Draft Environmental Assessment for the General Conservation Plan for Oil and Gas Activities Associated with Issuance of Endangered Species Act Section 10(a)(1)(b) Permits in Santa Barbara County, California
Contract No. GS-00F-314CA Task Order No. 140F0118R0023
1
2
Prepared for:
UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office 2493 Portola Road, Suite B Ventura, California 93003
Prepared by:
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. 104 West Anapamu Street, Suite 204A Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 962-0992
June 2019
This page intentionally left blank.
GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 CONTENTS
2 SECTION TITLE PAGE
3 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...... iv
4 SECTION 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ...... 1-1 5 1.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 6 1.2 BACKGROUND ...... 1-2 7 1.2.1 Section 7 Consultation ...... 1-3 8 1.2.2 Section 10 – Incidental Take Permits and Conservation Plans ..... 1-3 9 1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ...... 1-5 10 1.3.1 Purpose ...... 1-5 11 1.3.2 Need ...... 1-6 12 1.4 AGENCY AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS ...... 1-6 13 1.5 SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ...... 1-7 14 1.6 EXTERNAL REGULATORY AND CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS FOR 15 PROPOSED OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES ...... 1-2 16 1.6.1 California Environmental Quality Act ...... 1-2 17 1.6.2 National Historic Preservation Act ...... 1-3 18 1.6.3 California Endangered Species Act ...... 1-3
19 SECTION 2 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ...... 2-1 20 2.1 PROPOSED ACTION: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GCP ...... 2-1 21 2.1.1 Proposed GCP Planning Area ...... 2-1 22 2.1.2 Federally Listed Species Covered by the Proposed GCP ...... 2-3 23 2.1.3 Covered Activities and Actions ...... 2-3 2.1.3.1 Upstream Production ...... 2-4 2.1.3.2 Midstream Development ...... 2-5 24 2.1.4 Limits on Take and Impacts under the Proposed GCP ...... 2-6 2.1.4.1 California Tiger Salamander (Santa Barbara County DPS) ...... 2-6 2.1.4.2 California Red-Legged Frog...... 2-10 2.1.4.3 Lompoc Yerba Santa ...... 2-13 25 2.1.5 Compensatory Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization 26 Measures ...... 2-16 27 2.2 ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS ...... 2-17 28 2.2.1 No Action Alternative ...... 2-17 29 2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED 30 ANALYSIS ...... 2-17
31 SECTION 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 3-1 32 3.1 VEGETATION ...... 3-1 33 3.1.1 California Coastal Chaparral Forest Shrub Province ...... 3-2
i
GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 3.1.2 California Coastal Range Open Woodland-Shrub-Coniferous 2 Forest-Meadow Province ...... 3-3 3 3.2 GENERAL WILDLIFE ...... 3-5 4 3.2.1 Mammals ...... 3-5 5 3.2.2 Birds ...... 3-6 6 3.2.3 Reptiles and Amphibians ...... 3-6 7 3.2.4 Invertebrates ...... 3-7 8 3.2.5 Freshwater Fish ...... 3-7 9 3.3 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ...... 3-7 10 3.3.1 Covered Species ...... 3-8 3.3.1.1 California Tiger Salamander (Santa Barbara County DPS) ...... 3-8 3.3.1.2 California Red-Legged Frog...... 3-9 3.3.1.3 Lompoc Yerba Santa ...... 3-10 11 3.3.2 Noncovered Sensitive Species ...... 3-11 12 3.4 WETLANDS/WATERS OF THE U.S...... 3-14
13 SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 4-1 14 4.1 VEGETATION ...... 4-2 15 4.1.1 Proposed Action ...... 4-2 16 4.1.2 No Action Alternative ...... 4-4 17 4.2 GENERAL WILDLIFE ...... 4-5 18 4.2.1 Proposed Action ...... 4-5 19 4.2.2 No Action Alternative ...... 4-6 20 4.3 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ...... 4-6 21 4.3.1 Proposed Action ...... 4-7 4.3.1.1 Covered Species ...... 4-7 4.3.1.2 Noncovered Sensitive Species ...... 4-13 22 4.3.2 No Action Alternative ...... 4-14 4.3.2.1 Covered Species ...... 4-14 4.3.2.2 Noncovered Sensitive Species ...... 4-14 23 4.4 WETLANDS/WATERS OF THE U.S...... 4-15 24 4.4.1 Proposed Action ...... 4-15 25 4.4.2 No Action Alternative ...... 4-17
26 SECTION 5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...... 5-1 27 5.1.1 Incidental Take Permits and Individual Habitat Conservation 28 Plans ...... 5-1 29 5.1.2 Exceedance of Maximum Allowable Impacts ...... 5-2
30 SECTION 6 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT 31 OF RESOURCES ...... 6-1
ii GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 SECTION 7 SHORT-TERM USE OF THE ENVIRONMENT VERSUS 2 LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY ...... 7-1
3 SECTION 8 REFERENCES ...... 8-1
4 SECTION 9 LIST OF PREPARERS ...... 9-1 5 6 APPENDICES Appendix A Final Draft General Conservation Plan for Oil and Gas Activities in Santa Barbara County Appendix B Scoping Report Appendix C CALVEG Zone 5 and Zone 6 Vegetation Mapping and Descriptions
7 LIST OF FIGURES
8 Page 9 1-1 GCP Planning Area ...... 2-3 10 2-1 CTS Metapopulations ...... 2-7 11 2-2 CRLF Critical Habitat Units ...... 2-12 12 2-3 LYS Subpopulations ...... 2-15
13 LIST OF TABLES
14 Page 15 2-1 Limits on Take of CTS Upland Habitat under the Proposed GCP ...... 2-8 16 2-2 Limits on Take of CTS Designated Critical Habitat under the 17 Proposed GCP ...... 2-9 18 2-3 Limits on Take of CRLF Designated Critical Habitat under the 19 Proposed GCP ...... 2-11 20 2-4 Limits on Take of LYS under the Proposed GCP ...... 2-14 21 3-1 Federally-Listed Species with Potential to Occur within the GCP 22 Planning Area ...... 3-12
iii GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS °F degrees Fahrenheit AFB Air Force Base CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CE Categorical Exclusion CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CRLF California red-legged frog CTS California tiger salamander CWA Clean Water Act DOGGR Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources DOI Department of the Interior DPS Distinct Population Segment EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EO Executive Order ESA Endangered Species Act FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FR Federal Register GCP General Conservation Plan HCP Habitat Conservation Plan HUC Hydrologic Unit Code IPaC Information, Planning, and Confirmation System ITP Incidental Take Permit LYS Lompoc yerba santa NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NOA Notice of Availability PCE Primary Constituent Element Secretary Secretary of the Interior Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service SHPO State Historic Preservation Office USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USC U.S. Code USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFS U.S. Forest Service
iv
GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 This page intentionally left blank.
v
GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 SECTION 1 2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
3 1.1 INTRODUCTION
4 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has prepared this Environmental 5 Assessment (EA) in accordance with the requirements of the National 6 Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S. Code [USC] 7 §§4321 et seq.); Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for 8 Implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508); and 9 Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended (15 10 USC §1532). This EA evaluates the impacts of, and the alternatives to, the proposed 11 approval and implementation of the General Conservation Plan (GCP) that the 12 Service prepared to standardize the issuance of Incidental Take Permits (ITPs) that 13 cover take of the federally listed Santa Barbara County Distinct Population 14 Segment (DPS) of the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) (CTS) 15 and California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) (CRLF) for non-Federal oil and gas 16 activities in Santa Barbara County, California. Over the 20-year life of the GCP, the 17 standardized ITP process would incorporate established maximum allowable 18 impacts within CTS or CRLF habitat consistent with the species’ Recovery Plans. 19 Similarly the GCP would incorporate established maximum allowable impacts 20 within LYS habitat based on recovery criteria in the species’ 5-year Review: 21 Summary and Evaluation (Service 2011).
22 A GCP is a mechanism that meets the definition of a conservation plan in Section 23 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA and enables the construct of a programmatic permitting and 24 conservation process to address a defined suite of proposed activities over a 25 defined planning area. As opposed to a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) that 26 addresses conservation on a project-by-project basis in response to individual ITP 27 applications (see Section 1.2.2, Section 10 – Conservation Plans and Incidental Take 28 Permits), a GCP establishes a framework under which covered activities are 29 reviewed for compliance with the standardized requirements as individual ITP 30 applications are submitted. As with an Applicant-prepared HCP, the Service can 31 issue an ITP under the GCP pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. However,
1-1 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 unlike HCPs, GCPs are not submitted by an Applicant because the Service 2 proactively prepares a GCP to provide for issuing ITPs for activities that are in 3 compliance with the GCP.
4 The proposed GCP was prepared by the Service’s Ventura Field Office in 5 accordance with Section 10(a)(2)(A) of the ESA to provide a more efficient and 6 standardized mechanism for proponents engaged in commercial oil and gas 7 development, expansion, operations, maintenance, and decommissioning of 8 infrastructure on non-Federal lands. The proposed GCP would allow private 9 individuals, local and state agencies, and other non-Federal entities to meet the 10 statutory and regulatory requirements of the ESA by applying for an ITP and 11 complying with the requirements of the GCP, including all applicable avoidance, 12 minimization, and mitigation actions.
13 This EA provides the required NEPA documentation for the proposed Federal 14 action (i.e., approval of a conservation plan and subsequent issuance of ITPs 15 pursuant to Section 10[a][1][B] of the ESA), providing baseline environmental 16 setting information and a discussion of impacts to the human and natural 17 environment that may occur as a result of implementation of the proposed GCP. 18 Importantly, the scope of this EA is limited to the evaluation of the proposed GCP 19 as a mechanism to standardize ITP issuance for covered activities; this EA neither 20 evaluates nor results in approval of oil and gas development projects or activities. 21 Land use approval(s) for individual projects would continue to be the 22 responsibility of the local or state agency(ies) with appropriate jurisdiction(s) over 23 an individual project site.
24 1.2 BACKGROUND
25 Section 9 of the ESA and its implementing regulations prohibit “take” of fish and 26 wildlife species that are listed as endangered or threatened (16 USC §§1531-1544). 27 Exemptions to the prohibition against take may only be obtained through 28 consultation with the Service under Section 7 or Section 10 of the ESA.
1-2 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 1.2.1 Section 7 Inter Agency Consultation
2 If a proposed project has a Federal nexus (i.e., the proposed project is to be funded, 3 authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency), the applicable Federal agency (i.e., 4 the Federal agency responsible for funding, authorizing, or carrying out the 5 proposed project) must consult with the Service pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of the 6 ESA. Under Section 7 of the ESA, Federal agencies are directed to utilize their 7 authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the ESA by development of 8 conservation programs (Section 7[a][1]). Federal agencies must also ensure that 9 their or their applicants’ proposed projects do not jeopardize the continued 10 existence of a threatened or endangered species or adversely modify designated 11 critical habitat (Section 7[a][2]). Pursuant to 50 CFR §402.2, “[j]eopardize the 12 continued existence of…” means to “engage in an action that would reasonably be 13 expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the 14 survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, 15 numbers, or distribution of that species.“ “Destruction or adverse modification” 16 means a “direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of 17 critical habitat for the conservation of a listed species.” Such alterations may 18 include, but are not limited to, those that alter the physical or biological features 19 essential to the conservation of a species or that preclude or significantly delay 20 development of such features. Regulations specifying how Federal agencies fulfill 21 their Section 7 consultation requirements are described in 50 CFR Part 402.
22 1.2.2 Section 10 Conservation Plans and Incidental Take Permits
23 In instances where a proposed project has no Federal nexus, proponents can 24 comply with the ESA by applying for an ITP from the Service pursuant to Section 25 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. In order to receive the ITP, the proponent must submit a 26 conservation plan to the Service under Section 10(a)(2)(A), that must specify:
27 • The impact that will likely result from such taking; 28 • The steps the Applicant will take to minimize and mitigate that take to the 29 maximum extent practicable and the funding that will be available to 30 implement such steps;
1-3 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 • The alternative actions to such taking that the Applicant considered and 2 the reasons why such alternatives are not being utilized; and 3 • Other measures that the Service may require as being necessary or 4 appropriate for the purposes of the HCP.
5 Issuance criteria under Section 10(a)(2)(B) for an ITP require that the Service find 6 that:
7 • The taking will be incidental to otherwise lawful activities; 8 • The Applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and/or 9 mitigate the impacts of such taking; 10 • The Applicant has ensured that adequate funding for the plan will be 11 provided; 12 • The taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and 13 recovery of the species in the wild; and 14 • The measures, if any, required as necessary or appropriate for the 15 purposes of the plan will be met.
16 The process for an Applicant to obtain an ITP has four primary phases:
17 1) Pre-Application. The Service provides the Applicant guidance in deciding if 18 an ITP is appropriate and if so, what type and scale of HCP would fit the 19 Applicant’s needs. 20 2) Development of a HCP. A HCP that integrates the proposed project with 21 conservation of listed species is prepared by the Applicant. 22 3) Processing of the Permit. A complete application package including an ITP 23 application, HCP, and fee is submitted to the Service by the Applicant. The 24 Service publishes a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the package in the 25 Federal Register to allow for public comment as well as interagency 26 comment. The Service issues an ITP pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) upon a 27 determination by that all statutory criteria have been met. The Service 28 notifies the public of permit issuance is through the publication of a notice 29 in the Federal Register. The Service also prepares an Intra-Service Section 7 30 Biological Opinion and a Set of Findings, the latter which evaluates the 31 Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit application in the context of permit issuance 32 criteria. HCPs require an evaluation compliant with NEPA: either an EA or
1-4 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), depending on their complexity, 2 and a “Low Effect” screening form is utilized to determine if a project 3 qualifies for a Categorical Exclusion (CE). For those requiring an EA as part 4 of the permit application, the target permit processing time is 5 approximately 6 months. For those requiring an EIS, the target permit 6 processing time is approximately 1 year. 7 4) Post-Issuance Compliance. During the post-issuance phase, the permittee(s) 8 and any other responsible entities are required to implement the HCP in 9 accordance with the terms and conditions of the ITP. The Service monitors 10 permittee(s) compliance with the conservation plan as well as its long-term 11 progress and success.
12 1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
13 1.3.1 Purpose
14 The purpose of the proposed GCP is to provide a programmatic mechanism by 15 which the Ventura Field Office can increase efficiency and standardize compliance 16 with Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA for oil and gas development projects on non- 17 Federal lands in Santa Barbara County that have the potential to impact the CTS, 18 CRLF, and LYS. Rather than processing individual ITP applications and associated 19 HCPs for individual Applicants, the proposed approval and implementation of 20 the GCP would allow the Ventura Field Office to issue ITPs for defined non- 21 Federal oil and gas activities that are in compliance with the requirements of the 22 GCP. This standardized approach would allow greater consistency in the 23 application of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. Further, over 24 the 20-year life of the GCP, the standardized ITP process would incorporate 25 established maximum allowable impacts within CTS or CRLF habitat consistent 26 with the species’ Recovery Plans. Similarly the GCP would incorporate established 27 maximum allowable impacts within LYS habitat based on recovery criteria in the 28 species’ 5-year Review: Summary and Evaluation (Service 2011).
