1

COVER PAGE TO BE INSERTED HERE
2

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 Requirement

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 Preparers
3

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 determines whether this particular 

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

the National Environmental Policy 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 an 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 evaluated 

three alternatives, including the initial proposed rule. Since publication, the 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 177,000 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. The 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 Rule1– 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 – This 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 Rule2–

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 that are of such 

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

The BLM’s Proposed Action and associated action alternatives include provisions that direct 

operators to undertake certain procedures prior to, during, and subsequent to hydraulically 

fracturing an oil and gas well. These actions 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 document is not intended to analyze the effects that may result from actual 

hydraulic fracturing activities. Impacts caused by hydraulic fracturing are analyzed at more 

appropriate levels of the BLM’s decision-making process. These decision points include 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 as one or more oil and gas fields, 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 environment, the NEPA requires the BLM to prepare a detailed statement so 

it may fully consider those impacts.

a) Background and Overview

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

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

Over the past 10 years, there have been significant advances in horizontal 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 public’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 fracturing 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 completing a well), operators 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 “nonroutine,” nor has the BLM provided additional guidance to its authorizing 

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, AR, and Golden, CO. Over 600 members of the public attended the 

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

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

disclosure of the chemicals and materials used in fracturing fluid.

In 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. The 

report recommended, among other things, public disclosure of the chemicals 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, the 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 public from the 

Department of Energy’s web site at http://www.shalegas.energy.gov.

The BLM proposes 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 examples 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 requirement 

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 cement job in order to 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 of 
6

hydraulic fracturing chemical information. The regulations would apply to all wells 

administered by the BLM on Federal, tribal, and individual Indian trust lands.

II. Purpose and Need for Action and Decision

The increased use of hydraulic fracturing over the last decade has generated concern from the 

public. The BLM estimates that roughly 90 percent of wells currently drilled on BLM-managed 

lands (approximately 3,400 per year) are stimulated using hydraulic fracturing techniques. The 

BLM’s existing limited regulations pertaining to hydraulic fracturing operations need 

strengthening to provide adequate protection of water resources. In addition, the regulation 

governing this kind of operation dates back to 1989, and many changes to, among other things, 

technology and industry standards have occurred since then. BLM regulations have not kept 

pace with these changes, hence the need for this revised rule. Pursuant to the FLPMA and other 

statutes, the BLM administers oil and gas operations in a manner that protects Federal and Indian 

lands and related resources. This 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 promulgate this rule for implementation.

III. Issues

As aforementioned, 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 emphasized 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 groundwater. To date, academic studies and investigations on 

reports of contamination 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 another recent study, scientists have concluded that concerns 

associated with hydraulic fracturing exist, but evolving technologies, regulation and appropriate 
7

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 constituents 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. Without 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. There have also been instances reported where 

fluids that flow back after a well is completed have been mishandled 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 in the East. There have 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 well stimulation method to increase oil production by injecting 

hydrochloric acid into the oil-bearing formation. The 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. This 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 before and after performing 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 from 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 must comply with section 3162.3-2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

technology, or the anticipated impacts to any resource. 

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

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

well stimulation fluids would be injected.

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

of a CBL, which would help the BLM in its efforts to make sure that water resources are 

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

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

procedures.

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

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

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

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

base fluid.

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

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

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

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

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

of the well stimulation engineering design to the BLM 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 pressures 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 require 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 facility vessels.

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

proposed methods of managing the recovered fluids.

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

description of the proposed disposal method of the recovered fluids.

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

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

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

integrity test before beginning well stimulation operations.

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

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

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

fracturing string as a technique during well stimulation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

annulus pressure immediately preceding the stimulation.

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

lined pits.

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

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

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

perforations and open hole interval.

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

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

the stimulation(s).

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

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

pumped at the completion of each stage (i.e., just prior to shutting down the pumps).
10

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

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

Service (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 sections 3162.3-3(g)(1) through proposed section 3162.3-

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

the information required is adequately addressed.

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

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

stimulation fluids that were actually used during well stimulation operations.

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

was maintained throughout the operation.

