(;OVERNMENT

Storage KSU LIBRARIES - 

- N

o

r9 EIGHTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS

Lc)

ru SECOND SESSION

c0

ON

S. 2048

rg A BILL FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE BIG HORN

r-R CANYON NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, AND

Fe5 c°›

BIG HORN CANYON

/ o pi/ r ,

, 

IN I px,,j,,3

HEARING /4. •

G r, BEFORE THE Au /0

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC kLNDS

OF THE 

N444/1,

COMMITTEE ON

INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

FOR OTHER PURPOSES

MAY 29, 1964

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

35-211 WASHINGTON : 1964
COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington, Chairman

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

ALAN BIBLE, Nevada GORDON ALLOTT, Colorado

FRANK CHURCH, Idaho LEN B. JORDAN, Idaho

ERNEST GRUENING, Alaska MILWARD L. SIMPSON, WyomingFRANK E. MOSS, Utah E. L. MECHEM, New Mexico

QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota PETER H. DOMINICK, Colorado

CARL HAYDEN, Arizona

GEORGE McGOVERN, South Dakota

GAYLORD NELSON, Wisconsin

HERBERT S. WALTERS, Tennessee

JERRY T. VERKLER, Staff Director

STEWART FRENCH, Chief Counsel

ROY WHITACRE, Professional Staff Member

• SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS

ALAN BIBLE, Nevada, Chairman

CLINTON P. ANDERSON, New Mexico

ERNEST GRUENINO, Alaska

FRANK E. MOSS, Utah

CARL HAYDEN Arizona

GAYLORD NELSON, Wisconsin

II

GORDON ALLOTT, Colorado

LEN5. JORDAN, Idaho

MILWARD L. SIMPSON, Wyoming

4t4.

a

•

' b - •

4

al., ,400
CONTENTS

Page S. 2048 

Departmental 2

reports:

Bureau of the Budget 

Interior 5

Amendment 3

intended to be proposed by Senator Metcalf 6

STATEMENTS

Baker, Hon. Howard, Assistant Director, National Park Service; accom- panied by Frank E. Harrison, Chief, Divis.on of Legislation and Regula- tions 

McGee, 18

Metcalf, 

Hon. Gale, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming 17

Simpson, 

Hon. Lee, a U.S. Senator from the State of Montana 8

Hon. Milward L., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming 6

COMMUNICATIONS

Baker, Hon. Howard, Assistant Director, National Park Service: Letter ' to Hon. Alan Bible, chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands, dated June 10, 1964 

Gallagher, 23 Frank A., and Kelley', Thomas N., Billings, Mont.: Letter to Hon. Mike J. Mansfield, a U.S. Senator from the State of Montana, dated May 26, 1964 

Mansfield, 37 Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from the State of Montana: Letter to Hon. Henry Jackson, chairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, dated June 1, 1964 36

MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION

Proposed 

Man-yes and Cost-data statement required by the act of July 25, 1956_ _ 5

development costs for the Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area 

23
Big T "Der

sCrL-1---1 Col umbuS

,,STER I

crLA

NATIONAL LL.1...

FOR

Cooke

City

--L.

SHOSH RE

':.yellowstone

National Park

tr!'

0

B I L LI NO S

Laurel

Bighorn

Custer

tS

w

Pompey s

pillar A

C R 0 W

RUINS

OF FORT

f,:ti Pryor OF SMITH

Ye/ferric,/

Roser,rotr I. INDIAN

• Yne°

,-(7.1sTER ip

Deove

Garbo('

4,00Hs. 

'2.`4'CL Powell

Cowley

Buffs,

CIE

Bat R 

r.

r=b

L,t

Th

FOREST 11

r0 5 10 20 30 40

IMCAMMIC70.11111

Scale in Mites

ir

•

rillle • OP

For sytti

?Hardin

RESERVAT

Bighorn Canyon

National

Recreation Area

BIGHORN

tr

THERMOPOLIS

Notional

Monument

RATIO N AL

FOREST

EDS

A

4

ronrire Rev.,

SHERIDAN

Buffalo

cs

NORTH

LOCATION MAP

Bighorn Canyon

National Recreation Area

MONTANA - WYOMING

DRAWING No. RS/YEL —7100C

Prepared by D.E. Rogers 23 August 1962

Revised by R. K . Weaver 7 March 1963 

11
BIG HORN CANYON

FRIDAY, MAY 29, 1964

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMII ON PUBLIC LANDS OF THE

CONThirrrEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,

ashing ton, D .0 .

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

3110, New Senate Office Building, Senator 

notice,

Bible presiding.

Present: Senators Bible, Anderson, Hayden, Jordan of Idaho, and

Simpson.

Also present: Jerry T. Verkler, staff director; Stewart French,

chief counsel; and Roy M. -Whitacre, professional staff member.

Senator BIBLE. The subcommittee will come to order.

The Public Lands Subcommittee hearings this morning are called

with the full knowledge that this is a holiday and that many of

the committee members had commitments that would not permit their

attendance at this time. However, the four bills we hope to take

testimony on this morning are apparently noncontroversial, and I

therefore trust that we will be able to complete the record on each

during the day.

I know that the holding of this hearing today may well be an imposition on those in attendance since it has been designated as a holiday.

Because of the floor situation and the additional announcement that

starting as of Tuesday we will go in session at 9 o'clock in the morning, I think it is very apparent that we must take every opportunity

to clear up our hearings on pending measures.

It is for that reason that I have scheduled hearings at this time.

The bill for consideration is S. 2048, to provide for the establishment of the Big Horn Canyon National Recreation Area and for

other purposes. It was introduced by Senator Metcalf and cosponsored by Senator McGee, Senator Mansfield, and Senator Simpson.

Mr. Reporter, the bill will be incorporated in full at this point

in the record, a bill introduced on August 15, 1963. I will also

introduce at this point in the record the report of the Department

of the Interior recommending the bill be enacted with several technical amendments, a report dated April 20 of this year, 1964. I

would also have incorporated at this point in the record the official

position of the Bureau of the Budget dated April 17, 1964, saying they

have no objection to the enactment of S. 2048.

1
2 BIG HORN CANYON

(The bill and reports referred to follow:)

S. 2048, 88th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To provide for the establishment of the Big Horn Canyon National Recreation

Area, and for other purposes

Be it encated by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United

,States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) in order to provide for

public outdoor recreation use and enjoyment of the proposed Yellowtail Reservoir and lands adjacent thereto in the States of Wyoming and Montana by the

people of the United States and for preservation of the scenic, scientific, and

historic features contributing to public enjoyment of such lands and waters,

there is hereby established the Big Horn Canyon National Recreation Area

to comprise the area generally depicted on the drawing entitled "Proposed Big

Horn Canyon National Recreation Area", LNPMW-010-BC, June 1963, which

is on file in the Office of the National Park Service, Department of the Interior.

(b) As soon as practicable after approval of this Act, the Secretary of the

Interior shall publish in the Federal Register a detailed description of the

boundaries of the area which shall encompass, to the extent practicable, the

lands and waters shown on the drawing referred to in subsection (a) of this

section. The Secretary may subsequently make adjustments in the boundary

of the area, subject to the provisions of subsection 2(b) of this Act, by publication of an amended description in the Federal Register.

SEC. 2. (a) The Secretary is authorized to acquire by donation, purchase

with donated or appropriated funds, exchange, or otherwise, lands and interests

in lands within the boundaries of the area. In the exercise of his exchange

authority the Secretary may accept title to any non-Federal property within

the area and convey in exchange therefor any federally owned property under

his jurisdiction, notwithstanding any other provision of law. Property so

exchanged shall be approximately equal in fair market value: Provided, That

the Secretary may accept cash from, or pay cash to, the grantor in such an

exchange in order to equalize the values of the properties exchanged. Any

property or interest therein owned by the State of Montana or the State of

Wyoming or any political subdivision thereof within the recreation area may

be acquired only with the concurrence of the owner.

(b) No part of lands of the Crow Indian Tribe of Montana shall be included

within the recreation area unless requested by the council of the tribe. The

Indian lands so included may be developed and administered in accordance

with the laws and rules applicable to the recreation area, subject to any limitations specified by the tribal council and approved by the Secretary.

SEC. 3. (a) The Secretary shall coordinate administration of the recreation

area with the other purposes of the Yellowtail Reservoir project so that it will

in his judgment best provide (1) for public outdoor recreation benefits, (2) for

conservation of scenic, scientific, historic, and other values contributing to public

enjoyment, and (3) for management, utilization, and disposal of renewable

natural resources in a manner that promotes, or is compatible with, and does

not significantly impair, public recreation and conservation of scenic, scientific,

historic, or other values contributing to public enjoyment.

(b) In the administration of the area for the purposes of this Act, the

Secretary may utilize such statutory authorities relating to areas administered

and supervised by the Secretary through the National Park Service and such

statutory authorities otherwise available to him for the conservation and

management of natural resources as he deems appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Act. Appropriate user fees may be collected notwithstanding any

limitation on such authority by any provision of law.

SEC. 4. The Secretary shall permit hunting and fishing on lands and waters

under his jurisdiction within the recreation area in accordance with the appropriate laws of the States of Montana or Wyoming to the extent applicable, except

that the Secretary may designate zones where, and establish periods when, no

hunting or fishing shall be permitted for reasons of public safety, administration, fish or wildlife management, or public use and enjoyment. Except in

emergencies, any regulations of the Secretary pursuant to this section shall be

put into effect only after consultation with the Montana Fish and Game Department or the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission.

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

necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act.
BIG HORN CANYON 3

110R. HENRY M. JACKSON,

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

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

DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: This responds to your request for the views of this

Department on S. 2048, a bill to provide for establishment of the Bighorn

Canyon National Recreation Area, and for other purposes.

We recommend that S. 2048 be enacted, and we suggest several technical

amendments.

This bill would establish the Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area in

order to provide for public outdoor recreation use and enjoyment of the

proposed Yellowtail Reservoir and adjacent lands in the States of Wyoming

and Montana by the people of the United States, and for preservation of the

scenic, scientific, and historic features of the area contributing to public enjoyment. Section 2 provides authority for acquiring the non-Federal lands within

the authorized boundaries and for inclusion of Crow Indian Reservation lands

in the national recreation area. Such Indian lands could only be included in

the area at the request of the Crow Tribal Council, "subject to any limitations

specified by the tribal council and approved by the Secretary."

The Yellowtail Dam, now under construction on the Bighorn River near Lovell,

Wyo., will be a 500-foot high, concrete arch structure with a crest length of

1,445 feet. The dam will create a riverlike reservoir 71 miles long across the

States of Montana and Wyoming. The dam itself—one of the largest in

America—will be a significant feature of the area and will be situated at the

'end of a spectacular canyon which extends 47 miles through the Bighorn

Mountains.

The Bighorn Canyon, more deeply carved than any lying east of this point,

is the result of an erosional history associated with the uplift period of the

building of the mountains of the region—the Bighorn and Pryor. During the

uplift period, streams were at work removing the less resistant materials and

as a consequence formed the Bighorn River along its present course through the

mountains. When the river had eroded a channel deep enough to expose the

hard Bighorn Mountain limestone fold, it could not change its course, but was

forced to carve steep canyons. These canyons range in depth from 800 to 2,200

feet and present on their walls the various strata of geological periods dating

back many millions of years with colors ranging from pale yellow to the

intense red of the Triassic Chugwater shale.

To the east of the canyon are the Bighorns, to the west the Pryor Mountains.

A deeply incised upland prairie forms a vast green pedestal from the mountain walls to the canyon rim. The combination of uplifting and erosional forces

has created a topography of extreme contrast—gently rolling land cut by sheer

gorges and bounded by irregular mountains. The change in elevation from

canyon floor to adjacent mountain tops approximates 4,000 feet.

In addition to the impressive scenery and geological story presented here,

there are sites of significant archeological and historical interest. The Smithsonian Institution is presently studying a narrow strip of land running the

length of Bighorn Canyon on which are situated campsites, tepee rings, a

medicine wheel, aboriginal trails, flint workshop areas, rock shelters, petroglyphs, and buffalo kills. These sites and objects present conclusive evidence of

habitation of the area by a prehistoric people, but it is not known who these inhabitants were. In historic times it is known that the Crow, or Absaroka, were

among the earliest people to dwell in this area and they have remained to this

day.

A few miles downstream from the damsite are the remains of Fort C. F.

