0\1 tit N,6

GREAT SALT LAKE NATIONAL MONUMENT

Y4- .118/13

'195/2-/

97/r1. 1

ra

rg

rgra

GOVERNMENT

Storage

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PARKS AND RECREATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

NINETIETH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

S.25

A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE

GREAT SALT LAKE NATIONAL MONUMENT, IN THE STATE

OF UTAH, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

MARCH 13, 1967

Printed for the use of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

76-766 WASHINGTON: 1967
COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington, Chairman

CLINTON P. ANDERSON, New Mexico THOMAS H. KUCHEL, California

ALAN BIBLE, Nevada

FRANK CHURCH, Idaho

ERNEST GRUENING, Alaska

FRANK E. MOSS, Utah

QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota

CARL HAYDEN, Arizona

GEORGE McGOVERN, South Dakota

GAYLORD NELSON, Wisconsin

LEE METCALF, Montana

GORDON ALLOTT, Colorado

LEN B. JORDAN, Idaho

PAUL J. FANNIN, Arizona

CLIFFORD P. HANSEN, Wyoming

MARK 0. HATFIELD, Oregon

JERRY T. VERKLER, Staff Director

STEWART FRENCH, Chief Counsel

E. LEWIS REID, Minority Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PARKS AND RECREATION

ALAN BIBLE, Nevada, Chairman

HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington

CLINTON P. ANDERSON, New Mexico

FRANK CHURCH, Idaho

FRANK E. MOSS, Utah

GAYLORD NELSON, Wisconsin

II

CLIFFORD P. HANSEN, Wyoming

THOMAS H. KUCHEL, California

MARK 0. HATFIELD, Oregon
CONTENTS

Paso

S.25 2

Departmental reports:

Bureau of the Budget 3

Interior 3

STATEMENTS

Bennett, Hon. Wallace F., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah 10

Swem, Theodore, Assistant Director, National Park Service; accompanied

by Frank E. Harrison, Chief, Division of Legislation and Regulations,

and J. F. Carithers, assistant to the Regional Director, Santa Fe 14

COMMUNICATION

Rampton, Hon. Calvin L., Governor, State of Utah: Letter to Hon.

Frank E. Moss, U.S. Senate, dated March 10, 1967 _ 7

MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION

Great Salt Lake Authority resolution 6

State bill No. 60 12

"Time To Push Antelope Island Park," from the Salt Lake Tribune 8

GREAT SALT LAKE NATIONAL MONUMENT

MONDAY, MARCH 13, 1967

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PARKS AND RECREATION,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room

3110, New Senate Office Building, Senator Frank E. Moss, presiding.

Present: Senators Moss, Hansen, and Hatfield.

Also present: Jerry T. Verkler, staff director; Roy Whitacre, and

R. K. Griswold, professional staff members; E. Lewis Reid, minority

counsel, and Darryl Hart, assistant minority counsel.

Senator Moss. The subcommittee will come to order.

This hearing has been set to receive testimony on S. 25, the bill

I reintroduced on January 11 of this year to provide for the establishment of the Great Salt Lake National Monument.

As a matter of clarification, I should point out that the bill had the

same number in the 89th Congress. So we can refer to S. 25 and be

talking about essentially the same bill. As a matter of fact, it had

the same number in the 88th Congress. I have been keeping this

number hoping that it would turn up lucky, I guess.

The Great Salt Lake is one of the truly unique geological features

of the world. Schoolchildren the world over have studied it in their

geography courses. The lake is the living remnant of huge Lake

Bonneville of Pleistocene time.

Lake Bonneville was an ice-age lake which covered much of northern

Utah, eastern Nevada, and southern Idaho, in places to a depth of over

1,000 feet. The lake drained northward into the Columbia River

system. As the climate of the world changed, evaporation from

Bonneville's surface exceeded the inflow of fresh water, reducing the

surface from about 20,000 square miles to near its present size, just

over 100 square miles.

Dissolved salts, left behind by the evaporation, have ranged from

16 to 26 percent and have accounted for many of the unique qualities

of Great Salt Lake. A swim in its waters is an essential element of

experiencing its wonders. A great industry is developing to extract

valuable minerals from the briny waters.

Antelope Island is situated in the southeast quadrant of the lake.

It is about 15 miles long by 4 miles wide and its mountain tops soar

1,500 feet above the lake's surface. As this island has been maintained

in a near primitive condition, it affords the best site for scientific

interpretation of the geologic and biologic phenomena of the lake.

There is also great potential for recreation development on the north

end of Antelope Island. The bill provides for the State of Utah to

develop and manage certain recreation facilities under agreement

with the Secretary of the Interior.

1
2 GREAT SALT LAKE NATIONAL MONUMENT

I have also provided in the bill that industrial and commercial

developments outside the monument would not be inhibited. Neither

are there any restrictions on water level fluctuations nor the State's

exercising any rights it may have to build dikes on the lakebed.

At this point in the record there shall be included a copy of the bill

and the departmental reports.

(The bill and reports follow:)

[S. 25, 90th Cong., first sess.]

A BILL To provide for the establishment of the Great Salt Lake National Monument, in the State of

Utah, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Interior may acquire

on behalf of the United States by gift, purchase with donated or appropriated

funds, or exchange, lands, submerged lands, waters, and interests therein, within

the area described in subsection (b) of this section for establishment as the Great

Salt Lake National Monument.

(b) The area referred to in subsection (a) of this section means—

(1) All of that certain area which, under the Federal survey of 1876, was

described as Antelope Island, in the Great Salt Lake, and which is within

the metes and bounds of such island as established by the meander line

under such survey, plus

(2) All of that certain area (consisting of submerged and relicted lands

and waters) appurtenant to the area described in paragraph (1) and bounded

by a line which lies one thousand yards distant from the nearest portion of

any part of the area described in paragraph (1).

(c) In exercising his authority to acquire property by exchange, the Secretary

may accept title to any non-Federal property within the boundaries of the

national monument, and in exchange therefor he may convey to the grantor of

such property any federally owned property under his jurisdiction which he

classifies as suitable for exchange or other disposal. The values of the properties

so exchanged either shall be approximately equal, or if they are not approximately

equal the values shall be equalized by the payment of cash to the grantor or to

the Secretary as the circumstances require.

SEC. 2. When title to the lands and waters within the areas described in section

1 of this Act is vested in the United States such areas shall thereby be established

as the Great Salt Lake National Monument and the Secretary of the Interior

shall publish notice of such establishment in the Federal Register.

SEC. 3. (a) The Secretary of the Interior shall administer the Great Salt Lake

National Monument in accordance with the Act of August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535;

16 U.S.C. 1-4), as amended and supplemented, and in connection therewith he

shall provide such interpretive and educational facilities as are necessary to depict

for the education and inspiration of the people of the United States the scientific

history of the Great Salt Lake and its environs.

(b) The Secretary is authorized to enter into an agreement with the State of

Utah whereby the State may provide recreational facilities for swimming, boating,

horseback riding, picnicking, and related facilities and services at such places

within the Great Salt Lake National Monument as the Secretary and the Governor of the State of Utah shall mutually agree are suitable therefor. Such agreement shall require the State of Utah to provide said facilities and services in

conformance with the Secretary's overall plan for, and administration of, the

Great Salt Lake National Monument pursuant to subsection (a) of this section,

and shall permit the State to charge fees for the use of said facilities and services in accordance with good business practices. If the Secretary finds that the

State of Utah has failed to comply with any provision of such agreement, he

may terminate the agreement one year after the date he gives written notice

to the State of his intention to do so: Provided, That a public hearing on the

proposed termination shall be conducted at least six months prior to the termination date for the purpose of hearing all interested parties, and thereafter the

Secretary may withdraw his notice of intention to terminate the agreement if,

in his judgment, the public interest will be served and protected under the

agreement.

(c) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as requiring that the water level of

Great Salt Lake shall be maintained at a constant level, and nothing in this Act

shall be construed to prevent or inhibit the State of Utah or its authorized agents
GREAT SALT LAKE NATIONAL MONUMENT 3

from exercising any right the State may have to build dikes on the bed of the

Great Salt Lake, to raise or lower water levels bordering the Great Salt Lake

National Monument, or after consultation with and approval of the Secretary,

to build dikes within the national monument to establish or maintain water levels.

SEC. 4. Neither the provisions of this Act nor the establishment of a monument pursuant to this Act shall be construed as (1) restricting or preventing in

any way the acquisition, on or after the date of its enactment, by the State

of Utah, any political subdivision thereof, or any person of any right with respect

to (A) any water flowing into the Great Salt Lake; (B) any water comprising a

part of the Great Salt Lake; or (C) any minerals (including oil or gas) or chemicals

within or under the Great Salt Lake; or (2) impairing, diminishing, or affecting

in any way any valid right of any such State, subdivision, or person existing on

the date of enactment of this Act with respect to any such water, minerals (including oil or gas), or chemicals; except that nothing in this section shall be

construed as authorizing any such State, or a political subdivision thereof, or

person to exercise any such rights referred to in this section within the boundaries

of any monument established pursuant to this Act, except to build dikes within

such monument, as provided in section 3 hereof, or (3) restricting or preventing

the State from exercising any right it may have to construct roads or dikes across

any part of the Great Salt Lake, to alter the shoreline, or to take any other

lawful action on the shores or bed of the Great Salt Lake outside of this monument.

