Page images

tions for other than permanent employment except as provided by law.

Mr. HODEL. Mr. Chairman, after Mr. Mott and I spoke about ceilings, Mr. Itteilag leaned over to me and said we do have employment targets.

Mr. YATES. Oh, I see, like revenue enhancement. (Laughter.]
Mr. HODEL. It is more flexible than a ceiling.

NPS LAND ACQUISITION, TALL GRASS PRAIRIE PARK Mr. Yates. Right. Mr. Mott, you want to increase the national park units, you don't want to decrease them. Where are you going to get the money? You're talking to us about not having enough money to take care of health and safety matters. Grasslands, I think, the tall grass is a wonderful addition. You're going to have to buy inholdings in order to create that park, aren't you? And you're going to have to build up a backlog of inholding amounts that you need to buy inholdings of more than $2 billion according to this. Where are you going to get the money?

Mr. Mott. Well, the Tall Grass Prairie is probably not a good example because in the acquisition of the Tall Grass Prairie Park we would be dealing with these large landholders. There isn't a problem with inholders in that particular unit. We assume that when this matter comes before the Congress and is presented to the Congress for approval, that if they approve that as a unit of the National Park System, it would follow that we would get additional funds for maintaining and operating that park.

Mr. YATES. Maintaining and operating, but not buying the land.

Mr. Mort. Well, in that particular park, we're doing two things. One, we would buy about 48,000 acres of land in fee and 48,000 acres would be in easement to protect the integrity of the park. We assume that if that project is approved, the money to buy that land would be made available in an appropriation.

NPS LAND ACQUISITION, SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS Mr. Yates. Let's see, how many parks are there that are in that condition? Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area.

Mr. MOTTA. I'm prepared to talk on that subject.

Mr. Yates. I'm sure you are. But let's look at the amount of money that you need for that park. In 1980, Congress and thenCongressman Barry Goldwater Jr. of California asked the Park Service for an estimate of what it would cost to buy the inholdings in Santa Monica. He was given a figure of $660 million in 1980. Do you think that figure has escalated since that time?

Mr. Mott. Probably. At least double, maybe triple.

Mr. YATES. I would guess that it would be about $1 billion, wouldn't you? If you went through it?

Mr. Mort. Could I explain to you what we are planning to do with the Santa Monica Mountains?

Mr. YATES. I'd love to know what you're planning to do with the Santa Monica Mountains.

Mr. Mott. Because there's been a lot of misinformation.
Mr. YATES. There sure has.
Mr. MOTT. And I'm--

Mr. YATES. And incidentally, have you read the law on the Santa Monica-

Mr. Mott. Yes. I'm very familiar with the Santa Monica Mountains.

Mr. YATES. Okay. Then tell us about the Santa Monica Mountains.

Mr. Mott. Under the present situation the boundary line for the Santa Monica Mountains is the area shown in yellow here.

Mr. YATES. Good.

Mr. Mott. To acquire that total property is the figure we've just been talking about. The light green is the area that has been acquired by the State Parks. This is something like 60,000 acres.

Mr. YATES. By the State Parks? As I understand the law—and you correct me if I'm wrong—the law provides that the State of California may purchase land for the purpose of improving the park and the Federal Government then buys that land from the State of California. Is that correct?

Mr. Mott. That's true of at least that one piece of property. Mr. Yates. It's true of anywhere in the park. That's my understanding of what the law is. But go ahead.



Mr. Mott. All right. The light green represents the areas which have been acquired by the State. This is approximately 60,000 acres. The dark green represents the land that the National Park Service has purchased to the present time. That amounts to about 13,000 acres, and our cost on that is in excess of $80 million.

Í am recommending not that we change the boundary lines of the park, but that we need to tie these four major units together.

Mr. YATES. When you say "these four major units," the record won't know what you're talking about. Would you describe them for me?

Mr. Mott. Well, I'm talking about the Topanga Area, the Malibu Canyon, Zuma Canyon, and Point Mugu. And I'm suggesting that we then tie those together with what's known as the Backbone Trail, which is shown here, which would be

Mr. YATES. When you say "here" you have to describe it.

Mr. Mort. Well, between Topanga Area and Malibu Canyon and between Zuma Canyon and Malibu Canyon, and Zuma Canyon and Point Mugu.

What we need to do is to acquire those areas within these boundary lines that are shown on this drawing-and I can provide the committee with a copy of this drawing-

(CLERK'S NOTE:—A map has been provided for the Committee files.


Mr. Yates. That isn't the question. What you have to do is identify them by name so that the record shows what you're talking about.

Mr. Mott. Okay.
Mr. Yates. When you say "these", what do you mean?

Mr. Mott. I mean the Backbone Corridor between Topanga Canyon and Malibu Canyon.

Mr. YATES. Does that have a name?
Mr. Mott. No.
Mr. YATES. Just the Backbone Corridor?

Mr. Mott. Right. And then the Backbone Corridor between Zuma Canyon and Point Mugu and the acquisition of lands and holdings within these boundary lines at Zuma Canyon, primarily, and on these backbone trails. That acquisition--carrying out that program to make usable units of these areas—is going to cost approximately $76 million.

Mr. YATES. You mean for the whole plan, as you've just outlined it?

Mr. Mott. Yes. Then we would have four major units that would be operational and could function then for use by the public. At the present time, Zuma Canyon is not available to the public because of all the inholdings that are within that area. We need to acquire those lands. And instead of acquiring lands all over this area as confined by this yellow boundary line, I'm recommending that we concentrate our efforts in making usable units of these areas and tying them together with this Backbone Trail. We should not attempt to try to scatter purchases all throughout this area that are not tied together and which are not usable.

That means that when money is appropriated, it should not be appropriated as it has been in the past for hardship cases. Hardship cases may be over here, or down there, or over in this location, and have no relationship to tying the entire area together. It seems to me that from the standpoint of dollars, there is not going to be enough money ever to acquire all the lands within this yellow boundary line. I think we ought to concentrate on completing the units that would make usable units by acquiring the inholdings within these boundary lines which we have established based on topography and based on property lines, so that when we get through we've got four major units in this area that can operate.

Then the question is, who's going to manage and who's going to develop these lands in the future? My recommendation is that this ought to be handled by the State because of the larger acreage the State now has in this area. I've said this on several occasions.

Mr. YATES. In being handled by the State, do you propose to transfer the administration from the Park Service to the State?

Mr. MOTT. That's correct. And then in the Redwood area the State would transfer its responsibilities in that area to the National Park Service.

Mr. Yates. That would require hearings and it would require Congressional review, I think.

Mr. MOTT. That's correct.

STATUS OF PRIVATE LANDOWNERS Mr. YATES. Okay. Your proposal would take a portion of the land within the boundaries outlined in the legislation and leave a great many people not knowing what their status is. As I understand what the law says, owners of improved property may continue to own their properties only during their lifetime. Is my understanding correct?


Mr. Mott. That's correct.

Mr. YATES. Well, then what do the people who have unimproved properties who don't come within your backbone trail do?

Mr. Mott. I think we're doing a disservice to the people in this entire yellow area assuming that at some point the Federal Government is going to be able to spend $3 billion or $4 billion to acquire those properties. I think we need mainly to readjust our thinking in connection with this whole Santa Monica situation.

Mr. YATES. When you say "readjust our thinking,” you mean revise the boundary?

Mr. Mott. At this point in time we're not recommending that, we're recommending that we concentrate on our acquisition in these areas.

Mr. YATES. Sure. Mr. Regula?


Mr. REGULA. Mr. Mott, obviously you support deauthorizing the park and transferring the land we've acquired to the State of California.

Mr. Mort. If the State of California would accept it. I think that's what we should do.

Mr. REGULA. You haven't mentioned Los Angeles County. Don't they have a role to play in all of this?

Mr. Mort. The only role Los Angeles County and the city of Los Angeles have ever played in connection with the Santa Monica Mountains is to escalate the values. (Laughter.

Mr. Mott. But they have done that.
Mr. REGULA. Oh, I understand that.

Mr. Mott. When we were going to buy the Quaker property, right during the negotiations, they approved that as a subdivision for condominiums, and the price instead of being $3 million jumped to $12 million. We cancelled the program.

Mr. REGULA. They have in every way made it difficult to develop this park through their zoning practices. Is that a fair statement?

Mr. Mott. That's a fair statement.
Mr. REGULA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. YATES. All right. Does Mr. Vento, who is the Chairman of our Authorizing Committee in the House, know of this proposal yet?

Mr. Mott. I plan to talk to Mr. Vento about it. During the committee hearing yesterday, I told him that we have a plan that we have now reviewed and that I would go over that with him.

Mr. YATES. That is Santa Monica. And you've proposed to reduce drastically the amount of land that the Park Service would purchase within the boundary stated in the legislation. Are there other units

Mr. HODEL. Mr. Chairman, I think it doesn't quite rise to the level of a proposal at this date. I think what Mr. Mott has proposed is that as we purchase the land, we ought to focus our attention on

the priority areas, described as the Backbone Trail, and the Zuma Canyon. He is really not making a proposal. You've asked him his opinion and he's told you that it's his opinion that we ought to do that


Mr. YATES. All right, I'll accept that. Are there other units of the park that could be condensed as you described?

Mr. Mott. No, in connection with the inholdings within the units of the National Park system, there are some inholdings that are not critical, actually. People maintain the property, we don't have any conflicts with them, and so forth. There are other inholdings where they are planning to do some major development or build a road or something of that nature that would seriously impact the park. Those are the ones that we would be buying. Of the total 2 million acres of inholdings, I suspect-and I'd have to get these figures for you—that maybe there's not more than 250,000 acres that are critical areas to buy.

Mr. YATES. Have you a review commission or a review that's being conducted the entire park system to determine whether there are certain priorities in your buying?

Mr. Mott. You mean between the $2 million figure there? Yes.
Mr. YATES. Would you be able to present that to us--
Mr. Mott. I will present that to you.
Mr. YATES. All right, fine.
[The information follows:]

INHOLDINGS There is a total of 2.2 million acres of private land within the National Park System. However, much of that acreage does not represent a threat to the integrity of the parks. Currently, the backlog of lands that need to be acquired is 293,356 acres. This excludes private lands that may need to be acquired in the State of Alaska. The backlog is as follows:

« PreviousContinue »