Background

The National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS)—the only system of federal  lands protected specifically for wildlife conservation—provides more than  96 million acres of habitat for over 700 species of birds, hundreds of  threatened or endangered species, and a wide variety of other species.  Each year, millions of birds stop to rest at refuges strategically located  along their migration routes. In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt  established what is now recognized as the first refuge, the Pelican Island  National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in Florida. During the more than 100 years  since, the refuge system has grown to include 548 wildlife refuges and 37  wetland management districts that address a variety of wildlife purposes.  For example, the Merced NWR in California was established in 1951 with  the broad purpose of serving as a sanctuary for migratory birds, while the  Antioch Dunes NWR, also in California, was established to protect three  specific endangered species—Lange’s metalmark butterfly, Contra Costa  wallflower, and the Antioch Dunes evening primrose.
The refuge system employs more than 4,000 staff dispersed in its offices  across the country. Individual refuges may report directly to a regional  office, or may be grouped with other refuge units into a complex under the  common management of a project leader. Complexes range in size from 2  to 19 refuges, and one of the refuges in each complex usually serves as the  complex headquarters. Complexing has reorganized the 585 refuges into  126 complexes and 96 stand-alone refuges. Officials in headquarters serve  as advisors to regional refuge chiefs and to refuge managers. Figure 1  shows the location of the 585 refuges comprising the NWRS.
Until the passage of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act  of 1997, the refuge system was the only major federal public lands network  without a basic statute providing a mission for the system, policy  direction, and management standards for all of its units. The Improvement  Act gave the refuge system a unifying mission—to administer a national  network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and,  where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources  and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and  future generations of Americans. The legislation also called for FWS to  plan and direct the continued growth of the system in a manner designed  to accomplish this mission. In addition, the Improvement Act required that  the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the refuge  system be preserved. The act generally requires refuges to complete  comprehensive conservation plans—long-range plans for managing,  among other things, habitats and providing visitor services—by 2012. An  important component to the act was that it recognized six wildlife- dependent recreational uses of the refuge system—hunting, fishing,  wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and  environmental interpretation—as appropriate uses that are consistent with  the mission of the refuge system, when they are determined to be  compatible with the purposes of individual refuges. While hunting and  fishing have always been popular uses on refuges, wildlife observation is  the most prevalent activity on refuges today, and attracted over 23 million  visitors in 2006.
For the most part, refuges generally perform similar activities that are  compatible with the mission of protecting wildlife and habitat and  providing visitor services:    Habitat management. Refuges manage their lands to provide adequate  habitat for the species they were established to conserve and to maintain  biological diversity and integrity. Management activities may include (1)  performing habitat management work such as maintaining water levels in  water impoundments and ponds and treating invasive species; (2)  performing fire management activities including conducting prescribed  burns; (3) restoring habitat to make it more useful for wildlife purposes;  (4) monitoring species and habitat through surveys and other studies; (5)  managing volunteers doing habitat- or wildlife-related work; and (6)  coordinating habitat management efforts with outside entities, such as  private land owners, state agencies, and other groups.
Visitor services. Nearly 40 million people visit refuges each year, and the  vast majority of refuges provide visitors with the opportunity to participate  in one or more of the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses outlined in  the Improvement Act. To support these activities, refuges install roads,  trails, docks, and boat ramps, and develop interpretive and educational  exhibits, among other things.
Refuges also perform work that supports both habitat management and  visitor services:    Maintenance. The refuge system maintains more than $18 billion in real  property, including more than 41,000 facilities such as buildings, visitor  infrastructure, and roads; more than 4,000 vehicles; and almost 4,000  pieces of heavy equipment. Refuge staff perform preventative maintenance  on their refuges’ real property to achieve specific performance targets that  are tied to the refuge system’s mission, such as restoring wetlands,  monitoring wildlife, and providing recreation opportunities. The refuge  system currently has a deferred maintenance backlog, which is described  in appendix III. Appendix IV discusses the Refuge Operational Needs  System, which maintains information on refuge operational requirements  such as staff, equipment, and planned projects.
Law enforcement. The refuge system employs law enforcement officers  who are tasked with protecting refuges’ natural resources, infrastructure,  and the visiting public. Officers also enforce conservation agreements with  private landowners.
Conservation planning. Refuges are required to complete comprehensive  conservation plans that outline priorities for wildlife and habitat as well as  visitor services.
Wildfire suppression. The refuge system supports wildfire suppression  needed on refuge lands as well as other federal lands.
The refuge system receives most of its funding for core refuge operations  and maintenance activities from FWS’s annual resource management  appropriation; funds for fire management to restore and improve habitat  as well as wildfire suppression come via a separate appropriation. Funding  from several other sources supports other types of refuge system  activities. For example, the refuge system receives annual allocations from  FWS’s construction appropriation to construct, improve, acquire, or  remove buildings and other facilities, and from FWS’s land acquisition  appropriation to acquire interests in lands, including easements that  provide important fish and wildlife habitat. Refuges also may apply for  grants from federal, state, and local governments and nonprofit  organizations, among others, to supplement their funding. The Department  of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), through its  Public Lands Highway-Refuge Roads Program, provides funds to maintain  and improve public roads that provide access to or within a refuge. In  addition, the refuge system has a permanent appropriation authorizing  refuges to use recreation fees they collect and to accept donations,  voluntary services, and in-kind contributions from private conservation  groups, such as land or equipment donations. The refuge system receives  additional funding through other FWS programs, such as Endangered  Species or Fisheries and Habitat Conservation. Like the refuge system,  these programs also receive allocations from the resource management  appropriation and may, in turn, obligate a portion of this funding to  support projects occurring on refuge lands. Figure 2 shows the principal  sources of funding for the refuge system.
While most refuges carry out the same type of activities, key  characteristics of refuges such as acreage, visitation levels, and the type of  ecosystems they contain—and consequently the challenges they face—can  vary. Sixteen refuges in Alaska account for approximately 85 percent— more than 76 million acres—of the refuge system’s total acreage, and these  refuges generally operate somewhat differently than others. The Arctic  NWR in northeastern Alaska, for example, contains 8 million acres of  wilderness that is relatively undisturbed; as such, activities focus primarily  on research, monitoring, and education. In contrast, the Tualatin River  NWR—located 15 miles from Portland, Oregon—faces the challenge of  protecting natural resources amid rapidly increasing visitation levels.  Refuges along the southwest border of the United States, meanwhile, face  unique law enforcement challenges as they support the Department of  Homeland Security’s border control efforts.

	Refuge Funding and Staffing Levels Fluctuated, New Policies Were Introduced, and the Influence of Various External Factors Affecting Refuges Increased from Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007

From fiscal years 2002 through 2007, the refuge system experienced  fluctuations in funding and staffing levels, the introduction of several new  refuge system policy initiatives, and increases in the influence of external  factors such as extreme weather and development that affect refuge  operations. Inflation-adjusted funding for core refuge system activities— measured as obligations for refuge operations, maintenance, and fire  management—increased by 6.8 percent from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year  2003 for the celebration of the refuge system’s centennial, then declined  quickly to 4.7 percent below peak levels by fiscal year 2005, before  increasing again to 2.3 percent below peak levels in fiscal year 2007, when  adjusted for inflation (in 2002 dollars); it ended the period 4.3 percent  above fiscal year 2002 levels. In nominal dollars, core funding increased  each year over the time period from about $366 million in fiscal year 2002  to about $468 million in fiscal year 2007. Core refuge system staffing levels  peaked in fiscal year 2004 after increasing 10.0 percent, and then declined  more slowly than funding to 4.0 percent below this level by the end of  fiscal year 2007; they ended the period 5.5 percent above fiscal year 2002  levels. During the same period, several refuge system policy initiatives  were implemented to reduce staff levels and reprioritize funding among  refuges, ensure the completion of required conservation plans, shift focus  toward constructing a greater number of smaller visitor facilities, and  increase the number of full-time law enforcement officers and associated  training; other initiatives increased the administrative workload on  refuges. Refuges also experienced an increase in the influence of various  external factors that may complicate managers’ abilities to protect habitat  and provide visitor services, such as extreme weather events and  development on adjacent lands.

		Inflation-Adjusted Core Refuge Funding Peaked in Fiscal Year 2003 Then Decreased, but Ended the Period above Fiscal Year 2002 Levels

Obligations for core refuge activities—operations, maintenance, and fire  management—peaked in fiscal year 2003, then decreased and remained  below peak levels through fiscal year 2007, when adjusted for inflation (in  2002 dollars), but above fiscal year 2002 levels. As shown in figure 3, total  nominal obligations for core refuge system activities increased each year  from about $366 million in fiscal year 2002 to about $468 million in fiscal  year 2007—an average annual increase of 5.1 percent or about $18.5  million. However, when adjusted for inflation, total core obligations  peaked in fiscal year 2003 at about $391 million for the wildlife refuge  centennial—an increase of 6.8 percent over fiscal year 2002. Core  inflation-adjusted obligations then quickly fell back to 4.7 percent below  peak levels by fiscal year 2005. By fiscal year 2007, inflation-adjusted core  obligations rebounded somewhat to about $382 million—still 2.3 percent  below peak levels, but 4.3 percent above fiscal year 2002 levels. While the  refuge system did receive an increase in the allocation from the resource  management appropriation for fiscal year 2008, we did not include it in our  analysis because the fiscal year was not yet complete.
At the refuge level, the trends in inflation-adjusted core refuge obligations  at the 222 complexes and stand-alone refuges varied considerably during  our study period. Specifically, from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year  2007, core inflation-adjusted obligations decreased for 96 complexes and  stand-alone refuges, increased for 92, and stayed about the same for 34.  The magnitude of the changes in core funding at the refuge level also were  more pronounced than for the trend overall. For example, the refuge with  the largest percentage inflation-adjusted decrease in funding was the  Kootenai NWR in Idaho, where obligations fell from $957,506 in fiscal year  2002 to $324,283 in fiscal year 2007, a decrease of 66 percent. The refuge  experiencing the largest inflation-adjusted dollar decrease was the Mid- Columbia NWR Complex in Washington state, where obligations fell from  about $9.4 million in fiscal year 2002 to about $5.2 million in fiscal year  2007, a decrease of about $4.1 million. Moreover, from fiscal year 2002  through fiscal year 2007, core funding for 39 complexes and stand-alone  refuges decreased by more than 25 percent. On the other hand, the refuge  receiving the largest percentage increase in inflation-adjusted funding was  the Caddo Lake NWR in Texas. Its obligations increased by 156 percent,  from $95,255 in fiscal year 2002 to $244,094 in fiscal year 2007, largely  reflecting an increase in operations at this refuge since it was established  in October 2000. The refuge experiencing the largest dollar increase in  inflation-adjusted funding was the Okefenokee NWR in Georgia, where  obligations for core refuge activities increased from about $7.4 million in  fiscal year 2002 to about $15.8 million in fiscal year 2007—an increase of  about $8.4 million. However, almost 90 percent of this increase consisted  of fire management funding provided largely to respond to the wildfires  the refuge faced in April 2007. Appendix V presents obligations for core  refuge activities for all 222 complexes and stand-alone refuges in both  nominal and inflation-adjusted dollars for each of fiscal years 2002 through  2007.
Total obligations, in nominal dollars, for the refuge system were about  $816 million in fiscal year 2007. As illustrated in figure 4, core obligations  comprised about 57 percent of this total, or about $468 million. Obligations  of allocations from Interior’s construction and land acquisition  appropriations added approximately 19 percent, or about $154 million.  Additional obligations of funds received through recreation fees,  donations, conservation funds, and all other sources, contributed  approximately 18 percent, or about $148 million. Other funds were  obligated from grants and allocations from the FHWA and from other FWS  programs.
Total: $816 million In contrast to the trend in core funding, total inflation-adjusted funding for  the refuge system as a whole did not peak in fiscal year 2003, but instead  steadily decreased from fiscal year 2002 levels until fiscal year 2005 and  rebounded somewhat thereafter (see fig. 5). Even after rebounding  somewhat in fiscal year 2005, however, inflation-adjusted total funding  decreased to about $666 million in fiscal year 2007—an average annual  decrease of 1.6 percent (about $11.2 million) or 7.5 percent below fiscal  year 2002 levels. The main driver in the generally decreasing trend in total  funding is a sharp drop in funding for land acquisition, which fell from  about $101 million in fiscal year 2002 to about $38 million in fiscal year  2007. In nominal dollars, total obligations increased from about $720  million in fiscal year 2002 to about $816 million in fiscal year 2007—an  average annual increase of 2.5 percent or about $18.3 million.
Beyond receiving financial resources, refuges also receive in-kind  donations from nonprofit groups, for-profit companies, and other  organizations. From our survey, we obtained information on donations  received by 246 individual refuges—67 percent of refuges responding to  our survey. These donations typically consisted of equipment and other  supplies that refuges used to help manage habitat or deliver visitor  services, though larger donations included land and construction of visitor  centers. Donations at most of the refuges totaled $500,000 or less over the  entire 6-year time frame; however, several refuges reported that they  received more than $1 million over this period. For example, a refuge in  Washington state estimated that it received in-kind donations totaling  about $20 million, consisting primarily of land donations from nonprofit  organizations, bridge work, and habitat restoration projects. Another  refuge in Michigan estimated that it received about $5 million worth of in- kind donations, including land donations from local industries, as well as  shoreline restoration, fence removal, and tree removal projects performed  by these industries.
The declining trends in refuge system funding were comparable to general  declines in obligations for FWS and Interior overall, although Interior  fared somewhat better. FWS fared about the same as the refuge system  ending in fiscal year 2007 at 7.5 percent below fiscal year 2002 levels, when  adjusted for inflation. Interior overall fared somewhat better over the  same period, declining 3.9 percent when adjusted for inflation. Figures 6  and 7 show the trends in nominal and inflation-adjusted obligations,  respectively, made by the refuge system, FWS, and Interior from fiscal  years 2002 through 2007.

