Wildlife Refuges
Changes in Funding, Staffing, and Other Factors Create Concerns about Future Sustainability Gao ID: GAO-08-797 September 22, 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 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.
GAO-08-797, Wildlife Refuges: Changes in Funding, Staffing, and Other Factors Create Concerns about Future Sustainability
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-797
entitled 'Wildlife Refuges: Changes in Funding, Staffing, and Other
Factors Create Concerns about Future Sustainability' 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.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
September 2008:
Wildlife Refuges:
Changes in Funding, Staffing, and Other Factors Create Concerns about
Future Sustainability:
GAO-08-797:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-797, a report to congressional requesters.
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 (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.
What GAO Found:
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.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-797]. For more
information, contact Robin Nazzaro at (202) 512-3841 or
nazzaror@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Refuge Funding and Staffing Levels Fluctuated, New Policies Were
Introduced, and the Influence of Various External Factors Affecting
Refuges Increased for Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007:
Several Changes in Habitat Management and Visitor Services Occurred at
Refuges from Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007, Raising Managers‘ Concerns
About Future Sustainability:
Concluding Observations:
Agency Comments and Our Response:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Statistical Analysis of Habitat Change:
Appendix III: Deferred Maintenance:
Appendix IV: Refuge Operating Needs System:
Appendix V: Total Core Obligations, Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted (in
2002 Dollars), and Core FTEs, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007:
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Core Refuge System FTEs, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007:
Table 2: Total FTEs That Supported the Refuge System, Fiscal Years 2002
through 2007:
Table 3: Permanent and Total Refuge System Employees, Fiscal Years 2002
through 2007:
Table 4: Change in Habitat Quality by Species Type, Fiscal Years 2002
through 2007:
Table 5: Habitat Quality by Species Type, Fiscal Year 2007:
Table 6: Extent to Which Habitat Is Meeting the Needs of Species,
Fiscal Year 2007:
Table 7: Common Refuge Problems Affecting Habitat and Trends in These
Problems, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007:
Table 8: Habitat Management Activities that Increased the Most at
Refuges, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007:
Table 9: Change in Time Spent by Type of Worker on Habitat Management
Activities, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007:
Table 10: Percent Increase or Decrease in Time Spent on Habitat
Management by Nonpermanent Workers as a Function of Permanent Staff
Time Spent on Habitat Management, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007:
Table 11: Change in Quality of Visitor Services Programs, Fiscal Years
2002 through 2007:
Table 12: Quality of Visitor Services Programs, Fiscal Year 2007:
Table 13: Infrastructure Quantity and Condition Changes, Fiscal Years
2002 through 2007:
Table 14: Change in Time Spent on Visitor Services, Fiscal Years 2002
through 2007:
Table 15: Change in Time Spent on Visitor Services by Type of Worker,
Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007:
Table 16: Percent Increase or Decrease in Nonpermanent Worker Time
Spent on Visitor Services as a Function of Permanent Staff Time Spent
on Visitor Services, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007:
Table 17: Summary Statistics for Habitat Change and Refuge
Characteristics, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007:
Table 18: Change in Quality of Waterfowl Habitat by Various
Characteristics of Refuges, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007:
Table 19: Change in Quality of Other Migratory Bird Habitat by Various
Refuge Characteristics, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007:
Table 20: Regression Results for Change in Quality of Waterfowl
Habitat, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007:
Table 21: Regression Results for Change in Quality of Other Migratory
Bird Habitat, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007:
Table 22: Deferred Maintenance Backlog by Region, Fiscal Years 2002
through 2007:
Table 23: RONS Project Backlog, Fiscal Years 2002 through 200:
Table 24: RONS Projects Selected for Funding, Fiscal Years 2002 through
2007:
Table 25: Ratio of RONS Project Backlog to Funded Projects, Fiscal
Years 2002 through 2007:
Figures:
Figure 1: Map of the National Wildlife Refuge System:
Figure 2: Principal Funding Sources for Wildlife Refuges:
Figure 3: Refuge System Core Obligations, Nominal and Inflation-
Adjusted Dollars (in 2002 Dollars), Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007:
Figure 4: Total Obligations for the Refuge System in Nominal Dollars,
Fiscal Year 2007:
Figure 5: Total Obligations for the Refuge System, Nominal and
Inflation-Adjusted Dollars (in 2002 Dollars), Fiscal Years 2002 through
2007:
Figure 6: Total Obligations for the Department of the Interior, Fish
and Wildlife Service, and National Wildlife Refuge System, Nominal
Dollars, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007:
Figure 7: Total Obligations for the Department of the Interior, Fish
and Wildlife Service, and National Wildlife Refuge System, Inflation-
Adjusted Dollars (in 2002 Dollars), Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007:
Figure 8: Sources of Total FTEs that Supported the Refuge System,
Fiscal Year 2007:
Figure 9: Comparison of Cumulative Percentage Change in the Refuge
System‘s Core Funding, Core FTEs, and Permanent Employees, Fiscal Years
2002 through 2007:
Figure 10: Visitor Facilities at National Wildlife Refuges:
Figure 11: Results of Activities to Remove Knotgrass at Tualatin River
National Wildlife Refuge:
Figure 12: Change in Quality of Waterfowl Habitat by Refuge Tier,
Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007:
Figure 13: Change in Quality of Other Migratory Bird Habitat by Refuge
Tier, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007:
Figure 14: Change in Quality of Waterfowl Habitat by Change in Time
Spent on Habitat Management Activities, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007:
Figure 15: Change in Quality of Other Migratory Bird Habitat by Change
in Time Spent on Habitat Management Activities, Fiscal Years 2002
through 2007:
Figure 16: Purple Loosestrife:
Figure 17: Nutria and Streambank Damage:
Figure 18: Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Approved Acquisition
Boundary:
Figure 19: Change in the Quality of Waterfowl Habitat by Change in the
Contribution of External Factors, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007:
Figure 20: Change in the Quality of Other Migratory Bird Habitat by
Change in the Contribution of External Factors, Fiscal Years 2002
through 2007:
Figure 21: Examples of Visitor Services Infrastructure for Wildlife
Observation and Photography:
Figure 22: Examples of Visitor Services Infrastructure for
Environmental Education and Interpretation:
Figure 23: Fee Box at Occoquan National Wildlife Refuge:
Abbreviations:
FHWA: Federal Highway Administration:
FTE: full-time equivalent:
FWS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
GDP: gross domestic product:
Improvement Act: National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of
1997:
Interior: Department of the Interior:
MMS: Maintenance Management System:
NWR: National Wildlife Refuge:
NWRS: National Wildlife Refuge System:
RONS: Refuge Operating Needs System:
SAMMS: Service Asset and Maintenance Management System:
WMA: Wildlife Management Area:
WMD: Wetland Management District:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 22, 2008:
The Honorable Nick J. Rahall, II:
Chairman:
Committee on Natural Resources:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Madeleine Z. Bordallo:
Chairwoman:
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans:
Committee on Natural Resources:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Ron Kind:
House of Representatives:
The National Wildlife Refuge System, administered by the Department of
the Interior‘s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), comprises about
585 refuges on more than 96 million acres of land and water that
provide habitat for millions of waterfowl and other migratory birds,
threatened and endangered species, and other plants and wildlife. Each
year, nearly 40 million visitors 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 spans all 50 states, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto
Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and other U.S. territories. FWS manages
its dispersed 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 (these refuges are referred to as ’stand-alone“
refuges in this report), or may be grouped with other offices into a
’complex“ under the common management of a project leader. The 585
refuges have been organized into 126 complexes and 96 stand-alone
refuges. Staff at refuges may include refuge managers, project leaders,
wildlife biologists, law enforcement officers, park rangers, and
administrative or maintenance staff, among others.
