Norton’s Questionable Data Heat Up Arctic Debate

When a Senate committee asked Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton questions about caribou in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, she sought answers from the agency in her department that runs the refuge.

But when Norton formally replied to the committee, she left out the agency’s scientific data that suggested caribou could be affected by oil drilling, while including its data that supported her case for exploration in the refuge, documents show.

Norton also added data that were just wrong, stating that caribou calving has been concentrated outside the proposed drilling area in 11 of the last 18 years, when in fact the opposite is true.

The Arctic refuge was already the first issue to pierce the bipartisan consensus that prevailed on Capitol Hill since last month’s terrorist attacks, with drilling proponents pushing for a vote on national security grounds and opponents arguing for delay.

Norton’s behind-the-scenes rebuff to the Fish and Wildlife Service--which is the Interior Department’s front-line environmental agency, but is not yet staffed by any Bush administration political appointees--is likely to heighten tensions over the nation’s most disputed patch of tundra.

Norton spokesman Mark Pfeifle said her error was simply that--an inadvertent substitution of “outside” for “inside”--and noted that she has preached the gospel of peer-reviewed science ever since she got to Washington.

As for the other disparities between her response to Congress and Fish and Wildlife’s proposed response, Pfeifle said, she relied on external input as well, especially a peer-reviewed caribou study from the Wildlife Society Bulletin concluding that oil development has little impact on caribou. That study’s acknowledgments thank the oil company BP Exploration for funding, but Pfeifle said that makes no difference.

“One of the cornerstones of this department is to reach out and listen to a wide variety of people and sources to determine the best information and the best policy,” Pfeifle said. “Sometimes we look for guidance inside the department; sometimes we look outside as well.”

A Fish and Wildlife spokeswoman referred all questions to Pfeifle.

President Bush’s nominee to head the agency, Steve Williams, had his confirmation hearing Wednesday, so the agency should get political direction soon.

For now, though, Norton and her aides oversee the bureaucracy, and the two sides clearly approach the Arctic refuge from different perspectives. Fish and Wildlife is a purely environmental agency that does not concern itself with economic development or America’s dependence on imported oil; it’s no secret that most of its employees oppose industrial development in the refuge.

Norton is a conservative Cabinet member who has led the administration’s pro-drilling campaign.

Still, some Fish and Wildlife officials said that they were careful to send Norton a complete and balanced portrait of the science, regardless of their personal biases, and that she clearly cherry-picked the data that suited her.

“If Congress is going to have a serious discussion on the future of the Arctic refuge, it ought to have the whole story, not a slanted story,” said one agency employee, who requested anonymity.

The disagreement has its roots in a series of questions posed to Norton on May 15 by Sen. Frank H. Murkowski (R-Alaska) of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and a fierce advocate of drilling in the so-called 1002 area of the refuge’s coastal plain.

The four questions related to caribou--two about calving habits, two about the potential impact of oil development--were referred to Fish and Wildlife. On May 24, biologists at the refuge provided their recommended answers.

The scientific data the agency gave Norton offered fuel for both sides of the debate.

The bottom line was that caribou do gravitate toward the 1002 area, and they tend to avoid oil fields when calving, but they have mostly prospered over the last three decades despite the development of sprawling oil infrastructure.