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.