1 

## COVER PAGE TO BE INSERTED HERE2 

## Table of Contents

I. Introduction a) Background and Overview

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

III. Issues

IV. Proposed Action and Alternatives

a) Description of Alternative A

– Proposed Action, Initial Proposed Well Stimulation

Rule b) Description of Alternative B

– No Action c) Description of Alternative C

– Unlined Pits d) Description of Alternative D

– Storage Tank Require ment e) Description of Alternative E

– BLM Preferred Alternative

, Revised Proposed Hydraulic Fracturing Rule

V. Affected Environment

VI. Environmental Effects

a) Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A

– Initial Proposed Well Stimulation Rule b) Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B

– No Action c) Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative C

– Unlined Pits d) Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative D

– Storage Tank Requirement e) Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative E

– BLM Preferred Alternative, Revised Proposed hydraulic Fracturing Rule f) Economic Effects g) Cumulative Effects

VII. Tribes, Individual, Organizations, or Agencies Consulted

a) Tribes Engaged b) Individuals Consulted

VIII. List of Preparers3 

## ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

PROPOSED HYDRAULIC FRACTURING RULE

DOI

- BLM

- WO300

- 2012

- XXX

- EA

I. Introduction

This assessment examines the environmental impacts that may occur as a result of the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) proposed rule that would revise 43 CFR 3162.3

- 2

, Subsequent Well Operations and 43 CFR 3162.5

- 2

, Control of wells

, and add a new section 3162.3

- 3, Subsequent well operations; Hydraulic fracturing

, and analyzes three other action alternatives in addition to the proposed rule. The analysis within this document determine s whether this particular regulatory action requires preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) pursuant to
the National Environmental Polic y Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq

.

On May 11, 2012, the BLM published a notice in the Federal Register announcing a n initial proposed rule to regulate hydraulic fracturing on public land and Indian land. The notice

initiated a 30

- day period inviting the public to comment on the BLM’s initial proposed rule

. The environmental document that supported the publication of the initial proposed rule e valuated three alternatives, including the initial proposed rule. Since publication, th e BLM received numerous requests for extension of the comment period. Due to the complexity of the rule and the controversial nature of well stimulation procedures, the BLM extended the comment period until September 10, 2012. The BLM received over 177,0 00 comments on the initial proposed rule from individuals, Federal and state governments and agencies, interest groups, and industry representatives. Many of the comments were substantive, prompting modification to the initial proposed rule.

The BLM has prepared a revised proposed rule that incorporates the modifications that were

made to the initial proposed rule. Th e revised rule is presented in this environmental assessment

as a new alternative. The five alternatives analyzed in this document are :

1. Alternative A

– Proposed Action, Initial Proposed Well Stimulation Rule 1

– Under this alternative, the BLM would promulgate the well stimulation rule entitled Oil and Gas; Well

1 Activities that would be subject to the provisions being considered under this alternative are referred to as well

stimulation activities or well stimulation operations

.4

Stimulation, Including Hydraulic Fracturing, on Federal and Indian Lands , which was published in the Federal Register on May 11, 2012 ( 77 FR 27691).

2. Alternative B

– No Action

– Under this alternative, the BLM would neither promulgate a rule to amend existing regulations nor add any new regulation.

3. Alternative C

– Unlined Pits

– This alternative is identical to the Proposed Action except oil and gas operators would not be required to line the pits that store the fluids flowed back from a well after well stimulation operations are complete.

4. Alternative D

– Storage Tank Requirement

– Thi s alternative is identical to the Proposed Action except it requires oil and gas operators to use storage tanks to manage flowback.

5. Alternative E

– BLM Preferred Alterative, Revised Proposed Hydraulic Fracturing Rule 2

– Under this alternative, the BLM would promulgate the revised proposed hydraulic fracturing

rule entitled Oil and Gas; Hydraulic Fracturing, on Federal and Indian Lands . This

alternative is similar to the Proposed Action except it contains modifications th at are of such

a nature that warrants the BLM’s prep aration of a revised proposed rule.

The BLM’s Proposed A ction and associated action alternatives include provisions that direct
operators to under take certain procedures prior to, during, and subsequent to hydraulically fracturing an oil and gas well. These a ctions would take place on the ground and may have an

effect on the human environment

– beneficial and adverse. This document evaluates what those effects may be. This documen t is not intended to analyze the effects that may result from actual hydraulic fracturing activit ies

. Impacts caused by hydraulic fracturing are analyzed at more appropriate levels of the BLM’s decision

- making process. These decision points i nclude when the BLM prepares a land use plan for a given resource area where there is a potential for oil and gas exploration and development activity to occur, when the BLM evaluates the cumulative impacts of development within a more focused area, such a s one or more oil and gas field s , or when the BLM evaluates the impacts of an operators proposal to drill one well or a group of

wells. If the BLM’s proposal constitutes a major Federal action that may result in a significant

effect on the human environme nt, 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 completed using hydraulic fracturing techniques. Over the past 10 years, there have been significant advances in horiz ontal drilling technology , a

now common and integral component of hydraulic fracturing . Horizontal drilling, combined

with completion of the well perforations by improved hydraulic fracturing practices , has led to oil and gas production from geologic formations that were previously considered to be

uneconomical to develop . The resulting expansion of oil and gas development into new parts of the country and new developments in existing oil and gas regions has elevated the publi c ’s

awareness of this practice and its potential impacts to water quality and availability.

2 Activities that would be subject to the provisions being considered under this alternative are referred to as hydraulic frac turing activities or hydraulic fracturing operations

.5

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 activities after complet ing a well), operator s must provide a sundry report ( i.e

., Form 3160

- 5) of “routine” hydraulic fracturing operations after the operation has concluded . For “nonroutine” fracturing operations, the operator must seek approval from the BLM before operations may begin

, and they must then submit a subsequent report just as is required for
“routine” hydraulic fracturing operations. The current regulations do not define the terms
“routine” or “n onroutine

, ” nor has the BLM provided additional guidance to its auth orizing

officers to delineate routine from non

- routine

.

In response to public interest and concern, the Department of the Interior (Department) held a forum on hydraulic fracturing in November 2010 in Washington, D

. C

. , which was attended by more than 130 interested parties. The BLM hosted open forums during late April 2011 in Bismarck, ND, Little Rock, A R, and Golden, C O . Over 600 members of the public attended the April forums. Comments included concerns about water quality, w ater 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.

I n addition to the Department’s efforts, the Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board Subcommittee on Natural Gas issued initial recommendations on hydraulic fracturing on August 18, 2011. T he
report recommended , among other things, public disclosure of the ch emicals used in fracturing fluids, broader use of water quality sampling before wells are drilled and strict standards for wellbore construction including pressure testing of cement casings and the use of cement bond logs (CBL)

. On November 18, 2011, t he initial report was followed by a final report. 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 CBLs

. These reports are available to the pub lic from the Department of Energy’s web site at http://www.shalegas.energy.gov

.

The BLM propos es to promulgate regulations consistent with its trust responsibilities on tribal

lands and with its obligations pursuant to 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 taking into consideration the Energy Department’s

recommendations. A few ex amples of provisions under consideration include : (i) 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 hydraulic fracturing operation

, (ii) a requi rement to perform a cement evaluation log (CEL) on a “ type well ” prior to initiating hydraulic fracturing operations on a group of wells

, on each well drilled that is not part of a field development proposal, or where there is evidence of an inadequate cem ent job in order t o help ensure that the occurrences of usable water aquifers encountered during drilling, completion, and by the well during production operations have been isolated to protect them from contamination , and (iii) provisions that would address potential petitions for exemptions from public disclosure of6

hydraulic fracturing chemical information

. The regulations would appl y to all wells administered by the BLM on Federal, tribal, and individual Indian trust lands.



## II. Purpose and Need for Action and Decision

The in creased use of hydraulic fracturing over the last decade has gen erated concern from the public. The BLM estimates that roughly 90 percent of wells currently drilled on BLM

- managed lands (approx imately 3,400 per year) are stimulated using hydraulic fracturing techniques. T he

BLM’s existing limited regulations pertaining to hydraulic fracturing operation s need strengthening to provide adequate protection of water resources. In addition, t h e regulation governing this kind of operation dates back to 1989 , and many changes to , among other things, technology and industry standards have occurred since th en

. BLM regulations have not kept pace with these changes, hence the need for this revised rule

. Pursu ant to the FLPMA and other

statutes

, the BLM administer s oil and gas operations in a manner that protects F ederal and Indian

lands and related resources

. Th is Federal action will amend 43 CFR 3162.3

- 2, Subsequent Well Operations

, in a manner that would improve the BLM’s regulatory framework to account for hydraulic fracturing activities on Federal and Indian lands and establish procedures that would provide adequate protection of water resources 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 afore mentioned, the Secretary and the BLM have hosted various listening sessions in Washington, D

. C

. 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 d the risks hydraulic fracturing activities pose to surface and subsurface sources of water. For example, a very contentious issue

is whether a reasonable likelihood exists that fluids used during hydraulic fracturing operations could migrate from the hydrocarbon

- bearing formations targeted for fracturing to shallower geologic zones containing usable ground water. T o date , academic studies and investigations on reports of co ntamination have indicated that the compromised integrity of a fractured well may lead to migration of contaminants to usable water sources

.

