OVERSIGHT HEARINGS WITH RESPECT TO DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS WITHIN THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1972

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND RECREATION

OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:15 a.m., in Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, the Honorable Roy A. Taylor (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. TAYLOR. The Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation will come to order.

The purpose of this hearing this morning is to allow the members of the subcommittee to have an opportunity to review programs affected by the land and water conservation fund and particularly to hear about the implications of the activities of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife on the Federal side of that fund.

Now, as everyone knows, the land and water conservation fund was established to provide the financial resources to expand the Nation's outdoor recreation program. It does this in two ways:

First, it provides matching assistance for acquisition and development programs associated with the expansion of State outdoor recreation programs.

Second, it provides funds for the acquisition of lands at authorized national outdoor recreation areas.

It is the Federal side of this program which is our principal concern today. Generally, no less than 40 percent of the moneys recommended for expenditure from the fund are supposed to be drawn for Federal activities. During the 1973 fiscal year the recommendation is for about one-third to be used for Federal activities. Last year I think it was about 25 percent for Federal activities.

On the one hand we are cutting down on the Federal land and water conservation fund money available for the acquisition of these areas we are creating, and on the other hand we are being asked by the administration to create many more additional areas, some of which are very, very expensive.

Now, the National Park Service receives a share of this allocation to carry on its land acquisition program. Likewise, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Sport Fisheries are entitled to receive some of the Federal allocation, but their participation is limited by the terms of the act.

The Forest Service receives funds for the purchase of inholdings within wilderness areas and within national forest areas when the lands

are primarily of value for outdoor recreation purposes. Lands outside of an existing national forest boundary can be acquired if they comprise an integral part of a forest recreational management area, but such areas may not exceed 500 acres in size without additional authority. In addition, the authority of the Forest Service to acquire lands located west of the 100th meridian is limited.

For the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, moneys may be appropriated from the fund "for any national area which may be authorized for the preservation of species of fish or wildlife that are threatened with extinction" or for recreation lands adjacent to conservation areas in existence or approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission prior to September 1962.

Recently the House considered and approved a bill to establish the San Francisco Bay Wildlife Refuge. I think it is still pending in the Senate. It is to be a new area under the administration of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. It is my understanding that the total cost for land acquisition for this facility might be as much as $24 million and that a very large portion of this money is to be drawn from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. However, I think the bill had that top authorization of $9 million. And a very large portion of the money, perhaps seven-eights of it, was contemplated to be drawn from the land and water conservation fund. However, the bill itself just authorizes the appropriation, it does not specify the source of the

money.

While the project appears to be very desirable in terms of its public values, it seems to be a departure from the usual criteria for a wildlife refuge. The area does not seem to meet the test of "species threatened with extinction" and since it is a new area, it does not meet the other test-to provide recreation opportunities adjacent to an existing facility.

We hope at this meeting to be briefed about the nature of the wildlife refuge, about the method of financing the land acquisition program. and about the anticipated development program for the area and anticipated cost. It is our hope that we can be apprised of the effect which this project might have on other Federal land acquisition needs which must be funded from the land and water conservation fund and we hope to be told of other comparable projects which are being formu lated for possible transmittal to, or consideration by, the Congress. I vield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, I have no statement to make at this time, but inasmuch as you have referred to H.R. 12143 the bill recently passed for the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, I would ask unanimous consent that the letter that I addressed to the chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries under date of February 2, 1972, and the answer of the Honorable Edward A. Garmatz under date of February 16, 1972, be made a part of the record at this point.

Mr. TAYLOR. In the absence of objection it is so ordered. (The correspondence referred to follows:)

Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ,

Chairman, Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

FEBRUARY 2, 1972.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand that on Tuesday, February 1, the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries reported favorably on the bill H.R. 12143, to authorize the establishment of the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife

Refuge. Because of the impact which this legislation and other proposals might have on the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation has scheduled oversight hearings (February 17 and 18) on the use of the fund as a source of monies for land acquisition activities by various Federal agencies.

Naturally, such proposals have a direct relationship to the overall outdoor recreation program; consequently, it would be appreciated if action on this legislation could be temporarily deferred until the Subcommittee completes its hearings. Sincerely yours, WAYNE N. ASPINALL, Chairman.

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES,
Washington, D.C., February 16, 1972.

Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL,

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This will acknowledge your letter of February 2, 1972, requesting the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge bill, H.R. 12143, which was scheduled for Floor action under Suspension of the Rules on Monday, February 7, 1972, to be postponed until a later date.

I regret to advise that your letter was not brought to my attention until the morning of February 7, 1972. I immediately checked with the Speaker's office and found out that the next regularly scheduled Suspension of the Rules day would not be until Monday, March 6, since the one that would ordinarily be held on the 3rd Monday of this month falls on Washington's Birthday, February 21. At that time it had not been determined whether or not there would be a make up Suspension of Rules day.

As you can appreciate, there had been considerable pressure from the California delegation to move the bill as expeditiously as possible. They were alerted to the fact that the bill would be brought up for a Floor vote on February 7 and, naturally, were planning for Floor action that day.

In view of the foregoing. I felt compelled to proceed with consideration of the bill as previously scheduled, and I instructed Mr. Everett, of my Committee staff, to advise you accordingly. However, he informed me that since you were out of town he passed this information on to Mr. Sid McFarland of your Committee staff on the morning of February 7.

In closing, I note from your letter that you are concerned over the possible impact the legislation might have on the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I call your attention to the fact that the bill authorizes to be appropriated $20.3 million to carry out the purposes of the Act and makes no reference whatsoever to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Although the Department of the Interior, in its report on the legislation, did indicate that it planned to use some of the funds of the Land and Water Conservation Fund-as well as funds from the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund-for acquisition purposes, this is merely a matter of proper management and utilization of available funds from various sources on the part of the administering agency.

Again, I regret that I was unable to accommodate you in this instance.
Sincerely,

EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Chairman.

Mr. ASPINALL. There is, it appears to the staff and to the chairman of the full committee, a question of jurisdiction, and also a question as to the use of the land and water conservation fund, which comes under the jurisdiction of this act. And in the letter I requested that the bill not be handled on suspension of the rules; that is, on Februarv 1, that it be held over until a later date.

I received a letter this morning from Chairman Garmatz to the effect that he didn't get my letter, it wasn't called to his attention until February 7, and it was too late then to comply with the request. And, of course, this is understandable and I have no objection to that. The important part about this letter, however, is the statementand I read from it:

In closing, I note from your letter that you are concerned over the possible impact the legislation might have on the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I call your attention to the fact that the bill authorizes to be appropriated $20.3 million to carry out the purposes of the Act and makes no reference whatsoever to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Although the Department of the Interior, in its report on the legislation, did indicate that it planned to use some of the funds of the Land and Water Conservation Fund as well as funds from the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund-for acquisition purposes, this is merely a matter of proper management and utilization of available funds from various sources on the part of the administering agency.

Now, that statement may be Chairman Garmatz' view about it. But that isn't necessarily the feeling of those of us on the committee who have jurisdiction over the land and water conservation fund. With that in mind, of course, with some of the other things that have developed in the last several months, and with other potential projects in the future, that brings us here this morning to listen to Assistant Secretary Reed. The one thing that we have in mind is that we keep this fund intact, and let the people know what we are doing. That is all.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Saylor.

Mr. SAYLOR. No comment.

Mr. TAYLOR. Our witness is Mr. Nathaniel P. Reed, Assistant Secretary of Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior. Mr. Secretary, we welcome you back before our committee. We enjoyed visiting your State of Florida, and we enjoyed our associations with you down there.

STATEMENT OF NATHANIEL P. REED, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, FISH AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT L. EASTMAN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR FEDERAL PROGRAMS, BUREAU OF OUTDOOR RECREATION; WALTER R. McALLESTER, CHIEF, DIVISION OF REALTY, BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE; ROBERT SHIELDS, HABITAT ECOLOGIST, LAND ACQUISITION BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE; AND RUSSELL FIELDING, CHIEF, OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES, BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With your permission I would like to ask Mr. Robert Eastman, Assistant Director for Federal Programs of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation to join me. Later on I would like to introduce Mr. Walter MeAllester, Chief. Division of Realty, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, and Mr. Robert Shields, habitat ecologist, Land Acquisition, Bureau of Sport Fisheries who will be going through the charts and answering many of your specific questions.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Eastman may join you at the table.

Mr. REED. Thank you, sir.

Sir, I have a prepared statement. Would like me to go through it? Mr. TAYLOR. I believe I would; yes.

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to be able to appear before you today and explain the progress we are making and some new thrusts we are proposing for the benefit of the people of this country.