MBCA. Its boundary was expanded in 1995, 1996, and 2005, also under authority of the MBCA. Currently, the Refuge administers a total of 58,861 ac. McFaddin NWR is bounded on the south by the Gulf of Mexico, containing approximately 15 miles of Gulf shoreline. The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) comprises the northern boundary of the majority of the McFaddin NWR; however, the waterway dissects the eastern portion of the Refuge, dividing once contiguous watersheds into two distinct units. Two Texas State owned properties; Sea Rim State Park and J.D. Murphree Wildlife Management Area bound the McFaddin NWR to the east. The coastal marshes of the McFaddin NWR are home to a vast array of wildlife species. Common wildlife species present within the McFaddin NWR include small mammals such as northern river otter (Lontra canadensis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), common muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginianus), bobcat (Lynx rufus), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and coyote (Canis latrans). Several reptiles and amphibians can be observed within the McFaddin NWR including the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), and approximately 300 species of birds have also been documented during various times of the year. The McFaddin NWR lies within a biogeographical region known as the Chenier Plain (Gosselink et al., 1979). Geographically, the Chenier Plain region extends from Vermillion Bay in southwestern Louisiana to East Bay in southeastern Texas. A distinguishing feature of the region is the presence of cheniers (ridges representing the ancient Gulf shorelines), which are generally aligned parallel to the Gulf or as fan-shaped alluvial deposits at the mouths of rivers. The higher cheniers support woody vegetation, hence the name chenier, a French word which means “place of oaks”. Cheniers are more prevalent in Louisiana than in Texas, perhaps because of the alignment of the Gulf shoreline and its proximity to the Mississippi River, the Chenier Plain region’s primary sediment source. Given the region’s significant annual rainfall, wetlands isolated from the Gulf by the cheniers developed into highly productive and diverse freshwater coastal marsh habitats. The coastal marshes, prairies, and woodlots of the Chenier Plain region of southwestern Louisiana and southeast Texas comprise a hemispherically important biological area. These habitats are an important part of the primary wintering area for Central Flyway ducks and geese. Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 20 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 Additionally, the coastal marshes, prairies, and prairie wetlands of the Chenier Plain region serve as a critical staging area for Central Flyway waterfowl migrating to and from Mexico and Central and South America. Hundreds of thousands of shorebirds, wading birds, and other marsh and water birds also winter or migrate through the region, including several identified by the USFWS as Avian Species of Conservation Concern (USFWS, 2005). Coastal prairie and coastal woodlots on the Refuge Complex and adjacent areas support over 150 migratory and resident land bird species, including nine species of grassland birds and seven species utilizing woodland habitats listed as rare and declining within the Coastal Prairies Region of Texas (Shackleford and Lockwood, 2000). The wetland, prairie, and woodland habitats on the Refuge Complex provide important habitat for 35 of the 48 avian species listed by the USFWS as Species of Conservation Concern in the Gulf Prairies Bird Conservation Region (USFWS, 2005). 3.1 CLIMATE AND CLIMATE CHANGE The project area’s subtropical climate is highly variable and exerts both short-term and long-term influences on the environment. The dynamic nature of precipitation, temperature, and wind are the climatic factors influencing water and sediment movement and subsequently the development of the Chenier Plain region (USFWS, 2008). The region has a subtropical climate. Summers are hot and humid with prevailing southerly winds from offshore; winters are cool and wet. The seasonal precipitation based on a 40-year average of 51.7 inches is fairly uniform with the months of October, November, and March being drier than other months. The spring season along with September are the wettest months. July receives the greatest amount of precipitation. The wettest year in the areas history had over 70 inches of rainfall (Gosselink et al. 1979). The mean annual average temperature is about 68 degrees Fahrenheit (F), mean maximum annual average is about 77 degrees F, and the mean minimum annual average is about 58 degrees F. The average growing season is 250 days. Temperatures are rarely lower than 25 degrees F. Major freezes (USFWS, 2008). Tropical weather disturbances occur from late spring through late fall. Hurricanes and tropical storms cause both wind and water erosion. Storm surges and heavy rains produce abnormally large volumes of water inland, which drain to the Gulf of Mexico through restricted waterways. The predicted level of water for a hurricane in this area is 10.7 ft above mean sea level (MSL). The storm interval that would produce 15 ft tides is predicted to be 1 in 100 years, 13.5 ft tides 1 in 50 years, 10.7 ft tides 1 in 25 years, 7.8 ft tides 1 in 10 years, and 5.4 ft tides 1 in 5 years (USFWS, 2008). Among the most serious consequences of forecast climate change are sea level rise and the likely increase in hurricane intensity and associated storm surge. Global sea level is projected to rise during the 21st century at a greater rate than during 1961 to 2003. Subsidence, or land sinking, also contributes heavily to coastal erosion and land loss along Texas and Louisiana coastal areas. The result will be shoreline retreat and inundation of the Refuge, absent continued efforts at Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 21 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 beach nutrition on the Refuge. Predicted impacts of sea level rise include increased risks of coastal erosion, conversion of wetlands to open water, increase in salinity of estuaries and freshwater aquifers and flooding for coastal communities. Rising sea temperatures are expected to increase the frequency and strength of hurricanes. Stronger storms with higher wind speeds, more intense rainfall, and more powerful surges are expected to cause more severe damage. As sea level rises and salinities increase, vegetation zones will migrate inland; present salt marsh will convert to open water, brackish marsh will become saline, freshwater marsh will become brackish, and freshwater swamps and shrub communities will convert to herbaceous systems as episodes of salt water intrusion become more frequent and occur further inland (USFWS, 2016). 3.2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS The existing physiography, soils, and geomorphology of the project region are a result of complex interactions of hydrological, meteorological, and geological processes that occurred during two epochs of the Quaternary period. River, Gulf, and subsurface aquatic systems are the primary medium for transporting and mixing sediment and nutrients. Rivers transport sediments and nutrients from inland catchment basins to the mixing and receiving basins of the estuaries, marshlands, and the Gulf of Mexico. The main source of sediment for the Chenier Plain region was reworked former delta sediments of the Mississippi River, combined with sediments of adjacent active distributaries (channels) of the Mississippi. In the Texas portion of the Chenier Plain region, sediments were also supplied by the Sabine, Neches and Trinity Rivers. Depositional and erosional processes have resulted in land gain or loss through time (USFWS, 2008). According to the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Houston Sheet (Aronow and Barnes, 1996), the surface geologic units present within the project area are Barrier-island deposits and Alluvium of the Holocene Era. Barrier-island deposits are present in a small ridge along the Gulf Coast within the project area. Alluvium comprises the majority of the project area, beginning immediately inland of the Barrier-island deposits. McFaddin NWR is located within the Chenier Plain of the upper Texas Gulf Coast. Relatively high chenier beach ridges, known as the modern strandplain-chenier system, occur east of McFaddin NWR near Sabine Pass and State Highway 87. Due to erosion and shoreline retreat, a much lower and narrower “beach ridge” remains along the Gulf of Mexico within McFaddin NWR. This ridge varies in elevation from approximately 2.5 feet to 5 feet above mean sea level (MSL) between Clam Lake and High Island. Inland from the beach ridge of the McFaddin NWR and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) embankment comprises the northern boundary of McFaddin NWR, a topographically lower area, predominantly composed of coastal marsh interspersed with slightly higher saline prairie habitats. Topography ranges from below MSL to approximately 2.5 feet above MSL in the marshes and saline prairie ridges (USFWS, 2008). The Chenier Plain region is part of a recent geologic plain. Most soils within the McFaddin NWR are remnants of ancient floodplains and Gulf of Mexico beaches and consist of old alluvium and marine sediment deposited by ancient streams and the Gulf of Mexico. These deposits are mostly clayey and sandy soils and exhibit a wide range in textural differences due to their origin within historic floodplain systems. The McFaddin NWR in its entirety is located Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 22 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 within the 100-year floodplain. The soil types, both acidic and alkaline, are poorly drained with slow permeability, moderate to high salinity, and a high shrink-swell potential (USFWS, 2008; USFWS, 1994a). According to the Soil Survey of Orange and Jefferson Counties, Texas (Crenwelge, 1996) the soil mapping units within the project area vicinity include: Creole mucky peat; Leerco muck; and Caplen mucky peat (Figure 3). All proposed project activities would occur within upland, previously disturbed locations, identified within the Creole mucky peat soil mapping unit. The Creole mucky peat soil mapping unit consists of firm clayey backswamp deposits, has very slow permeability and is very poorly drained. This mapping unit is generally found in marshes and dominant vegetation includes marshhay cordgrass, seashore saltgrass, seashore paspalum, bushy sea-oxeye, and bulrush. The Leerco muck, frequently flooded, tidal soil mapping unit consists of fluid clayey backswamp deposits, has very slow permeability and is very poorly drained. This mapping unit is generally found in intermediate marshes dominated by marshhay cordgrass, seashore paspalum, coast cockspur, California bulrush and olney bulrush. The Caplen mucky peat, frequently flooded, tidal soil mapping unit consists of fluid clayey backswamp deposits, has very slow permeability, and is very poorly drained. This mapping unit is generally found in marshes and is dominated by marshhay cordgrass, softstem bulrush, Olney bulrush, seashore paspalum, and coast cockspur. 3.3 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The historical pattern of hydrology in the Chenier Plain region was critical to the building processes that created and maintained the diversity of its coastal wetlands. Frequent flooding over low bayou banks and large volumes of rainwater flowing slowly across coastal prairies and marshes provided nutrients, sediments, and freshwater to marsh systems. Natural drainage allowed a cyclic pattern of drying and flooding under which wetland plants evolved and adapted. Over the past 5,000 years, the Chenier Plain region was predominately a freshwater coastal marsh system, but contained a continuum of coastal marsh types associated with a natural salinity gradient. This continuum of freshwater, intermediate, brackish, and saline wetlands supported a diversity of floral and faunal communities (USFWS, 2008). Modifications of regional hydrology have affected ecological and geological processes critical to the long-term integrity of coastal ecosystems in the Chenier Plain region. In general, the primary human-induced activities that have affected coastal wetlands include construction of the GIWW and smaller navigation canals; oil, gas and groundwater extraction; and channelization and deepening of natural waterways for navigation and inland drainage. The consequences of these activities have resulted in various ecological responses, some of which are directly responsible for the onset of others (Stutzenbaker, 1990; White and Tremblay, 1995). The project area occurs within the Salt Bayou watershed. Several estuarine and palustrine lakes, marshes, and sloughs are located on or traverse the McFaddin NWR in the project vicinity. Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 23 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 w\I; Legend FigUl'e 3: Soils Map Oleum Exploration · Proposed Well Pad - Proposed 1-'ad Site A McFaddin National Wildlife Refuge n2,ooo J effer on County, Texa s Creole mucky peuL - Leen;o muck Map Base: 2016 ClRAerial Imagery from TNRL Map Datum: 1\AD 1983 u'J'!'l,1 Zone 15N, meters 0 0.05 0.1 0.l:! - Wa ter Map Date: June 13, 2017 -- Miles Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 24 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 Those that have been named include Clam Lake and Five-Mile Cut (Salt Bayou). Completion of the GIWW cut off and diverted freshwater inflows as it divided the once continuous watersheds and marsh systems in the project area. The GIWW forms a portion of the northern boundary of McFaddin NWR. The elevated banks of the GIWW, comprised of soils excavated during the canal’s construction, are eroding rapidly. Maintenance of these levees is a key management strategy to protect the interior marshes in the McFaddin NWR from saltwater intrusion. Figure 4 provides a depiction of the waters and wetlands present within the project vicinity; no wetlands or waters are present within the project boundary. Surface water quality in the region and McFaddin NWR is influenced by industrial and agricultural practices and saltwater intrusion. The movement of saltwater from the Gulf and bays inland through the bayou and marsh systems varies depending upon tidal action, storms, and storm runoff. Within the area, channel construction including the GIWW and channelization of natural waterways have facilitated the movement of saltwater further inland than what occurred historically or what would occur under natural conditions. The level and impacts of saltwater intrusion vary by area (USFWS, 2008). 3.4 VEGETATION AND HABITAT All proposed project activities would occur within upland, previously disturbed locations, with no native vegetation or habitats being impacted. Vegetation communities on the McFaddin NWR are primarily determined by soil type, water depth and salinity. These vegetation communities are important for waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and other water birds wintering on or migrating through the upper Texas Gulf Coast (USFWS, 2008). Wetland habitats within the Chenier Plain region include coastal marshes, forested wetlands along major river and bayou systems, natural and man-made wetlands (i.e. reservoirs, livestock ponds, rice fields) associated with upland prairies inland of the marshes, and open water of bays, rivers bayous and other waterways. Wetland habitats include estuarine, palustrine, riverine, and lacustrine wetlands (Moulton et al., 1997). The intermediate, brackish, and saline emergent marshes found within the Refuge Complex are estuarine intertidal emergent wetlands [USFWS, National Wetland Inventory (NWI)]. Freshwater wetland habitats within the Refuge Complex include palustrine emergent (fresh marsh and wet prairies) and some natural “prairie wetlands.” Estuarine intertidal emergent, palustrine emergent and palustrine forested wetlands are all recognized as nationally-declining wetland types (USFWS, NWI). Several categories of estuarine intertidal and freshwater (palustrine) wetlands are recognized as nationally-declining wetland types (USFWS, NWI). Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 25 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 r tlands Map Figure 4: v\e d Well Pad . n _ Pl'Opose 0 1 um Explorab.? 1 Wildlife Refuge McFae ddin N ationa 1:12,000 6 1 l agory from M M Map ilase: 20~ADCll {Ae198:Jri Ua 'l'MIll., 7~~~71,5 1\' met a1·s ' TNRlS ____ 1 =:..:.:,__- .,,,.1p~D:,.t:min-~D~~ e:._:!·J~un'..'.;_ e ~I.,::._:, -:.::,____ _Jo!!o~.0!!5~O. ~ c~R;iVCJ~·j n~c______,v~ ·M,,p a , . ------~ Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 26 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 Open water habitats were historically vegetated by a diverse group of submerged aquatic vegetation, with freshwater species consisting of plants such as American lotus, long leaf pondweed, fanwort, and coontail. Species such as the blue water lily, white water lily, banana water lily, baby pondweed, sago pondweed, and southern naiad are considered intermediate tolerant species for salinity. Widgeon grass, a more salt tolerant species, historically vegetated the open water areas as well (USFWS, 2008). Upland habitats present within the Refuge Complex include salty prairies, remnant tall-grass prairies, and small remnant woodlands. Salty prairies occur as elevated ridges interspersed within marsh habitats. Other upland habitats found on the Refuge Complex are the beach ridges and dunes along the Gulf of Mexico and small coastal woodlands located on the chenier ridges or on elevated features (both natural and man-made) including bayou banks and levees. Typical woody vegetation present in coastal woodland areas include; red mulberry, hackberry, Chinese tallow, live oak, southern wax myrtle, yaupon holly, and sweetgum. These woodlots are heavily used rest areas during spring and fall migrations by neotropical migrant birds (USFWS, 2008). No endangered or threatened plants as listed by the USFWS and/or TPWD occur within Jefferson County. Scientific names of the vegetation referenced in this section were not included in the text; however, all vegetation referenced in this section is included in Tables 1 and 2, along with scientific names. 3.4.1 Wetland and Aquatic Habitats No proposed project activities would occur within or have an impact on wetland and aquatic habitats. Wetland and aquatic habitats within the project vicinity include Clam Lake (a natural, brackish lake), intermediate marsh, and brackish marsh. 3.4.1.1 Estuarine and Palustrine Wetlands Estuarine intertidal, palustrine emergent and open water wetlands on the Refuge Complex include the continuum of coastal marsh types found in the Chenier Plain region, from fresh to saline along a salinity gradient. This continuum includes freshwater marshes (salinities less than 0.5 parts per thousand), intermediate marsh (salinities range from 0.5 to <5.0 ppt, with an average salinity of 3.3 ppt), brackish marsh (salinities range from 5.0 to 18.0 ppt, with an average salinity of 8.0 ppt) and saline marsh with salinities greater than 18.0 ppt. Emergent and aquatic plant species have different tolerances to salinity. Water and soil salinities are important influencing factors on plant species composition, as well as fish and wildlife composition in the various marsh types (USFWS, 2008). Table 1 lists the common indicator plant species for the emergent marsh types occurring within the portion of the Refuge Complex included in the vicinity of the project area. Both local precipitation and drainage of inland waters along natural and man-made waterways provide freshwater inflows to the project area’s coastal marshes. The freshwater marsh and wet prairies generally occur adjacent to the upland prairies, where freshwater from precipitation and/or inland drainage accumulates in level and low-lying areas. These palustrine emergent Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 27 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 wetlands are non-tidal, and receive influx of saltwater only under high storm surge conditions generated by the more severe hurricanes and tropical storms. Plant species found exclusively in the freshwater marsh are only salt tolerant at very low levels (USFWS, 2008). The intermediate marsh generally lies seaward of the fresh marsh. These estuarine marshes are primarily micro-tidal (i.e. are not subject to daily tidal action) but receive influxes of saltwater during higher tides associated with storms and the vernal and autumnal equinoxes. Intermediate marsh is the predominant marsh type on the Refuge Complex, and contains the greatest overlap of plant species whose salinity tolerances range from fresh to brackish. Common emergent plant species include marshhay cordgrass, Olney bulrush, and seashore paspalum (USFWS, 2008). Brackish marshes lie generally seaward of intermediate marshes and adjacent to tidally influenced waterways. Brackish marshes receive greater tidal influx than intermediate marshes. Common emergent plant species include marshhay cordgrass, seashore saltgrass, and saltmarsh bulrush (USFWS, 2008). Saline marshes are subject to daily tidal influences. These marsh areas lie adjacent to bays and other tidally influenced waterways. Smooth cordgrass and black rush are the two dominant emergent plant species found in saline marshes (USFWS, 2008). The full continuum of marsh types supports highly diverse and productive biological communities, and conservation of biological diversity in the project area is dependent on maintaining this continuum of wetland habitats. Plant and animal diversity is greater in the fresh and intermediate marshes than in the brackish and saline marsh types. Intermediate marsh receives the highest use of any of the marsh types by wintering and migrating waterfowl and by many wading bird species. Fresh, intermediate and brackish marshes are extremely important to migratory waterfowl. Brackish and saline marshes provide important habitat for many shorebird and colonial-nesting waterbird species, and are the primary nursery habitat for larval and post- larval stages of many commercially and recreationally-important marine fish and shellfish species (USFWS, 2008). 