What is recognized as the first wildlife refuge was established in 1903
as a federal bird reservation to protect brown pelicans and other
waterbirds. Over time, refuges have been added to the system for
various specific purposes such as providing habitat for one or more
specific endangered species, or for broader purposes such as providing
habitat for waterfowl and other migratory birds in general. In 1997,
the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act (Improvement Act) provided a unifying mission
for all the units in the refuge system”to conserve, manage, and, where
appropriate, restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their
habitats for the benefit of present and future generations.[Footnote 1]
The act requires refuges to give priority to wildlife-dependent
recreational uses that are deemed compatible with the purposes of the
refuge in refuge planning and management. In addition, 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.
You asked us 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. To address these objectives, we
surveyed 538 units within the refuge system”including stand-alone
refuges and refuges within complexes”that we determined to be within
the scope of our review and obtained an 81 percent response rate.
Survey respondents were primarily refuge managers or project leaders
(for the purposes of this report we refer to both of these groups as
refuge managers). We also obtained and analyzed funding data, as
measured by obligations, and staffing data, as measured by the number
of full-time equivalents (FTE) and the number of permanent employees,
from the Federal Financial System and the Federal Personnel Payroll
System, and refuge planning and performance data from FWS‘s Refuge
Annual Performance Planning System.[Footnote 2] We 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 selected refuges in order to see a range in
geographic location, visitation level, refuge prioritization, and type
of management activities and challenges. We conducted our work 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.
More detailed descriptions of our scope and methodology and the
statistical analysis of our survey data are presented in appendixes I
and II, respectively.
Results in Brief:
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:
* Funding. Inflation-adjusted funding (in 2002 dollars) for refuge
operations, maintenance, and fire management”considered ’core“ refuge
activities by refuge officials”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 to
2.3 percent below peak levels in fiscal year 2007; it ended 4.3 percent
above fiscal year 2002 levels. In nominal dollars, core funding
increased each year over the time period from about $366 million in
fiscal year 2002 to about $468 million in fiscal year 2007. At the
refuge level, inflation-adjusted core funding varied considerably
during the time period, with about as many losing funding as gaining
since fiscal year 2002. Specifically, core funding decreased at 96 of
222 complexes and stand-alone refuges and increased at 92, with funding
remaining about the same at 34. The magnitude of the changes in core
funding at the refuge level also were more pronounced than for the
trend overall. For example, from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year
2007, the Kootenai National Wildlife Refuge in Idaho lost 66 percent of
its core funding. Overall, core funding for 39 complexes and stand-
alone refuges decreased by more than 25 percent during this time
period.
* Staffing. Staffing levels for core refuge activities (core staffing),
measured in FTEs, peaked 1 year later than core inflation-adjusted
funding and then declined more slowly. Specifically, core staffing
peaked in fiscal year 2004 at 3,610 FTEs”10.0 percent above fiscal year
2002 levels”and then declined to 4.0 percent below peak levels by
fiscal year 2007; staffing levels ended 5.5 percent above the fiscal
year 2002 level. In addition to FTEs, refuge officials said that
permanent positions are an important staffing measure because they
represent a predictable workforce for managers to rely upon from one
year to the next. Like FTEs, the number of permanent employees peaked
in fiscal year 2004, then declined to 7.5 percent below 2004 levels by
fiscal year 2007”a loss of 275 employees”and 1.7 percent below fiscal
year 2002 levels. Though 38 complexes and stand-alone refuges gained
staff since 2004, more than three times as many lost permanent
employees.
* Policy initiatives. Several new refuge system policy initiatives were
implemented during this period. First, 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. Also, in fiscal year 2004, refuge system officials at
headquarters recognized that the refuge system was not on pace to meet
the Improvement Act mandate to complete conservation plans for each
refuge by 2012. To help meet this deadline, refuge system officials
created a completion schedule and required 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. In addition, during fiscal years 2002
through 2007, 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. Furthermore, refuge system management began an initiative to
increase the number of full-time law enforcement officers and their
associated training and experience requirements to improve safety and
address other concerns. Finally, during this period, various refuge
system, FWS, and Department of the Interior policies increased
administrative work for nonadministrative refuge staff by requiring
additional data entry into certain systems and responses to numerous
data calls. Refuge system officials are beginning to implement changes
to reduce some of these administrative burdens.
* 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,
our survey found that from fiscal years 2002 through 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.
Survey responses and interviews with refuge managers indicated that the
quality of habitat and visitor service programs, as well as 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 are concerned about their ability
to provide quality habitat and visitor service programs into the
future:
* Habitat management. Twenty-eight percent to 40 percent of habitats on
refuges for several types of key species, such as waterfowl and other
migratory birds, improved between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, but
conditions of 11 percent to 18 percent of refuge habitats worsened and
7 percent to 20 percent were in poor condition in 2007. 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 were the
leading problems, affecting 55 percent and 44 percent of refuges,
respectively, and both were increasing on more than half of refuges. At
the same time, managers reported increasing the time spent on habitat
management at many refuges. Of note, we estimated that refuges where
staff time increased were 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. However, 93 percent of
refuge managers also noted increases in administrative workload on
nonadministrative staff from fiscal years 2002 through 2007; managers
said that such tasks take away from the time staff can devote to
habitat management, and some managers reported that staff are working
longer hours without overtime pay to address habitat needs. Many refuge
managers expressed concern about their long-term ability to maintain
high-quality habitat in light of decreasing permanent staff levels at
refuges between fiscal years 2002 and 2007 and increasing pressures on
refuges and refuge staff.