		Staffing Levels Increased through Fiscal Year 2004, Then Declined More Slowly Than Funding and Ended the Period Below Peak Levels

Staffing levels, as measured by FTEs the refuge system actually used,  peaked later and declined more slowly than funding for both core refuge  activities (core staffing) and all refuge activities (total staffing). FTEs for  core staffing, which includes operations, maintenance, and fire  management, increased from 3,283 in fiscal year 2002 to a peak of 3,610 in  fiscal year 2004—an increase of 10.0 percent. Core staffing then fell back  to 3,464 FTEs by fiscal year 2007—still 5.5 percent higher than the fiscal  year 2002 level, but 4.0 percent below peak staffing levels. While  operations and maintenance FTEs increased 3.6 percent overall during our  study period, they ended the period down 6.9 percent from their 2004  peak. Fire management FTEs, on the other hand, increased 14.3 percent  over fiscal year 2002 levels. Table 1 shows FTE trends for core refuge  system activities from fiscal years 2002 through 2007.
In contrast with funding, FTEs for noncore activities account for a  relatively small portion of the total FTEs that support the refuge system. In  fiscal year 2007, for example, 664 noncore FTEs supported the refuge  system—about 16 percent of total FTEs—as illustrated in figure 8. Slightly  more than 500 of these FTEs were allocated to the refuge system to  manage construction projects, land acquisitions, grants, and donations,  and to collect fees, among other refuge activities. FWS employees assigned  to other agency programs accounted for about 157 of the 664 noncore  FTEs for activities in support of the refuge system. For example, biologists  from FWS’s Ecological Services program often monitor various species at  refuges, supplementing the refuges’ habitat management activities while  also furthering Ecological Services’ mission to conserve and restore  threatened and endangered species.
Similar to the trend in core FTEs, total FTEs used in support of the refuge  system overall also peaked in fiscal year 2004 and then decreased through  the remainder of the period. As table 2 illustrates, total FTEs increased 5.8  percent from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2004, then declined  through 2007, to close the period 0.9 percent higher than the fiscal year  2002 level. This amounted to a 4.7 percent drop from the peak staffing  levels of fiscal year 2004.
In addition to FTEs, the number of employees on board in refuge system  positions also declined after peaking in fiscal year 2004. Through fiscal  year 2007, nearly 375 employees were lost from the refuge system’s peak  staffing levels, a reduction of 8.4 percent over this period (see table 3).  About three-quarters of this loss came through a reduction in permanent  employees. Refuge managers and regional and headquarters officials told  us that the number of filled, permanent positions at refuges is a key  measure of the effective strength of the workforce available to conduct  core refuge activities because they represent employees on board  indefinitely. Thus, the loss of 275 permanent employees (7.5 percent)  since fiscal year 2004—generally through the elimination of vacant  positions created by retirements and resignations—has reduced the  number of staff available to conduct needed work. For the overall study  period, total employees declined 4.0 percent below fiscal year 2002 levels  and permanent employees declined 1.7 percent.
The overall fluctuation in staffing levels and the reductions since fiscal  year 2004 in particular have affected many refuges. During the first 2 years  of our study period, from fiscal year 2002 through 2004, 114 complexes  and stand-alone refuges increased their permanent staff by more than 5  percent, while only 49 lost more than 5 percent and 55 stayed about the  same. However, over the final 3 years, the situation was reversed: from  fiscal year 2004 through 2007, the number of complexes and stand-alone  refuges that lost more than 5 percent of their permanent staff more than  doubled to 122, while only 38 gained at least 5 percent and 58 stayed about  the same.

		Several Policy Initiatives Were Implemented from Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007

The refuge system implemented several policy initiatives from fiscal years  2002 through 2007, including efforts to achieve more sustainable staffing  levels, ensure the completion of conservation plans, construct a greater  number of small visitor facilities, and modify the refuge system’s law  enforcement function.  In addition, various refuge system, FWS, and  Interior policies increased administrative work for nonadministrative  refuge staff during this period.

			Workforce Management Planning

Because core staffing levels peaked later and declined more gradually than  the system’s core inflation-adjusted funding, as shown in figure 9, rising  salary and benefit costs for these staff began to account for an increasing  share of refuge budgets after fiscal year 2003. In many cases, there was  an existing imbalance in refuge budgets that meant that personnel costs  already were putting pressure on refuges’ ability to operate. Generally, this  reduced refuges’ management capability—that is, the percentage of a  refuge’s budget available to pay for other operational costs that support its  daily work, such as utilities, fuel, supplies, and seasonal labor. Although  circumstances varied by refuge, some refuges’ management capability  shrank to less than 5 percent of their total budget—a nearly unsustainable  operational scenario, according to some refuge managers and regional and  headquarters officials we interviewed.
To attain a more sustainable balance between staffing costs and  management capability, in fiscal year 2006, each regional office was  directed to develop a workforce management plan. According to FWS  guidance for these plans and interviews with senior refuge officials,  regions were instructed to focus on doing “fewer things better,” that is, to  allocate limited resources in such a way as to showcase selected refuges,  rather than to allocate them across all refuges such that the level of habitat  management and visitor services would be equally degraded. Although  workforce plans differed by region, they generally proposed to  increase management capability to a minimum of 25 percent of refuges’  operating budgets by reducing the share devoted to salaries and benefits  to 75 percent or less;  reduce staff costs by (1) abolishing staff positions that became vacant  through retirements and resignations, and (2) further consolidating  refuges into complexes to eliminate redundant positions and reduce  administrative costs;    categorize all refuges into one of three tiers—called focus refuges,  targeted reduction refuges, or unstaffed satellite refuges—to prioritize  them for funding and staffing increases or decreases; and  realign some vacated positions by moving them from lower- to higher- tiered refuges.
Although refuge system management did not intend for regions’ workforce  plans to conform to a rigid national standard, program headquarters did  provide criteria for regions to use when placing refuges into the following tiers:    Focus refuges, where FWS would strive to maintain or enhance field  operations, would be selected because of the significance of their natural  resources, important opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation, or  other “highly significant” values.
Targeted reduction refuges, where reductions in operations would  occur, also would be selected on the basis of natural resources, recreation,  and other values, but would be considered a lower priority than focus  refuges.
Unstaffed satellite refuges had no specific criteria, but would include  both refuges that have never been staffed and those that were to be  destaffed due to budget constraints. Refuge system documents, as well as  our interviews and site visits, showed these refuges to be often smaller,  more remote, and less complex to manage than those in the upper two  tiers.
According to refuge system officials, the process for determining staff  reductions, realignments, and refuge tiers varied considerably across  regions, and refuge managers disagreed over the appropriateness of the  methods some regions used. For example, Region 7 (Alaska) designated  all of its refuges as focus refuges, while all other regions placed their  refuges into each of the three tiers. Of the 275 refuge managers who  answered a survey question on this issue, 41 percent responded that the  criteria for categorizing refuges into tiers were appropriate to distinguish  among the competing priorities in their respective regions, another 37  percent responded that they were not appropriate, and the remainder said  they had no basis to judge. While most of the respondents who disagreed  with their region’s criteria were from lower-tiered refuges, 25 percent of  those who responded this way managed at least one highest-priority, or  focus, refuge. Refuge managers acknowledged that additional  management capability was necessary for continued operations, and  understood that workforce planning decisions that affected funding and  staffing levels were inherently difficult. Still, according to a senior regional  office official, refuge tiering added to the emotional strain of an already  stressed workforce, establishing a “have” versus “have not” mentality that  many staff took personally.
Implementation of workforce plans shifted funds and staff from lower- priority refuges to higher-priority refuges or from the regional office to the  field, and reduced the total number of positions located at refuges. In all,  about 375 refuge and regional office positions were either abolished— through elimination of vacant positions—or moved, with managerial,  biological, and maintenance positions among those most frequently  targeted for reduction or realignment. These changes were responsible for  most of the 275 permanent employees who were lost after fiscal year 2004.  By design, lower-tiered refuges absorbed a heavier share of these staff cuts  and realignments. According to refuge system officials, the $36 million  increase in the fiscal year 2008 allocation for the refuge system from the  resource management appropriation was being used in part to restore  some of these lost positions and funding at targeted reduction refuges.  Further, regional officials reported that management capability across  each region had reached the desired margin of at least 25 percent of  refuges’ operational budgets. However, given that the fiscal year was not  complete before the end of our review, we did not obtain additional data  on FTE or position changes at refuges.

			Conservation Planning

From fiscal years 2002 through 2007, refuge system officials implemented  steps intended to ensure that comprehensive conservation plans mandated  by the Improvement Act are completed on time. In early fiscal year 2004,  refuge officials realized that they were not on track to complete the 554  conservation plans required by 2012—the due date mandated by the act.  At that time, refuge officials assessed needs and goals with regard to  completing the plans, and provided recommendations to encourage timely  completion as well as a monitoring and evaluation strategy. At the end of  fiscal year 2005, however, refuge officials noted that the completion of  these plans was still behind schedule—only 19 percent of the plans were  complete even though more than half of the 15-year time frame had  elapsed. To help ensure that the plans would be completed on time, refuge  system officials required, among other things, refuge managers to identify  work that could be set aside to focus on completing conservation plans.  They also required regions to develop completion dates and milestones for  completing the plans and to use a central database for tracking milestones.  To date, about half of the 554 plans have been completed and about one- third are underway. Refuge officials said that they believe that they can  meet the deadlines; however, some plans are still behind schedule.

			Visitor Service Facility Construction

In 2003, in response to discussions with Congress about how best to fulfill  the requirement to provide the six wildlife-dependent activities described  in the Improvement Act, the refuge system began an initiative to place  greater emphasis on constructing small visitor facility structures, such as  observation decks, informational kiosks, and restrooms, instead of larger  visitor centers. These small structures are less expensive than visitor  centers—which in 2007 were estimated to cost an average of $5.7 million  each—and can be completed more quickly. Thus, a larger number of  refuges can receive visitor facility funds, enabling refuge system  investments to benefit a larger number of visitors. For fiscal years 2003  through 2007, the refuge system directed about $28 million toward these  projects. Nevertheless, large visitor centers continue to be funded, and the  refuge system was appropriated more than $51 million for visitor center  construction from fiscal years 2002 through 2007. Figure 10 shows  examples of visitor facility infrastructure.
In July 2002, in response to safety concerns, the Secretary of the Interior  directed the refuge system to begin an initiative to modify its law  enforcement program by, among other things, increasing the training  requirements for officers, reducing the system’s reliance on dual-function  officers—staff with other primary duties who perform law enforcement  duties part time—and creating an officer deployment model. Specifically,  the refuge system increased the training requirements for law enforcement  officers from 18 weeks to about 30 weeks from 2002 through 2007, with  the vast majority of that increase coming from a new field training  evaluation program. Refuge system officials also required some senior- level staff, and all dual-function officers who were performing law  enforcement functions less than 25 percent of their time, to cease  performing their law enforcement duties beginning in 2003. As a result, the  refuge system reduced the number of dual-function officers from 495 to  164 and hired 76 full-time officers who serve a single refuge. FWS also  created a “zone officer” position to serve multiple refuges and has hired 45  of these officers.
In 2005, the International Association of Chiefs of Police released a law  enforcement deployment model it developed with the refuge system to  identify the level of law enforcement personnel needed to provide  adequate protection of refuge resources and the public, and where those  officers should be deployed. The model recommended a total of 845 law  enforcement FTEs for the refuge system—about 600 FTEs more than the  refuge system currently has on board. Given the refuge system’s current  funding situation and the chances of the system attaining such a level,  senior refuge officials have identified 450 positions as the minimum  number they believe necessary to provide adequate protection. Refuge  officials are hoping they can approach that minimum number by hiring an  additional 200 officers in the near term.

			New Administrative Work

During our study period, refuge managers told us that they began feeling  the burden of a myriad of new administrative work, especially work that  applies to nonadministrative staff, resulting from refuge system, FWS, and  Interior policies. Ninety-three percent of refuge managers who responded  to our survey said administrative duties for nonadministrative staff have  increased since 2002; less than 2 percent of refuge managers reported a  decrease in this workload. For example, refuge managers expressed  concerns that the number of national reporting requirements and extent of  mandatory training classes, among other administrative tasks, were  burdensome. Furthermore, the refuge system created a new maintenance  database that required much more data entry than the previous system. In  addition, managers indicated that they have been receiving an increasing  number of data calls over the years.
In 2003, refuge managers began an effort to address increasing  administrative requirements and more than 300 refuge managers  participated in discussions about the problem. Several managers formed  an ad hoc committee in 2003 to address the issue and several officials from  headquarters and regional offices joined the effort in 2004. Together, they  drafted a white paper that provided several recommendations to reduce  the burden. A headquarters team took the effort over and, in October 2007,  released a report detailing their findings and 17 recommendations for  reducing some requirements, such as reviewing national reporting  requirements and eliminating those deemed unnecessary, as well as  making Web-based training optional. According to refuge officials at  headquarters, FWS is beginning to implement these 17 recommendations.

		The Influence of Various External Factors That Complicate Refuges’ Abilities to Manage Habitats and Provide Services Increased from Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007

A variety of factors that were generally outside the control of refuge  system management became more influential between fiscal years 2002  and 2007. Some of these factors were natural occurrences, such as  extreme weather, while others were due to the intensification of human  activities, such as development. These factors added to refuge workload,  complicating managers’ abilities to protect habitat quality and provide  visitor services.
One commonly cited external factor was extreme weather events such as  droughts, floods, and severe winds. Survey results show that the  contribution of extreme weather events to habitat problems increased at 52  percent of refuges; only 2 percent reported a decline. Storm damage also  increased at many more refuges than it decreased: in particular, hurricanes  Ivan, Katrina, and Rita in 2004 and 2005 damaged large parts of refuges in  the southeastern United States. Eighteen refuges in three states were  temporarily closed to the public as a result of these storms; a 19th refuge— Louisiana’s Sabine NWR—remains closed to public use. According to FWS,  storm damage to the refuge system in 2005 alone exceeded $300 million.
Development pressures caused by the expansion of urban areas and  problems associated with the conversion of off-refuge land to agriculture  or industrial use also increased during this period. Refuge managers  reported that human settlement infrastructure such as roads, housing, and  airports increasingly contributed to refuge habitat problems between 2002  and 2007—around 46 percent of refuges. These development pressures can  contribute pollution to refuge lands and waters and make it more difficult  to maintain viable, interconnected habitat in and around a refuge’s  borders. Moreover, increasing development around refuges can be  accompanied by an increase in the demand for recreational uses of nearby  refuges, including some uses—such as recreational boating or rock- climbing—that may be incompatible with a refuge’s established purpose.  In addition, the influence of off-refuge agricultural and industrial activities  increased for many more refuges than it decreased. Because refuges do  not exist in isolation, they must be managed in concert with adjacent lands  to maintain healthy habitats, a reality that requires managers to allocate  time to spend away from their refuges to develop working relationships  with adjacent and upstream landowners.
Other external factors affecting the refuge system include inadequate  water rights and rights-of-way, such as public roads that divide refuge  lands; the impacts associated with these factors worsened at more refuges  than they improved, though they were stable for almost half of all  respondents. Additionally, almost a quarter of the responses to our survey  identified impacts associated with climate change as one of the biggest  threats to habitat condition throughout the system. Managers reported that  they already are seeing effects that they attribute to climate change,  including drying of wetlands and wildfires of increased frequency and  intensity. In addition to the obvious effects on habitat condition, these  disturbances can affect wildlife-dependent visitor services, such as  hunting or photography, to the extent that they change waterfowl  migration patterns or the ranges of land- and water-based wildlife that  historically are native to a given refuge.

	Several Changes in Habitat Management and Visitor Services Occurred at Refuges from Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007, Raising Managers’ Concerns About Future Sustainability

From fiscal years 2002 through 2007, several changes occurred in refuges’  habitat management and visitor services, creating concerns about the  refuges’ abilities to maintain high-quality habitat and visitor services in the  future. While 28 percent to 40 percent of habitats on refuges for several  types of key species improved between fiscal years 2002 and 2007,  conditions at some refuges worsened and 7 percent to 20 percent of  habitats were in poor condition in 2007. Refuge habitats are facing  growing pressure from increasing habitat problems and external factors,  and although most refuges increased time spent on habitat management  activities, there is increasing concern from managers that staffing and  funding constraints will inhibit the ability of refuges to maintain quality  habitat in the future in light of increasing habitat problems and resource  constraints. The quality of visitor services improved on one-fifth to nearly  one-half of refuges between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, but environmental  education and interpretation programs were of poor quality at about one- third of refuges in 2007. While some refuges have been able to increase the  time spent on visitor services, refuge managers are concerned about their  ability to provide high-quality visitor services to the public given recent  funding and staffing changes.

		While Habitats on Refuges for Key Types of Species Improved More Often Than They Worsened between Fiscal Years 2002 and 2007, Others Are in Poor Condition and Many Refuge Managers Are Concerned about Maintaining Habitat Conditions

While 28 percent to 40 percent of habitats on refuges for several types of  key species improved between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, conditions of 11  percent to 18 percent of refuge habitats worsened and 7 percent to 20  percent of habitats were in poor condition in 2007. Habitat problems and  external factors are increasing at refuges, and most refuges increased the  time spent on habitat management activities. However, managers are  concerned that staffing and funding constraints will inhibit the refuges’  ability to maintain quality habitat in the future.

			Between Fiscal Years 2002 and 2007, Habitat Conditions on Refuges for Key Types of Species Improved More Often Than they Worsened, Although Some Refuges Have Poor Quality Habitat

Refuge managers reported that habitats for five key types of species we  surveyed refuges about improved between 2002 and 2007 about two times  as often as they worsened (see table 4).
Tualatin River NWR outside of Portland, Oregon, for example, saw a  marked improvement in wetland habitat, according to the refuge manager,  as the refuge has begun to address an invasive weed infestation over the  past year. The refuge has been addressing two primary invasive plants— knotgrass and cocklebur—that had infested approximately one-third of  the refuge’s 600 wetland acres since 2003, overtaking the native wetland  plants that thousands of birds rely on for food during migration. Through  herbicide application, mowing and discing, and water level manipulation,  the refuge was able to cut infestations in half over the last year, bringing  the habitat back up to sufficient quality for use by the migrating birds. We  observed the results of some of these activities to remove knotgrass (see  fig. 11).  fig. 11).
Refuge managers also reported that 11 percent to 18 percent of habitats on  refuges for key species have worsened since 2002. Camas NWR in Idaho,  for example, has faced a drought for the last several years. According to  the refuge manager, the lack of water has negatively impacted a riparian  zone of cottonwoods and willows that migrating birds, such as yellow  warblers, use during migration. In addition, many of the trees in the  riparian area are close to 100 years old and are dying. Currently, the refuge  is working on a plan to restore the vegetation, relying in part on wells for  irrigation, but expects it will take decades to restore.
As might be expected, we found differences in changes in the quality of  habitat for waterfowl and other migratory birds between focus and  targeted reduction refuges when compared to unstaffed refuges (see figs.  12 and 13). Specifically, we found that managers at focus and targeted  reduction refuges were significantly more likely to report that habitat  quality for waterfowl improved between 2002 and 2007 than at unstaffed  satellite refuges.  For example, between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, more  than twice as many focus refuges experienced improved waterfowl habitat  (42 percent) as experienced worsened waterfowl habitat (20 percent). At  unstaffed satellite refuges, by contrast, habitat for waterfowl worsened  almost as frequently as it improved, with 20 percent of refuges  experiencing improved quality and 16 percent experiencing worsened  quality. We found a similar situation for other migratory birds. We also  found that these relationships generally remain strong in statistical models  that simultaneously account for the effects of the change in staff time and  the change in external factors, such as extreme weather and agricultural  activity, which can contribute to habitat problems. For example, based on  these models, we estimate that focus refuges were 3.4 times more likely  than unstaffed satellite refuges to experience improved rather than  worsened habitat quality for other migratory birds and that targeted  reduction refuges were 3.9 times more likely.
In addition to analyzing the change in quality by tier, we analyzed changes  in the quality of habitat as a function of the time spent by permanent staff  at a refuge on habitat management activities. We found that refuge  managers were more likely to report that habitat quality improved at  refuges that increased the time spent on habitat management since 2002  than for those that reduced time, and were less likely to report that habitat  quality worsened (see fig. 14). These results were consistent with our  analysis of the change in quality of habitat as a function of staffing level  changes at complexes and stand-alone refuges.
The odds of habitat for waterfowl improving rather than worsening were  significantly higher at refuges where staff time on habitat management  activities increased rather than decreased between fiscal years 2002 and  2007. For example, among refuges where staff time increased, more than  three times as many refuges experienced improved habitat for waterfowl  (47 percent) as experienced worsened habitat (14 percent). In contrast,  among refuges where staff time decreased, nearly the same number of  refuges experienced improved habitat for waterfowl (30 percent) as  experienced worsened habitat (27 percent). We found similar results when  comparing change in staff time with the change in habitat quality for other  migratory birds (see fig. 15).
When we developed statistical models of habitat change, refuges where  staff time on habitat management activities increased were about 3.0 times  more likely than refuges where staff time decreased to report improved,  rather than worsened, habitat for both waterfowl and other migratory  birds, even after accounting for the effects of tier designation and the  change in external factors, such as extreme weather and agricultural  activity, that may cause habitat problems.
Resource prioritization at refuges obviously influences the ability of refuges  to maintain quality habitat. Refuge managers told us that decisions on how  many resources to direct to refuges are based on a variety of factors. Some  managers weigh the management needs of all the refuges within a complex,  taking into account the relative importance of the habitats as well as the  amount of time and resources needed for the management activities.  Unstaffed satellite refuges generally are smaller and have lower-priority  habitats and, in some cases, the refuges are limited in what management can  do, according to managers. Because some unstaffed refuges are located some  distance from equipment and supplies and from where refuge staff are  located, these distances and associated costs are taken into account as well.  Other managers told us that they will undertake efforts mainly in response to  specific problems identified at these refuges, while otherwise they generally  do not expend resources for habitat management. According to refuge  managers, it often is difficult to know what needs to be done at unstaffed  refuges because staff generally do not visit the refuges very frequently to  monitor the habitats.
Even though the condition of many habitats is improving, many of these  are still not high quality. Specifically, 40 percent of waterfowl habitats that  improved since 2002 were still of moderate quality or poorer in 2007, while  65 percent of habitats that stayed in the same condition were of moderate  quality or poorer. Similarly, for other migratory birds, 40 percent of  habitats that improved in condition since 2002 were of moderate or poorer  quality in 2007 and 55 percent of habitats that stayed in the same condition  were of moderate quality or poorer. Refuge managers reported that, on  average, habitats on about 44 percent of refuges for each of several types  of key species—waterfowl, other migratory birds, threatened and  endangered species, candidate threatened and endangered species, and  state species of concern—were of high quality in 2007. A similar  percentage of refuges deemed their habitats to be of moderate quality, and  7 percent to 20 percent of refuges reported habitats to be of low quality,  depending on the species type (see table 5).
Habitat quality is determined by the availability of several key  components, including fresh water, food sources, and nesting cover,  among other things, and the absence of habitat problems, such as invasive  species. High-quality habitat generally provides adequate amounts of each  of these main habitat components and is not significantly affected by  habitat problems, while low-quality habitat generally lacks these  components and may have significant problems. Moderate-quality habitat  has a mixture of good and bad attributes. For example, a habitat may have  an excellent tree canopy that provides good nesting areas and protection,  but the underlying vegetation may be inadequate as a food source due to  an infestation of an invasive species that has driven out native plants.  Some aspects of moderate-quality habitat are acceptable, but the problems  must be addressed overall for these habitats to fully support the species  that depend on them, according to managers with whom we spoke.
Other migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and state  species of concern appear to be faring the best with 47 percent or more of  habitats on refuges deemed to be of high quality and 13 percent or less of  habitats of low quality. Habitats for waterfowl and species that are  candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act are doing  somewhat worse. Refuge managers told us that these findings may in part  reflect the difficulty in addressing the very specific habitat needs of these  species and a lack of focus on addressing those needs because they are  not yet listed under the act.
We spoke with some managers who have areas of robust, high-quality  habitat on their refuge. For instance, Cache River NWR in Arkansas has  approximately 65,000 acres of bottomland hardwood—45,000 acres of  which are in pristine condition, with the remaining 20,000 acres in the  early stages of regrowth after being restored from prior agricultural use.  This refuge serves as an annual wintering area for 250,000 to 500,000  waterfowl including mallards, pintail, widgeon, gadwall, teal, and wood  ducks. The refuge eradicated invasive kudzu plants using herbicides and  its high-quality habitat provides necessary food, water, and cover for these  waterfowl and also supports a variety of other migratory birds including  warblers, indigo buntings, bluebirds, shorebirds, and wading birds.
However, we also spoke to managers who reported low-quality habitat on  their refuges. At Bowdoin NWR in northern Montana, for example, habitat  is compromised by water quality and quantity problems as a result of  activities on nearby lands, including haying and cropland use. The quantity  of water that the refuge receives is insufficient to allow adequate flow- through of the water supply and, as a result, the water available for the  refuge contains high levels of residual salt as well as agricultural  chemicals, which affect the composition of vegetation and the survival of  invertebrates. While a variety of bird species uses the refuge, including  waterfowl, shorebirds, bald eagle, peregrine falcons, and piping plover—a  federally listed threatened and endangered species—some populations of  these species have declined over time.
In addition to habitat quality, whether a refuge’s habitat is meeting the  needs of key species types is an important indicator as to a refuge’s  effectiveness in meeting its conservation mission. Our survey found that  refuge managers reported that habitats at a majority of refuges were  meeting the needs of key species types to a moderate or large extent in  2007 (see table 6).
Some refuge managers indicated that poor-quality habitat could still meet  the needs of some species to a large extent, just as high-quality habitat  could fail to meet the needs of some species to a large extent depending  on the species’ needs. High-quality habitat could fail to meet the needs of a  given species if, for instance, the species’ population was too large for the  refuge to support or if other species were competing for the same refuge  habitat, according to managers. In contrast, a habitat of moderate quality  could meet the needs of a species if that species population was small.
Species that are candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act  appear to be faring the worst, while other migratory birds appear to be  faring the best with regard to how well the habitat is meeting species’  needs. It is important to note that wildlife refuges are not necessarily  intended to provide habitat for all types of species—some refuges were  established to serve the needs of specific species such as waterfowl or a  particular endangered species, for example—and do not necessarily focus  on providing habitat for other species. When managers were asked to rate  the importance of their habitat for the different types of key species we  asked about, some of the refuge managers that reported low-quality  habitats also rated the habitat as having low importance or priority for the  species in question. For instance, about 56 percent of waterfowl habitat  that managers reported as low quality, they also considered that habitat on  their refuge to be low-priority habitat or not a priority for waterfowl; they  considered about 28 percent of low-quality habitat for other migratory  birds to be low-priority habitat or not a priority.