1-5 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 1.3.2 Need
2 The Service continually searches for opportunities to improve conservation 3 practices, including the need for comprehensive consideration of protections for 4 federally listed species and designated critical habitat. The proposed GCP would 5 fulfill a need for better conservation of CTS, CRLF, and LYS within Santa Barbara 6 County in a more comprehensive manner. Secondly, processing individual HCPs 7 requires Ventura Field Office staff to conduct lengthy reviews of Applicant- 8 prepared avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for each individual 9 project, preparation of appropriate documentation compliant with NEPA, and 10 intra-Service coordination. The proposed GCP would eliminate the need for 11 reviewing and processing individual HCPs and would offer a programmatic 12 mechanism by which the Ventura Field Office can authorize incidental take of CTS 13 and CRLF as well as impacts to LYS by a non-Federal agency engaging in 14 otherwise lawfully permitted oil and gas development projects in Santa Barbara 15 County.
16 1.4 AGENCY AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS
17 Scoping is the early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be 18 addressed in the planning process and involves the public in identification of 19 significant issues associated with proposed federal actions. A 45-day scoping 20 period for this project was originally held from August 2, 2017 through September 21 18, 2017 initiated through publication of a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register 22 (82 Federal Register [FR] 35988). During the scoping process for the proposed GCP 23 and this EA, the Service received eight written response comment letters (see 24 Appendix B). As a result of these comments, clarifications and revisions were 25 made to the Draft GCP. Additionally, the Service reviewed and considered these 26 comments during the preparation of the Draft EA.
27 NEPA, 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, and the Fish and Wildlife Service NEPA Reference 28 Handbook require public review of the Draft EA before either approval of a 29 Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or determination to prepare an EIS. A 30 NOA was published in the Federal Register on [Date] announcing the availability 31 of the Draft EA for review by the public, agencies, and other interested parties.
1-6 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 Additionally, notification was sent to all interested stakeholders identified during 2 the scoping process to encourage review of and comment on the Draft EA. All 3 comments received on the Draft EA will be reviewed, considered, and 4 incorporated into the Final EA, as appropriate.
5 1.5 SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
6 Per CEQ Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA, Fish 7 and Wildlife Service NEPA Reference Handbook, and recent Department of the 8 Interior-issued (DOI) guidance (e.g., Secretarial Order 3355), an EA is intended to 9 be focused, relevant, succinct, etc. As such, resources areas that are anticipated to 10 experience either no impact or negligible impacts associated with the approval of 11 the proposed GCP have been dismissed from detailed analysis.
12 As previously stated, implementation of the Proposed Action would not directly 13 result in approval of any oil and gas development. An ITP is one of a suite of 14 permits required for project approval. The GCP process neither reduces nor 15 increases the number and types of permits required and would not affect the 16 required agency coordination and/or consultation required by applicable laws, 17 regulations, guidance, etc. As such would not directly result in any ground- 18 disturbing activities that could result in potential impacts to other environmental 19 resource areas. Therefore, as described further in Appendix B, the following 20 resource areas have been dismissed from further analysis:
21 • Geology and Soils 28 • Socioeconomics and 22 • Water Resources and Water 29 Environmental Justice 23 Quality 30 • Land use and Transportation 24 • Air Quality and Greenhouse 31 • Noise 25 Gas Emissions 32 • Cultural Resources 26 • Socioeconomics and 27 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
33 Given the nature of the Proposed Action, a thorough discussion of potential 34 impacts to biological resources has been carried forward for further analysis. 35 Specifically, this EA evaluates potential environmental impacts to the following
1-7 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 resources that could have the potential to be affected by implementation of the 2 Proposed Action:
3 • Vegetation
4 • General Wildlife
5 • Threatened and Endangered Species
6 • Wetlands/Waters of the U.S.
7 1.6 EXTERNAL REGULATORY AND CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPOSED 8 OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES
9 Implementation of the GCP would not require discretionary approval action by a 10 state or local agency; however, as described in Section 1.5, Scope of the 11 Environmental Assessment, the proposed oil and gas activities for which the GCP 12 would address with respect to ESA would continue to require regulatory review 13 and compliance prior to discretionary approval. Key regulations guiding project- 14 specific reviews and approval are identified below.
15 1.6.1 California Environmental Quality Act
16 Implementation of the GCP would not require discretionary approval action by a 17 state or local agency; therefore, the proposed GCP is not subject to California 18 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. However, land use approval(s) for 19 individual oil and gas projects would continue to be the responsibility of the local 20 or state agency(ies) with the appropriate jurisdiction(s) over an individual project 21 site. As such, all non-Federal projects would continue to require compliance with 22 CEQA, which requires local and/or state agencies to identify any significant 23 environmental impacts of actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, as 24 feasible. Similar to NEPA, CEQA provides a multi-tiered process for impact 25 assessment, public comment, and overall environmental review and approval. 26 Proposed oil and gas activities addressed by the GCP would continue to be subject 27 to compliance with CEQA as well as all other environmental regulations, laws, 28 and guidance related to the full scope of environmental resources affected by
1-2 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 project development per Appendix G of CEQA Statute and Guidelines (updated 2 December 2018), including:
3 • Aesthetics 14 • Hydrology and Water Quality 4 • Agriculture and Forestry 15 • Land Use and Planning 5 Resources 16 • Mineral Resources 6 • Air Quality 17 • Noise 7 • Biological Resources 18 • Population and Housing 8 • Cultural Resources 19 • Public Services 9 • Energy 20 • Recreation 10 • Geology and Soils 21 • Transportation 11 • Greenhouse Gas Emissions 22 • Tribal Cultural Resources 12 • Hazards and Hazardous 23 • Utilities and Service Systems 13 Materials 24 • Wildfire
25 1.6.2 National Historic Preservation Act
26 All Federal agencies are required to examine the cultural impacts of their actions, 27 including permit issuance). This requires consultation with the State Historic 28 Preservation Office (SHPO) and appropriate federally recognized Native 29 American tribes. As such, all Applicants under the GCP would be required to 30 submit a Request for Cultural Resources Compliance Form to the Service to 31 complete compliance requirements for individual ITP issuance under the GCP.
32 1.6.3 California Endangered Species Act
33 CDFW is responsible for designating and managing state-listed, threatened, 34 endangered, and rare species pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act 35 (CESA). CDFW is also responsible for designating and tracking Species of Special 36 Concern, which include sensitive native wildlife that occur in small, isolated 37 populations, show marked population declines, depend on habitat that has shown 38 historical or recent declines, etc.
39 CESA generally parallels the provisions of the ESA and provides for the state- 40 designation of native species or subspecies of plants, fish, and wildlife as
1-3 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 endangered or threatened. Section 2080 of CESA prohibits the take of state-listed 2 endangered or threatened species, but allows for the incidental take of such species 3 as a result of otherwise lawful development projects under Section 2081(b) and (c). 4 CTS and LYS are state-listed as threatened and rare, respectively, under CESA.
5 Individual permittees that obtain an ITP for CTS through the GCP pursuant to 6 Section 10(a)(1)(B) could request that the Director of the California Department of 7 Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) find the Federal ITP consistent with CESA. Permittees 8 would be responsible for submitting individual Section 2080.1 Consistency 9 Determination Request(s) for CTS to the CDFW. The CDFW cannot issue a 10 Section 2080.1 Consistency Determination for LYS because the Service does not 11 include plants on Federal ITPs. Therefore, Applicants seeking coverage for LYS 12 would need to pursue a separate permit with the CDFW. Applicants would be 13 able to use the proposed GCP as the document to seek a Section 2081 Permit for 14 listed plants from the CDFW.
1-2 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 SECTION 2 2 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
3 This section describes the Proposed Action, which includes approval of the GCP 4 and the subsequent issuance of ITPs pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA 5 authorizing incidental take of covered species that may result from the non- 6 Federal oil and gas activities in Santa Barbara County. In addition to the Proposed 7 Action, CEQ regulations require an assessment of potentially effective and 8 reasonably feasible alternatives for implementation of the Proposed Action. 9 Further, CEQ regulations stipulate that the No Action Alternative must be 10 analyzed to assess any environmental consequences that may occur if the 11 Proposed Action is not implemented.
12 A description of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative are provided 13 below. Although it does not meet the purpose and need to increase efficiency and 14 standardize compliance with Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA, the No Action 15 Alternative is described in Section 2.2, No Action Alternative and is evaluated in the 16 Draft EA as required by NEPA. Other alternatives that were initially considered, 17 but dismissed for further analysis are described in Section 2.4, Alternatives 18 Considered by Eliminated from Detailed Analysis.
19 2.1 PROPOSED ACTION: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GCP
20 2.1.1 Proposed GCP Planning Area
21 The entire Planning Area encompasses 674,200 acres (approximately 1,053 square 22 miles) including the Santa Maria Valley, San Antonio Creek, Lompoc Valley, Santa 23 Ynez Valley, and a portion of the Santa Barbara Coastline (see Figure 1-1). This 24 area is located entirely within the Area of Responsibility for the Service’s Ventura 25 Field Office, which processes ITP applications for the entire region of Central 26 California (Service 2017a).
2-1 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 Figure 1-1. GCP Planning Area
2
2-2 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 2.1.2 Federally Listed Species Covered by the Proposed GCP
2 The proposed GCP addresses the incidental take of CTS and CRLF as well as 3 impacts to LYS for non-Federal oil and gas activities in Santa Barbara County. For 4 a complete description of these species, including their life history, habitats, status, 5 and recognized threats, please refer to Section 3 of the GCP, Environmental Setting 6 and Covered Species.
7 The three federally listed species covered under the GCP were selected for 8 inclusion by the Ventura Field Office during the development of the GCP because 9 they account for the majority of individual ITP applications received for non- 10 Federal oil and gas activities in Santa Barbara County. Any other federally listed 11 species that could possibly be affected by oil and gas activities would continue to 12 be addressed on a project-by-project basis and would require individual HCPs.
13 2.1.3 Covered Activities and Actions
14 The Proposed Action comprises the approval and implementation of the proposed 15 GCP to govern subsequent issuances of ITPs for covered species within the 16 Planning Area for the proposed 20-year term of the GCP. Activities covered under 17 the proposed GCP that may result in the take of CTS and CRLF or impacts to LYS 18 include, but are not limited to, geophysical exploration, development, extraction 19 (i.e., upstream development) and storage, transport, and distribution (i.e., 20 midstream development) of crude oil, natural gas, and/or other petroleum 21 products. Some overlap may occur between these two categories and different 22 Federal agencies may define “upstream” and “midstream” differently to the 23 definition in the proposed GCP. For a complete description of the covered 24 activities, refer to Section 2, Covered Activities of the GCP (see Appendix A).
25 All of the covered activities, which are summarized below, must be comply with 26 the most current requirements and procedures administered by the Division of 27 Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR). Further, only covered activities 28 located within the Planning Area would to be eligible to receive an ITP through 29 the GCP process. Therefore, pipelines or other infrastructure that extend beyond
2-3 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 the Planning Area would continue to be addressed on a project-by-project basis 2 and would require individual HCPs.
3 2.1.3.1 Upstream Production
4 Upstream production, as defined by the GCP, includes activities associated with 5 oil, natural gas, and other petroleum products and development of the 6 infrastructure required to extract those resources. Covered activities include 7 geophysical exploration (i.e., seismic exploration), which is the process of locating 8 oil and gas deposits beneath the ground surface. This involves generating seismic 9 waves and measuring their reflectance through differing geologic structures. 10 These seismic waves may be initiated by detonating explosives or through a 11 process known as “land vibroseis.” Reflected seismic waves are recorded and 12 interpreted to characterize subterranean landforms. Seismic companies often 13 design sound generation points to avoid identified sensitive habitats and hazards 14 and still collect meaningful data.
15 Covered activities also include construction, operation, and maintenance of new 16 and existing well field infrastructure and decommissioning of obsolete facilities, 17 including:
18 • Well pads 19 • Drilling and completion activities 20 • Pipelines located within the oil field, including gathering lines, header 21 systems and production tanks 22 • Wells 23 • Gas flaring 24 • Work and access roads 25 • Electric distribution lines (voltage must be 34.5 kilovolts [kV] or less) 26 • Equipment and multiphase booster pads 27 • Communication towers 28 • Tank batteries 29 • Renewable energy (e.g., PV solar panels, wind turbines, etc.)
2-4 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 Actions common to these activities include vegetation clearing; removal and 2 grading of soils; trenching for underground pipelines and other utilities; drilling 3 operations; installation of or modification to fencing, walls, and roads; and 4 increased impervious pavements and lighting.
5 Each of these activities and associated actions, along with all of the restrictions 6 described in Section 4, Biological Impacts and Take Assessment of the GCP (see 7 Appendix A), would be covered under the proposed GCP.
8 2.1.3.2 Midstream Development
9 Midstream development, as defined in the GCP, includes gathering, processing 10 and treatment, transmission, and/or distribution of crude oil, natural gas, or other 11 petroleum products. Petroleum products may include unprocessed natural gas 12 liquid or condensate streams (e.g., methane, ethane, propane, butane, and 13 pentane). Refined oil products including gasoline, diesel, and kerosene may also 14 be transported via pipeline. Pipelines located within the boundaries of well pads 15 are included in upstream production, while gathering, transmission, and 16 distribution pipelines are considered midstream development. Covered activities 17 associated with midstream development include the following:
18 • Construction of gathering, transmission, and distribution pipelines 19 • Construction of associated surface facilities, including: 20 o Access roads and bridges 21 o Booster, compressor, and pump stations 22 o Meter stations, mainline valves, pig launchers/receivers, regulator 23 facilities, and other required facilities 24 o Natural gas processing and treatment facilities 25 o Communication towers 26 o Electric distribution lines (voltage must be 34.5 kV or less) 27 o Electric substations 28 • Oil seep management 29 • Operation and maintenance of pipeline and associated surface facilities 30 • Decommissioning and reclamation of pipeline and associated surface 31 facilities
2-5 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 • On-site mitigation areas and/or mitigation banks 2 • Habitat restoration activities
3 Actions common to these activities are similar to those described for upstream 4 production activities. Each of these activities and associated actions, along with all 5 of the restrictions described in Section 4, Biological Impacts and Take Assessment of 6 the GCP (see Appendix A), would be covered under the proposed GCP.
7 2.1.4 Limits on Take and Maximum Allowable Impacts under the Proposed 8 GCP
9 As described in further detail below, the proposed GCP includes defined 10 permitted limits on take for CTS and CRLF as well as impacts to LYS to ensure 11 that the recovery criteria for these species is met. In the event that the maximum 12 permitted take or impacts to a covered species is reached during the 20-year term 13 of the proposed GCP, additional impacts or take authorization would not be 14 available under the GCP for that particular species.
