environmental assessment for waste remediation activities .../67531/metadc... · environmental...

Environmental Assessment forWaste Remediation Activities at EIk Hills(Former Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1)

Kern County, California

DOE/EA-1288

September 1999

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsoredby an agency of the United States Government. Neitherthe Unitecl States Government nor any agency thereof, norany of thleir employees, make any warranty, express orimplied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility forthe accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of anyinformation, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, orrepresents that its use would not infringe privately ownedrights. Reference herein to any specific commercialproduct, process, or service by trade name, trademark,manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constituteor imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring bythe United States Government or any agency thereof. Theviews ancl opinions of authors expressed herein do notnecessarily state or reflect those of the United StatesGovernment or any agency thereof.

DISCLAIMER

Portions of this document may be iilegiblein electronic image products. Images areproduced from the best available originaldocumlent.

e

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. i

LIST OF ACRONYMS...

................................................................................................... m

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR AGENCY ACTION ............................................. 1-1

1.1 BACKGROWD ............................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 NEED FOR AGENCY ACTION ..................................................................................................... I-4

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ................................................. 2-1

2.1 PROPOSED ACTION .....................................................................................................................2.l

2.1.1 SurfaceTrash Scatiers .............................................................................................................. 2-2

2.1.2 Produced WartewaterSumps....................................................................................................2.3

2.1.3 Lan@Iis ....................................................................................................................................2-4

2.1.4 Other Inactive?Wrote Sites........................................................................................................ 2-6

2.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ....................................................................................................... 2-6

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ..........................................3-1

3.1 ENVIRONMENT,4LMEDIA.........................................................................................................3-1

3.1.1 Air@ali@ ................................................................................................................................3-I

3.1.2 bnd ..........................................................................................................................................3-5

3.1.3 Surface Water........................................................................................................................... 3-7

3.1.4 Groundwater.............................................................................................................................3-8

3.2 BIOLOGICALRESOURCES......................................................................................................... 3-9

3.2.1 Fauna........................................................................................................................................3-9

3.2.2 Flora .......................................................................................................................................3-12

3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................... 3-15

3.3.1 Prehistoric ..............................................................................................................................3-16

3.3.2 Historic ...................................................................................................................................3-17

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ........................................................................... 4-1

4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA ......................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Air &a[i~ ................................................................................................................................4-1

4.1.2 Land..........................................................................................................................................4-7

4.I.3 Surface Water........................................................................................................................... 4-9

i

4.1.4 Groun&atm ........................................................................................................................... 4-JO

4.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 4-11

4..2.1 Fauna......................................................................................................................................4-11

4.2.2 FIora .......................................................................................................................................4-14

4.3 CULTURALRESOURCES..........................................................................................................4.l5

4.3.1 Prehistoric ..............................................................................................................................4-16

4.3.2 Historic ...................................................................................................................................4-,16

4.4 OCCUPATIONAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFE~ ......................................................4.17

5.0

5.

4.4.1 Occupational Heaith ............................................................................................................... 4-.17

4.4.2 Public Health .......................................................................................................................... 4-:?1

MITIGATION MEASURES ................................................................................. 5-1.

1 ENVIRONMENTALMEDIA............."........................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.1 Air @ali@ ................................................................................................................................5-1

5.1.2 bnd ..........................................................................................................................................5.-2

5.2 BIOLOGICALRESOURCES.........................................................................................................5.2

5.2.1 Fmna ........................................................................................................................................5-2

5.2.2 Flora .........................................................................................................................................5-3

5.3 CULTURALRESOURCES............................................................................................................5-3

.5.3.1 Prehistoric ................................................................................................................................5-3

5.3.2 Historic .....................................................................................................................................5-4

5.4 OCCUPATIONAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFEW ........................................................ 5-4

6.0 LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED ...................................... 6-1

7.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 7-1

APPENDIX A: PSA, ASA, AND UPCTA SITES FOR WHICH “NO FURTHER

ACTION” RECOMMENDATION OR DETERMINATION HAS

BEEN MADE ... . . . . . . . ...**. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ...*..... ● o.... A-1

APPENDIX B: BIOLOGICAL OPINION ................................................................ B-1

*

e

ii

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AAQSACHPASABPDBPOICAACARBCDFGCERCLACESACEQCEQA

%3CRMPDOEDOGGRDTSCEAESA*3

FSAFws

SCHphrKCAPCDKCDEHSkmlbsm/smgmg/m3MSLNEPANOXNPR- 1NPRCNRHPNWSOSHAOxyPAPARPEIRPM.PPE

Ambient Air Quality StandardsAdvisory Council on Historic PreservationAgreement for Site AssessmentBarrels per dayBechtel Petroleum Operations, IncorporatedFederal Clean Air ActCalifornia Air Resources BoardCalifornia Department of Fish and GameComprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability ActCalifornia Endangered Species ActCouncil on Environmental QualityCalifornia Environmental Quality ActCentimetersCarbon monoxideCultural Resources Management PlanU.S. Department of EnergyCalifornia Division of OiI, Gas, and Geothermal ResourcesCalifornia Department of Toxic Substances ControlEnvironmental AssessmentFederal Endangered Species ActCubic feetFacility Site AssessmentU.S. Fish and WiIdlife ServiceGramsHydrocarbonsHorsepowerHourKern County Air Pollution Control DistrictKern County Department of Environmental Health ServicesKilometersPoundsMeters per secondMilligramsMilligrams per cubic meterMean sea levelNational Environmental Policy Act of 1969Nitrogen oxidesNaval Petroleum Reserve Number 1Naval Petroleum Reserves in CaliforniaNational Register of Historic PlacesNational Weather ServiceOccupational S}afetyand Health AdministrationOccidental Petroleum CorporationProgrammatic .Agreement among DOE, ACHP, and SHPOPAR Environmental Services, IncorporatedProgram Environmental Impact ReportParticulate matter less than x micronsPersonnel protective equipment

...111

ppmPSARACTRCR4RFARWQCBScsSEISSHPOSIPSJVUAPCDTSPpg/m3UPCUPCTAU.S. EPAVoc

Parts per millionPurchase and Sale Agreement between DOE and OxyReasonably Available Control TechniquesResource Conservation and Recovery ActRCRA Facility AssessmentRegional Water Quality Control BoardSoil Conservation ServiceSupplemental Environmental Imj)act StatementState Historic Preservation OilicerState Implementation PlanSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control DistictTotal suspended particulateMicrograms per cubic meterUnit Plan Contract between DOE and ChevronUnit Plan Contract Termination AgreementUnited States Environmental Protection AgencyVolatile organic compounds

iv

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR AGENCY ACTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

The former Naval Petnoleum Reserve No. 1 (NPR-1, also known as Elk Hills]) comprises 19,185

hectares (47,409 acres) and is located about 56 km (35 miles) west of Bakersfield in Kern County,

California. Figure 1 presents the location of NPR- 1. Created by Executive Order in 1912, about 78

percent of NPR- 1 was Govemrnent-owned, with the remaining 22 percent owned,by Chevron USA.

Except for brief periods during the twenties and World War II, and production from Chevron lands, NPR-

1 was not developed until 19761when Congress passed the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act

(P.L. 94-258) directing its production at the “maximum efficient rate.” When NPR-1 began full

production in 1976, itfimctioned as a commercial operation, with total revenues to the Federal

Government through Fiscal Year 1996 of more than $16 billion dollars. Production from both the

Government’s and Chevron’s kinds was managed under the Unit Plan Contract (UPC) between @e

Government and Chevron.

In February 1996, Title 34 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (P.L.

104-106) directed the Secreta& of Energy to sell NPR-1 by February 10, 1998, unless the Secretary

advised Congress that another course of action would be in the best interest of the United States. The

Department of Energy (DOE) cletermined that the sale of NPR-1 as required by P.L. 104-106 would be a

major Federal Action that might have significant impacts on the environment within the meaning of the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Further, the Kern County Pkmrting Department

determined that the sale could have a significant effect on the environment within the meaning of the

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Accordingly, DOE and Kern County prepared a Final

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statemen~ograrn Environmental Impact Report (SEIMPEIR) to

address the requirements of NE,PA and CEQA (Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Program Environmental Impact Report for the Sale of NPR-1, Sale of Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1

(Elk Hills), Kern County, California, DOE/SEIS/PEIR-0158-S2, October, 1997). That document did not

reprint the Draft SEIYPEIR, but instead incorporated the Draft by reference (Draft Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statemen@rogram Environmental Impact Report for the Sale of NPR-1, Sale of

‘ When this document uses the term NPR-1, it refers to Government activities at the former NPR-1 prior to Febrwmy 5, 1998.When the document uses the term Elk Hills it is referring to the site afler acquisition by Occidental Petroleum Corporation, onFebruary 5, 1998.

1-1

Figure 1. Location of the former NPR-1

DFormerNPR-1

,JpUE223

Sant

Note:Fi@o-enot hum to scale

1-2

Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1 (Elk Hills), Kern County, California, DOE/SEIS/PEIR-01 58-S2, July,

1997).

On May 21, 1997, DOE announced the start of a “commercial” sales process for the sale of NPR-

1 as directed by P.L. 104-106. Bids were submitted on October 1, 1997. DOE identified the Occidental

Petroleum Corporation (Oxy) as the firm submitting the highest bid. The Secretary ultimately determined

that Oxy’s bid met the requirements of P.L. 104-106 and NPR- 1 was transferred to Oxy on February 5,

1998. As part of the sales process, DOE entered into three separate agreements concerning DOE’s

obligation to remediate waste sites at Elk Hills in existence at the time of the transfer to Oxy. These

agreements are discussed in detail in Section 1.2. It should be noted that, although NPR- 1 was transferred

to Oxy, the Elk Hills Oil and Gas Field is operated by a subsidiary of Oxy, Occidental of Elk Hills,

Incorporated.

The Final SEIWPEIR clid analyze the remediation of hazardous and non-hazardous waste sites at

the former NPR- 1. However, ais the agreements were being negotiated at the time of the SEIS/PEI~ that

document did not specifically cliscuss those agreements. Although the existing waste sites were

discussed, the primary focus of the SEIMPEIR section on Hazardous Materials and Waste Management

was on the much larger volumes of waste that would be generated in the fuiw-e under the proposed action

and alternatives, rather than the clean-up of the sites. The document concluded that implementation of

Federal, state and local.regulatory requirements would reduce the impacts caused by the generation of

wastes to less than significant.

This Environmental Assessment (EA) examines the potential for environmental impacts fi-om

clean-up actions under all three of the agreements to determine whether the conclusions of the Final

SEIMPEIR with respect to waste management remain valid. It updates and expands the discussion of

waste clean-up issues presented in the Final SEIS/PEIR (DOE 1997a) with new information obtained

since that document was finalized. Since this document addresses the same govemmentaction as the

Finai SEIS/PEIR, the consequences of divestiture, to the maximum extent possible, and consistent with

the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, the discussions in this document

summarize and incorporate by reference the relevant discussions of the Final SEIS/PEIR rather than

repeat them here.

1-3

1.2 NEED FOR AGENCY ACTION

During the operation of NPR- 1, while under Government and Chevron ownership, a number of

solid waste sites were created, both as the result of operations under the UPC and the unauthorized

disposal of solid waste on the facilities by unknown parties. These sites include both hazardous and non-

hazardous waste sites. DOE intends to cleanup all of these known waste sites within the next three years.

The amount of remediation required is not expected to be substantial in comparison to ongoing activities

at the site. The waste remediation activities that DOE proposes to pefiorm at Elk Hills are required by

Federal and state law and are the subject of existing agreements and commitments entered into by DOE

with private parties and the State of Californi~ as described in this section. In addition, these activities

were included in the mitigation measures adopted as part of the Record of Decision for the Final

SEIS/PEIR on the sale of NPR-I (DOE 1997a).

Characterization and formal closure of waste sites at NPR- 1 are requirements of the

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as well as DOE internal guidelines and procedures, and state

and local statutes and regulations. Usually, these activities must be completed before the Federal

Government transfers property to another entity. However, the Congressionally-mandated divestiture

schedule did not leave sufficient time to complete the clean-up before the property was transferred to

Oxy. Accordingly, DOE entered into three agreements with Oxy, Chevron and the State of California to

permit DOE to complete the clean-up of these inactive waste sites after completion of the sale.]

First, site remediation activities are required in order for DOE to achieve formal closure of

inactive waste sites pursuant to the terms of the Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) executed between

DOE and Oxy on February 5, 1998 (DOE 1998a). The agreement identified the known waste sites and

authorized DOE access to the former NPR- 1 in order to conduct clean-up activities. As of June 30, 1999,

33 PSA sites require remediation (see Section 2.1). The PSA also established procedures for determining

who would pay for the remediation of sites that were identified after the transfer date.

‘Theseagreementsidentifiedmore than 290 sites (whichexcludesapparentoverlaps in the lists) for possibleinvestigationand clean-up. However, as the result of investigation and analysis, DOE has determined that most ofthe sites (254) did not require clean-up and either has or will recommend to the affected other parties that no fintheraction be taken with respect to these sites. These “no further action” sites are Iisted in Appendix A. The sites inAppendix A are broken down into three groups comesponding to the agreement which is considered the leadagreement with respect to that site. Appendix A provides cross-references to the agreements, citing the number bywhich each site is identified in the agreements.

1-4

Secondly, in the Agreement to Terminate the UPC (UPC Termination Agreement, or UPCTA),

DOE committed to characterize, remediate, and formally close the inactive waste sites as obligations from

prior Unit operations under the UPC (DOE 1998b). The UPC had provided for the operation of both the

government’s lands and Chevron’s lands at NPR- 1 as a single unit. With the sale of the government’s

lands, the agreement was terminated. One of the issues addressed by the UPCTA was the clean-up of

wastes sites created during the operation of the UPC. Some of these sites were located on Government

lands and some were on Chevron lands. DOE still shared responsibility for both under the UPC. As of

June 30, 1999, the same 33 PS,A sites discussed above require remediation under the UPCTA (see Section

2.1). DOE also committed in this Agreement to evaluate a number of other potential sites of concern

identified by Chevron, and to cooperate with Chevron to determine, what, if any, corrective actions may

be warranted. For those sites only listed in the UPCTA and not covered by a statutory requirement or the

other agreements, the decision on “no firther action” rests primarily with DOE and Chevron.

DOE entered into a third agreement because Section 120(h)(3) of CERCLA requires that the

Federal Government obtain a deferral from the affected state when Federal land is transfemed with known

waste sites. DOE’s Covenant Deferral Request to the State of California (DOE 1997b) was granted by

the State of California with an accompanying Agreement for Site Assessment (ASA) between DOE and

the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC; State of California 1997). It ensures that

any unremediated CERCLA sites identified before or after the sale on the Federal land to be transferred

will be properly remediated. Under this ASA, DOE agreed to cooperate with and support the State’s

evaluation of prior operations and waste closures. This evaluation will culminate with the issuance of an

ASA Report. Pursuant to Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, the ASA Report will address the

adequacy of prior site closure actions and may identifi other inactive waste sites of concern that might

need to be assessed and characterized before they can be released fi-omconsideration as potential areas of

concern. The ASA Report (also referred to as the RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA) Report) was

received by DOE on June 30, 1998. DOE has responded with a Phase I Proposal, which DTSC is

currently reviewing. DOE is also preparing a proposal to DTSC for Phase II. Once the Phase I and Phase

II work have been completed, DOE would execute the CERCLA 120(h)(3) Certification, which would

then be provided to Oxy to amend the Deed of Sale. As of June 30, 1999,40 sites remain which have

been identified as requiring further investigation under the ASA. Of these 40 sites, 34 require

remediation and for six sites the corrective action is still undetermined (see Section 2.1).

1-5

Appropriations for the post-sale closeout activities in Fiscal Year 1999 at the former NPR- 1 were

authorized in Title 34 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999

(P.L. 105-261, Section 3402(a)(2)). The closeout activities (e.g., the proposed remedial work outlined in

the next section) are the result of the three agreements discussed above. These closeout activities also

will allow DOE to achieve completion of closure of NPR- 1, so that the deferred CERCLA Certification

can be eventually executed by DOE and provided to Oxy to amend the Deed of Sale.

1-6

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 PROPOSED ACTION

DOE proposes to conduct a variety of post-sale site remediation activities, such as

characterization, assessment, clean-up, and formal closure, at a number of inactive waste sites located at

Elk Hills. The proposed post-sale site remediation activities, which would be conducted primarily in

developed portions of the oil field, currently are expected to include clean-up of three basic categories of

waste sites: (1) nonhazardous solid waste surface trash scatters, (2) produced wastewater sumps, and (3)

small solid waste landfills]. Additionally, a limited number of other inactive waste sites, which cannot be

typified under any of these three categories, have been identified as requiring remediation. Table 2.1-1

presents a summary, organized by waste site category, of the inactive waste sites that require remediation

per the PSA, the ASA, and/or the UPCTA. The majority of these sites are known to contain no hazardous

waste. However, one of the surface scatter sites (2G) contains an area of bum ash with hazardous levels

of lead and zinc, another surface scatter site (25S) contains an area with hazardous levels of lead, a

produced wastewater sump site (23S) and a landfill (42-36S) are known to contain hazardous levels of

arsenic, and some sites have net yet been characterized. Furthermore, additional types of sites could be

discovered. For example, given the nature of oil field operations, sites resulting from either spills or leaks

of hazardous materials could be discovered.

Given the nature of the agreements entered into by DOE regarding the required post-sale clean-up

of the inactive waste sites at Elk Hills, the Proposed Action is the primary course of action considered in

this EA. The obligatory remediation activities included in the Proposed Action are standard procedures

such that possible variations of the Proposed Action would not vary substantially enough to require

designation as a separate, reasonable alternative. Thus, the No Action Alternative is the only other option

considered in this EA.

Under the Proposed Action, several existing site requirements would govern the remedial work at

Elk Hills. The 1998 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Biological Opinion (FWS 1998; Appendix B)

establishes numerous mitigation measures that accompany the incidental take permit for the take of listed

1Characterizationand assessmentactivitiesare currentlybeing conductedin some areasof Elk Hills. Whilethe descriptionofthe proposedactionpresentedin this documentrefers to characterizationandassessmentas part of the post-saleremediationprocess, it must be pointed out that such activities do not constitute remediation in a formal sense. These activities are regularlyconducted in potential areas of concern to determine if a need for remediation actually exists.

2-1

Table 2.1-1. Sites Requiring Remediation:

Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA), Agreement for Site Assessment (ASA),

and Unit Plan Contract Termination Agreement (UPCTA)

Section 1- Surface Trash Scatters

N-10 4.2-50 E-10 25S Surface Scatter 2 Complete characterization;clean close bum dumpportion; collect and dispose ofsurface trash

N-11

N-19

N-20

N-29

N-30

4.2-95 E-n 36S Surface Scatter 2 Collect and dispose of trash

2 Collect and dispose of trash —4.2-58

4.2-93

4.2-10

E-19 26S Surface Dump

E-20

E-29

36S Surface Dump[1]

03G East SurliaceDump

2 Collect and dispose of trash


2 Collect and dispose of trash –4.2-49 E-30 25S Surface Dump[2]

E-3 1N-3 1 4.2-77 34S Surface Dump[4]


N-32 4.2-75 E-32 34S Surface Dump[2]


N-33

N-34

N-35

N-36

N-37

4.2-74

4.2-94

4.2-85

4.2-86

4.2-87

E-33

E-34

E-35

E-36

E-37

34S SurfaceDump[l]

36S Surface Dump[2]

36R Old CampDump

36R Surface Dump[1]

36R Surface Dump[2]



2 Collect and dispose of trash –





N-38

N-39

N-40

4.2-63

4.2-3

E-38

E-39

262 Trench Dump

OIG Surface Dump

4.2-6 E-40 02G Surface Dump[1]


2-2

Section 1- Surface Trash Scatters (continued)

E-4 1 02G Surface Dump 2 Complete characterization;[2] clean close bum dump

portion; collect and dispose ofsurface trash

N-4 1 4.2-7

N-42 4.2-9 E-42 03G East Surface 2 Collect and dispose of trashDump [1]

N-43 4.2-14 E-43 I 05G Surface Dump I 2 ~ I Collect and dispose of trash

E-45 34SSurface Dump 2 Collect and dispose of trash[3]

N-45 4.2-76

M-20 4.2-72 C-20 I 31S Surface Dump \ 2 I Collect and dispose of trash

Section 2- Produced Wastewater Sumps

24Z LACT Sumps(2 Sumps)

24Z Historic Sumps(2 Sumps)

24Z WaterfloodSumps(2 Sumps)

N-1

N-2

N-3

4.2-42

4.2-40

4.2-41

E- I 2

2

Backfill

Remove hydrocarbons aboveaction levels and close site

Remove hydrocarbons aboveaction levels and close site

E-2

2E-3

N-4 4.2-71 E-4 30R Sump andAssociated CatchBasin

2 Remove hydrocarbons aboveaction levels and close site

35S Sump 2 Remove hydrocarbons aboveaction levels and close site

N-5 4.2-82 E-5

N-6 4.2-22 E-6 9G Sump andAssociated CatchBasin

2 Backfill

2 Complete characterization,develop. risk based correctivemeasures and implement.

2 Assess and abandon in place

N-16 4.2-39 E-16 23S Tank Setting (4sumps and soilunder onedismantled ti]k)

7G Sumps (3Sumps)

N-21 4.2-18 E-21

Section 3- Landfills

N-7 I 4.2-54 / E-7 I 26S East Landfill I 2 I Collect and dispose of trash

N-17 4.2-91 E-17 36S Landfill [1] 2 Place cap over cells

2-3

Section 3- LandfilIs (continued)

r~:Sec#ion 4- Other Inactive Waste Sites

~“ : RemoveAcM

Undetermined

NA 4.2-89 NA 36R West Landfill 3/4 Collect and dispose of debris

NA 4.2-101 NA Septic Tanks—

1 Undetermined

NA 4.2-102 NA SOZ Well Pads f 1 UndeterminedPotential W-4 1Release Sites

NA 4.4-2 NA Chevron 36S Gas 1 UndeterminedPlant

NA 4.4-3 NA Beh-idge Oil—

1 UndeterminedCompany 34SGasoIine Plant

NA 4.4-5 NA Abandoned SOZ 1 UndeterminedTank Settings

(1) %

(2)

Step 1-

Step 2-

Step 3-’

Step 4-Step 5-

NA under a given Site No. column indicates the site is not found on any Exhibit to that particularAgreement.Five-Step Remediation Plan:

Complete Phase I preliminary site assessment, which includes a site inspection and records search todetermine whether to continue to Phase II.Complete Phase II site characterization to determine the vertical and horizontal extent of contaminationwhich dictates the need to continue to Phase 111.Phase II may include sampling, laboratory analysis, fateanalysis, and risk analysis (toxicology).Complete Phase III corrective actions as required by the lead agency overseeing activities at the site(s).This would include a variety of actions, from physically removing trash scatters, to clean closure ofhazardous sites.Final report preparation, review and approval by DOE and lead agency.Prepare final package and submit to Occidental of Elk Hills, Inc., and Chevron U.S.A.

2-4

species. Remediation work is also bound by a Programmatic Agreement (PA) which accounts for the

cultural resources found on Elk:Hills (DOE et al. 1998). The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution

Control District (SJVUAPCD) establishes air quality regulations, and particularly figitive dust control

requirements that would be potentially relevant from an air quality and occupational and public health

perspective. These and other C}xysite requirements are implicit mitigation components of the Proposed

Action.

Table 2.1-1 lists the 40 sites for which it now appears likely that clean-up will be required. It

cross-references those sites to the agreements that require action with respect to the site, using the

numbers by which the sites are identified in each agreement. As indicated by the cross references, not all

of the sites are listed in all three agreements. Table 2.1-1 also indicates the current step in the cleanup

process for each site. The step, are defined at the end of Table 2.1-1. However, sites may not necessarily

require remediation if the site characterization process concludes that no action is needed and all affected

parties agree.

Characterization and clean-up activities are summarized below for the four types of inactive

waste sites: sufiace trash scatters, produced wastewater sumps, landfills, and other inactive waste sites.

Although there are forty known sites falling into these categories, and at least some potential for

additional sites, the amount of remediation work at these sites is not expected to involve substantial clean-

up efforts and is generally limited to the removal of relatively small volumes of non-hazardous material.

The clean-up effort is expected to be limited to approximately 75 of the 47,000 acres.

2.1.1 Surface Trash Scatters

Section 1 of Table 2.1-1 presents a list of the inactive waste sites typified as surface trash scatters

that require remediation. The first step towards the clean-up of surface trash scatters would be to

characterize the sites containing “suspicious” waste to determine whether hazardous waste is present. If

no hazardous waste is present, the remediation activities at those sites and the remaining sites primarily

would involve simple surface collection of the debris and removal of the collected waste to an off-site

landfill permitted to receive nonhazardous waste. The majority of these sites are of limited size and

extent. Waste materials either ‘wouldbe collected by hand or by mechanized equipment such as front-end

loaders, skip loaders, backhoes,, or small bulldozers. Several of the sites have concrete foundations and

concrete or brick rubble that mi~yneed to be left in place. Several of the sites have a shaIlow subsurface

component that would require a limited amount of mechanical excavation to collect the waste material.

