Recreation Area. Have all of the lands been acquired for Whiskeytown's master plan?

Mr. HARTZOG. This information that I have indicates that there are probably still about 300 acres out there to be acquired. There is a difference between 21,108 acres and 20,878 acres remaining outside of Federal ownership now.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, now, the master plan was pretty well adopted when that was authorized, I presume.

Mr. HARTZOG. Yes, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. And has not been changed too much from the standpoint of development.

Mr. HARTZOG. No, sir. And we have put in there since 1963, $2,702,000 worth of development.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I know that it has been developed up to its more or less master plan agreement faster than most facilities that have been acquired.

Mr. HARTZOG. Yes, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. But it is heavily used, too.

Mr. HARTZOG. 1.2 million visitations in 1971.

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, on the other two little parks that we have there, as I understand it, there is complete agreement on the wilderness areas as they relate to the Lava Beds.

Mr. HARTZOG. Lassen Volcanic

Mr. JOHNSON. We have that built in

Mr. HARTZOG. Oh, Lava Beds. There is a recommendation up here on that and there is agreement there. I do not think, however, that you could say there is complete agreement on it. I believe there is still some citizen conservation organization differences on it.

Mr. JOHNSON. On the Lava Beds?

Mr. HARTZOG. I believe that is the one, is it not, that they want—— Mr. JOHNSON. Well, at the time we held up for a while until they had-until they reached an agreement on trying to establish the sheep in there now, most of the sheep I think are on Forest Service land but some of it, I imagine, is within the Lava Beds National Monument.

Mr. HARTZOG. That is what I seem to recall.

Mr. JOHNSON. And they created a fence there to hold the first family in so that they can get started and see if they cannot have sheep within that area again as they once had some time back.

That legislation is here and we have asked for consideration of it. Now, the other is the Lassen National Park proper. There was a wilderness area of considerable size, somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 percent of the park area going into wilderness, and that legis lation has been introduced and I think recently they have reached an agreement on boundaries of the wilderness area within the Lassen National Park. Is that not true?

Mr. HARTZOG. Well, agreement with whom, sir? You mean, with the citizen conservation groups?

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, with yourselves and the other people such as the Congressmen and the

Mr. HARTZOG. That is right. We are in agreement with the delega tion and we are certainly in agreement in the administration because the administration has endorsed that proposal. I understand, however. that there are two areas of controversy so far as the citizen conserva

tion organizations are concerned. One of them is my proposal to main-
tain that historic pioneer road as a one-way interpretive trail, and
the other is the buffer zone that I propose to maintain for management
purposes. These are concepts, as you and I were talking yesterday,
that are in controversy in all of these proposals where they exist. The
enclave for handling sanitation and potable water, the management
buffer zone where the wilderness does not abut another wilderness of
the Forest Service or some other Federal jurisdiction, and this one-
way interpretive road issue. These are three unresolved issues.
Mr. JOHNSON. That is all.

Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. SKUBITZ. I reserve my time.

Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. BURLISON. Mr. Hartzog, thank you for your appearance. I commend you on your usual able presentation.

What are your realistic hopes and aspirations in the immediate future for further development of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways National Park in south central and southeast Missouri?

Mr. HARTZOG. Thank you, sir. When the State conveyed its three State parks to us it insisted on two conditions. One was that development begin within 3 years and the other was that if the areas ever cease to be used for park purposes, they revert to the State of Missouri.

The Attorney General ruled that we could not put any capital development in those areas as long as that reversion clause was there. The State would not recede from that position, taking the posture that the Federal Government always insisted on reversion when it conveyed property for similar purposes. So the legislation is up here now to amend the Ozark legislation to permit us to accept the title to those State parks with the reversion clause in it. The area was established by legislation. It can only be disestablished or devoted to some other use by legislation. So we felt the question was kind of moot. But at any rate, we have to have the legislation.

In the meantime I do have a construction appropriation for the Ozarks and the total amount that we put there is $1,941,000 but it has in part been for planning the facilities for these three State parks so that we are ready to go with them to meet the first limitation on the 3-year requirement, and the other part is a visitor center we built over there on the Current River at the Powder Mill Ferry location. So as soon as that legislation is passed and we can accept the title, we are ready to do the campground improvement at Big Springs.

Mr. TAYLOR. If the gentleman will yield, that legislation is part of the omnibus bill which passed the House recently.

Mr. HARTZOG. Yes, sir; and we are very grateful.

Mr. BURLISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. KYL. Mr. Hartzog, I do not think I am going to contribute much. This is a wonderful land we have and there are a lot of things which are still worth saving-parks, historic sites, recreation areas, and so on. The demand for space in those parks has increased almost geometrically. The Congress continues to shell these park bills out like peas, each one with a pretty good price tag. Somehow in all of this business of environmental preservation we have failed to get across to the people that there is a cost involved in all of this.

I am not going to scold the Office of Management and Budget or the Park Service or anybody else because of the lack of funding because I am one who thinks that had we been able to take care of all of the backlog in acquisition and development, this would have simply been a stimulus to create that many more additional areas and we would have been in about the same position. Therefore, all I want to say is this. I am not going to complain one bit about this situation. I do ask you very fervently to do the best job possible with the dollars you have. Thank you.

Mr. HARTZOG. Thank you.

Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Montana.

Mr. MELCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Director, I want to talk just a little bit about the Big Horn Recreation Area. A few weeks ago you came before us in this subcommittee and told us that the land, the road construction, or obtaining part of the land on the reservation or all the land on the reservation by easements, both for the highway itself and for scenic easement, would be granted with no charge to the National Park Service on the basis that the Crow Tribe would be the concessionaire.

Are there other examples where the concessionaire has provided something of value of this nature to become the concessionaire?

Mr. HARTZOG. This really was not a quid pro quo trade off for the concession because they have had the concession for about 3 or 4 years. It was simply their land and they agreed to give us the right of way over it because of the mutual enhancement to their reservation as well as to the Federal interest there. And they have done this in a number of places. Canyon de Chelly, for example, is all reservation land and we are working on a cooperative agreement with them up at Badlands. Mr. MELCHER. Same type of arrangement?

Mr. HARTZOG. Well, it is a little different there. It would involve them carrying on some concession operations in the Federal area and some cooperative management between them and us on their lands that they got under that legislation that was passed a couple of years ago by the Congress, adjusting the boundaries, disposing of that military surplus land up in South Dakota.

Mr. MELCHER. Of course, the Crow Tribe has some money and I hope they will use it wisely and make developments and they are apparently united within the tribe on their intent to invest the money for tourist attractions, for accommodation of visitors, and so on, when that road is completed.

Mr. HARTZOG. It just came to my attention in the last few days that there is some local disagreement out there over the exact location of that road. They want it in a slightly different location and I have instructed our people to go out there and see what their problems are on the ground and if it is possible, to modify, to put it where they want it, because we do want to use the recreation impact there to encourage their own economic vitality.

Mr. MELCHER. That is the very point I wanted to arrive at because during the past couple of months there seems to be evidence that the Crows are dissatisfied with the present location or planning of the road.

Mr. HARTZOG. Well, I do not know how that happened really, you know, but it is just bureaucracy, I suppose. We went out there and we sat down with them and they were in here and I reached an agreement

with them, but somewhere between here and there, something apparently came loose.

Mr. MELCHER, The Crow Tribe is a political entity unto themselves and their thinking may change, too.

Mr. HARTZOG, Well, this, you see, is a question that I cannot determine right now as to whether or not they have changed their mind since the agreement was made.

Mr. MELCHER. But at any rate, you are aware of the situation and you are trying to straighten it out to their satisfaction.

Mr. HARTZOG. That is right.

Mr. MELCHER. Now, just recently this was all reviewed in Billings at a Montana Wildlife Federation Convention. Senator Metcalf was present and was exposed to the conflicting views. One was the delegation from the Crows telling of their dissatisfaction. No. 2 was the Montana Wilderness Society asking about the Department's environmental impact study? Is this now completed or in its final phase? Has that issue been resolved?

Mr. HARTZOG. I cannot really tell you whether it has or not. We are now doing an environmental impact statement in connection with each master plan and I believe that was a master plan that went through and was approved prior to the National Environmental Policy Act.

If so, then what we do is prepare a separate environmental impact statement for each development area within that master plan, until we get the thing phased back together.

Now, whether that statement has been prepared and released on this development project which includes this road I do not know, but I would imagine it has been because we are under construction there and under the procedure we do not go into construction until it has been prepared.

Now, maybe they do not agree with it but I am sure that something has been prepared on it. I will check that, though, and verify it for the record.

Mr. MELCHER. Mr. Chairman, I would like that to be made part of the record.

Mr. TAYLOR. In the absence of objection, so ordered. (The information referred to follows:)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR BIGHORN CANYON ROAD CONSTRUCTION

The draft Environmental Impact Statement was received in the National Park Service Washington Office during February 1972. From there it must pass Department review and be transmitted to the Council of Environmental Quality and its availability announced in the Federal Register.

Mr. MELCHER. Now, the third point raised about the Big Horn Recreation Area, and this is not new, but again it was repeated in this weekend meeting at Billings, what about the horses, the wild horses on the Pryor Mountain?

Now, the road is designed to go through the wild horse range. It does entail some difference in management of that wild horse herd. Now, with all the BLM land there and the forest land there, they are all under Forest ownership-Federal ownership-is it not possible just to leave the wild-horse range swap out of this some way so that we are not going to run into that? Do you follow me? About 5,000 acres would be cut off by the road, the 40,000 acres that are in the

wild-horse range. Is it not possible that between BLM and the Forest Service and National Park Service we could remove any objection, any argument over this so that we are not going to be tangled up with it?

Mr. HARTZOG. Well, I sure will stay out of that wild horse business if I can possibly do it. I have been giving it a wide berth in cooperat ing with BLM. Part of their range is within the exterior boundaries of the Big Horn Canyon National Recreation Area. I understand your question to be whether the road can be relocated closer to the lake?

Mr. MELCHER. No. Not relocate the road because I think the construction, am I right, has already been started?

Mr. HARTZOG. That is what I was going to say. I think the rough grading has already been done there because they could not get any further down there because of the cuts that would have to be made in those plateaus.

Mr. MELCHER. What I am talking about is simply land swapping between Federal agencies. We have 5,000, whatever the acreage is, in the wild-horse range. Require that for the Big Horn Recreation Area. that 5,000 acres from some other source be found for the wild-horse range, either from BLM land or Forest Service land.

Mr. HARTZOG. Sir, I will check into that but I was not aware that there was any difference there because we agreed with BLM two or three or more years ago, that the area that abuts the recreation area would be managed consistent with the habitat for that wild-horse herd.

Mr. MELCHER. Well, I think that agreement has been made all right but there is strenuous objection being built up now. No. 1, it would naturally be unfenced. The horses would be on the road. They will be afraid, some people say, to cross the highway because it is smooth. blacktop. Their water is on the wrong side. There will be a hazard for the public.

I am just repeating what the objections are.

Mr. HARTZOG. I will be happy to take another look at it. I have no problem, you know, because

Mr. MELCHER. I feel, Mr. Director, that there can be arrangements made.

Mr. HARTZOG. Sure.

Mr. MELCHER. While there has been plenty of talk going on on the ground level, the back talk has not sifted through to you here. I approached the BLM people in Billings 5 or 6 months ago to review their position to see whether they want to propose some sort of land

swap.

Mr. HARTZOG. Nobody has come to me with any proposal they want to change, and, as I say, I have no problem because I think it is a worthwhile program and we have been supporting BLM's efforts. I have taken a posture that I do not think that whole herd ought to be moved over into the recreation area.

Mr. MELCHER. That is right. I think basically most of the people in Montana are in agreement with your position, with my position, and probably with BLM's position. It is just communicating.

Mr. HARTZOG. You have my assurance when I get back-I am going to leave on a trip Sunday, but when I get back from that trip I will