SEC. 5. There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary

to carry out the provisions of this Act.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,

BUREAU OF THE BUDGET,

Washington, D.C., March 10, 1967.

Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON,

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request for the views of the

Bureau of the Budget on S. 25, a bill "To provide for the establishment of the

Great Salt Lake National Monument, in the State of Utah, and for other purposes."

The report which the Secretary of the Interior is submitting describes the scientific and historical importance of this area and recommends enactment of the

bill with certain amendments.

The Bureau of the Budget would have no objection to the enactment of S. 25

if amended as suggested by the Secretary of the Interior.

Sincerely yours,

WILFRED H. ItommEL,

Assistant Director for Legislative Reference.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,

Washington, D.C., March 10, 1967.

Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON,

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: Your committee has requested a report on S. 25, a

bill to provide for the establishment of the Great Salt Lake National Monument,

in the State of Utah, and for other purposes.

We recommend that the bill be enacted, with the amendment indicated below.

The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to acquire the area comprising

Antelope Island and certain land and water areas appurtenant to the island in.

Great Salt Lake, Utah, and to establish such areas as the Great Salt Lake National Monument. The national monument will encompass about 26,125 acres

of land on Antelope Island, as described in a Federal survey of 1876, and 15,300

acres of relicted land and water.

A 1963 Act of the Utah State Legislature created the Great Salt Lake Authority

and charged it with the responsibility for planning, acquisition, development,

operation, protection and maintenance of areas, resources and facilities under its

jurisdiction. The Authority is specifically authorized to make studies concern-
4 GREAT SALT LAKE NATIONAL MONUMENT

ing development of any part of Antelope Island for tourists and recreational uses

and to secure such part of Antelope Island by donation, purchase agreement

lease or other lawful means as deemed necessary for recreational use. (See

Title 65, Utah Code Annotated 1953, Replacement Volume 7, sec. 65-8-1 et seq.).

The Authority has prepared a preliminary master plan and has made a preliminary feasibility study for recreational development of the north end of the

island.

The bill therefore permits the Secretary of the Interior to enter into an agreement with the State under which the State may provide, at mutually agreed

upon sites within the national monument, certain recreational facilities and

related facilities and services. These services and facilities will be those ordinarily

provided by private concessioners, and the agreement with the State will be

governed by the same policies that apply to private concessioners. The provision

does not impinge upon the Federal Government's management responsibilities.

The bill will permit the Secretary to furnish essential facilities and services for

for the accommodation of visitors in case the State is unable to do so.

The bill provides that it shall not be construed as requiring a constant water

level in Great Salt Lake, nor as preventing the State of Utah or its authorized

agents from exercising any right the State may have to build dikes on the bed

of the lake, to raise or lower water levels bordering the national monument, or,

with the approval of the Secretary, to build dikes within the national monument

to establish or maintain water levels. In addition, the bill provides that nothing

in this Act shall be construed to restrict the State, its political subdivisions, or

any person from acquiring water or mineral rights outside of the national monument, nor as impairing any such existing rights, nor as preventing the State from

exercising any right it may have to construct roads or dikes across the lake, alter

the shoreline, or take other lawful action of the shores or bed of the lake outside

of the national monument.

Great Salt Lake is the living remnant of the vast Lake Bonneville of Pleistocene

time. Lake Bonneville is the classic Ice-Age lake, and is of world-wide renown.

Its wave-cut terraces, as much as a thousand feet above the present water level,

were recognized in the last century. Ever since it has been the subject of intensive

study—not only for its relict lake features, its great salt deposits, and its briny

remnant waters, but also for its effect on the distribution and evolution of plant

and animal life in the Bonneville Basin.

Antelope Island, a peninsula when Great Salt Lake is at its lowest, is an excellent platform from which to see and interpret the present lake and its physiographic history. Most of the lake terraces are present on the island, and in addition there are magnificent views of Great Salt Lake and of other islands, promontories, and mountain ranges that stand in and around the basin. The restricted

but fascinating lake life, including reef-like algae deposits, and the products of

evaporation can easily be interpreted by boat trips from this island base. The

effect of Great Salt Lake both as a barrier and as a magnet for fur trappers, explorers, Mormon pioneers, and railroad builders is an important part of the history

of westward expansion.

The scientific and historical importance of the area warrant the establishment

of the Great Salt Lake National Monument.

The Advisory Board on National Parks, Historic Sites, Buildings, and Monuments at its forty-eighth meeting in Washington, D.C., March 25-27, 1963,

considered the scientific values associated with Great Salt Lake, and recommended

that Antelope Island, or a portion thereof, be authorized for establishment in

the National Park System as the Great Salt Lake National Monument.

Section 2 of the bill defers the establishment of the national monument until

the Secretary has acquired all of the property within the areas described in section

1 of the bill. We believe the national monument should be established as soon

as the Secretary has acquired an amount of land that can be administered efficiently. We recommend therefore that section 2 be revised to read as follows:

"Sec. 2. When the Secretary of the Interior determines that lands and waters

or interests therein within the areas described in section 1 of this Act have been

acquired by the United States in sufficient quantity to provide an administrable

unit, he may establish the Great Salt Lake National Monument by publication

of notice in the Federal Register."

Based on preliminary data, we estimate that acquisition of the non-Federal

property within the boundaries we recommend for the proposed national monument will cost approximately $2,245,000. To develop the national monument

about $9,135,000 will be needed, and annual operating costs, when the monument

is fully developed, are expected to amount to $166,600.
GREAT SALT LAKE NATIONAL MONUMENT 5

The man-years and cost-data statement (based on current assumptions and

estimates) required by the act of July 25, 1956 (70 Stat. 652; 5 U.S.C. 642a),

when annual expenditures exceed $1 million, is enclosed.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program.

Sincerely yours,

CLARENCE F. PAUTZICE,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior.

[Enclosure]

Estimated additional man-years of civilian employment and expenditures for the

first 5 years of proposed new or expanded programs

Executive direction:

Superintendent _ 

Administrative assistant 

Clerk-typist 

Total, executive direction 

Substantive:

Supervisory ranger 

Supervisory naturalist 

Park ranger 

Foreman 

Maintenanceman 

Caretaker 

Laborer _ 

Park ranger (seasonal) 

Park naturalist (seasonal) _ 

Life guard (seasonal) 

Total, substantive 

Total, estimated additional manyears of civilian employment 

Estimated additional expenditures:

Personal services 

All other 

Total 

Estimated obligations:

Land and property acquisition 

Development 

Operations (management, protection,

and maintenance) 

Total 

19CY 19C Y+1 19C Y+2 19C Y+3 19C Y+4

1.0 1.0 1.0 1 1

1.0 1.0 1 1

1.0 1.0 1.0 1 1

2.0 3.0 3.0 3 3

1.0 1.0 1.0 1 1

1.0 1.0 1.0 1 1

1.0 1.0 1 1

.5 1 1

1.0 1.0 1.0 1 1

1.0 2.0 2 2

.5 1.5 2.0 3 3

1.0 2.0 2 2

.5 1.0 1 1

2.0 2.0 2 2

3.5 10.0 13.5 15 15

5.5 13 16.5 18 18

$50, 500 $87, 900 $108.600 $119,000 $119, 000

2, 686, 600 2, 010, 700 2, 630, 600 2, 317, 600 1, 917, 600

2, 737, 100 2, 098, 600 2. 739, 200 2, 436, 600 2, 036, 600

2, 245, 000 

1, 925, 000 2, 480, 000 1, 890, 000 2, 470, 000 370,000

67,100 118,600 149,200 166,600 166,600

4,237, 100 2, 598, 600 2, 039, 200 2, 636, 600 536,600

Senator Moss. The record of the hearings held last year in Salt

Lake City and here in Washington will be included by reference in

this record.

The reason these hearings will be included by reference is that the

bill this year is nearly identical with the bill of the last Congress.

It includes the very slight amendments that were suggested by the

Department during the hearings last year. The hearings, for that

reason, are fully applicable and will be included by reference.

The Department witness will testify shortly, and he does have one

very minor amendment to suggest this year. We will have him, of

course, testify about that.

The State of Utah has created a Great Salt Lake Authority and

charged it with planning for the development of the Great Salt Lake.

The Great Salt Lake Authority adopted a resolution—I think it was

adopted just last Friday—pertaining to this bill, and that resolution

76-766--67 2
6 GREAT SALT LAKE NATIONAL MONUMENT

will be made a part of the record at this point. I don't know whether

it is necessary to read it all. I can read the last moving clause.

Now therefore, by reason of the foregoing recitations, it is hereby firmly resolved and declared, that the Congress of the United States and the Utah delega- tion therein be advised that the Great Salt Lake Authority endorses, approves

of and recommends the creation and establishment of a national monument on

Antelope Island and in furtherance thereof, that S. 25 of the 90th session of the

Congress calling for the same, be enacted by the Congress at the earliest possible time.

