U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

90-158 PS 2004

GAO REPORT ON ‘‘OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE THE MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF 

OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES ON 

FEDERAL LANDS’’

OVERSIGHT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, 

WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

Thursday, October 30, 2003

Serial No. 108-75

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 

or 

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska 

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Ken Calvert, California 

Scott McInnis, Colorado 

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming 

George Radanovich, California 

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania 

Jim Gibbons, Nevada, 

Vice Chairman 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Greg Walden, Oregon 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona 

Tom Osborne, Nebraska 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana 

Rick Renzi, Arizona 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Devin Nunes, California 

Randy Neugebauer, Texas 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Calvin M. Dooley, California 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Tom Udall, New Mexico 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Anı

 ́

bal Acevedo-Vila

 ́

, Puerto Rico 

Brad Carson, Oklahoma 

Rau

 ́

l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Dennis A. Cardoza, California 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Rube

 ́

n Hinojosa, Texas 

Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas 

Joe Baca, California 

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director 

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska 

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina 

Randy Neugebauer, Texas 

Richard W. Pombo, California, ex officio 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia, ex officio 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on Thursday, October 30, 2003 ........................................................ 1

Statement of Members: 

Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Maryland ................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2 

USA Today articles submitted for the record ......................................... 7

Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New Jersey ................................................................................................ 3

Tauzin, Hon. W.J. ‘‘Billy,’’ a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Louisiana ................................................................................................... 4

Statement of Witnesses: 

Hill, Barry T., Director, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. 

General Accounting Office ............................................................................ 9

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 11

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 18

Smith, David, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks, U.S. Department of the Interior ...................................................... 23

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 25

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 28

Additional materials supplied: 

Defenders of Wildlife, Statement submitted for the record .......................... 5

Waltman, Jim, Director of Refuges and Wildlife, The Wilderness Society, 

Statement submitted for the record ............................................................ 47

(1)

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE RECENTLY 

RELEASED GAO REPORT ENTITLED, ‘‘OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE THE MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF OIL AND GAS 

ACTIVITIES ON FEDERAL LANDS’’

Thursday, October 30, 2003

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans 

Committee on Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:34 a.m., in Room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Wayne Gilchrest 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gilchrest, Tauzin, Neugebauer and 

Pallone. 

Also Present: Representative Markey. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

MARYLAND 

Mr. GILCHREST. Good morning. The Subcommittee will come to 

order. 

Today we will hear testimony on the General Accounting Office’s 

report entitled, ‘‘Opportunities to Improve the Management and 

Oversight of Oil and Gas Activities on Federal Lands.’’

The report was written in response to a request submitted to 

GAO by myself and the gentleman from Massachusetts, Congressman Ed Markey. We made this inquiry because we felt there was 

a great deal of information lacking about oil and gas activities on 

National Wildlife Refuges. We wanted to know the extent of oil and 

gas activities, the legal authorities that permit them to occur, their 

environmental impacts on refuges, and we wanted an analysis of 

Fish and Wildlife Service resources being dedicated to this program. 

The General Accounting Office has now largely answered these 

questions and their analysis, findings and recommendations are 

contained within their August 2003 report, which is both balanced 

and informative. 

As a result of this report, we now know that there are 155 

National Wildlife Refuges with current or past oil and gas 

2

activities, and 34 with active oil and gas wells. The active wells 

produce only 1 percent of our Nation’s oil production and less than 

one-half of 1 percent of our natural gas, but I have been concerned 

about the environmental impacts of this activity on refuges as well 

as the ongoing impacts of abandoned wells and other related infrastructure. 

Our National Wildlife Refuge System can support a responsible 

mineral extraction program and I am interested to hear an expanded description of GAO’s report and recommendations to improve the current program. I am also interested in hearing how the 

Department of Interior plans to respond to the GAO recommendations and our discussion about how Congress may be able to help. 

Finally, in addition to our two witnesses, to maximize the value 

of this discussion, I wrote to each Member of the House who has 

an active oil and gas well in a refuge in their district to advise 

them of this hearing and to welcome their input. 

We look forward to your testimony this morning because, from 

the GAO report, as I said earlier in my statement, it looks as if the 

oil and/or gas extraction is done responsibly, it can be done to ensure the ecological integrity and the purposes upon which the 

refuges were created. 

We look forward to the testimony from GAO and Fish and Wildlife, and as a body, we would like to pursue a goal in which the 

most ideal practices and purposes of the refuge, practices of the oil 

and gas extraction and purposes of the refuges, can be blended and 

balanced. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest, Chairman,

Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans 

Good morning, today, the Subcommittee will hear testimony on the General Accounting Office’s report entitled ‘‘Opportunities to Improve the Management and 

Oversight of Oil and Gas Activities on Federal Lands.’’

This report was written in response to a request submitted to GAO by myself and 

the gentleman from Massachusetts, Congressman Ed Markey. We made this inquiry 

because we felt there was a great deal of information lacking about oil and gas activities on national wildlife refuge lands. We wanted to know the extent of oil and 

gas activities, the legal authorities that permit them to occur, their environmental 

impacts on refuges, and we wanted an analysis of Fish and Wildlife Service resources being dedicated to this program. 

The General Accounting Office has now largely answered these questions and 

their analysis, findings and recommendations are contained within their August 

2003 report which is both balanced and informative. 

As a result of this report, we now know that there are 155 national wildlife 

refuges with current or past oil and gas activities and 34 with active oil and gas 

wells. The active wells produce only one percent of our nation’s oil production and 

less than one-half of one percent of our natural gas, but I have been concerned 

about the environmental impacts of this activity on refuges, as well as the ongoing 

impacts of abandoned wells and other related infrastructure. 

Our National Wildlife Refuge System can support a responsible mineral extraction 

program and I am interested to hear an expanded description of GAO’s report and 

recommendations to improve the current program. I am also interested in hearing, 

how the Department of the Interior plans to respond to the GAO recommendations 

and our discussion about how Congress may be able to help. 

Finally, in addition to our two witnesses, to maximize the value of this discussion, 

I wrote to each Member of the House who has an active oil and gas well in a refuge 

in their district to advise them of this hearing and to welcome their input. 

I now recognize the Ranking Member, the gentleman from New Jersey, Congressman Frank Pallone. 

3

Mr. GILCHREST. At this point I will recognize the Ranking 

Member, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First let me say that I commend both you and our colleague from 

Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, for your leadership in requesting this 

report from the GAO. 

To many people, including constituents in my district, the whole 

idea of oil and gas exploration in our National Wildlife Refuge System, our only national system of lands devoted exclusively for the 

protection of fish and wildlife, appears on its face to be a bizarre 

contradiction in terms. Certainly oil and gas development in the 

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has been and remains a highly 

volatile issue within the conference concerning the pending energy 

bill. 

That said, and despite my own personal reservations about oil 

and gas activities actually being compatible and benign activities 

to impose on refuges, I welcome the opportunity for the GAO to 

fully investigate the scope and effects of these activities in a broader context. 

However, Mr. Chairman, after reading this report, I am left to 

ponder several questions. How can we even consider new development and production in ANWR when the characterization of environmental impacts of oil and gas activities across the refuge system 

remains so poorly understood and incomplete? How can we expect 

the Fish and Wildlife Service to provide adequate monitoring and 

oversight of these activities when their performance described by 

the GAO demonstrates a record of lax or indifferent enforcement? 

In addition, I am extremely concerned to learn that the Fish and 

Wildlife Service has failed on numerous occasions to complete the 

necessary environmental reviews and inspections, leading to the 

acquisition of substantial liabilities and costs for the environmental 

cleanup when it acquires new parcels for the refuge system. 

Mr. Chairman, any program suffering from a $1.8 billion operations and maintenance budget backlog simply cannot afford the 

luxury of cleaning up someone else’s mess. And this is just a short 

list, for there are a lot of other concerns. I look forward to hearing 

from our witnesses to learn more about the GAO’s work and to 

hear arguments from the Fish and Wildlife Service in rebuttal. 

The status quo as described by the GAO is unacceptable, and I 

think that’s clear. I am confident, Mr. Chairman, that in working 

with you and Congressman Markey, we can develop a sensible body 

of recommendations for legislation to address these deficiencies and 

protect the environmental integrity of our National Wildlife Refuge. 

I look forward to those discussions. 

Thanks again. 

Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. 

The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Tauzin. 

4

STATEMENT OF HON. W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, because Louisiana is the site of many of the National Wildlife Reserves that are subject to exploration and development, 

we have a great interest in this report. Most importantly, Senator 

Breaux and I have had a great interest in this subject over the 

years. What we have learned from this report, of course, is that production on Federal lands produces nearly 24 million barrels of oil and 

88 million cubic feet of gas, valued at almost a billion dollars. I’m 

not surprised that some of my colleagues are surprised at that. 

They think, when we debate the ANWR, that suddenly that’s a 

brand new idea that we can have production in environmentally 

sensitive areas and at the same time protect those areas from ill 

consequences of that activity. The study, for example, does not support the notion that oil and gas, per se, production is harmful to the refuges. It finds, however, 

that inconsistent management of oil and gas activities can and obviously will cause problems unless we have consistent management 

of those activities. 

I should point out, for example, to the Committee that in one 

National Wildlife Refuge in Louisiana, in north Louisiana, there 

are 1,120 wells operating, and that the majority of these developments do occur in wildlife refuges in our home State. As I have 

often pointed out on the Floor, my friend, we have literally balanced those questions of production for the Nation’s good against 

preservation of the resources in those areas for many years. So I 

suspect you can and should learn a lot about our experiences in 

this area. 

For example, in the year 2000, John Breaux and I concurred in 

language that was adopted in statute that provides that funds received from the Wildlife and Fisheries Service from responsible 

parties heretofore and hereafter, for site-specific damages in the 

national system, go right back into complete assessments, mitigation, restoration, and monitoring and site recovery of any damages. 

We have been on this problem a long time, but we’re glad to have 

you on board with us. 

The report, for example, also points out that Louisiana long ago 

prohibited using open pits to store production waste and brine in 

coastal areas. We prohibit discharging brine into drainages within 

our State. There are been massive little changes in Texas and Louisiana in the way in which these sites have been managed with 

new moneys provided, as I said, in the legislation to help manage 

those resources over the years. 

It’s interesting that many properties that are part of the 

National Wildlife System were acquired after oil and gas production activities have taken place. Those beautiful natural wildlife 

areas have been added to our system even after production occurred there, testifying to the fact that post-production sites are 

still considered extraordinarily valuable for the National Wildlife 

System. 

Obviously, the report indicates that you can have impacts from 

any spills or any kind of damages that result from those spills in 

5

refuges, and that we constantly must be aware of making sure 

resources, as we have in the year 2000, are available to quickly 

mitigate them, as they are when spills occur in your own State or 

backyard when there is any kind of damage to a pipeline system 

or to any activities in your home States regarding the use of those 

petroleum products in the businesses and homes of your State. So the point the study makes is one we have made for a long time: that it is not incompatible to have oil and gas development 

in wildlife refuges. On the contrary, it’s been going on for a long, 

long time. Second, those of us who have had experience with it have learned 

over the years how literally to balance those concerns quite effectively and how to mitigate and provide for any unforeseen consequences of any of those activities, as they’re likely to occur anywhere in this country. Finally, that we in Texas and Louisiana are constantly updating our own laws and provisions to make sure those activities continue 

to be performed in a way that’s compatible with the natural aesthetics and value of those wildlife resources. 

I can also tell you that in Louisiana, as a member of the State legislature, we dedicated a great deal of the royalties received in 

our State from minerals produced from State lands and water bottoms, similarly protected as our National Wildlife Reserves, and 

have dedicated them to wildlife preservation and to protection and 

enhancement of those State lands and water bottoms that are subject to production. So we have some experience here. I hope you learn from us. Out of that experience, I hope you will come to a different view about 

what might be possible in land way over in Alaska that represents 

less than one one-hundredth of 1 percent of the entire Alaskan 

National Wildlife Reserve that was set aside for production and development. But for some reason, none of you can come to the conclusion that we should proceed with it. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield back. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Tauzin. Mr. Pallone. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a statement by Defenders of Wildlife. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Without objection. [The Defenders of Wildlife statement submitted for the record 

follows:]

Statement of the Defenders of Wildlife submitted for the record

by The Honorable Frank Pallone 

OIL AND GAS DRILLING HARMING NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES ACTION 

NEEDED TO RESPOND TO LONG-STANDING PROBLEM 

A new report from the General Accounting Office confirms the findings of earlier federal reports that oil and gas activity has caused serious damage on many of the 

national wildlife refuges where it has occurred. According to the report (‘‘National 

Wildlife Refuges: Opportunities to Improve the Management and Oversight of Oil 

and Gas Activities on Federal Lands’’) oil and gas activity has spilled hundreds of 

thousands of gallons of crude oil, caused mercury and PCB contamination, killed 

wildlife and thousands of fish, destroyed and fragmented thousands of acres of habitat, produced millions of gallons of brine, and caused long-term soil and water contamination on national wildlife refuges. 

6

The GAO report is not the first study to conclude that oil and gas activity is causing damage to national wildlife refuges. Previous federally sponsored reports dating 

back two decades have identified problems associated with oil and gas activities in 

or near refuges (see attached list and selected findings). The new report makes it 

very clear that the Interior Department and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have 

failed to respond adequately to earlier reports or to adopt their recommendations 

for improving oversight and regulation of oil and gas activity on national wildlife 

refuges. 

The vast majority of oil and gas activity that occurs on national wildlife refuges 

is related to extraction of private mineral rights that the federal government does 

not own and to which it cannot deny access. However, the GAO concludes that the 

Fish and Wildlife Service does have certain authority to regulate this use so as to 

protect refuge wildlife and habitats but is not making use of this authority. Unlike 

the National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service regulations do not require owners of mineral rights to obtain permits that contain protective conditions before engaging in oil and gas activities on the federal lands that 

it manages. Congress should take action to affirm the Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

authority to require permits of oil and gas operators-and conditions to protect fish 

and wildlife-where private parties own and hold rights to develop oil and gas 

beneath refuge lands. 

The GAO report provides a preview of the kinds of environmental damage that 

could be expected at the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if Congress authorizes oil 

drilling in that pristine refuge in northeastern Alaska. Congress should take careful 

note of this report and continue to resist proposals to open the Arctic Refuge to 

drilling. 

For more information, contact Jim Waltman at (202) 429-2674 or jim 

waltman@tws.org 

Previous Reports Relating to Oil and Gas Activity at National Wildlife Refuges 

Secondary Uses Occurring on National Wildlife Refuges, 1990

According to this report from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 63 percent of all 

refuge managers reported that at least one ‘‘harmful’’ activity occurred on the 

refuges they managed. The report identified 30 wildlife refuges at which the refuge 

manager indicated that oil/gas extraction ‘‘adversely affect[ed] the ability to conserve or manage in accordance with the refuge goals and objectives.’’ Examples included Kern National Wildlife Refuge (California) where the activity caused ‘‘habitat 

destruction, wildlife disturbance, endangered species take threat.’’ According to the 

report, oil and gas activity caused ‘‘surface and habitat impacts and disturbance to 

wildlife including whooping cranes’’ at Aransas NWR (Texas) and ‘‘tremendous vegetative loss, increases erosion, nesting losses during the nesting season’’ at Breton 

NWR (Louisiana). 

