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 learned that some refuges were attempting 
to address reductions in permanent staff by relying on volunteers or 
contractors more heavily. However, our survey results indicated that 
refuges that increased permanent staff time on habitat management were 
more likely to increase time spent by volunteers and contractors than 
refuges that decreased permanent staff time (see table 10). 

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: 

Increase or decrease in permanent staff time: Refuges reporting 
increased permanent staff time on habitat management: 

Type of Staff: Temporary; 
Percent of refuges reporting increase in time spent: 71%; 
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 23%; 
Percent of refuges reporting decrease in time spent: 6%. 

Type of Staff: Contract; 
Percent of refuges reporting increase in time spent: 61%; 
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 36%; 
Percent of refuges reporting decrease in time spent: 3%. 

Type of Staff: Volunteers; 
Percent of refuges reporting increase in time spent: 70%; 
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 28%; 
Percent of refuges reporting decrease in time spent: 2%. 

Type of Staff: Cooperators; 
Percent of refuges reporting increase in time spent: 63%; 
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 34%; 
Percent of refuges reporting decrease in time spent: 3%. 

Increase or decrease in permanent staff time: Refuges reporting 
decreased permanent staff time on habitat management: 

Type of Staff: Temporary; 
Percent of refuges reporting increase in time spent: 12%; 
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 28%; 
Percent of refuges reporting decrease in time spent: 60%. 

Type of Staff: Contract; 
Percent of refuges reporting increase in time spent: 27%; 
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 53%; 
Percent of refuges reporting decrease in time spent: 8%. 

Type of Staff: Volunteers; 
Percent of refuges reporting increase in time spent: 40%; 
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 30%; 
Percent of refuges reporting decrease in time spent: 30%. 

Type of Staff: Cooperators; 
Percent of refuges reporting increase in time spent: 28%; 
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 48%; 
Percent of refuges reporting decrease in time spent: 25%. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

While volunteers and contractors perform important functions, they 
cannot replace refuge staff because they must be managed, trained, and 
supervised. Across the board, if a refuge reported an increase in time 
spent on habitat management by permanent staff, they generally also 
spent more time on habitat management activities by all other type of 
worker; rarely did these refuges reduce the amount of time other 
workers spent on these activities, indicating the importance—as nearly 
every refuge manager we spoke with did—of permanent staff in order to 
carry out needed refuge work. For refuges that reduced permanent staff 
time on habitat management activities, the results were much more 
mixed. These refuges reported significantly more decreases in the 
amount of time that other workers spent on habitat management 
activities, and it does not appear to hold true that refuges that 
reduce staff necessarily rely more heavily on other types of workers. 
In particular, refuges where permanent staff time on habitat management 
activities decreased were significantly more likely to report decreases 
in time spent by volunteers at refuges and less likely to report 
increases in volunteer time, as compared to refuges where permanent 
staff increased. This likely reflects the catch-22 that refuge managers 
face with regard to volunteers—while having people interested in 
helping the refuge can help relieve their workload, volunteers still 
need direction, oversight, and sometimes training by refuge staff. 
While some refuge managers indicated that they would not be able to 
accomplish their habitat management objectives without their volunteer 
corps, there also is concern about the over-reliance on volunteers to 
assist with these activities because their availability over the long 
term is not guaranteed and volunteerism levels can fluctuate greatly. 

Refuge Managers Are Concerned about Their Ability to Maintain Habitat 
Conditions: 

In light of increasing problems and threats affecting refuge 
conditions, as well as recent funding and staffing constraints, refuge 
managers and regional and headquarters officials expressed concern 
about refuges’ abilities to sustain or improve current habitat 
conditions for wildlife into the future; our survey results corroborate 
these concerns. While each refuge operates under unique circumstances 
and faces unique habitat challenges, refuge managers across the system 
are concerned about a variety of specific threats to their individual 
refuge habitats and to the refuge system as a whole. Although our 
survey results do not indicate major declines in habitat quality since 
fiscal year 2002, many managers are concerned about their ability to 
maintain quality conditions in the future. 

Even though our survey showed that a large number of refuges increased 
staff time on habitat management activities, some refuge managers we 
interviewed explained that staff were simply working longer hours to 
get the work done. Several refuge managers repeatedly indicated that 
they are still trying to do everything possible to maintain adequate 
habitat, especially habitats for key species, such as waterfowl, other 
migratory birds, and threatened and endangered species, despite growing 
habitat problems and other factors affecting refuge habitats and an 
increasing administrative workload that reduces the amount of time 
refuge staff can spend performing habitat management work. Several 
managers said that attention to key habitats is the last thing that 
will stop receiving management attention in the event of declining 
funding. They told us that refuge staff are very dedicated to the 
purpose and mission of the refuge system, but that they fear employee 
burnout. Several managers even said that they have to limit the amount 
of time staff spend at the refuge, as these employees are working 
overtime without extra pay. 

The Quality of Visitor Service Programs Improved More Often Than 
Worsened between Fiscal Years 2002 and 2007, but Some Programs Were 
Poor Quality in 2007 and Refuge Managers Are Concerned about the 
Quality of Visitor Services in the Future: 

The quality of visitor services improved on one-fifth to nearly one-
half of refuges between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, but environmental 
education and interpretation programs worsened at some refuges and were 
of poor quality at about one-third of refuges in 2007. Although some 
refuges have increased the time spent on these services, refuge 
managers are concerned about their continued ability to provide high-
quality visitor services to the public given recent funding and 
staffing changes. 

Quality of Visitor Service Programs Varied within the Refuge System 
between Fiscal Years 2002 and 2007: 

Encouragingly, visitor services quality was reported as staying stable 
or improving since 2002 by the vast majority of refuge managers 
responding to our survey. Most notably, environmental education and 
interpretation programs showed the largest percentage of refuges 
reporting improvement, although these programs also showed the largest 
percentage reporting declines as well, as compared to other visitor 
services (see table 11). 

Table 11: Change in Quality of Visitor Services Programs, Fiscal Years 
2002 through 2007: 

Visitor Service: Hunting; 
Percent of refuges reporting improved quality: 26%; 
Percent of refuges reporting quality stayed the same: 65%; 
Percent of refuges reporting quality worsened: 9%. 

Visitor Service: Fishing; 
Percent of refuges reporting improved quality: 19%; 
Percent of refuges reporting quality stayed the same: 68%; 
Percent of refuges reporting quality worsened: 13%. 

Visitor Service: Wildlife observation; 
Percent of refuges reporting improved quality: 36%; 
Percent of refuges reporting quality stayed the same: 56%; 
Percent of refuges reporting quality worsened: 8%. 

Visitor Service: Wildlife photography; 
Percent of refuges reporting improved quality: 27%; 
Percent of refuges reporting quality stayed the same: 65%; 
Percent of refuges reporting quality worsened: 8%. 

Visitor Service: Environmental education; 
Percent of refuges reporting improved quality: 40%; 
Percent of refuges reporting quality stayed the same: 39%; 
Percent of refuges reporting quality worsened: 22%. 

Visitor Service: Environmental interpretation; 
Percent of refuges reporting improved quality: 47%; 
Percent of refuges reporting quality stayed the same: 38%; 
Percent of refuges reporting quality worsened: 15%. 

Source: GAO. 

Notes: Refuges may not have programs in all six areas. Some rows may 
not sum to 100 due to rounding. 

[End of table] 

Our survey found that four of the six key visitor services provided to 
the public were of moderate or better quality at most refuges in 2007, 
but environmental education and interpretation were reported to be low 
quality at about one-third of refuges (see table 12). 

Table 12: Quality of Visitor Services Programs, Fiscal Year 2007: 

Visitor Service: Hunting; 
Percent of refuges with high- or very high-quality programs: 56%; 
Percent of refuges with moderate-quality programs: 35%; 
Percent of refuges with low- or very low-quality programs: 9%. 

Visitor Service: Fishing; 
Percent of refuges with high- or very high-quality programs: 33%; 
Percent of refuges with moderate-quality programs: 44%; 
Percent of refuges with low- or very low-quality programs: 23%. 

Visitor Service: Wildlife observation; 
Percent of refuges with high- or very high-quality programs: 55%; 
Percent of refuges with moderate-quality programs: 35%; 
Percent of refuges with low- or very low-quality programs: 10%. 

Visitor Service: Wildlife photography; 
Percent of refuges with high- or very high-quality programs: 42%; 
Percent of refuges with moderate-quality programs: 42%; 
Percent of refuges with low- or very low-quality programs: 17%. 

Visitor Service: Environmental education; 
Percent of refuges with high- or very high-quality programs: 36%; 
Percent of refuges with moderate-quality programs: 31%; 
Percent of refuges with low- or very low-quality programs: 33%. 

Visitor Service: Environmental interpretation; 
Percent of refuges with high- or very high-quality programs: 32%; 
Percent of refuges with moderate-quality programs: 36%; 
Percent of refuges with low- or very low-quality programs: 32%. 

Source: GAO. 

Note: Refuges may not have programs in all six areas. 

[End of table] 

Visitor services deemed moderate quality did not invoke the same level 
of concern from refuge managers as did habitat deemed moderate quality. 
While managers would prefer high-quality programs, moderate quality 
does not jeopardize the survival of certain species, as moderate-
quality habitat may. Hunting and wildlife observation programs topped 
the list of visitor services in quality, with high-quality programs at 
more than half of refuges and just about 10 percent of refuges with low-
quality programs. Some managers told us that there is a focus on 
ensuring that hunting programs are successful because of the 
significant public demand for hunting on refuges. They also noted that 
it is fairly easy to support wildlife observation, as well as 
photography, via regular refuge infrastructure such as roads and 
trails; therefore, it is not resource intensive for refuges to 
implement and manage high-quality programs for these activities. 

Environmental education and interpretation programs received the lowest 
marks, with about one-third of refuges with low-quality programs; about 
the same percentage of refuges had programs deemed high quality. 
Managers told us that education and interpretation are among the most 
resource-intensive visitor service programs because they require staff 
time for developing and delivering educational supplies, as well as 
infrastructure, such as classrooms. Refuge managers we met with told us 
that, for these reasons, environmental education and interpretation 
programs often are among the first areas to be cut when a refuge faces 
competing demands. 

A major factor influencing the quality of visitor services—beyond the 
abundance of fish and wildlife populations—is the amount and quality of 
refuge infrastructure and the availability of supplies. For example, 
the availability of trails and tour routes is essential to providing 
the public with access to what refuges have to offer and is generally 
important for supporting any type of visitor service activity. Hunting 
and fishing infrastructure depends largely on physical structures such 
as duck blinds, boat launches, and fishing platforms. Providing 
wildlife observation and photography opportunities simply requires 
adequate access to the refuge, but can be enhanced through observation 
platforms and photography blinds. Figure 21 shows examples of 
infrastructure for wildlife observation and photography. 

Figure 21: Examples of Visitor Services Infrastructure for Wildlife 
Observation and Photography: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure contains photographs of the following: 
Observation platform - Rachel Carson NWR; 
Trail – Rachel Carson NWR; 
Photography blind - William L. Finley NWR. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Environmental education depends on physical infrastructure, such as 
classrooms, and supplies, such as workbooks, handouts, and microscopes. 
Environmental interpretation also depends on physical infrastructure 
such as informational kiosks and interpretive signs along trails. 
Figure 22 shows examples of infrastructure for environmental education 
and interpretation. 

Figure 22: Examples of Visitor Services Infrastructure for 
Environmental Education and Interpretation: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure contains photographs of the following: 
Interpretive exhibits – Parker River NWR; 
Interactive display – Parker River NWR; 
Environmental education materials – Upper Mississippi River NWR. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

The amount and quality of visitor services infrastructure stayed about 
the same or increased on the vast majority of refuges since 2002 (see 
table 13). 

Table 13: Infrastructure Quantity and Condition Changes, Fiscal Years 
2002 through 2007: 

Type of infrastructure: Trails and tour routes[A]; 
Quantity of infrastructure, Quantity increased: 41%; 
Quantity of infrastructure, Quantity stayed the same: 54%; 
Quantity of infrastructure, Quantity decreased: 5%; 
Condition of infrastructure, Condition improved: 39%; 
Condition of infrastructure, Condition stayed the same: 35%; 
Condition of infrastructure, Condition worsened: 26%. 

Type of infrastructure: Hunting infrastructure; 
Quantity of infrastructure, Quantity increased: 21%; 
Quantity of infrastructure, Quantity stayed the same: 75%; 
Quantity of infrastructure, Quantity decreased: 4%; 
Condition of infrastructure, Condition improved: 22%; 
Condition of infrastructure, Condition stayed the same: 66%; 
Condition of infrastructure, Condition worsened: 12%. 

Type of infrastructure: Fishing infrastructure; 
Quantity of infrastructure, Quantity increased: 25%; 
Quantity of infrastructure, Quantity stayed the same: 70%; 
Quantity of infrastructure, Quantity decreased: 5%; 
Condition of infrastructure, Condition improved: 27%; 
Condition of infrastructure, Condition stayed the same: 49%; 
Condition of infrastructure, Condition worsened: 24%. 

Type of infrastructure: Wildlife observation infrastructure; 
Quantity of infrastructure, Quantity increased: 37%; 
Quantity of infrastructure, Quantity stayed the same: 60%; 
Quantity of infrastructure, Quantity decreased: 3%; 
Condition of infrastructure, Condition improved: 36%; 
Condition of infrastructure, Condition stayed the same: 47%; 
Condition of infrastructure, Condition worsened: 17%. 

Type of infrastructure: Wildlife photography infrastructure; 
Quantity of infrastructure, Quantity increased: 35%; 
Quantity of infrastructure, Quantity stayed the same: 63%; 
Quantity of infrastructure, Quantity decreased: 3%; 
Condition of infrastructure, Condition improved: 30%; 
Condition of infrastructure, Condition stayed the same: 58%; 
Condition of infrastructure, Condition worsened: 12%. 

Type of infrastructure: Education infrastructure; 
Quantity of infrastructure, Quantity increased: 28%; 
Quantity of infrastructure, Quantity stayed the same: 66%; 
Quantity of infrastructure, Quantity decreased: 6%; 
Condition of infrastructure, Condition improved: 30%; 
Condition of infrastructure, Condition stayed the same: 52%; 
Condition of infrastructure, Condition worsened: 18%. 

Type of infrastructure: Interpretation infrastructure; 
Quantity of infrastructure, Quantity increased: 57%; 
Quantity of infrastructure, Quantity stayed the same: 38%; 
Quantity of infrastructure, Quantity decreased: 5%; 
Condition of infrastructure, Condition improved: 50%; 
Condition of infrastructure, Condition stayed the same: 32%; 
Condition of infrastructure, Condition worsened: 19%. 

Source: GAO. 

Note: Some rows may not sum to 100 for the quantity of infrastructure 
or condition of infrastructure, due to rounding. 

[A] Trails and tour routes can be used to support all types of visitor 
service programs. 

[End of table] 

According to refuge managers and regional officials, improvements at 
least partly reflect the initiative to focus funding on small-scale 
visitor services infrastructure, such as improvements to parking lots 
and construction of informational kiosks and restrooms. The increased 
ability of refuges to implement such projects likely is responsible for 
refuge managers’ assessments of improvements in environmental 
interpretation. However, infrastructure conditions worsened at between 
12 percent and 26 percent of refuges. According to refuge managers, 
this reflects that, in many cases, refuges have insufficient staff and 
funding to keep up with necessary infrastructure maintenance and 
repairs. In addition, many managers we interviewed reported that they 
still lack enough infrastructure to deliver quality visitor services 
and meet the demand for these services. Refuge managers reported that 
insufficient infrastructure has negatively impacted the quality of 
education and interpretation programs to at least a moderate extent on 
about 60 percent of refuges, photography and observation programs on 
about 40 percent of refuges, and hunting and fishing programs on about 
20 percent of refuges. Some refuge managers reported that there is no 
infrastructure at all on their refuges for the visiting public. In 
addition, some refuge managers reported not being able to meet public 
demand for some programs. For example, one refuge manager told us that 
while many local schools request environmental education programs, the 
refuge must turn them down because they have no facilities to 
accommodate school groups. Some refuge managers we spoke with indicated 
that they would be able to stimulate additional demand for all visitor 
services if they could improve the amount and quality of 
infrastructure, including trails, hunting blinds, boat launches, 
photography blinds, and observation platforms. 

Change in Time Spent on Visitor Service Activities Varied across the 
Refuge System: 

Consistent with the improvements in program quality noted for 
environmental education and interpretation (at 40 percent and 47 
percent of refuges, respectively), managers reported increases in the 
time spent on these programs at 44 percent of refuges. These programs, 
however, also received less time on 29 percent and 27 percent of 
refuges, respectively. Overall, at least one in five refuges reported a 
decrease in staff time for each visitor service area (see table 14). 

Table 14: Change in Time Spent on Visitor Services, Fiscal Years 2002 
through 2007: 

Visitor service: Hunting; 
Percent of refuges that somewhat or greatly increased time spent: 29%; 
Percent of refuges that spent the same amount of time spent: 46%; 
Percent of refuges that somewhat or greatly decreased time spent: 25%. 

Visitor service: Fishing; 
Percent of refuges that somewhat or greatly increased time spent: 20%; 
Percent of refuges that spent the same amount of time spent: 60%; 
Percent of refuges that somewhat or greatly decreased time spent: 20%. 

Visitor service: Observation; 
Percent of refuges that somewhat or greatly increased time spent: 34%; 
Percent of refuges that spent the same amount of time spent: 45%; 
Percent of refuges that somewhat or greatly decreased time spent: 21%. 

Visitor service: Photography; 
Percent of refuges that somewhat or greatly increased time spent: 25%; 
Percent of refuges that spent the same amount of time spent: 54%; 
Percent of refuges that somewhat or greatly decreased time spent: 21%. 

Visitor service: Education; 
Percent of refuges that somewhat or greatly increased time spent: 44%; 
Percent of refuges that spent the same amount of time spent: 27%; 
Percent of refuges that somewhat or greatly decreased time spent: 29%. 

Visitor service: Interpretation; 
Percent of refuges that somewhat or greatly increased time spent: 44%; 
Percent of refuges that spent the same amount of time spent: 28%; 
Percent of refuges that somewhat or greatly decreased time spent: 27%. 

Source: GAO. 

Notes: Percentages in this table represent changes in staffing for 
those refuges that report time spent on a given visitor service. Some 
rows may not sum to 100 due to rounding. 

[End of table] 

In some cases, according to several refuge managers, the changes in 
time spent may reflect a shift in staffing due to workforce planning, 
while in other cases, it may reflect the prerogative of refuge managers 
to move staff away from visitor services in favor of needed habitat 
management activities. 

Not surprisingly, more than half of refuge managers reported increasing 
the amount of time spent on visitor services by volunteers (see table 
15). Refuge managers said that volunteers frequently are relied upon to 
help manage visitor centers and deliver education programs. Given staff 
reductions due to workforce planning and comments from managers that 
visitor services are the first to be cut when resources are 
constrained, it also is not surprising to see that time spent by 
permanent staff on visitor services had been reduced at more than one-
third of refuges. When comparing these results to those for habitat 
management, more refuges increased permanent, temporary, and contractor 
staff time on habitat management activities than increased their time 
on visitor services activities. Conversely, more refuges increased time 
spent by volunteers and cooperators on visitor services than on habitat 
management. 

Table 15: Change in Time Spent on Visitor Services by Type of Worker, 
Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007: 

Worker: Permanent staff; 
Percent of refuges reporting increased time spent: 38%; 
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 26%; 
Percent of refuges reporting decreased time spent: 37%. 

Worker: Temporary staff; 
Percent of refuges reporting increased time spent: 32%; 
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 41%; 
Percent of refuges reporting decreased time spent: 26%. 

Worker: Contract worker; 
Percent of refuges reporting increased time spent: 28%; 
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 61%; 
Percent of refuges reporting decreased time spent: 11%. 

Worker: Volunteer; 
Percent of refuges reporting increased time spent: 57%; 
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 31%; 
Percent of refuges reporting decreased time spent: 13%. 

Cooperators 3854 8
Percent of refuges reporting increased time spent: 38%; 
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 54%; 
Percent of refuges reporting decreased time spent: 8%. 

Source: GAO. 

Notes: Percentages in this table represent changes in staffing for 
those refuges that report time spent on a given visitor service; some 
refuges do not use some types of workers. Some rows may not sum to 100 
due to rounding. 

[End of table] 

We found that the time spent by various types of workers on visitor 
service activities as a function of increases or decreases in time 
spent by permanent staff were similar to the results for the time spent 
on habitat management. Specifically, as with time spent on habitat 
management, refuges that reported an increase in permanent staff time 
for visitor services were more likely than those reporting a decrease 
also to report an increase in other staff time. For example, refuges 
that reported an increase in permanent staff time spent on visitor 
services were eight times more likely to report an increase in the time 
spent by temporary staff on these programs than refuges that reported a 
decrease in permanent staff time. Refuges where permanent staff time 
increased also were twice as likely to increase volunteer time (see 
table 16). 

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: 

Refuges reporting increased permanent staff time: 

Type of staff: Temporary; 
Percent of refuges reporting increased time spent: 69%; 
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 23%; 
Percent of refuges reporting decreased time spent: 8%. 

Type of staff: Contract; 
Percent of refuges reporting increased time spent: 46%; 
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 54%; 
Percent of refuges reporting decreased time spent: 0. 

Type of staff: Volunteers; 
Percent of refuges reporting increased time spent: 81%; 
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 17%; 
Percent of refuges reporting decreased time spent: 2%. 

Type of staff: Cooperators; 
Percent of refuges reporting increased time spent: 62%; 
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 36%; 
Percent of refuges reporting decreased time spent: 2%. 

Refuges reporting decreased permanent staff time: 

Type of staff: Temporary; 
Percent of refuges reporting increased time spent: 8%; 
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 35%; 
Percent of refuges reporting decreased time spent: 57%. 

Type of staff: Contract; 
Percent of refuges reporting increased time spent: 12%; 
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 64%; 
Percent of refuges reporting decreased time spent: 25%. 

Type of staff: Volunteers; 
Percent of refuges reporting increased time spent: 43%; 
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 29%; 
Percent of refuges reporting decreased time spent: 29%. 

Type of staff: Cooperators; 
Percent of refuges reporting increased time spent: 24%; 
Percent of refuges reporting time spent stayed the same: 59%; 
Percent of refuges reporting decreased time spent: 18%. 

Source: GAO. 

Note: Some rows may not some to 100 due to rounding. 

[End of table] 

This analysis also is consistent with our analysis of changes in staff 
time as a function of staff increases or decreases at a stand-alone 
refuge or complex.[Footnote 33] In addition, those refuges that 
increased time spent on habitat management also tended to be the 
refuges that spent more time on visitor services. Specifically, refuges 
that reported spending more permanent staff time doing habitat 
management work were almost five times more likely to report spending 
permanent staff time providing visitor services, and refuges that 
reported spending less permanent staff time doing habitat management 
work were about four times more likely to report a decrease in 
permanent staff time providing visitor services. Again, this suggests 
that some refuges are seeing an overall gain in staff—most likely at 
focus refuges—while others are seeing an overall loss—likely at 
targeted-reduction and unstaffed satellite refuges. 

As with habitat management activities, a lack of staff was identified 
as a key factor hindering the quality of some visitor service programs. 
Refuge managers identified staffing as a key factor negatively 
affecting the quality of environmental education and environmental 
interpretation programs at 85 percent of refuges; staffing was cited as 
negatively affecting hunting programs at more than 50 percent of 
refuges.[Footnote 34] According to refuge managers and regional 
documentation, some visitor service programs that were active in the 
past have had to be cut back due to staffing. For instance, plans to 
renovate a building used for environmental education at Wallkill River 
NWR in New Jersey were halted when staff reductions made it impossible 
to continue the refuge’s emphasis on environmental education. Minnesota 
Valley NWR reported a 13 percent drop in the number of students 
participating in environmental education after the loss of park ranger 
staff, and Kodiak NWR reported that it curtailed its educational 
programs due to the elimination of an environmental education 
specialist position. In other cases, refuge managers told us that they 
do not seek out groups that would be interested in programs at the 
refuge because there simply are not enough refuge employees to provide 
the additional education and interpretation services that would be 
needed if more visitors were to come to the refuge. Similarly, some 
refuges do not have adequate staff to administer check stations full 
time during hunting seasons or adequate law enforcement personnel to 
enforce permitting requirements and take limits. The refuge manager at 
Cape Romain NWR in South Carolina reported an approximate 20 percent 
reduction in participation of the refuge’s hunting program after the 
refuge lost a park ranger. 

Some stakeholder groups have voiced serious concerns with the 
deteriorating condition of visitor services and public access to 
refuges due to recent funding trends and assert that the refuge system 
needs substantially more funding to fulfill the requirements of the 
Improvement Act. Some have noted concerns with refuges reducing hours 
or closing refuges to the public because of staff constraints. 
According to our survey of refuge managers, however, these concerns do 
not reflect widespread conditions. A very small number—about 4 
percent—of refuges have decreased the hours they are open to the 
public, while slightly more than 12 percent indicated that they have 
actually increased the hours they are open. However, the change in the 
number of hours that visitor centers are open to the public varied 
quite substantially. Specifically, for those refuges that reported 
having visitor centers, 20 percent indicated that visitor center hours 
increased, while about 27 percent reported that hours decreased. For 
example, the visitor contact station at Occoquan Bay NWR has been 
closed for several years due to staffing shortages; instead, the refuge 
relies on an “honor fee” system (see fig. 23). Survey results do not 
show a significant difference among the three refuge tiers with regard 
to changes in the hours refuges are open to the public. However, 
according to our survey, targeted reduction refuges were almost twice 
as likely as focus refuges to have decreased the hours that their 
visitor center is open. This is most likely due to staffing changes 
resulting from workforce planning, which were targeted at targeted-
reduction refuges. 

Figure 23: Fee Box at Occoquan National Wildlife Refuge: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

Two photographs of fee box at Occoquan National Wildlife Refuge. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Refuge Officials Are Concerned about Maintaining High-Quality Visitor 
Services into the Future: 

While some refuges have visitor services staff and sufficient 
infrastructure, refuge managers indicated that staffing changes, 
partially resulting from workforce planning, and a lack of resources 
for increasing and maintaining infrastructure, raise concerns about 
their ability to provide quality visitor services into the future. In 
fact, in response to an open-ended question concerning the biggest 
threats to visitor services on refuges, a large majority of managers 
cited either funding, staffing, and infrastructure as primary threats 
to the quality of visitor service delivery; almost 75 percent of refuge 
managers singled out staffing alone as the key problem affecting 
visitor services. As noted previously, refuge managers tend to focus 
resources on maintaining habitat conditions in times of tight budgets, 
at the expense of visitor services. Refuge managers also are concerned 
about the impact that the increasing administrative workload incurred 
by nonadministrative refuge staff is having on the refuges’ ability to 
deliver visitor services—also noted as a major concern for refuges’ 
ability to maintain habitat management. 

Managers also expressed concern about a continued, and in some cases 
increasing, dependence on volunteers to keep up with public demand for 
visitor services. Volunteers help refuges with a large variety of 
visitor services activities including operating visitor centers, 
providing education and interpretive services, and building and 
maintaining interpretative kiosks and other infrastructure. However, 
managers told us that although volunteers provide valuable services, 
they cannot fully replace lost refuge staff. In addition, volunteerism 
levels are unpredictable, and many of the refuge managers we met with 
indicated that volunteer levels have generally been declining. 
Furthermore, as noted previously, even if a refuge has a good supply of 
volunteers, it will still need to devote employee time to training, 
supervising, and coordinating volunteers. 

Refuge managers and regional and headquarters officials expressed 
concern about the long-term implications of declining and low-quality 
visitor services occurring at some refuges. Many refuge managers cited 
the importance of providing opportunities for the public to utilize 
refuge resources—in particular, ensuring they have positive outdoor 
experiences and providing them with meaningful educational and 
interpretative services—to the future of the refuge system. This helps 
ensure that refuges have visibility in the community, that the public 
understands the purpose and importance of what the refuge system does, 
and that refuges are thought of as a vital community resource. Refuge 
managers told us that positive recreational and educational experiences 
help ensure public support for refuge operations, and outreach and 
public education help bolster the number of people interested in 
volunteer opportunities on refuges. These activities also are 
important, according to refuge managers, because the refuge system 
increasingly is turning toward partnerships with private landowners in 
an effort to maintain and improve ecosystems both on and around 
refuges; public education about the refuge system can increase the 
viability of important refuge partnerships with nonprofit environmental 
and land management organizations who work with adjacent landowners, 
other federal and state land management agencies, and others on 
conservation efforts. Refuge officials also told us that public 
perception of land management work assists with land acquisitions, 
inasmuch as more private landowners will be willing to work with the 
agency on land transactions. In addition, refuge managers cited the 
availability of visitor services as a way to get young people 
interested in future careers with the refuge system and instill in 
children an appreciation for wildlife and the outdoors and an interest 
in maintaining these resources. 

Concluding Observations: 

In light of continuing federal fiscal constraints and an ever-expanding 
list of challenges facing refuges, maintaining the refuge system as 
envisioned in law—where the biological integrity, diversity, and 
environmental health of the refuge system are maintained; priority 
visitor services are provided; and the strategic growth of the system 
is continued—may be difficult. While some refuges have high-quality 
habitat and visitor service programs and others have seen improvements 
since 2002, refuge managers are concerned about their ability to 
sustain high-quality refuge conditions and continue to improve 
conditions where needed because of expected continuing increases in 
external threats and habitat problems affecting refuges. Already, FWS 
has had to make trade-offs among refuges with regard to which habitat 
will be monitored and maintained, which visitor services will be 
offered, and which refuges will receive adequate law enforcement 
coverage. FWS’s efforts to prioritize its use of funding and staff 
through workforce planning have restored some balance between refuge 
budgets and their associated staff costs. If threats and problems 
afflicting refuges continue to grow as expected, it will be important 
for the refuge system to monitor how these shifts in resources are 
affecting refuge conditions. 

Agency Comments and Our Response: 

GAO provided Interior with a draft of this report for its review and 
comment. The department provided technical comments that we have 
incorporated as appropriate. The department’s comments are presented in 
appendix VI. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 2 days 
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report 
to interested congressional committees, the Secretary of the Interior, 
and other interested parties. We will also make copies of this report 
available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be 
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your offices have questions about this report, please contact 
me at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for our 
offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 
the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are 
listed in appendix VII. 

Signed by: 

Robin Nazzaro: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

The objectives of this study were to (1) describe changing factors that 
the National Wildlife Refuge System experienced from fiscal years 2002 
through 2007, including funding and staffing changes, and (2) examine 
how habitat management and visitor services changed during this period. 
To address these objectives, we reviewed relevant laws, regulations, 
and policies as well as numerous agency documents discussing the refuge 
system. We also reviewed other reports that related to refuge system 
operations such as reports on climate change and possible impacts on 
refuges published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, on 
development and impacts on wildlife by the Western Governors’ 
Association, and on challenges facing the refuge system by the 
Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement—a consortium of groups 
interested in the refuge system. 

We obtained and analyzed funding and staffing data from the Federal 
Financial System and the Federal Personnel Payroll System, and refuge 
planning and performance data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 
(FWS) Refuge Annual Performance Planning System. We worked with 
national program officials to identify the 222 complexes and stand-
alone refuges that existed during the time period we reviewed. We 
interviewed database technicians and their managers to understand how 
the information in these databases is compiled and maintained. Where 
necessary, we worked with database technicians to ensure their output 
files contained needed data elements, and we validated our resulting 
analyses with regional and national program officials. Our review of 
the data and our discussions with program officials indicated that the 
payroll and personnel databases were sufficiently reliable for the 
purposes of our review. We used the performance planning system to 
assist in site selection and determined that it was sufficiently 
reliable for this purpose. 

We analyzed the obligations data in both nominal and inflation-adjusted 
terms. To remove the effects of inflation, we adjusted nominal dollars 
using the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Price Index for Government 
Consumption Expenditures and Gross Investment (federal nondefense 
sector), with 2002 as the base year. The price index reflects changes 
in the value of government output, measured by the cost of inputs, 
including compensation of employees and purchases of goods and 
services. Consistent with the proportion of FWS’s operating 
expenditures on personnel, this price index is more heavily weighted by 
changes in federal workers’ compensation than the overall GDP price 
index. 

We met with officials at refuge system headquarters, refuge offices at 
4 FWS regions (Hadley, Massachusetts; Denver, Colorado; Portland, 
Oregon; and Minneapolis, Minnesota), and 19 refuges, and conducted 
phone interviews with officials at the other 4 regional offices and 
about 50 additional refuges. We selected refuges for site visits in 
order to see a range in geographic location, visitation level, refuge 
prioritization level, and type of management activities and challenges. 

Given the differences in the refuges across the system and the need to 
gather information on a range of topics, we surveyed all 585 units 
within the refuge system—including stand-alone refuges and refuges 
within complexes. Survey respondents primarily were refuge managers or 
project leaders of refuge complexes. Survey questions were crafted to 
obtain information on a variety of issues, including how the following 
changed between fiscal years 2002 and 2007: the quality of various 
types of habitat, the extent of various habitat problems, the extent to 
which external factors affected habitat problems, the amount of time 
spent on various management activities, the amount and quality of 
visitor services infrastructure, and the quality of visitor services. 
We also inquired about their activities between fiscal years 2002 and 
2007, and their perspectives on the challenges facing the refuge system 
and refuge management and reporting.[Footnote 35] 

During our site visits and in interviews with 9 randomly selected 
refuge managers, we explored various potential survey questions to 
confirm we were eliciting the information we intended and whether 
managers could answer the questions in a clear, consistent manner with 
minimal difficulty in data recall, among other things. When it became 
clear that we needed to include “pick lists” of possible answers for 
certain questions, we utilized knowledge gained from prior interviews 
and obtained feedback from 12 refuge managers about what should be 
included in these lists. We conducted formal pretests with 8 refuge 
managers and used structured probes to determine: (1) if respondents 
had the information and knowledge necessary to answer the question, (2) 
if respondents interpreted the questions in the same way as other 
respondents, (3) if respondents interpreted the questions as we 
intended, (4) if respondents felt that the response categories offered 
the correct level of precision, and (5) if respondents felt that we 
used the terminology commonly used by refuge managers. After changes 
were incorporated to address pretesting concerns, we sent the survey to 
a random sample of 10 refuge managers to complete and “validate” the 
survey. No concerns were raised during the validations about respondent 
bias, response burden, relevancy of the questions, ability of the 
respondent to answer, or confidence in response accuracy. We also 
obtained comments from refuge system officials in headquarters. We then 
distributed the survey to all refuge units. Subsequently, we determined 
that 538 units should be included in our scope of analysis because FWS 
does not have full management responsibility for all of its units. We 
received an 81 percent response rate for this subset of refuges used in 
our analysis. We conducted follow-up interviews with 14 refuge managers 
to verify that we were correctly interpreting responses and to clarify 
certain points. See appendix II for a detailed discussion of the 
analysis of this survey. 

Below is a summary of the key questions we are reporting on from the 
survey. We also asked other questions that we do not specifically 
report on to obtain further context. 

* In fiscal year 2007, how would you rate the overall quality of 
habitat for waterfowl, other migratory birds, threatened and endangered 
species, and state species of concern? (Note: Refuges only answered 
these questions if they had the specified species on their refuge.) 

* In fiscal year 2007, to what extent did the condition of the habitat 
on your refuge meet the needs of waterfowl, other migratory birds, 
threatened and endangered species, and state species of concern? (Note: 
Refuges only answered these questions if they had the specified species 
on their refuge.) 

* Between fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2007, did the overall 
quality of habitat on your refuge improve, stay the same, or worsen for 
waterfowl, other migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, 
and state species of concern? (Note: Refuges only answered these 
questions if they had the specified species on their refuge.) 

* In fiscal year 2007, how much of a problem were the following for the 
condition of the habitat on your refuge and did these problems 
increase, stay the same, or decrease between fiscal years 2002 and 
2007: invasive plants, invasive animals, water pollution, soil 
contamination, air pollution, noise pollution, light pollution, plant 
disease, animal disease, habitat fragmentation on or around refuge, 
lack of water, excessive water, wildfire damage, storm damage, soil 
erosion, damage to habitat from recreational use, damage to habitat 
from crime, and other human disturbances? (Note: respondents were able 
to write in other problems occurring on their refuge.) 

* In fiscal year 2007, how much did the following factors contribute to 
the habitat problems on your refuge and did they increase, stay the 
same, or decrease between fiscal years 2002 and 2007: extreme weather 
(such as drought, flood, wind, and temperature), off-refuge agriculture 
(such as pesticide runoff, soil erosion, and manure), off-refuge 
industry (such as energy development, mining, logging, and military 
activities), off-refuge human settlement (such as roads, construction, 
housing, septic systems, and airports), rights of way (from roads and 
utilities), on-refuge sources of pollution (such as energy production, 
grazing, and legacy waste), on-refuge activities (such as visitation 
and fire suppression), inadequate water rights, and other factors 
(respondents could write in)? 

* In fiscal year 2007, did workers on your refuge (including permanent 
employees, temporary employees, contract workers, volunteers, and 
cooperators) conduct the following habitat management activities and 
did the amount of time spent on these activities increase, stay the 
same, or decrease between fiscal years 2002 and 2007: addressing 
invasive plants, addressing invasive animals, addressing water 
pollution, addressing soil contamination, addressing air pollution, 
addressing light pollution, addressing plant disease, addressing animal 
disease, conducting routine habitat management activities, conducting 
habitat restoration projects, conducting inventory and monitoring 
surveys of habitat condition, conducting inventory and monitoring of 
wildlife populations, addressing habitat fragmentation, addressing lack 
of water, addressing excessive water, addressing damage to habitat form 
wildfire, addressing damage to habitat from storms, addressing damage 
to habitat from recreational use, addressing damage to habitat from 
crime, doing conservation planning, and coordinating with nearby 
landowners? 

* Between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, did the amount of time spent by 
the following types of workers to conduct habitat management activities 
on your refuge increase, stay the same, or decrease: permanent 
employees, temporary employees, contract workers, volunteers, and 
cooperators? 

* In fiscal year 2007, did your refuge provide the following visitor 
services: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 
environmental education, and environmental interpretation? 

* If you did not provide some of the six visitor services, what were 
the reasons: not compatible with refuge, lack of resources to provide, 
or other reasons? 

* Between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, did the hours of the refuge or 
the visitor center on your refuge (if there is one) increase, stay the 
same, or decrease? 

* Between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, did the quantity and condition of 
the following types of visitor services infrastructure increase, stay 
the same, or decrease: trail and tour routes, hunting infrastructure 
(such as blinds and check stations), fishing infrastructure (such as 
boat launches, docks, and platforms), wildlife observation 
infrastructure (such as platforms and viewing areas), wildlife 
photography infrastructure (such as blinds, platforms, and viewing 
areas), education infrastructure (such as buildings and study 
locations), and interpretation infrastructure (such as signs, kiosks, 
and exhibits)? 

* Between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, did the amount of time spent by 
all workers on your refuge (including permanent employees, temporary 
employees, contract workers, volunteers, and cooperators) to provide 
the following visitor services increase, stay the same, or decrease: 
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 
environmental education, and environmental interpretation? 

* Between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, did the amount of time spent by 
the following types of workers to provide visitor services on your 
refuge increase, stay the same, or decrease: permanent employees, 
temporary employees, contract workers, volunteers, and cooperators? 

* In fiscal year 2007, how would you rate the overall quality of the 
following visitor services at your refuge and did the quality improve, 
stay the same, or worsen between fiscal years 2002 and 2007: hunting, 
fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental 
education, and environmental interpretation? 

* In your professional judgment, what are the biggest threats to the 
condition of habitat and visitor services at your refuge? 

* In your professional judgment, what are the biggest threats to the 
condition of habitat and visitor services for the National Wildlife 
Refuge System? 

* Do you feel that the criteria for placing refuges into tiers were 
appropriate to distinguish among competing priorities of the refuges in 
your region? 

* Between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, did the number of work days spent 
by your refuge’s nonadministrative staff on selected administrative 
activities increase, stay the same, or decrease? 

We conducted our work between July 2007 and 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. We also conducted 
reliability assessments of the data we obtained electronically and 
determined those data to be of sufficient quality to be used for the 
purposes of this report. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Statistical Analysis of Habitat Change: 

During our site visits to wildlife refuges, during our interviews with 
refuge managers, and in written responses to our survey questions, 
refuge managers asserted that staff reductions threaten the quality of 
wildlife habitat. To test these assertions, we developed statistical 
models that assess whether staffing change is associated with changes 
in habitat quality. In particular, our models assess whether refuges 
where staff spent decreased time on habitat management activities 
between fiscal years 2002 and 2007 were more likely than other refuges 
to report that habitat conditions worsened rather than improved. In 
assessing this likelihood, our models account for refuge 
characteristics other than change in staff time that might impact 
habitat conditions, including tier designation, which indicates 
relative importance of a refuge compared to other refuges, and the 
change in external factors, such as extreme weather and off-refuge 
agriculture, that contribute to habitat problems. The results of our 
models show that habitat was more likely to worsen, rather than to 
improve, at refuges where staff time decreased between fiscal years 
2002 and 2007 compared to those where staff time increased, even after 
adjusting for these other characteristics. 

Data Used in OUr Analysis: 

Our analysis assesses the change in the quality of waterfowl and other 
migratory bird habitat as a function of three key refuge 
characteristics: (1) the change in staff time spent on habitat 
management, (2) tier designation, and (3) the change in external 
factors that contribute to habitat problems. Frequency counts for the 
key variables used in our analysis are presented in table 17. 

Table 17: Summary Statistics for Habitat Change and Refuge 
Characteristics, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007: 

Variable: Change in quality of habitat for waterfowl, 
Improved; 
Number: 145; 
Percent: 38%. 

Variable: Change in quality of habitat for waterfowl, Stayed the same; 
Number: 167; 
Percent: 44%. 

Variable: Change in quality of habitat for waterfowl, Worsened; 
Number: 69; 
Percent:18%. 

Variable: Change in quality of habitat for waterfowl, Total; 
Number: 381; 
Percent: 100%. 

Variable: Change in quality of habitat for other migratory birds, 
Improved; 
Number: 163; 
Percent:40%. 

Variable: Change in quality of habitat for other migratory birds, 
Stayed the same; 
Number: 175; 
Percent: 43%. 

Variable: Change in quality of habitat for other migratory birds, 
Worsened; 
Number: 69; 
Percent: 17%. 

Variable: Change in quality of habitat for other migratory birds, 
Total; 
Number: 407; 
Percent: 100%. 

Variable: Change in time spent by permanent staff on habitat management 
activities, Increased; 
Number: 209; 
Percent: 49%. 

Variable: Change in time spent by permanent staff on habitat management 
activities, Stayed the same; 
Number: 91; 
Percent: 21%. 

Variable: Change in time spent by permanent staff on habitat management 
activities, Decreased; 
Number: 127; 
Percent: 30%. 

Variable: Change in time spent by permanent staff on habitat management 
activities, Total; 
Number: 427; 
Percent: 100%. 

Variable: Refuge tier, Focus; 
Number: 148; 
Percent: 34%. 

Variable: Refuge tier, Targeted reduction; 
Number: 155; 
Percent: 36%. 

Variable: Refuge tier, Unstaffed satellite; 
Number: 134; 
Percent: 31%. 

Variable: Refuge tier, Total; 
Number: 437; 
Percent: 100%. 

Variable: Change in external factors that contribute to habitat 
problems, Net increase; 
Number: 109; 
Percent: 25%. 

Variable: Change in external factors that contribute to habitat 
problems, No net increase; 
Number: 328; 
Percent: 75%. 

Variable: Change in external factors that contribute to habitat 
problems, Total; 
Number: 437; 
Percent: 100%. 

Source: GAO’s survey of wildlife refuge managers; tier designations 
come from FWS. 

Note: Some columns may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding. The 
total number of refuges differs for each variable because of differing 
response rates for the corresponding questions in our survey. 

[End of table] 

To measure habitat change, we used responses to a question on our 
survey, which asked whether the overall quality of habitat on a refuge 
improved, stayed the same, or worsened between fiscal years 2002 and 
2007. The question was asked separately for both waterfowl and for 
other migratory birds, leading to two indicators of the change in 
habitat quality. We used these two indicators to develop separate 
statistical models for waterfowl and for other migratory birds. 

To measure the first key refuge characteristic, the change in staff 
time spent on habitat management activities, we used data from a 
question on our survey, which asked whether the total amount of time 
that permanent staff spent conducting habitat management activities on 
a particular refuge between fiscal years 2002 and 2007 increased, 
stayed the same, or decreased. For the second key refuge 
characteristic, tier designation, we obtained data from FWS for each 
refuge. In 2006, the agency designated refuges as focus, targeted 
reduction, or unstaffed satellite refuges. In our analysis, tier 
designation represents the relative importance of a given refuge within 
a complex as the agency determined in 2006. To measure the third key 
refuge characteristic, the impact of external factors, we used 
responses to a question on our survey, which asked whether the 
contribution of various external factors to habitat problems on a 
refuge increased, stayed the same, or decreased between fiscal years 
2002 and 2007.[Footnote 36] We used these data to classify refuges into 
two groups. Refuges in the first group, which we refer to as having a 
net increase in external factors, reported that the contribution to 
habitat problems increased for more of these factors than it decreased. 
Refuges in the second group, which we refer to as having no net 
increase in external factors, reported that either the contribution of 
these factors decreased for more factors than it increased or that the 
contribution of these factors increased for the same number that it 
decreased. 

Refuges were included in our analysis if they indicated that providing 
habitat for waterfowl or other migratory birds was at least somewhat of 
a priority and if they provided usable responses to each of the key 
survey questions described above. Of the 437 refuges that responded to 
our survey, 40 were excluded from our analysis of the change in 
waterfowl habitat because they reported that providing this type of 
habitat was not a priority at their refuge. Similarly, 14 refuges were 
excluded from our analysis of the change in other migratory bird 
habitat for the same reason. Of the remaining 397 refuges, 374 provided 
useable responses for all key survey questions and were included in our 
analysis of waterfowl habitat, while 400 of the remaining 423 refuges 
provided sufficient responses to be included in our analysis of other 
migratory bird habitat. 

Cross-Tabulations between Habitat Change and Refuge Characteristics: 

Before developing statistical models, we cross-tabulated data on the 
change in habitat quality against data for the three key refuge 
characteristics described above (namely, the change in staff time, tier 
designation and the change in external factors). The results of these 
cross-tabulations show that, although habitat was more likely overall 
to improve than it was to worsen, the odds of improving rather than 
worsening, vary considerably depending upon the characteristics of a 
refuge. Complete results of these cross-tabulations, along with tests 
of the statistical significance of these associations, are presented in 
tables 18 and 19. 

Table 18: Change in Quality of Waterfowl Habitat by Various 
Characteristics of Refuges, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007: 

Time spent by permanent staff on habitat management: Increased; 
Habitat quality improved, Number: 87; 
Habitat quality improved, Percent: 47%; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Number: 73; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Percent: 39%; 
Habitat quality worsened, Number: 27; 
Habitat quality worsened, Percent: 14%; 
Total number: 187. 

Time spent by permanent staff on habitat management: Stayed the same; 
Habitat quality improved, Number: 24; 
Habitat quality improved, Percent: 32%; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Number: 42; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Percent: 56%; 
Habitat quality worsened, Number: 9; 
Habitat quality worsened, Percent: 12%; 
Total number: 75. 

Time spent by permanent staff on habitat management: Decreased; 
Habitat quality improved, Number: 34; 
Habitat quality improved, Percent: 30%; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Number: 48; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Percent: 43%; 
Habitat quality worsened, Number: 30; 
Habitat quality worsened, Percent: 27%; 
Total number: 112. 

Time spent by permanent staff on habitat management: Total; 
Habitat quality improved, Number: 145; 
Habitat quality improved, Percent: 39%; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Number: 163; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Percent: 44%; 
Habitat quality worsened, Number: 66; 
Habitat quality worsened, Percent: 18%; 
Total number: 374 (Chi-Square = 17.131, df = 4, Sig. = .002). 

Refuge tier: Focus; 
Habitat quality improved, Number: 56; 
Habitat quality improved, Percent: 42%; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Number: 50; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Percent: 38%; 
Habitat quality worsened, Number: 27; 
Habitat quality worsened, Percent: 20%; 
Total number: 113. 

Refuge tier: Targeted reduction; 
Habitat quality improved, Number: 68; 
Habitat quality improved, Percent: 48%; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Number: 49; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Percent: 35%; 
Habitat quality worsened, Number: 25; 
Habitat quality worsened, Percent: 18%; 
Total number: 142. 

Refuge tier: Unstaffed satellite; 
Habitat quality improved, Number: 21; 
Habitat quality improved, Percent: 20%; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Number: 68; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Percent: 64%; 
Habitat quality worsened, Number: 17; 
Habitat quality worsened, Percent: 16%; 
Total number: 106. 

Refuge tier: Total; 
Habitat quality improved, Number: 145; 
Habitat quality improved, Percent: 38%; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Number: 167; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Percent: 44%; 
Habitat quality worsened, Number: 69; 
Habitat quality worsened, Percent: 18%; 
Total number: 381 (Chi-Square = 28.056, df = 4, Sig. < .001). 

Contribution of external factors to habitat problems: No net increase; 
Habitat quality improved, Number: 34; 
Habitat quality improved, Percent: 38%; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Number: 52; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Percent: 58%; 
Habitat quality worsened, Number: 4; 
Habitat quality worsened, Percent: 4%; 
Total number: 90. 

Contribution of external factors to habitat problems: Net increase; 
Habitat quality improved, Number: 111; 
Habitat quality improved, Percent: 38%; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Number: 115; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Percent: 40%; 
Habitat quality worsened, Number: 65; 
Habitat quality worsened, Percent: 22%; 
Total number: 291. 

Contribution of external factors to habitat problems: Total; 
Habitat quality improved, Number: 145; 
Habitat quality improved, Percent: 38%; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Number: 167; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Percent: 44%; 
Habitat quality worsened, Number: 69; 
Habitat quality worsened, Percent: 18%; 
Total number: 381 (Chi-Square = 17.382, df = 2, Sig. < .001). 

Source: GAO’s survey of wildlife refuge managers; tier designations 
come from the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Note: The numbers in this table exclude 40 refuges that indicated that 
providing habitat for waterfowl was not a priority according to the 
purpose of their refuge. Some columns may not sum to 100 percent 
because of rounding. For the time spent by permanent staff on habitat 
management, the total number of refuges is lower because fewer refuges 
responded to the corresponding question on our survey. \ 

[End of table] 

Table 19: Change in Quality of Other Migratory Bird Habitat by Various 
Refuge Characteristics, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007: 

Time spent by permanent staff on habitat management: Increased; 
Habitat quality improved, Number: 101; 
Habitat quality improved, Percent: 51%; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Number: 68; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Percent: 34%; 
Habitat quality worsened, Number: 30; 
Habitat quality worsened, Percent: 15%; 
Total number: 199. 

Time spent by permanent staff on habitat management: Stayed the same; 
Habitat quality improved, Number: 24; 
Habitat quality improved, Percent: 29%; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Number: 52; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Percent: 63%; 
Habitat quality worsened, Number: 6; 
Habitat quality worsened, Percent: 7%; 
Total number: 82. 

Time spent by permanent staff on habitat management: Decreased; 
Habitat quality improved, Number: 37; 
Habitat quality improved, Percent: 31%; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Number: 52; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Percent: 44%; 
Habitat quality worsened, Number: 30; 
Habitat quality worsened, Percent: 25%; 
Total number: 119. 

Time spent by permanent staff on habitat management: Total; 
Habitat quality improved, Number: 162; 
Habitat quality improved, Percent: 41%; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Number: 172; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Percent: 43%; 
Habitat quality worsened, Number: 66; 
Habitat quality worsened, Percent: 17%; 
Total number: 400 (Chi-Square = 31.796, df = 4, Sig. = <.001). 

Refuge tier: Focus; 
Habitat quality improved, Number: 60; 
Habitat quality improved, Percent: 42%; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Number: 61; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Percent: 43%; 
Habitat quality worsened, Number: 21; 
Habitat quality worsened, Percent: 15%; 
Total number: 142. 

Refuge tier: Targeted reduction; 
Habitat quality improved, Number: 79; 
Habitat quality improved, Percent: 54%; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Number: 44; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Percent: 30%; 
Habitat quality worsened, Number: 24; 
Habitat quality worsened, Percent: 16%; 
Total number: 147. 

Refuge tier: Unstaffed satellite; 
Habitat quality improved, Number: 24; 
Habitat quality improved, Percent: 20%; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Number: 70; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Percent: 59%; 
Habitat quality worsened, Number: 24; 
Habitat quality worsened, Percent: 20%; 
Total number: 118. 

Refuge tier: Total; 
Habitat quality improved, Number: 163; 
Habitat quality improved, Percent: 40%; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Number: 175; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Percent: 43%; 
Habitat quality worsened, Number: 69; 
Habitat quality worsened, Percent: 17%; 
Total number: 407 (Chi-Square = 32.874, df = 4, Sig. < .001). 

Contribution of external factors to habitat problems: No net increase; 
Habitat quality improved, Number: 38; 
Habitat quality improved, Percent: 39%; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Number: 55; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Percent: 56%; 
Habitat quality worsened, Number: 5; 
Habitat quality worsened, Percent: 5%; 
Total number: 98. 

Contribution of external factors to habitat problems: Net increase; 
Habitat quality improved, Number: 125; 
Habitat quality improved, Percent: 41%; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Number: 120; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Percent: 39%; 
Habitat quality worsened, Number: 64; 
Habitat quality worsened, Percent: 21%; 
Total number: 309. 

Contribution of external factors to habitat problems: Total; 
Habitat quality improved, Number: 163; 
Habitat quality improved, Percent: 40%; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Number: 175; 
Habitat quality stayed the same, Percent: 43%; 
Habitat quality worsened, Number: 69; 
Habitat quality worsened, Percent: 17%; 
Total number: 407 (Chi-Square = 15.918, df = 2, Sig. < .001). 

Source: GAO’s survey of wildlife refuge managers; tier designations 
come from the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Note: The numbers in this table exclude 14 refuges that indicated that 
providing habitat for other migratory birds was not a priority 
according to the purpose of their refuge. Some columns may not sum to 
100 percent because of rounding. For the time spent by permanent staff 
on habitat management, the total number of refuges is lower because 
fewer refuges responded to the corresponding question on our survey. 

[End of table] 

These cross-tabulations show that the change in habitat quality is 
associated with the change in staff time. For example, as shown in 
table 18, 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). By 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 (table 19). 

The cross-tabulations also indicate that changes in habitat quality 
depend, in part, upon tier designation. Focus and targeted reduction 
refuges were more likely than unstaffed satellite refuges to experience 
improved rather than worsened habitat. For example, as shown in table 
18, 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 these birds worsened almost 
as frequently as it improved, with 20 percent of refuges experiencing 
improved quality and 16 percent experiencing worsened quality. The 
cross-tabulations show a similar disparity among tiers with regard to 
changes in the quality of habitat for other migratory birds (table 19). 

Finally, our cross-tabulations indicate that changes in habitat quality 
also depend upon the change in external factors that contribute to 
habitat problems. For example, among refuges that reported no net 
increase in external factors, about nine times more refuges reported 
improved waterfowl habitat (38 percent) than reported worsened 
waterfowl habitat (4 percent), as shown in table 18. 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). We found similar results for the change in other migratory 
bird habitat (table 19). 

Although the results of the cross-tabulations are strong and 
statistically significant, they provide only a partial assessment of 
the relationship between habitat change and refuge characteristics. 
This is because the cross-tabulations compare habitat change with each 
refuge characteristic individually without accounting for the influence 
of the other characteristics. For this reason, we developed statistical 
models that allow us to account for the effects of all of these 
characteristics simultaneously. 

Formulation of Statistical Models: 

Our statistical models, technically referred to as a multinomial 
logistic regression, were used to assess the effects of each refuge 
characteristic on the change in habitat quality while adjusting for the 
effects of the other characteristics. These models estimate the effects 
of each refuge characteristic on (1) the odds of habitat improving, 
rather than worsening, and (2) the odds of habitat staying the same, 
rather than worsening. For example, our models estimate the number of 
times more likely that habitat is to improve, rather than to worsen, at 
refuges where staff time increased compared to refuges where staff time 
decreased, controlling for the effects of tier designation and the 
change in external factors. Similarly, our models estimate effects for 
tier designation and for the change in external factors. 

In order to test the adequacy of our models, we verified that our data 
contained a sufficient number of refuges with each combination of 
characteristics, each model adequately fit the data based on chi-square 
goodness-of-fit tests, and high associations among the refuge 
characteristics would be unlikely to confound model estimates. We used 
robust regression techniques to adjust for the fact that refuges 
clustered within the same complex may have provided similar responses 
to survey questions. In order to be confident that the estimates from 
our regression models are robust to various specifications, we 
formulated and tested several alternative models to ensure that we 
obtained similar estimates for the effects of staffing change, tier 
designation, and change in external factors. The statistical analysis 
was performed by a senior research methodologist and was reviewed by a 
managing methodologist and a professional statistician. Their review 
assessed the model specification, model development, model results, and 
the conclusions derived from these results. In order to ensure that the 
analysis was free of programming errors, each line of the computer 
syntax used to develop the model was verified by a senior data analyst. 

Results of Statistical Models: 

Our regression models indicate that change in staff time and tier 
designation are associated with changes in habitat quality. These 
findings are true for both waterfowl and other migratory bird habitat. 
The models indicate that these associations are statistically 
significant even after adjusting for other refuge characteristics, 
including the change in external factors. The results of our regression 
models are presented in tables 20 and 21. In particular, highlights 
include: 

* The odds of habitat improving, rather than worsening, were 
significantly greater at refuges where staff time increased compared to 
those where staff time decreased. Specifically, we estimate that 
refuges where staff time 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. 

* The odds of habitat improving, rather than worsening, were higher at 
focus and targeted reduction refuges as compared to unstaffed satellite 
refuges. For example, we estimate that focus refuges were 3.4 times 
more likely than unstaffed refuges to experience improved rather than 
worsened habitat quality for other migratory birds and that targeted 
reduction refuges were 3.9 times more likely. Targeted reduction 
refuges were also significantly more likely than unstaffed satellite 
refuges to experience improved rather than worsened waterfowl habitat, 
although focus refuges were not significantly different from unstaffed 
refuges in this regard. 

* Change in external factors is strongly associated with habitat 
change. For example, 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. Our models also found that 
the change in staff time and the change in external factors were 
associated with an increased likelihood of habitat quality staying the 
same rather than worsening. In particular, we found the following: 

* The odds of habitat staying the same rather than worsening were 
higher at refuges where staff time stayed the same. Specifically, we 
estimate that refuges where staff time stayed the same were 3.9 times 
more likely than refuges where staff time decreased to report that 
habitat for other migratory birds stayed the same rather than worsened. 
This effect was only marginally significant for waterfowl habitat. 

* The odds of habitat staying the same rather than worsening were 
higher at refuges that did not experience a net increase in external 
factors that contribute to habitat problems. Specifically, we estimate 
that refuges that experienced no net increase in external factors were 
8.0 times more likely to report that waterfowl habitat stayed the same, 
rather than worsened, and 5.8 times more likely to report that other 
migratory bird habitat stayed the same rather than worsened. 

The key results of our models are robust to alternative specifications. 
We tested for the presence of interaction effects between staff time 
and tier designation, that is, whether the effect of a change in staff 
time depends upon tier, but found no evidence of such an effect. We fit 
models that accounted for habitat priority using data from a question 
on our survey that asked: according to the purpose of each refuge, how 
much of a priority is providing habitat for waterfowl and other 
migratory birds. The results of these models show that the estimated 
effects of staff change and tier designation did not diminish after 
accounting for habitat priority, indicating that the effects of staff 
change and tier are not limited to lower priority habitats. We also fit 
models that used data on the change in the number of full-time 
equivalent staff at the complex level, rather than survey data about 
changes in staff time at the refuge level, as a measure of staffing 
change between fiscal years 2002 and 2007. These models found results 
similar to those reported above: namely, that refuges that were part of 
complexes that gained staff were significantly more likely than those 
that were part of complexes that lost staff to report that habitat 
conditions improved rather than worsened. 

Table 20: Regression Results for Change in Quality of Waterfowl 
Habitat, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007: 

Dependent variable: Change in quality of waterfowl habitat. 
N = 374. 
Wald Chi-Square = 55.29, df = 10, Sig. < .001. 

Independent variables: Intercept; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Coefficient: 
1.195; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Standard 
error: .750; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Wald test 
(sig.): .111; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Odds Ratio: 
[Empty]. 

Independent variables: Staff time increased; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Coefficient: 
1.086; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Standard 
error: .420; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Wald test 
(sig.): .010; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Odds Ratio: 
2.962. 

Independent variables: Staff time stayed the same; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Coefficient: 
.773; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Standard 
error: .494; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Wald test 
(sig.): .118; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Odds Ratio: 
2.166. 

Independent variables: Staff time decreased (reference); 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Coefficient: 
[Empty]; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Standard 
error: [Empty]; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Wald test 
(sig.): [Empty]; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Odds Ratio: 
[Empty]. 

Independent variables: No net increase in external factors; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Coefficient: 
1.953; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Standard 
error: .617; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Wald test 
(sig.): .002; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Odds Ratio: 
7.047. 

Independent variables: Net increase in external factors (reference); 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Coefficient: 
[Empty]; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Standard 
error: [Empty]; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Wald test 
(sig.): [Empty]; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Odds Ratio: 
[Empty]. 

Independent variables: Focus refuges; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Coefficient: 
.624; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Standard 
error: .441; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Wald test 
(sig.): .157; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Odds Ratio: 
1.867. 

Independent variables: Targeted reduction refuges; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Coefficient: 
.936; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Standard 
error: .409; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Wald test 
(sig.): .022; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Odds Ratio: 
2.550. 

Independent variables: Unstaffed satellite refuges (reference); 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Coefficient: 
[Empty]; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Standard 
error: [Empty]; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Wald test 
(sig.): [Empty]; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Odds Ratio: 
[Empty]. 

Independent variables: Intercept; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: 
Coefficient: 2.759; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: 
Standard error: .726; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: Wald 
test (sig.): .000; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: Odds 
Ratio: [Empty]. 

Independent variables: Staff time increased; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: 
Coefficient: .456; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: 
Standard error: .452; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: Wald 
test (sig.): .313; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: Odds 
Ratio: 1.578. 

Independent variables: Staff time stayed the same; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: 
Coefficient: .844; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: 
Standard error: .478; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: Wald 
test (sig.): .077; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: Odds 
Ratio: 2.327. 

Independent variables: Staff time decreased (reference); 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: 
Coefficient: [Empty]; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: 
Standard error: [Empty]; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: Wald 
test (sig.): [Empty]; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: Odds 
Ratio: [Empty]. 

Independent variables: No net increase in external factors; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: 
Coefficient: 2.075; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: 
Standard error: .643; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: Wald 
test (sig.): .001; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: Odds 
Ratio: 7.963. 

Independent variables: Net increase in external factors (reference); 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: 
Coefficient: [Empty]; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: 
Standard error: [Empty]; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: Wald 
test (sig.): [Empty]; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: Odds 
Ratio: [Empty]. 

Independent variables: Focus refuges; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: 
Coefficient: -.707; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: 
Standard error: .448; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: Wald 
test (sig.): .114; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: Odds 
Ratio: .493. 

Independent variables: Targeted reduction refuges; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: 
Coefficient: -.545; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: 
Standard error: .412; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: Wald 
test (sig.): .186; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: Odds 
Ratio: .586. 

Independent variables: Unstaffed satellite refuges (reference); 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: 
Coefficient: [Empty]; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: 
Standard error: [Empty]; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: Wald 
test (sig.): [Empty]; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: Odds 
Ratio: [Empty]. 

Source: GAO analysis of Fish and Wildlife Service data. 

[End of table] 

Table 21: Regression Results for Change in Quality of Other Migratory 
Bird Habitat, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007: 

Dependent variable: Change in quality of other migratory bird habitat. 
N = 400. 
Wald Chi-Square = 67.56, df = 10, Sig. < .001. 

Independent variables: Intercept; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Coefficient: 
.589; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Standard 
error: .628; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Wald test 
(sig.): .349; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Odds Ratio: 
[Empty]. 

Independent variables: Staff time increased; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Coefficient: 
1.101; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Standard 
error: .388; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Wald test 
(sig.): .005; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Odds Ratio: 
3.008. 

Independent variables: Staff time stayed the same; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Coefficient: 
1.122; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Standard 
error: .611; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Wald test 
(sig.): .067; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Odds Ratio: 
3.072. 

Independent variables: Staff time decreased (reference); 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Coefficient: 
[Empty]; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Standard 
error: [Empty]; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Wald test 
(sig.): [Empty]; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Odds Ratio: 
[Empty]. 

Independent variables: No net increase in external factors; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Coefficient: 
1.635; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Standard 
error: .567; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Wald test 
(sig.): .004; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Odds Ratio: 
5.132. 

Independent variables: Net increase in external factors (reference); 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Coefficient: 
[Empty]; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Standard 
error: [Empty]; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Wald test 
(sig.): [Empty]; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Odds Ratio: 
[Empty]. 

Independent variables: Focus refuges; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Coefficient: 
1.218; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Standard 
error: .375; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Wald test 
(sig.): .001; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Odds Ratio: 
3.381. 

Independent variables: Targeted reduction refuges; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Coefficient: 
1.373; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Standard 
error: .339; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Wald test 
(sig.): .000; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Odds Ratio: 
3.949. 

Independent variables: Unstaffed satellite refuges (reference); 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Coefficient: 
[Empty]; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Standard 
error: [Empty]; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Wald test 
(sig.): [Empty]; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat improved rather than worsened: Odds Ratio: 
[Empty]. 

Independent variables: Intercept; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: 
Coefficient: 2.098; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: 
Standard error: .594; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: Wald 
test (sig.): .000; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: Odds 
Ratio: [Empty]. 

Independent variables: Staff time increased; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: 
Coefficient: .265; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: 
Standard error: .416; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: Wald 
test (sig.): .524; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: Odds 
Ratio: 1.304. 

Independent variables: Staff time stayed the same; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: 
Coefficient: 1.364; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: 
Standard error: .580; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: Wald 
test (sig.): .019; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: Odds 
Ratio: 3.914. 

Independent variables: Staff time decreased (reference); 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: 
Coefficient: [Empty]; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: 
Standard error: [Empty]; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: Wald 
test (sig.): [Empty]; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: Odds 
Ratio: [Empty]. 

Independent variables: No net increase in external factors; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: 
Coefficient: 1.761; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: 
Standard error: .563; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: Wald 
test (sig.): .002; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: Odds 
Ratio: 5.819. 

Independent variables: Net increase in external factors (reference); 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: 
Coefficient: [Empty]; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: 
Standard error: [Empty]; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: Wald 
test (sig.): [Empty]; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: Odds 
Ratio: [Empty]. 

Independent variables: Focus refuges; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: 
Coefficient: .143; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: 
Standard error: .370; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: Wald 
test (sig.): .698; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: Odds 
Ratio: 1.154. 

Independent variables: Targeted reduction refuges; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: 
Coefficient: -.212; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: 
Standard error: .354; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: Wald 
test (sig.): .548; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: Odds 
Ratio: .809. 

Independent variables: Unstaffed satellite refuges (reference); 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: 
Coefficient: [Empty]; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: 
Standard error: [Empty]; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: Wald 
test (sig.): [Empty]; 
Odds that waterfowl habitat stayed the same rather than worsened: Odds 
Ratio: [Empty]. 

Source: GAO analysis of Fish and Wildlife Service data. 

[End of table] 

Limitations of Our Analysis: 

Although our models demonstrate that improved habitat quality is 
significantly associated with increased staff time, and that worsened 
habitat quality is significantly associated with decreased staff time, 
it is subject to certain limitations. First, our data on habitat change 
are based on the perception of refuge managers rather than on direct 
measurements of habitat conditions. To minimize this limitation, we 
conducted more than two dozen pretests to ascertain, before 
administering our survey, that land managers could provide valid 
responses to these questions. Second, while our model identifies a 
statistical association between the change in habitat condition with 
the change in staffing, it is not able to assess whether staffing 
changes actually caused changes in habitat quality. Statistical 
correlation is necessary but not sufficient evidence to demonstrate 
causation. Third, because of the dynamic nature of wildlife habitat, 
the effects of staffing changes may not appear immediately. Staffing 
cuts may result in a reduction in habitat management activities, which 
may not find their effect on habitat for several years. Conversely, 
restoration projects may take several years to see an effect. Fourth, 
we do not have data on the initial quality of habitat; while we were 
confident that refuge managers could assess trends at their refuge, we 
were not confident that they could accurately rate the quality of 
habitat in fiscal year 2002, 6 years prior to the administration of our 
survey. As a result, we are unable to determine, for example, whether 
refuges that improved in quality were already of high quality or 
whether refuges that worsened were already of low quality. In spite of 
these limitations, our models are consistent with the assertions made 
by refuge managers in showing that decreases in staff are strongly 
associated with worsening habitat, although the actual size of the 
effect might be somewhat higher or lower than we estimate it to be. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Deferred Maintenance: 

Deferred maintenance is maintenance to repair, rehabilitate, dispose 
of, or replace buildings and other facilities. Deferred maintenance 
projects are monitored in the Service Asset and Maintenance Management 
System (SAMMS), which tracks, among other things, asset maintenance and 
capital improvement needs.[Footnote 37] SAMMS replaced the Maintenance 
Management System (MMS) database in 2005 because refuge system 
management wanted to move toward a more comprehensive system, according 
to a refuge system official. Refuge managers identify maintenance needs 
and document the needs in SAMMS via work orders. If these needs have 
not been addressed after 1 year, they are eligible to become deferred 
maintenance projects. In addition, regional facility managers conduct 
condition assessments of refuge buildings, grounds, equipment, and 
infrastructure, during which they may find assets that should have been 
entered into SAMMS but were not. In this case the asset may be 
identified as deferred maintenance without the 1-year waiting period. 
Furthermore, deferred maintenance projects are limited to those 
projects that require less than 25 percent capital improvement; will be 
completed within 2 years; cost at least $5,000, but less than $750,000; 
and have repair costs that do not exceed the asset’s current 
replacement value. 

The deferred maintenance backlog appears to be increasing, but the 
actual change in the backlog cannot be determined because the refuge 
system implemented several recordkeeping changes between fiscal years 
2002 and 2007. Specifically, refuge system officials stated that the 
following recordkeeping changes occurred during this time period. 

1. Each refuge asset is now entered into SAMMS as a single project, 
whereas multiple assets could have been entered as a single project in 
MMS. 

2. All assets must now be entered into SAMMS, including inexpensive 
assets such as signs and fencing, whereas only the more expensive 
refuge assets, such as buildings, were typically entered into MMS. 

3. The refuge system implemented comprehensive condition 
assessments—which will take place once every 5 years—to better 
determine maintenance deficiencies, and the data were entered into 
SAMMS between fiscal years 2006 and 2007. 

4. The Federal Highway Administration completed an assessment of the 
maintenance needed on refuges’ public-use roads, one of the most 
expensive assets to maintain, and the newly identified roads projects 
were entered into SAMMS between fiscal years 2006 and 2007. 

Taken together, these recordkeeping changes limit our ability to assess 
yearly trends in the refuge system’s deferred maintenance backlog. 
However, refuge system officials reported that the changes allow them 
to maintain more complete and accurate information about the condition 
of refuge assets. For example, the requirement that all assets be 
entered as separate projects in SAMMS was made to allow refuge system 
officials to determine if the cost of maintenance was greater than the 
current replacement value of each individual asset. According to refuge 
management, it was too difficult to assess the maintenance cost 
relative to the current replacement value when multiple assets were 
listed as one project in MMS. Table 22 presents the refuge system’s 
deferred maintenance backlog by region for fiscal years 2002 through 
2007. 

Table 22: Deferred Maintenance Backlog by Region, Fiscal Years 2002 
through 2007 (Dollars in nominal thousands): 

2002 20032004200520062007 

Region 1: 
2002: $164,921; 
2003: $168,911; 
2004: $169,409; 
2005: $206,805; 
2006: $310,192; 
2007: $429,375. 

Region 2: 
2002: $75,736; 
2003: $88,242; 
2004: $116,497; 
2005: $91,748; 
2006: $92,486; 
2007: $112,929. 

Region 3: 
2002: $65,235; 
2003: $146,339; 
2004: $180,670; 
2005: $143,455; 
2006: $208,996; 
2007: $265,819. 

Region 4: 
2002: $137,665; 
2003: $203,227; 
2004: $391,635; 
2005: $427,463; 
2006: $441,171; 
2007: $1,029,451. 

Region 5: 
2002: $96,344; 
2003: $116,353; 
2004: $155,408; 
2005: $119,954; 
2006: $104,964; 
2007: $155,069; 

Region 6: 
2002: $84,930; 
2003: $142,477; 
2004: $132,298; 
2005: $220,262; 
2006: $260,532; 
2007: $292,899. 

Region 7: 
2002: $38,128; 
2003: $65,960; 
2004: $120,403; 
2005: $116,170; 
2006: $37,561; 
2007: $114,363. 

Region 8[A]: 
2002: $0; 
2003: $0; 
2004: $0; 
2005: $50,121; 
2006: $72,570; 
2007: $82,683. 

Total: 
2002: $662,959; 
2003: $931,509; 
2004: $1,266,320; 
2005: $1,375,978; 
2006: $1,528,472; 
2007: $2,482,589. 

Source: NWRS. 

[A] Region 1 split into Region 1 and Region 8, beginning in 1998. 
According to a refuge official, Region 8 deferred maintenance backlog 
dollars were still included in Region 1’s dollars until 2005. 

[End of table] 

The refuge system received increased funding from fiscal year 2002 
through fiscal year 2004 to address its deferred maintenance backlog, 
although the funding decreased from 2004 through 2007. For example, 
Congress funded 2 years worth of deferred maintenance in fiscal year 
2001, and this combined total became the new base funding amount in 
fiscal year 2002, according to refuge system management. Although we 
cannot determine the extent to which the additional funding helped the 
refuge system address the backlog, for the reasons outlined above, 
several senior refuge system officials asserted that the funding has 
had a positive impact and that the refuge system’s assets appear to be 
in better condition now than before the funding increase. 

Appendix IV: Refuge Operating Needs System: 

The Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) is the refuge system database 
for cataloging operational requirements such as staff, equipment, and 
planned projects at refuges throughout the system. According to refuge 
system management, it is intended to be a full inventory of funding 
needs for annual operations at field stations. Refuge managers 
determine their total needs on the basis of operational plans, 
congressional direction, and departmental priorities, and enter these 
needs as projects into the electronic RONS database. 

Since its inception in the early 1990s, RONS has been one of the 
primary tools refuge system officials use to develop estimates for 
additional funding needed to address high-priority projects at certain 
refuges. These project estimates are included in budget requests 
submitted annually to congressional appropriators. In reports that 
accompany the refuge system’s annual appropriation, Congress indicates 
whether the program’s RONS project requests are fully funded. In fiscal 
year 2002, 108 RONS projects were funded; 5 years later, there were 4 
projects included in the 2007 budget submission. 

Refuge system management told us that some RONS projects are given a 
higher priority than others. During the fiscal year 1998 congressional 
appropriations process, appropriations staff asked the refuge system to 
set priorities within RONS, and also directed them to conduct an 
analysis to determine minimum staffing levels at refuges. To fulfill 
this requirement, refuge system officials divided existing RONS 
projects into two tiers: (1) tier 1, consisting of staffing projects as 
determined by the minimum staffing analysis as well as other high-
priority projects that were deemed critical to the mission of the 
refuge, and (2) tier 2, comprising projects that were considered to be 
lesser priorities. 

At the end of fiscal year 2007, the total value of RONS projects 
awaiting funding was just over $1 billion. According to refuge system 
officials, these projects are sometimes referred to as the RONS backlog 
(adopting the language used to describe the system’s deferred 
maintenance). Tier 1 projects are for mission-critical needs and 
therefore would be comparable to backlogged maintenance projects; at 
the end of fiscal year 2007, tier 1 projects encompassed about 2,300 
unfunded projects totaling about $300 million. Conversely, tier 2 
projects describe activities associated with expanded capabilities, not 
unmet requirements, and thus refuge system officials do not consider 
these projects to be “behind schedule” in the same sense as those in 
the system’s deferred maintenance backlog. Table 23 presents the RONS 
project backlog, containing both tier 1 and tier 2 projects, for fiscal 
years 2002 through 2007. 

Table 23: RONS Project Backlog, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007 (Dollars 
in millions): 

Number of projects: 
2002: 8,427; 
2003: 6,066; 
2004: 6,077; 
2005: 6,076; 
2006: 6,068; 
2007: 8,474. 

Total project cost: 
2002: $971.6; 
2003: $1,066.2; 
2004: $1,366.8; 
2005: $1,366.5; 
2006: $707.9; 
2007: $1,044.1. 

Source: GAO analysis of FWS data. 

Note: Project costs are presented in nominal dollars. 

[End of table] 

According to the refuge system’s RONS manager, the refuge system’s 
leadership targets tier 1 projects for funding unless explicitly 
directed to target tier 2. However, evolving national-level priorities 
can result in tier 2 projects receiving funding before their tier 1 
counterparts. For example, the increased attention on law enforcement 
following the attacks of September 11, 2001, resulted in funding for 
law enforcement personnel as part of projects that were placed in tier 
2. Overall, a quarter of RONS projects funded from fiscal years 2002 
through 2007 were identified as tier 2 projects, as shown in table 24. 

Table 24: RONS Projects Selected for Funding, Fiscal Years 2002 through 
2007 (Dollars in millions): 

Number of projects: 
Tier 1: 385; 
Tier 2: 129. 

Percentage of whole: 
Tier 1: 75%; 
Tier 2: 25%. 

Total project cost: 
Tier 1: $47.7 million; 
Tier 2: $20.9 million. 

Percentage of whole: 
Tier 1: 70%; 
Tier 2: 30%. 

Source: GAO analysis of FWS data. 

[End of table] 

Headquarters officials maintain oversight over the RONS inventory, 
periodically removing projects that are no longer needed, according to 
the RONS manager. Moreover, between 2000 and 2006, headquarters 
attempted to keep the number of projects in the RONS inventory stable 
in order to make progress in reducing the backlog.[Footnote 38] During 
this period, refuge managers were prevented from entering new project 
requests into the database. In fiscal year 2006, refuge system 
officials reviewed RONS’ second tier of projects, deleting entries that 
appeared to be out of date. This accounted for much of the 48 percent 
drop in total project cost between fiscal years 2005 and 2006, as seen 
in table 23. The database was then reopened in 2007 to allow for new 
project entries from refuge managers. However, several managers that we 
spoke with on our site visits were unaware that the database had been 
reopened, or had given up entering RONS projects altogether due to the 
many years that the database was closed to new entries. Other managers 
perceived little realistic chance that their projects would be funded, 
given the magnitude of the project backlog and the fact that the number 
of projects requested significantly outpaces the ability of the refuge 
system to secure RONS funding. Table 25 presents the ratio of projects 
in the RONS backlog to each project that received funding for fiscal 
years 2002 through 2007. As shown in the table, there were 2,119 
projects in the RONS backlog for every 1 project that received funding 
in fiscal year 2007. Similarly, for every $1 in funding directed toward 
RONS projects in 2007, there were $1,469 worth of unfunded projects in 
the backlog. 

Table 25: Ratio of RONS Project Backlog to Funded Projects, Fiscal 
Years 2002 through 2007: 

Ratio of total projects in backlog to number of projects funded: 
2002: 78:1; 
2003: 41:1; 
2004: 31:1; 
2005: 152:1; 
2006: 379:1; 
2007: 2119:1. 

Ratio of total cost of project backlog to amount funded: 
2002: $73:1; 
2003: $53:1; 
2004: $52:1; 
2005: $228:1; 
2006: $298:1; 
2007: $1,469:1. 

Source: GAO analysis of FWS data. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Total Core Obligations, Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted (in 
2002 Dollars), and Core FTEs, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2007 (Dollars 
in thousands): 

Total, FWS Region 1 Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $44,072; 
Fiscal year 2003: $44,880; 
Fiscal year 2004: $45,534; 
Fiscal year 2005: $45,726; 
Fiscal year 2006: $46,391; 
Fiscal year 2007: $47,876; 

Total, FWS Region 1 Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $44,072; 
Fiscal year 2003: $43,188; 
Fiscal year 2004: $41,553; 
Fiscal year 2005: $40,034; 
Fiscal year 2006: $39,164; 
Fiscal year 2007: $39,049. 

Total, FWS Region 1 FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 326.8; 
Fiscal year 2003: 361.8; 
Fiscal year 2004: 360.8; 
Fiscal year 2005: 331.8; 
Fiscal year 2006: 337.2; 
Fiscal year 2007: 334.2. 

Region 1, NWRS offices Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $6,829; 
Fiscal year 2003: $8,283; 
Fiscal year 2004: $8,710; 
Fiscal year 2005: $5,219; 
Fiscal year 2006: $7,089; 
Fiscal year 2007: $8,027. 

Region 1, NWRS offices Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $6,829; 
Fiscal year 2003: $7,970; 
Fiscal year 2004: $7,949; 
Fiscal year 2005: $4,569; 
Fiscal year 2006: $5,985; 
Fiscal year 2007: $6,547. 

Region 1, NWRS offices FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 42.3; 
Fiscal year 2003: 56.0; 
Fiscal year 2004: 64.0; 
Fiscal year 2005: 35.8; 
Fiscal year 2006: 38.6; 
Fiscal year 2007: 39.7. 

Big Island NWR Complex[A] - Hakalau Forest NWR, Funding, nominal 
dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,405; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,339; 
Fiscal year 2004: $1,130; 
Fiscal year 2005: $1,034; 
Fiscal year 2006: $1,025; 
Fiscal year 2007: 1,026. 

Big Island NWR Complex[A] - Hakalau Forest NWR, Funding, inflation-
adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,405; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,288; 
Fiscal year 2004: $1,032; 
Fiscal year 2005: $905; 
Fiscal year 2006: $865; 
Fiscal year 2007: $836. 

Big Island NWR Complex[A] - Hakalau Forest NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 11.0; 
Fiscal year 2003: 9.6; 
Fiscal year 2004: 10.9; 
Fiscal year 2005: 10.7; 
Fiscal year 2006: 11.0; 
Fiscal year 2007: 9.3. 

Deer Flat NWR Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $511; 
Fiscal year 2003: $588; 
Fiscal year 2004: $613; 
Fiscal year 2005: $680; 
Fiscal year 2006: $524; 
Fiscal year 2007: $531. 

Deer Flat NWR Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $511; 
Fiscal year 2003: $566; 
Fiscal year 2004: $560; 
Fiscal year 2005: $596; 
Fiscal year 2006: $442; 
Fiscal year 2007: $433. 

Deer Flat NWR FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 5.1; 
Fiscal year 2003: 6.3; 
Fiscal year 2004: 6.3; 
Fiscal year 2005: 6.1; 
Fiscal year 2006: 6.0; 
Fiscal year 2007: 5.7. 

Hawaiian and Pacific Islands NWR Complex – Guam NWR, Midway Atoll NWR, 
and Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, Funding, nominal 
dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $3,709; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,377; 
Fiscal year 2004: $5,463; 
Fiscal year 2005: $6,719; 
Fiscal year 2006: $7,350; 
Fiscal year 2007: $7,991. 

Hawaiian and Pacific Islands NWR Complex – Guam NWR, Midway Atoll NWR, 
and Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, Funding, inflation-
adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $3,709; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,288; 
Fiscal year 2004: $4,985; 
Fiscal year 2005: $5,882; 
Fiscal year 2006: $6,205; 
Fiscal year 2007: $6,518. 

Hawaiian and Pacific Islands NWR Complex – Guam NWR, Midway Atoll NWR, 
and Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 15.3; 
Fiscal year 2003: 12.9; 
Fiscal year 2004: 13.3; 
Fiscal year 2005: 17.1; 
Fiscal year 2006: 23.6; 
Fiscal year 2007: 23.8. 

Kauai NWR Complex[A] - Hanalei NWR, Huleia NWR, and Kilauea Point NWR, 
Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $949; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,438; 
Fiscal year 2004: $1,070; 
Fiscal year 2005: $889; 
Fiscal year 2006: $975; 
Fiscal year 2007: $645. 

Kauai NWR Complex[A] - Hanalei NWR, Huleia NWR, and Kilauea Point NWR, 
Funding, inflation-adjusted; 
Fiscal year 2002: $949
Fiscal year 2003: $1,384
Fiscal year 2004: $977; 
Fiscal year 2005: $779; 
Fiscal year 2006: $823; 
Fiscal year 2007: $526. 

Kauai NWR Complex[A] - Hanalei NWR, Huleia NWR, and Kilauea Point NWR, 
FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 7.4; 
Fiscal year 2003: 7.6; 
Fiscal year 2004: 7.5; 
Fiscal year 2005: 6.9; 
Fiscal year 2006: 7.9; 
Fiscal year 2007: 6.4; 

Kootenai NWR Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $958; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,265; 
Fiscal year 2004: $586; 
Fiscal year 2005: $376; 
Fiscal year 2006: $578; 
Fiscal year 2007: $398. 

Kootenai NWR Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $958; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,217; 
Fiscal year 2004: $535; 
Fiscal year 2005: $329; 
Fiscal year 2006: $488; 
Fiscal year 2007: $324. 

Kootenai NWR FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 5.8; 
Fiscal year 2003: 5.3; 
Fiscal year 2004: 4.8; 
Fiscal year 2005: 4.7; 
Fiscal year 2006: 5.3; 
Fiscal year 2007: 4.7. 

Little Pend Oreille NWR Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,548; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,827; 
Fiscal year 2004: $1,561; 
Fiscal year 2005: $1,143; 
Fiscal year 2006: $1,930; 
Fiscal year 2007: $1,333. 

Little Pend Oreille NWR Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,548; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,758; 
Fiscal year 2004: $1,424; 
Fiscal year 2005: $1,001; 
Fiscal year 2006: $1,629; 
Fiscal year 2007: $1,087. 

Little Pend Oreille NWR FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 15.5
Fiscal year 2003: 18.8
Fiscal year 2004: 16.9
Fiscal year 2005: 14.4
Fiscal year 2006: 15.7
Fiscal year 2007: 15.5 

Malheur NWR Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,210; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,942; 
Fiscal year 2004: $2,259; 
Fiscal year 2005: $2,131; 
Fiscal year 2006: $2,207; 
Fiscal year 2007: $2,630. 

Malheur NW Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,210; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,831; 
Fiscal year 2004: $2,062; 
Fiscal year 2005: $1,866; 
Fiscal year 2006: $1,863; 
Fiscal year 2007: $2,145. 

Malheur NWR FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 26.9; 
Fiscal year 2003: 23.5; 
Fiscal year 2004: 22.7; 
Fiscal year 2005: 20.8; 
Fiscal year 2006: 20.3; 
Fiscal year 2007: 21.1. 

Maui NWR Complex[A] – Kakahaia NWR and Kealia Pond NWR Funding, nominal 
dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $448; 
Fiscal year 2003: $524; 
Fiscal year 2004: $737; 
Fiscal year 2005: $396; 
Fiscal year 2006: $357; 
Fiscal year 2007: $459. 

Maui NWR Complex[A] – Kakahaia NWR and Kealia Pond NWR Funding, 
inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $448; 
Fiscal year 2003: $504; 
Fiscal year 2004: $673; 
Fiscal year 2005: $347; 
Fiscal year 2006: $302; 
Fiscal year 2007: $375. 

Maui NWR Complex[A] – Kakahaia NWR and Kealia Pond NWR FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 3.7; 
Fiscal year 2003: 4.4; 
Fiscal year 2004: 4.7; 
Fiscal year 2005: 4.0; 
Fiscal year 2006: 3.5; 
Fiscal year 2007: 3.8. 

Mid-Columbia River NWR Complex – Cold Springs NWR, Columbia NWR, Conboy 
Lake NWR, McKay Creek NWR, McNary NWR, Saddle Mountain NWR, Toppenish 
NWR, and Umatilla NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $9,397; 
Fiscal year 2003: $6,575; 
Fiscal year 2004: $5,817; 
Fiscal year 2005: $9,396; 
Fiscal year 2006: $6,616; 
Fiscal year 2007: $6,434. 

Mid-Columbia River NWR Complex – Cold Springs NWR, Columbia NWR, Conboy 
Lake NWR, McKay Creek NWR, McNary NWR, Saddle Mountain NWR, Toppenish 
NWR, and Umatilla NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $9,397; 
Fiscal year 2003: $6,327; 
Fiscal year 2004: $5,309; 
Fiscal year 2005: $8,226; 
Fiscal year 2006: $5,585; 
Fiscal year 2007: $5,247. 

Mid-Columbia River NWR Complex – Cold Springs NWR, Columbia NWR, Conboy 
Lake NWR, McKay Creek NWR, McNary NWR, Saddle Mountain NWR, Toppenish 
NWR, and Umatilla NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 49.7; 
Fiscal year 2003: 60.8; 
Fiscal year 2004: 55.4; 
Fiscal year 2005: 60.6; 
Fiscal year 2006: 55.5; 
Fiscal year 2007: 54.1. 

Nisqually NWR Complex – Grays Harbor NWR and Nisqually NWR Funding, 
nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $772; 
Fiscal year 2003: $870; 
Fiscal year 2004: $1,007; 
Fiscal year 2005: $822; 
Fiscal year 2006: $961; 
Fiscal year 2007: $1,718. 

Nisqually NWR Complex – Grays Harbor NWR and Nisqually NWR Funding, 
inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $772; 
Fiscal year 2003: $838; 
Fiscal year 2004: $919; 
Fiscal year 2005: $719; 
Fiscal year 2006: $811; 
Fiscal year 2007: $1,401. 

Nisqually NWR Complex – Grays Harbor NWR and Nisqually NWR FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 6.9; 
Fiscal year 2003: 7.6; 
Fiscal year 2004: 7.6; 
Fiscal year 2005: 7.8; 
Fiscal year 2006: 7.6; 
Fiscal year 2007: 7.2. 

Oahu NWR Complex[A] – James Campbell NWR, Oahu Forest NWR, and Pearl 
Harbor NWR Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,334; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,190; 
Fiscal year 2004: $831; 
Fiscal year 2005: $1,254; 
Fiscal year 2006: $964; 
Fiscal year 2007: $788. 

Oahu NWR Complex[A] – James Campbell NWR, Oahu Forest NWR, and Pearl 
Harbor NWR Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,334; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,146; 
Fiscal year 2004: $758; 
Fiscal year 2005: $1,098; 
Fiscal year 2006: $814; 
Fiscal year 2007: $643. 

Oahu NWR Complex[A] – James Campbell NWR, Oahu Forest NWR, and Pearl 
Harbor NWR FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 6.9; 
Fiscal year 2003: 6.7; 
Fiscal year 2004: 7.9; 
Fiscal year 2005: 8.2; 
Fiscal year 2006: 7.2; 
Fiscal year 2007: 6.4. 

Oregon Coast NWR Complex – Bandon Marsh NWR, Cape Meares NWR, Nestucca 
Bay NWR, Oregon Islands NWR, Siletz Bay NWR, and Three Arch Rocks NWR, 
Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,157; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,193; 
Fiscal year 2004: $747; 
Fiscal year 2005: $1,070; 
Fiscal year 2006: $1,030; 
Fiscal year 2007: $916. 

Oregon Coast NWR Complex – Bandon Marsh NWR, Cape Meares NWR, Nestucca 
Bay NWR, Oregon Islands NWR, Siletz Bay NWR, and Three Arch Rocks NWR, 
Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,157; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,148; 
Fiscal year 2004: $681; 
Fiscal year 2005: $937; 
Fiscal year 2006: $869; 
Fiscal year 2007: $747. 

Oregon Coast NWR Complex – Bandon Marsh NWR, Cape Meares NWR, Nestucca 
Bay NWR, Oregon Islands NWR, Siletz Bay NWR, and Three Arch Rocks NWR, 
FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 6.2; 
Fiscal year 2003: 7.6; 
Fiscal year 2004: 7.6; 
Fiscal year 2005: 7.3; 
Fiscal year 2006: 8.1; 
Fiscal year 2007: 8.3. 

Pacific Remote Islands NWR Complex[A] – Baker Island NWR, Hawaiian 
Islands NWR, Howland Island NWR, Jarvis Island NWR, Johnston Island 
NWR, Kingman Reef NWR, Palmyra Atoll NWR, and Rose Atoll NWR, Funding, 
nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,587; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,039; 
Fiscal year 2004: $1,609; 
Fiscal year 2005: $1,682; 
Fiscal year 2006: $1,697; 
Fiscal year 2007: $1,687. 

Pacific Remote Islands NWR Complex[A] – Baker Island NWR, Hawaiian 
Islands NWR, Howland Island NWR, Jarvis Island NWR, Johnston Island 
NWR, Kingman Reef NWR, Palmyra Atoll NWR, and Rose Atoll NWR, Funding, 
inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,587; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,962; 
Fiscal year 2004: $1,468; 
Fiscal year 2005: $1,473; 
Fiscal year 2006: $1,433; 
Fiscal year 2007: $1,376. 

Pacific Remote Islands NWR Complex[A] – Baker Island NWR, Hawaiian 
Islands NWR, Howland Island NWR, Jarvis Island NWR, Johnston Island 
NWR, Kingman Reef NWR, Palmyra Atoll NWR, and Rose Atoll NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 11.3; 
Fiscal year 2003: 12.9; 
Fiscal year 2004: 11.1; 
Fiscal year 2005: 12.7; 
Fiscal year 2006: 10.9; 
Fiscal year 2007: 12.6. 

Ridgefield NWR Complex – Franz Lake NWR, Pierce NWR, Ridgefield NWR, 
and Steigerwald Lake NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,066; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,333; 
Fiscal year 2004: $949; 
Fiscal year 2005: $1,123; 
Fiscal year 2006: $1,090; 
Fiscal year 2007: $798. 

Ridgefield NWR Complex – Franz Lake NWR, Pierce NWR, Ridgefield NWR, 
and Steigerwald Lake NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,066; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,283; 
Fiscal year 2004: $866; 
Fiscal year 2005: $983; 
Fiscal year 2006: $920; 
Fiscal year 2007: $651; 

Ridgefield NWR Complex – Franz Lake NWR, Pierce NWR, Ridgefield NWR, 
and Steigerwald Lake NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 13.3; 
Fiscal year 2003: 12.5; 
Fiscal year 2004: 12.7; 
Fiscal year 2005: 13.4; 
Fiscal year 2006: 12.1; 
Fiscal year 2007: 8.4. 

Sheldon-Hart Mountain NWR Complex – Sheldon NWR and Hart Mountain 
National Antelope Refuge, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,645; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,573; 
Fiscal year 2004: $2,838; 
Fiscal year 2005: $3,572; 
Fiscal year 2006: $3,201; 
Fiscal year 2007: $2,679. 

Sheldon-Hart Mountain NWR Complex – Sheldon NWR and Hart Mountain 
National Antelope Refuge, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,645; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,476; 
Fiscal year 2004: $2,590; 
Fiscal year 2005: $3,128; 
Fiscal year 2006: $2,702; 
Fiscal year 2007: $2,185. 

Sheldon-Hart Mountain NWR Complex – Sheldon NWR and Hart Mountain 
National Antelope Refuge, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 30.7; 
Fiscal year 2003: 29.1; 
Fiscal year 2004: 29.3; 
Fiscal year 2005: 23.6; 
Fiscal year 2006: 21.9; 
Fiscal year 2007: 23.6. 

Southeast Idaho NWR Complex – Bear Lake NWR, Camas NWR, Grays Lake NWR, 
Minidoka NWR, and Oxford Slough WMD, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,132; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,996; 
Fiscal year 2004: $2,751; 
Fiscal year 2005: $1,944; 
Fiscal year 2006: $2,086; 
Fiscal year 2007: v1,922. 

Southeast Idaho NWR Complex – Bear Lake NWR, Camas NWR, Grays Lake NWR, 
Minidoka NWR, and Oxford Slough WMD, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,132; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,921; 
Fiscal year 2004: $2,511; 
Fiscal year 2005: $1,702; 
Fiscal year 2006: $1,761; 
Fiscal year 2007: $1,567. 

Southeast Idaho NWR Complex – Bear Lake NWR, Camas NWR, Grays Lake NWR, 
Minidoka NWR, and Oxford Slough WMD, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 17.5; 
Fiscal year 2003: 20.1; 
Fiscal year 2004: 19.7; 
Fiscal year 2005: 18.8; 
Fiscal year 2006: 18.0; 
Fiscal year 2007: 17.5. 

Tualatin River NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $501; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,228; 
Fiscal year 2004: $1,186; 
Fiscal year 2005: $970; 
Fiscal year 2006: $534; 
Fiscal year 2007: $669; 

Tualatin River NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $501; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,182; 
Fiscal year 2004: $1,083; 
Fiscal year 2005: $850; 
Fiscal year 2006: $451; 
Fiscal year 2007: $546. 

Tualatin River NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 3.9; 
Fiscal year 2003: 4.7; 
Fiscal year 2004: 6.3; 
Fiscal year 2005: 6.0; 
Fiscal year 2006: 5.9; 
Fiscal year 2007: 5.9. 

Turnbull NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,596; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,408; 
Fiscal year 2004: $1,162; 
Fiscal year 2005: $1,141; 
Fiscal year 2006: $1,617; 
Fiscal year 2007: $1,464. 

Turnbull NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,596; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,354; 
Fiscal year 2004: $1,061; 
Fiscal year 2005: $999; 
Fiscal year 2006: $1,365; 
Fiscal year 2007: $1,194. 

Turnbull NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 17.4; 
Fiscal year 2003: 17.5; 
Fiscal year 2004: 16.1; 
Fiscal year 2005: 14.8; 
Fiscal year 2006: 16.2; 
Fiscal year 2007: 17.4. 

Washington Maritime Complex – Copalis NWR, Dungeness NWR, Flattery 
Rocks NWR, Protection Island NWR, Quillayute Needles NWR, and San Juan 
Islands NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $564; 
Fiscal year 2003: $586; 
Fiscal year 2004: $493; 
Fiscal year 2005: $501; 
Fiscal year 2006: $481; 
Fiscal year 2007: $1,303. 

Washington Maritime Complex – Copalis NWR, Dungeness NWR, Flattery 
Rocks NWR, Protection Island NWR, Quillayute Needles NWR, and San Juan 
Islands NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $564; 
Fiscal year 2003: $564; 
Fiscal year 2004: $450; 
Fiscal year 2005: $439; 
Fiscal year 2006: $406; 
Fiscal year 2007: $1,063. 

Washington Maritime Complex – Copalis NWR, Dungeness NWR, Flattery 
Rocks NWR, Protection Island NWR, Quillayute Needles NWR, and San Juan 
Islands NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 5.6; 
Fiscal year 2003: 5.7; 
Fiscal year 2004: 5.9; 
Fiscal year 2005: 5.7; 
Fiscal year 2006: 4.9; 
Fiscal year 2007: 4.2, 

Willamette Valley NWR Complex – Ankeny NWR, Baskett Slough NWR, and 
William L. Finley NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,327; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,296; 
Fiscal year 2004: $1,317; 
Fiscal year 2005: $1,956; 
Fiscal year 2006: $1,403; 
Fiscal year 2007: $1,860. 

Willamette Valley NWR Complex – Ankeny NWR, Baskett Slough NWR, and 
William L. Finley NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,327; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,247; 
Fiscal year 2004: $1,202; 
Fiscal year 2005: $1,712; 
Fiscal year 2006: $1,185; 
Fiscal year 2007: $1,517. 

Willamette Valley NWR Complex – Ankeny NWR, Baskett Slough NWR, and 
William L. Finley NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 11.4; 
Fiscal year 2003: 14.1; 
Fiscal year 2004: 12.9; 
Fiscal year 2005: 14.0; 
Fiscal year 2006: 14.4; 
Fiscal year 2007: 13.1. 

Willapa NWR – Lewis and Clark NWR, Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for the 
Columbia White Tail Deer, and Willapa NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,426; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,012; 
Fiscal year 2004: $2,696; 
Fiscal year 2005: $1,708; 
Fiscal year 2006: $2,676; 
Fiscal year 2007: $2,599. 

Willapa NWR – Lewis and Clark NWR, Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for the 
Columbia White Tail Deer, and Willapa NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,426; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,936; 
Fiscal year 2004: $2,460; 
Fiscal year 2005: $1,495; 
Fiscal year 2006: $2,259; 
Fiscal year 2007: $2,120. 

Willapa NWR – Lewis and Clark NWR, Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for the 
Columbia White Tail Deer, and Willapa NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 13.2; 
Fiscal year 2003: 18.4; 
Fiscal year 2004: 17.0; 
Fiscal year 2005: 18.7; 
Fiscal year 2006: 22.8; 
Fiscal year 2007: 25.6. 

Total, FWS Region 2, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $43,636; 
Fiscal year 2003: $50,392; 
Fiscal year 2004: $50,193; 
Fiscal year 2005: $52,406; 
Fiscal year 2006: $53,667; 
Fiscal year 2007: $56,984. 

Total, FWS Region 2, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $43,636; 
Fiscal year 2003: $48,491; 
Fiscal year 2004: $45,805; 
Fiscal year 2005: $45,882; 
Fiscal year 2006: $45,307; 
Fiscal year 2007: $46,479. 

Total, FWS Region 2, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 424.1; 
Fiscal year 2003: 456.2; 
Fiscal year 2004: 477.8; 
Fiscal year 2005: 472.9; 
Fiscal year 2006: 476.3; 
Fiscal year 2007: 448.2. 

Region 2, NWRS offices, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $6,242; 
Fiscal year 2003: $5,720; 
Fiscal year 2004: $6,449; 
Fiscal year 2005: $7,569; 
Fiscal year 2006: $7,795; 
Fiscal year 2007: $7,672. 

Region 2, NWRS offices, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $6,242;
Fiscal year 2003: $5,505; 
Fiscal year 2004: $5,885; 
Fiscal year 2005: $6,627; 
Fiscal year 2006: $6,580; 
Fiscal year 2007: $6,257. 

Region 2, NWRS offices, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 34.5; 
Fiscal year 2003: 42.7; 
Fiscal year 2004: 50.5; 
Fiscal year 2005: 48.6; 
Fiscal year 2006: 52.9; 
Fiscal year 2007: 44.9. 

Aransas/Matagorda Island NWR Complex – Aransas NWR, Funding, nominal 
dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,555; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,071; 
Fiscal year 2004: $2,536; 
Fiscal year 2005: $2,280; 
Fiscal year 2006: $2,882; 
Fiscal year 2007: $3,216. 

Aransas/Matagorda Island NWR Complex – Aransas NWR, Funding, inflation-
adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,555; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,993; 
Fiscal year 2004: $2,315; 
Fiscal year 2005: $1,996; 
Fiscal year 2006: $2,433; 
Fiscal year 2007: $2,623. 

Aransas/Matagorda Island NWR Complex – Aransas NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 25.0; 
Fiscal year 2003: 22.4; 
Fiscal year 2004: 26.5; 
Fiscal year 2005: 26.9; 
Fiscal year 2006: 26.1; 
Fiscal year 2007: 27.3. 

Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $749; 
Fiscal year 2003: $950; 
Fiscal year 2004: $1,234; 
Fiscal year 2005: $1,441; 
Fiscal year 2006: $717; 
Fiscal year 2007: $1,411. 

Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $749; 
Fiscal year 2003: $914; 
Fiscal year 2004: $1,126; 
Fiscal year 2005: $1,262; 
Fiscal year 2006: $605; 
Fiscal year 2007: $1,151. 

Attwater Prairie Chicken NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 6.8; 
Fiscal year 2003: 8.7; 
Fiscal year 2004: 8.3; 
Fiscal year 2005: 8.2; 
Fiscal year 2006: 8.0; 
Fiscal year 2007: 8.5. 

Balcones Canyonlands NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,714;
Fiscal year 2003: $2,223;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,377;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,183; 
Fiscal year 2006: $1,966;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,188. 

Balcones Canyonlands NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,714;
Fiscal year 2003: $2,139;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,256;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,911;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,660;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,785. 

Balcones Canyonlands NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 14.6;
Fiscal year 2003: 16.0;
Fiscal year 2004: 14.1;
Fiscal year 2005: 13.9; 
Fiscal year 2006: 16.9;
Fiscal year 2007: 15.0. 

Bill Williams River NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $923;
Fiscal year 2003: $794;
Fiscal year 2004: $772;
Fiscal year 2005: $548; 
Fiscal year 2006: $579;
Fiscal year 2007: $628. 

Bill Williams River NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $923;
Fiscal year 2003: $764;
Fiscal year 2004: $705;
Fiscal year 2005: $480;
Fiscal year 2006: $489;
Fiscal year 2007: $512. 

Bill Williams River NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 3.7;
Fiscal year 2003: 4.9;
Fiscal year 2004: 5.7;
Fiscal year 2005: 6.2; 
Fiscal year 2006: 6.2;
Fiscal year 2007: 5.4. 

Bitter Lake NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,114;
Fiscal year 2003: $808;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,006;
Fiscal year 2005: $701; 
Fiscal year 2006: $862;
Fiscal year 2007: $852. 

Bitter Lake NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,114;
Fiscal year 2003: $778;
Fiscal year 2004: $918;
Fiscal year 2005: $614; 
Fiscal year 2006: $728;
Fiscal year 2007: $695. 

Bitter Lake NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 11.9;
Fiscal year 2003: 8.9;
Fiscal year 2004: 9.2;
Fiscal year 2005: 7.7;
Fiscal year 2006: 8.7;
Fiscal year 2007: 7.0. 

Bosque Del Apache NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,289;
Fiscal year 2003: $2,724;
Fiscal year 2004: $3,880;
Fiscal year 2005: $3,277; 
Fiscal year 2006: $4,520;
Fiscal year 2007: $4,015. 

Bosque Del Apache NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,289;
Fiscal year 2003: $2,621;
Fiscal year 2004: $3,541;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,869; 
Fiscal year 2006: $3,816;
Fiscal year 2007: $3,275. 

Bosque Del Apache NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 21.2;
Fiscal year 2003: 27.6;
Fiscal year 2004: 37.4;
Fiscal year 2005: 29.2; 
Fiscal year 2006: 37.4;
Fiscal year 2007: 35.1. 

Buenos Aires NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,943;
Fiscal year 2003: $2,114;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,317;
Fiscal year 2005: $3,160; 
Fiscal year 2006: $3,232;
Fiscal year 2007: $3,146. 

Buenos Aires NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,943;
Fiscal year 2003: $2,035;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,115;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,767;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,728;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,566. 

Buenos Aires NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 23.3;
Fiscal year 2003: 23.7;
Fiscal year 2004: 24.2;
Fiscal year 2005: 32.5; 
Fiscal year 2006: 30.5;
Fiscal year 2007: 25.2. 

Buffalo Lake NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $383;
Fiscal year 2003: $462;
Fiscal year 2004: $492;
Fiscal year 2005: $390; 
Fiscal year 2006: $374;
Fiscal year 2007: $463. 

Buffalo Lake NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $383;
Fiscal year 2003: $444;
Fiscal year 2004: $449;
Fiscal year 2005: $342;
Fiscal year 2006: $315;
Fiscal year 2007: $377. 

Buffalo Lake NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 4.9;
Fiscal year 2003: 5.0;
Fiscal year 2004: 5.4;
Fiscal year 2005: 5.2; 
Fiscal year 2006: 4.1;
Fiscal year 2007: 4.1. 

Cabeza Prieta NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $923;
Fiscal year 2003: $1,190;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,243;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,255; 
Fiscal year 2006: $1,214; 
Fiscal year 2007: $1,541. 

Cabeza Prieta NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $923;
Fiscal year 2003: $1,145;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,134;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,099;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,025;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,257. 

Cabeza Prieta NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 9.0;
Fiscal year 2003: 11.1;
Fiscal year 2004: 11.4;
Fiscal year 2005: 11.0; 
Fiscal year 2006: 11.0;
Fiscal year 2007: 10.6. 

Caddo Lake NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $95;
Fiscal year 2003: $141;
Fiscal year 2004: $148;
Fiscal year 2005: $242; 
Fiscal year 2006: $283;
Fiscal year 2007: $299. 

Caddo Lake NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $95;
Fiscal year 2003: $136;
Fiscal year 2004: $135;
Fiscal year 2005: $212; 
Fiscal year 2006: $239;
Fiscal year 2007: $244. 

Caddo Lake NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 0.7;
Fiscal year 2003: 1.0;
Fiscal year 2004: 1.0;
Fiscal year 2005: 2.3; 
Fiscal year 2006: 2.3;
Fiscal year 2007: 3.0. 

Cibola NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $997;
Fiscal year 2003: $1,418;
Fiscal year 2004: $921;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,675; 
Fiscal year 2006: $1,021;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,640. 

Cibola NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $997;
Fiscal year 2003: $1,364;
Fiscal year 2004: $841;
Fiscal year 2005: 1,467; 
Fiscal year 2006: $862;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,338. 

Cibola NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 7.0;
Fiscal year 2003: 6.1;
Fiscal year 2004: 6.9;
Fiscal year 2005: 7.5; 
Fiscal year 2006: 5.8;
Fiscal year 2007: 6.0. 

Deep Fork NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $445;
Fiscal year 2003: $414;
Fiscal year 2004: $428;
Fiscal year 2005: $529; 
Fiscal year 2006: $715;
Fiscal year 2007: $581. 

Deep Fork NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $445;
Fiscal year 2003: $398;
Fiscal year 2004: $391;
Fiscal year 2005: $463; 
Fiscal year 2006: $604;
Fiscal year 2007: $474. 

Deep Fork NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 4.3;
Fiscal year 2003: 3.6;
Fiscal year 2004: 4.7;
Fiscal year 2005: 4.2; 
Fiscal year 2006: 5.4;
Fiscal year 2007: 5.2. 

Hagerman NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $452;
Fiscal year 2003: $978;
Fiscal year 2004: $986;
Fiscal year 2005: $599; 
Fiscal year 2006: $604;
Fiscal year 2007: $711. 

Hagerman NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $452;
Fiscal year 2003: $941;
Fiscal year 2004: $900;
Fiscal year 2005: $524; 
Fiscal year 2006: $510;
Fiscal year 2007: $580. 

Hagerman NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 7.6;
Fiscal year 2003: 5.8;
Fiscal year 2004: 6.2;
Fiscal year 2005: 6.7; 
Fiscal year 2006: 5.9;
Fiscal year 2007: 5.9. 

Havasu NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,238;
Fiscal year 2003: $2,062;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,294;
Fiscal year 2005: $822; 
Fiscal year 2006: $984;
Fiscal year 2007: $827. 

Havasu NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,238;
Fiscal year 2003: $1,984;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,181;
Fiscal year 2005: $720; 
Fiscal year 2006: $831;
Fiscal year 2007: $674. 

Havasu NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 12.7;
Fiscal year 2003: 16.2;
Fiscal year 2004: 14.8;
Fiscal year 2005: 8.1; 
Fiscal year 2006: 7.3;
Fiscal year 2007: 7.6. 

Imperial NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,003;
Fiscal year 2003: $958;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,199;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,369; 
Fiscal year 2006: $840;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,404. 

Imperial NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,003;
Fiscal year 2003: $922;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,095;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,199; 
Fiscal year 2006: $709;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,145. 

Imperial NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 7.5;
Fiscal year 2003: 7.4;
Fiscal year 2004: 7.4;
Fiscal year 2005: 9.7; 
Fiscal year 2006: 7.2;
Fiscal year 2007: 7.2. 

Kofa NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $561;
Fiscal year 2003: $644;
Fiscal year 2004: $747;
Fiscal year 2005: $701; 
Fiscal year 2006: $1,489;
Fiscal year 2007: $796. 

Kofa NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $561;
Fiscal year 2003: $620;
Fiscal year 2004: $681;
Fiscal year 2005: $614; 
Fiscal year 2006: $1,257;
Fiscal year 2007: $649. 

Kofa NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 6.1;
Fiscal year 2003: 7.0;
Fiscal year 2004: 6.7;
Fiscal year 2005: 7.0;
Fiscal year 2006: 7.8;
Fiscal year 2007: 6.5. 

Las Vegas NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $543;
Fiscal year 2003: $614;
Fiscal year 2004: $643;
Fiscal year 2005: $503; 
Fiscal year 2006: $454;
Fiscal year 2007: $467. 

Las Vegas NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $543;
Fiscal year 2003: $591;
Fiscal year 2004: $587;
Fiscal year 2005: $440; 
Fiscal year 2006: $383;
Fiscal year 2007: $381. 

Las Vegas NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 4.4;
Fiscal year 2003: 5.9;
Fiscal year 2004: 5.9;
Fiscal year 2005: 5.6; 
Fiscal year 2006: 4.9;
Fiscal year 2007: 4.6. 

Little River NWR – Little River NWR and Little Sandy NWR, Funding, 
nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $325;
Fiscal year 2003: $331;
Fiscal year 2004: $611;
Fiscal year 2005: $545; 
Fiscal year 2006: $486;
Fiscal year 2007: $500. 

Little River NWR – Little River NWR and Little Sandy NWR, Funding, 
inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $325;
Fiscal year 2003: $319;
Fiscal year 2004: $557;
Fiscal year 2005: $477; 
Fiscal year 2006: $410;
Fiscal year 2007: $408. 

Little River NWR – Little River NWR and Little Sandy NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 3.5;
Fiscal year 2003: 3.9;
Fiscal year 2004: 4.4;
Fiscal year 2005: 4.4; 
Fiscal year 2006: 5.1;
Fiscal year 2007: 4.9. 

Maxwell NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $352;
Fiscal year 2003: $356;
Fiscal year 2004: $366;
Fiscal year 2005: $345; 
Fiscal year 2006: $320;
Fiscal year 2007: $312. 

Maxwell NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $352;
Fiscal year 2003: $342;
Fiscal year 2004: $334;
Fiscal year 2005: $302; 
Fiscal year 2006: $270;
Fiscal year 2007: $254. 

Maxwell NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 2.3;
Fiscal year 2003: 3.8;
Fiscal year 2004: 4.2;
Fiscal year 2005: 3.4; 
Fiscal year 2006: 3.0;
Fiscal year 2007: 2.9. 

Muleshoe NWR – Grulla NWR and Muleshoe NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $234;
Fiscal year 2003: $258;
Fiscal year 2004: $303;
Fiscal year 2005: $272;
Fiscal year 2006: $370;
Fiscal year 2007: $269. 

Muleshoe NWR – Grulla NWR and Muleshoe NWR, Funding, inflation-
adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $234;
Fiscal year 2003: $248;
Fiscal year 2004: $276;
Fiscal year 2005: $238; 
Fiscal year 2006: $312;
Fiscal year 2007: $220. 

Muleshoe NWR – Grulla NWR and Muleshoe NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 3.7;
Fiscal year 2003: 3.4;
Fiscal year 2004: 3.9;
Fiscal year 2005: 3.0; 
Fiscal year 2006: 3.1;
Fiscal year 2007: 3.2. 

Salt Plains NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $757;
Fiscal year 2003: $856;
Fiscal year 2004: $852;
Fiscal year 2005: $906; 
Fiscal year 2006: $1,015;
Fiscal year 2007: $886. 

Salt Plains NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $757;
Fiscal year 2003: $824;
Fiscal year 2004: $778;
Fiscal year 2005: $793;
Fiscal year 2006: $857;
Fiscal year 2007: $723. 

Salt Plains NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 8.8;
Fiscal year 2003: 9.8;
Fiscal year 2004: 9.7;
Fiscal year 2005: 9.7; 
Fiscal year 2006: 9.2;
Fiscal year 2007: 9.8. 

San Andres NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $432;
Fiscal year 2003: $494;
Fiscal year 2004: $492;
Fiscal year 2005: $428; 
Fiscal year 2006: $554;
Fiscal year 2007: $432. 

San Andres NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $432;
Fiscal year 2003: $475;
Fiscal year 2004: $449;
Fiscal year 2005: $375; 
Fiscal year 2006: $468;
Fiscal year 2007: $352. 

San Andres NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 4.4;
Fiscal year 2003: 4.1;
Fiscal year 2004: 4.0;
Fiscal year 2005: 3.9; 
Fiscal year 2006: 3.6;
Fiscal year 2007: 3.8. 

San Bernardino NWR – Leslie Canyon NWR and San Bernardino NWR, Funding, 
nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $474;
Fiscal year 2003: $740;
Fiscal year 2004: $539;
Fiscal year 2005: $875;
Fiscal year 2006: $725;
Fiscal year 2007: $698. 

San Bernardino NWR – Leslie Canyon NWR and San Bernardino NWR, Funding, 
inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $474;
Fiscal year 2003: $712;
Fiscal year 2004: $492;
Fiscal year 2005: $766; 
Fiscal year 2006: $612;
Fiscal year 2007: $569. 

San Bernardino NWR – Leslie Canyon NWR and San Bernardino NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 5.3;
Fiscal year 2003: 7.1;
Fiscal year 2004: 5.9;
Fiscal year 2005: 5.9; 
Fiscal year 2006: 5.6;
Fiscal year 2007: 5.5. 

Sequoyah NWR – Ozark Plateau NWR and Sequoyah NWR, Funding, nominal 
dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $716;
Fiscal year 2003: $954;
Fiscal year 2004: $980;
Fiscal year 2005: $898; 
Fiscal year 2006: $1,044;
Fiscal year 2007: $935. 

Sequoyah NWR – Ozark Plateau NWR and Sequoyah NWR, Funding, inflation-
adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $716;
Fiscal year 2003: $918;
Fiscal year 2004: $894;
Fiscal year 2005: $786; 
Fiscal year 2006: $881;
Fiscal year 2007: $762. 

Sequoyah NWR – Ozark Plateau NWR and Sequoyah NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 8.9;
Fiscal year 2003: 10.1;
Fiscal year 2004: 9.4;
Fiscal year 2005: 9.8; 
Fiscal year 2006: 10.2;
Fiscal year 2007: 9.4. 

Sevilleta NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,193;
Fiscal year 2003: $1,387;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,149;
Fiscal year 2005: $811;
Fiscal year 2006: $803;
Fiscal year 2007: $912. 

Sevilleta NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,193;
Fiscal year 2003: $1,335;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,049;
Fiscal year 2005: $710; 
Fiscal year 2006: $678;
Fiscal year 2007: $744. 

Sevilleta NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 11.4;
Fiscal year 2003: 8.5;
Fiscal year 2004: 8.8;
Fiscal year 2005: 8.3; 
Fiscal year 2006: 9.3;
Fiscal year 2007: 8.3. 

South Texas Refuges Complex – Laguna Atascosa NWR, Lower Rio Grande 
Valley NWR, and Santa Ana NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $5,241;
Fiscal year 2003: $5,645;
Fiscal year 2004: $5,770;
Fiscal year 2005: $6,583; 
Fiscal year 2006: $5,978;
Fiscal year 2007: $6,755. 

South Texas Refuges Complex – Laguna Atascosa NWR, Lower Rio Grande 
Valley NWR, and Santa Ana NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $5,241;
Fiscal year 2003: $5,432;
Fiscal year 2004: $5,266;
Fiscal year 2005: $5,763; 
Fiscal year 2006: $5,047;
Fiscal year 2007: $5,510. 

South Texas Refuges Complex – Laguna Atascosa NWR, Lower Rio Grande 
Valley NWR, and Santa Ana NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 63.0;
Fiscal year 2003: 63.0;
Fiscal year 2004: 64.3;
Fiscal year 2005: 65.9; 
Fiscal year 2006: 60.8;
Fiscal year 2007: 58.0. 

Texas Chenier Plain Refuges Complex – Anahuac NWR, McFaddin NWR, Moody, 
NWR, and Texas Point NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,866;
Fiscal year 2003: $4,617;
Fiscal year 2004: $3,834;
Fiscal year 2005: $3,813; 
Fiscal year 2006: $3,426;
Fiscal year 2007: $4,280. 

Texas Chenier Plain Refuges Complex – Anahuac NWR, McFaddin NWR, Moody, 
NWR, and Texas Point NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,866;
Fiscal year 2003: $4,443;
Fiscal year 2004: $3,499;
Fiscal year 2005: $3,339; 
Fiscal year 2006: $2,892;
Fiscal year 2007: $3,491. 

Texas Chenier Plain Refuges Complex – Anahuac NWR, McFaddin NWR, Moody, 
NWR, and Texas Point NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 27.9;
Fiscal year 2003: 30.1;
Fiscal year 2004: 30.3;
Fiscal year 2005: 31.1;
Fiscal year 2006: 30.9;
Fiscal year 2007: 29.7. 

Texas Midcoast Refuges Complex – Big Boggy NWR, Brazoria NWR, and San 
Bernard NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,424;
Fiscal year 2003: $3,436;
Fiscal year 2004: $3,331;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,862;
Fiscal year 2006: $3,169;
Fiscal year 2007: $3,693. 

Texas Midcoast Refuges Complex – Big Boggy NWR, Brazoria NWR, and San 
Bernard NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,424; 
Fiscal year 2003: $3,307;
Fiscal year 2004: $3,040;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,506;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,675;
Fiscal year 2007: $3,012. 

Texas Midcoast Refuges Complex – Big Boggy NWR, Brazoria NWR, and San 
Bernard NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 27.6; 
Fiscal year 2003: 31.7;
Fiscal year 2004: 31.5;
Fiscal year 2005: 30.6;
Fiscal year 2006: 26.5;
Fiscal year 2007: 25.2. 

Tishomingo NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $734; 
Fiscal year 2003: $853;
Fiscal year 2004: $471;
Fiscal year 2005: $817;
Fiscal year 2006: $818;
Fiscal year 2007: $683. 

Tishomingo NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $734;
Fiscal year 2003: $821;
Fiscal year 2004: $430;
Fiscal year 2005: $715;
Fiscal year 2006: $691;
Fiscal year 2007: $557. 

Tishomingo NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 5.7; 
Fiscal year 2003: 7.1;
Fiscal year 2004: 5.8;
Fiscal year 2005: 7.1;
Fiscal year 2006: 8.7;
Fiscal year 2007: 7.8. 

Trinity River NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $406; 
Fiscal year 2003: $497;
Fiscal year 2004: $426;
Fiscal year 2005: $428;
Fiscal year 2006: $580;
Fiscal year 2007: $580. 

Trinity River NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $406; 
Fiscal year 2003: $478;
Fiscal year 2004: $388;
Fiscal year 2005: $375;
Fiscal year 2006: $490;
Fiscal year 2007: $473. 

Trinity River NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 2.3; 
Fiscal year 2003: 4.4;
Fiscal year 2004: 5.2;
Fiscal year 2005: 4.5;
Fiscal year 2006: 5.8;
Fiscal year 2007: 6.0. 

Washita NWR – Optima NWR and Washita NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $541; 
Fiscal year 2003: $570;
Fiscal year 2004: $532;
Fiscal year 2005: $567;
Fiscal year 2006: $620;
Fiscal year 2007: $573. 

Washita NWR – Optima NWR and Washita NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $541; 
Fiscal year 2003: $549;
Fiscal year 2004: $486;
Fiscal year 2005: $496;
Fiscal year 2006: $524;
Fiscal year 2007: $467. 

Washita NWR – Optima NWR and Washita NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 6.6; 
Fiscal year 2003: 5.8;
Fiscal year 2004: 6.9;
Fiscal year 2005: 7.9;
Fiscal year 2006: 7.2;
Fiscal year 2007: 7.7. 

Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,774; 
Fiscal year 2003: $3,112;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,866;
Fiscal year 2005: $3,013;
Fiscal year 2006: $3,229;
Fiscal year 2007: $3,619. 

Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,774; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,995;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,615;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,638;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,726;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,952. 

Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 37.9; 
Fiscal year 2003: 39.2;
Fiscal year 2004: 37.3;
Fiscal year 2005: 37.3;
Fiscal year 2006: 38.9;
Fiscal year 2007: 37.0. 

Total, FWS Region 3, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $42,409; 
Fiscal year 2003: $48,931;
Fiscal year 2004: $49,839;
Fiscal year 2005: $50,991;
Fiscal year 2006: $53,845;
Fiscal year 2007: $54,225. 

Total, FWS Region 3, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $42,409; 
Fiscal year 2003: $47,086;
Fiscal year 2004: $45,482;
Fiscal year 2005: $44,644;
Fiscal year 2006: $45,457;
Fiscal year 2007: $44,228. 

Total, FWS Region 3, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 401.4; 
Fiscal year 2003: 446.9;
Fiscal year 2004: 476.2;
Fiscal year 2005: 472.0;
Fiscal year 2006: 490.4;
Fiscal year 2007: 480.7. 

Region 3, NWRS offices, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $4,969; 
Fiscal year 2003: $5,943;
Fiscal year 2004: v6,151;
Fiscal year 2005: v6,238;
Fiscal year 2006: $8,095;
Fiscal year 2007: $7,706. 

Region 3, NWRS offices, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $4,969; 
Fiscal year 2003: $5,719;
Fiscal year 2004: $5,614;
Fiscal year 2005: $5,462;
Fiscal year 2006: $6,834;
Fiscal year 2007: $6,285. 

Region 3, NWRS offices, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 34.6; 
Fiscal year 2003: 42.8;
Fiscal year 2004: 44.8;
Fiscal year 2005: 46.7;
Fiscal year 2006: 56.4;
Fiscal year 2007: 62.5. 

Agassiz NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,025; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,078;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,229;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,505;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,616;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,304. 

Agassiz NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,025; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,037;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,122;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,317;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,365;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,064. 

Agassiz NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 10.4; 
Fiscal year 2003: 11.8;
Fiscal year 2004: 12.3;
Fiscal year 2005: 12.0;
Fiscal year 2006: 12.6;
Fiscal year 2007: 12.8. 

Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $608; 
Fiscal year 2003: $543;
Fiscal year 2004: $598;
Fiscal year 2005: $626;
Fiscal year 2006: $736;
Fiscal year 2007: $714. 

Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge, Funding, inflation-
adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $608; 
Fiscal year 2003: $523;
Fiscal year 2004: $546;
Fiscal year 2005: $548;
Fiscal year 2006: $621;
Fiscal year 2007: $582. 

Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 4.5; 
Fiscal year 2003: 5.1;
Fiscal year 2004: 6.0;
Fiscal year 2005: 5.0;
Fiscal year 2006: 6.4;
Fiscal year 2007: 6.5. 

Big Oaks NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $852; 
Fiscal year 2003: $835;
Fiscal year 2004: $739;
Fiscal year 2005: $860;
Fiscal year 2006: $765;
Fiscal year 2007: $782. 

Big Oaks NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $852; 
Fiscal year 2003: $803;
Fiscal year 2004: $674;
Fiscal year 2005: $753;
Fiscal year 2006: $646;
Fiscal year 2007: $638. 

Big Oaks NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 7.1;
Fiscal year 2003: 8.7;
Fiscal year 2004: 6.6;
Fiscal year 2005: 7.5;
Fiscal year 2006: 8.9;
Fiscal year 2007: 8.3. 

Big Stone NWR – Big Stone NWR, Big Stone WMD, and Northern Tallgrass 
Prairie NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $979; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,082;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,345;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,271;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,532;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,121. 

Big Stone NWR – Big Stone NWR, Big Stone WMD, and Northern Tallgrass 
Prairie NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $979;
Fiscal year 2003: $1,041;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,227;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,113;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,293;
Fiscal year 2007: $915. 

Big Stone NWR – Big Stone NWR, Big Stone WMD, and Northern Tallgrass 
Prairie NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 8.7; 
Fiscal year 2003: 10.9;
Fiscal year 2004: 12.1;
Fiscal year 2005: 11.6;
Fiscal year 2006: 10.7;
Fiscal year 2007: 11.4. 

Crab Orchard NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,062;
Fiscal year 2003: $1,715;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,557;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,710;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,247;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,219. 

Crab Orchard NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,062; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,651;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,334;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,497;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,897;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,810. 

Crab Orchard NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 20.6; 
Fiscal year 2003: 19.6;
Fiscal year 2004: 19.6;
Fiscal year 2005: 20.5;
Fiscal year 2006: 22.5;
Fiscal year 2007: 21.4. 

Cypress Creek NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $680; 
Fiscal year 2003: $716;
Fiscal year 2004: $888;
Fiscal year 2005: $759;
Fiscal year 2006: $589;
Fiscal year 2007: $674. 

Cypress Creek NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $680; 
Fiscal year 2003: $689;
Fiscal year 2004: $810;
Fiscal year 2005: $665;
Fiscal year 2006: $497;
Fiscal year 2007: $550. 

Cypress Creek NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 6.9; 
Fiscal year 2003: 6.9;
Fiscal year 2004: 8.1;
Fiscal year 2005: 7.8;
Fiscal year 2006: 6.7;
Fiscal year 2007: 6.1. 

Desoto NWR – Desoto NWR and Boyer Chute NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,754; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,224;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,043;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,177;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,853;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,162. 

Desoto NWR – Desoto NWR and Boyer Chute NWR, Funding, inflation-
adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,754; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,140;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,864;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,906;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,564;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,763. 

Desoto NWR – Desoto NWR and Boyer Chute NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 19.9; 
Fiscal year 2003: 21.2;
Fiscal year 2004: 23.7;
Fiscal year 2005: 23.3;
Fiscal year 2006: 23.2;
Fiscal year 2007: 17.9. 

Detroit Lakes WMD – Detroit Lakes WMD and Hamden Slough NWR, Funding, 
nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,497; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,426;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,435;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,711;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,652;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,767. 

Detroit Lakes WMD – Detroit Lakes WMD and Hamden Slough NWR, Funding, 
inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,497; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,373;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,310;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,498;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,395;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,442. 

Detroit Lakes WMD – Detroit Lakes WMD and Hamden Slough NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 15.1; 
Fiscal year 2003: 17.8;
Fiscal year 2004: 17.8;
Fiscal year 2005: 17.1;
Fiscal year 2006: 16.9;
Fiscal year 2007: 17.2. 

Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: 0; 
Fiscal year 2003: $56;
Fiscal year 2004: $77;
Fiscal year 2005: $273;
Fiscal year 2006: $290;
Fiscal year 2007: $316. 

Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge, Funding, inflation-
adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: 0; 
Fiscal year 2003: $54;
Fiscal year 2004: $70;
Fiscal year 2005: $239;
Fiscal year 2006: $245;
Fiscal year 2007: $258. 

Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 0;
Fiscal year 2003: 0;
Fiscal year 2004: 0.6;
Fiscal year 2005: 1.2;
Fiscal year 2006: 2.0;
Fiscal year 2007: 2.1. 

Fergus Falls WMD, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,449; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,745;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,716;
Fiscal year 2005: $3,739;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,466;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,686. 

Fergus Falls WMD, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,449; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,679;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,566;
Fiscal year 2005: $3,274;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,082;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,375. 

Fergus Falls WMD, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 18.3;
Fiscal year 2003: 21.0;
Fiscal year 2004: 23.1;
Fiscal year 2005: 20.7;
Fiscal year 2006: 22.9;
Fiscal year 2007: 17.1. 

Horicon NWR – Fox River NWR, Gravel Island NWR, Green Bay NWR, and 
Horicon NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,018;
Fiscal year 2003: $923;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,081;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,183;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,413;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,087. 

Horicon NWR – Fox River NWR, Gravel Island NWR, Green Bay NWR, and 
Horicon NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,018; 
Fiscal year 2003: $888;
Fiscal year 2004: $987;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,035;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,193;
Fiscal year 2007: $887. 

Horicon NWR – Fox River NWR, Gravel Island NWR, Green Bay NWR, and 
Horicon NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 9.5; 
Fiscal year 2003: 9.4;
Fiscal year 2004: 11.3;
Fiscal year 2005: 10.6;
Fiscal year 2006: 11.9;
Fiscal year 2007: 11.7. 

Illinois River NWR Complex – Chautauqua NWR, Emiquon NWR, and Meredosia 
NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $604; 
Fiscal year 2003: $760;
Fiscal year 2004: $629;
Fiscal year 2005: $747;
Fiscal year 2006: $569;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,227. 

Illinois River NWR Complex – Chautauqua NWR, Emiquon NWR, and Meredosia 
NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $604; 
Fiscal year 2003: $731;
Fiscal year 2004: $574;
Fiscal year 2005: $654;
Fiscal year 2006: $481;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,001. 

Illinois River NWR Complex – Chautauqua NWR, Emiquon NWR, and Meredosia 
NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 6.2; 
Fiscal year 2003: 6.7;
Fiscal year 2004: 6.8;
Fiscal year 2005: 5.8;
Fiscal year 2006: 5.8;
Fiscal year 2007: 6.1. 

