National Wildlife Refuges
Improvement Needed in the Management and Oversight of Oil and Gas Activities on Federal Lands Gao ID: GAO-04-192T October 30, 2003The 95-million acres in the National Wildlife Refuge System are the only federal lands primarily devoted to the conservation and management of fish, wildlife, and plant resources. While the federal government owns the surface lands in the system, in many cases private parties own the subsurface mineral rights and have the legal authority to explore for and extract oil and gas. This testimony is based on an August 2003 report (GAO-03-517) in which GAO determined the extent of oil and gas activity on refuges, identified the environmental effects, and assessed the Fish and Wildlife Service's management and oversight of those activities.
About one-quarter (155 of 575) of all refuges have past or present oil and gas activities, some dating to at least the 1920s. Activities range from exploration to drilling and production to pipelines transiting refuge lands. One hundred five refuges contain a total of 4,406 oil and gas wells--2,600 inactive wells and 1,806 active wells. The 1,806 wells, located at 36 refuges, many around the Gulf Coast, produced oil and gas valued at $880 million during the last 12-month reporting period, roughly 1 percent of domestic production. Thirty-five refuges contain only pipelines. The Fish and Wildlife Service has not assessed the cumulative environmental effects of oil and gas activities on refuges. Available studies, anecdotal information, and GAO's observations show that the environmental effects of oil and gas activities vary from negligible, such as effects from buried pipelines, to substantial, such as effects from large oil spills or from large-scale infrastructure. These effects also vary from the temporary to the longer term. Some of the most detrimental effects of oil and gas activities have been reduced through environmental laws and improved practices and technology. Moreover, oil and gas operators have taken steps, in some cases voluntarily, to reverse damages resulting from oil and gas activities. Federal management and oversight of oil and gas activities varies widely among refuges--some refuges take extensive measures, while others exercise little control or enforcement. GAO found that this variation occurs because of differences in authority to oversee private mineral rights and because refuge managers lack enough guidance, resources, and training to properly manage and oversee oil and gas activities. Greater attention to oil and gas activities by the Fish and Wildlife Service would increase its understanding of associated environmental effects and contribute to more consistent use of practices and technologies that protect refuge resources.
GAO-04-192T, National Wildlife Refuges: Improvement Needed in the Management and Oversight of Oil and Gas Activities on Federal Lands
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-192T
entitled 'National Wildlife Refuges: Improvement Needed in the
Management and Oversight of Oil and Gas Activities on Federal Lands'
which was released on October 30, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and
Oceans, Committee on Resources, House of Representatives:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 9:30 a.m. EST:
Thursday, October 30, 2003:
National Wildlife Refuges:
Improvement Needed in the Management and Oversight of Oil and Gas
Activities on Federal Lands:
Statement of Barry T. Hill, Director Natural Resources and Environment:
Oil and Gas Activities on Refuges:
GAO-04-192T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-192T, testimony before the Subcommittee on
Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
The 95-million acres in the National Wildlife Refuge System are the
only federal lands primarily devoted to the conservation and
management of fish, wildlife, and plant resources. While the federal
government owns the surface lands in the system, in many cases private
parties own the subsurface mineral rights and have the legal authority
to explore for and extract oil and gas. This testimony is based on an
August 2003 report (GAO-03-517) in which GAO determined the extent of
oil and gas activity on refuges, identified the environmental effects,
and assessed the Fish and Wildlife Service‘s management and oversight
of those activities.
What GAO Found:
About one-quarter (155 of 575) of all refuges have past or present oil
and gas activities, some dating to at least the 1920s. Activities
range from exploration to drilling and production to pipelines
transiting refuge lands. One hundred five refuges contain a total of
4,406 oil and gas wells”2,600 inactive wells and 1,806 active wells.