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

describing the handling of the fluids used for the stimulation activities, flowback fluids, and 

produced water.

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

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

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

managing the recovered fluids.

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

method of the recovered fluids.

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 any 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 Pits
11

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

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

stimulation activity.

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

This 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 this 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 

process. The running of CELs 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 which 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:

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” 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 section applies only to hydraulic fracturing operation and that all other injection 

activities must comply with section 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 at 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 section 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 formations 
12

and protect them from contamination, except for zones authorized for producing 

hydrocarbons using.

Section 3162.3-3(c) would require the BLM’s approval of all proposals for hydraulic 

fracturing or refracturing activity. The operator has the option of applying for the BLM’s 

approval in its APD, including the information required by paragraph (d) of this section. The 

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 new

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 isolates 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:

Section 3162.3-3(d)(1) would require a report that includes the geological names, a 

geological description, and the proposed measured depth of the top and the bottom of the 

formation into which hydraulic fracturing fluids would be injected.

Section 3162.3-3(d)(2) would require the operator to submit the measured or estimated 

depths of all occurrences of usable water 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) would 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.

Section 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.

Section 3162.3-3(d)(4)(ii) would require submission of the anticipated surface treating 

pressure range.

Section 3162.3-3(d)(4)(iii) would require the maximum injection treating pressure 

information to be submitted.
13

Section 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 ensure 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.

Section 3162.3-3(d)(5) would require the operator to provide for BLM’s approval 

information about the handling of recovered fluids.

Section 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 back, swabbing, and recovery from production 

facility vessels.

Section 3162.3-3(d)(5)(ii) would require the operator to submit to the BLM the proposed 

methods of managing the recovered fluids.

Section 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.

Section 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.

Section 3162.3-3(e)(1) would require the operator to monitor and record the flowrate, 

density, and treating 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 density logs, 

micro-seismograms, CBLs with directional receiver array, ultrasonic pulse echo technique, or 

isolation scanner, or other tool of equal effectiveness.

Section 3162.3-3(e)(3) would explain that an operator is not required to run a CEL on the 

surface casing if the operator:

(i) had submitted a CEL for a type well that showed successful cement bonding to protect 

against down-hole fluid cross-migration, and

(ii) completes 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 indication 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 written report within 48 hours. Furthermore, the 

operator would be required to remedy the situation first following the standard 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 operator would be required to submit to the BLM a signed certification indicating that the 
14

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 hydraulic 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.

Section 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 feet 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 intermediate casing.

Section 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.

Section 3162.3-3(g)(1) would require the operator to continuously monitor and record 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 between 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.

Section 3162.3-3(g)(2) would require the operator to orally notify the BLM as soon as 

possible, but no later than 24 hours following the incident, if during the fracturing operation 

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

pressure immediately 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.

Section 3162.3-3(h) would 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.

Section 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 #), 

maximum ingredient concentration in additive (% by mass), and maximum ingredient 

concentration in hydraulic fracturing fluid (% by mass). Total water volume includes “new” 

water and any produced water or water reused or recycled from prior hydraulic fracturing 

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 thus the total 
15

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 

pump 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 the 

handling of recovered fluids:

(i) the volume of fluid recovered during flow back, swabbing, or recovery from production 

facility vessels;

(ii) the methods of handling the recovered fluids, including, but not limited to, transfer 

pipes and tankers, holding pond use, 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 requirements 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

Section 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 Section 3162.3-3(j)(1), for 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 Secrets Act or other Federal law.

Under section 3162.3-3(j)(3), if the BLM determines that the information is not exempt from 

disclosure, 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 regulations at 43 

CFR 3162.4-1(d).

Section 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 technologies, 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.

Section 3162.5-2(d) would remove the references to fresh water and removes the phrase 

“containing 5,000 ppm or less of dissolved solids.” This rule would 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 definition.

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, on the following page, illustrates 

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

by the BLM occurs throughout the West. Table 1 lists the land use plans in which oil and gas 

development primarily occur. Each land use plan contains a detailed description of the physical, 

biological, and socioeconomic environment within the boundaries of the plan. The description 

of the affected environment includes the resource values, resource uses, special designations, and 

socioeconomic settings present within each planning area.