			Habitat Problems and External Threats Are Increasingly Affecting Refuges

Refuge managers reported that many refuges were negatively affected by a  number of problems and external factors, including invasive species,  habitat fragmentation, water quantity and quality problems, and soil  erosion, and that these problems and factors were increasing (see table 7).
Invasive plant infestation was the most frequently reported problem, cited  as a large problem on more than half of refuges and a moderate problem  on nearly a quarter of refuges, and was reported to be increasing on more  than half of refuges. This concern is consistent with information from the  most recent refuge system performance report as well, which shows that  more than 2.3 million acres of refuge lands are infested by invasive plants  and more than 80 percent of refuges have at least some invasive plants  present. Refuge managers with whom we met during site visits stressed  that invasive plants have become a problem that affects the quality of their  refuges’ habitats and threatens the quality of the refuge system as a whole.
According to managers, these invading plants overtake native plant  species that are used by animals for food and shelter, and have deleterious  effects on biological diversity. For instance, the refuge manager at Merritt  Island NWR in Florida told us that 30,000 acres of habitat on the refuge are  infested with invasive plants including Australian pine, Brazilian pepper,  Old World climbing fern, guinea grass, and cogongrass. In fact, the  Brazilian pepper has infested every one of the 75 water level control  structures on the refuge, with some impoundments more than 50 percent  overtaken by the invasive plant. These invasive plants are eliminating  native habitat and negatively impacting migrating birds such as rails,  bitterns, sparrows, Florida scrub-jays, and other species, according to the  refuge manager.
We observed a common invasive plant, purple loosestrife, at several  refuges we visited. Purple loosestrife crowds out native plants and can  dramatically reduce food, shelter, and nesting sites for wetland-dependent  species (see fig. 16).
The refuge manager responsible for Antioch Dunes NWR north of San  Francisco, described her refuge as being “in a constant uphill battle”  against invasive plants, including vetch, thistles, and various grasses. The  refuge is home to two endangered plants that depend on dune habitat on  the refuge—the Contra Costa wallflower and the Antioch Dunes evening  primrose—as well as the Lange’s Metalmark butterfly, a federal  endangered butterfly species that occurs only on this refuge. However, the  refuge has been inundated with a variety of invasive plants that, if not  constantly addressed, threaten to overtake the native habitat, including the  naked stem buckwheat on which the butterfly depends. The refuge  manager told us that the butterfly population declined for 4 consecutive  years, losing about 50 percent of the population each year, but increased  in fiscal year 2007.
In addition, refuge officials told us that invasive plants, like many other  problems, can worsen if they are not dealt with swiftly. For example, a  refuge may be able to completely eradicate an invasive plant if it addresses  it early and thoroughly. In some cases this may require actions for several  years in a row, as invasive plants frequently require consistent investment  and treatment strategies from year to year. If not treated early, the  infestation may spread exponentially and become a serious, long-term  problem. Gains made in one year can be lost many times over if control  efforts are not sustained.
Invasive animals also are problematic for refuges and were reported to be  a large problem on one-fifth of refuges. For example, nutria, a large rodent  species from South America, has infested refuges in east, west, and Gulf  coast states. Nutria can wreak havoc on water level control at refuges by  burrowing into and destabilizing streambanks and damaging water control  structures (see fig. 17).
Habitat fragmentation was the second-most frequently identified problem  for refuges, reported as a large problem at 44 percent of refuges, and  increasing on 57 percent of refuges. Habitat fragmentation occurs when  corridors of continuous habitat are disrupted, often by human  development activities, which affects the refuge system’s ability to  accomplish its wildlife conservation mission. The seriousness of this issue  was highlighted at a recent meeting of the Western Governors’ Association  by the release of a report on wildlife corridors. Specifically, the report  discusses the rapid changes due to development across the United  States—but in the West in particular—and how this adversely affects  wildlife, and emphasizes the need for habitat connectivity for species  survival. Some species, for example, require large areas of homogenous  habitat for successful nesting, foraging, or movement. Managers at refuges  close to urban centers showed us examples of development adjacent to  their refuge that have cut off natural habitat corridors, which can lead to  animals trying to cross busy roads or can cut them off from other  members of their species leading to genetic homogeneity and inbreeding.
For example, the refuge manager at Great Swamp NWR in New Jersey told  us that increased development surrounding the refuge has fragmented or  eliminated habitat. Valuable woodlots adjacent to refuge lands are  decreasing in size or disappearing altogether around the refuge, limiting  suitable nesting areas for species such as the red-shouldered hawk—a  state threatened species. In addition, the manager said that movement by  the bog turtle—a federal threatened species—has been constrained by  fragmentation of its habitat. Managers of more rural refuges talked about  increasing pressures to convert lands to agricultural uses, citing factors  such as the increasing price of corn, or to industrial uses, such as oil and  gas development.
Habitat fragmentation sometimes occurs within a refuge’s “approved  acquisition boundary.” A refuge’s approved acquisition boundary  delineates an area that has been approved for inclusion in a national  wildlife refuge but does not necessarily indicate that the entire area inside  this boundary has been—or ever will be—acquired by FWS. An important  conservation strategy for the refuge system that was codified in the  Improvement Act is the ability to acquire important habitats, when  possible. Thus, many refuges have acquisition plans for lands adjacent to  or near existing refuge lands to complete or supplement current refuge  habitat. For example, the acquisition plan for Nisqually NWR outside of  Olympia, Washington, includes 4,470 acres for eventual purchase within its  approved acquisition boundary (see fig. 18). The refuge manager at  Nisqually reported that increasing urban development is one of the biggest  problems facing the refuge. In addition to impacts such as reduced water  quality and increased crime, the manager told us that quality habitat  around the refuge is being lost to development despite an active refuge  acquisition program, because the refuge cannot address all habitat and  land protection needs at the pace necessary to offset habitat loss. Overall,  the refuge system has purchased only limited amounts of land within the  last 5 years, growing the system at approximately 0.25 percent per year.  When asked about their ability to manage an even larger refuge system—a  logical concern given the funding and staffing concerns currently facing  the refuge system—several managers were quick to point out that simply  protecting lands from development was a critical first step in conserving  wildlife, even if they did not have the resources to actively manage the  land.
As noted previously, refuge managers also reported a number of external  factors that contribute to habitat problems on refuges, including extreme  weather and development, and that the contribution of these factors  increased during our study period. Refuge managers told us that extreme  weather has caused water levels to vary, which can result in the drying of  wetlands, increased fire, and actual changes in the size and location of  species ranges. Development activities also can increase air, soil, and  water pollution to refuge lands and waters. For example, the refuge  manager at Ridgefield NWR, which lies in a small watershed in southern  Washington, told us increased urban development means more impervious  surfaces such as roads, driveways, and sidewalks, thus increasing the  amount of water polluted with oil, gasoline, yard chemicals, and animal  waste, among other things, that runs directly into the refuge during  rainfall, and decreases the amount of water that permeates the soil. In  addition, development can increase visitation at refuges, which can  negatively impact refuge resources. For instance, the refuge manager at  the Upper Mississippi NWR told us that recreational boating has led to  trash dumping, trampling of habitat, and excessive noise. Likewise,  Ridgefield NWR must deal with increased litter, illegal dumping, increased  trespassing, and damage to the habitat from increased refuge visitation  levels. Agricultural activities near the refuges also can contribute  pollutants to refuge lands and waters from runoff from animal waste and  fertilizers, for example.
Not surprisingly, managers reported that habitat was more likely to  worsen at refuges where there was an increase in external factors that  contribute to habitat problems, such as extreme weather and off-refuge  agricultural activities (see fig. 19). For example, among refuges that  reported no net increase in external factors, about 9.5 times more refuges  reported improved waterfowl habitat (38 percent) than reported worsened  waterfowl habitat (4 percent). By contrast, among refuges that  experienced a net increase in external factors, the number of refuges that  experienced improved waterfowl habitat (38 percent) was much closer to  the number that experienced worsened habitat (22 percent).
We found similar results for the change in other migratory bird habitat  (see fig. 20).
Based on our statistical models, which assess the effects of a change in  external factors while adjusting for the effects of tier designation and the  change in staff time, we estimate that refuges that experienced no net  increase in the number of external factors were about 7.0 times more  likely to experience improved, rather than worsened, waterfowl habitat  quality and 5.1 times more likely to experience improved, rather than  worsened, habitat quality for other migratory birds.

			Time Spent on Certain Habitat Management Activities Increased at Many Refuges

Refuge managers reported increasing the time spent on a number of key  habitat management activities on many refuges between fiscal years 2002  and 2007 (see table 8).
Not surprisingly, given the number of refuges with invasive plant  problems, refuge managers reported somewhat or greatly increasing time  spent addressing invasive plant infestations on 61 percent of refuges, while  somewhat or greatly decreasing time spent on this activity at only 9  percent of refuges. The refuge system’s national strategy for managing  invasive species states that “invasive species are, collectively, the single  greatest threat to native plants, fish, and wildlife with the potential to  degrade entire ecosystems;” however, eradicating or effectively controlling  invasive species through actions such as controlled burning, mowing,  manual removal, and herbicide application is often resource intensive. For  example, Antioch Dunes NWR is using a combination of managed grazing,  herbicide application, manual removal, and tractors and other equipment  to prevent several invasive species from harming two endangered plant  species and an endangered butterfly species.
In fiscal year 2007, about $9.8 million was budgeted for specific invasive  species activities. For example, about $2.3 million was budgeted for  invasive species strike teams in five specific areas of the country. These  teams were designed to eradicate newly identified infestations before they  become widespread with the goal of saving substantial funds in the long  run. In addition, more than $500,000 was budgeted for mapping and  tracking invasive plants on refuges and coordinating volunteer work for  invasive species control activities. Eradication programs for specific  species also were budgeted funds, such as $700,000 for nutria eradication  at the Blackwater NWR and Eastern Neck NWR in eastern Maryland and  the Southeast Louisiana Refuges Complex; over $1.3 million for spartina  grass eradication at the Willapa NWR and Grays Harbor NWR in western  Washington; and about $200,000 for an exotic rodent species at the Pacific  Remote Islands NWR Complex. In addition to these specific programs,  refuge managers also may spend resources on other invasive species- related activities on their refuges.
Despite these investments, however, performance data from fiscal year  2007 show that only about 12 percent of the acreage identified as infested  with invasive plants was treated in fiscal year 2007. The estimated cost of  unfunded invasive species control projects found in the refuge system’s  operational needs database was more than $150 million dollars at the end  of 2007. The refuge system’s national strategy for invasive species control  states that nearly half of all refuges report that invasive species  infestations interfere significantly with their wildlife management  objectives. Given that refuge managers reported that invasive plants were  increasing at many refuges and that new invasive species gain a foothold  in the United States every year, refuges will likely be constantly battling  this problem.
As might be expected given reported improvements in habitat quality  during our study period, refuge managers reported increasing the time  spent on basic habitat management activities such as haying, mowing,  prescribed burning, or manipulating water levels on 43 percent of refuges  and increasing time spent on habitat restoration activities, such as planting  native grasses or trees, and creating water control structures, such as  levees, at about 48 percent of refuges since fiscal year 2002. Basic  management activities represent the day-to-day work that refuge staff  perform to protect, conserve, and improve habitat conditions. Refuge  managers, biologists, maintenance workers, and others routinely monitor  water impoundments to ensure water levels are optimal for migrating  birds, for instance. Restoration projects often have longer-term timelines  and are meant to re-establish native habitats on the refuge. Such  restoration projects—which may be as extensive as a restoration of a 100- acre grove of bottomland hardwood forest that could take nearly 50 years  to complete, or as small as constructing a water impoundment to flood a  small wetland area that could be constructed in a couple of months—are  key to attracting and sustaining wildlife populations. Managers reported  decreasing the time spent on basic management and restoration activities  at 18 percent and 14 percent of refuges, respectively.
Refuge managers’ responses on changes in the time spent on inventory  and monitoring surveys of habitat conditions and wildlife populations— which are key activities that allow refuges to identify, report on, and  manage wildlife populations and specific problems—were more mixed.  Refuge managers reported increasing the time spent on these activities at  40 percent of refuges, while decreasing time spent on 20 percent of refuges  since 2002. These surveys are an important way to understand how well  wildlife populations and habitats are doing and whether a refuge is  accomplishing its habitat management goals. Managers told us that having  accurate data on habitat conditions and wildlife populations, among other  things, is critical as they develop and deploy their comprehensive  conservation plans. In addition, a number of refuge managers told us that  their comprehensive conservation planning efforts led them to increase  the amount of survey work they conducted, as the planning efforts require  baseline data on habitat and wildlife conditions. For example,  Rappahannock River Valley NWR in Virginia increased its inventory and  monitoring surveys, partly to support development of its comprehensive  conservation plan. In addition, accurate data from these surveys are  important for correctly reporting data for FWS’s annual performance  report and for early identification of problems affecting habitat. In the case  of invasive species, for instance, a small infestation can spread  exponentially over a very short time period.
Some managers indicated that they are conducting fewer surveys, some of  which are of lower quality. The managers said that they are depending  more on volunteers or temporary workers to do the surveys, which can  limit the survey quality because volunteers may not have the requisite  background, experience, or training in biological survey methods. Some  refuge managers told us that they have had to cut back on needed survey  work due to staffing and funding shortfalls, while a few others told us that  increasingly available and easy-to-use technologies have helped them  increase the amount of survey work being done.
Relatedly, refuge managers reported increasing time spent developing  comprehensive conservation plans at nearly 60 percent of refuges since  2002—about two-thirds of refuges reported engaging in planning activities  in fiscal year 2007. This is not surprising, given the requirement that all  refuges must complete their plans by 2012, and the fact that less than 50  percent have been completed to date. The conservation planning process  can be time consuming, given the need to hold public meetings, conduct  environmental reviews, and coordinate with state and local entities.
During our interviews, several refuge managers told us that they generally  did not obtain additional staff to develop these plans; instead, they have  had to shift responsibilities from existing staff or curtail other refuge  management activities to devote time to the plans. For example, one  refuge manager reported that the refuge set aside an invasive species  eradication project after several years of implementation in order to work  on the conservation plan for the refuge. To minimize the time such  planning has taken away from other refuge activities, some refuge  managers we interviewed told us that they or their staff worked on the  plans on their own time. One refuge manager reported that he worked on  the comprehensive conservation plan on weekends and converted the  refuge’s biologist to a full-time planner on a temporary basis. Another  manager stated that refuge staff attended fewer public meetings that were  not related to the comprehensive conservation plan so they would not  have to cut back on other refuge work.
Consistent with the importance that FWS places on working with owners  of lands adjacent to and near refuges, refuge managers reported  coordinating with landowners at more than 85 percent of refuges in 2007  and increasing the time spent on this activity at 50 percent of refuges since  2002. This coordination with adjacent landowners is increasing as  concerns about habitat fragmentation and off-refuge pollution grow, and  FWS increasingly is considering the need to deal with the broader  ecosystems of which the refuges are a part. In addition, two refuge  managers noted that coordination with adjacent landowners has the added  benefit of being a good outreach tool and of giving the refuge, and the  refuge system, a better image and a more positive status with the broader  public. Some refuges have employees specifically designated to undertake  these efforts, while others depend on the work of the refuge manager for  these efforts.
Permanent staff and volunteers increased the time spent on habitat  management activities at 48 percent and 45 percent of refuges,  respectively (see table 9). However, consistent with shifts in resources as  a result of workforce planning, permanent and temporary staff time spent  on habitat management decreased at 29 percent and 19 percent of refuges,  respectively.
Refuge managers have discretion over the activities on which staff spend  their time. For instance, individual refuges face different challenges—due  to such things as natural weather cycles and increases or decreases in  habitat problems or external factors affecting habitat—that managers need  to address. Other influences over how to prioritize staff time may result  from management decisions, such as the decision to focus more on  working with adjacent landowners, or statutory requirements, such as the  comprehensive conservation plans that must be completed.
In discussing habitat management activities with refuge managers,  managers indicated that unstaffed satellite refuges will generally only see  habitat management work on an infrequent or “as-needed” basis. For  instance, the manager for a refuge complex in southern Washington state  told us that the complex’s unstaffed satellite refuge, which is not open to  the public, gets management attention only during a few weeks per year  when equipment and staff are available. Similarly, an unstaffed refuge in a  complex in New Hampshire has been visited by refuge staff only five times  in the past 7 years, according to the complex manager.
Based on our site visits, we learned that some refuges were attempting to  address reductions in permanent staff by relying on volunteers or  contractors more heavily. However, our survey results indicated that  refuges that increased permanent staff time on habitat management were  more likely to increase time spent by volunteers and contractors than  refuges that decreased permanent staff time (see table 10).
While volunteers and contractors perform important functions, they  cannot replace refuge staff because they must be managed, trained, and  supervised. Across the board, if a refuge reported an increase in time spent  on habitat management by permanent staff, they generally also spent more  time on habitat management activities by all other type of worker; rarely  did these refuges reduce the amount of time other workers spent on these  activities, indicating the importance—as nearly every refuge manager we  spoke with did—of permanent staff in order to carry out needed refuge  work. For refuges that reduced permanent staff time on habitat  management activities, the results were much more mixed. These refuges  reported significantly more decreases in the amount of time that other  workers spent on habitat management activities, and it does not appear to  hold true that refuges that reduce staff necessarily rely more heavily on  other types of workers. In particular, refuges where permanent staff time  on habitat management activities decreased were significantly more likely  to report decreases in time spent by volunteers at refuges and less likely to  report increases in volunteer time, as compared to refuges where  permanent staff increased. This likely reflects the catch-22 that refuge  managers face with regard to volunteers—while having people interested  in helping the refuge can help relieve their workload, volunteers still need  direction, oversight, and sometimes training by refuge staff. While some  refuge managers indicated that they would not be able to accomplish their  habitat management objectives without their volunteer corps, there also is  concern about the over-reliance on volunteers to assist with these  activities because their availability over the long term is not guaranteed  and volunteerism levels can fluctuate greatly.

			Refuge Managers Are Concerned about Their Ability to Maintain Habitat Conditions

In light of increasing problems and threats affecting refuge conditions, as  well as recent funding and staffing constraints, refuge managers and  regional and headquarters officials expressed concern about refuges’  abilities to sustain or improve current habitat conditions for wildlife into  the future; our survey results corroborate these concerns. While each  refuge operates under unique circumstances and faces unique habitat  challenges, refuge managers across the system are concerned about a  variety of specific threats to their individual refuge habitats and to the  refuge system as a whole. Although our survey results do not indicate  major declines in habitat quality since fiscal year 2002, many managers are  concerned about their ability to maintain quality conditions in the future.
Even though our survey showed that a large number of refuges increased  staff time on habitat management activities, some refuge managers we  interviewed explained that staff were simply working longer hours to get  the work done. Several refuge managers repeatedly indicated that they are  still trying to do everything possible to maintain adequate habitat,  especially habitats for key species, such as waterfowl, other migratory  birds, and threatened and endangered species, despite growing habitat  problems and other factors affecting refuge habitats and an increasing  administrative workload that reduces the amount of time refuge staff can  spend performing habitat management work. Several managers said that  attention to key habitats is the last thing that will stop receiving  management attention in the event of declining funding. They told us that  refuge staff are very dedicated to the purpose and mission of the refuge  system, but that they fear employee burnout. Several managers even said  that they have to limit the amount of time staff spend at the refuge, as  these employees are working overtime without extra pay.

		The Quality of Visitor Service Programs Improved More Often Than Worsened between Fiscal Years 2002 and 2007, but Some Programs Were Poor Quality in 2007 and Refuge Managers Are Concerned about the Quality of Visitor Services in the Future

The quality of visitor services improved on one-fifth to nearly one-half of  refuges between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, but environmental education  and interpretation programs worsened at some refuges and were of poor  quality at about one-third of refuges in 2007. Although some refuges have  increased the time spent on these services, refuge managers are concerned  about their continued ability to provide high-quality visitor services to the  public given recent funding and staffing changes.

			Quality of Visitor Service Programs Varied within the Refuge System between Fiscal Years 2002 and 2007

Encouragingly, visitor services quality was reported as staying stable or  improving since 2002 by the vast majority of refuge managers responding  to our survey. Most notably, environmental education and interpretation  programs showed the largest percentage of refuges reporting  improvement, although these programs also showed the largest  percentage reporting declines as well, as compared to other visitor  services (see table 11).
Our survey found that four of the six key visitor services provided to the  public were of moderate or better quality at most refuges in 2007, but  environmental education and interpretation were reported to be low  quality at about one-third of refuges (see table 12).
Visitor services deemed moderate quality did not invoke the same level of  concern from refuge managers as did habitat deemed moderate quality.  While managers would prefer high-quality programs, moderate quality  does not jeopardize the survival of certain species, as moderate-quality  habitat may. Hunting and wildlife observation programs topped the list of  visitor services in quality, with high-quality programs at more than half of  refuges and just about 10 percent of refuges with low-quality programs.  Some managers told us that there is a focus on ensuring that hunting  programs are successful because of the significant public demand for  hunting on refuges. They also noted that it is fairly easy to support wildlife  observation, as well as photography, via regular refuge infrastructure such  as roads and trails; therefore, it is not resource intensive for refuges to  implement and manage high-quality programs for these activities.
Environmental education and interpretation programs received the lowest  marks, with about one-third of refuges with low-quality programs; about  the same percentage of refuges had programs deemed high quality.  Managers told us that education and interpretation are among the most  resource-intensive visitor service programs because they require staff time  for developing and delivering educational supplies, as well as  infrastructure, such as classrooms. Refuge managers we met with told us  that, for these reasons, environmental education and interpretation  programs often are among the first areas to be cut when a refuge faces  competing demands.
A major factor influencing the quality of visitor services—beyond the  abundance of fish and wildlife populations—is the amount and quality of  refuge infrastructure and the availability of supplies. For example, the  availability of trails and tour routes is essential to providing the public  with access to what refuges have to offer and is generally important for  supporting any type of visitor service activity. Hunting and fishing  infrastructure depends largely on physical structures such as duck blinds,  boat launches, and fishing platforms. Providing wildlife observation and  photography opportunities simply requires adequate access to the refuge,  but can be enhanced through observation platforms and photography  blinds. Figure 21 shows examples of infrastructure for wildlife observation  and photography.
Environmental education depends on physical infrastructure, such as  classrooms, and supplies, such as workbooks, handouts, and microscopes.  Environmental interpretation also depends on physical infrastructure such  as informational kiosks and interpretive signs along trails. Figure 22 shows  examples of infrastructure for environmental education and  interpretation.
The amount and quality of visitor services infrastructure stayed about the  same or increased on the vast majority of refuges since 2002 (see table 13).
According to refuge managers and regional officials, improvements at least  partly reflect the initiative to focus funding on small-scale visitor services  infrastructure, such as improvements to parking lots and construction of  informational kiosks and restrooms. The increased ability of refuges to  implement such projects likely is responsible for refuge managers’  assessments of improvements in environmental interpretation. However,  infrastructure conditions worsened at between 12 percent and 26 percent  of refuges. According to refuge managers, this reflects that, in many cases,  refuges have insufficient staff and funding to keep up with necessary  infrastructure maintenance and repairs. In addition, many managers we  interviewed reported that they still lack enough infrastructure to deliver  quality visitor services and meet the demand for these services. Refuge  managers reported that insufficient infrastructure has negatively impacted  the quality of education and interpretation programs to at least a moderate  extent on about 60 percent of refuges, photography and observation  programs on about 40 percent of refuges, and hunting and fishing  programs on about 20 percent of refuges. Some refuge managers reported  that there is no infrastructure at all on their refuges for the visiting public.  In addition, some refuge managers reported not being able to meet public  demand for some programs. For example, one refuge manager told us that  while many local schools request environmental education programs, the  refuge must turn them down because they have no facilities to  accommodate school groups. Some refuge managers we spoke with  indicated that they would be able to stimulate additional demand for all  visitor services if they could improve the amount and quality of  infrastructure, including trails, hunting blinds, boat launches, photography  blinds, and observation platforms.