Continuing Problems with Incompatible Uses Call for Bold Action, 1989

According to this study from the General Accounting Office, refuge managers reported that at least one harmful use was occurring on 59 percent of the refuges. 

The GAO highlighted gas production at D’Arbonne NWR (Louisiana) as one of 16 

particularly harmful activities in the Refuge System. According to the report ‘‘Salt 

water contamination from gas production continues to erode the habitat’s capability 

to support wildlife... Natural gas production has destroyed wildlife habitat through 

soil and water contamination by brine.’’

Contaminant Issues of Concern: National Wildlife Refuges, 1986

This report from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified 78 ‘‘contaminant 

issues of concern’’ on 85 refuges. The report determined that at the Kenai Refuge 

(Alaska), ‘‘oil and gas spills from various oil companies have been occurring for approximately 25 years. Also, numerous spills of substances used in oil field production and subsequently discharged into drill mud reserve pits may have affected local 

water supplies. These substances may represent sources of possible chronic and 

acute problems impacting fish and wildlife resources.’’

Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Problems, 1983

This report from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified 146 national wildlife 

refuges where oil spills and 97 refuges where oil and gas extraction were ‘‘currently 

causing or have the potential to cause significant damage to Fish and Wildlife 

Service managed natural resources or physical facilities.’’ The findings were based 

on information submitted by refuge managers, wildlife biologists, and other refuge 

employees. 

7

It is unfortunate that the GAO has again found significant problems asso- ciated with oil and gas activity on national wildlife refuges. This is a clear 

indication that the Fish and Wildlife Service has not taken adequate action 

to address what it has known for decades is a very real problem. For more information, contact Jim Waltman at (202) 429-2674 or jim waltman@tws.org 

Mr. GILCHREST. I ask unanimous consent to submit a statement, 

an editorial from USA Today on the GAO report, October 30th, 

2003. 

[The USA Today articles follow:]

USA TODAY EDITORIAL ON GAO REPORT

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, OCTOBER 30, 2003

21POSTED 10/8/2003 7:56 PM

Alaskan drilling debate ignores failures in lower 48

For years, environmentalists and the oil industry have waged a fierce battle over the impact of oil drilling in wildlife refuges. Environmentalists say it causes devastating damage; the industry says wildlife and drilling can thrive together. Now a new report by the investigative arm of Congress shows that both sides are exaggerating the facts. The General Accounting Office’s analysis of drilling in hundreds of refuges in the lower 48 states concludes that environmental damage can 

be avoided—at least when industry and the government are vigilant. Yet too often the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is charged with protecting refuges, has fallen down on the job. Its failings are important to keep in mind as 

Congress wrangles over allowing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as 

part of an energy plan that also includes efforts to strengthen the nation’s electricity 

grid. The results documented by Congress’ own investigators suggest a reasonable 

course for protecting the spectacular Alaskan mountains and sensitive tundra where 

caribou, wolves, bears and other species live. Once federal regulators demonstrate 

they can adequately protect sensitive refuges where drilling already is occurring, expanding oil exploration to the Arctic becomes an option worth considering. 

As the Sept. 23 GAO report points out, the government’s track record on that 

front is uneven. At Hopper Mountain Wildlife Refuge in California, for example, 15 

active wells have caused only two oil spills in the past 30 years; each was cleaned 

up quickly with no detectable effects on wildlife. But at Anahuac Wildlife Refuge 

in Texas, 50 active wells have caused at least seven spills just since 1991, and one 

killed more than 180,000 fish. 

Among the federal shortcomings cited by the congressional report: 

• The Fish and Wildlife Service didn’t even know how many oil and gas wells are 

operating on its refuges. GAO investigators found one-fourth of the nation’s 

more than 500 refuges have a history of oil and gas activity, in some cases dating back to the 1920s. Wells on refuges are pumping nearly 24 million barrels 

of oil annually, more than 1 % of the nation’s total production. 

• The Fish and Wildlife Service does not keep records on oil spills and other damage, and has never assessed the cumulative effects of oil and gas operations on 

refuges. 

• Fish and Wildlife refuge managers often lack the knowledge, resources, training 

and commitment to regulate oil-drilling operations effectively. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service says it lacks legal authority in some cases to act 

against oil companies that were given rights to extract mineral resources from lands 

long before wildlife refuges were established. 

The Service also says it is moving to do a better job of collecting data and equipping its staff to deal with oil and gas operations. 

One successful approach worth the service’s attention is taking place in Louisiana, 

where two refuges are strictly monitored. Oil and gas operators pay fees to finance 

the costs of monitoring compliance. The system could be applied elsewhere, though 

new laws would be required in many cases. 

Before the federal government takes any steps to open the pristine Arctic refuge 

to drilling, it can show it is capable of protecting the wildlife already in its charge. 

Sidebar: 

Nature and drilling coexist 

National wildlife refuges with the most active oil wells: 

8

Upper Quachita, Louisiana: 908

Delta, Louisiana: 178

Kenai, Alaska: 121

Hageman, Texas: 98

McFaddin, Texas: 76

Low Rio Grande Valley, Texas: 65

St. Catherine Creek, Mississippi: 64

D’Arbonne, Louisiana: 51

Quivira, Kansas: 51

Anahuac, Texas: 50

Hopper Mountain, California: 15

Seal Beach, California: 15

Aransas, Texas: 14

Ohio River Island, West Virginia: 11

Source: Congress’ General Accounting Office 

USA TODAY

POSTED 10/8/2003 8:00 PM

Agency values refuges

BY STEVEN WILLIAMS

The National Wildlife Refuge System is one of America’s great treasures. Its 542 

refuges provide homes for wildlife, solitude and unfettered natural beauty for visitors in an increasingly crowded and busy world. 

President Bush has a made a firm commitment to ensure their future health. His 

proposed $402 million budget for the refuge system represents a 25% increase since 

2002 and more than double the 1997 budget. 

As Congress’ General Accounting Office notes in its report, however, about onequarter of refuges have oil and gas operations on them, some dating back more than 

70 years. In most cases, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service owns the surface land 

but not the subsurface mineral rights. Under the law, owners of these rights have 

the right of access to them. Refuge managers work with these owners to minimize 

the adverse impacts of these activities, but we still face challenges. We welcome the 

recommendations provided by the GAO in its report. 

We are committed to collecting better data on the impacts of oil and gas activities 

on refuges. We also will issue guidance and more training opportunities for refuge 

staff on the management of oil and gas activities. 

In the few places where the service has authority to issue permits, we will look 

for ways to strengthen that authority consistent with state and federal laws. At the 

same time, we are addressing other threats to our refuges, including the damage 

caused by growing numbers of invasive species. 

Some have tried to use the GAO report to argue against oil exploration on a small 

part of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. However, the comparison is not 

valid because the federal government owns the mineral rights at the Arctic refuge. 

When it set aside a portion of the refuge, Congress explicitly reserved for itself how 

and under what conditions oil exploration might occur there. Any exploration would 

be subject to far stricter environmental safeguards than allowed by law on most 

refuges with oil and gas activities. 

Americans cherish our wildlife and wild places. We are working to ensure that 

the National Wildlife Refuge System continues to be healthy and whole. 

Steven Williams is director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Mr. GILCHREST. This morning we have Mr. Barry Hill, Director, 

Natural Resources and Environment, from GAO. Welcome, sir. 

We have Mr. David Smith, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish 

and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior. Welcome, Mr. 

Smith. And Mr. Smith is accompanied by Mr. William Hartwig, 

Chief of National Wildlife Refuge System of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

Thank you for coming this morning, gentlemen. We look forward 

to your testimony. 

Mr. Hill, you may begin. 

9

STATEMENT OF BARRY T. HILL, DIRECTOR, NATURAL 

RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, GENERAL ACCOUNTING 

OFFICE; ACCOMPANIED BY PAUL AUSSENDORF, ANALYST IN 

CHARGE OF THE GAO REPORT 

Mr. HILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee. Before I begin, allow me to introduce my colleague. 

With me today is Paul Aussendorf, who is the analyst in charge of 

the work that we will be presenting today. If I may, I would like 

to briefly summarize my prepared statement and submit the full 

text of my statement for the record. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Without objection. 

Mr. HILL. We are pleased to be here today to discuss our recent 

report on oil and gas activities on National Wildlife Refuges. The 

National Wildlife Refuge System is unique. It’s 95 million acres are 

the only Federal lands managed primarily for the benefit of wildlife, providing habitat for native plants and animals, including endangered and threatened species. 

While the Federal Government owns almost all of the surface 

lands of the System, in many cases it does not own the subsurface 

mineral rights. Subject to some restriction, owners of the 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. 

The testimony we will be presenting today summarizes our 

recent report to you in which we determined the nature and full 

extent of oil and gas activities in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, identified environmental effects of oil and gas activities on 

refuge resources, and assessed the Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

management and oversight of these activities. 

In summary, about one-quarter, or 155 of the 575 refuges in the 

United States, have past or present oil and gas activity, some dating to at least the 1920s. Activities on these refuges range from exploration to drilling and production to pipelines transiting refuge 

lands. One-hundred and five refuges contain over 4,400 oil and gas 

wells, and 2,600 of these are inactive wells, and 1,806 are active. 

The active wells are located at 36 refuges and produce oil and 

gas valued at $880 million during the last 12-month reporting period. That is roughly 1 percent of domestic production. In addition, 

oil and gas exploration has occurred at 44 refuges since 1994, and 

one or more active pipelines are present in at least 107 refuges. 

Regarding the overall environmental effects of oil and gas activities on refuge resources, we found that the Fish and Wildlife 

Service has only limited information and has not conducted any assessments of the cumulative environmental effects. Available studies, anecdotal information and our observation 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. 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. Specifically, the 16 

refuges we visited during our study reported oil, gas or brine spills, 

but the frequency and effects of the spills varied widely. 

10

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. 

Finally, the management and oversight of oil and gas activities 

on refuges varies widely. Among the 16 refuges we visited, some 

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, 

refuge managers are unclear about when they have legal authority 

to require operators to obtain permits with conditions to protect 

refuge resources. This uncertainty exists because the Service’s authority varies, depending upon when ownership of the mineral 

rights was separated from ownership of the surface property, which 

can be difficult to determine. In addition, the Department of the Interior has not determined its permitting authority in all cases. 

Second, refuge managers lack sufficient guidance, resources and 

training to properly manage and oversee oil and gas activities. 

Only three refuges have staff dedicated to monitor these activities, 

and some staff cited lack of time or lack of training as limiting 

their management and oversight capabilities. 

In our report, we made several recommendations to improve the 

framework for managing and overseeing oil and gas activities on 

National Wildlife Refuges. However, the Department of Interior 

generally disagreed or did not comment on our recommendations. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. We would 

be happy to respond to any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hill follows:]

11

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). 

Statement of Barry T. Hill, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. General Accounting Office

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. 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 


90158.001
12

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). 

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, 2 such as recreation, military activities, and oil and gas 

13

3Department 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). 

5State 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. 

10This analysis does not include coordination areas, which are managed by states, or conservation easements, which are not owned by FWS.

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. 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. 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. 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; 6 the Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits killing, hunting, possessing, or selling migratory 

birds, except in accordance with a permit; 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. 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. 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). 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. 

14

11Wells 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. 

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. 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 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 contaminaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:58 Apr 28, 2004 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\90158.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY

90158.002
15

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. 

tion, 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. 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 dam- ages 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 

16

14 U.S. General Accounting Office, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 

GAO/AIMD-00-2131 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1999). 

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. 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 

17

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. 

GAO’s Mission 

The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government 

for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal 

programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full-text 

files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. 

The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using key words 

18

and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and 

other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ‘‘Today’s Reports,’’ on its Web site daily. The 

list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this list to 

you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select ‘‘Subscribe to e-mail alerts’’ under 

the ‘‘Order GAO Products’’ heading. 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A check 

or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also 

accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: 

(202) 512-6000

TDD: (202) 512-2537

Fax: (202) 512-6061

[Mr. Hill’s response to questions submitted for the record 

follows:]

GAO Response to Questions for the Record 

Questions submitted by Representative Frank Pallone 

1. The GAO reported that the Fish and Wildlife Service does not know 

about all of the wells and other oil and gas activities that occur on its 

refuges. This is a surprising revelation. 

a. How complete is your account of the extent of the oil and gas activities on refuges, and how did you develop your information? 

How is this data useful? 

Information we developed on the extent of oil and gas activities is more complete 

than anything reported to date because it relies on comprehensive databases of well 

and pipeline locations, whereas previous attempts had relied upon resident Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS) staff to self-report the presence but not extent of activity. 

To determine the number of wells residing on FWS lands, we contracted with Premier Data Services. Premier maintains a national well database based on state oil 

and gas commission permit data, which includes geographic location information. 

Premier plotted well locations against digital maps of refuges to determine how 

many resided within and near refuges. In addition to obtaining information on the 

location of oil and gas wells, we also obtained information on the status, type, and 

amount of production of oil, gas, and water (brine) from each well. We eliminated 

from the database permitted wells that were not drilled, while wells with any production in the most recent reporting period we categorized as active; all other wells 

we categorized as inactive. To identify pipelines transiting refuge lands, we relied 

on the National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS), which is maintained by the Office of Pipeline Safety in the Department of Transportation and on FWS’s Refuge 

Management Information System (RMIS). We overlaid the NPMS data on the 138 

refuges for which we had digital refuge boundary data because they also had wells 

inside or just outside their boundaries. Additional refuges may contain transit pipelines, but FWS did not have digital boundary data available to use in identifying 

those pipelines. NPMS is based on data reported to the Office of Pipeline Safety by 

pipeline owners. NPMS includes 99 percent of the nation’s hazardous liquids (including oil and other petroleum products) pipelines and 61 percent of natural gas 

pipelines in the United States. 

Our data has been provided to FWS in its entirety and will be useful to national 

and refuge level efforts to manage and oversee oil and gas activities, including identifying risks to refuge resources and seeking reclamation where damage has occurred. 

2. In your report, the GAO discussed the wells and pipelines that occur 

outside of refuge boundaries. However, I am not sure what the purpose was 

to include a reference to facilities that the Fish and Wildlife Service has 

no direct authority to regulate. 

a. Since the Fish and Wildlife Service does not have authority over 

these activities, why did you think it was important to report 

them? 

19

We identified and reported on the number of wells and pipelines within 1/2 mile 

of refuge boundaries for two reasons. First, FWS needs to be aware of oil and gas 

activities immediately surrounding its refuges, as contamination can migrate onto 

refuges and affect refuge resources. Second, lands immediately surrounding refuges 

are often targeted for future acquisition. Knowledge of oil and gas activities on these 

lands is important to refuge planning and lands acquisition. 

3. You assessed the environmental effects of oil and gas activities and the 

Fish and Wildlife Service’s management and oversight of oil and gas activities, in part, by visiting a select subset of refuges. 

a. How and why did you select the refuges you visited? 

We selected for physical inspection at least one refuge in each of FWS’s seven regions. In making these selections, we attempted to choose a cross section of refuges 

considering the type and scale of oil and gas activities, range of environmental effects, and extent and type of management and oversight. In total, we visited 16 

refuges containing 1,510 active and 2,695 total oil and gas wells, about 84 percent 

and 61 percent, respectively, of all oil and gas wells we identified on refuges. At 

each refuge visited, we asked the refuge manager to describe the effects of oil and 

gas activities on the refuge, obtained any available studies of these effects, and visited locations of oil and gas activity selected by the refuge manager to represent a 

range of effects. 

b. In your opinion, is this sample representative of the problems 

throughout the refuge system as a whole? 

For the one-quarter of refuges with oil and gas activities, we believe it is representative. In addition to the 16 refuges we visited, we contacted other refuges by 

phone that reported similar issues. 

4. According to the GAO report, the environmental effects of oil and gas 

activities have been reduced due to the passage of new laws, improvements 

in industry practices, and voluntary and ordered actions taken to restore 

habitat damage that has occurred. 

a. From your observations have these steps been successful in protecting refuge resources or are they simply a triage approach to 

the problem? 

We do not know to what extent each of these changes has contributed to reducing 

the effects of oil and gas activities on refuges. In large part this is because FWS 

does not have baseline information on refuges’ conditions prior to these changes in 

laws and practices. We did, however, encounter evidence that changes in environmental laws, changes in industry practice, and operator actions to reduce environmental effects resulted in improvements at refuges that we visited. These measures 

are by their very nature variable and not consistent across all refuges. 

b. In this regard, how are protections for refuge resources undercut by State or local laws or regulations that are more permissive of oil and gas activities? 

Any state or local laws that might be more permissive than federal law of oil and 

gas activities and that actually conflicted with federal requirements likely would be 

deemed to be legally ‘‘preempted’’ by the federal requirements. Federal law preempts state law when, among other things, state law conflicts with federal law to 

the extent that it is impossible to comply with both state and federal law, or when 

the state law is an obstacle to accomplishing the full purposes or objectives of the 

federal law. Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U.S. 238, 248 (1984) (citations omitted). Federal law generally does not preempt more stringent state or local laws, 

however (assuming they do not conflict with the federal requirements); such laws 

would apply in addition to the federal rules. For example, certain states require permits for wells drilled by private mineral owners, and some states set plugging and 

abandonment requirements for these private wells. Because FWS staff provide the 

primary means of oversight over oil and gas activities on refuge lands, it is vital 

that they be aware of state and local laws and coordinate with state and local authorities to ensure appropriate protection of the refuge resources. 

5. In your report, you state that in some cases oil and gas operators have 

taken steps to reclaim sites once oil and gas activities are complete and facilities shut down. 

a. From your observations, how effective are those actions in terms 

of restoring environmental quality and ensuring public safety on 

refuges? 

In cases where reclamation has occurred, refuge managers are generally satisfied 

with the results, although they did cite examples where some infrastructure was not 

removed. Based on the few reclamation efforts that we observed, for example, at 

McFaddin National Wildlife Refuge, the sites were restored to an extent that they 

20

were visually similar to surrounding areas, but it is unknown if contamination lingers in these locations. 

b. When do operators take those actions? Are there standard procedural triggers that compel reclamation? 

Reclamation may be triggered by federal regulations, state laws, and FWS permits. 50 CFR 29.32 requires operators to reclaim refuge lands after their use. However, federal regulations are not specific as to when this will occur. Owners or operators may sell their leases to a new operator rather than undertake the expense of 

reclaiming a site. Further, operators can claim that an idled site will be reopened 

in the future. State regulators are responsible for ensuring that idled sites are properly abandoned and reclaimed if not producing but enforcement is often lacking. 

Reclamation is also governed by state laws, which vary. For instance, Texas does 

not require operators to remove all buried flowlines or access roads. Finally, where 

FWS has authority to require operators to acquire permits, the permits may require 

operators to take certain steps to reclaim the site. For instance, an FWS permit required an operator at McFaddin National Wildlife Refuge to reclaim any unproductive sites within 90 days. The operator removed a road and a well pad that they 

constructed to access a new well site and restored the marsh damaged by construction. 

c. Why is reclamation of abandoned oil and gas facilities and sites 

not consistently applied across the Refuge System? 

Abandoned oil and gas facilities are not consistently reclaimed for a variety of reasons—for example, a lack of oversight and enforcement, potential for future use of 

the site, refuge staff that may be uncertain of requirements, responsible parties that 

can no longer be identified or held liable, and a lack of funds for state orphan well 

plug and abandonment programs. 

6. In the GAO report, you describe a wide range of management practices 

and oversight of oil and gas activities at National Wildlife Refuges between 

regions and between specific refuges within regions. This haphazard pattern of management seems to demand some consistency. 

a. From your observations, what are the main differences between 

a well-managed refuge and a poorly managed refuge? 

Well-managed refuges have identified the nature and extent of oil and gas activities on the refuge and have assessed the risks these activities pose to refuge resources—at a minimum they have completed a Contaminant Assessment Process 

study. Well-managed refuges have also adopted risk-reduction procedures, such as 

issuing access permits with conditions to protect refuge resources, securing financial 

assurance that reclamation will occur, and overseeing oil and gas operations with 

trained and dedicated staff that are familiar with federal and state environmental 

laws. Poorly managed refuges have followed few, if any, of these practices. 

b. Would improved management and oversight of oil and gas activities reduce the negative effects on refuge resources caused by 

these activities? 

Undoubtedly, improved management and oversight would help reduce (but not 

eliminate) the negative impacts of oil and gas activities. If the practices employed 

by well-managed refuges cited in 6.a. were implemented throughout the agency, 

they could provide better assurance that environmental effects from oil and gas 

activities are minimized. In particular, if all refuges issued permits establishing 

operating conditions for oil and gas activities, refuges would have greater control 

over these activities and better protect refuge resources before damage occurs. 

c. Because of the disparity among regions and between sites in how 

they regulate oil and gas activities, do you believe that it 

requires much closer coordination from the Department of the 

Interior? 

The National Wildlife Refuge System varies from other public lands managed by 

other Interior agencies, because they are the only lands set aside specifically for conservation and management of fish, wildlife, and plant resources, and need to be 

managed accordingly. Developing greater consistency of management and oversight 

of oil and gas activities within the FWS will require more active leadership from 

FWS’s headquarters in setting policy and clarifying its authority to issue permits. 

The FWS needs the support of the Department in seeking additional authority to 

oversee and manage these activities. 

7. You also identified uncertainties about the Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

authority to require oil and gas operators to obtain a permit that would 

specify actions needed to protect refuge resources. 

a. Why is Fish and Wildlife Service’s authority to require permits 

unclear? 

21

As explained in more detail in Appendix III of our report, current legislation does not explicitly state that FWS may require owners of private mineral rights to obtain 

permits before conducting oil and gas activities. Rather, FWS’s permit authority 

(which does not currently apply to all types of mineral rights) flows from its more 

general authority over wildlife refuges. FWS can require private owners of ‘‘reserved’’ mineral rights—which are created when the property owner retains the 

mineral rights at the time the surface property is transferred to the federal 

government—to obtain a permit before exercising those rights only if the deed transferring surface ownership to the government contains language that subjects these 

rights to permitting requirements. This limited authority over reserved rights is 

based largely on a section of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act that makes these 

rights subject to government regulation if the deed includes specific requirements, 

such as permitting requirements, or states that the rights are subject to regulations 

prescribed by the Department ‘‘from time to time.’’ 16 U.S.C. § 715e. By contrast, we believe FWS can require all private owners of ‘‘outstanding’’ min- eral rights—which are created when the mineral rights are separated from the surface lands prior to the transfer of the surface property to the government (and are 

thus owned by a third party)—to obtain a permit before exercising those rights. Although current law does not explicitly state that FWS may require such permits, 

language in the National Wildlife Refuge System Act, which governs FWS’s administration of wildlife refuges, is very similar to language in laws governing the 

national parks and the national forests that has been held to authorize the National 

Park Service and the United States Forest Service to require owners of private mineral rights on federal lands to obtain permits before exercising those rights. See 

Dunn McCampbell Royalty Interest, Inc. v. National Park Service, 964 F. Supp. 

1125 (S.D. Tex. 1995), aff’d on other grounds, 112 F.3d 1283 (5th Cir. 1997); Duncan 

Energy Co. v. United States Forest Service, 50 F. 3d 584 (8th Cir. 995). By analogy, 

we believe FWS could issue regulations under its existing statutory authority requiring private oil and gas operators to obtain permits with appropriate conditions 

for exploration and development of outstanding rights. 

b. Would requiring such permits reduce the environmental effects 

on refuges and improve the Service’s ability to manage and oversee oil and gas activities? 

If FWS could require permits for oil and gas activities at every refuge it would 

undoubtedly reduce the environmental effects caused by those activities. Permitting 

would allow FWS to add reasonable conditions to protect refuge resources—for example, requiring that oil and gas operations avoid sensitive areas or seasons of the 

year or operate their facility in a particular manner. The permit would also provide 

FWS with a legal basis to conduct oversight activities and take enforcement action 

if the operator was not complying with the permit’s conditions. 

Questions submitted by Representative Edward Markey 

1. According to GAO report, ‘‘there are 2,600 inactive wells on refuges, including an unknown number that have been abandoned, but not plugged, 

and some sites also have unused tanks, flowlines, and debris that should 

be removed (p. 29).’’ It also notes that the Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge 

alone has an estimated cost of cleanup is [sic] $1.1 million. Can the GAO 

estimate what the cleanup liability from oil and gas activities on refuges 

is and how much of that the taxpayers might have to cover? 

We cannot estimate the total cost of reclamation or how much may have to be 

funded by taxpayers because there is no refuge system inventory of oil and gas infrastructure, the status of this infrastructure, or the parties responsible for reclamation. Our accounting of oil and gas wells is a necessary first step, but FWS will need 

to undertake a system-wide inventory of all oil and gas infrastructure, such as storage tanks, pipelines, and well pads, and whether that equipment is still in use before any estimates of reclamation costs can be made. The FWS will then need to 

identify responsible parties, where possible, and whether these parties are capable 

of underwriting the cost of reclamation. FWS’s Region 2 has begun such a study, 

visually inspecting and inventorying oil and gas infrastructure on refuges in that 

region. At the time of our audit, the region was awaiting additional funds to complete this study. 

2. The GAO report concludes that nearly $900 million worth of oil and gas 

was produced from national wildlife refuges in the last 12-month period for 

which there is data. In contrast, the GAO report concludes that the Fish 

and Wildlife Service lacks adequate funds to oversee oil and gas activities 

on refuges. For example, very few refuges have staff assigned specifically 

to oversee oil and gas activities, not all refuges have completed Contaminant Assessment Process studies, some refuges are tarnished with 

22

1 It is unclear what, if any, impact the court’s November 18, 2003, decision in Mineral Policy Center v. Norton, No. 01-00073 (HHK), D.D.C., might have on this FWS regulation. The Mineral 

Policy Center court found that issuance of permits to mining operations that degrade or damage 

public lands violates the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), which in turn 

‘‘vests the Secretary of the Interior with the authority and indeed the obligation to disapprove 

of an otherwise permissible mining operation because the operation, though necessary for mining, would unduly harm or degrade the public land.’’ However, the court upheld regulations 

issued under FLPMA in 2001, finding that the regulations were not ‘‘manifestly contrary’’ to 

FLPMA. 

contaminated soils and waters with no funds for remediation, and a number of refuges are littered with rusty old oil and gas infrastructure with no 

means of removing the structures. 

If the Fish and Wildlife Service required special use permits for access to outstanding mineral rights, as the GAO suggests it has authority to do, it could in theory charge a fee for such permits. Even 

one-half of one percent fee imposed on the value of oil and gas produced from refuges would raise more than $4 million a year, which 

could go a long way towards improving Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

ability to address the problems associated with oil and gas on 

refuges. Are there impediments to assessing such fee? 

There are limitations on FWS’s current statutory authority to impose permit fees 

and to use any fees it receives for administration of an oil and gas activity permit 

program. Title V of the Independent Offices Appropriations Act, known as the IOAA 

or the ‘‘User Charge Statute,’’ 31 U.S.C. § 9701, authorizes agencies to charge a fee 

for a service or thing of value provided by the agency to an identifiable beneficiary. 

Under the IOAA, if FWS were to establish a permit requirement, it could charge 

permittees an appropriate fee for its administration and oversight costs for oil and 

gas permits. However, fees imposed under the authority of the IOAA may not exceed an agency’s cost of rendering the service, and thus FWS could not impose a 

fee based on the value of oil and gas produced from refuges. Moreover, absent specific legislation, fees collected under the authority of the IOAA must be deposited 

in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. Because FWS currently has no such specific authority, it would not be able to retain fees collected under the IOAA. Office 

of Management and Budget Circular No. A-25 sets out guidance for the executive 

branch’s implementation of the IOAA. 

3. Is there a legal mechanism for the FWS to be compensated for the loss 

of habitat while operations are ongoing? For example, if an oil well consumes 10 acres in its pad, road, and pipelines, can the FWS receive some 

type of rental payment for the loss of use of that surface property? This 

would be in addition to any guarantees provided to remove and clean up 

infrastructure while operations are completed. 

There is currently no clear basis in federal law for FWS to be compensated, in 

the nature of a rental payment, for the loss of use of habitat (as opposed to obtaining damages for certain injuries to the surface lands) for the period while an owner 

of private mineral rights conducts oil and gas operations. Some state laws may provide a basis for such compensation, however. With respect to federal law, FWS’s regulations require only that private mineral owners minimize interference with the 

operation of the refuge and keep ‘‘[p]hysical occupancy’’ of the area in which exploration, development, and production operations are conducted ‘‘to the minimum 

space compatible with the conduct of efficient mineral operations.’’ 50 C.F.R. § 29.32. 

An operator who fails to comply with these requirements is subject to a fine and 

or imprisonment, depending on the nature of the operator’s actions. 16 U.S.C. 

§ 668dd(f). 

The same FWS regulation—which also requires oil and gas operators, ‘‘to the 

greatest extent practicable, ... to conduct their operations ‘‘in such a manner as to 

prevent damage, erosion, pollution, or contamination to the lands, waters, facilities 

and vegetation of the area’’ provides that the regulation should not be applied in 

a way that ‘‘contravene[s] or nullif[ies]’’ the rights of owners of mineral rights. This 

clause reflects the general common law principle, discussed in Appendix III of our 

report, that private mineral rights owners have the right to use the surface lands 

in a manner that is reasonably necessary to explore and extract the underlying minerals, and that the remedy for the overlying landowner—here the United States—

in the event of contamination or other injury for activities beyond those ‘‘reasonably 

necessary’’ would be a suit for monetary damages. See, e.g., Slaaten v. Cliff’s 

Drilling Co., 748 F.2d 1275, 1277 (8th Cir. 1984); United Geophysical Corp. v. Culver, 394 F.2d 393 (5th Cir. 1964); Flying Diamond Corp. v. Rust, 551 P.2d 509, 511 

(Utah 1976); Guffey v. Stoud, 16 S.W.2d 527 (Tex. Comm. App. 1929). 1

23

By comparison, some states have enacted statutes that may provide a basis for 

compensation for lost use of land due to oil and gas operations. For example, North 

Dakota requires the mineral developer to compensate the surface owner (which, in 

the case of a national wildlife refuge, is the United States) for the ‘‘lost use of surface access.’’ N.D. Cent. Code § 38-11.1-04. Thus, the federal government might have 

a basis for recovering for the loss of use of habitat caused by private oil and gas 

operations on a national wildlife refuge located in North Dakota. 

4. What are the existing or potential legal opportunities to impose tax or 

fee on oil and gas operations on refuges with private minerals to defray the 

costs of oversight and management of these activities? 

With respect to fees, as explained in response to question #2, if FWS establishes 

a permit program for oil and gas activity on refuges, the IOAA would authorize 

FWS to impose a fee on operators to cover the costs of administering and overseeing 

the program. If Congress enacted legislation specifically allowing FWS to use these 

fees to defray its costs, FWS could do so; otherwise, FWS would have to deposit the 

fees into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. With respect to taxes, there is no 

current statutory authority allowing taxation of oil and gas activities on refuges. 

Congress would have to enact such legislation and designate the appropriation account to which those taxes should be credited. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Mr. Hill. 

Mr. Smith. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID P. SMITH, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS, DEPARTMENT OF 

THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM HARTWIG, 

CHIEF OF NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM, U.S. FISH 

AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am David P. 

Smith, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks. I 

am joined today by Mr. William Hartwig, who is Assistant Director 

and Chief for Refuges in the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Thank you for this opportunity to provide the Department of Interior’s views on the GAO report on oil and gas activities on units 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

We take the recommendations contained in the report seriously. 

However, they need to be viewed in the context of the overall situation with respect to oil and gas activities in the Refuge System. 

We are in the process of developing a formal response to the report, and we will provide this Subcommittee with a copy as soon 

as it is finalized. 

With the exception of refuge lands in Alaska, where the Federal 

Government owns most of the subsurface mineral rights, the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service frequently owns only the surface rights 

to lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System. Where private interests own the mineral rights on those lands, it is their 

right by law to have access to those minerals. 

Historically, the reason for this division of ownership of the surface estate and mineral estate is that, at the time of purchase, the 

mineral estates are often either not for sale or prohibitively expensive. In these cases, the surface estates were purchased independently from the mineral rights. 

This same approach has been used by several major private conservation groups in an effort to purchase required through donation 

valuable habitat that otherwise would be prohibitively expensive or 

not for sale at all. 

24

This is not a new topic for Congress, the Department, or the Fish 

and Wildlife Service. There were at least five hearings over potentially incompatible uses on refuge lands in the 101st and 102nd 

Congresses held by the former Committee on Merchant Marine and 

Fisheries, the Committee on Government Reform, and the Senate 

Committee on Environment and Public Works. There was also a 

GAO report and a detailed evaluation of all uses of the Refuge System was conducted at that time by the Fish and Wildlife Service 

and provided to these committees. 

The nature and extent of oil and gas activities on refuges were 

presented during these hearings and addressed in the evaluation, 

along with a wide variety of other uses. At no point during this 

process did the leadership of the Service or any of the committees 

indicate oil and gas activities on refuges was a significant problem. 

In addition, neither President Clinton’s Executive Order on management of refuges, nor the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, negotiated by the former Secretary of the 

Interior and Members of Congress, contain any provisions which 

address directly oil and gas activities on National Wildlife Refuges. 

Departmental regulations adopted in the 1980s prohibit developing federally owned mineral resources, including oil and gas, on 

National Wildlife Refuges outside of Alaska, except in the case to 

prevent drainage. Oil and gas development in National Wildlife 

Refuges today occurs under two scenarios: either as a result of private ownership of mineral rights, in which case our ability to regulate oil and gas development may be limited, or in order to protect 

against drainage of Federal oil and gas resources from activities on 

adjacent lands, in which case oil and gas activity occurs under Federal lease and permit requirements, including conditions to ensure 

habitat protection. 

Similarly, with respect to pipelines, they are either present and 

in place at the time the Service acquires the land, or they are constructed under permit from the Service following a compatibility 

determination and under the terms and conditions the Service 

deems appropriate for protection of refuge resources. 

In neither case, the Service was aware of the presence of retained oil and gas rights, or the pipeline at the time it acquired the 

property and determined the potential benefits of including the 

area and the natural resources therein within a National Wildlife 

Refuge outweighed whatever impacts might result from the presence of that mineral right or pipeline. 

The report offers several recommendations, which you have already heard from GAO. I would like to add the following observations. 

Many of these lands have had oil and gas activities for decades, 

in some cases dating back more than 70 years. This is not a new 

issue. Instead, it is one that has been with us for many years. We 

are not saying there are no problems. However, we believe the 

Service is generally doing a good job in manning this longstanding 

and complex issue. 

We must all recognize that oil and gas exploration is only one of 

the management issues we must address as we assess operational 

needs across the entire Refuge System. President Bush has 

requested substantial increases in funding each year. 

25

At the same time, we are addressing other very real threats to our refuges. For example, the damage caused by invasive species 

affects refuges from Alaska to the Caribbean, with over 80 percent 

of refuges reporting problems with invasives. This is a problem 

that Chairman Gilchrest is very familiar with and has been a great 

partner to us on. 

Although the Service to date has taken management actions in an attempt to control nutria in black water and other places, as 

well as other invasive species on over 300 separate refuges, we 

need to do more. We believe we are able, under our existing authorities, to effectively manage and oversee oil and gas development activities on our National Wildlife Refuges. We will continue 

to work to address all the challenges that our managers and refuge 

resources face. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I am happy to answer any questions that you or other members of the Subcommittee 

may have, and I would ask that my official statement be made part 

of the official record. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

Statement of David P. Smith, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks, U.S. Department of the Interior 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am David P. Smith, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. Thank you for the opportunity 

to provide the Department of the Interior’s (Department) views on the General Accounting Office’s Final Report (Report) on the management and oversight of oil and 

gas activities on units of the National Wildlife Refuge System (GAO-03-517). A copy 

of the Report was provided to the Department on September 23, 2003. 

The Administration takes the recommendations contained in the Report seriously. 

My plan today is to provide you with some brief background material and offer some 

initial responses to the Report’s recommendations. In this regard, I should point out 

that, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 720 and Departmental policy, we are in the process of 

developing a formal response to the Report which should provide a more detailed 

look at how we plan to address GAO’s recommendations. We will gladly provide the 

Subcommittee with a copy of that response as soon as it is available. 

Oil and Gas Activities and the National Wildlife Refuge System 

With the exception of refuge lands in Alaska, where the federal government owns 

most of the sub-surface mineral rights, in many cases, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service) owns only the surface rights to lands within the National Wildlife 

Refuge System (NWRS). Where private interests own the sub-surface or mineral 

rights on these lands, it is their right by law to access those minerals. The Administration respects those rights in making management decisions and we have found 

that most of the owners of these sub-surface rights work cooperatively with the 

refuges. 

Generally, the reason for this division of the surface and mineral estates is that 

often the mineral rights are either not for sale or are prohibitively expensive at the 

time the surface rights are purchased. In these cases, the surface rights are purchased independently from the mineral rights. This same approach has been used 

by several major private conservation groups, in part so they, too, can more easily 

acquire lands that are deserving of protection. 

Department regulations require ‘‘to the greatest extent practicable,’’ that ‘‘all exploration, development and production operations’’ be conducted in such a manner 

as to ‘‘prevent damage, erosion, pollution, or contamination to the lands, waters, facilities, and vegetation of the area.’’ Further, ‘‘so far as practicable, such operations 

must also be conducted without interference with the operation of the refuge or disturbance to the wildlife thereon.’’ (50 C.F.R. Part 29.32.) 

According to the GAO Report, 155 of the 575 units administered by the Service 

have current or past oil and gas activities. The GAO found that, as of December 

2002, there were 1,806 active wells on 36 refuges, with most of those wells 

26

concentrated on just 5 refuges, and mostly in the State of Louisiana. Sixty-nine 

refuges contain an additional 2,600 inactive wells. The Report also notes that at 

least one active pipeline is present over 107 units. 

The Report cites information from the most recent 12-month reporting period 

showing that the active wells are responsible for producing 23.7 million barrels of 

oil and 88.2 million cubic feet of natural gas, about 1.1 and 0.4 percent of the Nation’s domestic oil and gas production, respectively. In 2001 prices, refuge-based production had an estimated commercial value of $880 million. 

While this GAO Report has generated some interest, oil and gas activity on 

national wildlife refuges is not a new topic for Congress, the Department, or the 

Service. 

During the 101st and 102nd Congresses, several hearings over existing and possibly incompatible uses of the refuge system were held in the former Committee on 

Merchant Marine and Fisheries, the Committee on Government Reform, and the 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. This was accompanied by a 

GAO Report, and a detailed evaluation of all uses of the Refuge System was conducted by the Service and provided to the Committees. The nature and extent of 

oil and gas activities on refuges were reported during those hearings and addressed 

in the evaluation, along with a wide variety of other uses. At no point during this 

process did prior Administrations or any of the Committees indicate this was a significant problem. 

In addition, there were no proposals or amendments offered about oil and gas activity within the refuge system while the organic statute for the NW RS was being 

debated in the 104th and 105th Congress, and neither the 1996 Executive Order No. 

12996, relating to the management of refuges, nor the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, P. L. 105-57, which significantly amended the basic 

NWRS authority, have any provisions on the issue. 

This is most likely because Departmental regulations, found at 43 C.F.R. 3101.5-

1 and adopted in the 1980s, prohibit developing federal mineral resources, including 

oil and gas, on national wildlife refuges outside of Alaska, except to prevent drainage. Development in Alaska is controlled by the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA). 

Oil and gas development at national wildlife refuges today occurs under two scenarios. It is either as the result of private mineral rights retained prior to or at the 

time the Service acquired the land, in which case our ability to regulate the oil and 

gas development may be limited, or it occurs as the result of drainage of adjacent 

federal oil and gas resources, in which case the development occurs under federal 

lease and permit requirements, including conditions to ensure habitat protection. In 

those cases where private rights are retained, we must allow these owners to access 

their mineral rights, because otherwise we must purchase them at fair market 

value. Neither prior Administrations nor Congress has proposed to spend the money 

necessary to acquire these outstanding mineral rights. 

A similar situation occurs with respect to pipelines; which were either present at 

the time the Service acquired the land or they were constructed under permit from 

the Service following a compatibility determination and with the terms and conditions the Service determined was appropriate. 

In the case of prior rights or pipelines, the Service was aware of the presence of 

the retained oil and gas rights or of the pipeline at the time it acquired the property, and determined that the potential benefits of including the area with a 

National Wildlife Refuge outweighed whatever impacts might result from the presence of that right pipeline. Similarly, previous Administrations have testified that 

the problems associated with oil and gas activities on refuges are generally not significant enough to warrant the central collection of additional information related 

to this issue. 

GAO Findings and Recommendations 

Generally, the GAO found that the Service had not assessed the cumulative environmental impacts of oil and gas activities on refuges, and that, due to differences 

in authority and lack of guidance, resources, and training, the Service’s management and oversight of oil and gas activities varies from unit to unit. 

The Report offers several recommendations, including that the Secretary direct 

the Service to: 

• Collect and maintain better data on the nature and extent of oil and gas activities and the effects of these activities on refuge resources; 

• Determine the level of staffing necessary to oversee oil and gas operators and 

seek adequate funding to meet those needs; 

• Ensure adequate staff training; and 

27

• Provide staff guidance and oversight of the Service’s land acquisition process to 

ensure the identification of problems and potential clean up costs prior to acquisition. 

The Report also recommends that the Secretary direct the Service to work with 

the Office of the Solicitor to determine the Service’s existing authority to issue permits and set reasonable conditions regarding outstanding mineral rights and report 

to Congress on the results of that determination. Finally, the Report recommends 

that the Administration seek any necessary additional legislative authority over 

those rights, and over reserved mineral rights, so that it can apply a ‘‘consistent and 

reasonable set’’ of controls over these activities on refuge lands. 

The Department’s Initial Response 

As stated above, we are currently in the process of developing our comprehensive 

formal comments to the recommendations contained in the GAO Report, and will 

provide the Subcommittee with a copy of that document as soon as it is available. 

For purposes of this hearing, however, I offer the following observations. 

It is important to note that many of these particular refuge lands have had oil 

and gas activities for decades, in some cases dating back more than 70 years. GAO 

recognized this in its report. This is not the manifestation of a new problem; instead, it is an issue that has challenged us for many years. This is not to say that 

there are no problems in the present. In general, however, we believe we are doing 

well in our management of this longstanding and complex issue. 

We are already taking steps to respond to the GAO’s recommendations. For example, the Service is developing a handbook to address the management of oil and gas 

activities on refuge lands. Once completed, we expect to provide training on these 

issues in regions where oil and gas activities take place in refuges. 

We are also committed to collecting better data on the impacts of oil and gas activities on refuges. Furthermore, in instances where the Service has the authority 

to permit this activity, we will find ways to strengthen the application of that authority consistent with both state and federal law. Where the Service does not have 

that authority, we will explore options with applicable state and federal regulators. 

Finally, we will continue to work with owners of mineral rights underlying our 

refuges in our ongoing efforts to build partnerships and minimize the adverse impacts of these activities on fish and wildlife resources. 

However, we must acknowledge that oil and gas exploration is only one NWRS 

management issue that we, as resource managers, must consider as we continue to 

address operations needs across the entire system. The President has requested substantial increases in funding in recent years to address priority operational needs 

on our refuges. At the same time, we are addressing other very real threats to our 

refuges. For example, the damage caused by invasive species affects refuges from 

the State of Alaska to the Caribbean Sea. Invasive species have caused significant 

declines of protected species and degraded millions of acres of refuge lands, waters, 

and wetlands. The Service has taken management actions to control invasive species on over 300 separate refuges. 

Finally, we do not believe that additional legislative authority to address the management of oil and gas activities on refuges is necessary. Oil and gas development 

technology has improved greatly over the past few decades. A substantial number 

of the problems identified in the Report were caused by techniques that are no 

longer used by industry, and impacts to the land often occurred before the land was 

purchased and designated as a refuge. We believe that we are able, under our existing authorities, to effectively manage and oversee oil and gas development activities 

on our national wildlife refuges. 

Conclusion 

We take seriously the recommendations contained in the Report, and will continue to work to address all of the challenges that our managers and our refuge resources face. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I am happy to answer any questions 

that you or other Members of the Subcommittee might have. 

[Mr. Smith’s response to questions submitted for the record 

follows:]

28

Response to questions submitted for the record

by the U.S. Department of the Interior 

Response to questions from The Honorable Frank Pallone 

Pursuant to 31 USC 720, and Departmental Policy, the Department of the Interior is in the process of developing a formal response to GAO’s report 

which should provide a more detailed look at how it plans to address 

GAO’s recommendations. We will gladly provide all Members of the Subcommittee with a copy of that response as soon as it is available. 1. In its report, the GAO recommended that the Department of the Interior determine the Fish and Wildlife Service’s existing authority to issue 

permits regarding outstanding mineral rights. The Department declined 

GAO’s request to determine its authority on this issue and did not respond 

to this recommendation in its comments on the report. 

a. Do you agree with GAO that the Department should determine its existing authority on this issue? b. Would not defining this authority be useful in improving the Service’s management and oversight of oil and gas activities on 

refuges? Response: It is the Department’s position that the Service currently has adequate authority and practices regarding the issuance of permits for exploration and development of outstanding mineral rights. Where not restricted by deed, the Service will 

continue to work with owners of mineral rights to allow development of private oil 

and gas resources, in a manner consistent with refuge purposes. Clarification of existing authority will be provided to Service land managers through training and development of a handbook on refuge oil and gas management. Moreover, as noted in 

the Department’s statement for this hearing, where we do not have authority, we 

plan to explore options with applicable state and Federal regulators. 2. The GAO further recommended that the Fish and Wildlife Service seek 

from the Congress any necessary additional authority 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. 

Again, the Service did not respond to the substance of GAO’s recommendation in its written response. 

a. Has the Service determined what additional authority it may 

need to protect the public’s surface interest? 

Response: The Administration is not seeking nor contemplating additional authorities. Most of the oil and gas issues facing the Service today are predominantly 

historic, having been incurred prior to the current level of technological advancement in exploration and development practices by the industry. 

3. The GAO reported that the Fish and Wildlife Service does not have either a clear idea of the extent of oil and gas activities occurring on 

national wildlife refuges or the environmental effects of those activities. 

DOI also did not respond to GAO’s recommendation that the Service 

should maintain better data on oil and gas activities on refuges and their 

effects on refuges’ resources. 

a. Why does not the Service have a better understanding of the extent and effects of oil and gas activities on refuges? 

b. Do you think that the collection of this data is warranted in 

order to protect the public resources entrusted to the Service’s 

care and stewardship? 

Response: Because of the limited extent of oil and gas activities on refuges, and 

a desire to put our resources where they will have the greatest beneficial impact, 

this has not been the highest priority for the bureau. However, the Service is committed to determining whether collecting better data on the impacts of oil and gas 

activities on refuges is warranted based on its competing priorities, and if so, what 

type of data would be justified. 

4. It is my understanding that the GAO has made the database of oil and 

gas activities it developed during its study available to the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

a. How does the Service plan to utilize, maintain, and update this 

database? 

b. How does the Service intend to disseminate this information to 

the refuge managers and program specialists in the field? 

Response: The Service will assemble a team to identify the specific types of oil 

and gas related information that the Service should gather and to develop the associated data gathering protocols and data management systems. Certainly, a review 

of the GAO database will be useful in collecting this data. The team will establish 

29

a framework to ensure that such systems are developed, function properly and are 

populated with valid information. The team will also develop a plan to ensure that 

these data are available to refuge managers and other personnel involved with oil 

and gas development on refuges. 5. The GAO report describes a range of environmental effects resulting from oil and gas activities on national wildlife refuges. Reported impacts 

include damages such as oil spills, habitat subsidence or fragmentation, 

and groundwater contamination. a. In your view, are these effects primarily the result of limitations on the scope of the Service’s authority to prevent damage to 

refuge resources? b. Or, are these impacts attributed more to insufficient manage- ment and oversight by the Service? Response: Most of the situations described in the GAO report are largely due to past activities. Many of the particular refuge lands cited in the report have had oil 

and gas activities for decades, and in some cases, dating back more than 70 years. 

The GAO recognized this in its report. This is not the manifestation of a new problem; instead, it is an issue that has challenged the Service for many years based 

on historical uses of refuge lands and outdated technology. This is not to say that 

there are no problems in the present; however, in general the Service is doing well 

in the management of this longstanding and complex issue, given the Service’s limited resources and competing priorities. 6. In its report, the GAO recommended that the Department of the Interior determine what level of staffing is necessary to adequately oversee oil 

and gas activities. In its comments, the Department questioned whether hiring additional staff was the most cost-effective solution to this issue. 

a. Is the Department taking any steps to determine its staffing needs to address this deficiency? b. What other options might the Department pursue in lieu of hir- ing additional Federal personnel? Response: An expected outcome of assembling a Service team to assess data col- lection and management on refuges (see response to Q. 4) is a clearer picture of the 

staffing needs required for overseeing refuge oil and gas activities. In addition, the 

Service is developing a handbook and training to address the management of oil and 

gas activities on refuge lands, which should make the field managers more proficient. We are also looking at the possibility of seeking authority to use damage 

fees System-wide to hire contract staff to monitor refuge oil and gas operations and 

ensure mitigation actions. In addition, in lieu of additional staff, increased training 

and more accessible data and information may be options the Department pursues. 7. On a related note, the GAO reported that the Fish and Wildlife Service 

is developing draft internal guidance to educate refuge staff regarding the 

Service’s authority to require oil and gas operators to obtain permits. 

It is my understanding, however, that this guidance had not been approved by the political leadership within the Department. 

a. What is the status of this guidance? 

Response: The Service plans to have a draft of the handbook prepared by April 

2004. We anticipate extensive review of the handbook within the Department, with 

expected completion of the final handbook in December 2004. 

8. It is my understanding that the Department of the Interior agreed with 

GAO that the Fish and Wildlife Service should improve its acquisition policy and guidance to prevent the Federal government from acquiring contaminated property and assuming associated cleanup costs. 

The GAO also reported that numerous wells and pipelines are located 

adjacent to refuge property, in some cases on property designated for future acquisition by FWS. 

a. What steps does the Department plan on taking to address this 

issue and what is the time line for those actions? 

Response: There has been clear policy issued by both the Department (Real Property Pre-acquisition Environmental Site Assessment, DM Part 602, Chapter 2) and 

the Service (Pre-acquisition Environmental Site Assessments, 341 FW 3). It is the 

Service’s policy to ‘‘minimize the potential liability’’ and ‘‘identify potential hazardous substance-related threats to fish and wildlife and their habitats and other 

environmental problems prior to real property acquisition’’ (341 FW 3.3). The training course ‘‘Land Environmental Site Assessment-Level I Procedures’’ emphasizes 

that identifying potential hazardous substance-related threats includes an evaluation of potential watershed, airshed, and subsurface contaminants that might affect 

natural resources. Although the existing policies are sound, they can be further 

30

improved. Therefore, the Service will review and, where necessary, revise its Environmental Site Assessment policy. Due to the extensive internal and external reviews that are required for policies, we anticipate that the final revision will be completed early in 2005. In the interim, the Service will issue a Director’s Order reaffirming the importance of conducting thorough Environmental Site Assessments 

for all sites, including properties with oil and gas activities. 

9. The recent GAO Report is not the first study to conclude that oil and 

gas activity is causing damage to National Wildlife Refuges. Previous reports dating back two decades from the GAO, the Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Department of the Interior, and various federally appointed ‘‘blue ribbon’’ 

committees also found problems associated with oil and gas activities in or 

near refuges. 

Yet, it appears from reviewing the recent GAO report that the Fish and 

Wildlife Service still has not taken this problem seriously. There is still 

confusion about the extent of the agency’s authority to regulate oil and gas 

activity on refuges. There is still inadequate oversight of these activities. 

There remains great inconsistency between refuges in the response to 

spills and other problems. No national policy on collecting fees from operators to cover potential damages. Too little training of agency personnel to 

handle issues associated with oil and gas on refuges. 

GAO states, ‘‘The overall environmental effects of oil and gas activities 

on refuges’ resources are unknown because FWS has conducted few cumulative assessments and has no comprehensive data.’’

a. Where has the Interior Department been for the last 20 years? 

b. Why has the Department not taken this problem seriously and 

acted on earlier recommendations? 

Response: We take seriously the recommendations contained in the GAO report, 

and will continue to work to address all of the challenges that our managers and 

our refuge resources face. However, oil and gas exploration is a management issue 

that only a comparatively small number of refuge managers must consider when 

compared to all of the operational needs across the entire National Wildlife Refuge 

System. The President has requested substantial increases in funding in recent 

years to address priority operational needs on our refuges. At the same time, we 

are addressing other very real threats across the entire Refuge System. For example, the damage caused by invasive species affects refuges from the State of Alaska 

to the Caribbean Sea. Invasive species have caused significant declines of protected 

species and degraded millions of acres of refuge lands, waters, and wetlands. 

Invasives are but one example. The Service must balance numerous threats to the 

refuge system beyond just oil and gas activities with the resources available to the 

agency. 

10. The GAO states that both the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service have adopted regulations that require mineral rights owners to 

obtain permits before engaging in oil and gas activities on federal lands 

they manage, but surprisingly, that the Fish and Wildlife Service does not. 

GAO concludes Fish and Wildlife Service has ample legal authority to do 

so but has chosen not to act. 

a. Why has not the agency moved to adopt such regulations? 

b. Will the agency in the near future look to initiate a rulemaking 

process to develop such regulations? 

Response: In instances where the Service has the authority to permit oil and gas 

activity, the Service will continue to find ways to strengthen the application of that 

authority consistent with both state and federal law. Where the Service does not 

have that authority, options will be explored and coordinated with applicable state 

and federal regulators. Finally, the Service will continue to work with owners of private mineral rights underlying refuges to enhance ongoing efforts to build partnerships and minimize the adverse impacts of these activities on fish and wildlife resources. 

11. Can you please detail for me how many enforcement actions the Interior Department has taken against oil and gas activities that have harmed 

fish, wildlife, and habitats on National Wildlife Refuges? 

a. How many of these actions have resulted in financial settlements, and of these settlements, what has been the total award 

to the Federal Government? 

b. By what procedures has the Fish and Wildlife Service retained 

and spent these recovered funds? 

c. How many acres of refuge habitat have been restored through 

these actions? 

31

Response: This information is unavailable at this time as the Service does not 

maintain a central repository for such data. This is a data field expected to be built 

as the database on refuge oil and gas activities is developed (see response to question number 4). In addition, the information referenced in our response to question 

number 4 will be included in the Department’s formal response to the GAO report. 

12. The GAO pointed out that in the past, when the Fish and Wildlife 

Service purchased new refuge lands it often did so without purchasing the 

subsurface minerals, and in those cases, it often did not insist on restrictions on surface activities related to accessing these minerals. a. Does Fish and Wildlife Service continue to purchase new refuge lands without subsurface ownership? 

b. If so, in these cases does the agency insist on restrictions on sur- face operations as part of the deed? If not, why not? Response: The Service does, at times, acquire new refuge lands without sub- surface ownership. Various factors can contribute to such an acquisition. For example, the subsurface rights may not be available, or the cost of the subsurface rights 

might be prohibitive. Where applicable, the Service does include reasonable restrictions on surface operations in the deed; however, in the case of currently outstanding mineral rights, the Service lacks the authority to impose deed restrictions. 13. If the Administration is so convinced that oil and gas drilling can be done in an environmentally friendly way on national wildlife refuges, why 

does it insist on essentially exempting these activities from the compatibility test required under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act? 

Response: We do not exempt activities from the compatibility requirement. The 

compatibility test of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act is a 

legal standard for determining whether an activity under the control of the Service 

may be allowed within a National Wildlife Refuge. 

Generally speaking, the purposes of individual refuges, as well as the System, are 

wildlife conservation. Oil and gas activities are generally not compatible with those 

purposes, which is why the Administration has not sought to open refuges generally 

to leasing of Federal oil and gas resources as it seeks to increase domestic production. As noted in my testimony, current oil and gas activities on National Wildlife 

Refuges are either cases where Federal resources were leased prior to the compatibility standard being enacted, private retained rights to which the compatibility 

standard is not applicable, or cases where Federal resources are being drained from 

adjacent private lands in which case development occurs under federal lease and 

permit requirements and regulations, including conditions to ensure habitat protection, if there is no other way to protect the Federal economic interest in those assets. 

The situation at the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is different, however. There 

the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) required analysis 

and recommendations from the Department of the Interior on whether a small portion of the refuge should be opened to oil and gas leasing. This was action taken 

by Congress in 1980. Congress also reserved to itself the right to decide whether 

the leasing would occur. 

If Congress were to decide to open that portion of the refuge to oil and gas activities, there would be no need for a compatibility determination. Such a decision 

would be made in legislation signed into law. 

I would also point out that if the Administration’s proposal for leasing at the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge were enacted, it would have the most stringent environmental standards ever applied to oil and gas activities. It is these environmental 

standards that would protect the Refuge’s fish and wildlife resources for the duration of whatever activities were to occur. 

Response to questions from The Honorable Edward Markey 

Pursuant to 31 USC 720, and Departmental Policy, the Department of the 

Interior is in the process of developing a formal response to GAO’s report 

which should provide a more detailed look at how it plans to address 

GAO’s recommendations. We will gladly provide all Members of the Subcommittee with a copy of that response as soon as it is available. 

1. According to GAO report, the Fish and Wildlife Service has only spent 

$380 thousand from 1991 to 2002 on cleanup of 14 sites, with a further $100 

thousand planned for 2003 to clean up 3 sites (p. 29). On the same page, it 

also notes that the Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge alone has an estimated cost of cleanup of $1.1 million, which is currently deferred until 

Fiscal Year 2009. This suggests that there is a significant need for financial 

resources to support clean up activities. 

32

How many of the 4,000 wells on refuges have known owners or respon- sible parties? What federal and state guarantees are in place to ensure 

proper clean up, both funding mechanisms, like bonding, and reclamation 

standards? 

The estimated clean up cost at Anahuac Refuge is very troubling. What are the details of that site? Why isn’t the polluter paying? How many more 

sites are estimated to cost over a million dollars to clean up? 

Response: The Service does not maintain a central repository for information on all the owners and responsible parties for oil and gas wells on refuges. This data 

field will be built as part of a national database of refuge oil and gas activities that 

is being developed. However, due to many wells being drilled prior to establishment 

of some of our refuges, multiple ownership changes, bankruptcies, or abandonments, 

clarifying ownership and identifying responsible parties often proves difficult. Enforcement for clean up and restoration is often through existing Federal authorities, 

including the Clean Water Act, the Oil Pollution Act, and the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act, as well as through State law and regulatory compliance. Where 

feasible, the Office of the Solicitor seeks payment for cleanup from a responsible 

party. However, where there is no identifiable responsible party, the Service must 

assume the cost of cleanup, which is why funding for those activities is limited. This is the case at Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) where old oil and gas production facilities and wells were in place prior to refuge establishment. The 

wells and operators at Anahuac NWR have changed hands from major production 

companies to many individual small operators who are incapable of completing the 

necessary restoration. When many of the oil fields were established there was little 

Federal regulatory authority in effect. Current State law allows facilities to remain 

in place until the entire field is no longer in production. The refuge is working with 

each operator to restore individual sites as production shuts down. However, due to 

the importance of the area to wintering waterfowl, benefits could be accrued to wildlife on a larger scale should a more immediate and widespread clean up effort take 

place that restored the functions of whole wetland ecosystems. 2. The Department of Interior had a panel review financial assurances of 

mineral extraction on public lands. Apparently, their report is now with 

Secretary Norton. What have they concluded about bonding for oil and gas 

activities on wildlife refuges? When will Congress be able to review their 

final report? 

Response: The Department is in the process of reviewing financial assurances of mineral extraction on public lands. The focus is primarily on Department lands with 

federally-owned mineral rights, and will have limited reference to bonding for oil 

and gas activities on wildlife refuges. 3. The GAO states that both the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service have adopted regulations that require mineral rights owners to 

obtain permits before engaging in oil and gas activities on federal lands 

they manage, but that the Fish and Wildlife Service does not. GAO concludes Fish and Wildlife Service has ample legal authority to do so but has 

not. Why hasn’t the agency moved to adopt such regulations? Will it in the 

future? 

Response: In instances where the Service has the authority, the Service will continue to find ways to strengthen the application of that authority consistent with 

both state and federal law. Where the Service does not have that authority, options 

will be explored and coordinated with applicable state and federal regulators. Finally, the Service will continue to work with owners of private mineral rights underlying refuges to enhance ongoing efforts to build partnerships and minimize the adverse impacts of these activities on fish and wildlife resources. 

4. How many enforcement actions has the Interior Department taken 

against oil and gas activities that have harmed fish, wildlife, and habitats 

on national wildlife refuges? 

Response: This information is unavailable at this time as the Service does not 

maintain a central repository for such data. This is a data field expected to be created as the database on refuge oil and gas activities is developed in the future. The 

Service will assemble a team to identify the specific types of oil and gas related information that the Service should gather and to develop the associated data gathering protocols and data management systems. The team will establish a framework 

to ensure that such systems are developed, function properly and are populated with 

valid information. 

5. GAO pointed out that in the past, when Fish and Wildlife Service purchased new refuge lands it often did so without purchasing the subsurface 

minerals and in those cases, it often did not insist on restrictions on surface activities related to accessing these minerals. Does Fish and Wildlife 

33

Service continue to purchase new refuge lands without subsurface ownership? If so, in these cases does the agency insist on restrictions on surface 

operations as part of the deed? If not, why not? Response: The Service does, at times, acquire new refuge lands without sub- surface ownership. Various factors can contribute to make such an acquisition. For 

example, the subsurface rights may not be available, or the cost of the subsurface 

rights might be prohibitive. Where applicable, the Service does include reasonable 

restrictions on surface operations in the deed; however, in the case of currently outstanding mineral rights, the Service lacks the authority to impose deed restrictions. 6. If the Administration is convinced that oil and gas drilling can be done in an environmentally friendly way on national wildlife refuges, why does 

it insist on exempting the activity from the compatibility test of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act? Response: We do not exempt activities from the compatibility requirement. The compatibility test of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act is a 

legal standard for determining whether an activity under the control of the Service 

may be allowed within a National Wildlife Refuge. Generally speaking, the purposes of individual refuges, as well as the System, are wildlife conservation. Oil and gas activities are generally not compatible with those 

purposes, which is why the Administration has not sought to open refuges generally 

to leasing of Federal oil and gas resources as it seeks to increase domestic production. As noted in my testimony, current oil and gas activities on National Wildlife 

Refuges are either cases where Federal resources were leased prior to the compatibility standard being enacted, private retained rights to which the compatibility 

standard is not applicable, or cases where Federal resources are being drained from 

adjacent private lands in which case development occurs under federal lease and 

permit requirements and regulations, including conditions to ensure habitat protection, if there is no other way to protect the Federal economic interest in those assets. 

The situation at the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is different, however. There the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) required analysis 

and recommendations from the Department of the Interior on whether a small portion of the refuge should be opened to oil and gas leasing. This was action taken 

by Congress in 1980. Congress also reserved to itself the right to decide whether 

the leasing would occur. If Congress were to decide to open that portion of the refuge to oil and gas activi- ties, there would be no need for a compatibility determination. Such a decision 

would be made in legislation signed into law. I would also point out that if the Administration’s proposal for leasing at the Arc- tic National Wildlife Refuge were enacted, it would have the most stringent environmental standards ever applied to oil and gas activities. It is these environmental 

standards that would protect the Refuge’s fish and wildlife resources for the duration of whatever activities were to occur. 

7. Under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, each 

national wildlife refuge must periodically prepare a Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Among other things, the Act requires each plan to ‘‘identify 

and describe significant problems that may adversely affect the populations and habitats of fish, wildlife, and plants and the actions necessary 

to correct or mitigate the problems.’’

a. Does Fish and Wildlife Service guidance on planning require 

that spills, habitat removal, and other impacts from oil and gas 

activity be identified in refuge plans? 

b. Does Fish and Wildlife Service planning guidance suggest actions to correct or mitigate such problems, such as requiring 

permits with stipulations or acquisition of mineral rights? 

c. Have any Comprehensive Conservation Plans been completed for 

refuges with oil and gas activity? 

d. If so, have they identified oil and gas as problems and identified 

actions to correct or mitigate the problems? 

e. Have any refuges identified purchase of mineral rights as an action to correct or mitigate the problem? 

Response: In conducting refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs), all 

refuge uses are identified and evaluated. Management authorities are delineated in 

areas of mineral ownership, easements, joint management agreements, overlay 

refuges and other cross jurisdictional responsibilities. To date, 22 of the 150 refuges 

cited by the GAO as having oil and gas activity have completed their CCP. A CCP 

for a refuge, however, does not usually designate specific mitigative measures for 

oil and gas activities since corrective measures are usually tailored to individual 

34

disturbance actions. Guidance for managing oil and gas activities is found in the 

Service manual chapters: Minerals and Mining (612 FW 1); and, Oil and Gas (612 

FW 2). Further clarification of existing authority will be provided to Service land 

managers through training and development of a handbook on refuge oil and gas 

management during the next year. The acquisition of minerals has been identified at some refuges for long-term sur- face protection on or adjacent to the refuge. Proposed mineral rights acquisition may 

or may not be part of the CCP process. 8. Figure 5 of the GAO report ‘‘shows an ongoing clean up of a relatively small oil spill that occurred at Delta NWR in 2002.’’ Can the Fish and Wildlife Service provide the following information about this specific spill and 

cleanup effort: 

The type and amount of the spill, 

The spill response time (Did response start within 1 hour, 1 day or one week?), 

The duration of the spill, and 

What type of FWS oversight was provided to ensure proper clean 

up? 

Response: The crude oil spill at Delta NWR was estimated to be less than 40 gal- lons. The response time was immediate, as the spill occurred when production was 

started again after shutdown of the field during two hurricane events in Fall 2002. 

Workers were present when a new pump motor malfunctioned, spilling crude oil 

within the ring levee at the storage facility. The clean-up required several weeks 

to skim and mop up the oil from the accumulated flood waters within the ring levee. 

The refuge had staff on-site to assess and monitor clean-up actions. 

Mr. GILCHREST. I also ask unanimous consent that Mr. Markey may sit on the dais for the rest of this hearing. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

Welcome, Ed. The Irishman from Massachusetts. 

First of all, I want to thank you all for coming here to testify, in what we would like to begin to gather from this hearing and future discussions that we have. 

Is there any authority that Fish and Wildlife needs that it does not have now to specifically deal with the full range of oil and gas 

and mineral extraction activities on Federal refuges, whether it’s 

an enhanced legislative statute that deals with reserved rights, 

that deals with outstanding rights, that deals with similarities that 

the Park Service or the Forest Service has with oil and gas extraction that the Fish and Wildlife Service doesn’t have the authority 

to do, that you can do in a regulatory way, or you may need to have 

some legislation? 

When we reviewed the GAO report, there were places around the 

country that seemed to do extraordinarily well with managing oil 

and gas activities. And when we looked at why they did it so well, 

it was because they paid attention to it. There were staff on the 

Refuge System that knew about these kinds of things, and they 

worked well with those companies that were mining on those 

refuges. But in areas where there was limited staff or no staff, 

there seemed to be very little understanding as to what activities 

were actually going on. 

So that’s the crux of this hearing. We want to make sure that 

on every refuge there is a staff person, whether dedicated to that 

particular operation, or as part of his role, he will understand 

where all of the oil and activities are and what the permitting procedures are, and how they interact with all the other Federal regulations, not the least of which is the Clean Water Act. 

But this one short paragraph I would just like to read and then 

ask Mr. Smith to respond. This is from the GAO report, page 32: 

35

‘‘The refuges we examined varied in the extent to which they 

identified risks, adopted procedures to minimize those risks, and 

monitored oil and gas activities. First, some refuge staff did not 

have complete information on the extent of oil and gas activities occurring on their refuges. For example, at Deep Fork National Wildlife Refuge—Deep Fork is in Oklahoma—refuge staff estimated 

that there were 600 or more abandoned wells but knew the location 

of very few of these wells. Further, as noted earlier, only 67 of the 

155 refuges with oil and gas activities and 10 of the 16 refuges we 

visited had completed the Containment Assessment Program, or 

CAP studies, identifying the possible sources and types of contamination on the refuges.’’

‘‘In contrast, the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge staff had detailed information on oil and gas wells and activities on the refuge, 

had completed an exhaustive CAP study, and was completing an 

Environmental Impact Statement on the effects of oil and gas activities.’’

If you could respond to that rather significant difference in Fish 

and Wildlife’s understanding of the activities, comparing Alaska to 

Oklahoma, and what we can do as a Congress to assist you in the 

process to ensure that there is good management on all our 

refuges. 

Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. A few observations, Mr. Chairman. 

At this time, we are not contemplating, nor are we seeking, any 

additional regulatory authority. I think the GAO audit and report 

offer some good insights and suggestions. I think it makes the observation that many of these issues that our refuge managers face 

are largely historic and a lot of them were either existing when the 

refuge lands were purchased, or date back as many as 70 years 

into the past. 

One of the things that we’re working on—I think the last time 

the Fish and Wildlife Service held a meeting, or a workshop, on the 

issue of oil and gas on refuges was as far back as 1991, during 

President Bush 41’s tenure. What——

Mr. GILCHREST. Would you say, however, that there are some 

areas where Fish and Wildlife works well to understand the containment problems, and in other areas they are lacking—Is it because Fish and Wildlife is lacking in sufficient funds, lacking in a 

training program, lacking in staff to deal with these issues? 

Because when I read through this report, it was basically replete 

with certain places doing an extraordinarily good job—whether it 

was Pennsylvania or some places in Louisiana, or Texas, or California, or Alaska—but there were other areas—Some refuges in 

some States do really well, and some refuges in the same States 

don’t do very well at all. 

Mr. SMITH. I think that’s a good point. I think the men and 

women of the Refuge System, the managers, on-the-ground people, 

I am particular proud of them. I think they do more with less funds 

and less resources than just about any other land management 

agency. I think that is pride in the system and pride in our personnel. 

One of the things we are developing is some guidance and a 

workbook that can be provided to our refuge managers to help 

36

them with technical assistance in addressing oil and gas refuges. 

One of the things we can do better is, where there is unevenness 

from refuge to refuge, in both dealing with and working with oil 

and gas operators on refuges, I think we can build in some consistency. 

There are refuge managers out there who have more experience, 

who are more sophisticated, who are used to drilling—used to 

working voluntarily with oil and gas operators sometimes, and 

sometimes, if they have reserved mineral rights, working under a 

permit structure. 

There are some refuge managers who are newer to the issue, 

who could benefit—who will, I think, benefit from a more comprehensive approach through the draft guidance document we are 

working on internally, and also through some of the training programs we are in the process of designing with the help of the 

National Conservation Training Center. 

Mr. GILCHREST. I asked Ambassador Bremmer yesterday what 

was the time frame for U.S. soldiers to rotate back to the States 

and be replaced by Iraqi soldiers. He basically gave me a time 

frame. 

So is there some type of time frame you have for this training 

program to be completed so that all refuges, where there is oil and 

gas activity, the staff will have an environmental and a legal understanding of what their responsibilities are? 

Mr. SMITH. I’m going to turn to Mr. Hartwig here to help me out 

with the exact timing, since he and his staff been working most 

diligently on this. 

Mr. HARTWIG. Mr. Chairman, I believe we can do such a training 

program, at least get the design done and have it ready for implementing, as well as the start of a booklet to be able to guide activities for new refuge managers, within about a 6-month time period. 

Mr. GILCHREST. I see. Thank you. 

We will probably have another round or two. My time is up, so 

I will yield now to Mr. Tauzin. 

Mr. TAUZIN. Go ahead. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Markey. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Hill, you have recommended that Congress ensure that the 

Fish and Wildlife Service has legal authority to issue permits to 

consistently regulate and oversee oil and gas operations on wildlife 

refuges. My impression is that refuge managers, one, are understaffed, two, are confused about their authority, and three, do not 

feel it is their job to regulate oil and gas activities. 

If these three assumptions are correct, is it a matter of simply 

clarifying authority, or must we place a higher priority on the 

amount of resources allocated to this purpose? 

Mr. HILL. I think it’s a little bit of everything that you mentioned. Right now, there are varying interpretations and understandings of just what the authorities are out at the Refuge System. It’s clear in terms of the reserve rights, that if the deed specifies the Fish and Wildlife Service has some authority to issue permits, that they can do that. If the deed is not specified, they do not 

have authority to do that. 

37

With regard to the outstanding permits, the Department has not 

taken a position on that. I think there is a lot of confusion out at 

the refuges as to whether they have authority to exercise permitting on outstanding rights or not. 

Getting beyond that, there is inconsistency in the way this whole 

thing is being implemented, in terms of there are not a lot of resources, not a lot of expertise, there has not been a lot of training. 

It is an awesome task to go through and identify the extent of activities that are on these refuges. 

To just let you know where the Department is right now, about 

2 years ago we asked Fish and Wildlife to identify how many 

refuges had oil and gas operations. They were only able to come up 

with 77 of the refuges. That’s less than half of what we are reporting now. So they really are behind the 8-ball on this, in terms of 

identifying the types of activities that are going on out there. Once 

they have identified these activities, then they have got to go 

through those deeds and determine whether or not there is reserve 

rights, outstanding rights, whether the deeds contain some type of 

language that would allow them to permit. So it’s going to be a big 

job, and it will take some concerted effort and some priority on 

their part and resources to do it. 

Mr. MARKEY. Well, that’s a blistering, scalding assessment actually. 

According to the GAO report, the staff at the Sabine National 

Wildlife Refuge drafted, in conjunction with headquarters staff, 

more detailed national guidance on managing and overseeing oil 

and gas activities. But the Fish and Wildlife Service has not approved this draft guidance. 

Mr. Smith, why has this guidance not been approved? 

Mr. SMITH. I’m not sure. Who did you say drafted this? 

Mr. MARKEY. The GAO. It’s inside this report, the Sabine 

National Wildlife Refuge. 

Mr. SMITH. I’m a little confused, as far as which draft——

Mr. MARKEY. On page 38 of the report, if you could turn to that. 

The staff at the refuge drafted, in conjunction with headquarters 

staff, more detailed national guidance on managing and overseeing 

oil and gas activities, but Fish and Wildlife has not approved this 

draft guidance. 

Mr. SMITH. OK. Now I’m square. 

Chris Pease, who is the refuge manager at Sabine, actually has 

been brought into the headquarters in D.C. He has been working 

with us and he is one of the players who is actually working on 

developing a national policy guidance and national reference manual for refuge managers. So I have no doubt that a lot of this guidance that was developed during his tenure at Sabine will be incorporated into a lot of the policy guidance manuals that will be provided to refuge managers, as well as the training. 

Mr. MARKEY. When will that be completed? When will the 

national guidance on management and oversight of oil and gas activities in wildlife refuges be——

Mr. SMITH. We plan to have a draft ready to go within 6 months. 

Mr. MARKEY. Six months. How long have you been working on 

it? 

38

Mr. SMITH. Well, we have been working on this for several 

months already. We have some of those draft ideas put together. 

But we need to get those ideas surfaced within the different regions and States that we’re working with. We certainly want to 

have those ideas run past the folks in the industry that we work 

with hand in hand as well, to make sure we understand their activities and they understand our responsibilities, and we come up 

with a good understanding of both. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Smith, you don’t believe that Fish and Wildlife 

needs more authority to apply any new guidance to all refuges with 

oil and gas activities? 

Mr. SMITH. At this time, I don’t think we need any more, and 

we’re not seeking any additional regulatory authority from Congress. I think, right now, with regulatory authority, we have, by 

virtue of reserve oil and gas rights, combined with the commitment 

of our folks to work closely with industry, on a voluntary basis. I 

think right now we have the resources that we need to try to move 

forward. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Markey. 

Mr. Tauzin. 

Mr. TAUZIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me say to my friend from Massachusetts, I know he has an 

enormous interest in how well we do in oil and gas production in 

Louisiana because his State consumes 65 times the energy it produces, according to the latest EIA statistics, while in Louisiana we 

produce twice as much as we consume. A great deal of our resources from these National Wildlife Reserves end up in his State, 

to the benefit of his consumers. 

I might add, by the way, that while Louisiana doesn’t exact a 

tax, because we are not permitted to from Federal lands, the State 

of Massachusetts also enjoys enormous tax resources from those 

natural gas and oil products that flow into Massachusetts. I know 

he has a great interest in making sure we continue that process, 

but to do it right. 

Mr. MARKEY. Can I say, Mr. Chairman, that——

Mr. TAUZIN. I would be happy to yield to my friend. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Massachusetts produces 65 times the computers that Louisiana 

does, but yet, we feel that you have a role as the Chairman over 

telecommunications to have an opinion on how the computer and 

telecommunications——

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank my friend. I report to him that we’re 49th 

in consumer use, and Massachusetts is not 49th in energy use, I’ll 

tell you that. 

Let me also point out, as I pointed out before you got here, Mr. 

Markey, that in the year 2000 Senator Breaux and I, representing 

many of these refuges in our State, actually provided the money to 

not only manage Sabine and other resources better, but actually to 

make sure that money was provided to cover any mitigation of any 

potential spills or damages. That hasn’t been done elsewhere in 

this country. 

I might also point out that the entire debate in the 104th and 

105th Congress, when the organic statute was passed for the 

39

National Wildlife Refuge System, not a single amendment was offered by anyone, on this panel or otherwise, dealing with oil and 

gas activities. In fact, you received a lot of comments on this report, 

did you not? Any one of you. 

Mr. HILL. We did receive comments from the Department of Interior, yes, we did. 

Mr. TAUZIN. You did get commenters before you issued this report. I’m reading a lot of statements of a lot of different commenters, right? 

Mr. HILL. Our normal process would be to exist with people at 

the refuges, the local officials that we have interviewed, and——

Mr. TAUZIN. I’m looking at an Interior document on the compatibility. That kind of a process did require the solicitation of comments, did it not? 

Mr. SMITH. Correct. That was a public notice and comment process in the development of the compatibility——

Mr. TAUZIN. And you get a lot of comments on those, don’t you? 

Mr. SMITH. We got a huge number of comments. 

Mr. TAUZIN. A huge numbers of comments. I’m going to quote 

from that report. On page 62462. Three commenters—three—suggested that the definition of ‘‘activities’’, economic activities, not include oil and gas leasing. Three, out of all this huge volume of comments you got. To call this some sort of a blistering assessment of 

how awful things are is a little strong, Mr. Markey. 

Let me also point out—I think you made the case, but I’m not 

sure it’s well understood in common-law States. But in Louisiana, 

where most of this activity occurs—I think it’s a little different in 

Texas, but in Louisiana there is a separate regime for surface 

rights and oil and gas rights, is that not correct? 

Mr. SMITH. That is absolutely correct. 

Mr. TAUZIN. In fact, the ownership of the underground rights, 

the oil and gas mineral rights, when exercised, can continue—as 

long as exercised, can continue for as long as there is activity and 

production in Louisiana law, is that not correct? 

Mr. SMITH. That’s my understanding, at least——

Mr. TAUZIN. No matter what you might want to do in the management of the rules, you might want to prescribe in your agency, 

there are legal rights to the owners of those resources that you 

simply can’t trample, is that correct? 

Mr. SMITH. That’s correct. 

Mr. TAUZIN. So really, the question of whether or not your agents 

in these reserves would like to regulate those activities, very often 

their ability to lease or control the leasing and exploration from the 

standpoint of permitting is simply governed by State law dealing 

with the oil and gas and mineral rights owned by the previous 

owner before surface title was passed to the U.S. Government, is 

that correct? 

Mr. SMITH. That’s correct, in the case of nonreserve oil and gas, 

absolutely. 

Mr. TAUZIN. Right. What you can do, however, is to organize and 

manage those activities. That’s what you were talking about, working with the industries who do produce these resources for the 

owners of them, to manage them in a way that you obviously 

40

prevent any damage or activities that would harm the surface environments of those reserves, is that correct? 

Mr. SMITH. That’s correct. 

Mr. TAUZIN. Now, I want to point out and ask you a question. 

In 1991, during the previous first Bush Administration, there was 

training and workshops on managing private oil and gas operations 

in refuges, is that correct, in 1991? 

Mr. SMITH. That’s correct. 

Mr. TAUZIN. And now, under this Bush Administration, you’re actually developing a handbook, classroom training for managers on 

this subject, and you are moving forward with new national guidelines to your managers, is that correct? 

Mr. SMITH. That is correct. 

Mr. TAUZIN. Was anything done during the 8 years intervening, 

the Clinton years? 

Mr. SMITH. Not to my knowledge. We will——

Mr. TAUZIN. I don’t think so, either. So here’s the record. The 

record is that during the first Bush Administration good attention 

was paid to this, and during this Administration, you’re paying a 

lot more attention to it. 

In the last several years, those of us who represent the great 

State of Louisiana, that produces these resources from our lands 

and water bottoms for the benefit of people who live in other great 

States of our Nation, we saw to it that legislation was adopted to 

help provide the money to do this. But nowhere else in the record 

is there any effort, in the statutes that were adopted to create the 

management systems for our wildlife refuges, nowhere else has 

there been an effort, by anyone else, to amend the statutes or to 

restrict or to give you guidance in this area. 

On the contrary, on the contrary, those of us who live in the 

State where most of this is occurring, who have been paying the 

most attention to it, in Texas and Louisiana where most of it occurs—and I have to throw in Alaska—have been the most active 

in making sure that our States have policies that protect the land 

and the water and the resources on those refuges. 

Do you know why? Because it’s our land. It’s our homes. It happens there is Federal land located in our States. They are the land 

and water bottoms that are so precious to us in Louisiana. That’s 

why, Mr. Markey. We have cared very carefully about it, while others have not. 

So while I appreciate all the new interest and concern that you 

and others share in it—and I hope you will join us in helping to 

maintain those reserves—I hope in the process, as I said before you 

got here, I hope in the learning curve process you come to learn, 

as we have, that you can compatibly engineer plans and processes 

that allow the compatible uses of these lands for these purposes, 

under the legal rights of the owners of these resources, and at the 

same time produce valuable resources for our country and protect 

the natural wildlife systems in which these activities occur, in such 

a way that 1 day you might even agree that it could occur in that 

little tiny, less than on one-hundredth of a percent of the Alaskan 

National Wildlife Reserve that was dedicated to these multiple 

uses. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

41

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Tauzin. 

Mr. Smith, you said that within 6 months there will be a handbook, a guidebook, some guidance to refuge managers, to be able 

to deal with I’m assuming the full range of oil and gas activity on 

their refuge, so there will be a clear understanding of end guidance 

as to what their authority is as far as managing those refuges that 

have either ongoing oil and gas activities or where there were oil 

and gas activities and where to locate the wells. So that’s about a 

6-month time frame, the guidance. 

I’m assuming that if we hold a hearing, or when we hold a hearing in April, that we will sit here and have a copy of the guidance 

book before us. 

Now, the reason I’m asking and the reason we’re holding this 

hearing is because, if we look at certain places around the country, 

as has already been stated, whether it’s in Sabine, Louisiana, or 

Kenai, Alaska, or other places, the management of those facilities 

is done extremely well because of the individual that is there, and 

that individual’s interest in where all of either the abandoned wells 

are located, where all the oil infrastructure is located, where all the 

spills may have occurred, and where State law and Federal law 

helps to clean up those spills, and it’s done exceedingly well. 

But apparently, in the GAO report there is other places where 

it’s not done very well at all, where the abandoned oil wells are not 

known. They’re not known if they’re on the refuge, not known if 

theywere on the refuge, where they’re located, the infrastructure is 

not known, the abandoned oil tanks are not known. So some places 

do very well and some places do very poorly. 

This is the crux, the ability to balance the refuge as far as the 

integrity of the ecosystem is concerned with mineral extraction. 

Some places do it well, some places don’t do it so well. 

Mr. TAUZIN. Would my friend yield? 

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Tauzin. 

Mr. TAUZIN. Just a quick comment. It’s interesting. We want to 

know everything we can about those abandoned wells, but some of 

you are opposed to any kind of national inventory of what is available in this country in the Energy bill. But if you would yield to 

me for a second, I would like to ask a technical question. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Sure. 

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Hill, the GAO report on page 14 states that 24.5 

trillion cubic feet were produced domestically onshore in 2001——

Mr. GILCHREST. What page was that on? 

Mr. TAUZIN. On page 14. And then you use that figure to calculate that only four-tenths of 1 percent of gas comes from Wildlife 

Refuges. But, in fact, according to the EIA, we consume only 23 

TCF domestically, with about 15 percent of that coming from Canada and about 5 TCF coming from the offshore. 

My understanding is that that’s a technical error in the report. 

If it is, if you disagree with it, might we have a discussion on that 

at some point and make sure the report is accurate in this record? 

It seems to conflict with the EIA numbers is what I’m saying. 

Mr. AUSSENDORF. The figure in this report is based on 2001, and 

it was from an Energy Information Agency document. I can send 

you that document. 

42

Mr. TAUZIN. I wish you would, because our information is to the 

contrary. We have different figures. If you’re correct, fine. But if 

you’re not, obviously we would like to correct that. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. GILCHREST. The other part, Mr. Smith, and maybe Mr. Hill 

can make a recommendation and Mr. Smith can state whether this 

would be in some type of guidance book or whether or not it actually needs to be dealt with. That is the apparent confusion between 

reserved rights and outstanding rights and what the role of Fish 

and Wildlife is in those two areas. 

Do you need some clarification for the difference in reserved and 

outstanding rights? Do you feel it is already clear at this point so 

no further work needs to be done on it? 

Mr. SMITH. At this time, I think we actually have a very clear 

concept of reserved and our rights under reserved. I think it’s always been the general feel and the general opinion of the Department that, with regard to oil and gas rights owned by third parties, 

which are not reserved, we really don’t have any, under the law, 

any regulatory authority over those. 

As to State law, most States recognize mineral estates as dominate estates and, as such, they have a property right of access and 

development. 

Mr. GILCHREST. So you don’t have a clear understanding of your 

authority over outstanding rights? 

Mr. SMITH. I think the general opinion of the Department has always been, legally, we don’t have the authority to regulate those 

activities by Federal permit. 

Mr. GILCHREST. So you have a clear understanding of outstanding rights right now? 

Mr. SMITH. I think we have a fairly clear understanding, yes. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Would you agree with that, Mr. Hill? 

Mr. HILL. No, I wouldn’t. In fact, during the course of the audit, 

we specifically asked the Interior’s Solicitors Office for an opinion 

on this. The response we got was that the Solicitors Office had not 

made an opinion on this, nor did they plan to make an opinion on 

this. So we think this is something that really needs to be clarified. 

Furthermore, our assessment of that authority shows that, based 

on authorities given to the Park Service and the Forest Service 

under very similar circumstances, we believe they do have such authority. 

Mr. GILCHREST. So you’re saying the Fish and Wildlife Service, 

right now, has the same authority that the Park Service has for 

outstanding rights? 

Mr. HILL. That is our interpretation. But here again, we would 

encourage the Department of Interior to render an opinion on this. 

Mr. GILCHREST. What is the authority? 

Mr. HILL. The authority would allow them to do permitting authority over outstanding mineral right holders. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Smith, right now you feel you have no authority? 

Mr. SMITH. That has generally been, for years and years and 

years, the interpretation of the Department of Interior. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Is that’s the opinion of the Department of Interior, Mr. Hill, you’re saying the Solicitor said he didn’t want to 

render an opinion? 

43

Mr. HILL. We have not seen a formal opinion from the Solicitor’s 

Office. I would encourage the witness, if they have such an opinion, 

to produce it. Because during the course of our audit, they did not 

produce such a document. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Is there such a document, Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. To my knowledge, there has never been a formal Solicitor’s opinion requested because of the general approach and general opinion of the Department. We have always felt like, absent 

that—at least over the past few years, we have felt, absent such 

direct regulatory authority, we have the ability to work with 

States, under State law and under State rules and regulations, and 

to work with oil and gas producers and mineral rights owners on 

a voluntary, cooperative basis to get the same results. 

Mr. GILCHREST. So you don’t see the need to have the same authority that the Park Service has? 

Mr. SMITH. At this time, we don’t see the need. In fact, I think 

we would run afoul of some of the purposes of the National Wildlife 

Refuge protecting habitat because of chilling effects on the ability 

to secure high quality habitat by people who are unwilling to either 

sell their property or by making it prohibitively expensive to secure 

some of that surface habitat. 

Mr. GILCHREST. We will probably ask this question in April 

again, to see where we are, as we review some more of the information ourselves. But that will be one of the questions we will ask, 

along with the guidance book on this process. 

I will yield again to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Smith, I am interested in how generous the 

Administration is being in the case of buying out the mineral rights 

on three refuges in Florida for $120 million. 

What other refuges might be eligible for this method of freeing 

the Fish and Wildlife Service of having to manage oil and gas permits that are incompatible with refuges? 

Mr. SMITH. I’m not aware of us buying out any oil and gas rights 

on any refuges in Florida. The Administration has moved to purchase mineral rights underlying Big Cypress National Preserve, 

which is a unit of the National Park Service in Florida. 

Mr. MARKEY. On May 29th, 2002, the Bush Administration announced that the National Park Service would buy privately held 

mineral rights on three Florida wildlife refuges: the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, Ten Thousand Islands National 

Wildlife Refuge, and Big Cypress National Preserve. 

You’re not familiar with them? 

Mr. SMITH. I am familiar with that. What that is is the National 

Park Service buying out one family’s interest, the Collier family’s 

interest underlying mineral rights in the Big Cypress National Preserve, which is a unit of the Park Service, as well as neighboring 

two, actually neighboring wildlife refuges. 

Mr. MARKEY. How many other refuge areas in the country might 

be eligible for this? 

Mr. SMITH. I think we would have to look at that on a case-bycase basis. I think, in order to buy out all of the mineral interest 

in all the areas in the Refuge System, would cost billions and billions of dollars. One of the things that——

44

Mr. MARKEY. No, I know that. I’m just saying there is a precedent set here. Have you looked at any other place? 

Mr. SMITH. One of the goals in that acquisition was part of the 

Administration’s commitment to the Florida Everglades restoration 

project. 

Mr. MARKEY. Right. And have you looked at any other place in 

the country? 

Mr. SMITH. We are willing to look at those on a case-by-case 

basis, working closely with Congress——

Mr. MARKEY. Is it just a Florida-specific program? Is it Everglades-specific, or are there other refuges that you might look at 

that could benefit from the same—In other words, what is so special about Florida? There’s 49 other States. Why just Florida for 

such a program? 

Mr. SMITH. Congress made a commitment under the comprehensive Everglades restoration program to——

Mr. MARKEY. No, I know that. But we have made a commitment 

to many other places in America as well. I’m just wondering why 

Florida is singled out and the other 49 States are not? 

Mr. SMITH. There was a need, under the Administration’s commitment, to Everglades restoration at the time, to purchase those 

oil and gas rights as part of the whole Everglades restoration plan. 

We certainly are not foreclosing ourselves to buying out any 

other oil and gas rights in any other part of the country. Working 

closely with Congress on priorities, I don’t think, absent working 

closely with Congress and the Appropriations Committee, are able 

to run around the country with a blank check, per se, and——

Mr. MARKEY. I’m not looking for a blank check. I’m just trying 

to figure out what the policy is. 

You’re arguing here that the Administration policy basically was 

that it would be necessary to make this $120 million expenditure 

in order to protect the Everglades. So the conclusion that I think 

is obvious to reach is that there is some danger as a result in having drilling near a refuge. 

So, my question is, what is so special about the Everglades that 

you would spend $120 million in order to protect it against an activity which you don’t believe is benign, you believe this is dangerous activity, and as a result, $120 million is expended. 

Why wouldn’t it be dangerous in other areas as well? Why is it 

dangerous to the Everglades but not dangerous in 49 other States? 

Mr. SMITH. We had a unique situation in the Everglades, where 

Congress has committed a lot of money to the Everglades restoration. 

We also had another very important element there, which was 

willing sellers who were interested and approached us in selling 

out their mineral rights, which in a lot of other places we don’t 

have that necessary part of the puzzle. Those pieces of the puzzle 

came together, and at the time it made a whole lot of sense. 

In other areas, we would be more than happy to work with Congress and the appropriators on areas that are important, where 

there is restoration programs or other programs going on, where 

there are also willing sellers, to explore those, where there are reasonable opportunities for a reasonable price to——

Mr. MARKEY. I understand that. 

45

I guess the point is that, if you offered me $120 million, then I’m 

a willing seller. You offer me $20 million, I’m not a willing seller. 

In Florida, the Bush Administration went as high as it took in 

order to get this job done, in order to protect the Everglades. 

My argument would be that there are many other States that 

have areas that are just as important as the Everglades to those 

States, and to our Nation’s heritage. And yet, there is this huge exception that you’ve carved out for this one area. 

But again, you see, you have made the point. You have made the 

point as to this activity, that this drilling activity is not benign. 

Otherwise, you wouldn’t have spent $120 million. You wouldn’t 

have spent it. 

The precedent has been set in Florida. Either it was based upon 

an actual assessment that the activity is not benign, or it was 

based upon the short-term political needs of the President’s brother, which the President says is absolutely not true. I think he’s an 

honest man on this issue. So that’s the case. 

Then why shouldn’t we be looking at all the other areas in the 

country in the same way, and why don’t you have an inventory of 

all of those places that reflect the same kind of metric that you established in the Everglades? 

Mr. SMITH. A couple of points. One, I think the resource that was 

at issue, front and center, in the Big Cypress acquisition was one 

of park resources. The refuge portions of that I think were really 

incidental to that sale. 

Two, under Federal law, we are required to pay fair market 

value for any property rights that we purchase from even willing 

sellers. So we are unable to entice sellers into becoming willing 

sellers by overpaying it, so to speak. 

Mr. MARKEY. I understand that, although you know that there 

are many people who are questioning whether or not you may have 

overpaid for this in the 2002 election cycle. 

Again, I guess the point that is made so clearly by the Everglades incident is that this property that is a refuge is, in fact, 

something that this Administration, at least in Florida, believes is 

something that should be protected. 

Mr. GILCHREST. We have three votes coming up, so that means 

we probably won’t come back. 

Mr. MARKEY. We will not. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Seven minutes now, which means we’ll be gone 

for half an hour. If you have a number of questions, Mr. Markey 

and want to return——

Mr. MARKEY. Can I have just one final question? 

Mr. GILCHREST. I guess you have 60 seconds. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK, 60 seconds. 

Should we be trying to raise the level of management and oversight on all refuges to the level that Mr. Tauzin mentioned, the 

practices that Mr. Tauzin mentioned in his opening statement? 

Mr. SMITH. One of the things that the States of Louisiana and 

Texas and their delegations did for us a few years ago is allowed, 

as part of Appropriations Committee language, allowed for remediation money collected as a result of refuge damage to stay on those 

refuges and go back toward the remediation of those damages, as 

opposed to going into the general treasury. That has helped a lot. 

46

One of the things we’re trying to do is take a look at what our 

successes have been, and where we have good managers out there 

and good programs, and incorporate them into training materials 

and a guidebook for managers and policy guidance for managers. 

I think the GAO report is something we have taken very seriously. It has been a help to us and in their recommendations. I 

think we have the tools out there, and I think we’re prepared and 

committed toward addressing this challenge as we face——

Mr. MARKEY. Let me just go to Mr. Hill quickly because my time 

is running out. 

Mr. Hill, did your staff find that the practices Mr. Tauzin mentioned in his opening statement to be the exception of the rule on 

the refuges that you visited? 

Mr. HILL. I would say it was inconsistent. It varied from refuge 

to refuge. It really depended upon the attention that the refuge 

managers were paying to the issue. 

Let me caveat all this by saying there are very few staff at these 

refuges. In a lot of instances, there is only two or three people in 

charge of managing tens of thousands of acres. These people are 

dealing with lots of issues, and we really commend the people that 

are running these refuges. They are working hard and they’re very 

dedicated. They are experts in their field. 

It’s just an overwhelming task, what they have to do, and if you 

look at it from that standpoint, yes, there is a lack of resources 

here. More resources, more attention, more guidance, more training, a lot of things are needed if you’re going to address this issue. 

Mr. MARKEY. It sounds like what he was talking about was the 

exception, not the rule. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you so much for having this hearing. I 

thank our witnesses. 

Could I make a motion that the members on our side be allowed 

to submit follow-up questions to the witnesses? 

Mr. GILCHREST. Without objection. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Markey, we will have a hearing in April to 

follow up on some of the recommendations. One of the other things 

we’ll be looking for in that second hearing is to see if we can resolve the differences between, for example, the CAP study in Kenai 

National Wildlife Refuge that listed over 330 known oil spills and 

provided the ability to resolve that contamination, and the difference we’ve been talking about all the way through here in the 

Deep Fork National Wildlife Refuge. The CAP study said there was 

no problem with the 360 wells and some of the spills, even though 

their own comprehensive conservation study recommended that 

they do deal with those oil spills. 

We know all you guys are all working hard. We appreciate the 

GAO report. It gives us a great deal of insight. We appreciate the 

work that you are doing, Mr. Smith, and we look forward to seeing 

you in April. Thank you very much. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:42 a.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.]

[A statement submitted for the record by Jim Waltman, Director 

of Refuges and Wildlife, The Wilderness Society, follows:]

47

Statement of Jim Waltman, Director of Refuges and Wildlife, The Wilderness Society 

The General Accounting Office’s recent report (‘‘National Wildlife Refuges: Oppor- tunities to Improve the Management and Oversight of Oil and Gas Activities on 

Federal Lands’’) confirms the findings of earlier federal reports that oil and gas activity has caused serious damage on many of the national wildlife refuges where it 

has occurred. According to the report, oil and gas activity on national wildlife 

refuges has spilled hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude oil, caused mercury 

and PCB contamination, killed wildlife and thousands of fish, destroyed and fragmented thousands of acres of habitat, produced millions of gallons of brine, and 

caused long-term soil and water contamination. 

The GAO also confirmed earlier reports that found that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service is generally unaware of the extent of oil and gas activity on national wildlife 

refuges and portrayed the agency as poorly informed of the damages oil and gas activity has caused on refuges. According to the report, ‘‘The Fish and Wildlife Service 

has not conducted any assessments of the cumulative environmental effects of oil 

and gas activities on refuge resources.’’

In addition, the report concluded that the agency is unable to consistently regulate oil and gas activities within the National Wildlife Refuge System. According to 

the report, ‘‘refuge managers lack sufficient guidance, resources, and training to 

properly monitor oil and gas operators.’’

The GAO concludes that the Fish and Wildlife Service must improve management 

of oil and gas activities on refuges by collecting better data; improving training, 

oversight and land acquisition practices; and strengthening permitting authority 

through Congressional action. 

The GAO report is not the first study to conclude that oil and gas activity is causing damage to national wildlife refuges or that the Fish and Wildlife Service lacks 

comprehensive information on the location and effects of oil and gas activities in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. Previous federally sponsored reports dating back 

two decades have identified problems associated with oil and gas activities in or 

near refuges. 

Examples of previous reports include: 

Secondary Uses Occurring on National Wildlife Refuges, 1990

According to this report from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 63 percent of all 

refuge managers reported that at least one ‘‘harmful’’ activity occurred on the 

refuges they managed. The report identified 30 wildlife refuges at which the refuge 

manager indicated that oil/gas extraction ‘‘adversely affect[ed] the ability to conserve or manage in accordance with the refuge goals and objectives.’’ Examples included Kern National Wildlife Refuge (California) where the activity caused ‘‘habitat 

destruction, wildlife disturbance, endangered species take threat.’’ According to the 

report, oil and gas activity caused ‘‘surface and habitat impacts and disturbance to 

wildlife including whooping cranes’’ at Aransas NWR (Texas) and ‘‘tremendous vegetative loss, increases erosion, nesting losses during the nesting season’’ at Breton 

NWR (Louisiana). 

Continuing Problems with Incompatible Uses Call for Bold Action, 1989

According to this study from the General Accounting Office, refuge managers reported that at least one harmful use was occurring on 59 percent of the refuges. 

The GAO highlighted gas production at D’Arbonne NWR (Louisiana) as one of 16 

particularly harmful activities in the Refuge System. According to the report ‘‘Salt 

water contamination from gas production continues to erode the habitat’s capability 

to support wildlife.... Natural gas production has destroyed wildlife habitat through 

soil and water contamination by brine.’’

Contaminant Issues of Concern: National Wildlife Refuges, 1986

This report from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified 78 ‘‘contaminant 

issues of concern’’ on 85 refuges. The report determined that at the Kenai Refuge 

(Alaska), ‘‘oil and gas spills from various oil companies have been occurring for approximately 25 years. Also, numerous spills of substances used in oil field production and subsequently discharged into drill mud reserve pits may have affected local 

water supplies. These substances may represent sources of possible chronic and 

acute problems impacting fish and wildlife resources.’’

Economic Uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System Unlikely to Increase 

Significantly, 1984. 

In this General Accounting Office report, ‘‘GAO found that Fish and Wildlife 

Service has very little data on the nature and extent of ongoing oil and gas 

48

operations on wildlife refuges. As a result, FWS cannot assess their impacts or judge 

the likely effects of increased development.’’ The GAO found that ‘‘oil operations 

have sometimes caused serious damage to refuges’’ and that ‘‘the most frequent type 

of damage reported was habitat disturbance.’’ ‘‘At Delta NWR in Louisiana, for example, the refuge is experiencing significant marsh loss and intrusion of salt water 

into fresh water ponds. Canals from oil industry operations have contributed to this 

deterioration.’’

Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Problems, 1983

This report from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified 146 national wildlife 

refuges where oil spills and 97 refuges where oil and gas extraction were ‘‘currently 

causing, or have the potential to cause, significant damage to Fish and Wildlife 

Service-managed natural resources or physical facilities.’’ The findings were based 

on information submitted by refuge managers, wildlife biologists, and other refuge 

employees. 

The new report makes it very clear that the Interior Department and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service have failed to respond adequately to address what they have 

known for decades to be a very real problem. It is unfortunate that the GAO has 

again found significant problems associated with oil and gas activity on national 

wildlife refuges. 

The vast majority of oil and gas activity that occurs on national wildlife refuges 

is related to extraction of private mineral rights that the federal government does 

not own and to which it cannot deny access. However, in its recent report the GAO 

concluded that the Fish and Wildlife Service does have certain authority to regulate 

this use so as to protect refuge wildlife and habitats but is not making use of this 

authority. Unlike the National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service regulations do not require owners of mineral rights to obtain permits 

that contain protective conditions before engaging in oil and gas activities on the 

federal lands that it manages. Congress should take action to affirm the Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s authority to require permits of oil and gas operators—and conditions to protect fish and wildlife—where private parties own and hold rights to develop oil and gas beneath refuge lands. 

Finally, the GAO report provides a preview of the kinds of environmental damage 

that could be expected at the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if Congress authorizes 

oil drilling in that pristine refuge in northeastern Alaska. Congress should take 

careful note of this report and continue to resist proposals to open the Arctic Refuge 

to drilling.

fi