Newsgroups: bit.listserv.biosph-l
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:22:44 EST
Reply-To:     "Norman C. Saunders" <NYS@NIHCU.BITNET>
From:         "Norman C. Saunders" <NYS@NIHCU.BITNET>
Subject:      Two F&WS Press Releases

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.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU