Wildlife Refuges: Trends in Funding, Staffing, Habitat Management, and Visitor Services for Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007
Published: 2008-09-24T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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 about 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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. 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 in order 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 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 often than they worsened, but between 7 and 20 percent of habitats were of poor quality in 2007. Certain habitat problems increased at more than half of refuges during thisperiod, 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 four key visitor service programs was reported to be stable or improving between fiscal years 2002 and 2007 at the vast majority of refuges, the other two key programs--environmental education and interpretation--were considered poor quality at one-third of refuges in 2007. Changes in the time spent on visitor services varied considerably across refuges, and managers noted that visitor services are generally 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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 “stand-alone” 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.
subsections: section_title: Numerous Changes Affected Refuge Management
paragraphs: 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 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. 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. 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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
section_title: Changes in Habitat Management and Visitor Services
paragraphs: 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.
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.
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).
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 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 one–third 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 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.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.