There have been two instances where the inadequate sealing and cementation of a wellbore casing during the construction have allowed fluids, such as methane, to migrate from a hydrocarbon

- bearing formation through the well and into formations containing groundwater

. These studies have also stated that a risk of contamination exists from the fluids that migrate from the fractures created during the hydraulic fracturing process. However, these studies have

indicated a low likelihood. In a nother recent study

, scientists have concluded that concerns

associated with hydraulic fracturing exist, but evolving technologies, regulation and appropriate7

enforcement could resolve them. Some of the suggestions were to monitor the wellbore integrity, and proper cement bonding of steel casings. 3

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

of the hydraulic fracturing process. At this time

, the BLM does not require an operator to
disclose the chemicals that it uses when fracturing a well. W ithout knowing the contents of the fluids used during hydraulic fracturing operations, it would be difficult to credibly link the

source of any incidences of ground water contamination to specific hydraulic fracturing

activities

.

The public has also expressed concern over the management of the fluids (including water) used during and flowing back after a well is fractured

. T here have also been instances reported where fluids that flow back after a well is completed have been misha ndled on location, which resulted in spills and leaks, or have been disposed of in a manner inconsistent with applicable rules and regulations

. Public concern has also increased because of the greater development activity on private and state lands, and i n the East. There ha ve been more

, high profile reports of contamination of water supplies possibly due to hydraulic fracturing, across different states

, mostly on state administered or private lands

, adding to the overall 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 four alternatives:

Alternative A

– Proposed Action

, Initial Proposed Well Stimulation Rule

, Alternative B

– No Action

, Alternative C

– Unlined Pits , and

Alternative D

– Storage Tank Requirement

Alternative E

– BLM Preferred Alternative

, Revised Proposed Hydraulic Fracturing Rule

.

a) Description of Alternative A

– Proposed Action

, Initial Proposed Well Stimulation Rule

The proposed action is the promulgation of the Well Stimulation Rule. This rule would 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

. Acidizing is a w ell stimulation method to increase oil production by injecting hydrochloric acid into the oil

- bearing formation . T he acid dissolves rock to enlarge the porous passages through which the oil must flow

. This rule would also amend 43 CFR 3162.5

- 2 by removing the references to fresh water

. T his new section would require operators to obtain approval prior to conducting well stimulation activities, including hydraulic fracturing activities

. This new section would establish procedures to follow befo re and after perform ing well

3 The Facts Behind the Frack, By Rachel Ehrenberg; Web edition: August 24, 2012 or Print edition: September 8, 2012; Science News, Vol.182 #5 (p. 20)8

stimulation activities, and it would also incorporate API recommended guidelines 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 remove the phrase “perform nonroutine fracturing jobs”

from the current 43 CFR 3162.3

- 2(a). The phrase “routine fracturing jobs or acidizing jobs,

or” would also be removed fro m existing section 3162.3

- 2(b). Well stimulation activities would be addressed under the new proposed 43 CFR 3162.3

- 3. This change would make it clear that this section applies only to well stimulation activities and that all other injection

activities m ust comply with section 3162.3

- 2. Proposed section 3162.3

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

activit ies

. 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 b ecomes 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 geolo gical 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 CBL , which would help the BL M 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

use d 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, rul es, 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 for approval

. 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

.9

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 req uire the operator to submit to the BLM the estimated or calculated fracture length and height anticipated for the stimulation

. 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 fa cility 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 requirement is the same standard applied in Onshore Order Number 2, Drilling, Section

III.B.h.

, to confirm the mechanical integrity of t he 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 p ossible, 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 post

operation 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 oper ator 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).10

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 (CAS) 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 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 propo sed 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

, flowback fluids, and produced water

. Proposed s ection 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 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. Proposed section 3162.3

- 3(j) would provide the operator with a process for requesting a variance from the minimum standards of this regulation.

Revised section 3162.5

- 2(d) would remove the references to fresh water and remove the phrase “containing 5,000 ppm or less of dissolved solids.”

b) Description of Alternative B

– No Action

This alternative would keep the existing requirements of 43 CFR 3162.3

- 2 and 43 CFR 3162.5

- 2 in place , and not add a new 43 CFR 3162.3

- 3

. BLM would not implement a ny updated practices

outlined in any of the other alternatives that would reduce the risk of impacting surface and

subsurface water resources

.

c) Description of Alternative C

– Unlined Pit s11

This alternative is identical to the Proposed Action except there woul d be no requirement to line

the pits that are used to store the fluids that f low back to the surface during and after a well stimulation activity.

d) Description of Alternative D

– Storage Tank Requirement

This alternative is identical to the Proposed Action except it requires oil and gas operators to use storage tanks to manage flow back.

e) Description of Alternative E

– BLM Preferred Alternative

, Revised Proposed Hydraulic Fracturing Rule

Th is revised proposed rule would remove the terms “nonroutine fracturing jobs” and “routine fracturing jobs” from 43 CFR 3162.3

- 2(a) and 43 CFR 3162.3

- 2(b). It would add a new section,

43 CFR 3162.3

- 3, for hydraulic fracturing operations . In th is rule, there would be no distinction

drawn between “ nonroutine ” or “ routine ” hydraulic fracturing operations . Prior approval would be required for hydraulic fracturing operations

, but would be available concurrently with the prior approval process that is already in place for general well drilling activities through the APD

proces s. The running of CEL s on surface or intermediate casing strings , which is currently an optional practice, would be required for new wells where the casing protects usable water, except

for wells substantially similar to an operator’s “ type well ” for whic h the operator has demonstrated the efficacy of the cement bonding of casing under similar geological conditions

within the same field . All wells would require mechanical integrity testing prior to hydraulic fracturing

.

The following list identifies, in detail, all the requirements contained within this alternative:

S ection 3162.3

- 3(a) would remove the phrase “perform nonroutine fracturing jobs” from the

current 43 CFR 3162.3

- 2(a). The phrase “routine fracturing jobs, or” would also be removed from existing section 3162.3

- 2(b). Because this alternative does not affect requirements for acidizing jobs, and this rule would not remove the reference to acidizing jobs from section

3162.3

- 2(b). Refracturing operations within five years from the approval of a Notice of Intent Sundry would be considered a “recompletion” under section 3162.3

- 2(b ). The subsequent report on those operations would require the information and certifications prescribed in section 3162.3

- 3(i) of this rule. Under section 3162.3

- 3(c)(3)(i), a refracturing operation more than five years after the approval of the Notice of Intent Sundry would require BLM’s approval of a new Notice of Intent Sundry. This change would make it clear

that this s ec tion a ppli e s only to hydraulic fracturing operation and that a ll oth e r inj ec tion

ac tiviti e s must c omp l y with s ec ti o n 3162.3

- 2. This language is necessary to make the distinction between hydraulic fracturing and other well injection activities, such as secondary and tertiary recovery operations. Secondary and tertiary recovery operations do not involve the injection of chemicals a t pressures high enough to fracture strata, and thus do not raise the same concerns of breaching the well bore and migrating into usable water.

Section 3162.3

- 3(b) would require that all fracturing and refracturing operations meet the performance standard in se ction 3162.5

- 2(d) of this title . Among other things, that section requires operators to isolate all or protect usable water and other mineral

- bearing formations12

and protect them from contamination

, except for zones authorized for producing hydrocarbo ns using

. Section 3162.3

- 3(c) would require the BLM’s approval of all proposals for hydraulic

frac turing or refracturing activity. T he operator has the option of applying for the BLM’s approval in its APD , including the information required by paragraph (d) of this section

. T he
operator may submit a Sundry Notice and Report on Wells (Form 3160

- 5) as a Notice of Intent Sundry for the hydraulic fracturing proposal for the BLM’s approval before the operator begins the fracturing activity. This section would supersede and replace existing

section 3162.3

- 2(b) that states that no prior approval is required for routine fracturing. That reference in the existing section would be deleted. Also, an operator must submit a ne w Sundry Notice prior to hydraulic fracturing activity if the BLM’s previous approval for hydraulic fracturing is more than five years old, or if the operator becomes aware of significant new information about the relevant geology, the fracturing operation or technology, or the anticipated impacts to any resource , or if the operator proposes refracturing of the well

. Section 3162.3

- 3(d) has been revised from what was originally proposed to allow the Sundry Notice required by this section to be submitted for a single well or a group of wells. If the submission is for a group of wells that share substantially similar geological characteristics

, the information should describe the type well. “Type well” is a term commonly used in the oil and gas industry and the BLM added it as a new definition in section 3160.0

- 5 of this rule. By constructing and monitoring a type well, including running a CEL on casing that encounters usable water, the operator demonstrates that its engineering design and execution effectively isolate s aquifers with usable water in the field. The same operator may then replicate the type well for each of the wells in the approved group in the same field. The operator would not need to run a CEL on those wells unless the monitoring data indicated a problem with the cementing. The Sundry Notice must include the following:

S ection 3162.3

- 3( d )(1) would require a report that includes the geological names, a geological description, a nd the proposed measured depth of the top and the bottom of the

formation into which hydraulic fracturing fluids would be injected.

S ection 3162.3

- 3(d)(2) would require the operator to submit the m ea su re d or estimated

d e pths of a ll o cc u rrence s of us a ble w a t e r using a drill log from the subject well or any other

well sharing the same geological characteristics within the same geologic formation, which will help the BLM in its efforts to make sure that water resources are protected.

. Section 3162.3

- 3(d)( 3 ) wo uld require reporting of the measured depth to the perforations in the casing and uncased hole intervals (open hole). This 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.

Section 3162.3

- 3(d)( 4 ) would require the operator to submit a plan for the hydraulic fracturing design.

S ection 3162.3

- 3( d )( 4 )(i) would require the operator to submit the estimated total volume of fluids that will be used in the hydraulic fracturing operations.

S ection 3162.3

- 3( d )( 4 )(ii) would require submission of the anticipated surface treating

pressure range

. S ection 3162.3

- 3( d )( 4 )(iii) would require the maximum injecti on treating pressure

information to be submitted

.13

S ection 3162.3

- 3( d )( 4 )(iv) would require the operator to submit the estimated fracture direction, length, and height, including the fracture propagation plotted on a topographical map so that the BLM can en sure that the fracturing operations do not threaten aquifers, other resources, or other operations.

Section 3162.3

- 3(d)(4)(v) requires submission of the estimated vertical distance to the

nearest usable water aquifer above the fracture zone.

S ection 3162.3

- 3( d )( 5 ) would require the operator to provide for BLM’s approval

information about the handling of recovered fluids.

S ection 3162.3

- 3( d )( 5 )(i) would require the operator to submit to the BLM an estimate of the volume of fluid to be recovered during flow b ack, swabbing, and recovery fro m production facility vessels.

S ection 3162.3

- 3( d )( 5 )(ii) would require the operator to submit to the BLM the proposed methods of managing the recovered fluids.

S ection 3162.3

- 3( d )( 5 )(iii) would require the operator to submit to the BLM a description of the proposed disposal method of the recovered fluids.

S ection 3162.3

- 3( d )( 6 ) would require the operator to provide, at the request of the BLM, additional information pertaining to any facet of the hydraulic fracturing proposal.

Section 3162.3

- 3(e) would require monitoring of cementing operations and, as a general rule, would require a CEL prior to hydraulic fracturing operations.

S ection 3162.3

- 3( e ) (1) would require the operator to monitor and record the flowrate, density, and t reating pressure, and to submit a cement operation monitoring report to the BLM within 30 days after completion of hydraulic fracturing operations.

Section 3162.3

- 3(e)(2) would require the operator to run a CEL for each casing that protects

usable water , unless it is exempt from doing so under (e)(3) of this section and must submit these logs to the BLM within 30 days after completion of the hydraulic fracturing operations.

A CEL includes

, but is not limited to

, a CBL

, ultrasonic imager, , variable dens ity logs,

micro

- seismograms, CBLs with directional receiver array, ultrasonic pulse echo technique, or isolation scanner , or other tool of equal effectiveness

. S ection 3162.3

- 3( e ) (3) would explain that a n operator is not required to run a CEL on the

surfac e casing if the operator: (i) h ad submitted a CEL for a type well that showed successful cement bonding to protect against down

- hole fluid cross

- migration, and (ii) c ompletes a subsequent well or wells with the same specifications and geologic characteristics as the type well and the cementing operations monitoring data parallels

those of the type well.

Under section 3162.3

- 3(e)(4), for any well, if there is any indica tion of an inadequate cement sheathing behind the casing such as, but not limited to, lost returns, cement channeling, gas cut mud, or failure of equipment , the operator would be required to notify the BLM within 24 hours of the occurrence, followed by a w ritten report within 48 hours. Furthermore, the operator would be required to remedy the situation first following the stand ard industry practice

. To confirm a good cement sheathing behind the casing, the operator must run a CEL showing that usable water has been isolated to protect it from contamination. If deemed necessary, the BLM could require the operator to submit the CEL for BLM approval prior to continued operations. At least 72 hours prior to commencing hydraulic fracturing operations, the opera tor would be required to submit to the BLM a signed certification indicating that the14

operator corrected the inadequate cement job and documentation showing that there is adequate cement bonding.

Section 3162.3

- 3(e)(5) would require operators to include in the Subsequent Report Sundry

Notice under section 3162.3

- 3(i) the records and logs produced under section 3162.3

- 3(e)(1) and (e)(2).

Section 3162.3

- 3(f) would require the operator to perform a successful mechanical integrity test before beginning hydrauli c fracturing or refracturing operations.

Section 3162.3

- 3(f)(1) would require the mechanical integrity test to emulate the pressure conditions that would be seen in the proposed hydraulic fracturing.

S ection 3162.3

- 3( f

)(2) would establish the minimum engineering criteria for using a fracturing string as a technique during hydraulic fracturing

. If hydraulic fracturing through a fracturing string is proposed, the fracturing string must be inserted into a liner or run on a packer

- set not less than 100 fe et below the cement top of the production or intermediate casing. The fracturing string must be tested to not less than the maximum anticipated treating pressure minus the annulus pressure applied between the fracturing string and the production or interm ediate casing.

S ection 3162.3

- 3( f

)(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.

S ection 3162.3

- 3( g )(1) would require the operator to continuously monitor and r ecord the annulus pressure at the bradenhead during fracturing and refracturing operations

. A

bradenhead is a casing head in an oil and gas well having a stuffing box packed (as with rubber) to make a gastight connection

. The pressure in the annulus betw een any intermediate casing and the production casing must also be continuously monitored and recorded. The pressure during the fracturing should be contained in the string through which the fracturing

fluid is being pumped.

S ection 3162.3

- 3( g )(2) would r equire the operator to orally notify the BLM as soon as possible, but no later than 24 hours following the incident, if during the fracturing operation the annulus pressure increases by more than 500 pounds per square inch over the annulus pressure immedia tely preceding the fracturing . Within 30 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.

S ection 3162.3

- 3( h ) w ould require the operator to store recovered fluids in tanks or lined pits. Additional conditions of approval for the handling of flow back water may be placed on the project by the BLM if needed to ensure protection of the environment and other resources

. S ection 3162.3

- 3( i ) would require the operator to submit to the BLM certain information within 30 days after fracturing or refracturing operations are complete.

Section 3162.3

- 3(i)(1 ) would require that the operator submit to the BLM the true vertical depth of the well, total water volume used, and for each chemical used (including base fluid) the trade name, supplier, purpose, ingredients, Chemical Abstract Service Number (CAS #),

max imum ingredient concentration in additive (% by mass), and maximum ingredient concentration in hydraulic fracturing fluid (% by mass). Total water volume include s “new” water and any produced water or water reused or recycled from prior hydraulic fracturi ng operations. The percent mass value is the mass value for each component (Mc) divided by the value of the entire fluid mass (Mt) times 100 ; (Mc/Mt)*100 = percent value. The information should be based on the maximum potential for concentration, and thu s the total15

may exceed 100 percent by a reasonable, but minimal, amount. The percent mass values should be for the entire stimulation operation, not for the individual stages. This information may be submitted directly to the BLM

, through FracFocus

, or another database service designated by the BLM.

Section 3162.3

- 3( i )(2) would require the operator to submit information on the actual measured depth of perforations or the open

- hole interval (i.e., non

- cased wellbore) , the source and location(s) of the water used in the hydraulic fracturing fluid, and actual pump

pressures. Section 3162.3

- 3( i )(3) would require submission of information on the actual surface pressure and rate at the end of each fluid stage, and the actual flush volume, rate, and final

pu mp pressure. Section 3162.3

- 3( i )(4) would require submission of information pertaining to the actual, estimated, or calculated fracture length, height

, and direction.

Section 3162.3

- 3( i )(5) would require submission of the following information concerning t he handling of recovered fluids: (i) t he volume of fluid recovered during flow back, swabbing, or recovery from production facility vessels; (ii) t he methods of handling the recovered fluids, including, but not limited to, transfer pipes and tankers, holding pond u se, re

- use for other stimulation activities, or injection;

and (iii) the disposal method of the recovered fluids, including, but not limited to, injection, hauling by truck, or transporting by pipeline. The disposal of fluids produced during

the flow back from the hydraulic fracturing process must follow the requirements set out in Onshore Order Number 7, Disposal of Produced Water, Section III.B. (October 8, 1993, 58 FR 47354).

Under Section 3162.3

- 3( i )(6), if the actual operations deviate from the approved plan, the deviation(s) must be documented and explained.

Section 3162.3

- 3(i)(7) would require the operator to submit to the BLM a certification signed by the operator that: (i) Wellbore integrity was maintained prior to and throughout the hydraulic fracturing operation, as required by paragraph ( b ) of this section. The operator would also be required to certify that it complied with the requirements of paragraphs (e), (f) , (g)

, and (h) of this section ; and (ii) For Federal lands, the hydraulic fracturing fluid used complied with all applicable permitting and notice requirements as well as all applicable Federal, state, and local laws, rules, and regulations; or (iii) For Indian lands, the hydraulic fracturing fluid used complied with all applicable permitting and notice r equirements as well as all applicable Federal and tribal laws, rules, and regulations.

Section 3162.3

- 3( i )(8) would require the operator to submit evidence supporting the information required in paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(2), and (f) of this section , including the cement operations monitoring report, any CEL , and the result of any mechanical integrity test

. Section 3162.3

- 3(i)(9) would provide that the BLM may require submission of data substantiating the information required in paragraph (i) of this section.16

S ection 3162.3

- 3(

j ) notifies the operator of procedures it needs to follow to identify

information otherwise required to be submitted under this section that the operator believes to be exempt by law from public disclosure.

Under S ection 3162.3

- 3(

j ) ( 1), f o r the claimed exemption of any information required under paragraph (i)(1) of this section the operator would be required to submit to the BLM an

affidavit that: (i) Identifies the Federal statute or regulation that prohibits the public disclosure; (ii) Affirms that the information is not publicly available; (iii) Affirms that the information is not required to be publicly available under any applicable law; (iv) Affirms that the release of the information would likely harm the operator’s competitive position; and (v) Affirms that the information is not readily apparent through reverse engineering.

Under section 3162.3

- 3(j)(2), any information provided in a Subsequent Report Sundry Notice or through FracFocus or other designated database would not be protected by the

Trade Secr ets Act or other Federal law.

