Wildlife Refuges
Trends in Funding, Staffing, Habitat Management, and Visitor Services for Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007 Gao ID: GAO-08-1179T September 24, 2008The National Wildlife Refuge System, which is administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service in the Department of the Interior, comprises 585 refuges on more than 96 million acres of land and water that preserve habitat for waterfowl and other migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and other wildlife. Refuges also provide wildlife-related activities such as hunting and fishing to about 40 million visitors every year. GAO was asked to testify on a report that is being released today, Wildlife Refuges: Changes in Funding, Staffing, and Other Factors Create Concerns about Future Sustainability (GAO-08-797), which (1) describes changing factors that the refuge system experienced from fiscal years 2002 through 2007, including funding and staffing changes, and (2) examines how habitat management and visitor services changed during this period. For this report, GAO surveyed all refuges, visited 19 refuges in four regions, and interviewed refuge, regional, and national officials.
In its September 2008 report, GAO reports that for fiscal years 2002 through 2007, the refuge system experienced funding and staffing fluctuations, the introduction of several new policy initiatives, and the increased influence of external factors such as extreme weather that threaten wildlife habitat and visitor infrastructure. Although core funding--measured as obligations for refuge operations, maintenance, and fire management--increased each year, inflation-adjusted core funding peaked in fiscal year 2003 at about $391 million--6.8 percent above fiscal year 2002 funding. Inflation-adjusted core funding ended the period 2.3 percent below peak levels, but 4.3 percent above fiscal year 2002 levels by fiscal year 2007. Core refuge staffing levels peaked in fiscal year 2004 at 3,610 full-time equivalents--10.0 percent above the fiscal year 2002 level--and then declined more slowly than funding. By fiscal year 2007, staffing levels fell to 4.0 percent below peak levels, but 5.5 percent above fiscal year 2002 levels. Through fiscal year 2007, the number of permanent employees utilized by the refuge system declined to 7.5 percent below peak levels. During this period, refuge system officials initiated new policies that: (1) reduced staff positions and reconsidered how they allocate funds and staff among refuges in order to better align staff levels with funding, (2) required refuge staff to focus on a legislative mandate to complete refuge conservation plans by 2012, (3) shifted to constructing a larger number of smaller visitor structures, such as informational kiosks, and fewer large visitor centers to spread visitor service funds across more refuges, (4) increased the number of full-time law enforcement officers and their associated training requirements, and (5) resulted in additional administrative work. During this period, external factors, such as severe storms, that complicate refuge staffs' ability to protect and restore habitat quality also increased. GAO's survey of refuge managers showed that changes in habitat management and visitor service programs varied across refuges during the study period. Habitat conditions for key types of species improved about two times more often than they worsened, but between 7 and 20 percent of habitats were of poor quality in 2007. Certain habitat problems increased at more than half of refuges during thisperiod, and managers reported that they increased the time spent on certain habitat management activities, such as addressing invasive plants, despite declining staffing levels. However, several managers GAO interviewed said that staff were working longer hours without extra pay to get work done, and managers expressed concern about their ability to sustain habitat conditions. While the quality of four key visitor service programs was reported to be stable or improving between fiscal years 2002 and 2007 at the vast majority of refuges, the other two key programs--environmental education and interpretation--were considered poor quality at one-third of refuges in 2007. Changes in the time spent on visitor services varied considerably across refuges, and managers noted that visitor services are generally cut before habitat management activities when resources are limited. Managers are concerned about their ability to provide high quality visitor services in the future given staffing and funding constraints.
GAO-08-1179T, Wildlife Refuges: Trends in Funding, Staffing, Habitat Management, and Visitor Services for Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-1179T
entitled 'Wildlife Refuges: Trends in Funding, Staffing, Habitat
Management, and Visitor Services for Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007'
which was released on September 24, 2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans, Committee on
Natural Resources, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT:
September 24, 2008:
Wildlife Refuges:
Trends in Funding, Staffing, Habitat Management, and Visitor Services
for Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007:
Statement of Robin M. Nazzaro, Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
GAO-08-1179T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-1179T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans, Committee on Natural Resources, House
of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
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 testify on a report that is being released today,
Wildlife Refuges: Changes in Funding, Staffing, and Other Factors
Create Concerns about Future Sustainability (GAO-08-797), which (1)
describes changing factors that the refuge system experienced from
fiscal years 2002 through 2007, including funding and staffing changes,
and (2) examines how habitat management and visitor services changed
during this period. For this report, GAO surveyed all refuges, visited
19 refuges in four regions, and interviewed refuge, regional, and
national officials.
What GAO Found:
In its September 2008 report, GAO reports that for fiscal years 2002
through 2007, the refuge system experienced funding and staffing
fluctuations, the introduction of several new policy initiatives, and
the increased influence of external factors such as extreme weather
that threaten wildlife habitat and visitor infrastructure. Although
core funding”measured as obligations for refuge operations,
maintenance, and fire management”increased each year, inflation-
adjusted core funding peaked in fiscal year 2003 at about $391
million”6.8 percent above fiscal year 2002 funding. Inflation-adjusted
core funding ended the period 2.3 percent below peak levels, but 4.3
percent above fiscal year 2002 levels by fiscal year 2007. Core refuge
staffing levels peaked in fiscal year 2004 at 3,610 full-time
equivalents”10.0 percent above the fiscal year 2002 level”and then
declined more slowly than funding 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
reconsidered how they allocate 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 requirements; and (5) resulted in additional
administrative work. During this period, external factors, such as
severe storms, that complicate refuge staffs‘ ability to protect and
restore habitat quality also increased.
GAO‘s survey of refuge managers showed that changes in the quality of
habitat management and visitor service programs varied across refuges
during the study period. Habitat conditions for key types of species
improved about two times more often than they worsened, but between 7
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
GAO interviewed said that staff were working longer hours without extra
pay to get work done, and managers expressed concern about their
ability to sustain habitat conditions. While the quality of all six
visitor service programs was reported to be stable or improving between
fiscal years 2002 and 2007 at most refuges, two 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.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-1179T]. For more
information, contact Robin M. Nazzaro at (202) 512-3841 or
nazzaror@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our work on our nation's
wildlife refuges. The National Wildlife Refuge System, administered by
the Department of the Interior's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),
comprises about 585 refuges and wetland management districts on more
than 96 million acres of land and water that provide habitat for
millions of waterfowl, other migratory birds, endangered species, and
other plants and wildlife. In addition, refuges host about 40 million
visitors each year who take part in one or more of the refuge system's
six wildlife-dependent visitor activities--hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and
environmental interpretation--and other recreational activities. The
refuge system employs more than 4,000 staff dispersed in its offices
across the country and spans all 50 states and several U.S.
territories. FWS manages its refuges through its headquarters office in
Washington D.C., eight regional offices, and hundreds of field offices
located on or near refuge lands. Individual refuge offices may report
directly to a regional office (we refer to these as "stand-alone"
refuges), or may be grouped with other offices into a "complex.":
My testimony is based on a report that is being released today,
Wildlife Refuges: Changes in Funding, Staffing, and Other Factors
Create Concerns about Future Sustainability (GAO-08-797), which
describes changing factors that the refuge system experienced from
fiscal years 2002 through 2007 and how habitat management and visitor
services changed during this period. For that report, we obtained and
analyzed funding and staffing data; surveyed stand-alone refuges and
refuges within complexes and received an 81 percent response rate;
visited headquarters, 4 regional offices, and 19 refuges; and conducted
phone interviews with officials at the other 4 regional offices and
about 50 additional refuges. We conducted this performance audit from
July 2007 to September 2008 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and
perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide
a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
In summary, we found the following:
* For fiscal years 2002 through 2007, funding and staffing levels for
the refuge system fluctuated, several new refuge system policy
initiatives were introduced, and the influence of external factors such
as extreme weather and human development that affect refuge operations
increased.
* Survey responses and interviews with refuge managers indicated that
the change in the quality of habitat and visitor service programs, as
well as changes in the amount of time devoted to these activities,
varied across refuges during our study period. Given recent funding and
staffing changes, and other factors affecting refuges, managers
expressed concerns about their ability to provide quality habitat and
visitor service programs into the future.
Numerous Changes Affected Refuge Management:
From fiscal years 2002 through 2007, several changes occurred that
affected refuge management including changes in funding and staffing
levels, refuge system policy initiatives, and the influence of external
factors, such as extreme weather and human development.
