Visitor services. 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. 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. 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. 5). In addition, various refuge system, FWS, and  Interior policies increased administrative work for nonadministrative  refuge staff during this period. 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. However, managers are  concerned that staffing and funding constraints will inhibit the refuges’  ability to maintain quality habitat in the future. 19). 20). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Fish and Wildlife Service’s  (FWS) Refuge Annual Performance Planning System. 1.
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.