Imágenes de página

end of them. So even though other things may have higher temporary value-minerals for instance-in the long run for the good of humanity, the renewable resources are far more important in my opinion.

I think we should give special consideration to the renewable resources, especially when we look at the future.


I do have some special items in the statement that I had prepared. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife does a great deal of environmental work. Their scientific research programs have been responsible for the major breakthroughs in knowledge that proves the influence of some of our pesticides and other chemicals that have been spread around the world with particular emphasis on their effect on our fish and wildlife resources.


Mrs. HANSEN. Dr. Glasgow, isn't it true that you discovered the first indications of the harmful effects of DDT?

Dr. GLASGOW. This is correct, Madam Chairman. I might say that while I am new here in Washington, I am far from being new on the pesticide problem. I have been fighting it in the South for 15 years. At that time I was very closely associated with the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. They had the poorest little laboratories and facilities. They have increased and improved those facilities and have been very aggressive. They have taken the lead and I am really proud of the work they have done and the facilities that they have today.

They have really contributed some of the most significant things as far as ecological implications are concerned in the pesticide area. I would like to see, and I am asking for an expansion of their program, which of course needs additional funds.

In addition to the normal pesticides that we have been dealing with, there are many other chemicals that are appearing in the ecological systems of this country and others that should be studied. So we do intend to move into some of the other chemicals that may be quite serious.


The Alaska pipeline is another new area in which we must do considerable work. I happen to have worked on the stipulations for that pipeline and I think they are very good. I have heard very little from the oil companies in the way of objections to them.

There is a provision that the work can be stopped at any time that some problem might arise that we did not foresee. In my opinion, at this time, one of the major items that will determine whether the pipeline is detrimental or not, or to what extent it is detrimental, is how much enforcement we put on these stipulations. Of course, we do plan to enforce them very strictly.

We do have a permafrost problem. In some areas we do not have enough information to know exactly what to do. There is a lot of in

formation being gathered and we will shortly know how to handle that.


Mrs. HANSEN. Dr. Glasgow, will you insert in the record what you believe is essential for the maximum protection of the Trans-Alaska pipeline terrain? I think it is essential that we have some very definite guidelines set forth by the Department of Interior.

Dr. GLASGOW. We will be very glad to place that in the record. (The information follows:)


Simply stated, the primary guideline for stipulations which will effect a maximum protection must be a guarantee that the proposed TAPS pipeline would not irreparably harm the natural beauty or the ecology of the State of Alaska. Accordingly, the stipulations must specifically treat the interrelated environmental, social, technological, and legal areas which would be affected by the TAPS proposal.

In my opinion the stipulations meet the primary guideline requirements and adequately treat the interrelated problem areas.


Dr. GLASGOW. Another area in which I am very interested and concerned is in habitat preservation. The only way many of the endangered species will ever be saved is to save the habitat. If we do not save the habitat, they will be lost forever. So we are interested in increasing our activities in the acquisition of habitat for endangered species as well as enforcing the new Endangered Species Act.

This will require additional funds.


Mrs. HANSEN. The problems of environment are going to escalate, while the budget constraints are imposed to such an extent that we may find the fiscal constraints also constraining the preservation of our environment.

Dr. GLASGOW. Madam Chairman, I think it is pretty obvious that this will be true unless we receive the finances that are necessary to acquire habitat and work on these problems. We will get further and further behind in correcting them.


Mrs. HANSEN. Will you please insert in the record what your funding needs would be for the next 5 years if there were no fiscal constraints imposed?

Dr. GLASGOW. We will be glad to do that, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. HANSEN. I do not think this committee, the Congress, or the public can get a definitive answer to your requirements if your total funding needs are not shown.

(The information follows:)


The tabulation below shows estimated acreage and estimated costs of land acquisition to meet fish and wildlife habitat preservation and estuarine protection needs during the 5-year period to 1976. These are not the total needs. Included in the 5-year estimate is habitat acquisition for endangered species, migratory birds, and for the preservation of fish and wildlife areas valuable both to the resource and for human enjoyment of it.

[blocks in formation]

1 Acquisition currently not fully authorized by substantive legislation.

2 Preservation of valuable fish and wildlife environments having susbtantial recreational values. This does not include the full estimate to preserve estuarine environment. Acreage needs have not been specifically uefined because of the complexity of the problems, but rough estimates indicate acquisition costs in the range of $200,000,000. Most of this should be accomplished by the States, but the amount above would provide for a standby Federal acquisition program that could move into critical areas where the State is unable to protect important estuarine values. Note: The above figures do not include estimates of operation, maintenance, and development cost necessary to manage these lands.


Dr. GLASGOW. Another area in habitat preservation which I think is quite critical are the wetlands for waterfowl. Those are being drained and unless we save them now, we are not going to have much chance to save them in the future. So I am placing quite a little emphasis on acquisition of wetlands. Another area which I think is quite important and should be expanded is the marine sports fisheries program. Here is an area that can absorb a tremendous amount of recreation. Much of our sports fisheries in inland waters are pretty well saturated with fishermen, so we need to look for new areas. Marine sports fishing is one of them. The demand is growing very rapidly so that we need to expand our research effort in this area.


Another item that came unexpectedly and will take some money is the discovery of the steamboat Bertrand sunk 104 years ago. It has a tremendous treasure of great historical significance. We should begin to preserve as much of the cultural heritage as we can. This is certainly an important item in our cultural heritage that we must do everything we can to preserve.

Mrs. HANSEN. Thank you very much, Dr. Glasgow.

Mr. Flynt?

Mr. FLYNT. No questions.

Mrs. HANSEN. Mr. Wyatt?

Mr. WYATT. Not at this point.


Dr. GLASGOW. We do have some increases, Madam Chairman, and I hope your committee can see fit to support them.

Mrs. HANSEN. This committee has never been reluctant to increase necessary programs. There is a substantial interest in this Bureau by Members of Congress, because this is the field that preserves our wildlife habitat, our fishing potential, and our wildlife refuges.

Mr. FLYNT. Could I comment on that?

Mrs. HANSEN. Yes.

Mr. FLYNT. In today's mail I received a press release from one of the agencies funded by the action of this subcommittee, and the agency was deploring the fact that many cutbacks were going to have to be made during the remainder of this fiscal year, and probably in the fiscal year 1971. While the person who wrote this press release did not mention this committee by name or even mention the Congress by name, the only inference which could be drawn from what he said was that the Congress in general, and this committee in particular, had not provided enough funds.

And I have made a preliminary search and expect to follow through to get the exact figures. And the shortage of funds that this agency director complained of was not the responsibility of this committee, but was the responsibility of the Department, which denied the request that this agency made.


Mrs. HANSEN. Mr. Flynt, we will include in the record a list of the appropriations made by this committee last year for the preservation of our entire wildlife and fishing spectrum that the Bureau of the Budget placed in reserve. There was no attempt last year in this committee to curtail the major operations of the Department of Interior, but there has been a continuing attempt elsewhere over the years to curtail the Department of Interior's activities.

Dr. GLASGOW. We do appreciate your interest in Interior, Madam Chairman. I know from past reading, before I became an Assistant Secretary, that you have had a great interest in Interior.


Mrs. HANSEN. In this committee we fund the administration of more than 754 million acres of U.S. land. We also have the responsibility for the management of offshore lands and for the waters around our continent and our territories. This committee has accepted its responsibility in making sure that the Department of Interior's programs are adequately funded.


The Department of Interior and related agencies appropriation bill is about $1.8 billion. The revenue generated by these agencies runs over $1.2 billion. The curtailment of funding by the Bureau of the Budget has an adverse effect not only on Interior's ongoing programs but also on their revenue-producing activities.


Commissioner Meacham, will you insert your general statement in the record and summarize it for us?

(The statement follows:)



It is a distinct pleasure to appear before this committee. Since this is my first appearance before this committee, you have been furnished a biographical sketch of myself, so I will not burden you with the details.

As Commissioner of the Fish and Wildlife Service, I am responsible for the policies and programs of both the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. I will speak briefly about the mutual problems of both Bureaus. First, however, I would like to make some general observations about our perspective of the fish and wildlife resources we help to manage and sustain.

Fish and wildlife are both a part of and dependent upon the natural environment. We, in the wildlife and fishery management profession, have recognized this vital fact for a long time. It is with no small sense of gratification that we now have the attention of Americans from all walks of life turning to the environmental scene with real concern.

I find it extremely stimulating to serve a President who shares this concern, and who is willing to make it his own. In his state of the Union message, he said:

"The great question of the seventies is, shall we surrender to our surroundings, or shall we make peace with nature and begin to make reparations for the damages we have done to our air, our land, and our water?

"We still think of air as free. But clean air is not, neither is clean water. The price tag on pollution control is high. Through years of carelessness we incurred a debt to nature, and now the debt is being called."

The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife has a positive role in the President's thrust in improving our environment. In the sixties, our population reached a new high-resource consumption followed the population curve; we reached the moon, as highest priorities were placed on programs other than protecting and managing the Nation's natural resources.

Now we are turning our attention to problems closer at hand. The youth of today have taken a good look at what we have done to our natural resources; they do not accept it as it is. Neither do those of us of an older generation. We want to protect the protectable and renew the renewable in the environment, which is just another way of saying, as this committee and its chairman have said frequently in recent years, that America can ill afford to neglect those resources that are the very foundation of a healthful and prosperous America.


In assuming my responsibilities as Commissioner, I determined the need for the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife to take a good look at itself and its programs. I instructed the Director to take this "good look"-not with outside consultants, but with the Bureau's professional personnel who deal with administrative and program matters on a daily basis. Accordingly, four task forces have been organized to review Bureau affairs and give us recommendations on the improvement of policies, procedures, and overall administration.

The task force on overlapping jurisdiction between bureaus will examine research, extension services, management, and other fish and wildlife activities for which both Bureaus have authority; look into active programs of either Bureau which may be inappropriately included in that Bureau's structure; and recommend whether any program of either Bureau should be terminated or transferred in whole or in part to the other Bureau.

The task force on program priorities will (1) assess the contributions existing Bureau programs are making toward achieving the goals of fish and wildlife conservation and environmental enhancement, (2) identify those programs and facilities that are making marginal contributions toward both present and emerging needs of the American people, which the Bureau is uniquely equipped to serve, and (3) propose the rational reallocation of resources from areas iden

« AnteriorContinuar »