because of the mixed heritage of its settlers and the interaction of cultures. The bill therefore proposed the interpretation of all these cultures and the preservation of the natural environment in which they developed.

Man's interaction with the coastal lowland environment of northeastern Florida also influenced each culture. The pre-historic and historic Indians successfully adapted their ways of living to the conditions of the natural environment. The same environment, however, forced the Spanish, who were unable to develop successful types of land utilization, to depend almost entirely on supplies from Cuba and Mexico.

During the English period the area's agricultural potential was recognized, and products of the field and forest were soon flowing northward. During the second Spanish period and after American occupation the center of plantation activity shifted to middle Florida. Nevertheless, man's adaptation to the coastal lowland environment continued in the frontier rivers area. The best examples of this cultural activity are Kingsley Plantation and the wharves of Fernandina. A National Park Service field reconnaisance in November 1970 recognized the opportunity to preserve and interpret the cultural and natural resources of the Nassau River and its estuary, as well as the cultural development of northeastern Florida. In July of 1971 a study team was fielded to delineate boundaries and provide for recommendations on which cost and acreage data could be based. The study identified important natural values of the Nassau River estuary, including waterfowl habitat, a significant sport fishery, and natural and unspoiled marshlands. The results of that study, and the environmental consequences of establishing a national cultural park within the estuary, are still under review.

However, on the basis of the bill as introduced by the Florida delegation, we have prepared a conceptual map which simply depicts the various elements of the proposal referred to in the bill. You will understand, of course, that the project as shown on the map has not been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for clearance. We will be pleased to answer any questions the Committee may have concerning our studies thus far. Thank you very much.

Mr. HARTZOG. This is the vicinity map of the general Jacksonville area, and this is Cumberland Island, across the St. Mary's River, the Georgia border and St. Augustine.

This is the estuary of the Nassau River and this is the bulk of the land that would be acquired as part of the 85,000 acres referred to in the legislation.

The four areas that would be incorporated immediately are St. Augustine, Fort Matanzas, and Fort Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Caroline which is right here. Then the bill authorizes the acquisition of the Nassau River estuary, and it provides that when the Secretary has acquired sufficient of this for an administerable unit that these four shall constitute the Florida Rivers National Cultural Park. It further authorizes the Secretary to study additional areas shown in green on this map and to enter into agreements with the States and other owners of these properties for a common interpretive umbrella for the entire cultural park.

There is also authority to acquire not to exceed 150 acres which would be the central interpretive point at which the visitors could gather information. This is an ownership map of the Nassau River area and what is involved here is the marshland plus a buffer strip of 400 feet. The area to which the distinguished gentleman from Florida was referring with respect to city owned property is this area to the south of Thomas Creek. The reason it was not included was because of the parameters of the 400-foot contour lines. The red area is Federal land. You will notice that very little of it is now in Federal ownership. Brown is State-owned land, the green is county-owned land, the blue is city-owned land-very little of it included here the bulk of it being

in this vicinity-and then the white is privately owned land. I have a breakdown of those ownerships

Mr. TAYLOR. Explain what you mean by 400-foot contour level. Mr. HARTZOG. That is the contour line around sea level on the estuary.

Mr. TAYLOR. I didn't realize any of that land was 400 feet high. Mr. HARTZOG. I'm sorry, it's a 400-foot-wide strip inland. It's not height, it's distance.

Mr. TAYLOR. 400 feet would be a mountain in Florida.

Mr. HARTZOG. There are 85 acres in Federal ownership, 8,279 acres in State ownership, 1,842 acres in county ownership, 44 acres in city ownership, 46,859 acres in private ownership. There are two year round residences, one combination restaurant and store, and one fish camp. In other words, four improved properties within that total of 57,110 acres.

Of that 57,110 acres, 9,085 acres is fast land or hard land and 48,025 is marsh and river.

Mr. UDALL. How many separate ownerships?

Mr. HARTZOG. 650 separate ownerships and 825 different tracts.
Mr. TAYLOR. How many of those ownerships are hard land?

Mr. HARTZOG. I don't have it broken out that way, generally, you will find fast land and marshland in a common ownership because the fast land is really the thing of value.

That concludes my summary, Mr. Chairman. I'd be pleased to try to answer any questions you have.

Mr. TAYLOR. Now the Department recommends deferral pending further studies. Explain to me the studies that have been made and the studies that are still to be made.

Mr. HARTZOG. The studies that have been made involve a professional study by the planners and historians of the National Park Service. We have not completed an environmental assessment of this proposal.

Now, we have completed our study and the study that I referred to in my statement is the evaluation and decisionmaking in the Department on the data and the reports which we have presented.

Mr. TAYLOR. Well, do you have a timetable as to the length of time that that is going to take?

Hearings have been completed or conducted by the Senate committee.

Mr. HARTZOG. No, sir; I do not have a timetable.

Mr. TAYLOR. The delay-then, is not a matter of further on the ground studies, it is a matter of decisionmaking.

Mr. HARTZOG. In the Department, and a statement of environmental impact by the Park Service.

Mr. UDALL. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TAYLOR. I'll be glad to.

Mr. UDALL. He said he has no timetable. Does he have parameters of a timetable? Could it be this year maybe?

Mr. HARTZOG. I'm reluctant to tell you that, because we gave the committee in the Senate an estimate of time which has now gone by the board, so I would not care to speculate on that.

MR. TAYLOR. Did the Senate committee give you a timetable?

85-680-72- 4

Mr. HARTZOG. Yes, sir; and that has now expired, too.

Mr. TAYLOR. What was that timetable?

Mr. HARTZOG. We were to have our report to the Department on November 8, as I recall, and it was there on November 8.

Mr. TAYLOR. In other words, the delay is not the fault of your Department.

Mr. HARTZOG. It's not entirely the fault of our Service. The delay is in the Department, and in our assessment of environmental impact. Mr. TAYLOR. The idea of a national cultural park is a rather new concept. We may be dealing with it in the future.

Would you explain why you recommend that concept and tell us how you are going to administer it?

Mr. HARTZOG. Mr. Chairman, this is part of the continuing thrust of the administration to try to preserve our cultural heritage, and as stated by the Congress in passing the historic preservation act of 1966, it was the publicly enunciated policy of the Congress that we should try to join hands with States and local governments and private citizens in a more creative effort of cultural preservation and interpretation. The national cultural park concept was one that grew out of that action by the Congress and the Nez Perce National Historical Park, and then the Wolf Trap Farm Park for the Performing Arts. We submitted the concept to the Secretary's Advisory Board which reviewed the matter and developed the criteria for such a park and recommended it to the Secretary.

Now, the Secretary has approved those criteria, but he has not approved this proposal or any proposal for a national cultural park, but he did authorize me, in connection with the Connecticut River, in the Senate, to say that he's very much interested in it, and that he supports the general concept.

As a matter of fact, I have the response which I gave, and I can just read it, if I may. In response to a question by one of the members of the committee I answered, "I appreciate your observations and we are aware of this difficulty. The Secretary and I have been working on it. We have developed a concept paper which has been reviewed and recommended by the Advisory Board. The Secretary has not approved it for distribution. I have discussed it with the chairman and the ranking minority member of this subcommittee and the staff. I have discussed it in the counterpart committee in the House-your committee. I discussed it also with the staff in the House and I have been authorized to say to the committee that the Secretary has a very positive and affirmative interest in this concept, and it is undergoing active consideration in the Department, and while the final criteria. for the selection of these areas or course is a prerogative of the Congress in setting the public land policy, we hope to soon be in a position to at least show for the committee our views on what the criteria for such a park should be."

This is the second one that is moving in this direction of a new category. The administration has a very strong interest in the preservation of our cultural heritage, as well as our natural heritage, and this is what I am authorized to say to you.

Mr. TAYLOR. Have your studies gone far enough to establish an estimated cost for acquisition?

Mr. HARTZOG. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLOR. Would you tell us what that is?
Mr. HARTZOG. Yes, sir, it is $10,388,000.

Mr. TAYLOR. All right.

Have your studies gone far enough to establish an anticipated cost for development?

Mr. HARTZOG. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLOR. Would you explain what that cost would be and how that money will be allocated? Give us general information as to the development plan.

Mr. HARTZOG. It would be $2,211,000 for roads and trails, $3,165,000 for buildings and utilities for a total of $5,376,000. It would involve an information center and overlook, interpretive exhibits and so forth. in the main cultural park center. Here, on Thomas Creek, it would involve additional interpretive markers for these sites which we believe logically should be part of this cultural park.

It would cover archeological excavations to identify other sites that might be worthy of marking or perhaps acquisition. It would include interpretation along the trail that the gentleman from Florida was referring to.

I have a list of the developments which I will be pleased to supply the committee if you wish, with the understanding it has not been reviewed and approved in the Department.

Mr. TAYLOR. How would the administration of this cultural park differ from the administration of parks generally?

Mr. HARTZOG. One of the concepts we have considered with respect to a cultural park, which is not written into this bill-it is a refinement which we have been working on-is that there should be an independent oversight Board to pull together for policymaking purposes, the various agencies and instrumentalities that are involved in the total program.

This is one of the things that we have become pretty well convinced of in connection with the administration of Nez Perce for example. We may have been well advised to pursue this kind of arrangement involving the Indians and other Federal agencies as we have out there. So, this is a further refinement of the concept, and we will propose to actually delegate to this Board a measure of the Secretary's management authority for decisionmaking, because these are not unilateral decisions which we can make with respect to somebody else's property. It is not as though we had gone out and bought everything ourselves. We're establishing guidelines and policies and programs for properties that belong to other people.

Mr. TAYLOR. What will the recommendations of the Department be with regard to hunting and fishing?

Mr. HARTZOG. Our concept of the national cultural park in the concept paper that we developed is that those activities will be continued in a manner somewhat comparable to what is involved in national recreation areas.

Mr. TAYLOR. Could you give us some information as to the cost of annual operation and maintenance?

Mr. HARTZOG. The operating costs are estimated at $249,000 in the first year, to a total of $740,600 at the end of the fifth year.

Mr. TAYLOR. How much of that cost exceeds the cost of operating present units?

Mr. HARTZOG. All of it.

Mr. TAYLOR. Could you supply for the record the usual manpower cost data?

Mr. HARTZOG. Yes, sir; with the understanding that it has not been reviewed and approved in the Department.

[Pause.]

Mr. HARTZOG. Do you want the answer now or do you want it for the record?

Mr. TAYLOR. Well, suppose we place it in the record at the time. (The information follows:)

Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Arizona. Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You told the chairman a little while ago that you had figures or estimates of $10 million to $12 million for land acquisition costs. Mr. HARTZOG. $10.388.000.

Mr. UDALL. I take it then, or maybe I'm wrong, that you do not share Mr. Bennett's feeling that most of this private land will be donated.

Mr. HARTZOG. I do share his feeling that a great deal of it will be donated.

Mr. UDALL. But you're budgeting the full amount?

Mr. HARTZOG. I'm budgeting the whole amount because this is criterion on which we have been submitting the information to the committee as part of the legislative process. This cost will be reduced proportionately by donations, and I think there's a real possibility that significant donations will be made in this park.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Bennett is one of the most persuasive men alive, and if he can't con them out of that land, nobody can.

Mr. HARTZOG. Well, he's done a fantastic and remarkable job at Fort Caroline. I'll say that much for him, in addition he's bought a great deal of it himself.

Mr. UDALL. He would put Jesse James to shame hijacking land away from poor, barefoot New York corporations.

That's all I have.

Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Idaho?

Mr. McCLURE. Are the boundaries of that proposal sufficiently delineated now so that a map can be made a part of the record or at least reference made to such map to understand the boundaries?