* 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 at the vast majority of refuges. And while
four of the six visitor services were of moderate or better quality in
fiscal year 2007 at more than three-quarters of refuges, environmental
education and environmental interpretation programs were of poor
quality at about one-third of refuges. Some refuges reported that they
expanded their visitor services infrastructure, for example, by adding
informational kiosks and trails and tour routes, yet more than one-half
of refuges reported no change. The change in the time spent by refuges
on visitor services varied considerably throughout the system. Refuge
managers we interviewed told us that visitor services generally are
reduced first”before habitat management activities”when a refuge faces
budget constraints, and several told us that they have become more
dependent on volunteers to staff their visitor centers or run their
programs. Our survey and site visits found that refuge managers are
very concerned about their ability to provide high-quality visitor
services to the public given recent funding and staffing changes.
In commenting on a draft of this report, Interior made technical
comments that we have incorporated as appropriate.
Background:
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.[Footnote 3] 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.[Footnote 4]
Complexes range in size from 2 to 19 refuges, and one of the refuges in
each complex usually serves as the complex headquarters.[Footnote 5]
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.
Figure 1: Map of the National Wildlife Refuge System:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a map of the United States depicting the National
Wildlife Refuge System. Indicated on the map are the geographic
locations of Regions 1-8 as well as national wildlife refuges within
each region.
Source: Fish and Wildlife Service.
[End of figure]
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.
Figure 2: Principal Funding Sources for Wildlife Refuges:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is an illustration of the principal funding sources for
Wildlife Refuges. Those sources are:
Core Funding:
* Allocation from the Resource Management appropriation (funds refuge
operations and maintenance costs);
* Allocation from Wildland Fire Management (funds fire prevention and
suppression costs);
Allocation from Construction appropriation;
Allocation from Land Acquisition appropriation;
Other authorized sources, including funds from FHWA‘s Refuge Roads
program;
Contributed Funds and in-kind donations;
Grants;
Recreation fees.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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.
Refuge Funding and Staffing Levels Fluctuated, New Policies Were
Introduced, and the Influence of Various External Factors Affecting
Refuges Increased from Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007:
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.[Footnote 6] 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.
Inflation-Adjusted Core Refuge Funding Peaked in Fiscal Year 2003 Then
Decreased, but Ended the Period above Fiscal Year 2002 Levels:
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.[Footnote 7] 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.
Figure 3: Refuge System Core Obligations, Nominal and Inflation-
Adjusted Dollars (in 2002 Dollars), Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007,
Dollars in millions:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a multiple line graph depicting the following data:
Fiscal year: 2002;
Core obligations, nominal: 365.7;
Core obligations, inflation-adjusted: 365.7.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Core obligations, nominal: 406;
Core obligations, inflation-adjusted: 390.7.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Core obligations, nominal: 413.1;
Core obligations, inflation-adjusted: 377.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Core obligations, nominal: 425.2;
Core obligations, inflation-adjusted: 372.2.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Core obligations, nominal: 442;
Core obligations, inflation-adjusted: 373.1.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Core obligations, nominal: 467.9;
Core obligations, inflation-adjusted: 381.6.
Source: GAO analysis of Fish and Wildlife Service data.
Note: We used obligations as a measure of the funding for the refuge
system.
[End of figure]
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.[Footnote 8] 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.[Footnote 9] 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.
[Footnote 10] 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.[Footnote 11] 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.
Figure 4: Total Obligations for the Refuge System in Nominal Dollars,
Fiscal Year 2007 (Dollars in millions):
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a pie-chart depicting the following data:
Core: $468 million;
Other refuge, including recreation fees, donations, and conservation
fund: $148 million;
Construction: $107 million;
Land acquisition: $47 million;
Other FWS programs: $34 million;
FHWA Refuge Roads program: $9 million;
Grants: $5 million.
Source: GAO analysis of Fish and Wildlife Service data.
Notes: We used obligations as a measure of the funding for the refuge
system. Obligations sum to $818 million due to rounding.
[End of figure]
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.
Figure 5: Total Obligations for the Refuge System, Nominal and
Inflation-Adjusted Dollars (in 2002 Dollars), Fiscal Years 2002 through
2007:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a multiple line graph depicting the following data:
Fiscal year: 2002;
Total, nominal dollars: $720.2 million;
Total, inflation-adjusted: $720.2 million.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Total, nominal dollars: $700.4 million;
Total, inflation-adjusted: $674 million.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Total, nominal dollars: $725.4 million;
Total, inflation-adjusted: $662 million.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Total, nominal dollars: $722.3 million;
Total, inflation-adjusted: $632 million.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Total, nominal dollars: $774 million;
Total, inflation-adjusted: $652.8 million.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Total, nominal dollars: $816.4 million;
Total, inflation-adjusted: $667.1 million.
Source: GAO analysis of Fish and Wildlife Service data.
Note: We used obligations as a measure of the funding for the refuge
system.
[End of figure]
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.
[Footnote 12] 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.
Figure 6: Total Obligations for the Department of the Interior, Fish
and Wildlife Service, and National Wildlife Refuge System, Nominal
Dollars, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007 (dollars in millions):
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a multiple line graph depicting the following data:
Fiscal year: 2002;
Total, Department of the Interior: $13,414;
Total, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: $1,922.6;
Total, National Wildlife Refuge System: $720.2.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Total, Department of the Interior: $13,881;
Total, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: $1,904.3;
Total, National Wildlife Refuge System: $700.4.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Total, Department of the Interior: $14,526;
Total, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: $1,984.5;
Total, National Wildlife Refuge System: $725.4.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Total, Department of the Interior: $15,839;
Total, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: $1,985.3;
Total, National Wildlife Refuge System: $722.3.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Total, Department of the Interior: $16,122;
Total, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: $2,049.3;
Total, National Wildlife Refuge System: $774.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Total, Department of the Interior: $15,799;
Total, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: $2,179.4;
Total, National Wildlife Refuge System: $816.4.
Source: GAO analysis of Interior data.
[End of figure]
Figure 7: Total Obligations for the Department of the Interior, Fish
and Wildlife Service, and National Wildlife Refuge System, Inflation-
Adjusted Dollars (in 2002 Dollars), Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007
(dollars in millions):
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a multiple line graph depicting the following data:
Fiscal year: 2002;
Total, Department of the Interior: $13,414;
Total, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: $1,922.6;
Total, National Wildlife Refuge System: $720.2.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Total, Department of the Interior: $13,357.6;
Total, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: $1,832.5;
Total, National Wildlife Refuge System: $674.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Total, Department of the Interior: $13,256;
Total, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: $1,811;
Total, National Wildlife Refuge System: $662.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Total, Department of the Interior: $13,858.9;
Total, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: $1,737.1;
Total, National Wildlife Refuge System: $632.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Total, Department of the Interior: $13,597.8;
Total, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: $1,728.4;
Total, National Wildlife Refuge System: $652.8.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Total, Department of the Interior: $12,909.6;
Total, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: $1,780.8;
Total, National Wildlife Refuge System: $667.1.
Source: GAO analysis of Interior data.
Staffing Levels Increased through Fiscal Year 2004, Then Declined More
Slowly Than Funding and Ended the Period Below Peak Levels:
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).[Footnote 13] 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.[Footnote 14] Table 1 shows FTE trends for core refuge system
activities from fiscal years 2002 through 2007.
Table 1: Core Refuge System FTEs, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007:
Refuge system operations and maintenance FTEs:
2002: 2,702;
2003: 2,882;
2004: 3,005;
2005: 2,960;
2006: 2,885;
2007: 2,798.
Refuge system fire management FTEs:
2002: 582;
2003: 610;
2004: 605;
2005: 595;
2006: 660;
2007: 665.
Total refuge system core FTEs:
2002: 3,283;
2003: 3,493;
2004: 3,610;
2005: 3,556;
2006: 3,545;
2007: 3,464.
Source: GAO analysis of Fish and Wildlife Service data.
Note: Some columns do not sum due to rounding.
[End of table]
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.
Figure 8: Sources of Total FTEs that Supported the Refuge System,
Fiscal Year 2007:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a pie-chart depicting the following data:
Sources of Total FTEs that Supported the Refuge System, Fiscal Year
2007:
Refuge system core activities: 3,464;
Other refuge system activities: 507;
Other FWS programs: 157;
Total: 4,128 FTEs.
Source: GAO analysis of Fish and Wildlife Service data.
[End of figure]
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.
Table 2: Total FTEs That Supported the Refuge System, Fiscal Years 2002
through 2007:
Refuge system FTEs:
2002: 3,933;
2003: 4,101;
2004: 4,178;
2005: 4,139;
2006: 4,108;
2007: 3,971.
FTEs from other FWS programs:
2002: 158;
2003: 160;
2004: 152;
2005: 136;
2006: 141;
2007: 157.
Total FTEs (including other FWS programs):
2002: 4,091;
2003: 4,261;
2004: 4,330;
2005: 4,275;
2006: 4,249;
2007: 4,128.
Source: GAO analysis of Fish and Wildlife Service data.
[End of table]
In addition to FTEs, the number of employees on board in refuge system
positions also declined after peaking in fiscal year 2004.[Footnote 15]
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.[Footnote 16]
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.
Table 3: Permanent and Total Refuge System Employees, Fiscal Years 2002
through 2007:
Permanent employees;
2002: 3,446;
2003: 3,592;
2004: 3,663;
2005: 3,624;
2006: 3,512;
2007: 3,388.
Total employees:
2002: 4,247;
2003: 4,398;
2004: 4,449;
2005: 4,344;
2006: 4,211;
2007: 4,076.
Source: GAO analysis of Fish and Wildlife Service data.
Note: The counts in the table are the number of employees as of July 1
for each fiscal year, which refuge system officials reported would
represent the summer work season”and thus the annual staffing peak”at
most refuges.
[End of table]
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.[Footnote 17] 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.
Several Policy Initiatives Were Implemented from Fiscal Years 2002
through 2007:
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.
Workforce Management Planning:
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.[Footnote
18] 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.
Figure 9: Comparison of Cumulative Percentage Change in the Refuge
System‘s Core Funding, Core FTEs, and Permanent Employees, Fiscal Years
2002 through 2007:
[Refer to 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%.
Source: GAO analysis of Fish and Wildlife Service data.
[End of figure]
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;[Footnote 19]
* 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.
Conservation Planning:
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.[Footnote 20] 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.
Visitor Service Facility Construction:
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.
Figure 10: Visitor Facilities at National Wildlife Refuges:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure contains the following three photographs:
Visitor center: Tualatin NWR;
Interpretive kiosk: Great Bay NWR;
Outdoor restroom: Great Bay NWR.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Law Enforcement Modifications:
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.[Footnote 21] 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.
New Administrative Work:
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.
The Influence of Various External Factors That Complicate Refuges‘
Abilities to Manage Habitats and Provide Services Increased from Fiscal
Years 2002 through 2007:
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.
[Footnote 22]
Several Changes in Habitat Management and Visitor Services Occurred at
Refuges from Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007, Raising Managers‘ Concerns
About Future Sustainability:
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 Habitats on Refuges for Key Types of Species Improved More Often
Than They Worsened between Fiscal Years 2002 and 2007, Others Are in
Poor Condition and Many Refuge Managers Are Concerned about Maintaining
Habitat Conditions:
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.
Between Fiscal Years 2002 and 2007, Habitat Conditions on Refuges for
Key Types of Species Improved More Often Than they Worsened, Although
Some Refuges Have Poor Quality Habitat:
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).
Table 4: 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.
Notes: 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. See app. I for a discussion of our methodology. Some rows
may not sum to 100 due to rounding and survey responses such as ’no
basis to judge.“
[End of table]
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.[Footnote 23] We observed the results of
some of these activities to remove knotgrass (see fig. 11).
Figure 11: Results of Activities to Remove Knotgrass at Tualatin River
National Wildlife Refuge:
[Refer to PDF for image]
Two photographs of Knotgrass at Tualatin River National Wildlife
Refuge.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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.[Footnote 24] 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.
[Footnote 25]
Figure 12: Change in Quality of Waterfowl Habitat by Refuge Tier,
Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a multiple vertical bar graph depicting the following
data:
Tier: Unstaffed satellite refuges;
Habitat quality improved: 42%;
Habitat quality stayed the same: 38%;
Habitat quality worsened: 20%.
Tier: Targeted reduction refuges;
Habitat quality improved: 48%;
Habitat quality stayed the same: 35%;
Habitat quality worsened: 18%.
Tier: Focus refuges;
Habitat quality improved: 20%;
Habitat quality stayed the same: 64%;
Habitat quality worsened: 16%.
Source: GAO analysis of Fish and Wildlife Service data.
Notes: Results are based on data from 381 refuges that provided usable
responses to the corresponding questions on our survey and that
reported that providing waterfowl habitat was a priority at their
refuge. See app. II for further details on this analysis.
[End of figure]
Figure 13: Change in Quality of Other Migratory Bird Habitat by Refuge
Tier, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a multiple vertical bar graph depicting the following
data:
Tier: Unstaffed satellite refuges;
Habitat quality improved: 42%;
Habitat quality stayed the same: 43%;
Habitat quality worsened: 15%.
Tier: Targeted reduction refuges;
Habitat quality improved: 54%;
Habitat quality stayed the same: 30%;
Habitat quality worsened: 16%.
Tier: Focus refuges;
Habitat quality improved: 20%;
Habitat quality stayed the same: 59%;
Habitat quality worsened: 20%.
Source: GAO analysis of Fish and Wildlife Service data.
Notes: Results are based on data from 407 refuges that provided usable
responses to the corresponding questions on our survey and that
reported that providing habitat for other migratory birds was a
priority at their refuge. See app. II for further details on this
analysis.
[End of figure]
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.[Footnote 26]
Figure 14: Change in Quality of Waterfowl Habitat by Change in Time
Spent on Habitat Management Activities, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a multiple vertical bar graph depicting the following
data:
Tier: Unstaffed satellite refuges;
Time spent by permanent staff on habitat management increased: 47%;
Time spent by permanent staff on habitat management stayed the same:
39%;
Time spent by permanent staff on habitat management decreased: 14%.
Tier: Targeted reduction refuges;
Time spent by permanent staff on habitat management increased: 32%;
Time spent by permanent staff on habitat management stayed the same:
56%;
Time spent by permanent staff on habitat management decreased: 12%.
Tier: Focus refuges;
Time spent by permanent staff on habitat management increased: 30%;
Time spent by permanent staff on habitat management stayed the same:
43%;
Time spent by permanent staff on habitat management decreased: 27%.
Source: GAO analysis of Fish and Wildlife Service data.
Notes: Results are based on data from 374 refuges that provided usable
responses to the corresponding questions on our survey and that
reported that providing waterfowl habitat was a priority at their
refuge. See app. II for further details on this analysis.
[End of figure]
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).
Figure 15: Change in Quality of Other Migratory Bird Habitat by Change
in Time Spent on Habitat Management Activities, Fiscal Years 2002
through 2007:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a multiple vertical bar graph depicting the following
data:
Tier: Unstaffed satellite refuges;
Time spent by permanent staff on habitat management increased: 51%;
Time spent by permanent staff on habitat management stayed the same:
34%;
Time spent by permanent staff on habitat management decreased: 15%.
Tier: Targeted reduction refuges;
Time spent by permanent staff on habitat management increased: 29%;
Time spent by permanent staff on habitat management stayed the same:
63%;
Time spent by permanent staff on habitat management decreased: 7%.
Tier: Focus refuges;
Time spent by permanent staff on habitat management increased: 31%;
Time spent by permanent staff on habitat management stayed the same:
44%;
Time spent by permanent staff on habitat management decreased: 25%.
Source: GAO analysis of Fish and Wildlife Service data.
Notes: Results are based on data from 400 refuges that provided usable
responses to the corresponding questions on our survey and that
reported that providing habitat for other migratory birds was a
priority at their refuge. See app. II for further details on this
analysis.
[End of figure]
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.[Footnote 27] 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).
Table 5: 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%.
State species of concern 4741 13
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.
Notes: 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]
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).
Table 6: Extent to Which Habitat Is Meeting the Needs of Species,
Fiscal Year 2007:
Species type: Waterfowl;
Percent of habitats meeting the needs of the species to a large extent:
47%;
Percent of habitats meeting the needs of the species to a moderate
extent: 29%;
Percent of habitats meeting the needs of the species to a small or no
extent: 25%.
Species type: Other migratory birds;
Percent of habitats meeting the needs of the species to a large extent:
54%;
Percent of habitats meeting the needs of the species to a moderate
extent: 37%;
Percent of habitats meeting the needs of the species to a small or no
extent: 9%.
Species type: Threatened and endangered species;
Percent of habitats meeting the needs of the species to a large extent:
43%;
Percent of habitats meeting the needs of the species to a moderate
extent: 26%;
Percent of habitats meeting the needs of the species to a small or no
extent: 22%.
Species type: Candidate threatened and endangered species;
Percent of habitats meeting the needs of the species to a large extent:
37%;
Percent of habitats meeting the needs of the species to a moderate
extent: 28%;
Percent of habitats meeting the needs of the species to a small or no
extent: 26%.
Species type: State species of concern;
Percent of habitats meeting the needs of the species to a large extent:
44%;
Percent of habitats meeting the needs of the species to a moderate
extent: 30%;
Percent of habitats meeting the needs of the species to a small or no
extent: 21%.
Source: GAO.
Notes: 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 types 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]
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.[Footnote 28] 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.
Habitat Problems and External Threats Are Increasingly Affecting
Refuges:
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).
Table 7: Common Refuge Problems Affecting Habitat and Trends in These
Problems, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007:
Problem: Invasive plants;
Percent of refuges reporting as a large problem: 55%;
Percent of refuges reporting as a moderate problem: 23%;
Percent of refuges reporting the problem as increasing: 55%.
Problem: Habitat fragmentation;
Percent of refuges reporting as a large problem: 44%;
Percent of refuges reporting as a moderate problem: 21%;
Percent of refuges reporting the problem as increasing: 57%.
Problem: Invasive animals;
Percent of refuges reporting as a large problem: 21%;
Percent of refuges reporting as a moderate problem: 21%;
Percent of refuges reporting the problem as increasing: 23%.
Problem: Lack of water;
Percent of refuges reporting as a large problem: 18%;
Percent of refuges reporting as a moderate problem: 13%;
Percent of refuges reporting the problem as increasing: 25%.
Problem: Soil erosion;
Percent of refuges reporting as a large problem: 15%;
Percent of refuges reporting as a moderate problem: 13%;
Percent of refuges reporting the problem as increasing: 22%.
Problem: Water pollution;
Percent of refuges reporting as a large problem: 11%;
Percent of refuges reporting as a moderate problem: 17%;
Percent of refuges reporting the problem as increasing: 12%.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
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).
Figure 16: Purple Loosestrife:
[Refer to PDF for image]
Two photographs of Purple Loosestrife.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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.[Footnote 29] Nutria can wreak havoc on
water level control at refuges by burrowing into and destabilizing
streambanks and damaging water control structures (see fig. 17).
Figure 17: Nutria and Streambank Damage:
[Refer to PDF for image]
Two photographs of Nutria and Streambank Damage.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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.[Footnote
30] 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.“[Footnote 31] 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.
Figure 18: Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge Approved Acquisition
Boundary:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a map of the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge with
land ownership depicted in the following categories:
U.S. Fish & Wildlife service;
WA Dept. Fish & Wildlife service;
Fort Lewis (U.S. Army);
Nisqually tribe;
County land;
City of Olympia;
Private land;
No data.
Source: Fish and Wildlife Service.
[End of figure]
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).[Footnote 32] 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).
Figure 19: Change in the Quality of Waterfowl Habitat by Change in the
Contribution of External Factors, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a multiple vertical bar graph depicting the following
data:
Contribution of external factors to habitat problems: No net increase;
Habitat quality improved: 38%;
Habitat quality stayed the same: 58%;
Habitat quality worsened: 4%.
Contribution of external factors to habitat problems: Net increase;
Habitat quality improved: 38%;
Habitat quality stayed the same: 40%;
Habitat quality worsened: 22%.
Source: GAO analysis of Fish and Wildlife Service data.
Notes: Results are based on data from 381 refuges that provided usable
responses to the corresponding questions on our survey and that
reported that providing waterfowl habitat was a priority at their
refuge. See app. II for further details on this analysis.
[End of figure]
We found similar results for the change in other migratory bird habitat
(see fig. 20).
Figure 20: Change in the Quality of Other Migratory Bird Habitat by
Change in the Contribution of External Factors, Fiscal Years 2002
through 2007:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a multiple vertical bar graph depicting the following
data:
Contribution of external factors to habitat problems: No net increase;
Habitat quality improved: 39%;
Habitat quality stayed the same: 56%;
Habitat quality worsened: 5%.
Contribution of external factors to habitat problems: Net increase;
Habitat quality improved: 41%;
Habitat quality stayed the same: 39%;
Habitat quality worsened: 21%.
Source: GAO analysis of Fish and Wildlife Service data.
Notes: Results are based on data from 407 refuges that provided usable
responses to the corresponding questions on our survey and that
reported that providing habitat for other migratory birds was a
priority at their refuge. See app. II for further details on this
analysis.
[End of figure]
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.
Time Spent on Certain Habitat Management Activities Increased at Many
Refuges:
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).
Table 8: 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]
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.
Table 9: Change in Time Spent by Type of Worker on Habitat Management
Activities, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007:
Type of staff: Permanent staff;
Percent of refuges reporting an increase in time spent: 48%;
Percent of refuges reporting that time spent stayed the same: 21%;
Percent of refuges reporting a decrease in time spent: 29%;
Percent of refuges reporting not using this type of staff: 2%.
Type of staff: Volunteers;
Percent of refuges reporting an increase in time spent: 45%;
Percent of refuges reporting that time spent stayed the same: 30%;
Percent of refuges reporting a decrease in time spent: 10%;
Percent of refuges reporting not using this type of staff: 15%.
Type of staff: Temporary staff;
Percent of refuges reporting an increase in time spent: 32%;
Percent of refuges reporting that time spent stayed the same: 23%;
Percent of refuges reporting a decrease in time spent: 19%;
Percent of refuges reporting not using this type of staff: 27%.
Type of staff: Cooperators;
Percent of refuges reporting an increase in time spent: 32%;
Percent of refuges reporting that time spent stayed the same: 35%;
Percent of refuges reporting a decrease in time spent: 7%;
Percent of refuges reporting not using this type of staff: 27%.
Type of staff: Contract workers;
Percent of refuges reporting an increase in time spent: 25%;
Percent of refuges reporting that time spent stayed the same: 23%;
Percent of refuges reporting a decrease in time spent: 7%;
Percent of refuges reporting not using this type of staff: 46%.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
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).
Table 10: Percent Increase or Decrease in Time Spent on Habitat
Management by Nonpermanent Workers as a Function of Permanent Staff
Time Spent on Habitat Management, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007:
Increase or decrease in permanent staff time: Refuges reporting
increased permanent staff time on habitat management:
Type of Staff: Temporary;
Percent of refuges reporting increase in time spent: 71%;
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 23%;
Percent of refuges reporting decrease in time spent: 6%.
Type of Staff: Contract;
Percent of refuges reporting increase in time spent: 61%;
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 36%;
Percent of refuges reporting decrease in time spent: 3%.
Type of Staff: Volunteers;
Percent of refuges reporting increase in time spent: 70%;
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 28%;
Percent of refuges reporting decrease in time spent: 2%.
Type of Staff: Cooperators;
Percent of refuges reporting increase in time spent: 63%;
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 34%;
Percent of refuges reporting decrease in time spent: 3%.
Increase or decrease in permanent staff time: Refuges reporting
decreased permanent staff time on habitat management:
Type of Staff: Temporary;
Percent of refuges reporting increase in time spent: 12%;
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 28%;
Percent of refuges reporting decrease in time spent: 60%.
Type of Staff: Contract;
Percent of refuges reporting increase in time spent: 27%;
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 53%;
Percent of refuges reporting decrease in time spent: 8%.
Type of Staff: Volunteers;
Percent of refuges reporting increase in time spent: 40%;
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 30%;
Percent of refuges reporting decrease in time spent: 30%.
Type of Staff: Cooperators;
Percent of refuges reporting increase in time spent: 28%;
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 48%;
Percent of refuges reporting decrease in time spent: 25%.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
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.
Refuge Managers Are Concerned about Their Ability to Maintain Habitat
Conditions:
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 Service Programs Improved More Often Than
Worsened between Fiscal Years 2002 and 2007, but Some Programs Were
Poor Quality in 2007 and Refuge Managers Are Concerned about the
Quality of Visitor Services in the Future:
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.
Quality of Visitor Service Programs Varied within the Refuge System
between Fiscal Years 2002 and 2007:
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).
Table 11: 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.
Notes: Refuges may not have programs in all six areas. 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 12).
Table 12: 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: 42%;
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]
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.
Figure 21: Examples of Visitor Services Infrastructure for Wildlife
Observation and Photography:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure contains photographs of the following:
Observation platform - Rachel Carson NWR;
Trail – Rachel Carson NWR;
Photography blind - William L. Finley NWR.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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.
Figure 22: Examples of Visitor Services Infrastructure for
Environmental Education and Interpretation:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure contains photographs of the following:
Interpretive exhibits – Parker River NWR;
Interactive display – Parker River NWR;
Environmental education materials – Upper Mississippi River NWR.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
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).
Table 13: 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 of infrastructure, 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 of infrastructure, 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 of infrastructure, 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 of infrastructure, 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 of infrastructure, 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 of infrastructure, 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 of infrastructure, Condition improved: 50%;
Condition of infrastructure, Condition stayed the same: 32%;
Condition of infrastructure, Condition worsened: 19%.
Source: GAO.
Note: 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]
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.
Change in Time Spent on Visitor Service Activities Varied across the
Refuge System:
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).
Table 14: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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]
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.
Table 15: Change in Time Spent on Visitor Services by Type of Worker,
Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007:
Worker: Permanent staff;
Percent of refuges reporting increased time spent: 38%;
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 26%;
Percent of refuges reporting decreased time spent: 37%.
Worker: Temporary staff;
Percent of refuges reporting increased time spent: 32%;
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 41%;
Percent of refuges reporting decreased time spent: 26%.
Worker: Contract worker;
Percent of refuges reporting increased time spent: 28%;
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 61%;
Percent of refuges reporting decreased time spent: 11%.
Worker: Volunteer;
Percent of refuges reporting increased time spent: 57%;
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 31%;
Percent of refuges reporting decreased time spent: 13%.
Cooperators 3854 8
Percent of refuges reporting increased time spent: 38%;
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 54%;
Percent of refuges reporting decreased time spent: 8%.
Source: GAO.
Notes: Percentages in this table represent changes in staffing for
those refuges that report time spent on a given visitor service; some
refuges do not use some types of workers. Some rows may not sum to 100
due to rounding.
[End of table]
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).
Table 16: Percent Increase or Decrease in Nonpermanent Worker Time
Spent on Visitor Services as a Function of Permanent Staff Time Spent
on Visitor Services, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007:
Refuges reporting increased permanent staff time:
Type of staff: Temporary;
Percent of refuges reporting increased time spent: 69%;
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 23%;
Percent of refuges reporting decreased time spent: 8%.
Type of staff: Contract;
Percent of refuges reporting increased time spent: 46%;
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 54%;
Percent of refuges reporting decreased time spent: 0.
Type of staff: Volunteers;
Percent of refuges reporting increased time spent: 81%;
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 17%;
Percent of refuges reporting decreased time spent: 2%.
Type of staff: Cooperators;
Percent of refuges reporting increased time spent: 62%;
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 36%;
Percent of refuges reporting decreased time spent: 2%.
Refuges reporting decreased permanent staff time:
Type of staff: Temporary;
Percent of refuges reporting increased time spent: 8%;
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 35%;
Percent of refuges reporting decreased time spent: 57%.
Type of staff: Contract;
Percent of refuges reporting increased time spent: 12%;
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 64%;
Percent of refuges reporting decreased time spent: 25%.
Type of staff: Volunteers;
Percent of refuges reporting increased time spent: 43%;
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 29%;
Percent of refuges reporting decreased time spent: 29%.
Type of staff: Cooperators;
Percent of refuges reporting increased time spent: 24%;
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 59%;
Percent of refuges reporting decreased time spent: 18%.
Source: GAO.
Note: Some rows may not some to 100 due to rounding.
[End of table]
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.[Footnote 33] 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.[Footnote 34] 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.
Figure 23: Fee Box at Occoquan National Wildlife Refuge:
[Refer to PDF for image]
Two photographs of fee box at Occoquan National Wildlife Refuge.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Refuge Officials Are Concerned about Maintaining High-Quality Visitor
Services into the Future:
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.
Concluding Observations:
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.
Agency Comments and Our Response:
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 [hyperlink,
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.
Signed by:
Robin Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
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.[Footnote 35]
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.
* In fiscal year 2007, how would you rate the overall quality of
habitat for waterfowl, other migratory birds, threatened and endangered
species, and state species of concern? (Note: Refuges only answered
these questions if they had the specified species on their refuge.)
* In fiscal year 2007, to what extent did the condition of the habitat
on your refuge meet the needs of waterfowl, other migratory birds,
threatened and endangered species, and state species of concern? (Note:
Refuges only answered these questions if they had the specified species
on their refuge.)
* Between fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2007, did the overall
quality of habitat on your refuge improve, stay the same, or worsen for
waterfowl, other migratory birds, threatened and endangered species,
and state species of concern? (Note: Refuges only answered these
questions if they had the specified species on their refuge.)
* In fiscal year 2007, how much of a problem were the following for the
condition of the habitat on your refuge and did these problems
increase, stay the same, or decrease between fiscal years 2002 and
2007: invasive plants, invasive animals, water pollution, soil
contamination, air pollution, noise pollution, light pollution, plant
disease, animal disease, habitat fragmentation on or around refuge,
lack of water, excessive water, wildfire damage, storm damage, soil
erosion, damage to habitat from recreational use, damage to habitat
from crime, and other human disturbances? (Note: respondents were able
to write in other problems occurring on their refuge.)
* In fiscal year 2007, how much did the following factors contribute to
the habitat problems on your refuge and did they increase, stay the
same, or decrease between fiscal years 2002 and 2007: extreme weather
(such as drought, flood, wind, and temperature), off-refuge agriculture
(such as 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.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Statistical Analysis of Habitat Change:
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.
Data Used in OUr Analysis:
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.
Table 17: Summary Statistics for Habitat Change and Refuge
Characteristics, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007:
Variable: Change in quality of habitat for waterfowl,
Improved;
Number: 145;
Percent: 38%.
Variable: Change in quality of habitat for waterfowl, Stayed the same;
Number: 167;
Percent: 44%.
Variable: Change in quality of habitat for waterfowl, Worsened;
Number: 69;
Percent:18%.
Variable: Change in quality of habitat for waterfowl, Total;
Number: 381;
Percent: 100%.
Variable: Change in quality of habitat for other migratory birds,
Improved;
Number: 163;
Percent:40%.
Variable: Change in quality of habitat for other migratory birds,
Stayed the same;
Number: 175;
Percent: 43%.
Variable: Change in quality of habitat for other migratory birds,
Worsened;
Number: 69;
Percent: 17%.
Variable: Change in quality of habitat for other migratory birds,
Total;
Number: 407;
Percent: 100%.
Variable: Change in time spent by permanent staff on habitat management
activities, Increased;
Number: 209;
Percent: 49%.
Variable: Change in time spent by permanent staff on habitat management
activities, Stayed the same;
Number: 91;
Percent: 21%.
Variable: Change in time spent by permanent staff on habitat management
activities, Decreased;
Number: 127;
Percent: 30%.
Variable: Change in time spent by permanent staff on habitat management
activities, Total;
Number: 427;
Percent: 100%.
Variable: Refuge tier, Focus;
Number: 148;
Percent: 34%.
Variable: Refuge tier, Targeted reduction;
Number: 155;
Percent: 36%.
Variable: Refuge tier, Unstaffed satellite;
Number: 134;
Percent: 31%.
Variable: Refuge tier, Total;
Number: 437;
Percent: 100%.
Variable: Change in external factors that contribute to habitat
problems, Net increase;
Number: 109;
Percent: 25%.
Variable: Change in external factors that contribute to habitat
problems, No net increase;
Number: 328;
Percent: 75%.
Variable: Change in external factors that contribute to habitat
problems, Total;
Number: 437;
Percent: 100%.
Source: GAO‘s survey of wildlife refuge managers; tier designations
come from FWS.
Note: Some columns may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding. The
total number of refuges differs for each variable because of differing
response rates for the corresponding questions in our survey.
[End of table]
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.[Footnote 36] 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.
Cross-Tabulations between Habitat Change and Refuge Characteristics:
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.
Table 18: Change in Quality of Waterfowl Habitat by Various
Characteristics of Refuges, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007:
Time spent by permanent staff on habitat management: Increased;
Habitat quality improved, Number: 87;
Habitat quality improved, Percent: 47%;
Habitat quality stayed the same, Number: 73;
Habitat quality stayed the same, Percent: 39%;
Habitat quality worsened, Number: 27;
Habitat quality worsened, Percent: 14%;
Total number: 187.
Time spent by permanent staff on habitat management: Stayed the same;
Habitat quality improved, Number: 24;
Habitat quality improved, Percent: 32%;
Habitat quality stayed the same, Number: 42;
Habitat quality stayed the same, Percent: 56%;
Habitat quality worsened, Number: 9;
Habitat quality worsened, Percent: 12%;
Total number: 75.
Time spent by permanent staff on habitat management: Decreased;
Habitat quality improved, Number: 34;
Habitat quality improved, Percent: 30%;
Habitat quality stayed the same, Number: 48;
Habitat quality stayed the same, Percent: 43%;
Habitat quality worsened, Number: 30;
Habitat quality worsened, Percent: 27%;
Total number: 112.
Time spent by permanent staff on habitat management: Total;
Habitat quality improved, Number: 145;
Habitat quality improved, Percent: 39%;
Habitat quality stayed the same, Number: 163;
Habitat quality stayed the same, Percent: 44%;
Habitat quality worsened, Number: 66;
Habitat quality worsened, Percent: 18%;
Total number: 374 (Chi-Square = 17.131, df = 4, Sig. = .002).
Refuge tier: Focus;
Habitat quality improved, Number: 56;
Habitat quality improved, Percent: 42%;
Habitat quality stayed the same, Number: 50;
Habitat quality stayed the same, Percent: 38%;
Habitat quality worsened, Number: 27;
Habitat quality worsened, Percent: 20%;
Total number: 113.
Refuge tier: Targeted reduction;
Habitat quality improved, Number: 68;
Habitat quality improved, Percent: 48%;
Habitat quality stayed the same, Number: 49;
Habitat quality stayed the same, Percent: 35%;
Habitat quality worsened, Number: 25;
Habitat quality worsened, Percent: 18%;
Total number: 142.
Refuge tier: Unstaffed satellite;
Habitat quality improved, Number: 21;
Habitat quality improved, Percent: 20%;
Habitat quality stayed the same, Number: 68;
Habitat quality stayed the same, Percent: 64%;
Habitat quality worsened, Number: 17;
Habitat quality worsened, Percent: 16%;
Total number: 106.
Refuge tier: Total;
Habitat quality improved, Number: 145;
Habitat quality improved, Percent: 38%;
Habitat quality stayed the same, Number: 167;
Habitat quality stayed the same, Percent: 44%;
Habitat quality worsened, Number: 69;
Habitat quality worsened, Percent: 18%;
Total number: 381 (Chi-Square = 28.056, df = 4, Sig. < .001).
Contribution of external factors to habitat problems: No net increase;
Habitat quality improved, Number: 34;
Habitat quality improved, Percent: 38%;
Habitat quality stayed the same, Number: 52;
Habitat quality stayed the same, Percent: 58%;
Habitat quality worsened, Number: 4;
Habitat quality worsened, Percent: 4%;
Total number: 90.
Contribution of external factors to habitat problems: Net increase;
Habitat quality improved, Number: 111;
Habitat quality improved, Percent: 38%;
Habitat quality stayed the same, Number: 115;
Habitat quality stayed the same, Percent: 40%;
Habitat quality worsened, Number: 65;
Habitat quality worsened, Percent: 22%;
Total number: 291.
Contribution of external factors to habitat problems: Total;
Habitat quality improved, Number: 145;
Habitat quality improved, Percent: 38%;
Habitat quality stayed the same, Number: 167;
Habitat quality stayed the same, Percent: 44%;
Habitat quality worsened, Number: 69;
Habitat quality worsened, Percent: 18%;
Total number: 381 (Chi-Square = 17.382, df = 2, Sig. < .001).
Source: GAO‘s survey of wildlife refuge managers; tier designations
come from the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Note: The numbers in this table exclude 40 refuges that indicated that
providing habitat for waterfowl was not a priority according to the
purpose of their refuge. Some columns may not sum to 100 percent
because of rounding. For the time spent by permanent staff on habitat
management, the total number of refuges is lower because fewer refuges
responded to the corresponding question on our survey. \
[End of table]
Table 19: Change in Quality of Other Migratory Bird Habitat by Various
Refuge Characteristics, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007:
Time spent by permanent staff on habitat management: Increased;
Habitat quality improved, Number: 101;
Habitat quality improved, Percent: 51%;
Habitat quality stayed the same, Number: 68;
Habitat quality stayed the same, Percent: 34%;
Habitat quality worsened, Number: 30;
Habitat quality worsened, Percent: 15%;
Total number: 199.
Time spent by permanent staff on habitat management: Stayed the same;
Habitat quality improved, Number: 24;
Habitat quality improved, Percent: 29%;
Habitat quality stayed the same, Number: 52;
Habitat quality stayed the same, Percent: 63%;
Habitat quality worsened, Number: 6;
Habitat quality worsened, Percent: 7%;
Total number: 82.
Time spent by permanent staff on habitat management: Decreased;
Habitat quality improved, Number: 37;
Habitat quality improved, Percent: 31%;
Habitat quality stayed the same, Number: 52;
Habitat quality stayed the same, Percent: 44%;
Habitat quality worsened, Number: 30;
Habitat quality worsened, Percent: 25%;
Total number: 119.
Time spent by permanent staff on habitat management: Total;
Habitat quality improved, Number: 162;
Habitat quality improved, Percent: 41%;
Habitat quality stayed the same, Number: 172;
Habitat quality stayed the same, Percent: 43%;
Habitat quality worsened, Number: 66;
Habitat quality worsened, Percent: 17%;
Total number: 400 (Chi-Square = 31.796, df = 4, Sig. =
