National Environmental Policy Act Documentation Needed for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activities (Categorical Exclusion), 73722-73726 [05-23983]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
73722
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 13, 2005 / Notices
Forest, 1330 Bayshore Way, Eureka, CA
95501. Phone: (707) 441–3549. E-mail:
ichapman@fs.fed.us.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
agenda items include: (1) An overview
of the PAC and PAC objectives for new
members; (2) a report on the April, 2005
NWFP Monitoring Conference; (3) a
Regional Ecosystem Office update; (4) a
presentation on the Pacific Northwest
Aquatic Monitoring Partnership; (5) an
update on the Watershed Progress
Report; (6) a presentation on the Six
Rivers National Forest Business Plan; (7)
CCPAC and agency updates; and (8) a
discussion of desired topics and dates
for upcoming meetings and field trips.
The meeting is open to the public.
Public input opportunity will be
provided and individuals will have the
opportunity to address the committee at
that time.
Dated: December 6, 2005.
Jeff Walter,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 05–23952 Filed 12–12–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–M
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
RIN 0596–AC34
National Environmental Policy Act
Documentation Needed for Oil and Gas
Exploration and Development
Activities (Categorical Exclusion)
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of proposed directive;
request for comment.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Forest Service is
proposing to amend its directives in
Forest Service Handbook 1909.15,
Chapter 30, which describes categorical
exclusions, that is, categories of actions
that will not result in significant
impacts on the environment and,
therefore, normally do not require
further analysis in either an
environmental impact assessment or an
environmental impact statement. The
proposed amendment would add a new
categorical exclusion in section 31.2 to
facilitate the implementation of limited
oil and gas projects on leases on
National Forest System lands that do
not have significant effects on the
human environment. This categorical
exclusion will not apply where there are
extraordinary circumstances, such as
adverse effects on threatened and
endangered species or their designated
critical habitat, wilderness areas,
inventoried roadless areas, wetlands,
and archeological or historic sites.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
00:22 Dec 13, 2005
Jkt 208001
Public comment is invited and will be
considered in development of the final
directive.
DATES: Comments must be received in
writing by February 13, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments via
the U.S. Postal Service to: Oil and Gas
CatEx Proposed Directive, C/O Content
Analysis Group, P.O. Box 2000,
Bountiful, UT 84011–2000, or by
facsimile to (801) 397–2601, or by email to
ogcatex@contentanalysisgroup.com. If
comments are sent via facsimile or email, the public is asked not to submit
duplicate written comments. Please
confine comments to issues pertinent to
the proposed directive and explain the
reasons for any recommended changes.
All comments, including names,
addresses and other contact information
when provided, are placed in the record
and are available for public review and
copying at 5500 West Amelia Earhart
Drive, Suite 100, Salt Lake City, Utah,
during regular business hours (8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m.), Monday through Friday,
except holidays. Those wishing to
inspect comments are encouraged to call
in advance to, Jody Sutton, (801) 517–
1032 to facilitate access to the building.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reta
Laford, Ecosystem Management Staff,
(202) 205–2936, or Mike Greeley,
Minerals and Geology Staff, (703) 605–
4785, Forest Service, USDA.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Need for the Proposed Direction
The Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) regulations at 40 CFR
1507.3 provide that agencies, after
notice and comment, may adopt
categories of actions that do not have
significant impacts on the human
environment and, consequently, do not
require preparation of an environmental
assessment (EA) or an environmental
impact statement (EIS). Current Forest
Service procedures for complying with
and implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are
set out in Forest Service Handbook
(FSH) 1909.15, Chapter 30. This chapter
lists the categories of actions that do not
require preparation of an EA or an EIS
by the Forest Service. The Forest
Service calls these categories of action
‘‘categorical exclusions’’ (CE). The
agency is proposing a new CE for certain
limited oil and gas exploration and
development activities.
Oil and gas development is
widespread throughout the National
Forest System (NFS). With the
enactment of the Federal Onshore Oil
and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, 30
U.S.C. 226 (‘‘FOOGLRA’’) both the
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Secretary of the Interior (acting through
the Bureau of Land Management) and
the Secretary of Agriculture (acting
through the Forest Service) have
authority and responsibility regarding
oil and gas leases on NFS lands, and
both agencies have the authority to
determine the stipulations under which
leasing will be permitted. 30 U.S.C.
226(h); 43 CFR 3101.7–2(a). FOOGLRA
provides that the Forest Service shall
regulate all surface disturbing activities
relating to oil and gas leasing on NFS
lands. 30 U.S.C. 226(g). No permit to
drill on NFS lands may be granted
without the analysis and approval by
the Forest Service of a surface use plan
of operations (SUPO) covering proposed
surface disturbing activities within the
lease area.
The Forest Service has established an
incremental decision-making framework
for the consideration of oil and gas
leasing activities on NFS lands that is
set out in 36 CFR 228.102. In general,
the various steps undertaken are as
follows: (1) Forest Service leasing
analysis; (2) Forest Service notification
to Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
of lands administratively available for
leasing; (3) Forest Service review and
verification of BLM leasing proposals;
(4) BLM assessment of Forest Service
conditions of surface occupancy; (5)
BLM offers lease; (6) BLM issues lease;
(7) Forest Service review and approval
of lessee’s SUPO; and (8) BLM review
and approval of lessee’s application for
permit to drill (APD). The proposed CE
set out in this notice applies exclusively
to the Forest Service’s review and
approval of an applicant’s SUPO.
In 2001 President George W. Bush
issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13212 to
expedite the increased supply and
availability of energy to our Nation. E.O.
13212 set forth ‘‘For energy-related
projects, agencies shall expedite their
review of permits or take other actions
as necessary to accelerate the
completion of such projects, while
maintaining safety, public health, and
environmental protections. The agencies
shall take such actions to the extent
permitted by law and regulation, and
where appropriate.’’ In response, the
National Energy Policy and the Forest
Service Energy Implementation Plan
were developed. These two initiatives
call for streamlining the processing of
APDs and other energy related permits
in an environmentally sound manner.
On August 8th 2005, President George
W. Bush signed the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 into law. Section 390 of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 establishes
categorical exclusions under NEPA that
apply to five categories of oil and gas
exploration and development activities
E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM
13DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 13, 2005 / Notices
conducted pursuant to the Mineral
Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. et seq., as
amended) on Federal oil and gas leases.
