through use of land and water conservation funds at national wildlife refuges.

Of the $579 million appropriated for Federal land acquisition, from the land and water conservation fund since its inception, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife has received only $15.8 million, or 2.5 percent. Twelve million of this was allocated to acquiring areas for endangered species. The other appropriations have been for small additions to refuges under the 1962 Refuge Recreation Act to provide recreation and alleviate pressures on wildlife habitat resulting from heavy visitor use.

Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt there?

Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. ASPINALL. I do not understand whether they were for areas already authorized for recreation to be brought into the picture or for areas authorized since 1964.

Mr. REED. All of them, sir, are for the ones authorized prior to the 1962 date.

Mr. ASPINALL. All right.

Mr. REED. Examples of areas acquired or being acquired for endangered species are Mason Neck in Virginia for the southern bald eagle; Okefenokee Swamp, Ga., for alligators; Tenasallihe Island and Cathlamet in Oregon and Washington, for the Columbian white-tailed deer: a site on the St. Johns River in Florida to save the dusky seaside sparrow; and an addition to the Patuxent National Wildilfe Research Center to carry on an expanded research program.

In the endangered species program, the budget for fiscal year 1973 includes $3.1 million. This will take us to the present $15 million limitation in the Endangered Species Act of 1969. Legislation has been introduced to raise this ceiling. Our present estimate of the cost of areas required to preserve species threatened with extinction is within. the neighborhood of $50 million. We do not pretend that this is the total need. We desperately need much more research on this endangered species problem.

Unfortunately, in these days of ecological degradation, we continue to find species that are coming into jeopardy Although the real solution is the national broad-based approach to environmental improvement on all fronts, including pollution control and land-use planning, in many instances, land acquisition represents the last desperate opportunity to save a particular species. We shall continue to aggressively do what we can in this important program.

The Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 was primarily intended to authorize the acquisition of areas as necessary to mitigate the impact of recreational use on refuges. The intent of the act was to spare refuge lands where public use has an impact on the primary purposes of the refuge by allowing acquisition of a limited area adjacent to the refuge to meet this recreational demand. We have in the 1973 budget included $814,000 for eight such areas. Although problem areas will continue to develop, we do not envision the present authorization as creating a large demand on the fund.

A new thrust would be authorized by passage of H.R. 10384 which would remove the restrictions in the 1962 Recreation Act. This would permit taking advantage of the opportunity to provide high quality wildlife-oriented recreation adjacent to fish and wildlife areas and

to acquire areas to protect existing refuges from adjacent development. We have identified about $17 million worth of such potential sites. While these individually do not have the stature of a national park, lying adjacent to a large natural area of a refuge, they provide a special opportunity for outdoor recreation that should be preserved for the public. Many of these are located near urban areas where there is a deficit of this kind of opportunity.

Since the Land and Water Conservation Fund was passed we have found special opportunities to provide outstanding fish- and wildlifeoriented recreation that is basic to man's natural instincts and which was not specifically cited in the original act.

The large refuge areas containing habitat attractive to wildlife provide the attraction for bird watchers, nature lovers, hunters, and others just interested in a walk in the woods. Fortunately, many of these refuges are near urban centers where the opportunity for this kind of recreation is becoming increasingly scarce as more land is developed to provide for our needs and wants.

Public use on the national wildlife refuges is increasing at the rate of 11 percent annually. Approximately 19 million visits occurred on refuges during 1971. The Recreation Act acknowledges and encourages public use on refuges providing it is compatible with the management of the wildlife resource for which is was acquired. The refuge system has a special and particularly unique wildlife-oriented recreational experience to offer.

Increased public use of the national refuge and hatchery systems provide simultaneous opportunity and challenge-an opportunity for offering recreation, enjoyment, and education to many and a challenge for harmoniously integrating these visitations with the primary purpose for which it was established.

In recognition of the need to meet these challenges, we have turned to the general authorization in the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act which provides for acquisition "of areas now or hereafter authorized to be administered by the Secretary of the Interior for outdoor recreation purposes." Maximum recreational benefits at a relatively low per unit cost can result from acquiring land adjacent to or within the boundary of established refuges. It is effective because it builds on and protects the existing public investment in these refuge areas. Gentlemen, I think what we are trying to do is to use the funds and authorities available to the Secretary to provide the American public with maximum diversified recreational opportunities at mini

mum cost.

In the 1973 budget, we have identified for the first time, a third category, which consists of several very critical inholdings within existing national wildlife refuges which pose threats of crises proportions. These proposals go beyond the intent of the 1962 Recreation Act and will be acquired under the general authority of the Secretary in section 7(a) (5) of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 for "acquisition of refugelands." These refuges presently provide and have the potential to provide the public with unique wildlife-oriented recreation, opportunities for ecological education, and environmental awareness. Unfortunately, these refuges are theatened by the prospects of commercial development of private inholdings within the refuge. At the National Elk Refuge in Wyoming, there is a 560-acre inholding subdivided into 5-acre lots. The development of a small community at this

t

location will destroy the present magnificent panorama a visitor to Yellowstone enjoys as he looks across the refuge toward the mountains. We believe it is imperative to acquire this one last private area to protect the naturalness of this inspiring area which is a priceless American heritage.

Another example is the Piedmont Refuge only 60 miles from Atlanta, Ga. Much of this refuge was acquired in the land retirement days of the 1930's under a program that left the Federal lands interspersed with private land. Over the years we have made progress in consolidating the refuge through exchange; however, this is a slow and difficult process.

The pressures for private recreational lands have extended out from the Atlanta metropolitan area so that if immediate action is not taken we will not be able to consolidate the refuge through an exchange program. The public's investment in this comparatively wild area, where we have developed a very popular hunting and interpretive and timber practice program, must be protected.

On the Willapa Refuge in Washington, we want to complete acquisition of an island in Willapa Bay where speculative development appears imminent. In all, we have identified some $10 million worth of inholdings that should be acquired either to protect significant areas from impending intrusions or to provide the public with a unique and significant wildlife-oriented recreational opportunity. Four million dollars of this is included in the 1973 budget.

A special fourth category, which we have budgeted separately and which will probably not involve large sums of money, involves the acquisition of inholdings within authorized wilderness units on national wildlife refuges. Four acres within the Monomoy Wilderness in Massachusetts are included in the 1973 budget in accordance with commitments to the House and Senate committees that these inholdings would be acquired.

Finally, we must meet the special needs of acquisition authorized by special legislation, such as the bills presently being considered for the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge in California and the Tinicum Environmental Center in Pennsylvania. There are many areas in the country that are worthy of the Congress' special attention. Generally speaking, benefits derived on refuges fall into four categories. These include public use programs; values to endangered wildlife species; values to migratory birds including waterfowl, fish and other wildlife species; and environmental benefits. The San Francisco Bay refuge proposal is an outstanding example of an area. where all of these values are manifested. Of noteworthy importance is the vast amount of wildlife-oriented recreation that will be realized from the San Francisco Bay project. Over 4 million potential visitors live in close proximity to the proposed refuge. We anticipate a visitor program accommodating around 1 million visitors annually without appreciable harm to the wildlife.

The San Francisco Bay Refuge, if authorized by Congress, is scheduled for acquisition at $8 million from the land and water conservation fund and $1 million from the migratory bird conservation fund. This funding ratio is based on a rather complicated process utilized by the Division of Wildlife Refuges within the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Basically, this system involves the

assignment of numerical values to all beneficial refuge outputs. Over 190 outputs have been identified of which about 31 apply to the outputs anticipated for the San Francisco Bay Refuge after develop ment. These outputs correspond by category to the amount of proposed funding under the land and water conservation fund and the migratory bird conservation fund.

About 66 percent of the benefits associated with the San Francisco Bay Refuge relate to the planned public use program which includes hunting, fishing, wildlife photography and observation, nature study and related environmental and wildlife education and research. Broken down further, hunting and fishing accounts for only 9 percent of the public uses, wildlife interpretation for 75 percent, and environmental education for 16 percent. Values associated with three endangered wildlife species including the California clapper rail, California least tern, and the salt-marsh harvest mouse account for 23 percent of the benefits. The remaining 11 percent relates to migratory waterfowl, shore and water birds and associated general fish and wildlife benefits. Since the recreational and endangered wildlife species benefits from the refuge overshadows the migratory bird values, it is fitting that the majority of the acquisition cost be allocated to the land and water conservation fund.

An unequaled opportunity exists in this highly concentrated wildlife area among a mass of people to orient man to his ecological and natural surroundings. The impact of this proposal on a huge urban area and the minority groups found in close proximity thereto cannot be underestimated.

Another area specifically authorized is Featherstone Marsh which is included in the 1973 program for $560,000. The marsh was saved from use as a solid waste disposal site through the passage of Public Law 91-499. However, it is difficult at this time to predict the total magnitude of future specifically authorized outdoor recreation areas that are best adapted for management by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.

I believe that wildlife-associated recreational opportunities on national wildlife refuges can be funded on a systematic basis without significantly impeding the progress we are making in acquiring our national parks and other recreational areas. Several acquisition proposals that lend themselves to management by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife have been processed through our Compare system and we find that these projects generally rank quite high on a cost effectiveness basis. They have a high potential for satisfaction of wildlife-oriented recreation needs of urban populations.

The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife is uniquely well suited to the conservation and resource management function. I believe that to take advantage of this expertise and fully utilize the existing refuge system, the Bureau should be funded out of the Land and Water Conservation Fund at an annual level of $20 to $30 million.

Gentlemen, I earnestly believe the programs that I have outlined here today merit support through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Our responsibility to the wildlife resource is clearly defined. We need now to provide the vehicle to insure that Americans can fully capitalize on our Nation's wildlife heritage.

This committee is to be commended for their accomplishments in the recreation field. The Land and Water Conservation Fund was a

work of vision which has made significant contributions to the American people. We look forward to your continued support and guidance.

Mr. Chairman, we do happen to have some visual displays of both appropriations by agencies, and then a full review of the San Francisco Bay proposal which, in whatever order you would like, we would be delighted to present.

Mr. TAYLOR. I think it would be well to place the charts where we can see them.

Mr. REED. Yes, we are going to bring them right up on the side. And if you would like us to run through them first, before going into questions, we would be glad to do that. It takes but a few minutes.

Mr. TAYLOR. The chairman of the full committee has to leave, and I want to give him an opportunity to ask some questions before. he goes.

Mr. REED. Are these visible, sir?

Mr. TAYLOR. Proceed.

Mr. SHIELDS. I am Robert Shields, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.

Reiterating very briefly what Secretary Reed has indicated in his remarks, this chart indicates that the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife has received $15.7 million since the inception of the land and water conservation fund program, which amounts to 21/2 percent of the total Federal portion of the land and water fund.

Mr. ASPINALL. Of course, that is not what you are asking for. You are asking for one-fifteenth or one-tenth of the whole fund, that is what the Secretary just got through asking for. So, that is misleading, because that is history, that isn't future.

Mr. REED. No, sir; that is not future, that is the past.

(New chart.)

Mr. SHIELDS. This chart illustrates how we have used this $15.7 million, $11.8 million has been spent in our endangered species program which Secretary Reed spoke of, and $3.9 million for mitigation areas adjacent to existing Federal refuges, to alleviate recreation from occurring on important wildlife habitat.

Mr. TAYLOR. We are not questioning the past, but see a departure from the procedure used in the past.

Mr. REED. We did want to bring you up to date.

Mr. SHIELDS. I think now we are beginning to bring you up to date as to how we can bring the San Francisco program into the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

(New chart.)

In 1965, there were 3.44 million recreation visits to units within our national wildlife refuge system.

In 1970 we saw an increase to 19 million recreational visits.

Of this 19 million, 70 percent were wildlife-oriented recreation visits. primarily photography, wildlife observation, environmental education, nature interpretation, and visits of this nature. You can see the increase in the widlife-oriented visits from 1960, when only 40 percent of the visits were wildlife oriented, they have risen in the year 1970 to over 70 percent, or to 70 percent wildlife-oriented usage.

(New chart.)

Here is a breakdown of the wildlife-oriented uses that have occurred. Of these uses 4.7 percent relate to hunting, 33.2 percent to the fishing