Evaluating Sources of Job Satisfaction: Evaluating Sources of Job Satisfaction:

A Survey of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuge A Survey of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuge

Managers and Biologists Managers and Biologists

Information and Technology Report

USGS/BRD/BSR--2003-0004
To purchase this report, contact the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal 

Road, Springfield, VA 22161 (call toll free 1-800-553-6847), or the Defense Technical Information 

Center, 8725 Kingman Rd., Suite 0944, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6218. 
Evaluating Sources of Job

Satisfaction: A Survey of U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Refuge Managers and

Biologists 

Information and Technology Report 

USGS/BRD/ITR--2003–0004 

December 2003 

By 

Phadrea D. Ponds 

Ayeisha A. Brinson 

Delwin Benson 

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Suggested citation: 

Ponds, P.D., Brinson, A.A., and Benson, D., 2003, Evaluating sources of job satisfaction: A survey of U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife refuge managers and biologists: Information and Technology Report, USGS/BRD/ITR--2003–0004, 8 p. 

ii 
Contents

Page 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Method and Variables .................................................................................................................................................... 1

Selected Study Results ........................................................................................................................................... 2

Perception as a Professional .................................................................................................................................. 2

Sources of Job Satisfaction .................................................................................................................................... 4

Sources of Job Dissatisfaction ............................................................................................................................... 5

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................................... 5

Opportunity ............................................................................................................................................................ 5

Stress ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5

Leadership .............................................................................................................................................................. 6

Work Standards ...................................................................................................................................................... 6

Fair Rewards .......................................................................................................................................................... 6

Adequate Authority ................................................................................................................................................ 6

References Cited ........................................................................................................................................................... 6

iii 
Evaluating Sources of Job Satisfaction: A Survey of 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuge Managers and Biologists 

By 

Phadrea D. Ponds 

Ayeisha A. Brinson1 

U.S. Geological Survey

Fort Collins Science Center 

2150 Centre Avenue, Bldg. C 

Fort Collins, CO 80526-8118 

and 

Delwin Benson 

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Biology 

Colorado State University 

Fort Collins, CO 80523 

satisfied with their jobs than biologist? If so, what are Introduction 

the components of that satisfaction? What are the sources 

of dissatisfaction?

The following summary consists of revised excerpts To further assess the attitudes and perceptions of from the thesis study that was conducted in 2000—2002 refuge biologists and managers we attempted to answer by Ayeisha Brinson, Colorado State University (Brinson, the following questions: 2002). The purpose of this report is to provide the U.S. • What are the differences and similarities between 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with additional find- refuge biologists and managers on their ings related to sources of job satisfaction. Because this perceptions as professionals? is a report of additional findings from a lengthy study, • What are the differences and similarities between 

the information in this report is condensed and presented refuge biologists and managers on their level of without references from the original research. The lit- job satisfaction? erature review, methodology, and discussion from the • What are the differences and similarities between 

original thesis are not presented in this report. Any ques- refuge biologists and managers on their level of tions concerning the thesis should be directed to Ayeisha job dissatisfaction? Brinson, who may be reached by e-mail 

(abrinson@rsmas.Miami.edu). 

The purpose of the report is to examine differences Method and Variables 

and similarities between National Wildlife Refuge 

managers and biologists on a selection of independent The original study employed a self-administered

variables related to job satisfaction occupational status survey with open- and closed-ended questions to gather

(being either a manager or a biologist): are managers more the data. The participants for this study were drawn from 

the 240 physically staffed USFWS refuges in the 

continental United States (staff duplications and unstaffed 

1

Current address: P.O. Box 612514, North Miami, refuges were removed from the survey sample). A 

FL 53261-2514. manager and refuge biologist were identified at each 

1 
2 INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY REPORT--2003–0004 

refuge (n = 480). A total of 314 (65.4%) respondents 

[managers (174; 55.1%); biologists (133; 42.4%; and 

other (8; 2.5%)] returned the survey. A modified Dillman 

(2000) technique was used to administer the survey; and 

finally the data were analyzed using SPSS 11.0.