Under section 3162.3

- 3(j)(3), if the BLM d e t er min e s th a t the in f o r m a tion is not exempt fr om dis c losu r e, the BLM would provide the operator notice at least ten days before making the information available to the public

. Under section 3162.3

- 3(j)(4), information that the operator claimed to be exempt from disclosure would be required to be maintained in the operator’s records for six years after the completion of the hydraulic fracturing operations , by referring to existing regu lations at 43

CFR 3162.4

- 1(d)

. S ection 3162.3

- 3( k ) would provide the operator with a process for requesting a variance from the minimum standards of this regulation. Variances apply only to operational activities

, including monitoring and testing technolo gies, and do not apply to the actual approval

process. The revised proposed rule adds a provision allowing the BLM to designate a variance applicable to all wells in a field, a basin, a State, or within Indian lands. Such a

broad variance would be based on the BLM’s determination that the variance will meet or exceed the effectiveness of the regulation.

S ection 3162.5

- 2(d) would remove the references to fresh water and remove s the phrase “containing 5,000 ppm or l ess of dissolved solids.” This rule woul d require the operator to

isolate all usable water and other mineral bearing formations and protect them from

contamination

. The proposed rule includes a definition of the term usable water. Please refer to the preamble of the re

- proposed rule for this d efinition.



## 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

.17

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, o n 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. T able 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 include s the resource values, resource uses, special designations, and socioeconomic settings present within each pla nning area.

This rule would apply to all hydraulic fracturing activities performed on current and future Federal and Indian oil and gas leases issued under various Federal and Indian mineral leasing

laws

. These laws include, but are not limited to the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 , the Mineral Leasing 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 oi l and gas wells is a common technique used by oil and gas producers to increase the volumes of oil and natural gas available to our Nation. After drilling into hydrocarbon bearing strata , producers use hydraulic fracturing to initiate or to increase oil a nd 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 fractures from closing when th e fracturing pressure is released. Proppants vary in composition and can be gel, foam or slickwater

- based

. Hydraulic fracturing allows the hydrocarbons to move more freely into the well bore , thus improving the rates of production

.

Although hydraulic fracturing is a procedure that has been available to the oil and gas industry for many years, recent technolog ical improvements have allowed this practice to be performed at a much larger scale and, accordingly, ha ve 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. To date , there have been

no conclusive determinations made regarding the numerous c laims that 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

.

For example, the National Academy of Sciences issued a r eport in 2011 4 and in 2012 5 finding

that there are at least three possible mechanisms for fluid migration into shallow drinking

- water aquifers that could help explain the increased methane concentrations observed in water wells

that existed around shale gas wells in Pennsylvania :

1. The movement of gas

- rich solutions within the shale formations up into shallow drinking

water aquifers,

4 S.G. Osborn et al. Methane contamination of drinki ng water accompanying gas

- well drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

5 N.R. Warner et al. Geochemical evidence for possible natural migration of Marcellus Formation brine to shallow aquifers in Pe nnsylvania. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 109, July 24, 2012.18

2. The movement of gas through inadequately constructed, or l eaky gas

- well casings, and

3. The creation of new or enlarging of existing fractures above the shale formation as a result of hydraulic fracturing, which increases the connectivity of the entire fracture system, t hus allowing the gas to migrate through the fracture systems and into shallow aquifers.

4. These reports have indicated that the movement of gas

- rich solutions 6 within the shale formations up into shallow drinking

- water aquifers is the most unlikely possibil ity . This is due primarily to the extensive distance between the shale formations and the shallow aquifers as well

as high underground pressures exerted against the deep shale formations. The most likely possibility for gas contamination would be from le aky gas

- well casings. These leaks could occur

at hundreds of feet underground, with methane passing laterally through the well casing and vertically through fracture systems. T here is a lso a possibility for gases to migrate through

fractures above the shale formation that is created or enlarged as a result of hydraulic fracturing

, thus expanding the overall underground fracture system . These new fractures could potentially relieve the pressures exerted against these gas

- rich solutions, allowing the gas to migrate out of its proppant quality and allow it to escape through the fracture system and potentially into shallow aquifers or improperly plugged wells . However, these researchers have indicated that this possibility is unknown

.

Examples of environ mental 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 BLM, 2012, GASCO Energy Inc. Uinta Basin Natural Gas Development Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

6 The authors of the studies and others were concerned that pathways that allow methane to migrate into drinking water aquifers could also serve as pathways for hydraulic fracturing fluids and brines from the fractured zone.M AP 119 Table 1 Summary of Land Use Plan Names for the States

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 proposed by all of the action alternatives are administrative or procedural , and pertain to the information operators would have to submit in order to receive approval from the BLM to perform hydraulic fracturing activities on Federal and Indian leases.

The rule also includes reporting requirements that operators would have to comply with after hydraulic fracturing operations are completed.20

However, there are other requirements in all of the action alternatives that would result in on

- the

ground activities. Thes e activities include the requirement to perform a CEL of the casing, including surface casing of the well to be hydraulically fractured

, performing a mechanical integrity test of the well prior to hydraulically fracturing , monitoring of the well ’s annulus

pressure during the fracturing process , and storing of fluids that flow back after the fracturing operation is complete.

The White House’s Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) 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.” CEQ’s regulations at 40 CFR 1508.8(b) define

indirect effects as those effects :

“...which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distanc e, 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 natur al systems, including
ecosystems .”

The following discussion identifies the direct and indirect effects that may result from immediate implementation of the P roposed A ction and associated alternatives

.

a) Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A

– Proposed Action

, Initial Proposed Well

Stimulation Rule

The primary environmental benefit of th e initial proposed rule would be that these new requirements establish procedures operators must adhere to before , during, and after conducting well stimulation operations. These procedures will help the BLM confirm that the integrity of a well is adequate prior to performing and during a well stimulation event

. In addition, the rule’s chemical disclosure requirement will help the BL M and other affected stakeholder agencies make an accurate determination of whether hydraulically fractured fluids could be the source of any future reports of groundwater contamination. The following bulleted items describe how each part of the new secti on of the regulations, 43 CFR 3162.3

- 3 , contributes to these benefits :

The initial proposed rule would remove the terms “nonroutine fracturing jobs,” “routine fracturing jobs,” and “acidizing jobs” from 43 CFR 3162.3

- 2(a) and 43 CFR 3162.3

- 2(b). It

would add a new section, 43 CFR 3162.3

- 3, for well stimulation activities. In the initial proposed rule, there would be no distinction drawn between what was previously considered

nonroutine and routine well stimulations. The new 43 CFR 3162.3

- 3 would require p rior approval for well stimulation activities. The approval process would allow the BLM to know where and when these activities are taking place on Federal and Indian leases; provide an opportunity for the BLM to adequately review ; and pro vide assurance, through the review process, that well stimulation activities are conducted in a safe and environmentally responsible manner. 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 and21

other well injection activities, such as secondary and tertiary recovery operations , that wou ld not be subject to this rule

. Proposed section 3162.3

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

activit ies

. 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 awar e 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 Colo rado, which require that operators reconfirm well integrity for fracturing operations through a pressure test every five years. T he 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

. The approval process would allow the BLM to know where and when these activities are taking place on Federal and Indian leases; providing an opportunity for the BLM to adequately review and provide assurance, through the approval process, that well

stimulation activities proposed on public and Indian lands would be performed in a safe and environmentally responsible manner. Proposed section 3162.3

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

geo logical 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 for mation and identify the confining rocks above and below the zone that would be stimulated

. This information will help the BLM better understand the extent to which fluids that do not flow

back after th e hydraulic fracturing process c ould react and be conf ined within or adjacent to the producing formation

. Proposed section 3162.3

- 3( c )(2) would require the operator to submit information in the form

of a CBL , which could help the BLM in its efforts to help ensure that water resources are protected. A CBL 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 ca sing. 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 evalu ation 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 ( o pen 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 would use t his 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 exact nature and chemical22

makeup of the proppa nts that the operator would inject into the fractures to keep them open

, as well as 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, S tate , and local laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to proposed stimulation fluids. The B LM would 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 requirements. It remains the responsibility of the operat or to be aware of and to comply with these regulatory requirements. The BLM would 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 activity

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

will not be exceeded at any stage o f 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 maximu m 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.

P r oposed 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 ve ssels. This information is required to ensure that the facilities needed to process or contain the estimated volume of fluid will be available on location

, hence helping to ensure that there would be a less likely chance of spills or overflows to

occur at the surface. 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 will help ensure that the handling methods will adequately protect 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. Existing BLM23

regulations currently require t his information ( i.e ., Onshore Order Number 7, Disposal of Produced Water (58 FR 47354)). This rule requests this information in order for the BLM to
have all necessary data regarding disposal of chemicals used in the event it is needed to protect the environment and human h ealth and safety

, and 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 pro posal. For 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

. P roposed section 3162.3

- 3( d ) would require the operator to perform a successful mechanical integrity test before beginning well stimulation operations . This requirement will help ensure the integrity of the wellbore and that a breach of the casing and the cement sheath would not

occur 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 subsurf ace 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 regulations ( 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., t o 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 su bsurface resources during well stimulation activities. A ll of these important tests
demonstrate and make the case that the BLM ha s taken reasonable precautions to ensure the protection of other resources during well stimulation activities. Proposed secti on 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.

