## 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 determine s whet her 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, combi ned 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.”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 o ptions 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 wi ll 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 developme nt 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 casing s 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 operati on 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. Purp ose and Need for Action and Decision to be Made

The in creased 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 waterresources. The BLM estimates that roughly 90 percent of wells currently drilled on BLMmanaged lands (approx imately 3,400 per year) are stimulated using hydraulic fracturing techniques. As currently written, the BLM’s regulations pertaining to well stimulation operation s 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, Su bsequent 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 pro mulgate 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. T here 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 ha ve been more widespread reports, across different states with jurisdiction,overall adding to the public concerns. However, the BLM does not ad minister 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, in cluding hydraulic fracturing. This new section would establish procedures to be followed prior and subsequent to perform ing 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 anticipat ed 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.• 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 perfora tions 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 pressure s 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 st imulation 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. Thisrequirement 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 op erator 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 section s 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 section s 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 pro duction 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.• 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 pl an.

• 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 Pit s

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 f low ed 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, righ ts -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 administeredby the BLM occurs throughout the West. Roughly 90 percent of wells currently drilled on BLMmanaged lands (approx imately 3,4 00 per year) are stimulated using hydraulic fracturing techniqu es

.

Table 1 lists the land use plans in which oil and gas development primarily occur. Each land use plan contain s 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 LeasingAct 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 ini tiate 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 “propp ant ” is pumped into the well to keep the frac tures 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 Fede ral 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 o f prod uction 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 StatementSTATE 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 otheracceptable 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 t he well during the

sti mulation 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 o f 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 t he 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 tert iary 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 drilli ng 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 wouldbe 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 b een 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 ca sing 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 contaminatio n. 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 r ecognizes 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 appro val 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

sec tion 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 noticerequirements. 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 conduct ing 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

che mical 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 pressure s 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 informatio n 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. Forexample, 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 informa tion 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 mechani cal 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 statu tes (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 pre ssure 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 rea sonable 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,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 wer e 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 designe d.

• 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.• 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 th e 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. Th is 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 flexibi lity 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 r esponsible 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 andsa fety 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 an d 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 o perators 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, t his 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 intermedi ate 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 o r in lined pits.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 settin g 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 them selves, 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

e ffect caused by the activiti es required by the proposed rule. B ecause 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 drillin g 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.

B ecause 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 ar e 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 Gold book: 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

contaminat e soils and groundwater sources. During the close out and re clamation 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 forinspecting Federal and Indian oil and gas leases in which an inspector would take enforcement

action if an inciden t 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 s urface. 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

aban donment 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 n ot 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 . O perators 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. T he BLM and the public would not be provided with a reasonable and consistent assurance that well stimulat ion 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 Pit s

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 lesslikelihood 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 do cument

. 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 contamination s.

A low remediation cost

- low environmental risk and a high remediati on 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.

Th e analysis calculates net costs or benefits that are expected to accrue from 2013 to 202 2 at a 7

percent a nd 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, t he 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. Howeve r, 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 establ ishes 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 (Federa l or non- Federal) or person undertakes such actions” (40 CFR 1508.7).Federal and Indian oil and gas development occurs primarily in State s 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 practice s 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 A ct ion 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 he lp 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 Engag ed

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. TheBLM 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 f our 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 12 th 2012;

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

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

These tribal m eetings 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 poi nt 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.

## 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 fracture s 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 hyd raulic 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 b een 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. Th is rule establishe s 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 r ule to determine whether its promulgation could result in

a significant ly adverse impact to the human environment. The promulgation of this rule would improve the BLM’s ability to protect human health an d 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