Smith (to be distinguished from Fort Smith Village, the Bureau of Reclamation construction camp). This infantry post was established in 1866 to protect

the travelers on the "Bozeman Trail" from attacks of hostile Sioux who considered the trail an encroachment on their hunting grounds. Traces of this

trail, Which forded the Bighorn about 3 miles below the damsite, can still be

seen where it passed the fort on the right bank of the river. Still farther

downstream is the site of the Hayfield Fight. Here a small force of haycutters

and their soldier guards successfully repulsed greatly superior numbers of

attracting Sioux warriors. This result has been attributed to the use of newly

issued breech-loading .50 caliber Springfield rifles, rather than muzzle-loading

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,

Washington, D.C., April 30, 1964.
4 BIG HORN CANYON

weapons. The Hayfield Fight thus became a classic of the western Indian

wars being the first battle in which these greatly improved weapons wereused. These historic sites—comprised of a mixture of tribal and allotted

lands—are located within the Crow Indian Reservation and would only be

included in the recreation area in accordance with the provisions of the bill.

Impoundment of water by the Yellowtail Dam will provide a safe water

highway into what has formerly been an almost inaccessible region. But more

significantly, the impoundment will afford an opportunity for water-based

recreational activities as varied as the imagination of the American traveler.

Here will be a reservoir large enough for boating of all sorts, fishing should

be excellent whether on the reservoir or along the river, and the surrounding

terrain is interestingly adapted to associated activities such as camping, picknicking, hiking, observation of birds and wildlife, horseback riding, scenic

drives, historical, geological, and archeological interpretation, and appreciation

of the engineering accomplishments represented by the dam and its related

facilities.

The proposed Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area shown on the map

referred to in the first section of S. 2048 would comprise approximately 63,300'

acres, of which more than 56,000 acres are presently in Federal ownership.

There are about 719 acres of Montana State lands and 6,418 acres of private.

lands within the area. Additional lands of the Crow Indian Tribe could be•

included in the area if mutually satisfactory agreements are reached by the

Crow Tribal Council and the Secretary. Authority is included in the bill for

the Secretary to make other adjustments in the recreation area boundary.

The proposed Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area, situated in one of

the Nation's major vacation lands, will be used by visitors from all over the

country. Well-traveled vacation routes such as U.S. Highways 87 and 212,

and Interstate 90 (now under construction) to the north and east, and Wyoming

State Highway 14 to the south will provide access to the area. Since this is

the only proposed reservoir national recreation area in the Missouri River Basin

it will also fulfill the water-oriented recreation needs of a large number of

people from the Rocky Mountain region and the Great Plains of the United

States.

Based on the foregoing, the proposed Bighorn Canyon National Recreation

Area has been found to satisfy the criteria for national recreation areas set

forth in Policy Circular No. 1, adopted by the Recreation Advisory Council on

March 26, 1963. The Advisory Board on National Parks, Historic Sites, Buildings, and Monuments, at its 48th meeting in March of last year, recommended

that "this area be authorized for establishment as the Bighorn Canyon National

Recreation Area under the administration of the National Park Service."

Proposed developments would provide for the full scope of activities required

for extensive public use. It has been estimated that this use will exceed

562,000 annual visitor days by 1970. The developments would include, among

others, facilities for picnicking, camping, boating, fishing, hunting, primary

access (roads and trails), parking, as well as scenic overlooks and appropriate

interpretive media. Included within the area's boundaries is an area of 16,000

acres of land and water proposed for development and management by the

Wyoming Game & Fish Commission for waterfowl and upland game.

The Crow Indian Tribal Council, a planning and economic consulting firm

engaged by the council, and the National Park Service of this Department are

presently making a joint master plan study of the total reservation area. This

study will consider the recreation potential of the Indian lands and their relation to the entire recreation area. The results of the study will enable the

Indians to determine the extent of tribal participation in the development of

the national recreation area. Section 2(b) of S. 2048 provides a basis for the

implementation of these joint plans through the inclusion of tribal lands if

the Indians and the Secretary agree on this approach.

As a technical amendment we recommend that the single word "Bighorn" be

substituted for "Big Horn" in the title and on lines 9 and 11 of page 1. Official

geographical place names published by the Geological Survey identify the

canyon, river, and mountains of the area by the single word "Bighorn."

In addition, we suggest three other technical or clarifying amendments. To

make the intended limits of the exchange authority more explicit, we suggest

that the following be inserted after "jurisdiction" and before the comma on

line 19, page 2: "not needed for other Federal programs which he classifies as

suitable for exchange or other disposal." On line 13, page 3, delete "Reservoir
0

BIG HORN CANYON 5

project" and substitute "unit, Missouri River Basin project". In order to

clarify the reference to administrative authorities in section 3(b), we recommend deleting "to carry out the purposes of this Act." On page 4, line 3, and

substituting "for recreation and preservation purposes and for resource utilization not incompatible therewith."

The man-years and cost-data statement required by the act of July 25, 1956

(70 Stat. 652; 5 U.S.C. 642a) , 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,

FRANK P. BRIGGS,

Acting Secretary of the Interior.

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

1st 5 years of proposed new or expanded programs

Estimated additional man-years of civilian

employment

Executive direction:

Acting project manager 

Superintendent 

Clerk-stenographer 

Total 

Administrative services and support:

Administrative assistant 

Total 

Substantive:

Chief ranger 

Landscape architect 

Park naturalist 

Engineer 

Park historian 

District ranger 

Park ranger 

Clerk-typist 

Seasonal rangers and interpreters 

Laborers and craftsmen 

Total 

Total, estimated additional manyears of civilian employment 

Estimated additional expenditures:

Personal services 

All other 

Total 

Estimated obligations:

Land and property acquisition 

Development 

Operation (management, protection,

and maintenance) 

Total 

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

1 1 

1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1

1 1

1 2 2

1 2 4

1 1 1

2 3 5 7

2 11 16 22

1 8 20 31 41

3 11 23 34 44

$25, 029 $67, 000 $105, 885 $117, 000 $133, 289

506,458 535,000 1, 578, 000 1, 820, 000 1, 065, 000

531,487 602,000 1, 683, 885 1, 937, 000 1, 198, 289

100,000 110,000 100,000 2,900

727,300 534,000 2, 270, 000 1, 380, 000 655,000

31,487 102,000 183,885 187,000 198,289

758,787 736,000 2, 563, 885 1, 667, 000 856,189

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,

BUREAU OF THE BUDGET,

Washington, D.C., April 17, 1964.

Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON,

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

U.S. Senate,

New Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

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

the Bureau of the Budget on S. 2048, a bill to provide for the establishment of

the Big Horn Canyon National Recreation Area, and for other purposes.

S. 2048 recognizes that the impoundment of water by the Yellowtail Dam

will provide potential water-based recreational opportunities and its enactment would authorize the establishment of the Big Horn Canyon National

35-211-64 - - -2
6 BIG HORN CANYON

Recreation Area. The report which the Secretary of the Interior is submitting describes in some detail the recreational and other features of the

proposed area and recommends enactment of the bill with a perfecting

amendment.

The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the proposal that this area be

dedicated at this time as a national recreation area and that the Secretary be

authorized to acquire the limited additional lands needed to round out a recreational area which is already largely in Federal ownership.

However, the location of Big Horn in relation to our highly populated

centers suggests some uncertainty as to the extent of public use. It would

be our objective to closely observe the indications of public demand at Big

Horn before making recommendations for financing any major development

of facilities. A number of other proposals now pending before the Congress

would establish national recreation areas near heavily populated urban centers,

thus providing ready access to millions of the recreation-seeking public. The

priority which would be accorded development expenditures at Big Horn

would, in our view, need to be determined in relation to the requirements

at these latter areas.

The Bureau of the Budget would have no objection to the enactment of

S. 2048.

Sincerely yours,

PHILLIP S. HUGHES,

Assistant Director for Legislative Reference.

(Senator Metcalf subsequently submitted the following amendment

to the bill S. 2048:)

[ S. 2048, 88th Cong., 2d sess.]

AMENDMENT Intended to be proposed by Mr. METCALF to S. 2048, a bill

to provide for the establishment of the Big Horn Canyon National Recreation Area, and for other purposes, viz: On page 3, between lines 10 and 11,

insert the following new subsection:

(c) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or of any other

law, the Crow Indian Tribe shall have the exclusive right to develop

and operate, at no expense to the United States, water-based recreational

facilities, including landing ramps, boathouses, and fishing facilities, along

that part of the shoreline of Yellowtail Reservoir which is adjacent to lands

comprising the Crow Indian Reservation. Any such part so developed shall

be administered in accordance with the laws and rules applicable to the

recreation area, subject to any limitations specified by the tribal council

and approved by the Secretary. Any revenues resulting from the operation of

such facilities may be retained by the Crow Indian Tribe.

(2) As used in this subsection, the term, "shoreline" means that land

owned by the Bureau of Reclamation which borders both Yellowtail Reservoir

and the exterior boundary of the Crow Indian Reservation, together with that

part of the reservoir necessary to the development of such facilities.

Senator BIBLE. I would first recognize our fellow member on this

committee, Senator Simpson, for whatever he might care to say about

this particular bill.

Senator Simpson?

STATEMENT OF HON. MILWARD L. SIMPSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF WYOMING

Senator SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am grateful that

you have scheduled this hearing. I want to again thank you for your

diligence on it. You have been a great chairman of the subcommittee. You are also so gracious and you do allow us to trespass on

your time and the time of the committee. but I want to again repeat

to you what I have said to you individually.

I am most grateful to you. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the

bill which you have mentioned. I am grateful that you have sched-
BIG HORN CANYON 7

uled this hearing so that we might consider S. 2048, which would

establish the Big Horn Canyon National Recreation Area. I have

been interested in this bill for some time, and I am eager to see it

enacted into law. This legislation would provide for public outdoor

recreation use and enjoyment of the proposed Yellowtail Reservoir

and adjacent lands in the States of Montana and Wyoming. This is

a magnificently beautiful and picturesque area that indeed is a tourist 

attraction. It is my belief that areas such as this should be fully

developed to provide for their full use by the recreational-minded

public.

Most of the needed land is presently owned by the Federal Government. Only a small portion of the designated land in Wyoming is

privately owned and that land is owned by one rancher. Before I

joined in cosponsoring this legislation, I saw to it that this rancher

was contacted and given an opportunity to express his views. While

he was, of course, not eager to transfer his land to the Federal Government, he did not object to the acquisition of his land for the

creation of this recreation area, providing a fair and adequate amount

of money is paid to him for the land.

This 63,000-acre recreation area would be located around the

reservoir created by the Yellowtail Dam, which will be a 500-foot

concrete arched structure near Lovell, Wyo. The dam will create a

riverlike reservoir 71 miles long across the States of Montana and

Wyoming. The dam itself, one of the largest in America, will be a

a significant feature of the area and will be situated at the end of a

spectacular canyon which extends 47 miles through the Big Horn

Mountains.

The Big Horn Canyon is more deeply carved than any area lying

east of Wyoming. It ranges in depth from 800 to 2,200 feet and

presents on its walls the various strata of geological periods dating

back many millions of years with colors ranging from pale yellow to

the intense red of the Triassic Chugwater shale.

In addition to the impressive scenery and geological story presented

here, there are sites of significant archeological and historical interest. The Smithsonian Institution is presently studying a narrow

strip of land running the length of the Big Horn Canyon on which are

situated campsites, tepee rings, a medicine wheel, and by the way

of unknown origin, no historian has been able yet to identify it as

I think my colleague from Montana will testify, aboriginal trails,

flint workshop areas, rock shelters, petroglyphs, and buffalo kills.

These sites and objects present conclusive evidence of habitation of

the area by a prehistoric people, but it is not known who these inhabitants were.

I might say at this juncture of my remarks, Mr. Chairman, that

just recently above Cody, Wyo.

'

they have found an ancient man

society and the culture dates back over 9,700 years. They have excavated around it, and at the Whitney Gallery in Cody, Wyo., they

have a person who for a better name they call Joe and it dates back

to that period.

This is of great interest for people traveling through that country.

In historic times it is :known that the Crow, or Absaroka, were

among the earliest people to dwell in this area, and they have remaine-d to this day.
8 BIG HORN CANYON

We of Wyoming feel that the designation of this already existing

recreation area as a national recreation area will be of great assistance to us in attracting tourists.

Wyoming has the greatest hunting and fishing in the world, and

-we have the finest game and fish commission in the United States.

'Consequently, it is important that the National Park Service seek

the complete cooperation of our State officials if this area is to be

successfully created as a national recreation area. A well-developed

recreation area can only be established if the National Park Service

has the complete cooperation of the States of Montana and Wyoming.

I am pleased that the hunting and fishing in the recreation area

will be conducted in accordance with the appropriate laws of the

States of Montana and Wyoming. In my opinion, it is important

to leave a great deal of the control and responsibility over these

recreation areas in the hands of State and local officials. If the

State Game and Fish Commission of Wyoming, the State Game and

Fish Commission of Montana, and the National Park Service will

work as a team, the Big Horn Canyon National Recreation Area will

truly be one of the nicest and most beautiful areas in the Nation.

I think that the enactment of this bill will add greatly to the establishment of recreational facilities throughout the Nation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I may have some other remarks to

make after the testimony by my colleague, Senator Metcalf, as well

as of course some questions of the members of the Park Service.

Senator BIBLE. Certainly. I have flown over this area. I know

roughly about it. It is an area of tremendous beauty. It seems to me

that the time to preserve this area is before commercial enterprises

move in. We have a comparable situation in my own State, a

national recreation area. Interestingly enough last year visitations to

the Lake Mead recreation area and to the reservoirs above and

below it totaled over 51/2 million visitors. It was the second most

visited park in the entire system and the only one that was ahead

of it was the Big Smoky. So carving these out and protecting and

developing them early in the stage of their creation I think is a very,

very important thing.

I would only have one question, and I think it is something

that can properly be elicited from the Park witnesses, and that is,

as you will note, this has an open ended authorization. I think in

conformity with our practice, it is very wise to put some ceiling on

both the amounts of land acquisition and the development cost. Now

I don't know what that figure would be but I would think we could

develop that through our witnesses.

The next witness will be the Senator from Montana, Senator Lee

Metcalf.

Senator Metcalf, we are delighted to have you and I apologize

for holding you this long.

STATEMENT OF HON. LEE METCALF, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF MONTANA

Senator METCALF. I am very grateful to the chairman for holding

this hearing on this day. For almost everybody else in the Senate it

is a holiday. Both Senator Mansfield and I have urged that this
BIG HORN CANYON 9

bill be considered, and you are aware, as all of us are, of the parliamentary situation and I am very grateful to the committee, to the chairman and to its members for being here and holding this hearing. I have a prepared statement, Mr. Chairman. Senator Mansfield and I have discussed it. He has gone over it and considered it, and with your approval I will offer it for the record and summarize it.

Senator BIBLE. The statement will be incorporated in full in the record. This is a joint statement on behalf of Senator Mansfield and you?

Senator METCALF. And myself, yes.

Senator BIBLE. Arid you may highlight it in your own way, Senator. (The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT 

MANSFIELD, 

OF HON. LEE METCALF, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND HON. MIKE U.S. SENATORS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA

by 

Mr. 

the 

Chairman, 

senior 

it is a pleasure to appear in support of S. 2048, sponsored also

Wyoming (Mr. 

Senator from Montana (Mr. Mansfield) and the Senators from

route home at 

McGee and Mr. Simpson). Majority leader Mansfield, en

sidered 

this time, has read my statement and asks that it also be con- his.

along 

The Senators 

the Big 

from Montana and Wyoming would set aside some 63,300 acres

park system. 

Horn River above Yellowtail Dam as a unit of the national

and north

The proposed national recreation area in south-central Montana

would cover 

-central Wyoming would include the spectacular Big Horn Canyon and

backed 

about one-third of the 195-mile shoreline created by the reservoir

of Reclamation 

up behind the Yellowtail Dam, scheduled for completion by the Bureau in 1966.

the 

The 

Montana

proposed area has outstanding scenic and recreation values. It straddles

a narrow 

-Wyoming border. The river runs through the Big Horn Canyon,

feet above 

precipitous gorge 47 miles long, with walls rising from 800 to 2,200

dating 

the river. On these walls are the strata of various geological periods back for millions of years.

sites 

In addition 

of significant 

to the impressive scenery and geology presented here, there are

stitution 

archeological and historical interest. The Smithsonian Inon 

is studying a narrow strip of land running the length of the canyon,

tribe. 

which have been found evidence of habitation by an unknown prehistoric Near the damsite are the remains of Fort C. F. Smith, an Army infantry

Sioux 

post established 

and 

in 1866 to protect travelers on the Bozeman Trail from the

opment 

Cheyenne Indians. The area also has immense possibilities for develswimming, 

of facilities for boating, camping, hiking, horseback riding, pack trips,

tail Dam 

fishing, and possibly winter sports. The reservoir behind Yellowalmost 

also will provide a safe water highway into what was formally an inaccessible region.

of 

The proposed Big Horn Canyon national recreation area is situated in one

largest 

our Nation's major vacation lands. It is only 110 miles east of our oldest and

It 

national park, Yellowstone, which last year attracted 1,872,500 visits.

and 

is near well-traveled vacation routes, such as U.S. Highways 87 and 212, Interstate 90, now under construction, to the north and east. Wyoming State Highway 14 will also provide access to the area from the south.

Missouri 

Since this is the only proposed reservoir national recreation area in the

thousands 

River Basin, it would serve the water-oriented recreation needs of of people from the Rocky Mountain region and the Great Plains. For example, about 177,000 persons reside within a 100-mile radius of either end of the Yellowtail Reservoir. Assuming initial recreational developments are in operation, the Park Service estimates that by 1970 use of the proposed

days 

recreational area by these local residents will amount to some 154,000 visitorpeople 

per year. In addition, the Park Service estimates that annual use by

that 

from other parts of the country will amount to 406,000 visitor-days so total usage by 1970 would be 560,000 visitor-days per year. From the standpoint of economy, all but about one-ninth of the land involved is 

being 

already 

acquired 

in Federal ownership. Within the area, more than 29,200 acres are by the Bureau of Reclamation for dam and reservoir purposes.
10 BIG HORN CANYON

Of the remainder, almost 27,000 acres are in the Federal land reserve. There

are some 719 acres of Montana State lands, which under our bill could only be

acquired with the concurrence of the State. Some 6,418 acres are privately

owned-4,560 acres in Montana and 1,858 in Wyoming. The Park Service

estimates cost of acquiring this land at $313,000 based on the experience of

the Bureau of Reclamation with land acquisition at Yellowtail Dam. It is the

studied view of the sponsors of S. 2048 that this unique area should be established, and blocked out at this time, with development to come as appropriations

are made available and on a priority list with comparable areas.

This view is shared by the Bureau of the Budget and the Interior Department's National Park Service and the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. The

later agency has documented the finding that the proposed Big Horn Canyon

national recreation area meets the criteria for national recreation areas.

Senator METCALF. I wish to briefly summarize. Prior to the introduction of this legislation, the Senators from Wyoming and the

Senators from Montana and their staffs held several conferences

not only among ourselves but with members of the Bureau of Land

Management and the Park Service, and we are all agreed on the urgency of this legislation. This proposed recreation area is unique.

It is unique in that it is just being formed. This is an opportunity

to get a reservoir formed behind Yellowtail Dam now under construction by the Bureau of Reclamation and do some of the

•things that we have desired to do in other recreation areas, but can't

do because of the high cost as a result of the fact that we have

come in after the area has been inundated.

For example, in this area we are going to have an operation by

the Fish and Wildlife Service. I am told that if you can get in

with a bulldozer before the area is inundated, you can build little

islands that form much better goose nesting habitat than you can

scrape up and dredge up after the inundation takes place.

Another thing is the boat ramps, the landing ramps that are going

to be part of the water recreation of this area can be installed as a

part of the planning at this time, and it would be a great deal

more expensive to put them in later.

This is unique as to cost. Most of the land here, as has been

pointed out by the Senator from Wyoming, is in Federal ownership.

The Park Service estimates that the non-Federal land in the area can

be acquired for some $313,000, and that is a realistic figure, Mr.

Chairman, because we have experience for the acquisition of land in

that area at the present time as a result of the acquisition of land

for construction of the Yellowtail Dam and inundation of the reservoir. This area is unique in that I know of no opposition from the

people whose land is going to be taken, from the ranchers and

stockmen in the area.

I know of no opposition from anyone whatsoever. This is unique

in that there is a possibility of enlargement as to future needs. The

Big Horn Canyon National Recreation Area would only cover about

one-third of the 195-mile shoreline created by the reservoir backed

up by Yellowtail Dam. The other two-thirds of the shoreline are

on the Crow Indian Reservation. None of the Crow Tribe lands

would be included in the initial area or taken by this bill, but the

sponsors of the bill want the Indians to bring in as much land as

they wish.

Prior to the introduction of the bill we held conferences with representatives of the Crow Tribe and with their management expert, the

firm of Ernst & Ernst, and during this whole business of acquir-
BIG 1-1ORN CANYON 11

ing reports from the agency we have continued to hold. conferences.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, yesterday on the telephone I talked to the

chairman of the Crow Tribal Council, and he asked if I thought he

should come back to participate in this hearing, and I informed

him that this bill only applied to the Federal land that was bein

taken, and that the Crow Tribe could work out their program, an

we were giving authority in this bill for the Secretary of Interior

to negotiate with the tribe for necessary right and rights-of-way

so that they could develop for their tribe and for the benefit of their

people the necessary tribal recreational conveniences on their own

land.

• So the Crow Tribe and the Crow Tribal Council and their planning firm and consulting firm and the National Park Service are

studying the area to consider the extent of the tribe's participation.

Mr. Chairman, this morning I held a preliminary conference with

the representatives of some of the Secretaries, the Secretary of the

Interior, the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service and others, because this is a new situation, the construction of a

national recreation area, this new national recreation area on a Bureau of Reclamation project which is in the process of being constructed.

We are going to have the other agencies involved, the Bureau of

Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and, as pointed out

by the Senator from Wyoming, administration, cooperative administration, as far as the Montana and the Wyoming Fish and Game

Commission for administration of hunting and fishing rights and

so forth.

I have often criticized the Secretary of the Interior and the Bureau

of Land Management and others for their failure to cooperate with

these agencies but in developing this bill we have had fine cooperation, consideration, and thoughtfulness in working out joint administration in this area. I want to say that the Bureau of Land Management has resolved a situation in Montana in the Badlands Grazing District just recently that seems almost as difficult as resolving

the Cuban crisis, and I have nothing but confidence that we will be

able to work out a joint administrative program with them. I am

informed that they have a task force to work out separate relationships of the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation and other agencies that may be

involved, and continue the multiple-use policies that we want to

continue, grazing and other things, on this unique area.

And so, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Senator Mansfield and myself

I strongly urge the passage of this bill.

I have one comment as far as the suggested amendments are concerned. This is one of the things that I have commented on before.

It is a weird and wonderful thing that you can send down to the

Secretary of the Interior for a drafting service, and for drafting

service only, proposed legislation after consultation and so forth,

and then they send up a bill, and then when the committee report

comes out they come up with several suggested amendments t o the

bill that they draft themselves. That is what has happened here.

I have no quarrel with most of the technical amendments suggested.

However, there is one amendment that recommends the deletion of
BIG HORN CANYON

the words "to carry out the purpose of this Act" which are in most

of the acts concerned, and the substitution therefore of the words

"for recreation and preservation purposes for resource utilization

not incompatible therewith," which is new language that I have been

unable to find in any other bill. I don't know why it is put in, but

I would suggest that we use the language that we have used in other

acts, to carry out the purposes of the act as originally drawn.

Senator BIBLE. Do you like that language and not the suggested

substitute language? When we question the departmental witnesses,

we will ask them why they made this suggested amendment.

Senator METCALF. I don't know the difference either.

Senator BIBLE. I have no questions. I would again ask you as I

did Senator Simpson, I would assume you would have no objection to

putting an overall limitation on development costs and land acquisition costs?

Senator METCALF. No, I don't. As I mentioned, I especially don't

because the figure that is in here is a realistic figure, and there will be

a little bit of flexibility on the $3131000. I am sure that the land

can be acquired for that because it is based upon our present day

experience in acquiring land in the immediate vicinity for the Yellowtail Reservoir. In fact, I would feel that it would be well to do that

so that we can have this committee and the legislative committee in

charge to continue to have control so that this doesn't spread, unless

we want it to be expanded.

Senator BIBLE. Now your bill introduced by four of you says that

no part of the Crow Indian Tribe in Montana shall be included within

the recreation area unless requested by the council of the tribe.

Indian lands so included may be developed in accordance with the

rules applicable in the area specified by the council and approved by

the Secretary.

How large is the Crow Indian Tribe of Montana?

Senator METCALF. How many members in the tribe?

Senator BIBLE. How many members in the tribe roughly?

Senator METCALF. The Crow Indian Tribe—I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I don't know how many there are.

Senator BIBLE. It can certainly be supplied for the record.

Senator METCALF. Yes. I will supply it for the record. The Crow

Indian Tribe is a substantial tribe. You will remember that we gave

them by congressional action $21/2 million for their land to be inundated by the reservoir, and subsequently they have received substantial sums of money from the Indian Claims Commission for

land that was taken earlier.

So they are a tribe of substantial resources, and they have employed the firm of Ernst & Ernst here in Washington, a consulting

and management firm, to develop for them a plan for their recreation

facilities of two-thirds of the shoreline here.

And I have long been an advocate that we don't do anything

without the consent of, and consultation with, the tribes, and this bill

only authorizes the Secretary to consult with the tribes and work out

the management plan.

Now I can supply for the record the number of Indians who are

members of the tribe.
BIG HORN CANYON 13

There are 2,488 enrolled members of the Crow Tribe, 2,216 of these

2,488 enrolled members are actually living on the Crow Reservation.

This is according to the 1960 Montana Almanac.

Senator BIBLE. Thank you very much. I am glad to have that for

the record.

The purpose of my question was prompted by a section that we have

in Lake Mead National Recreation Area. I would want to be satisfied that you are not going to find yourself confronted with problems

as this area becomes developed and as it attracts many, many visitors.

As I understand your position, the Big Horn Canyon National Recreation Area may be administered in that part that is described in the

bill by reference, and exist side by side with another recreation area

that can be administered and operated by the Crow Indian Tribe.

You think there is nothing incompatible in the operation of those

two?

Senator METCALF. Yes, I don't believe there would be anything

incompatible if the tribal government itself administered an area

adjacent to the national recreation area. I would hope, however, and

I think the present trend is that a management agreement would be

entered into with the Secretary and the members of the Crow Tribe,

and it would be administered as one unit, and this bill does authorize the Secretary of Interior to enter into a cooperative agreement.

Senator BIBLE. It would occur to me that that would be the preferable way for management, but I was assuming the instance where

the Crow Indian Tribe, for whatever reasons, might say "No, we

don't want to join up in one overall joint operating agency. We

prefer to operate our own tribal land by ourselves and let the National Park Service operate the balance of the recreation area."

My question was pointed more to that situation than the situation

where they do join up.

Senator METCALF. They can do that under this bill.

Senator BIBLE. Even if they didn't join up, you think that you

could work it out operationalwise without difficulty?

Senator METCALF. I am sure we could, but I would suggest that

the Interior witnesses be asked if they think that such an agreement

would work out too.

Senator BIBLE. Thank you.

Senator Anderson?

Senator ANDERSON. No questions.

Senator BIBLE. Senator Hayden?

Senator HAYDEN. No questions.

Sentor BIBLE. Senator Jordan?

Senator JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to commend our colleagues here for their diligence in getting on this thing early, and

on the effort they have put forth to set aside this area early enough

to accomplish the objective at a minimum cost. It is a fine effort.

I like that country and I hope we can get out there and pay it a

visit.

Senator BIBLE. The Senator from Wyoming.

Senator SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to congratulate

my colleague on a splendid statement.

35-211-64---3
14 BIG HORN CANYON

I notice, Senator Metcalf, you have brought in the fact that near

the damsite are the remains of Fort C. F. Smith over in Montana.

I can't resist the matter of prideful reference here to the fact that,

my grandfather, Finn Barnett, worked for L. C. Layson, and participated in the famous battle there near Fort C. F. Smith.

He was for many years the sole survivor of that fight against the

Missouri River chief when 19 of them held off some 2,500 Indians,

and since it is so nearby perhaps it might even actually be included.

I think I might also say that the immediate prospect of a new

designation of Highway 14 as a scenic highway because of this

development would be of tremendous importance to those crossing

the Big Horn, especially through the route which is at the south

end of this recreation area.

Senator METCALF. We in Montana, as you in Wyoming, are looking forward to the development of that access road as a result of

the increased traffic into this area, and it will bring our people

in that south central part of Montana closer together with those

people in northern Wyoming.

And, again, the Senator from Wyoming has pointed up another

reason for the urgency of this bill at this time. The authorization

of this recreation area will authorize the construction of access roads

at a time when we can work on them before the inundation of the

shoreline is established.

Senator BIBLE. Thank you very much, Senator Metcalf, for your

very splendid statement.

Senator METCALF. Thank you.

Senator SIMPSON. May I ask the Senator from Montana one question, because I think while he is here it would be well to clarify it,

Mr. Chairman.

Does the Senator from Montana understand that the States of

Montana and Wyoming would be responsible and have control of

the fish and wildlife resources or that the National Park Service

would be responsible for that'?

Senator METCALF. No it is my understanding that the control of

fishing and hunting would be under the respective laws of the State

of Wyoming and the State of Montana and under the control of our

respective commissions.

Senator ANDERSON. As I understand it, the Federal Government

will put up the money and then the control will go to the States, the

administration to the State and the fees to the State.

Senator METCALF. Yes, sir except for that part under the control

of the Fish and Wildlife Service administered as a refuge or a game

range which is authorized. Where the hunting and fishing is .permitted, and it. is contemplated it will be continued to be permitted

under the multiple-use concept here, except on the Crow Reservation, licenses will be issued by the State and the respective commissions will have control of setting the seasons and harvesting and

administering the game.

Senator ANDERSON. Is that the traditional way of doing it with the

Federal Government putting up the money'?

Senator METCALF. Again, that is different than we have done in

national parks. It is no different than we administer our national

forests and our Bureau of Land Management lands.
BIG HORN CANYON 15

Now, this is an area that is in between a national park, hasn't the

same sanctity that we put in a national park, and we have just said

it has a special use over and above the ordinary multiple use for

recreational resources. But it would seem to me that here is an area

where the analogy is more with the national forests and the Bureau

of Land Management lands than it is with the national park lands,

and, therefore, we try to give as much State sovereignty as possible.

Senator BIBLE. If the Senator from New Mexico will yield, this is

a section which has caused those of us interested in the Lake Mead

National Recreation Area great difficulty and many, many problems.

I would say that the section which is now before us to be the governing section so far as fishing and hunting on Big Horn Canyon

National Recreation Area is concerned is almost word for word the

same language we have in Lake Mead.

It reads as follows, and I think it is fairly self-explanatory. It

says •

The Secretary shall permit hunting and fishing on lands and water under his jurisdiction within the recreation area in accordance with the appropriate

laws of the States of Montana or Wyoming to the extent applicable except as

the Secretary may designate zones where and established periods when no hunting or fishing shall be permitted for reasons of public safety, administration, fish or wildlife management, or public use and enjoyment. Except in

emergencies any regulations by the Secretary pursuant to this section shall

be put into effect only after consultation with the Montana Fish and Game

Department or the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission.

Senator ANDERSON. I don't think that says it is solely under the

control of Wyoming and Montana.

Senator SIMPSON. Will the Senator yield?

Senator ANDERSON. Yes.

Senator SIMPSON. Under section 3 of the bill the user fees applicable will go to the Federal Treasury. The only fees that would go.

to the Montana and Wyoming Game and Fish Commission would be

those areas within the confines of the State.

Senator ANDERSON. Under this language does the Secretary not

have complete jurisdiction to close any area he wants at any time

he wants for any reason he wants?

Senator METCALF. I believe that he would have.

Senator ANDERSON. So do I.

Senator METCALF. And it is contemplated, I think, that the Fish

and Wildlife Service contemplates the establishment of a refuge

on a part of the area for the development of both wildlife and waterfowl. But under our concept of multiple use, and hunting and fishing is permitted, and should be permitted on this area and continued, Montana Fish and Wildlife Service will have control of licensing of the hunters that go in there and the establishment of

the seasons, as I understand it, and the licenses, the license fees

would be established and set by the Montana Fish and Game Commission for the area lying in the State of Montana.

Senator ANDERSON. You say the establishment of the season.

What does it mean when it says the Secretary may designate the

zones and established periods when? Isn't that control of the seasons?

Senator METCALF. I feel that we have to give authority to the

Secretary to administer the areas he sets aside.
16 BIG HORN CANYON

Senator ANDERSON. I didn't want the record to show that this is

going to be under the control of Wyoming, Montana, or anyplace else,

but under the control of the Secretary.

Senator METCALF. Again, let me pay tribute to the Secretary of the

Interior in the way that the things have been started. He worked

out recently, in cooperation with the State of Wyoming and the

State of Montana, I believe, a mutually satisfactory solution to the

elk problem in the national parks.

Senator ANDERSON. I don't question that. I merely say that he

has the right to work it out.

Senator METCALF. I feel that it is the intent of this legislation

and that language that, except for those areas set aside in the

public interest for the development of the game refuges and the

areas the Fish and Wildlife Service deems necessary to protect as

part of their game management program, there should be hunting

and fishing on this area, and when there is, the seasons shall be

set by the Montana or the Wyoming Fish and Game Commissions,

respectively. The game limits shall be set by them, and the hunters

shall have to have appropriate licenses from the State of Montana

and the State of Wyoming.

Senator ANDERSON. Why don't we change the language?

Senator METCALF. I don't interpret it the way the Senator from

New Mexico does. I feel if there is any doubt about it it should be

changed accordingly and perhaps the Senator from Wyoming, who

I am sure feels the same way, may offer an amendment.

Senator ANDERSON. If the Secretary may designate the zones

where

Senator METCALF. I want that. I want some zones where there is

no hunting and fishing permitted. I want the Fish and Wildlife

Service to have a right to establish a refuge if they want.

I mentioned the goose nesting areas. I want an area where people

will be able to drive through as they can in the national parks and

see some of our big game animals that abound in the area. But I

also want hunting and fishing to continue in some parts of the area

as an ordinary recreational resource, and I want that under the

control of the State of Montana or the State of Wyoming, respectively.

Senator ANDERSON. I don't wish to argue the question. I merely

say that when the bill is passed—and I hope it may be—I hope no

one will then contend that the Secretary of the Interior does not

have full power to say that no hunting or fishing shall be permitted

for reasons of public safety, administration, fish or wildlife management, or public use and recreation anywhere in the area.

He has complete control, not the State.

Senator METCALF. I don't think that the Senator from New Mexico

and I are too far apart.

Senator ANDERSON. In the main, I believe the State should be allowed to operate it. I just don't like to see it going in the record, a,

statement that the States are in control because as long as the Secretary has this authority he has the final word and he ought to administer that with full cooperation of the States, and I submit and hope

he will.

Senator METCALF. That is a statement that I am in complete accord

with.
BIG HORN CANYON 17

Senator BIBLE. I am sure the committee can work this problem out

to the satisfaction of the Senator from New Mexico, and the sponsors

of the bill.

I might say, as I attempted to say a few moments ago, this is almost

word for word the same section that we used in Lake Mead National

Recreation Area on hunting and fishing. This has been in operation

for 30 years. On the basis of experience it has worked out very

well. It has caused no problems. And I am sure that language like

or similar to this would work out equally well with the Big Horn

Canyon National Recreation Area.

Any further questions of Senator Metcalf?

Thank you very much, Senator.

At this point in the record, Mr. Reporter, please include the statement of Senator Gale McGee, a cosponsor of this legislation, and have

it incorporated in full, on Senate 2048.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. GALE MCGEE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

Mr. Chairman, I deeply appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony

to your committee on a project that I believe will provide a badly needed increase in recreational opportunities in Wyoming and Montana.

It does not take much vision to realize that one of the prime needs of coming

generations in this country will be recreational areas to match our expanding

population and increasing leisure time. By the year 1970 more than 214 million

Americans will be looking for recreational space. As the largest landholder

in the western portion of the United States, the Federal Government has a sizable obligation to do its best to make sure that recreational space is there.

The Big Horn Canyon National Recreational Area will fulfill a real need

for additional recreational outlets in the areas of north-central Wyoming and

south-central Montana. The water backed up by the Yellowtail Dam at the

northern end of the recreation area will create a large lake amid some of the

most spectacular scenery in the country. I refer to the Big Horn Canyon,

whose stone walls rise from 800 to 2,200 feet above the water level. When

this lake is filled it will provide a reservoir 71 miles long with a shoreline of

195 miles. The total acreage of land and water will be 63,287.

This is an area, between the Big Horn Mountains in Wyoming and the Pryor

Mountains in Montana where the Great Plains merge with the Rocky Mountains. The visitor will be able to see terrain and vegetation typical to both

areas in an area of wild beauty and rugged landscapes.

I will not go into detail on the variety of recreational outlets this area will

afford, it will be ideal for camping, fishing, hiking, picnicking, horseback riding,

swimming, water sports, and many more outdoor activities. The need for

such facilities in this area can be illustrated by the fact that the Park Service

estimates that by 1970 local residents—those within 100 miles of the recreation

area—will spend 154,000 visitor-days there each year. This number will be

swelled by an additional 562,000 visitor-days by tourists and others further

away.

One further factor which supports the immediate development of this recreation area is its low cost. The Park Service estimates that basic acquisition and

development costs will be about $7.7 million. And when full recreational use of

the area is reached, it will return annual monetary benefits of $1,011,000,

which is indeed a most favorable ratio.

Mr. Chairman, the Big Horn Canyon National Recreation Area meets all

the requirements for a recreation project. It represents a constructive step

in meeting present recreational needs and preparing for those in the future.

Those of us who live in the West have enjoyed the bounties and beauties of

nature and we hope that our children and grandchildren will have the same

opportunities to enjoy nature and the relaxation and peace of mind that can

come with outdoor recreation. This recreation area is clearly an advance

toward that end.
18 BIG HORN CANYON

Senator BIBLE. Our next witness on this legislation will be Howard

Baker, the Assistant Director of the National Park Service.

Mr. Baker?

STATEMENT OF HOWARD BAKER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL

PARK SERVICE; ACCOMPANIED BY FRANK E. HARRISON, CHIEF, 1141

DIVISION OF LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, S. 2048

would establish the Big Horn Canyon National Recreation Area in

the States of Montana and Wyoming. The area will provide the

public with excellent water-oriented recreational activities, now so

rare to this vast inland region, along the 71-mile long reservoir being

created by Yellowtail Dam, currently under construction on the Big

Horn River.

The river-type reservoir will twist southward from the dam between steep canyon walls, seldom wider than 1 mile except at its upstream end, beyond Big Horn Canyon, where it will spread in shallow

depths to a maximum width of 2 miles. The Interior Department's

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife plans a waterfowl and

upland game management project in this area.

The recreation area's total area would be about 63,300 acres, including a reservoir water surface of some 17,300 acres. Almost 90 percent

of the area covered by this bill is already in Federal ownership. Of the

remainder, 719 acres are Montana State lands, and some 6,418 acres

are private holdings, 4,560 in Montana and 1,858 in Wyoming.

As envisioned by the Department of the Interior, this area will

provide water sports, including all types of boating, along with hunting, fishing, hiking, riding, and sightseeing, so that the vacationist

or the weekend visitor can choose outdoor activity to suit his tastes.

As is the case with all such areas, our guiding principle will be preservation of natural and historic features with development of facilities for the maximum public enjoyment.

Yellowtail Dam, now being erected in Montana by the Interior

Department's Bureau of Reclamation, will be one of the largest dams

in America, a spectacular concrete arch 500 feet high and 1,445 feet

long at its crest. Hydroelectric power generation is its primary purpose, other purposes being flood control, irrigation, and sedimentation storage. It is scheduled to start storing water toward the end

of this year.

This legislation would provide a firm statutory basis for the

creation of this new national recreation area as recommended by the

President's Recreation Advisory Council. It represents an opportunity for the Congress to add a significant new facility to the

national system of parks, seashores, and recreation areas.

The bill before you today would not take in any part of the Crow

Indian Reservation, whose lands will border about two-thirds of the

reservoir's 195-mile shoreline. The bill under discussion, however,

provides that Crow Indian lands can be included in the recreation

area at the request of the tribal council. The bill stipulates that such

lands may be developed and administered as parts of the recreation

area subject to any limitations specified by the tribal council and

approved by the Secretary of the Interior.
BIG HORN CANYON 19

The National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the

Crow Indians themselves, and consultants retained by the Crow

Tribal Council have now completed studies of the recreation potential of the Indian reservation. The results of 'these studies will assist

the Indians in determining the nature and extent of their participation in the full recreational development of this area.

The Crow Indian Tribe will realize substantial financial benefits

from Big Horn Canyon National Recreation Area, especially if the

Tribe decides to participate directly in the coordinated recreational

development of the area.

The Bureau of Reclamation is also constructing an afterbay dam,

2/1 2 miles downstream from the main structure, to offset the fluctuations in outflow and provide a relatively even supply of clear, cool

water in the river. Among other things, this will greatly enhance

trout fishing on this stretch of the river.

In cutting the 47-mile-long Big Horn Canyon, the river has exposed geologic formations dating back many millions of years, producing highly scenic erosional features. And the area's mountains—

the Big Horn Range to the east, the Pryor Mountains to the west—

are part of a large, anticlinal arch which extends northward from.

central Wyoming into southern Montana. Geologists are still study- ing these ranges in an effort to determine how they came into being.

When the new dam backs up water to form this reservoir, the American public for the very first time will be able to easily view the canyon's spectacular walls, with colors ranging from pale yellows

to the intense reds of some exposed shale. More adventurous visitors

can explore nearby caves and tributary canyons. Except for occa- sional float trips, Big Horn Canyon itself has been practically

inaccessible.

This remarkable natural setting also includes lush upland prairies

between the two mountain ranges. In May and June, these grasslands are covered with flowers. Dwarf juniper, mountain mahogany,

chokecherry, sumac, buffalo berry and sage grow on the hillsides.

In their natural habitats near the reservoir site are elk, mule deer,

black bear, grouse, waterfowl, cottontail, muskrat, beaver and mink.

The Crow Indian's maintain a buffalo herd on the eastern side of the

canyon, and wild horses from unclaimed ranch stock range through

the Pryor Mountains to the west.

The National Park Service proposal permits continuation of grazing, and the bill directs that hunting and fishing shall be permitted

in accordance with State law.

Archeological studies indicate that primitive man may have inhabited the Big Horn Canyon area more than 4,000 years ago. The

Smithsonian Institution is continuing archeological studies at several

sites in the canyon.

The approximately 6,400 acres of private lands to be acquired,

incidentally, are largely undeveloped rangelands. We estimate they

will cost no more than $313,000, with purchases spread over a 4-year

period. Development costs during the first year after establishment

will be $727,300, ranging upward to $2,270,000 in the third year, then

declining so that over the first 5 years they will total slightly more

than $5.5 million.
20 BIG HORN CANYON

Gentlemen, the Big Horn Canyon National Recreation Area will

offer something for everyone in the way of healthful outdoor activity,

and offer it at a Federal cost far below those we must pay for recreational development in our Nation's more populous areas. I respectfully urge you to satisfy yourselves as to its merits, to ask us any

questions that come to mind. Then, we hope that you will decide,

as we in the Department of the Interior have decided, that it is

worthy of this committee's endorsement.

I thank you.

Senator BIBLE. Thank you, Mr. Baker.

I would like to have you furnish for the record or testify from your

own knowledge the manner in which you arrive at the $51/2 million

development cost. I recognize that it is going to cost a considerable

amount of money to open this area up with roads and with trails and

with campgrounds and campsites and boat ramps, boat launchings,

and that sort of thing.

Do you have a detailed breakdown as to how you arrive at $51/2

million over a period of 5 years?

Mr. BAKER. I would like to explain, Senator Bible, that this $51/2

million covers the first 5 years. Actually, our total long-range development cost would be in the neighborhood of S10 million.

Senator BIBLE. And that is over how long a period of time?

Mr. BAKER. That could go on as long as 10 years.

Now, there will be one other item that is rather indefinite at this

time.

The bill provides that the Crow Indians may propose that certain

of their lands be added to the national recreation area. Now if that

happens, it is possible that our development costs might be in excess

of what we show at this time.

Senator BIBLE. As I understand it, you are assuming that the Crow

Indian Tribe is not coming within the territorial boundaries of this

proposed recreation area. Your figures are based upon the development of the area within the jurisdiction of the Park Service?

Mr. BAKER. As proposed by the bill, that is right.

Senator BIBLE. As proposed by the bill.

Mr. BAKER. Yes.

Senator BIBLE. That is approximately $51/2 million for the first 5

years, probably an overall $10 million for a period of 10 years?

Mr. BAKER. That is right.

Senator BIBLE. Now, again, because I don't think your answer was

responsive to my question, what do you do with the $51/2 million for

the first 5 years? What do you end up with?

Mr. BAKER. The first thing we will have to do will be to build the

launching ramps that are necessary. We hope to do that 

Senator BIBLE. Did I understand your answer correctly, these are

the ramps that you are going to put in as the lake goes up and down?

Mr. BAKER. That is right.

Senator BIBLE. Ramps?

Mr. BAKER. We will also have to build some access roads.

Senator BIBLE. Can you tell us how much you have budgeted for

building of ramps?

Mr. BAKER. I don't have it broken down just in that category. I

can break it down generally.
BIG HORN CANYON 21

Senator BIBLE. Why don't you generally tell us.

You are asking the committee to approve a bill. The acquisition

cost of the land will be $313,000.

Mr. BAKER. That is right.

Senator BIBLE. The development cost over a period of 5 years will

be $51/2 million.

Mr. BAKER. Yes.

Senator BIBLE. That is a pretty sizable chunk of money. What

will you do with $51/2 million, just roughly?

Mr. BAKER. I can furnish that, for the record, Senator.

Senator BIBLE. Can you testify to it generally, how much you are

going to spend for roads and trails, how much you are going to

spend for visitor centers, how much you are going to spend for

campsites, how much you are going to spend for ramps?

Mr. BAKER. In the first 5 years we plan a visitors' center which

we estimate will cost in the neighborhood of $250,000, and we are

talking now on the basis that this visitors' center, which would be

at the Yellowtail Dam area, would be a joint endeavor between the

Park Service and the Bureau of Reclamation, so we would have one

visitors center for the area.

Also at the Yellowtail Dam area, we will need $64,000 for access

roads at the Box Canyon area. We will need $155,000 for entrance

roads to the visitors center including parking areas, walks, and so

forth. We will need $70.000 for a road development connecting the

road proposed south from 

Senator BIBLE. What is the total amount that you have set out for

roads and trails?

We certainly recognize von have got to connect this area up and

make it accessible. Would that take about half the amount of your

$51/2 million?

Mr. BAKER. As I recall, Senator, and I will find it here just as soon

as I can, I think it is a little over $2 million for roads and trails, and

the remainder of the $5% million, which would be $31/2 million,

would be for physical buildings and utilities.

Senator BIBLE. All right.

Now, what type of buildings are you going to build there?

You testified to a visitors center that will cost you $250,000..

Mr. BAKER. Boat launching ramps would be chargeable to our

buildings program. We have utilities.

Senator BIBLE. How much do you figure for ramps?

Mr. BAKER. It depends on the length of the ramps, of course.

Senator BIBLE. I know, but you must have some idea what your

ramps are going to cost.

Mr. BAKER. They will cost us more than $80,000 apiece.

Senator BIBLE. What is the total cost of the ramps that you are

going to put in this area? You come up with a $51/2 million

figure. All I want you to do is to justify the figure, how you arrive

at it.

Mr. BAKER. We have three ramps involved, so it would be in the

neighborhood of $350,000 to $400,000.

Senator BIBLE. Very well.

Now, how many other buildings are you going to put there besides

the visitors center which cost $225,000 to $250,000, the ramps cost
22 BIG HORN CANYON

$350,000. Now, you testify to the physical structures. What are

those physical Structures, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and how much will each of

them cost?

Mr. BAKER. We are going to have to have housing for a certain number of our employees, the people who will be stationed there permanently. We will have possibly in the first 5 years—we have the

figures here.

Senator BIBLE. Maybe you have someone else here?

I am not trying to confuse you at all, Mr. Baker. The committee

members may ask me what are you going to spend the $51/2 million

forr,and I want to be in a position to answer them.

BAKER. May I go back, then?

Here is a breakdown between roads, trails, buildings, and utilities.

I see the roads and trails estimate now is $41/2 million and the buildings and utilities will be $1 million.

Senator BIBLE. You are testifying now that in the first 5 years you

are going to spend $41/2 million for roads and trails?

Mr. BAKER. That is right, and $1 million for buildings and utilities.

Senator BIBLE. $1 million for buildings and utilities.