Un expected changes in the monitored and recorded pressure(s) would provide an early indication of the possibility that well integrity has been compromised. This required

information will assist the BLM by ensur ing that well stimulation activities are conduc ted as24

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 2 4 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 m ust 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 would be used by the BLM to
ensure that stimu lation fluids are going into the formation for which they were designed. The BLM also needs 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 flow back fluid. The BLM is propos ing this requirement because flow

back 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 “ [i] n 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 pub lic 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 flow back 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 post

operation 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. Specific infor mation as to the actual source of water, including location of the water being used as the base fluid, is required because the BLM needs the information to determine the impacts associated with operations and the need for any mitigation applicable

to Feder al and Indian lands. 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 in25

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

pumpe d at the completion of each stage ( i.e ., just prior to ceasing operation s). 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 in order 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 (5) would require the operator to identify to the BLM the stimulation fluid by additive trade name and add itive purpose, the CAS 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 re quired 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 will publicize 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 to verify that the intended

effects o f 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 succes sfully 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 31 62.3

- 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 origin ally 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. The BLM would retain t his information as part of the well

record and make it available for use if questions arise concerning an operator’s compliance with the applicable regulations . The information is also needed for the BLM to fulfill its obligation to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the public land. Proposed sec tion 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 environmen t. 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, and26

produced water. The operator must also report how it handled those fluid s after operations were completed. 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 r equire 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

me thods must be consistent with Onshore Order Number 7, Disposal of Produced Water (58 FR 47353). The BLM would use t his information to help protect human health and safety and prevent the contamination of the environment. The BLM also needs to confirm tha t 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. Under standing 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 i nformation 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 which the operator has marked as
exempt if the BLM determines that public release is not prohibited by Federal law after providing the operator with notice no fewer than 10 business days of the determination. All other information submitted by the operator would become a matter of public record.

These new requirements would address the major water

- related resource concerns

- surface and

subsurface

- that have been raised by the public. The initial proposed rule is intended to be beneficial to the environment, but its impacts are not quantifiable. The initial proposed rule would help prevent contamination of usable aquifers from stimulation activities by establishing

assessment procedures that will help verify, prior to stimulation, that a well is capable of withstanding the anticipated treating pressures, requiring operators to perform a C B L (or other similar types of logs acceptable to the BLM ) to help identify whether there ma y be any voids in the cement and the well casing(s), and requiring that the annulus pressure within the well is

monitored durin g the well stimulation process. These actions would help give the BLM a

reasonable confirmation that the integrity of the well has not been compromised and a breach

would not occur as a result of the well stimulation process

. The initial proposed rule would also

allow the BLM to obtain important chemical information about the well stimulation fluid that would be necessary to help address any possible future contamination event s

.

Thus far, all reported events of groundwater contamination that attribute the cause of a contamination event to well stimulation operations have not been confirmed. Therefore, 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

. Accordingly

, the impacts r esulting from the implementation of this

initial proposed rule cannot be accurately determined; however

, they are expected to be

beneficial

.27

Al though the provisions considered under this alternative are 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 C B L of all for strata co ntaining useable water, including the surface casing

. C B L s, in and of themselves, are not an uncommon industry practice. Many operators routinely perform

C B L s for the zones of interest, but the log is not commonly run for surface casings

. A CBL is

run on intermediate casing s in some instances

. Therefore , performing the log on surface casing would be a new practice for the industry

. However, running these logs w ould help the BLM

determine that usable water zones, which typically occur at these shallow depths to where surface casing is set , are adequately isolated

. The activity would require a 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 the intermediate and production casing are set

. The process typically entails lowering a probe

- like measuring tool (see Photo 1) , via a wireline suspended on a portable crane (see Photo 2) , down the hole of a well to determine whether the

cemen t that fills th e void space in between the well casing and the formation has adequately

isolated freshwater zones. Surveyed information acquired by the probe is then sent to a truck

mounted recording station (see Photo 3) where the data is recorded and analyzed. The BL M estimates that approximately 3, 400 wells are stimulated using hydraulic fracturing techniques on Federal lands every year. Therefore, it would be reasonable to assume that there would be at least an additional 3, 400 C B Ls performed on an annual basis.

Photo 1 Photo2 Photo 3

Proposed section 3162.3

- 3(c) would require the operator to continuously monitor and record the pressure(s) within the annulus of a well during the stimulation operation. This is a procedure the industry already implements as part of best practices recommended by the API 7

.

Performing a C B L 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 truck

- mounted crane to lower the measuring tool that is used to log the characteristics

of the cement sheath within the well bore or the use of truck

- mounted tools and a gauge placed

with in the well to monitor and record the pressure(s) within the well . T hese procedures are only a small part of the whole well stimulation process

. In and of themselves, these activities would not have a unique or noticeable adverse impact to resource values, such as soils, vegetation, air

7 Hydraulic Fracturing Operations

— Well Construction and Integrity Guideline s API GUIDANCE DOCUMENT HF1 FIRST EDITION,

OCTOBER 200928

quality, or water quality. They ar e activities that would take place on surface that has already been disturbed by the overall construction, drilling, and completion phase of a given well or are already an intrinsic aspect of industry’s normal operating procedure and would occur even if th e BLM were not to implement the requirements under this alternative.

The possib ility exists

, however , that some of the requirements that operators would have to comply with under this alternative would result in disturbances caused by the overall hydraulic fracturing operations to exist for longer periods of time. Running a C B L on surface casing could cause such delays, but only when it is required for those parts of the casing that normally do not have a log run through them

– surface casing and intermediate casing (in some instances) . The length of such delays is not easy to estimate because operators would probably adapt to the requirements by organizing their activities for the most efficient use of the workers and equipment.

At most , these a ctivities may have an effect on wildlife

. The presence of humans using heavy equipment may deter wildlife, such as elk and mule deer, from using valued habitat that may exist within proximity to these operations. That habitat may serve as a critical piec e in the animal’s life history

– mating or wintering

– and may add additional stresses that could prevent the species from completing its natural life cycle. However, adverse impacts on wildlife from the well stimulation process as a whole would be far gr eater than the e ffect caused exclusively by

the activities required by the initial proposed rule. Studies have indicated that it is more of the overall well field development that may cause an adverse impact to wildlife, rather than a specific aspect of well field development. B ecause the r equirement to perform a CBL and to

monitor and record the annular pressures of a well during stimulation are short

- term

, o nly 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

.

Proposed section 3162.3

- 3(e) would require the operator to store all fluids that would flow back out of the well, after stimulation operations are complete, in steel tanks or in lined pits. N ew surface disturbance is also not expected as a result of imple menting this requirement

. However,

there may be additional use of existing surface disturbance if operators elect to route flow back fluids into a pit. This additional use entails a one

- time installation of a liner within a flow back pit that has already been constructed during the construction phase of a well . Workers would lay the liner throughout the pit by hand or by using heavy equipment, such as a track hoe or

excavator , to properly position the liner within the pit

. Th is const ruction activity is only a small part of the overall construction operation that takes place in order to establish the most common elements of a drilling and completion location

– a well pad

, an access road

, and a pipeline gathering system. At most, the i nstallation of a pit liner may deter wildlife from using habitat that may exist adjacent to a well location. However, it would not result in new surface

disturbance because the flow back pit would otherwise already be constructed if it were the option tha t an operator selected to store flow back fluids. In addition, the BLM field offices commonly require lining of pits as a condition of approval in each approved drilling permit. The lining of pits is n ot novel. However, because the extent to which this requirement has not been quantified, this analysis assumes a baseline scenario whereby no flow back pits are lined.29

Because the requirement to install a p i t liner on a flow back storage pit i s a short

- term construction activity that is only a minor component of the whole construction phase of a well

and the placement of a liner would take place on surface that would otherwise already be disturbed, adverse impacts to other resource values, such as wildl ife, native soils, vegetation, air quality, wate r quality, and visual resources , if any, would be minimal.

O ther wildlife

- related impacts may occur as a result of using pits , such as the potential for

rodents , livestock, or migratory birds to enter a pit containing fluids, which could harm these species. The BLM considers and adopts various types of mitigation measures using existing

authorities to mitigate impacts to wildlife, livestock, and human health . Mitigation measures

included in a lease or made conditions of approval o n a permit are developed to reduce impacts

that are identified in the Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment that are prepared pursuant to NEPA for specific development proposals . Under this existing process, the BLM adopts various best management practices for pit management , such as those identified in Chapter 4 of the BLM ’s and the Forest Service’s Gold b ook: Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development

. The Goldbook includes a discussion

on the option to require the use of nets and wildlife exclusion fences for specific permits to prevent wildlife and livestock from entering a pit

. An example of the netting and fencing that is placed around a p i t is shown in Figure 4. Other specific mitigation measures include using closed loop systems for managing fluids , thus eliminating the need for pits, or constructing wildlife ramps in open excavation operations to allow wildlife to escape in circumstances where they have entered into a pit. Based on the analysis that the BLM performs for each individual drilling permit or group of permits , the appropriate option is incorporated as a condition of approval of the approved permit. In addition, t he U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

enforce s and may take action pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in circumstances to mitigate avian mortality within a pit

.

On December 13 , 2012, the BLM issued an instruction memorandum 8 (IM) to its field offices

that establish a consistent approach and r ecommended management practices for reducing preventable causes of direct wildlife mortality from certain fluid mineral facilities 9

– includ ing

o pen p its and t anks c ontaining freestanding l iquids

– and ensuring BLM, and operator, compliance with the wildlife protection laws and regulations

. The policy , among other things:

1. E ncourages field offices to evaluate mitigation measures that would commonly be used to mitigate impacts to wildlife from facilities (including pits) through higher

- level programmatic NEPA analyses, such as those prepared for Master Leasing Plan s or field

- wide development proposals

. Site

- specific N EPA analysis prepared to support approval of

individual permit applications submitted after approval of the programmatic document could simply tier to or incorporate by reference the programmatic analyses and adopt the mitigation

measures analyzed in those programmatic documents rather than perform the analysi s repetitively through each site

- specific NEPA analysis ; 2. Provides sample permit Conditions of Approval (COA) or Terms and Conditions that are examples of protection measures that would be consistent with the intent of the IM;

8 IM No. 2013

- 033: Fluid Minerals Operations

– Reducing Preventable Causes of Direct Wildlife Mortality

9 Fluid mineral facilities include oil, gas, and geothermal facilities and associated structures authorized by the BLM through Applications for Permit to Drill (APD), Geothermal Drilling Permits (GDP), Sundry Notices, or fluid mineral associated rights

- of

- way.30

3. Directs field offices to enfo rce appropriate wildlife protection measures where there is a likely risk of harm to wildlife from operations permitted prior to the issuance of the IM ; and

4. Reminds field offices that when inspecting oil and gas operations to ensure operator implementation and maintenance of effective wildlife protection measures. If dead or injured wildlife, such as a migratory bird, are discovered during the inspection, the policy outlines a procedure that would ensure the USFWS is formally notified.