Section 390 took effect on the date of
enactment, August 8, 2005. The
categorical exclusion proposed in this
notice does not overlap or duplicate the
activities proposed in section 390 of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005. They are
separate and independent of the
provisions of section 390 of the Energy
Policy Act. Taken in concert, this CE
and the five statutory categories
discussed above further the President’s
goals set forth in Executive Order 13212.
For decades the Forest Service has
analyzed and administered SUPO for oil
and gas exploration and development
on NFS lands. As part of the Forest
Service Energy Implementation Plan
process, the planning and
environmental review process was
reviewed by field personnel who
indicated that the USFS and BLM land
and resource management planning
process, leasing process, and SUPO and
APD review processes for oil and gas
exploration and development frequently
caused agency personnel to extend
timelines and expend undue energy and
funding in order to complete the
planning and environmental
documentation for minor exploration
and/or development projects. The
Deputy Chief of the NFS requested field
units to monitor oil and gas exploration
and development projects that had been
analyzed in an EA, and were approved
and constructed, or partially
constructed, between October 1, 1999
and September 30, 2004. The objective
of the review was to determine if surface
operations for oil and gas activities
approved in site-specific EAs did or did
not have cumulatively significant effects
on the human environment and
therefore could or could not qualify for
a CE. The results of this analysis are set
out to under ‘‘Rationale for the
Proposal.’’
Based on this review and the agency’s
extensive experience with oil and gas
exploration and development activities
including the construction of well sites,
pipelines and roads and road
reconstruction, the Forest Service
proposes to add a new CE to its
Environmental Policy and Procedures
Handbook (FSH 1909.15). This category
would appear in section 31.2, Categories
of Actions for Which a Project or Case
File and Decision Memo Are Required,
and would provide a specific, narrow
CE for oil and gas exploration and/or
development.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
00:22 Dec 13, 2005
Jkt 208001
Description of the Proposed New
Categorical Exclusion
The proposed CE would allow oil and
natural gas exploration and/or
development activities within a new oil
and/or gas field not to exceed a total of:
(a) One mile of new road construction;
(b) one mile of road reconstruction; (c)
three miles of pipeline installation; and
(d) four drill sites. A drill site may
include more than one well in order to
reduce surface disturbance. The
category would only apply to activities
on NFS lands that are under Federal
lease and when there are no
extraordinary circumstances. Following
is a hypothetical example of how the CE
could be applied on NFS land.
A Responsible Official approves the
construction of one exploration drill site
and .5 miles of road construction within
a new field using the proposed CE
where no extraordinary circumstances
are involved. The exploration well is a
‘‘strike’’ and is capable of production.
The Responsible Official could
appropriately use the proposed CE to
subsequently approve the construction
of another exploration drill site,
involving .5 miles of road
reconstruction and .2 miles of road
construction. The second exploration
well is also a strike and it is determined
that both exploration wells are in the
same oil or gas field. The Responsible
Official could use the proposed CE
when approving development of a drill
site involving .5 miles of road
reconstruction and .2 miles of road
construction in the same field. At this
point, 3 drill sites, .9 miles of road
construction and one mile of road
reconstruction have been approved in
the field. If a lessee submits an APD and
SUPO for construction of another
development drill site and one-half mile
of road construction in the same field,
the total miles of road construction
allowable under the category would be
exceeded for the field, the proposed CE
could no longer be available for such a
proposal, and the direct and cumulative
effects of additional field development
should be considered in an EA or EIS.
Note that when exploration wells are
drilled, they are not yet associated with
a particular field. However, if an
exploration well is determined to be
capable of production, it then can be
associated with a field (determined by
the BLM) and for purposes of the
proposed CE, all exploration activities
that occurred within the field and
subsequent development activities
would be chargeable under the category.
There is potential that new oil and gas
fields could be located adjacent to
existing developed fields. States
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
73723
delineate fields, in coordination with
the BLM, within their boundaries.
Fields are areas consisting two or more
producing wells in an oil or gas
reservoir or reservoirs related to the
same individual geological structural
feature. Such reservoirs may be
interconnected or separated. In such
cases, concerns over identifying
environmental effects resulting from
activities on the adjacent fields would
be addressed through the following two
methods. First, before NFS lands are
offered for lease, a leasing analysis is
conducted that evaluates potential
environmental consequences resulting
from field development. On NFS Lands,
this leasing analysis is conducted by the
Forest Service in cooperation with the
BLM. Second, an extraordinary
circumstances review identified in
Forest Service Handbook 1909.15,
Chapter 30 would be conducted for a
particular leasing proposal
implementing the proposed CE. It is the
degree of the potential effect of the
proposed action on these resource
conditions, which determines whether
extraordinary circumstances exist.
Rationale for the Proposal
As previously stated, the Deputy
Chief for the NFS requested field units
to monitor oil and gas exploration and
development projects assessed in an EA
and approved and constructed, or
partially constructed, between October
1, 1999 and September 30, 2004. In
response, field units collected data on
73 projects.
The scope of the proposed new
category is consistent with the scope of
the 73 projects examined in the 2005
review, each of which had no significant
environmental effects. The agency
believes the level of effects associated
with future activities within the
proposed new category would also be
below the level of significant
environmental effects.
In addition to reviewing the 73 oil
and gas exploration and development
projects a review of the analyses
supporting oil and gas leasing was also
performed. A sample of land and
resource management plans for National
Forests and Grasslands and leasing EIS
decisions, where future oil and gas field
development is anticipated, was
reviewed. The review found that when
future activities were expected to have
a significant environmental effect or
would be incompatible with other forest
or grassland uses, such areas had been
identified as not suitable and
exploration or development had been
prohibited. Furthermore, the use of best
management practices such as class III
archeological surveys, or biological
E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM
13DEN1
73724
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 13, 2005 / Notices
surveys, resulted in avoidance or
mitigation as necessary, and contributed
to the defined category of oil and gas
activities having no significant
environmental impacts.
The proposed CE will not apply
where there are extraordinary
circumstances, such as adverse effects
on threatened and endangered species
or their designated critical habitat,
wilderness areas, inventoried roadless
areas, wetlands, and archeological or
historic sites.
It is important to note that CEs do not
allow a Responsible Officials to forgo
scoping. The CEQ regulations at 40 CFR
1501.7 define scoping as a process for
determining the scope of issues to be
addressed and for identifying significant
issues to be documented in an EIS. The
Forest Service conducts scoping on all
proposed actions, including those
covered by CEs. Guidance to Forest
Service employees in FSH 1909.15,
Chapter 10 provides that interested and
affected agencies and citizens may be
invited to participate in the scoping
process and further states in Chapter 11
that in determining whether a proposed
action can be categorically excluded, the
Responsible Official must consider: (1)
The nature of the proposal; (2)
preliminary issues; (3) interested and
affected agencies, organizations, and
individuals, and; (4) the extent of
existing documentation. Furthermore
CEs do not absolve the Responsible
Official from conducting appropriate
consultations with Federal and state
regulatory agencies such as those
required by the Endangered Species Act
and the National Historic Preservation
Act. Any activities authorized using the
proposed CE must meet all applicable
Federal, state, and local laws, as well as
land and resource management plan
standards and guidelines.
Description of the Leasing Process
The Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
acts as the onshore leasing agent for the
federal government. The BLM schedules
and conducts competitive bid lease
sales, collects the bonus bids and issues
leases to the successful bidders. As a
land management agency, the Forest
Service decides whether or not lands
will be available for leasing, and under
what conditions (stipulations) the leases
will be issued. Forest Service decisions
about leasing are made in conjunction
with approved forest or grassland and
resource management plans, as well as
in separate forest-wide or area-specific
leasing decisions. Land management
plan oil and gas leasing availability
decisions are made in compliance with
the National Environmental Policy Act
VerDate Aug<31>2005
00:22 Dec 13, 2005
Jkt 208001
as well as other laws such as the
Endangered Species Act and the
National Historic Preservation Act, and
includes public notice and opportunity
for comment. The BLM is an official
cooperator in these efforts.
The Energy Policy and Conservation
Act (EPCA) directed the BLM, in
cooperation with the Forest Service, to
summarize Forest Service and BLM plan
leasing decisions. In two phases, the
highest potential onshore geologic
basins were studied. The studies show
that for the NFS lands studied 47% are
off-limits to any surface exploration or
development (due to legal and
administrative withdrawal, a ‘‘no
leasing’’ decision or a ‘‘no surface
occupancy’’ lease), 19% are available to
exploration and development under
standard lease terms and restrictions,
and 34% are subject to additional
restrictions beyond the standard lease
terms and restrictions for additional
protection of other forest or grassland
resources or uses. The study shows that
oil and gas exploration or development
activity is not allowed or is restricted
where such activity would have a
significant environmental effect or be
incompatible with other forest or
grasslands uses or management
schemes. The screening that occurs at
the leasing decision stage contributes
significantly to the findings of no
significant environmental impacts of the
73 projects studied.
Description of the Process and Best
Management Practices for Approving
Exploration or Development of a Lease
For oil and gas exploration and
development on NFS lands there is an
element of overlap in the
implementation of Best Management
Practices (BMPs) and mitigation
measures. There may be additional
environmental protections added at
each stage. This overlap occurs as
environmental protections are added at
multiple scales of implementation,
including: (1) During the land
management planning process the
agency considers the overall multiple
uses of its renewable resources while
maintaining the long-term productivity
of the land. Resources are managed so
they are utilized in a combination that
will best meet the needs of the
American people and maintain or
restore the health of the land to provide
a sustainable flow of uses, benefits,
products, services and visitor
opportunities; (2) The leasing process
developed through the land
management planning process or
separately evaluates those areas that
will be: (a) open to development subject
to the terms and conditions of the
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
standard oil and gas lease form; (b) open
to development but subject to
constraints that will require the use of
lease stipulations; and (c) closed to
leasing, distinguishing between those
areas that are being closed through
exercise of management direction, and
those closed by law, regulation, etc.; (3)
Individual NEPA analysis on the SUPO,
a component of the APDs, includes sitespecific BMP and mitigations measures,
and; (4) Implementation monitoring
then occurs and informs future
development of BMPs, mitigation
measures or standard stipulations.
For the 19% of the NFS lands subject
to standard lease terms (as well as 34%
with lease restrictions), a permit must
be obtained and best management
practices followed. Federal oil and gas
leases have extensive requirements for
environmental protection. Oil and gas
exploration and development must
comply with the Secretary of
Agriculture’s rules and regulations for
use and occupancy of NFS lands and
with additional environmental
protections developed specifically for
oil and gas exploration and
development in Forest Service
regulations 36 CFR part 228 subpart E,
BLM regulations 43 CFR part 3100, and
Onshore Oil and Gas Orders. For
example, under Forest Service
regulations 36 CFR 228.108(d) operators
are required to report findings of
cultural and historical resources to the
authorized Forest officer immediately.
Under BLM regulations 43 CFR part
3100 environmental protection is
guided, in part, through the
requirements of surety bonding required
to be submitted by operators. BLM
Onshore Oil and Gas Order #1, which
has been adopted by the Forest Service,
furthers these environmental protection
measures by requiring an on-site review
of every proposed ADP for the purpose
of identifying resource concerns.
Oil and gas exploration and
development must also be consistent
with the land management plan
direction (forest or grassland land
management plans) including any
current and applicable standards and
guidelines developed under the 1982
planning rule and continuing under the
2005 planning rule..
Lessees are required to conduct
operations in a manner that minimizes
adverse impacts to the land, air, and
water, to cultural, biological, visual, and
other resources through such measures
as modification to siting or design of
facilities, timing of operations, and
specification of interim and final
reclamation measures. Current best
management practices include site
specific historic or cultural, botany and
E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM
13DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 13, 2005 / Notices
wildlife surveys. National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits must be obtained from the state,
and air quality standards met. The
review of the 73 projects demonstrated
repeatedly that projects are moved,
delayed or changed to successfully
avoid environmental impacts.
It is the conclusion of the agency that
the combination of agency leasing
decisions, forest or grassland land
management plan standards and
guidelines, best management practices,
and current laws and regulations reduce
the potential environmental effects for
certain oil and gas activity to
insignificance. The limited scope of the
proposed CE leads the agency to
conclude that implementation of the
proposed category would not result in
individually or cumulatively significant
effects on the human environment. This
proposed CE applies exclusively to the
Forest Service’s review and approval of
an applicant’s SUPO and does not
eliminate the environmental analysis
requirement for the leasing decision.
Regulatory Certifications
Environmental Impact
The proposed revision to Forest
Service Handbook 1909.15 would add
direction to guide field employees in the
USDA Forest Service regarding
requirements for NEPA documentation
for particular oil and gas exploration
and development activities. The Council
on Environmental Quality does not
direct agencies to prepare a NEPA
analysis or document before
establishing agency procedures that
supplement the CEQ regulations for
implementing NEPA. Agencies are
required to adopt NEPA procedures that
establish specific criteria for, and
identification of, three classes of
actions: Those that require preparation
of an EIS; those that require preparation
of an EA; and those that are
categorically excluded from further
NEPA review (40 CFR 1507.3(b)).
Categorical exclusions are one part of
those agency procedures, and therefore
establishing categorical exclusions does
not require preparation of a NEPA
analysis or document. Agency NEPA
procedures are internal procedural
guidance to assist agencies in the
fulfillment of agency responsibilities
under NEPA, but are not the agency’s
final determination of what level of
NEPA analysis is required for a
particular proposed action. The
requirements for establishing agency
NEPA procedures are set forth at 40 CFR
1505.1 and 1507.3. The determination
that establishing categorical exclusions
does not require NEPA analysis and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
00:22 Dec 13, 2005
Jkt 208001
documentation has been upheld in
Heartwood, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service,
73 F. Supp. 2d 962, 972–73 (S.D. Ill.
1999), aff’d, 230 F. 3d 947, 954–55 (7th
Cir. 2000).
Regulatory Impact
This proposed interim directive has
been reviewed under USDA procedures
and Executive Order 12866 on
Regulatory Planning and Review. The
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has determined that this is a
significant regulatory action as defined
by Executive Order 12866. Accordingly,
OMB has reviewed this proposed
interim directive.
The primary economic effects of the
proposed CE for oil and gas leases are
changes in costs of conducting
environmental analysis and preparing
NEPA documents. The proposed
categorical exclusion would reduce
agency costs by reducing the
documentation requirements for certain
oil and gas exploration and
development on NFS land under
existing Federal leases.
Effects on local economies and small
business entities are expected to be
nearly the same using either an EA or
CE for oil and gas exploration and
development activities. There is
potential for an increase in certain oil
and gas exploration and development
projects and increase in site
administration since they would be
faster and cheaper to prepare.
Total undiscounted costs for CEs were
estimated at $8 million with an annual
average cost of $0.8 million, while the
undiscounted cost for EAs for the same
timeframe would be $48 million with an
annual average cost of $4.8 million.
There is an annual average cost saving
of $4 million for the proposed CE. A
comparison of the discounted costs also
shows the same direction of cost saving
for CEs over EAs. An annual average
saving of discounted cost of $3 million
for CEs is estimated. This quantitative
assessment indicates a cost savings for
using CEs for oil and gas exploration
and development projects for the
agency.
A civil rights impact analysis was
prepared for the proposed CE. No
potential impacts are identified for
groups of people who fall within the
scope of Civil Rights legislation or the
Executive Order on Environmental
Justice (E.O. 12898).
Federalism
The agency has considered this
proposed directive under the
requirements of Executive Order 13132
issued August 4, 1999 (E.O. 13132),
‘‘Federalism.’’ The agency has made an
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
73725
assessment that the proposed directive
conforms with the Federalism
principles set out in this Executive
order; would not impose any
compliance costs on the States; and
would not have substantial direct effects
on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, nor on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Therefore,
the agency concludes that the proposed
directive does not have Federalism
implications.
Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed directive has been
reviewed under E.O. 13175 of November
6, 2000, ‘‘Consultation and Coordination
With Indian Tribal Governments.’’ This
proposed directive does not have
substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian Tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Nor does this proposed directive impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
Indian tribal governments or preempt
tribal law. Therefore, it has been
determined that this proposed directive
does not have tribal implications
requiring advance consultation with
Indian tribes.
No Takings Implications
This proposed directive has been
analyzed in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in E.O.
12630 on Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights, and it has
been determined that the proposed
directive does not pose the risk of a
taking of Constitutionally protected
private property.
Energy Effects
This proposed directive has been
reviewed under E.O. 13211 on Actions
Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. It has been
determined that this proposed directive
does not constitute a significant energy
action as defined in the Executive
Order.
Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the
Public
This proposed directive does not
contain any additional recordkeeping or
reporting requirements associated with
onshore oil and gas exploration and
development or other information
collection requirements as defined in 5
CFR part 1320. Accordingly, the review
E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM
13DEN1
73726
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 13, 2005 / Notices
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and
its implementing regulations at 5 CFR
part 1320 do not apply.
Dated: December 5, 2005.
Dale N. Bosworth,
Chief.
[FR Doc. 05–23983 Filed 12–12–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–P
Text of Proposed Directive
Note: The Forest Service organizes its
directive system by alpha-numeric codes and
subject headings. Only the section of the FSH
1909.15, Environmental Policy and
Procedures Handbook, affected by this
proposed directive is included in this notice.
Please note, however, that category 15 (para.
16) is reserved. A notice for comment was
published for category 16 on January 5, 2005
(70 FR 1062). A final directive for this CE has
not been adopted as of the date of publication
of this Federal Register notice. The complete
text of FSH 1909.15, Chapter 30 may
obtained by contacting the individuals listed
in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or from
the Forest Service home page on the World
Wide Web at https://www.fs.fed.us/im/
directives/fsh/1909.15/1909.15,30.txt. The
intended audience for this direction is Forest
Service employees charged with planning
and administering oil and gas exploration
and development projects on NFS lands
under Federal lease.
FSH 1909.15—Environmental Policy
and Procedures Handbook Chapter
30—Categorical Exclusion from
Documentation
Add new paragraphs 16 and 17 as
follows:
31.2—Categories of Action for Which a
Project or Case File and Decision Memo
Are Required
Routine, proposed actions within any
of the following categories may be
excluded from documentation in an EIS
or an EA; however, a project or case file
is required and the decision to proceed
must be documented in a decision
memo (sec. 32). As a minimum, the
project or case file should include any
records prepared, such as: The names of
interested and affected people, groups,
and agencies contacted; the
determination that no extraordinary
circumstances exist; a copy of the
decision memo (sec. 05); and a list of
the people notified of the decision.
Maintain a project or case file and
prepare a decision memo for any of the
categories of actions set forth in section
21.21 through 31.23.
*
*
*
*
*
16. [Reserved]
17. Approval of a Surface Use Plan of
Operations for oil and natural gas
exploration or development activities
within a new oil and/or gas field, so
long as the approval will not authorize
VerDate Aug<31>2005
00:22 Dec 13, 2005
activities in excess of any of the
following:
a. One mile of new road construction
b. One mile of road reconstruction
c. Three miles of pipeline installation
d. Four drill sites.
Jkt 208001
AMERICAN BATTLE MONUMENTS
COMMISSION
SES Performance Review Board
American Battle Monuments
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the
appointment of members of the ABMC
Performance Review Board.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Theodore Gloukhoff, Director of
Personnel and Administration,
American Battle Monuments
Commission, Courthouse Plaza II, Suite
500, 2300 Clarendon Boulevard,
Arlington, Virginia, 22201–3367,
Telephone Number: (703) 696–6908.
American Battle Monuments
Commission SES Performance Review
Board Mr. Gerald W. Barnes, Chief,
Operations Division, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Mr. Donald L. Basham,
Chief, Engineering & Construction, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Mr. Stephen
Coakley, Director of Resource
Management, US Army Corps of
Engineers
Theodore Gloukhoff,
Director, Personnel and Administration.
[FR Doc. E5–7257 Filed 12–12–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6120–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–533–810
Stainless Steel Bar from India: Notice
of Court Decision Not in Harmony and
Continuation of Suspension of
Liquidation
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On October 20, 2005, in Slater
Steels Corp. v. United States, Consol.
Court No. 02–00551, Slip Op. 05–137
(CIT October 20, 2005) (‘‘Slater III’’), a
lawsuit challenging the Department of
Commerce’s (‘‘the Department’’) Notice
of Amended Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India,
67 FR 53336 (August 15, 2002) (‘‘Final
Results’’) and the accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum (July 5,
2002) (‘‘Decision Memorandum’’), the
Court of International Trade (‘‘CIT’’)
affirmed the Department’s third remand
determination and entered a judgment
order. In the remand determination, the
Department did not collapse Viraj
Alloys Limited (‘‘VAL’’) with Viraj
Impoexpo Limited (‘‘VIL’’) and Viraj
Forgings Limited (‘‘VFL’’). The
Department calculated an individual
antidumping duty margin for VIL/VFL.
The Department did not calculate an
individual antidumping duty margin for
VAL because it did not export the
subject merchandise to the United
States during the period of review. The
resulting antidumping duty margin for
VIL/VFL is 0.84 percent.
Consistent with the decision of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit (‘‘Federal Circuit’’) in Timken
Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed.
Cir. 1990) (‘‘Timken’’), the Department
will continue to order the suspension of
liquidation of the subject merchandise
until there is a ‘‘conclusive’’ decision in
this case. If the case is not appealed, or
if it is affirmed on appeal, the
Department will instruct the U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’)
to liquidate all relevant entries of
subject merchandise for VIL/VFL.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 30, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steve Williams, AD/CVD Enforcement
Office 1, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–4619.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In the underlying administrative
review covering the period February 1,
2000, though January 31, 2001, the
Department collapsed VAL, VIL, and
VFL pursuant to 19 USC § 1677(33) and
19 CFR § 351.401(f) (2000). See Final
Results; see also Decision Memorandum
at Comment 1. As a collapsed entity,
VAL/VIL/VFL received a de minimis
dumping margin.
Based upon the record evidence, the
Department found that VAL, VIL, and
VFL ‘‘meet the regulations’ collapsing
requirements.’’ Decision Memorandum
at Comment 1. First, the Department
found that ‘‘VAL and VIL can produce
subject merchandise (i.e., similar or
identical products) and can continue to
do so, independently or under existing
leasing agreements, without substantial
E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM
13DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73722-73726]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23983]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
RIN 0596-AC34
National Environmental Policy Act Documentation Needed for Oil
and Gas Exploration and Development Activities (Categorical Exclusion)
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of proposed directive; request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Forest Service is proposing to amend its directives in
Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Chapter 30, which describes
categorical exclusions, that is, categories of actions that will not
result in significant impacts on the environment and, therefore,
normally do not require further analysis in either an environmental
impact assessment or an environmental impact statement. The proposed
amendment would add a new categorical exclusion in section 31.2 to
facilitate the implementation of limited oil and gas projects on leases
on National Forest System lands that do not have significant effects on
the human environment. This categorical exclusion will not apply where
there are extraordinary circumstances, such as adverse effects on
threatened and endangered species or their designated critical habitat,
wilderness areas, inventoried roadless areas, wetlands, and
archeological or historic sites. Public comment is invited and will be
considered in development of the final directive.
DATES: Comments must be received in writing by February 13, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments via the U.S. Postal Service to: Oil
and Gas CatEx Proposed Directive, C/O Content Analysis Group, P.O. Box
2000, Bountiful, UT 84011-2000, or by facsimile to (801) 397-2601, or
by e-mail to ogcatex@contentanalysisgroup.com. If comments are sent via
facsimile or e-mail, the public is asked not to submit duplicate
written comments. Please confine comments to issues pertinent to the
proposed directive and explain the reasons for any recommended changes.
All comments, including names, addresses and other contact
information when provided, are placed in the record and are available
for public review and copying at 5500 West Amelia Earhart Drive, Suite
100, Salt Lake City, Utah, during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays. Those wishing to
inspect comments are encouraged to call in advance to, Jody Sutton,
(801) 517-1032 to facilitate access to the building.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reta Laford, Ecosystem Management
Staff, (202) 205-2936, or Mike Greeley, Minerals and Geology Staff,
(703) 605-4785, Forest Service, USDA.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Need for the Proposed Direction
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations at 40 CFR
1507.3 provide that agencies, after notice and comment, may adopt
categories of actions that do not have significant impacts on the human
environment and, consequently, do not require preparation of an
environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement
(EIS). Current Forest Service procedures for complying with and
implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are set out
in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15, Chapter 30. This chapter
lists the categories of actions that do not require preparation of an
EA or an EIS by the Forest Service. The Forest Service calls these
categories of action ``categorical exclusions'' (CE). The agency is
proposing a new CE for certain limited oil and gas exploration and
development activities.
Oil and gas development is widespread throughout the National
Forest System (NFS). With the enactment of the Federal Onshore Oil and
Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, 30 U.S.C. 226 (``FOOGLRA'') both the
Secretary of the Interior (acting through the Bureau of Land
Management) and the Secretary of Agriculture (acting through the Forest
Service) have authority and responsibility regarding oil and gas leases
on NFS lands, and both agencies have the authority to determine the
stipulations under which leasing will be permitted. 30 U.S.C. 226(h);
43 CFR 3101.7-2(a). FOOGLRA provides that the Forest Service shall
regulate all surface disturbing activities relating to oil and gas
leasing on NFS lands. 30 U.S.C. 226(g). No permit to drill on NFS lands
may be granted without the analysis and approval by the Forest Service
of a surface use plan of operations (SUPO) covering proposed surface
disturbing activities within the lease area.
The Forest Service has established an incremental decision-making
framework for the consideration of oil and gas leasing activities on
NFS lands that is set out in 36 CFR 228.102. In general, the various
steps undertaken are as follows: (1) Forest Service leasing analysis;
(2) Forest Service notification to Bureau of Land Management (BLM) of
lands administratively available for leasing; (3) Forest Service review
and verification of BLM leasing proposals; (4) BLM assessment of Forest
Service conditions of surface occupancy; (5) BLM offers lease; (6) BLM
issues lease; (7) Forest Service review and approval of lessee's SUPO;
and (8) BLM review and approval of lessee's application for permit to
drill (APD). The proposed CE set out in this notice applies exclusively
to the Forest Service's review and approval of an applicant's SUPO.
In 2001 President George W. Bush issued Executive Order (E.O.)
13212 to expedite the increased supply and availability of energy to
our Nation. E.O. 13212 set forth ``For energy-related projects,
agencies shall expedite their review of permits or take other actions
as necessary to accelerate the completion of such projects, while
maintaining safety, public health, and environmental protections. The
agencies shall take such actions to the extent permitted by law and
regulation, and where appropriate.'' In response, the National Energy
Policy and the Forest Service Energy Implementation Plan were
developed. These two initiatives call for streamlining the processing
of APDs and other energy related permits in an environmentally sound
manner.
On August 8th 2005, President George W. Bush signed the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 into law. Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of
2005 establishes categorical exclusions under NEPA that apply to five
categories of oil and gas exploration and development activities
[[Page 73723]]
conducted pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. et seq., as
amended) on Federal oil and gas leases. Section 390 took effect on the
date of enactment, August 8, 2005. The categorical exclusion proposed
in this notice does not overlap or duplicate the activities proposed in
section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. They are separate and
independent of the provisions of section 390 of the Energy Policy Act.
Taken in concert, this CE and the five statutory categories discussed
above further the President's goals set forth in Executive Order 13212.
For decades the Forest Service has analyzed and administered SUPO
for oil and gas exploration and development on NFS lands. As part of
the Forest Service Energy Implementation Plan process, the planning and
environmental review process was reviewed by field personnel who
indicated that the USFS and BLM land and resource management planning
process, leasing process, and SUPO and APD review processes for oil and
gas exploration and development frequently caused agency personnel to
extend timelines and expend undue energy and funding in order to
complete the planning and environmental documentation for minor
exploration and/or development projects. The Deputy Chief of the NFS
requested field units to monitor oil and gas exploration and
development projects that had been analyzed in an EA, and were approved
and constructed, or partially constructed, between October 1, 1999 and
September 30, 2004. The objective of the review was to determine if
surface operations for oil and gas activities approved in site-specific
EAs did or did not have cumulatively significant effects on the human
environment and therefore could or could not qualify for a CE. The
results of this analysis are set out to under ``Rationale for the
Proposal.''
Based on this review and the agency's extensive experience with oil
and gas exploration and development activities including the
construction of well sites, pipelines and roads and road
reconstruction, the Forest Service proposes to add a new CE to its
Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook (FSH 1909.15). This
category would appear in section 31.2, Categories of Actions for Which
a Project or Case File and Decision Memo Are Required, and would
provide a specific, narrow CE for oil and gas exploration and/or
development.
Description of the Proposed New Categorical Exclusion
The proposed CE would allow oil and natural gas exploration and/or
development activities within a new oil and/or gas field not to exceed
a total of: (a) One mile of new road construction; (b) one mile of road
reconstruction; (c) three miles of pipeline installation; and (d) four
drill sites. A drill site may include more than one well in order to
reduce surface disturbance. The category would only apply to activities
on NFS lands that are under Federal lease and when there are no
extraordinary circumstances. Following is a hypothetical example of how
the CE could be applied on NFS land.
A Responsible Official approves the construction of one exploration
drill site and .5 miles of road construction within a new field using
the proposed CE where no extraordinary circumstances are involved. The
exploration well is a ``strike'' and is capable of production. The
Responsible Official could appropriately use the proposed CE to
subsequently approve the construction of another exploration drill
site, involving .5 miles of road reconstruction and .2 miles of road
construction. The second exploration well is also a strike and it is
determined that both exploration wells are in the same oil or gas
field. The Responsible Official could use the proposed CE when
approving development of a drill site involving .5 miles of road
reconstruction and .2 miles of road construction in the same field. At
this point, 3 drill sites, .9 miles of road construction and one mile
of road reconstruction have been approved in the field. If a lessee
submits an APD and SUPO for construction of another development drill
site and one-half mile of road construction in the same field, the
total miles of road construction allowable under the category would be
exceeded for the field, the proposed CE could no longer be available
for such a proposal, and the direct and cumulative effects of
additional field development should be considered in an EA or EIS.
Note that when exploration wells are drilled, they are not yet
associated with a particular field. However, if an exploration well is
determined to be capable of production, it then can be associated with
a field (determined by the BLM) and for purposes of the proposed CE,
all exploration activities that occurred within the field and
subsequent development activities would be chargeable under the
category.
There is potential that new oil and gas fields could be located
adjacent to existing developed fields. States delineate fields, in
coordination with the BLM, within their boundaries. Fields are areas
consisting two or more producing wells in an oil or gas reservoir or
reservoirs related to the same individual geological structural
feature. Such reservoirs may be interconnected or separated. In such
cases, concerns over identifying environmental effects resulting from
activities on the adjacent fields would be addressed through the
following two methods. First, before NFS lands are offered for lease, a
leasing analysis is conducted that evaluates potential environmental
consequences resulting from field development. On NFS Lands, this
leasing analysis is conducted by the Forest Service in cooperation with
the BLM. Second, an extraordinary circumstances review identified in
Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Chapter 30 would be conducted for a
particular leasing proposal implementing the proposed CE. It is the
degree of the potential effect of the proposed action on these resource
conditions, which determines whether extraordinary circumstances exist.
Rationale for the Proposal
As previously stated, the Deputy Chief for the NFS requested field
units to monitor oil and gas exploration and development projects
assessed in an EA and approved and constructed, or partially
constructed, between October 1, 1999 and September 30, 2004. In
response, field units collected data on 73 projects.
The scope of the proposed new category is consistent with the scope
of the 73 projects examined in the 2005 review, each of which had no
significant environmental effects. The agency believes the level of
effects associated with future activities within the proposed new
category would also be below the level of significant environmental
effects.
In addition to reviewing the 73 oil and gas exploration and
development projects a review of the analyses supporting oil and gas
leasing was also performed. A sample of land and resource management
plans for National Forests and Grasslands and leasing EIS decisions,
where future oil and gas field development is anticipated, was
reviewed. The review found that when future activities were expected to
have a significant environmental effect or would be incompatible with
other forest or grassland uses, such areas had been identified as not
suitable and exploration or development had been prohibited.
Furthermore, the use of best management practices such as class III
archeological surveys, or biological
[[Page 73724]]
surveys, resulted in avoidance or mitigation as necessary, and
contributed to the defined category of oil and gas activities having no
significant environmental impacts.
The proposed CE will not apply where there are extraordinary
circumstances, such as adverse effects on threatened and endangered
species or their designated critical habitat, wilderness areas,
inventoried roadless areas, wetlands, and archeological or historic
sites.
It is important to note that CEs do not allow a Responsible
Officials to forgo scoping. The CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1501.7 define
scoping as a process for determining the scope of issues to be
addressed and for identifying significant issues to be documented in an
EIS. The Forest Service conducts scoping on all proposed actions,
including those covered by CEs. Guidance to Forest Service employees in
FSH 1909.15, Chapter 10 provides that interested and affected agencies
and citizens may be invited to participate in the scoping process and
further states in Chapter 11 that in determining whether a proposed
action can be categorically excluded, the Responsible Official must
consider: (1) The nature of the proposal; (2) preliminary issues; (3)
interested and affected agencies, organizations, and individuals, and;
(4) the extent of existing documentation. Furthermore CEs do not
absolve the Responsible Official from conducting appropriate
consultations with Federal and state regulatory agencies such as those
required by the Endangered Species Act and the National Historic
Preservation Act. Any activities authorized using the proposed CE must
meet all applicable Federal, state, and local laws, as well as land and
resource management plan standards and guidelines.
Description of the Leasing Process
The Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
acts as the onshore leasing agent for the federal government. The BLM
schedules and conducts competitive bid lease sales, collects the bonus
bids and issues leases to the successful bidders. As a land management
agency, the Forest Service decides whether or not lands will be
available for leasing, and under what conditions (stipulations) the
leases will be issued. Forest Service decisions about leasing are made
in conjunction with approved forest or grassland and resource
management plans, as well as in separate forest-wide or area-specific
leasing decisions. Land management plan oil and gas leasing
availability decisions are made in compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act as well as other laws such as the Endangered
Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act, and includes
public notice and opportunity for comment. The BLM is an official
cooperator in these efforts.
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) directed the BLM, in
cooperation with the Forest Service, to summarize Forest Service and
BLM plan leasing decisions. In two phases, the highest potential
onshore geologic basins were studied. The studies show that for the NFS
lands studied 47% are off-limits to any surface exploration or
development (due to legal and administrative withdrawal, a ``no
leasing'' decision or a ``no surface occupancy'' lease), 19% are
available to exploration and development under standard lease terms and
restrictions, and 34% are subject to additional restrictions beyond the
standard lease terms and restrictions for additional protection of
other forest or grassland resources or uses. The study shows that oil
and gas exploration or development activity is not allowed or is
restricted where such activity would have a significant environmental
effect or be incompatible with other forest or grasslands uses or
management schemes. The screening that occurs at the leasing decision
stage contributes significantly to the findings of no significant
environmental impacts of the 73 projects studied.
Description of the Process and Best Management Practices for Approving
Exploration or Development of a Lease
For oil and gas exploration and development on NFS lands there is
an element of overlap in the implementation of Best Management
Practices (BMPs) and mitigation measures. There may be additional
environmental protections added at each stage. This overlap occurs as
environmental protections are added at multiple scales of
implementation, including: (1) During the land management planning
process the agency considers the overall multiple uses of its renewable
resources while maintaining the long-term productivity of the land.
Resources are managed so they are utilized in a combination that will
best meet the needs of the American people and maintain or restore the
health of the land to provide a sustainable flow of uses, benefits,
products, services and visitor opportunities; (2) The leasing process
developed through the land management planning process or separately
evaluates those areas that will be: (a) open to development subject to
the terms and conditions of the standard oil and gas lease form; (b)
open to development but subject to constraints that will require the
use of lease stipulations; and (c) closed to leasing, distinguishing
between those areas that are being closed through exercise of
management direction, and those closed by law, regulation, etc.; (3)
Individual NEPA analysis on the SUPO, a component of the APDs, includes
site-specific BMP and mitigations measures, and; (4) Implementation
monitoring then occurs and informs future development of BMPs,
mitigation measures or standard stipulations.
For the 19% of the NFS lands subject to standard lease terms (as
well as 34% with lease restrictions), a permit must be obtained and
best management practices followed. Federal oil and gas leases have
extensive requirements for environmental protection. Oil and gas
exploration and development must comply with the Secretary of
Agriculture's rules and regulations for use and occupancy of NFS lands
and with additional environmental protections developed specifically
for oil and gas exploration and development in Forest Service
regulations 36 CFR part 228 subpart E, BLM regulations 43 CFR part
3100, and Onshore Oil and Gas Orders. For example, under Forest Service
regulations 36 CFR 228.108(d) operators are required to report findings
of cultural and historical resources to the authorized Forest officer
immediately. Under BLM regulations 43 CFR part 3100 environmental
protection is guided, in part, through the requirements of surety
bonding required to be submitted by operators. BLM Onshore Oil and Gas
Order 1, which has been adopted by the Forest Service,
furthers these environmental protection measures by requiring an on-
site review of every proposed ADP for the purpose of identifying
resource concerns.
Oil and gas exploration and development must also be consistent
with the land management plan direction (forest or grassland land
management plans) including any current and applicable standards and
guidelines developed under the 1982 planning rule and continuing under
the 2005 planning rule..
Lessees are required to conduct operations in a manner that
minimizes adverse impacts to the land, air, and water, to cultural,
biological, visual, and other resources through such measures as
modification to siting or design of facilities, timing of operations,
and specification of interim and final reclamation measures. Current
best management practices include site specific historic or cultural,
botany and
[[Page 73725]]
wildlife surveys. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits must be obtained from the state, and air quality
standards met. The review of the 73 projects demonstrated repeatedly
that projects are moved, delayed or changed to successfully avoid
environmental impacts.
It is the conclusion of the agency that the combination of agency
leasing decisions, forest or grassland land management plan standards
and guidelines, best management practices, and current laws and
regulations reduce the potential environmental effects for certain oil
and gas activity to insignificance. The limited scope of the proposed
CE leads the agency to conclude that implementation of the proposed
category would not result in individually or cumulatively significant
effects on the human environment. This proposed CE applies exclusively
to the Forest Service's review and approval of an applicant's SUPO and
does not eliminate the environmental analysis requirement for the
leasing decision.
Regulatory Certifications
Environmental Impact
The proposed revision to Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 would add
direction to guide field employees in the USDA Forest Service regarding
requirements for NEPA documentation for particular oil and gas
exploration and development activities. The Council on Environmental
Quality does not direct agencies to prepare a NEPA analysis or document
before establishing agency procedures that supplement the CEQ
regulations for implementing NEPA. Agencies are required to adopt NEPA
procedures that establish specific criteria for, and identification of,
three classes of actions: Those that require preparation of an EIS;
those that require preparation of an EA; and those that are
categorically excluded from further NEPA review (40 CFR 1507.3(b)).
Categorical exclusions are one part of those agency procedures, and
therefore establishing categorical exclusions does not require
preparation of a NEPA analysis or document. Agency NEPA procedures are
internal procedural guidance to assist agencies in the fulfillment of
agency responsibilities under NEPA, but are not the agency's final
determination of what level of NEPA analysis is required for a
particular proposed action. The requirements for establishing agency
NEPA procedures are set forth at 40 CFR 1505.1 and 1507.3. The
determination that establishing categorical exclusions does not require
NEPA analysis and documentation has been upheld in Heartwood, Inc. v.
U.S. Forest Service, 73 F. Supp. 2d 962, 972-73 (S.D. Ill. 1999),
aff'd, 230 F. 3d 947, 954-55 (7th Cir. 2000).
Regulatory Impact
This proposed interim directive has been reviewed under USDA
procedures and Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this is a
significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, OMB has reviewed this proposed interim directive.
The primary economic effects of the proposed CE for oil and gas
leases are changes in costs of conducting environmental analysis and
preparing NEPA documents. The proposed categorical exclusion would
reduce agency costs by reducing the documentation requirements for
certain oil and gas exploration and development on NFS land under
existing Federal leases.
Effects on local economies and small business entities are expected
to be nearly the same using either an EA or CE for oil and gas
exploration and development activities. There is potential for an
increase in certain oil and gas exploration and development projects
and increase in site administration since they would be faster and
cheaper to prepare.
Total undiscounted costs for CEs were estimated at $8 million with
an annual average cost of $0.8 million, while the undiscounted cost for
EAs for the same timeframe would be $48 million with an annual average
cost of $4.8 million. There is an annual average cost saving of $4
million for the proposed CE. A comparison of the discounted costs also
shows the same direction of cost saving for CEs over EAs. An annual
average saving of discounted cost of $3 million for CEs is estimated.
This quantitative assessment indicates a cost savings for using CEs for
oil and gas exploration and development projects for the agency.
A civil rights impact analysis was prepared for the proposed CE. No
potential impacts are identified for groups of people who fall within
the scope of Civil Rights legislation or the Executive Order on
Environmental Justice (E.O. 12898).
Federalism
The agency has considered this proposed directive under the
requirements of Executive Order 13132 issued August 4, 1999 (E.O.
13132), ``Federalism.'' The agency has made an assessment that the
proposed directive conforms with the Federalism principles set out in
this Executive order; would not impose any compliance costs on the
States; and would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, nor on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. Therefore, the agency concludes that the proposed
directive does not have Federalism implications.
Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed directive has been reviewed under E.O. 13175 of
November 6, 2000, ``Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments.'' This proposed directive does not have substantial direct
effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Nor does this proposed directive impose substantial direct compliance
costs on Indian tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Therefore, it
has been determined that this proposed directive does not have tribal
implications requiring advance consultation with Indian tribes.
No Takings Implications
This proposed directive has been analyzed in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in E.O. 12630 on Governmental Actions
and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, and
it has been determined that the proposed directive does not pose the
risk of a taking of Constitutionally protected private property.
Energy Effects
This proposed directive has been reviewed under E.O. 13211 on
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. It has been determined that this proposed
directive does not constitute a significant energy action as defined in
the Executive Order.
Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public
This proposed directive does not contain any additional
recordkeeping or reporting requirements associated with onshore oil and
gas exploration and development or other information collection
requirements as defined in 5 CFR part 1320. Accordingly, the review
[[Page 73726]]
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do not apply.
Dated: December 5, 2005.
Dale N. Bosworth,
Chief.
Text of Proposed Directive
Note: The Forest Service organizes its directive system by
alpha-numeric codes and subject headings. Only the section of the
FSH 1909.15, Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook, affected
by this proposed directive is included in this notice. Please note,
however, that category 15 (para. 16) is reserved. A notice for
comment was published for category 16 on January 5, 2005 (70 FR
1062). A final directive for this CE has not been adopted as of the
date of publication of this Federal Register notice. The complete
text of FSH 1909.15, Chapter 30 may obtained by contacting the
individuals listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or from the
Forest Service home page on the World Wide Web at https://
www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/fsh/1909.15/1909.15,30.txt. The intended
audience for this direction is Forest Service employees charged with
planning and administering oil and gas exploration and development
projects on NFS lands under Federal lease.
FSH 1909.15--Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook Chapter 30--
Categorical Exclusion from Documentation
Add new paragraphs 16 and 17 as follows:
31.2--Categories of Action for Which a Project or Case File and
Decision Memo Are Required
Routine, proposed actions within any of the following categories
may be excluded from documentation in an EIS or an EA; however, a
project or case file is required and the decision to proceed must be
documented in a decision memo (sec. 32). As a minimum, the project or
case file should include any records prepared, such as: The names of
interested and affected people, groups, and agencies contacted; the
determination that no extraordinary circumstances exist; a copy of the
decision memo (sec. 05); and a list of the people notified of the
decision. Maintain a project or case file and prepare a decision memo
for any of the categories of actions set forth in section 21.21 through
31.23.
* * * * *
16. [Reserved]
17. Approval of a Surface Use Plan of Operations for oil and
natural gas exploration or development activities within a new oil and/
or gas field, so long as the approval will not authorize activities in
excess of any of the following:
a. One mile of new road construction
b. One mile of road reconstruction
c. Three miles of pipeline installation
d. Four drill sites.
[FR Doc. 05-23983 Filed 12-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
