Mr. MAILLIARD. Well, generally my recommendations are going to be very close to those that have just been recommended by my colleague, Mr. Burton. I might point out that this entire area is within my congressional district and does not go into anyone else's congressional district.

There are a number of proposals before you, as you have suggested, and while they have a common theme, they do have certain differences, and, of course, it is going to be up to the committee to reconcile these differences.

In the last Congress, the previous Congress, I introduced the original bill on this subject which proposed the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. This measure included only the Federal properties. Later this Congress I introduced a second bill, H.R. 10220 which is before you, which included not only the Federal lands but also some State and county lands and provided for the acquisition of some private property.

Most recently I cosponsored the administration proposal, H.R. 13060, in which several parcels of land which were included in my earlier bill were not included.

At the time, I may say, Mr. Chairman, that I cosponsored the administration bill I did not have before me the map which accompanied it. I did have Secretary Morton's accompanying letter which led me to believe that there were no major significant differences. Later clarification indicated that there are, and I am going to address my self to those.

I fully realize there are many other witnesses, so I am going to restrict my testimony to my recommendations to the committee on major points of difference. I will list them.

One, the lands now belonging to the city and county of San Francisco which were included in my earlier bill, H.R. 10220, should be included in the national recreation area because the inclusion of these properties would preserve the contiguity of the boundaries of the recreation area and thus not leave isolated noncontiguous parcels of property within the area. For administration purposes it seems to me there should be a continuous overall boundary even though within the park there may be different categories of land and title. may not necessarily rest in the Federal Government.

While it would seem probable to me that the Federal Government would never acquire title to these lands, the inclusion of such lands in the overall boundaries would permit coordination and cooperation in their administration.

Two, the private properties known as the Cliff House-Sutro Baths should be included for not only the same reasoning as just applied to the city and county properties but also because some control should be exercised over the development of this area in San Francisco. It is not a matter of major concern to me whether the properties are acquired outright by the Federal Government or whether an agreement by the Federal Government with private owners can be reached as to the continued use and development of the Cliff HouseSutro Baths properties. Three, although all proposals include the Presidio, there are differences, as to precise treatment, I recommend the adoption of the plan proposed by the administration in preference to what was contained in my original bill or in the Burton bill.

Four, moving now to the Marin County side of the Golden Gate Bridge, the administration proposal seems satisfactory to me, except that I would urge the committee to include the area known as Olema Valley as contained in both the Burton bill and the earlier Mailliard bill. As in the case of the Cliff House-Sutro Baths properties, I don't know if complete Federal acquisition of Olema Valley is necessary. However, if the Point Reyes National Seashore with which you are all so familiar, is to be properly protected, I feel that it is very important that Federal control over the use and development of these areas be exercised. As the Marincello property in Marin, I believe that all of this land should be included in the recreation area as well as an adjacent small parcel on what is known as Wolfback Ridge.

One very vital point that I would like to stress to the committee, and that I urge your consideration of, is that in my judgment, to assure the real value of this entire proposal, both for use by the public in this great metropolitan area, and for conservation and preservation purposes, transportation is going to be the central key. I would therefore urge the committee to put a special provision in this bill authorizing $100,000 for Federal participation in a transportation study in cooperation with the State of California and the affected political subdivisions thereof, to work out some coordinated system of transportation so that the recreational values can be made available to the public without destroying the area by allowing unlimited access by private automobiles. The people must be able to use this magnificent and relatively unspoiled area without themselves spoiling it. These are my recommendations and I know the committee will consider them along with others.

There are many other detailed points which must be resolved but in the interests of time I will not go into them now. I know that other witnesses are going to hit on them. I just attempted to hit the high spots. My staff and I will be available at any time to consult on these and other questions as the committee proceeds to make the necessary decisions.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I cannot help but stress that while there are differences among the various proposals for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, there is virtually universal support for the concept. I hope your committee will resolve the differences as quickly as possible and make it possible for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area to be a reality before the 92d Congress adjorns.

Thank you.

Mr. TAYLOR. We commend our colleague on his usual fine statement.

What is your recommendation with regard to Alcatraz?

Mr. MAILLIARD. Well, I think probably Alcatraz should be included though I confess nobody really knows exactly what ought to be done with it. There are a tremendously wide number of opinions. You may remember years ago Mr. Burton's predecessor, Mr. Shelley, and I cosponsored a bill to appoint a commission to try to decide what to do with Alcatraz. The commission was appointed, came to some recommendations which have simply disappeared from view because there wasn't sufficient support to carry them out.

I put it in my original bill on the grounds that some decision should be arrived at as to what should be done with Alcatraz. As I recall, it is not in the original Burton bill. I do not think this is vital to the GGNRA concept, but in order to finally come to some conclusion as to what to do with Alcatraz, I would recommend that it be included.

Mr. TAYLOR. Any other questions of this witness?
The gentleman from Colorado?

Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, my colleague, from just what you said about the former prison, Alcatraz, it would appear that you thought that just putting it in Federal ownership would be a good thing rather than permitting it to be in the status it is at the present time.

Now, you did not mean that, did you?

Mr. MAILLIARD. Alcatraz, sir?

Mr. ASPINALL. Yes.

Mr. MAILLIARD. Alcatraz is, of course, in Federal ownership.

Mr. ASPINALL. I mean under the control of the National Park Service.

Mr. MAILLIARD. Well, I think it would be far better than to have it the way it is now where it has been declared surplus. All kinds of proposals have been made for its use in all kinds of different ways. They have all been rejected one way or another, either by the local authorities or they have proved unfeasible when they have gone along a little further. And so

Mr. ASPINALL. Of course, my question simply is why load it off on the Department of the Interior until the decision is made? They have got enough to take care of without being saddled with this. It seems likely that if the Department gets it, the Indians would move in on it again.

Mr. MAILLIARD. Well, I think the Indians finally abandoned ship after a long stay.

Mr. ASPINALL. Well, if it was in the Department of the Interior and there was some right to hang their hat on, they might be back again very quickly.

Mr. MAILLIARD. Well, I would accept the committee's judgment on this. I do not think that the whole concept of this recreation area ought to hinge on Alcatraz but on balance, it would seem to me that we might come to a rational conclusion as to its future if it were included in the area, but as I say, I defer to the committee's judgment on that.

Mr. ASPINALL. I thank my colleague.

Mr. TAYLOR. Any other questions of this witness? The gentleman from Pennsylvania?

Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Mailliard, it is my recollection that there are three villages in the area that is known as Marincello, and two Army posts; the village of Bolinas, the village of Stinson Beach, the village of Muir Beach, Fort Barry, and Fort Cronkhite. Your proposal would not include the three villages but would include the two Army posts, is that correct?

Mr. MAILLIARD. That is correct. Of course, these areas are fairly well separated. Marincello is up on the Marin headlands, these vil

lages you are talking about are on the ocean which is quite a distance away. Of course, I would not include the villages themselves but would include the open area, including the military lands.

Mr. SAYLOR. Now, regarding the area which is in back of or east of the Point Reyes National Seashore--you heard Mr. Burton say it could be acquired for $750 an acre. I happen to have a pretty good memory. I can remember when we had some other people from California saying that we could buy Point Reyes for a lot less than $750

an acre.

Now, if we decide to include that piece of land, don't you think we should look at it in view of what we had to pay for the land out in— similar lands out in Point Reyes?

Mr. MAILLIARD. Of course, I am not an expert on land values but from conversations I have had, I would think that $750 figure is low. I do not believe that property could be acquired at that price.

Mr. SAYLOR. We had the same situation in the Point Reyes bill. We said we were going to allow them to continue using lands for agricultural purposes which is what some people then said they wanted. As soon as we created the seashore, the individuals decided they did not want to continue those agricultural uses.

Might we find the same situation here?

Mr. MAILLIARD. Well, I think that is possible but less likely here because I think that our main purpose here is to see that there isn't the kind of development in this area that would be destructive of the values that were established in the seashore. And I do not think that the kind of use that is being made now which is mostly cattle is incompatible with that objective.

Now, of course, as to what the individuals might want to do, I would suspect you would find some that would be interested and some that would not. But I think this is the best way to go. I would like to see the properties continue to be used for agricultural purposes but I do not want to see dense development in this area because I think it would-if it is not included it would be destructive of the values in the new recreation area but even more important perhaps it would be destructive of the values in the seashore. Mr. SAYLOR. Thank you.

Mr. TAYLOR. Any other questions?

Mr. JOHNSON. I would just like, Mr. Chairman, to comment here. After our visit out there, I think that we visited all the properties that are mentioned in the statement of the gentleman from San Francisco, we also looked at it from the air and had a very good opportunity to see it in the overall.

Now, as I understand your statement here, you are in favor of taking all of the lands of Olema Valley?

Mr. MAILLIARD. Yes. Well, it is not all of Olema Valley, Mr. Johnson. It is the southern part of Olema Valley up to Sir Francis Drake Boulevard which is contained-those precise boundaries are contained in Mr. Burton's original bill and in my bill, but that area is not included in the administration's proposal.

Mr. JOHNSON. That area at the present time is used primarily for grazing, I presume. That is about all that was there when we were there.

78-016-72- 18

Mr. MAILLIARD. It is largely an area of cattle.

Mr. JOHNSON. Very little in the way of development?

Mr. MAILLIARD. That is correct, and we would like to keep it that

way.

Mr. JOHNSON. Fine. Now, you would advocate, then, taking in fee of that land?

Mr. MAILLIARD. Well, I am entirely openminded as to what the best procedure is. If the Secretary is authorized to either acquire it or to make some kind of a contractual arrangement to make sure that it is retained in its present condition, I would think this isn't a vital question, or a purchase and lease-back, whatever could be worked out would be all right.

Mr. JOHNSON. Also, on our last visit to Point Reyes I noted there were a number of the dairy operations and cattle operations still in operation. I presume those are going to stay for the most part, at least for this generation?

Mr. MAILLIARD. Well, I would suppose.

Mr. JOHNSON. It is compatible there in Point Reyes. Would it be compatible in this particular national recreation area?

Mr. MAILLIARD. 'Entirely so in my judgment.

Mr. JOHNSON. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from California.

Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman, I do not know that I have any questions because I have had an opportunity to discuss this matter with my colleague, Mr. Mailliard, and I would simply ask, Mr. Chairman, that I be permitted to insert a statement of my own in the interests of time immediately following the interrogation of Mr. Mailliard on this point.

Mr. TAYLOR. In the absence of objection, so ordered.

Mr. CLAUSEN. It will be, Mr. Chairman, my intent to introduce my own bill today, that we will then present to the committee for consideration along with others.

(Mr. Clausen's statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. DON H. CLAUSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman, I want to extend to the Chairman and to the members of this committee my sincere appreication for holding these hearings on legislation which I have co-authored, to establish the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. In urging your strong support for this legislation, I just want to mention, briefly, some of the exciting features of these natural, scenic, and historic lands located in the San Francisco Bay Area.

The area encompassed by this legislation will include forts of national historic interest, such as Forts Funston and Miley in San Francisco, and Forts Barry, Baker, and Cronkhite in Marin County. There will be miles of spectacular beaches, cliffs, and headlands, including Baker Beach State Park, San Francisco Maritime State Historic Park, Ocean Beach, the renowned Seal Rocks, Marin Headlands State Park, and the historic Sutro Baths area.

The Golden Gate National Recreation Area will encompass wide reaches of rolling ranch land, secluded lagoons, and Angel and Alcatraz Islands in San Francisco Bay. It will border on State and National Parks and Seashores, such as Point Reyes National Seashore, Mt. Tamalpais State Park, and Muir Woods National Monument.

Within this National Recreation Area will be preserved the environmental and historic heritage of the entire San Francisco Bay Area, protected and enhanced for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.