Imágenes de páginas

Mr. TAYLOR. We have statements from Hon. Charles S. Gubser and Hon. Jerome R. Waldie for the record. In the absence of objection they will be placed in the record at this point.

(The statements follow :)


Mr. Chairman: It is a pleasure to add my remarks to those now being made concerning legislation to establish the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Although this area does not physically touch upon my own congressional district, it does represent an issue whose importance obviously reaches beyond geographical boundaries and becomes vital to all Americans. Thus, I have added my name to bills authorizing the establishment of this recreation area, and urge that appropriate and expeditious action be taken on such a measure. San Francisco has the extraordinary good fortune of having an abundant amount of yet undeveloped land, owned by various federal, state and local agencies, as well as private interests, within a relatively contiguous area. Designating these lands as a National Recreation Area, and thereby insuring their protection from possible future sale for profit or for speculative purposes, is an essential and timely action. For some time now I, and so many others, have repeatedly pointed out that the tremendous population growth has drastically altered the ecological balance and appearance of the land. Gradually, open and beautiful areas have been zoned for commercial or residential purposes, with the result that structures and sewer lines have replaced lovely fruit orchards, gentle foothills, and placid cows. Although I suppose we must be realistic and understand that changes to take place, and that our children will simply have to adapt to growing up in a more urbanized environment, at the same time I believe it is also our distinct responsibility to take every possible step to make sure that some of this land remains undeveloped and available for recreational purposes. Children-and adults-need open spaces in which to move about and think.

I do not see much disagreement about the basic purpose of these bills. As for my part as a coauthor of the Administration bill, I concur in the added features included in Congressman Mailliard's H.R. 10220, as well as in H.R. 9498, introduced by Congressman Burton.

In closing. I am grateful for this opportunity to say a few words in behalf of a most worthwhile piece of legislation, and pledge my continued support for the basic objective of these measures.


Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to present this statement on behalf of H.R. 9498 which will establish a National Recreation Area in the San Francisco Bay Area.

I can think of few more important bills now before the Congress in the field of environment and preservation of our precious natural resources than this bill before you today.

The headlands around the Golden Gate are steeped in history and natural beauty. Any threat to the historic or natural assets of this area should be quickly averted-and this bill is the vehicle by which we can avert any threat. It would be a calamity to allow development of the headlands and beaches of this area. Millions of people from all parts of the world have marveled at the Golden Gate. They have wandered the beaches and the unique redwood forests in awe and delight.

Yet, Mr. Chairman, these areas are but minutes from one of the most cosmopolitan and charming cities in the world-San Francisco.

It would be a tragic loss to the Nation to allow high-rise developments and tract housing to erode away this precious natural treasure.

Under the leadership of my good friend and Colleague who represents the people of California, Mr. Burton, we have a good effective bill before the Subcommittee. It is realistic and bold. It provides for protection and for recreational use.

Mr. Chairman, I would, at this time, like to make one further comment. One major group advocating the creation of this National Recreation Area, the People For A Golden Gate National Recreation Area, have informed me of their support for two proposed amendments to the bill. The amendments would establish a citizen commission to oversee the Recreation Area in an advisory capacity. The other amendment would call for a master plan for transportation for all units of the National Park System within the Bay Area.

I believe these amendments to be entirely compatible with the provisions of H.R. 9498 and I wholeheartedly support their inclusion with the final version of this important bili.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Mr. TAYLOR. The next witness, Hon. Rogers C. B. Morton, Secretary of the Department of the Interior.


Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Secretary, we welcome you before the subcommittee. You may proceed.

Secretary MORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have with me Mr. Stanley Hulett, Associate Director, National Park Service. Also with us this morning is Mr. Howard Chapman, a great personal friend and Director of the Western Region of the National Park Service, and Mr. Douglas Cornell of the Western Region of the National Park Service.

I am grateful, Mr. Chairman, to appear here today in support of H.R. 13018 and H.R. 13060, the administration proposal to provide for the establishment of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in the State of California. Those of you who have had an opportunity to visit this area of northern California, as I did last week, will recognize that the establishment here of a national recreation area affords an opportunity both to preserve its unique natural characteristics and to provide an exciting recreation experience for millions of bay area residents. You will recognize, too, that the striking beauty of this coastal environment invites further development at the expense of public enjoyment. We must act now to assure that Californians and their fellow Americans will never be without an opportunity to explore the largely undeveloped open land which extends north from the Golden Gate to Point Reyes National Sea


Our legislative proposal, announced by the President as part of his environmental message on February 8, anticipates the creation of a recreation area whose boundaries encompass some 24,000 acres of private, State, county, and federally owned land on both sides of the Golden Gate. We propose that State owned lands within the recreation area, of which there are 11,337 acres, continue to be managed by the State of California in a manner compatible with Federal administration of adjoining lands. H.R. 13018 and H.R. 13060 authorize

appropriate agreements with the State of California, and the acceptance of such State lands as may be later donated for purposes of the recreation area. Those Federal lands which now comprise Forts Cronkhite, Barry, and the western portion of Fort Baker, together with other nearby Federal lands, would be transferred to the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior, subject to continued use and occupancy of certain areas by the Department of the Army for a period sufficient to allow relocation of essential military and support facilities. Those areas within the Presidio of SanFrancisco known as Baker Beach and Crissy Army Airfield would be made available for public use as units of the recreation area, subject only to continued use of the airfield during a phaseout period. This proposed transition from military to recreation use of the historic property adjacent to Golden Gate Bridge would be accomplished with the complete support and cooperation of the Department of Defense. It takes into account the essential nature of some existing military activities, while providing an immediate, and significant increase in the number of acres available for public recreation.

Other specific features of our proposal, including costs for acquisition of privately owned lands and development of the recreation area, are discussed in my letter of February 8 to the Speaker of the House of Represenatives. I do want the subcommittee to know that our proposal is the result of careful consideration within the Department, and of consultation with other interested Federal agencies and the State of California. Like our proposal to establish a Gateway National Recreation Area in New York and New Jersey, the plan for a Golden Gate National Recreation Area makes use of Federal lands to provide for the recreation needs of a major metropolitan center. "The need to provide breathing space and recreational opportunities in our major urban centers", the President said on February 8, "is a major concern of this administration". I know that this subcommittee shares our concern, and I have observed with great interest your prompt but thorough consideration of the gateway legislation.

Your earlier hearings and present consideration of the Golden Gate proposal will make possible the establishment of national recreation areas at two of the Nation's major gateways to the worldNew York City, and San Francisco. I would note in closing, Mr. Chairman, that H.R. 13060 and H.R. 13018 have been cosponsored by 19 Members of the California delegation, and others who are members of the distinguished full committee. We count on their continued support, and yours, as together we strive to make recreational, scenic, and other natural values more accessible to the Nation's great metropolitan communities.

Thank you very much. I will be glad to try and clarify any points you may have.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

One of the witnesses recommended including Fort Point National Historic Site. What is your position with regard to including that in this recreation area?

Secretary MORTON. We have no problem with that. We have proposed that it be included within the boundary, but administered as a separate unit of the National Park System.

Mr. TAYLOR. Well, do you recommend including it or leaving it just as it is?

Secretary MORTON. We thought it could stay as it is. However, if the committee in its wisdom thinks it should be administered as part of the recreation area, we would have no problem.

Mr. TAYLOR. In other words, you could live with it either way?
Secretary MORTON. Either way.

Mr. TAYLOR. What is your recommendation with regard to Alcatraz?

Secretary MORTON. We think it ought to be in. We heard the remarks of the chairman and I am most sympathetic with his sympathy.

We put it in for this reason. Something at some time has got to be done with Alcatraz. I don't think it is a monument to the American culture in the form that it is in now.

Mr. TAYLOR. That it is an understatement.

Secretary MORTON. I have seen several of the recommendations for it. One of the most imaginative recommendations came out of a discussion I had with the mayor of San Francisco only a few months ago. He thought it would be an ideal site for a monument that would be comparable to the Statue of Liberty or to the St. Louis Arch. It would be a monument to the people who have made this land great and have come from the shores of Asia to settle in America. This is certainly an ambitious undertaking.

The reason that I would like to keep it in the recreation area is that I think it ought to be constantly on our minds and we ought to try to come up with some sort of program-long term, I am sure it will have to be because it will be expensive-to make Alcatraz a significant feature in the Golden Gate.

I don't think it is a significant feature. It is a feature all right, but I don't think it is significant. Therefore, we have included it within the recreation area, and hopefully over the decades that follow, ideas will generate, funds will become available, and it will be converted into something beautiful.

Mr. TAYLOR. Now, we are operating under the 5-minute rule. I have only one more request. I wish someone would point out on the map the specific areas which you do recommend for inclusion, point out those areas included in the Burton bill, which you do not recommend in inclusion. Just point them out on the map maybe with a short reason why it should be included or left out.

Secretary MORTON. Mr. Cornell.

Mr. CORNELL. The administration proposal is shown in green. The major differences concern the city lands which would connect the green areas on the map: city park lands here, adjacent to Fort Mason and on the east near the area of Ghirardelli Square, Fisherman's Wharf complex; city owned lands known as Lincoln Park; Cliff House, which is part private with some city park land surrounding the private area; the offshore Seal Rocks; the entire ocean beach; and the Fort Funston Dunes area extending to the south.

Mr. TAYLOR. Now, you are including the areas which the Department is recommending?

Mr. CORNELL. NO. These are the areas not in the administration

proposal. The green areas are in the administration proposal and I am pointing out the areas in between those that are recommended in the Burton proposal.

Mr. TAYLOR. All right.

Mr. Cornell. The southern end of Fort Funston is in the administration proposal and connects with the city park at Fort Funston. With the Burton proposal it would be one continuous park but partly under Federal management and partly city park management of adjoining parks going the full length. The other major difference is the Burton bill includes the Olema Valley which extends probably off the map, up in this area, 7.500 acres, and a small portion of Marincello extending over the ridge line at Fort Sausalito in this area. Those are the basic differences. I believe one of the Burton bills also includes an additional area known as Tiburon Army Post which was not mentioned earlier.

Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Secretary, what would be the difference in costs between the provison of the Burton bill and the administration bill?

Secretary MORTON. If the city of San Francisco could turn their park properties over to us in that area, there would be no difference in that part of it as far as acquisition is concerned. The big difference would be in the Olema Valley lands, 7,500 acres there. With the relocation costs, our best estimates are that that cost would be $16.6 million. So that would be one difference. The additional cost in the Marincello is two and a half million dollars, so we are there at $19 million. And the Cliff House-Sutro Baths property, if acquired, would be $10 million, so we are at $29 million, or approximately $30 million.

Mr. ASPINALL. What would be the cost in the development? What would be the differences there? You have got $59 million plus, as I remember in your statement for development purposes on the administration proposal. How much more would it be if you took in the whole

Secretary MORTON. I wish we could answer that, Mr. Chairman, but I don't feel that we have got enough of a handle on it. It would be a wild guess because we have really not studied a development scheme or development proposal for areas other than those included in the administration bill.

Mr. ASPINALL. Could you get us an answer for the record?

Secretary MORTON. Well, if there is an answer, Mr. Chairman, we will do the best we can with it, but I think again you would have to conceptualize the utilization of those properties that are not included and there are many different concepts that could be used, but let us come up with something that will give you some rough ideas


Mr. ASPINALL. Give us the best that you have and I would ask that the information be placed in the record at this place, Mr. Chairman.

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

(The information follows:)

A tentative estimate of the development cost under H.R. 9498, by Mr. Burton and others, is approximately $76.5 million, or about $18.5 million more than

« AnteriorContinuar »