Results

Refuge Tiers
The 128 national wildlife refuges located in the Southeast Region were divided into three tiers as follows: 24 were identified as Focus Refuges, 61 were listed as Targeted Reduction Refuges, and 43 were identified as Unstaffed Satellite Refuges (Tables 1-3).

While the Southeast Region would prefer to have all 128 refuges in the Focus Refuge category, funding and staffing levels are not sufficient to provide this level of management support.

Focus refuges (Figure 2) were not selected because they were either fully funded or fully staffed. Focus refuges were selected because they had at least adequate staffing to provide quality management for some aspect of the primary mission of the Refuge System. Some were selected because of their successful management of migratory waterfowl, endangered species or various important habitat types, such as bottomland hardwood or coastal environments.

Additionally, showcase environmental education and visitor programs were selected. There is tremendous variety in the Focus refuges, such as station size, staffing size and specialization, and habitat importance and type.

By 2003, the operational margin above salaries for most refuges in the Southeast Region had decreased to about 5 percent above salaries, which did not leave enough to cover the fixed costs at many refuges. Many refuges had actually reached a deficit between fixed costs and available funding. To increase the operational margin for the Southeast Region, 64 permanent field positions were abolished between 2004 and 2006 (Table 4). The funding realized from these salary reductions was used to cover some budget reductions and increase the operational margin to almost 10 percent.

The Regional Refuge Chiefs agreed to set a goal of 20 percent operational margin above salaries as an average for all Regions. To reach the 20 percent target in the Southeast Region, we will need an additional $3.9 million, while maintaining at least stable annual funding for uncontrollable costs and fixed cost increases (i.e., fuel and electricity).

Staffing Impact
We have proposed over the next three years to abolish an additional 79 permanent, full-time field positions in the Southeast Region (Table 5). The loss of these 79 permanent, full-time field positions is 12 percent of our existing field station personnel. Combined with the previous 64 field positions reduced, we will have reduced refuge staffing by 20 percent through the duration of this plan.

While none of these positions are excess and all provide critical functions on their respective refuge, difficult decisions must be made to realign staffing and to increase operational funding. We fully recognize that these staffing reductions will result in less work being accomplished on those affected refuges. If decreasing budgets or flat-line budgets without uncontrollable costs being met occur, then the salary savings from abolished positions will go toward these budget shortfalls first, and operational margins may not increase.

New Refuge Complexes
Over the past seven years, the Southeast Region complexed many refuges to gain savings by increasing management efficiency and reducing additional positions. The team reviewed all refuges in the Southeast Region to see if any additional cost savings could be generated by complexing. The following additional refuges are expected to be complexed at the beginning of FY 2007, with a resulting savings of up to 14 full-time positions:
- Roanoke River NWR (NC) will be complexed with Alligator River NWR (NC) (Figure 3);
- Pelican Island NWR (FL), Archie Carr NWR (FL) and Lake Woodruff NWR (FL) will be complexed with Merritt Island NWR (FL) (Figure 4);
- Choctaw NWR (AL) will be complexed with Noxubee NWR (MS) (Figure 5);
- Cat Island NWR (LA) will be complexed with St. Catherine Creek NWR (MS)(Figure 6); and
- Catahoula NWR (LA) will be complexed with the Central Louisiana Complex (Figure 7).

This plan lists 25 priority FTEs (Table 6) for adding to refuges only if funding allocations allow. Some of these FTEs may be added prior to the Southeast Region reaching the goal of 20 percent operating margin as determined by the Chief. Twenty-one of these positions are recommended on Focus refuges or their Complex. These positions are provided so that the Southeast Region has a plan for the few new positions that will be added in the next three years as funding allows.

Regional Office
At the same time the Southeast Region is reducing FTEs to increase operational funds, we are looking at other cost-saving measures and will continue to do so each year. The Regional Office will be reduced by a minimum of 10 percent over the next two years, with those funds going directly into operational support for field refuges. Between 2003 and 2005, the Regional Office also abolished four permanent full-time positions.

The Regional Office Workforce Planning Team reviewed organization charts, budget allocation sheets, interviewed key program leaders, and also interviewed field staff in assessing the proposed cuts for the Regional Office. While every position is important, during these fiscally challenging times, the Region needs to be strategic about reductions and achieve efficiencies for an effective organization in the 21st Century. Per Director Hall, the 10% Regional Office reduction will be implemented by the end of FY 2008.

Organization charts were provided for each division/branch within the Refuges program and were current as of October 1, 2005. A total of 46 FTEs, not counting 10 zone officer positions, were identified as funded by the RO from 1260 dollars. The Fire Management Division had 14 positions and the Division of Realty had 20 positions paid from other regional subactivity accounts. There were also two positions in the Facilities Management Branch funded by the Roads Program. The 10% reduction was mandated from the 1260 accounts and did not include Realty and Fire.

In identifying the following positions, the team looked at whether these positions were critical to supporting RO operations, which includes meeting Washington Office data calls and directives, and ultimately field station support. The 1260 funded positions recommended for elimination to achieve the 10% reduction in the Regional Office are included in Table 5.

Additional Budget Reduction Recommendations
Staff
During the evaluation of 1260 Regional Office expenses, several budget items raised questions as to their benefit to the field. Inquiries were made to several divisions as to how 1260 support dollars are used (ie. Realty, Budget & Administration) and explanations were provided identifying the benefits to RO and/or field stations. Although there are reasons for originally establishing the following positions (Table 7), the team could not identify services to refuge field stations commensurate with expenses incurred. We believe that we would be remiss in carrying out our charge if these positions/duties were not highlighted and further evaluated in light of current budget reductions.

For at least one of these positions (Grants & Partnerships) it would appear that the benefit to refuges could more than offset the cost incurred for this position. We do not believe that this benefit is currently being realized and more needs to be done to make these services available to all refuges in the region if funding continues to be made available from refuges. For the remaining two positions, the regionwide benefit for refuges is questionable.

GSA Lease Space
Leasing office space is a great expense. In most cases this expense is unjustified considering the available land base for building sites and the excessive costs associated with leasing. If the Region made a concerted effort to eliminate just those leases above $70K, this would result in lease cost reduction of approximately $800K (Table 8). The added expenses associated with water, sewage, utilities and maintenance would likely average 10-25% for government owned buildings resulting in an annual net savings of approximately $600-$720K.

Cross-program Opportunities
As previously discussed, refuge operational efficiency and a benefit to endangered species conservation can be realized by co-locating Ecological Services positions on refuges. A listing of affected stations where threatened, endangered, and other trust resources of mutual concern may be managed more efficiently is included in Table 9.

Summary Fact Sheets

Q & A