ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

PROPOSED WELL STIMULATION RULE

DOI-BLM-WO300-2012-XXX-EA

I. Introduction 

This document examines the environmental impacts of the Bureau of Land Management’s 

(BLM) proposed rule to revise 43 CFR 3162.3-2, Subsequent Well Operations, and add a new 

section 3162.3-3, Subsequent well operations; Well stimulation, and determines whether this 

particular regulatory action requires preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) 

under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. If the 

BLM’s proposed rule constitutes a major Federal action that may result in a significant adverse 

effect on the human environment, the NEPA requires the BLM to prepare a detailed statement so 

it may fully consider those impacts.

a) Background and Overview

The BLM estimates that about 90 percent of wells currently drilled on Federal and Indian lands 

(approximately 3,400 wells each year) are stimulated using hydraulic fracturing techniques. 

Over the past 10 years, there have been significant technological advances in horizontal drilling. 

Horizontal drilling, combined with traditional hydraulic fracturing techniques used in vertical 

wells, has led to production from geologic formations in parts of the country that previously did 

not produce significant oil or gas. The resulting expansion of oil and gas drilling into new parts 

of the country as a result of the availability of new horizontal drilling technologies has increased 

public awareness of hydraulic fracturing and the potential impacts of this technology on water 

quality and availability.

 

The BLM’s existing hydraulic fracturing regulations are found at 43 CFR 3162.3-2. These 

regulations were established in 1982 and last revised in 1988—24 years ago and long before the 

latest hydraulic fracturing technologies became widely used. Under the current regulations 

which address subsequent well operations (including hydraulic fracturing, redrilling, casing 

repairs and other several activities after completing a well), the operator must provide a sundry 

report (i.e., Form 3160-5) of the operation to the BLM after completion of “routine” hydraulic 

fracturing operations or other well stimulation operations, such as acidizing. For “nonroutine” 

fracturing operations, the operator must seek approval from the BLM before operations begin 

and provide a subsequent report just as is required for “routine” operations. The current 

regulations do not define the terms “routine” or “nonroutine.” 

1
In response to public interest and concern, the Department of the Interior (Department) held a 

forum on hydraulic fracturing in November 2010 in Washington, DC, attended by more than 130 

interested parties. The BLM hosted open forums during late April 2011 in Bismarck, North 

Dakota; Little Rock, Arkansas; and Golden, Colorado. Over 600 members of the public attended 

the April forums. Comments included concerns about water quality, water consumption, and a 

desire for improved environmental safeguards for surface operations, as well as calls for the 

disclosure of the chemicals and materials used in fracturing fluid.

The BLM is evaluating options for posting the chemical disclosure online, including through the 

chemical registry web site called FracFocus.org, which was established and is managed by 

Ground Water Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. The 

BLM will also continue to take into account the efforts of individual state governments, which 

have also been reviewing and revising their regulatory authorities to address the expanded use of 

hydraulic fracturing. The BLM intends its efforts to enhance these state efforts, rather than 

conflict with them.

In addition to the Interior Department’s efforts, the Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board 

Subcommittee on Natural Gas issued initial recommendations on hydraulic fracturing on August 

18, 2011. Among other things, the report recommended public disclosure of the chemicals used 

in fracturing fluids, broader use of water quality sampling before wells are drilled, and 

progressive standards for wellbore construction including pressure testing of cement casings and 

the use of cement bond logs. The initial report was followed by a final report issued on 

November 18, 2011. One of the key recommendations for Federal action in the final report was 

to improve public information about shale gas operations. The development of gas from shale 

formations is one of the key innovations allowed by the expanded use of hydraulic fracturing. 

This information would include the fluids used in hydraulic fracturing. The final report also 

recommended pressure testing of cement casings and the use of cement bond logs. These reports 

are available to the public from the Department of Energy’s web site at 

http://www.shalegas.energy.gov. 

The BLM is proposing these regulations consistent with its trust responsibilities on tribal lands 

and with its obligations under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) to 

prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the public lands, in response to the public interest 

and concern, and in light of the Energy Department’s recommendations. A few examples of 

what is being considered as part of the proposed rule include a requirement to perform a 

mechanical integrity test of the wellbore to ensure the casing can withstand the fracturing 

pressures that are anticipated for the well stimulation operation and a requirement to perform a 

cement bond log prior to initiating well stimulation operations. The proposed regulations would 

be applied to all wells administered by the BLM, including those on Federal, tribal, and 

individual Indian trust lands. 

II. Purpose and Need for Action and Decision to be Made

The increased use of well stimulation over the last decade has generated concern from the public 

and from such other sources as the Secretary of Energy’s Advisory Board Subcommittee on 

Natural Gas, about how these operations may be affecting surface and subsurface water 

2
resources. The BLM estimates that roughly 90 percent of wells currently drilled on BLMmanaged lands (approximately 3,400 per year) are stimulated using hydraulic fracturing 

techniques. As currently written, the BLM’s regulations pertaining to well stimulation

operations are limited and do not provide a reasonable assurance water resources are adequately 

protected. In addition, the regulation governing this operation is now 30 years old, and many 

changes to technology and industry standards have occurred since that time. These changes have 

not yet been addressed in BLM regulations. Pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act and other legislation, the BLM is to administer oil and gas operations in a 

manner that protects federal lands and related resources from unnecessary or undue degradation. 

The purpose of the proposed Federal action is to revise 43 CFR 3162.3-2, Subsequent Well 

Operations and add a new section 3162.3-3, Subsequent well operations; Well stimulation, in a 

manner that would improve the BLM’s regulatory framework to account for well stimulation

activities on Federal and Indian lands. The decision to be made is to determine whether the 

BLM should promulgate this rule for implementation. 

III. Issues

As previously mentioned, the Secretary and the BLM have hosted various listening 

sessions/meetings/forums in Washington, DC and various parts of the country to receive input 

from the public regarding their concerns about hydraulic fracturing activities on onshore Federal 

and Indian lands. 

A majority of the concern raised by the public emphasized the risks hydraulic fracturing 

activities pose to surface and subsurface sources of fresh water. For example, there is a 

contentious debate over whether there is a reasonable likelihood that fluids used during hydraulic 

fracturing operations could migrate from the hydrocarbon-bearing formations that have been 

targeted for fracturing to geologic zones containing useable water. Thus far, academic studies 

and investigations on reports of contamination have indicated that the integrity of the well being 

fractured is a likely source of incidences of contamination. There have been instances where the 

inadequate construction of a wellbore has allowed fluids, such as methane, to migrate from a 

hydrocarbon-bearing formation through the well and into a useable water zone. 

Another concern involves the chemical constituents of the fluids injected into the ground as part 

of the well stimulation process. Currently, operators are not required to disclose the chemicals 

that are used when fracturing a well. However, without knowing the contents of the fluids used 

during these operations, it would be difficult to accurately determine the source of any ground or 

surface water contamination that may occur within proximity to a given well stimulation

operation. 

