Dramatic Increases in Oil and Gas Permitting Activity Have Lessened BLM’s Ability to Ensure That Environmental Impacts Are Mitigated

Oil and gas development on BLM-managed lands has increased  dramatically over the past 6 years, resulting in staff spending more time  processing drilling permits and less time mitigating the environmental  impacts of the development. Nationwide, the total number of oil and gas  drilling permits approved by BLM more than tripled, from 1,803 to 6,399 for  fiscal years 1999 through 2004. Increased Oil and Gas Permitting Activity Has Decreased Staff Resources Available for Environmental Mitigation Activities

BLM officials in five of the eight field offices we visited reported that they  had to shift staff from activities designed to mitigate the impacts of oil and  gas development—such as environmental inspections, monitoring,  idle-well reviews, and reclamation—to those associated with processing  drilling permits. Recent BLM Policy Changes Have Had Mixed Impacts on Environmental Mitigation Activities for Oil and Gas Development

The policy changes BLM made in the past 6 years to help facilitate and  manage increased oil and gas development and to enhance environmental  mitigation efforts have had mixed impacts on the agency’s environmental  mitigation activities. Staff from four of the eight field offices indicated that the effect of the  policies has been hampered by increases in permitting workloads, which  has not allowed staff time to perform idle-well reviews. BLM Faces Several Major Challenges in Implementing Its Oil and Gas Program

BLM state and field office staff and GAO identified several challenges that  BLM faces to effectively manage its oil and gas program, including, but not  limited to, (1) managing growing workloads to meet all of its  responsibilities, (2) using workforce planning and workload-related data to  effectively identify and communicate its workforce needs, and (3) meeting  its oil and gas program resource needs in light of budget and funding  constraints. According to BLM staff, workload pressure, which was already  at a high level due to the increases in permitting activity, has been further exacerbated by increases in public challenges to BLM’s decisions and  actions. Further, in reviewing their efforts to manage increasing workloads,  we found that BLM’s current workforce planning process does not allow all  of BLM’s staffing needs to be effectively communicated to BLM state and  headquarters decision makers for use in supporting budget justifications  and resource allocation decisions and that some data needed to quantify  workloads are either not tracked or not consistently tracked. Meeting Oil and Gas Program Resource and Staffing Needs in a Period of Declining Budgets

Lastly, but perhaps most significantly, BLM is presented with the challenge  of meeting its oil and gas program resource and staffing needs in a period  when these needs are growing faster than available resources. Under FLPMA, BLM has  the authority to assess and collect fees for various services that it  provides. We found, for  example, that the policies that streamlined the permitting process had an  indirect negative impact on mitigation activities because the policies also  increased the emphasis on processing permits, which in turn resulted in  shifting staff away from their environmental mitigation responsibilities. Specifically,  we were asked to determine (1) the extent to which the level of oil and gas  production on public lands managed by BLM has changed over the past 6  years and how these changes have affected, if at all, BLM’s ability to assess  and mitigate environmental impacts; (2) what policies BLM has issued in  the past 6 years related to facilitating and managing oil and gas production  and how these policies have affected, if at all, BLM’s ability to assess and  mitigate environmental impacts; and (3) what challenges BLM faces in  managing its oil and gas program. As a  result, we did not make any changes.
Why GAO Did This Study

Rising U.S. energy consumption and concerns about dependency on foreign energy sources have prompted the administration to aggressively pursue domestic oil and gas production, including production on public lands, which in turn has generated concern that the impacts of this activity may compromise the use of public land for other purposes. GAO determined (1) the extent to which the level of oil and gas development on public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has changed in recent years, and how the change has affected BLM's ability to mitigate impacts; (2) what policy changes related to oil and gas development BLM recently made and how these policies affected BLM's environmental mitigation activities; and (3) what challenges BLM faces in managing its oil and gas program.

What GAO Found

BLM's ability to meet its environmental mitigation responsibilities for oil and gas development has been lessened by a dramatic increase in oil and gas operations on federal lands over the past 6 years. Nationwide, the total number of drilling permits approved by BLM more than tripled, from 1,803 in fiscal year 1999 to 6,399 in fiscal year 2004. BLM officials in five out of eight field offices that GAO visited explained that as a result of the increases in drilling permit workloads, staff had to devote increased time to processing drilling permits, leaving less time for mitigation activities, such as environmental inspections and idle-well reviews. BLM made policy revisions over the last 6 years that affected to varying degrees its ability to assess and mitigate the environmental impacts of oil and gas development. The combined effects of these policy changes--some of which were aimed at facilitating and managing increased development, while others were meant to enhance environmental mitigation--were mixed. For example, four of the eight field offices reported that the most significant impact of the policies to expedite and manage oil and gas development was the increased emphasis that some of these policies placed on processing permits, which in turn resulted in shifting staff responsibilities away from mitigation activities. On the other hand, policies to enhance mitigation generally had a positive impact, although increases in the permitting workload have limited their effect. For example, in six field offices, policies for revitalizing BLM's inspection and enforcement program resulted in more inspection staff being hired, although most offices remain understaffed. BLM state and field office staff, and GAO, identified several challenges to managing the agency's oil and gas program, including (1) managing workloads while meeting all of its responsibilities, (2) using workforce planning to effectively identify and communicate its workforce needs, and (3) meeting its oil and gas program resource needs in light of budget constraints. Workload pressure, already high due to increased permitting activity, has been further exacerbated by increased appeals and litigation of BLM decisions and actions, according to BLM staff. In reviewing BLM's efforts to manage increasing workloads, GAO found that some data needed to quantify specific workload activities are either not tracked or not consistently tracked, and that BLM's current workforce planning process does not effectively identify and communicate BLM's staff needs to decision makers. As a result, the process does not provide consistent and readily available information that BLM can use to support budget justifications and make informed resource allocation decisions. BLM is also presented with the challenge of meeting its oil and gas program responsibilities in a period when staffing needs are growing faster than available resources. While BLM has the authority to assess and collect fees for processing oil and gas permits, it has not exercised this authority. BLM has recently taken steps to develop a fee structure for permits.