INVESTIGATION OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT OF INVESTIGATION ALLEGED WILLFULVIOLATION OF REGULATIONS BY BLM OFFICIAL Report No.: OI-OG- 8-0347-I August 20 8 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL US. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR REPORT OF INVESTIGATION Case Title Case Number Alleged Willful Violation of Regulations by OI-OG-18-0347-I BLM Of?cial Reporting Of?ce Report Date Energy Investigations Unit August 28, 2018 Report Subject Report of Investigation SYNOPSIS We 0 ened this investi ation in Februar 2018 after receiving allegations that? Bueu BLM, encoru?aged natru'al resource specialists to overlook regulations so they could process Applications for Permit to Drill more quickly, and that they should protect any staff members who choose to overlook regulations. The comments were alleged to have occrured dining an_ visit by- to the BLM Of?ce. We did not substantiate the allegations and formd no evidence to indicate- made the statements as alleged. DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION We opened this investi ation in Februar 2018, after receivin an anon nous com laint alle ing that druin an visit to th Of?ce stated that natiu?al resoru'ce specialists (NRSs) should overlook regulations in order to process Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs) more quickly. - also allegedly stated staff should protect any staff that chooses to overlook regulations.? No Evidence- Made Statements as Alleged - con?rmed he did address BLM employees at the. in_ and characterized his comments as an_ overview about goals related to the timely processing of APDs. He denied Reporting Of?cial/Title Sigrratiu'e /Special Agent Digitally signed. Approving Of?cial/Title Sigrratru'e SAC Digitally signed. Authentication Number: This document is the property of the Department of the Interior, Of?ce of Inspector General (OIG), and may contain information that is protected from disclosure by law. Distribution and reproduction of this document is not authorized without the express written permission of the OIG. OFFICIAL USE ONLY 01-002 (05/10) Case Number: OI-OG-18-0347-I telling employees to overlook regulations and stated that he wants employees to know the regulations rather than ?making up stuff.? He did not advise employees to give priority to one company over another regarding APDs: instead, he maintained that companies could request a particular APD be processed over another APD that was in process with BLM. He also af?rmed his position that APDs must adequately conform to the National Enviromnental Policy Act. When asked about the comment that employees would be protected. - denied making such a statement. Instead, he said he encouraged employees to streamline processes and work ?smarter not harder? (Attachments 1 and 2). was present at the meeting and recalled- advising employees to ?work arormd the regulations,? followed by a clari?cation to stay within the parameters of the law and do nothing illegal (Attachment 3). BLM was present at the meeting and said employees were told they were gomg to given atever resoru'ces and technology they needed to get the job done. She said her impression was that they were bein encoura ed to find shortcuts. She did not recall the exact wording, or if it was- orh BLM, who said it, but she recalled employees being told they would be ?protected? as they went about their duties. recalled a question being asked openly, ?protect us from what?? She said it was then ?uther clari?ed that employees should work within the regulations (Attachment 4). SUBJECT DISPOSITION We are providing this report to the BLM Deputy Director for any action deemed appropriate. ATTACHMENTS IAR Interview of dated February 21, 2018. _interview transcri t, dated February 21. 2018. IAR Interview of dated February 6. 2018. IAR Interview of dated May 9, 2018. OFFICIAL USE ONLY 2 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITY REPORT Case Number Reporting Of?ce Report Date Energy Investigations Unit February 21, 2018 Report Subject Interview of Brn'eau of Land Management Orr February 21, 2018, Special Agents (SA) and General OIG U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), interviewed Bru?eau of Land Mana ernent (BLM), at the The p111 ose of the interview was to ask about certain alle ations made against him and ot er BLM located in the BLM - was provided and signed a Garrity form. With the consent of the interview was captlu'ed with a digital recorder, and a transcript of the interview was created and is maintained with the investigative ?le and available for review. The following narrative report is not a verbatim account of the interview, but rather a substantive of information provided drn?ing the interview. Of?ce of Ins ector BLM and has been in that position . Prior to his crnrent assignment, was the BLM from cmrent duties mc ude provi mg u'ection to em 10 ees in of the full ?gamut? of agency responsibilities, and other day-to-day operations of the agency. me 11 mg - has worked for DOI since was asked if he was aware of any complaints conring from. ?eld staff about management allowing oil and gas companies to proceed with proposed projects without ?rst complying with enviromnental laws and regulations. - acknowledged that the is a very busy of?ce, but he stated that he was not aware of any such complaints or issues at According to- he is not aware of any complaints from ?eld staff at the. about oil and gas companies destroying archaeological sites; however, he has been told ?generally? about such companies possibly trespassing on BLM land. He said that he was not provided any speci?c details of the potential trespasses, and rmderstood that- was dealing with the matter. stated that he has not been informed by ?eld staff that. management is acquiescent to these trespasses and destruction of archaeological sites, and therefore is not taking any action to hold the oil Reporting Of?cial/Title Signatlu?e /Special Agent Digitally signed. Authentication Number: 1800AE386D7EE3 30375B819F9C9812B0 This document is the property of the Department of the Interior, Of?ce of Inspector General (01G), and may contain information