3.4.1.2 Aquatic Habitats Aquatic habitats within the McFaddin NWR within the project vicinity include all inland open water bodies. These open water bodies include ponds, lakes, bayous, sloughs, tidal creeks, drainage ditches, and canals (USFWS, 2008). Similar to estuarine and palustrine emergent wetlands, inland open water habitats occur along a salinity gradient that ranges from below 0.5 ppt (fresh) to over 25 ppt (saline). Plant communities vary greatly as the salinity changes along the gradient. Saline open water habitat is generally shallow and turbid and is not likely to support any rooted vascular plants. Phytoplankton are the most likely plant or plant-like species to occur in this habitat. As salinity decreases, the potential for, and the diversity of vascular plants increases. Common vascular plant species include a number of rooted and floating aquatic plant species such as widgeon grass, several pondweeds, banana water lily and American lotus (USFWS, 2008). A list of common plant species that may be present within inland open water habitats is included within Table 1. Salinity ranges in inland open water habitats have a significant influence on the plant and animal community composition Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 28 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 that occurs in these habitats. In general, the salinity gradient produces high species richness (USFWS, 2008). Table 1: Common Indicator Plant Species Of Wetland and Aquatic Habitats on the Texas Chenier Plain National Wildlife Refuge Complex Associated Plant Species Marsh Type Common Name Scientific Name Smooth cordgrass Spartina alterniflora Glassworts Salicornia spp. Marshhay cordgrass Spartina patens Maritime saltwort Batis maritime Saline Seashore saltgrass Distichlis spicata Black rush Juncus roemerianus Saline marsh aster Aster tenuifolius Carolina wolfberry Lycium carolinianum Bushy sea-oxeye daisy Borrichia frutescens Saltmarsh bulrush Bulbuschoesus robustus Widgeon grass Ruppia maritima Dwarf spikerush Eleocharis parvula Brackish Marsh pea Vigna luteola Water hemp Amaranthus australis Marshhay cordgrass Spartina patens Seashore saltgrass Distichlis spicata Olney bulrush Bulbuschoesus olneyi Coastal water hyssop Bacopa monneri California bulrush Scirpus californicus Banana water lily Nymphaea mexicana Colorado river hemp Sesbania macrocarpa Marshhay cordgrass Spartina patens Seashore paspalum Paspalum virginatum Intermediate Baby pondweed Potamogeton pusillus Sand spikesedge Eleocharis montevidensis Narrow leaf cattail Typha angustifolia Common reed Phragmites australis Spikerushes Eleocharis spp. Sago pondweed Potamogeton pectinatus Coast cockspur Echinochloa walteri Sprangletop Leptochloa spp. Maiden cane Panicum hemitomon Duckweed Lemna spp. Giant cutgrass Zizaniopsis miliacea Fanwort Cabomba caroliniana Rice cutgrass Leersia oryzoides Watershield Rasenia scherberi Marsh millet Echinochloa spp. Fresh American lotus Nelunbo lutea Arrowheads Sagittaria spp. Blatterworts Utricularia spp. White water lily Nymphaea odorata Marshhay cordgrass Spartina patens Alligatorweed Alternathera philoxeroides Jamaica sawgrass Cladium jamaicense Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 29 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 Table 1: Common Indicator Plant Species Of Wetland and Aquatic Habitats on the Texas Chenier Plain National Wildlife Refuge Complex Associated Plant Species Marsh Type Common Name Scientific Name Southern naiad Najas guadalupensis Smartweeds Polygonum spp. Flat sedges Cyperus spp. Sand rush Eleocharis montevidensis Sprangletop Leptochloa spp. Longtom Paspalum lividum Burrheads Echinodorus spp. Squarestem spikerush Eleocharis quadrangulata Rattlebox Sesbania texana Sago pondweed Potamogeton pectinatus Duckweed Lemna spp. Inland Open Southern naiad Najas guadalupensis Water1 Water lettuce Pistia stratiotes Widgeon grass Ruppia maritima Alligatorweed Alternathera philoxeroides 1 (ditches, canals, tidal creeks, bayous, lakes, and ponds) 3.4.2 Uplands No proposed project activities would occur within native upland habitats; the proposed project area is located within a previously disturbed upland pipe yard site that was built up as a part of the Clam Lake Oil Field infrastructure prior to Refuge acquisition. Upland habitats within the project vicinity include salty prairie and beach (near the intersection of the existing proposed access route of Clam Lake Road and State Highway 87). The Refuge Complex has four different upland habitats. The habitats are classified as native prairie (salty prairie and non-saline tall grass prairie), upland forest and woodlots, as well as beach and dunes. Salty prairie, beach and dunes occur within the project area vicinity. Table 2 includes plant indicator species found within terrestrial and upland habitats within the Refuge Complex. 3.4.2.1 Native Prairie Salty prairie habitats are found on low-lying coastal ridges and flats, which are slightly higher in elevation than the adjacent marshes. Plant communities typical of salty prairies can also be found on elevated man-made features including dredged material deposits (spoil) and levees. Salty prairies are characterized by the presence of gulf cordgrass as the dominant vegetative species. Other common native plant species include knotroot bristlegrass, bushy bluestem, seaside goldenrod, western ragweed, wooly rosemallow, saltmarsh aster, seepweed, annual sumpweed, and bigleaf sumpweed (Table 2). Highly disturbed salty prairie sites are likely to also include species such as rabbitfoot grass, shoregrass, bushy ox-eye daisy, and salt heliotrope (USFWS, 2008). Salty prairies provide important nesting habitat for mottled ducks, a resident waterfowl species (Stutzenbaker, 1988). Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 30 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 Table 2: Indicator Plant Species of Terrestrial Upland Habitats on the Texas Chenier Plain National Wildlife Refuge Complex Upland Habitat Associated Plant Species Type Common Name Scientific Name Gulf cordgrass Spartina spartinae Knotroot bristlegrass Seteria geniculata Salty Prairie Seaside goldenrod Solidago sempervirens Eastern baccharis Baccharis halimifolia Little bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium Indiangrass Sorgastrum nutans Native Prairie Switchgrass Panicum virgatum Brownseed paspalum Paspalum plicatulum (non-saline) Southern wax myrtle Myrica cerifera Bushy bluestem Andropogon glomeratus Panicum grasses Panicum spp. Broomsedge bluestem Andropogon virginicus Bushy bluestem Andropogon glomeratus Brownseed paspalum Paspalum spp. Vaseygrass Paspalum urvillei Prairie Bermuda grass Cynodon dactylon Grasslands Blue verbena Verbena brasiliensis (non-saline) Seacoast sumpweed Iva annua Giant ragweed Ambrosia trifida Southern dewberry Rubus trivialis Eastern baccharis Baccharis halimifolia Chinese tallow Sapium sebiferum Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Red mulberry Morus rubra Black willow Salix nigra Live oak Quercus virginiana Upland Forest Common persimmon Diospyros virginiana and Woodlots Sugarberry Celtis laevigata Prickly ash Zanthoxylum clava-herculis Slash pine Pinus elliottii Salt cedar Tamarix gallica Chinese tallow Sapium sebiferum Sea purslane Sesuvium maritium Whorled dropseed Sporobolus pyramidatus Saltmeadow cordgrass Spartina patens Bitter panicum Panicum amarum White morning-glory Ipomoea stolonifera Camphor daisy Haglopappus phyllocephalus Beach Ridges Silver croton Croton punctatus and Dune Virginia dropseed Sporobolus virginicus Goat-foot morning-glory Ipomoea pes-caprae Beach evening primrose Oenothera drummondii Glassworts Salicornia spp. Salt heliotrope Heliotropium curassavicum Sea-lavender Limonium carolinianum Bushy ox-eye daisy Borrichia frutescens Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 31 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 Many faunal species typical of prairies, such as Henslow’s sparrow, smooth green snake, and prairie voles, were found year round in the Gulf Coast prairies. Dickcissels still nest in these coastal grasslands, and many other avian species utilize Gulf Coast prairies as wintering and /or migratory habitat. Many of the birds that would benefit from protection and management of native coastal prairie habitats are species that are declining in the Coastal Prairies Region of Texas (Shackelford and Lockwood, 2000), and /or are among several species listed by USFWS as “Avian Species of Conservation Concern” (ASCC) in the Gulf Prairies Bird Conservation Region (USFWS, 2002). For example, mottled duck, white-tailed hawk, northern bobwhite, yellow rail, black rail, buff-breasted sandpiper, short-eared owl, sedge wren, and LeConte’s sparrow are all species of conservation concern that utilize native prairie habitats (USFWS, 2008). The mottled duck is a southern species that spends its whole life cycle in coastal prairies and adjacent marshes. The historical prairie-wetland continuum of the upper Texas coast provided nesting cover and brood habitat in close proximity. In a study of mottled ducks nesting in agricultural lands in Louisiana, the habitat category that was most like native coastal prairie, permanent pasture with knolls, provided better nesting habitat than any other (Durham and Afton, 2003). The dense nesting cover and mima mounds that are characteristic of coastal prairie probably provided excellent nesting habitat for resident mottled ducks. Stutzenbaker (1988) identified shallow depressional wetlands found in the prairie zone, known as “sennabean ponds” as a valuable brood rearing habitat for this species. 3.4.2.2 Beach, Beach Ridges, and Dunes Gulf of Mexico beaches along the McFaddin NWR’s southern boundary are generally narrow and fairly steep, backed by a low beach ridge/dune complex (Morton, 1998). Coarse sediment supply was probably never in this mud-dominated littoral system, and it has been further decreased by river diversions, dams, navigational channels, and jetty systems (Texas GLO, 1996). Most of the Gulf of Mexico shoreline on the McFaddin NWR is retreating, resulting in a loss of vegetated beach dune ridge, salty prairie, and marsh habitats. The vegetation of beach/beach ridge and dunes is a mixture of typical salt-tolerant marsh and beach plants, characteristic of subtropical areas (Gosselink, et al., 1979). Plants typical of this habitat include saltmeadow cordgrass, camphor weed, bitter panicum, gulf croton, common cocklebur, coast dozedaisy, little bluestem, Indiangrass, and switchgrass. Traditional salt tolerant species behind dunes and ridges are those found in vegetated salt flats such as shoregrass, Bigelow glasswort, Virginia glasswort, maritime saltwort, salt heliotrope, sea lavender, and bushy sea oxeye daisy. When grasses are overgrazed, Bermuda grass, carpet grass, and annual weeds and forbs invade the habitat. Overall, plant productivity in beach habitats is limited. 3.5 FISH AND WILDLIFE The Refuge Complex provides important habitats for hundreds of fish and wildlife species. Located along the coast, the McFaddin NWR provides critical habitat to both freshwater and saltwater fish and other aquatic species, as well as resident and migratory birds. Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 32 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 3.5.1 Avian Species A total of 285 avian species have been recorded on the Refuge Complex, of which 52 species have been documented nesting within the Refuge Complex. Wetland habitats of the project area support major concentrations of wintering and migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds and provide important habitat for many species of marsh birds and water birds. Many species of land birds, including many species of neo-tropical migrants, use the coastal woodlots and other forested habitats within and adjacent to the project area in large numbers during the spring and fall migrations. Remnant stands of native prairie and other upland grassland habitats provide habitat for many grassland songbirds, including several species whose continental populations are in decline (USFWS, 2008). Birds commonly observed within the Refuge Complex are listed in Table 3. Bird species known to nest within the Refuge Complex are listed in Table 4. Table 3: Avian Species Frequently Observed on the Texas Chenier Plain Complex Pied-billed Grebe Mottled Duck Long-billed Dowitcher Eared Grebe Mallard Common Snipe Laughing Gull Northern Pintail Mourning Dove American White Pelican Northern Shoveler Loggerhead Shrike Ring-billed Gull Gadwall Swamp Sparrow Double-crested Cormorant Lesser Scaup Red-winged Blackbird Gull-billed Tern Ruddy Duck Eastern Meadowlark Least Bittern Northern Bobwhite Brown-headed Cowbird Forster’s Tern Clapper Rail House Sparrow Great Blue Heron King Rail Horned Lark Great Egret Common Moorhen Savannah Sparrow Snowy Egret American Coot Sedge Wren Tricolored Heron Killdeer European Starling Cattle Egret Black-necked Stilt Seaside Sparrow Green Heron Greater Yellowlegs Common Grackle Common Yellowthroat Lesser Yellowlegs Boat-tailed Grackle Black-crowned Night Heron Willet Turkey Vulture White Ibis Long-billed Curlew Northern Harrier White-faced Ibis Semipalmated Sandpiper Red-tailed Hawk Roseate Spoonbill Western Sandpiper Green-winged Teal Dunlin Table 4: Avian Species Known to Nest on the Texas Chenier Plain Complex American Coot Masked Duck Dickcissel Black-bellied Whistling-Duck Mottled Duck European Starling Black-crowned Night-Heron Mourning Dove Downy Woodpecker Black-necked Stilt Northern Bobwhite Eastern Kingbird Blue-winged Teal Pied-billed Grebe Barn Swallow Cattle Egret Purple Gallinule Boat-tailed Grackle Clapper Rail Ruddy Duck Common Nighthawk Common Moorhen Snowy Egret Loggerhead Shrike Crested Caracara Tricolored Heron Northern Cardinal Fulvous Whistling-Duck Willet Common Yellowthroat Great Blue Heron Yellow-billed Cuckoo Red-winged Blackbird Great Egret Yellow-crowned Night-Heron Barn Owl Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 33 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 Table 4: Avian Species Known to Nest on the Texas Chenier Plain Complex Green Heron House Sparrow Brown-headed Cowbird Inca Dove Northern Mockingbird Painted Bunting Killdeer Carolina Chickadee Scissor-tailed Flycatcher King Rail Seaside Sparrow Horned Lark Least Bittern Purple Martin Marsh Wren Least Tern Eastern Meadowlark Little Blue Heron Orchard Oriole 3.5.1.1 Waterfowl The coastal marshes, wet prairies, rice fields, and moist soil units of the Refuge Complex are used by 27 species of ducks and five species of geese including lesser snow geese, Ross’s geese, greater white-fronted geese, Canada geese, and black brant (rare) (USFWS, 1994b). The Refuge Complex is part of the southern terminus for most ducks and geese of the Central Flyway, and also some waterfowl from the Mississippi, Atlantic and Pacific Flyways that winter on the Texas Gulf Coast. The 2011 Mid-winter Waterfowl Survey for the Central Flyway indicated that 8,335,682 waterfowl used the Central Flyway. Of those birds, 5,273,129 waterfowl (63.26 %) wintered in Texas (USFWS, 2008). The McFaddin NWR provides important year-round habitat for the resident mottled duck. Although not in large numbers, other waterfowl species nesting in the area include blue-winged teal, ruddy duck, and masked duck. Nesting populations of fulvous and black-bellied whistling ducks have increased in recent years (USFWS, 2008). The mottled duck is a resident waterfowl species that is entirely dependent upon coastal habitats along the Gulf of Mexico. Two populations of mottled duck are recognized; one in Florida, and the western Gulf population, which utilizes coastal habitats in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and Mexico. No interchange between these two populations is believed to occur. Mottled duck numbers in Texas have declined in recent years. The Upper Texas Gulf Coast, including the Refuge Complex, has historically been the core of mottled duck habitat in Texas. Wetland and grassland habitat, as well as agricultural fields, primarily rice, continue to be extremely important to the western Gulf population of mottled ducks (USFWS, 2008). 3.5.1.2 Shorebirds, Wading Birds, Marsh Birds, and Water Birds The tidal flats, beaches, and marshes on the McFaddin NWR and adjacent areas within the project area provide shallow water feeding, breeding, and resting habitat for numerous shorebirds, wading birds, marsh birds, and other water birds. Thirty-two species of shorebirds regularly occur on the Refuge Complex, ten of which are considered “highly imperiled” or of “high concern.” Common nesting shorebird species include: killdeer, black-necked stilt, and willet. Other shorebird and related species commonly observed in the project area include long-billed curlew, Wilson’s snipe, ringed-billed gull, laughing gull, herring gull, least tern (a nesting species), royal terns, and Caspian terns (USFWS, 1997). Small rookeries of colonial nesting birds occur throughout the Chenier Plain region, including rookeries inhabited by the following wading birds: great egret, snowy egret, cattle egret, green heron, great blue heron, black-crowned night heron, yellow-crown night heron, and roseate Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 34 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 spoonbill. Nesting colonies of other colonial nesters including least terns and black skimmers occur on beaches, wash-over terraces, and occasionally on man-made sites such as oil and gas well pad sites. On the Refuge Complex, nesting and/or wading, marsh and water bird species include great blue heron, little blue heron, green heron, tri-colored heron, great egret, snowy egret, American bittern, least bittern, common moorhen, purple gallinule, pied-billed grebe, least tern, and American coot (USFWS, 1997). All six North American species of rail occur in the marshes and wet prairie grasslands of the Refuge Complex. King and clapper rails nest on the Refuge Complex and are present year-round. The black rail has not been documented as nesting on the Refuge Complex, but is also present year-round. Sora, Virginia, and yellow rails utilize these habitats during spring and fall migrations. 3.5.1.3 Migratory and Resident Land Birds Many passerines that nest in temperate North America and winter in Central and South America migrate through the Chenier Plain region, crossing the Gulf of Mexico during spring and fall migrations. During spring migrations, coastal woodlots, alluvial forest, and other wooded habitats in the project area provide the first landfall for these trans-Gulf neo-tropical migrants. Migrant passerines that use the Refuge Complex include many species of warblers, vireos, tanagers, thrushes and buntings, as well as many ASCC (USFWS, 2005). Songbird species nesting on the Refuge Complex include orchard oriole, eastern kingbird, and scissor-tailed flycatcher (USFWS, 2008). Native prairie remnants and other upland grassland habitats on the Refuge Complex provide wintering and migration habitat for several grassland songbird species, including LeConte’s sparrow and Nelson’s sharp-tailed sparrow, and nesting habitat for dickcissel and eastern meadowlark among others (USFWS, 2008). Several species of raptors commonly observed in the project area include red-tailed hawk, red- shouldered hawk, turkey vulture, American kestrel, white-tailed kite, northern harrier and short- eared owl (USFWS, 1994a). Many other raptor species are observed during spring and fall migrations. Several hundred thousand people, including many international visitors, visit the Refuge Complex annually from late March to early May to bird watch during spring migration. Popular destinations on or near the project area include the Refuge Complex, local State Wildlife Management Areas and State Parks, the Audubon Society Preserves at High Island and Bolivar Flats, and the Texas Ornithological Society Sabine Woods Sanctuary in Sabine Pass (USFWS, 2008). 