15 The standardized process would measure and account for take of CTS and CRLF 16 as well as impacts to LYS through established maximum allowable impacts within 17 these species’ habitats.
18 2.1.4.1 California Tiger Salamander (Santa Barbara County DPS)
19 Approximately 67,525 acres of the Planning Area – spanning the Lompoc Valley 20 and San Antonio Creek (see Figure 2-1) – are located within the 1.3-mile dispersal 21 distance of known CTS breeding ponds (see Appendix A).1 No impacts to CTS 22 breeding habitat would be authorized under the proposed GCP; however, ground- 23 disturbing activities covered under the proposed GCP could result in temporary 24 and permanent disturbance of CTS upland habitat.
1 The “metapopulation areas” displayed on Figure 2-1 encompass both currently occupied, and potentially occupied suitable habitat for each metapopulation for regional conservation planning purposes.
2-6 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 Figure 2-1. CTS Metapopulations
2
2-7 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 Take of individual CTS in the form of mortality or injury of adults or larvae may 2 result from crushing and collision; impacts to upland habitat; increased habitat 3 fragmentation; and changes from one vegetation community to another. However, 4 the Service cannot predict the number of individual CTS that would be 5 incidentally subject to take because no density estimate (i.e., the number of CTS 6 per acre) has been calculated for the Planning Area. Additionally, take of CTS 7 would be difficult to quantify because: 1) individual CTS are small, making them 8 difficult to locate, which makes encountering dead or injured individuals unlikely; 9 2) losses of individuals may be masked by normal temporal fluctuations in 10 populations; and 3) CTS spend the majority of their lifespan underground; and 11 4) CTS are primarily active at night. As such, the Service has calculated permanent 12 and temporary impacts to upland habitat as a proxy to quantify take and define 13 the permitted limits necessary to meet the recovery criteria in the species’ 14 Recovery Plan (Service 2016). Table 2-1 shows the amount of CTS upland habitat 15 loss allowed within each metapopulation, as defined by the Recovery Plan, under 16 the proposed GCP.
17 Table 2-1. Maximum Allowable impacts to CTS Upland Habitat under the 18 Proposed GCP
Allowed Amount of Allowed Permanent Temporary CTS CTS Upland Impacts to CTS Impacts to CTS Metapopulation Habitat Upland Habitat Upland Habitat (acres) (acres) (acres) West Santa Maria 12,963 130 260
East Santa Maria 10,411 104 208
West Los Alamos/Careaga 14,570 146 196
East Los Alamos 6,024 60 120
Purisima 11,938 119 238
Santa Rita 11,619 116 232
19 The entire Planning Area overlaps the designated critical habitat units for CTS 20 across the six metapopulation areas (Service 2004). These critical habitat units were 21 designated based on the presence of physical or biological features essential to the
2-8 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 conservation of the species, which are identified as the Primary Constituent 2 Elements (PCEs):
3 • PCE 1: Standing bodies of fresh water, including natural and man-made 4 (e.g., stock) ponds, vernal pools, and dune ponds, and other ephemeral or 5 permanent water bodies that typically become inundated during winter 6 rains and hold water for a sufficient length of time (i.e., 12 weeks) necessary 7 for the species to complete the aquatic portion of its life cycle.
8 • PCE 2: Barrier-free uplands adjacent to breeding ponds that contain small 9 mammal burrows. Small mammals are essential in creating the 10 underground habitat that adult CTS depend upon for food, shelter, and 11 protection from the elements and predation.
12 • PCE 3: Upland areas between breeding locations and areas with small 13 mammal burrows that allow for dispersal among such sites.
14 The impact area permitted within each critical habitat unit under the proposed 15 GCP is provided below in Table 2-2.
16 Table 2-2. Maximum Allowable Impacts to CTS Designated Critical Habitat 17 under the Proposed GCP
18 Allowed Allowed Available Permanent Temporary Critical Habitat within Impacts to Impacts to Critical Habitat Unit Habitat Unit each Critical Critical Habitat Critical Size (acres) Habitat Unit Unit Habitat Unit (acres) (acres) (acres) Western Santa 4,135 2,383 30 89 Maria/Orcutt Eastern Santa Maria 2,909 947 23 71 West Los 1,451 1,451 36 109 Alamos/Careaga Eastern Los Alamos 90 0 0 0
Purisima Hills 1,957 1,957 48 147
Santa Rita Valley 638 594 15 44
2-9 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 2.1.4.2 California Red-Legged Frog
2 The entire 674,220-acre Planning Area – including the Santa Maria Valley, San 3 Antonio Creek, Lompoc Valley, Santa Ynez Valley, and a portion of the Santa 4 Barbara Coastline – is located within the range of CRLF.
5 Similar to CTS, the Service cannot predict the number of individual CRLFs that 6 would be incidentally subject to take. As such, the Service has calculated 7 permanent and temporary impacts to occupied CRLF habitat as a proxy to 8 quantify take. Occupied CRLF habitat is defined as: 1) areas where suitable CRLF 9 habitat occurs unless absence is documented in accordance with the Service’s 10 Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for the California Red-legged 11 Frog (2005); or 2) where CRLF are assumed present by the Applicant (i.e., no 12 surveys have been conducted). Ground-disturbing activities covered under the 13 proposed GCP could result in temporary and permanent impacts to CRLF 14 dispersal habitat, and less frequently to aquatic or upland habitat. Applicants 15 would compensate for these impacts in accordance with Section 5, Conservation 16 Program/Measures to Minimize and Mitigate for Impacts of the GCP.
17 The Planning Area overlaps with a total of 35,426 acres of designated critical 18 habitat for CRLF across all seven designated critical habitat units within Santa 19 Barbara County (Service 2010) (see Figure 2-2). These critical habitat units were 20 designated based on the presence of physical or biological features essential to the 21 conservation of the species, which are identified as the PCEs for the species:
22 • PCE 1: Aquatic Breeding Habitat. Standing bodies of fresh water (with 23 salinities less than 4.5 ppt), including natural and manmade (e.g., stock) 24 ponds, slow-moving streams or pools within streams, and other ephemeral 25 or permanent water bodies that typically become inundated during winter 26 rains and hold water for a minimum of 20 weeks in all but the driest of 27 years.
28 • PCE 2: Aquatic Non-Breeding Habitat. Freshwater pond and stream 29 habitats, as described above, that may not hold water long enough for the 30 species to complete its aquatic life cycle but which provide for shelter,
2-10 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 foraging, predator avoidance, and aquatic dispersal of juvenile and adult 2 CRLF.
3 • PCE 3: Upland Habitat. Upland areas adjacent to or surrounding breeding 4 and non-breeding aquatic and riparian habitat up to a distance of 1 mile in 5 most cases (i.e., depending on surrounding landscape and dispersal 6 barriers) including various vegetation types such as grassland, woodland, 7 forest, wetland, or riparian areas that provide shelter, forage, and predator 8 avoidance for the CRLF.
9 • PCE 4: Dispersal Habitat. Accessible upland or riparian habitat within and 10 between occupied or previously occupied sites that are located within 11 1 mile of each other and that support movement between such sites.
12 The impact area permitted within each critical habitat unit under the proposed 13 GCP is provided below in Table 2-3.
14 Table 2-3. Maximum Allowable Impacts to CRLF Designated Critical 15 Habitat under the Proposed GCP
Planning Area Allowed Permanent Allowed Temporary Critical Habitat within Critical Impacts to Critical Impacts to Critical Unit Habitat Unit Habitat Unit Habitat Unit (acres) (acres) (acres) STB-1 2,071 21 42
STB-2 11,884 119 238
STB-3 3,133 31 62
STB-4 283 3 6
STB-5 7146 71 142
STB-6 11 1 2
STB-7 10,898 109 218 16 17
2-11 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 Figure 2-2. CRLF Critical Habitat Units
2-12 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 2.1.4.3 Lompoc Yerba Santa
2 Five subpopulations of LYS are located across three geographic regions in Santa 3 Barbara County, including Solomon Hills (two subpopulations); West Burton 4 Mesa (two subpopulations within the boundaries of Vandenberg Air Force Base); 5 and Santa Ynez Mountains (one subpopulation) (see Figure 2-3).
6 • Solomon Hills: Two large subpopulations occur here, approximately 12 7 miles north of the City of Lompoc, within the Santa Maria Valley Planning 8 Area. These lands are privately owned and managed for oil extraction by 9 Breitburn Energy Company. One subpopulation is associated with Bishop 10 pine (Pinus muricata), while the second subpopulation occurs in coastal sage 11 scrub and chaparral.
12 • Santa Ynez Mountains: One subpopulation occurs here, approximately 10 13 miles south of the Lompoc, within the Santa Barbara Coastline region of the 14 Planning Area. LYS are scatted along a 5-mile stretch of the mountains from 15 the ridgeline to halfway down the south-facing slope. The land, known as 16 Hollister Ranch, is privately-owned.
17 Ground-disturbing activities covered under the proposed GCP could result in the 18 temporary or permanent loss of LYS habitat and removal of individual plants. 19 Indirect effects to LYS may also occur in the form of altered surface hydrology, 20 potentially resulting in erosion; an increase, decrease, or change in the period and 21 amounts of moisture content in the soil to which the subspecies has adapted; an 22 increase in the abundance of nonnative plants species as a result of the project 23 activities; dust that could affect reproduction; and loss or change in the abundance 24 of pollinators.
25 Two units of critical habitat have been designated for LYS: 1) 2,239 acres of private 26 land in the Solomon Hills; and 2) 4,162 acres of private land in the Santa Ynez 27 Mountains (Service 2002a). Critical habitat units for LYS were designated based 28 on the presence of physical or biological features essential to the conservation of 29 the species, which are identified as the PCEs for the species:
30 • PCE 1: Soils with a large component of sand and that tend to be acidic.
2-13 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 • PCE 2: Plant communities that support associated species, including 2 maritime chaparral, particularly where the following associated species are 3 found: bush poppy (Dendromecon rigida), California scrub oak (Quercus 4 berberidifolia), Santa Cruz Island oak (Quercus parvula), and buck brush 5 (Ceanothus cuneatus); and in southern Bishop pine forests that intergrade 6 with manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.) and black sage (Salvia mellifera).
7 The implementation of the proposed GCP would allow for impacts of up to 20 8 acres of LYS habitat outside the boundaries of designated critical habitat and 9 impacts to 7.5 acres of LYS habitat which could occur within the boundary of 10 designated critical habitat as shown in Table 2-4.
11 Table 2-4. Limits on Impacts to LYS under the Proposed GCP
Allowed Permanent Impacts to Allowed Permanent Impacts to LYS Habitat Outside of Designated Habitat Within the Boundaries Subpopulation Critical Habitat of Designated Critical Habitat Solomon Hills 8 3
Santa Ynez 12 4.5
12
2-14 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 Figure 2-3. LYS Subpopulations
2
2-15 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 2.1.5 Compensatory Mitigation, Avoidance, and Minimization Measures
2 As described in Section 5, Conservation Program / Measures to Minimize and Mitigate 3 for Impacts of the GCP (see Appendix A), Section 10(a)(2)(A) of the ESA requires 4 that a conservation plan specify the measures that the permittee would take to 5 minimize and mitigate to the maximum extent practicable the impacts of the 6 taking of any federally listed species as a result of covered activities.
7 Consistent with Goal 3, Objective 3.1 of the proposed GCP as well as ITP issuance 8 criteria, compensatory mitigation for CTS would be implemented in accordance 9 with the Conservation Strategy and Mitigation Guidance for the California Tiger 10 Salamander and would support the recovery needs for this species as described in 11 the species’ Recovery Plan (Service 2016). Similarly, compensatory mitigation for 12 CRLF would be implemented in accordance with Section 5, Conservation Program / 13 Measures to Minimize and Mitigate for Impacts of the GCP and would support the 14 recovery needs of this species as stated in species’ Recovery Plan (Service 2002b). 15 The Service has not developed a Recovery Plan for LYS and therefore, the Service 16 defaults to standard conservation practices for this species.
17 Section 10 of the ESA requires that conservation plans “minimize and mitigate” 18 the impacts of take authorized by an ITP, and that issuance of an ITP will not 19 “appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in 20 the wild.” If an activity or action covered by the proposed GCP is expected to result 21 in permanent habitat loss to CTS, CRLF, and LYS, then permittees under the 22 proposed GCP would provide compensatory mitigation. Further, compensatory 23 mitigation would also be necessary to support Section 2080.1 Consistency 24 Determination or Section 2081 Permit issued by CDFW (refer to Section 1.6.3, 25 California Endangered Species Act).
26 A complete description of compensatory mitigation as well as additional 27 avoidance and minimization measures is provided in Section 5, Conservation 28 Program / Measures to Minimize and Mitigate for Impacts of the GCP (see 29 Appendix A).
2-16 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 2.2 ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS
2 CEQ regulations implementing NEPA require that the No Action Alternative be 3 analyzed to provide a baseline for comparison with the Proposed Action. The No 4 Action Alternative identifies and describes the potential environmental impacts of 5 the status quo (i.e., if the Proposed Action were to not be implemented).
6 2.2.1 No Action Alternative
7 Under the No Action Alternative, the Service would not implement the proposed 8 GCP. Proponents would be required to continue comply with the ESA by avoiding 9 take of federally listed species or, in the instances where take could not be avoided, 10 proponents would need to apply for an ITP and develop a HCP in order to comply 11 with the ESA. No defined maximum impact limits to CTS, CRLF, and LYS habitat 12 would be established; oil and gas activities would continue without consideration 13 of such limits.. Conservation measures, including any compensatory mitigation, 14 would also continue to be developed by the Applicant on a project-by-project and 15 piecemeal basis instead of collectively. Thus, the benefits of cohesive planning to 16 species recovery efforts may not be achieved.
17 2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS
18 Several alternatives to the Proposed Action were identified and preliminarily 19 evaluated during project planning and development.
20 For example, the proposed GCP was initially written to cover only take of CTS. 21 However, oil and gas development activities and actions that have the potential to 22 take CTS often have the potential to take CRLF. As such, CRLF was included in 23 the proposed GCP to improve its overall utility. Other federally listed species, 24 including vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), were considered for 25 analysis but eliminated due to the limited potential for oil and gas activities to 26 affect these species. In the event that proposed activities would have the potential 27 to impact species that are not covered under the proposed GCP, they would 28 continue to be addressed on a project-by-project basis and would need individual 29 HCPs to comply with the ESA. These alternatives were eliminated from further 30 consideration and are not analyzed in detail in this EA.
2-17 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 SECTION 3 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3 This section describes pertinent existing environmental conditions for resources 4 potentially affected by the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. In 5 compliance with NEPA, CEQ regulations, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual 6 550, and Secretarial Order 3355 the description of the affected environment focuses 7 on only those resources that are potentially subject to impacts, including:
8 • Vegetation 9 • General Wildlife 10 • Threatened and Endangered Species 11 • Wetlands/Waters of the U.S. 12 Resources that are anticipated to experience either no impacts or negligible 13 impacts are not examined in detail within this EA (refer to Section 1.5, Scope of the 14 Environmental Assessment). A summary of the rationale for not undergoing 15 detailed analyses of these resources is provided in the Scoping Report (2018) for 16 the Proposed Action (see Appendix B).