The 1,806 wells, located at 36 refuges, many around the Gulf Coast
(see figure), produced oil and gas valued at $880 million during the
last 12-month reporting period, roughly 1 percent of domestic
production. Thirty-five refuges contain only pipelines.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has not assessed the cumulative
environmental effects of oil and gas activities on refuges. Available
studies, anecdotal information, and GAO‘s observations show that the
environmental effects of oil and gas activities vary from negligible,
such as effects from buried pipelines, to substantial, such as effects
from large oil spills or from large-scale infrastructure. These
effects also vary from the temporary to the longer term. Some of the
most detrimental effects of oil and gas activities have been reduced
through environmental laws and improved practices and technology.
Moreover, oil and gas operators have taken steps, in some cases
voluntarily, to reverse damages resulting from oil and gas
activities.
Federal management and oversight of oil and gas activities varies
widely among refuges”some refuges take extensive measures, while
others exercise little control or enforcement. GAO found that this
variation occurs because of differences in authority to oversee
private mineral rights and because refuge managers lack enough
guidance, resources, and training to properly manage and oversee oil
and gas activities. Greater attention to oil and gas activities by the
Fish and Wildlife Service would increase its understanding of
associated environmental effects and contribute to more consistent use
of practices and technologies that protect refuge resources.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO's August 2003 report made recommendations to improve management
and oversight of oil and gas activities, including having the
Department of the Interior seek from Congress any necessary additional
authority to ensure consistent and reasonable management of all oil
and gas activities on refuges. In commenting on the report, the
department generally did not address our recommendations, but did
raise procedural concerns about GAO‘s recommendation that it seek
additional authority from Congress. Given these concerns, GAO also
raised this matter to Congress for its consideration.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-192T.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click
on the link above. For more information, contact Barry T. Hill at
(202) 512-3841 or hillbt@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss our recent report on oil and
gas activities on national wildlife refuges, which we prepared at your
request.[Footnote 1] The National Wildlife Refuge System is unique in
that the 95 million acres of land in the system are the only federal
lands managed primarily for the benefit of wildlife, providing habitat
for native plants and animals, including endangered or threatened
species, as well as important way points for migrating species, such as
ducks, cranes, and eagles. While the federal government owns almost all
of the surface lands in the system, it does not, in many cases, own the
subsurface mineral rights. Subject to some restriction, owners of
subsurface mineral rights have the legal authority to explore for
mineral resources such as oil and gas and, if such resources are found,
to extract them. As you know, in our recent report, we (1) determined
the nature and full extent of oil and gas activities in the National
Wildlife Refuge System, (2) identified environmental effects of oil and
gas activities on refuge resources, and (3) assessed the Fish and
Wildlife Service's management and oversight of these activities.
To obtain a more complete understanding of the extent of past and
present oil and gas activities within current wildlife refuge
boundaries, we used national geographic information databases to
determine how many documented oil and gas wells and transit pipelines
were located within or immediately proximate to refuge boundaries. We
also used Fish and Wildlife Service records to identify other evidence
of oil and gas activities. Premier Data Services, a firm with extensive
experience in computer-based geographic information systems and oil and
gas leasing, aided our data acquisition and analysis.
In summary, we found the following:
* About one-quarter (155 of 575) of all refuges have past or present
oil and gas activity, some dating to at least the 1920s. Activities
range from exploration to drilling and production to pipelines
transiting refuge lands. One hundred five refuges contain a total of
4,406 oil and gas wells--2,600 inactive wells and 1,806 active wells.
The 1,806 wells, located at 36 refuges, produced oil and gas valued at
$880 million during the last 12-month reporting period, roughly 1
percent of domestic production. In addition, oil and gas exploration
has occurred at 44 refuges since 1994, and 1 or more active pipelines
are present in at least 107 refuges, 35 of which do not have any other
oil and gas activity.
* The Fish and Wildlife Service has not conducted any assessments of
the cumulative environmental effects of oil and gas activities on
refuge resources. Available studies, anecdotal information, and our
observations show that the environmental effects of oil and gas
activities and the associated construction, operation, and maintenance
of the infrastructure on wildlife and habitat vary in severity,
duration, and visibility. For example, the environmental effects range
from infrequent small oil spills and minimal debris from abandoned
infrastructure to large and chronic spills and large-scale industrial
development. Some damage, such as habitat loss from infrastructure
development, may last indefinitely, while other damage, such as
wildlife disturbance from exploration, is of shorter duration. While
certain types of damages are readily visible, others, such as changes
in hydrology or habitat conditions, are more difficult to quantify or
to link solely to oil and gas activities. Over the years, new
environmental laws and industry practice and technology have reduced,
but not eliminated, some of the most detrimental effects of oil and gas
activities. In addition, oil and gas operators have taken steps, in
some cases voluntarily, to reverse damages resulting from oil and gas
activities, but operators have not consistently taken such steps, and
the adequacy of these steps is not known. The Fish and Wildlife Service
does not have a complete and accurate record of spills and other damage
resulting from refuge-based oil and gas activities, has conducted few
studies to quantify the extent of damage, and therefore does not know
its full extent or the steps needed to reverse it.
* Federal management and oversight of oil and gas activities varies
widely among refuges. Some refuges identify oil and gas activities and
the risks they pose to refuge resources, issue permits that direct
operators to minimize the effect of their activities on the refuge,
monitor oil and gas activities with trained personnel, and charge
mitigation fees or pursue legal remedies if damage occurs. Other
refuges have fewer or none of these controls in place. We identified
two primary reasons for this variation. First, the Fish and Wildlife
Service's legal authority to require operators to obtain permits with
conditions to protect refuge resources varies considerably, depending
upon the nature of the mineral rights. Second, refuge managers lack
sufficient guidance, resources, and training to properly manage and
oversee oil and gas activities.
Background:
Over the years, we and others have examined the effects on the refuge
system of secondary activities,[Footnote 2] such as recreation,
military activities, and oil and gas activities--which include oil and
gas exploration, drilling and production, and transport. Exploring for
oil and gas involves seismic mapping of the subsurface topography.
Seismic mapping requires surface disturbance, often involving small
dynamite charges placed in a series of holes, typically in patterned
grids. Oil and gas drilling and production often requires constructing,
operating, and maintaining industrial infrastructure, including a
network of access roads and canals, local pipelines to connect well
sites to production facilities and to dispose of drilling wastes, and
gravel pads to house the drilling and other equipment. In addition,
production may require storage tanks, separating facilities, and gas
compressors. Finally, transporting oil and gas to production facilities
or to users generally requires transit pipelines.
Department of the Interior regulations generally prohibit the leasing
of federal minerals underlying refuges.[Footnote 3] In addition, under
the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as
amended, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is responsible for
regulating all activities on refuges. The act requires FWS to determine
the compatibility of activities with the purposes of the particular
refuge and the mission of the refuge system and not allow those
activities deemed incompatible.[Footnote 4] FWS does not apply the
compatibility requirement to the exercise of private mineral rights on
refuges. However, the activities of private mineral owners on refuges
are subject to a variety of other legal restrictions under federal
law.[Footnote 5] For example, the Endangered Species Act of 1973
prohibits the "take" of any endangered or threatened species and
provides for penalties for violations of the act;[Footnote 6] the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits killing, hunting, possessing, or
selling migratory birds, except in accordance with a permit;[Footnote
7] and the Clean Water Act prohibits discharging oil and other harmful
substances into waters of the United States and imposes liability for
removal costs and damages resulting from a discharge.[Footnote 8] Also,
FWS regulations require that oil and gas activities be performed in a
way that minimizes the risk of damage to the land and wildlife and
disturbance to the operation of the refuge. The regulations also
require that land affected be reclaimed after operations have
ceased.[Footnote 9]
One-Quarter of Refuges Have Past or Present Oil and Gas Activities:
At least one-quarter, or 155, of the 575 refuges (538 refuges and
37 wetland management districts) that constitute the National Wildlife
Refuge System have past or present oil and gas activities--exploration,
drilling and production, transit pipelines, or some combination of
these (see table 1).[Footnote 10] Since 1994, FWS records show that 44
refuges have had some type of oil and gas exploration activities--
geologic study, survey, or seismic mapping. We also identified at least
107 refuges with transit pipelines. These pipelines are almost
exclusively buried, vary in size, and carry a variety of products,
including crude oil, refined petroleum products, and high-pressure
natural gas. Transit pipelines may also have associated storage
facilities and pumping stations, but data are not available to identify
how many of these are on refuges.
Table 1: Number of Refuges with Oil and Gas Activities, by FWS Region:
FWS region: 1 (Pacific); Number of refuges, by category:
Exploration (survey and seismic work)[A]: 5; Number of refuges, by
category: Drilling and production (active and inactive oil and gas
wells)[B]: 20; Number of refuges, by category: Active pipelines
(transiting refuge lands)[C]: 9; Unduplicated counts, by
category group: Exploration and/or drilling and production: 22;
Unduplicated counts, by category group: Exploration, drilling and
production, and/or pipelines: 24.
FWS region: 2 (Southwest); Number of refuges, by category:
Exploration (survey and seismic work)[A]: 10; Number of refuges, by
category: Drilling and production (active and inactive oil and gas
wells)[B]: 22; Number of refuges, by category: Active pipelines
(transiting refuge lands)[C]: 24; Unduplicated counts, by
category group: Exploration and/or drilling and production: 22;
Unduplicated counts, by category group: Exploration, drilling and
production, and/or pipelines: 29.
FWS region: 3 (Great Lakes-Big Rivers; Number of refuges, by
category: Exploration (survey and seismic work)[A]: 1; Number of
refuges, by category: Drilling and production (active and inactive oil
and gas wells)[B]: 10; Number of refuges, by category: Active pipelines
(transiting refuge lands)[C]: 14; Unduplicated counts, by
category group: Exploration and/or drilling and production: 10;
Unduplicated counts, by category group: Exploration, drilling and
production, and/or pipelines: 19.
FWS region: 4 (Southeast); Number of refuges, by category:
Exploration (survey and seismic work)[A]: 14; Number of refuges, by
category: Drilling and production (active and inactive oil and gas
wells)[B]: 28; Number of refuges, by category: Active pipelines
(transiting refuge lands)[C]: 37; Unduplicated counts, by
category group: Exploration and/or drilling and production: 34;
Unduplicated counts, by category group: Exploration, drilling and
production, and/or pipelines: 45.
FWS region: 5 (Northeast); Number of refuges, by category:
Exploration (survey and seismic work)[A]: 1; Number of refuges, by
category: Drilling and production (active and inactive oil and gas
wells)[B]: 4; Number of refuges, by category: Active pipelines
(transiting refuge lands)[C]: 6; Unduplicated counts, by
category group: Exploration and/or drilling and production: 4;
Unduplicated counts, by category group: Exploration, drilling and
production, and/or pipelines: 6.
FWS region: 6 (Mountain - Prairie); Number of refuges, by
category: Exploration (survey and seismic work)[A]: 9; Number of
refuges, by category: Drilling and production (active and inactive oil
and gas wells)[B]: 20; Number of refuges, by category: Active pipelines
(transiting refuge lands)[C]: 15; Unduplicated counts, by
category group: Exploration and/or drilling and production: 24;
Unduplicated counts, by category group: Exploration, drilling and
production, and/or pipelines: 27.
FWS region: 7 (Alaska); Number of refuges, by category:
Exploration (survey and seismic work)[A]: 4; Number of refuges, by
category: Drilling and production (active and inactive oil and gas
wells)[B]: 1; Number of refuges, by category: Active pipelines
(transiting refuge lands)[C]: 2; Unduplicated counts, by
category group: Exploration and/or drilling and production: 4;
Unduplicated counts, by category group: Exploration, drilling and
production, and/or pipelines: 5.