 Selected Study Results 

The results show that of the 314 respondents who 

answered the survey, 75% were male, 23% female, and 

2% did not respond to the question. The average age of 

the respondents was 44.5. 

Forty-seven percent of the respondents had a BA or 

a BS degree in biological sciences. Another 47% had 

graduate degrees (MS or MA) in either biological or ecological sciences and the remaining 6% reported having a 

Ph.D. in ecological sciences or related studies. The majority of the respondents were self-reported as either a 

GS 11 or 12 (56%). In order to understand the dynamics 

of people’s sources of job satisfaction it is important to 

understand the factors that make people different. One 

factor that we used, as a general measure to test these 

differences, was political ideology. When asked about 

their political orientation, respondents reported being 

more liberal than conservative: 40% reported having 

more liberal political orientation than slightly conservative or conservative orientations, 22% reported moderate orientation, and 32% reported having slightly 

conservative or conservative political orientations. A 

description of all respondents is displayed in Fig. 1 (also 

see the Appendix). 

Correlations were run to determine whether age, 

gender, ideology, number of years in service, grade level, 

and educational level were significantly related to occupational status. As seen in Table 1, gender and educaTable 1. Correlation coefficients describing the significant relationships between occupational status and 

selected socio-demographic variables.

 Refuge manager/biologist

 Pearson Sig. 

Variables correlation (2-tailed) 

Gender .242 .000 

Age -.114 .047 

Ideology -.108 .060 

Number of years -.081 .157 

Grade level -.042 .463 

Level of education .271 .000 

a

Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). 

tional level were both positively related to occupational 

status. Additional significant socio-demographic summary statistics included age, ideology, number of years 

in service, and grade level. These findings are consistent 

with the view that gender and educational levels are key 

factors in determining occupational status (McCormick, 

2000). Other socio-demographic data were not significantly related to occupational status. 

We also performed an analysis of the correlations 

between refuge managers and biologists and with several subscales (sources of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction, and perception as a professional). Of interest 

between the biologist and managers was the fact that the 

perception as a professional had a weak but significant 

correlation with our measures concerning job satisfaction (Table 2). 

Perception as a Professional 

When managers and biologists were asked to indicate 

how they would like others to perceive them as a 

professional, the most frequent response overall was that 

they wanted to be perceived as a good land steward and 

wildlife biologist (n = 103; 39%; Table 3). 

When viewed independently, managers highest 

preferences were to be perceived as good land stewards 

(n = 68; 45%). However, among the biologists, being 

perceived as a good scientist (n = 38; 33%) and wildlife 

manager (n = 40; 35%) were considered to be the most 

important professional qualities. Interestingly, being 

considered as a good scientist earned zero responses from 

the managers. The managers rated being a good program 

administrator (n = 20; 13%) and good people manager 

(n = 9; 5%) higher than being a good scientist (Table 3). 

Table 2. Correlation coefficients describing the significant relationships between occupational status and 

selected variables.

 Refuge manager/biologist

 Pearson Sig. 

Variables correlation (2-tailed) 

Sources of

 job satisfaction -.032 .576 

Sources of

 job dissatisfaction .028 .627 

Perception as a

 professional -.331 .000 

a

Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). 
PONDS AND OTHERS 3 

Gender 

male female no answer

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Age categories 

30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and over no answer

Percent 40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Number of years with FWS 

no answer 

26-30 

21-25 

16-20 

11-15 

6-10 

1-5 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

GS Grade level 

no answer 

GS 14 

GS 13 

GS12 

GS 11 

GS 9 

GS 7 

Percent 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Educational Level 

highest dgree 

no answer 

MBA/MPA/MSP 

PhD - Ecological Stu 

MA/MS - Biological S 

BA/BS - Biological S 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Ideology 

no answer

extremely conservati 

conservative 

slightly conservativ 

moderate 

slightly liberal 

l

extr

iberal

emely liberal 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Percent Percent Percent 

Percent 

Fig. 1. Overall statistics of all respondents (n = 314). 
4 INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY REPORT--2003–0004 

Table 3. Frequency distribution of comparing perceptions as a professional by selected socio-demographic 

characteristics.

