Management of Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights, 77199-77229 [2015-30977]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 238 (Friday, December 11, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77199-77229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30977]



[[Page 77199]]

Vol. 80

Friday,

No. 238

December 11, 2015

Part IV





Department of the Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





Fish and Wildlife Service





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





50 CFR Parts 28 and 29





Management of Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 238 / Friday, December 11, 2015 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 77200]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Parts 28 and 29

[Docket No. FWS-HQ-NWRS-2012-0086; FXRS12610900000-156-FF09R24000]
RIN 1018-AX36


Management of Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are 
proposing to revise regulations governing the exercise of non-Federal 
oil and gas rights in order to improve our ability to protect refuge 
resources, visitors, and the general public's health and safety from 
potential impacts associated with non-Federal oil and gas operations 
located within U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service refuge units. Non-Federal 
oil and gas development refers to oil and gas activities associated 
with any private, State, or tribally owned mineral interest where the 
surface estate is administered by the Service as part of the Refuge 
System. The existing non-Federal oil and gas regulations have remained 
unchanged for more than 50 years and provide vague guidance to staff 
and operators. This proposed rule would make the regulations consistent 
with existing laws, policies and industry practices. It is designed to 
provide regulatory clarity and guidance to oil and gas operators and 
refuge staff, provide a simple process for compliance, incorporate 
technological improvements in exploration and drilling technology, and 
ensure that non-Federal oil and gas operations are conducted in a 
manner that avoids or minimizes impacts to refuge resources.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before 
February 9, 2016. Comments on the information collection aspects of 
this rule must be received on or before January 11, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Document Availability: An economic analysis and a draft 
environmental impact statement (DEIS) have been prepared in conjunction 
with preparation of this proposed rule, and both documents are 
available at https://www.fws.gov/refuges/oil-and-gas/rulemaking.html and 
also at www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-NWRS-2012-0086.
    Comments on the Proposed Rule and DEIS: You may submit comments on 
this proposed rule or the DEIS by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In 
the Search box, type FWS-HQ-NWRS-2012-0086, which is the docket number 
for this proposed rule. Then click on the Search button. When you have 
located the correct document, you may submit a comment by clicking on 
``Comment Now!''
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Submit comments on the 
proposed rule or DEIS to: Public Comments Processing Attn: FWS-HQ-NWRS-
2012-0086; Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs; 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls 
Church, VA 22041-3803.
    Please indicate to which document, the proposed rule or the DEIS, 
your comments apply. We request that you send comments only by the 
methods described above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any 
personal information you provide us. For additional instructions on 
submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking 
process, see the Public Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.
    Comments on the Information Collection Aspects of the Proposed 
Rule: You may review the Information Collection Request online at 
https://www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to review Department of 
the Interior collections under review by OMB. Send comments (identified 
by 1018-AX36) specific to the information collection aspects of this 
proposed rule to both the:
     Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB-
OIRA at (202) 295-5806 (fax) or OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov (email); 
and
     Service Information Collection Clearance Officer; Division 
of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 
(mail); or hope_grey@fws.gov (email).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Covington, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Division of Natural Resources and Planning, MS: NWRS, 
5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia 22043; telephone 703-358-
2427.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    We are proposing to update the existing regulations at subpart C of 
part 29 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and 
propose new regulations as subpart D of 50 CFR part 29, which would 
govern the exercise of non-Federal oil and gas rights within refuge 
units, to improve the effectiveness of the regulations in protecting 
refuge resources and values, and to improve the clarity of the 
regulations for both operators and the Service.
    Key components of the proposed rule include:
     A permitting process for new operations;
     A permitting process for well-plugging and reclamation for 
all operations;
     Information requirements for particular types of 
operations;
     Operating standards so that both the Service and the 
operator can readily identify what standards apply to particular 
operations;
     Fees for new access beyond that held as part of the 
operator's oil and gas right;
     Financial assurance (bonding);
     Penalty provisions;
     Clarification that the process for authorizing access to 
non-Federal oil and gas properties in Alaska will continue to be 
controlled by 43 CFR part 36, which implements provisions of the Alaska 
National Interest Lands Conservation Act; and
     Codification of some existing agency policies and 
practices.
    A detailed discussion of all proposed changes to the regulations is 
contained in the section-by-section analysis.

Background

    In 2003, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report 
(GAO-03-517) to Congress highlighting the opportunities to improve 
management and oversight of oil and gas operations on National Wildlife 
Refuge System (NWRS) lands and waters. An update by GAO in 2007 (GAO-
07-829R) reasserted the recommendation that the Service take the 
necessary steps to apply a consistent and reasonable set of regulatory 
and management controls over all oil and gas activities occurring on 
refuges to protect the public's surface interests. Other land 
management agencies have regulations that address oil and gas 
development for non-Federal subsurface interests, including the 
Department of the Interior's National Park Service (NPS) and the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture's Forest Service. This proposed rule would 
address concerns highlighted in the GAO reports and bring the Service 
more in line with other Federal land management agencies.

[[Page 77201]]

    Based on Service data from 2011, there are over 5,000 oil and gas 
wells on 107 refuges in a total of 599 refuge units. Of the wells 
present on refuges, 1,665 actively produce oil and gas. Based on the 
existence of split estates (where the Service owns the surface estate 
and another party owns the mineral estate), exploration and production 
already occurring on adjacent or nearby lands, and future increases in 
energy prices, non-Federal oil and gas operations within refuges 
potentially could affect many additional refuges. Because of the 
impacts of oil and gas operations, a rulemaking is necessary to create 
a consistent and reasonable set of regulatory management controls for 
non-Federal oil and gas operations on refuges.
    In 1960, the Service promulgated the current regulations at 50 CFR 
29.32 to govern the exercise of non-Federal mineral rights on NWRS 
lands and waters. These regulations have not been updated. These 
regulations outline a general policy to minimize impacts to refuge 
resources to the extent practicable from all activities associated with 
non-Federal mineral exploration and development where access is on, 
across, or through federally owned or controlled lands or waters of the 
NWRS. However, they have been ineffective at protecting refuge 
resources or providing operators explicit requirements for operating on 
refuge lands. The current regulations lack both a process and specific 
guidance for operators and refuge employees to plan efficient 
operations on refuges that minimize impacts to refuge resources. 
Similarly, existing Service policies related to exploring and 
developing non-Federal oil and gas rights under refuges, such as 612 FW 
3, lack regulatory provisions needed to successfully protect refuge 
resources and provide sufficient guidance.

Authority To Promulgate Regulations

    One of the principal recommendations of the 2003 GAO report was for 
the Service to clarify its regulatory authority over non-Federal oil 
and gas operations on NWRS lands. This rulemaking provides notice to 
the public that the authorities given to the Service by Congress 
include the authority to regulate the exercise of non-Federal oil and 
gas rights located within refuge units. Because the Service's current 
regulations from 1960 pre-date the National Wildlife Refuge System 
Administration Act (NWRSAA), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge 
System Improvement Act (NWRSIA) (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.) and do not 
clearly assert or implement the full extent of the Service's authority 
to regulate non-Federal oil and gas rights or provide for consistent 
management of the exercise of those rights, we are proposing to revise 
the current regulations.
    The authority of Congress to provide for the regulation of non-
Federal oil and gas operations on NWRS lands is derived from the 
Property Clause of the United States Constitution (U.S. Const. art. IV, 
sec. 3). Specifically, the Service has been provided the statutory 
authority to manage Federal lands and resources under NWRSAA, as 
amended by the NWRSIA. In 1997, Congress enacted the NWRSIA, amending 
and building upon the NWRSAA in a manner that provided an organic act 
for the NWRS similar to those which exist for other public lands. 
Generally, in enacting the NWRSIA, Congress recognized that the Service 
needed additional guidance and authority to manage the NWRS.
    The NWRSIA (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4)) mandates the Secretary of the 
Interior, in administering the System, to:
     Provide for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and 
plants, and their habitats within the NWRS;
     Ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and 
environmental health of the NWRS are maintained for the benefit of 
present and future generations of Americans;
     Ensure that the mission of the NWRS described at 16 U.S.C. 
668dd(a)(2) and the purposes of each refuge are carried out;
     Ensure effective coordination, interaction, and 
cooperation with owners of land adjoining refuges and the fish and 
wildlife agency of the States in which the units of the NWRS are 
located;
     Assist in the maintenance of adequate water quantity and 
water quality to fulfill the mission of the NWRS and the purposes of 
each refuge;
     Recognize compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses 
as the priority general public uses of the NWRS through which the 
American public can develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife;
     Ensure that opportunities are provided within the NWRS for 
compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses; and
     Monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and 
plants in each refuge.
    The NWRSIA also gave the Service new authority to promulgate 
regulations to carry out the NWRSAA.
    Several recent Circuit Court decisions have held that this 
regulatory authority extends to non-Federal property interests within 
refuges. Although these cases did not directly address non-Federal 
mineral rights, nothing in these decisions would limit the Service's 
regulatory authority with respect to this form of property interest. In 
Burlison v. United States (533 F.3d 419 (6th Cir. 2008)), the appeals 
court held that the Service may reasonably regulate a reserved easement 
within a refuge:

    . . . . We do conclude, however, that the Fish and Wildlife 
Service may legitimately exercise the sovereign police power of the 
federal government in regulating the easement. Section 
668dd(d)(1)(B) delegates the power to the Secretary of the Interior 
(and the Fish and Wildlife Service) ``under such regulations as he 
may prescribe,'' to ``permit the use of . . . any areas within the 
System for purposes such as . . . roads.'' The question before us is 
whether the permissive power respecting roads authorized by the 
Refuge Act also includes the power to regulate a private easement 
over a road. We answer this question in the affirmative.

    Burlison also relied on the Duncan Energy Co. v. United States 
Forest Service, 50 F.3d 584 (8th Cir. 1995), which upheld Federal 
regulation of non-Federal oil and gas rights on Forest Service lands. 
In School Board of Avoyelles Parish v. United States Department of the 
Interior (647 F.3d 570 (5th Cir. 2011)), the Fifth Circuit held that 
FWS had authority to regulate access and use of refuge lands under the 
NWRAA/NWRSIA even for holders of valid easements. The Court's opinion 
notes that the relevant regulation required a permit for ``any person 
entering a national wildlife refuge,'' unless otherwise excepted by the 
regulations, and found that, even though the owner had a non-Federal 
property interest in the land, they were required to obtain a permit 
from the Service. The court, citing Burlison and other cases, found 
that the restrictions on the exercise of the non-Federal property right 
were well within Federal authority under the Property Clause. The 
Service fully recognizes, as the Burlison court explained, that the 
right to reasonably regulate these private property interests does not 
mean that the Service may ``eviscerate'' those property rights. These 
decisions support the Service's belief that it does have the necessary 
statutory authority to promulgate these proposed rules in order to 
achieve its legislative mandates, including the conservation of fish, 
wildlife, and plants in their habitat, and ensuring the biological 
integrity of the Refuge System.
    The Service is aware of the 1986 memorandum by the Associate 
Solicitor, Conservation and Wildlife (``1986 Opinion'') that 
interpreted that the Service, at that time, lacked the

[[Page 77202]]

authority from Congress to adopt regulations requiring permits for 
access by holders of mineral interests that were reserved by the holder 
when the land was sold to the United States for refuge purposes, unless 
that authority was provided for in the deed. That opinion relied in 
part on Caire v. Fulton, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31049 (W.D. La. 1986), 
an unpublished district court decision, where the United States had 
explicitly agreed during eminent domain proceedings to delete from the 
proposed deed a provision authorizing Service regulation of the oil and 
gas interests not being acquired. Additionally, the 1986 Opinion made a 
distinction in the Service's authority to regulate between reserved and 
outstanding rights, which Interior recognized in its response to the 
2003 GAO report.
    The 1986 Opinion was also premised on a provision of the Migratory 
Bird Conservation Act (MBCA), 16 U.S.C. 715e, which was amended in 1935 
to provide:

    The Secretary of the Interior may do all things and make all 
expenditures necessary to secure the safe title in the United States 
to the areas which may be acquired under this subchapter, but no 
payment shall be made for any such areas until the title thereto 
shall be satisfactory to the Attorney General or his designee, but 
the acquisition of such areas by the United States shall in no case 
be defeated because of rights-of-way, easements, and reservations 
which from their nature will in the opinion of the Secretary of the 
Interior in no manner interfere with the use of the areas so 
encumbered for the purposes of this subchapter, but such rights-of-
way, easements, and reservations retained by the grantor or lessor 
from whom the United States receives title under this subchapter or 
any other Act for the acquisition by the Secretary of the Interior 
of areas for wildlife refuges shall be subject to rules and 
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior for the 
occupation, use, operation, protection, and administration of such 
areas as inviolate sanctuaries for migratory birds or as refuges for 
wildlife; and it shall be expressed in the deed or lease that the 
use, occupation, and operation of such rights-of-way, easements, and 
reservations shall be subordinate to and subject to such rules and 
regulations as are set out in such deed or lease or, if deemed 
necessary by the Secretary of the Interior, to such rules and 
regulations as may be prescribed by him from time to time.

    The facts underlying the Caire case have long suggested that it is 
of limited precedential value. To the extent it could be construed to 
stand for the proposition that the Service may only regulate the 
property interest reserved in the deed when the deed expressly provided 
for such regulation, the decision appears to be overtaken by that of 
the Avoyelles Parish Circuit Court. Moreover, Burlison and Avoyelles 
Parish support the exercise of such rulemaking authority without regard 
to this provision of the MBCA. So, after consultation with the Office 
of the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior, we now believe that 
the 1986 Opinion has been superseded by the amendments to the 
Administration Act and subsequent court decisions interpreting the 
amended act, and that our current regulations from 1960 do not reflect 
the full extent of the authorities enacted by Congress after that date 
which direct the Service to protect refuge resources and uses.
    Therefore, the Service believes it does have the authority to issue 
regulations to reasonably regulate both reserved and outstanding non-
Federal oil and gas interests within the NWRS even when the right to 
regulate is not stated in the relevant deed. In our review of various 
deeds used by the Service to acquire the lands and interests in lands 
that make up the NWRS, we find many variations and that it is not 
possible to review or summarize all such provisions, or ensure that we 
are familiar with the circumstances surrounding each acquisition of 
NWRS lands, which did not include the mineral rights. As part of the 
pre-application meeting with the Service (see proposed Sec.  29.91), 
and/or the submission of an application (see proposed Sec.  29.94), the 
applicant should provide the Service with copies of any deeds or other 
relevant information which the applicant believes would control or 
otherwise limit the applicability of the regulations under this subpart 
to the applicant's operations. This process is intended to ensure that 
the Service both fully considers relevant deed provisions and any other 
information concerning the particular acquisitions before imposing 
requirements on the applicant's operations. The Service will respect 
any applicable deed conditions; however, these new regulatory 
requirements still apply to the extent that they do not conflict with 
such deed conditions, which we believe is the situation in most cases.
    The Service will consider any comments on its authority to 
promulgate these regulations and address them in making its 
determinations for a final rule.

Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights Within Refuges

    Non-Federal oil and gas rights exist within the NWRS in situations 
where the oil and gas interest has been severed from the estate 
acquired by the United States, either because:
     The United States acquired property from a grantor that 
did not own the oil and gas interest; or
     The United States acquired the property from a grantor 
that reserved the oil and gas interest from the conveyance.
    Non-Federal oil and gas interests can be held by individuals, 
partnerships, for-profit corporations, nonprofit organizations, or 
States and their political subdivisions. Interests in non-Federal oil 
and gas are property rights that may only be taken for public use with 
payment of just compensation in accordance with the Fifth Amendment of 
the U.S. Constitution. This proposed rule is not intended to result in 
the taking of a property interest, but rather to impose reasonable 
regulations on activities that involve or affect federally owned lands 
and resources of the NWRS to avoid or minimize impacts from such 
activities to the maximum extent practicable.
    These regulations do not apply to the development of the Federal 
mineral estate, including Federal oil and gas, which are administered 
by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), under the Mineral Leasing Act 
and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. In areas where oil and 
gas rights are owned by the United States, and leasing is authorized, 
the applicable regulations can be found at 43 CFR part 3100. There is a 
general prohibition to leasing Federal oil and gas on refuge lands (43 
CFR 3101.5-1).

Summary of Potential Impacts From Oil and Gas Operations on Refuge 
Resources and Uses

    Examples of non-Federal oil and gas operations conducted on refuges 
include: Geophysical (seismic) exploration; exploratory well drilling; 
field development well drilling; oil and gas well production 
operations, including installation and operation of well flowlines and 
gathering lines; enhanced recovery operations; well plugging and 
abandonment; and site reclamation.
    Oil and gas activities have the potential to adversely impact 
refuge resources in some or all of the following manners:
     Surface water quality degradation from spills, storm water 
runoff, erosion, and sedimentation;
     Soil and groundwater contamination from existing drilling 
mud pits, poorly constructed wells, improperly conducted enhanced 
recovery techniques, spills, and leaks;
     Air quality degradation from dust, natural gas flaring, 
hydrogen sulfide gas,

[[Page 77203]]

and emissions from production operations and vehicles;
     Increased noise from seismic operations, blasting, 
construction, oil and gas drilling and production operations;
     Reduction of roadless areas on refuges;
     Noise and human presence effects on wildlife behavior, 
breeding, and habitat use;
     Disruption of wildlife migration routes;
     Adverse effects on sensitive and endangered species;
     Viewshed (an area of land, water, or other environmental 
element that is visible to the human eye from a fixed vantage point) 
intrusion by roads, traffic, drilling equipment, production equipment, 
pipelines, etc.;
     Night sky intrusion from artificial lighting and gas 
flares;
     Disturbance to archaeological and cultural resources 
associated with seismic exploration and road/site preparation, 
associated with maintenance activities, or by spills;
     Visitor safety hazards from equipment, pressurized vessels 
and lines, presence of hydrogen sulfide gas, and leaking oil and gas 
that can create explosion and fire hazards;
     Wildlife mortality from oil spills or entrapment in open-
topped tanks or pits, poaching, and vehicle collisions;
     Fish kills from oil and oilfield brine spills; and
     Vegetation mortality from oilfield brine spills.

Summary of Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Comments

    On February 24, 2014, we issued an advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking (ANPR) (79 FR 10080) to assist us in developing this 
proposed rule. The ANPR had a 60-day comment period, ending April 25, 
2014. On June 9, 2014, we reopened the comment period for another 30 
days, ending July 9, 2014 (79 FR 32903). The ANPR requested the public 
to focus their comments on seven topics identified as major areas of 
concern:
    (1) Plans of Operations and Special Use Permits;
    (2) Operating Standards;
    (3) Financial Assurances;
    (4) Access Fees;
    (5) Noncompliance;
    (6) Existing Operations; and
    (7) Impacts from the Proposed Rulemaking.
    We received comments from unaffiliated private citizens (36), 
conservation organizations (14), State agencies (8), counties (2), 
Alaska Native Corporations (2), a tribal agency, oil and gas owners and 
operators (6), business associations (5), and a Federal agency, along 
with almost 80,000 form letter comments from members of two 
environmental organizations.
    The majority of commenters were in favor of strengthening and 
expanding the regulations to better protect refuge resources and 
values. Some commenters requested that we not revise the existing 
regulations, while others questioned the legality of regulating non-
Federal oil and gas operations on refuges.
    More information on the ANPR and these comments is available at 
https://www.fws.gov/refuges/oil-and-gas/rulemaking.html and also at 
www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-NWRS-2012-0086.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

    We have prepared a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), 
which is being published for public comment simultaneously with this 
proposed rule and is available at www.regulations.gov and at https://www.fws.gov/refuges/oil-and-gas/rulemaking.html, by clicking on the 
link titled ``Oil and Gas DEIS.'' The DEIS describes three 
alternatives: Alternative A--No action; Alternative B--proposed rule 
(preferred alternative); and Alternative C. Alternative C would include 
all the proposed changes in Alternative B, would expand the coverage of 
the regulations to operations on non-Federal surface locations that 
drill beneath the surface of a refuge to access their non-Federal oil 
and gas right, and would require all existing operations to obtain 
operations permits and maintain financial assurance.

Overview of Proposed Regulations

    This proposed rule was developed in coordination with the NPS and 
as a result is consistent with its recently published proposed rule 
governing non-Federal oil and gas rights within the NPS (NPS 9B 
Regulations). An operator working on both NWRS and NPS lands would 
experience little difference in regulatory resource and use 
protections, regulatory structure based on performance standards, 
operations permit processes and requirements, monitoring and 
compliance, and other terms and conditions. However, there are some 
variations between the two proposed rules necessitated by differing 
authorities and missions and the scope of the two agencies' non-Federal 
oil and gas programs.
    The proposed rule would generally require that operators receive 
permits, either special use permits or rights-of-way (ROW) permits, for 
new non-Federal oil and gas operations on NWRS lands; provide a 
regulatory framework to achieve the necessary protections for refuge 
resources; and improve regulatory consistency to the benefit of both 
refuge resources and oil and gas operators. The proposed rule contains 
performance-based standards that provide flexibility to resource 
managers and operators to use various and evolving technologies within 
different environments to achieve the standards. It establishes 
standards for surface use and site management, specific resource 
protections, spill prevention and response, waste management, and 
reclamation. Additionally, the proposed rule contains procedures for 
permit applications and Service review and approval. Finally, there are 
provisions for financial assurance (bonding), access fees, mitigation, 
change of operator, permit modification, and prohibitions and 
penalties. We incorporated public input received during the ANPR 
process to shape the proposed rule.

Proposed Permitting Approach

    The proposed permitting process would allow the Service to ensure 
that refuge resources, as well as public health and safety, are 
protected to the greatest extent practicable. Under the proposed rule, 
the Service would require the following:
     New operations are by permit only. Operators conducting 
new operations or modifying their existing operation in a manner that 
will have additional impacts on refuge resources beyond the scope, 
intensity, and/or duration of existing impacts must obtain an 
operations permit (special use or ROW permit) before commencing new or 
modified operations within a refuge. This requirement addresses 
exploration, drilling, production, enhanced recovery operations, 
transportation, plugging, and reclamation operations. We encourage 
operators to contact the Service early in the process so that the 
Service can provide suggestions to improve the application. 
Additionally, an operator will not be authorized to begin operations 
until the operator has received all other required State and Federal 
permits.
     Operations under an existing Service permit may continue 
under the terms of that permit as long as they comply with existing 
Federal, State, and local laws and regulations, and the general terms 
and conditions outlined in their permit and this rule. Operators would 
be required to obtain a new permit or amend their existing permit if 
they propose to conduct new operations or modify their existing 
operations (i.e., propose activities outside the scope of their 
existing approval that would have

[[Page 77204]]

impacts on refuge resources as determined by the Service). At the time 
of reclamation, the Service would review existing permits and modify 
them as necessary to ensure compliance with all Service reclamation 
standards.
     Operations not under a Service permit and being conducted 
prior to the effective date of the final rule promulgating this 
subpart, or prior to a boundary change or establishment of a new refuge 
unit, would be considered ``pre-existing operations'' and may continue 
to operate as they have been as long as they comply with existing 
Federal, State, and local laws and regulations and the general terms 
and conditions outlined in this proposed rule. However, these 
operations would be required to obtain a permit if they propose to 
conduct new operations or modify their operations in a manner that will 
have additional impacts on refuge resources.
     All operators must have a permit for plugging and 
reclamation and comply with all Service reclamation standards.
     Wells drilled from outside refuges or on non-Federal 
inholdings to access non-Federal minerals would be exempt from these 
regulations. However, except where 43 CFR 36.10 controls any access on, 
across, or through federally owned or managed lands in Alaska, 
operators must comply with the applicable provisions of this subpart, 
which may require obtaining an operations permit for new access or 
amending an existing authorization for access.
    The Service believes that this proposed permitting process is the 
best way to manage oil and gas operations and protect refuge resources 
on NWRS lands. The most effective way for the Service to avoid or 
minimize impacts is by using time, place, and manner stipulations. The 
``place'' factor in the ``time, place, and manner'' equation is often 
most important in terms of ability to protect an environmental 
resource. The risks created by a poorly selected location cannot easily 
be overcome with even the best operational methods. Conversely, proper 
site selection can do much to mitigate the effects of accidents or 
environmentally unsound practices. The ``time'' factor restricts the 
timing of operations to remove or minimize impacts on resources that 
are only seasonally present. The ``manner'' factor is the method in 
which oil and gas activities are conducted, using best management 
practices. Therefore, requiring a permit that contains such 
stipulations is the most effective way to avoid or minimize impacts of 
new operations.
    Since new operations create the greatest additional impacts, proper 
site planning, timing restrictions, and best management practices can 
accomplish great improvements in resource protection. Existing 
operations with a special use or ROW permit would be allowed to 
continue their operations under the terms of that permit, because such 
stipulations have already been implemented in those permits. A permit 
requirement on an existing operation not currently under a permit could 
result in significant administrative and operational costs, similar to 
those of new operations, on both the Service and the operator. These 
costs could be disproportional to the environmental benefits gained 
where the operator's well has already been drilled and the area of 
operations (access route, well site, production facilities, and routes 
for gathering lines) has already been established. Many of the 
unnecessary impacts occurring from existing operations without permits 
can best be cost effectively addressed through ensuring adherence to 
existing Federal and State rules. Additionally, in this proposed rule, 
the Service would assimilate non-conflicting State oil and gas rules so 
that our Law Enforcement officers can ensure compliance with those 
requirements. This approach to permitting allows the Service to focus 
its limited time and resources on those new operations that create the 
highest level of incremental impacts. Also, by requiring all operations 
to have a permit for plugging and reclamation, it ensures 
rehabilitation of habitat damaged by all operations.
    When a well is drilled outside a refuge or on a non-Federal 
inholding, impacts to refuge resources are avoided or minimized to a 
great extent. Therefore, the Service's approach of exempting downhole 
aspects of these operations that occur within a refuge from the 
proposed regulations is intended to provide an incentive for operators 
to use directional drilling from a surface location not administered by 
the Service in order to reach their oil and gas rights under the 
refuge-administered surface estate. However, anytime an operator needs 
to physically cross Service land for access, including access to a non-
Federal surface location, such as an inholding, to conduct operations 
then the operator must comply with the applicable provisions of this 
subpart (in Alaska, 43 CFR 36.10), including obtaining an operations 
permit for new access or modification of existing access.

Operating Standards

    Refuges have sustained significant damages from leaks and spills, 
unplugged or inadequately plugged wells, abandoned equipment, and 
insufficient or no reclamation of refuge lands and resources. Avoidance 
of spills and similar problems is the best means of ensuring that 
taxpayers are not left with the costs of restoring refuge resources. By 
incorporating new operating standards into the regulations, this should 
ensure that any future damages to refuge land and resources are 
minimized to the greatest extent possible.
    Regulations based on performance-based standards do not grow stale 
over time and provide flexibility to resource managers and operators to 
achieve standards across various environments using new and evolving 
technology. In contrast, prescriptive regulations define specific 
requirements of time, place, and manner without considering how these 
measures achieve a desired level of resource protection or how they may 
apply in different environments. The Service examined other Federal and 
State oil and gas regulations and determined that the performance-based 
standards approach provided the most efficient means of successfully 
avoiding or minimizing the effects of oil and gas operations on refuge 
resources and visitor uses. A one-size-fits-all (i.e., prescriptive) 
approach does not work due to the widely differing environments and 
national extent of refuges with oil and gas. The proposed, performance-
based standards model has been successfully used by NPS for more than 
35 years.
    In developing and analyzing the proposed rule and alternatives, the 
Service found that the preponderance of impacts and risks of impacts to 
refuge resources associated with exploration and development of oil and 
gas emanate from surface activities. This holds true for operations 
that include the use of hydraulic fracturing. The Service found that 
well drilling and production operations that include the use of 
hydraulic fracturing have the same types of surface activities (e.g., 
road and pad construction, tractor-trailer truck traffic, use of water, 
use of chemicals, use of large diesel-powered engines, generation of 
waste) as operations that do not include hydraulic fracturing. 
Hydraulic fracturing operations can, in some cases, increase the scope, 
intensity, and duration of activities commonly associated with oil and 
gas well drilling and completion. In context of this proposed rule, the 
term ``hydraulic fracturing'' means those

[[Page 77205]]

operations conducted in an individual wellbore designed to increase the 
flow of hydrocarbons from the rock formation to the wellbore through 
modifying the permeability of reservoir rock by applying fluids under 
pressure to fracture it. It does not include the comprehensive list of 
all oil and gas activities associated with development that happens to 
include hydraulic fracturing. While the proposed rule's operating 
standards are not specific to hydraulic fracturing operations, they 
were developed with the expectation that hydraulic fracturing would 
occur on refuge lands and give the Service the ability to effectively 
manage the additional impacts that hydraulic fracturing may have on 
refuge resources and uses.
    The Service notes that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has 
recently promulgated regulations addressing hydraulic fracturing on 
Federal and Indian lands at 43 CFR part 3160 (80 FR 16128, March 26, 
2015). We carefully considered the recently promulgated BLM oil and gas 
regulations on hydraulic fracturing. The agencies take different 
approaches to operating standards, because of their differing statutory 
bases for regulating the exercise of oil and gas rights. Specifically, 
the BLM has regulatory authority over the development of the Federal 
mineral estate, including Federal oil and gas resources under Federal 
and Indian lands. Whereas, the Service regulations address private 
property rights within refuge units and are based on the directive of 
the NWRSAA for the NWRS ``to administer a national network of lands and 
waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, 
restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 
habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 
generations of Americans.'' Therefore, the Service's regulations are 
largely focused on avoiding or minimizing impacts to federally owned 
lands and resources of the NWRS to the maximum extent practicable by 
using the most technologically feasible, least damaging oil and gas 
development methods to protect refuge resources and uses.
    As a result, BLM can and has appropriately set more prescriptive 
standards in its regulation, while the Service is proposing to set 
required non-prescriptive operating standards, similar to the NPS 9B 
regulations, which allow operators flexibility to design operations 
while still protecting refuge resources, uses, and visitor health and 
safety. For example, BLM's regulation at 43 CFR 3162.5-2 (Control of 
wells) sets a performance standard with regard to protection of usable 
quality water, and BLM also prescribes regulatory measures necessary to 
achieve and verify the performance standard (43 CFR 3162.3-3(e)). The 
Service's approach is to review an operator's submissions to determine 
if they are avoiding or minimizing impacts to the maximum extent 
practicable, and if not, to add terms and conditions in the permits to 
ensure that they do so.

State Regulations

    The Service's goal, reflected in this proposed rule, is to 
complement State regulatory programs to the benefit of the surface 
estate and the resources for which we are entrusted, while not 
compromising the ability of operators to develop their resource. The 
Service and State oil and gas agencies have fundamentally different 
missions. The Service's legal mandate is to conserve fish, wildlife, 
and plant resources and their habitats for the benefit of present and 
future generations. In contrast, State oil and gas regulations 
typically focus on the protection of mineral rights and 
``conservation'' of the oil and gas resources (i.e., minimizing waste 
of oil and gas resources). From a regulatory perspective, the Service 
must manage oil and gas operations in order to protect its surface 
resources to meet its mission and congressional mandate.
    Most States provide for protection of surface and groundwater via 
well design requirements and oil pollution control measures. However, 
State programs vary widely with regard to protection of surface 
resources and surface use conflicts. In general, State oil and gas 
regulations do not address protections necessary for wildlife and its 
habitat. The Service conducted a review of State oil and gas 
regulations in 2013. Of the 43 States that have oil and gas 
regulations, all have requirements for plugging wells, but few have 
adequate requirements for removal of equipment and full reclamation of 
the site comparable to Service standards. Some State laws or 
regulations address impacts or damage to surface land owners; some do 
not. Some afford stronger protection to sensitive areas such as 
wildlife management areas; others do not. Some States address the use 
and closure of open pits; others do not. Bond requirements, oil spill 
cleanup and reporting, and fines differ considerably, as does the 
frequency of inspections of oil and gas exploration and production 
sites. Therefore, one of the issues that operators face is differing 
procedures and requirements from State to State. The proposed 
regulations are intended to provide a consistent set of procedures and 
operational standards for operations on refuges.
    The intention of the Service's proposed regulations is to avoid or 
minimize potential procedural and operational duplication of State 
programs, while working cooperatively to achieve common objectives 
between the Service, States, and operators. For example, the proposed 
regulation includes a downhole operating standard for isolation and 
protection of subsurface (and surface) resources throughout the life of 
a well. The standard would inform the public and operators of the 
Service's responsibility for all its resources, including groundwater. 
However, the Service generally proposes not to otherwise regulate 
downhole activities. We welcome comments on whether, and to what 
extent, compliance with State regulations (as a general matter or with 
respect to particular States) is expected to provide adequate 
protection of groundwater and other subsurface resources. Meeting 
operating standards specific to downhole activities, by compliance with 
State regulation, industry operating guidelines, or Service-identified 
requirements, also serves to protect surface resources by reducing the 
risks associated with well control and well construction and 
maintenance.
    In the context of enforcing State oil and gas regulations, the 
Service would focus on noncompliance issues that have the potential to 
adversely affect refuge resources and visitor uses by assimilating non-
conflicting State oil and gas law into our prohibited acts and 
penalties. Assimilation allows us to enforce on refuges State oil and 
gas requirements as a matter of Federal law. States may not have enough 
inspectors to ensure companies are meeting State standards. Louisiana, 
the State with the most non-Federal oil and gas production on refuge 
lands, recently reported that it lacks an adequate number of inspectors 
and its inspection rate is too low. Under this proposed rule, the 
Service would work cooperatively with States to ensure that operators 
on refuges are meeting both Service and State regulations that pertain 
to oil and gas operations.

Section-by-Section Analysis

Sec.  28.11 Purpose of Regulations

    Proposed Sec.  28.11 would be amended for a technical correction.

Sec.  29.32 Non-Federal Mineral Rights

    Proposed Sec.  29.32 would be amended to clarify the scope and 
general policy of subpart D.

[[Page 77206]]

    Proposed Sec.  29.32(a) clarifies that this section is applicable 
to all NWRS non-Federal mineral rights owners within the National 
Wildlife Refuge System, excluding coordination areas, as defined in 50 
CFR 25.12, and that it is the expectation of the Service that: All 
exploration, development, and production operations are conducted in a 
manner that avoids or minimizes impacts to refuge resources to the 
maximum extent practicable; operators comply with all applicable 
Federal and State laws; and all structures and equipment are removed 
when no longer necessary and the area restored to pre-operation 
conditions to the extent possible. Proposed Sec.  29.32(b) states that 
nothing in the section will be applied to contravene or nullify rights 
vested in holders of mineral interests on refuge lands.

Sec. Sec.  29.40-29.44 Purpose and Scope

    The existing regulations are inadequate to protect the resources 
the refuges were created to maintain. The proposed rule would clarify 
that the revised regulations will apply to all non-Federal oil and gas 
operations conducted on NWRS lands, excluding coordination areas, in 
order to protect federally owned or refuge-administered lands, waters, 
or wildlife resources; visitor uses or experiences; and visitor and 
employee health and safety, as Congress prescribed as the mission of 
the NWRS at 16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4).
    The purpose of proposed Sec.  29.40(a) is to ensure operators use 
technologically feasible, least-damaging methods to remove non-Federal 
oil and gas resources from the subsurface of NWRS lands in order to 
protect and conserve refuge resources. Examples of technologically 
feasible, least-damaging methods include, but are not limited to, use 
of directionally drilling (slant drilling) to avoid surface impacts to 
important habitat, consolidating infrastructure (drilling multiple 
wells off a single pad) to reduce fragmentation, use of survey methods 
that do not require line of sight, or mat drilling in sensitive 
habitats.
    Proposed Sec.  29.40(b) provides that subpart D applies to 
operators who conduct or propose to conduct non-Federal oil and gas 
operations on the Service-administered surface estate of lands held in 
fee or less-than fee (excluding coordination areas) as well as to 
operations on any waters within the boundaries of the refuge. Because 
operations on and in the waters within refuge boundaries have the 
potential to broadly impact resources throughout the refuge, we are 
proposing that these regulations apply on and within waters subject to 
the jurisdiction of the United States located within that unit, 
including navigable waters and areas within their ordinary reach (up to 
the mean high-water line in places subject to the ebb and flow of the 
tide, or up to the ordinary high-water mark in other places that are 
navigable), irrespective of ownership of submerged lands, tidelands or 
lowlands, and jurisdictional status. Further, we note that Congress 
specifically defined the term refuges in the NWRSIA as including 
``waters, or an interest in land and waters'' at 16 U.S.C. 668ee(11).
    Operations are defined in proposed Sec.  29.50 as ``all existing 
and proposed functions, work, and activities in connection with the 
exercise of oil or gas rights not owned by the United States and 
located or occurring within a refuge. Operations include, but are not 
limited to: Access by any means to or from an area of operations; 
construction; geological and geophysical exploration; drilling, well 
servicing, workover, or recompletion; production; enhanced recovery 
operations; gathering (including installation and maintenance of 
flowlines and gathering lines); storage, transport, or processing of 
petroleum products; earth moving; excavation; hauling; disposal; 
surveillance, inspection, monitoring, or maintenance of wells, 
facilities, and equipment; reclamation; road and pad building or 
improvement; shot hole and well plugging and abandonment, and 
reclamation; and all other activities incident to any of the foregoing. 
Operations do not include reconnaissance surveys as defined in this 
subpart or oil and gas pipelines that are located within a refuge under 
authority of a deeded or other right-of-way.''
    These regulations are not intended to apply to operations on 
neighboring private lands or non-Federal surface estates within refuge 
boundaries. As discussed previously, if an operator must physically 
cross Service lands, the operator must obtain an operations permit and 
comply with other applicable provisions for that access. Use of 
aircraft, including, but not limited to, airplanes, helicopters, and 
unmanned aircraft vehicles that do not land on, or are not launched 
from, refuge-administered surface estate land or waters, is not subject 
to these regulations.
    Proposed Sec.  29.40(c) of this subpart would acknowledge that the 
intent of the proposed rule is to reasonably regulate such activities, 
but not to result in a taking of private property. Although we would 
place refuge-protecting mitigation measures on proposed operations, the 
Service does not intend that implementation of these regulations would 
result in a denial of access to prospective operators to exercise their 
non-Federal oil and gas rights. We would work with operators to ensure 
they have reasonable access to their operations and that refuge 
resources and values are protected without resulting in a taking in 
violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
    Proposed Sec.  29.41 clarifies this subpart applies to operators if 
they conduct or propose to conduct a non-Federal oil or gas operation 
within a refuge.
    Proposed Sec.  29.42 clarifies what authorization is necessary to 
conduct operations on NWRS lands. The regulations at Sec.  29.42(a) 
would require that all operators must demonstrate ``up front'' that 
they hold a valid existing right to conduct operations within a refuge. 
Until the operator demonstrates a valid existing right to conduct 
operations, the operator may not operate within a refuge and we will 
not undertake a formal review of the operator's permit application.
    Proposed Sec.  29.42(b) would require operators with a new oil and 
gas operation to obtain a temporary access permit to conduct 
reconnaissance surveys and/or an operations permit to conduct drilling 
or production within a refuge. This permit requirement would ensure 
that new operations on NWRS lands use best management practices and are 
conducted in a time, place, and manner that avoid or minimize potential 
impacts to refuge resources to the maximum extent practicable.
    Proposed Sec.  29.42(c) would clarify that for refuge units in 
Alaska, access to oil and gas rights within any refuge would continue 
to be governed by title XI of the Alaska National Interest Lands 
Conservation Act (ANILCA; 16 U.S.C. 410hh-410hh-5, 16 U.S.C. 3101 et 
seq., 43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), and the Department's implementing 
regulations and standards found at 43 CFR part 36 and 50 CFR part 29 
subpart B. This includes authorization to charge access fees, as well 
as penalties for any violations of permits issued under these 
regulations. However, where the proposed rule does not conflict with 
these provisions, regulations, and standards, the proposed rule will 
apply to operations in Alaska. For example, the operating standards at 
proposed Sec. Sec.  29.110-29.118 and the provisions regarding well 
plugging at proposed Sec. Sec.  29.180-29.181 would be incorporated 
into an operator's ROW permit. Additionally, the prohibited acts and 
penalties at proposed Sec.  29.190 would apply where they do not 
conflict.

[[Page 77207]]

    Proposed Sec.  29.43 would authorize an operator who currently 
holds an approved permit to continue operations, subject to the 
applicable provisions of that permit, until they propose to conduct new 
operations or modify existing operations.
    If an operator does not hold an existing special use permit but is 
conducting an operation prior to the effective date of the final rule, 
proposed Sec.  29.44 would authorize the operator to continue with this 
operation in accordance with local, State, and Federal laws and 
regulations. However, these operations would need to comply with 
proposed Sec. Sec.  29.60 through 29.63, which outline additional 
information requirements, prohibitions, and reclamation requirements, 
as well as the requirements that, before conducting a new operation or 
modifying a pre-existing operation, an operator must obtain an 
operations permit in accordance with Sec. Sec.  29.90 through 29.97.

Sec.  29.50 Definitions

    The proposed rule would establish and organize definitions for 
terms commonly used throughout the regulations.

Sec. Sec.  29.60-29.64 Pre-Existing Operations

    Proposed Sec.  29.60 defines pre-existing operations as those being 
conducted under local, State, and Federal laws and regulations and 
without an approved permit from the Service as of the effective date of 
a final rule, or prior to a boundary change or establishment of a new 
refuge unit. These operations may continue without an operations permit 
subject to the terms and conditions of this section. Proposed 
operations that become located within a refuge unit as the result of a 
boundary adjustment would be subject to the same process.
    Proposed Sec.  29.61(a)-(d) describes the information for pre-
existing operations that would be required to be submitted to the 
Service to be in compliance with the rule. For a new oil and gas 
operation within a refuge, we would require an operator to submit the 
information necessary for us to approve the least-damaging locations 
for its access route, drilling site, production facilities, and 
gathering lines routes. However, for pre-existing operations, the 
operator's well has already been drilled and the area of operations 
(access route, well site, production facilities, and routes for 
gathering lines) has already been established. Therefore, under 
proposed Sec.  29.61, within 90 days of the effective date of a final 
rule promulgating this subpart, operators would have to provide the 
Service with the information described in this section, including 
ownership documentation, contact information, a scaled map clearly 
delineating the existing area of operations, and copies of all relevant 
plans and permits. This information is needed for future monitoring of 
the pre-existing operations to ensure compliance with existing 
standards (local, State, Federal).
    The proposed regulations at Sec.  29.62(a) would require the 
operator to obtain an operations permit if the operator enters a new 
phase of operations, such as when an operator ends production 
operations and proceeds to well plugging and final reclamation. 
Proposed Sec.  29.62(b) would require the operator to obtain an 
operations permit if the Service determines that the operator is 
modifying a pre-existing operation. Modifying is defined at proposed 
Sec.  29.50 as ``conducting new activities that are outside the scope 
of your existing operations in a manner that has additional impacts on 
refuge resources, visitor uses, refuge administration, or human health 
and safety beyond the scope, intensity, and/or duration of existing 
impacts. If an operator is considering altering their operation in a 
manner that may result in additional impacts to refuge resources, they 
should consult with the Service to determine whether proposed changes 
would constitute a modification. Examples of a modification include 
drilling additional wells from the same pad, creating additional 
surface disturbance (e.g., expanding the footprint of a well pad, 
realigning a road), or converting a natural gas well into a wastewater 
disposal well, as these modifications will have impacts beyond the 
scope, intensity, and/or duration of existing impacts. This provision 
is not intended to apply to minor actions, such as repositioning of 
surface facilities within the current footprint of pre-existing 
operations, minor changes in color schemes, or minor, non-routine 
maintenance actions.
    Proposed Sec.  29.63 ensures that pre-existing operations will be 
reclaimed to Service standards at proposed Sec.  29.117(d). Operators 
must comply with the proposed reclamation requirements, including 
obtaining an operations permit for all reclamation activities.
    Under proposed Sec.  29.64, pre-existing operations would have to 
comply with the general terms and conditions at proposed Sec. Sec.  
29.120 and 29.121, as well as proposed Sec. Sec.  29.170(a) (change of 
operator), 29.180-29.181 (well plugging), 29.190 (prohibited acts and 
penalties), and 29.200 (appeals). Suspensions would not be necessary if 
operators are meeting Service standards.

Sec. Sec.  29.70-29.73 Temporary Access Permits

    Proposed Sec. Sec.  29.70-29.73 outline the process to obtain a 
temporary access permit. The temporary access permit is a special use 
permit that authorizes an operator to conduct reconnaissance surveys. 
Proposed Sec.  29.71 identifies the information necessary for the 
Service to evaluate the operator's proposal to conduct reconnaissance 
surveys. This includes a brief description of intended operations so we 
can determine the operator's reconnaissance survey needs. Proposed 
Sec.  29.72 describes the process for us to review the operator's 
temporary access permit application for completeness. Under proposed 
Sec.  29.73, a temporary access permit would be issued for 
reconnaissance surveys for a period not to exceed 60 calendar days, but 
may be extended for a reasonable additional period when justified by an 
operator.

Sec.  29.80 Accessing Oil and Gas Rights From a Non-Federal Surface 
Location (Including Inholdings)

    As discussed above, operators are exempt from the regulations if 
they directionally drill from a non-Federal surface location, including 
on non-Federal inholdings, and do not require physical access across 
Service lands to reach a bottom hole located within refuge boundaries. 
Proposed Sec.  29.80 identifies the information an operator would be 
encouraged to submit to the Service to ensure that the Service has the 
necessary information to contact operators in case of an emergency or 
if unanticipated damages to refuge resources occur. If the operator 
needs to physically cross Service land for access to non-Federal lands, 
the operator would be required to comply with applicable provisions of 
this subpart only for that access, including obtaining an operations 
permit for any new access or a modification of existing access.

Sec. Sec.  29.90-29.97 Operations Permit: Application

    The proposed regulations require early collaboration in the 
planning process to provide operators guidance on information 
requirements, alternative areas of operations locations, and potential 
mitigation and avoidance measures.
    The proposed rule at Sec. Sec.  29.90-29.97 organizes information 
requirements for each type of operation. Further discussion of the 
specific information proposed to be collected can be found under the 
section below, Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
    Proposed Sec.  29.90 would require operators to submit an 
operations

[[Page 77208]]

permit application, unless the operator is exempt from those 
requirements because they are operating under an existing special use 
or ROW permit, they are operating a pre-existing operation, they are 
only conducting a reconnaissance survey, or they are drilling from a 
private (non-Federal) surface location that is either outside the 
refuge boundary or is a surface inholding within the boundary, provided 
that no operations associated with the oil and gas right take place on 
federally owned or Service-administered surface estate within the 
refuge.
    Proposed Sec.  29.91 urges operators to have a pre-application 
meeting with the Service to allow for an early exchange of information, 
including discussion of Service and operator concerns, as well as avoid 
delays in the application process. At this meeting, operators are 
encouraged to provide information on oil and gas ownership (including 
deeds or other relevant information which the applicant believes would 
control the applicability of the regulations under this subpart to the 
applicant's operations), operation schedules, contact information for 
company officials and their contractors, map of the proposed area of 
operations, description of access and transportation plans, and a 
description of the survey methodology for refuge resources, such as 
wildlife or cultural resources.
    Proposed Sec.  29.92 clarifies that operators do not need to 
include previously submitted information in their operations permit 
application, provided such information is on file with the Service, 
still current, and accurate. Operators may also submit copies of 
documents submitted to other agencies to meet the information 
requirements of their operations permit application.
    Proposed Sec.  29.93 clarifies that the operator only needs to 
submit the information for the operation for which they are seeking 
approval.
    Proposed Sec.  29.94 lists information requirements common to all 
operations, including information about existing conditions of the area 
of operations, proposed new surface uses, use of water, management of 
waste including flowback fluids from hydraulic fracturing operations, 
mitigation actions, alternatives considered, a spill control and 
emergency preparedness plan, and proposed reclamation.
    Proposed Sec.  29.95 identifies the additional information a 
geophysical operator would need to submit to the Service.
    Proposed Sec.  29.96 identifies the additional information a 
drilling operator would need to submit to the Service.
    Proposed Sec.  29.97 identifies the additional information a 
production operator would need to submit to the Service.

Sec. Sec.  29.100-29.104 Operations Permit: Application Review

    The proposed regulations at Sec. Sec.  29.100-29.104 establish a 
two-stage permit application review process (an initial review and a 
formal review), provide realistic timeframes to provide notice back to 
an operator, and consolidate the final decisions the Service can make 
on an operator's permit application.
    Proposed Sec.  29.100 provides general information about how the 
Service will review an operator's application, which is an initial 
review to ensure that information is complete followed by formal 
review. Proposed Sec.  29.101 describes the Service's initial review of 
an operator's permit application. During initial review, the Service 
would determine whether the applicant has supplied all information 
necessary for the Service to evaluate the operation's potential effects 
to federally owned or administered lands, waters, or resources of 
Service units; visitor uses or experiences; or visitor or employee 
health and safety. The Service would respond to an applicant within 30 
days and state whether the information contained in the permit 
application is complete, identify the additional information required 
for the application to