OIL AND GAS 

DEVELOPMENT

Improved Collection 

and Use of Data 

Could Enhance BLM’s 

Ability to Assess and 

Mitigate 

Environmental 

Impacts

Report to the Ranking Member 

Committee on Natural Resources

House of Representatives

April 2017

GAO-17-307

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-17-307, a report to the 

Ranking Member, Committee on Natural 

Resources, House of Representatives

April 2017

OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT

Improved Collection and Use of Data Could Enhance

BLM's Ability to Assess and Mitigate Environmental 

Impacts

Why GAO Did This Study

BLM is responsible for managing oil 

and gas development on federal 

lands while mitigating related 

environmental impacts. BLM seeks 

to do so, in part, by applying 

requirements to the leases and 

drilling permits it issues to operators.

These requirements may include 

environmental mitigation practices 

outlined in BLM’s best management 

practices policy. In some cases, 

operators may request exceptions to 

lease and permit requirements. GAO 

was asked to examine BLM’s efforts 

to mitigate environmental impacts

from oil and gas development.

This report examines the extent to 

which BLM (1) approved requests for 

exceptions to lease and permit 

requirements and how these 

decisions were made and 

documented, (2) involved the public 

in the development of lease and 

permit requirements and in the 

approval of exception requests, and 

(3) implemented and assessed the 

effectiveness of its best management 

practices policy. GAO examined 

laws, regulations, and BLM policies

and documents; surveyed and visited

BLM field offices; and conducted 

interviews with BLM officials and 

other stakeholders. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making six

recommendations, including that 

BLM develop a policy for tracking 

and documenting exceptions. Interior 

generally concurred with GAO’s 

recommendations.

What GAO Found

The extent to which the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) approved requests 

for exceptions to oil and gas lease and permit requirements is unknown, primarily 

because BLM’s process for considering these requests and documenting 

decisions varied across field offices. Oil and gas operators may request 

exceptions to a permit requirement, such as prohibition of drilling in an area 

during times of the year when certain wildlife are present. BLM may approve 

such a request—allowing the operator to continue to drill during a portion of the 

normally prohibited time—if, for instance, no wildlife are present. GAO’s survey of 

42 BLM offices found that fewer than half tracked data on exception requests.

Additionally, GAO found that the process for considering these requests and 

documenting decisions varied. BLM does not have a policy requiring field offices 

to consistently track exception data or documented procedures specifying how 

requests should be considered and documented. Because BLM does not 

consistently track exception request data or have a consistent process for 

considering requests and clearly documenting decisions, BLM may be unable to 

provide reasonable assurance that it is meeting its environmental responsibilities.

BLM has consistently involved the public in developing lease requirements and,

to a lesser extent, permit requirements. For example, GAO reviewed 35 lease 

sales that occurred from calendar years 2012 through 2015 at the six field offices 

visited and found that in all cases the field offices provided the public an 

opportunity to review and comment on lease parcels to be offered for sale. BLM 

has not generally involved the public in the approval of exception requests.

According to BLM’s policy, public notification of an exception is not required 

unless granting it would result in a substantial modification or waiver of a lease 

requirement, which, according to BLM officials, rarely occurs.

BLM has generally implemented its best management practices policy by 

including key practices as permit requirements, but it has not consistently 

documented inspections or used inspection data to assess the policy’s 

effectiveness. The policy identifies four key practices that should be considered 

for inclusion as permit requirements in nearly all circumstances: (1) painting 

facilities to blend with the environment, (2) constructing roads to certain BLM

standards, (3) implementing interim reclamation, and (4) completing final

reclamation. During file reviews at six BLM field offices, GAO found that at least 

one of the four key practices was included as a permit requirement in almost all 

of the 109 files reviewed. However, in reviewing documentation of inspections, 

GAO found that documents were not consistent and not always sufficient to 

determine whether BLM had verified key practices. GAO further found that BLM 

generally does not use data collected from inspections to assess the 

effectiveness of permit requirements in mitigating environmental impacts. BLM 

does not have guidance specifying how inspections should be documented and 

how inspection data should be used. Without sufficiently detailed documentation 

of inspections and effective use of data from inspections, BLM is unable to fully 

assess the effectiveness of its best management practices policy to mitigate 

environmental impacts. View GAO-17-307. For more information, 

contact Frank Rusco at (202) 512-3841 or 

ruscof@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

Letter 1

Background 3

The Extent to Which BLM Approves Exception Requests Is 

Unknown, and BLM Field Office Processes for Considering 

These Requests and Documenting Decisions Vary 11

BLM Has Involved the Public in the Development of Lease and 

Permit Requirements to Varying Extents but Not When 

Considering Exception Decisions 17

BLM Has Generally Implemented Its Best Management Practices 

Policy but Has Not Consistently Documented Inspections or 

Used Data to Assess the Policy’s Effectiveness 22

Conclusions 34

Recommendations for Executive Action 36

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 38

Appendix II Bureau of Land Management Environmental Inspection Forms 44

Appendix III Comments from the Department of the Interior 49

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 51

Table

Table 1: Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Four Key Best 

Management Practices 22

Figures

Figure 1: Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Process for 

Overseeing Federal Oil and Gas Resource Development 5

Figure 2: Examples of Bureau of Land Management’s Best 

Management Practices 24

Figure 3: Environmental Inspection Form Using Narrative Format 44

Figure 4: Environmental Inspection Form Using Checklist Format 45

Contents
Page ii GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

Figure 5: Environmental Inspection Form Using Checklist Format 

with Additional Check 47

Abbreviations

AFMSS Automated Fluid Minerals Support System

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

Interior Department of the Interior 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

PMDS Performance Management Data System

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

April 25, 2017

The Honorable Raul Grijalva

Ranking Member

Committee on Natural Resources

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Grijalva:

Development of the nation’s domestic sources of oil and gas on federal, 

state, and private land continues to make a critical contribution to our 

nation’s energy supply. At the same time, the effect of this development 

on the environment—including wildlife—and surrounding communities 

has generated concern among some federal and state government 

officials and conservationists. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 

within the Department of the Interior (Interior), is responsible for 

managing oil and gas resources that lie under federal and private land for 

which the federal government retains mineral rights. The Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended, directs 

Interior to manage federal land for multiple uses, such as recreation and 

mineral extraction, while also taking any action required to prevent 

“unnecessary or undue degradation” of this land.1

BLM seeks to mitigate the environmental impacts of oil and gas 

development in large part through lease and permit requirements—

specifically, lease stipulations and drilling permit conditions of approval.2

These requirements, for example, may prohibit drilling during certain 

months of the year to minimize wildlife disturbance. In 2004, BLM issued 

a policy on best management practices that was intended to reduce, 

prevent, or avoid adverse environmental or social impacts from oil and 

gas development.3 Best management practices can include, for example, 

actions intended to protect wildlife habitat or reduce visual changes to the 

landscape. These practices can be required by BLM as lease and permit 

 1

43 U.S.C. § 1732.

2

In this report, we use the term “lease requirements” to refer to lease stipulations. We use 

the term “permit requirements” to refer to permit conditions of approval.

3

Bureau of Land Management, Integration of Best Management Practices into Application 

for Permit to Drill Approvals and Associated Rights of Way, Instruction Memorandum 

2004-194 (Washington, D.C.: February 2004).

Letter
Page 2 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

requirements or implemented voluntarily by operators. In some cases, 

BLM may grant operators’ requests for exceptions to lease and permit 

requirements if certain conditions are met. BLM conducts environmental 

inspections to verify operators’ compliance with lease and permit 

requirements and monitoring inspections to assess the effectiveness of 

the requirements.

You asked us to review BLM’s efforts to mitigate the environmental 

impacts of oil and gas development. This report examines (1) the extent 

to which BLM approved requests for exceptions to lease and permit 

requirements intended to mitigate environmental impacts, and how these 

decisions were made and documented; (2) the extent to which BLM 

involved the public in the development of lease and permit requirements 

and in the approval of exception requests; and (3) the extent to which 

BLM implemented its best management practices policy and assessed its 

effectiveness in mitigating environmental impacts. Because of availability 

of data and the issuance of policies, the time frame varied for each of the 

objectives.

To conduct this work, we visited a nongeneralizable sample of 6 BLM 

field offices and conducted semistructured interviews with BLM officials. 

We selected the 6 field offices based primarily on (1) geographic 

variability and (2) oil and gas leasing and permitting activity. We also 

surveyed BLM officials and interviewed representatives of 

nongovernmental organizations and a professional organization 

representing the perspectives of oil and gas operators. To determine the 

extent to which BLM approved requests for exceptions to lease and 

permit requirements, and how these decisions were made and 

documented for fiscal years 2005 through 2015, we surveyed officials at 

52 BLM offices in the field (while most of these were field offices, some 

were district offices). Officials from 42 offices responded, which 

constituted an 81-percent response rate. At the 6 field offices we visited, 

we selected a nongeneralizable sample of 54 exception requests made in 

fiscal years 2009 through 2015 and reviewed the supporting 

documentation.

To determine the extent to which BLM involved the public in developing 

lease and permit requirements and in the approval of exception requests, 

we analyzed documents related to lease sales held during calendar years 

2012 through 2015 by the 6 BLM field offices we visited, conducted 

follow-up interviews with BLM field office officials based on responses to 

our semistructured interview, reviewed relevant BLM policies and 

guidance, and interviewed BLM’s program contact for its ePlanning 
Page 3 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

initiative. We also interviewed officials at the 6 BLM field offices we visited 

about public involvement in the exception request process.

To examine the extent to which BLM implemented its best management 

practices policy and assessed its effectiveness to mitigate environmental 

impacts, we conducted a file review at the 6 field offices we visited to 

identify the extent to which best management practices were included as 

permit requirements and verified as implemented during environmental 

inspections. Specifically, we reviewed 109 randomly selected files 

associated with wells that had approved permits from fiscal year 2006 

through 2015, which included 152 inspection documents. We also 

reviewed data from BLM’s Performance Management Data System 

(PMDS) related to the number of monitoring inspections the 6 field offices 

reported that they conducted from fiscal years 2010 through 2015, and 

we corroborated these data with the relevant BLM field offices.4 To 

assess the reliability of data used for our review, we interviewed BLM 

officials regarding data systems included in our review, confirmed with 

BLM state office officials the number of lease sales included within our 

scope, and corroborated PMDS monitoring inspection records with BLM 

field office officials. On the basis of these steps, we determined the data 

were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. A more detailed discussion of 

our objectives, scope, and methodology is presented in appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from June 2015 to April 2017 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence we obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

This section provides information on BLM’s mission and organizational 

structure for management of oil and gas development, BLM’s process for 

overseeing the development of federal oil and gas resources and 

mitigating environmental impacts, and our prior work on BLM’s 

management of federal oil and gas resources.

4

We selected this time period because BLM’s monitoring policy went into effect in fiscal 

year 2010. 

Background
Page 4 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

BLM’s mission is to maintain the health, diversity, and productivity of 

public land for present and future generations. As part of this mission, 

BLM manages more than 245 million surface acres of federal land for 

multiple uses, including recreation; range; timber; minerals; watershed; 

wildlife and fish; natural scenic, scientific, and historical values; and the 

sustained yield of renewable resources. BLM oversees onshore oil and 

gas development on and under BLM-managed federal land, under other 

federal agencies’ land, and under private land for which the federal 

government has retained mineral rights—a total of about 700 million 

subsurface acres.

BLM manages these responsibilities through its headquarters office in 

Washington, D.C.; state offices; district offices; and field offices. BLM’s 

headquarters office develops guidance and regulations, and the state, 

district, and field offices manage and implement the bureau’s programs. 

BLM’s oversight of oil and gas development is led by field offices located 

primarily in the Mountain West, the center of much of BLM’s onshore oil 

and gas development.

BLM’s process for overseeing federal oil and gas resource development 

consists of three phases, each of which includes opportunities to mitigate 

impacts of development on the environment. These phases—land use 

planning, leasing, and permitting—incorporate mitigation through, for 

example, lease and permit requirements, including best management 

practices. BLM can grant exceptions to these requirements, and it 

conducts environmental and monitoring inspections intended, 

respectively, to verify operators have implemented the requirements and 

to assess the effectiveness of the requirements in mitigating 

environmental impacts of development. The process is illustrated in figure 

1.

BLM’s Mission and 

Organizational Structure

BLM’s Process for 

Overseeing Federal Oil 

and Gas Resource 

Development and 

Mitigating Environmental 

Impacts
Page 5 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

Figure 1: Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Process for Overseeing Federal Oil and Gas Resource Development
Page 6 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

FLPMA requires the Secretary of the Interior to develop land use plans 

and, when appropriate, revise them.5 The plans identify, among other 

things, federal land and mineral resources that will be available for oil and 

gas development and other activities. As part of developing or revising 

land use plans, BLM is required under the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, to evaluate likely environmental 

impacts of proposed actions in the plan, such as developing oil and gas 

resources in certain areas.6 Generally, BLM prepares an environmental 

impact statement—a detailed analysis of the likely environmental effects 

of a proposed action—in preparing a land use plan. However, depending 

on the anticipated level of public interest and potential for significant 

impacts, BLM may instead develop an environmental assessment—a 

more concise analysis developed for an amendment to the plan.7 BLM 

officials said the agency uses the land use plans and environmental 

impact statements to (1) help develop reasonably foreseeable 

development scenarios to estimate outcomes, such as the number of 

wells to be involved and the surface disturbance that may occur under the 

land use plan; (2) identify land open and closed to leasing; (3) identify 

resource protection measures, such as lease requirements and 

environmental best management practices; and (4) establish monitoring 

protocols. BLM develops land use plans over several years. During a 

plan’s development, BLM coordinates with state and local governments 

and collaborates with stakeholders, including oil and gas operators, 

nongovernmental organizations, and state wildlife agencies, and provides 

multiple opportunities for comment by the public.8 Comments can address 

such topics as criteria for granting exceptions to lease requirements and 

the appropriateness of best management practices.

Once a land use plan is completed, BLM holds a lease sale. Operators 

may purchase a lease for land identified by the land use plan as available 

5

Revisions to land use plans are necessary if monitoring and evaluation findings, new 

data, new or revised policy, or changes in circumstances indicate that an entire plan or a 

major portion of a plan no longer serves as a useful guide for resource management. 

Bureau of Land Management, Land Use Planning Handbook, H-1601-1, p. 46 

(Washington, D.C.: 2005). BLM generally evaluates plans for potential revision at least 

every 5 years.

6

Pub. L. No. 91-190 (1970), codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347.

7

Bureau of Land Management, National Environmental Policy Act Handbook, H-1790-1, 

section 3.2.2; 43 C.F.R. § 1610.5-5 (Washington, D.C.: 2008).

8

See, 43 C.F.R. § 1610.2. 

BLM’s Land Use Planning, 

Leasing, and Permitting 

Phases
Page 7 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

for oil and gas development.9 As part of this phase, BLM generally 

conducts an environmental assessment to determine whether the 

proposed development is likely to significantly impact the environment.10

In the assessment, BLM can propose applying lease requirements that 

were identified in the land use plan, where many of the requirements are 

intended to protect the environment. For example, a lease requirement 

may state that an operator cannot drill within a specified distance of a 

raptor’s nest during its breeding season. BLM allows the public to review 

and comment on draft environmental assessments for lease sales, 

including proposed lease requirements. In addition, the public may protest 

a lease before it is offered for sale. When a lease is offered for sale, the 

lease requirements identified through the environmental assessment are 

included as requirements for holding the lease.

Operators that have obtained a lease must submit to BLM a drilling permit 

application and obtain BLM’s approval before drilling any new oil or gas 

wells. A complete drilling permit application must include, among other 

things, a “Surface Use Plan of Operations” that includes the operator’s 

plan for reclaiming disturbed land during production (known as interim 

reclamation) and upon final abandonment of the site (known as final 

reclamation). The reclamation plan outlines the specific steps the 

operator proposes to take to reclaim the well site, which may include 

recontouring the land to better match the surrounding landscape, 

redistributing the topsoil, and replanting the site with native plant species.

As part of the permitting phase, BLM generally conducts a NEPA 

analysis—that is, an environmental impact statement or an environmental 

assessment—to identify any site-specific environmental impacts from the 

proposed oil and gas activity. On the basis of this analysis, BLM may 

identify certain requirements to attach to the permit. According to BLM 

officials, these permit requirements are generally attached to ensure 

environmental protection, safety, or conservation of mineral resources 

and may be based on environmental best management practices, 

described below. While BLM notifies the public that an operator has 

submitted a drilling permit application, BLM may or may not require public 

9

Leasing of federal oil and gas resources is generally authorized by the Mineral Leasing

Act of 1920, as amended. This authority is implemented by BLM through regulations at 43 

C.F.R. Subpart 3100. 

10Bureau of Land Management, Oil and Gas Leasing Reform—Land Use Planning and 

Lease Parcel Reviews, Instruction Memorandum 2010-117 (Washington, D.C.: May 

2010).
Page 8 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

comment on the associated NEPA analysis. According to BLM’s NEPA 

Handbook, the type of public involvement required when an 

environmental assessment is prepared is at the discretion of the decision 

maker and can include public notification before or during preparation of 

the environmental assessment, among other types of involvement.11 After 

BLM approves a drilling permit, the operator generally has a 2-year 

window to drill the well and begin production, subject to any lease or 

permit requirements. However, BLM may extend the drilling permit for up 

to 2 additional years if an operator requests an extension in writing.

In 2004, BLM issued its best management practices policy, which defines 

environmental best management practices as innovative mitigation 

measures applied on a site-specific basis to prevent or reduce adverse 

environmental or social impacts.12 BLM can include best management 

practices as lease and permit requirements or, in some cases, operators 

may apply them voluntarily.

BLM’s policy identifies four key practices that should be considered as 

lease or permit requirements in nearly all circumstances: (1) painting of 

facilities to blend with the surrounding environment, (2) design and 

construction of roads in accordance with BLM guidance, (3) interim 

reclamation, and (4) final reclamation. There are numerous additional 

best management practices that, according to the policy, BLM field offices 

should consider on a site-specific basis. Such practices may include 

installing raptor perch avoidance structures, placing wellheads 

underground, drilling multiple wells from a single pad, and screening 

facilities from view.

To help BLM manage resources based on current conditions, BLM’s 

regulations and policies allow it to grant operators’ requests for 

exceptions, waivers, or modifications to lease and permit requirements. 

Exceptions are one-time exemptions for a particular site within a lease; 

waivers are permanent exemptions from a lease requirement; and 

modifications are changes to the provisions of a lease requirement, either 

11National Environmental Policy Act Handbook. 

12BLM issued IM 2004-194 in 2004 and later updated it with Bureau of Land Management, 

Integration of Best Management Practices into Application for Permit to Drill Approvals 

and Associated Rights of Way, Instruction Memorandum 2007-021 (Washington, D.C.: 

November 2006). 

BLM’s Best Management 

Practices Policy

Exceptions, Waivers, and 

Modifications to Lease and 

Permit Requirements
Page 9 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

temporary or for the term of the lease.13 BLM issued a policy in November 

2007 providing guidance on (1) including exception, waiver, and 

modification criteria in BLM land use plans and (2) reviewing and 

approving exceptions, waivers, and modifications to lease and permit 

requirements.14 Criteria for considering exception requests are generally 

developed through the NEPA process as BLM develops its land use 

plans.

To help ensure operators’ compliance with all lease and permit 

requirements, as well as with certain laws and regulations, BLM has an 

inspection and enforcement program, which comprises a variety of 

inspection types. Among these are environmental inspections, intended to 

verify operators’ compliance with certain lease and permit requirements, 

and monitoring inspections, intended to assess the effectiveness of lease 

and permit requirements in mitigating environmental impacts of 

development.

Environmental inspections are BLM’s primary mechanism to verify 

operators’ compliance with lease and permit requirements, including best 

management practices, related to the surface environment and to initiate 

enforcement actions, if needed. For example, BLM may perform 

environmental inspections to help ensure that operators are adhering to 

lease and permit requirements designed to mitigate the impact of oil and 

gas development on sensitive species and their habitat. Environmental 

inspections typically are performed by BLM staff, such as natural 

resource specialists, environmental protection specialists, or other 

resource program specialists. These staff document the inspections using 

hard copy forms and BLM’s electronic system for oil and gas 

management, the Automated Fluid Minerals Support System (AFMSS).

In addition, BLM conducts monitoring inspections to collect quantitative or 

qualitative data for the purpose of assessing the effectiveness of lease 

and permit requirements in mitigating environmental impacts of 

development. BLM is required by Council on Environmental Quality 

 13According to BLM staff, exceptions are much more commonly requested than waivers or 

modifications. Because requests for waivers and modifications rarely occur, this review 

focuses on BLM’s process for considering and granting exceptions to lease and permit 

requirements.

14Bureau of Land Management, Exceptions, Waivers, and Modifications of Fluid Minerals 

Stipulations and Conditions of Approval, and Associated Rights of Way Terms and

Conditions, Instruction Memorandum 2008-032 (Washington, D.C.: 2007).

