MICHAEL WOODBRIDGE
DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ASSOCIATION

TESTIMONY
BEFORE THE HOUSE RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE ON
FISHERIES AND OCEANS

Operations Funding Crisis Within the National Wildlife Refuge System

July 20, 2006

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

My name is Michael Woodbridge, and I am the Director of Government Affairs for the National Wildlife Refuge Association (NWRA). On behalf of the NWRA and its membership comprised of current and former refuge professionals, more than 115 refuge “Friends” Affiliate organizations and interested citizens throughout the United States, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the growing operations crisis within the National Wildlife Refuge System (System).

The NWRA is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, national membership organization, established in 1975. The NWRA’s mission is to protect, enhance and expand the National Wildlife Refuge System, lands and waters set aside by the American people to conserve our country’s diverse wildlife heritage. Over the years we have worked on behalf of our membership to make the Refuge System stronger and better able to address the growing challenges of conserving wildlife in our country.

The National Wildlife Refuge System is the only network of Federal lands managed first and foremost for the conservation of fish, wildlife, plants and their habitat. President Theodore Roosevelt created the first national wildlife refuge (NWR) in 1903 on Florida’s Pelican Island to protect brown pelicans as well as egrets and herons from commercial hunting. Today, the Refuge System, administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), consists of 545 refuges in all 50 states and most U.S. territories. With a 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 National Wildlife Refuge System is the crown jewel of wildlife conservation in America.

There is a crisis in the Refuge System. Funding shortfalls are forcing refuge professionals to decided whether to de-staff some refuges or jeopardize the conservation potential of all refuges in the System. And to say we are putting de-staffed refuges in “preservation status” is misleading. Instead we should admit that we are putting refuges in a “neglected status.” The term “preservation” implies that de-staffed refuges will remain in their current condition until they can once again be managed effectively. However, with serious issues like invasive species and illegal public use currently facing national wildlife refuges, resource degradation will surely take place in the absence of refuge professionals.

Without staff and resources to manage these refuges, we can’t expect them to achieve their conservation mission and goals over time. Likewise, we shouldn’t fool ourselves into believing that by spreading the pain across all refuges, we somehow solve the problem; the fundamental problem is that the Refuge System is at a crisis point.

Region 5 Plan a Symptom of the Larger Problem

As members of the committee know, efforts are currently underway within the Fish and Wildlife Service to implement a restructuring plan nationwide. These efforts are based on a plan developed by the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Region 5, a region spanning from Virginia all the way to Maine.

The restructuring plan is an effort to reduce permanent staff in order to free up funding for refuge management operations. Fish and Wildlife Service salaries constitute the largest percentage of operating costs for the National Wildlife Refuge System. By reducing staff, those dollars that would have gone to salaries can be diverted to other refuge operations and maintenance activity. The restructuring plan will eliminate some Service positions and reassign others. Certain refuges will see increased staff, while others will lose staff or be de-staffed completely.

Further, many refuges have already undergone “complexing”— consolidation of staff, facilities and other resources from several refuges under one, more remote management structure to save money. In many cases, this means a refuge is managed by staff located an hour or more away.

The Real Problem

We commend the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Region 5 for their efforts to address the refuge budget crisis in a proactive manner. Unfortunately, the fact is that refuge professionals are between a rock and a hard place when making budget decisions today. With a choice between de-staffing some refuges or cutting all refuges an equal amount, the result is the same: America’s wildlife suffers and the American public is deprived of vital recreation and learning opportunities. The simple fact is the National Wildlife Refuge System is drastically underfunded. The lack of adequate funding for America’s national wildlife refuges is taking a toll on visitor experiences, wildlife and ultimately the Refuge System’s mission of conserving plants and animals for future generations.

The National Wildlife Refuge System continues to be crippled by an operations and maintenance (O&M) funding backlog that harms every refuge in the System. That backlog now adds up to $3.1 billion. Specifically, funding shortfalls limit the ability of refuges to successfully conduct important biological programs and hire critical staff, while also hindering opportunities for the public to engage in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography and environmental interpretation and education.

In the area of maintenance, when capital is not available to invest in preventive and remedial activities, more expensive repairs are necessary later.  Given the current budgetary constraints, some important structural assets will, undoubtedly, be lost forever.

While significant strides were made to reduce the budget shortfall in connection with the 100th anniversary of the National Wildlife Refuge System in calendar year 2003, those gains have essentially been erased as a result of Refuge System budget cuts each year subsequent to fiscal year (FY) 2004. The Refuge System currently operates on a budget of less than $4.00 per acre.  To put this in perspective, the National Park System operates on more than $20.00 per acre.

The National Wildlife Refuge System budget needs an annual increase of approximately $16 million over the previous year’s funding level to keep current activities and programs operating at the same level. The $16 million increase accounts for cost-of-living increases for FWS personnel, rising rent and other cost increases, while sustaining current levels of visitor services and wildlife management. This funding allows the Refuge System to avoid employee layoffs and reductions in services, maintain protections for wildlife and habitat, and help to contain growth in the Refuge System (O&M) backlog. In short, it is crucial that, at minimum, the cost-of-living and “uncontrollables” are covered in the FWS’ budget each year.

The Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE), chaired by the NWRA and made up of 21 diverse conservation and sporting organizations ranging from Defenders of Wildlife to the National Rifle Association, determined that it would be necessary to increase the annual Refuge System budget to $700 million in 2003 dollars simply to meet the Refuge System’s top tier needs. The CARE groups, representing a national constituency numbering more than 5 million Americans, recognize the value of a healthy Refuge System to both the wildlife and habitats refuges were established to protect and the 40 million visitors that frequent these special places each year. For FY2007, the NWRA and Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement recommended a refuge O&M budget of $415 million. At $388.7 million, the Refuge O&M budget for FY2007 passed in the House falls far short of CARE’s recommended funding level and what is necessary to keep our heads above water at refuges.

Funding Deficiencies Hurt Refuge Work with Partners

The National Wildlife Refuge System has evolved since its inception in 1903. Today, the System is known as the premier public lands system for wildlife conservation. More than ever before, the Service is working with numerous partners and stakeholders in fulfilling its wildlife mission. The diverse partnerships underway by the FWS include working with refuge Friends groups and volunteers, private landowners and state wildlife agencies, among others. The budget crisis facing the Refuge System is taking a toll on these partnership cooperative conservation efforts as well.

Friends
Refuge Friends groups are local non-profit organizations created to support a local refuge or refuge complex. With new Friends groups forming all the time, there are now approximately 250 known Friends organizations associated with the National Wildlife Refuge System—approximately half of which are affiliates of the National Wildlife Refuge Association. Friends groups and other refuge volunteers provide tremendous support for the Refuge System. In fact, the Refuge System depends on these volunteers for more than 20 percent of the refuge workload. In 2005, over 34,000 volunteers contributed an astounding 1.3 million work hours with a total dollar value of $22.5 million.

Unfortunately, without FWS staff to work with Friends groups, volunteers and supporters will be turned away from refuges. How can a Friends group continue to operate at a refuge that has reduced staff, or worse, no staff to assist their efforts? With more than 75% of America’s 545 national wildlife refuges currently engaged in volunteer programs, this will be a tremendous blow to an already crippled Refuge System.

Private Landowners
Today’s refuges are not only good stewards of the lands they manage, they are also good neighbors and community partners. More than ever, refuge managers are reaching out to private landowners to share conservation best practices and assist them in wildlife conservation. This is a high payoff federal investment because the actual wildlife conservation activities are conducted by private citizens at no expense to the Service except the dissemination of information and advice.  But, without the resources and capability to effectively manage refuge lands, refuge managers will be unable to reach out beyond their borders. Cooperative conservation efforts are some of the first refuge management activities that suffer from funding shortfalls.

States
National wildlife refuges are conservation hubs in states across the U.S.  Refuges work closely with the states on all aspects of wildlife management, especially with hunting and fishing. In August 2005, the NWRA issued a report titled 2005 State of the System:  Beyond the Boundaries. As described in the report, national wildlife refuges play a key role in the State Wildlife Action Plans that all 50 states were required to produce by the end of 2005. These statewide conservation action plans seek to achieve integrated wildlife conservation strategies among state, federal, local and private lands. The state plans can dovetail with the Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs) that all refuges are required to produce. This and other opportunities for coordination between the states and FWS are hindered by the funding crisis facing refuges.

A Silver Lining

While the NWRA is alarmed by the Refuge System funding crisis and the ramifications we’re now seeing on the ground, in the case of Region 5 it has resulted in a positive development: the creation of “base budgets.” Base budgets for refuges create a level of certainty for refuge professionals in terms of providing them a clear picture of what resources are available from year to year, and does not penalize them for unspent dollars at the end of the year that may be used to better effect the following year. This also provides a better accounting of how scarce resource dollars are being allocated to conservation activities. And while this is a positive development at the agency level, we strongly urge Congress to require the administration to submit a line item request for each refuge in the annual appropriations budget justification.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the NWRA recognizes that refuge professionals face a dire challenge in the face of massive funding shortfalls. The bottom line is that the National Wildlife Refuge System is drastically underfunded and unless quick action is taken by Congress and the administration, refuges will fall increasingly behind in their efforts to conserve wildlife and habitat, and provide productive opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography and environmental education and interpretation. Budget predictions do not indicate any relief from the declining budget trend for refuges in the foreseeable future. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is now forced to make tough decisions to maintain refuges. The budget crisis is taking a toll on visitor experiences, wildlife, Service employees, Friends and volunteers and other Refuge System partners. We call upon this Congress to stop the erosion of America’s National Wildlife Refuge System. Refuges must receive adequate funding or we will continue to see more refuges close their doors.

This concludes my testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on this important issue and would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.