The public has also expressed concern over the management of the fluids (including water) used 

during and flowed back after a well is stimulated. There have also been instances reported where 

fluids that are flowed back after a well is completed have been mishandled on location, which 

has resulted in spills and leaks, or have been disposed of in an inappropriate manner. Confusion 

has also increased because of the greater development activity on private and state lands, and in 

the East. There have been more widespread reports, across different states with jurisdiction, 

3
overall adding to the public concerns. However, the BLM does not administer oil and gas 

development on non-Federal or non-Indian lands. 

IV. Proposed Action and Alternatives

In this regulatory environmental analysis the BLM considered three alternatives:

• Proposed Action – Revision of the requirements in the existing 43 CFR 3162.3-2, 

Subsequent Well Operations and adding a new section 3162.3-3, Subsequent well operations; 

Well stimulation, 

• Alternative B – No Action, and

• Alternative C – This alternative is similar to the proposed action except operators would not 

be required to line the pits that are used to store fluids that flow back to the surface after the 

well stimulation activity is completed.

a) Description of the Proposed Action 

The proposed action is the promulgation of the Well Stimulation Rule. This rulemaking will 

modify the regulations at 43 CFR 3162.3-2 by removing all references to well fracturing and 

acidizing jobs from 43 CFR 3162.3-2(a) and 43 CFR 3162.3-2(b) and moving the regulations for 

these types of activities to a new section, 43 CFR 3162.3-3, which would cover all well 

stimulation activities. Under this new section, operators would be required to obtain approval 

prior to conducting well stimulation activities, including hydraulic fracturing. This new section 

would establish procedures to be followed prior and subsequent to performing well stimulation 

activities, and it would also incorporate industry best practices that would be implemented when 

performing a well stimulation operation. 

The following list identifies, in detail, all the new requirements contained within the proposed 

new section:

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(a) would make it clear that this section applies only to well 

stimulation activities and that all other injection activities must comply with section 3162.3-

2. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(b) would require the BLM’s approval of all well stimulation 

activity. For new wells, the operator has the option of applying for the BLM’s approval in its

application for permit to drill (APD). For wells permitted prior to the effective date of this 

section or for wells permitted after the effective date of this section, the operator would 

submit a Sundry Notice and Report on Wells (Form 3160-5) for the well stimulation proposal 

for the BLM’s approval before the operator begins the stimulation activity. Also, an operator 

must submit a Sundry Notice prior to well stimulation activity if the BLM’s previous 

approval for well stimulation is more than five years old, or if the operator becomes aware of 

significant new information about the relevant geology, the stimulation operation or 

technology, or the anticipated impacts to any resource. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(c)(1) would require a report that includes the geological names, a 

geological description, and the depth of the top and the bottom of the formation into which 

well stimulation fluids would be injected. 

4
• Proposed section 3162.3-3(c)(2) would require the operator to submit information in the form 

of a cement bond log, which will help the BLM in its efforts to make sure that water 

resources are protected. The proposed regulation would allow for the use of other evaluation 

tools acceptable to the BLM in order to allow the substitution of equally effective tools or 

procedures. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(c)(3) would require reporting of the measured depth to the 

perforations in the casing and uncased hole intervals (open hole). This proposed section 

would also require the operator to disclose specific information about the water source to be 

used in the fracturing operation, including the location of the water that would be used as the 

base fluid. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(c)(4), consistent with protecting public health and safety and 

preventing unnecessary or undue degradation to the public lands, would require operators to 

certify in writing that they have complied with all applicable Federal, tribal, state, and local 

laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to proposed stimulation fluids. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(c)(5) would require the operator to submit a detailed description 

of the well stimulation engineering design to the BLM. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(c)(5)(i) would require the operator to submit to the BLM an 

estimate of the total volume of fluid to be used in the stimulation. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(c)(5)(ii) would require the operator to submit to the BLM a 

description of the range of the surface treating pressures anticipated for the stimulation. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(c)(5)(iii) would require the operator to submit to the BLM the 

proposed maximum anticipated injection pressure for the stimulation. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(c)(5)(iv) would require the operator to submit to the BLM the 

estimated or calculated fracture length and height anticipated for the stimulation(s). 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(c)(6) would require the operator to provide information pertaining 

to the handling of recovered fluids that will be used for the stimulation activities for 

approval. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(c)(6)(i) would require the operator to submit to the BLM an 

estimate of the volume of fluid to be recovered during flow back, swabbing, and recovery 

from production facility vessels. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(c)(6)(ii) would require the operator to submit to the BLM the 

proposed methods of managing the recovered fluids. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(c)(6)(iii) would require the operator to submit to the BLM a 

description of the proposed disposal method of the recovered fluids. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(c)(7) would require the operator to provide, at the request of the 

BLM, additional information pertaining to any facet of the well stimulation proposal.

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(d) would require the operator to perform a successful mechanical 

integrity test before beginning well stimulation operations. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(d)(1) would require the mechanical integrity test to emulate the 

pressure conditions that would be seen in the proposed stimulation process. 

• The proposed section 3162.3-3(d)(2) would establish the engineering criteria for using a 

fracturing string as a technique during well stimulation. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(d)(3) would require the use of the pressure test time requirement 

of holding pressure for 30 minutes with no more than 10 percent pressure loss. This 

5
requirement is the same standard applied in Onshore Order Number 2, Drilling, Section 

III.B.h., to confirm the mechanical integrity of the casing.

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(e)(1) would require the operator to continuously monitor and 

record the pressure(s) during the well stimulation operation. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(e)(2) would require the operator to orally notify the BLM as soon 

as possible, but no later than 24 hours following the incident, if during the stimulation 

operation the annulus pressure increases by more than 500 pounds per square inch over the 

annulus pressure immediately preceding the stimulation.

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(f) would require the operator to store recovered fluids in tanks or 

lined pits.

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(g) would require the operator to submit to the BLM the postoperation data on a Subsequent Report Sundry Notice (Form 3160-5, Sundry Notices and 

Report on Wells) following the completion of the stimulation activities.

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(g)(1) would require reporting of the actual measured depth to the 

perforations and open hole interval. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(g)(2) would require the operator to submit to the BLM the actual 

total volume of fluid used, including water, proppants, chemicals, and any other fluid used in 

the stimulation(s. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(g)(3) would require the operator to submit to the BLM a report of 

the surface pressure at the end of each stage pumped and the rate at which the fluid was 

pumped at the completion of each stage (i.e., just prior to shutting down the pumps). 