Fluctuations in refuge funding. Inflation-adjusted funding (in 2002
dollars) for core refuge system activities--measured as obligations for
refuge operations, maintenance, and fire management--peaked in fiscal
year 2003, for the celebration of the refuge system's centennial, at
about $391 million--6.8 percent above fiscal year 2002 levels--and then
declined quickly to 4.7 percent below peak levels by fiscal year 2005,
before increasing again to 2.3 percent below peak levels in fiscal year
2007; it ended 4.3 percent above fiscal year 2002 levels.[Footnote 1]
In nominal dollars, core funding increased each year over the time
period from about $366 million in fiscal year 2002 to about $468
million in fiscal year 2007.
At the refuge level, inflation-adjusted core funding at refuges varied
considerably during the time period, with about as many losing funding
as gaining funding since fiscal year 2002. Specifically, from fiscal
year 2002 through fiscal year 2007, core inflation-adjusted funding
decreased for 96 of 222 complexes and stand-alone refuges and increased
for 92, with funding remaining about the same for 34.[Footnote 2] The
magnitude of the changes in core funding at the refuge level were also
more pronounced than for the trend overall. Specifically, core funding
for 39 complexes and stand-alone refuges decreased by more than 25
percent during this time period.
Fluctuations in staffing levels. Staffing levels for core refuge
activities (core staffing), as measured by full-time equivalents (FTE)
the refuge system actually used, peaked one year later than core
inflation-adjusted funding and then declined more slowly.[Footnote 3]
Specifically, core staffing, which includes operations, maintenance,
and fire management, peaked in fiscal year 2004 at a level 10.0 percent
higher than in fiscal year 2002, but declined after that to 4.0 percent
below peak staffing levels in fiscal year 2007. This level, however,
was still 5.5 percent higher than the staffing level in fiscal year
2002. While operations and maintenance FTEs increased 3.6 percent
overall during our study period, they ended the period down 6.9 percent
from their 2004 peak. Fire management FTEs, on the other hand,
increased 14.3 percent over fiscal year 2002 levels.[Footnote 4]
Similar to FTEs, the number of employees on board in refuge system
positions also declined after peaking in fiscal year 2004. Through
fiscal year 2007, nearly 375 employees were lost from the refuge
system's peak staffing levels, a reduction of 8.4 percent over this
period. About three-quarters of this loss came through a reduction in
permanent employees (a 7.5 percent reduction), which refuge managers
and regional and headquarters officials told us are a key measure of
the effective strength of the workforce available to conduct core
refuge activities because they represent employees on board
indefinitely. Though 38 complexes and stand-alone refuges increased
their permanent staff by more than 5 percent since 2004, more than
three times as many lost at least 5 percent. Figure 1 compares the
trends in the refuge system's core funding, staffing, and permanent
employee levels during our study period.
Figure 1: Comparison of Cumulative Percentage Change in the Refuge
System's Core Funding, Core FTEs, and Permanent Employees, Fiscal Years
2002 through 2007:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a multiple line graph depicting the following data:
Fiscal year: 2002;
Core funding (inflation-adjusted): 0;
Core FTEs: 0;
Permanent employees: 0.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Core funding (inflation-adjusted): 6.8;
Core FTEs: 6.4;
Permanent employees: 4.2.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Core funding (inflation-adjusted): 3.1;
Core FTEs: 10;
Permanent employees: 6.3.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Core funding (inflation-adjusted): 1.8;
Core FTEs: 8.3;
Permanent employees: 5.2.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Core funding (inflation-adjusted): 2;
Core FTEs: 8;
Permanent employees: 1.9.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Core funding (inflation-adjusted): 4.3;
Core FTEs: 5.5;
Permanent employees: -1.7.
[End of figure]
New policy initiatives. Several new refuge system policy initiatives
were implemented during this period:
* Recognizing that funding declines after 2003 were exacerbating an
already high proportion of staff costs in refuge budgets, regional
offices began to (1) reduce staff positions through attrition and by
further consolidating some stand-alone refuges into complexes, and (2)
categorize refuges into three tiers for the purpose of prioritizing
funding and staffing allocations among refuges. These measures are
primarily responsible for the decline in FTEs and permanent employees
from fiscal year 2004 peak levels and the shifts in staffing among
complexes and stand-alone refuges.
* Recognizing that the refuge system was not on pace to meet a mandate
in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 to
complete conservation plans for each refuge by 2012, refuge system
officials created a completion schedule and, beginning in 2004, began
requiring staff at refuges to turn their attention to completing the
plans. While refuge officials believe that they can meet the deadline,
current information shows that some plans are behind schedule.
* To help spread visitor service funds across as many refuges as
possible, refuge officials began placing a greater emphasis on
constructing smaller visitor facility structures, such as informational
kiosks and restrooms, at a larger number of refuges rather than
constructing a smaller number of traditional visitor centers.
* To improve safety and address other concerns, refuge system
management began an initiative to increase the number of full-time law
enforcement officers and their associated training and experience
requirements. However, refuge officials told us that they need to hire
about 200 additional officers in order to reach the minimum number
needed to provide adequate protection to refuge resources and visitors.
* Various refuge system, FWS, and Interior policies increased
requirements on nonadministrative staff to enter additional data into
certain systems and respond to numerous data calls. Refuge system
officials are beginning to implement changes to reduce some of these
administrative burdens.
Increasing external factors. The influence of external factors--those
outside the control of the refuge system that complicate refuges'
abilities to protect and restore habitat quality, including extreme
weather and development on adjacent lands--increased over this period.
For example, refuge managers reported that between fiscal years 2002
and 2007, the influence of development--such as the expansion of urban
areas and the conversion of off-refuge land near refuges to agriculture
or industrial use--increased around refuges and contributed to refuge
habitat problems for almost one half of the refuges. Such development
can pollute refuge lands and waters and make it more difficult to
maintain viable, interconnected habitat in and around a refuge's
borders.
Changes in Habitat Management and Visitor Services:
From fiscal years 2002 through 2007, several changes occurred in
refuges' habitat management and visitor services, creating concerns
about the refuges' abilities to maintain high quality habitat and
visitor services in the future.
Habitat management. Habitats on refuges for five types of key species-
-waterfowl, other migratory birds, threatened and endangered species,
candidate threatened and endangered species, and state species of
concern--improved between fiscal years 2002 and 2007--about two times
as often as they worsened (see table 1).
Table 1: Change in Habitat Quality by Species Type, Fiscal Years 2002
through 2007:
Species type: Waterfowl;
Percent of refuge habitats where quality improved: 36;
Percent of refuge habitats where quality stayed the same: 47;
Percent of refuge habitats where quality worsened: 18.
Species type: Other migratory birds;
Percent of refuge habitats where quality improved: 40;
Percent of refuge habitats where quality stayed the same: 44;
Percent of refuge habitats where quality worsened: 17.
Species type: Threatened and endangered species;
Percent of refuge habitats where quality improved: 28;
Percent of refuge habitats where quality stayed the same: 52;
Percent of refuge habitats where quality worsened: 11.
Species type: Candidate threatened and endangered species;
Percent of refuge habitats where quality improved: 33;
Percent of refuge habitats where quality stayed the same: 47;
Percent of refuge habitats where quality worsened: 14.
Species type: State species of concern;
Percent of refuge habitats where quality improved: 29;
Percent of refuge habitats where quality stayed the same: 54;
Percent of refuge habitats where quality worsened: 13.
Source: GAO.
Note: Refuge managers identified habitat quality for specific
threatened and endangered species, candidate species, and state species
of concern occurring on their refuges that are aggregated into these
general "types of species" categories. Not all species occurred on
every refuge. Some rows may not sum to 100 due to rounding and survey
responses such as "no basis to judge."
[End of table]
Refuge managers reported two to nearly seven times as often that
habitats for several types of key species were of high quality than low
quality in 2007 (see table 2). Habitat quality is determined by the
availability of several key components, including fresh water, food
sources, and nesting cover, among other things, and the absence of
habitat problems, such as invasive species. High quality habitat
generally provides adequate amounts of each of these main habitat
components and is not significantly affected by habitat problems, while
low quality habitat generally lacks these components and may have
significant problems; moderate quality habitat has a mixture of these
attributes.
Table 2: Habitat Quality by Species Type, Fiscal Year 2007:
Species type: Waterfowl;
Percent of habitats reported as high quality: 41;
Percent of habitats reported as moderate quality: 39;
Percent of habitats reported as low quality: 20.
Species type: Other migratory birds;
Percent of habitats reported as high quality: 47;
Percent of habitats reported as moderate quality: 47;
Percent of habitats reported as low quality: 7.
Species type: Threatened and endangered species;
Percent of habitats reported as high quality: 48;
Percent of habitats reported as moderate quality: 40;
Percent of habitats reported as low quality: 12.
Species type: Candidate threatened and endangered species;
Percent of habitats reported as high quality: 37;
Percent of habitats reported as moderate quality: 46;
Percent of habitats reported as low quality: 17.
Species type: State species of concern;
Percent of habitats reported as high quality: 47;
Percent of habitats reported as moderate quality: 41;
Percent of habitats reported as low quality: 13.
Source: GAO.
Note: Refuge managers identified habitat quality for specific
threatened and endangered species, candidate species, and state species
of concern occurring on their refuges that are aggregated into these
general "types of species" categories. Not all species occurred on
every refuge. Some rows may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
[End of table]
Complicating habitat management is growing pressure from increasing
habitat problems occurring on refuges and the influence of external
factors. Our survey found that invasive plant species and habitat
fragmentation--the disruption of natural habitat corridors, often
caused by human development activities--were the leading problems,
affecting 55 percent and 44 percent of refuges, respectively, and both
were increasing on more than half of refuges. Managers at refuges close
to urban centers showed us busy roads adjacent to their refuge that
have cut off natural habitat corridors, leading to animals trying to
cross them or cutting them off from other members of their species,
leading to genetic homogeneity and inbreeding. Managers of more rural
refuges talked about increasing pressures to convert lands to
agricultural uses, citing factors such as the increasing price of corn,
or to industrial uses, such as oil and gas development.
At the same time, refuge managers reported increasing the time spent on
a number of key habitat management activities on many refuges between
fiscal years 2002 and 2007 (see table 3). Importantly, time spent on
developing comprehensive conservation plans, which are required by the
Improvement Act, increased for 59 percent of refuges during our study
period. In addition, refuges that increased the time spent on habitat
management activities were about three times more likely to report that
habitat quality for waterfowl and other migratory birds improved rather
than worsened.
Table 3: Habitat Management Activities That Increased the Most at
Refuges, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007:
Activity: Addressing invasive plants;
Percent of refuges that somewhat or greatly increased time spent on
activity: 61;
Percent of refuges that somewhat or greatly decreased time spent on
activity: 9.
Activity: Conducting comprehensive conservation planning;
Percent of refuges that somewhat or greatly increased time spent on
activity: 59;
Percent of refuges that somewhat or greatly decreased time spent on
activity: 6.
Activity: Coordinating with nearby landowners;
Percent of refuges that somewhat or greatly increased time spent on
activity: 49;
Percent of refuges that somewhat or greatly decreased time spent on
activity: 7.
Activity: Conducting habitat restoration projects;
Percent of refuges that somewhat or greatly increased time spent on
activity: 48;
Percent of refuges that somewhat or greatly decreased time spent on
activity: 14.
Activity: Conducting routine habitat management activities;
Percent of refuges that somewhat or greatly increased time spent on
activity: 43;
Percent of refuges that somewhat or greatly decreased time spent on
activity: 18.
Activity: Conducting inventory and monitoring surveys of habitat
conditions;
Percent of refuges that somewhat or greatly increased time spent on
activity: 41;
Percent of refuges that somewhat or greatly decreased time spent on
activity: 19.
Activity: Conducting inventory and monitoring surveys of wildlife
populations;
Percent of refuges that somewhat or greatly increased time spent on
activity: 39;
Percent of refuges that somewhat or greatly decreased time spent on
activity: 21.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
In light of increasing problems and threats affecting refuge
conditions, as well as recent funding and staffing constraints, refuge
managers and regional and headquarters officials expressed concern
about refuges' abilities to sustain or improve current habitat
conditions for wildlife into the future. Even though our survey showed
that a large number of refuges increased staff time on habitat
management activities, some refuge managers we interviewed explained
that staff were simply working longer hours to get the work done.
Several refuge managers repeatedly indicated that despite growing
habitat problems, an increasing administrative workload, and reduced
staffing, they are still trying to do everything possible to maintain
adequate habitat, especially habitats for key species, such as
waterfowl, other migratory birds, and threatened and endangered
species. Several managers said that attention to key habitats is the
last thing that will stop receiving management attention in the event
of declining funding. Several managers even said that they have to
limit the amount of time staff spend at the refuge, as these employees
are working overtime without extra pay.
Visitor services. Our survey found that the quality of all six wildlife-
dependent visitor services was stable or improving between fiscal years
2002 and 2007, according to the vast majority of refuge managers
responding to our survey. Most notably, environmental education and
interpretation programs showed the largest percentage of refuges
reporting improvement, although these programs also showed the largest
percentage reporting declines as well, as compared to other visitor
services (see table 4).
Table 4: Change in Quality of Visitor Services Programs, Fiscal Years
2002 through 2007:
Visitor service: Hunting;
Percent of refuges reporting improved quality: 26;
Percent of refuges reporting quality stayed the same: 65;
Percent of refuges reporting quality worsened: 9.
Visitor service: Fishing;
Percent of refuges reporting improved quality: 19;
Percent of refuges reporting quality stayed the same: 68;
Percent of refuges reporting quality worsened: 13.
Visitor service: Wildlife observation;
Percent of refuges reporting improved quality: 36;
Percent of refuges reporting quality stayed the same: 56;
Percent of refuges reporting quality worsened: 8.
Visitor service: Wildlife photography;
Percent of refuges reporting improved quality: 27;
Percent of refuges reporting quality stayed the same: 65;
Percent of refuges reporting quality worsened: 8.
Visitor service: Environmental education;
Percent of refuges reporting improved quality: 40;
Percent of refuges reporting quality stayed the same: 39;
Percent of refuges reporting quality worsened: 22.
Visitor service: Environmental interpretation;
Percent of refuges reporting improved quality: 47;
Percent of refuges reporting quality stayed the same: 38;
Percent of refuges reporting quality worsened: 15.
Source: GAO.
Note: Some rows may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
[End of table]
Our survey found that four of the six key visitor services provided to
the public were of moderate or better quality at most refuges in 2007,
but environmental education and interpretation were reported to be low
quality at about one-third of refuges (see table 5). Managers told us
that education and interpretation are among the most resource intensive
visitor service programs and, for these reasons, the programs are often
among the first areas to be cut when a refuge faces competing demands.
Table 5: Quality of Visitor Services Programs, Fiscal Year 2007:
Visitor service: Hunting;
Percent of refuges with high or very high quality programs: 56;
Percent of refuges with moderate quality programs: 35;
Percent of refuges with low or very low quality programs: 9.
Visitor service: Fishing;
Percent of refuges with high or very high quality programs: 33;
Percent of refuges with moderate quality programs: 44;
Percent of refuges with low or very low quality programs: 23.
Visitor service: Wildlife observation;
Percent of refuges with high or very high quality programs: 55;
Percent of refuges with moderate quality programs: 35;
Percent of refuges with low or very low quality programs: 10.
Visitor service: Wildlife photography;
Percent of refuges with high or very high quality programs: 42;
Percent of refuges with moderate quality programs: 41;
Percent of refuges with low or very low quality programs: 17.
Visitor service: Environmental education;
Percent of refuges with high or very high quality programs: 36;
Percent of refuges with moderate quality programs: 31;
Percent of refuges with low or very low quality programs: 33.
Visitor service: Environmental interpretation;
Percent of refuges with high or very high quality programs: 32;
Percent of refuges with moderate quality programs: 36;
Percent of refuges with low or very low quality programs: 32.
Source: GAO.
Note: Refuges may not have programs in all six areas.
[End of table]
A major factor influencing the quality of visitor services--beyond the
abundance of fish and wildlife populations--is the amount and quality
of refuge infrastructure and the availability of supplies. For example,
the availability of trails and tour routes is essential to providing
the public with access to what refuges have to offer and is generally
important for supporting any type of visitor service activity. Hunting
and fishing infrastructure depend largely on physical structures such
as duck blinds, boat launches, and fishing platforms. Providing
wildlife observation and photography opportunities simply require
adequate access to the refuge, but can be enhanced through observation
platforms and photography blinds. Environmental education depends on
physical infrastructure, such as classrooms, and supplies, such as
workbooks, handouts, and microscopes. Environmental interpretation also
depends on physical infrastructure such as informational kiosks and
interpretive signs along trails.
Some refuges reported that they expanded their visitor services
infrastructure between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, for example, by
adding informational kiosks and trails and tour routes, yet more than
one-half of refuges reported no change (see table 6). Most refuges also
reported that the quality of their visitor services infrastructure
stayed about the same or increased since 2002.
Table 6: Infrastructure Quantity and Condition Changes, Fiscal Years
2002 through 2007:
Type of infrastructure: Trails and tour routes[A];
Quantity of infrastructure: Quantity increased: 41;
Quantity of infrastructure: Quantity stayed the same: 54;
Quantity of infrastructure: Quantity decreased: 5;
Condition improved: 39; Condition of infrastructure:
Condition stayed the same: 35; Condition of infrastructure:
Condition worsened: 26.
Type of infrastructure: Hunting infrastructure;
Quantity of infrastructure: Quantity increased: 21;
Quantity of infrastructure: Quantity stayed the same: 75;
Quantity of infrastructure: Quantity decreased: 4;
Condition improved: 22; Condition of infrastructure:
Condition stayed the same: 66; Condition of infrastructure:
Condition worsened: 12.
Type of infrastructure: Fishing infrastructure;
Quantity of infrastructure: Quantity increased: 25;
Quantity of infrastructure: Quantity stayed the same: 70;
Quantity of infrastructure: Quantity decreased: 5;
Condition improved: 27; Condition of infrastructure:
Condition stayed the same: 49; Condition of infrastructure:
Condition worsened: 24.
Type of infrastructure: Wildlife observation infrastructure;
Quantity of infrastructure: Quantity increased: 37;
Quantity of infrastructure: Quantity stayed the same: 60;
Quantity of infrastructure: Quantity decreased: 3;
Condition improved: 36; Condition of infrastructure:
Condition stayed the same: 47; Condition of infrastructure:
Condition worsened: 17.
Type of infrastructure: Wildlife photography infrastructure;
Quantity of infrastructure: Quantity increased: 35;
Quantity of infrastructure: Quantity stayed the same: 63;
Quantity of infrastructure: Quantity decreased: 3;
Condition improved: 30; Condition of infrastructure:
Condition stayed the same: 58; Condition of infrastructure:
Condition worsened: 12.
Type of infrastructure: Education infrastructure;
Quantity of infrastructure: Quantity increased: 28;
Quantity of infrastructure: Quantity stayed the same: 66;
Quantity of infrastructure: Quantity decreased: 6;
Condition improved: 30; Condition of infrastructure:
Condition stayed the same: 52; Condition of infrastructure:
Condition worsened: 18.
Type of infrastructure: Interpretation infrastructure;
Quantity of infrastructure: Quantity increased: 57;
Quantity of infrastructure: Quantity stayed the same: 38;
Quantity of infrastructure: Quantity decreased: 5;
Condition improved: 50; Condition of infrastructure:
Condition stayed the same: 32; Condition of infrastructure:
Condition worsened: 19.
Source: GAO.
Notes: Some rows may not sum to 100 for the quantity of infrastructure
or condition of infrastructure, due to rounding.
[A] Trails and tour routes can be used to support all types of visitor
service programs.
[End of table]
Time spent by refuges on visitor services varied considerably
throughout the system. Overall, at least one in five refuges reported a
decrease in staff time for each visitor service area (see table 7).
Table 7: Change in Time Spent on Visitor Services, Fiscal Years 2002
through 2007:
Visitor service: Hunting;
Percent of refuges that somewhat or greatly increased time spent: 29;
Percent of refuges that spent the same amount of time spent: 46;
Percent of refuges that somewhat or greatly decreased time spent: 25.
Visitor service: Fishing;
Percent of refuges that somewhat or greatly increased time spent: 20;
Percent of refuges that spent the same amount of time spent: 60;
Percent of refuges that somewhat or greatly decreased time spent: 20.
Visitor service: Wildlife observation;
Percent of refuges that somewhat or greatly increased time spent: 34;
Percent of refuges that spent the same amount of time spent: 45;
Percent of refuges that somewhat or greatly decreased time spent: 21.
Visitor service: Wildlife photography;
Percent of refuges that somewhat or greatly increased time spent: 25;
Percent of refuges that spent the same amount of time spent: 54;
Percent of refuges that somewhat or greatly decreased time spent: 21.
Visitor service: Environmental education;
Percent of refuges that somewhat or greatly increased time spent: 44;
Percent of refuges that spent the same amount of time spent: 27;
Percent of refuges that somewhat or greatly decreased time spent: 29.
Visitor service: Environmental interpretation;
Percent of refuges that somewhat or greatly increased time spent: 44;
Percent of refuges that spent the same amount of time spent: 28;
Percent of refuges that somewhat or greatly decreased time spent: 27.
Source: GAO.
Notes: Percentages in this table represent changes in staffing for
those refuges that report time spent on a given visitor service. Some
rows may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
[End of table]
Refuge managers indicated that staffing changes and a lack of resources
for increasing and maintaining infrastructure, raise concerns about
their ability to provide quality visitor services into the future. Our
survey results showed that the time spent by permanent staff on visitor
services had been reduced at more than one-third of refuges and more
than half of refuge managers reported increasing their reliance on
volunteers to help manage visitor centers and deliver education
programs, for example. Refuge managers are also concerned about the
impact that the increasing administrative workload incurred by non-
administrative refuge staff is having on the refuges' ability to
deliver visitor services. Refuge managers and regional and headquarters
officials expressed concern about the long-term implications of
declining and low quality visitor services. Many refuge managers cited
the importance of ensuring that the public has positive outdoor
experiences on refuges and providing them with meaningful educational
and interpretative services. Managers said that the availability of
visitor services is a way to get young people interested in future
careers with the refuge system and instill in children an appreciation
for wildlife and the outdoors as well as an interest in maintaining
these resources. In addition, visitor services are important for
developing and maintaining community relationships, as the refuge
system is increasingly turning toward partnerships with private
landowners and other agencies and organizations to maintain and improve
ecosystems both on and around wildlife refuges.
In conclusion, maintaining the refuge system as envisioned in law--
where the biological integrity, diversity and environmental health of
the refuge system are maintained; priority visitor services are
provided; and the strategic growth of the system is continued--may be
difficult in light of continuing federal fiscal constraints and an ever-
expanding list of challenges facing refuges. While some refuges have
high quality habitat and visitor service programs and others have seen
improvements since 2002, refuge managers are concerned about their
ability to sustain high quality refuge conditions and continue to
improve conditions where needed because of expected continuing
increases in external threats and habitat problems affecting refuges.
Already, FWS has had to make trade-offs among refuges with regard to
which habitats will be monitored and maintained, which visitor services
will be offered, and which refuges will receive adequate law
enforcement coverage. FWS's efforts to prioritize its use of funding
and staff through workforce planning have restored some balance between
refuge budgets and their associated staff costs. However, if threats
and problems afflicting refuges continue to grow as expected, it will
be important for the refuge system to monitor how these shifts in
resources are affecting refuge conditions.
Madam Chair, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased
to answer any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee
may have at this time.
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
For further information about this testimony, please contact me at
(202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for our offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this statement. Trish McClure, Assistant Director; Mark Braza;
David Brown; Stephen Cleary; Timothy J. Guinane; Carol Henn; Richard
Johnson; Michael Krafve; Alison O'Neill; George Quinn, Jr.; and
Stephanie Toby made key contributions to this statement.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] 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,
which assigns greater weight to changes in federal workers'
compensation than do other indices.
[2] We defined funding increasing or decreasing by 5 percent or less
over the time period as staying about the same. Four refuges incurred
no obligations during the fiscal year 2002 to 2007 time period.
[3] Actual FTEs, representing staff time charged to specific activities
at complexes and stand-alone refuges, are reported in the Federal
Financial System. They differ from budgeted FTEs, which generally
represent the operations and maintenance staffing ceiling for the
refuge system in a given fiscal year and are reported in the annual
Fish and Wildlife Service budget justifications.
[4] About 38 percent of the increase in fire management activities over
the study period was due to an increase in emergency wildfire
suppression, prevention of further degradation, and rehabilitation of
burned areas.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
Each weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of
newly posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov] and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
