Conserving the Future: Wildlife Refuges and the Next Generation

I have two minor comments on the Recommendations on page 8:

1) ”Reduce the number of facilities and other assets we own and maintain.”

I disagree with a blanket statement like the one given in that it implies without reservation that we have too many facilities and assets. While we certainly must have some excess facilities, a blanket statement to reduce the number without a given reason is not a good recommendation in my opinion. I would rather see a broader statement that acknowledges that we should identify those facilites and assets that may be surplus and then work to remove them. Alternatively, if the statement is suggested as a means solely to reduce our carbon footprint, moving from Service owned facilities to rental space is not necessarily an improvement from an energy perspective. Bottom line: without really understanding the intent of the suggestion, it leaves it open to too broad an interpretation.

2) Reduce fuel consumption; I agree with the goal of moving to more effecient vehicles, equipment, etc. Choices in the area of heavy equipment are limited in terms of effeciency. I have seen programs lately that showed equipment fleets converted to propane as a means of reducing pollution. This may be something the Service should consider and it would allow conversion of existing equipment (in some cases) as opposed to waiting for new purchases to make progress. Just a thought.