The cost of the anticipated acquisition of land is estimated at $1.8 million. Opportunities for long-term leases will be fully explored. Appreciating property values in the area may limit the availability of habitat which can be preserved in this manner. It is believed there will also be opportunity to continue the present type leases at nominal cost.

The above data are preliminary and are subject to change upon completion of comprehensive planning and a more detailed analysis of development and recreational needs.

Mr. EVERETT. Are you running into any opposition from the county commissioners or developers to acquisitions? Also do you anticipate that this opposition will increase in the future?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. As a matter of fact, our local manager, Mr. Watson, contacted the chairman of the county commissioners and at least one additional member, and the men that he talked to indicated no objection at the present time.

It is our general feeling that, in line with the comments of Congressman Fascell, there has been an acceptance of the program, based on the way it has been carried out down there, and we feel that the type of objection which arose several years ago will not be forthcoming this time.

Mr. EVERETT. With respect to the amendment you propose to the bill concerning the exchange of property owned by the State of Florida in two of the national wildlife refuges, is any of this land desirable for wildlife purposes that could be used in a national wildlife refuge system?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK (referring to the map). These are the locations: Sanibel, Anclote Key, and St. Marks. The land on Sanibel that we are interested in is excellent wildlife habitat. It is currently owned by the State, and the State would be exchanging this land for other property which has virtually no wildlife value.

This is the piece of school land on which they mistakenly put their school. It belongs to the Federal Government instead of the State of Florida. That is that tract.

And Anclote Key is a relatively barren sand spit island. As we indicated, the lower portion of it, 100 acres, is under lease to the State at the present time. They have plans for a larger park development. This is off of Tarpon Springs.

We feel that there are minimal wildlife values at Anclote.

At St. Marks, the tract involved in this small portion here. All of the cross-hatched portion (referring to map) with the St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge, constituting some 65,000 acres. The one small piece down here would consist of low upland hardwood and pine types, and is of relatively small value for any wildlife purposes, none for migratory waterfowl, for which a large part of St. Marks is used. We don't think, in other words, that any of the objectives of any of these areas would be sacrificed by this exchange. In fact, we think it is a very effective way to acquire property that from the wildlife standpoint is much more valuable, and that is the area down at Sanibel. Mr. EVERETT. Has this proposed amendment been cleared with Congressman Fascell? Does he have any objection to this being in this bill?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. I understand that we have talked with him, and he does not have, and Mr. Rogers, who is the Congressman where Sanibel is located, is very much in favor of the idea.

(The following letter was received for inclusion in the record :)

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,

BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE,

Washington, D.C., June 8, 1966.

Hon. JOHN D. DINGELL,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. DINGELL: In a recent phone conversation with Mr. David B. Finnegan of the Office of the Legislative Counsel of this Department, you asked for a statement on wildlife values of the lands in three national wildlife refuges in Florida involved in the proposed Federal-State land exchange. This proposal was discussed at the hearing on H.R. 12324 held before the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries on May 3, 1966. Our comments on wildlife values are as follows:

Sanibel National Wildlife Refuge

Our Department would receive from the State 1,900 acres of land and 1,275 acres of water bottoms, totalling 3,175 acres, adjacent to the refuge. Our Department would convey to the State title to a 25-acre school site. The 3,175 acres would be added to the refuge and would facilitate control and management of wildlife resources.

Substantially increased benefits to waterfowl will result from the transfer of the already imponded wetlands. Gulls, terns, and shorebirds, in addition to ibises, egretes, herons and roseate spoonbills, also will be benefited. It is especially important to provide additional protection to the roseate spoonbill, a wading bird in short supply.

The Bureau is convinced that overall wildlife values of lands to be received are far superior to those inherent in the 25-acre school site (now used for school purposes) or in the lands described in the following two refuges. St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge

About 369 acres of upland on this refuge will be transferred to the State. This tract is a part of some 32,000 acres (about one-half of the refuge) that was acquired from the Resettlement Administration and later transferred to the Bureau. Pine is the dominant forest species. The tract is utilized by whitetailed deer, quail and some turkeys. No use of the area is made by waterfowl or colonial birds. While the area to be transferred will be used by the State of Florida for park purposes, it is expected that benefits to deer, quail and turkeys will continue.

Anclote National Wildlife Refuge

The 208 acres of public domain lands on Anclote Key are to be transferred to the State. Principal vegetation is mangrove. Other common trees and shrubs are cabbage palm, myrtle, gallberry and saw palmetto. While a few common egrets and great blue herons nest here, the principal value for wildlife lies in the shallow-water feeding grounds surrounding the key. The State now operates a State Park on a portion of Anclote Key under a Use Agreement with the Bureau. The State proposes to use the transferred lands for park purposes. We doubt whether park development would adversely affect wildlife resources.

We are enclosing leaflets on St. Marks and Sanibel refuges that may be of interest to you.

Sincerely yours,

JOHN S. GOTTSCHALK, Director.

Mr. EVERETT. I have one other question. In regard to the rewriting of section 1 of the bill, when it comes to exchanging property, the old law said that you could exchange, including but not limited to donations, use of donated funds, and exchange for unreserved public land or interest.

In the bill as it is written, does this not broaden your exchange authority so that you can exchange without regard to whether the land exchanged is unreserved public land or not?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. That is correct.

Mr. EVERETT. Thank you, sir.
That is all I have.

(The requested information follows:)

EXCHANGE AUTHORITY

Authority to exchange lands under the existing National Key Deer Refuge Act is limited to the disposal of unreserved public lands in exchange for non-Federal lands of approximately equal value. H.R. 12324 broadens the exchange authority in two ways. First, it authorizes the disposal of acquired lands as well as public lands in an exchange. Second, it provides that if lands to be exchanged are not of approximately equal value, the Secretary may receive from, or pay to, the grantor cash to equalize the values of the properties.

Mr. KEITH. I have one further question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LENNON. Yes.

Mr. KEITH. I did not hear any visitors' center mentioned until the last phases of this hearing. I looked through the bill hastily, and through the testimony offered by Dr. Cain, and I did not see any reference to a visitors' center.

What brought that subject into discussion? Is there a visitors' center authorized in this legislation somewhere?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. No, there is not. We have broad authorization for development on the national wildlife refuge that makes it unnecessary for there to be specific authorization for this type of development in a situation of this kind. It can be included.

Mr. KEITH. But you do contemplate one?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. We definitely do, subject to approval of the Appropriations Committee, et cetera.

Mr. KEITH. Do you have some policy in this regard at a refuge of this sort?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. It is our general policy to do everything that we can within the limitations of our budget to heighten the opportunity for the general public to obtain a worthwhile recreational experience related to wildlife on a national wildlife refuge, to the extent that we can do this without sacrificing any of the capability of the area to serve as a wildlife refuge.

Frankly, there is a great deal of planning that goes into the development of this program, and as I indicated, we have only three major visitor centers at the present time.

Mr. KEITH. In connection with this?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. No, this is generally in the whole system, throughout the United States.

This is a program that we have worked on in a small way, and at many of our refuge headquarters we have a small educational exhibit. Many of these have been developed with sufficient creativity that they are very good, and they serve a very worthwhile function, and the public is greatly interested in the message that we get across to them. But our problem is simply being able to plan and then finance a substantial program in this direction. We have so many other needs that seems to be crowding this program down a little bit in our priorities.

Mr. KEITH. We can understand that, but of course in your contemplated costs of operation, if you have a visitors' center costing in the

vicinity of $100,000, you are going to have a lot of maintenance and a lot of staffing to do.

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. This adds a substantial cost to the total operation. Mr. KEITH. I don't say that it is not worth it, but I think it is wise that it is brought out in the discussion.

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. It would have to be included in the request made by the counsel.

Mr. KEITH. What is the top elevation in this whole area under discussion?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. If I am not mistaken, we have this one hammock of about 14 feet.

Mr. KEITH. The greatest height above sea level is 14 feet?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. I would like to get that for the record, if we might. I don't have it offhand.

(The information follows:)

ELEVATION OF THE NATIONAL KEY DEER AREA

The top elevation of the lands presently within the National Key Deer Refuge and those needed for addition to the refuge is about 10 feet above mean sea level.

Mr. KEITH. What is the average? How much acreage would you say was above 10 feet above sea level?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. One; possibly one acre.

Mr. KEITH. One acre.

have to go?

That is where your visitors' center would

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. No. We have a general plan, a concept established for the location of this visitors' center near the headquarters on land which is roughly 4 feet above sea level.

Mr. KEITH. When you have these tidal waves

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. It will be flooded.

Mr. KEITH. It will be flooded?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. We have developed our shop, our office, and our residence with hurricane problems in mind, and the design seems to be very effective, because we went through the last one with no damage.

The manager sat in his office on his desk holding Bucky and feeling the deer carrots all during that last hurricane, with water lapping over the floor.

You just have to design your facilities for this condition, which is going to exist periodically.

Mr. KEITH. You must have also a very good plan for evacuation of these deer under those circumstances, because your loss would be tremendous.

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. This is one of the real problems, and one of the reasons that we are so interested in getting this piece of high ground, because it is the haven for many of the deer during these storm times. Mr. KEITH. Are your headquarters on stilts?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. The residence is on stilts, on concrete piling. The shop, however, is not. It is located on a slab poured right on the coral rock, but it is designed so all of the wiring and piping and everything like this is well above the floor, and all we do is open the doors and let the water run back out again.

Mr. KEITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LENNON. Has the Department of the Interior yet testified before the Senate Commerce Committee on the bill, H.R. 9424?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. Yes, sir.

Mr. LENNON. When was that?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. In August of 1965.

Mr. LENNON. Last year?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. Řight.

Mr. LENNON. Is it my recollection that under that legislation there. has to be a cost-sharing program between the State and the Federal Government in acquiring land to preserve endangered species?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. No, sir. The cost of acquisition under that authority would be borne by the Federal Government with funds coming from the land and water conservation fund.

Mr. LENNON. Now, the land and water conservation fund can be used in the National Key Deer Refuge, can it not?

Mr. GOTTSCHALK. Yes; we anticipate that that is where the funds would come from.

Mr. LENNON. I note in your statement, Doctor, that you said that in this same area where the key deer is located, in the National Key Deer Refuge, there were certain species of bird that were threatened with extinction.

I still come back to what I attempted to get over earlier, which is is why could you not use H.R. 9424 to acquire this land which would have the dual purpose of providing this additional area for your key deer and also to protect those threatened birds, such as the roseate spoonbill, the great white heron, the white-crowned pigeon, and the reddish egret, which you say are threatened with extinction in this identically same Florida Key area?

Will the lawyer answer that question? Don't you believe, sir, that if H.R. 9424 were passed that you could get from that legislation the money to acquire these 1,800 additional acres which you say are so badly needed, either for the continued protection of the key deer, which is threatened with extinction, or the four species of fowl which you state in your statement are threatened with extinction, which are in this identically same area?

Mr. FINNEGAN. While we have not attempted it, sir, I think the Appropriations Committee would say that the authorization for the Key Deer Refuge limited us to 1,000 acres and to $35,000, and until that limitation was removed, they would not authorize the appropriation.

Mr. LENNON. Suppose the Congress would repeal the act of 1957 relating to the establishment of the National Key Deer Refuge? Legally, where would you be with respect to being able to use H.R. 9424?

Mr. FINNEGAN. Well, you could do it, then. You could have the general authority, if Congress went ahead and repealed it, with the expressed intention of not limiting us.

Mr. LENNON. All right. While II.R. 9424 is still pending in the Senate suppose there was an amendment added to that legislation. Suppose it was sent to conference, which hopefully we hope it will be shortly some time in the future-that is if the Senate ever gets around to acting on it-and that was put in as a part of the conference report, that the specific 1957 act, would not be repealed, but amending it and making it amenable to all the terms and conditions of the bill H.R. 9424?

Seriously, I would like to get your legal thinking on that in the form of a brief.