Leopold WMD, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $721; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,103;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,055;
Fiscal year 2005: $848;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,210;
Fiscal year 2007: $682. 

Leopold WMD, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $721; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,062;
Fiscal year 2004: $963;
Fiscal year 2005: $743;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,022;
Fiscal year 2007: $556. 

Leopold WMD, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 7.4; 
Fiscal year 2003: 8.9; 
Fiscal year 2004: 9.7; 
Fiscal year 2005: 8.7; 
Fiscal year 2006: 10.6; 
Fiscal year 2007: 7.8. 

Litchfield WMD, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,177; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,016;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,131;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,225;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,381;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,400. 

Litchfield WMD, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,177; 
Fiscal year 2003: $978;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,032;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,073;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,166;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,142. 

Litchfield WMD, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 12.2; 
Fiscal year 2003: 12.9;
Fiscal year 2004: 14.0;
Fiscal year 2005: 14.9;
Fiscal year 2006: 15.3;
Fiscal year 2007: 15.7. 

Mark Twain NWR Complex – Port Louisa NWR, Clarence Cannon NWR, Great 
River NWR, Middle Mississippi River NWR, and Two Rivers NWR, Funding, 
nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,826; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,337;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,534;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,725;
Fiscal year 2006: v2,765;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,944. 

Mark Twain NWR Complex – Port Louisa NWR, Clarence Cannon NWR, Great 
River NWR, Middle Mississippi River NWR, and Two Rivers NWR, Funding, 
inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,826; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,249;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,312;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,386;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,335;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,401. 

Mark Twain NWR Complex – Port Louisa NWR, Clarence Cannon NWR, Great 
River NWR, Middle Mississippi River NWR, and Two Rivers NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 17.6; 
Fiscal year 2003: 19.5;
Fiscal year 2004: 22.8;
Fiscal year 2005: 22.9;
Fiscal year 2006: 22.9;
Fiscal year 2007: 23.5. 

Mingo NWR – Mingo NWR, Ozark Cavefish NWR, and Pilot Knob NWR, Funding, 
nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $835; 
Fiscal year 2003: $922;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,175;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,063;
Fiscal year 2006: $874;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,260. 

Mingo NWR – Mingo NWR, Ozark Cavefish NWR, and Pilot Knob NWR, Funding, 
inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $835; 
Fiscal year 2003: $887;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,072;
Fiscal year 2005: $931;
Fiscal year 2006: $738;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,028. 

Mingo NWR – Mingo NWR, Ozark Cavefish NWR, and Pilot Knob NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 9.5; 
Fiscal year 2003: 9.6;
Fiscal year 2004: 12.0;
Fiscal year 2005: 11.0;
Fiscal year 2006: 9.0;
Fiscal year 2007: 11.0. 

Minnesota Valley NWR – Minnesota Valley NWR and Minnesota Valley WMD, 
Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,739; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,792;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,534;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,449;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,397;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,937. 

Minnesota Valley NWR – Minnesota Valley NWR and Minnesota Valley WMD, 
Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,739; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,687;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,313;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,144;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,023;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,580. 

Minnesota Valley NWR – Minnesota Valley NWR and Minnesota Valley WMD, 
FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 18.8; 
Fiscal year 2003: 18.5;
Fiscal year 2004: 20.5;
Fiscal year 2005: 20.9;
Fiscal year 2006: 19.4;
Fiscal year 2007: 18.4. 

Morris WMD, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,460; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,744;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,292;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,263;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,370;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,510. 

Morris WMD, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,460; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,678;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,179;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,105;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,156;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,232. 

Morris WMD, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 14.4; 
Fiscal year 2003: 16.4;
Fiscal year 2004: 15.1;
Fiscal year 2005: 15.6;
Fiscal year 2006: 15.2;
Fiscal year 2007: 15.5. 

Muscatatuck NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $762; 
Fiscal year 2003: $784;
Fiscal year 2004: $670;
Fiscal year 2005: $788;
Fiscal year 2006: $723;
Fiscal year 2007: $585. 

Muscatatuck NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $762;
Fiscal year 2003: $755;
Fiscal year 2004: $611;
Fiscal year 2005: $690;
Fiscal year 2006: $610;
Fiscal year 2007: $477. 

Muscatatuck NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 7.6; 
Fiscal year 2003: 7.1;
Fiscal year 2004: 6.3;
Fiscal year 2005: 5.8;
Fiscal year 2006: 6.2;
Fiscal year 2007: 6.0. 

Neal Smith NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,490; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,341;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,432;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,478;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,158;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,416. 

Neal Smith NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,490; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,290;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,306;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,294;
Fiscal year 2006: $977;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,155. 

Neal Smith NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 13.9; 
Fiscal year 2003: 15.6;
Fiscal year 2004: 18.0;
Fiscal year 2005: 17.5;
Fiscal year 2006: 15.3;
Fiscal year 2007: 14.3. 

Necedah NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,592; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,352;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,783;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,490;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,951;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,899. 

Necedah NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,592; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,301;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,627;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,304;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,647;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,549. 

Necedah NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 13.1; 
Fiscal year 2003: 15.7;
Fiscal year 2004: 17.2;
Fiscal year 2005: 15.7;
Fiscal year 2006: 14.5;
Fiscal year 2007: 15.3. 

Ottawa NWR – Cedar Point NWR, Michigan WMD, Ottawa NWR, and West Sister 
Island NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,106; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,224;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,292;
Fiscal year 2005: $866;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,819;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,553. 

Ottawa NWR – Cedar Point NWR, Michigan WMD, Ottawa NWR, and West Sister 
Island NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,106; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,177;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,179;
Fiscal year 2005: $758;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,535;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,267. 

Ottawa NWR – Cedar Point NWR, Michigan WMD, Ottawa NWR, and West Sister 
Island NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 8.9; 
Fiscal year 2003: 9.4;
Fiscal year 2004: 10.2;
Fiscal year 2005: 9.1;
Fiscal year 2006: 12.7;
Fiscal year 2007: 10.5. 

Patoka River NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $308; 
Fiscal year 2003: $308;
Fiscal year 2004: $327;
Fiscal year 2005: $411;
Fiscal year 2006: $373;
Fiscal year 2007: $404. 

Patoka River NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $308; 
Fiscal year 2003: $297;
Fiscal year 2004: $298;
Fiscal year 2005: $360;
Fiscal year 2006: $315;
Fiscal year 2007: $329. 

Patoka River NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 2.9;
Fiscal year 2003: 3.0;
Fiscal year 2004: 3.0;
Fiscal year 2005: 3.2;
Fiscal year 2006: 3.1;
Fiscal year 2007: 3.1. 

Rice Lake NWR – Mille Lacs NWR and Rice Lake NWR, Funding, nominal 
dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $618; 
Fiscal year 2003: $714;
Fiscal year 2004: $563;
Fiscal year 2005: $696;
Fiscal year 2006: $726;
Fiscal year 2007: $597. 

Rice Lake NWR – Mille Lacs NWR and Rice Lake NWR, Funding, inflation-
adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $618; 
Fiscal year 2003: $687;
Fiscal year 2004: $514;
Fiscal year 2005: $610;
Fiscal year 2006: $613;
Fiscal year 2007: $487. 

Rice Lake NWR – Mille Lacs NWR and Rice Lake NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 6.7; 
Fiscal year 2003: 7.0;
Fiscal year 2004: 6.5;
Fiscal year 2005: 6.3;
Fiscal year 2006: 6.2;
Fiscal year 2007: 6.0. 

Rydell NWR – Glacial Ridge NWR and Rydell NWR, Funding, nominal 
dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $346; 
Fiscal year 2003: $768;
Fiscal year 2004: $385;
Fiscal year 2005: $400;
Fiscal year 2006: $415;
Fiscal year 2007: $723. 

Rydell NWR – Glacial Ridge NWR and Rydell NWR, Funding, inflation-
adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $346; 
Fiscal year 2003: $739;
Fiscal year 2004: $352;
Fiscal year 2005: $351;
Fiscal year 2006: $350;
Fiscal year 2007: $590. 

Rydell NWR – Glacial Ridge NWR and Rydell NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 1.5; 
Fiscal year 2003: 3.3;
Fiscal year 2004: 3.5;
Fiscal year 2005: 4.6;
Fiscal year 2006: 5.5;
Fiscal year 2007: 4.3. 

Seney NWR – Harbor Island NWR, Huron NWR, Kirtlands Warbler WMA, and 
Seney NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $916; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,397;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,110;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,245;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,075;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,185. 

Seney NWR – Harbor Island NWR, Huron NWR, Kirtlands Warbler WMA, and 
Seney NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $916; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,345;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,013;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,090;
Fiscal year 2006: $907;
Fiscal year 2007: $966. 

Seney NWR – Harbor Island NWR, Huron NWR, Kirtlands Warbler WMA, and 
Seney NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 8.9; 
Fiscal year 2003: 12.3;
Fiscal year 2004: 12.3;
Fiscal year 2005: 11.4;
Fiscal year 2006: 10.9;
Fiscal year 2007: 12.3. 

Sherburne NWR – Crane Meadows NWR and Sherburne NWR, Funding, nominal 
dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,155; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,421;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,487;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,755;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,823;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,849. 

Sherburne NWR – Crane Meadows NWR and Sherburne NWR, Funding, inflation-
adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,155; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,368;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,357;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,536;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,539;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,508. 

Sherburne NWR – Crane Meadows NWR and Sherburne NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 13.1; 
Fiscal year 2003: 15.6;
Fiscal year 2004: 16.1;
Fiscal year 2005: 17.6;
Fiscal year 2006: 17.5;
Fiscal year 2007: 18.2. 

Shiawassee NWR – Michigan Islands NWR and Shiawassee NWR, Funding, 
nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $917; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,160;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,052;
Fiscal year 2005: v1,009;
Fiscal year 2006: $853;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,549. 

Shiawassee NWR – Michigan Islands NWR and Shiawassee NWR, Funding, 
inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $917;
Fiscal year 2003: $1,116;
Fiscal year 2004: v960;
Fiscal year 2005: $884;
Fiscal year 2006: $720;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,264. 

Shiawassee NWR – Michigan Islands NWR and Shiawassee NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 9.9; 
Fiscal year 2003: 9.9;
Fiscal year 2004: 8.5;
Fiscal year 2005: 8.9;
Fiscal year 2006: 8.2;
Fiscal year 2007: 7.4. 

Squaw Creek NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $664; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,327;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,021;
Fiscal year 2005: $830;
Fiscal year 2006: $759;
Fiscal year 2007: $876. 

Squaw Creek NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $664; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,277;
Fiscal year 2004: $932;
Fiscal year 2005: $727;
Fiscal year 2006: $641;
Fiscal year 2007: $714. 

Squaw Creek NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 8.0; 
Fiscal year 2003: 7.5;
Fiscal year 2004: 8.4;
Fiscal year 2005: 8.6;
Fiscal year 2006: 8.4;
Fiscal year 2007: 8.7. 

St. Croix WMD, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $498; 
Fiscal year 2003: $579;
Fiscal year 2004: $637;
Fiscal year 2005: $648;
Fiscal year 2006: $624;
Fiscal year 2007: $630. 

St. Croix WMD, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $498; 
Fiscal year 2003: $557;
Fiscal year 2004: $581;
Fiscal year 2005: $567;
Fiscal year 2006: $527;
Fiscal year 2007: $514. 

St. Croix WMD, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 4.7; 
Fiscal year 2003: 5.4;
Fiscal year 2004: 7.2;
Fiscal year 2005: 6.5;
Fiscal year 2006: 7.7;
Fiscal year 2007: 6.7. 

Swan Lake NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $540; 
Fiscal year 2003: $680;
Fiscal year 2004: $692;
Fiscal year 2005: $399;
Fiscal year 2006: $313;
Fiscal year 2007: $479. 

Swan Lake NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $540; 
Fiscal year 2003: $654;
Fiscal year 2004: $632;
Fiscal year 2005: $349;
Fiscal year 2006: $264;
Fiscal year 2007: $390. 

Swan Lake NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 5.3; 
Fiscal year 2003: 6.0;
Fiscal year 2004: 5.4;
Fiscal year 2005: 4.2;
Fiscal year 2006: 3.2;
Fiscal year 2007: 2.9. 

Tamarac NWR – Tamarac NWR and Tamarac WMD, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $702; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,035;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,011;
Fiscal year 2005: $869;
Fiscal year 2006: $744;
Fiscal year 2007: $761. 

Tamarac NWR – Tamarac NWR and Tamarac WMD, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $702; 
Fiscal year 2003: $996;
Fiscal year 2004: $923;
Fiscal year 2005: $760;
Fiscal year 2006: $628;
Fiscal year 2007: $621. 

Tamarac NWR – Tamarac NWR and Tamarac WMD, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 7.1; 
Fiscal year 2003: 7.8;
Fiscal year 2004: 8.0;
Fiscal year 2005: 8.6;
Fiscal year 2006: 8.9;
Fiscal year 2007: 8.4. 

Union Slough NWR – Iowa WMD and Union Slough NWR, Funding, nominal 
dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $567;
Fiscal year 2003: $450;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,103;
Fiscal year 2005: $809;
Fiscal year 2006: $968;
Fiscal year 2007: $771. 

Union Slough NWR – Iowa WMD and Union Slough NWR, Funding, inflation-
adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $567; 
Fiscal year 2003: $433;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,006;
Fiscal year 2005: $708;
Fiscal year 2006: $817;
Fiscal year 2007: $629. 

Union Slough NWR – Iowa WMD and Union Slough NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 5.3;
Fiscal year 2003: 4.7;
Fiscal year 2004: 4.4;
Fiscal year 2005: 6.2;
Fiscal year 2006: 7.2;
Fiscal year 2007: 7.3. 

Upper Mississippi River NWR – Driftless Area NWR, Trempealeau NWR, and 
Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge, Funding, 
nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $4,037; 
Fiscal year 2003: $4,148;
Fiscal year 2004: $3,843;
Fiscal year 2005: $3,814;
Fiscal year 2006: $4,525;
Fiscal year 2007: $4,478. 

Upper Mississippi River NWR – Driftless Area NWR, Trempealeau NWR, and 
Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge, Funding, 
inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $4,037; 
Fiscal year 2003: $3,991;
Fiscal year 2004: $3,507;
Fiscal year 2005: $3,340;
Fiscal year 2006: $3,820;
Fiscal year 2007: $3,653. 

Upper Mississippi River NWR – Driftless Area NWR, Trempealeau NWR, and 
Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 35.8; 
Fiscal year 2003: 38.7;
Fiscal year 2004: 42.1;
Fiscal year 2005: 40.4;
Fiscal year 2006: 42.1;
Fiscal year 2007: 43.0. 

Whittlesey Creek NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $123; 
Fiscal year 2003: $325;
Fiscal year 2004: $361;
Fiscal year 2005: $273;
Fiscal year 2006: $284;
Fiscal year 2007: $333. 

Whittlesey Creek NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $123; 
Fiscal year 2003: $313;
Fiscal year 2004: $329;
Fiscal year 2005: $239;
Fiscal year 2006: $239;
Fiscal year 2007: $271. 

Whittlesey Creek NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 1.3; 
Fiscal year 2003: 1.8;
Fiscal year 2004: 3.1;
Fiscal year 2005: 3.7;
Fiscal year 2006: 3.6;
Fiscal year 2007: 3.9. 

Windom WMD, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $812; 
Fiscal year 2003: $959;
Fiscal year 2004: $859;
Fiscal year 2005: $838;
Fiscal year 2006: $893;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,637. 

Windom WMD, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $812; 
Fiscal year 2003: $923;
Fiscal year 2004: $784;
Fiscal year 2005: $734;
Fiscal year 2006: $754;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,335. 

Windom WMD, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 6.2; 
Fiscal year 2003: 8.7;
Fiscal year 2004: 9.2;
Fiscal year 2005: 10.2;
Fiscal year 2006: 10.3;
Fiscal year 2007: 9.4. 

Total, FWS Region 4, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $73,973; 
Fiscal year 2003: $76,684;
Fiscal year 2004: $80,369;
Fiscal year 2005: $83,209;
Fiscal year 2006: v90,190;
Fiscal year 2007: $107,060. 

Total, FWS Region 4, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $73,973; 
Fiscal year 2003: $73,793;
Fiscal year 2004: $73,343;
Fiscal year 2005: $72,851;
Fiscal year 2006: $76,140;
Fiscal year 2007: $87,323. 

Total, FWS Region 4, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 684.1; 
Fiscal year 2003: 716.9;
Fiscal year 2004: 752.3;
Fiscal year 2005: 717.7;
Fiscal year 2006: 720.7;
Fiscal year 2007: 701.5. 

Region 4, NWRS offices, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $6,975; 
Fiscal year 2003: $8,244;
Fiscal year 2004: $10,469;
Fiscal year 2005: $12,250;
Fiscal year 2006: $12,541;
Fiscal year 2007: $12,603. 

Region 4, NWRS offices, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $6,975;
Fiscal year 2003: $7,933;
Fiscal year 2004: $9,554;
Fiscal year 2005: $10,725;
Fiscal year 2006: $10,588;
Fiscal year 2007: $10,280. 

Region 4, NWRS offices, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 45.3; 
Fiscal year 2003: 52.0;
Fiscal year 2004: 62.5;
Fiscal year 2005: 62.1;
Fiscal year 2006: 65.4;
Fiscal year 2007: 61.1. 

Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee NWR – Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee NWR 
and Hobe Sound NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,261; 
Fiscal year 2003: $3,159;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,801;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,366;
Fiscal year 2006: $3,496;
Fiscal year 2007: $3,639. 

Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee NWR – Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee NWR 
and Hobe Sound NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,261; 
Fiscal year 2003: $3,040;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,556;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,072;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,952;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,968. 

Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee NWR – Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee NWR 
and Hobe Sound NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 23.9;
Fiscal year 2003: 27.1;
Fiscal year 2004: 21.8;
Fiscal year 2005: 24.4;
Fiscal year 2006: 25.1;
Fiscal year 2007: 21.6. 

Bayou Cocodrie NWR – Bayou Cocodrie NWR and Tensas River NWR, Funding, 
nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,304; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,406;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,529;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,532;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,577;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,978. 

Bayou Cocodrie NWR – Bayou Cocodrie NWR and Tensas River NWR, Funding, 
inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,304; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,353;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,395;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,341;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,331;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,614. 

Bayou Cocodrie NWR – Bayou Cocodrie NWR and Tensas River NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 17.7; 
Fiscal year 2003: 18.6;
Fiscal year 2004: 18.4;
Fiscal year 2005: 17.6;
Fiscal year 2006: 17.1;
Fiscal year 2007: 15.7. 

Caribbean Islands Refuges Complex – Buck Island NWR, Cabo Rojo NWR, 
Culebra NWR, Desecheo NWR, Green Cay NWR, Laguna Cartagena NWR, Navassa 
Island NWR, Sandy Point NWR, and Vieques NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $945; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,253;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,714;
Fiscal year 2005: $3,201;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,700;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,682. 

Caribbean Islands Refuges Complex – Buck Island NWR, Cabo Rojo NWR, 
Culebra NWR, Desecheo NWR, Green Cay NWR, Laguna Cartagena NWR, Navassa 
Island NWR, Sandy Point NWR, and Vieques NWR, Funding, inflation-
adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $945; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,206;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,477;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,802;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,279;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,188. 

Caribbean Islands Refuges Complex – Buck Island NWR, Cabo Rojo NWR, 
Culebra NWR, Desecheo NWR, Green Cay NWR, Laguna Cartagena NWR, Navassa 
Island NWR, Sandy Point NWR, and Vieques NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 16.5; 
Fiscal year 2003: 13.7;
Fiscal year 2004: 32.9;
Fiscal year 2005: 27.8;
Fiscal year 2006: 29.0;
Fiscal year 2007: 28.0. 

Carolina Sandhills NWR – Carolina Sandhills NWR and Pee Dee NWR, 
Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,519; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,700;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,759;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,641;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,102;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,346. 

Carolina Sandhills NWR – Carolina Sandhills NWR and Pee Dee NWR, 
Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,519; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,636;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,605;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,437;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,774;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,914. 

Carolina Sandhills NWR – Carolina Sandhills NWR and Pee Dee NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 20.7; 
Fiscal year 2003: 18.9;
Fiscal year 2004: 18.7;
Fiscal year 2005: 18.0;
Fiscal year 2006: 18.8;
Fiscal year 2007: 16.2. 

Catahoula NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $466; 
Fiscal year 2003: $431;
Fiscal year 2004: $468;
Fiscal year 2005: $463;
Fiscal year 2006: $423;
Fiscal year 2007: $340. 

Catahoula NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $466; 
Fiscal year 2003: $415;
Fiscal year 2004: $427;
Fiscal year 2005: $405;
Fiscal year 2006: $357;
Fiscal year 2007: $278. 

Catahoula NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 3.3; 
Fiscal year 2003: 3.8;
Fiscal year 2004: 3.7;
Fiscal year 2005: 4.3;
Fiscal year 2006: 4.0;
Fiscal year 2007: 3.4. 

Central Arkansas Refuges Complex – Bald Knob NWR, Big Lake NWR, Cache 
River NWR, and Wapanocca NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,398; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,604;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,693;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,844;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,273;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,815. 

Central Arkansas Refuges Complex – Bald Knob NWR, Big Lake NWR, Cache 
River NWR, and Wapanocca NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,398; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,544;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,545;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,615;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,919;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,481. 

Central Arkansas Refuges Complex – Bald Knob NWR, Big Lake NWR, Cache 
River NWR, and Wapanocca NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 14.1; 
Fiscal year 2003: 14.1;
Fiscal year 2004: 14.8;
Fiscal year 2005: 14.4;
Fiscal year 2006: 15.9;
Fiscal year 2007: 15.2. 

Central Louisiana Refuges Complex – Grand Cote NWR and Lake Ophelia 
NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $988; 
Fiscal year 2003: $927;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,108;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,047;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,002;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,011. 

Central Louisiana Refuges Complex – Grand Cote NWR and Lake Ophelia 
NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $988;
Fiscal year 2003: $892;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,011;
Fiscal year 2005: $917;
Fiscal year 2006: $846;
Fiscal year 2007: $824. 

Central Louisiana Refuges Complex – Grand Cote NWR and Lake Ophelia 
NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 7.9; 
Fiscal year 2003: 9.5;
Fiscal year 2004: 9.8;
Fiscal year 2005: 8.8;
Fiscal year 2006: 8.5;
Fiscal year 2007: 7.3. 

Chassahowitzka NWR – Chassahowitzka NWR, Crystal River NWR, Egmont Key 
NWR, Passage Key NWR, and Pinellas NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $845; 
Fiscal year 2003: $650;
Fiscal year 2004: $732;
Fiscal year 2005: $863;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,031;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,089. 

Chassahowitzka NWR – Chassahowitzka NWR, Crystal River NWR, Egmont Key 
NWR, Passage Key NWR, and Pinellas NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $845; 
Fiscal year 2003: $626;
Fiscal year 2004: $668;
Fiscal year 2005: $756;
Fiscal year 2006: $870;
Fiscal year 2007: $889. 

Chassahowitzka NWR – Chassahowitzka NWR, Crystal River NWR, Egmont Key 
NWR, Passage Key NWR, and Pinellas NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 8.3; 
Fiscal year 2003: 7.5;
Fiscal year 2004: 7.4;
Fiscal year 2005: 8.6;
Fiscal year 2006: 10.1;
Fiscal year 2007: 9.7. 

Clarks River NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $741; 
Fiscal year 2003: $501;
Fiscal year 2004: $509;
Fiscal year 2005: $502;
Fiscal year 2006: $577;
Fiscal year 2007: $978. 

Clarks River NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $741; 
Fiscal year 2003: $482;
Fiscal year 2004: $464;
Fiscal year 2005: $440;
Fiscal year 2006: $487;
Fiscal year 2007: $798. 

Clarks River NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 3.7; 
Fiscal year 2003: 4.9;
Fiscal year 2004: 5.2;
Fiscal year 2005: 4.7;
Fiscal year 2006: 5.1;
Fiscal year 2007: 4.7. 

Eufaula NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $520; 
Fiscal year 2003: $855;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,472;
Fiscal year 2005: $566;
Fiscal year 2006: $967;
Fiscal year 2007: $932. 

Eufaula NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $520;
Fiscal year 2003: $823;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,343;
Fiscal year 2005: $496;
Fiscal year 2006: $817;
Fiscal year 2007: $760. 

Eufaula NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 7.2;
Fiscal year 2003: 7.9;
Fiscal year 2004: 7.4;
Fiscal year 2005: 6.8;
Fiscal year 2006: 6.7;
Fiscal year 2007: 6.3. 

Florida Panther NWR – Florida Panther NWR and Ten Thousand Islands NWR, 
Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,576;
Fiscal year 2003: $1,793;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,651;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,742;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,966;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,052. 

Florida Panther NWR – Florida Panther NWR and Ten Thousand Islands NWR, 
Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,576; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,725;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,507;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,525;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,659;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,674. 

Florida Panther NWR – Florida Panther NWR and Ten Thousand Islands NWR, 
FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 15.0; 
Fiscal year 2003: 17.3;
Fiscal year 2004: 15.6;
Fiscal year 2005: 15.0;
Fiscal year 2006: 17.2;
Fiscal year 2007: 18.0. 

Gulf Coast Refuges Complex – Bon Secour NWR, Grand Bay NWR, and 
Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,662; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,415;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,143;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,620;
Fiscal year 2006: $3,788;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,708. 

Gulf Coast Refuges Complex – Bon Secour NWR, Grand Bay NWR, and 
Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,662; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,324;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,956;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,294;
Fiscal year 2006: $3,198;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,209. 

Gulf Coast Refuges Complex – Bon Secour NWR, Grand Bay NWR, and 
Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 22.9; 
Fiscal year 2003: 23.1;
Fiscal year 2004: 22.5;
Fiscal year 2005: 22.3;
Fiscal year 2006: 23.9;
Fiscal year 2007: 22.8. 

Holla Bend NWR – Holla Bend NWR and Logan Cave NWR, Funding, nominal 
dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $348; 
Fiscal year 2003: $394;
Fiscal year 2004: $417;
Fiscal year 2005: $383;
Fiscal year 2006: $441;
Fiscal year 2007: $649. 

Holla Bend NWR – Holla Bend NWR and Logan Cave NWR, Funding, inflation-
adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $348; 
Fiscal year 2003: $379;
Fiscal year 2004: $380;
Fiscal year 2005: $335;
Fiscal year 2006: $372;
Fiscal year 2007: $529. 

Holla Bend NWR – Holla Bend NWR and Logan Cave NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 5.0;
Fiscal year 2003: 5.0;
Fiscal year 2004: 4.9;
Fiscal year 2005: 4.6;
Fiscal year 2006: 5.0;
Fiscal year 2007: 5.0. 

J.N. Ding Darling NWR – Caloosahatchee NWR, Island Bay NWR, J. N. Ding 
Darling NWR, Matlacha Pass NWR, and Pine Island NWR, Funding, nominal 
dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,194; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,827;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,754;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,792;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,879;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,701. 

J.N. Ding Darling NWR – Caloosahatchee NWR, Island Bay NWR, J. N. Ding 
Darling NWR, Matlacha Pass NWR, and Pine Island NWR, Funding, inflation-
adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,194; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,759;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,600;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,569;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,586;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,387. 

J.N. Ding Darling NWR – Caloosahatchee NWR, Island Bay NWR, J. N. Ding 
Darling NWR, Matlacha Pass NWR, and Pine Island NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 13.0;
Fiscal year 2003: 14.9;
Fiscal year 2004: 16.3;
Fiscal year 2005: 15.8;
Fiscal year 2006: 17.0;
Fiscal year 2007: 15.6. 

Lower Suwannee NWR – Cedar Keys NWR and Lower Suwannee NWR, Funding, 
nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $958; 
Fiscal year 2003: $975;
Fiscal year 2004: $872;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,092;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,027;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,131. 

Lower Suwannee NWR – Cedar Keys NWR and Lower Suwannee NWR, Funding, 
inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $958; 
Fiscal year 2003: $939;
Fiscal year 2004: $796;
Fiscal year 2005: $956;
Fiscal year 2006: $867;
Fiscal year 2007: v922. 

Lower Suwannee NWR – Cedar Keys NWR and Lower Suwannee NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 10.0; 
Fiscal year 2003: 12.1;
Fiscal year 2004: 12.5;
Fiscal year 2005: 10.5;
Fiscal year 2006: 10.5;
Fiscal year 2007: 7.5. 

Mattamuskeet NWR – Cedar Island NWR, Mattamuskeet NWR, and Swanquarter 
NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,180; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,463;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,131;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,129;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,928;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,283. 

Mattamuskeet NWR – Cedar Island NWR, Mattamuskeet NWR, and Swanquarter 
NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,180; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,408;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,032;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,864;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,628;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,047. 

Mattamuskeet NWR – Cedar Island NWR, Mattamuskeet NWR, and Swanquarter 
NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 10.6; 
Fiscal year 2003: 12.8;
Fiscal year 2004: 12.4;
Fiscal year 2005: 10.7;
Fiscal year 2006: 10.6;
Fiscal year 2007: 11.0. 

Merritt Island NWR – Archie Carr NWR, Lake Wales Ridge NWR, Lake 
Woodruff NWR, Merritt Island NWR, Pelican Island NWR, St. Johns NWR, 
Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $3,547;
Fiscal year 2003: $3,682;
Fiscal year 2004: $3,979;
Fiscal year 2005: $3,324;
Fiscal year 2006: $5,099;
Fiscal year 2007: $4,918. 

Merritt Island NWR – Archie Carr NWR, Lake Wales Ridge NWR, Lake 
Woodruff NWR, Merritt Island NWR, Pelican Island NWR, St. Johns NWR, 
Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $3,547; 
Fiscal year 2003: $3,543;
Fiscal year 2004: $3,631;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,910;
Fiscal year 2006: $4,305;
Fiscal year 2007: $4,011. 

Merritt Island NWR – Archie Carr NWR, Lake Wales Ridge NWR, Lake 
Woodruff NWR, Merritt Island NWR, Pelican Island NWR, St. Johns NWR, 
FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 38.4; 
Fiscal year 2003: 41.6;
Fiscal year 2004: 44.7;
Fiscal year 2005: 38.2;
Fiscal year 2006: 43.4;
Fiscal year 2007: 44.1. 

National Key Deer Refuge – Crocodile Lake NWR, Great White Heron NWR, 
Key West NWR, and National Key Deer Refuge, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,229; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,529;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,229;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,216;
Fiscal year 2006: $993;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,634. 

National Key Deer Refuge – Crocodile Lake NWR, Great White Heron NWR, 
Key West NWR, and National Key Deer Refuge, Funding, inflation-
adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,229; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,471;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,122;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,065;
Fiscal year 2006: $839;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,333. 

National Key Deer Refuge – Crocodile Lake NWR, Great White Heron NWR, 
Key West NWR, and National Key Deer Refuge, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 13.1;
Fiscal year 2003: 13.7;
Fiscal year 2004: 14.0;
Fiscal year 2005: 12.3;
Fiscal year 2006: 10.1;
Fiscal year 2007: 11.0. 

North Carolina Coastal Refuges Complex – Alligator River NWR, Currituck 
NWR, MacKay Island NWR, Pea Island NWR, Pocosin Lakes NWR, and Roanoke 
River NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $5,371; 
Fiscal year 2003: $6,381;
Fiscal year 2004: $5,306;
Fiscal year 2005: $5,269;
Fiscal year 2006: $5,855;
Fiscal year 2007: $5,924. 

North Carolina Coastal Refuges Complex – Alligator River NWR, Currituck 
NWR, MacKay Island NWR, Pea Island NWR, Pocosin Lakes NWR, and Roanoke 
River NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $5,371; 
Fiscal year 2003: $6,140;
Fiscal year 2004: $4,842;
Fiscal year 2005: $4,613;
Fiscal year 2006: $4,943;
Fiscal year 2007: $4,832. 

North Carolina Coastal Refuges Complex – Alligator River NWR, Currituck 
NWR, MacKay Island NWR, Pea Island NWR, Pocosin Lakes NWR, and Roanoke 
River NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 55.1; 
Fiscal year 2003: 50.7;
Fiscal year 2004: 54.2;
Fiscal year 2005: 49.7;
Fiscal year 2006: 49.2;
Fiscal year 2007: 48.0. 

North Florida Refuges Complex – St. Marks NWR and St. Vincent NWR, 
Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,266; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,333;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,299;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,383;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,538;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,463. 

North Florida Refuges Complex – St. Marks NWR and St. Vincent NWR, 
Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,266; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,245;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,098;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,086;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,143;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,009. 

North Florida Refuges Complex – St. Marks NWR and St. Vincent NWR, 
FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 23.8; 
Fiscal year 2003: 26.5;
Fiscal year 2004: 27.2;
Fiscal year 2005: 25.0;
Fiscal year 2006: 24.3;
Fiscal year 2007: 22.9. 

North Louisiana Wildlife Refuge Complex – Black Bayou Lake NWR, 
D’Arbonne NWR, Handy Brake NWR, Red River NWR, and Upper Ouachita NWR, 
Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,405; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,675;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,546;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,471;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,748;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,948. 

North Louisiana Wildlife Refuge Complex – Black Bayou Lake NWR, 
D’Arbonne NWR, Handy Brake NWR, Red River NWR, and Upper Ouachita NWR, 
Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,405; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,612;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,411;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,288;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,475;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,589. 

