agriculture for oil-gas leasinga123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... ·...

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Southwestern Region

MB-R3-10-18

November 2012

Record of Decision for Oil-Gas Leasing

Santa Fe National Forest, Rio Arriba and Sandoval Counties, New Mexico

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex,

marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information,

political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any

public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille,

large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and

TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights,

1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or

(202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Printed on recycled paper – November 2012

Record of Decision for Oil-Gas Leasing

Santa Fe National Forest Rio Arriba and Sandoval Counties, New Mexico

Lead Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Southwestern Region

Santa Fe National Forest

Responsible Official: Maria T. Garcia

Forest Supervisor


Cooperating Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Farmington Field Office

New Mexico

Concurring Official: Dave Evans

District Manager

Farmington Field Office

Record of Decision for Oil and Gas Leasing, Santa Fe NF 1

Introduction

In 2003, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issued a record of decision (ROD) for

management of Federal minerals within the New Mexico portion of the San Juan Basin. The

effects analyses in the environmental impact statement (EIS) associated with the Farmington

Resource Management Plan revision for the BLM-Farmington Field Office considered the

potential for development of the eastern part of the San Juan Basin located within the Santa Fe

National Forest (Santa Fe NF), based on projected oil-gas development over the next 20 years.

However, this analysis was not designed to meet USDA Forest Service requirements for

amending national forest land and resource management plans. The Reasonable Foreseeable

Development Scenario (RFDS) for the San Juan Basin completed under contract to the BLM was

supplemented by the Santa Fe NF geologist to be more specific to the approximately (~)196,776

acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands in the Cuba and Coyote Ranger Districts (Figure 1.

Study area) that fall within the easternmost portion of the San Juan Basin.

The ―Santa Fe NF Land and Resource Management Plan,‖ as amended (Forest Plan), approved in

1987, provides broad direction regarding leasing and the management of oil-gas on the Santa Fe

NF. Although the Forest Plan currently identifies leasing categories of standard and limited

surface use (LSU) it provides no site-specific direction regarding the locations and purposes of

the LSU lease stipulation. Consequently, the current Forest Plan has minimal guidance on oil-gas

exploration and development.

Since its approval, the Santa Fe NF has recognized the need for a more site-specific evaluation of

oil-gas leasing availability and a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis of the

potential cumulative effects of reasonably foreseeable future oil-gas leasing and development

within the study area. This analysis is needed to facilitate Forest Plan leasing decisions, and to

comply with Federal regulations and Forest Service policies intended to minimize impacts to

surface resources from oil-gas exploration, development, and operations. The EIS documented

the analysis of two alternatives that meet the purpose and need, and a No Action Alternative.

Following publication of the draft EIS, it was determined that there are 360 acres of NFS land

outside the proclaimed Santa Fe NF boundary that were not originally identified as part of the

study area. The land, located in Sections 18 and 19, Township 21 North, Range 1 West, New

Mexico Principal Meridian, is comprised of two parcels adjacent to U.S. Highway 550 at the

north end of the town of Cuba (see figure 1). All 360 acres have been withdrawn from mineral

entry but not from oil-gas leasing. This additional acreage was added to the study area maps and

leasing stipulations in the final EIS.

On August 15, 2008, Santa Fe National Forest Supervisor Daniel J. Jiron signed the record of

decision (ROD) for the Santa Fe National Forest Oil-Gas Leasing Forest Plan Amendment (aka

Leasing Amendment, Preferred Alternative). The decision was appealed by Wild Earth Guardians

and was remanded to the Forest on January 7, 2009, for additional work on a minor technical

issue related to regional policy about consultation with USFWS in Forest Plan amendments; and

for additional work on air quality. That work was completed and the draft supplement to the FEIS

was issued, with the comment period ending November 8, 2010. Because of issues raised in

litigation on a similar leasing analysis on the Carson National Forest, the decision was made to

further supplement the air quality analysis. That work has now been completed and is reflected in

this ROD and accompanying supplement to the FEIS.

Appendix A is a glossary of terms used in this ROD.

Introduction

2 Record of Decision for Oil and Gas Leasing, Santa Fe NF

Figure 1. Oil-Gas study area


Decision

Based upon my review of the environmental analysis disclosed in the final EIS, I have decided to

implement Alternative 2: Amend the Forest Plan to incorporate the specific stipulations of

no surface occupancy (NSO), controlled surface use (CSU), or timing limitation (TL) where

needed to protect or minimize impacts to National Forest System (NFS) lands and surface

resources in the study area. Alternative 2 includes an analysis of the potential cumulative effects

of reasonably foreseeable future oil-gas leasing and development within the study area, including

the seven current expressions of interest (EOI) received from the oil and gas industry. The

Proposed Action will also:

Improve the programmatic analysis of the effects of oil-gas leasing and development on

the Santa Fe NF.

Improve the timeliness and efficiency in processing current and future expressions of

interest in oil and gas leasing on the Santa Fe NF, consistent with the National energy

policy.

Improve the Agency's ability to manage surface resources that may not be adequately

addressed by current Forest Plan standard and LSU leasing categories and BLM issued

oil-gas lease terms and conditions.

Forest plan amendments require a determination of the significance of the amendment. Based on

the environmental analysis; evaluation of the timing; location and size; goals, objectives and

outputs; and management prescriptions of the alternative with respect to current Forest Plan

management direction, and public involvement, I determined the amendment to be nonsignificant

(Appendix C - Determination of Nonsignificance). Implementation of Alternative 2 would ensure

timely action on applications pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58-August 8,

2005). Only ~2 percent of the Forest would potentially be affected in the near term, i.e., the EOI

areas where CSU or NSO stipulations would be applied; with the potential to affect ~7–13

percent of the Forest overall. Alternative 2 supports Forest Plan goals and objectives pertaining to

the economic and social needs of rural communities while administering minerals to minimize

adverse surface resource impacts. The proposed CSU and NSO stipulations (standards and

guidelines) may affect up to ~5,455 of the ~13,625 acres currently under EOI, or ~3 percent of

the ~196,776-acre study area.

Alternative 2 was identified in the draft EIS as the agency's Proposed Action and preferred

alternative during the public DEIS comment period. Alternative 2 fully meets the purpose of and

need for action; and the analysis considered the best available science, including review of

relevant scientific information, both supporting and opposing views; and recognition of

incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk.

Only new oil-gas leases that may be issued in the future, including the nine current EOIs in oil-

gas leasing in the study area would be affected by Alternative 2; it does not affect existing oil-gas

leases unless a lease expires, is relinquished, or terminated. New leases are defined as parcels

within the study area that are currently unleased, as well as the areas currently under lease but that

may become available for leasing in the future.

Mitigation measures and monitoring requirements are not prescribed because my decision does

not authorize or solicit oil-gas exploration or development activities, or approve any site specific

land disturbing oil-gas activities on NFS lands in the study area. Nor does it include any

conditions of approval (COA), which would be developed during the second level, site-specific

Decision


NEPA analysis of the application for permit to drill (APD). At that time, the Forest Service would

identify site-specific mitigation measures and monitoring requirements, and would also ensure

that applicable COAs are consistent with established BLM and Forest Service policies in the San

Juan Basin for managing noise and air quality.

Exception, modification, or waiver of any lease stipulation identified in the FEIS will be made in

accordance with regulatory provisions applicable to such changes. If circumstances or relative

resource values change, or if it can be demonstrated that oil-gas operations can be conducted

without causing unacceptable impacts, the stipulation may be excepted, modified, or waived. An

authorized Forest Service official may approve exceptions, modifications or waivers if such

action is consistent with the Forest Plan. If the forest supervisor determines that the waiver,

exception, or modification involves an issue of major public concern, the waiver, exception, or

modification would be subject to a 30- to 90-day public review period (36 CFR 219.8). Approval

of requests for exceptions, modifications, or waivers will be supported by NEPA analysis.

Reasons for the Decision

In accordance with 36 CFR 228.102, Alternative 2 identifies areas that will be assigned the

following lease stipulations, with justification as to why the stipulations are necessary. The

proposed stipulations describe specific direction regarding surface occupancy or use, their

purpose, the location and/or conditions under which they apply, and exceptions. The details of

Alternative 2 are in ROD Appendix B.

1. Open to development subject to standard oil-gas leasing terms and conditions.

2. Open to development but subject to no surface occupancy lease stipulation to protect

steep slopes, roadless recreation areas, or heritage resources.