3.5.1.4 Avian Species of Conservation Concern Conservation priorities for North American avian species and recommendations for habitat protection, management and restoration in support of conservation of these species have been developed and identified recently through several international, national and regional avian conservation plans. These plans include the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), United States Shorebird Conservation Plan, the North American Waterbird Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 35 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 Conservation Plan, and the Partners in Flight Landbird Conservation Plan. At a regional level, several step-down plans have been developed to guide conservation efforts at a more local scale. Examples applicable to avian conservation on the Refuge Complex, include the Gulf Coast Joint Venture Chenier Plain Initiative Area Plan (Esslinger and Wilson, 2001) under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the Lower Mississippi/Western Gulf Coast Regional Plan (Elliot and McKnight, 2000) under the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. In 2008, the USFWS published a national list of “Birds of Conservation Concern” (BCC). Thirty-five of the 44 BCC listed for the Gulf Coast Prairie Bird Conservation Region occur within the Refuge Complex. Wetland dependent BCC occurring on or near the project area include yellow and black rails, American bittern, Hudsonian godwit, long-billed curlew, short- billed dowitcher, least tern, seaside sparrow, and Sprague’s pipit. Avian Species of Conservation Concern utilizing prairie grasslands on or near the project area include LeConte’s sparrow, Nelson’s sharp-tailed sparrow, buff-breasted sandpiper, loggerhead shrike and white-tailed hawk. Neo-tropical migrant landbirds listed as BCC, which utilize the woodland habitats on or near the project area, include Swainson’s warbler, prothonotary warbler, and swallow-tailed kite (USFWS, 2008). The Partners in Flight (PIF) Conservation Program is an international, multi-agency and multi- organizational conservation initiative for North American landbirds and waterbirds. PIF recently completed an assessment of the status and conservation needs of all North American land and waterbirds. This assessment included consideration of population trends, habitat trends, and threats on wintering and breeding grounds. National, regional, and more local conservation priorities were determined. These species represent conservation priorities for USFWS and other PIF partners including state wildlife agencies, the United States Forest Service, and other governmental and private partners. Multi-agency PIF conservation strategies for Texas are currently under development, and these strategies will guide management activities at the local and regional scale. In Texas, the PIF partners have identified priority species for conservation, monitoring, and management in relation to the specific habitat types and seasons within the Texas Coastal Prairies Region (Shackleford and Lockwood, 2000), which include the Refuge Complex. Habitats within the project area provide wintering, migrational, and/or nesting habitat for 16 species of wetland associated birds, 9 species of grassland birds, and 13 species utilizing woodland habitats, which are listed as rare or declining within the Texas Coastal Prairies Region (Table 5). Table 5: List of Rare and Declining Birds In the Coastal Prairies Region of Texas (Shackleford and Lockwood, 2000) Occurring on the Refuge Complex (per Habitat) Wetlands/Marshes Grasslands/Prairies Woodlands or Scrub Piping Plover Dickcissel Swainson’s Warbler Brown Pelican Scissor-tailed Flycatcher Prothonotary Warbler Bald Eagle Whit-tailed Hawk Yellow-billed Cuckoo Peregrine Falcon Loggerhead Shrike Hooded Warbler Reddish Egret Northern Bobwhite Swallow-tailed Kite Mottled Duck Barn Owl Kentucky Warbler Seaside Sparrow Sprague’s Pipit American Woodcock Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 36 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 Table 5: List of Rare and Declining Birds In the Coastal Prairies Region of Texas (Shackleford and Lockwood, 2000) Occurring on the Refuge Complex (per Habitat) Wetlands/Marshes Grasslands/Prairies Woodlands or Scrub Clapper Rail Short-eared Owl Painted Bunting Forester’s Tern LeConte’s Sparrow Golden-winged Warbler Snowy Plover Cerulian Warbler Least Tern Blue-winged Warbler Black Rail Bay-breasted Warbler Yellow Rail Bobolink Wood Stork Hudsonian Godwit Buff-breasted Sandpiper Wetland habitats on the Refuge Complex provide important wintering and migration habitat for Central Flyway waterfowl, including several species whose continental populations are below goals established under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) and/or listed by USFWS as Game Birds Below Desired Condition (USFWS, 2004). These species include the northern pintail, lesser scaup, and ring-necked duck. The mottled duck is a year- round resident of the Texas Gulf Coast, and conservation and management of this species is a major goal of the NAWMP’s Gulf Coast Joint Venture Chenier Plain Initiative Area Plan (Esslinger and Wilson, 2001). Steep declines in mottled duck numbers on coastal NWRs in Texas have been documented in recent years (Haukos and Neaville, 2002), and this species is considered to be rare and declining in the Coastal Prairies Region of Texas (Shackleford and Lockwood, 2000). Coastal marsh, coastal prairie, and agricultural habitats within Galveston, Jefferson, Chambers, and Orange Counties historically supported the highest densities of breeding mottled ducks in Texas (Stutzenbaker, 1988), and continue to be very important to the long-term conservation of this species. The McFaddin NWR and adjacent habitats lie within the Gulf Coast Prairie Region under the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (USSCP). Thirty-nine shorebird species occur in this region. This region is considered to be of “extremely high importance” to 14 of the species and of “considerable importance” for 21 additional species. Of these 35 species, 17 are considered species of conservational concern under the USSCP. Four species are considered “Highly Imperiled,” which are the snowy plover, piping plover, long-billed curlew, and Eskimo curlew (believed extirpated). Thirteen species are considered “Species of High Concern,” and include American golden plover, Wilson’s plover, Mountain plover, American oystercatcher, whimbrel, Hudsonian godwit, marbled godwit, ruddy turnstone, red knot (which has since been listed by USFWS as a federally-threatened species), sanderling, buff-breasted sandpiper, American woodcock, and Wilson’s phalarope (USFWS, 2008). The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (NAWCP) classified colonial and semi- colonial breeding waterbird species into several “at risk” categories, including “not currently at risk,” “low,” “moderate,” “high,” and “highly imperiled,” and identified those species for which there is “insufficient information available to assess risk” (Kushlan et al., 2002). Wetland habitats on or near the Refuge Complex provide important wintering, migration, and/or nesting habitat for 14 colonial and semi-colonial waterbird species deemed at moderate risk, and six Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 37 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 species deemed at high risk. High risk species include tri-colored heron, little blue heron, snowy egret, least tern (all four nest on the Refuge Complex), wood stork, and gull-billed tern (USFWS, 2008). Wetland habitats on or near the Refuge Complex provide important wintering, migration, and/or nesting habitat for the shorebird species identified as needing conservation attention within the Gulf Coast Prairie Region, including three “Highly Imperiled” species and ten “Species of High Concern”. The three “Highly Imperiled” species are piping plover, long-billed curlew and snowy plover. The ten “Species of High Concern” include American golden plover, whimbrel, Hudsonian godwit, marbled godwit, ruddy turnstone, red knot, sanderling, buff-breasted sandpiper, American woodcock, and Wilson’s phalarope (USFWS, 2008). 3.5.2 Mammals Records indicate that approximately 24 species of 48 potential mammals utilize the various habitats in or near the Refuge Complex. Some of the more common mammals found in the area include the nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginianus), cotton-tailed rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanis), swamp rabbit (Sylvilagus aquaticus), raccoon (Procyon lotor) and the striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis). As well, muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), nutria (Mycoaster coypus), river otter (Lontra canadensis), feral pig (Sus scrofa), coyote (Canis latrans), and bobcat (Lynx rufus) can be observed year-round in the project vicinity on or near the Refuge Complex. Mammalian species that have distributional ranges that include the Refuge Complex and could therefore inhabit the Refuge Complex are listed in Table 6. Table 6: Mammalian Species with Ranges that Include the Refuge Complex (Schmidly, 1994) Virginia Opossum Eastern Woodrat Mountain Lion Didelphis virginiana Neotoma floridana Puma concolor Nine-Banded Armadillo Marsh Rice Rat Coyote Dasypus novemcinctus Oryzomys palustris Canis latrans Least Shrew Northern Pygmy Mouse Red Fox Cryptotis parva Baiomys taylori Vulpes vulpes Southern Short-Tailed Shrew Fulvous Harvest Mouse Gray Fox Blarina carolinensis Reithrodontomys fulvescens Urocyon cinereoargenteus Eastern Mole Eastern Harvest Mouse Ringtail Scalopus aquaticus Reithrodontomys humulis Bassariscus astutus Swamp Rabbit White-Footed Deermouse Northern Raccoon Sylvilagus aquaticus Peromyscus leucopus Procyon lotor Eastern Cottontail North American Deermouse American Mink Sylvilagus floridanus Peromyscus maniculatus Mustela vison Black-Tailed Jackrabbit Cotton Deermouse Northern River Otter Lepus californicus Peromyscus gossypinus Lontra Canadensis Muskrat Hispid Cotton Rat American Badger Ondatra zibethicus Sigmodon hispidus Taxidea taxus Nutria Mexican Free-Tailed Bat Long-Tailed Weasel Myocastor coypus Tadarida brasiliensis Mustela frenata Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 38 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 American Beaver Eastern Red Bat Eastern Spotted Skunk Castor Canadensis Lasiurus borealis Spilogale putorius Eastern Gray Squirrel Seminole Bat Striped Skunk Sciurus carolinensis Lasiurus seminolus Mephitis mephitis Eastern Fox Squirrel Northern Yellow Bat White-Tailed Deer Sciurus niger Lasiurus intermedius Odocoileus virginianus Southern Flying Squirrel Hoary Bat Feral Pig Glaucomys volans Lasiurus cinereus Sus scrofa Baird’s Pocket Gopher Eastern Pipistrelle Bottlenose Dolphin Geomys breviceps Pipistrellus sublavus Tursiops truncatus Hispid Pocket Mouse Big Brown Bat Chaetodipus hispidus Eptesicus fuscus Evening Bat Bobcat Nycticeius humeralis Lynx rufus 3.5.3 Amphibians and Reptiles Common amphibians within the McFaddin NWR include the cricket frog (Acris crepitans), southern leopard frog (Rana sphenocephala), green frog (Rana clamitans), pig frog (Rana grylio), Gulf Coast toad (Bufo valliceps), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), and several species of salamanders. The western lesser siren (Siren intermedia) and three-toed amphiuma (Amphiuma tridactylum) are seldom observed amphibians associated with freshwater habitats. A total of 46 species of frogs and toads have been documented to occur in Texas, and 23 of these species potentially could be encountered in or near the Refuge Complex (USFWS, 2008). Amphibian species that have distributional ranges that include the Refuge Complex and could therefore inhabit the Refuge Complex are listed in Table 7. Table 7: Amphibian Species with Ranges that Include the Refuge Complex (Schmidly, 1994) Western Lesser Siren Pig Frog Upland Chorus Frog Siren intermedia Rana grylio Pseudacris triseriata Marbled Salamander Pickerel Frog Houston Toad Ambystoma opacum Rana palustris Bufo houstonensis Three-toed Amphiuma Central Newt Gulf Coast Toad Amphiuma tridactylum Notophthalmus viridescens Bufo valliceps Smallmouth Salamander Hurter’s Spadefoot Woodhouse’s Toad Ambystoma texanum Scaphiopus hurteri Bufo woodhousii Eastern Tiger Salamander Coastal Cricket Frog Southern Crawfish Frog Ambystoma tigrinum Acris crepitans Rana areolata Southern Dusky Salamander Gray Tree Frog Bullfrog Desmognathus auriculatus Hyla versicolor Rana catesbeiana Dwarf Salamander Green Tree Frog Bronze Frog Eurycea quadridigitata Hyla cinerea Rana clamitans Spring Peeper Squirrel Tree Frog Southern Leopard Frog Pseudacris crucider Hyla squirella Rana sphenocephala Gulf Coast Water Dog Spotted Chorus Frog Eastern Narrowmouth Toad Necturus beyeri Pseudacris clarki Gastrophryne carolinensis Strecker’s Chorus Frog Strecker’s Chorus Frog Great Plains Narrowmouth Toad Pseudacris streckeri Pseudacris streckeri Gastrophryne olivacea Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 39 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 Common reptiles in the McFaddin NWR include the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), western cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus leucostoma), speckled king snake (Lampropeltis getula holbrooki), red-eared slider (Trachemys scripta elegans), spiney soft-shelled turtle (Apalone spinifera) and common snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) (USFWS, 2008). Reptilian species that have distributional ranges that overlap the Refuge Complex are listed in Table 8. Table 8: Reptilian Species with Ranges that Overlap the Refuge Complex (Dixon, 2000; Conant and Collins, 1998) Alligator Snapping Turtle Mediterranean Gecko Gulf Coast Ribbon Snake Macroclemys temminckii Hemidactylus turcicus Thamnophis proximus Common Snapping Turtle Nothern Fence Lizard Rough Earth Snake Chelydra serpentina Sceloporus undulates Virginia striatula Yellow Mud Turtle Five-lined Skink Eastern Hognose Snake Kinosternon flavescens Eumeces fasciatus Heterodon platirhinos Mississippi Mud Turtle Six-lined Race Runner Smooth Green Snake Kinosternon subrubrum Cnemidophorus sexlineatus Opheodrys vernalis Razorback Musk Turtle Western Slender Glass Lizard Corn Snake Sternotherus carinatus Ophisaurus attenuates Elaphe guttata Common Musk Turtle Mississippi Green Water Snake Texas Rat Snake Sternotherus odoratus Nerodia cyclopion Elaphe obsolete Western Chicken Turtle Diamond-backed Water Snake Western Mud Snake Deirochelys reticularia Nerodia rhombifer Farancia abacura Mississippi Map Turtle Yellow-bellied Water Snake Prairie King Snake Graptemys pseudogeographica Nerodia erythrogaster Lampropeltis calligaster Texas Diamondback Terrapin Broad-banded Water Snake Speckled King Snake Malaclemys terrapin Nerodia fasciata Lampropeltis getula Missouri River Cooter Gulf Salt Marsh Snake Louisiana Milk Snake Pseudemys concinna Nerodia clarkia Lampropeltis triangulum Three-toed Box Turtle Graham’s Crayfish Snake Eastern Coachwhip Terrapene carolina Regina grahamii Masticophis flagellum Ornate Box Turtle Gulf Crawfish Snake Flat-headed Snake Terrapene ornate Regina rigida Tantilla gracilis Red-eared Slider Marsh Brown Snake Texas Coral Snake Trachemys scripta Storeria dekayi Micrurus fulvis Pallid Spiny Soft-shelled Turtle Florida Redbelly Snake Southern Copperhead Trionyx spiniferus Storeria occipitomaculata Agkistrodon contortrix American Alligator Eastern Garter Snake Western Cottonmouth Alligator mississippiensis Thamnophis sirtalis Adkistrodon piscivorus Green Anole Dusty Hognose Snake Western Massasauga Anolis carolinensis Heterodon nasicus Sistrurus catenatus Texas Horned Lizard Mississippi Ringneck Snake Western Pygmy Rattesnake Phrynosoma conutum Diadophis punctatus Sistrurus miliarius Western Diamond-Backed Broadhead Skink Eastern Yellowbelly Racer Rattlesnake Eumeces laticeps Coluber constrictor Crotalus atrox Timber / Canebrake Ground Skink Rough Green Snake Rattlesnake Scincella lateralis Opheodrys aestivus Crotalus horridus Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 40 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 3.5.4 Fish and Other Aquatic Resources According to TPWD, over 75 species of freshwater fishes, and over 400 salt and brackish water species occur in the marshes, bays, bayous, and Gulf of Mexico waters on and adjacent to the McFaddin NWR. Important commercial and recreational finfish and shellfish species in the area include brown shrimp, white shrimp, American oyster (Crassostrea virginica), and blue crab. The major gamefish include spotted sea trout (Cynoscion nebulosus), sand sea trout (Cynoscion arenarius), and red fish or red drum (Sciaennops ocellatus). Other important recreational fishes include southern flounder (Paralichthys lethostigma), black drum (Pogonias cromis), Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus), gafttopsail catfish (Bagre marinus), and sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus). Ancillary species include bay anchovy (Achoa mitchilli), gulf menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), striped mullet (Mugil cephalus), and gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum). Freshwater fish utilizing the coastal marshes within the McFaddin NWR include largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), warmouth (Lepomis gulosus), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), blue catfish (Ictalurus furcatus), black bullhead catfish (Ameiurus melas), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), alligator gar (Atractosteus spatula), freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens), and bowfin (Amia calva). Declines in freshwater species across the coastal plain have been occurring for over 30 years (Anderson, et.al., 1995). Both fishing and crabbing are popular activities in the McFaddin NWR. 3.5.5 Invertebrates Invertebrate populations are an essential food resource for migratory bird and estuarine fish species and are vital to help meet the nutritional demands of rearing broods. Various amphipods, mysid shrimp, grass shrimp, crayfish, and numerous crabs are present within all marsh habitats in the McFaddin NWR. Some of these invertebrate populations occur in tremendous quantities. Mosquitoes, biting flies, chiggers, and red imported fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) are other common invertebrates. Common butterfly species include monarch (Danaus plexippus), little yellow (Pyrisitia lisa), and Gulf fritillary (Agraulis vanilla) butterflies. Common dragonfly species include the common green darner (Anax junius) and seaside dragonlet (Erythrodiplax berenice) (USFWS, 2008). 3.5.6 Threatened and Endangered Species The discussion of threatened and endangered species applies to the area in general, and does not imply that these rare species necessarily occur within the area of influence of the proposed project. Table 9 provides a list of the species federally and state listed as endangered or threatened which currently occur or have potential for occurrence in Jefferson County, Texas (the sea turtle species occur in the Gulf of Mexico adjacent to the McFaddin NWR, but outside of the project vicinity). Also included are state species of concern, predominantly those that are Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 41 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 associated with Refuge Complex habitats. No federally-listed species are known to or would be expected to occur within the project area based on lack of suitable habitat. Several recent actions by the USFWS under the Endangered Species Act have changed the status of T&E species occurring within the project area. The USFWS delisted the bald eagle in August 2007 and removed it from the T&E species list; however, it remains on the state list as threatened. Additionally, the brown pelican was delisted in 2009, but remains on the state list as endangered. As with a majority of bird species, the bald eagle and brown pelican retain federal regulatory protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). In addition, the Louisiana black bear was delisted by the USFWS in 2016; however it and the black bear by similarity of appearance, remain on the state list as threatened. Table 9: Federally- and State-Listed Threatened, Endangered, or Rare Species of Concern in Jefferson County, Texas. Common Occurrence in Potential for Occurrence Scientific Name Status1 Name McFaddin NWR Within Project Area Amphibians Southern Lithobates areolatus Crawfish R Not Known No - No Habitat areolatus Frog Birds American Falco peregrinus Peregrine ST Known Potentially anatum Falcon Arctic Falco peregrinus Peregrine ST Known Potentially tundrius Falcon Haliaeetus Bald Eagle ST Known Potentially leucocephalus Laterallus No – Potentially Adjacent to Black Rail R Known jamaicensis Project Pelecanus Brown No – Potentially Adjacent to SE Known occidental/s Pelican Project Ammodramus Henslow’s R Known No – No Habitat henslowii Sparrow No – Potentially Adjacent to Charadrius melodus Piping Plover ST, FT Known Project No – Potentially Adjacent to Calidris canutus rufa Red Knot FT Potential Project No – Potentially Adjacent to Egretta rufescens Reddish Egret ST Known Project Charadrius No – Potentially Adjacent to Snowy Plover R Known alexandrinus Project Sprague’s Anthus spragueii R Not Known No Pipit Swallow- Elanoides forficatus ST Known No – No Habitat tailed Kite Charadrius Western R No habitat No – No Habitat alexandrines nivosus Snowy Plover White-faced No – Potentially Adjacent to Plegadis chihi ST Known Ibis Project Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 42 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 Table 9: Federally- and State-Listed Threatened, Endangered, or Rare Species of Concern in Jefferson County, Texas. Common Occurrence in Potential for Occurrence Scientific Name Status1 Name McFaddin NWR Within Project Area No – Potentially Adjacent to Mycteria americana Wood Stork ST Known Project Fishes No – Potentially Adjacent to Anguilla americanus American eel R Potential Project Smalltooth No – Likely Extirpated and No Pristis pectinata SE, FE Not Known sawfish Habitat Mammals Ursus americanus Black bear ST No Habitat No – No Habitat Ursus americanus Louisiana ST No Habitat No – No Habitat luteous black bear Spilogale putorius Plains spotted R Potential Potentially interrupta skunk Corynorhinus Rafinesque’s ST No Habitat No – No Habitat rafinesquii big-eared bat Extirpated within the Canis rufus Red wolf SE, FE No - Extirpated Region Southeastern Myotis austroriparius R No Habitat No – No Habitat myotis bat West Indian No Habitat; Adjacent habitat Trichechus manatus FT No – No Habitat manatee outside of McFaddin NWR Mollusks Louisiana Pleurobema riddellii ST No Habitat No – No Habitat pigtoe Sandbank Lampsilis satura ST No Habitat No – No Habitat pocketbook Obovaria Southern ST No Habitat No – No Habitat jacksoniana hickorynut Potamilus Texas ST No Habitat No – No Habitat amphichaenus heelsplitter Fusconaia askewi Texas pigtoe ST No Habitat No – No Habitat Triangle Fusconaia lananensis ST No Habitat No – No Habitat pigtoe Reptiles Alligator Macrochelys No – Potentially Adjacent to snapping ST Known temminckii Project turtle Atlantic Eretmochelys No Habitat; Adjacent habitat hawksbill sea FE,SE No – No Habitat imbricata outside of McFaddin NWR turtle Green sea No Habitat; Adjacent habitat Chelonia mydas FT,ST No – No Habitat turtle outside of McFaddin NWR Kemp’s ridley No Habitat; Adjacent habitat Lepidochelys kempii FE,SE No – No Habitat sea turtle outside of McFaddin NWR Dermochelys Leatherback No Habitat; Adjacent habitat FE,SE No – No Habitat coriacea sea turtle outside of McFaddin NWR Loggerhead No Habitat; Adjacent habitat Caretta caretta FT,ST No – No Habitat sea turtle outside of McFaddin NWR Cemophora coccinea Northern ST No Habitat No – No Habitat copei scarlet snake Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 43 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 Table 9: Federally- and State-Listed Threatened, Endangered, or Rare Species of Concern in Jefferson County, Texas. Common Occurrence in Potential for Occurrence Scientific Name Status1 Name McFaddin NWR Within Project Area Texas Malaclemys terrapin diamondback R Known Potentially littoralis terrapin Phrynosoma Texas horned ST Known No – No Habitat cornutum lizard Timber Crotalus horridus /canebrake ST No Habitat No – No Habitat rattlesnake Plants Bothriochloa Awnless Potential Habitat in R No – No Habitat