Question: What effort is there to seek reimbursement for services rendered to the aquaculture industry? Answer: Services to the aquaculture industry, such as fish disease inspections or certifications, are only provided to the extent of available funding and manpower after Fish and wildlife Service needs are met and high priority State needs are met. Up to this time, reimbursments have not been sought for several reasons: 1) the regulations in place regarding fish health inspections/certifications have generally been established for protection of the wild resources, not for the benefit of the industry per se. 2) The Service does not have authority to use direct reimbursements to support a program of such services. Any reimbursements collected revert directly to the U. S. Treasury. Question: What problems might arise from the aquaculture industry? Answer: As stated previously, private aquaculture and public resource management are intrinsically intertwined. Some of the primary issues of mutual concern and interest include fish health (that is, the potential of fish farms to serve as a vector for the introduction or spread of fish pathogens to wild populations); economic loss to private fish farmers from depredation by Federally protected migratory birds such as cormorants; and introduction into U.S. waters of non-native fish species that may be brought into the country for commercial aquaculture purposes. Question: How is the Fish and Wildlife Service addressing these problems? Answer: In August, 1990, the Service established a position of National Aquaculture Coordinacor in the Division of Fish Hatcheries in the Washington Office to provide a focal point for interaction with the commercial aquaculture industry. Comparable responsibilities have also been assigned in each Regional office to provide a similar focus at the regional level. The National Aquaculture Coordinator serves as the Service and Department representative to the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture (JSA) established under the National Aquaculture Act of 1980. Representatives of the Departments of Agriculture and Commerce are the other major members of the JSA. The Service and the Department of Agriculture developed a memorandum of understanding clarifying respective roles of the two agencies relative to aquaculture to prevent duplication of effort and provide better understanding to the industry. Interagency work groups have been established to address issues with common interest such as migratory bird depredation. The Service has also taken the lead in enhancing communication between the fishery resource community and the private aquaculture community. In September, 1990, the Service sponsored an "Aquaculture Summit" which brought together face-to-face for the first time representatives of the aquaculture industry, Federal natural resource agencies, Federal agriculture agencies, State natural resource agencies, and State agriculture agencies. The focus of this meeting was to identify and discuss conflicts and common interests between resource managers and private fish farmers, and to establish forums for addressing these problems. This was subsequently followed by a second "Summit" in March, 1991. Participants in the two summits are continuing to work together in addressing the problems and issues identified. Lower Snake River Compensation Fund Question: Why do Indian tribes have a role in evaluating the Lower Snake River Compensation Fund program? (FWS-286) Answer: The Indian tribes are recognized by law as co-managers of the resource in partnership with the states and have a legal right to participate in the program. They have very competent biological staffs which are capable of making an important contribution to the evaluation program. The tribes have a vested interest in Snake River stocks. A number of the Compensation Plan hatcheries are located on Indian reservations or in very close proximity to reservations. Question: Who else is involved in evaluating the program? Answer: Agencies involved in evaluating the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan program are the Washington Department of Fisheries, Washington Department of Wildlife, Idaho Fish and Game Department, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Question: Is the construction schedule envisioned in the budget request going to be met? If not, how will it change? Answer: All the facilities will be built as planned. The Eagle Fish Disease Diagnostic Laboratory, Idaho will be completed this summer (1991) and the Clearwater hatchery, Idaho, will be completed this fall (1991). It will start fish production in early 1992. These facilities are the last to be built under the program. Question: How does the LSRCP coordination/management activity differ from the Fish and Wildlife Service general administration costs? Answer: The LSRCP program funding, including administrative costs, unlike the Service's general administrative costs, is reimbursed to the U.S. Treasury by the Bonneville Power Administration from hydropower revenues. The Western Region of the Fish and Wildlife Service (Region 1) maintains a field office in Boise, Idaho, that administers the LSRCP program. The LSRCP was authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 and is administered under provisions of P.L. 99-662. Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance Question: To what extent will you be able to carry out the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act of 1990? (FWS-298) Answer: We will make some progress during FY 1991. We have held a number of organizational meetings and have established an internal Steering Committee and Task Force to begin implementation of the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act of 1990. We have provided briefings to many of our Great Lakes partners (e.g. State Directors, Great Lakes Fish Commission, Tribes, Congressional staff, and others) who will assist in carrying out the requirements of the Act. We are also moving forward to fill some of the key positions necessary to implement the Act. By the end of FY 1991, we anticipate that the key accomplishments will include: development of a detailed study plan and Memoranda of Understanding with the Great Lakes partners and initial action recommendations that could be implemented immediately; hire office chiefs, determine office locations, and preparing detailed staffing and work plans for FY 1992; and submit the Annual Report to Congress detailing our progress. For FY 1992, we plan to increase office staff and produce a number of key elements of the study required by the Act, and also take specific actions that will result in resource restoration. We anticipate conducting supplementary fishing surveys; carrying out projects which will restore and enhance the Great Lakes fisheries; working with the Corps of Engineers to develop wetland restoration projects; and establishing the capability to plan, report, and conduct public outreach and increase coordination activities. Question: What will not get done at the requested level of $987,000? Answer: A total of $10 million is authorized to implement the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act. That level of funding is appropriate for fully meeting the goals and objectives of the Act. We will make progress at the $987,000 funding level, but the implementation of the study, development of recommendations, and provision of technical assistance to our Great Lakes partners will not fully meet the expectations of the Act. The Service would be able to provide a Study report to Congress by the required October 1, 1994 due date, however the report would not include a comprehensive assessment of the Great Lakes drainage, historical fisheries data, and impact analysis. The development of comprehensive recommendations to meet the goals of the Act would be limited. Question: What is the existing level of effort being put forth on refuges for recreational fisheries? Answer: The Service operates 475 national wildlife refuges. Approximately 275 of these have significant potential for recreational fishing. At this time, fishery management plans have been completed for 93 refuges. The plans itemize the fish resources available on the refuges and lay out actions needed to develop those resources in a manner compatible with the primary purposes of the refuges. The Service is actively pursuing cooperative programs with such groups as Bass Anglers Sportsmans Society and Trout Unlimited to maximize the benefits from the recreational fisheries program. Question: Why is it the Service's responsibility to develop urban and inner-city fishing programs? (FWS-300) Answer: The Service shares stewardship responsibility for the Nation's fishery resources with the States, Tribes, and local governments. We exercise this responsibility in urban areas by actively cooperating with and providing technical assistance for fishing programs concerned with the disabled community, drug prevention programs, underprivileged youth efforts, and aquatic education programs. By playing a leadership role in programs such as these we can heighten public awareness of fishery resources and the need to protect and properly manage these resources for future generations. Research and Development Question: What research do you have planned for neotropical birds? Answer: The approximately 150 species of neotropical migrants are a subset of the 700 species of nongame migratory birds for which the Service is responsible, and they are good starting place for developing information and taking actions that will later be applied to all species. Neotropical migrants are of immediate concern because of population declines of several species, indications that land-use trends on the breeding grounds may be harmful, and fear that massive deforestation and land conversion in the tropics may destroy wintering habitats. Objectives of the Mitchell Amendment (P.L. 100-653) provide the outline for the Service plan for nongame migratory bird conservation. Strategies include detecting population trends, determining effects of environmental change, identifying species with critical declines, and devising management actions to reverse declines. Research has the primary role in measuring and predicting the effects of environmental change. This will be the major focus of new work on neotropical migrants. Preliminary plans for research to be initiated with the FY 1992 increase include status and distribution of neotropical migrants in Alaska, limiting factors of western neotropical migrants through the annual cycle, factors limiting neotropical migrants in the north-central region, stopover ecology of migrants along the Gulf of Mexico coast, and effects of forest management practices on neotropical migrant populations in the southeast. Question: What areas would be the most fruitful to pursue related to neotropical birds? Answer: Investigations will be expanded geographically to include effects of land use changes in the central plains, the southeast, the gulf coast, and Alaska to verify and extend relationships developed through past research in the northeast. Ongoing studies on effects of deforestation in Mexico and Central America will be continued and enhanced. Studies in the northeast, where effects of ecological factors are best known, will examine the effects of specific forest management practices, in cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service. The combined focus of all new studies will be identifying critical limiting factors and parts of life cycles (e.g. breeding, migration, wintering) in which their effect is greatest. Only when this information is available will it be possible to recommend effective management actions to reverse declines. Exotic Plant Research Question: A problem for many Service areas, is exotic plant species. To what extent are refuges troubled by invasive exotic plant species? Answer: Invasive exotic plant species have caused significant problems on Service lands, both as an impediment to optimal management of refuges for wildlife and as a source of pests that may infest nearby agricultural lands. More than 150 upland species have been identified as harmful plants by wildlife managers in the prairie-pothole region alone, and several nuisance wetland species cause widespread management problems. Question: What is your current research effort devoted to control and eradication of exotic species? Answer: The Service has no funding for research on nuisance plants, and consequently no comprehensive research program on their control and eradication. The Federal Noxious Weed Control Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-629) gives primary responsibility to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Service has become involved only in rare instances. USDA activities in weed control are almost exclusively devoted to agricultural pests, to the exclusion of pest species that affect fish and wildlife habitats. Two recent efforts have addressed individual species causing trouble over large areas, and both have been closely coordinated with USDA. One is purple loosestrife, an exotic wetland plant that crowds out beneficial species and is resistant to most available means of control. Insects that may be potential biological controls have been identifed and successfully propagated in a USDA laboratory. Field testing of their effectiveness is to take place in 1991-92. A second pest species studied is leafy spurge, an upland plant infesting the central plains region, where it degrades pastures and invades cultivated fields. Service lands may act as reservoirs of this pest, in part because herbicides effective against leafy spurge have side-effects incompatible with purposes for which the lands are managed. The Service is cooperating with USDA in evaluating and improving the efficacy of several biological controls which heretofore have been prohibitively expensive. Question: What will you be able to do in the way of exotic species research in FY 1992? Answer: The Service portions of studies of leafy spurge control have been supported by facility management funds at the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, and are expected to continue at the present level, costing about $40,000 per year. Global Climate Change Question: The Fish and Wildlife Service is participating in the Global Climate Change Program. In fact, the budget proposed an $800,000 increase in the program for FY 1992 which would make a total of $3,700,000 available (FWS-358). Who determines what the Service's role in the global climate change program will be and which specific research projects will be funded? Answer: All global change research proposals are reviewed within the Bureau from which they emanate, are approved by agency and Bureau heads as well as the Assistant Secretary, and are reviewed by an internal panel within Interior that assures all global change research proposed is sound scientifically. The Department then makes a determination as to the |