Figure 4

The IM instructs the BLM field offices not to accept streamers , flagging, or other types of

“ deterrent ” devices that have been shown not to be effective in preventing migratory birds or other animals from accessing fluids in pits. When the operator proposes in A PDs or Sundry Notices to use open pits or tanks containing fluids at Federal oil and gas lease facilities, the field office must conduct analysis through the NEPA process to consider reasonable alternatives and mitigation. At a minimum, this should includ e analysis of (1) a closed or semi

- closed loop system with dry cuttings pits or tanks; and (2) appropriate mitigation of the operator’s proposed open pit or tank system, such as netting, fencing, durable leak

- proof lining with leak detection systems, immed iate hauling and disposal of liquid waste following drilling operations, and pit
solidification.”

Storing flow back 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 minimize contact between the fluids and the native ground (including local soils)

, if a liner is used. In31

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

barrier that would reduce the likelihood that pit fluids would percolate into the ground and potentially contaminat e soils and groundwater sources.

During the clo se out and reclamation of a flow back pit

, there could also be an unintentional visual impact. T here could be instances where pieces of liner are not properly removed and

would remain as trash on a well location . However, the BLM r equire s all locations to be kept

free of garbage at all times, so any remaining liner would have to be disposed of properly

. The BLM implements a strategy for inspecting Federal and Indian oil and gas leases in which an inspector would take enforcement action if such 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 flow

back fluids are returning to the surface , and until the fluids are reused or directed to a disposal facility. Therefore, the use of these steel tanks would be short

- term and the impact minimal

.

A lthough 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 the pit abandonment procedure and interim reclamation process ( 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

Acti on
, Alternative C , or Alternative D 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 Ac tion

, Alternative C , or Alternative D

would not be realized . T he 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 safe and more environmentally sound mann er

. In addition, there would not be a regulation that provides for the disclosure of chemicals used in the stimulation process, for a consistent national rule for requiring that all wells that will be hydraulically fractured be able to withstand the pressures of the anticipated hydraulic frac t uring event

, or for assuring that the fluids used during the hydraulic fracturing 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 identical in nature to those beneficial and adverse impacts discussed under the Proposed Action. However, under this alternative, there32

would be no requirement to line the pits that are used to s tore the fluids that flow back to the surface during and after 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 they exist. Depending on the

characteristics of the flow back 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 w ould 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 the use of the pit , there would be less

likelihood for flow back fluids stored in a pit to percolate into the ground and affect adjacent water, soil, or vegetation resources.

d) Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative D

– Storage Tank Requirement

Under Alternative D , impacts to the environment would be identical in nature to those beneficial and adverse impacts discussed under the Proposed Action. However, under this alternative, there

would be a requirement to use storage tanks to store the fluids that flow back to the surface during and after well stimulation activity. Operators would not have an option to use a lined pit.

The use of storage tanks would almost eliminate the risk of flow back fluids from damaging various environmental resources, which include soils, surface and groundwater sources, and wildlife. By using storage tanks, flow back fluids would be entirely contained within vessels

, having no connection with the surrounding environment

. Wildlife would not have the ability to
come into contact wi th flow back fluids that could potentially be hazardous, toxic, or harmful in other ways , especially to avian species that are attracted to these water sources when stored in a pit

. In addition, b ecause tanks are placed above

- ground, any potential spills or leaks would be easily identifiable and a clean

- up response could be executed fairly promptly . This prompt response would ensure that spills or leaks do not settle for an extended period and percolate through the ground. It is possible for a lined pit to achieve the same soils and groundwater protection goals as storage tanks. However, leaks in pits that may result from a puncture in the liner could not easily be identifiable because flow back fluids are generally stored in temporary pits, which do not have leak detection systems. Air quality would also benefit from the use of tanks. Odors and other air emissions that come from flow back fluids would not be contained, but rather controlled in a closed tank as compared to an open pit where odors and ot her air emissions from the fluid are emitted from a larger fluid surface area. Tanks would control and

reduce the amounts of those air emissions.

Potential negative effects that may result could include the presence of tanks on well pad

locations for ext ended periods of time. For example, flow back fluids return to the surface at

different rates based on the characteristics of the formation t hey came from

. F luids injected into the ground do not necessarily return to the surface immediately. These tanks would have to

remain on location until permanent production tanks are constructed on location to store fluids

. This would generally take up to six months after a well is completed as Onsho re Oil and Gas33

Order Number 1 requires earthwork for reclamation on all areas not needed for active production operations to be completed within six months of completing a well, weather permitting. While these tanks are on location they could attract the eye of a casual observer, especially in areas with

sensitive visual resources. In some cases these tanks are trailer

- hitched tanks that are already

low

- profiled or they could be tall cylindrical tanks

. Depending on where the development takes place

– in a sensitive or non

- sensitive visual resource area

– and where the key observation points are located in relation to these sites , visual impacts will vary. However , t he existence of

the over all footprint of construction (well pad, access road, or pipeline route) would attract more attention as compared to just the tanks alone , which are only component of the overall development footprint

. Because the use of these tanks would be temporary and the casual
observer’ s view would most likely be attracted to the overall footprint of development as compared to just the tanks alone , visual impacts from flow back fluid storage tanks are expected

to be low.

T he types of operations an operator chooses to utilize as part of his overall development plan will vary from one area or one operator to the next. For example, there are operations that would find frack locations where all fracking equipment (including fl ow back storage tanks) is centrally

stored to be more beneficial . In such cases, there would not be a need for temporary flow back storage tanks on a location, especially for flow back fluids that return within a short period after the frack job is comple ted. Residual flow back fluids that return to the surface would more than likely be diverted into permanent storage tanks constructed on location. However, for the purpose of this analysis, a basic scenario that assumes flow back storage tanks would be u sed at

each well location is used to help describe the types of impacts that would most likely occur as a

result of requiring operators to use tanks to store flow back fluids.

e) Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative E

– BLM Preferred Alternative

, Revis ed Proposed Hydraulic Fracturing Rule

Under the BLM’s Preferred Alternative

, beneficial impacts to the environment would be similar in nature to those impacts discussed under th is Proposed Action. However, there are slight

differences . The following items describe how the beneficial impacts from each major change will vary fro m the beneficial impacts of this Proposed Action

.

The initial proposed rule covered all types of well stimulation activities, which included hydraulic fracturing and acidizing. This alternative c overs hydraulic fracturing only . It

would not cover other well stimulation activities, such as acidizing.

Not being able to approve acidizing jobs leaves the BLM without the opportunity to review an operator’s plan to perform the activity. However, because acidizing is a procedure that is considered to be a workover activity on a well th at does not result in the types of downhole impacts that have been attributed to hydraulic fracturing, this activity was removed from the scope of this alternative

. Workover activities include a variety of remedial operations on a producing well to try to increase production

. Downhole r efers to equipment or mechanical operations that take place down a well bore

. T he environmental benefits in this change

would be similar to the Proposed Action because the public’s concern and the scientific34

questions surrounding the types of surface and subsurface water impacts associated with hydraulic fracturing would still be addressed.

The init ial proposed rule required operators to perform CBLs , or other types of similar logs acceptable to the BLM. Under this alternative, CBLs were replaced with a broader class of tools, known as CEL CEL . A CBL is one of a number of CEL s used for evaluating and ensuring proper cement bonding of the casings with the surrounding strata to prevent/isolate usable waters from any of the hydraulic fracturing fluids or any other fluids going into or out of a wellbore during or after completion of the well

. Other ty pes of CEL s include ultrasonic imagers, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) , and isolation scanners.

Being more broad and less prescriptive in this particular instance allows flexibility and

p rovides opportunities for the industry to use logs that may be more convenient and easily implementable to their well dr illing and completion program , which could also be more sophisticated than CBLs as they are developed and put into practice. The BLM would not
limit evaluation to cement bond logs w hen better tools may become available in the future. This change could potentially result in a greater benefit to the environment because it allows

the BLM to adapt in response to advances in technology as compared to the Proposed Action.

The initial p roposed rule required operators to perform a CBL on all wells to be stimulated.

This alternative requires , as a general rule, CEL s on each casing that protects usable water. However, t here is an exception for an operator’s group of wells (represented by a type well ) that are planned to be drilled and completed in a field where the geologic characteristic s of the group of wells are similar to the geologic characteristics of the type well

. As part of this

alternative , operators will be required to monitor cementing operations for all wells prior to hydraulically fracturing a well. If the results of the CEL performed on the type well showed good cementing, the cementing

- operations monitoring results from the type well would be

similar to the cement

- operations monitoring results of the subsequent wells to be hydraulically fractured after the type well, and there is no indication of an inadequate cement job, t hen a CEL would not be required for the subsequent wells . In such a case , only the type

well would need a CEL. The type well is a concept introduced as part of this alternative and is defined as a completed oil and gas well that can be used as a model for well completion in a field where geologic characteristics ar e substantially similar across the field, and operations such as drilling, cementing, and hydraulic fracturing are likely to be successfully replicated using the same design.

The only difference in the environmental benefit as a result of not having a C B L performed for all wells that are hydraulically fractured would be that the BLM would rely on

information from the type well as an indicator that the cement sheath behind the steel casing of a well has properly bonded to the wall behind the steel casing and the native formation. CBLs are only one of many sets of tools that the BLM could use to determine whether an adequate cement job has been performed. For example, monitoring the pressures, flow rates, volumes, and densities of the cement during the c ement job are other parameters that could be used to determine the quality of a cement job. If these parameters are consistent with the values anticipated during the design of the cement job, it is a good indication that no unexpected conditions were enco untered during the cementing and that a cement seal has35

been established. This alternative includes such a monitoring requirement for all wells to be hydraulically fractured

. Furthermore , because additional criteria or screens for determining

whether a C EL is necessary have been established, the risk of groundwater contamination as

a result of implementing the type well concept is reduced.

These screens include the requirement for the CEL exempt wells to: (i) be within the same field as the type well, (ii) have the same geologic characteristics as the type well, and (iii)

have the same cementing

- operations monitoring results as the type well. T he se three criteria

would allow the BLM to make a reasonable judgment that a given exempt well was hydraulically fractured without compromising wellbore integrity because: (i) native geologic conditions of the exempt well are similar to the type well and (i i ) monitoring results for what

is considered to be the benchmark for a successful cement job have been replicated. The se particular criteria help the BLM make a reasonable judgment that the cement job performed

on the CEL

- exempt well has addressed the challenges of the downhole environment and has achieved wellbore integrity, thus avoi ding groundwater contamination.

In addition, the requirement to perform a CEL in all cases where there is an indication of an inadequate cement job would address any site

- specific circumstance that may compromise the integrity of a wellbore. If the operator encounters any sort of indication of an inadequate cement job, such as lost returns of fluids to surface , cement channeling within the casing

, or

gas

- cut mud, then the operator must correct the problem and perform a CEL regardless of

whet her it was initially exempt from a CEL . In such circumstances, operators are also required to notify the BLM of these situations within 24 hours of the event , followed by a written report within 48 hours . The operator must then certify to the BLM that th e issue has

been addressed

. For these reasons, the expected benefit to the environment from this change

would be similar to the environmental benefit that is expected from the Proposed A ction.

The initial proposed rule require s s CBLs to be approved by the BLM prior to stimulating a

well. This alternative would not require operators to submit a CEL until 30 days after fracturing operations have concluded. When submitting their CEL, operators would also be required to submit a ce rtification that the cement integrity was maintained throughout the fracturing operation. Where there is an indication of a cementing problem however, the operator would notify the BLM within 24 hours, follow

- up with a written notice in 48 hours,

and subm it a certification and evidence that the problem has been corrected 72 hours before commencing the hydraulic fracturing operation.

By not being able to verify prior to fracturing whether all usable water zones are adequately isolated prior to allowin g hydraulic fracturing activities to take place, the BLM would not be

afforded a direct confirmation that a well was adequately constructed to protect all formations containing usable water. However, the new requirements for performing a CEL

on a type well

, the requirement to perform a CEL on any other well where there is an indication of an inadequate cement job , and the requirement for operators to notify the BLM when there are instances of inadequate cement job will give the BLM a reasonable assurance

tha t formations containing usable water will be adequately isolated.36

The initial proposed rule required disclosure to the BLM of the precise chemical makeup of the proppants used in the hydraulic fracturing process in two tables, one for ingredient trade

n ames, and one for CAS numbers for the entire fracturing fluid. The BLM would make the

information available to the public. Under this alternative, operators would provide all the information listed on the FracFocus form. This includes total fluid volume, trade name, supplier, CAS numbers, maximum ingredient concentration in additive, and the maximum

concentration in the hydraulic fracturing fluid. Operators may su bmit chemical information through FracFocus, directly to the BLM, or through another public database designated by

the BLM.

The BLM does not expect difference in environmental benefits as a result of this change. Operators would still be required to repo rt the ingredients used in the hydraulic fracturing fluid during the fracturing process. The only difference would be the format in which they would have to report the information. Under this new format, the BLM and other stakeholder agencies would still be able to make a reasonable determination on whether the hydraulic fracturing fluids used during the fracturing process is linked to a contamination

event.

In the initial proposed rule, o perators would submit to the BLM, but segregate, information

claim ed to be protected from public disclosure, and submit information supporting their

claims of trade secrets. Under this alternative , o perators would not need to submit information claimed to be trade secrets. Operators would instead submit an affidavit that

would state that the withheld information is protected as a trade secret. However, the BLM maintains authority to require submission of the withheld information

, if necessary

.

By not having the exact quantification of some of the hydraulic fracturin g fluids that are claimed to be trade secrets , the BLM and other stakeholder agencies may not be in a position

to make a reasonable determination when conducting an investigation on whether a contamination event may be linked to hydraulic fracturing operat ions because the actual

mixture of the fluids used during the hydraulic fracturing process would not be available

. However, the BLM maintains the authority to requ ir e this information if the BLM finds it is necessary to do so. Under this alternative, the environmental benefit is expected to be similar to the Proposed Action

.

In the initial proposed rule, there are no requirements for operators to retain records for a specific period of time because all i nformation would be disclosed to the BLM. In this

alternative , operators would be required to keep the chemical information withheld as trade secrets for the same length of time required by existing regulations for well information ( i.e

., 6 years).

The benefit of this requirement is clear. I f an opera tor does not initially disclose to the BLM their chemical ingredients because the operator asserts that the information would be
protect ed from public disclosure pursuant to applicable Federal laws and a contamination

event were to occur within the vicinity of the operator ’ s wells at a later point in time, the BLM would be able to request the operator’s chemical information used in those wells

. Stated differently, having the operator maintain this information for a specific period of time37

complemen ts the BLM’s authority to direct operators to submit their chemical information

even if they claim t he in formation is protected

. T he information that the operator maintains will help the BLM and other stakeholder agencies make a determination as to whethe r a given contamination event was caused by hydraulic fracturing operations.

Requirements under this alternative would address the major water

- related resource concerns

– surface and subsurface

– that have been raised by the public. The requirements imp osed on operators are intended to be beneficial to the environment, but their impacts are not quantifiable.

T his alternative would help prevent contamination of usable water zones from hydraulic fracturing by establishing procedures that would help verify whether a well is capable of withstanding the anticipated fracturing pressures, requiring operators to monitor the cementing operations of a well to help ensure proper isolation of usable water zones, and undertaking specific contingency procedures when t here are signs of an inadequate cement job. This

alternative would also allow the BLM to obtain information regarding the chemical ingredients of hydraulic fracturing fluids in order to help the BLM address any future contamination events.

At this time, the BLM, or any entity for that matter, cannot 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

, primarily due to the fact that all reported events of contamination that attribute the cause of the contamination event to hydraulic fracturing operations have not yet been confirmed due to the variety of the existing and conflicting studies . Therefore, the impacts resulting from the implementation of this revised proposed rule cannot be accurately determined

. H owever , based on the BLM’s research as provided in this analysis, the BLM fully expects beneficial environmental results

.

In addition to the environmental benefits that are expected as a result of implementing this alternative, certain requirements would require activities to be conducted on the ground. In particular, Section 3162.3

- 3(e)(2) would generally require operators to perform a CEL on every

well casing that protects usable water . The general process followed and equipment used to perform a CEL is very similar to that of a CBL, which is described under Subsection A of this Chapter. The process typically entails lowe ring a probe

- like measuring tool, via a wireline supported by a portable crane, down the wellbore to determine whether the cement that fills the void space in between the well casing and the formation has adequately isolated usable zones. Surveyed informa tion acquired by the probe is then sent to a truck

- mounted recording station at the surface where the data is recorded and analyzed. P erforming the log on surface casing is novel. Performing a CEL on the surface casing would require a logging crew to run the log after setting the surface casing, and returning to the well location again to perform the log for the other usable water zones where the intermediate and production casing are set. The BLM anticipates regular use of the exemption afforded under S ection 3162.3

- 3( e ) (3) to not perform a CEL if an operator’s group of wells (represented by a type well) are planned to be drilled and completed in a field where the geologic characteristics of the group of wells are similar to the geologic

characteristics of the type well.

Another requirement that would entail activities to be performed on the ground is S ection

3162.3

- 3( g )(1) , which would require the operator to continuously monitor and record the pressure(s) within annulus of a well during the hydraulic fracturing process. This is38

accomplished by lowering a gauge within the well using a truck

- mounted crane to monitor and

rec ord the pressures within the well during the hydraulic fracturing process. This is a procedure the industry already implements when fracturing a well. Also, S ection 3162.3

- 3( e ) (1) would require operators to monitor and record specific aspects of the ceme nting operation (flow rate, density, and treating pressure) for all wells that are to be hydraulically fractured. This is a procedure operators already perform during a cement ing operation

.

M onitoring and recording the flow rate, density, and treating pr essure s of the cementing operation , running a CEL, p erforming a pressure test prior to hydraulic fracturing to ensure a well is capable of withstanding the anticipated treating pressures , and monitoring and recording the pressure(s) within the annulus duri ng a fracturing operation are short

- term processes that occur at various stages of the drilling or completion phase of a well. These activities entail the presence of humans using heavy equipment on the well pad location, such as a truck

- mounted

crane to lower the measuring tool that is used to log the characteristics of the cement sheath

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 onl y a small part of the whole hydraulic fracturing process. T hese

activities alone would not have a unique or noticeable adverse impact on resource values, such as soils, vegetation, air quality, or water quality. Other than the measuring tool that is lowe red into a well, t he se activities already take place on a surface that has already been disturbed by the overall construction, drilling, and completion phase of a given well or are already an intrinsic aspect of industry’s normal operating procedure and would occur even if the BLM were not to implement the requirements under this alternative. The possibility exists

, however , that some of the requirements of the revised proposed rule would result in disturbances caused by hydraulic fracturing operations t o endure for longer periods of time. Running a CEL on surface casing could cause such delays, but only when it is required. The length of such delays is not easy to estimate because operators would probably adapt to the requirements by organizing their

a ctivities for the most efficient use of the workers and equipment. However, for comparative purposes among the different alternatives considered in this environmental assessment, the delay

envisioned under this alternative would be less than what would be expected from the Proposed Action, but more than what would be expected under the No Action Alternative.

One resource that may be influenced by these activities could be wildlife. The presence of humans using heavy equipment may deter wildlife, such as sage grouse, desert tortoises, elk and mule deer, from using valued habitat that may exist within proximity to these operations. That habitat may serve as a critical piece in the animal’s life history

– mating or wintering

– and may

add additional stresse s that could prevent the species from completing its natural life cycle. However, adverse impacts to wildlife would be far greater and more likely from the overall well drilling and completion process as compared to the individual activities that would oc cur as a result of implementing the requirements of this alternative. Studies have indicated that it is more of the overall well field development that is causing an adverse impact to wildlife, rather than a specific aspect of well field development. Acc ordingly, impacts to wildlife resource values, if any, would be undetectable , b ecause (i) the requirement to perform a CEL is not expected to be performed on all wells, (ii) the monitoring and recording of well cementing operations and annulus pressures during the hydraulic fracturing process are short

- term, and (iii) these activitie s39

are only a minor component of the whole hydraulic fracturing process that would take place on

the surface that has already been disturbed (i.e.

, on a well pad).

The last requirement that would result in activities to occur on the ground is Section 3162. 3

- 3(h)

of the revised proposed rule , which requires the storage of fluids that flow back to the surface in steel tanks or lined pit s . This requirement is identical to that in Alternative A. Therefore, the impacts are identical. Please refer to Subsectio n A of this chapter for the discussion about the impacts from using storage tanks and lined pits.

f) Economic Effects

As part of this rulemaking process, the BLM conducted an economic analysis titled Economic Analysis for Hydraulic Fracturing Rule to estimate the costs and benefits of the P roposed Action

, Alternative C , Alternative D , and Alternative E identified in this document

. The c alculation of

the costs and benefits were based on the risk that hydraulic fracturing activities pose to the

envir onment and the cost of remediating environmental contamination s. Please refer to the BLM’s economic analysis for a thorough discussion of the economic

- related impacts that are expected from implementing any of the action alternatives analyzed in this envi ronmental

assessment.

The entire economic analysis and the regulatory flexibility analysis are contained within the document entitled Economic Analysis for Hydraulic Fracturing Rule and on file in the BLM

Administrative Record associated with the rule and are available for public review at your
request.

g) Cumulative Effects

The White House CEQ ’s 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).

Federal and Indian oil and gas development occur s primarily in s tates located in the Rocky Mountain West, the Southwest, the Great Plains, California, and Alaska

, with approximately 40

million acres of Federal subsurface 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 recreat ion, livestock grazing, forestry, mineral mining ( e.g ., coal , potash and a few instances of other solid minerals), power generation facilities, rights

- of

- way, solar energy development , and wind energy development.

Resources that would benefit from the promulgation of this 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 operations. The approval process, th e information that operators are required to submit prior to and after performing a hydraulic fracturing operation

, and the procedures that must be performed before , during, and after40

hydraulic fracturing operations would improve the BLM’s ability to confi rm water resources are adequately protected and flow back fluids are properly handled once hydraulic fracturing

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 P roposed A ct ion or each

action alternative

. The cumu lative 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 hydraulically fractured wells on Federal or Indian leases nationwide. The cumulative impacts of

each of the action alternatives would be those that are in combination with other Federal, State, Tribal, or local requirements, or widespread implementation of evolving best practices by operators. Several s tates have regulatory regimes for hydraulic fracturing that in some ways overlap with the action alternatives, and in other ways complement them. Several other s tates are contemplating requirements for hydraulic fracturing . Those present and future initiatives in

various s tates are likely to have effects cu mulative with those of the action alternatives, which will help prevent contamination of water supplies and other environmental harms from hydraulic fracturing activities, without prohibiting the process . It is not possible to quantify the

environmental i mpacts 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 hydraulically fractured

.

T he incremental impacts resulting from Alternative A, C, D , or E would contribute a beneficial

effect to the human environment because new safeguards are being proposed to protect resources

at most risk from hydraulic fracturing

.



## VII. Tribes, Individuals, Organizations, or Agencies Consulted

a) Tribes Engag ed

Pursuant to the President’s memorandum dated 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 initial proposed rule on federally

recogn ized Indian tribes. The BLM approves proposed operations on all Indian onshore oil and gas leases (other than those of the Osage Tribe). Therefore, the rule has the potential to affect

Indian tribes.

In conformance with the Secretary’s policy on Tribal Consultation, the BLM held four Tribal meetings to which over 175 Tribal entities were invited. The consultations were held in:

(1) Tulsa, Oklahoma on January 10, 2012; (2) Billings, Montana on January 12

, 2012; (3) Salt Lake City, Utah on January 17

, 2012; and (4) Farmington, New Mexico on January 19, 2012.41

These tribal m eetings served as an initial outreach, communication

, and information sharing opportunity in which senior policy makers from the BLM 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 f ield office

managers.

The BLM conducted additional Tribal consultations in Salt Lake City, UT on June 5 , 2012

, Farmington, NM on June 7 , 2012

, Tulsa, OK on June 12 , 2012 , and Billings, M T on June 14

, 2012 . A fifth additional consultation was conducted at the National Congress of American

Indian (NCAI) Conference in Lincoln, NE , on June 18 , 2012 . Another regional meeting was held at New Town, ND on July 13 , 2012

. The BLM State Offices are making calls to all tribes and developing a consolidated list of tribes requesting one

- on

- one G overnment

- to

- G overnment
consultation. Government

- to

- G overnment consultations began on July 18, and will continue

until the final rule is issued.

b) Individuals Consulted

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



## VIII. List of Preparers

Bryce Barlan, Washington Office ( W O

- 100 ), Policy Analyst and Subijoy Dutta

, Washington Office (WO

- 310), Petroleum Engineer , prepared this assessment

.42



## FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

PROPOSED HYDRAULIC FRACTURING 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, D

. C

. 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 s 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 up into various non

- hydrocarbon bearing formations and i nto shallower ground water aquifers with potentially useable water . The public also expressed concern about the inability to have access to information on the chemical constituents used in the fluids that are injected into the well as part of the hydrauli c 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 a n issue of public concern

. The public cannot determine whether
operators are complying with applicable law when managing the water used during hydraulic fracturing operations.

In response, the BLM has prepared this Hydraulic Fracturing Rule. Th is rule e stablishes an approval process prior to allowing hydraulic fracturing operations to occur on Federal and Indian lands. The approval process includes the reporting of detailed information operators must submit and procedures they must follow prior , during, and subsequent to a hydraulic fracturing activity. This information will help BLM determine whether an operator’s proposed fracturing operations

are safe and would be conducted in an environmental ly responsible manner. The rule also requires the implementation of certain procedures during the fracturing of a well so as to ensure the integrity of the borehole is not compromised.

The BLM has evaluated the Proposed Action and associated action alternatives to de termine whether its promulgation of a H ydraulic F racturing Rule could result in a significant effect on

the human environment. The promulgation of the BLM’s Preferred Alternative would improve the BLM’s ability to protect human health and safety and the quality of the environment , to improve the BLM’s ability to fulfill trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and to individual

Indians . In particular, the requirement to perform certain evaluations, such as a CEL , to evaluate the integrity of a well prior to conducting a fracturing operation

, and monitoring the pressures within a well during a fracturing operation would help the BLM verify that the well will be capable of handling the stresses of a hydraulic fracturing operation . These tests will help the

BLM verify that all formations containing usable water are properly isolated so as to prevent any43

contact with hydraulic fracturing fluids or migration of any other fluids from other formations

in to the well and through the cement casing into usable water

- bearing formations

.

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

account for the chemicals that are injected into the ground on Federal and Indian lands during hydraulic fracturing operations. If there are instances of subsurface contamination within proximity to Federal and Indian oil and gas development, h aving this information will help the BLM and other stakeholder agencies make a more dependable determination of whether such

contamination is attributable to hydraulic fracturing operations.

To protect surface resources, this rule’s requirement to contain fluids flowed back from a well

after fracturing operations in to steel tanks or a lined pit would reduce the lik elihood of spills and migration of fluids into the ground where usable water zones may exist.

Other than beneficial effects, implementation of the BLM’s Preferred Alternative or the other

action alternatives would result in novel on the ground activities that would otherwise not occur

if the Hydraulic Fracturing Rule were not promulgated. These activities would take place on surface that would already be disturbed as part of normal drilling and well completion operations

and are but a sm all part to the overall construction, drilling, and completion phase of a well. In addition, the monitoring of well operations prior to and during the hydraulic fracturing process are already common industry best practices that are being implemented.

I t is expected that the beneficial effects to the environment would outweigh any adverse effect associated with implementing the BLM’s Preferred Alternative

. The cumulative environmental

effect of the Hydraulic Fracturing Rule would be beneficial.

Based o n these considerations, the BLM finds that the proposed action or the other action

alternatives would not have a significant impact on the environment; it has determined that an environmental impact statement is not required and is issuing this Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”)

.

________________________________________ ____________________________ Assistant Director Date

Minerals and Realty Management