Oil and Gas Development: Improved Collection and Use of Data Could Enhance BLM's Ability to Assess and Mitigate Environmental Impacts
Published: 2017-04-25T00:00:00

Fast Facts:
The Bureau of Land Management requires oil and gas companies on federal lands to use the Bureau's best environmental management practices. The Bureau also inspects oil and gas wells to verify that the practices are in use and assess how well they actually protect the environment.
However, the Bureau cannot be sure that these practices are in place and working well because its field offices document inspections and use data inconsistently.
We made 6 recommendations to help the Bureau improve its inspection data and monitor how well its best environmental management practices are working.

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO is making six recommendations, including that BLM develop a policy for tracking and documenting exceptions. Interior generally concurred with GAO's recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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.
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.  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. 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  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  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. 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: BLM’s Mission and Organizational Structure
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: BLM’s Process for Overseeing Federal Oil and Gas Resource Development and Mitigating Environmental Impacts
paragraphs: 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.
FLPMA requires the Secretary of the Interior to develop land use plans  and, when appropriate, revise them. 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. 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. 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. 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  for oil and gas development. As part of this phase, BLM generally  conducts an environmental assessment to determine whether the  proposed development is likely to significantly impact the environment.  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  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. 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.
subsections: section_title: BLM’s Best Management Practices Policy
paragraphs: 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. 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.
section_title: Exceptions, Waivers, and Modifications to Lease and Permit Requirements
paragraphs: 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  temporary or for the term of the lease. 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. Criteria for considering exception requests are generally  developed through the NEPA process as BLM develops its land use  plans.
section_title: BLM’s Inspection and Enforcement Program
paragraphs: 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  (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. 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.
section_title: Our Prior Work Related to BLM’s Management of Federal Oil and Gas Resources
paragraphs: 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. 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. 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  that was complete, consistent, and available to the public. 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. 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.
section_title: The Extent to Which BLM Approves Exception Requests Is Unknown, and BLM Field Office Processes for Considering These Requests and Documenting Decisions Vary
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: The Extent to Which BLM Approves Requests for Exceptions to Lease and Permit Requirements Is Unknown
paragraphs: 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. 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  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.
section_title: BLM Field Office Processes for Considering Exception Requests and Documenting Decisions Vary
paragraphs: 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. 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 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. 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 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 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. 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. 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. Without consistent and clear documentation of exception  decisions, BLM may not be able to justify its decisions and provide  reasonable assurance that its decisions were consistent with its  responsibilities under NEPA.
section_title: BLM Has Involved the Public in the Development of Lease and Permit Requirements to Varying Extents but Not When Considering Exception Decisions
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: BLM Consistently Involved the Public in Developing Lease Requirements
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: BLM Involved the Public to Some Extent in the Development of Permit Requirements
paragraphs: 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. 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  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  a draft is produced, the offices are required to post the document for  public review on ePlanning.
section_title: BLM Generally Did Not Involve the Public When Considering Exception Requests
paragraphs: 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  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. 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.
section_title: BLM Has Generally Implemented Its Best Management Practices Policy but Has Not Consistently Documented Inspections or Used Data to Assess the Policy’s Effectiveness
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: BLM Has Generally Implemented Its Best Management Practices Policy by Including Key Practices As Permit Requirements
paragraphs: 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.
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.
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.
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.
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  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.
section_title: BLM Has Not Consistently Documented Environmental Inspections Intended to Verify Required Best Management Practices Are Implemented
paragraphs: 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  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. 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. 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  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  develop a mobile computing solution as part of its AFMSS update. 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. 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.  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  only when the right personnel for the job are on board and provided the  right training, tools, structure, incentives, and responsibilities.
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.
section_title: BLM Has Not Effectively Used Monitoring Inspection Data to Assess the Effectiveness of Its Best Management Practices Policy
paragraphs: 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. 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. The policy requires BLM field offices with oil  and gas management responsibilities to conduct monitoring inspections in  accordance with CEQ regulations. 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  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- 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  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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Response
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: 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. 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). 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  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  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. 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  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. 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  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  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.
section_title: Appendix II: Bureau of Land Management Environmental Inspection Forms
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.