The National Wildlife Refuge System comprises the only federal lands managed primarily for the benefit of wildlife. The refuge system consists primarily of National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) and Waterfowl Production Areas and Coordination Areas. The first national wildlife refuge, Florida’s Pelican Island, was established by President Roosevelt in 1903 to protect the dwindling population of wading birds in Florida. As of July 1994, the system included 499 refuges in all 50 states and several U.S. territories and accounted for over 91 million acres. (See fig. 1.) The Fish and Wildlife Services’ (FWS) Division of Refuges provides overall direction for the management and operation of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Day-to-day refuge activities are the responsibility of the managers of the individual refuges. Because the refuges have been created under many different authorities, such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, and by administrative orders, not all refuges have the same specific purpose or can be managed in the same way. The ESA was enacted in 1973 to protect plants and animals whose survival is in jeopardy. The ESA’s goal is to restore listed species so that they can live in self-sustaining populations without the act’s protection. As of April 1994, according to FWS, 888 domestic species have been listed as endangered (in danger of extinction) or threatened (likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future). The ESA directs FWS to emphasize the protection of listed species in its acquisition of refuge lands and in its operation of all refuges. Under the ESA, the protection, recovery, and enhancement of listed species are to receive priority consideration in the management of the refuges. FWS’ Division of Endangered Species provides overall guidance in the implementation of the ESA. FWS’ regions are generally responsible for implementing the act. Among other things, the act requires FWS to develop and implement recovery plans for all listed species, unless such a plan would not benefit the species. Recovery plans identify the problems threatening the species and the actions necessary to reverse the decline of a species and ensure its long-term survival. Recovery plans serve as blueprints for private, federal, and state interagency cooperation in taking recovery actions. Of all the listed species, 215, or 24 percent, occur on wildlife refuges.(See app. I for the listed species that occur on refuges.) Figure 2 shows the types of listed species found on refuges. As the figure shows, more than two-thirds of the species are plants, birds, and mammals. Fishes (27) Mammals (40) 9% Reptiles (19) Note 1: Percentages have been rounded. Note 2: The total number of species is 215. Note 3: “Other” includes amphibians (2), clams (6), crustaceans (1), insects (7), and snails (1). Some refuges represent a significant portion of a listed species’ habitat. According to FWS regional refuge officials, 66 refuges—encompassing a total of 26.7 million acres, including 22.6 million acres on two Alaska refuges—provide a significant portion of the habitat for 94 listed species. For example, Ash Meadows NWR in Nevada has 12 listed plants and animals that exist only at the refuge—the largest number of listed native species at one location in the United States. In addition, Antioch Dunes NWR in California contains virtually the entire remaining populations of three listed species—the Lange’s metalmark butterfly, the Antioch Dunes evening-primrose, and the Contra Costa wallflower. (App. II lists the refuges that provide a significant portion of a listed species’ habitat and the specific species that occur at these refuges.) Some listed species use the refuges on a temporary basis for migratory, breeding, and wintering habitat. As previously shown in figure 1, the refuges are often located along the primary north-south routes used by migratory birds. Migratory birds use the refuges as temporary rest-stops along their migration routes. The listed wood stork, for example, migrates in the spring from southern Florida to Harris Neck NWR in Georgia to nest in the refuge’s freshwater impoundments. In addition, several refuges provide breeding habitat for listed species. The Blackbeard Island and Wassaw refuges in Georgia and the Merritt Island NWR in Florida, for example, provide beach habitat for the listed loggerhead sea turtle to lay its eggs. Wildlife refuges and refuge staff contribute to the recovery of listed species in a variety of ways. Foremost, refuges provide secure habitat, which is often identified as a key component in the recovery of listed species. In addition, refuge staff carry out, as part of their refuge management activities, specific actions to facilitate the recovery of listed species. Refuge staff also participate in the development and review of recovery plans for listed species. One of the primary efforts for the recovery of listed species is to stabilize or reverse the deterioration of their habitat. Refuges contribute to the recovery of listed species by providing secure habitat. Our review of 120 recovery plans for listed species occurring on refuges disclosed that 80 percent of the plans identified securing habitat as an action needed to achieve species recovery. As of March 1994, the refuge system included about 91 million acres of wildlife habitat. FWS has acquired over 310,000 acres to create 55 new refuges specifically for the protection of listed species. FWS’ policy requires that a species recovery plan be prepared before lands are acquired for listed species. For example, the recovery plan for four Hawaiian waterbirds called for FWS to secure and manage a number of ponds and marshes that two or more of the waterbirds are known to use. One specific area described in the recovery plan, Kealia Pond, was subsequently acquired by FWS in 1992. However, overall we could not readily determine whether the acquisitions of lands for the 55 new refuges had been identified as needed acquisitions in species recovery plans. (App. III lists the refuges specifically established for listed species.) According to FWS’ data, listed species found on refuges, and specifically on refuges established to protect listed species, appear to have a more favorable recovery status than listed species that do not occur on refuges. Table 1 provides an overview of FWS’ data on the recovery status of listed species. This information was compiled on the basis of the knowledge and judgments of FWS staff and others familiar with the species. As the table shows, a greater proportion of the listed species that occur on refuges have a recovery status determined by FWS to be improving or stable than the listed species not found on refuges. According to FWS’ guidance, species whose recovery is improving are those species known to be increasing in number and/ or for which threats to their continued existence are lessening in the wild. Species whose recovery is stable are those known to have stable numbers over the recent past and for which threats have remained relatively constant or diminished in the wild. Declining species are those species known to be decreasing in number and/or for which threats to their continued existence are increasing in the wild. Refuge staff carry out a variety of activities that contribute to the recovery of listed species. According to FWS’ Refuges 2003: Draft Environmental Impact Statement, a total of 356 refuges had habitat management programs under way that directly benefited listed species. Refuge staff at the 15 refuges we visited were carrying out a number of specific actions in support of the protection and recovery of listed species. Such actions generally involved efforts to monitor the status of listed species’ populations at the refuges and carry out projects designed to restore and manage the habitats and the breeding areas of listed species. Examples of specific actions being taken included the following: Carrying out prescribed burning of vegetation at the Okefenokee NWR (Georgia). Among other things, such burning helps restore and facilitate the growth of longleaf pine trees—the primary habitat for the listed red-cockaded woodpecker. Enclosing nesting areas at the Salinas River NWR (California). The enclosures protect the listed western snowy plover’s nests and chicks from predation by red foxes. Undertaking protective actions at the Hakalau Forest NWR (Hawaii). Specifically, to protect and assist in the recovery of five listed forest birds, the refuge manager has restricted public use, fenced off the forest to keep out wild pigs and cattle, and created new nesting habitat for the listed birds by protecting indigenous plants and eliminating nonnative/exotic plants. Developing artificial nesting structures for wood storks at the Harris Neck NWR (Georgia). According to the refuge biologist, each structure at the refuge was occupied by up to three nests for these birds in both 1993 and 1994. Providing economic incentives to protect habitat and provide a food source for the listed bald eagle at Blackwater NWR (Maryland). Specifically, refuge management pays muskrat trappers to kill a rodent (the nutria) that is destroying the refuge wetlands. The carcasses are then left for bald eagles to eat. Managing vegetation growth to provide feeding pastures for the listed Columbian white-tailed deer at the Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for Columbian White-tailed Deer (Oregon and Washington). The vegetation in the deer’s feeding pastures is kept short by allowing cattle to graze on portions of refuge lands under cooperative agreements with local farmers. Refuge staff also participate on teams tasked with developing recovery plans for listed species. While the responsibility for developing and implementing the plans rests with FWS’ regional offices, recovery teams often include species experts from federal and state agencies (including the refuges), conservation organizations, and universities. For example, a biologist at the San Francisco Bay NWR is helping develop a revised recovery plan for the salt marsh harvest mouse, the California clapper rail (a species of bird), and other coastal California wetlands species. On the basis of their knowledge of the listed species, refuge staff are also asked to comment on draft recovery plans developed by others. For example, refuge staff at the Moapa Valley NWR in Nevada were asked to review the draft recovery plan for the Moapa dace (a species of fish) developed by a recovery team made up of representatives from a variety of organizations, including the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation; the University of Nevada, Las Vegas; and the Nevada Division of Wildlife. Refuge staff at the locations we visited told us they use the recovery plans to guide their activities to protect listed species. They also told us that recovery plans are good reference tools and help outline the management actions necessary for species recovery. They noted, however, that recovery plans have their limitations—plans can become outdated quickly and that refuges often lack the funding necessary to undertake all of the prescribed recovery tasks. While refuge staff have taken some actions to protect and aid the recovery of listed species on their refuges, we found that efforts were at times not undertaken. According to refuge managers and staff, their ability to contribute to species recovery efforts are constrained by the level of available funding. Two 1993 Interior reports discussed overall concerns about refuge funding and concluded that refuge funding was inadequate to meet the missions of refuges. In its Refuges 2003: Draft Environmental Impact Statement, FWS reported that the refuge system’s current annual funding is less than half the amount needed to fully meet established objectives. From October 1, 1988, through fiscal year 1993, appropriations for the Division of Refuges increased from $117.4 million to $157.5 million per year. If the current level of annual funding continues, according to FWS, funding will be inadequate to address the existing backlog of major refuge maintenance projects or the programs and construction projects necessary for any expanded wildlife or public use activities. In addition, FWS stated that recent increases in refuge funding have not been sufficient to address the rising costs of basic needs, such as utilities, fuel, travel, and training. In August 1993, Interior’s Inspector General reported that “refuges were not adequately maintained because Service funding requests for refuge maintenance have not been adequate to meet even the minimal needs of sustaining the refuges.” According to the Inspector General, the maintenance backlog totaled $323 million as of 1992. The Inspector General also reported that “new refuges have been acquired with increased Service responsibilities, but additional sufficient funding was not obtained to manage the new refuges.” Between 1988 and 1992, according to the Inspector General, $17.2 million was necessary to begin operations at the 43 new refuges acquired during this period. However, only $4.7 million was appropriated for all new and expanded refuges. This appropriation level for refuge funding resulted in a $12.5 million deficit, according to the Inspector General, some of which contributed directly to the maintenance backlog. In response to the Inspector General’s findings, FWS has agreed to develop a plan to reduce refuges’ maintenance backlogs and to report on efforts to ensure consideration of the operations and maintenance costs in all future acquisitions. The budget resources are insufficient to undertake all of the efforts necessary to recover listed species, according to refuge managers. In general, refuge operations and maintenance budgets are earmarked for items such as salaries, utilities, and specific maintenance projects. As a consequence, many efforts to recover listed species are not being carried out. At 14 of the 15 locations we visited, refuge managers and staff said funding constraints limited their ability to fully implement recovery actions for listed species and other protection efforts. For example, refuge staff at the Savannah Coastal Refuge Complex in Georgia explained that they have enough resources to conduct only one survey of the bald eagle population per year, rather than the three they feel are necessary to adequately monitor the eagle’s status. A biologist at the San Francisco Bay Refuge Complex reported that no money is available to conduct genetic studies on the listed salt marsh harvest mouse, even though such studies are called for in the species recovery plan. In commenting on a draft of this report, the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior, generally concurred with the findings (app. IV contains Interior’s comments). In particular, the Assistant Secretary stated that funding limitations constrain the National Wildlife Refuge System’s ability to fully protect and recover endangered species; however, in light of other budgetary priorities, refuges have been funded at the highest affordable level. The Assistant Secretary also provided a number of comments that were technical in nature. In response, we revised the report, where appropriate, to refer to all components of the National Wildlife Refuge System rather than just the refuges and made other editorial changes. We conducted our work between May 1993 and July 1994 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. To obtain information on FWS’ policies and procedures for refuges and implementation of the ESA, we reviewed relevant FWS documents, including the May 1990 Policy and Guidelines for Planning and Coordinating Recovery of Endangered and Threatened Species; the Refuge Manual; Refuges 2003: Draft Environmental Impact Statement; the 1990 and draft 1992 Report to Congress: Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Program; and 120 species recovery plans. We also interviewed officials at the Division of Refuges and Division of Endangered Species at FWS headquarters and at the FWS Portland regional office. In addition, we visited and met with officials from 15 refuges—including refuges created specifically for listed species and those that were created for other purposes—to determine how each refuge contributed to recovery efforts for listed species. The 15 refuges included, in California, Antioch Dunes, San Francisco Bay, and San Pablo Bay; in Georgia, Harris Neck and Okefenokee; in Hawaii, Hanalei, Huleia, James C. Campbell, Kilauea Point, and Pearl Harbor; in Maryland, Blackwater; in Maryland and Virgina, Chincoteague; in Nevada, Ash Meadows, Moapa Valley; and in Oregon and Washington, Julia B. Hansen Columbian White-tailed Deer. As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of the Interior; the Assistant Secretary, Fish and Wildlife and Parks; and the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. We will also make copies available to others on request. Please call me at (202) 512-7756 if you or your staff have any questions. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. As of April 1994, the number of listed animal and plant species occuring on wildlife refuges totaled 215. As of June 30, 1994, recovery plans had been approved for 157 of these species (as indicated by an asterisk). Cambarus aculabrum (crayfish with no common name) *Cavefish, Ozark *Chub, bonytail *Chub, humpback Chub, Oregon Chub, Yaqui *Dace, Ash Meadows speckled *Dace, Moapa *Darter, watercress *Gambusia, Pecos Madtom, Pygmy Minnow, Rio Grande Silvery *Poolfish (killifish), Pahrump *Pupfish, Ash Meadows amargosa *Pupfish, Devils Hole *Pupfish, Warm Springs *Shiner, Pecos bluntnose *Squawfish, Colorado *Sucker, Lost River Sucker, razorback *Sucker, short-nose *Topminnow, Gila (including Yaqui) Aleutian Canada goose, Aleutian shield-fern Ozark cavefish, Gray bat, Indiana bat, Cambarus aculabrum (crayfish with no common name) Yaqui topminnow, Yaqui chub, Yaqui catfish, Beautiful shiner Lange’s metalmark butterfly, Contra Costa wallflower, Antioch Dunes evening primrose Lost River and short-nosed suckers Light-footed clapper rail, California least tern Light-footed clapper rail, California least tern Loggerhead, green, leatherback, and hawksbill sea turtles American crocodile, Key Largo cotton mouse, Key Largo woodrat Rice (silver rice) rat Loggerhead and green sea turtles (continued) Chincoteague (also in Virginia) Mississippi Sandhill Crane Mississippi sandhill crane (continued) Black-footed ferret (to be reintroduced) Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for Columbian White-tailed Deer (also in Washington) Chincoteague (also in Maryland) (continued) Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for Columbian White-tailed Deer (also in Oregon) Indiana bat, gray bat Indiana bat, gray bat Gila (Yaqui) topminnow, Yaqui chub, Peregrine falcon Gila (Yaqui) topminnow, Yaqui chub, Yaqui catfish, beautiful shiner Lange’s metalmark butterfly, Antioch Dunes evening-primrose, Contra Costa wallflower Valley elderberry longhorn beetle, bald eagle, least bell’s vireo California clapper rail, California least tern, salt marsh harvest mouse Light-footed clapper rail, California least tern Loggerhead and green sea turtles Loggerhead and green sea turtles (continued) Dusky seaside sparrow (extinct) Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for Columbian White-tailed Deer (also in Washington) (continued) Julia B. Hansen Refuge for Columbian White-tailed Deer (also in Oregon) Kim Gianopoulos The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (301) 258-4097 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Summary: Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) National Wildlife Refuge System, focusing on the extent to which wildlife refuges contribute to the protection and recovery of endangered species. GAO found that: (1) of about 900 endangered species, 215 occur or have habitat on national wildlife refuges; (2) the endangered species found on wildlife refuges represent a diversity of wildlife; (3) although many listed endangered species inhabit wildlife refuges, many other endangered species use refuge lands temporarily for breeding or migratory rest stops; (4) FWS refuges contribute to the protection and recovery of endangered species by providing safe and secure habitats, implementing recovery projects that are tailored to each endangered species, and identifying specific actions that can contribute to species recovery; (5) FWS efforts to manage wildlife refuges have been inhibited because funding levels have not kept pace with the increasing costs of managing new or existing refuges; and (6) at 14 of the 15 locations reviewed, refuge managers and staff believed that funding constraints limited their ability to enhance habitat and facilitate the recovery of endangered species.