U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

44-614 PDF 2009

RECENT TRENDS CONCERNING 

ANNUAL BUDGETS FOR THE 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

SYSTEM AND IMPLICATIONS FOR 

MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE 

AND OCEANS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 

Serial No. 110-88 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

or 

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Jim Costa, California 

Dan Boren, Oklahoma 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon 

Maurice D. Hinchey, New York 

Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Joe Baca, California 

Hilda L. Solis, California 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota 

Heath Shuler, North Carolina 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Louie Gohmert, Texas 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania 

Bill Sali, Idaho 

Doug Lamborn, Colorado 

Mary Fallin, Oklahoma 

Adrian Smith, Nebraska 

Robert J. Wittman, Virginia 

Steve Scalise, Louisiana 

James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff 

Rick Healy, Chief Counsel 

Christopher N. Fluhr, Republican Staff Director 

Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam, Chairwoman 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina, Ranking Republican Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia, ex officio 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Bill Sali, Idaho 

Robert J. Wittman, Virginia 

Don Young, Alaska, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Wednesday, September 24, 2008 ................................................ 1 

Statement of Members: 

Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate in Congress from Guam ............... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Brown, Hon. Henry E., Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of South Carolina, Prepared statement of .................................................. 56 

Kind, Hon. Ron, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Wisconsin ....................................................................................................... 24 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Callihan, David, Director, Management Systems International .................. 14 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 16 

Horn, William P., Counsel, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance ................................. 40 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 41 

Kurth, James, Acting Assistant Director of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior ....... 25 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 26 

Matson, Noah, Vice President for Land Conservation, Defenders of 

Wildlife ........................................................................................................... 31 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 33 

Nazzaro, Robin M., Director, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. 

Government Accountability Office ............................................................... 3 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON RECENT TRENDS 

CONCERNING ANNUAL BUDGETS FOR THE 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM AND 

IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES. 

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m. in Room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Madeleine Z. 

Bordallo [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Bordallo, Kildee, Kind, and Wittman. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, 

A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM GUAM 

Ms. BORDALLO. Good morning, everyone. The oversight hearing 

by the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans will now 

come to order. 

The Subcommittee is meeting today concerning two reports regarding budget trends and the effects of recent levels on the performance of the National Wildlife Refuge System. This morning’s 

hearing is a follow-up to the hearing the Subcommittee held last 

October concerning the efforts of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to implement the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act. 

We will hear testimony this morning regarding a report being released today by the U.S. Government Accountability Office investigating recent budget trends affecting the Refuge System and a 

second report released in June by Management Systems International that evaluated the performance of the Refuge System in 

meeting its own strategic goals. 

As we learned last year, all is not well with the Refuge System. 

Testimony provided by former Secretary of the Interior, Bruce 

Babbitt, former EPA Administrator, Carol Browner, and other 

witnesses painted the picture of a Refuge System stretched thin by 

insufficient funding, staff cuts and numerous major new challenges 

such as climate change, invasive species and water shortages. 

2 

Regrettably, the two reports before us today, while not entirely 

negative, corroborate many of the criticisms made during last 

year’s hearing. Most importantly, it appears that the effects of 

insufficient funding have had a ripple effect across the Refuge 

System, forcing the Fish and Wildlife Service to further scale back 

operations at many refuges, or even close refuges to public use 

altogether. 

Permanent staffing levels have fallen by 7.5 percent from peak 

staffing levels in 2003. Not surprisingly, habitat quality in many 

refuges has fallen between seven and 20 percent. Additionally, 

many visitor services programs, especially environmental education 

and interpretation, have noticeably declined in availability and 

quality. 

Perhaps what will be most disturbing to many Members is that 

both reports emphasize that funding for law enforcement remains 

severely insufficient. Consequently, law enforcement operations are 

woefully inadequate to cover a system of public lands that includes 

some of the most rugged and isolated terrain in the United 

States—and compromise public safety throughout the entire 98 

million acre Refuge System. 

In closing, the sum of these two reports is clear: The Refuge 

System has reached a tipping point where it faces an uncertain future, yet before we can act intelligently to rectify this decline, we 

need to understand the facts. To the extent that this hearing helps 

draw attention to the current plight facing our National Wildlife 

Refuges, it will have been a constructive first step in our important 

work to rebuild the Refuge System and to bequeath to our children 

a wildlife legacy that is both abundant and diverse. 

As Chairwoman, I would like to mention the fact that our Ranking Member is at a very important meeting at this time. I am sure 

he has an opening statement, so when he does arrive he will 

address us. 

So, at this time, I would like to recognize our panel of witnesses 

this morning. The first is Ms. Robin Nazzaro, Director, Natural 

Resources and Environment, the U.S. Government Accountability 

Office; Mr. David Callihan, Director, Management Systems International; Mr. James Kurth, Acting Assistant Director for Refuges, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Mr. Noah Matson, Vice President 

for Land Conservation, Defenders of Wildlife; and The Honorable 

William P. Horn, General Counsel, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, 

former chairman of the National Wildlife Refuge Centennial Commission and former Interior Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. 

Before recognizing Ms. Nazzaro to testify, I would note for all 

witnesses that the red timing light on the table will indicate when 

your time has concluded, and we would appreciate your cooperation 

in complying with these limits. Please be assured that your full 

written statement will be submitted for the hearing record. 

And now I recognize Ms. Nazzaro to please begin. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bordallo follows:] 

3 

Statement of The Honorable Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

This morning’s hearing is a follow-up to the hearing the Subcommittee held last 

October concerning the efforts of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to implement 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. 

We will hear testimony regarding a report being released today by the U.S. Government Accountability Office investigating recent budget trends affecting the 

Refuge System, and a second report released in June by Management Systems 

International that evaluated the performance of the Refuge System in meeting its 

own strategic goals. 

As we learned last year, all is not well with the Refuge System. Testimony provided by former Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, former EPA Administrator, 

Carol Browner, and other witnesses painted the picture of a Refuge System 

stretched thin by insufficient funding, staff cuts and numerous major new challenges such as climate change, invasive species, and water shortages. 

Regrettably, the two reports before us today, while not entirely negative, corroborate many of the criticisms made during last year’s hearing. Most importantly, it 

appears that the effects of insufficient funding have had a ripple effect across the 

Refuge System, forcing the Fish and Wildlife Service to further scale back operations at many refuges, or even close refuges to public use altogether. 

Permanent staffing levels have fallen by 7.5 percent from peak staffing levels in 

2003. Not surprisingly, habitat quality in many refuges has fallen between seven 

and twenty percent. Additionally, many visitor services programs, especially environmental education and interpretation, have noticeably declined in availability and 

quality. 

Perhaps what will be most disturbing to many members is that both reports emphasize that funding for law enforcement remains severely insufficient. Consequently, law enforcement operations are woefully inadequate to cover a system of 

public lands that includes some of the most rugged and isolated terrain in the 

United States, and compromise public safety throughout the entire 98 million acre 

Refuge System. 

In closing, the sum of these two reports is clear: the Refuge System has reached 

a tipping point where it faces an uncertain future. Yet before we can act intelligently to rectify this decline, we need to understand the facts. To the extent that 

this hearing helps draw attention to the current plight facing our National Wildlife 

Refuges, it will have been a constructive first step in our important work to rebuild 

the Refuge System, and to bequeath to our children a wildlife legacy that is both 

abundant and diverse. 

STATEMENT OF ROBIN M. NAZZARO, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Ms. NAZZARO. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am pleased to be here 

today to discuss our nation’s wildlife refuges. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System, administered by the Department of the Interior’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, comprises 

about 585 refuges and wetland management districts on more than 

96 million acres of land and water that provide habitat for millions 

of waterfowl, other migratory birds, endangered species and other 

plants and wildlife. 

In addition, refuges host about 40 million visitors each year who 

take part in one or more of the Refuge System’s six wildlife-dependent visitor activities—hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, environmental education and environmental 

interpretation—and other recreation activities. 

My testimony today is based on the GAO report that is being released today which describes changing factors that the Refuge 

System experienced from Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007 and how 

habitat management and visitor services changed during this period. 

4 

In summary, we found that funding for the Refuge System fluctuated. Refuge System obligations for core activities, which include 

refuge operations, maintenance and fire management, peaked in 

Fiscal Year 2003, then declined until Fiscal Year 2005, before increasing again in Fiscal Year 2007 when funding adjusted for inflation was 2.3 percent below peak levels and 4.3 percent above 

2002 levels. 

At the refuge level, funding varied considerably with about as 

many refuges losing funding as gaining and 39 refuges decreasing 

by more than 25 percent during this period. 

Staffing levels between Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007 for core 

refuge activities also fluctuated, peaking in Fiscal Year 2004 and 

then declining through Fiscal Year 2007, although ending the period 5.5 percent above 2002 levels. 

The number of employees on board also declined after peaking in 

Fiscal Year 2004. Though 38 complex and stand-alone refuges increased their permanent staff by more than five percent since 2004, 

more than three times as many lost at least five percent. 

During this period, Refuge System officials initiated several new 

policies that categorized refuges into tiers for the purpose of 

prioritizing funding and staffing allocations, required refuge staff 

to focus on completing refuge conservation plans by 2012, placed a 

greater emphasis on constructing smaller visitor facility structures 

to help visitor services funds across more refuges, increased the 

number of full-time law enforcement officers to improve safety and 

resulted in increased administrative requirements for nonadministrative staff. 

Also, the influence of external factors, including extreme weather 

and development on adjacent lands, increased over this period. 

During this time, several changes also occurred in habitat management and visitor services. Refuge managers reported that habitats for key species improved about two times as often as they 

worsened, but between seven percent and 20 percent of habitats 

were of poor quality in 2007. 

Also, certain habitat management problems increased at more 

than half of the refuges, and managers reported that they increased the time spent on activities such as invasive plant species 

and habitat fragmentation. 

According to most refuge managers, the quality of all six wildlifedependent visitor services programs was stable or improving between Fiscal Years 2002 and 2007. Four of these programs were 

of moderate or better quality at more than three-quarters of the 

refuges in 2007, and even though environmental education and interpretation programs showed the most improvement since 2002, 

these programs were still reported to be of low quality at about 

one-third of the refuges. 

Refuge managers expressed concerns about their abilities to sustain or improve current habitat conditions for wildlife and to provide quality visitor services into the future. 

In conclusion, maintaining the Refuge System as envisioned by 

law where the biological integrity, diversity and environmental 

health of the system are maintained, priority visitor services are 

provided and the strategic growth of the system is continued may 

5 

be difficult in light of continuing Federal fiscal constraints and an 

ever-expanding list of challenges facing refuges. 

If threats and problems afflicting refuges continue to grow as expected, it will be important for the Refuge System to monitor how 

shifts in funding and staffing levels are affecting refuge conditions. 

Madam Chair, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be 

pleased to respond to any questions that you may have at this 

time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Nazzaro follows:] 

Statement of Robin M. Nazzaro, Director, Natural Resources and 

Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office 

GAO HIGHLIGHTS 

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 testify on a report that is being released today, Wildlife Refuges: Changes in Funding, Staffing, and Other Factors Create Concerns about Future Sustainability (GAO-08-797), which (1) describes changing factors that the 

refuge system experienced from Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007, including funding 

and staffing changes, and (2) examines how habitat management and visitor services changed during this period. For this report, GAO surveyed all refuges, visited 

19 refuges in four regions, and interviewed refuge, regional, and national officials. 

September 24. 2008 

WILDLIFE REFUGES 

Trends in Funding, Staffing, Habitat Management, and Visitor Services for 

Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007 

What GAO Found 

In its September 2008 report, GAO reports that for Fiscal Years 2002 through 

2007, the refuge system experienced funding and staffing 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 reconsidered how they allocate 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 requirements; and (5) resulted in additional administrative work. During this period, external factors, such as severe storms, that complicate refuge staffs’ ability to protect and restore habitat quality also increased. 

GAO’s survey of refuge managers showed that changes in the quality of habitat 

management and visitor service programs varied across refuges during the study period. Habitat conditions for key types of species improved about two times more 

6 

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 GAO interviewed said 

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 all six visitor service programs was reported to be stable or improving between Fiscal Years 2002 and 2007 at most refuges, two 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. 

Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our work on our nation’s wildlife refuges. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System, administered by the Department of the Interior’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), comprises about 585 refuges and wetland management districts on more than 96 million acres of land and water that 

provide habitat for millions of waterfowl, other migratory birds, endangered species, 

and other plants and wildlife. In addition, refuges host about 40 million visitors 

each year who take part in one or more of the refuge system’s six wildlife-dependent 

visitor activities—hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and environmental interpretation—and other recreational activities. The refuge system employs more than 4,000 staff dispersed in its offices 

across the country and spans all 50 states and several U.S. territories. FWS manages its refuges through its headquarters office in Washington D.C., eight regional 

offices, and hundreds of field offices located on or near refuge lands. Individual 

refuge offices may report directly to a regional office (we refer to these as ‘‘standalone’’ refuges), or may be grouped with other offices into a ‘‘complex.’’ 

My testimony is based on a report that is being released today, Wildlife Refuges: 

Changes in Funding, Staffing, and Other Factors Create Concerns about Future 

Sustainability (GAO-08-797), which describes changing factors that the refuge system experienced from Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007 and how habitat management and visitor services changed during this period. For that report, we obtained 

and analyzed funding and staffing data; surveyed stand-alone refuges and refuges 

within complexes and received an 81 percent response rate; visited headquarters, 

4 regional offices, and 19 refuges; and conducted phone interviews with officials at 

the other 4 regional offices and about 50 additional refuges. We conducted this performance audit from July 2007 to 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. 

In summary, we found the following: 

• For Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007, funding and staffing levels for the refuge 

system fluctuated, several new refuge system policy initiatives were introduced, 

and the influence of external factors such as extreme weather and human development that affect refuge operations increased. 

• Survey responses and interviews with refuge managers indicated that the 

change in the quality of habitat and visitor service programs, as well as changes 

in the amount of time devoted to these activities, varied across refuges during 

our study period. Given recent funding and staffing changes, and other factors 

affecting refuges, managers expressed concerns about their ability to provide 

quality habitat and visitor service programs into the future. 

Numerous Changes Affected Refuge Management 

From Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007, several changes occurred that affected 

refuge management including changes in funding and staffing levels, refuge system 

policy initiatives, and the influence of external factors, such as extreme weather and 

human development. 

Fluctuations in refuge funding. Inflation-adjusted funding (in 2002 dollars) for 

core refuge system activities—measured as obligations for refuge operations, maintenance, and fire management—peaked in Fiscal Year 2003, for the celebration of 

7 

1We 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, which assigns greater weight to changes in federal workers’ compensation 

than do other indices. 2We defined funding increasing or decreasing by 5 percent or less over the time period as 

staying about the same. Four refuges incurred no obligations during the Fiscal Year 2002 to 

2007 time period. 3 Actual FTEs, representing staff time charged to specific activities at complexes and standalone refuges, are reported in the Federal Financial System. They differ from budgeted FTEs, 

which generally represent the operations and maintenance staffing ceiling for the refuge system 

in a given fiscal year and are reported in the annual Fish and Wildlife Service budget justifications. 4 About 38 percent of the increase in fire management activities over the study period was 

due to an increase in emergency wildfire suppression, prevention of further degradation, and 

rehabilitation of burned areas. 

the refuge system’s centennial, at about $391 million—6.8 percent above Fiscal 

Year 2002 levels—and 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; it ended 4.3 percent above Fiscal Year 2002 levels. 1 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. 

At the refuge level, inflation-adjusted core funding at refuges varied considerably 

during the time period, with about as many losing funding as gaining funding since 

Fiscal Year 2002. Specifically, from Fiscal Year 2002 through Fiscal Year 2007, 

core inflation-adjusted funding decreased for 96 of 222 complexes and stand-alone 

refuges and increased for 92, with funding remaining about the same for 34. 2 The 

magnitude of the changes in core funding at the refuge level were also more pronounced than for the trend overall. Specifically, core funding for 39 complexes and 

stand-alone refuges decreased by more than 25 percent during this time period. 

Fluctuations in staffing levels. Staffing levels for core refuge activities (core staffing), as measured by full-time equivalents (FTE) the refuge system actually used, 

peaked one year later than core inflation-adjusted funding and then declined more 

slowly. 3 Specifically, core staffing, which includes operations, maintenance, and fire 

management, peaked in Fiscal Year 2004 at a level 10.0 percent higher than in 

Fiscal Year 2002, but declined after that to 4.0 percent below peak staffing levels 

in Fiscal Year 2007. This level, however, was still 5.5 percent higher than the staffing level in Fiscal Year 2002. 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. 4

Similar 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. About three-quarters of this loss came through a reduction in permanent employees (a 7.5 percent reduction), which refuge managers 

and regional and headquarters officials told us are a key measure of the effective 

strength of the workforce available to conduct core refuge activities because they 

represent employees on board indefinitely. Though 38 complexes and stand-alone 

refuges increased their permanent staff by more than 5 percent since 2004, more 

than three times as many lost at least 5 percent. Figure 1 compares the trends in 

the refuge system’s core funding, staffing, and permanent employee levels during 

our study period. 

8 

New policy initiatives. Several new refuge system policy initiatives were implemented during this period: 

• Recognizing that funding declines after 2003 were exacerbating an already high 

proportion of staff costs in refuge budgets, regional offices began to (1) reduce 

staff positions through attrition and by further consolidating some stand-alone 

refuges into complexes, and (2) categorize refuges into three tiers for the purpose of prioritizing funding and staffing allocations among refuges. These measures are primarily responsible for the decline in FTEs and permanent employees from Fiscal Year 2004 peak levels and the shifts in staffing among complexes and stand-alone refuges. 

• Recognizing that the refuge system was not on pace to meet a mandate in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 to complete conservation plans for each refuge by 2012, refuge system officials created a completion schedule and, beginning in 2004, began requiring staff at refuges to turn 

their attention to completing the plans. While refuge officials believe that they 

can meet the deadline, current information shows that some plans are behind 

schedule. 

• To help spread visitor service funds across as many refuges as possible, refuge 

officials began placing a greater emphasis on constructing smaller visitor facility structures, such as informational kiosks and restrooms, at a larger number 

of refuges rather than constructing a smaller number of traditional visitor centers. 

• To improve safety and address other concerns, refuge system management 

began an initiative to increase the number of full-time law enforcement officers 

and their associated training and experience requirements. However, refuge officials told us that they need to hire about 200 additional officers in order to 

reach the minimum number needed to provide adequate protection to refuge resources and visitors. 

• Various refuge system, FWS, and Interior policies increased requirements on 

nonadministrative staff to enter additional data into certain systems and respond to numerous data calls. Refuge system officials are beginning to implement changes to reduce some of these administrative burdens. 


44614.001.eps
9 

Increasing external factors. The influence of external factors——those outside the 

control of the refuge system that complicate refuges’ abilities to protect and restore 

habitat quality, including extreme weather and development on adjacent lands—increased over this period. For example, refuge managers reported that between 

Fiscal Years 2002 and 2007, the influence of development—such as the expansion 

of urban areas and the conversion of off-refuge land near refuges to agriculture or 

industrial use—increased around refuges and contributed to refuge habitat problems 

for almost one half of the refuges. Such development can pollute refuge lands and 

waters and make it more difficult to maintain viable, interconnected habitat in and 

around a refuge’s borders. 

Changes in Habitat Management and Visitor Services 

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. 

Habitat management. Habitats on refuges for five types of key species—waterfowl, 

other migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, candidate threatened and 

endangered species, and state species of concern—improved between Fiscal 

Years 2002 and 2007—about two times as often as they worsened (see table 1). 

Refuge managers reported two to nearly seven times as often that habitats for 

several types of key species were of high quality than low quality in 2007 (see table 

2). 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 these attributes. 


44614.002.eps
10 

Complicating habitat management is growing pressure from increasing habitat 

problems occurring on refuges and the influence of external factors. Our survey 

found that invasive plant species and habitat fragmentation—the disruption of natural habitat corridors, often caused by human development activities—were the 

leading problems, affecting 55 percent and 44 percent of refuges, respectively, and 

both were increasing on more than half of refuges. Managers at refuges close to 

urban centers showed us busy roads adjacent to their refuge that have cut off natural habitat corridors, leading to animals trying to cross them or cutting them off 

from other members of their species, leading to genetic homogeneity and inbreeding. 

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. 

At the same time, 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 3). Importantly, time spent on developing comprehensive conservation plans, which are required by the Improvement Act, increased for 59 percent of refuges during our study period. In addition, refuges that 

increased the time spent on habitat management activities were about three times 

more likely to report that habitat quality for waterfowl and other migratory birds 

improved rather than worsened. 


44614.003.eps
11 

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. 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 despite growing habitat problems, an increasing administrative workload, and reduced staffing, 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. Several managers said that 

attention to key habitats is the last thing that will stop receiving management attention in the event of declining funding. 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. 

Visitor services. Our survey found that the quality of all six wildlife-dependent visitor services was stable or improving between Fiscal Years 2002 and 2007, according to 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 4). 


44614.004.eps
12 

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 5). Managers told us that education and interpretation are among 

the most resource intensive visitor service programs and, for these reasons, the programs are often 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 depend largely on physical structures such as duck 

blinds, boat launches, and fishing platforms. Providing wildlife observation and photography opportunities simply require adequate access to the refuge, but can be enhanced through observation platforms and photography blinds. 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. 

Some refuges reported that they expanded their visitor services infrastructure between Fiscal Years 2002 and 2007, for example, by adding informational kiosks and 


44614.005.eps 44614.006.eps
13 

trails and tour routes, yet more than one-half of refuges reported no change (see 

table 6). Most refuges also reported that the quality of their visitor services infrastructure stayed about the same or increased since 2002. 

Time spent by refuges on visitor services varied considerably throughout the system. Overall, at least one in five refuges reported a decrease in staff time for each 

visitor service area (see table 7). 

Refuge managers indicated that staffing changes and a lack of resources for increasing and maintaining infrastructure, raise concerns about their ability to provide quality visitor services into the future. Our survey results showed that the time 

spent by permanent staff on visitor services had been reduced at more than onethird of refuges and more than half of refuge managers reported increasing their 

reliance on volunteers to help manage visitor centers and deliver education programs, for example. Refuge managers are also concerned about the impact that the 

increasing administrative workload incurred by non-administrative refuge staff is 

having on the refuges’ ability to deliver visitor services. Refuge managers and regional and headquarters officials expressed concern about the long-term implications 

of declining and low quality visitor services. Many refuge managers cited the importance of ensuring that the public has positive outdoor experiences on refuges and 

providing them with meaningful educational and interpretative services. Managers 

said that the availability of visitor services is 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 as well as an interest in maintaining these resources. In 

addition, visitor services are important for developing and maintaining community 


44614.007.eps 44614.008.eps
14 

relationships, as the refuge system is increasingly turning toward partnerships with 

private landowners and other agencies and organizations to maintain and improve 

ecosystems both on and around wildlife refuges. 

In conclusion, 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 in light of continuing federal fiscal constraints and 

an ever-expanding list of challenges facing refuges. 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 

habitats 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. However, 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. 

Madam Chair, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have at 

this time. 

