Utah Water Resources Council papers, 1980-1981

Page 17

A Changes in Fish & Wildlife Service Policy Needed to Accommodate Adoption of Alternative C Policy for Agencies managing public lands is decided in order to permit the Agency to meet its mandate. Mandates are established in response to public interest in and concern about the ways and purposes for which the land is managed. Significant changes in purposes of management have taken place in the Forest Service, the BLM and the Fish & Wildlife Service in order to meet the changing needs of the nation's public. Many recent changes have come about to meet non-consumptive demand related to recreation enjoyment. Faced with oncoming shifts in ways of using public lands, particularly related to energy development, and in order to have optimum opportunity to scale the CMR Refuge to a different value base, the necessary changes in FWS manage­ment prerogatives should be authorized. Such changes and needs for them should be identified in the Final EIS. Intensive Wildlife Management - as set forth in Alternative C - should not be dropped from consideration on grounds that sufficient management leeway is not presently avail­able . Funding for Intensive Wildlife Management - Plan C The Draft EIS states that an amount of $30 million will be required to carry out Alternative Plan C. Again, I repeat,that I do not believe Plan C should be dropped from con­sideration on grounds that this amount of money will not be made available through the Federal budget. I propose, then, that before a decision is made on a Plan, that alternatives for providing the needs and work costing.. $30 million be explored. I have been working on public lands management issues in the Rockies since 1971. And, while I have seen an increase in both staffs and management funding for fish and wildlife resources for Federal Agencies, I do not anticipate really adequate budgetary allowances for the immediate years ahead. Across the board! This is incongruous! While a larger segment of the public demands" broader management programs for the fish, wildlife and recreation elements, Congress has failed to fulfill this need, realistically. I propose, then that the FWS explore a variety of alternatives which might reduce costs for implementing Alternative C. My- suggestions stem from a belief that there is a public constituency who cares enough about its public-resources to be willing to volunteer help and that a greater share of management costs will have to k* located outside Federal ability or willingness to meet costs required. 1. What affiliations can be made for the scientific/research/ monitoring of planning actions among State and Federal Fish and Wildlife as well as University staffs? 2. What sharing of management .equipment, i.e., equipment used