FWS region: Total; Number of refuges, by category: Exploration
(survey and seismic work)[A]: 44; Number of refuges, by category:
Drilling and production (active and inactive oil and gas wells)[B]:
105; Number of refuges, by category: Active pipelines (transiting
refuge lands)[C]: 107; Unduplicated counts, by category group:
Exploration and/or drilling and production: 120; Unduplicated counts,
by category group: Exploration, drilling and production, and/or
pipelines: 155.
Sources: FWS, Premier Data Services, and Office of Pipeline Safety.
[A] Based on GAO's analysis of refuge reported data to FWS's Refuge
Management Information System, 1994-2001.
[B] Based on GAO's analysis of Premier Data Services' nationwide well
database, January 2003.
[C] Based on GAO's analysis of the National Pipeline Mapping System and
Refuge Management Information System data, 1994-2001.
[End of table]
Over 4,400 oil and gas wells are located within 105 refuges. Although
refuges with oil and gas wells are present in every FWS region, they
are more heavily concentrated near the Gulf Coast of the United States.
About 4 out of 10 wells (41 percent) located on refuges were known to
be actively producing oil or gas or disposing of produced water during
the most recent 12-month reporting period, as of January 2003. Of the
105 refuges with oil and gas wells, 36 refuges have actively
producing wells. The remaining 2,600 wells did not produce oil, gas, or
water during the last 12 months; many of these were plugged and
abandoned or were dry holes.[Footnote 11] During the most recent 12-
month reporting period, the 1,806 active wells produced 23.7 million
barrels of oil and 88,171 million cubic feet of natural gas, about 1.1
and 0.4 percent of total domestic oil and gas production, respectively.
Based on 2001 average prices, refuge-based production had an estimated
total commercial value of $880 million.
Substantial oil and gas activities also occur outside but near refuge
boundaries. An additional 4,795 wells and 84 transit pipelines reside
within one-half mile of refuge boundaries. The 4,795 wells bound
123 refuges, 33 of which do not have any resident oil and gas wells.
The 84 pipelines border 42 different refuges. While FWS does not own
the land outside refuge boundaries, lands surrounding refuges may be
designated for future acquisition.
Overall Effects of Oil and Gas Activities Are Unknown, but Those
Activities Have Diminished Some Refuge System Resources:
The overall environmental effects of oil and gas activities on refuge
resources are unknown because FWS has conducted few cumulative
assessments and has no comprehensive data. Available studies, anecdotal
information, and our observations show that some refuge resources have
been diminished to varying degrees by spills of oil, gas, and
brine[Footnote 12] and through the construction, operation, and
maintenance of the infrastructure necessary to extract oil and gas. The
damage varies widely in severity, duration, and visibility, ranging
from infrequent small oil spills and industrial debris with no known
effect on wildlife, to large and chronic spills causing wildlife deaths
and long-term soil and water contamination. Some damage, such as
habitat loss because of infrastructure development and soil and water
contamination, may last indefinitely while other damage, such as
wildlife disturbance during seismic mapping, is of shorter duration.
Also, while certain types of damage are readily visible, others, such
as groundwater contamination, changes in hydrology, and reduced habitat
quality from infrastructure development are difficult to observe,
quantify, and associate directly with oil and gas activities. Finally,
oil and gas activities on refuges may hinder public access to parts of
the refuge or FWS's ability to manage or improve refuge habitat, such
as by conducting prescribed burns or creating seasonal wetlands.
The 16 refuges we visited reported oil, gas, or brine spills, although
the frequency and effects of the spills varied widely. Oil and gas
spills can injure or kill wildlife by destroying the insulating
capacity of feathers and fur, depleting oxygen available in water, or
exposing wildlife to toxic substances. Brine spills can be lethal to
young waterfowl, damage birds' feathers, kill vegetation, and decrease
nutrients in water. Even small spills may contaminate soil and
sediments if they occur frequently. For instance, a study of
Atchafalaya and Delta National Wildlife Refuges in Louisiana found that
oil contamination present near oil and gas facilities is lethal to most
species of wildlife, even though refuge staff were not aware of any
large spills.[Footnote 13]
Constructing, operating, and maintaining the infrastructure necessary
to produce oil and gas can harm wildlife by reducing the quantity and
quality of habitat. Infrastructure development can reduce the quality
of habitat through fragmentation, which occurs when a network of roads,
canals, and other infrastructure is constructed in previously
undeveloped areas of a refuge. Fragmentation increases disturbances
from human activities, provides pathways for predators, and helps
spread nonnative plant species. For example, officials at Anahuac and
McFaddin National Wildlife Refuges in Texas said that disturbances from
oil and gas activities are likely significant and expressed concern
that bird nesting may be disrupted. However, no studies have been
conducted at these refuges to determine the effect of these
disturbances. Infrastructure networks can also damage refuge habitat by
changing the hydrology of the refuge ecosystem, particularly in coastal
areas. In addition, industrial activities associated with extracting
oil and gas have been found to contaminate wildlife refuges with toxic
substances such as mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
Mercury and PCBs were used in equipment such as compressors,
transformers, and well production meters, although generally they are
no longer used.
New environmental laws and industry practice and technology have
reduced, but not eliminated, some of the most detrimental effects of
oil and gas activities. For example, Louisiana now generally prohibits
using open pits to store production wastes and brine in coastal areas
and discharging brine into drainages or state waters. Also,
improvements in technology may allow operators to avoid placing wells
in sensitive areas such as wetlands. However, oil and gas
infrastructure continues to diminish the availability of refuge habitat
for wildlife, and spills of oil, gas, and brine that damage fish and
wildlife continue to occur. In addition, several refuge managers
reported that operators do not always comply with legal requirements or
follow best industry practices, such as constructing earthen barriers
around tanks to contain spills, covering tanks to protect wildlife, and
removing pits that temporarily store fluids used during well
maintenance.
Oil and gas operators have taken steps, in some cases voluntarily, to
reverse damages resulting from oil and gas activities, but operators
have not consistently taken such steps, and the adequacy of these steps
is not known. For example, an operator at McFaddin National Wildlife
Refuge removed a road and a well pad that had been constructed to
access a new well site and restored the marsh damaged by construction
after the well was no longer needed. In contrast, in some cases,
officials do not know if remediation following spills is sufficient to
protect refuge resources, particularly for smaller oil spills or spills
into wetlands.
FWS does not have a complete and accurate record of spills and other
damage resulting from refuge-based oil and gas activities, has
conducted few studies to quantify the extent of damage, and therefore
does not know its full extent or the steps needed to reverse it. The
lack of information on the effects of oil and gas activities on refuge
wildlife hinders FWS's ability to identify and obtain appropriate
mitigation measures and to require responsible parties to address
damages from past activities. Lack of sufficient information has also
hindered FWS's efforts to identify all locations with past oil and gas
activities and to require responsible parties to address damages. FWS
does not know the number or location of all abandoned wells and other
oil and gas infrastructure or the threat of contamination they pose
and, therefore, its ability to require responsible parties to address
damages is limited. However, in cases where FWS has performed studies,
the information has proved valuable. For example, FWS funded a study at
some refuges in Oklahoma and Texas to inventory locations containing
oil and gas infrastructure, to determine if they were closed legally,
and to document their present condition. FWS intends to use this
information to identify cleanup options with state and federal
regulators. If this effort is successful, FWS may conduct similar
studies on other refuges.
FWS Management and Oversight of Oil and Gas Activities Varies Widely:
FWS's management and oversight of oil and gas activities varies widely
among refuges. Management control standards for federal agencies
require federal agencies to identify risks to their assets, provide
guidance to mitigate these risks, and monitor compliance.[Footnote 14]
For FWS, effectively managing oil and gas activities on refuges would
entail, at a minimum, identifying the extent of oil and gas activities
and their attendant risks, developing procedures to minimize damages by
issuing permits with conditions to protect refuge resources, and
monitoring the activities with trained staff to ensure compliance and
accountability. However, the 16 refuges we visited varied widely in the
extent to which these management practices occur. Some refuges identify
oil and gas activities and the risks they pose to refuge resources,
issue permits that direct operators to minimize the effect of their
activities on the refuge, monitor oil and gas activities with trained
personnel, and charge mitigation fees or pursue legal remedies if
damage occurs. For example, two refuges in Louisiana collect mitigation
fees from oil and gas operators that are then used to pay for
monitoring operator compliance with permits and state and federal laws.
In contrast, other refuges do not issue permits or collect fees, are
not aware of the extent of oil and gas activities or the attendant
risks to refuge resources, and provide little management and oversight.
Management and oversight of oil and gas activities varies for two
primary reasons. First, FWS's legal authority to require oil and gas
operators to obtain access permits with conditions to protect refuge
resources varies considerably depending upon the nature of the mineral
rights. For reserved mineral rights--cases where the property owner
retained the mineral rights when selling the land to the federal
government--FWS can require permits only if the property deed subjects
the rights to such requirements. For outstanding mineral rights--cases
where the mineral rights were separated from the surface lands before
the government acquired the property--FWS has not formally determined
its position regarding its authority to require access permits.
However, we believe, based on statutory language and court decisions,
that FWS has the authority to require owners of outstanding mineral
rights to obtain permits. Second, refuge managers lack sufficient
guidance, resources, and training to properly monitor oil and gas
operators. Current FWS guidance regarding the management of oil and gas
activities where there are private mineral rights is unclear, according
to refuge staff. Refuge staff said they also lack sufficient resources
to oversee oil and gas activities, which are substantial at
some refuges. Only three refuges in the system have staff dedicated
full-time to monitoring these activities, and some refuge staff cite a
lack of time as a reason for limited oversight. Staff also cite a lack
of training as limiting their capability to oversee oil and gas
operators; FWS has offered only one oil-and gas-related workshop in the
last 10 years.
On a related management issue, FWS has not always thoroughly assessed
property for possible contamination from oil and gas activities prior
to its acquisition, even though FWS guidance requires an assessment of
all possible contamination. For example, FWS acquired one property that
is contaminated from oil and gas activities because staff did not
adequately assess the subsurface property before acquiring it. After
acquiring the property, FWS found that large amounts of soil were
contaminated with oil. FWS has thus far spent $15,000, and a local
conservation group spent another $43,000, to address the contamination.
We found that the guidance and oversight provided to FWS regional and
refuge personnel were not adequate to ensure that the requirements were
being met.
Conclusions:
The National Wildlife Refuge System is a national asset established
principally for the conservation of wildlife and habitat. While
federally owned mineral rights underlying refuge lands are generally
not available for oil and gas exploration and production, that
prohibition does not extend to the many private parties that own
mineral rights underlying refuge lands. The scale of these activities
on refuges is such that some refuge resources have been diminished,
although the extent is unknown without additional study.