exaristata bluestem McFaddin NWR Platanthera Chapman’s R No Habitat No – No Habitat chapmanii orchid Rhynchospora Large beakrush R No Habitat No – No Habitat macra 1 R= Rare Species of Concern; SE= State Endangered; ST=State Threatened; FE=Federally Endangered; FT=Federally Threatened Source: TPWD, Annotated County Lists of Rare Species, Jefferson County (Revised 12/30/2016) USFWS, Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), Resources List for Jefferson County, Texas (Accessed 05/05/ 2017) 3.5.6.1 Federally-Listed Threatened or Endangered Species Known to Occur or with Potential to Occur within the McFaddin NWR Birds The piping plover, listed as threatened, overwinters on the Texas Gulf Coast. This species occurs along the Gulf beaches and other exposed mudflats within the Refuge Complex, primarily during fall migration and winter. Piping plovers begin to arrive in the northern sections of the Gulf as early as mid-July and continue to arrive through October. The piping plover feeds on invertebrates inhabiting tidal mudflats, sandflats, and algal flats. Piping plover wintering habitat, which exists outside of the proposed project area, could experience small numbers of plovers wintering on the Gulf beaches of the McFaddin NWR, as well as plover presence during spring and fall migration. Piping plovers potentially could be present within tidal flats occurring along the GIWW. No piping plover habitat (mud flats or beaches) exists within or immediately adjacent to the project area. According to the USFWS, there have been no records of nesting piping plovers on the Refuge Complex (USFWS, 2012). The red knot, listed as threatened, overwinters on the Texas Gulf Coast. This species can occur within a variety of habitats, including beaches, tidal mudflats, salt marshes, and shallow coastal impoundments (USFWS, 2014). There is limited data about red knots that spend the non- breeding season in coasts and salt marshes in the Gulf of Mexico. Skagen et al. (1999) identified higher numbers (1,400 to 2,800) at several sites in Texas [e.g., Mustang I. Beach Airport (Port Aransas) or Padre Island National Seashore] and Grand Terre (Jefferson Parish) in Louisiana. The status of this population is uncertain but it is believed that actual numbers have dropped Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 44 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 substantially (Skagen et al., 1999). Except for in localized areas, there have been no long-term systematic surveys of red knots in Texas or Louisiana, and no information is available about the number of red knots that winter in northeastern Mexico. The red knot has the potential to occur within the McFaddin NWR habitats outside of the project area during the migration and winter months, as the Refuge provides potential foraging habitat for the species. There have been several sightings reported in the eBird database by many observers including the Houston Audubon Society. Sightings were noted in High Island in Chambers County and along McFaddin beach, Jefferson County, within the project vicinity (eBird, 2014). No red knot foraging habitat exists within or immediately adjacent to the project area. Fishes Smalltooth sawfish are endangered along the Atlantic Gulf Coast. This species inhabits shallow coastal waters of tropical seas and estuaries and is usually found in shallow waters close to shore over muddy or sandy bottoms. The smalltooth sawfish feeds mostly on fish but also on crustaceans. Smalltooth sawfish likely do not inhabit the Refuge Complex, but could inhabit the coastal waters adjacent to the McFaddin NWR. Mammals The McFaddin NWR is within the historic range of the red wolf. This species has been extirpated within the region and is not anticipated to occur within the Refuge Complex and project area (USFWS, 2008). The West Indian manatee, listed as endangered, inhabits a variety of water environments, including marine, estuarine, and freshwater. According to the USFWS species profile, manatees are herbivores that feed opportunistically on a large variety of marine, estuarine, and freshwater plants, including submerged, floating, and emergent vegetation (USFWS, 2013). Texas has no known resident populations of West Indian manatee. This species has the potential to be present within the nearshore waters of the McFaddin NWR, outside of the operational area. There have been several confirmed transient sightings along the Texas Coast in the past, with the most recent sighting on November 23, 2014 in Trinity Bay in Chambers County, Texas. (TMMSN, 2015). In 2017 a decomposing carcass of a West Indian manatee was found washed ashore along the beach of McFaddin NWR. There was no way to determine to location of the animal when it died. Although manatees have been in this area in recent times, there is not any habitat that remains warm enough to overwinter. Structural barriers preclude any potential for a manatee to make it into the interior of McFaddin NWR and near the project. Oil spill containment requirements would preclude any indirect impact to an unknown manatee that may be in passing through the area. Reptiles Three species of endangered sea turtles (Atlantic hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley, and leatherback) and two species of threatened sea turtles (green and loggerhead) are known to occur in the Gulf of Mexico. The Kemp’s ridley is the most endangered sea turtle. The Kemp’s ridley sea turtle is known to use shallow-water bays over its entire range to feed on blue crab, by-catch of Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 45 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 shrimpers, algae, and seagrass beds. Historically, all five of these sea turtles nested on the Texas Gulf Coast. The number of Kemp’s ridley sea turtles nesting in Texas appears to be increasing, and this species is now nesting again in parts of its historic range, including the upper Texas Gulf Coast. Tracking data suggests that juvenile and adult Kemp’s ridley sea turtles do frequent the Gulf of Mexico between Galveston Bay and Sabine Pass (Metz, 2011). These species have the potential to be present within the nearshore waters of the McFaddin NWR, outside of the operational area. Strandings of dead and wounded turtles occur occasionally on the beaches and shorelines of the McFaddin NWR. There is a defined beach ridge that exists between the project site and sea turtle habitat. There is no sea turtle habitat within the project area. 3.5.6.2 State of Texas-Listed Threatened, Endangered, or Rare Species Known to Occur or with Potential to Occur on the McFaddin NWR Birds Peregrine Falcon The Arctic peregrine falcon is state-listed as threatened. Due to similarity of appearance, the TPWD also affords protection to the American peregrine falcon. The Arctic peregrine falcon’s wintering range includes all of the Texas Gulf Coast. The American and Arctic peregrine falcons are attracted to large concentrations of ducks and other birds during the winter. The southern coast of Texas appears to be a major spring migration staging area, and most falcons are observed on the Refuge Complex during the spring and fall migration, usually along the Gulf of Mexico shoreline (USFWS, 2008). Bald Eagle The bald eagle is no longer federally listed; however, is state-listed as threatened. Bald eagle populations were affected by the use of organochlorine pesticides; however, the species has been making a come-back since the 1970s. Bald eagles, especially juveniles, are occasionally observed flying over the McFaddin NWR during the winter but do not nest in the project area. They are generally associated with large concentrations of wintering waterfowl (USFWS, 2008). The bald eagle is further protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Brown Pelican Brown pelicans have been federally delisted; however, are state-listed as endangered. Brown pelicans along the Texas coast experienced a population decline from the first part of the century until the mid-1970s. From numbers in the range of 5,000 at the turn of the century to less than 50 individuals in the early 1970s, the brown pelican’s population decreased until the elimination of organochlorine pesticides (e.g. DTD), and the species was listed as endangered. Population increases have been documented since the late 1970s. Brown pelicans typically congregate on open waters and along shorelines of the GIWW and other waterbodies in the project region. They have been frequently observed in small to medium flocks on the Gulf shoreline at McFaddin NWR and are frequently observed flying over the Refuge (USFWS, 2012). Brown pelicans do not nest within the Refuge Complex, but the migratory range and potential nesting range has Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 46 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 been documented to occur within Jefferson County (Campbell, 1995). Reddish Egret The reddish egret is state-listed as threatened. Reddish egrets have been observed in the brackish and intermediate marshes of the Anahuac NWR and are known to occur within the McFaddin NWR. Preferred habitats include shores, lagoons, salt marshes and salt flats where they primarily forage on fish. Breeding activity generally occurs on coastal islands where they will nest in colonies, although rarely east of Galveston, Texas (Collins, 1981). There is no documentation of nesting activity by reddish egrets within the McFaddin NWR. Swallow-tailed Kite The American swallow-tailed kite is state-listed as threatened. Preferred habitats consist of river bottom forests, where they nest in the tree tops near habitat edges and other openings. In recent years, nesting has been documented in bottomland forests along the Trinity River (TPWD, unpublished data). They have been observed on the North Unit of the McFaddin NWR (outside of the project area) (USFWS, 2008). White-faced Ibis The white-faced ibis is state-listed as threatened. This species is a colonial nester that is commonly observed throughout the year. White-faced ibis have nested within the McFaddin NWR. Populations of this species are believed to have been negatively impacted by the use of pesticides and herbicides used in rice production (DeGraaf et. al., 1991). Preferred habitats include freshwater marshes, sloughs, and ponds with emergent vegetation. Wood Stork The wood stork is state-listed as threatened. Some of the latest nesting records in Texas come from Chambers and Jefferson Counties (1930 and 1960, respectively) (Oberholser, 1974 and DeGraaf et. al., 1991). The wood stork generally nests in colonies in trees bordering swamps, marshes, or ponds. Wood storks typically utilize brackish marsh habitats during late summer. It is believed that these birds are dispersing post-breeding from Mexico, where nesting populations occur. Reptiles Alligator Snapping Turtle The alligator snapping turtle is state-listed as threatened. Alligator snapping turtles inhabit perennial waterbodies such as deepwater rivers, canals, lakes, and oxbows; as well as swamps, bayous, and ponds near deep running water. The species is occasionally observed in brackish coastal waters and is usually associated with waterbodies possessing mud bottoms and abundant aquatic vegetation. The alligator snapping turtle was present on the McFaddin NWR prior to Hurricane Ike. State of Texas-Listed Species of Concern Several species listed by the State of Texas as rare species of concern are known to occur within the McFaddin NWR. These include the black rail, Henslow’s sparrow, southeastern snowy Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 47 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 plover, American eel, bay skipper, plains spotted skunk, and Texas diamond-backed terrapin. The black rail inhabits salt, brackish, and freshwater marshes, pond borders, wet meadows, and grassy swamps. Its nests are in or along edges of marshes, sometimes on damp ground, and usually hidden in marsh grass or at the base of Salicornia sp. Males have been documented doing territorial calls during nesting season on McFaddin NWR within one mile of the project area. The Henslow’s sparrow is a wintering migrant that is generally found in weedy fields or cut-over areas where lots of bunch grasses occur along with vines and brambles. Limited habitat may be present within the McFaddin NWR, and no habitat is present within the immediate project area. The southeastern snowy plover is a wintering migrant along the Texas Gulf Coast beaches and bayside mud or salt flats. It is known to inhabit barrier islands, bayshores and spoil islands, and Gulf beaches. Limited potential habitat for this species is available along the shoreline of the GIWW and Gulf of Mexico, within McFaddin NWR boundaries. No habitat is available for this species within the immediate project area. The American eel is found in coastal waterways below reservoirs to the Gulf of Mexico and is catadromous. It is typically found in aquatic habitats with access to ocean, muddy bottoms, still waters, large streams, and lakes, and it can travel overland in moist conditions. Most habitats present within McFaddin NWR would not be suitable habitat for this species with the exception of potentially 5-Mile Cut and some of the saturated emergent wetlands adjacent to these areas. No habitat for this species is present within the project area. The plains spotted skunk is generally found in open fields, prairies, croplands, fence rows, forest edges and woodlands. This species is very opportunistic. Preferred habitats are not present within the project area; however, marginal habitat is present in coastal grasslands and marshes that may provide some food sources for this species. The Texas diamondback terrapin has adapted physiologically to live in water with changing salinity. It is often restricted to brackish waters found in tidal creeks, estuaries and coastal salt marshes. This species can select when to drink based on the concentration of salt in the surrounding water. It eats crabs, gastropods, mussels, fish and aquatic vegetation. The State of Texas also lists two types of bird-related habitat as rare in Jefferson County. These habitats include colonial waterbird nesting areas and migratory songbird fallout areas. Many rookeries are active annually in coastal Texas; therefore, there may be active rookeries present within the vicinity of the project area during the course of operations. Song bird fallout areas are defined as oak mottes and other woods/thickets that provide foraging/roosting sites for neotropical migratory songbirds. Habitat of this nature is not present within or in the vicinity of the project area. 3.6 HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES OLEUM’s cultural resource consultant performed a cultural resource file records review utilizing records available at the Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory (TARL) and on the Texas Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 48 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 Historical Commission’s (THC’s) Texas Archeological Sites Atlas. These sources provide information regarding previously conducted archaeological surveys and previously recorded cultural resource sites within the State of Texas. In addition, these sources provide information on National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) properties, State Archeological Landmarks (SALs), Official Texas Historical Markers (OTHMs), Registered Texas Historic Landmarks (RTHLs), cemeteries, and local neighborhood surveys. This file search, concerning known cultural resources within or immediately adjacent to the project location, revealed the presence of no sites within the proposed project area. Through coordination with the USFWS Regional Archaeologist and the SHPO/THC, no cultural resources survey is required for the proposed project due to the disturbance area being confined to a previously disturbed pipe yard within the existing Clam Lake Oil Field. Correspondence relating to Historical and Archaeological Resources is included within Appendix B. 3.7 LAND USE/PUBLIC USE The McFaddin NWR was purchased in January of 1980 under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929. Approximately 90,000 visitors came to the McFaddin NWR in 2011 for recreational and educational activities including fishing, waterfowl hunting, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation, and beach-related recreation. McFaddin NWR is a well-known hot spot for birding. Clam lake and Shell lake roads are the primary access points for the general public to access fishing piers/areas, public boat ramps, bird watch areas, and photo areas. The Refuge is open to waterfowl hunting during established state waterfowl season dates. Sport fishing is permitted year-round during day-light hours, and only after 12:00 pm in the waterfowl hunting areas during the state waterfowl hunting season dates. Environmental education occurs in public use areas during the months of April and May (Schutter, 2011). Because of the remoteness and difficulty of access to the main portion of Refuge, the highest public traffic occurs along Clam Lake and Shell lake Roads. Management activities to enhance, restore, and protect habitats for migratory birds and other native fish and wildlife species on the McFaddin NWR include water level and salinity management, prescribed burning, invasive/exotic species control, and controlled grazing. Water management infrastructure includes numerous water control structures, levees, ditches, and canals. Prescribed burning occurs primarily from September through November. Control of several exotic plant species, which negatively impact native fish and wildlife, include Chinese tallow in terrestrial habitats and water hyacinth in aquatic habitats. Control measures for both species are ongoing within the McFaddin NWR. Staff from McFaddin NWR identified facilities and structures for avoidance and protection including bridges, culverts, decks, fences, gates, pipe crossings, pipes under roads, public fishing piers/platforms, ramps, and water control structures. In addition, hunting and other informational signs would need to be avoided by project activities. Oleum will conduct proposed activities in a manner so as to have the least impacts on public use areas, and in particular alter project activity routes to avoid impacts to public access points Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 49 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 during early teal season as directed by Refuge Manager. 3.8 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES The proposed project area encompasses land within Jefferson County, Texas. The communities of Sabine Pass, Port Arthur, and Winnie are the largest population centers closest to the project area within the project vicinity. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the population of Jefferson County was 252,273 persons in 2010, 222 persons over the 2000 census of 252,051 (0.1% increase). Population estimates for July 2016 in Jefferson County were 254,679. The largest population centers in Jefferson County are Beaumont and Port Arthur with populations of 118,296 and 53,818 in 2010, respectively (US Census Bureau, 2017). The labor force in Beaumont-Port Arthur Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) was estimated at 175,100 in March 2017. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the Beaumont-Port Arthur MSA had an unemployment rate of 7.9% in March 2017 (BLS, 2017). The major employment industries in the county include educational, health and social services (23.5%), professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste management services (21.7%), and manufacturing (11.5%) (City Data, 2017). In 2016, there were 108,123 total housing units in Jefferson County. The median value for owner-occupied housing units between 2011 and 2015 was $97,900. The median household income between 2011 and 2015 was $43,540 (US Census Bureau 2017). According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the 2017 poverty guidelines for a family of four is $24,600 (DHHS, 2017). 4.0 IMPACTS ANALYSIS For purposes of the impact assessment for the “No Action Alternative”, the USFWS would not issue the Applicant a permit resulting in the Applicant accessing their minerals without complying with the 29D Regulations, and therefore there will be no assurance that the Applicant would use technologically feasible and least damaging methods. Throughout the impact evaluation below, we have contrasted the impacts of the proposed permitting action of the USFWS with the current condition and expected future condition under the No Action Alternative. 4.1 CLIMATE AND CLIMATE CHANGE The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) released its Final Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in National Environmental Policy Act Reviews. The guidance provides a framework for agencies to consider both the effects of a proposed action on climate change, as indicated by its estimated greenhouse gas emissions, and the effects of climate change on a proposed action. The guidance instructs agencies to discuss these impacts in proportion to their Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 50 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 significance. [40 CFR 1502.2(b). Drilling and flowline installation are estimated to consume approximately 170,000 gallons of diesel fuel which results in direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of 1,725 metric tons of CO2 equivalent. Hydrocarbon ultimate recovery from the proposed well is unknown, but could range from zero for a dry hole to 500,000 barrels of oil and 500,000,000 cubic feet of natural gas for a Clam Lake Field well over a productive life of up to 30 years. Consumption of the produced hydrocarbons could result in indirect GHG emissions ranging from zero to 250,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent. Fugitive methane emissions and flash gas from oil would be insignificant contributors to GHG emissions compared to the actual consumption of products. As noted, the action being considered is not whether or not to issue a permit to allow this operation to proceed, as it is the operator’s right to access and develop these resources, but rather to ensure that the operator avoids or minimizes impacts from such activities to the maximum extent practicable. The USFWS acknowledges that compliance with State and Federal law for greenhouse gas emissions should provide the technologically feasible, least damaging methods to avoid or minimize impacts to climate change. Therefore, the Service has not put any further stipulations on the operator to reduce the indirect or direct impact of the operation on climate change. USFWS management and oversight of this proposed non-Federal oil and gas operation (proposed action) is therefore essentially the same as the no action alternative relative to GHG emissions. However, the proposed action could result in very small, beneficial effects on greenhouse gas emissions, because it gives the Service the authority to ensure that operators are complying with Federal and State laws applicable to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Finally, given the relatively short life-span of the well of up to 30 years and its location in a previously disturbed site, climate change, including sea level rise, is not expected to have any notable effect on operations. 