3. Open to development but subject to controlled surface use lease stipulation to protect

riparian areas, wetlands, and high scenic integrity objectives.

4. Open to development but subject to timing limitation lease stipulation to minimize

impacts to threatened, endangered, or Forest Service sensitive species and important deer

and elk habitat.

I decided to amend the Forest Plan to include oil-gas lease stipulations of no surface occupancy,

controlled surface use, or timing limitation where needed to protect or minimize impacts to NFS

lands and surface resources in the study area (Alternative 2) for the following reasons:

It meets the purpose and need for the proposed action, while conforming to the

requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-580) to facilitate timely

processing of oil-gas lease applications without undue constraints, Forest Service

regulations at 36 CFR 228.102 regarding Forest Plan leasing analysis and decisions, and

Forest Service policies intended to minimize impacts to surface resources. Alternative 2

will strengthen the Forest Service's ability to protect or mitigate impacts to surface

resources that may not be adequately addressed by standard leasing terms and conditions.

Better information about site-specific conditions in the oil-gas study area should benefit

prospective oil-gas lessees, including those that submitted EOIs, as it will help inform

decisions about leasing specific areas of the Santa Fe National Forest. Furthermore, the

Decision


prescribed lease restrictions are only imposed where resource protection or mitigation

needs are greater than that provided by standard oil-gas lease stipulations.

Existing oil-gas leases will not be affected, and Alternative 2 will facilitate orderly

development of oil-gas resources while improving the timeliness and efficiency of

processing current and future EOIs consistent with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public

Law 109–580, May 2001). It is consistent with Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR

228.102 regarding Forest Plan leasing analysis and decisions, and analysis of reasonably

foreseeable oil-gas leasing impacts.

The NSO stipulation will be applied to all inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) pursuant to the

November 29, 2006, clarification order issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District

of California in its September 20, 2006, decision in the consolidated cases California v. USDA

and Wilderness Society v. USFS. The clarifying order reinstated the 2001 Roadless Rule

prohibitions on road construction or reconstruction in IRAs except roads ―needed in conjunction

with the continuation, extension, or renewal of a mineral lease on lands under lease … as of

January 12, 2001 or for a new lease issued immediately upon expiration of an existing lease‖ (36

CFR § 294.12(b)(7)).

Alternative 3 was developed to address the significant issue relating to protection for the San

Pedro Parks Wilderness and IRAs located outside of Management Area L (nonmotorized

recreation areas). My rationale for not selecting Alternative 3 is discussed under the ―Other

Alternatives Considered‖ section.

Bureau of Land Management Concurrence

The USDI Bureau of Land Management has jurisdiction and expertise pursuant to oil and gas

leasing on national forests. In a May 26, 2005, letter to the Farmington District Manager, the

BLM was officially invited to participate as a cooperating agency, providing technical expertise

and review of the EIS. BLM personnel from the State and Farmington District Offices provided

advice and assistance with the draft stipulations and in meetings with oil and gas industry

representatives in Farmington. The FEIS and ROD will be transmitted to the BLM State Director

and BLM Farmington District Manager with a recommendation that my decision be adopted in its

entirety.

Further, as described in the FEIS and as provided for by law and regulation:

The BLM will only offer leases on national forest lands after consulting with the Forest

Service, and the Forest Service has reported its recommendation for lease stipulations (43

CFR 3101.7-1 (b));

The BLM will issue leases for lands subject to stipulations required by the forest

supervisor (43 CFR 3101.7-2(a)), where applicable; and

The BLM will not offer lands that the forest supervisor has determined are not available

for oil-gas leasing. No lease parcels will be offered without the consent of the Forest

Service (43 CFR 3101.7-1 (c)).


Other Alternatives Considered

In addition to the selected alternative, I considered eight other alternatives which are discussed

below. Alternative 3 was the environmentally preferable alternative. A more detailed comparison

of these alternatives can be found in the EIS in chapter 2.

Alternative 1 - No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, standard lease terms and conditions or a small area of limited

surface use, as identified in the current Forest Plan, would continue to guide management of oil-

gas leasing in the study area. Except for limited surface use, no additional constraints on oil-gas

leasing would be implemented to protect surface resources other than those imposed by standard

lease terms and conditions. COAs and mitigation measures are developed and applied during

second level site-specific NEPA analysis for APDs; this process would continue to apply.

I did not select this alternative because it does not meet the purpose of and need for action, nor

does it enhance the Forest Service's ability to manage surface resources to minimize impacts to

NFS lands and surface resources from oil-gas activities; nor does it improve the timeliness and

efficiency of processing current and future EOIs in oil and gas leasing.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 was developed in response to public scoping comments regarding protection of

roadless and wilderness areas. This alternative increases the acreage of NSO lease stipulations by

44 percent over Alternative 2, while all other lease stipulations would be the same as in

Alternative 2. Under this alternative, all IRAs outside Management Area L and a one-half mile

buffer around the San Pedro Parks Wilderness are proposed for an NSO lease stipulation.

Although it meets the purpose and need, I did not select this alternative. I believe Alternative 2

will adequately protect the wilderness and IRAs because the wilderness is outside the study area

boundary and pursuant to the U.S. District Court clarifying order, the NSO stipulation will apply

to all IRAs in the study area, which will substantially increase the acreage protected under

Alternative 2. In addition, the IRAs are characterized by steep, rugged terrain, which will limit

oil-gas activities, as has been demonstrated by the lack of oil-gas exploration in Management

Area L, the IRA in the northwestern part of the study area, even though it has been under lease for

many years. A large portion of the EOI area immediately west of the wilderness is within

Management Area L and subject to the NSO stipulation. Hence, there will be no oil-gas activities

within the area until such time as the agency promulgates a new rule. Furthermore, according to

the supplemental RFDS, there is little potential for oil-gas resources; and oil-gas drilling and

facilities may be relocated during the APD process under current regulation (43 CFR § 3101.1-2)

up to 200 meters (656 feet) in any direction from industry proposed sites, which would provide an

additional degree of protection.

To a lesser extent I considered Forest Service policy of not maintaining buffer strips of

undeveloped wildland to provide an informal extension of wilderness (FSM 2320.3) in my

decision. Other reasons include the need to comply with Forest Service and Federal requirements

to avoid wasting oil-gas resources (Onshore Order 9 and the Mineral Leasing Act of February 25,

1920, as amended (30 U.S.C. 225)), as well as protection provided under current regulatory

authority that allows relocation of oil-gas facilities up to 200 meters (656 feet) within a lease and

the protection of most of the IRAs through NSO under Alternative 2.



Environmentally Preferable Alternative

The CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1505.2(b)) require that the ROD identify the alternative(s) that

could be considered environmentally preferable. The environmentally preferable alternative is

defined by CEQ as: (1) the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and physical

environment, and (2) the alternative that best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural,

and natural resources.

I consider Alternative 3 to be the environmentally preferable alternative because it provides a ½-

mile NSO buffer bordering the San Pedro Parks Wilderness and IRAs in the study area. However,

for the reasons stated in the preceding discussion of Alternative 3, I believe Alternative 2 will

provide almost as much protection for these important NFS lands and resources. Furthermore, I

have determined that Alternative 2 adopts all practical means to avoid or minimize environmental

harm to National Forest System lands and resources in the study area (40 CFR 1505.2(c)).

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

Other alternatives considered but not analyzed in detail include the following, with the reasons

for elimination.

Limit the Hours of Human Presence at Oil-Gas Drilling Sites — This alternative

would limit human presence at drill sites to between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. to avoid wildlife

feeding and movement periods. This alternative was eliminated from detailed

consideration because it would be too restrictive and costly to meet Forest Service

requirements to allow reasonable access to mineral resources. Limiting operations to a 6-

hour period each day would extend the vehicle traffic, noise, and concentrated human

activity over many more days, which would be expensive for industry and may be more

disruptive to wildlife.

Additional Timing Limitations for Migratory Bird Protection — This alternative

would limit construction activities to a period outside the general migratory bird nesting

season of March through August, unless the areas proposed for construction during the

nesting season would first be surveyed, and when occupied, avoided until nesting is

complete. This proposal was eliminated from detailed study because timing limitations in

several areas under the Proposed Action would already eliminate construction activities

during much of this period and new areas could be added if warranted. In addition, there

are no important bird areas identified within the study area by State or Federal agency

biologists other than the existing raptor areas, and field survey information is not

available to delineate additional areas.