			Change in Time Spent on Visitor Service Activities Varied across the Refuge System

Consistent with the improvements in program quality noted for  environmental education and interpretation (at 40 percent and 47 percent  of refuges, respectively), managers reported increases in the time spent on  these programs at 44 percent of refuges. These programs, however, also  received less time on 29 percent and 27 percent of refuges, respectively.  Overall, at least one in five refuges reported a decrease in staff time for  each visitor service area (see table 14).
In some cases, according to several refuge managers, the changes in time  spent may reflect a shift in staffing due to workforce planning, while in  other cases, it may reflect the prerogative of refuge managers to move  staff away from visitor services in favor of needed habitat management  activities.
Not surprisingly, more than half of refuge managers reported increasing  the amount of time spent on visitor services by volunteers (see table 15).  Refuge managers said that volunteers frequently are relied upon to help  manage visitor centers and deliver education programs. Given staff  reductions due to workforce planning and comments from managers that  visitor services are the first to be cut when resources are constrained, it  also is not surprising to see that time spent by permanent staff on visitor  services had been reduced at more than one-third of refuges. When  comparing these results to those for habitat management, more refuges  increased permanent, temporary, and contractor staff time on habitat  management activities than increased their time on visitor services  activities. Conversely, more refuges increased time spent by volunteers  and cooperators on visitor services than on habitat management.
We found that the time spent by various types of workers on visitor  service activities as a function of increases or decreases in time spent by  permanent staff were similar to the results for the time spent on habitat  management. Specifically, as with time spent on habitat management,  refuges that reported an increase in permanent staff time for visitor  services were more likely than those reporting a decrease also to report an  increase in other staff time. For example, refuges that reported an increase  in permanent staff time spent on visitor services were eight times more  likely to report an increase in the time spent by temporary staff on these  programs than refuges that reported a decrease in permanent staff time.  Refuges where permanent staff time increased also were twice as likely to  increase volunteer time (see table 16).
This analysis also is consistent with our analysis of changes in staff time as  a function of staff increases or decreases at a stand-alone refuge or  complex. In addition, those refuges that increased time spent on habitat  management also tended to be the refuges that spent more time on visitor  services. Specifically, refuges that reported spending more permanent staff  time doing habitat management work were almost five times more likely  to report spending permanent staff time providing visitor services, and  refuges that reported spending less permanent staff time doing habitat  management work were about four times more likely to report a decrease  in permanent staff time providing visitor services. Again, this suggests that  some refuges are seeing an overall gain in staff—most likely at focus  refuges—while others are seeing an overall loss—likely at targeted- reduction and unstaffed satellite refuges.
As with habitat management activities, a lack of staff was identified as a  key factor hindering the quality of some visitor service programs. Refuge  managers identified staffing as a key factor negatively affecting the quality  of environmental education and environmental interpretation programs at  85 percent of refuges; staffing was cited as negatively affecting hunting  programs at more than 50 percent of refuges. According to refuge  managers and regional documentation, some visitor service programs that  were active in the past have had to be cut back due to staffing. For  instance, plans to renovate a building used for environmental education at  Wallkill River NWR in New Jersey were halted when staff reductions made  it impossible to continue the refuge’s emphasis on environmental  education. Minnesota Valley NWR reported a 13 percent drop in the  number of students participating in environmental education after the loss  of park ranger staff, and Kodiak NWR reported that it curtailed its  educational programs due to the elimination of an environmental  education specialist position. In other cases, refuge managers told us that  they do not seek out groups that would be interested in programs at the  refuge because there simply are not enough refuge employees to provide  the additional education and interpretation services that would be needed  if more visitors were to come to the refuge. Similarly, some refuges do not  have adequate staff to administer check stations full time during hunting  seasons or adequate law enforcement personnel to enforce permitting  requirements and take limits. The refuge manager at Cape Romain NWR in  South Carolina reported an approximate 20 percent reduction in  participation of the refuge’s hunting program after the refuge lost a park  ranger.
Some stakeholder groups have voiced serious concerns with the  deteriorating condition of visitor services and public access to refuges due  to recent funding trends and assert that the refuge system needs  substantially more funding to fulfill the requirements of the Improvement  Act. Some have noted concerns with refuges reducing hours or closing  refuges to the public because of staff constraints. According to our survey  of refuge managers, however, these concerns do not reflect widespread  conditions. A very small number—about 4 percent—of refuges have  decreased the hours they are open to the public, while slightly more than  12 percent indicated that they have actually increased the hours they are  open. However, the change in the number of hours that visitor centers are  open to the public varied quite substantially. Specifically, for those refuges  that reported having visitor centers, 20 percent indicated that visitor  center hours increased, while about 27 percent reported that hours  decreased. For example, the visitor contact station at Occoquan Bay NWR  has been closed for several years due to staffing shortages; instead, the  refuge relies on an “honor fee” system (see fig. 23). Survey results do not  show a significant difference among the three refuge tiers with regard to  changes in the hours refuges are open to the public. However, according  to our survey, targeted reduction refuges were almost twice as likely as  focus refuges to have decreased the hours that their visitor center is open.  This is most likely due to staffing changes resulting from workforce  planning, which were targeted at targeted-reduction refuges.
While some refuges have visitor services staff and sufficient infrastructure,  refuge managers indicated that staffing changes, partially resulting from  workforce planning, and a lack of resources for increasing and  maintaining infrastructure, raise concerns about their ability to provide  quality visitor services into the future. In fact, in response to an open- ended question concerning the biggest threats to visitor services on  refuges, a large majority of managers cited either funding, staffing, and  infrastructure as primary threats to the quality of visitor service delivery;  almost 75 percent of refuge managers singled out staffing alone as the key  problem affecting visitor services. As noted previously, refuge managers  tend to focus resources on maintaining habitat conditions in times of tight  budgets, at the expense of visitor services. Refuge managers also are  concerned about the impact that the increasing administrative workload  incurred by nonadministrative refuge staff is having on the refuges’ ability  to deliver visitor services—also noted as a major concern for refuges’  ability to maintain habitat management.
Managers also expressed concern about a continued, and in some cases  increasing, dependence on volunteers to keep up with public demand for  visitor services. Volunteers help refuges with a large variety of visitor  services activities including operating visitor centers, providing education  and interpretive services, and building and maintaining interpretative  kiosks and other infrastructure. However, managers told us that although  volunteers provide valuable services, they cannot fully replace lost refuge  staff. In addition, volunteerism levels are unpredictable, and many of the  refuge managers we met with indicated that volunteer levels have  generally been declining. Furthermore, as noted previously, even if a  refuge has a good supply of volunteers, it will still need to devote  employee time to training, supervising, and coordinating volunteers.
Refuge managers and regional and headquarters officials expressed  concern about the long-term implications of declining and low-quality  visitor services occurring at some refuges. Many refuge managers cited the  importance of providing opportunities for the public to utilize refuge  resources—in particular, ensuring they have positive outdoor experiences  and providing them with meaningful educational and interpretative  services—to the future of the refuge system. This helps ensure that refuges  have visibility in the community, that the public understands the purpose  and importance of what the refuge system does, and that refuges are  thought of as a vital community resource. Refuge managers told us that  positive recreational and educational experiences help ensure public  support for refuge operations, and outreach and public education help  bolster the number of people interested in volunteer opportunities on  refuges. These activities also are important, according to refuge managers,  because the refuge system increasingly is turning toward partnerships  with private landowners in an effort to maintain and improve ecosystems  both on and around refuges; public education about the refuge system can  increase the viability of important refuge partnerships with nonprofit  environmental and land management organizations who work with  adjacent landowners, other federal and state land management agencies,  and others on conservation efforts. Refuge officials also told us that public  perception of land management work assists with land acquisitions,  inasmuch as more private landowners will be willing to work with the  agency on land transactions. In addition, refuge managers cited the  availability of visitor services as a way to get young people interested in  future careers with the refuge system and instill in children an  appreciation for wildlife and the outdoors and an interest in maintaining  these resources.

	Concluding Observations

In light of continuing federal fiscal constraints and an ever-expanding list of  challenges facing refuges, maintaining the refuge system as envisioned in  law—where the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the  refuge system are maintained; priority visitor services are provided; and the  strategic growth of the system is continued—may be difficult. While some  refuges have high-quality habitat and visitor service programs and others have  seen improvements since 2002, refuge managers are concerned about their  ability to sustain high-quality refuge conditions and continue to improve  conditions where needed because of expected continuing increases in  external threats and habitat problems affecting refuges. Already, FWS has had  to make trade-offs among refuges with regard to which habitat will be  monitored and maintained, which visitor services will be offered, and which  refuges will receive adequate law enforcement coverage. FWS’s efforts to  prioritize its use of funding and staff through workforce planning have  restored some balance between refuge budgets and their associated staff  costs. If threats and problems afflicting refuges continue to grow as expected,  it will be important for the refuge system to monitor how these shifts in  resources are affecting refuge conditions.

	Agency Comments and Our Response

GAO provided Interior with a draft of this report for its review and comment.  The department provided technical comments that we have incorporated as  appropriate. The department’s comments are presented in appendix VI.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 2 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to interested  congressional committees, the Secretary of the Interior, and other  interested parties. We will also make copies of this report available to  others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge  on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your offices have questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for our offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix VII.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

The objectives of this study were to (1) describe changing factors that the  National Wildlife Refuge System experienced from fiscal years 2002  through 2007, including funding and staffing changes, and (2) examine  how habitat management and visitor services changed during this period.  To address these objectives, we reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and  policies as well as numerous agency documents discussing the refuge  system. We also reviewed other reports that related to refuge system  operations such as reports on climate change and possible impacts on  refuges published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, on  development and impacts on wildlife by the Western Governors’  Association, and on challenges facing the refuge system by the  Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement—a consortium of groups  interested in the refuge system.
We obtained and analyzed funding and staffing data from the Federal  Financial System and the Federal Personnel Payroll System, and refuge  planning and performance data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s  (FWS) Refuge Annual Performance Planning System. We worked with  national program officials to identify the 222 complexes and stand-alone  refuges that existed during the time period we reviewed. We interviewed  database technicians and their managers to understand how the  information in these databases is compiled and maintained. Where  necessary, we worked with database technicians to ensure their output  files contained needed data elements, and we validated our resulting  analyses with regional and national program officials. Our review of the  data and our discussions with program officials indicated that the payroll  and personnel databases were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our  review. We used the performance planning system to assist in site  selection and determined that it was sufficiently reliable for this purpose.
We analyzed the obligations data in both nominal and inflation-adjusted  terms. To remove the effects of inflation, we adjusted nominal dollars  using the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Price Index for Government  Consumption Expenditures and Gross Investment (federal nondefense  sector), with 2002 as the base year. The price index reflects changes in the  value of government output, measured by the cost of inputs, including  compensation of employees and purchases of goods and services.  Consistent with the proportion of FWS’s operating expenditures on  personnel, this price index is more heavily weighted by changes in federal  workers’ compensation than the overall GDP price index.
We met with officials at refuge system headquarters, refuge offices at 4  FWS regions (Hadley, Massachusetts; Denver, Colorado; Portland, Oregon;  and Minneapolis, Minnesota), and 19 refuges, and conducted phone  interviews with officials at the other 4 regional offices and about 50  additional refuges. We selected refuges for site visits in order to see a  range in geographic location, visitation level, refuge prioritization level,  and type of management activities and challenges.
Given the differences in the refuges across the system and the need to  gather information on a range of topics, we surveyed all 585 units within  the refuge system—including stand-alone refuges and refuges within  complexes. Survey respondents primarily were refuge managers or project  leaders of refuge complexes. Survey questions were crafted to obtain  information on a variety of issues, including how the following changed  between fiscal years 2002 and 2007: the quality of various types of habitat,  the extent of various habitat problems, the extent to which external  factors affected habitat problems, the amount of time spent on various  management activities, the amount and quality of visitor services  infrastructure, and the quality of visitor services. We also inquired about  their activities between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, and their perspectives  on the challenges facing the refuge system and refuge management and  reporting.
During our site visits and in interviews with 9 randomly selected refuge  managers, we explored various potential survey questions to confirm we  were eliciting the information we intended and whether managers could  answer the questions in a clear, consistent manner with minimal difficulty  in data recall, among other things. When it became clear that we needed to  include “pick lists” of possible answers for certain questions, we utilized  knowledge gained from prior interviews and obtained feedback from 12  refuge managers about what should be included in these lists. We  conducted formal pretests with 8 refuge managers and used structured  probes to determine: (1) if respondents had the information and  knowledge necessary to answer the question, (2) if respondents  interpreted the questions in the same way as other respondents, (3) if  respondents interpreted the questions as we intended, (4) if respondents  felt that the response categories offered the correct level of precision, and  (5) if respondents felt that we used the terminology commonly used by  refuge managers. After changes were incorporated to address pretesting  concerns, we sent the survey to a random sample of 10 refuge managers to  complete and “validate” the survey. No concerns were raised during the  validations about respondent bias, response burden, relevancy of the  questions, ability of the respondent to answer, or confidence in response  accuracy. We also obtained comments from refuge system officials in  headquarters. We then distributed the survey to all refuge units.  Subsequently, we determined that 538 units should be included in our  scope of analysis because FWS does not have full management  responsibility for all of its units. We received an 81 percent response rate  for this subset of refuges used in our analysis. We conducted follow-up  interviews with 14 refuge managers to verify that we were correctly  interpreting responses and to clarify certain points. See appendix II for a  detailed discussion of the analysis of this survey.
Below is a summary of the key questions we are reporting on from the  survey. We also asked other questions that we do not specifically report on  to obtain further context.
Between fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2007, did the overall quality of  pesticide runoff, soil erosion, and manure), off-refuge industry (such as  energy development, mining, logging, and military activities), off-refuge  human settlement (such as roads, construction, housing, septic systems,  and airports), rights of way (from roads and utilities), on-refuge sources of  pollution (such as energy production, grazing, and legacy waste), on- refuge activities (such as visitation and fire suppression), inadequate water  rights, and other factors (respondents could write in)?
In fiscal year 2007, did workers on your refuge (including permanent  employees, temporary employees, contract workers, volunteers, and  cooperators) conduct the following habitat management activities and did  the amount of time spent on these activities increase, stay the same, or  decrease between fiscal years 2002 and 2007: addressing invasive plants,  addressing invasive animals, addressing water pollution, addressing soil  contamination, addressing air pollution, addressing light pollution,  addressing plant disease, addressing animal disease, conducting routine  habitat management activities, conducting habitat restoration projects,  conducting inventory and monitoring surveys of habitat condition,  conducting inventory and monitoring of wildlife populations, addressing  habitat fragmentation, addressing lack of water, addressing excessive  water, addressing damage to habitat form wildfire, addressing damage to  habitat from storms, addressing damage to habitat from recreational use,  addressing damage to habitat from crime, doing conservation planning,  and coordinating with nearby landowners?
Between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, did the amount of time spent by the  following types of workers to conduct habitat management activities on  your refuge increase, stay the same, or decrease: permanent employees,  temporary employees, contract workers, volunteers, and cooperators?
In fiscal year 2007, did your refuge provide the following visitor services:  hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental  education, and environmental interpretation?
If you did not provide some of the six visitor services, what were the reasons:  not compatible with refuge, lack of resources to provide, or other reasons?
Between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, did the hours of the refuge or the  visitor center on your refuge (if there is one) increase, stay the same, or  decrease?
Between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, did the quantity and condition of the  following types of visitor services infrastructure increase, stay the same,  or decrease: trail and tour routes, hunting infrastructure (such as blinds  and check stations), fishing infrastructure (such as boat launches, docks,  and platforms), wildlife observation infrastructure (such as platforms and  viewing areas), wildlife photography infrastructure (such as blinds,  platforms, and viewing areas), education infrastructure (such as buildings  and study locations), and interpretation infrastructure (such as signs,  kiosks, and exhibits)?
Between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, did the amount of time spent by all  workers on your refuge (including permanent employees, temporary  employees, contract workers, volunteers, and cooperators) to provide the  following visitor services increase, stay the same, or decrease: hunting,  fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental  education, and environmental interpretation?
Between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, did the amount of time spent by the  following types of workers to provide visitor services on your refuge  increase, stay the same, or decrease: permanent employees, temporary  employees, contract workers, volunteers, and cooperators?
In fiscal year 2007, how would you rate the overall quality of the following  visitor services at your refuge and did the quality improve, stay the same,  or worsen between fiscal years 2002 and 2007: hunting, fishing, wildlife  observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and  environmental interpretation?
In your professional judgment, what are the biggest threats to the  condition of habitat and visitor services at your refuge?
In your professional judgment, what are the biggest threats to the  condition of habitat and visitor services for the National Wildlife Refuge  System?
Do you feel that the criteria for placing refuges into tiers were appropriate  to distinguish among competing priorities of the refuges in your region?
Between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, did the number of work days spent by  your refuge’s nonadministrative staff on selected administrative activities  increase, stay the same, or decrease?
We conducted our work between July 2007 and September 2008 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those  standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,  appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence  obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives. We also conducted reliability assessments  of the data we obtained electronically and determined those data to be of  sufficient quality to be used for the purposes of this report.

