Mr. CAREY. Could you be more explicit on these co-use arrangements? Would they be for a given period of years or subject to 30day cancellation? Mr. POINT. Normally, on all of the use permit arrangements, they are either lease or permit depending on the circumstances. They are for a period of time varying anywhere from 1 year. We can go as high as 25 years. They all have an automatic 30-day cancellation clause in them. They go all the way from fair market value to no cost, depending on our determination of public value. That is, public benefit. Normally they have regulations which prohibit structures or define the types of structures, and so forth, that the local people may build at their own risk, and so forth. They always have a 30-day cancellation clause in them. Mr. CAREY. Mr. Chairman, I would encourage, and I hope the committee shares my conviction, not just in this region, not just in the State of California, but throughout our whole Defense Establishment, that you do everything possible to examinne your current level of use of relatively open lands, and particularly seacoast lands, seashore lands, and see what can be done in other States to establish co-use arrangements, particularly for areas near large cities. I know that some programs of this kind have been suggested in the metropolitan region of New York which would use some of the Defense installations for additional play areas for teenagers. I wonder if we could not do it on a more systematic basis where an examination could be made not only of the areas around Fort Ord and Pendleton, but all of the Federal seashore lands, Federal coastland and station lands to see what part of these lands could be made available for co-use by large metropolitan areas. Mr. POINT. Mr. Carey, it is our established policy, and we have had it for years, that we outlease or permit areas not for the time being needed. As you know, at Fort Hancock we did lease to the State of New Jersey a large area until we declared it excess a few months back. We outlease millions of acres of land for grazing, and last year we received receipts of better than $3 million for grazing leases for land that is not required on a day-to-day basis. I think we are open to proposals from any area of the country and we will certainly give them every consideration and consistent with our attempt to share the 27 million acres which we use in the United States. Mr. CAREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman. Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Texas. Mr. WHITE. Could you please tell me what is El Castillo, presently? Mr. POINT. Presidio, Monterey. It is the Army West Coast Language Training Center. In fact, they perform language training not only for the Army but other services. This particular 25-acre portion is an old Spanish fortress right next to the coastal area at oceanside. It is an area where, for the most part, the new Route 101 going north and south bisects it and with the removal or reconstruction of about four small buildings we have there it will no longer be of any value to us. The State has a proposal to reestablish it as a historical site, also to incorporate it as part of their park system. Mr. WHITE. These are the original Spanish buildings? Mr. POINT. As I understand it; yes, sir. Mr. WHITE. I was wondering, Mr. Chairman, if this is going to be an area somebody would want to make a national monument someday and we would have to reacquire it. Thank you very much. Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Arizona. Mr. STEIGER. No questions. Mr. SAYLOR. Would the gentleman from Arizona yield? Mr. SAYLOR. I want to say to my colleague from Texas, if we are faced with the same situation in California as elsewhere-even if they get it as a gift they will want full market value or want to exchange it on the present-day value. Folks in California sort of look at this thing with two different eyes: the eyes of acquisition and the eyes of disposition. Mr. WHITE. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. SAYLOR. My colleague here has the time. Mr. WHITE. Mr. Steiger? Mr. STEIGER. I will be happy to yield to my colleague from Texas. Mr. WHITE. I wonder if it would not be wiser to see what the National Park Service is going to do. Lease it out at a dollar a year or lend it out until we determine whether we want to make it a national monument. Thank you very much. Mr. POINT. I was going to say we will turn it over to GSA. They will circulate other Federal agencies for 30 days. If the Department of the Interior or any other people have an interest along these lines, they do have the opportunity at that time. Again, I would mention we are not a disposal agency. We merely relinquish our need for it. Mr. WHITE. I would like to go on record, Mr. Chairman, as saying it would be much wiser considering the past history of monumental areas that we retain some interest in this so if we decide to make it a national monument, which it seems to be, in that statute we should keep some hold so we can go back in. Mr. TAYLOR. It might be well for the Defense Department to let the Interior Department know it is available for that use. Mr. POINT. We would be happy to. Mr. TAYLOR. Let us have a report from the Interior Department. Mr. POINT. Yes, sir. Mr. TAYLOR. Any more questions? Mr. KAZEN. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. STEIGER. I would be happy to yield to my colleague from Texas. Mr. KAZEN. In what state of repair is the old Spanish fort? Mr. POINT. I am sorry that I have never seen it. Merely looked at pictures and so forth. I would gather that it is in pretty bad shape. I think it would require major reconstruction and preservation work. Again, I have not seen it personally. Mr. STEIGER. I might make the observation there is not a redwood within 100 miles. Since this is a redwood hearing I suggest we return to the redwoods, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KAZEN. I thank the gentleman. Mr. TAYLOR. The lady from Hawaii. Mrs. MINK. I have no questions. Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Idaho. Mr. McCLURE. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JOHNSON. I have very little in the way of questions, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry that I missed the benefit of your testimony but I presume that the Defense Department has screened this very carefully and the lands that have been agreed on between the Bureau of the Budget and the State of California are surplus to your needs. Mr. POINT. Only the areas at El Castillo and Marin County are surplus to our needs. The beach area at San Onofre and Fort Ord, we hope, would open up additional areas for use by the State and are not surplus but not for the time being not needed. We would have to hold titles to these properties. We would have to have provisions to interrupt the use in time of national emergency or for any other joint training exercises. Mr. JOHNSON. That is, other than Barry? Mr. POINT. Most of Barry and Cronkite, shore areas, we can release are surplus. There are two or three points on Fort Barry that have Coast Guard operations where they would have to remain. Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. SAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Point, I think the question that I would like to have answered you have just taken care of in response to the questions of the gentleman from California. You do not intend to get rid of the beach area at Camp Pendleton? Mr. POINT. We do not. Mr. SAYLOR. If the State is interested and they and the Department of Defense can work out an arrangement it will be for the use of the beach area for recreation purposes on a lease basis with the right of the military to terminate it almost overnight? Mr. POINT. Just the northern mile of Camp Pendleton of the 19 miles, which is San Onofre Beach. Our provisions would call for a 48-hour notice to use the beach for a day or two when we have a large training exercise. Otherwise the only interruption of the lease arrangement would be in case of national emergency or national mobilization. Mr. SAYLOR. It is my understanding that Camp Pendleton Beach is the only area under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense that you can have an amphibious assault training landing that would take two regiments. Mr. POINT. Correct, sir. Absolutely. This is as far as we can go on Camp Pendleton. Mr. SAYLOR. Let me tell you, some days it gets rough landing there, I know. The area that you are going to turn over is the area that has the least surf under most conditions? Mr. POINT. I am sorry, I didn't understand your question. Mr. SAYLOR. The area that you are contemplating, the State is contemplating leasing, is the area where the surf is the smallest of the whole beach, as I recall. Mr. POINT. Not being a surfer, I understand it is the choicest area as far as surfing. It is the area where I believe the national or the U.S. championships were held a year or two ago and we did permit it for those purposes. It is the best surfing area in southern California. Mr. SAYLOR. Has Camp Pendleton or the Department of Defense ever settled their water problems with towns in the area; do you know? Mr. POINT. I cannot respond. I do not know, Mr. Saylor. Mr. SAYLOR. Counsel just informs us there was a final judgment against the Department of Defense in favor of the town of Fallbrook. It was in controversy before this committee for many, many years. I want to say, Mr. Point, that I think our colleague from New York has pointed out very well that, if this is to be the policy of the Department of Defense with regard to allowing the public to use areas which you are going to retain in ownership under a lease arrangement, the same policy should be used not just in California and on the west coast but it should be used wherever the Department of Defense has military installations that can be used by the public. Mr. POINT. Sir, I cannot say that we have explored all opportunities. I am sure we have not. But it is our policy and we are receptive to any proposals which may come our way along these lines. Mr. STEIGER. Would my colleague yield? Is it not true, Mr. Director, that not only if there is a hint of the possibility of the availability or the need of this area, that the local entity calls your attention to this somewhat promptly and the necessity for maintaining a running inventory potential is not really a basic necessity? Mr. POINT. We do not take the initiative, Mr. Steiger, in trying to develop an inventory of all of the opportunities. We merely identify those areas where we do not think there is any opportunity because of safety requirements or things like that. We announce our willingness to explore any possibilities and then sit back and wait and see what the state or community or local people may have in mind. Mr. STEIGER. In general, they have been very responsive by pointing out their requirements to you, have they not? Mr. POINT. That is correct. Mr. STEIGER. I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Point. Again we appreciate the spirit of cooperation shown by the Defense Department. If more units of Government affected showed the same spirit of cooperation, our problems in Redwood National Park would be much easier and we would get the park much quicker. Mr. POINT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, I move the committee go into executive session in support of the motion I suggested. I do not want this made public but I think the subcommittee has a right to know about it. Mr. TAYLOR. In the absence of objection, it is so ordered. (Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the subcommittee proceeded into executive session.) (The following material was received during and subsequent to the hearings:) Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STATE PARKS, 2313 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR WAYNE: I want to go on record with your Committee in favor of the proposed Redwoods National Park primarily on the Mill Creek drainage, as provided for in your bill, H. R. 10951. I am not opposed to a larger park including more of the Redwood Creek area if that should prove feasible. I am convinced, however, that this is the last opportunity to establish a worthy Redwoods National Park and that it is of the utmost importance that all park conservation minded people support a proposal that is realistic and feasible. I am sure that the Mill Creek proposal, together with the Tall Trees unit, is both realistic and feasible and that it would provide a national park of the highest quality. I hope, therefore, that your Committee will report your bill favorably as soon as possible. I know the area that it encompasses. I have been in it many times. Since your Committee will have all the detailed information needed for Committee action, I shall not go into such detail here. The Nation, in my opinion, cannot afford not to preserve a superb area of old growth redwood forest as a national park. With grateful appreciation to you, Wayne, and to your Committee for all that you have done and are doing for national park conservation, I am Sincerely, CONRAD L. WIRTH, Chairman of the Board. JUNE 28, 1967. Hon. WAYNE ASPINALL, Chairman, House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, DEAR SIR: In order to present our case and our desires for retaining the Kings Range Area under the BLM operational control, we traveled to Washington, D.C., in April of this year to present our case to the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. Since we had to pay our own way and expenses and with only limited means, it would be difficult to duplicate our trip to Washington to testify again. Therefore, we request that you, as Chairman, include in the record the contents of our enclosed statements. We understand Congressman Clausen requested these statements be included immediately following his remarks as part of his overall testimony. He has advised that the Chairman requested us to write to the Committee asking this permission to have our remarks included in the record. Therefore, we are complying with this request by this letter. In order for the Committee to have a full understanding of our desires and reasoning for creating the Kings Range Conservation Area included in Congressman Clausen's bill (H.R. 7742), now before your committee, we urgently request that you include these statements immediately following his testimony in order to add our full remarks. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. T. KNOWLES CLARK, Petrolia, Calif. KEN ROSCOE, Petrolia, Calif. TESTIMONY OF MR. T. KNOWLES CLARK, PETROLIA, CALIFORNIA, BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, APRIL 18, 1967 Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, I am pleased to have this opportunity to address you. I am a livestock rancher of the Mattole Valley area of Humboldt County. This is county adjacent to the Kings Range. I am a native of this country, as was my father. My grandfather arrived here with the first white men and homesteaded land. In due time, the Clark Ranch was built up to quite a large acreage. In speaking here now, I am a representative of the whole valley as I am Chairman of the Mattole Action Committee. It was during the last term of |