BLM’s Inspection and 

Enforcement Program
Page 10 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

(CEQ) regulations to establish a monitoring and enforcement program, 

where applicable, for any mitigation. To fulfill this requirement for oil and 

gas development, BLM issued a policy in 2009 to ensure adequate 

monitoring of oil and gas development and clarify how staff are to conduct 

and track monitoring inspections.15 Specifically, the policy requires that 

BLM field offices that have oil and gas programs conduct monitoring 

inspections to assess the effectiveness of lease and permit requirements 

in mitigating environmental impacts of development. BLM field offices are 

to independently track monitoring inspections and report via BLM’s PMDS 

the number of inspections completed.

During the past 10 years, we have reported on various aspects of BLM’s 

management of federal oil and gas resources. In March 2007, as part of 

our work on major management challenges at the Department of the 

Interior, we reported that the numbers of oil and gas permit approvals had 

increased in recent years and that the effect of resulting development on 

surrounding communities and the environment would depend on BLM’s 

use and enforcement of lease and permit requirements.16 In March 2010, 

we found that Interior’s long-standing efforts to implement a mobile 

computing solution to allow BLM employees to document inspection 

results while in the field were behind schedule, and we recommended 

that the Secretary of the Interior direct BLM to implement such 

technology.17 In May 2014, Interior officials stated that BLM had issued 

policies related to allowing BLM staff, including staff conducting 

inspections in the field, to wirelessly connect to BLM’s information 

technology system via laptops when in the field. In July 2010, we found 

that BLM’s publicly available data related to lease protests (i.e., instances 

where the public challenged BLM’s leasing decisions) were incomplete 

and inconsistent, and we recommended that Interior determine and 

implement an agency-wide approach for collecting protest information 

 15Bureau of Land Management, Use and Application of the Fluid Minerals Surface and 

Environmental Monitoring Program Element—MW, Instruction Memorandum 2009-224 

(Washington, D.C.: 2009).

16GAO, Posthearing Questions: Major Management Challenges at the Department of the 

Interior, GAO-07-659R (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 28, 2007).

17GAO, Oil and Gas Management: Interior’s Oil and Gas Production Verification Efforts Do 

Not Provide Reasonable Assurance of Accurate Measurement of Production Volumes, 

GAO-10-313 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2010). 

Our Prior Work Related to 

BLM’s Management of 

Federal Oil and Gas 

Resources
Page 11 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

that was complete, consistent, and available to the public.18 In 2016, BLM 

officials reported that the agency had issued guidance to standardize the 

collection and public display of data related to lease protests. In August 

2013, we reviewed BLM’s processing of drilling permit applications and 

other efforts to protect the environment.19 Among other things, we found 

that BLM had increased the number of environmental inspections it 

conducted of federal oil and gas wells and facilities from 2007 through 

2012, but that BLM’s methods for prioritizing inspections may not identify 

wells that pose the greatest environmental risk and that BLM’s 

documentation of enforcement actions was not consistent. We 

recommended that BLM improve its ability to prioritize environmental 

inspections and consistently document enforcement actions. Interior 

agreed with our recommendations but has not fully implemented them.

The extent to which BLM approves requests for exceptions to 

environmentally related lease and permit requirements is unknown 

because BLM does not have comprehensive or consistent data on these 

requests. Additionally, BLM’s processes for considering exception 

requests and documenting its decisions vary across its field offices.

18GAO, Onshore Oil and Gas: BLM’s Management of Public Protests to Its Lease Sales 

Needs Improvement, GAO-10-670 (Washington, D.C.: July 30, 2010).

19GAO, Oil and Gas Development: BLM Needs Better Data to Track Permit Processing 

Times and Prioritize Inspections, GAO-13-572 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 23, 2013).

The Extent to Which 

BLM Approves 

Exception Requests 

Is Unknown, and BLM 

Field Office 

Processes for 

Considering These 

Requests and 

Documenting 

Decisions Vary
Page 12 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

BLM does not have consistent data on requests for exceptions to lease 

and permit requirements. BLM officials in headquarters stated that they 

did not consistently track data on operator requests for exceptions to 

lease and permit requirements or BLM’s decisions at a bureau-wide 

level.20 These officials further stated that BLM does not have a policy 

requiring its field offices to consistently track these exception data. As a 

result, the extent to which BLM approves exception requests is generally 

unknown.

To identify available exception data, we surveyed BLM officials at offices 

in the field and found that fewer than half of the field offices tracked data 

on operator requests for exceptions to either lease or permit requirements 

for fiscal years 2005 through 2015. Officials representing 42 BLM offices 

responded to our survey. Regarding exceptions to lease requirements, 

after excluding 6 offices because officials stated that they had received 

few or no exception requests, we found that 10 of the remaining 36 

offices responded that they tracked these data, 24 responded that they 

did not track these data, and 2 responded that they were unsure whether 

they tracked these data. Regarding exceptions to permit requirements, 

after excluding data from 4 offices because officials stated that they had 

received few or no exception requests, we found that 16 of the remaining 

38 offices responded that they tracked these data, 21 responded that they 

did not track these data, and 1 responded that it was unsure whether it 

tracked these data.

Further, we found that of the 6 BLM field offices we visited, 5 tracked 

exception data. However, officials from 3 of the 5 offices stated that the 

data were not consistently tracked, raising concerns about the data’s 

reliability. At one of these offices, officials told us that they tracked data 

only for requests to exceptions to requirements related to a single 

species. Officials stated that while they may have received exception 

requests for other environmentally related lease and permit requirements, 

they believed the number was low. An official from another office stated 

that while the office has a spreadsheet to track the data, the spreadsheet 

has been inconsistently updated. Officials from another office told us that 

the responsibility for tracking data had been left to employees who had 

inconsistently tracked the data and had since retired and that, for a period 

20BLM’s AFMSS database has the capability to track some of this information, but field 

offices are not required to do so.

The Extent to Which BLM 

Approves Requests for 

Exceptions to Lease and 

Permit Requirements Is 

Unknown
Page 13 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

of time, they had not tracked exceptions. Officials at the single office that 

did not track exception data at the time of our visit subsequently told us 

that they planned to start tracking these data. When asked to estimate the 

number of exceptions approved per year at this office, officials offered 

widely varying estimates. One official estimated that the office might 

receive 10 requests per year, while other officials within the same office 

estimated they have had years with more than 100 requests.

BLM field office processes for considering exception requests and 

documenting decisions on them varied from fiscal years 2009 through 

2015, and the reasons for the decisions were not always clear from the 

documentation. In November 2007, BLM issued a policy on reviewing and 

approving exceptions.21 BLM included as an attachment to the policy 

written instructions on how field offices were to review and approve 

exceptions. The written instructions state that an exception decision 

should be fully documented in the case file with an appropriate level of 

environmental review. The written instructions state that BLM field office 

staff’s review and recommendations should be documented along with 

any necessary mitigation and provided to the authorized officer for 

approval or disapproval.

Overall, BLM officials told us that the general process is that an exception 

request is made in some written format, such as a sundry notice (a 

standardized form for submitting information to BLM), e-mail, or BLM 

form. Upon receiving the request, BLM field office staff are to assess the 

request, review decision criteria, and make a decision. The decision is 

then to be communicated back to the operator as per BLM’s November 

2007 guidance. Within this general process, our review of the 6 BLM field 

offices we visited found significant variation in how BLM officials consider 

exception requests and document decisions. We found that BLM field 

office processes for considering exception requests and documenting 

decisions varied in the following ways.

• Standardized request form. We found that 2 of the 6 field offices

required operators to use a standardized form when requesting an

exception, while the remaining offices received requests via a letter or

sundry notice. In reviewing files, we found that there was more

complete information about the request in offices using a standardized

21BLM IM 2008-032.

BLM Field Office 

Processes for Considering 

Exception Requests and 

Documenting Decisions 

Vary
Page 14 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

form for exception requests. For example, one of the forms required 

information on the permit or lease requirement involved, a description 

of the proposed exception to the requirement, and the justification for 

the request. In other offices that did not have a standardized form, 

information on the operator requests varied. In some cases the 

operator provided a detailed explanation of the request, whereas in 

other instances little information was provided other than that an 

exception was requested.

• Lease versus permit requirements. BLM officials in all 6 field offices

told us that they make minimal distinction between lease and permit

requirements when reviewing exception requests. Knowing which

requirement is at issue is necessary to determine the applicable

exception criteria. When reviewing BLM files, we found that

sometimes documentation in the file clearly indicated the exception

request was related to a permit requirement, whereas other times it

was unclear whether the request related to a permit or lease

requirement.22 Without clear documentation in the file indicating

whether the request is for a permit or lease requirement, it may be

difficult to identify what exception criteria, if any, apply to the request.

• Written exception policy. We found that 3 of the 6 BLM field offices

had a written policy for processing exception requests. These policies,

according to BLM officials, were developed to provide greater

specificity about the exception process. According to BLM officials at

1 of the offices with a written policy, having a written policy helps them

communicate expectations to operators for how exception requests

will be considered.

• Internal checklist. We found that 2 of the 6 field offices employed an

internal checklist for processing exceptions, though an official in 1 of

the offices stated that staff used it inconsistently. In 1 of these offices,

the checklist details a sequential review process where signatures

and comments are made by the relevant decision makers.

Specifically, the form requires input from BLM’s project lead and

wildlife biologist, state fish and game officials, and the BLM field office

manager. In completing the checklist, officials are to identify the

applicable criteria for considering the request and describe whether

there is any biological benefit for the proposed action. The field office

manager receives the checklist after relevant input has been made by

BLM staff and then completes a signature box on the form for

22In these instances, we first looked for applicable permit requirements. If none were 

present in the file, we looked for applicable lease requirements. 
Page 15 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

granting, denying, partially granting, or not concurring. Space is also 

provided for the field office manager to provide an explanation of the 

decision. In contrast, other offices did not have a standardized form 

for considering the request and approved or denied the request via 

sundry notice without an explanation. In these instances, BLM’s actual 

process for considering the request was unclear.

• Compensatory mitigation. We found that 1 of the 6 field offices

frequently requires compensatory mitigation when approving an

exception. This means that if the field office grants an exception, it

requires the operator to take some other action to mitigate the

environmental impacts of the exception. According to BLM officials,

the office has developed a standard practice of requiring operators to

improve 25 acres of habitat for each approved month of an exception

to a wildlife-related seasonal drilling limitation. According to these

officials, this practice was developed over time. BLM officials also told

us that allowing year-round drilling for certain projects could minimize

disturbance to wildlife by allowing drilling to be completed sooner. For

example, a project might have taken 3 years to complete if seasonal

permit drilling requirements were in effect, whereas it might take 1 1/2

years to complete if BLM approves an exception to seasonal drilling

permit requirements.