4.2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS The McFaddin NWR consists primarily of wetland areas. OLEUM would conduct drilling and production operations within a previously impacted, upland pipe yard site under both alternatives; therefore, no fill for construction of the well pad site would be required. During drilling and production, the construction, maintenance, and use of access roads, well pads, flowlines, and pipelines could increase soil erosion and affect soil productivity from vehicle compaction and vegetation clearing. Surface disturbances during drilling and production activities could cause soil compaction, thereby reducing the soil’s water-holding and infiltration capacities. This would in turn reduce the root penetration capabilities of vegetation and hinder plant growth and further soil formation. These compacted soils would also increase runoff of surface waters and accelerate soil erosion (USFWS, 2016). In addition to construction-related impacts associated with development of access roads and well pads, there is a risk of impact on soils from releases of hazardous or contaminating substances during drilling or production operations, including well workovers and servicing. These releases could occur from leaking equipment. In most cases, however, primary and secondary containment on a well pad, if implemented, should prevent the release of drilling muds, diesel fuel, oil and gas, and other substances beyond the well pad. The risk of releases reaching more area of the well pad or offsite locations is greater for pre-existing wells that would not be required to have some of the more protective measures that would be required for new operations under the regulations. The unintentional or accidental release of hazardous or contaminated Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 51 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 materials also includes the risk of the release of drilling mud. Although drilling mud may pose a risk for impacts on geology and soils if there are spills, its contained presence alone does not represent an impact. Drilling mud, which may contain water and chemical additives such as alkalis, bactericides, soluble chromates, and corrosion inhibitors used to optimize well drilling, and cuttings from the well account for the largest volume of waste generated at the well site (USFWS, 2016). 4.2.1 Alternative A. Proposed Action. The USFWS Would Issue an Operational Permit for the Proposed Drilling and Production Activities Under this Alternative, impacts to soils would be less than under Alternative B, because of adherence to stipulations of the USFWS Permit. The issuance of the Permit and monitoring of the project would reduce the impacts to soils. Numerous pollution abatement measures would be required to reduce the potential for soil contamination. Restoration and/or mitigation for any unavoidable damages would be required. Examples of Permit stipulations, which would reduce impacts to soils, would include: 1. The requirement for use of directional drilling for both new proposed wells from a single well pad of the minimum size needed to conduct drilling operations. 2. The location of the proposed well pad site adjacent to an existing access road, thus minimizing the need for additional access road construction in the interior portions of the marsh. 3. The requirement for soil testing (pre- and post-project) of the well pad site and the required clean up and removal of any contaminated soils. 4. The requirement for additional pollution abatement measures that would reduce the potential for soil contamination including; use of a closed loop system for drilling fluids and drill cuttings, use of catch pans and impermeable liners during drilling operations, and on-site spill response capabilities and centralized storage of all hazardous materials and use of a perimeter barrier (silt screens, hay bales, or proposed AquaDam). 4.2.2 Alternative B. No Action. The USFWS Would Not Issue an Operational Permit for the Proposed Drilling and Production Activities Under this Alternative, it is expected that impacts to soils would be greater than the Proposed Action. As a consequence of the lack of additional pollution abatement measures and Permit monitoring, potential for soil contamination would also likely increase. Examples of expected operations and subsequent impacts to soil, which could be reasonably anticipated through project activities not governed by a Permit, include: 1. The overall area of impact to soils may increase from that required for the Proposed Action, due to excavation and fill needed to construct two separate well pads and access roads and the installation of additional pipelines. Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 52 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 2. The pollution abatement measures used to minimize the potential for soil contamination would be limited to those required by State law. 4.3 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY OLEUM would conduct drilling and production operations within a previously impacted, upland pipe yard site; therefore, no surface hydrological impacts would occur. However, there could be surface and sub-surface water contamination from accidental spills and precipitation run-off from drilling pads, subsequent well sites, and production facilities or leaks from containers or flow lines. If drilling mud, fuels, or other chemicals are spilled on the ground and there is no impermeable liner on the well pad, the fluids could infiltrate into shallow aquifers or reach nearby surface waters, resulting in changes in water quality and possible violations of water quality standards if these are not detected and remediated. Contamination from the release of produced waters that contain salts and other well drilling fluids and chemicals could also impact surface and ground water. For example, such instances of leaks from salt-water disposal wells and flowlines conveying oilfield brine, subsequent contamination from mechanical problems and improper operating practices have been documented at Hagerman and Aransas National Wildlife Refuges in Texas and the Anderson Waterfowl Production Area in northeastern Montana (M. Maddux and M. Borgreen pers. comm.). Ponds and open water areas in the vicinity of the well pad and access road may have increased turbidity, due to construction activities and dust emissions. Increased water turbidities during the growing season could reduce production of submerged aquatic vegetation in those wetlands with potential impacts. This effect would be short-term and localized. OLEUM would conduct operations under state regulations for both alternatives, including groundwater protection in accordance with state standards. 4.3.1 Alternative A. Proposed Action. The USFWS Would Issue an Operational Permit for the Proposed Drilling and Production Activities Under this Alternative, impacts to surface hydrology and water quality would be less than under Alternative B because of adherence to stipulations of the USFWS Permit. The issuance of the Permit and monitoring of the project would reduce the potential for impacts to surface hydrology and water quality. Numerous pollution abatement measures would be required, in addition to those required by State law, to reduce the potential for surface and ground water contamination. The restoration of and/or mitigation for any unavoidable damages would be required. Examples of Permit stipulations, which would reduce impacts to hydrology and water quality, would include: 1. The requirement for soil testing (pre- and post-project) in the well pad site and the required clean up and removal of any contaminated soils, to eliminate potential sources of surface and groundwater contamination. 2. The requirement for additional pollution abatement measures to reduce the potential for surface and groundwater contamination including; use of a closed loop system for drilling fluids and drill cuttings, use of catch pans and impermeable liners during drilling Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 53 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 operations, on-site spill response capabilities and centralized storage of all hazardous materials, and use of a perimeter barrier (silt screens, hay bales, or proposed AquaDam) to reduce turbidity in adjacent wetlands. 4.3.2 Alternative B. No Action. The USFWS Would Not Issue an Operational Permit for the Proposed Drilling and Production Activities Under this Alternative, it is expected that impacts to surface hydrology and water quality would be greater than the Proposed Action. As a consequence of the lack of additional pollution abatement measures, the potential for surface and groundwater contamination could also increase. Examples of expected operations and subsequent impacts to hydrology and water quality, which could be reasonably anticipated through project activities not governed by a Permit, include: 1. The pollution abatement measures used to minimize the potential for surface and groundwater contamination would be limited to those required under State law. 4.4 VEGETATION AND HABITAT Vegetation in the project area may be affected by maintenance along the perimeter of the existing pipe yard location. Indirect effects associated with disturbances to vegetation could include increased soil erosion and compaction. Increased erosion rates and reduction in soil stability and productivity could prevent successful reclamation with native species and composition. Surface disturbances could cause soil compaction, thereby reducing the soil’s water-holding and infiltration capacities. This, in turn, would reduce the root penetration capabilities of vegetation and hinder plant growth and further soil formation (Crush and Thom, 2011). There is a risk of impact on vegetation from releases of hazardous or contaminating substances during drilling or production operations, including well workovers and servicing. The presence of oils and other well development chemicals in soils and site runoff could kill vegetation or adversely impact overall plant health. Since OLEUM would conduct drilling and production operations within a previously impacted, upland pipe yard site, no clearing of native vegetation would be required and impacts on plant communities in adjacent habitats would be negligible. 4.4.1 Alternative A. Proposed Action. The USFWS Would Issue an Operational Permit for the Proposed Drilling and Production Activities Under this Alternative, impacts to vegetation and habitat would be less than under Alternative B because of adherence to stipulations of the USFWS Permit. The issuance of the Permit and monitoring of the project would reduce the potential for impacts to vegetation and habitat. Numerous pollution abatement measures would be required, in addition to those required by State law, to reduce the potential for impacts to vegetation and habitat through potential surface and ground water contamination. The restoration of and/or mitigation for any unavoidable damages would be required. Examples of Permit stipulations, which would reduce impacts to hydrology and water quality, would include: Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 54 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 1. The requirement for soil testing (pre- and post-project) in the well pad site and the required clean up and removal of any contaminated soils, to eliminate potential sources of surface and groundwater contamination. 2. The requirement for additional pollution abatement measures to reduce the potential for surface and groundwater contamination including; use of a closed loop system for drilling fluids and drill cuttings, use of catch pans and impermeable liners during drilling operations, on-site spill response capabilities and centralized storage of all hazardous materials, and use of a perimeter barrier (silt screens, hay bales, or proposed AquaDam) to reduce turbidity in adjacent wetlands. 4.4.2 Alternative B. No Action. The USFWS Would Not Issue an Operational Permit for the Proposed Drilling and Production Activities Under this Alternative, it is expected that impacts to vegetation and habitats could be greater than the Proposed Action. Examples of expected operations and subsequent impacts to vegetation and habitats which could be reasonably anticipated through project activities not governed by a Permit include: 1. The pollution abatement measures used to minimize the potential for surface and groundwater contamination would be limited to those required under State law. 2. The need to take special precautions to prevent the spread and/or introduction of undesirable invasive/exotic aquatic and terrestrial plant species, which could create subsequent negative impacts to native vegetation and wildlife. 4.5 FISH AND WILDLIFE OLEUM would conduct drilling and production operations within a previously impacted, upland pipe yard site; therefore, no fish and wildlife habitat loss would occur. Project activities associated with well drilling and use and maintenance of access roads would cause localized disturbance and displacement of wildlife including waterfowl, wading birds, and songbirds and numerous resident wildlife species. Noise from drilling or well servicing operations would also impact wildlife. Potential adverse effects from well drilling and production could include changes in species distribution and use of the area, increased energy expenditure, decreased reproductive success (breeding and nesting success), deafness in species with specialized hearing, and increased stress levels from the noise and disturbance associated with these activities (Sawyer et al. 2002). Utilization of affected areas and adjacent habitats by wildlife would be reduced within the project area, especially by species which do not tolerate disturbance. Some less mobile small mammal, amphibian, and reptile populations may experience some local loss of individuals during construction activities and through road kills caused by increased mechanized equipment and vehicular traffic along existing roads. Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 55 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 4.5.1 Alternative A. Proposed Action. The USFWS Would Issue an Operational Permit for the Proposed Drilling and Production Activities Under this Alternative, impacts to fish and wildlife resources would be less than under Alternative B, because of adherence to stipulations of the USFWS Permit. The issuance of the Permit and monitoring of the project would reduce the potential for direct impacts to fish wildlife resources and impacts to water quality, thus reducing indirect impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Examples of Permit stipulations, which would reduce impacts to fish and wildlife resources, would include: 1. The restriction of drilling operations to the timeframe from Permit issuance to October 1, 2017 would result in the avoidance of operations during peak periods of migratory bird utilization on the McFaddin NWR, which would occur during spring and fall migrations and throughout winter. This seasonal timeframe would also avoid most of the peak nesting period for mottled ducks in the project vicinity. 2. The requirement for soil testing (pre- and post-project) in the well pad site and the required clean up and removal of any contaminated soils to eliminate potential sources of contamination, which could impact fish and wildlife resources. 3. The requirement for additional pollution abatement measures, to reduce the potential for contaminant impacts to fish and wildlife resources, including; use of a closed loop system for drilling fluids and drill cuttings, use of catch pans and impermeable liners during drilling operations, on-site spill response capabilities and centralized storage of all hazardous materials, and use of silt screens, hay bales, or proposed AquaDam to reduce turbidity in adjacent wetlands. 4. The requirement for compliance with speed limits would reduce direct mortality from road kills and reduce dust emissions. 4.5.2 Alternative B. No Action. The USFWS Would Not Issue an Operational Permit for the Proposed Drilling and Production Activities Under this Alternative, it is expected that impacts to fish and wildlife resources would be greater than the Proposed Action. Project activities could take place during periods of high utilization by migratory birds. Examples of expected operations and subsequent impacts to wildlife, which could be reasonably anticipated through project activities not governed by a Permit include: 1. The project activities could operate outside of the seasonal timeframes specified by the USFWS, which could be during the periods of highest migratory bird use (fall and spring migrations and wintering periods). Project activities operating during migrational or wintering periods would result in greater overall disturbance impacts to migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and other wetland-dependent migratory birds than drilling operations conducted during the seasonal timeframe specified by the USFWS. Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 56 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 2. The pollution abatement measures used to minimize the potential for surface and groundwater contamination would be limited to those required under State law. 4.6 FEDERALLY-AND STATE-LISTED THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES OLEUM would conduct drilling and production operations within a previously impacted, upland pipe yard site. Several state or federally-listed species may occur within McFaddin NWR; however, no listed species are known to or would be expected to occur within or adjacent to the project area based on lack of suitable habitat. As project activities are not expected to adversely impact any Threatened or Endangered species, potential impacts to Threatened or Endangered species would not differ between the two alternatives. 4.7 HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES OLEUM would conduct drilling and production operations within a previously impacted, upland pipe yard site, with no previously identified archaeological sites being located within the proposed project area. All surface disturbing operations and vehicular traffic would be limited to previously disturbed areas and existing access roads. As project activities are not expected to adversely impact any Historical and Archaeological Resources, potential impacts to these resources would not differ between the two alternatives. USFWS oversight of project activities and more timely reporting and protection of any inadvertent discoveries of cultural or historic artifacts or other resources under the Proposed Action should provide a higher level of protection, should these resources be discovered. 