U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Additional Flexibility Needed to Deal with Farmlands Received from the Department of Agriculture
Published: 2007-09-18T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Over the past two decades, provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, among others, have allowed the Department of Agriculture's Farm Service Agency in partnership with the Department of the Interior's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to add farmlands found to have important resources to the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Farm Service Agency transferred such farmlands to the Service through outright ownership ("fee simple") or through conservation easements. Individual farmlands are managed by the nearest refuge office. GAO was asked to examine (1) the extent of farmland received by the Service, (2) the extent to which the Service is currently managing its farmlands, and (3) alternatives for managing these lands. To answer these objectives, GAO visited five refuges and surveyed managers responsible for a random sample of 98 farmlands.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Since 1986, the Service reports that it has received at least 1,400 conservation easement and fee-simple farmlands covering 132,000 acres, but the actual number is unknown because the Service's records are incomplete. Scattered across 38 states, these farmlands range in size from less than 1 acre to more than 2,200 acres; most are smaller than 50 acres. In addition, GAO identified farmlands that were not reported by the Service headquarters or regional offices. Therefore, the numbers reported here represent a conservative estimate of the total acreage received from the Farm Service Agency. The Service is generally not managing a majority of its farmlands. In the past 5 years, only 13 percent have been inspected annually, on average. The Service is thus not adequately ensuring landowners' compliance with easement restrictions. GAO observed ongoing easement violations, including farming encroachment. Few refuge offices track changes in land ownership, and basic maintenance has seldom been completed. Several factors have hindered the Service's farmland management. First, refuge officials do not emphasize managing most of the lands because they do not believe they contribute to the refuges' mission. Second, uncertainty about the extent or scope of some easements makes management activity difficult. Third, constrained resources and declining staff hinder completion of management activities. Nevertheless, GAO found that farmlands most closely aligned with refuge goals receive considerably more attention. The Service possesses limited alternatives for managing its farmlands. Alternatives include (1) resetting refuge priorities to ensure that farmlands are given management attention, (2) requesting additional resources, and (3) paying little or no management attention to the farmlands. The Service has in most cases chosen the third alternative, and refuge officials indicated that this approach is unlikely to change. Because these lands are part of the National Wildlife Refuge System, under current law the Service cannot dispose of unwanted farmlands, regardless of their value to the refuge system's mission. Consequently, the Service may need additional flexibility on a limited and short-term basis to resolve the issue of unwanted farmlands.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Since the early 1900s, public lands have been set aside to protect natural  ecosystems, provide habitat for wildlife, and offer Americans recreational  opportunities. In the mid-1960s, Congress consolidated many of these  lands into the National Wildlife Refuge System, a vast, ecologically diverse  and valuable network of lands administered by the Department of the  Interior’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). Today, this system  comprises 548 wildlife refuges covering 96 million acres, of which more  than 17 million acres are located in the continental United States. The  mission of the 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 system includes land that has always been federally  owned, as well as land that has been acquired from other parties, including  state governments and private entities.
Through the Food Security Act of 1985 (Farm Bill) and subsequent  legislation, some land was added to the refuge system through a  partnership with the Department of Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency.  This agency was established in part to provide loans to farmers who were  otherwise unable to secure enough funding to operate their farms. If a  farmer was unable to repay such a loan, however, the Farm Service  Agency sometimes foreclosed on the loan and acquired the farm property.  Properties thus acquired went into the Farm Service Agency’s inventory,  with the goal that they would eventually be sold back into private  ownership. Because of a distressed farm economy at the time, the Farm  Service Agency had over a million acres of inventory properties when the  1985 Farm Bill became law. Provisions of the Farm Bill and subsequent  legislation authorized the Farm Service Agency to acquire land or interests  in land for conservation purposes. Under these authorities, the Farm  Service Agency placed conservation protections on its inventory  properties that contained important resources, which it defined as  wetlands, riparian zones, floodplains, coastal barriers, and other areas of  high ecological quality or important fish and wildlife habitat. In carrying  out these authorities, the Farm Service Agency generally consulted with  the Service to determine, among other things, which properties should be  protected. A memorandum of understanding signed in 1987 implements  this and other environmental management responsibilities of the two  agencies. Given the significant number of inventory properties in the mid- 1980s, the Service reviewed thousands of these properties over the  following decade and if important resources were identified on any  portion of a property, the Service recommended that the Farm Service  Agency protect that portion.
The Service recommended placement of conservation protections on  certain lands, but the Farm Service Agency made the final decision, often  negotiating with the Service on the specific number and location of acres  on a property that would be protected. Such protections usually consisted  of placing a perpetual easement on the property before selling it back into  private ownership or, in certain cases, transferring outright ownership in  fee simple to another federal or state agency, although preference was  given to the Service. An easement is a nonpossessory interest in land. With  an easement, the original landowner retains possession of the land, but,  depending on which resources are being protected, the easement places  restrictions on the land’s use. All of the easements prohibit landowners  from further developing the land subject to the easement, and many do not  allow any agricultural activities or alteration of the habitat. Not all of the  properties that the Service recommended for protection were of  equivalent ecological value, however. In some cases, for example, the  Service recommended protecting a site whose soil or other characteristics  indicated that it once was or could again become a wetland, even if the  site was no longer a wetland at the time because of alteration of the  habitat from farming practices, such as draining or leveling the land. In  addition, the 1990 and 1996 Farm Bills restricted the agency’s authority to  establish easements under the program.
In addition to helping the Farm Service Agency assess inventory  properties for important resources, in most instances the Service agreed to  serve as the manager of the easement properties. Other federal or state  agencies and private nonprofit organizations could also assume this duty,  but the Farm Service Agency gave priority to the Service. Moreover,  Service policy held that it would become the easement manager of  farmlands it had recommended for protection, unless another federal or  state easement manager had been identified. It was not uncommon for a  federal or state agency, including the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land  Management, or a state land management agency, to receive fee-simple  lands or easement management responsibilities, although the majority of  the farmlands were accepted by the Service. All farmlands received by the  Service from the Farm Service Agency—whether through an easement or  fee-simple ownership—were to be administered as part of the National  Wildlife Refuge System, with management responsibility for each farmland  generally falling to the nearest refuge office. Service guidance stipulates  that refuge offices are responsible for management activities, including  regularly inspecting farmlands to check for violations, determining  whether landowners are complying with all the easement restrictions, and  taking enforcement actions on violations. Because the lands, or the  interests in the lands, are government property, the Service may take civil  or criminal action against violators for the “destruction” of government  property. Refuge offices are also responsible for maintaining contact with  landowners, particularly new landowners; conducting maintenance,  including marking easement boundaries and sometimes installing or  maintaining fencing; and in some cases doing ecological restoration, such  as restoring wetlands.
After enactment of the 1985 Farm Bill, the Service accepted management  responsibilities for farmlands that were sometimes situated miles from the  nearest refuge and others that, after years of being farmed, were  ecologically degraded. From the outset, some refuge offices had concerns  about receiving certain farmlands. Refuge officials were often not involved  in the initial assessment of the inventory properties or in the decision to  accept management responsibility as part of the refuge system.  Particularly in cases where the farmlands were widely scattered or a long  way from the nearest refuge office, refuge officials were concerned  because of the potential costs of managing such far-flung parcels. Service  policy, however, held that the relative size of a farmland or its proximity to  an existing refuge should not be an overriding consideration in  recommending a property for an easement or fee-simple acquisition;  rather, according to a memorandum from the Director of the Service in  1988, the Service should make every effort to protect all lands identified as  having important resources, regardless of acreage. In addition, some  procedural and coordination problems between the two agencies were  never fully resolved. For example, the Service was not always notified of  the Farm Service Agency’s final decision on its recommendations for  protection, and in some cases it was several years after a recommendation  was made that the property was removed from inventory and an easement  placed on the land. Also, in many cases the Farm Service Agency did not  legally survey the land to outline precise boundaries.
In contrast, in the Prairie Pothole Region of the United States, which  comprises portions of the states of Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, North  Dakota, and South Dakota, farmlands received from the Farm Service  Agency have been managed much like other easements the Service has  acquired there. The Service has had a long-standing easement program in  this region to protect wetlands and grasslands for the benefit of migratory  waterfowl. It has run a regular program to manage all of its easement  acquisitions in the region, including farmlands received from the Farm  Service Agency, largely through routine aerial surveillance and on-the- ground inspections of suspected violations. Today the Service has more  than 28,000 perpetual easements in the Prairie Pothole Region, covering  more than 2.3 million acres, including more than 68,000 acres of easements  from the Farm Service Agency. Because of the unique nature of this  program, we excluded the farmlands found in the Prairie Pothole Region  from our review. Concurrent with this report, we are reporting separately  on the Service’s land acquisitions in this region.
For this report, outside of the Prairie Pothole Region, we examined (1) the  extent of farmland received by the Service from the Farm Service Agency,  (2) the extent to which the Service is currently managing its farmlands,  and (3) alternatives for managing these lands.
To address the objectives of this report, we visited and collected  documentation from five refuges located in five different regions. We also  interviewed officials at and collected documentation from the Service’s  headquarters and eight regional offices, as well as the Farm Service  Agency’s headquarters and four of its state offices. Additionally, we drew a  random sample of 98 farmlands, obtained from a list provided by the  Service, and conducted a telephone survey with the 51 refuge office  managers responsible for these lands about the management activities  they have undertaken on the lands during the years 2002 through 2006. We  received responses from 100 percent of our sample, and the results can be  projected to the population of documented farmlands, with an overall  margin of error of ±10 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level  unless otherwise noted. Specifically, to determine the extent of the  Service’s acquisition of farmlands, we obtained and reviewed property  records from the Service’s headquarters and regional offices and the  refuge offices that we visited. We assessed the reliability of the data and  found it to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We were  informed by some regional realty officials, however, that the database was  probably incomplete. Consequently, we contacted each regional office to  determine if the offices maintained additional farmland records outside of  the centralized database. Three Service regions provided us with  additional farmland records that were not contained in the database. To  determine the extent to which the Service is currently managing its  farmlands, we reviewed relevant agency guidance for managing easement  and fee-simple lands. Through our site visits and survey, we collected  information on the Service’s management activities, including information  on inspections, enforcement, contacts with landowners, maintenance, and  restoration, and on factors affecting their management of farmlands.  Finally, to determine alternatives for managing these lands, we examined  the Service’s management challenges and discussed them with  Department of the Interior officials, including officials from the Service’s  Realty and Refuge Offices, and the Department of the Interior’s Office of  the Solicitor. We performed our work from September 2006 through July  2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Appendixes I and II present a more detailed discussion of our  scope and methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The National Wildlife Refuge System provides habitat for more than 5,000  species of birds, mammals, and fish, and these refuges protect unique  wildlife habitats and species. Under the National Wildlife Refuge System  Administration Act of 1966, as amended, the Service is responsible for  managing each refuge to fulfill the mission of the system as a whole, as  well as to fulfill the specific purposes for which the individual refuge was  established. Therefore, refuges often have additional conservation goals  tailored to a specific purpose, such as protecting the habitat of particular  endangered or threatened species. Individual refuges may consist of  contiguous tracts of land—ranging from less than 1 acre to more than  19 million acres—or separate tracts of land scattered over one or more  states. Each refuge may encompass land that is (1) completely federally  owned; (2) primarily federally owned, with isolated tracts of nonfederal  land; or (3) in a few refuges, primarily nonfederally owned, with isolated  tracts of federal land. Each refuge is managed by a refuge manager and  other refuge staff, including biologists, law enforcement officers, and other  specialized staff. One of the Service’s eight regional offices oversees the  activities of each refuge; each region reports to Service headquarters in  Washington, D.C. (see fig. 1).
The Service has a process for adding lands to the refuge system: it may  acquire land by purchasing the land itself or purchasing interests in the  land, by accepting donations of land from nonfederal entities, by accepting  land transfers from other federal agencies, or by requesting a transfer of  land from the public domain into the refuge system. The Service can also  exchange tracts of land with nonfederal entities, such as state agencies or  private landowners, although the tracts of land must be comparably  valued. With few exceptions, all lands that become part of the refuge  system continue to be included in the system until otherwise specified by  an act of Congress. Typically, when evaluating lands for inclusion in the  refuge system, the Service conducts an assessment of the land, which  includes an in-depth biological evaluation and opportunities for public  participation and also requires approval by the Service Director or one of  the regional directors. The Service keeps an inventory of acquired lands,  or interests in lands, in a centralized database maintained by realty offices  in Service headquarters and regions.
The Service has also added lands to the refuge system through the  partnership it developed with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm  Service Agency to help it implement provisions of the 1985 Farm Bill and  subsequent legislation. Even before the 1985 Farm Bill was passed, the  Farm Service Agency had an affirmative responsibility to protect any of its  inventory properties that had wetland or floodplain values. Two executive  orders issued in 1977 called on all federal agencies to minimize the  destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and to restore and preserve  the natural and beneficial values supported by floodplains. In carrying  out their responsibilities, including acquiring, managing, and disposing of  federal lands, federal agencies were to preserve and enhance the natural  and beneficial values of wetlands. The 1985 Farm Bill and subsequent  legislation provided the Farm Service Agency the authority to protect any  of its land that contained wetlands and floodplains, in addition to other  important resources. Specifically, the Farm Service Agency had the  authority to place perpetual conservation easements on inventory  properties that contained important resources or to transfer lands in fee  simple to other entities, such as federal, state, or local government  agencies. Since the 1985 Farm Bill was enacted, subsequent legislation  substantially changed the amount and type of lands available for  protection. Notably, the 1990 and 1996 Farm Bills restricted the agency’s  authority to establish easements under the program. For example, the 1990  Farm Bill limited authorized easements on certain parcels of lands to no  more than 20 percent of the parcel available for agricultural production.  The 1996 Farm Bill removed these restrictions but imposed strict  procedural requirements for establishing an easement. Table 1 summarizes  the major executive orders and legislation affecting the protection of  farmlands.
In establishing easements, the Farm Service Agency generally used  boilerplate language that it developed in coordination with the Service.  Largely, it placed very restrictive easements on those portions of the  property that contained important resources. Easement restrictions  prevented the landowner from developing the land, conducting  agricultural practices, altering the vegetation or hydrology of the land in  any way, or otherwise disturbing the land. In some cases, if the purpose of  the easement was to protect a floodplain, then less-restrictive easement  language was used. On these easements, most agricultural practices were  allowed, and the landowner was restricted primarily from developing the  land.
In delineating easement boundaries on a property, the Farm Service  Agency generally established easement areas embedded within  noneasement farmland because the agency was protecting only those  portions of the property encompassing important resources. For example,  on a 150-acre farm, an easement might have protected only the 23 acres  that constituted a buffer to a stream running through the property. Or if  several wetlands were identified on a 320-acre field, only those wetlands,  possibly along with a buffer, might have received protection, while the  remainder of the field could still have been farmed (see fig. 2). As a result,  easement areas might consist of multiple, noncontiguous parcels on the  larger farm property.
section_title: The Service Has Received at Least 1,400 Farmlands Covering 132,000 Acres, but the Actual Number Is Unknown
paragraphs: The Service’s records indicate that it has received at least 1,400 easement  and fee-simple farmlands from the Farm Service Agency since 1986, but  the actual number is unknown. According to its records, the Service is  responsible for managing over 132,000 acres of mostly small farmlands  scattered across 38 states. In addition, we identified farmlands besides  those in the Service’s centralized database or reported to us by the  regional offices. Consequently, we conclude that the figures we report  represent a conservative estimate for the total amount of the Service’s  farmlands.
subsections: section_title: Since 1986, the Service Has Received Mostly Small Farmlands Scattered across 38 States
paragraphs: According to its records, the Service has received at least 1,400 farmlands  from the Farm Service Agency. About 90 percent of the lands are  privately owned, with easements on them; the Service owns the remaining  10 percent in fee simple. The farmlands cover more than 132,000 acres and  range in size from less than 1 acre to more than 2,200 acres. Most of the  farmlands, however, are small. Specifically, more than half the farmlands  are smaller than 50 acres, and only about 1 percent are larger than 1,000  acres (see table 2).
Farmlands owned by the Service in fee simple are generally larger than  farmlands with easements. While more than 60 percent of its fee-simple  lands are larger than 100 acres, less than 20 percent of the easement lands  exceed 100 acres. Accordingly, in terms of acreage, the Service owns  about 37,000 acres (28 percent) of its farmlands in fee simple, and nearly  95,000 acres (72 percent) are in the form of easements. The Service’s  farmlands are scattered across more than 500 counties in 38 states within  the continental United States, with the highest concentration of farmlands  located in the Midwest (see fig. 3).
The most common purpose for establishing easements or accepting fee- simple ownership was to protect wetlands. Specifically, the results of our  survey show that about 80 percent of the farmlands were received to  protect wetlands. Farmlands were also received for other conservation  purposes, such as protection of riparian zones; floodplains; or the habitats  of endangered or threatened species, including the bald eagle and San  Joaquin kit fox.
The majority of the farmlands were acquired between 1986 and the mid- 1990s; acquisitions over the past 10 years have been minimal (see fig. 4).  According to Farm Service Agency officials, acquisitions have declined  because significantly fewer farm properties have entered the Farm Service  Agency’s inventory since the mid-1990s. This is largely a result of the  improving farm economy and additional financing options farmers now  have besides loan foreclosure, according to the officials. Also, the  restrictions included in the 1990 and 1996 Farm Bills significantly reduced  the type of inventory farmlands available for protection.
About half the farmlands reported here are included in the Service’s  centralized database. We learned about the remaining half of the  farmlands from three regional realty offices. These regions, for various  administrative reasons, have not entered their records into the database,  according to Service officials. For example, in one region most easements  were not entered into the database because final legal reviews had not  been completed.
section_title: The Service’s Farmland Records Are Incomplete
paragraphs: We identified farmlands that were not in the Service’s centralized database  or reported to us by the regional realty offices and therefore conclude that  the Service has an incomplete account of its farmlands. Specifically,  through our site visits and contacts with refuge managers, we found  multiple instances in which individual refuge offices had files for farmland  easements that were not otherwise reported in the centralized database or  by the regional realty office. For example, one refuge manager we spoke  with said he was responsible for 29 additional farmlands not included in  the centralized database or reported to us by the regional realty office.  These farmlands equate to over 80 percent (more than 900 acres) of the  farmlands that this refuge is responsible for managing. In other instances,  the Service had made a recommendation to the Farm Service Agency to  establish an easement, but the refuge office lacked a final deed confirming  the easement’s establishment. As a result, some questions exist as to  whether the Service had received management responsibility for an  easement that was established on the land. At one of the refuge offices we  visited, for example, we identified 31 potential, or unconfirmed, easements  in addition to 5 confirmed easements, comprising over 1,500 acres, that  had not been reported to us. The refuge office’s files for the 31  unconfirmed easements contained documentation, such as maps and  records of site visits, but did not contain a final deed to confirm that the  easement was official. Farm Service Agency and Service officials we spoke  with in this state explained that the Farm Service Agency did not generally  send a copy of the final deed to the Service when an easement was  established. Thus, for these 31 unconfirmed farmlands, it is probable that  an easement was established and the Service received management  responsibility, but a copy of the final deed was simply not included in the  file.
Because of the Service’s incomplete records, even the refuge offices may  be unaware of all of the farmlands that they are in fact responsible for  managing. For example, in one region, a realty official told us that a  landowner had recently called the Service with a concern about an  easement on his land. The Service, however, was unaware that it was  responsible for managing the easement because it had no record of the  farmland. After the call from the landowner, the Service confirmed that an  easement had been established on the property by reviewing records at  the courthouse in the county in which the farmland is located. In contrast,  we identified a couple of instances where the refuge office maintained a  file for a farmland, or assumed it was responsible for managing a farmland,  when in fact the Service never received management responsibility, or an  easement had not been established.
section_title: The Service Is Generally Not Managing the Majority of Its Farmlands
paragraphs: The Service is generally not managing the majority of its farmlands.  Management activities the refuge offices are responsible for include  regularly inspecting their farmlands to check for violations; taking  enforcement actions on violations; maintaining contact with the  landowners of easement lands; conducting limited maintenance activities  including marking easement boundaries; and, in some cases, doing  ecological restoration. Overall, however, we found that most refuge offices  are carrying out these management activities on a very limited basis.  Several factors affect the extent to which refuge offices devote  management attention to their farmlands. First, devoting significant  management attention to many of the farmlands has not been a priority  because refuge officials do not believe that the lands contribute  significantly to the refuges’ goals or mission. Second, management of  easement lands may be difficult because of uncertainty surrounding the  scope and extent of the easements. Third, the Service is operating with  constrained resources and declining refuge staff and therefore the staff are  not able to complete all the activities they believe are necessary to manage  the farmlands. In some instances, however, we identified farmlands that  the refuges are actively managing, largely because the lands more closely  align with the refuges’ goals.
subsections: section_title: The Service Performs Limited to No Management Activities on Most of Its Farmlands
paragraphs: The Service’s refuge offices have carried out very limited management  activities on the majority of their farmlands. Through site visits to five  refuge offices and our survey of the refuge offices’ management of their  farmlands (which covered 2002 through 2006), we found that most  management activities, including inspections, contacts with landowners,  and maintenance and restoration activities, are carried out on only a very  limited basis. For an estimated 91 percent of farmlands, the refuge  managers believe that over the past 5 years they were able to accomplish  only half or less than half of the activities they believed were necessary to  manage these lands. In general, we also found that the Service’s fee-simple  farmlands tend to receive more management attention, particularly  inspections and completed restoration work, than its easement lands.
While Service guidance calls for each farmland to be inspected at least  once every year, very few farmlands are inspected annually. On-the-ground  inspections are important to determine whether the landowners are  complying with easement restrictions and to check for violations. From  our survey, however, we estimate that only 13 percent of the farmlands, on  average, have been annually inspected (see fig. 5). Additionally, on almost  one-third of the farmlands, refuge managers did not believe (and were  unable to provide documentation to show) that the farmlands had been  visited by refuge staff at any point over the 10-year period from 1997  through 2006.
Because the majority of farmlands are rarely inspected, refuge officials  may not know the extent to which violations may be taking place on their  farmlands. The farmlands, or the interests in them, are government  property, so the Service may take civil or criminal action against violators  for the destruction of government property. Through our survey, we found  that of the properties that were inspected at least once in the last 5 years,  the most recent inspection found violations on 26 percent of the  farmlands. Common violations included some agricultural practices such  as grazing or haying, trespassing, dumping trash, hunting illegally, or  removing signs (see fig. 6). At four of the five refuges we visited, we  identified a violation on at least one easement land. For example, we  visited one easement where the landowner had recently cleared much of  the natural vegetation with a bulldozer and burned the land; at a different  site, we saw where the landowner had built a driveway and shed through  the middle of the easement area. At still another refuge, the refuge  manager stated that of the 34 easement lands he has personally visited in  the last 3 years, 90 to 95 percent exhibit some kind of violation, most of  which degrade the ecological value of the land. At the fifth refuge,  violations appeared to be present on a few farmlands, but we could not  confirm them because of a lack of clear easement boundaries.
One way the Service can help prevent violations is by maintaining regular  contact with landowners and ensuring that landowners, particularly new  landowners, clearly understand the easement terms; yet despite Service  guidance to this effect, refuge managers rarely keep up with such contacts.  For instance, only 13 of the 51 refuge managers we surveyed reported that  they tracked land ownership changes on their easement lands—for  example, by checking land sales records at county courthouses—and only  11 reported that they notified new landowners about the easement on their  property. Several refuge managers said that farmlands changed ownership  frequently, making it difficult for them to keep up with the current  landowners for all their easement lands. For example, one refuge manager  stated that at least 70 percent of his 80 easement lands had changed  ownership in the past several years. Compounding these difficulties, if a  landowner divides and sells a portion of the farmland covered by an  easement, the Service must then track all landowners to ensure that all  portions of the easement area are in compliance. Through our survey, we  found that multiple ownerships under one easement are fairly common; in  one case, eight current landowners had a portion of a single easement on  their property.
Additionally, refuge offices have conducted very little maintenance on  their farmlands. On the basis of our survey, we estimate that  approximately 22 percent of the Service’s farmlands have received  maintenance over the past 5 years. While limited maintenance activities  are required, particularly on easement lands, certain basic activities are  called for. Specifically, Service guidance calls for all farmland boundaries  to be marked, or posted, in a manner that is clear to landowners and the  refuge officials responsible for managing them. During our site visits,  however, we found that the farmlands were often not posted. At two of the  refuges we visited, none of the easements were posted. At the other three  refuges, while some farmlands had a few postings, others did not. In some  cases, we also found that important fencing had not been installed or  maintained. For example, we visited one easement that was being  improperly grazed because the fencing that had been put up years ago was  no longer able to keep cattle from entering and grazing the easement land.
Similarly, refuge offices have completed only limited restoration activities  on their farmlands. When the farmlands were initially received from the  Farm Service Agency, the Service expected that restoring wetlands,  planting uplands, and other rehabilitation would be an important  component of the program, and in some cases a significant early  investment was made to restore some lands. From our survey, however,  we estimate that over the last 5 years, about 9 percent of the farmlands  have had restoration work done, such as planting trees or altering water  flow. Overall, since the farmlands were initially received by the Service,  refuge officials whom we surveyed were aware of restoration work on  only 24 percent of their farmlands. Service officials in one region told us  that although considerable funding was initially made available for  restoration projects, subsequent funding has not kept pace with  restoration or maintenance needs. For example, one of the refuge  managers in that region said that his office was given, on average, more  than $225,000 per year for restoration over the first 5 years of receiving  farmlands from the Farm Service Agency. This funding enabled  completion of all necessary restoration projects initially, he said, but later  funding to maintain the projects was not provided. In contrast, a number  of refuge managers said that restoration work is unnecessary on some  farmlands because the lands adequately achieve the conservation purpose  for which they were acquired if they are simply left in their natural state.
section_title: Several Factors Affect the Extent of the Service’s Management Activities
paragraphs: We found that several factors affect the extent to which the Service’s  refuge offices conduct management activities on their farmlands. First,  managing the farmlands has not been a high priority because refuge  officials do not believe that the lands contribute significantly to the  refuges’ goals or mission, because they are too small, isolated, and distant.  While the size of the farmlands varies considerably—of the more than  1,400 farmlands nationwide, size ranges from less than 1 acre to more than  2,200 acres—over 75 percent of the farmlands are less than 100 acres.  Several refuge managers commented that they consider 100 acres a  minimum size to support ecological viability, especially given the lands’  fragmented nature. Often the farmlands are fragmented among active  agricultural lands, have little or no connectivity to other wildlife habitat, or  are widely scattered over a vast area. The farmlands are also often located  many miles from the managing refuge office. At one refuge we visited, for  example, the office is responsible for managing more than 100 scattered  farmlands, many of which are located more than 60 miles away (see fig. 7).
Through our survey, we estimate that about 83 percent of the Service’s  farmlands are located an hour or more away from their respective refuges,  making it difficult for managers to visit them (see table 3). From a  statistical analysis of our survey results, we found that both larger  farmlands and those that are closer to the managing refuge were  significantly more likely to have been inspected in the past 2 years than  smaller or more distant farmlands.
Further, because managing the farmlands has not been a high priority, the  lands may not be achieving the conservation purpose for which they were  acquired. For example, we visited one farmland where an easement had  been acquired for wetland purposes, but over time, the area had been  filled in and become overgrown with dense vegetation and trees. The  refuge manager said that in that state, the land exhibited no wetland  characteristics and thus provided no value to any waterfowl species. He  said it would take a significant amount of restoration work and subsequent  continued maintenance to restore and sustain any wetland values on the  land. We found that refuge managers believe that about 23 percent of the  farmlands are currently meeting their conservation purpose to a great or  very great extent. We also noted instances where the Service’s assessment  determined that the land did not contain important resources worthy of  protecting, and the Service therefore did not request an easement on the  land; the Farm Service Agency nevertheless established an easement on  the land and named the Service the easement manager. In still other cases,  the specific acres protected did not match the areas the Service had  identified as containing important resources. For example, we reviewed  one case where the Service received a farmland in fee simple and also  received an additional parcel of land containing a potentially contaminated  concrete building left over from former farming operations.
Second, managing easement lands may be difficult because of uncertainty  surrounding the easements’ scope and extent. For instance, because legal  surveys often were not completed on the farmlands when the easements  were first established, precise boundaries may not be available. Few of the  property files we reviewed on our site visits contained evidence that the  land had been legally surveyed to establish precise boundaries. Through  our survey, we found that about 49 percent of the farmlands’ boundaries  were clear to refuge managers. The lack of clear boundaries has made it  difficult for some refuge officials to identify the location of all their  easement lands and has also made it difficult to identify violations, such as  farming encroachment or removal of vegetation, and to enforce  restrictions. For example, we visited an easement where the refuge  manager said the landowner moved the easement posting a few feet every  year so as to expand his farming operations onto the easement land.  Because the easement had not been legally surveyed, however, the refuge  manager said it would be very difficult to insist that the farmer move the  posting back to its original boundaries. The refuge manager said he was  not even sure where the posting should officially be, given the lack of clear  boundaries. In addition to unclear boundaries, some easement restrictions  have been difficult for refuge managers to fully interpret and, in some  cases, enforce. At one of the refuge offices we visited, for example, the  refuge manager explained that while the easement allows “normal farming  practices,” it also prohibits altering the land’s hydrology. He said that one  of the easement landowners used farming equipment to level his land.  According to the refuge manager, this leveling did alter the hydrology but  could also be considered part of “normal farming practices.” Thus, what  constitutes a violation may sometimes be unclear because of ambiguity in  the language of some easement restrictions.
Third, the Service is operating with constrained resources and declining  refuge staff, and therefore the refuge offices are not able to complete all  the activities they believe are necessary to manage the farmlands. Over the  past several years, refuge staff have been reduced significantly, and the  Service plans to further reduce the refuges’ workforce in the next 3 years  under current workforce-planning efforts aimed at cutting expenses.  Currently, nearly 200 refuges are unstaffed, with this number likely to  increase in the future. Senior headquarters and regional officials explained  that the refuges have done what they can to manage their farmlands, given  the limited resources they have at their disposal. For an estimated 88  percent of farmlands, the refuge managers believe that they have not had  enough resources to manage their farmlands over the past 5 years. A  number of refuge officials also specifically cited the lack of law  enforcement capabilities as a resource constraint. At two of the refuges we  visited, the offices did not have any kind of permanent law enforcement  staff; at two others, the law enforcement officer split his time between  refuge offices. Several managers pointed out that they simply would not  have the law enforcement capability to spend significant time taking  enforcement actions for violations on farmlands. Our survey results  suggest that the number of farmlands any one refuge office is responsible  for varies greatly (from 1 to over 100) and that the more farmlands a  refuge office is responsible for, the less likely the office is to have  inspected a property in the past 2 years.
section_title: Farmlands That Align Closely with Refuges’ Goals Receive More Management Attention
paragraphs: While the Service is generally not managing the majority of its farmlands,  in some instances we identified farmlands that refuge offices are devoting  significant management attention to, largely because these farmlands  more closely align with the refuges’ goals. Service officials explained that  farmlands that are or have the potential to be more ecologically valuable  generally receive more attention than those with less potential. For  example, the Service’s largest documented farmland is a fee-simple  acquisition 2,263 acres in size. When this land was acquired by the Service,  it was severely degraded by agricultural practices. At present, however,  because of significant restoration work done by refuge staff, the land  encompasses over 1,000 acres of native hardwood trees and abundant,  varied wildlife, including significant populations of marsh and water birds,  shorebirds, and other waterfowl. Although the land is located more than  an hour away from the refuge office responsible for managing it, the  refuge manager said that refuge staff visit the property multiple times per  year for restoration and maintenance activities. Funding was allocated for  restoration of this farmland before fiscal year 2002, but since then, the  refuge office has used routine refuge operations-and-maintenance funding  to manage it.
In other instances, farmlands are located in areas the refuge offices are  already focusing on, and these lands therefore receive more management  attention. For example, we visited one refuge office responsible for  managing a 606-acre easement adjacent to the refuge boundary that  provided a critical connection between the refuge and a river running  through the area. On this easement, the Service developed a management  plan to maintain and enhance wetland ecosystems, riparian zones, and  wildlife habitats while also allowing limited grazing on certain portions of  the land. In the last few years, the refuge office received grant funding to  conduct restoration work to increase the wetlands and address  channelization and erosion problems. Currently, two landowners each  own a parcel of the easement, and according to the refuge manager, they  have both supported the refuge’s efforts to restore the land. Overall, he  suggested, the situation is a good example of how Farm Service Agency  easement lands can successfully contribute to the mission of the National  Wildlife Refuge System.
In another instance, we visited a farmland of 361 acres owned in fee  simple by the Service that, because of its location, was turned into the  headquarters of a wetland management district. In this district, the Service  is working to acquire more wetland and upland habitat for waterfowl,  migratory birds, and other wildlife. The Service conducted wetlands  restoration work on the property and turned the old, dilapidated  farmhouse into the refuge office (see fig. 8). Fishing access, a nature trail,  and other environmental education activities now complement the  farmland’s restored wetlands.
section_title: The Service Has Limited Alternatives for Managing Its Farmlands
paragraphs: Since the Service first started receiving farmlands from the Farm Service  Agency more than two decades ago, it has had limited alternatives for  managing them because the lands became part of the National Wildlife  Refuge System. The alternatives include (1) resetting refuge priorities to  ensure that farmlands are given management attention, (2) requesting  additional resources, and (3) paying little or no management attention to  the farmlands. Generally, when a farmland has significantly contributed to  the goals and mission of the responsible refuge, the Service has either  adjusted its refuge priorities to ensure farmland management or found the  resources necessary to actively manage the property. These instances have  been rare, however. For most farmlands, the Service has chosen the third  alternative—paying little or no management attention to its farmlands— and it is unlikely to increase its management attention. Refuge officials we  spoke with said that they were unlikely to raise the priority of farmland  management activities in the future unless additional refuge funding was  provided or regional or national officials directed them to do so. They  explained that because of the nature of the farmlands, it simply does not  make sense to reset refuge priorities to increase management attention to  them. Refuge managers said that they would also be highly unlikely to ask  for additional resources to manage farmlands, except in rare instances,  because of the continuing shortfall in resources to complete even their  core refuge activities, such as protecting critical habitat. Service  headquarters and regional officials agreed that as staff and budgets  continue to be downsized, further management attention to the farmlands  is unlikely. By paying little or no management attention to its farmlands,  however, the Service risks allowing habitats to be degraded; violations to  go unchecked; and, in some cases, government property to be damaged.
Because these farmlands are now part of the National Wildlife Refuge  System, the Service has limited options—restricted by federal law and  executive orders—for relinquishing management responsibilities for  unwanted farmlands or farmlands it deems not in the best interest to  retain in the refuge system. Under provisions of the National Wildlife  Refuge Administration Act of 1966, as amended, lands that are part of the  National Wildlife Refuge System cannot be transferred or otherwise  disposed of (except by exchange) unless the Secretary of the Interior  determines, with the concurrence of the Migratory Bird Conservation  Commission, that the land or interest in lands is no longer needed for the  purposes for which the refuge system was established. Refuge lands have  never been transferred or disposed of in this manner, however. In  addition, the Service is required to abide by the provisions of Executive  Order 11990, covering wetland protection, and Executive Order 11988,  covering floodplain management, which require protection and  preservation of these resources. It has also been the policy of the federal  government since 1989 to achieve “no net loss” of wetlands in carrying out  the government’s land management activities.
In a few isolated instances, the Service has successfully exchanged  farmlands for private lands under existing authorities. According to  Service officials, fee-simple farmlands were generally exchanged for  private lands to acquire lands nearer existing refuges, and easement  exchanges were done mainly to acquire land that was more ecologically  valuable or to enable landowners to accomplish their land use objectives.  Service officials told us, however, that the possibilities for further land  exchanges are limited, especially for easement lands. On fee-simple lands,  the main difficulty is finding private entities that are interested in  obtaining the Service’s isolated parcels and also own lands the Service is  interested in acquiring. For easement lands, the only parties interested in  acquiring easement rights are usually the underlying landowners, and  rarely do they own other lands that would make sense to exchange. In  addition, for both fee-simple and easement properties, the administrative  and procedural aspects of accomplishing land exchanges are often  extremely costly and burdensome. For instance, we reviewed one  exchange, involving an easement, that took more than 3 years to complete  and required costly survey and appraisal work in addition to significant  time and effort on the part of Service realty and refuge staff.
In addition to exchanges, the Service can look to third parties, such as  state agencies or nonprofit organizations, to establish cooperative  agreements to manage its farmlands. For example, one refuge has an  agreement with a state agency to manage one of its farmlands because the  land is located near a state-owned natural area. Service officials indicated  that such situations are rare, however, and it is unlikely that many  additional cooperative agreements will be established, given the location,  size, and ecological value of the lands and the management costs to these  groups—the very reasons the Service does not itself accord the lands  significant management attention.
In contrast, other federal land management agencies have authorities that  provide them flexibility to dispose of lands found not in their best interest  to retain. These authorities may provide models for addressing farmlands  that the Service determines no longer serve the purposes of the refuge  system. For example, under the Southern Nevada Public Land  Management Act of 1998, the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land  Management has the authority to sell or exchange public land within a  specific area around Las Vegas, Nevada. A portion of the proceeds from  the sale of such lands is put into a fund that is then used for a variety of  purposes, including conservation initiatives and certain land acquisitions.  The account is also available for the reimbursement of costs incurred by  the local offices of the Bureau of Land Management in arranging sales or  exchanges under this act.
Similarly, the Small Tracts Act gives the Department of Agriculture’s  Forest Service the authority to sell certain small, isolated parcels of its  landholdings under specific conditions. Specifically, eligible parcels may  be sold if they have a market value of less than $150,000, are smaller than  40 acres, are not efficiently administered because of their location and  size, and cannot be sold under any other authority. The Small Tracts Act  authorizes the Forest Service to exchange lands or interests in lands of  approximately equal value without need of formal appraisals. This  authority can greatly facilitate land transactions where the cost of the  appraisals is significant enough to diminish the likelihood of the  transaction. Pending legislation would, among other provisions, increase  the acreage from 40 to 100 acres.
Additionally, the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of  1949, as amended, governs the disposal of most federal property that a  federal agency no longer needs to carry out its mission, programs, and  activities. Such property is reported as excess to the General Services  Administration and offered first to other federal agencies for their use and  then to state or local governments or to certain tax-exempt nonprofit  organizations through such mechanisms as negotiated or public sales. If  these entities do not wish to acquire the property, the General Services  Administration can then dispose of it through a competitive sale to the  public, generally via sealed bid or auction.
If the Service had authority for its farmlands similar to the above  examples, it could consolidate some of its unwanted farmlands through an  arrangement where it sold fee-simple farmlands or the easement rights and  then directed the proceeds to the purchase of lands that were more closely  aligned with the goals and mission of the refuge system. Considerations  such as the time frame for allowing such sales and purchases, and whether  such activities could occur on a nationwide scale or whether purchases  would be limited to the states or region in which the sale took place,  would be important. An advantage to such an arrangement would be that  the Service could, at a minimum, offset the loss of any wetlands and  floodplains. According to Service officials, however, a significant obstacle  to this option would be that although farmlands owned in fee simple can  have considerable market value, many of the easements have little or no  tangible market value, and easement sales may therefore be difficult or  impossible. Therefore, granting the Service authority specific to its  farmlands similar to that granted under the Southern Nevada Public Land  Management Act, the Small Tracts Act, or the Federal Property and  Administrative Services Act, while useful, would not likely be sufficient to  address most of the Service’s unwanted farmlands.
Further, the Service recently developed a proposal to divest some of its  limited-interest refuges in North Dakota. The divestiture proposal was  developed to help ensure that future resources are expended on lands that  support the mission and goals of the refuge system. Under the proposal,  refuge lands were selected for divestiture on the basis of specific criteria,  including how well the lands achieved one or more of the goals of the  National Wildlife Refuge System, whether the lands met their intended  purpose, whether the lands had biological integrity, and whether it was  possible to restore them. This divestiture proposal would require  congressional authorization for the properties recommended for  divestment. The Service could expand this model and adapt the criteria to  address management limitations specific to the farmlands, such as  property size, distance from the refuge office, number of refuge staff  available, as well as ecological considerations. Using such criteria, the  Service could propose to Congress a list of specific farmlands to be  divested, along with written justification outlining the Service’s judgments.
We encountered a wide array of perspectives with regard to the value the  farmlands bring to the refuge system, the costs of their management, and  what should be done with those lands that are not significantly  contributing to the refuge systems’ goals and mission. For instance, some  refuge managers and regional officials we spoke with believed that the  ecological value of the farmlands is not calculable—especially from a long- term viewpoint, such as 50 years hence—and therefore all the farmlands  should be retained. Some refuge managers spoke of the low-risk nature of  many of the farmlands—lands where threats of violations are low, where  maintenance needs are minimal, and where the undisturbed natural state  maintains ecological value. These types of farmlands do not require active  restoration, and management, namely regular inspections and contacts  with landowners, would take only minimal effort. Other headquarters,  regional, and refuge officials, however, spoke of operational efficiencies in  the face of continually constrained budgets. These officials were apt to  suggest balancing resource constraints against the ecological value of the  farmlands in comparison with the value of refuge lands; they argued that  in this context, it does not make sense to expend any resources on some  of the farmlands. When asked, most refuge officials were generally able to  identify farmlands that they believed would not have ecological value  sufficient for continued inclusion in the refuge system, even with  significantly increased resources or refuge staff. Some officials were  reluctant to suggest that the Service should attempt to relinquish its  management responsibilities on those lands, however, for fear of opening  the door to potential divestiture of other, more critical refuge lands, which  could bring about a significant ecological loss to the refuge system.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The 1985 Farm Bill and subsequent legislation provided the Service, in  partnership with the Farm Service Agency, a mechanism to protect, as part  of the National Wildlife Refuge System, farmlands that encompassed  wetlands or other important natural resources. The Service is now  responsible for managing a significant number of both conservation  easement and fee-simple farmlands across most of the continental United  States. The Service does not have a complete accounting of all of its  farmlands, however, so the actual scope of its responsibilities is not  certain. As a result, it may be unable to accurately assess its management  needs. Given the farmlands’ wide variation in size, location, and other  characteristics, a complete accounting is needed to best determine how  these lands should be managed in the future.
Since its first farmland acquisition more than 20 years ago, the Service has  generally used the tools at its disposal to deal with these lands as best it  could. We agree with the Service that its main priority, and its limited  resources, should be directed at managing and sustaining its core refuge  lands. However, by not conducting at least a minimum level of  management activities on the farmlands it has acquired, including  inspecting the lands on a regular basis, posting the lands, and ensuring  that landowners are aware of restrictions, the Service could ultimately see  the loss or degradation of the resources it was given the responsibility to  protect. Under current law, the Service has very few alternatives for  reducing or removing management responsibilities for lands received from  the Farm Service Agency that are not significantly contributing to the  mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Therefore, we  believe the Service needs additional flexibility to better align the  farmlands it is responsible for with the goals and mission of the refuge  system.
Other federal land management agencies have authorities to dispose of  lands found not in their best interest to retain, and these authorities could  serve as a starting point for the possible development of a legislative  solution for farmlands the Service received from the Farm Service Agency.   Existing authorities have largely been applied to fee-simple lands, and  their applicability to easements may be limited, largely because of the  relatively low market value of many of the easements. Partly for this  reason, a variety of approaches may be warranted and tailored to the  specific farmlands that the Service determines should no longer be  included in the refuge system. In any approach the Service takes to alter  its current farmland management responsibilities, to the extent possible, it  should strive to maintain a conservation focus. For example, the Service  could seek authority to invest the proceeds from the sale of any farmlands  into conserving other lands or to offer farmlands to state agencies or  nonprofits for conservation purposes. Additionally, because any federal  land divestment proposal raises significant concerns, crucial variables to  consider include a time limit to identify potential farmlands for divestment  and narrowly limiting the scope of any divestment proposal to only those  farmlands the Service identifies as unwanted.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Service’s management  of its farmlands, we recommend that the Secretary of the Interior direct  the Director of the Service to take the following two actions:    ensure that the Service’s records for all of its farmlands are accurate  and complete by reconciling regional and refuge office records and  property records to determine which farmlands were transferred from  the Farm Service Agency, and   develop a proposal to Congress seeking the authority for additional  flexibility with regard to the farmlands the Service determines may not  be in the best interest to continue to include as part of the National  Wildlife Refuge System.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided copies of our draft report to the Department of the Interior  and the Department of Agriculture. The Department of the Interior  concurred with our recommendations and agreed to take action on both  recommendations by the end of calendar year 2009. In addition, the  department provided several technical clarifications, which we  incorporated as appropriate. Appendix III contains the Department of the  Interior’s comment letter. The Department of Agriculture provided no  comments.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional  committees, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, the  Director of the Service, the Administrator of the Farm Service Agency, and  other interested parties. We also will make copies available to others upon  request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO  Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff has any questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are  listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To examine the extent of farmland received by the Department of the  Interior’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) from the Department of  Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency, we interviewed officials at and  reviewed documentation from the Service’s headquarters and regional  offices. Specifically, we requested all farmland acquisition data from the  Service’s centralized land records system—its database for tracking lands,  including interests in lands, under its control. To assess the reliability of  the data we received from this database, we interviewed officials most  knowledgeable about the collection and management of these data, and  we reviewed relevant data controls. On the basis of our review, we  concluded that the database records were sufficiently reliable for us to  report on what information the database contained. We were informed by  some regional realty officials, however, that the database was likely  incomplete. Consequently, we contacted each regional office to determine  if the offices maintained additional farmland records outside the  centralized database. Three Service regions provided us with additional  farmland records that were not contained in the database. We also visited  and collected additional farmland records from five refuge offices in five  different regions. At each site, we completed a detailed review of the  available files on farmlands and compared this information with the  information we received from the Service’s centralized database, regional  offices, or both, as applicable. We selected the sites to visit using the data  we were given from the Service’s headquarters and three regional offices  to identify the refuge office responsible for managing the largest number  of farmlands in each Service region. The five refuge offices we visited  were Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge near Tishomingo, Oklahoma  (region 2); Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge near Saginaw, Michigan  (region 3); North Mississippi Refuge Complex near Grenada, Mississippi  (region 4); Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge near Seneca Falls, New  York (region 5); and Modoc National Wildlife Refuge near Alturas,  California (region 8). In addition, we also interviewed the Farm Service  Agency officials at its headquarters and four of its state offices to  determine the availability of records it may have maintained on farmlands  it transferred, either in fee simple or through an easement, to the Service.  We found that the Farm Service Agency generally did not maintain  organized historical records of all its transfers to the Service.
To examine the extent to which the Service is currently managing its  farmlands, we identified and analyzed applicable laws, policies, and  procedures governing the Service’s farmland management, and we  interviewed officials at the Service’s headquarters, regional offices, and  the five refuge offices we visited. During our site visits, we reviewed the  files for each farmland in detail, including inspection records; records of  landowner contacts; records of completed restoration and maintenance  work; and general information about the farmland, including the easement  restrictions, boundary demarcations, and other legal documentation.  During these site visits, we also saw a sample of farmlands that the refuge  office was responsible for managing and learned what inspection activities  entailed. We also observed the condition of each farmland, whether  easement signs were clearly visible, and whether there were any signs of  easement violations or other problems. We also designed and conducted a  survey, through structured telephone interviews, of refuge managers from  across the United States about the extent to which they are managing their  farmlands. We received a 100 percent response rate from the simple  random sample of 98 farmlands we selected from the population of 1,423  farmland records that were provided to us by the Service’s headquarters  and regional offices. Appendix II discusses our survey methodology in  greater detail.
To examine the Service’s alternatives for managing its farmlands, we  interviewed headquarters and regional officials from the Service’s Realty  and Refuge Offices in addition to the refuge office managers contacted  through our site visits and telephone survey. We also interviewed the  Department of the Interior’s Office of the Solicitor. Further, we analyzed  relevant federal laws and Service policies governing options for managing  lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System, and we reviewed federal  laws governing land management in other federal agencies, including the  Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management and the  Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service.
We performed our work between September 2006 and July 2007 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Appendix II: Survey of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Farmland Management
paragraphs: To further examine the extent to which the Department of the Interior’s  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is currently managing the  farmlands it received from the Farm Service Agency, we designed and  conducted a survey, through structured telephone interviews, of refuge  managers from across the United States about the extent to which they are  managing their farmlands. The questions were designed to obtain  information on the number of farmlands each refuge is responsible for and  on the nature and quantity of inspections, violations, landowner contact,  maintenance, and restoration activity that occur on each farmland. In  addition, the structured interviews solicited information on factors that  may hinder the refuge offices’ ability to manage their farmlands. The  interview questions focused primarily on management activities that took  place over the 5-year period from 2002 through 2006. We selected a simple  random sample of 106 farmlands from the population of 1,423 farmland  records that were provided to us by the Service’s headquarters and  regional offices as of February 22, 2007. After we selected our sample, we  determined that 8 of the farmlands were not under the management  jurisdiction of the Service, so our final sample consisted of 98 farmlands.  We conducted structured telephone interviews with the 51 refuge offices  responsible for managing these 98 farmlands, which included both fee- simple and easement lands located in 24 states across the nation.
We developed a structured interview guide with the assistance of a GAO  survey specialist and pretested it over the telephone with refuge managers  and staff from 17 refuge offices; we then revised the structured interview  guide, as appropriate, on the basis of the pretest results. A second GAO  survey specialist independently reviewed our interview guide to ensure  that the questions followed general principles of survey research. To  conduct our survey, we e-mailed each refuge manager responsible for one  or more of the 98 farmlands in our sample and requested a telephone  interview. We held our structured telephone interviews from March 22,  2007, through May 1, 2007, with the person whom the refuge identified as  most knowledgeable about managing the farmlands in question—usually  the refuge manager—along with other refuge staff familiar with sample  farmlands. At the end of each telephone interview, we requested that the  refuge manager send us all documentation available to support the  information provided in the interview, such as records indicating when  inspections or restoration activities occurred. On receiving the  documentation, we compared it with the information given in the  interview. Reviewing this documentation gave us additional confidence in  the data we collected during our structured telephone interviews. We did  not encounter any significant discrepancies between the information  collected during the interviews and the documentation supplied by refuge  officials.
Our interview response rate was 100 percent, and the results can be  projected to the population of documented farmlands. The results cannot  be projected, however, to the additional undocumented farmlands we  became aware of during our audit work because data for these lands were  not available at the time our random sample was chosen and were  therefore not represented in our sample. Percentage estimates based on  our sample have margins of error of ±10 percentage points at the  95 percent confidence level unless otherwise noted. We also asked a few  questions that were not specific to a sampled farmland but, rather, applied  to the refuge office’s management of all its farmlands. Responses to these  officewide questions cannot be projected to a population of wildlife  refuges and are not presented as such. We also analyzed responses to  open-ended interview questions to identify common themes and to provide  context for the responses to our specific questions.
During the telephone survey, we took steps to ensure data quality.  Because of the practicalities of conducting structured telephone  interviews, interviewees’ responses may reflect errors; interviewees may  misinterpret a question, for example. We took steps in developing and  conducting the survey to reduce such errors. First, we conducted the  interviews in a standardized manner to ensure that each respondent was  asked the same questions, each with precise wording, and in the same  order. Second, during the interviews, we annotated responses with notes  about respondent’s hesitations, inconclusiveness, inconsistencies, or  inability to answer the question directly or succinctly. We reviewed these  notes before data analyses to ensure response accuracy. Third, for some  questions, we asked respondents directly about their level of certainty  regarding a response, for example, whether their response was “precise”  or “approximate.” Finally, we validated responses obtained from the  structured interviews with documentation from the refuges. For example,  we verified such items as inspection dates, acreage amounts, and  violations against the interview responses. All survey data were entered  into a statistical analysis program and verified for accuracy. The results  were then summarized and tabulated.
Table 4 summarizes the key questions we are reporting on that we asked  during the structured interviews about the management of each sampled  farmland. We also asked other questions that we do not specifically report  on to supply further context for interviewees’ responses. For example,  after asking whether a certain management activity had occurred, such as  an inspection, we asked the respondent during which season and year the  activity took place and to describe the activity.
In addition, to further analyze our survey responses, we applied certain  statistical transformations to the data, which we then analyzed for  statistically significant patterns. Specifically, using responses about when  the farmlands were inspected with specific farmland characteristics as  discussed below, we created new variables to assess correlations. During  our site visits, interviews, and telephone survey, refuge managers  mentioned several reasons that some farmlands are inspected while other  farmlands are not. These reasons included farmland size; distance  between a farmland and the refuge office; and refuge workload, including  the number of other properties managed by the refuge office. To  corroborate these explanations, we performed a statistical procedure  known as logistic regression analysis. Logistic regression can be used to  determine whether farmlands that are inspected have different  characteristics, on average, from farmlands that are not inspected. We  used logistic regression to assess the size and the significance of the  effects of the following three factors: property size, distance to refuge  office, and the number of properties managed by a refuge.
We estimated the effects of these three different factors on the likelihood  of properties’ being inspected, using straightforward contingency-table  methods (i.e., bivariate cross-tabulations) and using bivariate and  multivariate logistic regression models. The three sections of table 5 show  the bivariate relationships between inspection status (i.e., whether the  property had been inspected in the previous 2 years) and each of the three  factors: (1) property size (top section), (2) distance from the property to  the managing refuge (middle section), and (3) the number of properties  managed by the refuge (bottom section). When we considered each of  these relationships independently (i.e., one at a time), we found that  whether a property had been inspected in the preceding 2 years was  significantly associated with each of the three factors:    Larger properties were more likely to have been inspected in the  preceding 2 years than smaller ones. Although 67 percent of the  properties larger than 100 acres were inspected, only 45 percent of the  properties between 11 and 100 acres in size were inspected, and only  7 percent of those properties 10 acres or smaller were inspected.
Properties that were closer to the managing refuge were more apt to  have been inspected than those farther away. Eighty-four percent of  the properties closer than 50 miles from the managing refuge were  inspected, but only 37 percent of the properties between 50 and 100  miles from the refuge, and 27 percent of the properties farther than  100 miles from the refuge, were inspected.
Properties managed by refuges with more properties to manage were  less likely to have been inspected than properties managed by refuges  with fewer properties to manage. Sixty-two percent of the properties  managed by refuges that managed fewer than 20 properties were  inspected, while only 41 percent and 13 percent of the properties  managed by refuges that managed 20 to 49 and 50 properties or more,  respectively, were inspected.
While sizable confidence intervals are associated with each of these  estimates of the percentage of inspected properties (see table 6), all of  these bivariate associations were statistically significant (at the p = 0.05  level or better). Moreover, when we used bivariate logistic regression  models to estimate these associations, we found that each association was  well described by simple models that constrained the associations to be  linear. To understand these models, it is helpful to consider the three right- hand columns of table 5, which show for each category of property size,  distance from the refuge, and number of properties managed by the refuge  the observed odds on being inspected, observed odds ratios, and odds  ratios under a linear model.
The observed odds are obtained by dividing, for each group of properties,  the number (or percentage) of properties inspected by the number (or  percentage) of properties not inspected. For properties 10 acres or  smaller, the odds on being inspected were 1/14 = 0.07, whereas for  properties 11–100 acres in size and larger than 100 acres, the odds on  being inspected were 26/32 = 0.81 and 12/6 = 2.00, respectively. The  observed odds ratios are obtained by dividing the odds for any given  category by the odds for the next lower category. In these data, we find  that properties in the middle acreage category were more likely to have  been inspected than those in the lowest acreage category (by a factor of  0.81/0.07 = 11.38) and that properties in the highest acreage category were  more likely to have been inspected than those in the middle category (by a  factor of 2.00/0.81 = 2.47). Like the percentages already mentioned, these  observed odds and odds ratios, derived directly from the sample data,  involve considerable error and sizable confidence intervals, and a simple  linear model estimating differences among size categories fits acceptably.  Under this model, the odds on being inspected were greater for properties  11 to 100 acres in size than for properties 10 acres or smaller, and greater  for properties larger than 100 acres than for properties 11 to 100 acres in  size, in both cases by a factor of 4.0. These ratios are shown in the right- hand column of table 5. This column also shows that the effect of distance  yields a linear odds ratio of 0.31 (properties farther away than 50 to 100  miles were less likely to have been inspected than properties closer than  50 miles, by a factor of 0.31, and properties farther away than 100 miles  were less likely to have been inspected than properties 50 to 100 miles  away by that same factor). A similar odds ratio of 0.32 estimates the linear  effect of the number of properties managed by the refuge responsible for  each.
We also used multivariate logistic regression models to simultaneously  estimate the effects of these three factors on the likelihood of properties’  being inspected. These models allowed us to isolate the independent effect  of each factor by adjusting for the effects of the other two factors. We also  used robust procedures to account for the lack of independence across the  observations (i.e., properties), that is, the clustering of properties within  refuges. We obtained the following results:   The effect of size remained pronounced and significant even after  adjusting for the effects of distance and number of other properties  managed by the responsible refuge. The adjusted odds on properties’  being inspected were 3.5 times higher for properties 11 to 100 acres in  size than for properties 10 acres or smaller, and they were 3.5 times  higher for properties larger than 100 acres than for properties 11 to 100  acres in size. In other words, properties between 11 and 100 acres were  3.5 times more likely to be inspected than properties 10 acres or  smaller. Similarly, properties larger than 100 acres were 3.5 times more  likely to be inspected than properties between 11 and 100 acres.
The effect of distance remained pronounced and significant even after  adjusting for the effects of size and number of properties managed. The  adjusted odds on properties being inspected were lower for properties  50 to 100 miles from the responsible refuge than for properties closer  than 50 miles, and lower for properties farther than 100 miles away  than for properties 50 to 100 miles away, in both cases by a factor of  0.34. (Because odds ratios are symmetric, this result implies that the  odds on being inspected were about 2.9 times higher for properties  closer than 50 miles than for properties 50 to 100 miles away, and about  3.4 times higher for properties 50 to 100 miles away than for properties  farther than 100 miles away.)
The effect of the number of properties managed was not statistically  significant when size and distance were taken into account. Our sample  of properties is small for detecting any but fairly sizable effects,  however, especially in a multivariate context, and the net effect of  number of properties, while statistically insignificant, is sizable enough  to warrant further attention (the adjusted linear odds ratio is 0.54).
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Jeffery D. Malcolm, Assistant  Director; Mark A. Braza; Ellen W. Chu; Richard P. Johnson; Alyssa M.  Hundrup; Michael Krafve; Gretchen Snoey; and Arvin Wu make key  contributions to this report. Also contributing to the report were  Antoinette Capaccio, George H. Quinn Jr., Mark Ramage, Jena Y. Sinkfield,  and Douglas M. Sloane.