Protecting Habitat and History 

A 2008 Progress Report Responding to 

Section 3(c) of Executive Order 13287, “Preserve America” 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

September 2008
Protecting Habitat and History 

A 2008 Progress Report Responding to 

Section 3(c) of Executive Order 13287, “Preserve America” 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

September 2008 

Cover photos: Pua Akala Cabin (Top left) Railroad Tie Cabin from Desert National Wildlife Refuge (bottom 

left), Volunteers excavating at Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge (lower right), Volunteers cleaning debris 

from the floor of the Railroad Tie cabin, Desert National Wildlife Refuge (upper right), Junior archaeologists 

at Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge (center) 

2 
Each agency with real property management responsibilities shall, by September 30, 

2005, and every third year thereafter, prepares a report on its progress in identifying, 

protecting, and using historic properties in its ownership.

Section 3(c), Executive Order 

13287 

3 
Table of Contents 

Report Organization 5 

Introduction 6 

I. Identification, Evaluation, and Policies—Heritage Asset 

Identification and Reporting 7 

A. Heritage Asset Reporting 7 

 1. Historic Structures 7 

 2. Archaeological resources 8 

 3. Museum Property 9 

 4. Reliability and Review of FWS Reports 9 

B. Program and Policy Review 10 

 1. Current FWS Policies 10 

 2. Continuing Stewardship 10 

II. Protecting and Promoting History 11 

A. Archaeological and Historic Properties Monitoring 11 

B. Site Stabilization 11 

C. Law Enforcement 12 

D. FWS and the Heritage Asset Partnership 12 

E. Expanding Opportunities through Partnerships 13 

 1. Opportunities for the Public—Passport in Time Projects 13 

2. Restoring Important Structures 14 

3. Reusing Historic Structures 14 

F. The FWS Preserve America Grant Program 15 

 1. Remembering the CCC—Tule Lake 

 National Wildlife Refuge 18 

 2. Hearing History—Podcasts from Iowa 19 

 3. Outdoor Laboratories 20 

4. Getting Kids Outside—Making the Connection with Our 

History 20 

G. Visitor and Partnership Programs 21 

 1. Geotourism Partnership 21 

2. Old Road, New Directions 22 

III. Future Directions 23 

4 
Report Organization 

This report is organized under the following major headings: 

I. Identification, Evaluation, and Policies—Heritage Asset 

Identification and Reporting 

• Information about how many historic properties have been identified and evaluated by 

your agency in the past 3 years. 

• Describe agency policies that promote and/or influence the identification and evaluation 

of historic structures. 

• How goals are established for the identification and evaluation of historic properties. 

• Describe internal reporting requirements your agency may have for the identification and 

evaluation of historic properties, including collections (museum and archaeological). 

II. Protecting and Promoting History

• How have partnerships been used to assist in the identification and evaluation of historic 

properties. 

• Specific examples of major challenges, successes, and or opportunities your agency has 

experienced in identifying historic properties over the past 3 years. 

• Examples of how historic properties have been protected.

III. Future Directions 

• Narrative addresses future directions on policy and partnerships

5 
Introduction 

In March 2003, the President issued Executive Order 13287 (E.O.) to reaffirm our 

nation’s commitment to preserving heritage resources while assessing Federal 

land management agencies’ approaches to overseeing and managing these 

important assets. In September 2004, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

submitted its report to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) as 

required by Section 3 of the E.O. That report detailed the FWS’ efforts to 

preserve heritage resources and promote their use, where applicable, for 

tourism, interpretation, and education. 

In keeping with Section 3(c) of the E.O., the FWS offers the following updates 

and highlights on initiatives involving the protection and use of heritage 

resources. 

The FWS will focus on four categories of properties in response to the Executive 

Order’s general requirements. Examples of each are provided as part of this 

report. These categories are: 

• Historic buildings, structures, and sites. 

• Historic trails or similar historic properties that cover broad landscapes. 

• Archaeological resources. 

• Museum collections. 

With the exception of museum collections, all of the above are real property and 

are considered by FWS to be heritage assets, which are defined as those 

property, plant and equipment (PP&E) that are unique for one or more of the 

following reasons: 

• Historical or natural significance, 

• cultural, educational, or artistic (e.g., aesthetic) importance; or 

• significant architectural characteristics. 