• Resource management plan exception criteria. We found that the

primary resource management plan for all 6 BLM field offices we

visited had generally identified criteria for granting exceptions, in

accordance with BLM’s November 2007 policy. However, the

specificity of the criteria varied. One of the resource management

plans we reviewed included very specific exception criteria for a

number of lease and permit requirements. For example, the plan

describes lease requirements related to a type of habitat used by

birds for mating. It specifically states that surface disturbance is

prohibited or restricted within a 1/4 mile perimeter of the habitat, if

occupied. The plan then identifies the particular conditions under

which BLM may approve an exception request. Specifically, the plan

states that BLM may approve the exception if it is determined that the

“action is of a scale, sited in a location, or otherwise designed so that

the action will not impair the function and suitability of sharp-tailed

grouse breeding habitat.” In contrast, another resource management

plan includes less specific criteria for granting exceptions. The plan

states that exception requests from seasonal lease and permit

requirements will be coordinated with the state wildlife agency and

that requests are to be analyzed and documented individually for

compliance with the resource management plan and NEPA. However,

the plan further states that “there is no clear formula” for arriving at
Page 16 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

these biological recommendations. In addition, the plan does not 

include specific information on any particular lease or permit 

restriction; rather, the plan lays out a variety of factors to consider, 

such as weather.

In reviewing a nongeneralizable sample of 54 exception decisions made 

in fiscal years 2009 through 2015 at the 4 field offices that could provide 

us with data, we found that documentation of exception decisions 

varied.23 We examined each file for a range of information, including (1) 

documentation on the operator’s request for the exception, (2) whether 

the exception request related to a lease or permit requirement, (3) 

whether the exception criteria were specified, (4) the basis for the field 

office’s decision, and (5) how the decision was communicated to the 

operator. We found that of the 54 exception decisions reviewed, 27 were 

well documented, 20 were partially documented, and 7 were not well 

documented.24 While BLM has some written guidance on considering and 

documenting exception requests, it may not result in BLM staff 

documenting exception decisions fully or clearly because the November 

2007 guidance does not specify the format for documenting the exception 

requests and decisions. We found that the checklist used for considering 

and documenting exception decisions employed in 1 of the field offices 

provided an effective means to consistently and clearly document the 

decision making process. In other offices that did not employ such a 

checklist, the reasons for the exception decisions were not always clear. 

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that 

agencies are to clearly document transactions and other significant 

events and that documentation should be readily available for 

examination.25 Without consistent and clear documentation of exception 

decisions, BLM may not be able to justify its decisions and provide 

23Of the 6 field offices that we visited, 2 were unable to provide us with exception data.

24Of the nongeneralizable 54 exception decisions from fiscal years 2009 through 2015 we 

examined at the 4 field offices that could provide us with data, 49 exception requests were 

approved and 5 were denied. BLM officials at 2 offices stated that while the data may 

indicate that BLM approves a majority of the exception requests, the data can be 

misleading because operators frequently reach out informally to discuss potential 

exception requests. In these instances, BLM may inform an operator that it is unlikely that 

BLM will approve the request, in which case the operator may not formally submit it.

25GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). GAO has revised and reissued Standards for 

Internal Control in the Federal Government, with the revision effective as of October 1, 

2015. See GAO-14-704G (Washington, D.C.: September 2014).
Page 17 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

reasonable assurance that its decisions were consistent with its 

responsibilities under NEPA.

BLM consistently involved the public when developing lease requirements 

and to some extent when developing permit requirements. However, BLM 

generally did not involve the public when considering an operator’s 

request for an exception to a lease or permit requirement.

In 2010, BLM introduced bureau-wide reforms to the oil and gas leasing 

process, and since the implementation of these changes, it has 

consistently involved the public in the development of lease requirements, 

as part of the lease sale process. As part of the leasing reforms, most 

parcels that field offices determine should be available for lease are 

subject to a site-specific NEPA analysis, generally in the form of an 

environmental assessment, and lease requirements are identified as part 

of this process. Such lease requirements are often developed through 

BLM’s land use planning phase and applied to specific leases during the 

leasing phase. Officials from environmentally related nongovernmental 

organizations, state wildlife agencies, and the oil and gas industry stated 

that they comment on the initial development of lease requirements 

during the planning phase. In addition, the public has formal opportunities 

to comment on land use plans, including lease requirements, as 

described in the background section of this report. During the leasing 

phase, field offices are required to provide a 30-day public review and 

comment period for the environmental assessment before forwarding 

their lease recommendations to the BLM state office. In addition, state 

offices must provide a 30-day public protest period prior to the lease sale 

date.

We reviewed 35 lease sales that occurred from calendar years 2012 

through 2015 at the 6 field offices we visited. In all cases the field offices 

BLM Has Involved the 

Public in the 

Development of 

Lease and Permit 

Requirements to 

Varying Extents but 

Not When 

Considering 

Exception Decisions

BLM Consistently Involved 

the Public in Developing 

Lease Requirements
Page 18 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

provided the public with an opportunity to review and comment on the 

environmental assessment associated with parcels to be offered for sale, 

and some of the comments provided by the public pertained to proposed 

lease requirements. For example, in some cases the public commented 

that additional, or changes to, lease requirements would better protect 

environmental resources from the effects of proposed development. As 

part of the lease sale process, BLM reviews and responds to comments 

on draft environmental assessments. The agency may make changes to 

the environmental assessment if it determines changes are appropriate. 

BLM includes these comments and its response in the final version of 

each environmental assessment. We also found that, in all cases, BLM 

provided the public with an opportunity to protest the lease sale.

BLM involved the public to some extent when developing drilling permit 

requirements, but the level of involvement varied depending on the field 

office and characteristics of the permit. BLM’s Onshore Order 1 requires 

BLM field offices to notify the public of all drilling permit applications 

received.26 Officials at all of the 6 field offices we visited stated that their 

offices follow this requirement by posting information identifying the 

proposed development—often the cover page of the drilling permit 

application—in an area of their office that is available to the public, such 

as a reading room. Members of the public then have the opportunity to 

review this information and submit comments. However, the field offices 

generally do not post the information electronically on BLM’s public 

website. According to representatives of environmentally related 

nongovernmental organizations, when BLM does not make this 

information available on a website, it is difficult for the public to track 

potential drilling activities and comment.

Once a drilling permit application is received, BLM field offices complete 

an environmental assessment to assess the potential environmental 

impacts of the proposed development. As part of this process, the agency 

can develop permit requirements, which are intended to mitigate 

environmental impacts. In 2014, BLM began implementing a website 

called ePlanning through which BLM field offices are required to make 

environmental assessments associated with drilling permits (among other 

documents) available to the public. Prior to the use of ePlanning, the 

26Bureau of Land Management, Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1: Onshore Oil and Gas 

Operations; Federal and Indian Oil and Gas Leases; Approval of Operations. 

(Washington, D.C.: March 2007).

BLM Involved the Public to 

Some Extent in the 

Development of Permit 

Requirements
Page 19 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

public could not access drilling permit environmental assessments on a 

centralized site, although officials from 2 of the field offices we visited 

stated that they previously posted some limited information about the 

environmental assessments on their individual field office websites. 

According to BLM policy, BLM’s ePlanning website is intended to 

standardize the agency’s land use planning documents and allow public 

access to NEPA documents, including environmental assessments 

completed as part of the oil and gas permitting process. According to 

BLM’s ePlanning implementation plan, when the plan is fully 

implemented, BLM offices will be required to post all NEPA documents on 

the site within 1 week of completion and must include all associated draft 

and final documents. Documents posted to ePlanning must be updated 

within 1 week of any status change. According to a BLM official 

responsible for overseeing the implementation of ePlanning, while the 

agency expects the site to be fully implemented by late 2017, the 

remaining implementation steps involve internal, technical changes to the 

system. The official stated that the aspects of the site that are accessible 

to the public are “fully functional” at this time, meaning that BLM offices 

are currently posting all NEPA-related documents to the site.

Officials from all of the 6 field offices we visited stated that their office 

posts environmental assessments related to oil and gas permits to 

ePlanning when they are final. However, officials from only 1 of the 6 field 

offices stated that their office makes a draft version of the environmental 

assessment available online; officials from the other 5 stated they post a 

draft version of the environmental assessment only sometimes. Officials 

from 4 of these offices explained that they would post a draft if 

development in the area was likely to be of substantial public interest. For 

example, BLM officials stated that proposed development near a national 

park or a populated area may warrant increased public involvement. 

Again, representatives of environmentally related nongovernmental 

organizations stated that, in some cases, it is difficult to identify and 

comment on proposed drilling activities. While BLM’s ePlanning policy 

requires that all draft and final versions of environmental assessments be 

posted to the site, BLM’s NEPA Handbook states that CEQ regulations do 

not require agencies to make environmental assessments available for 

public comment and review, and that public involvement is at the 

discretion of the decision maker. According to the handbook, such public 

involvement may include external scoping, public notification before or 

during preparation of an environmental assessment, public meetings, or 

public review and comment of the completed environmental assessment 

and unsigned “Finding of No Significant Impact.” BLM field offices are not 

required to produce a draft environmental assessment in all cases, but if 
Page 20 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

a draft is produced, the offices are required to post the document for 

public review on ePlanning.

BLM officials stated that they have generally not involved the public when 

considering operator requests for exceptions to lease and permit 

requirements. According to BLM’s policy, public notification is not required 

unless granting an exception would result in a substantial modification or 

waiver of a lease requirement. According to BLM officials, this is seldom 

the case, particularly if the exception criteria are outlined in the land use 

plan. According to a BLM official, one circumstance in which the public 

could be involved is when an operator requests an exception at the time a 

drilling permit is requested. In this circumstance, the public may be able 

to submit comments on BLM’s environmental assessment for the permit, 

depending on the scale of the proposed drilling project. However, BLM 

officials from all 6 offices we visited stated that public involvement in 

exception requests was infrequent. BLM officials stated that in many 

cases public involvement may not be practical. For example, an operator 

may experience drilling complications and need an exception to drill 1 or 

2 additional days beyond a seasonal deadline. BLM officials stated that in 

such cases, it would be impractical to solicit public input given the need to 

respond to the operator’s request promptly. Additionally, BLM officials 

stated that if they are making a decision in accordance with exception 

criteria in the lease or permit developed through the NEPA process, 

public involvement is not required.

