BLM, Forest Service, BIA, and MMS each have similar processes for  managing oil and gas activity on land within their jurisdiction. For example, BLM planning decisions can be  protested to the BLM director prior to challenging the decision in federal  court, while Forest Service planning decisions can be appealed to the next  highest officer prior to any challenge of the decision that might be brought  in federal court. An appeal is a request to the Interior Board  of Land Appeals (IBLA)—a body of administrative judges within the  Department of the Interior—to review a BLM decision. The public can challenge leasing decisions through protests, appeals to  IBLA, and litigation. A  Forest Service official has 160 days to render a decision on an appeal. IBIA decisions may be litigated in federal court. The appeal  and litigation process is the same as for the exploration stage. At the planning and leasing stages, MMS decisions involving its 5-year plan  and lease sales are not subject to informal reviews or appeals to IBLA, but  can be litigated in federal court. IBLA has no time frame to decide appeals. BLM Does Not Systematically Gather and Use Public Challenge Information to Manage Its Oil and Gas Program

BLM headquarters does not systematically gather and use nationwide  information on public challenges to manage its oil and gas program. While  there is an agencywide system that state offices use to collect data on  public challenges during leasing, it is not used to collect public challenge  data during the planning, exploration, or operations stages. However, the  system is used inconsistently because BLM has not issued clear guidance  on which data the state offices are required to enter into the system. Because the agencywide system does not track all the public challenge data  necessary for managing workload, headquarters and state offices also use  multiple, independent data collection systems for the various stages of oil  and gas development. BLM is in the process of developing a new national Lease Sale  System that provides an opportunity to standardize collection of data on  public challenges at the leasing stage. However, BLM has not decided  whether the new system will track public challenge information. The spreadsheets are not integrated with  LR2000 or one another. Areas on the Outer Continental Shelf Open to Offshore Oil and Gas Development Experienced Few Public Challenges

According to data provided by MMS officials, during fiscal years 1999  through 2003, MMS was challenged on only one of its 1,631 decisions  approving offshore oil and gas development and production and only one  of its 1,997 decisions approving oil and gas exploration. Both of the  challenged MMS decisions concerned access to mineral resources on the  outer continental shelf off the coast of Alaska. Table 2 shows the number of exploration and operations decisions  approved by MMS between 1999 and 2003 and the number that were  challenged by the public. The new agencywide system that BLM is developing will provide  an opportunity for the agency to maintain public challenge data in a  standardized format at least for the leasing stage and provide it with more  reliable data from which to make resource allocation decisions, but the  agency has not yet determined whether it will include public challenge data  in the system. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This appendix presents the scope and methodology we used to gather  information on the stages when agency decisions about oil and gas  development can be challenged by the public and the extent to which the  Bureau of Land Management gathers and uses public challenge data to  manage its onshore oil and gas program. To describe the stages when oil and gas development decisions can be  challenged by the public, we analyzed pertinent laws, rules, and regulations  and interviewed agency officials pertaining to oil and gas development  processes under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM),  Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and Minerals Management Service (MMS)  in the Department of the Interior and Forest Service in the Department of  Agriculture.
Why GAO Did This Study

U.S. consumption of oil and natural gas increasingly outpaces domestic production, a gap that is expected to grow rapidly over the next 20 years. There has been increasing concern about U.S. reliance on foreign energy sources. One option being considered is to increase domestic production of resources on land under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Minerals Management Service (MMS) and the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service. GAO determined (1) the stages when agency decisions about oil and gas development can be challenged by the public, (2) the extent to which BLM gathers and uses public challenge data to manage its oil and gas program, and (3) for fiscal years 1999-2003, the number of MMS offshore development decisions that were challenged.

What GAO Found

At the four stages of developing oil and gas resources--planning, exploration, leasing, and operations, BLM, the Forest Service, BIA, and MMS allow for public challenges to agency decisions. However, the agencies have different procedures for processing challenges that occur within the stages. For example, BLM leasing decisions can be challenged to a BLM state director, further appealed to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA), and litigated in federal court. Forest Service leasing decisions, however, sometimes can be appealed through the Forest Service supervisory chain of command and litigated in federal court. The Forest Service has no separate appeals board within the Department of Agriculture, such as IBLA, to review decisions. In addition, unlike BLM, the Forest Service has specific time frames during which appeals must be decided. BIA procedures offer opportunities for public challenges at the exploration and leasing stages, which are the only stages BIA makes decisions related to oil and gas development. MMS regulations do not provide for appeals at the planning or leasing stages, but do provide for appeals to IBLA during the exploration and operations stages. All MMS decisions could potentially be litigated in federal court. BLM does not systematically gather and use nationwide information on public challenges to manage its oil and gas program. BLM has a system that state offices use to collect data on public challenges during leasing, but the state offices use it inconsistently because they lack clear guidance from headquarters on which data to enter. As a result, the system does not provide consistent information that BLM headquarters can use to assess workload impacts on its state offices and to make staffing and funding resource allocation decisions. Because this system does not track all the public challenge data necessary for managing workload, headquarters and state offices also use multiple, independent data collection systems that are not integrated with one another or BLM's system. BLM is in the process of developing a new system that provides an opportunity to standardize collection of data on public challenges at the leasing stage. However, it has not decided whether the new system will be used to track public challenge information. Between fiscal years 1999 and 2003, MMS was challenged on only one of its 1,631 decisions approving offshore oil and gas development and production and only one of its 1,997 decisions approving offshore oil and gas exploration. Both decisions concerned land on the outer continental shelf off the coast of Alaska and were challenged by Alaskans, a Native American tribe, or an environmental interest group on the basis that the decisions violated the National Environmental Policy Act and other laws. One of the decisions was litigated in federal court and the court decided against the challenges. The other decision was appealed to IBLA but the company discontinued work before a decision was reached.