This 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 oil and gas wells is a common technique used by oil and gas producers to 

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

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

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

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

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

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 technological improvements have allowed this practice to be performed at 

a much larger scale and, accordingly, have 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 claims 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 report in 20114and in 20125finding 

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 drinkingwater aquifers, 

 

4

S.G. Osborn et al. Methane contamination of drinking 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 Pennsylvania. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 109, July 24, 2012.
18

2. The movement of gas through inadequately constructed, or leaky 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, thus 

allowing the gas to migrate through the fracture systems and into shallow aquifers.

4.

These reports have indicated that the movement of gas-rich solutions6 within the shale 

formations up into shallow drinking-water aquifers is the most unlikely possibility. 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 leaky 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. There is also 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 environmental documents that describe and analyze the types of effects hydraulic 

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

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

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

BLM, 2010, Greater Natural Buttes Draft Environmental Impact Statement

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.
MAP 1
19

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-theground activities. These 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 distance, 

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

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

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

ecosystems.”

The following discussion identifies the direct and indirect effects that may result from immediate 

implementation of the Proposed Action and associated alternatives.

a) Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A – Proposed Action, Initial Proposed Well 

Stimulation Rule

The primary environmental benefit of the 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 BLM 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 section 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 prior 

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 provide 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 and 
21

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

not be subject to this rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

test every five years. The BLM 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 

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

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

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

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 the hydraulic fracturing process could react and be confined 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 casing. 

This log would be used to verify that the operator has taken the necessary precautions to 

prevent migration of fluids in the annulus from the fracture zone to the usable water horizons. 

The proposed regulation would allow for the use of other evaluation tools acceptable to the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

section would also require the operator to disclose the type of exact nature and chemical 
22

makeup of the proppants 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, State, and local 

laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to proposed stimulation fluids. The BLM 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 operator 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 conducting 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 pressures anticipated for the stimulation. This 

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

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

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

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

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

exceeded at any stage of the well stimulation operation.

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

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

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

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

consequences on other rock layers, such as aquifers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 BLM 
23

regulations currently require this 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 health 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 proposal. 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.

Proposed 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 subsurface resources during 

well stimulation activities.

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

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

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

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

100-foot requirement is required by some state 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., to confirm the mechanical integrity of the casing. This language 

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

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

other subsurface resources during well stimulation activities. All of these important tests 

demonstrate and make the case that the BLM has taken reasonable precautions to ensure the 

protection of other resources during well stimulation activities.

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

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

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

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

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

information will assist the BLM by ensuring that well stimulation activities are conducted as 
24

designed. This information would also show that stimulation fluids are going to the 

formation for which they were intended.

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

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

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

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

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

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

incident, including corrective actions taken. This information would be used by the BLM to 

ensure that stimulation 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 proposing 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 public lands from spills or leaks of recovered fluids, the BLM believes that this provision 

is in keeping with FLPMA’s mandate to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the 

public lands and the BLM regulatory requirement to protect environmental quality. 

Additional conditions of approval for the handling of 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 postoperation data on a Subsequent Report Sundry Notice (Form 3160-5, Sundry Notices and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

being designed. Specific information 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 Federal 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 in 
25

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

actually performed.

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

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

pumped at the completion of each stage (i.e., just prior to ceasing operations). 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 additive 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 required in a format that does not link additives 

(required by 3162.3-3(g)(4)) to chemical composition of the materials (required by 3162.3-

3(g)(5)) to minimize the risk of disclosure of any formulas of additives. The BLM 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 of the well stimulation operation remain confined to the petroleum-bearing rock 

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

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

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

stimulation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

permit and notice requirements. The BLM would retain this 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 section 3162.3-3(g)(9) would require operators to certify that wellbore integrity 

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

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

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

describing the handling of the fluids used for the stimulation activities, flow back fluids, and 
26

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

were completed.

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

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

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

managing the recovered fluids.

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

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

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

FR 47353). The BLM would use this information to help protect human health and safety 

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

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

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

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

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

proposed plan and the actual operation.