4.8 LAND USE/PUBLIC USE There will be no permanent land use changes resulting from the proposed project. In addition to public use, USFWS management activities occurring on the McFaddin NWR during the timeframe of the proposed project could include; prescribed burning, wildfire suppression, invasive plant species control, controlled grazing, wildlife and vegetation surveys and monitoring, and scientific research. These activities would continue under both Alternatives. Impacts to infrastructure such as roads, bridges, levees, parking areas, culverts, cattle guards, and water control structures may occur during access, well pad site preparation, and drilling and production phases of the proposed project. Health and Human Safety The primary source of potential impacts to health and human safety would be from drilling or production operations, especially if spills or leaks occurred and oil or other chemicals were not quickly cleaned up and removed from the site. Drilling and production have the potential for well blowouts and releases of hydrocarbons or other hazardous substances, including drilling muds and gases. NWR regulations prohibit the use of rifled rounds or shotgun slugs and hunting within Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 57 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 250 yards from any oil and gas infrastructure. There is the possibility of storm damage to drilling and production operations, which could spread hazardous and contaminating substances. Perforating or rupturing a storage tank containing oil or treatment chemicals at a production facility would increase the threat of spills and subsequent harm to the public. A potential impact on human health and safety is the possible exposure to hazardous substances. Materials stored at well sites include oils, chemicals, and lubricants. Also, oil and gas wells can release hydrogen sulfide gas. If well sites are not fenced and are open to the public, there is a chance of visitor exposure to these substances if visitors enter the unsecured site. Most wells would operate under an emergency response plan that would address hydrogen sulfide releases and other possible scenarios. For those wells that may emit hydrogen sulfide, a radius-of exposure analysis would likely be performed prior to site selection. However, the USFWS recognizes that unplanned incidents associated with oil and gas operations such as well blowouts, fires, and major spills within the boundaries of the Refuge present a risk of release of contaminants that can adversely impact visitor use and experience by actual exposure to chemicals or from lack of access following an incident, depending on the location of the release. No public use is within the immediate drilling site. However, OLEUM will post signs and have personnel in place at the drilling site to keep all parties safely away from the immediate area of operations. Therefore, the USFWS’s proposed action will have minor, beneficial impacts to human health and safety. If the well is successful, there would be the long-term presence of a well during the production phase. The height of the well itself would be approximately 10 feet above ground level and would only be visible in the immediate area. The areas around the active field and oilfield shelled roads are currently off limits to the general public and posted as “no public access”. Additionally, as discussed above, the operator is proposing spills of hazardous or contaminating substances that do occur will be reported to the Refuge and responded to in a timely manner. As a result, risks of indirect impacts to human health and safety will be minimized or avoided to the maximum extent possible. Visitor Access The primary effect of well drilling and production could potential reduce access should drilling and production expand outside the current “ring levee” area. However this field predates Refuge ownership. The Clam Lake field and associated shelled road infrastructure with in the current “ring levee” area has historically had limited public access to boat ramps, observation decks and accessible blind areas. Therefore drilling and production may briefly limit visitor access during mobilization and demobilization of equipment to well sites and associated production facilities. All drilling and production operations would be closed to visitor access. Due to safety concerns, there may be additional restrictions to visitor access immediately adjacent to these sites. Indirect impacts, such as increased traffic, noise, odors, night lighting, and human activity, would not necessarily preclude recreational access, but may decrease the quality of the visitor experience in the vicinity of the operation, especially in more remote portions of the Refuge. Workovers and servicing of existing operations could also cause access delays or restrictions. During the waterfowl season, public users access hunting areas via the Clam Lake north boat ramp. The proposed project is scheduled outside the waterfowl season and should not impact this use. However, should it be necessary to extend the permit period for drilling and go into early teal season, the proposed project could cause disturbance and displacement of waterfowl thereby Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 58 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 decreasing the quality of hunting. This impact is expected to be minimal. Traffic associated with future maintenance and operation of the wells would be similar to or slightly increased to what has historically occurred. This would be scheduled around peak public use times. Therefore, the proposed operation may have some minor, adverse impacts on fishing, hunting and wildlife viewing opportunities on the Refuge. Visual Resources Visual impacts on visitor experience from drilling and production operations could be more substantial than other types of impacts on visitors, especially if well sites were placed in relatively undisturbed or popular settings where visitors would be readily able to see the operation and all associated equipment and tanks, and visitors to that area were expecting or desiring a more natural experience. Drill rigs can reach heights of 180 feet, which would most likely be visible from several locations within the Refuge. The operations, especially drilling, would increase the presence of work crews and equipment. Since drilling is a 24-hour, 7-day a week operation, these impacts would be continuous, and are anticipated to last up to a month for each well drilled. Production operations, although having a less intrusive human presence compared to drilling, could be visible for 30 years or longer. Coming across an oil drilling rig or production site could be an unpleasant experience for visitors seeking a natural, outdoor experience. The visual presence of oil and gas operations in a natural setting could adversely impact the areas by lessening the quality of the visitor experience. No displacement of visitors is expected. The impacts would be less for those visitors who are less concerned with the presence of such operations, and where operations are naturally screened from view. This lease has been in operation since the late 1930’s (pre-Refuge ownership) and has grown to its approximate size with little to no changes since the late 80’s. Oil and gas operations have been a common site for recreational users at the Refuge and do not represent a notable conflict. Scenic Views Visual impacts from drilling and production operations would be more substantial than other types of impacts, especially if well pads were placed in relatively undisturbed settings where visitors would be readily able to see the operation and all associated equipment and tanks. Although the type of rig used is highly variable, dependent on location and site-specific use requirements drill rigs can reach heights of 180 feet, which would be visible from multiple locations at greater distances and could intrude on a number of different viewsheds within the Refuge. Current Refuge vegetation provides some cover to the oil and gas operations being proposed, and no site clearing of vegetation for the proposed well pad would be done. Lighting of drilling operations, which is typically provided using fluorescent high pressure sodium or metal halide lamps, could interfere with night sky resources. Depending on where the operations are sited, the design and installation of lighting, and the amount of activity and type of equipment used during the night, impacts include disturbance of night-sky views, increase in overall sky glow and anthropogenic light rations, and disruption of wildlife behaviors like migration, predation and mating. The operations, especially drilling, would increase the presence of work crews and equipment. Since drilling is a 24-hour, 7- day a week operation, these impacts would be continuous, and are anticipated to last up to a month per well drilled. Coming across an oil production rig could be an unpleasant experience for visitors seeking a natural, outdoor experience on the Refuge. The Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 59 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 visual presence of oil and gas operations in a natural setting would adversely impact the areas by intruding on scenic qualities and viewsheds and overall adversely impacting Refuge unit scenic qualities in the area of the rig. Oil and gas facilities, pads, and roads introduce forms, lines colors, and textures that contrast with the natural visual setting. In circumstances where visitors are passing through refuges and not focused on the natural setting or in areas already highly impacted by oil and gas development, these impacts would not be as pronounced. The impacts would be less for those visitors who are less concerned with the presence of such operations. Most of the visual impacts to the proposed area of operations would be temporary and would occur during the drilling of the well(s). The lights of the drilling rig would be visible for miles, but would not be a singular or uncommon site. If the well is successful, there would be the long term presence of a well during the production phase. The height of the well itself would be approximately 10 feet above ground level and would only be visible in the immediate area. Impacts to scenic views and night sky resources during the production phase would result during well maintenance that necessitates a workover rig. Impacts would be similar, but less in intensity and duration, than described for drilling operations. The proposed area of operation is located within the currently producing Clam Lake field, in an isolated location away from any local populations. Because it is located so far from local populations, there will be no impacts to scenic views or night sky resources for most of the public, as it will not be visible. The proposed operations would have little additional impact on enjoyment of visitors to the Refuge, because the natural visual setting in this portion of the Refuge has historically included the current oil and gas development. The majority of the present impacts by existing oil and gas infrastructure predate the Refuge’s ownership. The USFWS (through implementation of the Proposed Action) has added one stipulation to the permit regarding scenic views/night sky resources. The drilling rig will have inward facing lighting, pointing down; minimizing negative effects of spill lighting on the night sky or surrounding habitat. Noise There would be increased noise from construction activities drilling equipment, and the drilling or workover crew that could adversely affect human health, visitor use and experience, wildlife, and the overall acoustic environment. These noises would be different from the types of noises common in the visitor use areas, or general background noises elsewhere in the Refuge. Most of the adverse impacts associated with oil and gas operations within the Refuge would result from the drilling and production phases. Potential sources of noise associated with drilling and production include preparation of the drill site, drilling operations, cement work, well servicing, and workover operations. Predicted levels are representative of noise attenuation at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance from the sound source (the noise level drop-off rate from a stationary point source purely due to the geometry of the source). Though additional attenuation could be realized due to vegetation cover, intervening topography and meteorological conditions, low frequency sounds commonly produced by mechanized equipment (like vehicles, pumps, and drill rigs) travel great distances. Vegetation, certain meteorological conditions, and topography could reduce the distance at which noise levels from heavy construction equipment would attenuate to the natural ambient level. The production phase may necessitate the use of some equipment that produces considerable amounts of noise, including gas compressors and jack pumps. These impacts would be continuous and long term, as pumping or gas compression Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 60 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 would occur continuously over the life of the well. Additionally, over the course of time that the well is in production, well servicing and workover operations may be necessary. Depending on the maintenance necessary, well servicing may last only 1 or 2 days, requiring minor equipment and a workover rig (a scaled-down drilling rig). Major workover operations may last more than a month and could require some limited drilling operations. Where proposed operations are located close to active recreation or other non-Refuge operations (e.g., boating, the noses associated with Intracoastal Waterway uses, and noises associated with the active Clam Lake oil field), as it is within the Refuge vicinity, the noise associated with the oil and gas operations would not be as noticeable. Noise from exploration, development, and extraction activities can be mitigated through a variety of ways including, but not limited to, use of quieter engines, quieter machinery, noise barriers, noise enclosures, and timing of operations to avoid the quietest times of day or certain seasons for which impacts would be greater (i.e., wintering waterfowl populations). Production operations would also cause impacts because of the noise associated with production equipment and the short-term use of loud machinery and workover rigs onsite. These impacts would result from high sound levels while being temporary in nature. However, most noise levels associated with production would have lower sound levels than those generated by a drilling operation, yet would be continuous and could have other impacts to the soundscape, acoustic environment or the wildlife that rely on natural acoustic conditions. The greatest impacts from noise due to proposed operations would be temporary, with the most noise occurring during the drilling of the well(s) due to increase in traffic and the operating of heavy equipment for construction and installation during this time. However, there would also be continuing noise impacts during the production phase due to some traffic during minor maintenance or operation of heavy equipment during any workover operations. However, the proposed area of operation is located in an isolated location away from any local populations, so any noise from proposed operations will not affect a majority of the public. Refuge visitors access fishing piers and viewing areas off Clam Lake Road. The proposed operations would have little additional impact on enjoyment of these visitors to the Refuge, because the natural setting of the area is already highly impacted by current noise from existing oil and gas infrastructure in addition to traffic along the Intracoastal Waterway. The adverse impacts to the enjoyment of visitors from the additional noise impacts would not be notable. The USFWS has added stipulations to mitigate equipment noise levels under conditions of the operations permit. 4.8.1 Alternative A. Proposed Action. The USFWS Would Issue an Operational Permit for the Proposed Drilling and Production Activities Under this Alternative, impacts to infrastructure and conflicts with McFaddin NWR public use and other management programs would be less than under Alternative B, because of USFWS management of the proposed project through issuance of the Permit and monitoring of the project to ensure compliance with its provisions and stipulations. 4.8.2 Alternative B. No Action. The USFWS Would Not Issue an Operational Permit for the Proposed Drilling and Production Activities Under this Alternative, increased impacts to infrastructure such as roads, bridges, levees, fences, Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 61 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 parking areas, culverts, or other Refuge infrastructure and increased conflicts with McFaddin NWR waterfowl hunting and public uses and Refuge management programs would occur as a consequence of the lack of specific guidance on mitigative measures to minimize impacts and conflicts that would be stipulated in the Permit. 4.9 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES The proposed oil and gas development project would provide the local communities closest to the McFaddin NWR (Port Arthur, Sabine Pass, and Winnie) with short-term positive economic benefits. These benefits would result from local spending of crew per diems, local purchase of supplies and fuel and potentially, local leasing or contracting of auxiliary services. Royalties and tax revenues from oil and gas production would be realized. There would be no difference in impacts to socioeconomic resources between Alternatives A and B. 4.10 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The Cumulative Impact Analysis is required by NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations. CEQ’s definition of cumulative impacts is as follows: “…the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time” (40 CFR 1508.7). There are many various oil and gas past and present actions and the proposed drilling action within the project area. Past seismic, exploratory drilling, and past and present production actions, when combined with the proposed drilling action, may have cumulative impacts on the human environment. Brief descriptions of these projects are presented below: 4.10.1 Past and Present Actions 4.10.1.1 Previous Seismic Surveys Seismic surveys have occurred within the project area in the past, both before and after lands were acquired for the McFaddin NWR. The most recent seismic surveys in the McFaddin NWR were conducted by GX Technology, Inc. (a 2D seismic survey conducted in 2012 immediately west of the proposed project area in) and by Samson Energy Corporation (a 3D seismic survey conducted in 2012 that encompassed the western portion of McFaddin NWR). Other known seismic surveys include: Suemaur Exploration & Production (a 3D seismic survey that included western portions of McFaddin NWR conducted in 2006). One other known seismic survey that occurred within the western portion of McFaddin NWR and the surrounding private lands was conducted by Veritas DGC; a 3D seismic survey that was conducted across two thirds of the McFaddin NWR from the east end extending to the west. All of these seismic surveys were conducted under a USFWS Permit, which required strict adherence to stipulations that protected Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 62 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 and minimized impacts to the human environment. Seismic equipment utilized during most surveys included marsh masters (light weight tracked equipment), airboats, airboat drills, lightweight aluminum marsh buggy drills, and highland drill rigs, where appropriate. The majority of the impacts resulting from these project operations can be attributed to the compression of soils and/or temporary changes in plant communities within the various habitat types on the seismic lines within McFaddin NWR . The effects of soil compression in intermediate, brackish, and salt marshes can have negative effects when combined with other man-made actions (channelization through man-made ditches, the dredging of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, etc.) and natural processes (hurricanes pushing saltwater inland). The changes in marsh elevation through soil compression on source and receiver lines can allow saltwater intrusion deep into these marshes through various man-made actions or natural processes. Saltwater intrusion can stress or kill many marsh plant species and when combined with a tidal exchange, leads to erosion and further deterioration of intact marshes and loss of vegetated habitat to open water habitat, if not properly mitigated. Marsh management with either a man-made or natural levee system, water control structures and/or a source of freshwater inflow will often allow these actions to be mitigated. A marsh without a system of surrounding levees, water control structures, and the ability to mitigate the actions will potentially suffer the effects of saltwater intrusion and further degrade the long-term health of the marsh environment. The projects that have operated under the USFWS Permit stipulations have reduced some of the impacts from these actions, when strictly adhered too. The actions of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future seismic surveys conducted under a Permit, when added to the other man-made actions and natural processes, could have negative cumulative effects in some marsh habitat types. 4.10.1.2 Previous Exploratory Drilling Exploratory drilling has occurred within the project area in the past, both before and after these lands were acquired for the McFaddin NWR, as well as on the private lands surrounding McFaddin NWR today. There are no records of past exploratory drilling operations available to the Refuge, since the acquisition of property on the west end of McFaddin NWR was acquired in later years beyond the original acquisition, which took place in 1980. Additions to the west end of McFaddin NWR have occurred in 1995, 1996, and the most recent in 2005. The most recent exploratory drilling actions, within the project area, were conducted outside of the Refuge boundaries. The most recent land acquisitions in 2005 have also led to inheriting existing oil wells on the west end of McFaddin NWR that are currently in production, but operating without a McFaddin NWR Permit. Exploratory drilling has also occurred on the east end of McFaddin NWR within the existing Clam Lake Oil Field. Exploratory drilling actions result in one of two outcomes, these being production of the well, when oil and gas reserves are discovered or what is termed as a “dry hole” requiring plugging and abandonment of the drilled well, when oil and gas reserves are not discovered. Past exploratory drilling actions within the project area have led to some production actions within the Refuge Complex and on the surrounding private lands, as well. These production actions will last as long as the oil and gas reserves can be feasibly extracted. Stipulations within McFaddin NWR require written notification within one year of the shut-in of any producing well. The Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 63 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 notification must also provide the plans for a well recompletion to produce the well again or plugging and abandonment to cease all activities. The recompletion or plugging and abandonment of a well must occur within 90 days of the notification, as required by the McFaddin NWR Permit. Whether plugging and abandonment has occurred as a result of a dry hole or at the cessation of production of the well, the actions that have occurred under the stipulations of a Permit, requiring the impacted site to be restored to its pre-existing conditions and plant communities, has reduced the cumulative effects of exploratory drilling within the Refuge Complex. 