2-5

For sites where hazardous waste is present, clean-up activities would be similar, with the exception that

the hazardous waste would be removed to an offsite landfill permitted to receive hazardous waste, and

treated, if appropriate. Crews would follow appropriate health and safety procedures to avoid exposure to

contamination and to decontaminate equipment fbllowing clean-up. Where hazardous waste is removed,

confirmatory soil samples would be collected as appropriate following clean-up to document that no

residual contamination would remain. All of the known surface trash scatters occur in previously

disturbed areas or are located adjacent to roads and disturbed areas, so that access to those sites is readily

available. Any additional surface trash scatters which may be identified in the future are expected to be

located in similar areas.

For the surface trash scatter that contains a burn ash area with hazardous levels of zinc and lead

(2G) and the surface trash scatter that contains a bum ash area with hazardous levels of lead (25S),

preliminary characterization results would be coordinated with the Kern County Department of

Environmental Health Services (KCDEHS) and DTSC- Work plans, as appropriate, would be developed,

coordinated with DTSC, and implemented should further characterization be necessary. Remedial

options may involve clean closure or consolidation in place under a cap or soil cover. In most cases,

concrete foundations would be left in place, rather than being broken up and removed, in an effort to

minimize habitat disturbance.

If any additional sites are identified in the on-going evaluation of Elk Hills under the PSA, under

the ASA, or under the UPCTA as requiring additional characterization, it is expected that the impacts

associated with characterization of any such sites would be substantially the same as those impacts

analyzed in this EA. In the event that remediation is required for any of those sites, which DOE does not

anticipate currently, and the site is typified as a surtlace trash scatter, remediation would be conducted as

described in this section.

2.1.2 Produced Wastewater Sumps

Section 2 of Table 2.1-1 presents a list of the inactive waste sites typified as produced wastewater

sumps that require remediation. Characterization and assessment of the inactive produced wastewater

sumps are currently underway. Samples have been or would be collected from sumps to fully determine

the magnitude and extent of residual hydrocarbon contamination; After the sumps have been

characterized, DOE would coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) on

sump clean-up based on action levels that have already been established in the sump abandonment

2-6

protocol. Clean-up may involve the addition of other materials to stabilize contaminated soils, followed

by capping with clean fill. Alternatively, soils containing hydrocarbon concentrations above specific

action levels may be excavated and transported off site to a permitted oil field waste disposal facility. As

appropriate, confirmatory soil samples would be analyzed to confirm soil stabilization or removal of soil

contaminated above action levels. Demolition work to remove any piping and other improvements (e.g.,

netting and fencing) would be carried out. Most sump sites would be recontoured to conform to the

surrounding topography and to facilitate natural revegetation of the site.

Major site restoration might be infeasible at locations where large sumps were excavated down to

parent material and the thousands of cubic yards of excavated material were used for f-illfor the down-

gradient (i.e., downhill) dikes c}fthe sumps (e.g., 7G Sumps). For those sumps, characterization and

clean-tip would proceed as for other sumps, but there would not be major backfilling efforts to restore the

sites to the original pre-sump contours.

For sump sites where arsenic may be a concern, a detailed review and evaluation of existing

characterization data is being carried out, after which a determination will be made regarding the need to

gather additional characterization data. If additional characterization data are required, these data would

be collected and used to perfonm a fate and transport analysis of the arsenic through the vadose zone

down to groundwater. A corrective measures study and risk assessment would be prepared to compare

risks associated with different remedial options. Remedial options can vary from total removal and off-

site disposal of contaminants tc)soil stabilization or limited excavation of areas of higher concentrations

of contaminants and consolidateion in place under a cap or soil cover.


the ASA, or under the UPCTA as requiring additional chmacterization, it is expected that the impacts



anticipate currently, and the site is typified as a produced wastewater sump, remediation would be

conducted as described in this section.

2.1.3 Landfills

Section 3 of Table 2.1-1 presents a list of the inactive waste sites typified as landfills that require

remediation. As indicated above, three small inactive solid waste landfills are proposed for closure at Elk

2-7

Hills. A large portion of one of the three landfills was clean-closed several years ago. However, debris

piles and scatters were discovered down slope of the site. In December of 1998, DOE completed an

initial site characterization to determine the subsurface extent of the refuse, and to determine if there am

any potentially hazardous constituents in the refuse. No hazardous wastes were identified. A clean-

closure plan would be presented to the regulatory agencies for concurrence prior to implementing the

corrective actions to close this site. Debris would be collected from both the surface and sbbsufiace, and

transported to appropriately permitted off-site disposal facilities. Heavy equipment such as bulldozers,

front-end loaders, backhoes, and dump trucks would be used to accomplish the closure, as well as manuaI

collection of small scattered materials. As part of the closure, a shallow groundwater monitoring well

located in a disturbed portion of the site would be abandoned in compliance with Kern County

requirements. There are existing roads that would be used for access to all portions of the site. Site

restoration would include recontouring the areas where excavation and heavy ground disturbance

occurred. Additionally, the entrance to the lower site access road would be ripped and blocked off to

promote natural vegetation growth.

The other two inactive landfills consist of covered celIs and associated surface scatter of trash and

debris. The vegetation on these sites-was burned off by a May 1997 wildfire that also ignited buried

materials. Water was pumped onto the sites to try to extinguish the subsurface smoldering debris. The

volume of water was substantial enough to cause subsidence of the cover on the cells, and created

sinkholes. At one of these sites, the subsurface debris continued to bum for several weeks, resulting in a

reduction in the volume of the buried materials. Heavy rains have exacerbated erosion at these sites.

DOE completed site characterizations at these two landfills between December of 1998 and January of

1999, in accordance with work plans developed in coordination with KCDEHS. One of the cells within

one of these landfills (42-36S) was found to contain hazardous levels of soluble arsenic. Additional

sampling conducted at the other two cells in the same landfill determined that the arsenic contamination

was restricted to the one landfill cell.

The closure method being considered by DOE involves excavation of the arsenic containing

materials for off-site disposal at an appropriate] y permitted facility, followed by confirmatory soil

sampling. The closure of non-hazardous solid waste cells would proceed with the compaction of the

voids in the earthen cover on the cells, and restoring the original earthen cap to an acceptable condition.

The debris scatters surrounding the cells would be mechanically collected and transported to an off-site

disposal facility. Clean fill would either be mined from an adjacent borrow area on NPR- 1 or imported

from off site.

2-8


the ASA, or under the UPCTA as requiring additional characterization, it is expected that the impacts



anticipate currently, and the sit~eis typified as a landfill, remediation would be conducted as described in

this section.

2.1.4 Other Inactive Waste Sites and Potential Future Sites

Under the ASA, eight other inactive waste sites requiring remediation have been identified; these

sites cannot be typified as surfalcetrash scatters, produced wastewater sumps, or landfills. Section 4 of

Table 2.1-1 presents a list of these other inactive waste sites that require remediation. As of June 30,

1999, the corrective action for six of those sites has not yet been determined; appropriate remediation

would be conducted as agreed 10 in coordination with the DTSC. Although these sites cannot be typified

as one of the main three types clfsites, if clean-up is required, it is expected that the remediation is likely

to be very similar to the remediation at the other three types of sites: the development of risk-based

corrective measures; the removal of hydrocarbons above action levels; and the demolition, removal, and

proper disposal of any structures or other improvements. It is expected that the impacts associated with

remediation of any of these other inactive waste sites would be substantially the same as those impacts

analyzed in this EA.


the ASA, or under the UPCTA as requiring additional characterization and clean-up, it is expected that

the types of clean-up activities and impacts associated with clean-up of any such sites would be

substantially the same as those impacts analyzed in this EA. In the event that remediation is required for

any of those sites, which DOE does not anticipate currently, and the site cannot be typified as a surface

trash scatter, a produced wastewater sump, or a landfill, appropriate remediation would be conducted as

agreed to between the parties.

2.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

For the purposes of analyzing impacts in this EA, a No Action Alternative is considered. Under

the No Action Alternative, clean-up and closure of the inactive waste sites at NPR- 1 would not occur and

2-9

the sites would be left in their current condition. However, DOE notes that implementation of this No

Action Alternative would not comply with applicable requirements of Federal and state law and would

violate agreements with the State of California and private parties.

2-10

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

This section summarizes and, where relevant, supplements the discussion in the Draft and Final

SEIS/PEIR. Those documents contain a more complete description of the affected environment and are

incorporated by reference.

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA

3.1.1 Air Quality

3.1.1.1 Climateof theSanJoaquinVaIley

The Elk Hills facility is located in the southwestern comer of Kern County, the southernmost

county of the San Joaquin Valley. The SJVUAPCD covers the central section of California, running

north/south from directly east clfthe San Francisco Bay area to northeast of Santa Barbara. The airflow

patterns (i.e., upvalley, downva.lley drainage, southerly, and northerly) in the San Joaquin Valley air basin

show strong seasonal variation. The northwesterly upvalley flow is predominant in the summer, while

calm conditions predominate in winter. Although frequent inversions occur in the central valley, severe

air pollution episodes (high ozcme concentrations) are relatively infrequent in the winter due to increased

cloud cover and lower temperatures. Exceedances of the PMIOstandard occur almost exclusively during

the late fall/early winter period,, although these exceedance periods are relatively infrequent (about 10

percent of the days during November and December) (Smith and Lehrman 1996).

Strong daily diurnal wind patterns also affect polIutant buildup in the San Joaquin Valley- In the

daytime, upslope winds from the west predominate, in contrast to the nighttime gravity winds. The

daytime upslope winds, which develop as the floor of the valley heats up, are primarily from the north and

flow from the valley floor up the mountain ranges on either side of the valley. The nighttime drainage

flows, occurring as the temperatures in the valley drop, are primarily from the southwest.

The nearest National Weather Service (NWS) station is in Bakersfield, at Meadows Field Airporg

approximately 40 miles northeast of Elk Hills. The climate in Bakersfield is similar to that of the rest of

the San Joaquin Valley, with hct, dry summers and mild and semi-arid winters. Bakersfield normally

receives 5.72 inches of rain per year, with 6.02 inches as the average from 1989 to 1994. Average daily

3-1

temperatures typically vary from 48.2°F in January to 84.5°F in June. Daily minimum and maximum

extremes can vary from 64.3 to 92.2°F in June and from 38.7 to 57.6°F in December.

3.1.1.2 LocaIi14eteorologicaIPa#erns

Wind Direction. Speed and Stability. Winds near Elk Hills are predominately from the west-

southwest. Wind speeds between 1 to 3 meters per second (m/s) are most common, and speeds over 11

m/s are rare. Stabili& class values, determined using ceiling height and cloud cover data measured at the

NWS station at Meadows Field, show that neutral conditions (stability class D) occur approximately 26

percent of the time. The combination of stable conditions (classes E, F & G), which typically occur at

night, develop 43 percent of the time, and unstable conditions (classes A, B, & C) occur31 percent of the

time.

Wind persistence. The predominant west-southwest winds persist (up to 4 hours for 5 percent of

the time) for longer periods than any other wind direction. Winds from the north, which predominate

during the daytime, last two hours for approximately seven percent of the time. Wind speeds of 1 to 3

m/s are the most common and persist for the longest periods (up to 13 hours for 5 percent of the time). In

contrast, winds from Oto 1 m/s occur more rarely, but can last over 20 hours.

3.1.1.3 Air QualityStandardsandRegionalAir QualityPlans

Air Oualitv Standards. The United States .EnvironmentxdProtection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the

California Air Resource Board (CARB) have set national and State ambient air quality standards (AAQS)

respectively for pollutants determined to be injurious to public health or welfme. Ambient air quality

standards were first set in California with the implementation of the Mulford-Carrel Act in 1969. Shortly

thereafter, Federal AAQS were established with the passage of the 1970 Clean Air Act. Both primary and

secondary national ambient air standards exist. The primary standards were established to protect the

public health with an adequate margin of safety, while the secondary standards were intended to protect

the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effect of a pollutant- Years of research on the

health effects of various concentrations of pollutants on biological organisms have helped determine these

threshold levels.

State and Federal standards have been established for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen

dioxide, sulfur dioxide, suspended particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter (PMIO),and lead.

3-2

California’s standards are more stringent than the Federal standards. In addition, California has standards

for four other pollutants: sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride and visibility-reducing particles. The

State and FederaI AAQS for these pollutants are shown in Table 3.1-1.

Table ,3.1-1. Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards

“;q’:a “’,,--’”” ‘ ‘“’’W’*v“..F@q~~~2:2:a&&@2.~$$- ,C,>. W;J %:, ,..#j:. $,..-

:R??f*::.:,k,%%,&a?%s*:E?,,$i#&&$

Ozone 1hour 0.09 ppm (180pg/m’)(235@m3) (235@m’)

Carbon Monoxide 1 hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m’) 35 ppm (40 mg/m’) -.

8 hours 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m’) 9 ppm (10 mg/m’) --

Nitrogen Dioxide 1 hour 0.25 ppm (470 pg/m5) -- --

Annual . -- 0.053 ppm 0.053 ppm(100@m3) (100pg!m’)

Sulfur Dioxide 1 hour 0.25 ppm

3 hours 0.5 ppm(1300pg/m3)

24 hours 0.04 ppm (105 ,ug/m’) 0.14 ppm --(365pg/m3)

Annual -- 0.03 ppm --

(80pg/m3)Particulate Matter 24 hours, 50 pglm’ 150,ug/m’ 150@m’(PM,,)

Annual 30 pg/m’ 50pgfm’ 50pg/m’

Lead 30 days 1.5 pg/mJ -- --

Calendar -- 1.5pg/m’ 1.5pg/m’quarter

Sulfates 24 hours 25gg/m’ -- --

Hydrogen Sulfide 1 hour 0.03 ppm (42.@m’) -- --

Viny~ Chloride 24 hours 0.010 ppm (26pg/m’) -- --

(Chloroethene)Visibility- 8 hours In sufficient amount to -- --

reducing Particles produce extinction of 0.23per kilometer due to particleswhen the relative humidity isless than 70 percent

3-3

.

Attainment Plans. The 1970 Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) established a joint state and Federal

program to control air pollution. The main enforceable measure of the program was the requirement that

states with measured pollutant concentrations above the ambient air quality standards must submit State

Implementation Plans (SIPS) which include strategies that would lead to attainment of the national

AAQS. Kern County is in attainment for all pollutants except ozone and PMIo. The only exception is the

City of Bakersfield, which is classified as a “transitional nonattainment” area at the State level and “not

classified” at the Federal level for CO.

Kern County Air Pollution Control District (KCAPCD) adopted an attainment plan in 1979 and a

more stringent, revised plan in 1982. Implementation of these plans resulted in reduction of air pollutant

concentrations, with the exception of ozone and PIMIo. To attain the national AAQS for ozone and CO,

the KCAPCD plan was revised again in 1986, and later updated in 1987. However, the plan was not

approved by U.S. EPA, and the ozone standard was not met.

The CAA Amendments of 1990 completely revised the nonattainment provisions for areas that

had not attained the national AAQS for ozone. Under the new provisions, ozone nonattainment areas are

classified according to the severity of the nonattainrnent problem. Since Kern County is designated as a

serious nonattainment area according to the Federal standard, the area must meet the ozone standards by

1999. The Amendments also required that ozone nonattainment areas submit a plan to show reasonable

further progress toward attainment by November 15, 1994. As a result, on November 14, 1994, the Board

of the SJVUAPCD adopted the Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan for the San Joaquin Valley. On

November 15, 1994, CARB modified the plan and adopted it as the local element of the 1994 California

Ozone SIP, which CARB then submitted to U.S. EPA to comply with the Reasonable Further Progress

and attainment demonstration requirements of CAA.

The SJVUAPCD has recently put together an air quality plan for reaching attainment of PMIOair

quality standards in the air basin (SJVUAPCD 1997). This plan indicates that the Federal annual standard

would be attained in the air basin in the years 2001 and 2006. Decreases in particulate emissions at NPR-

1 should help meet the annual standard. The plan does not show attainment of the 24-hour standard by

December 31,2001. Thus the SJVUAPCD has committed to pursue and implement additional control

strategies.

When a state submits a SIP to U.S. EPA, the CAA requires the Agency to review the plan to

determine if it meets the Act’s requirements and environmental goals. California’s 1994 Ozone SIP

3-4

included (for both the State and local agencies) a combination of filly adopted regulations and control

measures for which regulations must be written. Since submittal, U.S. EPA has approved all of the State’s

fidIy adopted regulations and most of the State’s commitments to adopt regulations in the Mure.

3.1.2 Land

3.1.2.1 Geology

Geological setting. The former NPR-1 is located within the boundaries of the Tulare Lake Basin,

about 56 km (35 miles) southwest of the city of Bakersfield near the southwestern edge of the San

.loaquin Valley in Kern County, California. It encompasses the Elk Hills and some surrounding areas-

The former NPR- 1 consists of i~pproximately 19,185 hectares (approximately 47,409 acres) ranging in

elevation from 88 meters (290 :feet)above mean sea level (MSL) to 473 meters (1,55 1 feet) above MSL.

Phvsio~auhv. The San Joaquin Valley is the southern half of a large structural depression called

the Central Valley of California, which extends for nearly 800 km (500 miles) parallel to the coast. It is

surrounded by the Coast Ranges on the west, the San Emidio and Tehachapi Mountains on the south, and

the Sierra Nevada Mountains on the east. The Sacramento Valley forms the northern half of the Central

Valley.

The Elk Hills protrude above the flat, uniform valley with as much as 360 meters (1,200 feet) of

relief in the southwestemgomer of the valley. The Elk Hills consist of a line of hills about 26 km (16

miles) long and 10 km (6 miles) wide, generally oriented east-west. These hills represent anticlines

associated with the Temblor Mountain Range, which forms the easternmost part of the Coast Ranges

(DOE 1979). The hills terminate eastward in low, stream-cut bluffs along the Kern River, which enters

Buena Vista Lake. This lakebecl is one of several lacustrine and marsh deposits that crop out in the San

Joaquin Valley, The expansion of these ancient lakes resulted in the deposition of clays in the San

Joaquin Valley.

Stratigarihv and structt~. In the former NPR-1 area, the Tertiary and Quatemary deposits

underlying Elk Hills and nearby areas are up to 7,315 meters (24,000 feet) thick. The Tuhue Formation

lies at the surface of Elk Hills and consists of alternating beds of gravel, sand, silt, and clay (most

noticeably the Amnicola, Tulare, and Corcoran clay units), deposited under non-marine conditions. The

3-5

Tulare Formation consists of both saturated and unsaturated intervals. The upper units of the formation

are mostly unsaturated, while the lower units are saturated with both water and oil (DOE 1994a).

SeismiciN. The former NPR-1 is situated in a region of intense seismic activity. Since 1952,

nineteen major earthquakes, with estimated Richter scale magnitudes ranging from 5.9 to 8.0, have been

reported in southern California. The largest recorded earthquake in the region occurred in 1952 with an

estimated Richter scale magnitude of 7.7. The epicenter was about 40 km (25 miles) southeast of NPR- 1

along the White Wolf Fault at the southern end of San Joaquin Valley. In addition, numerous smaller

seismic events are recorded each year. However, onIy a few have had a magnitude greater than 5 on the

Richter scale.

No historically active faults have been identified by the State Geologist or the California Division

of Mines and Geology at the former NPR- 1 (DOE, 1993). However, minor faults have been observed in

the immediate vicinity of NPR- 1.

Subsidence. Land subsidence is known tc)occur throughout the San Joaquin Valley. The four

types of subsidence known to occur in the San Joaiquin Valley are: (1) reduction of the underground

water level and consequent compaction of the aquifer, usually as a result of pumping a confined aquifer,

(2) hydrocompaction of soils above the water table, usually as a result of surface irrigation and weak soil

structure; (3) reduction of underground fluid level and consequent compaction, usually as a result of oil

and gas production; and (4) deep-seated tectonic settlement, usually associated with earthquake activity

(DOE 1994a).

Most subsidence in the San Joaquin Valley is the result of pumping water from an underlying

confined aquifer system. The hydrocompaction-type subsidence from surface irrigation has occurred in

the valley south and southwest of Bakersfield, but is not known to have occurred at NPR- 1 (DOE 1985,

1993, 1994a).

Oil field subsidence, the third most common type of subsidence in the San Joaquin Valley, is

known to occur in a few small, localized areas south and west of Bakersfield (DOE 1994a). Land sufiace

subsidence has not been reported at NPR- 1 since 1993 (DOE 1985, 1993). However, some occurrences

of localized sliding have been observed and corrected (BPOI 1996).

3-6

3.1.2.2 Soils

The soils of the Elk Hills are fairly typical of those developed from relatively fine-grained,

alluvial material under semiarid to arid conditions. Characteristic soils tend to be loose, light-colored,

well-drained, and loamy in texture, with abundant rock fragments. As with other soils occurring in

analogous climatic conditions, the Elk Hills soils generally contain an abundance of ~~sum and alkaline

salts and may be calcareous. These soils also tend to have abundant plant nutrients (DOE 1979).

3.1.3 Surface Water

Elk Hills is situated within the boundaries of the Tulare Lake Basin, which is a closed, hydrologic

system. Surface and groundwater flows within the basin converge toward the basin’s central valley floor.

In the past, this convergence resulted in the development of several large lakes (e.g., Tulare, Buena Vista,

and Kern). However, upstream diversions, heavy groundwater pumping and high evaporation rates have

helped reduce these lakes to dry Iakebeds (BPOI 1992).

Two important surface water features near Elk Hills are the Kern River and the California

Aqueduct. The California Aqueduct, a major conduit of freshwater for Los Angeles and southern

California, borders the former lSPR- 1 to the north, east and south, and is located within the NPR-1

boundaries in Sections 23S, 24S, and 25S (BPOI 1992).

Elk Hills has relatively limited surface water resources. The terrain is characterized by numerous,

rounded divides and smooth slopes. A drainage divide follows the crest of Elk Hills, causing runoff to

flow generally to the north and south. There are no naturally occurring springs located within its

boundaries because there are no sources of continuous natural recharge available.

A large number of ephemeral/interrnittent streams draining the hills have created a highly

dissected stream pattern of gullies and channels. The primary drainage channels do not merge into an

integrated network. The natural course of some of the channels in the northern flank is interrupted by the

California Aqueduct; many terminate naturally due to infiltration, and others terminate in gully plugs.

The Corps of Engineers was contracted to perform a floodplain study of NPR- 1 to comply with

DOE Orders. This study delineates the 100-year floodplain boundaries on U.S. Geological Survey

quadrangle (7.5 minute) maps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1993). These maps show that the 100-year

3-7

floodplain boundaries on the former NPR- 1 are confined to isolated areas immediately adjacent to a few

drainage channels.

Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain Management,” and Executive Order 11990, “Protection of

Wetlands,” requires all Federal agencies to consider the effects of proposed actions on floodplains and

wetkinds, respectively. DOE completed a wetlands delineation study on NPR- 1 in 1995 (DOE 1995).

The study determined that NPR-1 did not contain jurisdictional wetkmds as defined by Section 404 of the

Clean Water Act.

3.1.4 Groundwater

Groundwater aquifers underlying Elk Hills are located in the Tulare Formation and in older

underlying marine formations- The main groundwater bearing unit underlying Elk Hills is the Plio-

Pleistocene Tulare formation. The Quaternary alluvium surrounding Elk Hills is another important

component of its hydrologic regime. The groundwater regime within the Tulare formation at the former

NPR- 1 has been documented in BPOI et al. (1995) in a series of cross-sections, based on electronic logs

taken from oil wells drilled throughout the Elk Hills field. A lower, confined aquifer is separated from an

upper unconfined zone in the Tulare Formation by a clay layer in some areas of the central and western

sections of Elk Hills. -

Groundwater depths range from approximately 60 meters (200 feet) below ground surface on the

north flank of Elk Hills (23S) to almost 300 meters (1,000 feet) below ground surface at the crest (35R).

The elevation of the first occurrence of groundwater in the Tulare Formation has generally remained at

approximately 90 meters (300 feet) above MSL in those areas not affected by faulting. Near the crest of

Elk Hills, levels increase slightly to approximately 100 meters (350 feet) above MSL and approaching the

south flank, levels decrease to about 75 meters (250 feet) above MSL. The steeper gradients observed

over the northern portion of Elk Hills appear to be the result of the faults present in the area (BPOI et al.

1995). Information provided by Phillips ( 1992) indicates that static water levels in the Tulare Formation

in the south flank have remained consistent over the years.

The Tuktre Formation within the Elk Hills has been designated as an exempt aquifer by the

California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) because it is hydrocarbon-

producing in the westem.part of the Reserve (30R) and it contains groundwater with a total dissolved

solids content exceeding 3,000 ppm (i.e., it is not reasonably expected to supply a public water system).

3-8

3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

This section discusses the existing quality of the biological resources of Elk Hills, as a component

of the affected environment, that could be impacted by the Proposed Action and the No Action

Alternative. For both the fauna (animals) and flora (plants), the section briefly describes the common

-” and/or dominant vertebrate animals species and plant taxa found on Elk Hills. It then describes the listed

Federal and State endangered i~d threatened species known to occur on Elk Hills in more detaill. Those

species and their habitats are protected under a varieiy of legal mechanisms, including the Federal

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).

3.2.1 Fauna

The San Joaquin Valley supports a diverse vertebrate fauna that has adapted to the arid grassland

environment or is tolerant “toa wide range of environmental conditions. Most of the mammal species on

Elk Hills are rodents. The San Joaquin kit fox ([email protected] macrotis mutica) k the listed predator known to

occur on Elk Hills. The coyote (Carzislatrans) population, however, made a substantial increase in the

past several decades, and a coyote-control program was established between 1985 and 1990 to limit

coyote predation on kit foxes. Approximately half of the bird species found on Elk Hills are either

permanent or seasonal residents; other species are migrato~ transients. Both the western whiptail

(Cnemidophorus tigris) and sicle-blotched lizard (Uta stansbziriana)occur on Elk Hills, as well as several

species of snakes and other lizards. Other than surveys for blister beetles (Lytta spp.) and striped-skin

snails (Hehninthoglypta callistoderrna) in 1988, no invertebrate surveys have been conducted and little is

known about the invertebrates inhabiting Elk Hills.

There are currently five listed (as defined earlier) animal species known to occur on Elk Hills:

the San Joaquin kit fo~ blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sibs), giant kangaroo rat (Dipodomys

—

‘ For the purposes of this documen~ iisted species are considered only if they satis~ one or more of the following criteria (1)endangered status at the Federal level; (2) threatened status at the Federal level; (3) endangered status in the State of Califomi&(4) threatened status in the State of California. All other rare species (e.g., Federal candidates, California “special”) are notconsidered in detail in this EA.

3-9

ingens), Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides), and San Joaquin antelope squirrel

(Arnmosperrnophih.isnelsoni). A description of each species is provided below. This information is

adapted largely from two recent documents, the 1998 DOE Biological Assessment (DOE 1998c) and the

1998 FWS Biological Opinion (FWS 1998; Appendix B). For information on morphological traits,

historical distributions, and causes for overall species population trends (i.e. endangerment status), refer

to those sources.

San Joaciuin kit fox. The San Joaquin kit fox, listed as endangered by the Federal government in

1967 and as threatened by the State of California in 1971, is closely associated with arid grassland/scrub

and steppe habitats. These canids typically establish dens in excavated burrows, but sometimes in

culverts, pipes, or under structures. Kit fox diets are composed primarily of nocturnal rodents and

Iagomorphs (e.g., rabbits and hares), but also can include fruits, birds, and insects. Typically, mated pairs

are monogamous for the breeding season, with vixens giving birth to three to six pups in late February m

early March.

In 1979, when DOE began its endangered species program on the former NPR-1, kit foxes were

numerous and wide]y distributed. Kit fox abundance has been systematically assessed on a 117 square

kilometer (approximately 29,000 acres) study area.within NPR- 1 since that time. The kit fox population

has declined from a high of 144 animals in the winter of 1981-1982 to a low of just 12 animals in the

winter of 1991-1992. Thirty-four captures occurred in December 1996, down from a recent peak of 80

captures in 1994 and an overall maximum of 209 captures in 1981, the year the surveys started. FWS

(1998) states that kit foxes have disappeared from the central upland portions of the former NPR-I -

where most oil development has occurred – and now appear to be confined to the flatter peripheries.

DOE ( 1998c) refers to a more recent account and notes that while foxes occur primarily along the

northern flank of the former NPR- 1, and in Buena Vista Valley, they still occur (albeit less commonly) in

the moderate to high relief terrain near the center of the oil field.

Blunt-nosed leomrd lizard. The blunt-nosed Ieopard lizard was listed as an endangered species

by the Federal government in 1967 and by the State of California in 1971. It prefers open, sparsely

vegetated areas of low relief and inhabit valley sink scrub, valley saltbush scrub, valley/plain grasslands,

and foothill grasslands vegetational communities. Adult lizards emerge from hibernation in late March

and April, breed from early May to mid-June, and re-enter hibernation by mid-August. Females deposit

one to six eggs in an excavated chamber at the end of a smal 1mammal burrow. Hatchlings appear above

ground by mid-August and may remain active through mid-October. Adult lizards often seek safety in

3-1o

burrows, while immature lizards use rock piles, trash piles, and brush. Blunt-nosed leopard lizards are

primarily insectivorous, but sometimes consume vegetation and other small lizards.

From 1979 to 1987, a total of 136 blunt-nosed leopard lizards were observed in 28 of the former

NPR- 1‘s 74 sections (annual trends are not reported in FWS 1998). On NPR-1, they were typically found

in washes and areas of low relief around the periphery and in areas with sparse vegetation. Leopard

lizards, however, have also been observed in six sections in the NPR-1 central uplands.

Giant kangaroo rat. The giant kangaroo rat, listed as an endangered species by both the Federal

government and the State of California in 1987, is nocturnal and inhabits flat to gently sloping terrain in

semi-arid grassland/scrub habitat. Individuals excavate a system of burrows in varying soil types, but

prefer sandy loams. Giant kangaroo rats feed primarily on seeds and seed heads, but also may eat non-

seed plant parts when available. Females typically give birth to four young (sometimes as many as six)

between February and May.

On the former NPR-1, giant kangaroo rats occur almost exclusively on the low relief terrain of

the north flank. Surveys in the 1980’s revealed burrow systems in 30 sections of NPR- 1. Annual

population monitoring was initiated in 1994. Trapping occured in April and September of each year, and

thirteen (of fourteen) colonies (congregations of individual burrow systems in close proximity) were

assessed in September of each :yearby observing signs of activity along transects. Eleven giant kangaroo

rats were trapped in 1994 and six (five in the spring and one in the fall) were trapped in 1995. No

kangaroo rats were captured in 1997. Six of the thirteen colonies did not show any activity. All of the

fourteen monitored colonies decreased in size during 1997.

Tiuton kangaroo rat. T’hisspecies was listed as endangered by the Federal government in 1988

and by the State of California in 1989. Tipton kangaroo rats are nocturnal and inhabit the basin of the San

Joaquin Valley, occupying alluvial fans and floodplains with sparse vegetation and fine; saline, and

preferably highly alkaIine sands. Individuals typically excavate burrows on elevated pieces of ground (to

avoid flooding) and near the bases of shrubs. Tipton kangaroo rats primarily consume seeds, but also eat

small amounts of herbaceous m~aterialand occasionally insects. Females typically give birth to 1 to 4

young after a 32-day gestation ]period.Young are born between January and August and are sexually

mature within about four months.

3-11

On Elk Hills, Tlpton kangaroo rats only occur east of the California Aqueduct (including

portions of Section 23S). During a three-night trapping census conducted in 1988, six to twelve Tipton

kangaroo rats were captured per night in this area. No surveys were conducted in 1996 or 1997.

San Joaauin antelo~e squirrel. The San Joaquin antelope squirrel was listed as a threatened

species by the State of California in 1980. It is currently considered a species of concern by the Federal

government. San Joaquin antelope squirrels inhabit open, rolling landscapes and gentle slopes with

shrubs. They prefer loamy soils, and occasionally establish colonies by enlarging kangaroo rat burrows.

They adapt well to human-related disturbances and often make use of artificial structures. Unlike most

arid-land rodent species, antelope squirrels are diurnal, with major activity periods typically occurring in

late morning and late afternoon. Breeding occurs during late winter and early spring and gestation lasts

approximately 26 days. Offspring are typically born in March and appear above ground in the first half of

April. San Joaquin antelope squirrels primarily eat insects, green vegetation, and fungi, although seeds

are selected secondarily.

San Joaquin antelope squirrels are fairly common on Elk Hills and adjacent areas. The

population on the former NPR- 1 has been observed to fluctuate considerably with environmental

conditions; the number captured declined from 75 in 1993 to 7 in 1996.

Other rare species. Another six mammal, thirteen bird, and two reptile species of concern have

been observed at the former NPR- 1. These species include those that are listed as California State

“special” and Federal candidates. In some cases, these species are also protected by laws other than the

ESA and CESA, including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

For a more complete account of these animals, refer to DOE (1997c).

3.2.2 Flora

Elk Hills vegetation is part of a major floristic zone within California known as the Valley

Grassland. The vegetative association is broadly described as belonging to the Allscale Series. Annual

grasses and forbs currently dominate the floral composition of Elk Hills. Red brome (Bromus

inadrilensis) is the most common grass. Other common grasses include zorro fescue (Festuca megalura),

slender oats (Avena barbata), foxtail (Hordeum glaucurn), and Meditemanean grass (Wzismus barbatus).

Red-stemmed tllaree (Erodizmz cicutarium) and fiddleneck (Amsinckia intermedia) are the most common

forbs on Elk Hills. Other common forbs include pepperweed (Lepidizmz dictyotum), crassula (Crcmszda

●e●●●●●●e●●

3-12

erects), tansy phacelia (Phacelia tarzacetz~olia),Russian thistle (SalsoIa kali), and wild buckwheat

(Eriogonwn ordii). Xerophytic shrubs are locally common on Elk Hills, but trees are rare. Desert

saltbush (Atriplexpolycarpa) is the dominant shrub, particularly on previously disturbed lands. Other

common shrubs include bladderpod (Isonreris arborea), cheesebush (Hynzenoclea salsola), valley

saltbush (Atriplex lentz~ornzis),and winterfat (IGascheninnikovia lanata).

A number of listed plant species have been documented to have existed in the San Joaquin

Valley, and thus have the potential to occur on Elk Hills. These listed plants include Hoover’s wooly-star

(Eriastrum hooverl>, California jewel flower (Cazdanthuscalijornicus), Kern mallow (Eremalche

kernensis), and San Joaquin wc)oly-threads (Lembertia congdonii). To determine whether any of these

species currently exist within the project area, the former NPR- 1 was the subject of several

comprehensive rare plant surveys from 1995 to 1997. Prior to the sale, approximately forty percent of the

former NPR-1 was surveyed by DOE for special status plants.

Hoover’s woolY-star. Hoover’s wooly-star is listed as a threatened species at the Federal level.

This small (10 to 20 cm, or 4 tc)8 inches, in height), annual herb occurs in the semi-arid grassland/scrub

habitat of the western San Joaquin Valley where it is distributed in patches of plant colonies. Although it

can be found in locations with varying amounts of vegetative cover, it is most closely associated with

patches of cryptogamic crust, where annual plants tend to be less dense. However, it is rarely .

encountered in alkali sink habitats or on regularly grazed sites. Hoover’s wooly-star is self-pollinating

and its reproduction appears to be heavily dependent on rainfall (poor rainfall years can suppress

germination altogether). Seeds typically germinate in mid-March and plants flower from June to August.

Hoover’s wooly-star is common on Elk Hills. The results of the 1995-1997 plant surveys showed

that the density of individual plants on survey plots was higher in 1997 than in 1996. On Elk Hills, it

tends to occur in areas where other vegetation is sparse, such as washes and formerly disturbed sites. Its

distribution tends to be more dependent on site-specific conditions (including soil disturbance) than on

topography or elevation.

Kern mallow. Listed as Federally endangered, Kern mallow is a small (5 to 10 cm, or 2 to 4

inches, in height), annual herb of the mallow family (Malvaceae) with white to pink or lavender flowers.

This plant occurs in semi-arid grassland/scrub habitat, where it grows under and around spiny saltbush

(Atriplex spini$iera)and commcm saltbush (A. poZycarpa), and in patches with other herbaceous plants.

Kern mallow typically occur on alkaline soils above 90 meters (300 feet) in elevation and in areas where

3-13

shrub cover is 25 percent or less. Seeds usually germinate in January and February, with flowers

appearing in March. Like Hoover’s wooly-star, germination and population size of Kern mallow appears

to vary with precipitation.

The Kern mallow was not found on the former NPR-I during the 1995-1997 survey period.

However, apparently suitable habitat for Kern mallow was observed in the northwestern portions

(Sections 122, 132, and 142), and the FWS concluded in its 1998 Biological Opinion that the species

likely exists there in low numbers or might become established within the foreseeable future.

San Joacmin woolv-threads. A Federally endangered species, the San Joaquin wooly-threads is a

small annual herb of the sunflower family (Asteracea) that is endemic to the San Joaquin Valley in

California. Little is known of its habitat preferences. It appears to favor sandy or silty soils and an arid

climatic regime. It frequently occurs in areas dominated by annual grasslands at elevations of 76 to 760

meters (250 to 2,500 feet). It is quite possible that this species grows only in years of higher than normal

rainfall.

Despite finding no plants during the 1995-1997 survey period, the FWS concluded in its 1998

Biological Opinion that the San Joaquin wooly-threads might be present on Elk Hills. Potential habitat

has been observed along the northern flanks of the former NPR- 1, although it might be suboptimal

because of its dense cover of red brome.

California iewelflower. The Califomiajewelflower, listed as endangered at both the Federal and

State of California levels, was not found on the former NPR-1 during the 1995-1997 survey period.

Although the historical distribution includes the San Joaquin Valley, the 1998 FWS Biological Opinion,

which reiterated the earlier 1995 FWS Biological Opinion, concluded that suitable habitat for the

California jewelflower probably does not exist on Elk Hills.

Other rare .sPecies. An additional ten rare plant species have been observed on the former NPR-I,

although as many as fourteen might be present. These rare plants include those that are listed as

California State “special” and Federal candidates. For a more complete account of these plants, refer to

DOE (1997c).

3.3 CULTUIL4L RESOU12CES

Background information about the cultural resources of the former NPR-1 can be found in DOE

(1997d) and DOE (1993), as well as in the cultural resources reports cited below.

DOE has consulted with the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding the

impacts of waste remediation activities at surface trash scatters (including sites 25-S and 26-S) on cultural

resources at the former NPR- 1 (DOE 1994b, 1997d, 1997e, 1998d, EASI 1998). The SHPO has

determined that waste clean-up activities at those sites would not impact historic properties (SHPO 1995,

1997a, 1997b, 1998a, 1998b) either because no historic properties were involved, or because the proposed

clean-up methods would not result in impacts (i.e., have “no effect”) to historic properties (e.g., SHPO

1998b). Clean-up methods to be used at sites located on historic properties that are acceptable to the

SHPO as having no impact on lhistoric properties are defined in Eidsness (1998) and require no

mechanical surface scraping or earthmoving activities, clean-up work conducted by hand, and the use of

only rubber-tired vehicles on historic properties.

DOE consulted with the SHPO and the Federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

(ACHP) in order to take into account the effects of the sale of NPR-I on historic properties. In this

consultation process, “historic properties” refers to properties (cultural resources) that are eligible for, or

are already listed on, the NationaI Register of Historic Places (NRHP). A product of this consultation was

the Programmatic Agreement (.PA)among the three parties (DOE et al. 1998), as well as a Cultural

Resources Management Plan (CRMP; Jackson and Shapiro 1998). Section IV-C of the,PA identifies

those seven archaeological sites that had been determined eligible for listing on the NRHP by the SHPO

as of January 26, 1998, when the agreement was signed. Sections IV-B and IV-D refer to additional

historic preservation activities that may continue after the signing of the PA and after the sale date of

NPR-1. These activities include the analysis of data collected before the sale to characterize and evaluate

cultural resources so that the SHPO can determine whether additional NPR- 1 sites are eligible for listing

on the NRHP. Section 5.3 of the CRMP notes that “should it be determined that preservation in place is

not possible for any given NRHP eligible or recommended N.RHP eligible archaeological property, the

DOE will complete data recovery at such site(s) in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement.”

Section VI-A of the PA specifies that “DOE will continue to afford Native American tribes and

individuals the opportunity to consult with DOE throughout the period of implementation of the CRMP.”

3-15

The most current information, based on completion of the analysis of information collected

before the salej indicates that a total of91 prehistoric archaeological sites have been recorded on the

former NPR-1 (Jackson et al. 1998). This total includes ten sites that also contain evidence of use during

the historic oil production period. There are approximately 43 prehistoric isolates (that is, lone artifacts or

features not found in association with other materials). Approximately 55 percent of the total area of the

former NPR- 1 has been inventoried for prehistoric properties. This archaeological survey includes

complete coverage of those areas on NPR- 1 with the highest probability of containing NRllP-eligible

prehistoric archaeological sites (Jackson and Shapiro 1998). These archaeologically sensitive areas are

found on the north flank of the Elk Hills, sloping down towards the location of the old Buena Vista

Slough.

3.3.1 Prehistoric

Prehistoric cultural resources refer to those archaeological resources that were in use by Native

Americans before the period of written history (the written history of the former NPR- 1 begins with

activities related to oil exploration and production). The presence of Native Americans in the region was

recorded during earlier periods when Spanish explorers and missionaries passed through the area.

However, the places described in these early written accounts do not fall within the former NPR-1

boundaries.

Prehistoric cultural resources are identified by archaeological survey and analysis.

Archaeological survey, testing, and evaluation of prehistoric cultural resources was continuing at the time

the Final SEIS was completed, in order to provide the SHPO the information necessary to take into

account the effects of the sale on historic properties (DOE 1997d). The precise number of prehistoric

archaeological sites recorded on NPR- 1 was still in flux when the Final SEIS was completed. This is

because the 1997 survey and 1997/1998 data evaluation resulted in the discovery of some new sites and

the incorporation of some previously recorded sites into redefined larger sites.

Contemporary Native American knowledge of cultural resources at the former NPR-1 is limited.

This is due to two principal reasons: (1) Native Americans were removed from the Elk Hills area and

placed on reservations elsewhere (e.g., Ft. Tejon and Tule River) in the 19* century; and (2) once the

Naval Petroleum Reserve was established early in the 20thcentury, Native Americans and other members

of the general public were not permitted access to the reserve. Consequently, no traditional cultural

properties have been identified on the former NPR-1.

@

●●●e●●●*●●●●●●●●●●●●ee●●e●a●@●●ae●a●e●●●●●

The characteristics of the prehistoric sites are described by Jackson et al. (1998). These

prehistoric sites are representeti by accumulations of flaked stone, ground stone, shell and animal bone

artifacts, features, faunal dietary remains (e.g., fi-eshwatermussel shell and fish, mammal, and reptile

bone) and (at two known sites) fragments of possible or probable human bone. Most sites are sparse

accumulations of these types of artifacts and faunal remains distributed over a wide area. The isolates are

represented by lone artifacts or features, such as a single groundstone artifact fi-agment or a few pieces of

flaked stone debitage. The surface area of these sites ranges from approximately 900 square meters to

1.55 square kilometers (approximately 0.2 to 380 acres). The larger sites are typical on the northern flank

of the Elk Hills near the petroleum reserve boundary, adjacent to the former Buena Vista Slough.

In 1997, DOE and the !WIPOdetermined that four prehistoric archaeological sites (CA-KER-

3079, KER-3080, KER-3082, and KER-3085M) are eligible for listing on the NRHP. Their eligibility is

based on Criterion D of the NRHP criteria, which applies to sites “that have yielded, or may be likely to

yield, information important in prehistory or history” (36 CFR 60.4).

A draft report (Jackson et al. 1998) currently being circulated for Native American comment has

recommended~hat an additional four prehistoric sites (CA-KER-3 168, KER-53 73/H, KER-5392, KER-

5404) are NRHP-eligible under Criterion D. DOE will submit the report, when finalized to include

Native American comments, to the SHPO for concurrence on these evaluations. DOE will also advise the

SHPO of Native American concerns about specific locations on three of the NRHP-eligible sites, -3079, -

30851H, and –53731H.

3.3.2 Historic

Historic cultural resources refer to those archaeological sites, buildings, and other structures or

modifications of the natural landscape that resulted from human activity during the period when written

history describes a given area.

As of April 1997, there were 106 known historic archaeological sites (including five sites that

also contained evidence of prehistoric use) at the former NPR- 1 (Jackson and Shapiro 1998). Since then,

approximately 60 additional historic archaeological sites have been recorded and evaluated in connection

with sale-related clean-up activities. Following preparation of an historical context for evaluating the

significance of historic sites at NPR- 1 (PAR Environmental Services (PAR), Incorporated 1997), PAR

3-17

classified the historic archaeological sites into the following property types: oil exploration/production,

industrial manufacturing/ technology, domestic occupation, transportation, and military. PAR reviewed

the history of DOE’s consultation with the SHPO regarding the historic sites. No historic archaeological

site or building had been determined eligible for the NRHP prior to completion of the PAR assessment

although many had been determined ineligible. Following discussions with staff of the SHPO in July

1997, PAR prepared a statement of significance fc}rthe entire NPR-1 area evaluated as a rural historic

industrial landscape comprised of numerous elements related to oil production and exploration. DOE

forwarded the evaluation to the SHPO, requesting concurrence on DOE’s determination that the entire

NPR- 1 facility was eligible for listing on the NRHP as a rural historic industrial landscape. As explained

by PAR (1997), the SHPOdetermined that the field as a whole does not meet NRHP significance criteria.

While the landscape retains numerous components of the oil industry, most of the original buildings,

camps, derricks, equipment, and pIants have been removed and the landscape does not retain integrity.

The historical archaeological sites in the field have been compromised by vandalism and natural erosion

and/or do not possess sufficient research potential to qualifi for the NRHP.

The SHPO determined that three individuid wells appear eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under

Criterion A of the NRHP criteria. Hay No. 1 represents the site of the first commercial productive well at

NPR- 1 and was discovered in 1919. Hay No. 5 provided the first indication of the natural gas deposits

present on the field and Hay No. 7 became famous as the world’s most productive gas well. The period of

significance for the wells extends from 1918 until 1930 and represents the initial development phase of

the Elk Hills field.

Archaeological remains of these historic well sites have never been identified on the ground or

formally recorded’as historic archaeological sites (DOE 1999). Visits to the presumed well locations did

not identi& any archaeological remains linked to them. As indicated above, they are significant under

Criterion A. Criterion A refers to sites “that are associated with events that have made a significant

contribution to the broad pattern of our history” (36CFR60.4). These historic well sites are important as

locations, but are not potential sources of information, unlike the prehistoric archaeological sites eligible

under Criterion D.

3-18

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS


4.1.1 Air Quality

4.1.1.1ProposedAction

Under the Proposed Action, clean-up of three categories of waste sites would be conducted:

(1) nonhazardous solid waste surface trash scatters, (2) produced wastewater sumps, and (3) small solid

waste landfills. For the trash scatters and landfills, the remediation would primarily involve simple

surface collection of the debris and removal of the collected waste to an off-site landfill. The majority of

these sites are of limited size and extent. Waste materials either would be collected by hand or by

mechanized equipment such as front-end loaders, skip loaders, backhoes, or small bulldozers.

For the wastewater sumps, clean-up may involve the addition of other materials to stabilize

contaminated soils, followed by capping with clean fill. Alternatively, soils containing hydrocarbon

concentrations above specific action levels may be excavated and transported off site to a permitted oil

field waste disposal facility.

Emissions. Air emissicms from the proposed remediation activities would consist of fugitive dust

emissions and exhaust emissions from mechanized equipment. Fugitive dust emissions would result from

excavation and other earth-moving activities, from loading of soil onto dump trucks for off-site transport,

and from unpaved road travel to and from the remediation site. Operation of mechanized equipment such

as bulldozers, front-end loaders, and backhoes would result in exhaust emissions of volatile organic

compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOX),PMIO,and CO. It should be noted that Iow-sulfiw diesel fuel

has been used in California since the early 1990s.

The trash scatters are surface (as opposed to subsurface) scatters of various sizes of domestic

refise, such as broken glass, dishes, and rusted food cans, chunks of concrete, and other building

materials. Heavy equipment may be used to remove larger items. As no excavation is anticipated,

removal of such materials shoulldnot have any substantial fugitive dust component. In the event that

there is excavation required, the excavation would also be conducted in accordance with an approved

4-1

fugitive dust control plan, and any potential impacts from such excavation would likely be less than those

from excavation of the on-site landfills.

Remediation of the wastewater surnps would be conducted by using heavy equipment to excavate

sump bottoms. Excavation activities would also be conducted in accordance with an approved fitgitive

dust control plan. Removed material from the sumps would be transported by truck. Heavy equipment

also would be used to backfill and recontour the sumps, as necessary. Thus, the removal of such

materials has the potential of emitting fugitive dust. However, any potential impacts from such

excavation would likely be Iess than those from the excavation of the on-site landfills.

For the purposes of evaluating the air quality impacts of the remediation activities, each

excavation event at the site was considered to represent a discrete event that has no additive effect on

other excavation events. In other words, only one excavation would be conducted at a time, or

excavations conducted concurrently at multiple sites would be too distant from one another to have any

additive effect. Consequently, this analysis focuses on the single largest volume excavation event that is

anticipated: excavation of a solid waste landfill measuring 30 feet wide by 100 feet long by 30 feet deep,

corresponding to 180,000 ft3 of earth to be excavated and removed from the site. Emissions from this

operation serve as a bounding condition for calculating the fugitive dust impacts from any other

excavation that might occur on the site involving less than 180,000 ft3 of earth.

To estimate air emissions resulting from remediation of the landfill described above, it was

assumed that all excavation and other earth-moving activity would take place using the equipment listed

in Table 4.1-1. The horsepower ratings presented in this table are typical construction equipment sizes for

these types (based on manufacturer specifications, e.g., Komatsu, Cummins). The load factor* of 20

percent is estimated based on engineering judgemrmt and is applied to reflect the fact that engines run idle

and under partial load conditions part of the time over the course of normal operation. The remaining

parameters in this table (in-use adjustment and emission factors) are from the U.S. EPA (1998a)?

1Load Facto~ Enginestypicallyoperate at a variety of speeds and loads, such that operation at rated power is rare. To takeinto account the effect of operating at idIe and partial load conditions, a load factor is applied which indicates the degree to whichaverage engine operation is scaled back from Ml load. For example, at a 0.3 (or 30 percent) load factor, an engine rated at 100hp would be producing an average of 30 hp over the course of normal operation.

2 In-UseAdjustment Factor: Nonroad engines often operate under conditions unlike that of the steady-state ISO-C1 testingproceduretypicallyused in emissionstesting.This alternateoperationcan cause a changein the emissioncharacteristicsofnomoadcompressionignition(CI)engines. The affects of in-use operation in CI engines are accounted for by applying an “in-use adjustment” to emission factors generated using the ISO-C 1 tests. The in-use adjustment factors developed for theNONROAD model were derived from emission testing designed to represent operational behavior of nonroad equipment.

●●●●●a●●●*ae●●●●●e●●*●*

4-2

Table 4.1-1. Equipment Assumptions for Air Impact Analysis

Number Rated Load In-Use EmissionFactorQ/Hp-hr)

EquipmentType On-Site yp:: Factor’ Adj. HC NO. co PM~o. .Front-end loader 2 250 0.2 2.04 0.68 8.38 2.70 0.40

Backhoe 2 250 0.2 2.04 0.68 8.38 2.70 0.40

Bulldozer 1 105 0.2 2.04 0.68 8.38 2.70 0.40

30-Ton Dump Truck 2 400 0.5 1.00 0.68 8.38 2.70 0.40

. The number of pieces of equipment to be on-site was estimated based on the volume of earth to

be removed (1 80,000 @) and bly assuming that 10 truckloads of earth could be excavated and loaded in a

single day. This assumption is considered to be reasonable and consistent with the equipment

assumptions presented in Table 4.1-1. This results in a 30-day excavation period for the entire landfill.

All equipment was assumed to be operating for 12 hours per day. This assumption is conservative, as it

results in an increased daily rate of emissions and during actual remediation, operating hours would

probably be less than 10 hours per day. Daily exhaust emissions (pounds per day or lbs/day) were

estimated for each equipment type as follows:

Ei=N-HP .LF. .AF. E~. .CFCFwhere

Ei =

N=

HP =

LF =

B.

EFi =

u=

CF =

emissions of pollutant i (lbs/day)

number of equipment on site

rated horsepower (Hp)

load factor (dimensionless)

adjustment factor (dimensionless)

emission factor for pollutant i (g/Hp-hr)

usage for each piece of equipment (hours/day)

conversion factor for grams to lbs ( 1 lb/454 grams)

The resulting daily and hourly emission rates are shown in Table 4.1-2.

4-3

Fugitive dust emissions from excavation and other earth-moving activities, from loading of soil

onto dump trucks for off-site transport, and from unpaved road travel to and from the remediation site

were estimated using equations from U.S. EPA’s ConzpiIationof Air Pollutant Emission Factors, FI$%

Edition (this document is commonly referred to as AP-42) (U.S. EPA 1998b). These emission equations

are presented below.

Table 4.1-2. Daily and Hourly Equipment Exhaust Emissions

Backhoe 3.72 45.24 14.52 2.16 0.3 I 3.77 1.21 0.18

Bulldozer 0.72 9.48 3.00 0.48 0.06 0.79 0.25 0.04

30-Ton Dump Truck 7.20 88.56 28.56 4.20 0.60 7.38 2.38 0.35

Total 15.24 188.40 60.72 9.00 1.27 15.70 5.06 0.75

Earth-moving (bulldozing):

PA410(lbs /~OiZ) =0.75 (s)’”5

(M)’”4

where

s = silt content of material (’%0)

M = moisture content of material (’%0)

Loading of material onto dum~ trucks:

( ~ ,1.3

l——l

(2))PM (lbs /tOiZ) = k (0.0032)-~

()

M—.2

where

k=

u=

M=

PM25 (lbs /ton) =0.60 (S)”2

(fW)’”’

particle size multiplier (dimensionless), equal to 0.35 for PMIOand 0.11 for PMz.~

mean wind speed (mph)

moisture content of material (’XO)

●e●●●●●●●o●*e●●●

4-4

●●●●e●

Urmaved Road Travel:

()()

s 0“8w 0“4

PM (lbs I ViVT) = k57

(-)

M 0“3

0.2

where

k = particle size multiplier (dimensionless), equal to 2.6 for PM]o and 0.38 for pM2.5

s = surface material silt content (VO)

W = mean vehicle weight (tons)

M = surface material moisture content (Vo)

The assumptions used to estimate fugitive dust emissions are summarized in Table 4.1-3. Table

4.1-4 presents the resulting daily and hourly emissions for these sources.

Table 4.1-3. AssumptionsUsed to Estimate FugitiveDust Emissions

Excavationand Truck Loading

Volume of material to be removed ‘180,000 &

Density ofmois~ packed dirt 96 lbhl?

Weight of material to be removed 8,640 tons

Silt content of material to be removed 9% (midrange estimate for overburden given in AP-42)

Moisture content of material to be removed 16% (upper end of range for overburden given in AP-42)

Average wind speed 6 mph

UnpavedRoad Travel

Number of trips per day 10 trips/day

Distance per trip (one way) 1 mile

Total distance per trip 2 miles

Weight of truck – loaded 60 tons

Wei:ght of truck – unloaded 30 tons

Mean weight of truck 45 tons

Silt content o~funpaved road surface 6% (value used in SEIS)

Moisturecontentolfunpavedroad surface 0.2% (defaultvalueprovidedby AP-42)

Control efficiency due to road watering 50’?4.

4-5

Table 4.1-4. Fugitive Dust Emission Estimates

Potential Air Concentrations. To assess the maximum off-site concentration associated with the

proposed landfill remediation activities, air quality modeling was conducted. As presented above, .

average hourly emissions for PMIOare estimated tcl be approximately 15 lbdhr during excavation of the

landfill site. This emission rate was used as input to U.S. EPA’s SCREEN3 dispersion model (U.S. EPA

1995) to estimate maximum ground level concentration associated with the landfill remediation. The

model was run assuming that the emission source height was at the same height as the nearest offsite

receptor. Additional model input assumptions were:

. Distance to the nearest off-site receptor was 1 mile,

. Horizontal dimensions of the landfill were 300 feet by 30 feet,

. Emissions were spread uniformly over the landfill,

. Flat terrain,

. No wet or dry deposition,

. Rural location with rural dispersion, and

. No buoyancy or momentum flux associate[i with the landfill operation.

Landfill remediation operations were assumed to only take place during the daylight period;

hence, only stability classes A-D were considered possible during landfill operations. SCREEN3

modeling results show that the maximum 1-hour concentration is 130.7 micrograms per cubic meters

(pg/m3), occurring during D stability with a wind speed of 1.0 m/s. There are no ambient air quality

standards for 1-hour PM concentrations.

To determine the maximum 24-hour average PMIOconcentration for which both California and

U.S. EPA have an air quality standard, the maximum hourly concentration was converted to a maximum

24-hour concentration using a 0.4 persistence factor (U.S. EPA 1992). Because remediation activities are

on]y occurring for 12 hours per day, emissions during the other 12 hours were considered to be zero. The

resulting maximum 24-hour concentration is estimated as 26 pg/m3. Total PM2,5emissions are estimated

●●●●●●●●●●●✠●e●●e*●●●

4-6

●a●●oeeo●●*●●●o●●●●●*●9a●●*●**●o**e●*e9*●●●

as about 14 percent of the PMIOemission rate, resulting in a maximum 24-hour concentration of 3.6

pg/m3. Table 4.1-5 shows a cc)mparison between the maximum concentration estimated from landfill

remediation operations and the California and National AAQS for PM2,5and PM IO.The table shows that

emissions from the remediation should not by itself lead to a violation of ambient PM air quality

standards. No comparison with annual standards was pefiormed, since the landfill remediation would

only last for approximately one month and, as indicated earlier, each excavation event at the site was

considered to represent a discrete event that has no additive effect on other excavation events.

Furthermore, given the short duration of these excavation events, no cumulative would be expected.

Table 4.1-5. Comparisonof Federal and CaliforniaPM Air Quality Standards

and MaximumC~ff-SiteConcentrationsfrom Landfill Operationsat NPR-1

AveragingPeriod FederalStandard CaliforniaStandard NPR MaximumOffsite

Pollutant (hours) ~ @g/m~ (w$m~ Concentration(pg/mj

PM2.5 24 65 None 3.6

PMIO 24 150 50 26

4.1.1.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, air emissions from the former NPR-1 facility would be

unchanged from current operations. Thus, no additional adverse air impacts would be observed.

4.1.2 Land

4.1.2.1ProposedAc#ion

Transport of contaminants to other Parts of Elk Hills. Under the Proposed Action, waste

materiaIs at the sutiace trash scatters and landfills wouId be either colIected by hand or by mechanized

equipment, as appropriate. In addition, the earthen cover on the cells of the two landfills that were

affected by the fire that occurred in May 1997 would be restored. Thus, the potential for contamination of

other parts of Elk Hills through transport by wind or wildlife of waste materials from inactive waste sites

would be eliminated. Therefore, there also would not be any cumulative impacts resulting from the

Proposed Action and implementation of the Proposed Action may, potentially, even reduce cumulative

impacts of oil and gas development and other activities at Elk Hills.

4-7

Erosion. Although the degree of disturbance by human activities under the Proposed Action is

expected to be low, human activities could contribute to erosion. The activities expected to cause the

most soil disturbance at Elk Hills would be the use of heavy equipment to excavate and collect waste

materials and to regrade the ground surface. Collection by hand of waste materials would likely result in

negligible erosion because this activity would not remove sufficient ground cover. Areas where building

structures would have to be demolished would be susceptible to increased erosion. However, common

industry best management practices would be employed to reduce the potential for erosion, including the

conservation and reuse of topsoil, the minimization of disturbance to natural drainways, and the rapid

stabilization (e.g., revegetation) of disturbed areas (see DOE 1997c). Overall, there would be minimal

potential for substantial erosion impacts and related indirect impacts (e.g., sedimentation, water quality

impacts in nearby streams, effects on terrestrial and aquatic biota). Similarly, there would not be any

cumulative impacts.

4.1.2.2 iVoAction Alternative

Transuort of contaminants to other Parts of Elk Hills. Waste materials at surface trash scatters

could potentially be transported from these sites to other parts of Elk Hills by the wind, wildlife, or as a

result of human activities conducted at Elk Hills. Transport of these materials could potentially increase

the size of the surface trash scatter sites and/or contaminate the soils at other parts of Elk Hills. It is

important to note thaL due to broken topography, wind transport to areas of Elk Hills that are not close to

surface trash scatters would be unlikely.

Waste materials at landfills also could be transported from these sites to other parts of Elk Hills.

Transport of waste materials could potentially increase the landfill surface area containing waste materials

andlor contaminate the soils at other parts of Elk Hills. In addition, under this alternative, DOE would not

restore the earthen cover on the cells of the two landfills that were affected by the fire that occurred in

May 1997. As a result, subsidence of the earthen cover on the cells could potentially create additional

sinkholes at these sites. The newly formed sinkholes, as well as the existing ones, could serve as conduits

for rain water to the kmdfill cells. Rainwater could then mix with contaminants that maybe present in the

cells and the resulting leachate could migrate and contaminate the soils underlying and adjacent to the

landfill sites.

Erosion. Under the No Action Alternative, ground cover would not be disturbed or removed.

Thus, this alternative would nc}t increase the potential for erosion and related indirect impacts (e.g.,

sedimentation, water quality impacts in nearby streams, effects on terrestrial and aquatic bioti).

4.1.3 Surface Water .

4.1.3.1Proposed Acition

Transport of contaminants to other Parts of Elk Hills. Under the Proposed Action, waste

materials at the surface trash scatters and landfills would be collected. Thus, the potential for

contamination of surface waters at Elk Hills or the immediate vicinity by waste materials currently at

these sites would be eliminated. Therefore, there also would not be any cumulative impacts resulting

from the Proposed Action and implementation of the Proposed Action may, potentially, even reduce

cumulative impacts of oil and gas development and other activities at Elk Hills.

Erosion. During remediation activities, no new impervious areas (i.e., roads) would be

constructed. Existing unpaved roads would be used for the collection of waste materials. As a result of

filling and compacting some areas in the solid waste landfills during the remediation of those sites,

drainage patterns may potentially be altered in a very localized scale. Overall, no substantial differences

would be expected in drainage patterns, the amount of surface runoff, or the water quality of surface

waters at Elk Hills or the immediate vicinity. Therefore, no additional cumulative impacts would occur.

Wetlands and floodPla@ Since there are no jurisdictional wetlands at Elk Hills, and because the

Proposed Action would not likely involve any fill activities, there would not likely be any adverse direct

and cumulative impacts to wetlands under the Proposed Action. As no notable differences would be

expected in the rate and amount of surface runoff, and major changes in topography would not occur

under the Proposed Action, the potential direct or cumulative floodplain impacts would be negligible.

4.1.3.2 No ActionAlternative●

Transport of contaminants to other mirts of Elk Hills. Under the No Action Alternative, waste

materials could potentially be transported from the inactive waste sites to other parts of Elk Hills by the

.wind, wildlife, or as a result of human activities conducted at the site. Transport of these materials could

potentially contaminate surface waters at Elk Hills.

4-9

Erosion. As stated earlier, under the No Action Alternative, the potential for erosion impacts and

related indirect impacts (e.g., sedimentation, water quality impacts in nearby streams, effects on terrestrial

and aquatic biota) would be negligible. Thus, surface waters at EIk Hills or in the immediate vicinity

would be unlikely to suffer any adverse impacts due to erosion.

Wetlands and floodplains. Since there are no jurisdictional wetlands at Elk Hills, and because the

No Action Alternative would not involve any fill activities, there would not be any impacts to wetlands.

As no notable differences would be expected in the rate and amount of surface runoff, and major changes

in topography would not occur under the No Action Alternative, there would be no adverse floodplain

impacts.

4.1.4 Groundwater

4.1.4.1ProposedAction

Under the Proposed Action, sumps containing oily soils with concentrations greater than action

levels would be remediated. Additionally, soils and waste materials containing arsenic above action

levels (at a site with four sumps and one landfill cell) and zinc and/or lead (at two surface trash scatters)

or other hazardous constituents, which may potentially be identified through ongoing characterization and

assessment activities, would also be remediated. Thus, potential groundwater contamination resulting

from the presence of these contaminants would be prevented. Therefore, there also would not be any

cumulative groundwater impacts.

4.1.4.2 No ActionAlternative

Under the No Action Alternative, remediation of the landfills, surilace trash scatters, and produced

wastewater sumps would not be conducted. Sumps containing oily soils with concentrations greater than

action levels and sumps and surface trash scatters containing high levels of hazardous wastes (i.e.,4

arsenic, lead, zinc) would not be remediated. Thus, the potential for groundwater contamination would

continue to exist.

However, it is important to note that the groundwater aquifer underlying Elk Hills is located in

the Tulare Formation and has been designated as an exempt aquifer by DOGGR. In addition, the

9●*●*m*a●*e*●●●e●e*4-1o

8

e

alluvium of Buena Vista Valley, from which agriculture water production is obtained, is

geohydrologically isolated fi-om the Tulare Formation groundwater in Elk Hills. Thus, no adverse

impacts resulting from groundwater contamination are expected.


The remediation activities involved under the Proposed Action – the characterization, assessment

clean-up, and formal closure of the inactive waste sites – would result in some impacts on the biological

components of the Elk Hills environment. The No Action Alternative also has consequences for the

biological components of Elk Hills. The following analysis of the likely impacts that would result from

either alternative focuses on the listed species known to occur on Elk Hills and is based on the findings

presented in the DOE (1998c) and FWS (1998; Appendix B), which were both prepared for this Proposed

Action. The discussion of impacts under the Proposed Action takes into consideration the mitigation

measures that would be required by FWS, as outlined in the Biological Opinion (F WS 1998) and later in

Section 5.2 of this EA.

It should also be noted that DOE initiated formal consultation with the California Department of

Fish and Game (CDFG) and applied for a 2081 incidental take permit for State listed species, pursuant to

the CESA and Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code (DOE 1998e). Upon fi.u-ther

evaluation of the Proposed Action and inspection of the Federal Biological Opinion and the terms and

conditions of the Federal take permit, CDFG determined the Proposed Action could be treated as a

“Federal Project: and therefore would be beyond CESA’s jurisdiction, eliminating the need for DOE to

complete a formal consultation (DOE 1999b).

4.2.1 Fauna

4.2.1.1 ProposedAction

Potential adverse impacts to listed animals resulting from the implementation of the Proposed

Action would include harassment, direct mortality or injury, entrapment, loss of dens or burrows, and

displacement. The potential for adverse impacts would exist – although to a lesser extent – even with the

implementation of the required mitigation measures. For example, direct mortality or injury could result

from accidental vehicle strikes or from collapsed dens and burrows. Any burrows or dens located on

waste sites that must be excavated for characterization or remediation would be destroyed. Animals that

4-11

occur on waste sites could be displaced during remediation activities. Human disturbance from

excavation of waste sites and recontouring of areas being reclaimed could result in harassment and

displacement of animals, whether or not the animals’ dens and burrows are directly impacted.

Harassment also might alter the behavior of animals (e.g., activity periods, space use) resulting in

increased predation risk, reduced access to resources, and reduced breeding success. Conducting

remediation activities during the spring breeding season for certain species could increase the potential for

adverse impacts on those species.

The waste sites primarily occur on previously disturbed areas, which reduces the likelihood that

listed animals would be present. Remediation of waste sites and testing of cultural resource sites would

be conducted during daylight hours to limit the potential for adverse effects on most species, although

blunt-nosed leopard lizards and San Joaquin antelope squirrels are active by day. At many of the sites,

particularly the trash scatters, no heavy equipment or ground disturbance would be necessary, further

reducing impacts. Remediation activities at many sites would be brief and would likely be completed in

less than one day. Few individual animals would be affected at a given site, and those that are would be

easily moved to undisturbed portions of their home.range. Existing and ,new ditches would be provided

with escape ramps and checked before work resumes or starts, and pipes and other equipment with

potential hiding places would be capped and/or checked before they are moved or used. No seeding

would be conducted, because unseeded areas might revegetate as quickly as seeded areas, and seeding

could result in habitat characteristics less favorable for listed species.

The animal species addressed in this document should actually realize a net benefit from the

Proposed Action because it would result in habitat enhancement. Toxic substances would be removed

from the environment or remediated in a manner that would eliminate or substantially reduce the potential

for exposure. Trash and debris would be removed from the environment, thereby reducing associated

hazards or potential hazards, and in some instances making more habitat available. Also, where

appropriate, sites would be recontoured to conform to the surrounding topography, resulting in both

greater habitat availability and improved habitat quality. Therefore, despite some potential short-term

disturbance, listed species should realize a long-term benefit from the Proposed Action.

In terms of cumulative effects, FWS ( 1998) noted that other projects are currently under review

by State, county, and local authorities at locations where biological surveys have documented the

occurrence of the San Joaquin kit fox, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, giant kangaroo rat, and Tipton kangaroo

rat. These projects, largely in response to the influx of people to the Southern San Joaquin Valley,

4-12

include urban uses, mineral and energy development, agricultural activities, transportation projects, and

flood control and water conveyance construction. In addition, there is a trend in Kern County agriculture

away from grazing and towardl row crops such as grape vines and cotton. The cumulative effects of these

known activities pose a substantial threat to the eventual recovery of the listed species.

Agencies and organizations, such as CDFG, The Nature Conservancy, and the Center for Natural

Lands Management, have begun to secure some of the core lands identified as important for species’ -

recovery. Several local planning efforts, which are focused on reducing the impacts of urbanization and

industrialization on listed species, are also underway. These positive actions might reduce the likelihood

that the continued existence of these species would be jeopardized in the short term. These actions,

however, are not expected to be sufficient to lead to the downlisting of these species, and might not be

sufficient to support their continued existence in the long term.

The FWS reviewed the current status of the San Joaquin kit fox, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, giant

kangaroo rat and Tipton kangaroo rat, the environmental baseline for the action area, and the direct and

cumulative effects of the Proposed Action. In its Biological Opinion, the FWS concluded that the site

remediation and cultural data recovery programs, as proposed, are not likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of these species. In addition, since no critical habitat has been designated for these species, no

designated critical habitat would be affected.

4.2.1.2 No Action Alternative s

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no project-related harassment accidental

mortality or injury, entrapment, loss of dens or burrows, or displacement of listed species. Habitat

restoration or enhancement (e.g., removal of toxic substances) also would not occur under the No Action

Alternative. In summary, the aldverse impacts associated with the Proposed Action would not occur under

the No Action Alternative. However, the beneficial effects of the Proposed Action (e.g., removal of

hazardous material and habitat restoration and enhancement) also would be lost.

4-13

4.2.2 Flora


The potential impacts of the proposed remedial activities to listed plants would include direct

mortality from earth excavation or crushing by vehicles, the loss of the supporting substrate from soil

erosion, and reduced germination rates from soil compaction. Impacts to plants occurring after seed

germination but prior to seed set could be particularly harmfi.d, as both current and future generations

would be adversely affected.

Impacts to San Joaquin wooly-threads, California jewelflower, and Kern mallow under the

Proposed Action would likely be negligible, because most of the waste sites are located in rugged terrain

where the topography and soil composition are suboptirnal for these species. At many sites, particularly

the trash scatters, no heavy equipment or ground disturbance would be necessary, fin-ther reducing the

potential for impacts.

Hoover’s wooly-star would be the plant species most likely impacted by the Proposed Action.

This species is abundant at Elk Hills, particularly in gentle terrain, but it also occurs in rugged areas

where most of the waste sites are located. The potential for Hoover’s wooly-star to occur on waste sites is

increased because this species readily colonizes disturbed areas. However, for this same reason, Hoover’s

wooly-star might not be substantially impacted, and might even benefit from remediation activities.

The Proposed Action also could have positive impacts on each of the listed plant species. Toxic

substances would be removed from the Elk Hills environment or remediated in a manner that would

eliminate or substantially reduce the potential of exposure for these listed plants. Trash and debris would

be removed from the environment, thereby making more habitat available. Also, where appropriate, sites

would be recontoured to conform to the surrounding topography, resulting in both greater habitat

availability and improved habitat quality. Therefore, despite some potential short-term disturbance, listed

plant species should realize a long-term benefit from the Proposed Action.

In terms of cumulative impacts, many of the same future State, Tribal, local, or private actions

that could result in cumulative effects on the listed animal species (e.g., agricultural activities), as

discussed earlier, could also have an equally substantial impact on Hoover’s wooly-star, San Joaquin

wooly-threads, California jewelflower, and Kern mallow. Although some of these actions would likely

4-14

have adverse effects on the plant species, others might reduce the chances of extinction over the next few

decades.

The FWS reviewed the current status of Hoover’s wooly-star, San Joaquin wooly-threads, and

Kern mallow, the environmental baseline for the action area, and the direct and cumulative effects of the

Proposed Action. In its Biological Opinion, FWS concluded that the site remediation and cultural data

recovery programs, as propbsed, are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of these species. In

addition, since no critical habitat has been designated for these species, no designated critical habitat

would be affected.

4.2.2.2 No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative would not cause direct mortality from earth excavation or crushing by

vehicles, loss of the supporting substrate from soil erosion, or reduced germination rates from soil

compaction. Toxic substances would not be removed from the Elk Hills environment or remediated in a

manner to eliminate or to reduce substantially the potential exposure of the listed plants to those

contaminants.

In summary, the adverse impacts associated with the Proposed Action would not occur under the

No Action Alternative. However, the beneficial effects of the Proposed Action (e.g., removal of

hazardous material and habitat restoration and enhancement) also would be lost.

4.3 CULTUIUIL RESOURCES

DOE completed consultations with the SHPO regarding the impacts on cultural resources as the

result of waste clean-up activities at surface trash scatter sites, as summarized in Section 3.3.

For prehistoric sites where the Proposed Action activities could compromise presemation, DOE

would conduct clean-up activities using those methods already determined by the SHPO to not impact

NRHP-eligible or recommended eligible archaeological sites. Because the NRHP-eligible historic well

locations described in Section 3.3.2 are locations containing no information values, they would not be

affected by remediation activities and no consultation would be needed.

4-15

4.3.1 Prehistoric


Given that most prehistoric archaeological sites at the former NPR- 1 extend less than 3 meters

(approximately 9.8 feet) below ground surface, DOE assumes that the original construction of produced

wastewater sumps and landfills with subsurface cells would have destroyed the integrity of prehistoric

archaeological deposits that may have been present at those locations. Hence remediation activities that

are confined to the areas originally disturbed by the construction and operation of these types of waste

sites would have no impact on prehistoric cultural resources. Clean-up activities outside the originally

disturbed portions of wastewater sumps and subsw%acelandfills, clean-up activities on surface trash

scatters, and clean-up activities at other surface waste site types extending to depths less than 3 meters

could have an impact on prehistoric archaeological sites unless appropriate remediation methods are used.

4.3.1.2 No ActionAlternative

As indicated in Section 3.3, a PA and CRIMPgoverns DOE’s historic preservation activities

related to the sale. Should the waste sites be left unremediated, it is expected that there would be no new

impact to any prehistoric cultural resource under the No Action Alternative. It is possible that some

NRHP-eligible prehistoric sites suffered impacts while a waste site was constructed or in use within

archaeological site boundaries, but these are now inactive waste sites and no DOE on-site activities would

be associated with the No Action Alternative.

4.3.2 Historic

4.3.2.1 ProposedActwn

Given the nature of the three NRHP-eligible historic well sites as locations with no archaeological

elements, DOE expects that remediation activities would have no effect on the sites even if they cross the

locations.

4.3.2.2 No ActionAkrnative

Given the nature of the three NRHP-eligible historic well sites as locations with no archaeological

elements, it is expected that there would be no new impact to any historic cultural resource under the No

Action Alternative.

4.4 OCCUPATIONAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

The Human Health and Safety qualitative assessment is comprised of two major components:

occupational health impacts and public health impacts. These qualitative assessments evaluated worker

injuries and possible health impacts from air pollutants from each remedial scenario. The short duration

and relatively low level of activities required to complete the clean-up was also considered in the analysis.

For all evaluations, it was assumed that the remediation activities would employ dust suppression

techniques to keep airborne dust levels below the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

nuisance dust standard of 15 mg/m3.

4.4.1 Occupational Health

4.4.1.1ProposedActwn

Worker iniuries/illness~. Occupational injuries and illnesses are defined specifically by OSHA.

An occupational injury is defined as any injury such as a cut, fracture, sprain, amputation, etc., that results

from a work-related event or from a single instantaneous exposure in the work environment. An

occupational illness is defined as any abnormal condition or disorder, other than one resulting from an

occupational injury, caused by exposure to factors associated with employment. It includes acute and

chronic illnesses or disease, which may be caused by inhalation, absorption, ingestion, or direct contact.

Heavy equipment operations for environmental remediation activities would result in increased

potential for accidents and injulries. It was assumed that site safety and health requirements and

procedures would be strictly enforced during the proposed remedial activity, which would minimize

worker injuries. Tables 4.4-1, 4.4-2, and 4.4-3 present a qualitative evaluation for worker occupational

injuries/illnesses during proposed remediation activities at each waste site. For purposes of this EA,

“risk” is defined in relative tenms as the likelihood for a consequence to occur, or probability x

4-17

consequence. For the Proposed Action, the consequence is the worker injury/illness and the probability is

defined as the relative likelihood for the consequence to occur.

Worker occupational injury/illness impacts are estimated to be low from utilizing mechanized

equipment (bulldozers, scrapers, etc.). This estimate is mainly due to the project-specific Health and

Safety Plans that specifi personal protective equipment during job activities, and the short duration of the

remedial activities. For the purposes of this EA, although the duration of remedial actions at each of the

sites would be shorn the cumulative risk of the three year period was assumed to occur to a single crew of

workers.

Worker air contaminant impacts. Human health impacts can occur due to worker exposure to air

contaniinants released from the waste site, and from the mechanized equipment employed during the

remediation activities. Air contaminants of concern during the proposed remedial activities include point

and fugitive dust sources. These include criteria air pollutants such as sulfi.wdioxide, nitrogen dioxide,

CO, PM1o,total suspended particulate matter (TSP), and lead.

Table 4.4-1. SurfaceTrash Scatters

Health ImpactsWorker Injuries Very Low Low Very Low LowNon-Cancer Impacts &o. -- Very Low -- Very LowReleases of Air PollutantsCancer Impacts from -- Very Low .- Very LowReleases of CarcinogenicAir Pollutants

TOTAL Very Low Low VeryLow LowOCCUPATIONALRISK

PublicI Health ImDacts I I

TOTALPUBLICRISK ‘- I Very Low I I Very Low I

4-18

Table 4.4-2, Produced Wastewater Sumps

SumpsWithNti,Htizardous Sutttpswith Elevat(?q ,“ $$’u,tips~hhEl@atedArs@ih?’““,~umps,~ith,,ElevWd’Ai$enicWastes ~ydrocaibon$ ~. :~~fij~@E$Caya&n ;’ ,:,,,, .,,, , Total Exqaiatlon ~,

HealthImpact Excavation Add Regrade Excavation Add Regrade Excavation Add Cover Excavation Add Regrade,Des,cription Clean Clean Clean Cap and Clean

Fill Fill Fill Regrade FillOccupational

Health ImpactsWorkerInjuries Low Low Low Low Low Low LowNon-CancerImpacts Low Low Low Low Low Low LowfromReieasesof Air I I I I I I IPollutantsCancer Impacts from Low Low Low Low Low Low LowReleases ofCarcinogenic Air I I I I I I I

Low Low Low Low LowLow Low Low Low Low

Table 4.4-3, Landfills

LandfillNo. 1 Landtlll$No. 2 and No, 3 LandfillsNot2 and No. 3CleanClosed RestoreCap Total Excavation

HealthImpact Excavation Add Regrade Excavation Add Regrade Excavation Add RegradeDescription Clean Clean Clean

Fill Fill FillOccupational

HealthImpactsWorker Injuries Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low LowNon-Cancer Impacts from Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low LowReleases of Air PollutantsCancer Impacts from Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low LowReleases of CarcinogenicAir Pollutants

TOTALOCCUPATIONALRISK Low Low Low Low Low Low Low j Low Low

PublicI HealthImpacts I

Non-Cancer Impacts fiorn Very Very Very Low Very Very Low Very VeryReleases of Air Pollutants Low Low Low Low Low Low LowCancer Impacts from Very Very Very Low Very Very Low Very VeryReleases of Carcinogenic Low Low Low Low Low Low LowAir Pollutants

TOTAL Very Very Very Low Very Very Low Very Very

PUBLIC RISKLow Low Low Low Low Low Low

It was assumed that the project-specific Health and Safety Plan would specifi appropriate personal

protective equipment for the identified hazards. The potential for inhalation exposures during contaminant

removal activities is anticipated to be low, because workers removing the contaminants would use

appropriate respiratory equipm~ent. Other controls include dust and fiber suppression using water and

surfactants. Tables 4.4-1,4.4-.2, and 4.4-3 present a qualitative evaluation for worker occupational health

impacts fkom air contaminants during proposed remediation activities at each waste site. Worker

occupational health impacts from air pollutants from the mechanized equipment and waste removal was

estimated to be very low due to the short duration of the remedial activities at each site. Furthermore,

given the short duration of these activities at each site and the very low potential worker occupational

health impacts anticipated, cumulative impacts would be expected to be negligible.

4.4.1.2No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, DOE would not conduct remedial activities and therefore, no

worker activity associated withlremediation would occur. However, oil field workers working near

remedial areas would face relatively higher risk for exposure to potential occupational injuries and

illnesses from remaining hazards. The likelihood for these exposures would be low due to standard

precautions taken by DOE to post cautions and restrict entry into hazardous areas.

4.4.2 Public Health

4.4.2.1 ProposedActiaw

Potential human health, impacts from the remediation activities (from waste site and mechanized

equipment) can occur from criteria and toxic air pollutants. Potential human health effects from exposure

to criteria and toxic air pollutants may include cancer as well as a wide range of other health effects,

depending on the toxicity of the material. Primary contributors to the criteria pollutants are CO, nitrogen

dioxide, and sulfur dioxide, which all result from fhel combustion.

Other criteria air pollutants include PMIO,TSP, and lead. The potential for public inhalation

exposures during the proposed contaminant removal activities is anticipated to be very low, because

workers removing the contaminants would use appropriate dust and fiber suppression controls, such as

water and surfactants. Expected low air concentrations, short remediation duration, a short exposure

duration, and the receptor distance from the source all contribute to a very low level of impact. Tables

4-21

4.4-1,4.4-2, and 4.4-3 (introduced earlier) present a qualitative evaluation for public health impacts from

air contaminants during proposed remediation activities at each waste site. Cumulative impacts resulting

from the proposed remedial activities would be negligible.

4.4.2.2 lVoActionAlternative

Under the No Action Alternative, DOE would not conduct remedial activities and therefore, no

members of the public would face potential human health impacts from remediation. However, if no

remediaI activities were to happen, potential elevated risk to the public would occur due to the potential

movement of hazards and contaminants from the site. Migration of contaminants could result from the

fi.n-therscattering of surface trash and/or the migration of hazardous contaminants.

5.0 MITIGATION MEASURES

The following discussion refers only to mitigation measures that would be implemented by DOE

at Elk Hills to lessen the adverse impacts of the Proposed Action, and does not consider the No Action

Alternative, unless otherwise noted.


5.1.1 Air Quality

AII waste removal activities would be conducted in accordance with an approved fugitive dust

control plan. This pkm would compIy with the air quaIity regulations set forth by the SJVUAPCD.

Specifically, these regulations include the following:

. Rule 8010 – Fugit ive Dust Administrative Requirements for Control of Fine Particulate

Matter (PMIO)

. Rule 8020 – Fugitive Dust Requirements for Control of Fine Particulate Matter (PMIO)for

Construction, Demolition, Excavation, and Extraction Activities;

. Rule 8030- Fugitive Dust Requirements for Control of Fine Particulate Matter (PMIO)from

Handling and Storage of Bulk Materialy

● Rule 8040 – Fugitive Dust Requirements for Control of Fine Particulate Matter (PMIO)from

Landfill Disposal Sites; and

. Rule 8060 – Fugitive Dust Requirements for Control of Fine Particulate Matter (PMIO)from

Paved and Unpaved Roads.

Fugitive dust emissions associated with the proposed remediation activities would be mitigated

througli the application of Reasonably Available Control Techniques (RACT). Examples include

application of water, chemical stabilizerdsuppressants, soil stabilizers, or other liquids to unpaved

roadways; and covering dust-producing materials being transported by trucks.

5.1.2 Land

Common industry best management practices would be employed to reduce the potential for soil

erosion, including the conservation and reuse of topsoil, the minimization of disturbance to natural

drainways, and the rapid stabilization (e.g., revegetation) of disturbed areas (see DOE 1997c).


Adherence to the mitigation measures specified in the 1998 FWS Biological Opinion (FWS 1998;

Appendix B) would reduce the potential for adverse impacts to Federally-listed animal and plant species

and their habitat. To the extent practical, DOE would provide the same level of protection to species that

are State listed, but are not Federally listed.

5.2.1 Fauna

The 1998FWS Biological Opinion established the allowable take of kit foxes, leopard lizards,

giant kangaroo rats, and Tipton kangaroo rats during the proposed Elk Hills remediation and

archaeological activities over the next six years. Because the San Joaquin antelope squirrel is a

threatened species in California, but is neither endangered nor threatened at the Federal level, the FWS

did not address this species in its 1998 Biological Opinion.

As a requirement for the issuance of the FWS Incidental Take Permit, DOE would agree to the

following reasonable andprudent measures as necessary and appropriate ways to minimize the potential

for incidental take of the San Joaquin kit fox, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, giant kang~oo rat, and Tipton

kangaroo rat:

1. DOE would minimize the potential for harm, harassment, or killing of Federally listed wildlife

species through training, surveys, and specific protective measures.

2. DOE would minimize the potential for inadvertent capture or entrapment of Federally listed wildlife

species during construction activities.

For a listing of the accompanying terms and conditions, reporting requirements, and conservation

recommendations, refer to FWS (1998). Only the conservation recommendations would be discretionary.

5-2

5.2.2 Flora

FWS (1998) does not establish the allowable take of any listed plant species during the proposed

Elk Hills remediation and archaeological activities. Section 7(b)(4) and 7(o)(2) of the ESA do not apply

to the incidental take of listed :plantspecies. However, protection of listed plants is provided to the extent

that the ESA requires a Federal permit for removal and reduction to possession of Federally listed

endangered plants from areas under Federal jurisdiction, or for any act that would remove, cut, dig up, or

damage or destroy any such species on any other area in knowing viotation of any regulation of any State

or in the course of any violation of a State criminal trespass law. The California Native Plant Protection

Act also forbids the take of plants.

As a requirement for the issuance of the FWS Incidental Take Permit, DOE would agree to

establish an exclusion zone of 15 meters (50 feet) around populations of listed plant species other than

Hoover’s wooly-star. For a listing of the accompanying discretionary conservation recommendations that

would apply to listed plants, refertoFWS(1998).

5.3 CULTURAL RESC)URCES

5.3.1 Prehistoric

Where remediation activities would take place on an NRHP-eligible (e.g., CA-KER-3079/H) or

recommended eligible archaeological site, DOE would use procedures to avoid or mitigate impacts. DOE

engineers would visit the site with a DOE archaeologist and Native American monitor to inspect each

clean-up area and determine its,relationship to prehistoric component(s) of the archaeological site known

to be significant (based on previous archaeological testing results), or sensitive for other cultural values

(based on Native American consultation). At any trash scatter clean-up locations involving NRHP-

eligible or recommended eligible archaeological sites, clean-up methods employed within the bounds of a

historic property would, to the extent possible, be those already determined by the SHPO not to impact

historic properties (see Section 3.3).

In some cases, remediation could involve the demolition and removal of surface or subsurface

features such as concrete pads, tanks, or other structures located on an NRHP-eligible or recommended

eligible site. Mitigation of impacts to NRHP-eligible or recommended eligible archaeological sites would

5-3

be consistent with the PA/CRMP regarding the sale of NPR- 1. For such cases, DOE may conduct limited

archaeological testing (with the concurrence of the SHPO and ACHP), if necessary, to determine whether

historic properties might be affected by demolition activities. DOE would develop a site-specific

remediation work plan that stipulates procedures to minimize impacts to surface and subsurface

archaeological materials within the boundaries of the archaeological site or in endangered species habitat.

For example, trash removal would be accomplished by hand wherever possible. Trucks, backhoes,

loaders and other equipment used for clean-up would be confined to existing road surfaces to the

maximum extent possible. Where off-road travel is needed to reach features that must be removed, use of

rubber tired vehicles would be maximized.

Following development of the remediation work plan, DOE would make a deterniination whether

implementation of the work plan would have an impact on the archaeological site. DOE would inform

Native Americans of its determination and would consult with the SHPO. For those sites where the

SHPO agrees that there would be no effecL DOE would proceed to implement the remediation work plan

with monitoring by an archaeologist and, if requested, a Native American monitor. Should proposed

remediation pose an impact to an NRHP-eligible site, DOE would consult further with the SHPO and

ACHP to determine a course of action to mitigate the impact. Should they recommend mitigative data

recovery prior to remediation, DOE would develop a data recovery plan in consultation with Native

Americans. Following implementation of the data recovery plan, DOE would proceed with remediation.

In the unlikely event that hazardous wastes in quantities above action levels are present in soils

around these features, DOE would not conduct archaeological testing for safety reasons. In such cases,

DOE would determine if any archaeological deposits that might be present have been compromised by

contamination that prevents the recovery of the information they may contain. DOE would consult with

the SHPO and ACHP for their concurrence in any such determination by DOE.

5.3.2 Historic

Since there would be no impacts to historic resources, no mitigation would be needed.

5.4 OCCUPATIONAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

Excavation of earth materials is considered a standard construction practice and is one of the most

effective means of corrective action, because contaminated materials are physically removed. However,

5-4

excavation of contaminated m~aterials does involve hazards. Mitigation measures included as part of the

Proposed Action include those for protection of both the worker and public during removal activities and

have been well defined in both DOE and OSHA regulations]. Risk to workers for occupation in@-ies/

illness would be mitigated through the strict enforcement of project-specific health and safety plans. This

would include:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

The use of personnel protective equipment (PPE),

The modification of excavation equipment to minimize the disturbance of the depositor

secondary migration,

The decontamination of excavation equipment to ensure adequate protection against the

passage of contaminated equipment

The use of dust and fiber suppression controls, including water and/or surfactants,

The identification of buried utilities or hazards prior to excavation,

The removal, support, or safeguard of all surfaces encumbrances located near the excavation

that could create a hazard to workers,

Shoring or use of $renchjacks when required, and

The posting of warning signs and the use of barricades,

All excavation activities are assumed to occur above water tables and thus would not require

groundwater control. Additionally, the storage and transportation of any bulk materials would include:

● Suppression controls to limit the emission of fine particulate matter, including the covering of

all storage piles and loads, and

● The restriction of vehicles transporting waste loads to paved roads, whenever possible, and to

a speed limit of 20 mph on non-paved roads

] OHSA standard 1926.650 “Excavations.”

5-5

6.0 LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED

Mr. Glenn BamhillSpecial Projects Division ChiefKern County Planning Department2700 M Street, Suite 100Bakersfield, CA 93301

Mr. Tony HashemianProject CoordinatorCalifornia Department of Toxic Substances ControlNorthern California Permitting Branch10151 Croydon WaySacramento, CA 95827-2106

Mr. Dale MitchellEnvironmental Services SupervisorCalifornia Department of Fish and Game, Region 41234 East Shaw AvenueFresno, CA 93710

Mr. William O’RullianEnvironmental Health Specialist IVKern County Department of Environmental Health Services2700 M Street, Suite 300Bakersfield, CA 93301-2370

Mr. Randy PitreSenior Environmental AssociateOccidental of Elk Hills, Inc.28590 Highway 119P.O. Box 1001Tupman, CA 93276

Mr. Wayne S. WhiteField SupervisorU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service3310 El Camino Avenue, Suite 130Sacramento, CA 95821-6340

Ms. Cherilyn E. WidenState Historic Preservation Off]cerCalifornia Department of Parks and RecreationOffIce of Historic Preservation1416 Ninth StreetSacramento, CA 94296-0001

ml-.CLZiCDmw

“

c13!3CL

z0..

0EJ

z0l.-

.

q’c1+

q’

4

fElaJ*.o

..

Kern County Water Agency and State of California Department of Water Resources. 1994. Kern Water

Bank Monitoring Report: Semiannual Water Level and Water Quality Report.

Maher, J.C., Carter, R.D., and R.J. Lantz. 1975. Petroleum Geology of Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1,

Elk Hills, Kern County, California: USGS Prof. Paper 912, Washington, D.C.

PAR Environmental Services, Incorporated (PAR). 1997. Historical Resources Evaluation and

AssessmentReport of Western Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1, Elk Hills, Kern County,

California. Final Report. Prepared for ICI? Kaiser, Fairfiix, VA. September 1997.

Phillips, M.V. 1992. Summary of Tulare Formation Groundwater Conditions Along the South Flank of

Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1, Elk Hills, Kern County, California.

Rector, M.R. 1983. Westside Groundwater Study: Report prepared for Western Oil and Gas

Association.

The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Corttrol’District (SJVUAPCD). 1997. PM- 10 Attainment

Demonstration Plan. May 15, 1997.

Smith, D-B. and D.E. Lehrman. 1996. Analysis of the San Joaquin Valley Meteorological Environment

During High PMIOLoading. Technical& Business Systems, Inc. Prepared for the California Air

Resources Board. June., 1996.

Soil Conservation Service @CS). Undated. Soil Survey of Kern County, California, Naval Petroleum

Reserve Number One Part, Interim Report, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation

Service, Bakersfield, California.

State of California. 1997. Agreement for Site Assessment, U.S. Department of Energy, Naval Petroleum

Reserve No. 1. State of California, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic

Substances Control. December 2, 1997.

State of California, State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). 1995. Correspondence with DOE

regarding Section 26-S E Dump Clean-up, NPR- 1.

7-2

oM.

‘ag.+

G00WI

.

laF? zo

m

zo.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1994b. Correspondence with California State Historic Preservation

Officer regarding Section 26-SE Dump Clean-up, NPR- 1.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1995. Wetlands Delineation for Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1 (Elk

Hills), Kern County, California.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1997a. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact

StatementlPrograrn Environmental Impact Report for the Sale of NPR-1, U.S. Department of

Energy Report DOE/SEIS/PEIR-O 158-S2,,October 1997.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1997b. Request for a CERCLA 120(h)(3) Covenant Deferral. Letter

of November 3, 1997 from Patricia Fry Godley, Assistant Secretary, Fossil Energy, U.S.

Department of Energy to Pete Wilson, Governor, State of California.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1997c. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement/Program Environmental Impact Report for the Sale of NPR-1, U.S. Department of

Energy Report DOE/SEIS/PEIR-0158-S2, July 1997.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1997d. Correspondence with California State Historic Preservation

Officer regarding proposed clean-up of surface waste dumps in Section 25S, NPR-I.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1997e.

Officer regarding Section 36-36S E

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1998a.

Correspondence with California State Historic Preservation

trash clump clean-up, NPR-1.

Purchase and Sale Agreement Between the United States of

America and Occidental Petroleum Corporation. February 5, 1998.. .

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1998b. Agreement to Terminate the Unit Plan Contract between

U.S. Department of Energy and Chevron lJ.S.A., Inc. February 5, 1998.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1998c. Biological Assessment of the Proposed Site Remediation and

Archaeological Data Recovery Programs at Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1, Kern County,

California. July 1998.

7-4

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1998d. Correspondence with California State Historic Preservation

Officer regarding clean-up of 17 localities, NPR-1.

. .

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1998e. Initiation of Section 2081 Consultation for Proposed

Remediation of Inactive Waste Sites and Archaeological Data Recovery Programs at the Former

Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1, Kern County, California. Memorandum from James C. Killen

(Director, Planning, Analysis and Program Support Division, U.S. DOE) to Dale Mitchell

(Environmental Services Supervisor, California Department of Fish and Game), July 16,1998.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1999a. Department of Interior Questionnaire on Fiscal Year

1998 FederalArcheolc)gicalActivities. Submitted to DOE Ofice of Environmental PoIicy and

Assistance, Washington, D. C., by J. Killen, Naval Petroleum Reserves in California. March

1999.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1999b. Department of Energy Proposed Environmental

Remediation of Inactive Waste Sites and Archaeological Data Recovery Programs at Former

Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1. Memorandum from James C. Killen (Director, Planning,

Analysis and Program Support Division, U.S. DOE) to Dale Mitchell (Environmental Services

Supervisor, California Department of Fish and Game), March 26, 1999.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), California State Historic Preservation Officer, and Advisory Council

on Historic Preservaticm. 1998. Programmatic Agreement among the U.S. Department of

Energy, the California State Historic Presemation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation Regarding the Sale of Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1, Kern County, California.

January 26, 1998.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1992. Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air

Quality Impact of Stationary Sources, Revised, EPA-454/R-92-019, Ofice of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. October 1992.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1995. SCREEN3 Model User’s Guide, EPA-454/B-

95-004, OffIce of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. September

1995.

7-5

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1998a. Exhaust Emission Factors for Nonroad

Engine Modeling – Compression Ignition, Report No. NR-O09A, Office of Mobile Sources,

Assessment and Modeling Division, revised June 15, 1998.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1998b. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission

Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources, 5th Edition. EPA450AP425ED. OffIce

of Mobile Sources, Assessment and Modeling Division.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1998. Proposed Remediation of Inactive Waste Sites and

Archeological Data Recovery Program at Elk Hills Oil Field, Kern County, California.

Memorandum from Wayne S. White (Field Supervisor, FWS) to James C. Killen (Director,

Planning, Analysis and Program Support Division, DOE, NPRC), November 30, 1998.

Woodring, W.P., Roundy, P.V., and H.R. Farnsworth. 1932. Geology and Oil Resources of the Elk

Hills, California. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 835,82 pp.

7-6

wMmz

Em

iii

Q

‘e@●

PSA, ASA, AND UPCTA SITES FOR WHICH “NO FURTHER ACTION” RECOMMENDATION OR 0DETERMINATION HAS BEEN MADE o

c-1 4.2-17 E-46 lA-6M WellPad and Sump 4 None *

c-2 ~4.2-65 E-47 27R Truck Wash Out Sumps 4 None e

c-3 4.2-98 c-9 Chromium Sites 5 None @

M-9 a

c-4 4.2-12 c-95 4G Disposal Pit 4 None @

c-5 4.1-16 E-44 Texaco 8“ Pipeline 4 None‘e

aN-8 4.2-59 E-8 26S West Landfill 4 None

- @N-9 4.2-81 E-9 35R Landfill 4 None

@

N-12 4.2-47 E-12 25S LACT Sumps 4 None *

N-13 4.2-75 E-13 31T Sumps (3 Sumps) 4 None a

N-14 4.2-45 E-14 25S Historic Sump 4 None @

N-15 4.2-84 E-15 36R East Surface Scatter 4 None*

oN-22 NA E-22 27R Hazardous Waste Disposal 5 None

Trench *m

/N-24 4.2-84 E-24 36R East Landfill 4 None

; N-25 4.2-26 I E.25 10G Sump #5, 10G Sump #6 at 4 None I

10G LandfarrnI ---1

/N-26 4.2-32 E-26 18G unlined, unnetted and inactive 4 None

I sump

~N-28 4.2-16 E-28 6M Surface Dump 4 NoneI I I I I I

~N-44 \ 4.1-16 I C-95 I Texaco 8“Pipeline 14 ] None I

4.1-1 M-79 c-79 02B PCB Shed 4 NoneI I I I I

4.1-2 NA NA 10G LACT Tank Setting 4 None

4.1-3 IOG Sumps #1 & #2 4 None

4.1-4 M-43 c-43 I IOG Sumps #3 & #4 14 None I1

----t

NA :24ZWastewater Disposal Facility 4

NA :27RLandfarm 4

4.1-5 I NA

=

4.1-6 NA

4.1-7 M-so

None INone I

C-80 ;Z7Rfidioactive Materials Storage

1

4Area

None

4.1-8 NA NA \ 27R Waste Management Facility I 4 None INone I4.1-9 M-87 C-87 I 35RCogen Facility

4.1-10 I M-74 c-74 I 35R Gas plant 14 None IC-84 ] 35R Lab Pad 144.1-11 I M-84 None I

None4.1-12 \ M-67 C-67 ] 35RLOAP 14c-86 36S Accumulation Pad 44.1-13 /M-86 None Ic-68 I 36S Telephone Building 44.1-14 I M-68 None IC-85 36S Waste Oil Storage 44.1-15 I M-85 None I

4.1-16 c-5N-44

E-44 IAsbestos, Texaco 8” Pipeline I 4 None

4.1-17 I M-71 C-71 I 13rakeLinings 14 None IC-70 FlangeGaskets 44.1-18 \ M-70 None I

4.1-19 I M-75 ----Lc-75 Low Temperature Separator Plant 4#]

None

4.1-20 M-76 ---LC-76 Low Temperature Separator Plant 4#2

None

4.1-21 NA NA I Lube Fluids Storage &Refieling I 4

None=

4.1-23 M-72

+::

=-’b’msfome” 41

=-----PVeesc’es 4I

=“s 4I

C-46 / CllBCatch Basin 14

4.2-2 \ M-45 c-45 I CIIGSump 14 None I4.2-4 NA NA 012BDrum Storage Area I 4 None I

A-3

4.2-5 M-3

4.2-8 M-47

4.2-11 M-4

M-5

4.2-13 M-93

4.2-15 M-53

4.2-16 N-28

4.2-19 M-42

4.2-20 M-49

4.2-21 M-48

4.2-23 M-38

4.2-24 M-50

4.2-25 M-5 1

4.2-28 M-44

4.2-29 M-62

4.2-33 M-40

4.2-34 M-39

4.2-35 M-59

4.2-36 M-55

=1=4.2-37 M-54

4.2-38 M-56

4.2-43 M-64

==$=

*

c-3 / 02B Transformer Oil Tank Setting / 4 I None I

c-47 I 03GCrit.h Basin 14 1 None I

~ 4 ‘0”’ ---1c-93 04G Disposal Pit - Catch Basin 4 None

I I I

c-53 06M Catch Basin 4 NoneI I I

E-28 06M Surface Dump 4 NoneI I I

C-42 07R Disposal Trench 4 NoneI I I

c-49 08G Catch Basin [1] 4 None1 I I

C-48 08G Catch Basin [2] 4 NoneI I I 4

C-38 10B Sump 4 NoneI I I

C-50 10G Catch Basin 4 None1 I 1

c-44 13B Sump 4 NoneI I I -4

C-62 14Z Sumps (4 Sumps) 4 NoneI I 1

C-40 18R Mud Disposal Smnps 4 NoneI I I

c-39 18R Mud Rec Tanks 4 None

I I Ic-59 ( 21S Catch Basin 14 I None I

c-55 I 23RMiddIeCat.hBasiin I 4 I None Ic-54 I 23RNorth Catch Basin 14 I None I

~ : =,

25S Catch Basin 4 None

C-12 25S Surface Dump [1] 4 None

c-57 26R Catch Basin 4 None

C-61 26S Catch Basin [1] 4 None

‘4-4

4.2-53

4.2-55

M-14

M-13

M-15

NA

N-8

M-65

M-32

M-63

3C-14 :26SCatch Basin [2] 4 None

C-13 :26S Oil Spill Area [1] 4 None

C-15 26S Oil Spill Area [2] 4 None

NA 26S Sump 4 None

4.2-56

4.2-57

3E-8, 26S West Landfill / Surface Dump 4 None

C-65 26Z LACT Sump 4 None

C-32 26Z Oil Spill Area 4 None

C-63 26Z Sumps (7) 4 None

4.2-59

4.2-60

4.2-61

4.2-62

4.2-64 M-8 C-8 I 27RSump; Oil Re,overy Sump I 4 I None

C-17 I j~7Scatch B~in I 4 None4.2-66 M-17

4.2-67 M-18 =-P7SS”P 4 NoneI I

4.2-68 M-19

“M-58

M-27

+

C-19 2!7S Surface Dump 4 None

C-58 :!9R Catch Basin 4 None

C-27 30R Gully Plug and Dike; Catch 4 NoneBasin Area

4.2-69

4.2-70

E-13 I 31T Sunq)s (3) 14 \ None4.2-73

4.2-78

N-13

s2!_-124sstiaceDump”l4 NoneM-21

c-88 315RDrum’Storage Areas [4] 4 NoneC-89C-90C-91

4.2-79 M-88 M-89 M-90M-91

4.2-80

4.2-81

4.2-83

4.2-84

4.2-88

4.2-90

4.2-96

4.2-97

M-6

N-9

C-6 \ 35R Gas Plant Sump 14 I None

E-9 I 35R Landfill 14 \ None

c-7 I 36RAbandonedGas Plant { 4 \ NoneM-7

E-15 \ 36R East Surface Scatter 14 I NoneN-15

!2-b6Rwaeh0u’e-2”sTs 4 None

4

c-2 36S Drum Storage Area 4 None

c-l 36S Tank Setting 4 None

c-94 36S Warehouse - 5USTS 4 None

M-78

M-2

M- I

M-94

A-5

‘1

4.3-8 N-8 C-8 26S Surface Dump 4 None

4.3-9 M-27 C-27 30R Catch Basin Area. 4 None ‘

4.3-1o N-4 E-4 30R Steam Flood Sumps (2) 4 None

4.3-11 N-4 E-4 30R Sump and Associated Catch 4“ NoneBasin ‘

4.3-12 M-89 C-89 35R Drum Storage Area 2 4 None

4.3-13 M-90 C-90 35R Drum Storage Area 3 4 None

4.3-14 M-91 c-91 35R Drum Storage Area 4 4 None

4.3-15 M-6 C-6 35R Sump 4 None

4.3-16 N-24 E-24 36R Landfill; East Landfill 4 None

4.3-17 c-5 E-44 Asbestos, IOB 4 None

4.3-18 c-5 E-44 Asbestos, 11B 4 None

4.3-19 NA NA Asbestos, 27S 4 None

“4.3-20 c-5 E-44 Asbestos, 28S 4 None

4.3-21 N-44 E-44 Asbestos, 29S 4 None

4.3-22 c-5 E-44 Asbestos, 2B 4 None

A-6

N-25 I E-25 I JOG Swnp#6andLandFarrn I 44.2-26 None

I I sump #5 INA

=

NA 33S Compressor Plant Abandoned 4and Reclaimed Sump

c-95 (MG Disposal Pit 4

E-46 06M Well Pad and Sump 4

E-26 1,8G Unlined & Inactive Sump 4

E-14 ;!5S Historic Sump 4

c-66 ;!5S LACT 4

4.4-4 None

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

4.2-12

4.2-17

4.2-32

4.2-45

c-4

c-1

N-26

N-14

4.2-46 M-66

N-12 E-12 2!5SSumps (3} LACT 4

c-2 E-47 27R Truck Washout Sumps (2) 4

4.2-47

4.2-65

H-3 NA 1 IOG Landfarrn 14 None IH-4 NA I 4.1-6 I 27 R Landfarm None I

NA 4.1-21 1 (3MS Staging Area 4H-6 None I

NA 4.1-21 I Diesel Tank 36S 4H-7 None I

NA I 4.1-21 I Diesel Tahk 5G 14 None IH-8

H-9 NA I 4.1-21 \ Golden State Wireline Camp I 4

NA 4.1-21 Dawson Production Service Camp 4:32s

H-10

None INA 4.1-21 Tanks near EASI Camp 36R 4H-II

H-12 NA 4.1-21 IBruce “Jack Knife” Bergeson 4

&lllp 36R

None

*

NA 4.1-21 Cummings Vacuum Truck Camp 4:35R

NA 4.1-21 :33RCompressor Setting 4

NA 4.1-21 lEN_Jcamp 35R 4

H-13 None1

H-14

H-’15

A-7

Areas

H-2 1 NA 4.1-5 242 Shut-In Wastewnter Disposal 4 NoneFacility

H-22 NA NA Misc. Subcontractor Staging Areas 4 None

H-23 NA NA Oil Spills from Pipelines 4 None

I-I-24 NA 4.2-1 lB Catch basin 100’x8’Berm 4 None

H-25 NA NA IB Sump - Oval 50’x8 4 None

H-26 NA NA 3B Catch Basin 4 None

H-27 NA NA 13B hrnps (4) 4 None

H-28 NA NA 14B Sump 400’x325’x 10’ 4 None

H-29 NA 4.4-1 ‘ 14B Sumps (15) 4 None

H-30 NA NA IG Catch basin 150’xIO’X30’ 4 None

H-3 1 NA NA lG Catch basin 4 None

H-32 NA NA 2G Catch Basin 120’xIO’Xvalley 4’ Noneforming sides

H-33 NA NA 2G Sump 150’x25’x15 4 None

H-34 NA NA 2G Catch Basin 100’x8’xvalley 4 Noneforming sides

H-35 NA NA 2G Catch Basin 75’x101’ 4 None

H-36 NA NA 2G Catchment 50’x10’X1OO’ 4 None

H-37 NA NA 4G Catch basin 1251X15’in a 4 NoneLimited Drainage Area

A-8

H-39 \ NA I NA I 5G Catch Basin 5O’X1O’ I 4 I

H-40 I NA I NA I 5GCatchBasin50’x5’ I 4 INone IH-41 NA NA 6,GSump 50’x5’Berm x Approx. 4 None

100 Sides

H-42 I NA I 7G Catch Basin 170’x5’ I 4 I None IH-43 NA

IH-44 N-21

E-21 -1NA 7G Catch Basin 50’x5’Berm 4 None

vr/Oblong Length Sides

4.2-18 8G Sumps (3): Known as 7G 4 NoneS,umps in PSA Exh. N & RFATable 4.2

H-45 M-48 4.2-20 8G Catch Basin 100’x70’x1 O’ I 4 None

H-46 ] M-49 I 4.2-21 I 8G Catch Basin 75’x15’x120’ I 4 I None I

H-47 N-6 4.2-22 9G Sump 150’x15’x250’-400’ 4 None

E-6

H-48 N-6 4.2-22 9G Catch Basin 150’x8° Berm x 4 None

E-6 w/sides formed by hills

H-49 I NA I NA I 10G Catch Basins (2) 2OO’X8O’X1O’I 4 I None IH-50 I NA I NA \ 1lG Catch Basin 55O’X25O’X1O I 4 I None IH-5 1 NA NA I 1IG Catch Basin 75’xIO’X150’ I 4 None IH-52 NA NA 1IG Catch Basin 100’x10’xValIey 4 None

Sides

H-53 \ NA I NA I 12G Catch Basin 175’x120’xIO’ I 4 I None IH-54 NA NA 16G Catch Basin 4 None

H-55 NA NA 18G Sump 175’x200’x8’ 4 None

H-56 N-26 4.2-32 18G Sump 4 None

H-57 NA ‘ NA 18G Sump 4 None

H-58 NA NA 18G Sump 35’x250’xIO’ 4. None

H-59 NA NA 6M Sump 75’x8’x180 4 None

A-9

NoneII

H-6 1 I M-42 I 4.2-19 I 7R Sump 50’x50’x5° 14 None IH-62 ] NA I NA I 7R Sump 180’x25’x8’ None I

H-63 NA NA 7R Catch Basin 75’x8x 30’ 4 None INoneH-64 NA NA 16R Sump 50’x10’x30’ 4

H-65 NA NA

+

17R Sump 130’x75’x1O’

H-66 NA NA 19R Sump 30’x30’x3’

None

H-67 I NA \ 23RCatch Basin 7Sx8’ Berm I 4

H-68 I NA I NA \ 23RCatchBasin 100’x10’Berm I 4 None IH-69 \ NA \ NA \ 23R Catch Basin 14 None IH-70 I NA I 23R Catch Basin 75’x1O’X1OO’ { 4 None

H-71 I NA INA I 23RCatchment 14 None I

H-72 I NA I NA I 23R Catchment 100’x15’ 14 None I

H-73 I NA I NA I 25RCatch Basin 100’x8’Berm I 4 None I

H-74 I NA I NA I 27RSump210’x35’x15’ [4 None I

NoneH-75 I NA I 27R Sump 200’perSidex5’ I 4

H-76 c-2 4.2-65 27R Sumps (2) West Sump 4

E-47 115’x130’x1 O’,East Sump115’x I25’x1O’

H-77 NA NA 28R Catch Basin 1351X15’Berm 4

H-78 NA NA 29R Sump 150’x75’x5’ 4

H-79 NA NA 29R Sump 60’x25’xIO’ 4

H-so NA NA 29R Catch Basin 4

H-8 1 NA NA 29R Catchment 50’xI O’Berm x 4100’ Sides

H-82 NA NA 30R Catch Basin 125’xIO’ Berm 4

A-l o

None

None

None

None

None

None

H-83 NA NA 30R Catchment 5O’X1O’Berm x 25’ 4 None IH-84 NA NA 33R Catch Basin 150’x8’Berm I 4 None I

NoneH-85 NA NA 33R Catch Basin 1351X5’Berm 4X75’

H-86 NA NA 34R Catch Basin 200’x5’ Berm x 4

300’ Sides

H-87 I NA I NA I 36R Sump 175’x50’x& 14 None IH-88 NA NA 36R Catch Basin 150’x15’Berm I 4 None

H-89 \ NA I NA I 17SCatchBasin75’x10’ Berm \ 4 None I

H-90 NA 4.1-1 I 19S Catch Basin 200’x15’ Berm I 4 None I

H-91 NA NA 19S Catch Basin 50’xIO’ Berm 4

H-92 NA NA 20S Sump 170’x20’x20’ 4

H-93 NA NA 20S Catch Basin 150’xI O’Berm 4

H-94 N-16 4.2-39 23S Catch Basin 125’x5’ Berm x 4E-16 50’ Sides

H-95 N-16 4.2-39 23S Sumps (3) 4

None

None

None

None

E-16 I I I IH-96 ~NA I 25SCatch Basin 100’x5Berm I 4 =-----lH-97 I NA I NA I 25SCatchBasin 14H-98 M-60 4.2-44 25S Catch Basin 3OO’X1O’ 4C-60

None’

I

None IH-99 I NA I NA I 25S Sump 80’x20’ 14None IH-1OO I NA I NA I 25S Catch Basin 175’x15’ I 4

H-1OI M-14 NA 26S Catch Basin 125’ Berm x15’ 4C-14 berm x250’ Sides

None

H-102 I NA I NA I 26S Catch Basin 1651X10’Berm I 4 None I

H-1 03 NA NA 26S Catch Basin 1751X15’Berm 4

H- 104 NA NA 26S Catch Basin (3) S. Berm 4

25O’X1O’;Middle Berm 125’x8’; N.Berm 150’x5’

None INone

A-1 1

I I I I I

H-107 NA NA 27S Catch Basin 105’x15’x1OO’ 4 None

H-108 \ NA I NA I 27S Catch Basin 200’x20’ Berm I 4 I None IH-109 \ NA I NA \ 28S Catch Basin 200’ 10’Berm \ 4 I None I

H-11O I NA I NA I 28S Catch Basin500’ 15’Berm I 4 I None IH-111 [ NA I NA I 29SCatchBasin200’x 10’Berm I 4 I None I

H-112 NA NA 30S Catch Basin 125’x15’x1OO’ 4 None

H-113 NA NA 31S Catchment 30’x20 4 None

H-1 14 NA NA 33S Sump 100’x50’x5’ 4 None

H-115 NA NA 34s sump 45’X30’X8’ 4 None

H-116 ISA NA 35S Catch Basin 75’xX’X1OO’ 4 None

H-117 NA NA 35S Catch Basin 60’xYx90’ 4 None

H-118 NA NA 35S Catch Basin 100’x5’x150’ 4 None

H-119 NA NA 35S Catch Basin IOOX1O%1OO’ 4 None

H-120 NA NA 35SCatchment75’x5’100’ 4 None

H-121 NA NA 36S Catchment I25’x85’x1O’ 4 None

H-122 I NA I NA I 36SCatch Basin 50’x8?x30’ I 4 I None I

H-123 { NA I 36S CatchBasin 150’x5’x200’ I 4 I None’ I

H-124 NA NA 3 IT Catch Basin 100’x5O’X8’ 4 None

H-125 NA NA 132 Sump 35’x30’x5’ 4 None4

H-126 NA NA 242 Sump 120’x75’x75’ 4 None

H-127 NA NA 24Z Sump 100’x5’xI70’ Sides 4 None

.4-12

(1) NA uoder any of the Site No. Columns indicates the site (or Line Item) was not included on that particular list.

(2) Five-Step Remediation Plan:

Step 1- Complete Phase I preliminary site assessment, which includes a site inspection and records search todetermine whether to continue to Phase II.

Step 2- completePhase H site characterization to determine the vertical and horizontal extent of contaminationwhich dictates the need to continue to Phase III. Phase II may include sampling, laboratory analysis, fate analysis,and risk analysis (toxicology).

Step 3- Complete Phase III corrective actions as required by the lead agency overseeing activities at the site(s).This would include a variety of actions, from physically removing trash scatters, to clean closure of hazardous sites.

Step 4- Final report preparation, review and approval by DOE and lead agency.

Step 5- Prepare final package and submit to Occidental of Elk Hills, Inc., and Chevron U.S.A.

(3) Sites that were remediated prior to the sale and sites assessedlcharacterized post-sale which do not require remediation, areindicated by None.

A-13

APPENDIX B

1998 FWS BIOLOGICAL OPINION

B-1

@

~Nr OF ~<*, :.,, +..

*.J’. ---&ii %A

* United States Department of the Interiorv) ~3 g

:+ . FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE+ 4--b9

41?C” , is Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office3310 El Camino Avenue, Suite 130

,\ REPI.Y”.<EFER TO

Sacramento, California 95821-6340l-l-98-F-O 137 November 30, 1998

Mr. James C. Kiilen

Director, Planning Analysis and Pro~am Support Division

Department of Energy

Navai Petroieum Resexve in Cdlfomia

1601 New Stine Road, Suite 240

Bakersfield, California 93389-2041

Subject Proposed Rem~lation of inactive Waste Sites and ~cheo~ogical Data

RecoveW Program at Elk Hills Oii Field Kern county, C~omia

Dear Mr. KiJierr.

.

This is in response to your Juiy 10, 1998, request for formal consultation with the U.S. F~h and

Wfldiife Service (Service) on the Proposed Remediation of Inactive Waste’ Sitesand

ArcheologioaiData Recovery Program at Elk Hills oil field in Kern County, California. Your

request was received in our office on July i 3, i 998. This document represents the Service’s

biological opinion on the effects of the action on the federally listed as endangered San Joaquin

kit fox ( Vulpes rnacrotis nndica), blunt-nosedleopard kard (Gambelia sifus), giantkangaroo rat(Dijwdomys ingens), Tipton kangaroo rat (Diptimys nitratoides niz?atoidkr), Caiifomia

jewel flower, (Cazdanthus ca&omicus), Kern mallow”(Eremalche Azmensis), San Joaquin woolly

threads (knbertia congdonii); and the f~eraily Iiied as threatened Hoover’s wooly-star

(Eriusnm hooveri), in accordance with section 7 of the EndangeredSpecks Act of 1973, asamended (Act).

This biological opinion is based on information provided in the foiiowing documents:

1. Juiy 1998 Biological Assessmentof the ProposedSite Remediation and ArchaeologicalData Recovery Programs on Naval Petroleum Restme No. i, Kem County, C*omi%

2. Prior Formal Consultation with the S-ice and the Senk.e’s biological opinion of

November 8, 1995 @e:vice File 1-I-95-F-102),.{. ..

.r - J \::. ’..-.,~~ ‘t.*

B-2

ee●●●●●*●0●*●●●●●*a*●●

—

3. FY97 Annual Repom Endangered Species and Cultural Resources Program, Naval

Petroleum Reserves in California (U.S. Department of Energy (Department) and Chevron

1998b), and “

A compiete administrative record of this consultation is on file in this office. The location of theNPR-1, now known as the Elk Hills Oil Field, is shown on Figure 1.

Consultation History

The Stwke addressed effkcts on fderaiiy-listed specks of activities at the Eik Hills od

field in three priorbiological opinions dated February 1, 1980 (Service File 1-1-80-F-2),

December 16, 1987 (Semite Fide 1-I-80-F-2R), and November 8, 1995 (Stice Fde 1-1-95-F-102). The 1980 biological opinion concluded that proposed oil production activities on theElk Hills Od Fkld might jeopardize the continued existen= of the San Joaquinkit fox andblunt- ●

nosed leopard ~ but inciuded six reasonable and pmdent alternatives ~ ifimpiement~would allow oil production tc}continue at desired rates. The Department agreed to implementthese akerndves and to consult in the Mum once data was available about the effectiveness ofthe efforts to minbize adverse effixts on fderally listed species.

The subsequent 1987 biological opinion concluded that oil production at proposed levels in the

Elk Hills oil field would not jeopardize the continued existence of the San Joaquin kit fo% blunt-

nosed leopard lizard Tlpton kangaroo rat and giant ksngaroo rat. This conclusion was based, inpart, on the fact that the Department had developed and implemented a comprehensive mitigationprogram designed to minimize adverse effkcts of oil production on fe&raUy Iisted species. The

1987 biological opinion requkl the Department to implement additional reasonable and prudent

measures, inciuding replacement of endangered species habitat lost as a result of project relatedactions.

The 1995 biological Opinion<wasbased on a supplemental Environmental Impact statement (EIS)

addressing additional propossd oil production activities and the Federal listing of several pisntspecies that occur on the Elk Hills oil field.

On February 5, 1998, the Department sold i:s share of the Elk Hills Oil Field to Occidental of Elk

~ k. (@y), pursuant to the reqtiments set out in the Defm Authotition Act of 1996(Public Law 104-106). Chevron U.S.A continues to own 22 percent of the oil field. Pursuant tofderai and state laws, the Department is required to complete remediation activities on inactivewaste sites that are located primarily in the developed portions of the oil field. The Department

B-3

James C. KiUen, DOE

is alSO obligated to conduct a variety of cultural resource activities to aid in conseming

prehistoric archaeological sites. One of the legislative provisions in the agreement to sell Elk

Hills gave the Secretary of Energy the authority to transfer the Department’s obligations under

the 1995 biological OpiniOIL including the obligation to estabiish a 7,075-acre endangered species

conservation area. The Secretary exercised ti authority concument with the sale, which leaves

the Department with no incidental take authority for any of the post-sale environmental and

archeological ~mpliance work thatthe Department is obligated to complete.

The Department has determined that the proposed work wiU primarily cause disturbance ofpreviously disturbed areas, and the potential for adverse effects to, or incidental taking o~

protected species. These eff’ were addressed in the 1995 Opinio~ and are being compensated

for as part of Occidental’s establishment of the consenfation area. However, the Department nolonger has incidental take authori~, and such authority is required in order to accomplish theremediation and archaeological efforts the Department is planning to undertake at the Elk HillsOil Field.

.

BIOLOGICAL OPINION

Description of the Proposed Action

The proposed action consists of characterization, cleanup, and closure of three lists of solid wastesites and limited investigation of an undetermined number of archeological sites. The three listsof solid wastes sites are (1) sites already identified by the State of Califomi~ (2) sites to beidentified in the Mure by the State of California and(3) sites identified by Chevron.

Characterization and formai closure of inactive waste sites at the Elk Hills oil field are required

by the DOE Comprehensive JOtvitonmenkd Respmse, Compensation, and~iabiiity Act

(CERCLA) Section 120(%1)(3)Covenant Defernd Request to the S@te of Cai~omia (DOE 1997)and an accompanying Site Assessment Agreemen%between the Department and the CaliforniaDepartment of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) (California 1997). The Department wili also

investigate any additional sites that may be identified by DTSC. These projects are not weiidefined but are expected to be similarin nature to the activities at the already-identified

CERCLA sites.

In the agreement with Chevron to termhate the operation of NPR- 1, The Department committedto characterizing and cleaning up inactive waste sites identified by Chevron.

B-4

James C. Killeq DOE 4

In addition to remediation of waste sites, the Department also proposes to conseme prehistoric

archaeological sites which hav~ebeen determined eligible for inclusion on the Natlonai Regsterof Historic P1aces. For a three year period following close of sale, the Department is obligated toconduct limited data recovery activities on Register-eligible prehistoric sites that are potentially

subject to d~rbance from oil field operations.

CE.RCL4 Activities. The Department proposes to characterize, assess and/or cleanup variousinactive waste sites [ocated at the Elk Hills Od Field near Tupman in western Kern County,

.

CaMomia. The proposed site remediation activities encompass approximately41 active waste

sites which are located primarily in developed portions of the oii field. These sites consist of

approximately 20 nonhazardous solid waste swfkce scatters, 18 produced waste water sumps,

and three small soiid waste land~s. The majority of these sites are known to be, or thought tobe, nonhazardous sites. Howemr, four of the surnpq located together at one site, are known tocontain hazardous levels of arsenic. The site locations are shown on Figure 2.

Cleanup field work is scheduled to start late in 1998 and oocur into 1999, following site planning*

and procurement activhb and necesswy environmental compliance reviews by the invoivedregulatory agencies. Some minor site

.~on acdviti~ such as collecting soil sampies

with hand tools, may occur during Summer 1998, but wiil not imolve impacts to habitat or listedspecies. Most of the sites should be cleaned up by Midsummer 19S9, but field work at the site

containing the four arsenic conWnkWed sumps is not scheduled to be completed untii late Fall1999, due to the more extensive regulatory agency review required.

Su@ce TrushS@em. Most of the surfkce trash scatter remediation will involve simple

collection of the surface debris and removal of the collected waste to a permitted off-site landfill.

A majority of these sites are oflimited size and extent. Waste materials will be collected either

by hand or by mechanized equipment such as front-end loadeq skip loadq backhoes, or small

bulldozers. Several of the sites have concrete foundations and concrete or brick rubble that will

need to be broken up for mmcwai. Several of the sites have a shallow subsurface component that

will require a limited amount of meohanicai excavation to collect the waste material.

Codirmatory soil samples maybe coliected at some of the sites following trash removal to

document that no residual comtminati on is left in place. All of the sites occur in previously

disturbed areas or are located adjacent to roads and &turbed areas, so that access to sites isreadiiv available. Cleanup operations should not create any new habii disturbance.

Two of the sites consist of mc&rn household trash surfiwe deposits distributed over large areas,

in’excess of 25 acres each. These areas occur along the gentler terrain of the north flank of Elk

Hills, and overlie sensitive prehistoric archaeological sites. Cleanup of these two sites will

B-5

James C. Killem DOE- 5

proceed in a manner that wiUnot disturb the undwiying prehistoric components. Mechanized

equipment will be restricted to existing roads and disturbed areas. Manual collection of the trash

deposits will suffice for gathering most of the trash deposits. [n some cases, rubber-tiredequipment will be used to haul away large material and deposits in outlying areas.

Wastewater Szonps. Cleanup of the inactive produced wastewater sumps will proceed in several

phases. A sampling effofi was started last fd to characterize residual hydrocarboncontamination in the sump bottoms. The sampling effort will continue in Summer 1998 until

sufficient information is collected.

Oily soiis containing concentrations of more than 1,000 parts per million (ppm) Total Petroieum

Hydrocarbons (TPH) will be excavated and transported off-site to a permitted oil field waste

disposal facility. Soil samples will be analyzed to confirm that no residual contamination above

action levels is Ieil in situ. Piping and other improvements such as netting and fencing will beremoved. The sides of the sumps will be pushed in and the site will be recontoured to conformto the surrounding topography, and to f@tate natural revegetation of the site.

One of these locations, containing three surnps, is atypical and is worthy of spedic mention. The

sups are quite large and it is infe+ible to attempt any major site restoration activities at thislocation. This is due to the fact that the surnps were “Ml bench” excava@ or terraced,out ofthe side of a large ~ horn the upper slope down to the toe of the siope. Excavations wentdown to parent materi4 and the thousands of yards of excavated materialwere used for fill for

the down-gradient dikes of the sumps. Sampliig will be conducted at this site. These threesumps will be closed by removing associated f=ilities (i.e., piping and equipment), and

excavating and removing any contamimtion above action levels. Co-ory samples to

document closure wiil be taken.

Activities to characterize, remediat~ and close the inactive sumps will result in no new habitat

disturbance. AU of the sites occur at previously disturbd areas. Roads are in place to access the

sites and the site perimeters. Heavy earth-moving equipment such as front-end loaders,bulldozers, and dump trucks can utihze these areas to excavate and haul off the removed

materkds. Sump dams and adjacent stockpiled soiis can be used to backfill the sites and provide

the rnateriaI for recontouring the siteswhere it is feasible to do so. For those surnpswhichrequire initial sampling or ressmpling,backhoes or auger drillingrigs will be used to collect thenezessq samples.

:B-6

9*●●*●●**●*●*●**a*e●**9●●●****●*eo9am●9●9●a

James C. Kille~ DOE

For the site containing the four arsenic-contaminated sumps, existing data will be reviewed and

additional sampling will probably be required. Remediai options vary from total removal and

off-site disposal of contaminants, to limited excavation of areas of higher concentrations of

contaminants and consoiidatialn in place under a cap or soil cover. It is possible that seversl

ground water monitoring wells may need to be crmtructed at the site for post-closure

monitoring. Until the regulatory review process is farther along and a better understanding of

the site is available, it is not possible to acarately predict the form that the ultimate cIosure will

take. However, the site activities, use of equipment and staging areas, and the impacts of the

closure will be similar to the processes described above. It is not anticipated that there will be

any new habitat disturbance as a result of closure of this site.

Lzm&Lk. Three inactive landfills that require closure will be addressed under this consultation.

Closure of one of these landfills wiUinvoive some initial site characterization activities, to

determine the sub-surl%ce extent of the refbse and to determine if there are any potentially

hazardous constituents in the reii.tse. A large portion of this site was clean-closed several years

ago. However, debris piies and scattm were discovered down siope of the site which wasclosed and cap- tier the vegetation was burned off by the large fire that occurred at NPR-1

in May 1997. The Department has made a commitment to the involved regulatory agenciea to

remove the solid waste located adjacent to the site.

A backhoe wiil be used to investigate several portions of the site and determine the magnitude

and extent of any subsurface deposits. A clean-closure plan wiii be presented to the regulatory

agencies for concurrence. Debris will be collected from both the surface and subsurface, and

transported to an off-site permitted disposal faciii~. Heavy equipment such as bulldozers, fiont-

end loaders, backhoes, and dump truck and manuai coikction of small scattered materiais, will

be used. As psrt of the closure a small diameter, shallow groundwater monitoring W4 located

in a disturbed portion of the site will be plugged and abandoned. Existing roads will provide

access to ail portions of the site, no new h+bii disturbance is anticipated to occur as part of the

closure. Site restoration xtivities will involve recontouring the areas where excavation and

heavy ground disturbance ocarred and ripping and blocking off the entmce to the lower site

access rod to promote nalmi vegetation growth on the closed site.

The other two small landiils maybe closed using one of mvo methods. These inactive disposalsites consist of covered cells and amckted surfkce scatter of ma and debrk. The earthen

covers were adversely affectd by ~ fisuppreasion-water, and raidldl. The 6rst closuremethbd invohm compacting the voids in the earthemcover 00 the cells and restoring the originalearthencap to an acceptable condition. The debris scatters surroundingthe cells would be

B-7

6

●

James C. Kiilen, DOE -rI

mechanically collected and transported to an off%ite disposal facility. Clean fill would either belocated from an adjacent borrow area on NPR- 1, or imported from off-site.

The second closure method that may be applied to one or both of these IandfiIls involvesexcavating buried rnatmais. Debris scatters would be collected and removed, and confirmatory

soil samples wouid be collected.

& with the other inactive landfill, there are roads and adequate existing disturbed areas for

staging activities so that no new habitat dkturbance should result. Site restoration activitieswould be similar to those described above.

Sites to be Identt@ed in the Future by the Stite of Cuiifomia DTSC may identi& additional sites

of concern. Corrective actions to address DTSC’S findings will be negotiated between theDepartment and DTSC. Most sites wiil not require additional sampling. Ifsampiing is requir~

the Department expects that most of this wtivity wiUbe restricted to existing disturbed areas.

Should fbture activities signikantiy depart &om the abovq or substantialcorrective actions berequiredthat might involve habitatdkurbancc and potential adveme effects to listed species, thematterwi.libe coordinated with the Semicc and CaliforniaDqwtment of Fii and Game(CDFG). Reinitiation of consultation with the Sake will be conducted as appropriate in these

instances. ●

Sites AzQnttjiedby Chevron. The Department has entered into an Agreement to Terminate theUnit P&n Contract with Chevron (Department 1998a), in which other potential sites of concern

are identified. The Department will engage in activities over the coming year to evaluate these

other potential sites of concern primariiy through record searches, data reviews, and site

reconnaissma, to gather current site condition information.

Corrective actions to addressand resolve the remainingsites of concern could involve limitedsite characterizationactivities such as cokting soil samples using hand took and analyzingthesampies in the laboratory. These charaeterhtI “onmethbds are unlikely to have the potential foradverse eff~ to listed species or habkat. In some z clean ciosure couid be wamant~however, these closures are not part of the proposed action. As dkusaed above, shouldfutureiwtivities sign%antly departfrom the abovq or substmtial corrective actions be requiredtMmay @volve habii disturbanceand potential adverse efkts to listed speci~ the mattertill becoordinated with the Semite and CDFG. Reinitiation of consultation wiil be conducted asappropriate in these instances.

B-8

James C. Killenj DOE 8

Archaeological Data Recovery. The Department has entered into a Programmatic Agreement

with the State Historic Presemation Office (SHPO). The Department has committed to conduct

limited data recovery on archaeological sites which have been determined eligible for listing on

the National Register of Historic Places (NI?HP), if they might be disturbed by the new owner in

the next three years. Seven such sites have been identified to date, one o?which has already been

subjeet to extensive testing, which may preclude the need for data recovery. These sites occur

along the north flank of Elk Htis in relatively undkturbed habita~ which provides significant

value to listed species.

Activities will be conducted by an archaeological fieid crew of up to ten persons. Controiied

excavation units on any site being investigated will range in size from one meter to several

meters square, by several meters deep. The total surfhce dtiancc permitted during excavation

is limited to 0.5 percent or less of any site ar~ per the CuItursl Resources Management Plan

(CRMP). Access to archaeological sites will be from exkting roads and by fm~ and off-road

driving will not be allowed. The units will be backfilled upon completion of excavations andwill be *owed to naturdy rwegetate. There is a small potential for adverse efkts to listedspecies tim vehicle strikes as crews travel along the exkting roads to access the sites. It is

assumed for all cases that handexcavation of units will sqffice for any data recovery actions.

No new habitat disturbance or degradation is currently anticipated during the proposed action.

Many of the waste sites are located on previously disturbed areas and renwdiation activities will

be confined to these areas. The total area H&ted by the testing of cultural resource sites wiUbe

neghgible. All sites will be accessed using existing roads or by foot. Many sites, particularly the

smaller trash scatters, wiil be cleaned up by hand and no ground excavation will be required.

There is a possibility that otm: remediation work begins, it may be determined that liited

temporary habitat dtiance is necessay. The greatest potential for this is in areas where

existing access roads may be too srna4 may have tight turns, or may have steep grades that can

not be negotiated by heavy equipment. If any new haWat disturbance is deemed necessay, the

Service wiil be consulted to determine the appropriate course of action before the Departmentproceeds with the proposed task

Mitigation Commibnents The Departmentwill continue to mitigate for adverse effkcts onfederally listed species. ‘&u: mhigation activities are described in the 1995 Biological Opinion

and include setting aside a comervation ~ developing and implementing a Wddlife

Management PIu conductin~3endangered species r~ch and monito~ reclaiming habha~

and taking measures to ymxti fderaUjj-Ksted plants.

B-9

●

James C. Kille~ DOE.

Status of the Species

Species accounts are summarized briefly fkom the Drajl Recovery P&n for UpkzndSpcies of the

San Joaquin Valley, CaiI~orniq 1997. The entire range of the species is described as it wasknown historically, and as it occurs today. In additiou the major threats to the species are noted.

Mldifk

ScmJaaqwn Kxt Fox The San Joaquin kit fox @@es macrota muticu) historically wasdistributed within an 8,700-square mile range in rxmtral California from the vicinity of Tracy inthe upper San Joaquin Valley south to the general vicinity of Bakersfield. Intensive agriculture,urbanization and other iand-&od@ing actions have eliminated extensive portions of habitat and

are the most signi&ant causes of this species endangemnent. The coyote and the introduced redfox compete for food resources with the smaller kit fo< and are known to prey upon kit fox aswell (Department 1S98b). Predatio& competition poisoning, and vehicle stxikes contribute

substantially to the vukrabiity of this species. Kit foxes cumentiy are limited to remininggrassiand sai- open woodlan~ alkali sink valley floor habii and other similar Mltatskxxued along bordering fmthiiIs and adjacent valleys and piains. The largest extant populations

of kit foxes are in the Elk Hills and Buena Vi NavaI Pe&oleurn kerv~ and the CarrizoPlain Naturai Area in San Luis Obispo Co-. The natural lands of western Kern County,including the Naval Petroleum Reserve, the Lokem ~ and adjacent natural land inhabhed by

kit foxes are essentiaI for kit fox recovery (Semite 1997). In the southern San Joaquin VaiIey,

they appear to make extensive use of haiitat fragments in an urbanizing environment (Service

1995). The San Joaquin kit fox was listed as endangered by the Semite in 1967 (32 FR 4001 )

and as threatened by the State of CaMornia in 1971.

Giant Kang- Rat The giantkangaroo rat(D@o&mys ingens) was distributed historicallyfrom southern Merced Coun~, south through tho San Joaquin Valley, to southwestern KernCounty and northern Santa Barbara County. Prefemed babkat is native annual grasshnds withsparse vegetatio~ good drainage, fine loamy SOL and slope of less than 10 percent. Significant

populations sumive only in a fm areas of remaking babkaG inciuding the Panoche Hills,Cuyama Vailey, Carrizo and ElkhO~ PIains and the Lmkemarea. The giant kangaroo ratwaslisted as endangered by the Sewice (52 FR 283) and the State of California in 1987.

Tipton kangaroo Rat. The Tipton kangaroo rat (D@dmtys nitratoidzs ru”&atoi&s)inhabits

saltbushscrub and alkali sink scrubcommunities in the Tulare Lake Basin of the southern SanJoaquinValley. They currentlyinhabiiapproximately4 percent of their historic range. T@tonkangaroo ratacommonly dig burrowson elevated ground which is not subject to flooding.However, areas which are flooded in winter and spring are occasionally wlonked during the dry

9

●☛●☛●● l

13-10

James C. Killen, DOE 10

season. The preferred location for Tipton kangaroo rat burrows typically involves aiiuvial fm

and flood plains and includes fine, highly alkaline sands and, to a lesser degree, alkaline sandy

loams. In additio% they generaiiy burrow around the bases of woody shrubs. One of the smallest

kangaroo rats, the subspecies is often fwnd in areas also oocupied by the larger Heexmann‘skangaroo rat. The Tipton kaugaroo rat was listed as endangered by the Scmice in 1988 (53 FR25608) and as endangered by the State of California in 1989.

Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizm~ The blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sihis) was distributedhistoricdy throughout the San Joaquin VaUey and adjacent interior fmthiils and pkiins,extending fkom central Stanislaus county south to extreme northeastern Santa Barbara County.

The blunt-nosed leopard lizard prefers opeq sparsely vegetated areas of low reiief and inhabitsvalley sink scrub, valley sahbush scrub, vaJley/plain grasslands, and fmthills grasslands

vegetational communities.

Adult lizards often seek safkty in burrows, while”tmmature lizards use rock pil~ trash pil~ and

brush. The iizarda use burrows constructed by mammals, suoh as kangaroo ~ for●

overwintering and esdvatiom The hdhat of the lizard has been aignMcantiyredu~ degrad~and hgmented by agricuitumldeveiopmen&petrokurn and mineralatractio~ livestock

graz@ pesticide application,and off-road vehicle use. Today,itsdistributionislimitedtoscattered parcels of undeveloped lant with the greatest conoentmtions _ on the west side

of the valley floor and in the foothills of the Coast Range. The blunt-nosed leopard lizard was

listed as endangered by the Service in March 1%7 (32 FR 4001) and as endangered by the State

of California in 1971.

C’dij$omahvelj%nver. The historicaldistributionof CaWorniajewel flower(Cadamhuscdjbmicu,s) included the floor of the San Joaquin Valley in Fresno, T- and KeHICourttkythe SierraNevada fwthills at the eastern marginof the San Joaquin Vaiky in KernCounty theCarrizo Plain in San Luis Ob~ CounW,the Cuyama Valley in Santa Barbaraand VenturaCountieq and the foothills west of the San Joaquin Valley in Freano, Kerq and Kings Counties.The Californiajewtiower baabeen &dnated from the San Joaquin and CuyamaValley floors

by habii destructio~ from agrioultur~urbanization and possibly oii production activities.Three naturally+clming Ppulatiow are known today, in Santa BarbaraCanyoq the CaniZOHa@ and the Kreyenhagen Hills in Fresno County. The C&.fbrniajewelflower was listed asendangered by the Semite in Juiy 1990 (55 FR 29361) and as endangered by the W&e of

California in 1971.

B-11

James C. fille~ DOE 1[

Kern Maf!ow. Kern mallow @emalche kemensis) has always had a highly-restricteddistribution. In the original description in 1938, Wolf mentioned specimens from four sites inwestern Kern County north of McKittrick. Kern mallow is restricted to the eastern bsse of the

Temblor Range, occurring tkom the vicini~ of McKitt.xickto near Buttonwillow within valleysaltbush scrub in Kern County (Taylor and Davilla 1986). The species is threatened by oil and

gas deveiopmen~ transmission line maintenance or expansioq agricultural conversion

overgrazing by livestoc& exotic plant competitio~ and off-road vehicle use. Kern mallow was

listed as endangered by the Service in July 1990 (55 FR 29361). It has not been listed by the

State of CaMornia.

San Joaquin Wmly-thre&. SanJoaquin wooly-threads (Lembertia congdbnii) is a small annual

herb of the sunilower fdy and is endemic to the San Joaquin VaJley of CalMomia. SanJoaquin wooiy-threads once ranged throughout the floor of the San 3oaquin Valley from westernFresno County and eastern Tukue County south to the foothills of the Tehachapi Mountains,

Mowing the rain shadow of the South Coast Ranges (Taylor 1989). Little is known of thehabitat prekrences of San Joaquin wooly-threads. It appears to fhvor non+lkdine soils of sandyor silty sand texture and an arid climatic regime (Taylor 1989). Much habitat for San Joaquin

wooly-threads has been ebinated by conversion of annual gmssland sites to agriculture. Ssn

Joaquin WOOiJ@h%dS was listed+ endangered by the Servioe in July 1990 (55 FR 29361). It

has not been listed by the State of California

Hoover’s Wool&star. Prior to 1986, Hoover’s wooly-star (fiiastrum hooveti) was known from19 sites in four counties. The majority of the occunences were on the San Joaquin and CuyarnaVaUeyfloors, and the others were born the low mountains on the west side of the San Joaquin

Valley. Today Hoover’s wooly-star oocurs primarily within four arm (1) the Kettieman Hills

ar~ (2) the Carrizo Plain-Elkhom Plain-Temblor Range-Caliente Mountaim+Cuyama Vailey-

Sierra Madre Mountains areq (3) the Lokem-Elk Hills-Buena Vi Hills-Coles Levee-Maricopa-

Taft ar~ and (4) the Anteiope Plain-Lost Hills=’Semitropic area. Additio~ more isolated

populations occur throughout the region.

Valley-floor populations of Hoover’s wody-star have been destroyed primriiy by fhrming

operations and secondarily by urban development. Hoover’s wooly-star was listed as threatened

by the S~ce in July 1990 (55 FR 29361). It has not been listed by the State of (hlifomia.

Environmental Baseline

The environmentalbaseline described in this section is for the area tikcted by the proposedaction. Informationpresented here is taken from the 1995 Biological Opinion (Sewke) andthe

,

B-12

James C. Killea DOE - 12

FY97 &mual Repofi (Department and Chevron 1998). While the kit fox once occupied almost

all portions of the NPR-I, other endangered species occupy more circumscribed habitats.

KIMifk

San Jouguin Kit Fox In 1979, when the Department began its endangered species program on

NPR-1, kit foxes were numerous and widely dtibuted within the Reseme. In 1984, kit foxdens were obsemd on all but two sections (Department 1991). Kit fox abundance has beensystematically assessed on the 117 square kilometer NM?.-1 study area. Since 1979, the kit fox

population on the NPR- 1 study area has declined from a high of 144 anirnais in the winter of1981-1982 to a low of just 12 aqhnals in the winter of 1991-1992. In additio~ kit foxes have

disappeared from the central upland portions of NPR-1 - where most oil development has

occurred - and now appear to be confined to the flatter peripheries of NPR-1 (Semite 1995).Thirty-four captures occurred in December 1996, down from a recent peak of 80 captures in 1994

andanoverall maximum of209 captmesin 1981, theyearthesurveys started. The diet of the

captured foxes was determined to be mostly San Joaquin antelope sqyirreis and kangaroo rats.Since 1991, the primary prey of kit foxes ha shifted fkom iagomorpha to kangaroo rats. Fox

populations likely responded to recent reduced abundanoeaof small mammalprey speciaparticularlykangaroo rats. The reasons for the population decline are unknowa

B1unt-nosedtio~dLizard From 1979 to 1987, a total of 136 blunt-nosed leopardtids wereobserved in 28 of NPR-1’s 74 sections. Leopard lizards typically are found in washes and areasof low relief around the periphery of the Resewe, and areas with sparse vegetation. However,leopard lizards also have been ctbsenwd in six sections in the NPR-I central uplands. Trends are

not presented in the most recent Annual Report (Department and Chevron 1998).

Giant Kungaroo Rat Giant kangaroo ratpopulation monitoring was initiatedin NPR-1 in 1994.Trappingoccurs in April and Se@ember of each year, and thirteen colonies are assessed inSeptember each year by obsewing signs of activity along transds. No kangaroo ratswere

capturedin i997. Sii of the colonies did not show any aotivity. AUof the 14 monitoredcolonies decreased in size during 1997. The reasons for the decline are unknown but do notappearto be relatedto oiMd activities (Department and Chevron 1998).

Tipton Kanguroo Rat The CaMomia Aqueduct is cited in W- (1985) as the approximateline between the ranges of the Tipton kangaroo rat and the short-nosed Imngaroorat (Di@mysnilraloi&s brevinusus). Consequently, ‘IIptonkgaroo rat distributionon NPR-1 is confined to

those smd portions of the Rewxve east of the AqtWk@. During a three-night trapping censusconducted in 1988, six to 12 Tlpton kangaroo rats were captured per night in this area

(Department 1991). No suweys were done in 1996 or 1997 (Departmentand Chevron 1998).

B-13

James C. Kille& DOE 13

A comprehensive sunfey of NPR-1 for special status plants began in Spring 1995 whenapproximately 1,685 hectares (ha) (4, 160 acres) were surveyed. In 1996, sn additional 648 ha(1,600 acres) were sumyed. In 1997, an additional 4,406 hectares were sumeyed for”the

presence of special status plants. Approximately 40 percent of NPR- 1 has now been sulveyed for

special status plants. Cdlfornia Jewelflower, Kern mallow, and San Joaquin wooly-threads have

not been found on NPR-I. In 1995, the Semite concluded that suitable habitat for the Californiajewelflower probably does not exist on NPR-I. Apparently suitable haikt for Kern mallow was

observed in the northwestern portion of NPR- 1 (Sections 122, 132, and 142), and the species

likely exists here in low numbers or may become established within the foreseeable fbture.

Potentiai habitat for San Joaquin wooly-threads also was observtid along the northern flanks of

NFR- 1, but these habitats maybe suboptirnai because of the dense cover of red brome present.Based on these dam the Service concludes that the Kern mallow and San Joaquin wooly-threadsmay be present within NPR- 1 (Depamnent and Chevron 1998).

H~ver’s Wmiy-mizr. Hoover’s wooly-star (~~ hooveri] is common on the NPR-1.

The density of plants on suivey plots was higher in 1997 than in 19%. Hoover’s wooly-star

populations on NPR-1 tend to occur in areas where other vegetation is sparse such as washes andformerly disturbed sites. Four populations were found at or above 1,000 f=t in elevation

(Department and Chevron 1998).

Effects of the Proposed Action

M!ildi&

Potential impacts to listed snimals include harassment &rat mortality or injury, entrapment,loss of dens or burrows, and dqlacement. Direct mortality or injurycould result I%omvehicle

strikes, ,or from collapsed dens and burrows resulting in animals being crushed or entombed.

BUITOWSand dens could be destroyed or damaged by vehicle Mc, particularly heavy

equipmenq resulting in entrapment or entombment. Any ditch= dug and M open overnightcould entrap wildlife. Any equipment with hiding pla~ such as pip- can attract wildiife, and

create hazards for t@n iflefl open or uncappeci overnight.

Any burrows or dens located on waste sites that must be excavated for characterization or{mediation will be destroyed. Animals that occur on waste sites-could be Jiipiaced during

remediion activities. Such displacement of animals into unfkmdiar areas could increase the

risk of predation and increase the difficulty of finding required resources such as food andshelter.

B-14

James C. KiIlenj DOE 14

Human disturbance fio,rn excavation of Waste sites and recontouring of areas being reclaimed

could result in harassment and displacement of animals, whether or not the animals’ dens andburrows are directly impacted. Harassment also might alter the behavior of animals (e.g., activity

periods, space use) resulting in increased predation risiq reduced access to resources, and reduced

breeding success. Conducting, remediation activities during the winter breeding season for San

Joaquin kit foxes or in the vicinity of natal dens during the spring months when they whelp could

increase the potential for adverse impacts, if natal dens or occupied dens are in the vicinity of

work sites. Conducting remediation activities during the spring breeding season for other

wikiiiie could increase the potential for adverse impacts.

The waste sites primarily occur on previously disturbed areas, which reduces the likelihood that

listed animals will be present. Rexnediation of waste sitesand testing of cultural resource sites

will be conducted during daylight hours which is intended to limit the potential for adverse

effkcta, although blunt-nosed leopard lizards and San Joaquin antelope squirrels are diurnal. At

many of the sit- particularly the trash scatters, no heavy equipment or ground disturbance will

be necessuy, firther reducing the impacts. Remediation activities at many sites will be brief andarelikelyto becornpleted inkasthanlday. Fewindividuaia shotddbeaff=ted atagivensitq

and those that are should be able to easily move to undkurbed portions of their home range.Ditches will be provided with escape ramps and checked before work recommen~, pipes and

other equipment with potential hiding places will be capped and/or checked before it is moved or

used. No seeding shail be conducted as unseeded areas may revegetate as quickiy as seededareas (EG&G Energy Measurements, Inc. 1995) and seeding may result in habitat characteristics

less favorable for listed species (Department 1998b).

The animal species addressed in this opinion shouid actudy realize a net benefit flom the

proposed action because it wnll resuit in habitat enhancement. Toxic substances will be removed

horn the environment or rernediated in a manner that will eiiminate or si~cantly reduce the

potentiai for exposure. Trash and debris will be removed horn the environment thereby reducing

hazards for species and in some instances making more habht available for species. Also,where appropriate, sites will be recontoured and reclaimed resulting in both greater habitat

availability and improved habitat quality. Therefore, despite some potential short-termdisturbance, listed species should realize along-term benefit from the proposed action..

HantL”

Potential impacts to Iistui plants include direot mortality fkom earth excavation or crushing W

vehicles. Adverse impacts also could result tiom soil erosion resulting in 10SSof the supportbg

substrate for plants, or from soil compaction resulting in reduced germination rates. Impacts to

B-15

,

James C. Mile% DOE 1.5

plants occurring afler seed germination but prior to seed set could be particularly harrnfd as both

current and fiture generations would be adverseiy afFected.

Impacts to San Joaquin wooly-threads, California jewelflower, and Kern mallow are expected tobe negligible, because most of the waste sites are located in rugged terrain where the topography

and soil imposition is suboptimal for these species. At many sites, particularly the trash

scatters, no heavy equipment or ground disturbance will be neces~, fiu-ther reducing the

potential for impacts. Any populations of these plants will be avoided at cultural resource sites.

Hoover’s wooly-star is the plant species most likely to be impacted. This species is abundant at

Elk Hills, particularly in gentle terr~ but also occurs in rugged areas (Otten and Cypher 1997)where most of the waste sites are located. The potential that Hoover’s wooly-star occurs on

waste sites is increased because this species readily colonizes disturbed areas. However, for this

same reaso~ Hoover’s wooly-star may not be significantly impact~ and may even benefit from

remediation activities or the testing of cultural resource sites. Disturbance may producefavorable growth conditions because competition is reduced due to the lower density of non-

native grasses. In additio~ toxic substances wiil be removed from the environment or●

rernediated in a manner that will eliminate or signillcantly reduce the potential for exposure of

planta. Trash and debris wiil be removed horn the environment thereby reducing hazards for

species and in some instances making more What available for species. Also, where

appropriate, sites will be recontoured and reclaimed resulting in both greater habitat availability

and improved habkt quality. Therefore, despite some potential short-term dtisnce, listed

species should realize along-term benefit from the proposed action.

Cumulative Efkts

Cumulative effects inciude the effkcts of fiture State, Trib~ local or private actions that arereasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this biological opinion. FutureFederal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section

because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act.

The Senrice is aware of other projects currently under reviau by State, CQunty,and locaiauthoritieswhere biological sunqm have documented the occurrence of the San Joaquin kit foxblunt-nosed leopard lizar~ giant kangsroo ra& Ilpton kangaroo ~ Hoover’s wooly-star, Kernmallow, and San Joaquin wocdy-threads. These projects include urban~ mineralandenergydeveiopmen~ agriculturalactivitk+ transportationprojec@and fiood control andwaterconveyance construction. These projects Zxedriven in partby the influx of people to the SouthernSan JoaquinValley. The Metropolitan Bakersjkki 2010 Generai P&m (City of Bakersfield1990) predkts that the human population in Kern County will grow from 286,000 in 1985 to568,000 by 2010. This population wili occupy an additional 34,000 acres for houses, and

B-16

James C. Kille4 DOE 16

10,500 acres for commercial and industrial uses. In addition, there is a trend in Kern Countyagriculture away from grazing and toward row crops such as grape vines and cotton. Thecumulative effects of these known actions pose a significant threat to the eventual recovery of

these species.

Agencies and organizations, such as the California Department of Fish and Game, The Nature

Consemu.tcy, and the Center for Natural Lands Management have begun to secure some of the

core lands identified as important for recovery. Several local planning efforts which are focused

on reducing the impacts of urbanization and industrialiition on lied species are also underway.These positive actions may reduce the likelihood that the continued existence of these species

will be jeopardized in the short term. These actions, however, are not expected to be sufficient to

lead to the downlisting of these species ih the long teq and may not be sufficient to protect the

species from jeopardy in the long term.

Conclusion.

After reviewing the current status of the San Joaquin kit fox blunt-nosed leopard lii~ giantkangaroo z T@on kangarcw ~ Hoover’s wocdy-star, Kern mdow, or San Joaquin wooly-

tbread$ the environmental baseline for the action ar~ the effizts of the proposed action and thecwmdathe effbc@ it is the Savice’s biological opinion that the site remediation and

archaedogicai data reavexy pro- as proposed, are not likely to jeopardize the continuedexistence of these species. No criticai habitat has been designated for these species, therefore,none will be affkcted.

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act prohibit the takeof endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is definedas harass, harnq pursue hunl~shook woun& Id& trap, capture or coii~ or to attempt to engage

in any such conduct. Harass is d~ed by the Stice as a intentional or negligent act or

omission which creates the tikeiihood of injury to a listed species by annoying it to such anextent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not Iirnitedto,

breedkg f- or sheltering. Harm is defined by the Senke to incfude significant habitat”

modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by impairingbehavioral patterns including br~ f- or sheltering. Incidentaltake is defined as take .that is incidental to, and not the purpose o~ the carying out of an dxmvise Iawfidactivity.Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taicing that is incidental to and not

intended as part of the agenq action is not considered to be prohibked taking under the Actprovided that such taking is in compliance with this Incidental Take Statement.

B-17

James C. Kille~ DOE; 17

The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be implemented by the agency so

that they become binding conditions of any grant or permit issued to the applicanq asappropriate, in order for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The Department has acontinuing duty to regulate the activity revered by this incidental take statement. ~ the-

Department (1) fads to require the applicant to adhere to the terms and conditions of the

incidental take statement through enforceable terms that are added to the permit or grant

document, andior (2) ftiis to retain oversight to ensure compliance with these terms andconditions, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse.

Sections 7(b)(4) and 7(o)(2) of ESA do not apply to the incidental take of listed plant species.

However, protection of listed plants is provided to the extent that the Act requires a Federalpermit for removal or reduction to possession of endangered plants from areas under Federal

juiisdictio~ or for any act that would remove, cut dig up, or damage or destroy any such specieson any other area in knowing violation of any regulation of any State or in the course of anyviolation of a State criminal trespass law. The Cal.WorniaNative Plant Protection Act forbids thetake of plants.

Amount or Extent of Take

Ba&d on information provided in the project biological assessment (Department 1997),idormation on past incidental takings on NW&l provided by the Department and Chevron

(1998), information in our files, and through prior consultations, the Service anticipates that thefollowing numbers of kit foxes, leopard lizards, and kangaroo rats maybe subject to harm or

mortality during proposed remdiation and archaeological activities over the next six years:

1. One (1) San Joaquin kit fox in the form of direct mortality or injury through accidentaldeath during project activities.

.2. Two (2) blunt-nosed leopard lkuds (2 incidents in 6 years) in the form of direct mortality

or injury through accidental death during project activities.

3. Six (6) giantkangaroorats(1 incident per year for 6 years) in the form of direct mortalityor injury through accidental death during project activities.

4. One (1) Tlpton kangaroo rat in the form of direct mortality or injtuy through accidental“ death during project activities.

The number of animals subject to incidental take must not exceed the annual amounts statedabove.

B-18

James C. Kille% DOE- 18

The number of San Joaquin kit fo% blunt-nosed leopard lizard, giant kangaroo rat, and Tipton

kangaroo rat subject to harassment tiom noise, vibrations, and capture or excavation of dens and.

burrows cannot be estimated because the number of individuals of these species within potential

project areas is unknown. Therefore, the Sefice anticipates harassment of all individuals ofthese federally listed species hihabiting areas where project activities would occur provided that

such harassment: (1) is the result of bona fide project activities; (2) is inadvertent or for the

express purpose of removing individual animals from construction areas to safe locations; and(3) that ail terms and conditions specified below are iidly implemented.

Effect of the Take

The Service has determined thiat this level of anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy tothe species discussed.

Reasonable and Prudent Measures●

The following reasonable and prudent measures are necessrq and appropriate to minimbe the

potential for incidental take of the San Joaquin kit fo~ biunt-nosed leopard Iizar@giant

kangaroo ~ and Tipton kangaroo rat authorized by this opinion.

1. Minimize the potential for @ harassment or killing of federally listed wildlife species

through training surveys, and specific protective measures.

2. Minimize the potential for inadvertent capture or entrapment of federally listed wildliiespecies during construction activities.

Terms and Coalitions

In order to be exempt horn the prohibitions of section 9 of the A@ the Department must compiywith the folIowing terms and cmnditio~ which implement the reasonable and prudent measures

described above. These terms and conditions are nonciiscmtionary.

1. The Department shall minimke the potential for ~ barassm~ or killing of fderaliy

listed wildlife species resulting from project related activities by ensuring implementationof the following

a. Prior to the initiationof any field wo~ a qualiM biologist will conductan environmentalorientation for all project personnel. Topics to becovered will include descriptions of the Iiied speci~ regulations

B-19

James C. We% DOE

regarding protection of listed species, take avoidance measures to be

implemented, repofiing procedures if an incidental take occurs, and

consequences of non-compliance. Any person working on the project must

receive this orientation prior to working on the site.

b A preactivity sumey for listed species must be conducted by a qualiiied

biologist prior to any ground dsurbing activities. Any listed species or

sensitive habitat f-tures obsemxl must be noted and clearly marked.

c. An exclu~ion zone shall be established around sensitive habitat features

such as kit fox dens, bunows ocxupied by listed rodents or blunt-nosed

leopard Iiids, and listed plant populations other than Hoover’s wooly-

star. Potential kit fox dens will be avoided by 50 f- Imown kit fox

dens wiil be avoided by 100 f- active pupping dens will be avoided by

200 f- and burrows occupied by Iisted rodents or blunt-nosed leopard

lizards will be avoided by 50 f-.

d. If any work has to be conducted near se+tive biological areas or within

exclusion zon~ a biologist must monitor work activities to ensure that

sensitive resources are not impacted.

e. Project activities shafI be conducted during daylight hours to minimke

encounters with listed animals.

f All project activities and vehicles shall be limited to existing roads and

previously disturbed areas.

g. All spills of hazardous materials shall be immediately cleaned up toprevent exposure to wildliie.

h. Pets and fireams shall be prohibited at projeot sites.

i. AUfd-related trash shall be cleaned up and disposed daily at projectsites.

j. Vehicles must observe a 20-mph speed limit in and around project sites.

B-20

●

James C. Kiile~ DOE 20

2. The Dep@ent sld minimize the potential for inadvertent capture or entrapment of

federally listed wiidlife species during construction activities by ensuring implementation

of the following:

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

If a kit fox den is present in a work area and can not be avoided, the den

shall be monitored for 3 nights to ensure vacancy, and then must be

excavated and lbackfllledaccording to Service guidelines.

If listed rodents or blunt-nosed leopard liids are obsermd within

designated work areas and can not be avoid~ they will be captured and

relocated by a qualified biologist to outside of the work area to avoid

in@y or moitaiity.

To prevent entrapment of animals, any trenches or pita more than 2 f~t

deep that are created during project activities must be either covered at

@&or earthen or wooden escape ramps must be provided. Before work

continues in these ar~ trenches and pits must be inspected by a biologisttoensurethat noanimalsmpresent.

Once work is completed on the waste sites, each site will be reclaimed ifappropriate. Reckunationactivities must include soil stabiition toprevent erosio[~ reconto~ and compaction reduction. No seedingshall be conducmd.

The Department shall comply with the Reporting Requirements beiow.

Reporting Requirement

The Service is to be not&d immediately by telephone and in writing withinthree working days

of the accidental death or injuty of a San haquin kit fo~ biunt-nosed leopard lizard, giant

kangaroo rat or Tipton kangaroo ~ or, of the discovery of any dead or injured kit fo~ leopard

lizud, or kangaroo ~ during project related actions. Notifications must include the date, time

and location of the incident or of the discovery of a dead or injured _ and any other

pertinent information. The Service contaot for this information is the Division Chief forEndangered Species at (916) 979-2725. To determine disposition of dead or injuredSan Jwtquinkit foxes, blunt-nosed leopard Iiardq giant kangaroo rats or T@ton kangaroo rats, the C?Mornia

Department of Fish and Game, Region 4 Offi~ Fresno should be contacted (209/222-3761).

B-2 1

a. Within 90 days of the completion of the project, the Department must submit a post-

project compliance report to the Service and CDFG. This repofi will include dates that

work was anducted, compliance performance by workers, any takes of listed species,

any project effects on listed species including the number of dens or burrows damaged or

destroyed, a summaxy of rechmation activities, and any other pertinent information.

b. Lfany new habitat disturbsme is deemed necessaxy, the Semite and CDFG must be

notified prior to the disturbance and a strategy must be identified for providing anyrequired habitat compensation.

c. Within 90 calendar days foiiowing the end of each fiscal year, the Department must

submit to”the Service’s Sacramento Office a brief annual report detailing the foiiowinginformation. (i) pertinent information concerning the Department’s success in meeting

project mitigation measurm, (i) an explanation of fdure to meet such measures, if any,(ii) known project eff’ on federally listed species, including an estimate of the numberof kit fox dens and giant kangaroo rat burrows destroy~ inciuding a general estimate of ●

other small mammal burrows irnpact~ if ~, (ii) known occurrences of incidental take

of listed species, if any (v) haiitat reclamation efforts undertaken that year, if any,

(vi) other pertinent information.

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Section 7(a)(1) of ESA dwects Federal agencies to utiiize their authorities to tier the purposes

of the Act by camying out consewation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened

species. Consewation recommendations are discretionary agency activities that can beimplemented to Wher the puqmes of the Am such as preservation of endangered species

habi~ implementation of recovery actions, or development of Wormation and databases. ADrafl Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Vaiiey, California was prepsred bythe Semite in 1997. A carefhi analysis of the status of each listed species in the Valley was

made, and actions necewuy for recovery are described.

while the Department no ionger owns or manages the Eik Hiiis Od FlelL it does own or manage

other ids in Kern County, including the Naval Petroleum Resem+2 (NPR-2). Actions that theDepartment can take that are crucial to prevent extinction of threatened or endangered species, orare crucial to prevent a species from declining irreversibly in the foreseeable tie inciude thefoiiow@

& Secure long-term legal protection for naturalcommunities and the foiiowing species onDepartment lands: Hoover’s wooly-star, oil nestraw, biunt-nosed leopard lizard, giant

B-22

James C. Killeu DOE

kangaroo ra~ San Joaquin kit fo~ San Joaquin sntelope squirre~ short-nosed kangaroorat, Tulare grasshopper mouse, San Joaquin LeConte’s thrasher, San Joaquin wooly-

threads, and Tejon’poppy.

b. Prevent disturbance of’the oil nest straw metapopt.dation on the Elk Hills Oil Field.

c. Conduct project activities that may result in destruction of blunt-nosed leopard lizarddens and burrows between May 1 and September30 as much as possible. Project

activities that may result in destruction of dens should occur during leopard liid activityperiods, when the air temperatures are between 77 and 95 degrees Fahrenheit (25to35

degrees Celsius). This yvillmaximize the leopard lizards’ ability to escape fkom slow-

moving vehicles and X* the risk or accidental entombment in burrows.

d. Develop management plans for natural communities and the species listed in a. above.

While undataking the cieanup activitiw described in this docum~ the Departmenthasagreed ‘to make a reasonable effort to avoid Hoover’s wooiy+tar plants or minbize impacts. TheDepartment has agreed to ava~idpopulations of listed piants other than Hoover’s wooly-star by

50 fti

In order for the Semite to be kept informed of actions ]minimk@ or avoiding adverse effixts or

beneiitting listed species, the !3emice requests notification of the implementation of anyconsemation recommendations.

REINITIATION-CLOSING STATEMENT

This concludes formal consuhation on the proposed site remediation and amhaeoiogical datareuive~ outlined in the BioloW”ca14wssment of the Propsed Site Remealatton andArcluzeoiogical Da@ Rewvay on Navai PetroiewnReserve No. 1, Kem County, Cahfomla(DOE and Chevron 1998a). As provided in 50 CFR @102.16, reinitiation of formal consultationis requiredwhere discretionaryFederaIagency involvement or control over the action has beenmaintained(or is authorized by law) and if (1) the amount or extent of incidentaltake isexceedd, (2) new informationreveals tibets of the agency action that may &kct listed speciesor criticalhabkat in a manneror to an extent not considered in this opiniorq(3) the agency actionis subsequentlymodified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitatthat was not considered in this opiniou or (4) a new sjjcies is listed or critical habitat designatedthat may be t&kcted by the action. in instances where the amount or extent of incidental take isexceed~ any operations causing such take must cease pending reinitiation.

B-23

James C. Kille~ DOE 23

Please contact Susan Jones or Peter Cross of this officeat(916) 979-2728, if you have anyquestions.

Sincerely,

.Enclosures/Attachments

(AJ~;J :A24

Wayne S. White.’@

\

Fieid Supervisor

“u

cc James Kilkq U.S. Department of Energy, Bakersfield CABhn Cypher, Critique Inc., Bakerafiela CA

CDFG, Fresno, CA

B-24

LITERATURE CITED

State of California. 1997. Agreement for Site Assessment between U.S. DOE, NavaI Petroleum. Reseme No. 1 &d State of Califomi% Environmental Protection Agency, Department of

Toxic Substances Control. December 2, 1997.

City of Bakersfield. 1990. Metropolkan Bakersfield 2010 Generai Plan. Coauthored by County

of Ke~ Kem Council af Governments, Golden Empire Transit. March 1990.

EG&G Energy Measurements, inc. 1995. Endangered Species and Cukurai Resources Progr~

Naval Petroieum Reserves in CalKorni4 Anuai Repofi FY95, for the U.S. Department

of Energy. Las Vegas Area Operations, 262 I Losee Road, North Las Vegas, Nevada

89030.

Ott- M.RM., and B.L. Cypher. 1997. Consmmtion plan for protected species on NavalPetroleum Reseme No. 1, Kern Coun&, California U.S. Department of Energy TopicalRepcxt EASI 97-2.39 pp. + appendices.

●

Taylor, D.W. 1989. Status survey of San Joaquin woolly-threads @nber7Zr congakmii). U.S.Fii and Wddiife ServicA Sacramento, Califon& unpublishedrepo~ 27 pp.+Appendices.

Taylor, D.W. and W.B. Da~aL 1986. Status wey of three plants endemic to the San JoaquinValley and adjacent areas, California. U.S. Hsh and Wddlife SeMoe, Sacramento,

Califo@ Unpublished Repo~ 131 pp.

U.S. Department of Energy. 1991. Biological assessment of the effkcts of petroleum productionat rmurimum efficient ratq Naval Petroleum Reswe No. 1 (Elk Hills), Kern County,

Californi4 on threatened and endangered speci=. Tupmq California. 132 pp.

U.S. Department of Energy. 1!397. Request for a Section Comprehensive EnvironmentalRespo~ CompensadoQ and Liabiity Act (CERCLA) 120(h)(3) Covenant Defend.Letter of November 3, 1997 from Patricia Fxy Godley, Akatant Secretary, Fossfi Energy,U.S. DOE to Pete WLWG Governor, State of California

U.S. Department of Energy. 1998a. Agreement to Terminate the Unit Plan Contract between the

U.S. DOE aad Chevron USA inc., Februmy 5, 1998.

B-25

I

I

I

James C. Killeq DOE :5

Us.

U.S.

Us.

Us.

Us.

Us.

Us.

Us.

Us.

Us.

Department of Energy. 1998b. Biological Assessment of the Proposed Site Remediation

and Archaeological Data Recovery Programs on Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1, Kern

County, California. Prepared by Critique, Inc., Bakersfield, CaMornia. July 1998.

Department of Energy and Chevron USA Inc. 1998. Endangered Species and Cultural

Resources Pro- Naval Petroleum Reserves in CaMiomiZ Annuai Report FY97.

Prepared by Enterprise Adviso~ Setices, Inc., NPRC Endangered S@es and CulturalResources Program. EASI 98-1.

Fish and WMlife Service. 1967. Native fish and wildlife, Endangered species [blunt-nosed

leopard Iiid, San Joaquin kit fox]. Fed. Register 32:4001.

Fish and WddMe Service. 1980. Formal ConsukatioC Febxuary 1, 1980 (Case No. 1-1-80-

F-Z).

Fii and Wddlife Savice. 1987&. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; ,

det ennination of endangered status for the giant lwngsroo rat. Fed. Register 52:283-288.

F~h and Wddiife Semite. 1987b. Formal ~Consuhatioq December 16, 1987 (Case No. 1-1-80-F-2R).

Fish and Wddiife Service. 1988. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plan~,determimtion of endangered status for the Tipton kangaroo rat. Fed. Register 53:25608-

25611.

Fish and Wddlife Service. 1990. Endangered and threatened wikiliie and plants;determined on of endangered or threatened status for five plants flom the southern San

Joaquin Valley. [California jewelflower, Kern mallow, San Joaquin woolly-threads,Hoover’s wooIiy-star]. Fed. Register 55:29361-29370.

Fish and Wddlif+eStice. 1995. Letter to Mr. Danny A Ho- Dwector, U.S. Department

of Energy, Naval Petroleum Resemes in California Subjz Reinitiation of FormalConsultation Concerning Od Production at Maximum Efficient Rate on EIkHills NavalPetroleum Reseme, Kern County, Califhia Biological Opinion 1-1-95-F-102.November 8, 1995.

F~ and Wddlife Service. 1997. Draft Recxmry Plan for Upland Species of the SanJoaquin valley,California ..

B-26

e●8* James C. Kiile& DOE

*

●Wdliams, D.F. 1985. A review of the population status of the Tipton kangaroo rat, Dipodomys

u

ndratoides ni~atoide.x U.S. Fish and Wildlife Setice, Sacramento, Californi%

●unpublished report, 44 pp.

~Defense Authorization Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-106).

e

a Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).

B-27

26

. . -_———— . .

I

P=l- ‘PR-l-1 I

SantaBarbara \

\

●

.

Figure 1- Regional LocationalMap showing IWR-1

EL28

o.. ..—-.----.—.—.●e*****

.

r

Ml In M IM IM

-.—

I*

- ——, — —. —M nt Ita *M Ida on w M m m

T30sml:E

on nn Ila lie on Ma 1$8 w

1---

Iti Ill

1’

18s. ‘1 .,,

A -—. .

IL ~

.—x ‘-

. —. ..-

t

1M m au 814 M tm Iu as 14* 01, M: ‘A

●.~A

A.— - -- —-. ‘1M ——.-. - —$M m $$0 $u m m m *O1 m

I

TJOSM2JEn * T30SIU4E

~1

%A ‘A ‘; “—-.——--

a u M lb w A“:!!HA $9 ‘*A “ A ‘-- ~

TJIS/R2:E TWLR23E;Ci

A--. .— $In Mb M n ——n w me toe Im

9E

LEGEND ●Mb In In #w M

[“A !hrf@ccTrssbsCdtHS

● WsslcwatsrSulnps

8 LsndiW

Figure 2- Waste SiteDistributionby Type

.. . . .-— -- - -- .- ----

.

1,

environmental assessment for waste remediation activities .../67531/metadc... · environmental...

Documents