program, and 62.1 percent to interpretive programs which involve wildlife observations, wildlife drives, wildlife trails, nature study, sightseeing, wildlife photography, field dog trails, and various other uses which could occur in this wildlife-oriented program that our refuge system offers.

Getting specifically to the San Francisco Bay project, we have an approximate 40,000 acre study area in south San Francisco Bay of which we have proposed a 21,662 acre area for management of the wildlife resource, for management of endangered species, and primarily for public use wildlife related recreational opportunities.

I might point out that this study area is in the heart of a complex, a metropolitan complex of about 4.3 million people, which is anticipated to expand to a least 7 million people by 1980. People surround the refuge, which places the importance on the value of the area to people.

Redwood City, Palo Alto, Menlo Park are located on the western edge of the refuge with minority groups located immediately adjacent to the refuge proposal. In the Freemont Area and at the south end of our study area in the Alviso-San Jose Area we have Spanish-Americans that live immediately adjacent to the project.

I might indicate that we have studied the area in depth and we believe that a very unique wildlife potential exists. An exhaustive study conducted by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, that lasted over 1 year, also indicated that this is an area that is deficient in recreational opportunities, particularly in wildlife oriented opportunities. They also recommend that this area be managed by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife because of the Bureau's expertise in manipulation of habitat, and in managing programs that are nature and wildlife oriented. We think we can provide a great opportunity for the American people to enjoy wildlife. (New chart.)

I have here a proposed development concept for the San Francisco Bay refuge. The area is broken down into four units. The Greco Island unit, as we refer to it, would facilitate visits from the West Bay residents, of San Francisco, south San Francisco, San Mateo, Belmont, San Carlos, Redwood City, Menlo Park, and Palo Alto.

On the east side we have the Freemont unit, which would receive primary public use from the cities of Berkeley, Oakland, Richmond, Hayward, Fremont, and Newark.

At the southern end of the project we have the Alviso unit, which would offer unlimited wildlife oriented opportunities to the people of San Jose, Santa Clara, Alviso, and other surrounding communities. Interpretive centers would be developed on the various units and would be used for the promotion of environmental education programs and interpretive programs. We envision the possibility of common carrier tour routes, mass transit systems, to get people around the area so that they might learn about the wildlife resource, the ecology, and the environment of the area without infringing upon these resources.

Mass transit routes are proposed for the refuge and are indicated in green.

The broken purple lines located throughout the projects symbolize nature trails that would be used by the people for conducted and nonconducted tours.

Fishing piers are located at advantageous locations to provide fishing opportunity to the citizens of the area.

New chart.]

This is a further breakout of the type of activities, the estimated number of hours that would be spent on the San Francisco Bay propject by people interested in wildlife and environment-oriented activities. We propose three interpretive centers, which would accommodate approximately 590,000 recreation hours.

Wildlife observatories, elevated platforms, and possibly underwater viewing chambers would accommodate 140 thousand viewing hours.

Mass transit, the two systems that I spoke of earlier, would account for 1 million visitor-use hours.

The five interpretive shelters located around the project would provide for 200,000 visitor hours.

Wildlife and environmental education and research-and this would be primarily by the school groups, the colleges and universities that have requested opportunities for outdoor laboratory facilities in the South Bay area-would account for 265,000 activity hours.

The hunting program, which would be primarily waterfowl hunting, will be a very minor part of this project. Hunting, under permit, and carefully controlled, would account for only 48,000 visitor hours. Pier fishing would amount to approximately 800,000 activity hours. We anticipate a total of 3,113,000 recreation hours being spent on the refuge.

Each visit will have an estimated average duration of 3 hours or a total of 1,037,000 visits per year by the public.

Unless there are questions, this concludes our chart presentation. Mr. TAYLOR. Since the gentleman from Colorado has to leave early I will recognize him for questions. I yield to him.

Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Secretary, I have no objections to your goals or your desires, trying to take care of the programs. But I do have objections to your desire to take the money in the amounts that you desire to take it from the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

What authority do you have for recreation activities in the Bureau? Is the authority and the jurisdiction of your Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife primarily concerned with the protection of values rather than with the recreational per se?

Mr. REED. Mr. Eastman from the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation is familiar with the authority which the Secretary would like to use Mr. Eastman.

Mr. EASTMAN. Under section 6 (a) (1) of the Land and Water Conservation Act, it reads

Mr. ASPINALL. We have that. That isn't what I am talking about. I am talking about the basic authority of the Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife in the recreation field, that is what I am interested in.

Mr. REED. I will ask Mr. McAllester, who is more familiar with the subject, to respond.

Mr. McALLESTER. There is basic authority in that 1962 act. There was also wording promoting recreational authority in the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, the Organic Act for the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Mr. ASPINALL. Now, reference was made to the allocation of moneys for Federal purposes. This is what Mr. Eastman was getting ready to refer to. În section 6(a) of the act it states how the moneys for Federal purposes are to be allocated.

Now, Mr. Secretary, you have indicated in your statement on page 2 that the intent of the act was to acquire refuge land where public use has an impact on the primary purpose of the refuge by allowing acquisition of a limited area adjacent to the refuge to meet this recreational demand.

Now, do you have a solicitor's opinion upon the use of these moneys beyond the matters that I have brought to attention in the explanation of the act?

Mr. REED. Yes, sir; we do have a solicitor's opinion, Mr. Eastman has it, on that subject.

Mr. ASPINALL. All right. I would ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that it be placed in the record.

Mr. TAYLOR. In the absence of objection it is so ordered.

(The opinion referred to appears on p. 124.)

Mr. EASTMAN. I have the general language here. I will have to submit the specific language. But the content of it

Mr. ASPINALL. I don't care about the content, I am not fighting with you this morning.

Mr. EASTMAN. I will submit it for the record.

Mr. ASPINALL. When another committee comes in and takes jurisdiction away from our committee, or when a bureau comes in and takes jurisdiction and claims moneys that were not originally intended, then I want the record to show it. That is all I am interested in. If you can prove your case, all right, but I personally have a difficult time of showing how the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife is entitled to one-tenth of the total funds of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

On the other hand, I would support that Bureau. And I would support the committee if they were coming before Congress and asking for reasonable sums of money to take care of their recreational programs. So, I think that this is all that I have in mind.

Is the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife inherently a recreational agency?

Mr. REED. NO; inherently it is not. However, the recreation pressures of the refuge system are growing at a very rapid rate, Mr. Chairman, and we are finding ways of including wildlife interpretive programs within the refuge system without sacrificing the real values of the system or of the individual refuges. In a number of them interpretation now is by far the most important part of the refuge program. They were not acquired for this purpose, they were acquired as a habitat and a resting place for waterfowl in the area.

Mr. ASPINALL. I think I understand that.

What I am trying to find out is whether or not we really have a policy, a multiple use policy, for these wildlife refuges.

Mr. REED. Yes, sir; we have, very much so.

Mr. ASPINALL. And where is that stated? Would you read it? Is there any law to that effect, or is this your interpretation?

Mr. REED. It is a departmental policy statement, which may not be good enough for the chairman.

(The policy statement follows:)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE REFUGES

POLICY STATEMENT CONCERNING PUBLIC USE ON THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES The National Wildlife Refuges are unique areas in which all aspects of the natural setting-geography, climate, plants and animals, including man-are in a dynamic balance. They serve as models of environment in ecological harmony. The public use program engenders respect, knowledge, appreciation and curiosity toward the natural world, and invites the visitor to consider his part in the total natural environment.

As a general principle the National Wildlife Refuge lands should support public use provided it is consistent with their primary wildlife purposes. Basic responsibilities of the public use program are: to perform an interpretive function both on and off refuges, to develop the wildlife-oriented recreation potential of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and to provide locations on refuges for environmental education programs.

The National Wildlife Refuge System is a vital nationwide conservation effort. The public use program is an important means of actively facilitating and communicating the System's objectives. The program will maintain a continuing effort to create an enlightened public with an awareness of the lessons of ecology and a demand for environmental quality.

Public use on National Wildlife Refuges is secondary to the primary responsibility of protection and perpetuation of wildlife resources. Public use will be authorized when there is a local or national recreation, educational or interpretive need which does not interfere with the wildlife protection programs, endanger the safety and welfare of the public, duplicate adequate recreational facilities on national, state, or local forests and parks within a reasonable distance, or is a detriment to the facilities.

The greatest contribution of National Wildlife Refuges is to foster public use associated directly with fish and wildlife and its habitat. To achieve this objective, consideration is first given to those appropriate public uses which are directly associated with public enjoyment by the observation, utilization, interpretation, and understanding of fish and wildlife populations, habitats, and conservation values.

Approved by Director John Gottschalk, August 14, 1970.