North Louisiana Wildlife Refuge Complex – Black Bayou Lake NWR, 
D’Arbonne NWR, Handy Brake NWR, Red River NWR, and Upper Ouachita NWR, 
FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 13.7; 
Fiscal year 2003: 13.9;
Fiscal year 2004: 16.0;
Fiscal year 2005: 15.3;
Fiscal year 2006: 15.4;
Fiscal year 2007: 15.7. 

North Mississippi Refuges Complex – Coldwater River NWR, Dahomey NWR, 
and Tallahatchie NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $871; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,584;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,264;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,632;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,247;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,247. 

North Mississippi Refuges Complex – Coldwater River NWR, Dahomey NWR, 
and Tallahatchie NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $871; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,525;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,154;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,429;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,053;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,017. 

North Mississippi Refuges Complex – Coldwater River NWR, Dahomey NWR, 
and Tallahatchie NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 7.2; 
Fiscal year 2003: 8.4;
Fiscal year 2004: 8.8;
Fiscal year 2005: 11.8;
Fiscal year 2006: 12.6;
Fiscal year 2007: 12.3. 

Noxubee NWR – Choctaw NWR and Noxubee NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,893;
Fiscal year 2003: $1,703;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,844;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,464;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,183;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,057. 

Noxubee NWR – Choctaw NWR and Noxubee NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,893; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,639;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,683;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,157;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,843;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,678. 

Noxubee NWR – Choctaw NWR and Noxubee NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 20.0; 
Fiscal year 2003: 21.4;
Fiscal year 2004: 19.0;
Fiscal year 2005: 18.4;
Fiscal year 2006: 19.7;
Fiscal year 2007: 18.8. 

Okefenokee NWR – Banks Lake NWR and Okefenokee NWR, Funding, nominal 
dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $7,397; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,583;
Fiscal year 2004: $3,122;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,533;
Fiscal year 2006: $3,056;
Fiscal year 2007: $19,368. 

Okefenokee NWR – Banks Lake NWR and Okefenokee NWR, Funding, inflation-
adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $7,397; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,485;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,849;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,218;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,580;
Fiscal year 2007: $15,797. 

Okefenokee NWR – Banks Lake NWR and Okefenokee NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 33.6;
Fiscal year 2003: 30.4;
Fiscal year 2004: 32.1;
Fiscal year 2005: 31.0;
Fiscal year 2006: 32.4;
Fiscal year 2007: 34.5. 

Piedmont NWR – Bond Swamp NWR and Piedmont NWR, Funding, nominal 
dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $934; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,102;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,206;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,243;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,109;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,538. 

Piedmont NWR – Bond Swamp NWR and Piedmont NWR, Funding, inflation-
adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $934; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,061;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,101;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,088;
Fiscal year 2006: $936;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,254. 

Piedmont NWR – Bond Swamp NWR and Piedmont NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 13.0; 
Fiscal year 2003: 14.0;
Fiscal year 2004: 13.7;
Fiscal year 2005: 13.2;
Fiscal year 2006: 11.7;
Fiscal year 2007: 12.2. 

Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex – Blackbeard Island NWR, Harris Neck 
NWR, Pinckney Island NWR, Savannah NWR, Tybee NWR, Wassaw NWR, and Wolf 
Island NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $3,537; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,548;
Fiscal year 2004: $3,110;
Fiscal year 2005: $3,702;
Fiscal year 2006: $3,981;
Fiscal year 2007: $4,494. 

Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex – Blackbeard Island NWR, Harris Neck 
NWR, Pinckney Island NWR, Savannah NWR, Tybee NWR, Wassaw NWR, and Wolf 
Island NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $3,537; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,452;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,838;
Fiscal year 2005: $3,241;
Fiscal year 2006: $3,361;
Fiscal year 2007: $3,666. 

Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex – Blackbeard Island NWR, Harris Neck 
NWR, Pinckney Island NWR, Savannah NWR, Tybee NWR, Wassaw NWR, and Wolf 
Island NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 30.8; 
Fiscal year 2003: 30.7;
Fiscal year 2004: 30.5;
Fiscal year 2005: 31.6;
Fiscal year 2006: 32.4;
Fiscal year 2007: 32.1. 

South Arkansas Refuges Complex – Felsenthal NWR, Overflow NWR, and Pond 
Creek NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,766;
Fiscal year 2003: $1,536;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,450;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,401;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,971;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,673. 

South Arkansas Refuges Complex – Felsenthal NWR, Overflow NWR, and Pond 
Creek NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,766; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,478;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,323;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,227;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,664;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,364. 

South Arkansas Refuges Complex – Felsenthal NWR, Overflow NWR, and Pond 
Creek NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 17.3; 
Fiscal year 2003: 17.5;
Fiscal year 2004: 18.4;
Fiscal year 2005: 15.9;
Fiscal year 2006: 16.8;
Fiscal year 2007: 15.9. 

South Carolina Low Country Refuges Complex – Cape Romain NWR, Ernest F. 
Hollings Ace Basin NWR, Santee NWR, and Waccamaw NWR, Funding, nominal 
dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,244; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,909;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,905;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,896;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,972;
Fiscal year 2007: $3,567. 

South Carolina Low Country Refuges Complex – Cape Romain NWR, Ernest F. 
Hollings Ace Basin NWR, Santee NWR, and Waccamaw NWR, Funding, 
inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,244; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,800;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,651;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,535;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,509;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,910. 

South Carolina Low Country Refuges Complex – Cape Romain NWR, Ernest F. 
Hollings Ace Basin NWR, Santee NWR, and Waccamaw NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 22.0; 
Fiscal year 2003: 25.9;
Fiscal year 2004: 29.6;
Fiscal year 2005: 27.9;
Fiscal year 2006: 26.5;
Fiscal year 2007: 27.4. 

Southeast Louisiana Refuges Complex – Atchafalaya NWR, Bayou Sauvage 
NWR, Bayou Teche NWR, Big Branch Marsh NWR, Bogue Chitto NWR, Breton 
NWR, Delta NWR, and Mandalay NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $3,189; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,946;
Fiscal year 2004: $3,116;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,527;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,868;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,533. 

Southeast Louisiana Refuges Complex – Atchafalaya NWR, Bayou Sauvage 
NWR, Bayou Teche NWR, Big Branch Marsh NWR, Bogue Chitto NWR, Breton 
NWR, Delta NWR, and Mandalay NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $3,189; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,835;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,843;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,213;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,421;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,066. 

Southeast Louisiana Refuges Complex – Atchafalaya NWR, Bayou Sauvage 
NWR, Bayou Teche NWR, Big Branch Marsh NWR, Bogue Chitto NWR, Breton 
NWR, Delta NWR, and Mandalay NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 31.4; 
Fiscal year 2003: 30.6;
Fiscal year 2004: 29.5;
Fiscal year 2005: 25.9;
Fiscal year 2006: 20.5;
Fiscal year 2007: 24.1. 

Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex – Cameron Prairie NWR, Lacassine NWR, 
Sabine NWR, and Shell Keys NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,909; 
Fiscal year 2003: $3,809;
Fiscal year 2004: $3,472;
Fiscal year 2005: $4,045;
Fiscal year 2006: $3,065;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,540. 

Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex – Cameron Prairie NWR, Lacassine NWR, 
Sabine NWR, and Shell Keys NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,909; 
Fiscal year 2003: $3,665;
Fiscal year 2004: $3,169;
Fiscal year 2005: $3,541;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,588;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,072. 

Southwest Louisiana NWR Complex – Cameron Prairie NWR, Lacassine NWR, 
Sabine NWR, and Shell Keys NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 29.7; 
Fiscal year 2003: 32.3;
Fiscal year 2004: 31.5;
Fiscal year 2005: 32.6;
Fiscal year 2006: 24.8;
Fiscal year 2007: 24.7. 

St. Catherine Creek NWR – Cat Island NWR and St. Catherine Creek NWR, 
Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $825; 
Fiscal year 2003: $925;
Fiscal year 2004: $988;
Fiscal year 2005: $939;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,035;
Fiscal year 2007: $605. 

St. Catherine Creek NWR – Cat Island NWR and St. Catherine Creek NWR, 
Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $825; 
Fiscal year 2003: $890;
Fiscal year 2004: $902;
Fiscal year 2005: $823;
Fiscal year 2006: $874;
Fiscal year 2007: $494. 

St. Catherine Creek NWR – Cat Island NWR and St. Catherine Creek NWR, 
FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 6.6; 
Fiscal year 2003: 7.1;
Fiscal year 2004: 7.2;
Fiscal year 2005: 6.7;
Fiscal year 2006: 6.0;
Fiscal year 2007: 5.5. 

Tennessee NWR – Cross Creeks NWR and Tennessee NWR, Funding, nominal 
dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,690; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,029;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,978;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,269;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,216;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,712. 

Tennessee NWR – Cross Creeks NWR and Tennessee NWR, Funding, inflation-
adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,690; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,953;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,805;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,986;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,871;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,212. 

Tennessee NWR – Cross Creeks NWR and Tennessee NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 17.8;
Fiscal year 2003: 18.5;
Fiscal year 2004: 16.8;
Fiscal year 2005: 18.0;
Fiscal year 2006: 16.2;
Fiscal year 2007: 15.1. 

Theodore Roosevelt NWR Complex – Hillside NWR, Holt Collier NWR, 
Mathews Brake NWR, Morgan Brake NWR, Panther Swamp NWR, Theodore 
Roosevelt NWR, and Yazoo NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,528; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,215;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,147;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,461;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,197;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,648. 

Theodore Roosevelt NWR Complex – Hillside NWR, Holt Collier NWR, 
Mathews Brake NWR, Morgan Brake NWR, Panther Swamp NWR, Theodore 
Roosevelt NWR, and Yazoo NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,528; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,131;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,959;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,155;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,855;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,344. 

Theodore Roosevelt NWR Complex – Hillside NWR, Holt Collier NWR, 
Mathews Brake NWR, Morgan Brake NWR, Panther Swamp NWR, Theodore 
Roosevelt NWR, and Yazoo NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 16.7; 
Fiscal year 2003: 19.5;
Fiscal year 2004: 17.2;
Fiscal year 2005: 17.3;
Fiscal year 2006: 17.2;
Fiscal year 2007: 15.1. 

West Tennessee Refuge Complex – Chickasaw NWR, Hatchie NWR, Lake Isom 
NWR, Lower Hatchie NWR, and Reelfoot NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,863; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,923;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,734;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,615;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,426;
Fiscal year 2007: $3,192. 

West Tennessee Refuge Complex – Chickasaw NWR, Hatchie NWR, Lake Isom 
NWR, Lower Hatchie NWR, and Reelfoot NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,863;
Fiscal year 2003: $2,813;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,495;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,290;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,048;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,603. 

West Tennessee Refuge Complex – Chickasaw NWR, Hatchie NWR, Lake Isom 
NWR, Lower Hatchie NWR, and Reelfoot NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 22.2; 
Fiscal year 2003: 21.4;
Fiscal year 2004: 23.6;
Fiscal year 2005: 21.3;
Fiscal year 2006: 21.5;
Fiscal year 2007: 20.5. 

Wheeler NWR – Cahaba River NWR, Fern Cave NWR, Key Cave NWR, Mountain 
Longleaf NWR, Sauta Cave NWR, Watercress Darter NWR, and Wheeler NWR, 
Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,246; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,258;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,011;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,623;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,548;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,383. 

Wheeler NWR – Cahaba River NWR, Fern Cave NWR, Key Cave NWR, Mountain 
Longleaf NWR, Sauta Cave NWR, Watercress Darter NWR, and Wheeler NWR, 
Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,246; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,211;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,835;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,421;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,151;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,944. 

Wheeler NWR – Cahaba River NWR, Fern Cave NWR, Key Cave NWR, Mountain 
Longleaf NWR, Sauta Cave NWR, Watercress Darter NWR, and Wheeler NWR, 
FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 12.8; 
Fiscal year 2003: 13.5;
Fiscal year 2004: 15.3;
Fiscal year 2005: 15.2;
Fiscal year 2006: 17.2;
Fiscal year 2007: 19.1. 

White River NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,385; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,414;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,444;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,163;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,365;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,676. 

White River NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,385; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,361;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,318;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,018;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,152;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,367. 

White River NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 13.9; 
Fiscal year 2003: 16.2;
Fiscal year 2004: 16.2;
Fiscal year 2005: 14.5;
Fiscal year 2006: 13.4;
Fiscal year 2007: 13.6. 

Total, FWS Region 5, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $40,357; 
Fiscal year 2003: $46,190;
Fiscal year 2004: $46,516;
Fiscal year 2005: $47,363;
Fiscal year 2006: $46,931;
Fiscal year 2007: $47,458. 

Total, FWS Region 5, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $40,357; 
Fiscal year 2003: $44,448;
Fiscal year 2004: $42,449;
Fiscal year 2005: $41,468;
Fiscal year 2006: $39,621;
Fiscal year 2007: $38,709. 

Total, FWS Region 5, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 364.2; 
Fiscal year 2003: 370.6;
Fiscal year 2004: 370.6;
Fiscal year 2005: 379.1;
Fiscal year 2006: 371.0;
Fiscal year 2007: 365.7. 

Region 5, NWRS offices, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $5,372; 
Fiscal year 2003: $7,272;
Fiscal year 2004: $7,812;
Fiscal year 2005: $7,541;
Fiscal year 2006: $7,257;
Fiscal year 2007: $6,805. 

Region 5, NWRS offices, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $5,372; 
Fiscal year 2003: $6,998;
Fiscal year 2004: $7,129;
Fiscal year 2005: $6,602;
Fiscal year 2006: $6,127;
Fiscal year 2007: $5,551. 

Region 5, NWRS offices, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 37.9; 
Fiscal year 2003: 50.4;
Fiscal year 2004: 51.8;
Fiscal year 2005: 53.1;
Fiscal year 2006: 51.8;
Fiscal year 2007: 48.9. 

Back Bay NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $928; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,637;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,616;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,392;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,771;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,645. 

Back Bay NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $928; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,575;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,475;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,219;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,495;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,341. 

Back Bay NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 12.4; 
Fiscal year 2003: 11.7;
Fiscal year 2004: 11.6;
Fiscal year 2005: 11.1;
Fiscal year 2006: 11.7;
Fiscal year 2007: 12.7. 

Bombay Hook NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $686; 
Fiscal year 2003: $750;
Fiscal year 2004: $811;
Fiscal year 2005: $869;
Fiscal year 2006: $820;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,342. 

Bombay Hook NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $686; 
Fiscal year 2003: $722;
Fiscal year 2004: $740;
Fiscal year 2005: $761;
Fiscal year 2006: $692;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,094. 

Bombay Hook NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 8.3;
Fiscal year 2003: 7.3;
Fiscal year 2004: 7.0;
Fiscal year 2005: 8.3;
Fiscal year 2006: 8.9;
Fiscal year 2007: 8.9. 

Canaan Valley NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $691; 
Fiscal year 2003: $798;
Fiscal year 2004: $771;
Fiscal year 2005: $847;
Fiscal year 2006: $916;
Fiscal year 2007: $811. 

Canaan Valley NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $691; 
Fiscal year 2003: $768;
Fiscal year 2004: $703;
Fiscal year 2005: $741;
Fiscal year 2006: $773;
Fiscal year 2007: $662. 

Canaan Valley NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 7.4;
Fiscal year 2003: 7.9;
Fiscal year 2004: 7.3;
Fiscal year 2005: 7.9;
Fiscal year 2006: 10.3;
Fiscal year 2007: 9.3. 

Cape May NWR – Cape May NWR and Supawna Meadows NWR, Funding, nominal 
dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $970; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,120;
Fiscal year 2004: $885;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,744;
Fiscal year 2006: $898;
Fiscal year 2007: $662. 

Cape May NWR – Cape May NWR and Supawna Meadows NWR, Funding, inflation-
adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $970; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,078;
Fiscal year 2004: $808;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,526;
Fiscal year 2006: $758;
Fiscal year 2007: $540. 

Cape May NWR – Cape May NWR and Supawna Meadows NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 7.2;
Fiscal year 2003: 7.9;
Fiscal year 2004: 6.4;
Fiscal year 2005: 6.7;
Fiscal year 2006: 6.3;
Fiscal year 2007: 5.0. 

Chesapeake Marshlands NWR Complex – Blackwater NWR, Eastern Neck NWR, 
Martin NWR, and Susquehanna NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,845; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,980;
Fiscal year 2004: $3,230;
Fiscal year 2005: $3,872;
Fiscal year 2006: $3,513;
Fiscal year 2007: $3,762. 

Chesapeake Marshlands NWR Complex – Blackwater NWR, Eastern Neck NWR, 
Martin NWR, and Susquehanna NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,845; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,868;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,947;
Fiscal year 2005: $3,390;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,966;
Fiscal year 2007: $3,069. 

Chesapeake Marshlands NWR Complex – Blackwater NWR, Eastern Neck NWR, 
Martin NWR, and Susquehanna NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 28.9;
Fiscal year 2003: 27.3;
Fiscal year 2004: 27.4;
Fiscal year 2005: 27.8;
Fiscal year 2006: 28.6;
Fiscal year 2007: 28.2. 

Chincoteague NWR – Chincoteague NWR, Eastern Shore of Virginia NWR, 
Fisherman Island NWR, and Wallops Island NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,504; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,273;
Fiscal year 2004: $3,001;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,548;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,205;
Fiscal year 2007: $3,006. 

Chincoteague NWR – Chincoteague NWR, Eastern Shore of Virginia NWR, 
Fisherman Island NWR, and Wallops Island NWR, Funding, inflation-
adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,504; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,187;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,738;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,231;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,862;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,451. 

Chincoteague NWR – Chincoteague NWR, Eastern Shore of Virginia NWR, 
Fisherman Island NWR, and Wallops Island NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 29.6; 
Fiscal year 2003: 27.8;
Fiscal year 2004: 28.7;
Fiscal year 2005: 29.5;
Fiscal year 2006: 27.7;
Fiscal year 2007: 28.5. 

Eastern Massachusetts NWR Complex – Assabet River NWR, Great Meadows 
NWR, Mashpee NWR, Massasoit NWR, Monomoy NWR, Nantucket NWR, Nomans 
Land Island NWR, and Oxbow NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,537;
Fiscal year 2003: $1,967;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,274;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,695;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,063;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,939. 

Eastern Massachusetts NWR Complex – Assabet River NWR, Great Meadows 
NWR, Mashpee NWR, Massasoit NWR, Monomoy NWR, Nantucket NWR, Nomans 
Land Island NWR, and Oxbow NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,537; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,893;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,075;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,484;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,741;
Fiscal year 2007: 1,582. 

Eastern Massachusetts NWR Complex – Assabet River NWR, Great Meadows 
NWR, Mashpee NWR, Massasoit NWR, Monomoy NWR, Nantucket NWR, Nomans 
Land Island NWR, and Oxbow NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 14.5; 
Fiscal year 2003: 12.6;
Fiscal year 2004: 14.8;
Fiscal year 2005: 16.5;
Fiscal year 2006: 14.8;
Fiscal year 2007: 16.0. 

Eastern Virginia Rivers NWR Complex – James River NWR, Plum Tree Island 
NWR, Presquile NWR, and Rappahannock River Valley NWR, Funding, nominal 
dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $665; 
Fiscal year 2003: $758;
Fiscal year 2004: $900;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,112;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,379;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,004. 

Eastern Virginia Rivers NWR Complex – James River NWR, Plum Tree Island 
NWR, Presquile NWR, and Rappahannock River Valley NWR, Funding, 
inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $665; 
Fiscal year 2003: $729;
Fiscal year 2004: $821;
Fiscal year 2005: $974;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,164;
Fiscal year 2007: $819. 

Eastern Virginia Rivers NWR Complex – James River NWR, Plum Tree Island 
NWR, Presquile NWR, and Rappahannock River Valley NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 5.4; 
Fiscal year 2003: 5.1;
Fiscal year 2004: 7.1;
Fiscal year 2005: 8.6;
Fiscal year 2006: 7.9;
Fiscal year 2007: 8.4. 

Edwin B. Forsythe NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,039; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,232;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,275;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,159;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,065;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,127. 

Edwin B. Forsythe NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,039; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,186;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,164;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,015;
Fiscal year 2006: $899;
Fiscal year 2007: $919. 

Edwin B. Forsythe NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 12.6;
Fiscal year 2003: 12.1;
Fiscal year 2004: 11.9;
Fiscal year 2005: 12.2;
Fiscal year 2006: 9.7;
Fiscal year 2007: 9.7. 

Great Bay NWR – Great Bay NWR, John Hay NWR, and Wapack NWR, Funding, 
nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $349; 
Fiscal year 2003: $334;
Fiscal year 2004: $383;
Fiscal year 2005: $506;
Fiscal year 2006: $157;
Fiscal year 2007: $295. 

Great Bay NWR – Great Bay NWR, John Hay NWR, and Wapack NWR, Funding, 
inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $349; 
Fiscal year 2003: $321;
Fiscal year 2004: $349;
Fiscal year 2005: $443;
Fiscal year 2006: $132;
Fiscal year 2007: $241. 

Great Bay NWR – Great Bay NWR, John Hay NWR, and Wapack NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 3.0;
Fiscal year 2003: 2.7;
Fiscal year 2004: 1.1;
Fiscal year 2005: 1.0;
Fiscal year 2006: 1.0;
Fiscal year 2007: 1.0. 

Great Dismal Swamp NWR – Great Dismal Swamp NWR and Nansemond NWR, 
Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,576; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,385;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,736;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,582;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,669;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,523. 

Great Dismal Swamp NWR – Great Dismal Swamp NWR and Nansemond NWR, 
Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,576; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,333;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,585;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,385;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,409;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,242. 

Great Dismal Swamp NWR – Great Dismal Swamp NWR and Nansemond NWR, 
FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 14.6; 
Fiscal year 2003: 12.1;
Fiscal year 2004: 11.9;
Fiscal year 2005: 11.4;
Fiscal year 2006: 14.4;
Fiscal year 2007: 13.4. 

Great Swamp NWR – Great Swamp NWR, Shawangunk Grasslands NWR, and 
Wallkill River NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,478; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,488;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,047;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,265;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,640;
Fiscal year 2007: $3,039. 

Great Swamp NWR – Great Swamp NWR, Shawangunk Grasslands NWR, and 
Wallkill River NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,478; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,395;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,868;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,983;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,229;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,479. 

Great Swamp NWR – Great Swamp NWR, Shawangunk Grasslands NWR, and 
Wallkill River NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 16.3; 
Fiscal year 2003: 16.2;
Fiscal year 2004: 16.0;
Fiscal year 2005: 15.7;
Fiscal year 2006: 14.7;
Fiscal year 2007: 15.2. 

Iroquois NWR – Erie NWR and Iroquois NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,816; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,234;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,378;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,435;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,470;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,528. 

Iroquois NWR – Erie NWR and Iroquois NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,816; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,150;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,170;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,256;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,241;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,246. 

Iroquois NWR – Erie NWR and Iroquois NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 13.3; 
Fiscal year 2003: 14.4;
Fiscal year 2004: 14.1;
Fiscal year 2005: 13.4;
Fiscal year 2006: 13.0;
Fiscal year 2007: 13.6. 

John Heinz NWR at Tinicum, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,021; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,279;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,005;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,072;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,119;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,112. 

John Heinz NWR at Tinicum, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,021; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,231;
Fiscal year 2004: $918;
Fiscal year 2005: $938;
Fiscal year 2006: $945;
Fiscal year 2007: $907. 

John Heinz NWR at Tinicum, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 9.9; 
Fiscal year 2003: 11.9;
Fiscal year 2004: 11.5;
Fiscal year 2005: 11.9;
Fiscal year 2006: 11.8;
Fiscal year 2007: 10.8. 

Lake Umbagog NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $639; 
Fiscal year 2003: $808;
Fiscal year 2004: $586;
Fiscal year 2005: $611;
Fiscal year 2006: $741;
Fiscal year 2007: $510. 

Lake Umbagog NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $639;
Fiscal year 2003: $777;
Fiscal year 2004: $535;
Fiscal year 2005: $535;
Fiscal year 2006: $626;
Fiscal year 2007: $416. 

Lake Umbagog NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 6.2;
Fiscal year 2003: 6.6;
Fiscal year 2004: 5.7;
Fiscal year 2005: 4.7;
Fiscal year 2006: 4.0;
Fiscal year 2007: 4.0. 

Long Island NWR Complex – Amagansett NWR, Conscience Point NWR, 
Elizabeth A. Morton NWR, Oyster Bay NWR, Seatuck NWR, Target Rock NWR, 
and Wertheim NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,355; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,661;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,164;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,047;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,945;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,278. 

Long Island NWR Complex – Amagansett NWR, Conscience Point NWR, 
Elizabeth A. Morton NWR, Oyster Bay NWR, Seatuck NWR, Target Rock NWR, 
and Wertheim NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,355; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,598;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,062;
Fiscal year 2005: $917;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,642;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,043. 

Long Island NWR Complex – Amagansett NWR, Conscience Point NWR, 
Elizabeth A. Morton NWR, Oyster Bay NWR, Seatuck NWR, Target Rock NWR, 
and Wertheim NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 12.4; 
Fiscal year 2003: 11.0;
Fiscal year 2004: 10.6;
Fiscal year 2005: 10.1;
Fiscal year 2006: 10.1;
Fiscal year 2007: 9.7. 

Maine Coastal Islands NWR Complex – Carlton Pond WMD, Cross Island NWR, 
Franklin Island NWR, Petit Manan NWR, Pond Island NWR, Seal Island NWR, 
and Sunkhaze Meadows NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,025; 
Fiscal year 2003: $950;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,048;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,371;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,135;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,272. 

Maine Coastal Islands NWR Complex – Carlton Pond WMD, Cross Island NWR, 
Franklin Island NWR, Petit Manan NWR, Pond Island NWR, Seal Island NWR, 
and Sunkhaze Meadows NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,025; 
Fiscal year 2003: $914;
Fiscal year 2004: $956;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,200;
Fiscal year 2006: $959;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,037. 

Maine Coastal Islands NWR Complex – Carlton Pond WMD, Cross Island NWR, 
Franklin Island NWR, Petit Manan NWR, Pond Island NWR, Seal Island NWR, 
and Sunkhaze Meadows NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 11.6; 
Fiscal year 2003: 10.2;
Fiscal year 2004: 10.4;
Fiscal year 2005: 10.9;
Fiscal year 2006: 10.7;
Fiscal year 2007: 10.0. 

Missisquoi NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $511;
Fiscal year 2003: $548;
Fiscal year 2004: $718;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,204;
Fiscal year 2006: $595;
Fiscal year 2007: $717. 

Missisquoi NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $511; 
Fiscal year 2003: $527;
Fiscal year 2004: $656;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,054;
Fiscal year 2006: $502;
Fiscal year 2007: $585. 

Missisquoi NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 5.8;
Fiscal year 2003: 6.0;
Fiscal year 2004: 6.2;
Fiscal year 2005: 6.0;
Fiscal year 2006: 5.2;
Fiscal year 2007: 5.8. 

Montezuma NWR Funding, nominal dollars, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $916; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,158;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,259;
Fiscal year 2005: $964;
Fiscal year 2006: $739;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,120. 

Montezuma NWR Funding, nominal dollars, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $916; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,114;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,149;
Fiscal year 2005: $844;
Fiscal year 2006: $624;
Fiscal year 2007: $914. 

Montezuma NWR Funding, nominal dollars, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 9.3; 
Fiscal year 2003: 9.1;
Fiscal year 2004: 8.3;
Fiscal year 2005: 8.4;
Fiscal year 2006: 7.1;
Fiscal year 2007: 8.2. 

Moosehorn NWR – Aroostook NWR and Moosehorn NWR, Funding, nominal 
dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $962;
Fiscal year 2003: $1,814;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,133;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,406; 
Fiscal year 2006: $1,136;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,463. 

Moosehorn NWR – Aroostook NWR and Moosehorn NWR, Funding, inflation-
adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $962; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,745;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,034;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,231;
Fiscal year 2006: $959;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,193. 

Moosehorn NWR – Aroostook NWR and Moosehorn NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 10.2; 
Fiscal year 2003: 10.7;
Fiscal year 2004: 11.8;
Fiscal year 2005: 13.4;
Fiscal year 2006: 13.1;
Fiscal year 2007: 11.7. 

Ohio River Islands NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $503; 
Fiscal year 2003: $648;
Fiscal year 2004: $770;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,019;
Fiscal year 2006: $704;
Fiscal year 2007: $708. 

Ohio River Islands NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $503; 
Fiscal year 2003: $624;
Fiscal year 2004: $703;
Fiscal year 2005: $892;
Fiscal year 2006: $595;
Fiscal year 2007: $578. 

Ohio River Islands NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 6.0;
Fiscal year 2003: 5.4;
Fiscal year 2004: 5.6;
Fiscal year 2005: 5.9;
Fiscal year 2006: 5.3;
Fiscal year 2007: 5.9. 

Parker River NWR – Parker River NWR and Thatcher Island NWR, Funding, 
nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,912; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,719;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,230;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,049;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,089;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,432. 

Parker River NWR – Parker River NWR and Thatcher Island NWR, Funding, 
inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,912; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,654;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,122;
Fiscal year 2005: $919;
Fiscal year 2006: $919;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,168. 

Parker River NWR – Parker River NWR and Thatcher Island NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 12.2; 
Fiscal year 2003: 15.3;
Fiscal year 2004: 11.5;
Fiscal year 2005: 10.2;
Fiscal year 2006: 10.5;
Fiscal year 2007: 11.4. 

Patuxent Research Refuge, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,679; 
Fiscal year 2003: $3,074;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,667;
Fiscal year 2005: $3,534;
Fiscal year 2006: $3,759;
Fiscal year 2007: $3,996. 

Patuxent Research Refuge, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,679; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,958;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,434;
Fiscal year 2005: $3,094;
Fiscal year 2006: $3,174;
Fiscal year 2007: $3,260. 

Patuxent Research Refuge, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 23.3; 
Fiscal year 2003: 24.9;
Fiscal year 2004: 27.6;
Fiscal year 2005: 25.6;
Fiscal year 2006: 22.4;
Fiscal year 2007: 23.5. 

Potomac River NWR Complex – Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck NWR, 
Featherstone NWR, and Occoquan Bay NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $571; 
Fiscal year 2003: $630;
Fiscal year 2004: $817;
Fiscal year 2005: $618;
Fiscal year 2006: $786;
Fiscal year 2007: $640. 

Potomac River NWR Complex – Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck NWR, 
Featherstone NWR, and Occoquan Bay NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $571; 
Fiscal year 2003: $606;
Fiscal year 2004: $746;
Fiscal year 2005: $541;
Fiscal year 2006: $664;
Fiscal year 2007: $522. 

Potomac River NWR Complex – Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck NWR, 
Featherstone NWR, and Occoquan Bay NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 7.1;
Fiscal year 2003: 6.2;
Fiscal year 2004: 7.2;
Fiscal year 2005: 6.8;
Fiscal year 2006: 7.8;
Fiscal year 2007: 6.3. 

Prime Hook NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,189; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,114;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,409;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,040;
Fiscal year 2006: $721;
Fiscal year 2007: $777. 

Prime Hook NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,189; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,072;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,285;
Fiscal year 2005: $911;
Fiscal year 2006: $609;
Fiscal year 2007: $634. 

Prime Hook NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 9.0; 
Fiscal year 2003: 8.7;
Fiscal year 2004: 8.1;
Fiscal year 2005: 9.1;
Fiscal year 2006: 7.7;
Fiscal year 2007: 6.9. 

Rachel Carson NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $626; 
Fiscal year 2003: $772;
Fiscal year 2004: $735;
Fiscal year 2005: $855;
Fiscal year 2006: $802;
Fiscal year 2007: $750. 

Rachel Carson NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $626; 
Fiscal year 2003: $743;
Fiscal year 2004: $670;
Fiscal year 2005: $749;
Fiscal year 2006: $677;
Fiscal year 2007: $612. 

Rachel Carson NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 8.7; 
Fiscal year 2003: 8.1;
Fiscal year 2004: 8.3;
Fiscal year 2005: 7.8;
Fiscal year 2006: 8.4;
Fiscal year 2007: 7.3. 

Rhode Island NWR Complex – Block Island NWR, John H. Chafee NWR, 
Ninigret NWR, Sachuest Point NWR, and Trustom Pond NWR, Funding, 
nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,396; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,109;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,122;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,093;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,178;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,102. 

Rhode Island NWR Complex – Block Island NWR, John H. Chafee NWR, 
Ninigret NWR, Sachuest Point NWR, and Trustom Pond NWR, Funding, 
inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,396; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,067;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,024;
Fiscal year 2005: $957;
Fiscal year 2006: $995;
Fiscal year 2007: $899. 

Rhode Island NWR Complex – Block Island NWR, John H. Chafee NWR, 
Ninigret NWR, Sachuest Point NWR, and Trustom Pond NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 9.5; 
Fiscal year 2003: 8.9;
Fiscal year 2004: 8.1;
Fiscal year 2005: 10.4;
Fiscal year 2006: 10.8;
Fiscal year 2007: 10.5. 

Silvio O. Conte NFWR – Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife 
Refuge, and Stewart B. McKinney NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,596; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,678;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,736;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,914;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,657;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,092. 