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 

For further information about this testimony, 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 statement. Trish McClure, Assistant Director; Mark Braza; David Brown; Stephen Cleary; Timothy J. Guinane; 

Carol Henn; Richard Johnson; Michael Krafve; Alison O’Neill; George Quinn, Jr.; 

and Stephanie Toby made key contributions to this statement. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Ms. Nazzaro. We appreciate your comprehensive assessment of the Refuge System and the 

GAO’s efforts to shine a bright light on the substantial challenges 

brought about by the inadequate funding of the system. 

I now recognize Mr. Callihan to testify for five minutes concerning his work heading up the MSI evaluation. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID CALLIHAN, DIRECTOR, 

MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL 

Mr. CALLIHAN. Yes. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman. I just 

want to go over a little bit some of the highlights and the process 

of the evaluation that we undertook. 

We were contracted in late 2006 to conduct an independent evaluation of the effectiveness of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Can you hear OK? It is coming through? Our evaluation was looking at the effectiveness of the Refuge System in accomplishing its 

mission and meeting and achieving each of the 12 strategic outcome goals contained in the 2007 Refuge System strategic plan. 

The evaluation that we undertook was a fairly comprehensive 

evaluation. We conducted interviews with several hundred people, 

including all the managers of the key Refuge System programs, as 

well as most of the nongovernmental partners that are most closely 

involved with the Refuge System. 

We produced a report that is structured according to findings, 

conclusions and recommendations. We tried to be as objective as 

possible, and we provided findings, conclusions and recommendations for each of the 12 strategic objective outcomes, and we provided an overall effectiveness rating for each of those outcomes. 

15 

In terms of the effectiveness ratings, they go from ineffective to 

highly effective. There was one goal that was rated highly effective 

that had to do with partnerships and cooperative projects. 

There were four strategic outcome goals rated as effective. Those 

were the ones related to wildlife dependent recreation; providing 

infrastructure and equipment adequate to address and support the 

mission of the Refuge System; completing quality and useful comprehensive conservation plans; and reducing wildfire risks and improve habitats. 

The strategic objective goals rated as partially effective were—— 

Ms. BORDALLO. Sir, would you move a little closer to the microphone so we can—— 

Mr. CALLIHAN. The strategic objective goals we rated as partially 

effective were conserve management where appropriate; restore 

fish, wildlife and plant resources; ensure the unique values of wilderness and other special designation areas are protected; welcome 

and orient visitors; promote and enhance organizational excellence. 

The two strategic objective goals that we rated as ineffective 

were protect resources and visitors through law enforcement and 

strategically grow the Refuge System. 

A few of the highlights in terms of the accomplishments that we 

came across that I would just like to note is in terms of the CCP 

process. The Refuge System is supposed to have all CCPs completed for refuges by 2012. While the rate of progress was initially 

slow, it has picked up considerably in the last few years, and it appears to us that the Refuge System is pretty much on track to meet 

that objective. 

In addition, it is mandated that the Refuge System work with 

state fish and game agencies on the development of CCPs. When 

we undertook a survey of state fish and game agencies, 94 percent 

had said they had been provided meaningful opportunities to participate in that process, and 95 percent of the respondents said that 

being involved in the CCP process had improved communications 

and coordination between the state agencies and the Refuge 

System. 

Also during the period of the study between 1996 and 2000 there 

was a substantial increase in refuges that were providing hunting 

and fishing opportunities. In fact, the number of refuges providing 

hunting opportunities during this period increased by 24 percent 

up to 366. 

In addition, the one area that we rated as highly effective was 

the Refuge System’s strategic objective to facilitate partnerships. 

We found that there has just been a tremendous level of support 

from Refuge System partners. It hasn’t been accidental. The Refuge 

System has undertaken programs to nurture this program. 

In the latest year that information was available when we were 

undertaking this study, there was $50 million brought into the system in 2006 and $30 million of that was in direct cash contributions, so that is a tremendous achievement in terms of partner contributions. 

A few areas that we felt were most affected by insufficient financial support was the law enforcement program, which simply has 

too few officers and it is unable to provide adequate coverage within the Refuge System. We also noted that the pace of realty acquiVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:24 Feb 09, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\44614.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
16 

sition has slowed dramatically in recent years due to budget declines. 

And I think the third area where we felt was most affected by 

insufficient funding was the biological inventory and monitoring 

work that was being conducted. We felt, and the refuge managers 

agreed in the survey, and this was confirmed through our field visits, that there was just an insufficient level of inventory and monitoring being done. 

Just in conclusion, I would just like to thank the Refuge System 

for their open embrace of the process that we undertook. We were 

given complete access to all staff and all information. 

I think that it is not easy for an organization to undergo an open 

and independent evaluation like this, but all of the top managers 

in the Refuge System were very cooperative and they were very 

sincere in their interest in using this to make improvements where 

those improvements are possible. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Callihan follows:] 

Statement of David Callihan, Director, 

Management Systems International 

The National Wildlife Refuge System contracted with Management Systems International in September 2006 to conduct an independent evaluation of the overall effectiveness of its program. The evaluation’s purpose was to identify program 

strengths and weaknesses, and to determine whether and to what degree the Refuge 

System is achieving its conservation mission. 

This testimony document is principally drawn from the Executive Summary of the 

MSI report entitled An Independent Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s National Wildlife Refuge System, which was finalized in June 

2008. In addition, some material has also been included from the full report in order 

to cover areas that are most pertinent to this hearing. The research for the evaluation was conducted between October 2006 and September 2007 and thus represents 

a snapshot in time; some of the report’s findings and budgetary figures are now out 

of date. 

This report produced by MSI is an evaluation of the effectiveness of the performance of the National Wildlife Refuge System and contains analysis on the Refuge 

System’s ability to effectively achieve the twelve Strategic Outcome Goals contain 

in its 2007 Strategic Plan. The summary of the complete evaluation includes an 

overall performance rating, conclusions and recommendations for each of the Refuge 

System’s twelve strategic outcome goals. A complete set of evaluation findings can 

be found in the full report—An Independent Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wildlife Refuge System (MSI, June 2008). 

In addition to findings, the complete evaluation report contains response data from 

three surveys (refuge managers, state fish and game agencies, and Friends Groups/ 

partners), a list of all persons interviewed approximately 250), references, and a bibliography. 

Budgetary Impacts on Program Performance 

Over the period of performance that was examined by MSI (roughly between the 

passage of the 1997 Refuge Impact Act and 2007) there was an overall decline in 

the Refuge System’s budget; purchasing power declined by approximately 11% between the FY 2003 peak and the requested FY 2008 budget. (Note: The FY08 enacted budget restored most, but not all, of the decline in purchasing power.) 

We believe that the following areas of operation were most severely impacted by 

declining budget allocations: 

• The law enforcement program has too few officers and does not have adequate 

resources to hire enough officers. As a result, there is insufficient law enforcement coverage. 

• The pace of realty acquisition has slowed in recent years as a result of budget 

declines. 

• Anecdotal and survey evidence suggests that biological survey and monitoring 

work has declined. 

17 

• Over the past five years or so, as real budgets have been in decline, refuges in 

several administrative regions have found that they had been expending upwards of 90% of their operations and maintenance funds on personnel costs, 

which left insufficient funds for operational tasks and projects, such as habitat 

restoration. The result of this re-balancing exercise has been to revisit and reduce staff in several regions, which also has meant reducing programs and operations. Some illustrative impacts of the workforce planning exercise are expected to include: 

Æ In Region 4, up to 20% of the workforce is expected to be eliminated (from 

its peak in FY2003), which will result in a significant cutback in some services. For example, these cutbacks will include: reducing the number of days 

per week that some refuge visitor centers are open; reducing trail maintenance; reducing biological inventory and survey work; cutting back or eliminating visitor service programs, such as environmental education; and operating some refuges without any staff (de-staffing). 

Æ In Region 5, a number of refuges are being de-staffed as a means to move 

forward with staff cuts, while full biological and public use programs will be 

maintained only at select ‘‘stay strong’’ refuges. In addition, recognizing the 

need to ‘‘do less with less,’’ the Regional Office is asking all refuges to focus 

their visitor service programs on two public uses, rather than on each of the 

‘‘Big 6’’ activities. 

Æ A number of refuges are being de-staffed; for example, in Region 5, 7 of 71 

refuges were expected to be de-staffed within the a year of the workforce 

plan’s completion plan. 

In other regions the staff cutbacks under workforce planning have not been as severe. For example, the CNO and Alaska regions were not expected to have to make 

any significant cut-backs in staffing. 

• In several regions, key services such as visitor programs, environmental education, and biological monitoring are being curtailed or eliminated. 

• As a counterbalance to the above, over the past ten years the Refuge System 

has been able to significantly expand participation by volunteers and Friends 

Groups. Partnerships with thousands of local and national organizations make 

a significant contribution to the accomplishment of the Refuge System’s key objectives, particularly in the areas of habitat restoration and visitor services; and 

partnerships bring a tremendous amount of funding into the system—in 2005 

alone the total value of partnership contributions to the Refuge System exceeded $50 million, with over $30 million of the total being in direct cash contributions. The level of volunteer support increased dramatically over the past ten 

years—from 383,983 hours in 1987 to 1,478,797 in 2005. 

Background 

The U.S. National Wildlife Refuge System was created by Executive Order On 

March 14, 1903, when President Theodore Roosevelt established the country’s first 

wildlife refuge on Florida’s central Atlantic coast—the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). From its modest beginning on Pelican Island the Refuge System 

has expanded into a network of over 550 distinct units that encompasses over 95 

million acres. Alaska contains approximately 76.8 million acres of refuge lands, or 

about 80% of the land in the total system. 

To accomplish its mission the Refuge System finalized a strategic plan in early 

2007 that contains twelve strategic outcome goals (SOGs). These goals cover the 

areas of habitat and wildlife conservation, wildlife-dependent recreation, law enforcement, fire management, welcoming and orienting visitors, wilderness management, conservation planning, infrastructure and equipment maintenance, strategic 

growth and organizational excellence. The Refuge System is part of the United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service, which is managed by the Department of Interior. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System collaborates closely with other Fish and Wildlife Service programs, including the migratory birds, endangered species and fisheries programs. 

The MSI evaluation report reviews the Refuge System’s twelve strategic outcome 

goals and provides an assessment as to how well the system is doing in accomplishing each goal. In addition, a section on the Refuge System’s operating context, 

which analyzes budget and administrative trends over the past several years, has 

also been included. 

18 

1 Expect for two surveys (partner survey and state fish and game agency survey), evaluation 

activity was completed by September 2007; the surveys were completed in April and May 2008. 

Evaluation Methodology 

The evaluation was conducted between October 2006 and September 2007 and 

used a multi-method and multi-source data collection methodology. 1 MSI used a 

multi-source methodology to overcome the limitation of having to base analysis on 

a single source of information as single-source data may have weaknesses or unduly 

bias conclusions. In addition, a multi-method approach allows for a greater depth 

of understanding of particular issues. 

The principal data collection processes used in this evaluation included: 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Partner Interviews: More than 250 

interviews were conducted as part of this evaluation. Those interviewed included: 

Refuge System managers in Washington; a wide range of FWS field staff, from both 

regional offices and field stations; Refuge System stakeholders in Congress, the Department of the Interior and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB); national 

and local NGO partners; and staff from state fish and wildlife agencies. 

Site Visits: The evaluation team visited all eight Refuge System regional offices 

and at least two refuges in each region. Refuge and regional office visits included 

meetings with refuge and regional office staff, state fish and game officials and nongovernmental partners, such as representative from the Audubon Association, 

Ducks Unlimited, the Nature Conservancy, Friends Groups and other local partners. 

Refuge Managers Survey: An on-line Refuge Manager’s Survey was conducted 

between March 21st and April 19, 2007. The survey was a combination of closeended and open-ended questions structured to collect information on the implementation and effectiveness of the Refuge System’s twelve strategic outcome goals. A 

total of 312 refuge managers completed the survey, which represents a survey completion rate of over 90% of current refuge managers. 

Partners and State Fish and Game Surveys: Two additional surveys were 

conducted to solicit the views of Refuge System partners on the quality of their partnerships with the Refuge System and on their views of the Refuge System’s effectiveness. These surveys were: 

• A survey of local Partners and Friends Groups was undertaken from March 17- 

25, 2008. A total of 83 responses were received from 98 potential respondents. 

The response rate was 85%. 

• A survey of officials from state fish and game agencies was conducted from 

April 29-May 16, 2008. Responses were limited to one response per state agency. A total of 32 states responded to the survey, which constitutes a response 

rate of 64%. 

Review of Existing Data: This included documents and databases, both from 

the Refuge System and from other land management agencies—the latter which 

provided context and benchmarking. Analysis included a careful review of the 

Refuge System’s annual performance monitoring database—the Refuge Annual Performance Plan (RAPP). 

Principal Findings and Conclusions 

An overview of the performance of each Strategic Outcome Goal is provided in the 

table below and a brief discussion of each SOG follows. 

19 

Operating Context: 

Budget Trends: NWRS budgets have declined over the past several years, with 

actual purchasing power having declined about 11% between the FY 2003 peak and 

the requested FY 2008 budget. (Note: The FY08 enacted budget restored most, but 

not all, of the decline in purchasing power.) During this period of budget decline 

some Refuge System costs have increased due to inflation and annual adjustments, 

e.g. salaries. As a result, the Refuge System has not been able to maintain its level 

of operational activity from one year to the next—services and personnel have had 

to be cut back. Maintenance funding, however, has significantly increased—with a 

jump of 436% over eight years (FY 1996—FY 2004). 

Recent budget declines appear to have severely affected refuge operations. This 

is evident based on a number of findings, including: 

• 94% of refuge managers’ survey comments indicated an inability on the part of 

the NWRS to accomplish its mission due to inadequate budgets and staffing; 

• Workforce planning exercises are leading to significant cutbacks in personnel 

and services; for example, the Region 4 plan calls for a 20% reduction in staff; 

• In several regions, key services such as visitor programs, environmental education, and biological monitoring are being curtailed or eliminated; and 

• A number of refuges are being de-staffed; for example, in Region 5, 7 of 71 refuges will be de-staffed within the next year. 

Administration/Workload: Refuge System administrative reporting has reached an 

unbalanced and critical level and is diverting time and resources away from mission-critical activities. There has been a clear trend, particularly over the past five 

years, of increased workload requirements and increased administrative reporting. 

While some of the workload requirements, such as the need to produce CCPs, directly support the core mission of the Refuge System, much of the work relates to 

administrative requirements, such as the implementation of multiple and apparently redundant timekeeping and accountability processes. Much of the effort to address accountability concerns is disproportionate to the resources involved; for example, small refuges must use the same complex systems as large refuges even though 

their discretionary annual operations budgets may be as a small as $20,000-$30,000 


44614.009.eps
20 

per year. The Refuge System places an emphasis on accountability that often times 

appears to be disproportionate to the level of resources being monitored, which is 

not cost effective and is a distraction to a focus on the organization’s core conservation mission. 

Overall Operating Context: The confluence of declining budgets, declining staff, 

and a significant increase in administrative workload has impaired the Refuge 

System’s ability to focus on and accomplish its core mission—that of conserving 

habitat and resources. 

Concurrent with declining budgets, the Refuge System has also experienced an increase in administrative requirements. Together, these factors have had a negative 

effect on the Refuge System’s ability to achieve its core goals—refuge managers 

have less time, and less money, to focus on the accomplishment of their mission 

than was the case five years ago. The areas most impacted have included: the 

Refuge System’s ability to conduct adequate monitoring and inventory work; the law 

enforcement program, which simply has too few officers to enable the Refuge System 

to provide adequate law enforcement coverage; and the rate of growth of the Refuge 

System, which has declined markedly over the past five years. 

SOG 1: Conserve Manage, and Where Appropriate, Restore Fish, Wildlife and Plant 

Resources and Their Habitats. 

Partially Effective: This objective is rated ‘‘Partially Effective’’ because of the 

significant amount of refuge land that is need of additional management attention 

and the inconsistent application of science-based management across the Refuge 

System. As per the Refuge System’s RAPP performance reporting system, 89% of 

refuge lands—76.5 million acres—are in Class I condition, which means the land is 

receiving needed management action or does not require additional management action at this time. Alaska’s sixteen refuges report that 98% of their habitats were 

in Class 1 condition in 2006 (as per RAPP data reporting). However, for NWRS 

lands outside of Alaska, 59 % of the 18.9 million acres were reported as being in 

Class 1 condition in 2006—meaning that 41% are in need of management attention. 

A significant portion of refuges have not developed Habitat Management Plans 

and there is an insufficient level of biological inventory and monitoring work being 

done—only 11% of refuge managers surveyed described the current level of inventory and monitoring work as being mostly or fully sufficient. 

SOG 2: Provide Quality Environments with Adequate Water. 

Unable to Evaluate: This objective is rated ‘‘Unable to Evaluate’’ as a result of 

the limited information available against which to undertake an assessment of this 

strategic goal. The Refuge System does not currently operate a well defined and 

structured water resources program. There is currently no individual or office designated to coordinate the Refuge System’s water rights and water quality activities. 

SOG 3: Ensure that Unique Values of Wilderness, other Special Designation Areas, 

and Cultural Resources are protected. 

Partially Effective: The NWRS contains about 20.7 million acres of wilderness, 

of which approximately 90%, or 18.6 million acres, is in Alaska. In addition, about 

1.9 million of proposed acres of wilderness exist in the NWRS. The NWRS currently 

operates under the 1986 Wilderness Stewardship Policy. This policy is outdated and 

does not provide Refuge Managers adequate guidance regarding permissible management actions. A new draft policy has been developed and was released for public 

comment in 2001 but has never been finalized. The NWRS has supported the development of wilderness training courses and refuge managers overwhelmingly feel 

these courses have been effective in enabling them to acquire the skills necessary 

to manage wilderness areas; 64% of refuge managers who manage wilderness areas 

have completed the required wilderness training. 

SOG 4: Welcome and Orient Visitors. 

Partially Effective: The NWRS is reasonably effective in terms of informing and 

engaging refuge visitors but could easily improve its performance in this area. Brochures are generally informative and available at refuges, and refuge employees and 

volunteers are able to provide helpful and informative answers to visitor questions. 

However, videos and CDs—very engaging and effective means of providing information to refuge visitors—are substantially underutilized. The information provided on 

refuge websites is very inconsistent from refuge to refuge and frequently provides 

only the most basic information. The NWRS could do a substantially better job at 

orienting visitors by improving its websites and making sure website content is updated and consistent. 

21 

SOG 5: Provide Quality Wildlife-Dependent Recreation and Education Opportunities. 

Effective: The Refuge System has done a good job at expanding the number of 

refuges that offer wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities and, overall, the visitor satisfaction rate at refuges appears to be very high ‘‘above 90% in the 2002 and 

2004 surveys (note: the surveys were conducted only at fifty high visitation refuges). 

In terms of the individual Big 6 recreational activities, the operation of hunting, 

fishing, wildlife viewing, and photography programs are generally operating at a 

satisfactory level in terms of the Refuge System’s ability to provide an adequate 

level of service and in terms of the support provided to those programs by the 

Refuge System. The environmental education and interpretive programs, on the 

other hand, are not able to meet public demand and are not adequately supported 

by the Refuge System. This latter conclusion is based solely on the view of refuge 

managers: 55% of refuge managers surveyed indicated they are not able to adequately meet the demand for environmental education services and 48% indicated 

they are not able to meet the demand for interpretive services. 

SOG 6: Facilitate Partnerships and Cooperative Projects to Engage Other Conservation Agencies, Volunteers, Friends, and Partners in the NWRS Mission. 

Highly Effective: This objective was rated highly effective for several reasons: 

over the past ten years the Refuge System has been able to significantly expand 

participation by volunteers and Friends Groups; partnerships with thousands of 

local and national organizations make a significant contribution to the accomplishment of the Refuge System’s key objectives, particularly in the areas of habitat restoration and visitor services; and partnerships bring a tremendous amount of funding into the system—in 2005 alone the total value of partnership contributions to 

the Refuge System exceeded $50 million, with over $30 million of the total being 

in direct cash contributions. 

State Fish and Game Agencies: 88% of state agencies rated the quality of their 

relationship with individual refuges as between good and excellent; 47% rated the 

quality of the relationship as excellent or very good. 

Partner Agencies: 93% of partners rated the quality of their relationship with 

individual refuges as between good and excellent; 56% rated the quality of the relationship as excellent. 

SOG 7: Protect Resources and Visitors through Law Enforcement. 

Ineffective: Low staffing levels are leading to a substantial and critical lack of 

law enforcement coverage and capability at many refuges across the system. At 

many refuges, law enforcement coverage is insufficient to ensure the protection of 

resources and the safety of visitors and refuge staff. A substantial majority of refuge 

managers (over 70%) feel visitor safety and law enforcement performance has declined in recent years. The issue of public safety is of particular concern given that 

only seven of the refuge managers from 50 high visitation refuges (with annual visitation in excess of 250,000) who responded to the MSI survey indicated that law 

enforcement coverage is sufficient on their refuge. It is highly unlikely that any 

meaningful progress towards improving the Refuge System’s law enforcement capability can be achieved under current and expected budget allocation levels. 

SOG 8: Provide Infrastructure and Equipment Adequate to Support Mission and 

Maintained in Good Condition. 

Effective: The most important refuge assets—those most necessary to the 

achievement of refuge conservation and public use objectives—are generally well 

maintained. Seventy-five percent of refuge managers surveyed feel that the assets 

most critical to their refuge’s mission and purpose, such as water management systems, are maintained in a condition adequate to support and achieve those goals. 

An important caveat to this conclusion is the fact that a substantial minority of 

refuge managers (40%) believe their refuges require new facilities if they are to 

meet their purpose and objectives. In the mid-1990s, the maintenance of the Refuge 

System’s infrastructure and equipment was a critical concern and the maintenance 

budget subsequently increased dramatically—from $21 in 1996 million to $91.5 million in 2004 (a 336% increase over eight years in actual funding dollars). The availability of increased funds over the past seven or eight years has allowed the Refuge 

System to effectively address preventive maintenance requirements. Subsequent to 

2004, however, maintenance funding dipped substantially—a decline of 30% from 

2004 to 2007. It is important to note that if the recent backsliding in maintenance 

funding is not reversed infrastructure maintenance will soon once again become a 

critical problem. 

22 

SOG 9: Complete Quality and Useful Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs) on 

Schedule and with Full Engagement of Partners. 

Effective: The NWRS is required to complete CCPs for 554 refuges by 2012. To 

date, two hundred and five refuges have completed CCPs—or about 37% of required 

units (analysis as per mid-2207). Although the pace of CCP completion has accelerated significantly over the past few years, the Refuge System is slightly behind 

schedule in terms of meeting its CCP completion target. In April 2007, the Refuge 

System began implementing the 2012 Plan, an Action Plan to Meet Our Legislative 

Mandate, which lays out a series of actions intended to ensure that all required 

CCPs are completed by 2012. Overall, refuge managers have found CCPs to be a 

useful tool for clarifying objectives, guiding habitat management decisions, and 

clarifying public use decisions. 