Representatives of environmentally related nongovernmental 

organizations told us that they typically do not comment on exception 

request decisions because BLM generally does not notify, or solicit input 

from, the public when determining whether to grant an exception. Several 

representatives told us their organizations focus their efforts on providing 

comments related to lease and permit requirements early in the oil and 

gas development process. For example, several representatives told us 

their organizations provide the majority of their input when BLM is 

developing its resource management plans or identifying lease parcels for 

sale. One representative said that the organization rarely finds out when 

operators have been granted exceptions and so at times believe 

incorrectly that lease and permit requirements are in effect. One 

representative told us that the representative’s organization attempted to 

develop informal agreements with certain BLM field offices whereby BLM 

staff would notify the organization when an exception request was 

submitted. However, according to the representative, the organization 

was unable to develop such agreements. Another organization’s 

BLM Generally Did Not 

Involve the Public When 

Considering Exception 

Requests
Page 21 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

representative stated that BLM and operators often agree to an exception 

verbally and document the decision afterwards, precluding any 

opportunity for public comment. This representative noted that some 

exceptions, such as those that allow an additional 1 or 2 days of work, 

might not warrant comments. However, the representative stated that if 

an exception request were made for a more significant activity, such as a 

road proposal for an area that has a no surface occupancy requirement, 

the organization would like the opportunity to provide comments. A 

representative of an oil and gas industry association stated that operators 

make requests in accordance with criteria laid out in leases and permits 

and that the exception process is a key part of BLM’s adaptive 

management policy, which attempts to provide for a flexible management 

approach based on current resource conditions.

Of the 6 BLM field offices we visited, only 1 made information about 

exception decisions available to the public, both in the office and on its 

website. The Office of Management and Budget issued a memorandum in 

December 2009 directing agencies to publish government information 

online with the goal to increase accountability, promote informed 

participation by the public, and create economic opportunity. Also, 

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that 

information should be recorded and communicated to those who need it, 

which can include external stakeholders, in a form and within a time 

frame that enables them to carry out their internal control and other 

responsibilities.27 NEPA and BLM regulations and guidance provide 

multiple opportunities for public involvement during BLM’s land use 

planning process. The substance of this involvement could be dependent 

on the effects of BLM’s past decisions in implementing aspects of its 

resource management plans, including those related to exceptions. 

However, BLM does not require that its field offices make the results of 

exception decisions available to the public. Without access to information 

on how often exception requests are made and approved and the 

reasons for the decisions, the public may not have the information 

necessary to provide substantive input into BLM’s land use planning 

process.

 27GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1
Page 22 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

BLM has generally implemented its best management practices policy by 

including key practices as permit requirements. However, BLM has not 

consistently documented environmental inspections, which are intended 

to verify that operators have implemented permit requirements. Moreover, 

BLM has not effectively used data from monitoring inspections, which are 

intended to assess the effectiveness of lease and permit requirements in 

mitigating environmental impacts of development.

BLM has generally implemented its best management practices policy by 

including key practices as permit requirements. As described previously, 

BLM’s policy on best management practices states that there are four key 

practices, described in table 1 that should be considered for inclusion as 

permit requirements in nearly all circumstances. Our review of 109 

randomly selected well files at six BLM field offices found that at least one 

of the four key practices had been included as a permit requirement in 

nearly all of the files we reviewed. Specifically, of the 109 files we 

reviewed, 108 (99 percent) included at least one of the four key practices, 

105 (96 percent) included at least three of the four practices, and 82 (75 

percent) included all four of the key practices as permit requirements.

Table 1: Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Four Key Best Management Practices

Practice Description

Painting of facilities All new facilities should be painted a color that best allows them to blend with the 

background, typically a vegetated background.

Design and construction of roads All new roads should be designed and constructed to a safe and appropriate standard—no 

higher than necessary—in accordance with BLM’s surface operating standards.

Interim reclamation Interim reclamation of well locations and access roads—which can include partially 

reshaping and revegetating roads and reducing the amount of bare ground surrounding the 

well—should occur soon after the well begins production.

Final reclamation Final reclamation should include recontouring of all disturbed areas, including access roads, 

to the original contour or a contour that blends with the surrounding topography.

Source: BLM. | GAO-17-307

BLM Has Generally 

Implemented Its Best 

Management 

Practices Policy but 

Has Not Consistently 

Documented 

Inspections or Used 

Data to Assess the 

Policy’s Effectiveness

BLM Has Generally 

Implemented Its Best 

Management Practices 

Policy by Including Key 

Practices As Permit 

Requirements
Page 23 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

BLM’s policy states that field offices should consider requiring other best 

management practices, such as those described on BLM’s website, on a 

site-specific basis. BLM field office officials we interviewed stated that all 

drilling permits include best management practices, though field offices 

generally do not track this information. Officials described the best 

management practices policy as being flexible to accommodate a wide 

range of site-specific conditions found across the areas where BLM 

oversees oil and gas development. Officials told us that BLM does not 

have a nationally approved list of best management practices but stated 

that suggested best management practices can be found in its Surface 

Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development and on a BLM webpage discussing best management 

practices.28

During our site visits to the six BLM field offices, officials described and 

demonstrated a variety of best management practices that they frequently 

consider for inclusion as permit requirements, including the following.

• Segregation of topsoil. Retaining topsoil (the outermost layer of soil) 

separately from the lower levels of soil when clearing an area for 

development can preserve the quality of the soil until reclamation 

activities occur. Topsoil generally contains the highest concentration 

of organic matter and is critical for successful plant growth.

• Erosion control. Various erosion control methods, such as putting 

stones in culverts or straw matting on steep slopes, can help prevent 

soil erosion.

• Bird cones. Installing wire mesh cones over exhaust pipes can 

prevent birds from nesting or becoming trapped in the pipes.

• Centralized liquid gathering. Using liquid gathering lines to move oil, 

gas, water, and condensate from well pads to centralized facilities 

placed offsite can reduce the need for truck traffic in areas of sensitive 

resources and habitat.

• Avian protection on power lines. Installing protective equipment on 

power lines can prevent birds from being electrocuted.

• Protective grates over pits and tanks. Covering production-related 

pits and tanks with nets or metal grates can prevent wildlife from 

drowning in contaminated water and other liquids.

 28Bureau of Land Management, Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and 

Gas Exploration and Development (Denver, CO: 2007).
Page 24 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

• Secondary containment to prevent damage from leaks.

Secondary containment around tanks on well pads can prevent

damage to the environment in case of tank leakage.

• Radio telemetry. Placing radio telemetry equipment at wells and

related production equipment to transmit data from the well site to an

operator’s remote monitoring facility can reduce the number of

maintenance and inspection trips made during critical periods for

wildlife and result in less wildlife disturbance.

Figure 2 illustrates a selection of best management practices we 

observed at drilling sites located on lands managed by the BLM field 

offices we visited.

Figure 2: Examples of Bureau of Land Management’s Best Management Practices
Page 25 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

BLM field office officials generally stated that there is not a formal process 

for how a practice becomes a best management practice. According to 

officials, new practices can be identified and recommended by industry or 

BLM headquarters staff. Additionally, according to BLM field office 

officials, some field offices have developed their own best management 

practices. BLM officials told us that more recently issued resource 

management plans typically include an appendix listing best management 

practices. In examining the most recently issued resource management 

plans for the field offices we visited, we found that four of six field offices 

had plans that included a best management practices appendix. The 

other two field offices are in the process of updating their resource 

management plans. In reviewing the plans that contained best 

management practices appendixes, we found that the amount of 

information they contained varied. For example, one plan included over 

80 pages of suggested best management practices, while another plan 

included information on best management practices that totaled fewer

than 20 pages.

BLM field office officials stated that the extent to which best management 

practices are attached as BLM permit requirements, or included in an 

operator’s plan, varies. Officials told us that some companies are more 

proactive and include best management practices in their plans, whereas 

other companies rely on BLM to identify such practices. BLM staff from 

one field office stated that discussion about best management practices 

typically occurs when BLM officials visit a proposed drilling site. During 

such visits, BLM officials and the operator will discuss the proposed plan, 

and BLM staff will highlight practices they anticipate would be effective in 

mitigating environmental impacts. The operator may then elect to 

voluntarily include these practices in the proposed plan, or BLM may 

include them as permit requirements.

A representative from an association of oil and gas operators stated that 

BLM’s best management practices policy is generally successful because 

the BLM field offices have the flexibility to determine which practices to 

require. Additionally, the representative told us that many best 

management practices are initially developed by operators. The 

representative stated that operators may try various approaches for 

mitigating environmental impacts of oil and gas development, and when 

they identify a practice that works, BLM will often adopt it as a best 

management practice and require other operators to implement it as well. 

The representative cautioned that the feasibility and effectiveness of 

practices greatly depends on the local topography and geology. For 

example, one best management practice is to bury temporary liquid 
Page 26 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

gathering lines used to transport fluids away from a drill site, thereby 

reducing visual impacts to the landscape. However, in certain areas, this 

is not an effective approach to protecting the environment because the 

area has very little topsoil and would require digging through rocks to bury 

the lines. Such digging, according to the representative, could result in

longer-term impacts to the environment than leaving the gathering lines 

on the surface.

Representatives from environmentally focused nongovernmental 

organizations offered a mixed view of best management practices. Some 

representatives stated that it was beneficial for operators to employ these 

practices. Another representative pointed out that the easier a best 

management practice is, the more likely it is to be implemented. For 

example, painting a storage tank to blend in with the environment is 

relatively easy and commonly implemented, whereas certain practices 

related to drilling—such as conducting horizontal or directional drilling to 

reduce surface disturbance—are more complex and may not be used as 

often. A representative from another environmental organization stated 

that BLM applies best management practices in a sporadic and 

nonrigorous manner and that the bureau appears to treat these practices 

as a menu from which operators can select the ones they would like to 

implement. Another representative stated that operators tend to make 

economically driven decisions and implement best management practices 

only when required to do so.

BLM has not consistently documented environmental inspections, which 

are conducted to verify that operators have implemented permit 

requirements, including best management practices. BLM’s Inspection 

and Enforcement Documentation and Strategy Development Handbook

states that documentation of all inspections must be clear, concise, and 

legible and provide an accurate description of what was inspected, 

including the findings. The handbook states that documentation should 

include, among other things, worksheets or checklists developed by field 

offices or other sources to document inspection results. According to the 

handbook, without clear and accurate documentation of existing 

conditions and activities, enforcement actions cannot be taken or 

decisions upheld if appealed by the operator.

We found that inspections were documented using different formats and 

that the inspection documents varied in the level of detail provided. 

During our file review, we examined 152 environmental inspection 

documents associated with our random sample of 109 files from the six 

BLM Has Not Consistently 

Documented 

Environmental Inspections 

Intended to Verify 

Required Best 

Management Practices 

Are Implemented
Page 27 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

field offices to determine whether the four key best management 

practices were verified during these inspections and found that 58 (38 

percent) of the documents did not indicate that all four key practices were 

verified.29 The two most commonly used documents we observed were a 

“Surface Inspection Form” and a “Production/Interim Reclamation 

Inspection/Monitoring–Environmental” form. The “Surface Inspection 

Form,” which is generally completed using AFMSS (BLM’s data system 

for oil and gas management), uses a narrative format. It includes fields for 

basic identifying information about the well and type of inspection and 

fields for general remarks about the inspection and follow-up remarks, if 

applicable. The “Production/Interim Reclamation Inspection/Monitoring–

Environmental” form, which was created in 2007 by BLM’s Washington 

Office but is not an official agency form, uses a checklist format.

Our file review found that the narrative format, in some cases, resulted in 

inspection documents that did not contain sufficient detail to indicate 

whether permit requirements had been verified. For example, we 

observed some inspection documents using the narrative format that 

consisted of two lines of general remarks that did not identify whether 

implementation of the four key practices had been verified. In contrast, we 

found that the checklist format typically resulted in greater assurance that 

the four key practices were verified. For example, we found that the four 

key practices were verified in 64 of 65 (98 percent) inspection documents 

when the checklist format was used, versus 15 of 62 (24 percent) 

documents when only the narrative format was used.30 In some cases, we 

observed a version of the checklist format that included an additional 

check to indicate whether all permit requirements were verified during the 

inspection. The use of this check provided assurance that the inspector 

had verified all permit requirements that applied to that well, rather than 

29The 152 environmental inspection documents were contained in the 109 randomly 

selected well files we reviewed. Our sample of files included ones for wells that had 

approved permits during fiscal years 2006 through 2015. In reviewing environmental 

inspection documents in the files, we did not exclude documentation of inspections that 

fell outside this time period. In assessing whether the four key practices were verified in 

environmental inspection documents, we excluded instances in which we determined a 

key practice was not applicable to the inspection. For example, because our sample 

included wells that were currently active, we considered the practice of final reclamation—

which is conducted after a well is no longer active—to be not applicable unless otherwise 

indicated by the inspection documentation.

30The use of one or both of these forms accounted for 84 percent of the inspection 

documents we reviewed. We also observed a smaller number of inspections documented 

using forms that were specific to a certain phase of development or that appeared to be 

specific to certain field offices. 
Page 28 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

only the requirements listed on the checklist. Appendix II contains 

templates of the three formats.

BLM’s guidance for documenting inspections does not clearly indicate 

which forms are required to document environmental inspections. One 

part of the guidance identifies both the narrative and checklist formats in a 

list of forms that may be mandatory for completion, depending on the 

inspection type. However, at another point, the guidance states that only 

the narrative format must be used for environmental inspections.

During interviews with BLM officials responsible for conducting 

environmental inspections, we found that officials did not have a common 

understanding of the requirements for documenting inspections. For 

example, an official at one field office stated that, when conducting 

environmental inspections, he uses the narrative format and does not use 

the checklist format. Officials at another field office stated that they 

complete both formats but do not always print a copy of the narrative 

format for the hard copy file, which is BLM’s official record. Officials at 

another field office stated they received conflicting instructions about 

which documentation format to use. According to the officials, at one 

point, the field office used a version of the checklist format and received 

guidance from BLM’s Washington Office that they should instead be 

using the narrative format in AFMSS. However, the officials stated that 

the following year, they received instruction from the Washington Office 

stating that both formats are required to document environmental 

inspections. As a result of the conflicting instructions, at the time of our 

visit, officials said they were unsure of the requirements for documenting 

environmental inspections.

BLM is in the process of developing updates to its AFMSS database, 

which a BLM official stated will include more detailed forms for 

documenting environmental inspections and the ability to electronically 

document inspections from the field. Specifically, BLM officials stated that 

one planned update will replace the existing narrative format for 

documenting environmental inspections with a checklist format similar to 

the one described above. In addition, BLM is continuing its effort to 
Page 29 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

develop a mobile computing solution as part of its AFMSS update.31 The 

mobile computing solution would allow BLM employees to remotely 

document environmental inspections when in the field. According to 

BLM’s lead point of contact for the development of these AFMSS 

updates, BLM is currently evaluating different devices to determine which 

one will best meet the agency’s needs. BLM officials stated that the 

updates are projected to be implemented by the end of 2017.

We also found that some BLM field office employees may not have 

received training on how to document environmental inspections. BLM 

offers a limited number of voluntary classroom training courses but does 

not require training for BLM officials responsible for conducting 

environmental inspections.32 Some officials responsible for conducting 

environmental inspections stated that they have been unable to attend 

the voluntary training because funding to travel to the training was not 

approved. Some BLM field office officials stated that, in the absence of 

required training or the necessary funds to attend voluntary training, they 

rely on on-the-job training. An official from one field office stated that new 

employees must rely on training received from a mentor, who may not 

have attended classroom training recently or at all. In our 2016 report on 

Interior’s human capital challenges, we found that Interior’s bureaus, 

including BLM, have not evaluated their oil and gas staff’s training needs 

or the effectiveness of the training provided to key oil and gas staff, and 

we recommended that Interior annually evaluate its bureaus’ training 

programs. 33 Interior partially agreed with the recommendation, and the 

recommendation remains unimplemented. Standards for Internal Control 

in the Federal Government states that operational success is possible 

31In March 2010, we found that BLM’s efforts to implement a mobile computing solution 

were behind schedule, and we recommended that the Secretary of the Interior direct BLM 

to implement such technology (GAO-10-313). In May 2014, Interior officials stated that 

BLM had issued policies related to allowing BLM staff, including staff conducting 

inspections in the field, to wirelessly connect to BLM’s information technology system via 

laptops when in the field. 

32These courses include ones related to surface management for fluid minerals, 

construction and reclamation, and using and recording data in AFMSS.

33GAO, Oil and Gas Oversight: Interior Has Taken Steps to Address Staff Hiring, 

Retention, and Training but Needs a More Evaluative and Collaborative Approach, 

GAO-16-742 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29, 2016).
Page 30 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

only when the right personnel for the job are on board and provided the 

right training, tools, structure, incentives, and responsibilities.34

BLM is in the process of redesigning the training it offers to officials 

responsible for conducting environmental inspections. A BLM official 

responsible for training stated that BLM’s redesigned training program 

would lead to a certification for officials conducting environmental 

inspections, similar to the training program BLM has in place to train 

those conducting other types of oil and gas inspections, including those 

related to drilling and measurement. Funding for the training is also under 

consideration. Currently, BLM headquarters funds training for the existing 

inspector certification courses, while funding for training those conducting 

environmental inspections is allocated by field office managers. The BLM 

official responsible for training stated that, as a result, funding challenges 

can impact the consistency of training across the agency. If BLM 

headquarters funded the new training, it could reduce the funding 

challenges field office managers currently face. The official further stated 

that if the training was successfully implemented, it should ensure greater 

consistency and thoroughness of environmental inspections. However, in 

December 2016, a BLM official stated that BLM does not have a policy 

that would require employees to attend the redesigned training. Instead 

BLM officials stated that they plan to start a training pilot project in the 

spring of 2017.

The steps BLM is taking to improve its training program and data system 

may help to improve the quality of environmental inspection documents, 

but these limitations in the agency’s inspection documentation guidance 

and training policies may continue to present challenges. Without clear 

guidance regarding which forms are required to document environmental 

inspections, BLM employees may continue to document the inspections 

in a manner that does not always indicate whether all requirements were 

verified. In addition, without a policy requiring employees responsible for 

conducting environmental inspections to complete formal training, BLM 

may be unable to ensure that its employees receive the training. Ensuring 

that BLM staff responsible for conducting environmental inspections 

receive the guidance and training they need to conduct and document 

environmental inspections could enhance the ability of BLM to mitigate 

the impacts of oil and gas development and to carry out its responsibilities 

for proper stewardship of the environment.

 34GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1
Page 31 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

BLM field offices conduct monitoring inspections but have not effectively 

used data collected during these inspections to assess the effectiveness 

of mitigation activities, such as those carried out under BLM’s best 

management practices policy. BLM requires field offices to conduct 

monitoring inspections; however, we found that field offices vary in their 

understanding of what qualifies as a monitoring inspection. In addition, 

not all field offices have been able to effectively use monitoring inspection 

data to assess the effectiveness of best management practices.

In fiscal year 2008, BLM conducted a self-assessment of its best 

management practices policy and found, among other things, that staff in 

field offices may not clearly understand how to monitor the effectiveness 

of these practices.35 As a result, a report on the self-assessment 

recommended that BLM update or issue policy about monitoring the 

effectiveness of best management practices. According to BLM officials, 

the agency implemented this recommendation by issuing a monitoring 

inspection policy in 2009.36 The policy requires BLM field offices with oil 

and gas management responsibilities to conduct monitoring inspections in 

accordance with CEQ regulations.37 BLM’s policy states that monitoring is 

conducted to assess actual or potential environmental impacts, determine 

whether BLM standards are being met, and evaluate whether permit 

requirements (which could include best management practices) are 

effective to achieve their desired intent. To ensure the agency’s 

compliance with the CEQ requirements, BLM’s policy requires BLM field 

offices to report the number of completed monitoring inspections.

BLM officials from all of the six field offices we visited stated that their 

field office conducts some type of monitoring activities. However, during 

fiscal years 2010 through 2015, these activities were tracked in a variety 

of ways, and some field offices did not report the number of monitoring 

inspections completed, as required by BLM’s 2009 policy. Because BLM’s 

AFMSS database is unable to track monitoring inspections, the 2009 

35Bureau of Land Management, Director’s Program Review—Implementation of 

Environmental Best Management Practices in the Fluid Minerals Surface Management 

Program, Self-Assessment (Washington, D.C.: Fiscal Year 2008).

36BLM IM 2009-224.

37These regulations require a record of decision for environmental impact statements and 

provide that a monitoring and enforcement program shall be adopted and summarized 

where applicable for any mitigation.” 40 C.F.R. § 1505.2 (c). 

BLM Has Not Effectively

Used Monitoring

Inspection Data to Assess 

the Effectiveness of Its

Best Management 

Practices Policy 
Page 32 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

policy required officials to report the number of monitoring inspections in 

BLM’s PMDS. We found that two of the field offices we visited did not 

report numbers of monitoring inspections in the PMDS from fiscal years 

2010 through 2015. Officials from one of these field offices explained that 

they require operators to conduct monitoring through third-party 

contractors, and the officials did not believe the activities should be 

reported because the monitoring was not conducted by BLM employees. 

Officials from the other field office stated that they conducted monitoring 

inspections and tracked these inspections using their own internal 

spreadsheets.

BLM’s 2009 monitoring policy includes an attachment that provides 

guidance on how to interpret and implement the policy. The attachment 

provides examples of the types of activities that could be considered 

monitoring inspections, including conducting wildlife surveys, conducting 

habitat restoration surveys, and determining the status of interim 

reclamation. The attachment also explains how a monitoring inspection 

differs from an environmental inspection. For example, in assessing 

interim reclamation, an environmental inspection would verify whether the 

operator seeded a disturbed area according to permit requirements, while 

a monitoring inspection would collect data to assess whether the seeding 

was successful. The attachment states that, in some cases, a visit to a 

particular inspection site could count as both an environmental inspection 

and a monitoring inspection, depending on the activities completed.

