U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Fulfilling the Promise

Progress Report

October 1, 2004
Whenever an organization as large and diverse as the National Wildlife Refuge System tries to create a

long-term vision, it must wrestle with the rough work of crafting that vision in a way that it can be shared

by all. Consider an introductory line from Fulfilling the Promise, “From one-ton bison to half-ounce

warblers, the National Wildlife Refuge System contains a priceless gift—the heritage of a wild America....” 

Invigorated by such responsibility, we, the Refuge System family, crafted Fulfilling the Promise into an

incredibly durable vision document. Not only did Promises find the common ground amongst refuges, but

it put our common needs into words and recommendations that have served us admirably. 

Because Promises began over six years ago, some Refuge System employees are largely unfamiliar with it.

A historical perspective is helpful here. In October of 1998, fresh on the heels of the Refuge Improvement

Act being signed into law, the Refuge System held its first-ever national conference in Keystone, Colorado.

During that conference, hundreds of Service employees, including managers from every refuge, and scores

of conservation organizations, worked to outline a future for the Refuge System. Their needs and concerns

were boiled down into 42 recommendations falling under the broad categories of: Wildlife and Habitat,

People, and Leadership. These recommendations were put in context and assembled into the Fulfilling the

Promise report published in July 1999. 

To implement the recommendations, a Promises Implementation Team (PIT) was created. I chair the PIT,

which includes the Regional Refuge Chiefs, Washington Office Division Chiefs, and an interdisciplinary

group (i.e. refuge managers, biologists, public use specialists, etc.) from all regions. We meet twice a year

to discuss progress and plan necessary steps to keep Promises recommendations moving forward. One of

our primary tasks is chartering action teams to implement particular Promises recommendations. To 

date we’ve chartered 13 action teams, plus the Leadership Development Council. The LDC addresses

recommendations pertaining to leadership and staffing. The LDC and the action teams have done the real

legwork of implementing the Promise recommendations. 

This report summarizes the remarkable work accomplished by each team and other people deeply involved

in Promises. Without exception, the teams have done much more work than we can report here, but space

prevents us from sharing all the details. Obviously, some recommendations have been fulfilled more than

others. For instance, the recommendations for strengthening our work with partners and volunteers 

(P7 and P8) are mostly implemented now, as is the recommendation for creating a set of land management

demonstration areas (WH18). Others, like habitat goals (WH1, 2 and 3) and baseline inventories (WH8)

are at the final report stage. We now have detailed information on how to design and implement these

programs. Still others have humbled us, such as external threats (WH6) and fee and concession management (P6). We found these issues more complex than imagined. Clearly, however, our overall progress has

been tremendous, because most of the 42 recommendations are either implemented or their planning is

well underway.

As I look at this report, I reflect on our advances with great pride. I hope you will take time to do the

same. Despite the setbacks we encounter in the course of our work, we’re holding steady to our long-term

priorities. We are making a difference. 

Some have questioned whether Promises will remain after the Conservation in Action Summit. Absolutely.

More than anything, the Summit provided endorsement for programs already initiated under Promises. In

that way, the Summit simply added momentum to implementing many Promises programs. I for one can’t

wait to see more of Promises come to fruition.

So please read about the wonderful things we have accomplished, and think about the hundreds of refuge

people who have worked on Promises. We’ve made incredible progress. We owe ourselves a big “thank

you” for a job well done.

Sincerely,

Bill Hartwig

Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System

Fulfilling the Promise Progress Report | 2004 1

Message from the Chief
2 Fulfilling the Promise Progress Report | 2004

The WH1-3 Habitat Goals process will integrate national, regional,

and local conservation plans into tangible “conservation targets.”

These targets can then help direct habitat restoration and 

management, as well as acquisition in a place like South Carolina’s

ACE Basin. 
Wildlife, Habitat and Biodiversity Goals

WH 1: Develop integrated population

goals and objectives (as appropriate) at

the System, regional, ecosystem, and

refuge levels.

WH 2: Establish national, regional,

and ecosystem habitat priorities to

direct the strategic growth and longterm management of the System.

WH 3: Define how the System and each

unit can best contribute to maintaining

biodiversity.

Wouldn’t it be nice to have a clear picture

of how each refuge fits into broader

conservation efforts? Or to know that

the next piece of land acquired for the

Refuge System is clearly some of the

most important wildlife habitat in the

nation? That may soon be a reality, as

the “Habitat Goals Process” continues to

progress and address the first three

Promises recommendations: population

goals, habitat goals, and biodiversity

goals for the Refuge System. 

In the early stages of Promises, these

three recommendations appeared closely

related. Thus, a single action team, the

Wildlife and Habitat Goals Team, was

established. The team developed a

process that steps down national,

regional, and local conservation plans,

and formulates them into tangible

wildlife and habitat objectives. These

objectives help managers determine how

best to manage individual refuges so they

contribute optimally to landscape-level

conservation. They also help identify

lands that should be high priority for

refuge acquisition or other forms of

protection. The process is very similar to

that used by the Joint Venture offices to

implement the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and other bird

conservation programs.

However, the Habitat Goals process is

slightly different because it utilizes both

coarse and fine filters to address the conservation of not only individual species,

but also biotic communities. Each region

has already designated a Habitat Goals

contact person; Region 2 has even hired

a fulltime Habitat Goals Coordinator.

Because the Habitat Goals Process aims

to align conservation actions at all scales

(from refuge and ecosystem, to regional

and national) it is expected to work

closely with the Service’s Migratory

Birds and Ecological Services Programs.

Fulfilling the Promise Progress Report | 2004 3

Wildlife and Habitat

Togiak Refuge,

AK, has the second

largest contiguous

Wilderness Area

in the National

Wildlife Refuge

System, with 2.3

million acres set

aside in the Togiak

Wilderness.
Wilderness

WH 4: Develop national policies and a

national management plan which

address wilderness values on refuges.

With more than 20 million acres under

some type of wilderness designation,

wilderness management is tremendously

important to the Refuge System. This

team drafted new policy, to be finalized in

2004-2005, that will clarify several

wilderness management issues. In particular, the new policy will make clear

that Wilderness Study Areas and proposed wilderness areas should be managed to preserve their wilderness character, and emphasize training staff to

better understand wilderness issues.

This team also insured that several other

recently revised policies, such as

Comprehensive Conservation Planning

and Compatibility, recognize wilderness

as an additional purpose for refuge

lands. The team is beginning to draft a

policy on Wild and Scenic Rivers.

Water Resources

WH 5: Conduct a comprehensive

assessment of existing water rights and

needs for water quantity and timing.

Adequate supplies of surface and subsurface water are necessary to nourish

abundant and healthy wildlife on refuges,

so it’s not surprising water is often

described as the “life blood” of refuges. 

Although no formal team has been

assembled to address this recommendation, a variety of water resource staff

from across the Fish and Wildlife

Service have worked on this element of

Promises. They began by reviewing

mapping and water measuring protocols

from the Western regions (R1, R2, and

R6) to standardize methods whenever

possible. The group also conducted a

weeklong workshop at NCTC in May

2004, where 43 of the Service’s water

resource staff gathered to discuss issues

such as water rights, water quality,

instream flow, navigability, FERC

relicensing, and Clean Water Act. 

The group is also working with NCTC to

develop a water resources training

course that will address the needs of

Refuge System staff, among other programs. In the very near future, Refuge

System staff should also anticipate a

System-wide assessment of individual

refuge water needs, which was identified

as a high priority at the Conservation in

Action Summit. 

External Threats

WH 6: Identify and recommend

solutions for external threats to refuge

habitats, such as air and water quality

and cumulative impacts from watershed

development.

Because refuge habitats can be threatened by such external factors as contaminated air and water, surrounding landuse patterns, or invasive species, there is

a great need to track and mitigate such

threats. Therefore, the WH6 team developed a Threats and Conflicts database,

which went out to all refuges as a data

call in 2002. Through the database, the

Refuge System identified more than

2,376 threats nationwide. Unfortunately,

problems with categorizing the endless

variety of threats refuges face led to

processing errors in the database.

Ultimately, these problems prevented all

regions from reporting threats and

conflicts equally and uniformly. The

team still hopes the database can be

4 Fulfilling the Promise Progress Report | 2004

Water is of utmost importance to

many refuges, whether it’s for

managed wetlands, like those of

Bear River NWR, UT, (above) or the

groundwater needed by endangered

Ozark cavefish at Logan Cave NWR,

AR.
restructured and eventually used as

intended; meanwhile refuge staff and

supporters must remain vigilant and

proactive in addressing threats and

conflicts. 

Invasive Species

WH 7: Review and revise existing

policies to strengthen support and action

for problem and invasive species

management.

In the United States alone, scientists

estimate that about 7,000 invasive

species of plants, mammals, birds,

amphibians, reptiles, fish, arthropods,

and mollusks are established. The

Refuge System has certainly felt the

impact of these invasives, as they regularly displace or reduce native plant and

animal populations. To address this

broad and complex issue, the WH7 team

prepared a National Invasive Species

Management Strategy released in May,

2004. The document reviews the current

status of invasive species management in

the Refuge System, identifies deficiencies, and provides tools, processes and

strategies to combat invasives. This

report is complimented by a technical

report issued this past May by USGS,

titled: The Invasive Species Survey: A

Report on the Invasion of the National

Wildlife Refuge System. These reports

together give both a status review and

management strategy for combating

invasives. 

The team is also revising existing policies

on Invasive Species and Pest Species

Management. The revised policies

should consolidate an assortment of outdated policies and incorporate language

that’s consistent with new policies on

habitat management, biological integrity,

wilderness stewardship, refuge planning,

and compatibility. The team has insured

that each region establish a regional

invasive species contact person, who is

responsible for helping field stations

develop invasive management strategies. 

Baseline Inventory and Monitoring

WH8: Develop refuge inventory and

monitoring plans to ensure that refuges

use standard protocols to develop baseline and trends data for selected species

groups and habitats.

While Refuge System policy requires

inventories of plants, fish, wildlife, and

habitats, as well as monitoring of critical

parameters and trends of selected

species, current approaches to inventory

and monitoring are very inconsistent.

The very first step in correcting this

problem is to ensure all refuges have

similar sets of baseline data on the biotic

Fulfilling the Promise Progress Report | 2004 5

A fifteen year effort to eradicate the grass Cenchrus echinatus (top, right) from Palmyra Atoll NWR, HI,

relied mostly on the prudent use of glyphosate (top, left). The island has been free of Cenchrus grass now for

two years, resulting in excellent regeneration of native bunchgrasses (center).
and abiotic resources of each refuge.

Such baseline information is fundamental

to long-term planning and daily management of both individual refuges and the

System as a whole. 

To address this need, the WH8 team

reviewed minimum inventory standards

used by other agencies (e.g. National

Park Service, British Columbia Ministry

of the Environment, Bureau of Land

Management, Forest Service) and then

identified all possible data layers that

could be considered minimum standards

for refuges. The team also reviewed

popular inventory approaches, such as

BioBlitz and Rapid Ecological Assessment, as possible ways to collect 

baseline information.

Based on its review, the team assembled

a final report recommending a minimum

collection of biotic and abiotic “data layers” covering such things as topography,

soils, refuge boundaries, man-made

features, vegetation classification, and

species lists. The report not only suggests appropriate scales for these data

layers, it also provides practical sources

from which refuges can acquire the data.

Finally, the report provides an implementation strategy outlining the best

way for the Refuge System (i.e. field

stations, regional offices, or the Washington office) to acquire this data. 

Biological Database

WH9: Design or use existing database

systems to store, analyze, and archive

inventory and monitoring data to evaluate management practices on individual

refuges, as well as link with System,

flyway, and ecosystem databases.

Although each of the 544 national wildlife

refuges has unique monitoring needs,

most also have common monitoring

programs that can help answer questions

on a regional or national scale. Answering broader questions not only improves

management at a larger scale, but can

also solidify management decisions made

at a local level. 

For example, consider the refuge biologist who thinks burning grasslands in

the summer may improve Henslow

sparrow habitat. The refuge may be able

to burn only one or two areas a year, far

short of what’s needed to validate the

idea. But if the refuge is able to enter

their monitoring data into a database

that pooled it with similar data from

several other refuges they might derive

some statistically valid conclusions about

summer burning and Henslow sparrows.

Such questions could be readily

answered and defended if the Refuge

System had a comprehensive database

for survey and monitoring information. 

The WH9 team has been designing such

a data management system to serve

users at all levels. The team began its

work by surveying all refuges about

current wildlife and habitat monitoring

procedures and how the data are

collected, stored and managed. Refuges

conducted more than 1,970 distinct

biological surveys, using more than 180

different procedures. Realizing that no

single database can meet all needs, the

team focused on developing a data

management framework that would

allow central themes to be carried from

the refuge level up to regional and

national levels. Additional modules 

could address ecosystem or refugespecific needs. 

Regions 3 and 5 are working to develop

and pilot the database system on behalf

of the System, and have 3 staff positions

devoted to the endeavor. This project is

being conducted with participation and

input from all other Regions to assure

that results will be applicable to the

entire Refuge System.

Habitat Monitoring

WH10: Develop systematic habitat

monitoring programs at the refuge,

ecosystem, national, and international

levels.

Establishing System-wide monitoring

protocols is an important step in understanding the status and trends of habitat

changes. Based on a review of the most

successful monitoring programs used in

other organizations, the WH10 team concluded the Refuge System should develop a Web-based handbook to facilitate

standardized habitat inventory and

monitoring programs. The handbook

will recommend protocols and provide

examples of actual monitoring projects,

all designed to foster science-based

management. The team has already

drafted an outline of the handbook, and

will soon establish a pilot Website. The

Website could be easily updated and 

will include links to related habitat

monitoring resources.

It’s likely the team will revise the

Inventory and Monitoring Policy (701

FW2) to incorporate requirements from

the Habitat Management Planning and

Ecological Integrity Policies, and

Baseline Inventory and Monitoring Team

recommendations. They will also explore

6 Fulfilling the Promise Progress Report | 2004

An employee at Minnesota Valley NWR conducts a browse survey. Some habitat

monitoring efforts will be standardized through the WH10 effort. The collective

information will then be more available via the biological database proposed 

under WH9.
development of habitat inventory and

monitoring protocols in conjunction with

related efforts to monitor fire effects and

invasive species.

Biological Staffing

WH 11: Ensure an interdisciplinary

staff of specialists...to provide habitat

management and monitoring expertise

for the System.

WH 12: Address inadequate and inconsistent staffing for biological programs

by increasing biological staffing at all

levels of the System (a biologist on every

refuge).

WH 13: Develop a program to address

career and professional needs of biological program staff.

The Leadership Development Council

was created to address all elements of

Promises dealing with leadership and

staffing. The LDC, whose membership

represents all major career series within

the Refuge System, has worked to

improve many aspects of the biological

staffing. For instance, it piloted the

Biological Sciences Intake Program, a

recruiting/retention tool for biological

staff. It also created the new Leadership

Development policy chapter in Service

Manual (230 FW 7), which addresses

leadership skills and personal development for all job series. They have 

also worked to improve the Student

Cooperative Education Program and the

Career Internship Program as recruitment tools for biological staffing.

So what’s the difference on the ground?

During the period of 2001-2003 twentysix new biological FTE’s were added to

the Refuge System. That’s a major

improvement, especially considering several other positions were added before

and after that period. In addition, May

of 2000 saw the first ever National

Wildlife Refuge System Biological

Workshop held at NCTC. Hopefully a

second workshop will occur in 2005. 

Adaptive Management

WH14: Use adaptive management to

evaluate effectiveness of wildlife conservation programs and periodically evaluate programs to determine if System,

ecosystem, and individual refuge goals

and objectives are being achieved.

Adaptive management endeavors to use

management actions as “experiments”

whose results are later evaluated and

used to refine future management. 

Most refuges already use some aspects

of adaptive management in managing

wildlife and habitats, but the Refuge

System needs to expand its application. 

Seeing the new Habitat Management

Planning Policy (Service Manual 

Chapter 620 FW 1) as the most effective

vehicle for improving adaptive management, the WH14 team focused on

developing a training course on its

implementation. They drafted a lesson

outline that embodied topics like

ecological integrity, identifying resources

of concern, developing goals and

objectives, setting habitat management

strategies, and developing monitoring

and evaluation programs. 

The first Habitat Management Planning

course was given August 2002; it was

such a hit that all subsequent courses

have filled. The remote course is

delivered live over both the phone and

Internet and is capped at 35 participants.

By the end of 2004 more than 150 people

from 70 refuges will have participated in

the course, with an eventual goal of

reaching all 544 refuges. Clearly, habitat

management planning as an adaptive

process is becoming a standard practice

in the Refuge System.

Management-oriented Research

WH 15: Identify and accomplish management-oriented research needs for

each refuge based on System, ecosystem,

and refuge goals. 

The Refuge System provides a network

of outdoor laboratories for scientific

research, and most refuges have a

variety of research projects occurring

simultaneously. To better capture and

manage this wealth of research information, the Science Exchange Program

(SEP) is being established. This database was designed to manage research

projects funded through the USGS

Science Support Program (SSP) and

Quick Response Program (QRP) because

these programs comprise such a large

percentage of the total research on

refuges. Housed at Region 9’s Branch of

Communication Technology, SEP will be

accessible to all Service employees via

the Service Intranet. Currently the SEP

serves as a catalog for ongoing SSP and

QRP research projects, storing products

in a variety of data formats, such as

Powerpoint, GIS data layers, Excel

spreadsheets, and Word documents.

Future plans call for the database to

include unfunded research projects, thus

tracking overall research needs and helping direct funding to high priority projects. A SEP User’s Manual is scheduled

for production in 2004-2005.

Fulfilling the Promise Progress Report | 2004 7

WH14 proposes increased adaptive management and better use

of habitat management plans so refuges can better understand

and fine-tune management actions. (Adjusting water levels at

Humboldt Bay NWR, CA) 
Thresholds of Wildlife Disturbance

WH 16: Identify thresholds of

disturbance for public use programs 

and develop techniques to reduce conflict

and achieve balance between public use

and wildlife.

Visitation and public use of refuges has

grown tremendously in recent years, and

projections show the demand for outdoor

recreation will keep rising. Although

“wildlife first” has become a mantra 

for the System, refuges also want to

facilitate priority public uses. Unfortunately, refuge managers often lack the

analytical and planning tools needed to

balance visitor programs with resource

protection. 

The recently formed WH 16 Team is

tasked with identifying thresholds of disturbance for public use programs and

developing standards and mitigation

techniques that can be applied on

refuges. The team is gathering information; however, by 2007 it expects to produce a report summarizing existing literature on the topic and providing case

studies of “best practices” in use. The

report will also identify potential

policy/regulation revisions needed to

implement an effective visitor capacity

program. Ultimately the work should

give refuges tools to reduce conflict and

achieve balance between public use 

and wildlife.

Strategic Land Acquisition

WH 17: Develop a nationally coordinated approach for prioritizing lands and

waters to support strategic growth in

areas of greatest conservation concern.

Because numerous laws give the Fish

and Wildlife Service authority to acquire

land for a variety of purposes, the

Refuge System has long struggled with

the dilemma of which lands to bring into

the System. Therefore, the WH17 team

focused on developing a set of threshold

standards to ensure that future growth

includes only those lands poised to provide a substantial contribution to Service

conservation objectives. 

Specifically, the threshold standards will

help ensure that all lands entering the

Refuge System: contribute to conservation of priority species and ecosystems;

are networked with other conservation

lands; promote biological integrity; and

are uncontaminated. The threshold standards are part of the soon to be finalized

Interim Director’s Order on Strategic

Growth. Eventually, these standards will

dove-tail with the Service’s existing

Land Acquisition Priority System and

the WH1-3 Habitat Goals process into a

new Service policy on Strategic Growth. 

Land Management Research and

Demonstration

WH 18: Designate Land Management

Demonstration Areas to facilitate development, testing, teaching, publishing,

and demonstration of state-of-the-art

habitat management techniques. 

While nearly all refuges serve as demonstrations of good habitat management,

the Refuge System needs a collection of

refuges that combine state-of-the-art

habitat management techniques with

good accessibility and the infrastructure

to support visitors and researchers. The

WH18 team worked to develop such a

group of refuges, utilizing a rigorous

review process both inside and outside

8 Fulfilling the Promise Progress Report | 2004

Salt ponds being restored to wetlands at Don Edwards San Francisco Bay

NWR, CA. The 9,600 acre Refuge acquisition was strategically planned with

a 6,900 acre acquisition by the State of California. The acquisitions were part

of the over-arching South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project, the largest

wetland restoration project on the west coast.

The driftwood “backbone” on the sand spit at Dungeness NWR, WA, plays a key part

in managing public use. After much public input, most of the spit’s bayside shoreline

was closed while activities such as hiking, photography and fishing are allowed on

the ocean side. The closure has allowed brant, oystercatchers, seals, even nesting

Caspian terns to re-colonize the bayside. 
Fulfilling the Promise Progress Report | 2004 9

the Service. Fourteen were selected,

each of which showcases management

techniques for a major habitat type.

These refuges are known as Land

Management Research and

Demonstration (LMRD) sites.

To date, five of these LMRD sites have

been staffed with additional biologists

responsible for operating their LMRD

program. The LMRD biologists are

specialists in their given habitat types,

not only demonstrating proven management techniques, but also publishing regularly in scientific journals, and serving

as professional advisers to other natural

resource agencies. This cadre of LMRD

biologists is building on the Refuge

System’s reputation for expert habitat

management, and making it available to

an ever-larger audience. 

Land Management Outreach Message

WH 19: Develop an outreach and

interpretive program on refuges which

specifically demonstrates and conveys to

the American people the importance of

sound land management.

An outreach program voicing the importance of sound land management

techniques would complement several

Refuge System initiatives. However, no

team has yet been established to address

this recommendation, primarily because

most employees believe the message is

fairly well conveyed in the Refuge

System’s current outreach efforts. A

future action team may be created to

develop a new policy on incorporating

resource management messages into all

refuge visitor services programs. 

Greening the Refuge System

WH 20: Renew emphasis on reducing,

reusing, and recycling of materials and

products used on refuges, and ensure

environmentally sound and sustainable

management practices.

As a model of sound land management,

the Refuge System should also set an

example in material conservation of the

use of the earth’s natural resources. The

WH 20 team focused on implementing

Environmental Management Plans on

refuges. In 2003, 13 refuges implemented new EMP’s, and another 18 will

be implemented in 2004. These refuges

receive on-site written EMPs, training,

technical assistance and funding for

EMP implementation. One example of

the program’s success is that it has

helped raise the recycling rate of most

refuges to meet or exceed the national

goal of 40%.

Coordinated GIS Resources

As several Promises teams got underway with their assignments, it became

evident that many recommendations

would require improved GIS capability

within the Refuge System. To synthesize

their needs and insure national coordination for GIS resources, a Promises GIS

team was established. The team first

developed a “Data Needs” matrix which

compared GIS data needs among

Promises teams and refuge programs.

Soon after, they compiled a “Survey of

Spatial Data Holdings” by refuges, by

region, and by ecosystem-programs.

This survey identifies which refuges

already have some level of GIS capability, compares each region’s GIS data

holdings, and identifies ecosystem

programs that provide spatial data to

refuges. By 2005, the team will complete

a report on the role of GIS in the 

Refuge System, necessary levels of GIS

capability for field offices, and investments required for achieving higher

levels of capability. 

LMRD biologists have two main tasks: First, staying abreast and involved in land management techniques. Second,

communicating knowledge and techniques to large audiences. Here, John Taylor, past LMRD Biologist at Bosque Del

Apache, NWR, NM, explains moist soil techniques to a wetland management class. John died this past September;

however, he will long be remembered as the consummate LMRD biologist, combining biological savvy with great skill in

communicating.

Refuges are “greening” in a lot of ways.

These animal-proof recycling containers

help visitors recycle at Okefenokee NWR,

GA.
10 Fulfilling the Promise Progress Report | 2004

Visitor Services is increasingly complex, as the diversity of refuge

visitors expands. From wheelchair access at Minnesota Valley NWR

(above), to environmental education at Sacramento NWR, CA, (next

page), to backcountry hiking at Arctic NWR in Alaska, the demands

of maintaining quality public use programs are constantly growing.

P3 works to ensure all refuges have professional public use staff. 
Visitor Safety and Resource Protection

P1: Assess the status of public safety

and resource protection provided by

refuge law enforcement programs.

Protecting refuge resources and the

safety of visitors are fundamental

responsibilities of the Refuge System.

For various reasons, the System’s law

enforcement program has gone through

tremendous scrutiny and change during

the last five years, culminating in a contract with the International Association

of Chiefs Police (IACP) to develop a Law

Enforcement Assessment and Deployment (LEAD) model. The P1 team is

serving as an advisory group for developing this model, which will be the

primary tool to determine appropriate

law enforcement staffing for each refuge.

Trials with the LEAD model have been

well received since its projected staffing

patterns are generally considered

adequate by seasoned refuge officers.

National Public Use Requirements

P2: Update the National Public Use

Requirements. Each region will conduct

evaluations of refuge public use programs to aid refuges in meeting new

standards, identify deficiencies in the

delivery of visitor services, and document needs and set priorities in operational, maintenance, and construction

project databases.

Section Heading

Section Subheading

People

Fulfilling the Promise Progress Report | 2004 11
Public use standards create a more

consistent application of public use

policies for a stronger Refuge System,

where visitors will always recognize they

are on a national wildlife refuge and have

a clear expectation of the experiences

and services. To facilitate such standards, the outdated Visitor Services

Requirements Handbook is being

updated to reflect changes in numerous

public use policies. Like the old version,

the new handbook will serve as both a

guide to refuge managers and public use

staff for operating a visitor services

program, as well as a checklist for

reviewing a refuge’s public use program. 

Public Use Staffing

P3: Provide each refuge with access to

responsive, professional, public use

management staff.

The Refuge System must have professional public use planners and specialists

in recreation, interpretation, and education to give visitors better wildlifedependent experiences. This idea was

underscored at the Conservation in

Action Summit, when delegates voted

increasing environmental education

programs as a high priority within visitor

services. To this end, both the Visitor

Service Career Team and the Leadership

Development Council (see WH 11-13

above) have worked on improving public

use staffing. 

The Visitor Service Career Team developed a set of standard position descriptions for the public use (Park Ranger025) series, plus established the Introduction to Visitor Services course at

NCTC. They also helped plan the first

National Visitor Services and Communication Workshop held at NCTC in

December 2001. The second national

workshop may be held in 2005. 

The LDC created the new Leadership

Development policy chapter in Service

Manual (230 FW 7), which addresses

leadership skills and personal development for all job series. The LDC has

also worked to improve the Student

Cooperative Education Program and

Career Internship Program as vehicles

for recruiting public use staff. Finally,

the LDC is overseeing a Workforce

Planning contract, which will include

identifying career paths for the public

use series. All of these programs help

the Refuge System cultivate a professional cadre of visitor services staff

capable of managing an ever-growing

public use program.

Compatible Use Policy

P4: Develop and implement policy that

gives clear guidance to refuge managers

for determining appropriate and compatible public uses of the Refuge System. 

In the 1970s and 1980s concerns were

raised that some refuge uses, such as

water skiing and grazing, may be harmful to wildlife. However, the Refuge

Improvement Act of 1997 made clear

that uses of a refuge should be allowed

only after they are found compatible

with the System mission and with the

purpose of the Refuge. To implement

the Act, a new Compatible Use Policy

(603 FW 2) was finalized in November

2000. This milestone policy gave refuge

managers the tool to objectively evaluate

refuge uses and phase out those deemed

incompatible. 

After the policy was finalized a team of

managers familiar with the new policy

conducted a series of courses nationwide

to instruct every refuge manager on how

to implement the new policy. The new

policy, in effect four years now, has

become one of the strongest tools

managers have to ensure biological 

well-being of refuges.

National Visitor Improvement Priority

System

P5: Establish criteria for a national

Visitor Improvement Priority System to

rank operational, maintenance, and

construction projects for public recreational use programs and facilities.

Competition for funds to construct

visitor facilities and hire new visitor

services staff is sometimes fierce, as each

refuge strives to provide better services.

Refuge System staff have worked diligently to reduce the political influence

involved in distributing funds, trying to

make the overall distribution more equitable and based on System priorities. 

A Unified Design Model was created for

refuge visitor centers, which standardizes the basic size and design for these

buildings, but still allows tailoring the

buildings to specific sites. Also, the

Refuge System has worked to adhere to

priority rankings in its RONS and MMS

databases. For example, in 2003 all field

stations were asked to rank their small

MMS visitor services projects (including

small construction projects) so funding

could be targeted to the highest priorities. While still imperfect, the current

system is greatly improved over a few

years ago.

Fee and Concession Management

P6: Complete fee and concession

management policies and accounting

procedures to increase funding returned

to the collecting refuge. 

The Recreation Fee Demonstration

Program has been a boon to the Refuge

System because it allows entrance fees

and user fees generated by public use

programs to be re-invested into the

programs where they were originally

collected. Unfortunately, the Refuge

System’s participation in the Recreation

Fee Demonstration Program remains

12 Fulfilling the Promise Progress Report | 2004

Computer generated image of future Ottawa NWR, OH, visitor center. This

center is scheduled for completion in Fall 2005, and was one of the first to be

designed according to the Unified Design Model. 
temporary until new legislation makes it

permanent. The Service and several

partners continue to press for this permanent legislation, but in the meantime

no permanent policy can be developed. 

The refuge concessions program is in a

similar situation. The existing concessions policy is out-dated and sometimes

unclear, so the P7-P8 Promises Team

began drafting a new policy. However,

this effort was put on hold when it

became clear that new legislation was

necessary. Work on the legislation is also

underway; however, it will require

extensive coordination because of the

wide range of concessions occurring on

refuges. The legislation and policy must

equitably address programs as diverse

as fly-in big game hunting which is often

dependent on state lottery systems,

down to simple boat rental and food

service vendors. Fortunately, 2004 saw

much progress towards agreement on

how the legislation and policy should be

structured. 

Volunteers and Partnerships

P7: Forge new and non-traditional

alliances to broaden support for the

System by establishing citizen and

community partnerships on all 

staffed refuges.

P8: Strengthen partnerships with 

states, Tribes, nonprofit organizations,

and academia, ...and the business

community.

A strong National Wildlife Refuge

System depends on an involved public.

Perhaps the biggest advance in increasing public involvement and the public’s

feeling of “ownership” with refuges was

passage of the National Wildlife Refuge

System Volunteer and Community

Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998.

The Act sought to encourage volunteerism and the use of cooperative

agreements to promote local involvement

with refuge projects. The Act established 20 full-time volunteer coordinators

on refuges to improve the use of volunteers in implementing refuge programs.

The Act also streamlined the administrative and contracting procedures to implement partnerships. For instance, an

organization or individual can now

contribute money directly to a refuge

and have it earmarked for a specific

project—a process that was nearly

impossible before.

The team who worked on implementing

the Act also worked to clarify related

issues. For instance they drafted the

recently approved Volunteers Chapter of

the Service Manual, which answers many

questions about operating a volunteer

program. It clarifies how to compensate

volunteers, not only in terms of food and

travel reimbursement, but also such

things as awards and tax reporting. It

also answers longstanding questions

about U.S. citizenship and safety standards for volunteers. Finally, this same

team also drafted a Manual chapter (policy) on support groups/cooperating

associations (i.e. Friends groups), which

is now under administrative review.

Refuge Centennial and Outreach

P9: Update and strengthen the System’s

100 on 100 outreach campaign. The

revision should incorporate provisions

of new legislation, complement the

Service’s National Outreach Strategy,

seek support from nontraditional constituents, and take advantage of the

outreach potential of the System’s

centennial in 2003.

The Refuge System developed many new

partnerships in preparing for and celebrating its Centennial Anniversary.

Besides its long-standing relationships

with several non-profit organizations, the

Refuge System branched out into a larger realm of business and private sector

partnerships. These partnerships were

struck not only at the national level, but

also at regional and local levels. While

these partnerships gained the Refuge

System much notoriety during the

Centennial campaign, perhaps more

importantly the System gained greater

capacity for working with a broad array

of partners. One very tangible improvement was establishing the Refuge

System Branch of Communications in

the Washington Headquarters. This

increased capacity for outreach and

partnerships should serve the Refuge

System for years to come. 

Broader Base of Support

P10: Build a broader base of public

support for wildlife conservation by

reaching out and involving a larger

cross section of the American public 

in our public use programs and

community partnership efforts.

By involving a diverse group of

Americans in stewardship of wildlife

resources, the Refuge System gains new

ambassadors who communicate with

their peers, promote the System, and the

larger conservation cause. By implementing the National Outreach Strategy,

combined with the limelight the System

enjoyed during its Centennial Year, the

Refuge System is now feeling its broadest level of public support ever. However, this level of support will wane if

efforts are not made to stay connected to

this diverse public.

Fulfilling the Promise Progress Report | 2004 13

Sandy Perchetti, Volunteer Coordinator at E.B. Forsythe NWR, NJ, helped children

plant Atlantic White Cedar during Make a Difference Day. Sandy’s position was

created through the Volunteer and Community Partnership Act.
14 Fulfilling the Promise Progress Report | 2004

The Service’s Stepping Up To Leadership (SUTL) program begun in

2001, together with the more recent Advanced Leadership Program, has

graduated more than 300 students to date. About 30% of participants

are from the Division of Refuges. Openings in both programs are

extremely competitive. Here is the SUTL Class of October 2003.
Of the Promises Report’s 42 recommendations, 12 directly relate to leadership

or leadership/management functions 

(L1- L12), and another four address

workforce and career development 

issues (WH11, WH12, WH13, and P3).

Recognizing that leadership is a multifaceted issue that reaches across the

boundaries of job series, grade levels,

ethnic backgrounds, and technical

expertise, the Promises Implementation

Team established the Leadership

Development Council to address these

recommendations collectively. The LDC

membership represents all major career

series within the Refuge System, such as

refuge managers, biologists, administrative specialists, wage grade staff, realty,

and others. The LDC has accomplished

a prolific amount of work, including both

broadscale projects that address several

occupations, and more specific projects

pertaining to particular job series.

Because the volume of work accomplished by the LDC is too expansive to

list here, this report focuses on three

major elements of their work: Career

Pathways, Recruitment and Retention,

and the Leadership Development

Chapter of the Service Manual.

Career Pathways

Perhaps the most effective way to

address leadership and staffing issues

within the Refuge System is along the

lines of typical career paths. A collection

of career pathways teams have

addressed issues specific to their

disciplines. For instance, career

pathways teams were established for 

the disciplines of: refuge manager,

biological, visitor services, wage grade,

administration and others. Each team is

developing a report that addresses topics

such as required competencies, positive

education requirements, training/

development needs, and grade structure

for their discipline. To complement these

reports the LDC also contracted for a

Workforce Planning Analysis, which will

evaluate these same issues across the

various disciplines and take a fundamental look at how the existing job series are

structured. The culmination of these

efforts will be recommendations on how

to create distinct career tracks, give

employees the tools they need to fully

develop their own leadership skills, and

give managers the critical information to

plan future staffing needs.

Recruitment and Retention 

Recruitment and retention have been

major issues in a variety of Refuge

System disciplines such as refuge management, biological, and visitor services.

The LDC is working on several fronts to

address recruitment and retention

concerns. For instance, it piloted the

Biological Sciences Intake Program as a

recruitment tool for a variety of job

series in the Refuge System. It also

popularized the Environmental Careers

Organization (ECO) as a tool for recruiting diversity candidates for specific

positions. Finally, the LDC has worked

to improve the Service’s existing Student

Cooperative Education Program (SCEP)

to make it a more effective recruitment

program. 

Recent changes in SCEP and other

recruitment programs have sought to

simplify the recruitment and hiring

processes so managers can more easily

reach people with the skills and commitment necessary for a refuge career. One

new tool managers have to quickly hire

highly qualified candidates is the Career

Intern Program (CIP). The CIP

Program was established by Executive

Order in 2000 as a way to attract exceptional individuals into federal service.

Individuals are appointed to a special 2-

year internship, after which they may be

eligible for noncompetitive conversion to

a permanent position. The CIP program

is being used to fill all sorts of Refuge

System positions, including biological,

law enforcement, and wage-grade. 

The LDC has addressed retention in

several ways. For instance, they

reviewed the effectiveness of the SCEP

program to convert participants into

career Service employees. Also, each of

Fulfilling the Promise Progress Report | 2004 15

Leadership
the career pathways teams is working to

develop national standard position

descriptions and competencies. These

position descriptions and competencies

provide clear expectations for employees

with specific professional or career goals,

thereby increasing retention. Finally,

the LDC sponsored a pilot project called

the Biological Sciences Development

Program. The BSDP includes an

extensive Individual Development Plan

for new employees in the biological

sciences job family (GS-0400), with the

goal of setting clear expectations for the

employee’s personal and professional

growth, thereby increasing their

retention.

Leadership Development Chapter

One of the broadest sweeping accomplishments of the LDC was development

of a new chapter in the Service Manual

titled: Leadership Development for the

National Wildlife Refuge System national policy (230 FW 7). Soon to be finalized, this policy chapter outlines the following five Core Qualifications employees need to serve in leadership positions:

1. Leading People, 2. Business Acumen,

3. Building Coalitions/ Communication, 4.

Results Driven, 5. Leading Change.

Within each of the Core Qualifications,

there are specific competencies that

define areas where employees can assess

their knowledge and abilities, and target

their training, job assignments, education and career path to further develop

leadership skills. The level and scope at

which these competencies are performed

increase as grade and responsibilities

increase. The Refuge System is serious

about building leadership in all disciplines, and this chapter serves as both

roadmap and license for employees to

develop leadership skills to the utmost. 

16 Fulfilling the Promise Progress Report | 2004

Refuges are recruiting all types of talented people through a variety of programs. (Top left) Michael

Hames, equipment operator in the SCEP program at Deep Fork NWR, OK (center) Amber Ausmus,

biologist intern recently hired at Washita NWR, OK (right) Julie Webster, SCEP student at St. Marks

NWR, FL, (bottom left) Magaly Massanet SCEP at J.N. Ding Darling NWR, FL, (center) Jona Reasor,

CIP Biologist at Tishomingo NWR, (right) Dusty Clift, Wage-Grade SCEP at Buffalo Lake NWR, TX.
Individuals contributing to this report:

Gary Krauss, Kathy Granillo, Jan Taylor, Kevin Kilcullen, Dirck Byler, Hal Laskowski,

Nancy Roeper, Bob Adamcik, Michael Lusk, Jennifer Casey, Vernon Byrd, David Viker,

Mitch Ellis, Helen Clough, Beth Flint, Sandy Perchetti, Pam Sanguinetti, Bill Haglan, 

Barry Stieglitz, Billy Umsted, Donna Stanek, Rebecca Halbe, Allyson Rowell, and 

Susan Knowles, Paul Cornes. The report was compiled by Larry Williams. 
Fulfilling the Promise Progress Report | 2004 1

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

4401 North Fairfax Dr. 

Room 634C

Arlington, VA 22203-1610

http://www.fws.gov

October 2004