 Refuge manager/biologista

 Manager or Biologist or Gender Educational level 

Perception as a professional Acting manager Acting biologist Male Female BA/BS MA/MA Ph.D. 

Good scientist 0 38 25 14 11 23 5 

Good wildlife manager 55 40 78 21 49 49 0 

Good people manager 9 0 7 2 5 4 0 

Good program administrator 20 1 17 4 17 4 0 

Good land steward 68 35 8 22 52 47 2 

Total 152 114 207 63 134 127 7 

a

X2 statistic shows a significant difference between managers and biologists at P <.001 (X2 = 73.197; P <.000) 

Sources of Job Satisfaction 

The original question regarding the greatest sources 

of job satisfaction was an open-ended question that asked 

the respondents a number of questions about their level 

of job satisfaction (satisfaction with work on the present 

job, supervision, co-workers, and satisfaction with the 

job in general). However, for the purposes of this report, 

responses were categorized and grouped. Overall, more 

than half of the respondents (n = 185; 61%) reported 

that accomplishing projects for wildlife/habitat protection (i.e., working outdoors, participating in interesting 

projects, and having a challenging job) was the most 

important source of their job satisfaction (Table 4). This 

was the highest priority for both men (n = 148; 63%) 

and women (n = 42; 57%) (Table 4). When comparing 

biologists and managers, there were no significant differences in sources of job satisfaction (Table 4). On average, managers were slightly more likely than biologists 

to report that accomplishing projects for wildlife protection , land stewardship, and teamwork all impacted their 

sources of job satisfaction. However, none of these had 

more than a slight impact. The findings in this section 

suggest that intrinsic or personal philosophies contributed greatly to the sense of job satisfaction. 

Sources of Job Dissatisfaction 

Respondents were asked to give an account of the 

things in their jobs that were considered the most imporTable 4. Frequency distribution of sources of job satisfaction by refuge managers/biologists, gender, and 

educational level.

 Refuge manager/biologista

 Manager or Biologist or Gender Educational level 

Sources of job satisfaction Acting manager Acting biologist Male Female BA/BS MA/MA Ph.D. 

Accomplishing projects for

 wildlife/habitat protection 107 78 148 42 89 98 2 

Land stewardship/future

 generations 30 20 36 14 23 21 3 

Dream job/enjoy this work/

 personal satisfaction 8 19 16 11 16 9 2 

Results for visitors/

 visitor appreciation 6 7 10 2 7 6 0 

Working with other groups/

 professionals 7 3 9 1 4 6 0 

Teamwork/leadership 14 4 14 4 10 8 0 

Total 172 131 233 74 149 148 7 

a

X2 statistic shows a significant difference between managers and biologists at P <.05 (X2 = 12.949; P <.024). 
PONDS AND OTHERS 5 

tant source of job dissatisfaction. Because this question 

was open-ended, the results were coded into five categories (Table 5): bureaucracy and red tape (n = 131; 

43%); staff conflict (n = 54; 18%); lack of funding and 

staff (n = 52; 17%); ineffective leadership (n = 40; 13%); 

and public mistrust (n = 18; 6%). Overall, the biologists 

(n = 81; 61%) felt that they were overburdened by bureaucracy and red tape to a far greater degree than did 

managers (n = 50; 29%; Table 5). It is interesting to note 

that male respondents (n = 107; 45%) were more likely 

than female respondents (n = 25; 34%) to report dissatisfaction by bureaucracy and red tape associated with 

their jobs. Staff conflicts and lack of funding and staff 

were collectively considered slightly higher sources of 

job dissatisfaction for female (n = 35; 47%) respondents 

than for males (n = 73; 31%) (Table 5). 

