NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3 / NN_1993_3.iso / spool / bit / listserv / biosphl / 1307 < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1993-01-25 | 11.4 KB | 246 lines

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!auvm!NIHCU.BITNET!NYS Message-ID: <BIOSPH-L%93012520270065@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.biosph-l Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:22:44 EST Reply-To: "Norman C. Saunders" <NYS@NIHCU.BITNET> Sender: List Owner <davep@acsu.buffalo.edu> From: "Norman C. Saunders" <NYS@NIHCU.BITNET> Subject: Two F&WS Press Releases Lines: 234 Fish and Wildlife Service For Release: January 15, 1993 Hugh Vickery Craig L. Rieben 202-208-5634 Comprehensive Draft Planning Document Charts Course For Future Operation Of National Wildlife Refuge System U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director John Turner today announced completion of a draft plan to guide management of the National Wildlife Refuge System into the next century. The plan, entitled "Refuges 2003 - A Plan for the Future," is the culmination of an intensive effort to explore alternative management options for the 91 million-acre Refuge System. Since the founding of the first national wildlife refuge at Pelican Island, Florida, in 1903, the Refuge System has grown to over 485 units in all 50 states and several territories. Managed with the primary purpose of benefitting wildlife, this network of lands provides vitally important habitat for migratory birds, mammals, fish, endangered species, and a wide diversity of other wildlife species. In releasing the document, Turner noted, "The Refuge System is facing some tough challenges and will face even more in the years ahead. This document will set a steady course for future refuge management, leading up to the 100th anniversary of the system in 2003. The actions outlined reflect how the Refuge System should grow and adapt in order to accomplish its mission to conserve wildlife for all Americans." The document combines a draft management plan and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Service first published a comprehensive EIS on refuge operations in 1976 and committed itself to completion of an update in 10 years. The Service reinitiated the process in 1986 and published an initial draft plan and EIS back in 1988. Comments received at that time raised questions concerning the array of alternatives examined, their scope, and whether the environmental impacts had been evaluated adequately. After reviewing the comments, the Service withdrew the draft plan/EIS and announced it was undertaking a more thorough planning process. The plan released for printing today outlines seven alternatives for refuge management, including a "balanced" alternative that is pro- posed by the Service for action. Each alternative represents a dif- ferent management emphasis and reflects issues raised during an exten- sive public involvement and scoping effort conducted earlier in the planning process. Each of the seven alternatives is evaluated with respect to 28 management actions considered key to operation of the Refuge System (see attached list). The bulk of the document is a presentation of the various alternatives. The environmental consequences of each al- ternative are reviewed extensively in order to better understand the implications of management decisions and satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. But "Refuges 2003" is much more than a "plan for the future." The volume also offers an in-depth look at the current status of the Refuge System and what may lie ahead. It also represents a definitive look at the system as a whole, its history, and the various policies and regulations under which it is managed. "In conclusion," Turner said, "I believe this effort meets the diverse interests of the public while assuring responsible management of the lands the Service has been entrusted to conserve for wildlife." Turner has formally transmitted the "Refuges 2003" document to the Government Printing Office for printing and distribution to the numerous organizations, Congressional offices, and governmental agencies that have been involved throughout the planning effort. An executive summary outlining the major provisions of the full document will be distributed to over 8000 organizations, agencies, and individuals who have indicated their desire to receive such materials during the public involvement and scoping phases of the effort. These mailings will be made in about six weeks. Those not receiving a document from this mailing should contact: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Refuges, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 670, Arlington, Virginia 22203, and request a copy. ATTACHMENT Editor's Note: The following is a summary of the various alter- natives evaluated in "Refuges 2003." The alternatives are followed by a complete listing of the 28 management actions or functions compared to each alternative in the document. Alternatives: 1. Projected Current (No Action) Alternative: This al- ternative reflects a continuation of ongoing refuge programs and activities, without any significant changes in policy or management direction. Programs and activities currently underway are projected forward to the year 2003. 