Large Areas of No Leasing to Protect Wildlife Habitat — Under this alternative, there

would be large areas throughout the Forest held unavailable for leasing in order to

provide refuge for wildlife. This alternative was eliminated from detailed study because

the Forest Service determined that the large unleased areas within the Santa Fe National

Forest outside the study area, in addition to proposed NSO areas, would maintain blocks

of wildlife habitat undisturbed by oil-gas operations while still allowing reasonable

access to minerals.

NSO within 300 Feet of Wetlands, Flood Plains, and Riparian Areas — This

alternative would add an NSO stipulation within a 300-foot buffer around wetlands,

riparian areas, and 100-year flood plains. It was eliminated from detailed study for



several reasons: these areas within the study area tend to be narrow, linear features that

can be avoided during the APD process under current regulation (43 CFR § 3101.1-2)

that enables the location of oil-gas facilities to be moved up to 200 meters (656 feet) in

any direction from industry-proposed sites to protect surface resources. One hundred-year

flood plains have not been delineated in the Forest and would require detailed hydrologic

modeling that is unnecessary because they could be avoided according to the 200-meter

regulation.

Full-Field Development of Oil and Gas — Full-field development entails drilling wells

on the standard spacing of 160 acres throughout the study area but was not analyzed in

detail because, according to the RFDS, there is little potential for this to occur under

current and foreseeable future conditions. This conclusion was supported by area oil-gas

operators who were queried during public scoping.

Retroactive Application of Lease Stipulations — This alternative would apply the new

lease stipulations to existing leases. Existing leases are contracts that cannot be modified

to add new stipulations or constraints that alter the basic terms and conditions of the

lease. The only modifications to development under existing leases are those that are

required to comply with Federal laws such as the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).


Public Involvement

A notice of intent to prepare an EIS for the proposal to update oil-gas lease availability and

stipulations within the study area was listed in the Federal Register on September 30, 2004. The

proposal was provided to over 300 people, other agencies, and 26 pueblos and tribes for comment

during scoping from September 30 through October 20, 2004. Public meetings were held in Cuba

and Santa Fe, New Mexico. As part of the public involvement process, the Santa Fe NF met with

oil-gas industry representatives to discuss the need for the EIS, as well as to obtain information

on the adequacy of the projections for oil-gas development in the study area. The draft EIS notice

of availability was published in the Federal Register on March 10, 2006. Twenty-one comments

from five people were received, including a no objections letter from the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency. The proposal was first published in the November 2003–May 2004 Santa Fe

NF Schedule of Proposed Actions, then continuously since April 2005.

Using the comments from the public, other agencies, the oil and gas industry, and environmental

organizations, six nonsignificant issues and one significant issue were identified. The significant

issue related to providing increased protection for San Pedro Parks Wilderness and IRAs located

outside of Management Area L (nonmotorized recreation areas). To address this issue, the Forest

Service created Alternative 3 described above.

Alternative 3 was analyzed but not selected due to the need to comply with Forest Service and

Federal requirements to avoid wasting oil-gas resources (Onshore Order 9 and the Mineral

Leasing Act of February 25, 1920, as amended (30 U.S.C. 225)), as well as protection provided

under current regulatory authority that allows relocation of oil-gas facilities up to 200 meters (656

feet) within a lease and the protection of most of the IRAs through NSO under Alternative 2.

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations

Numerous laws, regulations, and Forest Service directives require that this decision be consistent

with their provisions. The following discussion is not an all-inclusive listing, but is intended to

provide information on the areas raised as issues or comments by the public or other agencies.

Endangered Species Act

This decision is consistent with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was not undertaken because the

amendment is programmatic and does not authorize any land-disturbing activities, the biological

assessment for this project determined that there will be no effects to listed or proposed

threatened or endangered species as a result of implementation of Alternative 2. Additional

analysis in this supplement confirms that the selected alternative is consistent with the

―Regionwide Programmatic Land and Resource Management Plan Biological Opinion‖ issued by

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on June 10, 2005; and that no re-initiation of consultation is

needed on the Forest Plan as a result of this amendment.

Energy Policy Act of 2005

This decision will bring the Forest Plan and Forest Service management of oil-gas resources into

compliance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–580), Title III-Oil and Gas,

Subtitle F-Access to Federal Lands and Subtitle G-Miscellaneous by facilitating timely action on

oil-gas lease applications (Subtitle F, Sections 362, 363 and 366).

Public Involvement


Sensitive Species

Federal law and direction applicable to Forest Service sensitive species include the National

Forest Management Act and Forest Service Manual (2670). The Southwestern Region regional

forester has developed the sensitive species list for plants and animals for which population

viability is a concern (FEIS chapter 3, ―Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species‖ section).

In reviewing the analyses and projected effects on all sensitive species listed as occurring or

possibly occurring in the study area—and because the decision is programmatic and does not

directly authorize activities that have the potential to affect sensitive species—it has been

demonstrated and documented in the biological evaluation that there will be no trend toward

Federal listing for any sensitive species.

National Historic Preservation Act

The Forest Service has evaluated this project in relation to the National Historic Preservation Act

(16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and the ―First Amended Programmatic Agreement Regarding Historic

Property Protection and Responsibilities in Region 3 of the USDA Forest Service,‖ signed by the

Forest Service, the Advisory Council, and State Historic Preservation Officers. Because the

decision is programmatic and does not directly authorize activities that have the potential to affect

historic properties, it has been determined that it will have no substantial effect on the qualities

that make historic properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Properties. Site specific

heritage resource survey, evaluation, and consultation under the amended programmatic

agreement will be completed during the site-specific NEPA analysis of APDs.

National Forest Management Act of 1976

This decision, including the nonsignificant amendment, is consistent with the goals and objectives

of the Forest Plan, and is consistent with the management direction, and standards and guidelines

for management areas within the study area.

The Alternative 2 stipulations described in chapter 2 of the EIS are designed to meet the relevant

minimum specific management requirements for resource protection as required by the National

Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.) at 36 CFR 219.27:

Conserve soil and water resources and not allow significant or permanent impairment of

the productivity of the land.

Protect streams, streambanks, wetlands, and other bodies of water.

Provide for and maintain diversity of plant and animal communities to meet overall

multiple-use objectives.

Provide for adequate fish and wildlife habitat to maintain viable populations of existing

native vertebrate species consistent with multiple-use objectives.

Prevent the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for threatened and

endangered species.

Maintain air quality at a level that is adequate for the protection and use of NFS resources

and that meets or exceeds applicable Federal, State and/or local standards or regulations.

Give special attention to protection of riparian areas.

Public Involvement


Mineral Leasing Act of 1920

This decision is consistent with the Mineral Leasing Act, as amended (30 U.S.C. 181–287), which

regulates all surface-disturbing activities associated with any lease in order to conserve surface

resources. It also requires that the oil and gas from Federal minerals be fully extracted and not

wasted.

Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970

This decision is consistent with the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a),

which maintains that "it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government in the national

interest to foster and encourage . . . the orderly and economic development of domestic mineral

resources . . ."

Forest Service Minerals Regulations

This decision is consistent with 36 C.F.R. Section 228.102 that addresses leasing analyses and

decisions. The regulation requires that the leasing analysis identify on maps the areas that are

open to development and those subject to constraints. It requires projections of post-leasing

activity and analysis of the reasonable foreseeable impacts.


Opportunities for Administrative Review or Appeal

Pursuant to the regulations at 36 CFR 215, people and organizations who commented on the

DEIS during the notice and comment period that ran from March 10 until April 24, 2006, have

standing to appeal my decision. People who commented anonymously or outside of the notice

and comment period do not have standing to appeal. Appeals received, including the names and

addresses of those who appeal, will be part of the public record.

How to Submit an Appeal: You must submit your appeal within 45 days after the legal notice of

decision is published in the Albuquerque Journal. The publication date of the legal notice is the

exclusive means for calculating the time to file an appeal (§215.15 (a)). Do not rely upon dates or

timeframe information provided by any other source. The content of your appeal must meet the

requirements described in 36 CFR 215.14.

Appeals may be delivered by facsimile, hand, U.S. mail, express delivery service, or email.

Acceptable electronic formats are text in the body of an email or an attachment (.pdf, .doc, .txt,

.rtf, or other formats readable by Microsoft Word).

Send Appeals to: Corbin Newman, Appeal Deciding Officer

Southwestern Region

333 Broadway Blvd., SE

Albuquerque, NM 87102

Fax number: (505) 842-3173

Email address: [email protected]

Appeals may be hand delivered to the above address during regular business hours from 8 a.m. to

4:30 p.m.

Implementation

If no appeal is filed within the 45-day time period, implementation of the decision may begin on,

but not before, the 5th business day following the close of the appeal filing period (§215.15).

When an appeal is filed, implementation may occur on, but not before, the 15th business day

following the date of appeal disposition (§215.2). In the event of multiple appeals of the decision,

the implementation date is controlled by the date of the last appeal disposition.

Contact

For additional information concerning this decision or the Forest Service appeals process, please

contact: Jennifer Cramer, Forest Planner, Santa Fe National Forest, 11 Forest Lane, Santa Fe, NM

87508, telephone: (505) 438-5449; email: [email protected].

Maria T. Garcia November 19, 2012

Forest Supervisor



Appendix A - Glossary of Terms

For the purposes of this document the following terms, respectively, shall mean:

Application for permit to drill (APD): a written request, petition, or offer to lease lands

for the purpose of fluid minerals exploration and/or right-of-extraction.

Condition of approval (COA): a site-specific and enforceable requirement included in

an approved application for permit to drill (APD) or Sundry Notice that may limit or

amend the specific actions proposed by the operator. Conditions of approval minimize,

mitigate, or prevent impacts to resource values or other uses of public lands.

Controlled surface use (CSU): a stipulation under which use and occupancy is allowed

(unless restricted by another stipulation), but identified resource values require special

operational limitations that may modify lease rights.

Exception: a one-time exemption for a particular site within the leasehold; exceptions are

determined on a case-by-case basis; the stipulation continues to apply to all other sites

within the leasehold. An exception is a limited type of waiver.

Expression of interest (EOI): an informal nomination to request that certain lands be

included in an oil and gas competitive lease sale.

Lease notice: provides more detailed information concerning limitations that already

exist in law, lease terms, regulations, and operational orders. A lease notice also addresses

special items the lessee would consider when planning operations, but does not impose

new or additional restrictions.

Lease stipulation: A modification of the standard lease terms and conditions at the time

of the lease sale to provide a level of protection for other resource values or land uses by

restricting lease operations during certain times or at certain locations, or to avoid

unacceptable impacts, to an extent greater than standard lease terms or regulations. A

stipulation is an enforceable term of the lease contract, supersedes any inconsistent

provisions of the standard lease form, and is attached to and made a part of the lease.

Lease stipulations further implement the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM)

regulatory authority to protect resources or resource values. Lease stipulations are

developed through the land use planning process.

Limited surface occupancy (use): a current Forest Plan stipulation added to a standard

mineral lease specifying limitations on specific areas.

Modification: a change to the provisions of a lease stipulation, either temporarily or for

the term of the lease. Depending on the specific modification, the stipulation may or may

not apply to all sites within the leasehold to which the restrictive criteria are applied.

No surface occupancy (NSO): a stipulation that prohibits occupancy or disturbance on

all or part of the lease surface to protect special values or uses. Lessees may exploit the

fluid mineral resources under the leases restricted by this constraint through use of

directional drilling from sites outside the NSO area.

Notice to lessees (NTL): a written notice issued by the BLM to implement regulations

and operating orders, and serve as instructions on a specific item(s) of importance within

a state, district, or area.

Standard lease terms and conditions: areas may be open to leasing with no specific

management decisions defined in a forest land and resource management plan; however,

Appendix A – Glossary of Terms


these areas are subject to lease terms and conditions as defined on the BLM lease form

(Form 3100-11, Offer to Lease and Lease for Oil and Gas).

Standard stipulation: a current Forest Plan constraint added to all mineral, oil, and gas

leases to protect resources from unnecessary disturbance. Fire, erosion control, payment

for damages, cattleguards, pollution, camp construction, plan of operation, environmental

analysis, protection of threatened and endangered species, and cultural resources are

covered.

Sundry notice: a standard form to notify or propose change of approved well operations

subsequent to an application for permit to drill in accordance with 43 CFR 3162.3-2.

Timing limitation (TL) (seasonal restriction): a stipulation that prohibits surface use

during specified time periods to protect identified resource values. The constraint does

not apply to the operation and maintenance of production facilities unless analysis

demonstrates that such constraints are needed and that less stringent, project-specific

constraints would be insufficient.

Waiver: a permanent exemption from a lease stipulation. The stipulation no longer

applies anywhere within the leasehold.


Appendix B - Alternative 2

Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative)

The Proposed Action Alternative would update oil and gas leasing availability in the Forest Plan

only within the defined study area (shown on figures OG-6 and OG-7). Oil-gas leasing in the

remainder of the Santa Fe National Forest would continue to be governed by the current Forest

Plan leasing direction within each management area. The Proposed Action would add specific

stipulations of no surface occupancy (NSO), controlled surface use (CSU), or timing limitation

(TL) where needed to protect surface resources. Timing limitations refer to prohibiting drilling

operations within the specified dates annually. Drilling operations include starting or finishing an

existing drilling operation, completions, swabbing, tubing changes, pump changes, replacing

compressors, replacing production equipment, and construction and maintenance with heavy

equipment. Normal recurring production and day-to-day operations on existing wells, including

trucking and removal of produced water, would be permitted under timing limitations.

The proposed stipulations listed below describe specific limitations regarding surface occupancy

or use, their purpose, and the location and/or conditions under which they apply. The Proposed

Action would only apply to new leases, not existing leases. New leases are defined as parcels

within the study area that are currently unleased, as well as any existing leases that expire or are

relinquished and become available for leasing in the future. All areas not within the boundaries of

any proposed lease stipulations would remain open to oil-gas leasing under standard terms and

conditions.

For the proposed lease stipulations, any changes made through exceptions or modifications would

be made in accordance with the Forest Plan and all regulatory provisions applicable to such

changes. If circumstances or relative resource values change, or if it can be demonstrated that oil

and gas operations can be conducted without causing unacceptable impacts, the stipulation may

be waived, excepted, or modified. An authorized Forest Service official may approve waivers,

exceptions, or modifications if such action is consistent with the Forest Plan. If the action is not

consistent, a Forest Plan amendment would be needed and developed with an associated NEPA

analysis document. If the forest supervisor determines that the waiver, exception, or modification

involves an issue of major public concern, the waiver, exception, or modification would be

subject to a 30- to 90-day public review period (36 CFR §219.8).

The Proposed Action does not include any conditions of approval (COA) or mitigation measures,

which are developed and applied during second level NEPA site-specific analysis of the APD

surface use plans of operations. At that time, the Forest Service would ensure that applicable

COAs are consistent with established BLM and Forest Service policies in the San Juan Basin for

managing noise and air quality.

The proposed stipulations are identified by the resource they would protect, such as designated

wildlife habitat, scenic areas, roadless recreation areas, and heritage resources. The proposed

stipulations are described below, grouped by the type of stipulation, and displayed following the

descriptions in figures OG-9 through OG-12, which show NSO areas (figure OG-9), TL areas

(figure OG-10), CSU areas (figure OG-11), and all lease stipulations combined (figure OG-12).

Where lease stipulations overlap, the most stringent or a combination would apply. For example,

where an area designated as CSU overlaps an area designated as NSO, the overlapping area

would be managed as NSO. Where either CSU or NSO areas overlap areas designated for TL, the

TL lease stipulation would apply in addition to either CSU or NSO.

Appendix B – Alternative 2


Figure OG-9. Proposed Action: No surface occupancy lease stipulations within the study area



Figure OG-10. Proposed Action: Timing limitation lease stipulations within the study area



Figure OG-11. Proposed Action: Controlled surface use lease stipulations within the study area



Figure OG-12. Proposed Action: All lease stipulations within the study area



Resource: Steep Slopes

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy

Location: Generally narrow areas consisting of slopes of 40 percent or greater that have a

higher erosion and mass wasting potential. These scattered areas range in size

from 3 to over 2,000 acres each and may overlap other proposed NSO or CSU1

areas.

Purpose: To preclude surface-disturbing activities on steep slopes (40 percent or more)

because these slopes on the forest tend to have high erosion and mass wasting

hazard. Without this protection, there would be a high risk of impairing long-term

soil productivity and watershed conditions.

Exception: An exception, modification, or waiver may be granted if onsite inspection shows

that unstable or steep slopes do not exist on the specific site, or if the operator

can demonstrate in a surface use plan of operations that adverse effects can be

minimized and activities safely conducted without loss of long-term site

productivity. A public notice and comment period is required prior to waiver,

exception, or modification waiver of this stipulation.

Resource: Roadless Recreation, Management Area L


Location: Management Area L: Currently there are two areas totaling 10,570 acres. One

narrow area lies directly adjacent to the west side of San Pedro Parks Wilderness,

and the other lies about 6 miles west of Rio Chama Canyon Wilderness. Both

areas consist primarily of steep, rugged terrain. Would apply wherever this

management area is designated.

Purpose: To keep surface disturbance activities outside the designated roadless recreation

area is needed to protect and maintain the roadless, semiprimitive, and

nonmotorized character within these special areas, which include such elements

as natural integrity, natural appearance, opportunity for quiet and solitude,

manageability of boundaries, and special features (ecological, geological, scenic,

cultural features).

Exception: An exception, modification, or waiver may be granted if the Forest Plan

designation changes so that the area is no longer classified as semiprimitive

nonmotorized, or if the operator can demonstrate in a surface use plan of

operations that the activity can be conducted with minimal impacts on the

semiprimitive, nonmotorized characteristics within a site-specific locale. A public

notice and comment period is required prior to waiver, exception, or modification

waiver of this stipulation.

1 Sensitive areas containing geologic hazards, riparian areas, etc., that are 3 acres or less in size are excluded from the

stipulation map as they can be avoided through standard terms and conditions that allow for moving proposed facilities

up to 200 meters (656 feet) to avoid adverse resource impacts.



Resource: Heritage Resources


Location: Two sites on the National Register of Historic Places: Nogales Cliff House (110

acres) and Rattlesnake Ridge (90 acres).

Purpose: To avoid surface disturbance activities that would result in irreversible loss of

this resource within these distinct localized areas where heritage resource

avoidance or data recovery are not viable options. These are significant heritage

resource sites on the National Register of Historic Places that are important

interpretive sites.

Exception: An exception, modification, or waiver may be granted if a site-specific surface

use plan of operations demonstrates that adverse impacts to the heritage

resources can be completely avoided, and clearance is obtained from the forest

archeologist and State Historic Preservation Officer. A public notice and

comment period is required prior to waiver, exception, or modification waiver of

this stipulation.

Resource: Mexican Spotted Owl

Stipulation: Timing limitation on drilling operations and construction activities: March 1 to

August 31

Location: Currently there are 4 designated protected activity centers (PACs) ranging in size

from 365 to 610 acres. Would apply wherever there is a designated PAC.

Purpose: To protect and limit disturbance from drilling and construction activities within

Mexican spotted owl PACs (nesting/fledgling areas) to minimize risks to

reproductive and post-fledgling success of Mexican spotted owls during the

critical nesting/breeding period defined in the recovery plan for this federally

listed threatened species as well as the Forest Plan (Appendix D, pg. 2). Would

not apply to daily operations and maintenance of producing wells.

Exception: An exception, modification, or waiver to the timing limitation may be granted if

surveys according to protocol are conducted and the area is not used for nesting.

A public notice and comment period is required prior to waiver, exception, or

modification waiver of this stipulation.

Resource: Northern Goshawk


September 30.

Location: There are currently three post-fledgling areas (PFAs) ranging in size from 46 to

almost 300 acres. Would apply wherever there is a designated PFA.

Purpose: To protect and limit disturbance from drilling and construction within northern

goshawk nesting PFAs to minimize risks to reproductive and post-fledgling

success of northern goshawks during the critical nesting/breeding period defined



in interagency goshawk guidelines and the Forest Plan (Appendix D, pp. 6, 10).

Would not apply to daily operation and maintenance of producing wells.


goshawk surveys show that the area is not used for nesting.

Resource: Peregrine Falcon


August 15.

Location: Currently there is one peregrine falcon eyrie nesting area consisting of 935 acres.

Would apply wherever there is a designated eyrie.

Purpose: To protect and limit disturbance from drilling and construction within peregrine

falcon habitat to minimize risks to reproductive and post-fledgling success of

peregrine falcons during the critical nesting/breeding period, consistent with the

Forest Plan (pg. 63) and Agency directives. Would not apply to daily operation

and maintenance of producing wells.


surveys show that the area is not used for nesting.

Resource: Deer and Elk Winter Range

Stipulation: Timing limitation on drilling operations and construction activities: December 15

to March 15.

Location: Two areas along the northwest edge of the oil-gas study area have been identified

as winter range for deer and elk totaling 22,390 acres.

Purpose: To protect and limit disturbance from drilling and construction within prime deer

and elk winter range to minimize risks to health during a critical period,

consistent with recommendations from New Mexico Department of Game and

Fish (NMDGF) and summarized under issue 1 in chapter 1. Would not apply to

daily operation and maintenance of producing wells.


the operator demonstrates that the drilling/construction location would not

disrupt deer and elk winter habitat.

Resource: Deer Fawning/Elk Calving Area

Stipulation: Timing limitation on drilling operations and construction activities: June 1 to July

31.

Location: One area in the southern portion of the oil-gas study area has been identified as

important to the success of deer fawning and elk calving consisting of 9,600

acres.



Purpose: To protect and limit disturbance from drilling and construction within important

deer fawning/elk calving area to minimize risks to herd reproduction during a

critical period, consistent with recommendations from the NMDGF and

summarized under issue 1 in chapter 1. Would not apply to daily operation and

maintenance of producing wells.


the operator demonstrates that the drilling/construction location would not

disrupt deer fawning and elk calving.

Resource: Riparian Areas and Wetlands

Stipulation: Controlled Surface Use: avoid well pads and attendant facilities within wetlands

and riparian areas2 . Access roads and pipelines would be allowed if there are no

practical alternative locations and they are located and designed to minimize

adverse impacts to riparian or wetland resources.

Location: Narrow areas ranging in size from less than 0.01 to 350 acres, where the forest's

terrestrial ecosystem survey and vegetation data indicates riparian or wetland

conditions (hydrology, hydrophytic plants, hydric soil), including active flood

plains. Some overlap other proposed CSU and NSO areas.

Purpose: To avoid adverse impacts to riparian and wetland resources, consistent with law,

regulation, and policy.

Exception: An exception, modification, or waiver may be granted if surveys show that the

area of proposed activity is not wetland or riparian, and road crossings of riparian

areas may be approved if the operator can demonstrate that there are no

practicable alternatives and that adverse effects of a road crossing through the

riparian area or wetland can be minimized. A public notice and comment period

is required prior to waiver, exception, or modification waiver of this stipulation.

Resource: Retention Visual Quality Objective (High Scenic Integrity Objective)

Stipulation: Controlled Surface Use: locate and design surface disturbance activities to be

consistent with the visual quality objective of "retention" (or the scenic integrity

of "high"), or to reclaim disturbed areas to meet the visual quality objective

within 1 to 3 years from project startup. Generally, this can be met by following

industry's best management practices for minimizing impacts to visual quality,

along with visual quality guidelines in the Forest Plan and Forest Service Scenery

Management System Handbook (Agriculture Handbook 701).

Location: Currently, Management Area D, in addition to a few narrow road or trail

corridors, comprises Forest Plan designated areas to be managed for the

"Retention" visual quality objective (VQO). The visual foreground along those

designated roads and trails must be managed to meet ―Retention‖ VQO 2 Includes Terrestrial Ecosystem Units 3-8, 10-11, 13, 31, 33-34, 38, 234, 320, 334, or other areas identified during

onsite inspection.



standards. The foreground "Retention" corridors are mapped at one-half mile on

each side of the road or trail, but may be less, based on site-specific conditions.