All right, now for the $1 million you are going to get a visitors

center that will cost you $225,000, you are going to get ramps that will

cost you $300,000.

That leaves you about a half million dollars. What are you going

to do with the half million dollars?

Mr. BAKER. The rest of it will be for utilities. We will have to

have water and sewage systems in the major developments, as shown

in orange on that map. We will have to have housing for our permanent personnel. We will have to have campground facilities for

camping areas and picnic areas, and this will, of course, include

ranger stations or caretakers cabins and so forth.

Senator BIBLE. And then the next 5 years you envision the expenditure of another $5 million. Of that $5 million how much will be

used for roads and trails?

Mr. BAKER. I don't have a breakdown on that one.

Senator BIBLE. If you don't have that on the second five, I guess we

can just kind of see where we are going on the first five. You can

furnish that for the record.

Mr. BAKER. I can try to furnish that for the record.

Senator BIBLE. I wish you would. I think they want to have a 10-

year look at this program. It is about a 10-year program. It is

going to cost about $10 million.

Mr. BAKER. That is right, sir.

Senator BIBLE. I don't think that is an undue amount of money for

the great area that you are going to open up, and undoubtedly the

great visitation you will have but I do want for the record some idea

of exactly how you are going 

have,

spend it.

Now, I think you have covered the first 5 years fairly well, and I

would like to have you cover the next 5, and supply it for the record.

(The information requested is as follows:)
BIG HORN CANYON 23

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE,

Washington, D.C., June 10, 1964. Hon. ALAN BIBLE,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR BIBLE: During the hearings of May 29 on S. 2048, a bill to' provide for the establishment of the Big Horn Canyon National Recreation/ Area, Mont., your committee requested a breakdown of the estimated cost of development over the 10-year period from the date of establishment of the area.

Enclosed is a detailed statement of development costs in terms of "roads and trails" and "buildings and utilities" for the first 5 years and for 5 years thereafter. As the Department's witness testified, we anticipate that the total development will be spread over this 10-year period. Certain questions pertaining to the recreational development of Crow Indian lands adjacent to the reservoir were also raised at the hearing. We anticipate that these questions will be resolved shortly and we will contact your com- mittee further in this regard.

Sincerely yours,

HOWARD W. BAKER,

Assistant Director.

Big Horn Canyon National Recreation Area proposal (S. 2048)

Estimated cost of development:

1st 5 years $5,566,300 Future years (6 to 10) 4,831,445

Grand total 10,397,745 Breakdown of development 1st 5 years:

Roads and trails:

Circulation and access roads and parking 3,993,000 Boat ramps (3) 418,000 Campground, picnic, and service roads 150,000

Total, roads and trails 4,561,000

Buildings and utilities:

Public contact buildings 250,000 Boat docks, marinas, and related facilities 321,300 Employee housing (permanent and seasonal) 160,000 Utility buildings 20,000 Campgrounds and picnic areas 254,000

Total, buildings and utilities 1,005,300

Breakdown of development future years (6 to 10) :

Roads and trails:

Circulation and access roads and parking $2,215,845 Trails and paths 

Campground 69,500 roads 190,000

Total, roads and trails 2,475,345

Buildings and utilities:

Interpretive facilities 

Utility 350,000 buildings 

Utilities 100,000

70,000 Site development 

Employee 206,500 housing (permanent and seasonal) 620,000 Signs and markers 51,900 Water related facilities 

Campground 50,000 and picnic grounds 907,700

Total, buildings and utilities 2,356, 100
24 BIG HORN CANYON

MT. BAKER. All right.

Senator BIBLE. Now, may I ask you one other additional question?

It was one that was prompted by the query of the Senator from

Montana, Mr. Metcalf, when he testified.

As you know, your official report on page 4 in the third paragraph

states, in part, as follows:

Line 13, page 3, then the next sentence which is the one to which

I am directing your attention: "In order to clarify the reference to

administrative authorities in section 3(b) we recommend deleting

'to carry out the purposes of this Act' on page 4, line 3, and substituting 'for recreation and preservation purposes and for resource utilization not incompatible therewith.'"

Now, why did you substitute those words for the words "to carry

out the purposes of the Act"? What do you gain by it and what is

the necessity for it?

Mr. BAKER. Senator, I would like to refer you to section 3.

On page 3 of the bill starting on line 16, the bill refers to the management, utilization, and disposal of renewable resources in a manner

that promotes or is compatible with and does not significantly impair

public recreation and conservation of scenic, scientific, historic, or

other values contributing to public enjoyment.

It is our thought that the recommended revised wording would

be necessary to be sure that the intent of section 3 was adequately

covered.

Senator BIBLE. I don't think you would get it under the words

introduced in the bill "to carry out the purposes of this Act."

I think that is a point that the subcommittee can resolve. I don't

think it is too important a point.

The Senator from New Mexico?

Senator ANDERSON. No questions.

Senator BIBLE. The Senator from Arizona.

Senator HAYDEN. No questions.

Senator BIBLE. Senator Jordan?

Senator JORDAN. Mr. Baker, do you have other situations of dual

management of the National Park Service with Indian tribes in

recreation areas?

Mr. BAKER. Not in recreation areas that I know of, Senator Jordan,

but there is a national monument, I believe it is Canyon De Chelly in

which we actually have lands that are owned by the Indians. We

operate a part of the reservation lands under an arrangement with

the Indians.

Senator JORDAN. Have you been able to work out a satisfactory

arrangement with them?

Mr. BAKER. As far as I know, we have, sir.

Senator JORDAN. Turning now to some supporting data that comes

from the Department of the Interior, having to do with civilian

employment, I am looking at a sheet that says, "Subject matter:

Legislation to provide for the establishment of the Big Horn Canyon

National Recreation Area," the estimated additional man-years of

civilian employment and expenditures for the 5 years of the proposed

new or expanded program, and I look under a column headed

"Schedule." And I ask you if it is true that you expect to have ultimately permanent personnel of 41.
BIG HORN CANYON 25

Mr. BAKER. Yes, sir.

Senator JORDAN. And then the item below there, total estimated additional man-years of civilian employment, 44.

Mr. BAKER. That would be seasonal employment, sir.

Senator JORDAN. Man-years?

Mr. BA10ER. Yes.

Senator JORDAN. This says man-years.

Mr. BAKER. That is right.

Senator JORDAN. But it would add up to 44 man-years?

Mr. BAKER. That is our estimate, sir.

Senator JORDAN. A total of 85 permanent?

Mr. BAKER. No, we would have 41 permanent employees.

Senator JORDAN. Yes.

Mr. BAKER. Forty-one man-years of permanent employees, and 44

man-years of seasonal employees.

Senator JORDAN. Yes. In other words, there would possibly be

three or four times that many for a shorter period of time, and you

are to end up with 44 man-years of seasonal employment?

Mr. BAKER. Because of the weather conditions in this part of the

country, we would have most of our employment in the summertime.

Senator JORDAN. I can appreciate that.

Now, my next question is this: This is to administer approximately

one-third of the shoreline of the reservoir? That is the part that you

will be administering, isn't it?

Mr. BAKER. Pardon me, I didn't get your question.

Senator JORDAN. The part you will be administering will be approximately one-third of the reservoir shoreline?

Mr. BAKER. No. We will administer all of the recreation area

as outlined on the map over there. The reference to one-third of

the shoreline is in relationship to the ownership of the Indians.

Senator JORDAN. Yes.

Mr. BAKER. Now, the Indians do not own right down to the shoreline. The Bureau of Reclamation has acquired the land that is

necessary to create the reservoir.

Senator JORDAN. Then you have possibly answered my question.

Then the 85 man-years required to administer this project would be

for the whole administration and not for one-third of it?

Mr. BAKER. That is right. Sorry.

Senator JORDAN. It would include the area that extends into

the Crow Indian Reservation for administration?

Mr. BAKER. I am sorry, Senator. I am told now that the total

that you are reading, going back to the page you are referring to,

the total is 44 man-years. You see, we have some seasonal employment listed up there under seasonal rangers and seasonal interpreters

which I overlooked. There is an item of 7 seasonal rangers

and interpreters—they are seasonal people, so you have to take

that out of the 41. It makes the total 44 man-years of employment.

Senator JORDAN. Then why do you have the total estimated additional man-years of civilian employment?

Senator BIBLE. Can Mr. Harrison respond to that, one or the other

of you?

Just be seated, Mr. Harrison.
26 .HORN CANYON

Mr. HARRISON. Senator Jordan, the word "additional" is used in

the context of increased employment which will result from enactment of this legislation. The Bureau of the Budget requires that

we furnish with each piece of legislation an estimate of the increase

in cost and in personnel that will result to the Government by virtue

of the enactment of the legislation. So, "additional" is used in this '

instance for that reason.

In other words, the bill will result in this additional amount of

personnel. That is the significance of the word in this case.

Senator JORDAN. Then the total is not 85? The total is 44?

Mr. HARRISON. That is Correct.

Senator JORDAN. The total is 44. That is confusing to me, and

I wanted it cleared for the record.

Senator ANDERSON. YOU mean that additional does not mean

addition?

Mr. HARRISON. It means additional in the broadest sense in that

it is an additional cost to the United States.

Senator ANDERSON. How broad a sense can you get additional?

It is additional or it isn't. What has the broad sense got to do with

it?

Mr. HARRISON. The last line of the attachment to the Department's

report of April 30, 1964, doesn't mean that the 41 is in addition to

the 41 shown in the previous line, but the total additional employment of the Government as a result of this legislation.

Senator ANDERSON. You make it very clear.

Mr. HARRISON. It is difficult to explain, sir.

Senator BIBLE. We had better leave the record where it is I think.

I think the only point is this: Senator Jordan wanted to know how

many permanent employees you had and how many seasonal employees you had in the fifth year of your operation. I think that is

the only point he was trying to ask.

What is the answer to that question? How many permanent employees do you have in the fifth year of operation, how many total

plus seasonal?

Mr. BAKER. YOU have me all confused now.

Mr. HARRISON. Senator, the total number of employees that will

result from the enactment of this legislation is 44. It is composed

of 41 employees in the category called substantive, one in the category administrative services and support, and the two people who

are under the category executive direction, making a total of 44

people altogether, sir.

Senator BIBLE. You have got that 41 plus 3 is 44, but of that 44

how many are seasonal?

Mr. BAKER. I have totaled it up here, Senator. It totals up to 15

permanent.

Senator BIBLE. Fifteen are permanent. Then the balance would

be seasonal?

Mr. BAKER. The balance are seasonal.

Senator BIBLE. That is the answer we want.

Mr. BAKER. Yes.

Senator BIBLE. The Senator from Wyoming.

Senator SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I think there are a number of

things here that have got to be cleared up.
BIG HORN CANYON 27

You have certainly got me confused now. I want you to be awfully

sure that you are giving the committee the proper data with respect

to the administration of these areas.

I think your testimony probably is a little bit confusing now.

It is my understanding that, the two-thirds shoreline which comes

out of the Indian reservation to which the Indian lands run right

down to the shore is to be administered by the Indians, am I not

right?

Mr. BAKER. You are right, sir.

Senator BIBLE. That wasn't your statement earlier.

Are we clear on this?

Mr. BAKER. I said, Senator, that we would be administering the

water within the reservoir.

What the Senator just asked me with reference to the Indian reservation, is whether the Indians will administer their lands that they

still hold down to the land that is owned by the Bureau of Reclamation.

Senator ANDERSON. The Senator from Wyoming said shoreline.

Can't you identify where the line of authority is?

He said shoreline, didn't you, Senator Simpson?

Senator SixesoN. That is right.

Senator ANDERSON. What is the answer on the shoreline? Who

administers down to the shoreline? Never mind the land of the

Bureau of Reclamation.

Mr. BAKER. Senator Anderson, the Bureau of Reclamation in buying land to construct this reservoir purchased certain lands from the

Crow Indian Tribe in order to provide enough land for the reservoir

to flood. Now, this means that there is a section of land above the

high water of the reservoir that will be owned by the Federal

Government.

The Crow Indian Tribe will administer their land that they still

own down to that line.

Now, that line varies because of the topography, and so forth.

But it is a very, very narrow line, approximately in the neighborhood

of 300 feet.

Senator ANDERSON. 300 feet? Therefore, they will have control of

boating facilities and all the recreation activities?

Mr. BAKER. No, because there will be an area in there that is public

land above the reservoir water level that will be administered by the

National Park Service.

Senator BIBLE. The Senator from Wyoming?

Senator SIMPSON. May I yield to my colleague from Montana, a

member of this committee, because I am sure that he has something

to submit here that will help clarify this matter.

Senator BIBLE. The Senator from Montana.

Senator METCALF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that there

will be another massacre near the Custer battlefield if that interpretation is put on this legislation.

It is my understanding that insofar as the building of boat ramps

and recreational—water based recreational resources within the Crow

Indian Reservation right down to the shoreline will be under the

administration of the Crow Tribe and under joint operation with the

Secretary of Interior. It is our intent in enacting this legislation

that that recreation resource be left to the Indian tribe.
28 BIG HORN CANYON

I understand that you are taking some land, and it won't be

exactly the same as the shoreline, but as far as recreation resources

are concerned, it is certainly the intent of the Senators from Montana

that the Crow Tribe will build the landing ramps and the boathouses

and all those things right down to the water. I want that understood.

Senator ANDERSON. I understand the reason for the Senator's

anxiety, because some of us have the same anxiety.

When they finished Grand Canyon Dam, it was proposed that a certain tribe of Indians be given all the recreation facilities, even

though they did not own the land. When they finished, with the

Navajo Dam, the same situation arose even though it is far away

from the Navajo Reservation, and I understand the Indians aren't

going to be allowed this.

You say in your statement:

The bill before you today would not take in any part of the Crow Indian

Reservation whose lands will border about two-thirds of the reservoir's

195-mile shoreline.

Now, either it will or it won't.

Will it or won't it?

Mr. BAKER. Senator, the plan which you see on the board does not

include any development on Crow Indian Reservation land at this

time because we have not got together with the 

Senator ANDERSON. I understand. I wasn't looking at the board.

I was asking from your own statement, your statement says: "The bill

will not take in any part of the Crow Indian Reservation."

Mr. BAKER. That is right.

Senator ANDERSON. Senator Metcalf has very correctly pointed out

if it subsequently develops that the Government owns the 300-foot

strip and it has charge of the boat docks and it has charge of all

the recreation, we will be faced with another Custer massacre, because they will have been misled by your own statement.

In your own statement you say, "Their lands will border about

two-thirds of the reservation's 195-mile shoreline."

Now, border does not mean approach, does it?

Mr. BAKER. No, I don't think so.

Senator ANDERSON. It means border. If it borders that much, who

is in control of the recreation areas, the Indians?

Mr. BAKER. The Indians will control the development on the land;

yes_, sir.

Senator ANDERSON. That would be a good place to leave it.

Senator METCALF. Yes, let's leave it that way.

Senator BIBLE. Senator Simpson?

Senator SIMPSON. The other question that we have to clarify,

thanks to the colloquy between the Senator from New Mexico and the

Senator from Montana, is the question of this game and fish business

in the two States, and I have some questions here which I think you

can answer, Howard, pretty direct, and let's get this thing clarified

and make it crystal clear, because otherwise we run into some great

difficulties, as you well know.

The witness is familiar with the situation that exists between the

State of Wyoming and the National Park Service with respect to

the elk herd in the Grand Tetons. Would a similar arrangement be
BIG HORN CANYON 29

worked out with the Montana Game and Fish Department and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department?

Will that be worked out there?

Mr. BAKER. Senator, this plan for cooperation in the Big Horn.

Canyon area would be quite different from the Grand Teton legisla- tion. At Grand Teton, the law provides that the National Park Service and the Secretary of Interior will jointly conclude with the fish and game commission and the Governor of Wyoming that cer- tain reduction of elk is necessary within Grand Teton National Park, and that reduction will be done through hunting by people who are deputized, who have a State hunting license, and are then deputized

as park rangers.

In this case, the Secretary of the Interior will manage the fishing and hunting on the area, but in accordance with State fish and game laws.

Senator SIMPSON. Then let me ask you this question: Will the fishermen have to have a Wyoming fishing license to fish on the Wyoming side of the Big Horn Canyon recreation area?

Mr. BAKER. In my understanding, yes, sir they would.

Senator SIMPSON. And similarly on the Montana side with a Mon- tana license?

Mr. BAKER. Yes, sir.

Senator BIBLE. In that connection, I might suggest that we have

a comparable problem in Lake Mead, which has common boundary lines between Arizona and Nevada, and they work out by special

statute with the State of Arizona a joint license so that you can buy

one license and it operates in both States.

I imagine something along that line would be indicated here, because it is pretty hard to know when you are in Wyoming and pretty hard to know when you are in Montana, if you are out on a body of water.

Mr. BAKER. That is a great help, too, Senator, and we are hoping

to do that at Flaming Gorge. I think the States are now working together on that very same problem.

Senator SIMPSON. Yes, and that is why it is important to clarify this thing and not leave it in the conjectural area, because the record discloses in national parks no State licenses are required, as you know.

That is correct, isn't it?

Mr. BAKER. State licenses are required in Grand Teton National Park to fish.

Senator SIMPSON. Yes, but not in Yellowstone.

Mr. BAKER. There is no license required in Yellowstone.

Senator SIMPSON. Under what circumstances are the Wyoming licenses allowed in the Grand Teton Natittial Park.

Mr. BAKER. Because we do not have exclusi ri es--.?, ion there.

Senator SIMPSON. Howard, I don't kno I don't hear you.

Is your microphone on?

Mr. BAKER. Yes. st-4* Senator BIBLE. Could we have some staff ber,give Mr. Baker

a little bit of assistance? We are having great e cutIty hearing him.

Mr. BAKER. At Grand Teton National Park we do not have exclu- sive jurisdiction. Therefore, the State of 'Wyoming lifts authority

to assess a fishing license fee in the park.
30 BIG HORN CANYON

Senator SimrsoN. Would that not be the same here ? You would

not have exclusive jurisdiction.

Mr. BAKER. That is right.

Senator SIMPSON. Then I want to ask you this question: Will the

States of Wyoming and Montana be responsible for and have control

of the fisheries and wildlife resources, or will the National Park

Service be responsible and have control?

Mr. BAKER. Section 4 of the bill before you provides that the

administration of hunting and fishing will be under the control of the

Secretary of Interior, but he will do it in consultation and cooperation with the fish and game departments of both States. The Secretary of Interior will have the authority to close certain areas to

hunting and fishing in accordance with the stipulation as set forth in

the proposed legislation for public safety or development areas, and

so forth.

Senator SIMPSON. That provision denies the actual positive statement with respect to section 4, does it not, that exception, it virtually

denies it, does it not?

Mr. BAKER. I wouldn't think SO, Sir.

Senator SIMPSON. Well, I wanted to get your ideas.

Senator ANDERSON. Would the Senator yield?

Senator SIMPSON. I yield to the Senator.

Senator ANDERSON. You used the term "consultation and cooperation."

Mr. BAKER. Yes.

Senator ANDERSON. Where do you find the word "cooperation" in

the bill?

Mr. BAKER. I am sorry, I was using that as my own interpretation.

It isn't actually in the bill, I don't believe.

Senator ANDERSON. No.

Mr. BAKER. I am sorry.

Senator ANDERSON. Now, when an appropriation item comes up

I can have consultation with my able friend from Arizona, but he

will put in the bill what he well pleases, won't he? The Secretary

may consult as much as he wants to, but he doesn't promise that he

will cooperate, necessarily.

He ought to and we all want him to, but he doesn't have to.

I don't think there ought to be any misunderstanding on that point.

He will control, and you have said that earlier, that he will control it,

and let us hope that he is smart enough to do it in cooperation with

the States, but the law won't compel him to do so.

Mr. BAKER. That is right.

Senator BIBLE. The Senator from Wyoming.

Senator SIIVIPSON. Look at section 3(b) of the proposed enactment,

Mr. Baker. I would like to have you clarify it.

In the administration of the area for the purposes of this act the Secretary

may utilize such statutory authorities relating to areas administered and supervised et cetera, by the Secretary and the national park and such statutory

authorities otherwise available to him for the conservation and management of natural resources as he deems appropriate to carry out the purposes

of this act.

What authorities are available? What is in the mind of the

Park Service on this?
BIG HORN CANYON 31

Mr. BAKER. I would like to have Frank Harrison answer that.

Mr. HARRISON. Senator, I may preface this by saying, as you know

this is the language which has been before this committee in the national seashore legislation that has been enacted. It is authority

which goes beyond the 1916 Park Act. It is intended to give the

Secretary general authority to administer these areas in accordance

with—for instance, the various authorities available to him with

respect to mineral leasing. His authority with respect to permitting

the harvesting of timber could be used. It is broad authority, sir.

It is intended to do more than simply provide authority for preservation in the sense of a national park as we have thought of it in the past.

Senator SIMPSON. I can agree in some part. Of course the Senators from Montana and Wyoming are very eager to see this legislation

enacted, but by the same token if we don't clarify some of these features in here which seem to be pretty vague and unconfined, I

think we will be held responsible by our constituencies in the two,

States.

What governmental entity would be responsible for policing and controlling the surface uses of the water?

Mr. BAKER. The National Park Service.

Senator BIBLE. Might I interject and ask a question which con- tinues to trouble me, and I ask it at this point with the Senator's permission, because I keep coming back to your own statement.

The bill before you today would not take in any part of the Crow Indian Reservation whose lands will border about two-thirds of the reservoir's 195-mile shoreline.

Now, I take it from that that I could put a boat into the water as the reservoir fills, within the jurisdiction of the Crow Indian tribe.

Is that or is that not true?

Mr. BAKER. There would be no way to get the boat in in the first place.

Senator BIBLE. Why?

Mr. BAKER. Because it is in an inaccessible area.

Senator BIBLE. Somewhere along the way, though, you are going

to develop this area so that you can get to the water, aren't you? Two-thirds of it is along the shoreline.

Mr. BAKER. We are going to develop the land that is outside the

Crow Indian Reservation. If the Crows want to participate, we will work with them and perhaps some of their land, as the bill actually provides, will be added to the national recreation area and developed.

Senator BIBLE. The purpose of my question is this: Assuming that

I can get my boat onto these waters by virtue of coming through the Crow Indian Tribe land, who, then, has jurisdiction if I come in via the tribal land? Does the tribal council have jurisdiction or does the National Park Service?

Mr. BAKER. After you get your boat on the water, sir, you are under the National Park Service jurisdiction. While you are getting your boat to the water, at the present time you are under the Crow Indian Reservation.

Senator BIBLE. Then if I go swimming on the water that laps on the lands of the Crow Indian Tribe, am I under the jurisdiction of the Park Service or the Crow Indian Tribe?
32 BIG HORN CANYON

Mr. BAKER. You are under the jurisdiction of the National Park

Service.

Senator BIBLE. The minute I put my foot in the water?

Mr. BAKER. Yes, sir.

Senator BIBLE. SO 1011g as I keep my foot on land, the foot that is

on land is under the jurisdiction of the Crow Indian Tribe and the

foot that is in the water is under the jurisdiction of the National

Park Service, is that correct?

I am not trying to confuse you. I think you have an area here that

has to be clarified. I think you are going to get into countless trouble

in the years ahead, and maybe it is something that we can't thresh out

here by questioning the witness, but I am sure that we had better have

a pretty clear understanding of where we are heading, particularly

in view of the fact that two-thirds of this shoreline, according to your

own testimony, belongs to the Crow Indian Reservation.

Mr. BAKER. But when we talk about shoreline Senator, I think we

are talking about the flood stage shoreline. *ow, the Bureau of

Reclamation has had to acquire---

Senator BIBLE. That isn't what this sentence says. This sentence

doesn't say flood stage shoreline, and I am only suggesting this not

only to the Park Service people who are the authors of the bill, because I think we are moving into an area here that can cause constant friction in the years ahead, and I don't know that it can be

resolved here, but I think we had better take a good, close, magnified

look at this.

Senator ANDERSON. Let me ask a question there. When you say

the flood stage shoreline, that only exists a very small part of the

time.

Mr. BAKER. That is right.

Senator ANDERSON. Do the Crow Indians understand that they

won't have a bit of jurisdiction over this area at any time thereafter,

and have they agreed to that?

Senator SI1VIPSON. I wish the Senator would propound that question

again. I want the Senator from Montana to hear it.

Senator ANDERSON. I simply say since you said that the line is

going to be the flood stage shoreline, and I get into this only because

we had a long discussion at one time about submerged lands, tidelands, and various other kinds of lands, that the shoreline at

the flood stage is obviously higher than the normal shoreline of the

area, and, therefore, all land between that belongs to the Park Service.

Now, do the Crow Indians understand that under the terms of this

bill they will not have jurisdiction and control of these shorelines

and will not have the right to license boats or arrange for fishing

or things of that nature?

Mr. BAKER. That is my understanding, sir.

Senator ANDERSON. That they do have it? I am trying to find out

what is their understanding.

Mr. BAKER. They understand that the Bureau of Reclamation has

acquired a right along that river and a part of that acquisition was

from Crow Indian land. And so they know that they have no

right within the area acquired by the Bureau of Reclamation for the

construction of the reservoir.
A.mf

BIG HORN CANYON 33

Senator ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be important if we had a Crow Indian to testify because some Indian might not

agree with that.

Senator METCALF. The Senator from Montana.

Senator ANDERSON. Disagrees with that?

Senator METCALF. Yes.

Senator ANDERSON. I know he is speaking for them because I

know the Indians are sensitive on these points, or I think I know it. Mr. BAKER. May I say this: I understand the Bureau of Reclama- tion bought in fee land to an elevation of 3,675 feet. Flood stage actually is less than that. It is 3,657 feet.

Senator ANDERSON. So they never come down to the water's edge? Mr. BAKER. That is right.

Senator ANDERSON. That is hardly the way you have your state- ment, is it? Didn't you say in your statement that:

The bill before you will not take in any part of the Crow Indian Reservation whose lands will border about two-thirds of the reservoir's 195 mile shoreline.

You don't mean "border," do you? You mean "in the neighborhood of."

Mr. BAKER. Perhaps the word "border" was an unfortunate choice of words, but actually in a broad sense it does border.

Senator ANDERSON. In view of what Senator Metcalf and Senator Simpson have been getting to, if they don't border they ought not to be told they border and I am sure you wouldn't want to tell them that.

Mr. BAKER. No, but my point, Senator, is they already know what the situation is.

Senator ANDERSON. And they are happy about it?

Mr. BAKER. As I understand it, they are.

Senator ANDERSON. I think we had better find that out from them

as well. I am not trying to question your statement. I assume that is a correct statement, but it would be different from most Indian tribes who have a chance to recognize recreational values in the land they formerly held. As pointed out by the Senator from Arizona, they have made very attractive developments along rivers. I know this might be very appealing to them. I wonder if the Crow Indians would have sold if they knew that the Federal Government would then exert exclusive jurisdiction over this land.

Senator BIBLE. I think the suggestion made indicates that we had better spell out A, B, C, and D, and very clearly in the law itself exactly where the jurisdictions lie insofar as the National Park Service is concerned and insofar as the Crow Indian Tribe is con- cerned. I think it will avoid many problems in the future and I think this should be done. I think it can be done so that there can be no misunderstanding on it.

Mr. BAKER. Senator, we are now meeting with the Crow Tribe to determine the extent of their interest in participating in this total

program, and a part of those discussions will be the extent to which development will take place on their lands.

Actually, there is not enough land for anybody else but the Crows to do it at the present time.

Senator BIBLE. I am not questioning the negotiations or the under- standings that have been reached or attempted to be reached, but I

A
:34 BIG HORN CANYON

think we had better spell it out very clearly in the law itself and

just solve this in the future.

Senator SIMPSON. Mr. Baker, is the Park Service going to control

the use of the waters for purposes other than those stated in section 4?

Will it get State approval for such control?

Mr. BAKER. I don't quite know what you have in mind, Senator,

but the boating on the reservoir, of course, would be done in accordance with the State laws with reference to boating acts, the licensing

.of boats, and so forth. That would all be done in accordance with

State law.

Senator SIMPSON. Your last exception is except in emergencies

any regulations of the Secretary pursuant to this section shall be put

into effect only after consultation with the two departments. Would

you have any objection to the words "consultation and approval"?

Mr. BAKER. The Secretary, by this act, would be given administrative responsibility for the national recreation area, and I don't

think it is proper to place him in a position where the States have a

veto power over his administration.

Senator SIMPSON. I think I have asked you this, Howard, but just

to be sure, in your judgment does the procedure called for in section

4, which relates to hunting and fishing in the recreation area, differ

in any substantial degree from the procedure followed in Grand

'Teton National Park ?

Mr. BAKER. I explained that awhile ago, Senator, but it is quite

different from the procedure followed at Grand Teton.

Senator SIMPSON. I am talking now about the fish feature.

Mr. BAKER. The fishing at the recreation area will be in accordance

with State rules and regulations. At Grand Teton National Park,

,yes, it is done in accordance with State rules and regulations, but in

many cases we have a deeper interest in the State rules and regulations, and I know we have been discussing many times with the

State the need for some change in their procedures.

Senator SIMPSON. To what degree, if any, will the State prerogatives and responsibilities over the management of the area be deterred

or changed by the designation of the area as a recreation area?

These are questions for the fish and game department, as you

probably recognize, and we alerted your department for answers.

Mr. BAKER. The State will continue to establish the hunting season

'

the fishing season. They will collect the fees. They will license

the fishermen. They will license the hunter. They will stock the reservoir. They will be in a position to do research on the reservoir.

So long as these things are all done under the general management of the Secretary of Interior, and so long as they do not conflict

with the primary purpose for which the recreation area has been

established, I see no reason why they would not be compatible.

Senator SIMPSON. You recognize this constitutes quite an expense

• to the States of Montana and Wyoming.

Is there any reason to fear that the level of the reservoir would

be lowered to such a degree that the fish-feeding grounds and the

improvements around the reservoir would be damaged?

Mr. BAKER. That would have to lie with the Bureau of Reclamation because the basic project, of course, is the reclamation project

which is designed to develop hydroelectric power and certain flood
BIG HORN CANYON 35

,control and sediment control, and so forth. While we hope the

water level will remain during the use season at a level that will involve a minimum of fluctuation, that responsibility would not be under control of the National Park Service but would be controlled

by the Secretary of the Interior.

Senator SIMPSON. When the legislation was being drafted it was said that the Wyoming land privately owned, and that was, I think, in the control of one person, was needed for the building of a road.

It was suggested that there was a possibility that the scenic easements

and the highway right-of-way could be acquired thus permitting

the Wyoming landowner to obtain his fee land and continue to use the land as he is presently doing.

Is the Park Service still agreeable with this possibility and, if so, have you made any plans in that connection?

Mr. BAKER. The land you are referring to, I believe, is owned by Mr. Tillett. Two of our road proposals would actually cross land owned by him. We have had discussions with Mr. Tillett

and members of his family and I don't believe that he is particularly

interested in a scenic-easement type of approach. It looks as though

we may have to actually acquire a good part of his holdings which lie within the recreation area.

Senator ANDERSON. Thank you very much.

Are there other questions?

Senator Metcalf?

Senator METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I again appreciate this oppor- tunity to interject myself into this committee. I have had several ;consultations with both the representatives of the Crow Tribe and

the Crow Tribal Council themselves.

And regardless of the fact that you have told this committee that

the Indians understand that they don't own the recreational rights

on this reservoir, it has been the basis of all of our discussions and

.consultations with Ernst & Ernst, with the tribal council and with

representatives of the National Park Service, that the water-based

recreation on land adjacent to the Crow Tribe shall be developed by

the Indian tribe and not by anybody else, and that the fact that you

have taken flowage easements and that they can no longer sue for

damages for damage to crops or other such damages doesn't enter

into our concept that landing ramps, fishing facilities, and all the

water-based recreation, whether it is on the 10 feet or 300 feet that

you were talking about that belongs to the Bureau of Reclamation,

shall be developed by the Crow Tribe for the benefit of the tribe and

the tribal council as a result of cooperative agreement with the Secretary of Interior. If you can't have a cooperative agreement for joint

management, they will build the roads and make this accessible and build landing ramps and go out into the water and build fishing and diving docks, and so forth.

Now, if that right isn't spelled out in this bill, and if that isn't the understanding of the National Park Service, then we have to submit

an amendment to protect the rights of the Indians that I also

represent.

Mr. BAKER. I don't disagree with anything you have said because it is our intent that the Crows will have the right to develop waterbased ree,reation facilities on their land 
36 BIG HORN CANYON

Senator METCALF. On the land bordering that part of the shoreline that lies within the reservation.

Now, when you say their land, and then you weasel out of it with

the Bureau of Reclamation owning the 10 feet between the high water

mark and the low water mark or 300 feet or they have taken jagged

edges so that it is down there, that isn't their land any more under

your concept. But under my concept, it is their land, that shoreline

that lies within the boundaries of the Crow Indian Reservation.

(Senator Metcalf later submitted an amendment to the bill S. 2048

that is printed on p. 6.)

Senator BIBLE. It is apparent to the chairman that we have an

area here of some difference of opinion. I think above everything

else that this must be clarified in the law so that the many, many

years that we face in the future we don't have any misunderstandings

about it, and I think we can attempt to work out some language that

will clarify this, but it appears to me it would be a little hard at this

time.

Does the Senator from Wyoming have any further questions?

Senator SIMPSON. One further question: In the Flaming Gorge

area,Mr. Baker Utah and Wyoming have entered into an agreement

with the Park Service with respect to management and control there.

Has there been any exploration of that ground with respect to

Montana and Wyoming in this area, or is this too early to contemplate ?

Mr. BAKER. I don't think we actually have an agreement between

the National Park Service and the Fish and Game Departments of

Utah and Wyoming at Flaming Gorge. Actually, I think what you

are referring to are agreements between the two States. We have

discussed the management of the fish and wildlife resources of the

Big Horn Canyon recreation area with both State fish and game

departments, but we do not have an agreement.

Senator SIMPSON. Are those agreements with Utah and Wyoming

acceptable to the Park Service?

Mr. BAKER. As far as I know, they are.

Senator SIMPSON. That is all.

Senator BIBLE. Further questions of any of the witnesses before

us from the Park Service?

Thank you very much, gentlemen.

I am not going to close this hearing. I am going to recess this

hearing until there is some clarification particularly in this area of

the jurisdiction of the Crow Indian 

clarification,

and the National Park

Service. I hope that we can clarify it in executive session.

We will now proceed to hearings on Senate 1870.

(Whereupon the committee turned to other business.)

(Subsequent to the hearing the following communication was

ordered printed:)

U.S. SENATE,

OFFICE OF THE MAJORITY LEADER,

Washington, D.C., June 1, 1964.

Hon. HENRY JACKSON,

Chairman, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

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

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Enclosed is a letter I have received from Mr.

Frank A. Gallagher and Mr. Thomas N. Kelley, attorneys, in Billings, Mont.,

endorsing the provisions of S. 2048. the bill which would authorize the creation

of the Big Horn Canyon National Recreational Area.
BIG HORN CANYON

f

37

I thought perhaps the committee might like to have this correspondence

for its files. Both of these gentlemen are quite well versed in matters of importance to this area of Montana and I wanted you to have the endorsement in

your files.

Thanking you and with best personal wishes, I am,

Sincerely yours,

MIKE MANSFIELD.

LAMEY, CROWLEY, KILBOURNE, HAUGHEY, & HANSON.

Billings, Mont., May 26, 1964.

Re Big Horn Canyon National Recreational Area.

Hon. MIKE J. MANSFIELD,

U.S. Senator,

.Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MIKE: We are writing about the bill providing for the establishment

of a Big Horn Canyon Recreational Area. We understand that the project

has been approved by the Department of Interior and that hearings will be

conducted shortly thereon. We are very much in favor of this bill as we believe that it will provide a needed water recreational area for the people

of this area as well as substantially enhance Montana's reputation as a tourist

and playground attraction.

We understand that time is a vital factor in connection with the proposed

project because of the great difficulty of building boat ramps after the reservoir

behind Yellowtail Dam is filled. As you know, the reservoir could be filled as

early as July 1, 1965. Once the reservoir is filled, it will be practically

impossible to build the proposed boat ramps at Box Canyon, Barrys Landing,

Horseshoe Bend, and Kane Bridge. Box Canyon and Barrys Landing are the

only possible sites for boat-launching facilities in Montana and unless the

bill is passed and the project completed before the reservoir is filled, Montana

will probably never have a site at which boats can be launched. Once the reservoir is filled, the only spot at which boats could conceivably be put into

the water would be down at the Kane Bridge site in Wyoming. Even that site

may eventually silt in and thus be suitable as a launching site for small

boats only.

We would appreciate any efforts you can make which will expedite the

passage of the bill and thus insure Montana of this very fine proposed recreational area.

Best personal regards.

Respectfully yours,

FRANK A. GALLAGHER.

THOMAS N. KELLEY.