National Wildlife Refuges: Improvement Needed in the Management  
and Oversight of Oil and Gas Activities on Federal Lands	 
(30-OCT-03, GAO-04-192T).					 
                                                                 
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. 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-04-192T					        
    ACCNO:   A08798						        
  TITLE:     National Wildlife Refuges: Improvement Needed in the     
Management and Oversight of Oil and Gas Activities on Federal	 
Lands								 
     DATE:   10/30/2003 
  SUBJECT:   Environment evaluation				 
	     Gas resources					 
	     Land management					 
	     Mineral rights					 
	     Oil drilling					 
	     Oil resources					 
	     Petroleum exploration				 
	     Pipeline operations				 
	     Wildlife conservation				 
	     Wildlife management				 
	     National Wildlife Refuge System			 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-04-192T

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 [email protected].

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 large-scale infrastructure. These effects also
vary from the temporary to the longer term. Some of the most detrimental
effects of oil and gas activities have been reduced through environmental
laws and improved practices and technology. Moreover, oil and gas
operators have taken steps, in some cases voluntarily, to reverse damages
resulting from oil and gas activities.

Federal management and oversight of oil and gas activities varies widely
among refuges-some refuges take extensive measures, while others exercise
little control or enforcement. GAO found that this variation occurs
because of differences in authority to oversee private mineral rights and
because refuge managers lack enough guidance, resources, and training to
properly manage and oversee oil and gas activities. Greater attention to
oil and gas activities by the Fish and Wildlife Service would increase its
understanding of associated environmental effects and contribute to more
consistent use of practices and technologies that protect refuge
resources.

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 computer-based geographic
information systems and oil and gas leasing, aided our data acquisition
and analysis.

In summary, we found the following:

o  	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

1U.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).

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.

o  	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.

o  	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 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

2U.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).

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.

416 U.S.C. S:S: 668dd(a), (d).

5State laws also may affect the conduct of oil and gas activities.

616 U.S.C. S:S: 1538, 1540. The term "take" means to harass, harm, pursue,
hunt, shoot, wound, kills, trap, capture, or collect. 16 U.S.C. S:
1532(19).

  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.

716 U.S.C. S: 703.

833 U.S.C. S: 1321(b).

950 C.F.R S: 29.32.

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

     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)cFWS region

         1 (Pacific)             5           20           9           22      
        2 (Southwest)           10           22           24          22      
       3 (Great Lakes-                                            
          Big 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.

aBased on GAO's analysis of refuge reported data to FWS's Refuge
Management Information System, 1994-2001.

bBased on GAO's analysis of Premier Data Services' nationwide well
database, January 2003.

cBased 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.

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.

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.

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).

developing procedures to minimize damages by issuing permits with
conditions to protect refuge resources, and monitoring the activities with
trained staff to ensure compliance and accountability. However, the 16
refuges we visited varied widely in the extent to which these management
practices occur. Some refuges identify oil and gas activities and the
risks they pose to refuge resources, issue permits that direct operators
to minimize the effect of their activities on the refuge, monitor oil and
gas activities with trained personnel, and charge mitigation fees or
pursue legal remedies if damage occurs. For example, two refuges in
Louisiana collect mitigation fees from oil and gas operators that are then
used to pay for monitoring operator compliance with permits and state and
federal laws. In contrast, other refuges do not issue permits or collect
fees, are not aware of the extent of oil and gas activities or the
attendant risks to refuge resources, and provide little management and
oversight.

Management and oversight of oil and gas activities varies for two primary
reasons. First, FWS's legal authority to require oil and gas operators to
obtain access permits with conditions to protect refuge resources varies
considerably depending upon the nature of the mineral rights. For reserved
mineral rights-cases where the property owner retained the mineral rights
when selling the land to the federal government-FWS can require permits
only if the property deed subjects the rights to such requirements. For
outstanding mineral rights-cases where the mineral rights were separated
from the surface lands before the government acquired the property-FWS has
not formally determined its position regarding its authority to require
access permits. However, we believe, based on statutory language and court
decisions, that FWS has the authority to require owners of outstanding
mineral rights to obtain permits. Second, refuge managers lack sufficient
guidance, resources, and training to properly monitor oil and gas
operators. Current FWS guidance regarding the management of oil and gas
activities where there are private mineral rights is unclear, according to
refuge staff. Refuge staff said they also lack sufficient resources to
oversee oil and gas activities, which are substantial at some refuges.
Only three refuges in the system have staff dedicated full-time to
monitoring these activities, and some refuge staff cite a lack of time as
a reason for limited oversight. Staff also cite a lack of training as
limiting their capability to oversee oil and gas operators; FWS has
offered only one oil-and gas-related workshop in the last 10 years.

