If oil spills in the forest, and nobody is there to see it, does it still cause damage?
The answer of course is yes, and a new audit by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) reveals that problems with oil and gas oversight by the U.S. Forest Service puts our national forest lands at risk.
The OIG found the Forest Service is not performing required audits, nor is it tracking or reporting spill data properly:
- “[The Forest Service] is required by law to inspect annually its leases that are producing oil and gas, but we found that Washington Office officials could not validate whether the leases were being inspected.”
- “[The Forest Service] does not require operators to submit spill plans during the application process to ensure operators are prepared to quickly address any spills outside required containment areas. Without a careful review of these spill plans to ensure adequacy, national forest land is vulnerable to environmental damage.”
- “When we [Office of Inspector General] asked [Forest Service’s] Washington Office officials how many spills were reported on forest lands in 2010 and 2011, they informed us that spills were rare, but they could not provide any evidence to validate their statement.”
The Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) share the responsibility of managing oil and gas development on national forest lands. The BLM is in charge of overseeing the leasing process, while the Forest Service is charged with safeguarding lands from the impacts of oil and gas development.
The split mandate, which is unique to national forest lands, necessitates close coordination and cooperation between agencies; a requirement that the OIG audit indicates is not being sufficiently fulfilled.
Oil and gas development is just one of many uses of national forest lands that the agency is required to manage for on our behalf. Others include recreation, the provisioning of fresh water, and healthy forests. An oil spill, and the ensuing contamination of soil, water and air resources, significantly diminishes these multiple important uses of national forest lands.
The frequency of spills highlights the need for a strong inspection and oversight system. The OIG’s independent investigation found that at least 96 spills occurred in fiscal year 2010 on national forest lands, and at least 99 spills occurred in fiscal year 2011. One such spill involved an operator accidentally releasing oil and saltwater that was carried by rain and snowmelt for a mile to adjacent public lands and into a lake. Luckily the lake and ground were still frozen from winter, expediting cleanup and minimizing the impact.
Oil industry supporters took note of the new OIG audit. They, however, ignored the oversight issues and instead focused on what they claim is the Forest Service’s inability to lease and permit oil and gas wells in a timely manner. This misses the point, given that the Forest Service is not properly overseeing the lands already under lease. National forest lands support multiple uses, all of them important, and we can’t risk damages that result from a lack of oversight.
The OIG’s conclusions are clear. The Forest Service is ill prepared to respond to spills on the lands under its management, and it is failing to ensure industry is prepared. With the Forest Service expected to shoulder approximately $212 million in sequestration cuts, the problem could get worse before it gets better.