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

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

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

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

information. The BLM may also release information 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 CBL (or other 

similar types of logs acceptable to the BLM) to help identify whether there may be any voids in 

the cement and the well casing(s), and requiring that the annulus pressure within the well is 

monitored during 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 events.

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 resulting from the implementation of this 

initial proposed rule cannot be accurately determined; however, they are expected to be

beneficial.
27

Although 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 operators to 

perform a CBL of all for strata containing useable water, including the surface casing. CBLs, in 

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

CBLs for the zones of interest, but the log is not commonly run for surface casings. A CBL is 

run on intermediate casings in some instances. Therefore, performing the log on surface casing

would be a new practice for the industry. However, running these logs would 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 

cement that fills the 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 truckmounted recording station (see Photo 3) where the data is recorded and analyzed. The BLM 

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 CBLs 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 API7. 

Performing a CBL and monitoring the pressure of a well during stimulation operations is a shortterm 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 

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

a small part of the whole well stimulation process. In and of themselves, these activities 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 Guidelines API GUIDANCE DOCUMENT HF1 FIRST EDITION, 

OCTOBER 2009
28

quality, or water quality. They are 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 the 

BLM were not to implement the requirements under this alternative.

The possibility 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 CBL 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 activities 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 piece 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 greater than the effect 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. Because the requirement to perform a CBL and to 

monitor and record the annular pressures of a well during stimulation are short-term, only a 

minor component of the whole well stimulation process, and would take place on surface that has 

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

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. New 

surface disturbance is also not expected as a result of implementing 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. This construction 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 installation 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 that 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 not 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 pit liner on a flow back storage pit is 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 wildlife, native soils, vegetation, air 

quality, water quality, and visual resources, if any, would be minimal.

Other 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 on 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 Goldbook: 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 pit 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, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

enforces 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 memorandum8(IM) to its field offices 

that establish a consistent approach and recommended management practices for reducing 

preventable causes of direct wildlife mortality from certain fluid mineral facilities9– including

open pits and tanks containing freestanding liquids – and ensuring BLM, and operator, 

compliance with the wildlife protection laws and regulations. The policy, among other things:

1. Encourages 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 Plans or field-wide 

development proposals. Site-specific NEPA 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 analysis 

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 enforce 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 APDs 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 include 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, immediate 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. In 
31

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 contaminate soils and groundwater sources.

During the close out and reclamation of a flow back pit, there could also be an unintentional 

visual impact. There could be instances where pieces of liner are not properly removed and 

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

free of garbage at all times, so any remaining liner would have to be disposed 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 incident of non-compliance occurs.

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

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

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

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

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

Although there may be impacts on the surface from the use of steel tanks or a constructed lined 

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

Action, Alternative C, or Alternative D would not be implemented. Operators or their 

contractors would still perform well stimulation activities on Federal and Indian lands. Any 

benefits to the environment afforded by the Proposed Action, Alternative C, or Alternative D

would not be realized. The BLM and the public would not be provided with a reasonable and 

consistent assurance that well stimulation operations performed on Federal and Indian lands are 

conducted in a safe and more environmentally sound manner. 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 fracturing 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 Pits

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, there 
32

would be no requirement to line the pits that are used to store 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 would have less 

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

off of these nutrients. If a pit liner were installed prior to 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 with 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, because 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 other 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 extended periods of time. For example, flow back fluids return to the surface at 

different rates based on the characteristics of the formation they came from. Fluids 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 Onshore Oil and Gas 
33

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, the existence of 

the overall 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.

The 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 flow 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 completed. 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 used 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, Revised 

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 this Proposed Action. However, there are slight 

differences. The following items describe how the beneficial impacts from each major change 

will vary from 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 covers 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 that 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 refers to equipment or mechanical 

operations that take place down a well bore. The environmental benefits in this change 

would be similar to the Proposed Action because the public’s concern and the scientific 
34

questions surrounding the types of surface and subsurface water impacts associated with 

hydraulic fracturing would still be addressed.