2. Balanced (Proposed Action) Alternative: This alterna- tive reflects a more centrally coordinated and balanced approach to management of the Refuge System with greater focus on ecosystem management, wildlife-oriented use, and resolution of problems that affect the system. 3. Sanctuary Alternative: Under this alternative, all hunting, trapping, and fishing for recreational, sub- sistence, and commercial purposes would be prohibited, except in Alaska, where these traditional uses are provided for by Alaska National Interest Lands Conser- vation Act. Other refuge uses and habitat management activities would be greatly curtailed. 4. Wildlife Observation Alternative: This alternative reflects a continuation of ongoing wildlife and habitat management programs, but with a major emphasis on actions and programs which promote nonconsumptive recreational and educational uses of refuge lands. Hunting, trapping, and consumptive use of fishery re- sources would cease on refuges outside Alaska except when allowed to achieve management purposes. 5. Ecosystem Management Alternative: Under this alterna- tive, the management of lands from an ecosystem per- spective and the conservation of natural diversity would become the highest priority goals of the Refuge System. Management would focus on restoration and maintenance of natural biological communities and ecological processes. A variety of compatible recreational and economic uses would continue. 6. Hunting, Trapping, and Fishing Alternative: This al- ternative would focus on increasing opportunities for hunting, trapping, and fishing on refuges. Management efforts would focus on enhancing game and sportfish species, populations, and habitats. A variety of com- patible economic and recreational uses would be per- mitted. 7. Maximum Multiple Use Alternative: This alternative would involve a significant increase in opportunities for recreational and economic activities throughout the Refuge System. Both activities which contribute to resource management objectives and those which do not would be encouraged, as long as they were compatible with the purposes for which an individual refuge was established. Actions: 1. Develop Individual Refuge Plans 2. Develop Refuge System Infrastructure 3. Collect and Mange Data 4. Regulate and Manage Uses 5. Acquire Land 6. Designate and Manage Special Management Areas 7. Conserve and Restore Biological Diversity 8. Protect Air Quality 9. Investigate and Clean Up Refuge Contaminants 10. Graze and Hay Refuge Lands 11. Farm Refuge Lands 12. Manage Forests on Refuge Lands 13. Explore and Extract Oil, Gas, and Minerals 14. Manage Fire 15. Manage or Restore Wetlands 16. Acquire and Protect Water Rights 17. Manage Fishery Resources 18. Manage Game Species 19. Manage Nongame Species 20. Manage and Recover Threatened and Endangered Species 21. Control Predation 22. Manage Pests 23. Provide Hunting Opportunities 24. Provide Trapping Opportunities 25. Provide Fishing Opportunities 26. Provide Other Wildlife-Oriented Recreation & Education 27. Provide Non Wildlife-Oriented Recreation 28. Inventory and Protect Cultural Resources Fish and Wildlife Service For Release: January 19, 1993 Craig L. Rieben 202-208-5634 Interagency Agreement Aimed At Reducing Low Level Flying Over Natural Resource Areas Problems associated with low flying aircraft over sensitive natural resource areas will be lessened through an agreement signed January 15, 1993, by representatives of three Department of the Interior land man- agement agencies and the Federal Aviation Administration. Aircraft flying at low altitudes over wilderness areas, bird rook- eries, and other natural areas can disturb wildlife and reduce the en- joyment of people using these areas for recreation. As a result, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and the Bureau of Land Management recently negotiated this agreement with the Federal Avi- ation Administration aimed at reducing these incidents. Under the agreement, the agencies will identify specific areas where low-flying aircraft are creating problems and will inform pilots and urge voluntary compliance with an existing 2000 foot-above-ground- level (AGL) minimum altitude. The FAA previously recognized this as the minimum requested altitude for aircraft operations over lands managed by the three agencies. In addition, the agreement calls for development of a standardized reporting system for low flying aircraft incidents, increased communica- tions among the agencies, and investigation, or other follow-up efforts concerning reported incidents. The agencies also will train field per- sonnel so they can better report instances of low flying aircraft. ==================================================================== These press releases have been brought to you compliments of The Osprey's Nest, a computer bulletin board for birders and other amateur natural- ists in the Washington, DC area. The Osprey's Nest may be reached 24 hours per day at 301-989-9036 and answers the phone at 300 to 9600 baud. The Osprey's Nest is not associated in any way with the U.S. Department of the Interior or with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Opinions expressed in these press releases are not necessarily those of the sys- tem operator of The Osprey's Nest.