that is protected from disclosure by law. Distribution and reproduction of this document is not authorized without the express written permission of the OIG. OFFICIAL USE ONLY 01-003 (11/17) Case Number: OI-OG-18-0347-I and gas companies accountable under the law and regulations. He explained that he is regularly pulled aside by field staff and told of their concerns and issues, but this concern has never been raised to him. (b) (7)(C) (b) (7)(C) When asked, said the he was not aware of any complaints from field staff that management (b) (7)(C) is restricting their internal discussions (with other field staff) concerning the destruction of archeological sites or oil spills. (b) (7)(C) (b) (7)(C) also stated that he is not aware of any complaints from field staff that they are being (b) (7)(C) prohibited by management to formally document the destruction of archeological sites and oil (b) (7)(C) spills. According to he would consider the failure to document such actions as very serious and therefore he would strive to “get to the bottom” of such failures “ASAP.” (b) (7)(C) (b) (7)(C) said that he is not aware of complaints that management is showing preference to some oil (b) (7)(C) companies over other companies. He noted that he talked to the staff about handling priorities of the companies. He explained how BLM typically processes applications for permits to drill (APDs) in a First In, First Out method, yet some companies may have higher priorities on APDs that were (b) (7)(C) submitted after previously submitted APDs, and the staff should be cognizant of those priorities, if possible. (b) (7)(C) (b) (7)(C) When asked, said that he was not aware of any complaints from field staff that categorical exclusions are being inappropriately completed for all temporary surface pipelines, notwithstanding Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation Act. (b) (7)(C) According to he is not aware of complaints that (b) (7)(C) qualified compliance personnel are (b) (7)(C) significantly understaffed. He explained that he regularly hears that the staff at are overworked and he and others in upper management are working on remedying that situation. (b) (7)(C) (b) (7)(C) (b) (7)(C) During a Natural Resource Specialist (NRS) Staff meeting at the in (b) (7)(C) said that he talked to the NRS staff about “being smart” when analyzing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements when processing APDs. When asked if he told the NRS staff to (b) (7)(C) overlook regulations when processing APDs in order to expedite their approval, said that such an allegation was “grossly inaccurate.” He explained that he discussed with the NRS staff that BLM needs to determine the NEPA standards adequately, yet once that determination is made, “we need to move on.” If the standards are not determined to adequately meet NEPA requirements, then BLM needs to move toward the next levels of NEPA analysis. (b) (7)(C) further explained that he had this discussion with NRS staff because certain NEPA documents in the past would exceed 3,000 pages, yet the standards to meet NEPA could have been completed in a far shorter document. He said that when the NEPA documents are so voluminous, the public cannot (b) (7)(C) digest the materials. According to he believes that BLM staff sometimes create very large NEPA analysis documents in an attempt to make the analysis “litigation-proof.” He does not believe there is such a thing as a litigation-proof document because those who are interested in suing the (b) (7)(C) agency will always do so, regardless of how voluminous the document. Accordingly, believes it is more important to have “good science” in the NEPA analysis rather than voluminous, unnecessary documentation. (b) (7)(C) stated that he (b) (7)(C) to go back to the NEPA law and actually read its contents in order to ensure they are “getting back to the basics” in following the law, and not just producing large OFFICIAL USE ONLY 2 Case Number: OI-OG-18-0347-I documents because that is the way they have done it in the past. He said he believes in ?working smarter, not harder.? When asked if he has received in?uence from mana ers above him inside DOI to direct staff to streamline and expedite the processing of APDs, i said that he has been in management since- and he has said openly that his main job as an. is to maintain the integrity of the system, regardless of the policies of a new administration. In maintaining this integrity, he always assesses whether certain proposed actions are legal, safe, moral, ethical and ?make sense.? He said that he has had open discussions with cru?rent leadership and ?they know where he stands? on these issues. explained that BLM is a ?multiple use? agency that needs to follow regulations, yet if following the regulations does not ?make sense,? then he would propose having a discussion about changing the nonsensical regulations. reiterated, however, that he ?absolutely? did not direct NRS staff to overlook regulations. Indeed, he said that he regularly instructs staff to ensure they review all the regulations to make sru?e they are being followed. According to the. is a bus of?ce and has high nunover. He believes the high trunover is a product of lac amenities mi, such as hospitals, schools, and more signi?cantly, a lack of affordable, adequate housing. When asked, said that he does not understand how the complainant interpreted his message so inaccurately, inasmuch as he regularly tries to go the extra mile in ensruing the staff understands what he is saying. He explained that he always tries to be clear when providing direction and always ?checks for rurderstanding,? even to the point of oftentimes asking staff to ?tell me what I just said.? also explained that if staff were experiencing issues such as being told to not discuss violations of enviromnental laws by their local managers, the staff would have higher levels of managers between them and himself that they could contact to voice their concerns. Therefore, it would not be typical for such concerns to reach his level. He identi?ed the mana ement levels between him and ?eld staff as . Notwithstanding these levels of management between himself and staff, stated that if the staff did possess such concerns, believes that BLM would ?need to get on top of? the concerns. He believes it to be very important for staff to be able to work in an environment where they can do their jobs and not be suppressed by management. said that he never imposes ?quotas? on ?eld staff because he is very ?cognizant? of how quotas can lead to staff cutting corners to meet such quotas. He did acknowledge that BLM does need to set tar ets that they are required to relay to Congress, yet BLM will ensure that their of?ces, including the will have the staff necessary to meet those targets. - then explained that he does not set these targets, but rather they are created by subject matter experts within BLM. OFFICIAL USE ONLY 3 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITY REPORT Case Number 18?0347 Reporting Of?ce Report Date Intake Management Unit February 6, 2018 Report Subject Coordination with 011 Febiuaiy 1, 2018, Special Agent Intake Management Unit, Of?ce of Ins ector General. U.S. De aitment of the Interior, conducted a reliminai to detelmine his recollection of comments made by NRS meeting. stated he recalled telling them to "work around the regulations." a Mack peddled" and state "within the law-- we don't want to do anything 1 a that! ?brags? that they are the busiest of?ce in the countly. believedi had a re utation for 0mg things differently (and not light) ??om other of?ces, due to eir erationa tempo. i thought that sometimes they were expected to ?cut too many comers.? gave an example that he did not believe he had ever completed an environmental assessment, and instead, they had various templates from which they cut and paste. - a greed to be contacted again should more infonnation be required of him. CONTACT INFORMATION: Reporting Of?cial/Title Signatiu?e Special Agent Digitally signed. Authentication Number: This document is the property of the Department of the Interior, Of?ce of Inspector General (01G). and may contain information that is protected from disclosure by law. Distribution and reproduction of this document is not authorized without the express written permission of the OIG. OFFICIAL USE ONLY 01-003 (11/17) OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL US. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITY REPORT Case Number Reporting Of?ce Report Date Energy Investigations Unit May 9, 2018 Report Subject On April 9. 2018. Special Agents (SA and . Energy Investigations Unit (EIU), Of?ce of Inspector General OIG . U.S. De artmerrt of the Interior DOI . conducted a voluntary and recorded interview of . 1e intervrew was C011 11cte at a - acknowledged and signed a Garrizjr Rights Form prior to the interview. With her consent. the interview was captured with a digital voice recorder. and the recording is maintained with the investigative ?le and available for review. The following narrative report is not a verbatim account of the interview. but rather a substantive of information provided by dining the interview. Subsequent to the interview, rovided several documents re ate to her allegations. On May 4. 2018. the reporting agent an had a brief follow-up discussion regarding the additional information and documents. Where information from those documents is relevant to details discussed dining the interview. it is incorporated into this report to provide clarity. Those documents will be uploaded into the electronic case management system along with this report. As backgrormd. has been with in the where she started as an assi rents. She is crurently a revious ex erience includes servin at 383 011 February 2. 2018. ?led a com laint with the OIG hotline in which she made numerous allegations against BLM rnanagenrent in fiuther detailed dining this interview. - Reporting Of?cial/Title Signatiu?e Special Agent Digitally signed. Authentication Number: D036D8F9EAF 16E392AABCDE1A513B87 This document is the property of the Department of the Interior. Of?ce of Inspector General (OIG). and may contain information that is protected from disclosure by law. Distribution and reproduction of this document is not authorized without the express written permission of the OIG. OFFICIAL USE ONLY 01-003 (11/17) Case Number: allegations primarily concerned general mismanagement within- which resulted in violations of one or more policies, rules. regulations and/or laws deriving from the National Enviromnental Protection Act (NEPA). the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and the Archaeological Resoru?ces Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA). also claimed that the actions of- rnanagement had a chilling effect upon employees in that they were subject to intimidation and feared retaliation for raising legitimate environmental concerns or providing professional opinions about matters involving cultural or archaeological sites. said she was retaliated against for doing her job and for pointing out discrepancies and/ or lack of action by management against industry operators as it related to violations of NEPA, NHPA. ARPA, and generally internal controls utilized by BLM to monitor and manage archaeological sites. also raised concerns regarding. management?s relationship to the oil and gas industry. drew a connection between lack of internal controls, inconsistencies with policies and proce ru'es, and a general apathy toward regulations, as well as- management?s relationship to companies such as Chevron. Speci?cally, alleged that: Chevron has destroyed several archaeological sites since September of 201 7: Envirornnental accidents, such as oil and salt water disposal spills, are not documented or subject to proper environmental analysis/compliance: - is rmdermanned and positions are pinposely ?lled at lower paygrades to facilitate project approval by rmquali?ed employees; 0 Preference is given to some companies over others; and 0 Management seems more concerned about facilitating the ap roval and movement of industry projects than protecting cultru?al and/or archaeolo ical sites. held several mana ers res onsible, includin her direct su ervisor, also noted a change in the working atmosphere since the change in the . who ?where she provides on contract for companies such as Chevron. - provided details relating to each complaint to investigators, some of which are interrelated and/or overlap as part of a general theme of mismanagement and questionable management actions. All documents provided by in support of her complaint and details of her interview, will be topically labeled and uploaded to MS along with this report. According to - the following archaeological sites have either been impacted. destroyed or are in jeopardy of being destroyed due to ongoing Chevron projects and- management?s lack of oversight: 1. Entirely destroyed due to an approximately 100 squat foot area sornetrrnes escrr as a ?pad? by industry) that was bull dozed and topped with what appeared to be caliche. or possibly dug down to caliche bedrock to create a staging area for future work at the location. The archeological feature that was destroyed was an identified ?thermal feature? of an ancient fn'e pit. Chevron accepted responsibility for the site destruction; however, certain issues arose from this incident that demonstrate. among other things, - OFFICIAL USE ONLY 2 Case Number: lack of diligence according to- allegations. These de?ciencies are highlighted speci?cally within this report. 2. Chevron A right of way, normally granted by permit, allows up to 30 feet of public land to be cleared, with an additional 15 feet on either side, for temporary work space. The space ma be then used for construction of a road, pipeline or transmission line, for example. Tod knowledge, construction is cmrently in progress, and the ground distru?bance is crurently only about ?ve feet from a speci?c archaeological (thermal) featlu?e. 3. A reroute to the south of the site was established to avoid an archaeological featru?e (?resoru?ce?). According to - when she Visited the site, the road had been cleared through the area originally identi?ed to be avoided and very close to the featru'e. 4. Chevron submitted a wells located on a BLM ease ease num er 111 rown . A srurdry notice is a written request to perform work not covered by another type of permit, or to change operations relating to a previously approved permit. During the construction of the TB, this cultural resoru?ce was destroyed. The location for this TB was never entered into the Master Development Plan (MDP), application for permit to drill (APD) in the BLM- database, 1T4RM. Agent?s note: The issues surroundin the provided investigators with detailed information relating to complaints of mismanagement and subsequent archaeological damage. A more technical explanation of each destroved site has been documented in a separate report, authored by SA and located at Tab 13 0f the electronic case ?le. According to - an archaeological site, such as the one in_ has the potential to yield valuable scienti?c data which is encapsulated in thermal featru'es (such as a the pit utilized Native Americans for activities such as cooking or ceremonies. It may also include, as does, the presence of diagnostic ceramics at the site that can be cultlu?ally af?liated with a people who lived throughout the southwest after the Archaic period, sometime between 600 to 2,000 years ago. Such sites are typically protected ??om destruction or, with approval, subject to scienti?c and teclnrical testing and cataloging. This process is known as data recovery, where scienti?c information about a site is archived in federal and state re ositories for later reference and rurderstanding of the site that once existed at a particular location. advised that ?data recovery" as a concept refers to any activities designed to recover the information within a site that makes it eligible for recognition rmder the NHPA. These are sites that either yield or are likely to yield important information relating to ?prehistory? or history in a particular area. BLM must work with the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Of?ce (SHPO) and affected tribes in accordance with NHPA (and 36 FR part 800), and any agreements with the SHPO. said there are approximately 13,000 identi?ed cultru'al and/or archaeological sites in the area, and many are protected ?'om development on public lands. The site destroyed at- is one such site identi?ed for preservation, as it was reconmrended as eligible for protection NHPA by BLM archaeologists and the SHPO in 2013. As a result, all oil and gas projects proposed in the Vicinity of this archaeological site can only be authorized by the BLM if the site is avoided by at OFFICIAL USE ONLY 3 Case Number: least 100 feet of physical (buffer) space between the protected archaeological site and the oil and gas in??astructlu?e. The only other way for an oil and gas project to be approved by BLM when there is a protected archaeological site in the vicinity is to utilize the data recovery process. The? archaeological site was entirely destroyed sometime between J1me 2016 and September 2017 by placing a pad for construction/staging area where the site was once located. The site had been the location of a thermal archeological featm?e that had already been recormnerrded for preservation. No data recovery was conducted on this site prior to the destruction. learned about the destruction of the site in Se tember 2017, when and workin for Chevron. came to and informed and that it was destroyed. claimed she discovered the site was destroyed when she went to the area to address a frac pond spill. advised* and that both Chevron and another involved company. Mesquite. were 5 raring respon31 1 1ty fort s1te being destroyed. As far as believed, this was simply opinion, but not an of?cial conclusion of BLM. Fruthermore. to knowledge. Mesquite has never of?cially accepted responsibility. This is one reason believed BLM should be the investigating the matter and making a fmal determination as to the responsible companies. instructed to do a damage assessment of the site - which she would be doing as a or evron. According to this was not the proper way to further investigate the matter. Additionall was upset that Chevron was connmmicating such information to their_ and not directly to - as a representative of BLM. was concerned about the imauthorized construction at the and decided to discuss the incident with a BL is the responsible BLM of?cial that deals with accidents?like spills. believed- could also ossibly investigate site destruction further in her role as palt of the environmental division of hregardless of whatever assessment? was doing on contract for Chevron. However. dm?mg 1er discussion with- about the s1te estruction. it appeared was alreadv aware of the concerns about the site and had been in contact with a representative of Chevron (possibly about it. From understanding of the events. she had been kept out of the loop completely. She now understood what had happened. had alreadv been in contact with hevron, who then contacted who then came to the of?ce to talk to and essentially learne tre site destruction in reverse order, and only because came to the of?ce to give her opinion. BLM she has taken mana ement. said that what to and has the ear with BLAI Agent?s note: expressed to agents that she felt like since liberties due to her prior BLM iosition and relationship with when comes into the Office now, she basically te of management. is also alle ed to be in an ongoing em lovee who works at the BLM was close to management ana1 may be sharing some time of information, unknown at this time, with-. Now aware of the site destruction. ?eld to investigate the matter, with and another BLM Dining the site visit. took GPS points and photographs, which are still maintained in the GIS database. She provided investigators with further information to locate if said that on . she went in the OFFICIAL USE ONLY 4 Case Number: necessary. She noted the data should also be available on the BLM's Of?ce server. While on site, - said she. observed that a staging/construction pad was constructed on top of what was site . and vehicles were parked there. The area in which the archaeological site had been. was comp ete eared and leveled. subsequent review of information collected 011 site noted that Mesquite?s sm?face pipeline intersected what had been the northern portion of the established archaeoloFical site, but she could not ?nd a plat of the supposed reroute the BLM provided anywhere in the database (including a review of NEPA documents). She concluded there was never a cultura sruvey completed for the area and therefore she noti?ed her supervisor (- the . of the issues she formd. also told that she was not in a cement with . being the only one in contact with Chevron about the matter. i let know she ah'eady had collected GPS points and photos of the staging ad and that there was nothing left of the archaeology site. also advised a that hevrorr constructed- . as approved. said he would investigate fruther. of the site destruction pi eline route. She ex ected him to do something about the pipeline esprteH stem. She recalled either insistin on a nreetin to discuss the matter. attended. According to she also informed Eemg constructed at srte. or along with NEPA . contacted a representative of Chevron who apologized and admitted Chevron destro ed the site. indicated Chevron would remedy the situation as instructed by BLM. noted at a er call.- slammed the table. acknowledged Chevron was the responsible party and walked out of the meeting. (Agent?s note: As one 0 the intertwining and/0r ersona/ relationships that noted within BLM she believes and - share a h-in-common, due to the recalled said- needed to do a NEPA assessment due to the situation. because BLM is required to anal ze the impacts to the environment due to trespasses and spills. However. recalled advised it was ?ille al? to discuss the destro ed site the investigation was complete. perplexed ar ued this with but it was eventually agreed the matter would not be discussed internally. she could do the damage assessment as Chevron ah'eady admitted fault and she ah?eady documented the destruction while out in the ?eld. However. - told her that this was a service Chevron should pay for. said she explained to him that she wanted the experience and thought it was a con?ict of interest for to do the damage assessment and investigate the matter further. Soon after that meeting and her discussion with- asked! druin a hone conversation where she found a reroute for the Mesquite prpe that intersecte a. said it was in the Enviromnental Assessment (EA). advised her she was not able to determine this by the plats in the EA. which is one of man NEPA documents are in an archive folder 011 the IT4RM orrline database. then told that Chevron was and that she could not do the damage assessment as a result. was not clear what exactl this meant but i would later it appeared to possibly be some business dispute between re parties?although go on to do work for hevron, after this conversation took place. OFFICIAL USE ONLY 5 Case Number: was havin her do the assessment said that she every advised- that she did not imderstand wh and that would be happy to do it herself. as a formd it more prudent to make Chevron and Mesquite have an construction project rather than pru?sue a monetary penalty, because ot erators are a ways submitting proposed projects to the BLM that could affect archaeology. further advised that both companies participate in the Prograrmnatic Agreement (PA) and thus are supposed to use the provided archaeology site location data to avoid all known archaeology sites. However, noted to that she had to create ?re-routes? for both operators on several, if not most pro ects. She was now concerned those re-r?outes were not being followed. explained to 110w she was not comfortable with r'e-routes as thei were known to not be an effective mitigation measm'e in oil fields related to this art of noted this was a primary argument utilized to establish ?ied PA in 2008. Accordin to about a week after this phone contact with showed her a letter that (representing Chevron forwarded him from saying she does not need to do a darna assessment, claiming only required the site to be documented as ?destroyed?. In this The email text from email, also implied BLM was responsible for the site being destroyed. writing to Chevron representatives, states the following: talked to and she only recommends us updating/ documenting the condition of the