4.10.1.3 Previous and Present Production Oil and gas production has occurred within the project area in the past, both before and after these lands were acquired for the McFaddin NWR. The oil and gas leases within the project area have exchanged ownership over time. Historically, the major companies were involved with the production actions on these leases and eventually sold off the leases to smaller companies over time, as production decreased within these leases. Currently McFaddin NWR has two producing operations within Refuge lands. Over time, the oil and gas industry has been able to utilize new technology that has led to increased protection of the environment and reduced the impacts to sensitive environments, where practical. The use of directional drilling has allowed drilling operations to occur from areas that have been previously impacted, close to existing roads, or even in areas less sensitive to the impacts. The use of impermeable liners under the drilling equipment has provided a barrier against contamination of soil and ground water. The use of a closed-loop system for capturing drilling mud and cuttings and having them properly processed and disposed of in a State- approved facility has provided protection against soil and water contamination from chemicals and heavy metals, when compared to the open pits that were utilized in past oil and gas drilling operations. Technological advancements have occurred over time in the oil and gas industry and have been implemented into the McFaddin NWR Permit over time, to help protect the human environment. There are currently no production operations within the eastern portion of McFaddin NWR that operate under a McFaddin NWR Permit. Any future production actions that are conducted under a McFaddin NWR Permit, as required by 29D Regulations, will have stipulations that protect and minimize impacts to the human environment. These production actions have operations that require the use of catch pans under equipment to minimize contamination to soils and water, the use of hospital muffler systems on engines and compressors that substantially reduce noise pollution and disturbance impacts, the requirement for the burial of all gathering pipelines between wells and production facilities that reduce exposure to the environmental elements and reduce the chances of an oil spill. These mitigation measures, as well as others attached to the Permit, help to protect the human environment. The reasonably foreseeable future production actions that operate under a McFaddin NWR Permit could have short-term (the life of the well) cumulative effects on the human environment. These operations will pose the least threat to cumulative effects, due to the site restoration requirements in the McFaddin NWR Permit, that require the site to be restored to its pre-existing conditions, so that it can once again function as wildlife habitat in the future. Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 64 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 4.10.2 Biological Resources 4.10.2.1 Vegetation Cumulative impacts on vegetation within the project area have occurred and would continue to occur, because of oil and gas actions, man-made actions, and natural processes. Impacts on vegetation have occurred due to the effects of past and present oil and gas exploration and production activities within the project area. Seismic activities have caused direct impacts to vegetation through equipment travel across habitats crushing plant biomass and indirect impacts to vegetation through the compression of soils that potentially leads to saltwater intrusion that stresses or kills plants that can further lead to erosion of soils through tidal exchange and eventually open water habitat and thus a loss of vegetation within the project area. Exploratory drilling activities have caused direct impacts to vegetation through board road construction and drill pad construction and indirect impacts to vegetation through soil compression that potentially leads to changes in plant communities, due to changes in elevation. Production activities have caused direct impacts to vegetation through well pad construction and indirect impacts to vegetation through inadvertent leaks from the well to surrounding habitat that leads to contamination of soils and mortality of plants. Beneficial cumulative effects to vegetation are expected to result from the USFWS’s management of the McFaddin NWR, as the activities conducted in this area would be subject to Permit stipulations designed to minimize impacts on vegetation and restore any impacted sites to pre-existing conditions at the cessation of activities. Because OLEUM’s proposed operations would be conducted within a previously disturbed pipe yard location and under a McFaddin NWR Permit with attached stipulations that would reduce impacts to vegetation, the operation’s contribution towards cumulative effects on vegetation, when combined with other cumulative effects would be expected to be low to non-existent. 4.10.2.2 Wildlife Cumulative impacts on wildlife resources within the project area have occurred and would continue to occur because of oil and gas actions, man-made actions, and natural processes. Impacts on wildlife resources have occurred due to the effects of past and present oil and gas exploration and production activities within the project area. Seismic activities have caused disturbance impacts to wildlife resources through wide spread equipment travel across habitats, causing temporary displacement of wildlife and potential indirect impacts to wildlife resources through the compression of soils that could potentially lead to saltwater intrusion that stresses or kills plants that can further lead to erosion of soils through tidal exchange and eventually open water habitat and thus a loss of vegetative habitat within the project area affecting wildlife resources. Exploratory drilling activities have caused localized impacts to wildlife resources through temporary loss of habitat through board road and drill pad construction and disturbance impacts. Production activities have caused impacts to wildlife resources through well pad construction, road construction, traffic disturbance and contamination of soils and water that have direct and indirect impacts to wildlife resources. Beneficial cumulative effects to wildlife resources are expected to result from the USFWS’s Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 65 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 management of the McFaddin NWR, as the activities conducted in this area would be subject to Permit stipulations designed to minimize impacts to wildlife and restore any impacted sites to pre-existing conditions at the cessation of activities, to once again benefit wildlife resources. Because OLEUM’s proposed operations would be conducted under a McFaddin NWR Permit, with attached stipulations that would reduce impacts to wildlife resources, the operation’s contribution towards cumulative effects on wildlife resources, when combined with other cumulative effects would be expected to be low to non-existent. 4.10.2.3 Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species Cumulative impacts on threatened, endangered, and rare species within the project area have occurred and would continue to occur because of oil and gas actions, man-made actions, and natural processes, primarily outside the boundaries of USFWS lands. McFaddin NWR provides habitat and protection for threatened, endangered, and rare species, contributing to the beneficial cumulative effects within the project area. Projects proposed and conducted within USFWS lands, with or without a McFaddin NWR Permit, would be subject to compliance with the Endangered Species Act and other laws, regulations, and policies that provide protection for these species. Because OLEUM’s proposed operations are not in or adjacent to these habitats therefore not expected to encounter, and thus affect, threatened, endangered, and rare species, the operation’s contribution towards cumulative effects on those species, when combined with other cumulative effects would be expected to be no effect. 4.10.2.4 Essential Fish Habitat Cumulative impacts on essential fish habitat within the project area have occurred and would continue to occur because of oil and gas actions, man-made actions, and natural processes. Impacts to essential fish habitat have occurred within the project area in the past, both before and after these lands were acquired for the McFaddin NWR. The coastal marshes within the project area that support essential fish habitat have been impacted by seismic source and receiver lines that have led to compression of soils, which lead to saltwater intrusion, potentially loss of vegetation and eventual open water habitat, thus causing a long-term decline in fisheries with the loss of suitable habitat. Exploratory drilling and production operations require access into some of these habitats. These habitats are susceptible to hydrological deterioration through the construction of access roads, which impede rainwater sheetflow across marsh and/or tidal exchange across marsh. Channelization and dredging of waterways, to promote drainage in urban areas and support commerce, has also impeded natural hydrological function by blocking natural sheetflow processes across marsh. The effects of channelization and dredging of waterways has also allowed freshwater to exit these ecosystems quickly and then in turn allowed saltwater to protrude deep into these habitats causing accelerated deterioration of habitats, that could lead to a decline in fisheries with the loss of essential fish habitat. Essential fish habitat is also susceptible to potential contamination from oil and/or chemical spills, due to exploration and production activities and commerce of these products on waterways within the project area. Beneficial cumulative effects to essential fish habitat are expected to result from the USFWS’s management of the McFaddin NWR, as activities conducted in this area would be subject to Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 66 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 Permit stipulations designed to minimize impacts on essential fish habitat and restore any impacted sites to pre-existing conditions at the cessation of activities. Because OLEUM’s proposed operations on McFaddin NWR are located outside of areas designated as Essential Fish Habitat, and have been planned in a manner that has minimized the potential for impacts to sensitive marsh habitats, the operation’s contribution towards cumulative effects on essential fish habitat, when combined with other cumulative effects would be expected to be low to non existent. 4.10.3 Water Quality Cumulative impacts on water quality within the project area have occurred and would continue to occur, because of oil and gas actions, man-made actions, and natural processes. Water quality impacts have occurred within the project area in the past, both before and after these lands were acquired for the McFaddin NWR. Exploratory drilling operations have historically used open pits to hold and store drilling mud and cuttings during these operations. The drilling mud and cuttings contain chemicals, heavy metals, and hydrocarbon wastes associated with the drilling activities. These materials have the potential to contaminate surface and ground water supplies. The equipment utilized during drilling operations may also contribute to surface and ground water contamination through spills and leaks of faulty equipment. Production operations that require the use of chemicals to treat the produced products and/or protect against corrosion of production pipelines can contribute to surface and ground water contamination as well as the inadvertent leaks and spills of produced crude oil and saltwater during production activities. Beneficial cumulative effects to water quality are expected to result from the USFWS’s management of the McFaddin NWR, as the activities conducted in this area would be subject to Permit stipulations designed to minimize impacts on water quality. The use of catch pans, an impermeable liner, a closed-loop system, a fence with silt screening or hay bales during construction activities to prevent construction run off, and burial of pipelines are some of the stipulations attached to the Permit that are designed to protect water quality within the project area. Because OLEUM’s proposed operations would be conducted under a McFaddin NWR Permit, with attached stipulations that would protect water quality, the operation’s contribution towards cumulative effects on water quality, when combined with other cumulative effects would be expected to be low to non-existent. 4.10.4 Cultural and Historic Resources Cumulative impacts on cultural and historic resources within the project area have occurred and will continue to occur as a result of oil and gas actions, man-made actions, and natural processes. Impacts to cultural and historic resources have occurred within the project area in the past, both before and after these lands were acquired for the McFaddin NWR. Seismic activities require large scale operations over a vast area. The operations utilize airboats and tracked and rubber tired equipment, which can impact cultural and historic resources. The operations drill holes to set charges and detonators, which can also impact cultural and historic resources. Exploratory drilling activities require construction of board roads and drill pads and the drilling of the well. These activities, although localized, can impact cultural and historic resources by the surface disturbance that is required to conduct operations. Production activities may require excavation Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 67 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 for the installation of pipelines and construction of production facilities causing surface disturbance, both potentially affecting cultural and historic resources. The protection of cultural and historic resources, through the USFWS’s management of the McFaddin NWR, is expected to help minimize and/or avoid impacts to these resources, as the activities conducted in this area would be subject to Permit stipulations designed to minimize and/or avoid impacts to cultural and historic resources. The proposed project that would be conducted on USFWS lands would be subject to compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act and other laws, regulations, and policies that provide protection for these resources. Because OLEUM’s proposed operations would be conducted under a McFaddin NWR Operations Permit, with attached stipulations that would protect cultural and historic resources, the operation’s contribution towards cumulative effects on cultural and historic resources, when combined with other cumulative effects would be expected to be low to non-existent. 4.10.5 Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Cumulative impacts from hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste (HTRW) spills on natural resources (soil, water, biota, and air) within the project area have occurred and would continue to occur, because of oil and gas actions, man-made actions, and natural processes. HTRW spills have occurred within the project area in the past, both before and after these lands were acquired for the McFaddin NWR. Exploratory drilling operations have used open pits to hold and store drilling mud and cuttings during these operations. The drilling mud and cuttings contain chemicals, heavy metals, and hydrocarbon wastes associated with the drilling activities. These materials have the potential to contaminate soils and surface and ground water supplies. The equipment utilized during drilling operations may also contribute to soil and surface and ground water contamination through spills and leaks of faulty equipment. Production operations that require the use of chemicals to treat the produced products and/or protect against corrosion of production pipelines can contribute to soil and surface and ground water contamination as well as the inadvertent leaks and spills of produced crude oil and saltwater during production activities. Cumulative effects of HTRW spills to USFWS lands are expected to be minimized and/or avoided, due to the USFWS’s management of the McFaddin NWR, as the activities conducted in this area would be subject to Permit stipulations designed to minimize and/or avoid impacts from HTRW spills on McFaddin NWR. Permit stipulations such as (1) use of catch pans and an impermeable liner, (2) use of the closed-loop system for drilling mud and cuttings with disposal into State-approved facilities, and (3) use of soil testing to check for contamination, with remediation for impacted soils through soil removal and disposal into State-approved facilities will all help to minimize and/or avoid cumulative impacts from HTRW spills. Because OLEUM’s proposed operations would be conducted under a McFaddin NWR Permit, with attached stipulations to protect natural resources from HTRW spills, the operation’s contribution towards cumulative effects of hazardous, toxic and radioactive wastes, when combined with other cumulative effects would be expected to be low to non-existent. Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 68 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 4.10.6 Air Quality and Ambient Noise Levels Cumulative impacts on air quality and ambient noise level within the project area have occurred and would continue to occur, because of oil and gas actions, man-made actions, and natural processes. Air quality and ambient noise level impacts have occurred within the project area in the past, both before and after these lands were acquired for the McFaddin NWR. Exploratory drilling operations have occurred within the project area and may or may not have operated equipment that would have ensured air quality and reduced ambient noise levels. Production operations within the project area may have operated compressors or motors to extract and transport products through production pipelines. These operations would not have conducted stringent practices to protect air quality and reduce ambient noise levels to reduce disturbance impacts to wildlife. Cumulative effects to air quality and ambient noise level are expected to be reduced through the USFWS’s management of the McFaddin NWR, as the activities conducted in this area would be subject to Permit stipulations designed to minimize impacts on air quality and ambient noise levels. Permit stipulations require (1) the use of mufflers and silencers on equipment, proper maintenance of equipment and/or construction of noise barriers and (2) all vehicles entering the Refuge would have proper license and meet all State highway operating requirements. These stipulations attached to the Permit are designed to protect air quality and reduce ambient noise levels within the project area. Because OLEUM’s proposed operations would be conducted under a McFaddin NWR Permit, with attached stipulations to protect air quality and reduce ambient noise levels, the operation’s contribution towards cumulative effects on air quality and ambient noise levels, when combined with other cumulative effects would be expected to be low to non-existent. 4.10.7 Land Use and Socioeconomics 4.10.7.1 Land Use Cumulative impacts on land use within the project area have occurred and would continue to occur mainly as a result of oil and gas actions, man-made actions, and natural processes. Land use impacts have occurred within the project area in the past, both before and after these lands were acquired for the McFaddin NWR. The installation of roads and well pads within the project area has resulted in the conversion of uplands and wetlands to access infrastructure. This conversion of land use has contributed to both adverse and beneficial cumulative effects. The installation of roads and well pads across uplands and wetlands has led to adverse cumulative effects through negative impacts to sheetflow across uplands and wetlands affecting hydrological function, and thus potentially affecting plant communities and habitats. The access roads also fragment habitat and lead to disturbance impacts to wildlife by allowing access that was once not available. The installation of roads and well pads has also led to the beneficial cumulative effects by providing access into McFaddin NWR for refuge administrative uses and visitor uses. The access roads provide Refuge employees with the means to conduct biological and maintenance Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 69 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 requirements to effectively manage the natural resources. The access roads provide for management activities that benefit wildlife uses on the Refuge. The access roads provide a means for visitor uses such as; wildlife observation, wildlife photography, fishing, hunting, and educational opportunities. The access roads and well pads provide suitable habitat to some species of wildlife that require elevated areas for daily life functions. Some avian species benefit from the elevated areas with gravel substrates for nesting habitat. The elevated areas also promote growth of brush species that in turn provide nesting habitat to other species that utilize these habitats. The USFWS’s management of the McFaddin NWR, within the project area, should minimize cumulative impacts on land use within the project area, as activities conducted in this area would be subject to Permit stipulations that would require restoration of any impacted sites to pre existing conditions at the cessation of activities. Because impacts from OLEUM’s proposed operations would be short-term (the life of the well), entirely utilizing existing access infrastructure to the well pad site, and located entirely within an existing producing oil field, the operation’s contribution towards cumulative effects on land use, when combined with other cumulative effects would be expected to be low to non-existent. 4.10.7.2 Socioeconomics Cumulative impacts on socioeconomics within the local communities and the surrounding areas have occurred and would continue to occur because of oil and gas actions, man-made actions, and natural processes. Socioeconomic impacts have occurred within the project area in the past, both before and after these lands were acquired for the McFaddin NWR. Impacts to socioeconomics would occur when declining prices of oil and gas would limit the extent of conducting seismic and exploratory drilling operations that could be conducted within the project area. The reduction in those activities would of course reduce any new potential production activities until higher oil and gas prices returned, allowing the feasibility to conduct exploration and development activities once again. The economic benefits to the local economy would be lost causing a trickle-down effect on the local economy with a possible rise in the unemployment rate in severe situations. The beneficial cumulative socioeconomic effects of the proposed oil and gas drilling project would be that it would provide the local communities closest to the McFaddin NWR (Port Arthur, Sabine Pass, and Winnie) with short-term positive economic benefits through local spending of crew per diems, local purchase of supplies and fuel, and potentially, local leasing or contracting of auxiliary services. Oil and gas production from the proposed project would also provide beneficial cumulative socioeconomic effects, but cannot be quantified at this time, because it is not known if the project would encounter commercial quantities of oil or gas. If recoverable reserves are discovered, royalties and tax revenues from oil and gas production would be realized within the project area and it would also contribute to the domestic oil and gas reserves in our country. OLEUM’s proposed operations could potentially create a measurable beneficial effect on socioeconomic values within the local communities. Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 70 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 5.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 5.1 COASTAL MANAGEMENT ZONE The Texas Coastal Management Program (TCMP), administered by the Texas Coastal Coordination Council (TCCC) through the Texas General Land Office, was created in response to the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, which affords protection to the nation’s coastal resources. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the TCMP was released in August 1996. The federal consistency requirement of the TCMP for the project will be met through the USFWS Permit process. 5.2 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT Executive Order (EO) 11988, Floodplain Management - The proposed action will not induce increased flooding in developed areas and will not contribute to increased future flood damage. 5.3 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES Executive Order (EO) 11990, Protection of Wetlands - The proposed action has been analyzed for compliance with EO 11990. No impacts to wetlands from the proposed action have been identified in the assessment. 5.4 ENDANGERED SPECIES Endangered Species Act of 1973 – The Endangered Species Act, through USFWS, affords protection of the nation’s listed threatened or endangered species. Interagency consultation procedures under Section 7 of the Act will be satisfied. 5.5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act affords protection to the nation’s archaeological and historical (cultural) resources. The SHPO of the THC is responsible for overseeing Section 106 consistency within the State of Texas. OLEUM’s cultural resource consultant completed a file search of known archaeological and historic resources within the project area and has consulted with the THC with regards to the potential effects of proposed activities on cultural/historic properties. The THC concurred that there would be no historic properties affected (Appendix B) as a result of OLEUM’s proposed operations. 5.6 WATER QUALITY State water quality certifications will be obtained from the Railroad Commission of Texas. 5.7 STATE SUBMERGED LANDS No submerged tracts of land, Permanent School Fund tracts and/or Relinquishment Act tracts Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 71 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 owned by the State of Texas and administered by the Texas General Land Office (GLO) are present within the project area. Permittee to submit a request for a Discharge Prevention and Response Certificate through the Texas General Land Office to comply with the Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act 1991 (OSPRA), Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 40. §40.109. 5.8 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT The proposed action has been analyzed for compliance with 50 CFR Section 600.290 of the regulation to implement the essential fish habitat provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. No impacts to wetlands from the proposed action have been identified in the assessment. 6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, Allison A., C. Hubbs, K. O. Winemiller, and R. L. Edwards. 1995. Texas freshwater fish assemblages following three decades of environmental change. The Southwest Naturalist 40 (3): 314-321. Aronow, S. and V.E. Barnes. 1996. Geologic Atlas of Texas, Houston Sheet. Paul Weaver Memorial Edition. 1968; revised 1982; reprinted 1996. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2017. Beaumont-Port Arthur Texas. Available online: https://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.tx_beaumont_msa.htm#eag_tx_beaumont_msa.f.1. Accessed May 6, 2017. Campbell, L. 1995. Endangered and Threatened Animals of Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Press. City-Data (Jefferson County). 2017. City Data for Jefferson County. Available online: http://www.city-data.com/county/Jefferson_County-TX.html. Accessed May 6, 2017. Collins, S.L. 1981. A comparison of nest-site and perch-site vegetation structure for seven species of warblers. Wilson Bulletin 93: 542-547. Conant, R. and J.T. Collins. 1998. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America, Third Edition, Expanded. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, NY, USA. Crenwelge, G.W. 1996. Soil Survey of Jefferson and Orange Counties, Texas: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 426 pp. DeGraaf, R.M., V.E. Scott, R.H. Hamre, L. Ernst, and S.H. Anderson. 1991. Forest and Rangeland Birds of the United States. Natural History and Habitat Use. USDA Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook 688. 625 pp. Available online: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/forest/index.htm Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 72 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 Dixon, J.R. 2000. Amphibians and Reptiles of Texas, Second Edition. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, TX, USA. Durham, R.S. and A.A. Afton. 2003. Nest-site selection and success of mottled ducks on agricultural lands in southwest Louisiana. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31(2): 433-442. eBird. Explore Data. Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa) Species Sighting Database. (2013, January 7). Retrived from http://ebird.org/ebird/map/redkno?neg=true&env.minX=&env. minY= &env.maxX=&env.maxY=&zh=false&gp=false&mr=1-2&bmo=1&emo=12&yr =1900-2013&byr=1900&eyr=2013. Elliot, L. and K. McKnight. 2000. U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, Lower Mississippi/Western Gulf Coast Shorebird Planning Region. Gulf Coastal Prairie Working Group and Mississippi Alluvial Valley/West Gulf Coastal Plain Working Group. Esslinger, G. and B. Wilson. 2001. Gulf Coast Joint Venture Chenier Plain Initiative Area Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Division of Migratory Bird Management. Albuquerque, NM, USA. Gosselink, J.G., C.L. Cordes, and J.W. Parsons. 1979. An Ecological Characterization Study of the Chenier Plain Coastal Ecosystem of Louisiana and Texas. 3 Vols. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services. FWS/OBS-78/9 through 78/11. Gulf Coast Bird Observatory. 2011. Gulf Coast Bird Observatory Site Partner Network – Detailed Page on Texas Chenier Plain National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Available online: www.gcbo.org/html/chenier.pdf. Haukos, D. and J. Neaville. 2002. Status of Mottled Ducks on Texas Coastal National Wildlife Refuges. Unpublished Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Division of Migratory Bird Management. Albuquerque, NM, USA. Kushlan J.A., M.J. Steinkamp, K.C. Parsons, J. Capp, M.A. Cruz, M. Coulter, I. Davidson, L. Dickson, N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R. Michael Erwin, S. Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko, S. Miller, K. Mills, R. Paul, R. Phillips, J.E. Saliva, B. Sydeman, J. Trapp, J. Wheeler, and K. Wohl. 2002. Waterbird Conservation for the Americas: The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, Version 1. Waterbird Conservation for the Americas. Washington, D.C., USA. Metz, Tasha L. 2011. Sea turtle use of the Upper Texas Coast. Sea Turtle and Fisheries Ecology Research Lab. Texas A&M University at Galveston. Presentation to Samson Energy Company, December 28, 2011, Galveston, Texas. Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 73 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 Morton, R.A. 1998. Gulf Shoreline Movement between Sabine Pass and the Brazos River, Texas: 1974-1996. Texas Bureau of Economic Geology. Geological Circular pp. 97-03. Austin, TX, USA. Moulton, D.W., T.E. Dahl, and D.M. Dall. 1997. Texas Coastal Wetlands – Status and Trends, mid 1950s to early 1990s. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM, USA. 32 pp. Oberholser, H. 1974. The Bird Life of Texas. University of Texas Press. Austin, TX, USA. Schutter, T. 2011. Tami Schutter, Park Ranger. Personal communication during January 18, 2011 meeting at Texas Chenier Plain National Wildlife Refuge Complex office in Anahuac, TX, USA. Schmidly, D. J. 1994. The Mammals of Texas, Revised Edition. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, TX, USA. Shackleford, C and C. Lockwood. 2000. Rare and Declining Birds of Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Austin, TX, USA. Skagen N, S. K., P. B. Sharpe, R. G. Waltermire, AND M. B. Dillon. 1999. Biogeographical profiles of shorebird migration in midcon- tinental North America. United States Geological Survey Biological Science Report 2000-0003. [Online.] Available at www.fort.usgs.gov/ shorebirds. Stutzenbaker, C.D. 1988. The Mottled Duck. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Publ., Austin, TX, USA. 209 pp. Stutzenbaker, C.D. 1990. Salt Bayou Marsh Project Joint Water Management Plan for Sea Rim State Park, McFaddin National Wildlife Refuge and J.D. Murphree Wildlife Management Area – A Wetland Habitat Restoration and Management Project of the Gulf Coast Joint Venture. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 34 pp. Texas General Land Office (TGLO). 1996. Texas Coastwide Erosion Response Plan, A Report to the 75th Legislature. Austin, TX, USA. 91 pp. Texas Marine Mammal Stranding Network (TMMSN). (2015, January 6). Online Stranding/Sightings Reports. Retrieved from at http://www.tmmsn.org/. United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2017. Jefferson County QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau. Available online: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/48245 Accessed May 6, 2017. Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 74 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). 2017. U.S. Poverty Guidelines. Obtained from https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines. Accessed on May 6, 2017. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016. National Wildlife Refuge System Revision of Regulations Governing Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights. Environmental Impacts Analysis. Retrieved from https://www.fws.gov/refuges/oil-and-gas/pdfs/FEIS National-Wildlife-Refuge-System-Revision-of-Regulations-Governing-Non-Federal-Oil and-Gas-Rights.pdf. ______. 2014. Rufa Red Knot Background Information and Threats Assessment: Supplement to Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Threatened Status for the Rufa Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa) [Docket No. FWS–R5–ES–2013–0097; RIN AY17] . Pleasantville, NJ. 383pp. Retrieved from https://www.fws.gov/northeast/redknot/pdf/20141125_REKN_FL_supplemental_doc_FI NAL.pdf. ______. 2013. West Indian Manatee (Trichechnus manatus). Species Profile (2013, June 12). Retrieved from http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?Spcode =A007. ______. 2012. Environmental Assessment: Construction of Artificial Beach Ridge to Restore Shoreline Damages Due to Hurricane Ike on McFaddin National Wildlife Refuge, Jefferson County, Texas. Texas Chenier Plain Refuge Complex. ______. 2008. Texas Chenier Plain Refuge Complex: Final Environmental Impact Statement, Comprehensive Conservation Plan, and Land Protection Plan. Division of Planning, National Wildlife Refuge System, Southwest Region. Alburquerque, New Mexico. ______. 2005. Avian Species of Conservation Concern. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management. Arlington, VA, USA. 96 pp. ______. 2004. Game Birds Below Desired of Conservation Concern. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, VA, USA. ______. 2002. Birds of Conservation Concern, Division of Migratory Bird Management. ______. 1997. Birds of Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., USA. March, 1997. ______. 1994a. Environmental Assessment of Alternatives for Management of Grasslands on the Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge Complex; Chambers and Jefferson Counties, TX. Prepared by J. Neaville. Unpublished Document. September, 1994. ______. 1994b. Environmental Assessment of Public Use Activities Involving Boating, Wildlife Observation, Photography, Bicycling and Pedestrian Uses on McFaddin Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 75 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 National Wildlife Refuge, Sabine Pass, Texas. Prepared by Danial Dinkler, David Weaver, Spencer Simon. Unpublished Document. Sabine Pass, TX, USA. ______. 1983. Planning Needs Assessment, Refuge Background Document for Texas Point National Wildlife Refuge. Unpublished Document. ______. 1977. Environmental Assessment of Proposed Land Acquisition for McFaddin Marsh Area, Jefferson County, Texas. Albuquerque, NM, USA. August 1977, 84 pp. White, W.A., and T.A. Tremblay. 1995. Submergence of Wetlands as a Result of Human Induced Subsidence and Faulting Along the Upper Texas Gulf Coast. Journal of Coastal Research. 11 (3): 788-807. Draft - Environmental Assessment - Issuance of an Operations Permit Page 76 of 76 OLEUM Exploration, LLC June 2017 A PPENDIX A Project Maps/Plans/Plats !. Ü Ü 2/(80 /HDVH$UHD ®t p" !. !. 0LOHV ' !. ' !. !. !.0&)7UXVW !. 0&)6WDWH !. !. !. !. 3URSRVHG !.!. !. :HOOV6LWH !.!. !.!. !. !. !. !. !. !. !.!. ' !. !. !. 7D Q N !. !. %DWWHU\ !. !. !. p" U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service McFaddin National Wildlife Refuge FEATURES I I .! $&7,9(:(//6 %2$7/$81&+ Authors:Sean Reed/Monique Slaughter p" Date:06/06/2017 Clam Lake Field/ Projection:NAD 83 UTM Zone 15N .! 6+87,1:(//6 Ortho Imagery: OLEUM Lease Area Texas Natural Resources Information System (TNRIS), ®t $&&(66,%/( part of the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) .! 352326(':(//6 2. THE "McFAIJOINSTATE 39 & McFAOOINTRUXT 106" WELLSARE ·-:::.- • :- - ·._::-- ~:--=,..,._ •• • "-~----- ,/§''!,.TR UST 106 •,.' ·"' ' /'t-· - -:' t · ~~y LOCATEDON THE"CLAM LAl A-899 \ A-898 ·' ",,\ \- ~ -- --~- · ·,;··: · -· - ~ I I •.,,.,•1.·1.. ·:; -~J :. .· ·--~'.·:.;){i~Ii:f .LEASE LIMITS- -. j · r, >"'' - .. A-78,l <- OLEUM _ • ·-: :·:-._:-:·~-:- 1~ EXPLORATION,lL(: . ..·.::·. ~:_: J -- , . _,:J-1 Mcf-ADDIN·STATE39 & . ...,) l-1-~ i ~... '-~ - ,. .:;.;.._.,,,.., McF.ADDINTRUST 106 - :::;;!;:.--;._,"" ,,,,It SURFACEHO L~ LO,r.ATIONS _- - ~ .. - SURVEY EXHIBIT ,.,.. r l( ~? \,.,,~._..,i- - SEE DETAIL. : ··• • I· ..,.. ..,.... -i:;;; _.• • ,::--- FOR ~ ";, ... .'/' ~ ,,.,,. McFADDIN STATE 39 & ~ =~';::';:-;,,,. ~' ., ..-s,\~--s,\l(i~ McFADDIN TRUST 106 OLEUM EXPLORATION, LLC ,1 f: Jt I C T. & N.0. RR. SURVEY OLEUM OLEUM ABSTRACT NO. 282 EXPLORAT ION, LLC EXPLORATION, LLC JEFFERSON COUNTY,TEXAS REPARE:.DFOR: P MCFADDIN TRUST 106 MCFAOOIN STATE 39 OLEUMEXPLORATION , LLC MAY 2017 108 SWITZGABLE'DRIVE BROOHEADSVILLE, PA I8322 SURFACE HOLE LOCATION SURFACE HOLE LOCATION NAO 27, TX SOUTH CENTRAL NAO 27. TX SOUTH CENTRAL . JAMA X: 3,551,£.£.2.£.82 X: :1,551,l.£.I.77I '-,I~ GROUP LLC ~i 'i- ,,o Y: 711,77£..4 03 Y: 7II ,75£..l.l6 0 12000' 7485 Phelan Blvd. LAT: 29° £.2' 06.3 55779" LA T: 29° £.2' 06.158360" .... • Beaumont. Texas 77706 LON: 94° 06' 41.892258" LON: 9£. 0 06' 41.909785" \l-\,f SCALE:1" =\6000' Office ( 409) 899-5050 ( , TBPLS Firm #101 30400 JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS 1NGWO T. & N.O. RR. SURVEY, A-245 'ZRNQTCVKQP..% /E(CFFKP6TWUV ~XISTING RISER 5WTHCEG*QNG.QECVKQP ,,, 0#&6:5QWVJ%GPVTCN : ; ,,, .CV .QP ' 1NGWO 'ZRNQTCVKQP..% /E(CFFKP5VCVG WET\AND BOUNDARY 5WTHCEG*QNG.QECVKQP PIPELINES 0#&6:5QWVJ%GPVTCN : ; .CV .QP SU RFACE I OCATIQN McFAPOIN STATE 39 IS LOCATED 445' FROM THE SOUTH LI NE & 262' FROM THE EAST LIN E OF A- 282 , LOCATED 10210' FR OM A WEST LINE & 7372' FROM A SOUTH LI NE OF A LEASED AREA, AND LOCATED 5876' FROM A NORTHWEST LINE OF THE McFADDIN NWR LIMITS. SU RFACE HO[ E I QCATI QN - McFADOIN TRIP 106 IS LOCATED 465' FR OM THE SO UTH LINE & 260' FROM THE EAST LIN E OF A- 282 , LOCATED 1021 1' FR OM A WEST LINE & 739 1' FROM A SO UTH LI NE OF A LEASED AREA, AND LOCATED PLAN 5862' FROM A NORTHWEST LINE OF THE Scale: 1" = 100' McFADD IN NWR LIMITS AQUA DAM go'xso· 210'X 120 ' WOOD MATS MUD PIT LI NER PROFILE NOT TO SCALE PERMIT DRAWING NOTES 1. ALL BEARINGS ARE REFERENCED TO TH E U.S. STATE PLANE COORDI NATE SYSTEM , LA MBERT PROJECTION, NORTH AM ERICA N DATUM OF FOR 1927 (NAD 27) , TEXAS SOU TH CENTRAL ZONE (S URVEY FOOT) 2. ALL VERTI CAL CONTROL IS REFERENCED TO NORTH AMER ICAN VERTI CAL DATUM OF 1988 {NAVO 88) AND DETERM INED BY GPS McFADDIN TRUST 106 OBSERVATIO NS UTILIZ ING THE NAT IONAL GEODETIC SURVEY "GUIDELINES FOR ESTABLISHING CPS - DERIVED EL LI PSO ID HEI GHTS" NOAA TEC HNICAL MEMORAND UM NOS NGS - 58 (5 cm STANDARD). & McFADDIN STATE 39 ,. THE CON TENTS OF THESE PLAN S ARE INTENDED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING ENVIRONM ENTAL COMPLIANCE PERMITS. OLEUM EXPLORATION, LLC T. & N.O. RR. SURVEY ~ JAMA PREPARED FOR : \.'-"01 GROUP LLC ABSTRACT NO. 245 OLEUM EXPLORATION, LLC .... 7485 Phelan Boulevord I 08 SWITZ GABLE DRIVE Beaumont, Texes 77706 JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS BRODHEADSVILLE, PA 18322 Office ( 409) 899-5050 MAY 2017 TBPLS Firm #10130400 APPENDIX B THC Correspondence From: [email protected] TEXAS HISTORIC.AL COMMISSION ~ ran/ places telling ,·en/ stQries Re: Project Review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and/or the Antiquities Code of Texas 201707153 OLEUMs McFaddin Well McFaddin National Wildlife Refuge Sabine Pass,TX Dear Victor Galan: Thank you for your submittal regarding the above-referenced project. This response represents the comments of the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Executive Director of the Texas Historical Commission (THC), pursuant to review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The review staff led by Kerry Nichols and Justin Kockritz has completed its review and has made the following determinations based on the information submitted for review: Above-Ground Resources • No historic properties present or affected Archeology Comments • No historic properties present or affected • THC/SHPO concurs with information provided We look forward to further consultation with your office and hope to maintain a partnership that will foster effective historic preservation. Thank you for your cooperation in this review process, and for your efforts to preserve the irreplaceable heritage of Texas. If you have any questions concerning our review or if we can be of further assistance, please email the following reviewers: [email protected], [email protected]. Sincerely, for Mark Wolfe, State Historic Preservation Officer Executive Director, Texas Historical Commission Please do not respond to this email. Deep East Texas Archaeological Consultants (DETAC) 4215 Red Oak Nacogdoches, TX 75965 (936)554-3435 [email protected] 23 May 2017 Kerri Nichols Texas Historical Commission PO Box 12276 Austin, TX. 78711-2276 Subject: OLEUM Exploration Prospect Well Pad, McFaddin National Wildlife Refuge, Jefferson County, Texas. NHPA Section 106. Mr. Nicholes: DESCO Environmental requested that I write you for a determination of the need for an archaeological survey for the OLEUM Exploration Prospect well location and access road. The project will use an existing elevated pad and access road built of imported material in the McFaddin National Wildlife Refuge (Figure 1). The proposed well location and access road are in a marsh. Elevated roads and pads dot the landscape adjacent to man-made channels (Figure 2). Soils are exclusively Creole mucky peat, frequently flooded, tidal marsh with mucky peat 7 inches deep over clay. Examination of the Google Earth historic photos show the proposed well location was a facility build between 1982 and 1989 (Figure 2). The images show use until 1996 when extensions to the east were abandoned. Improvements and construction are evident again in 2010. The archaeological site atlas lists six archaeological surveys for the McFaddin Wildlife Refuge. Of these, the closest to the current project area was a 1981 linear survey roughly 0.3 miles to the south. The next closest survey was in 2001 along the Intercostal waterway roughly 1.1 miles to the north. The closest documented archaeological site is 41JF68. This site was recorded as a shell midden with ceramic artifacts and bone roughly 1.9 miles to the southeast of the current project area on the lake shore. No historic period cemeteries are visible on the topographic map within one mile of the project area. Based on this information, the potential for impacting an archaeological site eligible for inclusion to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is low across the project area. Elevated areas in marshes are considered high probability, but none are visible on the soils map or in historical imagery dating back to 1938. The existing road and facility material was imported between 1982 and 1989. DETAC does not believe a cultural resources survey is necessary for the proposed well location. Please send me an email at [email protected] or call me at 936-554- 3435 with your determination or if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Victor J. Galan, PhD Archaeologist feet 2000 meters 700 0 100 200 400 600 Meters Project Area 1111 1111 Feet 0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 © Figure 2. Project area on 1938 Google Earth imagery and project area on 2016 NAIP 1m image. 3