for Nassau County to Mr. Dole of our Long Island Area Office) that the applicant now proposes to modify his spoil disposal plans in favor of leaving a 100foot wide buffer strip of salt marsh between the spoil area and Seaman's Island Creek. In addition he has revised the edge of fill in the southwest corner to leave an additional four-acre area in its undisturbed condition.

We also understand from the above mentioned letter that the applicant anticipates that wtihin a week from the date of said letter he will withdraw his application to dredge in South Oyster Bay and will rely on Jones Bay, Jones Inlet (Public Notice No. 5811) for the 9,000,000 cubic yards of spoil needed as fill for the Nassau County sewage treatment plant and park complex.

This Service has no objection to dredging of Jones Bay as described in Public Notice No. 5811. In addition, we are also aware of the possible benefits that could accrue from a modified dredging of channels in South Oyster Bay. We are of the opinion that the pattern of channels as indicated on the public notice are reasonable and are in the public interest. Due to the extensive areas to be dredged and the well known fish and wildlife values of the region, we find it impractical in the short time available to prepare this report to make an intensive appraisal of the impact of the dredging under Public Notice No. 5839 on the region's fish and wildlife resources. It is our opinion that carefully planned dredging in South Oyster Bay could actually benefit both fish and wildlife resources and boating.

In view of the complex nature and inter-relationships between the two public notices, numbers 5811 and 5839, we recommend that:

1. A plan be developed as soon as possible for dredging in South Oyster Bay that will provide channels that are in the best interest of both boating and fish and wildlife.

2. The application (Public Notice No. 5811) to dredge in Jones Inlet be granted.

Sincerely yours,

RICHARD E. GRIFFITH, Regional Director, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.

Acting Regional Director, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. Mr. WYDLER. However, as can be seen, the Bureau qualified its approval as follows:

This Service is well aware of the necessity for sewage plants such as the one planned for construction by Nassau County on the proposed spoil area. We do, however, question the need for sacrificing salt marsh for the park complex to be built in conjunction with the sewage treatment plant.

And further in the letter stated:

We find it impractical in the short time available to prepare this report to make an intensive appraisal of the impact of the dredging under Public Notice No. 5839 on the region's fish and wildlife resources.

Upon receiving a copy of this letter I called Mr. Ralph Schmidt, the Regional Supervisor of the Division of River Basin Studies, who was familiar with the letters.

He told me straight out that he did not want to see the salt marsh destroyed. He explained that the county was going to leave a 100-foot buffer strip along the shoreline but said this would not save the salt marsh. He further stated that if he had the necessary authority he would look further into the matter and make them prove need for this site for use as a golf course.

I believe the county should, without delay, consult further with the Department of the Interior in Washington and reappraise the need for the 18-hole golf course in the process of providing for which it will destroy 200 acres of irreplaceable wetlands.

I believe that at least 40 to 50 acres of wetlands closest to the bay should be preserved in its natural state for posterity.

I have called upon the county executive to reexamine his position. I have offered to make arrangements to meet with the Department

of the Interior. I have asked the town of Hempstead to withhold the granting of the dredging permit needed by the county.

The town has been criticized in the past by the county for issuing dredging permits. It would be ironic if the town were to be once again criticized for issuing a permit-but this time for allowing the dredging by the county.

I am going to ask the Long Island congressional delegation to support me on this. I see two of the members sitting on this committee, Mr. Grover, who is a member of the committee and Mr. Tenzer who has a deep and abiding interest in the preservation of the wetlands. I hope conservationists at home will do the same.

I saw Mr. Vandivert in the audience and I understand he will testify later today. I know he objected to this proposal from the beginning. I know of his interest in conservation.

I hope conservationists in Nassau County will do the same. With their help we can save a major portion of these irreplaceable wetlands. It is worth the try.

Mr. Chairman, I believe this situation has a strong bearing on section 12 of your bill, H.R. 25. This is the section to require a permit for dredging from the Department of the Interior.

This concept is excellent and I support it 100 percent. It would give the Department of Interior a real say in the granting of dredging permits. The power to say "No" would encourage the Department to speak out.

I have had a clear indication that if the Department had been required to affirmatively approve the Nassau County request, the result would have been different.

In calling this to the county's attention I expect they will ask the Department for affirmative approval of their golf course proposal in keeping with their past statements on the subject.

I suggest some modifications of the procedure under section 12. It now requires an entirely separate application procedure apart from the Corps of Engineers. For the sake of cutting red tape, I would recommend that the Department act on the application before the Corps, but that their affirmative power to approve or reject be spelled

out.

It seems to me a hardship and not a necessary one to require two applications, two permits and possibly two public hearings. The important thing is to give the Interior Department power not to increase the procedural problems for applicants.

Regarding the rest of the bill I must raise a few questions that I believe need clarification:

First, a problem that appears to me; Is there a massive duplication of the study authorized by this bill and that of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act? That later study is a 3-year $3 million study of pollution in estuarine areas.

This study is a 5-year four point $5 million study of estuarine areas and whether they should be made into national areas. On reading the language in the Water Pollution Control Act, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that it is very broad and practically calls for the exact same kind of study that is called for in the present act. I think it would be well if the committee went into that in some depth before they possibly authorized two duplicating studies.

The second question I would raise is: Is congressional approval necessary for the establishment of an estuarine area of national significance owned by a State under section 4 of the bill?

In other words, as I read this act and I could be mistaken in my way of reading it, the Department of the Interior would have to come back to Congress for further approval if it was going to buy land under the other sections of the act but would not have to come back to Congress for approval if it was going to act under section 4 of the act and I think that should be clarified and spelled out.

Three, I would ask: Can any action be taken under the bill to establish or pay part of the costs of an estuarine area before the entire study is completed?

If the answer to that question is "yes" it would mean that we would have a 5-year period at least before any action could be taken to protect the wetland areas of the United States of America.

Four, I would like to ask whether the Long Island area requires a new study or whether the Department of the Interior would propose to utilize the studies previously made.

Fifth, will there be public hearings before an area is taken into the estuarine system? I think there should be but it does not seem to be provided for in the act.

Six, the question of whether fees can be charged to enter these estuarine areas. As you remember it, Mr. Chairman, last year in connection with this bill, the representatives of the Department of the Interior stated "no" when asked that specific question.

This year, they have stated "yes" when asked the same question. The language seems to be the same and I suggest to the committee that there is a creditability gap here that the committee should try to clear up because those two statements, I don't think, can stand side by side without leaving a great deal of confusion in the minds of everybody concerned.

These questions do not indicate any opposition on my part to this bill. I supported the chairman's version of the bill last year on the floor of the House and I support this version.

I believe we should have a national estuarine system. The question of whether or not the State of New York and any of the towns of Long Island wish to join or participate in such a system is up to them.

Long Island no longer need fear a Federal takeover but it still must weight the loss of control, the imposition of fees, the opening

of town lands to all against the Federal monetary benefits offered. This choice is for the local governments.

That is where it should be. That is where it belongs.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Wydler, the committee is grateful to you for a very fine statement and for your help last year as well as this year on the legislation. The questions that you raise are indeed important ones and the Chair will see that appropriate information in response to these questions is inserted into the record.

The Chair would advise that the studies referred to in last year's Water Pollution Control Act have made possible elimination of that same language in my bill of this year. This, I think would eliminate the duplication to which you referred in question No. 1.

(The information follows:)

Mr. JOHN S. GOTTSCHALK,

MARCH 30, 1967.

Director, Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife, Department of Interior, Interior Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. GOTTSCHALK: At the estuarine hearings before the subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation, Congressman John Wydler raised several questions that need clarification concerning H.R. 25 and identical and similar bills. Your comments to the following questions would be greatly appreciated and most helpful to the subcommittee when it considers the legislation in an executive session at a later date. The questions referred to are as follows: 1. Is there a massive duplication of the study authorized by this Bill and that of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act? That is a 3-year $3 million study of pollution in estuarine areas.

2. Is Congressional approval necessary for the establishment of an "estuarine area of national significance" owned by a State under Section 4 of the Bill? 3. Can any action be taken under the Bill to establish or pay part of the costs of an estuarine area before the study is completed?

4. Will this Long Island area require a new study?

5. Will there be Public Hearings before an area is taken into the federal estuarine system?

6. Can fees be charged to enter these areas? Last year the Department of Interior said "No"; this year with the same language they say "Yes". This conflict should be cleared up.

Sincerely,

JOHN D. DINGELL,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS RAISED BY CHAIRMAN DINGELL IN HIS LETTER OF MARCH 30, 1967

In his letter of March 30, 1967, Chairman Dingell asked six questions relative to H.R. 25. The questions and our answers are as follows:

1. Is there a massive duplication of the study authorized by this bill and that of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act? That is a 3-year $3 million study of pollution in estuarine areas.

No. Both H. R. 25 and our proposed draft bill require the Secretary to coordinate the studies under both authorities. The studies authorized under the pollution Act are geared to the problems of pollution in estuaries. The results of those studies will be incorporated into the broader studies authorized by these bills.

2. Is congressional approval necessary for the establishment of an "estuarine area of national significance" owned by a State under section 4 of the bill?

No. Both H. R. 25 and the enclosed bill provide that these State-owned areas will be established by agreement. Little, if any, land acquisition will be needed in these areas.

3. Can any action be taken under the bill to establish or pay part of the costs of an estuarine area before the study is completed?

The Secretary is not authorized to expend any funds, except those needed for study purposes, in any proposed national estuarine area that is to be acquired by him until the area is approved by the Congress.

4. Will this Long Island area require a new study?

Except insofar as it may be necessary to update our existing information, a new study will not be needed. We have already carried out lengthy studies on this area.

5. Will there be Public Hearings before an area is taken into the Federal estuarine system?

The bill does not require such hearings, but, in view of all the potential interests involved in an estuary, we believe that such hearings would be very useful and would provide information on the need for, and desirability of, a particular national estuarine area.

It should be noted that the bill does not contemplate the establishment of a new "system" of national estuarine areas,

6. Can fees be charged to enter these areas? Last year the Department of the Interior said "No"; this year with the same language they say "Yes". This conflict should be cleared up.

Both H. R. 25 and the enclosed draft bill are silent on the question of entrance fees.

The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 authorizes the President to establish entrance, admission, or other recreation user fees generally for Federal areas administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, and the Bureau of Reclamation. That Act also provides for such fees at other Federal areas. Under Executive Order 11200, the President delegated this authority to the appropriate agency heads to establish fees in accordance with criteria prescribed by the Secretary.

We would in appropriate cases establish such fees for national estuarine areas consistent with this criteria and the provisions of the 1965 Act.