• Proposed sections 3162.3-3(g)(4) and (5) would require the operator to identify to the BLM

the stimulation fluid by additive trade name and additive purpose, the Chemical Abstracts 

Service Registry Number, and the percent mass of each ingredient used in the stimulation 

operation. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(g)(6) would require the actual, estimated, or calculated fracture 

length and height of the stimulation(s) to be reported to the BLM. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(g)(7) would allow the operator flexibility to report online the 

information listed in proposed sections 3162.3-3(g)(1) through proposed section 3162.3-

3(g)(6) by attaching a copy of the service company contractor’s job log or report, provided 

the information required is adequately addressed. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(g)(8), would require operators to certify they have complied with 

all applicable Federal, tribal, state, and local laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to the 

stimulation fluids that were actually used during well stimulation operations. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(g)(9) would require operators to certify that wellbore integrity 

was maintained throughout the operation. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(g)(10) would require the operator to provide information 

describing the handling of the fluids used for the stimulation activities, flow-back fluids, and 

produced water. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(g)(10)(i) would require the operator to report the volume of fluid 

recovered during flow back, swabbing, or recovery from production facility vessels. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(g)(10)(ii) would require the operator to report the methods of 

managing the recovered fluids. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(g)(10)(iii) would require the operator to report the disposal 

method of the recovered fluids. 

6
• Proposed section 3162.3-3(g)(11) would require the operator to submit documentation and an 

explanation if the actual operations deviated from the approved plan.

• Proposed sections 3162.3-3(h) and (i) would notify the operator of procedures it needs to 

follow to identify information required to be submitted under this section that the operator 

believes to be exempt, by law, from public disclosure. If the operator fails to specifically 

identify information as exempt from disclosure by Federal law, the BLM will release that 

information. 

b) Alternative B – No Action Alternative

This alternative would keep the existing requirements of 43 CFR 3162.3-2 in place. Any 

updated practices outlined in this proposed rule that would reduce the risk of impacting surface 

and subsurface water resources would not be implemented. 

c) Alternative C – Unlined Pits 

This alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action except there would be no requirement 

to line the pits that are used to store the fluids that are flowed back to the surface during and after 

a well stimulation activity.

V. Affected Environment

The BLM manages over 245 million acres of public lands and administers about 700 million 

acres of subsurface mineral estate in the United States. Public lands under the management of 

the BLM are extraordinarily diverse, and include desert mountain ranges, coastal areas, alpine 

tundra, evergreen forests, expanses of rangeland, and red rock canyons. These lands are 

managed for a variety of resource values and uses that include recreation, conservation, mining, 

livestock grazing, rights-of-way, and oil and gas development. 

The BLM’s land use plans provide the framework that guides the decision for every action and 

approved use that occurs on lands the agency manages. Map 1, on the following page, illustrates 

the land use planning area boundaries and regions where oil and gas development administered 

by the BLM occurs throughout the West. Roughly 90 percent of wells currently drilled on BLMmanaged lands (approximately 3,400 per year) are stimulated using hydraulic fracturing 

techniques. 

Table 1 lists the land use plans in which oil and gas development primarily occur. Each land use 

plan contains a detailed description of the physical, biological, and socioeconomic environment 

within the boundaries of the plan. The description of the affected environment includes the 

resource values, resource uses, special designations, and socioeconomic settings present within 

each planning area.

This proposed rule would apply to all well stimulation activities performed on current and future 

Federal and Indian oil and gas leases issued under various Federal and Indian mineral leasing 

laws that include, but are not limited to, the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, the Mineral Leasing 

7
Act for Acquired Lands of 1947, the Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938, the Indian allotted 

lands leasing statute at 25 U.S.C. 396, and the Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982. 

Hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas wells is a common technique used by oil and gas producers to 

increase the volumes of oil and natural gas available to the Nation. After drilling into 

hydrocarbon bearing strata, producers use hydraulic fracturing to initiate or to increase oil and 

gas production. Hydraulic fracturing involves the injection of fluid under high pressure to create 

or enlarge fractures in the reservoir rocks. After fracturing the rocks, a “proppant” is pumped 

into the well to keep the fractures from closing when the fracturing pressure is released. 

Hydraulic fracturing allows the hydrocarbons to move more freely into the well bore so that they 

can be extracted. 

Although hydraulic fracturing is a procedure that has been available to the oil and gas industry 

for many years, recent technology improvements have allowed this practice to be performed at a 

much larger scale and, accordingly, has become a more common practice. However, there is still 

a question of what the likelihood is for hydraulic fracturing fluids pumped into deep geologic 

formations to migrate into shallower freshwater formations. Thus far, there have been no 

determinations made that conclude hydraulic fracturing fluids are the primary source of 

contamination to shallower freshwater formations. Most reports involve instances of abnormally 

high concentrations of methane in water wells in or near areas with active oil and gas drilling. In 

these cases, improperly constructed well casings, rather than the migration of contaminants 

through geologic zones that separate the fractured formation from the freshwater formation, is 

the most likely mechanism for which methane migrated into the freshwater zone.

 

The BLM estimates that about 90 percent of wells currently drilled on Federal and Indian lands 

are stimulated by hydraulic fracturing techniques. The number of stimulated wells has steadily 

increased over the years as technology has improved. These improvements allow geologic 

formations that were once thought to be incapable of production to produce in commercial 

quantities. 

Examples of environmental documents that describe and analyze the types of effects hydraulic 

fracturing operations may have on the human environment include the following: 

• BLM, 2008, Pinedale Anticline Project Area Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

• BLM, 2010, West Tavaputs Plateau Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

• BLM, 2010, Greater Natural Buttes Draft Environmental Impact Statement

8
9
STATE LAND USE PLAN NAME STATE LAND USE PLAN NAME

AZ Arizona Strip NM NM White Sands

CA Caliente Resource Management Plan 

(RMP) NV Wells RMP

South Coast RMP Elko RMP

Sierra RMP Tonopah RMP

Hollister RMP Ely RMP

Ukiah RMP UT Randolph MFP

West Mohave RMP Pony Express RMP

CO Grand Junction RMP Moab RMP

Little Snake RMP Monticello RMP

Kremmling RMP Richfield RMP

Northeast RMP Vernal RMP

White River RMP Price RMP

Glenwood Springs RMP Kanab RMP

Royal Gorge RMP WY Green River RMP

San Juan/San Miguel RMP Buffalo RMP

MT North Dakota RMP Newcastle RMP

Powder River RMP Grass Creek RMP

Big Dry RMP Washakie RMP

Billings RMP Cody RMP

West Hi-Line RMP Lander RMP

Judith, Valley, and Phillips RMP Jack Morrow Hills RMP

Upper Missouri River Breaks NM Powder River

NM Rio Puerco RMP Casper (Platte River) RMP

Taos RMP Pinedale RMP

Carlsbad RMP Rawlins RMP

Farmington RMP Kemmerer RMP

Roswell RMP

VI. Environmental Effects

The following analysis evaluates the environmental effects to the human environment that may 

occur as a result of revisions to the current regulations. 