6 
I. Identification, Evaluation, and Policies—Heritage Asset 

Identification and Reporting 

Structures owned by FWS, like all other FWS historic resources (archaeological 

sites and museum collections) are tracked by FWS through various reporting 

mechanisms. 

A. Heritage Asset Reporting in FWS 

1. Historic Structures 

Historic structures are listed on the FWS Real Property Inventory (RPI) with their 

maintenance needs tracked in Service Asset Management and Maintenance 

System (SAMMS). Both systems track historical status (historical status is 

synonymous with National Register of Historic Places designations) and 

condition information for the structures. Table 1 lists totals by Historic Indicator 

code for 2005 through 2008. The 2008 totals represent some appreciative 

changes from those reported in previous years, but really represents counting 

changes corresponding to adoption of new performance measures for cultural 

resources (see table 2). 

Table 1. Comparison of 2005 and 2008 Totals for FWS Real Property Inventory with 

Historic Indicator Information (note: variation between 2006 and 2008 are the result of 

performance measure definition changes) 

2005 2006 2007 2008 

National Register Listed 112 144 87 169 

National Register Eligible 2119 873 2065 1454 

National Historic Landmark 30 30 30 30 

These systems also document maintenance funding priorities and monies 

allocated for stabilization of a historic structure. The information contained in 

these databases follows guidance established by the Department of the Interior 

(DOI) Asset Management Plan. 

In addition to the Real Property databases, historic structure information is also 

tracked by FWS Regional Historic Preservation Officers and is reported annually 

as part of the Refuge Annual Performance Plan (RAPP). The RAPP contains 

benchmarks (Table 2) that are tracked by FWS to correspond to DOI 

benchmarks established in the Departmental Strategic plan. Targets for 

upcoming years are determined by previous year totals. RAPP information is 

then rolled up to the FWS Operational plan and then up to the DOI level. 

7 
Table 2. RAPP and DOI Performance Measures Crosswalk 

RAPP Benchmark DOI Benchmark 

Total number of archaeological sites 

Number of archaeological sites in good 

condition 

Number of archaeological properties in good 

condition 

Total number of historic buildings or structures 

Number of historic buildings or structures in 

good condition 

Number of historic structures in good condition 

Not applicable—FWS has none Number of cultural landscapes in good 

condition 

Total number of known paleontological sites 

Number of known paleontological sites in good 

condition 

Number of paleontological sites in good 

condition 

Total number of accessioned museum property 

collections 

Number of curation facilities housing FWS 

collections under good conditions 

Number of museum collections in good 

condition 

In FY 2008, 2065 historic structures and buildings were reported in the RAPP. 

Approximately 750 of these are currently scheduled to receive Deferred 

Maintenance funds for repair and upkeep. The RAPP has created an accurate 

inventory of structures, allowing the Regional Historic Preservation Officers to 

coordinate work more closely with FWS facility counterparts. Additionally, in 

FY 2006, FWS released an updated Asset Management Plan (AMP). The AMP 

provides clear guidance on the protection of historic structures consistent with 

historic preservation requirements and guidelines. 

2. Archaeological Resources 

Since the FY 2005 Preserve America report, the FWS has surveyed 

approximately 130,000 acres, which resulted in the identification of nearly 900 

new archaeological and historic sites. The FWS currently lists over 18,000 sites 

in its inventory. 

Since FY 2005, the FWS has nominated the Wallace Bottom archaeological site 

located on the White River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in Arkansas and the 

Pua Akala cabin historic site located on the Hakalau Forest NWR in Hawaii to the 

National Register of Historic Places (figure 1). 

8 
Figure 1. Pua Akala Cabin from Hakalau Forest 

National Wildlife Refuge nominated to the National 

Register of Historic Places in August 2008 

3. Museum Property 

Each year, the FWS reports information on its museum property collections 

through a DOI data call (Table 3). Collections have been steadily increasing 

since FY 2005. For FY 2008, FWS reported 2,196,423 items in 119 Federal 

repositories and 3,997,086 items in 214 non-Federal repositories. 

Several DOI audits have focused on museum property have ensued since our 

FY 2005 report. These audits have been useful in focusing attention on the most 

pressing information and collection preservation needs. Based on recent audit 

findings, the FWS has taken steps to evaluate its repositories to ensure that they 

meet DOI standards for long-term storage of museum property. 

Table 3. 2008 Museum Property Data as reported to the Department of Interior 

Year Number of Objects in FWS 

Facilities 

Number of Objects in NonFederal Facilities 

2005 1,396,432 3,924,479 

2006 1,508,617 3,941,168 

2007 1,614,145 3,987,524 

2008 2,196,423 3,997,086 

4. Reliability and Review of FWS Reports 

Information reported through the RAPP and collected for the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Annual Report on Archaeological Program Activities is reviewed by the 

Regional Historic Preservation Officers and the Washington Office. Additionally, 

the FWS continues to make progress on internal improvements to tracking 

accurate information about the cultural resources program. Two FWS Regions 

now employ a version of the GIS-based database to identify archaeological site 

information. The database has helped in terms of data consistency between the 

two Regions. For FY 2008, we are giving some consideration to building a 

national management database system to collect information that responds to 

various legal requirements and data calls. 

9 
B. Program and Policy Review 

Although not part of its mission, the FWS recognizes its responsibilities for 

managing historic resources and promoting their public enjoyment. The FWS 

follows numerous historic preservation laws and regulations, the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Historic Preservation Standards and Guidelines, and DOI policies to 

identify and protect historic resources for the public’s benefit. 

1. Current FWS Policies 

The FWS has in place six major policies that govern, promote, or influence the 

identification and evaluation of heritage assets. 

340 FW 1-4, Policy on Real Property. It contains sections that focus on special 

categories of FWS buildings, including a historic category. The section on 

disposal of buildings also speaks to special consideration of historic buildings 

prior to undertaking the disposal process. 

602 FW 3, Policy on Comprehensive Conservation Plans on National Wildlife 

Refuges. These plans include a section addressing historic resources. 

603 FW 1-2, Policy on Refuge System Appropriate Uses. This guides managers 

in determining if activities, such as the restoration of historic buildings is in 

keeping with allowable activities on Refuges. 

605 FW 6 and 7, Policies on Environmental Education and Interpretation. Each 

policy addresses the potential for historic resources to be used and maintained 

for public enjoyment. 

614 FW 1-5, Policy on Cultural Resource Management. The policy outlines 

FWS’ compliance responsibilities and guidelines. Its primary focus is on 

compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 

including the evaluation and nomination of properties to the National Register of 

Historic Places. 

126 FW 1-3, Policy on Museum Property Management. It outlines FWS’ 

responsibilities for accessioning, cataloging and conserving museum collections 

generated as part of our mission and work. 

2. Continuing Stewardship 

For the past 3 years, the FWS has continued to address its responsibilities for 

protecting historic structures in compliance with legislation, regulations, and DOI 

policies and strategic plans (Table 2). 

Additionally, the FWS has sought to build new partnerships with national 

organizations and community partners to protect historic resources effectively for 

public visitation and enjoyment. 

10 
The FWS has also provided new training opportunities for employees to address 

the management and preservation of historic resources. These include 

classroom training on Section 106 compliance, on-line cultural resource training 

modules, and working to offer mini-training orientation sessions in other 

management and technical courses offered through the National Conservation 

Training Center. Module 3 of the on-line series focuses on managing historic 

buildings and structures. 

II. Protecting and Promoting History 

A. Archaeological and Historic Properties Monitoring 

Given FWS’ conservation mission, many archaeological resources and historic 

properties are protected by limiting access and general monitoring. In many 

areas, local community partners, volunteers, and Tribal partners (see monitoring 

information above) help our law enforcement personnel by monitoring known 

historic properties for violations of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. 

The FWS employs a limited monitoring program to evaluate the condition of its 

archaeological sites, which consists primarily of limited, albeit regular, 

inspections by Regional Historic Preservation Officers (RHPO) and refuge staff, 

or in cooperation with State historic preservation agencies. Some of our sites in 

Alaska are monitored by volunteers from Native communities. For example, the 

Alutiiq Museum sends volunteers (figure 2) to the Alaska Maritime National 

Wildlife Refuge and the Kodiak Refuge to monitor archaeological sites. A report 

is then generated for the FWS and the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer. 

Figure 2. A volunteer begins to survey sites at 

Alaska Maritime and Kodiak National Wildlife Refuges 

B. Site Stabilization 

In 2007, FWS archaeologists in Virginia worked with the State Historic 

Preservation officer under a State grant to help stabilize an underwater 

archaeological site. The Virginia Archaeological Society partnered with FWS to 

11 
identify and map eroding prehistoric and historic remains at the Maycocks Site 

(figures 3 and 4) on the James River National Wildlife Refuge. 

Figure 3. Volunteers conduct emergency 

stabilization of the Maycocks site 

Figure 4. View of erosion to the main 

portion of the Maycocks site 

C. Law Enforcement 

Like other DOI Bureaus, FWS is in need of professionally trained Law 

Enforcement Officers to protect archaeological resources. To help supplement 

these personnel, FWS works with other partners, universities, and States to 

monitor sites and employ remote protection technologies. 

In 2008, FWS participated in a Government-wide symposium on the use of 

remote protection technology for cultural resources and will be assisting in the 

preparation of a briefing for the NPS’ Chief of Law Enforcement and the 

Departmental Consulting Archaeologist to raise awareness of the need for 

remote site protection and resources that are available for use of these tools. 

D. FWS and The Heritage Asset Partnership 

Since 2006, the FWS has served as the chair (2006) and as an active member of 

the DOI Heritage Asset Partnership (HAP). The HAP is a chartered DOI 

committee comprised of cultural resource experts who interact with their facilities 

management counterparts and advise the DOI’s Property and Acquisition 

Management Division (PAM) on heritage asset issues. 

Since becoming a member of the HAP, the FWS has assisted the committee in 

developing several products currently in use by the DOI and other bureaus. 

These include the DOI Asset Management Plan, which addresses heritage 

assets, a guidance document for deferred maintenance of heritage assets, and a 

planning tool for assessing average costs for heritage assets construction and 

replacement materials. The HAP has also assisted in editing and updating DOI 

manuals with a focus on asset management. 

12 
Participating in the HAP has also resulted in increased attention on the need to 

protect DOI historic structures and improved communications among cultural 

resource and facilities management staff. The HAP has assisted in offering 

guidance and information for DOI-wide asset management documents and 

bureau level plans. 

E. Expanding Opportunities through Partnerships

Since FY 2005, a number of Refuges and community partners have undertaken 

volunteer, interpretive, education, and research heritage-related projects. These 

partnerships have allowed the FWS to integrate heritage-related work with key 

fish and wildlife conservation programs and land management activities. 

Such projects embody the goals of Preserve America—taking Federal historic 

resources and making them available and useable to the American public. The 

following examples help illustrate key elements of these partnership programs. 

1. Opportunities for the Public—Passport in Time Projects 

In 2005 and again in 2007, the FWS partnered with the U.S. Forest Service 

(USFS) to host archaeological investigations at Fort Ruby on the Ruby Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge through the “Passport in Time” program (Figure 5). 

Originally constructed to protect the Overland Stage and Mail Service, Fort Ruby 

was eventually abandoned once the Transcontinental Railroad became 

operational in the 1860’s. The primary goals of the FWS project focused on 

identifying the location of the original officers’ row of housing and finding 

materials indicative of the lives of officers and their families. The interactions 

between the military and the local Native Americans who camped nearby were 

also examined during the research. Information retrieved from the work will be 

used to interpret the Refuge for visitors and assist in Refuge planning. 

Figure 5. Volunteers excavating an archaeological 

site at Ruby Lake NWR in 2007 

13 
2. Restoring Important Structures 

Rehabilitation of the Corn Creek Railroad tie cabin took place on Desert National 

Wildlife Refuge in 2007 (Figure 6). Unlike a log cabin, the railroad ties were 

stacked rather than notched at the corners and spikes were used to secure the 

ties together. The building was originally used as a residential cabin. The cabin 

has been used by the FWS for storage since it purchased the ranch in 1939. 

Repairs have included the removal of a wood shingle roof added at a later date, 

replacement of deteriorated railroad ties (along the foundation), leveling and 

improving the foundation-footing by adding additional footing stones, and 

replacing the eaves and original corrugated metal roof. Interior repairs included 

repairing broken window panes, doors and the tongue and groove flooring that 

rested on railroad ties (Figure 7). The project, funded by a grant under the 

Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act (SNPLMA), was completed 

largely by Refuge staff and volunteers. 

Figure 6. View of the railroad tie cabin, Desert 

National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 7. Volunteers clean the railroad cabin prior 

to restoration 

3. Re-Using Historic Structures 

There are some instances when the best course of action involving a historic 

structure is its disposal in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act. 

A recent example helps illustrate this type of work and how a historic structure 

can be used to tell history even when it is damaged in its original setting. A 

historic barn at our Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge in West Virginia 

needed to be demolished for safety reasons (figure 8). Following review under 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Refuge’s staff and 

Friends organization contacted the Antietam National Battlefield Park in Maryland 

to see if they would be interested in dismantling the barn and reusing portions of 

it to restore similar historic buildings at the Park. In May 2008, a team moved 

pieces of the structure to the Park for the restoration work (figure 9). This was a 

great example of work that benefited both agencies. In the near future, the Park 

plans to erect an interpretive panel citing the re-use of the FWS barn for the 

restoration work. A similar interpretive panel will be given to the FWS for their 

contribution and will be placed on the original site of the barn. 

14 
Figure 8. View of the Beale Barn at Canaan 

Valley National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 9. Demolished barn being salvaged 

by National Park service crew 

F. The FWS’ Preserve America Grant Program 

In its third year, the FWS’ Preserve America grant program has helped support 

meaningful heritage-related work on refuges throughout the country.). A new 

Preserve America web site offers updated information on properties, projects 

underway, and grants information to meet the goals of EO 13287 

(http://www.fws.gov/historicPreservation/preserveAmerica/index.html). 

The grants program offers support for projects on Refuges that creatively blend 

habitat conservation and historical education and interpretation. The grant 

program is jointly administered by the FWS and the National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation. It has funded a number of projects undertaken by Friends 

organizations and was recognized by the Chairman of the Advisory Council for 

Historic Preservation as a national-level Preserve America accomplishment. 

The projects awarded over the past 2 years are included in Tables 4 and 5. 

15 
Table 4. 2006 Preserve America grant recipients 

Organization Project Name Location Project Description 

Friends of 

Blackwater 

Travel Destination 

Web 

Based/Electronic 

Kiosk Program 

Blackwater 

Refuge, 

MD 

Participate for 5 years in the Dorchester 

County Travel Destination Web 

Based/Electronic Kiosk program to help 

attract visitors to the Refuge. Dorchester 

County was one of the first eight 

communities designated as a Preserve 

America community. 

Friends of the 

Assabet River 

National 

Wildlife 

Refuge 

Preserve America - 

Assabet River 

Refuge 

Assabet 

River 

Refuge, 

MA 

Prepare interpretive presentations of the 

major historical periods of landuse/occupancy of the Refuge. This will 

include the cultural history of colonial, small 

family farmstead, military and Refuge 

ownership. 

Norwalk 

Seaport 

Association 

Sheffield Island 

Adventure Weeks 

and Refuge Exhibit 

Steward 

McKinney 

Refuge, CT 

In partnership with Norwalk YMCA, two oneweek education workshops for children 5-16 

will take place on the Refuge. A focus will 

be placed on the history of the Sheffield 

Island Lighthouse and on the wildlife that 

inhabit the island. 

Klamath 

Basin Wildlife 

Refuge 

Association 

Rehabilitation and 

Interpretation of the 

Mess Hall at the 

Civilian Conservation 

Corps (CCC) Camp 

Tula Lake 

Refuge, CA

Rehabilitate, and open to the public, a CCC 

mess hall to serve as a secondary visitor 

contact station. The building will serve to 

educate visitors about the establishment of 

the Refuge and the work of the CCC during 

the Great Depression. 

Friends of 

Kenai 

National 

Wildlife 

Refuge 

Public Use Historical 

Cabin Interpretive 

Panel Project 

Kenai 

Refuge, AK 

Research, design and produce educational 

interpretive panels for 10 historic cabins. 

The panels will detail the refuges purpose 

and history. 

Iowa 

Academy of 

Science 

Iowa's Science 

Guide-Iowa National 

Refuge Audio Series 

Statewide, 

IA (work 

with all 7 

Refuges) 

Develop a series of 21 (3 per Refuge) 

downloadable audio files about the history 

of the Refuge with a focus on the geology, 

flora and fauna and human efforts to 

conserve the site. The clips will be made 

available to each Refuge and Friends 

Group. 

South 

Georgia 

Regional 

Development 

Center 

Banks Lake 

Educational Outreach

Banks 

Lake 

Refuge, 

GA 

In partnership with the University of 

Georgia, develop a science and history 

interdisciplinary curriculum focused on the 

Banks Lake Refuge. A focus will be on the 

evolution of the site from a grist mill to a 

Refuge. 

16 
Manitou Bluff 

Mid Missouri 

Chapter Lewis 

& Clark Trail 

Heritage 

Foundation, 

Inc. 

Arrow Rock Landing 

Educational/Historical 

Interpretation 

Big Muddy 

National 

Fish & 

Wildlife 

Refuge, 

MO 

Design and develop five interpretive signs 

and a brochure for trails located on the Big 

Muddy Refuge. The signs and brochure will 

focus on the history of the area and the 

difference between the flora & fauna on the 

Refuge in the 1800's vs. today. 

South Eastern 

Wildlife & 

Environmental 

Education 

Association 

Interpretation of the 

Cultural History 

Within Waccamaw 

NWR 

Waccamaw 

Refuge, SC

Create an exhibit in the new Environmental 

Education Center at Waccamaw NWR 

about how humans have been involved 

along the rivers of the Refuge sine the early 

Native Americans tribes through the present 

day. 

Friends of 

Rydell Refuge 

Association, 

Inc. 

Retrieving the Past: 

An Oral History of the 

Rydell NWR 

Rydell 

Refuge, 

MN 

Compile information and produce a 20-30 

minute DVD oral history program for public 

viewing on the natural and human history of 

the Rydell Refuge. 

The Past 

Foundation 

Maritime Heritage in 

the Pacific Islands: 

Teacher's Heritage 

Workshop 

Pacific 

Islands 

Develop two Podcasts from existing media 

product tailored to compliment lesson plans 

on management jurisdictions and 

technology related to maritime heritage and 

the marine environment. 

17 
Table 5. 2007 Preserve America grant recipients 

Organization Project name Location Project Description 

VA Tech Outdoor 

Laboratories for 

Student 

Scientists 

Mason 

Neck 

high school students will collect land use and 

culture history information from Mason Neck 

and research it with VT professors 

Harney 

County 

Historical 

Society 

Historic P Ranch Malheur develop 4 interpretive panel for Historic P 

ranch as part of Malheur's centennial 

University of 

Alaska 

Fairbanks 

Ice Age Alaskan 

Archaeology 

Koyukuk develop an exhibit for and archaeological site 

on Koyukuk 

Friends of 

Deer Flat 

NWR 

Deer Flat NWR 

Centennial Trail 

and Pamphlet 

Deer Flat Use historical documents and photos to 

gather information about the history of the 

refuge--develop panels and pamphlets from 

the research 

Montana 

Preservation 

Alliance 

Whaley 

Homestead 

Interpretive 

Project 

Lee Metcalf develop an interpretive plan for a historic 

homestead, protect the building and secure 

the grounds for the public 

1. Remembering the CCC—Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

A 2006 grant was used to support a more traditional “brick and mortar” project 

involving the Klamath Basin Wildlife Association, a long standing conservation 

partner with Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge. The work focused on restoring 

the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) Barracks building (figures 10 and 11), 

which was originally built in 1936, for use as a secondary visitor contact station 

and as a museum for Service and CCC related historical materials. The goal of 

the restoration is to provide visitors with an understanding of how the CCC 

affected the Refuge and the Refuge System. Much of the restoration work will 

focus on the repair or replacement of historically accurate building materials for 

the barracks building. The project involves Service volunteers, staff, and 

members of the local community. The Refuge will maintain and staff the facility 

once restoration work is complete. The project helped highlight the 75th

anniversary of the CCC in 2008. 

18 
Figure 10. CCC era barracks currently being restored at 

Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 11. Restoration work underway at Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

2. Hearing History—Podcasts from Iowa 

The Iowa Academy of Science is working with the Service to develop podcast 

education lectures addressing the history, biology, geology, and archaeology of 

refuges in Iowa (figure 12) (http://www.scienceiniowa.org/) 

19 
Figure 12. Iowa Refuges involved in the podcast development project 

Taking advantage of this new and increasingly popular communications 

technology, the project will help set an example on new ways to communicate 

with mobile and digitally-connected visitors. The podcasts will be available for 

downloading and can be used before or during a visit to one of the refuges. 

Each refuge will supplement the information with other interpretive materials and 

information. The podcasts will also be placed on other non-FWS travel-related 

web sites to market refuge programs and attract new visitors. 

3. Outdoor Laboratories 

The Virginia Tech University is working with Mason Neck National Wildlife 

Refuge on a program for high school students to collect land use and culture 

history data on the Refuge. The information will be analyzed and used as part of 

the Refuge’s comprehensive conservation plan. This project will yield useful 

information for the Refuge, support young-adult oriented outdoor learning 

programs, and offer students first hand experience in documenting local history. 

4. Getting Kids Outside—Making the Connection With Our History 

For the 2008 grant period, the FWS has added a separate youth category. 

Projects like Outdoor Laboratories as well as successful archaeology for kids 

programs run from some of our Refuges (figure 13) illustrate the opportunities for 

youth to learn more about local history and archaeology. 

20 
Figure 13. Junior archaeologists excavating a mock 

archaeological site at Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

The addition of this component to our Preserve America grants will also mesh 

with current efforts to get children connected with the outdoors 

(http://www.fws.gov/letsgooutside/). The addition of a youth category 

complements the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s (ACHP) program to 

link youth, education, and historic preservation projects. 

G. Visitor and Partnership Programs 

Tens of millions of visitors participate in Refuge System interpretive and 

education programs each year. Visitor numbers are increasing each year and 

FWS economic studies document how important visitors and travelers are to 

local communities in terms of revenue, jobs, and taxes. The FWS’ 2006 

“Banking on Nature” report demonstrated that our visitor programs contribute $4 

to local economies for every appropriated dollar supporting the Refuge System. 

We are learning that our visitors are interested in many programs, including bird 

watching, hiking, fishing and history. 

1. Geotourism Partnership 

In July 2008, the FWS, other DOI bureaus, and the U.S. Forest Service signed a 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the National Geographic Society to 

promote Geotourism on Federal and Tribal lands. Geotourism is tourism helps 

sustain and enhance the geographical character of a place, including its 

environment, culture, aesthetics, and heritage, and the well-being of its residents. 

This MOU establishes a framework to collaborate on projects pertaining to 

Federal and Indian lands and will, in part, heritage and cultural preservation and 

interpretation. 

More information about interpreted heritage sites can be found at 

http://www.fws.gov/historicPreservation/preserveAmerica/index.html. 

21 
2. Old Roads New Directions 

Since our 2005 update report, FWS has also focused on identifying and 

promoting the importance of roads and trails that cross national wildlife refuges. 

Figure 14. View of a portion of the Lewis and Clark National 

Historic Trail as it crosses Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge 

The FWS successfully used support from the Federal Highways Administration’s 

Transportation Enhancements Program to identify and evaluation portions of the 

Trail of Tears which crosses several of our National Wildlife Refuges; stabilize 

historic artifacts associated with the Steamboat Bertrand at the DeSoto National 

Wildlife Refuge, and participate in the development of the Comprehensive 

Management Plan for the Captain John Smith National Historic Trail, which is 

associated with 13 FWS field stations in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 

In 2008, the FWS’ involvement with the National Historic Trails System resulted 

in recognition by the Advisory Council on Historic Chairman’s Award for Federal 

Achievement in Historic Preservation for Exemplary Tourism, History Education 

Public Benefits. The award underscores the importance of the National Historic 

Trails System for enhancing heritage tourism, public history education, and 

creating unique local links to our shared national story. 

22 
III. Future Directions 

The FWS has identified a number of actions to improve the identification and 

management of heritage assets in future years. 

A. Develop additional national and local partnerships with key preservation 

organizations and local communities to assist in studying and interpreting 

significant historic properties on FWS lands. Partnerships are being developed 

with the National Trust for Historic Preservation to promote our programs and 

information is being developed for FWS Friends organizations interested in 

preserving historic properties. We will also examine opportunities to collaborate 

with designated “Preserve America” communities around the country and explore 

programs aimed at “volun-tourists.” 

B. A number of FWS policies are out of date and need revision to address new 

requirements and guidelines. We will begin to review the policies cited in this 

report during 2008 to address such topics as asset management, museum 

collections, and pending Preserve America legislation. 

C. Where appropriate, we will identify refuges and historic properties that can be 

highlighted and promoted through the Geotourism initiative and key partners 

such as the Southeast Tourism Society and Western States Tourism Council. 

D. We will continue to assist in the overall management of heritage assets within 

the DOI, including developing new guidance and technical information, as 

appropriate. This is a result of the growing interest in heritage asset 

management by DOI Auditors and the Office of the Inspector General, both of 

which are currently conducting audits of FWS programs. 

23 
24 

References Cited 

2007 Carver, Erin and James Caudill 

Banking on Nature: The Economic Benefits to Local Communities of National 

Wildlife Refuge Visitation. FWS Economics Division, Washington, DC