They range in size from less than 1 acre to 5,200 acres and may overlap other

CSU or NSO areas. Would apply wherever "Retention" or high scenic integrity is

the visual quality objective, including the following areas:

NM Highway 112 within Management Area R (Forest Plan, pg. 167)

NM Highway 44 (U.S. Highway 550) through Cuba Mesa, Management

Area E (Forest Plan, pg. 118) and the Cuba Ranger District administrative

site north of Cuba

Continental Divide Trail sections along Cecilia Creek and a portion of Forest

Road 95 within Management Area E (Forest Plan, pg. 118)

Management Area D, including the small portions just north of and adjacent

to the Village of Gallina, as well as along NM Highway 126/Scenic Byway

corridor just west of and adjacent to San Pedro Parks Wilderness (Forest

Plan, pg. 113)

Purpose: Needed to protect the long-term scenic values in areas of high scenic integrity

consistent with Agency directives and the Forest Plan. The Continental Divide

Trail is a designated national scenic trail and Highway 126 is a designated scenic

byway.

Exception: An exception, modification, or waiver may be granted if the area is reclassified to

a lower visual quality or scenic integrity objective.

Resource: Heritage Resources

Stipulation: Controlled Surface Use: avoid or minimize well pads, roads, or other surface

disturbance activities within existing and proposed Management Area I

boundaries.

Location: There are two existing Management Area I designations and six other proposed

areas that qualify for heritage resource protection, based on Forest Plan criteria.

The proposed new heritage resource areas with CSU lease stipulations range in

size from 100 to 750 acres each and may overlap other CSU areas.

Purpose: Needed to avoid adverse impacts or an irreversible loss of heritage resources

within localized areas containing a high density of highly significant heritage

resource sites. These sites are eligible for inclusion to the National Register of

Historic Places and meet the management emphasis for Forest Plan Management

Area I. These areas represent the major cultures that once lived on the Santa Fe

National Forest.

Exception: An exception, modification, or waiver may be granted if a site-specific surface

use plan of operations demonstrates that adverse impacts to the heritage

resources can be completely avoided, and clearance is obtained from the forest

archeologist and State Historic Preservation Officer. A public notice and

comment period is required prior to waiver, exception, or modification waiver of

this stipulation.



Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Requirements

There are no site-specific mitigation measures or monitoring requirements for the action

alternatives because this is a programmatic EIS that does not authorize any land-disturbing

activities on National Forest System lands. Mitigation measures (aka conditions of approval) and

monitoring requirements are developed and applied during the second level site-specific NEPA

analysis on applications for permission to drill.


Appendix C - Determination of Non-Significance

File Code: 1950-3/2620 Date: August 15, 2008

Route To: (2820)

Subject: Santa Fe National Forest Oil and Gas Leasing Forest Plan Amendment

Determination of Non-Significance

To: Allen Fowler, Contract COR / Forest Environmental Coordinator

This memo documents my determination that the Proposed Oil and Gas Leasing Amendment

to the Santa Fe National Forest Plan, as amended (Forest Plan) does not constitute a significant

Forest Plan amendment. This determination was based on the analysis disclosed in the Final

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and the factors of timing; location and size; goals,

objectives and outputs; and management prescriptions.

The proposed amendment, Alternative 2 of the Final EIS would incorporate, into the Forest Plan,

new leasing categories by management area, and surface occupancy and/or use stipulations

applicable to new oil-gas leases within portions of the Cuba and Coyote Ranger Districts (Study

Area, Map 1).

The Study Area encompasses approximately (~)196,776 acres of National Forest System (NFS)

lands located in the easternmost part of the San Juan Basin, a geologic region of northwest New

Mexico and southwest Colorado, the largest natural gas producing region in New Mexico (Map

2). Following are the proposed amendment stipulations for oil-gas leasing (Map 3):

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY (NSO) - applies to specific unstable slopes, specific heritage

resource sites and roadless recreation areas.

CONTROLLED SURFACE USE (CSU) - applies to specific riparian, inventoried roadless

and scenic areas.

TIMING LIMITATION (TL) - applies to specific Mexican spotted owl, northern goshawk,

and peregrine falcon habitats; and to big game winter range and elk calving/deer fawning

areas.

Proposed Amendment Applicability

The proposed amendment stipulations would apply, where appropriate, to new oil-gas leases that

may be issued on the NFS lands in the Study Area, including ~13,625 unleased acres with

Expressions of Interest (EOI). It would not apply to the ~83,529 acres of NFS lands currently

under existing valid oil-gas leases unless a lease expires, is relinquished or terminated (Map 4).

The proposed amendment stipulations would be applied in specific areas where resource

protection needs are greater than that provided by standard oil-gas lease stipulations. The

stipulations would provide specific direction regarding surface occupancy or use, their purpose,

the site-specific location and/or applicable conditions, and exceptions. It should also expedite

Forest Service recommendations to the BLM for processing new oil-gas leases applications.

Appendix C – Determination of Nonsignificance


The proposed amendment stipulations would minimize impacts to specific NFS lands and surface

resources while facilitating timely processing of oil-gas lease applications without undue

constraints (Public Law 109-580, Energy Policy Act of 2005). The proposed amendment would

meet the intent of 36 CFR 228.102 regarding Forest Plan leasing analysis and decisions, and

analysis of reasonably foreseeable oil-gas leasing impacts.

The proposed amendment would not authorize any on-the-ground oil-gas activities or solicit oil-

gas leasing, exploration, or development. Nor does it include any "Conditions of Approval"

(COAs) or mitigation measures, which are developed site-specifically and applied during second

level NEPA analysis of the "Application for Permit to Drill" (APD) surface use plans of

operation. At that time, the Forest Service would ensure that applicable COAs are consistent with

established Forest Service and BLM policies in the San Juan Basin for managing noise, air

quality and reclamation.

Current Forest Plan Direction

The Forest Plan (approved 1987) provides broad direction for oil-gas leasing and development

activities on NFS lands. Current stipulations include standard and limited surface use. However,

the Forest Plan analysis disclosed in the Final EIS (published July 1987) did not address the

potential environmental effects of future oil-gas leasing and development sufficiently for Forest

Service line officers to make informed recommendations to the BLM concerning new oil-gas

leasing decisions.

For example, under current Forest Plan direction (No Action Alternative), for the ~13,625 EOIs

acres, ~10, 597 acres would be leased under Standard lease terms and conditions, the remaining

~3,028 acres (MA-L) under limited surface use, which equates to the CSU stipulation. The

current Forest Plan provides no direction regarding the specific locations and purposes of the

limited surface use lease stipulation. Consequently, under the current Forest Plan there is little

protection for important NFS lands and resources from oil-gas exploration and development.

The proposed amendment discloses both applicable locations and the purpose for applying the

CSU, NSO, or TL lease stipulations. Under Alternative 2, after deducting the ~83,529 acres of the

Study Area currently under lease and not subject to this proposed amendment, lease stipulation

would apply as follows: CSU- ~9,294 acres, NSO- ~14,222 acres, and TL- ~10,406 acres,

Standard lease terms and conditions- ~79,325 acres. (Map 5, Tables 1, 2, 3a, and 3b)

Significance Evaluation

In evaluating whether or not the proposed amendment is significant under the NFMA (National

Forest Management Act), I considered timing; location and size; goals, objectives and outputs;

and management prescriptions.

Timing: The proposed amendment would be incorporated into the Forest Plan immediately to

ensure timely action on applications pursuant to Title III, Subtitle F, Sec. 362(a)(2) of the Energy

Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58-AUG. 8, 2005). Forest Plan revision is not scheduled for

completion until 2010 or later. Although the Forest is outside the most productive oil-gas

formations in the San Juan Basin (FEIS, Chpt 3, Introduction), because current energy policies

and economic conditions are favorable, there has been renewed interest in production from wells

located in marginal oil-gas producing formation. Following are two examples.



1. Department of Energy (DOE), National Energy Technology Laboratory topical report

titled A Forecast of Marginal Natural Gas and Oil Well Data, June 2005, found that:

○ The relative importance of natural gas marginal wells will increase over time while

oil will decrease.

○ The marginal fraction of total onshore production will continue to increase for both

oil and natural gas.

○ The focus of marginal oil production will shift more and more to the central and

western regions of the country.

○ Significant increases in marginal natural gas wells in the Rocky Mountain region are

forecast.

2. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, sponsored project in New Mexico

proposes to demonstrate new technology that would permit marginally economic oil

reservoirs to remain in production and profitable over much longer periods than are

currently expected using conventional well technology. (―Increased Recovery in the San

Juan Basin Region,‖ Enerdyne LLC, Albuquerque, NM).

The 2004 supplemental Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario (RFDS) for the Forest

projects the development of 20 new wells over the next 20 years. The RFDS is based on proven

geology and known production, and does not project any development in the seven current EOI

areas. Historically, a total of 80 wells on 150 leases have been drilled but between 1983 and 2003,

only three wells were drilled in the Study Area.

While postponing this amendment until Forest Plan revision may not result in significant

environmental impacts, delay is not desirable for the following reasons:

Approximately 58 % of NFS lands in the oil-gas study area have not been leased.

The Forest currently has seven EOIs in oil-gas leasing; four of the EOIs (8,482 ac.) were

submitted after the initiation of the EIS.

Current energy policies and oil-gas economics may lead to submittal of more EOIs.

Location and Size: The proposed amendment would potentially affect only ~3% of the Forest in

the near term, i.e., ~5,455 acres of the ~13,625 EOI acres where CSU or NSO stipulations would

apply; with the potential to affect ~7-13 % of the Forest overall. The remainder and majority of

the Forest would be unaffected by the proposed amendment. Approximately 4.9 million of the

~5.8 million-acre San Juan Basin is within New Mexico. Only ~3.4 percent of the Basin occurs

within the Forest. Consequently, the proposed amendment would be limited in location and size.

Furthermore, since the Forest is outside the most oil-gas productive formations, there would be

few, if any, economic and social impacts from the proposed amendment.

Goals, Objectives, and Outputs: The proposed amendment would support Forest Plan goals of

contributing "to the economic and social needs …" and "strengthening of the rural economy of

the region …" (Forest Plan, pg. 17). It also supports the minerals goal of "sound energy and

minerals exploration and development, where appropriate" and better facilitates the

administration of "minerals laws and regulations to minimize adverse surface resource impacts"

(Forest Plan, pg. 21). Prior to discontinuing the requirement to establish resource outputs in forest



planning, the Forest Plan did not identify any oil-gas resource outputs. Therefore, the proposed

amendment would not significantly change the multiple-use goals and objectives of the Forest

Plan.

The proposed amendment would not affect current oil-gas production (i.e., outputs) on existing

leases. For new oil-gas leases, including the seven EOIs, the Alternative 2 stipulations would

facilitate orderly development of oil-gas resources with enhanced protection of NFS lands and

resources while improving the timeliness and efficiency of EOI and lease application processing

consistent with the National Energy Policy (May 2001) and the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Management Prescriptions: The proposed amendment would change leasing categories and

incorporate stipulations of CSU, NSO, and Timing Limitations as standards and guidelines for

affected Forest Plan management areas. These changes are considered minor because most of the

lands that would be subject to those stipulations are currently under lease and would not be

affected unless the leases expire or are relinquished. Lands not currently leased, including the

EOI lands, would not be significantly affected because those within a NSO leasing category are

outside the most oil-gas productive formations, and the subsurface formations could be accessed

through directional drilling. The stipulations would more closely align oil-gas activities with

affected management area emphasis. The proposed amendment would insure that future oil-gas

leasing decisions follow current Forest Service and other applicable Federal oil-gas policies, and

Forest Plan management area prescriptions.

Based on my review, I have determined that this proposed Forest Plan amendment will not result

in a significant change to the Forest Plan (FSM 1900, Chapter 1920, Sec 1926.5).

/S/ DANIEL J. JIRON

DANIEL J. JIRON

Forest Supervisor

Attachments



Map 1. Oil and gas study area, Cuba and Coyote Ranger District, Santa Fe National Forest



Map 2. San Juan Basin Province of northwestern New Mexico and southwestern Colorado



Map 3. Alternative 2 proposed amendment lease stipulations



Map 4. Existing leases and expressions of interest



Map 5



Table 1. Forest Plan management areas within the oil-gas study area

Mgmt. Area

Emphasis

Study Area Acres -Total MA Acres. on Forest - Percent of

Total MA Acres

Current FP Mineral Leasing

Category

A Emphasis is on timber production and

enhancement of wildlife habitat diversity consistent with other resource integration.

41,836 263,107 16% Standard

B The emphasis in this area is on wildlife habitat

improvement and key species habitat protection.

8,855 69,123 13% Standard

D Emphasis is on enhancement of visual quality

and developed recreation opportunity.

5,929 53,038 11% Limited Surface Use

E Emphasis is on providing dispersed recreation

opportunities, maintaining visual quality and timber and firewood production.

22,706 119,833 19% Standard

G Emphasis in this area is on key wildlife habitat

protection, habitat Improvement, and forage

and firewood production.

9,554 226,992 4% Standard

L Emphasis is on providing semiprimitive

nonmotorized recreation opportunities. (including inventoried roadless areas)

10,570 100,683 10% Limited Surface Use

P Cultural resource location, inventory,

nomination, and protection are emphasized here.

3,485 30,557 11% Standard

R Cultural resource location, inventory,

nomination, and protection are emphasized.

74,600 144,984 51% Standard

S Cultural resource site location, inventory

nomination, and protection are emphasized in these areas.

19,241 40,528 47% Standard

Table 2. Alternative 2 EOI lease stipulations and standard lease terms and conditions acres by management area

Mgmt. Area EOI Acres CSU

Acres NSO

Acres TL Acres

Standard Acres

A 2,272 0 0 0 2,272

E 6,206 764 278 0 5,164

L 3,028 0 3,028 0 0

R 2,119 1,222 163 0 734

Total 13,625 1,986 3,469 0 8,170



Table 3a. Alternative 2 lease stipulations by management area

Mgmt. Area – NFS Acres

CSU Acres NSO Acres TL Only Acres Standard TL All Acres

A – 41,836 2,613 3,228 8,684 27,311 11,079

B – 8,855 141 1,546 281 6,887 281

D – 5,929 2,819 1,069 0 2,041 778

E – 22,706 1,760 1,383 0 19,563 0

G – 9,554 484 1,936 0 7,134 0

L – 10,570 0 10,570 0 0 0

P – 3,485 317 158 0 3,010 0

R – 74,600 9,105 5,028 11,551 48,916 15,017

S – 19,241 441 147 7,492 11,161 7,639

196,776 17,680 25,065 28,008 126,023 34,794

Table 3b. Current leased acres by management area under standard or limited surface use terms and conditions

Mgmt. Area – Leased NFS

Acres

Current Forest Plan

Lease Category

CSU Acres NSO Acres TL Only Acres

TL All Acres

A – 1,124 Standard 154 0 0 0

B – 0 Standard 0 0 0 0

D – 0 LSU 0 0 0 0

E – 5,912 Standard 629 251 0 0

G – 1,328 Standard 0 121 0 0

L – 6,458 LSU 0 6,179 0 0

P – 1,159 Standard 238 0 0 0

R – 47,439 Standard 6,998 4,145 9,794 14,435

S – 20,109 Standard 367 147 7,808 7,955

83,529 8,386 10,843 17,602 22,390

Table 3a and 3b Notes:

All acreages approximate.

Where lease stipulations overlap, the most stringent or the combination would apply.

TL All Acres includes the underlying CSU and NSO acres and is not factored into totals.

TL Only Acres excludes underlying CSU and NSO acres.

Alternative 2 CSU, NSO, or TL stipulations replace the current Forest Plan LSU lease category.

Standard lease terms and conditions would apply to the remaining management area acres in the Study Area

CSU and NSO acres are variable; for example, the Steep Slope NSO areas range from 3 to >2,000 acres in size and

may overlay TL or other NSO or CSU areas.

Alternative 2 acres currently available under Standard lease terms and conditions:

Calculations: Alt. 2 Total ac. - Leased T2b. ac. - (Alt. 2 CSU ac. - Leased CSU ac) - (Alt. 2 NSO ac. - Leased NSO

ac.) - (Alt. 2 TL Only Ac. - Leased TL Only ac.) = Currently available acres. 196,776 ac. - 83,529 ac. - (17,680 2a. ac. -

8,386 ac.) - (25,065 ac. - 10,843 ac.) -(28,008 ac. - 17,602 ac.) = 79,325 currently available acres.



Appendices



Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario San Juan Basin Oil and Gas Planning Amendment EIS


In July 2001, the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology at New Mexico Tech

published ―Oil and Gas Resource Development for San Juan Basin, New Mexico‖ (RFDS) to

support the Bureau of Land Management Farmington Field Office Resource Management Plan

Environmental Impact Statement. The part of the Santa Fe NF which overlaps the San Juan Basin

was included in the RFDS, although the Forest is so marginal to the basin that it wasn't discussed

specifically. Therefore, this report was prepared as a refinement of the RFDS to focus on the

Santa Fe National Forest. This report uses the same assumptions and basis as the RFDS with the

exceptions noted.

Chapter 9 of the RFDS contains the conclusions of that report. They determine there is the

potential for 16,615 ―subsurface developments‖ in the study area.

To apportion the wells which might occur on the Santa Fe NF, I used the percent of each of the

New Mexico Oil Conservation District's (OCD) designated pools which overlap the Forest. There

were two exceptions to using the OCD pools, the first was the Fruitland Basin Coal Gas pool,

which extended outside of the area where the Fruitland Coal exists. I, therefore, used an area that

cut off at the point where the Fruitland Coal outcrops on the surface. The second exception was

the Entrada Formation, where OCD has not designated pools in an area where the RFDS indicates

there is potential for development. For the Entrada, I used the boundary of the potentially

productive area shown in the RFDS figure 5.7-1.

The areas were calculated in ArcMap using the OCD designated pools imported from the New

Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources

(http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/resources/petroleum/poolmaps.html).

The results of these calculations are:

Pools Total Acres

RFDS projected

subsurface developments

SFNF Acres Percent of acres on

SFNF

Projected subsurface

development on SFNF

Nacimiento 8,331 100 137 1.64 2

Fruitland Coal (OCD Field)

3,974,400 2,964 145,973 3.67 109

Fruitland Coal

(modified) 3,660,800 2,964 88,693 2.42 72

Pictured Cliffs 1,124,560 1,432 4,489 0.40 6

Mancos (oil) 239,545 300 86,091 35.94 108

Entrada 3,294,049 80 12,282 0.37 0

In order to further focus the RFDS to the Santa Fe NF, we requested information from the

operators in the San Juan Basin as to what they perceived as reasonable development. Three

contacts were made:



1. A letter was sent out on September 3, 2004, to all of the operators who had expressed an

interest in either the Farmington BLM's Resource Management Plan or the Carson NF's

oil and gas leasing amendment.

2. A meeting was held in early September 2004 for the operator's currently operating on the

Santa Fe NF, and

3. A presentation was made at the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association San Juan Basin

Public Lands Working Committee September 2004 meeting.

These efforts resulted in two companies submitting information as to potential developments.

When totaled, the companies projected 8 new Mancos wells in T. 26 N., R. 1 E. and T. 26 N., R. 1

W. and 20 new Pictured Cliffs wells in T. 24 N., R. 1 W. and T. 25 N., R. 1 W.

These submissions were reviewed to see if they were consistent with the RFDS, the past

operations of the companies, and the regulatory and geologic constraints in the area.

One of the issues about consistency with the RFDS is that natural gas market has changed

substantially since the RFDS was developed, and the information provided by the operators is

based on current market price/demand forecasts. Therefore, there are significantly less oil wells

(Mancos) than statistically projected from the RFDS, and more gas (Pictured Cliffs) wells.

The RFDS discusses Nacimiento production in chapter 5.1, but does not address the Gavilan

pool, which occurs on the Forest. The Gavilan Field had one well on the Forest, but it has been

plugged and abandoned. Therefore, I do not see future drilling as reasonably foreseeable on the

Santa Fe NF.

The RFDS discusses the Fruitland Coal in chapter 4.1. The Santa Fe NF is on the boundary of the

designated pool and the operators have opted to drill in the more central parts of the field, no

operators have expressed any interest in drilling coal bed methane wells on the Forest, and all of

the APDs for the Basin Fruitland Coal which have been filed near the Santa Fe NF have been

abandoned prior to drilling. Therefore, in spite of the large number of wells statistically possible,

I do not see Fruitland Coal development as reasonably foreseeable on the Santa Fe NF.

The RFDS discusses the Pictured Cliffs Pools in Chapter 4.2.

The RFDS discusses the Mancos potential in the study area in chapter 5.6. From the discussion, it

appears that most of the projected Mancos development will occur within the area of the Basin

Dakota area, which is west of the Santa Fe NF. The operators only proposed a few wells, in spite

of the large number which were projected from the RFDS. Therefore, it appears that only a few

wells are reasonably foreseeable.

The RFDS discusses the Entrada Formation potential in chapter 5.7 indicating that most of the

exploratory tests would be in the southernmost part of the basin. The Santa Fe NF is along the

southeast corner of the potential area, but is marginal enough that no development is reasonably

foreseeable.

The drilling history of the Santa Fe NF was also considered. In the past 20 years (1983 through

2003) there were three wells drilled. Therefore, while considering the operator proposals, if there

was a significant difference between the RFDS statistical analysis and the proposal, it was more

reasonable to estimate toward the lower number.



To account for the potential for multiple completions, the RFDS projected that approximately 75

percent of the subsurface developments would be drilled (25 percent of the subsurface

developments would be multiple completions). I applied this same reduction figure to the wells

projected on the Santa Fe NF.

Formation

Projected Subsurface

Development on SFNF from RFDS

Operator Proposed

Development

Projected Subsurface

Development

Projected Wells in Santa Fe NF RFDS (75% of

subsurface development)

Nacimiento 2 0 0 0

Fruitland Coal (OCD) 109 0 0 0

Fruitland Coal (modified) 72 0 0 0

Pictured Cliffs 6 20 15 11

Mancos (oil) 108 8 12 9

Entrada 0 0 0 0

Using this projection of the potential number of wells by formation, I used the operators'

information and the existing well production data to project which township the wells might

occur in.

Pool→

Township ↓

South Blanco Pictured Cliffs

Gavilan Pictured

Cliffs

West Puerto Chiquito Mancos

East Puerto Chiquito Mancos

Total

T. 26 N., R. 1 E 4 4

T. 26 N., R. 1 W 3 3

T. 25 N., R. 1 W 8 2 10

T. 24 N., R. 1 W 2 1 3



Number of

Projects

Total Value*

(Million $)

DOE Share

(Million $)

Job

Benefits**

Coal & Power Projects 5 $7.70 $7.53 219

Oil & Gas Projects 15 $13.77 $10.31 392

*Includes DOE and private sector cost-sharing

**An average of 28.5 direct and indirect jobs per $1 million in R&D funding is used based on the Department of

Commerce Regional Input-Output Modeling System formula.

Government-Industry Projects in New Mexico

Increased Recovery in the San Juan Basin Region- Enerdyne LLC, Albuquerque, NM,

proposes to field test their newly developed low volume, efficient, sand resistant

submersible oil well pump technology with the goal of reducing oil field capital and

operating costs by 50 percent. Enerdyne’s hope to demonstrate this new cutting edge

technology would permit marginally economic oil reservoirs to remain in production and

profitable over much longer periods than are currently expected using conventional well

technology. The total cost of this project is $1.21 million with DOE cost-sharing

$603,000.



NGMS-105

A Forecast of Marginal Natural Gas and Oil Well Data

Topical Report

By

Don J. Remson

June, 2005

Prepared For U.S. Department of Energy

National Energy Technology Laboratory

Work Performed under Contract No. DE-AD26-00NT00612

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government.

Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any

warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness,

or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not

infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by

trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,

recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions

of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any

agency thereof.

Northrop Grumman Mission Systems

Information &Technical Services Division

Tulsa, Oklahoma

This document presents the methodology and results of an analysis conducted by Northrop Grumman

Mission Systems for the Strategic Center for Natural Gas and Oil (SCNGO) of the U.S Department of

Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). The goal of this analysis was to develop a

forecast of marginal oil and natural gas production and well counts through the year 2025. NETL has

an important ongoing research and development program involving marginal wells.

Analysis of the summary results presented here as well as the detailed results provided in the

Appendix of the report result in the following conclusions:

Near term forecasts of production and well count generated by the method used are

reasonable at national and regional levels of detail.

Relative importance of natural gas marginal wells will increase over time while oil will

decrease.

The marginal fraction of total onshore production will continue to increase for both oil and

natural gas.

Focus of marginal oil production will shift more and more to the central and western regions

of the country.

Significant increases in marginal natural gas wells in the Rocky Mountain region are forecast.

agriculture for oil-gas leasinga123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... ·...

Documents