Assumptions Made as Part of the Impact Analysis 

Many of the new requirements established by this rule are of an administrative or procedural 

nature that pertains to the information operators would have to submit in order to receive 

approval from the BLM to perform well stimulation activities on Federal and Indian leases. It 

also includes reporting requirements operators would have to comply with after well stimulation 

operations are completed.

However, there are other requirements in this proposed rule that would result in on-the-ground 

activities. These activities include the requirement to provide a cement bond log or other 

10
acceptable log of the casing, including surface casing, of the well to be stimulated, a mechanical 

integrity test of the well prior to initiating well stimulation, monitoring of the well during the 

stimulation process, and storing fluids that are flowed back after the fracturing operation is 

complete. 

The White House’s Council on Environmental Quality NEPA implementing regulations at 40 

CFR 1508.8(a) defines direct effects as “...those effects which are caused by the action and 

occur at the same time and place.” The regulations at 40 CFR 1508.8(b) defines indirect effects 

as those effects “...which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in 

distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing 

effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density, 

or growth rate, and related effects on water and air and other natural systems, including 

ecosystems.” The following discussion identifies the direct and indirect effects that may result 

from immediate implementation of the proposed rule.

a) Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action 

The primary environmental benefit of this rule would be that these new requirements establish 

procedures Operators must adhere to prior to conducting well stimulation operations, during well 

stimulation operations, and subsequent to well stimulation operations. These procedures will 

help the BLM confirm that the integrity of a well is adequate prior to performing and maintained 

during well stimulation operations. These requirements would also help the BLM to make an 

accurate determination of whether hydraulically fractured fluids could be the primary source of 

reports of contaminations. The following bulleted items describe how each part of the new 

section of the regulations, 43 CFR 3162.3-3, contributes to these benefits: 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(a) would make it clear that this section applies only to well 

stimulation activities and that all other injection activities must comply with section 3162.3-

2. This language is necessary to make the distinction between well stimulation activities and 

other well injection activities, such as secondary and tertiary recovery operations. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(b) would require the BLM’s approval of all well stimulation 

activity. For new wells, the operator has the option of applying for the BLM’s approval in its 

application for permit to drill (APD). For wells permitted prior to the effective date of this 

section or for wells permitted after the effective date of this section, the operator would 

submit a Sundry Notice and Report on Wells (Form 3160-5) for the well stimulation proposal 

for the BLM’s approval before the operator begins the stimulation activity. Also, an operator 

must submit a Sundry Notice prior to well stimulation activity if the BLM’s previous 

approval of well stimulation is more than five years old, or if the operator becomes aware of 

significant new information about the relevant geology, the stimulation operation or 

technology, or the anticipated impacts to any resource. The five-year period is consistent 

with common state practices, including those of Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado, which 

require that operators reconfirm well integrity for fracturing operations through a pressure 

test every five years. The BLM understands the time sensitive nature of oil and gas drilling 

and well completion activities and does not anticipate that the submittal of additional well 

stimulation-related information with APD applications will impact the timing of the approval 

of drilling permits. The BLM believes that the additional incremental information that would 

11
be required by this rule would be reviewed in conjunction with the APD and within the 

normal APD processing time frame. Also, the BLM anticipates that requests to conduct well 

stimulation activities on existing wells that have been in service more than five years will be 

reviewed promptly . 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(c)(1) would require a report that includes the geological names, a 

geological description, and the depth of the top and the bottom of the formation into which 

well stimulation fluids would be injected. The report is needed so that the BLM may 

determine the properties of the rock layers and the thickness of the producing formation and 

the confining rocks above and below the zone that would be stimulated. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(c)(2) would require the operator to submit information in the form 

of a cement bond log, which will help the BLM in its efforts to make sure that water 

resources are protected. A cement bond log is a tool used to gauge the extent to which water 

bearing formations are isolated from the casing string. The log is a document that reports the 

data from a probe of the wellbore that uses sonic technology to detect gaps or voids in the 

cement and the casing. This log would be used to verify that the operator has taken the 

necessary precautions to prevent migration of fluids in the annulus from the fracture zone to 

the usable water horizons. The proposed regulation would allow for the use of other 

evaluation tools acceptable to the BLM in order to allow the substitution of equally effective 

tools or procedures. For example, an operator could request a variance from the 

requirements of proposed section 3162.3-3(c)(2) that it submit cement bond logs to prove 

that the occurrences of usable water have been isolated to protect them from contamination. 

The BLM could grant a variance to allow for the use of logs other than cement bond logs 

(e.g., slim array sonic tool, ultrasonic imager tool) if it was satisfied that the alternative logs 

would meet or exceed the objectives of section (c)(2). The BLM recognizes that the cement 

bond log would not be available prior to drilling a well. Therefore, when the operator takes 

advantage of the option to submit its well stimulation information as part of its APD, the 

cement bond log would be required after approval of the permit to drill and prior to 

commencing well stimulation activities. The best available means for the BLM to help 

ensure that well stimulation activities do not contaminate aquifers is to require cement bond 

logs for the cement behind the pipe along all areas intersecting useable water, including 

running cement bond logs on the surface casing. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(c)(3) would require reporting of the measured depth to the 

perforations in the casing and uncased hole intervals (open hole). This proposed section 

would also require the operator to disclose specific information about the water source to be 

used in the fracturing operation, including the location of the water that would be used as the 

base fluid. The BLM needs this information to determine the impacts associated with 

operations and the need for any mitigation applicable to Federal and Indian lands. This 

section would also require the operator to disclose the type of materials (proppants) that 

would be injected into the fractures to keep them open and the anticipated pressures to be 

used in the well stimulation operation. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(c)(4), consistent with protecting public health and safety and 

preventing unnecessary or undue degradation to the public lands, would require operators to 

certify in writing that they have complied with all applicable Federal, tribal, state, and local 

laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to proposed stimulation fluids. The BLM will use this 

information to make an informed decision on the proposed action. This section also would 

require the operator to certify that it has complied with all necessary permit and notice 

12
requirements. It remains the responsibility of the operator to be aware of and comply with 

these regulatory requirements. The BLM will rely on the operator’s certification that it has 

complied with all of the laws and regulations that apply to its operation. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(c)(5) would require the operator to submit a detailed description 

of the well stimulation engineering design to the BLM for approval. This information is 

needed in order for the BLM to be able to verify that the proposed engineering design is 

adequate for safely conducting the proposed well stimulation. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(c)(5)(i) would require the operator to submit to the BLM an 

estimate of the total volume of fluid to be used in the stimulation. Understanding the 

chemical makeup of the fluids used during the process would aid the BLM at any later point 

in time to determine whether there is a link between well stimulation activities and 

groundwater contaminations that may occur near the fracturing operation. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(c)(5)(ii) would require the operator to submit to the BLM a 

description of the range of the surface treating pressures anticipated for the stimulation. This 

information is needed by the BLM to verify that the maximum wellbore design burst pressure 

will not be exceeded at any stage of the well stimulation operation. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(c)(5)(iii) would require the operator to submit to the BLM the 

proposed maximum anticipated injection pressure for the stimulation. This information is 

needed by the BLM to verify that the maximum allowable injection pressure will not be 

exceeded at any stage of the well stimulation operation. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(c)(5)(iv) would require the operator to submit to the BLM the 

estimated or calculated fracture length and height anticipated as a result of the stimulation, so 

that the BLM can verify that the intended effects of the well stimulation operation will 

remain confined to the petroleum-bearing rock layers and will not have unintended 

consequences on other rock layers, such as aquifers.

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(c)(6) would require the operator to provide information pertaining 

to the handling of recovered fluids that will be used for the stimulation activities for 

approval. This information is being requested so that the BLM has all necessary information 

regarding chemicals being used in the event that the information is needed to help protect 

health and safety or to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the public lands. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(c)(6)(i) would require the operator to submit to the BLM an 

estimate of the volume of fluid to be recovered during flow back, swabbing, and recovery 

from production facility vessels. This information is required to ensure that the facilities 

needed to process or contain the estimated volume of fluid will be available on location.

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(c)(6)(ii) would require the operator to submit to the BLM the 

proposed methods of managing the recovered fluids. This information is needed to ensure 

that the handling methods will adequately protect of public health and safety. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(c)(6)(iii) would require the operator to submit to the BLM a 

description of the proposed disposal method of the recovered fluids. This information is 

currently required by existing BLM regulations (i.e., Onshore Order Number 7, Disposal of 

Produced Water, (58 FR 47354)). This information is requested so that the BLM has all 

necessary information regarding disposal of chemicals used in the event it is needed to 

protect the environment and human health and safety and to prevent unnecessary or undue 

degradation of the public lands. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(c)(7) would require the operator to provide, at the request of the 

BLM, additional information pertaining to any facet of the well stimulation proposal. For 

13
example, the BLM may require new or different tests or logs in cases where the original 

information submitted was inadequate, out of date, or incomplete. Any new information that 

the BLM may request will be limited to information necessary for the BLM to ensure that 

operations are consistent with applicable laws and regulation. Such information may include, 

but is not limited to, tabular or graphical results of a mechanical integrity test, the results of 

logs run, the results of tests showing the total dissolved solids in water proposed to be used as 

the base fluid, and the name of the contractor performing the stimulation. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(d) would require the operator to perform a successful mechanical 

integrity test before beginning well stimulation operations. This requirement is necessary to 

help ensure the integrity of the wellbore under anticipated maximum pressures during well 

stimulation operations

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(d)(1) would require the mechanical integrity test to emulate the 

pressure conditions that would be seen in the proposed stimulation process. This test would 

show that the casing is strong enough to protect water and other subsurface resources during 

well stimulation activities.

• The proposed section 3162.3-3(d)(2) would establish the engineering criteria for using a 

fracturing string as a technique during well stimulation. The requirement to be 100 feet 

below the cement top would be imposed to ensure that a competent cement sheath as 

required by Onshore Order Number 2 surrounds the production or intermediate casing. The 

100-foot requirement is required by some state statutes (e.g., Montana Board of Oil and Gas 

Conservation, section 36.22.1106, Hydraulic Fracturing) and is a generally accepted standard 

in the industry. Testing would emulate the pressure conditions that would be seen in the 

proposed stimulation process in order to ensure that the casing used in the well would be 

robust enough to handle the pressures. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(d)(3) would require the use of the pressure test time requirement 

of holding pressure for 30 minutes with no more than 10 percent pressure loss. This 

requirement is the same standard applied in Onshore Order Number 2, Drilling, (53 FR 

46790) Section III.B.h., to confirm the mechanical integrity of the casing. This language 

does not set a new standard in the BLM’s regulations. This test, together with the other 

proposed requirements, would demonstrate if the casing is strong enough to protect water and 

other subsurface resources during well stimulation activities. The BLM believes that all of 

these tests are important to show that reasonable precautions have been taken to ensure the 

protection of other resources during well stimulation activities.

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(e)(1) would require the operator to continuously monitor and 

record the pressure(s) during the well stimulation operation. The pressure during the 

stimulation should be contained in the string through which the stimulation is being pumped. 

Unexpected changes in the monitored and recorded pressure(s) would provide an early 

indication of the possibility that well integrity has been compromised. This information is 

needed by the BLM to ensure that well stimulation activities are conducted as designed. This 

information would also show that stimulation fluids are going to the formation for which they 

were intended. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(e)(2) would require the operator to orally notify the BLM as soon 

as possible, but no later than 24 hours following the incident, if during the stimulation 

operation the annulus pressure increases by more than 500 pounds per square inch over the 

annulus pressure immediately preceding the stimulation. Within 15 days after the 

occurrence, the operator must submit a Subsequent Report Sundry Notice (Form 3160-5, 

14
Sundry Notices and Report on Wells) to the BLM containing all details pertaining to the 

incident, including corrective actions taken. This information is needed by the BLM to 

ensure that stimulation fluids are going into the formation for which they were designed. The 

BLM also needs to obtain reasonable assurance that other resources are adequately protected. 

An increase of pressure in the annulus of this amount could indicate that the casing had been 

breached during well stimulation. Consistent with the BLM’s Onshore Order Number 2, 

Drilling Operations, the operator must repair the casing should a breach occur. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(f) would require the operator to store recovered fluids in tanks or 

lined pits. This provision grants flexibility for the operator to choose using either a lined pit 

or a storage tank, whichever the operator determines is the least burdensome or costly option 

for the storage of flowback fluid. The BLM is proposing this requirement because flowback 

fluids could contain hydrocarbons from the formation and could also contain additives and 

other components that might degrade surface and ground water if they were to be released 

without treatment. Section 302(b) of FLPMA states that “In managing the public lands, the 

Secretary shall, by regulation or otherwise, take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary 

or undue degradation of the public lands.” In addition, existing BLM regulations at 43 CFR 

3161.2 require that “all operations be conducted in a manner which protects other natural 

resources and the environmental quality.” Because the use of lined pits or tanks for the 

storage of recovered fluids are methods that best and reasonably protect the public lands from 

spills or leaks of recovered fluids, the BLM believes that this provision is in keeping with 

FLPMA’s mandate to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the public lands and the 

BLM regulatory requirement to protect environmental quality. Additional conditions of 

approval for the handling of flowback fluids may be placed on the project by the BLM if 

needed to ensure protection of the environment and other resources. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(g) would require the operator to submit to the BLM the postoperation data on a Subsequent Report Sundry Notice (Form 3160-5, Sundry Notices and 

Report on Wells) following the completion of the stimulation activities. The BLM would 

determine if the well stimulation operation was conducted as approved. This information 

would be retained by the BLM as part of the individual well record and would be available 

for use when the well has been depleted and the plugging of the well is being designed. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(g)(1) would require reporting of the actual measured depth to the 

perforations and open hole interval. This information identifies the producing interval of the 

well and will be available for use when the well has been depleted and plugging of the well is 

being designed. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(g)(2) would require the operator to submit to the BLM the actual 

total volume of fluid used, including water, proppants, chemicals, and any other fluid used in 

the stimulation(s) in order for the BLM to maintain a record of the stimulation operation as 

actually performed.

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(g)(3) would require the operator to submit to the BLM a report of 

the surface pressure at the end of each stage pumped and the rate at which the fluid was 

pumped at the completion of each stage (i.e., just prior to shutting down the pumps). In 

addition to the information provided for the individual stages, the pressure values for each 

flush stage must also be included. This information is needed by the BLM for it to ensure 

that the maximum allowable pressure was not exceeded at any stage of the well stimulation 

operation. 

15
• Proposed sections 3162.3-3(g)(4) and g(5) would require the operator to identify to the BLM 

the stimulation fluid by additive trade name and additive purpose, the Chemical Abstracts 

Service Registry Number, and the percent mass of each ingredient used in the stimulation 

operation. This information is needed in order for the BLM to maintain a record of the 

stimulation operation as performed. The information is being required in a format that does 

not link additives (required by 3162.3-3(g)(4)) to chemical composition of the materials 

(required by 3162.3-3(g)(5)) to minimize the risk of disclosure of any formulas of additives. 

The BLM intends to place this information on a public website and is working with the 

Ground Water Protection Council in an effort to integrate this information into the existing 

website known as FracFocus.org. The disclosure of the fluids used in hydraulic fracturing 

would only be required after the fracturing operation has taken place. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(g)(6) would require the actual, estimated, or calculated fracture 

length and height of the stimulation(s) to be reported to the BLM so that it can verify that the 

intended effects of the well stimulation operation remain confined to the petroleum-bearing 

rock layers and will not have unintended consequences on other rock layers or aquifers. This 

section would require the operator to show that the well stimulation activity was successfully 

implemented as designed and that the integrity of the well was maintained during 

stimulation.

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(g)(7) would allow the operator flexibility to report online the 

information listed in proposed sections 3162.3-3(g)(1) through 3162.3-3(g)(6) by attaching a 

copy of the service company contractor’s job log or report, provided the information required 

is adequately addressed. The operator is responsible for ensuring the accuracy of any 

information provided to the BLM, even if originally drafted by a third party. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(g)(8), would require operators to certify they have complied with 

all applicable Federal, state, tribal, and local laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to the 

stimulation fluids that were actually used during well stimulation operations. The proposed 

section would also require that the operator certify that it has complied with all applicable 

permit and notice requirements. This information would be retained by the BLM as part of 

the well record and be available for use when the well has been depleted and closure of the 

well is being designed. The information is also needed for the BLM to fulfill its obligation to 

prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the public land. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(g)(9) would require operators to certify that wellbore integrity 

was maintained throughout the operation. This information is needed because the BLM has a 

mandate to protect human health and safety and prevent contamination of the environment. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(g)(10) would require the operator to provide information 

describing the handling of the fluids used for the stimulation activities, flow-back fluids, and 

produced water. The operator must also report how it handled those fluids after operations 

were completed.

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(g)(10)(i) would require the operator to report the volume of fluid 

recovered during flowback, swabbing, or recovery from production facility vessels. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(g)(10)(ii) would require the operator to report the methods of 

managing the recovered fluids. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(g)(10)(iii) would require the operator to report the disposal 

method of the recovered fluids. This section also makes it clear that the fluid disposal 

methods must be consistent with Onshore Order Number 7, Disposal of Produced Water (58 

FR 47353). This information is needed so that the BLM can help protect human health and 

16
safety and prevent the contamination of the environment. The BLM also needs to confirm 

that the disposal methods used are those that were approved and conform to the regulations. 

• Proposed section 3162.3-3(g)(11) would require the operator to submit documentation and an 

explanation if the actual operations deviated from the approved plan. Understanding the 

complexities of well stimulation, the BLM expects there to be slight differences between the 

proposed plan and the actual operation. 

• Proposed sections 3162.3-3(h) and (i) would notify the operator of procedures it needs to 

follow to identify information required to be submitted under this section that the operator 

believes to be exempt, by law, from public disclosure. If the operator fails to specifically 

identify information as exempt from disclosure by Federal law, the BLM will release that 

information. The BLM may also release information that the operator has marked as exempt 

if the BLM determines that Federal law does not prohibit public release after providing the 

operator with no fewer than 10 business days’ notice of the determination. All other 

information submitted by the operator will become a matter of public record.

These new requirements address the major water resource concerns - surface and subsurface - 

raised by the public. The proposed regulations are intended to be beneficial to the environment, 

but their impacts are not quantifiable. The proposed regulations would help prevent 

contamination of usable aquifers by stimulation activities, and would provide important 

information to the BLM that would be necessary to address a contamination event. Since it is 

impossible to predict how many contamination events the proposed amendments would prevent 

or the number of events for which the required disclosures would provide information necessary 

for an effective response, the impacts resulting from the implementation of this proposed rule 

cannot be accurately determined; however they are expected to be beneficial. 

Even though this proposed rule is expected to result in an overall benefit to the environment, 

there are certain prescribed procedures that will require activities to be conducted on the ground. 

Proposed section 3162.3-3(a)(2), would require operators to perform a cement bond log of all for 

strata containing useable water, including the surface casing. Cement bond logs, in and of 

themselves, are not an uncommon industry practice. Many operators routinely perform cement 

bond logs for the zones of interest, but it is not commonly done for surface casings. Therefore, 

performing the log on surface casing is novel. However, this is necessary to help the BLM 

determine that useable zones, which typically occur at these shallow depths to where surface 

casing is set, are adequately isolated. The activity would require the bond logging crew to 

perform the log after setting the surface casing, and returning to the well location again to 

perform the log for the other zones where intermediate and production casing are set. The 

process typically entails lowering a measuring tool, via a portable crane, down the hole of a well 

to determine whether the cement that fills the void space in between the well casing and the 

formation has adequately isolated freshwater zones.

Proposed section 3162.3-3(c) would require the operator to continuously monitor and record the 

pressure(s) within the well during the stimulation operation. This would require the use of 

equipment on the surface at the wellhead during the stimulation process. Proposed section 

3162.3-3(e) would require the operator to store all fluids that would be flowed back out of the 

well, after stimulation operations are complete, in steel tanks or in lined pits. 