As per the MSI State Fish and Game Agency Survey: 94% of state agencies 

agreed or strongly agreed that they had been provided an opportunity to meaningfully participate in the CCP process; 95% of state agencies agreed or strongly agreed 

that their participation in the CCP process had improved their communication and 

coordination with the Refuge System. 

SOG 10: Strategically Grow the System. 

Ineffective: This objective was rated ineffective for a number of reasons, including: the rate at which land has been added to the NWRS has declined significantly 

over the past five years; land purchased by the Refuge System often does not match 

the priorities identified by the NWRS’ Land Acquisition Priority System, especially 

over the past few years; and the current DOI-managed land appraisal process that 

the NWRS uses is ineffective and cannot be relied upon to produce timely or accurate appraisals, resulting in available land deals being lost. 

SOG 11: Reduce Wildfire Risks and Improve Habitats. 

Effective: This objective is rated ‘‘Effective’’ as a result of the systematic planning and execution by which the NWRS utilizes prescribed fire to improve wildlife 

habitat and reduce fuels loads and also for the Refuge System’s ability to fight and 

suppress wildfires. Where refuges have the qualified staff and budget, the high level 

of planning, training, and coordination results in application of prescription fire to 

improve and maintain habitats, reduce fuel loads, and suppress unwanted wildfire. 

Based on MSI surveys and interviews, it appears that approximately one-half of the 

NWRS has the resources it needs—both budget and personnel—to use fire as a 

habitat management tool. For other units, issues of staffing, available budget, the 

growing percentage of Wildland Urban Interface lands, and the location of refuges 

relative to other fire resources impair the system’s ability to promote prescription 

fire while proactively addressing fuels availability and effective wildfire suppression. 

SOG 12: Promote and Enhance Organizational Excellence. 

Partially Effective: The Refuge System has introduced a number of new management and planning systems over the past several years, including a mediumterm strategic plan, activity-based costing, RAPP work planning and reporting systems, and refuge-level comprehensive conservation planning. The Refuge System is 

also currently undertaking a Workforce Planning exercise to help better balance 

personnel and operational expenditures and to prioritize staffing and programs in 

consideration of declining budgets. The RAPP system has enabled the NWRS to better track and report on national-level accomplishments and the budget rebalancing 

exercise will, over time, provide managers greater flexibility to address local priorities. The RAPP system, however, has not proved useful to analyzing program effectiveness nor is it used for program decision-making. In addition, there is significant 

inconsistency within the Refuge System in how policies and programs are implemented across regions. In particular, there is a great deal of variance in basic business management practices, such as budgeting, annual work planning and the use 

of station reviews/evaluations. 

Principal Recommendations 

This report contains specific recommendations for improving the effectiveness of 

the Refuge System in each of the individual strategic outcome goal sections. A brief 

summary of some of the recommendations most likely to improve performance are 

presented below. 

The Law Enforcement program needs increased funding: There is a severe 

shortage of full-time law enforcement officers that can only be addressed by hiring 

additional full-time law enforcement officers—moving from current levels of around 

200 full-time officers to at least 400 full-time officers. Implementation of this recommendation will require substantial resources, but an acceptable improvement in 

23 

law enforcement coverage is of fundamental importance to the on-going effectiveness 

of the Refuge System. 

The Refuge System should find a way to increase policy and program 

consistency across regions and between refuges: Part of this process could include standardizing budget development, work planning, reporting and evaluation 

requirements. Another aspect of this recommendation is the need to develop a clear 

point of authority and process for ensuring greater policy consistency. 

Reduce administrative and reporting requirements: The Refuge System 

should strive to reduce administrative and reporting requirements—particularly for 

smaller refuges (seven or fewer staff). 

Review the Need to Hire Additional Biologists: As noted in the conclusion 

section, in part, the Refuge System is unable to fulfill its commitment to manage 

refuges using an adaptive management process because of a shortage of biologists 

(approximately 20% of the Refuge System’s workforce are biologists). It is recommended that the Refuge System review the adequacy of its biology workforce as 

compared to system needs. The White Paper produced for the Conservation in Action Summit recommended that biological teams be added to the top 50 refuges. An 

assessment should be undertaken to determine the degree to which this has happened. 

Biological monitoring and inventory work needs to be increased and a 

more consistent approach should be developed and implemented: The effort 

of developing a system-wide geographic monitoring capability should be continued 

and provided increased emphasis. For example, efforts should be made to build upon 

the Refuge Lands Geographic Information system (RLGIS) and accelerate and adequately resource the implementation of the Strategic Habitat Conservation Initiative. The Refuge System’s challenge is to better define high-priority system-wide 

needs, identify best practices that meet these needs, and replicate these systems in 

an increased number of locations. 

Develop a water strategy: The Refuge System should develop an overall strategy and management structure to more effectively assess and address water management issues. Steps to develop such a program would include appointing a Water 

Resources Coordinator and developing a policy, or at least a defined process, for how 

refuges should assess and manage water rights. As the Refuge System reviews the 

need to bolster its approach to water management it could also take the opportunity 

to review other program and issue areas that may benefit from increased attention, 

such as the impacts of climate change and its influence on how the Refuge System 

should be managed. 

Develop consistent and improved refuge websites: Develop a single website 

format/architecture for each of the refuge unit’s websites. There are several options 

available in terms of the approach used to manage refuge websites; however, the 

most efficient option would likely be to centralize the function in a single office or 

under a single contract. 

Prioritize visitor services: In light of high public demand for wildlife-dependent 

recreation and the Refuge System’s limited and stretched budgets, the Refuge 

System should prioritize the public use services it will offer and provide some guidance to refuges and regions as to how limited resources should be allocated among 

the various wildlife-dependent recreational activities. Particular attention should be 

given to better defining and supporting environmental education and interpretation 

programs, where such programs are appropriate and of high utility. 

Strengthen the Refuge System’s strategic growth program: The Refuge 

System should develop a Land Acquisition Policy and a corresponding strategy to 

guide expansion of the system. It is recommended that the land acquisition policy/ 

system be developed to be consistent with the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Strategic 

Conservation Habitat Initiative, a geospatial system being adopted by the Service 

to identify and monitor conservation priorities. In addition, the Refuge System 

should engage in a discussion with the Department of Interior to enable it to improve the process it uses to appraise potential real estate transactions as the current Department of Interior mandated Appraisal Services Directorate (ASD) system 

is ineffective. 

Redesign the RAPP reporting system: This system should be redesigned 

based on a clarification of its purpose. If the system is to remain primarily an external reporting tool—for reporting to FWS, DOI, OMB, and Congress—then the system should be substantially simplified to focus on areas of key interest and the 

number of indicators tracked should be significantly reduced (by at least 50-60%). 

However, the RAPP system would be most useful to the Refuge System if it were 

redesigned to provide information that could help inform strategy and management 

decisions, which is not currently the case. This will require revising the system and 

24 

also instituting practices to review and analyze the data for management decisions, 

e.g. an annual strategy and performance review workshop. 

It is also recommended that the Refuge System disaggregate reporting data between the Alaska region and the rest of the system. Because approximately 80% of 

all refuge land is in Alaska, and more than 90% of this land is classified as wilderness, aggregating Alaska performance data with that from the rest of the Refuge 

System provides a distorted picture of the overall system’s condition, needs and performance accomplishments 

Develop a knowledge management program: The NWRS should implement 

a Knowledge Management System to foster information sharing, promote learning 

and to ensure that best practices are more widely disseminated and adopted. Consideration should be given to creating a dedicated Knowledge Management Unit, 

which would be responsible for program reporting (RAPP), archiving documents, 

managing evaluations, disseminating lessons and best practices, and responding to 

external information requests (together with public relations staff). The Unit’s purpose would be to improve performance analysis and reporting and to raise the quality level of implementation practices across the Refuge System. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I thank you very much, Mr. Callihan, and I 

thank you for your very thorough evaluation of the Refuge System. 

At this time I would like to introduce a Member of the Subcommittee, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Kind, who is the 

Co-Chair of the House National Wildlife Refuge Caucus and a corequester of the GAO investigation, along with Chairman Rahall 

and myself. 

At this time I would like to have Mr. Kind make a few opening 

remarks. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RON KIND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN 

Mr. KIND. Thank you, Madam Chair. I won’t be long, but I do 

want to thank the panel for your testimony here today. I think this 

is an important and timely hearing. 

I want to express my appreciation for the work that GAO did, 

but also the cooperation that Fish and Wildlife and the Refuge 

System gave to GAO in the production of this report. 

Many of us are aware that the Fish and Wildlife Service conducted an independent evaluation to see whether the refuge was 

meeting the objectives, and Director Haskett was kind enough to 

come up on the Hill and brief many of us on an individual basis. 

We appreciated that feedback. 

But we do face some big challenges. It is one of the reasons many 

of us formed this bipartisan Refuge Caucus in Congress, given the 

importance of the issue, and we are looking for a plan to move forward. Many of us have been especially focused on the funding challenge that we see and whether we need to create a new paradigm 

and a new way of meeting the funding needs that we are obviously 

falling short on. 

Like so many of us around here, we have multiple obligations, 

so I might have to bounce back and forth to a couple other hearings 

that are taking place too, but I have read many of your testimony 

here today and look forward to the testimony and hopefully will 

have a chance later to ask a few questions. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Kind. 

I would now like to invite Mr. Kurth to testify on behalf of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

25 

STATEMENT OF JIM KURTH, ACTING ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 

OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM, U.S. FISH 

AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. KURTH. Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Jim Kurth. I am the Acting Assistant Director for 

the National Wildlife Refuge System with U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to testify on 

the management and the performance of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. 

As the Subcommittee is aware, the Refuge System is the world’s 

preeminent system of public lands devoted to the protection and 

conservation of fish, wildlife and their habitat. It includes more 

than 97 million acres and spans half the globe, and it receives 

nearly 37 million visitors each year. 

We have heard from the GAO on their report of the changes in 

the Refuge System funding from 2002 to 2007 and how those 

changes affected habitat management and visitor services. You 

have also heard from Management Systems International about 

their independent evaluation of the effectiveness of the Service in 

meeting the 12 goals in the Refuge System strategic plan. 

The draft GAO report found that core funding for the Refuge 

System increased each year from 2002 to 2007, but when inflation 

is considered funding for the Refuge System actually peaked in Fiscal Year 2004 at about $391 million. It was 2.3 percent below that 

peak in 2003. In other words, funding for the Refuge System from 

2002 to 2007 was not maintaining its purchasing power. 

The Refuge System has managed this budget by effectively shifting its resources at both the regional and field station level so we 

could continue our mission critical work of protecting habitat and 

delivering services to our visitors at our highest priority stations. 

Unfortunately, the strategic decisions came at the tradeoff of not 

being able to deliver these functions as effectively at lower priority 

stations. 

We generally agree with the findings in the MSI report, and we 

offer these observations: The finding in the MSI report that the 

Refuge System was ineffective in refuge law enforcement is of 

greatest concern. We have made refuge law enforcement a top priority for the system. We have fallen short of our goal to reduce dependency on our dual function officers by replacing them with fulltime officers. Refuge law enforcement remains one of the keenest 

challenges the Service faces today. 

We are also concerned that our performance is only partially effective in our core mission area of conserving fish, wildlife and 

their habitats. We are not really surprised at that finding, though, 

given the complexity and the diversity of the resource challenges 

we face today. The Service will focus heavily on addressing the report’s recommendations on how to improve our performance in this 

area. 

We appreciate the fact that MSI’s evaluation found our volunteer 

program and community partnerships to be highly effective. We 

have grown our volunteer workforce from 1980 at least than 5,000 

to more than 32,000 today. They contribute 1.5 million hours worth 

more than $25 million. These citizen conservationists greatly enhance the wildlife conservation and visitor services programs on 

26 

refuges. Without them we could not effectively fulfill the Refuge 

System mission. 

I would like to acknowledge the work of this committee in enacting the Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 

1998. This law really fueled the rapid growth of our friends organization from 75 in 1994 to more than 250 today. 

We have taken other innovative approaches to enhance our effectiveness and stretch our dollars. We have established a clear program that sets priorities for National Wildlife Refuges. If budgets 

do not keep pace with increasing cost, we eliminate positions at 

lower priority stations and focus our resources on the highest priority stations. 

The Service believes it is essential for refuge managers to have 

adequate funding to cover operational costs, provide training and 

fund priority projects. We consider this management capability an 

essential component in individual field station budgets. From 2004 

to 2007, we eliminated 305 permanent positions on refuges to assure we maintain this management capability on priority refuges. 

Today, refuge managers are better able to plan and implement 

projects than they were a few years ago. 

The MSI report ended in 2007. I would like to note that in 2008 

Congress appropriated a $36 million increase in refuge funding. We 

believe if the reviews had included 2008, they would have seen we 

have improved effectiveness in several areas that they considered. 

For example, we have hired an additional 20 full-time law enforcement officers and have ensured that every refuge has its targeted 

level of management capacity funding. 

In conclusion, we agree with many of the findings of the MSI report and plan to implement a number of its recommendations. We 

wish that an independent review would have found that we were 

highly effective in meeting all our goals, but sometimes we have to 

acknowledge that we can’t accomplish everything that we would 

like to. 

Director Hall has provided clear leadership, insisting we set priorities and make difficult decisions. We are proud to have kept the 

list of things we don’t get done much shorter by enlisting volunteers in communities and creative partnerships. 

We believe the reports discussed today can be important tools 

that help the Service better deliver the mission of America’s 

National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Madam Chairman, that concludes my prepared remarks, and I 

am happy to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kurth follows:] 

Statement of James Kurth, Acting Assistant Director, National Wildlife 

Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior 

Chairwoman Bordallo and Members of the Subcommittee, I am James Kurth, Acting Assistant Director of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). I appreciate the opportunity to be here 

today to testify on evaluations of the National Wildlife Refuge System’s performance. 

Your invitation asked that we comment on a recent report developed by the General Accounting Office (GAO) at the request of Congress that focuses on Refuge 

System funding from 2002 to 2007. We have had the opportunity to review a draft 

of the final version of this report and are currently developing an official response. 

27 

1 An Autobiography by Theodore Roosevelt. Published by Macmillan, 1913. 

Therefore, we are unable to provide formal comments on that GAO report at this 

time. 

Recently a report was prepared by Management Systems International (MSI) at 

the request of the Service in response to a need identified by the Administration’s 

Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), to conduct independent evaluations of the 

Refuge System program’s effectiveness. PART is a management tool used by the Executive Branch to assess the performance of federal programs and to drive improvements in program performance. The PART evaluation includes questions that ask 

whether federal programs periodically undergo independent reviews of their performance. The MSI report was commissioned to address this issue. The Service 

agrees with the majority of the conclusions in the MSI report, as detailed below, 

and plans to follow a number of its recommendations for improving the Refuge 

System. 

The Service takes this report very seriously. We look at the report as a healthy 

exercise in objectively reviewing the Refuge System and as a tool to provide us with 

feedback on both the strengths and weaknesses of our operations. Consequently, the 

Service is already moving forward to use the findings and recommendations in the 

report in constructive ways to improve the Refuge System and better fulfill its 

mission. 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is 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 Refuge System is the world’s preeminent system of public lands devoted to protection and conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats. 

Today, the Refuge System receives over 36 million visitors every year and includes over 96 million acres of land and water spanning more than half of the globe. 

If a line was drawn from Guam National Wildlife Refuge in the Western Pacific 

Ocean to Green Cay National Wildlife Refuge in the Virgin Islands, that line would 

be about 9,500 miles long, east to west. A line drawn from Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge at the top of Alaska to Rose Atoll National Wildlife Refuge in American 

Samoa would be about 5,000 miles, north to south. The Refuge System is a geographically diverse land, coastal and ocean conservation network. Refuges vary in 

size from the tiny half-acre Mille Lacs Refuge in Minnesota to the massive 19 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. In total, the Refuge System contains 548 refuges and 37 wetland management districts. The Refuge System’s 2008 operations and maintenance budget of $434 million 

funded the work of more than three thousand employees operating at more than 300 

staffed offices around the world. As expected, our workforce contains many biologists 

and professional wildlife managers, but also contains professional educators, law enforcement officers, heavy equipment operators, fire fighters, real estate appraisers, 

business managers, and more than a few pilots and boat captains. From a budgetary 

standpoint, the Refuge System must be viewed as a large organization that requires 

many diverse and specialized functions to operate effectively. 

To fully understand the purpose of the Refuge System, we must also remember 

why it was created. President Theodore Roosevelt established the first refuge in 

1903 when he reserved Florida’s Pelican Island as a place where nesting birds 

would be protected from overexploitation. President Roosevelt was a bold conservationist, and in his autobiography he wrote proudly of establishing 51 ‘‘National Bird 

Reservations’’ during his Presidency. Nearly all of his reservations are now units in 

the Refuge System. In regard to this work, Roosevelt remarked: 

‘‘The creation of these reservations at once placed the United States in the 

front rank in the world work of bird protection. Among these reservations 

are the celebrated Pelican Island rookery in—Florida;—the extensive 

marshes bordering Klamath and Malheur Lakes in Oregon;—and the great 

bird colonies on Laysan and sister islets in Hawaii, some of the greatest 

colonies of sea birds in the world.’’ 1

President Roosevelt foresaw that saving places where wildlife was abundant 

would make the United States a world leader in conservation and make our Nation 

wealthier. Our ability to conserve wildlife is still an important part—and an important symbol—of the American spirit. The Refuge System thus represents places 

where habitat and wildlife are so rich that it is in the American public’s interest 

to ensure those habitats and wildlife are conserved for present and future generations. 

28 

The Refuge System is a source of pride in the American consciousness. Evidence 

of this pride can be seen in the number of volunteers and Friends organizations 

formed to help local refuges function. People understand the value contained in 

National Wildlife Refuges and as a result every year more than 30,000 citizens volunteer their time to help their local refuges. The monetary value of their work last 

year alone was calculated at more than $25 million. The Service is indebted to these 

volunteers for their hard work and support for the Refuge System. 

The Management Systems International (MSI) Report 

The Service contracted with Management Systems International (MSI) to complete an independent evaluation of the Refuge System in response to a need identified through the Administration’s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). The 

PART is a management tool used by the Executive branch to assess the performance 

of federal programs and to drive improvements in program performance. The PART 

helps inform budget and management decisions and identify actions to improve program results. The purpose of PART assessments is to review overall program effectiveness, from how well a program is designed to how well it is implemented and 

what results it achieves. As such, the PART examines those factors within the control of the program as well as factors that may influence the program. The PART 

asks programs whether they periodically undergo independent reviews of their performance. The MSI report was commissioned by the Service to address this issue 

for the Refuge System program. 

In order to make the report as valuable as possible, the Service asked MSI to ensure that the report was independent and objective. We also facilitated surveys of 

our staff, provided MSI with information in our data systems, and reviewed their 

recommendations for feasibility, but did not provide feedback on whether we agreed 

with MSI’s findings or recommendations. The final report, entitled ‘‘An Independent 

Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National 

Wildlife Refuge System’’ took two years to complete. It contains what we believe is 

a very comprehensive and objective evaluation of the Refuge System’s strengths, 

weaknesses, performance and information gaps. It concludes with a summary rating 

of how effective the Refuge System is with respect to each of twelve strategic goals 

identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Strategic Plan. The Service does 

not agree with all the findings and recommendations in this report, but we agree 

with many and are already moving forward to address them. 

The twelve strategic goals evaluated in the MSI Report are identified in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Strategic Plan. They primarily align with our functional areas. They include: 

• Conserve, manage, and where appropriate, restore fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats 

• Provide quality environments and adequate water 

• Ensure that unique values of wilderness, other special designation areas, and 

cultural resources are protected 

• Welcome and orient visitors 

• Provide quality wildlife-dependent recreation and education opportunities 

• Facilitate partnerships and cooperative projects to engage other conservation 

agencies, volunteers, Friends groups, and partners in the Refuge System mission 

• Protect resources and visitors through law enforcement 

• Provide infrastructure and equipment adequate to support mission and maintain it in good condition 

• Complete quality and useful comprehensive conservation plans on schedule and 

with full engagement of partners 

• Strategically grow the Refuge System 

• Reduce wildfire risks and improve habitats 

• Promote and enhance organizational excellence 

In short, the report concludes that the Service is ‘‘highly effective’’ in one strategic 

goal, and ‘‘effective’’ in four others. The report also finds that we are ‘‘partially effective’’ in four goals, and ‘‘ineffective’’ in two. MSI concluded that they were unable 

to evaluate the goal of providing quality environments with adequate water because 

of a lack of information. 

The Refuge System was found highly effective in the goal of facilitating partnerships and cooperative projects to engage others in our conservation work. The evaluators looked at how Refuge System staff work with volunteers, Friends groups, 

State partners, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and other agencies and 

found that we do a very good job of developing these relationships and using them 

to help accomplish the Refuge System mission. We are especially proud that the results from the survey of the state wildlife agencies—some of our most important 

29 

partners—found that 88 percent of state agencies rated their relationship with individual refuges between good and excellent. Similarly, 93 percent of all our partners, 

which includes State agencies as well as NGO’s and Friends organizations, rated the 

quality of their relationship with individual refuges between good and excellent. We 

feel these are impressive results for an organization the size of the Refuge System, 

especially considering the difficult and complex nature of many of our resource management challenges. 

For eight of our twelve strategic goals the Refuge System was rated in the midrange of effective to partially effective. These included some of our most important 

core functions, such as conserving fish, wildlife and habitat, and delivering visitor 

services. The Service will focus heavily on addressing these recommendations. These 

conclusions highlight some of the common challenges we face across the Refuge 

System, such as: addressing invasive species issues, securing adequate water supplies, and delivering quality educational and interpretive programs. The MSI report 

is the most complete evaluation we have of those operations, and it makes many 

detailed recommendations on how the Refuge System might improve our performance in these areas. We have already formed teams of staff to review these recommendations and develop action items to improve our performance in these key 

areas. Finally, two strategic goals that were found to be ineffective included law enforcement and strategic growth. The Department of the Interior and the Service have 

directed numerous reforms in the refuge law enforcement program following two reviews by the Departments Inspector General in 2001 and 2002. The events of September 11, 2001, also added additional focus to our law enforcement program and 

additional responsibilities related to national security. Most of those reforms are 

complete. However, the decision to transition away from dual-function officers to a 

force composed completely of full-time officers has been especially challenging to implement. The Refuge System committed to making this transition and envisioned a 

way it could be done smoothly without a loss of law enforcement capacity. Unfortunately, the phase-out of dual function officers and a corresponding phase-in of full 

time officers has not evolved as planned. Nevertheless, we have made refuge law 

enforcement a top priority for the Refuge System and it remains one of the keenest 

challenges the Service faces today. For example, in 2008 we used $3 million of an 

increase refuge operations funding to provide for twenty new full-time officer 

positions. 

The MSI report also rates the Service ineffective in the area of strategic growth, 

citing as the primary reason the rate at which land is being added to the Refuge 

System and the fact that this rate has declined significantly over the past few years. 

This is not unplanned as we believe that it is appropriate for the Refuge System 

to slow its rate of land acquisition in a period when the Refuge System is challenged 

to maintain the acres it already has under its jurisdiction. We believe this is a key 

to strategically grow the refuge, along with working with partners and increasing 

support and participation from conservation partners and the public. The MSI report looked solely at the physical growth aspect of the goal. We are cognizant of that 

fact that the cost of land changes, and in those situations where we need to acquire 

additional land to complete a refuge or expand a refuge that is located in a biologically rich location, our we must use our various authorities to our fullest ability 

with the tools we have. The Refuge System does not have to own every acre that 

needs protection, and we are working with our partners to use innovative approaches to land protection. For example, for years the Service has worked with conservation partners to look across biological landscapes and make collaborative decisions about what organization can most effectively protect what area. The 

Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument created in the Northwest Hawaiian Islands in 2006 is a recent example. The Refuge System is a major partner in 

management of the National Monument, and in tandem with other federal agency 

and state partners we help protect more than 139,000 square miles of marine habitat—a much bigger accomplishment than any one organization could ever hope to 

accomplish. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Perspectives 

The MSI examined trends in the annual operating budgets of the Refuge System 

and the impact on Refuge System performance. Not surprisingly, some broad patterns emerged regarding the Refuge System. These broad patterns are important to 

consider but also need to be carefully evaluated because they provide one view of 

the trends which have been the context for many of our management decisions over 

the past few years. 

The MSI report references statistics that compare funding to FY 2003 which was 

the Centennial of the Refuge System. Additional funds were provided by Congress 

30 

to the Refuge System in FY 2003 and FY 2004 related to the Refuge System Centennial. Specific activities and projects were funded and were never meant to establish 

a new long term funding operations budget baseline. A better comparison would 

have been FY 2001 or the beginning of the Administration. When comparing refuge 

funding in FY 2008 to the FY 2001 appropriated level of $300 million, adjusted for 

inflation, the Refuge System budget has outpaced inflation by $75 million or 21 percent. This is one of the largest increases in the Service for any program. 

For the past two years, the Refuge System has been reexamining its workforce 

and realigning staffing to better meet today’s challenges in wildlife conservation. 

The Refuge System has already undertaken a number of steps to better deliver its 

mission in a performance-driven, priority-based manner. These steps include: 

• Strategic planning at the Department, Service, and Refuge System level; 

• Targeted increases for the Refuge System’s highest priorities including invasive 

species control, borderland security, and maintenance at targeted refuges; 

• Use of ‘‘service zones’’ for refuge law enforcement and heavy equipment operations; and 

• Complexing of individual refuges where appropriate, such as in areas that are 

in close proximity, rather than dividing staff and resources among each refuge. 

The Refuge System analyzed the operational budget for each field station and 

found that the amount spent on salaries varied greatly, with some field stations 

spending more than 90 percent of their budget solely on salaries and benefits, leaving limited funding for management flexibility. The Refuge System has determined 

that the desirable ratio of salaries to management should be around 80:20 based on 

the particular circumstances at each individual refuge. Within each of the Service’s 

regions, the Refuge System developed a workforce plan with the goal of achieving 

this desirable ratio in order to best accomplish the mission of the Refuge System. 

One result of the workforce plans was to prioritize refuges. In some cases lower priority refuges are managed remotely (i.e. without staff on site) and others are managed as part of a larger Refuge Complex. While there have been permanent staff 

reductions through retirement or attrition, overall Refuge System FTEs have increased by 296 or roughly 11 percent since 2001 in part because of the increased 

use of temporary staff. Clearly, the input of resources into the Refuge System’s conservation efforts are related to the outcomes we measure. Refuge system budgets 

have focused on funding the highest priorities within among the many needs identified. 

We appreciate the fact that MSI’s independent evaluation found our volunteer 

programs and community partnerships to be highly effective. We have grown our 

volunteer workforce from fewer than 5000 in 1980 to more than 32,000 today. They 

contribute 1.5 million hours of work worth over $25 million. Since 1994, we have 

also grown from 75 community support or ‘‘Friends’’ groups to 250. These citizen 

conservationists greatly enhance the wildlife conservation and visitor services programs on refuges. Without them, we could not effectively fulfill the mission of the 

Refuge System. 

We have taken other innovative approaches to enhance our effectiveness and 

stretch our dollars. We have reduced the emphasis on building large, expensive visitor centers and focused on small scale, low maintenance, construction project we 

call ‘‘visitor facility enhancements’’ or VFEs. These projects include observation platforms, photo blinds, fishing piers, boardwalk trails, and boat ramps and other similar enhancements. These smaller, simpler facilities cost less, make our dollars go 

farther, and increase the outcomes in our visitor services programs. 

Managing the Refuge System through these times has also taught us some important lessons and forced us to rethink how we do business. We have established a 

clear program that sets priorities for national wildlife refuges. If budgets do not 

keep pace with increasing costs, we focus our resources on the highest priority 

areas. We believe it is essential for refuge managers to have adequate funding to 

cover operational costs, provide training, and fund priority projects. We consider this 

‘‘management capacity’’ an essential component in individual national wildlife 

refuge budgets. 

The MSI report ended their analysis in FY 2007. We would like to note that in 

FY 2008 Congress appropriated a $36 million increase in refuge funding. We believe 

that if the review had included FY 2008, the MSI report would have found an improved effectiveness in several areas that they considered. For example, we have 

hired an addition 20 new full-time law enforcement officers and assured every 

refuge has its targeted ratio of management capacity funds to salary. 

As mentioned above, we believe the MSI report contains some excellent ideas on 

improving effectiveness of our programs, and we are in the process of developing an 

action plan that will carefully evaluate how we will move forward with this informaVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:24 Feb 09, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\44614.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
31 

tion. The Service is committed to achieving our strategic goals and will set clear priorities for addressing the recommendations in the report. 

Conclusion 

We have had the opportunity to review a draft of the final version of the GAO 

report and are currently developing an official response. In regard to the MSI report, we agree with many of the findings of the MSI report and plan to implement 

a number of its recommendations. We believe the report will be an important tool 

to help the Service better deliver the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

to the American public. 

The Service has worked hard at all levels to address the circumstances described 

in the report and has made difficult choices and set clear priorities. We have continued to ensure that the Refuge System remains the world’s preeminent system of 

public lands devoted to protection and conservation by developing a strategy to manage through a period when we had to tighten our belt financially. We have developed and implemented strategic workforce plans to guide these decisions, and refuge 

managers have acted prudently and prioritized their resources and their work. 

Many times those decisions were not popular, but we believe they were needed. We 

will continue to work with our partners, volunteers, Friends groups, and State fish 

and wildlife colleagues to stretch our dollars and deliver effective wildlife and habitat conservation and visitor services. 

The Service greatly appreciates the interest and strong support of Chairwoman 

Bordallo and Members of the Subcommittee for the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be 

pleased to respond to any questions you may have. Thank you. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Kurth. Let me say 

that notwithstanding the shortcomings outlined in both the GAO 

and the MSI reports, we very much appreciate your efforts and the 

efforts of every Federal employee within the Refuge System who 

labor tirelessly to protect and manage the Refuge System on behalf 

of the American people. 

Mr. Matson, it is a pleasure to welcome you here this afternoon 

to our hearing or this morning. You are now recognized to testify 

for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF NOAH MATSON, VICE PRESIDENT FOR LAND 

CONSERVATION, DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE 

Mr. MATSON. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Members of 

the Subcommittee. I am Noah Matson, Vice President for Land 

Conservation at Defenders of Wildlife. Thank you for inviting me 

to testify today. 

I have personally visited dozens of refuges across the country 

over the last few years and have followed National Wildlife Refuge 

policy and appropriations for more than a decade. It is clear to me 

that persistent budget shortfalls, coupled with lack of progress and 

important policies, have led to a troubling erosion of the Refuge 

System’s ability to achieve its conservation mission. I generally 

concur with the findings of the reports and details. Some of that 

is in my written testimony. 

I first want to talk about the funding issue since that is essentially the hearing today. Before I get into some stories, I just want 

to mention that Congress is currently working on the continuing 

resolution for the Federal budget, and within there, there is some 

hurricane supplemental funding. 

As you may or may not know, at least three refuges were basically wiped out in Hurricane Ike. The Texas Chenier Plain Refuges, 

which includes McFaddin, Anahuac and Texas Point, lost everything in that hurricane. It was a direct hit. I encourage Members 

32 

of the Subcommittee and their colleagues to support funding to restore those refuges from that hurricane. 

In terms of MSI’s overarching finding that the dramatic decreases in actual purchasing power in recent years has led to the 

Refuge System not being able to ‘‘maintain its level of operational 

activity from one year to the next, requiring that services and personnel be cut back,’’ I just want to provide a story that nowhere 

is this more apparent than the Supawna Meadows National Wildlife Refuge in New Jersey. 

This refuge protects about 3,000 acres of coastal marshland along 

the Delaware River and is a really important foraging habitat for 

the largest rookery of wading birds north of Florida. The refuge enjoys an extremely dedicated and passionate refuge friends group. In 

2005, that friends group had their dreams come true with a brand 

new visitors center. 

That visitors center never opened because soon after that happened the Supawna Meadows was part of this workforce restructuring plan, and all the on-site staff were removed from that refuge 

and now it is managed by Cape May National Wildlife Refuge, 

some 60 miles away. 

Without on-site staff there is nobody to lead or coordinate the 

dedicated volunteers, and that brand new visitors center is collecting dust and volunteers are largely sitting idle. This is the face 

of the budget crisis facing the Refuge System. 

A year ago one of my staff visited Crystal River National Wildlife 

Refuge in Florida. Well, he tried to visit. Instead, he was welcomed 

with a sign that read: Due to staff and budget reductions, coupled 

with increasing workload per staff member, we may not always be 

open for visitation. This was a sign on the refuge door. 

The refuge shares one law enforcement officer spread over 100 

miles of coastline, managing a whole complex of refuges, including 

a large waterfowl hunting program, the endangered whooping 

crane program, beachgoers and islands in Tampa Bay, leaving little 

time to patrol the waters of Crystal River. Without this law enforcement presence, boaters and swimmers regularly harass endangered manatees, a problem so bad you can actually see videos of 

it on YouTube. 

I think all the Members of the committee understand the funding 

issues of the Refuge System are real and are seriously compromising its mission. I look forward to working with the committee 

on solutions to this crisis. 

I next want to talk about climate change. Now, I know this 

wasn’t a focus of this hearing, but I found it kind of a glaring omission from some of these reports that came out today. 

Now, I do not fault MSI for not doing this because they were following the strategic goals of the Refuge System, and that is where 

the problem lies. This Administration has placed no emphasis on 

addressing the profound impacts of climate change to the point 

where there is not even a national goal in the Refuge System to 

address these needs. 

The Refuge System is particularly vulnerable to climate change. 

Over 160 coastal refuges are vulnerable to sea level rise. The bulk 

of the Refuge System’s acreage is in Alaska. We have already seen 

glaciers melt or the wetlands dry up, tree lines rise. 

33 

In addition, the Prairie Pothole region of the country, America’s 

duck factory and home to many, many refuges, is expected to lose 

half of its wetlands and ponds over the coming century. This is a 

very real danger to the Refuge System which requires proactive 

planning to prevent the worst damage from happening and ensure 

that the conservation investments we make today are climate 

smart. 

I fear refuges like Supawna Meadows and Crystal River, already 

unable to address today’s conservation challenges, will fall further 

from achieving their conservation purposes in the future. I encourage Congress and the Administration to work on solutions to this 

problem. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System is critical to the future of 

wildlife and wildlife focused recreation in America. As recommended by the MSI report, refuges should become fulcrums for 

influencing conservation actions and larger landscapes. 

With an appropriate investment of resources and sound policy direction, I believe the Refuge System can be a fulcrum for conservation across the landscape to meet the conservation needs of today 

and the serious challenges of climate and other environmental 

changes ahead. 

On behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, I thank you for the opportunity to comment today and look forward to the questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Matson follows:] 

Statement of Noah Matson, Vice President for Land Conservation, 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee, I am Noah Matson, Vice 

President for Land Conservation at Defenders of Wildlife (‘‘Defenders’’). Founded in 

1947, Defenders of Wildlife is a non-profit, public interest organization with over 1.1 

million members and supporters across the nation and is dedicated to the conservation and restoration of wild animals and plants in their natural communities. 

I greatly appreciate this opportunity to discuss the recent budget trends of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. As the only federal land system in the U.S. dedicated primarily to the conservation of wildlife and habitat, the Refuge System is of 

paramount importance to Defenders and all Americans, especially the nearly 40 million people who visit and enjoy national wildlife refuges from Guam to Maine, from 

Puerto Rico to Alaska, each year. These visitors generate more than $1.7 billion in 

annual sales to local economies, resulting in employment for more than 27,000 U.S. 

workers. 

Defenders has been substantively involved in National Wildlife Refuge System 

law and policy for decades, and actively worked for passage of the landmark 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (‘‘Refuge Improvement 

Act’’). Defenders has also been actively involved in the formulation of national policy 

guidance issued since passage of the Refuge Improvement Act, including policies addressing planning, compatibility and appropriateness of secondary uses, biological 

integrity, diversity and environmental health, wilderness, and recreational use. In 

addition, Defenders has long been a leader in the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge 

Enhancement (CARE), a diverse coalition of scientific, conservation, and sporting organizations representing more than 14 million Americans. CARE works with Congress and at local, regional, and national levels to raise awareness of the critical 

budget crisis now facing the Refuge System. 

After following Refuge System appropriations for nearly a decade, coupled with 

extensive research and visits to dozens of refuges, it is clear to me that persistent 

budget shortfalls coupled with lack of progress on important policies have led to a 

troubling erosion of the Refuge System’s ability to achieve its wildlife conservation 

mission and public outreach objectives. Recent assessments from the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) and Management Systems International (MSI) strongly 

validate these observations. These reports have shed much-needed light on challenges that have been well known by refuge supporters for years. It is my sincere 

hope that discussion of their conclusions and recommendations will inform and 

34 

guide meaningful changes necessary to reinvigorate our legacy to wildlife, the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Eleven years ago, Congress passed the sweeping National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act to reform a system of lands starving for a mission, critical management standards, and funding. Congress had the foresight to write a timeless 

piece of legislation that provides direction even in a changing world. Congress wanted the Refuge System to be managed using modern scientific programs. Congress 

wanted the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants to be monitored to detect 

changes, measure progress and to adapt management. Congress understood the importance of adequate water quality and quantity to the Refuge System. Congress 

understood the importance of strategically growing the Refuge System to meet its 

mission and ‘‘to contribute to the conservation of the ecosystems of the United 

States.’’ Finally, Congress required each refuge to have a comprehensive conservation plan, developed with the input of the American public, to ensure that each 

refuge was managed in a way to best contribute to the mission of the whole system 

and to achieve its purpose. 

Lack of funding and lack of leadership over the last several years has prevented 

the Refuge System from fulfilling this promise. According to MSI, the Refuge 

System is underperforming in most of these areas, inhibiting the Refuge System 

from addressing the threats of today, and leaving the Refuge System unprepared 

to meet the tremendous challenges of climate change. 

I will focus my remarks on overall funding for the Refuge System and the ability 

of the FWS to address climate change, develop quality comprehensive conservation 

plans, strategically protect additional habitat, conduct inventory and monitoring 

programs, and maintain adequate water supplies for the Refuge System. 

The MSI report included a comprehensive evaluation of many other aspects of 

refuge management. A comprehensive analysis of the MSI report is included as an 

attachment to my testimony. 

Funding 

In June 2008, a report was released by MSI entitled ‘‘An Independent Evaluation 

of the Effectiveness of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wildlife Refuge 

System.’’ This assessment was requested by the Fish and Wildlife Service (‘‘FWS’’), 

the agency that administers all national wildlife refuges. MSI’s goal was to assess 

and make recommendations for each of the Refuge System’s twelve strategic outcome goals, which were finalized in early 2007. The goals are broad but relate to 

the Refuge System’s most essential elements of habitat and wildlife conservation, 

wildlife-dependent recreation, law enforcement, fire management, welcoming and 

orienting visitors, wilderness management, conservation planning, facilities maintenance, strategic growth, and maintaining organizational excellence. 

In September 2008, a report was released by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) entitled ‘‘Wildlife Refuges: Changes in Funding, Staffing, and Other Factors Create Concerns about Future Sustainability.’’ The report details the funding 

situation for the Refuge System from FY 2002-2007 and elucidates trends at the 

System level, while emphasizing that particular individual refuges have been more 

heavily impacted than the national trends might suggest. 

In general, I agree with the principal findings of these reports, though there is 

substantially more story to tell for several of the examined issues. I strongly agree 

with the MSI Report’s overarching finding that the dramatic decrease in actual purchasing power in recent years has led to the Refuge System’s not being able to 

‘‘maintain its level of operational activity from one year to the next’’, requiring that 

‘‘services and personnel...be cut back.’’ 

Many of these cutbacks have been truly devastating to our nation’s wildlife refuges. Some of the impacts now being felt across the country include a planned 20 

percent reduction in refuge managers, biologists, environmental educators, and 

maintenance staff, with 350 jobs already eliminated and another 250 on the chopping block; scores of refuges being completely de-staffed; a crippling backlog of $3.5 

billion in shelved operations ($1 billion) and maintenance ($2.5 billion) projects; and 

visitors that increasingly find closed visitor centers and access roads, dilapidated observation platforms, overgrown hiking trails, eliminated visitor education programs, 

and cancelled hunting or fishing events. These same visitors will almost assuredly 

not encounter a law enforcement officer, as a deficiency of more than 500 refuge officers has led to a rise in illegal activities such as poaching, drug cultivation, sex 

crimes and various types of natural resource violations. 

GAO found that by FY 2007, after adjusting for inflation, core funding was actually 4.3% above FY 2002 levels. However, viewing funding trends in this way does 

not fully capture the actual effect of essentially flat budgets on the Refuge System, 

or its actual budgetary needs. In recent years, the Refuge System needed an addiVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:24 Feb 09, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\44614.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
35 

tional $16 million each year simply to keep pace with rising fixed costs, such as salary adjustments, fuel, utilities and rental space. Recently, in response to soaring 

energy prices, the Refuge System recalculated this annual need to be approximately 

$20 million. To put it simply, the Refuge System now needs an additional $20 million each year simply to pay its staff, put gas in the trucks and keep the lights on. 

The GAO inflationary adjustment did not address this all-important need and therefore painted a somewhat misleading picture of recent budget trends. 

In addition, these numbers mask the enormous needs facing the Refuge System. CARE estimates that the Refuge System needs almost $800 million per year in operations and maintenance funding to adequately meet its mission. I have included 

CARE’s report, ‘‘Restoring America’s Wildlife Refuges,’’ as an attachment to this testimony to provide details of CARE’s analysis of Refuge System budget needs. 

The MSI Report broadly concludes that declining, inadequate budgets coupled 

with increasing administrative requirements for field personnel has most heavily 

impacted three areas: the Refuge System’s ability to conduct adequate inventory and 

monitoring work; the grossly understaffed law enforcement program; and the rate 

of growth of the Refuge System, which the report notes has ‘‘declined markedly over 

the last five years.’’ I agree completely that deficiencies in these areas are seriously 

hamstringing the Refuge System’s potential to deliver on its conservation and public 

use goals. I would further add, however, that funding shortfalls and glaring administrative neglect in recent years has created a host of other important challenges 

that warrant congressional attention, many of which I will discuss below. 

Climate Change 

From the walrus to waterfowl, global climate change is and will have profound 

impacts on wildlife and the habitats they depend on. Globally, scientists estimate 

that 30-40% of known species are at increased risk of extinction due to the impacts 

of climate change under current emissions. And if we fail to curtail our emissions 

that figure could rise to as great as 70%. In the United States, species have already 

begun to feel these effects. The Refuge System is particularly vulnerable, with over 

160 coastal refuges at risk from sea level rise, and the bulk of the Refuge System’s 

land in Alaska, which has already seen glaciers melt, boreal wetlands dry up, treelines move upslope, and warming-aided pests destroy millions of acres of forests. In 

addition, the Prairie Pothole region of the Dakotas and parts of Montana, Minnesota, and Iowa, America’s ‘‘duck factory’’ and home to a large number of refuges, 

is expected to lose half of its lakes and ponds essential for waterfowl breeding. 

It is instructive that the FWS did not ask MSI to evaluate the Refuge System’s 

ability to meet the challenges of climate change. A GAO report released last fall concerning the federal resource agencies’ ability to respond to the management implications of climate change found that federal resource agencies, including FWS ‘‘have 

not made climate change a priority, and the agencies’ strategic plans do not specifically address climate change.’’ So it is little wonder that the MSI report, which used 

the Refuge System’s own strategic plan as the framework for the evaluation, seemingly ignored how climate change is affecting the Refuge System and failed to assess 

how existing Refuge System budgets and policies affect the Refuge System’s ability 

to cope with the impacts of global warming. 

The GAO report on climate change and federal resource agencies also found that 

FWS and other agencies lacked ‘‘specific guidance for incorporating climate change 

into their management actions and planning efforts.’’ Finally, that report documented that FWS and other agencies lacked ‘‘computational models for local projections of expected changes and detailed inventories and monitoring systems for an 

adequate baseline understanding of existing local species. Without such information, 

managers are limited to reacting to already-observed climate change effects on their 

units, which makes it difficult to plan for future changes.’’ 

The failure of the MSI report to directly evaluate these and other factors associated with climate change leaves us with lingering questions regarding how the 

Refuge System is responding to this critical management challenge. However, the 

report made important observations related to planning, land acquisition, water 

quality and quantity, and inventory and monitoring that have direct bearing on the 

FWS ability to accomplish its mission and meet the environmental challenges facing 

the Refuge System, from habitat loss to climate change. 

While the Refuge System faces enormous funding and policy deficiencies, the 

System’s importance to wildlife will only be magnified as climate change and other 

environmental problems stress plants and wildlife and compromise habitats. Of all 

the federal land agencies, the FWS is perhaps best positioned to adapt to changing 

land-uses and climatic conditions. The Refuge System enjoys broad public support, 

has great flexibility in acquiring and restoring select habitats, is nested within an 

agency that wields the essential tools for conserving wildlife across jurisdictional 

36 

boundaries, and has a long history of active management that may become increasingly necessary. These positive attributes should be utilized and supplemented by 

providing the Refuge System with the resources it needs to address serious challenges like climate change, which must necessarily begin with better biological and 

hydrological monitoring. 

I am confident that with Congress’s input and oversight, the Refuge System can 

meet these serious challenges. It is clear that national policy direction is needed for 

the Refuge System and other federal resource agencies to strategically address the 

impacts of climate change. It is equally clear that the Refuge System, and its sister 

agencies, are already facing funding holes so large that a large commitment of additional resources is urgently needed to address the added threat of climate change. 

I urge Congress to work with the executive branch to meet these dual needs. 

Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs) 

Comprehensive conservation plans are the chief vehicle for implementing the important provisions of the Refuge Improvement Act. CCPs are the public’s chief 

means for understanding and participating in an individual refuge’s management 

direction. According to the MSI report, the majority of refuge managers regard 

CCPs as useful tools ‘‘for clarifying objectives, guiding habitat management decisions, and clarifying public use decisions.’’ CCPs are an essential and indispensable 

element of refuge planning, management and decision-making that should not be 

rushed, but rather developed with the highest possible quality and level of consideration. 

The MSI Report notes that many FWS regions are not on pace to meet a congressionally imposed deadline for completion of all CCPs by 2012. To avoid missing the 

deadline, the Refuge System is working hard to implement a recently finalized plan 

entitled ‘‘2012 Plan, An Action Plan to Meet Our Legislative Mandate.’’ At the same 

time the FWS has crafted a plan to complete CCPs on time, however, the administration has cut the refuge planning budget in its budget requests in the last few 

years, and the current planning budget is 14% lower than in FY 2006. 

Though the MSI report rated the FWS ‘‘effective’’ at completing ‘‘quality and useful CCPs on schedule and with full engagement of partners’’, there was little basis 

in MSI’s methodology to rate the ‘‘quality’’ of CCPs. Defenders has analyzed and 

commented on dozens of CCPs over the last ten years, and have found that the 

quality varies widely, both between FWS regions and within regions. Because CCPs 

are designed to enhance public understanding of Refuge decision-making, in the future we would recommend that the FWS evaluate stakeholder and public perceptions of CCP quality and utility. 

Of particular concern is that climate change is virtually ignored in nearly all 

CCPs completed to date. This finding is echoed in the 2007 GAO report on climate 

change and resource agencies. The fact that refuge managers continue to give high 

utility evaluations to CCPs despite the absence of climate change analysis is perhaps telling. 

An analysis of the effects of climate change is a central and required element of 

refuge planning under the Refuge Improvement Act. For example, the FWS is required during the CCP process to identify and describe the ‘‘significant problems 

that may adversely affect the populations and habitats of fish, wildlife, and plants 

within the planning unit and the actions necessary to correct or mitigate such 

problems.’’ 

Helping wildlife adapt to a rapidly changing climate, which the Refuge System 

is well positioned to do with its wildlife-first mandate, will necessarily involve many 

facets. But thoughtful long-range planning certainly tops the list. Because global climate change is a significant problem that will adversely affect wildlife and habitat 

and may threaten the wildlife, ecosystems, and natural processes on refuges nationwide, the anticipated effects of climate change and prudent management responses 

should be carefully considered and described during the CCP process. As such, climate change needs to be added to FWS evaluative criteria. 

Land Protection 

According to the Forest Service, an estimated 6,000 acres of open space are lost 

each day, a rate of 4 acres per minute. Congress recognized the need for the Refuge 

System to protect additional habitat when it passed the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act which directs the Secretary of the Interior to ‘‘plan and 

direct the continued growth of the System in a manner that is best designed to accomplish the mission of the System, to contribute to the conservation of the ecosystems of the United States, to complement efforts of States and other Federal 

agencies to conserve fish and wildlife and their habitats, and to increase support 

for the System and participation from conservation partners and the public.’’ 

37 

Despite this clear mandate strategic land and water acquisitions have ground to 

a near halt in recent years. The determination by MSI that the Refuge System has 

been ‘‘ineffective’’ at strategically growing the Refuge System is, while fully accurate, nonetheless a serious understatement. The MSI Report does an excellent job 

of cataloguing and summarizing the many ways in which the Refuge System fails 

in this goal, including problems with databases, political motivations and a bureaucratic mess of an appraisal processes. 

The MSI Report finds that the significant decline in land acquisitions in recent 

years is due in part to political motivations, such as the administration sharply reducing the amount of acquisition funding it requests from Congress. For example, 

in FY 2008 the administration requested funding for only two properties, despite 

hundreds of available parcels and an obvious ecological need to buffer or connect 

existing conservation lands with new acquisitions. 

Current development trends threaten to overwhelm the value that refuges and 

other conservation lands hold for wildlife and ecosystem integrity. Furthermore, current protected areas, including state and federal wildlife refuges and parks, were 

established in a manner that, at this time, does not benefit the whole of biodiversity 

or the maintenance of landscape-level ecological processes, as many of America’s 

natural areas exist as fragmented parcels, surrounded by land or water unsuitable 

for most wildlife. In addition, with the effects of climate change now bearing down 

upon already stressed fish, wildlife and plant populations, it is essential that we 

prioritize strategic land acquisition as the logical means to develop an interconnected system of conservation lands. 

MSI observed that the very few parcels that are acquired in recent years typically 

‘‘[do] not match the priorities identified by the Refuge System’s Land Acquisition 

Priority System [LAPS].’’ This is partly due to the fact that the administration is 

not requesting projects, leaving Congress to make land protection decisions without 

the benefit of Refuge System priorities. There is also a disturbing level of divergence 

between acquisition requests made by the Refuge System and the priorities listed 

in the LAPS system. The MSI Report made clear that this divergence has now progressed to the point where the Refuge System ‘‘no longer appears to be using a 

transparent criteria-based system to prioritize land purchases.’’ Defenders believes 

that the Refuge System should develop and then work to implement a prioritization 

system that emphasizes the acquisition of parcels that contribute to greater habitat 

connectivity, provide buffers around core habitats, possess adequate water quantity 

and quality, and work to protect currently under-represented ecosystems and 

species—all of which should be in the context of climate change. 

The MSI report also criticized the land appraisal process, stating it ‘‘cannot be relied upon to produce timely or accurate appraisals, [which] causes available land 

deals to be lost.’’ Since real estate appraisal responsibilities were removed from the 

various DOI agencies in 2003 and reestablished at the department level, rising costs 

and bureaucratic inefficiencies have cost the FWS many land acquisition opportunities. The move was made with the promise of greater efficiency, but since that time 

costs have doubled and response time has been agonizingly slow. For example, if 

a landowner wishes to sell property to an interested refuge, they can now expect 

to wait from nine to eighteen months before a final appraisal is completed. The FWS 

must first send its request to DOI’s Appraisal Services Directorate (ASD), which in 

turn accepts bids from a restricted number of contractors for appraisal services. A 

number of factors have resulted in higher overall cost since the transfer of the appraisal function to DOI, including the self-imposed limitation on the number of bidding contractors that drives prices up, and the higher average salaries of ASD employees. Further, final appraisals have an expiration date, or ‘‘date of value’’, of one 

year. So after much bureaucratic paperwork and other delays, the FWS may only 

have a few months to organize funding and make an offer to the landowner before 

the appraisal expires. Clearly, this is a broken system in need of serious commonsense reform. The DOI should restore the appraisal function to the agencies for 

greater efficiency, cost savings, and response time. An added benefit is that staff at 

the agency level is often more connected with the resource base and more in touch 

with the lands they are working to protect and the mission they are striving to uphold. 

I believe it is of utmost importance for Congress to respond quickly and aggressively to the political motivations that have led to a virtual cessation of land acquisitions for the Refuge System. Unfortunately, this has occurred at the very moment 

when American wildlife is under unprecedented pressure and in great need of additional habitats to ensure its sustainability and restoration. I recommend that Congress strongly support fully funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund and 

increasing the price of the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation (Duck) Stamp, 

the two primary land acquisition funding sources. 

38 

Inventory and Monitoring Programs 

Unique in having a legislative mandate to monitor the status and trends of fish, 

plants, and wildlife populations, the Refuge System should serve as a model for holistic, science-based monitoring and the development of adaptive management responses. Collecting baseline inventory data and conducting monitoring on every 

wildlife refuge is essential in identifying conservation targets, detecting environmental changes, identifying the most vulnerable species and habitats, developing objective criteria for prioritizing activities and decision-making, and developing, implementing, and evaluating plans using adaptive management principles. Unfortunately, as the MSI Report shows, the reality is that current inventory and monitoring efforts lack standardization, priority, and funding. According to the report, 

only 11% of refuge managers surveyed describe current inventory and monitoring 

efforts as ‘‘mostly or fully sufficient.’’ 

The solution to this problem is part funding and part policy. Clearly, the Refuge 

System would benefit from more biologists. Over 200 refuges have no onsite biologist to speak of. This is a glaring problem for a system of lands designed for the 

conservation of fish, wildlife and habitat. 

However, current inventory and monitoring efforts could be made more effective. 

As the MSI report recommends, monitoring efforts should be better coordinated and 

standardized and focus inventory and monitoring ‘‘systems toward the management 

needs of regional priorities.’’ Some regions of the FWS have begun this process but 

more needs to be done. In addition, standardization and coordination of inventory 

and monitoring systems should be accomplished in conjunction with other federal, 

state, tribe, academic, and private sector programs. 

Water 

Water is an essential ingredient to all life and, consequently, the life blood of the 

Refuge System. The MSI Report concludes it is ‘‘unable to evaluate’’ the Refuge 

System on its efforts to secure adequate water resources because so little information exists on which to gauge effectiveness. It states the System ‘‘does not currently 

operate a well defined and structured water resources program. There is currently 

no individual or office designated to coordinate the Refuge System’s water rights 

and water quality activities.’’ Coupled with the fact that the Refuge System provides 

no national water policy guidance or standardized monitoring protocol to its land 

managers, perhaps MSI could have reasonably concluded that the Refuge System 

is ‘‘ineffective’’ or at the very least, seriously underperforming in its congressionally 

mandated effort to deliver adequate water quantity and quality to all refuges. 

Viewed holistically, the Refuge System’s water troubles emanate from a failure to 

implement sound policy and protocol, but also the inability to adequately address 

these challenges due to a severe lack of resources. 

Compared to other federal land management agencies, the Refuge System typically manages areas that are wetter, lower in elevation, and higher in biodiversity; 

often freshwater wetlands or coastal marshes. Unfortunately, with increasing water 

demands from agricultural and urban development, many refuges are struggling to 

secure enough water to meet their conservation targets. The authors of the Refuge 

Improvement Act showed foresight in addressing the emerging water crisis on wildlife refuges, a crisis now exacerbated by climate change, intense regional droughts 

and increasing human demand. The Act unequivocally states that ‘‘adequate water 

quantity and water quality’’ must be maintained to ‘‘fulfill the mission of the system 

and the purposes of each refuge.’’ 

The Refuge System must develop a national water policy that standardizes protocol for water assessments and helps land managers secure and defend water 

rights on wildlife refuges. In the face of increasing human demand, droughts, floods, 

and altered timing and volume of water flows, the Refuge System needs to anticipate and appropriately plan for future water challenges. As part of this planning 

effort, the Refuge System should secure the hydrologists and equipment, and foster 

the institutional commitment necessary to thoroughly catalogue existing water use 

along with current and projected needs. Currently, some FWS regions have no dedicated hydrologists or water monitoring programs at all. With such limited capacity, 

it is not surprising that many wildlife refuges, particularly in the East, have not 

documented current water usage or projected future needs. Documentation will be 

absolutely critical if refuge water rights are legally challenged as water supplies 

dwindle. Thorough documentation of usage is essential not only to defend one’s 

rights, but also to assert what refuges actually need. Some of the necessary inventory and monitoring can be done in conjunction with partners, but all data needs 

to be standardized and accessible in a centralized database. 

Consideration of water quality and quantity should be a component of all future 

land and water acquisitions. Priority should be given to parcels with high-quality 

39 

habitat that also have senior water rights, where possible. It would also be prudent 

to identify overlap between willing sellers of water rights and areas where the 

Refuge System has identified a need for additional water. Of course, an inventory 

and monitoring of related factors will be necessary first. The DOI should encourage 

and provide guidance to all its land managers to work with neighboring landowners 

and upstream users on various water measures, including water conservation techniques and the improvement of water quality through, for example, the reduction 

of contaminants or sediment inputs. In some isolated cases, wildlife refuges themselves adversely impact water quality by releasing large volumes of nutrient-laden 

waters from freshwater impoundments into larger water bodies. For the FWS to 

achieve its goal of managing refuges within a landscape-level context, the Refuge 

System should develop habitat management strategies and population targets that 

minimize pollution of local watersheds. 

Conclusion 

One can look at the findings of the MSI and GAO reports as either half empty 

or half full. When you realize all the potential that is being lost due to budget and 

policy neglect by the current administration, it is certainly half empty. But when 

you think about how much the dedicated workforce is actually doing to keep this 

system together for wildlife, it is amazing what they have been able of accomplish 

on so little. The current situation, however, is unsustainable. 

The Refuge System is truly at a crossroads. By next year, if funding does not turn 

around, the Refuge System is scheduled to lose twenty percent of its workforce, 

when compared to staffing levels just four years ago. But these losses are not of expendable federal bureaucrats; these are refuge managers, wildlife biologists who 

monitor endangered species such as Florida manatees, red wolves, and whooping 

cranes, interpretive rangers who teach and guide schoolchildren, and essential 

maintenance personnel who keep each refuge functioning smoothly. Without these 

people, America’s Refuge System must continue to cut educational programs, eliminate hunting and fishing access, close offices, allow equipment and visitor infrastructure to fall into disrepair, and significantly reduce management and monitoring 

of wildlife and non-native, invasive plants. 

When wildlife refuges have insufficient staff, it affects activities outside the refuge 

boundaries. Refuge staff are unable to dedicate sufficient attention to threats beyond refuge boundaries, such as huge rafts of incoming marine debris, water rights 

issues, upstream water contamination, adjacent landfill sites, or planned commercial developments. Further, when staff levels are reduced to only one or a few staff 

per refuge, those people are unable to partner with other interested stakeholders, 

which dramatically and adversely affects volunteer involvement and leveraging of 

additional dollars. For example, consider that the reasonably well-staffed San Luis 

Refuge Complex in central California often triples its annual budget through creative partnerships. With these extra resources, more trees are getting planted, 

invasive species are being eradicated, and refuge staff are better able to closely 

monitor external threats. This situation demonstrates how much is possible when 

sufficient staffing is available to capitalize on partnership opportunities, and how 

much is being lost at other wildlife refuges without adequate staffing,. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System is critical to the future of wildlife and wildlife-focused recreation in America. Refuges provide wildlife with comparatively intact tracts of land that serve as a ‘‘refuge’’ from human development and other pressures, and can serve as the backbone of a wider effort across the landscape to protect, restore, and connect wildlife habitat. As recommended by the MSI report, refuges should ‘‘become fulcrums for influencing conservation actions in larger landscapes.’’ 

With an appropriate investment in resources and sound policy direction, I believe 

the Refuge System can be a fulcrum for conservation across the landscape to meet 

the conservation needs of today, and the serious challenges of climate and other 

global environmental changes ahead. In addition to dramatic increases in funding, 

I have outlined a number of actions that will improve the management of Refuge 

System including: 

• Establishing a national strategy for the FWS and other resource agencies to address the impacts of climate change on wildlife and natural resources. 

• Ensuring the quality of CCPs does not suffer in order to meet the Congressional 

deadline for their completion, and developing guidance for incorporating climate 

change into CCPs. 

• Developing a strategic growth policy for the Refuge System to prioritize land 

protection efforts in the context of climate change and other threats to wildlife 

and habitat and increasing funding from the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund and Migratory Bird Conservation Stamp to support land protection. 

40 

• Standardizing and coordinating inventory and monitoring programs so they provide needed feedback on management actions and environmental change. 

• Establishing a national water resources policy to ensure that the Refuge System 

is able to maintain the water quality and quantity it needs to accomplish its 

mission in the face of increased industrial, agricultural, and residential water 

withdrawals and climate change induced drought. 

On behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, I thank you for the opportunity to share my 

perspectives on these critical issues. We look forward to working with this subcommittee and others in Congress on the policy reforms that are necessary to ensure the National Wildlife Refuge System reaches its full potential, and to invest 

in the Refuge System at a level commensurate with the remarkable benefits it provides to American wildlife, people and economies. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Matson. 

Mr. Horn, welcome back to the Subcommittee. The floor is yours 

to testify for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM P. HORN, COUNSEL, 

U.S. SPORTSMEN’S ALLIANCE 

Mr. HORN. Madam Chair, thank you very much. My name is William Horn, and on behalf of the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, we 

greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear today to discuss management issues facing our incomparable Wildlife Refuge System. 

Let me start by saying that we commend the Service for commissioning the independent evaluation. Few agencies demonstrate the 

courage to ask for such a review and then cooperate openly with 

the reviewers, and we think the Service deserves recognition and 

high marks on both of these particular counts. 

I would like to briefly address three refuge management issues, 

including funding, that were touched on in the independent evaluation. One management issue that has been unresolved now for 

eight years is the lack of appropriate guidance regarding how to 

combine wilderness management and appropriate conservation 

management within units of the Wildlife Refuge System. 

We believe that a recent U.S. District Court ruling involving the 

Kofa Refuge in Arizona should provide the impetus to resolve this 

now outstanding eight-year-old issue. Previously proposed Wilderness guidance failed to recognize that wilderness designations provide only supplemental management guidance. It is not contrary or 

superseding the primary mission of conservation of wildlife within 

units of the System. This supplemental nature of the Wilderness 

Act has been affirmed in that recent court case. 

We believe that it is time now in the wake of that decision for 

the Service to resolve its wilderness management guidance system 

and clearly recognize conservation as the primary mission and Wilderness provides merely supplemental management purposes. 

The second issue that was identified in the independent evaluation was the management of wildlife dependent recreation, and the 

express recognition of those recreation, including hunting and fishing, in the 1997 Act was one of its primary accomplishments. The 

Service has been very effective in implementing that aspect of the 

1997 Act. Of course, that action on its part is deeply appreciated 

within the sporting community. 

However, there is one looming problem that has budgetary consequences that it may be appropriate for Congress to address. Antihunting activists have filed suit pending in the U.S. District Court 

41 

in D.C. to compel the Service to prepare even more paperwork and 

more evaluations before hunting and fishing programs can be approved within units of the System. During a period of limited personnel and monetary resources, we believe the Service has far better things to do than prepare more reports. 

Accordingly, we strongly urge Congress to take appropriate action to make it clear that the thorough evaluations that the agency 

conducts as part of the comprehensive conservation plan process, 

as well as the annual environmental impact statement analyses 

done associated with the migratory bird hunting programs, are 

more than sufficient and adequate and obviate the need for any 

other cumulative effects work that may need to be done. We think 

that that extra work just squanders these precious finite resources, 

and we urge you to check that issue out and see if we can resolve 

it. 

Third and last, let me briefly talk about funding. After a period 

of increased operations and maintenance funding that coincided 

with the Refuge System’s centennial, clearly funding has begun to 

slide. Clearly one option is for Congress to simply appropriate additional funds. 

However, our concern is that as the System grows and uses expand the need for funding will likely outstrip Congress’ ability to 

simply provide additional monies. This problem is not unique to 

Fish and Wildlife. Similar problems afflict the Forest Service and 

the BLM. 

We are persuaded that it is time for a new paradigm for funding 

our Federal public land management systems rather than just 101 

percent reliance on appropriated funds. We strongly recommend 

that Congress, the Service and the conservation community come 

together to pursue development of new funding methods and options. 

One hundred years ago the sporting community, in cooperation 

with Teddy Roosevelt’s Administration, developed what has become 

the North American model for wildlife conservation funding that 

has worked extraordinarily well for nearly a century. We believe a 

similar effort today is needed not only for our Refuge System, but 

for other public lands, so that we don’t continue to have these types 

of hearings describing the continued funding problems that we 

face. 

We think that taking action along those lines would be an appropriate step. It was 100 years ago, as I said, that the Roosevelt Administration kicked off what has become the North American 

model. It is probably time for a new model that would help us put 

these funding issues to bed in some more comprehensive fashion. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Horn follows:] 

Statement of William P. Horn, on Behalf of the 

United States Sportsmen’s Alliance 

Madame Chair: My name is William P. Horn appearing on behalf of the U.S. 

Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA). We appreciate the opportunity to appear before the 

Subcommittee to discuss issues facing the National Wildlife Refuge. USSA is a 

national association of hunters, anglers, and trappers, and sporting organizations 

representing over a million members and affiliates committed to protecting and advancing America’s heritage of hunting, fishing and trapping. USSA has long been 

committed to ensuring a vital well managed Refuge System that conserves our inVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:24 Feb 09, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\44614.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
42 

comparable wildlife resources while providing important opportunities to hunt, fish, 

and trap. 

My testimony also reflects perspectives gained during my prior service as Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife and Parks under President Reagan 

and the privilege of serving as Chairman of the National Wildlife Refuge Centennial 

Commission in 2002-2003. 

We commend the Fish and Wildlife Service for commissioning the Independent 

Evaluation of the effectiveness of the Refuge System. Few agencies demonstrate the 

courage to ask for such review and then cooperate openly with the reviewers. The 

Service deserves high marks on both counts. Review of the evaluation indicates that 

the Service is doing an outstanding job with limited resources and we were pleased 

that the agency’s performance for nine of the twelve Strategic Outcome Goals 

(SOGs) was considered effective and in only two cases was performance considered 

‘‘ineffective.’’ USSA wishes that other federal land management entities, with budgets dwarfing the Service, performed so well. 

Following our review of the Independent Evaluation, five areas presented issues 

we wish to address: SOG 3—Wilderness; SOG 5—Wildlife Dependent Recreation; 

SOG 7—Law Enforcement; SOG 8—Infrastructure and Funding; and SOG 10— 

Growing the System. 

SOG 3 - Wilderness—The Service is in desperate need of new guidance regarding Wilderness management issues and a recent U.S. District Court ruling involving 

the Kofa Refuge in Arizona should provide the impetus to finally resolve this issue. 

Proposed Wilderness guidance issued eight years ago failed to recognize that Wilderness designations of Refuge lands are designed to provide ‘‘supplemental’’ management purposes and guidance. Indeed, the ‘‘supplemental’’ reference is an express 

term of the 1964 Wilderness Act. Despite this statutory clarity, previously proposed 

guidance improperly elevated Wilderness purposes contrary to the more fundamental wildlife conservation objective of the Refuge System as clearly articulated in 

the 1997 Refuge Improvement Act. 

This hierarchy has been affirmed in a recent lawsuit in Arizona. There the Service, Arizona Game and Fish, and local conservationists like the Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society and the Yuma Valley Rod and Gun Club (USSA affiliates) developed water catchments to enhance desert sheep populations. An interest group 

named Wilderness Watch objected and argued that the Wilderness Act barred such 

water catchments within the Refuge even though they would help wildlife populations. The District Court rejected this nonsense and affirmed that the primary 

purpose of Refuges is wildlife conservation. The Service should promptly complete 

new Wilderness guidance that reflects this approach. 

SOG 5 - Wildlife Dependent Recreation—The express recognition of Wildlife 

Dependent Recreation, including hunting and fishing, in the 1997 Refuge Act was 

one of its primary accomplishments. The Service’s effective implementation of this 

statutory policy is widely recognized and deeply appreciated within the sporting 

community. However, there are some looming problems that Congress ought to 

promptly redress. 

First, animal rights radicals and anti-hunting activists have filed suit in U.S. District Court to compel the Service to prepare more paperwork and more evaluations 

before hunting and fishing programs can be approved. Although contrary to the intent of the 1997 Act, over the last two years the Service has had to expend substantial time, effort and resources to prepare this extra and superfluous documentation. 

During a period of limited personnel and monetary resources, the Service has better 

things to do with those resources. Accordingly, we strongly urge Congress to take 

action to make it clear that the evaluations conducted as part of the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan process and the annual analyses associated with migratory bird 

hunting regulations are sufficient and that additional ‘‘cumulative effects’’ work is 

unnecessary to authorize hunting programs. This would save substantial money and 

free up limited personnel resources for more important conservation and refuge 

management work. 

Second, USSA is extremely apprehensive about language in the Independent 

Evaluation referring to ‘‘prioritizing’’ allocation of limited resources ‘‘among the various recreational activities.’’ The last time we saw similar language was in 1995 

when the Clinton Administration attempted to curtail hunting and fishing opportunities on Refuges in the name of budget shortfalls. That effort to put hunting and 

fishing programs on the chopping block was a primary impetus for enactment of the 

1997 Improvement Act and its recognition of hunting and fishing as priority public 

uses of the Refuge System. Hunting and fishing activities generate more revenues 

for the Service, and their partners in the state fish and wildlife agencies, than do 

the other priority public use activities. If budget shortfalls absolutely mandate use 

restrictions, hunting and fishing programs must be the last to be impacted. 

43 

Third, we have concerns regarding any efforts to define ‘‘quality’’ hunting. This 

is a highly subjective standard and we have witnessed efforts by some Refuges to 

restrict traditional hunting activity on the grounds that it doesn’t provide sufficient 

‘‘quality.’’ USSA supports quality experiences but wants to ensure that any proposed 

restrictions advanced in the name of ‘‘quality’’ must be very carefully vetted with 

local hunters and the appropriate state fish and wildlife agency. 

SOG 7 - Law Enforcement—USSA sympathizes with the need for enhanced law 

enforcement on refuges. We are concerned though that simply increasing funding 

and personnel for the Law Enforcement (LE) division without clear management objectives in place will not produce the anticipated benefits. From our perspective, the 

LE division continues to wrestle with its priorities and old fashioned on-the-ground 

enforcement within the Refuge System appears to be at the bottom of the priority 

list. Rather the focus is on import/export matters including CITES, migratory bird 

enforcement aimed at incidental takes, and homeland security related measures. If 

additional funding is provided to LE, it must be clearly designated for improved onthe-ground activities within Refuges. Without that limitation, we fear that enforcement within Refuges will remain at the bottom of LE’s priorities. 

SOG 8 - Infrastructure and Funding—After a period of increased operations and 

maintenance funding that coincided with the Refuge System Centennial, funding 

has begun to slide. One option is for Congress to simply appropriate additional 

funds. However, it is evident that as the System grows and wildlife dependent recreation uses expand, the need for funding will outstrip Congresses ability to simply 

provide additional monies. Similar problems afflict the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. 

USSA is persuaded that we need a new paradigm for funding public land management systems. The hunting and fishing community has been at the funding forefront for a century by providing hundreds of millions annually via licenses, fees, 

stamps, and excise taxes for wildlife conservation. Many of these dollars are for the 

benefit of the Refuge System. There is no doubt the sporting is prepared to do more 

but it lacks the resources to bear the burden of funding the system—a burden that 

would inequitable as well. Today we are in no position to present that new paradigm. Rather we strongly suggest that Congress, the Service, and the conservation 

community come together to pursue development of new funding methods and options. One hundred years ago the sporting community, in cooperation with the 

Teddy Roosevelt Administration, developed what has become the North American 

Model for wildlife conservation funding. A similar effort is needed today for our 

Refuge system. 

In the near term, however, we strongly endorse recommendations to tailor administrative requirements for smaller refuge units. ‘‘One size fits all’’ rules do not work 

and it is clear that there is significant waste associated with making small units 

comply with same bureaucratic procedures as large units. Streamlining these procedures for small units will enable the Service to stretch its available dollars. 

SOG 10 - Growing the System—This was one of two goals where Service management was rated as ineffective. My experience indicates, however, that this ‘‘ineffectiveness’’ is a result of outside forces beyond the Service’s control. The report 

noted that land purchases for Refuges often do not match the priorities identified 

by the Land Acquisition Priority System (LAPS). This particular problem has existed for over 25 years and can be readily fixed by the Congress. I directed establishment of LAPS in 1985 because Congressional appropriators were ordering land acquisitions inconsistent with the System’s bona fide needs. LAPS was designed to enable the Service to identify those lands that ought to be acquired to advance Refuge 

System goals. Unfortunately, Congress frequently disregards these priorities. A bit 

of self discipline in the Congressional agency funding process (i.e., follow the resource priorities set by the professionals in the Service) would correct this problem. 

Another problem created outside the Service is the Interior Department’s land appraisal procedures. Created as an overreaction to criticism from the Inspector General, the new system is time consuming, complex, costly, and simply doesn’t get the 

job done. The system is more focused on nit-picking appraisals than efficient acquisition of environmentally valuable lands. We strongly concur with the recommendation of the Independent Evaluation that the appraisal function be returned to the 

Service. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear today. The Service continues to 

do an excellent job of managing the Refuge System with limited resources. We need 

to assist the Service in making the most efficient use of these resources while working to develop a new funding model to assure that sufficient funds are available to 

ensure sound conservation, management, and use of our incomparable Wildlife 

Refuges. 

44 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Horn. 

I will now recognize Members for any questions they may wish. 

Normally we ask the witnesses and we alternate between the Majority and the Minority Members of the committee, allowing five 

minutes for each Member. 

However, since I am the sole Member here today I will begin 

with the questioning, and we will await the return of Mr. Kind and 

our Ranking Member. There is a strong possibility he may be back 

also. 

I will begin with Mr. Kurth. I am very disappointed by the Administration’s testimony. I will begin with that. I would like to ask 

you some questions to determine why the Administration is unable 

to provide any comments regarding the GAO’s report. 

It is my understanding that the GAO forwarded to the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service a copy of its draft report on August 19, 2008. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. KURTH. I don’t recall the exact date, but, yes, we have seen 

a draft of the report. 

Ms. BORDALLO. And quite some time ago? 

Mr. KURTH. Yes. 

Ms. BORDALLO. It is my further understanding that according to 

a September 16, 2008, letter from Assistant Secretary Lyle Laverty 

to Ms. Nazzaro that is included as Appendix 6 in the GAO report, 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided to the GAO technical 

comments on the draft report. Is that correct? 

Mr. KURTH. Yes. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Ms. Nazzaro, a review and comparison of the 

draft report and the final report by committee staff indicates that 

these reports are substantially almost identical. Is that correct? 

Ms. NAZZARO. In this case, yes. It wouldn’t always have to be. It 

really depends on the nature of the comments. If an agency substantively disagrees with us we will consider those comments, and 

we could make changes to the report. In this case the agency provided us technical comments, which we did address as appropriate. 

I believe there were about a half a dozen comments, and we addressed them all. 

The most substantial one had to do with the fact that we used 

a statistical model to develop some of our information, and they 

wanted to know what kind of a review process we went through so 

we described not only our use of an economist to develop the model, 

but the use of a statistician to review our methodology, so that was 

added, but substantively they did not change in this case. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Yes. OK. So they were almost identical. The answer is yes. All right. 

Let me then return to you, Mr. Kurth. It would appear from the 

previous responses that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had 

ample opportunity to review the GAO report and in fact did provide 

comments. It is also clear that there is materially very little different from the GAO’s draft report and the final product. 

In light of the fact that the Administration has had the draft report for over a month and already provided comments to the GAO, 

why is it incapable of providing comments on the record today? 

Mr. KURTH. The Fish and Wildlife Service appreciates the close 

relationship we had with GAO working on this and we did provide 

45 

those comments on the draft, but it is the Administration’s policy 

to only formally comment on finalized GAO reports. 

Ms. BORDALLO. What aspects in the final report are so different 

from the draft findings that the Administration is unable to provide comments to the committee? 

Mr. KURTH. I believe the fact that the draft is just being released 

this morning didn’t allow the officials who were involved in the—— 

Ms. BORDALLO. It was 6:00 last evening, right, to our committee? 

Mr. KURTH. I think the people who reviewed the formal statement today felt like because they did not have a final report that 

they couldn’t offer the formal testimony. 

Ms. BORDALLO. So because the word final wasn’t there, and even 

though they were very similar, you—— 

Mr. KURTH. That is correct. 

Ms. BORDALLO.—could not make any comments? All right. 

One of the goals of the 1997 Refuge Improvement Act was to establish for the first time uniform policies to ensure consistent management across the Refuge System, yet the thrust of the GAO and 

the MSI reports seems to be to the contrary. 

Insufficient resources to hire and retain full-time staff and conduct management activities and visitor services has forced the Fish 

and Wildlife Service to scale back core operations that has greatly 

increased program variability and equality from refuge to refuge. 

This question I guess I would ask to Mr. Kurth and Mr. Matson. 

Do you agree that the Refuge System is failing to meet this fundamental goal of the Refuge Improvement Act? Mr. Kurth first. 

Mr. KURTH. I think that the Fish and Wildlife Service is successful in accomplishing the Refuge System’s mission. I do, though, 

agree with your observation that at some stations we are not delivering it as effectively as others. 

I mean, we don’t like to do triage in wildlife conservation, but 

when there aren’t enough resources to do everything we feel we 

have done a good job of saying where our priorities are and putting 

our resources in the areas of highest priority. 

Those are the difficult choices that we have made, and that is the 

direction that Director Hall has given us is to do the most important things with the resources you have, and I think we have done 

a good job being clear with our priorities. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Matson? 

Mr. MATSON. Yes. I think the Fish and Wildlife Service faces a 

huge challenge. What do you do when you don’t have enough 

money? 

You know, they decided in their judgment to instead of cuts 

across the board to try to be a little more strategic with those cuts. 

Are there refuges that are higher priority than the others? Are 

there refuges that have more abundant wildlife that might need 

more attention or more visitors that need more attention? And so 

I think the fundamental premise of how they have done that is 

sound. 

However, I think to the point of consistency across the board, the 

Refuge System is managed under essentially eight regimes. There 

are eight regions of Fish and Wildlife Service, and the line authority for the Refuge System does not come from Washington. It comes 

from each regional director. I think that leads to a lot of inconVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:24 Feb 09, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\44614.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
46 

sistent management for everything from planning to how competitive these rates are done to how land acquisition is done. I think 

that is a big problem. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Again, Mr. Kurth, I guess I will ask you to answer this. What are the consequences to the Refuge System as a 

whole? 

Mr. KURTH. The consequences of not having the resources to do 

everything we want? 

Ms. BORDALLO. Yes. 

Mr. KURTH. You know, these reports both point out that we have 

not the type of inventory and monitoring programs that we would 

like to have. We don’t offer all of the environmental education and 

interpretive programs that we could. 

There are a number of things that don’t get done, but our job is 

to determine what are the essential things. You know, where do we 

have to have law enforcement officers to assure public safety and 

to protect the wildlife resources? Where do we have the greatest opportunities to provide environmental education? Where do we have 

the most significant needs to fight invasive species? 

I believe that we have been effective in identifying those priorities. It is clear from both reports there are other opportunities for 

us to enhance our conservation and visitor services, but I think we 

are being effective in sorting out priorities. 

Ms. BORDALLO. With what you have. Mr. Matson? 

Mr. MATSON. Can you repeat the question? 

Ms. BORDALLO. What are the consequences to the Refuge System 

as a whole? 

Mr. MATSON. As a whole? Yes. First of all, I think people have 

said already that the Refuge System—you can look at these reports 

as the Refuge System is half full or half empty. I think the half 

empty part is places like Supawna Meadows, Crystal River, a 

bunch of other refuges that are really being neglected. If you have 

no staff managing a refuge, it is just going to be overcome with 

vandalism, invasive species and the like. 

At the same time, given all of the financial problems facing the 

Refuge System, the half full view is that the Refuge System is 

doing a pretty darned good job with what they have, and I think 

they have been really effective at trying to do more with less. 

Unfortunately, I think we are finally coming to—they have been 

able to do that for a handful of years, but we are finally reaching 

the crisis point where they can no longer do that. You have staff 

out there. Every time they lose staff they pick up the work, and 

there are so many hours in the day. They can’t keep picking up the 

work. You have overworked staff. It is just not sustainable. 

And so while I think they have been pretty effective at doing 

what they have so far, I think over the next few years we are really 

going to see a dramatic slide. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. One more question to the two of you. 

How many refuges have been completely closed because of this 

financial situation? I know some of them have been closed for in 

the case of endangered species, protecting the habitat, but how 

many have been closed? 

Mr. KURTH. There is a difference between closing an office and 

the staffing and closing the refuge to the public visitation. 

47 

I know of no refuges where we were previously open for the public to use the refuge where we have told them they can’t come in, 

but clearly in places where we have lost staffing the—— 

Ms. BORDALLO. The office has been closed. 

Mr. KURTH. There has been offices closed. A small number. I can 

get you the exact number, Madam Chair. I don’t have that. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I would like that number. 

Mr. KURTH. But it is a small number. Again, because we were 

successful in having additional funds appropriated in Fiscal 

Year 2008, some of those trends have begun to reverse, but there 

is no doubt that we have reduced staffing. That doesn’t, though, 

equate to necessarily closing the refuge to the public. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I understand. I understand. So you will give me 

the number of the closed offices? 

Mr. KURTH. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. BORDALLO. And you are stating emphatically that there are 

no refuges that have been closed in any of the states across the Nation or the territories? 

Mr. KURTH. There have been no National Wildlife Refuges where 

the public has been not allowed to enter the refuge because of funding crises. Yes. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. And I have one other question. Then 

I am going to turn to Mr. Kind. 

Ms. Nazzaro and Mr. Callihan—I will ask you, Ms. Nazzaro, 

first. If refuge lands in Alaska are removed, how would that change 

the findings in your respective reports? 

Ms. NAZZARO. We would probably have to recalculate some of our 

responses. I don’t have a breakout of which of those responses 

came from the refuges in Alaska. 

Certainly they do account for a large amount of land, but as far 

as the number of refuge managers I don’t think there is a real disproportionate number so I wouldn’t think that there would be a 

significant shift in the responses, but we would have to recalculate 

that. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Callihan? 

Mr. CALLIHAN. Yes. I don’t believe it would change any of our 

overall ratings or conclusions. 

However, one of the recommendations we did make is that as the 

refuge moves forward with using its annual reporting system, the 

RAPP system, Refuge Annual Performance Plan reporting, that as 

that system becomes used more as a result of base management 

systems to make decisions that the analysis of that data be 

disaggregated between Alaska and the rest of the System because 

I think the Alaska data can give a skewed picture of the performance of the Refuge System. 

I think it is what, 85 percent of the refuge lands are in Alaska, 

and I think 95 percent of those lands are wilderness areas. I might 

be a little bit off on that. So if you take those out of the overall 

aggregated data for performance then you see it becomes much 

more obvious that there is a much more greater percentage of land 

in the rest of the system that requires active habitat management 

and improvement, and there you can really see where some of the 

funding deficiencies are really playing out, I think. 

48 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. I have one final question. I was just 

given a number here. 

Mr. Kurth, would you agree with that? One hundred and eightyeight unstaffed refuges? 

Mr. KURTH. Yes. I mean, it could be one or two off, but that is 

the ballpark of refuges that don’t have on-site staff. 

Ms. BORDALLO. And that is offices closed? 

Mr. KURTH. Correct. Often times we will have refuges that are 

in close proximity to one another where we can have staff that can 

manage from a central location some of these areas in close proximity. 

Additionally, there are a number of remote islands that we 

wouldn’t staff even if we had adequate staffing. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Is Guam one of those remote islands? 

Mr. KURTH. No, ma’am. No. Largely small bird nesting colonies, 

not wonderful, beautiful places like the island of Guam. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. You have put me on good stead now. 

But the 188. That is quite a significant number, Mr. Kurth. I am 

rather surprised. It is about one-third. Is that correct? 

Mr. KURTH. That is correct. Again, there certainly are refuges 

that if we had unlimited resources we would put staff at. There are 

refuges on that list, though, that we would not. 

There is a refuge called Huron Island, which is a granite rock in 

Lake Superior that has some bird nesting colonies, and it is adequately managed from Seney Refuge in the Upper Peninsula in 

Michigan by periodic patrols and survey work. It is uninhabited 

and out in the middle of Lake Superior where not very many people go. 

We have other colonies, bird nesting islands, where people visit 

periodically and seasonally when the resources are there, and that 

is an adequate stewardship approach for some of those places, but 

clearly we don’t have all the people to put in all the places that—— 

Ms. BORDALLO. Well, it certainly is another reason why we 

should provide adequate funding for this program. 

I will turn over the questions now to the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Kind. 

Mr. KIND. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, I apologize for having to run in and out. 

I was just wondering if the Chair’s previous question pertaining 

to Alaska was anticipating the eventual succession of Alaska from 

the union and that is why we have to revamp the numbers. I hope 

that doesn’t occur. It is a beautiful state, and we are very proud 

to have it in the union. 

Mr. Kurth, let me just stay with that line of questioning first as 

far as the 188 field offices that have been closed. What was the criteria, the determination, that was used to make that decision? 

Mr. KURTH. Well, of the 188 or so refuges that don’t have staff, 

most of those never have. There have been a number where we 

destaffed them because of our workforce planning efforts simply because we identified them as the lower priorities amongst the work 

that we have to do. 

Nobody likes to make those decisions, but we feel it is extremely 

important that we put our resources where the payoff is greatest 

49 

and so if that requires us to temporarily take staff from one place 

and put them at another then we are willing to do that. 

Mr. KIND. Now, obviously with the cooperation of Chairman 

Dicks and the Appropriations Committee we were able to achieve 

a nice plus up as far as the refuge budget in the latest fiscal year, 

but given the $3.5 billion maintenance and operation backlog and 

all the other challenges that you are facing, you had mentioned— 

I think I heard your testimony—that you were using some of that 

to restore some of the staff positions that were recently downsized. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. KURTH. We have been able to add 20 law enforcement officers with that funding and a very small number of other positions. 

What we have tried to do is put an emphasis on making sure 

that refuges have the dollars they need to pay their bills, to do 

their work projects and to not get too much of the refuge funding 

tied up in staff. 

We can use seasonal workers. We can contract for work. What 

we found in the past is that we had such a high percentage of our 

dollars tied up in salary that when budgetary situations became 

tight we didn’t have enough money to do our work and so we have 

as a top priority protecting that management capability as a component of refuge funding. 

So in the future funding gets tight then what we will do is reduce positions in order to protect our ability to manage the places 

where we have staff. 

Mr. KIND. Mr. Kurth, I was remiss in neglecting to thank you as 

well when Director Haskett came up on the Hill to brief many of 

us on your self-evaluation. That was very helpful and a very generous use of your time to do that. 

I know in visiting so many of the refuges throughout the country 

we are blessed to have the dedicated staff and personnel that are 

charged with making it all come together and work, but we are 

also very fortunate, given the strong care coalition that has formed 

about refuge and funding issues and the friends of the Refuge 

System that is indispensable as far as getting a lot of the necessary 

work done. 

But even with the enthusiasm and passion that our friends of 

refuge display, they still need guidance, which means they still 

need professional technical assistance and things of that nature, so 

when we are talking about staff reductions and offices closing this 

does have a ripple effect throughout the entire System. 

But let us get to the real crux of the challenge that we are facing, 

and that is the funding issue. Mr. Horn, let me direct this toward 

you because I read your testimony, and you did cite in your testimony the North American model for wildlife conservation funding 

and kind of the process that we need to put in place to think 

through a new paradigm of funding with our Refuge System. 

In your testimony you also mentioned that you are not prepared 

or the Sportsmen Alliance isn’t prepared to offer that new paradigm yet, but I would hope that there is some thinking about how 

we get from A to Z with this. As a sportsman myself, some of the 

greatest conservationists I know are those who like to go out in the 

refuge and hunt and fish and enjoy the outdoors. 

50 

But we also have to recognize that there is about a 10 to one 

ratio between birders, birdwatching, going into the refuge and 

sportsmen going into the refuge, so how do we expand the universe 

and how do we come up with a new funding paradigm and what 

kind of process are you envisioning here as we move forward? 

Mr. HORN. Well, I think the process is essentially a political process in terms of developing appropriate public policy. 

On behalf of the Alliance, we have begun internal thinking about 

can we find dedicated sources of funding so that we are not reliant 

100 percent on appropriated dollars? What opportunities exist for 

additional entrance and user fees? We know that the sporting community through duck stamps and license fees has been the backbone of the North American model. What else might the sporting 

community be able to contribute to the mix? 

As you indicate, there is an awful lot of other elements in the 

user community in wildlife-dependent recreation who are not anglers and hunters. What kind of contributions can they make, and 

out of that can we come up with something that provides a more 

sustained level of funding over time without this complete reliance? 

I remember when we had the comparable hearing two years ago 

and former Secretary Babbitt, and Bruce and I ended up going to 

lunch about a month later and having this very same conversation 

about there has got to be some way to get at this because, I think 

as many of you all know, this problem is not unique to the Fish 

and Wildlife Service. The Forest Service probably faces this to an 

even greater degree, and BLM wrestles with it. 

There are efforts of course on the Park Service side to come up 

with that form of dedicated funding in the centennial initiative 

that has been kicking around. We believe that we have to sit down 

and get very creative about how to come up with something for this 

System and others. 

I don’t have anything that we can offer, but we would appreciate 

the opportunity to begin working with other elements of the community, the Administration and Congress to say how do we craft 

something that gets at this? What is the best model? 

We have been able to do this before. We ought to be able to do 

this again. 

Mr. KIND. I couldn’t agree with you more, and I think maybe 

with the centennial of the Park System coming up it might provide 

a nice vehicle or model of how we can move forward on all these 

different levels that you just described because it is only backing 

up and getting worse by the year, and time I feel is of the essence. 

Mr. Kurth, let me also ask you, because Mr. Matson talked about 

the three refuges that were wiped out down in Texas, but have 

there been any preliminary cost estimates and what type of work 

needs to be done as far as restoration of those refuges? 

Mr. KURTH. We have preliminary cost estimates that we haven’t 

formally transmitted through OMB, but we know from Hurricane 

Ike alone our damages are probably close to $250 million and from 

other storm-related damages this year, including some flooding in 

the Midwest, probably as high as $300 million. 

Mr. KIND. And in those three refuges we are talking about buildings being waylaid too, aren’t we? It is not just debris and a lot 

of—— 

51 

Mr. KURTH. At those Texas refuges we lost our facilities in total. 

All of our buildings, all of our equipment, all of the residences on 

those refuges were completely destroyed. 

Mr. KIND. And the $250 million figure you are citing is all the 

disasters that occurred throughout the country? Is that right? 

Mr. KURTH. $250 million was our estimate of Hurricane Ike. 

Mr. KIND. Just Hurricane Ike. 

Mr. KURTH. Right. 

Mr. KIND. OK. 

Mr. KURTH. For example, at Anahuac Refuge alone we lost $85 

million worth of real property. 

Mr. KIND. All right. Because we are asking the field offices now, 

given the incredible flooding that we experienced in the upper Midwest, in some areas twice in 10 months now, what they are looking 

at as far as repair and maintenance of the damage that was done 

there. These disasters keep piling up on us as well. 

Mr. KURTH. Right. Let me emphasize they are preliminary figures. You know, we will transmit the formal figures through the 

formal channels. 

Mr. KIND. Finally let me ask you, because it sounds as if the 

GAO report that we have here today, that the CCP process is pretty well on track as far as the goals. 

From my personal experience, living on one of the largest wildlife 

refuges, the Upper Miss, but given the multiple uses of it, there 

were some inherent conflicting situations that arose and it became 

a very difficult process unfortunately up there to get a CCP plan 

moving forward. 

Is there a plan with the Service to go back and do a review of 

what worked well and what problems were encountered in the CCP 

process so it could be a teachable moment as well? 

Mr. KURTH. Yes. We are planning actually to convene a meeting 

of our planning staff early next year to come together and do some 

lessons learned. 

We did develop a plan that Director Hall implemented to assure 

we get all these CCPs done by the year 2012, the statutory deadline. We believe we are on track to do that. I am a little concerned 

that some of the preliminary numbers for this year aren’t going to 

be as good as what we thought. 

We think it is important, though, to take the time necessary to 

work with communities to get plans that can be implemented, and 

we will certainly do everything we can to stay on track. Our planning budget was reduced by $2 million last year, though, and we 

haven’t assessed whether or not that is going to change the calculus out to 2012. 

Mr. KIND. Let me also take this opportunity to thank the Service 

for the flexibility that they demonstrated, and obviously we are 

talking field staff, in working with the local people and making 

sure that private/public partnership and coalition that forms 

around the management of the refuges remain intact. 

Not that the Upper Miss CCP is completely controversy free at 

this point, but I think there were some decisions later on, especially involving some prime duck hunting areas, that was taken 

into account. Don Hultman, the manager of the Upper Miss WildVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:24 Feb 09, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\44614.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
52 

life Refuge, changed his approach on a couple of matters, which 

went a long ways I think with community support. 

Because ultimately when you talk about the problem you are facing with law enforcement, most of the rules and regs that exist in 

the refuge is self-compliance. I mean, it is self-enforcement. We 

can’t afford to hire an army of law enforcement officers to go out 

there and enforce every little bit of rule. It has to be community 

buy in. Otherwise it is just not going to work. 

That ultimately needed to be the goal of the CCP process, and 

I think Mr. Hultman demonstrated some good flexibility on that 

front. 

Mr. KURTH. We think that the involvement of communities and 

our state partners is essential in the CCP process. 

People who helped craft that law, including my friend Mr. Horn 

here, made sure that a central tenet of that law was community 

involvement in our decision making, and it has proven to help us 

implement those plans when the communities are actively engaged 

in shaping the future direction. 

Mr. KIND. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin. We have 

another round of questions if you have any further questions. 

I would like to focus on law enforcement. Both the GAO and the 

MSI reports are highly critical of the insufficient level of law enforcement within the Refuge System. In fact, the GAO report concludes that the Fish and Wildlife Service needs to hire about 200 

additional officers in order to meet just the minimum—just the 

minimum—number needed to provide adequate protection to refuge 

resources and the visiting public. 

Ms. Nazzaro and Mr. Callihan, did any of your analysts—I will 

ask you, Ms. Nazzaro, first. Did any of your analysts develop a projection for how long it would take the Fish and Wildlife Service to 

hire and train an additional 200 law enforcement officers based on 

the existing trend in funding for the refuge system? 

Ms. NAZZARO. The short answer is no, we did not, but I would 

also like to make a correction that that was not our assessment 

that they needed 200 more. That came from the Fish and Wildlife 

Service as far as what their plan is to add. 

Ms. BORDALLO. What is your assessment? 

Ms. NAZZARO. We did not look at law enforcement. That is one 

area where our study and MSI differ in that we did not look specifically at law enforcement. 

We asked what kind of initiatives the agency has undertaken, 

what would impact habitat management and visitor services, and 

certainly this shift in resources that the agency made to ramp up 

law enforcement did impact other activities at the refuges, but we 

did not look at it specifically. 

Actually Chairman Rahall has a request that he has sent to GAO 

to look at law enforcement across the Federal land management 

agencies, and we will be undertaking that study shortly. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. I got the 200 number from Fish and 

Wildlife Service. This is their suggested estimate. 

Ms. NAZZARO. Correct. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Callihan, what do you have to say on that? 

53 

Mr. CALLIHAN. Madam Chairwoman, if I may, I want to refer 

this question to my colleague, Keith Brown, as he headed up that 

portion of the analysis for our study. He is right here. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. 

Mr. BROWN. Can I just speak loudly? 

Ms. BORDALLO. No. Please step up to the—— 

Mr. BROWN. OK. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Be seated. Could you identify yourself for the 

record? 

Mr. BROWN. Yes. My name is Keith Brown. I am Senior Vice 

President with Management Systems International, one of the senior evaluators for the MSI evaluation of the Refuge System. 

I took a look at the law enforcement issue, the law enforcement 

strategic outcome goal, as part of the evaluation. We did not do any 

analysis in how long it would take to fill the shortfall or our projected shortfall or actually the shortfall between the current level, 

the current number of full-time officers, and what we in fact heard 

from the refuge managers and also from other sources, a 200 to 300 

shortfall in the full-time officers. 

We did not do an analysis of that, of how long it would take to 

fill that shortfall, because it is a very complicated question that has 

to do with how to distribute additional resources should they be 

forthcoming to a range of difficult and complicated issues. 

I will say, though, that it is about a six-month training process 

to fully train an officer for deployment. We found that training 

process to be a very rigorous and substantial and useful training 

program, but we did not do any analysis beyond that. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much for clarifying that. 

Mr. Kurth, your report did suggest 200. Is that correct? Does it 

still remain the same? 

Mr. KURTH. For a little background, a number of years ago we 

contracted with the International Association of Chiefs of Police, 

the preeminent professional law enforcement organization, and 

asked them to develop a staffing model for us for what they would 

see based on data—visitation, crime statistics, things such as 

that—we would need for refuge law enforcement officers. Their report recommended 845 officers. Now, their report also assumed correctly that we could get some of that support from state and local 

authorities. 

What we have done internally is try to think about our staffing 

in a way that gets at what is critical. The reports that say we are 

ineffective beg us to do that, so as professionals, as a former officer 

with our law enforcement staff, we have talked about those things, 

but the number of officers we need ends up being officially that 

which the President asks for in his budget request. 

Certainly the number 200 is a number that our refuge law enforcement professionals and myself use in our internal deliberations, but when it comes to me telling you what we need, the President asks for the law enforcement budget that we need. 

Ms. BORDALLO. What did the President ask for? 

Mr. KURTH. Well, I mean, his law enforcement budget is not increasing at a rate that is going to get us to 200 officers. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Did he put a number to this? 

54 

Mr. KURTH. Yes, but I would have to look up the exact number 

of our refuge law—— 

Ms. BORDALLO. You can’t remember that? 

Mr. KURTH. It is about $36 million, but I would like to be accurate and precise when I give the committee the figures. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. Thank you. 

Now we will go back to Ms. Nazzaro and Mr. Callihan. Is it reasonable to conclude that under existing budget trends the Service 

will not be able to address this particular threat without having to 

cut funding for other program activities, including resource management and visitor services? 

Ms. NAZZARO. I don’t know that without looking at it we could 

say it is reasonable. 

Any time you make a change, whether it is to shift resources or 

to reduce resources and put it into operational funds, it is going to 

have an impact. What that impact would be I wouldn’t want to 

guess at it. 

Like I say, I mean, we will be looking at the whole law enforcement issue—— 

Ms. BORDALLO. Right. 

Ms. NAZZARO.—and we could certainly add that. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I think the question is if we were to bring law 

enforcement up to par what else would suffer? 

Ms. NAZZARO. I am saying I don’t know what directly would suffer. 

Ms. BORDALLO. You don’t know. 

Ms. NAZZARO. It depends on what tradeoffs because the agency 

certainly has a number of options, whether it would reduce other 

staff positions or whether they would reduce other operational aspects. You know, there certainly are options. 

To say what the direct impact would be, I couldn’t estimate what 

it would be. It would depend on the tradeoffs that the agency would 

decide to make. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. Mr. Brown, are you still sitting in for 

Mr. Callihan? 

Mr. BROWN. Yes, I am. 

Mr. CALLIHAN. Yes. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Do you have the answer to that question? 

Mr. BROWN. Well, I am going to go back to what I heard as the 

first part of the question, which was would we conclude that under 

current funding levels that the Fish and Wildlife Service would not 

be able to meet its what we consider adequate law enforcement requirements. 

Our report only tracked the budget through 2007 prior to the 

sort of bump in appropriations, but at that point in time our conclusion was fairly unequivocal. Without changes in the funding 

stream the law enforcement issue would continue to be a substantial and serious problem for the Refuge System. 

Ms. BORDALLO. OK. And finally now Mr. Kurth. After hearing all 

of this, what types of impacts is the Refuge System experiencing 

with, as these two reports outline, the grossly inadequate levels of 

law enforcement officers? Can you provide some examples of how 

we are suffering on this because of the lack of law enforcement? 

55 

Mr. KURTH. It is always difficult when you don’t have an officer 

on site to say what crime is being committed. 

One of the things we find—it is a paradox in law enforcement— 

is when we add officers crime goes up. Well, it doesn’t go up. We 

just detect it and slowly deal with it. 

Ms. BORDALLO. But certainly you must have some examples of 

the Refuge System or the refuges where you have found things that 

you say if only we had had law enforcement on board. 

Mr. KURTH. You know, we see increases in all sorts of criminal 

behavior. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Theft? 

Mr. KURTH. Theft. You know, we have had gang related activity 

here in Fairfax County at Mason Neck Wildlife Refuge. There are 

a wide range of crimes that affect our visitors and that affect the 

national resources we protect. 

I want to emphasize, however, our utmost priority is protecting 

our officers. We were very much grieved this week to learn that 

one of our colleagues, Forest Service Officer Chris Fairbanks, was 

killed in the line of duty last week. These are people we train with 

and work with. 

This is dangerous work, and we feel like the way we deploy our 

officers first and foremost has to assure that when they are in the 

field we deploy them in a manner where they have safe working 

conditions. We feel that is the case, but certainly there are every 

indications that our law enforcement program is challenged. 

I think we have to recognize too, you know, in the events following September 11 our mission also changed. We have been 

called on to work national security events at icon parks, the Salt 

Lake Olympic Games. I mean, it is a new world requiring a different approach to law enforcement. That is why we have been 

challenged. 

We used to use what we call dual function officers—refuge managers, wildlife biologists—with these as part-time responsibilities. 

In today’s world with the 30-week training requirement and the 

dangers in law enforcement, we are trying to transition to a law 

enforcement workforce of full-time officers, and that has just simply been an exacerbating impact of the difficulty in making sure we 

are adequately covered. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Matson, could you give me your ideas on 

this? 

Mr. MATSON. Absolutely. In the words of the Refuge System’s 

chief officer, every crime that happens in America occurs in a 

National Wildlife Refuge. There are meth labs. There is graffiti. 

There is gang activity. Every single crime that happens in America 

happens in a National Wildlife Refuge, and it is a problem. 

As I relayed in my oral testimony, the example of harassment of 

endangered species, of manatees down in Crystal River, because 

there is no law enforcement presence. There are a million examples 

out there of the problem. 

Another issue which isn’t explored in these reports is that it is a significant investment in training. I think it is $50,000 to 

$100,000 to train an officer. It is over a six month period, as was 

mentioned. Because of the budget issues at Fish and Wildlife Service and the structure of their officers, a lot of those officers, that 

56 

is Federal law enforcement training. They can then go to the Fish 

and Wildlife Service or BLM and get paid more. 

There is a number of instances where Fish and Wildlife Service 

is paying the bill and not getting the officers, and so that is a 

structural change that needs to happen. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. That was a very good point that you 

brought out. 

I would like to recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Wittman, a Member of this Subcommittee. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. To begin with, 

I would like to ask unanimous consent that the statement by Ranking Member Brown be entered into the record. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Without objection. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Henry E. Brown, Jr., Ranking Republican 

Member, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

Madam Chairwoman, as the 110th Congress draws to a close, it is appropriate 

that this Subcommittee conduct an oversight hearing on the management of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. 

This unique system of federal lands provides essential habitat to hundreds of 

wildlife species and wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities to nearly 40 million Americans who visit at least one refuge every year. 

In my own Congressional District, the Cape Romain, Ernest F. Hollings ACE 

Basin and Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuges provide 87,500 acres of vital habitat for a number of listed species including bald eagles, brown pelicans, loggerhead 

sea turtles and wood storks. They also allow nearly 200,000 people to enjoy hunting, 

fishing, environmental education, photography and wildlife observation. 

Together, these three refuges are a key component in what the Fish and Wildlife 

Service has described as the economic benefits to local communities from refuge visitation. According to their latest ‘‘Banking on Nature’’ Report, refuges generate $1.7 

billion in annual sales to regional economies, they create nearly 27,000 jobs and provide $185 million in tax revenues. 

Today, we will hear testimony from representatives of Management Systems 

International (MSI) and the Government Accountability Office which have recently 

examined the management of the refuge system. While both reports make important 

contributions, they are in the words of one of the organizations nothing more than 

‘‘A Snapshot in Time’’. Nevertheless, I look forward to hearing how MSI determined 

the ratings for the strategic outcome goals and whether the Fish and Wildlife Service agrees with these ratings and how they intend to improve them in the future. 

Finally, during the past year, a number of witnesses have testified that the Bush 

Administration has financially shortchanged the refuge system. The most prominent 

critic was former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt who told us on October 9, 2007 

that our nation’s wildlife refuges are ‘‘reeling from years of fiscal starvation.’’ 

As President John Adams once said: ‘‘Facts are stubborn things.’’ Here are the 

facts. During the Clinton Administration, $1.67 billion was requested for the refuge 

system and Congress appropriated $1.7 billion. By contrast, the Bush Administration has requested $3.08 billion and Congress appropriated $3.13 billion. In other 

words, during the past eight years the refuge system has enjoyed an increase of $1.4 

billion in requested funds and $1.43 billion in appropriated dollars. Only in Washington, D. C., would an increase of $180 million each year be considered ‘‘fiscal 

starvation’’! 

While there is no question that despite these additional funds, the refuge system 

has experienced some difficult days. Nevertheless, to suggest that the refuge system 

has been shortchanged or starved is factually incorrect and nothing more than 

empty political rhetoric. 

Madam Chairwoman, I have enjoyed working with you during this Congress and 

I look forward to hearing the testimony from our witnesses. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

57 

Mr. WITTMAN. Gentlemen, I will begin. I will let anybody on the 

panel that is interested in answering this, probably somebody from 

the Wildlife Refuge System. 

Can you tell me the number of permanent and total employees 

within the Refuge System and how many vacancies currently exist 

now within the System? 

Mr. KURTH. I can’t give you an accurate number of how many vacancies we have today. I would be happy to get that information 

to you. Our workforce is approximately 3,700 people. Again, I 

would be happy to give you the precise figure for the record. 

Mr. WITTMAN. OK. That would be very, very helpful. Can you tell 

me how many law enforcement officers work within the System, 

and can you give me an idea about their role—how many of them 

are dual function employees; how many are full-time law enforcement officers—just to kind of get a bearing on—— 

Mr. KURTH. Sure. We have 217 full-time officers and 151 dual 

function officers. That is a total of 368 badges, if my math is correct. 

Mr. WITTMAN. All right. According to Mr. Matson, he says that 

the Fish and Wildlife Service intends to further reduce the number 

of refuge managers, biologists and environmental educators and 

maintenance staff by 20 percent. Is that an accurate reflection of 

what the plan is? 

Mr. KURTH. We had plans on how to deal with a flat and declining budget in the Refuge System station-by-station, where we 

would make cuts if need be. 

With the appropriation from Fiscal Year 2008, we stabilized our 

workforce. If we can be successful in having appropriations that 

cover inflationary cost increase each year then we would not at this 

point in time need to eliminate any further staff. 

Mr. WITTMAN. OK. All right. Thank you. Since the Service is 

likely to receive an increase of about $70 million for the National 

Wildlife Refuge System for the current fiscal year and next fiscal 

year, can you tell me how many of the 350 lost refuge jobs would 

be refilled in the future? How much of that lost ground would you 

regain by the increase of the $70 million? 

Mr. KURTH. I guess I don’t have anything that I am aware of 

that indicates that $70 million increase is likely. I know people 

have been asking for that. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Yes. Yes. There is $35 million requested for this 

year and $35 million for next year. So if that funding were to come 

through how would that affect the 350 jobs that remain unfilled? 

Mr. KURTH. We would probably not precisely refill the jobs that 

were lost. What we would do is continue to implement our priorities. 

I would think you would see us put an investment into law enforcement officers and wildlife biologists, two of the areas that we 

see from all of these reports that we are weak on. We would put 

them at the highest priority stations. 

You know, a $70 million budget increase would likely be able to 

replace all of those positions, that number of positions. We would 

hopefully align them with our highest priority needs. They would 

not be an identical mirror of what was there in the past. 

58 

Some of the efficiencies we have found through these tight times 

of having efficient complexes of refuges where we can share things 

like full-time officers are trends that we are going to continue to 

look at. If we do get additional resources, we are going to look to 

be as highly efficient as we possibly can where we would deploy 

those jobs. 

Mr. WITTMAN. A question off in a little bit different direction. 

You know, the big issue around a lot of refuges are invasive 

species. I know just in Virginia dealing with Phragmites in some 

of the properties there along the coastline has become a major, 

major issue. 

Can you give us an indication about how many acres in the 

System might be affected by invasive species and the backlog of 

projects to deal with these invasive species? 

Mr. KURTH. You know, I don’t want to give you a guesstimate. 

I can tell you that in the lower 48 states it is the issue that is most 

frequently cited by refuge managers as a critical natural resources 

concern. 

We have a variety of types of invasive species—from some which 

are less aggressive that we can lower our priority on—to things 

like melaleuca in the Everglades, an Old World climbing fern that, 

if we don’t do something immediately there, we can lose the entire 

value of that habitat. Not all invasive species are created equal, 

but it is certainly a top resource concern amongst our managers. 

Mr. WITTMAN. OK. Just to get your thoughts on priorities for 

invasive species, do you agree with the conclusion that invasive 

species are collectively the single greatest threat to native plants, 

fish and wildlife, with the potential to degrade an entire ecosystem? 

Mr. KURTH. I think it is certainly a very high priority, and I 

would agree with that assessment. 

Mr. WITTMAN. OK. All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate 

it, Madam Chair. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I thank the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Wittman, and now I recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 

Kildee. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Kurth, the Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge is on the 

border of my district. Steve Kahl is the refuge manager. They have 

a great staff of people up there. I have had the opportunity of visiting it. They are understaffed, as probably other ones are also, but 

what bothers me is that the biological technician position has been 

vacant since 2005. 

Michigan seems to be kind of a center of problems with invasive 

species, all types of invasive species. We were worried about the 

emerald ash borer in Michigan. It probably was introduced at a 

port here in Michigan on some material that came from Asia and 

is moving northward. 

I know they are working with Michigan State University now, a 

land grant university, and they have probably found a natural 

enemy of the emerald ash borer. If that were to reach that far 

north, north of where I live, it would be devastating to that wildlife 

refuge. The number of ash trees is enormous. 

59 

When you look at vacancies do you look at particular need and 

find that perhaps there, particularly with Michigan State University within about a 45 minute drive from that area, that it would 

be helpful to have a biological technician working with the people 

at Michigan State to see how they can control that emerald ash 

borer, which could be very destructive to that refuge? 

Mr. KURTH. There is no doubt that forest pests are a type of 

invasive species that we don’t always talk about, and their effects, 

particularly in the eastern forest, are dramatic. 

I don’t know the specifics about the biological technician position 

at Shiawassee, but I think these reports have shown that we do leverage our resources very effectively with universities and other 

parties, and it is certainly something that I would be happy to look 

into how we can make sure that we effectively work with Michigan 

State University in order to look at the issue of Shiawassee Refuge 

and the ash borer because it is a very critical problem. 

Mr. KILDEE. I would appreciate that because in visiting it I am 

really impressed with the sense of mission that the people who are 

there have. There is a real sense of mission there, a commitment. 

It is always like a vocation they have, and they are really concerned about maintaining the integrity of that refuge. 

As I say, the greatest immediate danger right now, and there are 

many dangers, is the emerald ash borer. Since Michigan State is 

so close and is making some progress in trying to find a natural 

enemy, I would encourage, first of all, that you fill the position, but 

that requires of course Congress appropriating sufficient funds, but 

filling the position and also working with Michigan State to see 

whether we can do something to protect that refuge from this really invasive species. 

Mr. KURTH. I am happy to look into it. I love Shiawassee Refuge. 

When I was stationed north of the bridge at Seney Refuge in the 

Upper Peninsula we used to collaborate frequently, and it is a wonderful resource for the folks there in Saginaw. We are happy to 

look into it. 

Mr. KILDEE. You know, they do great work. I mentioned kind of 

almost a sense of vocation. 

We get probably bombarded in Congress with mail and bulletins 

and various papers to read, but the one I always read is the one 

put out by that refuge. They do an excellent job. They keep on top 

of it and keep us informed, keep the public informed of what is 

going on there, what is available. 

I think it is probably the only National Wildlife Refuge that I 

have visited, but if that spirit of vocation permeates the rest of 

your operation, you have a mighty mission yourself. I appreciate 

what you do with your limited resources. I thank you. 

Mr. KURTH. I very much appreciate your kind words, sir. Thank 

you. 

Mr. KILDEE. I yield back. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I thank the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 

Kildee. 

I have a few questions that may lead to you, Mr. Kurth. You are 

in the hot seat here. 

The MSI report determined that the Refuge System has been ineffective in protecting wilderness. In fact, the report notes that the 

60 

Service went so far as to publicly release a draft wilderness policy 

in 2001, but to date has never issued a final wilderness policy. 

Mr. Kurth, why has the Service not developed a final wilderness 

policy for the Refuge System, and can we expect to see the Service 

release a final policy before the current Administration departs? 

Could you be brief in your response? 

Mr. KURTH. The policy has had points of contention. We finished 

our draft with a recommendation. Because it has been so long before we published a draft, we put it out for another round of public 

review and comment. I don’t know—— 

Ms. BORDALLO. How long is that going to take? 

Mr. KURTH. Well, the comment period would likely be 60 or 90 

days. I don’t know—that draft policy now is at a policy level in review with the lawyers—whether or not they are going to accept 

that recommendation or not. 

Ms. BORDALLO. So what you are saying is that it will be the next 

Administration? 

Mr. KURTH. The policy could be sent out in this Administration 

again for comment. It could be, if officials choose, finalized in this 

Administration. 

We work very hard and very closely with our colleagues, with 

state fish and wildlife agencies and the Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies to try and address their concerns, some of the 

concerns that Mr. Horn raised, so that we will have a wilderness 

policy that allows us to accomplish our conservation mission and 

protect the enduring resource of wilderness. 

It is one of my professional areas of greatest interest. I moved 

here from the Arctic Refuge in Alaska, and we really would like to 

have an effective policy. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Would you say then, Mr. Kurth, that sending it 

out again is going to be results, or will it just come back with the 

same contentious—— 

Mr. KURTH. I think that we can move a policy to completion. The 

areas where there have been some areas of disagreement I think 

we are very close on now. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. The other one is more specifically in 

2004. A Fish and Wildlife Service director’s memo ordered all Alaska refuges to stop performing wilderness reviews as a part of their 

planning process. It is my understanding that this memo contradicts established refuge policy. 

Is this memo still in effect today, and can you confirm that it is 

contrary to existing refuge policy? Can you please explain why this 

memo was issued in the first place? 

Mr. KURTH. The memo is in place. Our planning policy does require wilderness reviews in development of comprehensive conservation plans. This is a policy directive that came after that policy, and the policy hasn’t been formally amended. 

This has been a contentious issue for a couple of decades from 

when we first started doing the first round of CCPs in Alaska in 

the mid 1980s where we didn’t do wilderness reviews. 

In the past Administration there was a policy decision that we 

would do them, and then that subsequently changed. I think what 

you see is it reflects policy differences in different Administrations. 

61 

Ms. BORDALLO. OK. Just for the record now, is the memo still in 

effect today? 

Mr. KURTH. Yes. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Can you confirm that it is contrary to existing 

policy? 

Mr. KURTH. The memo provides additional policy and guidance 

to that which was in our planning chapter. 

Ms. BORDALLO. So it is not contrary? 

Mr. KURTH. No. The Director issued it as a policy directive. The 

chapter on comprehensive conservation planning has different language in it, but this is a subsequent direction from the Director of 

the Fish and Wildlife Service, so I think technically we should 

amend the policy language to conform with the more recent policy 

direction. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. Another one. Now, Mr. Horn mentioned 

in his testimony that in the recent Arizona District Court decision 

regarding the Kofa Wildlife Refuge the sportsmen asserted that the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act overrides any 

seemingly contradictory principles of the Wilderness Act. The court 

agreed rather that the Fish and Wildlife Service engage in a reasonable harmonization of the two statutes, controlling its actions 

on the land in question. 

Is the Fish and Wildlife Service’s position in accordance with this 

court decision that the wildlife conservation goals of the National 

Wildlife Refuges are not incompatible with the language of the Wilderness Act and that both should guide the Service’s management 

of our refuges? 

Mr. KURTH. Yes. The Wilderness Act and the Refuge System Administration Act are very compatible statutes. Our finest wildlife is 

on some of our wilderness areas in Alaska and other places. 

It just requires us to be careful in crafting our stewardship in a 

way that complies with both of the laws, and they are not at all 

irreconcilable. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Horn, could you comment on that? 

Mr. HORN. Yes, Madam Chair. I would make two comments 

briefly. 

One is that partially what the court recognized is express statutory language in the 1964 Wilderness Act which prescribes clearly 

that wilderness is a supplemental purpose whereas the primary 

purpose derives from the 1997 Refuge Act. It is that supplemental 

aspect of the Wilderness Act is what we wanted the court to recognize, and we believe they did. 

I would say second on the wilderness policy question of 2004 the 

issue of wilderness reviews in Alaska is governed by specific provisions of the Alaska Lands Act adopted in 1980 that prescribed that 

there would be essentially one round and one round only of wilderness reviews, and that is the section found in Title XIII and also 

found in another provision of the statute called the no more clause. 

So it would be my opinion that the Director’s 2004 policy is consistent with the specific statutory provision of the Alaska Lands 

Act, whereas the prior wilderness policy was inconsistent with that 

statutory directive. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. 

Mr. Matson? 

62 

Mr. MATSON. In terms of Alaska, to answer your question, two 

of the four memos absolutely are in contradiction to the planning 

policy. There is no doubt about that. 

In terms of the previous wilderness reviews, there has really 

been no adequate wilderness review to date in Alaska. ANILCA 

passed in 1980, followed by an Administration that was hostile to 

wilderness, followed by 12 years of Administrations that were hostile to wilderness. 

So it is certainly reasonable to include a wilderness review. It is 

not designating wilderness. It is just reviewing lands that are eligible to wilderness. That is all this is requiring, and it is perfectly 

reasonable to include it in the plan. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Matson. 

My time has expired here, and I would like to call on the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Kildee, for further questions. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. Nazzaro, the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement 

or CARE reports that the Refuge System has an existing $3.5 million operations and maintenance budget backlog. 

CARE recommends an annual operating budget of $800 million 

to allow the Refuge System to address annual uncontrollable cost 

and to meet its operations and maintenance obligations. 

Did GAO consider this factor in its analysis? Is this amount reasonable considering the needs? 

Ms. NAZZARO. One of the concerns that was raised in our survey 

by refuge managers was the challenge of the backlog maintenance. 

We do have a specific report right now that is being prepared by 

GAO dealing with backlog maintenance. That includes Federal 

land management agencies, and that should be out I believe in the 

October timeframe. 

We did not specifically look at the extent to which Fish and Wildlife Service has a backlog maintenance or what is being done to address that, but rather just raised it as an additional challenge that 

they face. 

Mr. KILDEE. Your GAO report found that annual Refuge System 

budgets for core activities fluctuated over the period of 2003 to 

2007. The budget spiked in 2003, declined in subsequent years and 

then increased in 2007. More surprising, the nominal budget trend 

shows a relative increase in operating budgets. 

Ms. Nazzaro, it is my understanding that the Refuge System experiences an annual increase in uncontrollable cost in the range of 

$15 to $20 million to cover increases in fuel cost, salaries and other 

matters. Did you examine this issue? How does this compare to 

your general inflationary indices you used in your report? 

Ms. NAZZARO. We didn’t specifically look at fuel costs and what 

percentage of their operating budget is absorbed through fuel cost, 

but that was one of the challenges that the agency tried to address 

in its regional workforce plan. 

They were recognizing that the percentage of their budget that 

was being absorbed by salaries and benefits was growing significantly as a percentage of their budget compared to what they had 

for operating, maintenance and wildland fire, their core activities. 

So it was with that that they put in place and made these tough 

decisions as far as the workforce plans. 

63 

I mean, given its budgets, there are limits to what the Forest 

Service can do, and we felt that the workforce plans, as was echoed 

by the Fish and Wildlife Service, were viewed as a necessary step 

to restore that balance between salary and benefit costs, as well as 

the refuge operational costs. 

You know, given that fact they are going to have to continue to 

make tough choices. We have raised a lot of challenges here today 

that the Service is facing. Given the fiscal constraints that the government is also facing, it seems unreasonable that there is going 

to be significant increases in budget in the future. 

So the agency is going to continue to have to make these tradeoffs, as does any other Federal agency. What we would suggest at 

this point is that the agency just continue to abide by sound management initiatives such as making sure that they have the information they need to make informed decisions. These are things 

that Congress could work also to help ensure that they do these 

things. 

Another thing would be that they are pursuing the tools, the 

technologies and approaches that are going to ensure efficient and 

effective government, focusing more on the long-term payoffs that 

they are using appropriate management strategies and that their 

investment decisions are transparent so that the general public understands if there are changes to the refuges why they are made 

and that they are supported by sound information. 

Mr. KILDEE. Do you agree then with Mr. Callihan’s finding that 

despite nominal increases in funding, the actual purchasing power 

declined by, according to his figures, 11 percent over the same period? 

Ms. NAZZARO. I don’t have the figures in front of me, but, yes, 

in general we do say that when you factor in inflation that they 

didn’t receive significant increases over time. 

From 2002 to 2007 there was an increase in the budget of 4.3 

percent, a decline of 2.3 percent from the peak year in 2003, which 

it was beefed up at that point because of their centennial. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you very much, Ms. Nazzaro. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I thank the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 

Kildee. 

I have a few more questions on personnel attrition and impacts. 

According to the GAO, the Refuge System has experienced a significant decline of 8.4 percent in the number of Federal employees 

working in the field over the period of 2002 to 2007, and even 

though some refuges and refuge complexes saw five percent increases in workforce numbers, three times as many refuges or 

refuge complexes lost five percent or more of their workforce. 

Ms. Nazzaro, is it fair to expect the Refuge System to be able to 

deliver on all of its strategic goals when it is forced to work with 

so few employees? 

Ms. NAZZARO. Well, when we looked at the assessment that MSI 

did which focused specifically on the strategic goals, we were in 

agreement with them generally that where there were strengths 

there were also limitations. 

Now, two of the areas that they highlighted, and one we have 

talked extensively about today, was law enforcement. We didn’t 

64 

look specifically at it, but that was raised by a number of individuals as an issue. 

The other thing that we talked just briefly, and I think the Service actually focused on it, was the issue of invasive species. That 

was one of the key problems that were raised during the survey of 

refuge managers that invasives—I think it was a 55 percent response rate there; that it had increased at half the refuges. So that 

was a significant concern. 

The other is habitat fragmentation, something we haven’t talked 

about today, where you have to manage an environment for a 

species as a total ecosystem. There are issues now where these 

habitats are being fragmented, and it does impact on the species. 

Can they address all of them? I think they can address all of 

their goals. It is just going to be a matter of prioritizing at which 

locations and where they have the most significant problem. 

Ms. BORDALLO. So generally then, in answer to my question, it 

is yes? 

Ms. NAZZARO. I would say they can address all their goals. Will 

they be able to do everything they want to do? No. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. What are the implications for the 

System if the Fish and Wildlife Service by default is forced to shift 

even more refuges into refuge complexes? 

Ms. NAZZARO. We didn’t really assess the pros or cons of making 

such a shift. It does seem like they were able to do more with less 

by doing that, by shifting them into complexes. 

As was noted, for example, with law enforcement officers, if you 

have a complex then you are reducing some of your overhead, certainly for administrative purposes as well. 

So it would seem like it was a good strategy if you have a reduction in force how you are going to better manage more areas with 

less, but we did not assess the success or failure of that. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Matson, could you comment on that? 

Mr. MATSON. I think for a lot of refuges that are in close proximity, complexes make a lot of sense. I think they have gained a 

lot of efficiencies through complexing, but I imagine that we are 

probably complexed out. 

I think we have probably gained all the efficiencies we can, and 

there are probably some complexes that are just too big. I mean, 

if you have refuges that are over 100 miles apart can you really 

efficiently maintain adequate coverage of those refuges? That is a 

question. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. Thank you. Getting back to you, Ms. 

Nazzaro, what has been the effect of the workforce restructuring on 

the employees? 

You know, there is always some kind of an effect when you do 

this. How has the morale been affected? Do you anticipate a higher 

rate of retirements? If so, how have these restructuring policies affected new employment recruitment? 

Ms. NAZZARO. I specifically can’t comment on the impacts on recruitment or on retirements because we didn’t go down that line of 

questioning. We certainly did ask them to comment on it, and one 

regional manager certainly emphasized that there has been an 

emotional strain. 

65 

The regional workforce plans did result in a reduction of the 

workforce, and any time you have a reduction that is inherently 

difficult, and it is certainly painful for any affected staff. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Callihan, from your perspective? 

Mr. CALLIHAN. I am sorry. The question again was on the workforce plan? 

Ms. BORDALLO. OK. What has been the effect of the workforce restructuring on employees, the morale? Do you find a higher rate of 

retirements? How have these restructuring policies affected new 

employee recruitment? 

Mr. CALLIHAN. You know, we didn’t look specifically at that question. If I could go back, maybe this will shed some light on it, 

though, in terms of your previous question. 

You know, in surveying the refuge managers, 77 percent indicated that they believed that the refuges are not meeting or only 

partially meeting their habitat objective goals, and I think—— 

Ms. BORDALLO. What was that percentage? 

Mr. CALLIHAN. Seventy-seven percent—— 

Ms. BORDALLO. Seventy-seven percent. 

Mr. CALLIHAN.—believe that their refuge is not meeting or is 

only partially meeting its habitat management goals. 

I think some of our recommendations had to do with management and process, but clearly there is an insufficient level of inventory and monitoring and biologists on the refuge, and I think if it 

is maintained at current levels that there are going to be genuine 

limitations in terms of the level of achievement that can be 

expected. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. I appreciate that information. 

Mr. Kurth, would you like to comment on this? 

Mr. KURTH. The years of downsizing and workforce planning 

were stressful on our Refuge System employees. I, though, am always astonished at how they keep their attitude and their dedication at such a high level. 

I think Mr. Kildee’s comments about the enthusiasm about the 

Shiawassee staff is really emblematic of our field staffs across the 

country. They become exceptionally frustrated when they see the 

resources that they are entrusted to take care of not get everything 

they need. 

This profession is a way of life as much as it is a livelihood, and 

they are the most dedicated and passionate employees I have ever 

met, so—— 

Ms. BORDALLO. So you would say then overall, Mr. Kurth, that 

morale is good? 

Mr. KURTH. I think that their morale and their professionalism 

is good, but it is certainly not as high as what it is when they are 

not faced with so many challenges. 

It certainly has been affected by this, but they are resolute in 

their commitment to their job, and I couldn’t be prouder of them. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. I agree with you on that. I think 

when you love what you are doing, even though you are limited to 

some point, you will just continue to work. I notice that we work 

with a lot of volunteers in keeping these refuges open, so I understand that. 

66 

Mr. KURTH. The money gets them, but one of the things these 

reports pointed out that we are trying to work hard on is the paperwork and burdens that we put on them are an area where we 

have to improve and have to try and cut some of the red tape that 

goes into modern day refuge managers so they can focus their attention more precisely. 

If we could do that for them, their morale would be a lot higher. 

Ms. BORDALLO. That is right. I understand. 

All right. As you know, CCPs are 15-year long-range planning 

documents that are intended to guide management decisionmaking 

on National Wildlife Refuges. All CCPs are supposed to consider 

the various factors affecting refuge resources and should provide 

policy guidance to address, mitigate or avoid any threats. 

However, I understand that the overwhelming majority of CCPs 

completed to date, even recently completed CCPs, fail to consider 

perhaps the most pressing natural resource challenge of our time, 

and that is climate change. 

Mr. Kurth, why do CCPs not substantially consider this most serious environmental challenge facing the planet, and what is the 

Refuge System doing to remedy this? Will the Administration be 

requesting additional budget and staff to address this critical planning need? 

Mr. KURTH. There are several questions there. Frankly, the issue 

of climate change and how we deal with it has changed within the 

past two years in this Administration. 

There has been a recognition over the last two years that we 

have to talk about how we can adapt in the face of a changing climate and mitigate its effects where we can, and so our newest 

CCPs are beginning to address climate change. 

Our coastal refuges are using a tool called SLAMM, sea level assessment and marsh monitoring. We are starting to look at what 

is going to happen in coastal areas, but it is new and I think it is 

new to the conservation field. Admittedly, we were slow to incorporate those concerns in our CCPs, but I think now we have clear 

direction that that is an appropriate thing to do. 

The issue of requesting additional funds in the future, I am not 

in a position to say that because we don’t know what—— 

Ms. BORDALLO. We don’t know what the future is going to be, 

right? 

Mr. KURTH. What the future is going to hold and what the priorities will be in the next—but I think it is safe to say that everyone 

in the conservation community has a strong focus on the challenges 

that climate change presents us, and no one in the natural resource management field is of a mind that we can continue to do 

things as we always have without thinking about what adaptations 

we are going to have to consider. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. Thank you. 

I am going to ask all of the panelists now one question just with 

a yes or a no, if you don’t mind. In the opinion of the panel, will 

existing CCPs that do not consider climate change still be relevant 

and useful to refuge managers well into the future? 

We will begin with you. 

Ms. NAZZARO. I would have to say no because you would want 

to consider all factors. 

67 

Ms. BORDALLO. Next? 

Mr. CALLIHAN. I would say mostly no, but it will vary considerably from refuge to refuge I would think, depending on the issues. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Kurth? 

Mr. KURTH. That one word answer is tough. The answer is yes, 

they will be of value because they will have many things about how 

to deal with the public and have hunting programs, but no in that 

there is one glaring omission there that we need to deal with because they are very broad plans. 

Ms. BORDALLO. That is an interesting answer, Mr. Kurth. 

Mr. Matson? 

Mr. MATSON. No. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Horn? 

Mr. HORN. I think I agree with Mr. Kurth simply because, yes, 

they will be simply because most of the changes associated with climate change within the 10 to 15 year window are likely to be fairly 

minimal and can be addressed in a second round. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. I want to thank you, and now I have 

my next range of questions here, a few more. 

I have just one here for Mr. Horn. What would you consider to 

be some of the easiest or least expensive available remedies to address the many shortcomings regarding appraisals in land acquisitions described in the MSI report? 

Mr. HORN. I think it is fairly simple. Return the appraisal function to the Fish and Wildlife Service and terminate the consolidation that the Department put in place four or five years ago. 

I personally think the Department got stampeded in response or 

in reaction to some appraisal issues that occurred involving BLM 

in Utah, and I think the cure turned out to be worse than the disease. 

It is not only adversely impacting the real estate functions of the 

Service. It is adversely impacting the real estate functions of BLM 

and the Park Service as well. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Very good. Let me hear from you, Mr. Matson. 

Mr. MATSON. I absolutely concur with Mr. Horn. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Kurth? 

Mr. KURTH. I believe if I concurred with Mr. Horn I would be at 

a policy variance with the Department, so I don’t think I will do 

that. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. Mr. Callihan? 

Mr. CALLIHAN. Yes. Our report found that the current DOI managed land appraisal process is ineffective and represents a step 

backwards in the Refuge System’s ability to purchase land and 

easements from willing sellers. The process simply doesn’t work. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Ms. Nazzaro? 

Ms. NAZZARO. We have not looked at the effectiveness in the Fish 

and Wildlife Service, but I would say that we would disagree to disband the current appraisal system process because it did address 

one of the major concerns that GAO had, and that was that there 

was a lack of independence. 

To have the appraisers work in the same office of those that were 

trying to acquire the lands, we did not feel there was an arm’s 

length break there, and we actually strongly suggested a different 

68 

construct of which by consolidating it within the Department of Interior did solve that problem. 

We have looked at other bureaus within the Department, though, 

and we do recognize that there are problems with the timeliness 

of the services they are delivering so I wouldn’t say it is totally 

fixed—there are still some improvements to be had—but I wouldn’t 

totally throw the baby out with the bath water. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. 

Mr. Matson, you advocate increasing land acquisition funding. 

How do you reconcile buying more land when the Fish and Wildlife 

Service can’t seem to take care of what it currently has? 

Mr. MATSON. That is a great persistent question and has been 

persistent over the last 10 years. 

I think what people don’t understand is a refuge is established 

with a boundary and the vast majority of acquisitions are in that 

boundary, so essentially it is acquiring in-holdings in refuges which 

makes management more efficient. 

It is reducing those threats to the refuge that are causing management headaches. It is purchasing in-holdings that are causing 

management headaches. So I think the vast majority of acquisitions, I think there are probably billions of dollars that could be 

spent just on our existing refuge system that would make management more efficient, so I think there is a huge need. 

In fact, 6,000 acres of open space are lost every day. I think during the course of this hearing we have lost 500 acres of open space. 

It is a crisis. 

You know, the appraisal process is one barrier to that. Basically 

the cynic in me says that the Administration did that on purpose 

to completely foil any kind of land acquisition because the Federal 

government cannot acquire land on its own, right now, with a yearand-a-half delay in this process, with these deadlines. No willing 

seller is going to wait that long. 

This last year the Administration requested two projects in a 

pool of hundreds of eligible projects for funding. It is a big problem. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Matson. 

Mr. Kurth, one of the principal responsibilities assigned to the 

Secretary of the Interior under the Refuge Administration Act is to 

assist in the maintenance of adequate water quantity and water 

quality to fulfill the mission of the system and the purposes of each 

refuge and to acquire water rights that are needed for refuge purposes. 

It is more than a little troubling then to read that MSI was unable to evaluate whether the Refuge System was meeting its strategic goal of providing adequate water because the Fish and Wildlife Service does not currently operate a well-defined and structured water resources program. 

Considering that it has been over 10 years since the Refuge Improvement Act was passed, why has the Service not developed such 

a program? 

Mr. KURTH. I think Director Hall has consistently said that he 

believes water resources are going to be the conservation challenge 

of the twenty-first century. We take them seriously. 

The way to deal with water issues is so variable because of the 

complexities of water law from one part of the country to another 

69 

that we have largely taken a regionalized approach. In our western 

regions we do have staffs that have a good handle on water rights 

issues and where we need to acquire more water rights. 

It is a completely different legal framework in the east, and, 

quite frankly, these issues are emerging and we don’t really have 

a good handle on the future of water issues in the eastern United 

States. 

I think it is fair to say, though, that are databases to roll all this 

up don’t exist, that they are decentralized, and so that made it very 

much more difficult for MSI to evaluate us there. 

That strategic goal also, though, includes things like our ability 

to deal with environmental contaminants and air quality, and 

while we think MSI did a good job in this evaluation that is one 

area where we told them that we actually didn’t think that their 

review was effective as finding some sources of existing databases 

that exist in other programs and other places. 

So we believe in the issues of air quality and our handling of contaminant issues that data were available, and it was probably not 

the strongest part of the evaluation, in my opinion. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Kurth, I certainly understand the challenges 

involved, but 10 years? 

Mr. KURTH. Well, in that 10 years we have taken any number 

of actions throughout the country dealing with critical water issues. 

Our liability, in my mind, is that we aren’t doing the job that we 

need to do to have a centralized system that helps us understand 

the priorities. We have recently done a data call to all of our field 

stations asking them to give us their priorities in water needs, and 

it is not just purchasing water rights. It is projects to make sure 

we don’t have water loss in our irrigation systems and our water 

management systems. 

It is highly complex. We don’t have the hydrologists and things 

that we probably need to do a better job. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Well, I certainly feel that more progress should 

have been made in those 10 years. 

I would like to hear from Mr. Callihan since you are the—— 

Mr. CALLIHAN. On the water rights on the water program issues. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Yes. Yes. 

Mr. CALLIHAN. Yes. I mean, we came across a pretty intense 

level of activity in regard to water quality and water rights in the 

western regions, particularly out of the Sacramento office and in 

the southwest. 

The Refuge System I think has been mentioned as a very decentralized organization where the different regions are running their 

own programs. Sometimes they are similar between the regions. 

Sometimes they are not so similar. 

I think with the water program where it has operated it has been 

highly decentralized, as has been stated, but also we felt that there 

would be a benefit to having more policy, more program direction 

in place, more staffing. 

Of course, this gets back to the tension of more things need to 

be done but there are fewer people to do them, so that I imagine 

has also had an impact on this program. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much for the answer to the question. 

70 

I know it has been a long morning, and I want to thank all the 

witnesses for their participation in the hearing today—Ms. 

Nazzaro, Mr. Callihan, Mr. Kurth, Mr. Matson and Mr. Horn. 

Members of the Subcommittee may have some additional questions 

for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to these in writing. 

I think some of you did say that you didn’t have answers to some 

of our questions and you would prepare the reports and have it to 

us. The hearing record will be held open for 10 days for any of 

these responses. 

And if there is no further business before the Subcommittee, the 

Chairwoman again thanks the Members of the Subcommittee and 

our witnesses for their participation here this morning, and the 

Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