Details of the building construction program follow: Alaska: Fairbanks: Boiler house, heating distribution system, water filter and Architectural plans and preliminary work for fire warehouse, Total_ McGrath: Gas and oil storage and gravel fill.. $96, 000 25, 000 Eagle: Water system and powerplant. Finger Lake (Palmer): Combination garage-warehouse, nonflam- 121, 000 6, 000 24, 000 19, 500 10, 000 4, 500 40, 000 225, 000 20,000 Anchorage: Architectural plans for integrated fire control station__ Total Nevada, Winnemucca: Epuipment storage and district office....... Total building program, 1962- - - 30, 000 275,000 The total construction cost of the integrated fire control facilities at Anchorage is estimated at $700,000. The facilities will include office, crew quarters, garage, and warehouse and such appurtenant facilities as central heating, water and sewerage systems. The Army has been insistent that the Bureau vacate the premises which it now occupies. The estimated total construction cost of warehouse, barracks and shops at Fairbanks is $380,000. 3. Recreation facilities, $200,000 The amount of $200,000 is needed to provide minimum facilities for outdoor recreation on certain public domain lands in the Western States to be retained in Federal ownership for multiple use management and where public use has become extremely heavy. The campgrounds, picnic sites, sanitation and related facilities to be constructed will permit regulated use and materially lessen the danger of fire and other hazards to public safety. It is expected that, through cooperative efforts, local governments and organized groups will participate in the total cost, either in construction or in operation and maintenance of these facilities. The rapid increase in population coupled with a sharp rise in the standard of living, improved transportation facilities and shorter working hours have greatly intensified the outdoor recreation needs and interests of the public, who look increasingly to the public lands to satisfy these needs. Other governmental resource management agencies are reporting a 100-percent increase in recreational use over the past 3 years and a similar surge in the recreational use of public domain lands is being experienced. To meet this new need of the public, the Bureau of Land Management has developed an integrated program based on the following: 1. The Bureau recognizes the need for both extensive and intensive recreation uses of suitable lands and provision of public access to such lands. Access will be furnished through cooperative efforts with sportsmen and civic organizations, private land owners, grazing permittees and licensees, State game and fish commissions, and the general public, and through reciprocal rights-of-way and exchange of use agreements. 2. Consistent with policies of the National Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, the Bureau has been working and will continue to work with the National Park Service in making and maintaining current inventories of lands being used or having a potential for intensive recreational use. 3. When recreational use not of national significance is deemed to be the dominant use, particularly on lands subject to transfer of title, the Bureau will encourage long term leases or purchase of such lands by States or other appropriate groups. The lands may then receive intensive development under provisions of the Recreation and Public Purposes Act by the lessee or patentee. 4. The Bureau cooperates with States and other interested local agencies and groups in developing recreational facilities on lands having significant multiple use values. Since States and other local agencies and groups have a responsibility in sharing the cost burden of providing local outdoor recreation, the extent of recreational development of Bureau of Land Management lands will be dependent upon cooperation in meeting overall development and maintenance costs. Total program costs for fiscal year 1962 include: Survey and design.. Total.... $15,000 35, 000 150, 000 200, 000 On the basis of inventories now in progress and tentative expressions of interest by State and local groups, it is anticipated that the sum of $150,000 will provide for the initial construction of basic facilities on 20 to 30 sites located in Oregon, California, Idaho, Colorado, and Montana. EXPLANATION RELATING TO APPROPRIATION LANGUAGE It is proposed to delete the words "or adjacent to" on the second line of the appropriation language. This is necessary to clarify existing language which could be interpreted to prohibit the construction of access roads on public domain or Coos Bay Wagon Road grant lands which are adjacent to the Oregon and California lands. It is proposed to add after the word "facilities" in the last line "and other improvements." This change is required to provide authority for the development of recreational facilities on public domain lands. Amendments requested: (P. 2, lines 15 and 16) (1) Page 2, lines 15 and 16 strike out the following: "and appurtenant facilities," and insert in lieu thereof the following: ", appurtenant facilities, and other improvements,". (2) Page 2, line 16 strike out “$850,000” and insert in lieu thereof "$1,050,000", the estimate, or an increase of $200,000 in the appropriation. HOUSE REPORT "The committee recommends an appropriation of $850,000 for construction of timber access roads on the public domain and Coos Bay Wagon Road grant lands and for construction of buildings and facilities primarily in connection with fire control measures in Alaska. The amount allowed represents an increase of $500,000 in the 1961 appropriation and a decrease of $200,000 in the budget request. The disallowance is in the new item proposed to initiate a program to provide recreation facilities on the public domain lands in the Western States. The committee was advised that this program could cost as much as $2 to $3 million annually. Before such a program is undertaken as a Federal responsibility consideration should be given to the possibility of the lease or sale of tracts of land for park purposes to the States or local jurisdictions for financing and operating the facilities." JUSTIFICATION Explanation of amendment (1).-The amendment restores the language contained in the budget which will provide authority for the development of recreational facilities on public domain lands. Funds for these recreational facilities are justified under amendment (2). Explanation of amendment (2).-The amendment restores the reduction of $200,000 made by the House in the budget estimate for this appropriation This amount is distributed to activities as follows: A breakdown of the restoration request by objects of expenditure follows: The amendment restores $200,000 for the construction of recreation facilities, the total amount of the reduction by the House. The recreation facilities program, a new item in the 1962 budget, is to provide minimum facilities for outdoor recreation on certain public domain lands which are to be retained in Federal ownership for multiple-use management where public use for recreation has become extremely heavy. These are areas of the public domain, having resources of continuing Federal interest which the public is using without facilities to provide for public health and safety and to protect the resources from fire and other hazards. This program would provide facilities for recreational use of such areas coordinated with the development, protection, and use of forest, range, mineral, and other resources. The House committee suggests that in lieu of this program consideration should be given to lease or sale of tracts for such purposes to State and local jurisdictions. A program for such transfers of lands for development purposes has long been established under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 869) and such transfers are encouraged as is stated in the justifications. However, transfer of lands is not a feasible solution for those areas where recreation is of regional interest and is one of several proper uses of the lands so that continued multiple use under Federal management is needed. There are several areas where intensive recreational use by the public already exists to the hazard of the public and the resources. The Owens River Valley in California, for instance, requires immediate attention. It is recommended that the entire amount of $200,000 for construction of recreational facilities be restored. RECREATIONAL FACILITIES Mr. LANDSTROM. This estimate for recreation facilities represents a new program or new start to be made in 1962. The House has recommended all but the latter item under this appropriation. In other words, they eliminated the $200,000 for recreation. Senator MUNDT. Can you tell us something more about what you plan to do with that $200,000 and where you plan to do it and what the result is going to be? Mr. LANDSTROM. Yes, Senator. It would consist of a start on the construction of minimum-type recreational facilities. This would be campground facilities, picnic tables, fireplaces, sanitary facilities at points where public use has already grown over the years and has grown up and where no adequate facilities are now available. There I give you an example. In the Los Angeles city watershed in Owens Valley in central California, I have seen photographs of the use there. The trailers come in. The campers use the area. are no sanitary facilities provided by anyone. It is not a desirable situation. We would like to have that taken care of by having the usual minimum facilities. GARBAGE REMOVAL Senator MUNDT. Who is going to service the place to remove the garbage? Mr. LANDSTROM. It would be our responsibility in that area unless we are able to convince the county or other local authorities that they should assume this responsibility. Our first preference naturally would be to encourage the States and counties and municipal authorities to assume this obligation. We have the possibility of doing this by leasing or transferring lands to their control. We prefer that, generally speaking. But we found by experience that in many cases they are not willing or able financially to take on the burden. Senator MUNDT. The reason I bring up the point now is that you say this is a new program. So it is very important that you get the ground rules in mind pretty clearly before you start. Mr. LANDSTROM. Yes, sir. Senator MUNDT. If you start in one State to provide for the Federal Government to remove the garbage, policing, and everything else involved and the fire protection, you are going to have a difficult time not doing that in every State. It will be hard to convince State B that you should not treat them as generously as State A. If you are expanding, as you are, commendably and desirably so, in my opinion, recreation areas in the States, this is fine for the State. It expands the State park and highway systems. They are getting it free and getting it well done. You can do a little dickering. You can say, "Look, we will be glad to do this, but once it is there you have to maintain it the way the U.S. Corps of Army Engineers turned over its recreational areas along the rivers. Here it is and the State game and fish commission departments take over. We will put in the boat docks, but you have to operate them or else face up to the fact that this is an all-out Federal project and handled entirely by the Federal Government." I think what you cannot do is to have one set of rules for one area and another set of rules for another area. It will make headaches for you and for us. Mr. LANDSTROM. I appreciate the wisdom of what you say there, Senator. I believe we are right in line with what you are saying in our own thinking. I perhaps should correct myself to this extent as far as the new starts are concerned. Actually, for a year or two there was an item of $100,000 for Alaska. That was 2 and 3 years ago in which facilities of this type were constructed in Alaska along the Alaska Highway and other places where this was found to be essential. Congress permitted us to do it at that time. My own information is that this has worked out very well there. Senator MUNDT. Yes. That does not commit you to any definite set of rules as far as Alaska is concerned because Alaska has been a special case during the days it has been in swaddling clothes and coming into the Union. But now it is part of the team. As a State, it is going to have to assume its full share of responsibilities and pretty much be treated like the other States. Certainly up until statehood we were surely justified in writing a special set of rules whenever necessary to deal with the very small population in a very big area. COOPERATION OF STATES Mr. LANDSTROM. We think that most of the Western States through their counties or municipalities will cooperate with us and assume this obligation through the Recreation and Public Purposes Act which allows them to lease or obtain land at a very nominal price and make it part of their own system. We feel through experience there will be some areas where that will not be feasible. We would like to take care of that in a few cases that are very urgent, in our opinion. Senator MUNDT. In those cases would you turn it over to the national park system? Mr. LANDSTROM. No, sir. This would be administered by ourselves. However, we would have the advice of the National Park Service in the program. These would not be national parks. They would be roadside facilities or minimum facilities of the Bureau of Land Management. OREGON AND CALIFORNIA GRANT LANDS RECEIPTS The receipts from sale of timber and related products on the Oregon and California grant lands, as you know, are distributed in accordance with law, 75 percent of receipts to the Oregon and California counties and 25 percent to the Treasury. The Oregon and California counties have expressed their desire to continue to have one-third of their |