[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73722-73726]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23983]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

RIN 0596-AC34


National Environmental Policy Act Documentation Needed for Oil 
and Gas Exploration and Development Activities (Categorical Exclusion)

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of proposed directive; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service is proposing to amend its directives in 
Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Chapter 30, which describes 
categorical exclusions, that is, categories of actions that will not 
result in significant impacts on the environment and, therefore, 
normally do not require further analysis in either an environmental 
impact assessment or an environmental impact statement. The proposed 
amendment would add a new categorical exclusion in section 31.2 to 
facilitate the implementation of limited oil and gas projects on leases 
on National Forest System lands that do not have significant effects on 
the human environment. This categorical exclusion will not apply where 
there are extraordinary circumstances, such as adverse effects on 
threatened and endangered species or their designated critical habitat, 
wilderness areas, inventoried roadless areas, wetlands, and 
archeological or historic sites. Public comment is invited and will be 
considered in development of the final directive.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing by February 13, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments via the U.S. Postal Service to: Oil 
and Gas CatEx Proposed Directive, C/O Content Analysis Group, P.O. Box 
2000, Bountiful, UT 84011-2000, or by facsimile to (801) 397-2601, or 
by e-mail to [email protected]. If comments are sent via 
facsimile or e-mail, the public is asked not to submit duplicate 
written comments. Please confine comments to issues pertinent to the 
proposed directive and explain the reasons for any recommended changes.
    All comments, including names, addresses and other contact 
information when provided, are placed in the record and are available 
for public review and copying at 5500 West Amelia Earhart Drive, Suite 
100, Salt Lake City, Utah, during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 
4:30 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays. Those wishing to 
inspect comments are encouraged to call in advance to, Jody Sutton, 
(801) 517-1032 to facilitate access to the building.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reta Laford, Ecosystem Management 
Staff, (202) 205-2936, or Mike Greeley, Minerals and Geology Staff, 
(703) 605-4785, Forest Service, USDA.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Need for the Proposed Direction

    The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations at 40 CFR 
1507.3 provide that agencies, after notice and comment, may adopt 
categories of actions that do not have significant impacts on the human 
environment and, consequently, do not require preparation of an 
environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement 
(EIS). Current Forest Service procedures for complying with and 
implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are set out 
in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15, Chapter 30. This chapter 
lists the categories of actions that do not require preparation of an 
EA or an EIS by the Forest Service. The Forest Service calls these 
categories of action ``categorical exclusions'' (CE). The agency is 
proposing a new CE for certain limited oil and gas exploration and 
development activities.
    Oil and gas development is widespread throughout the National 
Forest System (NFS). With the enactment of the Federal Onshore Oil and 
Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, 30 U.S.C. 226 (``FOOGLRA'') both the 
Secretary of the Interior (acting through the Bureau of Land 
Management) and the Secretary of Agriculture (acting through the Forest 
Service) have authority and responsibility regarding oil and gas leases 
on NFS lands, and both agencies have the authority to determine the 
stipulations under which leasing will be permitted. 30 U.S.C. 226(h); 
43 CFR 3101.7-2(a). FOOGLRA provides that the Forest Service shall 
regulate all surface disturbing activities relating to oil and gas 
leasing on NFS lands. 30 U.S.C. 226(g). No permit to drill on NFS lands 
may be granted without the analysis and approval by the Forest Service 
of a surface use plan of operations (SUPO) covering proposed surface 
disturbing activities within the lease area.
    The Forest Service has established an incremental decision-making 
framework for the consideration of oil and gas leasing activities on 
NFS lands that is set out in 36 CFR 228.102. In general, the various 
steps undertaken are as follows: (1) Forest Service leasing analysis; 
(2) Forest Service notification to Bureau of Land Management (BLM) of 
lands administratively available for leasing; (3) Forest Service review 
and verification of BLM leasing proposals; (4) BLM assessment of Forest 
Service conditions of surface occupancy; (5) BLM offers lease; (6) BLM 
issues lease; (7) Forest Service review and approval of lessee's SUPO; 
and (8) BLM review and approval of lessee's application for permit to 
drill (APD). The proposed CE set out in this notice applies exclusively 
to the Forest Service's review and approval of an applicant's SUPO.
    In 2001 President George W. Bush issued Executive Order (E.O.) 
13212 to expedite the increased supply and availability of energy to 
our Nation. E.O. 13212 set forth ``For energy-related projects, 
agencies shall expedite their review of permits or take other actions 
as necessary to accelerate the completion of such projects, while 
maintaining safety, public health, and environmental protections. The 
agencies shall take such actions to the extent permitted by law and 
regulation, and where appropriate.'' In response, the National Energy 
Policy and the Forest Service Energy Implementation Plan were 
developed. These two initiatives call for streamlining the processing 
of APDs and other energy related permits in an environmentally sound 
manner.
    On August 8th 2005, President George W. Bush signed the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005 into law. Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 
2005 establishes categorical exclusions under NEPA that apply to five 
categories of oil and gas exploration and development activities

[[Page 73723]]

conducted pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. et seq., as 
amended) on Federal oil and gas leases. Section 390 took effect on the 
date of enactment, August 8, 2005. The categorical exclusion proposed 
in this notice does not overlap or duplicate the activities proposed in 
section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. They are separate and 
independent of the provisions of section 390 of the Energy Policy Act. 
Taken in concert, this CE and the five statutory categories discussed 
above further the President's goals set forth in Executive Order 13212.
    For decades the Forest Service has analyzed and administered SUPO 
for oil and gas exploration and development on NFS lands. As part of 
the Forest Service Energy Implementation Plan process, the planning and 
environmental review process was reviewed by field personnel who 
indicated that the USFS and BLM land and resource management planning 
process, leasing process, and SUPO and APD review processes for oil and 
gas exploration and development frequently caused agency personnel to 
extend timelines and expend undue energy and funding in order to 
complete the planning and environmental documentation for minor 
exploration and/or development projects. The Deputy Chief of the NFS 
requested field units to monitor oil and gas exploration and 
development projects that had been analyzed in an EA, and were approved 
and constructed, or partially constructed, between October 1, 1999 and 
September 30, 2004. The objective of the review was to determine if 
surface operations for oil and gas activities approved in site-specific 
EAs did or did not have cumulatively significant effects on the human 
environment and therefore could or could not qualify for a CE. The 
results of this analysis are set out to under ``Rationale for the 
Proposal.''
    Based on this review and the agency's extensive experience with oil 
and gas exploration and development activities including the 
construction of well sites, pipelines and roads and road 
reconstruction, the Forest Service proposes to add a new CE to its 
Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook (FSH 1909.15). This 
category would appear in section 31.2, Categories of Actions for Which 
a Project or Case File and Decision Memo Are Required, and would 
provide a specific, narrow CE for oil and gas exploration and/or 
development.

