21.

This Agreement and all documents referred to herein, may be amended in the future by mutual consent or agreement of the Executive Director of TPWD, Regional Director of FWS, and GLO Commissioner. In effecting any such amendment, FWS shall comply with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4331 et seq.). FWS shall provide 30 days public notice prior to the effective date of any amendment to this Agreement.

22. This Agreement is entered into for a period of one hundred (100) years, commencing on the date it is fully executed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the day, month, and year opposite their signatures thereto:

CURRENT MANAGEMENT

Mr. HODEL. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to respond also and say that if somebody-Congressman Wilson-proposed a piece of legislation, he may have had all kinds of aspirations and plans for that area. But I've got to emphasize that the current arrangement on the north end of the island is that it has to be managed in accordance with Fish and Wildlife Service Refuge requirements. Some of the things you've mentioned don't sound like they're quite that compatible. If we entered into any kind of agreement, it'd have to be consistent with Fish and Wildlife Service level of management-it's as if we managed it.

Now, that's what's happening on the north end of the island. We think that's not undesirable at all. It brought additional land into the refuge use area. By that I mean that the State of Texas brought with it land and waters that we had not acquired. I think that's a real benefit to the whooping crane and the other species that winter there.

Now, I'm not suggesting that we ought to agree to do anything that would be inconsistent with that Fish and Wildlife Service obligation. I would share your opposition to some proposal that would

Mr. CONTE. I'd rather leave it alone the way it is now.

Not everyone agrees with you on what you've just said. I received some information from the Service and elsewhere about current management practices of the State, and potential problems with State management for the entire island. Let me share some of those with you, Mr. Secretary. I'm interested in your reaction.

Texas Wildlife Department has encountered requests from other State entities, private concerns for uses of the island which are not consistent in the purpose for which the area was established.

The livestock grazing committee has on numerous occasions brought State legislative quorums against Texas Wildlife Department for changes which would favor the grazing permitees in detriment to the wildlife resources.

As recently as December, State officials contacted the Fish and Wildlife Service to discuss the possibility of locating a new State prison on the island.

I think the whooping cranes would love that.

Mr. HODEL. Mr. Conte, I'm not familiar with the issues you raised, but I listen closely to what you read. Those come obviously from Fish and Wildlife Service people who want to do everything they can to avoid losing any turf. But I think it's fascinating that they say Texas wildlife has had requests for this. The reason we know about it is that we require them to manage the propertyand I'm assuming our employees are not going to grant those requests. We've had livestock grazing permittees who brought force for changes in the political process which would have some effectI'm assuming that means we didn't approve those either.

And finally, they discussed with us a new State prison. It wouldn't surprise me to find that the Texas State wildlife people would bring up that proposal because it had been brought to their attention by a legislator. They had to pay attention. But they can go back to that legislator with a clear conscience and say we tried it on the Fish and Wildlife Service, and they said no way would they permit a State prison.

Mr. CONTE. That's because we have control of those.

Mr. HODEL. The point I'm making is that we do have that kind of control in these areas because that's my understanding of the arrangement we have with Texas. Just because they are physically managing it does not mean that they can bring their own standards or change our standards to bear in the area. I think you and I are concerned about the same thing. We want that refuge managed properly. We spent and will spend a large amount of Federal dollars-$5 million.

Mr. CONTE. It's more than that. It's $5 million now.

Mr. HODEL. In 1988.

Mr. CONTE. It's $13 million total.

Mr. HODEL. It's a large sum of money. And we want to be sure that we get what we bargained for. That's the bottom line. The question is, can we accomplish that in more than one way? We think the north end of the island shows that yes, we can. It doesn't mean we still don't have these managerial decisions to make from time to time. Believe me, the same kinds of proposals I'm sure are made from time to time by our refuge managers. "Hey, we'd like to do this, we'd like to do that." We expect them to conform to the law and policy.

PREVIOUS AGREEMENT

Mr. YATES. May I ask a question? Why isn't the agreement that Mr. Conte cites something that ought to be adhered to? Why shouldn't Mr. Conte say-he has an agreement that was entered into in 1981 between the State and the Secretary of the Interior then, for the continued operation of the island. Why shouldn't he follow that?

Mr. HODEL. Mr. Chairman, I'm not familiar with that agreement. I'd like to look at the agreement and-

Mr. YATES. Does that only cover the northern end, or the whole island?

Mr. CONTE. Yes, it's an arrangement for the north end, but it's part of a whole

Mr. YATES. The marsh is included, besides the――

Mr. CONTE. Right.

Mr. YATES. Is there reason for changing it right now?

Mr. HODEL. Mr. Chairman, I don't know that there's a reason to change it, because I don't know what's in the agreement. But I know why I-—

Mr. YATES. Well, the agreement's in the record and I'm sure Mr. Conte will be glad to make available a copy of that agreement.

Mr. HODEL. Mr. Chairman, the reason I've gotten involved in this is that when the Governor of Texas visited me, he raised the issue. As I say, in principle, it didn't trouble me-I was unaware of the agreement, and it sounds like the agreement is limited more to the northern end of the island-we're managing successfully the northern end of the island in that fashion. It didn't seem to me unreasonable at least to pursue discussions with the State of Texas as to how we were going to do the same thing. If it's satisfactory. If it's not satisfactory, if we knew they aspired to do something that we simply would not be comfortable with, it would not be right. I am not impressed by arguments that are raised by those who do not