site so it can of?cially be listed as destroyed. She seemed to acknowledge that the site was left vuhrerable due to BLM approving so many projects so close to it. So. a good outcome for Chevron and Mesquite. I just need you to authorize me to do this work for you before we proceed.? Chevron responded via email, authorizin to proceed. Eventually the email chain nrade it to who then shared it with Alarmed assertions, then forwarded the correspondence to her management. said she did not receive any response or feedback from management. Because of this, said she addressed the matter with senior ollea les in the Department of BLM, and seeking their advice. said she wondered if her conversation with could have been misinterpreted by . According to and she email Chevron, copying her supervisors to inform them the matter was still rurder review, and BLM management would be making decisions about any actions to take, thus correctin and clarif in any possible ?miscommimication? that may have been relayed by anyone else sent this email on? and provided these emails to investigators or ectromc case ?le. recalled that soon after this incident she be an havin who had assumed projects at construction near another site disagreed. She explained that the agreed to meet at the site, but 3 sar no one was there upon er arrival. She then called and he sent her to another site. After she contacted him ??om that site, he advised her he could not make it to the site after all, but that surveyors would be there. - said no sruveyors arrived. She did, however, meet a pipeline operator who advised he did not work for Chevron iexact identity unknown). The pipeline operator called ?by cell and_ said disagreed about the site location and ?demanded? 1e ma 'e BLM site ocatron data avar a to land OFFICIAL USE ONLY 6 roblems with- (Chevron), . He insisted on expanding Case Number: sruveyors so they could avoid the archaeological site - said these (third party) sruveyors did not have authorization to the archaeological sites locations, as they had not completed data use agreements which are required by BLM. According to - each year, companies such as Chevron, pay into an archaeological research fund. The ?urd is known as a Agreement (PA) between local and federal government agencies, private industry, and Native American Tribes. It is an alternative compensatory mitigation agreement that allows industry to pay into a research ?md in lieu of doing typical s1uvey work to identify and avoid archaeological sites. The contribution permits the project planners for each company (such as Chevron) to have access to relevant archaeological site location data for project plarming pluposes. The planners must sign data use agreements and it is not "transferable" to, for example, third-party smyeyors. It is rmderstood that the BLM site information will assist companies in the avoidance of known archaeolo ical sites. This does not always happen, as was demonstrated with the doonnodon not. The PA ?md is managed by a work group which is composed of representatives from the archaeological research commrmity, the SHPO, the BLM, the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation (AC HP), and industry, and a representative from each of the seven Indian Tribes and Pueblos. Industry can use the fluid vohmtarily to pay a comparable amormt as a traditional archaeology sruvey would cost for each proposed project. For example, industry may elect to pay $1550 to the archaeological research ?urd with their permit for an Application to Drill. This would provide archaeological clearance for the proposed project. The BLM keeps accru?ate records of fluids contributed by industry and shares those records with the public. The funds are then used on projects decided on by the PA work group and awarded through a strict, competitive contracting process. This process allows for only foru? contractors to bid on speci?c task orders and is based upon the strict quali?cations that contractors must possess to perform services ranging from Class inventories, to data recovery, to the preparation of NRHP nominations and etlmographic studies. Signing up for the PA is volrmtary and does not cost anything. - does not know all the accounting procedures involved with a PA, but believes BLM administration staff, possibly in- handle the details. The_ PA fact sheet will be uploaded along with this report. told investigators that while was her supervisor at BLM she to use PA but later, as a com laineal to- management using PA ?s with industry because it interfered with business model, which is to provi speci?c archaeological work on contract to companies i 'e Ievron). (Agent?s note: encoura ed let management know of the situation involving- and site When she returned from the ?eld, and continued informing them of her concerns about Chevron said she also noted to management that was still awaiting mage assessment on 's srte, Around this time,- reca led her immediate supervisor (- was becoming hostile toward her, in what she described as a ?backhanded? and 'essive? manner. As an example, recalled a sensitive matter involving the . She ori inally took ?sick? leave (in lieu of annual), but was advised in an email by% to code this leave does not have a copy 0 is email but works aracterrze as ?vacatron trme?. learned this from who showed her what wrote, somewhat apologetically. OFFICIAL USE ONLY 7 Case Number: aauubbau ta_ abau what she perceived as insensitivity to her situation but received no response. She also emailed directly, sug estin that he eak to her directly about any questions involving her Quicktime, instead of emailing and By late called for a rneetin to resolve the issues was ex eriencing with Chevron. recalled that on asked and to attend this meeting in the conference room at told agents there is a log sheet related to signing 11p fort room by date/time and that it wou typical of to use this, and it is ossibl available for review should it be needed. - said that at this meeting, - told her was now claiming Chevron was not allowing her to proceed with documenting the site damage. questioned why would need ermission? given that the site was on public land and BLM was requesting the