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 l