STATEMENT ON LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY FOR RECREATIONAL POLICY, BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE

Use of National Wildlife Refuge lands for outdoor recreation specifically related to the management of the area for fish and wildlife has historically been a prominent use of these lands. The refuge program has been developed to provide outstanding fish and wildlife-oriented recreation that is basic to man's natural instincts. Bird watching, nature study, photography, hunting, fishing and other uses can be allowed in controlled amounts without damaging the fish and wildlife resources. This program was supported by the Congress in the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (70 Stat. 119; 16 U.S.C. 724a-742j):

"Sec. 2. The Congress hereby declares that the fish, shellfish, and wildlife resources of the Nation make a material contribution to our national economy and food supply, as well as a material contribution to the health, recreation, and well-being of our citizens; that such resources are a living, renewable form of national wealth that is capable of being maintained and greatly increased with proper management, but equally capable of destruction if neglected or unwisely exploited; that such resources afford outdoor recreation throughout the Nation and provide employment, directly or indirectly, to a substantial number of citizens;" "that the training and sport afforded by fish and wildlife resources strengthen the national defense by contributing to the general health and physical fitness of millions of citizens; and that properly developed, such fish and wildlife resources are capable of steadily increasing these valuable contributions to the life of the Nation."

"The Congress further declares that the provisions of this Act are necessary in order to accomplish the objective of proper resource development, and that this Act shall be administered with due regard to the inherent right of every citizen and resident of the United States to engage in fishing for his own pleasure, enjoyment and betterment, and with the intent of maintaining and increasing the public opportunities for recreational use of our fish and wildlife resources,

To ensure that this program did not destroy the habitat for which these areas were set aside, a specific authorization was passed in the Act of September 28, 1962 (76 Stat. 653; 16 U.S.C. 460k) for recreational use of refuges providing it was compatible with the primary purpose.

"Sec. 1. In recognition of mounting public demands for recreational opportunities on national wildlife refuges, game ranges, National fish hatcheries, and other conservation areas administered by the Secretary of the Interior for fish and wildlife purposes; and in recognition also of the resulting imperative need, if such recreational opportunities are provided, to assure that any present or future recreational use will be compatible with, and will not prevent accomplishment of, the primary purposes for which the said conservation areas were acquired or established, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized, as an appropriate incidental or secondary use, to administer such areas or parts thereof for public recreation when in his judgment public recreation can be an appropriate incidental or secondary use,

This Act also provided acquisition authority to acquire lands specifically for recreation purposes where additional land could be developed "to avoid adverse effects upon fish and wildlife populations of the said areas that might otherwise result from public recreation or visitation . . ."

This authority to provide a recreational program on national wildlife refuges was further reaffirmed under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 927) which defines the National Wildlife Refuge System and provided in Section 4d:

"The Secretary is authorized, under such regulations as he may prescribe, to

(11) permit the use of any area within the System for any purpose, including but not limited to hunting, fishing, public recreation and accommodations, and access whenever he determines that such uses are compatible with the major purposes for which such areas were established . . ."

The recreational use on refuges was again recognized with the passage of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 on September 3, 1965 which required the deposit of recreation user fees on refuges to the fund and made refuge subject to the requirements for the golden eagle permits.

The authorization to acquire lands for refuge purposes which are also administered for recreation in accordance with the foregoing is under Section 7(a) (5) of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 which requires that the Secretary shall:

"take such steps as may be required for the development, management, advancement, conservation, and protection of wildlife resources through research, acquisition of refuge lands, development of existing facilities, and other means.' This authority was confirmed in an opinion of the Acting Solicitor of the Department of Interior on January 13, 1965, M-36676. On the basis of this opinion, this specific authority was cited in the Endangered Species Conservation Act of October 15, 1966:

"Sec. 2(a). The Secretary of the Interior shall utilize the land acquisition and other authorities of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, as amended, the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended, and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to carry out a program in the United States of conserving, protecting, restoring, and propagating selected species of native fish and wildlife that are threatened with extinction."

Since refuge areas are authorized to be administered by the Secretary of the Interior for outdoor recreation purposes as well as fish and wildlife purposes, acquisition of inholdings within existing refuges and newly authorized refuge areas qualify for use of Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriations under Section 6 (a) (1) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act.

Mr. ASPINALL. It isn't a question of whether it is good enough for the chairman, it is a question of whether or not it is correct. You see, our own trouble with the Department is, we pass laws, and usually we make a history-sometimes it is faulty-then the solicitors, the Department heads and the Bureau chiefs write their own interpretation. This is what is involved.

Now, if there is such a recreational operation on your part, do you charge recreation fees individually, or do you recognize the Golden