work. instructed? to contact whomever she normally worked with at Chevron, noting that they nee ed someone 1 er-up? to answer BLM questions. As recalls, the Chevron representative ended 11p being an engineer or someone who is a coordinator for spills, someone who had no knowledge of the incident and relieatedly stressed this to She said the engineer was able to locate some emails indicating was given permission evron to proceed with the damage assessment of the site. Complete ustrated at this oint, recalled saying she was ?pissed off" at the meeting?sensing that Chevron and were giving BLM the nmaromrd. She also expressed concern at the meeting that if nothin was done about this particular site. they would simply continue destroying other sites. She said admonished her for being too ?emotional? about the situation, which is why she could not do the damage assessment (although this had not been raised before). said she stood up, told- to ?Do what you will? and walked out of the meeting. She advised agents that it was her job to point out such violations. She Viewed his cormnents during the meeting and response to her Via email, as evidence of retaliation. 011?, two days after the meeting, - sent the following via email: In regards to 0m Chevron meetin on approximately 9:30 am. attended by yom? behavior was Improfessional and Imacce table. Althou h, 011 are entitled to yom? professional opinion, raising your voice and? is not acceptable. Yom' behavior is considered rude. - responded shortly after, stating: I apologize if my behavior was perceived as being rude. I am frustrated that time and again you have sided with contractors over my professional recormnendations to resolve complex issues. In the case of site being entirely destroyed by Chevron, and possibly Mesquite as well, refusal to do a damage assessment and to provide misleading information to both Chevron and the BLM is upsetting. The fact that the BLM was made aware of the situation almost two months ago and nothing has been done since is also unfortunate. During the meeting you accused me of being unable to pm?sue the ARPA action for the site destruction because I am "too emotional" over it, and you think that the same contractor that is dragging their heels on this should do it instead. It is my job fn?st and foremost to protect cultlu?al OFFICIAL USE ONLY 8 Case Number: resoru?ces in the- and I don't think I'm able to do my job here. If you would like to discuss this more please let me know. copied - who never responded or addressed the issue with her directly. advised investigators that the situation escalated shortly after this incident. She said on this same date. she was chatting with BLM . and told him what happened with- and how she believed she was not able to do her I ob or pru?sue Chevron for destroying an archaeology site. She said soon after. she was confronted by . who came out of his of?ce angry and in her face. yelling at her with his hands made into at his side. said she was scared. and while she did not recall exactl what said to her. it generally related to a claim she was being ?improfessional?. relayed that she was genuinel surprised that she could have said anything to illicit such an angry response from She said joked that she need to quit caring about her job so much. Later that day. wrote her up. addressing the matter in an email. with an attached document of the same comments, with his signature. According to- she feared losing her position at She also advised investigators that over a eriod of time, her oversight and compliance responsibilities were taken away and given to i 011? told by- Chevron in 1e ays at related to a new MDP. usually attended Chevron meetings that related to ro'ect planning. She con?ded to that she suspected management was covering site destruction and were thus intentionally keeping her out of the meeting. She assured her no were invited. which she said both he and she thought was odd. He also disclosed to her that told him not to do Chevron anymore. although Chevron was submitting one to This made him sus rcrous. according to her conversation with She said shortly after this. approached and asked him to invite all the to the meeting. -that he was scheduled to attend a meeting with After she was invited to the meeting, emailed to, once a ain, inquire as to the status of the damage assessment report that BLM was to receive rom responded, had a discussion with recently and she in ro ?ess of ettin this report to us this month?. According to prior to the meeting (held approached her to ask about the site. and assru?ed her he would do whatever needed to resolve the matter. advised she was not certain what the status was but would advise him once she knew. said at ruin the rneetin - then instructed not to refer to the subject of the meetmg. ?pro'ect, as a because MDPs attract too much attention from the public. i told investigators that she believed it was duty to be transparent and accountable. said that around the same time. she was in contact with and for the BLM regions of She said they spoke by phone and aware of issues she was having in the of?ce. including that she was being retaliated against and being told she was not allowed to do her job. While she did not discuss speci?cs of the Chevron situation. she advised she was not able to work for as her supervisor. She advised- that - took away nearly all of her compliance work and other work such as research projects. said they discussed attitude toward women. and- recommended she ?le an EEO complaint. However. did not think that was the issue, but instead that he did not like her OFFICIAL USE ONLY 9 Case Number: due to her competence on the job. - said that. management seemed to prefer hiring - to do work. such as com liance activities. more suited for more experienced em 10 ees. One of these trainees was a new_ that only worked at . - said that 1 rese trainees were hired to sign off on rings. sometrrnes million-dollar oil and gas projects. She said told her she was not comfortable doing some of the work required of her relating to projects. told that in fact was violating state protocols as outlined by the State Historic Preservation Of?ce (SHPO of