17 As described in Section 2.1.1, Proposed GCP Planning Area, the Planning Area 18 covers approximately 674,200 acres including the Santa Maria Valley, San Antonio 19 Creek, Lompoc Valley, Santa Ynez Valley, and a portion of the Santa Barbara 20 Coastline (refer to Figure 1-1). A detailed description of the existing physical 21 environment (i.e., climate, topography/geology, and hydrology) is provided in 22 Section 3, Environmental Setting and Covered Species of the GCP (see Appendix A).
23 3.1 VEGETATION
24 Distribution of vegetation is a function of climate and soils within a given 25 geographic area, which can be summarized as an “ecoregion.” Ecoregions are 26 broadly defined areas that share similar characteristics and represent ecosystems 27 of regional extent. The boundaries of an ecoregion are not fixed but rather depict 28 a general area with similar ecosystem types, functions, and quality.
29 The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) has identified and mapped ecoregions using a 30 hierarchical system with four levels detail:
3-1 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 • Domains are the largest ecoregions and are classified as groups of related 2 climates that are differentiated based on broad averages of temperature 3 and precipitation.
4 • Divisions represent the microclimates within Domains and are 5 differentiated based on regional temperature and precipitation.
6 • Provinces are differentiated based on vegetation cover or other natural 7 land covers (e.g., waterbodies) within each Division.
8 • Subregions are the finest level of detail and are classified based on local 9 terrain features.
10 Santa Barbara County – including the Planning Area – spans the California Coastal 11 Chaparral Forest Shrub Province and the California Coastal Range Open 12 Woodland-Shrub-Coniferous Forest-Meadow Province, which are described in 13 further detail below. For a more detailed description of vegetation communities 14 within Santa Barbara County, refer to Appendix C, which provides CALVEG 15 mapping, and vegetation alliance descriptions for USFS Region 5 and 6.
16 3.1.1 California Coastal Chaparral Forest Shrub Province
17 The California Coastal Chaparral Forest Shrub Province spans the western half of 18 the Santa Maria Valley region and San Antonio Creek region, the majority of the 19 Santa Ynez Valley region, and the entire Santa Maria Valley and Santa Barbara 20 Coastline regions of the Planning Area.
21 Land Form and Topography. This province includes the discontinuous coastal 22 plains, low mountains, and interior valleys adjacent to the Pacific Ocean ranging 23 from sea level to approximately 2,400 feet.
24 Climate. The climate in this province is characterized by hot, dry summers and 25 rainy, mild winters. Annual average temperature ranges from 50 to 65 degrees 26 Fahrenheit (°F) and annual precipitation ranges from 10 to 50 inches, with a 27 pronounced summer drought. Fire is common and has historically been ignited 28 primarily by lightning occurring during the summer dry season.
3-2 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 Vegetation Communities. The coastal plains and larger valleys within this 2 province are characterized by sagebrush and grassland communities. Riparian 3 habitats containing broadleaf species and emergent vegetation occur along rivers, 4 creeks, and other water features. Foothills and lower elevation mountains are 5 characterized by sclerophyll forests consisting of low-growing trees with small, 6 leathery leaves that can withstand the lack of summer precipitation (e.g., coast live 7 oak [Quercus agrifolia]). On steeper hills and mountain slopes much of the 8 vegetation is chaparral, which varies in composition with elevation and exposure. 9 In general, chaparral consists of chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum) and various 10 manzanitas that are adapted to periodic occurrence of fire. Exposed coastal areas 11 support desertlike shrub communities called coastal scrub, dominated by coyote 12 bush (Baccharis pilularis), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), and bush 13 lupine (Lupinus albifrons).
14 Most of the coastal plains and interior valleys have been converted to urban use 15 or irrigated agriculture. Citrus, grapes, avocados, nuts (e.g., almonds and 16 walnuts), and deciduous fruits are grown extensively. Irrigated alluvial soils are 17 also highly productive of vegetable crops. Blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus 18 globulus) and other species imported from Australia are abundant along roadsides 19 and much of the coastline as well as farther inland.
20 3.1.2 California Coastal Range Open Woodland-Shrub-Coniferous Forest- 21 Meadow Province
22 The California Coastal Range Open Woodland-Shrub-Coniferous Forest-Meadow 23 Province spans the eastern half of the Santa Maria Valley region and the San 24 Antonio Creek region as well as the northern third of the Santa Ynez Valley region 25 of the planning area.
26 Land Form and Topography. This province occupies the central part of the 27 California Coast Ranges and the mountains of Southern California. The Coast 28 Ranges – including the Santa Ynez Mountains and the San Rafael Mountains 29 within and adjacent to the Planning Area – are gently to steeply sloping low 30 mountains underlain by shale, sandstone, and igneous and volcanic rocks.
3-3 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 Elevations generally range from 500 to 2,500 feet; however, La Cumbre Peak in the 2 Santa Ynez Mountains reaches 3,997 feet.
3 Climate. The climate is characterized by hot, dry summers and rainy, mild 4 winters. Temperatures average 53 to 65°F in the Coast Range, with the lowest 5 average temperatures occurring at the highest elevations. Precipitation ranges 6 from 12 to 40 inches per year and is evenly distributed through fall, winter, and 7 spring. In lower elevations, precipitation comes in the form of rain; however, frost 8 and short periods of freezing weather occur occasionally in winter. Coastal areas 9 have a more moderate climate than the interior and receive some moisture from 10 fog in summer.
11 Vegetation. The montane vegetation within this province consists of species with 12 thick, hard evergreen leaves including sclerophyll forests and chaparral. 13 Sclerophyll forest consistently appear on north-facing slopes and on wetter sites, 14 while chaparral occupies south-facing slopes and drier sites.
15 The most important evergreen trees of the sclerophyll forest in this province are 16 canyon live oak (Quercus chrysolepis), interior live oak (Quercus wislizeni), tanoak 17 (Notholithocarpus densiflorus), California laurel (Umbellularia californica), Pacific 18 madrone (Arbutus menziesii), and California wax myrtle (Myrica californica). 19 Several deciduous trees, shrubs, and herb associates are also characteristic.
20 The chaparral community of fire-adapted shrubs extends over a wide area with a 21 diversity of habitats. It includes at least 40 species of evergreen shrubs with 22 varying degrees of dominance and importance. Some are so dense that they 23 practically eliminate understory vegetation; other types support a highly 24 productive understory. The most important species are chamise and manzanita. 25 Other common species are Christmasberry (Heteromeles arbutifolia), California 26 scrub oak, mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides), and many species of 27 ceanothus.
28 At higher elevations and near the ocean, chaparral is often interspersed with, or 29 alternates with, coniferous forests. The interior valleys are characterized by 30 sagebrush and grassland communities. Riparian forests with many broadleaf 31 species occur along major rivers and other water features.
3-4 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 3.2 GENERAL WILDLIFE
2 Wildlife within Santa Barbara County corresponds to distinctive elevations, 3 climates, and vegetation communities within an ecoregion (refer to Section 3.1, 4 Vegetation). There are approximately 50 mammals, 500 resident and migratory 5 birds, 50 reptiles and amphibians, dozens of fish, and innumerable invertebrates 6 known to occur within Santa Barbara County. Representative common species are 7 summarized below.
8 3.2.1 Mammals
9 Over 50 species of mammals have been documented in Santa Barbara County 10 (Collins 2000). Large mammals – including bobcat (Lynx rufus), coyote (Canis 11 latrans), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargentus), and mountain lion (Felis concolor) – 12 generally occur in undeveloped and/or mountainous areas of the County (Collins 13 2000; USDA 2018). Two subspecies of mule deer – Columbian black-tailed deer 14 (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) and California mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus 15 californicus) – comprise the majority of big game adjacent to and within the 16 Los Padres National Forest, which is located with the Santa Barbara Coastline 17 region of the Planning Area. Black-tailed deer are most commonly found near 18 coastal areas, and California mule deer are more commonly found in inland areas. 19 Additionally, black bears are most commonly found near the Santa Cruz and 20 upper Santa Ynez drainages and around the Sisquoc River area within the eastern 21 half of the Santa Maria Valley region of the Planning Area (USDA 2018).
22 Smaller mammals – including rabbits, raccoons, and rodents (e.g., gophers, 23 squirrels, etc.) – are found throughout the County (Collins 2000). Additionally, at 24 least 11 bat species also occur throughout the County (Collins 2000). Year-round 25 residents include the California myotis (Myotis californicus) and Brazilian free- 26 tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis); summer migrants include fringed myotis (Myotis 27 thysanodes) and western Mastiff bat (Eumops perotis); and spring and fall migrants 28 include western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii) and hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus).
3-5 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 3.2.2 Birds
2 Santa Barbara County is located within the Pacific Flyway, which spans from 3 Alaska to the southern tip of South America and is generally bounded between 4 the Pacific Ocean and Sierra Nevada mountain range. Large numbers of waterfowl 5 and other migratory birds utilize this flyway during their annual migrations 6 northward in the spring and southward in the fall (Audubon 2018a). Aquatic 7 habitats and forested corridors are important ecological resources for migrating 8 birds.
9 Approximately 500 species of birds have been documented in Santa Barbara 10 County (California Bird Records Committee 2018). Common species located 11 throughout the County include house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), house sparrow 12 (Passer domesticus), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), California towhee (Melozone 13 crissalis), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), and Anna’s hummingbird 14 (Calypte anna). Ocean shorebirds, such as plovers, western sandpiper (Calidris 15 mauri), and long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus), inhabit areas along the 16 shoreline within the Santa Barbara Coastline region (California Bird Records 17 Committee 2018). Estuaries support herons, egrets, and other waterfowl and 18 wetland bird species. Forested areas adjacent to grasslands adjacent to the water 19 features and/or support raptors red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), red-tailed 20 hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi), and white-tailed kite 21 (Elanus leucurus).
22 3.2.3 Reptiles and Amphibians
23 Approximately 51 species of amphibians and reptiles are known to occur in Santa 24 Barbara County, including approximately 6 salamanders, 8 frogs, 7 turtles, 13 25 lizards, and 17 snakes (Santa Barbara Botanic Garden [SBBG] 2018).
26 Common reptiles and amphibians found throughout the County include the 27 western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma 28 coronatum), gophersnake (Pituophis catenifer), western rattlesnake (Crotalus 29 oreganus), and Pacific tree frog (Pseudacris regilla). The western pond turtle 30 (Clemmys marmorata) is the only native turtle in Santa Barbara County, and winters 31 on land away from flooding stream channels throughout the County. The common
3-6 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 kingsnake occurs in every habitat of the County, though is primarily found in 2 lower elevation areas; the California mountain kingsnake (Lampropeltis zonata) is 3 primarily found in Santa Ynez Mountains (SBBG 2018).
4 3.2.4 Invertebrates
5 Santa Barbara County is home to an innumerable invertebrate species, including 6 bees, hornets, wasps, butterflies, moths, beetles, flies, dragonflies, damselflies, 7 spiders, mites, crustaceans, and nematodes. These invertebrates provide an 8 abundant food source for mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians, and other 9 invertebrates.
10 3.2.5 Freshwater Fish
11 Santa Barbara County provides freshwater aquatic habitat for dozens of species of 12 freshwater fish, ranging in size from small minnows to larger diadromous species 13 (e.g., Southern California steelhead trout [Oncorhynchus mykissi]) (University of 14 California 2018). The Santa Ynez River is home to approximately two dozen types 15 of fish, including bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), golden shiner (Notemigonus 16 crysoleucas), and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). The Santa Maria River 17 contains similar types of fish, with some unique species such as the threadfin shad 18 (Dorosoma petenense) and inland threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus 19 microcephalus). The Orcutt River also contains similar types of fish with some 20 unique species such as the Arroyo chub (Gila orcutti). Drainages within the Santa 21 Barbara Coastal watershed, such as Tajiguas Creek, contain Pacific lamprey 22 (Entosphenus tridentate) and the staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus) (University 23 of California 2018).
24 3.3 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
25 Based on the Service’s Information, Planning, and Consultation System (IPaC) as 26 well as additional records from the Ventura Field Office, approximately 14 27 federally listed species have been identified or have the potential to occur within 28 the Planning Area. Three of these species – CTS, CRLF, and LYS – are covered by 29 the proposed GCP process. The other federally listed species have the potential to
3-7 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 occur within the GCP Planning; however, the proposed GCP process would not 2 address these species.
3 3.3.1 Covered Species
4 3.3.1.1 California Tiger Salamander (Santa Barbara County DPS)
5 CTS is a fairly large and stocky salamander, with a broad, rounded snout. Adult 6 males are approximately 8 inches in length and adult females are approximately 7 6.8 inches in length. CTS have some quantity of dots or bars in pale yellow or white 8 against the black background of its back, sides, legs, and tail. Their bellies may be 9 white, pale yellow, or a variegated pattern of white, pale yellow, and black 10 (Service 2016).
11 CTS spend the majority of their life underground in small mammal burrows. CTS 12 may also use landscape features such as leaf litter or cracks in the soil as upland 13 refugia. Such refugia provide protection from the sun and wind associated with 14 the dry climate. Winter rain events trigger CTS to emerge from refugia and seek 15 breeding ponds (Storer 1925). Requiring a relatively short period to complete 16 development of the aquatic larvae as compared to other salamanders, CTS may 17 breed successfully in pools or ponds that are inundated with water for little more 18 than 2 months. However, lifetime reproductive success of CTS is typically low 19 because they require approximately 4 to 5 years before they reach sexual maturity 20 (Trenham et al. 2000). Less than 50 percent of first-time breeding California tiger 21 salamanders typically survive to breed more than once (Trenham et al. 2000). 22 Metamorphs also have low survivorship; in some populations, less than 5 percent 23 survive to breed (Trenham 1998). Thus, isolated metapopulations can decline 24 substantially from unusual, randomly occurring, natural events (e.g., disease, 25 drought) as well as from human-caused factors that reduce breeding success and 26 individual survival.
27 The Santa Barbara County DPS is endemic to the northern portion of Santa Barbara 28 County and currently consists of six distinct metapopulations spanning the 29 Lompoc Valley and San Antonio Creek region of the Planning Area (refer to Figure 30 2-1). Currently, there are approximately 60 known extant CTS breeding ponds in
3-8 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 Santa Barbara County (Service 2009) distributed across the six metapopulations. 2 The Santa Barbara County DPS of the CTS was federally listed as endangered 3 throughout its entire range in 2000 (65 FR 3096). In 2004, the Service designated 4 critical habitat for the Santa Barbara County DPS within portions of each of the six 5 metapopulations. The Service approved a recovery plan for the species in 2016 6 (Service 2016).
7 For a more detailed description of the CTS, its life history, habitat, range, reasons 8 for decline, and threats, see Section 3, Environmental Setting and Covered Species of 9 the GCP (see Appendix A).
10 3.3.1.2 California Red-Legged Frog
11 CRLF is the largest native frog in the western U.S., with adult males reaching 12 approximately 5.4 inches in length and adult females reaching approximately 4.5 13 inches in length (Hayes and Miyamoto 1984). The abdomen and hind legs of adults 14 are often red or salmon pink and the back is characterized by small black flecks 15 and larger irregular blotches with indistinct outlines on a brown, gray, olive, or 16 reddish-brown background color (Service 2002b).
17 CRLF spend most of their lives in and near sheltered backwaters of ponds, 18 marshes, springs, streams, and reservoirs. Deep pools with dense stands of 19 overhanging willows and an intermixed fringe of cattails are considered optimal 20 habitat; however, CRLF can breed in many aquatic habitats. CRLF breed from 21 November through April (Storer 1925). Males appear at breeding sites from 2 to 4 22 weeks before females and call in small groups of two to seven individuals. Eggs 23 are fertilized while being attached to a brace (i.e., emergent vegetation such as 24 bulrushes [Scirpus spp.] and cattails [Typha spp.] or roots and twigs) (Hayes and 25 Miyamoto 1984). CRLF larvae are highly vulnerable to fish predation, especially 26 immediately after hatching, when the non-feeding larvae are relatively immobile 27 (Schmieder and Nauman 1994).
28 The historical range of CRLF extended coastally from southern Mendocino County 29 and inland from the vicinity of Redding, California, southward to northwestern 30 Baja California, Mexico (Jennings and Hayes 1985; Storer 1925). CRLF have been 31 found at elevations that range from sea level to approximately 5,000 feet.
3-9 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 Currently, CRLF are known from three disjunct regions in 26 California counties 2 and one region in Baja California (Grismer 2002; Fidenci 2004). The California red- 3 legged frog was federally listed as threatened in 1996 (61 FR 25813). The Service 4 approved a recovery plan for the species in 2002 (Service 2002b). Critical habitat 5 for the CRLF was finalized in 2010 (75 FR 12816) after multiple revisions.
6 For a more detailed description of the CTS, its life history, habitat, range, reasons 7 for decline, and threats, see Section 3, Environmental Setting and Covered Species of 8 the GCP (see Appendix A).
9 3.3.1.3 Lompoc Yerba Santa
10 LYS is an evergreen shrub with narrow, leathery leaves that grows to 11 approximately 9.8-feet tall. The lavender flowers are tubular and clustered in 12 heads that bloom from May to August.
13 Near the coast, LYS occurs within maritime chaparral and coastal sage scrub on 14 sandstone soils of the Orcutt, Marina, and Oceano soil series. In this habitat type, 15 LYS typically occupies disturbed areas near roads or exposed ridgetops (Jacks et 16 al. 1984). Associated species include buck brush, black sage, coyote brush 17 (Baccharis spp.), California sagebrush, bush poppy, California scrub oak, and 18 manzanita (Jacks et al. 1984). Farther inland, LYS occurs within Bishop pine forest 19 on diatomaceous Monterey shales. These sites have characteristic soils that are 20 highly acidic and have a high water-retaining capacity (Cole 1974).
21 As described in Section 2.1.4.3, Lompoc Yerba Santa, LYS occurs in five 22 subpopulations within three geographic regions in Santa Barbara County, 23 including Solomon Hills (two subpopulations); West Burton Mesa (two 24 subpopulations within the boundaries of Vandenberg Air Force Base [AFB]); and 25 Santa Ynez Mountains (one subpopulation). The Solomon Hills subpopulation is 26 located within the Santa Maria Valley region of the Planning Area and the Santa 27 Ynez Mountain subpopulation is located within the Santa Barbara Coastline 28 region of the Planning Area. LYS was listed as federally endangered in 2000 29 (65 FR 14888). Critical habitat was designated for the species in 2002 (67 FR 67968). 30 A 5-year review for the species was published in 2011.
3-10 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 For a more detailed description of the LYS, its life history, habitat, range, reasons 2 for decline, and threats, see Section 3, Environmental Setting and Covered Species of 3 the GCP (see Appendix A).
4 3.3.2 Noncovered Sensitive Species
5 As described in Section 2.1.2, Federally Listed Species Covered by the Proposed GCP, 6 the three federally listed species covered under the GCP were selected for 7 inclusion by the Service during development of the GCP because they account for 8 the majority of individual ITP applications received for non-Federal oil and gas 9 activities in Santa Barbara County and are known to occur in areas with potential 10 for oil and gas development. A total of 11 other federally listed species occur in 11 the Planning Area (see Table 3-1), but would not be covered under the proposed 12 GCP process.
3-11 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 Table 3-1. Federally-Listed Species with Potential to Occur within the GCP Planning Area
Federal Habitat Common Name Scientific Name Status Birds California condor Gymnogyps californianus E Occurs in rocky shrubland, coniferous forests, and oak savannas within the mountainous areas of the Santa Barbara Coastline region (i.e., Santa Ynez Mountains). Least Bell's vireo Vireo bellii pusillus E Inhabits low-elevation, riparian habitats with a dense shrub understory near perennial or intermittent water features. Potential habitat within the Planning Area include the Santa Maria River and Cuyama River within the eastern half of the Santa Maria Valley region. Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus E Occurs within coastal areas near water with thickets of willow and other low shrubs that provide nesting and roosting cover. Known to occur along the Santa Ynez River within the Santa Ynez Valley and Lompoc Valley regions of the Planning Area. Insects El Segundo blue butterfly Euphilotes battoides allyni E Inhabit dunes with high sand content and where its host plant (i.e., coast buckwheat [Eriogonum parvifolium]) is found. Documented within Vandenberg AFB with potential to occur within the Santa Maria Valley and Santa Barbara Coastline regions of the Planning Area. Crustaceans Vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi T Occurs within vernal pools occur on coastal terraces in Southern California. Potential to occur in the Santa Maria Valley and Santa Barbara Coastline regions of the Planning Area. 2
3-12 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
Plants Gambel's watercress Rorippa gambellii E Occurs within coastal wetland areas. Documented within Vandenberg AFB with potential to occur in the Santa Maria Valley and Santa Barbara Coastline regions of the Planning Area. Gaviota tarplant Deinandra increscens ssp. E Occurs along the coastline in needlegrass that intergrades with villosa coastal sage scrub. Known to occur within Santa Barbara Coastline region of the Planning Area along the coastal terrace between the Santa Ynez Mountains and the ocean. La Graciosa thistle Cirsium loncholepis E Grows in riparian habitat, often around seeps or in marshes. Known to occur within the Guadalupe Dunes and along the Santa Maria River within the Santa Maria Valley region of the Planning Area. Marsh sandwort Arenaria paludicola E Marsh sandwort is known to occur in marshes, swamps and areas that are wet year-round. This species is known to occur in southern San Luis Obispo County and has the potential to occur within Guadalupe Dunes located within the Santa Maria Valley region of the Planning Area. Nipomo Mesa lupine Lupinus nipomensis E Nipomo mesa lupine grows in stabilized back dune habitat. Known to occur within the Guadalupe Dunes located within the Santa Maria Valley region of the Planning Area. Spreading navarretia Navarretia fossalis T Spreading navarretia is primarily found in vernal pools, alkali grasslands, alkali playas, and alkali sinks. The species occurs in San Diego County, Riverside County, and Los Angeles County but has the potential to occur within the Planning Area. 1 Notes: California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) 2018; Service 2018a, 2018b.
3-13 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 3.4 WETLANDS/WATERS OF THE U.S.
2 Wetlands are defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the U.S. 3 Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as “those areas that are inundated or 4 saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to 5 support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of 6 vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands 7 generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas” (33 CFR §328.3[b]). 8 USACE technical guidelines for identifying wetlands require that at least one 9 positive indicator for each of three criteria (i.e., hydrophytic vegetation, hydric 10 soils, and wetland hydrology) exist in order to designate a wetland. Hydrophytic 11 vegetation refers to wetland plant species adapted for life within habitats that have 12 permanent or alternating dry and inundated and/or saturated soil conditions. 13 Hydric soils are those that are saturated, flooded, or ponded for sufficient periods 14 during the growing season and that develop anaerobic conditions in their upper 15 horizons (i.e., layers). Wetland hydrology is determined by the frequency and 16 duration of inundation and soil saturation; permanent or periodic water 17 inundation or soil saturation is considered an important force in wetland 18 establishment and proliferation. Jurisdictional wetlands are those subject to 19 regulatory authority under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and 20 Executive Order (EO) 11990, Protection of Wetlands.
21 Santa Barbara County spans five principal watersheds: Cuyama (Hydrologic Unit 22 Code [HUC] 1806007); Santa Maria (HUC 18060008); San Antonio (18060009); 23 Santa Ynez (18060009); and Santa Barbara Coastal (HUC 18060013). The major 24 rivers within the County that drain these watersheds include the Cuyama River, 25 Santa Maria River, San Antonio Creek, Sisquoc River, and Santa Ynez River. The 26 Santa Barbara Coastal watershed is drained by a number of smaller creeks that 27 drain directly to the Pacific Ocean. Each of these drainage features provide 28 wetland and/or riparian habitat within and immediately adjacent to the top-of- 29 bank channel width (i.e., wetted channel width).
30 The most biologically important wetlands in the County include estuaries where 31 major rivers or other drainages empty into the Pacific Ocean (e.g., Santa Maria 32 river mouth, Santa Ynez river mouth, Jalama Creek mouth, Carpinteria Marsh,
3-14 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 Devereux Lagoon, Barka Slough, and Goleta Slough). These areas support 2 migratory birds, aquatic species, and a variety of special status plant and wildlife 3 species. Other types of wetlands found throughout the County include freshwater 4 emergent wetlands, freshwater forested/shrub wetlands, and freshwater ponds. 5 The Planning Area contains numerous seasonal ponds, such as vernal pools (i.e., 6 seasonal, shallow wetlands that alternate between dry and wet periods) and sag 7 ponds (i.e., ponds located in depressions formed at a strike-slip fault), which range 8 in size from small pools to shallow lakes. There are also several man-made ponds 9 or modified natural ponds that create various types of artificial aquatic habitat. 10 These features are often created when a berm is constructed in a natural drainage 11 corridor, forming a pond to be used for the purposes of providing water for cattle. 12 These wetland features are also important for a variety of wildlife species, 13 including special status amphibian species, including CTS and CRLF, which are 14 covered under the proposed GCP (refer to Section 3.3, Threatened and Endangered 15 Species).
3-15 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 This page intentionally left blank.
3-16 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 SECTION 4 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
3 Environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the Proposed 4 Action and the No Action Alternative are evaluated in this section. Analyses are 5 presented by resource area, as presented in Section 3, Affected Environment. 6 Analysis of potential impacts to resources typically includes: 1) identification and 7 description of resources that could potentially be affected; 2) examination of the 8 Proposed Action and the potential effects the Proposed Action may have on the 9 resource; 3) assessment of the significance of potential impacts; and 10 4) development of mitigation, special procedures, or adaptive management 11 measures in the event that potentially significant impacts are identified.
12 In accordance with CEQ regulations (40 CFR Part 1508), for this analysis potential 13 impacts are described as:
14 • Direct Impact: An effect that is caused by an action and occurs in the 15 same time and place.
16 • Indirect Impact: An effect that is caused by an action but is later in time 17 or further removed in distance but is still reasonably 18 foreseeable.
19 • Adverse Impact: A change that moves the resource away from a desired 20 condition or detracts from its appearance or condition.
21 • Beneficial Impact: A positive change in the condition or appearance of the 22 resources or a change that moves the resource toward a 23 desired condition.
24 As previously described, the proposed GCP is a mechanism that meets the 25 definition of a conservation plan in Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA and enables the 26 construct of a programmatic permitting and conservation process to address a 27 defined suite of proposed activities over a defined planning area. As described in 28 Section 1.5, Scope of the Environmental Assessment, implementation of the Proposed 29 Action or the No Action Alternative would not result in direct or immediate 30 approval of any oil and gas development. An ITP is one of a suite of permits
4-1 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 required for project approval. The GCP process neither reduces nor increases the 2 number or types of permits required and would not affect agency coordination 3 and/or consultation required by applicable laws, regulations, guidance, etc. 4 Further, all existing compliance requirements for ITP issuance would remain in 5 place under implementation of the Proposed Action. As such, implementation of 6 the proposed GCP would neither directly induce nor ease permitting compliance 7 of ground-disturbing activities that could result in potential impacts to other 8 environmental resource areas. Proposed oil and gas activities for which the GCP 9 would address with respect to ESA would continue require regulatory review and 10 compliance prior to discretionary approval. Key regulations guiding project- 11 specific reviews and approval are identified in Section 1.6, External Regulatory and 12 Consultation Requirements for Proposed Oil and Gas Activities.
13 4.1 VEGETATION
14 4.1.1 Proposed Action
15 As described in Section 3.1, Vegetation the Planning Area spans the California 16 Coastal Chaparral Forest Shrub Province and the California Coastal Range Open 17 Woodland-Shrub-Coniferous Forest Province. Vegetation alliances across the 18 entire Planning Area are mapped and described in Appendix C. Impacts to 19 vegetation resulting from oil and gas activities (e.g., geophysical exploration, 20 construction of new facilities, and maintenance of existing facilities) could include 21 short-term effects resulting from physical disturbance (e.g., removal or trampling) 22 during construction as well as long-term effects resulting from habitat 23 modification and fragmentation (e.g., from the construction of pipelines, roads, 24 utility lines, fencing, etc.) (see Appendix A). However, implementation of the 25 Proposed Action would not result in direct or immediate approval of any oil and 26 gas development, rather implementation of the Proposed Action would streamline 27 the existing permitting process and identify limits of take for CTS and CRLF as 28 well as impacts to LYS. As such, implementation of the Proposed Action would 29 not directly generate short-term or long-term impacts to vegetation.
30 As described in Section 1.5, Scope of the Environmental Assessment, land use 31 approval(s) for individual oil and gas projects would continue to be the
4-2 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 responsibility of the local or state agency(ies) with the appropriate jurisdiction(s) 2 over an individual project site. As such, all non-Federal projects would continue 3 to require compliance with CEQA, which requires local and/or state agencies to 4 identify any significant environmental impacts of actions and to avoid or mitigate 5 those impacts, as feasible. Impacts to biological resources – including vegetation – 6 would continue to be assessed on a project-by-project basis under CEQA, as 7 applicable.
8 The purpose of the proposed GCP is to provide a mechanism by which the Ventura 9 Field Office can increase efficiency and standardize compliance with Section 10 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA for oil and gas projects on non-Federal lands within Santa 11 Barbara County. Rather than processing individual ITP applications and 12 associated HCPs for individual Applicants, the implementation of the Proposed 13 Action would allow the Ventura Field Office to issue ITPs for non-Federal oil and 14 gas development activities that are in compliance with the scope and requirements 15 of the proposed GCP.
16 The following objectives from the proposed GCP apply to vegetation across the 17 Planning Area:
18 • Objective 1.3: Restore disturbed areas to original conditions, as feasible, to 19 restore the area to previous conditions.
