It would be helpful, however, to think of Schroeder’s four considerations as two larger categories. The first category is ecosystem management (E/M), which includes the use of science and the adaptive approach. It is hard to separate these three. For instance, in the first paragraph under the heading Use of Science, Schroeder mentions the development of objectives as generating hypotheses for testing. I think of this as adaptive management (A/M) as much as it is science (it is both, of course). Indeed, Schroeder’s conclusion links it directly to A/M. Though he breaks down the ecosystem scale aspect of E/M from the A/M aspect of E/M, both are parts of E/M in most descriptions. I think this is all E/M.

This first category (E/M) ought to be part of any good conservation-unit management plan. Forest Service Land and Resource Management Plans, for instance, should meet the considerations from the E/M category. The second category is use of restoration/maintenance of historic conditions as an objective. In contrast to the E/M category, this second one is more specific to the purpose of the refuge system. Keeping track of how well CCPs do in this category is less about good planning and more about good fidelity to the organic authority (and its implementing policies).

In addition, I question Schroeder’s justification for a positive assessment of the CCPs' emphasis on restoration of historic conditions. Mere mention of the objective is less important in a CCP with many objectives than it is in a CCP with few objectives. My big concern with the CCPs on this score is not that they neglect to put forward ecological integrity as a goal. It is that they do not adequately place a top priority on restoration as the most important goal for a unit to contribute to the National Wildlife Refuge System mission. In particular, I fear that compatible recreational improvements will be better funded and more fully realized objectives unless the CCP specifically makes restoration a priority. Current funding realities for the refuges likely mean that the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) can carry out only the very top one or two priorities of a CCP. The weakness of the CCPs’ failure to identify ecological integrity as a top priority is reflected in FWS policy, which continues to place undue emphasis on individual refuge purposes over system goals. I have discussed this particular concern in a published article available here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=921073.

Despite these critical reactions, Schroeder has made a valuable contribution to the literature and deepened my understanding of content of CCPs. Many thanks to him for his fine work.