Description of the Proposed New Categorical Exclusion

    The proposed CE would allow oil and natural gas exploration and/or 
development activities within a new oil and/or gas field not to exceed 
a total of: (a) One mile of new road construction; (b) one mile of road 
reconstruction; (c) three miles of pipeline installation; and (d) four 
drill sites. A drill site may include more than one well in order to 
reduce surface disturbance. The category would only apply to activities 
on NFS lands that are under Federal lease and when there are no 
extraordinary circumstances. Following is a hypothetical example of how 
the CE could be applied on NFS land.
    A Responsible Official approves the construction of one exploration 
drill site and .5 miles of road construction within a new field using 
the proposed CE where no extraordinary circumstances are involved. The 
exploration well is a ``strike'' and is capable of production. The 
Responsible Official could appropriately use the proposed CE to 
subsequently approve the construction of another exploration drill 
site, involving .5 miles of road reconstruction and .2 miles of road 
construction. The second exploration well is also a strike and it is 
determined that both exploration wells are in the same oil or gas 
field. The Responsible Official could use the proposed CE when 
approving development of a drill site involving .5 miles of road 
reconstruction and .2 miles of road construction in the same field. At 
this point, 3 drill sites, .9 miles of road construction and one mile 
of road reconstruction have been approved in the field. If a lessee 
submits an APD and SUPO for construction of another development drill 
site and one-half mile of road construction in the same field, the 
total miles of road construction allowable under the category would be 
exceeded for the field, the proposed CE could no longer be available 
for such a proposal, and the direct and cumulative effects of 
additional field development should be considered in an EA or EIS.
    Note that when exploration wells are drilled, they are not yet 
associated with a particular field. However, if an exploration well is 
determined to be capable of production, it then can be associated with 
a field (determined by the BLM) and for purposes of the proposed CE, 
all exploration activities that occurred within the field and 
subsequent development activities would be chargeable under the 
category.
    There is potential that new oil and gas fields could be located 
adjacent to existing developed fields. States delineate fields, in 
coordination with the BLM, within their boundaries. Fields are areas 
consisting two or more producing wells in an oil or gas reservoir or 
reservoirs related to the same individual geological structural 
feature. Such reservoirs may be interconnected or separated. In such 
cases, concerns over identifying environmental effects resulting from 
activities on the adjacent fields would be addressed through the 
following two methods. First, before NFS lands are offered for lease, a 
leasing analysis is conducted that evaluates potential environmental 
consequences resulting from field development. On NFS Lands, this 
leasing analysis is conducted by the Forest Service in cooperation with 
the BLM. Second, an extraordinary circumstances review identified in 
Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Chapter 30 would be conducted for a 
particular leasing proposal implementing the proposed CE. It is the 
degree of the potential effect of the proposed action on these resource 
conditions, which determines whether extraordinary circumstances exist.

Rationale for the Proposal

    As previously stated, the Deputy Chief for the NFS requested field 
units to monitor oil and gas exploration and development projects 
assessed in an EA and approved and constructed, or partially 
constructed, between October 1, 1999 and September 30, 2004. In 
response, field units collected data on 73 projects.
    The scope of the proposed new category is consistent with the scope 
of the 73 projects examined in the 2005 review, each of which had no 
significant environmental effects. The agency believes the level of 
effects associated with future activities within the proposed new 
category would also be below the level of significant environmental 
effects.
    In addition to reviewing the 73 oil and gas exploration and 
development projects a review of the analyses supporting oil and gas 
leasing was also performed. A sample of land and resource management 
plans for National Forests and Grasslands and leasing EIS decisions, 
where future oil and gas field development is anticipated, was 
reviewed. The review found that when future activities were expected to 
have a significant environmental effect or would be incompatible with 
other forest or grassland uses, such areas had been identified as not 
suitable and exploration or development had been prohibited. 
Furthermore, the use of best management practices such as class III 
archeological surveys, or biological

[[Page 73724]]

surveys, resulted in avoidance or mitigation as necessary, and 
contributed to the defined category of oil and gas activities having no 
significant environmental impacts.
    The proposed CE will not apply where there are extraordinary 
circumstances, such as adverse effects on threatened and endangered 
species or their designated critical habitat, wilderness areas, 
inventoried roadless areas, wetlands, and archeological or historic 
sites.
    It is important to note that CEs do not allow a Responsible 
Officials to forgo scoping. The CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1501.7 define 
scoping as a process for determining the scope of issues to be 
addressed and for identifying significant issues to be documented in an 
EIS. The Forest Service conducts scoping on all proposed actions, 
including those covered by CEs. Guidance to Forest Service employees in 
FSH 1909.15, Chapter 10 provides that interested and affected agencies 
and citizens may be invited to participate in the scoping process and 
further states in Chapter 11 that in determining whether a proposed 
action can be categorically excluded, the Responsible Official must 
consider: (1) The nature of the proposal; (2) preliminary issues; (3) 
interested and affected agencies, organizations, and individuals, and; 
(4) the extent of existing documentation. Furthermore CEs do not 
absolve the Responsible Official from conducting appropriate 
consultations with Federal and state regulatory agencies such as those 
required by the Endangered Species Act and the National Historic 
Preservation Act. Any activities authorized using the proposed CE must 
meet all applicable Federal, state, and local laws, as well as land and 
resource management plan standards and guidelines.

