The National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS)—the only system of federal lands protected specifically for wildlife conservation—provides more than 96 million acres of habitat for over 700 species of birds, hundreds of threatened or endangered species, and a wide variety of other species. Each year, millions of birds stop to rest at refuges strategically located along their migration routes. In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt established what is now recognized as the first refuge, the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in Florida. During the more than 100 years since, the refuge system has grown to include 548 wildlife refuges and 37 wetland management districts that address a variety of wildlife purposes. For example, the Merced NWR in California was established in 1951 with the broad purpose of serving as a sanctuary for migratory birds, while the Antioch Dunes NWR, also in California, was established to protect three specific endangered species—Lange’s metalmark butterfly, Contra Costa wallflower, and the Antioch Dunes evening primrose. The refuge system employs more than 4,000 staff dispersed in its offices across the country. Individual refuges may report directly to a regional office, or may be grouped with other refuge units into a complex under the common management of a project leader. Complexes range in size from 2 to 19 refuges, and one of the refuges in each complex usually serves as the complex headquarters. Complexing has reorganized the 585 refuges into 126 complexes and 96 stand-alone refuges. Officials in headquarters serve as advisors to regional refuge chiefs and to refuge managers. Figure 1 shows the location of the 585 refuges comprising the NWRS. Until the passage of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the refuge system was the only major federal public lands network without a basic statute providing a mission for the system, policy direction, and management standards for all of its units. The Improvement Act gave the refuge system a unifying mission—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 legislation also called for FWS to plan and direct the continued growth of the system in a manner designed to accomplish this mission. In addition, the Improvement Act required that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the refuge system be preserved. The act generally requires refuges to complete comprehensive conservation plans—long-range plans for managing, among other things, habitats and providing visitor services—by 2012. An important component to the act was that it recognized six wildlife- dependent recreational uses of the refuge system—hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and environmental interpretation—as appropriate uses that are consistent with the mission of the refuge system, when they are determined to be compatible with the purposes of individual refuges. While hunting and fishing have always been popular uses on refuges, wildlife observation is the most prevalent activity on refuges today, and attracted over 23 million visitors in 2006. For the most part, refuges generally perform similar activities that are compatible with the mission of protecting wildlife and habitat and providing visitor services: Habitat management. Refuges manage their lands to provide adequate habitat for the species they were established to conserve and to maintain biological diversity and integrity. Management activities may include (1) performing habitat management work such as maintaining water levels in water impoundments and ponds and treating invasive species; (2) performing fire management activities including conducting prescribed burns; (3) restoring habitat to make it more useful for wildlife purposes; (4) monitoring species and habitat through surveys and other studies; (5) managing volunteers doing habitat- or wildlife-related work; and (6) coordinating habitat management efforts with outside entities, such as private land owners, state agencies, and other groups. Visitor services. Nearly 40 million people visit refuges each year, and the vast majority of refuges provide visitors with the opportunity to participate in one or more of the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses outlined in the Improvement Act. To support these activities, refuges install roads, trails, docks, and boat ramps, and develop interpretive and educational exhibits, among other things. Refuges also perform work that supports both habitat management and visitor services: Maintenance. The refuge system maintains more than $18 billion in real property, including more than 41,000 facilities such as buildings, visitor infrastructure, and roads; more than 4,000 vehicles; and almost 4,000 pieces of heavy equipment. Refuge staff perform preventative maintenance on their refuges’ real property to achieve specific performance targets that are tied to the refuge system’s mission, such as restoring wetlands, monitoring wildlife, and providing recreation opportunities. The refuge system currently has a deferred maintenance backlog, which is described in appendix III. Appendix IV discusses the Refuge Operational Needs System, which maintains information on refuge operational requirements such as staff, equipment, and planned projects. Law enforcement. The refuge system employs law enforcement officers who are tasked with protecting refuges’ natural resources, infrastructure, and the visiting public. Officers also enforce conservation agreements with private landowners. Conservation planning. Refuges are required to complete comprehensive conservation plans that outline priorities for wildlife and habitat as well as visitor services. Wildfire suppression. The refuge system supports wildfire suppression needed on refuge lands as well as other federal lands. The refuge system receives most of its funding for core refuge operations and maintenance activities from FWS’s annual resource management appropriation; funds for fire management to restore and improve habitat as well as wildfire suppression come via a separate appropriation. Funding from several other sources supports other types of refuge system activities. For example, the refuge system receives annual allocations from FWS’s construction appropriation to construct, improve, acquire, or remove buildings and other facilities, and from FWS’s land acquisition appropriation to acquire interests in lands, including easements that provide important fish and wildlife habitat. Refuges also may apply for grants from federal, state, and local governments and nonprofit organizations, among others, to supplement their funding. The Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), through its Public Lands Highway-Refuge Roads Program, provides funds to maintain and improve public roads that provide access to or within a refuge. In addition, the refuge system has a permanent appropriation authorizing refuges to use recreation fees they collect and to accept donations, voluntary services, and in-kind contributions from private conservation groups, such as land or equipment donations. The refuge system receives additional funding through other FWS programs, such as Endangered Species or Fisheries and Habitat Conservation. Like the refuge system, these programs also receive allocations from the resource management appropriation and may, in turn, obligate a portion of this funding to support projects occurring on refuge lands. Figure 2 shows the principal sources of funding for the refuge system. While most refuges carry out the same type of activities, key characteristics of refuges such as acreage, visitation levels, and the type of ecosystems they contain—and consequently the challenges they face—can vary. Sixteen refuges in Alaska account for approximately 85 percent— more than 76 million acres—of the refuge system’s total acreage, and these refuges generally operate somewhat differently than others. The Arctic NWR in northeastern Alaska, for example, contains 8 million acres of wilderness that is relatively undisturbed; as such, activities focus primarily on research, monitoring, and education. In contrast, the Tualatin River NWR—located 15 miles from Portland, Oregon—faces the challenge of protecting natural resources amid rapidly increasing visitation levels. Refuges along the southwest border of the United States, meanwhile, face unique law enforcement challenges as they support the Department of Homeland Security’s border control efforts. From fiscal years 2002 through 2007, the refuge system experienced fluctuations in funding and staffing levels, the introduction of several new refuge system policy initiatives, and increases in the influence of external factors such as extreme weather and development that affect refuge operations. Inflation-adjusted funding for core refuge system activities— measured as obligations for refuge operations, maintenance, and fire management—increased by 6.8 percent from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2003 for the celebration of the refuge system’s centennial, 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, when adjusted for inflation (in 2002 dollars); it ended the period 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. Core refuge system staffing levels peaked in fiscal year 2004 after increasing 10.0 percent, and then declined more slowly than funding to 4.0 percent below this level by the end of fiscal year 2007; they ended the period 5.5 percent above fiscal year 2002 levels. During the same period, several refuge system policy initiatives were implemented to reduce staff levels and reprioritize funding among refuges, ensure the completion of required conservation plans, shift focus toward constructing a greater number of smaller visitor facilities, and increase the number of full-time law enforcement officers and associated training; other initiatives increased the administrative workload on refuges. Refuges also experienced an increase in the influence of various external factors that may complicate managers’ abilities to protect habitat and provide visitor services, such as extreme weather events and development on adjacent lands. Obligations for core refuge activities—operations, maintenance, and fire management—peaked in fiscal year 2003, then decreased and remained below peak levels through fiscal year 2007, when adjusted for inflation (in 2002 dollars), but above fiscal year 2002 levels. As shown in figure 3, total nominal obligations for core refuge system activities increased each year from about $366 million in fiscal year 2002 to about $468 million in fiscal year 2007—an average annual increase of 5.1 percent or about $18.5 million. However, when adjusted for inflation, total core obligations peaked in fiscal year 2003 at about $391 million for the wildlife refuge centennial—an increase of 6.8 percent over fiscal year 2002. Core inflation-adjusted obligations then quickly fell back to 4.7 percent below peak levels by fiscal year 2005. By fiscal year 2007, inflation-adjusted core obligations rebounded somewhat to about $382 million—still 2.3 percent below peak levels, but 4.3 percent above fiscal year 2002 levels. While the refuge system did receive an increase in the allocation from the resource management appropriation for fiscal year 2008, we did not include it in our analysis because the fiscal year was not yet complete. At the refuge level, the trends in inflation-adjusted core refuge obligations at the 222 complexes and stand-alone refuges varied considerably during our study period. Specifically, from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2007, core inflation-adjusted obligations decreased for 96 complexes and stand-alone refuges, increased for 92, and stayed about the same for 34. The magnitude of the changes in core funding at the refuge level also were more pronounced than for the trend overall. For example, the refuge with the largest percentage inflation-adjusted decrease in funding was the Kootenai NWR in Idaho, where obligations fell from $957,506 in fiscal year 2002 to $324,283 in fiscal year 2007, a decrease of 66 percent. The refuge experiencing the largest inflation-adjusted dollar decrease was the Mid- Columbia NWR Complex in Washington state, where obligations fell from about $9.4 million in fiscal year 2002 to about $5.2 million in fiscal year 2007, a decrease of about $4.1 million. Moreover, from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2007, core funding for 39 complexes and stand-alone refuges decreased by more than 25 percent. On the other hand, the refuge receiving the largest percentage increase in inflation-adjusted funding was the Caddo Lake NWR in Texas. Its obligations increased by 156 percent, from $95,255 in fiscal year 2002 to $244,094 in fiscal year 2007, largely reflecting an increase in operations at this refuge since it was established in October 2000. The refuge experiencing the largest dollar increase in inflation-adjusted funding was the Okefenokee NWR in Georgia, where obligations for core refuge activities increased from about $7.4 million in fiscal year 2002 to about $15.8 million in fiscal year 2007—an increase of about $8.4 million. However, almost 90 percent of this increase consisted of fire management funding provided largely to respond to the wildfires the refuge faced in April 2007. Appendix V presents obligations for core refuge activities for all 222 complexes and stand-alone refuges in both nominal and inflation-adjusted dollars for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2007. Total obligations, in nominal dollars, for the refuge system were about $816 million in fiscal year 2007. As illustrated in figure 4, core obligations comprised about 57 percent of this total, or about $468 million. Obligations of allocations from Interior’s construction and land acquisition appropriations added approximately 19 percent, or about $154 million. Additional obligations of funds received through recreation fees, donations, conservation funds, and all other sources, contributed approximately 18 percent, or about $148 million. Other funds were obligated from grants and allocations from the FHWA and from other FWS programs. Total: $816 million In contrast to the trend in core funding, total inflation-adjusted funding for the refuge system as a whole did not peak in fiscal year 2003, but instead steadily decreased from fiscal year 2002 levels until fiscal year 2005 and rebounded somewhat thereafter (see fig. 5). Even after rebounding somewhat in fiscal year 2005, however, inflation-adjusted total funding decreased to about $666 million in fiscal year 2007—an average annual decrease of 1.6 percent (about $11.2 million) or 7.5 percent below fiscal year 2002 levels. The main driver in the generally decreasing trend in total funding is a sharp drop in funding for land acquisition, which fell from about $101 million in fiscal year 2002 to about $38 million in fiscal year 2007. In nominal dollars, total obligations increased from about $720 million in fiscal year 2002 to about $816 million in fiscal year 2007—an average annual increase of 2.5 percent or about $18.3 million. Beyond receiving financial resources, refuges also receive in-kind donations from nonprofit groups, for-profit companies, and other organizations. From our survey, we obtained information on donations received by 246 individual refuges—67 percent of refuges responding to our survey. These donations typically consisted of equipment and other supplies that refuges used to help manage habitat or deliver visitor services, though larger donations included land and construction of visitor centers. Donations at most of the refuges totaled $500,000 or less over the entire 6-year time frame; however, several refuges reported that they received more than $1 million over this period. For example, a refuge in Washington state estimated that it received in-kind donations totaling about $20 million, consisting primarily of land donations from nonprofit organizations, bridge work, and habitat restoration projects. Another refuge in Michigan estimated that it received about $5 million worth of in- kind donations, including land donations from local industries, as well as shoreline restoration, fence removal, and tree removal projects performed by these industries. The declining trends in refuge system funding were comparable to general declines in obligations for FWS and Interior overall, although Interior fared somewhat better. FWS fared about the same as the refuge system ending in fiscal year 2007 at 7.5 percent below fiscal year 2002 levels, when adjusted for inflation. Interior overall fared somewhat better over the same period, declining 3.9 percent when adjusted for inflation. Figures 6 and 7 show the trends in nominal and inflation-adjusted obligations, respectively, made by the refuge system, FWS, and Interior from fiscal years 2002 through 2007. Staffing levels, as measured by FTEs the refuge system actually used, peaked later and declined more slowly than funding for both core refuge activities (core staffing) and all refuge activities (total staffing). FTEs for core staffing, which includes operations, maintenance, and fire management, increased from 3,283 in fiscal year 2002 to a peak of 3,610 in fiscal year 2004—an increase of 10.0 percent. Core staffing then fell back to 3,464 FTEs by fiscal year 2007—still 5.5 percent higher than the fiscal year 2002 level, but 4.0 percent below peak staffing levels. 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. Table 1 shows FTE trends for core refuge system activities from fiscal years 2002 through 2007. In contrast with funding, FTEs for noncore activities account for a relatively small portion of the total FTEs that support the refuge system. In fiscal year 2007, for example, 664 noncore FTEs supported the refuge system—about 16 percent of total FTEs—as illustrated in figure 8. Slightly more than 500 of these FTEs were allocated to the refuge system to manage construction projects, land acquisitions, grants, and donations, and to collect fees, among other refuge activities. FWS employees assigned to other agency programs accounted for about 157 of the 664 noncore FTEs for activities in support of the refuge system. For example, biologists from FWS’s Ecological Services program often monitor various species at refuges, supplementing the refuges’ habitat management activities while also furthering Ecological Services’ mission to conserve and restore threatened and endangered species. Similar to the trend in core FTEs, total FTEs used in support of the refuge system overall also peaked in fiscal year 2004 and then decreased through the remainder of the period. As table 2 illustrates, total FTEs increased 5.8 percent from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2004, then declined through 2007, to close the period 0.9 percent higher than the fiscal year 2002 level. This amounted to a 4.7 percent drop from the peak staffing levels of fiscal year 2004. In addition 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 (see table 3). About three-quarters of this loss came through a reduction in permanent employees. Refuge managers and regional and headquarters officials told us that the number of filled, permanent positions at refuges is a key measure of the effective strength of the workforce available to conduct core refuge activities because they represent employees on board indefinitely. Thus, the loss of 275 permanent employees (7.5 percent) since fiscal year 2004—generally through the elimination of vacant positions created by retirements and resignations—has reduced the number of staff available to conduct needed work. For the overall study period, total employees declined 4.0 percent below fiscal year 2002 levels and permanent employees declined 1.7 percent. The overall fluctuation in staffing levels and the reductions since fiscal year 2004 in particular have affected many refuges. During the first 2 years of our study period, from fiscal year 2002 through 2004, 114 complexes and stand-alone refuges increased their permanent staff by more than 5 percent, while only 49 lost more than 5 percent and 55 stayed about the same. However, over the final 3 years, the situation was reversed: from fiscal year 2004 through 2007, the number of complexes and stand-alone refuges that lost more than 5 percent of their permanent staff more than doubled to 122, while only 38 gained at least 5 percent and 58 stayed about the same. The refuge system implemented several policy initiatives from fiscal years 2002 through 2007, including efforts to achieve more sustainable staffing levels, ensure the completion of conservation plans, construct a greater number of small visitor facilities, and modify the refuge system’s law enforcement function. In addition, various refuge system, FWS, and Interior policies increased administrative work for nonadministrative refuge staff during this period. Because core staffing levels peaked later and declined more gradually than the system’s core inflation-adjusted funding, as shown in figure 9, rising salary and benefit costs for these staff began to account for an increasing share of refuge budgets after fiscal year 2003. In many cases, there was an existing imbalance in refuge budgets that meant that personnel costs already were putting pressure on refuges’ ability to operate. Generally, this reduced refuges’ management capability—that is, the percentage of a refuge’s budget available to pay for other operational costs that support its daily work, such as utilities, fuel, supplies, and seasonal labor. Although circumstances varied by refuge, some refuges’ management capability shrank to less than 5 percent of their total budget—a nearly unsustainable operational scenario, according to some refuge managers and regional and headquarters officials we interviewed. To attain a more sustainable balance between staffing costs and management capability, in fiscal year 2006, each regional office was directed to develop a workforce management plan. According to FWS guidance for these plans and interviews with senior refuge officials, regions were instructed to focus on doing “fewer things better,” that is, to allocate limited resources in such a way as to showcase selected refuges, rather than to allocate them across all refuges such that the level of habitat management and visitor services would be equally degraded. Although workforce plans differed by region, they generally proposed to increase management capability to a minimum of 25 percent of refuges’ operating budgets by reducing the share devoted to salaries and benefits to 75 percent or less; reduce staff costs by (1) abolishing staff positions that became vacant through retirements and resignations, and (2) further consolidating refuges into complexes to eliminate redundant positions and reduce administrative costs; categorize all refuges into one of three tiers—called focus refuges, targeted reduction refuges, or unstaffed satellite refuges—to prioritize them for funding and staffing increases or decreases; and realign some vacated positions by moving them from lower- to higher- tiered refuges. Although refuge system management did not intend for regions’ workforce plans to conform to a rigid national standard, program headquarters did provide criteria for regions to use when placing refuges into the following tiers: Focus refuges, where FWS would strive to maintain or enhance field operations, would be selected because of the significance of their natural resources, important opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation, or other “highly significant” values. Targeted reduction refuges, where reductions in operations would occur, also would be selected on the basis of natural resources, recreation, and other values, but would be considered a lower priority than focus refuges. Unstaffed satellite refuges had no specific criteria, but would include both refuges that have never been staffed and those that were to be destaffed due to budget constraints. Refuge system documents, as well as our interviews and site visits, showed these refuges to be often smaller, more remote, and less complex to manage than those in the upper two tiers. According to refuge system officials, the process for determining staff reductions, realignments, and refuge tiers varied considerably across regions, and refuge managers disagreed over the appropriateness of the methods some regions used. For example, Region 7 (Alaska) designated all of its refuges as focus refuges, while all other regions placed their refuges into each of the three tiers. Of the 275 refuge managers who answered a survey question on this issue, 41 percent responded that the criteria for categorizing refuges into tiers were appropriate to distinguish among the competing priorities in their respective regions, another 37 percent responded that they were not appropriate, and the remainder said they had no basis to judge. While most of the respondents who disagreed with their region’s criteria were from lower-tiered refuges, 25 percent of those who responded this way managed at least one highest-priority, or focus, refuge. Refuge managers acknowledged that additional management capability was necessary for continued operations, and understood that workforce planning decisions that affected funding and staffing levels were inherently difficult. Still, according to a senior regional office official, refuge tiering added to the emotional strain of an already stressed workforce, establishing a “have” versus “have not” mentality that many staff took personally. Implementation of workforce plans shifted funds and staff from lower- priority refuges to higher-priority refuges or from the regional office to the field, and reduced the total number of positions located at refuges. In all, about 375 refuge and regional office positions were either abolished— through elimination of vacant positions—or moved, with managerial, biological, and maintenance positions among those most frequently targeted for reduction or realignment. These changes were responsible for most of the 275 permanent employees who were lost after fiscal year 2004. By design, lower-tiered refuges absorbed a heavier share of these staff cuts and realignments. According to refuge system officials, the $36 million increase in the fiscal year 2008 allocation for the refuge system from the resource management appropriation was being used in part to restore some of these lost positions and funding at targeted reduction refuges. Further, regional officials reported that management capability across each region had reached the desired margin of at least 25 percent of refuges’ operational budgets. However, given that the fiscal year was not complete before the end of our review, we did not obtain additional data on FTE or position changes at refuges. From fiscal years 2002 through 2007, refuge system officials implemented steps intended to ensure that comprehensive conservation plans mandated by the Improvement Act are completed on time. In early fiscal year 2004, refuge officials realized that they were not on track to complete the 554 conservation plans required by 2012—the due date mandated by the act. At that time, refuge officials assessed needs and goals with regard to completing the plans, and provided recommendations to encourage timely completion as well as a monitoring and evaluation strategy. At the end of fiscal year 2005, however, refuge officials noted that the completion of these plans was still behind schedule—only 19 percent of the plans were complete even though more than half of the 15-year time frame had elapsed. To help ensure that the plans would be completed on time, refuge system officials required, among other things, refuge managers to identify work that could be set aside to focus on completing conservation plans. They also required regions to develop completion dates and milestones for completing the plans and to use a central database for tracking milestones. To date, about half of the 554 plans have been completed and about one- third are underway. Refuge officials said that they believe that they can meet the deadlines; however, some plans are still behind schedule. In 2003, in response to discussions with Congress about how best to fulfill the requirement to provide the six wildlife-dependent activities described in the Improvement Act, the refuge system began an initiative to place greater emphasis on constructing small visitor facility structures, such as observation decks, informational kiosks, and restrooms, instead of larger visitor centers. These small structures are less expensive than visitor centers—which in 2007 were estimated to cost an average of $5.7 million each—and can be completed more quickly. Thus, a larger number of refuges can receive visitor facility funds, enabling refuge system investments to benefit a larger number of visitors. For fiscal years 2003 through 2007, the refuge system directed about $28 million toward these projects. Nevertheless, large visitor centers continue to be funded, and the refuge system was appropriated more than $51 million for visitor center construction from fiscal years 2002 through 2007. Figure 10 shows examples of visitor facility infrastructure. In July 2002, in response to safety concerns, the Secretary of the Interior directed the refuge system to begin an initiative to modify its law enforcement program by, among other things, increasing the training requirements for officers, reducing the system’s reliance on dual-function officers—staff with other primary duties who perform law enforcement duties part time—and creating an officer deployment model. Specifically, the refuge system increased the training requirements for law enforcement officers from 18 weeks to about 30 weeks from 2002 through 2007, with the vast majority of that increase coming from a new field training evaluation program. Refuge system officials also required some senior- level staff, and all dual-function officers who were performing law enforcement functions less than 25 percent of their time, to cease performing their law enforcement duties beginning in 2003. As a result, the refuge system reduced the number of dual-function officers from 495 to 164 and hired 76 full-time officers who serve a single refuge. FWS also created a “zone officer” position to serve multiple refuges and has hired 45 of these officers. In 2005, the International Association of Chiefs of Police released a law enforcement deployment model it developed with the refuge system to identify the level of law enforcement personnel needed to provide adequate protection of refuge resources and the public, and where those officers should be deployed. The model recommended a total of 845 law enforcement FTEs for the refuge system—about 600 FTEs more than the refuge system currently has on board. Given the refuge system’s current funding situation and the chances of the system attaining such a level, senior refuge officials have identified 450 positions as the minimum number they believe necessary to provide adequate protection. Refuge officials are hoping they can approach that minimum number by hiring an additional 200 officers in the near term. During our study period, refuge managers told us that they began feeling the burden of a myriad of new administrative work, especially work that applies to nonadministrative staff, resulting from refuge system, FWS, and Interior policies. Ninety-three percent of refuge managers who responded to our survey said administrative duties for nonadministrative staff have increased since 2002; less than 2 percent of refuge managers reported a decrease in this workload. For example, refuge managers expressed concerns that the number of national reporting requirements and extent of mandatory training classes, among other administrative tasks, were burdensome. Furthermore, the refuge system created a new maintenance database that required much more data entry than the previous system. In addition, managers indicated that they have been receiving an increasing number of data calls over the years. In 2003, refuge managers began an effort to address increasing administrative requirements and more than 300 refuge managers participated in discussions about the problem. Several managers formed an ad hoc committee in 2003 to address the issue and several officials from headquarters and regional offices joined the effort in 2004. Together, they drafted a white paper that provided several recommendations to reduce the burden. A headquarters team took the effort over and, in October 2007, released a report detailing their findings and 17 recommendations for reducing some requirements, such as reviewing national reporting requirements and eliminating those deemed unnecessary, as well as making Web-based training optional. According to refuge officials at headquarters, FWS is beginning to implement these 17 recommendations. A variety of