20 • Objective 2.3: Restore disturbed areas to original conditions as feasible 21 through topsoil conservation.
22 Under the proposed GCP an Applicant would be required to submit a complete 23 Permit Application Package that includes a map and description of the impacts to 24 vegetation. Proposed oil and gas activities that include short-term or long-term 25 impacts to vegetation would be required to provide photographic records of 26 existing conditions. These photographs would be used to ensure successful 27 revegetation of disturbed areas following construction and after 28 decommissioning. During compliance monitoring, a Service-approved biologist 29 would inspect the project site to ensure that the final construction restoration 30 measures are implemented in compliance with the GCP. Additionally, a post- 31 construction monitoring report summarizing the compliance monitoring effort 32 would be provided to the Service.
4-3 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 For construction activities occurring in areas with a predominance of native plants, 2 the upper 6 inches of topsoil material would be segregated during excavations to 3 preserve the seed bank. The preserved topsoil will be covered to protect it from 4 erosion and invasion of non-native plants until completion of the activity, when 5 the topsoil would be replaced in the affected area (refer to Measures to Avoid and 6 Minimize Impacts No. 20 in the GCP; Appendix A).
7 For oil and gas activities involving oil drilling, oil wells and/or oil pipelines the 8 proposed GCP requires that Applicants prepare an Emergency Response Action 9 Plan that addresses protection and revegetation of any areas disturbed during an 10 oil spill or cleanup activities. The Emergency Response Action Plan would, at a 11 minimum, include specific measures to avoid impacts to native vegetation during 12 response and cleanup operations. For example, low-pressure water flushing 13 would be specified to remove spilled material from particularly sensitive native 14 vegetation, such as riparian woodlands (refer to Measures to Avoid and Minimize 15 Impacts No. 19 in the GCP; Appendix A).
16 This standardized approach to the implementation of avoidance, minimization, 17 and mitigation measures would ensure greater consistency with regard to the 18 protection of native vegetation relative to the existing permitting mechanisms. 19 This would result in minor overall beneficial impacts to native vegetation.
20 4.1.2 No Action Alternative
21 Under the No Action Alternative, the Service would not establish the proposed 22 GCP as a standardized mechanism for compliance with Section 10 of the ESA. Oil 23 and gas activities involving potential impacts to CTS, CRLF, and/or LYS would 24 continue to be required to obtain ITPs with associated project-specific HCPs to 25 comply with the ESA. Processing ITP applications under these existing conditions 26 requires Ventura Field Office staff to conduct lengthy reviews of individual HCPs 27 – including a review of all project-specific avoidance, minimization, and 28 mitigation measures and associated compliance reporting – submitted by 29 individual ITP applicants. There would be no impact to native vegetation relative 30 to existing conditions; however, the standardization of avoidance, minimization, 31 and mitigation measures and compliance reporting would not be achieved.
4-4 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 4.2 GENERAL WILDLIFE
2 4.2.1 Proposed Action
3 The Planning Area includes a wide variety of mammals, birds, reptiles and 4 amphibians, invertebrates, and freshwater fish. Impacts to these species resulting 5 from oil and gas activities (e.g., geophysical exploration, construction of new 6 facilities, and maintenance of existing facilities) could include short-term effects 7 during construction (e.g., noise, roadway mortality) as well as long-term 8 operational effects (e.g., habitat modification and fragmentation). However, 9 implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in direct or immediate 10 approval of any oil and gas development, rather implementation of the Proposed 11 Action would streamline the existing permitting process and identify limits of take 12 for each of three species it addresses. As such, implementation of the Proposed 13 Action would not directly generate short-term or long-term impacts to wildlife. As 14 described in Section 1.5, Scope of the Environmental Assessment, land use approval(s) 15 for individual oil and gas projects would continue to be the responsibility of the 16 local or state agency(ies) with the appropriate jurisdiction(s) over an individual 17 project site. As such, all non-Federal projects would continue to require 18 compliance with CEQA, which requires local and/or state agencies to identify any 19 significant environmental impacts of actions and to avoid or mitigate those 20 impacts, as feasible. Impacts to biological resources – including wildlife – would 21 continue to be assessed on a project-by-project basis under CEQA, as applicable.
22 The purpose of the proposed GCP is to provide a mechanism by which the Ventura 23 Field Office can increase efficiency and standardize compliance with Section 24 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA for oil and gas projects on non-Federal lands within Santa 25 Barbara County. Rather than processing individual ITP applications and 26 associated HCPs for individual Applicants, the proposed GCP would allow the 27 Ventura Field Office to issue ITPs for non-Federal oil and gas development 28 activities that are in compliance with the scope and requirements of the GCP.
29 A number of the objectives from the proposed GCP, intended for CTS and CRLF, 30 also apply to general wildlife across the Planning Area. Similarly, a number of the 31 avoidance and minimization measures from the proposed GCP also apply to
4-5 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 general wildlife. For example, exclusionary silt fencing (or other suitable fence 2 material) would be installed at the discretion of a Service-approved biologist. If 3 CTS, CRLF, or another wildlife species were observed within an enclosed project 4 site, a portion of the fencing would be temporarily removed to allow the 5 individual to vacate the area (refer to Measures to Avoid and Minimize Impacts 6 No. 14 in the GCP; Appendix A). Additionally, steep-walled excavations and 7 pipelines would be inspected on a daily basis or covered/sealed to prevent 8 wildlife entrapment (refer to Measures to Avoid and Minimize Impacts Nos. 15 9 and 16 in the GCP; Appendix A
10 This standardized approach to the implementation of avoidance, minimization, 11 and mitigation measures would ensure greater consistency with regard to 12 protection of wildlife relative to the existing permitting mechanisms. This would 13 result in minor overall beneficial impacts to general wildlife.
14 4.2.2 No Action Alternative
15 Under the No Action Alternative, the Service would not establish the proposed 16 GCP as a standardized mechanism for compliance with Section 10 of the ESA. Oil 17 and gas activities involving potential impacts to CTS, CRLF, and/or LYS would 18 continue to be required to obtain ITPs with associated project-specific HCPs to 19 comply with the ESA. Processing ITP applications under these existing conditions 20 requires Ventura Field Office staff to conduct lengthy reviews of individual HCPs 21 – including a review of all project-specific avoidance, minimization, and 22 mitigation measures and associated compliance reporting – submitted by 23 individual ITP applicants. There would be no impact to general wildlife relative to 24 existing conditions; however, the standardization of avoidance, minimization, and 25 mitigation measures and compliance reporting would not be achieved.
26 4.3 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
27 “Take” is defined in Section 3 of the ESA as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 28 wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” 29 “Harm” has been further defined to include significant habitat modification or 30 degradation to the extent that it kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing
4-6 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 2 §17.3). As described in the Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permit 3 Processing Handbook (Service and National Marine Fisheries Service 2016), take of 4 federally listed can be measured in a number of ways including “numbers of 5 affected individuals, nesting groups, or a surrogate measure like acres of habitat 6 or stream miles.” Specific to the proposed GCP, it is impossible to definitively 7 estimate the number of CTS, CRLF, or LYS that would potentially be taken over 8 the 20-year term of the proposed GCP. Therefore, the proposed GCP uses impacts 9 to habitat for each of the covered species as a proxy to quantify take levels and 10 define the permitted limits.
11 The following analysis provides a description of potential impacts to the three 12 covered species – CTS, CRLF, and LYS – as well as other federally listed species 13 occurring in the Planning Area but not covered by the proposed GCP.
14 4.3.1 Proposed Action
15 4.3.1.1 Covered Species
16 As described in Section 4.2, General Wildlife impacts resulting from oil and gas 17 activities (e.g., geophysical exploration, construction of new facilities, and 18 maintenance of existing facilities) could include short-term effects during 19 construction (e.g., noise, roadway mortality) as well as long-term operational 20 effects (e.g., habitat modification and fragmentation). However, implementation 21 of the Proposed Action would not result in direct or immediate approval of any 22 oil and gas development, rather implementation of the Proposed Action would 23 streamline the existing permitting process and identify limits of take for each of 24 the three covered species. As such, implementation of the Proposed Action would 25 not directly generate short-term or long-term impacts to federally listed species.
26 The purpose of the proposed GCP is to provide a mechanism by which the Ventura 27 Field Office can increase efficiency and standardize compliance with Section 28 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA for oil and gas projects on non-Federal lands within Santa 29 Barbara County. Rather than processing individual ITP applications and 30 associated HCPs for individual Applicants, the proposed GCP would allow the
4-7 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 Ventura Field Office to issue ITPs for non-Federal oil and gas development 2 activities that are in compliance with the scope and requirements of the GCP.
3 As thoroughly described in the proposed GCP, issuance of ITPs under either 4 scenario – under the GCP or individually on a project-by-project basis – could 5 result in adverse impacts to individuals of the species; however, standardizing 6 ESA compliance would benefit the three covered species by ensuring that 7 anticipated habitat loss would be comprehensively balanced with conservation 8 actions, such as habitat protection and management in perpetuity (see Section 5, 9 Conservation Program/Measures to Minimize and Mitigate for Impacts of the GCP; 10 Appendix A). The measures provided under the proposed GCP would result in 11 larger, contiguous tracts of land being protected, with greater conservation value, 12 than would likely be achieved if similar acreage were protected on a project-by- 13 project basis under the No Action Alternative.
14 California Tiger Salamander (Santa Barbara County DPS)
15 Currently, there are approximately 60 known extant CTS breeding ponds in Santa 16 Barbara County (Service 2009) distributed across the six metapopulations (refer to 17 Figure 2-1). Approximately 67,525 acres of the Planning Area are located within 18 the dispersal distance of CTS from known breeding ponds. As described in Section 19 4, Biological Impacts and Take Assessment of the GCP (see Appendix A), no direct or 20 indirect impacts to CTS breeding habitat would be covered under the proposed 21 GCP; however, covered activities could occur in upland areas that are occupied by 22 CTS.
23 The proposed GCP implements the methodology from the Conservation Strategy 24 and Mitigation Guidance for the California Tiger Salamander to quantify take (Service 25 and CDFW 2017; Searcy and Shaffer 2008). As described in further detail in Section 26 4, Biological Impacts and Take Assessment of the GCP (see Appendix A), there are 27 two components of permanent impacts to CTS habitat (i.e., take): 1) “project 28 footprint,” which is the area of ground disturbance within CTS habitat; and 2) 29 “deficit wedge,” which is the area of habitat that becomes isolated from a given 30 breeding pond and is rendered inaccessible to CTS migrating in a straight line 31 form the center of a breeding pond. The deficit wedge is only created by
4-8 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 permanent, long-term, or vertical impacts that impede CTS from dispersing across 2 the landscape.
3 Over the 20-year term of the proposed GCP, the standardized ITP process would 4 incorporate established maximum allowable impacts within CTS upland habitat 5 consistent with the Recovery Plan (Service 2016). Specifically, the proposed GCP 6 would allow permanent and temporary impacts up to 675 acres (i.e., 1 percent) 7 and 1,254 acres (i.e., 2 percent), respectively. Refer to Table 2-1 for a complete 8 description of maximum allowable impact to CTS upland habitat under the 9 proposed GCP.
10 With respect to designated critical habitat for CTS, aquatic features (PCE 1) would 11 not be adversely affected because no impacts to aquatic habitats would be 12 permitted under the proposed GCP. Rather, the proposed GCP may result in 13 beneficial affects to PCE 1 because aquatic habitats would be protected through 14 the establishment of conservation easements used to mitigate for impacts to CTS. 15 Refer to Table 2-2 for a complete description of the maximum potential loss of 16 upland refuge and dispersal habitat (PCE 2 and PCE 3) in each critical habitat unit 17 that may occur under the proposed GCP.
18 Consistent with Objective 1.1 and Objective 1.2 of the proposed GCP, impacts to 19 CTS would be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable (refer 20 to Measures to Avoid and Minimize Impacts No. 1 through 23 in the GCP; 21 Appendix A). However, consistent with Objective 3.1 of the proposed GCP as well 22 as ITP issuance criteria, Applicants would also be required to implement 23 compensatory mitigation for individual oil and gas activities that would result in 24 permanent and/or temporary impacts to CTS upland habitat.
25 Impacts to CTS upland habitat would be mitigated in accordance with the 26 Conservation Strategy and Mitigation Guidance for the California Tiger Salamander. 27 Compensatory mitigation would be provided by an Applicant through: 1) buying 28 credits from a mitigation provider; 2) payment of mitigation fees into the CTS 29 Mitigation and Conservation Account; or 3) by establishing a mitigation site that 30 meets the Service’s specification for approved mitigation (see Section 5, 31 Conservation Program/Measures to Minimize and Mitigate for Impacts of the GCP; 32 Appendix A). Typically, a mitigation ratio of 1:1 of the reproductive value of the
4-9 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 habitat impacted and conserved would be required for impacts to CTS upland 2 habitat. Mitigation would be undertaken in a strategic way such that it contributes 3 to meeting the recovery criteria described in the Recovery Plan (Service 2016). For 4 example, within the East Santa Maria and West Santa Maria metapopulations the 5 amount of suitable habitat available to meet the recovery criteria described in the 6 Recovery Plan is decreasing. Therefore, if habitat disturbance occurs in these two 7 metapopulation areas, it would be necessary to purchase habitat in these 8 metapopulation areas and restore it to function as CTS habitat in order to ensure 9 recovery is achievable. The proposed GCP would more effectively support these 10 types of coordinated conservation efforts as compared to individual HCPs under 11 the No Action Alternative. Together with standardized monitoring and reporting 12 activities as well as the implementation of adaptive management strategies, 13 implementation of compensatory mitigation described in the proposed GCP 14 would offset impacts to CTS habitat.
15 As such, the implementation of the proposed GCP – which would standardize the 16 approach to implementation of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures 17 and incorporate established maximum allowable impacts within CTS upland 18 habitat consistent with the Recovery Plan – would result in minor overall beneficial 19 impacts to CTS.
20 California Red-Legged Frog
21 As described in Section 3.3.1.2, California Red-Legged Frog, CRLF is known to occur 22 throughout Santa Barbara County from sea level to approximately 5,000 feet. 23 Additionally, there are seven designated critical habitat units for CRLF within 24 Santa Barbara County (Service 2010). Approximately 35,426 acres of the Planning 25 Area intersects with these designated critical habitat units. As described in Section 26 4, Biological Impacts and Take Assessment of the GCP (see Appendix A), covered 27 activities could occur in upland and dispersal habitat occupied by CRLF.
28 Over the 20-year term of the proposed GCP, the standardized ITP process would 29 incorporate established maximum allowable impacts within designated critical 30 habitat for CRLF consistent with the Recovery Plan (Service 2002b). Specifically, 31 the proposed GCP would allow permanent and temporary impacts up to 355 acres 32 (i.e., 1 percent) and 710 acres (i.e., 2 percent), respectively.
4-10 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 Because no impacts to aquatic habitat or riparian habitat would be permitted 2 under the proposed GCP, breeding habitat and non-breeding aquatic and riparian 3 habitat (PCE 1 and PCE 2) would not be adversely affected. Rather, the proposed 4 GCP may result in beneficial affects to PCE 1 and PCE 2 because aquatic and 5 riparian habitats would be protected and enhanced through the implementation 6 of compensatory mitigation actions for CRLF. Refer to Table 2-3 for a complete 7 description of the maximum potential loss of upland refuge and dispersal habitat 8 (PCE 3 and PCE 4) in each critical habitat unit that may occur under the proposed 9 GCP.
10 Consistent with Objective 1.1 and Objective 1.2 of the proposed GCP, impacts to 11 CRLF would be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable (refer 12 to Measures to Avoid and Minimize Impacts No. 1 through 23 in the GCP; 13 Appendix A). However, consistent with Objective 3.1 of the proposed GCP and 14 ITP issuance criteria, Applicants would also be required to implement 15 compensatory mitigation for individual oil and gas activities that would result in 16 permanent and/or temporary impacts to designated critical habitat for CRLF.
17 Mitigation for impacts to CRLF and its habitat would be implemented to address 18 the conservation needs of the species. Compensatory mitigation would be 19 provided by an Applicant through: 1) payment of mitigation fees into a CRLF 20 mitigation account; or 2) by establishing a mitigation site that meets the Service’s 21 specification for approved mitigation (see Section 5, Conservation 22 Program/Measures to Minimize and Mitigate for Impacts of the GCP; Appendix A). As 23 described in Section 5 of the GCP, a mitigation ratio of 1:1 would be required for 24 temporary impacts and a mitigation ratio of 3:1 would be required for permanent 25 impacts. Together with standardized monitoring and reporting activities as well 26 as the implementation of adaptive management strategies, implementation of 27 compensatory mitigation described in the proposed GCP would offset impacts to 28 designated critical habitat for CRLF.
29 As such, the implementation of the proposed GCP – which would standardize the 30 approach to implementation of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures 31 and incorporate established maximum allowable impacts within designated
4-11 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 critical habitat for CRLF consistent with the Recovery Plan – would result in minor 2 overall beneficial impacts to CRLF.
3 Lompoc Yerba Santa
4 As described in Section 3.3.1.3, Lompoc Yerba Santa, LYS occurs in five 5 subpopulations within three geographic regions in Santa Barbara County, 6 including Solomon Hills (two subpopulations); West Burton Mesa (two 7 subpopulations within the boundaries of Vandenberg Air Force Base); and Santa 8 Ynez Mountains (one subpopulation). The Planning Area intersects with the 9 Solomon Hills and Santa Ynez Mountains subpopulations including 6,301 acres of 10 designated critical habitat for LYS. As described in Section 4, Biological Impacts and 11 Take Assessment of the GCP (see Appendix A), no impacts to designated critical 12 habitat for LYS would be covered under the proposed GCP; however, covered 13 activities could affect adjacent habitat that supports LYS or is otherwise suitable 14 for LYS. Covered activities could remove individual plants or otherwise affect the 15 habitat suitability as a result of altered surface hydrology, potentially resulting in 16 increased erosion; changes in the period and amounts of moisture content in the 17 soil to which the subspecies has adapted; increases in the abundance of nonnative 18 plants species as a result of the project activities; dust that could affect 19 reproduction; and loss or change in the abundance of pollinators.
20 Over the its 20-year term, the proposed GCP would incorporate established 21 maximum allowable impacts within LYS habitat consistent with the consistent 22 with the recovery criteria in the species’ 5-year Review: Summary and Evaluation 23 (Service 2011). Specifically, the implementation of the proposed GCP would allow 24 for impacts of up to 20 acres of LYS habitat outside the boundaries of designated 25 critical habitat and impacts to 7.5 acres of LYS habitat which could occur within 26 the boundary of designated critical habitat as shown in Table 2-4.
27 Consistent with Objective 1.1 and Objective 1.2 of the proposed GCP, impacts to 28 LYS would be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable (refer 29 to Measures to Avoid and Minimize Impacts Nos. 1 through 6, No. 10, and Nos. 30 19 through 21 in the GCP; Appendix A). However, consistent with Objective 3.1 of 31 the proposed GCP, Applicants would also be required to implement
4-12 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 compensatory mitigation for individual oil and gas activities that would result in 2 permanent and/or temporary impacts LYS.
3 Impacts to LYS would be mitigated through: 1) restoration of habitat suitable for 4 LYS; or 2) through acquisition of habitat that was historically or is currently 5 occupied by LYS (see Section 5, Conservation Program/Measures to Minimize and 6 Mitigate for Impacts of the GCP; Appendix A). A mitigation ratio of 3:1 would be 7 required for impacts to LYS habitat. If an Applicant pursues mitigation through 8 restoration of suitable habitat, the Applicant would be responsible for developing 9 a habitat restoration plan that is approved by the Service and helps to reduce 10 threats to the species that are described in the species’ 5-year Review: Summary and 11 Evaluation (Service 2011). The habitat restoration plan must include consideration 12 of the following criteria: defined schedules for restoration efforts, success criteria, 13 weed management methods, monitoring schedules, reporting requirements, and 14 long-term monitoring requirements. Restoration monitoring would continue for 5 15 years or until the predetermined success criteria have been documented and met.
16 Together with standardized monitoring and reporting activities as well as the 17 implementation of adaptive management strategies, implementation of 18 compensatory mitigation described in the proposed GCP would offset impacts to 19 LYS habitat.
20 As such, the implementation of the proposed GCP – which would standardize the 21 approach to implementation of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures 22 and incorporate established maximum allowable impacts within LYS habitat 23 consistent with the species’ 5-year Review: Summary and Evaluation (Service 2011) – 24 would result in minor overall beneficial impacts to CRLF.
25 4.3.1.2 Noncovered Sensitive Species
26 As described in Section 3.3.2, Noncovered Sensitive Species, a total of 11 other 27 federally listed species occur in the Planning Area (see Table 3-1), but would not 28 be covered under the proposed GCP process. For proposed oil and gas activities 29 involving take of noncovered species, proponents would be required to comply 30 with the ESA by applying for and receiving an ITP from the Service pursuant to 31 Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA (refer to Section 1.3.2, Section 10 – Incidental Take
4-13 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 Permits and Conservation Plans). As such, implementation of the Proposed Action 2 would not change the permitting processes for noncovered species. However, a 3 number of the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures from the 4 proposed GCP – intended for CTS, CRLF, and LYS – also apply to the other 5 noncovered species across the Planning Area. Further, compensatory mitigation – 6 including the acquisition of habitat, restoration of habitat, or purchase of 7 mitigation credits – could also benefit the other noncovered species with similar 8 habitat requirements and ranges that overlap one or more of the three covered 9 species. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed GCP would result in minor 10 overall beneficial impacts to noncovered species.
11 4.3.2 No Action Alternative
12 4.3.2.1 Covered Species
13 Under the No Action Alternative, the Service would not establish the proposed 14 GCP as a standardized mechanism for compliance with Section 10 of the ESA. Oil 15 and gas activities involving potential impacts to CTS, CRLF, and/or LYS would 16 continue to be required to obtain ITPs with associated project-specific HCPs to 17 comply with the ESA. Processing ITP applications under these existing conditions 18 requires Ventura Field Office staff to conduct lengthy reviews of individual HCPs 19 – including a review of all project-specific avoidance, minimization, and 20 mitigation measures and associated compliance reporting – submitted by 21 individual ITP applicants. There would be no impact to threatened and endangered 22 species relative to existing conditions; however, the standardization of avoidance, 23 minimization, and mitigation measures and compliance reporting would not be 24 achieved.
25 4.3.2.2 Noncovered Sensitive Species
26 Under the No Action Alternative, the Service would not establish the proposed 27 GCP as a standardized mechanism for compliance with Section 10 of the ESA. Oil 28 and gas activities involving potential impacts to CTS, CRLF, and/or LYS would 29 continue to be required to obtain ITPs with associated project-specific HCPs to
4-14 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 comply with the ESA. There would be no impact to noncovered species relative to 2 existing conditions; however, the standardization of avoidance, minimization, and 3 mitigation measures and the associated co-benefits to noncovered species with 4 similar habitat requirements and overlapping would not be achieved.
5 4.4 WETLANDS/WATERS OF THE U.S.
6 4.4.1 Proposed Action
7 Wetlands in the Planning Area include rivers, estuaries, freshwater emergent 8 wetlands, freshwater forested/shrub wetlands, and freshwater ponds. The 9 Planning Area also contains numerous seasonal ponds (e.g., vernal pools and sag 10 ponds) as well as several man-made ponds or modified natural ponds that create 11 various types of artificial aquatic habitat.
12 As described in Section 4.3, Threatened and Endangered Species there are 13 approximately 60 known extant (i.e., existing) CTS breeding ponds in Santa 14 Barbara County (Service 2009) distributed across the six metapopulations. Since 15 listing, the Service and CDFW developed guidance for protocol survey efforts 16 (Service and Department 2003), and this guidance aided in the detection of 17 additional breeding ponds discovered post-listing. Several of the additional ponds 18 were discovered as a result of surveys conducted as a part of proposed 19 development or land conversion projects.
20 The proposed GCP would not authorize impacts to CTS breeding habitat. Oil and 21 gas activities (e.g., geophysical exploration, construction of new facilities, and 22 maintenance of existing facilities) covered by the GCP could result in impacts to 23 other wetland habitats that are not CTS breeding habitat. As with any 24 development project with the potential to directly impact (i.e., fill) a surface water 25 feature, covered oil and gas activities would require a wetland delineation and 26 associated jurisdictional determination in order to determine the presence, 27 location, acreage, and jurisdictional nature (or lack thereof) of affected wetland 28 features. Such jurisdictional wetland determinations would be submitted to the 29 U.S. Army Corps and Engineers (USACE) and the Central Coast Regional Water 30 Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for confirmation and approval. A Section 404
4-15 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 permit and Section 401 Water Quality Certification would need to be obtained 2 pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA), as necessary, prior to initiation of 3 construction-related activities. In addition to standard BMPs (e.g., use of silt 4 fences, straw bales, seeding or sodding of exposed soil), addition6al standard 5 mitigation measures would be specified in the permit requirements (USEPA 2005). 6 The CWA permit mitigations would require that covered oil and gas activities:
7 • Avoid wetland and water impacts where practicable;
8 • Minimize potential impacts to wetlands and waters; and
9 • Compensate for any remaining, unavoidable impacts to wetlands or waters 10 through activities to enhance or create wetlands and/or waters.
11 This permit process and associated avoidance, minimization, and mitigation 12 measures are currently enforced, are independent of the proposed GCP, and 13 would continue to be enforced as a separate but companion permit process for 14 covered oil and gas activity approval.
15 A number of the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures from the 16 proposed GCP – intended to protect the habitats of the three covered species – 17 would have the secondary effect of reducing potential impacts on wetlands. For 18 example, restrictions on activities before, during, and immediately after significant 19 rain events (> 0.5 inches) would reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation 20 into waterbodies (refer to Measures to Avoid and Minimize Impacts No. 17 in the 21 GCP; Appendix A). Further, restricting staging and refueling areas from 100-foot 22 buffers around wetlands minimize the potential for releases into surface water or 23 wetland habitat (refer to Measures to Avoid and Minimize Impacts No. 17 in the 24 GCP; Appendix A). Further, compensatory mitigation for CTS and CRLF under 25 the proposed GCP would preserve and protect core habitat areas for these species 26 including breeding ponds and adjacent wetland and upland areas would provide 27 additional protection for these wetland features.
28 This standardized approach to the implementation of avoidance, minimization, 29 and mitigation measures would ensure greater consistency with regard to the 30 protection of wetlands and waters of the U.S. relative to the existing permitting
4-16 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 mechanisms. This would result in minor overall beneficial impacts to wetlands and 2 waters of the U.S.
3 4.4.2 No Action Alternative
4 Under the No Action Alternative, the Service would not establish the proposed 5 GCP as a standardized mechanism for compliance with Section 10 of the ESA. Oil 6 and gas activities involving potential impacts to CTS, CRLF, and/or LYS would 7 continue to be required to obtain ITPs with associated project-specific HCPs to 8 comply with the ESA. Processing ITP applications under these existing conditions 9 requires Service staff to conduct lengthy reviews of individual HCPs – including 10 a review of all project-specific avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures 11 and associated compliance reporting – submitted by individual ITP applicants. 12 There would be no impact to wetlands relative to existing conditions; however, the 13 standardization of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures and 14 compliance reporting would not be achieved. Any impact to wetlands or Waters 15 of the U.S. would require permitting by the agency for which the wetland/water 16 jurisdiction falls.
4-17 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1
2 This page intentionally left blank.
4-18 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 SECTION 5 2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
3 Cumulative impacts result from incremental impacts of the Proposed Action 4 which, when combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 5 actions in an affected area, may collectively cause more substantial impacts. As 6 previously described, this EA neither evaluates nor results in approval of oil and 7 gas development projects or activities, rather it evaluates a streamlined permitting 8 process related solely to the issuance of ITPs which are a component permit for 9 overall project approval. Land use approval(s) for individual projects would 10 continue to be the responsibility of the local or state agency(ies) with appropriate 11 jurisdiction(s) over an individual project site. Therefore, in the instance of the 12 Proposed Action, which would establish the proposed GCP as a mechanism to 13 standardized ITP issuance for covered activities, past, present, and reasonably 14 foreseeable future actions are limited to permitting processes. Cumulative impact 15 analysis neither considers, nor is required to consider, all planned, pending, and 16 recently completed oil and gas developments in Santa Barbara County.
17 5.1.1 Incidental Take Permits and Individual Habitat Conservation Plans
18 As described in Section 1.1, Introduction, the proposed GCP is a mechanism that 19 meets the definition of a conservation plan in Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. The 20 proposed GCP would enable the construct of a programmatic permitting and 21 conservation process to address oil and gas activities in Santa Barbara 22 County. This programmatic permitting and conservation process, which is only 23 applicable to covered species included in a GCP, would provide for a standardized 24 approach to the implementation of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation 25 measures. The GCP process would not be available to Applicants under the 26 following circumstances:
27 • Applicant cannot or chooses not to comply with the requirements of the 28 GCP, including standardized avoidance, minimization, and mitigation 29 measures.
30 • Applicant requires coverage for other non-covered species that are not 31 included in the GCP.
