before 1960. To buy up all the land within areas authorized since 1960 would take another $124.2 million.

Well, I think that that shows we are moving forward. It shows a lot of success and we are not in too bad shape there.

Mr. HARTZOG. Well, I think it is a remarkable record of achievement in land acquisition. It is certainly a record in which the Congress can take a great deal of pride because there has never been such a growth and never been such an effort at preservation of our natural and cultural resources.

Mr. TAYLOR. It has come about as a result of the work of many, many people and all of these people can take pride. But you go ahead and say:

But that is not the whole picture. Equally important is the development of facilities on these lands, including roads, visitor centers, trails, et cetera, so that visitors can enjoy them properly. We estimate our present development needs at $1.8 billion.

Now, could you tell us the amount of development that has been authorized in legislation passed since 1960, creating park areas or expanding park areas? That is the total amount of authorizations.

Mr. HARTZOG. Mr. Chairman, you know, I have got this thing broken down three different ways for you but that was one way I did not break it down.

Mr. TAYLOR. Suppose you give it to us the way you have it broken down, then.

Mr. HARTZOG. All right, sir. I have it broken down as between roads and trails and buildings and utilities and it is $975 million for roads and trails and $925 million for buildings and utilities.

Of this, $1.14 billion represents new capacity and that means the newly authorized areas since 1960. Included in that figure is $590 million for roads and trails and $550 million for buildings and utilities.

Now, then, as the Secretary mentioned in his testimony yesterday, because of the lack of maintenance of a number of these facilities, their depreciation has been accelerated and a number of them have to be replaced. Some of them are just simply obsolete with the passage of time and the changing visitor patterns. So that $760 million of this $1.9 billion backlog is for the reconstruction and/or replacement of obsolete, deteriorated facilities and that figure breaks out into $400 million for roads and trails and $360 million for buildings and utilities. Mr. TAYLOR. You do not have a breakdown between the older parks and the new areas established by legislation since 1960?

Mr. HARTZOG. I have the total program and it would be very easy for us to go through and pull out those areas that were authorized prior to 1960 and those authorized since 1960 because I have the consolidated program with each area's development needs. So I can supply that for the record.

Mr. TAYLOR. What I was wanting to develop was the amount of development spending that we have authorized in these new areas. Second, the amount that has actually been appropriated and spent. And third, the amount that we are in the red on in our development obligation. Mr. HARTZOG. Since 1960?

Mr. TAYLOR. Since 1960.

Mr. HARTZOG. It is no problem.

Mr. TAYLOR. Now, in the absence of objection, I will ask that it be placed in the record when furnished.

(The information referred to follows:)

DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY FOR AREAS AUTHORIZED SINCE JANUARY 1, 1960

Total estimated development requirements_

Development amounts provided prior to fiscal year 1973.

Estimated development requirements not yet provided‒‒‒‒

Millions

$559.9

54.9

505. O

Mr. TAYLOR. One reason I am working toward that is because this committee feels a little stronger obligation on these commitments than it feels concerning the older parks which the Department has set up its own program for. That does not mean I am not interested in the older ones. It happens that all of the ones in my area are with the exception of Carl Sandburg Historic Site, of the older variety, but we feel responsible for those which we have had a hand in creating.

Mr. HARTZOG. Since a great deal of emphasis has been placed on the President's Parks to the People program we have also analyzed the System in terms of those areas that are within a 40-mile radius of population centers of 250,000 or more and of the 284 units in the System, 119 are classified as urban, that is, they are either in a city or they are within 40 miles of a population center of 250,000 or more, and 165 are nonurban in that classification.

The development backlog for the urban areas is $700 million and in the nonurban parks, $1.2 billion. And then as I also responded yesterday, I have it broken down according to those construction criteria which I gave to the committee and that was inserted in the record yesterday.

Now, we have got the breakout here of the development needs of areas that were authorized prior to January 1960, and those that have been authorized between 1960 and the end of the 91st Congress in 1970. That is $1.4 billion prior to 1960, and $491.4 million since 1960. Now, then, there was enacted in the first session of the 92d Congress authorization of $13.6 million, so that really makes that total for the category $505 million.

Mr. TAYLOR. That rounds out what you call construction obligations contained in the legislation that we have passed since 1960.

Mr. HARTZOG. Right.

Mr. TAYLOR. Which have not been met.

Mr. HARTZOG. No. That is the total sum. That is not subtracting from it the appropriations that have been made.

Mr. TAYLOR. OK.

Mr. HARTZOG. Now, then, some of that legislation, you remember, did not have a development ceiling spelled out in it. So what this figure is, is the estimate of the development need. The others where you had a development ceiling in it, then that is the legislative ceiling that is established, you see.

Mr. TAYLOR. Of that $505 million, how much has been appropriated? Mr. HARTZOG. Well, that is a figure that we will have to insert in the record but as I said yesterday, it amounts to about 10 percent of our total construction during this last 10-year period, and our construction during this last 10-year period has ranged anywhere from $22.5 million to a high in this new budget of $63 million.

Mr. TAYLOR. Now, of that $63 million, you stated yesterday that approximately 10 percent of that would go for these new areas we are talking about.

Mr. HARTZOG. Well, I have got a breakout on that this morning for you

Mr. TAYLOR. Good.

Τ

Mr. HARTZOG (continuing). And of the $63,546,000 program, $16,583.000 is for the bicentennial program in 21 areas authorized prior to 1960, $1,305,000 for two areas authorized since 1960. Pollution abatement, $15,449,000 in 26 areas authorized prior to 1960 and $4.879,000 for four areas authorized since 1960. And then other developments, general, $9.230.000 in 17 areas authorized prior to 1960 and $8,150,000 in nine areas authorized after 1960.

And then we have-the Congress approved about 4 years agoa lump sum item in our budget. The criterion for the expenditure of that lump sum is that it can be used only in connection with adding a facility or making a modification in an existing structure to make it more operable.

For example, if we have a campground and we have two restrooms' in it and the crowd is such that you have to have three, out of this lump sum you can build a third restroom without having to go back through the whole process and get it as a line item. Each year I provide the Appropriations Subcommittee a list of the projects on which I spent the money in the previous year and in that way they maintain oversight.

Mr. TAYLOR. The total money in the 1973 budget for the development in the areas authorized after January 1960, including that for the Bicentennial, Pollution Abatement, and General Appropriations, which is $8.150,000, would be $14,334,000.

Mr. HARTZOG. That is right. This year a little better than 20 percent. Mr. TAYLOR. Which is a good deal better than the average has been in the past years and better than the figures we had yesterday. Mr. HARTZOG. That is right.

Mr. TAYLOR. More detailed and it comes to a larger total than we thought.

I yield to the gentleman from California. I have some more questions.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to get into some local matters that relate to some of the problems in California as it comes under your jurisdiction. As I understand it now, you are developing a master plan for Yosemite. Mr. HARTZOG. Yes, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. What is the status of the plan at the present time? Mr. HARTZOG. The public meetings have been held and the plan is now undergoing review. I saw the analysis of the public comments a month or so ago and it is now at the service center in Denver and with the Regional Director in San Francisco to finalize their recommendations to me on the master plan and the wilderness proposal.

Mr. JOHNSON. Then the wilderness recommendations will be coming up to the Congress before too long, I presume.

Mr. HARTZOG. I would hope so, yes, sir. They should certainly be here this year.

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, what is your estimated cost for development in that new master plan? Do you have that broken down?

Mr. HARTZOG. Yes, sir. I have got the-I will insert that figure if you would like to go ahead.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have that information made a part of the record.

Mr. TAYLOR. In the absence of objection, it will be placed in the record when received.

(The information referred to follows:)

The estimated development cost for Yosemite National Park after fiscal year 1972 is $131,600,000.

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, in your current development programs in the 1973 budget there is an amount of money there that represents quite a little increase, I think, this year, and if the master plan is adopted. I presume that the development money will be forthcoming to take care of that on an orderly basis but with a fairly high priority.

Mr. HARTZOG. Well, it certainly will, because Yosemite is very much in need of corrective action in order to preserve that resource, especially in the valley.

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, as it relates to Point Reyes, has a master plan been adopted for Point Reyes?

Mr. HARTZOG. The public hearings on Point Reyes have been held. The master plan has not been approved. It is in the process of review. Mr. JOHNSON. What is the status-now, yesterday vou said you were quite current with your land acquisition program. What is the situation as it relates to Point Reyes on land acquisition as of now?

Mr. HARTZOG. We have for all practical purposes about finished the land acquisition program and I am happy to tell you that we are going to be considerably under the last ceiling that was authorized. Mr. JOHNSON. The last ceiling was $57 million, I believe. Mr. HARTZOG. Well, yes, sir. It was in that vicinity.

Mr. JOHNSON. And you figure that you can now acquire all of the land that you anticipated acquiring within that figure.

Mr. HARTZOG. Yes, sir: short of complete and total disaster with any condemnation awards which we do not anticipate.

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, as it relates to the Redwood National Park-we got into that a little yesterday, too-what is the status of the master plan for the Redwood National Park?

Mr. HARTZOG. Whether those public hearings have been held or not I do not know. I know that they have been announced out there and I believe that they have been held.

Mr. CLAUSEN. Will the gentleman yield? The public hearings have been held.

Mr. HARTZOG. It is not as far along in the review as is Point Reres and Yosemite both of which I have reviewed following the public comments and I have not seen the public comments or had the review of the Redwoods vet.

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, do you have an estimated development figure or would you furnish that for the record?

Mr. CLAUSEN. About 15.

Mr. HARTZOG. All right. We will put it in the record for you.
Mr. JOHNSON. I would like-

Mr. TAYLOR. In the absence of objection, it will be placed in the record at this point.

(The information referred to follows:)

The estimated development cost for Redwood National Park after fiscal year 1972 is $5,000,000.

Mr. JOHNSON. As to the status of the land acquisition, where do we sit there?

Mr. HARTZOG. Well, we have finished all of the land acquisition for the nontimber company holdings. Now, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, you know, was assigned the responsibility for negotiating for the four large timber company holdings because it involved the exchange of Forest Service land as authorized under the legislation.

That does not mean, however, that we have acquired or have settled the cases with all of those individual property owners of which there are about 120 with whom we negotiated, but we have reached agreement with all of those in which we are going to reach a negotiated settlement. As you know, the statute gave them the right to go to court and it did not give us the right to go to court. So there is nothing for us to do except sit and wait until they take us to court, and they have got 6 years to take us to court under the statute of limitations.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, now, in the negotiations with the four major companies, have they agreed to appraisals-has all of the purchase unit been made available?

Mr. HARTZOG. I understand, and I do not have anything in writing that I can give you, although I can confirm it in writing after consultation with Mr. Hofe, the Director of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, but the information I have is that the settlements have been reached on all the purchase unit lands. They have not agreed on the dollar settlement for the overall taking from some of the companies yet, and I know, for example, now Arcata has gone into the Court of Claims with its case. Whether the rest of them are in court yet or not I do not know. Mr. JOHNSON. Well, has the

Mr. HARTZOG. But the Redwood purchase unit has been disposed of or settled, I should say.

Mr. JOHNSON. In the legislation there was reference made to the buffer zones and what is the status of the buffer zones at the present time?

Mr. HARTZOG. There were three discretionary authorities granted to the Secretary in that legislation. One was to select additional acreage in fee to bring it up to the authorized acreage of the park, 56,000 acres. Mr. CLAUSEN. 58,000.

Mr. HARTZOG. 58,000. I am sorry. Thank you. That is how much we got because the difference is about 2,000 acres yet to be selected to provide a screen along Highway No. 101. And the third was the

buffer zone.

Now, I have made my recommendations of alternatives and an analysis of alternatives to the Secretary and that is where the matter now is.

Mr. JOHNSON. That was one thing the committee staff was very much interested in, too. They wanted to be updated on the activities regarding the buffer zones.

Mr. HARTZOG. Well, I have made an analysis of alternatives and I have submitted the matter to the Secretary and I would not feel at liberty to discuss it in detail now because this is his discretionary authority to accept or reject those alternatives.

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, there is one other area there, the Whiskeytown National Recreation Area under the jurisdiction of the Park Service out of that whole authorization that created the Trinity-Whiskeytown