Conclusions 

Several conclusions about the state of USFWS managers and biologists can be drawn from these findings. 

First, the demographic data show that the USFWS refuge employees are overwhelmingly male (75%), “maturing” (>49 years old, 63%), and have been employed 

with the USFWS 15 years or more (56%; see Appendix). Second, more than 75% of all of the respondents 

felt that managing for the protection of wildlife is the 

most important source of job satisfaction. This is a significant finding, because it speaks directly to the fact that 

above and beyond dissatisfaction with the bureaucracy, 

red tape, and ineffective leadership, respondents are very 

committed to the job they set out to do—protect wildlife 

and natural resources for the next generation. 

It is important to take a holistic look at the priorities 

and preferences that respondents indicated as sources of 

job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. When planning 

workforce performance measures and strategic plans this 

is the type of data that is conspicuously missing from 

most planning processes and discussions. It was not surprising to find that gender and educational levels were 

the factors associated with differences between biologists and managers. 

Until recently, the assessment of the factors that influence job satisfaction, workforce performance, and employee 

well-being for federal employees has been delegated to the 

offices of Personnel, Human Resources and Employee 

Opportunities [formerly Equal Employment Opportunities 

(EEO)]. However, changing demographics, restructuring, 

and internal reorganizations are requiring that managers, 

supervisors, and leaders understand and respond to issues 

related to job satisfaction, workforce performance, and 

employee well being. Bavendam Research (2000) identified six factors that influence job satisfaction. 

Opportunity 

Employees are more satisfied when they have 

challenging opportunities at work. This includes chances 

to participate in interesting projects, jobs with a satisfying 

degree of challenge, and opportunities for increased 

responsibility. 

Stress 

When negative stress is continuously high, job 

satisfaction is low. Jobs are more stressful if they interfere 

Table 5. Frequency distribution of sources of job dissatisfaction by refuge managers/biologists, gender, and 

educational level.

 Refuge manager/biologista

 Manager or Biologist or Gender Educational level 

Sources of job dissatisfaction Acting manager Acting biologist Male Female BA/BS MA/MA Ph.D. 

Bureaucracy and red tape 50 81 107 25 64 64 2 

Staff conflict 26 28 39 16 29 23 2 

Lack of funding and staff 29 23 34 19 15 35 2 

Ineffective leadership 14 26 32 9 23 18 0 

Public mistrust 7 11 15 3 13 5 1 

Other 2 5 5 2 4 3 0 

Total 173 133 236 74 150 150 7 

a

Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). 
6 INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY REPORT--2003–0004 

with employees’ personal lives or are a continuing source 

of worry or concern. 

Leadership 

Employees are more satisfied when their managers 

are good leaders. 

Work Standards 

Employees are more satisfied when their entire 

workgroup takes pride in the quality of its work. 

Fair Rewards 

Employees are more satisfied when they feel they 

are rewarded fairly for the work they do. 

Adequate Authority 

Employees are more satisfied when they have adequate freedom and authority to do their jobs. 

These factors are similar to what we found in this 

study. Refuge managers and biologists reported that they 

are more satisfied with their jobs when they had chances 

to participate in interesting projects, jobs were challenging, and they were free from bureaucracy and red tape. 

Employees are also more satisfied when they believe 

effective leadership and teamwork to be present. 

There is very little information about public sector 

professionals and their attitudes toward their work, managers, or employees. Weaver and Franz (1992) argued 

that the literature is varied and inconclusive. They stated 

that although the empirical studies concerning this subject are increasing, large gaps remain in the literature 

and there is almost no literature comparing the attitudes 

of employees in the public and private sectors. Therefore, we suggest another study should be done to undertake a much broader survey of job satisfaction and attitudes of managers and professionals in the USFWS. 

