For the 2011-2015 Integrated Natural Resources … · Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment For the 2011-2015 Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan Vandenberg Air Force

Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment

For the

2011-2015 Integrated Natural ResourcesManagement Plan

Vandenberg Air Force Base,California

16 August 2011

Report Documentation Page Form ApprovedOMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering andmaintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, ArlingtonVA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if itdoes not display a currently valid OMB control number.

1. REPORT DATE 16 AUG 2011

2. REPORT TYPE Environmental Assessment

3. DATES COVERED 16-08-2011 to 16-08-2011

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the 2011-2015Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan for Vandenberg AirForce Base, California

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER FA4610-10-D-0003

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) Michelle Gibbs

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER 0007

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) Tetra Tech, Inc.,301 Mentor Drive, Suite A,Santa Barbara,CA,93111

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONREPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 30th Civil Engineer Squadron, Asset Management Flight, VandenbergAir Force Base, CA, 93437

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT This Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) evaluates the potential environmental impactsassociated with adopting the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) for VandenbergAir Force Base (AFB) and with implementing individual projects in the INRMP. This PEA was preparedin accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations: the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality?s (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing theProcedural Provisions of NEPA; and the Air Force?s Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP)(Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations Part 989). Vandenberg AFB is headquarters for the 30th Space Wing(30 SW), which represents the Department of Defense (DoD) as the lead agency.

15. SUBJECT TERMS NEPA, INRMP

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATIONOF ABSTRACT

1

18. NUMBEROF PAGES

93

19a. NAME OFRESPONSIBLE PERSON

a. REPORT unclassified

b. ABSTRACT unclassified

c. THIS PAGE unclassified

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18

Finding of No Significant Impact

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE INTEGRA TED NATUrt~L RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN,

VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA

This Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with adopting the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan {INRMP), for Vandenberg Air Force Base (AFB), and with implementing individual projects within the INRMP. This PEA was prepared in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations: the National Enviro~nmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) Regulations for lmpllementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA, and the Air Force's Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP) (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations Part 989). Vandenberg AFB is he;adquarters for the 30th Space Wing (30 SW); 30 SW is representing the Department of Defense (DoD) as the lead agency.

Under the Sikes Act, as amended, the Secretary of Defense is directed to "carry out a program to provide for the conserv~tion and rehabilitation of natural resources on military installations." Therefore, each military instaiJation in the United States under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defense must prepare and implemt::nt an INRMP, unless a determination is made that the absence of significant natural resources makes preparation of such a plan inappropriate.

The INRMP for Vandenberg AFB inclludes specific projects to be implemented over the next five years to sustain, promote, and restore the health and integrity of Vandenberg AFB ecosystems, The specific projects proposed in the INRMP are contained in Appendix C of the INRMP and are also shown in Table 2-1 of the PEA.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

The Proposed Action involves adopting the INRMP and implementing every project contained in the INRMP, with the exception of pro~ects involving demolition, construction, or refurbishment of structures. Under the No-Action altetrnative, the INRMP would not be adopted and none of the projects in the INRMP would be impiE~mented.

SUMMARY OF THE ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Of the projects contained in the INRIMP Work Plan, many are entirely administrative and would qualify for a categorical exclusion {CATEX}, in accordance with the Department of the Air Force's EIAP. These projects are not listed in Table 2-1 of the PEA and are not discussed in the environmental impact analysis in the PEA. The remaining projects are discussed further in the PEA and are evaluated at a programmatic level. In addition, each of these remaining INRMP projects would be evaluated further through the Air Force's EIAP to determine whether another type of CATEX applies to the project or whether a Supplemental EA, independent EA, or Environmental Impact Statement is required. Requirements for permits or consultations will also be determined through this proc•ess.

Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the 2012-20161NRMP, Vandenberg Air Force Base. California

Page 1


The PEA describes the affected environment and environmental consequences of the Proposed Action and No-Action alternative and identifies measures to prevent or minimize environmental impacts. With implementation of the minimization measures listed in Chapter 2 (Table 2-2) of the PEA, impacts associated with implementation of INRMP projects under the Proposed Action would be less than significant for agricultural resources, human health and safety, noise, recreation, socioeconomics and environmental justice, solid waste, transportation, utilities, and visual resources. Most impacts on air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and earth resources, hazardous materials and hazardous waste management, land use and coastal zone resources, and water resources would also be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of minimization measures. However, certain types of projects that would continue to potentially result in the following impacts (even after implementation of minimization measures and standard best management practices), would require further impact analysis:

• Projects with the potential to injure or kill a special-status species;

• Projects that would result in temporary or permanent impacts on aquatic habitat, wetlands or waters of the United States, or floodplains ;

• Projects that would result in permanent impacts on other native vegetation communities;

• Projects that would result in permanent impacts on a significant cultural resource;

• Projects in geohazardous areas, such as active landslide areas, coastal bluffs, or streams

• Projects that would disturb contaminated soil, surface water, or groundwater; and

• Prescribed bums greater than 1 00 acres, that are calculated to produce greater than 1 0 tons of particulate matter, that would produce smoke at night, that are near smoke sensitive areas or where monitoring is necessary for public health and safety.

The No-Action alternative would have lesser impacts on all issue areas, with the exception of biological resources, visual resources, and recreation. Under the No-Action alternative, impacts on biological resources and visual resources would be much greater and could be significant and unmitigable, and the project's contribution to cumulative impacts on biological resources and visual resources would be considerable and significant.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

Following a review of the PEA, I find that the proposed adoption and implementation of the INRMP for Vandenberg AFB would not have any significant unavoidable environmental impacts that can be identified through this first-tier stage of NEPA review. Additional analysis of sitespecific impacts will be conducted as part of the second-tier NEPA review once particular sites and project details are identified. Based on the information contained in this assessment, a Finding of No Significant Impact is made. The preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not required for this action.

The PEA was available for public review for 30 days from 23 May 2011 to 21 June 2011 . No objections to the INRMP PEA were received from either the public or from public agencies.

Page2 Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the 2012-2016 INRMP, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California


FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICA~NT IMPACT SIGNATURE PAGE

Programmatic Environmental Asses;sment for the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan for Vandenberg Air Force Base, California

Programmatic Environmental Assessme·nt for the 2012-2016 INRMP, Vandenberg Air Fon-::e Base, California

2 5 AUG 2011

Page3

Final

Programmatic Environmental Assessment

For the

2011-2015 Integrated Natural Resources ManagementPlan

Vandenberg Air Force Base, California

Prepared for:

30th Civil Engineer Squadron, Asset Management Flight1028 Iceland Avenue

Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA 93437

Prepared by:

Tetra Tech, Inc.301 Mentor Drive, Suite A

Santa Barbara, California 93111

16 August 2011

Executive Summary

Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the Page ES-12011-2015 INRMP, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California

Executive Summary

This Programmatic EnvironmentalAssessment (PEA) evaluates the potentialenvironmental impacts associated withadopting the Integrated Natural ResourcesManagement Plan (INRMP) for VandenbergAir Force Base (AFB) and withimplementing individual projects in theINRMP.

This PEA was prepared in accordance withall applicable federal, state, and local lawsand regulations: the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act (NEPA), the Council onEnvironmental Quality’s (CEQ) Regulationsfor Implementing the Procedural Provisionsof NEPA; and the Air Force’s EnvironmentalImpact Analysis Process (EIAP) (Title 32Code of Federal Regulations Part 989).Vandenberg AFB is headquarters for the30th Space Wing (30 SW), whichrepresents the Department of Defense(DoD) as the lead agency.

Under the Sikes Act, as amended, theSecretary of Defense is directed to “carryout a program to provide for theconservation and rehabilitation of naturalresources on military installations.”Therefore, each military installation in theUnited States under the jurisdiction of theSecretary of Defense must prepare andimplement an INRMP, unless adetermination is made that the absence ofsignificant natural resources makespreparation of such a plan inappropriate.

The INRMP for Vandenberg AFB includesspecific projects to be implemented over thenext five years to sustain, promote, andrestore the health and integrity ofVandenberg AFB ecosystems. The specificprojects proposed are contained inAppendix C of the INRMP and are alsoshown in Table 2-1 of the PEA.

The Proposed Action involves adopting theINRMP and implementing every project

contained in the INRMP, with the exceptionof projects involving demolition,construction, or refurbishment of structures.Under the No-Action alternative, the INRMPwould not be adopted and none of theprojects within the INRMP would beimplemented.

A PEA is a tool for consolidating andanalyzing multiple related federal actions ina single document. The federal actions areevaluated to the fullest extent possible withthe information available at the time. Thisapproach has the advantage of reducing oreliminating redundant and duplicateanalyses. Once individual projects areready to be implemented, the PEA is usedto determine if the NEPA is legally completefor the action or if additional environmentalstudies, regulatory consultations, publicreviews, or environmental permits areneeded.

Project details are not finalized for all theINRMP projects that require field work, sothe projects are analyzed generically in thisPEA according to their common foreseeableimpacts on the environment.

As project designs are clarified and fundingis expected, each project would undergo asecondary environmental review by the AirForce. The Air Force would determine if theaction is fully analyzed and legally sufficientwithin the PEA or if further analysis underthe NEPA is warranted.

In addition, because the INRMP is a livingdocument that can be revised at any time,for any new projects that are proposed to beincluded in the INRMP, the Air Force wouldeither prepare a Supplemental PEA or anindependent EA for that project if the projectdoes not qualify for a categorical exclusion(CATEX).

Executive Summary

Page ES-2 Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the2011-2015 INRMP, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California

The PEA describes the affectedenvironment and environmentalconsequences of the Proposed Action andthe No-Action alternative and identifiesmeasures to prevent or minimizeenvironmental impacts. Withimplementation of the minimizationmeasures listed in Table 2-2 of the PEA,impacts of implementing the INRMPprojects under the Proposed Action wouldbe less than significant for agriculturalresources, human health and safety, noise,recreation, socioeconomics andenvironmental justice, solid waste,transportation, utilities, and visualresources. Most impacts on air quality,biological resources, cultural resources,geology and earth resources, hazardousmaterials and hazardous wastemanagement, land use and coastal zoneresources, and water resources would alsobe reduced to less than significant levelswith implementation of minimizationmeasures. However, certain types ofprojects that would continue to potentiallyresult in the following impacts (even afterimplementation of minimization measuresand standard best management practices)would require further impact analysis:

Projects with the potential to injure or killa special status species as defined inSection 3.4 of the PEA;

Projects that would result in temporaryor permanent impacts on aquatichabitat, wetlands or waters of the US, orfloodplains;

Projects that would result in permanentimpacts on other native vegetationcommunities occurring at VandenbergAFB (e.g., oak woodland, coastal scrub)as described in Section 3.4 of the PEA;

Projects that would result in permanentimpacts on a significant culturalresource as defined in the NHPA;

Projects in geohazardous areas (orareas with geologic conditions that arecapable of causing damage or loss ofproperty and life), such as activelandslide areas, coastal bluffs, streambanks, or stream channels;

Projects that would disturbcontaminated media such as soilthrough excavation with mechanizedequipment or hand tools, or extraction ofcontaminated surface water orgroundwater; and

Prescribed burns greater than 100 acresthat are calculated to produce greaterthan 10 tons of particulate matter, thatwould produce smoke at night, that arenear smoke sensitive areas, or wheremonitoring is necessary for public healthand safety.

The No-Action alternative would have lesserimpacts on all issue areas, with theexception of biological resources, visualresources, and recreation. Under the No-Action alternative, impacts on biologicalresources and visual resources would bemuch greater. Project impacts on biologicalresources and visual resources would bepotentially significant and unmitigable, andthe project’s contribution to cumulativeimpacts on biological resources and visualresources would be considerable andsignificant.

Table of Contents

Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the Page i2011-2015 INRMP, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of ContentsList of FiguresList of TablesAcronyms and Abbreviations

CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION................................. 1-11.1 What is an INRMP and Why is it Needed? .................................................................. 1-11.2 What is the INRMP Status and the Approval Process?................................................ 1-31.3 Why does the INRMP need an Environmental Assessment?....................................... 1-31.4 Why Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Assessment?........................................ 1-31.5 The Proposed Action and its Purpose ......................................................................... 1-41.6 Need for the Proposed Action...................................................................................... 1-41.7 Objective fo the PEA ................................................................................................... 1-41.8 Legal Requirements .................................................................................................... 1-41.9 Decision to be Made.................................................................................................... 1-5

CHAPTER 2. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES................................................... 2-12.1 Selection Criteria for Alternatives................................................................................. 2-12.2 The Proposed Action ................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2.1 Natural Resource Management Categories.......................................... 2-22.2.1.1 Fish and Wildlife Management ............................................... 2-22.2.1.2 Management of Threatened and Endangered Species

and Habitats .......................................................................... 2-32.2.1.3 Water Resource Protection .................................................... 2-42.2.1.4 Wetlands Protection............................................................... 2-52.2.1.5 Grounds Maintenance............................................................ 2-52.2.1.6 Forest Management............................................................... 2-52.2.1.7 Wildland Fire Management .................................................... 2-52.2.1.8 Agricultural Outleasing ........................................................... 2-52.2.1.9 Integrated Pest Management Program .................................. 2-62.2.1.10 Bird-Aircraft Strike Hazard ..................................................... 2-62.2.1.11 Outdoor Recreation................................................................ 2-62.2.1.12 Coastal Zone Management.................................................... 2-72.2.1.13 Cultural Resources Protection................................................ 2-72.2.1.14 Enforcement .......................................................................... 2-82.2.1.15 Public Outreach ..................................................................... 2-9

2.2.2 Proposed Projects and Associated Actions .......................................... 2-92.2.3 Minimizing Environmental Impacts ......................................................2-10

2.3 The No-Action Alternative...........................................................................................2-10

CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................... 3-13.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 3-13.2 Air Quality ............................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2.1 Regulatory Setting................................................................................ 3-13.2.1.1 Federal and State Clean Air Acts ........................................... 3-13.2.1.2 Federal Rules and Regulations .............................................. 3-13.2.1.3 State Rules and Regulations.................................................. 3-3

Table of Contents

Page ii Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the2011-2015 INRMP, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

3.2.1.4 Local Rules and Regulations.................................................. 3-33.2.2 Air Quality Setting................................................................................. 3-4

3.3 Agricultural Resources ................................................................................................ 3-43.3.1 Regulatory Setting................................................................................ 3-43.3.2 Agricultural Setting ............................................................................... 3-4

3.4 Biological Resources ................................................................................................... 3-53.4.1 Regulatory Setting................................................................................ 3-53.4.2 Biological Setting.................................................................................. 3-6

3.4.2.1 Vegetation Communities........................................................... 3-63.4.2.2 Special-Status Species............................................................. 3-73.4.2.3 Wetlands and Waters of the United States ............................... 3-8

3.5 Cultural Resources...................................................................................................... 3-93.5.1 Regulatory Setting................................................................................ 3-93.5.2 Cultural Setting..................................................................................... 3-9

3.5.2.1 Archaeological Resources ..................................................... 3-93.5.2.2 Historic Architectural Resources ...........................................3-103.5.2.3 Paleontological Resources....................................................3-10

3.6 Geology and Earth Resources....................................................................................3-123.7 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management .........................................3-12

3.7.1 Regulatory Setting...............................................................................3-123.7.2 Hazardous Materials at Vandenberg AFB............................................3-133.7.3 Installation Restoration Program at Vandenberg AFB..........................3-133.7.4 Hazardous Waste at Vandenberg AFB................................................3-13

3.8 Human Health and Safety...........................................................................................3-133.9 Land Use and Coastal Zone Resources .....................................................................3-153.10 Noise ............................................................................................................3-163.11 Recreation ............................................................................................................3-173.12 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice...............................................................3-183.13 Solid Waste ............................................................................................................3-193.14 Transportation ............................................................................................................3-193.15 Utilities ............................................................................................................3-20

3.15.1 Potable Water .....................................................................................3-203.15.2 Wastewater .........................................................................................3-213.15.3 Electricity and Natural Gas ..................................................................3-213.15.4 Communications..................................................................................3-21

3.16 Visual Resources .......................................................................................................3-213.17 Water Resources........................................................................................................3-21

3.17.1 Regulatory Setting...............................................................................3-213.17.2 Surface Water and Floodplains ...........................................................3-223.17.3 Groundwater .......................................................................................3-22

CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........................................................... 4-14.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 4-14.2 Air Quality ............................................................................................................. 4-14.3 Agricultural Resources ................................................................................................ 4-44.4 Biological Resources ................................................................................................... 4-4

Table of Contents

Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the Page iii2011-2015 INRMP, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California

4.5 Cultural Resources...................................................................................................... 4-64.6 Geology and Earth Resources..................................................................................... 4-74.7 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management .......................................... 4-84.8 Human Health and Safety............................................................................................ 4-94.9 Land Use and Coastal Zone Resources .....................................................................4-104.10 Noise ............................................................................................................4-114.11 Recreation ............................................................................................................4-124.12 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice...............................................................4-124.13 Solid Waste ............................................................................................................4-134.14 Transportation ............................................................................................................4-134.15 Utilities ............................................................................................................4-144.16 Visual Resources .......................................................................................................4-154.17 Water Resources........................................................................................................4-154.18 Cumulative Impacts....................................................................................................4-16

CHAPTER 5. REFERENCES................................................................................................. 5-1

CHAPTER 6. LIST OF PREPARERS..................................................................................... 6-1

CHAPTER 7. LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS CONTACTED....... 7-1

LIST OF FIGURES

1-1 Location Map ............................................................................................................. 1-2

LIST OF TABLES

2-1 INRMP Projects and Associated Actions ....................................................................2-112-2 Minimization Measures...............................................................................................2-173-1 NAAQS, CAAQS, and Santa Barbara County’s Attainment Status .............................. 3-23-2 Applicable SBCAPCD Rules........................................................................................ 3-43-3 Applicable California Coastal Act Policies...................................................................3-17

Table of Contents

Page iv Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the2011-2015 INRMP, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

30 CES/CEA 30th Space Wing Asset Management Flight30 CES/CEANC 30th Space Wing Asset Management Flight, Natural Resources

30 SFS/S3SW 30th Space Wing Conservation Law Enforcement30 SW/CC 30th Space Wing Installation Commander30 SWI 30th Space Wing Instruction

AB Assembly Bill

ACM asbestos containing material

AETC Air Education and Training CommandAFB Air Force BaseAFI Air Force InstructionAFPMB Armed Forces Pest Management BoardAICUZs Air Installation Compatible Use ZonesAOCs Areas of ConcernAOIs Areas of InterestAPZs Accident Potential ZonesATVs all terrain vehicles

BASH Bird/Aircraft Strike HazardBMPs best management practicesBP Before Present

CAA Clean Air ActCAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standard

Cal/OSHA California Division of Occupational Health and SafetyCARB California Air Resources BoardCATEX Categorical ExclusionCCAA California Clean Air ActCCC California Coastal CommissionCCR California Code of RegulationsCDFG California Department of Fish and GameCE Civil EngineeringCEQ Council on Environmental QualityCERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act

CESA California Endangered Species ActCFR Code of Federal RegulationsCH4 methane

CIWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board

CNEL community noise equivalent level

CNPS California Native Plant SocietyCO carbon monoxideCO2 carbon dioxide

CO2e CO2-equivalents

Table of Contents

Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the Page v2011-2015 INRMP, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California

CWA Clean Water Act

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act

dB decibel

dBA “A-weighted” decibelDoD Department of DefenseDoDI Department of Defense Instruction

EIAP environmental impact analysis processEIS Environmental Impact StatementEOD Explosive Ordnance DisposalESA Endangered Species ActESBB El Segundo Blue ButterflyESHOC Environmental, Safety, and Occupational Health Council

FONPA Finding of No Practicable AlternativeFONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

GCEMP Golf Course Environmental Management Plan

GHGs greenhouse gasesGIS geographic information system

HQ AFSC Headquarters Air Force Space Command

ICRMP Integrated Cultural Resources Management PlanINRMP Integrated Natural Resources Management PlanIRP Installation Restoration Program

kV kilovolt

LBP lead-based paint

LCZs Lateral Clear Zones

Leq equivalent noise levels

LOS level of service

µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act

mph mile per hour

MS4s Small Municipal Separate Storm Water Sewer Systems

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality StandardNEPA National Environmental Policy ActNHPA National Historic Preservation ActNPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

N2O nitrous oxide

Table of Contents

Page vi Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the2011-2015 INRMP, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California

NOAA Fisheries National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine FisheriesNOx nitrogen oxidesNRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

O3 ozoneORV off-road vehicleOSHA Occupational Health and Safety Administration

PAHs polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

PCBs polychlorinated biphenylsPEA Programmatic Environmental AssessmentPERP Portable Equipment Registration ProgramPL Public LawPM2.5 fine particulate matter with a diameter of less than 2.5 micrometersPM10 fine particulate matter with a diameter of less than 10 micrometersppm parts per million

Qal Quaternary alluvium depositsQo Quaternary Orcutt Formation, middle to late Pleistocene eolianite unitQoa Quaternary Older alluvium depositsQt Quaternary stream depositsQt2 Quaternary continental terrace deposits

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery ActROI region of influenceRWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board

SBCAPCD Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control DistrictSHPO State Historic Preservation OfficerSWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

TCE trichloroethyleneTm Monterey FormationTml Miocene Lower Monterey Formation

TPHs total petroleum hydrocarbons

TSCA Toxic Substances Control ActTsq, Tsqd Miocene/Pliocene Sisquoc FormationTvq Lower Miocene Vaqueros Formation

US United StatesUSACE US Army Corps of EngineersUSC US CodeUS EPA US Environmental Protection AgencyUSFWS US Fish and Wildlife ServiceUSGS US Geological Survey

UXO unexploded ordnance

Table of Contents

Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the Page vii2011-2015 INRMP, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California

VOCs volatile organic compounds

VPFS vernal pool fairy shrimp

WFMP Wildland Fire Management Plan

WWTP wastewater treatment plant

Table of Contents

Page viii Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the2011-2015 INRMP, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California

This page intentionally left blank.

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the Page 1-12011-2015 INRMP, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California

CHAPTER 1 EXPLAINS:

What the INRMP is and why the AirForce needs it;

INRMP status and approvalprocess;

Why the INRMP needs anEnvironmental Assessment (EA)and why it is a PEA;

The purpose and need forimplementing the VandenbergAFB INRMP;

Objective of the PEA;

Legal requirements; and

Decision to be made.


Chapter 1 defines what the IntegratedNatural Resource Management Plan(INRMP) is and why the Air Force needs theplan for Vandenberg Air Force Base (AFB).Chapter 1 further explains why aProgrammatic Environmental Assessment(PEA) needs to be prepared for the INRMP.Ultimately, the chapter defines the proposedaction and explains its purpose and need.This information is the foundation for thedocument’s subsequent chapters.

Vandenberg AFB is in Santa BarbaraCounty, California, and is home to the 30thSpace Wing, a component of the Air Force’sSpace Command. Vandenberg AFB covers99,579 acres of largely undeveloped land(Figure 1-1). Biological resources include 33miles of coastal landscapes and 15 federallythreatened and endangered species. Thebase is home to thousands of acres ofnatural ecosystems, from wetlands,waterways, and estuaries to coastal dunes,chaparral, and woodlands.

1.1 What is an INRMP andWhy is it Needed?

An INRMP is a guide for conserving andrestoring biological resources andecosystems on military installations. AnINRMP combines and integrates severalindividual plans for managing fish andwildlife, forests, wetlands and riparianhabitats, croplands, fire management,grazing management, invasive plantspecies, and outdoor recreation. The UnitedStates (US) Air Force is required to preparean INRMP for Vandenberg AFB by theSikes Act (16 United States Code [USC],670a[1][B]), as well as Department ofDefense Instruction (DoDI) 4715.3 and AirForce Instruction (AFI) 32-7064.

Vandenberg AFB’s INRMP includes a list of312 proposed projects aimed at conserving

and restoring the base’s biologicalresources and ecosystems. Approximatelyhalf of the projects involve administrativeactivities that can be accomplished in anoffice, like records management and reportwriting. The remaining projects requirerestoration and conservation field activities,such as animal habitat studies, plantsurveys, fence repairs, and invasivevegetation removal.

While the INRMP is intended to manageVandenberg AFB’s natural resources, theplan’s guidance must not conflict with theAir Force’s mission or military readiness. Assuch, projects proposed in the INRMPwould be implemented without interfering ordelaying mission critical actions, such asspace launches, military aircraft operations,or troop activities.

£¤101

UV1

UV135

UV1

UV1

UV1

UV246

UV1

UV246

ALompoc

SantaMaria

FederalFederal Correctional Correctional Institute Institute

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

©

0 3 61.5 Miles

_̂ Los Angeles

San Francisco

Vandenberg AFB

United States Air ForceVandenberg Air Force Base

Location Map

Figure 1-1



1.2 What is the INRMP Statusand the Approval Process?

As of April 2011, Vandenberg AFB’s INRMPis in draft form and awaits completion of thisPEA before it can be implemented. TheINRMP must also fully comply withapplicable federal, state, and local laws andregulations before going into effect.

In order to comply with the Sikes Act, theINRMP must be reviewed and approved bythe 30th Space Wing’s commandheadquarters. The plan must also bereviewed and endorsed by the US Fish andWildlife Service (USFWS), the NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration’sNational Marine Fisheries Service (NOAAFisheries), and the California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG).

Both the INRMP and this EA are madeavailable to the general public for reviewthrough Santa Barbara County libraries for30 days, the dates of which are announcedin local newspapers. According toDepartment of Defense (DoD) policy, theINRMP must also be reviewed annually withthe cooperation of the USFWS, CDFG, andNOAA Fisheries to ensure that projects andactivities for the upcoming year areidentified, budgeted, and implemented.

The Vandenberg AFB INRMP would be ineffect for five years. In order to stay currentwith changing laws and regulations andchanges in the environment, the INRMPwould be revised and updated every fiveyears thereafter.

1.3 Why does the INRMP needan Environmental Assessment?

While the INRMP may appear inherentlybeneficial to the environment, the projectsaimed at protecting biological resources andecosystems could create impacts on otherprotected resources, like air quality, water

quality, soils, and cultural resources. Inorder to determine potential impacts on allenvironmental resources, the Air Forceprepared this environmental document inaccordance with the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act (NEPA) and associatedregulations from the Council onEnvironmental Quality (CEQ).

The NEPA and its associated regulationsrequire federal agencies to define federalactions and to assess potential impacts onthe environment resulting from thoseactions. In the case of Vandenberg AFB’sINRMP, impacts on the environment fromthe INRMP’s numerous proposed projectswere unknown; as such, the Air Forcedetermined that a PEA was the bestapproach for complying with the NEPA.

1.4 Why Prepare aProgrammatic EnvironmentalAssessment ?

A PEA is a tool for consolidating andanalyzing multiple related federal actions ina single document. The federal actions areevaluated to the fullest extent possible withthe information available at the time. Thisapproach has the advantage of reducing oreliminating redundant and duplicateanalyses. Once individual projects are readyto be implemented, the PEA is used todetermine if the NEPA is legally completefor the action or if additional environmentalstudies, regulatory consultations, publicreviews, or environmental permits areneeded.

Project details are not finalized for all theINRMP projects that require field work, sothe projects are analyzed generically in thisPEA according to their common foreseeableimpacts on the environment.

As project designs are clarified and fundingis expected, each project would undergo asecondary environmental review by the AirForce. The Air Force would determine if the


Page 1-4 Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the2011-2015 INRMP, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California

action is fully analyzed and legally sufficientwithin the PEA or if further analysis underthe NEPA is warranted.

1.5 The Proposed Action andits Purpose

The Proposed Action analyzed in this PEAis the implementation of Vandenberg AFB’sINRMP, a five-year comprehensive planused for managing biological resources andecosystems. Guidance in the INRMP wouldallow Air Force personnel to sustain,promote, and restore the health andintegrity of Vandenberg AFB ecosystemsthrough effective long-term managementactions.

As required by the NEPA, an alternative tothe Proposed Action is addressed in thisPEA. The alternative is a No-Actionalternative wherein the environmentalimpacts of proceeding without an INRMPare analyzed. This alternative is explainedin Chapters 2 through 4.

1.6 Need for the ProposedAction

The Sikes Act directs the Secretary ofDefense to “carry out a program to providefor the conservation and rehabilitation ofnatural resources on military installations”(16 USC, 670 et seq.). Under Department ofDefense Instruction 4715.3, Environmental

Conservation Program, and AFI 32-7064,military installations that have significantnatural resources must prepare andimplement an INRMP.

1.7 Objective of the PEA

The PEA identifies, describes, andevaluates the range of potentialenvironmental impacts that could result fromthe proposed action and the No-Actionalternative. It evaluates potential cumulativeeffects from other past, present, andplanned actions on Vandenberg AFB.Environmental regulatory requirements areidentified, as well as necessary permits.

Chapter 2 explains the Proposed Actionand describes the No-Action alternative.Potential impacts on air quality, agriculturalresources, noise levels, hazardousmaterials, solid waste, geology, waterresources, biological and cultural resources,coastal zone resources, land use,recreation, transportation, utilities, visualresources, socioeconomics andenvironmental justice, and human healthand safety are analyzed in Chapter 3. Theenvironmental consequences andcumulative impacts resulting from theProposed Action and alternative areexplained in Chapter 4. Chapters 5through 7 list agencies and personscontacted, the PEA preparers, and the PEAdistribution list.

1.8 Legal Requirements

A critical component of preparing this PEAis a thorough identification of allenvironmental laws, regulations, anddirectives that would apply to the ProposedAction and the No-Action alternative. TheAir Force determined that the following listof laws and regulations must be reviewedfor their relevance to the projects listed inthe Vandenberg AFB INRMP:

PEA

A tool for eliminating redundant

and duplicate studies

Provides a springboard document

for future project-specific

NEPA reviews



FEDERAL LAWS and REGULATIONS

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of1978 (42 USC 1996)

Archaeological and Historic PreservationAct of 1974 (16 USC, 469a et seq.)

Archaeological Resources Protection Actof 1979 (16 USC, 470aa-mm),Supplemental Regulations of 1984

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, asamended (16 USC, 668-668c)

Clean Air Act of 1970 (42 USC, 7401 etseq.)

Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended (33USC, 1251 et. seq.)

Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act (42 USC,9601-9675)

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972(16 USC 1451-1464)

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16USC, 1531 et seq.)

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservationand Management Act (Public Law 94-265)

Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 USC,1361)

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, asamended (16 USC, 703-712)

National Environmental Policy Act of1969, as amended (42 USC, 4321-4347)

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966as amended (NHPA) (16 USC, 470 etseq.)

Native American Graves Protection andRepatriation Act of 1990 (25 USC, 3001-3013)

Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 USC, 4901et seq.)

Occupational Safety and Health Act of1970 (29 USC, 659-678)

Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (42 USC,

13101-13109) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

of 1976 (42 USC, 6901 et seq.) Sikes Act (16 USC, 670a-670o) Superfund Amendments and

Reauthorization Act (42 USC, 9601-9675) Title II of the Toxic Substances Control

Act of 1976 (15 USC, 2601 et seq.)

STATE LAWS and REGULATIONS

California Coastal Act of 1976 California Clean Air Act of 1988 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act California Integrated Waste Management

Act of 1989, California Assembly Bill AB939

1.9 Decision to be Made

This PEA is a decision-making documentthat provides the Air Force with sufficientinformation to determine if the ProposedAction or the No-Action alternative wouldsignificantly affect the quality of the humanenvironment. If the PEA revealed thatsignificant impacts could not be avoidedwith implementation of the Vandenberg AFBINRMP, then an Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS) would be the next steprequired under the NEPA.

If it were determined that the ProposedAction or any of the alternatives could beachieved without significantly affecting thequality of the human environment, then aFinding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)letter would be prepared, indicatingcompliance with the NEPA. After addressingregulatory agency and public comments, theAir Force decides if a FONSI is legallysufficient.




Chapter 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives



According to the NEPA, a federal agencymust clearly define the action it wishes toundertake so that it may properly evaluatepotential environmental impacts. Federalagencies must also “rigorously explore andobjectively evaluate all reasonablealternatives” to a proposed project (CEQPart 1502.14a). NEPA guidanceemphasizes that a federal agency shouldthen define the differences between thealternatives and carefully explain how theirenvironmental impacts differ.

Once a proposed action and all reasonablealternatives are identified, a federal agencymay proceed with analyzing the affectedenvironment (Chapter 3) and environmentalconsequences (Chapter 4) for the proposedaction and alternatives.

Chapter 2 describes in detail the Air Force’sProposed Action to finalize and implementVandenberg AFB’s Draft INRMP. Thechapter also describes an alternative to theProposed Action, which is the No-Actionalternative. The No-Action alternative wouldhave Vandenberg AFB proceed without anINRMP and without implementing theprojects listed in the INRMP.

2.1 Selection Criteria forAlternatives

The criteria for selecting alternatives to theAir Force’s proposal come from the purposeand need discussed in Chapter 1, which isto prepare and implement an INRMP, asrequired by the Sikes Act.

The Air Force proposes that the best way toaccomplish the purpose and need is tofinalize Vandenberg AFB’s draft INRMP andto implement the projects listed in the plan.This plan is referred to throughout the PEAas the Proposed Action.

In searching for alternatives to preparingand implementing the INRMP, the Air Forceconsidered changing the format of theINRMP and parceling out some of theindividual plans as separate managementtools. The Air Force determined that thiswould not change the types of proposedactivities and therefore would not reducepotential environmental impacts. Also, thisapproach would defeat one of the purposesof the INRMP, which is to integrate allnatural resource management plans. Assuch, in order to ensure optimum success ofthe INRMP, the Air Force concluded that theindividual plans must remain parts of thewhole.

The sole alternative analyzed in the PEA isthe No-Action alternative. This approachidentifies potential impacts on theenvironment if the INRMP were not finalizedor implemented. By proceeding with the No-Action alternative, the Air Force would beout of legal compliance with the Sikes Act.

The Air Force identified no other options asreasonable alternatives to adequatelyaccomplish the purpose and need objectiveand to minimize environmental impacts atthe programmatic level. In addition, Chapter1 (Section 1.4) explains that as projectdesigns are clarified and funding isexpected, the Air Force would conduct asecondary environmental review of eachproject proposed in the INRMP. A project-specific alternatives analysis would be partof this secondary review.

2.2 The Proposed Action

The Proposed Action would finalize theINRMP and implement the projects listed inthe plan. In the past, natural resourcemanagement at Vandenberg AFB wasguided by separate plans addressingdifferent aspects of natural resourcesmanagement, such as land management,



urban forestry, fish and wildlifemanagement, forestry management,outdoor recreation, and range management.Each plan addressed various baseresources independently of the others, andthere was poor integration of managementstrategies. As a result, natural resourcesmay not have been managed cohesivelyand efficiently.

The INRMP should integrate allmanagement activities in a manner thatsustains, promotes, and restores the healthand integrity of Vandenberg AFBecosystems using an adaptive managementapproach. Since the environment is notstatic and is ever changing, an adaptivemanagement approach would allow the AirForce to manage natural resources in new,better, and more efficient ways. Thisapproach also complies with AFI 32-7064,which directs installations to ensureecologically sound stewardship of thenation’s natural resources found on AirForce lands.

The INRMP is designed to accomplish thefollowing:

Summarize existing management plansand natural resources literaturepertaining to Vandenberg AFB;

Identify and analyze management goalsin existing plans;

Integrate the management goals andobjectives of the individual plans;

Support base compliance withapplicable regulatory requirements;

Support the integration of naturalresource stewardship with the Air Forcemission; and

Provide direction for monitoringstrategies.

2.2.1 Natural Resource ManagementCategories

There are fifteen natural resourcemanagement categories addressed in theINRMP. Each category focuses on aspecific management topic and involvesspecific goals and planned projects. Thecategories are listed below and correspondwith Chapter 7 of the INRMP and with thetabs to the INRMP.

2.2.1.1 Fish and Wildlife Management

Guidelines are implemented on VandenbergAFB that allow the completion of basemissions while providing conservation,protection, and responsible managementstrategies for fish and wildlife resources onthe base. Fish and wildlife managementissues include resource demand, huntingand fishing, habitat improvement, publicaccess, fee structures, wildlife pestproblems, and human-wildlife interaction.Specific management objectives areincluded in the Fish and WildlifeManagement Plan (Tab A), OutdoorRecreation Management Plan (Tab H), andIntegrated Pest Management Plan (Tab G).

2.2.1.1.1 Hunting, Fishing, and WildlifeViewing

Hunting and fishing are conducted throughthe Fish and Wildlife CooperativeAgreement, in coordination with the USFWSand CDFG. Hunting and fishing areimportant recreation activities for activeduty, reservists, retired military, and DoDcivilian personnel on Vandenberg AFB;Chumash Tribal Members; and USPenitentiary, Lompoc, employees. A smallnumber of local civilians also fish on thebase, using the civilian fishing pass system.

Wildlife sanctuaries and natural areasprovide entertainment and education for birdand other wildlife watchers, as well asscenic locations for picnicking, hiking, andcamping. There are wildlife-viewingopportunities in various locations and



habitats on Vandenberg AFB, including awildlife viewing area at the Santa YnezRiver Estuary, the Waterfowl NaturalResources Area in the Santa Ynez Riverfloodplain, and some coastal beach anddune areas.

All access is regulated to accommodaterecreation without exposing users to spaceand missile launch hazards, compromisingthe security requirements of militaryoperations, or permitting the “take” of listedspecies. Hunting, fishing, and wildlifeviewing areas on Vandenberg AFB aredepicted in Appendix A of the INRMP,Figures 7-1A and 7-1B, and are detailed inthe 30th Space Wing Instruction (30 SWI)32-7001. Access and authorizations forfishing, hunting, and wildlife viewing are theresponsibility of 30th Space WingConservation Law Enforcement Program(30 SFS/S3SW).

2.2.1.1.2 Wildlife Pest Program

Species identified as wildlife pests onVandenberg AFB include feral pig, beaver,California ground squirrel, and bark beetle.Information regarding these species isprovided in the Integrated PestManagement Plan (Tab G).

2.2.1.1.3 Human-Wildlife InteractionConcerns

Human-wildlife interaction concerns refer tosituations where the presence or activitiesof wildlife could be hazardous to humanactivities and where human presence couldhave detrimental impacts on wildlife.Vandenberg AFB implements a range ofpractices to minimize human-wildlifeinteractions. Deer, nesting birds, bats, feralpigs, California ground squirrels, skunks,and raccoons are of particular concern forhuman-wildlife interactions on-base.Additional detail regarding the managementof these species is provided in the INRMP

and the Integrated Pest Management Plan(Tab G).

State Wildlife Action Plan

In 2000, Congress enacted the StateWildlife Grants Program to support stateprograms that broadly benefit wildlife andhabitats but particularly “species of greatestconservation need.” The CDFG directed thedevelopment of the State Wildlife ActionPlan for California, titled California Wildlife:Conservation Challenges, which is directedat answering three primary questions:

What are the species and habitats ofgreatest conservation need?

What are the major stressors affectingCalifornia’s native wildlife and habitats?

What are the actions needed to restoreand conserve California’s wildlife,thereby reducing the likelihood thatmore species will approach thecondition of threatened or endangeredstatus?

Wildlife provides significant economicbenefits to the state through recreation,tourism, and commercial harvest. Many ofthe places where wildlife thrives are oftenthe same as those valued for recreation andother human activities. By learning whatthreatens the state’s wildlife and the stepsthat can be taken to reduce those threats,California’s residents have the opportunityto become more active stewards of thisprecious resource.

In the State Wildlife Action Plan,conservation actions were considered foreach region of California, based on thestressors and circumstances in each.Statewide conservation actions are thosethat are important across most or allregions. Vandenberg AFB is committedthrough this INRMP, as well as the SikesAct Memorandum of Understanding, to work



with the CDFG to consider and implementactions discussed in the State WildlifeAction Plan to the maximum extent feasible.

2.2.1.2 Management of Threatened andEndangered Species and Habitats

A major overarching goal for managingsensitive species on Vandenberg AFB is topreserve, protect, and enhance populationsand their habitats. To achieve this goal,Vandenberg AFB applies the followingmeasures in threatened and endangeredspecies management:

Avoid adverse direct and indirectimpacts on and disturbances to speciesand their habitats. Where impacts areunavoidable, optimum minimizationmeasures would be evaluated andimplemented.

Since all populations of rare species thatcould exist on Vandenberg AFB may notbe known, base-wide surveys would beperformed to document newpopulations.

Because rare species populations aredynamic and their ecology is not alwayscompletely understood, existing knownpopulations would be monitored asneeded, based on species’requirements and recovery efforts.

Proposed actions by Vandenberg AFBthat may affect federally threatened orendangered species or their criticalhabitat are subject to formalconsultation, in accordance with section7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA),unless it is determined through informalconsultation that the proposed action isnot likely to adversely affect any listedspecies or critical habitat or it is coveredby a Programmatic Biological Opinion.Protective measures and monitoring ofall threatened and endangered species

occurs during implementation of projectsin their habitats.

The Threatened and Endangered SpeciesManagement Plan (Tab D) includes specificmanagement actions at Vandenberg AFB toprotect listed species. The Threatened andEndangered Species Management Planalso summarizes current biological opinionsand their terms and conditions.

2.2.1.3 Water Resource Protection

Watershed protection and the preservationof water quality are important to the healthand function of natural resources onVandenberg AFB. The primary causes ofdegraded water quality generally includedisease-causing agents found in untreatedsewage, oxygen-demanding wastes, water-soluble inorganic chemicals, inorganic plantnutrients, organic chemicals, erosionsediments, and thermal pollution. Degradedwater quality may cause ecosystems tobecome vulnerable to other adverseenvironmental factors.

Water quality impacts associated withactivities on Vandenberg AFB includepollution related to domestic wastewater,industrial wastewater, stormwater,pesticides and fertilizer use, organicchemical use, and erosion. VandenbergAFB uses many methods to control potentialimpacts on water resources, includingregulating land use, air pollution, pesticideand fertilizer use, wastewater discharges,and stormwater discharges. Effectivecontrol of water quality on-base requires theintegration of watershed planning andmanagement. The Regional Water QualityControl Board (RWQCB) overseesVandenberg AFB in programs addressingindirect and direct impacts on water quality.Vandenberg AFB’s WastewaterManagement Plan, Industrial WastewaterManagement Plan, and StormwaterPollution Prevention Plan provide direction



for controlling direct impacts on local waterquality.

2.2.1.4 Wetlands Protection

Approximately five percent of VandenbergAFB lands are wetlands (5,110 acres).Vandenberg AFB contains a variety ofrelatively undisturbed wetlands, rangingfrom estuaries and rivers to freshwatermarshes and intermittent streams. Majorwetland areas on-base are Barka Slough;the Santa Ynez River and the Santa YnezRiver estuary; San Antonio, Canada Honda,Jalama, and Shuman Creeks; and PineCanyon and Punchbowl Lakes.

Vernal pools are among the leastunderstood habitats on Vandenberg AFBand require further study and mapping.Since many of the pools on-base occur nearroadsides, they are subject to disturbancesfrom roadside maintenance, and from grasscutting for fire prevention. Additionalinformation regarding the management ofwetlands is provided in the Wetlands andRiparian Habitats Management Plan (TabB).

2.2.1.5 Grounds Maintenance

Grounds maintenance on Vandenberg AFBincludes native landscaping strategies,pest/insect and disease control, treewindbreak monitoring, nonpoint sourcepollution control, urban forestrymaintenance, and green wastemanagement. Proper grounds maintenanceis a critical issue for natural resourcesprotection. Currently, there are four groundsmaintenance plans for Vandenberg AFB:the Lands and Grounds MaintenanceManagement Plan (Tab J), the Forestry andUrban Forestry Management Plan (Tab F),the Base Facilities Excellence Plan, and theBase Landscaping Guidelines. Each plancontains recommendations for the type oflandscaping that the base will have. The

Base Landscaping Guidelines promote theuse of native plants.

2.2.1.6 Forest Management

On military lands, successful urban forestmanagement must accommodate andsupport the military mission, while providingenvironmental benefits and improving thequality of life for base personnel andresidents. Information regarding forestmanagement on Vandenberg AFB isprovided in the Forestry and Urban ForestryManagement Plan (Tab F).

2.2.1.7 Wildland Fire Management

The Wildland Fire Management Plan(WFMP) (Tab M) describes the firemanagement activities at Vandenberg AFB.The WFMP meets the requirements of AFI32-7064, Integrated Natural ResourcesManagement, Chapter 12, Wildland FireManagement, and complies with theNational Fire Protection AssociationStandards. Chapter 12 of AFI 32-7064requires Air Force installations withunimproved lands that present a wildfirehazard and installations that use prescribedburns as a land management tool todevelop and implement a WFMP. Accordingto AFI 32-7064, WFMPs must beincorporated into or be consistent with aninstallation’s INRMP. The WFMP is afundamental strategic document that guidesthe full range of fire management-relatedactivities.

2.2.1.8 Agricultural Outleasing

Proper management of the agriculturaloutleasing program for Vandenberg AFB isa major factor in maintaining the quality ofnatural resources on-base. Past agriculturalpractices have contributed to the destructionof sensitive habitats and disturbance ofthreatened, endangered, and candidatespecies. The Cropland Management Plan(Tab E1) discusses the main components of



the agricultural outleasing program onVandenberg AFB. The GrazingManagement Plan (Tab E2) describes thegrazing management practices atVandenberg AFB.

Management strategies have been focusedon assessing the status of suitable andavailable areas for agricultural activities,properly interfacing with the NaturalResources Conservation Service and TheNature Conservancy, and implementingrotational grazing practices and grazingmonitoring programs.

2.2.1.9 Integrated Pest ManagementProgram

Invasive nonnative species are majorthreats to native flora and fauna. The mostproblematic and widespread species onVandenberg AFB are iceplant, veldt grass,European beachgrass, and pampas grass.Other invasive species that are of concerninclude narrow-leaved iceplant andcrystalline iceplant. The habitats mostthreatened by these species are coastaldune communities and chaparral. Riparianand wetland habitats also are vulnerable toinvasion by German ivy, tamarisk, and giantreed. Information regarding these speciesand the efforts to control them onVandenberg AFB is provided in theIntegrated Pest Management Program andInvasive Plant Species Management Plan(Tabs G and K).

2.2.1.10 Bird-Aircraft Strike Hazard

Aircraft may strike birds flying over theairfield or in aircraft approach and departureroutes. Such bird-aircraft strikes couldcause significant damage and casualtiesbecause the high speed of the aircraftgreatly increases the force of the impact. Alarge flock of seagulls that travels back andforth between its night roost along the coastand its feeding area at the base landfill fliesover the airfield twice each day, posing a

serious hazard to aircraft arriving anddeparting Vandenberg AFB and transitingalong the coast. Pilots are instructed to bealert to this hazard during the peak gulltravel periods, usually one hour before andafter sunrise and sunset. Lesser numbers ofother bird species may also fly over therunway and approach zones daily orseasonally.

Other Wildlife-Aircraft Strike Hazard

The airfield at Vandenberg AFB issurrounded by excellent mule deer habitat.An electric deer exclusion fence wasinstalled around the airfield to reduce deerstrike incidents. Information regarding themanagement of bird/wildlife-aircraft strikehazard issues is provided in the Bird/AircraftStrike Hazard (BASH) Plan (Tab L).

2.2.1.11 Outdoor Recreation

Vandenberg AFB contains a variety ofoutdoor recreation opportunities, includingcamping, picnicking, wildlife viewing, off-road vehicle use, hunting, and fishing. Asustainable outdoor recreation programincludes the management, conservation,and use of natural and outdoor recreationresources that is practical and consistentwith the military mission and provides thegreatest possible public benefit.

Mission priorities, safety, and security limitpublic access to recreation on VandenbergAFB. In addition, outdoor recreation makesuse of available natural resources forrecreation, while safeguarding public health,safety, and environmental qualities. Naturaland recreation resources are managed toprovide the greatest possible benefit, whileprotecting natural areas. Vandenberg AFBprovides recreation opportunities for nearly15,000 active duty, retired, and dependentpersonnel and for more than 3,000 civilianworkers.



Open space recreation facilities on-baseinclude a 237-acre, 18-hole golf course, the216-acre Saddle Club, a 600-acre off-roadvehicle area, and access to beaches (withseasonal restrictions to protect sensitivespecies). Also available arefootball/baseball/softball fields, tenniscourts, running tracks, picnic areas, andbicycle paths. Additional informationregarding the outdoor recreation facilities onVandenberg AFB is provided in the OutdoorRecreation Management Plan (Tab H).

2.2.1.12 Coastal Zone Management

Vandenberg AFB has 33 miles of coastline,consisting of a variety of naturalcommunities that include coastal dunes andcoastal dune scrubland, coastal saltmarshes, coastal bluffs, and rockycoastlines and beaches. Disturbances tosome of these areas have been due to pastcattle grazing, off-road vehicle (ORV) use,and past military-related development.Several of these natural communitiescontain endangered and other special-status plant species or are used as habitator roosting sites for threatened,endangered, and other special-statusanimal species.

Management of these areas is important tomaintain their health and that of the speciesin them. Coastal issues affectingVandenberg AFB include requirements forcoastal consistency determinations,protection of marine animals, specialmanagement areas for threatened andendangered species, public and militaryrecreation access, the Vandenberg StateMarine Reserve, and the Marine EcologicalReserve. The Coastal and Riparian HabitatsManagement Plan (Tab C) containsadditional information regarding theseresources.

Special Management Areas

There are numerous special managementareas on Vandenberg AFB for coastalspecies that are discussed elsewhere in theINRMP. In addition, several natural areasare considered sensitive or unique becauseof their rarity or drastic rate of decline inacreage, either statewide or nationwide, andtheir importance to the native plant speciesthey support. These areas require specialmanagement consideration to preserve theirintegrity and the diversity of natural systemson the base as a whole. The areas areseabird nest sites, the Vandenberg MarineEcological Reserve, and the VandenbergState Marine Reserve. Additional detailregarding the special management areas onVandenberg AFB is provided in the INRMPand in Tab H.

2.2.1.13 Cultural Resources Protection

The 30th Space Wing Asset ManagementFlight (30 CES/CEA) Natural Resources (30CES/CEANC) staff work closely with30 CES/CEA Cultural Resources staffarchaeologists to ensure that culturalresource concerns are addressed whenimplementing natural resource programsand activities. Natural resource issues ofconcern to cultural resource protection areincorporated into the Vandenberg AFBIntegrated Cultural Resource ManagementPlan, which is in preparation. Examples ofongoing cultural/natural resourcecoordination issues are as follows:

California least tern and Western snowyplover protection requires placement ofsigns and fencing.

Early coordination between biologistsand archaeologists ensures that culturalresources are not adversely affected. Insome cases, fencing to protect listedspecies can also be designed andplaced so as to enhance protection ofarchaeological sites. Native American



monitors are involved, whereappropriate, to further ensure protectionof sensitive cultural sites.

Vandenberg AFB extended hunting andfishing privileges to Chumash Tribemembers and coordinates on locationsfor gathering natural materials that areimportant to Chumash culture andtraditions.

Natural and cultural resources staffcoordinate on the management ofSwordfish Cave, an extremely importantsite to the Chumash and also asignificant and sensitive pallid batroosting area.

Natural and cultural resources staffcoordinate on restoration projects forhistoric buildings on Vandenberg AFBthat may affect nesting birds and bats.

2.2.1.14 Enforcement

The Vandenberg AFB Fish and WildlifeManagement Program was first establishedin 1957. The Rod and Gun Club, a privaterecreation organization on VandenbergAFB, was the first to establish a naturalresources enforcement program on thebase in the 1960s to protect game stocks byensuring adherence to CDFG laws andregulations. The program was establishedthrough a Fish and Wildlife CooperativeAgreement among Vandenberg AFB, theUSFWS, and CDFG in 1963. The firstnatural resources enforcement program withprofessionally trained staff was organizedunder the 30th Space Wing Security ForcesSquadron in1997.

A comprehensive natural resourcesprogram at Vandenberg AFB began in 1985with the establishment of the Directorate ofEnvironmental Management. Areas ofdeficiency identified before 1985 includedovergrazing, absence of fire in overmaturestands of chaparral, inadequate game

harvests, invasion of exotic plant species,and lack of natural resources data onimportant species occurring on-base. Thesedeficiencies were largely the result ofloosely written land outleasing (in the caseof overgrazing) and a lack of qualifiedpersonnel to monitor species onVandenberg AFB. The result in some areaswas degraded natural habitat, acceleratederosion, decreased forage production, andreduced wildlife populations.

The Environmental Conservation Officeoversees the Fish and Wildlife ManagementProgram (also known as the NaturalResources Program) on Vandenberg AFB.This office reports to the Environmental,Safety, and Occupational Health Council(ESOHC), which is chaired by the 30thSpace Wing Installation Commander(30 SW/CC). The Fish and WildlifeManagement Program includes habitatprotection, threatened and endangeredspecies protection, nonnative speciescontrol, and management of hunting andfishing. The 30 SFS/S3SW enforces thisprogram following the policies,responsibilities, and procedures establishedin the 30 SWI 32-7001, Conservation,Management and Enforcement.

The Conservation Law EnforcementProgram incorporates all provisions of30 SWI 32-7001, which includes land useenforcement for natural areas (Class II) andspecial interest areas (Class III) on-base.Natural areas are undeveloped and areused for dispersed recreation, such ashunting, fishing, bird watching, hiking, andsightseeing. Special interest areas containvaluable ecological, archaeological,botanical, geological, historical, biological orother features requiring protection and areclosed to hunting and fishing.

In addition to land use-related enforcement,the 30 SFS/S3SW is responsible for thefollowing:



Enforcing rules and regulationsmandated by USFWS biologicalopinions for mission-related activitieson-base;

Enforcing cooperative agreements andmemorandums of understanding for theprotection of natural and culturalresources; and

Ensuring compliance with all applicablestate and federal laws and regulations.

Additional information about baseenforcement can be found in theConservation Law EnforcementManagement Plan (Tab I).

2.2.1.15 Public Outreach

Vandenberg AFB’s INRMP addressesdifferent approaches to educating the publicabout the base’s natural resources and howthe resources are protected. Methods ofpublic outreach include prepared talks,newspapers and related media, the Internet,special events, and a designated publicwildlife viewing area.

2.2.2 Proposed Projects andAssociated Actions

Each of the management categoriesdescribed in Section 2.2.1 has proposedprojects listed in the INRMP (Appendix C).The projects involve specific actions, someof which would have potential impacts onthe environment. The action types aredescribed below.

Action Type and Definition

Ground and Vegetation DisturbanceActivities involving manual ormechanical disturbance of groundsurface or subsurface and thosethat disturb surface vegetation.Examples include collecting soilsamples and plant samples,

constructing outdoor signs,conducting pedestrian surveys, andremoving invasive plant species.These activities would havepotential impacts on natural andcultural resources.

Off-Road Vehicle UseActivities that require transportationin passenger vehicles or light dutytrucks off established roads. Theseactivities would have potentialimpacts on natural and culturalresources.

Air EmissionsThese activities would havepotential impacts on the air.

Chemical UseThese activities would havepotential impacts on air, ground, orwater sources.

Prescribed Vegetation BurnThe INRMP proposes prescribedburns as one method for removinglarge populations of nonnative plantspecies (e.g., pampas grass) andhabitat for some invasive animalspecies (e.g., ground squirrels).This activity would have potentialimpacts on natural and culturalresources and the air.

NoiseThese activities would havepotential impacts on animalspecies.

Table 2-1 lists the projects proposed in theINRMP and the action types associated withthe projects. The table does not includeprojects that would solely involveadministrative activities since those projectswould not have impacts on the environment.Table 2-1 is also a tool for determining theaction types for all projects proposed in the



INRMP and the potential resultingenvironmental impacts.

Three of the projects proposed in theINRMP (project I.1.2.3, to repair andupgrade the Sudden Ranch StationMounted Officer Command Center, projectB.1.1.12, to remove the remnants of the35th Street Bridge in the Santa Ynez Riverestuary, and project O.1.1.1 to maintainexisting power lines, antennas, and towers)involve construction, demolition, and/orrefurbishment of structures, which areactivities that are not covered under thisPEA. Therefore, these projects wouldrequire an independent review under NEPA.

2.2.3 Minimizing EnvironmentalImpacts

Given the environmental impacts that couldresult from implementing the projects listedin Table 2-1, the INRMP includes measuresthat would minimize many of the impacts.These minimization measures areconsidered part of the Proposed Action.They are compiled from the INRMP and arepresented in Table 2-2.

The minimization measures listed in Table2-2 are standard measures that areimplemented for all projects. This approachallows for all impacts to be minimized to themaximum possible extent as part of theproposed project.

2.3 The No-Action Alternative

The CEQ regulations require inclusion of aNo-Action alternative in an EA. The No-Action alternative serves as a baselineagainst which the impacts of the ProposedAction and alternatives can be evaluated.

Under the No-Action alternative, the INRMPwould not be finalized. As a result,Vandenberg AFB’s natural resources andecosystems would not be managed in amore cohesive, adaptive, or efficient

manner. Selection of the No-Actionalternative would also place the Air Forceout of compliance with DoD policies. Legalactions, corrective measures, andbudgetary restrictions are a few of the manyconsequences that may occur without afinalized INRMP.



Table 2-1: INRMP Projects and Associated Actions

ACTION TYPES

PROPOSED PROJECTS LISTED IN VANDENBERG AFB’S INRMP(Project numbers correspond with the numbers listed in Appendix C of the INRMP)

Gro

un

d/V

eg

eta

tio

nD

istu

rba

nce

Off

-ro

ad

Ve

hic

leU

se

Air

Em

iss

ion

s

Ch

em

ical

Us

e

Pre

sc

rib

ed

Bu

rn

No

ise

A.1.1.2: Assist with identification of all power lines, transmitter towers, and associated electrical configurations forneeded upgrades that ensure compliance with avian protection. x

A.2.1.7: Update Geographic Information System (GIS) vegetation maps for the base.x

A.3.1.2: Conduct jurisdictional wetland delineations.x x

A.3.1.4: Monitor recovery of regionally uncommon wetland species previously found in Barka Slough.x

A.3.2.1: Produce and implement recommendations for ground squirrel management.x x x x

A.3.2.4: Increase invasive species controls and acreage for habitat improvement.x x x x x

A.3.2.5: Adapt grazing water structures for wildlife use and avoidance of wildlife entrapment.x x

A.3.4.1: Continue surveys for native and nonnative species of tiger salamanders to determine occurrence on-base. x x

A.3.4.2: Advise and assist with the eradication of the nonnative tiger salamander found in ponds at the LompocFederal Penitentiary. x x

A.3.4.4: Remove exotic fish from the Santa Ynez River and other wetland and riparian habitats.x x x x

A.3.5.1: Monitor known bat populations.x

A.3.5.3: Construct bat habitat, particularly for displaced bats from demolished buildings.x x

A.3.6.1: Monitor population trends and habitat use of pinnipeds (seals and sea lions) by surveying quarterly withstandard protocols. x x

A.3.6.2: Produce warning and educational signs to prevent harassment of harbor seals.x

A.3.7.3: Erect closure signs to protect peregrine falcon nesting at Point Arguello.x

A.3.7.4: Survey wintering populations of burrowing owls and potential summer occupancy and considerinstallation of artificial burrows. x x x



ACTION TYPES


Gro

un

d/V

eg

eta

tio

nD

istu

rba

nce

Off

-ro

ad

Ve

hic

leU

se

Air

Em

iss

ion

s

Ch

em

ical

Us

e

Pre

sc

rib

ed

Bu

rn

No

ise

A.3.7.10: Conduct large mammal surveys on-base to estimate population sizes and habitat use of these species(e.g., mountain lion and bear). x

A.3.7.11: Survey for legless lizards.x

A.3.7.12: Survey for the coast horned lizard.x

A.3.7.13: Survey for southwestern pond turtles.x

A.3.7.14: Determine the taxonomical status, origin, and distribution of the salamander (Batrachoceps spp.)recently discovered on south Vandenberg AFB. x x

B.1.1.1: Update the floodplain boundary determination.x

B.1.1.2, B.1.1.8, B.1.1.9 Conduct jurisdictional wetland delineations, update GIS.x

B.1.1.10: Monitor recovery of regionally uncommon wetland species previously found in Barka Slough.x x

B.1.1.12: Cooperate with other organizations to assess the feasibility and potential effects of removing theremnants of the 35th Street Bridge in the Santa Ynez River estuary. x x x x x

B.1.2.2: Control exotic plant species that threaten wetland resources.x x x x x

B.1.2.3: Identify the effects of beaver activities in watersheds and develop a management plan to enhancewatershed functions. x

B.1.4.2: Address long-term plans for the Wildlife Natural Resources Area.x

B.2.1.1: Address vegetation issues in Pine Canyon Lakes.x x x x x x

B.2.2.1: Enhance visitor access and educational facilities at Ocean Park.x x x

B.3.1.2: Encourage studies by university researchers and students on the health and monitoring of wetlands.x

C.1.1.5: Continue long-term seabird monitoring.x

D.1.2.2: Conduct monitoring, protection and restoration projects.x x x x x

D.1.2.5: Conduct Western snowy plover predator management.x



ACTION TYPES


Gro

un

d/V

eg

eta

tio

nD

istu

rba

nce

Off

-ro

ad

Ve

hic

leU

se

Air

Em

iss

ion

s

Ch

em

ical

Us

e

Pre

sc

rib

ed

Bu

rn

No

ise

D.1.2.6: Implement Western snowy plover habitat restoration.x x x x

D.2.1.4: Survey vernal pool fairy shrimp pools every five years.x x

D.2.1.6: Monitor California least tern population.x x

D.2.1.12: Inventory southern steelhead habitat to identify potential restoration opportunities.x

D.2.2.1, D.2.2.2, D.2.2.3, D.2.2.4: Conduct additional surveys for emergent threatened and endangered species intaxa identified within Appendix C. x x

D.3.1.4: Conduct predatory bird management for protection of the California least tern breeding population.x

D.3.1.7: Continue a feral pig control program to reduce impacts of feral pigs on listed species and habitats.x x x

D.3.1.9: Remove invasive species from threatened and endangered species habitats.x x x x x x

D.3.1.13: Produce signs and maintain standard and electronic fencing to avoid human and animal intrusion intothe Purisima Point nesting area. x x

D.3.1.15: In accordance with the Programmatic Biological Opinion (2011), areas that are significantly orpermanently disturbed will receive protocol level surveys for vernal pool fairy shrimp within one year of the action. x

D.3.1.16: Survey for harvester ants that seemingly coexist with the ESBB.x

D.3.2.3: Map nest and roost sites for raptors and owl species and maintain cumulative records.x

D.3.2.4: Protect marine mammal haul-out sites by erecting signs at Spur Road haul-out area. See wildlifemanagement section. x x

E.1.1.2: Manage cropland acreage adjacent to riparian borders to maximize benefit for wildlife and water quality.x x x x

E.1.1.3: Evaluate sustainable agriculture (eco-farming) techniques and implement as practicable.x x

E.2.1.1: Manage erosion through application of best farming practices, including those applicable to sustainableagriculture techniques. x x x x x

E.3.1.2: Establish grazing exclosures to monitor vegetation changes as a result of grazing management practices.x x x



ACTION TYPES


Gro

un

d/V

eg

eta

tio

nD

istu

rba

nce

Off

-ro

ad

Ve

hic

leU

se

Air

Em

iss

ion

s

Ch

em

ical

Us

e

Pre

sc

rib

ed

Bu

rn

No

ise

E.3.3.1: Prioritize invasive plant infestations and apply appropriate management techniques in coordination withthe Invasive Plant Species Management Plan. x x x x x

E.3.3.2: Develop prescribed burn projects with wildland fire management to control invasive plants and managenative plant communities. x x x x x

F.1.1.2: Develop, update, and maintain an inventory of forest tree cover and health and incorporate into base GIS.x

F.1.2.2: Develop and implement a forest integrated pest management program.x x x x x

F.1.3.1: Plant native trees and plants.x

F.1.3.2: Monitor coast live oak woodlands for forest health and regeneration.x

F.2.1.1: Collaborate with academic professionals in regional institutions for the enhancement of the forests onVandenberg AFB. x x x x

F.2.2.2: Ensure that diseased/infested wood and wood by-products are handled and disposed of in accordancewith local, regional, state, and federal regulations. x x x x x

F.2.3.2: Encourage the use of native plants in Vandenberg AFB landscaping.x

G.1.1.2: Continue trapping effort.x

G.2.1.1: In cooperation with Golf Course Environmental Management Plan (GCEMP), control feral pigs and otherspecies. x x

G.2.2.1: Closely work with Civil Engineering (CE) pest shop on management of pigeons, household pests, andground squirrels. x x

H.1.1.3 and H.2.1.1: Investigate techniques to remove vegetation around the man-made lakes and ponds onVandenberg AFB to facilitate angler access. x x x x

H.1.1.4: Identify interpretive signs to be produced to educate base personnel and the public on native ecosystemsand wildlife and fisheries habitat. x

H.2.2.1 and H.2.2.2: Construct barriers around sensitive habitat areas in the designated off-road vehicle area.x

H.4.1.2: Provide educational signs and fences to prevent impacts on sensitive resources.x

I.1.2.3: Repair and upgrade Sudden Ranch Station Mounted Officer Command Center.x



ACTION TYPES


Gro

un

d/V

eg

eta

tio

nD

istu

rba

nce

Off

-ro

ad

Ve

hic

leU

se

Air

Em

iss

ion

s

Ch

em

ical

Us

e

Pre

sc

rib

ed

Bu

rn

No

ise

J.1.1.1: Develop, update, and maintain base-wide lands and grounds maintenance areas for improved, semi-improved, and unimproved landscapes with GIS support. x x x x

J. 1.1.5: Evaluate the status of known nonnative species on improved, semi-improved, and unimproved grounds.x

J.1.2.8: Develop habitat-specific revegetation programs for areas suitable for conversion to unimproved grounds.x x

J.1.2.9: Evaluate the feasibility of establishing a Vandenberg AFB nursery and forming relationships with localgrowers and universities to increase the availability and reduce the cost of native species for landscaping andrevegetation on Vandenberg AFB.

x x x

J.1.2.10: Evaluate and minimize grounds maintenance activities on special-status species in the cantonment area.x

J.1.2.11: Assess alternative landscape practices for reducing the population of California ground squirrels in thecantonment area. x x x x

J.2.1.1: Identify sources of nonpoint source pollution associated with pesticides used for lands and groundsmaintenance. x

K.1.1.2: Prioritize eradication efforts for invasive plant species in habitats supporting threatened or endangeredspecies. x x x x x

K.1.1.7: Increase eradication effort for pampas grass (Cortaderia jubata).x x x x

K.1.1.8: Remove invasive plants (other than pampas grass) based on priority level of threat.x x x x

K.1.1.9: Remove invasive plants based on early detection before invasive species become established orwidespread. x x x x

K.1.1.10: Develop program with Lompoc Federal Penitentiary to assist with removing invasive species.x x x x

K.3.1.1: Expand current eradication methods to include the use of mechanical removal and increased herbicideapplication capabilities. x x x x x x

K.3.2.1: Conduct restoration in areas already treated with herbicide to allow for faster habitat recovery.x x x x x

L.1.2.3: Work with BASH team and 30 SFS/S3SW on deer depredation, including design and possibly funding offence around airfield. x x

M.1.1.3: Expand the Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) range of cleared vegetation to accommodatefragmentation from larger explosives. x



ACTION TYPES


Gro

un

d/V

eg

eta

tio

nD

istu

rba

nce

Off

-ro

ad

Ve

hic

leU

se

Air

Em

iss

ion

s

Ch

em

ical

Us

e

Pre

sc

rib

ed

Bu

rn

No

ise

M.3.1.1: Reduce wildland fuel loads, minimize the risk of catastrophic wildfire and create zones of defensiblespace for firefighters using firebreaks for suppression. x x x x

M.3.1.2: Use managed fire to enhance ecosystem condition and implement natural resource management goals.x x x

O.1.1.1: Maintain power lines, antennas, and towers to standards in accordance with the Avian Power LineInteraction Committee guidelines of 2006 at Geographically Separated Units (GSUs). x x

O.3.2.1: Manage for ESBB at GSUs.x



Table 2-2: Minimization Measures

GENERAL MEASURES (GEN-1). A site-specific burn plan will be developed for each prescribed burn conducted on Vandenberg AFB. At a minimum, each burnplan will include the following:

Burn objectives;

Acceptable weather and fuel moisture parameters;

Required personnel and equipment resources;

o Burn area map, indicating the locations of smoke sensitive areas;

o Smoke management plan;

A hydrogeologic analysis, including recommendations to offset potential impacts on stormwater runoff and sediment loads to adjacent watersheds;

Safety considerations, including evacuation routes, traffic control measures (e.g., flagmen and detours), and a contingency plan for controlling a fireoutbreak; and

Preburn authorization/notification checklist.

The burn plan, including the smoke management plan, will be reviewed and approved by the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD), inaccordance with SBCAPCD Rule 401 governing prescribed burns in Santa Barbara County. Vandenberg AFB will fully comply with SBCAPCD Rule 401 and willalso obtain a burn permit from the SBCAPCD before a prescribed burn.

AIR QUALITY-1 (AIR-1). The following measures will be implemented to control fugitive dust emissions during ground-disturbing activities:

Water trucks or sprinkler systems will be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, thiswill include wetting down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. Watering frequency will be increased when wind speeds exceed15 miles per hour (mph). Whenever possible, reclaimed water will be used. The use of excessive amounts of water, which could cause runoff or erosion,will be avoided.

The amount of disturbed area at any given time will be minimized.

On-site vehicle speeds will be reduced to a maximum of 15 mph.

Gravel pads or rumble plates will be installed at all access points to prevent tracking mud onto public roads.

If fill material is to be imported, exported, or stockpiled for more than two days, it will be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dustgeneration. Trucks transporting fill to and from the site will be covered with a tarp from the point of origin.

After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation is completed, the disturbed area will be treated by watering, revegetating, or spreading soil binders untilthe area is replanted.

Vandenberg AFB will designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to preventtransporting dust off-site.



AIR QUALITY-2 (AIR-2). The following measures will be implemented to reduce nitrogen oxides (NOx) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions fromconstruction equipment:

Before construction begins, portable equipment meeting the criteria defined in the Emergency Regulation Order, effective April 27, 2007 for the CaliforniaPortable Equipment Registration Program will be registered in the program or have a valid SBCAPCD Permit to Operate.

Whenever feasible, heavy-duty diesel-powered construction equipment manufactured after 1996 will be used.

Construction equipment having the minimum practical engine size will be used.

The number of pieces of construction equipment operating simultaneously will be minimized.

Construction equipment will be maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications.

Construction equipment equipped with two- to four-degree engine timing retard or precombustion chamber engines will be used.

Catalytic converters on gasoline-powered equipment will be installed, if feasible.

If available, diesel catalytic converters, diesel oxidation catalysts, and diesel particulate filters will be installed, as certified or verified by US EnvironmentalProtection (EPA) Agency or California.

Diesel-powered equipment will be replaced with electric equipment whenever feasible.

Idling of heavy-duty diesel trucks during loading or unloading will be limited to five minutes, and auxiliary power units will be used whenever feasible.

Worker trips will be minimized through carpooling.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES-1 (BIO-1A). The following measures will be implemented to minimize potential impacts on federally listed species protected under thejurisdiction of the USFWS:

Through the internal project review process at Vandenberg AFB, 30 CES/CEA staff will identify projects that meet the scope and intensity of the anticipatedwork described in Vandenberg AFB’s Programmatic Biological Opinion before any project activities begin, and will implement the minimization measures inthe Programmatic Biological Opinion as applicable to each species.

Only DoD-approved herbicides will be used. For herbicide management, all herbicides applied are to comply with the Armed Forces Pest ManagementBoard (AFPMB) list of approved herbicides, and a list of those herbicides requested to be used must be submitted to the entomology shop 15 working daysprior to application or at the beginning of the contract. Only certified personnel shall apply herbicides. Monthly reports must be submitted on herbicideusage. Compliance with the EPA injunction on pesticides for California red-legged frogs is also required on Vandenberg AFB.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES-1 (BIO-1B). The following measures will be implemented to minimize potential impacts on southern steelhead, a federally listedspecies protected under the jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries:

For projects in moving bodies of water (such as creeks, streams, rivers, and ditches), BMPs will be followed to reduce downstream transport and depositionof project-generated sediments and toxic compounds, such as cement.



Cattle will be excluded from wetland and riparian habitats by installing and maintaining fencing.

If herbicide spraying in wetland or riparian habitats is required, a glyphosate-based herbicide without toxic surfactants approved for use in aquaticenvironments will be used.

Disturbance and removal of native vegetation and plant communities, particularly willow riparian woodland and freshwater marsh, will be minimized duringproject implementation.

Ponding of water during and after project activities and removal of canopy vegetation will be avoided or minimized to prevent an increase in streamtemperatures.

Appropriate drainage techniques will be used to minimize the formation of erosion gullies by sheet flow or focused flow in stream channels.

On completion of project activities, any temporary barriers to flow will be removed, allowing flow to resume with the least disturbance to the substrate.

Fishing is prohibited in Jalama Creek and the Santa Ynez River and lagoon due to the presence of southern steelhead.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES-2 (BIO-2). The following measures will be implemented to minimize impacts on other non-federally listed special-status species:

Project areas will be surveyed for special-status species if habitat that could support one or more species occurs in the region of influence (ROI) of theproposed project. Measures to minimize impacts will be incorporated into project design and planning where practicable, including avoidance of breedingperiods and minimizing or avoiding permanent habitat loss.

Measures to minimize entrapment hazards will be incorporated into projects involving trenching or other major excavation.

Disturbance of grassland sites with known or potential occurrence of burrowing owls will be preceded by surveys to avoid death to owls from burrowdestruction. If burrowing owls are found nesting on Vandenberg AFB, as they have in the past, disturbance will be avoided until young have fledged, andproject operations will be modified to avoid death to owl adults and young and destruction of eggs and nests.

The Air Force will apply all pesticides in accordance with the pesticide label and DoD recommendations. All applications in or next to aquatic resources willbe appropriately labeled products only. All pesticides applied must be approved for use by the DoD.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES-3 (BIO-3). The following measures will be implemented to minimize potential impacts on migratory birds:

Tree trimming and removal of shrubs and trees will be avoided to the extent possible during the nesting period of February 1 through August 15. If activitiesare necessary during this period, a nesting bird survey will be conducted in the impact areas to determine the presence of nesting native birds. If activenests are found, activities will not be conducted in that area until young have fledged.




BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES-4 (BIO-4). The following measures will be implemented to minimize potential impacts on native plant communities:

Native vegetation that is disturbed or removed will be revegetated with local natives from Vandenberg AFB’s approved planting lists. Native species seedsor cuttings will be collected in the vicinity of the disturbed area and used for revegetation when feasible.

Hydroseed mixes will be checked for the presence of potentially invasive species. To the maximum extent possible, hydroseed mixes composed of regionalnative species will be used.

In cases where short-term access is necessary, rubber-tired vehicles will be used to leave native vegetation intact and to minimize soil disturbance.

In areas that are not required to be maintained as cleared areas, stumps will be left in place to facilitate regeneration. If complete clearing is necessary, thewidth and extent of cleared areas will be kept to a minimum. The number and footprint of access routes to a given area will also be minimized.

Where tall native vegetation may threaten power lines, an integrated vegetation management approach will be followed, where tall vegetation will beselectively removed and lower growing native species will be left in place. Openings created by selective removal will be revegetated with low-growingnative species to prevent the establishment of tall vegetation that may again threaten lines.

Vehicles and equipment will be inspected and cleaned before use at a new site. Clothing will likewise be cleaned and inspected between sites.

Weed-free materials, such as gravel, mulch, fill, and hay, will be used for construction and erosion control.

Following ground disturbance, follow-up monitoring will be conducted when funded and feasible to determine if invasive species are colonizing thedisturbed area. If invasive weed species are detected, they will be removed.


BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES-5 (BIO-5). The following measures will be implemented to minimize potential impacts on wetlands:

Disturbances to wetland habitats will be avoided to the maximum extent possible. Base biologists will be consulted as part of the planning process for allprojects that may potentially affect wetlands.

All construction and grading that must occur in or near stream corridors or wetlands will be conducted so as to minimize impacts on these wetlands fromincreased runoff, sedimentation, and chemical degradation.

Specific setback distances will be determined on a case-by-case basis and made after considering soil type, slope, and stability; surface water runoff andinfiltration; location of floodplain boundaries; and potential upland use by special-status species.

No dams or other structures will be placed in streams that would prevent migration of anadromous fish upstream, unless other measures are used to



bypass such obstacles.

Diking, dredging, and filling in or next to wetlands will be minimized. Where such activity is unavoidable, it will be conducted in a manner that ensures thecontinued viability of the wetland habitat. Dredging will be prohibited in breeding and nursery areas for aquatic and wetland species during their breedingseasons. Designs for dredging and excavation projects will include protective measures to limit refuse, accidental spills, and silt materials in wetlands.Spoils will be stored only temporarily on dikes or designated spoil storage areas. Spoils will not be stored in areas subject to tidal influence.

Contingency plans will be developed for protecting wetlands from disturbances, degradation, or loss due to accidents, such as oil spills or fires.

Restoration and revegetation plans will be developed to mitigate both short-term project-specific impacts and long-term impacts on wetland habitats.


CULTURAL RESOURCES-1 (CULT-1). In the event that cultural resources are encountered during project-related ground-disturbing activities, all excavation will behalted to avoid disturbing the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to include cultural resources. The 30 CES/CEANC will be contacted so that thesignificance of the find can be assessed.

GEOLOGY and EARTH RESOURCES (GEO-1). The following measures will be implemented to minimize erosion and impacts on stormwater quality duringground-disturbing activities:

Geotextile fabrics, erosion control blankets, drainage diversion structures, and siltation basins will be used to reduce erosion and siltation into storm drains .

All entrances and exits to a construction site will be stabilized by, for example, using rumble plates, gravel beds, or other best available technology toreduce transport of sediment off-site. Any sediment or other materials tracked off-site will be removed within a reasonable time.

Storm drain inlets will be protected from sediment-ladened waters by the use of inlet protection devices, such as gravel bag barriers, filter fabric fences,block and gravel filters, and excavated inlet sediment traps.

Construction staging and storage areas will be shown on project plans.

Erosion and sediment control measures will be in place throughout grading and development of the site until all disturbed areas are permanently stabilized.

Construction materials and waste, such as mortar, concrete slurry, and fuels, will be stored, handled, and disposed of in a manner that minimizes thepotential for stormwater contamination. Bulk storage locations for construction materials and any measures proposed to contain the materials will be shownon project plans.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (HAZ-1). Coordination with 30 CES/CEA Restoration staff will be required for any work in the boundaries of areas of interest (AOIs),areas of concern (AOCs), or Installation Restoration Program (IRP) sites.

HUMAN HEALTH and SAFETY (SAFE-1). The following measures will be implemented to minimize the potential for adverse impacts on human health and safety:



Specific safety measures will be established before implementation of any future projects in areas designated as having moderate or severe operationaland safety constraints.

Contractors and Vandenberg AFB personnel will comply with federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements over the entireproject.

Contractors will supply a health and safety plan to Vandenberg AFB and will appoint a trained individual as safety officer.

Contractors will coordinate with the EOD Flight before implementing a proposed project to ensure that no adverse effects on human health and safetywould occur from unexploded ordnance issues.

To minimize potential adverse impacts from biological hazards (such as from snakes and poison oak) and physical hazards (such as from rocky andslippery surfaces), awareness training will be incorporated into the worker health and safety protocol.

NOISE (NOISE-1). For projects involving heavy equipment within 1,600 feet of sensitive noise receptors (schools, residences, commercial lodging facilities, andhospitals or care facilities), the following measures will be implemented:

Equipment will be muffled to the maximum extent and equipment, mufflers, and other machinery will be maintained according to manufacturer’sspecifications, and

Construction will be limited to weekdays between 8 am and 5 pm, except for emergency actions.

SOLID WASTE (SW-1). Solid waste will be minimized by strict compliance with Vandenberg AFB’s Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan. Implementing thefollowing measures will further minimize the potential for adverse impacts associated with solid waste:

Green waste will be taken to Vandenberg AFB’s green waste recycling yard or will be mulched on-site.

The party/unit responsible for diversion, recycling, or disposal must report all materials going off-base for these purposes to the 30 CES/CEA Solid WasteManager. Additionally, any materials recycled on-base by processes other than the base landfill, must be reported to the 30 CES/CEA Solid WasteManager at least quarterly, with copies of weight tickets and receipts provided.

TRANSPORTATION (TRANS-1). The following measures will be implemented to reduce the potential for adverse traffic impacts:

Truck trips will be scheduled during peak traffic off-hours when possible; Roadway users will be provided with adequate notice when roadways will experience heavy construction use, so that users can plan for alternate routes

when possible; Where roadways would experience heavy construction use or closures, contractors will supply a traffic control plan that will cover all conditions to be

encountered during construction and that will be implemented to adequately facilitate the movement of traffic; and Project employees will be encouraged to carpool.

Chapter 3. Affected Environment



3.1 Introduction

This chapter provides information on thecurrent conditions at Vandenberg AFB as itrelates to each of the resource areasaddressed in this PEA.

3.2 Air Quality

3.2.1 Regulatory Setting

3.2.1.1 Federal and State Clean AirActs

The Clean Air Act (CAA) forms the basis forthe national air pollution control effort.Under the CAA, attainment andmaintenance of National Ambient Air QualityStandards (NAAQS) for major air pollutants,called criteria pollutants, is required. Thecurrent NAAQS for criteria pollutants arelisted in Table 3-1.

The California Clean Air Act (CCAA)established California's air quality goals,planning mechanisms, regulatory strategies,and standards of progress. The CCAArequires attainment of California Ambient AirQuality Standards (CAAQS) for criteriapollutants by the earliest practicable date.Generally, the CAAQS are more stringentthan the NAAQS. The CAAQS are alsosummarized in Table 3-1.

Santa Barbara County is in attainment for allNAAQS but is in nonattainment withCalifornia’s 8-hour standard for ozone (O3)and California’s standard for particulate

matter with a diameter of less than 10micrometers (PM10).

The US EPA is responsible for enforcing theCAA. The California Air Resources Board(CARB) is responsible for enforcing theCCAA and has also delegated responsibilityto local air quality management districts,such as the SBCAPCD.

3.2.1.2 Federal Rules and Regulations

Criteria Pollutants

In areas in nonattainment of NAAQS or inmaintenance areas (areas formerly innonattainment but now in attainment),federal agencies are required to determine iftheir actions have the potential to cause anexceedance of a NAAQS. Two federal“conformity rules” dictate how a federalagency is required to conduct thisevaluation. One conformity rule isapplicable to transportation projects (theTransportation Conformity Rule) and theother, (the General Conformity Rule) isapplicable to nontransportation projects,such as the Proposed Action. The GeneralConformity Rule regulations are containedin 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),Part 51, Subpart W, and Part 93, Subpart B.

Specifically, a federal agency mustdemonstrate that emissions from federalactions are less than certain thresholdlevels for those criteria pollutants in whichthe area is in nonattainment ormaintenance. If project emissions areexpected to exceed threshold levels, then amore detailed quantitative conformitydetermination is required to demonstratethat the federal action would not cause anexceedance of a NAAQS.

Although Santa Barbara County is inattainment for all federal air qualitystandards, as a conservative approach,

CHAPTER 3 EXPLAINS:

Current conditions at VandenbergAFB for 17 issue areas.



Vandenberg AFB believes that the GeneralConformity Rule’s threshold levels are stillrelevant as thresholds for determining if air

quality impacts would be significant (seeChapter 4 for a more detailed discussion ofimpacts).

Table 3-1NAAQS, CAAQS, and Santa Barbara County’s Attainment Status

California Standards Federal StandardsCriteriaPollutant

Averaging Time

Concentration AttainmentStatus

Concentration AttainmentStatus

8 hour 0.070 ppm N 0.075 ppm AOzone

1 hour 0.09 ppm(180 µg/m

3)

A revoked A

8 hour 9.0 ppm(10 mg/m

3)A 9.0 ppm

(10 m/m3)

ACarbonmonoxide (CO)

1 hour 20.0 ppm(23 mg/m

3)

A 35.0 ppm(40 µg/m

3)

A

annual average 0.030 ppm(56 µg/m

3)

A 0.053 ppm(100 µg/m

3)

ANitrogen dioxide


3)

A -- --

annual average -- -- 80 µg/m3

(0.03 ppm)A


3)

A 0.14 ppm(365 µg/m

3)

A

sulfur dioxide


3)

A -- --

annual arithmeticmean

20 µg/m3

N revoked APM10

24 hour 50 µg/m3

N 150 µg/m3

A

annual arithmeticmean

12 µg/m3

U 15 µg/m3

APM2.5

24 hour -- -- 35 µg/m3

A

Notes

µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter

mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter

ppm = parts per million

A = Attainment

N = Nonattainment

U = Unclassified

-- = no standard established



Greenhouse Gases

The US EPA has made regulations (40CFR, Part 98) that require mandatoryreporting of greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions (i.e., carbon dioxide [CO2],methane [CH4], nitrous oxide [N2O], sulfurhexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, and otherfluorinated gases) for certain industrialoperations. Most of these industrialoperations are large emitters of GHGs, suchas electricity generation facilities, oilrefineries, or manufacturing operations.However, mandatory reporting is alsorequired for combustion sources, such asboilers and stationary engines, which emitmore than 25,000 metric tons of CO2-equivalents (CO2e) per year.

3.2.1.3 State Rules and Regulations

Greenhouse Gases

On 27 September 2006, Governor ArnoldSchwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill(AB) 32 (California Global WarmingSolutions Act 2006), which requires CARBto develop and implement regulations toreduce GHG emissions. Regulations thatCARB has developed or that are indevelopment and that may be applicable toINRMP projects are as follows:

Requirement for heavy-duty vehicleGHG emission reductions;

Requirement for use of alternativesuppressants in fire protection systems(pending); and

Limitations on the use of high “globalwarming potential” chemicals inconsumer products.

3.2.1.4 Local Rules and Regulations

Operations at Vandenberg AFB are subjectto various rules and regulations of the

SBCAPCD. The rules that potentially relateto INRMP projects are listed in Table 3-2. .

Rule 345 would not allow constructionactivities that would cause visible dustemissions of 20 percent opacity or greaterfor a period or periods of more than threeminutes in any 60-minute period. Rule 345requires implementation of specific airpollution control measures during truckhauling and grading to minimize airemissions (e.g., watering the site duringgrading and properly covering truck bedswhen hauling soil or other material).

Rule 401 requires that a burn permit beobtained from the SBCAPCD for eachplanned prescribed burn and that theSBCAPCD give authorization for eachplanned burn day. As part of the burnpermit application process, a smokemanagement plan must be submitted toSBCAPCD for review and approval. Asdetailed in Rule 401, the required contentsof the smoke management plan vary,depending on the proposed size of theprescribed burn, but the plan must containparticulate matter emissions calculations forthe prescribed burn. The provisions of Rule401 also implement CARB’s smokemanagement guidelines for agricultural andprescribed burning, which contain themeteorological criteria for the South CentralCoast Air Basin, which must be met in orderto implement a prescribed burn. In addition,the SBCAPCD will only issue one burnpermit on the same day in the same generalregion.



Table 3-2Applicable SBCAPCD Rules

Rule Title

201 Permits Required

202 Exemptions to Rule 201

302 Visible Emissions

303 Nuisance

311 Sulfur Content of Fuels

313 Fires Set Under Public Authority

333 Control of Emissions from ReciprocatingInternal Combustion Engines

345 Control of Fugitive Dust fromConstruction and Demolition Activities

401 Agricultural and Prescribed Burning

3.2.2 Air Quality Setting

Santa Barbara County’s air quality isinfluenced by both local topography andmeteorological conditions. Inversionconditions are common to the area and canaffect the vertical mixing and dispersion ofpollutants.

The SBCAPCD monitors air quality acrossSanta Barbara County and maintains anetwork of 17 air quality monitoring stationsacross the county. The closest monitoringstation is the Vandenberg AFB-STS Powermonitoring station.

3.3 Agricultural Resources


The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1994directs the Department of Agriculture andother federal agencies to “take steps toassure that the actions of the federalgovernment do not cause United Statesfarmland to be irreversibly converted tononagricultural uses in cases [in] whichother national interests do not override theimportance of the protection of farmland norotherwise outweigh the benefits of

maintaining farmland resources” (US AirForce 2011).

The Public Rangelands Improvement Act of1978 provides direction to federal agenciesto inventory, manage, maintain, andimprove rangeland conditions for allrangeland values, according tomanagement objectives of the Federal LandPolicy and Management Act of 1976.

Air Force lands may be outgranted in theform of lease, license, or permit foragricultural purposes, in accordance withAFI 32-9003, Granting Temporary Use ofAir Force Real Property.

3.3.2 Agricultural Setting

Vandenberg AFB has established anAgricultural Outleasing ManagementProgram, which is required in the INRMP, inaccordance with the Sikes Act and AFI 32-7064.

Leased cropland areas on Vandenberg AFBencompass approximately 1,104 acres ofthe 99,579-acre base. Thirty-threeagricultural fields comprise the croplandmanagement areas on Vandenberg AFB.Portions of these cropland areas could alsobe grazed for forage stubble.

Cropland on Vandenberg AFB has beenmapped as “prime farmland,” “farmland ofstatewide importance,” and “farmland oflocal importance,” according to the 2002California Department of Conservation’sImportant Farmlands Map. Descriptions ofthese categories are as follows:

Prime Farmland has the bestcombination of physical and chemicalfeatures to sustain long-term agriculturalproduction. This land has the soilquality, growing season, and moisturesupply to produce sustained high yields.Land must have been used for irrigatedagricultural production at some time



during the four years before themapping date.

Farmland of Statewide Importance issimilar to prime farmland but with minorshortcomings, such as greater slopes orless ability to store soil moisture. Landmust have been used for irrigatedagricultural production at some timeduring the four years before themapping date.

Farmland of Local Importance is alldryland farming areas and permanentpasture. Dryland farming includesvarious cereal grains (e.g., wheat,barley, and oats), Sudan grass (used forhay and fodder), and many varieties ofbeans.

Because croplands can be consideredprime farmland or farmland of statewideImportance only if they are irrigated andbecause agricultural land on VandenbergAFB is not currently irrigated, only farmlandof local importance exists on the base.

Leased grazing lands on Vandenberg AFBoccupy approximately 23,502 acres, dividedinto six management units. The Bureau ofPrisons, US Penitentiary at Lompoc is theonly entity that has livestock grazing onVandenberg AFB.

Rangeland on Vandenberg AFB has beenmapped as “grazing land” or “other land,”according to the 2002 California Departmentof Conservation’s Important FarmlandsMap. Descriptions of these categories areas follows:

Grazing Land is that on which existingvegetation is suitable for grazinglivestock. The minimum mapping unit is40 acres.

Other Land is that not included in anyother mapping category. Commonexamples are low-density rural

developments, brush, timber, wetland,and riparian areas not suitable forlivestock grazing.

3.4 Biological Resources


The federal ESA requires the USFWS andNOAA Fisheries to identify species ofwildlife and plants that are endangered,threatened, or proposed endangered orthreatened, based on the best scientific andcommercial data available. In addition,species that are being considered forfederal listing are known as candidates.

The California Endangered Species Act(CESA), codified in the California Fish andGame Code, also requires the CDFG toidentify plant and wildlife species that arelisted as rare (for plants only), threatened,or endangered or that are candidates forlisting.

In addition, “fully protected” wildlife speciesare protected by the CDFG, in accordancewith another section of the California Fishand Game Code.

Although not protected by law, sensitiveplant species are also tracked by the CDFGand California Native Plant Society (CNPS),which maintains a list of these species infive main categories and threesubcategories for their threat ranking: List1A species are presumed extinct inCalifornia; List 1B species are rare orendangered in California and elsewhere;List 2 species are rare or endangered inCalifornia but are more common elsewhere;List 3 species include those for which moreinformation is needed; and List 4 plants arethose with limited distribution. For each list,there are also three possible threat codes: 1for seriously endangered in California, 2 forfairly endangered in California, and 3 for notvery endangered in California.



Although not protected by law, the status ofother sensitive non-listed or candidatewildlife species are tracked by CDFG andare called California Species of SpecialConcern. CDFG also identifies and trackssensitive plant communities in the state,such as wetlands.

Vandenberg AFB is subject to therequirements of the federal ESA. Section 7of the ESA requires federal agencies toconsult with the USFWS and NOAAFisheries to ensure that actions authorized,funded, or carried out do not jeopardize thecontinued existence of federal endangeredspecies and threatened species. Althoughnot subject to the requirements of CESA, asa goal of its INRMP, Vandenberg AFB alsoprotects and conserves species and plantcommunities considered sensitive by thestate.

Vandenberg AFB is also subject to therequirements of the Marine MammalProtection Act, which regulates theincidental take of marine mammals, and theMigratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), whichprotects native migratory birds, includingtheir eggs, active nests, and young.

Bald eagles and golden eagles areprotected under the Bald and Golden EagleProtection Act. Other bird species are alsoconsidered Federal Birds of ConservationConcern by the USFWS.

Wetlands and waters of the US areprotected under Sections 404 and 401 ofthe Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section1600 of the California Fish and Game Code.For projects that would discharge dredgedor fill material into wetlands or waters of theUS under the jurisdiction of these laws,permits would be required from the USArmy Corps of Engineers (USACE),RWQCB, and CDFG.

In addition, Executive Order 11990 directsall federal agencies to avoid, to the extentpossible, the long- and short-term adverse

impacts associated with destroying ormodifying wetlands and to avoid direct orindirect support of new construction inwetlands wherever there is a practicablealternative. Therefore, preparation of aFinding of No Practicable Alternative(FONPA) would be required for Air Forceprojects having the potential to impactwetlands, in accordance with this ExecutiveOrder.

Finally, Executive Order 13112 directsfederal agencies to prevent the introductionof invasive species, to provide for theircontrol, and to minimize the economic,ecological, and human health impacts thatinvasive species cause.

3.4.2 Biological Setting

3.4.2.1 Vegetation Communities

Vandenberg AFB contains diverse biologicalresources of considerable significance. Itslocation in the transitional geographic zonebetween central and southern coastalCalifornia has resulted in the formation ofnumerous unique biological habitats. Withinthis region, populations of many plant andanimal species overlap at their southern ornorthern distributional limits.

The preservation of biodiversity andconservation of biological resources atVandenberg AFB are important issues innatural resources planning on base. Thenative habitats of Vandenberg AFB requirelong-term protection, both because of theirunique nature and because they are arefuge for many threatened and endangeredplant and animal species. The disturbanceand subsequent loss of habitats affectspopulation size and stability of sensitivespecies. Exotic plant and animal speciesoften invade native habitats and replacenative species or occupy space previouslyused by them. Large areas of the basehave been impacted by nonnative plantspecies, such as iceplant, veldt grass,



European beach grass, and pampas grass;and by pest animal species, such asbeaver, feral pig, bullfrogs, and species ofnonnative fish. The control or eradication ofinvasive exotics and the protection of nativehabitats and sensitive species are majorissues of management concern onVandenberg AFB.

There are approximately 14 majorvegetation communities at VandenbergAFB: bishop pine forest, tanbark oak forest,oak woodland, riparian woodland, wetlands,central coast maritime chaparral, coastalscrub, coastal strand, freshwater marsh,grasslands, saltwater (including coastal saltmarsh and estuarine) and freshwaterhabitats, coastal bluffs and rockyheadlands, and ruderal areas. Thesehabitats are described in more detail in theINRMP (US Air Force 2011).

A base-wide flora inventory was completedin 1996 and found diverse plant resourceswithin Vandenberg AFB (Holland and Keil1996). More than 850 plant species frommore than 400 genera belonging to 96 plantfamilies were found during the inventory.Researchers from San Diego StateUniversity carried out the mostcomprehensive study of fauna on-base inthe mid-1970s (Coulombe and Cooper1976; Coulombe and Mahrdt 1976).Vertebrate animal species observed onVandenberg AFB and in the nearshoremarine environment include 53 species ofmammals, 315 species of birds (115 ofwhich have been known to breed onVandenberg AFB), 17 species of reptiles,and 10 species of amphibians.

3.4.2.2 Special-Status Species

The following are considered special-statusbiological resources:

Plant and wildlife species that arefederally listed, proposed for listing, orcandidates for listing;

Plant and wildlife species that havebeen delisted;

Plant and wildlife species that are state-listed or candidates for listing;

California fully protected species;

Wildlife species considered CaliforniaSpecies of Special Concern by theCDFG;

Plant species listed as sensitive by theCNPS;

Marine mammals protected under theMarine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA);and

Nesting birds protected by the MBTA;

Golden eagles and bald eaglesprotected under the Bald and GoldenEagle Protection Act; and

Birds considered Federal Birds ofConservation Concern.

Federally listed, proposed listed, orcandidate plant and wildlife species that areknown to occur at Vandenberg AFB arelisted below. In addition, the INRMPdiscusses several other special-status plantand animal species that occur onVandenberg AFB.

Federally Listed Plant Species

The following federally listed plant speciesoccur on Vandenberg AFB:

Beach layia (federally endangered, stateendangered);

Gambel’s watercress (federallyendangered, state threatened);

Lompoc yerba santa (federallyendangered, state rare); and



Gaviota tarplant (federally endangered,state endangered).

In addition, the state-listed endangeredseaside bird’s-beak and state-threatenedsurf thistle and beach spectaclepod occur atVandenberg AFB. La Graciosa thistle, afederally endangered species and statethreatened species, occurred atVandenberg AFB in the past. In addition,Least Bell’s vireo, a state and federallyendangered species, occurred atVandenberg AFB in the past.

Details on the distribution and habitatrequirements of each of these species arediscussed in more detail in the INRMP.

Federally Listed Wildlife Species

The following federally listed wildlife speciescurrently occur on Vandenberg AFB:

Vernal pool fairy shrimp (federallythreatened);

El Segundo blue butterfly (federallyendangered);

Unarmored threespine stickleback(federally endangered, stateendangered, California fully protectedspecies);

Tidewater goby (federally endangered);

Southern steelhead (federallyendangered);

California red-legged frog (federallythreatened);

Western snowy plover (federallythreatened);

California least tern (federallyendangered, state endangered;California fully protected species);

Southwestern willow flycatcher(federally endangered, stateendangered);

Southern sea otter (federally threatened,California fully protected species); and

Black abalone (federally endangered).

Details on the distribution and habitatrequirements of each of these species arediscussed in more detail in the INRMP.

3.4.2.3 Wetlands and Waters of theUnited States

Wetlands comprise approximately fivepercent of Vandenberg AFB (5,110 acres).Vandenberg AFB contains a variety ofrelatively undisturbed wetlands, rangingfrom estuaries and rivers to freshwatermarshes and intermittent streams. Majorwetland areas include Barka Slough; theSanta Ynez River and the Santa Ynez Riverestuary; San Antonio, Canada Honda,Jalama, and Shuman Creeks, and PineCanyon and Punchbowl Lakes.

Vernal pools are among the leastunderstood habitats on Vandenberg AFB,where they often occur near roadsides.Vernal pools and seasonal wetlands provideimportant habitat for birds and othervertebrate species, as well as manyinvertebrates (insects and crustaceans).Vernal pools have been estimated to coverbetween 10 and 114 acres on VandenbergAFB, depending on the year of the survey.

All of the mainstem creeks and rivers onVandenberg AFB are considered waters ofthe US, such as the Santa Ynez River andSan Antonio Creek, as defined in Section404 of the CWA.



3.5 Cultural Resources


The following federal regulations, policies,and laws protect archaeological and otherhistoric resources on federal land:

Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 USC, 431-433);

Historic Sites Act of 1935 (16 USC, 461-467);

Sections 106 and 110 of the NHPA(Public Law [PL] 89-665 and 16 USC,470-470W, 36 CFR, 800);

Archaeological and HistoricPreservation Act of 1974 (16 USC, 469);

Archaeological Resources ProtectionAct (as amended, PL 96-95 and 16USC, 470aa-470mm);

Native American Graves Protection andRepatriation Act (PL 101-601 and 25USC, 3001-3013);

American Indian Religious Freedom Act(as amended, PL 95-341 and 42 USC,1996-1996a);

Executive Order 11593, Protection andEnhancement of the CulturalEnvironment (13 May 1971);

Executive Order 13007, Indian SacredSites (24 May 1996);

Executive Order 13175, Consultationand Coordination with Indian TribalGovernments (6 November 2000);

Memorandum for Heads of ExecutiveDepartments and Agencies re:Government-to-Government Relationswith Native American TribalGovernments (29 April 1994); and

DoD’s Annotated Policy on AmericanIndians and Alaska Natives (27 October1999).

Vandenberg AFB’s Integrated CulturalResources Management Plan (ICRMP)provides additional direction and policyspecific to properties owned and managedby Vandenberg AFB.

Under Section 106 of the NHPA,Vandenberg AFB must consult with theState Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)and other interested parties for projects thatcould affect a historic property (i.e., anarchaeological or architectural resource ordistrict that is eligible for or included on theNational Register of Historic Places).Section 106 of the NHPA also requires thatrepresentatives of ethnic groups potentiallyaffected by a project be contacted to solicittheir concerns and viewpoints aboutpotential impacts to resources significant tothem.

3.5.2 Cultural Setting

3.5.2.1 Archaeological Resources

Most of Vandenberg AFB has beensurveyed for archaeological resources.Those efforts reveal that it contains anexceptionally large number ofarchaeological resources, a testament tointensive human use of the region for morethan 10,000 years. As of 1999, when thenumber of archaeological resources waslast tallied for the ICRMP, the base hadrecords for 1,368 archaeological sites and879 isolated artifacts (Lebow and Moratto2005). Most of the archaeological sites(1,320 sites) are prehistoric or haveprehistoric components.

Isolated artifacts are archaeologicalresources that do not contain sufficientnumbers of cultural remains to meet theCalifornia Office of Historic Preservationdefinition of a site. In some cases, these



isolated specimens might simply reflectaboriginal activities that left few physicalreminders. In other instances, isolatedartifacts might be surface expressions ofmore substantial archaeological depositsthat are buried or obscured by groundcover. Due to their potential to representmore substantial archaeological deposits,isolated artifacts on Vandenberg AFB areconsidered potential sites, unlesssubsurface probing and intensive surfaceexamination confirm that they are, in fact,isolated (Lebow and Moratto 2005).

3.5.2.2 Historic Architectural Resources

Palmer (1999, 2000) completed aninventory of historical buildings andstructures on Vandenberg AFB. A range ofarchitectural resources were identified, asfollows:

Spanish/Mexican-era adobe sites;the Marshallia Ranch and SuddenRanch complexes;

The Coast Guard Lifeboat RescueStation;

The remains of several wharvesand associated communities;

Bridges, stone walls; miningfeatures,

Masonry structures, such as culvertheaders and other featuresconstructed by German Prisoners ofWar during World War II; and

Permanent or unusual World War IIbuildings or structures and ColdWar sites (Palmer 1999).

Besides Palmer’s study, the Tri-ServicesCultural Resources Research Center at theUS Army Construction EngineeringResearch Laboratory completed a three-phase inventory and evaluation of Cold War

facilities on Vandenberg AFB to help theinstallation comply with Section 106 of theNHPA (Nowlan et al. 1996; Nowlan andMcCullough 1997; McCullough and Nowlan1997). That effort found that some but notall space launch complexes, missile launchfacilities, and supporting facilities areeligible for listing on the National Register ofHistoric Places (NRHP). The study resultedin a historic preservation plan formanagement and treatment of Cold Warproperties and a programmatic agreementbetween Vandenberg AFB and theCalifornia SHPO for managing exceptionallyimportant Cold War historic properties on-base.

Space Launch Complex 10 on VandenbergAFB is a National Historic Landmark. It wasbuilt in 1958 to test ballistic missiles andwas designated as a landmark in 1986.

3.5.2.3 Paleontological Resources

Paleontological resources are organicremains or their traces (e.g., fossils), usuallyolder than 11,000 years, that are naturallypreserved and imbedded in rocks or rock-like material, such as amber (Gray 2005).Organisms that possess hard parts (e.g.,bone or shell) are most typically preserved,but fossils can represent soft parts, hardparts, tracks, trails, molds, casts, and traceindications, such as burrows. Fossils occurprimarily in sedimentary rocks, but somehave been excavated from other rock types,especially volcanic rocks.

There is a temporal threshold for an entity tobecome a fossil. If the organic material is5,000 years old, it is not considered a fossilby most paleontologists. If it is 10,000years old, it may be deemed a fossil. If itdates to 100,000 years before present (BP),there is no question about its classificationas a fossil if the organic material is found inrocks preserved by natural processes (Gray2005).



Paleontological resources may besignificant under the following criteria:

Provide important information aboutevolutionary trends, thedevelopment of biologicalcommunities, or relationshipsbetween vegetation and fauna;

Demonstrate unusual or spectacularcircumstances in the history of life;

Are in short supply and jeopardized;

Are recognized as an aspect of ournatural heritage; or

Qualify as “objects of scientificinterest” (Gray 2005).

Vertebrate fossils are almost alwayssignificant because they occur so rarely.Each additional vertebrate fossil providesconsiderable scientific information.Invertebrate fossils and plant fossils tend tobe more abundant than vertebrate fossils.They generally are ranked lower insignificance than vertebrates, unless theyare in short supply, are age-diagnostic, ortheir paleo-environmental framework isunique.

Paleontological resources on VandenbergAFB include remains of both invertebrateand vertebrate fossils and plant fossils. Theoccurrence and relative abundance of thefossils are closely associated with particulargeological formations (rock units) and theirassociated depositional environments.

The paleontological sensitivity of the rockunits on Vandenberg AFB is classified ashigh, moderate, low, or none, as describedbelow (Gray 2005):

High sensitivity rock units areQuaternary alluvium (Qal), QuaternaryOlder alluvium (Qoa), Quaternarycontinental terrace deposits (Qt2), and

Quaternary stream deposits (Qt). Theserock units contain terrestrial vertebratefossils, such as the western horse,American mastodon, ground sloth,camel, and others. High-sensitivityareas not only have the potential to yieldabundant vertebrate fossils but also mayproduce a few significant fossils, largeor small, vertebrate or invertebrate, thatcould provide new and importanttaxonomic, phylogenetic, or stratigraphicdata.

Moderate sensitivity rock units are theMiocene Lower Monterey (Tml) andMonterey (Tm) Formations, along withthe Miocene/Pliocene SisquocFormation (Tsq, Tsqd). In the Lompocvicinity, these marine diatomite andlimestone units contain whale, porpoise,seal, and fish fossils. However, veryfew marine vertebrate localities areknown on Vandenberg AFB. Kelp algaeand other paleobotanical fossils areknown from a few localities on the base.

In the Bear Creek vicinity, theQuaternary Orcutt Formation, middle tolate Pleistocene eolianite unit (Qo) isreferred to colloquially as the “petrifiedforest.” This area also is classified asone of moderate sensitivity. Theremainder of the Orcutt Formation in thisarea has not yielded fossils, with theexception of an occasional root stem.

Low sensitivity. The Lower MioceneVaqueros Formation (Tvq) is classifiedas low sensitivity. This formation iswidespread throughout Santa Barbaraand Ventura Counties, where it hasyielded numerous invertebrates (mostlyclams and snails) and a few vertebrates.No vertebrate fossil sites are knownfrom this formation on Vandenberg AFB,where the outcrops are very narrow andrestricted in distribution.



No sensitivity. All other rock units onVandenberg AFB contain little or nofossil material or contain fossils that areso common or widespread that asensitivity designation is not warranted.Some rock units are igneous (resultingfrom volcanic magma) and thus have nopotential to contain fossils. Others areknown to contain marine fossils, butbetter and more abundant localities arepresent throughout Santa BarbaraCounty.

3.6 Geology and EarthResources

Vandenberg AFB is a geologically complexarea in the transition zone between theSouthern Coast Range and WesternTransverse Range Geomorphic Provinces.Marine sedimentary rocks of the LateMesozoic age (140 to 70 million years BP)and Cenozoic age (70 million years BP tothe present) underlie Vandenberg AFB(Dibblee 1950).

The dominant soil types on VandenbergAFB are as follows (Shipman 1981):

The Tangair-Narlon association,characterized by sands and loamysands;

The Marina-Oceano association, madeup of sands;

The Chamise-Arnold-Crow Hillassociation, characterized by sand toclay loams;

The Concepcion-Botella association,characterized by loamy sands, finesandy loams, and silty clay loams;

The Sorrento-Mocho Camarilloassociation, characterized by sandyloams to silty clay loams;

The Shedd-Santa Lucia-Diabloassociation, characterized by shaleyclay loams accompanied by silty clays;and

The Los Osos-San Andreas-Tierraassociation, which ranges from finesandy loams to sandy loams with clayloams.

Vandenberg AFB is in Seismic Hazard Zone4, as defined by the Uniform Building Code,which is the most severe seismic region andis characterized by areas likely toexperience earthquakes of a magnitude of 7or higher on the Modified Mercalli Scale andto consequently sustain major damage fromearthquakes.

Numerous onshore and offshore faults havebeen mapped in the vicinity of VandenbergAFB; most are inactive and incapable ofsurface fault rupture or are unlikely togenerate earthquakes. Four major faultshave been mapped on Vandenberg AFB:the Lion’s Head fault on north VandenbergAFB and the Hosgri, Santa Ynez River, andHonda Faults on south Vandenberg AFB.

Other geologic hazards at Vandenberg AFBare the potential for surface erosion,landslides, seacliff retreat, streambankerosion, tsunamis, and liquefaction.

3.7 Hazardous Materials andHazardous Waste Management


Hazardous materials and hazardous wastesare those substances that, because of theirquantity, concentration, or physical,chemical, or infectious characteristics, maypresent substantial danger to public healthand welfare or to the environment whenreleased into the environment. TheComprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA),the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA),



the Resource Conservation and RecoveryAct (RCRA), and Title 22 of the CaliforniaCode of Regulations (CCR) ensure thatnecessary actions are taken for theprevention, management, and abatement ofenvironmental pollution from hazardousmaterials or hazardous waste caused byfederal facility activities.

3.7.2 Hazardous Materials atVandenberg AFB

Hazardous materials potentially used duringimplementation of INRMP projects includepesticides (e.g., herbicides androdenticides); diesel fuel for backup powergenerators and other equipment andvehicles; and oils and lubricants forequipment and vehicles.

Hazardous material use on VandenbergAFB is regulated by a Hazardous MaterialsManagement Plan (US Air Force 2006a),and emergency response procedures forhazardous materials spills are established inVandenberg AFB’s Hazardous MaterialsEmergency Response Plan (US Air Force2005). In accordance with the HazardousMaterials Management Plan, VandenbergAFB requires that all hazardous materialsbe obtained through the HAZMART, a basefunction that centrally manages theprocurement of hazardous materials.Specifically, the HAZMART approves theuse of hazardous materials only after itreviews the composition of the commodityand how it is to be used to ensurecompliance with environmental, safety, andoccupational health regulations and policies.

In addition, the use of pesticides onVandenberg AFB is strictly controlled.Pesticide applicators must adhere to therules and regulations contained in AFI 32-1053, Pest Management Program, andVandenberg AFB’s Integrated PestManagement Plan (which is a component ofthe INRMP). Specifically, pesticideapplicators must hold the appropriate

California Department of PesticideRegulation licenses, all pesticide users mustfollow label recommendations forapplication, storage, and mixing, andpesticides used on base must be on a DoD-approved list.

3.7.3 Installation RestorationProgram at Vandenberg AFB

The federal IRP was implemented at DoDfacilities to identify, characterize, andrestore hazardous substance release sites.Remedial investigations and remediation atmultiple IRP sites at Vandenberg AFB areunderway. In addition to IRP sites, thereare also identified AOCs, where potentialhazardous material releases are suspected,and AOIs, defined as areas with thepotential for use or presence of a hazardouswaste. Various contaminants could bepresent in surface and subsurface soils,groundwater, or surface water at these IRPsites, AOCs, or AOIs, includingtrichloroethylene (TCE), polychlorinatedbiphenyls (PCBs), volatile organiccompounds (VOCs), total petroleumhydrocarbons (TPHs), and other hazardouscontaminants.

3.7.4 Hazardous Waste atVandenberg AFB

The handling, storage, transport, anddisposal of hazardous waste at VandenbergAFB is regulated by a Hazardous WasteManagement Plan (US Air Force 2002).

3.8 Human Health and Safety

Hazards associated with some past andpresent mission activities and operations onVandenberg AFB can constrain locationswhere projects can be sited in order toensure the health and safety of workers.

The following hazard zones have beenestablished on Vandenberg AFB to protectworkers from various hazards:



Toxic hazard zones are areasestablished downwind of launch siteoperations to protect workers fromexposure to toxic vapors emitted duringthe transfer or loading of liquidpropellants or maintenance of launchsystems. These zones can extend20,000 or more feet from a launch site.

Missile/Space Launch Vehicle FlightHazard Zones and Explosive SafetyZones are established under the flightpath of missile or space launch vehiclelaunches to protect personnel fromdebris fall-out under the launchtrajectory. Explosive safety zones areestablished from 75 to 5,000 feet aroundlaunch sites and buildings where rocketpropellants are stored to protectpersonnel from potential explosivehazards. Both of these hazard zonesmust be evacuated before any launch.

Radiofrequency Radiation HazardAreas are established aroundtransmitters on Vandenberg AFB thatcan present radiation hazards to peopleand potentially detonate electro-explosive devices. The size of thehazard areas vary, depending on thetransmitter power and antennareception.

Airfield Clear Zones, Lateral ClearZones (LCZs), and Accident PotentialZones (APZs) are established aroundthe Vandenberg AFB airfield runwayand contain restrictions on certain landuses. Clear zones and LCZs are areaswhere the accident potential is so highthat land use restrictions prohibitreasonable use of the land. Clear zonesoccur at both ends of the runway, andLCZs extend 1,000 feet from both sidesof the centerline along the length of therunway. The ground surface within theLCZ must be graded to certainrequirements and kept clear of fixed ormobile objects, except for necessary

navigational aids and meteorologicalequipment.

There are two APZs, APZs I and II,which are less critical than clear zonesbut still possess significant potential foraccidents. Acceptable uses within APZI areas include industrial ormanufacturing, communication andutilities transportation, wholesale trade,open space, recreation, and agriculture,but not uses that concentrate people insmall areas. Acceptable uses withinAPZ II areas include low businessservices and commercial retail tradeuses of low intensity or scale ofoperation, but not high densityoperations.

Air Installation Compatible UseZones (AICUZs) are areas wherecertain land uses are restricted due tothe combination of the potential foraccidents and noise and the need forclearance of obstacles.

Unexploded Ordnance Closure Areasare areas on Vandenberg AFB that wereused as ordnance training ranges andhave the potential to contain unexplodedordnance (UXO). On 27 September2010, all areas known or suspected tocontain UXO on Vandenberg AFB wereclosed to non-mission/recreationalactivities. Any proposed work in theseareas must be coordinated with theWeapons Safety and ExplosiveOrdnance Disposal offices. Dependingon the area, escorts may or may not berequired.

In addition to the above hazards, otherphysical hazards (e.g., confined spaces,uneven terrain, holes, and ditches) andbiological hazards (e.g., rattlesnakes, ticks,black widow spiders, and poison oak) canoccur at a project site.



All activities on Vandenberg AFB aresubject to the requirements of OSHA, AirForce Occupational Safety and Health, andCalifornia’s Division of Occupational Safetyand Health (Cal/OSHA) regulations andprocedures.

3.9 Land Use and CoastalZone Resources

The 2010 General Plan for VandenbergAFB is the primary comprehensive planningdocument for the installation and guidesfuture growth and development of theinstallation. Under the 2010 General Plan,there are 12 land use designations forVandenberg AFB:

Administrative;

Air Education and Training Command(AETC);

Agriculture/Grazing;

Airfield;

Community (Commercial and Service);

Housing;

Industrial;

Launch Operations;

Medical;

Open Space;

Outdoor Recreation; and

Water/Coastal.

In addition, portions of Vandenberg AFB liewithin the coastal zone. The CaliforniaCoastal Act defines the coastal zone as thewater extending seaward to the outer limitsof the state’s jurisdiction; land extendinginland approximately 1,000 yards from the

mean high tide line; or land in significantcoastal estuarine, habitat, and recreationalareas, extending inland to the first majorridgeline paralleling the sea or five milesfrom the mean high tide line of the sea,whichever is less.

Projects that could affect areas within thecoastal zone are subject to the CoastalZone Management Act (CZMA), the federallaw that protects the nation’s coastlines.Section 106(d)(6) of the CZMA gave theCalifornia Coastal Commission (CCC)authority over activities within the coastalzone. The CCC subsequently developedthe California Coastal ManagementProgram, the key policy component of whichis the California Coastal Act. The CCCensures the public concerns of statewideimportance are reflected in local decisionsregarding coastal development.

Coastal Act policies are as follows:

Providing for maximum public access tothe coast;

Protecting marine and land resources,including environmentally sensitivehabitat areas, such as wetlands, ripariancorridors and creeks, rare andendangered species habitat, and marinehabitat, such as tidepools;

Protecting the scenic beauty of thecoastal landscape;

Maintaining productive coastalagricultural lands; and

Locating coastal energy and industrialfacilities and other development wherethey will have the least adverse impact.

Coastal Consistency Determinations mustbe completed for all federal actionsconducted within or potentially affectingcoastal resources within the coastal zone, inaccordance with the CZMA and following



the procedures outlined in NOAA’s FederalConsistency Regulations (15 CFR, 930). ANegative Determination would be preparedif a proposed action would not affect coastalresources. As required by 15 CFR, Section930.57(b), for projects requiring a CoastalConsistency Determination, VandenbergAFB must prepare and submit a CoastalConsistency Determination to the CCC thatcontains findings that the proposed projectis consistent with the enforceable policies ofthe California Coastal Act to the maximumextent practicable. The NEPA document forthe project is incorporated by reference intothe Coastal Consistency Determination andprovides the basis for this finding.

California Coastal Act policies that areapplicable to the Proposed Action areprovided in Table 3-3.

3.10 Noise

Noise is often defined as unwanted soundthat can interfere with normal activities orotherwise diminish the quality of theenvironment. Depending on the noise level,it has the potential to disrupt sleep, interferewith speech, or cause temporary orpermanent changes in hearing sensitivity inhumans and wildlife. Noise sources can becontinuous (e.g., constant noise from trafficor air conditioning units) or transient (e.g., ajet overflight or an explosion). Noisesources also have a broad range offrequency content (pitch) and can benondescript, such as noise from traffic, orbe specific and readily definable, such as awhistle or a horn. The way the acousticenvironment is perceived by a receptor(animal or person) depends on the hearingcapabilities of the receptor at the frequencyof the noise and their perception of thenoise.

Human hearing varies in sensitivity todifferent sound frequencies. The amplitudeof sound is described in a unit called thedecibel (dB). Because the human ear

covers a broad range of sound frequencies,the dB scale simplifies this range of soundfrequencies to a scale of zero to 140 dB andallows the measurement of sound to bemore easily understood. The “A-weighted”decibel scale (dBA) is normally used toapproximate human hearing response tosound. In general, a fluctuation in sound of1 dBA is noticeable only under laboratoryconditions and a change of 3 dBA is justnoticeable in field conditions.

Average noise exposure over a 24-hourperiod is often presented as a communitynoise equivalent level (CNEL). CNELvalues are calculated from hourly noiselevels (or equivalent noise levels [Leq]),where hourly noise levels measured duringthe evening (7 PM to 10 PM) are increasedby 5 dB and hourly noise levels measuredduring the nighttime (10 PM to 7 AM) areincreased by 10 dB to reflect the greaterdisturbance potential from nighttime noises.

Existing noise levels on Vandenberg AFBare generally low due to the large areas ofundeveloped landscape and relativelysparse noise sources. Background noiselevels are primarily driven by wind or surfnoise; however, louder noise levels can befound near industrial facilities andtransportation routes. Rocket launches andaircraft overflights create louder intermittentnoise levels. On Vandenberg AFB, generalambient hourly noise measurements havebeen found to range from around 35 to 60dB (US Air Force 2008).

Noise sensitive land uses on and nearVandenberg AFB include residential areas,hospitals, schools, and libraries.



Table 3-3Applicable California Coastal Act

Policies

Section 30210 Access; recreationalopportunities; posting

Section 30220 Protection of certainwater-oriented activities

Section 30230 Marine resources;maintenance

Section 30231 Biological productivity;water quality

Section 30233 Diking, filling or dredging;continued movement of sediment andnutrients

Section 30240 Environmentally sensitivehabitat areas; adjacent developments

Section 30241 Prime agricultural land;maintenance in agricultural production

Section 30242 Lands suitable foragricultural use; conversion

Section 30244 Archaeological orpaleontological resources

3.11 Recreation

Vandenberg AFB provides recreationopportunities for about 15,000 active duty,retired, and dependent personnel and for4,500 civilian workers (US Air Force 2011).Despite Vandenberg AFB’s mission andresource conservation priorities, the baseaccommodates a variety of recreationactivities, including camping, picnicking,hunting, fishing, horseback riding, birding,hiking, whale watching, and ORV use.

Two of the major recreation activities,hunting and fishing, are conducted througha Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Agreementand are regulated by the 30 SFS/S3SW, incoordination with the CDFG. Game specieson Vandenberg AFB are mule deer (black-tail deer), feral pig, California quail,mourning dove, brush rabbit, and variouswaterfowl species. Seasons and bag limitsare set by the California Fish and Game

Commission and are enforced by 30SFS/S3SW.

Vandenberg AFB provides fishingopportunities along the Pacific coast. Theestablishment of a Marine EcologicalReserve in 1994 permanently prohibited allforms of fishing along the coast betweenPoint Pedernales and the historicboathouse. The Vandenberg State MarineReserve, designated in 2007, prohibitsfishing from Purisima Point to PointArguello, except for active duty militarypersonnel. Freshwater fishing is permitted24 hours a day at Punchbowl Lake, Mod IIILake, Pine Canyon Lakes, Rawlison Pond,and El Rancho Pond on north VandenbergAFB. All anglers must possess a valid statefishing license and all applicable federal,state, and base fishing stamps while fishingon Vandenberg AFB.

The area from Spur Road north toapproximately 0.5 mile north of PurisimaPoint is closed for the gathering of abalone.

Developed recreation areas are managed toaccommodate intensive recreation. Class Iareas are somewhat developed ordisturbed, comprising parking areas, largeareas of cleared vegetation, buildings, orsanitation facilities requiring regularmaintenance. Activities occurring withinClass I areas are camping, picnicking,beach sports, and ORV riding. Managedfacilities include base picnic grounds andcampgrounds, the Marshallia Ranch GolfCourse, the Saddle Club, the Rod and GunClub, the ORV Area, and the Boathousepicnic and fishing areas.

Class II recreation areas on VandenbergAFB are undeveloped areas suitable forsuch activities as hunting, fishing, birdwatching, hiking, and sightseeing. Primaryemphasis is on maintaining these areas in anatural state.

Class III Special Interest Areas areundeveloped areas that contain valuable



archaeological, botanical, ecological,geological, historic, zoological, scenic, orother features that require protection. Theprotection of resources through interpretivedisplays and education programs isemphasized in Class III areas.

On south base, access to the coastline isvery restricted due to security, safety, andsensitive wildlife resources. The beachfrom the mouth of Jalama Creek north forapproximately 1.5 miles is open to thepublic.

West Ocean Avenue leads to 38-acreOcean Beach County Park, near the mouthof the Santa Ynez River, and to SurfStation, an unstaffed Amtrak passenger railstation next to the beach (known locally asSurf Beach). Vandenberg AFB allowsbeach access, consistent with necessaryprotection measures for the federallythreatened Western snowy plover. Since2000, public access is permitted during thenesting season (March 1 to September 30)along approximately half a mile near SurfStation. Military recreational access isavailable to portions of Wall and Minutemanbeaches during the nesting season.

Through an agreement with the County ofSanta Barbara, public access to Point SalState Park is permitted by foot traffic onlythrough the extreme northern portion ofVandenberg AFB on Brown Road.

Surfing, swimming, and general watersports activities are permitted at publicaccess beaches only, due to safety hazardsassociated with the powerful undertow andriptides along the remainder of VandenbergAFB’s coastline. Scuba activity is restrictedto members of the Vandenberg AFB diveclub, and surfing is limited to members ofthe Vandenberg AFB surfing club.

3.12 Socioeconomics andEnvironmental Justice

As described in the CEQ regulationsimplementing NEPA, potential economicimpacts must be addressed only to theextent that they are interrelated with thenatural or physical effects. Socioeconomicfactors considered for the proposed projectinclude population, employment statistics,and availability of housing in the region.

Environmental justice is defined by the USEPA as “the fair treatment and meaningfulinvolvement of all people regardless of race,color, national origin, or income with respectto the development, implementation, andenforcement of environmental laws,regulations, and policies.” Executive Order12898, General Actions to AddressEnvironmental Justice in MinorityPopulations and Low-Income Populations,requires all federal agencies to adoptstrategies to address environmental justiceconcerns within the context of agencyoperations. The Air Force regulations forimplementing the EIAP require that a projectproponent comply with Executive Order12898 to ensure that these types of impactsbe considered in EAs and other NEPAdocuments.

According to the US Census Bureau,Lompoc had an estimated population of39,465 in 2008, a decrease of four percentsince 2000 (US Census Bureau 2010a,2010b). In 2008, Lompoc had an estimated14,004 housing units, with an average of2.78 persons per household (US CensusBureau 2010a). The current unemploymentrate in Lompoc is 15.5 percent (CaliforniaEmployment Development Department2010).

The US Census Bureau reports numbers ofminority residents. Minority populations areidentified as Black or African American,American Indian and Alaskan Native, Asian,Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander,Hispanic, or Other. Of the total estimatedpopulation in 2008, 43 percent wereminority (US Census Bureau 2010a). Inaddition, 17.5 percent of the population of



Lompoc was estimated to be living belowthe poverty level (US Census Bureau2010a).

3.13 Solid Waste

In 1989, the California Integrated WasteManagement Act was enacted as AB 939.It mandated a reduction in the quantity ofsolid waste disposed of in landfills, includinga goal of 50 percent reduction of generatedsolid waste from a 1990 baseline, byJanuary 1, 2000. The most recent Air Forcemandate regarding solid waste diversioncame from Headquarters Air Force SpaceCommand (HQ AFSC) in 2008, requiring a50 percent diversion rate for all solid wastegenerated at AFSC installations (US AirForce 2009b).

In addition, on March 1, 2004, the CaliforniaIntegrated Waste Management Boardpromulgated a model ordinance for localagencies to follow for implementing a 50 to75 percent diversion of construction anddemolition waste from landfills, inaccordance with California Senate Bill 1374.Currently, the local enforcement agency, theSanta Barbara County EnvironmentalHealth Services Division, has notpromulgated its final model ordinance.However, a locally adopted diversionordinance would affect requirements andoperations at the base landfill because theFederal Facilities Compliance Act waivedsovereign immunity with respect toCalifornia solid waste programs.

Since 1998, waste diversion at VandenbergAFB has been greater than 70 percent (USAir Force 2009). According to VandenbergAFB’s Integrated Solid Waste ManagementPlan (US Air Force 2009b), the 172-acreClass III Landfill at Vandenberg AFB hasapproximately 2,179,447 cubic yards ofremaining capacity and is expected toremain viable for waste disposal until 2089.Although permitted for a peak daily tonnageof 400 tons, the average tonnage received

is approximately 35 tons per operating day(US Air Force 2008).

The base landfill has several designateddisposal areas: the active face of the landfill,a nonfriable asbestos disposal area, ananimal cemetery, and a wood yard. Thelandfill is prohibited from acceptingdesignated or liquid wastes, includinggrease, sewage, sludge, septic tankpumping, burning waste, hot ashes,restaurant grease, car bodies, appliances,untreated medical waste, cathode ray tubes,consumer electronic devices, andradioactive waste. The landfill does notaccept hazardous waste. Finally, noxiousplant material, such as pampas grass, iceplant, or star thistle, must be segregated,bagged in trash bags, and immediatelydisposed of on the active face of the baselandfill (US Air Force 2009b).

Due to the detailed tracking requirementsfor waste disposal and diversion levied bythe State of California, Vandenberg AFB isrequired to track all materials going off-basefor diversion, recycling, or disposal.Vandenberg AFB must report the weight (intons), the type of material, and thedestination. Additionally, any materialsrecycled on-base by processes other thanthe base landfill must be reported to the 30CES/CEA Solid Waste Manager at leastquarterly, with copies of weight tickets andreceipts provided. The party/unitresponsible for the diversion, disposal, orrecycling, reports the information to theSolid Waste Manager.

3.14 Transportation

Vandenberg AFB is approximately five mileswest of Lompoc. Two main highwaysconnect Vandenberg AFB and metropolitanareas in the region: US Highway 1 andState Route 246. North-south US Highway1 traverses Vandenberg AFB and providesaccess to Santa Maria to the northeast andSanta Barbara to the southeast when used



in conjunction with US Highway 101. East-west State Route 246 provides access toLompoc to the east and Santa Barbara tothe southeast when used in conjunction withUS Highway 101.

Vehicles enter Vandenberg AFB fromseveral gates. North base and itscantonment area are primarily accessedfrom the Main Gate (also known as theSanta Maria Gate), Solvang Gate, andLompoc Gate,. The Main Gate is accessedvia US Highway 1, which provides access tothe northern side of the main cantonmentarea. The Utah Gate is immediatelynorthwest of the Santa Maria Gate.

The Solvang Gate is accessed via StateRoute 246, which is known as OceanAvenue in Lompoc. South Gate (alsoknown as Buellton Gate), the primaryaccess for south base, is directly acrossfrom the Solvang Gate. Farther west, at theterminus of State Route 246, is the CoastGate, which is closed to the public but isoccasionally opened for south baseoperational activities.

On Vandenberg AFB, roads are categorizedas highways and primary, local (secondaryroads), or patrol roadways (US Air Force2010a). Primary roadways serve largevolumes of traffic, are divided, and providelimited access to adjacent land uses. Theyare the main circulation routes into andthrough the cantonment areas and connectto local streets. Local streets provide fortraffic movement between primary roadsand access roads and provide access tocommunity facilities, parking lots, andhousing and service areas. They make upmost of the road network in the cantonmentarea and have frequent traffic stops and lowspeeds. Remote patrol roads are paved orunpaved and are used for security and formonitoring infrastructure.

Roadway conditions are evaluated basedon roadway capacity and traffic volume.The capacity, which reflects the ability of the

network to serve the traffic demand of aroadway, depends on the roadway width,number of lanes, intersection control, andother physical factors. A road’s ability toaccommodate different volumes of traffic isgenerally expressed in terms of Level ofService (LOS). The LOS scale ranges fromA to F, where LOS A, B, and C areconsidered good operating conditions, withminor to tolerable delays experienced bymotorists. LOS D represents below-average conditions. LOS E reflects aroadway at maximum capacity, and LOS Frepresents traffic congestion.

All primary roads on Vandenberg AFBoperate between LOS A and C. Local(secondary) roads operate between LOS Aand B. Informal traffic studies indicategates operate between LOS A to C (US AirForce 2010a). According to a 2000 trafficstudy performed at 22 key intersections atVandenberg AFB, most of the intersectionswere estimated to operate at LOS C orbetter in 2010.

3.15 Utilities

3.15.1 Potable Water

The potable water supply for VandenbergAFB was historically obtained solely fromgroundwater sources. Since 1997, most ofVandenberg AFB’s potable water ispurchased from the State Water Project,which does not draw from local aquifers.Vandenberg AFB can purchase up to 1.46billion gallons of water per year from theState Water Project.

According to the 2010 General Plan forVandenberg AFB, the maximum dailydemand for potable water is 5,600 gallonsper minute, which cannot be met by the5,500 gallons per minute that the StateWater Project can provide (US Air Force2010a). However, during times of peakdemand, four groundwater wells in the SanAntonio Creek aquifer (see Section 3.17



below for more details on this aquifer), areused for supplemental water. These wellshave a remaining capacity of 3,800 gallonsper minute (US Air Force 2010a).

3.15.2 Wastewater

Domestic wastewater from the maincantonment area at Vandenberg AFB isconveyed and treated at Lompoc’s RegionalWastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) (USAir Force 2010a). Domestic wastewaterfrom facilities outside the main cantonmentarea on both north and south base aretreated by on-site wastewater treatmentsystems; in most cases, septic tanks areused. The average sewage flow atVandenberg AFB is approximately 1.3million gallons per day (US Air Force2010a).

Lompoc’s WWTP and the on-sitewastewater treatment systems haveadequate capacity to meet current needs,but a large number of the septic systemson-base have reached their life expectancyand have either been replaced or are inneed of replacing (US Air Force 2010a).

3.15.3 Electricity and Natural Gas

Vandenberg AFB is served by a 70-kilovolt(kV) power supply from Pacific Gas andElectric through 391 miles of electrical lines(US Air Force 2010a). Natural gas issupplied by the Southern California GasCompany.

3.15.4 Communications

The communications system at VandenbergAFB consists of telephone, radio, andmicrowave systems transmitted with copperwire, optical fiber, and coaxial type cables,as well as microwave, satellite, and otherantennas.

3.16 Visual Resources

Visual resources are natural and man-madefeatures that give a particular environmentits aesthetic qualities. An impact analysison visual resources considers visualsensitivity, which is the degree of publicinterest in a visual resource and concernover adverse changes in the quality of theresource.

The visual environment in the vicinity ofVandenberg AFB is characterized by rollinghills covered with chaparral and oak trees,valleys used for grazing or more intensiveagriculture, and urbanized areas of theLompoc Valley. Topography is largelydominated by the east-west-trending SantaYnez Mountains, which narrow toward thecoast and terminate at Point Arguello.Views of the coastline are generally notavailable from inland locations due toaccess limitations and interveningtopography, and most of Vandenberg AFBis not visible from public vantage points(there are only limited public views of thebase from Ocean Avenue and Highway 1).The marine traffic off the western border ofVandenberg AFB consists primarily offishing vessels and occasional pleasureboats. Visibility from the ocean is limited.Passenger railroad traffic provides theclosest views of Vandenberg AFB.

3.17 Water Resources


The CWA defines the standards for waterquality and mandates that water dischargedto surface water or to the ocean is regulatedunder the NPDES, including point sourcedischarges and stormwater discharges.The Central Coast RWQCB is responsiblefor enforcing the CWA at Vandenberg AFBand issues two types of National PollutantDischarge Elimination System (NPDES)permits to protect stormwater quality: aNPDES General Stormwater Permit forConstruction Activities and a NPDESGeneral Stormwater Permit for Small



Municipal Separate Stormwater SewerSystems (MS4s).

Vandenberg AFB is considered an MS4.Under this permit, MS4s are required toprepare stormwater management plans thatcontain BMPs. BMPs can includeconducting public education and publicparticipation in protecting stormwaterquality, detecting and eliminating illicitdischarge, controlling stormwater runoff atconstruction sites, managing post-construction stormwater, and providinggood housekeeping for municipaloperations. A Stormwater ManagementPlan has been developed for VandenbergAFB (US Air Force 2010b).

A General Permit for Construction Activitiesis required for all construction projects equalto or greater than one acre in size andrequires the development of a StormwaterPollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), whichdescribes BMPs to prevent pollutant andsediment discharges from the constructionsite.

In addition, Executive Order 11988 directsall federal agencies to avoid, to the extentpossible, the long- and short-term adverseimpacts associated with the occupancy andmodification of floodplains and to avoiddirect or indirect support of floodplaindevelopment wherever there is a practicablealternative. Therefore, preparation of aFONPA would be required for Air Forceprojects having the potential to impactfloodplains, in accordance with thisExecutive Order.

3.17.2 Surface Water and Floodplains

The major freshwater resources of theVandenberg AFB region include sixstreams, composed of two major and fourminor drainages. The major drainages areSan Antonio Creek and the Santa YnezRiver; the minor drainages are Shuman,Bear, Cañada Honda, and Jalama Creeks.

High discharge and flooding may occur inthe Santa Ynez River and San AntonioCreeks from November through April, andthere may be very little or no dischargeduring the drier months. The presence ofhigh levels of total dissolved solids, sulfates,chlorides, and iron causes poor waterquality in San Antonio Creek and the SantaYnez River (US Air Force 2010a).

Vandenberg AFB’s stormwater systemdiverts stormwater to low-lying areas assurface flow via streets, concrete-linedgutters, earthen ditches, and naturaldrainage systems. The stormwaterdrainage system is composed ofpredominantly concrete-lined channels andsubsurface piping, which generally divertthe water to several natural drainages thatdischarge into the Santa Ynez River, SanAntonio Creek, or the minor drainages listedabove.

3.17.3 Groundwater

Vandenberg AFB includes parts of twomajor groundwater basins and at least twosubbasins. Most of the northern third of thebase is within the San Antonio Creek Basin,while most of the southern two-thirds of thebase are within the Santa Ynez River Basinand associated Lompoc Terrace andCañada Honda subbasins. The SanAntonio Creek Basin and drainage basin isapproximately 25 miles long, extending fromfour miles east of Los Alamos, west to thePacific Ocean, and is a maximum of onemile wide. The water-bearing units in theSan Antonio Creek Basin are composed ofunconsolidated sediments up to 4,000 feetthick and that overlie consolidated Tertiaryrocks.

The Santa Ynez River Basin isapproximately 70 miles long and amaximum of 15 miles wide. It extends westfrom about half a mile east of the SantaBarbara County line to the coast. TheSanta Ynez Mountains and Lompoc Terrace



bound the basin to the south, and the SanRafael Mountains, the lower Purisima Hills,and Burton Mesa bound it to the north. TheLompoc Plain represents the westernmostreach of the Santa Ynez River Basin. Themost productive water-bearing zones of theentire Santa Ynez River Basin underlie thisalluvial plain. Groundwater in the LompocPlain area is divided into a shallowunconfined body and a deep confined body.These two groundwater bodies aregenerally not hydrologically connected butdo appear to be connected in a fewrestricted areas.




Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences



4.1 Introduction

This section presents the results of theanalysis of potential environmental effectsassociated with the Proposed Action andNo-Action alternative. Changes to thenatural and human environments that mayresult from the Proposed Action and No-Action alternative were evaluated relative tothe existing environmental conditionsdescribed in Chapter 3.

4.2 Air Quality

Significance Thresholds

Criteria Pollutants

Impacts would be considered significant ifproject emissions were to increase ambientpollutant concentrations from below theNAAQS or CAAQS to above thesestandards, or if they were to contributemeasurably to an existing or projectedambient air quality standard violation.

Although Santa Barbara County is inattainment of all federal air qualitystandards, Vandenberg AFB believes thatthe General Conformity Rules’ thresholdlevels are also still relevant as thresholds fordetermining if air quality impacts would besignificant. The rationale used by the USEPA to develop thresholds fornonattainment areas is no less applicablefor areas in attainment. AlthoughVandenberg AFB is no longer required toobserve the significance levels required inconformity determinations, voluntary use of

them provides a conservative approach todetermining air quality impacts.

Maintenance areas have threshold levels of100 tons per year for NOx and 50 tons peryear for VOCs. Using a 365-day year,these threshold levels equate to 548 poundsper day of NOx and 274 pounds per day ofVOCs. These are the levels VandenbergAFB will use for determining whether airquality impacts are significant.

Greenhouse Gases

There are no formal federal thresholds ofsignificance for GHG emissions. However,on 18 February 2010, the CEQ releaseddraft guidance for consideration of theeffects of GHG emissions in NEPAdocuments (CEQ 2010). Within thisguidance document, CEQ recommendsthat, for annual construction and operationemissions of 25,000 metric tons or more ofCO2e of GHGs, “federal agencies shouldconsider this an indicator that a quantitativeand qualitative assessment may bemeaningful to decision makers and thepublic.” CEQ also recommends that, forlong-term actions that have annual directemissions of less than 25,000 metric tons ofCO2e, they “encourage federal agencies toconsider whether the action’s long-termemissions should receive similar analysis.”These are not thresholds of significance, butrather, thresholds indicating that furtheranalysis may be warranted in a NEPAdocument.

Impact Analysis

The Proposed Action

Criteria Pollutants

Under the Proposed Action, implementationof a number of INRMP projects has thepotential to emit air pollutants. Specifically,

CHAPTER 4 EXPLAINS:

Potential impacts on 17 issueareas.



those projects with the potential to involveground disturbance or that involveimplementation of prescribed burns couldemit air pollutants.

Projects involving ground disturbance couldresult in minor or major ground disturbance.Minor ground disturbances include diggingsoil pits (e.g., for wetlands delineations andinstallation of signs), installation of newwater structures for cattle, use of ORVs toaccess areas on Vandenberg AFB forbiological investigations, or minor vegetationclearing using hand tools, such as chainsaws. Although some of these minorground-disturbing activities do generate airpollutants (e.g., diesel exhaust from chainsaws), emissions from these minor activitieswould be negligible and would not exceedNAAQS, CAAQS, or General Conformitythresholds for NOx or VOCs. Therefore, airquality impacts from these activities wouldbe less than significant.

Projects involving major ground disturbance(e.g., grading of new fire breaks) wouldinvolve the use of heavy equipment (e.g.,dump trucks, loaders, and scrapers) andtherefore would result in air pollutantemissions during operation of thisequipment that could have significant airquality impacts. Specifically, use of heavyequipment has the potential to generateprecursors to ozone (NOx and VOCs) aswell as fugitive dust. Of the list of projectsproposed in the INRMP, potentialinstallation of new fire breaks as a result ofrecommendations in the WFMP in Tab M(e.g., project M.3.1.1 in Table 2-1), has thepotential to disturb the largest amount ofacreage.

Implementation of minimization measureAIR-1 listed in Table 2-2, however, wouldensure that fugitive dust is controlledthrough daily watering of graded areasduring vehicle movement, reduction ofequipment speeds in graded areas, andimplementation of other dust control

measures. Therefore, with implementationof this measure during all major ground-disturbing activities, fugitive dust emissionswould be less than significant.

In terms of NOx and VOC emissions, airemissions have been calculated forconstruction of other capital improvementprojects on Vandenberg AFB, which providean estimate of worst-case emissions thatmight be expected from major ground-disturbing activities proposed in the INRMP.For example, in the PEA for implementationof the 2007 General Plan for VandenbergAFB (US Air Force 2008), combined worst-case construction emissions werecalculated for the two largest projectsprojected to be completed under the 2007General Plan (e.g., a new 30th Space WingHeadquarters and a new Mission SupportGroup Headquarters. involving a total of21.4 acres of disturbance and constructionof approximately 11,000 square feet of newfacilities). The combined daily emissionsfrom these two projects were calculated tobe 156.05 pounds per day of NOx and14.52 pounds per day of VOCs, which areboth well below General Conformitythresholds. In addition, NOx and VOCemissions were recently calculated for theconstruction of an approximately 229,000-square-foot Joint Space Operations Centerat Vandenberg AFB, involving over nineacres of disturbance (Tetra Tech 2010). Forthis project, emissions were calculated to be4.54 tons per year of NOx and 3.53 tons peryear of VOCs, which are also well belowGeneral Conformity thresholds. BecauseINRMP projects involving major grounddisturbance are not anticipated to disturbany more acreage than the above exampleprojects, NOx and VOC emissions fromINRMP projects are not anticipated toexceed General Conformity thresholdseither. Therefore, impacts would be lessthan significant. In addition, implementationof minimization measure AIR-2 (Table 2-2)would further ensure that pollutant



emissions from heavy equipment would beminimized.

Smoke from prescribed burns could result inpotentially significant air quality impactsfrom emissions of fine particulate matter(PM10 or PM2.5). This can cause serioushealth effects, especially for sensitivereceptors, such as asthmatics and peoplewith cardiopulmonary diseases orpreexisting respiratory diseases, such aspneumonia. This smoke also can reducevisibility to drivers and potentially result inan exceedance of NAAQS or CAAQS(National Wildfire Coordinating Group2001). Eighty to ninety percent of wildfiresmoke is PM2.5, making public exposure tosmoke a significant concern. In addition,wildfire smoke can contain other toxic airpollutants of concern, including polycyclicaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and CO.

As described in Chapter 3 and required inminimization measure GEN-1 (Table 2-2),preparation of a burn plan for eachprescribed burn and SBCAPCD approval ofthat plan would be required. As part of theburn permit application, a smokemanagement plan must be prepared, andparticulate matter emissions from theprescribed burn must be calculated.According to SBCAPCD’s Rule 401, forprojects greater than 100 acres andestimated to produce 10 tons of particulatematter, alternatives to burning must beconsidered. Therefore, for these projects,additional impact analysis would berequired. In addition, according to Rule401, smoke management plans mustinclude appropriate monitoring (e.g., visualand ambient particulate matter monitoring)for projects greater than 250 acres, projectsthat would continue burning or producingsmoke overnight, projects conducted nearsmoke sensitive areas, or projects wherethe SBCAPCD’s Control Officer determinesthat monitoring is necessary for publichealth and safety. For prescribed burns thatfall under these conditions, additional

impact analysis would be required. Forprescribed burns less than 100 acres andproducing less than 10 tons of particulatematter that would not involve producingsmoke overnight and that would not affectsmoke sensitive areas, obtaining approvalof a smoke management plan from theSBCAPCD and complying with allrequirements and conditions of the burnplan (implementation of minimizationmeasure GEN-1) would ensure thatsignificant air quality impacts associatedwith prescribed burns would be reduced toless than significant levels.

Finally, implementation of INRMP projectswould not involve the installation of any newpermanent stationary sources of airpollutants (e.g., new stationary emergencygenerators and new boilers) and would notinvolve the long-term generation of any airpollutant emissions. Therefore, there wouldbe no long-term air quality impacts underAlternative A.

Greenhouse Gases

The use of heavy equipment during majorground-disturbing activities would alsogenerate greenhouse gas emissions (e.g.,CO2). CO2e emissions were also calculatedfor the construction and operation of theJoint Space Operations Center atVandenberg AFB (Tetra Tech 2010) andwere estimated to be 2,325.1 tons per yearof CO2e, which is well below the 25,000metric tons of CO2e that would warrantfurther analysis, according to the CEQ.Therefore, because implementation of theINRMP projects is expected to involve lessground disturbance than construction of theJoint Space Operations Center, andbecause implementation of INRMP projectswould not generate any long-term airemissions, impacts from greenhouse gasemissions would be less than significant.

The No-Action Alternative



Under the No-Action alternative, the INRMPwould not be finalized and none of theprojects listed in Table 2-1 would beimplemented. Therefore, there would be noair quality impacts under the No-Actionalternative.

4.3 Agricultural Resources


Impacts on agricultural resources would beconsidered significant if the project were toresult in any of the following:

Convert prime farmland, uniquefarmland, or farmland of statewideimportance to nonagricultural use;

Convert a site zoned for agricultural use;

Conflict with agricultural operations onadjacent properties in agricultural use;or

Involve other changes that could resultin the conversion of farmland tononagricultural use.

Impact Analysis

The Proposed Action

Two projects proposed in the INRMP(projects B.1.3.1 and E.1.1.2 in Table 2-1)involve the potential loss of cropland andrangeland in order to protect riparian orwetland habitat at Vandenberg AFB.However, according to the Cropland andGrazing Management Plans (Tabs E1 andE2), it is already Vandenberg AFB’s practiceto protect these areas from disturbancefollowing the Natural ResourceConservation Service’s (NRCS) standardconservation management practices.Therefore, the amount of acreage ofcropland and rangeland that would be setaside for the further protection of sensitivehabitat is likely to be minimal, compared

with the overall cropland and rangeland atVandenberg AFB. In addition, thisconservation management practiceultimately would help preserve cropland andrangeland because it would help tominimize bank erosion near creeks, whichcould result in the loss of much morecropland and rangeland. Therefore,impacts on agricultural resources fromimplementation of these INRMP projectswould be less than significant.

Implementation of prescribed burns couldresult in the short-term reduction in the useof agricultural land on Vandenberg AFB, ifprescribed burns are conducted in theseareas. However, prescribed burns areexpected to benefit the productivity ofagricultural lands in the long term. Inaddition, it is not anticipated that largeacreages of agricultural land onVandenberg AFB would be burned at anyone time; therefore, impacts on agriculturalresources from prescribed burns would beless than significant.


Under the No-Action alternative, the INRMPwould not be finalized, and none of theprojects listed in Table 2-1 would beimplemented. Therefore, there would be noagricultural impacts under the No-Actionalternative.

4.4 Biological Resources


Impacts on biological resources would beconsidered significant if special-statusspecies or their habitats, as designated byfederal, state, or local agencies, wereaffected directly or indirectly by project-related activities. In addition, impacts onbiological resources would be consideredsignificant if a substantial loss, reduction,degradation, disturbance, or fragmentationoccurred to a native species’ habitat or to its



population. Finally, impacts would beconsidered significant if project-relatedactivities would temporarily or permanentlydisturb wetlands or waters of the US.

Impact Analysis

The Proposed Action

Although all of the projects proposed in theINRMP are designed to ultimately benefitbiological resources, implementation ofmany of them also could result inunintended impacts on “nontarget”biological resources. Specifically, thoseprojects with the potential to involve grounddisturbance, that involve the use ofpesticides, or that involve implementation ofprescribed burns all could significantlyimpact sensitive biological resources, suchas native vegetation communities, special-status species, and wetlands or waters ofthe US.

Ground-disturbing activities, including minorground-disturbing activities, use ofpesticides, and implementation ofprescribed burns associated with proposedINRMP projects, could unintentionally injureor kill special-status species. Minimizationmeasures BIO-1a, BIO-1b, BIO-2, and BIO-3 would ensure that the presence orabsence of special-status species in aproject area would be determined before theproject began and that standard precautionswould be taken to ensure that the potentialfor impacts on special-status species isminimized (e.g., season restrictions forimplementation of projects, avoidance ofbreeding habitat, standard operatingprocedures for equipment maintenance, anderosion control). In addition, each projectlisted in Table 2-1 would be subject to theAir Force’s EIAP, whereby either an AirForce Form 813 or Work Request (Air ForceForm 332/103) must be filled out andreviewed by 30 CES/CEANC. During thisprocess, 30 CES/CEANC would determineif a project has the potential to directly

impact a special-status species and wouldcoordinate with the project proponent toavoid or minimize impacts. If, throughimplementation of measures BIO-1athrough BIO-3 and the Air Force’s EIAP, it isdetermined that a project is unlikely to injureor kill a special-status species, then impactswould be reduced to less than significantlevels. For individual projects where injuryor death of special-status species could stilloccur, additional environmental impactanalysis would be required. For individualprojects that would have potential adverseeffects on one or more federally listedspecies, section 7 consultation with theUSFWS or NOAA Fisheries would benecessary.

Ground-disturbing activities, including minorground-disturbing activities, use ofpesticides, and implementation ofprescribed burns associated with proposedINRMP projects also could significantlyimpact (e.g., remove or degrade) nativevegetation communities. This includessensitive vegetation communities, such aswetlands or waters of the US and habitat forspecial-status species. Minimizationmeasures BIO-4 and BIO-5 would ensurethat potential impacts on native vegetationcommunities are minimized or avoided tothe maximum extent and that they wereproperly restored when feasible. Again,each project listed in Table 2-1 would besubject to the Air Force’s EIAP, whereby 30CES/CEANC would determine if a projecthas the potential to directly impact a nativevegetation community and would coordinatewith the project proponent to avoid orminimize impacts.

If, through implementation of measuresBIO-4 and BIO-5 and the Air Force’s EIAP,it is determined that a project continues tocould temporarily or permanently impact awetland or waters of the US (or floodplain;see Section 4.17, Water Resources), analternatives analysis must be performed anda FONPA must be prepared for the project,



as required by Executive Orders 11990 and11988 and the Air Force’s EIAP. Inaddition, permits may be needed from theUSACE, the RWQCB, and the CDFG.Therefore, for these projects, additionalimpact analysis would be required. Inaddition, for projects where there would stillbe permanent residual impacts on nativevegetation communities (e.g., whererestoration is not feasible or desired),additional impact analysis would berequired. For all other projects,implementation of measures BIO-4 andBIO-5 and completion of the Air Force’sEIAP would ensure that impacts on nativevegetation communities are reduced to lessthan significant levels.


Under the No-Action alternative, the INRMPwould not be finalized, and none of theprojects listed in Table 2-1 would beimplemented. Under the No-Actionalternative, basic protection measures andrecovery efforts for federally listed specieswould not be implemented. Basic protectionmeasures and enhancement measures fornative vegetation communities would not beimplemented either. Nonnative invasivespecies would be expected to proliferate. Inaddition, Vandenberg AFB would be morevulnerable to large-scale destruction ofnative vegetation communities and wildlifeas a result of wildland fires. As a result, theNo-Action alternative would result insignificant unmitigable impacts on biologicalresources. In addition, Vandenberg AFBwould be out of compliance with the SikesAct and DoD and Air Force policies andregulations.

4.5 Cultural Resources


Cultural resources would be adverselyaffected if the proposed project were tocause the permanent loss of a significant

cultural resource or the value orcharacteristics that qualify a historicresource for listing on the NRHP or if theproposed project were to substantially alterthe natural environment or access to it insuch a way that traditional cultural orreligious activities were restricted. Criteriaused to evaluate the significance of culturalresources and to assess potential adverseproject effects are set forth in the NHPA.

Impact Analysis

The Proposed Action

Archaeological Resources

INRMP projects that disturb the ground,whether the disturbance is minor or major,could adversely affect significant culturalresources. Thus, those projects with minoror major ground or vegetation disturbancewould require further project-specificconsideration of cultural resources.

Prescribed burns can adversely affectsignificant cultural resources by damagingartifacts and ecofacts on the ground surfaceand through ground disturbance associatedwith fire preparation or suppression.Prescribed burns can also affect plants andanimals in traditional gathering areas;consequently, prescribed burns wouldrequire further consideration of culturalresources.

Herbicide and pesticide applications havelittle potential to adversely affectarchaeological resources if the applicationdoes not involve ground disturbance, suchas off-road driving. However, widespreadherbicide and pesticide application couldaffect cultural and religious activities ifapplied to traditional hunting or gatheringareas. Any widespread application ofherbicides or pesticides would requireconsideration of adverse effects onculturally significant hunting or gatheringareas. Because it is targeted, spot



application of herbicides and pesticides tocontrol invasive plants and animals wouldnot affect culturally significant hunting orgathering areas. Consequently, herbicidesand pesticides applied directly andspecifically to individual invasive plants andanimals would not require furtherconsideration.

Vandenberg AFB is required to consult withNative Americans and other interestedparties under Section 106 of the NHPA.That consultation includes solicitation ofinput on Air Force actions with the potentialto affect archaeological resources andtraditional/religious activity areas. Thus,any major or minor ground-disturbingprojects, prescribed burns, and widespreadapplication of herbicides or pesticides wouldrequire consultation with Native Americansand other interested parties.

Historic Architectural Resources

Because construction, demolition, orrefurbishment of structures is not included inthis PEA, there would be no potentialimpacts on historic architectural resources.


Under the No-Action alternative, the INRMPwould not be finalized, and none of theprojects listed in Table 2-1 would beimplemented. Therefore, cultural resourceswould not be affected by the No-Actionalternative.

Paleontological Resources

Major ground-disturbing activities andimplementation of prescribed burnsassociated with proposed INRMP projectscould significantly impact significantpaleontological resources in areas of highpaleontological sensitivity (as discussed inChapter 3).

Each project listed in Table 2-1 would besubject to the Air Force’s EIAP, whereby 30

CES/CEANC would determine if a project isin an area of high sensitivity and wouldrequire conditions of approval that must bemet to avoid or minimize impacts, such aspaleontological monitoring. In addition,implementation of minimization measureCULT-1 would ensure that ground-disturbing activities are halted andresources are further evaluated in the eventthat any unanticipated paleontologicalresources were discovered during projectactivities. However, for those projects withthe continued potential to permanentlydisturb a significant paleontologicalresource, further environmental impactanalysis would be required.

Projects in areas of low or nopaleontological sensitivity are unlikely toimpact significant paleontological resources;therefore, project impacts on paleontologicalresources in these areas would be less thansignificant.


Under the No-Action alternative, the INRMPwould not be finalized, and none of theprojects listed in Table 2-1 would beimplemented. Therefore, there would be noimpacts on paleontological resources.

4.6 Geology and EarthResources


Impacts would be considered potentiallysignificant if the project were to result insubstantially increased erosion, landslides,soil creep, mudslides, and unstable slopes.Impacts would also be consideredsignificant if they were to increase thelikelihood of or resulted in exposure toearthquake damage, slope failure,foundation instability, land subsidence, orother severe geologic hazards. Geologicimpacts may also be considered significantif they were to result in the loss of the use of



soil for agriculture or habitat, the loss ofaesthetic value from a unique landform, orthe loss of mineral resources.

Impact Analysis

The Proposed Action

Major ground-disturbing activities fromimplementing INRMP projects (e.g.,installation of new fire breaks) andprescribed burns could result in significantshort-term and long-term erosion. Forprojects greater than one acre, the Air Forcemust prepare a SWPPP and file a Notice ofIntent to obtain a NPDES GeneralStormwater Permit for ConstructionActivities from the RWQCB. In addition,implementation of standard erosion controlmeasures would be implemented underminimization measure GEO-1 duringground-disturbing activities. Additionalerosion control BMPs may also be requiredthrough the Air Force’s EIAP. Withimplementation of these measures, short-term erosion impacts would be reduced toless than significant levels.

Under Vandenberg AFB’s StormwaterManagement Plan, the Air Force is requiredto implement appropriate post-constructionBMPs to prevent erosion from its projectareas as well. Appropriate post-construction BMPs would be determinedthrough the Air Force’s EIAP. In addition,minimization measure GEN-1 would ensurethat a hydrogeologic assessment isperformed in the burn plan for eachprescribed burn to determine what BMPswould be necessary to offset potentialimpacts on stormwater runoff and sedimentloads to nearby watersheds. Therefore,with implementation of these measures,long-term erosion impacts would bereduced to less than significant levels.

Major ground-disturbing activities andprescribed burns also could exacerbategeohazardous conditions such as

landslides, bluff erosion, or streambankerosion, which would be considered apotentially significant impact. Through theAir Force’s EIAP, it is determined ifproposed projects are located ingeohazardous areas (e.g., active landslides,on coastal bluffs, on stream banks, or instream channels), and additional specialstudies may be required. If INRMP projectsare proposed in these areas, additionalenvironmental analysis would be required.


Under the No-Action alternative, the INRMPwould not be finalized, and none of theprojects listed in Table 2-1 would beimplemented. Therefore, there would be noimpacts on geology and earth resources.

4.7 Hazardous Materials andHazardous Waste Management


An impact involving hazardous materialsand hazardous waste would be consideredsignificant if their transport, use, or disposalwere to pose a serious hazard to the publicor the environment. Issues include thepotential for accidents to release hazardousmaterials, emissions of hazardous materialsespecially within one-quarter mile of aschool, and violation of any associatedfederal, California, or Santa Barbara Countyregulation or applicable permit condition.

Impact Analysis

The Proposed Action

Operation and maintenance of heavyequipment during major ground-disturbingactivities could accidentally releasehazardous materials used in these vehicles,such as oil, fuel, and lubricants. However,project staging and storage areas arereviewed and approved by 30 CES/CEAduring the Air Force’s EIAP and are



required to be located in areas whereminimal environmental impacts would occurin the event of a spill. In addition,Vandenberg AFB’s Hazardous MaterialsEmergency Response Plan ensures thatproper procedures are implemented forconducting emergency response toaccidents involving hazardous materials.Therefore, with implementation of thesemeasures, impacts would be less thansignificant.

Pesticides are also considered hazardousmaterials, but the Air Force has strictrequirements that pesticides be usedaccording to label instructions and that allpesticides used at Vandenberg AFB mustbe DoD-approved. Therefore, impactsassociated with pesticide use are less thansignificant.

Implementation of ground-disturbingactivities, including minor ground-disturbingactivities, and prescribed burns couldencounter contaminated soils, surfacewater, or groundwater at Vandenberg AFB’sIRP sites, AOCs, or AOIs, which would beconsidered a potentially significant impact.Implementation of minimization measureHAZ-1 would ensure that the EnvironmentalRestoration Division of 30 CES/CEA iscoordinated with for all INRMP projectsproposed within these areas. The AirForce’s EIAP would ensure that thismeasure is implemented as well. Forprojects that can avoid direct impacts oncontaminated media (e.g., soil, surfacewater, or groundwater) in these areas,impacts would be reduced to less thansignificant levels. However, where projectscould not avoid potential impacts oncontaminated media in these areas,additional impact analysis would berequired.

Finally, implementation of INRMP projects isnot anticipated to generate any hazardouswaste.


Under the No-Action alternative, the INRMPwould not be finalized, and none of theprojects listed in Table 2-1 would beimplemented. Therefore, there would be noimpacts on hazardous materials andhazardous waste management.

4.8 Human Health and Safety


An impact would be considered significant ifit were to create a potential public healthhazard or to involve the improper use,production, or disposal of materials thatpose a hazard to people in the affectedarea. An impact would also be consideredsignificant if project activities were to pose aserious risk of fire, especially wildland fires,or were to involve potential obstruction ofemergency response or evacuation routesin and around the project area.

Impact Analysis

The Proposed Action

During implementation of INRMP projects,workers may be exposed to the variouschemical, physical, and biological hazardsat Vandenberg AFB (as described inChapter 3), including hazards within thevarious hazard zones discussed in Chapter3, such as UXO closure areas. All workerson Vandenberg AFB, including contractors,are required to follow all OSHA, Cal/OSHA,and Air Force Occupational Safety andHealth regulations, which would ensure thatprecautions are taken to avoid variouschemical, physical, and biological hazardson-base to the extent possible. In addition,the Air Force’s EIAP would ensure thatworkers either avoid the various hazardzones at Vandenberg AFB or that specialprecautions are taken to protect workersafety in these areas (e.g., workers areaccompanied by specially trained escorts



through these areas). Minimizationmeasure SAFE-1 would also beimplemented to minimize health and safetyimpacts. With implementation of thesemeasures, impacts on worker health andsafety would be less than significant.

Implementation of prescribed burns couldresult in an outbreak of a wildland fire if theprescribed burn were to get out of control.Impacts on health and safety for workersand the population in the surrounding areacould be significant. Implementation of aburn plan for each prescribed burn(minimization measure GEN-1) wouldensure that evacuation routes areestablished for workers and members of thepublic that could be impacted by a fireoutbreak. The burn plan would alsoestablish the proper meteorologicalconditions under which a prescribed burnshould be conducted and under which aprescribed burn should be halted. Finally,the burn plan would include a contingencyplan that would be implemented in the eventof a fire outbreak. Therefore, withimplementation of this minimizationmeasure, potential impacts on health andsafety would be minimized and would beless than significant.


Under the No-Action alternative, the INRMPwould not be finalized, and none of theprojects listed in Table 2-1 would beimplemented. Therefore, there would be noimpacts on health and safety.

4.9 Land Use and CoastalZone Resources


An impact on land use and coastalresources would be considered significant ifa project were to conflict with the 2010General Plan’s designated land uses for the

project area or were inconsistent with thepolicies of the California Coastal Act.

Impact Analysis

The Proposed Action

Implementation of the INRMP projectswould not involve introducing new land usesinto areas, which would be incompatiblewith the Vandenberg AFB 2010 GeneralPlan’s land use designations for thoseareas. By design, the INRMP must also beintegrated with the base mission and basecomprehensive planning.

As discussed in Sections 4.3, AgriculturalResources, and 4.11, RecreationalResources, implementation of INRMPprojects would have less than significantimpacts on agricultural resources andrecreation, which would also ensure that theprojects would be consistent with theCalifornia Coastal Act policies listed inTable 3-3 protecting these resources.

As discussed in Sections 4.4, BiologicalResources, and 4.5, Cultural Resources,with implementation of minimizationmeasures and other standard BMPs,implementation of most of the INRMPprojects would have less than significantimpacts on biological and cultural resourcesand therefore would ensure that theseprojects would also be consistent with theCalifornia Coastal Act policies listed inTable 3-3 protecting these resources.However, projects that continue topotentially result in the following impacts,even after implementation of minimizationmeasures and standard BMPs, wouldrequire further impact analysis:

Projects with the potential to injure or killa special-status species;

Projects that would result in temporaryand permanent impacts on aquatic



habitat, including wetlands, waters ofthe US, or floodplains;

Projects that would result in permanentimpacts on other native vegetationcommunities; and

Projects that would result in permanentimpacts on a significant culturalresource.


Under the No-Action alternative, the INRMPwould not be finalized and none of theprojects listed in Table 2-1 would beimplemented. Under the No-Actionalternative, basic protection measures andrecovery efforts for federally listed specieswould not be implemented. Basic protectionmeasures and enhancement measures fornative vegetation communities would not beimplemented either. Nonnative invasivespecies would be expected to proliferate. Inaddition, Vandenberg AFB would be morevulnerable to large-scale destruction ofnative vegetation communities and wildlifeas a result of wildland fires. As a result, theNo-Action alternative would result insignificant unmitigable impacts on biologicalresources and therefore would beinconsistent with California Coastal Actpolicies protecting these resources as well.

4.10 Noise


Noise impacts from a project would beconsidered significant if a project were togenerate noise levels in excess of 65 dBACNEL that could affect sensitive receptors,such as schools, residences, commerciallodging facilities, hospitals, or care facilities.A potentially significant impact would alsooccur if indoor noise levels could not bereduced below 45 dBA.

Impact Analysis

The Proposed Action

Heavy equipment used for major ground-disturbing activities associated withimplementation of INRMP projects couldgenerate potentially significant noiseimpacts. According to US EPA guidelines(Santa Barbara County 2008), averagenoise is 95 dBA at 50 feet from activitiesinvolving heavy equipment. However, noiselevels diminish as the distance from thesource increases. Specifically, noise levelsdrop by 6 dB for every doubling of thedistance from the source (Santa BarbaraCounty 2008). Therefore, at 1,600 feet fromactivities involving heavy equipment,outdoor noise levels would be at 65 dBA;beyond this distance, outdoor noise levelswould be less than 65 dBA. Where outdoornoise levels are 65 dBA or less, indoorconditions would be at or lower than 45 dBAas well when doors and windows are closed(Santa Barbara County 2008).

Most noise-generating activities associatedwith implementation of INRMP projectswould be conducted in remote areas on-base and would not be conducted within1,600 feet of sensitive receptors. However,in the event that these activities wereconducted within 1,600 feet of sensitivereceptors, implementation of minimizationmeasure NOISE-1 would ensure thatactivities involving heavy equipment wouldbe limited to weekdays only, and between 8AM and 5 PM, which would ensure thatCNEL levels are below 65 dBA at thesensitive receptor locations. Therefore, withimplementation of this measure, impactswould be less than significant.

Implementation of INRMP projects is notexpected to introduce any long-termsources of noise at Vandenberg AFB.




Under the No-Action alternative, the INRMPwould not be finalized and none of theprojects listed in Table 2-1 would beimplemented. Therefore, there would be nonoise impacts.

4.11 Recreation


A project would have a significant impact onrecreation if it were to restrict public accessto the beach or access to recreation areason Vandenberg AFB for active duty, retiredand dependent personnel and civilianworkers.

Impact Analysis

The Proposed Action

In general, implementation of INRMPprojects would enhance recreationopportunities for active duty, retired anddependent personnel, and civilian workersat Vandenberg AFB or the quality of theirrecreation experiences by protecting openspace and biological resources.Implementation of the proposed INRMPprojects would not involve closure of anyrecreation areas on Vandenberg AFBbeyond those that are already restricted. Inaddition, it would not close any publicrecreation areas beyond those that arealready restricted (e.g., areas at Surf Beachthat are restricted due to the BeachManagement Plan for Western snowyplovers).

Implementation of prescribed burns couldresult in temporary restrictions of access torecreational areas, including public accessto the beach (depending on the location ofthe prescribed burn). However, becauseimplementation of prescribed burns wouldnot be expected to last more than a fewdays at most, this temporary disruption ofrecreational access would be less thansignificant.


Under the No-Action alternative, the INRMPwould not be finalized, and none of theprojects listed in Table 2-1 would beimplemented. Because some of the INRMPprojects would enhance recreationopportunities at Vandenberg AFB,implementation of the No-Action alternativewould not have a benefit on recreationopportunities as would the Proposed Action.

4.12 Socioeconomics andEnvironmental Justice


A project would be considered to have asignificant socioeconomic impact if it wereto substantially alter the location anddistribution of the region’s population, wereto cause the population to exceed itshistoric growth rates, were to decrease jobsso as to substantially raise the regionalunemployment rates or reduce incomegeneration, were to substantially affect thelocal housing market and vacancy rates, orwere to result in the need for new schoolservices.

A significant impact on environmentaljustice would occur under the followingcircumstances:

There were a significant adverse impacton the natural or physical environmentor on health that affected a minority orlow-income population or children;

There were a significant adverseenvironmental impact on minority or low-income populations or children thatappreciably exceeded those on thegeneral population or other comparisongroup;

The risk or rate of exposure toenvironmental hazards by a minority orlow-income population were substantial



and exceeded those of the generalpopulation or other comparison group;or

A health or environmental effect were tooccur in a minority or low-incomepopulation affected by cumulative ormultiple adverse exposures fromenvironmental hazards.

Impact Analysis

The Proposed Action

Implementation of each INRMP projectwould require a small number of workersthat would likely be from the local area.Because only a small number of workerswould be needed and only for short timeframes, implementation of INRMP projectswould not significantly affect the workforcein the area. Therefore, the Proposed Actionwould have less than significantsocioeconomic impacts.

In addition, implementation of INRMPprojects would not have disproportionateimpacts on low-income or minoritypopulations or children. Therefore, therewould be no environmental justice impacts.


Under the No-Action alternative, the INRMPwould not be finalized, and none of theprojects listed in Table 2-1 would beimplemented. Therefore, there would be nosocioeconomic or environmental justiceimpacts.

4.13 Solid Waste


Impacts from solid waste generation wouldbe considered significant if a project were toresult in noncompliance with applicableregulatory guidelines or if the volumes ofsolid waste generated by the project were to

exceed available waste managementcapacities.

Impact Analysis

The Proposed Action

Clearing vegetation associated withimplementation of INRMP projects wouldgenerate green waste, including nonnativeinvasive plant species, which could result insignificant solid waste impacts. However,implementation of minimization measureSW-1 would ensure that all green wastewould be minimized at Vandenberg AFB. Inaddition, nonnative invasive plant speciesare disposed of according to VandenbergAFB’s Integrated Solid Waste ManagementPlan and Integrated Pest Management Planto prevent the spread of these species.Therefore, with implementation of thesemeasures, solid waste impacts would beless than significant.


Under the No-Action alternative, the INRMPwould not be finalized, and none of theprojects listed in Table 2-1 would beimplemented. Therefore, there would be nosolid waste impacts.

4.14 Transportation


Project impacts on transportation would beconsidered significant if a project were tocause a substantial increase in traffic inrelation to existing traffic load and capacityof the street system; if it were to exceed anestablished level of service standard; it wereto substantially increase hazards due to adesign feature; if it were to result ininadequate emergency access or ininadequate parking capacity; or if it were toconflict with adopted policies, plans, orprograms supporting alternativetransportation.



Impact Analysis

The Proposed Action

Traffic associated with implementation ofINRMP projects is not anticipated to belarge enough to affect local area roadwaysoutside of Vandenberg AFB. However,traffic could affect traffic flow within the roadsystem at Vandenberg AFB, which could beconsidered a significant impact.Implementation of minimization measureTRANS-1 would ensure that truck trips arescheduled during non-peak traffic hourswhen possible and that a traffic control planwould be prepared when roadwaysexperience heavy truck traffic or roadclosures. Therefore, with implementation ofthis measure, impacts would be reduced toless than significant levels.

Implementation of prescribed burns couldresult in temporary road or lane closures inproximity to the prescribed burns, includingroad or lane closures on roadways outsideof Vandenberg AFB (depending on thelocation of the prescribed burn).Minimization measure GEN-1 would requirethat the burn plan for each prescribed burnidentify traffic control measures (e.g.,flagmen, detours) that may be requiredduring a prescribed burn. In addition,because implementation of prescribedburns would not be expected to last morethan a few days at most, this temporarydisruption would be less than significant.

There would no long-term impacts on trafficand transportation with implementation ofINRMP projects.


Under the No-Action alternative, the INRMPwould not be finalized, and none of theprojects listed in Table 2-1 would beimplemented. Therefore, there would be notransportation impacts.

4.15 Utilities


Impacts on utility systems from theproposed project would be consideredsignificant if the project were to exceed thewastewater treatment requirements of theRWQCB, if it were to require or result in theconstruction of new water or wastewatertreatment facilities or expansion of existingfacilities, or if it were to require or result inthe construction of new stormwaterdrainage facilities or expansion of existingfacilities. Impacts would also be consideredsignificant if a project were to require utilitysupplies (such as water, natural gas, orelectricity) that could not be met by existingentitlements or resources.

Impact Analysis

The Proposed Action

Implementation of INRMP projects wouldnot require any new water, wastewater, ordrainage facilities and would not require anynew utility supplies (e.g., electricity ornatural gas).

Implementation of INRMP projects wouldnot involve an increased use of potablewater, with the exception of implementationof prescribed burns where potable watermay be used to extinguish the fire.However, because implementation ofprescribed burns would not be expected tolast more than a few days at most andwould not be expected to involve a largeacreage, this use would not significantlyincrease Vandenberg AFB’s demand forpotable water, and impacts would be lessthan significant.


Under the No-Action alternative, the INRMPwould not be finalized, and none of theprojects listed in Table 2-1 would be



implemented. Therefore, there would be noimpacts on utilities.

4.16 Visual Resources


A visual impact would be consideredsignificant if it were to interfere with or toblock views of aesthetically pleasing areas,such as the ocean, open space areas, orother scenic areas. A visual impact wouldalso be considered significant if a projectwere to be aesthetically incompatible withsurrounding areas, if a project were tosubstantially alter the natural character ofan area, or if a project were to introduce asubstantial amount of night lighting or glareto an area.

Impact Analysis

The Proposed Action

No INRMP project would block or interferewith views of or views Vandenberg AFB(e.g., views of the ocean), nor would anyINRMP project introduce permanentstructures or introduce substantialpermanent night lighting or glare.

Major ground-disturbing activities (e.g.,development of new fire breaks) andimplementation of prescribed burns couldinvolve the removal of large acreages ofvegetation, which would substantially alterthe natural character of the area. Firebreaks would constitute a small percentageof the viewshed. Prescribed burns couldremove the greatest amount of vegetation;however vegetation in these areas wouldregrow. Therefore, impacts would be lessthan significant.


Under the No-Action alternative, the INRMPwould not be finalized and none of theprojects listed in Table 2-1 would be

implemented. Restoration of natural plantcommunities at selected sites onVandenberg AFB would not occur and thevisual complexity within these areas wouldcontinue to decrease as invasive speciescontinue to spread, and vegetativesuccession would continue to advance. Asa result, the No-Action alternative wouldresult in significant unmitigable impacts onvisual resources.

4.17 Water Resources


Impacts on water resources would beconsidered significant if a project were tocause substantial flooding or erosion, wereto adversely affect any significant waterbody, such as a stream, lake, or bay, wereto expose people to hydrologic hazards,such as flooding or tsunamis, or were toadversely affect surface water orgroundwater quality or quantity. Impactswould also be considered significant ifexisting drainage patterns of the site or areawould be substantially altered.

Impact Analysis

The Proposed Action

As discussed in Section 4.6, Geology andEarth Resources, major ground-disturbingactivities associated with implementingINRMP projects (e.g., installation of new firebreaks) and prescribed burns could result inpotentially significant short-term and long-term erosion, which could subsequentlysignificantly affect stormwater quality. Forprojects greater than one acre, the Air Forcemust prepare a SWPPP and file a Notice ofIntent to obtain a NPDES GeneralStormwater Permit for ConstructionActivities from the RWQCB. In addition,standard erosion control measures wouldbe implemented under minimizationmeasure GEO-1 during ground-disturbingactivities. Additional erosion control BMPs



may also be required through the AirForce’s EIAP. With implementation of thesemeasures, short-term impacts would bereduced to less than significant levels.

Under Vandenberg AFB’s StormwaterManagement Plan, the Air Force is requiredto implement appropriate post-constructionBMPs to prevent erosion from its projectareas as well. Appropriate post-construction BMPs would be determinedthrough the Air Force’s EIAP. In addition,minimization measure GEN-1 would ensurethat a hydrogeologic assessment isperformed in each burn plan for aprescribed burn to determine what BMPswould be necessary to offset potentialimpacts on stormwater runoff and sedimentloads to nearby watersheds. Therefore,with implementation of these measures,long-term erosion impacts would bereduced to less than significant levels.

Ground-disturbing activities, use ofpesticides, and implementation ofprescribed burns associated with proposedINRMP projects, also could unintentionallyimpact (e.g., remove or degrade) aquatichabitat. This includes sensitive vegetationcommunities, such as wetlands or waters ofthe US and floodplains. Impacts would bepotentially significant. Minimizationmeasures BIO-4 and BIO-5 would ensurethat potential impacts are minimized oravoided to the maximum extent. Eachproject listed in Table 2-1 would be subjectto the Air Force’s EIAP, whereby 30CES/CEANC would determine if a projecthas the potential to directly impact aquatichabitat, wetlands or waters of the US, or afloodplain and would require conditions ofapproval that must be met to avoid orminimize impacts.

If, through implementation of measuresBIO-4 and BIO-5 and the Air Force’s EIAP,it is determined that a project couldtemporarily or permanently impact awetland, waters of the US, or floodplain, an

alternatives analysis must be performed anda FONPA must be prepared for the project,as required by Executive Orders 11990 and11988 and the Air Force’s EIAP. Inaddition, permits may be needed from theUSACE, the RWQCB, and the CDFG.Therefore, for these projects, additionalimpact analysis would be required. Inaddition, for projects where there would stillbe permanent residual impacts on aquatichabitat or floodplains (e.g., whererestoration is not feasible or desired),additional impact analysis would berequired. For all other projects,implementation of measures BIO-4 andBIO-5 and completion of the Air Force’sEIAP would ensure that impacts arereduced to less than significant levels.

Finally, implementation of INRMP projectswould not affect groundwater.


Under the No-Action alternative, the INRMPwould not be finalized, and none of theprojects listed in Table 2-1 would beimplemented. Therefore, there would be noimpacts on water resources.

4.18 Cumulative Impacts


The CEQ regulations define a cumulativeimpact as the impact on the environmentthat results from the incremental impact ofthe action, when added to other past,present, and reasonably foreseeable futureactions. Cumulative impacts can result fromindividually minor but collectively significantactions taking place over time. A significantimpact would occur if an individual projectwere to have a considerable contribution tocumulative impacts on the environment.



Past, Present, and ReasonablyForeseeable Actions in the Region ofInfluence

Construction and maintenance activitiesroutinely occur at Vandenberg AFB andcontribute to cumulative impacts on theenvironment. Construction projectsscheduled on Vandenberg AFB in theforeseeable future, other than thoseproposed in the INRMP, include those thatare planned in the 2010 General Plan forVandenberg AFB.

In addition, launch activities and airfield andhelicopter operations at Vandenberg AFBcontribute to cumulative impacts on theenvironment. Finally, other prescribedburns in Santa Barbara County wouldcontribute to cumulative impacts on airquality in the region.

Impact Analysis

The Proposed Action

As discussed in Sections 4.2 through 4.17,for most of the proposed INRMP projects,implementation of minimization measureslisted in Table 2-2 and other standard BMPswould ensure that impacts on theenvironment would be either avoided orminimized to the point where residualimpacts would be considered to have only aminor contribution to cumulative impacts onthe environment.

However, as also discussed above, projectsthat continue to potentially result in thefollowing impacts, even afterimplementation of minimization measuresand standard BMPs, would require furtherimpact analysis:

Projects with the potential to injure or killa special-status species as defined inSection 3.4;

Projects that would result in temporaryor permanent impacts on aquatichabitat, wetlands or waters of the US, orfloodplains;

Projects that would result in permanentimpacts on other native vegetationcommunities at Vandenberg AFB (e.g.,oak woodland, coastal scrub) asdescribed in Section 3.4 of the PEA;

Projects that would result in permanentimpacts on a significant culturalresource as defined in the NHPA;

Projects in geohazardous areas (orareas with geologic conditions that arecapable of causing damage or loss ofproperty and life) such as activelandslide areas, coastal bluffs,streambanks, or stream channels;

Projects that would disturbcontaminated media such as soilthrough excavation with mechanizedequipment or hand tools, or extraction ofcontaminated surface water orgroundwater; and

Prescribed burns greater than 100 acresthat are calculated to produce greaterthan 10 tons of particulate matter, wouldproduce smoke at night, are near smokesensitive areas, or where the SBCAPCDdetermines that monitoring is necessaryfor public health and safety.


Under the No-Action alternative, the INRMPwould not be finalized, and none of theprojects listed in Table 2-1 would beimplemented. As discussed in Section 4.3,implementation of the No-Action alternativewould result in unmitigable significantimpacts on biological resources and visualresources. Given the importance ofVandenberg AFB as an area on the CentralCoast, with large acreages of relatively



undisturbed native vegetation communities,implementation of the No-Action alternativewould contribute considerably to cumulativeimpacts on biological resources and visualresources in the region. Cumulativeimpacts on biological resources and visualresources would be significant under theNo-Action alternative.

For all other issue areas, because therewould be no impacts or minor impacts (e.g.,on recreation), implementation of the No-Action alternative would not contributeconsiderably to cumulative impacts on theseresources.

Chapter 5. References



California Employment Development Department2010 Labor Market Information: Lompoc Profile.

http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov. October 6.

Coulombe, H. N., and C. F. Cooper1976 Ecological Assessment of Vandenberg AFB, California: Volume I, Evaluation and

Recommendations. AFCEC-TR-76-15. Center for Regional EnvironmentalStudies, San Diego State University, California. May.

Coulombe, H. N., and C. R. Mahrdt1976 Ecological Assessment of Vandenberg AFB, California: Volume II, Biological

Inventory 1974/75. AFCEC-TR-76-15. Center for Regional EnvironmentalStudies, San Diego State University, California. May.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)2010 Draft NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and

Greenhouse Gas Emissions. February 18.

Dibblee, T. W., Jr.1950 Geology of Southwestern Santa Barbara County, California. California Division of

Mines Bulletin 150.

Gray, R. S.2005 Vandenberg Air Force Base Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan.

Volume 10: Management of Paleontological Resources. December.

Holland, V. L., and D. J. Keil1996 Flora of Vandenberg Air Force Base, Santa Barbara County, California. The

Nature Conservancy, San Luis Obispo, California.

Lebow, C. G., and M. J. Moratto2005 Management of Prehistoric Archaeological Resources. Vandenberg Air Force

Base Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan, vol. 5, edited by MichaelJ. Moratto and Barry A. Price. Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Fresno, California.Submitted to US Air Force, 30 CES/CEVPC, Vandenberg Air Force Base,California.

McCullough, R., and P. Nowlan1997 Cold War Properties Evaluation—Phase III, Inventory and Evaluation of Atlas,

Titan, Bomarc, and Blue Scout Junior Launch Facilities at Vandenberg Air ForceBase, California, for the United States Air Force. Tri-Services Cultural ResourcesResearch Center, US Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories,Champaign, Illinois. Prepared for US Department of Defense Legacy ResourceManagement Program, Washington, DC.



National Wildfire Coordinating Group2001 Smoke Management Guide for Prescribed and Wildland Fire. 2001 Edition.

Publication No. PMS 420-2/NFES 1279. December.

Nowlan, P., and R. McCullough1997 Cold War Properties Evaluation—Phase II, Inventory and Evaluation of

Minuteman MX Peacekeeper, and Space Tracking Facilities at Vandenberg AirForce Base, California, for the United States Air Force. Tri-Services CulturalResources Research Center, US Army Construction Engineering ResearchLaboratories, Champaign, Illinois. Prepared for US Department of DefenseLegacy Resource Management Program, Washington, DC.

Palmer, K.1999 Central Coast Continuum—From Ranchos to Rockets: A Contextual Historic

Overview of Vandenberg Air Force Base, Santa Barbara County, California.Prepared by Palmer Archaeology and Architecture Associates, Santa Barbara,California. Draft submitted to 30 CES/CEVPC, Vandenberg Air Force Base,California.

2000 Vandenberg Air Force Base Cultural Resources Historic Sites ManagementNotebook. Prepared by Palmer Archaeology and Architecture Associates, SantaBarbara, California, for BTG, Inc., Santa Maria, California. Submitted to 30th CivilEngineering Squadron, Environmental Flight, Cultural Resources Section (30CES/CEVPC), Vandenberg Air Force Base, California.

Palmer, K., M. C. Hamilton, and M. J. Moratto2005 Management of Historic Buildings, Structures, Landscapes, Trails, and Other

Historic Properties. Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan forVandenberg Air Force Base, vol. 7, edited by Michael J. Moratto and Barry A.Price. Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Fresno, California. Submitted to30 CES/CEVPC, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California.

Santa Barbara County2008 Santa Barbara County Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual.

October.

Shipman, G. E.1981 Soil Survey of Santa Barbara County, South Coastal Part. USDA, Soil

Conservation Service. Washington, DC.

Tetra Tech, Inc. (Tetra Tech)2010 Second Administrative Draft Air Quality Study for the Joint Space Operations

Center, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. July 9.

US Air Force2002 Hazardous Waste Management Plan. 30 SW Plan 32-7043-A. September.

2005 Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Plan. 30 SW Plan 32-4002-A.October.



2006a Hazardous Materials Management Plan. 30 SW Plan 32-7086. July.

2006b Lead-Based Paint Management Plan. 30 SW Plan 32-1002. December.

2008 The Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment - 2007 General Plan for theMain and South Base Cantonments, Vandenberg Air Force Base. May 5.

2009a Asbestos Management and Operating Plan. 30 SW Plan 32-1052. February.

2009b Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan, Vandenberg Air Force Base. May.

2010a 2010 General Plan, Vandenberg Air Force Base. November.

2010b Stormwater Management Plan, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. May.2011 Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, Vandenberg Air Force Base,

California, Plan Period 2011-2015. Prepared for 30th Space Wing AssetManagement Flight, 30 CES/CEA. May.

US Census Bureau2010a 2006-2008 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates. .

http://factfinder.census.gov/. October 6.

2010b State and County QuickFacts. Data derived from Population Estimates, 2000Census of Population and Housing, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates,State and County Housing Unit Estimates, 2002 County Business Patterns,Nonemployer Statistics, Economic Census, Survey of Business Owners, BuildingPermits, Consolidated Federal Funds Report. Last Revised 16 August 2010.http://quickfacts.census.gov/. October 6.




Chapter 6. List of Preparers



Tetra Tech, Inc.301 Mentor Drive, Suite ASanta Barbara, California 93111

Michelle Gibbs, Project Manager

Michelle Bates, Principal Biologist

Amy Locke, Planner/Biologist

Heather Moine, Planner/Biologist

Teri Reynolds, Graphics

Randolph Varney, Technical Editor

Applied EarthWorks, Inc.515 East Ocean Avenue, Suite GLompoc, California 93436

Clay Lebow, Vice President/Senior Archaeologist




Chapter 7. List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Contacted



Lompoc Public Library501 East North AvenueLompoc, CA 93436

Lompoc Public Library3755 Constellation RoadLompoc, CA 93436

Santa Maria Public Library420 South BroadwaySanta Maria, CA 93454-5199

Santa Barbara Public Library40 East Anapamu StreetSanta Barbara, CA 93101-2000

UC Santa Barbara LibraryGovernment Publications DepartmentSanta Barbara, CA 93106-9010

Vandenberg Library

US Fish and Wildlife ServiceAttn: Roger RootVentura Field Office2493 Portola Road, Suite BVentura, CA 93003

California Coastal CommissionFederal Consistency Review45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000San Francisco, CA 94105-2219

California Regional Water Quality ControlBoardCentral Coast Region895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

Environmental Defense Center906 Garden Street, Suite 2Santa Barbara, CA 93101-1415

Santa Barbara County Air PollutionControl DistrictAttn: Molly Pearson260 North San Antonio Road, Suite ASanta Barbara, CA 93110-1315

Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History2559 Puesta del SolSanta Barbara, CA 93105

La Purisima Audubon SocietyP.O. Box 2045Lompoc, CA 93438

Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indiansc/o Office of the Tribal ChairmanP.O. Box 517Santa Ynez, CA 93460

California Native Plant SocietyP.O. Box 784San Luis Obispo, CA 93406

California State Historic PreservationOfficerOffice of Historic Preservation1725 23rd Street, Suite 100Sacramento, CA 95816




Documents

For the 2011-2015 Integrated Natural Resources … · Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment For the 2011-2015 Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan Vandenberg Air Force