The initial 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 CELCEL. A CBL is one of a number of CELs 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 types of CELs include ultrasonic 

imagers, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and isolation scanners. 

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

provides opportunities for the industry to use logs that may be more convenient and easily 

implementable to their well drilling 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 when 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 proposed rule required operators to perform a CBL on all wells to be stimulated. 

This alternative requires, as a general rule, CELs on each casing that protects usable water. 

However, there 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 characteristics 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, then 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 are 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 CBL 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 cement 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 encountered during the cementing and that a cement seal has 
35

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 CEL 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. These 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 (ii) monitoring results for what 

is considered to be the benchmark for a successful cement job have been replicated. These

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 avoiding 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 

whether 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 the 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 Action.

The initial proposed rule requiress 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 certification 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 submit 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 allowing 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 

that 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 

names, 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 submit 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 report 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, operators would submit to the BLM, but segregate, information 

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

claims of trade secrets. Under this alternative, operators 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 fracturing 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 operations because the actual 

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

However, the BLM maintains the authority to require 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 information 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. If an operator does not initially disclose to the BLM 

their chemical ingredients because the operator asserts that the information would be 

protected 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 time 
37

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

even if they claim the information is protected. The information that the operator maintains 

will help the BLM and other stakeholder agencies make a determination as to whether 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 imposed on 

operators are intended to be beneficial to the environment, but their impacts are not quantifiable. 

This 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 there 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. However, 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 lowering 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 information acquired by the probe is then sent to a truck-mounted recording station at 

the surface where the data is recorded and analyzed. Performing 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 Section 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 Section 

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 is 
38

accomplished by lowering a gauge within the well using a truck-mounted crane to monitor and 

record the pressures within the well during the hydraulic fracturing process. This is a procedure 

the industry already implements when fracturing a well. Also, Section 3162.3-3(e)(1) would 

require operators to monitor and record specific aspects of the cementing 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 cementing operation.

Monitoring and recording the flow rate, density, and treating pressures of the cementing 

operation, running a CEL, performing 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 during 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 only a small part of the whole hydraulic fracturing process. These 

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 lowered into 

a well, these 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 to 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 

activities 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 stresses 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 occur 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. Accordingly, impacts to wildlife resource values, if 

any, would be undetectable, because (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 activities 
39

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 pits. This requirement is identical to that in Alternative A. Therefore, the 

impacts are identical. Please refer to Subsection 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 Proposed Action, 

Alternative C, Alternative D, and Alternative E identified in this document. The calculation of 

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

environment and the cost of remediating environmental contaminations. 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 environmental 

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 nonFederal) or person undertakes such actions” (40 CFR 1508.7).

Federal and Indian oil and gas development occurs primarily in states 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 recreation, 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, the 

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 after 
40

hydraulic fracturing operations would improve the BLM’s ability to confirm 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 Proposed Action or each 

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

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

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

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

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 states have regulatory regimes for hydraulic fracturing that in some ways 

overlap with the action alternatives, and in other ways complement them. Several other states 

are contemplating requirements for hydraulic fracturing. Those present and future initiatives in 

various states are likely to have effects cumulative with those of the action alternatives, which 

will help prevent contamination of water supplies and other environmental harms from hydraulic 

fracturing activities, without prohibiting the process. It is not possible to quantify the 

environmental impacts of those cumulative requirements on or off of Federal or Indian leases, 

but they are not expected to reduce the number of wells that are hydraulically fractured.

The 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 Engaged

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 

recognized 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 meetings 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 field 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, MT 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 Government-to-Government

consultation. Government-to-Government 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 (WO-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 concerns raised by the public emphasize the risks hydraulic 

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

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

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

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 hydraulic fracturing process. Not having this 

information makes it difficult to determine whether there is a link between contaminated water 

wells and hydraulic fracturing operations within close proximity. Water management, both for 

use and disposal, has been an issue of public concern. 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. This rule establishes 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 environmentally 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 determine 

whether its promulgation of a Hydraulic Fracturing 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 any 
43

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

into 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, having 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 into steel tanks or a lined pit would reduce the likelihood 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 small 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.

It 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 on 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