which indicates an has to be a -or above to do compliance work. could tell this made nervous. expressed her desire to to th of?ce to get out of what she described as a ?hostile work environment? and also because she still wanted to sta in said later told her that 1a contacted management to a Vise em ey were require to report an or ta action on issues brought to their attention. She was also requesting transfer to the - of?ce due to her com laints. However. - said management never discussed the substance of her complaints toP- (which were relayed to or the possibili of working mn- fe 1e no said that is when she realized ?all of this went much higher? than and she management. instead keeping all with. supervisors brief. options ut to a new job. She also said at this time. she stopped taking her concerns to Shortly before her . she learned that wanted to have a meeting with Chevron and she was invited. She was then invited by to an internal onl . re- rneeting prior the scheduled rneetin with Chevron. The internal meeting took place on . and was attended They then had a meeting the following day in which Chevron representative were present. to discuss site damage and/ or data recovery. recorded those conversations and later provided them to OIG for review and safekeeping. described both meetings as awkward and possibly ?just for show.? to simply give mana ernent opportrmity to give Chevron a pass. not holding them accormtable for ARPA violationsh provided a general of the two conversations, to include the names of those present and the substance of the meetings. That summary will be loaded alon with this report and maintained in case management system. noted that on . no damage assessment for had been received from In her contacts with OIG. - expressed disappointment and concern with management. advising in essence that they seemed too concerned with workin with industry versus serving the public. She recalled on one occasion dru?ing an of?ce meeting. made sru?e to point out to emplo ees that it costs Lucid (a midstream company) about each mile of pipeline laid dowrh said that for some reason. he felt it was ?irn ortant? for employees to know that. She did not question why he mentioned it. also said was for example. telling new employees that the regulations were ?out of date?. advised that Categorical Exclusions are being completed for all temporary sru?face pipelines. Previously these were being analyzed rmder the Council 011 Environmental Quality (C and were documented and made available to the specialists and the public. The use of categorical exclusions means projects are not routed to specialists for review and compliance with regulations. - said she only discovered this through a casual work conversation and was 11 set because those particular projects are still subject to NHPA section 106 complianceh OFFICIAL USE ONLY 10 Case Number: said she does not trust that compliance is actually being completed for cultru?al resom?ces or in protection of the enviromnent. She said she is not even convinced these pipelines are necessarily ?temporary?. She does not think BLM is documenting spills in these areas either. - said things have changed in the last six months? the timeframe incor oratin most of her com laints. As she recalled things chan ed for the worse. when the* the noted to that the she raised to investigators would not have happened before or gone on long without notice. advised are supposed to turn work in to BLM within 30 days. anticipate report 011 is still pending, more than six months after the site destruction. Notin the general chan in atmos here, recalled an all-hands meeting in the in BLM, came to eak to em 10 ees. BLM was a so ere? as were- an . sai employees were told they were going to be given whatever they needed to get the job done to include unlimited resources and teclmology. She said her impression was that the were being encouraged to find shortcuts. She did not recall the exact wordin or if it was or' . but employees were told they would be ?protected?. to which asked ?protect us from what?? She said it was then ?uther clari?ed by management ey 1 want employees to work within regulations. told agents that there are several other individuals who work or have worked in- that could provide valuable information. That contact information will be uploaded into the electronic case management 3 stem alon with this re ort. She included, in addition to those ah?eady noted within this within the division, as well as advised also served as the who according to 1mderstanding, reported concerns he was having management to the of?ce (possibly to directl . She said as a result, took res onsibilities away 'om him, which include writmg the said had not been 11 dated since the late 1990?s. BLM to work as an did not know further details about What he might have reported to the state of?ce, but believes will be rece tive to meetin with OIG investigators to discuss further. She also provided contact information for .who_ tut?- OFFICIAL USE ONLY 11 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Memorandum To: Brian Steed. Deputy Director Bureau of Land Management From: Mary L. Kendall Deputy Inspector General Re: Report Alleged Willful Violation of Regulations by BLM Of?cial Case File No. We allegations thee? Bureau of Land Management (BLM). encouraged natural resource specialists (NRSs) to overlook regulations so they could process Applications for Permit to Drill more quickly. and that NRS staff should protect staff members who choose to overlook regulations. The comments were alleged to have occurred during an? visit by-to the BLM Office. We did not substantiate the allegations and found no evidence to indicate-made the statements as alleged. We are providing the attached report of investigation to you for your information. We intend to publish the results ofthis investigation on our website. in redacted or summary form. within 30 davs from the date ofthis memor ct ?Special Agent in Charge. Attachment cc: William Woody. Director Of?ce of Law Enforcement and Security lntemal Affairs. Office of Law Enforcement and Security Office of Law Enforcement and Security Of?ce of Inspector General Washington. DC