However, we found that despite this guidance, officials at the six field 

offices we visited varied in their approaches to conducting monitoring and 

did not share a common understanding of what types of activities 

constitute a monitoring inspection. For example, officials from one field 

office stated that they consider inspections related to air or water quality 

to be monitoring inspections, while officials from another field office stated 

that they consider inspections related to reclamation of plugged and 

abandoned wells to be monitoring inspections. Officials from a third field 

office stated that they plan to consider inspections of plugged and 

abandoned wells to be monitoring inspections, but in prior years, the field 

office had considered all environmental inspections as monitoring 

inspections. Some BLM field office officials stated they were unsure of the 

difference between a monitoring inspection and an environmental 

inspection. BLM employees responsible for conducting monitoring 

inspections are also responsible for conducting environmental 

inspections. As previously noted, BLM has only voluntary classroom 

training for these employees, and some employees have had only on-the-
Page 33 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

job training because of barriers to attending the voluntary training that 

BLM currently offers.

We also found that BLM field offices generally do not use the data 

collected from monitoring inspections to assess the effectiveness of lease 

and permit requirements, including best management practices, at 

mitigating environmental impacts. Although BLM’s 2009 monitoring policy 

requires that field offices track the number of monitoring inspections 

completed, it does not provide guidance on how data collected during 

monitoring inspections should be tracked or used. As a result, according 

to BLM officials, monitoring inspection data are captured in a variety of 

formats, including monitoring reports submitted by operators, agency 

databases, and spreadsheets. In addition, although officials from five of 

the six BLM field offices we visited stated that their field office has access 

to monitoring data, officials from four of the field offices stated they 

generally have not used the data to assess the effectiveness of mitigation 

measures. Officials at one field office stated that collecting and 

maintaining monitoring data is at the discretion of individual BLM 

employees, while officials from another field office stated that they were 

unaware of any efforts to use monitoring data to assess the effectiveness 

of mitigation. Officials from two field offices stated that while they have 

access to monitoring data, they are unable to analyze the data because 

of its format or the office’s system for tracking the data. Both of the two 

field offices where officials described using monitoring data described 

mechanisms for tracking the data, which included databases and a series 

of electronic spreadsheets. In particular, one of the two offices was using 

a database to track interim and final reclamation efforts and was able to 

generate reports based on a variety of criteria to assess the status of 

reclamation.

Representatives from environmentally focused nongovernmental 

organizations and an association of oil and gas operators stated that, 

from their perspective, BLM may not fully assess the effectiveness of best 

management practices. For example, a representative from one 

nongovernmental organization stated that the analysis of the 

effectiveness of the best management practices is sometimes conducted 

by operators, so the quality of the data and the conclusions are 

questionable. In addition, he stated that he was unaware of any analysis 

comparing the environmental impact of projects that use best 

management practices with the impact of projects that do not. Another 

representative stated that from his perspective monitoring seemed to be a 

low priority for BLM. A representative from an association of oil and gas 

operators stated that in some instances BLM requires operators to 
Page 34 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

conduct surveys and provide the agency with survey data, but the agency 

does not always use the data provided to assess the effectiveness of best 

management practices.

When BLM field offices are unable to effectively use data collected during 

monitoring inspections, the agency cannot leverage these inspections to 

assess the effectiveness of its mitigation efforts, including its best 

management practices policy, in accordance with the purpose of its 2009 

monitoring policy. Providing guidance to the field offices on how 

monitoring data should be used could enhance BLM’s ability to assess 

the effectiveness of its mitigation activities across the bureau. In addition, 

as previously discussed, although BLM is redesigning its training for 

employees responsible for conducting inspections, it does not currently 

have a policy that would require employees to take the redesigned 

training. Ensuring that staff have training could potentially improve BLM 

employees’ understanding of what types of activities should be included 

as part of the agency’s monitoring inspection program and improve the 

consistency of reporting and documenting inspections. Improving BLM’s 

monitoring inspection program could allow the agency to better assess 

environmental impacts of oil and gas development and the effectiveness 

of efforts to mitigate such impacts.

BLM is responsible for managing oil and gas development on federal 

lands while also mitigating the environmental impacts of such 

development. BLM mitigates the impacts primarily through the 

requirements that it places on the leases and permits it issues to 

operators. It has also developed a best management practices policy, and 

best management practices may be included as lease and permit 

requirements. Operators can request exceptions to these requirements, 

and BLM can decide to approve requests if certain criteria are met.

However, BLM field offices have not tracked exception data consistently, 

making it difficult to determine the extent to which they have approved 

exception requests. Additionally, BLM staff across field offices are not 

using a consistent process for considering and clearly documenting 

exception decisions. Although BLM issued a policy in November 2007 

stating that exception decisions should be fully documented, it does not 

have documented procedures to ensure that field office decisions are 

consistently and clearly documented. BLM could better quantify the extent 

to which exceptions are approved and better ensure that such decisions 

are consistent with its responsibilities under NEPA if it tracked exception 

Conclusions
Page 35 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

requests and had documented procedures for consistently considering 

and clearly documenting exception decisions across its field offices.

In addition, BLM does not currently require field offices to make the 

results of its exception decisions available to the public. Without access to 

this information, the public may not be able to provide substantive input 

into BLM’s future land use planning processes.

Moreover, BLM field offices have generally implemented BLM’s best 

management practices policy but have not consistently documented 

environmental inspections to verify that operators have implemented the 

practices as required, in part because the guidance for documenting 

inspections is unclear. Without consistently documenting that all permit 

requirements are verified as implemented when conducting 

environmental inspections, BLM field offices cannot provide assurance 

that activities designed to mitigate environmental impacts have been 

carried out by operators as required. In addition, documentation of 

environmental inspections that is not sufficiently clear and accurate could 

limit BLM’s ability to take and uphold enforcement actions when needed.

Further, BLM field offices have not effectively used monitoring inspection 

data to assess the effectiveness of best management practices to 

mitigate environmental impacts of oil and gas development. 

Consequently, the agency may be limited in its ability to understand and 

demonstrate the extent to which its lease and permit requirements have 

successfully mitigated the environmental impacts of oil and gas 

development. The agency is in the process of implementing training for 

employees responsible for conducting environmental and monitoring 

inspections, but it has not established a policy requiring employees to 

complete this training. Without such a requirement, BLM cannot ensure 

that employees understand how to carry out monitoring inspections, that 

environmental inspection documents will be prepared consistently by field 

office staff, or that the data will be used to assess the effectiveness of 

best management practices.
Page 36 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

The Director of the Bureau of Land Management should take the 

following six actions.

1. Develop a policy to ensure that field offices consistently track

exception data.

2. Develop bureau-wide written procedures for consistently considering

and clearly documenting the information and processes used to make

exception decisions.

3. Direct field offices to make the results of exception request decisions

available to the public, such as on BLM’s public website.

4. Clarify guidance related to documentation of environmental

inspections to ensure that inspections are documented in a manner

that indicates whether all permit requirements were checked as part of

the inspection.

5. Provide additional guidance to field offices on how to collect and use

data collected during monitoring inspections and, in doing so,

determine and implement an approach for using the data to assess

the effectiveness of the agency’s mitigation efforts, including its best

management practices.

6. Establish a policy requiring staff responsible for conducting

environmental and monitoring inspections to take standardized

training.

We provided a draft of this report to Interior for review and comment. 

Interior concurred with five of our recommendations and partially 

concurred with one recommendation. Agency comments are reproduced 

in appendix III, and key areas are discussed below.

Interior partially concurred with our recommendation that it direct field 

offices to make the results of exception request decisions available to the 

public, such as on BLM’s public website. According to an attachment to 

BLM’s 2007 policy on exceptions, it is to fully document exception 

decisions in the case file with the appropriate level of environmental 

review. Interior stated that it is required to document exception decisions 

in case files and that these files can be made available to the public upon 

request. Interior further stated that database upgrades will improve 

exception tracking and public posting in the future. In our review, we 

found that BLM offices did not always document exception decisions. We 

further found that these offices did not consistently track exception 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Response
Page 37 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

decisions. As a result, the public may not be aware of the extent to which 

exceptions are approved or the reasons for doing so. Because the public 

is an important stakeholder in the land use planning process, we believe 

that BLM should strive to make this information available to the public to 

enhance its ability to participate as BLM develops new land use planning 

documents.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate 

congressional committees, the Secretary of the Interior, and other 

interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on 

the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix IV. 

Sincerely yours,

Frank Rusco

Director, Natural Resources and Environment
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

Page 38 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

This appendix details the methods we used to assess the Department of 

the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) efforts to mitigate 

environmental impacts from oil and gas activities. Specifically, this report 

examines the extent to which BLM (1) approved requests for exceptions 

from lease and permit requirements intended to mitigate environmental 

impacts, and how these decisions were made and documented; (2) 

involved the public in the development of lease and permit requirements 

and in the approval of exception requests; and (3) implemented its best 

management practices policy and assessed its effectiveness in mitigating 

environmental impacts. Because of availability of data and the issuance 

of policies, the time frames varied for each of the objectives.

To conduct our work, for all three objectives, we reviewed relevant laws, 

regulations, and BLM guidance. We also interviewed officials in BLM 

headquarters and officials from a nongeneralizable sample of eight BLM 

field offices (two of which were for scoping purposes to help formulate our 

audit approach and not included in our file reviews) and the 

corresponding four BLM state offices.1 We selected field offices based 

primarily on (1) geographic variability and (2) oil and gas leasing and 

permitting activity. Specifically, we visited and interviewed officials in two 

BLM state offices (Colorado and Wyoming) and interviewed officials by 

telephone in two additional offices (Utah and New Mexico). We also 

visited and interviewed officials in seven BLM field offices (Carlsbad and 

Farmington in New Mexico, Buffalo and Pinedale in Wyoming, White 

River and Colorado River Valley in Colorado, and Vernal in Utah) and 

interviewed an official by telephone in one additional office (Royal Gorge 

in Colorado).2 In fiscal year 2014, the four states we selected accounted 

for approximately 75 percent of producing federal leases and 85 percent 

of approved drilling permits.

To obtain additional perspectives on our three objectives, we interviewed 

by telephone representatives from an oil and gas association 

representing industry perspectives, seven environmentally related 

1

Because this was a nongeneralizable sample, observations from interviews with these 

offices, taken alone, do not support generalizations about other offices. However, such 

observations provide illustrative examples of the types of challenges BLM faces in 

managing its permitting workload and mitigating the environmental impact of oil and gas 

development.

2

We interviewed officials at the White River and Royal Gorge field offices in Colorado as 

part of our scoping work.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 39 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

nongovernmental organizations, and four state wildlife agencies 

corresponding with the BLM state and field offices we visited.

To learn about available BLM data and BLM’s decision making related to 

exceptions, waivers, and modifications, we conducted a survey, 

interviewed agency officials, and completed a file review of a 

nongeneralizable sample of exception decisions. We electronically 

surveyed BLM officials responsible for 52 BLM offices with oil and gas 

activity to determine the extent to which BLM approved requests for 

exceptions to lease and permit requirements, and how these decisions 

were made and documented for fiscal years 2005 through 2015. We sent 

the questionnaire by e-mail in an attached Microsoft Word form that 

respondents could return electronically after marking checkboxes or 

entering responses in blank spaces. In an e-mail in advance of the 

questionnaire, we asked the official at each land unit if he or she was the 

correct respondent, and, if not, we asked for a referral to the official who 

was. We sent the questionnaire with a cover letter on March 1, 2016. We 

telephoned all respondents who had not returned the questionnaire after 

approximately 2 weeks and again after 4 weeks and asked them to 

participate. We received completed responses from officials responsible 

for 42 BLM offices in the field, which constituted an 81-percent response 

rate. The survey asked about available data on exceptions, waivers, and 

modifications from lease stipulations and drilling permit conditions of 

approval. In instances in which field offices had the data, we requested 

that they be e-mailed to us. Because the data were tracked inconsistently 

and BLM officials made statements indicating uncertainty about the 

completeness of the data, we determined the data were not sufficiently 

reliable for use to generate summary statistics on exception decisions 

across the bureau.

Additionally, to learn about the exception process, we used a 

semistructured interview guide to interview BLM officials in four state 

offices (Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico) and BLM officials in 

six field offices (Carlsbad and Farmington in New Mexico; Buffalo and 

Pinedale in Wyoming; Colorado River Valley in Colorado, and Vernal in 

Utah). To complete our file review, we used exception data provided by 

field offices to select a nongeneralizable sample of well files that included 

exception decisions. Specifically, at the six field offices included in our file 

review (Carlsbad and Farmington in New Mexico, Buffalo and Pinedale in 

Wyoming, Colorado River Valley in Colorado, and Vernal in Utah), we 

selected a nongeneralizable sample of approximately 10 files per office 

using the exception data field offices had sent to us as part of our survey. 

We selected these files based on fiscal year and the operator making the 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 40 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

request to obtain a range of requests over time. Four of the six offices 

provided us data, while the remaining two were unable to do so. At the 

four offices that provided us data, we selected a nongeneralizable sample 

of 44 files from fiscal years 2009 through 2015. These 44 files included 54 

exception requests. We then examined the files to see whether the 

decision was reasonably documented. This included examining (1) how 

the request was made; (2) who at BLM reviewed the request; (3) what the 

applicable BLM criteria were, if any; (4) whether BLM provided an 

explanation of its decision; and (5) how BLM communicated the decision 

to the operator. In many instances, the well files were not complete. The 

initial assessment on the reasonableness of the documentation was 

made by one analyst and subsequently reviewed and verified by a 

separate analyst. When a discrepancy occurred, source documents were 

examined, and the assessment was discussed. We determined that the 

process of assessing the reasonableness of the documentation of BLM’s 

exception decisions based on the available source documentation in the 

well file rendered the findings of the review to be sufficiently reliable for 

our purposes. Because we examined this issue at six field offices, our 

findings are not representative of all BLM field offices.

To examine the extent to which BLM involved the public in the 

development of lease and permit requirements and associated exception 

requests, we analyzed lease sale documents, conducted follow-up on our 

semistructured interviews with BLM field office officials, reviewed relevant 

BLM policies and guidance, and interviewed BLM’s program contact for 

its ePlanning initiative. Specifically, we reviewed environmental 

assessments and other lease sale documents obtained from BLM’s public 

website that were associated with lease sales held during calendar years 

2012 through 2015 by the six field offices included our review.3 We 

reviewed the environmental assessments to determine whether public 

comments had been solicited and if any provided comments related to 

proposed lease requirements. We reviewed available documentation—for 

example, protest letters from the public or BLM’s responses to such 

letters—to determine whether an opportunity for public protest had been 

made available. To assess the reliability of the lease sale data used for 

this analysis, we confirmed with BLM state office officials the number of 

3

During this time frame, the Carlsbad, NM, field office held 11 lease sales; the 

Farmington, NM, field office held 9 lease sales; the Buffalo, WY, field office held 8 lease 

sales; the Pinedale, WY, field office held 4 lease sales; and the Vernal, UT, field office 

held 3 lease sales. The Colorado River Valley, CO, field office did not hold any lease sales 

from 2012 through 2015.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 41 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

lease sales held by each office during the scope of our review. We 

determined the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. In 

addition, we conducted follow-up with BLM field office officials to clarify 

semistructured interview responses related to opportunities for public 

involvement at various stages of the development of permit requirements. 

To examine the extent to which the public was involved in BLM’s 

decisions to grant exceptions to lease or permit requirements, we 

interviewed BLM officials at the six BLM field offices we visited using our 

semistructured interview guide. We also asked questions related to this 

during our interviews with representatives from an oil and gas 

association, environmentally related nongovernmental organizations, and 

state wildlife agencies.

To examine the extent to which BLM implemented its best management 

practices policy and assessed its effectiveness to mitigate environmental 

impacts, we interviewed key program contacts regarding their roles in 

overseeing BLM’s oil and gas program, best management practices, and 

ongoing initiatives related to the Automated Fluid Minerals Support 

System (AFMSS) and employee training.4 We also used a semistructured 

interview guide to interview BLM officials in the selected four state offices 

and six field offices. We also conducted a file review at the six field offices 

we visited and reviewed monitoring inspection data from BLM’s 

Performance Management Data System (PMDS), both described in detail 

below. In addition, we reviewed relevant BLM policies and guidance. The 

purpose of our file review for this objective was to identify the extent to 

which selected BLM well files included best management practices as 

permit requirements and contained documentation that BLM had verified 

operators’ implementation of the requirements when conducting 

environmental inspections.

To design the methodology for our file review, we (1) identified best 

practices to include in the scope of our review, (2) developed a data 

collection instrument, and (3) identified a random sample of well files. 

Because many best management practices are site-specific, we chose to 

limit our review to four key practices, described in our report, that BLM 

policy states should be considered in nearly all circumstances. To 

develop a data collection instrument, we developed a hard copy form to 

4

We also reviewed documentation of interviews conducted for a separate review that 

evaluated, among other things, Interior’s efforts to address its training needs for key oil 

and gas staff. The interviews we reviewed were conducted with three of the six BLM field 

offices we visited for this review.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 42 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

be used when reviewing each file. This form included fields to document 

whether the team was able to review the file, whether the four key 

practices were identified as permit requirements, and whether the four 

key practices were verified as part of the environmental inspections 

documented in the file. Following our initial implementation of the file 

review during our first field office site visit, we confirmed that the data 

collection instrument functioned as designed. To identify a random 

sample of well files, we used data from BLM’s AFMSS on approved 

permits from fiscal year 2006 through 2015. To assess the reliability of 

the AFMSS data, we interviewed BLM officials and found that the data 

were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. Using these criteria, we 

generated a random sample of well files for each of the six BLM field 

offices included in our review. At each field office, we worked down the 

randomly ordered list of sampled files to review as many files as possible 

within the available time. In total, we reviewed 109 files, which included 

152 inspection documents. Although this sample is not generalizable to 

BLM field offices as a whole, it is a statistically unbiased picture of the six 

field offices we visited.

When conducting the file review at each office, two team members 

reviewed the files, using the prepared data collection instrument, for the 

allotted period of time. Next, the team members exchanged the files and 

completed data collection instruments to review the completed forms 

against the source material. To the extent that discrepancies were noted, 

the analysts consulted the source documentation onsite and came to 

agreement regarding the most accurate coding for that circumstance. In 

some cases, the underlying documentation was limited. For example, in 

some cases documentation of environmental inspections consisted of a 

short narrative, and the analysts were required to interpret the narrative to 

determine whether the four key best management practices were 

reviewed as part of the inspection. Consequently, there may have been 

some instances in which another person might have interpreted the 

source documentation to come to a different conclusion. While this is 

noted as a limitation, we determined that the process of verifying the file 

review data collection instruments against the source documentation 

rendered the findings of the file review to be sufficiently reliable for our 

purposes.

We also reviewed data from BLM’s PMDS related to monitoring 

inspections. We asked BLM headquarters to provide us with PMDS 

monitoring data for fiscal years 2010 through 2015. We chose this time 

frame to coincide with BLM’s monitoring policy, which was implemented

in fiscal year 2010. The data indicated the number of monitoring 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 43 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

inspections reported by BLM cost centers. BLM cost centers represent 

organizational units, such as field or district offices. We reviewed the 

PMDS data to determine whether the six field offices included in our 

review had reported monitoring inspections in fiscal years 2010 through 

2015. In completing this review, we identified certain cost centers that 

were identified as a program division rather than a field or district office. 

As a result, it was unclear whether the inspections reported by such cost 

centers could potentially be associated with one of the offices included in 

our review. In order to ensure the accuracy of our analysis of the data, we 

conducted follow-up with officials from each of the six BLM field offices. 

We provided the PMDS data for all cost centers in the state appropriate 

for the field office and identified which lines of data we identified as 

having been reported by the field office. We asked the officials to confirm 

whether our interpretation of the data was accurate. Officials from four of 

the offices confirmed that our interpretation was accurate. Officials from 

one field office identified data reported by their office that we had not 

identified during our analysis. An official from the remaining office thought 

that the office had reported monitoring inspections during fiscal years 

2010 through 2015 but could not identify inspections associated with the 

office in the provided data. On the basis of our analysis, we found the 

data to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes.

We conducted this performance audit from June 2015 to April 2017 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence we obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Bureau of Land Management

Environmental Inspection Forms

Page 44 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

Figure 3: Environmental Inspection Form Using Narrative Format

Appendix II: Bureau of Land Management 

Environmental Inspection Forms
Appendix II: Bureau of Land Management 

Environmental Inspection Forms

Page 45 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

Figure 4: Environmental Inspection Form Using Checklist Format
Appendix II: Bureau of Land Management 

Environmental Inspection Forms

Page 46 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development
Appendix II: Bureau of Land Management 

Environmental Inspection Forms

Page 47 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

Figure 5: Environmental Inspection Form Using Checklist Format with Additional Check
Appendix II: Bureau of Land Management 

Environmental Inspection Forms

Page 48 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development
Page 49 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of the Interior 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Interior

Page 50 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 51 GAO-17-307 Oil And Gas Development

Frank Rusco, (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, Christine Kehr (Assistant 

Director), Richard Burkard, Mark Braza, Serena Epstein, Gustavo 

Fernandez, Glenn C. Fischer, Ellen Fried, and Sara Sullivan made key 

contributions to this report.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(100172)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, LinkedIn, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov and read The Watchblog.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.