Some refuges have adopted practices--for example, developing data on
the nature and extent of activities and their effects on the refuge,
overseeing oil and gas operators, and training refuge staff to better
carry out their management and oversight responsibilities--that limit
the impact of these activities on refuge resources. If these practices
were implemented throughout the agency, they could provide better
assurance that environmental effects from oil and gas activities are
minimized. In particular, in some cases, refuges have issued permits
that establish operating conditions for oil and gas activities, giving
the refuges greater control over these activities and protecting refuge
resources before damage occurs. However, FWS does not have a policy
requiring owners of outstanding mineral rights to obtain a permit,
although we believe FWS has this authority, and FWS can require owners
of reserved mineral rights to obtain a permit if the property deed
subjects the rights to such requirements. Confirming or expanding FWS's
authority to require reasonable permit conditions and oversee oil and
gas activities, including cases where mineral rights have been reserved
and the property deed does not already subject the rights to permit
requirements, would strengthen and provide greater consistency in FWS's
management and oversight. Such a step could be done without infringing
on the rights of private mineral owners. Finally, FWS's land
acquisition guidance is unclear and oversight is inadequate, thereby
exposing the federal government to unexpected cleanup costs for
properties acquired without adequately assessing contamination from oil
and gas activities.
In our report, we made several recommendations to improve the framework
for managing and overseeing oil and gas activities on national wildlife
refuges, including (1) collecting and maintaining better data on oil
and gas activities and their environmental effects, and ensuring that
staff resources, funding, and training are sufficient and (2)
determining FWS's existing authority over outstanding mineral rights.
We also recommended that the Secretary of the Interior, in coordination
with appropriate Administration officials, seek from Congress any
necessary additional authority over outstanding mineral rights, and
over reserved mineral rights, to ensure that a consistent and
reasonable set of regulatory and management controls are in place for
all oil and gas activities occurring on national wildlife refuges.
The Department of the Interior's response to our recommendations was
mixed. The department was silent on our recommendations that it should
collect and maintain better data on oil and gas activities and their
effects and that it should ensure that staff are adequately trained to
oversee oil and gas activities. Also, while the department was silent
on whether it should review FWS's authority to regulate outstanding
mineral rights, it raised procedural concerns about our recommendation
that it seek any necessary additional authority from Congress to
regulate private mineral rights. We continue to believe that our
recommendation is warranted. In light of the department's opposition,
we suggested that the Congress consider expanding the FWS's authority
to enable it to consistently regulate the surface activities of private
mineral owners on refuges.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. That concludes
my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions
that you may have.
Contacts and Acknowledgments:
For further information on this testimony, please contact Barry T. Hill
at (202) 512-3841. Individuals making key contributions to this
testimony included Paul Aussendorf, Robert Crystal, Jonathan Dent,
Doreen Feldman, and Bill Swick.
FOOTNOTES
[1] U.S. General Accounting Office, National Wildlife Refuges:
Opportunities to Improve the Management and Oversight of Oil and Gas
Activities on Federal Lands, GAO-03-517 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 28,
2003).
[2] U.S. General Accounting Office, National Wildlife Refuges:
Continuing Problems with Incompatible Uses Calls for Bold Action,
GAO/RCED-89-196 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 8, 1989).
[3] Department of the Interior regulations allow leasing of federal
minerals underlying refuges in the state of Alaska and in cases where
federal minerals are being drained by operations on property adjacent
to the refuge.
[4] 16 U.S.C. §§ 668dd(a), (d).
[5] State laws also may affect the conduct of oil and gas activities.
[6] 16 U.S.C. §§ 1538, 1540. The term "take" means to harass, harm,
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kills, trap, capture, or collect. 16 U.S.C.
§ 1532(19).
[7] 16 U.S.C. § 703.
[8] 33 U.S.C. § 1321(b).
[9] 50 C.F.R § 29.32.
[10] This analysis does not include coordination areas, which are
managed by states, or conservation easements, which are not owned by
FWS.
[11] Wells that are plugged and abandoned are permanently sealed by
cementing the well bore. Improperly plugged wells can intrude on fresh
water supplies or cause fires and seepage.
[12] Brine is water mixed with salts, other minerals, and oil.
[13] North Carolina State University, Department of Environmental and
Molecular Toxicology, Chemical Contamination at National Wildlife
Refuges in the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem, February 2001, for
the U.S. Department of the Interior.
[14] U.S. General Accounting Office, Standards for Internal Control in
the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-2131 (Washington, D.C.:
Nov. 1999).