Appendix II: Statistical Analysis of Habitat Change

During our site visits to wildlife refuges, during our interviews with refuge  managers, and in written responses to our survey questions, refuge  managers asserted that staff reductions threaten the quality of wildlife  habitat. To test these assertions, we developed statistical models that  assess whether staffing change is associated with changes in habitat  quality. In particular, our models assess whether refuges where staff spent  decreased time on habitat management activities between fiscal years  2002 and 2007 were more likely than other refuges to report that habitat  conditions worsened rather than improved. In assessing this likelihood,  our models account for refuge characteristics other than change in staff  time that might impact habitat conditions, including tier designation,  which indicates relative importance of a refuge compared to other refuges,  and the change in external factors, such as extreme weather and off-refuge  agriculture, that contribute to habitat problems. The results of our models  show that habitat was more likely to worsen, rather than to improve, at  refuges where staff time decreased between fiscal years 2002 and 2007  compared to those where staff time increased, even after adjusting for  these other characteristics.

	Data Used in Our Analysis

Our analysis assesses the change in the quality of waterfowl and other  migratory bird habitat as a function of three key refuge characteristics: (1)  the change in staff time spent on habitat management, (2) tier designation,  and (3) the change in external factors that contribute to habitat problems.  Frequency counts for the key variables used in our analysis are presented  in table 17.
To measure habitat change, we used responses to a question on our  survey, which asked whether the overall quality of habitat on a refuge  improved, stayed the same, or worsened between fiscal years 2002 and  2007. The question was asked separately for both waterfowl and for other  migratory birds, leading to two indicators of the change in habitat quality.  We used these two indicators to develop separate statistical models for  waterfowl and for other migratory birds.
To measure the first key refuge characteristic, the change in staff time  spent on habitat management activities, we used data from a question on  our survey, which asked whether the total amount of time that permanent  staff spent conducting habitat management activities on a particular  refuge between fiscal years 2002 and 2007 increased, stayed the same, or  decreased. For the second key refuge characteristic, tier designation, we  obtained data from FWS for each refuge. In 2006, the agency designated  refuges as focus, targeted reduction, or unstaffed satellite refuges. In our  analysis, tier designation represents the relative importance of a given  refuge within a complex as the agency determined in 2006. To measure the  third key refuge characteristic, the impact of external factors, we used  responses to a question on our survey, which asked whether the  contribution of various external factors to habitat problems on a refuge  increased, stayed the same, or decreased between fiscal years 2002 and  2007.  We used these data to classify refuges into two groups. Refuges in  the first group, which we refer to as having a net increase in external  factors, reported that the contribution to habitat problems increased for  more of these factors than it decreased. Refuges in the second group,  which we refer to as having no net increase in external factors, reported  that either the contribution of these factors decreased for more factors  than it increased or that the contribution of these factors increased for the  same number that it decreased.
Refuges were included in our analysis if they indicated that providing  habitat for waterfowl or other migratory birds was at least somewhat of a  priority and if they provided usable responses to each of the key survey  questions described above. Of the 437 refuges that responded to our  survey, 40 were excluded from our analysis of the change in waterfowl  habitat because they reported that providing this type of habitat was not a  priority at their refuge. Similarly, 14 refuges were excluded from our  analysis of the change in other migratory bird habitat for the same reason.  Of the remaining 397 refuges, 374 provided useable responses for all key  survey questions and were included in our analysis of waterfowl habitat,  while 400 of the remaining 423 refuges provided sufficient responses to be  included in our analysis of other migratory bird habitat.

	Cross-Tabulations between Habitat Change and Refuge Characteristics

Before developing statistical models, we cross-tabulated data on the  change in habitat quality against data for the three key refuge  characteristics described above (namely, the change in staff time, tier  designation and the change in external factors). The results of these cross- tabulations show that, although habitat was more likely overall to improve  than it was to worsen, the odds of improving rather than worsening, vary  considerably depending upon the characteristics of a refuge. Complete  results of these cross-tabulations, along with tests of the statistical  significance of these associations, are presented in tables 18 and 19.
These cross-tabulations show that the change in habitat quality is associated  with the change in staff time. For example, as shown in table 18, among  refuges where staff time increased, more than three times as many refuges  experienced improved habitat for waterfowl (47 percent) as experienced  worsened habitat (14 percent). By contrast, among refuges where staff time  decreased, nearly the same number of refuges experienced improved habitat  for waterfowl (30 percent) as experienced worsened habitat (27 percent). We  found similar results when comparing change in staff time with the change in  habitat quality for other migratory birds (table 19).
The cross-tabulations also indicate that changes in habitat quality depend,  in part, upon tier designation. Focus and targeted reduction refuges were  more likely than unstaffed satellite refuges to experience improved rather  than worsened habitat. For example, as shown in table 18, between fiscal  years 2002 and 2007, more than twice as many focus refuges experienced  improved waterfowl habitat (42 percent) as experienced worsened  waterfowl habitat (20 percent). At unstaffed satellite refuges, by contrast,  habitat for these birds worsened almost as frequently as it improved, with  20 percent of refuges experiencing improved quality and 16 percent  experiencing worsened quality. The cross-tabulations show a similar  disparity among tiers with regard to changes in the quality of habitat for  other migratory birds (table 19).
Finally, our cross-tabulations indicate that changes in habitat quality also  depend upon the change in external factors that contribute to habitat  problems. For example, among refuges that reported no net increase in  external factors, about nine times more refuges reported improved  waterfowl habitat (38 percent) than reported worsened waterfowl habitat  (4 percent), as shown in table 18. By contrast, among refuges that  experienced a net increase in external factors, the number of refuges that  experienced improved waterfowl habitat (38 percent) was much closer to  the number that experienced worsened habitat (22 percent). We found  similar results for the change in other migratory bird habitat (table 19).
Although the results of the cross-tabulations are strong and statistically  significant, they provide only a partial assessment of the relationship  between habitat change and refuge characteristics. This is because the  cross-tabulations compare habitat change with each refuge characteristic  individually without accounting for the influence of the other  characteristics. For this reason, we developed statistical models that allow  us to account for the effects of all of these characteristics simultaneously.

	Formulation of Statistical Models

Our statistical models, technically referred to as a multinomial logistic  regression, were used to assess the effects of each refuge characteristic on  the change in habitat quality while adjusting for the effects of the other  characteristics. These models estimate the effects of each refuge  characteristic on (1) the odds of habitat improving, rather than worsening,  and (2) the odds of habitat staying the same, rather than worsening. For  example, our models estimate the number of times more likely that habitat  is to improve, rather than to worsen, at refuges where staff time increased  compared to refuges where staff time decreased, controlling for the effects  of tier designation and the change in external factors. Similarly, our  models estimate effects for tier designation and for the change in external  factors.
In order to test the adequacy of our models, we verified that our data  contained a sufficient number of refuges with each combination of  characteristics, each model adequately fit the data based on chi-square  goodness-of-fit tests, and high associations among the refuge  characteristics would be unlikely to confound model estimates. We used  robust regression techniques to adjust for the fact that refuges clustered  within the same complex may have provided similar responses to survey  questions. In order to be confident that the estimates from our regression  models are robust to various specifications, we formulated and tested  several alternative models to ensure that we obtained similar estimates for  the effects of staffing change, tier designation, and change in external  factors. The statistical analysis was performed by a senior research  methodologist and was reviewed by a managing methodologist and a  professional statistician. Their review assessed the model specification,  model development, model results, and the conclusions derived from  these results. In order to ensure that the analysis was free of programming  errors, each line of the computer syntax used to develop the model was  verified by a senior data analyst.

	Results of Statistical Models

Our regression models indicate that change in staff time and tier  designation are associated with changes in habitat quality. These findings  are true for both waterfowl and other migratory bird habitat. The models  indicate that these associations are statistically significant even after  adjusting for other refuge characteristics, including the change in external  factors. The results of our regression models are presented in tables 20  and 21. In particular, highlights include:    The odds of habitat improving, rather than worsening, were significantly  greater at refuges where staff time increased compared to those where  staff time decreased. Specifically, we estimate that refuges where staff  time increased were about 3.0 times more likely than refuges where staff  time decreased to report improved, rather than worsened, habitat for both  waterfowl and other migratory birds.
The odds of habitat improving, rather than worsening, were higher at  focus and targeted reduction refuges as compared to unstaffed satellite  refuges. For example, we estimate that focus refuges were 3.4 times more  likely than unstaffed refuges to experience improved rather than worsened  habitat quality for other migratory birds and that targeted reduction  refuges were 3.9 times more likely. Targeted reduction refuges were also  significantly more likely than unstaffed satellite refuges to experience  improved rather than worsened waterfowl habitat, although focus refuges  were not significantly different from unstaffed refuges in this regard.
Change in external factors is strongly associated with habitat change. For  example, refuges that experienced no net increase in the number of  external factors were about 7.0 times more likely to experience improved,  rather than worsened, waterfowl habitat quality and 5.1 times more likely  to experience improved, rather than worsened habitat quality for other  migratory birds.
Our models also found that the change in staff time and the change in  external factors were associated with an increased likelihood of habitat  quality staying the same rather than worsening. In particular, we found the  following:    The odds of habitat staying the same rather than worsening were higher   at refuges where staff time stayed the same. Specifically, we estimate   that refuges where staff time stayed the same were 3.9 times more likely  than refuges where staff time decreased to report that habitat for other  migratory birds stayed the same rather than worsened. This effect was  only marginally significant for waterfowl habitat.
The odds of habitat staying the same rather than worsening were higher at  refuges that did not experience a net increase in external factors that  contribute to habitat problems. Specifically, we estimate that refuges that  experienced no net increase in external factors were 8.0 times more likely  to report that waterfowl habitat stayed the same, rather than worsened,  and 5.8 times more likely to report that other migratory bird habitat stayed  the same rather than worsened.
The key results of our models are robust to alternative specifications. We  tested for the presence of interaction effects between staff time and tier  designation, that is, whether the effect of a change in staff time depends  upon tier, but found no evidence of such an effect. We fit models that  accounted for habitat priority using data from a question on our survey  that asked:  according to the purpose of each refuge, how much of a  priority is providing habitat for waterfowl and other migratory birds. The  results of these models show that the estimated effects of staff change and  tier designation did not diminish after accounting for habitat priority,  indicating that the effects of staff change and tier are not limited to lower  priority habitats. We also fit models that used data on the change in the  number of full-time equivalent staff at the complex level, rather than  survey data about changes in staff time at the refuge level, as a measure of  staffing change between fiscal years 2002 and 2007. These models found  results similar to those reported above:  namely, that refuges that were  part of complexes that gained staff were significantly more likely than  those that were part of complexes that lost staff to report that habitat  conditions improved rather than worsened.    significantly associated with increased staff time, and that worsened  habitat quality is significantly associated with decreased staff time, it is  subject to certain limitations. First, our data on habitat change are based  on the perception of refuge managers rather than on direct measurements  of habitat conditions. To minimize this limitation, we conducted more than  two dozen pretests to ascertain, before administering our survey, that land  managers could provide valid responses to these questions. Second, while  our model identifies a statistical association between the change in habitat  condition with the change in staffing, it is not able to assess whether  staffing changes actually caused changes in habitat quality. Statistical  correlation is necessary but not sufficient evidence to demonstrate  causation. Third, because of the dynamic nature of wildlife habitat, the  effects of staffing changes may not appear immediately. Staffing cuts may  result in a reduction in habitat management activities, which may not find  their effect on habitat for several years. Conversely, restoration projects  may take several years to see an effect. Fourth, we do not have data on the  initial quality of habitat; while we were confident that refuge managers  could assess trends at their refuge, we were not confident that they could  accurately rate the quality of habitat in fiscal year 2002, 6 years prior to the  administration of our survey. As a result, we are unable to determine, for  example, whether refuges that improved in quality were already of high  quality or whether refuges that worsened were already of low quality. In  spite of these limitations, our models are consistent with the assertions  made by refuge managers in showing that decreases in staff are strongly  associated with worsening habitat, although the actual size of the effect  might be somewhat higher or lower than we estimate it to be.

Appendix III: Deferred Maintenance

Deferred maintenance is maintenance to repair, rehabilitate, dispose of, or  replace buildings and other facilities. Deferred maintenance projects are  monitored in the Service Asset and Maintenance Management System  (SAMMS), which tracks, among other things, asset maintenance and  capital improvement needs. SAMMS replaced the Maintenance  Management System (MMS) database in 2005 because refuge system  management wanted to move toward a more comprehensive system,  according to a refuge system official. Refuge managers identify  maintenance needs and document the needs in SAMMS via work orders. If  these needs have not been addressed after 1 year, they are eligible to  become deferred maintenance projects. In addition, regional facility  managers conduct condition assessments of refuge buildings, grounds,  equipment, and infrastructure, during which they may find assets that  should have been entered into SAMMS but were not. In this case the asset  may be identified as deferred maintenance without the 1-year waiting  period. Furthermore, deferred maintenance projects are limited to those  projects that require less than 25 percent capital improvement; will be  completed within 2 years; cost at least $5,000, but less than $750,000; and  have repair costs that do not exceed the asset’s current replacement value.
The deferred maintenance backlog appears to be increasing, but the actual  change in the backlog cannot be determined because the refuge system  implemented several recordkeeping changes between fiscal years 2002 and  2007. Specifically, refuge system officials stated that the following  recordkeeping changes occurred during this time period.  1.  Each refuge asset is now entered into SAMMS as a single project,  whereas multiple assets could have been entered as a single project in  MMS.  2.  All assets must now be entered into SAMMS, including inexpensive  assets such as signs and fencing, whereas only the more expensive  refuge assets, such as buildings, were typically entered into MMS.  3.  The refuge system implemented comprehensive condition  assessments—which will take place once every 5 years—to better  determine maintenance deficiencies, and the data were entered into  SAMMS between fiscal years 2006 and 2007.  4.  The Federal Highway Administration completed an assessment of the  maintenance needed on refuges’ public-use roads, one of the most  expensive assets to maintain, and the newly identified roads projects  were entered into SAMMS between fiscal years 2006 and 2007.
Taken together, these recordkeeping changes limit our ability to assess  yearly trends in the refuge system’s deferred maintenance backlog.  However, refuge system officials reported that the changes allow them to  maintain more complete and accurate information about the condition of  refuge assets. For example, the requirement that all assets be entered as  separate projects in SAMMS was made to allow refuge system officials to  determine if the cost of maintenance was greater than the current  replacement value of each individual asset. According to refuge  management, it was too difficult to assess the maintenance cost relative to  the current replacement value when multiple assets were listed as one  project in MMS. Table 22 presents the refuge system’s deferred  maintenance backlog by region for fiscal years 2002 through 2007.
The refuge system received increased funding from fiscal year 2002  through fiscal year 2004 to address its deferred maintenance backlog,  although the funding decreased from 2004 through 2007. For example,  Congress funded 2 years worth of deferred maintenance in fiscal year  2001, and this combined total became the new base funding amount in  fiscal year 2002, according to refuge system management. Although we  cannot determine the extent to which the additional funding helped the  refuge system address the backlog, for the reasons outlined above, several  senior refuge system officials asserted that the funding has had a positive  impact and that the refuge system’s assets appear to be in better condition  now than before the funding increase.

Appendix IV: Refuge Operating Needs System

The Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) is the refuge system database  for cataloging operational requirements such as staff, equipment, and  planned projects at refuges throughout the system. According to refuge  system management, it is intended to be a full inventory of funding needs  for annual operations at field stations. Refuge managers determine their  total needs on the basis of operational plans, congressional direction, and  departmental priorities, and enter these needs as projects into the  electronic RONS database.
Since its inception in the early 1990s, RONS has been one of the primary  tools refuge system officials use to develop estimates for additional  funding needed to address high-priority projects at certain refuges. These  project estimates are included in budget requests submitted annually to  congressional appropriators. In reports that accompany the refuge  system’s annual appropriation, Congress indicates whether the program’s  RONS project requests are fully funded. In fiscal year 2002, 108 RONS  projects were funded; 5 years later, there were 4 projects included in the  2007 budget submission.
Refuge system management told us that some RONS projects are given a  higher priority than others. During the fiscal year 1998 congressional  appropriations process, appropriations staff asked the refuge system to set  priorities within RONS, and also directed them to conduct an analysis to  determine minimum staffing levels at refuges. To fulfill this requirement,  refuge system officials divided existing RONS projects into two tiers: (1)  tier 1, consisting of staffing projects as determined by the minimum  staffing analysis as well as other high-priority projects that were deemed  critical to the mission of the refuge, and (2) tier 2, comprising projects that  were considered to be lesser priorities.
At the end of fiscal year 2007, the total value of RONS projects awaiting  funding was just over $1 billion. According to refuge system officials, these  projects are sometimes referred to as the RONS backlog (adopting the  language used to describe the system’s deferred maintenance). Tier 1  projects are for mission-critical needs and therefore would be comparable  to backlogged maintenance projects; at the end of fiscal year 2007, tier 1  projects encompassed about 2,300 unfunded projects totaling about $300  million. Conversely, tier 2 projects describe activities associated with  expanded capabilities, not unmet requirements, and thus refuge system  officials do not consider these projects to be “behind schedule” in the  same sense as those in the system’s deferred maintenance backlog. Table  23 presents the RONS project backlog, containing both tier 1 and tier 2  projects, for fiscal years 2002 through 2007.
According to the refuge system’s RONS manager, the refuge system’s  leadership targets tier 1 projects for funding unless explicitly directed to  target tier 2. However, evolving national-level priorities can result in tier 2  projects receiving funding before their tier 1 counterparts. For example,  the increased attention on law enforcement following the attacks of  September 11, 2001, resulted in funding for law enforcement personnel as  part of projects that were placed in tier 2. Overall, a quarter of RONS  projects funded from fiscal years 2002 through 2007 were identified as tier  2 projects, as shown in table 24.
Headquarters officials maintain oversight over the RONS inventory,  periodically removing projects that are no longer needed, according to the  RONS manager. Moreover, between 2000 and 2006, headquarters  attempted to keep the number of projects in the RONS inventory stable in  order to make progress in reducing the backlog. During this period,  refuge managers were prevented from entering new project requests into  the database. In fiscal year 2006, refuge system officials reviewed RONS’  second tier of projects, deleting entries that appeared to be out of date.  This accounted for much of the 48 percent drop in total project cost  between fiscal years 2005 and 2006, as seen in table 23. The database was  then reopened in 2007 to allow for new project entries from refuge  managers. However, several managers that we spoke with on our site  visits were unaware that the database had been reopened, or had given up  entering RONS projects altogether due to the many years that the database  was closed to new entries. Other managers perceived little realistic chance  that their projects would be funded, given the magnitude of the project  backlog and the fact that the number of projects requested significantly  outpaces the ability of the refuge system to secure RONS funding. Table 25  presents the ratio of projects in the RONS backlog to each project that  received funding for fiscal years 2002 through 2007. As shown in the table,  there were 2,119 projects in the RONS backlog for every 1 project that  received funding in fiscal year 2007. Similarly, for every $1 in funding  directed toward RONS projects in 2007, there were $1,469 worth of  unfunded projects in the backlog.

Appendix V: Total Core Obligations, Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted (in 2002 Dollars), and Core FTEs, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007

	Kauai NWR Complex - Hanalei NWR, Huleia NWR, and Kilauea Point NWR

Sonny Bono Salton Sea NWR Complex – Coachella Valley NWR and Sonny Bono Salton Sea NWR  Stillwater NWR – Anaho Island NWR, Fallon NWR, and Stillwater NWR  Total, NWRS Headquarters (Region 9) uartered at the Des Lacs NWR.  Since 2006, Des Lacs NWR has been a satellite  of a complex headuartered at the J. Clark Salyer NWR.  All of Des Lacs NWR’s former satellite  refuges are now part of the Lostwood WMD complex.

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of the Interior

Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

	GAO Contact

	Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the individual named above, Trish McClure, Assistant  Director; Mark Braza; David Brown; Stephen Cleary; Tim Guinane; Carol  Henn; Richard Johnson; Michael Krafve; Alison O’Neill; George Quinn, Jr.;  and Stephanie Toby made key contributions to this report.

Summary:
Why GAO Did This Study

The National Wildlife Refuge System, which is administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service in the Department of the Interior, comprises 585 refuges on more than 96 million acres of land and water that preserve habitat for waterfowl and other migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and other wildlife. Refuges also provide wildlife-related activities such as hunting and fishing to nearly 40 million visitors every year. GAO was asked to (1) describe changing factors that the refuge system experienced from fiscal years 2002 through 2007, including funding and staffing changes, and (2) examine how habitat management and visitor services changed during this period. We surveyed all refuges; visited 19 refuges in 4 regions; and interviewed refuge, regional, and national officials. In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of the Interior made technical comments that we have incorporated as appropriate. GAO is not making recommendations in this report.

What GAO Found

Between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, the refuge system experienced funding and staffing level fluctuations, the introduction of several new policy initiatives, and the increased influence of external factors such as extreme weather that threaten wildlife habitat and visitor infrastructure. Although core funding--measured as obligations for refuge operations, maintenance, and fire management--increased each year, inflation-adjusted core funding peaked in fiscal year 2003 at about $391 million--6.8 percent above fiscal year 2002 funding. Inflation-adjusted core funding ended the period 2.3 percent below peak levels, but 4.3 percent above fiscal year 2002 levels by fiscal year 2007. Core refuge staffing levels peaked in fiscal year 2004 at 3,610 full-time equivalents--10.0 percent above the fiscal year 2002 level--and then declined more slowly than funding levels. By fiscal year 2007, staffing levels fell to 4.0 percent below peak levels, but 5.5 percent above fiscal year 2002 levels. Through fiscal year 2007, the number of permanent employees utilized by the refuge system declined to 7.5 percent below peak levels. During this period, refuge system officials initiated new policies that: (1) reduced staff positions and reallocated funds and staff among refuges to better align staff levels with funding; (2) required refuge staff to focus on a legislative mandate to complete refuge conservation plans by 2012; (3) shifted to constructing a larger number of smaller visitor structures, such as informational kiosks, and fewer large visitor centers to spread visitor service funds across more refuges; (4) increased the number of full-time law enforcement officers and their associated training and experience requirements; and (5) resulted in additional administrative work. During this period, external factors that complicate refuge staffs' ability to protect and restore habitat quality also increased, including severe storms and development around refuges. Our survey showed that the quality of habitat management and visitor service programs varied across refuges during our study period. Habitat conditions for key types of species improved about two times more often than they worsened, but between 7 percent and 20 percent of habitats were of poor quality in 2007. Certain habitat problems increased at more than half of refuges during this period, and managers reported that they increased the time spent on certain habitat management activities, such as addressing invasive plants, despite declining staffing levels. However, several managers we interviewed told us that staff were working longer hours without extra pay to get work done, and managers expressed concern about their ability to sustain habitat conditions. While the quality of four key visitor service programs was reported to be stable or improving between fiscal years 2002 and 2007 at the vast majority of refuges, the other two key programs--environmental education and interpretation--were considered poor quality at one-third of refuges in 2007. Changes in the time spent on visitor services varied considerably across refuges, and managers noted that visitor services generally are cut before habitat management activities when resources are limited. Managers are concerned about their ability to provide high-quality visitor services in the future given staffing and funding constraints.