EASTERN FISH NUTRITION LABORATORY Mr. DENTON. You have included $84,000 for planning and design for replacement of the Eastern Fish Nutrition Laboratory Research Facilities. Tell me where this is and briefly describe the requirements of this construction. Mr. GOTTSCHALK. This reconstruction program is located at Cortland, N.Y., which is a small town in the central part of the State, about 30 miles from Ithaca. Cortland is a laboratory where we have been doing research in trout nutrition for many, many years. The results of the work done at this laboratory are known worldwide as the basis for most of the modern trout nutrition that is used in practical fish culture. In other words, the diets that were developed there and the understanding of fish nutrition, particularly trout nutrition, stem from the work done at Cortland. Now, for many years this operation has been carried out in a group of wooden buildings, and in concrete raceways that have gradually disintegrated. With the funds made available we have begun the replacement of the raceways and the hatchery building, because there is a hatchery in conjunction with the laboratory. But now we are requesting funds for planning the replacement of the laboratory building. The existing building is a wood construction affair that dates back to the early 1920's, and maybe even before that, and it is about to collapse. We are going to replace it with a modern laboratory building. PATUXENT WILDLIFE RESEARCH CENTER Mr. DENTON. One million and one hundred thousand dollars has been requested for the construction of a general purpose laboratory office building in Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Md. This is quite a bit of money for this facility. Give the committee a complete description of the need for this facility. Mr. GOTTSCHALK. I spoke earler about the increasing load that we have in supplying information on water fowl, migratory birds generally, and most of the building that we are talking about here, under this wildlife research appropriation, would be to house the automatic data processing, the biological staff, and the administrative staff that is responsible for handling this increased bird banding load. Mr. DENTON. Does this deal with all kinds of wildlife? Mr. GOTTSCHALK. We deal with all sorts of migratory birds. The birds that are involved here belong in the general waterfowl group, but there is a fair-sized program that involves handling the banding records on all the other birds that are banded by professional ornithologists and amateur ornithologists across the country. This load has increased; more and more people are interested in working in the banding field as voluntary contributors, but our own program is the mainstay. At lunch we were talking about this, and somebody pointed out one practical result of this type of banding work, which is part of our research effort, and that was the special blue wing teal season which we established last year, and which provided for a season in advance of the regular waterfowl season in the two middle flyways, the Mississippi and the Central. We had a 9-day season when people could hunt teal, and we figure that close to a half million birds were harvested by hunters as a result of this season. Otherwise they would not have been taken because we learned through this banding that the blue wing teal migrate 3 to 4 weeks before any of the other ducks. So the early teal season allowed the hunters to take a crack at these early migrating birds. Mr. DENTON. Describe in detail just what type of accommodations will be furnished in this building. Mr. GOTTSCHALK. A good deal of the actual space is going to be. occupied by automatic data processing. Mr. DENTON. How many rooms will there be? Mr. GOTTSCHALK. I cannot give you the exact number of rooms. Mr. GOTTSCHALK. Well, we won't know it actually until we get the plans all worked out, but I can give you a rough approximation of the spatial requirements for offices, laboratories, data processing rooms, and that sort of thing. (The information follows:) STATEMENT CONCERNING PROPOSED GENERAL PURPOSE OFFICE-LABORATORY BUILDING AT PATUXENT WILDLIFE RESEARCH CENTER, LAUREL, MD. The following table shows the planned utilization of floorspace in the building proposed for construction: Mr. DENTON. How many employees will be housed in this facility? You can put that in the record, too. Mr. GOTTSCHALK. All right. (The information follows:) The building would house 94 old employees and 41 (by 1972) new employees for an eventual total of 135. Mr. DENTON. In view of your many comments on the inadequacy of other facilities at wildlife facilities and the comparatively meager funds you have apportioned for construction in that connection, how does this particular facility rate such a high priority as to warrant an allocation of $1.1 million in what has been frequently termed a tight budget? Mr. GOTTSCHALK. It is a tight budget, and we simply took the broadest possible look we could at our total responsibility. In looking toward our primary responsibilities which lie largely in the field of waterfowl management, and caring for migratory birds generally, as a Federal responsibility, we came to the conclusion that this laboratory was vital, and if we lost everything else, in effect, we were going to try to hold this laboratory because it is so important that we have this space for this program. Mr. DENTON. You have a good many hatcheries that you have not completed construction on. It seems to me it is not efficient or eco nomical to start hatcheries and not complete them. Yet the budget provides for this project and does not provide funds for completing these hatcheries. Do you think this research center is more important than completing the hatcheries you have started? Mr. GOTTSCHALK. Yes, sir. It is a hard thing to come before the committee and say, because I know of the committee's interest in some of the other work we have got going, but I think that in the long run the failure to complete this laboratory is going to seriously handicap us in our total responsibility for wildlife management. Our failure to proceed on a hatchery is going to be reflected in increased costs. I do not think there is any question about this. But it will not result in a serious handicap that will carry on for quite some period of time later. In other words, we are getting progressively farther and farther behind in our banding responsibilities, and we simply cannot put this off any longer. If we do not complete a hatchery, we postpone 1 year's production. Mr. DENTON. How serious is the delay, financially? Mr. GOTTSCHALK. In most cases I think you could measure the loss of efficiency in the area of, say, 10 to 15 percent. In other words, the additional cost due to postponement would be in the nature of 10 to 15 percent. Mr. DENTON. And it would raise the cost of the hatcheries 10 to 15 percent? Mr. GOTTSCHALK. Of the construction cost; yes. This is just an off-the-cuff estimate. This will bring this facility to completion. We have, if I can give you this-we have $40,000 appropriated in fiscal 1965 for planning, and in addition $40,000 reverted Federal aid for wildlife research funds are being requested in this current fiscal year-that is in 1966-and in 1967 an amount of $400,000 in reverted Federal aid wildlife funds are requested to complete the construction. So this is going to do the whole job. Mr. DENTON. How would it affect your program if you postponed it? Mr. GOTTSCHALK. This is what I think is the most serious thing. It would have a most serious effect in postponing the time when we can attack this backlog of work that has built up in our bird banding and bird management responsibilities. Mr. DENTON. Of course, you have not started this building. You do not even have the plans completed. Mr. GOTTSCHALK. That is correct. Mr. DENTON. It seems to me these hatcheries cost you 10 to 15 percent more when you delay construction and it does set your program back. Since you have not started the Patuxent building, the only thing you would lose would be the increased cost of construction. Mr. GOTTSCHALK. No, sir. There is this other problem, and that is the long-range effect. Mr. DENTON. On your program. Mr. GOTTSCHALK. On our program. I cannot emphasize too strongly that I think this is really vital, and it is only because of that kind of an identification of purpose that we would give it the priority that we have. Mr. DENTON. When will the planning and design be completed for this building? Mr. GOTTSCHALK. We would hope by fall. Mr. DENTON. You wouldn't spend all this money in fiscal year 1967 then, would you? Mr. GOTTSCHALK. We would hope to get a contract early so they could start construction about a year from now. Mr. DENTON. Yes. That would give you about 3 months in the next fiscal year. Mr. GOTTSCHALK. Well, the point is we can get the contracts awarded, and we can start work just as soon as weather would permit in the spring of next year. We would take the rest of this summer to complete our planning, and to get the construction plans and specifications and estimates worked up, and go out for bid, possibly in November; get the bids in and the awards made around the first of the year, and if everything is favorable, start breaking ground out there about the first of February. It is quite possible. GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES Mr. DENTON. The next appropriation item is "General administrative expenses." We will insert justification pages 124 through 135. (The pages follow:) HIGHLIGHT STATEMENT The purpose and long-range objectives of this program are to provide executive direction and general administrative services for the Bureau. Executive direction consists of the services of the Director, a Deputy Director and Associate Director and secretaries at Washington, D.C., headquarters and a regional director and secretary at each regional office. "General administrative services" include personnel, budget and finance, property management and related business management activities. The 1966 program provided for a new program of ADP services. A supplemental appropriation is proposed to cover the increased pay act costs. In 1966, the Office of the Commissioner, Fish and Wildlife Service, was reorganized to transfer operational functions together with the funds and manpower associated with these functions to the two constituent Bureaus of the Fish and Wildlife Service. One permanent position and $20,000 for the safety function is shown as a comparative transfer in the "General administrative expenses" appropriation. Fourteen positions and $144,000 are shown as a comparative transfer in the "Management and investigations of resources" appropriation. The safety function consists of staff assistance in the development of programs to reduce losses from accidents to employees and property. The 1967 program includes increases for a resource planning assistant position, within-grade promotions and annualization of pay act costs. General administrative expenses Appropriation, 1965_. 2d supplemental appropriation, 1965-- Total appropriation, 1965---. Comparative transfer from "Salaries and expenses," Office of the Total available, 1965.. Appropriation, 1966___. Pay cost supplemental. $1,384, 000 59,000 1, 443, 000 +17, 393 1, 460, 393 1,458, 000 34, 359 Total appropriation, 1966--- Comparative transfer from "Salaries and expenses," Office of the Total available, 1966--- SUMMARY OF INCREASES AND DECREASES, 1967 1, 492, 359 +20, 353 1, 512, 712 Departmental expense: To provide for automatic within-grade promotions_. To provide for increased pay costs for fiscal year 1966 positions_ +6, 647 +6, 000 +18, 000 +30, 647 Regional office expense: To provide for automatic within-grade promotions_ To provide for increased pay costs for fiscal year 1966 positions_ +13, 000 +7, 641 +20, 641 Net increase, 1967 Budget estimate, 1967__‒‒‒ 51, 288 1, 564, 000 |