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.

(X) Draft

SUMMARY SHEET

Establishment of Buffalo National River, Ark.

() 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.

Development within the National River will adhere fully to the codes of the Federal and State governments regulating health, sanitation, and safeguarding human life and the environment. The proposed thirteen primitive campgrounds, approximately ten river miles apart, should cause little disturbance to the environment. Each such small campground would consist of a latrine, several grills, tables, and trash cans.

Except in the vicinity of Silver Hill, Gilbert, and Buffalo City, no new roads are proposed. In these isolated cases, the roads will be, in good part, following former road or railroad grades, thereby eliminating any major alteration of the topogaphy. Parking areas at the Visitor Center and, in a few instances elsewhere, may cover land now forested or in pasture. The major cave within the National River is Beauty Cave for which there are no current plans for public visitation. Some research by accredited speleologists may be authorized, thus controlling the human use of the cave ecosysteme.

5. Any adverse effects which cannot be avoided.—(A) The greatest adverse environmental effect will occur as the result of lodging and restaurant facilities required outside of the proposed National River boundaries. Last year, for example, a little over 500,000 persons visited the tourist attraction, "Dogpatch", four miles north of the Buffalo River on Highway 7. Most of these visitors came between Memorial Day and Labor Day, during which time Dogpatch was open daily between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. This year, travel to Dogpatch is 20% above last year's visitation. Dogpatch provides 65 complete camping units and 45 partial units (do not include hookups), plus 64 cabins. Most of the visitors stay at Harrison or nearby towns. It is obvious that these communities will have to expand further their facilities to meet the need of tourists visiting the National River.

(B) Logically, two million people visiting the Buffalo National River will necessitate greater precautions to safeguard human life and property, than lesser numbers. The answer is astute and subtle management by directing where, when, and how these visitors travel the National River, coupled with the variety and diversity of development that instills reasonable and orderly movement of people. Programs and development involving interpretation and resource management, dealing with natural history, history, biology, ecology, and related conservation awareness will distribute visitation so that human safety or physical and mental health will not be adversely affected, provided sufficient National Park Service personnel are assigned to the National River, consistent with the gradual increase in visitation.

(C) The quality of the soil, water, or air within the National River boundary will not be degraded as long as there are adequate Service personnel to carry out resource management and interpretation, coupled with law enforcement, as required. As a matter of fact, an improvement in current conditions should occur in contrast to locations where the river is being channelled, hillsides bulldozed, and forests ruthlessly logged.

(D) As noted in (B) above, in spite of the greater visitor use, plant and animal life would be upgraded by preventing channelization, inept logging, and the poaching of wildlife. In this instance, it is not so much the influx of people, but rather the regulatory control that determines the quality of the soil, the water, or air.

(E) There will be structures erected and a limited amount of road building, but designs will be such as to be unobtrusive as possible, in keeping with National Park Service philosophy.

(F) There are only two Class VI sites within the National River, namely, a discontinued water mill near Boxley, and a few old buildings at the former mining camp at Rush. The Service hopes to restore the mill and possibly, restore or stabilize some of the mining camps.

(G) We can envision some adverse effects because of the need of a potable water supply, sewage, and electric power at the three proposed visitor centers and the limited number of major campgrounds.

6. Short-term use in relation to long-term productivity.-The two shall tie together and neither should adversely affect the environment. The managers and planners will be alert constantly for the need of change, should such be required in order to protect the environment. At this time, such a problem is not envisioned.

7. Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources.-None.

8. Alternatives to the proposed action.-Unless the proposed Buffalo National River is established, housing developments will increase their encroachment on the river environment. In addition, seasonal cottages will appear in ever increas

ing numbers; logging will take place to profit from high timber values; land will be cleared to profit from pasture land with a high return on cattle raising; restrictions will increase on access to the River through private lands; fees will increase in number for such access; and in more instances, the River's course will be straightened by bulldozers, as a theoretical easy means of flood control. Accordingly, the alternate is ever increasing destruction of the pristine qualities for which this River is now noted.

Mr. TAYLOR. The Honorable William E. Henderson.

Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, we certainly want to hear from the State people. It is very obvious that with the floor schedule and the time escaping us this morning, it would be physically impossible to hear 38 additional witnesses.

In an effort to accommodate them, I'm wondering if they might not converse among themselves to see if they have a similar point of view and might arrive at some common presentation.

We would certainly include all of your statements in the record. So, perhaps get a common ground so that we can consider them somewhat en block. Otherwise, it's just going to be impossible without having to return to hear all of them.

Mr. TAYLOR. We will have a time problem. The gentleman suggests that if we have a group of property owners in opposition maybe they could agree on one main spokesman or if there are members of certain conservation clubs that they could pick one spokesman. That would be something to work toward. We have that situation before us right

now.

We have Mr. Henderson and four other witnesses representing the State of Arkansas.

So, Mr. Henderson, you will proceed, and we hope that these other statements will not repeat what you say, and then we're going to direct questions to you.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM E. HENDERSON, DIRECTOR OF THE ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND TOURISM, ACCOMPANIED BY JIMMY DRIFTWOOD, CHAIRMAN, STATE PARKS, RECREATION, AND TRAVEL COMMISSION; L. E. SURLES, DIRECTOR, STATE PARKS; RICHARD W. BROACH, ARKANSAS GAME AND FISH COMMISSION; AND HAROLD E. ALEXANDER, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, STATE OF ARKANSAS

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TAYLOR. We hope we can be as good a host to you here as you were to us down there.

Mr. HENDERSON. First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to report to you that I have a letter from Gov. Dale Bumpers of Arkansas which states that he deeply regrets that a previous longstanding commitment would not allow him to be here personally this morning to testify and requesting that I represent him in presenting his prepared statement.

In consideration of the request for briefness, we will summarize our statements. However, I think I would like to read a portion of the Governor's prepared statement inasmuch as this is his statement. Mr. TAYLOR. Without objection, a copy of all the statements, will be placed in the record in full.

(The statements referred to follow :)