Hugging Face's logo

Datasets:
gtfintechlab
/
CoCoHD_transcripts

Modalities:
Text
Formats:
text
Languages:
English
Size:
100M - 1B
Tags:
legal
finance
climate
social
Libraries:
Datasets
License:
Dataset card Viewer Files Community
1
CoCoHD_transcripts / data /CHRG-107 /CHRG-107hhrg71154.txt
erikliu18's picture
erikliu18
Upload folder using huggingface_hub
5d65a12 verified
raw
history blame contribute delete
223 kB
<html>
<title> - HEARING ON H.R. 146, H.R. 182, AND H.R. 601</title>
<body><pre>
[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING ON H.R. 146, H.R. 182, AND H.R. 601
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
March 13, 2001
__________
Serial No. 107-4
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
---------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
71-154 WASHINGTON : 2001
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250
Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California
Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington
George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands
Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington
Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Greg Walden, Oregon Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Hilda L. Solis, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Brad Carson, Oklahoma
C.L. "Butch" Otter, Idaho Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
VACANCY
Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado, Chairman
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands Ranking Democrat Member
Elton Gallegly, California Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Samoa
George Radanovich, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Tom Udall, New Mexico
Carolina, Mark Udall, Colorado
Vice Chairman Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mac Thornberry, Texas James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Chris Cannon, Utah Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Hilda L. Solis, California
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 13, 2001................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Christensen, Hon. Donna, a Delegate to Congress from the
Virgin Islands, Prepared statement on H.R. 146, H.R. 182
and H.R. 601............................................... 70
Corzine, Hon. Jon S., a U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey, Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 146..... 12
Hefley, Hon. Joel, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 2
Prepared statement on H.R. 146, H.R. 182 and H.R. 601.... 12
Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr. a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Jersey, Prepared statement on H.R. 146.... 71
Pascrell, Hon. Bill, Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Jersey.................................... 13
Prepared statement on H.R. 146........................... 16
Simmons, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Connecticut....................................... 17
Prepared statement on H.R. 182........................... 19
Letters submitted for the record on H.R. 182............. 20
Simpson, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Idaho............................................. 73
Prepared statement on H.R. 601........................... 74
Letters submitted for the record on H.R. 601............. 133
Torricelli, Hon. Robert G., a U.S. Senator from the State of
New Jersey, Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 146. 13
Statement of Witnesses:
Clower, Don, Idaho Fish and Game Commission, Meridian, ID... 78
Prepared statement on H.R. 601........................... 79
DiIanni Pat, President, Vision 20/20, Hawthorne, NJ......... 99
Prepared statement on H.R.146............................ 100
Doddridge, Joseph E., Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish
and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC............................................. 81
Prepared statement on H.R. 146........................... 83
Prepared statement on H.R. 182........................... 85
Prepared statement on H.R. 601........................... 85
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 157
Dopirak Anna-Lisa, Director, Community Development for the
City of Paterson, Paterson, NJ............................. 94
Prepared statement on H.R. 146........................... 97
Fisher, Jack W., Idaho Wildlife Federation, Nampa, ID........ 75
Prepared statement on H.R. 601........................... 77
Frohling Nathan M., Program Director, The Nature Conservancy,
Middletown, CT............................................. 102
Prepared statement on H.R. 182........................... 104
Merrow, Susan, First Selectman, Town of East Haddam,
Connecticut................................................ 116
Prepared statement on H.R. 182........................... 117
Additional materials supplied:
DiFrancesco, Hon. Donald T., Acting Governor, State of New
Jersey, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 146........ 139
Fennell, Rosalyn J., and Chandler, William J., Letter on H.R.
601 submitted for the record by The Wilderness Society..... 145
Filippone, Dr. Ella F., Executive Administrator, Passaic
River Coalition, Basking Ridge, NJ, Statement
<plus-minus>submitted for the record on H.R. 146........... 140
Goldsmith, Bhanu, Letter on H.R. 146 submitted for the record
by The Honorable Bill Pascrell, Jr......................... 147
Kubofcik, Hon. William, Resolution on H.R. 146 submitted for
the record by The Honorable Bill Pascrell, Jr.............. 148
Mallik, Arjun, Letter on H.R. 146 submitted for the record by
The Honorable Bill Pascrell, Jr............................ 149
Passaic County Board of Chosen Freeholders Resolution on H.R.
146 submitted for the record by The Honorable Bill
Pascrell, Jr............................................... 150
Pou, Assemblywoman Nellie, Letter on H.R. 146 submitted for
the record................................................. 155
Smyk, Edward A., Passaic County Historian, Paterson, NJ,
Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 146................ 128
Sunday, Nick, Director, The Alexander Hamilton National
Memorial, New York, NY, Letter submitted for the record on
H.R. 146................................................... 142
Text of H.R. 146............................................. 3
Text of H.R. 182............................................. 6
Text of H.R. 601............................................. 9
HEARING ON H.R. 146, TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO
STUDY THE SUITABILITY AND FEASIBILITY OF DESIGNATING THE GREAT FALLS
HISTORIC DISTRICT IN PATERSON, NEW JERSEY, AS A UNIT OF THE NATIONAL
PARK SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 182, TO AMEND THE WILD AND
SCENIC RIVERS ACT TO DESIGNATE A SEGMENT OF THE EIGHTMILE RIVER IN THE
STATE OF CONNECTICUT FOR STUDY FOR POTENTIAL ADDITION TO THE NATIONAL
WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; AND H.R. 601, TO
ENSURE THE CONTINUED ACCESS OF HUNTERS TO THOSE FEDERAL LANDS INCLUDED
WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CRATERS OF THE MOON NATIONAL MONUMENT IN
THE STATE OF IDAHO PURSUANT TO PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION 7373 OF
NOVEMBER 9, 2000, AND TO CONTINUE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE TAYLOR
GRAZING ACT TO THE DISPOSITION OF GRAZING FEES ARISING FROM THE USE OF
SUCH LANDS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
----------
Tuesday, March 13, 2001
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2 p.m., in Room
1324 Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Joel Hefley
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOEL HEFLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
The committee will come to order. Good afternoon and
welcome to the hearing today. This afternoon, the Subcommittee
on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands will hear
testimony on three bills, H.R. 146, H.R. 182 and H.R. 601.
H.R. 146 was introduced by Congressman Bill Pascrell of New
Jersey. This bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to study the suitability and feasibility of designating the
Great Falls Historic District in Paterson, New Jersey, as a
unit of the National Park System.
H.R. 182 was introduced by Congressman Rob Simmons of
Connecticut. This bill would amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act to designate a segment of Eightmile River in the State of
Connecticut for study for potential addition to the National
Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
Lastly, H.R. 601 was introduced by Congressman Mike Simpson
of Idaho. This bill would ensure that hunters enjoy continued
access to Federal lands included within the expanded boundaries
of the Craters of the Moon National Monument in the State of
Idaho. Last November, the Clinton Administration expanded the
monument through a Presidential proclamation from 54,000 acres
to add an additional 661,000 acres. The effect of the
Administration's action was to close approximately 410,000
acres to hunting.
This bill would reopen the closed areas to hunting. The
bill would also provide that the Taylor Grazing Act would
control the manner in which grazing fees arising from the use
of the land within the expanded boundaries of the monument are
distributed.
[The texts of H.R. 146, H.R. 182, and H.R. 601 follow:]
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Mr. Hefley. I would like to thank all of our witnesses for
being here today to testify on these bills, and since I have no
ranking member, we are going to go directly to the first panel.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hefley follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Joel Hefley, Chairman, Subcommittee on
National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands, on H.R. 146, H.R. 182 and
H.R. 601
Good afternoon and welcome to the hearing today. This afternoon,
the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands will
hear testimony on three bills H.R. 146, H.R. 182 and H.R. 601.
H.R. 146 was introduced by Congressman Bill Pascrell of New Jersey.
This bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the
suitability and feasibility of designating the Great Falls Historic
District in Paterson, New Jersey, as a unit of the National Park
System.
H.R. 182 was introduced by Congressman Rob Simmons of Connecticut.
This bill would amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a
segment of the Eightmile River in the State of Connecticut for study
for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
Last, H.R. 601 was introduced by Congressman Mike Simpson of Idaho.
This bill would ensure that hunters enjoy continued access to Federal
lands included within the expanded boundaries of the Craters of the
Moon National Monument in the State of Idaho. Last November, the
Clinton Administration expanded the monument through a Presidential
Proclamation from 54,000 acres to add an additional 661,000 acres. The
effect of the Administration's action was to close approximately
410,000 acres to hunting. This bill would reopen the closed areas to
hunting. The bill would also provide that the Taylor Grazing Act would
control the manner in which grazing fees arising from the use of the
land within the expanded boundaries of the monument are distributed.
I'd like to thank all of our witnesses for being here today to
testify on these bills and now turn the time remaining over to the
Ranking Member, Ms. Christensen.
______
[The prepared statements of Senator Corzine and Senator
Torricelli follow:]
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JON S. CORZINE, U.S. SENATOR, STATE OF NEW
JERSEY ON H.R. 146
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to submit written
testimony in support of this bill, which authorizes the National Park
Service to assess the potential for incorporating the Great Falls
Historic District in Paterson, New Jersey, as a unit of our National
Park System. I am a co-sponsor of the Act with Senator Robert
Torricelli in the Senate and Congressman Bill Pascrell in the House.
Please enter this testimony into the record.
In 1976, when Congress designated the Great Falls area as a
National Historic District, it recognized Paterson's singular history
as the cradle of American industry and invention. Planned by Alexander
Hamilton, Paterson has played a unique role in the story of working
people in this country. American industry and American labor are rooted
here. This is the home of technological and social innovation in the
United States, and this legislation will determine the best way to
create living history out of this special resource.
The study we are requesting is a logical extension of the
commitment Congress has already made to restoring the Great Falls and
making it accessible to all our citizens. It builds on the 1976
designation and the Federal Urban History Initiative (UHI) that my
predecessor, Senator Frank Lautenberg, authored in 1991.
The City of Paterson and the National Park Service have a long
history of working together to implement the kind of restoration,
envisioned in those earlier initiatives, that will let history live on
in our generation and the generations to follow. I am confident your
Committee will concur that authorization of the Great Falls Historic
District Study Act of 2001 is essential to enhancing the heritage that
built our country and sustains it to this day.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to submit this
written testimony.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, U.S. SENATOR, STATE OF
NEW JERSEY, ON H.R. 146
Thank you Chairman Hansen, Ranking Member Rahall, and members of
the Resources Committee (Committee) for the opportunity to testify
before the Committee on H.R. 146, legislation introduced by Congressman
Bill Pascrell to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the
suitability and feasibility of designating the Great Falls Historic
District in Paterson, New Jersey, as a unit of the National Park System
(NPS).
I have introduced similar legislation in the Senate, with my
colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Corzine, and am seeking hearings on my
bill, S. 386. These important bills recognize the historical
significance of the Great Falls area in Paterson, New Jersey, and I am
hopeful that our colleagues in both chambers join us in support of this
effort.
Paterson is known as America's first industrialized city. Alexander
Hamilton founded Paterson in 1792 as a mercantile private-public
partnership, using the powerful falls to power industry. He built a
laboratory, and established the Society for the Establishment of Useful
Manufactures which actively promoted the textiles industry. Textiles
were a large part of the development of industry in Paterson, once
known as the Silk City, and regarded as the center of the textile
industry for many years.
New and developing industries located to Paterson and contributed
to the growth of the city. New immigrants, arriving at nearby Ellis
Island, settled in Paterson, and provided the workforce necessary for
this newly industrialized city to thrive.
Rich in history, the Paterson Great Falls is also endowed with
natural beauty. The Great Falls is an island of beauty in a sea of
urban development. The Great Falls is the second largest waterfall on
the East Coast, and attracts visitors from within and outside of New
Jersey.
Paterson Great Falls is also an educational tool for New Jersey's
children. Students young and old travel to Paterson Great Falls to
witness its natural splendor, to learn about the industrial revolution,
and the pioneers who helped build our nation.
This area is truly a valuable asset to the State of New Jersey, and
I feel it is only proper to share this wonderful resource with the
entire nation by establishing the Paterson Great Falls as a unit of the
National Park System (NPS).
The Federal Government has already acknowledged the significance of
Great Falls, by designating the area a national historic landmark.
Establishing it as a unit of the NPS would increase the presence of
Great Falls, and the NPS would provide staff and tours, and allow for a
better, more educational interpretation of the site.
This designation is warranted. Our nation's urban history is
currently under-represented by the NPS. Not many sites tell the story
of the growth of our nation and its economy from that of agrarian to
industrial. Other than Lowell, Massachusetts, a one-time industrial
powerhouse whose historic district was designated a national park, I am
not aware of another NPS site which represents our nation's early rich
urban history.
Congressman Pascrell's legislation would take the first step toward
this important designation by directing the NPS to study the
feasibility of establishing a national park at the Paterson Great Falls
area. I wholly endorse this initiative, and look forward to the
consideration of H.R. 146 in the Senate. This legislation is necessary
so that a critical chapter in the story of our nation may be told to
future generations.
______
Mr. Hefley. The first panel is made up of The Honorable Rob
Simmons, Second District of Connecticut, and The Honorable Bill
Pascrell, Jr., the Eighth District of New Jersey. Have you all
flipped a coin or decided who would like to go first?
Mr. Pascrell. I will lead off, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hefley. Bill, you take it from there.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BILL PASCRELL, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pascrell. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing
us the opportunity to testify here today. H.R. 146 calls for a
study of the Great Falls National Historic District, in my
district and in my hometown of Paterson, New Jersey, to
determine the feasibility of adding Paterson, the historic
district, to the National Park System. There is no dispute that
the Great Falls Historic District possesses an historic
significance that makes it an area to be preserved and
treasured. The history is rich.
Alexander Hamilton realized the incredible beauty and
potential of the Great Falls when he founded Paterson in 1792.
As America's first planned industrial city, it is our duty to
ensure its preservation for generations to come. As we revisit
Alexander Hamilton, Mr. Chairman, we see a very different
Hamilton than we learned perhaps in our schools. The greatness
of this man is yet not discovered.
Already tourists pour into this area to see the 77-foot
Great Falls of the Passaic River and to partake in the
preserved history; 20,000 yearly visitors have attended the
Paterson Museum, which is in the district. The falls and the
surrounding neighborhood really represent the genesis of the
American economic miracle. Increasing the presence of the
National Park Service will give the area the attention and
resources it really deserves.
As a key to our manufacturing roots, these mills that sit
today at the Great Falls constructed paper and cotton, and
manufactured the first revolver at Sam Colt's Works, the first
locomotives at the Rogers Works, as well as airplane engines
and, of course, silk. Paterson was the Silk City. Paterson is
known around the world for being the producer of such silk.
These buildings represent the various stages of the Industrial
Revolution. They stand as monuments to progress. They are a
mirror to hard-working American families.
As a result of the employment opportunities that abound in
Paterson because of these mills, Mr. Chairman, the city's
population grew and diversified rapidly. Between 1850 and the
turn-of-the-century, Paterson's population increased from
11,000 to 105,000 people, growing by an average of 50 percent
per decade. As a result, Paterson is representative of the
waves of immigration in the United States. The Irish and the
English immigrants, replaced later by the Italians and
subsequently Spanish-speaking populations who still reside here
today, 57 ethnic groups. Chronicling the patterns and cultures
of the immigrants that came to Paterson from the 18th through
the 20th centuries would provide us with a microcosm of the
effect of immigration in shaping this greatest of all lands.
The historic labor unrest in Paterson focused on anti-child
labor legislation, safety in the workplace, the minimum wage
and reasonable working hours. Some of the most important
figures in early 20th-century labor history were involved in
the Great Silk Strike of 1913, and while teaching modern-day
Americans about the history of the industry, the mills at Great
Falls also set the backdrop for the history of the labor
movement. Today, they can teach both histories so tightly
intertwined.
Not only is the Great Falls Historic District historically
significant, but the city of Paterson stands ready to work in
conjunction with the National Park Service to develop its
potential. I am confident that the city is up to this task.
This is the first legislative step I have taken on behalf of
the Great Falls toward joining the National Park Service, but
it is not the first time I have worked with the city of
Paterson to enhance and develop this valuable and important
area.
I have long thought that the Passaic River and the Great
Falls are not only a critical part of our past history, they
are the key to our future, to the city's future, to the
region's future. We must do all we can in a united fashion to
protect these most valuable assets. As the Mayor of Paterson, I
went to Washington in 1993 to testify before the House
Subcommittee on Parks and Public Lands, to help convince
Congress that this area was worth protecting. I was proud to
work with then-United States Senator Frank Lautenberg to secure
Federal funds to revitalize the Great Falls Historic District.
Our work paid off, and the following year I stood with the
Senator on the steps of the Paterson Museum and accepted $4.1
million in Federal dollars, secured under the Urban History
Initiative, to restore and rebuild the Stoney Road Bridge over
the upper raceway, as well as hiking trails. This helps
strengthen the relationship between the National Park Service
and the city of Paterson.
The Great Falls District has been on the National Register
of Historic Places since 1970, has been a national landmark
named by President Ford, and I was so proud to be there at the
time that he named, in 1976, this great, great landmark. He
defined it. He came to Paterson to do such. In 1988, the
Interior Department listed the district as a Priority One
threatened National Historic Landmark. So the Park Service has
long been aware of our need to protect and save this area.
Since the beginning of our relationship, the city and the Park
Service have worked together in a partnership that has helped
the city begin to develop and revitalize the Great Falls
Historic District.
You will hear later on, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee, from Anna-Lisa Dopirak, the director of community
development for the city of Paterson, who will share with you
many examples of the strong relationship between the city and
the National Park Service. In addition to a strong partnership
with the city, I believe the key to the success of creating a
viable and healthy historic district is community involvement,
and that is why we created an Advisory Committee that meets
regularly with the Park Service to choose the priorities and
shape the direction the Great Falls Historic District will move
in. As Mayor, I attended many of those meetings and was
impressed by the community's interest and support on the issue.
You will also hear from Pat DiIanni, the president of
Vision 20/20, a community organization that is providing grass-
roots support for the revitalization of the entire county of
Passaic, including the Great Falls Historic District. He will
share with you many examples of how the community has evolved.
These falls really represent our city, Mr. Chairman, its
people and its potential. This place can be a real destination,
help us in creating jobs, grow businesses and bring people back
from all over. You cannot put a velvet rope around the
district. We must make it a living, breathing attraction that
will celebrate our past, present and future.
In conclusion, I will steal the words of the National Park
Service in the Design Guidelines they created for the Great
Falls Historic District in 1999. ``The district bears eloquent
testimony to astounding feats of engineering and construction,
to ingenious manufacturers and to the courage, creativity and
drudgery of untold lives spent within those mills. It is also
about the human propensity to harness the forces of nature, to
put water and gravity and stone to work. The district retains
the sense of having been one large factory, driven by one
powerful engine, an image completely consistent with Hamilton's
vision of a centralized national manufactory.''
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I am honored to appear
before your Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pascrell follows:]
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BILL PASCRELL, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ON H.R. 146
Thank you Mr. Chairman and the entire subcommittee for allowing me
the opportunity to testify here today. My legislation, H.R. 146, calls
for a study of the Great Falls National Historic District in my
hometown of Paterson, New Jersey, to determine the feasibility of
adding it to the National Park System.
There is no dispute that the Great Falls Historic District
possesses a historic significance that makes it an area to be preserved
and treasured. The history here is rich. Alexander Hamilton realized
the incredible beauty and potential of the Great Falls when he founded
Paterson in 1792 as America's first planned industrial city and it is
our duty to ensure its preservation for generations to come.
Already, tourists are pouring in every year to see the 77-foot
Great Falls of the Passaic River and to partake in our preserved
history. For the past 12 years, an average of 20,000 yearly visitors
have attended the Paterson Museum in the Historic District. And the
Great Falls Visitors Center reports almost 5,000 visitors to the center
in the last year.
The Falls and the surrounding neighborhood really represent the
genesis of the American economic miracle, and increasing the presence
of the National Park Service here will give the area the attention and
resources it rightly deserves.
As a key to our manufacturing roots, the mills that sit today at
the Great Falls constructed paper, cotton,. They manufactured the first
revolver at Samuel Colt's Works, the first locomotives at the Rogers
Works, as well as airplane engines, and of course silk. Paterson is
known around the world as the Silk City. These buildings represent the
various stages of the industrial revolution in the United States. They
stand as monuments to progress, and could provide living museums for
present day Americans to learn about this important part of our
history.
As a result of the employment opportunities that abounded in
Paterson because of the mills, the city's population grew and
diversified rapidly. Between 1850 and the turn of the century, the
population of Paterson increased from 11,000 to 105,000 growing by an
average of 50 percent per decade.
As a result, Paterson is representative of the waves of immigration
in the United States, as Irish and English immigrants were replaced
later by Italians, and then subsequently Spanish-speaking populations
who still reside there today.
Chronicling the patterns and cultures of the immigrants that came
to Paterson from the 18th through the 20th centuries would provide us
with a microcosm of the effect of immigrants in the shaping of the
United States.
This convergence between the burgeoning industrial workplace and
the fledgling immigrant communities resulted in conflicts that led to
the modern day labor movement.
The historic labor unrest in Paterson focused on anti-child labor
legislation, safety in the workplace, minimum wage, and reasonable
working hours. Some of the most important figures in early 20th Century
American labor history were involved in the Great Silk Strike of 1913.
While teaching modern day Americans about the history of industry,
the mills at Great Falls also set the backdrop for the history of the
labor movement. Today they can teach both histories--so tightly
intertwined--together.
Not only is the Great Falls Historic District historically
significant, but the city of Paterson stands ready to work in
conjunction with the National Park Service to develop its potential. My
goal is to create a synergistic partnership between the city of
Paterson and the National Park Service. I am confident that Paterson is
up to the task.
This bill is the first legislative step I have taken on behalf of
Great Falls toward joining the National Park Service. But it is not the
first time I have worked with the city of Paterson to enhance and
develop this valuable and important area. I have long thought that the
Passaic River and the Great Falls are not only a critical part of our
past history. They are the key to our future, and we must do all we can
in a united fashion to protect these most valuable assets.
As Mayor of Paterson, I went to Washington in 1993 to testify
before the House Subcommittee on Parks and Public Lands to help
convince Congress that this area was worth protecting.
I was proud to work closely with our former U.S. Senator Frank
Lautenberg to secure Federal funds to revitalize the Great Falls
Historic District. Our work paid off and the following year, I stood
with Senator Lautenberg on the steps of the Paterson Museum and
accepted $4.1 million in Federal dollars secured under the Urban
History Initiative to restore and rebuild the Stoney Road Bridge over
the Upper Raceway as well as hiking trails.
This helped strengthen a relationship between the National Park
Service and the city of Paterson that is ongoing today. But the city of
Paterson has an even longer history of working with the Federal
Government to preserve its historic lands.
The Great Falls district has been on the National Register of
Historic Places since 1970 and has been a National Historic Landmark
since 1976. Since 1988, the Interior Department has listed the district
as a Priority One threatened National Historic Landmark. So the Park
Service has long been aware of our need to protect and save this area.
Since the beginning of our relationship, the City and the Park
Service have worked together in a partnership that has helped the City
begin to develop and revitalize the Great Falls Historic District.
You will hear later from Anna-Lisa Dopirak, the Director of
Community Development for the city of Paterson, who will share with you
many examples of the strong relationship between the City and the
National Park Service.
In addition to a strong partnership with the City, I believe that
the key to the success of creating a viable and healthy historic
district is community involvement. That is why we created an Advisory
Committee that meets regularly with the Park Service to choose the
priorities and shape the direction the Great Falls Historic District
will move in.
As Mayor of Paterson, I attended as many of those meetings as
possible. I was impressed by the community's interest and support in
this issue.
You will hear later from Pat DiIanni, the President of Vision 20/
20, a community organization that is providing grassroots support for
the revitalization of Passaic County, including the Great Falls
Historic District. He will share with you other examples of community
support and efforts to develop and protect the area through community
involvement.
These Falls really represent our city, its people and all its
potential. This place can be a real destination that will create jobs,
grow businesses and bring people in from all over. We cannot put a
velvet rope around the district we must make it a living, breathing
attraction that will celebrate our past, present and future.
In conclusion, I will steal the words of the National Park Service
in the Design Guidelines they created for the Great Falls Historic
District in 1999, ``The district bears eloquent testimony to astounding
feats of engineering and construction, to ingenious manufacturers, and
to the courage, creativity, and drudgery of untold lives spent within
the mills. It is also about the human propensity to harness the forces
of nature, to put water and gravity and stone to work. The district
retains the sense of having been one large factory driven by one
powerful engine, an image completely consistent with Hamilton's vision
of a centralized national manufactory.''
Thank you again for this opportunity.
______
Mr. Hefley. Thank you, Mr. Pascrell.
Mr. Simmons?
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROB SIMMONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be
here this afternoon to testify in support of H.R. 182, which is
a bill to study the inclusion of Connecticut's Eightmile River
as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and we
have a map here in the chamber, Mr. Chairman, which we can use
to illustrate the location of this river. As you probably know,
Connecticut has a wealth of natural resources, and the
Eightmile River, which is located in the area to the east of
the Connecticut River, which bisects the State, is the area
that we are talking about. It is a watershed from three of our
towns down into a cove, which then flows into the river and
then into Long Island Sound.
This river has been identified as an exemplary source of
resources. It is free-flowing. It has excellent water quality.
It has a diversity of aquatic water habitats and fish species,
including native trout, and it is also a recreational resource
which figures into the communities which surround it.
Unfortunately, because of the trends of development in
Connecticut in recent years, it is not likely to remain in its
current condition without some community effort and some effort
on our part to preserve and protect it.
That is why, on the very first day that I was sworn in as a
freshman member of this House of Representatives, I introduced
a bill to study the Eightmile River for wild and scenic status.
I was pleased to be joined in that effort by all of my House
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, from Connecticut, and as
well, I received commitments from Senators Dodd and Lieberman
on the Senate side to introduce companion bills in that body.
For more than 30 years, the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
has protected some of our nation's most precious rivers, and
they are not all out west or in some of the vast reaches of our
country. In fact, in northwestern Connecticut, the Farmington
River has achieved that status through legislation introduced
by Congresswoman Nancy Johnson. Connecticut can have a wild and
scenic river. It is possible.
This Act makes sure that certain select rivers of the
Nation that have these outstanding assets will be preserved and
protected, and that they will be available to future
generations. I think that the Eightmile River possesses all of
these qualities. I believe that the dollars we are requesting
for a study will demonstrate that beyond a reasonable doubt,
and this is the process we follow in these cases. I am proud to
submit this legislation on behalf of my constituents in those
three towns, and I would like to request if we could, Mr.
Chairman, that some correspondence between individuals and
organizations be introduced into the record. This is an
initiative that has broad-based support in the community, and
these letters demonstrate that commitment.
I am also excited that one of our three first selectmen
from this area is here with us today. That is Sue Merrow of
East Haddam. She has some testimony she would like to submit,
and also Nathan Frohling of The Connecticut Nature Conservancy
is here to testify on behalf of this bill. I thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for your attention. I am happy to answer any
questions that you have, and I look forward to working with you
and your Committee on this legislation as we move forward.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Simmons follows:]
STATEMENT BY THE HONORABLE ROB SIMMONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, ON H.R. 182
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here
this afternoon to testify in support of H.R. 182, a bill to study the
inclusion of Connecticut's Eightmile River as part of the National Wild
and Scenic Rivers System.
Eastern Connecticut is fortunate to have a wealth of natural
beauty, such as the Eightmile River. The river, and the watershed it
supports, is an outstanding ecological system. It has been identified
as an exemplary occurrence of one of Connecticut's most imperiled
natural communities. Its streams are free flowing, contain excellent
water quality and a diversity of aquatic habitats and fish species,
including native and stocked trout. The Eightmile River is also an
important recreational resource and figures prominently in the
character of the communities in which it flows.
Unfortunately, the Eightmile River is not likely to remain in this
outstanding condition without a concerted community effort to protect
it.
That's why on my very first day in Congress, I introduced H.R. 182,
a bill authorizing the National Park Service to study and determine
whether the Eightmile River is eligible for designation as a National
Wild and Scenic River. I was pleased to be joined in this effort by
every member of Connecticut's congressional delegation.
For more than 30 years, the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act has
safeguarded some of the nation's most precious rivers. The Act intends
that certain select rivers of the Nation that possess outstandingly
remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic,
cultural or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing
condition, and that they shall be protected for the benefit and
enjoyment of present and future generations. Designated rivers receive
protection to preserve their-free-flowing condition, to protect the
water quality and to fulfill other vital national conservation
purposes. I believe Connecticut's Eightmile River possesses all of
these qualities, deserves all of these protections and should be looked
at by the National Park Service as an important addition to the
National Wild and Scenic River System.
I am very proud to submit this legislation at the request of my
constituents in East Haddam, Salem and Lyme. I am excited that the
First Selectman of East Haddam, Sue Merrow and Nathan Frohling of the
Connecticut Nature Conservancy are here in Washington to testify on
behalf of this bill. Thank you.
______
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.050
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much, both of you, for your
testimony. Let me ask you, Mr. Simmons, is there general--I
take it from what you said, you feel there is general local
support for this?
Mr. Simmons. Absolutely, and that is a critical point. We
have in these letters, they will demonstrate, I think, beyond a
reasonable doubt that each of the three municipalities, and
many of the entities of those municipalities, official entities
of those municipalities, and citizens and citizens groups
support this initiative. In a sense, I inherited the issue
because, shortly after the election, I went down into this area
and was briefed on the project, and I would say two years at
work, at least, had gone into preparing materials in
anticipation of submitting this legislation. So, when I was
briefed, I got a very comprehensive briefing, and I got a very
clear sense from public officials, private individuals and non-
profit organizations, that they are all in support of this
initiative.
Mr. Hefley. Well, that is good, because we would not want,
you would not us to force this on the people of Connecticut if
they do not want it personally.
Mr. Simmons. That is a critical comment and that is why I
have asked, as two additional witnesses; one, that we have a
representative from the Nature Conservancy to talk about the
environmental aspects of the river, but secondly, we have a
local elected official, a First Selectman, which is essentially
a Mayor of one of the three towns, testify. If, in fact, we
were allowed to have more mayors testify, we would have them
here, but we were asked only to bring one.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you. Mr. Pascrell, what is there, there
in Paterson for people to see? Are the mills still in
existence, and that is part of what you are wanting to save?
Mr. Pascrell. Mr. Chairman, many of those mills are still
in existence. They have been converted, some of them, to
schools, to a museum, to other manufacturing activities. Most
of them are still there, most of them have been preserved, Mr.
Chairman, and this is really something to see in its present
form. We just imagine what it would look like and what would be
and what it would produce if we are able to really have this
partnership I have been talking to you about.
This is a nonpartisan project, Mr. Chairman. The Governor
of the State, Donald DiFrancesco just became the Governor, has
written, you have it in the record, his endorsement of this
project. The two Senators from New Jersey are with us one
hundred percent, as are the New Jersey members of this
Committee, in support of this project.
Mr. Hefley. Okay. Thank you. Mrs. Christensen?
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will enter my
statement for the record if that is okay with you.
Mr. Hefley. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Christensen follows:]
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DONNA CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE TO CONGRESS
FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
Mr. Chairman, today the Subcommittee will receive testimony on
three unrelated bills.
Our first bill, H.R. 146, introduced by Rep. Pascrell, would
authorize a National Park Service study of the suitability and
feasibility of designating the Great Falls Historic District in
Paterson, New Jersey, as a unit of the National Park System. I
understand the area has a rich industrial history and that our
witnesses will provide us with some details of the resource values
found there. Our second bill, H.R. 182, by Mr. Simmons, would authorize
a study to determine whether it would be appropriate to designate the
Eightmile River as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
The Eightmile River is located in Southern Connecticut and has already
been identified by the National Park Service as a potential Wild and
Scenic River based on its outstanding scenic, geologic, and wildlife
values.
While there is no controversy regarding the merits of H.R. 182, it
is our understanding that the Administration will testify in opposition
to the bill based on its newly proposed moratorium on new additions to
the National Park System. We look forward to hearing more about this
new policy.
Our last bill, H.R. 601, introduced by Rep. Simpson, would provide
for hunting on the Federal lands that were included within the Craters
of the Moon National Monument when the monument was enlarged on
November 9, 2000. The bill also provides for the disposition of grazing
fees arising from the use of the expansion area. I understand that
there are some unusual circumstances pertaining to these matters at the
monument that the Administration witness will be able to elaborate on.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the presence of our witnesses here
today and look forward to their insights on the legislation that is
before us.
______
Mrs. Christensen. I have also been asked to enter the
statement of Congressman Pallone for the record, I ask
unanimous consent.
Mr. Hefley. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ON H.R. 146
I support H.R. 146, legislation introduced by my colleague
Representative Pascrell of New Jersey. H.R. 146 calls for a study of
the Great Falls National Historic District to determine the feasibility
of adding this location to the National Park System. Representative
Pascrell has identified a unique place, rich in the history of
America's development. The Great Falls Historic District deserves great
attention; it deserves designation as a National Park.
At the heart of the Great Falls Historic District is the 77-foot
Great Falls of the Passaic River, the second largest waterfall by
volume east of the Mississippi River and a key in our nation's
manufacturing history. In 1791, Alexander Hamilton selected the Great
Falls for the creation of an industrial site and with Pierre Charles
L'Enfant designed a waterpower system to increase the Nation's
manufacturing capabilities. Hamilton believed that America to be free
from British influence, must be industrially free ; Great Falls is one
or our founding father's creations.
The Great Falls Historic District contains examples of 18th, 19th,
and 20th-century water-powered remnants, including a three-tiered
raceway and an abundance of mills. This District is the historical home
to the first Colt revolver at Samuel Colt's Works, the first
locomotives and airplane engines at Rogers Works, and is also known
around the world as "Silk City". Great Falls Historic District includes
examples of almost every type of manufacturing facility built during
America's industrial revolution.
Additionally, Paterson, New Jersey is rich with the history of
America's immigrant workers. Migration patterns of workers in Paterson
provide a sketch of America's immigrant population and the role of
immigrants in America's factories. Further, labor issues in this
industrial workplace led to the need for labor laws that formed the
foundation of today's labor movement.
I support my colleague's approach to review the potential of the
Great Falls Historic District as a National Park. The Great Falls
Historic District is an example of New Jersey's development, New
Jersey's brilliant ingenuity and New Jersey's insight that should be
preserved to serve as a history lesson to Americans for years to come.
______
Mrs. Christensen. I want to welcome my colleagues, my
classmate, Congressman Pascrell, who has introduced the bill to
authorize the National Park Service study. I am well aware of
your efforts on all fronts to improve the economic conditions
of Paterson and the surrounding area, and I see this as one
other way of doing this. I did not know that we shared
Alexander Hamilton, who grew up in my district in the Virgin
Islands, which makes me even more interested in your bill.
Mr. Simmons, when I said I would see you soon, I did not
expect to see you this soon at our Committee. Welcome. I am
very interested in your bill. I have always been a supporter of
the Scenic River Program, however, at this point, it is my
understanding that the Administration has imposed a moratorium.
I will be looking forward to hearing from the Administration on
more about the policy and why it is in place. But, just
welcome, and thank you for being here.
Mr. Simmons. Thank you.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you. Mr. Simpson, did you have some
testimony you wanted to share?
Mr. Simpson. No.
Mr. Hefley. Mr. Gilchrest?
Mr. Gilchrest. Just a quick question, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Pascrell, how many acres does this cover in Paterson?
Mr. Pascrell. About 112 acres, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. Who owns it now?
Mr. Pascrell. Well, various people. God owns the falls,
which is in the river and the river runs right through the
district. There are private ownerships. In fact, most of the
ownership in the district is privately owned--I would say most
of the commercial properties, there are also residents. It is a
mixed zone where the Great Falls Historic District is. As I
pointed out before, President Ford named this landmark back in
1976. We need the help of the Park Service, in a synergistic
partnership, to develop this so that it is really not only a
destination for tourists, but that the area itself is alive and
continues to grow.
Mr. Gilchrest. I am not familiar with the bill. Is it your
intention to have this owned and then run by the National Park
Service?
Mr. Pascrell. Part of the district, as I said, is the falls
itself. There are parks on both sides of the falls, and that is
something, since I am not officially part of the government of
Paterson, I would recommend that there be some kind of
relationship, some kind of partnership in overseeing that
particular parkland. It was never my intention that the Park
Service or the Federal Government own the entire district, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. The entire district is a little over 100
acres?
MR. Pascrell. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. Has the State wanted to make it a State Park
or work with the county to make it a county-state partnership?
Do you need the money from the Federal Government to get some
infusion of cash to make all this happen?
Mr. Pascrell. We have had some infusion of Federal dollars,
as I pointed out, back in 1995 to begin the process. This is
our first real attempt to get the Park Service officially to be
involved, physically, to be involved there in this partnership
I have talked to you about. The county has endorsed this. The
State of New Jersey, as I have just said to you, the Governor
wrote a letter endorsing this particular project. We have
worked this on many different levels, but we do need the Park
Service there. I know many times we are reluctant to talk about
the Park Service in urban areas. We tend to think of them more
on a grandiose. This is a very different Committee, though. In
the last two sessions we have gone beyond those old
parochialisms and commend this Committee, and that is why I am
very optimistic when I appear before you.
Mr. Gilchrest. I wish you well. I wish you good luck. I
also wish Mr. Simmons luck on the eight miles of wild and
scenic. You don't often think of Connecticut as wild and
scenic, but if you can save a little wild and scenic in
Connecticut, we are for it.
Mr. Simmons. I appreciate those remarks, sir. As I
indicated, we actually have the Farmington River in the
northwestern part of the State, which flows into the
Connecticut River, and it currently has wild and scenic status
due to the efforts of my colleague, Congresswoman Nancy
Johnson, some years ago. We do have some unique and special
spots buried away in our tiny little State.
Mr. Gilchrest. Maybe you can have a sister River in Idaho
called Moose Creek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hefley. Mr. Simpson?
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can tell you that I
have been to Connecticut and there are places that are both
wild and scenic. I apologize for being late and I did have an
opening statement on House Bill 601 that is on the schedule
today. I want to thank you for scheduling this hearing on H.R.
601. I would like to thank Don Clower of the Idaho Fish and
Game Commission and Jack Fisher of the Idaho Wildlife
Federation for traveling all the way to Washington, D.C. to
testify on behalf of this legislation. I understand they are on
panel number two.
On November 9, 2000, President Bill Clinton issued
Presidential Proclamation 7373 to expand the boundaries of
Craters of the Moon National Monument. Prior to Clinton's
proclamation, the monument was comprised of 52,440 acres.
President Coolidge established the monument in 1924. Former
President Clinton's approximation expanded the boundaries to
include, approximately, 661,287 acres of additional Federal
land. The area is managed by the Secretary of Interior through
the National Park Service and by the Bureau of Land Management.
The National Park Service manages approximately 410,000 acres
of the expansion, while the Bureau of Land Management manages
the remaining 251,000 acres.
When the monument was expanded, it was understood that
continued access to hunting would be maintained. However, when
the proclamation was issued, hunting was restricted in the area
of the expansion managed by the National Park Service. Under
this legislation, areas that were open to hunting before the
expansion will remain open to hunting under the jurisdiction
and laws of the State of Idaho. The legislation also ensures
the grazing fees collected in the national monument are
disposed according to the Taylor Grazing Act.
Unfortunately, due to the outmoded and antiquated national
monument process, there was not a formal means by which the
State of Idaho, the congressional delegation or the general
public could comment on the proposed monument expansion. While
the Idaho Fish and Game Commission expressed their interest in
working with the Secretary of Interior to allow for appropriate
wildlife management in the expanded area, their concerns were
largely ignored. When the Idaho congressional delegation and
governor spoke with the Secretary of the Interior about the
Craters of the Moon expansion, we were led to believe that
hunting would not be affected. In fact, the relevant language
of the proclamation says nothing in this proclamation shall be
deemed to enlarge or diminish the jurisdiction of the State of
Idaho with respect to fish and wildlife management.
However, when the proclamation was issued, it was realized
that current National Park Service regulations preclude hunting
in the area of the expansion managed by the National Park
Service; therefore, denying access to traditional hunting
grounds. H.R. 601 is about fairness and ensuring that Idahoans
are not locked out of traditional hunting areas. H.R. 601 has
the support of the Idaho Fish and Game Commission, the Idaho
Fish and Game Advisory Committee, the Idaho Wildlife Council,
Idaho Wildlife Federation and local county commissioners.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for taking
the opportunity to hold a hearing on this piece of legislation
that is important to the State of Idaho. When you look at the
expansion of the Craters of the Moon into what is called the
Great Rift, this 661,000 additional acres, it is largely lava
rock and sagebrush, and people ask if there are really any deer
out there. I can tell you I have never gotten one with a 30-06,
but I have gotten one with a Corvette and a Jeep, so there are
plenty of deer out there. So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Simpson follows:]
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MIKE SIMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mr. Chairman, thank you for scheduling this hearing on H.R. 601. I
would also like to thank Don Clower, Idaho Fish and Game Commission;
and Jack Fisher, Idaho Wildlife Federation, for traveling all the way
to Washington, DC to testify on behalf of this legislation.
On November 9, 2000, former President Bill Clinton issued
Presidential Proclamation 7373 to expand the boundaries of the Craters
of the Moon National Monument. Prior to Clinton's proclamation, the
monument was comprised of 54,440 acres. President Coolidge established
the monument in 1924.
Former President Clinton's proclamation expanded the boundaries to
include approximately 661,287 acres of additional federal land. The
area is managed by the Secretary of Interior through the National Park
Service and the Bureau of Land Management. The National Park Service
manages approximately 410,000 acres of the expansion, while the Bureau
of Land Management manages the remaining 251,000 acres. When the
monument was expanded it was understood that continued access to
hunting would be maintained. However, when the proclamation was issued,
hunting was restricted in the area of the expansion managed by the
National Park Service. Under my legislation, areas that were open to
hunting before the expansion will remain open to hunting under the
jurisdiction and laws of the State of Idaho. The legislation also
ensures that grazing fees collected in the national monument are
dispersed according to the Taylor Grazing Act.
Unfortunately, due to the outmoded and antiquated national monument
process there was not a formal means by which the State of Idaho, the
congressional delegation, and the general public could comment on the
proposed monument expansion. While the Idaho Fish and Game expressed
their interest in working with the Secretary of Interior to allow for
appropriate wildlife management in the expanded area, their concerns
were ignored by an administration that cared little for public input in
land management decisions.
When the Idaho congressional delegation and Governor spoke with the
Secretary of Interior about the Craters of the Moon expansion we were
led to believe that hunting would not be affected. However, when the
proclamation was issued it was realized that current National Park
Service regulations preclude hunting in the area of the expansion
managed by the National Park Service. Therefore, denying access to
traditional hunting grounds.
H.R. 601 is about fairness and ensuring that Idahoans are not
locked out of traditional hunting areas. H.R. 601 has the support of
the Idaho Fish and Game Commission, Idaho Fish and Game Advisory
Committee, Idaho Wildlife Council, Idaho Wildlife Federation, and local
county commissioners.
Once again, I want to take this opportunity to thank you for
holding this hearing. I am hopeful that the information presented here
will allow us to move forward with this common sense legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
Mr. Hefley. My chief ability to harvest deer in Colorado
has been with my car, too, so I understand what you mean.
Gentlemen, if you would like to join us up here for the
remaining part of the hearing, or as much as you can stay, or
if you would like to participate with us in the hearing, we
would love to have you do it.
Let us go to a second panel. Mr. Joseph Doddridge, Acting
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Department
of the Interior; Mr. Don Clower, Idaho Fish and Game
Commission; and Mr. Jack Fisher, Idaho Wildlife Federation. I
want to take the two Gentlemen from Idaho first, because you
have come a long way and I understand you have an airplane to
catch later this afternoon. You can choose whichever one of you
would like to speak first and we will go from there.
Mr. Fisher, you drew the short straw?
Mr. Fisher. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I believe that I won the
toss in this case.
Mr. Hefley. Which goal do you choose to defend?
STATEMENT OF JACK FISHER, IDAHO WILDLIFE FEDERATION, NAMPA,
IDAHO
Mr. Fisher. We will find that out here real soon. Mr.
Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I want to say my name
is Jack Fisher and I'm the President of the Idaho Wildlife
Federation. I'm also a member of the Idaho Fish and Game
Advisory Committee. I want to thank you for allowing us to
participate in today's hearing on H.R. 601. My testimony will
focus primarily on the hunting aspect of this resolution, and
will be on behalf of the Idaho Wildlife Federation and the
Idaho Fish and Game Advisory Committee. The Idaho Wildlife
Federation is Idaho's oldest conservation organization. The
Federation's primary mission is to promote citizen support for
the conservation of Idaho's wildlife and natural resources, for
fishing, hunting and outdoor recreation benefiting all future
generations.
Our current membership totals nearly 6,000 Idaho citizens.
The Idaho Wildlife Federation was founded in 1936 and, in fact,
this Friday we will be celebrating our 65th anniversary at our
annual meeting. I would also like to mention that the Idaho
Wildlife Federation is an affiliate of the National Wildlife
Federation.
Mr. Chairman, the sportsmen and women of Idaho are
extremely concerned over the loss of the hunting opportunity
due to assignment of management responsibility for the expanded
acres of the Craters of the Moon National Monument to the
National Park Service. In our opinion, H.R. 601 has more to do
with instilling a sense of faith in the integrity of our
government. When the Craters of the Moon National Monument was
being discussed in Idaho, the Idaho Wildlife Federation voiced
concerns that hunting opportunities might be lost, and it seems
that those concerns have proved to be well founded.
It is our understanding that assurances were given to
Idaho's congressional delegation, as well as Idaho's governor,
that hunting would continue to be allowed if the expansion was
approved. Some believe that by merely assigning management
responsibility of the expanded area to the National Park
Service, it was going to automatically eliminate hunting. That
is certainly what has happened, and while there are those who
support such restrictions, the Idaho Wildlife Federation is not
one of them.
The very size and remoteness of the area that now comprises
the Craters of the Moon National Monument makes restrictions
for hunting needless. I believe it is important to put the size
of the area we are talking about into perspective. I have
researched the size of Washington D.C., and found out that it
encompasses approximately 43,000 acres, or 68.2 square miles.
By comparison, the expanded portion of the Craters of the Moon
National Monument encompasses some 661,000 acres, or 948 square
miles, which is about 14 times the size of Washington, DC.
As for lost hunting opportunity, in 1999, elk hunters spent
an estimated 2,158 man days afield, and additionally deer
hunters spent another 1,238 man days in the area. In addition,
antelope, sage grouse and doves are hunted in significant
numbers, which would further add to the utilization in this
area. The loss of nearly 4,000 man days of hunting opportunity
will put additional stress on surrounding wildlife management
areas at a time when hunting pressure is of a growing concern.
The economic impact for just the deer and elk hunting alone
equates to about $210,000. Now, that may not seem like much of
a dollar impact, but in rural Idaho it is definitely very
significant. I believe that it is important to mention that
currently the area does not have a wildlife deprivation problem
that would be involving adjacent private landowners'
agricultural crops. However, the loss of hunting opportunity
and the lack of harvest of the surplus deer and elk and
antelope will most certainly result in future deprivation
problems.
Controversy surrounding wildlife deprivation statewide is a
constant problem and was the primary reason for creating the
Idaho Fish and Game Advisory Committee initially in 1989. So,
in closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to extend my
appreciation to Representative Mike Simpson for presenting this
legislation, and I would like to point out that virtually
nothing has changed except the designation of this land as part
of the Craters of the Moon National Monument, and the transfer
of management responsibility from one government agency to
another, and as such, I urge that you and the members of your
Committee support H.R. 601.
As I had mentioned earlier in my testimony, this is really
an issue about instilling a sense of faith in the integrity of
our government, by keeping promises and restoring our
traditional hunting opportunities in this area. That concludes
my testimony on this, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fisher follows:]
STATEMENT BY JACK W. FISHER, PRESIDENT, IDAHO WILDLIFE FEDERATION, AND
MEMBER, IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for inviting us to participate in today's hearing on
House Resolution 601. My testimony will focus on the hunting aspects of
the resolution. However, before doing so, I believe it is important to
provide you with some background information concerning the Idaho
Wildlife Federation who I have the honor of representing. My testimony
will also be on behalf of the Idaho Department of Fish and Gem's
Advisory Committee of which I am a member. The Advisory Committee's
membership represents both sportsmen and agricultural interests.
BACKGROUND
The Idaho Wildlife Federation is Idaho's oldest conservation
organization. The Federation's primary mission is to promote citizen
support for the conservation of the state's wildlife and natural
resources for fishing, hunting, and outdoor recreation benefiting
future generations. We currently have several hundred members and 25
affiliate organizations. Our affiliates represent diverse sportsmen's
interests from throughout Idaho including archery, fishing, law
enforcement, hunting dogs, wild turkeys and even a herpetological
society. Membership to our affiliate groups varies from a relative
handful to well over a thousand in the case of the Idaho State
Bowhunters organization.
The Idaho Wildlife Federation was founded in 1936 as an outgrowth
of the national Civilian Conservation Corps program due to growing
citizen concern about conservation and wildlife management. This Friday
we will be celebrating our 65th anniversary at our annual banquet. I
would also like to mention that the Idaho Wildlife Federation is an
affiliate of the National Wildlife Federation although we function
independently.
IDAHO WILDLIFE FEDERATION'S AND THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S INTEREST IN
H.R. 601
The sportsmen of Idaho are extremely concerned over the loss of
hunting opportunities due to assignment of management responsibility
for expanded acreage of the Craters of the Moon National Monument to
the National Park Service.
It is our opinion the resolution has more to do with instilling a
sense of faith in the integrity of our government. When the expansion
of Craters of the Moon National Monument was being discussed, the Idaho
Wildlife Federation was concerned that hunting opportunities might be
lost. It seems those concerns have proved to be well founded.
It has been our understanding that assurances were given to Idaho's
congressional delegation as well as Idaho's Governor that hunting would
continue to be allowed if the expansion was approved. We are uncertain
if some of those involved may have known surreptitiously that, by
assigning management responsibility for a portion of the expanded area
to the National Park Service, hunting would automatically be
restricted. However, that is certainly what has happened and while
there may be those who support such restrictions, our organization is
not one of them.
IMPACTS DUE TO THE LOSS OF HUNTING OPPORTUNITIES
The very size of the area that now comprises the Craters of the
Moon National Monument makes restrictions on hunting needless. I
believe it is important to try and put the size of the area we are
talking about into some sort of perspective. To do so, I researched the
size of Washington, D.C. and found it encompasses about 43,648 acres or
68.2 square miles. By comparison, just the expanded area of the Craters
of the Moon National Monument encompasses 607,000 acres or about 948
square miles, roughly 14 times the size of Washington, D.C. Thus, with
the mere stroke of a pen, such a vast remote area was placed off limits
to those who have traditionally hunted in the area.
I would like to point out that I am not aware of any hunting-
related mishaps in the area in question so safety is really not an
issue. As for lost hunting opportunities, in 1999 elk hunters spent an
estimated 2,158 days in the field and deer hunters another 1,238 days
in this area. I was unable to obtain similar estimates for other
species such as antelope and sage grouse which would add to the hunter
utilization information. From an economic impact standpoint for just
elk and deer hunting in the management area involved, the numbers
equate to about $210,795. That may not seem like much of a dollar
impact to some of you, but in rural Idaho it's significant.
Additionally, I believe it is important to mention that currently
the area does not have a wildlife depredation problem involving
adjacent private landowners' agricultural crops. However, the loss of
hunting opportunities and harvest of elk and deer will most likely
result in a depredation problem due to the inability to keep wildlife
populations in check by hunter harvest. Controversies surrounding
wildlife depredation in general is a constant problem and was the
primary reason for creating the Fish and Game Advisory Committee.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, in closing I would like to extend appreciation to
Representative Mike Simpson for sponsoring the resolution. I would also
like to point out that virtually nothing has changed except for the
designation of the bud as part of the Craters of the Moon National
Monument and the transfer of management responsibility from one
government agency to another. As such, I urge you and members of your
Subcommittee to support House Resolution 601.
As I mentioned earlier in my testimony, this is really an issue
about instilling faith and integrity in our government by keeping
promises and retaining traditional hunting opportunities. I would be
pleased to respond to any questions that you or other members of your
Subcommittee may have at this time.
______
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much, Mr. Fisher.
Mr. Clower?
STATEMENT OF DON CLOWER, IDAHO FISH AND GAME COMMISSION,
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
Mr. Clower. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I would
like to take just a moment to thank you for the opportunity to
testify in front of the Subcommittee. My name is Don Clower. I
am a member of the Idaho Fish and Game Commission. A brief
history of the Idaho Fish and Game Commission; there are seven
commissioners who are appointed by the Governor of Idaho to
manage the affairs of the Idaho Fish and Game department and
manage the wildlife in the State of Idaho. I was appointed to
this commission in 1999 by Governor Dirk Kempthorne. The
Craters of the Moon National Monument was expanded to 661,000
acres. Hunting has been a traditional part of this expansion
long before white men ever came to the State of Idaho.
I would like to point out one part of the proclamation that
has been brought up a couple of times before, but I believe has
a great amount of importance on this issue. The proclamation
states that nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to
enlarge or diminish the jurisdiction of the State of Idaho with
respect to fish and wildlife management. We were led to
believe, when this monument proclamation was under discussion,
that traditional hunting and other uses of this area would be
guaranteed.
Immediately upon the Park Service taking over the
management of this land, we lost that ability to manage the
wildlife and exercise the rights of the State of Idaho to
manage our wildlife. Hunting and trapping will not harm the
resources the monument was established to protect. The monument
was originally established and recently expanded to protect
geological formations. This is a very isolated area in the
central part of the State of Idaho, very inaccessible. There is
really only one road that passes through Craters of the Moon.
The other roads are two tracks, very unimproved roads that lead
out into different sections of the lava flow that are available
for hunting and trapping. Last year, Jack gave you the number
of man hours that were utilized in the Craters of the Moon for
hunting.
We have a really good elk herd out there that produces
outstanding opportunities to elk hunt. We have a large deer
herd and we have a large antelope herd, which provide
opportunity for sportsmen in the State of Idaho to harvest
during hunting seasons. Our hunting seasons are very short.
They run for a couple of months in the late fall and they do
not interfere and never have interfered with the management of
this particular area. Again, you will have to understand, this
is a very, very remote part of Idaho and fairly inaccessible.
Prohibiting hunting will result in a loss of unique and
highly valued recreational opportunities. There is a common
misconception that no hunting takes place in the lava flows,
but there is a considerable amount of use of this particular
area. Prohibiting hunting and trapping on the expansion is also
administratively impractical, if not impossible, because of
having to try to sign the different areas in the lava flow,
because if you have ever been out to the Craters of the Moon,
the lava flow comes and goes in a very, very large area. I am
not too sure exactly how you would sign all this area to
prohibit hunting in one portion and the other portion managed
by the BLM would continue to allow hunting. So it would be a
very difficult area, in our opinion, to try to manage.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, the Idaho Fish and Game
Commission requests passage of H.R. 601 because it makes sense.
The rules regarding the use of the national monument should be
tailored to the resource or the designation it was designed to
protect. Uses that do not conflict with the purpose of the
designation should not only be allowed, they should be
encouraged. Hunting and trapping are compatible with the
expanded area of the Craters of the Moon National Monument.
These activities have been going on there for years without
harming the scenic beauty of this unearthly landscape. Let's
keep it that way. I would like to thank the Committee and
Congressman Simpson for allowing us the opportunity to come
here today and speak in support of this legislation.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Clower follows:
STATEMENT OF DON CLOWER, IDAHO FISH AND GAME COMMISSION
My name is Don Clower. I am a member of and am testifying on behalf
of the Idaho Fish and Game Commission. I appreciate the opportunity to
address this Subcommittee in support of Congressman Simpson's bill
regarding hunting on the recent expansion of the Craters of the Moon
National Monument in Idaho.
The expansion of the Craters of the Moon National Monument was
imposed by Presidential Proclamation on November 9, 2000. This
expansion was significant, increasing the size of the monument nearly
tenfold to 661,000 acres with 410,000 acres to be managed by the
National Park Service (NPS). The remaining 250,000 acres will be
managed by the BLM.
The NPS-administered portion of the expansion will be closed to
hunting and trapping, in spite of language in the President's
proclamation that states: ``Nothing in this proclamation shall be
deemed to enlarge or diminish the jurisdiction of the State of Idaho
with respect to fish and wildlife management.'' The rationale behind
this decision to exclude hunting and trapping seems to be based on the
practice that the NPS does not normally allow these activities on lands
it administers unless there is legislation specifically allowing
hunting and trapping. Hence the apparent need for Congressman Simpson's
legislation. We urge you to support this legislation for the following
reasons:
Hunting and trapping will not harm the resources the monument was
established to protect. The monument was originally established and
recently expanded to protect geologic formations. These activities will
not have any impact on the lava flows or other geologic features of the
monument that are any different than other uses of the monument like
hiking, photography or sightseeing. Vehicles are restricted to existing
roads and trails and apply to all users.
Hunting and trapping will not interfere with other uses of the
monument. Seasons for both activities are relatively short and have
limited participation. Hunting is confined to the months of September
through November, which are outside the high visitation months of June,
July and August while trapping is conducted from December through
February. Under Congressman Simpson's proposed legislation, these
traditional activities would only be allowed on the expansion, the
original monument with its parking areas and visitor center would
remain closed to hunting.
Prohibiting hunting and trapping on the expansion is
administratively impractical if not impossible. The expanded monument
contains land managed by the NPS and the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM). The NPS land includes the lava flows and the BLM land includes
the sagebrush and grassland habitats surrounding the flows. The
boundary between the land managed by the BLM, where hunting will
continue to be allowed, and the NPS where hunting is prohibited is
indistinct and is not readily discernible by the public. In order to
post signs on the boundary, it would have to be surveyed, at
considerable expense. The resultant signing would be unsightly and
defeat the purpose of protecting the scenic beauty of the area. Until
signing is completed, the public will not be able to tell if they are
in the area open to hunting and trapping.
Prohibiting hunting on the expansion will have negative impacts to
nearby farmland. The loss of hunting and expanded refuge created by the
monument is likely to result in increases in elk numbers. In the last
twenty years, `elk populations have increased dramatically on the
sagebrush steppe lands surrounding the Monument and the Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). These animals spend
the daylight hours where hunting is prohibited and depredate adjacent
agricultural lands at night. Large refuges like the INEEL and the
expanded Craters Monument make it very difficult to control the size of
these elk herds. In addition, higher elk populations could alter the
unique native plant communities found in the lava flows and smaller
kipukas that the monument desires to protect. Prohibiting hunting and
other wildlife management practices will inhibit our ability to manage
big game populations at a level that is compatible with other resource
uses and values. We suggest that the proposed legislation allow other
wildlife management practices on the expansion, like trapping and
aerial survey.
Prohibiting hunting will result in the loss of a unique and highly
valued recreational opportunity. There is a common misconception that
no hunting takes place on the lava flows. Hunters and trappers do use
this area. Those willing to brave the remote and hostile terrain are
rewarded with a truly unique recreational experience. Trapping should
also be authorized in the legislation.
Allowing hunting on lands managed by the National Park Service will
not set a precedent. In the past the IDFG has successfully advocated
maintaining hunting opportunity in the designation of National
Monuments in Idaho. When the Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument and
the City of the Rocks National Reserve were designated, both remained
open to hunting. The IDFG has worked closely with the NPS and the Idaho
Department of Parks and Recreation to ensure hunting does not conflict
with other uses of these lands. The Department is committed to
continuing this relationship on the expanded Craters of the Moon
National Monument.
The concerns I have outlined here today will come as no surprise to
the NPS, the BLM and other Department of Interior (DOI) officials
familiar with the proposal to expand the Craters of the Moon. We were
disappointed in the lack of coordination by the DOI in the early phases
of this proposal. We were not notified of or invited to participate in
public meetings or interagency discussions on expansion of the Craters.
In spite of this, the Commission made their concerns known in writing
and in testimony prior to the President's proclamation, all to no
avail. Our Governor, Dirk Kempthome, has written Secretary Gale Norton
on this issue and our legislature has passed a memorial regarding
hunting in the Craters expansion area.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, the Idaho Fish and Game Commission
requests passage of this legislation because it makes sense. The rules
regarding uses of National Monuments should be tailored to the
resources the designation was designed to protect. Uses that do not
conflict with the purpose of the designation should not only be
allowed, they should be encouraged. Hunting and trapping are compatible
with the expanded area of the Craters of the Moon National Monument.
These activities have been going on there for years without harming the
scenic beauty of this unearthly landscape. Let's keep it that way. I
thank you for this opportunity to testify and for your favorable
consideration of this request.
______
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much.
Mr. Doddridge?
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH E. DODDRIDGE, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Doddridge. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity
to appear before your Committee today. I have three different
bills to testify on, and I would like to present them, with
your concurrence or approval, in the order that they were
presented to you. The first would be H.R. 146, a bill to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the
suitability and feasibility of designating the Great Falls
Historic District in Paterson, New Jersey as a unit of the Park
System. The Department of the Interior recommends that the
Committee defer action on H.R. 146 until the Park Service is
able to make further progress on the President's initiative to
eliminate the deferred maintenance backlog within the next five
years. We are seeking a temporary moratorium on new park unit
designations or authorized new studies so that we can focus our
existing staff and resources on taking care of what we now own.
We also want to use our available planning funds to complete
previously authorized studies in establishing new park units or
expanding units.
I should say that, in addition, we are concerned that such
a study could serve to divert the city of Paterson and the
National Park Service from the very real opportunities
authorized by Congress in 1992 and 1996, and opportunities that
have yet to be fully realized. As Congressman Pascrell stated,
the 1996 legislation provides Paterson with the opportunity
both to demonstrate its capacity for leadership and
partnership, and to develop and implement a preservation
program as indicators of its commitment and capacity.
Successful completion of that program could lead to a future
congressional designation or a reauthorized partnership
funding, as appropriate. Our concern is, given the limited
resources we have for special resources study, that this could
divert attention from existing opportunity authorized in the
1996 Act.
This could take a few years to complete, especially when
considering other congressionally authorized studies that are
competing for limited resources available to the program. If
the recommendations of the study were negative and the
congressional action forthcoming, there would be no
preservation or development action available to us. Mr.
Chairman, that concludes my testimony.
The next bill, which is H.R. 182, would amend the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act by designating segments of the Eightmile
River for study and potential addition to the Wild and Scenic
River System. As in the previous bill, Mr. Chairman, we
recommend that the Committee defer action on this until we can
make further progress on our initiative to eliminate the
backlog within the next five years.
We are seeking this temporary moratorium until we can sort
this out and make some progress in this area. I should point
out, as Congressman Simmons indicates, that over the past
couple of years, the Park Service has responded to interest and
inquiries from local advocates and town officials regarding a
potential Wild and Scenic River study for the Eightmile River.
There appears to be strong local commitment and interest and
support for protecting the river system, as evidenced by the
Committee's formation of an intermunicipal watershed committee
and the signing of an innovative Eightmile River watershed
conservation concept. The concept, signed by the communities of
East Haddam, Lyme and Salem acknowledge their commitment to
protect and enhance water resources, wildlife habitats and
rural landscapes in the watershed.
I should also point out that, in going through the material
before this hearing, the Fish and Wildlife Service has also
worked closely with the local communities as far as possible
additions to the Conte Refuge. So there is more than one agency
in the Department of the Interior that is interested in this
watershed. But notwithstanding the strong support, we again
recommend that Congress defer action on this until we make
further progress in eliminating our maintenance backlog. Thank
you.
As far as the third bill which I am here to testify on
today, H.R. 601, a bill to ensure continued access of hunters
to those Federal lands included within the boundaries of the
Craters of the Moon National Monument in the State of Idaho,
pursuant to Presidential Proclamation 7373 on November 9, 2000,
and to continue the applicability of the Taylor Grazing Act and
the disposition of grazing fees arising from the use of such
lands, and for other purposes.
Mr. Chairman, the Department supports H.R. 601, which would
preserve hunting on the NPS-managed portion of the monument
expansion. As Congressman Simpson pointed out, and the
gentleman from Idaho, prior to the recent proclamation, Craters
of the Moon National Monument was managed solely by the
National Park Service. The expansion of the monument, however,
consists of lands that have been administered by the Bureau of
Land Management. The proclamation gives both agencies
responsibilities for administering the monument cooperatively.
The National Park Service has the primary management
responsibility for the old monument, plus the approximate
400,000-acre addition that consists of exposed lava flows. The
Bureau of Land Management is responsible for administering the
remainder of the portion.
The proclamation specified that the NPS portion is to be
managed under the same laws and regulations that applied to the
original monument. Since hunting has not been authorized in the
original Craters of the Moon National Monument, the effect of
the proclamation was to prohibit hunting in the NPS portion of
the monument expansion. However, the Department supports a
clarification of this language to allow continued use of the
lands in the expanded monument area for hunting. Hunting in a
portion of the monument administered by the Bureau of Land
Management is not affected.
The Department also recognizes that legislation to provide
the authority for hunting within the NPS management portion of
the monument expansion would give the superintendent the
ability to work cooperatively with the State of Idaho on issues
concerning adjacent landowners. For example, hunting could be
used as a tool in mitigating agricultural depredation caused by
elk grazing on alfalfa crops on privately owned lands outside
the monument. While the Department supports legislation to
continue hunting in the NPS portion of the monument, this does
not include support for opening to hunting the portion of the
monument that existed prior to the proclamation. That portion
has always been and should continue to be closed to hunting. In
addition, I would like to clarify that the Department's
position on this specific issue does not indicate support for
opening other areas of the park system to hunting.
I will be finished shortly, Mr. Chairman. While the
Department supports the intent of H.R. 601, to open the NPS-
managed portion of the monument expansion, we are concerned
over the language in Section 1(b) that appears to preclude any
authority of the Secretary to exercise jurisdiction over the
activity. Is that an omen, Congressman?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Simpson. I would say that was the first negative thing
you said.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Doddridge. We believe that the Secretary has a role to
play in cooperation with the State to ensure that hunting is
consistent with public safety, area administration, protection
of the monument's resources, and public use and enjoyment. We
have attached proposed language for the Committee's
consideration that is consistent with similar provisions and
laws that authorize hunting in other park areas. H.R. 601 also
requires the Taylor Grazing Act to continue to apply to the
disposition of grazing fees arising from the use of the
expansion area.
It requires a certain percentage of fees to be returned to
the grazing district in which the use occurs. However, it is my
understanding that since no grazing occurs in the NPS portion
of the expansion area and the proclamation does not affect
grazing on the BLM portion, we feel this provision is
unnecessary. This concludes my testimony on the three bills,
Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Doddridge follow:]
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH E. DODDRIDGE, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FISH
AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ON H.R. 146
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
Committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
H.R. 146, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study
the suitability and feasibility of designating the Great Falls Historic
District in Paterson, New Jersey, as a unit of the National Park
System.
The Department of the Interior recommends that the Committee defer
action on H.R. 146 until the National Park Service (NPS) is able to
make further progress on the President's Initiative to eliminate the
deferred maintenance backlog within five years. We are seeking a
temporary moratorium on new park unit designations or authorizations of
new studies so that we can focus our existing staff and resources on
taking care of what we now own. We also want to use our available
planning funds to complete previously authorized studies with a close
examination of the life-cycle costs of establishing a new park unit,
expanding an existing unit, or adding new NPS funding obligations.
Paterson, New Jersey has a rich history as the Nation's first
planned industrial city as well as containing some of the country's
oldest textile mills. In 1792, Alexander Hamilton formed an investment
group called the Society of Useful Manufactures whose funds would be
used to develop a planned industrial city in the United States that was
later to become Paterson. Hamilton believed that the United States
needed to reduce its dependence on foreign goods and should instead
develop its own industries. The industries developed in Paterson were
powered by the 77-foot high Great Falls of the Passaic, and a system of
water raceways that harnessed the power of the falls. The district
originally included dozens of mill buildings and other manufacturing
structures associated with the textile industry and later, the
firearms, silk, and railroad locomotive manufacturing industries. In
the latter half of the 1800's, silk production became the dominant
industry and formed the basis of Paterson's most prosperous period,
earning it the nickname Silk City. Paterson was also the site of
historic labor unrest that focused on anti-child labor legislation,
safety in the workplace, a minimum wage, and reasonable working hours.
Industrial decline in Paterson followed the general pattern for
northern textile cities, with a major decrease in business during the
middle third of the 20th Century. Today, the historic district reflects
many phases of decline and renewal: some buildings are deteriorated and
vacant, while others continue in industrial use or have been adaptively
reused for housing and offices.
Because of its significant role in the economic and industrial
development of the United States, the 89-acre Great Falls of the
Passaic/Society of Useful Manufactures Historic District was listed on
the National Register of Historic Places in 1970 and designated a
National Historic Landmark (NHL) in 1976. Since 1988 the District has
been listed as a Priority One threatened National Historic Landmark in
the Department of the Interior's annual report to Congress on NHLs.
This threatened status is primarily based on the condition of the 7-
acre site that formerly housed the Allied Textile Printers. This site,
immediately below the Great Falls, has been devastated by a dozen fires
over the last 15 years. The site was acquired by the city of Paterson
through foreclosure in 1994 and a developer is currently under contract
to redevelop the site.
In addition, we are concerned that such a study would serve to
divert the city of Paterson and the National Park Service from the very
real opportunities authorized by Congress in 1992 and 1996,
opportunities that have yet to be fully realized.
In the Fiscal Year 1992 Appropriations bill for the Department of
the Interior, Congress appropriated funds for the New Jersey Urban
History Initiative to provide funding for historic preservation
projects that encourage economic development. The city of Paterson was
authorized to receive $4.147 million in Urban History Initiative funds
to be administered by the NPS under a cooperative agreement with the
City. Over the years, the NPS has worked closely with the City to use
the money to protect historic resources while fostering compatible
economic development. This initiative has shown results such as funding
projects for research, community grants, and restoration of historic
resources. For example, Urban History Initiative funds were used for an
oral history project and ethnographic study conducted by the Library of
Congress American Folklife Center. Funds were also used for the
stabilization of the ruins of the Colt Gun Mill as part of a match for
a New Jersey Historic Trust grant to the city of Paterson.
The second major congressional initiative to support historic
preservation opportunities in Paterson is section 510 of the Omnibus
Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-333; 110
Stat. 4158). The Great Falls Historic District was authorized for $3.3
million in matching grants and assistance to develop and implement a
preservation and interpretive plan for the District, and permit the
development of a market analysis with recommendations of the economic
development potential of the District. Yet, none of these funds
authorized in 1996 have been appropriated.
Although the City has committed to the raising of the matching
funds required under the authorization, we do not believe that this has
yet occurred. Such matching funds will be important because recent
legislation indicates that Congress expects significant non-Federal
matches for new units of the national park system containing large
numbers of historic buildings such as the New Bedford National
Historical Park and Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area.
Without this demonstrated local financial support for the operation and
protection of new park units, it is probably not feasible to recommend
their addition to the System.
The 1996 legislation provides Paterson with the opportunity both to
demonstrate its capacity for partnership, and to develop and implement
a preservation program as indicators of its commitment and capacity.
The successful completion of that program could lead to a future
congressional designation or reauthorized partnership funding as
appropriate.
Our concern is that given limited resources, a special resource
study (SRS) could divert attention from the existing opportunities
authorized in the 1996 Act. The SRS could easily take years to
complete, especially when considering other congressionally authorized
studies that are competing for limited money available in this program.
If the recommendations of the study were negative and no congressional
action forthcoming, years would have passed with no preservation or
development action.
The National Park Service believes in the important historic and
natural resources in the city of Paterson, and we believe in the
capacity of the City to identify matching funding. There are signs this
is beginning to happen. The breadth of activities allowed under the
1996 Act is much greater than those normally authorized for a national
park unit. It is our sincere wish that the currently authorized
preservation initiative for Paterson be allowed to proceed rather than
being delayed by a study.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to comment. This
concludes my prepared remarks and I will be happy to answer any
questions you or other Committee members might have.
______
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH E. DODDRIDGE, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FISH
AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ON H.R. 182
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to discuss the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R.
182. H.R. 182 would amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act by designating
segments of the Eightmile River for study and potential addition to the
Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
The Department of the Interior recommends that the Committee defer
action on H.R. 182 until the National Park Service (NPS) is able to
make further progress on the President's Initiative to eliminate the
deferred maintenance backlog within five years. We are seeking a
temporary moratorium on new park unit designations or authorizations of
new studies so that we can focus our existing staff and resources on
taking care of what we now own. We also want to use our available
planning funds to complete previously authorized studies with a close
examination of the life-cycle costs of establishing a new park unit,
expanding an existing unit, or adding new NPS funding obligations.
The Eightmile River is located in the lower Connecticut River
watershed in south central Connecticut. Fifteen miles of the Eightmile
River and its East Branch through the communities of Lyme, East Haddam,
and Salem, Connecticut are included on the National Park Service's
Nationwide Rivers Inventory of potential Wild and Scenic River
segments. Both segments are included on the Inventory for outstanding
scenic, geologic, fish and wildlife values. Over eighty percent of the
Connecticut River watershed is still forested, including large tracts
of unfragmented hardwood forests that are home to a diverse assemblage
of plants and animals including bobcats, Great Horned Owls, red foxes,
and the Cerbulean Warbler.
Over the course of the past two years, the National Park Service
has responded to interest and inquiries from local advocates and town
officials regarding a potential Wild and Scenic River study for the
Eightmile River. There appears to be strong local support for
protecting the river system, as evidenced by the communities formation
of an inter-municipal watershed committee and the signing of an
innovative Eightmile River Watershed Conservation Compact. This
compact, signed by the communities of East Haddam, Lyme and Salem,
acknowledges their commitment to protect and enhance water resources,
wildlife habitats, and rural landscapes in the watershed.
Notwithstanding the strong local support, we again recommend that
the Committee defer action on the bill until the National Park Service
is able to make further progress to eliminate the deferred maintenance
backlog.
This concludes my prepared remarks, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy
to answer any questions you or other Committee members may have
regarding this bill.
______
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH E. DODDRIDGE, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FISH
AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ON H.R. 601
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the views of the
Department of the Interior on H.R. 601, a bill to ensure the continued
access of hunters to those Federal lands included within the boundaries
of the Craters of the Moon National Monument in the State of Idaho
pursuant to Presidential Proclamation 7373 on November 9, 2000, and to
continue the applicability of the Taylor Grazing Act to the disposition
of grazing fees arising from the use of such lands, and for other
purposes.
The Department supports H.R. 601, which would preserve hunting on
the NPS-managed portion of the monument expansion.
Craters of the Moon National Monument was established by
Proclamation of President Calvin Coolidge in 1924 for the purpose of
protecting the unusual landscape of the Craters of the Moon lava field.
This unusual landscape was thought to resemble the surface of the Moon
and the Proclamation stated that the area ``contains many curious and
unusual phenomena of great educational value and has a weird and scenic
landscape peculiar to itself.'' Between 1924 and 1962, the monument was
expanded and boundary adjustments were made through four Presidential
proclamations. In 1996, a minor boundary adjustment was made by section
205 of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (110
Stat. 4093; Public Law 104-333). On November 9, 2000, President
Clinton's proclamation expanded the 53,440-acre monument by adding
approximately 661,287 acres of Federal lands.
The expanded monument includes almost all the features of basaltic
volcanism, including the craters, cones, lava flows, caves, and
fissures of the 65-mile long Great Rift, a geological feature that is
comparable to the great rift zones of Iceland and Hawaii. It comprises
the most diverse and geologically recent part of the lava terrain that
covers the southern Snake River Plain, a broad lava plain made up of
innumerable basalt lava flows that erupted during the past 5 million
years.
Prior to the recent proclamation, Craters of the Moon National
Monument was managed solely by the National Park Service. The expansion
area of the monument, however, consists of lands that had been
administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The proclamation gives
both agencies responsibilities for administering the monument
cooperatively. The National Park Service has the primary management
responsibility for the old monument, plus the approximately 400,000-
acre portion of the expansion area that consists of exposed lava flows.
The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for administering the
remaining portion of the monument.
The proclamation specified that the NPS portion of the monument
expansion is to be managed under the same laws and regulations that
applied to the original monument. Since hunting has not been authorized
in the original Craters of the Moon National Monument, the effect of
the proclamation was to prohibit hunting in the NPS portion of the
monument expansion. However, the Department supports a clarification of
this language to allow the continued use of the lands in the expanded
monument area for hunting. Hunting in the portion of the monument
administered by the Bureau of Land Management is not affected.
Furthermore, although the proclamation specifies that the National
Park Service has jurisdiction over the exposed lava flows, the on-the-
ground reality is that there is not a precise delineation between areas
of vegetation and areas of bare rock, making it difficult in many cases
to determine the exact location of the boundary. For the average
visitor or hunter, it would be difficult, if not impossible to
distinguish whether they were on BLM lands or NPS lands, at least in
the vicinity of the jurisdictional boundaries.
The Department also recognizes that legislation to provide the
authority for hunting within the NPS-managed portion of the monument
expansion would give the Superintendent the ability to work
cooperatively with the State of Idaho on issues concerning adjacent
landowners. For example, hunting could be used as a tool in mitigating
agricultural depredation caused by elk grazing on alfalfa crops on
privately owned lands outside the monument.
While the Department supports legislation to allow continued
hunting in the NPS portion of the Craters of the Moon expansion area,
this does not include support for opening to hunting the portion of the
monument that existed prior to the proclamation of November 9, 2000.
That portion of the national monument has always been, and should
continue to be closed to hunting.
In addition, I would like to clarify that the Department's position
on this specific issue does not indicate support for opening other
areas of the National Park System to hunting.
While the Department supports the intent of H.R. 601 to open the
NPS-managed portion of the monument expansion to hunting, we are
concerned over the language in section 1(b) that appears to preclude
any authority of the Secretary to exercise jurisdiction over the
activity. We believe that the Secretary has a role to play, in
cooperation with the State, to ensure that hunting is consistent with
public safety, area administration, protection of the monument's
resources, and public use and enjoyment of the monument. We have
attached proposed language for the Committee's consideration that is
consistent with similar provisions in laws that authorize hunting in
other park areas.
H.R. 601 also requires the Taylor Grazing Act to continue to apply
to the disposition of grazing fees arising from use of the expansion
area. The Act requires a certain percentage of grazing fees to be
returned to the grazing district in which the use occurs. However,
since no grazing occurs in the NPS portion of the expansion area and
the proclamation does not affect grazing on the BLM portion, we feel
this provision is unnecessary.
This concludes my testimony on H.R. 601. I would be glad to answer
any questions you may have.
Proposed amendment to H.R. 601 On page 3, strike lines 10 through
16 and insert the following:
``(b) Continued Access for Hunting.---The Secretary shall permit
hunting on those portions of Craters of the Moon National Monument that
were open to hunting before the issuance of Presidential Proclamation
7373 of November 9, 2000 in accordance with the applicable laws of the
United States and the State of Idaho. The Secretary, in consultation
with the State, may designate zones where and periods when no hunting
may be permitted for reasons of public safety, protection of the
monument's resources, area administration, or public use and enjoyment.
Except in emergencies, any regulations prescribing such restrictions
relating to hunting shall be put in effect only after consultation with
the appropriate state agency having jurisdiction over hunting.''.
______
Mr. Hefley. Mr. Doddridge, let me just clarify, does the
Department intend to object to every study or designation until
the backlog is taken care of, not particularly Wild and Scenic
Rivers, but any of them?
Mr. Doddridge. I really cannot answer that question, Mr.
Hefley. I think the Secretary is studying this issue right now.
I would think for us to come up before you for the next four
years to say that, well, we are getting there but we are not
quite there yet, would probably be not the most prudent course
of action.
Mr. Hefley. I think that is going to be difficult. Do you
know how many studies are out there that are yet to be
completed?
Mr. Doddridge. Mr. Chairman, I do not know that off the top
of my head, but I will be glad to provide that for the record.
Mr. Hefley. Okay.
Mrs. Christensen?
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a
question also for Mr. Doddridge on H.R. 146 and H.R. 182,
because just last week we had a hearing where the
Administration supported a study for the Ronald Reagan Boyhood
Home. Do you have some criteria by which you decide when a
study would be permitted and when a study would not be
permitted?
Mr. Doddridge. Well, I think as far as the bill that we
were discussing, that there are other prudent courses of action
that we could take. At the present time, until we exhaust
those, I am not sure that we really need a study at this point
in time. Are we talking about H.R. 146, Congresswoman?
Mrs. Christensen. Yes.
Mr. Doddridge. Okay. I think there is enough existing
authority out there right now for the Park Service to work
closely with the officials in Paterson, New Jersey, to make
some progress. In fact, there are $3.3 million authorized right
now, subject to matching funds. We, of course, would have to
then go back to appropriations to receive those funds, but I
think a lot of progress could be made.
Mrs. Christensen. Well, I think you had the same objection
to both of those bills, but I am still not clear. Even though
there may be existing programs under which Paterson, for
example, might get funding, you use the moratorium and the need
to complete studies as the reason for your opposition, and I am
still not clear what criteria do you use, since in the other
instance the study was permitted?
Mr. Doddridge. To tell you the truth, I am really not that
familiar with the testimony on the Reagan Boyhood Home, but I
will be glad to answer that question for the record.
Mrs. Christensen. I guess my other questions would be for
Mr. Fisher and Mr. Clower. It is my understanding that there
are some unusual circumstances pertaining to the matters of
this monument, why grazing or hunting might be permitted;
perhaps I see one, keeping wildlife in check. Are there other
unusual circumstances why we should continue to permit the
hunting or the grazing in this area?
Mr. Clower. Madame Chair, I will try to answer that if I
understand the question correctly. In this general region,
there is the INEEL, which is another government land closure
area where we have wildlife; and the wildlife there, the State
is not allowed to manage, and they have become increasingly a
very large problem, depredation, mostly elk, and back in the
late 1980's we had a large number of antelope that caused a
large amount of depredation problems, and they stay in an area
where they cannot be managed, and at night they maraud out on
adjacent farmland and cause a great amount of damage to the
crops, especially alfalfa, which is grown in this area. If we
are not allowed to manage the wildlife, it becomes a burden on
the taxpayers of the State of Idaho because they have to pay
for the depredation loss.
Mrs. Christensen. Mr. Fisher, you mentioned that there had
not been any safety problems with hunting in the area, where
hunting has been permitted. Would you anticipate any increase
in safety issues with the expansion of the monument? There have
not been any thus far, but now we are expanding the monument
and hunting would continue in the expanded area. Are there
provisions to protect individuals or do you anticipate that the
safety issues would remain the same, even given the expansion?
Mr. Fisher. I do not view this as a potential safety
problem. This is a tremendously remote area that is basically
roadless. The personnel that go into this area, they have to do
so knowingly, and I know that there has been no incidents in
this area that had previously been allowed to be hunted on, and
I certainly would not anticipate any in the future from the
continued use of hunting in the area.
Mrs. Christensen. Can I just reserve the balance of my
time, if I have other questions for the panel?
Mr. Hefley. Sure. Mr. Simpson, since these are your
witnesses here and we need to get them to an airplane, I would
see if you have anything you would like to ask.
Mr. Simpson. I am going to say, listening to the weather
outside, I am not sure the airplane is going to leave.
Mr. Clower, did not the State of Idaho previously manage
the wildlife in that area? It was the Fish and Game Commission
that set the rules and regulations and so forth, prior to this
designation?
Mr. Clower. That is correct. The Department managed all the
wildlife in the State of Idaho, and we managed the wildlife in
the expanded portion of the monument. We have hunting seasons
and other regulations in place to manage the wildlife for the
people of the State of Idaho.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Doddridge, you suggested that the
language--that you were concerned about hunting under the
jurisdiction and the laws of the State of Idaho, that you would
like to see some language, alternative language, that includes
consultation or something like that with the Secretary; is that
correct?
Mr. Doddridge. That is correct, Congressman, yes.
Mr. Simpson. Do you have that language?
Mr. Doddridge. Yes, we do. Do you want me to read it, sir?
Mr. Simpson. Yes, if you would, please.
Mr. Doddridge. The Secretary shall permit hunting on those
portions of the Craters of the Moon National Monument that were
open to hunting before the issuance of Presidential
Proclamation 7373 of November 9, 2000 in accordance with
applicable laws of the United States and the State of Idaho.
The Secretary, in consultation with the State, may designate
zones or periods where no hunting may be permitted for reasons
of public safety, protection of the monument's resources, area
administration or public use and enjoyment. Except in
emergencies, any regulations prescribed in such restrictions
relating to hunting shall be put into effect only after
consultation with the appropriate State agency having
jurisdiction over hunting.
Mr. Simpson. So this language would effectively put the
Secretary in charge?
Mr. Doddridge. I think I would look at it, sir, that it is
really putting both the State and the Secretary in charge. They
would have to consult and agree on what areas are to be opened
or closed if some such emergency exists.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Clower, what is your impression of that
language?
Mr. Clower. I guess my first question, Congressman, is if
it came to an impasse, who would be the final decision maker?
Mr. Simpson. That is kind of my concern, too. If you have
got two people regulating something, who makes the final
decision? That is why I say that would put the Secretary in
charge with that language, as I understand it.
Mr. Doddridge. Well, the Park Service presently allows
hunting in 58 other units of the system, generally preserves
and things of that nature, and work cooperatively with State
agencies in the portions affected. In fact, one of the other
places may be in the State of Idaho. It always seems that it
works out that the Superintendent there works with the State,
at least that is my understanding.
Mr. Simpson. Okay. Well, I appreciate that and I look
forward to working with you to make sure that we get this
language, because I think the Secretary should have some input
and oversight over that also, and I do not have a problem with
that, and I look forward to working with you to clarify that,
and maybe at the markup in the Full Committee we will offer an
amendment that we can work out that will do that.
Mr. Doddridge. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. We look forward to
working with you, too.
Mr. Simpson. I might also say, if I might, just for the
record, Mr. Chairman, the reason that the area relative to the
Taylor Grazing Act is in this legislation, it was brought to
our attention by several individuals who had talked with--you
know this is talked with and they told me and this kind of
stuff--several of the ranchers were concerned about the
distribution of the fees under the Taylor Grazing Act, in that
area that is administered by the BLM. The BLM, the Idaho
director, said certainly we will distribute those fees as the
Taylor Grazing Act says we should, and so consequently this
language is not necessary. It is rather redundant. I do not
have any problem with actually putting it in statute, because
if at some point in the future you decided to consolidate
management of this expanded area under the National Park
Service, instead of the National Park Service and the BLM, in
that case all of the grazing fees would probably go to the
National Park Service, I would suspect. Right now, those fees,
according to the Taylor Grazing Act, are distributed to the
Federal Government, the local BLM and the local grazing
districts, to manage the land and so forth. So even if it is
unnecessary and redundant to have it in there, I do not have a
problem having it in there, and would just as soon have it in
there as not.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you. Any questions on this side? Any
questions over here?
Mr. Simmons. Yes, Mr. Chairman, if I could, a quick
question to Mr. Doddridge. It is my understanding from his
testimony that his organization is seeking a temporary
moratorium on new studies, and the words seeking and temporary
are of interest to me, obviously. Has this temporary moratorium
been granted? Are we in a moratorium status at this point? If
so, what do we mean by the word temporary?
Mr. Doddridge. I think what we mean, Congressman, is that
as far as the Administration is concerned in our testimony
before various Committees, that is our position at the moment.
Unfortunately, as I mentioned to the Chairman, I do not have a
full explanation of the word temporary or how long this is
going to last, but as I said, I did not think it would be
prudent for us to continue to come up here before the Committee
and use those words.
Mr. Simmons. I thank the Gentleman for that answer. I would
also share with the Committee what has already been stated in
part, two years of work have gone into this project bringing it
to this point. The University of Connecticut has expended
substantial resources on studying the Eightmile River and have
put out a publication, which is simply the tip of the iceberg.
So in actual fact a huge amount of work and money has already
been invested in the project. I cannot believe that this study
would create such a financial burden to the Federal Government
or an administrative burden to the Federal Government, that it
would bring it to a halt.
So I look forward to working with the Committee on this
initiative, sharing with the Committee and with the
Administration all of the materials that we have developed in
the hope that this temporary moratorium will, in fact, be
temporary and that we can move forward on this important issue.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your courtesy.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gilchrest?
Mr. Gilchrest. Just a question to Mr. Simmons. Is the
eight-mile stretch of this river designated as wild and scenic
from a State perspective? Has the State designated this wild
and scenic?
Mr. Simmons. The State has determined that the prospect of
wild and scenic status for this river is of sufficient priority
that the State has expended resources, but only the Federal
Government can provide this status under the Act, and that is
why we are here today. Only the Federal Government can help us.
Mr. Gilchrest. I understand the State of Maryland has an
ability to designate a river wild and scenic under State
regulations and State law, and then, if you get on top of that
Federal designation, that emphasizes something a little bit
more; but the State has--I would hope that while the Department
of Interior is negotiating how long this moratorium will be,
that the State of Connecticut pursue this aggressively, because
the bottom line is you are trying to protect that river.
Mr. Simmons. Absolutely correct. We do not have such
language at this point in time, but I will certainly share it
with my colleagues back in Connecticut; and yes, we do not want
to delay the project, because there is development pressure in
eastern Connecticut, and this unique resource could be lost to
us over the next decade.
Mr. Gilchrest. I wish you well; and Mr. Fisher, Mr. Clower,
Mr. Doddridge, you all had excellent testimony, and we will
help Mr. Simpson pursue what will benefit the Nation and the
people of Idaho. I just had a couple of quick questions. We
talked about hunting issues. Are there trapping issues in this
area that was designated--the expansion of the monument; any
trapping issues that are similar to hunting issues that might
be ensnared by this process?
Mr. Clower. In Idaho statute, trapping is just a subheading
under hunting, because we talk about hunting as pursuing and
the take of wildlife, so it is the same issue, Congressman.
Mr. Gilchrest. What is trapped there?
Mr. Clower. Coyotes would be trapped, if necessary. You
also have bobcat season. There are several other small
furbearers.
Mr. Gilchrest. Wolverines?
Mr. Clower. No, sir. The Wolverine is protected in the
State of Idaho.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. And the grazing activity can be
worked out, since it does not seem to be an impact based on the
expansion of the monument, but for future use that might be
beneficial for those people who depend on that. Just out of
curiosity, are there any other predators for the antelope, elk
or deer other than man?
Mr. Clower. Yes, sir, Mr. Congressman. Bobcats and coyotes
would be the number one predator out there for--for the
antelope or the deer, especially during this time of year when
they are having their young, and there are a large number of
coyotes in this area, and coyotes are hunted year-round in the
State of Idaho.
Mr. Gilchrest. It sounds like a little critter we have in
Maryland called nutria; you just cannot get rid of them. Well,
in all of this activity, I wish all of you well, and we will
work with Mr. Simpson to get this done.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hefley. Mr. Pascrell?
Mr. Pascrell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we
have witnesses, as you well know, that will be coming up, but I
must take exception, if I may, with the policy statement
dealing with the deferment, when I know what the funding has
been and how, in a bipartisan way, this Committee over the past
few years has come together to address the interests of all
Americans. I have to take exception with the policy, if that is
a policy. We have before us three bills today, all important,
and I have supported wildlife measures since I have been in the
Congress; one from Idaho, one dealing with Connecticut, one New
Jersey; you might say that the whole landscape, rural,
suburban, and urban.
It is interesting that my plea before this Committee, and I
cannot speak for Mr. Simmons, but knowing his testimony,
understanding and hearing his testimony, we are talking about
the center of economic development, and we are talking about
precipitating economic development. This is the main purpose
why we both, for different reasons and in different places,
come before this Committee and humbly say that our history is
laid out and it is very, very clear. Just because we cannot
compare--you know, I do support a project dealing with hundreds
of thousands of acres, and we are talking about a very small
piece of property compared to that--nonetheless it does not
diminish the priority. Nonetheless it does not diminish, in any
manner, shape or form, the significance.
So because we have not funded totally what should have been
funded, and we have not been able to keep up with maintenance,
is not the fault of the people on this Committee. I have to
take exception with that policy, if it is a stated policy,
because that means it will, in many ways, fix the color of what
is to come before this Committee in the future. I would ask you
to please consider what we have stated on the record. I can
speak for myself. I am sorry. I did not mean to speak for Mr.
Simmons--that you humbly consider what we are saying, because
first of all it is either needed or it is not needed and, if it
is needed, we need to find a way to do it.
Both of these bills are authorization bills. They are not
providing--appropriating money. That comes in the next step,
and to be told at the very beginning that we should not even be
here in the first place, since you should know the policy, to
me is a bit disingenuous, if I do say so myself, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you, and thank the witnesses. We
appreciate you being here. I am sorry. I did not realize you
had--I would recognize you.
Mr. Holt. Mr. Chairman, I guess I want to understand better
this deferment, because it seems to me that the Great Falls
Historic District, and I commend my colleague, Mr. Pascrell,
for his diligence in pursuing this and the work he has done to
highlight this, even in his earlier professional incarnation as
mayor, it seems to me that this district fills the bill for
national historic landmarks as well as any place I can think
of, I mean, where significant historic events occurred,
prominent Americans worked and lived, areas that represent the
ideas that shaped our Nation.
I mean, this was the start, in many ways, you could argue,
of American industry. This was the site where America began its
ascent to industrial and mercantile dominance in the world. It
is also a very beautiful sight. It is striking. It is one of
the landmarks of New Jersey, and New Jersey is the most densely
populated State in the country, and we have to work real hard
to protect the treasures we have got. So I would hate to see
this opportunity slip past, because we are only asking for a
study here. As I understand, that is what the bill is.
So I would ask--Mr. Doddridge, I suppose, is the best
person to express this--what is the reason that you give for
recommending a deferral of even a study of the appropriateness
of this site?
Mr. Doddridge. Well, Congressman, the reason I gave is that
until the Administration gets a better handle on the $4 billion
backlog of the National Park System, and how, keeping with the
Administration's desire to eliminate that backlog within the
next four or five years, we have asked for a temporary
moratorium on designation of new units or studies. So it is
really driven by the backlog and our ability to try to get our
hands around that backlog and eliminate it.
Mr. Holt. Well, the President, I am pleased to hear, has
made a commitment to appropriating money to deal with that, or
to recommending to us appropriation of money to deal with that
backlog. The size of the study we are talking about, as I
calculate it, is about one-hundred thousandth of the amount of
money that you say is being considered here. For something as
important to the history of the United States and, I should
say, important to New Jersey, I think that is a small price to
pay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much, and I think these were
good comments. I would say to the Department, I commend you on
the one hand for emphasizing getting your arms around this
backlog. This Committee wants you to get your arms around the
backlog, too. I am a little concerned with a $4 billion
backlog, it looked like in your budget you are going to ask for
$500 million. It is going to take a long time over five years
in order to get done, if that is the rate we go at.
Secondly, even if we do not designate any more units, and I
am not saying we will not, but even if we do not designate any
more units to the Park System during this moratorium, I think
you are going to have trouble holding that policy of no new
studies, because it appears to me that we have some areas that
we are going to lose if we do not take some action. If we put
them in a study area, then we can protect them during that
period of time. When the moratorium comes off, if you have done
the studies, then we have a priority list of what you think is
important to the units of the Park System. So the idea that we
will not ask you to do additional studies, I think, is a little
far-fetched. The idea of whether or not we will designate
additional units under this moratorium, I think that has yet to
be decided, but I would just send that message back to you and
you may figure out some way that you can come to us with some
kind of a compromise on this.
Mr. Doddridge. Mr. Chairman, you can be sure I will take
that message back down the street.
Mr. Hefley. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you
Gentlemen from Idaho for coming all the way out here. We
appreciate it. We hope you have a safe trip back. I want to ask
Mr. Pascrell if you would introduce our first two members of
this panel, and I am going to ask Mr. Simmons if he would like
to introduce the second two members of this panel.
Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That would be my
honor and I appreciate again the indulgence of the chair and
the support of the members as we consider this bill. We have
before us Sue Merrow, who is the First Selectman of East
Haddam. That makes her the Mayor and the Chief Executive
Officer of that town. That is one of three towns that are
sponsoring this legislation. I should also say that she has
been very active in environmental issues, so she brings a nice
balance between the municipal interest, which goes to taxes and
goes to economic development, and the environmental interest,
which, of course, for a small State like Connecticut is
critically important. Then she is joined by Nathan Frohling,
who represents The Nature Conservancy. I think most of the
members are familiar with that national level organization. I
am pleased they are both here and I am excited to hear their
testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hefley. Mr. Pascrell?
Mr. Pascrell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two
representatives from Paterson, New Jersey joining us today. One
is an Anna-Lisa Dopirak, who is the director of community
development for the city. Anna-Lisa has been working for the
city of Paterson for many, many years. She is a former mayor of
the city of Paterson, and was the business administrator when I
was the mayor. So I am prejudiced. She has been working toward
revitalizing the Great Falls Historic District for as long as I
can remember. She is an invaluable leader within the city
government, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, and I am
thankful for her leadership.
Also with us today is Pat DiIanni, who is the founder and
president of Vision 20/20, which is a community organization
that provides grassroots support for the revitalization of
Passaic County, including the Falls District, and for the past
several years Vision 20/20 has been a community leader on the
issue of the Great Falls.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you and let's deal with the Paterson
issue first, whichever one of you would like to begin.
STATEMENT OF ANNA-LISA DOPIRAK, DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FOR THE CITY OF PATERSON, PATERSON, NEW JERSEY
Ms. Dopirak. Mr. Chairman, good afternoon, members of the
Committee. My name is Anna-Lisa Dopirak. I am the director of
community development for the city of Paterson. I am here today
on behalf of the citizens of Paterson to convey our support for
H.R. 146, the Great Falls Historic District Study Act of 2001.
In 1791, Alexander Hamilton fostered the Organization of the
Society for Useful Manufactures. We call it today SUM. He did
this because he saw the need to free our young country from
dependence on foreign manufacturers, and he knew that by
harnessing the water power of the Great Falls of the Passaic
River, this could be accomplished.
After the establishment of the SUM, the mill district
evolved over many years, and it was involved in such things as
textile manufacturing, sailmaking, locomotive construction and
the thing for which we are most famous, the production of silk.
The Great Falls Historic District became a physical and
cultural textbook of the United States labor movement and its
immigrant history, and it continues that today. It mirrored the
prosperity and the recessions of the 18th, 19th, and 20th-
century economic history.
For 150 years, the mills endured. Generations of families
continued to work in them. But in the years following World War
II, major social and economic changes occurred in this country.
In the 1950's and 1960's, the mills were seen to be obsolete,
as people moved away and manufacturing moved out into the
suburbs. It was believed that the item the mills could be most
useful for was to become a highway right-of-way. In fact, the
mill area was designated to become a highway right-of-way.
Acquisition and some demolition was actually begun by the
Department of Transportation of the State of New Jersey, and
only because a small group of dedicated citizens saw what we
were about to lose, did this change.
The small group of citizens was instrumental in 1970 in
having the Great Falls of Paterson, and the SUM historic
district, placed on the National Register of Historic Places.
That stopped the highway. In 1976, as we heard before, then-
President Gerald Ford came to Paterson for the purpose of
declaring the Great Falls SUM a historic landmark district. One
year later, in 1977, the raceways and the water power systems
that made the SUM what it was declared a National Historic
Mechanical and Civil Engineering Landmark District. Today,
2001, we are seeking a designation to become possibly a unit of
the National Park System through a study which would be funded
by H.R. 146.
The architectural, natural and historic resources, as well
as community support, are in place, we believe, to warrant
consideration of our request, and that is why we are here
before you today. Since the district's designation in the
1970's, the city has undertaken a very proactive role to
preserve its heritage. It has established a historic
preservation commission. It has become a certified local
government for preservation. It has worked with developers,
both for profit and not for profit, to rehabilitate, as well as
to reconstruct, sensitive sites within our historic district.
Mills have been converted. Today mills have become residences,
offices, private schools, and a museum.
Our Federal partnership was established back in the 1970's
when we were awarded a grant from the United States Economic
Development Administration for the early work in the historic
district. Later, as it was said before, in the early 1990's we
established a partnership with the National Park Service, and
that partnership continues today. We are going back to the
United States Economic Development Authority because we have
recognized that one of our most underrated assets is the
Passaic River, and we have an application in to the U.S. EDA to
assist us in studying the river, along the entire length of the
river, not just that part of the river that traverses the
historic district.
If the district becomes a part or a unit of the National
Park System, we think this would be a very fitting tribute to
Alexander Hamilton. If you remember your early history,
Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson engaged in a great
debate, should this country develop with an agrarian society or
should this country develop with an industrial society? We know
that Alexander Hamilton won the debate, and so we feel that
this is why it would be a fitting tribute. Today our country is
well known mostly for its industrial prowess.
Hamilton foresaw the national potential of the SUM historic
district and its manufacturing base, and today the historic
district continues to tell this national story. The locomotives
that were manufactured here helped to build the Panama Canal.
They also helped to move the silver ore from Jerome to the
smelter. Colt pistols, the gun that won the West, they had
their start in the historic district. In fact, the mill in
which they were developed still stands. It is in pretty bad
condition, but we have stabilized it and we are looking for
ways to rebuild it to its original configuration. The Wright
engine, although not manufactured in the historic district, was
certainly manufactured in Paterson as part of its industrial
history. The Wright airplane engine, which powered Lindbergh's
flight to Paris, was made in Paterson. It also supplied the
parts of the engines that the Tuskegee Airmen used. Ellis
Island, so close to us, our history of immigrants that came
through Ellis Island--they no longer come through Ellis Island,
but we consider that a major part of our history. In an odd
way, the historic district even has reached out to the rarefied
world of art.
If you go today to the Metropolitan Museum in New York
City, you will see many exquisite objects that have been
acquired by the museum through the Rogers Fund. For many years,
I visited the museum and I never connected the Rogers Fund with
the Rogers Locomotive Erecting Shop from Paterson. In fact,
when I inquired, it was only through a bequest from that very
same Rogers family that that fund was made, and that particular
heritage of the Great Falls Historic District is available for
everyone who comes to that museum.
Just over 200 years ago, Alexander Hamilton himself came to
the Congress of the United States. He urged the Congress to
establish, as well as support, a national manufacturing center
which had the Great Falls as its focus. Congress did not heed
his request, but Ladies and Gentlemen, the legacy of Hamilton
endures today in our historic district. So I hope you will give
support to H.R. 146. It is a fitting tribute to Hamilton, and I
like to think it represents a 21st century manifestation of his
original request to this august body.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dopirak follows:]
STATEMENT OF ANNA-LISA DOPIRAK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, CITY OF
PATERSON, PATERSON, NEW JERSEY, ON H.R. 146 <PLUS-MINUS>
Good afternoon Chairman Hansen and Honorable members of the Sub-
Committee. I am honored to be before you today to discuss the city of
Paterson's support for the Great Falls Historic District Study Act of
2001. This is an important juncture in the Historic District's long
history and the culmination of years of effort.
A CAPSULE EARLY HISTORY
In 1791, Alexander Hamilton fostered the organization of the
Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures (SUM) to harness the
waterpower of the Great Falls of the Passaic River so that the young
United States could be independent of foreign manufacturing. The mill
district evolved over the years to include textile manufacturing, sail
making, locomotive construction, and the production of silk. It became
a physical and cultural textbook of the United States labor movement
and its immigrant history. It mirrored the prosperity and recessions of
19th and 20th Century economic history. For 150 years the mills
endured. Their products changed, and generations of families continued
to work in them, but in the years following World War II major social
and economic shifts occurred.
A THREAT REVERSED
In the 1950's and 60's, highways and suburbs grew, and the mills
and the Great Falls neighborhood district were threatened. The mills
were believed to have outlived their usefulness and their neighborhood
became the designated area for a new highway. Acquisition and some
demolition by the State Department of Transportation began. It was only
through the determined persistence and not always welcomed efforts of a
small group of citizens that the Great Falls of Paterson and Society
for Establishing Useful Manufactures Historic District was listed on
the National Register of Historic Places in 1970, and the highway was
stopped.
In 1976, the Federal Government designated the 108 acres around the
falls as the Great Falls/Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures
National Historic Landmark District. In 2001, the city of Paterson
seeks designation of the District (GFHD) as an Urban National Park. We
believe the basic infrastructure in terms of natural, historic, and
architectural resources and community support is in hand for serious
consideration of national park status. The city of Paterson is
committed to working with our residents, Passaic County and its other
municipalities, and the state and Federal Government to make the Great
Falls/SUM Historic District a unit of the national park system.
Therefore, we support H.R. 146, the Great Falls Historic District Study
Act of 2001.
Since the 1970 designation as a national district, the small group
of early historic district advocates has grown into a large group of
stakeholders. Patersonians may not always agree on exactly how to
develop the GFHD's assets, but we all do agree that the GFHD warrants a
Federally supported review as an urban national park candidate. The
designation of the Great Falls as a unit of the national park system
would be a fitting Federal monument to Alexander Hamilton. Decades past
his death, he ultimately won the debate with Jefferson of industrial
versus agrarian development for the United States. His view prevailed,
and today our country is known foremost for its industrial prowess.
PATERSON ACTS
Since the 1976 historic landmark designation, the city established
a historic preservation commission, became designated as a certified
local government to strengthen our local preservation efforts, and
encouraged both for-profit and non-profit developers though multiple
funding sources to rehabilitate and/or re-construct historically
sensitive sites in the district. These include the city's 1970's
restoration of the Ivanhoe Wheelhouse, and the construction of the
Upper Raceway Park utilizing New Jersey Green Acres funds.
In the late 1970's through the 1980's, the City administered a
USEDA Title IX grant of 11.1 million dollars. This grant permitted the
total renovation of the Rogers Locomotive Erecting Shop into the 1st
floor Paterson Museum and upper three floors of office space. The city
entered into an agreement with the Great Falls Preservation and
Development Corporation (GFPDC) for the long-term lease of the
structure. Simultaneously, basic infrastructure improvements including
design and installation of street furniture, lighting and landscaping
were completed. A new open space, Cianci Park, was created on a former
parking lot, and archaeological studies related to these projects, and
others, were completed. The restoration of the facade of the Union
Works Mill opposite the Paterson Museum was completed and protected
through a facade easement the city holds on the building that houses a
private school and day-care center.
Throughout the 1980's mills became residences and offices: these
include the Franklin Mill (offices), the Essex and Phoenix mills
(residences) the Ryle-Thompson Houses (offices), and the Argus Mill
(charter school). In 1991, the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey
was invited by then Mayor Bill Pascrell to prepare a study on the
economic development opportunities of the Great Falls Historic
District. Shortly thereafter, in 1992, 4.2 million dollars were
appropriated by Congress through former Senator Frank Lautenberg's New
Jersey Urban History Initiative (UHI) funding program. The UHI funds
are under the auspices of the National Park Service (NPS) Mid-Atlantic
Regional Office. The NPS staff has been working with representatives of
the city of Paterson (the Core Advisory Group) and organizations and
developers active in the preservation of the Landmark District. Project
activities funded through the UHI are intended to provide a more
formalized basis for development. They include:
* design guideline for the GF/SUM National Historic Landmark
District
* environmental assessment of the seven-acre ATP site
* preparation of the draft programmatic agreement for the ATP
site
* condition assessment of buildings in the District
* Maxman Report--Historic Industrial Site Analysis ATP Site--
a pre-development assessment of the historic and
archaeological
resources on the site and the feasibility of their retention
(or not)
* public service and education in the District through the use
of
AmeriCorps workers to undertake certain public works projects
in the District
* set-aside of district easement/rehabilitation revolving loan
fund
* oral history project undertaken by the Library of Congress
American Folklife Center
* Making History--a community grant program awarded to local
individuals or organizations for historical, artistic and
cultural projects
related to the UHI
At the same time as the UHI began, complementary development and
planning efforts continued. Work progressed as additional funding for
the Colt Gun Mill stabilization was secured. Completion of the first
phase of the stabilization included recording and palletizing storage
of the dissembled stonework. A revised programmatic agreement for the
ATP site pre-development and development activities representing 24
months of consultation among signatories and interested parties is
drafted and awaiting further comments. The city continues to augment
community support of the planning process through a combination of
organizational and planning functions. These include the formation and
support of the Downtown Paterson Special Improvement District (SID)
(one of two SID's) and the establishment in 1999 of a Downtown Historic
District on the New Jersey and National Registers. Municipal
applications have been prepared and submitted to the New Jersey DOT-
TEA-21 Program for the Upper Raceway Park and Rogers Locomotive
Erecting Shop Enhancements.
WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS
The importance of Paterson's river environment, the basis for
Alexander Hamilton's vision, has belatedly been recognized politically
and is moving forward under a grant application to the U.S. Economic
Development Administration. If successful, riverfront planning
extending nearly the entire length of the Passaic River in Paterson
will be undertaken. At the same time, the City has submitted an
application to the New Jersey Green Acres Program for the extension of
a river walk along the Passaic River, east of the Great Falls.
Support for a feasibility study of designating the Great Falls/SUM
is not limited to Paterson, nor should it be. Others will address the
support of Passaic County and surrounding municipalities, as well as
the regional impact.
Just over two hundred years ago, Alexander Hamilton petitioned the
U.S. Congress to establish and subsidize a National Manufacturing
Center with the Great Falls as its focal point. The request failed and
the SUM chartered by the State of New Jersey resulted. Today, we have
in Paterson the legacy of Hamilton's vision and an opportunity for the
U.S. Congress to reconsider his request in its twenty-first century
manifestation.
______
Mr. Hefley. Thank you.
Mr. DiIanni?
STATEMENT OF PAT DiIANNI, PRESIDENT, VISION 20/20, HAWTHORNE,
NEW JERSEY
Mr. DiIanni. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of
the Subcommittee. I would like to talk to you a little bit
about Passaic County, because I do represent Vision 20/20,
which is a Passaic County organization, established by the
board of freeholders as a non-profit corporation. The
population of Passaic County is a little less than 500,000. The
lower one-third consists of old industrial areas intermixed
with suburbs, but the upper two-thirds has beautiful ridges,
rolling hills, placid lakes, and most important, the watershed
for almost all of northern New Jersey.
We want to preserve that watershed by preventing the
expansion of development in that area. We want to make sure
that it occurs in the already developed southern part of the
county, and in improving the southern part of the county. The
national park would be a very important keystone for the
expansion and the development of all of Passaic County.
Let me tell you something about Vision 20/20. It has over
400 members. It has a board of trustees of 38 members; three of
them are Freeholders; five of them are Mayors; Vice Presidents
of two banks; the County Surrogate; professionals; business
people; and the County Planner.
Our membership is diverse politically, professionally,
ethnically, gender- and age-wise. I dwell on this structure of
Vision 20/20 so that you will understand that it speaks for all
16 municipalities, since all 16 municipalities are represented
on this body.
Recently, Vision 20/20 passed a resolution in support of
H.R. 146, and the idea of the Great Falls of Paterson. What has
happened recently is that the concept or the possibility of
getting a national park arose. There has been enough of an
upwelling of enthusiasm from almost all segments of our
population, The Board of Chosen Freeholders, which is the
governing body of the county, adopted a resolution--I think it
was last Thursday--to support this.
The mayor of Prospect Park faxed a resolution from Prospect
Park to my home at 10:30 last night. There are letters from a
number of people, who are interested. We received a call
yesterday from the office of State Senator John Georgenti, who
assured us that a resolution has been or will be filed in the
State Senate of New Jersey, and I understand the same thing
will happen in the State Assembly of New Jersey. The business
community is on board.
I spoke to a representative of the umbrella group that
represents four chambers of commerce in our community. They
adopted a resolution unanimously in support of H.R. 146, and
wished us well. As I talk to people on the street from all
sections of the county, because I do travel all over the
county, the enthusiasm is encouraging. They understand that
this is the first step in the revitalization of the area, which
is sorely needed in our county. I understand there was some
question as to the feasibility of this park at the Great Falls
of Passaic County.
In Passaic County, we have many historic areas, and the
park would be the pendant on the necklace of Passaic County's
historic areas. For example, we have the New Jersey State
Botanical Garden at Skylands Manor in Ringwood; the Ringwood
Manor and Iron Works, which supplied cannonballs and other war
materials to Washington's army; Long Pond Iron Works in West
Milford, which also supplied war material to Washington's Army;
and Federal Hill in Bloomingdale was a signal station to call
the militia companies of northern New Jersey to defend the
ridgeline, the first ridge of the Watchungs. It was fortified
by the then-Governor of New Jersey, and throughout the entire
Revolutionary War, it protected the important North-South
Highway, which connected New England all the way south;
Washington's headquarters at the Dey Mansion in Wayne; the site
of Lafayette's headquarters in Hawthorne; the Botto House, the
only American labor museum in the United States; Lambert's
Castle and Observatory Tower; Morris Canal Park in Clifton; and
the site of Washington's crossing of the Passaic. With all
these treasures, the Great Falls National Park will be in good
company.
We want to be partners with the Federal Government in
celebrating in a meaningful way the cradle of America's
industrial might. The residents of Passaic County will do and
are doing their part to help provide the sinew and muscle to
make this happen.
All Americans ought to have an opportunity to visit, enjoy
the birthplace of America's industrial greatness.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DiIanni follows:]
STATEMENT OF PAT DIIANNI, ESQUIRE, PRESIDENT, VISION 20/20
Good afternoon Honorable Mr. Chairman and the honorable members of
the Subcommittee.
I hail from Passaic County, New Jersey, which has a rich heritage
and a diverse natural beauty. There are old industrial centers in the
southern portion about 12 miles west of New York City. The northern
two-thirds of our county has rolling hills and ridges, a historic
mining village, placid lakes and a watershed supplying potable water
for most of northern New Jersey.
HISTORY
There are the Great Falls in Paterson, the 3rd most populous city
in New Jersey. These falls are 77 feet high and the 2nd largest in the
northeast. Paterson is the 1st planned industrial city in the United
States. Former Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton foresaw the
industrial capacity needed to make this country great and in 1792 he
organized the ``Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures'' to
utilize the potential of the Falls to power mills along the Passaic
River. The first Colt Gun Mill, the Rogers Locomotive, the first
Holland Submarine were all built in Paterson.
A tale is told that during the encampment of the Continental Army
along the Passaic River in Passaic County, General George Washington
and several of his officers including his Aide de Camp, Alexander
Hamilton, picnicked at the Great Falls. Twelve years later Mr.
Hamilton, remembering the waterpower of the Falls, organized the
Society for Useful Manufacturing chartered by the State of New Jersey
under then Governor Paterson
I understand that other testimony will be presented by other
witnesses relating to the historic central role Paterson, the Great
Falls and the Historic District played in the creation of our great
industrial nation. However, I wish to mention a little known story.
The First Ridge of the Watchungs, which overlooks the Falls,
traverses Passaic County from north to south. During the Revolutionary
War this ridge was fortified and manned by the militia companies of
Northern New Jersey.
The fortified Ridge protected the Great North-South Highway located
west of the ridge. This ``Highway'' was the major line of
communications available to the Continental Army connecting New England
to the southern part of our fledgling nation. The interdiction of the
Great North-South Highway by British Troops then encamped on the Hudson
River, a mere 15 miles east, may have proven disastrous for the
Continental Army.
PASSAIC COUNTY VISION 20/20, INC.
I come before you as President and spokesman for Passaic County
Vision 20/20, Inc. (Hereinafter referred to as ''Vision 20/20". Passaic
County Vision 20/20 is a non-profit organization, incorporated in 1999
by the Passaic County Board of Freeholders by unanimous, bipartisan
resolution.
Our over 400 members from all 16 Municipalities are volunteers
dedicated to improving Passaic County. The 33 member Board of Trustees
and five alternates include three (3) Freeholders, five (5) Mayors,
Vice Presidents of two banks, the County Surrogate, the County Planner,
business people, educators and professionals. Our members are diverse,
politically professionally, ethnically, gender-and age-wise.
Our corporate mission is broad and comprehensive. It mandates
improving the economy, protecting the environment and preserving the
history and cultures of Passaic County. The corporation has undertaken
more than two (2) dozen projects as diverse as obtaining grants: (a) to
install bike and walking paths, (b) to produce annual multicultural
events, and (c) to promulgate a County-wide redevelopment ``Smart
Growth'' plan to conform to the New Jersey State Development and
Redevelopment Plan. The establishment of a National Historic Park at
the Great Falls is one of our cherished hopes and a keystone for
revitalization. Although we are embarking on many specific projects,
our ultimate goal is to make Passaic County a better place in which to
live, to work and to play.
COMMUNITY SUPPORT AND ENTHUSIASM FOR H.R. 146 AND THE GREAT FALLS
NATIONAL PARK
I dwell on the structure of our organization to demonstrate to you,
that we are broad based and non-political. We are in a unique position
to read the pulse of the communities throughout Passaic County. We
assure you of strong support for the Great Falls National Historic
Park.
Lisa Macioci, a trustee, and members of her Great Falls National
Park Task Force have worked assiduously over the past year and a half
promoting the park concept. They report favorable and enthusiastic
support among residents within and without Passaic County. The other
trustees have noted similar expressions of support. Additionally, the
Board of Chosen Freeholders of Passaic County has listed a resolution
in support of H.R. 146 for its next open meeting.
Recently a resolution was unanimously adopted by Vision 20/20
trustees to communicate with local, county and state governing bodies
and to launch a petition drive supporting H.R. 146 and the Great Falls
National Historic Park proposal. Many Mayors, County Freeholders and
State Legislators strongly advocate H.R. 146 and the Great Falls
National Historic Park concept. Hopefully, resolutions will be adopted
prior to the closing of the record of the hearing. In this regard, I
respectfully move that the record remain open for a reasonable time
after the conclusion of oral testimony.
The general public and especially business people see the Park as
an economic engine to spur the economy of Paterson and the entire area.
The stakeholders of the county perceive tourism as the major county
industry of the future. The Park will be a cornerstone for
revitalization of the southern portion of the county while relieving
pressure on the environmentally sensitive northern two-thirds of the
county and the adjacent Highlands region, presently the focus of some
developers' attention.
The Park has the wholehearted support of the business community,
environmentalists, historic preservationists, and John Q. Public. In my
travels around the county, I have yet to meet anyone, who does not
strongly support the concept of the Great Falls National Historic Park.
To the contrary, people wonder why the Federal Government has forsaken
this national treasure.
The Park is within two hours drive for tens of millions of
Americans. Major railroads and highways crisscross the region
surrounding the Great Falls. Interstate 80 passes within two miles of
the site, The Garden State Parkway leads to within one mile of the
site. The New Jersey Turnpike gives ready access to the Parkway from
the south and from New England. New Jersey Routes No. 3, 4, 20, 46 and
Interstate 287 pass within five miles of the Great Falls.
The Great Falls National Historic Park will not stand alone.
Passaic County has scores of historic sites nearby, not the least among
these are:
The New Jersey State Botanical Gardens at Skylands Manor in
Ringwood.
The Ringwood Manor and Iron Works which supplied cannon balls and
other war materiel to Washington's Army.
Long Pond Iron Works in West Milford.
Federal Hill in Bloomingdale.
Washington's Headquarters at the Dey Mansion in Wayne.
The site of General Lafayette's Headquarters in Hawthorne.
The Botto House American Labor Museum in Haledon.
Lambert Castle and Observatory Tower in Paterson.
Morris Canal Park in Clifton.
Site of Washington's Crossing of the Passaic River at Aquan-nock
Landing in City of Passaic.
With all these treasures in the surrounding areas of Passaic
County, the Great Falls National Historic Park will become the pendant
in the pearl necklace of Passaic County, attracting tourists from far
and wide.
PASSAIC COUNTY'S FUTURE
Passaic County, through the efforts of Vision 20/20, was recently
awarded a grant by the State of New Jersey to provide in-depth studies
and to promulgate long term plans for ``Smart growth'' initiatives
throughout the county. The studies and plans will address many aspects
of county life in general and tourism in particular. The Park will be
central to these plans to rejuvenate the county. We foresee the rebirth
of the county similar to the Renaissance in other areas of the country,
e.g. San Antonio, Texas, Chattanooga, Tennessee, Baltimore, Maryland,
and many others too numerous to list.
We ask only to be partners with the Federal Government to celebrate
in a meaningful way, the cradle of America's Industrial Power. The
residents of Passaic County will do and are doing their part to help
provide the sinew and muscle to make this happen. All Americans ought
to have an opportunity to visit and enjoy the birthplace of America's
Industrial Greatness.
______
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much.
Ms. Merrow? Okay. Mr. Frohling?
STATEMENT OF NATHAN FROHLING, PROGRAM DIRECTOR, THE NATURE
CONSERVANCY, MIDDLETOWN, CONNECTICUT
Mr. Frohling. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee,
I am pleased and delighted to be here today and to present The
Nature Conservancy's support for H.R. 182. As you may know, The
Nature Conservancy is an international non-profit organization
dedicated to preserving the plants and animals and natural
communities that represent the diversity of life on earth. We
have over one million members and have protected over 12
million acres in the United States and Canada. We work very
closely with local communities and in strong partnerships with
both public and private landowners. Our Tidelands Program,
which I direct in Connecticut, seeks to protect key ecological
areas within a 560-square-mile region of the lower Connecticut
River, this region, again known as the Tidelands, has received
considerable acclaim over the last 10 years, being named one of
the 40 last great places in the western hemisphere and also
being included under the international Ramsar Convention, among
other recognitions. The Eigthmile River is part of this area,
and it is a top priority for The Nature Conservancy.
It is rare to find entire ecosystems intact throughout
their range, especially on the East Coast. But the Eightmile
River watershed is one example, one last remaining example that
we have, of such an ecosystem; 85 percent forested, as is
demonstrated by the map that you see on my left. Picture that
as a fall day, by the way, a lot of orange and yellow there, a
lot of fall colors in the forest; 85 percent of this watershed
is forested and it contains the largest unfragmented forest
region in coastal Connecticut. Nine thousand four hundred acres
of this watershed are in permanent protection. That is about 25
percent.
The Eightmile River system is free-flowing, and the water
quality of its extensive wetlands and watercourses is excellent
throughout. From native brook trout to blueback herring, the
river system is a haven for fish, both in terms of diversity
and abundance. It contains globally rare species and has the
internationally recognized tidal marsh, freshwater tidal marsh,
at Hamburg Cove. There are some other smaller things we do not
often see, native submerged aquatic vegetation and freshwater
mussels further testify to the fact that this is a very healthy
ecosystem.
It is also within the State's elite in terms of the insects
and mayflies and beetles and snails, the things that we do not
see, but reflect a really special system. There is also the
scenic beauty and an abundance of recreational opportunities
here that make this highly regarded by the communities that
live in this area, and as a river on the nationwide rivers
inventory, there is little doubt that the Eightmile River
system contains outstandingly remarkable values. The greatest
threat to these is incremental, unplanned growth, and while
growth is inevitable, the question is whether it will be
managed to sustain the nationally outstanding values here.
Six years ago, the Eightmile River watershed project was
formed by local citizens and officials, the University of
Connecticut and The Nature Conservancy to initiate a new model
for balancing conservation and growth within a watershed. Now,
having expended great energy and having generated considerable
information, this is one of scores of maps that have been
developed for this watershed. Also, having witnessed tremendous
community interest over these years, we now look to support a
community process of self-determination. A Wild and Scenic
River study is the best vehicle for achieving this goal, and
that is because the process associated with designation and the
study process provides the incentive, the structure, the
expertise and the resources needed for the communities to come
together and collectively identify the issues and goals they
have for this resource and to set forth the means for achieving
those goals. The study that we seek today is being sought as
much to facilitate this community self-determination as it is
to achieve the designation.
Wild and Scenic River designation would also offer special
important protections that we in the local communities cannot
otherwise avail ourselves of, nor can we avail those
protections at the State level, either, I might add. Widespread
support exists for the study, as letters and newspaper
endorsements will testify. The communities are ready to do
their part. A small Federal contribution through this study can
leverage a very large local effort, and the value associated
with sustaining a national treasure.
The study would leverage the kind of volunteer, community-
based initiative that has been hailed for sustaining the fabric
of our communities, and I might add it would not require
Federal land acquisition, it would not involve Federal land
management, it would not become a Federal park. Time is
critical. Not only is some of the resource being lost every
day, but the community's determination, confidence and
readiness is tied to the momentum that has been created over
the last six years. The people of these communities are looking
for your support.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify in
support of H.R. 182, and I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Frohling follows:]
STATEMENT OF NATHAN M. FROHLING, TIDELANDS PROGRAM DIRECTOR,
CONNECTICUT CHAPTER, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate this
opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's testimony in support of
H.R. 182, legislation to authorize a Wild and Scenic River Study for
the Eightmile River in Connecticut.
The Nature Conservancy is an international, non-profit organization
dedicated to the conservation of biological diversity. Our mission is
to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent
the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they
need to survive. The Conservancy has more than 1,000,000 individual
members and 1,900 corporate associates. We currently have programs in
all 50 states and in 27 foreign countries. To date we have protected
more than 12 million acres in the 50 states and Canada, and have helped
local partner organizations preserve 60 million acres overseas. The
Conservancy owns and manages 1,342 preserves throughout the United
States, the largest private system of nature sanctuaries in the world.
Sound science and strong partnerships with public and private
landowners to achieve tangible and lasting results characterize our
conservation programs.
As Director of the Tidelands Program, I lead The Nature
Conservancy's efforts to conserve the Eightmile River system. The
Tidelands Region, which includes the Eightmile River and its 39,900-
acre watershed, is a top priority for The Nature Conservancy in
Connecticut. The Tidelands contains extensive yet globally rare tidal
marsh communities, globally rare and endangered species, and a regional
landscape that is largely intact. The Nature Conservancy recognized
this area in 1993 as one of the "40 Last Great Places in the Western
Hemisphere.'' The Tidelands were designated in 1994 as containing
Wetlands of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention and
this area is recognized as one of the most outstanding areas within the
boundaries of the Silvio O. Conte National Wildlife Refuge.
I also serve as Co-Chair of the Eighmile River Watershed Committee,
a group of local officials and citizens charged with implementing the
Eightmile River Watershed Project. The goal of this project is to
enable the three communities, Lyme, East Haddam and Salem, to balance
conservation and growth in order to maintain the integrity of the
watershed. Passage of legislation to authorize a Wild and Scenic River
Study on the Eightmile River will significantly enhance community-based
efforts to conserve the unique resources of this globally significant
region.
The Eightmile River
The Eightmile name is based on the distance between the location of
its mouth at the Connecticut River and the mouth of Connecticut River
at Long Island Sound. Extensive wetlands and watercourses combine to
form the 10-mile-long East Branch, the 10 mile long West Branch, and
the 5-mile main stem of the river. There are other major tributaries
such as Beaver Brook, Harris Brook, and Fall Brook. The water quality
throughout the river system is excellent. There are no known pollution
sources. An old, minor source of potential pollution is the only reason
the State has not classified the river at the highest drinking water
classification. There has been no evidence of pollution.
The Eightmile River system is one of the most significant aquatic
resources within the Lower Connecticut River watershed and contains a
number of outstanding and remarkable ecological, historical, cultural
and recreational resource values. Within Southern New England, and
particularly coastal Connecticut, it is uncommon to find entire
ecosystems intact throughout their range, particularly at the scale of
the 39,900-acre Eightmile River Watershed. From species to natural
communities to its extensive wetland and watercourse system to its
unfragmented forest, the Eightmile is an outstanding national treasure.
Eighty-five percent of the Eightmile River Watershed is forested.
Most notably this forest habitat is largely intact; it is the largest
unfragmented forest region in coastal Connecticut. In total, about 65
percent or 26,000 acres of the watershed is completely unfragmented and
the remaining 35 percent are only sparsely developed. The watershed
benefits from a high level of protection. The State of Connecticut, The
Nature Conservancy, each of the towns, the local land trusts and others
have conserved 9,375 acres or 23 percent of the watershed. The intact
forest of the Eightmile River Watershed provides increasingly rare
interior nesting bird habitat.
The Eightmile River is virtually free flowing throughout its
extent. The only dams of any significance have both had fish ladders
installed. The River contains the various forms of aquatic habitat
types such as pools and riffles, rocky whitewater sections, sandy and
gravelly bottoms, waterfalls, and wide, slow sections. The riparian
zones are largely intact throughout the river system. The river is
considered by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection to
be an exemplary occurrence of one of Connecticut's most imperiled
natural communities--free flowing rivers and streams.
The River system is a haven for fish, both resident and migratory.
There is a great diversity and abundance of fish species that use the
river throughout their various life stages. It is one of Connecticut's
best trout streams. The River contains native brook trout, brown trout
and rainbow trout, plus minnows, suckers and small-mouthed bass.
Anadromous species include alewife herring, blueback herring, sea
lamprey, striped bass, and sea-run brown trout. Efforts are underway to
restore Atlantic salmon and American shad.
Two globally rare plant species are known to exist in the Eightmile
River system, Parker's pipewort and Eaton's beggar tick. The American
bald eagle is also frequently found here. There are many more state
rare species and habitats suitable for supporting such species. Hamburg
Cove at the mouth of the river is an internationally recognized
freshwater tidal marsh community.
Along with these species and communities there are other key
indicators of a healthy aquatic system. Extensive, native beds of
submerged aquatic vegetation exist. Freshwater mussels are present and
exotic mussels are not. One in ten American mussel species has gone
extinct over the last century, and almost three-fourths of the
remaining species are globally rare. The Eightmile River contains both
the brook floater and eastern pearlshell mussel; both are protected by
the Connecticut Endangered Species Act. The Eightmile River is in the
State's elite for other small aquatic organisms such as mayflies,
damselflies, dragonflies, beetles, snails, etc. Among several
categories of insect life, the Eightmile exceeds all other sites
according to state aquatic biologist Guy Hoffman.
The Eightmile River and the watershed are highly prized by the
three towns through which it flows--Lyme, East Haddam and Salem. The
watershed is approximately one-third to one-half of the land area in
each of these towns. It is a rural landscape with great scenic beauty
and offers an abundance of recreational opportunities. It is one of the
best rivers in Connecticut for fishing and it supports boating from
canoeing and kayaking to power and sail in the river's downstream
sections. Hiking, sightseeing, hunting, and nature observation are
among popular activities within the watershed at a number of State
Forest areas, Devil's Hopyard State Park, and three large preserves
owned by The Nature Conservancy that are all open to the public.
Much of the watershed's existing development is historic and well
integrated into the landscape. The river and watershed's high quality
defines the character of these three towns. It is at the heart of the
quality of life enjoyed by area residents. Economic interests also
recognize this because economic vitality here, primarily tourism, is
largely based on that quality.
The greatest threat to the special attributes of the Eightmile
River and its watershed is incremental, unplanned growth. It results in
landscape and habitat fragmentation, the loss of water quality, the
loss of important species and natural communities, the intrusion of
undesirable nuisance species, and obscures other qualities of this
region. Change and growth is inevitable; for example, East Haddam is
one of the fastest growing towns in the state. This issue is whether
growth will be managed to protect and sustain the unique resource at
the heart of this region. There are other potential threats such as the
diversion of groundwater for water supply in distant towns or golf
course irrigation that could leave the hydrology of the system
seriously altered, especially during normally low-flow periods.
The Eightmile River Watershed Project and the Wild and Scenic River
Study
About six years ago, the Eightmile River Watershed Committee was
formed to pursue the Eightmile River Watershed Project. The group was
comprised of local officials and citizens, with the University of
Connecticut Cooperative Extension System (UConn) and The Nature
Conservancy providing staff support and resource expertise. The EPA
Region One and Silvio O. Conte National Wildlife Refuge provided
funding. The project goal: balance conservation and growth in the
watershed in ways that ensure the long-term social, economic, and
environmental health of its communities.
The focus of the project thus far has been the development of
educational resources to support good land use planning and thoughtful
stewardship by local landowners. One of the first achievements was the
signing by town leaders in December 1997 of the Conservation Compact.
This was an agreement between the three towns that committed each town
to work together to protect shared natural and cultural heritage.
Since that time, the thrust of activity has been in the use of
computer-based geographic information system (GIS) technology to
generate state-of-the-art maps and resource information about the
watershed. Collectively these materials helped make it vividly clear
just how unique and precious the Eightmile River Watershed is to those
who live here. The results were shown to various audiences in the
community through slide shows and presentations. They generated
considerable interest and support for further action.
The Nature Conservancy has worked closely with the Eightmile River
Watershed Committee, each of the three towns, community groups and
individuals. During this past year, we have collectively looked at how
best to take the information gathered and community interest generated
to accomplish tangible on-the-ground results for protecting the river
and watershed. Together we have recognized that going back to the
communities to directly involve them in decisionmaking about the future
of the river and watershed was the best course of action and that a
Wild and Scenic River Study is the best vehicle for doing so. There are
several reasons a Wild and Scenic River Study is the best way to
protect the Eightmile River.
--The Eightmile River has the necessary outstandingly remarkable
values to be eligible for designation.
--A Wild and Scenic River Study, and the process associated with
it, provides the structure, expertise, funding and facilitation needed
for the communities as a whole to come together and collectively
identify the issues and goals they have for the resource, and to set
forth the means for meeting those goals. This is the heart of the
matter; the conservation needed is most likely to come through
community-based self-determination. Despite strong interest, it is not
likely that such a community process will happen without the incentive
of the Wild and Scenic River designation process. As important as
designation itself may become, the pursuit of a Wild and Scenic River
study now is being sought as much for the opportunity it provides to
support community-based action and self-determination as it is to
achieve the designation itself.
--A Wild and Scenic River designation, if achieved, would offer
important protections not otherwise available locally or through the
State of Connecticut. Federally funded or permitted water resource
related projects that would have a direct and adverse impact on the
river would not be allowed under designation. There are several threats
to the Eightmile where this may be important including, for example,
adverse water diversions.
--The Study would provide a greater level of scientific information
than we have currently, which might be especially useful for future
decisionmaking.
--A Wild and Scenic River study represents the potential to bring
in needed funds to support the community-based process that has been
identified.
--The Wild and Scenic River designation process would be built on
local control. The ability to maintain local control over land use
decisions is key.
--The process would further facilitate coordination among the three
towns.
There has been wide`spread support at the community level for a
Wild and Scenic River Study and for potential Wild and Scenic River
designation. A concern for the future for the Eightmile River, a love
of the Eightmile River Watershed area, and community pride have
combined with a recognition that the Wild and Scenic River process
offers an excellent tool to address these collective interests. Over 40
letters from all levels of local government, community groups and
individuals, including riverfronting property owners, have been
submitted requesting the Study. Leading newspapers have carried
editorials endorsing the Wild and Scenic River effort. These are
summarized in the attached exhibits.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify in support of
H.R. 182. I urge the committee's favorable consideration of this
important legislation. I would be happy to answer any questions from
Members of the Committee.
LETTERS REQUESTING A WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY OF THE EIGHTMILE
RIVER:
SUBMITTED TO CONGRESSMAN ROB SIMMONS
Town Leaders:
1. Lyme Selectmen; Ralph Eno, First Selectman
2. East Haddam Selectmen; Sue Merrow, First Selectman
3. Salem Selectmen; Jim Fogarty, First Selectman
Town Commissions:
1. Lyme Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commission; Don Gerber,
Chairman
2. Lyme Planning and Zoning Commission; David Tiffany, Chairman,
3. Lyme Open Space Committee; James Thatch, Chairman
4. East Haddam Planning and Zoning Commission; Harvey Thomas,
Chairman
5. East Haddam Economic Development Commission; Edward Thereault,
Chairman
6. East Haddam Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission;
Randolph Dill,
Chairman
7. East Haddam Conservation Commission; W. Nic Damuck, Chairman
8. East Haddam Open Space Commission; Jon Modica, Chairman
9. East Haddam Historical District Commission; Will Brady,
Chairman
10. Salem Planning and Zoning Commission; David Bingham, Secretary
11. Salem Inland Wetlands and Conservation Commission; George
Ziegra,
Chairman
Community-based Committees:
1. Eightmile River Watershed Committee; Jim Ventres, Nathan
Frohling,
David Bingham, Anthony Irving, Co-Chairmen
2. East Haddam Community Planning Group; Deb Matthiason, Project
Assistant
Community Civic Organizations:
1. Lyme Garden Club; Janet Cody, Secretary
2. Lyme Public Hall Assoc., Inc.; Parker Lord, President
3. Lyme Cemetery Commission; Linda Bireley, Secretary
4. East Haddam Civic Association; Timothy Johnson, Representative
5. Bashan Lake Association, East Haddam; Bruce Fletcher, President
6. Salem Historical Society; Dr. Milton Clark, Representative
Riverfronting Property Owners:
1. Marilyn Wilkins, Lyme
2. Betsy Woodward, Lyme
3. Vivien Blackford, East Haddam
4. John and Barbara Kashanski, East Haddam
5. Jack Bodman, Salem
6. Andrew Zemko, Salem
7. Dr. Richard Goodwin, Salem
Town Residents:
1. Janice and Richard Anderson, Lyme
2. Mary Catherwood, Lyme
3. Leslie Shaffer, Lyme
4. Mary Platt, Lyme
5. Betty Cleghone, Lyme Garden Club member
6. Sebyl Martin, East Haddam
Conservation Organizations:
1. Lyme Land Conservation Trust; Anthony Irving, President
2. East Haddam Land Trust; Maureen VanDerStad, President
3. Salem Land Trust; David Wordell, President
4. The Nature Conservancy, CT Chapter; Nathan Frohling,
Tidelands Program Director
5. Connecticut River Watershed Council; Thomas Maloney, River
Steward
6. Potapaug Audubon Society; Dr. Milton Clark, Conservation
Chairman
Leading Newspaper Editorial Endorsements:
1. The Hartford Courant; November 2000
2. The Day; December 17, 2000
TOTAL: 43
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.065
Mr. Hefley. Thank you for that testimony.
Ms. Merrow?
STATEMENT OF SUSAN MERROW, FIRST SELECTMAN, EAST HADDAM,
CONNECTICUT
Ms. Merrow. Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee, thank you for this opportunity to speak to you
today. My name is Susan Merrow. I am currently serving my fifth
term as First Selectman of the town of East Haddam, and on
behalf of the people of my hometown, I come here before you
today to urge your favorable consideration of H.R. 182, to
study the Eightmile River for possible inclusion in the Wild
and Scenic River program. We believe this waterway is of
exemplary significance to my town, to our region and to our
State. To tell you a little bit about East Haddam, we are a
town of 7,620 people spread out over 57 square miles that are
bordered by the beautiful Connecticut River. We have many
things to be proud of in East Haddam.
We are home to the Goodspeed Opera House, a restored
Victorian theater that sent such well-known musicals to
Broadway as "Annie" and "The Man of La Mancha". We are proud to
be the home of U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd. We have beautiful
old homes. We have a proud history of 19th-century water-
powered mills. We have two handsome State parks. We have
beautiful unfragmented forest, and we are very proud to be
bordered once again by the Connecticut River and the tidelands
that Nathan has mentioned.
Like any modern community, we balance these cultural and
environmental resources against all the demands of a modern
community, the need for a healthy economy, for jobs, for decent
housing, for finding the money to build schools, yet over and
over again, when asked, the citizens of my town speak out again
and again, asking us to protect the natural resources of our
town. They do this not just for reasons of nostalgia, but
because we see it in our long-term economic best interest. We
believe it just makes practical good sense. We believe that our
tourism-dependent economy and we count as crucial to the
quality of life that makes East Haddam a good place to live
require that we do no less.
We have embarked on a several-year planning process that
has at its heart the notion that our environment and our
economy are inextricably linked. We are actively planning as a
community for environmentally compatible economic development
which acknowledges and enhances the unique natural and cultural
attributes of our town. We have invited our citizenry together
to establish a list of community values of things we hold dear
as a town, and prominent on that list is protecting the natural
environment.
All of this is by way of backdrop for my request of you
that you give favorable consideration to our wish that you
support funding for the study of what we believe is East
Haddam's most remarkable natural resource, the Eightmile River.
The main stem of the Eightmile River rises in my town and flows
through hemlock gorges over a spectacular waterfall, alongside
forest, fields and farms as it finds its way to the Connecticut
River. The Eightmile River encompasses one-third of the land
area of my town, and through a combination of great good luck
and the fortunate foresight of our forefathers, the Eightmile
River flows unrestricted and pure through an almost completely
untrammeled landscape, which is a remarkable greenway.
Significant stretches of the watershed are permanently
protected by the State and by land trusts, but most of the land
is in the hands of private landowners. The people of East
Haddam have teamed up with the people from the other two towns
in the watershed to educate themselves and others about this
resource. Our theory is that if people know the resource, they
will love it, and if they love it, they will make good
decisions about it.
We have worked with The Nature Conservancy and the
University of Connecticut to amass a very large database of
information about this river, about the forest and the wildlife
habitat and the water quality. I have joined the First
Selectmen of the other two towns in the watershed to create an
agreement to work together to protect this resource. We have
signed a compact. You will find a picture in this little
booklet of the three of us signing the compact, which speaks of
our commitment to balance conservation and growth by ensuring
the long-term social, economic and environmental health--and
the vitality of our communities in the watershed.
I carry with me today the wishes and hopes of my colleagues
in the other two towns in this watershed. Support for studying
the Eightmile River for possible inclusion in the Wild and
Scenic River program is broad and deep in all three watershed
towns, from boards and commissions, to civic groups to the land
trusts, we bring with us, as you know, today 43 letters of
support from the people of our region.
We feel very strongly that this is a very unusual and
valuable resource, worthy to be listed alongside the great
rivers of our country. My community and the others in the
Eightmile watershed stand ready to do the work required to
support a study and to make use of the information that will be
developed. Ours has been a completely grassroots effort. We
have brought our project a long way and we offer you now an
opportunity to leverage that effort. We look to this program to
help us take the next step, to help us retain control of our
project locally, to help build the partnerships and to gain
deserved recognition for this very special bit of unspoiled
nature that graces my town and that we deeply hope will do so
for generations to come. Thank you very much for this chance to
speak to you today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Merrow follows:]
STATEMENT OF SUSAN D. MERROW, FIRST SELECTMAN OF THE TOWN OF EAST
HADDAM, CONNECTICUT, ON H.R. 182
My name is Susan Merrow. I am currently serving my fifth term as
First Selectman of the Town of East Haddam, Connecticut, about 30 miles
southeast of Hartford. For those unfamiliar with old-fashioned New
England small town government, the First Selectman is the Chief Elected
Official, and in many towns like mine, also the Chief Executive
Officer. I know that Connecticut is commonly regarded as a bedroom
community for New York City. It comes as a surprise to many I meet from
other parts of the country that eastern Connecticut is a remarkable
swath of green and surprisingly open, rural land between Boston and
Washington. On behalf of the people of my town, I come before you today
to urge your favorable consideration for H.R. 182, a bill which would
amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to include a study of the
Eightmile River, a waterway which we believe to of exemplary
significance to my town, our region, and our state.
East Haddam itself is a town of 7,620 people and 57 square miles,
bordered by the magnificent Connecticut River. We have many things of
which to be proud in East Haddam. We are home to the Goodspeed Opera
House, a restored Victorian Theater that sent such well known musicals
to Broadway as ``Annie'' and ``Man of La Mancha.'' We are proud to be
the home of U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd. We have venerable old homes
and farms, and a proud history of nineteenth century water-powered
mills. We have two handsome state parks. One of these, which is called
Gillette's Castle, draws thousands of visitors from all over the world
to view the unusual stone mansion of actor William Gillette, made
famous by his portrayal of Sherlock Holmes, and to gaze down upon the
Tidelands of the Connecticut River as they stretch away to the south,
toward Long Island Sound. These Tidelands have been identified under
the Ramsar Treaty as ``wetlands of international significance.'' We
have three handsome lakes, large stretches of unfragmented forests, and
fishable, swimmable streams. Like any community, we balance these
cultural and environmental resources against all the demands of a
modern community the need for a healthy economy, for jobs, for decent
housing, for funding to build schools. Yet, over and over again, when
asked to help town planners strike a balance between stewardship and
development of our natural resources, the people of my town speak out
clearly for preserving and protecting the natural environment. We do
this not just for reasons of nostalgia, but because we see it in our
long-term economic best interest. We believe that our tourism dependent
economy and what we count as crucial to the quality of life that make
East Haddam a good place to live require that we do no less. We have
embarked on a several-year planning process that has at its heart the
notion that our environment and our economy are inextricably linked. We
are actively planning as a community for environmentally compatible
economic development, development which acknowledges and enhances the
unique natural and cultural attributes of our town. Our planning
process began with involving our whole citizenry in establishing a list
of community values, things we hold dear, as a town such as our
history, our education system, our tradition of volunteerism, and our
love of the arts and protecting the natural environment is prominent
among them. We have agreed as a community to take these values into
account as we weigh plans for future direction and development. All of
this is by way of backdrop for my request of you that you give
favorable consideration to our wish that you support funding for the
study of East Haddam's most remarkable natural resource, the Eightmile
River, for possible inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River system. The
main stem of the Eightmile River rises in East Haddam and flows through
hemlock gorges, over a spectacular waterfall, alongside forests,
fields, and farms as it finds its way to the Connecticut River. The
Eightmile River watershed encompasses about a third of the land area of
East Haddam. Through a combination of serendipity and the fortunate
foresight of our town forefathers, the Eightmile River flows
unrestricted and pure through an almost completely untrammeled
landscape, a remarkable greenway. While significant stretches of the
watershed are permanently protected from development by the State and
by land trusts, most of the watershed is in the hands of private
landowners. The people of East Haddam have teamed up with people form
the other two towns in the watershed to educate themselves and others
about this resource. Our theory is that, if people know the resource
they will respect it, and if they respect it they will make good
decisions about it. Toward this end, working with our state university
and The Nature Conservancy, we have amassed a large data base of
information about this river the forest resources of the watershed, the
development patterns, its water quality and more. We have learned that
our river is essentially free-flowing, has high water quality,
excellent riparian habitat, extensive fresh water wetlands and
submerged aquatic vegetation, healthy populations of fresh water
mussels and native and stocked trout, and it supports a high diversity
of fish species and healthy runs of migratory fish. On behalf of my
townspeople, I have joined the First Selectmen of the other two towns
in the watershed in creating an agreement to work together to protect
this resource. I and my fellow First Selectmen from Lyme and Salem
signed a compact which states in part, `` the Towns of East Haddam,
Lyme and Salem enter into this voluntary Conservation compact that
acknowledges our commitment to balance conservation and growth by:
1. Protecting and enhancing the water resources of the watershed,
including both the quality of the water and the integrity of normal
stream and groundwater flows;
2. Connecting and maintaining habitats and rural landscape
throughout the watershed; and
3. Ensuring the long-term social, economic, environmental health
and vitality of the communities in the watershed.
I carry with me today the wishes and hopes of my colleagues in the
other two towns and their constituents. Those of you who have labored
long in the fields of government will recognize how difficult it can be
to make agreements that span political boundaries. ``Home Rule'' is
practically carved into the seal of each of Connecticut's 169
municipalities. Any agreement that suggests putting the interests of a
region first is commonly regarded with suspicion. In the case of this
compact to protect the Eightmile River, our citizens readily grasped
the notion that since rivers do not conform to political boundaries,
neither can we think only of our short term self-interest if we care
about this river. Support for studying the Eightmile River for possible
inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River program is broad and deep in all
three watershed towns. From Boards of Selectmen, to Planning and Zoning
Commissions, to Wetlands Commissions, to Land Trusts even to Economic
Development Commissions and even the Historic District Commission in
one town, our towns speak with one voice about how strongly we feel
that this is a very unusual and valuable resource, worthy to be listed
alongside the great rivers of our country. My community and the others
in the Eightmile watershed stand ready to do the work required to
support a study and to make use of the information that will be
developed. Please consider these thoughts and wishes as you weigh the
merits of H.R. 182. Please help us to gain deserved recognition for
this very special bit of unspoiled nature that graces my town and that
we deeply hope will do so for generations to come.
______
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.069
Mr. Hefley. Do you have any idea how the private landowners
along the river feel? The people in town want it, but how about
the private landowners along the river?
Ms. Merrow. Well, we have made a significant effort to
reach out to private landowners. We invited all the private
landowners with personal invitations to public information
sessions. Among the 43 letters of support today are letters
from a number of those private landowners, and some of the
support has come from surprising quarters, from some of those
old Yankees that we felt would be highly suspicious of this
activity, but they have embraced it and I believe that we can
say that we have very strong support from the private
landowners.
Mr. Hefley. Mrs. Christensen?
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not really
have any questions. It is apparent from all of the testimony
today that both of the areas have put in a lot of time and
effort over a long period of time, to bring us to the point of
H.R. 146 and H.R. 182. They appear to have broad community
support and they certainly have a rich and varied history to
justify the request. I agree with you that even if there is a
moratorium for however long, that should not preclude us from
having studies done.
I look forward to working with you. I think maybe between
us we may be able to work with the Administration to support
these requests.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you.
Mr. Simmons?
Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I have taken
enough of the Committee's time with my questions and comments.
I think you know where I am coming from, and I appreciate the
courtesy extended to me and to my friends from eastern
Connecticut, and I appreciate the courtesy of the Committee.
Mr. Hefley. Thank you very much.
Let me ask, Mr. Frohling, in your testimony, you indicated
that among its other attributes, a segment of the Eightmile
River is also an outstanding recreational resource. Could you
describe in greater detail the recreational activities that
take place on the river, and would Wild and Scenic River
designation have an adverse impact on the ability of the public
to continue to engage in these recreational activities? Would
the designation have any positive impact on the public future
recreational use of this river?
Mr. Frohling. It certainly would not have any negative
impact, and I think it would only have a positive impact, both
again in terms of the support for the local efforts, to
continue to shape the future of this watershed, to hold on to
these recreational resources that we currently have today, and
to help expand public access to some of the sites. I would say
that if you can imagine a recreational opportunity, it is there
on the Eightmile. The ones that stand out--fishing is probably
the most famous on the Eightmile. It is one of the top trout
fishing rivers in the State of Connecticut, including
particularly the native trout that makes it so desirable to
fishermen.
But you will also find the full range of boating
activities, from canoeing and kayaking both, to power and
sailboating activities in the lower portion of the river, which
is wider and slower, but you also have lots of hiking and
biking and sightseeing and birdwatching and all the other kinds
of activities. We even have snowshoeing and cross-country
skiing when the snow falls down. There is just about any
activity you can imagine, in the Eightmile.
Mr. Hefley. And it would continue to be, if this
designation was made?
Mr. Frohling. Absolutely, and I think it would further
encourage organizations like The Nature Conservancy when we are
involved and working with willing landowners to protect land,
to make those lands available for public access, which we are
beginning to do, and there are already a number of locations in
the Eightmile that are available to the public. There are two
large State forests. There is a State park. The Nature
Conservancy also has three preserves in the Eightmile that are
open to the public, as well, and it is through these sites and
others, including land trust properties and so forth, where the
public can gain access to the river for fishing and hiking and
so forth.
Mr. Hefley. Well, all four of you must be good witnesses,
because you have convinced me that I need to go both to the
Eightmile River and to Paterson, New Jersey, to see for myself,
to see if you are telling me the truth. I could do that on the
Eightmile River better with a fly rod in my hand, I think. That
would help me understand better what the resources are there.
Do you have any questions or comments, Mr. Simpson?
Mr. Simpson. Yes, a couple, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, is most of the land on the Eightmile River
currently privately owned?
Mr. Frohling. Yes.
Mr. Simpson. Would there be any changes in the current use
of that land if this designation is made?
Mr. Frohling. No.
Mr. Simpson. I appreciate that. The reason I asked that is
just to show you there are differences between the east and the
west, to some degree. Whenever you start talking about Wild and
Scenic Rivers in Idaho, you had better run for cover, because
we do not want most of those designations because of the
restrictions they put on. But I understand. I have been there,
and it is a beautiful area and deserving of preservation, and
making sure it does not get degraded in the future.
About the Great Falls Historic District, I am wondering, as
I read this testimony from Joseph Doddridge, in 1992, $4.147
million in Urban History Initiative funds to be administered by
the National Park Service were given to the area with an
agreement with the city to protect historic resources while
fostering compatible economic development. Then, in 1996, the
Great Falls Historic District was authorized for $3.3 million
in matching grants and assistance to develop and implement a
preservation and interpretive plan for the district and permit
development of a market analysis with recommendations of the
economic development potential of the district. Has all that
been done?
Ms. Dopirak. Actually, the latter part, we have not
received that money. That has only been authorized. It has not
been appropriated. But we are still continuing to work with the
National Park Service on the Urban History Initiative.
Mr. Simpson. Is the reason the $3.3 million in the latter
part has not been received is that it has not been appropriated
because it required matching funds and those have not been
raised yet?
Ms. Dopirak. No, I do not think so. I believe it just has
not been appropriated.
Mr. Simpson. Why do we take it from a National Historic
Landmark to a part of the Park Service? I mean, does not the
National Historic Landmark designation protect the area?
Ms. Dopirak. No, it does not. It only gives it a form of
protection if Federal funds or State funds were to be used in a
way that would be detrimental to a protected resource. It does
not provide the kind of interpretation, preservation and
educational activities that we believe being a unit of the
National Park Service would bring to us.
Mr. Simpson. I guess the reason I ask that is--are we
trying to just put something into the National Park Service to
make more funding available for it, so that we can do some
things? I mean, is that basically the reason we are doing it?
Ms. Dopirak. I do not think I quite understand your
question.
Mr. Simpson. Are we looking at making it a part of the
National Park System because that would effectively make more
funds available to do some preservation that you want to do? Is
that basically the reason?
Ms. Dopirak. Yes, I think the study would lead us to that
conclusion, and we believe it is only with the National Park
Service, who have superior technical expertise and resources
available, to assist us in making the complete story of the
historic district known to everyone and assisting us in the
interpretation of our resources.
Mr. Simpson. I guess I should express some concern, and it
is not about this or anything else. In fact, I may support this
fully. I do not know yet. But we do have a backlog, as has been
mentioned, in maintenance of our National Park System, and
there are areas all over this country that you could designate
as significant historically and so forth. You can go to
Colorado and I am sure there are mining areas that were
significant. In Idaho, I know there are areas where events
occurred that are significant in our history and so forth. If
we are going to start adding all of these to the park system,
are we going to soon run out of funds? I mean, when we have
already got a $4 billion backlog?
Ms. Dopirak. We think the Great Falls Historic District has
a different story to tell. I have been in the San Juan
Mountains of Colorado and I do believe that you have
interesting stories to tell, and I have seen these old mining
towns which are literally baking in the sun and they are not
being protected, and they are deserving of protection, but we
believe that in Paterson, we tell the story from the beginning
of this country, and that is a story of national merit. It
involves very famous people and people who were not famous, and
it is such a unique story that has such far-reaching
significance to our Nation that we think it should be told. If
I might just quote, there was a very nice letter submitted to
the Committee, and I would like to read one sentence. It was
submitted by Ed Smyk, who is the Passaic County historian. He
says "the Great Falls Historic District transcends parochial
and State concerns, and I do not exaggerate by saying that the
continued preservation, enhancement and interpretation of the
district is essential to an understanding of America's
industrial history," and I think that says it all.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smyk follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.077
[Additional materials supplied for the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1154A.096
Mr. Simpson. Well, thank you, and thank all of you for your
testimony, and I look forward to working on this legislation.
My only question is was it Colt, the gun that won the west, or
was it Winchester?
Ms. Dopirak. I think it was Colt.
Mr. Simpson. See, I thought it was the repeating rifle at
Winchester. Thank you.
Mr. Hefley. Well, we certainly cannot act on that
legislation till we get an answer to that. Thank all of you. It
was excellent testimony and we appreciate you taking time to do
it. This Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:56 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

</pre></body></html>