Another study conducted to evaluate other agencies in 

the Department of the Interior to compare level of job 

satisfaction might be fruitful for workforce planners. 

And finally, further analysis using age as a generational cohort may help understand changing demographic 

and expected workforce trends. This study could serve 

as a baseline for that analysis. These additional summary 

findings suggest the importance of further discussion 

about the attitudes and perceptions of USFWS managers and biologists in the context of job satisfaction. This 

discussion could improve understanding of workplace 

performance, position management, and the roles and 

responsibilities of a new generation of federal employees. It could also help identify leadership skills needed 

to deal with these issues. 

References Cited 

Bavendam Research, 2000, Managing job satisfaction: 

Bavendam Research Inc.: Special Reports, vol. 6. 

(http://www.employeesatisfactions.com) 

Brinson, A.A., 2002, Attitudes, values, and perceptions 

of National Wildlife Refuge managers and biologists: 

M.S. thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins. 

Dillman, D, 2000, Mail and Internet surveys, The Tailored Design Method (2d ed.): New York, John Wiley 

and Sons. 

McCormick, C., 2000, A study of the job attitudes (job 

satisfaction, organizational commitment, and career 

commitment) and career adaptability of the Members 

of the Library and Information Science Profession, 

Ph.D. dissertation: George Mason University, Fairfax, 

VA. 

Weaver, C.N., Franz, R.S., 1992, Work-related attitudes 

of entrepreneurs and public and private employees: 

Psychological Reports, vol. 70, p. 387–390. 
 7 

Appendix. Frequency distributions and percentages of selected variables. 

Age (n = 308)

Gender (n = 314) Less than

 Male Female No answer 49 years old Over 50 years old

Refuge manager/biologist (n = 236; 75%) (n = 74; 24%) (n = 4;1%) (n = 199; 63%) (n = 109; 35%) 

Manager or Acting manager 147 Biologist or Acting biologist 87 Other 2 

24 2 102 68 

46 0 94 38 

4 2 3 3

 Refuge manager/biologist (n = 314) Gender (n = 314) Age (n = 309)

 Manager or Acting Biologist or Acting Other Male Female No answer Less than Over 50 years old

manager biologist (n = 8; (n = 236; (n = 74; (n = 4; 1%) 40 years old (n = 109; 35%)

Educational level (n = 173; 55%) (n = 133; 42%) 3%) 75%) 24%) (n = 200; 63%) 

BA/BS - Biological Sciences 100 46 MA/MS - Biological Sciences 67 79 Ph.D. - Ecological Sciences 0 7 MBA/MPA/MSP 2 0 

No answer 4 1 

4 119 30 1 96 53 

2 107 40 1 95 51 

0 4 3 0 5 2 

0 1 1 0 2 0 

2 5 0 2 2 3

 Refuge manager/biologist (n = 314) Gender (n = 314) Age (n = 309)

 Manager or Acting Biologist or Acting Other Male Female No answer Less than Over 50 years oldNumber of years manager biologist (n = 8; (n = 236; (n = 74; (n = 4; 1%) 40 years old (n = 109; 35%)with FWS (n = 173; 55%) (n = 133; 42%) 3%) 75%) 24%) (n = 200; 63%) 

1–5

6–10

11–15 

16–2021–2526–30

No answer 

6

25

25

20

79

14

4 

37 

33

26

11 

22

2

2 

2

2

1

1

0

0

2 

22

39 

38 

27 

90 

16

4 

23

21 

14 

5

11 

0

0 

0

0

0

0

0

0

4 

32 

50

47

27 

43

0

1 

12 

10

5

5

57

16 

4 

PONDS AND OTHERS
8 Appendix. Concluded.

 Refuge manager/biologist (n = 314) Gender (n = 314) Age (n = 308)

 Manager or Acting Biologist or Acting Other Male Female No answer Less than Over 50 years old

manager biologist (n = 8; (n = 236; (n = 74; (n = 4; 1%) 40 years old (n = 109; 35%)

Grade level (n = 173; 55%) (n = 133; 42%) 3%) 75%) 24%) (n = 199; 63%) 

GS-7 0 GS-9 3 

GS-11 17 

GS-12 52 GS-13 65 GS-14 33 

No answer 3 

7

18 

74 

30

1

0

3 

1

0

4

0

1

0

2 

4

11 

70

61 

56

31

3 

4

10

25

21 

11 

2

1 

0

0

0

0

0

0

4 

3 4 

14 7 

73 22 

55 26 

41 26 

12 21 

1 3

INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY REPORT--2003–0004 

Refuge manager/biologist (n = 314) Gender (n = 314) Age (n = 309)

 Manager or Acting Biologist or Acting Other Male Female No answer Less than Over 50 years old

manager biologist (n = 8; (n = 236; (n = 74; (n = 4; 1%) 40 years old (n = 109; 35%)

Ideology (n = 173; 55%) (n = 133; 42%) 3%) 75%) 24%) (n = 200; 63%) 

Liberal 63 65 

Moderate 36 31 

Conservative 63 34 

No answer 11 3 

3 76 55 0 95 35 

2 59 10 0 42 27 

1 91 7 0 54 43 

2 10 2 4 9 4 
 December 2003

 8 

i i i i i i

i i i i ion of inf i

i i i i l i i i i i

i i li ffi ( ) 

i

Blank) 

) 

(S)

/

/

 ( i ) 

) 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Biological Resources Division

 USGS/BRD/ITR--

2003-0004 

22060-6218 (1-800-225-3842 or 703-767-9050). 

biologist levels of job satisfaction. 

USGS - Fort Collins Science Center 

Fort Collins, CO 80526-8118 N/A 

Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified UL 

managers and biologists 

job satisfaction, U.S. Fish 

PPPF8 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188 

2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED 

5. FUNDING NUMBERS 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER 

10. SPONSORING, MONITORING 

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE 

15. NUMBER OF PAGES 

16. PRICE CODE 

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT 

Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including time for review ng nstruct ons, search ng ex st ng data sources, 

gather ng and mainta ning the data needed, and complet ng and rev ewing the collect ormation. Send comments regarding this burden est mate or any other 

aspect of th s collect on of nformat on, inc uding suggest ons for reduc ng th s burden, to Wash ngton Headquarters Serv ces, Directorate for Information Operations and 

Reports, 1215 Jefferson Dav s H ghway, Suite 1204, Ar ngton, VA 22202-4302, and to the O ce of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project 0704-0188

Wash ngton, DC 20503. 

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

6. AUTHOR(S

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESSES 

9. SPONSORING MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESSES 

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

12a. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

13. ABSTRACT Max mum 200 words

14. SUBJECT TERMS (Keywords

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

OF REPORT 

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 

THIS PAGE 

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 

ABSTRACT 

 Ponds, P.D., Brinson, A.A., and Benson, D.

Prepared in cooperation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Colorado State University 

Available from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port 

Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161 (1-800-553-6847 or 703-487-4650). 

Available to registered users from the Defense Technical Information Center, 

Attn: Help Desk, 8725 Kingman Road, Suite 0944, Fort Belvoir, VA 

This report examines the differences and similarities between U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service managers and 

2150 Centre Avenue, Bldg. C 

Evaluating sources of job satisfaction: A survey of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuge 

and Wildlife Service 

Information and Technology Report (Final) 

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (rev. 2-89) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18 

298-102 
PONDS AND OTHERS 9
Fort Collins Science Center 

Production Staff 

Team Lead, Information Management Services Jennifer Shoemaker 

Desktop Publishing Specialist Dora E. Medellin 

NOTE: Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by 

the U.S. Government. 
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned 

public lands and natural resources. This responsibility includes fostering the sound use of our lands and water resources; protecting 

our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical 

places; and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral 

resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and 

citizen participation in their care. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities.