Workforce Planning Report

The importance of national wildlife refuges has never been greater and our management resources have never been stretched thinner. This plan is designed to address the management challenges facing national wildlife refuges in the Southeast Region over the next three years.

The National Wildlife Refuge System has reached a difficult period that requires a comprehensive strategic financial and human resource plan. In May 2006, the Service Directorate requested that each regional national wildlife refuge program complete a workforce analysis to address this situation nationally. In conjunction with national workforce planning initiatives, Director Hall charged the Regional Directors to achieve a 10% reduction in Regional Office (RO) positions (FTEs) with the savings used to minimize the impacts of anticipated budget cuts at the field station level. This plan is a tool to effectively manage budgetary decreases/increases and better align current staffing resources to mission priorities in this challenging time for the Refuge System.

Although there is much discussion about the impact of declining budgets, the changes we currently face are much larger than a few years of budget cuts. Refuges in the Southeast Region are faced with an increasing human population, exploding invasive species problems, increasing workloads associated with new technologies, fragmentation of ecosystems through urban sprawl, impacts associated with climate change, and increasing conflicts between wildlife and humans as the landscape changes.

The importance of national wildlife refuges has never been greater and our management resources have never been stretched thinner. This plan is designed to address the management challenges facing national wildlife refuges in the Southeast Region over the next three years.

Purpose
The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act directed the Service to manage national wildlife refuges with the principle goal of conserving wildlife resources for current and future generations. Trust resource management and protection of existing resources are the priority focus of the plan, with lesser emphasis on managing public use activities. The plan identifies three tiers of refuges, which are defined further in the document:

1. Focus Refuges
2. Targeted Reduction Refuges
3. Unstaffed Satellite Refuges

Imperative to the success of this exercise is the development of an in-reach plan and effective communication of the proposed budget strategies to all refuge employees in the Southeast Region. Additionally, this plan will be used as a basis for an outreach plan to educate refuge friends groups, volunteers, partners, congressional interests, and the general public concerning current budget issues and strategies that will be used to manage our refuge resources during the next three years.

Between 2004 and 2006, refuges in the Southeast Region have opportunistically abolished 64 permanent field positions and four Regional Office positions due to budget reductions. This large staff reduction, approximately 10 percent of the total workforce, has allowed all refuges to remain open and to maintain a limited operational margin at most field stations. Many field stations’ operational margins dropped to less than five percent prior to this position management.

The Southeast Region has now reached a nine percent operational margin that is essential to pay fixed costs. A margin of 15-20 percent is needed to fund our priority mission work and ensure necessary habitat management. We have to reduce staffing to increase operating margin.

Due to flat or declining future budget forecasts, continued staff reductions and other cost-saving measures will be necessary to maintain these margins and prevent closure of refuges and/or non-voluntary reductions-in-force (RIF). A comprehensive review of position allocations across the Southeast Region was necessary to match the highest priority resource work with our limited and declining workforce.

The Workforce Teams developed this strategic plan that identifies additional field and Regional Office positions to be abolished. With 85-90 percent of the Southeast Region’s management capabilities consumed by existing salaries, the only way to generate significant savings to address projected flat-line or decreasing budgets is through staff reductions.

One of the purposes of this plan is to adjust our staffing deployment to ensure all refuges continue to function at least minimally and achieve priority objectives. This plan also provides guidelines to assist Regional leadership in decision-making associated with budget decreases/increases. The plan seeks to provide a systematic approach to properly align the current workforce with our most important mission objectives in an effort to move toward a 20 percent operational margin at field stations at the conclusion of the plan’s three-year duration.

The plan will be formally reviewed at least annually to chart progress and to make minor modifications as priorities or budget levels dictate. Even with slight budget increases, this plan should be followed to more strategically deploy the Southeast Region’s workforce. No refuge is identified for closure in this plan and core mission functions will be maintained at least minimally on each refuge in the Southeast Region.

The national goal of at least 20 percent management capability should not be viewed as the primary cause for the development of this document in the Southeast Region.

The opportunistic elimination of 64 permanent field positions from 2004-2006, plus the complexing of some refuges to gain additional savings, has resulted in our limited workforce being distributed in a less-than-strategic fashion.

The primary purpose of this plan is to realign our declining staff to the Southeast Region’s highest priority resources, primarily to refuges in the Focus category. We simply must manage our current resources in proper alignment with our highest priority mission objectives. Also, the plan provides the Southeast Region more management flexibility, and prevents crisis management (i.e., a complete hiring freeze or RIF, if projected flat-line or decreasing budgets occur). The desired goal of a 20 percent margin over salary costs will allow refuge managers the funding necessary to address ever-increasing fixed costs, such as fuels and utilities, better-maintained environmental integrity and biological diversity on each refuge, and will maintain core management functions at a moderate level.

Because such a large portion of our funding is allocated to salaries, budget reductions are only attainable by further reductions in staffing, which are estimated to be $3.9 million. A 20 percent operational margin will require great sacrifice with significant staffing reductions and will not likely be met in the Southeast Region during the next three years unless budget increases occur. A stable budget, coupled with strategic downsizing, would achieve an operating margin approaching the 20 percent goal. If budgets do not remain stable, and are flat or decline during this period, the 20 percent goal will not be achievable and refuge closures and non-voluntary staff reassignments and/or reductions will likely be necessary.

Regardless of budget levels, a strategic realignment of refuge field positions will be implemented, because the first round of staffing reductions was opportunistic.

History of Budget Situation in Southeast Region
Due to its success and its critically important mission, nationally the Refuge System has experienced significant growth over the past century—expanding from one 5-acre island to 545 units encompassing over 93 million acres dedicated to conserving wildlife resources for future generations.

The Southeast Region currently manages 128 national wildlife refuges, encompassing nearly four million acres. This is 24 percent of the total number of refuges in the Refuge System, making the Southeast Region the largest Region. Refuges in the Southeast Region also host 30 percent of the total visitation nationally.

Though there may be a perception that the Southeast Region has expanded disproportionately to other Regions, the growth of the Refuge System has been stable (linear) nationally and in the Southeast Region (Figure 1). Quite simply, the growth of the Refuge System is not a bad thing and it is not why we find ourselves in this crisis.

Use of salary savings
As positions are abolished, a cost savings will be realized to maintain or increase the operational margins of field stations. Funding associated with positions not targeted for reduction will be applied at the refuge manager’s discretion to fill the vacant position or increase the refuge’s operating margin. If the annual operating margin goals targeted in this plan are realized, the cost savings will then be directed to priority staffing needs identified in the plan.

Methods
All refuges in the Southeast Region have an important role in support of the overall Refuge System mission. Variability lies in the size, location, history, future opportunities, and complexity of each refuge. This planning exercise is not intended to reduce or diminish the importance of any refuge. However, when resources become limited, decisions must be made to reallocate funds and staffing resources.

Several methods will be utilized to aid in a strategic approach to staffing reductions. The Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA) and Voluntary Separation Incentive Pay (VSIP) have been requested for use by the Southeast Region to abolish targeted positions. These voluntary retirement programs, combined with voluntary transfers/reassignments, should provide the necessary flexibility to downsize to required levels and achieve the goals outlined in this plan. Also, 14 of the 79 field positions identified for abolishment in this plan are currently vacant.

Refuge Tiers
Due to the level of complexity associated with evaluating multiple refuges with varying resources, intensity of management, public-use opportunities, etc., we decided that each refuge would be placed into one of three well-defined groups in lieu of individual refuge rankings (#1 to #128). Refuges were not ranked within tiers in order to avoid placing emphasis on one particular resource. The tiers are not intended as the sole guide to strategically manage human capital and resources over the course of the next three years.

The Field Team spent a great deal of time and used professional judgment, refuge reports, and other information to evaluate each refuge in terms of trust resource protection, management complexity, staffing needs, public use programs, and geographic location to place the 128 refuges into one of four Tiers. When the decision was made nationally to use three Tiers and standard definitions, the Regional Chief considered input from staff and then made final decisions from the three Tiers.

Every Region was asked to place each refuge within one of three tiers (Focus, Targeted Reduction, or Unstaffed Satellite). The tiers are defined as follows:

Focus Refuges
These are refuges where the Service will strive to maintain or enhance existing field operations. These refuges are identified because of the significance of the natural resources, important opportunities for priority wildlife-dependent recreation, or other highly significant values that make their operations top priorities for the Service.

Targeted Reduction Refuges
These refuges are identified as places where reductions in operations will occur. They may have significant natural resources, opportunities for priority wildlife-dependent recreation, or other significant values, but their priority is less than focus refuges.

Unstaffed Satellite Refuges
This includes both refuges that have never been staffed and those that will be destaffed because of budget shortfalls.

Because of the critical funding situation in the Southeast Region, significant staffing reductions will have to occur not only in the Targeted Reduction Refuges but also in the Focus Refuges.

Position Ranking Process
In order to realign our workforce and move toward a 20 percent operating margin without closing refuges, a potential FTE reduction was analyzed that targeted operational efficiency. Each staff position at each field station and refuge complex was reviewed from a regional priority perspective. Those stations that are part of a complex, or would likely benefit from future complexing with other stations, were evaluated on the potential to share resources, such as biological staff, maintenance positions, administrative functions, etc.

Stations were identified as candidates for strategic staff reductions only if core functions and key habitats could be maintained during the next three years. This should not be interpreted that the same level of existing work will be carried out after staff reductions, but that the key habitats would not deteriorate past recovery over the next three years. For instance, habitat work in forested areas, such as thinning or stand improvements, would not occur if the forester position was abolished. Some public use roads or facilities may be closed if maintenance positions are abolished. Biological surveys and monitoring would not be done if the biologist position was abolished. Environmental education for school groups and information for our visitors would be reduced in relation to public use staff cuts.

The Field Team noted that further staff reductions would greatly stress nearly all stations, but remained cognizant of the stable-to-declining budget projections over the next three years. All proposed staff reductions identified are station-specific, and were voted on by the Field Team. The overlying principle to each vote was the goal to maintain only core functions and key habitats during the next three years.

