Wildlife Refuge Safeguards Lacking

(AP)  The government's record of protecting wildlife refuges from the environmentally damaging effects of oil and gas drilling has been spotty and needs to be improved, a congressional study concludes.

The report by the General Accounting Offices was expected to add to the debate over whether to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil development as part of a major energy bill now before Congress.

The GAO study released Tuesday said one-fourth of the nation's 575 wildlife refuges have a history of oil and gas production, in some cases dating back to the 1920s. There are 1,806 active drilling rigs in refuges today, producing nearly 24 million barrels annually, said the report by Congress' auditing agency.

At some refuges the environmental impact has been negligible, but at others there have been "large scale" spills, disruption of wildlife habitat, abandoned infrastructure and equipment, soil and groundwater contamination, and other ecological damage, the report said.

"This GAO report raises serious concerns about oil and gas activities on national wildlife refuges," said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., who requested the study along with Rep. Wayne Gilcrest, R-Md.

While some of the development dates back decades, the Interior Department's Fish and Wildlife Service "has not assessed the cumulative environmental effects of oil and gas activities on refuges" and does not know the number of oil spills that have occurred, the GAO said.

It also said the service, which is charged with protecting refuges, does not have enough people, including managers, with the technical training to "properly oversee oil and gas activities" on many refuges.

"Federal management and oversight of oil and gas activities varies widely among refuges," the GAO said. "Some refuges take extensive measures, while others exercise little control or enforcement."

The GAO investigators based their report on interviews, records and visits to 16 refuges.

Among those that they visited, investigators cited:

Soil and vegetation damage from brine spills, mercury contamination and "numerous abandoned wells" at the D'Arbonne refuge in Louisiana. It has 139 wells, 51 of them active.

Abandoned equipment and infrastructure at the Delta refuge in Louisiana, which has 338 wells, including 178 in use.

Soil and water contamination from "numerous spills" and the loss of more than 800 acres of wildlife habitat at the Kenai refuge in Alaska, where there are 164 wells, 121 of them active. Contamination from mercury and PCBs also was found there as well as at other refuges.

At the Anahuac refuge in Texas, which has 50 active wells, there have been seven oil spills reported since 1991, including one that killed more than 800 large fish and 180,000 menhaden, a small but ecologically important fish, the GAO said.

At some coastal refuges such as Sabine in Louisiana, oil and gas production has caused a loss of freshwater marshes because the changing hydrology allowed seawater to intrude. Elsewhere seismic studies, using heavy equipment, also has resulted in a decline in fresh water, changing the ecology, the GAO said.

The report did not address the issue of oil drilling in the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in northeastern Alaska. That dispute resurfaced this week as GOP lawmakers inserted language into a draft energy bill that would allow oil companies to dig exploratory wells in ANWR and develop its billions of barrels of oil.

Environmentalists oppose such drilling, saying it would harm caribou, musk oxen, polar bears and thousands of migratory birds. Drilling proponents say the measure includes many restrictions that would safeguard the area against environmental harm.

If the Fish and Wildlife Service "can't cope with today's oil and gas activities, it would be a mistake to add to its woes by asking it to cope with unprecedented new responsibilities such as the mitigation of drilling damage in ANWR," said Markey, who opposes disturbing the Alaska refuge.

Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., a strong supporter of ANWR drilling and a leader in the energy bill negotiations, frequently has cited oil and gas development in other wildlife refuges, including several large ones in Louisiana. If it can be done there, he has said, why not in the Alaska refuge?

By H. Josef Hebert