Mr. REED. I think there are some bold opportunities here following the mission 1966 program of development in the parks.

The hundredth anniversary of the park service gives us another opportunity, I think, which we shouldn't miss.

Mr. MCCLURE. Thank you very much.

Mrs. MINK. Mr. Secretary, with regard to the use and occupancy by the owners of noncommercial residential property, is the provision in the bill a right of use occupancy for 35 years or the lives of the owner and spouse, whichever is longer, or what exactly is that provision?

Mr. GRISWOLD. At the time of acquisition, Mrs. Mink, the owner makes a determination whether he wishes to reserve a life occupancy or a fixed term, and under the terms of the bill introduced by Mr. Hammerschmidt, that fixed term could not exceed 35 years. Under the terms of S. 7 as passed by the Senate and recommended by the Department, the fixed term could not exceed 25 years. But the owner chooses at the time the Secretary acquires the property, and this is an assignable right.

Mrs. MINK. That provision is not spelled out in the bill. Is that spelled out in the rules and regulations of the Department with respect to acquisitions? The language of the bill seems to indicate that it is one or the other.

Mr. GRISWOLD. That is correct. It is one or the other, Mrs. Mink. It's the life tenure or the fixed term.

Mrs. MINK. It doesn't say that that selection must be made at the time of acquisition, so, supposing the owner, dies with 10 years? Then you would have the question of whether the language of the bill would permit an additional 25 years to be extended so that the heirs and assigns of that property might enjoy at least that additional 25 years of use and occupancy.

Mr. GRISWOLD. The provision of the bill, Mrs. Mink, I have before me, H.R. 9119, page 3, line 13 says as the owner may elect, and then it says (A) the term ending with the death of the owner or his spouse, or (B) 35 years.

Now, this right if a term is selected, let's say a term of 20 years by the owner, and the owner dies at the end of 10 years. There is still an outstanding 10 year right which is a part of the estate and would go to the heirs of the owner.

Mrs. MINK. Only if the owner at the time of the acquisition by the Federal Government made that selection.

Mr. GRISWOLD. That's correct.

If the owner had chosen a life estate, then the life estate would terminate at that time, and the right of use and occupancy would be concluded. A reasonable period of time, of course, would be given for persons to get personal property removed, this sort of thing, but the right would terminate on the owner's death.

Mrs. MINK. How would you establish the value of the property then of these noncommercial residential sites?

Would it be the value at the time this bill was enacted?

Mr. GRISWOLD. It would be the value at the time of acquisition. As of the time of acquisition, if the owner decided to select a 10 year term a value would at that time also be placed on the 10 year term and this would be deducted from the agreed upon purchase price of the property, and the balance would be paid at that time to the owner.

Mrs. MINK. At the time of acquisition and not at the time of termination?

Mr. GRISWOLD. At the time of acquisition, and if it were a life term, then actuarial tables would be used to determine the value of that discount.

Mrs. MINK. Payment would be made at the time of acquisition and not at the termination of use and occupancy.

Mr. GRISWOLD. That is correct.

Mrs. MINK. The section of the bill which-section 3 of the bill which addresses itself to permissive hunting and fishing-is this usual language of bills?

Mr. REED. Yes, ma'am.

Mrs. MINK. Relative to this kind of acquisition, that hunting and fishing is permitted except where necessary for public safety, and administration, and management?

Mr. REED. That is a normal procedure.
Mrs. MINK. Thank you very much.

Mr. TAYLOR. Gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. RUPPE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You indicate, Mr. Reed, that there's about a $1.8 billion backlog of development work that is called upon to be initiated.

Mr. REED. That is correct, sir.

Mr. RUPPE. Now, in your proposed National River Expenditures Board of Allotment, you have in the 2 year, if you will, a figure for development approaching $3 million and $3.6 million in the 2 year of ownership.

Can I gather these are somewhat fictitious figures? Or are they figures that would be implemented if indeed you had an open ended appropriation from this Congress?

Mr. REED. I can't say that they are fictitious. They are honest efforts to tell you what we want in the way of development in this system. It depends entirely upon what is appropriated and what is released as to how much we're going to spend the next year of the next 5 years.

Mr. RUPPE. I think this is very good but you've recognized that with a $1.8 billion backlog, there's no way of appropriating that money in the 2 or 3 years and it's not going to happen.

Mr. REED. Some of the $1.8 billion of backlog, I think, perhaps under very close scrutiny, you would not wish to spend. As a manager in this day and age we have learned some things from Yellowstone and Yosemite and elsewhere which I think we would like to avoid in future parks, such as intense campground use problems with sewage, problems with drinking water, and washing facilities. We have seen some mistakes made and I think we would correct them.

I don't know how much of that $1.8 billion backlog we would not construct.

Mr. RUPPE. Fifty million, a hundred million?

Mr. REED. It's hard to say, but I think a constructive program will be forthcoming in the hundredth anniversary year, which will catch us up on this backlog.

Mr. RUPPE. Now, how much money is annually appropriated or has been annually appropriated in the last couple of years for development?

Mr. REED. That's the figure I'm going to present to the committee.

Mr. RUPPE. Then I would suggest looking at other parks that we have discussed in this committee. It's not much of a likelihood at all that the suggested development figures are going to be reached.

I only point this up for two reasons. I think it brings out the validity of Congressman Hammerschmidt's efforts to get payment in lieu of taxes because if my own area's any indication, there would be very little development work done in 4 or 5 years, and second, my hope is that his constituents are not overly critical of him if the development work which is framed in this paper is not undertaken in the next several years, because there is very little likelihood of it being undertaken in spite of his best efforts to that end.

Mr. REED. I think that would be a very honest statement.

Mr. RUPPE. Thank you.

Mr. LLOYD. Mr. Reed, in view of this $1.8 billion backlog in development, it appears to me we have before this committee a national policy under which presumably this would be an area of particular environmental concern and it's conceivable that if this legislation were to pass that the State of Arkansas could zone this whole area and thus determine what private investments or private owners can do in the way of polluting the stream, the use of the river banks, and this type of thing.

What is the advantage of a national river to a river which would be developed by private investment, assuming the National Land Use Policy Act would pass and the river were properly zoned for use in the public interest?

Mr. REED. I think the question, sir, simply would be whether you would like to leave a river to the passage of those two assumptionsfirst, the act, and secondly to high quality zoning. Of course, the history of zoning in the United States is predicated on men, and men change their minds frequently, as past zoning decisions have shown us.

I think personally that the way to protect this river is through a determined effort of the National Park Service.

Mr. LLOYD. What is the extent of industrial pollution in the river today?

Mr. REED. The water quality sample shows there is none, sir.

Mr. LLOYD. How about the sanitary disposal of individual owners? Mr. REED. Individual owners have probably been using septic tanks for a long time, but we have not shown a frequent coliform count in this river, so we are just delighted to tell you of the excellent water quality in this river. It's in first class condition.

Mr. LLOYD. Thank you.

Mr. TAYLOR. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

Mr. REED. If I could correct an earlier statement. We did, on October 21, present a draft environmental impact statement on the establishment of the Buffalo River, and I would like to make a copy of that available to you, sir.

I said earlier that we hadn't, and we have.

Mr. TAYLOR. What was the date of the statement?

Mr. REED. October 21 of this year.

Mr. TAYLOR. Well, without objection, a copy of that statement will be made a part of the record.

(The statement follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT BY THE SUPERINTENDENT, HOT SPRINGS NATIONAL PARK, ARK.

SUMMARY SHEET

Establishment of Buffalo National River, Ark.

(X) Draft () Final Environmental Statement Responsible Office.-Southeast Regional Office, National Park Service, Richmond, Virginia

1. Name of Action

() Administrative

(X) Legislative

2. Brief description of action.-The Senate passed a bill on January 25, 1971 (S 7) to establish the Buffalo National River in northern Arkansas. A similar bill (HR 8382) was introduced in the House on May 13, 1971. The National River, limited to 95,730 acres, preserves an outstanding river environment and provides for public use of the area.

3. (a) Environmental impacts.-Development and management of the area as a National River will be beneficial because it will preserve the river as a clean, free-flowing stream and will conserve and interpret a stretch of Ozark country containing important scenic and scientific features for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. Establishment of the Buffalo National River will preclude uncontrolled exploitation and commercialization.

(b) Adverse environmental effects.-The establishment of the National River will draw up to two million visitors annually within five years. The physical needs of this concentration of persons will create increased demands on the resources of the area, both inside the boundaries and throughout the region surrounding the National River. New roads, parking areas, campgrounds, and administrative sites will be required.

4. Alternatives.-No further action to establish the National River.

DRAFT, ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT, ESTABLISHMENT OF BUFFALO NATIONAL RIVER 1. Project description. The proposed National River is a long, narrow strip of park land encompassing 132 miles of the Buffalo River from its headwaters all the way to its mouth. This area, counting present Federal and State landholdings. totals 95,730 acres. The strip would vary in width from less than one-half to 4 miles, averaging about 1.8 miles. Boundaries were drawn to include the river and associated scenic features while keeping land acquisition to a minimum. Within this strip of land would be placed the developments needed for controlled public use of the area. Visitor centers, campgrounds, picnic areas, roads, parking areas, and boat ramps will be needed. These developments would be phased in as lands are acquired, visits increase, and funds for construction are appropriated.

No move was made to preserve the river until the late 1950's, except for the establishment of the Buffalo River State Park in the 1930's. As part of the nationwide recreation planning during the 1950's, the National Park Service sought to identify streams possessing unusual scenic and recreational values. Senator J. William Fulbright of Arkansas wrote to the Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall in March 1961, expressing the belief that the Buffalo River and its surroundings would make an excellent addition to the National Park Service. As the result, a National Park Service study team visited the river and reported it worthy of a study in detail.

In 1963, the National Park Service published a report stating that the Buffalo was nationally significant and suggesting its preservation as a National River. Secretary of the Interior Udall approved the proposal for the Department of the Interior.

In December 1964, the Corps of Engineers recommended the construction of a reservoir at Gilbert, approximately in the midsection of the river. The Flood Control Act of 1938 had authorized a dam at Lone Rock, approximately five miles from the confluence with the White River. The structure has not been built.

In December 1965, Governor Orval Faubus, for the first time in his long tenure as Governor of Arkansas, issued a statement opposing the dam and endorsing the National River. The Corps shortly thereafter withdrew its proposal. Since those earlier dates, Governor Winthrop Rockefeller and current Governor Dale Bumpers, each, have endorsed the National River proposal.

Under the leadership of Senators McClellan and Fulbright of Arkansas, the Senate twice passed bills to establish the Buffalo National River; first introduced February 4, 1969 (S 855) and more recently, January 25, 1971 (S 7). Congressman John Paul Hammerschmidt introduced a somewhat similar bill, HR 10246, April 17, 1969, which had no hearing. He introduced HR 8382 on May 13, 1971. A hearing before the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee is anticipated.

The current Senate bill authorizes a park acreage not to exceed 95,730. Also, in part, the bill includes the following: with the exception of property that the Secretary of the Interior determines is necessary for purposes of administration, preservation, or public use, any owner or owners of improved property and used solely for non-commercial residential, or land used solely for agriculture purposes at the time of acquisition by the Secretary, may retain the right and use of occupancy for such respective purposes for a term, as the owner may elect, ending either (a) upon the death of the owner or his spouse, whichever occurs later; or (b) not more than twenty-five years from the date of acquisition. The construction of "improved property" means construction begun before January 1, 1967. Hunting and fishing on lands and waters within the boundaries of the Buffalo National River shall be permitted in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws. The Senate Act also includes that no department or agency of the United States shall recommend authorization or any water resources project that would have a direct and adverse effect on the values for which the Buffalo River was established, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior. The maximum amount to be appropriated for land acquisition is $16,115,000, and for development costs is $12,102,000.

2. Description of the Environment.-The Buffalo National River meanders for 132 miles across the Ozark hill country of north central Arkansas. For generations, sightseers and float fishermen have enjoyed the outstanding scenic and recreational resources of the river as it flowed through canyons and valleys, rich and diverse vegetation, large number of fish species, archeological sites disclosing the story of some nine thousand years of Indian occupation, and artifacts relating to rural mountain life. The Ozarks, rising a thousand or more feet above the surrounding country, acted as a filter during the Ice Age, permitting drought-adapted organisims to persist on dry slopes during long humid periods and moisturerequiring species to survive in moist niches during dry spells. Thus, these mountains, including the proposed National River, contain today unique biological wealth. The rocks of the Buffalo watershed are entirely sedimentary, laid down in an ancient marine basin, which, over its 300-million-year history, underwent frequent and drastic change. Species of oak and hickory predominate the watershed. Animals are not common because of extensive hunting and poaching over the years. Occasional white tail deer, coyote, red fox, black bear and beaver may be seen. The river is nationally outstanding for many species of fish and is a "classic" stream for smallmouth bass; however, catches are made by the skilled, rather than amateur fishermen.

3. The Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action.-The primary impact may be from the marked increase in visitor use. A study by the University of Arkansas estimates that by the fifth year, following the National River's establishment, more than 2,000,000 people will visit the park annually. The proposed development is fairly evenly distributed over the 96,000 acres as shown on Development Plan, No. NR-BUF-7103, dated December 1967, attached to the appendix of this report. Careful consideration to avoid adverse effects wherever and whenever possible entered into the planning. The regulations of the U.S. Public Health Service are adhered to with respect to keeping high environmental standards governing sanitation and health.

In the past, man used the river primarily for fishing, to float downstream leisurely, to transport cedar logs to market, or to water his stock. Today, the camera enthusiast, the hiker, the traveller to a Pioneer Village or a visitor center, a family "float" of short distance, the simple joy of leaving a metropolitan area for the beauty of a Buffalo River are added innovations, important if man is to survive within the hub-bub of today's environment.

4. Mitigating measures included in the proposed action.-A close working relationship will be needed with the nearby communities and the State government, if the visitors to the park are to find sufficient and adequate motel and camping facilities to meet their needs. This is especially true since current plans for the National River call only for group camping. The feeding of this many visitors, likewise, will call for additional restaurant facilities in nearby communities, under regulations of the State Department of Health.