The team first generated a list of positions throughout the region to be strategically eliminated. This list included over 90 positions and this reduction exceeded the projected cost savings target of $3.9 million dollars. Because staff levels are so critically low in the Region, the team did not want to cut beyond the identified target.

However, the Field Team felt there was a need to place new positions at stations with higher priority mission work. The team voted to create a list of “add back” positions. The national guidance in the Director’s memo also required each Region to develop a list of prioritized positions to add if funding allowed. It was agreed by all parties that the add list would be strategically weighted toward Focus Refuges where appropriate. The strategic placement of the added positions took into consideration the stations’ complexity, priorities, functional programs, and current issues. Paramount to the team members’ decisions to add positions was the protection and management of priority resources.

After reviewing the Field Team’s recommendations, the new national guidance, and the comments and recommendations from reviewers; the Regional Chief decided to identify 79 field FTEs for reduction over the three years of this plan. He recognized that to try and reduce 79 FTEs within three years would likely not be feasible without RIF authority and major impacts to employees and morale. Since RIF authority is not likely to be requested, our hope is to achieve a significant percentage of the 79 positions through position management and VERA/VSIP. If funding levels in the Region remain stable with uncontrollable costs being met each year, the reduction of 54 positions will result in close to a 20% operational margin.

Refuge Complexing
The team recognized examples of existing refuge complexes where operational efficiency is enhanced by the sharing of positions, labor, equipment, and oversight. Presently, several refuges are complexed with adjacent field stations. Funding shortfalls over the last five years had already forced the Southeast Region to complex many refuges for efficiency, position sharing, and dollar savings.

Accordingly, the team looked to find similar opportunities elsewhere throughout the Southeast Region. All stations were evaluated by team members to determine if modifications to complexes were necessary. The team agreed to form or modify refuge complexes only when significant operational efficiencies could be obtained. To achieve operational efficiency, proposed complexes must provide one or more of the following elements:

- Efficiency
Team members considered complexing field stations based on cost-saving benefits, compatible proximity to parent stations, and centrally efficient administrative functions.

- Span-of-Control
In order to functionally administer and manage the day-to-day operations of satellite refuge field crews, resources, and management decisions, team members limited the size of all proposed refuge complexes to manageable units.

- Similarity
Refuge complexes with similar habitats and habitat management practices were preferred.

Following in-depth group discussion, a majority vote generated the new list of proposed refuge complexes. After receiving input from district supervisors, the Regional Chief reviewed and made final decisions.

Cross-program Ranking
To potentially increase refuge operational efficiency, the field team explored the option of co-locating Ecological Services (ES) positions on refuges. Specifically, the team considered co-locating ES biologists on stations with priority threatened and/or endangered species, contaminants, or hydrology issues. The team developed a list of stations (Table 9) that would benefit from having an appropriate ES specialist on staff, thereby enabling refuge personnel to accomplish more “on the ground” biological work. Another benefit would include better attention to a refuge’s endangered species recovery program.

Performance Impact
The Refuge System is not “trimming fat” during these declining budget years. The prior and proposed staffing reductions have limited the Refuge System’s ability to fulfill the Service’s mission in the Southeast Region. The true “pain” of past and future cuts will only be lessened by the ability of refuges to operate as a model of efficiency and innovation in accomplishing their highest priority mission objectives.

To document real-world effects from staffing reductions on wildlife, habitat, fire management, facilities maintenance, and visitor services, each team member made contact with refuge mangers and asked them to answer two very basic questions:

- If you had any positions abolished as part of the reductions in the Southeast Region over the last two years, describe what is not getting done or what programs have lessened in quality; and
- If you were to lose one to four more positions over the next three years, what would not get done.

The responses were reviewed by the team and the ones that best represented quantifiable performance impacts of staff reductions were selected to “tell the story” of the effects on wildlife, habitats, and people when management has to do “less with less.” (These results are provided in the Appendix 1 .)

Additional Activities
The team recognized that the vast majority of refuge operating cost is associated with staff salaries. Accordingly, most of this planning effort has been strategically focused based upon the numbers, positions, and grades of targeted staff at each station or complex office. However, all avenues of cost savings will be explored. The staffing recommendations are intended to maintain the core mission functionality of the stations. The team recognized that additional staff cuts beyond those identified in this report will result in the closure of individual refuges.

In these times of doing “less with less,” the Service will need to look at any option available to maintain priority activities. Consideration should be given, where feasible, to expanding our existing partnerships to assist with the operation of programs. For example, state wildlife departments may be able to assist more with hunt programs on refuges. Volunteer organizations and individuals may be able to perform more public education and outreach services. The establishment or expansion of more Memorandums of Agreements with local and state law enforcement agencies may provide additional help with law enforcement coverage on refuges. Refuges in the Southeast Region currently have many great partnerships and the highest numbers of volunteer hours, but we will continue to look for additional help during these tough times.

The establishment of geographically centralized work centers (e.g., SAMMS, administration, fire, and law enforcement) will be explored to potentially increase stations’ operating efficiency. Although beyond the scope of the field team’s charge, a study of Region-wide grade restructuring may prove beneficial to the long-term mission success of the Refuge System.

Summary Fact Sheets

Q & A