Description of the Leasing Process

    The Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 
acts as the onshore leasing agent for the federal government. The BLM 
schedules and conducts competitive bid lease sales, collects the bonus 
bids and issues leases to the successful bidders. As a land management 
agency, the Forest Service decides whether or not lands will be 
available for leasing, and under what conditions (stipulations) the 
leases will be issued. Forest Service decisions about leasing are made 
in conjunction with approved forest or grassland and resource 
management plans, as well as in separate forest-wide or area-specific 
leasing decisions. Land management plan oil and gas leasing 
availability decisions are made in compliance with the National 
Environmental Policy Act as well as other laws such as the Endangered 
Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act, and includes 
public notice and opportunity for comment. The BLM is an official 
cooperator in these efforts.
    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) directed the BLM, in 
cooperation with the Forest Service, to summarize Forest Service and 
BLM plan leasing decisions. In two phases, the highest potential 
onshore geologic basins were studied. The studies show that for the NFS 
lands studied 47% are off-limits to any surface exploration or 
development (due to legal and administrative withdrawal, a ``no 
leasing'' decision or a ``no surface occupancy'' lease), 19% are 
available to exploration and development under standard lease terms and 
restrictions, and 34% are subject to additional restrictions beyond the 
standard lease terms and restrictions for additional protection of 
other forest or grassland resources or uses. The study shows that oil 
and gas exploration or development activity is not allowed or is 
restricted where such activity would have a significant environmental 
effect or be incompatible with other forest or grasslands uses or 
management schemes. The screening that occurs at the leasing decision 
stage contributes significantly to the findings of no significant 
environmental impacts of the 73 projects studied.

Description of the Process and Best Management Practices for Approving 
Exploration or Development of a Lease

    For oil and gas exploration and development on NFS lands there is 
an element of overlap in the implementation of Best Management 
Practices (BMPs) and mitigation measures. There may be additional 
environmental protections added at each stage. This overlap occurs as 
environmental protections are added at multiple scales of 
implementation, including: (1) During the land management planning 
process the agency considers the overall multiple uses of its renewable 
resources while maintaining the long-term productivity of the land. 
Resources are managed so they are utilized in a combination that will 
best meet the needs of the American people and maintain or restore the 
health of the land to provide a sustainable flow of uses, benefits, 
products, services and visitor opportunities; (2) The leasing process 
developed through the land management planning process or separately 
evaluates those areas that will be: (a) open to development subject to 
the terms and conditions of the standard oil and gas lease form; (b) 
open to development but subject to constraints that will require the 
use of lease stipulations; and (c) closed to leasing, distinguishing 
between those areas that are being closed through exercise of 
management direction, and those closed by law, regulation, etc.; (3) 
Individual NEPA analysis on the SUPO, a component of the APDs, includes 
site-specific BMP and mitigations measures, and; (4) Implementation 
monitoring then occurs and informs future development of BMPs, 
mitigation measures or standard stipulations.
    For the 19% of the NFS lands subject to standard lease terms (as 
well as 34% with lease restrictions), a permit must be obtained and 
best management practices followed. Federal oil and gas leases have 
extensive requirements for environmental protection. Oil and gas 
exploration and development must comply with the Secretary of 
Agriculture's rules and regulations for use and occupancy of NFS lands 
and with additional environmental protections developed specifically 
for oil and gas exploration and development in Forest Service 
regulations 36 CFR part 228 subpart E, BLM regulations 43 CFR part 
3100, and Onshore Oil and Gas Orders. For example, under Forest Service 
regulations 36 CFR 228.108(d) operators are required to report findings 
of cultural and historical resources to the authorized Forest officer 
immediately. Under BLM regulations 43 CFR part 3100 environmental 
protection is guided, in part, through the requirements of surety 
bonding required to be submitted by operators. BLM Onshore Oil and Gas 
Order 1, which has been adopted by the Forest Service, 
furthers these environmental protection measures by requiring an on-
site review of every proposed ADP for the purpose of identifying 
resource concerns.
    Oil and gas exploration and development must also be consistent 
with the land management plan direction (forest or grassland land 
management plans) including any current and applicable standards and 
guidelines developed under the 1982 planning rule and continuing under 
the 2005 planning rule..
    Lessees are required to conduct operations in a manner that 
minimizes adverse impacts to the land, air, and water, to cultural, 
biological, visual, and other resources through such measures as 
modification to siting or design of facilities, timing of operations, 
and specification of interim and final reclamation measures. Current 
best management practices include site specific historic or cultural, 
botany and