On a related management issue, FWS has not always thoroughly assessed
property for possible contamination from oil and gas activities prior to
its acquisition, even though FWS guidance requires an assessment of all
possible contamination. For example, FWS acquired one property that is

contaminated from oil and gas activities because staff did not adequately
assess the subsurface property before acquiring it. After acquiring the
property, FWS found that large amounts of soil were contaminated with oil.
FWS has thus far spent $15,000, and a local conservation group spent
another $43,000, to address the contamination. We found that the guidance
and oversight provided to FWS regional and refuge personnel were not
adequate to ensure that the requirements were being met.

                                  Conclusions

The National Wildlife Refuge System is a national asset established
principally for the conservation of wildlife and habitat. While federally
owned mineral rights underlying refuge lands are generally not available
for oil and gas exploration and production, that prohibition does not
extend to the many private parties that own mineral rights underlying
refuge lands. The scale of these activities on refuges is such that some
refuge resources have been diminished, although the extent is unknown
without additional study.

Some refuges have adopted practices-for example, developing data on the
nature and extent of activities and their effects on the refuge,
overseeing oil and gas operators, and training refuge staff to better
carry out their management and oversight responsibilities-that limit the
impact of these activities on refuge resources. If these practices were
implemented throughout the agency, they could provide better assurance
that environmental effects from oil and gas activities are minimized. In
particular, in some cases, refuges have issued permits that establish
operating conditions for oil and gas activities, giving the refuges
greater control over these activities and protecting refuge resources
before damage occurs. However, FWS does not have a policy requiring owners
of outstanding mineral rights to obtain a permit, although we believe FWS
has this authority, and FWS can require owners of reserved mineral rights
to obtain a permit if the property deed subjects the rights to such
requirements. Confirming or expanding FWS's authority to require
reasonable permit conditions and oversee oil and gas activities, including
cases where mineral rights have been reserved and the property deed does
not already subject the rights to permit requirements, would strengthen
and provide greater consistency in FWS's management and oversight. Such a
step could be done without infringing on the rights of private mineral
owners. Finally, FWS's land acquisition guidance is unclear and oversight
is inadequate, thereby exposing the federal government to unexpected
cleanup costs for properties acquired without adequately assessing
contamination from oil and gas activities.

In our report, we made several recommendations to improve the framework
for managing and overseeing oil and gas activities on national wildlife
refuges, including (1) collecting and maintaining better data on oil and
gas activities and their environmental effects, and ensuring that staff
resources, funding, and training are sufficient and (2) determining FWS's
existing authority over outstanding mineral rights. We also recommended
that the Secretary of the Interior, in coordination with appropriate
Administration officials, seek from Congress any necessary additional
authority over outstanding mineral rights, and over reserved mineral
rights, to ensure that a consistent and reasonable set of regulatory and
management controls are in place for all oil and gas activities occurring
on national wildlife refuges.

The Department of the Interior's response to our recommendations was
mixed. The department was silent on our recommendations that it should
collect and maintain better data on oil and gas activities and their
effects and that it should ensure that staff are adequately trained to
oversee oil and gas activities. Also, while the department was silent on
whether it should review FWS's authority to regulate outstanding mineral
rights, it raised procedural concerns about our recommendation that it
seek any necessary additional authority from Congress to regulate private
mineral rights. We continue to believe that our recommendation is
warranted. In light of the department's opposition, we suggested that the
Congress consider expanding the FWS's authority to enable it to
consistently regulate the surface activities of private mineral owners on
refuges.

Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. That concludes my
prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that
you may have.

Contacts and For further information on this testimony, please contact
Barry T. Hill at (202) 512-3841. Individuals making key contributions to
this testimonyAcknowledgments included Paul Aussendorf, Robert Crystal,
Jonathan Dent, Doreen Feldman, and Bill Swick.

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 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 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, Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

  Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: [email protected]

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

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800

Public Affairs 	U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***