(The resolution referred to follows:)

A RESOLUTION OF THE GREAT SALT LAKE AUTHORITY FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT

AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE TIME BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF A NATIONAL MONUMENT ON ANTELOPE ISLAND IN THE GREAT SALT LAKE AS Now

PROPOSED BY S. 25 BEFORE THE CONGRESS

Whereas that lake known as Great Salt Lake is situated in the northern part of the State of Utah; and

Whereas the said Lake is the greatest and last of the inland seas and the his- toric, scientific, and recreational features of the same are such that its interest

and notoriety is State, National, and worldwide; and

Whereas the development of such historic, scientific, and recreational advantages

and features of this great inland sea has been long neglected and the natural attractions of the same depressed; and

Whereas there is now pending before the Congress of the United States, this

the 90th session thereof, a bill (S. 25) which calls for the creation, establishment,

and maintenance of a national monument and State park on Antelope Island in

the Great Salt Lake in the State of Utah; and

Whereas the express provisions of said bill call for the preservation of the ge- ologic, historic, and scientific values prominent on Antelope Island on the center

and southern reaches thereof, and further call for the use of the northern portions

of Antelope Island by the State of Utah, for the development, establishment,

and maintenance of a State park and recreational facilities thereon; and

Whereas there is proposed by the Great Salt Lake Authority the creation and

establishment of a State park on the northern end of Antelope Island, which park

will reasonably obtain to the public use the recreational advantages of the Great

Salt Lake and Antelope Island; but

Whereas such proposed State park will not establish, maintain or preserve the historic, scientific, and natural features of the northern central, central, and

southern reaches of Antelope Island and will provide access from the mainland

to the island only from the north in Davis County and not from the south in Salt Lake County, whereas the national monument and State park, as proposed by

S. 25 now before the Congress of the United States, would establish, maintain,

and preserve the same and provide access as well from the mainland to Antelope

Island from the south in Salt Lake County; and

Whereas it is the mind and judgment of the Great Salt Authority that the

passage of S. 25 referred to herein will be consistent with the objectives to be obtained by the development of the State park as proposed by the Great Salt Lake

Authority, and will result in the establishment of a purposeful, beneficial, and

permanent development of the Great Salt Lake and Antelope Island for the use

and enjoyment of the public, and further that a national monument on Antelope

Island would be and is in the best interest of the State of Utah and its people:

Now, therefore, by reason of the foregoing recitations, it is hereby firmly

Resolved and declared, That the Congress of the United States and the Utah

delegation therein be advised that the Great Salt Lake Authority endorses,

approves of, and recommends the creation and establishment of a national monument on Antelope Island and in furtherance thereof, that S. 25 of the 90th session

of the Congress calling for the same, be enacted by the Congress at the earliest

possible time.

GREAT SALT LAKE AUTHORITY,

BY GEORGE BUZIANIS, Chairman.

Senator Moss. I also have a letter from the Governor of the State of

Utah, Gov. Calvin Rampton, dated March 10, 1967, in which Governor Rampton endorses S. 25. His letter will be made a part of the

record at this point.
GREAT SALT LAKE NATIONAL MONUMENT 7

Since it is not very long, I think I will read the letter so that we are

all aware of what the Governor of the State of Utah says. It is as

follows:

Senator FRANK E. Moss,

Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR Moss: Because of the fact that the Utah State Legislature

adjourned only yesterday and I have on my desk approximately 100 measures of

which I must take executive action within the next ten days, it is impossible for

me to get to Washington on March 12th to appear before the U.S. Senate Committee which is considering S. 25.

I am, therefore, requesting that you either read into the record of the hearing,

or attach to the record, this letter which states the official position of the state of

Utah in regard to this bill.

As you will recall, I did appear before the subcommittee which considered an

almost identical bill in the 89th Congress when the subcommittee held hearings

at Salt Lake City on October 4, 1966. The position of the state is unchanged

since that time. We unqualifiedly endorse the enactment of S. 25.

Since the hearing which was held last October, two significant developments

have occurred in regard to the state's proposal to proceed with a development on

the north end of Antelope Island hopefully within the terms of S. 25. The

Utah statute which had created the Great Salt Lake Authority, the state body

which was charged with the responsibility of the state development on the Island,

was declared unconstitutional on technical grounds by the Supreme Court of

the state of Utah. The Legislature of the state of Utah re-enacted this legislation, correcting the technical defects which had resulted in the failure of the first

act. I have reappointed the members of the Great Salt Lake Authority, and

the body is again operational.

In preparing the legislation adopted by the immediate past legislative session,

S.B. 60, great care was taken to make certain that the provisions of the state bill

were in all respects consistent with and harmonious with the objectives of S. 25.

The Great Salt Lake Authority is charged with the responsibility of making certain that any state development on the north end of the Island which would be

made by the state, conform to the high standards of the National Park Service,

both as to construction and as to operation.

I am most enthusiastic about the possibility for the development of the Island

under the joint sponsorship of the United States government and the government

of the State of Utah. I feel this offers an excellent opportunity for joint statefederal cooperation in a project which will be of inestimable value, not only to the

people of the State of Utah, but to the people of the United States.

Sincerely,

CALVIN L. RAMPTON, Governor.

Senator Moss. The bill, in section 3(b), on page 3, provides that

the Secretary of the Interior, "Is authorized to enter into an agreement

with the State of Utah whereby the State may provide recreational

facilities for swimming, boating, horseback riding, picnicking, and

related facilities and services at such places within the Great Salt

Lake National Monument as the Secretary and the Governor of the

State of Utah shall mutually agree are suitable therefor. Such

agreement shall require the State of Utah to provide said facilities

and services in conformance with the Secretary's overall plan for an

administration of the Great Salt Lake Monument pursuant to subsection (a) of this section and shall permit the State to charge fees for

the use of said facilities and services in accordance with good business

practices."

There is more to the subsection, but I won't read more than that.

I think that explains the reference in the Governor's letter that it

is his belief that the State and Federal Government could work

STATE OF UTAH,

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR,

Salt Lake City, March 10, 1967.
8 GREAT SALT LAKE NATIONAL MONUMENT

cooperatively on the development of the Great Salt Lake National

Monument.

I have here a brief summary of the bill. I suppose this ought to

appear in the record at some point.

S. 25, the bill before us, would provide for the establishment of the

Great Salt Lake Monument. In area there would be 26,125 acres of

land, and 15,300 acres of relicted land and water. By that we mean

the beaches that became exposed when the lake receded, as it has

over a period of years.

The location of Antelope Island is in Davis County, Utah, about

12 miles from Salt Lake City.

The population of Salt Lake City metropolitan area is over 500,000

persons. It is expected there will be 320,000 visits annually to the

island.

The cost estimates are that the land acquisition will be about

$2,245,000 and it will take about $9,135,000 for an overall 5-year

development program on the island and for the approaches. The

annual operation after development will be about $167,000.

There is one other inclusion I want to make in the record before

I call on my colleagues.

On Friday, January 20, 1967, the Salt Lake Tribune, which is a

daily newspaper published in Salt Lake City, had a lead editorial

entitled "Time To Push Antelope Island `Park'." This will be

included in the record at this point. It is indicative of local sentiment

about the national monument.

(The editorial referred to follows:)

[From the Salt Lake Tribune, Jan. 20, 19671

TIME TO PUSH ANTELOPE ISLAND "PARK"

Utah state financial difficulties, coupled with the urgent need to expand touristeconomic resources, should encourage more local support of a proposal to establish

a great Salt Lake National Monument on Antelope Island. This famous and

unique tourist asset has been neglected too long.

Senator Frank E. Moss, who has had a bill in Congress since 1960 for National

Park Service administration of the island, has announced he plans to reintroduce

the measure in the present session and press for action on it. The proposal was

aired at hearings of the Senate Parks and Recreation Subcommittee in Salt Lake

City last year, with most witnesses favoring the general plan.

Meantime, plans are under way to strengthen or clairfy the eminent domain

powers of the Great Salt Lake Authority, established by the State Legislature in

1963. The Utah State Supreme Court recently ruled that the authority could

not legally condemn the privately-owned 4,000 acres at the island's north end, as it

had proposed to do, for a public bathing, boating and general recreation area.

Governor Rampton and members of the Great Salt Lake Authority have emphasized that there is no conflict between the state and national plans; in fact both

may be needed to acquire and develop the island and protect its unique scientific

and recreational advantages. The owners of the island are especially opposed to

selling only part of it for a park or resort.

The Moss bill would designate the entire island of 29,000 acres o land and

adjacent water (1,000 feet out from shore) as the national monument, with the

proviso that the state would be given a long-term concession to develop and

operate recreational facilities at the north end and be allowed to continue with

diking activities in an experimental program to create a fresh-water lake on the

eastern shore of the island. The remainder of the island would be kept in its

semi-primitive state. The Moss bill, which has been amended and refined repeatedly in accordance with Utah requirements, would not interfere with chemical

and mineral exploration and development operations under way or contemplated

elsewhere on or in Great Salt Lake. The Tribune is on record in favor of the

Moss bill in principle.
GREAT SALT LAKE NATIONAL MONUMENT 9

We recommend to all interested the published account of the hearings of the

Senate subcommittee on the Moss bill (Senate 25) recently published by the

Government Printing Office. The 117-page booklet emphasizes the several

advantages of federal-state cooperation in developing and protecting the island.

The National Park Service estimates that acquisition of the non-federal property

within the boundaries recommended would cost about $1,700,000, that development would require about $8,840,000 and annual operating costs would amount

to $300,000. Governor Rampton explained to the subcommittee that the state

of Utah could not afford to buy the entire island but agreed that it would be

advantageous to have it all in public control. He said he did not fear conflict

with the federal government in administering the island. Haven Barlow of Davis

County, now president of the Utah State Senate, agreed that the state could

not finance the undertaking as envisioned by the Moss bill but expressed his

county's deep interest in utilizing the recreational advantages of the area.

The bill for the national monument may need further distilling but it seems to

include the safeguards needed for commercial exploitation of resources of the lake

without diluting the recreational advantages of Antelope Island. The possibility

of a loop trip from the island to Promontory Point and Golden Spike and back,

as envisioned by the National Park Service (through proper location of dikes)

adds to the recreational possibilities.

Senator Moss. I am delighted that my colleagues, Senator Hansen

and Senator Hatfield, are here today. Both Senators, I am sure,

have some personal familiarity with the Great Salt Lake. the State of

Utah, and this area generally.

I am going to ask if either of them has any comments he would

like to make at this time or anything that he would like to have

inserted in the record before we call on the departmental witnesses.

Senator Hansen.

Senator HANSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to be afforded this opportunity to make some observations.

I might say, from a very personal vantage point, that my father

and mother spent their honeymoon at Great Salt Lake many, many

years ago.

I have visited this area. I am most impressed with it.

I appreciate, as all Americans must who have been privileged to see

it, the great opportunity it holds to spell out more clearly an understanding of our geologic past than we would otherwise have. I

certainly agree witk you that it is in the national interest, as well as in

the local interest, to see that its potential is more completely utilized.

On behalf of Senator Bennett, of the State of Utah, I would like to

prcsent a statement he has prepared. I ask that it be made a part of

the record. I won't take time to read it now. I think it deals generally with the same material that was included in your very fine

remarks.

Senator Moss. Thank you. It will be included in full in the

record at the end of your remarks.

Senator HANSEN. Senator Bennett had a major conflict this morning. He is a member of the Committee on Standards and Conduct,

and that committee is involved this morning in some hearings. On

behalf of Senator Bennett I would like to ask that the Court Report

Decision No. 31 of the Supreme Court of the United States be made

a part of the record and printed therein, or at least by reference.

Senator Moss. It will be included by reference and, since it is a

separate printed document, will be included in the file.

Senator HANSEN. Also Senator Bennett would like to have included

and made a part of the record a bill to which you have already referred
GREAT SALT LAKE NATIONAL MONUMENT

parenthetically in the letter from Governor Rampton—senate bill

No. 60 of the State of Utah.

Senator Moss. That will be included. I am not aware whether

there were any amendments to the bill, but the bill was signed into

law by the Governor, and I assume with no appreciable amendment,

I am not aware of any.

Senator HANSEN. I could not say as to that.

I have no further statement, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.

Senator Moss. Thank you, Senator Hansen, Senator Bennett's

statement and the State bill will be included at this point.

(The statement and bill referred to follow:)

STATEMENT OF HON. WALLACE F. BENNETT, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF

UTAH

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much this opportunity to present views to

the committee on the proposal to create a Great Salt Lake National Monument.

I would like to make it perfectly clear at the outset to the Committee—as I

have many times in the past—that I favor an orderly development of the Great

Salt Lake as a tourist attraction, possibly to help it return to its past glories of

25 or so years ago when it was a tremendous attraction.

The Great Salt Lake, Utah's unique inland sea, is perhaps one of the most

outstanding physiographic features of the western United States. It is "great"

in the sense that it is the largest lake in the United States west of the Mississippi

River and the largest salt lake in North America. It is only a remnant of its

predecessor, Lake Bonneville, which covered an area ten times as large as the

present lake about 50,000 to 100,000 years ago. At its highest level, Lake Bonneville covered 19,750 square miles, was 346 miles long and 145 miles wide. It

reached a depth of 1,050 feet. Today we have the Great Salt Lake which is

about 70 miles long, 50 miles wide, 34 feet deep and covering an area of about

1,500 square miles.

In addition, Great Salt Lake today is one of the more valuable natural resources

in my state. Certainly one of its great assets is its attraction as a potential tourist

center. Unfortunately, however, the lake and its surroundings have gradually

deteriorated. Its waters have become polluted, although there has been some

progress made in alleviating this problem. The lake level also has dropped due

both to dry weather and to diversion and impoundment of waters that once fed

the lake.

Now, in addition to its natural and physical problems

'

the lake is involved in

a complex problem in resource management involving the interests of several

State agencies, various Federal agencies, five counties, numerous municipalities,

industrial concerns, private ownership, the Utah Legislature, the United States

Congress and, as of two weeks ago, even the United States Supreme Court.

On top of all this the Committee today is opening the 1967 hearings on the

Great Salt Lake National Monument Bill (S. 25) which would provide for a

monument comprising Antelope Island and adjacent land water areas of the lake.

Under the bill, the National Monument would include about 29,000 acres of

land on Antelope Island and 15,300 acres of relicted land and water. The monument

boundary would generally lie 3,000 feet from the island and encircle it.

Last October when this Committee held its fact-finding hearing on the proposal,

I submitted a number of questions which I felt should be answered before the

Congress acted on any bill. Many of the questions I posed were answered—

some satisfactorily, others just fairly satisfactorily—in a letter dated October 11,

1966 to Chairman Bible from the Interior Department. Since the letter is part

of the file I will not go into it in detail at this time.

I do wish to touch on one or two additional points, however, and bring to the

Committee's attention some developments which have occurred just in the last

two weeks which, in my mind, provide reasons for the Committee and Congress

to delay any action on this proposal for at least two or three years.

Taking these developments chronologically, first on March 1, 1967, the State

of Utah filed suit in the United States Supreme Court seeking title to the relicted

lands in the Great Salt Lake. This filing of an original action in the Supreme

Court is uncommon and requires the court's consent. Included in the documents

filed by the State is a motion for leave to file a complaint by which the court can

agree to hear the case.
GREAT SALT LAKE NATIONAL MONUMENT 11

As the members of the full Interior Committee know all too well, the question

of the ownership of the relicted lake lands has been in contention for a number

of years. We thought that we had licked the problem last year when Congress

passed a law which provided that (1) the Secretary of the Interior can determine

the fair market value of the relicted land which then can be sold to Utah, or (2)

the court can adjudicate the question of ownership.

Interior Secretary Stewart L. Udall has ruled that the fair market value of the

relicted lands is about $3.7 million.

In its suit the State of Utah asks the Supreme Court to declare that the United

States "has no right, title or interest whatsoever to any part of said land or

minerals located therein or any part thereof, with the exception of the lands

legally purchased and acquired by the United States * * * from the State of

Utah."

The suit contents that "the unqualified ownership of the State of Utah in and

to these lands has been generally recognized and undisputed . . ."

The reason this matter is pertinent to Antelope Island and the National Monument bill is that according to the best information I can get the question of

ownership of a great many acres of relicted land and water around Antelope

Island are now before the Supreme Court awaiting adjudication with the rest of

the relicted lands.

The Federal Government has 60 days in which to file an answer to Utah's

Petition to the Supreme Court. The Court must then decide whether to approve

Utah's motion for leave to file a formal complaint. If it rules to take it up, there

is no telling how long it will take to decide this vital matter.

For the Committee's files—and not so much for the hearing record—I am

submitting a copy of the Utah motion filed by the State's Attorney General with

the U.S. Supreme Court on March 1, 1967.

That now brings us to the next major development.

The 1967 Utah legislature has passed and the Governor has signed (on March

8, 1967) Utah Senate Bill No. 60, a proposal sponsored and supported by both

sides of the aisle. In fact the vote in the Utah State Senate was 26 to 0 and in

the Utah House it was 49 to 15.

Utah S.B. No. 60 is a bill providing for, among other items, the State development of the mainland, islands, and water within the Great Salt Lake; creating

the Great Salt Lake Authority to execute a program for this development; and

appropriating $400,000 from the General Fund for the authority and for the

development of the Antelope Island area.

I think that the Committee files on S. 25 should have a complete copy of this

law which I would like to provide at this time.

I also think it would benefit the Committee for me to point out a few of the

provisions in the new Utah law.

The very first section says:

"There is established a Great Salt Lake Authority (hereinafter to be known

as the authority) for the purpose of establishing and coordinating programs for

the development of recreational areas and water conservation within the Great

Salt Lake and its environs, and in conjunction therewith to provide for:

"(1) the development of such area of Antelope Island as the authority may

determine to be suitable and desirable for recreational usage."

Skipping over the area discussing a tailings test, creation and duties of the

authority, etc., we come to section 65-8-4 which says:

"The authority shall have the following powers and duties to implement the

provisions of section 65-8-1.

"(1) to acquire real and personal property in the name of the authority by all

legal and proper means, including purchase, gift, devise, lease, exchange or eminent

domain."

And Section two:

"To construct and maintain those facilities consistent with the purposes of this

act; except that in regard to facilities constructed, operated, or leased as concessions on Antelope Island, the authority shall adopt guidelines similar to the

standards used in our National Park system and approved by the State Park and

Recreation Commission as to type, number, and quality of such facilities, in order

to preserve the beauty and natural features of the island and to safeguard it against

excess exploitation; and to construct and maintain such access roads as are not

otherwise provided for in this act."

Moving to section seven, the new Utah law states:

"To proceed without delay to gather all studies, investigations and reports

regarding the Great Salt Lake and concerning the development of any part of

Antelope Island for any of the purposes enumerated in section 65-8-1."
12 GREAT SALT LAKE NATIONAL MONUMENT

The next section points out that acquisition of the property will be by eminent

domain.

The Utah law even goes into the road program which the Utah Legislature felt

would be desirable.

Section 65-8-6 tells us:

"Within the limitations of available funds the State Road Commission is authorized to construct a road from the town of Syracuse to the north end of Antelope

Island along with the necessary roads on the island to serve the recreation

development."

Mr. Chairman, this Utah bill was introduced so as to grant statutory strength

to the planned development on Antelope Island on a state level.

The Great Salt Lake Authority was frustrated last year when it attempted

to condemn the northern end of the Antelope Island when the Utah Supreme Court

declared the State agency lacked eminent domain powers. This law now grants

the authority such powers.

Actually, the State is seeking a development of the long-dormant recreational

potential of the northern end of Antelope Island which comprise the only worthwhile, National Monument standard lands from a tourist and beach standpoint.

As I have pointed out, Mr. Chairman, the State now has the authority to

proceed with this development. It has the power of eminent domain. It has

an appropriation of $400,000 for the development program and, as I have shown

from the new State law, it must comply with guidelines similar to the standards

used in the National Park system.

My point is that since the State law itself calls for a development program to

proceed under National Park Service standards, there is nothing that could really

happen in the interim to preclude the Congress from taking national action later.

I say let us give the State of Utah a chance to come up with its own program

for Antelope Island. This delay which I propose will give Congress an excellent

opportunity to watch a State agency at work. I am fairly certain that the results

will be commendable and that in the long run there will be no need for any Federal

intervention in the middle of the Great Salt Lake since most of the S. 25 objectives

are covered in the new Utah law.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, in light of:

1. The question hanging over our heads in the form of a pending U.S. Supreme

Court case on exactly who owns the relicted lands around the lake (a number of

acres which are involved in S. 25) ;

2. The overwhelming Utah Legislature's approval of the Utah Great Salt

Lake bill;

3. The tailings road tests which are currently under investigation;

4. The question of costs of the National Monument—I have seen assessed

figures of the land ranging from $10 an acre to $62 an acre;

5. Mounting deficits and inflation which will receive a contributon of $9.1 (m)

million via a National Park Service development program and $2.2 (m) million

for purchase of the entire island;

6. The question that many Utahans and I have over the effect a National

Monument at Antelope Island will have on the development of the tremendous

mineral potential (I realize there is language in the bill providing for that development and I have been told by the Park Service "don't worry about that," but

Administrations do change, interpretations change, rule-makers change, and,

besides, I get paid to "worry" about Utah) ;

I recommend that this Committee defer action on S. 25 at least for two or three

years.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[State bill No. 60 by E. LaMar Buckner, Ernest H. Dean, Ezra T. Clark]

AN ACT Repealing and reenacting sections 65-8-1, 65-8-2, 65-8-3, 65-8-4,

65-8-5, 65-8-6, 65-8-7, and 65-8-8, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as enacted

by chapter 161, Laws of Utah 1963, and enacting new sections 65-8-9 and

65-8-10, Utah Code Annotated 1953; providing for the development of the

mainland, islands, and water within the Great Salt Lake meander line established by the United States Surveyor General; providing for the creation of the

Great Salt Lake Authority to execute a program for such development; appropriating $400,000 from the general fund plus the unexpended balance of appropriation made by chapter 175, section 13, item 129, Laws of Utah 1965, to the

Great Salt Lake Authority, and providing an emergency clause
GREAT SALT LAKE NATIONAL MONUMENT 13

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Utah:

SECTION 1. Sections 65-8-1, 65-8-2, 65-8-3, 65-8-4, 65-8-5, 65-8-6, 65-8-7

and 65-8-8, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as enacted by Chapter 161, Laws of

Utah 1963, are hereby repealed and reenacted to read:

65-8-1. There is established a great salt lake authority (hereinafter to be

known as the authority) for the purpose of establishing and coordinating programs

for the development of recreational areas and water conservation within the great

salt lake and its environs, and in conjunction therewith to provide for:

(1) The development of such area of antelope island as the authority may

determine to be suitable and desirable for recreational usage.

(2) Testing the feasibility of the use of tailings in the development of great

salt lake and its environs.

(3) The use of tailings in the development of the great salt lake and its environs.

(4) The restoration and preservation of points of historical interest on antelope

island.

65-8-2. "Great salt lake and its environs" shall mean and include the mainland, peninsulas, islands, and water within the great salt lake meander line

established by the United States surveyor general.

65-8-3. The authority is to be comprised of five persons, no more than three

of whom shall be of the same political party, appointed by the governor, by and

with the consent of the senate, who shall be selected because of their understanding of and demonstrated interest in the development of the great salt lake and its

environs. One member shall be selected from each of the counties bordering on

the great salt lake. Three of the five members shall be appointed for terms

beginning on the effective date of this act and ending March 1, 1969, the remaining

two members shall be appointed for terms beginning on the effective date of this

act and ending March 1, 1971. All subsequent appointments shall be for terms

of four years. Vacancies occurring shall be filled by the governor for the unexpired

term.

Members are not entitled to compensation but they may be paid a per diem

allowance for expenses as may be fixed by the board of examiners.

At the first meeting of the authority and annually thereafter the authority

shall elect one of its members as chairman, who shall hold office for a term of one

year and until his successor is elected. If a vacancy occurs in the office of chairman, the authority shall appoint another of its members to fill such vacancy for

the remainder of the term. Three members of the authority shall constitute a

quorum.

65-8-4. The authority shall have the following powers and duties to implement

the provisions of section 65-8-1.

(1) To acquire real and personal property in the name of the authority by all

legal and proper means, including purchase, gift, devise, lease, exchange or eminent

domain. In acquiring any real or personal property the credit of the state shall

not be pledged without the consent of the legislature. Gifts and devises of land

or other property may be accepted at the discretion of the authority.

(2) To construct and maintain those facilities consistent with the purposes

of this act; except that in regard to facilities constructed, operated, or leased as

concessions on antelope island, the authority shall adopt guidelines similar to

the standards used in our national park system and approved by the state park

and recreation commission as to type, number, and quality of such facilities, in

order to preserve the beatuy and natural features of the island and to safeguard

it against excess exploitation; and to construct and maintain such access roads

as are not otherwise provided for in this act.

(3) To operate under its own administration or to lease or rent concessions of

all lawful and appropriate types on properties owned or administered by it to

persons, partnerships and corporations for a valuable consideration and upon such

terms and conditions as the authority deems fit and proper.

(4) To hire officers and employees as required at a rate of compensation to

be determined by it. To adopt rules and regulations governing the hiring,

conditions of employment, compensation conduct, and termination of such

officers and employees, consistent with state law.

(5) To deputize, or obtain from local authorities by contract, such peace officers

as may be necessary to protect real and personal properties owned or administered

by the authority and to enforce state laws within the area of its jurisdiction.

(6) To seek assistance from federal and local governments in planning and

developing uses of the great salt lake. All departments, agencies, officers and

employees of the state of Utah are authorized and directed to give to the authority

such consultation and assistance as the authority may reasonably request.
14 GREAT SALT LAKE NATIONAL MONUMENT

(7) To proceed without delay to gather all studies, investigations and reports regarding the great salt lake and concerning the development of any part of antelope island for any of the purposes enumerated in section 65-8-1.

65-8-5. Acquisition of property by eminent domain shall be in the manner

authorized by Chapter 34 of Title 78, Utah Code Annotated 1953.

65-8-6. Within the limitations of available funds the state road commission

is authorized to construct a road from the town of Syracuse to the north end of

antelope island along with the necessary roads on the island to serve the recrea- tional development. These roads are to be located by the state road commission

with approval of the authority, and are to be programmed for design and con- struction upon the securing of antelope island property.

65-8-7. The legislature hereby ratifies all contracts, agreements and any and

all other obligations incurred by the de facto great salt lake authority prior to

the effective date of this act and hereby declares said obligations to be binding

on the authority established herein.

SEC. 2. Sections 65-8-9 and 65-8-10, Utah Code Annotated 1953, are enacted

to read:

65-8-9. If any provision of this act or the application of any provision to any

person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this act shall not be

affected thereby.

65-8-10. There is appropriated from the general fund, from funds not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $400,000 to the authority established in this act for the

purposes described for the period beginning July 1,1967 and ending June 30,1969,

plus the unexpended balance of appropriation made by Chapter 175, Section 13,

Item 129, Laws of Utah 1965.

SEC. 3. This act shall take effect upon approval.

Senator Moss. Senator Hatfield, do you have any comments at

this point?

Senator HATFIELD. Not at this point, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Moss. We will proceed, then, to hear from the National

Park Service.

I pointed out, Senator Hatfield, before you came in, that last year

we held full hearings on a similar bill, and there are no significant

differences in this bill. In effect all the testimony here is relevant,

and the Park Service, therefore, is not expected to cover the same

ground. But we have asked the Park Service to come here and, in

effect, bring us up to date—tell us whether there are any changed

conditions, if the Park Service position is modified in any way, if

there are any changed estimates on cost, and whether the position of

the Bureau of the Budget is the same as it was last year.

It is felt that if those matters can be brought up to date, basically

the subcommittee and the full committee then can make its decision

based on testimony that was given last year.

Mr. Theodore Swem, Assistant Director of the Park Service, will be

our witness. Will the other gentlemen from the Park Service come to

the table also? If we have any questions of any of you, you can respond from there.

STATEMENT OF THEODORE SWEM, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE; ACCOMPANIED BY FRANK E. HARRISON,

CHIEF, DIVISION OF LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS; AND

J. F. CARITHERS, ASSISTANT TO THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR,

REGIONAL OFFICE, SANTA FE

Mr. SWEM. Mr. Chairman, I have a brief statement which I would

like to read.

Before doing so, I would like to ask your permission that, following

my reading of the statement, we ask Mr. Carithers, who is our assistant

to the regional director, from our regional office in Santa Fe, to refer
GREAT SALT LAKE NATIONAL MONUMENT 15

to the two exhibits we have here on the easel so that he briefly can

orient the committee concerning the particular island involved and

then also to explain our development plan for the proposal.

Senator Moss. That will be a satisfactory procedure.

Would you also identify Mr. Harrison?

Mr. SWEM. Mr. Harrison, on the left, is the Assistant to our Director

for Legislation.

Senator Moss. Thank you. You may proceed.

Mr. SWEM. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, Utah's

Great Salt Lake is one of the most famous scientific phenomena in

this country. It is known all over the world to scientists and laymen as the living remnant of the ancient ice age lake which covered

almost 20,000 square miles. The lake, called Lake Bonneville, existed

more than 30,000 years ago. Over the years it has shrunk to the

Great Salt Lake as we know it today—leaving salt flats, great concentrations of brine, and ancient lake terraces marking the levels

where the waters once stood.

The geologic history of this ancient lake and its effect on surrounding

plants and animals is a classic in modern science. What is needed is a

site accessible to the public where this story can be told and where

people can see for themselves the features left by thousands of years

of evaporation. We believe that Antelope Island, almost surrounded

by the waters of Great Salt Lake, is ideal for such a site. We therefore

support S. 25, which authorizes the establishment of a Great Salt

Lake National Monument on Antelope Island and certain surrounding

waters.

Three members of this committee—Senator Moss, Senator Church,

and Senator Jordan—visited the site and took testimony at Salt

Lake City in June of 1966. For the benefit of those members who

have not seen the area, I will describe it briefly.

Antelope Island is actually a peninsula when the lake is at its

lowest. It comprises about 26,000 acres of land, which is largely in

one ownership. It is located about 16 miles from Salt Lake City

and may be reached by a road which runs from Salt Lake City to the

south end of the island. The island is about 14 miles long by 4 miles

wide at its widest point. The island is used primarily for cattle

grazing. There is a ranch house with some associated outbuildings.

The principal owner, the Island Ranching Co., has expressed a

willingness to sell its holdings for the development of a national

monument. We believe that the total land acquisition cost will not

exceed $2,245,000.

The National Park Service has studied the possibilities of developing Antelope Island for visitor use and interpretation. An island road

some 45 miles in total length will be the most important means of

interpreting the Great Salt Lake story. A visitor center and headquarters area also will be developed. A series of exhibits and overlooks will be placed along the roads and trails. We estimate that

the total cost of development will be about $9,135,000 and annual

operating costs will be about $167,000 when the monument is fully

developed. An operating staff of 13 full-time employees and 5

man-years of seasonal personnel is contemplated.

Mr. Chairman, at this point I wish to direct the committee's

attention to the provisions on pages 3 and 4 of the bill which authorize the Secretary of the Interior to permit the State of Utah to
16 GREAT SALT LAKE NATIONAL MONUMENT

develop certain recreational facilities and related facilities and services. These are provisions not usually found in the park legislation that comes before this committee. There is, however, good

reason for them in this case. The State of Utah is also interested

in the preservation of a portion of Antelope Island as a public resource.

In 1963 the State legislature created a body called the Great Salt

Lake Authority and charged it with making studies of the public use

of the island for tourism. The authority has since made preliminary

plans for the development of a State recreation area on a 4,200- to

4,400-acre tract of land at the north end of Antelope Island. According to the testimony of Governor Rampton at the hearings in Salt

Lake City last June, if this bill passes, the State expects to develop

its facilities at the north end of the island in accordance with the

general development plan for the national monument; and if the bill

does not pass, then the State would go ahead on its own and develop

this recreation area. On March 8, 1967, a bill was signed into law

by the Governor authorizing an appropriation of $400,000 for the

Great Salt Lake Authority for land acquisition and development on

Antelope Island.

Given this interest on the part of the State, we believe it would be

appropriate to permit the State to provide the visitor facilities and

services ordinarily furnished in the parks by concessioners, that is,

facilities for swimming, boating, horseback riding, and picnicking.

These facilities would be provided pursuant to an agreement between

the Secretary of the Interior and the Governor of the State. Any

developments by the State will be carried out in accordance with the

Secretary's overall plan for the administration of the national monument. We believe that in this fashion the Federal Government can

work most effectively with the State to bring about the best opportunity to interpret this area to the visiting public. We estimate that

about 320,000 people will visit this area during the first year after the

monument is fully developed.

We believe the enactment of S. 25 will provide for a significant

contribution to our Nation's inventory of outdoor resources.

Thank you very much.

Senator Moss. Thank you.

First of all, I think your estimates of costs for acquisition, development, and operation vary from the estimates that were made last year

by the Department. Can you tell me the differences and explain

why there is a different figure in each of those instances?

Mr. SWEM. Yes, I can do so, Mr. Chairman.

The land acquisition cost as reported last year was a maximum of

$1,700,000. This year in our statement we are reporting a maximum

of $2,245,000.

As you know, during the past year or two we have been trying to,

improve our land cost estimating. We are now using a formula,

and it has been applied for this year's estimate, which includes a,

sufficient amount for what we call contingency costs as well as administrative costs. This is the formula we are now applying to the cost

estimates that we work up for any area that is proposed for addition

to the national park system.

The development cost increased from $8,840,000 to $9,135,000.

Actually the reason for this increase is that the construction costs

were updated to 1967 from 1966. Mainly this reflects the increase

in the building cost index.
GREAT SALT LAKE NATIONAL MONUMENT 17

The operations cost last year was reported at $300,000 per year,

and I am sorry to say that in submitting that cost last year we made

an error in our calculations and in going over and updating our costs

for this year we identified this error, and the actual cost of operations

for the staffing for this particular project are actually estimated now

at $166,000.

Senator Moss. In the course of arriving at the estimated cost of

acquisition, have you had any conversations or contacts with the

owners of the island? As I understand it, the Island Ranching Co.

owns about 98 percent of the island, so there would be one person

really to contact.

Mr. SWEM. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that we have.

But I would like to refer this question to Mr. Carithers, if I might.

Mr. CARITHERS. We have discussed this with Mr. Alwell, who

represents the Island Ranching Co. He has indicated a willingness

to sell to the Federal Government. We have not discussed price.

Senator Moss. Then you have made no effort of any sort to get an

option or settlement on price of any kind?

Mr. CARITHERS. NO sir; we have not.

Senator Moss. The reason I ask the question is that there is a

considerable increase in the amount over your 1966 figure. Yet I

have the understanding without anything specific on my part, either,

that last year's estimate seemed to be quite satisfactory to the Island

Ranching Co. I just wondered why there is this considerable increase

in the amount now.

Mr. SWEM. I do not think necessarily that the new cost reflected

here could be attributable in any way to an increase in value of the

land on the island. I think that most of this increase is due to the

fact that we are including a more liberal allowance for contingency

and for administrative costs, based on our experience in the last 2 or

3 years in land acquisition.

Senator Moss. Isn't it a fact, though, that this amount was in the

record as an estimated cost of acquisition? It is then rather difficult

to deal with the landowner and talk about a figure something less

than this.

Mr. SWEM. Well, I think it would be unless it was recognized that

included within this total amount is this liberal amount for contingency

and mainly the administrative costs.

Now, I might explain there—it would be difficult to go through the

calculations, but from the standpoint of administrative cost, based

on our experience in land acquisition, we have found out that, averaging all the projects across the country, it is costing approximately

18 percent total cost of land acquisition for a project from the standpoint of what we would call our administrative costs. This would

involve the surveys, the appraising, the negotiations and this type,

of activity.

Senator Moss. Naturally I am concerned that the owners of land

within my own State, people I represent, get full and fair value for

any property that they may transfer to the Federal Government.

On the other hand, I think we all are conscious of the fact that, where

a national monument or other Federal installation is proposed, there

usually is an escalation of land prices. So we must find a fair point

in between—one that is .fair to the landowner, but one that is also

fair to the Federal Government in its acquisition. That is what I
18 GREAT SALT LAKE NATIONAL MONUMENT

am directing my questions to, since the amount in this case went up

quite a bit, and gives me some concern.

I take if from your testimony that this increase is mostly because

of the formula the Department uses to cover contingencies in its

appraisal of lands. Is that correct?

Mr. SWEM. Yes Mr. Chairman. And in the future on other new

proposals we would be applying this very same formula.

Senator Moss. Could you tell me how the Department ordinarily

proceeds on land acquisition; that is, before it becomes necessary to

,;go into court, if it does become necessary? How do you negotiate

in the first instance?

Mr. SWEM. Well, Mr. Chairman, once a project is authorized we

have a special land staff and representatives of this particular staff

would go into the area and make a detailed appraisal of the lands

involved. This appraisal would serve as the base for our negotiating

the purchase of this land from the owners. We make every possible

effort to, of course, negotiate purchase of the land based on the

appraisal.

There is a limited allowance for flexibility for us to go in on a

negotiation, to go' above the appraised price. If, as a result of our

efforts at negotiation, based on our appraisal, we are unsuccessful in

acquiring the land needed, we would then, of course, have to consider

the use of eminent domain. We do this only as a last resort, however.

Senator Moss. My understanding in this case—and I have talked

with the representatives of the owners—is that there is a willingness

to negotiate a sale. The owners of the land have reached a conclusion

that the ultimate result is going to be a transfer, and they are willing

to negotiate.

I was wondering, if this monument were authorized, in your

negotiation will you start off at your estimate of price, or do you get

down to hard bargaining, as we would call it?

Mr. SWEM. Actually, before we attempted a negotiation we would

go back on the property and make a detailed appraisal of the ownerships, mainly, for two reasons: First of all, to update them completely,

and secondly to give a detailed appraisal of the value. These cost

estimates that we use here are not based on what we would call

normally a final appraisal, or a detailed appraisal of the particular

property. We do send our land appraisers out there, and based on

their checking the records and going over the land, they come up

with the best estimates they can. Normally it is not as refined, or

not as detailed as the appraisal that is made just prior to negotiation.

Senator Moss. You are testifying that this is the best estimate you

can make at this point as to what the cost of acquisition would be?

Mr. SWEM. Right.

Senator Moss. Now I want to clarify one thing.

In the departmental report there was an amendment recommended

to section 2 which would have the effect of permitting the Secretary

to declare the monument by publication in the Federal Register when

he determines that he has a sufficient quantity of land to provide an

administrable unit. Is this the ordinary language that is used in

establishing monuments?

Mr. HARRISON. Mr. Chairman, it is the language which we ordinarily are using these days. It takes into consideration the fact that

it is possible that sufficient land can be acquired with which to go
GREAT SALT LAKE NATIONAL MONUMENT 19

ahead and provide services to the public and enjoyment in advance

of every foot of the land being acquired. So this is the reason for

offering this amendment.

I believe the way S. 25 was written it technically would require

that all of the land be acquired before the land could be established

for public use. So it is in the nature of a technical verification of what

probably was intended anyway.

Senator Moss. In this case, as I recall, there are either two or three

40-acre tracts that are in another ownership. They are really negligible as compared with the entire island.

Mr. HARRISON. That is right.

Senator Moss. Under your language, if you reach an agreement

with the principal owner and you had 98 percent of the island, it could

be declared a monument at that point. Then you could proceed from

there on to acquire these other very small holdings. Is that correct?

Mr. HARRISON. That is right, sir.

Mr. SWEM. And this is really probably the main reason for it, too,

because of the particular landownership status here—the fact that

there is more than one owner involved.

Senator Moss. There is one other question I would like to ask concerning the language of the bill.

Section 5 has the usual provision authorizing to be appropriated

such sums that are necessary to carry out provisions of the act. This

committee has a practice of setting maximum sums which may not

be exceeded.

If this section were to be amended with a "not to exceed" authorization, what figure would the Department recommend?

Mr. SWEM. Are you talking here, Mr. Chairman, about land

acquisition alone?

Senator Moss. This would be land acquisition and development

funds.

Mr. SWEM. If the ceiling were used, we would recommend the ceiling that we have included within our statement, because we are contemplating that the acquisition and development would be carried

out within the first 5 years.

Senator Moss. If we add your figure of $2,245,000 for acquisition

and $9,135,000 for development, the total would be $11,380,000. If

my arithmetic is correct, that is the amount you would recommend

as the maximum.

Mr. HARRISON. That is right, sir.

Senator Moss. Perhaps my colleagues would like to ask some

questions.

Then we will have Mr. Carithers explain the maps.

Senator HATFIELD. I have some questions in line with what you

have just been talking about.

Senator Moss. I will recognize my colleagues. Senator Hansen,

do you have any questions?

Senator HANSEN. I have just one question I would like to ask.

The island is owned principally by one group of owners, as I understand.

Mr. SWEM. That is correct, sir.

Senator HANSEN. Does the State own any land on the island?

Mr. SwEm.iYes. The State owns 80 acres of land on the island

itself.
20 GREAT SALT LAKE NATIONAL MONUMENT

Senator HANSEN. And I notice here on page 3 of your statement

you speak about the Great Salt Lake Authority—this is down about

halfway in the first incomplete paragraph on page 3. You state:

"The Authority has since made preliminary plans for the development

of a State recreation area on a 4,200- to 4,400-acre tract of land on

the north end of Antelope Island."

This land to which you refer is not presently State-owned. It is

just an area that the State has in mind for development.

Mr. SWEM. That is right. This is land that would have to be

acquired.

Senator HANSEN. I think the other questions I had have been

adequately covered.

Senator Moss. Senator Hatfield.

Senator HATFIELD. Mr. Swem, is there a significant legal differentiation between a monument and other recreational establishment

of the Department such as a national seashore?

Mr. SWEM. Many of the national monuments were established

originally under the authority of the Antiquities Act. Recently,

however, the national monuments have been established through

specific legislation.

The national recreation areas also now must be established through

specific legislation.

Senator HATFIELD. In other words there could be little difference,

depending on the wording of the bill, between a national seashore and

the process by which you establish it and a national monument and

the process by which you establish it.

Mr. SWEM. From the standpoint of use of legislation, I would say

there would be relatively little difference. But what would be contained in the legislation would be quite different, and also before an

area is recommended for a national recreation area it has to satisfy

certain requirements which have been established by the executive

branch. Their administrative criteria—and they were established by

the President's Recreation Advisory Council—contains seven mandatory criteria and I would say this, that all of them really are tied into

the relationship between the location of an area to population centers.

The requirements for a national monument—and this, of course, is

borrowed from the intent of the Antiquities Act—is that the area be of

national importance from the standpoint of scientific or prehistorical

values.

Senator HATFIELD. I read, on page 1 of the bill, the language which

you have created to acquire this property. I do not find a condemnation provision in this bill anywhere, or did it slip by me?

Mr. HARRISON. May I answer that, sir?

The first section of the bill on page 1 authorizes the Secretary to

acquire, by gift, purchase, donated or appropriated funds or exchange,

lands and so forth. The word "purchase," Senator, includes condemnation. This goes back to an early statute which authorizes the

acquisition of lands through condemnation where there has been a

determination by the appropriate agency in the Government that the

lands are required. So that word "purchase" does include with it, by

construction over the years, the authority to condemn, sir.

Senator HATFIELD. And yet one of the points that held up the

Oregon Dunes National Seashore bill in the last session of the Congress

was the condemnation language of that bill, which the Secretary of

the Interior refused to compromise or to modify or to back off of.
GREAT SALT LAKE NATIONAL MONUMENT 21

It was not at all implied by such vague language as "purchase." It

was spelled out in detail about the power vested in the Secretary of

Interior to condemn land for flip establishment of the Oregon Dunes

National Seashore. And that was the point which hung up the bill.

Senator Morse refused to approve of that section. He made many

public pronouncements on it, simply because of the language of that

bill. Why is this one so vague and that one so specific?

Mr. HARRISON. I cannot answer you as to why that one was so

specific and this one so vague. All I can say is that there were limitations placed on the condemnation authority in the Oregon Dunes

National Seashore legislation.

I think that, in terms of writing the limitation in, you pretty much

have to use the word "condemnation."

Here, this is the accepted condemnation authority when you place

no limitation upon it.

Senator HATFIELD. Would the Department be willing to approve

an Oregon Dunes National Seashore bill with this kind of language

relating to the question of condemnation?

Mr. HARRISON. Senator, your question is a very general one,

involving strictly the legal standpoint, I believe, and I will answer it

in the same fashion, by saying, "Yes, they would."

Now, this is not to say that the Department is insisting on absolute

condemnation authority in the Oregon Dunes National Seashore,

because the bill on which it reported favorably last year included

various limitations upon the condemnation authority, sir.

Senator HATFIELD. Would you pay the State for the land that you

acquired from the State of Utah for this national monument?

Mr. HARRISON. We would hope that it would be either donated or

exchanged, sir. There is authority in this bill for that.

Senator HATFIELD. You would not insist on it being donated?

Mr. HARRISON. I believe that the State has already indicated a

willingness to transfer the land, but we do not have a firm commitment on donation yet. We would certainly like to get it that way.

Senator HATFIELD. And yet the Department insisted that the State

of Oregon donate some of the highest developed State parks in the

entire Nation in the Oregon Dunes National Seashore proposal. A

rather inconsistent policy, would it not be? You are talking about

80 acres here, as I understand it, that you would not necessarily insist

on being donated, and yet you insisted on literally hundreds of acres

of highly developed recreational land and facilities in the State of

Oregon being donated to the Federal Government.

Mr. HARRISON. When it comes to the question of donation of the

lands, I think that the history in this committee and the position it

has taken is very pertinent.

This committee has taken a position with respect to State lands

generally that there should be a donation. It is not a hard and fast

rule, though, Senator.

I believe I am accurately stating the position of the committee.

I don't want to overstate it.

Senator HATFIELD. I am more interested in the policy of the Department than I am the committee at this point, because it was the

Department that made some very difficult situations for us.

Let me ask you this. Where you have the provision in the language

that you may exchange land, subsection (c) on page 2, and I read the
22 GREAT SALT LAKE NATIONAL MONUMENT

language on line 14, "In exchange therefor he may convey to the

grantor of such property any federally owned property under his

jurisdiction which he classifies as suitable for exchange or other

disposal."

Could this conceivably include rich timberlands in the State of

Oregon that you would exchange for some of this land in Utah, as

you proposed to do at Point Reyes National Seashore in California,

for rich timberlands in Oregon?

Mr. HARRISON. The way the language is written, it would not be

limited to lands within the State of Utah. It has been the practice

of this committee, I believe, and we would certainly go along with

it, if the committee wished to amend the bill, to limit it to lands in

the State of Utah.

Senator HATFIELD. Mr. Chairman, we had a very unfortunate

experience which created a great deal of trouble for Mr. Stoddard,

in which there was an attempt made to exchange lands at the Point

Reyes Seashore in California for Oregon timberlands. And the

reason we raised a great furor over this program by. the Department

is that you still owe us in the State of Oregon new land selections of

about 7,000 acres. You have been very, very slow in paying off the

land you owe us. We are not ready to have some of our rich timberlands traded off for a national park when you told us there were no

excess lands or disposable lands in Oregon that we could have rightfully ours under the land selection program.

So I want to make the point here that I would like to see spelled

out a little bit clearer the question of where they can exchange lands.

Second, I am not impressed with agency requests to acquire new

lands when they have not returned to the States or given to the States

lands that are owed to the States at this time.

Senator Moss. The Senator's point is well made. In fact, I believe

that certainly the exchange ought to be of lands that are within the

boundaries of the State. Therefore I am going to suggest at the

appropriate time that on line 16, page 2, immediately after the

word "jurisdiction" the words "in the State of Utah" be inserted.

This makes it totally clear that any exchange made is for Federal

lands within the State of Utah. There are vast amounts of Federal

lands within the State of Utah, and certainly we should not be looking

outside the State on any exchange.

Mr. HARRISON. We would look with favor on such an amendment,

sir.

Senator Moss. We did get into some great difficulties in this committee on condemnation provisions on the Oregon Dunes bill, and

they never were fully resolved. As the Senator indicated, the bill

did not become law.

In this instance, I don't believe there is any such issue presented,

because the Island Ranching Co. is in a position now where they are

certainly willing to talk, and they would like to begin negotiations at

this point.

I will ask Mr. Carithers now if he would explain the maps before

the committee.

As you make reference to them, please try to make it as clear for

the record as you can so when we read it we can understand your

testimony.

Mr. CARITHERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
GREAT SALT LAKE NATIONAL MONUMENT 23

I believe you have a copy of our picture book which will show

much more graphically than I can explain what the features of the

island are.

This is a vicinity map of the Great Salt Lake area. It shows the

relationship of Antelope Island to Salt Lake City, and also the other

towns north of there. Also it shows the relationship of the island

to the Bear River Wildlife Refuge and the Golden Spike National

Historic Site, established last year.

For the benefit of those not present last year when we explained

our development program, I would like to explain it now.

I refer to drawing No. NM—GSL--7200---A, entitled "Suggested

General Development, Proposed Great Salt Lake National Monument." This map depicts Antelope Island.

Presently there is a road coming out from Salt Lake City, extending

up the island approximately to here. This is a dirt road, unimproved.

I think at one time it went up to the high point here, which was an

old airport beacon of some sort. Our plans are to improve this road

from the entrance to the monument up past this station, past the

monument headquarters, and on up to the northern tip of the island.

We would then have a loop road coming back the south end of the

island and on out again.

Ultimately there will be a dike from the town of Syracuse across to

the northern tip of the island. This dike is partially constructed now,

and will be completed very shortly, I understand. I think the

State has funds for this purpose. This will provide an access point

from the island to the mainland and provide a very attractive loop

route which the visitor could take from here to here, and back around

Salt Lake City.

Ultimately there will be a dike constructed from this dike up to

Freemont Island. Promontory Point, which will connect these three

points and provide a loop route through our Golden Spike National

Historic Site and back to Salt Lake City.

In surveying the island, we were particularly interested in the

geologic features. We felt the northern tip of the land was the place

in which to interpret the Great Salt Lake story.

We selected a point here, which is a high point, for an observation

and interpretive center. This is a visitors' center, as we usually call

it. This will be a point at which the visitor will be oriented, will be

told what is available on the island in the way of interpretation, trails,

facilities, roads and so forth.

We intend to have two campgrounds on the island. These are

tucked away in two canyons on the west side.

We would also have a network of trails which would keep pretty

high up OA the backbone of the island, and provide views off to the

north and to the west.

Also contemplated is the development of a salt water beach on the

northern tip of the island. We are not exactly sure where this would

be located. It will depend on the grading involved. We have not

made detailed engineering studies. But it is our feeling that swimming or at least bathing in the Great Salt Lake is one of the ways to

enjoy and experience it. We would also have a salt water beach

somewhere in this approximate location.
24 GREAT SALT LAKE NATIONAL MONUMENT

Ultimately, when the State completes this dike .across here—and

this is part of the Great Salt Lake Authority's plan—this will be

salt water to the south of the dike and fresh water to the north.

Plans are to make a 170,000-acre fresh water lake by diking. This

is the State plan. It is in the works, I understand.

Although the main features here are geologic, it is a wonderful

opportunity for a wildlife area. It is an island. It is isolated.

The outside influences are minimal. There is a small herd of buffalo

on the,island now. It is our understanding that buffalo are indigenous

to this area and they will remain there. Antelope have been reported

on the island. They are not there at the present time. We would

give consideration to reintroducing them. There is a very good herd

of mule deer.

Wildlife here is exceptional. Although the pictures may indicate

that this is a barren, rather bleak island, I hiked from here down to

here in one day, following Congressman King—I had no idea we were

going to make the long hike, but we did.

It has great possibilities as a hiking area. The views off to the west

are spectacular, there is no question about it. It can get hot in the

summertime, but in the spring and fall it is ideal for hiking and

camping.

I should explain that the gradient—as Senator Moss explained

earlier—is critical here. In some places you have to wade out maybe

a thousand yards to get in water up to your knees. In some places it

is deeper. Right along in here, for example, it is about 10 feet deep,

less than half a mile offshore. But the tides can go down, or the water

can go down approximately an inch and expose maybe a quarter of a

mile of land.

This line is based on the 1876 survey-1,000 yards within that line

was the 1876 line. This is why this piece of land, which shows on the

map as being outside of the area shown here, is actually under water.

I will be happy to answer any questions of any members of the committee.

Senator Moss. Thank you very much, Mr. Carithers. There is a

rather full discussion of this in the hearings that we had last year. We

were glad to have you call attention to these points again.

I did agree with the chairman of the committee that we would not

cover again things that were fully explained last year.

My colleagues may have some questions, however, that they would

like to ask.

One thing I always like to underline is that the old ranchhouse on

this island, still occupied, is the oldest building in Utah still being

used for the purpose for which it was built. It has been used as a

ranchhouse since 1849. So it is a very historic site in that regard

alone.

The island has a little cultivation on the eastern slopes where they

have seeded in some grain and where the cattle have been husbanded.

But the west side is completely primitive and just the way it was

before white men showed up.

Thank you, Mr. Carithers.

No questions?

I think this now brings our record up to date.

As I indicated, it is my intention to propose that we accept the

language that the Department proposed for section 2, that when the
GREAT SALT LAKE NATIONAL MONUMENT 25

Secretary finds that he has an appreciable unit he may declare the

monument established. I propose to make it clear that any exchange

of property is confined within the boundaries of the State of Utah,

if exchange is made for any property.

I do propose to follow the practice of this committee of authorizing

not to exceed the estimated acquisition cost of $2,245,000, and not to

exceed $9,135,000 for development.

With that, we can then pass it on.

Is there anything further? I understand there may be a statement

coming over from the House side. So the record will remain open

for 5 days for any additional statements.

The hearing is adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the subcommittee took a recess, subject

to the call of the Chair.)

0