5-1 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 In these instances, the standardized approach avoidance, minimization, and 2 mitigation measures under the proposed GCP would not be implemented. 3 Further, the established maximum allowable impacts within CTS, CRLF, and LYS 4 habitat would not be applicable outside of the GCP process. However, the 5 Applicant would be required to prepare an individual project-specific HCP to 6 comply with the ESA (refer to Section 1.2.2, Section 10 – Incidental Take Permits and 7 Conservation Plans). The individual HCP, which could be prepared in consultation 8 with the Service under Section 10(a)(2)(A), would be required to describe the 9 measures that the Applicant would follow to minimize and mitigate take to the 10 maximum extent practicable as well as the funding that will be available to 11 implement such steps. The Service may also require additional measures that the 12 Service may require as being necessary or appropriate for the purposes of the HCP. 13 Both the Service and the Applicant will be responsible for ensure that the taking 14 will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the 15 species in the wild. In the event that these assurances cannot be made by the 16 Service, an ITP would not be issued. As such, with the on-going requirement for 17 individual HCPs in instances where the proposed GCP is not applicable, 18 implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in significant cumulative 19 impacts.
20 5.1.2 Exceedance of Maximum Allowable Impacts
21 As previously described, over the 20-year life of the GCP, the standardized ITP 22 process would incorporate established maximum allowable impacts within CTS 23 or CRLF habitat consistent with the species’ Recovery Plans. Similarly the 24 standardized ITP process would incorporate established maximum allowable 25 impacts within LYS habitat based on recovery criteria in the species’ 5-year Review: 26 Summary and Evaluation (Service 2011). For a description of maximum allowable 27 impacts within CTS, CRLF, and LYS habitat, refer to Tables 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4. 28 In the event that any of the established maximum allowable permanent or 29 temporary impacts are reached for a metapopulation, critical habitat unit, or 30 subpopulation, no additional ITPs would be issued under the GCP process for oil 31 and gas activities in that area(s). The established recovery plans and recovery 32 criteria would function as a back-stop to future species impacts. Subsequent
5-2 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 analysis under Section 10 of the ESA as well as subsequent NEPA-compliant 2 documentation would be required prior to any revisions to the GCP to raise 3 established maximum allowable impacts for a metapopulation, critical habitat 4 unit, or subpopulation.
5-3 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1
2 This page intentionally left blank.
5-4 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 SECTION 6 2 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
3 In accordance with 40 CFR §1502.16 the discussion of environmental consequences 4 must include “any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources which 5 would be involved with the proposal should it be implemented.” Irreversible and 6 irretrievable resource commitments are related to the use of nonrenewable 7 resources and the effects that this use could have on future generations. 8 Irreversible effects primarily result from the use or destruction of specific 9 resources that cannot be replaced within a reasonable time frame, such as energy 10 or minerals. Irretrievable resource commitments involve the loss in value of an 11 affected resource that cannot be restored as a result of the action, such as extinction 12 of a threatened or endangered species or the disturbance of a cultural resource.
13 Implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in the direct approval of 14 oil and gas activities in Santa Barbara County. Land use approval(s) for individual 15 projects would continue to be the responsibility of the local or state agency(ies) 16 with appropriate jurisdiction(s) over an individual project site. The Proposed 17 Action would establish a procedural streamlined framework under which covered 18 activities are reviewed for compliance with the GCP as individual ITP applications 19 are submitted. Procedural reviews of ITP applications for compliance with the 20 GCP would not result in the destruction or consumption of specific irreplaceable 21 materials and would require no commitment of irreversible or irretrievable 22 resources. The covered activities of the Proposed Action would allow for take of 23 covered species within the Planning Area. However, the proposed GCP would 24 establish maximum allowable impacts to CTS, CRLF, and LYS habitats including 25 prescribed avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, in order to 26 preserve habitat to aide in these species’ overall recovery; thus, the long-term 27 viability of all three species would not be adversely affected.
28 The commitment and funding by each Applicant for acquisition and permanent 29 management of mitigation properties would be irreversible. The commitment and 30 funding of mitigation and monitoring activities for the duration of the permit 31 would also be irretrievable.
32
6-1 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 This page intentionally left blank.
6-2 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 SECTION 7 2 SHORT-TERM USE OF THE ENVIRONMENT VERSUS LONG-TERM 3 PRODUCTIVITY
4 In accordance with 40 CFR §1502.16, this section provides a discussion of the long- 5 term effects of the proposed GCP by evaluating the relationship between the short- 6 term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term 7 productivity.
8 The objective of the proposed GCP is to conserve federally listed species and their 9 designated critical habitat in an organized and effective manner with the 10 anticipated short-term construction, operation, and/or maintenance activities 11 associated with proposed oil and gas activities expected to occur within the 12 Planning Area. Long-term environmental productivity would be maintained 13 through the implementation of standardized avoidance and minimization 14 measures as well as appropriate mitigation, which would aid in the overall 15 recovery of imperiled species. Over the 20-year life of the GCP, the standardized 16 ITP process would incorporate established maximum allowable impacts within 17 CTS or CRLF habitat consistent with the species’ Recovery Plans. Similarly the 18 standardized ITP process would incorporate established maximum allowable 19 impacts to LYS habitat based on recovery criteria in the species’ 5-year Review: 20 Summary and Evaluation (Service 2011).
7-1 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1
2 This page intentionally left blank.
7-2 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 SECTION 8 2 REFERENCES
3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2014. Guidance Document 4 for Fine-Scale Wildlife Connectivity Analysis.
5 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2018. CNDDB RareFind 5. 6 Accessed: 15 June 2018. Retrieved from: 7 https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx
8 Cole, K.L. 1974. Edaphic Restrictions in the La Purisima Hills with Special 9 Reference to Pinus muricata D. Don. Master’s Thesis, California State 10 University, Los Angeles.
11 Collins, P. 2000. Report Addressed to the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Service. 12 Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, California.
13 Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of 14 Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the U.S. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 15 Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, D.C.
16 Davis, F.W., D.E. Hickson, and D.C. Odion. 1988. Composition of Maritime 17 Chaparral Related to Fire History and Soil, Burton Mesa, Santa Barbara 18 County, California. Department of Geography, University of California, 19 Santa Barbara.
20 Environmental Laboratory. 1987. 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation 21 Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineer 22 Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
23 Fidenci, P. 2004. The California Red-Legged Frog, Rana aurora draytonii, along the 24 Arroyo Santo Domingo, Northern Baja California, Mexico. Herpetological 25 Bulletin 88:27-31.
26 Grismer, L.L. 2002. Amphibians and Reptiles of Baja California, Including Its 27 Pacific Islands and the Islands in the Sea of Cortes: University of 28 California Press.
8-1 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 Hayes, M.P. and M.R. Miyamoto. 1984. Biochemical, Behavioral, and Body Size 2 Difference between Rana aurora aurora and Rana aurora draytonii. Copeia 3 1984(4): 1018-1022.
4 J. A. Alvarez. 2004. Rana aurora draytonii (California Red-Legged Frog) 5 Microhabitat. Herpetological Review 35:162–163.
6 J. M. Brode and R. B. Bury. 1984. The Importance of Riparian Systems to 7 Amphibians and Reptiles. R. E. Warner and K. M. Hendrix (eds.), 8 California Riparian Systems Ecology, Conservation, and Productive 9 Management. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
10 Jacks, P., C. Scheidlinger, and P. Zedler. 1984. Response of Eriodictyon capitatum 11 to Prescribed Fire on Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. Final Report 12 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service #11310-0263-81.
13 Jennings, M.R. and M.P. Hayes. 1985. Pre-1900 Overharvest of California Red- 14 Legged Frogs (Rana auroroa draytonii); The Inducement for Bullfrog (Rana 15 catesbeiana) Introduction. Herpetological Review 31(1): 94-103.
16 Jennings, M. R., M. P. Hayes, and D. C. Holland. 1992. A Petition to the U.S. Fish 17 and Wildlife Service to Place the California Red-Legged Frog (Rana aurora 18 draytonii) and the Western Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata) on the List of 19 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
20 Santa Barbara County, P. W. D. 2012. Santa Barbara County 2011 Groundwater 21 Report. Accessed: 26 July 2017. Retrieved from: 22 http://cosb.countyofsb.org/uploadedFiles/pwd/Water/WaterAgency/R 23 eport%20Document%20FINAL.pdf.
24 Schmieder, R.R. and R.S. Nauman. 1994. Effects of Non-Native Aquatic Predators 25 on Premetamorphic California Red-Legged Frogs (Rana aurorora draytonii). 26 University of California, Santa Cruz.
8-2 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 Searcy, C.A., and H.B. Shaffer. 2008. Calculating Biologically Accurate Mitigation 2 Credits: Insights from the California Tiger Salamander. Conservation 3 Biology 22:997-1005.
4 Trenham, P.C. 1998. Demography, Migration, and Metapopulation Structure of 5 Pond Breeding Salamanders. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, 6 Davis, California.
7 Trenham, P.C., H.B. Shaffer, W.D. Koenig, and M.R. Stromberg. 2000. Life 8 History and Demographic Variation in the California Tiger Salamander 9 (Ambystoma californiense). Copeia 2000:365-377.
10 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2018. Los Padres National Forest 11 Learning Center Animals. Accessed: 19 November 2018. Retrieved from: 12 https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/lpnf/learning/nature- 13 science/?cid=fsm9_034062
14 Santa Barbara Botanic Garden (SBBG). 2018. Some Common Amphibians and 15 Reptiles of the Santa Barbara Area.
16 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 1996. Habitat Conservation Planning and 17 Incidental Take Permit Processing Handbook. November 4.
18 Service. 2000. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule for 19 Endangered Status for Four Plants from South Central Coastal California. 20 65 FR 14888.
21 Service. 2002a. Designation of Critical Habitat for Eriodictyon capitatum (Lompoc 22 yerba santa) and Deinandra increscens ssp. villosa (Gaviota tarplant) 23 Accessed: 12 March 2019. Retrieved from: 24 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2002-11-07/pdf/02- 25 27873.pdf.
26 Service. 2002b. Recovery Plan for the California Red-Legged Frog (Rana aurora 27 draytonii). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.
8-3 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 Service. 2004. Designation of Critical Habitat for the California tiger salamander 2 (Ambystoma californiense) in Santa Barbara County. Accessed: 12 March 3 2019. Retrieved from: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2004- 4 11-24/pdf/04-25775.pdf.
5 Service. 2009. California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense) Santa 6 Barbara County Distinct Population Segment 5-Year Review: Summary 7 and Evaluation. U.S. Department of Interior, Ventura, California.
8 Service. 2010. Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Red-Legged Frog 9 Background, Questions, and Answers. Accessed: 19 November 2018. 10 Retrieved from: https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Critical- 11 Habitat/CA-Red-Legged- 12 Frog/Current/Documents/Critical_Habitat_CA_Red- 13 Legged_Frog_2010_Q_and_A.pdf.
14 Service. 2011. Lompoc Yerba Santa 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation | 15 Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, Ventura, California, February 8, 2011. 16 Accessed: 19 November 2018. Retrieved from: 17 https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc3606.pdf.
18 Service. 2016. Recovery Plan for the Santa Barbara County Distinct Population 19 Segment of the California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense). U.S. 20 Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Ventura, California.
21 Service. 2017a. Draft Conservation Strategy and Mitigation Guidance for the 22 Santa Barbara County Distinct Population Segment of the California Tiger 23 Salamander. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 24 Ventura, California.
25 Service. 2017b. Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the U.S. Fish and 26 Wildlife Service. Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. Accessed: 19 27 November 2018. Retrieved from: 28 https://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/migtrea.html.
8-4 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 Service. 2018a. IPaC: Information for Planning and Consultation. Accessed: 15 2 June 2018. Retrieved from: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/
3 Service. 2018b. Personal Communication with Ms. Rachel Henry, Fish and 4 Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and 5 Wildlife Office. October 31.
6 Service and CDFW. 2003. Interim Guidance on Site Assessment and Field 7 Surveys for Determining Presence or a Negative Finding of the California 8 Tiger Salamander. Accessed: 19 November 2018. Retrieved from: 9 https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83915&inline.
10 Service and CDFW. 2017. California Tiger Salamander Conservation Strategy.
11 Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. 2016. Habitat Conservation 12 Planning and Incidental Take Permit Processing Handbook.
13 SRS Technologies. 2007. Survey Results for Three Federally Endangered Plants 14 on Vandenberg Air Force Base, California.
15 SRS Technologies. 2010. Survey Results for Three Federally Endangered Plants 16 on Vandenberg Air Force Base, California.
17 Stebbins, R. C. 2003. Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Accessed: 18 12 May 2017. Retrieved from: 19 http://ice.ucdavis.edu/invasives/sources/species/field-guide-western- 20 reptiles-and-amphibians.
21 Storer, T.I. 1925. A Synopsis of the Amphibia of California. University of 22 California Publications in Zoology 27.
23 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2011. Final 2010 Integrated 24 Report: Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List & 305(b) Report. California. 25 Accessed: 26 July 2017. Retrieved from: 26 http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrat 27 ed2010.shtml?wbid=CAB4051300019990921164318.
8-5 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 University of California. 2019. California Fish Website. Accessed: 14 January 2 2019. Retrieved from: http://calfish.ucdavis.edu/location/.
3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1982. Title 33: Navigation and 4 Navigable Waters; Chapter 2 Regulatory Programs of the Corps of 5 Engineers. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2001. Functions and Values of 7 Wetlands. http://water.epa.gov/type/wetlands/ 8 outreach/upload/fun_val_pr.pdf. EPA 843-F-01-002c
9 USEPA. 2005. Managing Your Environmental Responsibilities: A Planning Guide 10 for Construction and Development. Accessed: 19 November 2018. 11 Retrieved from: 12 http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/assistance/se 13 ctors/constructmyer/myerguide.pdf.
14 USEPA. 2010. Endangered Species Facts - California Tiger Salamander. Accessed: 15 21 August 2017. Retrieved from: 16 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/ca- 17 tiger-salamander_0.pdf.
8-6 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 SECTION 9 2 LIST OF PREPARERS
3 This EA was prepared for, and under the direction of, the Service, Ventura Field 4 Office by Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solution, Inc. Members of the 5 professional staff are listed below:
6 Project Management
7 Aaron Goldschmidt, Project Manager 8 M.A. Geography
9 Nick Meisinger, Deputy Project Manager 10 B.S. Environmental Science
11 Quality Assurance/Quality Control
12 Doug McFarling 13 B.A. Environmental Studies
14 Biologists
15 Dawn Johnson, Senior Biologist 16 Ph.D. Zoology
17 Angie Harbin-Ireland, Senior Biologist 18 M.S. Ecology
19 Technical Analysts
20 Matthew Sauter, Lead Environmental Analyst 21 B.A. Environmental Studies
22 Matthew Buggert, Environmental Analyst 23 B.S. Environmental Science
24 Ryan Ramos, Environmental Analyst 25 B.S. Environmental Management and Protection
26 Production
27 Janice Depew 28 Production
29 Deirdre Stites 30 Graphic Artist
9-1 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
1 This page intentionally left blank.
9-2 GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
Appendix A Final Draft General Conservation Plan for Oil and Gas Activities in Santa Barbara County
GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
This page intentionally left blank.
GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
Appendix B Scoping Report
GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
This page intentionally left blank.
GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
Appendix C CALVEG Zone 5 and Zone 6 Vegetation Mapping and Descriptions
GCP Oil and Gas Activities – Santa Barbara County Draft EA – June 2019
This page intentionally left blank.