to intensify the production of oil and gas from Federal lands. FEDERAL LANDS CLOSED TO LEASING HAVE POTENTIAL FOR INCREASING The Federal Government controls about 410 million acres in the lower 48 States. of this, approximately 64 million acres have been closed to oil and gas leasing (withdrawn). (See p. 41.) Wilderness programs at the Forest Service could close, at a minimum, an additional 33 million acres to new mineral development after 1983. As much as 55 percent of these withdrawn lands has some likelihood of containing oil or gas. (See ch. 3.) GAO found that of the 20 million acres withdrawn from leasing in the five States reviewed, over 11 million acres are considered to be potentially valuable for oil and gas. The minimum amount of exploration that has occurred around many of these areas makes reliable resource estimates for withdrawn lands impossible. Recognizing the speculative nature of such estimates, GAO has used 1978 Geological Survey estimates of recoverable resources to calculate that a potential 312.6 million barrels of oil and 156.4 billion cubic feet of gas could be affected by these withdrawals. However, further exploration in many of these areas would be needed to provide better information on the amount of resources involved. (See ch. 4.) Most of these lands have been formally closed for indefinite periods by law, regulation, Executive order, or public land order. The Department of Defense and the Fish and Wildlife Service controlled the most withdrawn lands considered to have oil and gas potential. These lands deserve early consideration of being reopened. (See ch. 4.) Federal agencies are also closing lands to oil and gas leasing through management decisions. Such administrative actions account for approximately 6 million of the 20 million acres closed in the States reviewed. (See ch. 4.) As a result of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the Department of the Interior has categorized these "no leasing" decisions as land management decisions rather than withdrawals under this Act. Interior is prohibiting oil and gas leasing on lands without subjecting the decision to formal withdrawal procedures or to congressional review and possible veto. Thus, it is unlikely that the Congress or the Federal Government will be able to readily identify areas closed to leasing unless these single management decisions have affected 100,000 acres or more. Records are not consistently maintained by Interior to keep management abreast of the extent to which 'no leasing" decisions are being reached. (See ch. 3.) Management of mineral activities in potential. wilderness areas is being treated differently by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. (See ch. 3.) Both of these agencies' actions have deferred exploration for oil and gas in potential wilderness areas, and thus, have delayed the development of potential energy resources. By limiting mineral development, these agencies have followed policies which are more restrictive than what the Congress allowed under wilderness legislation. Under the Wilderness Act of 1964 and other wilderness statutes, mineral development is permitted at least until December 31, 1983. Of the 16.5 million acres of potential wilderness in the review States, at least 8.5 million acres are considered to be prospectively valuable for oil and gas. (See ch. 4.) Interior and the Department of Defense dispute whether the withdrawal application procedures of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act apply to the military. Specifically at issue is the requirement for detailed minerals assessments for all proposed withdrawals. Since the Congress must establish any Defense withdrawal over 5,000 acres, it should clarify what minerals data will be needed in reaching a decision to set aside lands for military use. (See ch. 3.) Agencies are now requiring lessees to accept special conditions on leases to ensure protection of surface resources. These stipulations can increase the costs of production for an operator and can act as a disincentive to exploration and development. In the States reviewed, a minimum of 1 million acres of leasable lands are subject to various "no surface occupancy" stipulations. At least 345,000 acres of these restricted lands lie in the Wyoming Overthrust Belt. This data indicates that the practice of restricting surface use on valuable leases or drilling permits is likely to be widespread. (See ch. 4.) Another category of withdrawn lands exists through the Bureau of Land Management's failure to reoffer expired leases in the simultaneous leasing system (the lottery). GAO found 1,070 leases on at least 830,000 acres of Federal land which had been withheld from leasing in GAO's review States. (See ch. 4.) DELAYS IN APPROVAL OF FEDERAL LEASES COULD DEFER OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT Lease applications in the States GAO reviewed encountered a variety of delays. Agencies for various reasons are not managing their programs in a manner to secure optimum exploration and development efforts on Federal lands. In part, this is due to the fact that Federal oil and gas programs are in competition with other resource management programs for scarce funds and manpower. At least 3,995 (55 percent) of the pending lease applications in the review States as of December 31, 1979, were over 4 months old. In addition, 33 percent of the leases issued by the Bureau of Land Management in 1979 were delayed. The length of delays varied by type of lease and by State. (See ch. 5.) Most delays in lease approvals were due to Federal actions. The Bureau itself delayed half the sampled cases during lease processing because of inaction, lack of followup, and mailing errors. The Bureau has not established time frames or agreements with other agencies to facilitate lease processing. Other delays were due to environmental analyses, deferral of leasing in study areas, title work by surface management agencies, and miscellaneous reasons. (See ch. 5.) Environmental assessments have been done on many leases which are never developed. Such assessments can be time-consuming and repetitive for Bureau staff, especially when done for each stage of oil and gas activity. Therefore, GAO believes assessments could be deferred until actual surface disturbance for oil and gas activity is planned on the lands. Unlike withdrawals, leasing delays only defer possible production for temporary periods. DELAYS IN APPROVING FEDERAL AND GAS PRODUCTION Forty-seven percent of the 1,749 drilling permits approved in 1979 by the U.S. Geological Survey in our review States were "delayed." In addition, 63 percent of the 553 permits pending as of December 31, 1979, were more than 30 days old. (See ch. 6.) Delays occurred at all stages of the Geological Survey's permit processing. The most common delays involved: obtaining information from applicants, securing archaeological clearances, and receiving surface protection recommendations from Federal agencies on the operator's drilling plans. GAO believes improving the present permit system by clarifying operator requirements and establishing processing time frames will eliminate many of these delays. (See ch. 6.) GAO believes remedial steps are necessary if Federal agencies are to increase oil and gas activity on Federal lands. (See ch. 7.) RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CONGRESS The Department of the Interior's use of land management decisions under section 202 (e) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act to close lands to mineral leasing may have an effect similar to withdrawals under section 204 of the statute. Therefore, the Congress should determine whether it wishes to be excluded from the review and possible disapproval of such decisions. If not, the Congress should amend section 202(e) of the act to provide that management decisions closing lands to mineral leasing and affecting smaller sized tracts should be reported to the Congress. Section 202(e) should be further amended to require that the Department of the Interior submit with each report to the Congress the minerals report described in section 204 (c) (2) for withdrawals and any other information required in section 204 (c) (2) which the Congress considers appropriate. (See Appendix XVII (A) for text of suggested amendment.) Because minerals information for military lands is scarce and existing legislation does not require that adequate minerals data be available prior to a decision to reserve lands for military purposes, the Congress should amend section 3 of the Engle Act so that the withdrawal information for military applications conforms with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act's section 204 (c) (2) requirements for mineral analyses. (See Appendix XVII (B) for text of suggested amendment.) To increase energy development of potentially valuable Defense lands, the Congress should amend section 6 of the Engle Act to provide that the Secretary of Defense may only determine that oil and gas development is inconsistent |