United States General Accounting Office 

GAO Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Fisheries 

Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans, 

Committee on Resources, House of 

Representatives 

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 9:30 a.m. EST 

Thursday, October 30, 2003 	 NATIONAL WILDLIFE 

REFUGES 

Improvement Needed in the 

Management and Oversight 

of Oil and Gas Activities on 

Federal Lands 

Statement of Barry T. Hill, Director 

Natural Resources and Environment 

GAO-04-192T 

Highlights of GAO-04-192T, testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Fisheries 

Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans, 

Committee on Resources, House of 

Representatives 

The 95-million acres in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System are the only 

federal lands primarily devoted to 

the conservation and management 

of fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources. While the federal 

government owns the surface lands 

in the system, in many cases 

private parties own the subsurface 

mineral rights and have the legal 

authority to explore for and extract 

oil and gas. This testimony is 

based on an August 2003 report 

(GAO-03-517) in which GAO 

determined the extent of oil and 

gas activity on refuges, identified 

the environmental effects, and 

assessed the Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s management and 

oversight of those activities. 

GAO's August 2003 report made 

recommendations to improve 

management and oversight of oil 

and gas activities, including having 

the Department of the Interior seek 

from Congress any necessary 

additional authority to ensure 

consistent and reasonable 

management of all oil and gas 

activities on refuges. In 

commenting on the report, the 

department generally did not 

address our recommendations, but 

did raise procedural concerns 

about GAO’s recommendation that 

it seek additional authority from 

Congress. Given these concerns, 

GAO also raised this matter to 

Congress for its consideration. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-192T. 

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Barry T. Hill at 

(202) 512-3841 or hillbt@gao.gov. 

October 30, 2003 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES 

Improvement Needed in the Management 

and Oversight of Oil and Gas Activities 

on Federal Lands 

About one-quarter (155 of 575) of all refuges have past or present oil and gas 

activities, some dating to at least the 1920s. Activities range from 

exploration to drilling and production to pipelines transiting refuge lands. 

One hundred five refuges contain a total of 4,406 oil and gas wells—2,600 

inactive wells and 1,806 active wells. The 1,806 wells, located at 36 refuges, 

many around the Gulf Coast (see figure), produced oil and gas valued at $880 

million during the last 12-month reporting period, roughly 1 percent of 

domestic production. Thirty-five refuges contain only pipelines. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service has not assessed the cumulative environmental 

effects of oil and gas activities on refuges. Available studies, anecdotal 

information, and GAO’s observations show that the environmental effects of 

oil and gas activities vary from negligible, such as effects from buried 

pipelines, to substantial, such as effects from large oil spills or from largescale infrastructure. These effects also vary from the temporary to the 

longer term. Some of the most detrimental effects of oil and gas activities 

have been reduced through environmental laws and improved practices and 

technology. Moreover, oil and gas operators have taken steps, in some cases 

voluntarily, to reverse damages resulting from oil and gas activities. 

Federal management and oversight of oil and gas activities varies widely 

among refuges—some refuges take extensive measures, while others 

exercise little control or enforcement. GAO found that this variation occurs 

because of differences in authority to oversee private mineral rights and 

because refuge managers lack enough guidance, resources, and training to 

properly manage and oversee oil and gas activities. Greater attention to oil 

and gas activities by the Fish and Wildlife Service would increase its 

understanding of associated environmental effects and contribute to more 

consistent use of practices and technologies that protect refuge resources. 

National Wildlife Refuges with Oil and Gas Wells 
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 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 computerbased 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 

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). 

Page 1 GAO-04-192T Oil and Gas Activities on Refuges 
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. 

Page 2 GAO-04-192T Oil and Gas Activities on Refuges 
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 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 

2

U.S. General Accounting Office, National Wildlife Refuges: Continuing Problems 

with Incompatible Uses Calls for Bold Action, GAO/RCED-89-196 (Washington, D.C.: 

Sept. 8, 1989). 

3

Department of the Interior regulations allow leasing of federal minerals underlying refuges 

in the state of Alaska and in cases where federal minerals are being drained by operations 

on property adjacent to the refuge. 

4

16 U.S.C. §§ 668dd(a), (d). 

5

State laws also may affect the conduct of oil and gas activities. 

6

16 U.S.C. §§ 1538, 1540. The term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 

wound, kills, trap, capture, or collect. 16 U.S.C. § 1532(19). 

Page 3 GAO-04-192T Oil and Gas Activities on Refuges 
One-Quarter of 

Refuges Have Past or 

Present Oil and Gas 

Activities 

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 

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. 

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. 

Page 4 GAO-04-192T Oil and Gas Activities on Refuges 
Table 1: Number of Refuges with Oil and Gas Activities, by FWS Region 

Number of refuges, by category Unduplicated counts, by category group 

Exploration Drilling and production Active pipelines Exploration 

and/or drilling 

and production 

Exploration, drilling 

and production, and/or 

pipelines 

(survey and 

seismic work)a 

(active and inactive oil 

and gas wells)

b 

(transiting refuge 

lands)c

FWS region 

1 (Pacific) 5 20 9 22 

2 (Southwest) 10 22 24 22 

3 (Great LakesBig Rivers 1 10 14 10 

4 (Southeast) 14 28 37 34 

5 (Northeast) 1 4 6 4 

6 (Mountain – 

Prairie) 9 20 15 24 

7 (Alaska) 4 1 2 4 

Total 44 105 107 120 

Sources: FWS, Premier Data Services, and Office of Pipeline Safety. 

a

Based on GAO’s analysis of refuge reported data to FWS’s Refuge Management Information 

System, 1994-2001. 

b

Based on GAO’s analysis of Premier Data Services’ nationwide well database, January 2003. 

c

Based on GAO’s analysis of the National Pipeline Mapping System and Refuge Management 

Information System data, 1994-2001. 

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. 

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. 

Page 5 GAO-04-192T Oil and Gas Activities on Refuges 

24 

29 

19 

45 

6 

27 

5 

155 
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 brine12 and 

through the construction, operation, and maintenance of the infrastructure 

necessary to extract oil and gas. The damage varies widely in severity, 

duration, and visibility, ranging from infrequent small oil spills and 

industrial debris with no known effect on wildlife, to large and chronic 

spills causing wildlife deaths and long-term soil and water contamination. 

Some damage, such as habitat loss because of infrastructure development 

and soil and water contamination, may last indefinitely while other 

damage, such as wildlife disturbance during seismic mapping, is of shorter 

duration. Also, while certain types of damage are readily visible, others, 

such as groundwater contamination, changes in hydrology, and reduced 

habitat quality from infrastructure development are difficult to observe, 

quantify, and associate directly with oil and gas activities. Finally, oil and 

gas activities on refuges may hinder public access to parts of the refuge or 

FWS’s ability to manage or improve refuge habitat, such as by conducting 

prescribed burns or creating seasonal wetlands. 

The 16 refuges we visited reported oil, gas, or brine spills, although the 

frequency and effects of the spills varied widely. Oil and gas spills can 

injure or kill wildlife by destroying the insulating capacity of feathers and 

fur, depleting oxygen available in water, or exposing wildlife to toxic 

substances. Brine spills can be lethal to young waterfowl, damage birds’ 

feathers, kill vegetation, and decrease nutrients in water. Even small spills 

may contaminate soil and sediments if they occur frequently. For instance, 

a study of Atchafalaya and Delta National Wildlife Refuges in Louisiana 

found that oil contamination present near oil and gas facilities is lethal to 

12Brine is water mixed with salts, other minerals, and oil. 

Page 6 GAO-04-192T Oil and Gas Activities on Refuges 
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. 

13North 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. 

Page 7 GAO-04-192T Oil and Gas Activities on Refuges 
Oil and gas operators have taken steps, in some cases voluntarily, to 

reverse damages resulting from oil and gas activities, but operators have 

not consistently taken such steps, and the adequacy of these steps is not 

known. For example, an operator at McFaddin National Wildlife Refuge 

removed a road and a well pad that had been constructed to access a new 

well site and restored the marsh damaged by construction after the well 

was no longer needed. In contrast, in some cases, officials do not know if 

remediation following spills is sufficient to protect refuge resources, 

particularly for smaller oil spills or spills into wetlands. 

FWS does not have a complete and accurate record of spills and other 

damage resulting from refuge-based oil and gas activities, has conducted 

few studies to quantify the extent of damage, and therefore does not know 

its full extent or the steps needed to reverse it. The lack of information on 

the effects of oil and gas activities on refuge wildlife hinders FWS’s ability 

to identify and obtain appropriate mitigation measures and to require 

responsible parties to address damages from past activities. Lack of 

sufficient information has also hindered FWS’s efforts to identify all 

locations with past oil and gas activities and to require responsible parties 

to address damages. FWS does not know the number or location of all 

abandoned wells and other oil and gas infrastructure or the threat of 

contamination they pose and, therefore, its ability to require responsible 

parties to address damages is limited. However, in cases where FWS has 

performed studies, the information has proved valuable. For example, 

FWS funded a study at some refuges in Oklahoma and Texas to inventory 

locations containing oil and gas infrastructure, to determine if they were 

closed legally, and to document their present condition. FWS intends to 

use this information to identify cleanup options with state and federal 

regulators. If this effort is successful, FWS may conduct similar studies on 

other refuges. 

FWS’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, 

FWS Management and 

Oversight of Oil and 

Gas Activities Varies 

Widely 

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

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

Page 8 GAO-04-192T Oil and Gas Activities on Refuges 
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 

Page 9 GAO-04-192T Oil and Gas Activities on Refuges 
contaminated from oil and gas activities because staff did not adequately 

assess the subsurface property before acquiring it. After acquiring the 

property, FWS found that large amounts of soil were contaminated with 

oil. FWS has thus far spent $15,000, and a local conservation group spent 

another $43,000, to address the contamination. We found that the guidance 

and oversight provided to FWS regional and refuge personnel were not 

adequate to ensure that the requirements were being met. 

Conclusions 
 The National Wildlife Refuge System is a national asset established 

principally for the conservation of wildlife and habitat. While federally 

owned mineral rights underlying refuge lands are generally not available 

for oil and gas exploration and production, that prohibition does not 

extend to the many private parties that own mineral rights underlying 

refuge lands. The scale of these activities on refuges is such that some 

refuge resources have been diminished, although the extent is unknown 

without additional study. 

Some refuges have adopted practices—for example, developing data on 

the nature and extent of activities and their effects on the refuge, 

overseeing oil and gas operators, and training refuge staff to better carry 

out their management and oversight responsibilities—that limit the impact 

of these activities on refuge resources. If these practices were 

implemented throughout the agency, they could provide better assurance 

that environmental effects from oil and gas activities are minimized. In 

particular, in some cases, refuges have issued permits that establish 

operating conditions for oil and gas activities, giving the refuges greater 

control over these activities and protecting refuge resources before 

damage occurs. However, FWS does not have a policy requiring owners of 

outstanding mineral rights to obtain a permit, although we believe FWS 

has this authority, and FWS can require owners of reserved mineral rights 

to obtain a permit if the property deed subjects the rights to such 

requirements. Confirming or expanding FWS’s authority to require 

reasonable permit conditions and oversee oil and gas activities, including 

cases where mineral rights have been reserved and the property deed does 

not already subject the rights to permit requirements, would strengthen 

and provide greater consistency in FWS’s management and oversight. 

Such a step could be done without infringing on the rights of private 

mineral owners. Finally, FWS’s land acquisition guidance is unclear and 

oversight is inadequate, thereby exposing the federal government to 

unexpected cleanup costs for properties acquired without adequately 

assessing contamination from oil and gas activities. 

Page 10 GAO-04-192T Oil and Gas Activities on Refuges 
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 For further information on this testimony, please contact Barry T. Hill at 

(202) 512-3841. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony

Acknowledgments included Paul Aussendorf, Robert Crystal, Jonathan Dent, Doreen 

Feldman, and Bill Swick. 

(360413) Page 11 GAO-04-192T Oil and Gas Activities on Refuges 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

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. 

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 fulltext 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 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. 

Order by Mail or Phone 	 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 

Contact: To Report Fraud, 

W Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm aste, and Abuse in E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 

Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 Public Affairs 	 U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548