factors that were generally outside the control of refuge system management became more influential between fiscal years 2002 and 2007. Some of these factors were natural occurrences, such as extreme weather, while others were due to the intensification of human activities, such as development. These factors added to refuge workload, complicating managers’ abilities to protect habitat quality and provide visitor services. One commonly cited external factor was extreme weather events such as droughts, floods, and severe winds. Survey results show that the contribution of extreme weather events to habitat problems increased at 52 percent of refuges; only 2 percent reported a decline. Storm damage also increased at many more refuges than it decreased: in particular, hurricanes Ivan, Katrina, and Rita in 2004 and 2005 damaged large parts of refuges in the southeastern United States. Eighteen refuges in three states were temporarily closed to the public as a result of these storms; a 19th refuge— Louisiana’s Sabine NWR—remains closed to public use. According to FWS, storm damage to the refuge system in 2005 alone exceeded $300 million. Development pressures caused by the expansion of urban areas and problems associated with the conversion of off-refuge land to agriculture or industrial use also increased during this period. Refuge managers reported that human settlement infrastructure such as roads, housing, and airports increasingly contributed to refuge habitat problems between 2002 and 2007—around 46 percent of refuges. These development pressures can contribute pollution to refuge lands and waters and make it more difficult to maintain viable, interconnected habitat in and around a refuge’s borders. Moreover, increasing development around refuges can be accompanied by an increase in the demand for recreational uses of nearby refuges, including some uses—such as recreational boating or rock- climbing—that may be incompatible with a refuge’s established purpose. In addition, the influence of off-refuge agricultural and industrial activities increased for many more refuges than it decreased. Because refuges do not exist in isolation, they must be managed in concert with adjacent lands to maintain healthy habitats, a reality that requires managers to allocate time to spend away from their refuges to develop working relationships with adjacent and upstream landowners. Other external factors affecting the refuge system include inadequate water rights and rights-of-way, such as public roads that divide refuge lands; the impacts associated with these factors worsened at more refuges than they improved, though they were stable for almost half of all respondents. Additionally, almost a quarter of the responses to our survey identified impacts associated with climate change as one of the biggest threats to habitat condition throughout the system. Managers reported that they already are seeing effects that they attribute to climate change, including drying of wetlands and wildfires of increased frequency and intensity. In addition to the obvious effects on habitat condition, these disturbances can affect wildlife-dependent visitor services, such as hunting or photography, to the extent that they change waterfowl migration patterns or the ranges of land- and water-based wildlife that historically are native to a given refuge. 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. While 28 percent to 40 percent of habitats on refuges for several types of key species improved between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, conditions at some refuges worsened and 7 percent to 20 percent of habitats were in poor condition in 2007. Refuge habitats are facing growing pressure from increasing habitat problems and external factors, and although most refuges increased time spent on habitat management activities, there is increasing concern from managers that staffing and funding constraints will inhibit the ability of refuges to maintain quality habitat in the future in light of increasing habitat problems and resource constraints. The quality of visitor services improved on one-fifth to nearly one-half of refuges between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, but environmental education and interpretation programs were of poor quality at about one- third of refuges in 2007. While some refuges have been able to increase the time spent on visitor services, refuge managers are concerned about their ability to provide high-quality visitor services to the public given recent funding and staffing changes. While 28 percent to 40 percent of habitats on refuges for several types of key species improved between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, conditions of 11 percent to 18 percent of refuge habitats worsened and 7 percent to 20 percent of habitats were in poor condition in 2007. Habitat problems and external factors are increasing at refuges, and most refuges increased the time spent on habitat management activities. However, managers are concerned that staffing and funding constraints will inhibit the refuges’ ability to maintain quality habitat in the future. Refuge managers reported that habitats for five key types of species we surveyed refuges about improved between 2002 and 2007 about two times as often as they worsened (see table 4). Tualatin River NWR outside of Portland, Oregon, for example, saw a marked improvement in wetland habitat, according to the refuge manager, as the refuge has begun to address an invasive weed infestation over the past year. The refuge has been addressing two primary invasive plants— knotgrass and cocklebur—that had infested approximately one-third of the refuge’s 600 wetland acres since 2003, overtaking the native wetland plants that thousands of birds rely on for food during migration. Through herbicide application, mowing and discing, and water level manipulation, the refuge was able to cut infestations in half over the last year, bringing the habitat back up to sufficient quality for use by the migrating birds. We observed the results of some of these activities to remove knotgrass (see fig. 11). fig. 11). Refuge managers also reported that 11 percent to 18 percent of habitats on refuges for key species have worsened since 2002. Camas NWR in Idaho, for example, has faced a drought for the last several years. According to the refuge manager, the lack of water has negatively impacted a riparian zone of cottonwoods and willows that migrating birds, such as yellow warblers, use during migration. In addition, many of the trees in the riparian area are close to 100 years old and are dying. Currently, the refuge is working on a plan to restore the vegetation, relying in part on wells for irrigation, but expects it will take decades to restore. As might be expected, we found differences in changes in the quality of habitat for waterfowl and other migratory birds between focus and targeted reduction refuges when compared to unstaffed refuges (see figs. 12 and 13). Specifically, we found that managers at focus and targeted reduction refuges were significantly more likely to report that habitat quality for waterfowl improved between 2002 and 2007 than at unstaffed satellite refuges. For example, between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, more than twice as many focus refuges experienced improved waterfowl habitat (42 percent) as experienced worsened waterfowl habitat (20 percent). At unstaffed satellite refuges, by contrast, habitat for waterfowl worsened almost as frequently as it improved, with 20 percent of refuges experiencing improved quality and 16 percent experiencing worsened quality. We found a similar situation for other migratory birds. We also found that these relationships generally remain strong in statistical models that simultaneously account for the effects of the change in staff time and the change in external factors, such as extreme weather and agricultural activity, which can contribute to habitat problems. For example, based on these models, we estimate that focus refuges were 3.4 times more likely than unstaffed satellite refuges to experience improved rather than worsened habitat quality for other migratory birds and that targeted reduction refuges were 3.9 times more likely. In addition to analyzing the change in quality by tier, we analyzed changes in the quality of habitat as a function of the time spent by permanent staff at a refuge on habitat management activities. We found that refuge managers were more likely to report that habitat quality improved at refuges that increased the time spent on habitat management since 2002 than for those that reduced time, and were less likely to report that habitat quality worsened (see fig. 14). These results were consistent with our analysis of the change in quality of habitat as a function of staffing level changes at complexes and stand-alone refuges. The odds of habitat for waterfowl improving rather than worsening were significantly higher at refuges where staff time on habitat management activities increased rather than decreased between fiscal years 2002 and 2007. For example, among refuges where staff time increased, more than three times as many refuges experienced improved habitat for waterfowl (47 percent) as experienced worsened habitat (14 percent). In contrast, among refuges where staff time decreased, nearly the same number of refuges experienced improved habitat for waterfowl (30 percent) as experienced worsened habitat (27 percent). We found similar results when comparing change in staff time with the change in habitat quality for other migratory birds (see fig. 15). When we developed statistical models of habitat change, refuges where staff time on habitat management activities increased were about 3.0 times more likely than refuges where staff time decreased to report improved, rather than worsened, habitat for both waterfowl and other migratory birds, even after accounting for the effects of tier designation and the change in external factors, such as extreme weather and agricultural activity, that may cause habitat problems. Resource prioritization at refuges obviously influences the ability of refuges to maintain quality habitat. Refuge managers told us that decisions on how many resources to direct to refuges are based on a variety of factors. Some managers weigh the management needs of all the refuges within a complex, taking into account the relative importance of the habitats as well as the amount of time and resources needed for the management activities. Unstaffed satellite refuges generally are smaller and have lower-priority habitats and, in some cases, the refuges are limited in what management can do, according to managers. Because some unstaffed refuges are located some distance from equipment and supplies and from where refuge staff are located, these distances and associated costs are taken into account as well. Other managers told us that they will undertake efforts mainly in response to specific problems identified at these refuges, while otherwise they generally do not expend resources for habitat management. According to refuge managers, it often is difficult to know what needs to be done at unstaffed refuges because staff generally do not visit the refuges very frequently to monitor the habitats. Even though the condition of many habitats is improving, many of these are still not high quality. Specifically, 40 percent of waterfowl habitats that improved since 2002 were still of moderate quality or poorer in 2007, while 65 percent of habitats that stayed in the same condition were of moderate quality or poorer. Similarly, for other migratory birds, 40 percent of habitats that improved in condition since 2002 were of moderate or poorer quality in 2007 and 55 percent of habitats that stayed in the same condition were of moderate quality or poorer. Refuge managers reported that, on average, habitats on about 44 percent of refuges for each of several types of key species—waterfowl, other migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, candidate threatened and endangered species, and state species of concern—were of high quality in 2007. A similar percentage of refuges deemed their habitats to be of moderate quality, and 7 percent to 20 percent of refuges reported habitats to be of low quality, depending on the species type (see table 5). 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 good and bad attributes. For example, a habitat may have an excellent tree canopy that provides good nesting areas and protection, but the underlying vegetation may be inadequate as a food source due to an infestation of an invasive species that has driven out native plants. Some aspects of moderate-quality habitat are acceptable, but the problems must be addressed overall for these habitats to fully support the species that depend on them, according to managers with whom we spoke. Other migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and state species of concern appear to be faring the best with 47 percent or more of habitats on refuges deemed to be of high quality and 13 percent or less of habitats of low quality. Habitats for waterfowl and species that are candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act are doing somewhat worse. Refuge managers told us that these findings may in part reflect the difficulty in addressing the very specific habitat needs of these species and a lack of focus on addressing those needs because they are not yet listed under the act. We spoke with some managers who have areas of robust, high-quality habitat on their refuge. For instance, Cache River NWR in Arkansas has approximately 65,000 acres of bottomland hardwood—45,000 acres of which are in pristine condition, with the remaining 20,000 acres in the early stages of regrowth after being restored from prior agricultural use. This refuge serves as an annual wintering area for 250,000 to 500,000 waterfowl including mallards, pintail, widgeon, gadwall, teal, and wood ducks. The refuge eradicated invasive kudzu plants using herbicides and its high-quality habitat provides necessary food, water, and cover for these waterfowl and also supports a variety of other migratory birds including warblers, indigo buntings, bluebirds, shorebirds, and wading birds. However, we also spoke to managers who reported low-quality habitat on their refuges. At Bowdoin NWR in northern Montana, for example, habitat is compromised by water quality and quantity problems as a result of activities on nearby lands, including haying and cropland use. The quantity of water that the refuge receives is insufficient to allow adequate flow- through of the water supply and, as a result, the water available for the refuge contains high levels of residual salt as well as agricultural chemicals, which affect the composition of vegetation and the survival of invertebrates. While a variety of bird species uses the refuge, including waterfowl, shorebirds, bald eagle, peregrine falcons, and piping plover—a federally listed threatened and endangered species—some populations of these species have declined over time. In addition to habitat quality, whether a refuge’s habitat is meeting the needs of key species types is an important indicator as to a refuge’s effectiveness in meeting its conservation mission. Our survey found that refuge managers reported that habitats at a majority of refuges were meeting the needs of key species types to a moderate or large extent in 2007 (see table 6). Some refuge managers indicated that poor-quality habitat could still meet the needs of some species to a large extent, just as high-quality habitat could fail to meet the needs of some species to a large extent depending on the species’ needs. High-quality habitat could fail to meet the needs of a given species if, for instance, the species’ population was too large for the refuge to support or if other species were competing for the same refuge habitat, according to managers. In contrast, a habitat of moderate quality could meet the needs of a species if that species population was small. Species that are candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act appear to be faring the worst, while other migratory birds appear to be faring the best with regard to how well the habitat is meeting species’ needs. It is important to note that wildlife refuges are not necessarily intended to provide habitat for all types of species—some refuges were established to serve the needs of specific species such as waterfowl or a particular endangered species, for example—and do not necessarily focus on providing habitat for other species. When managers were asked to rate the importance of their habitat for the different types of key species we asked about, some of the refuge managers that reported low-quality habitats also rated the habitat as having low importance or priority for the species in question. For instance, about 56 percent of waterfowl habitat that managers reported as low quality, they also considered that habitat on their refuge to be low-priority habitat or not a priority for waterfowl; they considered about 28 percent of low-quality habitat for other migratory birds to be low-priority habitat or not a priority. Refuge managers reported that many refuges were negatively affected by a number of problems and external factors, including invasive species, habitat fragmentation, water quantity and quality problems, and soil erosion, and that these problems and factors were increasing (see table 7). Invasive plant infestation was the most frequently reported problem, cited as a large problem on more than half of refuges and a moderate problem on nearly a quarter of refuges, and was reported to be increasing on more than half of refuges. This concern is consistent with information from the most recent refuge system performance report as well, which shows that more than 2.3 million acres of refuge lands are infested by invasive plants and more than 80 percent of refuges have at least some invasive plants present. Refuge managers with whom we met during site visits stressed that invasive plants have become a problem that affects the quality of their refuges’ habitats and threatens the quality of the refuge system as a whole. According to managers, these invading plants overtake native plant species that are used by animals for food and shelter, and have deleterious effects on biological diversity. For instance, the refuge manager at Merritt Island NWR in Florida told us that 30,000 acres of habitat on the refuge are infested with invasive plants including Australian pine, Brazilian pepper, Old World climbing fern, guinea grass, and cogongrass. In fact, the Brazilian pepper has infested every one of the 75 water level control structures on the refuge, with some impoundments more than 50 percent overtaken by the invasive plant. These invasive plants are eliminating native habitat and negatively impacting migrating birds such as rails, bitterns, sparrows, Florida scrub-jays, and other species, according to the refuge manager. We observed a common invasive plant, purple loosestrife, at several refuges we visited. Purple loosestrife crowds out native plants and can dramatically reduce food, shelter, and nesting sites for wetland-dependent species (see fig. 16). The refuge manager responsible for Antioch Dunes NWR north of San Francisco, described her refuge as being “in a constant uphill battle” against invasive plants, including vetch, thistles, and various grasses. The refuge is home to two endangered plants that depend on dune habitat on the refuge—the Contra Costa wallflower and the Antioch Dunes evening primrose—as well as the Lange’s Metalmark butterfly, a federal endangered butterfly species that occurs only on this refuge. However, the refuge has been inundated with a variety of invasive plants that, if not constantly addressed, threaten to overtake the native habitat, including the naked stem buckwheat on which the butterfly depends. The refuge manager told us that the butterfly population declined for 4 consecutive years, losing about 50 percent of the population each year, but increased in fiscal year 2007. In addition, refuge officials told us that invasive plants, like many other problems, can worsen if they are not dealt with swiftly. For example, a refuge may be able to completely eradicate an invasive plant if it addresses it early and thoroughly. In some cases this may require actions for several years in a row, as invasive plants frequently require consistent investment and treatment strategies from year to year. If not treated early, the infestation may spread exponentially and become a serious, long-term problem. Gains made in one year can be lost many times over if control efforts are not sustained. Invasive animals also are problematic for refuges and were reported to be a large problem on one-fifth of refuges. For example, nutria, a large rodent species from South America, has infested refuges in east, west, and Gulf coast states. Nutria can wreak havoc on water level control at refuges by burrowing into and destabilizing streambanks and damaging water control structures (see fig. 17). Habitat fragmentation was the second-most frequently identified problem for refuges, reported as a large problem at 44 percent of refuges, and increasing on 57 percent of refuges. Habitat fragmentation occurs when corridors of continuous habitat are disrupted, often by human development activities, which affects the refuge system’s ability to accomplish its wildlife conservation mission. The seriousness of this issue was highlighted at a recent meeting of the Western Governors’ Association by the release of a report on wildlife corridors. Specifically, the report discusses the rapid changes due to development across the United States—but in the West in particular—and how this adversely affects wildlife, and emphasizes the need for habitat connectivity for species survival. Some species, for example, require large areas of homogenous habitat for successful nesting, foraging, or movement. Managers at refuges close to urban centers showed us examples of development adjacent to their refuge that have cut off natural habitat corridors, which can lead to animals trying to cross busy roads or can cut them off from other members of their species leading to genetic homogeneity and inbreeding. For example, the refuge manager at Great Swamp NWR in New Jersey told us that increased development surrounding the refuge has fragmented or eliminated habitat. Valuable woodlots adjacent to refuge lands are decreasing in size or disappearing altogether around the refuge, limiting suitable nesting areas for species such as the red-shouldered hawk—a state threatened species. In addition, the manager said that movement by the bog turtle—a federal threatened species—has been constrained by fragmentation of its habitat. 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. Habitat fragmentation sometimes occurs within a refuge’s “approved acquisition boundary.” A refuge’s approved acquisition boundary delineates an area that has been approved for inclusion in a national wildlife refuge but does not necessarily indicate that the entire area inside this boundary has been—or ever will be—acquired by FWS. An important conservation strategy for the refuge system that was codified in the Improvement Act is the ability to acquire important habitats, when possible. Thus, many refuges have acquisition plans for lands adjacent to or near existing refuge lands to complete or supplement current refuge habitat. For example, the acquisition plan for Nisqually NWR outside of Olympia, Washington, includes 4,470 acres for eventual purchase within its approved acquisition boundary (see fig. 18). The refuge manager at Nisqually reported that increasing urban development is one of the biggest problems facing the refuge. In addition to impacts such as reduced water quality and increased crime, the manager told us that quality habitat around the refuge is being lost to development despite an active refuge acquisition program, because the refuge cannot address all habitat and land protection needs at the pace necessary to offset habitat loss. Overall, the refuge system has purchased only limited amounts of land within the last 5 years, growing the system at approximately 0.25 percent per year. When asked about their ability to manage an even larger refuge system—a logical concern given the funding and staffing concerns currently facing the refuge system—several managers were quick to point out that simply protecting lands from development was a critical first step in conserving wildlife, even if they did not have the resources to actively manage the land. As noted previously, refuge managers also reported a number of external factors that contribute to habitat problems on refuges, including extreme weather and development, and that the contribution of these factors increased during our study period. Refuge managers told us that extreme weather has caused water levels to vary, which can result in the drying of wetlands, increased fire, and actual changes in the size and location of species ranges. Development activities also can increase air, soil, and water pollution to refuge lands and waters. For example, the refuge manager at Ridgefield NWR, which lies in a small watershed in southern Washington, told us increased urban development means more impervious surfaces such as roads, driveways, and sidewalks, thus increasing the amount of water polluted with oil, gasoline, yard chemicals, and animal waste, among other things, that runs directly into the refuge during rainfall, and decreases the amount of water that permeates the soil. In addition, development can increase visitation at refuges, which can negatively impact refuge resources. For instance, the refuge manager at the Upper Mississippi NWR told us that recreational boating has led to trash dumping, trampling of habitat, and excessive noise. Likewise, Ridgefield NWR must deal with increased litter, illegal dumping, increased trespassing, and damage to the habitat from increased refuge visitation levels. Agricultural activities near the refuges also can contribute pollutants to refuge lands and waters from runoff from animal waste and fertilizers, for example. Not surprisingly, managers reported that habitat was more likely to worsen at refuges where there was an increase in external factors that contribute to habitat problems, such as extreme weather and off-refuge agricultural activities (see fig. 19). For example, among refuges that reported no net increase in external factors, about 9.5 times more refuges reported improved waterfowl habitat (38 percent) than reported worsened waterfowl habitat (4 percent). By contrast, among refuges that experienced a net increase in external factors, the number of refuges that experienced improved waterfowl habitat (38 percent) was much closer to the number that experienced worsened habitat (22 percent). We found similar results for the change in other migratory bird habitat (see fig. 20). Based on our statistical models, which assess the effects of a change in external factors while adjusting for the effects of tier designation and the change in staff time, we estimate that refuges that experienced no net increase in the number of external factors were about 7.0 times more likely to experience improved, rather than worsened, waterfowl habitat quality and 5.1 times more likely to experience improved, rather than worsened, habitat quality for other migratory birds. 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 8). Not surprisingly, given the number of refuges with invasive plant problems, refuge managers reported somewhat or greatly increasing time spent addressing invasive plant infestations on 61 percent of refuges, while somewhat or greatly decreasing time spent on this activity at only 9 percent of refuges. The refuge system’s national strategy for managing invasive species states that “invasive species are, collectively, the single greatest threat to native plants, fish, and wildlife with the potential to degrade entire ecosystems;” however, eradicating or effectively controlling invasive species through actions such as controlled burning, mowing, manual removal, and herbicide application is often resource intensive. For example, Antioch Dunes NWR is using a combination of managed grazing, herbicide application, manual removal, and tractors and other equipment to prevent several invasive species from harming two endangered plant species and an endangered butterfly species. In fiscal year 2007, about $9.8 million was budgeted for specific invasive species activities. For example, about $2.3 million was budgeted for invasive species strike teams in five specific areas of the country. These teams were designed to eradicate newly identified infestations before they become widespread with the goal of saving substantial funds in the long run. In addition, more than $500,000 was budgeted for mapping and tracking invasive plants on refuges and coordinating volunteer work for invasive species control activities. Eradication programs for specific species also were budgeted funds, such as $700,000 for nutria eradication at the Blackwater NWR and Eastern Neck NWR in eastern Maryland and the Southeast Louisiana Refuges Complex; over $1.3 million for spartina grass eradication at the Willapa NWR and Grays Harbor NWR in western Washington; and about $200,000 for an exotic rodent species at the Pacific Remote Islands NWR Complex. In addition to these specific programs, refuge managers also may spend resources on other invasive species- related activities on their refuges. Despite these investments, however, performance data from fiscal year 2007 show that only about 12 percent of the acreage identified as infested with invasive plants was treated in fiscal year 2007. The estimated cost of unfunded invasive species control projects found in the refuge system’s operational needs database was more than $150 million dollars at the end of 2007. The refuge system’s national strategy for invasive species control states that nearly half of all refuges report that invasive species infestations interfere significantly with their wildlife management objectives. Given that refuge managers reported that invasive plants were increasing at many refuges and that new invasive species gain a foothold in the United States every year, refuges will likely be constantly battling this problem. As might be expected given reported improvements in habitat quality during our study period, refuge managers reported increasing the time spent on basic habitat management activities such as haying, mowing, prescribed burning, or manipulating water levels on 43 percent of refuges and increasing time spent on habitat restoration activities, such as planting native grasses or trees, and creating water control structures, such as levees, at about 48 percent of refuges since fiscal year 2002. Basic management activities represent the day-to-day work that refuge staff perform to protect, conserve, and improve habitat conditions. Refuge managers, biologists, maintenance workers, and others routinely monitor water impoundments to ensure water levels are optimal for migrating birds, for instance. Restoration projects often have longer-term timelines and are meant to re-establish native habitats on the refuge. Such restoration projects—which may be as extensive as a restoration of a 100- acre grove of bottomland hardwood forest that could take nearly 50 years to complete, or as small as constructing a water impoundment to flood a small wetland area that could be constructed in a couple of months—are key to attracting and sustaining wildlife populations. Managers reported decreasing the time spent on basic management and restoration activities at 18 percent and 14 percent of refuges, respectively. Refuge managers’ responses on changes in the time spent on inventory and monitoring surveys of habitat conditions and wildlife populations— which are key activities that allow refuges to identify, report on, and manage wildlife populations and specific problems—were more mixed. Refuge managers reported increasing the time spent on these activities at 40 percent of refuges, while decreasing time spent on 20 percent of refuges since 2002. These surveys are an important way to understand how well wildlife populations and habitats are doing and whether a refuge is accomplishing its habitat management goals. Managers told us that having accurate data on habitat conditions and wildlife populations, among other things, is critical as they develop and deploy their comprehensive conservation plans. In addition, a number of refuge managers told us that their comprehensive conservation planning efforts led them to increase the amount of survey work they conducted, as the planning efforts require baseline data on habitat and wildlife conditions. For example, Rappahannock River Valley NWR in Virginia increased its inventory and monitoring surveys, partly to support development of its comprehensive conservation plan. In addition, accurate data from these surveys are important for correctly reporting data for FWS’s annual performance report and for early identification of problems affecting habitat. In the case of invasive species, for instance, a small infestation can spread exponentially over a very short time period. Some managers indicated that they are conducting fewer surveys, some of which are of lower quality. The managers said that they are depending more on volunteers or temporary workers to do the surveys, which can limit the survey quality because volunteers may not have the requisite background, experience, or training in biological survey methods. Some refuge managers told us that they have had to cut back on needed survey work due to staffing and funding shortfalls, while a few others told us that increasingly available and easy-to-use technologies have helped them increase the amount of survey work being done. Relatedly, refuge managers reported increasing time spent developing comprehensive conservation plans at nearly 60 percent of refuges since 2002—about two-thirds of refuges reported engaging in planning activities in fiscal year 2007. This is not surprising, given the requirement that all refuges must complete their plans by 2012, and the fact that less than 50 percent have been completed to date. The conservation planning process can be time consuming, given the need to hold public meetings, conduct environmental reviews, and coordinate with state and local entities. During our interviews, several refuge managers told us that they generally did not obtain additional staff to develop these plans; instead, they have had to shift responsibilities from existing staff or curtail other refuge management activities to devote time to the plans. For example, one refuge manager reported that the refuge set aside an invasive species eradication project after several years of implementation in order to work on the conservation plan for the refuge. To minimize the time such planning has taken away from other refuge activities, some refuge managers we interviewed told us that they or their staff worked on the plans on their own time. One refuge manager reported that he worked on the comprehensive conservation plan on weekends and converted the refuge’s biologist to a full-time planner on a temporary basis. Another manager stated that refuge staff attended fewer public meetings that were not related to the comprehensive conservation plan so they would not have to cut back on other refuge work. Consistent with the importance that FWS places on working with owners of lands adjacent to and near refuges, refuge managers reported coordinating with landowners at more than 85 percent of refuges in 2007 and increasing the time spent on this activity at 50 percent of refuges since 2002. This coordination with adjacent landowners is increasing as concerns about habitat fragmentation and off-refuge pollution grow, and FWS increasingly is considering the need to deal with the broader ecosystems of which the refuges are a part. In addition, two refuge managers noted that coordination with adjacent landowners has the added benefit of being a good outreach tool and of giving the refuge, and the refuge system, a better image and a more positive status with the broader public. Some refuges have employees specifically designated to undertake these efforts, while others depend on the work of the refuge manager for these efforts. Permanent staff and volunteers increased the time spent on habitat management activities at 48 percent and 45 percent of refuges, respectively (see table 9). However, consistent with shifts in resources as a result of workforce planning, permanent and temporary staff time spent on habitat management decreased at 29 percent and 19 percent of refuges, respectively. Refuge managers have discretion over the activities on which staff spend their time. For instance, individual refuges face different challenges—due to such things as natural weather cycles and increases or decreases in habitat problems or external factors affecting habitat—that managers need to address. Other influences over how to prioritize staff time may result from management decisions, such as the decision to focus more on working with adjacent landowners, or statutory requirements, such as the comprehensive conservation plans that must be completed. In discussing habitat management activities with refuge managers, managers indicated that unstaffed satellite refuges will generally only see habitat management work on an infrequent or “as-needed” basis. For instance, the manager for a refuge complex in southern Washington state told us that the complex’s unstaffed satellite refuge, which is not open to the public, gets management attention only during a few weeks per year when equipment and staff are available. Similarly, an unstaffed refuge in a complex in New Hampshire has been visited by refuge staff only five times in the past 7 years, according to the complex manager. Based on our site visits, we learned that some refuges were attempting to address reductions in permanent staff by relying on volunteers or contractors more heavily. However, our survey results indicated that refuges that increased permanent staff time on habitat management were more likely to increase time spent by volunteers and contractors than refuges that decreased permanent staff time (see table 10). While volunteers and contractors perform important functions, they cannot replace refuge staff because they must be managed, trained, and supervised. Across the board, if a refuge reported an increase in time spent on habitat management by permanent staff, they generally also spent more time on habitat management activities by all other type of worker; rarely did these refuges reduce the amount of time other workers spent on these activities, indicating the importance—as nearly every refuge manager we spoke with did—of permanent staff in order to carry out needed refuge work. For refuges that reduced permanent staff time on habitat management activities, the results were much more mixed. These refuges reported significantly more decreases in the amount of time that other workers spent on habitat management activities, and it does not appear to hold true that refuges that reduce staff necessarily rely more heavily on other types of workers. In particular, refuges where permanent staff time on habitat management activities decreased were significantly more likely to report decreases in time spent by volunteers at refuges and less likely to report increases in volunteer time, as compared to refuges where permanent staff increased. This likely reflects the catch-22 that refuge managers face with regard to volunteers—while having people interested in helping the refuge can help relieve their workload, volunteers still need direction, oversight, and sometimes training by refuge staff. While some refuge managers indicated that they would not be able to accomplish their habitat management objectives without their volunteer corps, there also is concern about the over-reliance on volunteers to assist with these activities because their availability over the long term is not guaranteed and volunteerism levels can fluctuate greatly. 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; our survey results corroborate these concerns. While each refuge operates under unique circumstances and faces unique habitat challenges, refuge managers across the system are concerned about a variety of specific threats to their individual refuge habitats and to the refuge system as a whole. Although our survey results do not indicate major declines in habitat quality since fiscal year 2002, many managers are concerned about their ability to maintain quality conditions in 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 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, despite growing habitat problems and other factors affecting refuge habitats and an increasing administrative workload that reduces the amount of time refuge staff can spend performing habitat management work. Several managers said that attention to key habitats is the last thing that will stop receiving management attention in the event of declining funding. They told us that refuge staff are very dedicated to the purpose and mission of the refuge system, but that they fear employee burnout. 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. The quality of visitor services improved on one-fifth to nearly one-half of refuges between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, but environmental education and interpretation programs worsened at some refuges and were of poor quality at about one-third of refuges in 2007. Although some refuges have increased the time spent on these services, refuge managers are concerned about their continued ability to provide high-quality visitor services to the public given recent funding and staffing changes. Encouragingly, visitor services quality was reported as staying stable or improving since 2002 by 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 11). 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 12). Visitor services deemed moderate quality did not invoke the same level of concern from refuge managers as did habitat deemed moderate quality. While managers would prefer high-quality programs, moderate quality does not jeopardize the survival of certain species, as moderate-quality habitat may. Hunting and wildlife observation programs topped the list of visitor services in quality, with high-quality programs at more than half of refuges and just about 10 percent of refuges with low-quality programs. Some managers told us that there is a focus on ensuring that hunting programs are successful because of the significant public demand for hunting on refuges. They also noted that it is fairly easy to support wildlife observation, as well as photography, via regular refuge infrastructure such as roads and trails; therefore, it is not resource intensive for refuges to implement and manage high-quality programs for these activities. Environmental education and interpretation programs received the lowest marks, with about one-third of refuges with low-quality programs; about the same percentage of refuges had programs deemed high quality. Managers told us that education and interpretation are among the most resource-intensive visitor service programs because they require staff time for developing and delivering educational supplies, as well as infrastructure, such as classrooms. Refuge managers we met with told us that, for these reasons, environmental education and interpretation programs often are 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 depends largely on physical structures such as duck blinds, boat launches, and fishing platforms. Providing wildlife observation and photography opportunities simply requires adequate access to the refuge, but can be enhanced through observation platforms and photography blinds. Figure 21 shows examples of infrastructure for wildlife observation and photography. 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. Figure 22 shows examples of infrastructure for environmental education and interpretation. The amount and quality of visitor services infrastructure stayed about the same or increased on the vast majority of refuges since 2002 (see table 13). According to refuge managers and regional officials, improvements at least partly reflect the initiative to focus funding on small-scale visitor services infrastructure, such as improvements to parking lots and construction of informational kiosks and restrooms. The increased ability of refuges to implement such projects likely is responsible for refuge managers’ assessments of improvements in environmental interpretation. However, infrastructure conditions worsened at between 12 percent and 26 percent of refuges. According to refuge managers, this reflects that, in many cases, refuges have insufficient staff and funding to keep up with necessary infrastructure maintenance and repairs. In addition, many managers we interviewed reported that they still lack enough infrastructure to deliver quality visitor services and meet the demand for these services. Refuge managers reported that insufficient infrastructure has negatively impacted the quality of education and interpretation programs to at least a moderate extent on about 60 percent of refuges, photography and observation programs on about 40 percent of refuges, and hunting and fishing programs on about 20 percent of refuges. Some refuge managers reported that there is no infrastructure at all on their refuges for the visiting public. In addition, some refuge managers reported not being able to meet public demand for some programs. For example, one refuge manager told us that while many local schools request environmental education programs, the refuge must turn them down because they have no facilities to accommodate school groups. Some refuge managers we spoke with indicated that they would be able to stimulate additional demand for all visitor services if they could improve the amount and quality of infrastructure, including trails, hunting blinds, boat launches, photography blinds, and observation platforms. Consistent with the improvements in program quality noted for environmental education and interpretation (at 40 percent and 47 percent of refuges, respectively), managers reported increases in the time spent on these programs at 44 percent of refuges. These programs, however, also received less time on 29 percent and 27 percent of refuges, respectively. Overall, at least one in five refuges reported a decrease in staff time for each visitor service area (see table 14). In some cases, according to several refuge managers, the changes in time spent may reflect a shift in staffing due to workforce planning, while in other cases, it may reflect the prerogative of refuge managers to move staff away from visitor services in favor of needed habitat management activities. Not surprisingly, more than half of refuge managers reported increasing the amount of time spent on visitor services by volunteers (see table 15). Refuge managers said that volunteers frequently are relied upon to help manage visitor centers and deliver education programs. Given staff reductions due to workforce planning and comments from managers that visitor services are the first to be cut when resources are constrained, it also is not surprising to see that time spent by permanent staff on visitor services had been reduced at more than one-third of refuges. When comparing these results to those for habitat management, more refuges increased permanent, temporary, and contractor staff time on habitat management activities than increased their time on visitor services activities. Conversely, more refuges increased time spent by volunteers and cooperators on visitor services than on habitat management. We found that the time spent by various types of workers on visitor service activities as a function of increases or decreases in time spent by permanent staff were similar to the results for the time spent on habitat management. Specifically, as with time spent on habitat management, refuges that reported an increase in permanent staff time for visitor services were more likely than those reporting a decrease also to report an increase in other staff time. For example, refuges that reported an increase in permanent staff time spent on visitor services were eight times more likely to report an increase in the time spent by temporary staff on these programs than refuges that reported a decrease in permanent staff time. Refuges where permanent staff time increased also were twice as likely to increase volunteer time (see table 16). This analysis also is consistent with our analysis of changes in staff time as a function of staff increases or decreases at a stand-alone refuge or complex. In addition, those refuges that increased time spent on habitat management also tended to be the refuges that spent more time on visitor services. Specifically, refuges that reported spending more permanent staff time doing habitat management work were almost five times more likely to report spending permanent staff time providing visitor services, and refuges that reported spending less permanent staff time doing habitat management work were about four times more likely to report a decrease in permanent staff time providing visitor services. Again, this suggests that some refuges are seeing an overall gain in staff—most likely at focus refuges—while others are seeing an overall loss—likely at targeted- reduction and unstaffed satellite refuges. As with habitat management activities, a lack of staff was identified as a key factor hindering the quality of some visitor service programs. Refuge managers identified staffing as a key factor negatively affecting the quality of environmental education and environmental interpretation programs at 85 percent of refuges; staffing was cited as negatively affecting hunting programs at more than 50 percent of refuges. According to refuge managers and regional documentation, some visitor service programs that were active in the past have had to be cut back due to staffing. For instance, plans to renovate a building used for environmental education at Wallkill River NWR in New Jersey were halted when staff reductions made it impossible to continue the refuge’s emphasis on environmental education. Minnesota Valley NWR reported a 13 percent drop in the number of students participating in environmental education after the loss of park ranger staff, and Kodiak NWR reported that it curtailed its educational programs due to the elimination of an environmental education specialist position. In other cases, refuge managers told us that they do not seek out groups that would be interested in programs at the refuge because there simply are not enough refuge employees to provide the additional education and interpretation services that would be needed if more visitors were to come to the refuge. Similarly, some refuges do not have adequate staff to administer check stations full time during hunting seasons or adequate law enforcement personnel to enforce permitting requirements and take limits. The refuge manager at Cape Romain NWR in South Carolina reported an approximate 20 percent reduction in participation of the refuge’s hunting program after the refuge lost a park ranger. Some stakeholder groups have voiced serious concerns with the deteriorating condition of visitor services and public access to refuges due to recent funding trends and assert that the refuge system needs substantially more funding to fulfill the requirements of the Improvement Act. Some have noted concerns with refuges reducing hours or closing refuges to the public because of staff constraints. According to our survey of refuge managers, however, these concerns do not reflect widespread conditions. A very small number—about 4 percent—of refuges have decreased the hours they are open to the public, while slightly more than 12 percent indicated that they have actually increased the hours they are open. However, the change in the number of hours that visitor centers are open to the public varied quite substantially. Specifically, for those refuges that reported having visitor centers, 20 percent indicated that visitor center hours increased, while about 27 percent reported that hours decreased. For example, the visitor contact station at Occoquan Bay NWR has been closed for several years due to staffing shortages; instead, the refuge relies on an “honor fee” system (see fig. 23). Survey results do not show a significant difference among the three refuge tiers with regard to changes in the hours refuges are open to the public. However, according to our survey, targeted reduction refuges were almost twice as likely as focus refuges to have decreased the hours that their visitor center is open. This is most likely due to staffing changes resulting from workforce planning, which were targeted at targeted-reduction refuges. While some refuges have visitor services staff and sufficient infrastructure, refuge managers indicated that staffing changes, partially resulting from workforce planning, and a lack of resources for increasing and maintaining infrastructure, raise concerns about their ability to provide quality visitor services into the future. In fact, in response to an open- ended question concerning the biggest threats to visitor services on refuges, a large majority of managers cited either funding, staffing, and infrastructure as primary threats to the quality of visitor service delivery; almost 75 percent of refuge managers singled out staffing alone as the key problem affecting visitor services. As noted previously, refuge managers tend to focus resources on maintaining habitat conditions in times of tight budgets, at the expense of visitor services. Refuge managers also are concerned about the impact that the increasing administrative workload incurred by nonadministrative refuge staff is having on the refuges’ ability to deliver visitor services—also noted as a major concern for refuges’ ability to maintain habitat management. Managers also expressed concern about a continued, and in some cases increasing, dependence on volunteers to keep up with public demand for visitor services. Volunteers help refuges with a large variety of visitor services activities including operating visitor centers, providing education and interpretive services, and building and maintaining interpretative kiosks and other infrastructure. However, managers told us that although volunteers provide valuable services, they cannot fully replace lost refuge staff. In addition, volunteerism levels are unpredictable, and many of the refuge managers we met with indicated that volunteer levels have generally been declining. Furthermore, as noted previously, even if a refuge has a good supply of volunteers, it will still need to devote employee time to training, supervising, and coordinating volunteers. Refuge managers and regional and headquarters officials expressed concern about the long-term implications of declining and low-quality visitor services occurring at some refuges. Many refuge managers cited the importance of providing opportunities for the public to utilize refuge resources—in particular, ensuring they have positive outdoor experiences and providing them with meaningful educational and interpretative services—to the future of the refuge system. This helps ensure that refuges have visibility in the community, that the public understands the purpose and importance of what the refuge system does, and that refuges are thought of as a vital community resource. Refuge managers told us that positive recreational and educational experiences help ensure public support for refuge operations, and outreach and public education help bolster the number of people interested in volunteer opportunities on refuges. These activities also are important, according to refuge managers, because the refuge system increasingly is turning toward partnerships with private landowners in an effort to maintain and improve ecosystems both on and around refuges; public education about the refuge system can increase the viability of important refuge partnerships with nonprofit environmental and land management organizations who work with adjacent landowners, other federal and state land management agencies, and others on conservation efforts. Refuge officials also told us that public perception of land management work assists with land acquisitions, inasmuch as more private landowners will be willing to work with the agency on land transactions. In addition, refuge managers cited the availability of visitor services as 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 and an interest in maintaining these resources. In light of continuing federal fiscal constraints and an ever-expanding list of challenges facing refuges, 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. 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 habitat 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. 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. GAO provided Interior with a draft of this report for its review and comment. The department provided technical comments that we have incorporated as appropriate. The department’s comments are presented in appendix VI. As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 2 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to interested congressional committees, the Secretary of the Interior, and other interested parties. We will also make copies of this report 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 offices have 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. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix VII. The objectives of this study were to (1) describe changing factors that the National Wildlife Refuge System experienced from fiscal years 2002 through 2007, including funding and staffing changes, and (2) examine how habitat management and visitor services changed during this period. To address these objectives, we reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and policies as well as numerous agency documents discussing the refuge system. We also reviewed other reports that related to refuge system operations such as reports on climate change and possible impacts on refuges published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, on development and impacts on wildlife by the Western Governors’ Association, and on challenges facing the refuge system by the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement—a consortium of groups interested in the refuge system. We obtained and analyzed funding and staffing data from the Federal Financial System and the Federal Personnel Payroll System, and refuge planning and performance data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) Refuge Annual Performance Planning System. We worked with national program officials to identify the 222 complexes and stand-alone refuges that existed during the time period we reviewed. We interviewed database technicians and their managers to understand how the information in these databases is compiled and maintained. Where necessary, we worked with database technicians to ensure their output files contained needed data elements, and we validated our resulting analyses with regional and national program officials. Our review of the data and our discussions with program officials indicated that the payroll and personnel databases were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review. We used the performance planning system to assist in site selection and determined that it was sufficiently reliable for this purpose. We analyzed the obligations data in both nominal and inflation-adjusted terms. To remove the effects of inflation, we adjusted nominal dollars using the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Price Index for Government Consumption Expenditures and Gross Investment (federal nondefense sector), with 2002 as the base year. The price index reflects changes in the value of government output, measured by the cost of inputs, including compensation of employees and purchases of goods and services. Consistent with the proportion of FWS’s operating expenditures on personnel, this price index is more heavily weighted by changes in federal workers’ compensation than the overall GDP price index. We met with officials at refuge system headquarters, refuge offices at 4 FWS regions (Hadley, Massachusetts; Denver, Colorado; Portland, Oregon; and Minneapolis, Minnesota), and 19 refuges, and conducted phone interviews with officials at the other 4 regional offices and about 50 additional refuges. We selected refuges for site visits in order to see a range in geographic location, visitation level, refuge prioritization level, and type of management activities and challenges. Given the differences in the refuges across the system and the need to gather information on a range of topics, we surveyed all 585 units within the refuge system—including stand-alone refuges and refuges within complexes. Survey respondents primarily were refuge managers or project leaders of refuge complexes. Survey questions were crafted to obtain information on a variety of issues, including how the following changed between fiscal years 2002 and 2007: the quality of various types of habitat, the extent of various habitat problems, the extent to which external factors affected habitat problems, the amount of time spent on various management activities, the amount and quality of visitor services infrastructure, and the quality of visitor services. We also inquired about their activities between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, and their perspectives on the challenges facing the refuge system and refuge management and reporting. During our site visits and in interviews with 9 randomly selected refuge managers, we explored various potential survey questions to confirm we were eliciting the information we intended and whether managers could answer the questions in a clear, consistent manner with minimal difficulty in data recall, among other things. When it became clear that we needed to include “pick lists” of possible answers for certain questions, we utilized knowledge gained from prior interviews and obtained feedback from 12 refuge managers about what should be included in these lists. We conducted formal pretests with 8 refuge managers and used structured probes to determine: (1) if respondents had the information and knowledge necessary to answer the question, (2) if respondents interpreted the questions in the same way as other respondents, (3) if respondents interpreted the questions as we intended, (4) if respondents felt that the response categories offered the correct level of precision, and (5) if respondents felt that we used the terminology commonly used by refuge managers. After changes were incorporated to address pretesting concerns, we sent the survey to a random sample of 10 refuge managers to complete and “validate” the survey. No concerns were raised during the validations about respondent bias, response burden, relevancy of the questions, ability of the respondent to answer, or confidence in response accuracy. We also obtained comments from refuge system officials in headquarters. We then distributed the survey to all refuge units. Subsequently, we determined that 538 units should be included in our scope of analysis because FWS does not have full management responsibility for all of its units. We received an 81 percent response rate for this subset of refuges used in our analysis. We conducted follow-up interviews with 14 refuge managers to verify that we were correctly interpreting responses and to clarify certain points. See appendix II for a detailed discussion of the analysis of this survey. Below is a summary of the key questions we are reporting on from the survey. We also asked other questions that we do not specifically report on to obtain further context. Between fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2007, did the overall quality of pesticide runoff, soil erosion, and manure), off-refuge industry (such as energy development, mining, logging, and military activities), off-refuge human settlement (such as roads, construction, housing, septic systems, and airports), rights of way (from roads and utilities), on-refuge sources of pollution (such as energy production, grazing, and legacy waste), on- refuge activities (such as visitation and fire suppression), inadequate water rights, and other factors (respondents could write in)? In fiscal year 2007, did workers on your refuge (including permanent employees, temporary employees, contract workers, volunteers, and cooperators) conduct the following habitat management activities and did the amount of time spent on these activities increase, stay the same, or decrease between fiscal years 2002 and 2007: addressing invasive plants, addressing invasive animals, addressing water pollution, addressing soil contamination, addressing air pollution, addressing light pollution, addressing plant disease, addressing animal disease, conducting routine habitat management activities, conducting habitat restoration projects, conducting inventory and monitoring surveys of habitat condition, conducting inventory and monitoring of wildlife populations, addressing habitat fragmentation, addressing lack of water, addressing excessive water, addressing damage to habitat form wildfire, addressing damage to habitat from storms, addressing damage to habitat from recreational use, addressing damage to habitat from crime, doing conservation planning, and coordinating with nearby landowners? Between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, did the amount of time spent by the following types of workers to conduct habitat management activities on your refuge increase, stay the same, or decrease: permanent employees, temporary employees, contract workers, volunteers, and cooperators? In fiscal year 2007, did your refuge provide the following visitor services: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and environmental interpretation? If you did not provide some of the six visitor services, what were the reasons: not compatible with refuge, lack of resources to provide, or other reasons? Between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, did the hours of the refuge or the visitor center on your refuge (if there is one) increase, stay the same, or decrease? Between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, did the quantity and condition of the following types of visitor services infrastructure increase, stay the same, or decrease: trail and tour routes, hunting infrastructure (such as blinds and check stations), fishing infrastructure (such as boat launches, docks, and platforms), wildlife observation infrastructure (such as platforms and viewing areas), wildlife photography infrastructure (such as blinds, platforms, and viewing areas), education infrastructure (such as buildings and study locations), and interpretation infrastructure (such as signs, kiosks, and exhibits)? Between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, did the amount of time spent by all workers on your refuge (including permanent employees, temporary employees, contract workers, volunteers, and cooperators) to provide the following visitor services increase, stay the same, or decrease: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and environmental interpretation? Between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, did the amount of time spent by the following types of workers to provide visitor services on your refuge increase, stay the same, or decrease: permanent employees, temporary employees, contract workers, volunteers, and cooperators? In fiscal year 2007, how would you rate the overall quality of the following visitor services at your refuge and did the quality improve, stay the same, or worsen between fiscal years 2002 and 2007: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and environmental interpretation? In your professional judgment, what are the biggest threats to the condition of habitat and visitor services at your refuge? In your professional judgment, what are the biggest threats to the condition of habitat and visitor services for the National Wildlife Refuge System? Do you feel that the criteria for placing refuges into tiers were appropriate to distinguish among competing priorities of the refuges in your region? Between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, did the number of work days spent by your refuge’s nonadministrative staff on selected administrative activities increase, stay the same, or decrease? We conducted our work between July 2007 and 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. We also conducted reliability assessments of the data we obtained electronically and determined those data to be of sufficient quality to be used for the purposes of this report. During our site visits to wildlife refuges, during our interviews with refuge managers, and in written responses to our survey questions, refuge managers asserted that staff reductions threaten the quality of wildlife habitat. To test these assertions, we developed statistical models that assess whether staffing change is associated with changes in habitat quality. In particular, our models assess whether refuges where staff spent decreased time on habitat management activities between fiscal years 2002 and 2007 were more likely than other refuges to report that habitat conditions worsened rather than improved. In assessing this likelihood, our models account for refuge characteristics other than change in staff time that might impact habitat conditions, including tier designation, which indicates relative importance of a refuge compared to other refuges, and the change in external factors, such as extreme weather and off-refuge agriculture, that contribute to habitat problems. The results of our models show that habitat was more likely to worsen, rather than to improve, at refuges where staff time decreased between fiscal years 2002 and 2007 compared to those where staff time increased, even after adjusting for these other characteristics. Our analysis assesses the change in the quality of waterfowl and other migratory bird habitat as a function of three key refuge characteristics: (1) the change in staff time spent on habitat management, (2) tier designation, and (3) the change in external factors that contribute to habitat problems. Frequency counts for the key variables used in our analysis are presented in table 17. To measure habitat change, we used responses to a question on our survey, which asked whether the overall quality of habitat on a refuge improved, stayed the same, or worsened between fiscal years 2002 and 2007. The question was asked separately for both waterfowl and for other migratory birds, leading to two indicators of the change in habitat quality. We used these two indicators to develop separate statistical models for waterfowl and for other migratory birds. To measure the first key refuge characteristic, the change in staff time spent on habitat management activities, we used data from a question on our survey, which asked whether the total amount of time that permanent staff spent conducting habitat management activities on a particular refuge between fiscal years 2002 and 2007 increased, stayed the same, or decreased. For the second key refuge characteristic, tier designation, we obtained data from FWS for each refuge. In 2006, the agency designated refuges as focus, targeted reduction, or unstaffed satellite refuges. In our analysis, tier designation represents the relative importance of a given refuge within a complex as the agency determined in 2006. To measure the third key refuge characteristic, the impact of external factors, we used responses to a question on our survey, which asked whether the contribution of various external factors to habitat problems on a refuge increased, stayed the same, or decreased between fiscal years 2002 and 2007. We used these data to classify refuges into two groups. Refuges in the first group, which we refer to as having a net increase in external factors, reported that the contribution to habitat problems increased for more of these factors than it decreased. Refuges in the second group, which we refer to as having no net increase in external factors, reported that either the contribution of these factors decreased for more factors than it increased or that the contribution of these factors increased for the same number that it decreased. Refuges were included in our analysis if they indicated that providing habitat for waterfowl or other migratory birds was at least somewhat of a priority and if they provided usable responses to each of the key survey questions described above. Of the 437 refuges that responded to our survey, 40 were excluded from our analysis of the change in waterfowl habitat because they reported that providing this type of habitat was not a priority at their refuge. Similarly, 14 refuges were excluded from our analysis of the change in other migratory bird habitat for the same reason. Of the remaining 397 refuges, 374 provided useable responses for all key survey questions and were included in our analysis of waterfowl habitat, while 400 of the remaining 423 refuges provided sufficient responses to be included in our analysis of other migratory bird habitat. Before developing statistical models, we cross-tabulated data on the change in habitat quality against data for the three key refuge characteristics described above (namely, the change in staff time, tier designation and the change in external factors). The results of these cross- tabulations show that, although habitat was more likely overall to improve than it was to worsen, the odds of improving rather than worsening, vary considerably depending upon the characteristics of a refuge. Complete results of these cross-tabulations, along with tests of the statistical significance of these associations, are presented in tables 18 and 19. These cross-tabulations show that the change in habitat quality is associated with the change in staff time. For example, as shown in table 18, among refuges where staff time increased, more than three times as many refuges experienced improved habitat for waterfowl (47 percent) as experienced worsened habitat (14 percent). By contrast, among refuges where staff time decreased, nearly the same number of refuges experienced improved habitat for waterfowl (30 percent) as experienced worsened habitat (27 percent). We found similar results when comparing change in staff time with the change in habitat quality for other migratory birds (table 19). The cross-tabulations also indicate that changes in habitat quality depend, in part, upon tier designation. Focus and targeted reduction refuges were more likely than unstaffed satellite refuges to experience improved rather than worsened habitat. For example, as shown in table 18, between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, more than twice as many focus refuges experienced improved waterfowl habitat (42 percent) as experienced worsened waterfowl habitat (20 percent). At unstaffed satellite refuges, by contrast, habitat for these birds worsened almost as frequently as it improved, with 20 percent of refuges experiencing improved quality and 16 percent experiencing worsened quality. The cross-tabulations show a similar disparity among tiers with regard to changes in the quality of habitat for other migratory birds (table 19). Finally, our cross-tabulations indicate that changes in habitat quality also depend upon the change in external factors that contribute to habitat problems. For example, among refuges that reported no net increase in external factors, about nine times more refuges reported improved waterfowl habitat (38 percent) than reported worsened waterfowl habitat (4 percent), as shown in table 18. By contrast, among refuges that experienced a net increase in external factors, the number of refuges that experienced improved waterfowl habitat (38 percent) was much closer to the number that experienced worsened habitat (22 percent). We found similar results for the change in other migratory bird habitat (table 19). Although the results of the cross-tabulations are strong and statistically significant, they provide only a partial assessment of the relationship between habitat change and refuge characteristics. This is because the cross-tabulations compare habitat change with each refuge characteristic individually without accounting for the influence of the other characteristics. For this reason, we developed statistical models that allow us to account for the effects of all of these characteristics simultaneously. Our statistical models, technically referred to as a multinomial logistic regression, were used to assess the effects of each refuge characteristic on the change in habitat quality while adjusting for the effects of the other characteristics. These models estimate the effects of each refuge characteristic on (1) the odds of habitat improving, rather than worsening, and (2) the odds of habitat staying the same, rather than worsening. For example, our models estimate the number of times more likely that habitat is to improve, rather than to worsen, at refuges where staff time increased compared to refuges where staff time decreased, controlling for the effects of tier designation and the change in external factors. Similarly, our models estimate effects for tier designation and for the change in external factors. In order to test the adequacy of our models, we verified that our data contained a sufficient number of refuges with each combination of characteristics, each model adequately fit the data based on chi-square goodness-of-fit tests, and high associations among the refuge characteristics would be unlikely to confound model estimates. We used robust regression techniques to adjust for the fact that refuges clustered within the same complex may have provided similar responses to survey questions. In order to be confident that the estimates from our regression models are robust to various specifications, we formulated and tested several alternative models to ensure that we obtained similar estimates for the effects of staffing change, tier designation, and change in external factors. The statistical analysis was performed by a senior research methodologist and was reviewed by a managing methodologist and a professional statistician. Their review assessed the model specification, model development, model results, and the conclusions derived from these results. In order to ensure that the analysis was free of programming errors, each line of the computer syntax used to develop the model was verified by a senior data analyst. Our regression models indicate that change in staff time and tier designation are associated with changes in habitat quality. These findings are true for both waterfowl and other migratory bird habitat. The models indicate that these associations are statistically significant even after adjusting for other refuge characteristics, including the change in external factors. The results of our regression models are presented in tables 20 and 21. In particular, highlights include: The odds of habitat improving, rather than worsening, were significantly greater at refuges where staff time increased compared to those where staff time decreased. Specifically, we estimate that refuges where staff time increased were about 3.0 times more likely than refuges where staff time decreased to report improved, rather than worsened, habitat for both waterfowl and other migratory birds. The odds of habitat improving, rather than worsening, were higher at focus and targeted reduction refuges as compared to unstaffed satellite refuges. For example, we estimate that focus refuges were 3.4 times more likely than unstaffed refuges to experience improved rather than worsened habitat quality for other migratory birds and that targeted reduction refuges were 3.9 times more likely. Targeted reduction refuges were also significantly more likely than unstaffed satellite refuges to experience improved rather than worsened waterfowl habitat, although focus refuges were not significantly different from unstaffed refuges in this regard. Change in external factors is strongly associated with habitat change. For example, refuges that experienced no net increase in the number of external factors were about 7.0 times more likely to experience improved, rather than worsened, waterfowl habitat quality and 5.1 times more likely to experience improved, rather than worsened habitat quality for other migratory birds. Our models also found that the change in staff time and the change in external factors were associated with an increased likelihood of habitat quality staying the same rather than worsening. In particular, we found the following: The odds of habitat staying the same rather than worsening were higher at refuges where staff time stayed the same. Specifically, we estimate that refuges where staff time stayed the same were 3.9 times more likely than refuges where staff time decreased to report that habitat for other migratory birds stayed the same rather than worsened. This effect was only marginally significant for waterfowl habitat. The odds of habitat staying the same rather than worsening were higher at refuges that did not experience a net increase in external factors that contribute to habitat problems. Specifically, we estimate that refuges that experienced no net increase in external factors were 8.0 times more likely to report that waterfowl habitat stayed the same, rather than worsened, and 5.8 times more likely to report that other migratory bird habitat stayed the same rather than worsened. The key results of our models are robust to alternative specifications. We tested for the presence of interaction effects between staff time and tier designation, that is, whether the effect of a change in staff time depends upon tier, but found no evidence of such an effect. We fit models that accounted for habitat priority using data from a question on our survey that asked: according to the purpose of each refuge, how much of a priority is providing habitat for waterfowl and other migratory birds. The results of these models show that the estimated effects of staff change and tier designation did not diminish after accounting for habitat priority, indicating that the effects of staff change and tier are not limited to lower priority habitats. We also fit models that used data on the change in the number of full-time equivalent staff at the complex level, rather than survey data about changes in staff time at the refuge level, as a measure of staffing change between fiscal years 2002 and 2007. These models found results similar to those reported above: namely, that refuges that were part of complexes that gained staff were significantly more likely than those that were part of complexes that lost staff to report that habitat conditions improved rather than worsened. significantly associated with increased staff time, and that worsened habitat quality is significantly associated with decreased staff time, it is subject to certain limitations. First, our data on habitat change are based on the perception of refuge managers rather than on direct measurements of habitat conditions. To minimize this limitation, we conducted more than two dozen pretests to ascertain, before administering our survey, that land managers could provide valid responses to these questions. Second, while our model identifies a statistical association between the change in habitat condition with the change in staffing, it is not able to assess whether staffing changes actually caused changes in habitat quality. Statistical correlation is necessary but not sufficient evidence to demonstrate causation. Third, because of the dynamic nature of wildlife habitat, the effects of staffing changes may not appear immediately. Staffing cuts may result in a reduction in habitat management activities, which may not find their effect on habitat for several years. Conversely, restoration projects may take several years to see an effect. Fourth, we do not have data on the initial quality of habitat; while we were confident that refuge managers could assess trends at their refuge, we were not confident that they could accurately rate the quality of habitat in fiscal year 2002, 6 years prior to the administration of our survey. As a result, we are unable to determine, for example, whether refuges that improved in quality were already of high quality or whether refuges that worsened were already of low quality. In spite of these limitations, our models are consistent with the assertions made by refuge managers in showing that decreases in staff are strongly associated with worsening habitat, although the actual size of the effect might be somewhat higher or lower than we estimate it to be. Deferred maintenance is maintenance to repair, rehabilitate, dispose of, or replace buildings and other facilities. Deferred maintenance projects are monitored in the Service Asset and Maintenance Management System (SAMMS), which tracks, among other things, asset maintenance and capital improvement needs. SAMMS replaced the Maintenance Management System (MMS) database in 2005 because refuge system management wanted to move toward a more comprehensive system, according to a refuge system official. Refuge managers identify maintenance needs and document the needs in SAMMS via work orders. If these needs have not been addressed after 1 year, they are eligible to become deferred maintenance projects. In addition, regional facility managers conduct condition assessments of refuge buildings, grounds, equipment, and infrastructure, during which they may find assets that should have been entered into SAMMS but were not. In this case the asset may be identified as deferred maintenance without the 1-year waiting period. Furthermore, deferred maintenance projects are limited to those projects that require less than 25 percent capital improvement; will be completed within 2 years; cost at least $5,000, but less than $750,000; and have repair costs that do not exceed the asset’s current replacement value. The deferred maintenance backlog appears to be increasing, but the actual change in the backlog cannot be determined because the refuge system implemented several recordkeeping changes between fiscal years 2002 and 2007. Specifically, refuge system officials stated that the following recordkeeping changes occurred during this time period. 1. Each refuge asset is now entered into SAMMS as a single project, whereas multiple assets could have been entered as a single project in MMS. 2. All assets must now be entered into SAMMS, including inexpensive assets such as signs and fencing, whereas only the more expensive refuge assets, such as buildings, were typically entered into MMS. 3. The refuge system implemented comprehensive condition assessments—which will take place once every 5 years—to better determine maintenance deficiencies, and the data were entered into SAMMS between fiscal years 2006 and 2007. 4. The Federal Highway Administration completed an assessment of the maintenance needed on refuges’ public-use roads, one of the most expensive assets to maintain, and the newly identified roads projects were entered into SAMMS between fiscal years 2006 and 2007. Taken together, these recordkeeping changes limit our ability to assess yearly trends in the refuge system’s deferred maintenance backlog. However, refuge system officials reported that the changes allow them to maintain more complete and accurate information about the condition of refuge assets. For example, the requirement that all assets be entered as separate projects in SAMMS was made to allow refuge system officials to determine if the cost of maintenance was greater than the current replacement value of each individual asset. According to refuge management, it was too difficult to assess the maintenance cost relative to the current replacement value when multiple assets were listed as one project in MMS. Table 22 presents the refuge system’s deferred maintenance backlog by region for fiscal years 2002 through 2007. The refuge system received increased funding from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2004 to address its deferred maintenance backlog, although the funding decreased from 2004 through 2007. For example, Congress funded 2 years worth of deferred maintenance in fiscal year 2001, and this combined total became the new base funding amount in fiscal year 2002, according to refuge system management. Although we cannot determine the extent to which the additional funding helped the refuge system address the backlog, for the reasons outlined above, several senior refuge system officials asserted that the funding has had a positive impact and that the refuge system’s assets appear to be in better condition now than before the funding increase. The Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) is the refuge system database for cataloging operational requirements such as staff, equipment, and planned projects at refuges throughout the system. According to refuge system management, it is intended to be a full inventory of funding needs for annual operations at field stations. Refuge managers determine their total needs on the basis of operational plans, congressional direction, and departmental priorities, and enter these needs as projects into the electronic RONS database. Since its inception in the early 1990s, RONS has been one of the primary tools refuge system officials use to develop estimates for additional funding needed to address high-priority projects at certain refuges. These project estimates are included in budget requests submitted annually to congressional appropriators. In reports that accompany the refuge system’s annual appropriation, Congress indicates whether the program’s RONS project requests are fully funded. In fiscal year 2002, 108 RONS projects were funded; 5 years later, there were 4 projects included in the 2007 budget submission. Refuge system management told us that some RONS projects are given a higher priority than others. During the fiscal year 1998 congressional appropriations process, appropriations staff asked the refuge system to set priorities within RONS, and also directed them to conduct an analysis to determine minimum staffing levels at refuges. To fulfill this requirement, refuge system officials divided existing RONS projects into two tiers: (1) tier 1, consisting of staffing projects as determined by the minimum staffing analysis as well as other high-priority projects that were deemed critical to the mission of the refuge, and (2) tier 2, comprising projects that were considered to be lesser priorities. At the end of fiscal year 2007, the total value of RONS projects awaiting funding was just over $1 billion. According to refuge system officials, these projects are sometimes referred to as the RONS backlog (adopting the language used to describe the system’s deferred maintenance). Tier 1 projects are for mission-critical needs and therefore would be comparable to backlogged maintenance projects; at the end of fiscal year 2007, tier 1 projects encompassed about 2,300 unfunded projects totaling about $300 million. Conversely, tier 2 projects describe activities associated with expanded capabilities, not unmet requirements, and thus refuge system officials do not consider these projects to be “behind schedule” in the same sense as those in the system’s deferred maintenance backlog. Table 23 presents the RONS project backlog, containing both tier 1 and tier 2 projects, for fiscal years 2002 through 2007. According to the refuge system’s RONS manager, the refuge system’s leadership targets tier 1 projects for funding unless explicitly directed to target tier 2. However, evolving national-level priorities can result in tier 2 projects receiving funding before their tier 1 counterparts. For example, the increased attention on law enforcement following the attacks of September 11, 2001, resulted in funding for law enforcement personnel as part of projects that were placed in tier 2. Overall, a quarter of RONS projects funded from fiscal years 2002 through 2007 were identified as tier 2 projects, as shown in table 24. Headquarters officials maintain oversight over the RONS inventory, periodically removing projects that are no longer needed, according to the RONS manager. Moreover, between 2000 and 2006, headquarters attempted to keep the number of projects in the RONS inventory stable in order to make progress in reducing the backlog. During this period, refuge managers were prevented from entering new project requests into the database. In fiscal year 2006, refuge system officials reviewed RONS’ second tier of projects, deleting entries that appeared to be out of date. This accounted for much of the 48 percent drop in total project cost between fiscal years 2005 and 2006, as seen in table 23. The database was then reopened in 2007 to allow for new project entries from refuge managers. However, several managers that we spoke with on our site visits were unaware that the database had been reopened, or had given up entering RONS projects altogether due to the many years that the database was closed to new entries. Other managers perceived little realistic chance that their projects would be funded, given the magnitude of the project backlog and the fact that the number of projects requested significantly outpaces the ability of the refuge system to secure RONS funding. Table 25 presents the ratio of projects in the RONS backlog to each project that received funding for fiscal years 2002 through 2007. As shown in the table, there were 2,119 projects in the RONS backlog for every 1 project that received funding in fiscal year 2007. Similarly, for every $1 in funding directed toward RONS projects in 2007, there were $1,469 worth of unfunded projects in the backlog. Sonny Bono Salton Sea NWR Complex – Coachella Valley NWR and Sonny Bono Salton Sea NWR Stillwater NWR – Anaho Island NWR, Fallon NWR, and Stillwater NWR Total, NWRS Headquarters (Region 9) uartered at the Des Lacs NWR. Since 2006, Des Lacs NWR has been a satellite of a complex headuartered at the J. Clark Salyer NWR. All of Des Lacs NWR’s former satellite refuges are now part of the Lostwood WMD complex. In addition to the individual named above, Trish McClure, Assistant Director; Mark Braza; David Brown; Stephen Cleary; Tim Guinane; Carol Henn; Richard Johnson; Michael Krafve; Alison O’Neill; George Quinn, Jr.; and Stephanie Toby made key contributions to this report.

Summary: The National Wildlife Refuge System, which is administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service in the Department of the Interior, comprises 585 refuges on more than 96 million acres of land and water that preserve habitat for waterfowl and other migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and other wildlife. Refuges also provide wildlife-related activities such as hunting and fishing to nearly 40 million visitors every year. GAO was asked to (1) describe changing factors that the refuge system experienced from fiscal years 2002 through 2007, including funding and staffing changes, and (2) examine how habitat management and visitor services changed during this period. We surveyed all refuges; visited 19 refuges in 4 regions; and interviewed refuge, regional, and national officials. In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of the Interior made technical comments that we have incorporated as appropriate. GAO is not making recommendations in this report. Between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, the refuge system experienced funding and staffing level fluctuations, the introduction of several new policy initiatives, and the increased influence of external factors such as extreme weather that threaten wildlife habitat and visitor infrastructure. Although core funding--measured as obligations for refuge operations, maintenance, and fire management--increased each year, inflation-adjusted core funding peaked in fiscal year 2003 at about $391 million--6.8 percent above fiscal year 2002 funding. Inflation-adjusted core funding ended the period 2.3 percent below peak levels, but 4.3 percent above fiscal year 2002 levels by fiscal year 2007. Core refuge staffing levels peaked in fiscal year 2004 at 3,610 full-time equivalents--10.0 percent above the fiscal year 2002 level--and then declined more slowly than funding levels. By fiscal year 2007, staffing levels fell to 4.0 percent below peak levels, but 5.5 percent above fiscal year 2002 levels. Through fiscal year 2007, the number of permanent employees utilized by the refuge system declined to 7.5 percent below peak levels. During this period, refuge system officials initiated new policies that: (1) reduced staff positions and reallocated funds and staff among refuges to better align staff levels with funding; (2) required refuge staff to focus on a legislative mandate to complete refuge conservation plans by 2012; (3) shifted to constructing a larger number of smaller visitor structures, such as informational kiosks, and fewer large visitor centers to spread visitor service funds across more refuges; (4) increased the number of full-time law enforcement officers and their associated training and experience requirements; and (5) resulted in additional administrative work. During this period, external factors that complicate refuge staffs' ability to protect and restore habitat quality also increased, including severe storms and development around refuges. Our survey showed that the quality of habitat management and visitor service programs varied across refuges during our study period. Habitat conditions for key types of species improved about two times more often than they worsened, but between 7 percent and 20 percent of habitats were of poor quality in 2007. Certain habitat problems increased at more than half of refuges during this period, and managers reported that they increased the time spent on certain habitat management activities, such as addressing invasive plants, despite declining staffing levels. However, several managers we interviewed told us 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 generally are cut before habitat management activities when resources are limited. Managers are concerned about their ability to provide high-quality visitor services in the future given staffing and funding constraints.