17
Performing a cement bond log and monitoring the pressure of a well during stimulation 

operations is a short-term process that entails the presence of humans using heavy equipment on 

the well pad location, such as a small crane to lower the device used to log the cement setting 

and the casing within the well bore or the use of truck-mounted tools and a gauge placed within

the well to monitor and record the pressure(s) within the well. These procedures are only a small 

part of the whole well stimulation process. In and of themselves, these activities may deter 

wildlife from using habitat that may exist adjacent to a well location. However, the impacts on 

wildlife from the well stimulation process as a whole would be far greater than the additional 

effect caused by the activities required by the proposed rule. Because these required activities 

of cement bond logging, monitoring and recording pressures during stimulation are short-term, 

are only a minor component of the whole well stimulation process, and would take place on 

surface that has already been disturbed (i.e. on a well pad), impacts to wildlife, if any, would be 

undetectable. 

As for the flowback of the fluids used during the stimulation process, new surface disturbance is 

also not expected. However, there may be additional use of existing surface disturbance if 

operators elect to route flowback fluids into a pit. This additional use entails a one-time 

installation of a liner within a pit that has already been constructed during the drilling phase of a 

well to receive flowback fluids. Workers would lay out the liner throughout the pit by hand or 

use heavy equipment, such as a track hoe or excavator, to position the liner within the pit. These 

activities, too, may deter wildlife from using habitat that may exist adjacent to a well location. 

Because these surface-use activities are short-term in nature and would take place on surface that 

has already been disturbed (i.e. on a well pad), impacts to wildlife, if any, would be minimal.

There are other wildlife-related impacts that may occur as a result of using pits. This includes 

the potential for rodents or migratory birds to enter a pit containing fluids, which may be harmful 

to a given species when exposed. Various mitigation measures are considered and adopted using 

existing authorities when the agency develops an Environmental Impact Statement or 

Environmental Assessment, as applicable, for specific development proposals. Under this 

process, the BLM adopts various best management practices for pit management identified in 

Chapter 4 of the BLM‘s and the Forest Service’s Goldbook: Surface Operating Standards and 

Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development on Federal and Indian Lands. This 

document includes a discussion on the option to require the use nets and wildlife exclusion 

fences for specific permits, to prevent wildlife from entering a pit. In addition, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service also enforce the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Storing these fluids in tanks or lined pits would be beneficial from the perspective that they 

would ensure either full containment of the fluids within a steel vessel or contact between the 

fluids and the native ground (including local soils) would be minimal, if a liner is used. In 

circumstances where fluids would be stored in a pit, the liner would serve as an impermeable 

barrier that reduces the likelihood of pit fluids to percolate into the ground and potentially 

contaminate soils and groundwater sources. During the close out and reclamation of a pit, there 

could be instances where pieces of liner are not properly removed and would remain as trash on 

a well location. However, the BLM requires all locations to be kept free of garbage at all times, 

so any remaining liner would have to be disposed. The BLM implements a strategy for 

18
inspecting Federal and Indian oil and gas leases in which an inspector would take enforcement 

action if an incident of non-compliance occurs. 

In cases where steel tanks would be used, the BLM expects there would be no new surface 

disturbance because all areas of the well pad that were constructed to support drilling operations 

would be the most likely area where steel tanks would be stored. In scenarios where stimulation 

activities would take place in highly visual areas, these tanks may attract the attention of the 

casual observer. However, these vessels would be stored on location only for as long as the 

flowback fluids are returning to the surface. Therefore, use of these steel tanks would be shortterm. Overall, although there may be impacts on the surface from the use of steel tanks or a 

constructed lined pit, those impacts are short-term in nature or are easily reclaimed as part of 

abandonment procedures (i.e., removal of pit liner from a location). In circumstances where a 

steel tank or lined pit would not be used and a spill or leak were to occur, damage to adjacent 

soils, vegetation, and surface and subsurface water resources could not be easily abated or 

remediated. For these reasons, the overall effect from the use of steel tanks or lined pits would 

be beneficial for soils, vegetation, and water resources. 

b) Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B – No Action 

Under the No Action Alternative, all new requirements and standards prescribed by the Proposed 

Action or Alternative C would not be implemented. Operators or their contractors would still 

perform well stimulation activities on Federal and Indian lands. Any benefits to the environment 

afforded by the Proposed Action or Alternative C would not be realized. The BLM and the 

public would not be provided with a reasonable and consistent assurance that well stimulation 

operations performed on Federal and Indian lands are conducted in a safer and more 

environmentally sound manner. There would not be a regulation that provides for the disclosure 

of chemicals used in the stimulation process, a standardized way of determining the integrity of a 

well prior to and during a well stimulation event, or of determining whether the fluids used 

during the well stimulation process are handled or disposed of properly. 

c) Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative C – Unlined Pits 

Under Alternative C, impacts to the environment would be similar in nature to those discussed 

under the Proposed Action. However, under this alternative, there would be no requirement to 

line the pits that are used to store the fluids that flow back to the surface during and after a well 

stimulation activity.

If pits are unlined, there is a potential risk for the fluids that are stored in the pits to percolate into 

the ground, especially in circumstances where the ground is highly porous. If the fluids used 

during the well stimulation process are hazardous, toxic, or may pose some other sort of risk to 

the environment, groundwater resources could be impacted where the they exist. Depending on 

the characteristics of the flowback fluid (high/low viscosity or high/low volatility) and the 

geology in which the fluid would flow through (high/low conductivity, isotropic, or anisotropic), 

there is the potential for nearby soils to be affected as well. Soils that are contaminated would 

have less nutrient availability, which in turn would negatively affect the vegetation resources that 

thrive off of these nutrients. If a pit liner were installed prior to its use, there would be a less 

19
likelihood for fluids stored in a pit to percolate into the ground and affect adjacent water, soil, or 

vegetation resources.

d) Economic Effects

As part of this rulemaking process, the BLM conducted an economic analysis to estimate the 

costs and benefits of the Proposed Action and Alternative C identified in this document. The 

calculation of the costs and benefits were based on the risk that well stimulation activities pose to 

the environment and the cost of remediating environmental contaminations.

A low remediation cost-low environmental risk and a high remediation cost-high environmental 

risk scenario were evaluated in order to provide a range of results that recognizes the fact that not 

all incidences of contamination are alike.

In a low remediation cost-low environmental risk scenario, the environmental remediation costs 

and the risk posed to the environment are low on the range of assumptions. For a high 

remediation cost-high environmental risk scenario, the environmental costs and the risk posed to 

the environment are high on the range of assumptions. Among the differences in costs, the high 

remediation cost scenario includes remediation of aquifers, which is not included in the low 

remediation cost.

The analysis calculates net costs or benefits that are expected to accrue from 2013 to 2022 at a 7 

percent and 3 percent discounted rate. BLM, however, believes that there would be additional 

benefits from the proposed rule that are not included in the cost/benefit comparison because they 

are not subject to being valued in terms of dollars. 

Overall, the proposed regulations are unlikely to affect the investment decisions of firms, or to 

have any effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The analysis indicates that the 

proposed rule is likely to affect a significant number of small entities. However, after 

considering the economic impact of the proposed rule on these small entities, the screening 

analysis indicates that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. Because the rule establishes a requirement for operators to 

perform certain activities prior, during, and subsequent to well stimulation operations, the BLM 

estimates that the annual labor requirements will range from about 15 to 18 full time employees

in 2013 and continue to increase slightly over the outlook period. 

The entire economic analysis and the initial regulatory flexibility analysis are on file in the BLM 

Administrative Record associated with this rule and are available for public review at your 

request. 

e) Cumulative Effects

The CEQ regulations define cumulative effects as “...the impact on the environment which 

results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or 

person undertakes such actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). 

20
Federal and Indian oil and gas development occurs primarily in States located in the Rocky 

Mountain West, the Southwest, the northern Midwest, the Great Plains, California, and Alaska; 

with scattered tracts of Federal minerals across the East. A variety of activities that affect the 

human environment already occur on public lands within existing oil and gas leases. Examples 

of such activities, in addition to oil and gas development, include recreation, livestock grazing, 

forestry, mining (e.g., coal and a few instances of hard rock minerals), power generation 

facilities, rights-of-way, solar energy development, and wind energy development. 

Resources that would benefit from the promulgation of this proposed rule would primarily be 

water resources. The rule would establish procedures that help the BLM ensure surface and 

subsurface water resources are accounted for and protected during well stimulation operations. 

The best practices that are required for implementation during a well stimulation operation 

would improve the BLM’s confidence that water resources are adequately protected and waste is 

properly handled once these activities have ceased.

Cumulative impacts to resource values and uses within and around Federal and Indian oil and 

gas leases would result from continued land management activities when combined with the 

anticipated impacts that could occur as a result of implementing the Proposed Action or each 

action alternative. The cumulative impacts associated with each of the action alternatives are 

expected to be positive, but not substantial. As previously discussed, the direct and indirect 

effects of each of the action alternatives, though positive, are not likely to be substantial. Those 

are the effects of the implementation of, and compliance with, each of the action alternatives on 

stimulated wells on Federal or Indian leases nationwide. The cumulative impacts of each of the 

action alternatives would be those with other Federal, State, Tribal, or local requirements, or 

widespread implementation of evolving best practices by operators. Several States have 

regulatory regimes for well stimulation that in some ways overlap with the action alternatives, 

and in other ways complement them. Several other States are contemplating requirements for 

well stimulation. Those present and future initiatives in various States are likely to have effects 

cumulative with those of the action alternatives, which will help prevent contamination of water 

supplies and other environmental harms from well stimulation activities, without prohibiting well 

stimulation. It is not possible to quantify the environmental impacts of those cumulative 

requirements on or off of Federal or Indian leases, but they are not expected to reduce the 

number of wells that are stimulated.

The incremental impacts resulting from the proposed Well Stimulation rule would contribute a 

beneficial effect to the human environment because new safeguards are being proposed to 

protect resources at most risk from well stimulation. 

VII. Tribes, Individuals, Organizations, or Agencies Consulted

a) Tribes Engaged

Under the President’s memorandum of April 29, 1994, ‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal Governments’’ (59 FR 22951) and 512 Departmental Manual 2, the 

BLM evaluated possible effects of the proposed rule on federally recognized Indian tribes. The 

21
BLM approves proposed operations on all Indian onshore oil and gas leases (other than those of 

the Osage Tribe). Therefore, the proposed rule has the potential to affect Indian tribes. 

In conformance with the Secretary’s policy on Tribal Consultation, the Bureau of Land 

Management held four Tribal meetings to which over 175 Tribal entities were invited. The 

consultations were held in: 

• Tulsa, Oklahoma on January 10th, 2012; 

• Billings, Montana on January 12th 2012; 

• Salt Lake City, Utah on January 17th 2012; and 

• Farmington, New Mexico on January 19th, 2012. 

These tribal meetings served as an initial outreach, communication and information sharing 

opportunity in which senior policy makers from the Washington Office as well as the local line 

officers that have built the relationship with the tribes in the field were present. The four 

informational meetings were a starting point for tribal consultation, which ended with an 

emphasis to continue the dialog, using the established local relations with the BLM field office 

managers.

b) Individuals Consulted

The authors of this EA consulted with other personnel within the BLM that were part of the team 

that developed this proposed rule. 

VIII. List of Preparers

This assessment was prepared by Bryce Barlan, Washington Office (W0-310), Natural 

Resources Specialist and Michael Worden, Washington Office (WO-310), Petroleum Engineer.

22
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

PROPOSED WELL STIMULATION RULE

DOI-BLM-WO300-2012-XXX-EA

In the fall of 2010 and the spring of 2011, the Secretary and the BLM hosted various listening 

sessions/meetings/forums in Washington, DC and various parts of the country to receive input 

from the public regarding their concerns about hydraulic fracturing activities on onshore Federal 

and Indian lands. A majority of the concern raised by the public emphasize the risks hydraulic 

fracturing activities pose to surface and subsurface sources of fresh water.

In particular, there is concern that fluids used during the hydraulic fracturing process may be 

migrating through the fractures and migrating up through various non-hydrocarbon bearing 

formations and into shallower ground water zones. The public also expressed concern about the 

inability to have access to the chemical constituents used in the fluids that are injected into the 

well as part of the hydraulic fracturing process. Not having this information makes it difficult to 

determine whether there is a link between contaminated water wells and hydraulic fracturing 

operations within close proximity. Water management, both for use and disposal, has been an 

issue of public concern. They cannot determine whether operators are complying with 

applicable law when managing the water used during well stimulation operations. 

In response, the BLM has prepared this Well Stimulation Rule. This rule establishes an approval 

process that includes the reporting of detailed information operators must submit prior and 

subsequent to a well stimulation activity. This information will help BLM determine whether an 

operator’s proposed stimulation operations are safe and would be conducted in an environmental 

sustainable manner. The rule also requires the implementation of certain procedures during the 

stimulation of a well so as to ensure the integrity of the borehole is not compromised. 

The BLM has evaluated this proposed rule to determine whether its promulgation could result in 

a significantly adverse impact to the human environment. The promulgation of this rule would 

improve the BLM’s ability to protect human health and safety and the quality of the 

environment. In particular, the requirement to perform certain evaluations, such as a cement 

bond log, to evaluate the integrity of a well prior to conducting a stimulation operation and 

monitoring the pressures within a well during stimulation operations would help the BLM verify 

that the well will be capable of handling the stresses of a well stimulation operation. These tests 

will help verify that all formations containing useable water are properly isolated with cement so 

as to prevent any contact with hydraulic fracturing fluids or migration of any other fluids from 

other formations in the well.

The reporting of fluids used during the stimulation process will improve the BLM’s ability to 

account for the chemicals that are injected into the ground on Federal and Indian lands during 

23
24