	Numerous Changes Affected Refuge Management

From fiscal years 2002 through 2007, several changes occurred that  affected refuge management including changes in funding and staffing  levels, refuge system policy initiatives, and the influence of external  factors, such as extreme weather and human development. Inflation-adjusted funding (in 2002  dollars) for core refuge system activities—measured as obligations for  refuge operations, maintenance, and fire management—peaked in fiscal  year 2003, for the celebration of the refuge system’s centennial, at about  $391 million—6.8 percent above fiscal year 2002 levels—and then declined  quickly to 4.7 percent below peak levels by fiscal year 2005, before  increasing again to 2.3 percent below peak levels in fiscal year 2007; it  ended 4.3 percent above fiscal year 2002 levels. At the refuge level, inflation-adjusted core funding at refuges varied  considerably during the time period, with about as many losing funding as  gaining funding since fiscal year 2002. Specifically, core staffing, which  includes operations, maintenance, and fire management, peaked in fiscal  year 2004 at a level 10.0 percent higher than in fiscal year 2002, but  declined after that to 4.0 percent below peak staffing levels in fiscal year  2007. This level, however, was still 5.5 percent higher than the staffing  level in fiscal year 2002. Figure 1 compares the trends in the refuge system’s core funding, staffing,  and permanent employee levels during our study period. New policy initiatives. To help spread visitor service funds across as many refuges as possible,  refuge officials began placing a greater emphasis on constructing smaller  visitor facility structures, such as informational kiosks and restrooms, at a  larger number of refuges rather than constructing a smaller number of  traditional visitor centers. To improve safety and address other concerns, refuge system management  began an initiative to increase the number of full-time law enforcement  officers and their associated training and experience requirements. 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. Changes in Habitat Management and Visitor Services

From fiscal years 2002 through 2007, several changes occurred in refuges’  habitat management and visitor services, creating concerns about the  refuges’ abilities to maintain high quality habitat and visitor services in the  future. Habitats on refuges for five types of key species— waterfowl, other migratory birds, threatened and endangered species,  candidate threatened and endangered species, and state species of  concern—improved between fiscal years 2002 and 2007—about two times  as often as they worsened (see table 1). Importantly, time spent on  developing comprehensive conservation plans, which are required by the  Improvement Act, increased for 59 percent of refuges during our study  period. In addition, refuges that increased the time spent on habitat  management activities were about three times more likely to report that  habitat quality for waterfowl and other migratory birds improved rather  than worsened. In light of increasing problems and threats affecting refuge conditions, as  well as recent funding and staffing constraints, refuge managers and  regional and headquarters officials expressed concern about refuges’  abilities to sustain or improve current habitat conditions for wildlife into  the future. Even though our survey showed that a large number of refuges  increased staff time on habitat management activities, some refuge  managers we interviewed explained that staff were simply working longer  hours to get the work done. Several managers even said that they have to limit the  amount of time staff spend at the refuge, as these employees are working  overtime without extra pay. Visitor services. Our survey found that four of the six key visitor services provided to the  public were of moderate or better quality at most refuges in 2007, but  environmental education and interpretation were reported to be low  quality at about one-third of refuges (see table 5). Refuge managers indicated that staffing changes and a lack of resources  for increasing and maintaining infrastructure, raise concerns about their  ability to provide quality visitor services into the future. Our survey results  showed that the time spent by permanent staff on visitor services had been  reduced at more than one–third of refuges and more than half of refuge  managers reported increasing their reliance on volunteers to help manage  visitor centers and deliver education programs, for example.
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 about 40 million visitors every year. GAO was asked to testify on a report that is being released today, Wildlife Refuges: Changes in Funding, Staffing, and Other Factors Create Concerns about Future Sustainability (GAO-08-797), which (1) describes changing factors that the refuge system experienced from fiscal years 2002 through 2007, including funding and staffing changes, and (2) examines how habitat management and visitor services changed during this period. For this report, GAO surveyed all refuges, visited 19 refuges in four regions, and interviewed refuge, regional, and national officials.

What GAO Found

In its September 2008 report, GAO reports that for fiscal years 2002 through 2007, the refuge system experienced funding and staffing fluctuations, the introduction of several new policy initiatives, and the increased influence of external factors such as extreme weather that threaten wildlife habitat and visitor infrastructure. Although core funding--measured as obligations for refuge operations, maintenance, and fire management--increased each year, inflation-adjusted core funding peaked in fiscal year 2003 at about $391 million--6.8 percent above fiscal year 2002 funding. Inflation-adjusted core funding ended the period 2.3 percent below peak levels, but 4.3 percent above fiscal year 2002 levels by fiscal year 2007. Core refuge staffing levels peaked in fiscal year 2004 at 3,610 full-time equivalents--10.0 percent above the fiscal year 2002 level--and then declined more slowly than funding. By fiscal year 2007, staffing levels fell to 4.0 percent below peak levels, but 5.5 percent above fiscal year 2002 levels. Through fiscal year 2007, the number of permanent employees utilized by the refuge system declined to 7.5 percent below peak levels. During this period, refuge system officials initiated new policies that: (1) reduced staff positions and reconsidered how they allocate funds and staff among refuges in order to better align staff levels with funding, (2) required refuge staff to focus on a legislative mandate to complete refuge conservation plans by 2012, (3) shifted to constructing a larger number of smaller visitor structures, such as informational kiosks, and fewer large visitor centers to spread visitor service funds across more refuges, (4) increased the number of full-time law enforcement officers and their associated training requirements, and (5) resulted in additional administrative work. During this period, external factors, such as severe storms, that complicate refuge staffs' ability to protect and restore habitat quality also increased. GAO's survey of refuge managers showed that changes in habitat management and visitor service programs varied across refuges during the study period. Habitat conditions for key types of species improved about two times more often than they worsened, but between 7 and 20 percent of habitats were of poor quality in 2007. Certain habitat problems increased at more than half of refuges during thisperiod, and managers reported that they increased the time spent on certain habitat management activities, such as addressing invasive plants, despite declining staffing levels. However, several managers GAO interviewed said that staff were working longer hours without extra pay to get work done, and managers expressed concern about their ability to sustain habitat conditions. While the quality of four key visitor service programs was reported to be stable or improving between fiscal years 2002 and 2007 at the vast majority of refuges, the other two key programs--environmental education and interpretation--were considered poor quality at one-third of refuges in 2007. Changes in the time spent on visitor services varied considerably across refuges, and managers noted that visitor services are generally cut before habitat management activities when resources are limited. Managers are concerned about their ability to provide high quality visitor services in the future given staffing and funding constraints.