Silvio O. Conte NFWR – Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife 
Refuge, and Stewart B. McKinney NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,596; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,615;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,584;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,676;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,243;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,706. 

Silvio O. Conte NFWR – Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife 
Refuge, and Stewart B. McKinney NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 11.6;
Fiscal year 2003: 12.1;
Fiscal year 2004: 12.8;
Fiscal year 2005: 15.0;
Fiscal year 2006: 15.6;
Fiscal year 2007: 15.4. 

Total, FWS Region 6, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $48,107; 
Fiscal year 2003: $54,250;
Fiscal year 2004: $56,229;
Fiscal year 2005: $53,547;
Fiscal year 2006: $56,519;
Fiscal year 2007: $57,948. 

Total, FWS Region 6, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $48,107; 
Fiscal year 2003: $52,204;
Fiscal year 2004: $51,313;
Fiscal year 2005: $46,882;
Fiscal year 2006: $47,714;
Fiscal year 2007: $47,265. 

Total, FWS Region 6, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 497.8; 
Fiscal year 2003: 528.5;
Fiscal year 2004: 531.8;
Fiscal year 2005: 525.6;
Fiscal year 2006: 519.2;
Fiscal year 2007: 505.4. 

Region 6, NWRS offices, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $7,132; 
Fiscal year 2003: $9,184;
Fiscal year 2004: $11,362;
Fiscal year 2005: $10,267;
Fiscal year 2006: $10,461;
Fiscal year 2007: $11,207. 

Region 6, NWRS offices, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $7,132; 
Fiscal year 2003: $8,839;
Fiscal year 2004: $10,368;
Fiscal year 2005: $8,989;
Fiscal year 2006: $8,832;
Fiscal year 2007: $9,141. 

Region 6, NWRS offices, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 61.2; 
Fiscal year 2003: 72.4;
Fiscal year 2004: 73.0;
Fiscal year 2005: 73.3;
Fiscal year 2006: 74.3;
Fiscal year 2007: 80.9. 

Arapaho NWR – Arapaho NWR, Bamforth NWR, Hutton Lake NWR, Mortenson 
Lake NWR, and Pathfinder NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $792; 
Fiscal year 2003: $834;
Fiscal year 2004: $615;
Fiscal year 2005: $749;
Fiscal year 2006: $655;
Fiscal year 2007: $639. 

Arapaho NWR – Arapaho NWR, Bamforth NWR, Hutton Lake NWR, Mortenson 
Lake NWR, and Pathfinder NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $792; 
Fiscal year 2003: $803;
Fiscal year 2004: $561;
Fiscal year 2005: $656;
Fiscal year 2006: $553;
Fiscal year 2007: $521. 

Arapaho NWR – Arapaho NWR, Bamforth NWR, Hutton Lake NWR, Mortenson 
Lake NWR, and Pathfinder NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 7.7; 
Fiscal year 2003: 7.1;
Fiscal year 2004: 6.9;
Fiscal year 2005: 7.5;
Fiscal year 2006: 7.0;
Fiscal year 2007: 5.9. 

Arrowwood NWR – Arrowwood NWR, Arrowwood WMD, Chase Lake NWR, Chase 
Lake Prairie Project WMD, Half-Way Lake NWR, Hobart Lake NWR, Johnson 
Lake NWR, Sibley Lake NWR, Stoney Slough NWR, Tomahawk NWR, and Valley 
City WMD, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,788; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,034;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,145;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,808;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,811;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,279. 

Arrowwood NWR – Arrowwood NWR, Arrowwood WMD, Chase Lake NWR, Chase 
Lake Prairie Project WMD, Half-Way Lake NWR, Hobart Lake NWR, Johnson 
Lake NWR, Sibley Lake NWR, Stoney Slough NWR, Tomahawk NWR, and Valley 
City WMD, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,788; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,958;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,957;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,583;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,529;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,859. 

Arrowwood NWR – Arrowwood NWR, Arrowwood WMD, Chase Lake NWR, Chase 
Lake Prairie Project WMD, Half-Way Lake NWR, Hobart Lake NWR, Johnson 
Lake NWR, Sibley Lake NWR, Stoney Slough NWR, Tomahawk NWR, and Valley 
City WMD, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 22.4; 
Fiscal year 2003: 21.0;
Fiscal year 2004: 22.5;
Fiscal year 2005: 23.4;
Fiscal year 2006: 23.7;
Fiscal year 2007: 21.2. 

Audubon NWR – Audubon NWR, Audubon WMD, Camp Lake NWR, Hiddenwood NWR, 
Lake Ilo NWR, Lake Nettie NWR, Lake Otis NWR, Lake Patricia NWR, Lost 
Lake NWR, McLean NWR, Pretty Rock NWR, Sheyenne Lake NWR, Stewart Lake 
NWR, and White Lake NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,178; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,226;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,275;
Fiscal year 2005: $935;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,162;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,276. 

Audubon NWR – Audubon NWR, Audubon WMD, Camp Lake NWR, Hiddenwood NWR, 
Lake Ilo NWR, Lake Nettie NWR, Lake Otis NWR, Lake Patricia NWR, Lost 
Lake NWR, McLean NWR, Pretty Rock NWR, Sheyenne Lake NWR, Stewart Lake 
NWR, and White Lake NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,178;
Fiscal year 2003: $1,180;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,163;
Fiscal year 2005: $819;
Fiscal year 2006: $981;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,041. 

Audubon NWR – Audubon NWR, Audubon WMD, Camp Lake NWR, Hiddenwood NWR, 
Lake Ilo NWR, Lake Nettie NWR, Lake Otis NWR, Lake Patricia NWR, Lost 
Lake NWR, McLean NWR, Pretty Rock NWR, Sheyenne Lake NWR, Stewart Lake 
NWR, and White Lake NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 12.1; 
Fiscal year 2003: 14.4;
Fiscal year 2004: 14.1;
Fiscal year 2005: 12.3;
Fiscal year 2006: 13.9;
Fiscal year 2007: 14.6. 

Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $871;
Fiscal year 2003: $961;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,014;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,109; 
Fiscal year 2006: $1,116;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,432. 

Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $871; 
Fiscal year 2003: $925;
Fiscal year 2004: $926;
Fiscal year 2005: $971;
Fiscal year 2006: $942;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,168. 

Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 10.1;
Fiscal year 2003: 12.1;
Fiscal year 2004: 11.7;
Fiscal year 2005: 11.7;
Fiscal year 2006: 11.3;
Fiscal year 2007: 11.7. 

Benton Lake NWR – Benton Lake NWR, Benton Lake WMD, and Blackfoot 
Valley WMA, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $772; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,268;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,201;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,162;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,009;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,181. 

Benton Lake NWR – Benton Lake NWR, Benton Lake WMD, and Blackfoot 
Valley WMA, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $772; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,220;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,096;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,017;
Fiscal year 2006: $852;
Fiscal year 2007: $963. 

Benton Lake NWR – Benton Lake NWR, Benton Lake WMD, and Blackfoot 
Valley WMA, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 8.4;
Fiscal year 2003: 8.8;
Fiscal year 2004: 7.8;
Fiscal year 2005: 9.4;
Fiscal year 2006: 8.9;
Fiscal year 2007: 8.0. 

Bowdoin NWR – Black Coulee NWR, Bowdoin NWR, Bowdoin WMD, Creedman 
Coulee NWR, Hewitt Lake NWR, Lake Thibadeau NWR, Funding, nominal 
dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $669; 
Fiscal year 2003: $834;
Fiscal year 2004: $817;
Fiscal year 2005: $832;
Fiscal year 2006: $729;
Fiscal year 2007: $677. 

Bowdoin NWR – Black Coulee NWR, Bowdoin NWR, Bowdoin WMD, Creedman 
Coulee NWR, Hewitt Lake NWR, Lake Thibadeau NWR, Funding, inflation-
adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $669; 
Fiscal year 2003: $802;
Fiscal year 2004: $745;
Fiscal year 2005: $728;
Fiscal year 2006: $616;
Fiscal year 2007: $552. 

Bowdoin NWR – Black Coulee NWR, Bowdoin NWR, Bowdoin WMD, Creedman 
Coulee NWR, Hewitt Lake NWR, Lake Thibadeau NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 5.8; 
Fiscal year 2003: 5.9;
Fiscal year 2004: 6.9;
Fiscal year 2005: 8.2;
Fiscal year 2006: 7.5;
Fiscal year 2007: 7.4. 

Browns Park NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $704; 
Fiscal year 2003: $797;
Fiscal year 2004: $705;
Fiscal year 2005: $631;
Fiscal year 2006: $898;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,254. 

Browns Park NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $704; 
Fiscal year 2003: $767;
Fiscal year 2004: $643;
Fiscal year 2005: $552;
Fiscal year 2006: $758;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,023. 

Browns Park NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 6.0; 
Fiscal year 2003: 7.3;
Fiscal year 2004: 7.4;
Fiscal year 2005: 7.6;
Fiscal year 2006: 8.0;
Fiscal year 2007: 7.7. 

Charles M. Russell NWR – Charles M. Russell NWR, Charles M. Russell 
WMD, Hailstone NWR, Halfbreed Lake NWR, Lake Mason NWR, UL Bend NWR, 
and War Horse NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,370; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,815;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,752;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,781;
Fiscal year 2006: $3,612;
Fiscal year 2007: $3,605. 

Charles M. Russell NWR – Charles M. Russell NWR, Charles M. Russell 
WMD, Hailstone NWR, Halfbreed Lake NWR, Lake Mason NWR, UL Bend NWR, 
and War Horse NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,370; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,709;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,512;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,435;
Fiscal year 2006: $3,050;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,941. 

Charles M. Russell NWR – Charles M. Russell NWR, Charles M. Russell 
WMD, Hailstone NWR, Halfbreed Lake NWR, Lake Mason NWR, UL Bend NWR, 
and War Horse NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 27.9; 
Fiscal year 2003: 32.4;
Fiscal year 2004: 29.4;
Fiscal year 2005: 31.6;
Fiscal year 2006: 30.5;
Fiscal year 2007: 31.7. 

Crescent Lake/North Platte NWR Complex – Crescent Lake NWR and North 
Platte NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $980; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,136;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,171;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,033;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,088;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,136. 

Crescent Lake/North Platte NWR Complex – Crescent Lake NWR and North 
Platte NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $980; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,093;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,068;
Fiscal year 2005: $904;
Fiscal year 2006: $919;
Fiscal year 2007: $926. 

Crescent Lake/North Platte NWR Complex – Crescent Lake NWR and North 
Platte NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 12.2; 
Fiscal year 2003: 12.4;
Fiscal year 2004: 11.5;
Fiscal year 2005: 11.0;
Fiscal year 2006: 12.1;
Fiscal year 2007: 12.3. 

Devils Lake WMD – Ardoch NWR, Brumba NWR, Devils Lake WMD, Kellys 
Slough NWR, Lake Alice NWR, Lambs Lake NWR, Little Goose NWR, Pleasant 
Lake NWR, Rock Lake NWR, Rose Lake NWR, Silver Lake NWR, Snyder Lake 
NWR, Stump Lake NWR, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, and Wood Lake 
NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,671; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,994;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,175;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,468;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,485;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,011. 

Devils Lake WMD – Ardoch NWR, Brumba NWR, Devils Lake WMD, Kellys 
Slough NWR, Lake Alice NWR, Lambs Lake NWR, Little Goose NWR, Pleasant 
Lake NWR, Rock Lake NWR, Rose Lake NWR, Silver Lake NWR, Snyder Lake 
NWR, Stump Lake NWR, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, and Wood Lake 
NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,671; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,919;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,985;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,161;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,098;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,640. 

Devils Lake WMD – Ardoch NWR, Brumba NWR, Devils Lake WMD, Kellys 
Slough NWR, Lake Alice NWR, Lambs Lake NWR, Little Goose NWR, Pleasant 
Lake NWR, Rock Lake NWR, Rose Lake NWR, Silver Lake NWR, Snyder Lake 
NWR, Stump Lake NWR, Sullys Hill National Game Preserve, and Wood Lake 
NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 21.3;
Fiscal year 2003: 19.3;
Fiscal year 2004: 22.7;
Fiscal year 2005: 22.6;
Fiscal year 2006: 22.7;
Fiscal year 2007: 19.0. 

Fort Niobrara NWR – Fort Niobrara NWR, John W. & Louise Seier NWR, and 
Valentine NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,032; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,067;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,872;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,820;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,825;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,329. 

Fort Niobrara NWR – Fort Niobrara NWR, John W. & Louise Seier NWR, and 
Valentine NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,032; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,989;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,708;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,593;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,541;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,900. 

Fort Niobrara NWR – Fort Niobrara NWR, John W. & Louise Seier NWR, and 
Valentine NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 19.0; 
Fiscal year 2003: 17.1;
Fiscal year 2004: 17.5;
Fiscal year 2005: 17.9;
Fiscal year 2006: 16.3;
Fiscal year 2007: 15.6. 

Fish Springs NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $463; 
Fiscal year 2003: $462;
Fiscal year 2004: $550;
Fiscal year 2005: $503;
Fiscal year 2006: $972;
Fiscal year 2007: $435. 

Fish Springs NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $463; 
Fiscal year 2003: $445;
Fiscal year 2004: $502;
Fiscal year 2005: $440;
Fiscal year 2006: $821;
Fiscal year 2007: $355. 

Fish Springs NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 5.3;
Fiscal year 2003: 5.2;
Fiscal year 2004: 5.3;
Fiscal year 2005: 5.3;
Fiscal year 2006: 4.4;
Fiscal year 2007: 4.1. 

Flint Hills NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $997; 
Fiscal year 2003: $875;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,001;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,134;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,168;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,117. 

Flint Hills NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $997; 
Fiscal year 2003: $842;
Fiscal year 2004: $914;
Fiscal year 2005: $993;
Fiscal year 2006: $986;
Fiscal year 2007: $911. 

Flint Hills NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 10.3; 
Fiscal year 2003: 11.1;
Fiscal year 2004: 12.3;
Fiscal year 2005: 12.2;
Fiscal year 2006: 12.9;
Fiscal year 2007: 12.3. 

Huron WMD, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $778; 
Fiscal year 2003: $958;
Fiscal year 2004: $885;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,043;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,017;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,302. 

Huron WMD, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $778;
Fiscal year 2003: $922;
Fiscal year 2004: $808;
Fiscal year 2005: $913; 
Fiscal year 2006: $858;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,062. 

Huron WMD, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 11.9;
Fiscal year 2003: 11.9;
Fiscal year 2004: 10.7;
Fiscal year 2005: 12.1;
Fiscal year 2006: 11.6;
Fiscal year 2007: 11.9. 

J. Clark Salyer NWR – Buffalo Lake NWR, Cottonwood Lake NWR, Des Lacs 
NWR, J. Clark Salyer NWR, J. Clark Salyer WMD, Lords Lake NWR, Rabb 
Lake NWR, School Section Lake NWR, Upper Souris NWR, Willow Lake NWR, 
and Wintering River NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $5,599; 
Fiscal year 2003: $5,139;
Fiscal year 2004: $4,370;
Fiscal year 2005: $4,417;
Fiscal year 2006: $4,846;
Fiscal year 2007: $3,730. 

J. Clark Salyer NWR – Buffalo Lake NWR, Cottonwood Lake NWR, Des Lacs 
NWR, J. Clark Salyer NWR, J. Clark Salyer WMD, Lords Lake NWR, Rabb 
Lake NWR, School Section Lake NWR, Upper Souris NWR, Willow Lake NWR, 
and Wintering River NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $5,599; 
Fiscal year 2003: $4,945;
Fiscal year 2004: $3,988;
Fiscal year 2005: $3,867;
Fiscal year 2006: $4,091;
Fiscal year 2007: $3,043. 

J. Clark Salyer NWR – Buffalo Lake NWR, Cottonwood Lake NWR, Des Lacs 
NWR, J. Clark Salyer NWR, J. Clark Salyer WMD, Lords Lake NWR, Rabb 
Lake NWR, School Section Lake NWR, Upper Souris NWR, Willow Lake NWR, 
and Wintering River NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 57.3; 
Fiscal year 2003: 54.8;
Fiscal year 2004: 54.0;
Fiscal year 2005: 50.4;
Fiscal year 2006: 46.7;
Fiscal year 2007: 33.9. 

Kirwin NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $664; 
Fiscal year 2003: $561;
Fiscal year 2004: $405;
Fiscal year 2005: $372;
Fiscal year 2006: $729;
Fiscal year 2007: $613. 

Kirwin NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $664; 
Fiscal year 2003: $540;
Fiscal year 2004: $370;
Fiscal year 2005: $326;
Fiscal year 2006: $615;
Fiscal year 2007: $500. 

Kirwin NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 5.9; 
Fiscal year 2003: 5.2;
Fiscal year 2004: 5.1;
Fiscal year 2005: 4.0;
Fiscal year 2006: 3.8;
Fiscal year 2007: 5.4. 

Kulm WMD – Bone Hill NWR, Dakota Lake NWR, Kulm WMD, and Maple River 
NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $481; 
Fiscal year 2003: $616;
Fiscal year 2004: $636;
Fiscal year 2005: $644;
Fiscal year 2006: $525;
Fiscal year 2007: $653. 

Kulm WMD – Bone Hill NWR, Dakota Lake NWR, Kulm WMD, and Maple River 
NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $481; 
Fiscal year 2003: $593;
Fiscal year 2004: $580;
Fiscal year 2005: $563;
Fiscal year 2006: $443;
Fiscal year 2007: $533. 

Kulm WMD – Bone Hill NWR, Dakota Lake NWR, Kulm WMD, and Maple River 
NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 6.4;
Fiscal year 2003: 7.1;
Fiscal year 2004: 7.7;
Fiscal year 2005: 6.8; 
Fiscal year 2006: 5.8;
Fiscal year 2007: 6.2. 

LaCreek NWR – Bear Butte NWR, Lacreek NWR, and Lacreek WMD, Funding, 
nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $977; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,419;
Fiscal year 2004: $760;
Fiscal year 2005: $755;
Fiscal year 2006: $966;
Fiscal year 2007: $631. 

LaCreek NWR – Bear Butte NWR, Lacreek NWR, and Lacreek WMD, Funding, 
inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $977; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,366;
Fiscal year 2004: $694;
Fiscal year 2005: $661;
Fiscal year 2006: $816;
Fiscal year 2007: $515. 

LaCreek NWR – Bear Butte NWR, Lacreek NWR, and Lacreek WMD, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 9.3; 
Fiscal year 2003: 9.5;
Fiscal year 2004: 8.2;
Fiscal year 2005: 8.9;
Fiscal year 2006: 7.0;
Fiscal year 2007: 6.1. 

Lake Andes NWR – Karl E. Mundt NWR, Lake Andes NWR, and Lake Andes WMD, 
Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $815; 
Fiscal year 2003: $662;
Fiscal year 2004: $911;
Fiscal year 2005: $597;
Fiscal year 2006: $637;
Fiscal year 2007: $585. 

Lake Andes NWR – Karl E. Mundt NWR, Lake Andes NWR, and Lake Andes WMD, 
Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $815; 
Fiscal year 2003: $638;
Fiscal year 2004: $831;
Fiscal year 2005: $523;
Fiscal year 2006: $538;
Fiscal year 2007: $477. 

Lake Andes NWR – Karl E. Mundt NWR, Lake Andes NWR, and Lake Andes WMD, 
FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 7.4; 
Fiscal year 2003: 7.6;
Fiscal year 2004: 8.0;
Fiscal year 2005: 7.3;
Fiscal year 2006: 7.1;
Fiscal year 2007: 6.8. 

Lee Metcalf NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $457;
Fiscal year 2003: $1,032;
Fiscal year 2004: $895;
Fiscal year 2005: $577; 
Fiscal year 2006: $494;
Fiscal year 2007: $676. 

Lee Metcalf NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $457; 
Fiscal year 2003: $994;
Fiscal year 2004: $817;
Fiscal year 2005: $505;
Fiscal year 2006: $417;
Fiscal year 2007: $551. 

Lee Metcalf NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 4.9; 
Fiscal year 2003: 5.8;
Fiscal year 2004: 5.5;
Fiscal year 2005: 5.8;
Fiscal year 2006: 6.3;
Fiscal year 2007: 6.5. 

Long Lake NWR – Appert Lake NWR, Canfield Lake NWR, Florence Lake NWR, 
Hutchinson Lake NWR, Lake George NWR, Long Lake NWR, Long Lake WMD, 
Slade NWR, Springwater NWR, and Sunburst Lake NWR, Funding, nominal 
dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $991; 
Fiscal year 2003: $962;
Fiscal year 2004: $873;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,323;
Fiscal year 2006: $840;
Fiscal year 2007: $849. 

Long Lake NWR – Appert Lake NWR, Canfield Lake NWR, Florence Lake NWR, 
Hutchinson Lake NWR, Lake George NWR, Long Lake NWR, Long Lake WMD, 
Slade NWR, Springwater NWR, and Sunburst Lake NWR, Funding, inflation-
adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $991; 
Fiscal year 2003: $926;
Fiscal year 2004: $797;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,158;
Fiscal year 2006: $709;
Fiscal year 2007: $693. 

Long Lake NWR – Appert Lake NWR, Canfield Lake NWR, Florence Lake NWR, 
Hutchinson Lake NWR, Lake George NWR, Long Lake NWR, Long Lake WMD, 
Slade NWR, Springwater NWR, and Sunburst Lake NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 9.3; 
Fiscal year 2003: 10.7;
Fiscal year 2004: 10.5;
Fiscal year 2005: 11.5;
Fiscal year 2006: 10.4;
Fiscal year 2007: 8.5. 

Lostwood WMD[B] – Crosby WMD, Lake Zahl NWR, Lostwood NWR, Lostwood 
WMD, and Shell Lake NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: 0;
Fiscal year 2003: 0;
Fiscal year 2004: 0;
Fiscal year 2005: 0;
Fiscal year 2006: Less than $1;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,117. 

Lostwood WMD[B] – Crosby WMD, Lake Zahl NWR, Lostwood NWR, Lostwood 
WMD, and Shell Lake NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: 0;
Fiscal year 2003: 0;
Fiscal year 2004: 0;
Fiscal year 2005: 0;
Fiscal year 2006: Less than $1;
Fiscal year 2007: $911. 

Lostwood WMD[B] – Crosby WMD, Lake Zahl NWR, Lostwood NWR, Lostwood 
WMD, and Shell Lake NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 0;
Fiscal year 2003: 0;
Fiscal year 2004: 0;
Fiscal year 2005: 0;
Fiscal year 2006: 0;
Fiscal year 2007: 10.6. 

Madison WMD, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $676; 
Fiscal year 2003: $883;
Fiscal year 2004: $887;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,143;
Fiscal year 2006: $762;
Fiscal year 2007: $792. 

Madison WMD, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $676; 
Fiscal year 2003: $850;
Fiscal year 2004: $809;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,000;
Fiscal year 2006: $643;
Fiscal year 2007: $646. 

Madison WMD, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 9.2; 
Fiscal year 2003: 9.7;
Fiscal year 2004: 12.4;
Fiscal year 2005: 10.7;
Fiscal year 2006: 9.3;
Fiscal year 2007: 10.1. 

Marais Des Cygnes NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $246; 
Fiscal year 2003: $611;
Fiscal year 2004: $427;
Fiscal year 2005: $608;
Fiscal year 2006: $540;
Fiscal year 2007: $550. 

Marais Des Cygnes NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $246; 
Fiscal year 2003: $588;
Fiscal year 2004: $390;
Fiscal year 2005: $532;
Fiscal year 2006: $456;
Fiscal year 2007: $449. 

Marais Des Cygnes NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 3.0;
Fiscal year 2003: 3.8;
Fiscal year 2004: 3.5;
Fiscal year 2005: 4.7;
Fiscal year 2006: 4.7;
Fiscal year 2007: 5.1. 

Medicine Lake NWR – Lamesteer NWR, Medicine Lake NWR, and Northeast 
Montana WMD, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,103; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,016;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,094;
Fiscal year 2005: v923;
Fiscal year 2006: $972;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,515. 

Medicine Lake NWR – Lamesteer NWR, Medicine Lake NWR, and Northeast 
Montana WMD, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,103; 
Fiscal year 2003: $978;
Fiscal year 2004: $998;
Fiscal year 2005: $808;
Fiscal year 2006: $821;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,236. 

Medicine Lake NWR – Lamesteer NWR, Medicine Lake NWR, and Northeast 
Montana WMD, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 10.5; 
Fiscal year 2003: 11.2;
Fiscal year 2004: 11.7;
Fiscal year 2005: 10.2;
Fiscal year 2006: 12.2;
Fiscal year 2007: 11.5. 

National Bison Range – Lost Trail NWR, National Bison Range, Nine-Pipe 
NWR, Northwest Montana WMD, Pablo NWR, and Swan River NWR, Funding, 
nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,504; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,720;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,766;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,492;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,516;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,374. 

National Bison Range – Lost Trail NWR, National Bison Range, Nine-Pipe 
NWR, Northwest Montana WMD, Pablo NWR, and Swan River NWR, Funding, 
inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,504; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,655;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,612;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,306;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,280;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,121. 

National Bison Range – Lost Trail NWR, National Bison Range, Nine-Pipe 
NWR, Northwest Montana WMD, Pablo NWR, and Swan River NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 16.3; 
Fiscal year 2003: 17.7;
Fiscal year 2004: 16.1;
Fiscal year 2005: 14.2;
Fiscal year 2006: 12.1;
Fiscal year 2007: 11.3. 

National Elk Refuge, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,637; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,541;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,117;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,293;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,287;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,587. 

National Elk Refuge, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,637; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,483;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,932;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,132;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,086;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,294. 

National Elk Refuge, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 14.1; 
Fiscal year 2003: 14.7;
Fiscal year 2004: 14.1;
Fiscal year 2005: 11.6;
Fiscal year 2006: 10.9;
Fiscal year 2007: 11.2. 

Ouray NWR – Colorado River WMA and Ouray NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $776; 
Fiscal year 2003: $603;
Fiscal year 2004: $740;
Fiscal year 2005: $697;
Fiscal year 2006: $819;
Fiscal year 2007: $716. 

Ouray NWR – Colorado River WMA and Ouray NWR, Funding, inflation-
adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $776;
Fiscal year 2003: $580;
Fiscal year 2004: $675;
Fiscal year 2005: $610; 
Fiscal year 2006: $692;
Fiscal year 2007: $584. 

Ouray NWR – Colorado River WMA and Ouray NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 5.8; 
Fiscal year 2003: 6.0;
Fiscal year 2004: 5.9;
Fiscal year 2005: 6.7;
Fiscal year 2006: 6.0;
Fiscal year 2007: 5.8. 

Quivira NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,263; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,452;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,465;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,337;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,219;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,445. 

Quivira NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,263; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,397;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,337;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,171;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,029;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,179. 

Quivira NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 13.3; 
Fiscal year 2003: 14.8;
Fiscal year 2004: 15.3;
Fiscal year 2005: 14.9;
Fiscal year 2006: 13.8;
Fiscal year 2007: 13.9. 

Rainwater Basin WMD, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,283; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,232;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,182;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,300;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,122;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,296. 

Rainwater Basin WMD, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,283; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,186;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,079;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,138;
Fiscal year 2006: $947;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,057. 

Rainwater Basin WMD, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 10.6; 
Fiscal year 2003: 13.3;
Fiscal year 2004: 12.5;
Fiscal year 2005: 11.9;
Fiscal year 2006: 11.6;
Fiscal year 2007: 12.9. 

Red Rock Lakes NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $457; 
Fiscal year 2003: $713;
Fiscal year 2004: $717;
Fiscal year 2005: $564;
Fiscal year 2006: $783;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,100. 

Red Rock Lakes NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $457; 
Fiscal year 2003: $686;
Fiscal year 2004: $654;
Fiscal year 2005: $493;
Fiscal year 2006: $661;
Fiscal year 2007: $897. 

Red Rock Lakes NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 5.5;
Fiscal year 2003: 7.2;
Fiscal year 2004: 6.3;
Fiscal year 2005: 5.9;
Fiscal year 2006: 6.0;
Fiscal year 2007: 7.0. 

Rocky Mountain Arsenal NWR – Rocky Mountain Arsenal NWR and Two Ponds 
NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,162; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,209;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,573;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,149;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,345;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,440. 

Rocky Mountain Arsenal NWR – Rocky Mountain Arsenal NWR and Two Ponds 
NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,162; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,163;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,436;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,006;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,135;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,175. 

Rocky Mountain Arsenal NWR – Rocky Mountain Arsenal NWR and Two Ponds 
NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 13.7; 
Fiscal year 2003: 14.5;
Fiscal year 2004: 15.7;
Fiscal year 2005: 15.1;
Fiscal year 2006: 15.2;
Fiscal year 2007: 14.9. 

San Luis Valley NWR Complex – Alamosa NWR, Baca NWR, and Monte Vista 
NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,120; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,504;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,586;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,256;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,370;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,430. 

San Luis Valley NWR Complex – Alamosa NWR, Baca NWR, and Monte Vista 
NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,120; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,447;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,448;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,099;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,157;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,167. 

San Luis Valley NWR Complex – Alamosa NWR, Baca NWR, and Monte Vista 
NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 10.9; 
Fiscal year 2003: 12.9;
Fiscal year 2004: 14.5;
Fiscal year 2005: 14.4;
Fiscal year 2006: 13.3;
Fiscal year 2007: 13.1. 

Sand Lake NWR – Sand Lake NWR and Sand Lake WMD, Funding, nominal 
dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $979;
Fiscal year 2003: $1,065;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,170;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,888; 
Fiscal year 2006: $1,926;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,172. 

Sand Lake NWR – Sand Lake NWR and Sand Lake WMD, Funding, inflation-
adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $979; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,025;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,068;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,653;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,626;
Fiscal year 2007: $956. 

Sand Lake NWR – Sand Lake NWR and Sand Lake WMD, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 12.6; 
Fiscal year 2003: 13.0;
Fiscal year 2004: 13.9;
Fiscal year 2005: 12.5;
Fiscal year 2006: 12.2;
Fiscal year 2007: 10.9. 

Seedskadee NWR – Cokeville Meadows NWR and Seedskadee NWR, Funding, 
nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $767; 
Fiscal year 2003: $673;
Fiscal year 2004: $735;
Fiscal year 2005: $830;
Fiscal year 2006: $897;
Fiscal year 2007: $638. 

Seedskadee NWR – Cokeville Meadows NWR and Seedskadee NWR, Funding, 
inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $767; 
Fiscal year 2003: $648;
Fiscal year 2004: $671;
Fiscal year 2005: $727;
Fiscal year 2006: $757;
Fiscal year 2007: $521. 

Seedskadee NWR – Cokeville Meadows NWR and Seedskadee NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 6.7;
Fiscal year 2003: 7.4;
Fiscal year 2004: 8.2;
Fiscal year 2005: 8.8;
Fiscal year 2006: 8.0;
Fiscal year 2007: 6.0. 

Tewaukon NWR – Storm Lake NWR, Tewaukon NWR, Tewaukon WMD, and Wild 
Rice Lake NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,181; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,229;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,186;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,019;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,641;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,141. 

Tewaukon NWR – Storm Lake NWR, Tewaukon NWR, Tewaukon WMD, and Wild 
Rice Lake NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,181;
Fiscal year 2003: $1,182;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,082;
Fiscal year 2005: $893;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,386;
Fiscal year 2007: $930. 

Tewaukon NWR – Storm Lake NWR, Tewaukon NWR, Tewaukon WMD, and Wild 
Rice Lake NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 13.7;
Fiscal year 2003: 13.0;
Fiscal year 2004: 11.8;
Fiscal year 2005: 11.3;
Fiscal year 2006: 18.7;
Fiscal year 2007: 11.1. 

Waubay NWR – Dakota Tallgrass Prairie WMA, Waubay NWR, and Waubay WMD, 
Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $773; 
Fiscal year 2003: $958;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,192;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,089;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,274;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,017. 

Waubay NWR – Dakota Tallgrass Prairie WMA, Waubay NWR, and Waubay WMD, 
Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $773; 
Fiscal year 2003: $922;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,087;
Fiscal year 2005: $954;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,075;
Fiscal year 2007: v829. 

Waubay NWR – Dakota Tallgrass Prairie WMA, Waubay NWR, and Waubay WMD, 
FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 10.0; 
Fiscal year 2003: 10.5;
Fiscal year 2004: 11.5;
Fiscal year 2005: 12.1;
Fiscal year 2006: 13.1;
Fiscal year 2007: 12.4. 

Total, FWS Region 7, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $31,320;
Fiscal year 2003: $36,066;
Fiscal year 2004: $36,734;
Fiscal year 2005: $38,232;
Fiscal year 2006: $39,079;
Fiscal year 2007: $40,244. 

Total, FWS Region 7, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $31,320; 
Fiscal year 2003: $34,706;
Fiscal year 2004: $33,523;
Fiscal year 2005: $33,473;
Fiscal year 2006: $32,992;
Fiscal year 2007: $32,825. 

Total, FWS Region 7, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 271.1; 
Fiscal year 2003: 284.9;
Fiscal year 2004: 295.6;
Fiscal year 2005: 290.1;
Fiscal year 2006: 277.5;
Fiscal year 2007: 275.5. 

Region 7, NWRS offices, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $5,083; 
Fiscal year 2003: $7,096;
Fiscal year 2004: $7,746;
Fiscal year 2005: $9,220;
Fiscal year 2006: $7,865;
Fiscal year 2007: $8,872. 

Region 7, NWRS offices, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $5,083; 
Fiscal year 2003: $6,829;
Fiscal year 2004: $7,068;
Fiscal year 2005: $8,073;
Fiscal year 2006: $6,640;
Fiscal year 2007: $7,236. 

Region 7, NWRS offices, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 38.2; 
Fiscal year 2003: 44.6;
Fiscal year 2004: 47.7;
Fiscal year 2005: 50.8;
Fiscal year 2006: 47.1;
Fiscal year 2007: 41.9. 

Alaska Maritime NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $3,491; 
Fiscal year 2003: $3,839;
Fiscal year 2004: $4,094;
Fiscal year 2005: $3,731;
Fiscal year 2006: $3,731;
Fiscal year 2007: $3,832. 

Alaska Maritime NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $3,491; 
Fiscal year 2003: $3,695;
Fiscal year 2004: $3,736;
Fiscal year 2005: $3,266;
Fiscal year 2006: $3,150;
Fiscal year 2007: $3,125. 

Alaska Maritime NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 31.8;
Fiscal year 2003: 33.6;
Fiscal year 2004: 36.9;
Fiscal year 2005: 36.5;
Fiscal year 2006: 33.9;
Fiscal year 2007: 34.6. 

Alaska Peninsula/Becharof NWR Complex – Alaska Peninsula NWR and 
Becharof NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,718; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,909;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,038;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,902;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,883;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,794. 

Alaska Peninsula/Becharof NWR Complex – Alaska Peninsula NWR and 
Becharof NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,718; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,837;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,860;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,665;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,590;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,464. 

Alaska Peninsula/Becharof NWR Complex – Alaska Peninsula NWR and 
Becharof NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 15.5; 
Fiscal year 2003: 13.1;
Fiscal year 2004: 15.8;
Fiscal year 2005: 12.6;
Fiscal year 2006: 11.2;
Fiscal year 2007: 11.1. 

Arctic NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,172; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,320;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,232;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,521;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,873;
Fiscal year 2007: $3,079. 

Arctic NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,172; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,233;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,037;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,207;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,426;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,511. 

Arctic NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 19.1;
Fiscal year 2003: 19.8;
Fiscal year 2004: 18.7;
Fiscal year 2005: 19.6;
Fiscal year 2006: 20.5;
Fiscal year 2007: 20.3. 

Innoko NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,118; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,197;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,134;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,117;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,336;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,232. 

Innoko NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,118; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,152;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,035;
Fiscal year 2005: $978;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,128;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,005. 

Innoko NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 9.2; 
Fiscal year 2003: 8.8;
Fiscal year 2004: 9.3;
Fiscal year 2005: 7.0;
Fiscal year 2006: 8.2;
Fiscal year 2007: 7.8. 

Izembek NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $840; 
Fiscal year 2003: $865;
Fiscal year 2004: $920;
Fiscal year 2005: $964;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,241;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,043. 

Izembek NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $840; 
Fiscal year 2003: $832;
Fiscal year 2004: $839;
Fiscal year 2005: $844;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,048;
Fiscal year 2007: $851. 

Izembek NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 5.0; 
Fiscal year 2003: 6.5;
Fiscal year 2004: 6.2;
Fiscal year 2005: 6.7;
Fiscal year 2006: 5.5;
Fiscal year 2007: 6.2. 

Kanuti NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $890; 
Fiscal year 2003: $969;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,000;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,154;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,543;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,350. 

Kanuti NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $890; 
Fiscal year 2003: $933;
Fiscal year 2004: $912;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,011;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,303;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,101. 

Kanuti NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 7.6;
Fiscal year 2003: 8.4;
Fiscal year 2004: 9.3;
Fiscal year 2005: 9.4;
Fiscal year 2006: 10.7;
Fiscal year 2007: 10.3. 

Kenai NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $3,654; 
Fiscal year 2003: $4,667;
Fiscal year 2004: $4,102;
Fiscal year 2005: $4,324;
Fiscal year 2006: $4,378;
Fiscal year 2007: $4,805. 

Kenai NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $3,654; 
Fiscal year 2003: $4,491;
Fiscal year 2004: $3,744;
Fiscal year 2005: $3,786;
Fiscal year 2006: $3,696;
Fiscal year 2007: $3,919. 

Kenai NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 35.7; 
Fiscal year 2003: 40.0;
Fiscal year 2004: 40.1;
Fiscal year 2005: 41.0;
Fiscal year 2006: 38.5;
Fiscal year 2007: 41.5. 

Kodiak NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,796;
Fiscal year 2003: $1,615;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,889;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,955;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,226;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,979. 

Kodiak NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,796; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,554;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,724;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,712;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,879;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,614. 

Kodiak NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 16.4; 
Fiscal year 2003: 15.5;
Fiscal year 2004: 16.2;
Fiscal year 2005: 15.9;
Fiscal year 2006: 15.3;
Fiscal year 2007: 16.1. 

Koyukuk/Nowitna NWR – Koyukuk NWR and Nowitna NWR, Funding, nominal 
dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,483; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,572;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,676;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,627;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,833;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,630. 

Koyukuk/Nowitna NWR – Koyukuk NWR and Nowitna NWR, Funding, inflation-
adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,483; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,513;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,530;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,425;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,548;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,329. 

Koyukuk/Nowitna NWR – Koyukuk NWR and Nowitna NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 10.5; 
Fiscal year 2003: 12.7;
Fiscal year 2004: 14.8;
Fiscal year 2005: 13.4;
Fiscal year 2006: 11.9;
Fiscal year 2007: 11.6. 

Selawik NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,147; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,088;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,212;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,126;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,471;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,259. 

Selawik NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,147; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,047;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,106;
Fiscal year 2005: $986;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,242;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,027. 

Selawik NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 8.6; 
Fiscal year 2003: 5.6;
Fiscal year 2004: 7.4;
Fiscal year 2005: 7.1;
Fiscal year 2006: 8.1;
Fiscal year 2007: 8.3. 

Tetlin NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,777; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,438;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,038;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,816;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,918;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,266. 

Tetlin NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,777; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,346;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,860;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,590;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,619;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,849. 

Tetlin NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 18.0;
Fiscal year 2003: 19.0;
Fiscal year 2004: 17.4;
Fiscal year 2005: 17.4;
Fiscal year 2006: 18.2;
Fiscal year 2007: 18.6. 

Togiak NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,906; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,071;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,044;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,970;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,961;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,101. 

Togiak NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,906; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,993;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,866;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,725;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,655;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,713. 

Togiak NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 17.5; 
Fiscal year 2003: 18.0;
Fiscal year 2004: 17.0;
Fiscal year 2005: 16.8;
Fiscal year 2006: 15.6;
Fiscal year 2007: 14.4. 

Yukon Delta NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,785; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,918;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,962;
Fiscal year 2005: $3,037;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,949;
Fiscal year 2007: $3,034. 

Yukon Delta NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,785; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,808;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,703;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,659;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,490;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,474. 

Yukon Delta NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 26.0; 
Fiscal year 2003: 24.9;
Fiscal year 2004: 24.3;
Fiscal year 2005: 23.2;
Fiscal year 2006: 21.2;
Fiscal year 2007: 20.7. 

Yukon Flats NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,460; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,501;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,648;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,767;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,870;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,967. 

Yukon Flats NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,460; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,444;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,504;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,547;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,578;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,604. 

Yukon Flats NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 12.3; 
Fiscal year 2003: 14.4;
Fiscal year 2004: 14.5;
Fiscal year 2005: 12.7;
Fiscal year 2006: 11.8;
Fiscal year 2007: 12.3. 

Total, FWS Region 8, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $23,491; 
Fiscal year 2003: $25,825;
Fiscal year 2004: $26,963;
Fiscal year 2005: $31,811;
Fiscal year 2006: $33,063;
Fiscal year 2007: $34,987. 

Total, FWS Region 8, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $23,491; 
Fiscal year 2003: $24,851;
Fiscal year 2004: $24,605;
Fiscal year 2005: $27,851;
Fiscal year 2006: $27,912;
Fiscal year 2007: $28,537. 

Total, FWS Region 8, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 227.0;
Fiscal year 2003: 235.1;
Fiscal year 2004: 239.4;
Fiscal year 2005: 262.5;
Fiscal year 2006: 253.4;
Fiscal year 2007: 264.1. 

Region 8, NWRS offices, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: 0;
Fiscal year 2003: 0;
Fiscal year 2004: 0;
Fiscal year 2005: $4,215; 
Fiscal year 2006: $3,832;
Fiscal year 2007: $3,555. 

Region 8, NWRS offices, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: 0;
Fiscal year 2003: 0;
Fiscal year 2004: 0;
Fiscal year 2005: $3,690; 
Fiscal year 2006: $3,235;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,900. 

Region 8, NWRS offices, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 0;
Fiscal year 2003: 0;
Fiscal year 2004: 0.1; 
Fiscal year 2005: 27.4;
Fiscal year 2006: 22.4;
Fiscal year 2007: 22.1. 

Desert NWR Complex – Ash Meadows NWR, Desert National Wildlife Range, 
Moapa Valley NWR, and Pahranagat NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,455; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,831;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,960;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,933;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,821;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,870. 

Desert NWR Complex – Ash Meadows NWR, Desert National Wildlife Range, 
Moapa Valley NWR, and Pahranagat NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,455; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,762;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,789;
Fiscal year 2005: v1,692;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,381;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,341. 

Desert NWR Complex – Ash Meadows NWR, Desert National Wildlife Range, 
Moapa Valley NWR, and Pahranagat NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 16.8; 
Fiscal year 2003: 15.3;
Fiscal year 2004: 16.1;
Fiscal year 2005: 14.6;
Fiscal year 2006: 12.8;
Fiscal year 2007: 13.1. 

Hopper Mountain NWR Complex – Bitter Creek NWR, Blue Ridge NWR, 
Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes NWR, and Hopper Mountain NWR, Funding, nominal 
dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $926;
Fiscal year 2003: $973;
Fiscal year 2004: $810;
Fiscal year 2005: $713; 
Fiscal year 2006: $902;
Fiscal year 2007: $992. 

Hopper Mountain NWR Complex – Bitter Creek NWR, Blue Ridge NWR, 
Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes NWR, and Hopper Mountain NWR, Funding, inflation-
adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $926; 
Fiscal year 2003: $937;
Fiscal year 2004: $739;
Fiscal year 2005: $624;
Fiscal year 2006: $761;
Fiscal year 2007: $809. 

Hopper Mountain NWR Complex – Bitter Creek NWR, Blue Ridge NWR, 
Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes NWR, and Hopper Mountain NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 6.2; 
Fiscal year 2003: 7.3;
Fiscal year 2004: 8.1;
Fiscal year 2005: 5.5;
Fiscal year 2006: 5.7;
Fiscal year 2007: 5.2. 

Humboldt Bay NWR – Castle Rock NWR and Humboldt Bay NWR, Funding, 
nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $862;
Fiscal year 2003: $857;
Fiscal year 2004: $882;
Fiscal year 2005: $911; 
Fiscal year 2006: $929;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,009. 

Humboldt Bay NWR – Castle Rock NWR and Humboldt Bay NWR, Funding, 
inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $862; 
Fiscal year 2003: $825;
Fiscal year 2004: $805;
Fiscal year 2005: $797;
Fiscal year 2006: $784;
Fiscal year 2007: $823. 

Humboldt Bay NWR – Castle Rock NWR and Humboldt Bay NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 6.9; 
Fiscal year 2003: 7.6;
Fiscal year 2004: 7.4;
Fiscal year 2005: 8.3;
Fiscal year 2006: 7.4;
Fiscal year 2007: 8.0. 

Kern NWR – Kern NWR and Pixley NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $669;
Fiscal year 2003: $638;
Fiscal year 2004: $933;
Fiscal year 2005: $818;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,134;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,118. 

Kern NWR – Kern NWR and Pixley NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $669; 
Fiscal year 2003: $614;
Fiscal year 2004: $851;
Fiscal year 2005: $716;
Fiscal year 2006: $957;
Fiscal year 2007: $912. 

Kern NWR – Kern NWR and Pixley NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 6.4; 
Fiscal year 2003: 6.4;
Fiscal year 2004: 8.3;
Fiscal year 2005: 9.5;
Fiscal year 2006: 8.2;
Fiscal year 2007: 7.9. 

Klamath Basin NWR Complex – Clear Lake NWR, Tule Lake NWR, Bear Valley 
NWR, Klamath Marsh NWR, Upper Klamath NWR, and Lower Klamath NWR, 
Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $4,344;
Fiscal year 2003: $3,694;
Fiscal year 2004: $3,888;
Fiscal year 2005: $4,244;
Fiscal year 2006: $4,362;
Fiscal year 2007: $4,457. 

Klamath Basin NWR Complex – Clear Lake NWR, Tule Lake NWR, Bear Valley 
NWR, Klamath Marsh NWR, Upper Klamath NWR, and Lower Klamath NWR, 
Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $4,344;
Fiscal year 2003: $3,555;
Fiscal year 2004: $3,548;
Fiscal year 2005: $3,716;
Fiscal year 2006: $3,682;
Fiscal year 2007: $3,636. 

Klamath Basin NWR Complex – Clear Lake NWR, Tule Lake NWR, Bear Valley 
NWR, Klamath Marsh NWR, Upper Klamath NWR, and Lower Klamath NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 43.2; 
Fiscal year 2003: 44.6;
Fiscal year 2004: 44.2;
Fiscal year 2005: 41.1;
Fiscal year 2006: 39.9;
Fiscal year 2007: 41.7. 

Modoc NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $505; 
Fiscal year 2003: $689;
Fiscal year 2004: $741;
Fiscal year 2005: $948;
Fiscal year 2006: $848;
Fiscal year 2007: $789. 

Modoc NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $505; 
Fiscal year 2003: $663;
Fiscal year 2004: $676;
Fiscal year 2005: $830;
Fiscal year 2006: $716;
Fiscal year 2007: $644. 

Modoc NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 5.1; 
Fiscal year 2003: 6.1;
Fiscal year 2004: 6.3;
Fiscal year 2005: 6.1;
Fiscal year 2006: 5.8;
Fiscal year 2007: 6.6. 

Ruby Lake NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,218; 
Fiscal year 2003: $996;
Fiscal year 2004: $966;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,313;
Fiscal year 2006: $759;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,059. 

Ruby Lake NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,218; 
Fiscal year 2003: $958;
Fiscal year 2004: $881;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,149;
Fiscal year 2006: $641;
Fiscal year 2007: $864. 

Ruby Lake NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 6.4; 
Fiscal year 2003: 6.4;
Fiscal year 2004: 7.2;
Fiscal year 2005: 7.5;
Fiscal year 2006: 7.6;
Fiscal year 2007: 7.8. 

Sacramento NWR Complex – Butte Sink WMA, Colusa NWR, Delevan NWR, North 
Central Valley WMA, Sacramento NWR, Sacramento River NWR, Sutter NWR, 
and Willow Creek-Lurline WMA, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,665; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,920;
Fiscal year 2004: $3,337;
Fiscal year 2005: $3,038;
Fiscal year 2006: $3,821;
Fiscal year 2007: $3,900. 

Sacramento NWR Complex – Butte Sink WMA, Colusa NWR, Delevan NWR, North 
Central Valley WMA, Sacramento NWR, Sacramento River NWR, Sutter NWR, 
and Willow Creek-Lurline WMA, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,665; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,810;
Fiscal year 2004: $3,045;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,660;
Fiscal year 2006: $3,226;
Fiscal year 2007: $3,181. 

Sacramento NWR Complex – Butte Sink WMA, Colusa NWR, Delevan NWR, North 
Central Valley WMA, Sacramento NWR, Sacramento River NWR, Sutter NWR, 
and Willow Creek-Lurline WMA, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 28.9; 
Fiscal year 2003: 32.1;
Fiscal year 2004: 33.6;
Fiscal year 2005: 31.2;
Fiscal year 2006: 32.7;
Fiscal year 2007: 35.8. 

San Diego NWR Complex – San Diego Bay NWR, San Diego NWR, Seal Beach 
NWR, and Tijuana Slough NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,326; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,692;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,461;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,701;
Fiscal year 2006: $3,304;
Fiscal year 2007: $3,195. 

San Diego NWR Complex – San Diego Bay NWR, San Diego NWR, Seal Beach 
NWR, and Tijuana Slough NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,326; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,591;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,246;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,365;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,790;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,606. 

San Diego NWR Complex – San Diego Bay NWR, San Diego NWR, Seal Beach 
NWR, and Tijuana Slough NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 22.9; 
Fiscal year 2003: 26.0;
Fiscal year 2004: 27.7;
Fiscal year 2005: 25.8;
Fiscal year 2006: 24.5;
Fiscal year 2007: 26.2. 

San Francisco Bay NWR Complex – Antioch Dunes NWR, Don Edwards San 
Francisco Bay NWR, Ellicott Slough NWR, Farallon NWR, Marin Islands 
NWR, Salinas River NWR, and San Pablo Bay NWR, Funding, nominal 
dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,829; 
Fiscal year 2003: $4,064;
Fiscal year 2004: $3,588;
Fiscal year 2005: $3,239;
Fiscal year 2006: $3,417;
Fiscal year 2007: $4,463. 

San Francisco Bay NWR Complex – Antioch Dunes NWR, Don Edwards San 
Francisco Bay NWR, Ellicott Slough NWR, Farallon NWR, Marin Islands 
NWR, Salinas River NWR, and San Pablo Bay NWR, Funding, inflation-
adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,829; 
Fiscal year 2003: $3,911;
Fiscal year 2004: $3,274;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,836;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,885;
Fiscal year 2007: $3,640. 

San Francisco Bay NWR Complex – Antioch Dunes NWR, Don Edwards San 
Francisco Bay NWR, Ellicott Slough NWR, Farallon NWR, Marin Islands 
NWR, Salinas River NWR, and San Pablo Bay NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 24.0; 
Fiscal year 2003: 23.8;
Fiscal year 2004: 23.5;
Fiscal year 2005: 25.3;
Fiscal year 2006: 26.0;
Fiscal year 2007: 27.6. 

San Luis NWR Complex – Grasslands WMA, Merced NWR, San Joaquin River 
NWR, and San Luis NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,512; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,380;
Fiscal year 2004: $3,049;
Fiscal year 2005: $3,383;
Fiscal year 2006: $3,127;
Fiscal year 2007: $3,362. 

San Luis NWR Complex – Grasslands WMA, Merced NWR, San Joaquin River 
NWR, and San Luis NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $2,512; 
Fiscal year 2003: $2,290;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,782;
Fiscal year 2005: $2,962;
Fiscal year 2006: $2,640;
Fiscal year 2007: $2,742. 

San Luis NWR Complex – Grasslands WMA, Merced NWR, San Joaquin River 
NWR, and San Luis NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 28.5; 
Fiscal year 2003: 27.9;
Fiscal year 2004: 27.0;
Fiscal year 2005: 29.6;
Fiscal year 2006: 29.8;
Fiscal year 2007: 32.0. 

Sonny Bono Salton Sea NWR Complex – Coachella Valley NWR and Sonny Bono 
Salton Sea NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $848; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,784;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,064;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,931;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,776;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,869. 

Sonny Bono Salton Sea NWR Complex – Coachella Valley NWR and Sonny Bono 
Salton Sea NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $848; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,716;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,883;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,691;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,500;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,524. 

Sonny Bono Salton Sea NWR Complex – Coachella Valley NWR and Sonny Bono 
Salton Sea NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 10.4;
Fiscal year 2003: 13.6;
Fiscal year 2004: 13.9;
Fiscal year 2005: 13.3;
Fiscal year 2006: 14.0;
Fiscal year 2007: 14.3. 

Stillwater NWR – Anaho Island NWR, Fallon NWR, and Stillwater NWR, 
Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,444; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,550;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,610;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,701;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,415;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,558. 

Stillwater NWR – Anaho Island NWR, Fallon NWR, and Stillwater NWR, 
Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $1,444; 
Fiscal year 2003: $1,491;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,469;
Fiscal year 2005: $1,489;
Fiscal year 2006: $1,195;
Fiscal year 2007: $1,271. 

Stillwater NWR – Anaho Island NWR, Fallon NWR, and Stillwater NWR, 
FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 14.9; 
Fiscal year 2003: 11.6;
Fiscal year 2004: 10.2;
Fiscal year 2005: 11.2;
Fiscal year 2006: 11.0;
Fiscal year 2007: 10.8. 

Stone Lakes NWR, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $888;
Fiscal year 2003: $756;
Fiscal year 2004: $675;
Fiscal year 2005: $725; 
Fiscal year 2006: $615;
Fiscal year 2007: $791. 

Stone Lakes NWR, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $888; 
Fiscal year 2003: $728;
Fiscal year 2004: $616;
Fiscal year 2005: $634;
Fiscal year 2006: $519;
Fiscal year 2007: $645. 

Stone Lakes NWR, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 6.6;
Fiscal year 2003: 6.3;
Fiscal year 2004: 6.0;
Fiscal year 2005: 6.1;
Fiscal year 2006: 5.7;
Fiscal year 2007: 5.1. 

Total, NWRS Headquarters (Region 9), Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $18,357; 
Fiscal year 2003: $22,818;
Fiscal year 2004: $20,695;
Fiscal year 2005: $21,876;
Fiscal year 2006: $22,262;
Fiscal year 2007: $21,101. 

Total, NWRS Headquarters (Region 9), Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $18,357; 
Fiscal year 2003: $21,957;
Fiscal year 2004: $18,886;
Fiscal year 2005: $19,153;
Fiscal year 2006: $18,794;
Fiscal year 2007: $17,211. 

Total, NWRS Headquarters (Region 9), FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 87.0; 
Fiscal year 2003: 92.0;
Fiscal year 2004: 105.7;
Fiscal year 2005: 104.1;
Fiscal year 2006: 99.0;
Fiscal year 2007: 88.4. 

Total, Funding, nominal dollars: 
Fiscal year 2002: $365,720; 
Fiscal year 2003: $406,030;
Fiscal year 2004: $413,070;
Fiscal year 2005: $425,160;
Fiscal year 2006: $441,950;
Fiscal year 2007: $467,880. 

Total, Funding, inflation-adjusted: 
Fiscal year 2002: $365,720; 
Fiscal year 2003: $390,720;
Fiscal year 2004: $376,956;
Fiscal year 2005: $372,235;
Fiscal year 2006: $373,105;
Fiscal year 2007: $381,623. 

Total, FTEs: 
Fiscal year 2002: 3,284;
Fiscal year 2003: 3,493;
Fiscal year 2004: 3,610;
Fiscal year 2005: 3,556;
Fiscal year 2006: 3,545;
Fiscal year 2007: 3,464. 

Source: GAO analysis of Fish and Wildlife Service data. 

Notes: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. FTE=full-time equivalent. 
NWR=National Wildlife Refuge. NWRS=National Wildlife Refuge System. 
WMA=Wildlife Management Area. WMD=Wetland Management District. There 
were no obligations or FTEs charged for the Neches River NWR, North 
Dakota WMA, Rocky Flats NWR, and Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area 
during the fiscal year 2002 to 2007 time period. 

[A] The Big Island NWR Complex, Kauai NWR Complex, Maui NWR Complex, 
Oahu NWR Complex, and Pacific Remote Islands NWR Complex are sub-
complexes of the Hawaiian and Pacific Islands NWR Complex. 

[B] The Lostwood WMD complex was formed in 2006 when Lostwood WMD was 
split off from a complex that had been headquartered at the Des Lacs 
NWR. Since 2006, Des Lacs NWR has been a satellite of a complex 
headquartered at the J. Clark Salyer NWR. All of Des Lacs NWR’s former 
satellite refuges are now part of the Lostwood WMD complex. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of the Interior: 

United States Department of the Interior: 
Office Of The Secretary: 
Washington, DC 20240: 

September 16, 2008: 

Robin M. Nazzaro: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001: 

Dear Ms. Nazzaro: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review, and comment on the Government 
Accountability Office draft report entitled, "Wildlife Refuges: Changes 
in Funding, Stuffing and Other Factors Create Concerns about Future 
Sustainability " (GAO 08-797). 

The enclosure provides technical comments on the draft report. We hope 
these comments will assist you in preparing the final report. 

If you have any questions, please contact Jacob Lee, Audit Liaison, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, at 703-358-2233. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

[Illegible] 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks: 

Enclosure: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Robin Nazzaro at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, Trish McClure, Assistant 
Director; Mark Braza; David Brown; Stephen Cleary; Tim Guinane; Carol 
Henn; Richard Johnson; Michael Krafve; Alison O’Neill; George Quinn, 
Jr.; and Stephanie Toby made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Pub. L. No. 105-57 (1997). 

[2] For this report, we obtained data on obligations because these data 
represent a fairly complete picture of funding received in support of 
the refuge system. Available funds come from appropriations, grants, 
recreation fees, donations, and all other sources received during each 
fiscal year. We determined that the financial and personnel systems 
were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report; we used 
data only from the performance system for assisting in selection of 
refuges for site visits and determined it to be reliable for that 
purpose. 

[3] For the purpose of this report, we refer to wildlife refuges and 
wetland management districts collectively as refuges. Wetland 
management districts administer small parcels of land called waterfowl 
production areas, which are scattered over many counties and preserve 
wetlands and grasslands that are critical to waterfowl and other 
wildlife. Wetland management districts consist primarily of easements 
that require landowners to manage their land in ways that are not 
contrary to the waterfowl conservation mission, and thus have more 
responsibility for easement enforcement and management than refuges. In 
addition, hunting tends to be the most prevalent visitor service on 
these lands, while wildlife observation is more prevalent on refuges. 

[4] According to officials in Region 3, that region does not group 
refuges together in the same manner as complexes formed by other 
regions. However, for the purpose of this report, we collectively refer 
to groups of refuges combined together for management purposes as 
complexes. 

[5] Two complexes include only one refuge but are considered complexes 
because they have two units that they manage. Specifically, the Big 
Island NWR in Hawaii includes the Hakalau Forest NWR as well as the 
Kona Forest NWR, which is considered a unit of Hakalau Forest NWR. The 
Aransas/Matagorda Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex in Texas is 
the other example. 

[6] We adjusted nominal dollars using the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) 
Price Index for Government Consumption Expenditures and Gross 
Investment (federal nondefense sector), with 2002 as the base year. 
This price index assigns greater weight to changes in federal workers’ 
compensation than does the more general GDP (Chained) Price Index. 

[7] For this report, we obtained data on obligations because these data 
represent a fairly complete picture of funding received in support of 
the refuge system. Available funds come from appropriations, grants, 
recreation fees, donations, and all other sources received during each 
fiscal year. 

[8] Obligations data are only available for stand-alone refuges and 
complexes, not for refuges that are a part of complexes. 

[9] We defined funding increasing or decreasing by 5 percent or less 
over the time period as staying about the same. Four refuges, Neches 
River NWR, North Dakota Wildlife Management Area, Rocky Flats NWR, and 
Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area, incurred no obligations during 
the fiscal year 2002 to 2007 time period. 

[10] The decrease equals about $4.1 million due to rounding. 

[11] Okefenokee NWR is the name the refuge system uses for the complex 
consisting of the Banks Lake NWR and Okefenokee NWR. 

[12] We did not ask survey respondents to estimate the dollar value of 
volunteer time. 

[13] Actual FTEs, representing staff time charged to specific 
activities at complexes and standalone refuges, are reported in the 
Federal Financial System. They differ from budgeted FTEs, which 
generally represent the operations and maintenance staffing ceiling for 
the refuge system in a given fiscal year and are reported in the annual 
FWS budget justifications. 

[14] About 38 percent of the increase in fire management activities 
over the study period was due to an increase in emergency wildfire 
suppression, prevention of further degradation, and rehabilitation of 
burned areas. 

[15] The employee counts discussed in this section are based upon 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. 

[16] A position is occupied by one employee, either permanent or 
temporary, and working a full-time, part-time, or seasonal schedule. 
Conversely, a single FTE could encompass the hours worked by multiple 
employees. For example, four employees hired to work for 3 months 
during the summer would be the equivalent of 12 months of work, or one 
FTE, for the year. The same would be true for two employees who each 
worked 20 hours per week for an entire year. Thus an increase or 
decrease in the number of refuge system employees would likely result 
in a smaller related increase or decrease in total FTEs. 

[17]“About the same” refers to those complexes and stand-alone refuges 
that neither gained nor lost more than 5 percent of their staff. 
Subtotals do not sum to 222, the total number of complexes and stand-
alone refuges, because four offices were not staffed with at least one 
permanent employee during any of the 6 fiscal years in our study 
period. 

[18] During our study period, the refuge system had to pay for 
mandatory federal pay increases as well as increasing employee benefits 
costs. For more information on rising salary and benefits costs for 
federal employees, see GAO, National Park Service: Major Operations 
Funding Trends and How Selected Park Units Responded to Those Trends 
for Fiscal Years 2001 through 2005, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-431] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 
31, 2006). 

[19] The original target ratio for most regions was 20 percent 
management capability to 80 percent salaries and benefits, but the 
management capability target was subsequently raised. Refuges in 
Alaska, Hawaii, and the Pacific Islands targeted a higher proportion of 
management capability due to their greater operational costs, 
especially for fuel and other essential supplies. 

[20] The Improvement Act excluded some refuges from the requirement to 
have comprehensive conservation plans completed by 2012. 

[21] In calculating the number of law enforcement FTEs currently on 
board, all dual-function officers were counted as .25 FTE. 

[22] For more information about the effects of climate change on 
federal lands, see GAO, Climate Change: Agencies Should Develop 
Guidance for Addressing the Effects on Federal Land and Water 
Resources, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-863] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 7, 2007). According to 
senior officials, the refuge system participates in a climate change 
workgroup within Interior, and refuges will include a discussion of 
potential climate change impacts in future comprehensive conservation 
plans. 

[23] Discing is a type of soil tillage involving a series of disc-
shaped plows. 

[24] Our survey results also show that refuge managers are far more 
likely to rate habitats on unstaffed satellite refuges as low priority 
than habitats on focus or targeted reduction refuges. This is 
consistent with what managers told us about the criteria for placing 
refuges into tiers. For example, unstaffed refuges generally are 
smaller and more remote, and have less complex and less important 
habitat, than the higher tiered refuges. In spite of this, our 
statistical models show that unstaffed satellite refuges are more 
likely to experience worsened habitat even after accounting for habitat 
priority. See app. II for details. 

[25] After accounting for changes in staff time and external factors, 
our model for waterfowl habitat did not find that focus refuges were 
significantly more likely than unstaffed satellite refuges to report 
that habitat improved, rather than worsened, although the difference 
between targeted reduction and unstaffed satellite refuges remained 
statistically significant. See app. II for details on our analysis. 

[26] See app. II for a discussion of the models developed for this 
analysis. 

[27] Candidate species are those for which FWS has sufficient 
information on their biological status and threats to propose them as 
endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act, but for 
which development of a listing regulation is precluded by other higher-
priority listing activities. A state species of concern, although not a 
formal term, is a species determined to be threatened, declining in 
population, rare, or unique by individual states’ natural resource 
departments. 

[28] For waterfowl and other migratory birds we asked refuge managers 
to rate the priority of their habitat with regard to the purpose of 
their refuge. For threatened and endangered species, candidate species, 
and state species of concern, managers were asked to rate the 
importance of the habitat on their refuge in relation to the total 
amount of habitat available to the species both on and off the refuge. 

[29] Nutria are semiaquatic rodents that weigh about 12 to 15 pounds 
and also are known as coypu. 

[30] Western Governors’ Association, Wildlife Corridors Initiative 
Report (Jackson, Wyoming, 2008). 

[31] Refuge managers we spoke with considered land within the approved 
acquisition boundary but not yet purchased to be “refuge lands” for 
conceptual discussion purposes. 

[32] We combined results from a series of survey questions to classify 
refuges as either having a net increase or no net increase in the 
contribution of external factors to habitat problems. See appendix II 
for further discussion of our methodology. 

[33] Data on FTE changes are available only for complexes and stand-
alone refuges and not for refuges that are part of complexes. 

[34] This includes only those refuges that reported spending any staff 
time on a particular visitor service. 

[35] We did not ask questions about the quality of their programs in 
2002 because we determined that these questions would not produce 
reliable responses. 

[36] The list of external factors included extreme weather, 
agriculture, industry, human settlement, rights of way, on-refuge 
pollution, on-refuge activities, and inadequate water rights. Through a 
series of chi-square tests, we determined that the net change in 
external factors could be expressed, without losing significant 
explanatory power, as a variable with two categories. Only 16 refuges 
reported experiencing a net decrease in the contribution of external 
factors. Because this group of refuges was too small to be analyzed 
independently it was combined with the group of refuges that reported 
experiencing no net change in the contribution of external factors 
thereby comprising the “no net increase” category. 

[37] Capital improvement is the construction, installation, or assembly 
of a new asset, or the alteration, expansion, or extension of an 
existing asset to accommodate a change of function or unmet 
programmatic needs, or to incorporate new technology. 

[38] While project costs were frozen for tier 1 projects, tier 2 
project costs were allowed to increase by a small percentage each year 
to reflect the trend in annual inflation. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room LM: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 
Voice: (202) 512-6000: 
TDD: (202) 512-2537: 
Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: