Now, we are close on two or three different fields, and if we can get some money in there, I believe we can prove them. I think whoever has examined this approach will agree. I was very interested that the wool growers and the cattlemen's association both took extensive tours through that laboratory this summer. I was there along with the Secretary. We all came to the same conclusions, that we are, I don't know how imminently, close to coming up with a solution. There are various avenues available to us if we will make the investment.

Mr. MELCHER. I don't want to take up the committee's time on this, because we are here to talk about the Land and Water Conservation Fund. But I do have one more question in that regard.

Is it your intent and the intent of the Department that predator controls still remain an active function of the Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife?

Mr. REED. No, sir; it is not. Our intention is for the program to revert to the States. Guidelines will be established by the Federal Government, and funds on a matching basis will be made available to the States to pay for the program during a transition period. Control will be carried out by hunting, denning, and trapping.

Mr. MELCHER. And you are going to retain the personnel then? Mr. REED. No, sir; I would imagine only the supervisory personnel would be retained and the field personnel I am sure will join individual ranchers, associations, or the States.

Mr. MELCHER. Well, that may open up a chaotic situation in some of the sheep areas.

But I thank you for your answer.

Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. KYL. How much of Long Island do you plan to acquire?

Mr. REED. Long Island?

Mr. KYL. Willapa refuge, Washington State.

Mr. REED. The State of Washington. I will ask Mr. McAllester, the Chief of Realty, who would have the information, sir.

Mr. McALLESTER. We intend to acquire 1,700 acres on Long Island. The total Willapa Refuge is just about 10,000 acres, and this would be an addition in Long Island. We have a map which shows how the inholdings lie, if you would like to see that.

Mr. KYL. Yes; I would like very much to see it.

Why is it that you want to acquire this land?

Mr. REED. Mr. Shields, our wildlife habitat ecologist, could probably answer that particular question, sir, if we get these maps up here where you can see them.

(Showing chart.)

Mr. McALLESTER. The Willapa Refuge includes some land on the mainland, and on Long Island in Willapa Bay. And what we would like to do is consolidate or acquire the total area of Long Island before these lands are sold off for development or for some other use.

Mr. KYL. We own about a third of the island, and Weyerhaeuser owns a third, and Canadian Pacific owns a third; is that about it? Mr. McALLESTER. Roughly, sir.

We probably own a little more than a third, and they own a quarter each.

Mr. KYL. And they are planning to subdivide that for properties or residences or something?

Mr. McALLESTER. I don't think they are planning immediately, sir. But these lumber companies, a lot of them are reassessing their positions. I don't think Weyerhaeuser has immediate plans for development, however, most of these companies are reassessing their holdings, particularly properties that are attractive for subdivision.

So that we are facing a question of, when do we have to move to protect our holdings.

Mr. KYL. That is my question, too. I went to the island one day in 1965 with Ed Crafts, to look at it, and to appraise it with the prospect of buying this land, because there was imminent danger that they were going to develop the island. We went to the island, and we looked at it. I came to the conclusion that the investment was far greater than the value that would be received. And then I checked with the people who owned the island, and they said, "Heavens no, wo don't have any imminent plans for development." Now, that was 6 years ago we first heard of the imminent hazard pending.

I see that there is a little parcel of land, green land, on the shore opposite this. If they do develop the island, would you give them an easement to put in a dock so that they could go back and forth? Would the Fish and Wildlife Service give an easement so that the island residents could get in a boat and go out to the island?

Mr. McALLESTER. No, sir.

Mr. KYL. How practical would it be for someone to establish residence out there if they couldn't get that easement?

Mr. REED. Whether the development appears imminent or not, sir, if the original concept was to complete that acquisition, it is certainly not going to be any cheaper, just like the national park system, it is not going to be any cheaper 5 years or 6 years or 10 years from now. We are trying to close out these refuges, with the large block inholdings in them. We are making every effort to buy out those inholdings and consolidate those refuges for perpetuity's sake.

Mr. KYL. I get an unusual definition of inholdings here really. I think we stretch the point a bit when we say we want to acquire the whole island because of inholdings.

As a matter of fact, don't both of these corporations permit public access on the lands?

Mr. REED. I am sure they do, most timber companies do.

Mr. KYL. And isn't it also a fact that both of these corporations have been very diligent in their preservation of wildlife?

Mr. REED. Í am sure that they have, sir. I worked with the Weyerhaeusers many years ago, and one of their major efforts on their land was just that.

Mr. KYL. I think the primary species there in which they were interested was brant, and big scaup, and deer on the island. And it was our impression that these species were a whole lot better off on that island the way we operated than if we tried to get masses of people there for recreation purposes.

The whole thing is available for recreation now, you can go out there by boat and camp, and picnic, and walk through the woods, and nobody bothers you. And unless there is some very strong reason now for feeling that there is a more imminent development danger than there was 6 years ago, I don't know why we have to give a priority of $10

million from the land and water conservation fund to buy that land for a game refuge.

Mr. RUPPE. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. KYL. Yes.

Mr. RUPPE. Is there a possibility of exchanging the shaded area with other governmentally owned lands? Has that effort been made? Is it possible?

Mr. McALLESTER. We have authority, as we are doing on the Piedmont Refuge, which is roughly a similar situation, only it does not have the water access problem. You have the advantage, you have seen the area, and I haven't. But we could exchange with these timber companies

Mr. RUPPE. You have the authority to do so?

Mr. McALLESTER. Yes.

Mr. RUPPE. Have you tried to do so?

Mr. McALLESTER. I can't answer that. I presume that we have.
Mr. KYL. I don't believe they have.

Do these companies want to sell now?

Mr. McALLESTER. No, sir; they don't want to sell. And our concern is what Secretary Reed was talking about, that at some day in the future, if the access problem that you have described can be resolved by the companies as I understand it, these are attractive areas on the island that could be used for more intensive uses.

Mr. McALLESTER. The $10 million is not for this alone. That is for all the areas of inholdings that we have identified.

Mr. KYL. It says here, on the Willapa refuge we want a complete. acquisition of the island, Long Island, where speculative development seems imminent.

Mr. REED. I misread that, $10 million through the entire refuge area. I misread it.

Mr. KYL. I am going to stop this particular question right here, but I wish you would take another look at it.

Mr. REED. We would be delighted to do so.

Mr. KYL. If I remember properly, sir; the big problem that they had with the game preserve was an eelgrass problem. You were trying to plant eelgrass and the shellfishermen were tearing it up.

In this scale of 32 point, or whatever it is, that you have for weighing the values, do you have a greater weight for serving a person in in the minority groups than for the majority groups?

Mr. REED. It is not in my testimony. And it was just pointed out by Mr. Shields that it is in an area where minorities are concentrated. I would concur with you that it might have been overused. It is for all people.

Mr. KYL. All people have the same need; I don't care whether they are red, green, or purple, they have the same need.

Mr. REED. I agree.

The greatest use of this refuge will be by the people from the surrounding area. There has been a tremendous interest in the public school systems around the entire bay in having this area as an outdoor wildlife laboratory.

The strongest advocates of this have been the school system and BCDC.

Mr. KYL. The one final comment that I have-and I know you are concerned about this, and you are deeply knowledgeable on the

subject. If we are genuinely trying to protect wildlife areas, including the harvest mouse-I somehow get the feeling that we are going to turn this thing over to recreation rather than protection. We have gone the other way with some of your lands in making wilderness areas of them. And we have even taken Forest Service lands and made wilderness to protect the magnificent giant California condor. But in those cases we are seemingly trying to protect something. And here we have field dog trials in an area where we are protecting the harvest mouse, and the ground nesting birds, and so on. I worry we are getting into some incompatible uses because of the pressures.

I hope your primary mission continues to be the salvation of fish and wildlife, and not the development of new forms for the human animals that surround these spots.

That is all.

Mr. REED. I do have the responsibility, though, under the Endangered Species Act, of giving protection to all animals, whether they be a big animal such as a bald eagle, or a very small animal such as the harvest mouse. That charge was given to the Department by the Congress and I think it is one of importance. All animals in our country, whether they be big an enormous or rather small and diminutive like the harvest mouse, nevertheless should have some habitat preserved for them.

Mr. KYL. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. That is exactly my view. I don't care how small the animal is, if there is a reason for keeping it, that is fine. But the human intrusion I fear is dangerous to these species

Mr. REED. I see your point. I did not understand you, sir. And I concur with you. In our refuge master planning, as in the national park system master planning the basic intent of Congress when it sets up a refuge or a national park is to preserve that ecosystem and we carry out this mandate but strive to make provisions for man to use it. But our basic premise is to preserve that ecosystem, I concur with you a hundred fold.

It has to be done with a great deal of care.

Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. RUPPE. I missed the first part of your testimony, having been in another committee meeting.

I notice on the first page of your statement that the endangered species program contains a budget allocation of $3.1 million, taking us to the present $15 million limitation in the Endangered Species Act of 1969.

Would you please perhaps define the limitation factor there?

Mr. REED. Yes, sir. We have three limitations in that act: The total amount to be spent of $15 million, $5 million as a maximum per year, and $2.5 million on any one single project.

Mr. RUPPE. Now, H.R. 10384 would lift the restrictions on the 1962 Recreation Act. Is this to the extent of substituting or providing additional Land and Water Conservation moneys, or does that reach to another authority of your Department?

Mr. REED. You are talking about the last paragraph on page 2?
Mr. RUPPE. Right.

Mr. REED. It would remove some limits of that act.

This is Mr. Fielding.

Mr. FIELDING. H.R. 10384 was an administration proposal which would amend the 1962 act, remove the limitation on size and number of hatchery and refuge areas where these incidental recreation areas. could be acquired. It would also remove the year limitation so that areas acquired since 1962 would be eligible. The bill includes language indicating that larger areas could be bought than was possible with the authority under the original act.

Mr. RUPPE. In other words, it expands the size of the acquisition, and what else, sir?

Mr. FIELDING. It expands the size of the acquisition and it includes the additional area. The original act was limited to areas that had been acquired prior to 1962. It would eliminate that language.

Mr. RUPPE. Mr. Secretary, do you feel that the land and water conservation fund has to be amended to provide the Bureau of Sport Fisheries with additional funding, or do you feel that it can be done as, a result of your solicitor's opinion, by administrative fiat?

Mr. REED. We felt that it could be done by that method, by the method of using the authority which we feel is available to us under section 6(a) (1), which I recognize presents a problem for this committee.

Mr. RUPPE. In the last 2 years how much money was appropriated and how much money was released and expended for land and water conservation fund purposes.

Mr. REED. Totals?

Mr. RUPPE. If you would, sir.

Mr. EASTMAN. In fiscal year 1972 the Federal portion of the fund totaled $101,669,000. In fiscal year 1971 the total Federal portion of the fund was $166,628,000.

Mr. RUPPE. Is this the total fund?

Mr. EASTMAN. Just the Federal portion of the fund, sir.

Mr. RUPPE. And what is the total fund?

Mr. EASTMAN. Last year the total that was appropriated was $362.5 million.

Mr. RUPPE. $362.5 in fiscal 1972. In fiscal 1971?

Mr. EASTMAN. It was $200 million.

Mr. RUPPE. Was the full $200 million spent in fiscal 1971, and will the $362.5 million in total be spent in fiscal 1972 ?

Mr. EASTMAN. No; there is a 2-year lapse factor, the agencies have 2 years after appropriation.

Mr. RUPPE. But then you may spend that money.

All right, let's go back to fiscal 1970. You have 2 years now and you are running out of that year this year.

Mr. EASTMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. RUPPE. Will you wind up spending this year all of the moneys that were originally made available to you under the fiscal 1970 program?

Mr. EASTMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. RUPPE. And you anticipate that the $200 million appropriated in 1971 or made available in 1971 will be certainly in total spent by the end of next year?

Mr. EASTMAN. There has been very little of the State portion of the fund that has had to revert.

Mr. REED. That is the biggest problem. Will the States be able to make use of their portion?