[[Page 73725]]

wildlife surveys. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
(NPDES) permits must be obtained from the state, and air quality 
standards met. The review of the 73 projects demonstrated repeatedly 
that projects are moved, delayed or changed to successfully avoid 
environmental impacts.
    It is the conclusion of the agency that the combination of agency 
leasing decisions, forest or grassland land management plan standards 
and guidelines, best management practices, and current laws and 
regulations reduce the potential environmental effects for certain oil 
and gas activity to insignificance. The limited scope of the proposed 
CE leads the agency to conclude that implementation of the proposed 
category would not result in individually or cumulatively significant 
effects on the human environment. This proposed CE applies exclusively 
to the Forest Service's review and approval of an applicant's SUPO and 
does not eliminate the environmental analysis requirement for the 
leasing decision.

Regulatory Certifications

Environmental Impact

    The proposed revision to Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 would add 
direction to guide field employees in the USDA Forest Service regarding 
requirements for NEPA documentation for particular oil and gas 
exploration and development activities. The Council on Environmental 
Quality does not direct agencies to prepare a NEPA analysis or document 
before establishing agency procedures that supplement the CEQ 
regulations for implementing NEPA. Agencies are required to adopt NEPA 
procedures that establish specific criteria for, and identification of, 
three classes of actions: Those that require preparation of an EIS; 
those that require preparation of an EA; and those that are 
categorically excluded from further NEPA review (40 CFR 1507.3(b)). 
Categorical exclusions are one part of those agency procedures, and 
therefore establishing categorical exclusions does not require 
preparation of a NEPA analysis or document. Agency NEPA procedures are 
internal procedural guidance to assist agencies in the fulfillment of 
agency responsibilities under NEPA, but are not the agency's final 
determination of what level of NEPA analysis is required for a 
particular proposed action. The requirements for establishing agency 
NEPA procedures are set forth at 40 CFR 1505.1 and 1507.3. The 
determination that establishing categorical exclusions does not require 
NEPA analysis and documentation has been upheld in Heartwood, Inc. v. 
U.S. Forest Service, 73 F. Supp. 2d 962, 972-73 (S.D. Ill. 1999), 
aff'd, 230 F. 3d 947, 954-55 (7th Cir. 2000).

Regulatory Impact

    This proposed interim directive has been reviewed under USDA 
procedures and Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review. 
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this is a 
significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866. 
Accordingly, OMB has reviewed this proposed interim directive.
    The primary economic effects of the proposed CE for oil and gas 
leases are changes in costs of conducting environmental analysis and 
preparing NEPA documents. The proposed categorical exclusion would 
reduce agency costs by reducing the documentation requirements for 
certain oil and gas exploration and development on NFS land under 
existing Federal leases.
    Effects on local economies and small business entities are expected 
to be nearly the same using either an EA or CE for oil and gas 
exploration and development activities. There is potential for an 
increase in certain oil and gas exploration and development projects 
and increase in site administration since they would be faster and 
cheaper to prepare.
    Total undiscounted costs for CEs were estimated at $8 million with 
an annual average cost of $0.8 million, while the undiscounted cost for 
EAs for the same timeframe would be $48 million with an annual average 
cost of $4.8 million. There is an annual average cost saving of $4 
million for the proposed CE. A comparison of the discounted costs also 
shows the same direction of cost saving for CEs over EAs. An annual 
average saving of discounted cost of $3 million for CEs is estimated. 
This quantitative assessment indicates a cost savings for using CEs for 
oil and gas exploration and development projects for the agency.
    A civil rights impact analysis was prepared for the proposed CE. No 
potential impacts are identified for groups of people who fall within 
the scope of Civil Rights legislation or the Executive Order on 
Environmental Justice (E.O. 12898).

Federalism

    The agency has considered this proposed directive under the 
requirements of Executive Order 13132 issued August 4, 1999 (E.O. 
13132), ``Federalism.'' The agency has made an assessment that the 
proposed directive conforms with the Federalism principles set out in 
this Executive order; would not impose any compliance costs on the 
States; and would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on 
the relationship between the national government and the States, nor on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government. Therefore, the agency concludes that the proposed 
directive does not have Federalism implications.

Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed directive has been reviewed under E.O. 13175 of 
November 6, 2000, ``Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments.'' This proposed directive does not have substantial direct 
effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. 
Nor does this proposed directive impose substantial direct compliance 
costs on Indian tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Therefore, it 
has been determined that this proposed directive does not have tribal 
implications requiring advance consultation with Indian tribes.

No Takings Implications

    This proposed directive has been analyzed in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in E.O. 12630 on Governmental Actions 
and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, and 
it has been determined that the proposed directive does not pose the 
risk of a taking of Constitutionally protected private property.

Energy Effects

    This proposed directive has been reviewed under E.O. 13211 on 
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. It has been determined that this proposed 
directive does not constitute a significant energy action as defined in 
the Executive Order.

Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public

    This proposed directive does not contain any additional 
recordkeeping or reporting requirements associated with onshore oil and 
gas exploration and development or other information collection 
requirements as defined in 5 CFR part 1320. Accordingly, the review

[[Page 73726]]

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do not apply.

    Dated: December 5, 2005.
Dale N. Bosworth,
Chief.

Text of Proposed Directive

    Note: The Forest Service organizes its directive system by 
alpha-numeric codes and subject headings. Only the section of the 
FSH 1909.15, Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook, affected 
by this proposed directive is included in this notice. Please note, 
however, that category 15 (para. 16) is reserved. A notice for 
comment was published for category 16 on January 5, 2005 (70 FR 
1062). A final directive for this CE has not been adopted as of the 
date of publication of this Federal Register notice. The complete 
text of FSH 1909.15, Chapter 30 may obtained by contacting the 
individuals listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or from the 
Forest Service home page on the World Wide Web at http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/fsh/1909.15/1909.15,30.txt. The intended 
audience for this direction is Forest Service employees charged with 
planning and administering oil and gas exploration and development 
projects on NFS lands under Federal lease.

FSH 1909.15--Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook Chapter 30--
Categorical Exclusion from Documentation

    Add new paragraphs 16 and 17 as follows:

31.2--Categories of Action for Which a Project or Case File and 
Decision Memo Are Required

    Routine, proposed actions within any of the following categories 
may be excluded from documentation in an EIS or an EA; however, a 
project or case file is required and the decision to proceed must be 
documented in a decision memo (sec. 32). As a minimum, the project or 
case file should include any records prepared, such as: The names of 
interested and affected people, groups, and agencies contacted; the 
determination that no extraordinary circumstances exist; a copy of the 
decision memo (sec. 05); and a list of the people notified of the 
decision. Maintain a project or case file and prepare a decision memo 
for any of the categories of actions set forth in section 21.21 through 
31.23.
* * * * *
    16. [Reserved]
    17. Approval of a Surface Use Plan of Operations for oil and 
natural gas exploration or development activities within a new oil and/
or gas field, so long as the approval will not authorize activities in 
excess of any of the following:

a. One mile of new road construction
b. One mile of road reconstruction
c. Three miles of pipeline installation
d. Four drill sites.

[FR Doc. 05-23983 Filed 12-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P